Institute of Humanistic Science


1140-23 Savannah Road

Lewes, DE 19958





20 September 2009



Attorney General Eric Holder

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001



Dear Attorney General Holder,


I am in receipt of your letter dated September 11, 2009 that was in response to my letter to you of 27 August 2009, signed by Dana E. Page, Director, Executive Secretariat, which states that “the issues raised in your letter can best be answered by the Department of Health and Human Services”, enclosed.


I strongly disagree. The issues that I have raised are legal and Constitutional in nature that requires action by the Department of Justice, not the DHHS. I stated in my letter to you:


It is well known that Federal Law establishes Female Genital Mutilation as a crime (PL 104-208), which was enacted on September 30, 1996 and the criminal provisions became effective on March 30, 1997. The 14th Amendment states “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, which extends the criminal sanctions under PL 104-208 to male children. This reality has yet to be acknowledged by the Congress and it is requested that you formally act to assure this protection to male children.


I also cited a legal historical precedence:


Judge J. Flaherty (1978) in The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Civil Division. McFall v Shimp rendered his OPINION;


OPINION: "The question posed by the Plaintiff, is that, in order to save the life of one of its members by the only means available, may society infringe upon ones absolute right to his "bodily security."..."For a law to compel the Defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change

every concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual and would impose a rule which would know no limits and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn"..."Forceable extraction of living body tissue causes revulsion to the judicial mind. Such would raise the spectre of the swastika and the Inquisition, reminiscent of the horrors this portends… An Order will be entered denying the request for a preliminary injunction."


Perinatal and postnatal circumcision (forceable extraction of living tissue) from healthy newborns for the benefit of others "causes revulsion to the judicial (and moral) mind".


These are legal/Constitutional issues that only the Department of Justice can resolve, not the DHHS, which has an interest and relevance to the subject matter and I appreciate your sharing this information with them.


I respectively request that you address:


1.               The 14th Amendment issues that I have raised.

2.               Judge J. Flaherty OPINION that "..."Forceable extraction of living body tissue             causes revulsion to the judicial mind” (and I would add to the “moral mind”).


Genital mutilation of children is an act of torture, as the striping of skin from the body is universally recognized as an act of torture with all the pain and terror that is produced. This is particularly true for the infant/child where the glans and foreskin are fused as a single biological unit that protects the glans.


A video clip of circumcision of a newborn can be viewed at:


This video clip shows an infant being circumcised. The infant’s scream of terror and torture are unlike any infant’s cry. This video clip is very difficult to watch and the viewer is warned of the brutal sexual assault against this innocent and helpless infant.


Sexual assault is a crime and within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice.


Your immediate response to these crimes against children and humanity are imperative.






James W. Prescott, Ph.D.



Cc:       Marilyn Fayre Milos, RN

            Executive Director, NOCIRC


            Dana E. Page, Director, Executive Secretariat

            Department of Justice