Uniondale – D. B. Gibson has run his Ford automobile over 3,000 miles without having any tire trouble whatsoever. Also John E. Thomas is furnishing Hotel Casey, Scranton, with eggs.

Harford – Prof. J. A. Sophia is very low at this writing and no hopes are entertained for his recovery.

Kingsley – Kingsley reminds one somewhat of a “deserted village” since the completion of the new railroad, which is about a quarter of a mile from the old D. L. &. W. Railroad. Both the old station and milk creamery being closed and new ones built some distance away and in Brooklyn township, instead of in Harford, as formerly. Also Smoke was seen coming from a small building across the street from the home of Mrs. Julia Moyer on Saturday morning. She called her sons and they hurried and burst open the door of the building, which was used by G. W. B. Tiffany, merchant, as a storeroom and found the inside of the building in flames. In a very few minutes 50 or more men had arrived and immediately demolished a shed that stood between Mr. Tiffany’s store and the burning building. This prevented the fire from getting to any other building near it, the bucket brigade keeping the nearby building covered with water. Mr. Tiffany’s loss will be heavy, as the burned building contained a large supply of general merchandise. Origin of the fire is unknown.

Clifford – Rehrig Yarns, living near Elkdale, while here one day last week on business, in cranking his automobile, it kicked on him and broke on bone near the wrist and put the other out of joint. Bad as a kicking horse. Also the high wind early on Friday morning almost reached the velocity of a hurricane. Ord Morgan and family were unceremoniously surprised and drenched just before rising, as the wind took the roof from their house. Luckily, no one was hurt.

Hopbottom – The late Alonzo E. Bell bequeathed the use of $4000 for ten years to the Universalist church of this place, of which he was a loyal member for over fifty years.

Montrose – A particularly unfortunate accident occurred last Saturday when Miss Agnes Casey, the 15 year-old daughter of Mr. and Mrs. John Casey, was accidentally shot, a bullet from a 22-calibre rifle passing entirely through one of her lower limbs and lodging in the other, making a most painful wound. Dr. Gardner attended the patient, and a probe resulted in locating the bullet. The patient suffered from loss of blood and is still very weak, but is doing well as could be expected. She had a close call and that the shot did not prove fatal is a source of rejoicing among her many friends. Master Charles Flanagan, a neighboring school boy, had borrowed a rifle for the afternoon and was in the Post yard, just across the street from the Casey home when the gun, for some unknown reason, went off, the bullet striking the young lady as stated. The young man was extremely sorrowful when he learned that Miss Casey had been injured.

Alford, Harford Twp. – The building erected a few years ago, by H. L. Hubbard, and which has been used as a dining hall since that time, for passengers on the rail line, will now be reopened as a sanitarium, an advertisement relative to some appearing in another column of today’s Democrat. The change in the Lackawanna line rendered the building useless for the purpose for which it was built, which would mean a considerable loss of Mr. Hubbard, did he not convert it to some other activity.

Harford – E. J. Whitney has lately erected a number of handsome monuments in the local cemeteries. Among them are monuments in the John Alworth, Warren Jones and John H. Claflin plots, and also one in the Dr. John Harding plot, in the South Harford Cemetery.

Binghamton – Paderewski, the famous Polish pianist, will give a concert at this place, Saturday night.

Flynn, Middletown Twp. - Edward Kelly and Miss Margaret Keenan, two of our most popular young people, were married on Thursday last, in Friendsville. After a brief visit in the Parlor City they will be at home to their many friends, at Mr. Kelly’s fine residence in this place.

West Auburn – The Grangers, Ladies’ Aid and other friends of John W. Sterling, who was so long in the Packer hospital, will make him a wood-bee on Nov. 30. Dinner will be served in the church parlors.

Springville – In the “baby contest” at Lee Bros.’ store, on Saturday, Dr. Diller’s baby won first prize, with over 100,000 votes.

New Milford – Fred W. Dean has a force of six men, for the past six weeks, buying up and packing winter apples. He tells us there is lots of fine fruit in Wyoming county and has already loaded 12 cars, all of which he has shipped to South Dakota, going to one purchaser. Upon receipt of the first car load the South Dakota purchaser wired him to ship all the apples of the same grade that he could spare. Mr. Dean gets his pay for the apples on delivery at the car.

Students at Mansfield – Among the many Susquehanna county students who have attended Mansfield Normal school in various years, the enrollment has doubtless never been larger than the present year. The following are registered at the school now: Clarence E. and Wendell H. Phillips, Alden Taylor, Hopbottom; Jessie C. Wilmarth, Helen Weir, Ruth B. Stone, Ruth Potter, Thompson; Eldridge H. Shoup, Laura Sterling, Verna C. Tingley, Kingsley; Laura E. Wells, Uniondale; Olin L. Mittan, Lenoxville; Gertrude A. Stevens, Dundaff; Gladys L. Tiffany, Hallstead.

The Trial for the Murder of Jackson Pepper – In the case of Commonwealth vs. Shew, the defendant was unable to secure the service of an attorney and the court, at the last term, appointed Geo. P. Little and B. O. Camp to defend him, and the trial was begun on Monday. The jury was sworn in and the list of Commonwealth witnesses in this case, and their evidence, is substantially the same as in the cases of James Eagan-Smith, tried last week. There is considerable interest in the trial, but the interest centers more on the outcome than in the details. The chief variation between Eagan’s and Shew’s trials is in the confession. Shew’s Confession. He said (as Eagan also said) that Susie Graham planned the trip to Rush to rob Jackson Pepper; but he further said that Eagan struck the blows that laid Pepper low; that he (Shew) took no part in the assault until after Eagan had struck Pepper, knocking him down and he was struggling to his feet to give battle when he (Shew) took hold of Pepper and helped hold him down, and helped to bind him. Frank Bennett, of Susquehanna, testified to having sold to Shew, a short time before the murder, a revolver. The defendant, Shew, is a native of Gibson, Susquehanna county, and has a number of relatives in that and surrounding townships, including a sister at Starrucca, but they seem to have cast him off. It is rumored his lawyers will make the plea of insanity their defense, alleging that he was injured when a child and that his broken nose was one of the results of the injury, and a weakened mind, another. Shew was the only witness placed on the stand by the defense. He said that D. A. Ainey had induced him to make a confession, but did not state what the inducement was. Then Fitch Leonard testified that he was present all the time and that Mr. Ainey made no promises or threats. D. A. Ainey also testified that he made no threats or promises to Shew. His attorneys concluded not to introduce a plea of insanity as a defense. Geo. P. Little opened his address to the jury in behalf of the prisoner, stating in opening that he and Mr. Camp are here defending the accused at request of the court (without reward or payment) and through sympathy with a fellow being in need of help. Spoke feelingly of the effect of the home and home life upon persons for good, stating that this boy here has not had the benefit of this influence, being practically homeless and friendless. To be continued next week.

The above article is a murder mystery that took place in 1898 in Rush Twp., Susquehanna County, brought to you in conjunction with “Susquehanna County Reads” program.

Last week, I got the chance to go to talk to several high school classes about the criminal justice system.  It was a civics class and the students had been learning about different constitutional rights.  We discussed the intersection between those constitutional rights and the criminal justice system and just how often issues surrounding those constitutional rights arise.  The students asked some great questions – and one recurring question dealt with the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.  The questions were similar to those that we often encounter when selecting a jury for a criminal trial – so it provides good material for a column.

Can the Commonwealth call the criminal defendant as a witness?  When we were talking about the evidence that a prosecutor presents, the obvious question would be whether the Commonwealth could put the defendant on the stand.  The simple answer is no – that kind of behavior goes right to the heart of the 5th Amendment which protects people from compelled self-incrimination by the government.  If a person does not wish to testify, they cannot be compelled to do so.

Can the Commonwealth call the defendant up to the stand and make them assert their Fifth Amendment right?  This is not allowed either as it would create an impermissible inference in the minds of the jurors that the defendant was refusing to testify because he or she had something to hide

When a jury is selected in a criminal trial, one of the standard juror questions is whether the juror can follow the law that no negative inferences can be taken from a defendant’s decision not to testify.  It is fairly common for jurors to opine that if they were accused of something that they did not do, they would not sit silent.  Many of the students had a similar reaction – they would want to proclaim their innocence.  Prospective jurors are instructed extensively on the Fifth Amendment right and the court must assure that each juror understands that a defendant’s silence cannot be held against him.

Likewise, the Commonwealth generally must avoid commenting upon a defendant’s silence.  A prosecutor cannot reference the defendant’s refusal to testify unless the defendant somehow brings it into the trial.  Investigating police officers have to be instructed to avoid mentioning that the defendant refused to talk with them as this can also be perceived as an impermissible comment upon a defendant’s decision to exercise his right to remain silent.  A police officer cannot reference the defendant’s silence unless the defense attorney brings it up during the questioning – which rarely occurs.

The more difficult question is whether the police can comment upon a defendant who was cooperating and talking with the police – and then opted to stop talking.  This is not an uncommon occurrence and the courts have differing opinions on whether the police officer can comment upon the defendant’s decision to stop talking.

Obviously, in presenting the evidence, the jurors would be left with many questions if the investigator was describing an interview that abruptly ended without any explanation.  The jurors might be wondering why the investigator did not ask more questions – or look for more answers – and that could lead to the conclusion that the investigator did not do a very good job.  Some courts have concluded that where a defendant decides to start talking, then the police are allowed to describe the entire conversation including describing how the conversation ended, i.e., the defendant did not want to continue the interview.  These cases recognize that a defendant has not asserted a right to remain silent exactly because the defendant did not remain silent when initially interviewed by the police. 

Other courts have reached the opposite conclusion and found that any mention of a defendant’s silence – regardless of when it occurs – violates the right against self-incrimination.  The prosecution is then left with a difficult evidentiary decision.  If the officer testifies that an interview of the defendant occurred, but cannot address why some questions were not answered, it leaves the impression with the jury that the officer failed to ask the most important questions.  If the officer simply does not testify regarding any interview, the jurors are then wondering why the officer did not attempt to interview the defendant to get his side of the story. 

The right against self-incrimination is widely recognized as one of our bedrock constitutional protections – but its real world application can create interesting questions and scenarios.

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.

The only “legitimate and true object of government “is to protect natural rights, so said the venerable American thinker Lysander Spooner. I agree with his thesis, but acknowledge that it was not the mainstream view during his lifetime and it is most certainly hardly understood, let alone accepted, today.

While America slept she was enslaved through a “divide and conquer” strategy. Today individual Americans are alternatively—or simultaneously—bribed and plundered into compliance and subjugation. Every person, whether seeing some advantage to live by the sweat of someone else’s brow—or not—is compelled to surrender freedom for the “benevolent” security proffered by government. Freedom from government is not a choice. One cannot opt out of government’s grasp, for government is ubiquitous in every area of every American’s life. Outside the color of law, no one in America may drive a car, own property, get married, possess a firearm, work, open a bank account, or draw retirement. Is this really the government envisioned by those patriots who took up arms to throw off the yoke of British tyranny?

Because of government’s very pervasiveness each individual has decreasing control over his or her own life. Government claims for itself a monopoly of coercion within its geographic boundaries. Witness how the United States Government and the liberal western democracies of Europe have used that power. They have opened the flood-gates to bring in people both legally and illegally. Liberal governments are importing people dedicated to a illiberal view of culture and with a focused interest in making their new home culturally identical to the country they just left.

Witness France. Since at least the early 1960’s France has been busily engaged in the business of importing Muslims. Muslims now make up some 8% to 10% of the French population, even while the vast majority of them cannot and will never be able to integrate into the French economy and culture. The rest of Western Europe is largely following France in this suicidal quest. Notably, Muhammad is now the most popular name in Norway and Sweden. Much of Belgium is a Muslim ghetto, effectively unsafe for and off-limits to native Belgians, including first responders and civil authority.

France is now reaping the whirlwind; the same one we reaped on 9-11-01 when 19 Muslims, 15 of which were from Saudi Arabia, inflicted more casualties on America than the entire Japanese Naval Air Force did at Pearl Harbor in 1941. What followed from our national nightmare was the 9-11 Commission and its end-product “The 9-11 Commission Report.” That Report issued specific recommendations for taking control of borders and instituting strong immigration controls. Yet incredibly, the Federal Government instituted virtually none of the Commission’s recommendations, and instead embarked on an irresponsible path which end we can logically deduce as producing nothing other than national suicide.

Now national suicide does not mean that the geographic land mass of America will no longer exist, but it does mean a conceivably crippled and deformed America could descend into civil war while withering and morphing into mutually exclusive regions of barbarism and totalitarianism. Barbarian America I can’t even begin to imagine, but we do have a preview of what Totalitarian America may look like: Communist China.

According to recent news reports, Communist China has devised a new form of control for its unfortunate citizenry. Leveraging all the tools of the information age, China plans to assign something resembling a FICO score to every person. But unlike FICO, China’s “Reliability Score”—ranging from 350 to 950—for each individual, will algorithmically measure electronic purchasing data, social networks, financial history, political reliability, and medical data, to link it to a unique national identifier/ID card. The purpose: to determine the extent of government privileges extended to each person. A “350” for example, is essentially a non-person, expendable in the eyes of government; a “950” likely a high communist party official, totally reliable. Communist China plans to run the system through two of its biggest state-run companies. It is, in essence, using linked digital data input, storage, and retrieval systems all for the purpose of reducing the financial prospects and political freedom of its one-billion-plus citizens.

While the Chinese “citizen score” won’t be mandatory until 2020, it provides a trail-blazing insight into where a Totalitarian America may be headed. Just imagine a future in which buying or playing a video game, making “unauthorized” political comments on Facebook, or scoring poorly scholastically follows you for life and limits your advancement potential. Imagine that just by being socially connected to someone who made a politically incorrect comment once-upon-a-time could restrict your privileges, or worse subject you to ever-closer surveillance, interrogation, or incarceration.

A Totalitarian America in the mold of Communist China certainly presents very serious concerns. But of much more pressing concern is an even more urgent and immediate problem. Our southern border remains wide open to anyone wishing to walk in. Our government tracks no foreigner who arrives on a visa. President Obama dictates that Syrian “refugees” be imported in massive numbers and be settled here at taxpayer expense, even while our government has no ability to authenticate their identities or their true motives for immigration.

ISIS spokesmen have already stated they are embedding terrorists within the emigrating “refugees.” Young men aged 18 to 35 are definitely known to make up more than 70% of those “refugees” who are marching into Western Europe. That same composition of “refugees” is soon to be flown here at U.S. taxpayer expense. It is no consolation that the remaining fraction of “refugees” to be brought here are supposedly “widows and orphans” (Obama’s words). Our southern border is again— right now—being thronged by armies of children from Central and South America for life here at U.S. taxpayer expense. And as France has recently discovered, even women and children can be indoctrinated and trained to strap on suicide (homicide) vests and blow themselves up to advance the cause of Islamo-fascism.

America is being invaded and conquered—quietly and little by little—much as a frog is dropped in warm water and slowly boiled. President Obama has stated that Governors of the various states have nothing—NO RIGHT TO INPUT—to say about the federal government’s importation of “refugees.” Likewise, the federal government, the President claims, has no responsibility to inform the various states of who these people are, what vetting process was used to authenticate their identities, or exactly where these people are being relocated. Perhaps concerned State Governors should just declare their States to be “Sanctuary States” which will not admit for residence foreigners who quite possibly, even likely, present a significant danger to their populace!

Even if only 1% of these refugees were ISIS terrorists, does America really need to import another 100 or 1,000 terrorists? And if those terrorists do act on their Islamo-fascist ideology, is this not a recipe for massive violence and civil disruption? If another 9-11 type terror attack happens here, will it not result in the suspension of civil rights and further erosion or loss of Constitutionally-protected rights? And if that were to happen, martial law would almost inevitably begin as a “temporary” measure because of the exigencies of the situation. Would those rights ever be returned to us in full-bodied form? Does it not seem likely that our government would assume extraordinary powers, vastly increase surveillance, and rate Americans on their new “Reliability Score?”

Our ship of state, with President Obama at the helm, is in the midst of an iceberg field. We are passengers and crew of that doomed ship where the Captain is bellowing “Full Speed Ahead,” even while extreme caution and prudence are in order. While Captain Reckless foolishly plows ahead, he belittles those advising vigilance, and spews straw-man arguments to impugn the character of critics. Is there any scenario in which this situation ends well?

Let me say this as clearly as I can. The United States Government, under the explicit executive order of this President, is bringing into this country thousands of people who are not vetted, who cannot be vetted, who by-in-large are from a culture foreign and incompatible with Western Civilization, who include embedded Islamo-fascist terrorists, who will be brought here at U.S. taxpayer expense, who will have their sustenance and existence supported by U.S. taxpayers for time indefinite, and who may not wish to learn English or assimilate with American culture. (European authorities are just now realizing that five out of six Syrian passports are forgeries, and the vast numbers of “refugees” are not even Syrian.) Add to that, the U.S. Government will not inform the states and localities where these refugees are placed or the refugees’ identities, their backgrounds, and the means by which they were supposedly vetted. Does this not create a recipe for total societal implosion and reactionary imposition of totalitarianism?

The U.S. Government is already utilizing numerous schemes to implode America’s civil society by fostering dependency, repressing capital formation, destroying initiative, and depressing the last vestiges of free enterprise. Total control of thought and action is government’s goal. Immigration, legal and illegal, is merely one of the Federal Government’s bluntest tools for creating chaos so that out of chaos “order” (New World Order) may be imposed.

France and China are, comparatively speaking, already hitting those icebergs noted in my earlier analogy. They are far closer to Socialism’s utopia (dystopia) of the New World Order. We still have a window of opportunity to slow down the Captain and save our ship. Let’s stop rearranging deck-chairs while the ship is taking on water and listing badly. We need All Hands on deck now! Wake up America!merica!

Why do my medications have a few different names?

Brian, 49, went into the pharmacy to get a refill of his inhaler. “Hey doc,” Brian said to the pharmacist, “Can I get my puffer today?” All was good until Brian took the inhaler out of the bag at the register and read the box. “What’s this?,” he asked. “The prescription is for Combivent – for my breathing - but this label says ‘albuterol’ and another word I can’t pronounce.” “Ipratropium,” the pharmacist told him. “What is that? Why can’t I get my usual brand?” The pharmacist explained that his inhaler went generic and that his insurance will not pay for the brand anymore. Brian just frowned. Until he saw that his co-pay was quite low for the generic brand.

Pharmaceutical companies take out a patent to sell each new drug they discover. The patent, which is simply a license so that the company can sell it exclusively, usually lasts 20 years. However, a good chunk of this time – possibly 10 years – is spent testing the drug in a series of clinical studies (experiments using humans as subjects to test the drugs’ efficacy and side effects). When enough data are collected, the drug company presents their findings to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Subsequently, the FDA can send the drug company back for more clinical studies and more data, and all the while the patent clock is ticking. This is why drug companies are lobbying to have patent times extended – it makes more money for them and forces the patient to use the more expensive branded product. Even after the product goes to market, the company must perform post-marketing studies to determine whether any unusual side effects occur once the drug is released to the general population.

After the patent expires, other companies can produce their own version of the medicine. For instance, ibuprofen is the generic name for the drug used to treat pain. Companies will sell ibuprofen under trade names such as Advil and Motrin, or sell it as their own generic store brand as Walmart does with their Equate line and Target’s Up & Up brand. Medicines sold as generics are typically cheaper because research and development costs are lower. But they must be exactly the same drug and are mandated by federal laws to undergo safety and quality requirements.

In terms of prescription drugs, the pharmacist has the right to substitute the name brand of the drug for a generic, unless the doctor writes “dispense as written” or “DAW.” So the prescription may say “Xanax” but you will probably get “alprazolam.” Or the doctor writes for Percocet and you get hydrocodone and acetaminophen. It can get complicated. You can usually get the brand name drug once it goes generic – but you will probably pay a lot more for it. Mrs. White went into the pharmacy looking to get filled a prescription for Bactrim, an antibiotic. What she got was sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim, the generic name for Bactrim. This can be confusing for patients who are used to hearing one name for a drug and are given a vial that has a totally different drug name on it.

Usually, if you ask the pharmacist, he or she can include the brand name of the drug on the label, for example,” Take 1 tablet twice a day [Generic Bactrim].” Chain pharmacies often have the brand name somewhere on the label, usually in tiny print – but it’s there if you look for it. Or have the pharmacy technician highlight the name for you. Finally, if you are on a slew of drugs and they are all generic, make out an index card with the brand names and their generic equivalents written on it so you can be clear as to what drugs you are taking, or ask your pharmacist to do it for you.  

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.