Florida Fluoride Is For Faucets - Not People!

FLORIDA FLUORIDE IS FOR FAUCETS - NOT PEOPLE!

WHY?

BECAUSE ATOM BOMB TOXICOLOGIST HODGE MADE FALSE FLUORIDE SAFETY PROMISES

In 1993, Darlene Sherrell and Martha Bevis (with the help of Florida Senator
Bob Graham) forced our own National Academy of Sciences to admit that EPA's
permissible level of fluoride can cause CRIPPLING skeletal fluorosis...

Since CRIPPLING skeletal fluorosis is rare, I've started wondering what
crippling skeletal fluorosis feels like BEFORE it becomes crippling...

PERHAPS it feels like the "variety of musculoskeletal and other health
ailments" - mentioned in The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson:

"[b]aby boomers who have ingested a lifetime of fluoridated water...may be
suffering a variety of musculoskeletal and other health ailments that can be
traced back to [atom bomb toxicologist Harold Hodge's] false promise that
fluoride in water was safe." [Bryson C. The Fluoride Deception. NY: Seven
Stories 2004:221]


I SAY AGAIN:

FLORIDA FLUORIDE IS FOR FAUCETS - NOT PEOPLE!

I say this because the 4th District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida
says it!

In 2001, Jesus F. Quiles sued the City of Boynton Beach, Florida for
performing a medical procedure - fluoridating his water...

Quiles lost the trial and appealed.

The 4th District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida wrote:

"The introduction of fluoride into the city's water is not a 'medical
procedure'...[T]he city...is not seeking to introduce the
mineral directly into Quiles's bloodstream...the city's fluoridation...stops
with Quiles's water faucet. The city is
NOT compelling him to drink it...."

"...[The city IS though compelling Quiles to - TG^^^] filter it, boil it,
distill it, mix it with purifying spirits, or purchase bottled drinking
water."

QUILES v. THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
CASE NO. 4D01-71
Opinion filed November 21, 2001 (emphases added)
http://www.4dca.org/Nov2001/11-21-01/4D01-71.pdf

^^^The Court wrote "He is free to filter it" - but the city is obviously
COMPELLING Quiles to PAY to filter his water (or boil it or distill it
or...)

The Court also wrote:

"...His freedom to choose not to ingest fluoride remains intact."

Nope. The City of Boynton Beach gave its residents the "free"dom to choose
to PAY EXTRA to choose not to ingest fluoride.

THE KICKER: The fluoride was neither intended for direct introduction into
bloodstreams nor for direct introduction into mouths! It's not a medical
procedure - the city's fluoridation effort stops with faucets, to paraphrase
the Court.

City of Boynton Beach fluoride was (and is) intended for FAUCETS!

FAUCETS, FAUCETS, FAUCETS!

JUST THINK...

UNDER THIS FLUORIDA 4th DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL DECISION...

If an unlicensed quack city prescribes medicine for all city FAUCETS, the
unlicensed quack city is not guilty of practicing medicine because it is
only practicing on FAUCETS not people and the city is not in every
resident's home *compelling* residents to take the medicine prescribed for
FAUCETS!

I think Fluorida's 4th District Court of Appeal is PRETENDING that the City
of Boynton Beach was prescribing only for faucets.

I think Fluorida's 4th District Court of Appeal is PRETENDING that the City
of Boynton Beach did not intend the fluoride for residents' mouths and
bloodstreams.

I think Fluorida's 4th District Court of Appeal was (like most of America)
deceived into being pro-fluoridation - was not aware of THE FLUORIDE
DECEPTION that has been going on for decades.

Now, fortunately, there is a book out by that name. I mentioned it above:
The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson [NY: Seven Stories 2004]...

Jesus F. Quiles was right. Fluoride is a toxin with adverse effects.

As alluded to above, thanks to the efforts of Darlene Sherrell and Martha
Bevis, our own National Academy of Sciences now indicates that the 3% of
Americans who
drink 5 liters of fluoridated water per day - in areas where water is 2ppm
fluoride - HALF EPA's permissible
fluoride level - may suffer CRIPPLING fluorosis in 10 years!

Some might protest, "But cities only use 1ppm fluoride..."

1ppm is a FOURTH of EPA's permissible fluoride level.

If HALF of EPA's permissible fluoride level (2ppm) can cause CRIPPLING
skeletal fluorosis in 10 years...

What can a FOURTH of that (1ppm) do in 40 years?

I wonder what skeletal fluorosis feels like BEFORE it becomes
crippling...

Again quoting Bryson [2004]:

"[b]aby boomers who have ingested a lifetime of fluoridated water...may be
suffering a variety of musculoskeletal and other health ailments that can be
traced back to [atom bomb toxicologist Harold Hodge's] false promise that
fluoride in water was safe." [The Fluoride Deception. NY: Seven Stories
2004:221]

REMEMBER: Up to 50% of children are suffering staining/mottling of their
teeth (dental fluorosis)...

What EXACTLY is happening in their bodies?

We don't know!

PREMATURE AGING?

"Researchers from Harvard University and the
National Institutes of Health knew in the 1960s
that fluoride disrupted collagen synthesis. It
was not until 1979-1981, however, that a new
flurry of research activity in this area began."
http://www.fluoridealert.org/aging-factor.htm

My thanks to Andy for the aging info just now.

THERE IS EVIDENCE OF OTHER RISKS...

For example, there is a CANCER risk that EPA tried to cover-up...

Dr. J. William Hirzy, one of the EPA scientists opposed to fluoridation
writes:

"EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water's chief toxicologist, Dr.
William Marcus...for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue (9).
The judge who heard the lawsuit...[found]...that EPA fired him over his
fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at
his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA..."
http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm

AND THERE IS POSSIBLE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM TOXICITY...

See Dr. Phyllis Mullenix's work discussed in The Fluoride Deception...

Mothers drinking fluoridated water during pregnancy may lower
the IQ of their babies...

See Fluoridated fetuses - lower IQ if moms drink fluoridated water?
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2662


The California Supreme Court wrote in the 1993 case of Daniel Thor v. The
Superior Court of Solano County 93 C.D.O.S. 5658:

"The common law has long recognized this principle: A physician who
performs any medical procedure without the patient's consent commits a
battery irrespective of the skill or care used." [Thor at 5659]

The CITY [Escondido] is committing MASS battery - involuntary mass
chemotherapy
("fluoridation")...

Mass battery committed against children is mass child abuse.


Now that The Fluoride Deception has been published, it is time to revisit
the issue of putting toxic waste in drinking water.

Here is the full text of Fluorida's QUILES decision...


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2001

JESUS F. QUILES,
Appellant,

v.

THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, a municipal corporation, and
GERALD BROENING, individually,
Appellees.

CASE NO. 4D01-71

Opinion filed November 21, 2001

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach
County; Timothy P. McCarthy, Judge; L.T. Case No. CL 00-7805-AD.

Douglas A. Balog, Melbourne, for appellant.

James A. Cherof, City Attorney, Michael D. Cirullo, Jr., Assistant City
Attorney, and Josias, Goren, Cherof, Doody & Ezrol, P.A., Fort Lauderdale,
for appellee The City of Boynton Beach, Florida, a municipal corporation.

GROSS, J.

Jesus F. Quiles appeals from a final order granting the City of Boynton
Beach's motion to dismiss with prejudice his claim seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief. Quiles alleges that by voting to add fluoride to its
potable water supply, the city violated his right to refuse medical
treatment under the United States and Florida Constitutions, thereby
exceeding its authority to enact such a measure. We affirm and write to
address the constitutional issue.

On January 26, 2000, the Boynton Beach City Commission held a public meeting
to consider the merits of fluoridating its water supply, and to hear input
from residents and other qualified individuals on the issue of fluoridation.
After taking testimony, reviewing documents, and posing questions to the
supporters and opponents of fluoridation in attendance, the commission voted
unanimously to fluoridate its water supply.

On August 11, 2000, Quiles filed suit against the city and its mayor
alleging that the fluoridation measure violated his constitutional rights
under the state and federal constitutions, and seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief to stop the city from fluoridating its water supply. On
September 5, 2000, the city filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a cause of action. The trial court ruled that the city had
the authority to add fluoride to its water supply, and that doing so did not
implicate Quiles's right to refuse medical treatment under Article I,
Section 23 of the Florida Constitution.

The Florida Constitution, as well as Florida law enacted pursuant to it,
gives municipalities broad "governmental, corporate, and proprietary powers
to enable them to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions
and render municipal services" and to "exercise any power for municipal
purposes." Art. VIII, § 2(b), Fla.Const.; § 166.021, Fla. Stat. (2000). In
defining the scope of a "municipal purpose," Florida courts have long held
that "[i]t is the duty of public authorities in municipalities to protect
the safety, the health and the general welfare of the citizens" and that
"[t]his duty involves sanitary and health regulations." Garvin v. Baker, 59
So. 2d 360, 364 (Fla. 1952). Such proper municipal health regulations
include the regulation of a municipality's waterworks. See State v. Tampa
Waterworks Co., 47 So. 358 (Fla. 1908). Ordinances regulating municipal
water treatment "are not expressly or by fair implication limited to the
establishment of a municipal plant." Id. at 361. In fact, adding fluoride to
the water supply of a municipality has been specifically upheld as a valid
exercise of a municipality's police power. See City Comm'n of Fort Pierce
v. State ex rel. Altenhoff, 143 So. 2d 879, 888-89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).

Quiles does not argue that the city is without authority to run its own
water treatment facility or regulate its own water supply. Nor does he
object to the city adding chlorine to its water supply. Quiles objects only
to the fluoridation of the water because he believes that fluoride has no
real health benefits and that it is not necessary to make the water potable
or fight serious disease; it is added to water merely as a prophylactic
measure to fight tooth decay. He argues, therefore, that to add fluoride to
the water supply is beyond the city's police power, and courts should apply
the highest standard of judicial review, strict scrutiny, to such a
decision.

Quiles contends that drinking fluoridated water can cause a host of adverse
health effects. Because of these adverse health effects, Quiles chooses not
to ingest fluoride. Being forced to consume fluoride through the city's
water supply,
Quiles asserts, amounts to "compulsory medication" that violates his right
to privacy set forth in Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution.

In arguing this position, Quiles relies on Singletary v. Costello, 665 So.
2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In Singletary, this court stated that a
competent person has the constitutional right to choose or refuse medical
treatment and that
right extends to all relevant decisions concerning one's health. Courts
overwhelmingly have held that a person may refuse or remove artificial life
support, whether supplying oxygen by a mechanical respirator or supplying
food and water through a feeding tube. Id. at 1104 (quoting In re
Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4, 11-12 (Fla. 1990)).

The right identified by this court in Singletary is not qualified "on the
basis of the denomination of a medical procedure as major or minor, ordinary
or extraordinary, life-prolonging, life-sustaining, or otherwise." Id.
(quoting Browning, 568 So. 2d at 11 n.6). Quiles argues that this court
should extend the holding of Singletary to require a compelling state
interest in order for the city to fluoridate its water. In doing so, Quiles
equates the fluoridation of city water to the complusory
medical treatment at issue in Browning and Singletary.

This case is distinguishable from Singletary and Browning. The introduction
of fluoride into the city's water is not a "medical procedure," as
contemplated by either this court in Singletary or the supreme court.
Browning, 568 So. 2d at 11 n.6.

Importantly, the city proposes to fluoridate the water before it enters each
household in the city; it is not seeking to introduce the mineral directly
into Quiles's bloodstream. Therefore, the city's fluoridation of its water
stops with Quiles's water faucet. The city is not compelling him to drink
it. He is free to filter it, boil it, distill it, mix it with purifying
spirits, or purchase bottled drinking water. His freedom to choose not to
ingest fluoride remains intact.

The cases upon which Quiles relies involve the state's power to physically
force "artificial lifesupport" directly into the body of an individual
claiming the right to refuse such treatment. Browning, 568 So. 2d at 11.
They involve highly
invasive procedures where the state sought to override a person's freedom to
choose. This is a far cry from the action taken by the city in this case.

Quiles argues that the city's power should be limited to protecting the
health of its citizens, and not merely improving it by preventing certain
conditions. We agree with the second district's analysis in Altenhoff:

[T]here is, in logic, a valid factual distinction between preserving health
on one hand and improving it on the other . . . . We do feel, however, that
it is a distinction which the courts should not be made to suffer in
arriving at a determination as to whether a particular public health measure
is or is not a reasonable or legitimate exercise of power to legislate in
the public interest on the state or local level. 143 So. 2d at 888 (emphasis
in original).

As long as a municipality is acting within its legal and constitutional
limitations, it is not the duty of the courts to judge the wisdom of a
municipality when adopting health measures, whether those measures act to
protect or improve the health of its citizens.

We agree with the second district in Altenhoff, and hold that the City of
Boynton Beach has home rule authority to fluoridate its water, and that the
decision to do so is neither an arbitrary nor unreasonable imposition on the
constitutional rights of its residents. 143 So. 2d at 888; see, e.g., Young
v. Bd. of Health of Somerville , 293 A.2d 164, 165 (N.J. 1972) ("courts
throughout the nation have been virtually unanimous in . . .upholding
fluoridation of drinking water as a valid public health measure whenever a
challenge has been presented"); Schuringa v. City of Chicago, 198 N.E.2d
326, 333-34 (Ill. 1964) (holding that a municipality has the power to
fluoridate its water which is "reasonably related to the common good" and
not "unreasonable or arbitrary"); Kraus v. City of Cleveland, 127 N.E.2d
609, 613 (Ohio 1955) (rejecting the arguments that fluoridation is an
infringement on individual rights and is mass medication).

The trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint is affirmed.

GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL THE DISPOSITION OF ANY TIMELY FILED MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Opinion filed November 21, 2001
http://www.4dca.org/Nov2001/11-21-01/4D01-71.pdf

The Supreme Court of Florida blithely rubberstamped the GROSS decision...

Supreme Court of Florida

FRIDAY, AUGUST 16, 2002

CASE NO.: SC02-217

Lower Tribunal No.: 4D01-71

JESUS F. QUILES vs. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH,

ETC., ET AL.

__________________________________________________ _________________

Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court on jurisdictional

briefs and portions of the record deemed necessary to reflect jurisdiction
under Article

V, Section 3(b), Florida Constitution, and the Court having determined that
it should

decline to accept jurisdiction, it is ordered that the Petition for Review
is denied.

No Motion for Rehearing will be entertained by the Court. See Fla. R. App.
P.

9.330(d).

ANSTEAD, C.J., and HARDING, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

A True Copy

Test:

bh

Served:

DOUGLAS A. BALOG

MICHAEL D. CIRULLO

JOSIAS GOREN

HON. MARILYN BEUTTENMULLER, CLERK

HON. TIMOTHY MCCARTHY, JUDGE

HON. DOROTHY H. WILKEN, CLERK
http://www.flcourts.org/sct/clerk/di...2/8/02-217.pdf






My thanks BTW to Quiles's attorney Douglas Balog, Esq. for recently calling
my attention to Quiles vs. City of Boynton Beach.



My comments are interspersed #####.

----- Original Message -----
From: Balog, Douglas
To: Todd Gastaldo
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:50 PM
Subject: Fluoridation as 'battery' (attn: Chris Bryson - and Atty Doug
Balog)


Todd,

I brought suit against the City of Boynton Beach, Florida (and their
Mayor) several years ago for violating a person's constitutional right of
privacy to be free from government interference in personal decisions by
adding artificial fluoride to the drinking water. The trial Judge threw it
out and let me appeal up to the 4th District Court of Appeal. You can read
the decision he http://www.4dca.org/Nov2001/11-21-01/4D01-71.pdf

Basically, the weakest link of that argument is what I lost on: there is
nobody holding a gun to your head and forcing you to drink fluoridated tap
water.

##### Douglas, forcing people to pay MORE for water - as their FAUCETS are
fluoridated makes no sense at all!

Sure it is inconvenient to buy bottled water or install a reverse osmosis
filter system, but unfortunately, inconvenience doesn't violate any statute
or break any law.

##### Hmmmmm... The City of Boynton, Florida fluoridates FAUCETS - not
intending the medication for mouths or blood streams - and no obvious fraud
is occuring?

#### As you once noted, Doug...
"There is a rebuttable presumption that all legislation is constitutional,
and "those challenging a statute must prove unconstitutionality beyond a
reasonable doubt...the rational basis test does not apply if the statute
'interferers [sic] with the free exercise of some fundamental personal right
or liberty.'"
http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000074.htm

#### The City of Boynton fluoridated FAUCETS - not intending the fluoride
for bloodstreams or mouths - and now residents of the City of Boynton CANNOT
freely exercise the fundamental right to drink water without toxic waste in
it!


Same thing with the "medication without consent" theory. Every time
someone drinks tap water, they are consenting to the ingestion of prescribed
levels of lead, arsenic, fluoride, mercury, etc.

##### Good word PRESCRIBED. The City of Boynton prescribed for FAUCETS -
not people - an obvious fraud - or so I say...

Those contaminants are allowed to be in or added to the water under the
Safe Drinking Water Act, which is publicly available. (see, e.g.,
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/ch6AschXIIpB.html) Thus, I believe
the "medication without consent" claim is without legal merit and cannot be
the basis for a lawsuit because the tap water was ingested voluntarily, and
the contaminants in it are publicly made known.

Battery is slightly different, and it is both a tort and a crime.
Criminal battery is the "application of force to another, resulting in
harmful or offensive contact." I simply don't see any application of force
by adding chemicals to the water supply.

#### I see PLENTY of force - CHEMICAL force. Hydrofluoric acid is thought
to do to enzyme systems ON A MOLECULAR LEVEL what it did to the hydrofluoric
acid workers who literally melted. See Bryson's book. Bryson doesn't call
fluoride "so muscular a chemical" for nothing! (See The Fluoride Deception
2004:xv.)

The tort of battery is defined as when someone intentionally caused
harmful contact, or offensive contact to the Plaintiff's person, or to some
logical extension of the Plaintiff's person without consent or other
privilege.

#### My post (forwarded below) mentioned a San Diego County (City of
Escondido) case. Here is what a San Diego County website says: "A battery
(Calif. Penal Code '243) is, essentially, the 'willful use of force or
violence upon another.' This means, any physical contact with another
person, to which that other person has not consented."
http://www.sandiegocriminaldefense.c...dbarttery.html

#### Maybe San Diego County is similar to Pinellas County, FL? 12% of
people in Pinellas County - according to a Pinellas County survey - OPPOSE
having the county put the toxic chemical fluoride into their drinking water.

#### Douglas, if I shoot a bullet through the air at you resulting in
MECHANICAL contact - it is a battery - but if I shoot a chemical at you
through your water supply resulting in CHEMICAL contact - you don't see any
force?! Not even on a molecular level? Sheesh!

#### Here is what you wrote in 1997:

"the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists fluoride between cyanide
and mercury, two toxic substances that the public would certainly never
tolerate to be purposely added to their water supply..."
http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000074.htm

Again, if you drink tap water, you are consenting to whatever is in there,
so long as it is below the maximum limits for contaminants published in the
Safe Drinking Water Act.

#### Since atom bomb toxicologist Hodge's false safe fluoride promise is
now exposed (thanks to Sherrell and Bevis and Florida Senator Graham - and
thanks to Drs. Mullenix, Hirzy, Coplan - sorry I can't mention everyone -
read The Fluoride Deception - it is time for courts to take The Fluoride
Deception in hand and look at not just fluoride but that Safe [sic] Drinking
Water Act too...

Best regards,

Douglas Balog, Esq.

##### READERS: It is STUPID for the City of Boynton Beach to prescribe
fluoride for FAUCETS - probably it was only a ruse used by Florida's 4th
District still unaware of the fluoride deception going on...
Pro-fluoridation propaganda is still quite heavy and it is likely that
judges are just as susceptible.

#### The California Supreme Court got it right in THOR. When a city
medicates with fluoride - even if the fluoride is good for people - it is a
BATTERY if the people don't consent - and (I might add) it's usually the
unlicensed practice of medicine to boot.

##### Here is the post to which Attorney Douglas Balog responded...

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Gastaldo ]
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 7:44 PM
To:
Cc: ; ;
; ;
; ;
; ;
; ;

Subject: Fluoridation as 'battery' (attn: Chris Bryson - and Atty Doug
Balog)


CHRISTOPHER BRYSON (The Fluoride Deception [2004])

Ever hear of the California Supreme Court's 1993 THOR decision?


Attorney DOUG BALOG (Fluoridation of Public Water Systems: Valid
Exercise of State Police Power or Constitutional Violation? [1997])
http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000074.htm

Great essay!



According to the California Supreme Court's 1993 THOR decision, failure
to obtain consent is "battery" - even a medical procedure is necessary!

See below.




ISN'T FLUORIDATION CHILD ABUSE?

OPEN LETTER (archived for global access; see below)

Attorney Kyle R. Nordrehaug
(State Bar #205975)
BLUMENTHAL & MARKHAM
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, California 92037
(858)551-1223
via David Markham

Kyle,

Shouldn't you be filing 11165PC Suspected Child Abuse Reports?

Shouldn't Judge Dana M. Sabraw IMMEDIATELY grant your public prayer "For
a
temporary and permanent injunction that enjoins the Defendant CITY
and/or
its agents and employees from injecting hydrofluorosilicic acid into the
Escondido drinking water supply at excessive levels"?

You wrote in your THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (Macy et al. v. City of
Escondido
et al.^^^):

"[T]he CITY has utterly failed to obtain the informed consent of those
individuals it now seeks to medicate with contaminated
Hydrofluorosilicic
acid. The requirement of obtaining a person's informed consent before
initiating treatment is an elementary requirement of the common
law..."^^^

The California Supreme Court wrote in the 1993 case of Daniel Thor v.
The
Superior Court of Solano County 93 C.D.O.S. 5658:

"The common law has long recognized this principle: A physician who
performs any medical procedure without the patient's consent commits a
battery irrespective of the skill or care used." [Thor at 5659]

The CITY [Escondido] is committing MASS battery - involuntary mass
chemotherapy
("fluoridation")...

Mass battery committed against children is mass child abuse.

Shouldn't you be filing 11165PC Suspected Child Abuse Reports?

Shouldn't Judge Dana M. Sabraw IMMEDIATELY grant your public prayer "For
a
temporary and permanent injunction that enjoins the Defendant CITY
and/or
its agents and employees from injecting hydrofluorosilicic acid into the
Escondido drinking water supply at excessive levels"?

(Isn't involuntary mass chemotherapy obviously illegal at ANY level?)

Please respond.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo



^^^SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
SHIRLEY MACY, an individual; PAUL
COSHOW, an individual; ROBIN WINTON,
an individual; SABRINA GESE, an
individual; OWEN MORRISON, an
individual; DOTTIE GLEN, an individual;
JOY ALSOBROOK, an individual; AL
MCGOWEN, an individual; JIM
PETERSEN, an individual, ROES 1 through
1,000, Inclusive, on behalf of themselves, on
behalf of the general public, and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF ESCONDIDO; STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1 through 100,
Inclusive,
Defendant.
CASE NO. GIN 015280
CLASS ACTION
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR (1)
DECLARATORY RELIEF AGAINST CITY
OF ESCONDIDO, (2) DECLARATORY
RELIEF AGAINST STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AND (3) INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
[Filed in accordance with Order of the Court
dated September 6, 2002]
Judge: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
Dept.: 24
K:\D\NBB\Citizens.Water\ESCONDIDO\p-complaint-3AMD.wpd
http://www.keepersofthewell.org/cour..._Complaint.pdf


For the complete post in which appeared the Open Letter to Attorney Kyle
Nordrehaug above...

See Isn't fluoridation child abuse?
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2655

No response yet from Attorney Kyle Nordrehaug; perhaps my email has not
yet been forwarded to him.

I just called his office. The secretary gave this address:


Hopefully Attorney Nordrehaug will file 11165PC (11166PC?) Suspected
Child Abuse Reports and ask Judge Sabraw to IMMEDIATELY stop the mass child
abuse.

Many people visiting Disneyland are likely opposed to having their water
doctored. Hopefully, Orange County Calif. (Disneyland) DA Tony Rackauckas
is asking a court to immediately stop injecting hydrofluorosilicic acid into
Disneyland drinking water. I will cc him again via
.

I will also again cc Oregon State Attorney General Hardy Meyers via
.

Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo



One last note:

Mass involuntary chemotherapy ("fluoridation") was begun in Pinellas
County inspite of a Pinellas County survey which found,

"12% were opposed...37% could not form an opinion on the issue."
http://pubgis.co.pinellas.fl.us/pcuw...tion/index.cfm

ASSUMPTION: Florida's Supreme Court agrees that the medical procedure
called injecting hydrofluorosilicic acid into drinking water to prevent
cavities is a battery if performed without consent - as is occurring in 12%
of Pinellas County residents surveyed.

ANYONE can report child abuse to Pinellas County Sheriff Everett Rice.
Reports from health professionals are MANDATORY if child abuse is suspected.

Sheriff Rice can be emailed via his Pinellas County Sheriff Child
Protection Investigation Division via


Hood River Mayor Paul Cummings is currently speaking in opposition to
fluoridation, according to Dr. Paul Connett's most recent Bulletin.

I will cc various Hood River addressees including Hood River Police
Chief Tony Dirks in hopes that they will forward
my email to the mayor.


This post will be archived for global access within 24 hours in the
Google usenet archive. Search http://groups.google.com for "Fluoridation as
'battery' (attn: Chris Bryson - and Atty Doug Balog)"





END Gastaldo's post which Quiles' attorney Douglas Balog, Esq. recently
responded to...

A few last notes...

CDC recently pulled the ol' "we're putting toxic waste in the
water because poor kids don't have dentists" gag with me...

Thankfully, Mike Coplan, PE offered me some key info...

See DOH! Is CDC's Homer Simpson creating violent kids? (Read Westendorf -
and Masters and Coplan)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2657


Someone from CDC also told me recently that EPA is concerned about fluoride
safety.

Excuse my French, but this is bull****. (My thanks to Christopher Bryson and
his info in The Fluoride Deception.)

EPA's maximum permissible level of fluoride - 4ppm - was arrived at because
EPA told South Carolina to bring its fluoride level down to EPA's PREVIOUS
maximum of 2.3ppm ...

South Carolina sued - so EPA simply raised the maximum permissible level to
4ppm!

There was a problem though: 4ppm causes staining/mottling of teeth ("dental
fluorosis") rather fast...

EPA AND "FUNKY" TEETH

When an EPA scientist told other EPA
scientists that he was "being forced to write into the regulation a
statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have
'funky' teeth"...

1500 EPA scientists and others came out opposed to fluoridation.

EPA still promotes fluoridation though.

What a crime - putting toxic waste in drinking water.

See EPA scientist Dr. J William Hirzy's article:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm

THOR is a California Supreme Court decision; so I'd like to see an end to
fluoridation in California prior to Prof. Connett's 1st Citizen's Conference
on Fluoride at the end of this month.

For conference details...

See The Disneyland DA and The Fluoride Deception...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2629

THE DISNEYLAND DA - and SCHROEDER...

Disneyland DA Tony Rackauckas's campaign manager was California Chiropractic
Association ("freedom of choice in healthcare") Honorary Member Michael
Schroeder, former chairman of the California Republican Party.

See ACLU to end fluoridation?
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2661

Disneyland DA Tony's spokeswoman - Deputy DA Susan Kang
Schroeder - is Attorney Michael Schroeder's wife.

Disneyland DA Tony is BIG on making tap water safe so mothers can give it to
their babies.

Why is Disneyland DA Tony dragging his feet on getting a known toxic waste
out of Disneyland's drinking water?

I'll cc him again at:

I'll also cc Oregon Attorney General Hardy Meyers at:


Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


This post will be archived for global access within 24 hours in the Google
usenet archive.

Search http://groups.google.com for "Florida Fluoride Is For Faucets - Not
People!"