Update 2011: Contrary to the update on the previous page, Sean Dix discloses information as evidence that an attempt on his life was made in 2009 using fluoride poisoning.
"The Model Penal Code (MPC) adopted at the 1962 Annual meeting of the American Law Institute reflects the expansive judicial interpretation given to the "Necessity Defense" by American courts. The commentary notes that court decisions interpreting the defense of necessity have been rare and legislative interpretation infrequent. It goes on to criticize statutory schemes which are cast in terms so "narrow" that they reduce the scope of the defense at common law. The commentary observes that a "developed legal system" must provide for a broad necessity defense that is "essential to the rationality and justice of all penal prohibitions".
"The MPC requires that the Evil sought to be avoided by the criminal conduct be greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged. The commentary specifies that the final weighing of values is to occur at trial, without specifying whether the determination is for the judge or jury. The commentary concedes that any weighing of values of necessity lacks precision since certainty is "unattainable in practice" and there will always be "disagreement on what constitutes an evil and which of the two evils is greater". "However, it concludes that it is preferable to have a defense of "uncertain" ambit than none at all".
Although the MPC specifies that an actor must reasonably believe that his criminal conduct is necessary to avert an evil to himself or to others, the code does not require that the harm be imminent or that there be an emergency. Under the MPC, a criminal act arguably is justified by necessity based on the fact that it is undertaken to preserve morally preferred values, rather than because that actor was compelled to act to avoid an imminent danger and, therefore, is considered to have lacked a criminal intent. The MPC does not require the exaustion of other non-criminal alternatives, and no restriction is placed on the type of criminal conduct in which an individual may engage to avert the threatened harm. Nor does MPC limit the scope of the defense to cases where the evil sought to be avoided is death, bodily injury, or other specified harm. The use of the term "Evil", rather than "Harm", suggests that the defense may be extended to encompass intangible, nonphysical injuries. The only explicit limitations on the necessity defense imposed by the MPC are legislative preclusion and the defendant's negligently or recklessly bringing about or appraising the situation that was believed to require a choice of evils.
The MPC thus adopts a liberal interpretation of the necessity defense. No imminence or exhaustion requirements are imposed, and the individual pleading necessity is not required to demonstrate that his act was directly calculated to avert the threatened harm.
Necessity becomes a question of reasonableness to be determined by the judge or jury in light of all the circumstances. The MPC considers necessity a justification defense, meaning that although it involves a violation of positive law, it is "socially acceptable" and deserves "neither criminal liability nor censure". Unlike excuse, which absolves only a particular defendant, justification provides a defense for all similarly situated individuals. This defense, in effect is a recognition that certain obligations and values transcend those embodied in positive law.
In conclusion the MPC requires that the Evil sought to be avoided by the criminal conduct be greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged.
The required elements of the Necessity Defense according to the MPC include:
1. The MPC requires that the "Evil" sought to be avoided by the criminal conduct be greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged. Additionally the MPC does not limit the "Evil" to imminent physical harm or emergency.
Under the MPC, a criminal act is arguably justified by necessity based on the fact that it is undertaken to preserve morally preferred values and therefore is considered to have lacked a criminal intent. The use of the term "Evil", rather than "Harm", suggests that the defense may be extended to encompass intangible, nonphysical injuries.
2. No causal relationship between the act and the harm sought to be avoided is required. Under the MPC it is not required to demonstrate that the act was directly calculated to Avert the threatened harm.
3. The MPC does not require the Exhaustion of other Non-Criminal Alternatives.
The only explicit limitations on the necessity defense imposed by the MPC are Legislative preclusion and the defendant's negligently or recklessly bringing about Or appraising the situation that was believed to require a choice of evils.
Elements of Necessity Defense demonstrated in United States Vs. Sean Dix
1. The "Evil" sought to be avoided by the criminal conduct must be greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged. Additionally the MPC does not limit the "Evil" to imminent physical harm or emergency suggesting that the defense may be extended to encompass intangible, non-physical injuries".
The "Evil" sought to be avoided is the destruction of the "Truth" which has perpetually damaged the intellectual property value of my patents and the actual loss of financial and social status resulting from the purposely malicious and criminal CNN piece. The residual effects of which are far greater than the "criminal act charged" by sending a letter containing threatening language intentionally designed to generate a trial as a last resort defense when the government whose sole responsibility is to protect the governed did nothing. The core principle of this case is that I intentionally violated positive law by writing a letter to be used as a tool to expose the morally preferred value of the "Truth" and not as the crime of a "True Threat" that I was charged with. CNN's violation of the core principles of the "Consumer Product Tampering Laws" left un-rectified perpetually violates my inalienable right to the pursuit of Happiness which is unfortunately perpetuated by my fiduciary duty to disclose any negative information that materially affects my company. With or without exoneration I am obligated to disclose the CNN piece to potential investors and now my felony status as a result of defending my company against CNN. Without Justice, Exoneration and Restitution my current indigent status is virtually guaranteed. Liberty is lost if not physically then in every other sense. The perpetual criminal oppression of one's pursuit of Happiness, results in a re-defining of what Liberty is which ultimately re-defines the right of Life to that of a threatened "Existence". The resulting limitation of my potential prevents the public at large from benefitting from the use of FlossRings which have been clinically proven to remove 23.8% more plaque than floss alone rivaling the effectiveness of the Toothbrush.
2. Causal Relationship between the act and the harm sought to be avoided.
There is a direct relationship between the act and the harm sought to be avoided. The act of transmitting the letter of April 18, 2000 specifically designed to initiate a court proceeding where the "Truth" would be revealed and the resulting evidence would exonerate me. Exoneration would dictate the need for justice and restitution and would end the perpetual limitation of my potential.
3. Availability of Non-Criminal Alternatives
It can be adequately demonstrated that all relevant governmental agencies, public institutions and private counsel regarding non-criminal alternatives known to DIX and within the financial, intellectual and politically correct means of DIX were exhausted, including two violations of positive law referring to the faxing campaign and the protest outside of CNN before the letter of April 18, 2000 was sent.
Having defined that I will get back to the story.
The speedy trial act was delayed when my court appointed lawyer refused to give me Discovery until I demanded it, which prompted me to have her removed as counsel. At the change of counsel hearing my lawyer lied stating that I had not asked her for the psychiatric report which was used to detain me without bond which I had begun asking for the day after it was finished and to which I was legally entitled. The judge did not believe my lawyer and appointed me new counsel which was worse than the first.
Additionally, I told the judge about the psychiatrist confirming the threat about being lost in prison so that he could investigate it. Instead, the judge (Joel M. Feldman), erased that portion of the hearing transcript, which he admitted in a letter signed by him almost eight months later. To add insult to injury, he then denied that he did it in another letter only two weeks later. This by the way is called: Fraud Involving Depravation of the Intangible Right to the Honest Services of Public Officials, which is a felony.
Regardless, it was seven months before I would have my trial. On October 19, 2000, I was offered "Time Served" by the government. I refused for the wealth of information that would be unearthed at the trial. One day later, on October 20, 2000, the F.B.I. interviewed Pilar Keagy Johnson and Sarah Smith Flynn of CNN (the head legal counsel and her secretary) who both gave statements that were completely fabricated and can be proven so by the discovery that they provided.
Needless to say, they gave their statements 6 months after the letter of April 18, 2000 was sent, and one day after I refused "Time Served". Further, the trial was originally set to begin on Oct 3, 2000 and if it had begun on schedule, neither of their statements would be even available. These were statements made in furtherance of a conspiracy and therefore a criminal act.
The trial took place on Dec. 5, 2000. It was stacked against me as you can imagine. The prosecutor, along with the F.B.I. agent, both supported perjury and it can be proven in the discovery they provided. CNN had three people get up on the stand and lie to get me convicted which again can be proven. As for me, I told the jury why I was there and what this was about. To narrow the trial to the most important issues I would like to point out that the prosecutor "Todd Alley" made two very different arguments each nullifying the other.
The first argument he made was that my intentions were irrelevant and that all that mattered was that I sent a letter containing threatening language period. If that argument is let to stand and the context and content within which it was sent doesn't matter then even if it is used as an exhibit in an appeal the simple act of sending it through the mail is another felony. You may counter with the argument that a court understands that such a document is part of an appeal and therefore not another felony but you would then be upholding the argument that the context within which it is sent does matter.
The second argument that he made was that I was attempting to manipulate the justice system by sending that letter to get into court and that I should "get what I deserve". Now if I sent that letter to get into court then it couldn't be a true threat because the true nature was to get into court. You could try and argue that I made a true threat to get into court but it would still leave you with the ultimate intention of being heard in court which is asking for help out of desperation when all other options have failed and not the intention of carrying out the contents of the letter. These are simply two different arguments and I believe that the prosecutor knew that in full. They simply wanted to punish me for demanding justice and putting them on the spot for not doing their jobs to begin with.
The jury had a hard time finding me guilty because they came back deadlocked twice before the prosecutor gave the "Allen Charge" which basically states that the jury doesn't have to hurry, but they should really hurry and come back with a verdict. Given the narrow framework in which the prosecutor stated that it wasn't important that I meant to do what I wrote, but that I sent it period. The jury found me guilty and I was to be sentenced three months later.
I have renoved several paragraphs here which were defamatory.
The judge even asked her [Stephanie Ramage] again if she felt threatened and Stephanie paused for a whole minute which seemed like an hour and then said, "Yes I couldn't sleep all night". To make a long story short the judge did not increase my sentence. He gave me 15 months after already serving 12 months. According to Federal time, you serve 85% of your sentence so I had roughly another month to go.
From the sentencing hearing I was shipped to Union City Jail where I would spend a few more weeks. On May 2, 2001, during lockdown, I was called out of my cell by a guard to receive some mail (this is not the typical mail delivery procedure). I was given a hand written note with my name on it by an individual that I do not know. It was hand delivered to the jail. This is a breach of the mail protocol by any jail standards Federal or State because all mail must come through the U.S. Mail. It must be opened and read so that it is accounted for. No one anywhere is allowed to pass a note to a guard from the outside to an inmate period. The note said that "upon my release I would be harassed and experimented upon" among other disturbing statements.
Two days later, on May 4, 2001, my cell mate who was only to be in jail for 12 days on a fine, decided to start a fight with me out of the clear blue. No one with 12 days would risk getting into a fight which could land you a three year sentence for fighting in jail. I, along with every one else in the cell block believes it was staged in order to give me the opportunity to initiate a real charge and stay in jail. I had no choice but to stand my ground, although I was not going to swing first. He backed down and then called the C.O. (correctional officer) and said I was starting trouble with him.
Completely thrown off by this unbelievable event, I called for the Captain to straighten it out, but no one came for several hours. Thankfully, everyone in the cellblock realized what was happening and gave my cellmate the big chill for being such a loser. When the guards finally came, they took him out without even questioning either of us. I have seen at least fifteen fights on my journey through the penal system and in each case they take both parties out for questioning and then come back to see if anyone in the cellblock has anything to say. They did none of this, making it highly suspect. I wrote a formal grievance and submitted it, but it was never acknowledged or returned before I was shipped to yet another jail, Bartow County Jail. I spent a little less than a month there before being released on June 1, 2001.
I reported to probation in New York and was re-assigned to a Ms. Samler who decided that I should go to psycho-therapy. I told her that I didn't think it was going to be helpful after being threatened by the last psychiatrist Dr. Davis but I cooperated. Believing that I had at least another opportunity to explain this to a "professional" I attended therapy and was assigned to a Robert Grella. I explained to Ms. Samler that I didn't see the point because they had an agenda and it was to get me to walk away from justice and that would not work in the long run. I went and watched this psycho-therapist in need of a psycho-therapist himself scrape plaque off his teeth and smell his fingers until I was ready to climb the walls myself. On more than one occasion he wiped the plaque off his fingers on the edges of an article that was in my press kit that I had provided to him to review while staring at me to see if I noticed.
The ending of our sessions began with him confirming that he knew that I didn't send a true threat and then retracting that statement stating that he now thought differently and then finally stating that the letter being the reason that I was there was not important.
I told Ms. Samler I could no longer engage someone that did not even care why I was there. So they (Ms. Samler and Robert Grella) in frustration decided I should see a psychiatrist, Dr. Buckholz, who I met once before and who seemed to relish his German accent a little too much. The meeting was scheduled for.. get this... Fri. 11/23 at 11:24 A.M. I kid you not I saved the schedule card. I decided that I wanted to begin recording these sessions as I was in complete doubt about their credibility so I contacted the N.Y.S. mental health Dept., and The American Psychiatric Association etc. all of whom stated that I had the right to record my sessions and that if the psychiatrist refused I would simply have to find one that would agree.
Well, Dr. Buckholz declined and after speaking to the head of that institution Dr. Pabas, he said that none of them wanted to be taped and he stated that they were "paranoid" that I would alter the tape to which I offered to bring two tape recorders and leave one tape at the end of each session. I taped that conversation, Thank God. It's rare to hear the director of a mental health clinic offer that his staff is paranoid about recording their sessions. On the contrary, Ms. Samler argued with me that there was a policy at the clinic against taping the sessions to which Dr. Pabas explained that there was no policy. They were simply paranoid. I was re-assigned to a board certified psychologist Dr. Caffrey, who amazingly, is located directly across the street from the new AOL Time Warner CNN building at Columbus Circle. I attended and I again stated to Ms. Samler that this would be a waste of time unless there was no pre-planned agenda. Now, Dr. Caffrey was a nice guy but he definitely had an agenda and it was to waste my time in as non-confrontational of a manner as possible. He was a master at hiding his intentions which only came through on rare occasions like when I found out that the Supreme Court rejected my appeal. The sound of relish in his voice was unmistakable as he asked me, "How does that feel?." He controlled his enjoyment like someone who just won the lottery declaring that it's not going to change their life meanwhile the electricity of their excitement is turning on nearby lightbulbs as if by magic. In another session he dismissed what CNN did as "business maliciousness".
He eventually admitted that what CNN did was wrong and probably criminal and eventually he even stated that he was willing to bet money that J&J was involved criminally and that the Government had harmed me as well, but that there was nothing he was going to do about it. In another session he stated that "he refused to believe that this venture was how I defined my life" to which I responded, "Who are you to pass judgement on how I chose to define my life." I never challenged his right to pursue his career or any other person for that matter. It was amazing to me that this board certified psychologist was arguing with me about my choice of purpose in life. Amazingly his specialty is "Suicide Prevention" and on one occasion I asked him, "isn't it ironic that your job title should have a lot to do with giving people the inspiration to find something to live for instead of killing that spirit." He seemed phased by that remark but I don't think he ever really had any intention of supporting my individual right to choose my path and defend it.
The straw that broke the camel's back occurred when I decided to issue a ruse stating that I was going to give up and try to sell my patents. I did this because I was tired of engaging in a process with a so called "professional" who had zero intention of resolving the problem and whose only intention was to allow me to blow off steam and vent it right out the window with no application towards justice or resolution. The angrier that I got the happier he seemed to be.
The next week or so believing that I was finally going to give up, he came swooping down like a hawk trying to reverse the blame in this whole series of injustices stating that I had reduced myself to this. That was all I could hear, I could hear no more. My energy was being used against me to further accept the criminal conspiracy against my rights and I could cooperate no more. I got up and left, never to return. I would like to quote Isiah Berlin here when he said, "All forms of tampering with human beings, getting at them, shaping them against their will to your own pattern, all thought control and conditioning is, therefore, a denial of that which makes them men and their values ultimate."
Dr. Caffrey called late at night the next week and I told him I was done with him and probation and I don't care what the consequences were. My conscience would not allow me to cooperate with this program of subtle abuse that seeks to rob me of valuable time and energy. He called several more times and several more times I told him the same.
In one of our last conversations where he was calling me at home, I asked him why he had not done anything to state for the record that this whole ordeal was criminal and he said "he could but he didn't want to because it would be out of his job responsibilities" to which I asked him "well how about your calling me at 9:00 at night at my home because I refuse to see you. Isn't that out of your job description". He answered "yes I guess so" and then I ended the conversation. It was clear to me that if it meant doing his job to stand up and declare that this was unfair on my behalf he was unwilling to do that, but when I decided to end the sessions without his consent then he was willing to step out of his traditional role to try and save his own ass to try and keep me in the sessions.
Ms. Samler continued to call at first requesting, then demanding that I report to probation but I could not. It was like being asked to knowingly drink poison and smile. Then probation from Atlanta called and I told him the same that I cannot in good conscience cooperate with this any longer and that I was willing to defend myself if necessary and that they should know that. That was on March 13, 2003. Since I declared openly that I will resist any attempts at re-arrest it has been over four months. On Feb. 18, 2003 I sent Dick Parsons the new C.E.O. of AOL Time Warner a Federal Express package with both Supreme Court Briefs which according to the details of my probation is a complete violation and I did so willingly as I have stated in the past that if I do not get justice that I would put this whole situation back on the table. This has been a physically and emotionally sickening process of disenfranchisement that seeks to have my cooperation and acceptance. If someone walked into a liquor store and tried to rob it they might wind up dead or seriously injured and it would be justifiable in the eyes of the community as self defense of one's livelihood and person.
On the contrary when a news organization decides to do a hatchet job (aptly named) it is far more damaging then a one time robbery as it destroys the business potential along with one's life socially, and financially for a much longer time in some case years, if not indefinitely. Even though there are Federal Criminal Statutes against it as I have pointed out, without enforcement its like being robbed in broad daylight in front of the public and the authorities who while turning their heads, say it's not their job go sue them which is impossible without huge amounts of capital.
This is no less then a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment which guarantees "equal protection under the law". You simply cannot just file a law suit. It costs more money then most people could even imagine. Aside from the fact that what CNN did was a crime if the Government does not prosecute it as such even if you did get it into Civil court CNN's argument would be that they said nothing defamatory. It was the dentists and since I'm claiming that CNN instructed them to do that which would be a crime I'am therefore in the wrong court because the Government has made no such determination of criminal conduct... end of story. Crimes on such a scale in public view can only take place with the complicity of the Government. This started out with me approaching J&J giving them the opportunity on a platter which they declined and so I decided to do it myself to which a few people obviously decided no I will not. A fair news piece would have been simply the right thing to do giving credit where credit is due. Instead I got a public demonstration of the destruction of my intellectual property, threatened for pursuing justice, imprisonment for defending myself against it, and then asked under the threat of returning to imprisonment to acknowledge that "I have reduced myself to this" in therapy which should have been anything but a continuation of this abusive charade of power which I can only believe because it is still going on.
I would like to include a few relevant quotes here by John Locke who was one of the most quoted individuals by the founding fathers of this country.
"Any Single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistence to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgement, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such, it is a judgement that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other."
--John Locke 1690
"Whenever legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience."
From the long past to the not so distant past to the current day the core values of a free society remain the same as noted by Albert Einstein.
"Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it." --Albert Einstein
Going back in time a bit to complete the legal chronology of events......On February 20, 2002 the Eleventh Circuit court of appeals affirmed the conviction without writing an opinion after previously denying the motion to record the hearing so there is no transcript or knowledge of what took place as my lawyer objected to my request to attend. On June 10, 2002 the Supreme Court denied Certiorari and then again on August 5, 2002 the Supreme Court denied my petition for re-hearing which is the final portion of the appeals process. I have since talked to several lawyers who admit that this is a complicated case which would cost a ton of money; money that I do not have. It would appear that CNN with a little help from J&J has successfully engineered a piece of malicious propaganda designed to render me indigent and then successfully committed perjury in Federal Court to get me convicted further impeding any attempt at justice and further destroying my credibility and potential to enjoy the fruits of my labor. This....... is CNN.
On the probable reasoning behind all of this, I believe that CNN did that piece either as a favor or was instructed to do it by J&J, who stands to lose significantly if I raise the standard by delivering a sterilized floss which according to current FDA law should be mandatory like Band-Aids because Floss comes into contact with the blood below the gumline. As a matter of fact, the former director of Worldwide Licensing and Acquisitions from J&J, has since retired and has written me a letter stating that he believes the FlossRings are worth 50-100 million a year if I can get this off the ground.
That would make the FlossRings "The Biggest Innovation in Oral Care since the Toothbrush" which by the way have been proven to remove 23.8% more plaque than floss alone in a clinical study conducted at Indiana University which you also never heard about and which is another very interesting story which I will not go into here. Not to mention that the FlossRings are on display in the Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry in association with the Smithsonian Institution.
If you have any reservations about J&J being behind this consider the following story. In December of 2000 while I was in jail in Atlanta I got a letter from my mother who had been sent a letter containing a small article. The article described how Johnson & Johnson had basically "threatened" to pull all of their advertising and encouraged other drug manufacturers to do the same if USA Networks aired a T.V. movie scheduled for production called "Who Killed Sue Snow". The movie was based on the 1986 deaths of two Seattle-Area residents who took cyanide-laced Excedrin. Now J&J doesn't even make Excedrin but they raised the concern that people could commit copy cat crimes. The L.A. Times sources said that Johnson & Johnson wanted to avoid reminding the public of the Seven Chicago-area deaths in 1982 from Cyanide-Tainted Extra Strength Tylenol. Interestingly, from my point of view that unfortunate situation did prompt J&J and other drug makers to create tamper proof seals etc. as a response to what was done to them. This was a most unfortunate situation but they did rise to the challenge to create a greater measure of security and so why not embrace that aspect of how they overcame such a crisis with innovation.
The desire to wipe clean any negative true company history in such a case serves not to avoid copy cat crimes but to banish the thought that they were ever vulnerable. If that is to be secured then ultimately they will become more vulnerable, for as they gain greater control over any negative truth being aired they will have less and less incentive to maintain the standards and quality that they promote. I don't believe it is necessarily the design to control the news specifically to get away with anything but in some cases it has happened and as it is said "Absolute power, corrupts absolutely." Now when you realize that J&J was willing to "threaten" a network like USA Networks and it has been well documented in the news. You can do a Google search on that to (Who Killed Sue Snow), then what would it take to get CNN to do a hatchet job on me. I don't think they had to twist arms for that considering that I have no legal team, no support from the Government etc.. Once the ball began rolling then it became CNN's game to defend their cooperation in it and then the Government's.
Coincidentally the woman who was responsible for the Tylenol poisoning's was the first person in the country to be prosecuted and convicted of murder under the federal anti-tampering laws.
It would be ironic if CNN were to be the second to be prosecuted under that law but that would also then include J&J which would then fall under the "Conspiracy against Rights". Unfortunately this situation has gone un-rectified all the way to the Supreme Court which is not so Supreme in my opinion and I believe there is only one court greater than that and it is the "court of public opinion." Unfortunately to even get this in front of the public on any scale and in the proper context that would have a meaningful impact is currently impossible and so I remain confident for the time being in the Roman proverb, "tempus omnia revelat" "Time reveals all things."
The consolidation that has taken place in all of the sectors Media, Manufacturing, Retailing, Wholesaling etc. has made these events possible as the relationships between big businesses gets closer and the number of companies in the market gets smaller.
Unfortunately, I cannot find a lawyer in this country willing to take on the biggest Media empire in the World (AOL, Time Warner, CNN) which I believe would ultimately lead back to Johnson & Johnson and the Federal Government. However it must be done. Much more is at stake here than just me and FlossRings, the principles of Innovation, Entrepreneurship and progress that made this country great are at risk. The tyranny that the U.S. has fought against is now evident here with the corporate control of the Media and its influence on the government and public perception. If we don't remember history, we will be forced to repeat it. Instead of making progress through building, we are consolidating. Tyranny is basically an ugly word for complete un-accountability which is like a virus infecting society in ways that are often completely hidden from public view.
The only way to heal such festering wounds is to re-open the wounds and clean them before closing them so that the bacteria will not spread and destroy the living organism. For those of you who would like to see the FlossRings, which should have been widely available by now, you can visit www.flossrings.com to learn more about them. If there is a lawyer reading this, all I can say is that this is a case that would set a "Precedent" from which new avenues of Civil & Criminal Law could stem regarding the abuse of power and its effects on society at a time when progress is so necessary. Justice, Exoneration, and Restitution are long overdue, and hopefully a higher standard will be set in the process from which others will be inspired instead of discouraged from trying to fulfill their human potential.
Last Updated 7/16/03