was sent on February 25, 1954, along with a short cover letter, to Judge John D. Clifford, Jr.,
of the U.S. District Court for the district of Maine, where the complaint had been issued.
Reich also sent the court copies of his publications.
The essential position of the Response was that basic natural-scientific research
could not be decided in a courtroom. However, Reich was aware of the complications of
this position, for his Response stated: “There are conspirators around whose aim is to
destroy human happiness and self-government. Is ... the right of the conspirator to ravage
humanity the same as my right to free, unimpeded inquiry? It obviously is not the same
thing.”^26
Reich could not resolve the question: Who decides what is basic natural research
and what is destructive? His attempt at a solution was unconvincing. To quote in part from
his Response:
It is not permissible, either morally, legally, or factually to force a natural
scientist to expose his scientific results and methods of basic research in court....
To appear in court as a defendantin matters of basic natural research would
in itself appear, to say the least, extraordinary. It would require disclosure of evi-
dence in support ofthe position ofthe discovery of the Life Energy. Such disclo-
sure, however, would involve untold complications and possibly national disaster^27.Reich’s threats about disclosure leading to a “national disaster” were irrelevant and
histrionic. He could present a substantial defense against the FDA’s complaint on the basis
of his findings and witnesses and through cross-examination of the government’s experts.
Nowhere in his Response did Reich deal with the specific FDA complaint, namely, that he
made claims regarding the accumulator that were not true. He simply said that the plaintiff
“by his mere Complaint already has shown his ignorance in matters of natural science.”
Since the FDA was saying the same thing about him,who was to decide?
Somehow Reich believed, or at least he hoped, that the judge would be able to tell
from his Response and from his literature that Reich was a bona fide scientist, not a quack.
Such an unrealistic hope,and such a misunderstanding of the American legal system reveal
Reich at his most childishly naive and self-deluding. Had he sent his Response simply as a
matter of record, one could respect his principled position even if one sharply disagreed
with it.But the combination in Reich of principle plus hope for the principle being under-
stood was as self-deceiving as it was self-destructive.
A third alternative was for Reich to have appeared in court but limited his defense
to the constitutional issues. At least he would have had a far greater standing in court than
he gained through the written Response. Reich may have thought that his Response was
equivalent to this position. It was not taken that way by the court. The judge did give some
deliberation to the Response, but then, according to an FDA memo dated March 9, “it
appears that the decision has been reached to characterize this document as a ‘crank letter.’
It will not be construed as an appearance on the part of any one or all the defendants, since
392 Myron SharafFury On Earth