Florida Court Prohibits Terri's Parents From Joining "Terri's Law" Battle (ACLJ)

LifeNews.com ^ | November 4, 2003 | Steven Ertelt

[GeekDejure]

Heh Heh Heh (dirty laugh) Now why didn't I think of that. Sheeesh... that's a gorgeous pic of the poop eaters!!! Only one problem... they all look exactly alike (must be cuz their primate brains all think alike, eh?) Therefore... I'm forced to admit that I'm unable to pick out Legerdemain and Deep_6 from that bunch of four bozos. Can you help me with this identity problem ???

.

[Coral Snake]

GEORGE FELOS ALERT!!!

I think that the troll that might be this creep is very close to being positively identified!!!!

[GeekDejure]

I think that the troll that might be this creep is very close to being positively identified!!!!

Are you saying that Georgie has looked into your eyes and determined that you want to have your tube pulled without further delay ??? ;-))

.

[Wampus SC]

"I repeat my question: What do YOU have to gain by her death?"

I've asked Deep 6 and several others on his side the reverse of your question. I asked, "what do you stand to lose if Terri gets to live?"

I got no response either.

I'm sure answering that straight up and to the point would be real embarassing for them, no matter how they answered.

I've stopped asking them now. To continue might be considered "magical thinking". :)

[Coral Snake]

No I'm saying that one of the trolls both seems to be seeking Terri's death SPACIFICALLY and has made rather pathetic efforts to attack Christianity since coming here on EXACTLY THE DAY OF TERRI'S SECOND FEEDING TUBE REMOVAL (Oct 15). If this character is not George Felos than the same "New Age" devil as Felos's is motivating his posts.

[Ethan_Allen]

though I do wonder what's up with a Florida senate bill to remove lewd and lacivious behavior as a basis for disqualifying a guardian
??? This is happening now ???
___________________________________________________________

Florida Senate - 2004 SB 328
37-84-04


1

---

2 SENATE SUMMARY

3 Provides additional criminal offenses and deletes *an
offense that would disqualify a person subject to level 1
4 and level 2 screening standards from employment.
Includes the ***Agency for Health Care Administration to the
5 list of agencies permitted to receive expunged criminal
history records and sealed criminal history records.
6 Provides additional offenses for which a person may not
lawfully deny or fail to acknowledge an arrest with
7 respect to an expunged or sealed record.

*'an offense' deleted = Lewd and Lascivious Behavior

Entire Bill: http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view_page.pl?File=sb0328.html&Directory=session/2004/Senate/bills/billtext/html&Tab=session&Submenu=1


sweetliberty, sorry I didn't get back to you. Kids wanted the computer. I don't know what to make of this. I would hope phenn and Jay Sekulow would take a look at it. Note the following:


"24 Section 7. This act shall take effect upon becoming a

25 law."

I wonder if this new law would become retroactive. Makes me wonder if this is being dragged out while MS and Fiends mine FR for discovery, in order to close all loopholes FOR LIFE. Deep_6 may indeed be Felos for all we know.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Deep_6 may indeed be Felos for all we know

Deep_6 is not weird enough, however. It, and some other posters of similar ilk, post narrow formatted items that look like they came through WebTV.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The FLeg needs to be freeped to not drop character qualifications from the law about guardians. If we think that GFH (guardians from the hotplace) act like Mengele NOW... just wait....

[Coral Snake]

Its not Deep_6. Mu guess is that Legerdemain is George Felos. I have read many books about the "New Age" movement to which Felos belongs and Legerdemain's attacks on Christians as an obsolete "godsquad" are CLASSIC "New Age".

[Coral Snake]

One thing I feel sure of though is that George Felos IS on
Free Republic. I don't for ONE MINUTE believe he is using
"god like New Age psychic powers" to constantly second guess
us and the Schindlers every move and neutralize it in the courts or the legislature (through the proposed new guardianship law). FELOS IS HERE.

[HiTech RedNeck]

What's he got against Godsquads anyhow? If the whole universe is, allegedly, God, how can a Godsquad be his enemy?

[Ethan_Allen]

FatherOfLiberty, re #162. Good points!

In light of what's happening with Terri, it would behoove us to look at other sections of Florida law [and the laws in each of the other 49 states as well.] Yesterday I posted that the Wildlands Project [communism] is being implemented in Florida via the Florida Statutes. The Wildlands Project has as a MAJOR component POPULATION REDUCTION/EUGENICS. [See the maps: http://www.wildlandsprojectrevealed.org/htm/show/page2.htm and http://www.discerningtoday.org/wildlands_map_of_us.htm ]
There are laws in Florida covering Juvenile Delinquency which could be just as abused as they are in Terri's case. A child can be taken from his parent for breaking any law THE COURTS or legislature trump up (such as it is a crime for a child to be taught that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible). The following statutes for adjudicating mental incompetency in this climate of runaway judicial tyranny and Godlessness could be a method for the Final Solution against any who would oppose the Luciferian NWO tyranny. The Supreme Court has already ruled, either by commission or omission that it is constitutional for the government to drug people when there is a compelling state interest [case in point, a dentist - Dr. Sells? - who was accused of medicaid fraud. The government said he was psychotic and had to be drugged to stand trial. He said he was not psychotic, had passed their own test 100 percent, had not committed fraud and could prove it if he was not forced to be medicated, and that the real reason they wanted to medicate him was because he saw the government start the fire at Waco]. I'd say the government's true intentions toward the citizens of this country are barely concealed anymore.


The 2003 Florida Statutes

Title XXIX
PUBLIC HEALTH Chapter 394
MENTAL HEALTH View Entire Chapter

394.4598 Guardian advocate.--

(1) The administrator may petition the court for the appointment of a guardian advocate based upon the opinion of a psychiatrist that the patient is incompetent to consent to treatment. If the court finds that a patient is incompetent to consent to treatment and has not been adjudicated incapacitated and a guardian with the authority to consent to mental health treatment appointed, it shall appoint a guardian advocate. The patient has the right to have an attorney represent him or her at the hearing. If the person is indigent, the court shall appoint the office of the public defender to represent him or her at the hearing. The patient has the right to testify, cross-examine witnesses, and present witnesses. The proceeding shall be recorded either electronically or stenographically, and testimony shall be provided under oath. One of the professionals authorized to give an opinion in support of a petition for involuntary placement, as described in s. 394.467(2), must testify. A guardian advocate must meet the qualifications of a guardian contained in part IV of chapter 744, except that a professional referred to in this part, an employee of the facility providing direct services to the patient under this part, a departmental employee, a facility administrator, or member of the Florida local advocacy council shall not be appointed. A person who is appointed as a guardian advocate must agree to the appointment.

(2) A facility requesting appointment of a guardian advocate must, prior to the appointment, provide the prospective guardian advocate with information about the duties and responsibilities of guardian advocates, including the information about the ethics of medical decisionmaking. Before asking a guardian advocate to give consent to treatment for a patient, the facility shall provide to the guardian advocate sufficient information so that the guardian advocate can decide whether to give express and informed consent to the treatment, including information that the treatment is essential to the care of the patient, and that the treatment does not present an unreasonable risk of serious, hazardous, or irreversible side effects. Before giving consent to treatment, the guardian advocate must meet and talk with the patient and the patient's physician in person, if at all possible, and by telephone, if not. The decision of the guardian advocate may be reviewed by the court, upon petition of the patient's attorney, the patient's family, or the facility administrator.

(3) Prior to a guardian advocate exercising his or her authority, the guardian advocate shall attend a training course approved by the court. This training course, of not less than 4 hours, must include, at minimum, information about the patient rights, psychotropic medications, diagnosis of mental illness, the ethics of medical decisionmaking, and duties of guardian advocates. This training course shall take the place of the training required for guardians appointed pursuant to chapter 744.

(4) The information to be supplied to prospective guardian advocates prior to their appointment and the training course for guardian advocates must be developed and completed through a course developed by the department and approved by the chief judge of the circuit court and taught by a court-approved organization. Court-approved organizations may include, but are not limited to, community or junior colleges, guardianship organizations, and the local bar association or The Florida Bar. The court may, in its discretion, waive some or all of the training requirements for guardian advocates or impose additional requirements. The court shall make its decision on a case-by-case basis and, in making its decision, shall consider the experience and education of the guardian advocate, the duties assigned to the guardian advocate, and the needs of the patient.

(5) In selecting a guardian advocate, the court shall give preference to a health care surrogate, if one has already been designated by the patient. If the patient has not previously selected a health care surrogate, except for good cause documented in the court record, the selection shall be made from the following list in the order of listing:

(a) The patient's spouse.

(b) An adult child of the patient.

(c) A parent of the patient.

(d) The adult next of kin of the patient.

**(e) An adult friend of the patient.

**(f) An adult trained and willing to serve as guardian advocate for the patient.

(6) If a guardian with the authority to consent to medical treatment has not already been appointed or if the patient has not already designated a health care surrogate, ***the court may authorize the guardian advocate to consent to medical treatment, as well as mental health treatment. Unless otherwise limited by the court, a guardian advocate with authority to consent to medical treatment shall have the same authority to make health care decisions and be subject to the same restrictions as a proxy appointed under part IV of chapter 765. ***UNLESS the guardian advocate has sought and received express court approval in proceeding separate from the proceeding to determine the competence of the patient to consent to medical treatment, the guardian advocate may not consent to: [IOW, if a Kangaroo court approves, the guardian may consent on the behalf of the ward to the following:]

**(a) Abortion.

**(b) Sterilization.

**(c) Electroconvulsive treatment.

**(d) Psychosurgery.

**(e) Experimental treatments that have not been approved by a federally approved institutional review board in accordance with 45 C.F.R. part 46 or 21 C.F.R. part 56.

The [Kangaroo] court must base its decision on evidence that the treatment or procedure is essential to the care of the patient and that the treatment does not present an unreasonable risk of serious, hazardous, or irreversible side effects. The court shall follow the procedures set forth in subsection (1) of this section.

(7) The guardian advocate shall be discharged when the patient is discharged from a receiving or treatment facility to the community or when the patient is transferred from involuntary to voluntary status. The court or a hearing officer shall consider the competence of the patient pursuant to subsection (1) and may consider an involuntarily placed patient's competence to consent to treatment at any hearing. Upon sufficient evidence, the court may restore, or the hearing officer may recommend that the court restore, the patient's competence. A copy of the order restoring competence or the certificate of discharge containing the restoration of competence shall be provided to the patient and the guardian advocate.

History.--s. 10, ch. 96-169; s. 50, ch. 97-96; s. 12, ch. 2000-263.

There are so many people on the streets: runaways, mentally disturbed, homeless; who will know if they are disposed of in places like $uncoast, after their organs are harvested for profit? Who will be their advocate? How many 'enemy combatants' will find their way to these proceedings, with a 'professional' "adult trained and willing to serve as guardian advocate for the patient" as their only bulwark against a tyrannical state?
___________________________________________________________
Excerpt from "Secret US Human Biological Experimentation"
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/experiment.htm

Human Experiments: Sliding Backward
Congressman Christopher Smith

Since the Nuremberg trials, the image of humans used as laboratory animals has been etched into America's, if not the world's, cultural psyche. The Nazi atrocities prompted creation of the Nuremberg code of universal medical ethics. America's laws, modeled on this code, strictly forbid experiments on humans without obtaining their informed consent. But that recently changed.

Americans typically are trustful that they will not be used as human guinea pigs. This explains why American’s were so outraged a few years ago when they learned of syphilis experiments on black men in Tuskegee beginning in the 1940s who did not give their consent. It seemed inconceivable that such a thing could occur in our own country. Despite these deeply disturbing disclosures, however, the government recently relaxed the ethical code for research. The Food and Drug Administration issued a new rule last October that allows human experiments on patients without their consent.

The stated goal of the new regulations is to permit medical advances in treating life-threatening conditions when current treatments are either unproven or prove useless. A commendable goal, however, is little comfort to those individuals who find they have been experimented on without their consent. The primary motivation for the rule is not to help the patients experimented on, but to collect data. While FDA points out that the experiments may help patients, they also may hurt them. The Nuremberg code clearly places the patient's welfare as the overriding consideration in medical procedures.

Experiments on humans can help doctors develop better ways to treat illnesses. And that is why FDA relaxed the rule. But Dr. Arthur Dyck, professor of Population Ethics at Harvard University, points out that this new regulation risks "some very troubling dangers ... The Nuremberg code said there must be consent, and for darn good reason."

Under the new rule, researchers may conduct experiments on anyone, including fetuses, prisoners, and pregnant women. FDA argues that its system is very protective of patients. For instance, the government is setting up an institutional review board (IRB) that will "ensure that risks to subjects are minimized." But any risks beyond standard care appropriately should only be made by the patients themselves.

To complement the IRB, the agency establishes procedures to consult with representatives from patients' communities. But these precautions do not address the potential concerns of the individuals themselves. Typically, IRB and community representatives will not know the incapacitated individual. Indeed, these people likely will be preselected from the pool of those who believe these kinds of experiments are acceptable. Else the rule would be meaningless.

At the heart of this rule is the basic question who decides whether a person with "diminished autonomy" may be included in human experimental research? Dr. Dianne Irving, a former biochemist at National Institute for Health and a Ph.D. medical ethicist at DeSales School of Theology says there is an inherent conflict between advancing the interests of the patient and those of science, especially "if the doctor who is doing the research is also giving the permission" to use experimental technology on the patient. And that is what may happen here.

In the past, researchers needed the consent of a legal guardian. But under the new rules, researchers may waive this requirement is it is not feasible to contact them, or the window for decision-making is short. Any researcher who does so is supposed to obtain the consent of a family member. But again, the researcher can waive this if not feasible. And if a family member refuses, the researcher is not prohibited from proceeding if he finds another family member who consents. Although the final rule requires researchers to detail their efforts to contact guardians or family members if they proceed without contacting them, this is an after-the-fact justification by the researcher that is difficult to verify.

FDA specifically refused to establish any independent "ombudsman" to verify - before the patient's rights are waived - whether efforts to contact guardians or family members were adequate, or whether the patient is adequately protected. This leaves the decision to the researcher, and that may also be a conflict.

The vast majority of researchers are decent, honorable people dedicated to serving society. But the Nuremberg code of universal medical ethics exists to prevent those few self-serving researchers from taking advantage of patients unable to protect themselves. It also protects them from honorable researchers who may become blinded to the concerns of the patient in their eagerness to explore potentially life-saving therapies. The simple fact remains that we as Americans have a right to receive standard care in emergency situations. And we have the right to determine for ourselves what life saving procedures are preferable. Regrettably, the FDA regulations may compromise these rights.

Christopher Smith is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, where he chairs the International Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.

http://www.adti.net/html_files/reg/dd/ddsmith.htm

___________________________________________________________


Again, next step:

Berlin, 1 Sept. 1939

Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Med. Brandt are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the competence of certain physicians, designated by name, so that patients who, on the basis of human judgment, are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death after a discerning diagnosis.

A. Hitler


According to a post of MarMema a few weeks ago, the UK was about to pass a law that DOCTORS could euthanize mental patients at will.
___________________________________________________________

"Felos is here" Creepy!!

[Ethan_Allen]

"The FLeg needs to be freeped to not drop character qualifications from the law about guardians."

It makes me wonder what else they are trying to change. I only found the above by pure accident, looking for something else.

[Ethan_Allen]

Link for the Mental Health Statutes for Florida:

http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=CH0394/Sec4598.HTM

More Communism From Agenda 21 [ http://www.sovereignty.net/p/sd/a21/ ]

REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

(Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992)

Chapter 5

DEMOGRAPHIC DYNAMICS AND SUSTAINABILITY
http://www.sovereignty.net/p/sd/a21/a21_05.txt


Time to resurrect an old favorite website of mine http://www.crossroad.to

"If we will not be governed by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants." William Penn

Be sure to see "God reigns over the nations!" in the box at the bottom of the page.

[Ethan_Allen]

Sovereignty
International, Inc.
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
http://www.sovereignty.net/

TIMELINE TO GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
http://www.sovereignty.net/timeline.html

It's always amazed me that people don't believe in conspiracies, and think that those of us who do are tin-foil hatters. Bible says there's been a conspiracy since the beginning, and God's people win in the end:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tsk_b/Gen/3/15.html [IMO we're in the Rev. 20:7-10 phase now]

Psa 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying],

Psa 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

Psa 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision......
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/Psa002.html#top

Keep up the faith, guys. This battle will be won marching on our knees.

[FR_addict]

Thanks for posting the parent's Nov. 5th petition.

[sweetliberty]

" Makes me wonder if this is being dragged out while MS and Fiends mine FR for discovery"

I had considered this. The timing seems a bit "too convenient," don't you think? So, did this sham bill pass? Were there challenges to it? Isn't it still on the table today? Is it too late to contact these people and remind them that we are watching them....closely? Are the people working in the Florida government ALL complete imbeciles, or are they ALL accomplices. It seems that the majority have to be one or the other. That many people couldn't possibly be coincidentally that blind!

[fly_so_free]

Find out if this "judge" has any connections to the hospice industry. Seems that everyone involved in the "kill Terri" rulings does.

[sweetliberty]

Y'all be sure to read Ethan's post #192. Absolutely chilling. This is what we're up aginst folks. This isn't Nazi Germany he's talking about here, it's 21st century AmeriKa...Felos' fantasyland.

[Deep_6]

I posted this question earlier and received only one reply.

I'll post it again, but I'm doubtful any of the "pro-Terri's-family"
crew will give an answer they can live with.

---

I'm not too sure we would be able to elicit an honest
answer from this "Let her live" group, but I'll ask the
question anyway. Hopefully the answer will be well
thought out and not simply rendered?

If Terri's mom, dad and family manage to gain
sole guardianship.......

If after more [or less] than a year of sole guardianship,
their own doctors, through thorough and complete
examination, find that Terri will never regain any
ability to have any voluntary actions....

And it is found that Terri will forever remain in a
vegetated state, unable to communicate in any manner;
unable to have any movement except that what is involuntary.

And Terri's parents decide that it would be in her
very best interest to allow her soul to rest....

And they decide that it is time to remove her life
support apparatus [feeding tubes] and allow her
body to expire.....

What will you do in response?

Will you again fight for Terri's body to remain on
it's life support, in spite of her parent's decision?

Or will you allow her body to starve itself to it's death.

 

Your answer should be well thought out. It will
tell more about yourself than you may desire.

---