Activist Judge Greer plays 'God' as arbiter of life and death"

Catholic Online ^ | 2/28/2005 | Barbara Kralis

[bookworm100]

America suffers from the rule of judges supplanting the rule of law and the will of the people. Men in black robes, rather than legislators, are making and repealing laws...

[bookworm100]

We have too many judges stuffing their opinions down the throat of the people. They are MAKING laws!!

[FormerACLUmember]

Memo to Doc Frist from "Judge" Greer:

Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.

I urinate on the law, the Constitution of the State of Florida, the United States Constitution, and basic human morality. Not satisfied with this, I just also defecated on your Congressional supoenas.

I am a proud judicial tyrant, and I have stolen your stinking democracy.

[Enterprise]

Laws? Laws? I don need no steenkin laws!

[JOHN W K]

I think you may find the following very interesting!

Terri denied 14th Amendment due process guarantees!

quote:

In addition, a person such as Michael is not a credible witness!

Michael’s wife is overcome in an incapacitated condition. Michael finds a new women, engages in adultery, has two children out of wedlock, but he cannot marry his new love because that would amount to bigamy. What are the options? Getting a divorce from Terri, or, Terri dying, which would then allow him to legally marry his new love. But if Michael gets a divorce and his wife remains alive, he losses control over Terri‘s “medical fund“. And so, he starts pilfering the fund to pay lawyer fees [with Greer’s permission] to have Terri put to death. [1]

[1] May 1998, Michael Schiavo hires attorney George Felos to petition the court to have Terri’s feeding terminated. Subsequently, the court has permitted Michael Schiavo to withdraw money from Terri’s medical fund to reimburse his legal expenses in his efforts to have Terri die. See:

Terri’s medical fund

ALSO SEE:

Fund for Schiavo's medical care dwindles

By ANITA KUMAR and J. NEALY-BROWN
© St. Petersburg Times,
published June 3, 2001

quote:

The $700,000 or so earmarked for Mrs. Schiavo's medical care for the rest of her life has dwindled to about $350,000, court records show. Most was spent in the past two years on the intense legal fight that made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court and is still not over.

Funny how “medical fund” can mean “legal expenses“ when money, lawyers and judges are involved. Just goes to show you how judges and lawyers are one big happy family when money is there for the taking.

Regards,
JWK

"The Ethics and Advocacy Task Force, as amicus curiae, raises a very legitimate concern that the "right to die" could become a license to kill. There are times when some people believe that another would be "better off dead" even though the other person is still fighting vigorously to live. Euthanasia is a crime in this state. 782.08, Fla.Stat. (1987). See 765.11(1), Fla.Stat. (1987). Despite the tremendous advances achieved in this century, the world has witnessed the extermination of retarded and mentally disturbed persons for whom a foreign government decided that death was the proper prescription. Thus, it cannot be overemphasized that the remedy announced in this opinion and the procedures designed to safeguard that remedy are based upon the patient's right to make a personal and private decision and not upon other interests. Browning, 543 So.2d at 269

[harpo11]

Excellent article..."Judicial homocide"

two words of great impact and truth.

I know with great belief that our Founding Fathers are turning in their graves. This is what they railed and fought against. This is what they gave their sacred vow to protect Americans from judicial tyranny.

[Enterprise]

Hell yes, that IS interesting! Since when did "medical" needs translate into feeding a lawyer! Frickin unbelieveable!

[FormerACLUmember]

bttt

[Salvation]

GETTING DOWN TO FUNDAMENTAL FACTS AND REASON

Under Florida law it has been established, that before a court may issue an order to carry out the wishes of a patient who it is alleged wants to terminate their life, due process requires “clear and convincing evidence” of the patient’s wish to be produced in court. before such an order may be issued.

The controlling case law is: In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So.2d 258, 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)


In the Browning case the Court states:


quote:

---

“As we previously noted, the right involved here is one of self-determination that cannot be qualified by the condition of the patient. In this case, as in Bludworth, the patient was unable to personally or directly exercise the right to refuse medical treatment. Significantly, the patients in both cases, while competent, “had executed written documents expressing their wishes.”

---

Note: “…cannot be qualified by the condition of the patient…” In simple language, the medical condition of the patient is irrelevant until the patient’s wishes have been established____ not Greer’s wishes, not Terri’s adulterous husband’s wishes nor Terri’s parent’s wishes. We are talking about Terri’s wishes and her self-determination which Florida law is supposed to protect!

So, all the talk about Terri’s medical condition is irrelevant until Terri’s wishes are determined!

The Court also said, with regard to “substituted judgment“:


quote:

---

[I]t is important for the surrogate decisionmaker to fully appreciate that he or she makes the decision which the patient would personally choose. In this state, we have adopted a concept of "substituted judgment." [In re Guardianship of Barry, 445 So.2d 365, 370-71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) ]. One does not exercise another's right of self-determination or fulfill that person's right of privacy by making a decision which the state, the family, or public opinion would prefer. The surrogate decisionmaker must be confident that he or she can and is voicing the patient's decision.

---

The court went on to emphatically state:


quote:

---

“A surrogate must take great care in exercising the patient's right of privacy, and must be able to support that decision with clear and convincing evidence.”

---

So, due process under Florida law requires “clear and convincing evidence” of the patient’s wishes before a court order may be issued to carry out those wishes.

This brings us to the question of what is considered “clear and convincing evidence” as the term is generally understood and applied under American Jurisprudence?

To answer this question let us turn to the Supreme Court of the United States which answers this question inCRUZAN v. DIRECTOR, MDH, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)




quote:

---

“It is also worth noting that most, if not all, States simply forbid oral testimony entirely in determining the wishes of parties in transactions which, while important, simply do not have the consequences that a decision to terminate a person's life does. At common law and by statute in most States, the parol evidence rule prevents the variations of the terms of a written contract by oral testimony. The statute of frauds makes unenforceable oral contracts to leave property by will, and statutes regulating the making of wills universally require that those instruments be in writing“ There is no doubt that statutes requiring wills to be in writing, and statutes of frauds which require that a contract to make a will be in writing, on occasion frustrate the effectuation of the intent of a particular decedent, just as Missouri's requirement of proof in this case may have frustrated the effectuation of the not-fully-expressed desires of Nancy Cruzan. But the Constitution does not require general rules to work faultlessly; no general rule can. . . . In sum, we conclude that a State may apply a clear and convincing evidence standard in proceedings where a guardian seeks to discontinue nutrition and hydration of a person diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state.We note that many courts which have adopted some sort of substituted judgment procedure in situations like this, whether they limit consideration of evidence to the prior expressed wishes of the incompetent individual, or whether they allow more general proof of what the individual's decision would have been, require a clear and convincing standard of proof for such evidence. . . . The Supreme Court of Missouri held that, in this case, the testimony adduced at trial did not amount to clear and convincing proof of the patient's desire to have hydration and nutrition withdrawn. In so doing, it reversed a decision of the Missouri trial court, which had found that the evidence "suggest[ed]" Nancy Cruzan would not have desired to continue such measures enunciated by the Supreme Court. The testimony adduced at trial consisted primarily of Nancy Cruzan's statements, made to a housemate about a year before her accident, that she would not want to live should she face life as a "vegetable," and other observations to the same effect. The observations did not deal in terms with withdrawal of medical treatment or of hydration and nutrition. We cannot say that the Supreme Court of Missouri committed constitutional error in reaching the conclusion that it did.”

---

Note what the Court repeatedly says with regard to “oral statements”, and especially oral statements made by second parties alleging what another person has stated. Oral statements of second parties simply do not rise to the level of being “clear and convincing evidence” of the principle party involved, especially when the fate of a person’s life is being determined!

So, what is the evidence which Judge Greer has considered to be “clear and convincing evidence“ of Terri’s wishes?

For an accurate account of the evidence see Schiavo's wishes recalled in records


As it turns out, Judge Greer accepted the very kind of oral evidence which the SCOTUS discusses in the CRUZAN CASE and is found to not be within the meaning of “clear and convincing evidence” under America’s Jurisprudence!

In Terri’s case there is no evidence from Terri’s own lips or hand, and, in addition to assertions made in court by Michael’s brother and sister-in-law asserting Terri made some random comments about a life/death situation, there is only the flimsy testimony of her adulterous husband who claims Terri made a few more inconsequential remarks, none of which can be legally construed to be a carefully thought out and intentional end of life directive as Florida’s due process of law requires under such circumstances.

In addition a person such as Michael is not a credible witness!

Michael’s wife is overcome in an incapacitated condition. Michael finds a new women, engages in adultery, has two children out of wedlock, but he cannot marry his new love because that would amount to bigamy. What are the options? Getting a divorce from Terri, or, Terri dying, which would then allow him to legally marry his new love. But if Michael gets a divorce and his wife remains alive, he losses control over Terri‘s “medical fund“. And so, he starts pilfering the fund to pay lawyer fees [with Greer’s permission] to have Terri put to death. [1]


[1]
May 1998, Michael Schiavo hires attorney George Felos to petition the court to have Terri’s feeding terminated. Subsequently, the court has permitted Michael Schiavo to withdraw money from Terri’s medical fund to reimburse his legal expenses in his efforts to have Terri die. See: Terri’s medical fund

ALSO SEE:

Fund for Schiavo's medical care dwindles

By ANITA KUMAR and J. NEALY-BROWN
© St. Petersburg Times,
published June 3, 2001

[TAdams8591]

Judge GREER who is not ALMIGHTY GOD but thinks he is, is playing GOD!!!!

[Salvation]

"Impeach Judge George W. Greer of Florida's Sixth Judicial Circuit"


http://www.PetitionOnline.com/ijg520/

[dufekin]

According to the law of Judge Greer, Almighty God answers to his servant, Judge Greer. Congress answers to God. For so hath decreed Judge Greer, by the authority vested in him by Judge Greer himself.

And Judge Greer is (unfortunately) on the right side of the law. What law? His own law, which supersedes the Constitution because eve God bows to his command, for he hath so decreed.

So how about we find some superior judge (if there is such a thing) to decree that Judge Greer is the moral equivalent of a carrot, and as such, never again shall he eat or drink, for that Judge hath so decreed? Or are judges not permitted to do harm to their own?

Yep, dare I say, at the risk of offending a Judge, that the era of Judicial tyranny is here. Perhaps some legislature could pass some legal method for transforming a carrot into a human life while waiving the nine-month abortuary-choice period.

Or we could find a way to get better judges, but that'll take a generation that we don't have.

Oh, yeah, and Terri still can testify before Congress; she just can't eat or drink, and she'll probably be required to walk there under her own power. Otherwise, the Congress should find her in contempt of Congress and sentence her to a year at hard labor (at an out-of-state prison camp).

[TAdams8591]

I can't wait to watch God play God with Judge GREER.

[GarySpFc]

Let's remember, the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case. I'm convinced many of our justices in this country are in fact DEMON POSESSED.

[pc93]

I don't have my ping list.

CALL THE WHITE HOUSE SWITCHBOARD:
Switchboard: 202-456-1414 -- live person

Call and find out when they are going to send in the federal marshals to rescue Terri Schiavo (a congressional witness) who is being right now being subjected to the threat of death.
Ask that the President also get Atty. General Gonzales involved.

Spread this. Post to your locales if you are from another state. Please do this! Post it to others who aren't on freep as well.

[First_Salute]

At Terri's parents voice private pain in conflict. More details on the money:

Michael won a $1.65 million medical malpractice lawsuit that also awarded him and his lawyers $640,000-in addition to an early out of court settlement of $250,000. After original attorney’s fees were paid out, the fund for Terri’s care was down to $1.2 million. Of that, over $750,000 has already been used to pay fees for Michael Schiavo’s attorneys to ban the Schindlers from having any say in their daughter’s care and to petition the courts to have Terri’s feeding and hydration tube removed — so that she will starve to death and die...