Hallstead – Considerable excitement was created this week when a warrant for the arrest of 27 men employed on the D. L. & W.  cut-off operations, charging trespass, was sworn out by J. C. Florence and E. J. B. Roosa.  The hearing is set for September.  It seems that the D. L. & W. had taken legal steps to condemn lands of Mr. Florence and Mr. Roosa, but Mr. Florence disputes the right of the company to condemn his lands.  Later—The railroad’s corps of surveyors was arrested yesterday on a trespass charge by the same plaintiffs.

Forest Lake – Mrs. Mary Overton Brown, widow of the late William Brown, who died from the results of an accident fifteen years ago, died at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Edward Taylor, in this place, Sunday, July 11th, from injuries received in a runaway accident.  While descending the steep hill near Clarke Brands, the harness gave way causing the horse to run away.  Mrs. Brown was thrown out of the wagon and, with other injuries, her spine was broken. She was taken to the home of the Taylors, where everything was done to alleviate her suffering

Susquehanna – The extreme hard rain of last Thursday sent the Susquehanna river to high water mark and grass and crops were ruined along its banks.  Drinker Creek overflowed its banks and washed away the old Erie shop and filled the cellars along by the side of it.  At Smith’s shoe store the cellar was full and Mr. Smith lost about $1000.  The fire whistle was sounded for the men to get out and save property and try and take care of the water on Main street.

Montrose – The Beach Manufacturing Co., of this place, has received a telegram saying that their patented sawing machinery, on exhibition at the Panama-Pacific International Exposition, at San Francisco, had been awarded the gold medal. Also tt is hinted in official circles that the arrest of one autoist the first of the week, and fining him a ten-spot, is but a forerunner of other arrests where the speed limits are exceeded.  Numerous large signs have been placed on the main thoroughfares indicating the lawful rate of speed allowed and officers are eagerly watching for offenders.  Several narrow escapes from serious accidents have caused these precautions to be taken.  Fifteen miles per hour should be fast enough for even the most speedily inclined.

Harford – Rev. Mueller took twelve boys for a hike on Tuesday.  They visited the ruins of the old Harding sawmill, at South Harford, cooked their dinner of potatoes, bacon, etc., and arrived at Harford at 6 p.m., tired but happy.

Great Bend – Accidents are getting to be quite common at Trowbridge creek bridge, just below here.  On Sunday there was a head-on collision in which one car was smashed and on Monday afternoon another accident occurred, in which one car was put out of commission.  The bridge is rather narrow for two cars to pass safely while speeding.  The occupants escaped with slight bruises.  Also Friday afternoon, while on the river bridge between Hallstead and Great Bend, driving an automobile at fast speed to escape an approaching shower, the machine struck an obstruction and Jay Crandall, of Lestershire (formerly of New Milford), was fatally injured. Three others were also seriously injured.  The party had been fishing at Hallstead all Thursday night and part of Friday.

New Milford – The suggestion is made that the old Lackawanna roadbed be secured for a highway between New Milford and Scranton when the railroad company abandons it for the new cut-off.  The roadbed is wide, following easy grades and would make a splendid place for auto travel.  The wagon roads along that route are hilly and in some places rough and stony.  If the railroad could be obtained it would make a famous highway. [It is now “famous”  Route 11].

Springville – The ball team won a game from Brogan’s Tigers at Heart Lake on Monday, the latter getting only two hits off Overfield, and he got 21 strikeouts.  That sounds pretty good for Springville. AlsoAt the meeting of the school board and auditors, L. J. Drake was awarded the contract of hauling the scholars from Rosengrant district to the school here, and it was decided to continue the school at Lynn rather than bring those scholars to school here.

Kingsley – The winner of the baby contest at Greene’s Studio was Richard Masters, of this place. 

Forest City - F. J. Osgood is a candidate for County Commissioner and has lately purchased an automobile, which is worthy of emulation as a runner.  Mr. Osgood is the manager of the N. E. P. Telephone Co. and has a lot of friends who would like to see him land the nomination.

Middletown Twp. – The fast Middletown defeated Middletown Center, July 3rd in one of the series games.  The Middletown team played fast base ball.  Harry Jones twirled for the Center with Conboy catching.  John Coleman was on the mound for Middletown with Mart. Guiton behind the bat.  Fast fielding by F. Guiton and base running by F. Coleman and Watson featured.

Middletown expects to play Fairdale July 10, on the latter’s grounds.

Clifford/Dimock – On the afternoon of June 13, 1915, George Edward Chamberlin died at the home of his daughter, Mrs. Edward B. Williams, in Meshoppen, Pa.  Mr. Chamberlin was born in Clifford, January 8, 1841, and was the son of the late Pulaski W. Chamberlin and Eliza Brownell.  A Revolutionary ancestor, Moses Chamberlin, was one of the early settlers of Clifford.  He mastered the trade of a blacksmith, but when the Civil War began he enlisted Aug. 13, 1861 in the 4th Pennsylvania Reserve cavalry and participated in the battles of Culpepper, Bull Run and Malvern Hill, where he was wounded and never fully recovered from the injury.  At the close of the war he came to Dimock and followed his trade.  In 1873 he married Emma E. Titman, of Dimock and she survives her husband together with the following children: Mrs. Margaret B. Williams and Glen E., of Meshoppen and Pulaski W., of Niagara Falls, N. Y.

Jackson – The celebration on July 5th was a complete success.  Everyone present enjoyed an old-fashioned Fourth of July celebration with the fantastic parade in the afternoon.  Chicken dinner in the hall at noon at which 400 people were served, after which D. A. John Ferguson, of Susquehanna, gave an able address which was enjoyed by all.  The balance of the day was spent with games, contests and horse racing.  The South Gibson Band furnished music during the day.  Entertainment in the evening by local talent. Later, all who cared to stay enjoyed a quiet dance.  Jackson cannot be beat yet for a good, quiet, social time.

Franklin Forks – Heavy rain last Thursday caused hundreds of dollars-worth of damage to this place and vicinity.  The roads were getting in fine shape for all kinds of travel, but since the heavy rains they are badly washed out.  In Brookdale the worst flood for many years visited this place and vicinity last Thursday. Crops were destroyed, fences torn down and bridges washed out. 

Burnwood – Charles Ross was visited by burglars last week.  On hearing the burglar alarm he did not get up, having been fooled so many times by rats and mice.  It did not happen to be rats and mice this time.  In the morning Mr. Ross found that they had cut the burglar alarm and turned the irons from the door.  Hiss loss was not very great.  The burglars had taken a pair of shoes and a few things from the show case.

News Brief: Engineer Matthew H. Shay, aged 72 years, for many years one of the best known railroad men on the Erie, died at his home in Cleveland, O., on Friday.  For twelve years he had been secretary-treasurer of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.  He was a man true to his principles and faithful in performing his duties.  As a recognition of his services the Erie company named one of its engines, the largest and most powerful in the world, and which is now running on the Jefferson branch, near Susquehanna, the “Matt H. Shay.”

In both 2004 and 2013, at the request of readers, I provided some guidance on the law relating to same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania.  At that time, I noted that in 1996, Pennsylvania enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, which provided: “It is hereby declared to be the strong and long standing public policy of this Commonwealth that marriage shall be between one man and one woman.  A marriage between persons of the same sex which was entered into in another state of foreign jurisdiction, even if valid where entered into, shall be void in this Commonwealth.”  23 Pa. C.S. § 1704.

In the 2013 column, I noted that the United States Supreme Court had been hearing arguments on the constitutionality of such marriage defense statutes and stated: “If the proponents of same sex marriage convince the Supreme Court that the equal protection clause provides same sex couples with the right to be married under state law in the same manner as a man and a woman, then the Pennsylvania statute will be in constitutional trouble.”

After writing those columns, there was additional judicial movement on this issue.  Shortly after the 2013 column appeared in print, the ACLU filed a federal action specifically attacking Pennsylvania’s Defense of Marriage statute.  In May 2014, a federal district judge determined that Pennsylvania’s Defense of Marriage statute was unconstitutional as it violated the due process and equal protection clauses.  The Corbett Administration did not appeal that decision – and that effectively made same-sex marriage lawful in Pennsylvania.

The only thing that could have undercut the new legality of same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania would have been for the United States Supreme Court to determine that the due process and equal protection clauses did not provide same sex couples with the same opportunity for marriage as heterosexual couples.  In a recent 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court answered that question – and found that same-sex marriage was entitled to constitutional protections from state laws such as those here in Pennsylvania.

In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy answered the due process claim as follows: “The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone.  They arise, too, from better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.  Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here.  But when sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequences is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied.  Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek marriage in the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.” 

After determining that fundamental right to marry included the right to choose a same-sex union, Justice Kennedy then noted that treating the two kinds of marriages differently constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause: “Here the marriage laws . . . are essentially unequal: same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. . . .  And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry.”

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the 4 dissenting justices, accused the majority of engaging in judicial legislating: “[T]his Court is not a legislature.  Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. . . .  Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not.  The fundamental right to marry does not include the right to make a State change its definition of marriage.  And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational.  In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or retain the historical definition. . . .  Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none of their celebration.  But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening.”

In a separate scathing dissent, Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, went even further and called Justice Kennedy’s opinion a “decree” and that the Court itself had become a “threat to American democracy.”  Justice Scalia summarized the importance of the decision not in the recognition of same-sex marriage, but rather in the power of the Supreme Court itself: “Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of nine lawyers on the Supreme Court . . . .  This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

Please submit any questions, concerns, or comments to Susquehanna County District Attorney’s Office, P.O. Box 218, Montrose, Pennsylvania 18801 or at our website www.SusquehannaCounty-DA.org.

America was a country like no other. Every other country was organized around the theme of a common geographic location or ethnic/racial sub-division. But America was organized on the basis of a principal. Our “American Exceptionalism”--variously misunderstood, even by the current resident of The White House--rests upon the idea of Liberty. What is Liberty, but recognition that Man’s Natural Rights emanate not from government, but from The Creator. President Lincoln famously summarized our American Exceptionalism as: “conceived in Liberty, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” and this government, under God, is one “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Fast forward to 2015. Does it feel as though something has gone horribly wrong? Hold your answer while we shift the conversation to money. Yes, Money! Talk of Liberty is abstract; but Money is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. You see, those “green paper tickets” we variously call money, are, in reality, certificates of appreciation. In a free country these certificates circulate far and wide as individuals exchange goods and services in accordance with their needs and wishes.

So, assuming you have some certificates of appreciation, and that you came by them honestly, would it be fair to assume you might believe this money actually belongs to you, i.e., you have the freedom to decide how it is be used? I would, and I think most others would too. But what was once thought natural and obvious--that property ownership, real and personal, is a right of all free individuals--now seems an alien and odious principle to many, including our government.

While America slept our government was taken captive. Corporatists, collectivists, and statists were elected to office. Legions of their ideological ilk were carefully selected and insinuated into bureaucratic departments and regulatory agencies. Like locusts, they have--over time--stripped us of freedom’s heritage. Even now, they work tirelessly to impose total control, a.k.a. “totalitarianism” in all its forms and permutations. Evidence of this conclusion is obviously discernable from the fruits of the federal government’s labors since the turn of the century. Consider the government’s attitude toward those certificates of appreciation you earn on a periodic basis…

Exhibit 1: Denny Hastert. In early June 2015 news broke that the former Speaker of the House was facing felony charges. The name Denny Hastert might not be immediately recognizable, but he was second in the line of succession to the Presidency of the United States from 1999 to 2007. While the press focused on salacious rumors (which were not unfounded) that he had had at least one improper relationship with an under-age male student during his career as a high school wrestling coach between 1964 and 1980, he was charged with two crimes: (1) structuring withdrawals of his own money from bank accounts in amounts to avoid reporting to federal authorities; and (2) lying to an FBI agent about what he was doing with his own money.

I’m not kidding! He wasn’t charged with child molestation, presumably because either the statute of limitations had passed or a legally sufficient case couldn’t be proven. Former Speaker Hastert was identified as the victim of a blackmail scheme, the reason for which he was withdrawing money from his own bank account. The blackmailer was never charged with a crime and no indication is forthcoming that such charges will be brought.

Denny Hastert had been making large withdrawals from his bank account; we’re talking tens of thousands of dollars here. Bank employees promptly took note of their customer’s large withdrawals and required him to fill out federal banking documents as the government is naturally suspicious of any person making large bank transactions. He and bank officials complied with the law and everything was kosher; so far so good.

But Mr. Hastert was apparently nervous about making further large withdrawals because of the federal records being created with each transaction. Henceforth, he decided to make smaller withdrawals, i.e., amounts of under $10,000 each time, so as not to draw attention to his transactions, and not have to complete Currency Transaction Reports. Not surprisingly, bank employees grew suspicious and at some point made their suspicions known to federal authorities.

Remember now, Mr. Hastert was not stealing from the public trough; he was not embezzling funds; he was not robbing banks; he was withdrawing money from his own bank account, in amounts insufficient to trigger federal reporting requirements. FBI agents appeared at Mr. Hastert’s doorstep in December 2014, and presumably with copies of his bank records in their hands inquired as to just what the former Speaker was doing with all that money--his money.

Mr. Hastert, as any attorney would have advised him, would have been wise to exercise his Fifth Amendment right and call his attorney. Instead, he replied to the effect that he “was keeping the money at home because he didn’t trust banks.” Lying to an FBI agent is a crime by the way, a felony. It’s a crime for you to lie to the government, but not a crime for the government to lie to you. Go figure! As a side note, under federal rules of procedure anything you say “can be used against you in a court of law,” but nothing you say to law enforcement can be admitted as exculpatory evidence because it is only “hearsay.”

Back to the cash withdrawals; Denny Hastert complied with the law by completing Currency Transaction Reports for withdrawals over $10,000. His “crime” was “structuring withdrawals” of his own money in amounts insufficient to trigger reporting on federal banking forms? By the way, reporting of currency transactions at a certain level was originally instituted as part of the war on drugs.

So why is the case of Denny Hastert important? Perhaps we are not as free as we think. Do our certificates of appreciation truly belong to us, or do they belong primarily to the collective (government), with our use of them only by government acquiescence or even explicit approval? If government has first claim on our “certificates” what does that lead us to conclude about our right to hold and make use of property? If the collective’s property interest in our individual “certificates” is such that arbitrary and capricious controls can be imposed to the detriment of our own autonomous authority, does it not lead to conceptualization of the ideology, “the greatest good for the greatest number?” If “certificates” are to be used according to such an ideology, does it not lead one to conclude that only a centralized authority can make such “informed decisions?” If such informed decisions are necessitated for matters of national or even global governance, does it not follow that all other property rights must be subordinated to centralized authority for a sustainable future?

For anyone not following this line of logic, consider Example 2: a small European country with a Mediterranean climate, a heritage of democracy, and a formerly first-world standard of living is teetering on the knife’s edge of collapse. Greece has been suffering under a program of “austerity” since at least 2010. It has had innumerable bail-outs from the European Union, but all to no avail. A proper narrative of the Greek catastrophe could easily take several columns, but just consider the money (certificates of appreciation) issue we’ve been discussing in this column.

Like Denny Hastert, Greeks are interested in making withdrawals of “certificates” from their bank accounts. Greeks are feeling considerable frustration withdrawing their own certificates. Banks, it was announced, would be closed for at least a week, and withdrawals could be made only by ATM, but limited to the equivalent of $68 a day. Would that put a crimp in your lifestyle, if you could only access $68 a day from your account (after standing in line 3 to 12 hours)?

It gets worse! As I write this, announcement has been made that access to “certificates” has been further restricted. Bank customers will be allowed to withdraw as much as money as they like--so long as it totals no more than the equivalent of $100 PER MONTH! I’m sure that would impose a serious hardship on every single reader! Perhaps now you see the implications of the questions I’ve been asking.

Greece is a preview of our future. Some will object that our situation is nothing like that of Greece. Greece, after all, doesn’t have a printing press, i.e., it cannot create its own money because of its membership in the European Union. While that’s true, parameters relating to debt levels and the very real weakness of America’s economic status will become apparent in the coming years, if not months. Where Greece is, so shall we be one day--unless our country’s course is radically altered. On the present course we are piling up debt, every moment, every day, year in and year out. It’s debt that will not and cannot be paid back. Every sentient person knows that truth. Our national debt stands at over 18 Trillion Dollars; our unfounded liabilities under any rational system of accounting far exceed 200 Trillion Dollars; the derivatives our “leaders” have obligated us and our progeny to are somewhere in the ballpark of 2 QUADRILLION DOLLARS. Any questions?

A final note for any skeptics in the readership; after the 2008-2009 financial crisis, banking regulators from the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) and BOE (Bank of England) composed a plan how to plan for “an orderly resolution process for globally active, systemically important, financial institutions.” The plan, dated 10 December 2012, is readily accessible, but largely unread by the public, online. Financial geeks who comprehend the plan should be chilled to the bone by what they read. We don’t have to worry about “bailing-out” the big banks next time; the planning has already been done to do a “bail-in”--depositors, at least some of them, will be paying for the failures when they can be papered over no longer. Understand that when you make a deposit at your bank those funds are legally transferred to the bank’s ownership; your legal position is that of an “unsecured creditor.”

But don’t worry; in a financial crisis I’m sure that as an unsecured creditor you’ll be able to get your certificates of appreciation back. I just couldn’t say when, in what amounts it would be rationed to you; and what its purchasing power would be by the time it reached your hand. While America slept our financial vitality slipped away. A façade of strength, dominance, and invincibility still mesmerizes most Americans, but the Chinese, Russians, and informed class know better. Now-better-informed readers may wish to consider steps prudent to orderly preparation for time when a sleeping America awakens to disorder. The “Masters of the Universe” are already talking about our brave new tomorrow, one that is “cashless”--for our convenience, of course.

Can a patient get sick from reading the package insert?

You have seen this before. A TV ad for a new medication promises to change one’s life for the better. But, you hear at the end of the commercial the guy who talks real fast, spitting out the side effects that the company’s legal department mandates. “Wait? Did I hear that the drug may cause internal bleeding, cerebral hemorrhaging or sudden death?” You now question whether to take the medication prescribed by your doctor. Can you live without it or will the drug itself be your demise?

Studies have shown that whether or not a person takes a certain drug can depend on the list of side effects featured in the package insert or by the information given to the patient by the physician or pharmacist. Such side effects, often scary but legally required by the drug manufacturer, can cause the patient to actually experience the side effects. This is known as the “nocebo effect.” The package insert says that you may experience depression while taking a certain medication. By golly, did you get down in the dumps. The doctor said to watch for stomach problems. Gee, didn’t you get a heck of a bellyache!

Nocebo effects are the opposite of placebo effects. In a placebo-controlled study, half of those in the study receive the real drug, while the other half gets the “sugar pill.” In this way, researchers can see not only whether the drug works, but also what kind of side effects it produces. On the other hand, a nocebo effect is the result of a patient being warned or cautioned about a side effect and then that patient experiences it. This happens routinely in the part of the patient population who receives the sugar pill, and is caused by the power of suggestion.

So what is the upshot? Both doctors and pharmacists must be cautious when communicating possible side effects to patients who may overreact or misinterpret the likelihood of adverse reactions told to you or stated in the reading materials given to the patient. If a package insert says that 1% of people on the drug were later diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, can this happen to you? As the weatherman says there is a 1% chance of rain – meaning the possibility of rain is remote – the odds of you getting pancreatic cancer from a drug are nil, and those people who did get it may have had other factors contributing to their cancer diagnosis.

On the other hand, if the medication can interact with milk or grapefruit juice, the patient should be counseled because there is firm evidence that those foods may render the medication ineffective. Take all such warnings with the proverbial grain of salt unless otherwise emphasized by your health care professional. If a drug can affect your liver, ask your doctor about getting liver function blood tests done. Ask if other blood work is necessary while you are taking the medication as well.

However, do not dismiss any symptoms you may experience after taking a medication. Surely, severe dizziness is a sign about which you should notify your doctor or pharmacist. Extreme loss of balance can cause falls. Bruising is another sign that perhaps the dose of the drug should be adjusted. Relay this to your health care professional.

Medications have more benefits than risks. And while it is prudent to be watchful about any changes in your body, for the most part, you will not suffer the severe side effects listed in the package insert. 

Ron Gasbarro, PharmD is a registered pharmacist, medical writer, and principal at Rx-Press.com. Write him with any ideas or comments at ron@rx-press.com.