Considering that "extreme legality is the worst law" (Cicero, "De Officiis," 44 B.C.) and that there are victims and survivors of the schizophrenia spectrum of disorders in America who have had no recourse under law to secure from "the lost code of nature" (Hugo Grotius, "Dejure bell ac pads "1625 AD.) any relief from "hard bargains," (Hamilton, "Federalist," no. 80, 1788 A.D.) does it not default to the justice of constitutional equity to provide them a juridical path back to society or are they merely exo-constitutional citizens forever lost?

GIVEN THAT the University of Pittsburgh determined that both atypical and typical antipsychotic drugs cause a twenty percent reduction of the volume of the cerebrum, and additionally concluding that "the chronic exposure of non-human primates to antipsychotics was associated with reduced brain volume:' a white-collar RICO-like structure subsequently quashed this scientific news about their 20 billion dollar industry that thrives by selling these chemical restraints that are blessed by a U.S. judicial deference to the judgment of "professionals--whose decisions are presumptively valid" (Youngberg v. Romeo, U.S. Supreme Court, 1982)

IS THIS COURT happy with a decision in which clean-handed U.S. citizens have their brains involuntarily reduced in size by twenty percent while forcibly controlled or coerced under U.S. law and in which no crimes have been alleged and no trials held?

Is equity the corrective function of the law and not something different from the law? If not, what is it? Why is equity a named partner in Section 2, Article III of the U.S. Constitution?

issues being raised