Posted on 03/21/2005 11:31:10 AM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888
There of course isn't one. But, as I understand it, the husband can make the call to pull the tube because he's her closest relation, regardless of whether there's a living will or not, based on existing Florida law.
My mind was changed this weekend on this case by that great liberal George F. Will.
Uh, no...The Supreme Court refused to hear the case due to lack of jurisdicition. The Congress merely assigned jurisdiction to the federal courts, which is their Constitutional right.
So you've got an invalid law, and I certainly don't think you can argue that an invalid law would grant jurisdiction, and even if it did, it should be unconstitutional on the merits.
Funny that you didn't mention Article. III., Section. 1...
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Wonder how you missed that one?
What's your point?
Congress can CREATE inferior courts, no question, but the clause you sited is merely procedural--it says nothing about the substance of the judicial power. Indeed, look at the first three words: "The judicial power..."
What is the judicial power? For that, we turn to Section two. And we're back to where I was before.
Sorry I skipped that first step for you--to make it clear, I'm not arguing that Congress doesn't have the authority to create a court called the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; I'm saying that court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the case.
than a person in a persistent vegetative state
Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state.
You haven't named any state right, so there's no wonder you don't want to comment further.
Not so fast. Is there a smidge of proof, beyond here say and speculation that the husband had ANYTHING to do with her condition? ANY?
You understand the utter nonsense that is, don't you?
Of what you said? Yea, I do.
What I see here is not a matter of states rights...it is a matter of the fundamental right to life that our constitution affords each and every person who is a citizen here..When we lose track of this, we can easily get into the argument over whether we have impinged on the states rights....But the bottom line in all of this is that Terry Schiavo has been in the court system for many years without an advocate on her side....the judges have somehow forgotten that Terry is a live human being and has rights..she is not a blob of inert flesh lying in a bed wasting away. She is a United States citizen and as such must have counsel when in the court system. Even the most gruesome vile criminals among us have that right.
Terry Schiavo has had no representation to advocate her rights..it has always been the husband vs the parents as far as I see.
I am not saying states rights are wrong...but they must never supercede the right of an individual to be afforded the basic necessities of life. This judge and the husband have lost sight of that. Putting things in the court records as fact, when there is no proof is an abomination. Terry left no written documant to say what her wishes were...we only have her husbands dubious testimony on that..Had Terry been given an advocate at the onset..I don't think we would be where we are now with all this.
"What would be interesting is to hear from those of you who believe the Florida litigation was complete and covered all the facts, and that Terri has no cognitive ability (as the medical professionals have testified), yet you still believe that Congress is right to bypass SCOTUS and it is right to strip states' rights away. These are the people I would like to hear from."
Might as well kill the thread. Who believes that Terri has no cognitive ability? Who believes that the facts as they've been reported in this case were handled correctly and justly?
I'm saying that court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the case.
Now that Congress has passed and the President has signed the law saying that the court has jurisdiction, you are wrong.
Violations of Florida Statutes against Terri Schiavo
744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated.
(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right:
(a) To have an annual review of the guardianship report and plan.
(VIOLATED – Her husband/guardian has failed to file such plans for a number of years. During the years in which he DID submit the required plan, he entered “NONE” as his plan of action.)
(b) To have continuing review of the need for restriction of his or her rights.
(VIOLATED – The guardian courts have not required her husband/guardian to file such reports mentioned above and no consistent continuing review has taken place because of that.)
(c) To be restored to capacity at the earliest possible time.
(VIOLATED – Terri Schiavo has not received therapy since prior to the 1992 medical malpractice settlement in her favor which was intended to facilitate such therapy.)
(d) To be treated humanely, with dignity and respect, and to be protected against abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
(VIOLATED – deliberate acts of omission [including humane care and food and water] are considered felony abuse under the law.)
(e) To have a qualified guardian.
(VIOLATED – her husband/guardian is no longer qualified for his failure to comply with Florida law requiring annual review of guardianship, failure to properly maintain the property of the ward, failure to comply with the ward’s retained rights to necessary services and living in open adultery which is a misdemeanor under Florida law.)
(f) To remain as independent as possible, including having his or her preference as to place and standard of living honored, either as he or she expressed or demonstrated his or her preference prior to the determination of his or her incapacity or as he or she currently expresses his or her preference, insofar as such request is reasonable.
(VIOLATED – Terri Schiavo is wrongfully confined to a Hospice facility and further confined to a single room without social interaction, stimulation and human company.)
(g) To be properly educated.
(VIOLATED – Terri has not received speech therapy which could enable her to communicate more effective and to manage table food. She has not received help in learning any other protocol (such as blinking) to assist her in communicating more effectively.)
(h) To receive prudent financial management for his or her property and to be informed how his or her property is being managed, if he or she has lost the right to manage property.
(VIOLATED – Terri’s medical management fund has been all but depleted on legal fees in the pursuit of her death. More than half a million dollars has been paid to one attorney in particular. There is no evidence that Terri would have managed her funds in this way nor given any consent to such.)
(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.
(VIOLATED – Terri Schiavo has not received proper physical, occupational, speech or range of motion therapy. She has been denied treatment for simple infections and she has been denied hospitalization necessitated by serious illness.)
(j) To be free from discrimination because of his or her incapacity.
(VIOLATED – Terri Schiavo has been denied due process in both the guardianship and federal courts.)
(k) To have access to the courts.
(VIOLATED – See above.)
(l) To counsel.
(VIOLATED – Terri Schiavo was never represented during the duration of the guardianship proceedings and did not have a Florida required Guardian ad Litem assigned to represent her during the majority of the proceedings.)
(m) To receive visitors and communicate with others.
(VIOLATED – Terri’s visitor list is strictly managed by her husband/guardian who has, a number of times, barred her family, her friends and her spiritual counsel from visiting her, without the court’s prior approval and on personal whim.)
(n) To notice of all proceedings related to determination of capacity and guardianship, unless the court finds the incapacitated person lacks the ability to comprehend the notice.
(VIOLATED – Terri has not been legally represented in any of the guardianship proceedings and has received no counsel.)
(4) Without first obtaining specific authority from the court, as described in s. 744.3725, a guardian may not:
(a) Commit the ward to a facility, institution, or licensed service provider without formal placement proceeding, pursuant to chapter 393, chapter 394, or chapter 397.
(VIOLATED – Terri was admitted to a Hospice facility in 2000 without prior court approval and in violation of Federal laws pertaining to Hospice confinement qualifications.)
(b) Consent on behalf of the ward to the performance on the ward of any experimental biomedical or behavioral procedure or to the participation by the ward in any biomedical or behavioral experiment. The court may permit such performance or participation only if:
1. It is of direct benefit to, and is intended to preserve the life of or prevent serious impairment to the mental or physical health of the ward; or
2. It is intended to assist the ward to develop or regain his or her abilities.
(VIOLATED – Terri Schiavo was subjected to experimental implant surgery in 1993 without prior court approval and without recommendation of her attending physician. Additionally, she was transported across state lines for said surgery. Additionally, follow up care was never provided and no further maintenance services have ever been provided for the implanted electrodes.)
(c) Initiate a petition for dissolution of marriage for the ward.
(d) Consent on behalf of the ward to termination of the ward's parental rights.
(e) Consent on behalf of the ward to the performance of a sterilization or abortion procedure on the ward.
744.2025 Change of ward's residence.
(1) PRIOR COURT APPROVAL REQUIRED.--A guardian who has power pursuant to this chapter to determine the residence of the ward may not, without court approval, change the residence of the ward from this state to another, or from one county of this state to another county of this state, unless such county is adjacent to the county of the ward's current residence. Any guardian who wishes to remove the ward from the ward's current county of residence to another county which is not adjacent to the ward's current county of residence must obtain court approval prior to removal of the ward. In granting its approval, the court shall, at a minimum, consider the reason for such relocation and the longevity of such relocation.
(VIOLATED – Terri Schiavo was moved to a Hospice facility in 2000 by her husband without prior court approval. The Hospice House in question was served by his attorney, George Felos, in the capacity of Chairman up until that same time.)
744.3145 Guardian education requirements
(4) Each person appointed by the court to be a guardian must complete the required number of hours of instruction and education within 1 year after his or her appointment as guardian. The instruction and education must be completed through a course 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.
(VIOLATED – See Above.)
798.01 Living in open adultery
Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Where either of the parties living in an open state of adultery is married, both parties so living shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense provided for in this section.
(VIOLATED – Michael Schiavo has cohabitated and fathered children with another woman while still married to Terri Schiavo.)
825.102 – Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of Elderly Persons and Disabled Adults.
(1) "Abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult" means:
(a) Intentional infliction of physical or psychological injury upon an elderly person or disabled adult;
(VIOLATED – Physical injury by denial of simple procedures to alleviate painful contractures of the hands and possible disfigurement because of said contractures. Psychological abuse in denial of company, stimulation, acts of caging.)
(b) An intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or psychological injury to an elderly person or disabled adult; or
(VIOLATED – Intentional denial of treatment for simple infection with the knowledge that doing so would hasten death – 1993.)
(c) Active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or psychological injury to an elderly person or disabled adult.
(VIOLATED – By instructing caregivers not to provide relief of contractures; by instructing doctors not to treat for simple infection.)
A person who knowingly or willfully abuses an elderly person or disabled adult without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) "Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult" occurs when a person:
(a) Commits aggravated battery on an elderly person or disabled adult;
(b) Willfully tortures, maliciously punishes, or willfully and unlawfully cages, an elderly person or disabled adult; or
(VIOLATED – Denial of human comfort and spiritual comfort at personal whim. Terri Schiavo is also wrongfully caged, kept confined to a single room and without stimulation or ability to be taken outside.)
(c) Knowingly or willfully abuses an elderly person or disabled adult and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult.
(VIOLATED – See above.)
A person who commits aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3)(a) "Neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult" means:
1. A caregiver's failure or omission to provide an elderly person or disabled adult with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the elderly person's or disabled adult's physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the elderly person or disabled adult; or
(VIOLATED – Denial of treatment of simple infection which would, admittedly, hasten death, removal of food and water, denial of medicine.)
2. A caregiver's failure to make a reasonable effort to protect an elderly person or disabled adult from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.
(VIOLATED – The results of a 1991 bone scan, indicating multiple and serious trauma to Terri’s body were never reported or investigated by her husband/guardian.)
Neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult may be based on repeated conduct or on a single incident or omission that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, serious physical or psychological injury, or a substantial risk of death, to an elderly person or disabled adult.
(b) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects an elderly person or disabled adult and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(c) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects an elderly person or disabled adult without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
825.103 Exploitation of an elderly person or disabled adult; penalties.
(b) Obtaining or using, endeavoring to obtain or use, or conspiring with another to obtain or use an elderly person's or disabled adult's funds, assets, or property with the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive the elderly person or disabled adult of the use, benefit, or possession of the funds, assets, or property, or to benefit someone other than the elderly person or disabled adult, by a person who knows or reasonably should know that the elderly person or disabled adult lacks the capacity to consent.
(2)(a) If the funds, assets, or property involved in the exploitation of the elderly person or disabled adult is valued at $100,000 or more, the offender commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(VIOLATED – Funds that were awarded to Terri Schiavo have been embezzled by Michael Schiavo to pay his legal fees. These funds were awarded to Terri Schiavo as a medical management/rehabilitation settlement and remain her property. Her guardian has all but wasted her entire estate on his own legal pursuits.)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 217A (III) of 10 December 1948
http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/UNGARES217A.txt
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of the Declaration and against any
incitement to such discrimination.
Article 17
1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Other Items/Questions
777.04 Attempts, solicitation, and conspiracy.
877.02 Solicitation of legal services or retainers therefor; penalty.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person in the employ of or in any capacity attached to any hospital, sanitarium, police department, wrecker service or garage, prison or court, or for a person authorized to furnish bail bonds, investigators, photographers, insurance or public adjusters, to communicate directly or indirectly with any attorney or person acting on said attorney's behalf for the purpose of aiding, assisting or abetting such attorney in the solicitation of legal business or the procurement through solicitation of a retainer, written or oral, or any agreement authorizing the attorney to perform or render legal services.
(Felos/Bushnell’s relationship with Hospice.)
733.504 Removal of personal representative; causes for removal.
A personal representative may be removed and the letters revoked for any of the following causes, and the removal shall be in addition to any penalties prescribed by law:
(3) Failure to comply with any order of the court, unless the order has been superseded on appeal.
(5) Wasting or maladministration of the estate.
Just because Congress does something that doesn't mean that it's constitutional.
Congress can't give the courts more jurisdiction than article III allows; for instance, Congress can pass a bill and the President can sign into law a bill that allows federal courts to have jurisdiction over advisory cases--where federal courts issue advisory opinions.
But all that work of Congress wouldn't mean that the Court has the proper jurisdiction to hear advisory opinions.
Look: we're running in circles here. The best hook to get jurisdiction, in my mind, is the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, but in my opinion, I don't think that takes you very far.
Anyway, I'm hungry and have some other things to do today, so I'm going to quit running in circles for the time being. I'm sure that this will be taken up again at a later date.
To issue, rather
"Constitute" is also defined as "create and charge with a task or function", and this is the meaning with which it was put into the Constitution and by which Congress has had the power to regulate the jurisdiction of all federal courts save the Supreme Court since the earliest days of our republic.
Whether the state is claiming the right to do this or not isn't the over-riding issue. What's key is the individual's right to life. The state doesn't have the right to order the death of someone who hasn't been convicted of a capital crime. That's what has happened in this case.
SCOTUS has only appellate jurisdiction except in a handful of special cases, thus without a federal court decision to appeal they could not claim jurisdiction.
Number 1: Got news for you. We're all certain to die.
Well, you're the one who made the point, presumably to justify the cruel starvation of a conscious human being.
Number 2: My facts were regarding the right of states to establish their own right-to-die laws without federal intervention, and the fact that Congress selectively chose this case -- one out of thousands -- to make a big media show out of. Reeks of exploiting a family tragedy for political benefit.
The discussion of a facetious "right to die" demands clarification of who's "right" is it? So, in your opinion, who own's the "right to die"?
I'd like to have a discussion with you about this if you don't mind, so I will leave your last point for later if you're game.
Truly without malice, who own's the "right to die".
Unfortunately, by the time a law could be changed, Terri would be dead. That is what congress was trying to prevent. I still believe they did the right thing, the only thing. Have you read doctors' reports that Terri did NOT suffer a heart attack? Have you read testimony of nurses who have cared for Terri? Why do you think Michael refuses to divorce Terri? Because he cares so much for her?
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.