[Capitalist Eric]

1. Collasped under unknown circumstances.
2....
3....
4.... etc.

To all of these things you mention, there are either personal opinions or irrelevant issues.

As I keep saying, from a legal standpoint, the issues you address are moot.

The legal system functioned exactly as intended... That you disagree with it, is also irrelevant.

[jwalsh07]

Absent informed, written consent the state nor the husband has any right to remove food and water from this woman for obvious reasons.

Obvious to most anyhow.

Think about it and see if you can figure out why.

[fml]

--The legal system functioned exactly as intended..--

You are wrong...
The brief filed by the Governor sets forth significant reasons to believe..the law is... being violated because “Terri’s right to life is violated by the state when the state, acting as her guardian, assumes that her wish to live without artificial sustenance is the same as a wish not to be fed at all. The state has an ‘unqualified’ interest in life.” Moreover, Terri is being denied oral sustenance, which creates “an unnecessary conflict with Florida Statutory law by implying that physicians may cooperate with a person’s alleged express wish not to feed herself . . . .” A denial of Terri’s right to life under these circumstances, it appears, results in a violation..

Explain again how legally this is moot?

[MSCASEY]

Being how my grandmother was a probate attorney who headed any questions any attorneys had at the Van Nuys court house, and she also wrote the legal secretary handbook with another judge for the state of California, and the fact that I have study and taken some law courses myself, I would say you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!

One thing you learn in law is that there is NO LAW! Two identical cases could have two different outcomes. But this case is the exception SOMEONE knows something or was PAID off. And all of your dribble is not going to change things. Just don't try it yourself you may not get away with it.

MCD