Who Controls the Children

[Kat Kanning]

Who Controls the Children?
by Carl Watner
From Issue 59 - October 1994

In his book, The Survival Home Manual, Joel M. Skousen notes that "the bureaucrat never does any of the dirty work for the prosecution of his rulings." In other words, a judge or administrative officer who cites a citizen for the conduct of illegal activities never directly enforces his own edicts. If the activity in question - such as building a house without a permit - continues after it has been administratively determined such activity should stop, then the bureaucrat in charge of regulating such affairs usually initiates a case before the judicial branch of government. If the defendant refuses to "cease and desist," then the judge has the power to hold the offender in contempt. Instead of arresting a person for "building a house without a permit," the judge authorizes a policeman or sheriff to arrest the offender for "contempt of court." The crime then shifts into a different playing field. The issue then becomes one of "control," and the offense becomes one of questioning and denying the power and authority of the State and its judicial system. As Skousen puts it,

    "Notice, that if you ever resist bureaucratic 'law,' you are not prosecuted for resisting an inane and unconstitutional law, but for "defying the court" or "resisting arrest." Separating the act of resistance from the initial law which motivated the act is one of the slickest ways to bring a populace into line with bureaucratic law."

A compliant citizenry makes it easy for the State to mask its ultimate sanction. Usually the threat of arrest and imprisonment is enough to make most people docile and obedient. However, if a person wishes to resist, and refuses to submit to "court orders," he will usually find himself overwhelmed by State force, usually in the form of drawn guns ready to shoot. All State law, no matter how petty, has as its final punishment your death - should you decide to resist to the bitter end. In this enlightened age, there are few hold outs who would dare the State to go this far, but in the late 1970s John Singer, a fundamentalist Mormon living in Utah, defied court orders that he cease teaching his children at home. Ultimately, he would not peacefully submit to an arrest, and after holing himself and his family up in their mountain hideaway, he was eventually shot and killed by law enforcement officers on January 18, 1979.

The saga of John Singer should be of interest to voluntaryists for a number of reasons. First, it is concrete proof that State sovereignty rests on force and its threat. Second, it presents the dilemma of conscientious homeschool parents: Who has the final say how children should be raised and educated? Who has the right to say what they are taught, and how they are taught? Should homeschool parents acknowledge State supremacy in matters of schooling and submit to the State by complying with its regulations, or should they go their own way, as John and Vickie Singer did? In short, the case of John Singer epitomizes the question: Who ultimately controls the children in our society - their parents or the State? The purpose of this article is to look at some of the important evidence necessary to answer these questions.

Although John Singer was born in Brooklyn, New York in 1931, his parents, both originally German citizens, took him back to their native country shortly after his birth. There he experienced the horrors of Nazi regimentation and the chaos of World War II and its aftermath. Since he was a U.S. citizen he was allowed to emigrate back to the United States in 1946. There he lived with his mother's sister, learned English, studied TV repair, and became a carpenter under his uncle's tutelage. Within a year after his mother, brother, and two sisters joined him in New York, they had saved enough money to drive to Utah, "the promised land of their faith," the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons. By the time Singer married Vickie Lemon in September 1963, he had built himself a log home in the Kamas Valley, where he farmed and plied his TV repair trade. He was described by David Fleisher and David Freedman, authors of his biography (Death of an American, New York: Continuum, 1983) as "a strong, independent, industrious man with an unwavering faith in his God." Seven years after their marriage John and Vickie were excommunicated from the Mormon Church for their continued insistence on believing in the literal interpretation of the Mormon scriptures (including its original doctrine of plural marriage) and for taking the side of the fundamentalists rather than the modern church. Two years later, in March 1973, they withdrew their three school-age children from South Summit Elementary School, a public school in Kamas, Utah. The Singers objected to the "immoral secular influences" found in the Utah state-run schools, including "the school's 'permissive attitude' toward such immoral behavior as sexual promiscuity, drugs, crude language and gestures, rock music, and lack of respect for adults." They believed the State had no constitutional right to interfere with their religious beliefs by requiring them to send their children to public school.

This marked the beginning of the first phase of Singer's resistance to public schooling. After an initial meeting in April 1973, to explain their views to the Superintendent of the school district and the members of the Board of Education, the Singers received a letter informing them that they were in violation of the state's compulsory attendance law, which required attendance at a public or "regularly established" private school, or homeschooling subject to the approval of their local school district's Board of Education. On December 6, 1973 the School Board flied a complaint against John Singer in juvenile court for , "the crime of contributing to the delinquency and neglect of" his three oldest children, ages 6, 7 and 8. When Singer failed to appear in court to defend himself against the charges, the judge issued a bench warrant for his arrest. It took the sheriff and his deputies about a month to apprehend Singer, since he refused to surrender voluntarily. They surprised him while he was on a TV repair call. Singer spent the night in jail, and the following day agreed to accept a court-appointed attorney and work with the school board on an approved homeschooling program. On March 8, 1974, the school board issued a certificate of exemption to the Singers, with the stipulation that the school board administer a Basic Skills Achievement Test to the four oldest Singer children twice a year, starting in the fall. The school psychologist, Tony Fowell, was appointed to administer the tests and monitor the children's home education progress. Three months later, in June 1974, the criminal complaint against Singer was dismissed based on the evidence of his compliance.

John and Vickie Singer did not take lightly to regimentation. Although they allowed their children to be tested in October 1974, and April 1975, by April 1976 they concluded that "they must get out from under the thumb of the local school district" because they resented bureaucratic intrusions into their home and family life. Consequently, they informed the district they would permit no further testing. They decided that they would educate their children according to their own religious beliefs without interference from the government. As they explained,

    "We are responsible for our children, not the school board. They don't support or raise them, we do. We are true Americans, and the Lord has let us know that He will protect our constitutional freedoms. It is a corrupt government that passes a law that takes children away from their parents, and those people who try to enforce that law are tyrants." (pp. 61-61)

Thus began the second stage of their resistance. The local school board withdrew their exemption certificate, and initiated a new criminal complaint against them. After having attended several school board meetings and court hearings, on August 23, 1977, the Singers were present in the juvenile court of Judge Kent Bachman. The charge against them was again criminal neglect of their children. Representing himself, John refused to plead guilty. All his children were well cared for, none were "neglected," and he readily admitted that they did not attend public school. Singer's position was "that the only thing I have to prove to this court is that my children are not being trained for any delinquency actions or any criminal actions, and this is the only thing I have to prove and nothing else." (p. 76) Judge Bachman insisted that the only issue was whether the Singers "compiled with the policies or standards set out for the education of your children" by the school board. (p. 81) Singer responded, "But it seems like the standards which have been set out here are not the same standards I believe in. ...Have you got even the right to force my children under any form of education?"

The judge concluded that the Singers were guilty of a misdemeanor and found them in violation of the compulsory attendance law. Both parents and children were to be evaluated by a court designated psychologist, Dr. Victor Cline. John and Vickie were each fined $290, and sentenced to 60 days in the county jail unless they met with the evaluating psychologist. Due to the publicity that their case was generating, the Singers were approached by supporters of private and home schooling, and urged to incorporate their own private school. Since Utah law was very vague on the requirements for a private school, it was thought they might use this loophole to escape the jurisdiction of Judge Bachman's juvenile court. Thus by the time they were summoned on November 1, to explain why they had failed to comply with the judge's order (four children had been tested and evaluated by Dr. Cline, but they themselves refused to submit) the Singers had formally incorporated their own private school, High Untas Academy, Inc. Judge Bachman granted a stay, and held that if after one month the Singers did not comply with the order of August 23rd, "there will be incarceration for both of you."

On November 3, 1977 John and Vickie were interviewed and tested by Dr. Cline. He found the children to be on an average of 34 points lower IQ than their parents because the children were not having "adequate educational experiences." In the meantime, Judge Bachman had set a trial date for December 16th, and decided to hold a pre-trial conference on November 5. In an effort to work out a peaceful compromise, the judge agreed to vacate his order that they be jailed and pay a fine, if the Singers would submit an acceptable plan for the education of their children. This the Singers refused to do, because they believed the judge had improperly disregarded their efforts to form a private school. They also decided not to attend their December 16th trial for fear that their children would be physically taken from them. On December 16th, Judge Bachman issued bench warrants for their arrest, and set bail at $300 each. Their trial was continued to January 31, 1978.

For the next year, John Singer was literally at war with the authorities, and did not set foot outside his farm. When contacted by the sheriff on the telephone, John informed him that he "intended to resist arrest." At the January 3rd trial, Judge Bachman found John and Vickie Singer guilty of child neglect. By now, they had five school-age children who were ordered to submit to daily tutoring provided by the South Summit School District. If the Singers failed to comply with the tutoring program designed by the school district, they would be held in contempt of court. The Singer children were to remain in the custody of the Utah Division of Family Services (Judge Bachman had first issued the custody ruling on August 23, 1977), but allowed the children to remain at home with John and Vickie. After the trial, John Singer told the press that he and Vickie would not allow a tutor in their home. "We're not trying to tell other people what to believe or how to live, we just want to be left alone and mind our own business."

As a result of case reassignments, a new judge entered the picture. Since the Singers would not comply with the school district's daily tutoring plan, on February 6, 1978, the new juvenile court judge, Farr Larson, issued an order for the Singers and their children to appear in court March 14, 1978 to show cause as to why the parents should not be held in contempt, and why the children should not be taken from their home and placed in custody of the State. The Singers did not attend their show cause hearing on March 14, 1978. Judge Larson found them in contempt and issued bench warrants for their arrest. His order was stayed for 7 days, so as to allow the Singers time to file an appeal. On March 21st, the sheriff was ordered to commit both parents to jail for 30 days, and each of them were ordered to pay a fine of $200.

The Singers refused to appeal their convictions (primarily on the basis that such actions were inconsistent with their religious beliefs). John had also previously told friends that "I'd rather die than go against my religious beliefs." (p. 111) When Judge Larson finally dissolved his stay of execution, he was quoted in the newspapers as saying:

    By law, children in this state have a right to an education, and a duty to attend school. Children are no longer regarded as chattels of their parents. They are persons with legal rights and obligations. The rights of the parents do not transcend the right of a child to an education nor the child's duty to attend school. Parents who fear the negative influence of public education should also examine the damaging effects of teaching a child disobedience to law and defiance to authority. (p. 114)

The judge also directed the sheriff to arrest John Singer, but "to employ such means and take such time as are reasonably calculated to avoid the infliction of bodily harm on any person." (p. 144) After nearly six months of inaction, in October 1978, Judge Larson removed the restriction about the use of violence from his arrest order, but he set no time limit for Singer's apprehension. After consultation with State law enforcement officials, it was decided that they would try to arrest Singer during a media interview, at which three law officers would pose as newsmen. This caper was foiled by Singer's strength, his family's immediate reaction (they jumped all over his would-be captors), and the pistol in Singer's waist band. On October 20, 1978, the Summit County attorney filed a new criminal complaint, charging John with 3 counts of aggravated assault for resisting , arrest with a gun. A felony warrant (which automatically permits the use of deadly force to effect an arrest) was issued so he could be taken into custody. Judge Larson was also reaching the end of his patience. Near the end of October 1978, he threatened the county sheriff with a contempt of court citation if he - the sheriff - did not carry out the order to arrest Singer.

By early November 1978, John Singer had been at a standoff with the authorities for the better part of a year. He was still in contact with the media via the telephone and friends. His predicament, he believed, was caused as much by the Mormon Church as it was by the State of Utah. "Speaking of his right to educate his children as he saw fit, John had said: 'According to the state's system, my home is just a feeding place. All they want me to do is feed my children and they want to take them from me and brainwash them to put them into a Sodom and Gomorrah society'." (p. 158) The local and State government and its enforcement machinery found themselves in an increasingly embarrassing situation. One lone man was holding them at bay.

Something had to be done. The leadership of the Utah Department of Public Safety, the Division of Narcotics and Liquor Law Enforcement, and Highway Patrol all became involved in a surveillance and apprehension plan. The key was to "surprise Singer with such a show of force that he would realize the futility of resisting arrest and would submit peacefully." (p. 170) Ten men, in five groups of two, were to watch Singer, learn his daily routines, and eventually confront him in such a fashion that he would have no choice but to submit. On January 18, 1979, their plan was put into effect while John was clearing snow off his driveway with a gas-powered snowblower. Although he had put down his rifle, Singer still had a thirty-eight Colt automatic tucked in his trousers. When approached by four of the lawmen, he turned, started running, and drew the pistol from its resting place. Feeling threatened for his personal safety, one of the officers fired his shotgun at Singer, and killed him with a single blast of buckshot. Shortly thereafter, social workers took the children into protective custody for nine days. In order to get them back, Vickie agreed to a court-approved plan whereby she could teach the children at home under the supervision of a private school acceptable to the juvenile court.

Thus ended the life and saga of John Singer, killed while resisting arrest on charges of contempt of court and feloniously assaulting law officers attempting to arrest him. Was he right? Does statist law assign the control of children to their parents, or does the State reserve to itself the right to control their upbringing? In other words, who controls the children in our society?

One of the books that prompted the writing of this article was Blair Adams' volume: Who Owns The Children? (subtitled "Public Compulsion, Private Responsibility, and the Dilemma of Ultimate Authority," Waco, Texas: Truth Forum, 1991, Fifth edition). Penning a very broad-ranging fundamentalist Christian attack on State compulsion, the author examines some of the court cases and legal precedents that shed light on this important question. In his "Preface" he writes:

    [A]ccording to the courts of this land, ... "A child is primarily" not his parents' offspring but "a ward of the tate"; ... parents hold relationship he owes allegiance to the government"; ... parents serve as a mere "guardianship" which "the government places [the child] under"; ... parental authority must be "at all times exercised in subordination to the paramount and overruling direction of the tate"; ... "the natural rights of a parent to the custody and control of... his child are subordinate to the power of the tate";... in deciding whether parent or State will control a child's education, the child's academic progress under the parents - even as measured by State-approved tests - has been termed by State prosecutors as "irrelevant and immaterial"; and finally ... such legal principles and policies form the basis of all this nation's compulsory education laws. (pp. xix-xx)

Now let us examine the actual court cases and contexts in which these judicial statements were made.

( Rest of the Article )

[CNHT]

Who Controls the Children?

Does statist law assign the control of children to their parents, or does the State reserve to itself the right to control their upbringing? In other words, who controls the children in our society?

In NH the state owns your children, according to HB 184...

[Raineyrocks]

Who Controls the Children?

Does statist law assign the control of children to their parents, or does the State reserve to itself the right to control their upbringing? In other words, who controls the children in our society?

In NH the state owns your children, according to HB 184...

Is this the bill?


New Hampshire Gov. Endorses Bill That Will Repeal State's Parental Notification Law
Main Category: Pediatrics News
Article Date: 14 Feb 2007 - 15:00 PDT


New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) would sign a bill (HB 184) meant to repeal a state law (HB 763) that requires physicians in the state to notify by certified letter a parent or guardian of a minor who is seeking an abortion at least 48 hours before performing the procedure, Lynch spokesperson Colin Manning said on Thursday, the Manchester Union Leader reports (Fahey, Manchester Union Leader, 2/8). The law also bars parents from forbidding the procedure, and the notification requirement could be bypassed by a judge if a doctor determines that the minor's life is in danger. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England; the American Civil Liberties Union; the Concord Feminist Health Center; the Feminist Health Center of Portsmouth, N.H.; and Manchester, N.H.-based ob-gyn Wayne Goldner in November 2003 filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law. U.S. District Judge Joseph DiClerico and the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently struck down the entire law. New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (R) appealed the lower courts' ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying that the judicial bypass clause in the measure, combined with other state laws that allow doctors to act in an emergency, protect a woman's health. The Supreme Court in January 2006 unanimously ruled that the lower courts should not have invalidated the entire measure and ordered lower courts to review the legislative intent regarding exceptions to the law for medical emergencies (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 1/3). DiClerico on Feb. 1 said he will continue to block enforcement of the law while the Legislature considers legislation that would repeal it. According to the Union Leader, if the repeal passes, the case is moot; however, if it does not, then the case will continue. If the law is amended, "then the legal landscape of this case may well change," DiClerico wrote (Manchester Union Leader, 2/8). The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday listened to testimony on the legislation to repeal the law, the AP/Boston Globe reports. Rep. Fran Wendelboe (R) offered a measure that would amend the law to include a health exception in cases of emergency and require judicial bypass availability at all times. Manning said Lynch had not reviewed Wendelboe's amendment (Love, AP/Boston Globe, 2/8).

"Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . ? 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

[CNHT]

It sure is...

It says, when we allow Planned Parenthood, an unregulated corporation that does nothing but abortions, to make money off your 12-year old's abortion, we don't by law even have to require that they notify you that they are doing this...

However, we do say that your kid must go to public school and stay in school until 18, wear a flotation device or bike helmet, can't get a tan at a tanning salon without your permission, and of course, can't buy cigarettes or alchohol, and can never have an aspirin give to them at school without your permission...but a serious operation like an abortion? Heck, you don't have to know.

[Kat Kanning]

Tweak that post just a little and it'd make a great letter to the editor.  I'd print it.

[Raineyrocks]

Jane, if you wouldn't mind, can I use some of your post and add my own thoughts on this and send it to the editor?  Can I do that online or via regular mail?  Unless Kat wanted to instead, after reading your post and what Kat said I do think it would be great content for a letter.   If I can do it what would the best newspapers be to send it to?

[CNHT]

Jane, if you wouldn't mind, can I use some of your post and add my own thoughts on this and send it to the editor?  Can I do that online or via regular mail?  Unless Kat wanted to instead, after reading your post and what Kat said I do think it would be great content for a letter.   If I can do it what would the best newspapers be to send it to?

Sure I don't mind! You can send your LTEs via email to almost any paper. I'm willing to look it over for you for details if you want...

There are SO many more things the 'state' prevents a kid from doing, I would want to research it more, because it just makes it all the more absurd to have them listed. Maybe we can brainstorm. To me, this is a business deal between the government and PP for the benefit of PP. Also, if the state can mandate this kind of surgery on your ki, what else can they decide to do with your kid without your knowledge? Perhaps this will be extended to IMPLANTATION OF A MICROCHIP? I mean a microchip implantation is very benign, so compared to an abortion, who'd have any objection to this medically (but freedom-stealing) undangerous procedure? You see where I am going with this?

The lefties have made this into an abortion question though, when it really is not. As a kid, I'd have been upset if they carted me to the hospital from school to have my appendix out without telling my parents...

I mean, it's not really about the abortion question, because even if you are for 'abortion on demand' for everyone being legal, what parent wants their 12 year old baby to be able to go get one without their even knowing? Or any serious operation for that matter?

And, if it is so important that they be able to do this in secret, why do we have all those other stupid laws that say if a kid has a headache they can't get a Tylenol from the school nurse?

Like so many other things they are doing, this just doesn't make sense....and to me, makes a precedent for other things that are not only physically harmful, but dangerous to freedom and right to know.

[CNHT]

Taking this one horrifyingly step further, if they don't have to notify parents of minors, they don't have to notify adults either.

I mean what is to stop them from performing an abortion on a grown woman without her knowledge? Don't we, even though we can only 'suspect' when we are pregnant, depend on doctors to test us and say, yes Mr. Brown you are pregnant? What if that doctor has been ordered by the state to abort all babies from a certain type of person -- home schooler, freedom lover, anti-tax person, etc...

If they don't have to tell parents of minors, do they have to tell adults either what they are doing to them?

You see how this is starting to look like Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler here?

[error]

I suspect the medical procedure wouldn't be so much "abortion" as "inducing miscarriage." Probably through drugs.

[CNHT]

I suspect the medical procedure wouldn't be so much "abortion" as "inducing miscarriage." Probably through drugs.

Yes but it's still an abortion.

A healthy body does all it can to hold on to that fetus, so removing it requires applying a bit of force, chemical or otherwise, in direct opposition to what the body is trying to do. So it's not easy, which is why it is dangerous. Repeated abortions also damage the system in that eventually some are not able to carry when they WANT to, but don't find out about the effects until it's too late.

It just seems to me that PP doesn't care one way or another about the 'rights' of people to have abortions as much as they want this to be a money making proposition for themselves, an opportunity of making lots of money off the fact that kids can now see the unlimited possiblity of getting rid of pregnancies whenever they wish without intervention from anyone.

The 'emergency' argument is weak, because pregnancy is rarely dangerous, except in the case of an ectopic, which one can usually feel after the first week, and is dangerous if NOT removed. However, since at that point the fetus that is stuck in the fallopian tube is a mere pinpoint smaller than a period on this page, it is not a dangerous procedure to get rid of it. If it is not, it will kill the mother. But, this is not that common and chances are the woman would feel the pain from this before even knowing she was pregnant in some cases...

[Raineyrocks]

Jane, if you wouldn't mind, can I use some of your post and add my own thoughts on this and send it to the editor?  Can I do that online or via regular mail?  Unless Kat wanted to instead, after reading your post and what Kat said I do think it would be great content for a letter.   If I can do it what would the best newspapers be to send it to?

Sure I don't mind! You can send your LTEs via email to almost any paper. I'm willing to look it over for you for details if you want...

There are SO many more things the 'state' prevents a kid from doing, I would want to research it more, because it just makes it all the more absurd to have them listed. Maybe we can brainstorm. To me, this is a business deal between the government and PP for the benefit of PP. Also, if the state can mandate this kind of surgery on your ki, what else can they decide to do with your kid without your knowledge? Perhaps this will be extended to IMPLANTATION OF A MICROCHIP? I mean a microchip implantation is very benign, so compared to an abortion, who'd have any objection to this medically (but freedom-stealing) undangerous procedure? You see where I am going with this?

The lefties have made this into an abortion question though, when it really is not. As a kid, I'd have been upset if they carted me to the hospital from school to have my appendix out without telling my parents...

I mean, it's not really about the abortion question, because even if you are for 'abortion on demand' for everyone being legal, what parent wants their 12 year old baby to be able to go get one without their even knowing? Or any serious operation for that matter?

And, if it is so important that they be able to do this in secret, why do we have all those other stupid laws that say if a kid has a headache they can't get a Tylenol from the school nurse?

Like so many other things they are doing, this just doesn't make sense....and to me, makes a precedent for other things that are not only physically harmful, but dangerous to freedom and right to know.

Really, I totally agree with you!  I will start working on my letter tomorrow and would love you to look it over.  What if the kid starts bleeding to death and the parent wouldn't even know.  I bet they're going to get the microchip in people in a sneaky way, I'm thinking flu vaccines or bird flu vaccines that they'll make mandatory.  Who knows?   It's totally creepy that's for sure!  Thanks!

[ChiMoHe]

Press Release from http://www.verichipcorp.com

VeriChip Corporation Installs its 30th Infant Protection System in Puerto Rico 

April 5 2007

VeriChip Corporation Installs its 30th Infant Protection System in Puerto Rico

Company reaches 70% market share in Puerto Rico

DELRAY BEACH, FL?April 5, 2007 -- VeriChip Corporation (Nasdaq: CHIP - News), a provider of RFID systems for healthcare and patient-related needs, announced today that it has installed its 30th infant protection system in Puerto Rico. VeriChip?s Hugs or HALO infant protection systems are in use in 30 of the 42 birthing hospitals in Puerto Rico listed by the American Hospital Association.

Achieving over 70% market share in Puerto Rico is a reflection of VeriChip?s strong distribution network on the island, and the high level of awareness of the infant abduction threat. Electronic infant protection systems are now the norm for hospitals of all sizes, encouraged by legislation enacted by the Puerto Rico legislature in 1999 to require hospitals to invest in infant protection measures.

Dan Gunther, president of VeriChip, commented, ?We applaud the proactive approach to infant protection taken by so many hospitals in Puerto Rico, and we are proud to partner with these hospitals to help protect their smallest patients. Puerto Rico is setting a strong example for infant protection, not only for the United States, but countries around the world.?

For more information on VeriChip?s healthcare security products, please contact 1-866-559-6275 or email infantprotectionsales@verichipcorp.com. Additional information can be found online at www.verichiphealthcare.com.

About VeriChip Corporation

VeriChip Corporation, headquartered in Delray Beach, Florida, develops, markets and sells radio frequency identification, or RFID, systems used to identify, locate and protect people and assets. VeriChip's goal is to become the leading provider of RFID systems for people in the healthcare industry. VeriChip sells passive RFID systems for identification purposes and active RFID systems for local-area location and identification purposes. VeriChip recently began to market its VeriMed(TM) Patient Identification System for rapidly and accurately identifying people who arrive in an emergency room and are unable to communicate. This system uses the first human-implantable passive RFID microchip, the implantable VeriChip(TM), cleared for medical use in October 2004 by the United States Food and Drug Administration.

VeriChip Corporation is majority-owned by Applied Digital Inc. (Nasdaq: ADSX - News), which also owns a majority position in Digital Angel Corporation (Amex: DOC - News). For more information on VeriChip, please call 1-800-970-2447, or email info@verichipcorp.com. Additional information can be found online at http://www.verichipcorp.com.

Statements about the Company's future expectations, including future revenues and earnings, and all other statements in this press release other than historical facts are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and as that term is defined in the Private Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties and are subject to change at any time, and the Company's actual results could differ materially from expected results. The Company undertakes no obligation to update forward-looking statements to reflect subsequently occurring events or circumstances. 


Contact:

VeriChip Corporation

Allison Tomek
561-805-8000
atomek@adsx.com

The Ruth Group

Nick Laudico (investors)
(646) 536-7030
nlaudico@theruthgroup.com

Jason Rando (media)
(646) 536-7025
jrando@theruthgroup.com

Puerto Rico being a Distric of the US makes it the first step in implamenting legislation in the states.  This legislation began in 1999 in Puerto Rico ... Makes me wonder what steps have be taken in the last 8 years to bring this state side. 

Does anyone know?

http://www.verichipcorp.com/content/company/partners

Industry Groups

With VeriChip?s healthcare solutions under contract with two of the leading healthcare purchasing/supply groups, Novation and HealthTrust Purchasing Group (HPG), VeriChip is assured its acquired healthcare offerings are premium products and guaranteed visibility with thousands of facility purchasing managers nation-wide.

On the implantable side of the business, VeriChip is working closely with top hospitals, physicians, and industry representatives as it moves towards the ultimate patient identification and patient record access for those patients with chronic illness, implanted medical devices, complex medical conditions, or impaired memory.

I wonder which Health Care Groups in Puerto Rico have are US based ... I want to boycot them!

[CNHT]

Wow this is pretty scary. I can't find anything that suggests they inject the chip directly into the child, but, I can see the day if and when Carol Shea Porter's universal health care plan is enacted, they would be automatically REQUIRING all children to have this chip embedded somewhere in their bodies.

By letting the state give minors abortions without telling you, you are leaving the door open for this, just for those of you who think 184 was so great because it would allow a kid to buck their parents, and this is the unintended consequence of taking the right to know away from parents.

And for those who somehow don't think many 11 and 12 year old girls get pregnant, I saw many many of them do just that in my work of so many years.

[ChiMoHe]

http://www.verichipcorp.com/content/company/rfidtags#implantable

VeriChip products marked by the ?Implantable? icon mean they utilize the implantable, passive RFID microchip, the VeriChip?, in their solutions for the purpose of automatic identification.

About the size of a grain of rice, the microchip inserts just under the skin and contains only a unique, 16-digit identifier. The chip itself does not contain any other data other than this unique electronic ID, nor does it contain any Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking capabilities. And unlike conventional forms of identification, the VeriChip? cannot be lost, stolen, misplaced, or counterfeited. It is safe, secure, reversible, and always with you.

Once inserted just under the skin, via a quick, painless outpatient procedure (much like getting a shot), the VeriChip? can be scanned when necessary with a proprietary VeriChip reader, whether handheld or wall-mounted. A small amount of radio frequency energy passes from the reader energizing the dormant microchip which then emits a radio frequency signal transmitting the individuals unique verification number. This number can then be used for such purposes as accessing personal medical information in a password-protected database or assessing whether somebody has authority to enter into a high-security area.

VeriChip is the only company in the world today to offer an implantable FDA-cleared RFID microchip and offers this option in its VeriMed and VeriGuard systems.

[CNHT]

Remains is one thing but live people --------OMG.