Posted on 04/03/2005 8:37:17 AM PDT by tacomonkey2002
That'll cost you 30%.
I'm no lawyer. I'd guess a case could be made that a) it was done in haste, b) not a clear mind (why would a wealthy man write on a scrap of paper?), c) he has some obligation to his family (he's brain dead and they're in poverty).
Hell, lawyers have broken iron-clad wills.
Now that's just plain silly. And you were doing so good there for a time.
In other words, their testimony is not clear and compelling evidence.
Why? Why would they lie? What's to be gained by their lying?
Plausible scenario: Michael offered them $100,000 each if they'd help him get rid of his wife.
And if there were the remotest possibility that they were conspiring with Michael, why was this not brought up during the January, 2000 hearing -- a perfect time to do it?
Maybe because the Schindler's legal help has been less than stellar?
If someone is going to be put to death (whether in a criminal or civil case) the evidence should be so strong that there is no plausible scenario in which such action would not be justified. In a few cases, hearsay may manage to reach this standard of proof. Generally, though, it does not.
Now that's just plain silly. And you were doing so good there for a time.
If your friend isn't serious enough about his wishes to write them down, why should you (or anyone) think him really serious about them?
Correct. If the judge thought they were lying, their testimony would not be "clear and compelling" evidence.
Obviously, the judge believed them.
"Plausible scenario: Michael offered them $100,000 each if they'd help him get rid of his wife."
I'm speechless.
"Maybe because the Schindler's legal help has been less than stellar?"
I remain speechless.
I had to re-check the post. I thought it was another poster making these unsupported, tin-foil conspiracy statements.
Because if a person says to me, "I wouldn't (would) want to live like that", I believe them to be telling me the truth and that they're serious.
They could have remained silent, but they didn't. They spoke out, and expressed themselves quite clearly (as to their state of mind).
I would be happy to pass those comments on to a judge, then let the judge apply them to my friend's specific situation. They may not apply. Who knows?
Even if a judge has reason to think they might be lying, their evidence is no longer 'clear and compelling'
"Plausible scenario: Michael offered them $100,000 each if they'd help him get rid of his wife."
I'm speechless.
You wouldn't consider such a thing as being plausible? Why not? Many people would be willing to lie under oath for $100,000, and had Michael been able to kill off Terri he would have netted about $500,000 so giving $100,000 each to his helpers would not seem unreasonable.
"Maybe because the Schindler's legal help has been less than stellar?"
I remain speechless.
Are you implying that their legal help wasn't less than stellar (to put it very mildly)?
I had to re-check the post. I thought it was another poster making these unsupported, tin-foil conspiracy statements.
I'm not claiming that the above scenarios are true--merely that they are plausible. The proper standard for putting someone to death, absent exigent circumstances, is that there is no plausible scenario in which such action would be unjustified.
I'm not suggesting you should believe that the Schiavos are lying, but there is a very clear and plausible motive for them to do so. Stating that the possibility exists hardly makes me a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist.
Because if a person says to me, "I wouldn't (would) want to live like that", I believe them to be telling me the truth and that they're serious.
In society, there are accepted actions for people to indicate that they are serious about various things. Failure to perform such actions is a sign of not being serious.
In business, if a customer keeps expressing interest in a product but never actually buys anything, the business owner is apt to conclude after awhile that the customer isn't really serious no matter what he says. In real estate, if a prospective home buyer claims interest, but never signs any purchase papers nor puts down a deposit, the seller should eventually conclude the buyer isn't really serious.
Why should advance directives be any different? If you're serious, write them down. If you fail to do so without a good reason, you're not really serious.
They could have remained silent, but they didn't. They spoke out, and expressed themselves quite clearly (as to their state of mind).
In the other scenarios I described, the person in question could have remained silent, but expressed verbal interest. Their failure to act beyond tht proved that they weren't really serious.
Correct again.
"You wouldn't consider such a thing as being plausible?"
Plausible? No. Not without some evidence.
"Are you implying that their legal help wasn't less than stellar (to put it very mildly)?"
How "less than stellar" were they to not even bring up the "plausible" conspiracy of these three people. Now, maybe they weren't stellar enough to get their testimony thrown out, but they couldn't even bring it up?
Plausible? No. Not without some evidence.
Establishing plausibility generally doesn't require much evidence at all--in many cases, it requires none. Someone claims they had a $10 bill stolen from them. I have a $10 bill in my wallet. Do I need to produce any evidence to suggest that I got my $10 bill quite legitimately? No, I don't, because absent any evidence to the contrary it is entirely plausible that I could have gotten my $10 bill from any of countless thousands of places, quite plausibly without any recollection of where it actually came from.
In the case of the possibility of the Schiavos lying, I would cite as evidence the fact that they would have expected to gain, collectively, $500,000 if they lied and were believed, and the fact that many people have perjured themselves for a lot less than that.
"Are you implying that their legal help wasn't less than stellar (to put it very mildly)?"
How "less than stellar" were they to not even bring up the "plausible" conspiracy of these three people. Now, maybe they weren't stellar enough to get their testimony thrown out, but they couldn't even bring it up?
I haven't read the court transcripts from that hearing, so I don't really know what was brought up. Can you offer me a source? I'd be interested to see it.
As to how the Schindler's attourney should have brought up the notion of the Schiavos inventing a story from scratch, I don't quite know. It would seem like it should be obvious to any judge that any witness might lie, especially if they'd have a motive to do so; telling judges things that are blindingly too obvious is not a way to make friends. I'd have to see the actual transcript to know what should have been argued differently.
In a nutshell: I'm pro choice. PBAs are rarely performed. Abortion isn't in issue I really care about. I believe abortion ought to remain legal but that compromises can be made.
People who think like you truly scare me.
As we should. My beliefs seem to parallel those of mainstream America. When the fanatical religious right takes over the Republican party and turns it into a theocracy, believe me, I and many millions of formerly Republican voters will flee. I wil do what I can to prevent this from happening.
I hope you have no ambitions to become a judge.
Rest easy. A career in law looks unlikely.
And where do you think the Republican party would be without the "fanatical religious right" as you can them? If you think Christians are looking for a theocracy, you don't really understand Christians. But that's okay - we don't look for understanding from Republicans like you. George Bush is president, a Christian, and as you can see, he has yet to establish a theocracy. But, if you really are a Republican, you should be thankful the religious right even bothers to vote or we'd be speaking of President Kerry.
Hi,
I believe we've butted heads once or twice on this topic already, but I'd like to make an observation regarding your stance vis-a-vis the Schindler-Schiavo duels. Your command of the proceedings of the case is fairly impressive, but it presupposes reasonableness on part of the court and, more specifically, judge Greer.
While there is a lot of wild accusations flying around, many (perhaps even most) of which don't pass the smell test, insisting that this case is cut-and-dried because of the conclusions of the judge is akin to insisting the Bush National Guard memos were true and accurate because CBS said they were. Some of the allegations being made impeach the competence of the judge. To cite his statements as proof of correctness, therefore, does not address the key component of the allegation.
For instance, I personally have a VERY hard time accepting Michael Schiavo's statements regarding Terri's wishes regarding "artificial life support". His brother's and sister-in-law's corroboration adds little believability, in my mind. The simple fact that Schiavo's testimony changed radically almost immediately after he won the large settlement for her "care" makes the 7 year delay in his memory suspect.
Further, there have been numerous allegations in the real world that Michael consistently refused to allow Terri to be treated with any form of medical care, including the therapy that the $800,000.00 was supposed to cover. This is incongruous with his stated intent (I am unsure if he 'swore' to it) to care for her 'for the rest of [his] life'.
In short, you are trying to use the conclusions of the judge to justify trusting the conclusions of the judge.
Just my $.02
Yes. Some didn't like the judges decision -- so they attacked the integrity of the judge. A common tactic of those who have nothing to offer as a serious rebuttal to his conclusions.
And I'm not going to waste my time reading (or signing a petition of) phony, trumped-up charges -- to those I say, "Bring charges or STFU".
"I personally have a VERY hard time accepting Michael Schiavo's statements regarding Terri's wishes regarding "artificial life support". His brother's and sister-in-law's corroboration adds little believability, in my mind."
Why? I bet if they said she would want to live you'd believe them. Right?
You need to reexamine your your motives for disbelieving them. Judge Greer, in his court order, found Scott and Joan's testimony to be extremely credible, more so than Michael's.
"The simple fact that Schiavo's testimony changed radically almost immediately after he won the large settlement for her "care" makes the 7 year delay in his memory suspect."
Michael received the settlement three years after the incident. During those three years, Terri's condition did not imrove. Michael discontinued thereapy after discussing it with her doctor. There was no hope back then of recovery.
That $800K went into a trust for Terri, not for Michael. Michael continued caring for Terri for another four years. A CAT scan showed that her cerebral cortex was gone. Then, he brought the issue to Judge Greer.
If he wouldn't have waited that long, you'd be screaming that Michael was rushing to kill her. That he should wait. That maybe she'd improve. Wouldn't you?
I refuse to let you frame this discussion as one's "right to die". Terri's case is all about the "right to kill".
Husband's don't have the right to kill. Judges don't have the right to kill. And Hospice certainly does not have the right to kill.
How did they assume that right in this case and how do we stop them from ever doing it again? That's the arguement.
And that really pi$$ed off the extreme right-to-life fanatics who believed she had no right to make that decision for herself.
THEY decide who should die (no one). THEY know better. THEY hold the moral high ground. THEY are a group of very scary people.
Now, when we ask voters to vote conservative because we're pro-life, THEY are the people who come to mind.
Not really helping our cause, now is it?
But your scenario of, "Michael offered them $100,000 each if they'd help him get rid of his wife." is nothing more than wild-a$$ed speculation. It's not apparent at all.
Is it possible? Sure. Anything is.
But what leads you to believe the above scenario? What is so apparent to you? Did Scott and Joan suddenly start buying things? Did they say something to friends? Did their attitude towards Michael change?
I mean, give me something here that would convince me it's plausible.
"I haven't read the court transcripts from that hearing, so I don't really know what was brought up."
Given the hunger for conspiracy on these Terri threads, don't you think that if the Schindler's attorney brought up a "plausible" Michael-Scott-Joan collusion it wouldn't be front page news? C'mon. You say you haven't read the transcripts -- you wouldn't have to.
Look. If you have some evidence, present it. I'll seriously examine it. But this other stuff ... you're starting to sound like some of the others. Don't do that.
You've been making some excellent, well thought out points (a rarity on a Terri thread). Keep it up. I love a good, honest debate. That's why we're both here.
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.