You Be The Judge

[Nutrider99]

Let us, for the moment, delve into the world of supposition. Suppose you are a judge and are asked to make a decision regarding who would be the proper caregiver of a disable woman. Here are the facts as they are represented to you.

First there is the husband. He is suspected to have been abusive in the marriage, but nothing has been investigated, much less proved. It has been reported that his wife had asked for a divorce just prior to her "accident." He won a $1.5 million lawsuit by claiming that his wife would live a long life and would need the money for her care. Immediately afterward, he ordered that all care for her stop. He has not allowed any rehabilitation. He has not allowed proper testing. He has denied even basic physical therapy. He denied antibiotics when she had a bladder infection. He would not allow as much as a washcloth to be placed in her hands to prevent atrophy. He is know to be vocal about being rich once “the bitch” dies. There is sworn testimony that he complained to the nurses that “the bitch” hadn’t died yet. There is sworn testimony about a murder attempt that was NEVER investigated. There is sworn testimony that his wife was able to swallow, react, vocalize sounds, and acknowledge her likes and dislikes. He has never allowed complete testing and diagnosis. He has established another family with another woman that he plans to marry as soon as “the bitch dies.” He has spent years trying to get the courts to starve his wife to death, offering nothing but hearsay evidence that she would have wanted to die, for which you have nothing but his word and his credibility.

Then there are the parents of the disabled woman, who have offered to take care of her in their home, provide the best medical treatment available, and make sure that she has the highest possible quality of life. By all accounts these are good people who would do anything for their daughter.

Of these candidates for custodianship of the disabled woman, who would you select to be the caregiver? Keep in mind that under the law if you believe the best interests of the victim are not represented by the recognized guardian, you HAVE the authority to appoint another guardian.

Given the facts of the case, only a damn fool would select the husband. If Judge Greer is a damn fool, then he should be impeached and his decisions vacated. If he is not a fool, he must have an ulterior motive for selecting the husband. If this is the case, then he should be impeached and his decisions vacated. After the disabled woman received a subpoena to testify before Congress, Greer ordered the feeding tube removed. It is a felony to interfere with the testimony of a witness under subpoena. If he knew this, then he has committed a criminal act. He should be impeached and his decisions vacated. If he did not, then he is not qualified to be a judge. He should be impeached and his decisions vacated.

Despite a specific mandate by Congress, a federal court judge violated the law by refusing to hold a complete review of the case. This judge should be impeached and his decisions vacated. The court of appeals also ignored the law and chose to once again give deference to the original judge, Greer. They should be impeached and their decision vacated.

What we are witnessing is complete judicial tyranny. The legislative branch of government is a co-equal branch, NOT a superior branch. It is not immune to the law. It does not operate in an oligarchic fashion. They ARE accountable through our system of checks and balances. We must not allow the abdication of authority by the governing bodies, and we must not allow the judicial system to usurp executive authority.

Just as Michael Schiavo has demonstrated that he is unfit to speak for Terri Schiavo’s interests, the judicial system in the state of Florida has demonstrated that it can not be trusted with the life of Florida citizens. Ultimately, that responsibility falls to the executive branch and its governor. The governor must not abdicate either his authority or his responsibility to protect a citizen from a judiciary run amok. He MUST take Terri Schiavo into protective custody and conduct immediate investigation as to why the Florida judiciary has been allowed to violate both federal law and the fiduciary responsibility it held to protect the interests of the incapacitated woman.

Ignoring all the hype and obfuscation about a “right to die” that has never been verifiably expressed, can you honestly say that Michael Schiavo has demonstrated that he has acted in the best interests of Terri? If not, then he has no right to be her guardian. Millions of dollars in court fees, a media frenzy, and questions about Constitutional authority could have all been avoided by a simple common sense ruling years ago. Instead, we are paying the price for the criminal negligence of one judge and the corrupt system of a corrupt judiciary that refuses to hold one of its own accountable for what can only be either stupidity or criminal negligence.

[Jim Sentry]

Her custody should be delagated to her parents. And, there should be an independent investigation of all parties to determine if those allegations are true.

I personally believe they are and when they are proven to be true the husband should go to jail, the attorney be disbarred, and the judge removed from the bench.

[MichaelS]

Interesting reading. Completely full of misinformation and hyperbole, but interesting nonetheless.

[Wolf Counsel]

I'll ignore MichaelS's ridiculous post, and I say screw the law, and I'll rely on justice. I give custody to the parents.

[Nutrider99]

Interesting reading. Completely full of misinformation and hyperbole, but interesting nonetheless.
You vocalized it, now back it up.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

You vocalized it, now back it up.

Nutrider,

You and I have had our differences, but in this case I'll tell you, he can't back up his end nearly as well as you and I did against each other on another (case). He refuses to see, read, listen, hear, acknowledge and/or accept reality and fact. He is of the pro-death mentality, and cannot be swayed, even in the face of absolute proof. His "argument" has been totally obliterated by fact, and yet he clings to the death-by-hook-or-by-crook philosophy.

He cannot stand up to you, because he cannot stand up to truth. He will do as the Florida and National judiciary, he will not listen to reason, he will not listen at all.

[Warlady]

Considering the facts I would remove MichaelS as her guardian, would have done so 7 years ago when he started abusing Terri.

[Jim Sentry]

Does the constitution protect the "rights" of a court not to hear an appeal. That's all what was being asked.

Is this going to be the new standard, eg; Hey Boss I don't feel like doing my job today, so don't bother me.

The SC should hear all cases of this nature.

[whipple]

Please tell me there is no connection between 'the' MichaelS in this case and the MichaelS who posted the comments above.

[MichaelS]

Please tell me there is no connection between 'the' MichaelS in this case and the MichaelS who posted the comments above.

No. As you might imagine there are more than a few "Mike S"s around.

[MichaelS]

Nutrider,

You and I have had our differences, but in this case I'll tell you, he can't back up his end nearly as well as you and I did against each other on another (case). He refuses to see, read, listen, hear, acknowledge and/or accept reality and fact. He is of the pro-death mentality, and cannot be swayed, even in the face of absolute proof. His "argument" has been totally obliterated by fact, and yet he clings to the death-by-hook-or-by-crook philosophy.

He cannot stand up to you, because he cannot stand up to truth. He will do as the Florida and National judiciary, he will not listen to reason, he will not listen at all.

It's apparent that many on this board interpret hyperbole, conjecture, exaggeration, rumor, and inference as "truth", "reality" "proof" and "fact".

You'll understand if I am not so anxious to drink the Kool-Aid.

[Warlady]

Michael are you going to take Nutrider's challenge or not? You made an accusation. Back it up with facts or admit you are the one spewing hyperbole.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

It's apparent that many on this board interpret hyperbole, conjecture, exaggeration, rumor, and inference as "truth", "reality" "proof" and "fact".

You'll understand if I am not so anxious to drink the Kool-Aid.

And YOU have exclusive rights to the truth, because YOU have access to different ABSOLUTE CORRECT, INFALLIBLE information than the rest of us?? Pray tell, enlighten us with THE reality over our hyperbole, THE proof over our conjecture, THE reality over our exaggeration, and THE fact(s) over our rumors -- and direct us to where this enlightened truth comes from.

I have given you fact, and you STILL justify her death with NO justifiable reason.

[Wolf Counsel]

"It's apparent that many on this board interpret hyperbole, conjecture, exaggeration, rumor, and inference as "truth", "reality" "proof" and "fact".

You'll understand if I am not so anxious to drink the Kool-Aid." --MichaelS

It's apparent to me that there is not a shortage of people who don't realize that the reference to Kool-Aid is wrong. Jim Jones had his dumbasses drink Flavor-Aid, laced with poison.

[MichaelS]

First there is the husband. He is suspected to have been abusive in the marriage, but nothing has been investigated, much less proved. It has been reported that his wife had asked for a divorce just prior to her "accident." He won a $1.5 million lawsuit by claiming that his wife would live a long life and would need the money for her care. Immediately afterward, he ordered that all care for her stop. He has not allowed any rehabilitation. He has not allowed proper testing. He has denied even basic physical therapy. He denied antibiotics when she had a bladder infection. He would not allow as much as a washcloth to be placed in her hands to prevent atrophy. He is know to be vocal about being rich once “the bitch” dies. There is sworn testimony that he complained to the nurses that “the bitch” hadn’t died yet. There is sworn testimony about a murder attempt that was NEVER investigated. There is sworn testimony that his wife was able to swallow, react, vocalize sounds, and acknowledge her likes and dislikes. He has never allowed complete testing and diagnosis.
Pretty much this entire first paragraph is rumor, conjecture and hearsay. As neither an active party in the litigation nor an officer of the court, Nutrider can speak authoritatively toward none of the items referenced, whether it be Terri's condition, any rehabilitative efforts taken, or any degree of investigation that has been performed.

Sworn testimony is not truth. As for its determination of truth, Nutrider has no knowledge. And referencing the cherry-picked submissions of one side of a case is insufficient.


He has established another family with another woman that he plans to marry as soon as “the bitch dies.” He has spent years trying to get the courts to starve his wife to death, offering nothing but hearsay evidence that she would have wanted to die, for which you have nothing but his word and his credibility.

While Michael Schiavo has taken up residence with another woman, its influence on this case is argumentative and could be argued immaterial. References to "the bitch" are hearsay. That he has spent "years trying to get the courts to starve his wife" is also argumentative. As for the court's reliance solely on Michael Schiavo's "word" and "credibility", Nutrider, as not a participant in the case, cannot speak authoritatively nor make any justifiable claims based thereon.


Then there are the parents of the disabled woman, who have offered to take care of her in their home, provide the best medical treatment available, and make sure that she has the highest possible quality of life. By all accounts these are good people who would do anything for their daughter.

Conjecture and immaterial.


Of these candidates for custodianship of the disabled woman, who would you select to be the caregiver? Keep in mind that under the law if you believe the best interests of the victim are not represented by the recognized guardian, you HAVE the authority to appoint another guardian.

Given the facts of the case, only a damn fool would select the husband. If Judge Greer is a damn fool, then he should be impeached and his decisions vacated. If he is not a fool, he must have an ulterior motive for selecting the husband.

The court was established as the final decision-maker regarding Terri's condition and related wishes, not her husband nor her parents.


If this is the case, then he should be impeached and his decisions vacated. After the disabled woman received a subpoena to testify before Congress, Greer ordered the feeding tube removed. It is a felony to interfere with the testimony of a witness under subpoena. If he knew this, then he has committed a criminal act. He should be impeached and his decisions vacated. If he did not, then he is not qualified to be a judge. He should be impeached and his decisions vacated.

Of course, it depends on the validity of the subpoena, but that is not considered in Nutrider's conclusions.


Despite a specific mandate by Congress, a federal court judge violated the law by refusing to hold a complete review of the case. This judge should be impeached and his decisions vacated. The court of appeals also ignored the law and chose to once again give deference to the original judge, Greer. They should be impeached and their decision vacated.

This one is blatantly false regarding the Congressional mandate and that the federal court and the court of appeals disregarded the law.


What we are witnessing is complete judicial tyranny. The legislative branch of government is a co-equal branch, NOT a superior branch. It is not immune to the law. It does not operate in an oligarchic fashion. They ARE accountable through our system of checks and balances. We must not allow the abdication of authority by the governing bodies, and we must not allow the judicial system to usurp executive authority.

Nice argumentative conclusion built on an unsupportable foundation.


Just as Michael Schiavo has demonstrated that he is unfit to speak for Terri Schiavo’s interests, the judicial system in the state of Florida has demonstrated that it can not be trusted with the life of Florida citizens. Ultimately, that responsibility falls to the executive branch and its governor. The governor must not abdicate either his authority or his responsibility to protect a citizen from a judiciary run amok. He MUST take Terri Schiavo into protective custody and conduct immediate investigation as to why the Florida judiciary has been allowed to violate both federal law and the fiduciary responsibility it held to protect the interests of the incapacitated woman.

The Governor must do nothing, especially if an accusation of abuse by the judiciary of violating federal law is false.


Ignoring all the hype and obfuscation about a “right to die” that has never been verifiably expressed, can you honestly say that Michael Schiavo has demonstrated that he has acted in the best interests of Terri?

That depends on what the best interests of Terri are.


If not, then he has no right to be her guardian. Millions of dollars in court fees, a media frenzy, and questions about Constitutional authority could have all been avoided by a simple common sense ruling years ago. Instead, we are paying the price for the criminal negligence of one judge and the corrupt system of a corrupt judiciary that refuses to hold one of its own accountable for what can only be either stupidity or criminal negligence.

[MichaelS]

And YOU have exclusive rights to the truth, because YOU have access to different ABSOLUTE CORRECT, INFALLIBLE information than the rest of us?? Pray tell, enlighten us with THE reality over our hyperbole, THE proof over our conjecture, THE reality over our exaggeration, and THE fact(s) over our rumors -- and direct us to where this enlightened truth comes from.

I have given you fact, and you STILL justify her death with NO justifiable reason.

I never claimed such "access to the truth", nor should any single individual on this board.

Cursory reviews of piecemeal and cherry-picked submissions of one side of a case does not make one an authority on the case as a whole.

Sad thing is that many aren't even doing that. They're just regurgitating the latest "claim" heard on FOX News.

[Antigone]

Cursory reviews of piecemeal and cherry-picked submissions of one side of a case does not make one an authority on the case as a whole.



Yet you believe everything M Schiavo has submitted and "regurgitated" to any liberal news outlet he can find. If he is to be believed then why did he say this just days ago:

M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want...

Which "story" of M Schiavo's are we to believe???

[MichaelS]

Yet you believe everything M Schiavo has submitted and "regurgitated" to any liberal news outlet he can find. If he is to be believed then why did he say this just days ago:

M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want...

Which "story" of M Schiavo's are we to believe???

Quite the contrary. I don't "believe" Michael Schiavo any more than I "believe" Bob and Mary Schindler.

Believing is a judgment call, and none on this board are in full possession of the evidence and arguments to make such a call in either direction.

[Wolf Counsel]

"Believing is a judgment call, and none on this board are in full possession of the evidence and arguments to make such a call in either direction." --MichaelS

But there are some who have their heads buried up the murderer's butthole.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I never claimed such "access to the truth", nor should any single individual on this board.

Cursory reviews of piecemeal and cherry-picked submissions of one side of a case does not make one an authority on the case as a whole.

Sad thing is that many aren't even doing that. They're just regurgitating the latest "claim" heard on FOX News.

So you do you suggest we argue our point?

I have a challenge for you, just for argument's sake, put your self in the seat on the other side of the aisle. If YOU were the one on the defense (here, at FC, arguing OUR point), how would YOU go about proving the case?

I am tired of reading and seeing that this is a "political" matter now. No, it's not. I have absolutely NO political motive with respect to this case whatsoever. I am concerned about the SERIOUS human, individual, and unalienable rights here that are being denied an American citizen, which will certainly be precendent setting and could very well one day impact me or someone I love and/or care about deeply. I am motivated out of simple plain love and conern for my fellow man (and in this case, fellow woman), and the implications of this upon MY life.

You are so quick to dismiss all that we say, all that we show, and all that we reference. Do this, PRETEND what we say is true and that you believe it, HOW then would you stop this woman from being murdered?

See, I DO have compassion, I CAN try to "assume" that everything on its face is as it has been portrayed . . . that Michael loves his wife, and does not want her to suffer, is trying to abide by wishes that he (and HIS relatives) were only privy to, and that he merely wants to do what is in her best interest -- I can do that on a whole. Where I have trouble is when we go BELOW the surface to see what evidence has been presented (what is available). If you argue that MY information is flawed, incorrect, or misleading, it behooves you to point me to the CORRECT information and where it can be found. If YOU cannot fulfill those two requirements, but are only doing as you say WE are, regurtitating the standard line of thought for the philosophy you espouse, how then do we determine truth? ESPECIALLY if those entrusted to determine the truth are proved to be biased and untrustworthy, as our judiciary has been in this matter.

I would assert, and I doubt you would disagree, there is SO much "stuff" floating out there about this issue, that a true "wading-in-for-the-truth" is necessary. The courts have REFUSED to take another (fresh) look at this. They keep ruling on past rulings, they are NOT weighing evidence, ordering tests, confirming or disproving facts. If this were ANY other case and such a blatant attempt to sweep things under the rug in one broad swoop would have liberals and civil rights activists rampaging in the streets!

We aren't talking about possession of a car. We aren't talking about a disputed inheritance. We aren't talking about who gets the kids. We are talking about a woman's life, which hangs in the balance. She has NOT received fair treatment in this, it is obvious to see.

This is wrong. YOU are wrong. I do pray, with all my heart that you are NEVER faced with a court ordered death in which you have no say, are not represented, and your defenders are silenced because of politics.

Lord have mercy upon Terri Schiavo.

[Nutrider99]

1.First there is the husband. He is suspected to have been abusive in the marriage, but nothing has been investigated, much less proved. This is a valid allegation. The fact that it has not been investigated neither proves or disprove it.

2. It has been reported that his wife had asked for a divorce just prior to her "accident." Again, an allegation supported by cooraborative testimony but not brought forward.

3. He won a $1.5 million lawsuit by claiming that his wife would live a long life and would need the money for her care. Immediately afterward, he ordered that all care for her stop. A satement of fact.

4. He has not allowed any rehabilitation. He has not allowed proper testing. He has denied even basic physical therapy. A statement of fact.

5. He denied antibiotics when she had a bladder infection. He would not allow as much as a washcloth to be placed in her hands to prevent atrophy. He is known to be vocal about being rich once "the bitch" dies. Verified by sworn tesimony by disinterested third parties.

6. There is sworn testimony that he complained to the nurses that "the bitch" hadn’t died yet. There is sworn testimony about a murder attempt that was NEVER investigated. There is sworn testimony that his wife was able to swallow, react, vocalize sounds, and acknowledge her likes and dislikes. He has never allowed complete testing and diagnosis. All statements of fact.

Pretty much this entire first paragraph is rumor, conjecture and hearsay.
In a word, Michael, you're a liar.


As neither an active party in the litigation nor an officer of the court, Nutrider can speak authoritatively toward none of the items referenced, whether it be Terri's condition, any rehabilitative efforts taken, or any degree of investigation that has been performed.
If you can produce one bit of evidence documenting that these procedures, which everyone involved acknowledges have NEVER been done actually were done, then I will stand corrected. Since that is not the case and the neglect is well documented, again, you're a liar.


Sworn testimony is not truth. As for its determination of truth, Nutrider has no knowledge. And referencing the cherry-picked submissions of one side of a case is insufficient.
Statements sworn to under penalty of perjury by disinterested third parties, especially when these statements are made without knowledge or coordination of other statements and that mutually corroborate, are enough to put you on death row. As for being able to determine the truth, I doubt you'd know the truth if it raped you. You are a liar and a partisan hack who lacks the ability to think and reason for yourself.


While Michael Schiavo has taken up residence with another woman, its influence on this case is argumentative and could be argued immaterial.
It shows the limits of your reasoning ability, doesn't it? Do you know what a conflict of interest is? Would you put your life in the hands of an ex wife who is waiting for you to die, who is already living with someone else, who has two kids by the other man, and who brags about getting rich when you die? YOU might, but rational people would not. Rational people see that as a conflict of interest. Rational people would see such a person as less than the ideal candidate to be entrusted with your best interests.

Given the facts of the case, only a damn fool would select the husband. If Judge Greer is a damn fool, then he should be impeached and his decisions vacated. If he is not a fool, he must have an ulterior motive for selecting the husband.

The court was established as the final decision-maker regarding Terri's condition and related wishes, not her husband nor her parents.
WRONG! We have a system of checks and balances which are supposed to protect us from damn fool judges. Unfortunately it isn't working. I noticed that you ducked the question like a coward. Which is it? Is Judge Greer a fool, or is he corrupt? Which are you?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

:munch: http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/drink.gif

Oooooh, this is gonna be gooood!

[The_Elucidator]

Pretty much this entire first paragraph is rumor, conjecture and hearsay.

You're an idiot! The other MichaelS's entire case is based on "rumor, conjecture and hearsay," So pull your head out of your ass!

:prolife:

[DeclinetoState]

I don't think MichaelS's head is in his rear end, but I do think (contrary to what he says) he supports Michael Schiavo, like a lot of other sheeple in this country. I think Nutrider did a very good job of making his case and answering MichaelS's attempted responses.

[MichaelS]

So you do you suggest we argue our point?

I have a challenge for you, just for argument's sake, put your self in the seat on the other side of the aisle. If YOU were the one on the defense (here, at FC, arguing OUR point), how would YOU go about proving the case?

You're assuming that in Terri's specific case that I am on the other side of the aisle from you. In actuality, I'm not on either side of the aisle, because I'm not privy to enough information to form a viable opinion on her specific case one way or the other.

And I don't see how anyone on this board can claim otherwise. I understand the emotions of the case and a desire to believe something one way or another but without being in that courtroom for the last seven years, this simply becomes a case being played out in the court of public opinion based on an inflammatory and one-sided presentation of only a minute portion of any "evidence" to be considered.


I am tired of reading and seeing that this is a "political" matter now. No, it's not. I have absolutely NO political motive with respect to this case whatsoever. I am concerned about the SERIOUS human, individual, and unalienable rights here that are being denied an American citizen, which will certainly be precendent setting and could very well one day impact me or someone I love and/or care about deeply. I am motivated out of simple plain love and conern for my fellow man (and in this case, fellow woman), and the implications of this upon MY life.
Now the precedents set by all of the events in this case are very worthy of discussion, and the laws on which the case are based will undoubtedly be revisited to determine if they are appropriate for application to the populace as a whole.

But that's a very separate discussion than the specifics of this case. We were having a very good discussion on the implications and appropriateness of the laws themselves in the other thread.


You are so quick to dismiss all that we say, all that we show, and all that we reference. Do this, PRETEND what we say is true and that you believe it, HOW then would you stop this woman from being murdered?

If what I've heard on this board were true and comprised the case in total, I don't think I'd have to stop any proceeding, because I believe the judiciary would have ruled in that direction.

Of course there is also a tendency to want to apply our individual opinions and feelings on a matter in the decsion-making process. For instance, it is known that Michael Schiavo has become involved with another woman and fathered two children. We may personally find that reprehensible and conclude that he has moved on and no longer cares for the desires of his wife or represents her best interests. But that is an opinion based on our personal feelings on the matter that may or may not be true.

As I pointed out in another thread, the accusations being thrown around on TV and within this board are so significant and so egregious, that one of the following would have to be true: (1) The entire judicial system is corrupt, and there is a conspiracy that extends from the local to the Supreme court. While this is easy to say and does a lot to grab attention, its likelihood is doubtful. (2) The attorney for the Schindlers is abysmmal and should voluntarily disbar himself. While this is more likely than the first premise, it would be hard to believe the Schindlers would continue placing faith in him, though I'll be the first to point out that he blatantly dropped the ball (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=20351) when presenting before Judge Whittemore of the federal district court. Or (3) that the issues discussed have indeed been brought forward to the court and considered in balance with all of the other information in the case in making the final determination. And while we may see a very inflammatory report, we do not see any information with which it can be counter-balanced.

For instance, you may be presented with the testimony of a doctor regarding a heart condition. However, there are contributing factors that must be considered before taking that testimony to be valid. For instance it would make a great deal of difference if the doctor were a podiatrist or received payment from a questionable source or showed a history of false testimony in previous cases. While the most vocal protestors have hastened to point out potential conflicts in the husband's case, they have been just as quick to accept "evidence" that supports their pre-formed opinions in support of the Schindlers at face-value.


See, I DO have compassion, I CAN try to "assume" that everything on its face is as it has been portrayed . . . that Michael loves his wife, and does not want her to suffer, is trying to abide by wishes that he (and HIS relatives) were only privy to, and that he merely wants to do what is in her best interest -- I can do that on a whole. Where I have trouble is when we go BELOW the surface to see what evidence has been presented (what is available). If you argue that MY information is flawed, incorrect, or misleading, it behooves you to point me to the CORRECT information and where it can be found. If YOU cannot fulfill those two requirements, but are only doing as you say WE are, regurtitating the standard line of thought for the philosophy you espouse, how then do we determine truth? ESPECIALLY if those entrusted to determine the truth are proved to be biased and untrustworthy, as our judiciary has been in this matter.

You hit the nail on the head. That's just it. You can't determine truth or even form a viable opinion on this individual case without access to all of the evidence, and neither you nor I have such access.

As for the judiciary being proven to be biased, I'm not sure on what you're basing such a claim. After all, we've now seen the case reviewed by judges that span the political and ideological spectrum as well as the gamut of jurisdictions, judges with lifetime appointments that are unlikely to be driven by political motivations.


I would assert, and I doubt you would disagree, there is SO much "stuff" floating out there about this issue, that a true "wading-in-for-the-truth" is necessary.

I would agree that such a "wading" is impossible for you and I and that the case is still before the federal district court. Now the case before that court is probably the wrong one (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=20351), but that is an issue with the counts brought by counsel rather than choices made by the judiciary.


The courts have REFUSED to take another (fresh) look at this. They keep ruling on past rulings, they are NOT weighing evidence, ordering tests, confirming or disproving facts. If this were ANY other case and such a blatant attempt to sweep things under the rug in one broad swoop would have liberals and civil rights activists rampaging in the streets!

The courts have not refused, and the case is still open. However, the court is driven by the issues raised by counsel. Reference the other thread I have linked.


We aren't talking about possession of a car. We aren't talking about a disputed inheritance. We aren't talking about who gets the kids. We are talking about a woman's life, which hangs in the balance. She has NOT received fair treatment in this, it is obvious to see.

Once again, there is no way for any of us to know whether or not she has received fair treatment. I wasn't necessarily opposed with the Congressional ruling moving the case to federal court. Of course I wasn't necessarily in favor of it either, but, if there was a significant doubt, then I would rather have the new set of eyes looking at it.

Of course, I don't think the Schindlers' counsel could have botched up the opportunity in federal court any more than he did.


Lord have mercy upon Terri Schiavo.
On this we can agree completely.

[MichaelS]

1.First there is the husband. He is suspected to have been abusive in the marriage, but nothing has been investigated, much less proved. This is a valid allegation. The fact that it has not been investigated neither proves or disprove it.

2. It has been reported that his wife had asked for a divorce just prior to her "accident." Again, an allegation supported by cooraborative testimony but not brought forward.

3. He won a $1.5 million lawsuit by claiming that his wife would live a long life and would need the money for her care. Immediately afterward, he ordered that all care for her stop. A satement of fact.

4. He has not allowed any rehabilitation. He has not allowed proper testing. He has denied even basic physical therapy. A statement of fact.

5. He denied antibiotics when she had a bladder infection. He would not allow as much as a washcloth to be placed in her hands to prevent atrophy. He is known to be vocal about being rich once "the bitch" dies. Verified by sworn tesimony by disinterested third parties.

6. There is sworn testimony that he complained to the nurses that "the bitch" hadn’t died yet. There is sworn testimony about a murder attempt that was NEVER investigated. There is sworn testimony that his wife was able to swallow, react, vocalize sounds, and acknowledge her likes and dislikes. He has never allowed complete testing and diagnosis. All statements of fact.

In a word, Michael, you're a liar.


If you can produce one bit of evidence documenting that these procedures, which everyone involved acknowledges have NEVER been done actually were done, then I will stand corrected. Since that is not the case and the neglect is well documented, again, you're a liar.


Statements sworn to under penalty of perjury by disinterested third parties, especially when these statements are made without knowledge or coordination of other statements and that mutually corroborate, are enough to put you on death row. As for being able to determine the truth, I doubt you'd know the truth if it raped you. You are a liar and a partisan hack who lacks the ability to think and reason for yourself.


It shows the limits of your reasoning ability, doesn't it? Do you know what a conflict of interest is? Would you put your life in the hands of an ex wife who is waiting for you to die, who is already living with someone else, who has two kids by the other man, and who brags about getting rich when you die? YOU might, but rational people would not. Rational people see that as a conflict of interest. Rational people would see such a person as less than the ideal candidate to be entrusted with your best interests.

Given the facts of the case, only a damn fool would select the husband. If Judge Greer is a damn fool, then he should be impeached and his decisions vacated. If he is not a fool, he must have an ulterior motive for selecting the husband.

WRONG! We have a system of checks and balances which are supposed to protect us from damn fool judges. Unfortunately it isn't working. I noticed that you ducked the question like a coward. Which is it? Is Judge Greer a fool, or is he corrupt? Which are you?


As I mentioned in another thread to another poster, I am not going to debate the evidence of the Schiavo case in particular. It is a wasted effort on both our parts as neither one of us is privy to the evidence in its totality.

Call me all the names and make all the accusations you want, it doesn't change the very plain and simple statement above. And without such access, any conclusions made by either one of us are suspect and unsupportable.

I could very easily argue your supposed "facts" related to therapy, rehabilitation, "disinterested" third parties and so on (heck,you reinforce that several of your statements are allegations only), but, once again, it would be based on only an extremely limited knowledge of the specifics of the case.

The difference here is that you are willing to make such conclusions. I am not.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

MichaelS,

Why are you posting here? Why are you responding to these threads regarding Terri Schiavo? What purpose do you hope to serve?

We have EVERY right to debate, discuss, and oppose what is going on here. This has MASSIVE implications for American liberty, freedom, and our most very basic right, the right to life itself.

If WE are so stupid, we cannot possibly EVER know the truth, it is a sad, sad, sad day in this country for sure.

It is IMPERATIVE that as citizens of this nation we KNOW what is happening in this case. IF the judiciary IS running amok, as surely it appears to be, God save us ALL.

Yes, were were having a good discussion of the basics in this case. It all comes down to the solution which does the LEAST harm and NO irreparable harm. Death is irreperable. When life is at stake, every single avenue, down to the tiniest vein should be exhausted -- this is being prevented by the judiciary, one judge in particular, Judge Greer.

My Heavens man, this is SERIOUS. I, and others, are concerned for OUR rights as Americans. If the court can be established as having sovereignty over a CREATOR endowed and granted unalienable (NON-transferable, NON-revokable, and one prohibited from surrender or termination) right, then we are completely LOST as a nation, as a people.

[shawnwood]

Kill the innocent - the liberal way!

The way I see it is this, the husband only has his word that Terri would want to die. That to me does not hold up. If I do not want a hospital to take heroic measures to save me, I have to have a DNR order that was signed in front of 2 witnesses. So why is this guys word being taken as law. If her parents want to give her care, let them. The only "artificial aid" she gets is from a feeding tube. She can breath on her own. This case has been so twisted it is starting to piss me off and quite frankly it is people like you michaelS that make me hate the left more and more.

I have no proof to argue my point, all I have is my opinion, and it is my opinion that you are a gigantic piece of crap!

[Nutrider99]

As I stated, sworn corroborating affidavits are enough to put you on death row. You can discount them all you want, but they are evidence in any court in America. As for calling you a liar, I did not. You called me a liar by saying my statements were incorrect. I merely pointed out that you are, in fact, a liar, because my statements were 100% correct.

When you lie, pointing out your lie is not an insult but a statement of fact. Unfortunately, like most liberals, you aren't very familiar with facts.

[MichaelS]

As I stated, sworn corroborating affidavits are enough to put you on death row. You can discount them all you want, but they are evidence in any court in America.

I never said they weren't evidence, but they are also not fact. They are testimony. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And you would be hard-pressed to put someone on death row based on strictly circumstantial evidence.


As for calling you a liar, I did not. You called me a liar by saying my statements were incorrect. I merely pointed out that you are, in fact, a liar, because my statements were 100% correct.

When you lie, pointing out your lie is not an insult but a statement of fact. Unfortunately, like most liberals, you aren't very familiar with facts.
Go back and reread. I never called you a liar. I stated that your post was misleading and exaggerated. I still do.

For me to call you a liar, I need to know the truth. I don't. I can't. And neither do you nor can you.

[shawnwood]

And you would be hard-pressed to put someone on death row based on strictly circumstantial evidence.



Scott Peterson? ooops!

[shawnwood]

http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/05_Photo_of_Day/050324.photo.of.day.b.html

[Warlady]

You're assuming that in Terri's specific case that I am on the other side of the aisle from you. In actuality, I'm not on either side of the aisle, because I'm not privy to enough information to form a viable opinion on her specific case one way or the other.


Then why bother to voice an opinion at all? This is what bothers me about moderates or others who speak out on a subject and admit they don't know shit about it. You're blowing hot air in here and for those of us who HAVE bothered to read up on the topic you are wasting our time. Now go away or I will go you away with my SMITE button.

[Nutrider99]

Of course, it depends on the validity of the subpoena, but that is not considered in Nutrider's conclusions.
Any subpoena written by committee chairman of any member of Congress has validity and is just as legal as a subpoena written by an ELECTED judge. You are wrong, but what else is new?

This one is blatantly false regarding the Congressional mandate and that the federal court and the court of appeals disregarded the law.
They either held a De-novo review which would be compliance, or they did not, which would be defiance. Let’s see. Which option did they choose again?

Nice argumentative conclusion built on an unsupportable foundation.
That the judicial, legislative and executive branches of government are co-equal comprises an unsupportable foundation? You need to go take a civics class, and while you’re at it, sue your high school for malpractice.

The Governor must do nothing, especially if an accusation of abuse by the judiciary of violating federal law is false.
In America, when there is evidence of a crime or an injustice, we INVESTIGATE it. This means that you give protection to the victim until such time as the case has been investigated and any evidence of wrongdoing has been proved or disproved.
Quote:

Ignoring all the hype and obfuscation about a "right to die" that has never been verifiably expressed, can you honestly say that Michael Schiavo has demonstrated that he has acted in the best interests of Terri?



That depends on what the best interests of Terri are.
Let me clarify. If you think Michael Schiavo is acting in the best interests of Terri, then you are an imbecile.

[Warlady]

Nutrider, why are you wasting your time on someone who openly admits they haven't got a clue?

[MichaelS]

Then why bother to voice an opinion at all? This is what bothers me about moderates or others who speak out on a subject and admit they don't know shit about it. You're blowing hot air in here and for those of us who HAVE bothered to read up on the topic you are wasting our time. Now go away or I will go you away with my SMITE button.

I bother, because misguided fanaticism is just as dangerous to this society as any issue discussed herein.

Am I a moderate? Don't know. I have my opinions on general ideas, as HRU would likely testify. However, I am cautious when applying my ideology to individual cases, as we all should be.

Smite away at your discretion. I am simply presenting another point of view. Considering others' points of view often can expand our own.

I enjoyed my discussion with HRU regarding the unalienable right to life in another thread. She had several good points that were well worth discussing and considering, though I can't say if she felt I was able to raise the same types of considerations for her.

So, if you would rather quash other ideas than discuss them, I will not take offense.

[shawnwood]

I bother, because misguided fanaticism is just as dangerous to this society as any issue discussed herein.

Am I a moderate? Don't know. I have my opinions on general ideas, as HRU would likely testify. However, I am cautious when applying my ideology to individual cases, as we all should be.

Smite away at your discretion. I am simply presenting another point of view. Considering others' points of view often can expand our own.

I enjoyed my discussion with HRU regarding the unalienable right to life in another thread. She had several good points that were well worth discussing and considering, though I can't say if she felt I was able to raise the same types of considerations for her.

So, if you would rather quash other ideas than discuss them, I will not take offense.

Before you get all high and mighty on us and think we are all a bunch of stupid lemings let me explain one thing, one of the main reasons I hang on this board is because the majority of the people are very good at looking at both sides of an issue and making a decision. Most of the people here have either watched the left and right on tv, or read about both sides and formed an opinion. Not to mention that many here know what type of people they are and where their moral value sits. we are not idiots here.

[UnkHiram]

MichaelS

I will grant you one point. We dont know all the facts, but then neither did the 11th Circuit Court Judges because they IGNORED the act passed by congress. At the very LEAST they should have granted a stay of execution for the length of time that they needed to comply with Congressional instructions.

[MichaelS]

Before you get all high and mighty on us and think we are all a bunch of stupid lemings let me explain one thing, one of the main reasons I hang on this board is because the majority of the people are very good at looking at both sides of an issue and making a decision. Most of the people here have either watched the left and right on tv, or read about both sides and formed an opinion. Not to mention that many here know what type of people they are and where their moral value sits. we are not idiots here.

The fact that you are not idiots and are capable of considering both sides is precisely the reason why I enjoy the discussions, or at least when they stay at the level of discussing the various facets of an issue rather than degenerating into name-calling and personal attacks, acknowledging that there is a distinct difference between forming an opinion on an issue and forming one on an individual case.

I don't think we have to agree in order to respect one another and have a civilized discussion.

However, if the consensus wants me gone, I'm gone.

Gotta go for now, but I'll check back later.

[Warlady]

I don't want you gone Michael. I just want you stop opining about an issue you have openly admitted you don't know shit about.

[Taylor]

I would make her parents her guardians since her husband abandoned her and is now in a commom law relationship. I don't know if Florida is a common law marriage state.

[Wolf Counsel]

"However, if the consensus wants me gone, I'm gone." --MichaelS

If you decide to leave, please don't act like the TURD that won't flush.

[whipple]

I don't want you gone Michael. I just want you stop opining about an issue you have openly admitted you don't know shit about.

I would argue that he knows easily as much about the case as you do and infact has put forward some interesting rebuttals to other post made about this issue. The difference is that he hasn't completely made his mind up one way or the other because there simply isn't enough info to do so.

[DesertFox]

Not enough info? Withholding water is barbaric. Try to go just one day without a drink of any kind and see what you think then.

[UnkHiram]

I would argue that he knows easily as much about the case as you do and infact has put forward some interesting rebuttals to other post made about this issue. The difference is that he hasn't completely made his mind up one way or the other because there simply isn't enough info to do so.

Whipple

Sometimes I wonder how you manage to tie your shoes without help, if you do. Michael is putting forward the theory that she should be killed and refusing to debate it because he does not have all the facts. Many of us are saying that the case should be reviewed by a Judge looking at all the facts, something that has not happened yet. Inspite of our Congress passing an act that required the Judges to give her a new case, the judges refused.

[Warlady]

whipple, I'm just repeating what Michael himself said in a post...that he doesn't know enough about the case to opine but yet he still opines.

[The Longhorn]

Withholding water is barbaric. Try to go just one day without a drink of any kind and see what you think then.

:unsmile: Even Jesus, on the cross, was given a sponge with sour wine, when he complained he was thirsty.

[The Longhorn]

whipple, I'm just repeating what Michael himself said in a post...that he doesn't know enough about the case to opine but yet he still opines.

:smirky: A better word would be "pontificate".

[Nutrider99]

The fact that you are not idiots and are capable of considering both sides is precisely the reason why I enjoy the discussions...
I considered both sides of the issue. Your side is wrong.

[whipple]

whipple, I'm just repeating what Michael himself said in a post...that he doesn't know enough about the case to opine but yet he still opines.
And my point was that he knows as much as you do. Seeing as you opine, why shouldn't he?

[Maggie_T]

Re: You Be The Judge

No. God will be. And I bet He's going to take a lot of people by surprise.

[whipple]

Not enough info? Withholding water is barbaric. Try to go just one day without a drink of any kind and see what you think then.
Withholding sustenance to any living creature is barbaric. I'll be honest with you, I don't agree with the way this is being done either. It strikes me as cold blooded and I empathise 100% with most of the feelings voiced in these threads. That said I know I wouldn't like to be kept alive if I was in her shoes...however I would prefer a bullet or to be drugged. But at the end of the day we rarely get to choose the manner of our deaths.

[The Longhorn]

:unsmile: If I were Terri, I would most certainly want to be kept alive, so I could regain my capacity to report my abusive, two-faced "husband" to the authorities.

[Warlady]

Moo, apparently there is new evidence submitted to Judge Greer that Terri has tried to communicate her wishes to live. Judge Greer admonished the Schindler's lawyer for not bringing this evidence to him 7 days ago when it supposedly happened. He is to rule on this new evidence by noon tomorrow. Don't expect him to choose life this time either. I have no idea why he has chosen the husband over the family since Michael has moved on but I'm beginning to believe he's a male chauvinist pig. He certainly has lost all common sense and reason...if he ever had it in the first place. I find it impossible to believe he's a conservative.

[The Longhorn]

I find it impossible to believe he's a conservative.

:smirky: Somebody said he was? If he's a Republican, we should disown him faster than we did David Duke.

[Warlady]

Yes Moo he's a Republican and so-called conservative. He's getting death threats from pro-life people. I don't agree with that. To me that is as bad as vigilantes going after abortion doctors. I don't agree with what the doctors do but I can't condone going against the law. Although I am torn. There are times when I feel like 2A and feel it's justified. I hate this entire disgusting situation.

[Rink]

Moo, apparently there is new evidence submitted to Judge Greer that Terri has tried to communicate her wishes to live. Judge Greer admonished the Schindler's lawyer for not bringing this evidence to him 7 days ago when it supposedly happened. He is to rule on this new evidence by noon tomorrow. Don't expect him to choose life this time either. I have no idea why he has chosen the husband over the family since Michael has moved on but I'm beginning to believe he's a male chauvinist pig. He certainly has lost all common sense and reason...if he ever had it in the first place. I find it impossible to believe he's a conservative.

Brenda I just poked a peek at Fox news and terry's brother stated the judge knew they had been telling him terry has been trying to communicate for 5 years, he knew and ignored them.

I think the judge is trying very hard to make the schindlers look bad by making it like they were negligent in telling him she was communicating, knowing full well that most people are not up to speed on the case and have been ignorant on the fact that the schindlers have been telling the courts for years that terry has been alive, conscious and trying to communicate.

Bastard that he is he's a souless sumbitch