The two men argued frequently about how the case should be conducted, but Haydon
respected the way Reich pursued the argument even if he didn’t always agree with it.
One of the points of contention was Reich’s basic tenet that the courts lacked juris-
diction over science. Haydon told Reich that he agreed with the position, but legally it did
not work that way and Reich could not change it. Also, there was the problem that some-
body had to protect the public against real fraud. Reich’s position was that while the courts
did not have jurisdiction over “legitimate science,” they didhave jurisdiction over “illegiti-
mate science.” In an interview with me, Haydon made the point that Reich never really
understood the democratic process; he had an elitist notion of how things should be, with
“rational” people like himself determining what was legitimate and illegitimate science.
Given Reich’s viewpoint that the courts lacked jurisdiction, he would not accept
Haydon’s proposal to appeal the original injunction since this would be acknowledging the
court’s authority. Haydon had wanted Reich to appeal on some kind of “special basis,” but
for Reich that was just a “technicality.” Again and again the issue of technicalities came up
between Reich and Haydon. Reich kept saying he wasn’t going to play the “game of techni-
calities,” while Haydon maintained it was the only game in town.
What did Haydon learn for his own professional life from Reich? One lesson was
that,in Reich’s words, “people cannot lie”; one way or another, through grimace, body
movement, or whatever, the truth emerges. Reich attributed such revelation to “the energy
of truth.” Apparently, this affected Haydon’s life and his practice of law. For example, in
cross-examinations, he found that while witnesses were well prepared to defend themselves
on central issues, they would reveal the truth, if questioned cleverly, on peripheral matters.
Reich’ appreciated this technique.
Haydon was also impressed by Reich’s critique of the criminal justice system. Reich
was against labeling people criminals; that was dealing with symptoms rather than causes. He
wanted to see boards of social psychiatry established to get to the root causes.
As for his own case, Reich experienced some dissatisfaction with Haydon’s view
and attempted to engage another lawyer to represent him at the July 26 hearing, with
Haydon representing Silvert and the Foundation. Reich was especially interested in obtain-
ing a lawyer more supportive of his basic position in matters of natural science and more
prepared to raise the issue ofwhat Reich regarded as the conspiratorial aspects of the FDA.
I am not sure who recommended James St. Clair of the law firm of Hale and Dorr, Boston.
In any case, St. Clair decided not to take the case. He believed that Reich had had the oppor-
tunity to raise the kinds ofissues that concerned him but had not taken it.
St. Clair in turn suggested Frederick Fisher of the same law firm. (A year earlier, at
the time of the Army-McCarthy Hearings, Fisher had been viciously attacked by Joseph
McCarthy for some youthful left-wing activities, a fact that did not disturb Reich for all his
Red Fascist emphasis of those days.) Initially, Fisher was as reluctant to take on the case as
St.Clair had been.He believed Reich had defied the injunction and was guilty of contempt.
However,after a subsequent telephone conversation with Haydon, Fisher, now intrigued,
agreed to appear at the hearing.
29 : Background to the Trial for Contempt of Injunction: 1955-1956 405