Greer was running unopposed in 1998. A large cash contribution to a judge running unopposed would be suspicious, would it not? But you're suspicious when there's NO contribution.
Posted on 06/01/2006 7:20:27 AM PDT by 8mmMauser
DALLAS A mother fighting to keep her baby on life support, despite a hospital's determination that her efforts would be futile, will get two more weeks to find a facility that will take the 10-month-old. A judge had been set to decide tomorrow whether to grant a temporary injunction to stop Children's Medical Center in Dallas from removing Daniel Wayne Cullen the Second from life support. But attorneys for the boy's mother and the hospital agreed yesterday to extend a temporary restraining order for another two weeks.
Attorney Brian Potts, who represents the boy's mother, Dixie Belcher, said he plans to submit the agreement to a judge today.
The baby has had breathing problems since his premature birth and was hospitalized after suffering from a lack of oxygen when he pulled out a breathing tube. He remains on a ventilator.
(Excerpt) Read more at kten.com ...
Considering that in 1998, Judge Greer ran unopposed for reelection, and that in 2004 he had an opponent, it's an apples and oranges comparison, and certainly irrelevant. However, here are the figures:
1998: $26,510 in monetary contributions
2004: $161,067.36 in monetary contributions
In both election years, campaign expenditures balanced contributions. In 1998, most of the campaign expenditures were actually prorata refunds of unused campaign contributions, and a charitable contribution to the Pinellas County Education Foundation of remaining funds. Likewise, in 2004, the final expenditure of the campaign was of unused campaign contribution funds, to St. John Missionary Baptist Church, located in Dade City, FL.
I proved that in my post #310 TO YOU, complete with a link to the audio, the transcript, and an excerpt.
Refute that, or stop forever with the references to Larry King and CNN.
Your question (in post #331) was addressed to robertpaulsen, and not to me. However, I have provided an answer to it (see post #361).
I don't know what transcript you are referring too, but this is the CNN transcript. It looks like you got yours of a off a blog.
"KING: Do you understand how they feel? "
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...
Did Bushnell contribute also?
On 3/12/04, Deborah Bushnell made a contribution in the amount of $250 to Judge Greer's reelection campaign.
Neither George Felos nor Deborah Bushnell made any contributions to Judge Greer's reelection campaign in 1998. Of course, under the "piddly contributions as undue influence" conspiracy theory, there would have been no point, since Judge Greer was not assigned the Schiavo case until January 2000, when a judicial assignment rotation (announced by the Circuit's Chief Judge in November 1999) moved him from the Florida 6th Judicial Circuit's criminal division to the Circuit's probation/guardianship division.
No mention for 2004, I see : )
Sorry, I think I am shot for today.
If you think $250 is a teensy contribution, I do hope you will contribute at least that teensy sum to Free Republic.
Meanwhile, regardless of the amount, we have an obvious ethics violation by both Felos and Greer. Those donations do have the appearance of a litigant seeking to influence the judge with a gift of money. Canon 2 of the Florida Judicial Code of Conduct states,
A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all of the Judge's Activities
Like accepting cash favors, for instance.
It IS interesting that Felos and Bushnell did not contribute to Greer when there was nothing to be gained by it, but did contribute to Greer after their case was assigned to him.
Canon 6a of the Florida code of conduct adds these points:
...Judges must not appear to trade on the judicial position for personal advantage. ... In addition, the source of the payment must not raise any question of undue influence or the judge's ability or willingness to be impartial.
4/16/1991 -- [TERRI] BECAME EVERY EXCITED, CRIED, FACIAL EXPRESSION, TEARS, WHINING.
4/17/1991 -- SITTING IN A CHAIR, HOLDING LEGS TOGETHER, HOLDING HER OWN HEAD UP, RESPONSE TO EVERY NOISE SHE HEARS, TASTED EXTRACTS, SWALLOWED. MIXED UP DAYS AND NIGHTS
4/25/1991 MS TALKING TO HER, SHE THEN LIFTED HEAD OFF AND AWAY FROM CHAIR. I ASKED HER IS SHE WANTED TO GET UP. SHE NODDED. I ASKED HER A MINUTE LATER, SHE DID THE SAME MOTION.
4/26/1991 JOHN (NURSE) SAYS EVERY TIME HE IS HERE TERRI SQUEEZES HIS HAND WHEN ASKED.
5/1/1991 - LAST FEW DAYS TERRI HAS BECOME A LITTLE MORE ALERT. SHE WILL MOVE HER HEAD FROM SIDE TO SIDE. WHEN OUT IN WHEELCHAIR, SHE WILL HOLD HER OWN HEAD UP FOR THE PERIOD SHE IS OUT. STILL MIXES UP DAYS AND NIGHTS.
5/2/1991- ASLEEP, SEEMS TO DO A LOT OF DREAMING, HEAD WILL MOVE BACK AND FORTH, TOES, LEGS,ARMS,FINGER, ETC WILL DO ALOT OF MOVING. TERRI DOES REAL WELL WITH HER EARLY MORNING STROLL.
Seriously injured? yes. Unhappy, not at all. Hopeless, not on this account. Comatose? No.
Among the observed behaviors: nodding yes to questions... squeezing hands when asked... highly responsive to noises... swallows... tastes... cries... has some use arms, legs, fingers, toes. No report here one way or the other on how well she is able to see, but she's certainly not deaf.
Stand by for PVS -- "Playbook Very Stale."
In your dreams.
(On LKL) M. Schiavo: WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TERRI WANTED, but this is what WE want... (emphasis added for clarity)
That can hardly be misunderstood. Michael didn't know what she wanted and says exactly that. He acted on what HE wanted (not her wish) and says that, too.
(Interview with Keith Olbermann) "I fought many, many, many years to help Terri. And finally came to the conclusion this is not what Terri wanted and started my proceedings with that."
This is straightforward too. Michael says it was he who came to the conclusion about what Terri wanted, not she. Note that the decision was AFTER Terri's injury, so it was not possible for her to have a say in it. Note further that WHAT Michael decided was to start HIS legal "proceedings," i.e., to kill her.
The depositions of Trudy Capone and Cindy Shook both pointedly corrobated what Michael admitted on LKL and Olbermann, namely, that he did not know her wishes.
Incidentally, the "many, many, many years" he says he helped her were part of 1990, 1991 and part of 1992. After that he got the insurance money, cut off her therapy and tried to kill her by withholding her antibiotics.
Nice try, but you have the wrong interview. The one we are referencing was aired March 18, 2005. The one you found is from October, 2003.
In your dreams.
>> Refute that
Nothing easier. See #373
Now, please find where he says, "We didn't know what Terri wanted ...". You can't. Michael never said it. It's a made-up quote. It's a lie.
I'd still like to know where you got your quote. Probably off some blog.
Greer was running unopposed in 1998. A large cash contribution to a judge running unopposed would be suspicious, would it not? But you're suspicious when there's NO contribution.
What's your point? Why did you ask the question?
Which you accept at face value.
But if his entry stated that she was unresponsive, you'd say that he wasn't qualified to make that observation. You're very selective as to what you choose to believe, aren't you? Hell, you'll even believe Michael himself if he says what you want to hear!
Bad guess, false accusation. I took all of the entries for that period.
I certainly go looking for times when he lets the truth slip out. He's not a good liar. In fact, that speaks well for him (or for his parents, when they raised him).
He's a study. Keeps changing his story, can't keep track of his lies. At past interviews, he always had Felos with him -- no doubt at Felos's insistence -- to cover up boo-boos and restore the right spin. Nowadays, without Felos pulling his strings, Michael trips up more. Listen closely. Michael can be revealing, even when he's trying to follow his script.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.