Forest City – Prof. J. S. Lee, A. M. has lately compiled a pamphlet on “Zoology Outlines” for use in the class room.  Prof. Lee experienced the same difficulty that many a teacher has in securing a dependable pamphlet for this use, leaving blank pages for personal notes and observations, and so overcame the difficulty by preparing one to suit the individual needs of instructor and student.

Middletown Twp. - Edward Kelly, aged 43 years, a farmer here, died suddenly on Tuesday.  He had been in usual health up to within a half hour before his death, coming in from the fields where he had been assisting in haying and died before a physician could reach him. Death was due to chronic Bright’s disease.  Mr. Kelly was married about a year ago to Miss Margaret Keenan, who with one sister, Mrs. John Maloney and one brother, Wm. Kelly, survive.  Funeral and burial at Flynn.

Athens, Bradford Co. – Some of the sensational city dailies, with accustomed disregard of the truth, have been publishing that the recent expedition of research that went down the Susquehanna river to locate relics of the Indians had made discoveries of a race of aborigines that were 7 ft. in  height and had horns.  One of the members of the archaeological party has denied this, stating that 57 skeletons of normal individuals had been excavated near Athens.  One of the skeletons was found covered with deer antlers, hence the probable source of the horned savages.

Uniondale – J. F. Bass, one of our oldest residents and a Civil War veteran, passed away Friday after an illness of nearly a year.  The funeral was held on Sunday from his late home, with interment in Pleasant Mt. Cemetery. [Adjt. J. F. Bass was a member of Mathew McPherson

G. A. R. Post, No. 509, of Uniondale.  He opened the first hardware store in Uniondale in 1886 in the Elias Westgate building.]

Dimock – When some of the supervisors of the surrounding townships get hauled before the court for leaving loose stones and bad holes in their roads, and a good stiff fine is imposed, there will be one mighty howl from those same officers.  Some of the roads in this place are as near impassable as there is any need of a road being, and someone should take the matter on at once.

West Auburn – Ward Smith was badly injured at noon Monday by the kick of a horse.  He was struck in the face, breaking his lower jaw twice and crushing in the palate on the upper part of his mouth.  Bruce Swisher, for whom he was working at the time, accompanied by Dr. Austin, immediately took him to the Packer Hospital at Sayre, in Mr. Swisher’s car, and it is thought he may recover.

Susquehanna – A message was received here this afternoon by Mr. and Mrs. John Dougherty, of Washington street, containing the news that their son, Augustus, had been drowned at Erie, Pa.  Just how the accident happened is not known.

Thompson – A box social was held at the Hobbs school house last Friday evening, Miss Eloise Owens, of Gelatt, teacher.  The proceeds, which were about $35, will be used toward purchasing an organ for the school.

South Ararat – The farmers are very busy haying and the ladies are busy picking berries, which are a splendid crop, and the campers at the lake are enjoying themselves fishing, boating and taking in the beautiful scenery from adjoining towns that can only be seen from the beautiful hill tops of Ararat.

North Harford – Our R. D. carrier has purchased a nice Ford roadster and all patrons of route 2 must see that all mail they wish to send is prepared to go earlier in the day than was the former custom, for Mr. Howard will be right around bright and early now.

Forest Lake – M. J. Kane told us the other day that he had bought and shipped nearly fifteen hundred pigs during the past year.

Montrose – Benjamin Nailor [Naylor], while sitting on his lawn last Sunday afternoon, counted the number of passing automobiles and tells us that in two hours and thirty minutes he counted 105 automobiles and only 12 horse-drawn vehicles in the same length of time. ALSO Saturday night at about eleven o’clock, an intoxicated man drove his splendid big bay team on the lawns on upper Cherry street, broke out two cellar windows in one house and mussed up things generally.  About five o’clock he came around and said he would settle, but money cannot restore grass for the remainder of the summer. ALSO John Stewart has been accepted as a member of the Grace church choir in New York city, being one of three boys taken out of over 300 applicants.  There are 23 boys in the choir and besides receiving a musical training, they are also given an academic course.  John possesses an exceptionally fine soprano voice.

Springville – Brown & Reynolds will have charge of the dining hall, store, meat market and ice cream stand at the Dimock Camp Grounds this year.  They are hustling fellows and visitors at the camp grounds are assured of good meals, groceries, etc.

Laurel Lake – The dance at Lake View Hall, Friday evening, was largely attended.  All report a fine time.  ALSO  Our nine defeated the Middletown Center team, at Choconut, for the second time.  Score, 11-3.

Howard Hill, Liberty Twp. – Miss Grace Robinson returned to Port Dickinson, Friday.  Miss Robinson is assistant Matron at the Pentecostal Mission Orphanage at that place.

News Brief: All the presidents except two—Van Buren and Roosevelt—were of British extraction.  Jefferson, however, was the only Welshman and Mr. Hughes’ ancestry also goes back to Wales.  The father of Chief Justice Hughes was a clergyman and three other presidents—Wilson, Cleveland and Arthur—were sons of preachers.  If you want your son to be a president, you had better buy a farm.  An even dozen presidents were sons of farmers and farmer boys beat all others in the race to the White House.

200 Hundred Years Ago from the Montrose Centinel, July 30, 1816.

Supplement to Friendship.  Customers in general—please to call and look over your Accounts, and save hard feelings and costs.  It will be remembered that this is the second invitation to a settlement; the third may be a Call or Demand.  Chapman Carr. Montrose, July 28, 1816.

List of letters remaining in the Post Office at Hop Bottom, July 1, 1816. Olney Tiffany, William Spicer, Hezekiah Olney, Jr., Doct. William Bacon 2, Ebenezer Payne, Peter Pacel, Eli Websterwinter, Alexander M’Collum, Ephraim Tewkesbury, Joseph M. Ely, William Benson. GABRIEL ELY, P. M.

For the past two weeks, we discussed the question of what constitutes inadmissible hearsay in a court proceeding along with two common law exceptions to the hearsay rule: the dying declaration and the present sense impression.  Hearsay is an out of court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.  The reason that hearsay is inadmissible is that the other party never has a chance to cross-examine the speaker to test the veracity of the statement itself.  The common law exceptions, however, recognized that there were circumstances that made a hearsay statement inherently reliable and admissible.

In the case of a dying declaration, the common law recognized that people who are facing imminent death as a result of a sudden injury do not lie about what (or who) caused their fatal injuries.  A terminally injured person simply has more pressing matters that substantially diminish the potential for fabrication.  Likewise, the present sense impression exception provided a similar assurance of reliability as people who are contemporaneously commenting on what they are witnessing lack the time to reflect and fabricate what they are observing.  The mere fact that these statements are admitted does not mean that they have to be accepted by the factfinder.  Rather, the factfinder simply gets the opportunity to weigh these out of court statements with all the other evidence when making a final determination as to the merits of a party’s case.

This week we will look at another hearsay example that recognizes the inherent reliability of an out of court statement based upon the circumstances under which it is made: the excited utterance.  The common law recognized that when a person witnesses a startling event, the excited utterance made in response to the startling event is generally reliable.  Again, a startled person immediately reacting to an unexpected event lacks the forethought and wherewithal to create a conscious fabrication.  For this reason, the common law allowed excited utterance to be admitted into evidence even if the speaker did not testify.

In order to be admissible, an excited utterance must be a spontaneous declaration by a person whose mind has been suddenly made subject to an overpowering emotion caused by a shocking occurrence which the person just witnessed.  The excited utterance must occur in close time to the event itself.  In other words, if the utterance is made within a few minutes of the event it is likely considered to be an excited utterance.  If the utterance is made several days later as the speaker is recalling the event, it is not considered an excited utterance.  In terms of the lapse of time between the event and the utterance, the questions that the courts ask is whether the nervous excitement continues to dominate the speaker while his or her reflective process remains dormant.  The time factor becomes a critical one in assessing whether an out of court statement is an excited utterance.

For instance, in Commonwealth v. Zakuaskas, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered the admission of out of court statements in a homicide prosecution.  In that case, the defendant and the victim got into an argument that ended in a knife fight.  Both the defendant and the victim had numerous knife wounds and both were taken to the hospital for treatment where the victim eventually died.  The police interviewed the defendant at the hospital approximately 45 minutes after the knife fight.  The defendant told the police that the other party was the aggressor and that he was simply defending himself.  At trial, the defendant did not want to testify so he sought to use his out of court statements made to the police during his treatment in the hospital to get his version of events onto the record.  The defendant contended that these statements were excited utterances made in response to being stabbed.

The trial judge refused to admit the evidence finding that 45 minutes was too long of a time to sustain the level of excitement initially created by the startling event.  The Supreme Court agreed and noted that the testimony was clear that the defendant was calm during the interview and that he commented not only on the stabbing itself, but also spoke about collateral matters, including asking about whether the victim had died.  Thus, the Supreme Court noted that the timing and nature of the statements demonstrated that there was “room for inventive forces [and] that is the antithesis of unreflective spontaneity.”

If a party seeks to admit an excited utterance, then the party has to demonstrate not only a sudden and startling occurrence but also that the timing has been made in such a manner as to eliminate the potential for reflective fabrication. 

Supplements that promise too much

Paul, 70, came into the pharmacy and showed the pharmacist a magazine ad for a product he wanted. “Do you carry this?” he asked the pharmacist. The ad was for a supplement called Brain Buzz and would give the consumer unbelievable energy. The pharmacist looked up the ingredients for this “guaranteed or your money back” formulation. This product was a mixture of Chinese herbs, including ma huang, also known as ephedra, guarana, yerba mate and enough caffeine to make one’s eyeballs pop out of their sockets. In short, all of the ingredients were stimulants. This would not be good for someone like Paul who has a couple of chronic conditions, including atrial fibrillation (a-fib). 

Americans buy $37 billion worth of nutritional supplements a year, ranging from simple vitamin and mineral pills to energy boosters, sleep aids, sex amplifiers, muscle powders, memory enhancers and self-proclaimed disease cures. Sales are rising, thanks to the baby boomer population now facing age-related health conditions. A 2015 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association revealed that the proportion of adults between ages 62 and 85 using supplements grew from 52% in 2005 to 64% in 2011. Those using multiple supplements jumped nearly 50%. And because there are more supplements on the market and the fact that older people are taking more prescription drugs, the study showed that 1 in 6 older adults now regularly use potentially deadly combinations of prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) medications and dietary supplements—a 2-fold increase from 2005 to 2011. If you are on blood thinners, sedatives, sleeping pills, cholesterol medications, et cetera, the chances are great that you will experience a severe interaction to many of the commonly used herbs such as St. John’s wort, saw palmetto, kava, melatonin, echinacea, co-enzyme Q10 or cranberry. For example, valerian has been used to treat insomnia and anxiety, with questionable efficacy. However, there are over 500 possible drug interactions with this OTC product.

Can’t somebody do something? Typically, the pharmacist can detect drug interactions – but only if you volunteer that information. The Food and Drug Administration cannot ban them like they would a drug that has disastrous side effects. Why? Because these supplemental products are not technically drugs and are not officially classified as foods. As long as they do not make promises, such as claims to reverse dementia, cure diabetes, or prevent a stroke, they can sell what they want. “But aren’t they all-natural?” asked Paul. Even though herbal supplements may be from plant or herb sources, the active ingredients can still be potent chemicals. Because of this, herbal supplements can have drug interactions, even with each other or with food or alcohol. Unfortunately, these products are not labeled with safety warnings, and it is difficult for a consumer to know if an interaction may occur. Herbal interactions with prescriptions can interfere with how the drug may be broken down in the body, enhance side effects of prescription medications, or block the intended therapeutic effect of a drug. When the product has handfuls of ingredients, like the mythical Brain Buzz, the odds are astronomically greater that a severe side effect will occur.

The pharmacist told Paul that he should always remain skeptical of untested products that promise good health. Instead, he should save his money and perhaps join the local gym if only to walk on the treadmill at a very modest speed. And he should always consult with a pharmacist if he wants to introduce something new to his therapeutic regimen. 

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

The cover-up has taken place in full view. The news media, with few exceptions, is fully complicit in obscuring the facts rather than transparently reporting them. Probably few people are less trustworthy than politicians, but those who try to pass themselves off as news reporters might well qualify.

Individuals who consider themselves well-informed may have heard something about the near open-rebellion that occurred on opening day (July 18) at the Republican National Convention (RNC) when the party “approved” its Rules by voice vote, twice!  Most media outlets played it off as the last gasp of the “Never Trump” minority.

The “Never Trump” movement did want Rule 16 changed so that delegates might vote their conscience, rather than as they were bound by state law, primary results, or convention selection at state meetings. But the “Never Trump” movement had no chance of winning. Had this been the only issue, any roll call vote would have provided overwhelming support among the delegates. In fact, it may have further united the party had Trump’s supporters allowed such a vote.

Despite all the mainstream coverage that “Never-Trump” was the only issue, there was much, much more at stake. The party’s Rules Committee had gathered in Cleveland the previous week. In an eight-hour marathon meeting held on Thursday, July 14, members of the Rules Committee drafted the rules that were to be voted upon on RNC opening day. Most main-stream media reporters never grasped the importance of what was going on at this meeting, either.

What the media reported as the result of the Rules Committee meeting was statement of “party unity” by the mealy-mouthed Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, . . . “grassroots voices from every state and territory have crafted a set of rules which will keep our Party strong at the local, state, and national level, and we honored the spirit of democracy by conducting our Rules Committee meeting in a completely open and transparent fashion.”

What Chairman Priebus forgot to explain to clueless reporters was that the dictatorial rules adopted in 2012 for Mitt Romney’s coronation were kept completely intact, save for cosmetic changes. You see, in 2012, Mitt Romney could not brook any opposition to his nomination, most especially from Ron Paul. Because Romney’s people dominated the Rules Committee in 2012, the Republican Party ended up with a set of rules that did not even permit Ron Paul’s name to be placed in nomination that year. The rules prior to 2012 permitted a candidate’s name to be placed into nomination if he had won a majority of delegates in three states. Ron Paul had won majorities in seven states; Romney’s new rules required eight. Ron Paul’s people walked out of the 2012 convention Romney, well, we know what became of Romney.

Who was the Republican Party Chairman in 2012? Why, the estimable Reince Priebus!  Priebus liked the 2012 rules because they increased his power. These little-changed rules remain in effect to this day, and so remains the heady power in the office of the Chairman.

According to the reporting of one of the few online news organizations, hat-tip “Conservative Review,” to get the story right, here’s what conservative/libertarian reformers in the GOP wanted:

• to devolve power from the Chairman to the grassroots activists in the party;
  
  
• to place specific limits on the power of the party chairman;
  
  
• to allow committees of the Republican National Committee to elect their own chairmen;
  
  
• to require the presence of a parliamentary professional at all RNC meetings;
  
  
• to lessen the grip of the chair on the budget committee;
  
  
• to restore minority rights to the RNC;
  
  
• to increase delegate representation of states using closed primaries (Republican-only primary voters) for delegate selection;
  
  
• abolition of Rule 12 of the RNC Rules (Rule 12 reduces transparency and accountability by allowing RNC Rules to be modified by the members of the RNC rather than the quadrennial convention.); and, among others,
  
  
• to fix the delegate-selection abuses identified by candidate Trump,
  including abolition of selection committees behind closed doors, the very process so hated by Trump supporters during the primary season.

But every reform attempt was characterized as an attack on Chairman Priebus.  And every reform attempt at the Thursday, July 14, meeting was defeated under the banner of “party unity.”

It was against this backdrop that fury against the sclerotic GOP Convention Rules bubbled over on Monday, July 18. Since the Rules Committee had refused to hold transparent discussion of the reforms the previous Monday, the last venue for discussion was on the convention floor opening day.

The convention’s proceedings still boggle the mind of anyone vaguely familiar with parliamentary procedure. Online readers will forever have a ringside seat to the proceedings by going to C-SPAN’s archives and pulling up the 20 minutes of footage, from 4:08 to 4:28 p.m.

Two voice votes to approve the motion to adopt the report of the Rules Committee were held. In between the two voice votes, Representative Steve Womack, serving as Chairman of the proceedings, abandoned the podium for nearly 10 minutes while convention delegates raucously demanded a roll-call vote.

During that interim Delegate Ken Cuccinelli, speaking to a reporter from his place heading up the Virginia Delegation, noted angrily that the party was breaking its own rules (Rule 39) by not permitting a roll call vote to proceed. Rule 39, Mr. Cuccinelli (former Attorney General of Virginia) noted is not a debatable motion.

Senator Mike Lee, from his place in the Utah Delegation, noted that 11 states were demanding a roll call vote. He added that there was, “no precedent for this . . . We are now in uncharted territory. . . Completely unheard of for a chair to abandon the podium.”

After the second of the two voice votes--both declared as affirmative approval of the motion for approval of the rules--Rep. Womack recognized the Chairman of the Utah Delegation who asked for a roll call on the motion.

Representative Womack responded, “The Secretary received requests from a total of nine states requesting a roll call vote on adoption of the report on the Committee on Rules. Subsequently, the Secretary received ‘Withdraws’ which caused three states to fall below the threshold received under the rules. Accordingly, accordingly, the chair has found insufficient cause for a record vote.”

Mysteriously, the 11 states had evaporated down to nine, and three “thought better” of their challenge to The Powers That Be (TPTB). Also mysteriously the three states that “withdrew” their petitions were never named. Had someone put a shoulder on them, or twisted some arms perhaps? 

Certainly Utah and Virginia were leading the charge against the consolidation of power in the RNC’s chairmanship. Delegations from Iowa and Colorado stormed off the convention floor after Womack’s ruling on the roll call. Washington state is also known to be one of the 11 states in which a  majority of delegates wanted a roll call vote.

Many of Trump’s supporters dismiss the whole affair as an attempt to embarrass the GOP’s standard bearer.  Others claim it was all much ado about nothing. But one has to wonder.  Were the objectives of Attorney General Cuccinelli, Senator Lee, and former supporters of Presidential Ron Paul something to be desired, OR something so irrelevant as to not be worthy of discussion?

If Donald Trump wins the November election, rules MAY be irrelevant if he goes on to seek reelection in 2020. But if he loses, he will have totally missed the opportunity to reform the national party’s rules insofar as the party hierarchy will remain opaque and aloof. It will continue to be the party that is widely seen as a country club, unaccountable to grassroots party members and oppositional to the transparency so many voters seek. 

To be sure, Reince Priebus, Paul Ryan, Paul Manafort, and Mitch McConnell are all smiling. The irony is that Donald Trump overpowered 16 establishment candidates to win the Republican nomination. Now nominee Trump IS the establishment. 

Donald Trump won the Republican nomination under rules he deemed “rigged.” The opportunity to correct that “rigged system” presented itself, and candidate Trump’s surrogates turned down two opportunities to truly reform the Republican Party.  Trump turned down those opportunities in the name of “unity.”  Too bad that unity is with entrenched insiders, and at the expense of real reform: transparency and accountability.  Donald Trump has well and truly made a deal with the devil.

It is very difficult to consider advocating for the election of either the Republican or Democratic presidential nominee. However a voter may decide to vote, consider carefully; you may get what you want--and live to regret it. Keep awake and resist the urge to crawl under the covers.