wuardman Belnont u \.+ Jaumgardner ur. Rozamus fant Attorney « Warren ney 120 : Octorer 9, 18 Ptreotor, For eee - WILLY iwded FM ATE TR MIC LAR OOS @ LAS LUTION C ® FM F$1e 1Os—21461 (INTERNAL SiCURITY) a Reference te nada to ny menorondun dated cetoter 12, 12'S, oc toned as above, sacloeed ta a cxpy of a letter dated Uotorer PF, 2955, i to ether witha expy of ecoh of tte ty0 enclocuren, vscetuet nb tt! fu ecu frou dr, itehael' ctlvert, jes Tort, om Morte In acoordance with the poltcy that ras herr folJoved tn : th: rast by thie \ureau regarding eonmunteathona recetvec from oo reapondent and representativoa of the eanttored Sountstton, @2: respondent's letier te not being aemamledies Inasruch a ths consoatea of carresnontent's co-munteation ar ear to he of interest to the Food and Prus Atnintatrotion, @ co uv Of tts ow cunination ts *eing furnished t- ~‘et oe Bev © Anstetant Attorney Ceneral ¥Ellion Fe Tompkins Snctetsfl) Cy co - Boston (Enclosttt) New York rset re) Nor: Attachment to meno Mr, Belmont to Ur. Boardran, re same, dated 10-20-55, MIR: fmb | BS goutOffice Memorandum + onvrep states GOVERNMi. _ 7: DIRECTOR, FBI (105-11461)" pare; 10/25/55 [/fsow : SAC, NEW YORK (62-11591. . th. flow wg YORK ( ) ey susject: WILHELM REICH FOUNDATION + MM HISCELLANEOUS - INFORMATION CONCERNING fj ix (ESPIONAGE) : ake ReBulet to Boston, NY and Miami, 10/6/55, and Miami letter to Bureau and NY, 9/30/55. Referenced Bureau letter forwarded copies of two letters from Dr. MICHAEL SILVERT, 50 Grove St., NY, NY, dated 9/16 and 23/ and stated that no investigation is currently desired in con- uection with the allegations of impersonation violations describec vy the correspondent. Originals of these letters were directed to the NYO by Dr. MICHAEL SILVERT. Prior to receipt of Bureau letter, the following investi- @1Cion was conducted by the NYO: On 10/10/55, Dr. MICHAEL SILVERT, 50 Grove St., NYC, wes interviewed by SA concerning his allegations of impersonation violations, and receipt of his letters was acknowledged. He advised that the Orgone Institute Research Laboratory, of which he is the Treasurer and Bro" WILHELM REICH is the Director, is currently being investigated by the Food and Drug Administration, which is seeking to secure an injunction against the institute. He described as persons to whom F.D.A. representatives had described themselves as FBI agents a Miss LILLIAN OKST, Port Jefferson, NY, and Mr. EDWARD DUNN, 25 Pierrepont St., Brooklyn, NY. Miss LILLIAN OKST telzphonically contacted the NYO on 10/17/55, and advised that Dr. SILVERT had misrepresented the facts in relation to the visit of theF.D.A, representatives. She said that all such ~~ representatives had clearly identified themselves as being from the F.D.A., but she had identified-them in her mind as FBI agents because they were from the U.S. Government. She said that no F.D.A. representatives had referred to or,mentioned the FBI. No further action in this matter will be Wye HME meee 7 fae or OT cS co 6 ahAttorney's fis 4 em 10/7/55, I discussed the above-captioned subject with U, 5. ‘ Attorney Petor Mills of Portland along with Mr. Joveph McGuire, General / Council of the Pure Food and Drug Administration, Reich is the subject of an injunction’proceeding banning his shipment of « accumlator, Thi: of the U, called orgone energy # the subject of press release by the Attorney Gener:! pn 2/10/84, Reich is currently being brought up on a contempt proceeding becau the Bur ‘be has not followed the terms of an injunction and in this connection, ut has received various letters from Reich which we have acknowledged but which we have refor: \dministration for such action as the t ‘red directly to the Pure Food and Drog y caredjo take, jand believes that the communications contain some admissions against interes: the part of Reich and his associate, McGuire plans to make reference to R~ich's correspondence to the Bureau during the contempt proceeding provided fl » Bureau has no gbjections to bis doing 0. McGuire further stated if the carr ever does go to trial he will possibly want to utilise the originals of Reich's ecvrespandence to the Brremu althou, gh he bas mo need for the originals at this He asked totbe advised in. the next several days telephonically (Code 176, Eytoasion 3237) as te whether the Bureau has any objections to his making volar to correspondence which Reich has had with the Bureau and which we re! rred without acknowledgmect directly tu the Pure Food and Drug Adrainistration, Po : be: Joseph McGuire states he has the Photostate sent by the Bure: /matté? so that Joeopb McGuire can be informed as to whether or not any 3 f Oe nay lt ie recommended that the Investigative Division review the fila E ‘ yg exist why he should not make reference to this furretthardence in tke con! bes rppeeding which will be Leard one week frarathis Friday, nr Sincerely your Srotional Flagus Prevertion Office RECOR: <3 - 65 INDEXED - 65 Federel Court “ce iy Fortiand,COPY Ostover 22, 1955 The Honorable John D. Clifford : ‘Us Se District Court Court House nd, Yaine Dear Judge Clifford: As counsel for defense I wuld like to submit to you a sojution to the problem before the Court which I believe will be satisfactory to everybody ‘eoncerned- Careful study of the nature of the legal procedures of’ the complainant re- yeols the fact that the FDA achieved success eo far on an empty factual be~i by using skillfully most elaborate procedural techniques. “Should they fur:. succeed in this munnor, 1 would @s @ consequence land An jai) dnncooatly fco~ eontempt of court, duo to the fact that procedural mnouvering wos the eu7:, ‘based on no fects at alle Om the other hand, should I qusceed in bringing ny factual evidence into oourt and onto official protocol, there ean be little doubt that those would Jend in Jeil who have, as 1 have charged in open hearing, perpetrated ANegal misrepresentation of facts upon this Court. As a responsible professional oltisen I firmly bolieve that the truth mst at all cost seo tho light of dey, unmarrad by procedural ri_jemarol: As a physician at the sickbed of scolety, and as « scientist, I ax not interested in getting anyono into Jail, even if guilty of orime. I an oon- vinsed that jell 1s uo antiquated institution incpt to solve soolal proble~ except in keeping orininals (or wht the established lew adjudces as orimir today) out of social circulation. Although the FVA and those behind it whe we Oonspired to kill tho discovery of Life Buersy, uro out to kill ne ‘personan” too, I feel no such ambitions rezordin; ny enonies. Sot bo Ypity thei, out because it would not nooomplish anythin, usaful for s902 and a better handling ef bunan affairs in tho future upoa this eufferin: I therefore cubnit that the available evidence in the hands of both PDA an Orgone Institute be opened up for inspection in ,uolée heerin es furthermarr that the totel legal issue involved be handled publicly, as a mastor oxs-ipic of Sootel Pathology. It would be most Antorestin, to see how the form, conventional levalistic procedures would met with the new attempts in Sooial ‘opsychiatry to ctr: and settle human affairs in open court hearings. Dr. Silvert and I would then work in our professional capacity as scientific workers reprocenting the EPPO, tho " EMOTIONAL PLAGUE FRBVENTION o171cS." Mes deel 66 ENcrosua _+ ime goan ertadlicne ee tim a ts oe py. Aotivittes oa om mstel eoens “fe tantly eins 1 find wave te oosmsrast efitotenthy en € redder Lavt et ignt) I vies bas bycm temrad the Tinatioml Jlacug"s es ragorted in a rtef atalomat to Commas in 1682, tho Twarional Mee ie the eane eoinl teense, Welsh $6 bein, ovbded “Arrenile Daingndzy"s “arios®, ois of tr bie sly teller tet ever th conceineas and peor ” fon lepine of sroted cathilo-ye Taye tate Coet Wiithoree wtb Gite Be Wess. cuamane, ba afmitd . eoly moro of She legalistic ferns: SAewn! oc farted feat Yrush ow proctines by tue opzanenb, @ 578 Sf better she Coart Meliwe tot Slots barren ae euch Ge evervinty e2sde e- ate ervEly te mess tae * ffs le Gl arecoder “e represenes a prsinives scaistiy eet ue asheny weotea ly everile efated of Sesto fostial jroorture re harem onthce Lu nAiede Tie reoxvente tion gavuld be recanted, ta vsee of aomenteee by (eafeh & Ls apt oF Ua wepisteads tae cae Tee fearcd “ethoa would be £3104 eho) O07 fret ection te wot acrood 13 ty thn eorydeinest wo} > Teall sull yesr a: itoe pn . eduaeds, Rooc pe Ry dire mects3 te be intro wer be Sh this che fete o Byer ey et) ibe ant laze u u sores iar 34, Us{ I i | | i } ! ma ) MEHO, Cace Eng 1, (1055 and $003 before “Lrvt Dictrict Court, Mine) to produce factual evidence bofore the court to shor why sone basic Mrs octorn low procedures mst, be rostatad in ortor to prevent that truth and fact be continually prevented froz nnre"ring in court by the usd of misropresontation of fact, arbitrary rrocstural naneuvering, conccalnent of fact and outright lies canoufloged by allere? goverment representation. Mostatonent of Bacie Principles of Procedure in both zelonce and Jurisdiction 1. A defendsnt acting as his am counsel for the dofenco mist be treate. ar an equal in all respocts to the counsel for the couplaincnt, Me No defencont is considered guilty unlocs preven live nite 3. Evon the convicted dofondant has a right to decent, truthful treat: 4. Procedure mist servo the finding of factual truth end uuct not be cbused to entangle the defendants, their lawyers or the judge. 5. dur sont rust be based on factual evidence, never on opinion alone. 6, Jurisdiction ruct concider all sides of the exc” before he court, since the nain objective of procedure in court io .o aseortain the factual truth, widel: is periinont to the ears in questionsTO DISIS5 TS CASS AGATZST ORGONOY CUTLYIELY AND TT LACE TS CONT TOF COURT Cri Rut BY TNE RECOMMENDATION 10 ESTABLISH BOARDS OM SOCIAL PATMOLOGE" IN TI COURTS OF Diz U.S.A.) Vv 2269 Y desT EG STAR oll ROME YG eT EGO Lave. OTL Pigiieict the anentet information on cnerge of Content of Court Hoy 1000 presented by tAlhelm Neich es counsel for defense representing 2172 (notional ilegue Frevention Office), Tho »ilhelm foteh Foundation at the hearing before the District Court of tortlend, Maine, November 4th, 1055. I respectfully submit to this Gourt ny first motion to disnias the anonded informetion regerding the contenpt of court ckerge and to replace At dy the following recormendation by FiO, the “notional Ilorue irevent: Office of the recently formed Citi: Frofosstonal Comittos, Careful study of the nature of the legal procedures of the compleizant reveals the fact that the FDA achieved succe eo fer on an enpty factual basis, by using skillfully most elaborate procedural techniques, Shovld they furthor sveceed in this manner, I vould ao a conenjvonee lend io Jail innocently for contempt of court, due to the fect that procedural maneuvering won tho case, based on n0 facte at ell, On the other band, should I succeed in bringine my factual eviderce Anto court and onto officiel protocol, there can be little doubt that ‘those would lend in Jail who hevo, ae I have charged in opon hoor! perpotrated 12lege1 misreprecontation of fects upon this Sourt. Ap @ reepousible profersious] oitizeu I firmly believe tha: the truth must et all cost ses the linht of dey, vnmarred by procedural rigumrolc. ‘Ao ® physician at the sickbed of society, end aso scientist, I en not interested in getting anyone into Jail, even if th guilty of crise. I am convinced that jail 1p an antiqueted institution inept to solve cootelXY i “2 problewe, -xcept in keeping crininale (or rbrt the ostedliohad lei adgue: #6 orizinal today) out of social airovistion, Altnourh the Fis ard toe: behind it who have conspired to kill the @lecovery of Jife “narey, are ov HALL rs “ad gapeoune* 499, 1 feel no veh eoottionn remrdin= « gona : Tot because I pity then, det b 0 At vould not Keco“FIEsh enything Le Tul for society end a better handling of buman Affaire in the futere uro: tats suffering planet, in the harde of bath ine I therefore subcit that the available oviderc: { and Grpone Inntituts he opened up fer inayretion tr yNIie react p fers ' ‘thormore, that the total lesa] icave involved bo nanties publiclr, es o i Eeeter gxnnplo of Loaish isthology. 1t would ba most interesting to eos how the for:e), convartiorcl leral: tie procedures eoulé sit with the now attempts in .ocinl Loy Aetry t it study aud oattle huvw affairs tn fen court Pesctiery ore Aly ree ; Foulé then tork in our professional eepecity os eetertivie vorkers repre- senting the 22), the “HOTEL Paws 7 i AZi6 hae Neen eotodlichet gomn time ago to cope ith 7 patkola: eal sotivitioe ov ths aocial scene of emotionally cick iutividuele, ers to fing uaye t. counteract effieteatly one nettes! nn? ocurstional ve-in, thot Bee toon torre? the “aothonel Hieve"y en reacted dn © briot state rent to Copgcvco 4n 1952, The wotional P1sius te te % sonint which 1e being entlod “Juvenile Delinyuensy*,". rine’, ates of the Inv, : J firnly believe that this would be to the ere t advartera of cyszshody nr everything concerned; ané that our society would Ire¢ ones mro tn: etruggle for glerification of rattore of socjol rtholocy.“3 Ven afreic 1 bope t:is Court will agreo with tle prosedu:e; ottre we vould face only more of ths legalistic, formalistie entanglemct of URNA LD 9* prationd by tho opponent, 8 practice witch X daltows the dourt cinlikes ond firds Berren e. uch os everyboty «live rgoron (Stenod) Fitheln jaten, Ranvoley, Votre, Uh Counrel for the fetinse cetober 26, 1055 !‘fy ‘BEPO, Case Ho. 2 Case 1056 and 5003 before First District Court, Portland, Haine, 1954-194! \ ee HOTION by Counsol for Defense: To Dismézo Ancnded Infornotion 5003 on tho Ground of Tliow tdereprasen’ of Facts, I respectfully request and Move to be heard on factual evidence at tic hesring to be hold oveubor 4th, 1955, and to choy chat: 1. Tegal nisrepresentation in court of pertinent facts; 2. Teral concoalnent fron court of pertinent facts; 3. Tlopw) procedural mancuyering contrary to fact, truth and justice hur boon perpetrated upon your court, § 4n both Civil Action 1056 and the following Cririnal chugs 5003. ¢rconon seein veel) VAlheln 2oich, 14D. : engoley, \ainc, USA L Counsel for Defense i October 24, 1955 i POquotation From It. @ GUIDe 10 MODEM: “EGAL TRAC. by Frencis €, Marshall, 11.B., LL.2 w York, Wm, By Wise and Cos, Ince 1949, Fp. 42-44 What, Deceit and fraud, if not acted upon, or if not accompeniod by injury, BbinigTe2,, Pet eee wrongs. It te of the very eesonce of an ection deceit that the seme shall be accompanied by damace. In a euit for rescission of a contract for the purchase of lend upon the ground of & fraudulent oral misrepresentation of ao extsting moterial fact affecting the value of the lend, the fect about which the misrepresentation is meade met be one the true nature of which 1p not capable of being ascertained by the exercise of reasonable effort on the pert of the one to whom the misrepresentation is mado, Stokes et al. v. Victory Ind Go., 09 Fla. 759, quoted by Buford, J, in Stephens v, Coon, 177 Sos 191, Fla. 1937. a 9 the elements of fraud? That do the courts generally sey of fraud? ds a rile freud ie never presumed, We have said that the proof mst be elear, cogent, Gonvineing, positive, and sstisfectory. We have seid that the evidence of fraud mst preponderate to the degree of overconing ell posing evidence end rn 1B ¢ feith. There a transaction 1s fairly susceptible of two constructions the one which will free it of the imputation of fraud will be adopted. Likewise, when froud ie alleged, 1t must be proved and cannot bs inferred from facts consistent pith henesty of purpose. Boylees, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainaen ¥. Brom, 71 F. 2nd 742 Must there be damage in order for there to be fraud? Damage is en element of freud in the law. He only who hes trusted in and acted upon a falsehood to his injury can maintain en action of freud. Deception, which does not cause loss, is tot fraud in the legel sense. ! Allen, C.J, Record v, Rookester Trust Cos, 192 A. 127, K.He 1937 Is fraud ever presumed? Fraud ie never presused, but met de proved by clear end satisfactory evidence by the party absorting it, and if the facts and circunstances from which the alleged fraud is supposed to eriee mey reasouebly cozs: ‘with honest intentions, it will not be imputed, Allen v Riddle, 141 Ale, 621, quoted by Morgen, C.J. in Green v. Buick, 7 P. 2nd 85, Idaho 1937 Muy is fraud never prosuma? Fraud is never to be presupposed, but mst be established by convincing proo” py the greater weight of the evidence, as nen are presumed to be horest ena i their dealings with one another are assured to be Just and without tain: fae Byerly vs Byerly, 868 Ill. 517+ quoted by Riess, J. Beory v, Hurd, NE, 24 656, II1, 1038 i _ ee atr Fraud ia never rreruzed, but zust be prove by avch clear_ond convincing evidence as loaves the mind well satisfies thet tre mmc Tae relationshiz of the ;erties 1s rarely ace which ray eacite evepicion, tt will pot alone and of itnelf arount to proof of freud. Tinaty Jay *206ford Tounty Net. Renk of *1 1aeo v. Conklin, WES BAM, TIT. 1087 Fraud 19 0 corcluasen of law shich is based uron fete, This ip @lewstors. It cay mot be crerreé in general tere sith nny effi: the frete relfed uyer to conctitute fravd mat bs stated, nd wis inrerative rezutrexent. ‘he addition of the wore “fravfulent™ to an allegation, otherrive insufficient on ita face, will not reke out a case under the statrte. Brogen, C.3., Tererion of Cle 200 Ay 476, 229 1.961, 219, 1057 het ray a court sny of the netura of the ri erarrosertet: ‘Une considere ae frapeujent? shore © rerty represents @ :eteriel fect to be tne to Lis purse? kmow)<2ge a9 distingiahed from belief or opinion, when he doen not amow whether it ie true or not, and it is ectually untrun, he te ‘ond if the getually unten, EUilty of falsshond, aven 1f he believes 1¢ to ba om. statevant 18 thes rede with tho intention that 1t eal) be acted thaw tho upon by ansther, who does go at upon it to Bis injery, the recult 18 artionable fraud. Fochonter Bridge Co. vs Me Hindll, 169 Ind, 42%, 11s, cnoted d Foneler, J., 42 Yetroyoliten 1.1. Co. vs Seeraft, 1° bs... 24 3o2 Ind. 1955, ko further asia: Ut do the injury eeuree by thy risrepresentation of feet thet Jan protects egrinet. If the rdarepresentation cos brought mbout by it de just ag injurious os cr intes:toms2. 8 freud uyon th other con:reotirs, perty by intveing him to act upon 8 falas preuice, where he woul’ not Luve acted ha¢ he knows the trth, Thether it be cavaed by r gligence, or eetvel fravdvlent purzope, gone intention or bed, the result 1s the @omm. There 16 no meeting of the rinds, It was Zot nevercary for tha dury to fing ass fact, if there te misrepresentution of a material Mattor the law constructs the fraud,ce = ) did. pe O.-dul \het 13 « oonectrecy and shot are sonn of itn features? Conspiracy hes been defined as @ confederation of tuo or more persons to ecoceplish some unlawful purpose or @ lawful yorpose by some unlerfud tence of @ corapiracy mat bs proven, however, not only by @irect evidence but also by inference from conduct, stuiesests, doou-ante and facts and circumstances which disolore a cox‘ou decter on the yart of the ecouses persous and others to act together in purmuerce of a eo-roa erinin.? porsone, fhea @ consrirecy 1a extadlished every act or decleration of any of the consrirators in furtherance of the common purpose 15 regarded os an t binding all. All the steps by which the criss rus brought ebout, ineluct every act of euch of the conspirators in furtheronce of the aoxmon purpose, rey be ahown. s bAleon, J,, Feople ve Link, 6 NZ. 24 202, S65 11, 266, 1937 Io At necessary in a conaptrecy that there be a fory} earsn-ent be Be yertics? ee a In order to oonstitute @ couspirecy 18 1s not mecescary that there should be any forwal egroonert betxeen the parties concerned. It is enough that th: im a naturel purpose” to do the forbidden eat, thut there be a oomon dasig: that there is e*ooncurrence of sentinent and co-operative condust in en unlawfgl and crimtnal entor;riee, 012 erttled that @ forme] agreerent of the rarties conczrned ptial to the formation of a eomerirucy. it ts suffietent if thers bo concert of actior, all the jarties worzing tovstier undoretandizely with « ainglo design for the acconjlistzent of @ corona pursore.” Fowler v. U.5., B72Fs 15. valtdie, C.J., tate ¥, Kexp, O 4. 24 63, 126 Conn, 6), 1039 Hon 10 a conerirecy usually proved? An unlawful ocudination, like any other gubstoctive fect, cust be gntsbliched by sufficient evidence. ihe © it is dint and :oettiv, the Woation of ouffiotency fe aneveres. Tho jury nay then yees on the crefibility of the witne: Dat, when a ebarge of criss 1s sought to bo guetzined by olrcueutantiel evidence, the hyzothests of euilt elould Flow from tho facts end oircunstarces proved, end bs consistent zith the: ‘he evidence rust be such ne to exclude to @ mral certainty avery bysoti but that of gilt of the offense injuted, the fects and circensteneca meat not only be consistent with and point to the quilt of the eccuseé, but they wuot be inconolsvent with his inncaeuce, It fe the duty of the trial Judze, Qfter the evidence of the comonnealth ha: buen fully jroduesd, to coter.sine @ satter of law whether the Froof hus been sufficient in volume and quei!:: je overcoze the presunrtion of innocence, end thus put the Soovoed to a defir 465, quoted by Rhodes, J. in Com vs Ooldberc, 226 A, 559, 150 Ta, Duper, 252, 1050. etepe h, Cave 2089 x6 5003 before Firnt Metrict Tut, tortterd, ‘ot by Counsel fer Defense: - 1. Lgctont mecning of loral provision to "shor cous." ‘Tho obvious logical weaning of the provision in the ralovent atstute 19 to Give the one accused of continpt of court the opportunity to “leur hinsolf « the ohares ard not to de proceevted eny further if he suczecde “to chow an hy (tho Gofendant) should 27 bo punished for erintral contemt™. It requires @ Geoision shether to diectes the charge Gk to put the cu- fendent before e jury. The defendant, 1f successful in ehcwtng couse by fr tuel evidenos nby he should pot be held tn conter;t of court, 42 frost, if unsucevssful , be 1s put before the Jury. 2. Tho error from forreletion "Metoru) A) Tried." ‘A eseningly inaienificart word "AKC" wes intoryoleted botecn the sroviaior of the opportunity for the defendant to Wis Hiss LF of the oharae of cont of court Gh (LUZ "ALL") the further Jesal privilege to pravest hts eviders. a jury. 70 order that the defendant should be BuTH, freed by dientesal cf ob > ‘L evffor a trie) te n serious ermr of lenel foraletion, if rt The write an€ ordure ure required to be “Rawfvl"; 149,, truy and Jortenily goxrect to be leqiiy enforcible, (‘vidonce 1)‘Se The vonee vongs of the icprors The oonse,uence of this error vas serious, It entangled ant perclyzed the Bpode peor for sAlhols :eich sdritted to +ilheIn cptch that the following forsulette Ania lettor of votober 34 1950, was errone sve: (acters) Me.) LBALL AT MAT THES ALCO TWO Pidieh LOTI iS TO DIES edure ard reweral loryers, ‘r,t. Clair, the prospeativs coun: JUD AnEAKOE YOR A TRIAL DATS." (Evidence 2) ‘The vntortunate “ANT” nearly entangled the defondent further, Anoth orror follorad with the lorio follosin: the {1lorical rr=atee: ‘Tho len clerk of Judge Clifford hed informed ‘r. St, Gleir thst "étevicend” © “trial” instend of 728i" vould tox orned thy wey oor k Jucge vo sienios the case entizoly up-n gue evis ney presantod. Sule baste error of formistion was to be round apain 1n tho lester Dy the clerk of the court, Hrs Cox, to iiholm Patch of Setubar Qth, 19s, 1c forring of tho noarina on Novesber 4, 1069, Kith © trial to folJow mutorss’ (svtdonoe 3) sogoanoT9atIUNAI NO RUIIIIOT BO aiNABD PORTO NORA HINA AALIIITIZND. ODI OEIOENIRRORIOT OIRO OIRO NGRELKIIY 9 NOURSTORIIO AKI WRIT OPIATDAIRIDORIETY MANS IOI TIO FIT TIAN YaNACIBAAIOOOOTHTOIINA 4. Sorrestion of crrozy 3, thevefore, rove to replece in the formiction of the order the Kor?Oe 7) = whieh hi in the past procedures misleadingly connected the rords “L1.? with the word "TRIAL" , by the word OR", in order to fulfill the true meni. ‘ of the statutory opportunity offered to the one accused of eonterrt of cour ‘to show caves by factual evidence why the case should be Aismiosed. orgonon (Signed) Filholn Retoh, "sD. Rangeley, Maine, USA Counsel for Defei October 24, 1955 BETO .EVIDENCE I y IN THE UNITED STATS DISURICT COURT YOR YE DISTRICT OF MAINE 8 ‘UNITED SUAS OF AMERICA onDeR wo sxbe cause IN_OCRIMINAL CONTZNPT. . Rte: perce remartox fe Maine Corporstion, WILHELX walce, and MICHAEL SILVERT, Defendenta, Upon the information and application for orders to show cause sby The Fitheln Reich Foundation, a Maine Corporation, Wilhelm Refeh, and Michee) Silvert, should not be punished for criminal contempt filed in thie case by the United States Attorney for this District, 1¢ 1s this isth day of Tuly 1955, by the United States District Court for the District of Maine, ORDERED that the defendants, The Wilhelm Reich Foundation, a Yaine corporation, Filheln Reich, and Michael Silvert, appear personally before this Gourt at the United States Courthouse in the ost Office auiléing in Portland, Maine, on the twenty-sixth dey of July, 1955, at 1:50 Pak. 2.5.7. to show cause shy they should not be punished for criminal conterpt of the decree of injunction issued by this Court on March 19, 1964, arising out of Ateobedience of this injunction as charged in the aforesaid infornution ané application and it ie further ORDERED that 1f eaid Gefendants appear at the aforesaid tine and deny that they have disobeyed said injunction as charged, a trial date will thereupon be set by this Courts Dated: __Suly 15, 1955. fof _Jobn D. Clifford, Ire United States District Judge A true copy of original filed July 15, 1955 Attes! /0/ Morris Cox odd = Morris Cox, Clerkcorr xVID Oa 11 FAL? AUD DORR Counsellors at Law Jones D. St, Clair Dr. Wilhelm Reich Argone Inctitut Rangeley, Haine Dear Drs Reich: ‘Thank you for your lettor of Soptoxbor 29th 60 State Street, Boston ¢ October 5, 1955 I am informed by Judge Clifford's Law Clerk that you are to be re-erraigned under the amended indictment and that you, topether with ourselves, should be in Court on Monday, October 10th 8% 1:00 pam he to dismies end arrange for e trial dato. 121, &t that time, also present further motions Te could aleo vse this opportunity to discves with tho Court your thoughts roletive to your conducting @ portion of your defense, Very truly youre, (signed) Jemea D. St, Clair Temes D, St. Clair ExeLesti hen a - Hdéel- oy 2cory a BION TIT ky UNITAD STATES DICTRICT COURT Yor The District of kaine Offices of the Clerk Portland 6, Vajne Ovtober 20, 1955 Dr. Wilhelm Retoh Rangeley waine Dear Dr. Reich: Re: U.S. A. vs Tho #ilhelm Reich Foundation, ilhelm Reich and Michoel Stlvert ~ Criminal No. 5003 ‘This 12 to advise you that the date set by the Court for hearing on the Motion to Disniss the Information, and on all other motions which counsel desire to file has ‘deen changed from October 25 to November 4, 1055, at 1:30 P, Judge Clifford mede it olear in open court that he expected the partien to file anf be prepared to proceed with hoaring on any and all xotions which they intended to file, since he did not desire to delay trial because of motions filed from tims to tine, which required hearings. Ho bas also requested me to advise you that ali notions should be in writing and should bo filed at least five days before November 4, 1055, Vory truly yours, (signed) Yorris Cox W/on Morrie Cox, ClerkMotion by iad 2 Silvert, M.D. t Dierice wy by Food and Drug Adndnistration (¥uA) on Grounds of llega) Msrepresentation of Foote and I1legal Frocedural Manguvering, dmampnniZ2t1) the TOA, tn anower to intervention by Dr. Bilvert (Br. Baker ot Record Appsndix to Brief for Appellants) exomptod him froz the injunction (. f *Nevertholoss, since they were not parties to the originel proceeding, the: eotivity in the field of Orgonomy remeins unrestricted, even with regard to matters barred by the decree, so long as they act independently of the nanci @efendante", and again, ". the applicants do not have an absolute right +> intervens....hecausa the default decree is not and cannot be ree judicata = thon". This procedural mnouver enabled the FDA to get at liilhelm Reich, 7... “in personam” (4-128): "The original proceeding was an in personan action... Having got what they wanted, 1.0., the Seolation of UR by this procedury blocking of intervention by Dr, Silvert and 14 other physicians, thoy thon + around and charged Dr, Silvert with contempt of court for renoving books onu ‘orgone energy (OF) accumulators from Orgonon, Rangeley, Naine, In this he us freely with his full right as @ physician end officer of tho Orgone Institut Research Laboratories, Inc., specifically exempted by the FDA from the snjur nn without knowledge or consent of UR, who wan busy xith desert rannarch tr With thie i1legel procedural maneuver, they iguored their orn prior oxemptt: Dr. Silvert, which had served their end of FR's ioolation. On October 18th, 1055, in open court, Mr. Vaguire, FDA counsel, seid: "1 od in the sctence of orgonomy; the doctors are free to use and not inter in blocking intervention, the FUA saye (A~109): prescribe OK devices". Ye “sessetho plaintiff realleges....that OR, described by WR and statcd by hin et be capable of being collected and accumieted in en OR eccumiletor, do extat™, Vooumhile, alleged 7DA agents have colested patients of Dr. silver! other phyoieiane in the Now York eres, Floride and elsorhere, and at tinos & meres. gll-u i ) given the impression thet thoy wore FBI agente, with porer to feenso unless the pationt “cooperated” with thelr “investigation” of the OF eccumlator, an alleged FDA agent even visited the Bell Telephone Laborator: MEMMnewrer Oity to wake inquiries about Yhome ‘ancravi ti ee © research engineer, and to suggest that he was an und ‘who ie employs? * rable enployes > of hie association with a "Viennese doctor with a medical cure-all cabine:*. ux. Mangravite is Dr, Stlvort's technical assistant, Mise Cami2le Thrustou, employed by the Orgone Insti tute Pre: sooretary, was also visited by ell FDA agents, who inquired about financial and othur matters, By illegal =r: sentation of facts, alleged FDA agents heve induced tho Burcou of Truge ans Commotios of the Ner York City Department of Health to proeeeute Dr. Silvert Ya, Vongrevite for alleged refusal to permit inspection of premicos where to OR accumators an¢ other basic research material is stored. According to Dopertnent Supervisor Handelaran, "Ne are not interested in your exuitment; FDA aoked us to send 4 ran along." hus, ir, Maguire's statorent given aboy en illegal nisrepresentation of whet he is actually interested in accomplis, the killing, nothing less, of the discovery end knonledge of OR, Ue aleo sv. 4m open court thet he is not interested in WR's “reinraking", This, too, i: Bighly suspect, as he knows full well that Dr, Cilvert 1s an Gramur icet! > Control Operator in the New York erea, whe FDA egain and again employs the phrase, “interstate commerce” to ¢ the non-profit distribution by the OlsL of Ox sceu:wletors preceribed by th: phystotene whom the #Di themeslves exonpted from the injunction, “hic is misropresentation of fact and an abuse of a useful term, co that, like of useful terms which have been abused and so lost their original urefulness, | ‘threatens to become a “magic phrase", & were shidboleth, to consssl actual tion and the emptiness of their allegations, and the lack of jurisdiction t court and government over matters of basic natural scionce, cMehosl Silvert, Pe. © 0 Grove Street ow York 14, n.Ys|__ SOM. icklers:,% ‘rdmon im se mont Nichols Wocks Asatatont Attorney General (orig & 1) Kovenber 2, Warren . Olney IIT Director, FBI ae. Ney Q WILFEL REICH FOUNDATION MISCELLANLOUS = IKPORUATION CONCERNING (ESPIONAGE) Reference is nade to this Bureau's comnuntcatton dated June 24, 1955, sn tnetcnt ratter. Mr, Joseph MeQutre, Generel Counsel, Food and Drug Adnintstratton, has aduised this Surecu that he believes that comnuntcattons received by us fron various officials of the captioned Foundation which vere furnished to the Food and Drug Administration contain soxe adnisstons against interest on the port of Reich and hts associates. Ne atated that, tn conneotion with the current injunction against the Foundation, a hearing ie to be held on Vovenber €, 1955, with respect to an alleged coxtenpt on the part of ¥4IheIm Reich gnd the Foundation for violation of this injunction. Mr. NqQuire advised that he intends to make reference to these connustcotions during the contempt proceedings and, in the event of a trial, he new destre to utilize the originals of these dociments. This Fureau 18 advising Wr. Uccuire that we have no objection to hie contenplated use of the documenta which we furnishes to the Pood and Drug Admin tatration, This Bureau has furnished to the Food and Drug Adninistration copies of the following connunications sent to this Bureau by offictals of the Foundation: 1j A letter from the Orgone Institute Fress (signature tllegible) dated September 45, 1s: 2) A telegran from Dr. Hichoel Silvert dated 21988 June 16, 1955. ee at, fecoatsng ——S 3) A letter from Dr. Silvert dagedyiyng Bi5 1955. \ 4) A letter gron Bb. eptendonl6, 7 Bnotoyures (20) 5 ‘A cover menorandum from Belmont to Boardman was prapared by ipfz Jmm on 11-1-55 in connection with this outgoing--matl. MRivert dated Sopt, 4ae... in ’ Memorandum to Asststant Attorney Gencral Warren Glney IIT SIA dgiter JSrom Dr. Silvert dated. September 23, 6) A memorandun dated September 28, 1955, captioned "Dictated by Wilhelm Reich, 2. D." You have previously been furnished copies of all of the foregoing with the exception of the letter of September 15, 1954. A copy of thia letter ts enclosed, aa well aa a copy of our letter to the Commissioner, Food and Drug Adnintatratton, dated Septenber 24, 1954. Our files reflect that, in addition to the afore-mentioned communications, other letters and telegrar. from various offictals of the Foundation have been directed to me since the filing of the complaint secking a permanent injunction againat this organtzation. A copy of each of these communications described as Jollows ts enclosed: aa felegran Srom the Orgone Institute dated March 22, 1954. 2) A telegram fron the Orgone Institute dated Rarch 23, 19546 3) A telegran from "The ilheln Reich Foundation Ilse Ollendorf Clerk" dated sirch 30, 1954. 4) A telegram from “The William Reich Foundation McCullough Clerk" dated September 26, 1954. 5) A letter "To the High United States District Court Portland, Maine," from Willian Lotse dated vctober 11, 1954, & copy of which ww designated for ne. 6) A letter from “Wilheln Rich, H, D," to Ur. Charles Haydon with a copy designated for me. Tata letter ta undated, dut our copy was received on January 20, 1955