RSS

Tuesday Night Radio: Are Taser’s “medical devices”?

13 May

American Independence Hour hosted by Alfred Adask; 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central time, Tuesday nights, on AmericanVoiceRadio.com and also on the KU band, free-to-air satellite link at Galaxy 19.  There’ll be call-ins at 1-800-596-8191.

 

Tonight we’ll talk about:

•  Florida candidate for Governor caught driving without a drivers license–because he wanted to be caught.

•  Are Tasers used by cops “medical devices”?  Are the cops licensed to practice medicine?  Are such medical devices only applicable to “animals”?

•  Tesla auto sales in Missouri.

•  More

I hope you’ll tune in to AmericanVoiceRadio.com and I hope you’ll call in at

1-800-596-8191.

 
59 Comments

Posted by on May 13, 2014 in American Independence Hour, Radio

 

Tags:

59 responses to “Tuesday Night Radio: Are Taser’s “medical devices”?

  1. Henry

    May 13, 2014 at 5:46 PM

    > Are Tasers used by cops “medical devices”?

    Legally speaking, Tasers are considered weapons, specifically electroshock guns, not medical devices.

     
  2. Adask

    May 13, 2014 at 7:38 PM

    That’s probably true. But if you “consider” a Taser to be a weapon, and I “consider” that Taser to be a “medical device,” whose “consideration” will be deemed to be correct by a jury? It’s all about the definitions. And the definitions are all about the purpose and actual use of the Taser. If the Taser is used as a weapon for self-defense against a legitimate threat, it’s a weapon. If the Taser is used for purposes like controlling a target that poses no legitimate threat, it may be a “medical device”.

     
  3. Toland

    May 13, 2014 at 7:59 PM

    Here ya go, Al:

    “An electroshock weapon is an incapacitant weapon used for incapacitating a person by administering electric shock aimed at disrupting superficial muscle functions.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroshock_weapon

    Read on to where the article talks about the Taser.

    Tasers are weapons. No one who the jury recognizes as a competent authority is going to take the stand and claim the Taser is a medical device.

     
  4. Henry

    May 13, 2014 at 9:05 PM

    From the Wikipedia article titled “Medical device”:

    “A medical device is an instrument, apparatus, implant, in vitro reagent, or similar or related article that is used to diagnose, prevent, or treat disease or other conditions, and does not achieve its purposes through chemical action within or on the body (which would make it a drug).”

    What jury is going to buy the notion that a Taser is “used to diagnose, prevent, or treat disease or other conditions”?

     
  5. Adask

    May 13, 2014 at 10:07 PM

    There are three definitions for “device” at 21 USC 321(h). The third reads, “(3) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, . . . .” Insofar as a Taser affects “ANY function of the body of man or other animals,” that Taser could be arguably used as a medical “device”. Would that argument work? Not necessarily. But with the right defendant and the right jury, it might.

    In the end, it’s not about what, exactly, a “Taser” is–it’s about whichever definition applies. The reality in law is not the physical reality so much as the reality of whichever words apply.

     
  6. Henry

    May 13, 2014 at 10:48 PM

    Well, a Taser is clearly a device. No question there. But is it a medical device? That’s what the prosecutor may ask the jury to consider.

    As to whether this “medical device” argument will work in court: it very well could. Such an out-of-the-box argument has a chance of stopping a DA who lacks the time, resources or inclination to custom-tailor a prosecution against an innovative defense. They might just move on to easier pickins where their boilerplate methods work pretty consistently.

     
  7. palani

    May 14, 2014 at 7:25 AM

    I am old enough to recall a debate in Congress years ago. They were discussing outlawing the use of shock probes by farmers on farm animals. One congressman (I believe he might have been from Texas) stood and and made the comparison that he thought the electric shock probe might be more humane than a 2×4.

     
  8. citizenquasar

    May 14, 2014 at 9:42 AM

    Yawn.

     
  9. henry

    May 15, 2014 at 7:34 AM

    A baseball bat could be called a piece of professional equipment of MLB. It could be called a piece of recreational equipment. It could be called a defense weapon when used to repel home invaders. It could be called an assault weapon. The term that you use is based on where you want to move the discussion. The same is true of tasers. I surprised that people are not tasering each other for recreation.

     
  10. palani

    May 15, 2014 at 1:32 PM

    Non-lethal pepper spray … on steroids … Woman’s Eyes “Blown to Pieces” by Cop With Gunpowder Powered Pepper Gun

    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/womans-eyes-blown-pieces-cop-gunpowder-powered-pepper-gun/#AEHKsLcuyWd6VeCx.99

     
  11. Cody

    May 15, 2014 at 9:22 PM

    If you can’t find substantial support for your position annneeewhere else, just use Wikipedia….

    I didn’t get to hear the show but, based on the 21 USC 321, it most certainly would seem to be a medical device. Is it being used as a weapon? Definitely. Anything that is used to attack someone to the point of killing them is a weapon. In other words a gun is simply an implement to be rightfully used for self-defense, restraint of government, hunting, sport shooting and killing evil-doers. When someone begins to draw their weapon to intentionally kill whether justified or not, that’s the point when the gun becomes a weapon.

    I’d like to see this topic more fully explored as an article.

    Thanks, Alfred!

     
    • Adask

      May 15, 2014 at 11:54 PM

      It’s all about the definition and the definition is based on the USE to which an object is applied. If I have a large glass or ceramic on by desk, it is defined as an “ashtray” so long as its purpose is to collect cigarette ashes and to prevent fires. But if I pick that object up and threaten to USE it as a device to smash someone’s head in, it might no longer be defined as an “ashtray” but might instead be defined as a “weapon”. In legal matters, an object can have as many definitions as it has potential USES and PURPOSES.

      I haven’t conducted an extensive/in-depth analysis of the uses of objects usually defined as a “stun gun”. Therefore, don’t put much stock in the following conjecture.

      But, a preliminary skimming suggests that a “stun gun” is defined as a “weapon” and more particularly may be defined in some states as a “defensive” or “self-defense” weapon. In other words, if the definition of “stun gun” is a self-defense weapon, that presupposes that the stun gun’s target must pose a THREAT to the person holding the stun gun/object.

      But what if the target could be shown to have posed no THREAT to the person holding the object we usually refer to as a “stun gun”? Then, the USE of that object would not be that of a self-defense weapon. If the object weren’t used to defend one’s self against a credible THREAT, what is the object? Is it still a “stun gun”? Is it still a self-defense weapon? What if the intended use of the object to was to “incapacitate” the target? What if the intended use was to cause some significant change in the “function” of the target’s body? (Clearly, “incapacitation” is an intent to cause a significant change in the “function” of the target’s body. Thus, if the target cannot be said to pose a credible threat to the person holding the object, and that person uses the object to incapacitate the target, is that object a “stun gun”–or a “medical device”?

      Under the right circumstances in at least some states, an object that most people refer to as a “stun gun” could be shown to be a “medical device”.

      If it were a “medical device,” could a cop use that “device” without a license to practice medicine?

      Again, much of this conjecture might be invalid. But it’s intended to illustrate the relationship of purpose and use to a definition. An object used for one purpose will have one definition. But used for another purpose, the same object could have a completely different definition. These differences are seldom considered in normal life, but in law these distinctions can determine whether you spend years in prison or go free. These distinctions could determine whether a civil suit is successful or a waste of time.

       
  12. Roger

    May 15, 2014 at 10:42 PM

    What is the most common medical use for a Taser?

     
    • Adask

      May 15, 2014 at 11:58 PM

      To change the “function” of a man’s or woman’s body by incapacitating them.

       
      • Roger

        May 16, 2014 at 12:42 AM

        Thanks. Your answer brings up another question.

        Does a “medical device” change the function of an animal (21 USC 321), or does a “medical device” change the function of a man made in God’s image?

        I thought your argument was premised on the former, but your last answer makes me think otherwise.

         
      • EarlatOregon

        May 16, 2014 at 12:20 PM

        Does a “medical device” change the Behavior
        of an animal (21 USC 321)?

        or does a “medical device” change the Behavior
        of a man made in God’s image?

         
      • Adask

        May 16, 2014 at 2:19 PM

        Changes in “behavior” are irrelevant. Definition #3 in 21 USC 321(h) reads “(3) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals . . . .” When a man or animal is “incapacitated” by a jolt of electricity and unable to stand up or defend himself, a bodily “function” has been “affected”.

         
      • EarlatOregon

        May 16, 2014 at 4:54 PM

        .
        .
        .
        .

        What is the Intention of
        affect the structure or any function of the body?

        To Change Behavior.

        “(3) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals . . . .”

        When a man or animal is “incapacitated” by a jolt of electricity
        and unable to stand up or defend himself,
        a bodily “function” has been “affected”.

        What is the Intention of
        affect the structure or any function of the body?

        To Change Behavior.

        .
        .
        .
        .

         
      • Adask

        May 17, 2014 at 12:56 AM

        The definition of [medical] “device” does not include the word “behavior”. It does include the word “function”. I work with the words they give me. I try not to add others.

         
      • storehouseministry

        May 17, 2014 at 12:47 PM

        WHY “affect structure or function of the body?

        Why?

         
      • Adask

        May 17, 2014 at 4:25 PM

        There is no one answer. The “why” depends on the particular object and the particular purpose in each particular application. Case-by-case. One possible “why” in the use of “stun guns” as a self-defense weapon might be to incapacitate an apparent threat posed by the “target”.

        Another “why” might be to use the “stun gun” as a medical “device”–when there was no apparent threat from the target–as a means to intimidate, extort, or coerce the target into obeying a cop’s orders by threatening the target. Sometimes, the cops purpose may be merely have a little fun at the target’s expense, or teach the target a “lesson”. But if he accomplishes any of those purposes by using a stun gun to “affect” one or more of the target’s bodily functions (like being able to keep his balance and stand up straight without falling down and injuring himself), the “stun gun” may thereby “morph” into a medical “device”.

        Everyone presumes that a stun gun is a stun gun is a stun gun. But it all depends on the intended purpose.

        Everyone seems to presume that there can only be one definition for any thing or object. Not so.

        Definitions aren’t “laws” per se–they’re arguments. I can argue that something fits one definition, you can argue that that same thing fits a different definition. If the jury believes my argument/definition, I win. If the jury believes your argument/definition, you win.

         
  13. Adask

    May 16, 2014 at 2:21 AM

    The [medical] “device” defined at 21 USC 321 presumes the people exposed to such devices to be “animals”. If we dug far enough into the laws defined “stun guns,” we might find that they, too, are defined as some sort of “weapon” to be used against “animals”. If so, then if you were threatened with tasering or actually tasered, you might have a cause of action based on the use of tasers against men and women made in God’s image and who were not “animals”.

    The United States Code consists of 51 titles, hundreds (probably thousands) of definitions and millions of words. There’s no telling how many ambiguities and contradictions might be found in that haystack of words–if any anyone had sufficient time and energy to make an intensive search.

    Each contradiction might raise another cause of action. Thus, just because I might use MOOA to dispute one law, doesn’t mean that I couldn’t also attack that law based on other governmental contradictions or other laws. Ideally, when you attack the validity of a particular law, you should look for two or more bases for attack that are mutually exclusive. If they effectively deny one of your arguments that denial must (ideally) support your second (or third, etc.) argument.

     
  14. Henry

    May 16, 2014 at 2:53 PM

    21 USC 321 is about the use of medical devices on animals. If you claim to be a non-animal, then 21 USC 321 is irrelevant to your case.

     
    • Toland

      May 17, 2014 at 3:30 PM

      Simply give the cop notice that you are not an animal. If he treats you with his medical device anyway, you can go after his bond for practicing medicine without a license.

       
      • Henry

        May 17, 2014 at 4:42 PM

        If you try a stunt like that, the other side’s attorney will ask if you’ve ever submitted certain standard paperwork to be treated by a licensed physician.

        When you answer yes, the attorney will cite 21 USC 321 and related codes – whereby physicians only treat “man or other animals” – and bam you just admitted to being an animal.

        lol

         
  15. Cody

    May 17, 2014 at 5:18 PM

    It looks like to the authors of 21 USC 321 (g)(1) et. seq. don’t distinguish between “man or other animals.” The best evidence shows tazers and stun guns to be medical devices. Tazers are regulated as “weapons” in Arizona. The statute defines them as “an electronic device that emits an electrical charge and that is designed and primarily employed to incapacitate a person or animal.”

    http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03117.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

    Though not defined as a deadly weapon, they appear to be considered “firearms” under the Arizona statutes.

    http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03101.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

    But “devices” are defined in the ARS as “instruments, apparatus and contrivances, including their components, parts and accessories, including all such items under the federal act, intended either…
    (b) To affect the structure or any function of the human body or other animals.

    http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/32/01901.htm&Title=32&DocType=ARS

    So, since they are dangerous enough to kill, depending on the application, they are regulated like weapons. However, since they definitely “affect the structure or any function of the human body or other animals” they may also be considered medical devices.

    Therefore, I’m still “with you fellas.”

     
  16. Cody

    May 17, 2014 at 5:23 PM

     
  17. Cody

    May 17, 2014 at 5:32 PM

    Tasers are referred to here as medical devices. But the caveat is that this is actually an “irreverent” government article.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374865/

     
    • Adask

      May 17, 2014 at 8:20 PM

      Verrry nice. My hypothesis that tasers could be defined as medical “devices” (and thus be applied only to “animals”) is supported by a Canadian physician. What archery, hmm?

       
    • Henry

      May 17, 2014 at 11:57 PM

      Cody > But the caveat is that this is actually an “irreverent” government article.

      The use of “irreverent” in the title should have been a tip-off that the article treats the idea of tasers being a “medical device” as a JOKE.

      What point are you trying to make by citing this droll satire?

       
      • Adask

        May 18, 2014 at 1:39 AM

        I disagree. The Dr. who wrote the article doesn’t treat the definition of “stun guns” as a medical “device” as a joke–he treats his petition for more research into the “public health hazard” that may exist in “stun guns” as a joke since he knows the authorities will not act to investigate a “device” that making lots of money. His satire is based on his inability to cause the government to conduct honest and independent research into the health hazards of stun guns by defining them to be medical “devices”.

         
      • Henry

        May 18, 2014 at 2:57 AM

        Did you read the article? The author’s whole point is the non-medical nature of tasers. The only medical use he refers to is the treatment of “excited delirium”, and he only refers to this in order to call BS on the manufacturer’s claims. The manufacturer says tasers treat “excited delirium”, whereas the author questions this condition’s existence and suggests the manufacturer is using junk science to defend their product.

        From the article: “As it seems from this that tasers are being recommended [by the manufacturer] as a treatment for a medical condition, we infer that they are in effect being construed as a medical device. Now, we have some bad news for the manufacturer. To be approved for use, medical devices must satisfy rigourous scientific standards and be subjected to clinical trials.”

        Catch that? The author is making a case against a taser being construed as a medical device. In the concluding paragraph, he drops the satirical tone and states his meaning outright:

        “On the other hand, perhaps the CIHR should issue a different kind of call. The CIHR could start by recognizing that deaths occurring in association with taser use make the safety of these devices a public health issue.”

        So, according to the author, tasers are a public health issue, not a medical device.

         
      • Adask

        May 18, 2014 at 3:22 PM

        Nah, why read the article? Spoils my fun. I’m like a Congressman; I don’t read any bills, memos, or menus. Life is good for the illiterate.

        Actually, I did read the article. I even began to read some of his footnoted links and references. I not only read the article, I analyzed it because I intend to use that article as the basis for another article of my own to further illustrate the MOOA concept and why it’s not irrelevant, irreverent, or even absurd to hypothesize that a “stun gun” that’s defined as a weapon might sometimes be more accurately defined as a medical “device”.

        While I was reading the article, I noticed that the doctor brought up “defibrillator” (medial “devices” used to get the heart started after a heart attack by shooting a jolt of electricity between two electrodes attached to a man’s chest). He didn’t elaborate on “defibrillators” but he apparently implied that a stun gun (which uses two or more electrodes on a man’s chest to shoot a jolt of electricity into his body sufficient to incapacitate him) is so fundamentally similar to a defibrillator that both might be defined as medical “devices”.

        I suspect that an analysis of the technical specifications of defibrillators and tasers (especially the maximum/minimum voltage/amperage for each) might be revealing. There might even be product warning that you don’t dare us a defibrillator on a man who’s heart is beating because the jolt might cause a heart attack. There might be some minimum or maximum voltage warnings with tasers to prevent heart attack. There might be warnings that if a man who’s been tasered stops breathing you immediately call an ambulance.

        In any case, the implied comparison of a defibrillator to a taser didn’t strike me as a joke. The author (who, If I recall correctly, wrote that article in A.D. 2008) was serious in comparing the taser to a medical “device”.

        As for tasers being a “public HEALTH issue,” how many public HEALTH issues can you think of which aren’t ultimately addressed by American medicine–which is based on the use of “drugs” and medical “devices” which are both defined in terms of “man or other animals”? Public health is usually a medical issue that will be solved or at least mitigated by use of “drugs” and medical “devices” which presume the people to be animals.

        Insofar as the author describes the use of tasers as a “public HEALTH issue”–and you apparently agree with that description–it’s not unreasonable to define the use of “stun guns” in some instances as medical “devices” rather than “weapons”.

         
      • Toland

        May 18, 2014 at 3:08 PM

        In this article, the only party defining the taser as a “medical device” is the manufacturer, which the author sees as absurd and self-serving. Hence his “irreverent” attitude.

         
      • Henry

        May 18, 2014 at 4:33 PM

        Nowhere does the author compare the taser to a defibrillator. Just because the word “defibrillator” appears in an article about tasers does not mean defibrillators and tasers are meant to be equivalent or a comparison between them is being made.

        Here’s the only place “defibrillator” appears in the article:

        “The emergency department may be a safer environment to study taser use because, curiously, patients rarely seem to die of excited delirium in an emergency department and physicians’ hearts are comforted by the presence of a defibrillator.”

        This is not a way a saying defibrillators and tasers are equivalent or comparable. It only means that, if tasers are ever put through the tests necessary to be considered “medical devices”, it should be in an emergency department because defibrillators are present to rescue the patient.

        Immediately after this irreverent “emergency department” suggestion, the author cancels it and clarifies by saying:

        “On the other hand, perhaps the CIHR should issue a different kind of call. The CIHR could start by recognizing that deaths occurring in association with taser use make the safety of these devices a public health issue.”

        He later concludes:

        “We’re sorry, but in the end, we are used to thinking like physicians and scientists concerned about health, preferring to gather and analyze the facts rather than succumbing to the bald assertions of a large corporate entity that has demonstrated a willingness to squelch any messages that could hurt its bottom line.”

        Which “bald assertions”, as opposed to tested facts, is he talking about? Those he mentioned earlier: those assertions the manufacturer uses to support the taser being considered a “medical device”.

        From the article: “As it seems from this that tasers are being recommended [by the manufacturer] as a treatment for a medical condition, we infer that they are in effect being construed as a medical device. Now, we have some bad news for the manufacturer. To be approved for use, medical devices must satisfy rigourous scientific standards and be subjected to clinical trials….”

         
      • Adask

        May 18, 2014 at 7:44 PM

        The “bald assertions” from the corporate manufacturers are that “tasers don’t cause death; tasers are safe.” The author would like those assertions to be tested by research rather than merely presumed to be true, just as the safety of defibrillators is tested by research.

        You might also note that the author referred to a study the the United Nations that classified repeated use of the taser on a victim as “torture“. I don’t think the author was being jocular or “irreverent” when he connected tasers to torture. That connection is evidence that the author may be bitterly opposed to tasers being used as weapons.

        Some of what the author wrote may have been intentionally satirical. Some of it may have seemed funny. But the author’s discussion of tasers seemed ultimately based on the author’s fundamental belief that this “taser business” is deadly serious. He may have couched his comments in a measure of humor, but he seemed to write as a man who found tasers–and the government’s limp response to taser deaths–to be worthy of bitter opposition.

         
  18. Cody

    May 17, 2014 at 5:39 PM

    Alfred,
    This may be the legal ammo you’re looking far. I’ll reserve further comment at this time. There have been some interesting court cases about tasers being abused by cops. I hope you kick their asses.

    http://www.ecdlaw.info/

     
  19. Toland

    May 17, 2014 at 6:04 PM

    @Henry

    Hmm, I hadn’t thought of that. So we can add another item to the long list of dangers when you go see a doctor: i.e. admitting to be an animal in order to receive treatment?

    I wonder if there’s a right way to sign the forms they make you fill out in the waiting room. Should you include a disclaimer where you explicitly deny being an animal?

    Then again, if you deny being an animal, and physicians are only licensed to practice on “man or other animals” (see US codes and regulations), will your doctor have no choice but to refuse you service?

     
    • Henry

      May 17, 2014 at 7:48 PM

      Good questions.

      Those forms the doctor’s office makes you sign surely constitute an agreement that “drugs” and “medical devices” will be used in your treatment. And we know that “drugs” and “medical devices” are only for use on “man and other animals”, at least where licensed physicians are concerned. So, by signing those forms, you acknowledge being an animal.

      I dunno what recourse exists other than boycotting licensed physicians like you would boycott any business that considers you an animal. Either that or save money by going to a veterinarian instead.

       
  20. Toland

    May 18, 2014 at 6:57 PM

    Adask said, “Public health is usually a medical issue that will be solved or at least mitigated by use of “drugs” and medical “devices” which presume the people to be animals.”

    Only public health presumes this? How about private health?

    Isn’t your private, licensed health-care provider also under the “man or other animals” legal regime?

     
  21. Adask

    May 18, 2014 at 8:06 PM

    If your doctor is licensed by “this state” and/or if he/she relies on the definitions found in 21 USC 321, whether he/she knows it or not, he’s operating on the presumption that you are an “animal”.

     
    • Toland

      May 18, 2014 at 8:21 PM

      In that case, when you sign the necessary consent and release forms to be treated by such a doctor – a doctor who treats “man or other animals” – are you not creating evidence that you are an animal?

       
      • Adask

        May 18, 2014 at 8:44 PM

        By signing those consent forms, you are almost certainly consenting to be treated as an animal.

        I wonder what would happen if you signed those forms in a way that declared yourself to be a man made in God’s image and/or expressly denied that you’re an animal.

        I wonder what would happen if you’d suffered some medical malpractice and sued the doctor for giving you a standard of care appropriate for an “animal”–but not for a man made in God’s image.

         
      • EarlatOregon

        May 19, 2014 at 5:41 PM

        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        Many people are Looking for
        Magic Bullet words,
        here are some words to Consider:
        .
        .
        .

        Without Recourse
        or
        Without Consent

        .
        .
        .

        On the Signature Line
        you might Consider writing these Words:

        .
        .
        .

        Without Recourse
        or
        Without Consent

        .
        .
        .

        (Cursive writing works Best,
        cause it Looks like a Signature)

        .
        .
        .

        Without Recourse

        Without … liability.

        .
        .

        Without sequential liability.
        .
        .

        http://thelawdictionary.org/without-recourse-2/

        .
        .
        .

        A without recourse endorsement
        is a qualified endorsement
        and will be honored by the courts
        if certain requirements are met.
        The qualification without recourse, or its equivalent,
        is limited to the immediate endorsement to which it applies

        http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/without+recourse

        .
        .
        .

        In litigation,
        someone without recourse against another party
        cannot sue that party,
        or at least cannot obtain adequate relief
        even if a lawsuit moves forward.

        Someone completely without recourse
        cannot sue anyone for an alleged injury,
        or else cannot obtain any relief
        even if lawsuits are filed.

        .
        .

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/without_recourse

        a Court case using ” Without Recourse ”

        “The District Court held that the causes of action against Walker & Dunlop
        in the amended complaint were barred by the applicable statute of limitations
        and by the ‘without recourse’ endorsement on the note
        which Walker & Dunlop had transferred to Hartford.”

        “[However, a] ‘without recourse’ endorsement is a qualified endorsement;
        it does not eliminate all obligations owed by the transferor of an instrument to his transferee.

        By endorsing the note ‘without recourse’,
        Walker & Dunlop still warranted to Hartford
        that it had no knowledge of any fact
        which would establish the existence of a good defense against the note.

        Walker & Dunlop breached this warranty.

        At all times it was fully aware of the facts
        relevant to our later determination
        that the note was unenforceable
        because of the illegality of the underlying loan.”

        .
        .

        That court Case Here:

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quotation/%5Bfield_short_title-raw%5D_77
        .
        .

        more Cases on “Without Recourse”
        Here:

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/search/site/without%2520recourse

        .
        .
        .

        .
        .
        .

        See next post for Without Consent
        .
        .
        .
        .

         
      • EarlatOregon

        May 19, 2014 at 5:52 PM

        .
        .
        .
        .
        .

        Without Consent
        means just that
        Without Consent.

        Consent
        from Blacks Law 1st ed

        Consent.
        A concurrence of wills.

        Express consent is that directly given
        either viva voce or in writing.

        Implied consent is that manifested
        by signs, actions or facts,
        or by inaction or by silence,
        which raises a presumption
        that the consent has been given.

        Consent is an act of reason,
        accompanied with deliberation
        the mind weighing as in a balance
        the good or evil on each side.

        1 Story, Eq. Jur. SS 222

        There is a difference between consenting and submitting
        Every consent involves a submission;
        but a mere submission
        does not necessarily involve consent.

        9 Car. & P. 722

        and
        http://thelawdictionary.org/consent/

        .
        .
        .
        .

        What is CONSENT WRITTEN?

        These are the consent forms
        that a person will read and then sign
        when they agree
        to the terms of the procedure.

        http://thelawdictionary.org/consent-written/

        .
        .
        .

        Consent

        http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent

        .
        .
        .

        So it looks like Without Consent
        is better to use than
        Without Recourse.

        What would happen if
        someone were to:

        On the Signature Line
        Write these Words,
        .
        .
        .

        Without Consent

        .
        .
        .
        .

         
      • Toland

        May 18, 2014 at 9:11 PM

        I bet the main purpose of all that paperwork you have to sign before seeing a doctor is to leave you no basis for complaint when you’re treated like an animal.

        After all, you opted-in and agreed to participate under conditions where you’re defined as an animal. And there’s your signature acknowledging that you’re the “patient”, which term is no doubt defined somewhere to mean a type of animal.

        So one has the choice to either avoid licensed physicians or… Welcome to the farm, Bubba.

         
  22. Henry

    May 18, 2014 at 10:38 PM

    Toland said > …”patient”, which term is no doubt defined somewhere to mean a type of animal. <

    Basic logic tells us this is correct before we even find an official definition (if one exists), because a "patient" is the authorized target of the "drugs" and "medical devices" which physicians are licensed to use on "man or other animals".

    So, when you go to a doctor in "this state" and fill out the forms to be their "patient", you're defining yourself as an animal.

     
  23. EarlatOregon

    May 19, 2014 at 5:54 PM

    consent
    accedence,
    acceptance,
    accord,
    acquiescence,
    admission,
    adoption,
    affirmation,
    agreement,
    allowance,
    approbation,
    approval,
    assent,
    assurance,
    authentication,
    authority,

    certification,
    commendation,
    compliance,
    concession,
    concord,
    concordance,
    concurrence,
    consensus,
    corroboration,
    countenance,

    endorsement,
    entitlement,

    grace,
    grant,
    guarantee,

    harmony,

    indulgence,

    leave,
    legalization,
    license,

    permission,
    permit,

    ratification,

    sanction,
    stipulation,
    sufferance,
    support,

    tolerance,
    toleration,

    unison,
    unity,

    validation,
    verification,
    vouchsafement,

    warrant,
    warranty,
    willingness

     
  24. EarlatOregon

    May 19, 2014 at 5:55 PM

    Associated concepts:
    consent decree,
    consent in writing,
    consent judgment,
    consent of adoptive parents,
    consent of owner,
    consent of parties,
    consent to a taking,
    consent to an act,
    consent to search,

    express consent,

    implied connent,

    legal consent,
    limited consent,

    mutual consent,

    parental consent,

    qualified consent,

    removal of an action by consent,

    voluntary consent,

    without consent
    .
    .
    .

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent
    .
    .
    .

     
  25. EarlatOregon

    May 19, 2014 at 6:02 PM

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Consent-
    Foreign phrases:

    Consensus non concubitus facit nuptias vel matrimonium et consentire
    non possunt ante annos nubiles.

    Consent,
    not cohabitation,
    constitutes nuptials or marriage,
    and persons cannot consent before marriageable years.
    .
    .
    .

    Consensus voluntas multorum ad quos res pertinet, simul juncta.

    Consent is the united will of several interested in one subject matter.
    .
    .
    .

    Consentientes et aqentes pari poena plectentur.

    Persons who consent and those who perform are subject to the same penalties.
    .
    .
    .

    Longa patientia trahitur ad consensum.

    Long sufferance is construed as consent.
    .
    .
    .

    Itelius estomnia mala pati quam malo consentire.

    It is better to suffer every ill than to consent to evil.
    .
    .
    .

    Nihil consensui tam controrium est quam vis atque metus.

    Nothing is as much opposed to consent as force and fear.
    .
    .
    .

    Non consentit qui errat.

    He who makes a mistake does not consent.
    .
    .
    .

    Non refert an quis assennum suum praefert verbis aut rebus ipsis et factis.

    It matters not
    whether a man gives his consent
    by his words or by his acts and deeds.

    .
    .
    .

    Non videntur qui errant connentire.
    Those who err are not deemed to consent.
    .
    .
    .

    Non videtur consensum retinuisse si quis ex praescripto minantis aliquid immutavit.

    He does not appear to have retained consent
    who has changed anything through menaces.
    .
    .
    .

    Nuptias non cuncubitus sed consensus facit.

    Not cohabitation but consent makes the marriage.
    .
    .
    .

    Omne jus aut consensus fecit, aut necessitas constituit aut firmavit consuetudo.

    Consent created, necessity established, or custom has confirmed every law.
    .
    .
    .

    Omnis connensus tollit errorem.

    Every consent removes error.
    .
    .
    .

    Qui tacet, consentire videtur.

    He who is silent, is deemed to consent.
    .
    .
    .

    Actus me invito factus non est meus actus.

    An act done against my will is not my act.
    .
    .
    .

    Agentes et connentientes pari poena plectentur.

    Acting and consenttng parties are liable to the same punishment.
    .
    .
    .

    Consensus est voluntas plurium ad quos res pertinet, simul juncta.

    Consent is the conjoint will of several perrons to whom the thing belongs.
    .
    .
    .

    Consensus facit legem.

    Consent makes the law.

    .
    .
    .
    Consensus tollit errorem.

    Consent removes or obviates mistake.
    .
    .
    .
    Quod meum est sine me auferri non potest.

    What is mine cannot be taken away without my consent.
    .
    .
    .

    Volenti non fit injuria.

    He who consents cannot receive an injury.
    .
    .
    .
    .

    .

     
  26. henry

    May 20, 2014 at 12:19 AM

    A child has restrictions what he/she can consent to. Parents, or guardians, make decisions for the child that he/she, legally, can not make. Animals have far fewer decisions that it can make: Should I eat this or go hungry. If the state can make decisions for you, it is because it believe that you are either an animal or a child without parents. If you don’t assert your rights, they are deemed to be waived. If you don’t know how to assert your rights, you don’t have any. If you assert your rights but the person that you are communicating with cannot comprehend your assertions then what do you do? If you elevate the issue up the organization you may, or may not, settle the issue but, you will have to repeat this with every other “governmental” entity that you deal with. At any time one of your servants might be having a bad day and decide to shoot you, or put you in a cage where you can be anally raped. The difficulty in this situation has cowed most people into being sheep.

     
    • EarlatOregon

      May 20, 2014 at 5:49 PM

      .
      .
      .
      .

      RE:
      If the state can make decisions for you,
      it is because it believe that you are either an animal or a child without parents.

      If you don’t assert your rights, they are deemed to be waived.
      If you don’t know how to assert your rights, you don’t have any.

      If you assert your rights
      but the person that you are communicating with cannot comprehend your assertions
      then what do you do?

      If you elevate the issue up the organization
      you may, or may not, settle the issue but,
      you will have to repeat this with every other “governmental” entity that you deal with.

      At any time one of your servants
      might be having a bad day
      and decide to shoot you,
      or put you in a cage … .

      Earl writes:

      This is the Problem you get,
      from receiving Services,
      from the State.

      The Question then becomes,
      Why,
      are you going to the State?

      .
      .
      .
      .

       
  27. Peter

    May 20, 2014 at 8:47 AM

    How might one sign a medical form to rebut the presumption that he or she is an animal?
    The main reason I do not go to pain management and medical inc. is because of those forms and there definition of drugs, medical devices and animals.Therefore I endure every day of my life in agony. I continue to work DESPITE the pain and the mobility issues, because not to work would force me into the SS/ DISABILITY world with a whole lot of other definitions and consent forms.

     
    • Adask

      May 20, 2014 at 12:08 PM

      I don’t think it’s necessary to suffer pain in order to avoid being deemed an animal. It seems likely (to me, at least) that it should be possible to ask the nurse, administrator or doctor if they treat “people” (men and women made in God’s image) or if they only treat “animals”. Odds are, at least if you ask them orally when you go to the hospital, that they’ll think you’re a little “peculiar” but assure you that they treat “people” (men made in God’s image) but they DON’T treat “animals” (that’s for veterinarians).

      But if you’re having a persistent problem and you know that you’ll need to see a doctor on a weekly or monthly basis, you might write a letter to send to the doctor/administrator/hospital expressly asking if they would treat a “man made in God’s image” as per Genesis 1:26-28 and 2) treat an animal. Identify yourself as a “man made in God’s image”. Send the letter by Registered Mail and see what happens. The purpose of the letter is not to antagonize or threaten. The purpose would be to simply inquire about the hospital’s and/or doctor’s policy concerning “men made in God’s image”.

      What will they say? That they don’t treat “men/women made in God’s image”? That they only treat animals? I can’t imagine them making that admission. If they claim to treat people but not animals, then you would have created evidence that they are prepared to treat you like a “man made in God’s image” rather than an “animal”.

      Perhaps that admission would be sufficient to allow you to get pain medication without “consenting” to be degraded to the status of an “animal”.

       
      • EarlatOregon

        May 20, 2014 at 5:42 PM

        the Word,
        that Doctors, Nurses, Medical Industry uses,
        is Not people,
        Not even Government uses the Word – People,
        unless it is Capitalized,
        They will use the Word Person,
        or Human,Human Being
        Not the Word – People.

        God created People.

        He did Not create
        Persons, Humans, Human Beings.

        God created People.

         
  28. Henry

    May 20, 2014 at 2:21 PM

    The problem, as I see it, is NOT that the doctor thinks he’s treating an animal rather than a man made in God’s image. If you have a medical situation that needs looking at, who cares what the doctor thinks? Get the treatment you need regardless of this detail.

    The real problem is the PAPERWORK the doctor is required to have you sign prior to treatment. This is where you voluntarily opt-in to the MOOA system of “drugs”, “medical devices”, etc., thus declaring yourself, in writing, to be an animal.

     
    • henry

      May 21, 2014 at 12:10 PM

      Perhaps it would be helpful if a short statement of the reservation of your rights via the Uniform Commercial Code is added to your signature. At least there would be a record that you objected to being treated as an animal. If the text is short, the clerk at the doctor’s office probably won’t even read what you write on the form.

       
      • Adask

        May 21, 2014 at 12:36 PM

        I suspect that the UCC is so intertwined with “this state” that I wouldn’t trust it for relief. I won’t say it’s true, but I’ll say that it might be true that the UCC is intended largely for “animals”.

         
      • EarlatOregon

        May 22, 2014 at 1:10 PM

        If you use UCC = uniform Commercial code,
        you are telling the state,
        You are in Commerce,
        Commerce is something the state has Power to Regulate.

         

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s