Ä ALT.RADIO.PIRATE (1:340/26) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ALT.RADIO.PIRATE Ä
 Msg  : 84 of 100                                                               
 From : Dr. Linda Thompson          1:340/13                23 Mar 97  02:04:06 
 To   : All                                                 24 Mar 97  13:56:34 
 Subj : Christian Family Persecuted by Fascists                                 
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
From: "Dr. Linda Thompson" <lindat@iquest.net>
.RFC-Message-ID: <33350016.40C1@iquest.net>
Reply-To: lindat@iquest.net
.RFC-NNTP-Posting-Host: ind-0003-14.iquest.net
.RFC-X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I)
.RFC-Path:
news.spydernet.com!news.pinc.com!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.in
ternetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.nap.net!news.iquest.net!not-for-mail

AEN News
Linda Thompson

The following Indianapolis Star-News article is a follow-up to the
persecution, er, prosecution, of the Plancks, for "negligent homicide."

The Plancks'  six year old son was ILLEGALLY DISCONNECTED FROM LIFE
SUPPORT BY INDIANA UNIVERSITY PHYCIANS AGAINST THE PLANCK'S WRITTEN
REFUSAL TO CONSENT TO THE DISCONNECTION after he was taken to the
hospital with meningitis.

After murdering the boy by disconnecting him from life support, the
physicians helped the county prosecute the Plancks, claiming they
"didn't get medical help for him soon enough."

NOT ONE MEDIA STORY HAS COVERED THE FACT THAT IT WAS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL
UNDER INDIANA LAW FOR THE DOCTORS TO DISCONNECT THE BOY FROM LIFE
SUPPORT.

This was a case about a prosecutor, hoping to make a name for herself by
taking up a case against people she hoped to portray, through innuendo
and slander, as "weird," so that they must be "guilty because they are
weird" and doctors who were happy to back her up because THEY KNOW THEY
COULD BE SUED FOR ILLEGALLY DISCONNECTING THE BOY FROM LIFE SUPPORT
AGAINST HIS PARENTS' WISHES.

Most of the articles neglect to mention that a social worker brought
ARMED POLICE, who DREW THEIR GUNS and threw in TEAR GAS at the home
three years ago, supposedly to take three of the eleven Planck children
for EYE EXAMINATIONS (the order for these "eye examinations" was
obtained by the county ex parte -- which means in secret, and the
Plancks were not notified -- and the order was later vacated, another
fact not usually mentioned.)

Most of the articles also neglect to mention that the same social worker
who thinks SHE should manage the Planck's affairs, is such a bastion of
parenting that her OWN SON WAS ON TRIAL FOR MURDER during the trial of
the Plancks.  Yes, indeed, this county social worker SURELY is in a
position to determine who has "weird" religious beliefs and isn't
properly raising their children.

The Plancks had 11 healthy children, all home schooled and raised in a
religious environment.  Some of the children have a genetic defect that
causes a cataract condition of the eyes that would not benefit from
glasses.

The six year old who was murdered by Indiana University doctors who
illegally disconncted him from life support, got a virulent form of
meningitis that can and usually does kill in less than five days, but
its symptoms are no different than any ear infection or throat infection
-- high fever, lack of appetite, lethargy, headache.

The Plancks took their son to the hospital on the fourth day he was ill.

The head prosecutor, has absolutely no shame, sense of decency, or
ethics, as exemplified by many things she attempted, such as when, in
closing argument, she said to the jury that none of Bill Planck's
co-workers had come to testify on his behalf (implying he must be some
sort of scumbag).  What she DIDN'T MENTION was that SHE HAD OBJECTED TO
THESE CO-WORKERS TESTIFYING -- in arguments the jury didn't get to hear,
that resulted in their testimony being excluded.  A pig, a true pig.
(Hey, Cynthia Sauer-sow -- sue me and I'll give you your first look at
the First Amendment and the rest of the BILL OF RIGHTS.)

Now, more of the story has come out.  The Judge did his level best to
taint the trial, too.  See below.

Despite these slimey, underhanded tactics and the slimey, underhanded
motives for the prosecution, the prosecutor was not able to convict the
Plancks.  The jury was hung, more than 50% in favor of the Plancks.

The Sauer-sow promises to put the family through yet another trial.

They have NO FUNDS FOR AN ATTORNEY.

ATTORNEY JOHN R. PRICE, IN INDIANAPOLIS,  A CHRISTIAN, CONDUCTED THIS
TRIAL  (KUDOS, MR. PRICE, FOR A JOB WELL DONE! AND TO YOUR ASSOCIATE,
MS. LIELL WHO CONDUCTED MUCH OF THE TRIAL!)

JOHN WON, but WILL HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN if the Sauer-sow has a say in
it.  Please help this family with their expenses.

========================================================
Indianapolis Star-News Online
http://www.starnews.com/news/metrostate/97/Mar/0320SN_plancks.html

Planck judge rejects defense allegations


By Jenny Labalme / The Indianapolis Star/News

ANDERSON, Ind. (Thur. March 20, 1997) -- Alleging a number of improper
actions by the trial judge, Bill and Sarah Planck's attorneys filed a
motion Wednesday asking Judge Fredrick R. Spencer to remove himself from
the case if it is retried.

About two hours after defense attorney John R. Price filed the motion,
Spencer denied it.

"It's totally without merit," Spencer said. "Mr. Price and the Plancks
strung together a series of unrelated incidents."

The 19-page document filed in Madison Circuit Court says that during the
couple's seven-week trial, Spencer allegedly:

  Did not share final notes from the deliberating jury, which indicated
a deadlock, with defense attorneys. Meanwhile, prosecutors allegedly
knew about the deadlock and tried to work out a plea agreement when the
Plancks and their attorneys were unaware of the jury's messages.

  Communicated with jury members daily, often stopping by the jury room
to eat grapes, to discuss sporting events and once made a comment about
an upcoming witness.

  Made a "biased comment from the bench" about the Plancks, saying at a
sidebar conference, "Well, they are weird!" -- a statement said in the
presence of the jury and loud enough for courtroom spectators to hear.

  Showed "bias and prejudice" by allowing the state to call 10 new
witnesses after a Jan. 10 witness cutoff date but not allowing the
defense to call two last-minute witnesses.

  Issued "unequal and biased rulings" by granting prosecutors 90 percent
of their objections but only 20 percent of the defense objections.

These and about nine other allegations were outlined in the court
motion.

Spencer, who has been in office 14 years, said he never shared jury vote
tallies privately with prosecutors. A sworn affidavit from Wabash
attorney Michael B. McNeil, whose wife is one of the Plancks' lawyers,
says  therwise.

But Spencer did say he talked to jurors and ate grapes with them.

"They did offer me some grapes, but I didn't discuss the case," Spencer
said.

Asked about the use of the word "weird," Spencer said he may have said
it.

"It's possible I did, but it doesn't matter because no objection was
made," Spencer said. "This case is history, and none of this matters
because it was a mistrial."

Spencer said the additional witnesses on both sides weren't surprises.
And he said his comments to counsel and his rulings during the trial
were his to make because he was in charge of the trial.

Bob Hammerle, a well-known Indianapolis criminal defense attorney, said
filing such a motion is politically risky.

"It's the professional equivalent of chewing on a dead skunk," Hammerle
said.

Under Indiana law, it is the judge himself who decides whether he showed
bias. No other person or committee reviews such
a motion.

"The law presumes that the judge is not biased or prejudiced," said
Rebecca McClure, assistant executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting
Attorneys Council.

But McClure added that if the Plancks' attorneys believe the judge did
something unethical, they could file a complaint with the Indiana
Judicial Qualifications Commission.

A gag order that has been in effect almost a year has prevented Planck
attorneys Price and Katharine Liell from publicly discussing the case or
any actions they might take.

Hammerle said a judge should never share jury notes with just one side
or meet privately with attorneys for one side -- a practice known as ex
parte communication.

"If indeed that did happen, there isn't a judge true to his oath who
wouldn't remove him or herself from the case," Hammerle said.

McClure saw nothing improper about the judge stopping by the jury room
to see if everything was all right.

But Hammerle had a different reaction.

"I'm horrified that that would occur," he said. "If you're involved in a
confrontational setting with a judge and the judge is developing a
personal relationship with the jury, the jury will see the judge as a
good guy" in contrast to the attorneys.

McClure said Indiana case law shows adverse rulings alone by a judge
don't constitute bias.

Each of the Plancks was charged with reckless homicide, involuntary
manslaughter and two counts of neglect of a
dependent in the death of their 6-year-old son, Lance.

Lance died of pneumococcal meningitis in November 1995 at Riley Hospital
for Children in Indianapolis.

The Plancks also were charged with a lesser count of neglect of a
dependent for failing to get their seven minor children's
eyes examined.

The seven-week trial ended March 14 when Spencer declared a mistrial
after the six-man, six-woman jury could not reach
a unanimous verdict on any of the counts.

Spencer said last week that Madison County Deputy Prosecutor Cynthia
Sauer plans to retry the case. So far, the case has
cost county taxpayers almost $33,000, although not all the bills are in.
===========================

SIDENOTE:

Robert Hammerle is the same attorney who plead Joe Love "mentally ill"
to a charge of possessing LEGAL TO OWN sterilized marijuana seeds
(birdseed) during the county's persecution of Joe Love, who was
ultimately murdered in the city-county building in Indianapolis on June
14, 1995.

It was Robert Hammerle's wife, Monica Foster, who was the handy
eyewitness at the jail, the night I went to visit a client and found
myself surrounded by armed deputies with their guns drawn, who had
intended to either kill me or plant a gun on me and claim I tried to
smuggle it in the jail, as an attempt to discredit me before the grand
jury investigating Joe Love's murder.  This attempt was aborted because
a witness had accompanied me to the jail that they had not expected.

Robert Hammerle's former law partner was disbarred for cocaine and is
now a bail bondsman with great connections.

Getting the picture of why Hammerle was chosen by the Star-News for the
interview comments?

If not, keep in mind that my prosecutions (which I've won) have all been
motivated by Steve Goldsmith, whose wife is the niece of Gene Pulliam,
CEO of the Indianapolis Star-News.  Dan Quayle, also on the board of
Central Newspapers, which owns both the Star News and the Arizona
Republic, is her cousin and the nephew of Gene Pulliam.  Quayle's father
is also on the board of Central Newspapers.

The vendetta against me (and the murder of Joe Love) have resulted from
our exposure of the drug running and prostitution rings in Indianapolis
that are sponsored by the mafia with the aid of local police and
politicians.

Getting the picture yet?

For two weeks, a prominent columnist in the Indianapolis Star has had a
column on the front page of the second section of the paper, claiming
the government MUST "protect the children,"  using the Planck's case to
point out how swell the pigs have been, stepping in to prosecute this
family as if they obviously were just inadequate and could not raise
their children without state interference.

I figure this columnist's husband must be one of the IU doctors.  Not
once has she mentioned that the doctors disconnected the boy against the
parents' wishes and that this was illegal.  (These are the same people
who believe in abortion and euthenasia, remember?  Disconnecting a six
year old child against his parents' wishes is just the doctors deciding
to do a late abortion, isn't it?)

Not once has she mentioned the Constitutional rights of parents, though
she DID point out that children are not "property."  Exactly.  And for
that reason, the parents rights are FAR and above superior to any
supposed "interest" of the state in "protecting children" from the
religious beliefs and training of their parents.

The doctors decided THEY were in a better position to know what should
be done with this child -- at age six -- and disconnected him.

The State backed up the decision and sent a message to Christians
worldwide -- if you complain, we will find a way to prosecute you, shut
you up, bankrupt you, smear your name, and destroy you.  The doctors, of
course, will testify against the parents.

How long before the doctors will simply kill other Christian children
and claim that these children shouldn't live because their parents'
religious beliefs are "just too weird"?


--
Kind regards,

Linda Thompson

************  V  *****************
  DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER
**********************************
Dr. Linda Thompson
Attorney at Law
Chairman, American Justice Federation
Terrorism Intelligence Analyst
Internet:  lindat@iquest.net

**********************************
       Remember Waco.
  The Murderers are still free.
**********************************

 See vicious mass murder crime scene:

http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum
http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum

--- ifmail v.2.8.lwz
 * Origin: American Justice Federation (1:340/13@fidonet)