MANIFESTO OF THE WPPFF/WILD TURKEYS/COALITION OF THE SANE

We, the Witness Protection Program For Freepers, aka the Wild Turkeys, aka the Coalition of the Sane, have through mutual discussion and rigourous thought, determined that:

1. The discussion threads regarding Terri Schiavo (hereafter referred to as "TS") have become too full of innuendo, rumormongering, hyperbole, hysteria, namecalling, paranoia, and general poor behavior to warrant participation.

2. Said threads have degenerated into "echo chambers", wherein the same, common thoughts are continually posted again and again, and the same old disreputable, unconfirmed and/or false urban myths are propagated.

3. Anyone who joins in said theads with alternative viewpoints to the most extreme posts are routinely driven away with slander, accusations, and vile namecalling.

4. No data or evidence contrary to the "prevailing opinions" are accepted, considered, or discussed; and in fact are rejected outright in most instances.

5. That the continued calls for armed insurrection, military or paramilitary involvement, impeachements of politicians and judges, and death threats are embarassing, stupid, shortsighted, doomed to failure, and contrary to most if not all conservative thought prior to this case, as well as damaging in the extreme to FR and the conservative movement as a whole.

6. That such emotional, hyperbolic, and propaganda-driven hysteria is in fact contrary to all conservatives USED to stand for.

7. That the holding up of swastika and other Nazi imagery towards the police and the Bushes, the use of children as political props, and the disruption of the peace at the Woodside Hospice can only reflect badly on conservatives in general, and should be discouraged.

8. That the pursuit of this issue to the exclusion of all others by the GOP has damaged, perhaps beyond repair, the pursuit of other important issues as well as the reputation of the GOP, FR, and conservatism.

The WPPFF is NOT of one mind as to the case of TS or its correct outcome. In fact, wide disagreement exists within our little group. However, we are united in our wish that reason and sanity be respected in the discussion, as well as the rights of all parties involved or participating. We wish to discuss this as adults and intellectuals, as conservatives and as FRiends, not as children screaming past each other on some playground of hysteria. We wish for facts and evidence to be provided, discussed reasonably, and considered fairly.

We reject all accusations of Naziism, "death cultism", or other slander as methods of debate. We reject the practice of "spamming" multiple threads, of posting unending vanities, and the posting of propaganda and calls for violence. We reject, in fact, all unseemly and childish behavior which has come to characterize this case on FR.

We DO invite others to come and reasonably discuss the issue. We have no problem with FReepers who wish to debate in a rational and fair manner, and with due respect for their fellow FReepers. We have NO problem with those whose views are formed by religion; however we reject "preaching" or "being beaten with a Bible" as legitemite debate tactics. Not all of us are Believers, and such tactics only cheapen the source.

If a FReeper finds this an acceptable meansd to discuss this and other issues, they are welcome to join in and participate. Those who find pleasure in attacks, flame-baiting, slander, stalking, and personal atacks will be ignored, and their egos will go unfed.

We assume this thread to be a zone of sanity in an overheated atmosphere. Thus, a general amnesty is in effect. If posters conduct themselves within the guidlines above, we will be happy to discuss and debate with you. If a poster wishes to apologize for past slips of the tongue, or for possible "over-the-top" statements to another, it will be graciously accepted, and your company welcome.

Please bring a sense of humor; we feel that too many have been taking themselves too seriously lately.

Let's see now: your complaints about "legal procedures" denied by Judge Greer are that

- a GAL or attorney for Terri was not appointed. Sorry, that's just false. Three were appointed and executed their duties.

- Judge Greer served as a health-care surrogate. Sorry, that is required by Florida statutory law in the circumstances presented.

- Judge Greer made decisions that Terri is PVS without personally seeing Terri. Sorry, the Judge is not a doctor. If doctors are telling him she is PVS, how is he supposed to challenge that diagnosis by seeing Terri? In addition, Judges make all kinds of decisions without eyeballing the subject of the decision. If you create a right out of this, you will change the entire face of jurisprudence in this country. For example, I work in the construction field. You know how often I have judges make decisions without actually eyeballing the building in question?

- Terri wasn't given "notice" of proceedings. I'm guessing you aren't really hanging your hat on this one.

Courts generally employ rules of evidence during trials, and a well known rule of evidence holds that hearsay is admissible to prove something only in limited circumstances. Under Florida law, there are about 30 or so such circumstances. You could say that one of them applies here, such as the exception for statements describing the declarant's then-existing state of mind. You could also say that Terri's statements were not hearsay, since they were offered to prove she said those words, not to prove that what she said was true. Hearsay is an out of court assertion offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Those are evidentiary reasons why the testimony was admissible. There's a better reason. A constitutional reason. Terri had, and every Florida citizen has, a constitutional right to privacy that includes the right to decide that certain medical treatments should not be used to prolong her life. The Florida Supreme Court has clearly decided that this right can be exercised through written and oral statements.

In the landmark 1990 case In re Browning, Florida's high court explained that a surrogate attempting to determine what the ward would do can rely on the ward's written or oral statements. The court said:

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. Before exercising the incompetent's right to forego treatment, the surrogate must satisfy the following conditions:

1. The surrogate must be satisfied that the patient executed any document knowingly, willingly, and without undue influence, and that the evidence of the patient's oral declarations is reliable;
2. The surrogate must be assured that the patient does not have a reasonable probability of recovering competency so that the right could be exercised directly by the patient; and
3. The surrogate must take care to assure that any limitations or conditions expressed either orally or in the written declaration have been carefully considered and satisfied.

The court also explained how the surrogate may have to defend any decision regarding the ward's orally declared wishes from a challenge by another person interested in the ward's welfare:

We emphasize, as did the district court, that courts are always open to adjudicate legitimate questions pertaining to the written or oral instructions. First, the surrogate or proxy may choose to present the question to the court for resolution. Second, interested parties may challenge the decision of the proxy or surrogate.
* * *
Although a surrogate may rely on oral statements made by the incompetent, while competent, to exercise the incompetent's wishes to forego life-sustaining treatment, the presumption of clear and convincing evidence that attaches to a written declaration does not attach to purely oral declarations. Oral evidence, considered alone, may constitute clear and convincing evidence. However, the surrogate would bear the burden of proof if a decision based on purely oral evidence is challenged.

Because the only issue before the court is a determination of the patient's wishes, challenges generally would be limited to that issue. For example, there may be challenges to claims that the declaration was not executed knowingly, willingly, and without undue influence; that the patient had changed his or her mind after executing the declaration; that the declaration was ambiguous; that the conditions or limitations contained in the declaration were not satisfied; that the surrogate or proxy was the one actually designated; and, of course, that there was a reasonable probability that the patient would regain competency. When the only evidence of intent is an oral declaration, the accuracy and reliability of the declarant's oral expression of intent also may be challenged.

(all emphasis added).

I quote these passages at length to show that the Florida Supreme Court has confirmed the ability of Florida citizens to use oral statements, not just written ones, to exercise their fundamental right to decline medical treatment. The rules of evidence help define how facts can be proved at trial, but they cannot be used to preclude the admission of statements that effectuate a fundamental constitutional right.

http://abstractappeal.com/archives/2005_03_01_abstractappeal_archive.html#111167384435979940

That is duplicitous. What Carnes and Hull noted was that in the motion presented - the motion for a TRO, Whittemore examined the evidence presented de novo rather than relying on the existing findings of fact in the case.

You can choose to see it that way, I suppose, but the court is supposed to give deference to the expressed intent of Congress, and the Colloquoy they quoted, Choosing Levin, ignores Senator Frists words about what is intended by the legislation.

Mr. FRIST. I share the understanding of the Senator from Michigan,

as does the junior Senator from Florida who is the chief sponsor of this

bill. Nothing in the current bill or its legislative history mandates a

stay. I would assume, however, the Federal court would grant a stay

based on the facts of this case because Mrs. Schiavo would need to be

alive in order for the court to make its determination. Nevertheless,

this bill does not change current law under which a stay is

discretionary.

Intent. In Plain English. Ignored.

They were actively (like Whittemore) looking for a loophole.

That is Activism.

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.