Posted on 04/03/2005 5:19:05 PM PDT by floriduh voter
You know Sun, Arlen Spectre is a lost cause. Why he is in the R party is beyond me. He's a left wing Democrat in every way. I simply don't understand how he gets voted in as a Republican. Luger is another one that is always left of what's right. I call these the "usual suspects". You can always COUNT ON THEM to do the wrong thing.
I will certainly be buying Mark Furman's book. When he investigates a case, it gets INVESTIGATED!!!
You should be worried about this medical examiner. You can make book that he is part of the evil "network"!!
By Michael J. Gaynor
www.MichNews.com
May 9, 2005
One Holocaust was one too many. So Jews rightly resolved: "Never again!"
One judicial murder was one too many. So the Schindler family has resolved, for the sake of America's very soul and in Terri Schindler Schiavo's memory: "Never again!"
On Friday, May 6, 2005, Terri's loving parents and siblings appeared together on "Hannity & Colmes" to warn of the danger of unchecked judicial tyranny and to tell what Terri's premature death by starvation and malnutrition was really like.
And Terri's brother appeared briefly by telephone on EWTN's "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" with the same vital message.
And received an invitation from Mr. Arroyo to the Schindler family to appear on that program in the near future to talk at length about the travesty of justice that was the Schiavo case.
Death by starvation and dehydration was not what Terri wanted, as the horrid husband, Michael Schiavo, and the legally and morally blind Judge, George Greer, selfishly and stubbornly insisted.
It was not the peaceful event the Devil's advocate, George Felos, described. And Terri did not look as beautiful as she ever had been, as Felos diabolically declared.
Tragically, most of the media obfuscated the facts and tolerated the insistence of Judge Greer and Michael Schiavo that the truth about Terri's condition be kept from the public.
In the name of privacy, of course. Adolf Hitler did not show the German people what was happening in his concentration camps either.
The Schindler family is firmly resolved that the Schiavo case remain unique. No more sacrificial lambs. No one else should be sentenced to death without an opportunity for a jury trial and executive clemency.
A mass murderer has those opportunities. A disabled person deserves no less.
To be sure, Terri had process. Thanks to her parents and siblings and those who learned what was going on and supported them. But, Terri did not have DUE process.
A person cannot be convicted of treason without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But, Terri was sentenced to a cruel and unusual death based on "clear and convincing evidence" that was neither clear nor convincing.
Michael Schiavo suddenly claimed after collecting more than $1,000,000 because Terri had mysteriously become disabled and taking up with another woman whom he announced he intended to marry that Terri mentioned to him, his brother and his sister-in-law (but none of her blood relatives or friends unrelated to Michael Schiavo) that she did not want to be kept alive artificially.
Even is Terri really had said so, the receipt of food and water through a feeding tube was not then considered as being kept alive artificially.
And Pope John Paul the Great himself confirmed that just as it is gravely sinful to commit suicide, it is gravely sinful to withhold food and water when it can be provided via a feeding tube.
There was NO evidence that Terri wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death. In fact, the only independent testimony was by a friend of Terri who testified that Terri said, "Where there's life, there's hope." That should have been dispositive.
But Judge Greer rejected it, claiming that since Karen Anne Quinlan died in the mid 1970s, the witness was confused. Judge Greer was confused, to give him the benefit of the doubt. The independent witness was not only plausible, but convincing.
And Karen Anne Quinlan's death many years later is a matter of public record! But neither Judge Greer nor an appellate court would acknowledge that Judge Greer had wrongfully condemned Terri to a horrible death.
The judiciary alone starved and dehydrated Terri to death. No prosecutor decided to prosecute Terri. No grand jury indicted Terri. No jury of Terri's peers decided Terri should be starved and dehydrated to death.
The Florida legislature and Governor acted to save Terri from judicial abuse, by passing and signing a law. But the judiciary wrongly ruled the law an unconstitutional infringement on judicial power.
And the United States Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal. Terri's God-given and unalienable right to life was not important enough to the Supremes.
Florida's Governor could not spare Terri's life, because she was not a convicted criminal.
Congressional subpoenas to protect Terri in connection with a Congressional investigation were disrespected by the judiciary. The United States Congress and the President passed and signed on an emergency basis a special law to have a Florida federal court conduct a de novo review.
But the Florida federal judge who drew the case opted to let Terri die instead of to keep her alive while he conducted that de novo review. And the federal appellate judiciary shamefully permitted that.
Because a true de novo review unduly risked humiliating the United States Supreme Court as well as the Florida judiciary?
Terri Schiavo was one disabled woman. An infinitesimally small sacrifice to make to preserve the illusion that at least in the end the judiciary does the right thing in a country in which the judiciary created a constitutional "right' that has led to some 45,000,000 abortions.
The Schiavo case highlights the judiciary's gravest problem: the limited scope of judicial review.
Scores of judges did not "hear" the case. Only ONE judge (and a legally blind one) "heard" the case.
His fundamentally flawed factual determinations were upheld on appeal. NOT because the appellate judges necessarily would have made them if they had heard the case. But because those appellate judges (with a few insufficient exceptions) unduly deferred to Judge Greer as fact finder.
Theoretically because he was in a better position to judge the credibility of witnesses than an appellate judge (who reads transcripts instead of sees and hears testimony).
When the trial judge is legally blind, that legally blind trial judge should not be accorded deference blindly!
The appellate judges should have reviewed the trial record de novo. Even though that would have taken more time.
Congress directed de novo review for very good cause. But the Schiavo federal case went to a judge who preferred not to do it. Terri received punishment that was ex post facto as well as cruel and unusual.
The Florida statute passed after Terri's mysterious collapse sets forth two basic requirements before a person can be starved and dehydrated to death "lawfully":
1. That person must be in a persistent vegetative state; and 2. That person must have expressed a desire to die instead of to be kept alive by "artificial" means under the circumstances.
AFTER Terri collapsed, receiving food and water through a feeding tube was ADDED to the list of artificial means of keeping a person alive.
Amazingly, a judge ruled that Terri could lawfully be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because she was NOT a lawfully convicted criminal!
Saith that judge: The Fourteenth Amendment prohibition on a state depriving any person of life without due process of law really means any lawfully convicted criminal!
Is the law really that a person not even accused of a crime has LESS of a claim not to be treated cruelly and unusually than a lawfully convicted criminal? OF COURSE NOT! Remember the Ninth Amendment?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Surely the People retained the right to be treated as well as lawfully convicted criminals!
The United States Supreme Court ruled that barring former Confederates from practicing law in the federal courts after the Civil War was unconstitutional ex post facto punishment.
Even though the prohibition was not identified as punishment. In Griswold v. State of Connecticut, the United States Supreme Court declared "that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."
When Planned Parenthood asked for a penumbra to stop criminal prosecution of the use of birth control, lo and behold, the United States Supreme Court discerned that penumbra.
When the Schindler family begged for judges to see the penumbra that was supposed to save Terri from being starved and dehydrated to death, the justices of the United States Supreme Court and 10 or the 12 federal appellate judges hearing their appeals were blind to it. Like Judge Greer.
Now the Schindler family is pleading with all America to make sure that there be no more human sacrifices to judicial tyranny.
They deserve our full support.
It's on World Net Daily today... they wrote up what Bob Enyart said on the radio yesterday. If it's not here yet and you have a minute, could you go get that link for us? If not, it's okay.
Many thousands of people tried but the politicians and judges who have all the power and money DID NOT SAVE HER. It is a sickening chapter in American History.
I recommend a bookmark of Terri threads to challenge the re-write of history that surely will be coming before the elections.
PINELLAS COUNTY FAILED TERRI. FLORIDA FAILED TERRI. THE UNITED STATES FAILED TERRI.
Multiple failures ended in judicial homicide and don't forget about Hospice. They were working hand in hand with their former Director George Felos.
LOL just doesn't give your work justice. A masterpiece of pig poetry! I hope Hannity and Huckabee get a chance to read your poem. Gov. Huckabee was against Terri being murdered.
If he got this one wrong, we'd have to kick him out and not let his band play at the next Freeper ball.
P.S. With a name like "Huckabee," he has to be good :-)
FREEPERS, check it out from the Tampa Tribune pre-banquet.
Here's the exact quote by Attorney Alan Scott Miller of the West Pasco County Bar Assn. "His professionalism and integrity was spotlighted by the way he handled the Schiavo case."
SPOTLIGHTED?
He killed an innocent woman and the entire world knows it. FV
The only "eating disorder" Terri ever had was every time they took her nutrition and water away.
He may be in Mark Fuhrman's book since he was Sheriff and halted the investigation of what happened that night. He wants Charlie Crist's job (no fan of his either). THEY REFUSED TO PROTECT TERRI. Both of them.
HINO is a bad guy, they need to get over it. He belongs in the jail, not working there.
IF Terri looked so beautiful and peaceful WHY HIDE IT FELOS? We are NOT stupid. These men are criminals - ALL of them. Personally, I don't know how Governor Bush even sleeps at night. He had the unfettered ability to save Terri and he REFUSED!!
They're as important as this one from a historical perspective and because we are not going to forget what happened to Terri. Judge Greer is getting awards for killing a disabled person. He is joking about Terri's supporters. The last laugh will be on him when it's time for his life review.
I love Mary and Bob. floriduh voter
BOBBY SCHINDLER TESTIFIED BEFORE THE LOUISIANA LEGISLATURE TODAY
Bill would restrict family members' right to have feeding tubes removed
Measure would require explicit directions in writing
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Doug Simpson / Associated Press Writer
BATON ROUGE, La. - A bill that would restrict family members' right to have a feeding tube removed from a severely injured patient who is alive but unresponsive was approved Tuesday by a Senate committee -- but with a twist that could jeopardize its chances in the Legislature.
The bill was inspired by the saga of Terry Schiavo, who had her feeding tube removed earlier this year, after over a decade.
The Senate Judiciary A Committee added financial baggage to Sen. James David Cain's bill: amendments that would require the state to pay health care costs for such patients, if the family cannot. Sen. Cleo Fields suggested the new provisions after questioning how the state can require that those patients remain alive if the family is too poor to afford the hospital costs.
"Who's going to pay the medical bills? The only entity left with any money is the state," said Fields, D-Baton Rouge.
The committee approved Fields' amendments 4-3, then passed the bill without any objections. It now moves to the full Senate, with a potentially heavy price tag for the state.
Cain's bill was inspired by the case of Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman who died in March, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed by court order, ending a four-year legal battle between her husband, who wanted the tube removed, and her parents, who did not. She had suffered brain damage in 1990 after a chemical imbalance caused her heart to stop.
Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler, testified that Cain's bill would help prevent other people from having to go through the "absolutely horrific" experience he had, watching his sister slowly die without nutrition.
Cain, R-Dry Creek, told the committee that Louisiana's law is ambiguous about when a feeding tube can be removed and can lead to similar legal disputes among families.
"What happened in Florida could indeed happen here, and we're trying to prevent that," Cain said.
The bill would define the food and water that moves through feeding tubes as separate from "life support." Under current law, both respirators and feeding tubes are legally considered life support. Cain said many people sign living wills that provide for removal of the feeding tubes without realizing that can in some cases mean they will essentially starve to death in a hospital bed.
Similar legislation has been filed in the House.
One part of the bill drew opposition from groups ranging from the Louisiana Hospital Association to the American Civil Liberties Union: a provision that would prevent families from removing feeding tubes from a person "legally incapable of making health care decisions" if the person had not filled out a living will or other document specifying such removal.
Testifying in favor of the bill was Oris Pettis, a St. Tammany Parish woman who said her mother had signed a living will saying she did not want to be kept alive on life support. But Pettis said her mother didn't know that feeding tubes were considered part of life support.
After a stroke last year, Pettis' 84-year-old mother wound up in a West Monroe nursing home with a feeding tube.
Pettis sued to keep her mother alive, a legal battle against two siblings who wanted to honor the living will. She lost, the feeding tube was removed in August and Pettis' mother died three weeks later. Watching her mother die of dehydration was horrific, Pettis said.
Opponents of the bill argued the measure would inject the government into an area where family members should be making decisions. Several said Louisiana's current law properly provides family members with final authority over decisions involving the death of a loved one.
"If we start monkeying with a good law in Louisiana, we're going to find ourselves with a Terry Schiavo case every day," said Sen. Tom Schedler, R-Mandeville. "We don't need to go there."
http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/WWL051005schiavo.25fa594c0.html
Photos like these should never have to be taken.
"Never again."
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.