Last week, I wrote about Ohio state Judge Richard Frye requiring defendants to take experimental coronavirus vaccine shots as a condition for probation, with probation being the means by which defendants can avoid being sent to prison. Frye had insisted that none of the people he had ordered to take the shots had expressed any philosophical, medical, or religious objection. He said his imposition of the probation requirement was just intended to help the defendants overcome their “procrastination” regarding taking the shots.
Here is an update. An interview with one of the defendants ordered by Frye to take the shots backs my argument in my article that the judge’s imposing of the probation condition is in practice the exercise of government force to make the defendants take the shots.
I wrote that many defendants who have made up their minds not to take the experimental coronavirus vaccine shots, some of which are not even vaccines under the normal meaning of the term, would keep quiet about their objections and even say “thank you sir” to the judge when the judge pushes the probation condition. Defendants in such a situation will likely fear of the repercussions of countering the judge who holds the power to punish the defendants, harshen their probation conditions, or even send them to prison if they don’t just acquiesce.
In an interview at WSYX-TV of Columbus, Ohio, Sylvaun Latham, one of the defendants given the shots-taking probation condition by the judge explains how things went down in the courtroom. The description is far from the image Frye presented to media of a judge kindly helping nonobjecting defendants overcome their procrastination about taking the experimental coronavirus vaccine shots.
The WSYX-TV story provides details from Latham about what happened when in court Frye threw out the three-year probation deal struck between Latham’s attorney and prosecutors to present a new probation plan with a key shots condition added:
‘The whole atmosphere of the courtroom changed,’ said criminal offender Sylvaun Latham who was sentenced for a gun and drug charge last week before Common Pleas Court Judge Richard Frye. ‘Everyone had this look on their face. I broke character and asked (my attorney), “Can he do this?”‘
‘I know Judge Frye’s reputation,’ said Latham. ‘I know he’s known for giving the max time. I don’t want to go to jail. I also don’t want to have five years probation.’
However, when he stood before the judge at sentencing, terms had changed. He said Judge Frye told him he could choose between five years probation or just one year on the condition that he receives the COVID-19 vaccine.
‘I’m shaking at this point. I don’t like where this is going,’ said Latham who decided on the terms of the vaccine in the moment. ‘I feel like it is an overstep especially when he asked me if I’d get it and I said I really don’t want to get it,’ said Latham.
Read the complete WSYX-TV story, and watch a video report containing part of the interview with Latham, here.
The WSYX-TV story says Latham is planning to contact the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) about what happened. Hopefully, Latham, with assistance from the ACLU or otherwise, will undertake a strong challenge to courts mandating shots.
The post Defendant Speaks Out Against Ohio Judge Requiring Shots for Probation was first published by the Ron Paul Institute, and is republished here with permission. Please support their efforts.