(When the page is finished
downloading, you will be listening to the hearing)
Phoenix Arizona
March 29, 2004
FC2002-006149 Hutchinson v. Burton 3/29/04
Grant FTR
Judge Larry L Grant: Let’s call this
Case. This is Family Court Matter 2002-006149. Would the parties please announce?
Jay Stahnke: Jay Stahnke on behalf of the
petition of Steven Hutchinson
Janet Burton: Janet Anne Burton on behalf
of myself
Judge Larry L Grant: Miss Burton, since
you’re representing yourself, you need to rise and be sworn, ma'am.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony
you’re about to give is the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Janet Burton: I do
Okay, please be seated
Judge Larry L Grant: Okay. Miss Burton, I
received this on Friday. Read them. Uh, counsel did you get your copies?
Jay Stahnke: You’re honor, I received
these Friday afternoon. I was out sick Friday. So I looked at it as much as I could this
morning.
Judge Larry L Grant: Okay. Well,
there’s quite a bit there. All right, today this issue for the courts consideration,
consideration is immunization of the children in this case. Uh, ma'am, what else do you
have to tell me?
Janet Burton: Um, I’m prepared to
present my position if I’m allowed to do so.
Judge Larry L Grant: Absolutely.
Janet Burton: I have come before you today
to clarify my position as it pertains to our children, Gwenyth Ann Hutchinson and Greyson
Lee Hutchinson being forced to be vaccinated by the sate of Arizona at father, Steven
Hutchinson’s request. Those closest to Steven and I know that we are not here because
he has truly had a change of heart regarding his position on childhood vaccinations. He
could not unknow what he came to know nearly a decade ago when both he and I committed to
jointly explore alternative holistic methods of treating our family without medical
intervention. We studied the benefits and risks associated with home births, vaccinations,
circumcisions and much more. We jointly decided that outside the box was where we wanted
to be and that decision perfectly served our family for nine years. Despite a high-risk
pregnancy, we chose to birth our two children in the bedroom of our home with the
assistance of my older two daughters and a naturopathic physician. I breast fed our babies
for eighteen months each and supplemented them with goat milk rather than the popularized
formulas. The children have never been vaccinated, never seen a doctor and hardly ever
been sick a day in their life. In all likelihood, the latter two declarations are probably
due to the first declaration, that being we chose to never to introduce immune
compromising chemicals called vaccines, into their bodies. We have jointly chosen to feed
Gwenyth and Greyson organic foods when possible and purified water as well. He had made
choice early on that would allow them to build a strong immune system. With our children
now having reached the thresholds of five and six years of age it defies all logic that
Steven now propose our two children be poisoned through vaccines and manipulate the system
in order to commit such an act that is nothing short of a crime. A crime against me, while
in Steven’s eyes, I deserve it. But more directly, it’s a crime against our
perfect children. We are the envy of all parents sharing two children who exude energy,
vitality and physical strength. In addition, it has been noted by childhood educators that
both children are brilliant beyond their calendar years. Each with unique intellectual
strengths. Gwenyth who articulates like a twenty-five year old and Greyson who has an
incredible knack for mathematics. Physical beauty and strength, a high level of
intelligence, what part of that equation do we need to rethink? And with that, I’d
like to ask permission to approach the bench with pictures?
Judge Larry L. Grant: Sure
Janet Burton: This is my five-year-old son.
My six year old daughter, Sir. My twenty-two, nineteen year old, six and five year old,
myself and my new husband. All pictures of health. Thank-you.
Although it has been costly to me, in may
ways, to prepare my argument to be heard this morning, I still consider it a gift that we
all have been afforded an opportunity to bring light to something that could effect every
one of us in this courtroom. Due to the pending threat that the Bush Administration may
one day mandate that every adult and child be vaccinated for smallpox, none of us are
exempt from the risks that I’ll uncover before you today. Only now are adults,
parents beginning to explore these potential risks because the shot is now pointed at
them. Shouldn’t our infants and children have been given the same consideration, if
not more, throughout the last five decades? I am vehemently opposed to experimenting with
our children’s health by forcing them to submit to vaccines that are scientifically
proven to be unsafe. The state of Arizona has given me the right to exempt my children
from vaccinations based on my strong philosophical beliefs. And so the question arises, on
what grounds are you going to strip me of that maternal right? Surely not because my
children are not thriving. And then, of course, the question must be posed, Who will pay
to administer an IGI (Immunoglobulin E test), as recommended by the American Academy of
Pediatrics, to determine that my children’s immune systems are currently intact and a
delay of vaccinations not be warranted? Either Mr. Hutchinson or the state of Arizona must
satisfy this financial obligation, as this is a decision being forced upon my children
against my will. Our children against my will. Also, who will assume responsibility, if in
the event our children are retested following their vaccinations, and there is evidence
that they have been compromised in any way? Again, Mr. Hutchinson or the state of Arizona
must assume full liability and offer financial restitution to our children and or myself.
Although, money could never buy back what a child looses when he or she suffers a severe
adverse reaction to the insult of poison being directly introduced into their blood
stream. How unnatural, how barbaric can we be? I agree with the conclusion of Michael
Mendinhall, stated in exhibit A on the means in which this determination should be made.
It is simply this: The decision to vaccinate for a specific disease should be decided upon
based on two simple risk factors. First, the risk of contracting a serious illness if not
vaccinated. And second, the risk if a serious adverse event or injury if vaccinated. Also,
if you notice in exhibit A, there’s a bell curve depicted that clearly shows the
gross majority of children, and I do mean gross majority, that will suffer adverse effects
from childhood vaccines somewhere between mild and severe. These common symptoms, showing
the raised area of the curve include behavioral development disorders, learning
disabilities caused by neurological damage due to repeated doses of mercury and other
factors in vaccines. There are countless independent studies by well-qualified medical
experts that indeed say this is not a safe practice. Vaccinating a child is considered a
surgical procedure as defined in the black’s law dictionary fifth edition, nineteen
seventy-nine. And I quote Surgery, a Greek work signifying the hand and work. Originally
it was part of the professions of barbers, but later was taken up by physicians, and now
is recognized as that branch of medical science, which treats of mechanical or operative
measures for healing disease, deformities or injuries. A surgical procedure requires a
parent to sign or verbally agree to an informed consent. I can not give you my informed
consent, your honor, because the information necessary to become educated is not available
to the general public. Nor is that information made available to the FDA, as a proprietary
interest of the manufacturers protected. This information was shared with me in a recent
phone conversation I had with Doctor John Martin, M.D. Ph.D., former director of the
viralancology branch within the U.S. Food and Drug Administration itself, and former
professor of Pathology at the University of Southern California. Thimerosal certainly
comes to the forefront for debate. This ethyl mercury is the most toxic substance known to
man. Uranium being the only known substance more lethal. It is scientifically proven that
there is a direct link between childhood vaccinations, containing this mercury compound,
and autism, which is growing at an epidemic rate throughout the United States. But is it
really autism that is the genetic coding that is part of a child’s DNA make up? Or is
what we are seeing fast on the rise something avoidable, something secret, something
called mercury poisoning? Perfectly healthy children are becoming autistic later and later
as the medical community continues to increase the number of vaccinations that each child
will receive. Late onset autism starting in a child’s second year of life and there
after was literally unheard of in the fifties, the sixties, and the seventies. The
diagnosis of late onset autism now outnumbers early infancy autism by five to one.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, one out of every hundred and fifty
school-aged children are compromised with autism. The number of children with full
syndrome autism has doubled every four years since nineteen eighty-seven. This is
referenced in exhibit D, your honor. If the mercury in vaccines is linked to autism, why
isn’t mercury being removed from vaccines? Representative Dan Burton of Indiana,
who’s grandson became autistic after receiving forty-seven times the safe level of
mercury in several vaccines administered to him all at once, stated during a committee
hearing on the subject in 2002 televised on CSPAN and I quote. Why don’t you get it
(being mercury) out of there? End of quote. Vaccine manufacturers have been pressured to
remove mercury out of vaccines. But have they? They don’t know…you don’t
know and I don’t know. A spokesperson for Adventis Pasteur, one of the biggest
manufacturers of the DTaP vaccination, admits that some times the inserts that are
included in the vaccination box do not accurately match the lot number of the vaccination
enclosed. That means even doctors can’t rely on the instructions and the descriptions
of each individual vaccine they inject into a child. My child. This mislabeling and fraud
at the admission of the vaccine manufacturer themselves. Anyone else who committed such a
hanious crime would be jailed. This is referenced also, your honor, in exhibit D. Even the
World Health Organization recently admitted that mercury can not be removed from vaccines
because it’s an intricate part of the manufacturing process. And according to the
2003 immunization schedule, and the package inserts there are still a number of vaccines
that contain mercury including tetanus and diphtheria. I believe there’s another
reason why mercury can not be removed from vaccines. If it were removed there would likely
be a dramatic decrease in the rate of autism and law suits, massive lawsuits would likely
follow directed to all parties concerned. And so the deception continues as the Food and
Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Health and Human Services
continue to be ambiguous in the terms by which they reference this very heated topic. And
as Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, points out
there are many many other ingredients in vaccines that could predispose a child to other
disorders as well. Thimerosal only being but one. Miss Fischer, also the co-author of "DTP:
A Shot in The Dark." Brings to light the obvious. Health can not be measure by
the absence of infectious disease alone. Although we have undoubtedly made significant
advances through modern medicine to extend people’s life expectancy, still one must
wonder what value is extended life when your body is wrought with the degenerative effects
of chronic disease which are fast on the rise? Excuse me. With that being a barometer for
consideration, as to whether or not we as a society have made good choices, well then we
have failed miserably. This is the dawning of a new age wherein autoimmune diseases,
affecting both young and old, are being more and more common, almost expected as not
outside of the norm. Our government as allotted millions and millions of dollars for
research to be conducted on the origin of autism. The large majority of this funding for
research is directed towards exploring the genetic component related to autism rather than
the events that occur as a result of the introduction of mercury into a child’s
bloodstream and the triple deadly vaccines, DPT, and MMR which are eighty percent of the
causation of autism; or more accurate still, mercury poisoning which mimics autism,
according to the federally recognized state standard organization, Voices of Safety
International. The VOSI. There is a federal law that applies to all government
decision-makers at all levels. Federal, state, and local, which states you must review
standards such as that of the VOSI and anyone of the other two hundred and ten approved
private sectors standard sites such as the National Institutes of Standard Technology. The
NST; or the American National Standards Institute, the ANSI; or the American Society for
Testing of Material, the ASTN before making a decision, such as the decision you are
considering this morning in your courtroom. The Voice of Safety International has posted
on their site the following statistics for your consideration. The Diphtheria, Pertussis,
Tetanus, DPT combined vaccine has been implicated as a direct cause of autism by parents
who have completely normal children until they were vaccinated with the triple vaccine.
Vaccination is not a casual factor in downsyndrome. Vaccinations increase the probability
of developing allergies. Hepatitis B is sexually transmitted, not contagious, and
therefore children should not be vaccinated for this disease. Regarding the MMR vaccine,
children vaccinated with the MMR vaccine are almost two times as likely to contract
measles and mumps to children who have never been vaccinated. Therefore, only the Rubella
vaccine is recommended based on effectiveness to preventing rubella specifically.
Generally speaking, vaccines can not be considered either safe or effective. It is
important that we as parents and grandparents take the time to explore all real risk
factors associated with vaccines and compare that to the possible but more unlikely risk
factors associated with childhood diseases we have been so schooled to fear. More
important than reading the labels on food products, our children in just, is to read the
label inserts that describe the ingredients contained in each vile. Or does it? After the
Adventis Pasteur’s testimony, as to the inaccuracy of inserts and labeling one can
not know with certainty what is found in each individual vaccine. And what you don’t
know can hurt you, and your children and your grandchildren. Just ask Congressman Burton,
of Indiana about that. Please considering the following ingredients still found in
vaccines today. Live viruses, both known and unknown, cancer related proteins, genetic
materials from animals, bacteria and toxins including ethylene glycol, which is an
ingredient found in antifreeze; formaldehyde, used for embalming; aluminum hydroxide which
is associated with Parkinson’s disease, aluminum salts, methanol, isopropyl,
uhh..Phenol, a coal-tar derivative, which is an extremely poisonous antiseptic germicide,
and disinfectant. And a host of other unknown components. You can refer to exhibits D and
T. If I were to take it upon myself to inject my children with any of the afford mentioned
ingredients, or a naturopathic physician were to do so, the state would swiftly and
rightfully intervene and take custodianship of my children. It is a travesty to think that
it is common practice for parents to surrender their innocent healthy children to receive
the afford form of poisons in the form of vaccines guided by governing bodies that
collectively demonstrate total disregard for our little ones’ well being and an
unwillingness to accept any liability whatsoever for the adverse events that often follow
vaccinations. As sated in exhibit J the government has allowed the pharmaceutical industry
to create for themselves what is referenced as a perfect business. Pure profit, no
accountability to outside regulatory bodies, nor the acceptance of liability for the
damage they have done and are continuing to do. Manufacturers are required to keep track
of adverse reaction reports and record the vaccine and lot numbers with no outside
reporting required. It is up to the manufacturer themselves to voluntarily pull a hot lot
off the market. No lot. No hot lot has ever been recalled. Lets move on to the real and
not so real risks involved in childhood diseases as certainly this is the other factor
that needs to be considered in order to make a reasonable determination. One risk weighed
against another risk. Admittedly there are sad, sometimes tragic consequences that befall
some children as a result of contracting a childhood disease. But the triune of the
government, the pharmaceutical industry and the medical industry make it virtually
impossible to know how many of these children actually got the disease from the vaccine
itself, how many children got the disease years after being vaccinated and how many of
these children received immunity. Natural immunity provided by nature through breast milk,
good nutrition and reasonable hygiene to equip them with what they need to overcome
childhood diseases that are not typically life threatening. According to Mark Geier, M.D.
Ph.D. and respected research scientist, our children specifically Gwenyth age six nearly
seven and Greyson, age five are old enough that the danger of contracting a serious
childhood disease and dying from it are over. With that being said, having successfully
circumvented the first risky five year window of our children’s lives, escaping all
health challenges, including childhood diseases why now would we make the decision to play
Russian roulette with their general health? Furthermore, Dr. Geier noted that our daughter
would not be receiving the DTaP vaccine since the advisory committee on immunization
practices of the CDC itself does not recommend that children her age receive the Pertussis
portion of the vaccine. Therefore Gwenyth would be administered a DT or Td vaccine. Both
of which are not available in a mercury free form. In closing, I would like to say that as
an informed mother I am remaining consistent in my position that my children should not be
vaccinated. I have done virtually everything within my control to give both my children,
Infact all four of my children, the best health a mom can provide. Sometimes my choices
have not been congruent with that of my peers. And yet, my results inform the world. They
speak louder than any words I put before the court today. All four of my children are
living examples of health. Again my two small children are the kind of children that every
parent would love to gleam across the living room at and watch as they play freely because
they can. They have a bright future in front of them and I ask you to not risk dimming
that picture in any way. I am supposed to be here today. The purpose of my being here
expands past these four walls as I have been given the opportunity to contribute to a
shift in our country’s awareness of the proven risks associated with childhood
vaccinations. To make a difference for other people starting with my own family. It is
ironic for reasons, other than vaccinations; Steven brought me here today. And for reasons
totally related to this matter at hand, childhood vaccinations, we will collectively cause
a ripple effect that will be heard around the country, and perhaps around the world. I
thank you for allowing me the chance to make a record of my objections this morning. I do,
however, understand that for a decision to be made on this issue is outside the scope of
this proceeding as it would altar the original parenting agreement and therefore is an
issue to be taken up in superior court. And should you consider. And should you order that
our children be vaccinated today, I am prepared to move this case to be taken to a higher
court. I conclude my presentation, your honor.
Judge Larry L. Grant: Thank-you. Counsel?
Your honor, with any issue, there are reams
of information in um both sides of the issue pro and con. I’ve looked through some of
Miss Burton’s material that she provided and what I saw was um uh could, might um a
inconclusive uh more testing required. We have vested that information or that decision
making process as to whether it’s safe or not safe with the American Academy of
Pediatrics. A letter from the President warns about all the misinformation out on the
Internet regarding vaccinations. He recommends vaccinations. Our schools recommend
vaccinations. Children historically have been vaccinated. She references the four children
that she has birthed. Two out of the four have been vaccinated. And so I question the
motive. Um now she talked about you know other means a of gathering um antibodies. My
literature tells me that there’s only two ways to be um protected against infectious
diseases. You’re either exposed to it or you’re immunized against it. End of
discussion. You can’t get it from herbs, vitamins, healthy living. It doesn’t
work that way. Um she references the dangers associated with the shots according to
autism. Well, here’s an article Wednesday 17, March 2004 out of the Grand Rapids
Press big headlines. Solid Science in Vaccines. No link between autism shots. Parents
should immunize kids. It goes on to say that ten out of the thirteen scientists who
produced that autism study in the British medical journal um had a had a a basically what
it says that that journal’s editors reveal that the studies lead author, Andrew
Wakefield, had been working on a case and that they had to back off from that. That there
is no correlation. The article concludes by saying kids should be immunized. It’s the
number one defense against infectious diseases that are preventable. Um the a medical
science favors immunization. Hysteria is against it. That’s always been that way. And
right now I don’t see any any information that she’s provided that is conclusive
that the kids shouldn’t be immunized. They they that there’s a danger. Um the
children would be benefited from being immunized in that again it protects them from
getting a uh infectious disease that could end up in a lifelong disability. But also, it
protects them from spreading the illness. You know, instead of being part of the solution,
they would be part of the problem. Again, referring back to the uh uh American Academy of
Pediatrics. The President, you know he goes he big big bold statement. Prevention is
always better than treatment.
Judge Larry L. Grant: Okay. Ma’am. I
have a question for you. Counsel said something that I find interesting. You said two out
of your four children have been immunized?
Janet Burton: That’s correct. I would
love an opportunity to address that, Sir.
Judge Larry L. Grant: Well, go right ahead.
Janet Burton: Uh, back when I had my
daughters. Now, Rachel’s with me age twenty-two. And my daughter Rebecca age
nineteen. I didn’t know that there was these kinds of risks involved. I was nineteen
years old and twenty-two years old when I had these children. I was a kid myself. Though,
I birthed them naturally and I got that part of the equation right. I did not make an
informed decision regarding vaccines, your honor. I will also and my children went through
a schedule of childhood immunizations. To this day they have on file in their community
colleges and my nineteen year old daughter at Arizona State University waiver of
immunization form because they too have have benefited from all of mom’s decisions
since childhood and have not participated in the hepatitis vaccinations, the flu
vaccinations and the other things. The uh tetanus that adult people are guided to
participate in. So, they have benefited and they too have followed in mom’s stead.
And I would guess that both of those girls will decide not to immunize. Immunize is an
incorrect word. Vaccinate. This does not support an immune system. It disrupts an immune
system. Both of my daughters, I believe will choose not to vaccinated their infants as
well one day. I also would like to reference and this is a very important note and I thank
you for bringing it up, Mr. Stanky.
Jay Stahnke: Stahnke
Janet Burton: Stahnke
Rebecca, my nineteen-year-old daughter has
been diagnosed through the medical world with epilepsy. She had grandmall seizures when
she was six years old shortly after being vaccinated. And her history of seizures
diagnosed through the medical world puts another layer or two of risk to my two small
children who have a sister with a history of seizures.
Judge Larry L. Grant: Well, what evidence
do you have that her condition is directly connected to or linked to her vaccinations?
Janet Burton: I do not know other than it
happened shortly there after, your honor.
Judge Larry Grant: Well, the thing I am
looking for ma’am is there is and I was going through I believe it was exhibit number
C of yours. I need to have a the link.
Janet Burton: The link of what, Sir?
Judge Larry L. Grant: Establishing to a
scientific certainty that autism is directly related to vaccinations. Where I mean
that’s what we’re looking for. That link that scientific link that says if you
vaccinate a child they’re going to be autistic. Where’s that link? That’s
what I need to have. And when I went through this. And I went through it. All of it. And I
made notes as I went along. And some of these stories that were relayed in these various
articles were interesting. Uh particularly the one where there was an observation at a two
years old’s birthday party where there were children who were vaccinated and those
that were not and those observations were made but when was that made? Under what
conditions was that made? Who authored that?
Janet Burton: I’m not building the
strength of my case on sad stories verses celebrations. I am telling you about my
family’s real life experiences
Judge Larry L. Grant: I understand
ma’am. I understand. But I’m looking for the scientific certainty. That’s
when I reviewed this material. I’m looking for the scientific link that says this is
something that we should not do. I did not find that scientific link.
Janet Burton: Your honor
Judge Larry L. Grant: To accept your
argument, ma’am, is to say that the state of Arizona has engaged in massive child
abuse. That’s that’s where this is going. That’s what that’s what you
would have me rule. The state of Arizona has abused all of the children in this state by
requiring this.
Janet Burton: What I am saying is that this
is one great big experiment and I choose not to subject my children to the experiment. If
what I wasn’t doing was not working, your honor, I would make the decision or expect
that the courts force me to make a better different decision.
Judge Larry L. Grant: Well, it’s not
sole your decision.
Janet Burton: That is correct you’re
honor. I’m abiding by the parenting agreement that’s on file with the court.
Judge Larry L. Grant: I I told you what I
thought about that parenting agreement. I’m not gonna touch that again. Um I’m
also I’m also guided by the by the law. I mean we have we have laws that require
certain things and I’m not going to be one that’s going to violate the precepts
of the Arizona statutes, ma’am.
Janet Burton: That is correct, which allows
for an exemption based on philosophical beliefs.
Judge Larry L. Grant: Understanding that full well if both parents are
in agreement. Both
parents are not in agreement, ma’am. Let me add…they’re not in agreement.
Janet Burton: I believe, you’re honor
that the wait of responsibility lies with the opposing party to prove why my children are
being injured by this decision and not being well served. And why this party out of
nowhere three days following being your order to have them remain in a in a school why out
of nowhere having never discussed this with a soul, including myself does he make a new
decision? The wait of responsibility lies on the opposing party. To say why he’s
changed his mind and why my children are being injured and damaged.
Judge Larry L. Grant: Ma’am, I have
considered and reviewed all of your exhibits. I’ve considered your argument presented
to the court this morning. I’ve also reviewed the revised Arizona statutes concerning
immunization to school children as set forth in title thirty six chapter four I mean yah,
chapter four. I’ve looked at articles thirty-six dash six seven. Ones that talk about
immunizations and there is a public policy of immunization. And you
have me enter an order to the effect that the state of Arizona has been engaged in massive
child abuse. I am not prepared to do that, ma’am. I considered your arguments and I
am going to overrule your objection to the immunization of these children in this
particular case. It is going to be the order of this court that the children be immunized.
Thank you very much.
Janet Burton: Then your honor, may I ask,
that it is my right and my legal entitlement that I have a ten day window to appeal your
order. And I asked that Mr. Hutchinson not take action on your order until I have the
right put my appeal in place.
Judge Larry L. Grant: I’m not going to
interfere with your appeal rights, ma’am. I’m not gonna do that. You have that
right. This this order will not go in affect just to give you sufficient time for thirty
days.
Janet Burton: I thank-you, your honor
Judge Larry L. Grant: And you may take
whatever recourse you deem appropriate within that period
Janet Burton: I thank-you
Judge Larry L. Grant: Anything else,
counsel?
Jay Stahnke: Yah we probably need help with
an implementation of the immunization. I have a hunch that irrespectable before she goes
with her appeal that in order to implement it she’s going to create hysteria and
hostility once together with the children.
Judge Larry L. Grant: Well, prepare me an
order, counsel.
Jay Stahnke: I’ll do so.
Janet Burton: I would like to share with
you that Steven has put in the court records that he has set and canceled two appointments
with Ahwahtukee Pediatrics which I have come to discover is untrue. And the head of the
pediatrics center, Dr. Mary Jo Cutler cutter I’m sorry, Mary Joe Cutter. I visited
with her. She gave me the inserts that I gave to the courts as exhibits. And she has
declared to me given the circumstances she would not immunize or treat my children that
she is vehemently opposed to a court intervening with perfectly healthy five and six year
old children and squashing mom’s rights to make a better decision.
Judge Larry L. Grant: Ma’am. The court
is not intervening.
Janet Burton: Okay.
Judge Larry L. Grant: This was brought to
the court.
Janet Burton: I thank-you.
Judge Larry L. Grant: Thank-you very much
for your time.
