USA vs WILHELM REICH 1954-1957 provided
by PORE -- last update (97may15) - orgone - usa
from court docket volumes ( Pore's item wr40505db )
Applicants for Intervention
JAMES A. WILLIE April 29,1954
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE: SOUTHERN DIVISION
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
-against-
THE WILHEIM REICH FOUNDATION, a Maine corpor-
ation, WILHEIM REICH and ILSE-OLLENDORFF,
Defendants. Civil Action File No. 1056
ELSWORTH F. BAKER, K.M. BREMER, PHILIP GOLD,
SIDNEY HANDELMAN, MORTON HERSKOWITZ, CHARLES
I. OILER, CHESTER M. RAPHAEL, MICHAEL SILVERT,
VICTOR A. SOBEY, WILLIAM F. THORBURN, OSCAR
TROPP, SIMEON J. TROPP, EILEEN WALKENSTEIN,
JAMES A. WILLIE. and ALBERT I. DUVALL,
Applicants for Intervention.
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - --- -- - - - - - - - - - - -x
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF NEW YORK) SS:-
JAMES A. WILLIE, being duly sworn says:
I am a physician and psychiatrist, duly licensed to practice as such, and I specialize in orgonomy as applied to psychiatry. I make this affidavit in support of the application to intervene in behalf of myself and the other named applicants for intervention.
I was born May 10, 1904, at Corsicana, Texas. I was educated at the University of Texas from which I graduated in 1925 with the degree of Bachelor of Arts. I received my Doctor of Medicine from the University of Texas School of Medicine in 1929.
From 1929 to 1930, I was on a general rotating interneship at Charity Hospital, New Orleans, Louisiana. Thereafter, I was at the New York Neurological Institute on an interneship in neurology from 1930 to 1931.
I was an Associate in psychiatry at Phipps Psychiatric Clinic, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, during 1931 to 1932, and Junior Psychiatrist at Worcester State Hospital, Worcester, Massachusetts, from 1932 to 1933. From 1933 to 1936, I was Senior Psychiatrist at New Hampshire State Hospital, Concord, New Hampshire; Chief Psychiatrist, New Hampshire Industrial School for Girls and Boys, Manchester, New Hampshire; Psychiatrist-In-Charge, Mental Hygiene Clinic, Nashua, New Hampshire; and Assistant Psychiatrist, Child Guidance Clinic, Manchester, New Hampshire.
I was engaged in private practice as a neurologist and psychiatrist at Houston, Texas, in 1936 and 1937. From 1937 to 1946, I was at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, where I was Superintendent, Willie Clinic and Hospital, Oklahoma City; Psychiatrist, Oklahoma City Induction Board, World War II; instructor in neurology, University of Oklahoma Medical School, Oklahoma City; Psychiatrist, Out-Patient Department, University Hospital, Oklahoma City; Instructor for Nurses, University Hospital Training School, Oklahoma City.
I was engaged in orgone therapy at Richmond Hill, New York, in 1946 and 1947, and since 1947, I have been engaged in the private practice of psychiatry, specializing in orgone therapy at Manhasset, New York, and I am an active member of the staff of North Shore Hospital, Manhasset. Long Island, New York.
I am a member of the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, Johns Hopkins Alumni Association, New York Neurological Institute Alumni Association, Nassau County Medical Society, Nassau Mental Health Association, Associated Clinical Psychiatrists, North Shore Child Guidance Association and Nu Sigma Nu Medical Fraternity.
I am the author of articles such as "The Anxiety of A Case of Anxiety Hysteria", 1937; "Some of the Uses of Vitamin B in N.P." (S.M. Journal, 1940); and "The Use of a Male Dummy In Medical Orgone Therapy" (Orgone Energy Bulletin, April, 1949). I am licensed to practice medicine in Maine, and I maintain a residence and office for such practice in Maine.
I was married in 1932. We have two children and my family resides with me at 232 Dover Road, Manhasset, Long Island, New York, where I maintain my office.
All of my foregoing education, experience, qualifications and medical standing are reported and verifiable in the well known publication, "Who's Important in Medicine".
This application to intervene is founded on two basic grounds: (1) The representation of the applicants' interest by the named defendants is inadequate and applicants are bound by the decree of injunction; and (2) applicants' claim and defense and those in the main action have questions of law and fact in common.
I state unequivocally, so that there is no question of where the applicants stand, that orgone energy exists. We believe, on the basis of our research, experience, scientific judgment, ability, knowledge and experiments, that orgonomy has a sound and valid scientific basis, and we are prepared, if necessary in this case, to prove it, as well as to defeat any attempt on the part of the plaintiff to prove orgone energy does not exist or that "orgonomy is a "pseudo science".
On the same firm and unequivocal ground, we take the position that the orgone energy accumulator attracts orgone energy from the atmosphere and concentrates it within the accumulator where it has medical, educational, scientific and therapeutic value.
My co-applicants and I practice our profession as physicians and psychiatrists on the scientific basis of the existence of orgone energy and its concentration within an accumulator. I first began to specialize in orgonomy as applied to psychiatry in 1946. I had heard of Dr. Wilhelm Reich as a great scientist and psychiatrist prior to the commencement of my studies in orgonomy. His contributions to psychiatry, even aside from the discovery of orgone energy, if that could be isolated, are outstanding. His works and writings, which plaintiff would destroy, rank him among the great psychiatrists and scientists. These works and writings and those of other scientists who have conducted scientific experiments in orgonomy, and have made reports upon them, comprise the literature which the complaint characterises as "false labelling" and seeks to have destroyed. This literature also comprises writings which the injunction found, albeit by default, to constitute "labelling" and directs to be withheld.
These works, writings and reports contain the scientific foundation for orgonomy. If these writings were destroyed and discontinued, and if information pertaining to orgone energy accumulators could not be disseminated, in addition to the general loss of a great discovery to all mankind, I and the other applicants would be seriously and permanently handicapped and curtailed in the practice of our profession.
Such, also, would be the effect if accumulators are destroyed and none could be employed in the practice of our profession.
It is the duty of all physicians to apply and to follow those systems, concepts and principles which they, according to their ability and judgment, consider for the benefit of their patients. After mature professional and scientific, inquiry, reasoning and judgment, we have concluded that the principles of orgonomy, including the use of the accumulator, are of most benefit to our patients. Hence, we employ them.
That is not to say that these principles effect "cures". The concept basic to all systems of medicine is that the physician applies what in his judgment is an indicated method of therapy, be it heat pads, pills, diet, rest or any other. These therapeutics are intended, not as "cures", but to aid nature in the body itself to overcome the particular malady. Orgone energy and its concentration in an accumulator are additional therapeutics which supply to the living organism an additional life energy to help the body overcome a particular malady.
Nor do orgonomists discard traditional and classic methods of therapy. In those cases in which surgery is indicated along traditional lines, surgery is recommended and employed, if necessary. Where specific antibiotics are required, they are employed. Yet, in each of these two illustrations, the application of orgone energy by an accumulator and the employment of the principles of orgonomy operate as supplemental factors in the particular treatment.
These two foregoing illustrations are by no means the limits of the traditional methods employed. Another example would be where a patient would present evidence of a heart condition. Such a patient would not be treated for a major ailment by any physician, including an orgonomist, until the cardiological condition were properly diagnosed. In sum, the orgonomist is a practising physician in the traditional and classic sense and seeks to supplement his efforts to heal the ailing by scientific principles.
In psychiatry, Which is my specialty, I can give several examples of the application of the principles of orgonomy and the use of the accumulator. At the outset I might say that the discovery of orgone energy has given new direction to psychiatry and resolved a great many problems which had theretofore plagued all psychiatrists. Orgonomists believe that when a patient goes into shock, there is a contraction to the source of orgone energy within the body, and that such energy is withdrawn from the body's peripheral areas. The body fights to survive naturally and will strive to supply again the withdrawn energy. Eventually, with no therapy, it can be expected that the patient will overcome the shock. But, it has been found that the application of an accumulator of the type which plaintiff calls a "blanket" and the concentration of orgone energy therapy and its feeding to the body, help the body overcome the shock and step up the recuperative process.
In the treatment of mental disorders, the use of an accumulator supplies energy to the body and again helps the living organism to overcome the malady. It has been found that orgone energy builds up the natural energy in the body to help overcome emotional disorders which arise from the repression of the basic instinct to live.
At best, in a reasonably sized affidavit, I can give only a general concept of the use in psychiatry of orgone energy aid of accumulators. Wilhelm Reich has worked and experimented for 30 years in the field. His writings and the writings of other scientists comprise thousands and thousands of pages of scientific reports and reasoning. Orgonomy is the vast field in which I practice psychiatry and make my living, as do other orgonomists in their respective specialties.
As I said above, we are prepared, if necessary, in this case, to prove that orgonomy is a valid science and that accumulators are valid and useful. Accordingly, we have prepared the annexed proposed answer which is founded on a denial of the material portions of the complaint, and the denial itself is based on the very existence of the science of orgonomy, the value of accumulators and our belief therein.
The Foundation was established in 1949 for the purpose of carrying on the work of Wilhelm Reich. Originally, it was a teaching center and it has since gone on to be the experimental center for orgonomy all over the world.
Prior to the injunction, the Foundation carried on experiments in orgonomy and sent reports to scientists in the United States and other parts of the world. These experiments include the use of the orgone energy accumulator in the treatment of human and animal ailments. In addition, scientists in other parts of the world report to The Foundation the results of their own experiments. These reports are recorded in the archives of The Foundation, copied and published in its literature, which is distributed to the interested public and scientists. The Foundation has also manufactured orgone accumulators and caused them to be manufactured under its supervision, control and direction. Prior to the time of the injunction, they were sent out only for scientific, educational or medical use, and for the latter only on a physician's report or prescription.
I say and I believe that no false, misleading or unscientific claim has ever been made or published in any literature of The Foundation or its press, either directly or indirectly, and either by implication or innuendo, concerning orgonomy, orgone energy, or the orgone energy accumulator. It is significant that in paragraph 22 of the complaint, plaintiff lists about 30 cases which it alleges as described "cures", and which we allege are scientific reports. In no place is the claim made that these reports are false or inaccurate in any particular or on the whole. It may be assumed that plaintiff chose from the literature of the named defendants what it deemed were the best reports it could find for its side of the controversy it has created.
To claim, as plaintiff does, that these qualified scientists and physicians are no more than purveyors of mechanical devices and to try to equate them, as plaintiff does, with merchandising managers in commercial enterprises, is to fly in the face of reality and to insult all scientific inquiry.
The injunction in this case purports to bind me to its provisions. Although neither I nor the applicants were ever served with a summons or complaint, we did receive through the mails copies of the injunction within a week or two after March 19, 1954, the date it was signed. Apparently, the plaintiff considers that we are bound by it and intends that we should consider ourselves bound, for the injunctions were mailed to us by the Office of the United States Attorney. I assume that under plaintiff's interpretation, I would be a person "in active concert or participation with" the named defendants. I have not only worked with the named defendants, but I am entirely familiar with all of their publications and specifically those mentioned in the complaint.
As I read the injunction and its several parts, my legal and professional rights and privileges are directly curtained thereby. The finding that the listed literature constitutes "labelling" or misbranding also contains the direction that the literature cannot be used with the accumulator. Yet, the very principles of orgonomy are contained in the literature, and the statement in the injunction that the literature may be used without reference to orgone energy creates a scientific impossibilily.
Were I to follow the dictates of my conscience and scientific belief and obtain an accumulator for a patient to use under my care and direction as a physician, I would violate the injunction.
Were I to direct a patient's attention to the scientific literature and works to help the patient understand the therapy, I would violate the injunction.
Were I to retain an accumulator, which I received from the named defendants, and apply it to a patient therapeutically, I would violate the injunction.
And yet, these foregoing acts which would constitute violations of the injunction, are essentially an integral part of my practice of my profession and of my earning a livelihood.
In addition, other physicians and scientists could not obtain the benefit of my scientific experience. Not only I as a physician thereby suffer from the injunction, but the entire world suffers there from: scientists, patients, physicians, the public, everybody.
I cannot believe that such disaster could be permitted to exist with no recourse afforded to anyone. It is no answer to the drastic results of this injunction that the named defendants had an opportunity to defend the action and chose not to. The consequences of this injunction, as I point out, affect others including me, directly. It is fortunate, in an ironical sense, the other applicants and I are persons directly affected, in the legal sense that our legal rights have been curtailed thereby, and we ask leave to intervene.
When the named defendants were served with the original papers, it was our belief that some steps would be taken by them to resist the plaintiff's efforts. We know that Dr. Reich did write a letter to the Court and my attorney informs me, and I believe, that that letter might have been construed as an application to dismiss the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. Parenthetically, if such construction were placed upon it, we believe there is no record that such application was ever decided. However, it was apparent to us that our situation and claims had questions of law and fact in common with those of the named defendants.
It was not until the defendants had defaulted and the injunction signed and mailed to us, that it became apparent that the representation of our interest in the matter was inadequate and that we were bound by the injunction.
There were problems of counsel, expenses and the many others with which we were unfamiliar, but of which, I am sure, the Court is aware. There were 14 interested persons whom we knew and we interviewed many suggested attorneys. It was not until Sunday, April 18, 1954, that we were able to agree on counsel and prepare for the financial burden that arises when a group of residents in the general area of New York must defend an action in the State of Maine. As this Court can see, we moved as speedily as we were able, as did our counsel, once he was retained.
It has come to our attention that plaintiff's representatives have already visited dealers in New York and required then to remove Dr. Reich's work from their shelves. I cannot repeat too often that in our opinion as scientists, such action, apart from its possible constitutional defects, operates as a denial of vital information to the people in our country.
If Dr. Reich's works are destroyed, we as physicians, and this nation and its people will suffer irreparable harm. If accumulators are not to be employed, a great many patients who need this type of therapy will be immeasurably retarded in their recovery.
Thousands of patients have been orgone energy accumulators and yet, the plaintiff has not cited a single instance in which harm has resulted. There are few therapeutics in medicine against which no claim of harm, even accidental, can be made. In the light of the nature of plaintiff's complaint, it is a safe assumption that if the plaintiff had evidence of any harm to any person, it would have made the allegation.
Against this failure on plaintiff's part to show harm from the use of the accumulator and the principles of orgonomy, I have presented to this Court a true picture of a science destroyed, scientists irreparably repressed, physicians prevented from treating patients, scientific apparatus destroyed, and patients denied treatment which is rightfully theirs by reason of humanity, let alone The Oath of Hippocrates.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we ask that, pending the determination of this application, the plaintiff be restrained from enforcing the injunction, and to that and we have proceeded by order to show cause, rather than the usual notice of motion.
Since the plaintiff has not taken any steps so far to destroy accumulators, and destroy the literature, it is apparent that the plaintiff does not consider that any harm will come to it if, for the few days pending the determination of this motion, such a restraining order were granted, and for that reason we ask that the Court dispense with any requirement for security. On the other hand, it is apparent also that if plaintiff carries out the injunction provisions with respect to the destruction of scientific books and equipment prior to the determination of this application, irreparable loss, damage and injury will result to the applicants.
We are advised and believe that the provisions of the injunction which require the destruction of the books and accumulators are, in themselves, in violation of law. We have been advised and believe that the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under U.S.C. # 332, subdivision (a), which provides for jurisdiction only with respect to injunctions. There is no provision in that section of the law or in any section of the law to which that refers, which grants to the Court power to direct a seizure and destruction. We have been informed and believe that there is provision for such a proceeding under U.S.C. # 334. But that section requires a libel for condemnation proceedings with an entirely different type of procedure and a decree of condemnation results therefrom, not a decree of injunction.
Accordingly, a stay world not only maintain the status quo, but would also prevent plaintiff from violating the law.
WHEREFORE, I respectfully request an order granting applicants leave to intervene, vacating the decree of injunction made and entered herein on March 19, 1954, granting applicants leave to serve and file an answer in the form and contents as the proposed answer annexed hereto, and further granting an order restraining the plaintiff, its servants, agents or employees, and its agencies and the servants, agents or employees of its agencies, departments or bureaus, pending the hearing and determination of this application and the service and entry of a decision and order thereon, from taking any steps to enforce or to seek the enforcement of the aforesaid decree of injunction made and entered herein on March 19, 1954, for all of which relief no previous application has been made.
Signed..... Jas A Willie MD.
Sworn to before me this
29day of April 1954.
Signed... Rose Lewis
ROSE LEWIS
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 03-7537550
Qualified in Bronx County
Cert. filed in New York County
Commission Expires March 30, 1956
x
Exchange Orgonomic Research and Information
Around The World 
Through
PORE