Click here to find the archived story that generated the following comments:

Tammy writes:

I need to make a small correction here:

Smith said that I had adjusted his neck and HIP, not spine. In actuality, I adjusted his HEAD and HIP. Again I need to reassure everyone that I do not deal directly with the spinal column, which is in DIRECT opposition to both chiropractic and osteopathic methodologies.

Regarding the testimony of Smith's eye witnesses ... well, what can I say but perjury. And yes, I do have the tape that can support my statement. Amazingly all the parties involved are smack dab in the camera lens at the time of the so-called altercation; amazing. God is good.

So basically what I have to say now Mr. and Mrs. Public, is that if your trusted physician is going to lie under oath in a court of law in order to benefit him or her, then how can you possibly expect said physician to tell you the truth in an office visit?

And that's my point.

ThoughtsOnFreeSpeech writes:

How is it, that a judge, can take testimony from a witness at the scene, that Tammy Kennedy said she was going to kill someone and then this judge turns around and finds Kennedy not guilty? Have our judges, district and city attorneys become a gang above the law, who make up the laws as they go along, to suit their own interests, likes and dislikes? It's almost as if the framework of Oklahoma law is disregarded completely at the whim of our local court system and that Enid's powers that be are totaly free, to interpret the law in whatever bizarre fashion fits their immediate needs. Tammy Kennedy does not really look like a mafia hit woman, I'll grant you that, but the letter of the law does not require, that she be such, in order to be found guilty of issuing threats. It simply requires that there be evidence that she issued such threats. Whether or not, one is actually protected by Oklahoma law, largely depends on who you are, in Enid now- a-days.

keepyourhandsoffme writes:

Enough of this stupid feud. Science has nothing to do with what these feuding adults are fighting over. I'll just stick with my healing crystals and eye of newt if I get sick or hurt...

Tammy writes:

You know it's amazing to me that you types (ThoughtsOnFreeSpeech) exist and are so willing to be so vocal in your stupidity.

So, I figure that you don't believe that a doctor would perjure himself in a court of law? And I also figure that you believe if a doctor makes a mistake in his practice then he's just going to fess up to the fact, right? I guess that's why the cost of malpractice insurance has gotten so high, because all of our good doctors are taking all the necessary precautions in order to assure public safety and want their patients to be completely informed about their own mistakes.

Well what could I be thinking?

ThoughtsOnFreeSpeech you want to come up with a name? Come on, be a big boy.

Or ... I suppose you can change your name to CrapOn/OfFreeSpeech, that would be acceptable ... and more accurate.

elcox writes:

I would like to point out some things here. The article focused mainly on the testimony of the doctors. There was little mention of what the response of the defendant was. It was not mentioned that there was a question by the judge as to why there was a delay in Smith's response to Tammy's supposed threats (took him three weeks to decide to tell the police that he felt his life was in danger). And it didn't mention that the judge seemed to be laughing at this whole thing. Said there was little relevance to the testimony's of the docs. Thoughts on free speech, your assumption of the validity of the testimonies of these doctors is presumptive. They are part of the crowd who recently brought suit against Tammy. To assume that they are simply telling the truth with no hidden agendas here is faulty I believe.

The perspective of this paper and how they seem to prefer to paint Tammy as a crazy person is so sad. They like to discredit her in this community and seems to want to protect the other players in these altercations. Had the outcome been different then there would have been a much more negative slant to this article I believe. Wish the paper would just give Tammy a break. They are one of her worst opponents it looks to me.

Oh, and it is interesting how inconsistent their censorship on what seems to be inciteful. It is okay to let people slam Tammy in written word, but her opposition, they really protect. I can assure you of that. They censor my comments all the time.

Consistency guys, that is what it is all about. Fairness too. Something you need to consider.

Hope this post makes it to the light of day. Guess we shall see.

elcox writes:

Oh, and I forgot to mention that there was the point raised in court that there is video tape of the entire altercation. With audio. It is on tape that Tammy was speaking with Dr. Smith, while his so called witnesses were chatting with other high-ups (the previous finance director) in the community. The angle was impossible for Vickie to read her lips, and the other doc, well, he just simply was having another conversation with another person. Some reliable witnesses, huh? Perjury, seems like that is what it was to me. Oh well, but what can you expect. I guess we must consider the sources here.

Just a suggestion from a friend writes:

Tammy, I believe you are corrupting you own reputation without any help from anyone else.

What others say is just a reaction to what you say and do. If you don't want to be judged as crazy, don't put yourself out there.

There are more acceptable ways to spread the word of God and your father.

The way you are going about it is destroying any good advice you may have and driving non-beleivers away.

Some things are not meant to be shared with others. (The rock thing) Take a look from the outside and see how crazy some of your stories sound. I'm not saying you should change your beliefs, just keep some to yourself.

How crazy would you think I was if I told you I leave my body nightly to visit loved ones. Creepy, huh?

Just think about it.

AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE: God has given me more potent glimpses of His presence than just my biblical name written on a white stone. (Ref: He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the CHURCHES To him who overcomes, to him I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a WHITE STONE, and a new name WRITTEN on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it. - Revelation 2:17)

Please consider this. After witnessing the light can you explain to me what it all means except that the "tabernacle of God is INDEED among men"? (Ref. Revelation 21:3)

Perhaps when Jesus spoke in the Gospel of Thomas stating: "Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." ... perhaps He meant that this promise would actually be fulfilled literally. And with what I have seen and can show to others do you think just maybe our little church town needs to rethink what the religious leaders have been pounding into our heads for so long? If that were to happen then just maybe people would wake up to the Kingdom of God (which is being suppressed) that is actually both inside and around them now. (Ref. Luke 17: 20-21)

ThoughtsOnFreeSpeech writes:

Ok Elcox, lets examine your last post. You state that a video tape WITH AUDIO was availible. If the AUDIO was so great, why would anybody have to read anyones lips? Maybe when you have conversations Elcox, you're so engrossed, that you are unaware of everything going on in your immediate vicinity, but I assure you, that most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time and are quite capable of hearing what's going on in the immediate world around us. Where were the witnesses, that said Mrs Kennedy, "DID NOT DO IT". Was the video tape actually played for the judge, or was it's existance, just as you say, simply "pointed out". I have a name for your little the world owes me a living mafia Elcox, you can call yourself the FOT's or Friends of Tammy, I hope you're getting your back cracked for free out of this deal.

Steve writes:

This has gone far enough people. Tammy, if you have proof of perjury, present it to a court, otherwise, it's time to be picking up a job app at Micky D's. It sounds to me that you have done enough harm to your own rep that the golden arches are the only place left for you.

elcox writes:

Again, I point out, that the censorship there at this paper is incredibly inconsistent. The post by Thoughstonfreespeech is incredibly inciteful. This post was put through. Guess the paper is not afraid of any legal repercussions. That appears to be how they decide on the censorship policy.

The mention of the fact that there was audio on the tape was to prove that if anyone could see the video there is the sound of people speaking amongst each other, but there is no loud altercation between Tammy and Dr. Smith. If there had been it would have been able to be heard on the video. The fact that the only people that Dr. Smith had that was willing to go to the stand (and perjure themselves) was his own colleagues. So all of the other people seen on the video who would not stand up with Dr. Smith could be considered her witnesses that this truly did not happen. As for the judge seeing the tape, the video was supplied by Tammy's lawyer, but we do not know if he viewed it in his chambers or not. He was able to judge this case on the merit of the testimonies themselves. Had he needed to view the tape, it was there for him to see.

Tammy writes:

You know it really comes down to whether you’re a glass is half empty or half full type.

Now, let me settle a few misconceptions and show you my faith.

First, Earline (elcox), little sister, yes there was audio available in the room, but you should know that at the moment when I'm supposedly pointing and threatening Smith according to Wren, the audio is unavailable due to the fact that the credits are now rolling and the music is up.

Now does that mean that I'm guilty? No. Because if you really make an attempt to read my lips you can see that I'm saying, "I don't have time for you Tom.", etc. The etc. is not what the chiropractors said it was, but is instead, (paraphrased) "if you really want to know what is going on to get a hold of Moak because there is a proposal on his desk right now." And in actuality Resler, who claims to have read my lips, if she has done so is quite the magician, because at the moment in question I'm facing the camera and she gets a good glimpse of the back of my head while she continues to jabber with her buddy (the previous finance director) with the city while making eye contact with said conversationalist. (Mom is nagging me now. Good enough?)

CrapOnFreeSpeech (accuracy now), do you consider MY testimony to be enough of a witness for you? After all, I was the one in my head and not somebody else. But then I suppose you would believe the latter, or say that I was the one committing perjury. When you consider that I went into the lion's den by myself, well then you have to realize that the only other witness that I would have is God Himself. And since so many 'good christians' in this community don't believe that God actually talks to His people ... well I guess you’ll have to take my word for it. And as far as the judge requiring a viewing of the tape, he said that if he needed anything more than the stated evidence that the tape could be used to determine credibility and he would then view it, and, it was allowed into evidence. Good enough for you? He also said that since the charge was of a criminal nature, and not civil, that the burden of proof fell to the plaintiff (city in this case), and that they had not fulfilled the requirement beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that the room was occupied by other members of the community and Smith could only come up with his chiropractic colleagues to testify for him, I am sure was considered. And the judge did say after Smith's eyewitnesses had their say and Smith is halfway through his testimony that he figured that he hadn't heard a whole lot that was relevant yet when one of the attorneys make a point to relevance.

My Dear Friend With Whom I Won't Need Any Enemies let me tell you a little bit about THE GOOD BOOK. It says, "To him who overcomes, to him I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and a new name written on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it." Now do you suppose that was literal or symbolic? Personally I can't see how such a passage could be fulfilled in symbolism ... and, since I have in fact seen what I have seen, I personally believe that the mentioned scripture is IN FACT literal. And yes, there was an old testament character who said something very similar ... he said that he could see a hand (just a hand) writing on the wall. Now did the community go running from the room screaming witch in his case? Or did they listen to Him?

The simple fact is that when the church and the state fails what you have left is your own personal walk with God, and obviously some know Him a little better than others do. No I'm not mad at any of you, just in case you're wondering, so don't let my red hair fool you. And you know, that aspect of my appearance might be the only reason why people don't want to take me seriously, after all. Ironically, I understand, it was the red head that was burned at the stake more than any other.

Might as well paint my skin black and call me 'nigger' in a WASP society in the 1960's, for all the stereotyping going on due to my Irish heritage. What do you think Martin Luther King would say?

I will overcome.

Now you all be nice to each other.

elcox writes:

I was just rereading this whole thing and realized that this article conveniently did not describe anything about Viki Resler's testimony. According to her testimony she read Tammy's lips from accross the room when she said the offending words that scared Dr. Smith. Just wanted to clarify this point.

This all seems pretty childish doesn't it? I mean, come on, business not good enough to keep you licensed professionals busy and you need a new hobby of squishing the little guy? Really. Makes you shake your head doesn't it?

elcox writes:

Someone posted earlier about how if there was proof of perjury then to approach the court. Well, that has been done and guess what, apparently it is not against the law to commit perjury in a city court. Found this out after talking with the good judge himself who passed us on to the DA and then the police. Was told by several of these people that since Tammy was found not guilty then the perjury didn't matter. That isn't the point now though is it? And some people don't believe in conspiracy theories in that town.

Tammy writes:

OK Sis (elcox) I see your passion and yes I love you. But, I need to clarify your post for you.

The facts are that there are no city ordinances that can deal with perjury. I talked to the City's legal division and when I found this to be true I then contacted OKC's Chief Municipal Prosecutor, Michael Porter to get a consensus of what other city's positions were on this issue.

I found that OKC does not have any city ordinance either which can charge perjury, but was told that if a judge caught the perpetrator in the act then all he could do was cite for contempt of court.

When I asked Mr. Porter why there was no city ordinance that dealt with perjury I was told that perhaps perjury was considered a felony. When I asked who I might be able to ask to discover whether this was true or not he suggested I talk to the DA's office. I did this, and yes, did find that perjury is a felony.

Mr. Porter told me that if perjury was considered to be a felony then the charge would fall under the jurisdiction of the state and that the only way the cities would be able to handle this charge themselves would be if the state said they could, and at this time they haven't. He also said they are trying to change the law but it hasn't happened yet.

I was told by the Enid's legal office that my recourse at this time was to go to the police department to make a complaint that false information had been provided, and of course the district attorney needs to be approached with the evidence. The police officer said when we questioned why the oath to tell the truth was even enlisted in a city court, that if a person lied to the city court it was the same as lying to the courts above. He did say though that he didn't believe, since I had won the case, that anything major would be done about the perjury since it didn't bear on the outcome of the hearing.

My CONCERN is that we have DOCTORS committing acts of FELONIES in a court of LAW. I believe this to be a matter of PUBLIC SAFETY, indirectly yes, but still a matter of PUBLIC SAFETY just the same. I mean if a doctor won't tell the truth under oath in a court of law then how can he or she be trusted, period?

Just something to think about when you make your doctor's appointments for your kids, don't you think?

Archived Story

More press releases


Originally posted on the Enid News & Eagle Web Site