Posted on 06/01/2006 7:20:27 AM PDT by 8mmMauser
Ahem. Read the discussion. Greer didn't have the case in 1998.
You're welcome. I note that, as I predicted, you did not acknowledge your false statement regarding George Felos' making the "legal maximum" contribution.
As to Deborah Bushnell, you are apparently not aware (or, like the "legal maximum" contribution nonsense, are assuming that no one else is aware, so this will easily slip on by) that Deborah Bushnell and George Felos are not now, nor have they ever been, members of the same law "firm."
If you think $250 is a teensy contribution, I do hope you will contribute at least that teensy sum to Free Republic.
Interesting that you would presume that I haven't already done so.
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.
George Felos was not a "litigant" before Judge Greer. Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers were "litigants." George Felos is an attorney. The State of Florida (whose election statutes are controlling in this situation) does not consider a campaign contribution from an attorney to a judicial candidate to be either an "ethics violation" ("obvious" or otherwise), or "the appearance of a litigant seeking to influence the judge with a gift of money." You feel differently, and while that is an opinion to which you are clearly entitled, your opinion represents neither fact nor law.
Like accepting cash favors, for instance.
So, you equate a campaign contribution to a "cash favor?" It appears that we have come full circle with hyperbole, false statements, and inflammatory rhetoric. I prefer to deal in facts, but YMMV.
Sure, why not? Michael isn't going to lie to his diary. In those days he was trying to keep track of his wife's condition, not to play it down out of ulterior motives.
You should too, and learn from it. Not exactly blind, deaf and comatose, was she? You keep saying she was, but here is Michael's close, direct, informed observation that she wasn't.
Please provide me with a link to where you got your information that this was from Michael's diary. Oh, and not a pro-Terri website. Certainly there's a website that printed Michael's diary.
It looks that way to an observer of politics-as-usual. It certainly is a favor and it certainly is cash. The point is for a judge to be above reproach. He may not give the appearance of impropriety lest his impartiality be called into question -- as it is over and over and over in this case.
The document I looked at was labeled Michael Schiavo. You could be right, but I don't think the point is much blunted if it was some other close observer.
By "Mary Schiavo," I presume you mean Mrs. Schindler?
That's correct. If he had the case and got a donation, you'd have a point. He was running unopposed and didn't need the money. As it is, you've got nothing but unfounded speculation -- which is typical for you.
Michael never said this! Where did you get this lie? Certainly not from the CNN LKL transcript or audio.
"Michael says it was he who came to the conclusion about what Terri wanted, not she."
After a number of unsuccessful years trying to rehabilitate Terri, Michael finally accepted the fact that Terri was not going to improve. Terri had previously told him and others that she wouldn't want to live like that. He concluded that she had reached that point.
That's what he told Keith Olbermann. He did not say this was what HE wanted. Michael did not say it was HIS wish (as you claimed in your post #268). He clearly said, "about what Terri wanted".
"Note that the decision was AFTER Terri's injury, so it was not possible for her to have a say in it."
Correct. You'll note that he didn't say, "This is what Terri wants". Then you'd have a legitimate point -- how could Michael know what she wants? But he didn't. He said this is what Terri wanted -- referring to what she had told him and others previously.
"Note further that WHAT Michael decided was to start HIS legal "proceedings," i.e., to kill her."
Oh, baloney! That is a lie.
The legal proceedings were to turn the evidence over to an impartial judge. The judge was to examine the medical evidence and listen to testimony to determine Terri's condition and to obtain clear and convincing evidence as to Terri wishes.
The judge could just as easily concluded that Terri wasn't PVS and/or that she didn't want to die. The evidence, however, didn't lead him in that direction.
"Incidentally, the "many, many, many years" he says he helped her were part of 1990, 1991 and part of 1992."
He said he helped her for many years before he started proceedings. He filed his court petition in 1998.
"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."
What happened to "A", Michel testified that he didn't know what she wanted. Where's that proof? Did you forget?
Now it's something else. Now it's not Michael who said this, it's some candy stripers who said he said it. Why didn't Trudy Capone and Cindy Shook testify at the February, 2000 hearing (to determine if Terri would live or die) about what Michael told them -- when it would have done some good? Why did they wait another year before coming forth with an affidavit?
Everything else about this case sets off alarm bells in your head. This doesn't?
Again, you are entitled to your opinion, however at odds that opinion may be with that of another observer of politics (usual and unusual).
And, in point of fact, the campaign contribution was not made in "cash." While it was a monetary contribution (probably in the form of a personal check or (more likely) a check drawn on Mr. Felos' law firm account), Florida law (F.S. Chapter 106; Section 106.09) prohibits cash (or cashier's check) campaign contributions in excess of $100. And, as we've so clearly established, George Felos' contribution to Judge Greer's reelection campaign was $250, which (just to save you the strain of performing the arithmetic calculation) is more than the $100 cash contribution limit allowed by law. Goodness.
The point is for a judge to be above reproach. He may not give the appearance of impropriety lest his impartiality be called into question -- as it is over and over and over in this case.
Again, the laws of the state of Florida, which control here--not your opinion or rhetoric--do not consider a campaign contribution from an attorney to a judicial candidate, even one before whom that attorney has an active case, to be improper, nor the acceptance of such a contribution by that judicial candidate to call into question that judge's impartiality. You feel differently. *shrug*
Early in Judge Greer's 2004 reelection campaign, attorney Lawrence Crow authored and circulated a letter throughout the Pinellas and Pasco counties' (the Florida 6th Judicial Circuit is comprised of Pinellas and Pasco counties) legal communities (Bar Association members), enthusiastically encouraging his friends and colleagues to support Judge Greer, emotionally and financially, in his reelection campaign. Given that Larry Crow is also a former Florida state representative (of a district which includes portions of Pinellas and Pasco counties), is very active in the leadership of the local and state Bar Association, and is one of the most genuinely affable fellows you'd ever hope to meet, his very public support and endorsement must have surely been welcomed and appreciated by Judge Greer. Did Larry Crow have an active case (as attorney of record) before Judge Greer at the time of that letter and publicly announced support? Why...yes, he did. Perhaps you've heard of the case--Schindler v. Schiavo. Larry Crow's clients? Bob and Mary Schindler. It had never occurred to me until now that when Larry Crow sent that letter, that what he was really doing was trying to influence Judge Greer on behalf of his clients, the Schindlers. Now I know better, eh? LOL.
You must be a mental case. Here is the link again. I even highlighted the text for the blind. Why are you so desperate to fool people?
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... 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...
Read what I said, for pity sake. It's in plain English. There was nothing to gain by a contribution because the case wasn't before Greer at the time.
People as a rule don't spend money unless there's something to gain by it. One may therefore assume Felos and Bushnell had something to gain by making contributions to Greer. That is why it had the reek of impropriety -- at least while their litigation was before his court.
The link is still good and it's from CNN, not off of one of your favorite blogs. Why do you lie? CNN Transcripts
Ahem. There were (at least) two LKL interviews. You are LOOKING IN THE WRONG ONE. I told you that before and gave you a reference to the right one. Now stop calling us liars.
Did you have any problems with the links I gave Twit?
No, I don't think so. But don't make to much of it, there have been several links posted and I haven't looked at them all.
The distinction is generally trivial to us non-lawyers, but in the political world, yes, it does look a bit tacky to pay your respects in a brown paper bag.
to = too (much of it)...
Let's update my reply. No problem, the link works fine.
Lawyers do have a way of gutting their own code of conduct.
Nevertheless, there is an obvious appearance of impropriety. In more honest times, and in a more honest place than official Florida, higher standards would be observed.
Sorry, missed that. I acknowledge my error. Thank you for correcting the record.
>> Deborah Bushnell and George Felos are not now, nor have they ever been, members of the same law "firm."
I don't quite follow. Is it not a "firm"? Does she work in some other firm? I've never heard this. Please explain.
>> Interesting that you would presume that I haven't already done so.
You try to read minds? I made no such presumption.
>> It appears that we have come full circle with hyperbole, false statements, and inflammatory rhetoric. I prefer to deal in facts
Why the rude reply? I write you courteously.
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.