Governor to close Schiavo inquiry [State attorney to Jeb: Michael S did not cause wife's collapse.]

St Petersburg Times ^ | July 8, 2005 | DAVID KARP and CHRIS TISCHDAVID KARP and CHRIS TISCH

[summer]

LARGO - In what could be a final chapter in the legal saga of Terri Schiavo, Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bernie McCabe says he could find no evidence that Michael Schiavo caused his wife's collapse 15 years ago.

In a June 30 letter to Gov. Jeb Bush, McCabe suggested ending the state's inquiry into the case.

Bush responded Thursday in a two-sentence letter to McCabe: "Based on your conclusions, I will follow your recommendation that the inquiry by the state be closed."

Bush asked McCabe last month to investigate Schiavo's collapse on the morning of Feb. 25, 1990. He cited questions left unanswered by an autopsy and inconsistent statements from Michael Schiavo about the time he found his wife on the floor of their apartment.

McCabe appointed two of his most seasoned prosecutors to review the evidence. They found nothing to indicate Michael Schiavo hurt his wife....

[lugsoul]

I guess I spoke too soon.

[Earthdweller]

I do what I can. :^)

[Peach]

I guess so. We should have known better.

[Earthdweller]

Sorry summer. I can't read the comment in yellow. Can you post it in a different color..please, please?

[summer]

Does it not seem a bit odd to you that people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King are hailed today because they did NOT blindly follow the "law" when that law was unjust? They did not meekly "know their place" and sit quietly until the unjust law was done away with

I think you have a valid point here, but let's continue with it and see where we go in Terri's case.

So, OK, now Gov Jeb Bush sends the National Guard in to take Terri from the hospice or wherever she may have been.

Meanwhile, the courts were recognizing her husband -- not Gov Bush or Jeb or FL -- as having legal custody.

What has just happened?

Well, you are correct that Gov Bush would have been in violation of the court's ruling. That is an offense you want overlooked.

So. OK, we will overlook it.

But, what else has happened?

Well, Gov Bush has now also violated a sacred bond and contract of marriage.

Can you overlook that, too? Would you like to hear what others think of that violatation of God's law? If you are interested in knowing how other conservatioves feel about THAT violation of law, then reread this thread. Many people are AGAINST that violation of God's law by the government.

The difference in the two situations is this: the era of civil rights you evoked had OTHER types of relatioonships at their core: customer/business or ppublic transportation; or students and public schools; or employee and employer. No Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King was marching to violate what is recognized as a sacred contract between two married people.

Terri's case had, at its core, a legal relationship of husband and wife, with a husband having the right of legal guardianship. You would have to find a way to say that relationship was "unjust" before you could go in and take legal custody of Terri. Otherwise, it would be kidnapping in the eyes of the court- and, a violation of God's law.

Again, reread this thread if you don't believe me! :)

[summer]

re your post #184 - Sorry about that yellow type. Here's the quote again:

...the Due Process Clause does not permit a state to infringe on the fundamental right of a parent to make child rearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a "better" decision could be made.

- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

[Earthdweller]

Hi Peach. What are you guys doing here? Oh yes, I saw that angry poster's comment.

Go for it...(add the sound of a cat screeching with claws out stretched). Tee Hee.

Let me know when it's over. I'm outa here for now.:)

[Earthdweller]

Thanks..You gotta believe that woman was hard to predict.

[summer]

My pleasure. :)

[Mad Mammoth]

Well, Gov Bush has now also violated a sacred bond and contract of marriage.

OK, we'll go with THAT and see where it leads us.

That "sacred bond" you speak of, had already been amply violated, trampled and made a mockery of by Michael Schiavo, in that he was living in an adulterous relationship with another woman, had fathered children with that woman, and in fact committed perjury in the civil suit in which he received millions of dollars in a malpractice award, because during that court process, he stated that all he wanted to do was to "take care of his wife for the rest of her life" (paraphrased).

Oh he took care of her alright.

He no sooner had the cash in his pocket that he began cutting back on physiotherapy for Terri, moved her into a hospice environment, wrote his own "do not resusitate" orders on HER medical charts, and his systematic neglect and abuse of Terri accelerated.

Using your logic of a "sacred bond of marriage", police officers should NEVER remove an abusive husband from a home in which he is beating or abusing his wife and/or children, because hey - that's a sacred bond pal, and we don't want to tamper with that sacred bond. And guess what?

That is a very Islamic view of the family, the view that the man is the absolute and ultimate final voice of authority, and by allah, if he wants to beat his wife into submission, punish her for whatever reasons he deems appropriate, well, that's ok because that marriage is a "sacred bond" and nobody but allah (or the Real God if one is not worshipping a satanic-controlled demon calling themselves 'allah') has anything to say about how that husband conducts himself.

See where this leads my FRiend?

It is true that marriage IS a sacred bond, however the sanctity of that bond must not trump the sanctity of that Holy Commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Kill", which is why we see many men (and women) imprisoned and/or executed each year for killing their spouses, instead of choosing to "love, honor and cherish" that person who is supposed to be their lifelong partner, if one subscribes to that concept of marriage being a "sacred bond".

Michael Schiavo has hidden behind the protection of a corrupt judge, a crooked lawyer, an industry of pro-death euthanasia cultists, and conjured up this whole "Terri didn't want to be kept alive" mantra TEN YEARS after she allegedly said it. His personal history in all of this has been one continuous stream of lies, deceptions, fabrications and manipulations, all oriented around the final goal of killing off his wife.

And why?

Her parents were MORE than willing to take care of her. Why wouldn't Schiavo let her go? Was it a control issue? Some misguided sense of 'loyalty' to Terri?

His own adultery with his girlfriend/shackup proves he had no true loyalty to his wife, so it must have been something more.

I'll tell you what it was: it was the elimination of the last potential witness who might, at some point have identified HIM as being the reason that she was in the disabled mental and physical state that she was in until the day she was finally murdered with the full authorization of the State.

Michael Schiavo committed the perfect crime. And now, with the "official" stamp of approval from the State of Florida, he will most likely NEVER be prosecuted.

But there is A God, and His Name is King Jesus, and He will one day judge the "quick and the dead", and on that Day, Michael Schiavo will be exposed for all to see, and I (and many others) will either owe him eternal apologies for being so mistaken about his pure heart and his compassionate motives, or we will in unison respond "May God's Will Be Done", as Schiavo is shuffled off in manacles, and cast into the "fire prepared for the devil and his angels".

Then we will all be able to hear from Terri herself about HER views on how her former husband honored their "sacred bond".

[summer]

It is very much like the story of King Solomon, the baby and the two mothers. Too bad Judge Greer and all the Judges who touched this case lacked King Solomon's wisdom.

You are correct. Some people did view it through parental goggles. Attorney David Boise (Sp?) saw it that way.

Thanks for your thoughtful post, TAdams8591.

[RS]

"the spouse wanted to maintain life support and the parents wanted to let their offspring "be allowed to die"."

We sort of talked about that earlier on the thread, and I said it is best to write your own written directions!!!"



But she's incapacitated and has lost the "right" to change her mind on the directions - dosen't that mean the parents get to decide that for her also ?

What if she WROTE down that her husband gets to make the decisions for her ? Would that be as legal as if she wrote that her parents get to make the decision for her ?

[summer]

Then we will all be able to hear from Terri herself about HER views on how her former husband honored their "sacred bond".

I am actually very sympathetic to the gist of your post #190, and especially to the fact Terri herself could NOT speak her views about her marriage in her incapcitated state, whatever her views may have been.

Who's to say she wanted to stay married to this guy at this point?

I don't say that.

That's why I suggested we consider a new law in my very first post on this thread, post #1 -- which would legally enable parents to file for divorce on behalf of an incapcitated adult married child.

I originally suggested it be because of a superior right of a parent to care for a child over the right of a spouse to pull the plug, but others felt it should be only on grounds already legally recognized -- abuse, adultery, or abandonment.

And, Terri's situation would have fit right in there, certainly with respect to adultery.

Also, I am glad you mentioned that it was awhile before Michael S got around to "rememebering" that Terri allegedly said she would not want to live in this condition. I, too, recall reading that Michael S made no such claim at the beginning of this sage.

IMO, you and I are actually very much on the same page in believing this maritial relationship was unjust from the view of Terri S -- and, no one had the legal power to say that here on Earth. And, someone, like her parents, should have been able to speak for her -- and, I believe, file for divorce in this situation.

Unfortunately, without a law existing to allow that, the only other option is for a judge to invent such a law, and engage in what people call "judicial activism" from the bench. Or for some other 3rd party to violate God's laws of marriage without having legal standing to speak to a court. And no one wants any of that.

That's why I hope people consider all that has been said on this thread, including the major points both you and I made. I think we agree on some very key points.

Thanks for you posts.

[summer]

What if she WROTE down that her husband gets to make the decisions for her ? Would that be as legal as if she wrote that her parents get to make the decision for her ?

I would say yes to both questions, but I am not a lawyer nor a judge.

[summer]

sage. = saga.

[RS]

"Where were you??"

Skiing


"Now, explain to me why you didn't stop the zillions of threads on this matter, as it was happening. with your argument above? "

Sometimes you must allow them to stray, for that is the only way they will find themselves ....

[Mad Mammoth]

We are mostly in agreement on all of these things, and I personally would have no problem with your proposed law, I do think that to make viable a future hypothetical situation in which parents would invoke the protections of such a law, that the incapacitated/disabled child should indicate their wishes to have their parents act in their behalf, PRIOR to the state of disability. Perhaps even a pre-drafted petition for divorce, with the proviso that it cannot be filed except under the conditions of a.) incapacitation and b.) by the parents acting in behalf of the incapacitated child. I think there is merit in what you are proposing.

It remains my contention, that Jeb Bush (and his brother the President) could have saved Terri's life, and even if Jeb bobbled the ball, his brother could have taken action, and I cite as ample precedent, the actions of President Eisenhower in 1957 when he sent federal troops to Little Rock Arkansas to guarantee the safety of black schoolchildren to attend classes without risk of being intimidated, assaulted and/or murdered. You had a situation where the Governor himself, Orval Faubus, all the way down through the state government and the local law enforcement, all were openly defying the federal government and the Constitution. Those schoolchildren were at risk. President Eisenhower used his power to restore the true rule of law in Arkansas where the Constitution had broken down, and he was right to do so.

President Bush could have done at least that much to save Terri Schindler-Schiavo, because like Arkansas, the law has been twisted and perverted and the Constitution trampled on by the tyrants sitting on our judiciary, from the federal circuits who thumbed their nose at "Terri's Law", to the little pissant who answers to "Judge George W. Greer" in Pinellas County.

By their failure to take action in this case, the brothers Jeb and George have allowed a terrible precedent to be established, and the Greers, Felos, and Schiavos of the world have been empowered and emboldened.

And we will suffer the consequences, long after Jeb and George have retired to their respective homes and ranches after leaving public life.

I thank you for your posts too.

[summer]

Here is another scenario to perhaps consider:

Let's say you're a loving father, and your kid has an accident in the house, and falls down the stairs, and is black and blue with bruises as a result of that accident

You neighbor, who doesn't like you for whatever reason, sees your black and blue bruised kid later playing outside, and calls the State, accusinig you of child abuse.

The State investigates and you explain, truthfully, what happened.

Now, should the State ignore your true explanation -- and take your kid away from you?

No one really knows for certain what happened to Terri S, and it is possible not even Michael S know. I am not saying it is certain, I am just saying it is possible.

As I said throughout this thread, there are so many unknowns in this case.

You would not want your kid taken away from you for what may be no reason; nor would any spouse want their spouse "removed" for what may be no reason.

But if there is a married man fathering children with another woman, that seems pretty clear and convincing evidence to me that a maritial relationship has been violated.

And if a spouse wants to pull the plug without written directions, while the parents of that incapacited spouse want to care for their child, that would also, to me, ring of abuse.

So, I think are legal grounds for creating a right of parents of an incapacitated adult to seek a divorce when their child can not do so.

But that is huge departure from the way we think now, in terms of marriage being a sacred bond between only two people, husband and wife -- no matter what the circumstances may be.

[summer]

the incapacitated/disabled child should indicate their wishes to have their parents act in their behalf, PRIOR to the state of disability.

I posted my above post before reading your above post, but I agree with what you said here, too. (However, I think what you're saying here is already allowed.)

[summer]

I think there is merit in what you are proposing.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

But I do respectfully disagree with you about Gov Jeb Bush -- I think the "hemming and hawing" you may have mentioned earlier was because he was genuinely between a rock and a hard place on this case, not actually having the legal authority to interject himself in a maritial relationship, but wanting nevertheless to do the right thing. I still think in the end he did the right thing, because he did as much as he could as governor.

That is just my opinion, and again, I respect yours, too. :)