I was not - I was referring to the conversation I was conducting with another poster, the one you saw fit to jump into. Perhaps you should be concerned about your own reading comprehension.
I gave specific examples of Judge Greer's adjudication bias in Terri's case.
No, you did not. At best, you listed a series of decisions you happen to disagree with - at best, several of the things you listed are nothing more than tendentious BS. Let's start with the first:
For most of her subjection to life and death decisions Terri did not have a guardian ad litem although the law entitled her to one. This is analogous to a judge's decision that an incarcerated defendant has no need of the court-appointed lawyer provided for by the law.
Your analogy is garbage, for starters. The Constitution mandates counsel for those accused of crimes, whether the judge likes it or not. A guardian ad litem, on the other hand, is not mandated by law - one is, instead, appointed by the court at the court's discretion, when the court feels it is necessary. So, you've got one fact - some of the time she didn't have a guardian litem - and one piece of worthless spin in the form of a false analogy. Let's move on:
The Schindlers repeatedly and unsuccessfully requested that a GAL be appointed and demonstrated adequate need for one. This is analogous to a judge's refusal to grant a defendant's request for counsel.
The first part of your sentence is undoubtedly true - they requested a guardian at some point, which was unsuccessful. What follows - that they "demonstrated adequate need" - is hardly a fact on the other hand. At best, it is your opinion. You seem like a fairly literate person, but if you're confused on the concept, I'll pencil in some time to explain the difference between "fact" and "opinion", and why I'm not at all impressed by posters who declare their opinions to be fact.
You'd think I wouldn't have to actually tell you this, but when I said bring me facts and not weasel words, I didn't mean "present your opinions as fact", I meant bring me actual facts. So that one falls apart as well, although I note that you close with the same garbage analogy you put forth in your first point - apparently it has some attraction to you, despite its essential bankruptcy. Regardless, downward we go:
All motions to deprive Terri of a GAL came from her guardian, the very person whose ambitions the law seeks to check by means of an independent GAL. This is analogous to the President's requesting that the Judiciary dismiss the Legislature as an unnecessary party to safeguarding the people's interests.
Here we have a sterling example of my favorite waste of time - the completely worthless fact. Well, of course motions against the guardian ad litem came from her husband - he disagreed with the necessity of having one. If everyone agreed with everyone else on everything, we wouldn't need courts in the first place. Oooooo, how sinister - he had a different opinion. Well, that's why we have courts, to adjudicate competing claims and render a decision.
At least, on the other hand, you did strain yourself to compose a new, albeit equally worthless analogy, to close out your third "fact". It is absurd to compare the request to either not require or dismiss a guardian ad litem to the President attempting to "dismiss" Congress via the courts, not least of which because guardians ad litem exist at the pleasure of the court - they are dismissed and retained at the court's discretion. You may be a bit fuzzy on the workings of our constitutional government, so let me refresh your memory a bit - Congress does not exist at the discretion of the courts. Unlike a guardian ad litem, the courts cannot "dismiss" Congress. Not even if you ask them really nicely. So that analogy is ridiculous on its face also. But bravely we soldier on:
On a motion by Felos Judge Greer dismissed the initial GAL after he advised that aspects of Michael Schiavo's guardianship were potentially detrimental to the ward's interests. This is analogous to the mayor's dismissing the police for uncovering corruption in the city council.
Ah, yet another favorite of mine - the selective fact. Oh, and a little post hoc fallacy thrown in for good measure. Did you also know that Pearse unequivocally agreed with the diagnosis of PVS? The Schindlers vehemently disagree with that diagnosis - maybe they had Pearse removed as detrimental to their interests.
See? Wasn't that fun? With a little care in selecting your facts, you can spin any sort of conclusion you like. As for your analogy...well, I'm sure you can guess by now that this ain't gonna be pretty. This is not, of course, in any way analogous to the mayor dismissing the police for uncovering corruption. Unlike the police, the guardian ad litem was empowered for a limited time and required to produce his report for the court to consider. Once that's done, his job is done. The court can either retain him to consider more issues, or it can thank him for his work and send him on his way. Needless to say, this is not how police forces are retained, not by any mayor anywhere in this country, not even Marion Barry.
Now, shall I really continue with this, or have I wasted enough time on your "facts" already? Don't bring me this pile of crap and then presume to lecture me on the necessity of doing one's own research. You want me to acknowledge some facts? Then I suggest you get out there and find some that are worth my time, because this dog's breakfast you've brought me tonight is no such thing.
general_re,
You wrote: "I was not - I was referring to the conversation I was conducting with another poster..."
Your response was addressed to me and included the phrase "this is the forth..." If your reference was to a different, earlier poster, you should have written "such and such was the fourth time that..."
"At best, you listed a series of decisions you happen to disagree with - at best, several of the things you listed are nothing more than tendentious BS."
You wrote: "The Constitution mandates counsel for those accused of crimes, whether the judge likes it or not. A guardian ad litem, on the other hand, is not mandated by law - one is, instead, appointed by the court at the court's discretion, when the court feels it is necessary."
Your reading of the law is sadly lacking, general_re.
F S 744.3215(l) (The right of persons determined incapacitated to counsel and 2003 FS 744.3215(k) (The right of persons determined incapacitated to have access to the courts)places the guardian ad litem not at the discretion of the judge, as you wrongly hold, but specifies it as a RIGHT. Moreover, the pertinent statutes are under the heading RETAINED RIGHTS OF PERSONS ADJUDICATED INCAPACITATED. This means that they are inalienable rights and can neither be nullified by the court nor transferred by the court to a surrogate such as the legal guardian.
You wrote: "So, you've got one fact - some of the time she didn't have a guardian litem - and one piece of worthless spin in the form of a false analogy."
First, I hold that Terri was deprived of a guardian ad litem for MOST of the time, not some of the time. Second, I stated that Judge Greer dismissed the GAL at the behest of the opposing counsel. Considering that Greer's ruling wrongfully deprived Terri of her RETAINED RIGHTS TO COUNSEL AND ACCESS TO THE COURTS, and that this was due to the judge's favoring one of the litigating parties, my analogy holds. Your use of the vituperative "worthless spin" merely underscores your abysmal ignorance of the text of the statutes.
You wrote: "The first part of your sentence is undoubtedly true - they requested a guardian at some point, which was unsuccessful. What follows - that they "demonstrated adequate need" - is hardly a fact on the other hand."
First, I said that the Schindlers REPEATEDLY requested the reappointment of a GAL, not "at some point," as you misquote. Second, the demonstration of adequate need is implicit in the text of the statute. Why do you think Florida lawmakers went to the trouble of putting the GAL in a specially protected category of RETAINED RIGHTS? A constitutional equivalent of retained rights would be inalienable rights. In the second line, the demonstration of adequate need for a GAL was tied directly to enumerated violations of the guardianship laws by Michael Schiavo. I will later in this post append a partial list of them because it will also answer the questions by another poster. So, the Schindlers brought to Judge Greer's attention that the guardian Michael Schiavo stood in violation of a great number of laws written to protect incapacitated persons. One of the GAL's functions is to see to it that the legal guardian is qualified and adheres to existing guardianship laws. Even if the Schindlers' listing of the guardian's infractions had only been suspicions, Judge Greer was bound to afford Terri the protection of the law, which included her representation by a GAL. As it stood, however, the Schindlers actually had proof of the infraction. That proof, by the way, still exists. You consider this to be mere disagreement with the judge's opinion? If so, you are saying that a judge is not bound by the written law. Is that your intent?
You wrote: "At best, it is your opinion. You seem like a fairly literate person, but if you're confused on the concept, I'll pencil in some time to explain the difference between "fact" and "opinion", and why I'm not at all impressed by posters who declare their opinions to be fact."
Please review the statutes I list. These are not my opinion. They were written by Florida lawmakers and express the intent, not the opinion of the law. If a protective statute is labeled a RETAINED RIGHT, it means that no court has the authority to remove the right. I am not at all confused about this. You, by contrast, fail to differentiate between a judge's legal mandate to find within the law and his renegade decision to ignore the law. It is the judge who utters OPINIONS, and these opinions cannot be diametrically opposite the letter and intent of the law. Is that too difficult for you to grasp? The law said that the GAL was Terri's RETAINED RIGHT, and the judge nullified that right. The law said that the judge was not authorized to transfer Terri's right to counsel, and the judge went ahead and transferred it to Michael Schiavo, allowing him to decide whether or not Terri should have the GAL. Which part of contravening the law don't you understand in this?
"You'd think I wouldn't have to actually tell you this, but when I said bring me facts and not weasel words, I didn't mean "present your opinions as fact", I meant bring me actual facts."
Honestly, general_re. Where do you get off the hair-splitting trail? I am quoting the laws by chapter and title. I am stating what Judge Greer did. It is well within your capacity to verify both. What other mysterious ingredient is lacking to qualify as fact to you? Use my references to read the law verbatim. Use my references to check Judge Greer's rulings. Compare them. Don't waste time accusing me of having merely stated opinion. Show me that a law I cite does not exist or that an action I attributed to Judge Greer was not committed. Do that or hold your tongue.
You wrote: "Here we have a sterling example of my favorite waste of time - the completely worthless fact. Well, of course motions against the guardian ad litem came from her husband - he disagreed with the necessity of having one. If everyone agreed with everyone else on everything, we wouldn't need courts in the first place."
Is there anything about the legislative term RETAINED RIGHT that slips past your attention, general_re? Terri cannot at once be guaranteed an inviolable right by the law and make its necessity subject to someone else's opinion. Neither Michael Schiavo, nor George Felos, nor Judge Greer had the option to disagree with Terri's need for the GAL. The law does not make this right subject to a needs assessment. It is simply a right retained for the duration of the guardianship. It is not realtive but absolute. It is not conditioned upon the presence of qualifying factors. It is not something to be granted on due consideration. No, it is an intrinsic, tamperproof right. Do you follow?
You wrote: "Oooooo, how sinister - he had a different opinion. Well, that's why we have courts, to adjudicate competing claims and render a decision." A retained right is not subject to differences of opinion. It is not subject to interpretation by jurisprudence. It is not a component of any "competing claims." It is RETAINED. Courts are neither needed for nor authorized "to adjudicate" it. Please do a little homework, general_re, so that I do not have to continue reciting fundamentals for your benefit.
You wrote: "It is absurd to compare the request to either not require or dismiss a guardian ad litem to the President attempting to "dismiss" Congress via the courts, not least of which because guardians ad litem exist at the pleasure of the court - they are dismissed and retained at the court's discretion."
By now you should have realized how far off the deep end you are with this. Terri's retained right to the GAL did NOT "exist at the pleasure of the court!" The Gal was NOT "dismissed and retained at the court's discretion!" The law does not say that it is a retained right "unless..." The law proveds for no circumstances under which an incapacitated person can be stripped of that right. The law does not allow a judge or a guardian to assume that the incapacitated person might wish to relinquish the retained right. I challenge you to find any published legal opinion that attributes anything remotely discretionary to the statute.
You wrote: "You may be a bit fuzzy on the workings of our constitutional government, so let me refresh your memory a bit - Congress does not exist at the discretion of the courts."
I don't feel fuzzy about this, general_re, but you seem to be a bit fuzzy on the workings of the law, so let me refresh your memory a bit -- A retained right does not exist at the discretion of the courts.
You wrote: "Unlike a guardian ad litem, the courts cannot "dismiss" Congress. Not even if you ask them really nicely. So that analogy is ridiculous on its face also."
Neither "can" a judge nullify an incapacitated person's retained right to counsel and access to the court. A judge did do exactly that though, which can hardly be seen as anything less than a renegade act. Theoretically, the courts supported by military power controlled by the president could "dismiss" Congress. History is replete with instances of coups d'etat. Likewise, a judge can indeed contravene a person's guaranteed right. If your imagination is insufficient to catch the purport of analogies, just skip them, general_re. They are meant for people who are able to free themselves from literalist compulsions and extract the intended ratio of principles.
You wrote: "This is not, of course, in any way analogous to the mayor dismissing the police for uncovering corruption. Unlike the police, the guardian ad litem was empowered for a limited time and required to produce his report for the court to consider. Once that's done, his job is done."
Quite to the contrary, general_re. The retained right to counsel is NOT "empowered for a limited time." The law did not intend the GAL to be in service to the court "to produce his report for the court to consider." It is not the court that retains the right to the GAL but the incapacitated person! The GAL is meant to serve the interests of the incapacitated person, not those of the court or of the guardian. The law intended the GAL as a component of a system of checks and balances. If you understood the function of the GAL as the law envisions it, you would also understand the analogy I drew. It is possible for a judge to remove an incapacitated person's GAL when the GAL turns out to be unqualified or tainted in some way. In that case, however, the incapacitated person's right to a GAL cannot be simply ignored henceforth. A suitable replacement should be found as soon as possible to afford the incapacitated person proper counsel during ungoing litigation.
You wrote: "The court can either retain him to consider more issues, or it can thank him for his work and send him on his way. Needless to say, this is not how police forces are retained, not by any mayor anywhere in this country, not even Marion Barry."
Your description of the GAL's function is farcical. That is not what the law intended by making the GAL an incapacitated person's retained right. In some ways the GAL very much functions like the police, protecting the incapacitated person against defrauding, mistreatment, neglect or misrepresentation by the guardian. In Terri's case, Pearse -- in his policing capacity -- revealed the guardian's conflict of interest. Schiavo, the person thus implicated, reacted by requesting the GAL's removal. Judge Greer acquiesced. As I said though, forget the analogies if the abstractions strain your imagination.
"Now, shall I really continue with this, or have I wasted enough time on your "facts" already? Don't bring me this pile of crap and then presume to lecture me on the necessity of doing one's own research."
Honestly? I hope that you do not continue with this wasting of time. It is clear that you are neither equipped with the facts nor able to recognize them when they are enumerated.
Randi,
Under Florida Statutes pertaining to the rights of disabled persons, the right to necessary services (which by definition includes nutrition and hydration) is a retained right.
This means that it cannot be conveyed by court to a surrogate such as a guardian or a state official. The statutes section below should suffice to make that clear. In addition, Florida Statutes and the Americans with Disabilities Act specify nutrition and hydration as guaranteed rights. I do not have time to find these for you now, but if you are truly interested your own research will uncover them.
765.309 Florida Statute: Mercy Killing of Euthanasia Not Authorized; Suicide
Distinguished. -- (1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act of omission to end the life other than to permit the natural process of dying. [My comment: Death resulting from the deliberate withholding of oral hydration cannot be remotely considered a "natural process of dying," any more than choking someone's neck to prevent respiration could be.]
(2) The withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures from a patient in accordance with any provision of this chapter does not, for any purpose, constitute a suicide. [My comment: While removing a feeding tube can be classified as "withdrawal of life-prolonging prodedures," refusing to hydrate by mouth cannot. The oral intake of air or fluids cannot be categorized as life-prolonging procedures, otherwise such acts as strangling a person to death could also be construed as the removal of a life-prolonging procedure.]
458.326 Florida Statute: Intractable Pain; Authorized Treatment. -- (4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, and no treatment authorized by this section may be used for such purpose. [My comment: The statute makes it clear that only the blocking of interference with natural death is permitted. Bringing about someone's death by withholding oral oxygenation or hydration is not the same as letting someone die naturally. The statute places all forms of medically hastening death beyond its natural course in the prohibited category of mercy killing or euthanasia. It makes no difference whether this hastening is effected by the administration of a drug or the blocking of a person's natural ability to respirate or hydrate.]
782.08 Florida Statute: Assisting Self-Murder. -- Every person deliberately assisting another in the commission of self-murder shall be guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s.775.082, s. 775.083 or s.775.084. [My comment: This statute takes care of the argument that mercy killing may be permitted if the person specifically requests it. The law says that it is NOT permitted. If you are not actually dying from imminent organ failure, and you request that you be given a drug to make you stop breathing, or that people prevent water from reaching your mouth, the law considers this a request for being assisted in suicide. If anyone acquiesces to your wish, that person commits a second degree felony. If this is done without your wish, it is a first degree felony.
In Terri's case, the best argument that can be made is that sometime in the mid-1980s she stated that she would not want to be kept alive by "anything artificial." Although feeding tubes were at that time not included under the definition of life-sustaining procedures, even interpreting Terri's alleged statement as pertaining to feeding tube removal, it can neither contextually nor legally be interpreted as a desire to being refused oral hydration or nutrition. However, even if such an interpretation could be forced onto Terri's alleged statement, the law would still not permit it. The statutes are unambiguous in forbidding anything other than allowing a person to die naturally, i.e. from organ failure not brought about via external interference.]
I will append a letter I wrote a couple of years ago to be used by people wishing to urge State Attorney McCabe to investigate Michael Schiavo's contravention of Florida statutes. To the best of my knowledge these infractions have yet to be addressed.
Dear State Attorney McCabe,
On 11-15-2003 I sent you a letter urgently requesting that you begin a comprehensive investigation into past and ongoing violations of Florida law under the mandate
of Florida Statute 415.104. I brought to your attention serious breaches of Florida laws by Mr. Michael Schiavo in connection with his guardianship of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, a disabled Florida adult.
In my letter I asked for a speedy transmittal of my report to all appropriate law enforcement agencies. My reading of the law confirmed that FS 415.104 mandates that you begin investigating allegations within a 24-hour period. To date, I have not had a response from you. I will alert you once more to the high probability of these felony crimes before looking into remedies against your apparent refusal to act in accord with the directives provided by the law.
All of the following allegations concern past and ongoing abuse and neglect of vulnerable Florida adult, Theresa Schindler-Schiavo by her estranged husband and guardian, Michael Schiavo. Specific prosecutorial guidelines are provided in the Statutes under pertinent sections titled “punishable under”.
By unlawful guardianship commissions and omissions, Mr. Schiavo denied Terri the retained right to be restored to capacity at the earliest possible time. This failure to allow guaranteed services is further aggravated by related denials of rights protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
For ten years up to the present time Mr. Schiavo explicitly forbade medical personnel to provide therapy for Terri that could accomplish speedy restoration to which the law entitles her. By this he knowingly and willfully contravened Section 744.3215(1)(c) of the 2003 Florida Statutes.
Mr. Schiavo also denied his disabled adult ward essential rehabilitative therapy enumerated along with other services as retained rights in the 2003 Florida. By this he knowingly and willfully contravened Section 744.3215(1)(i), which states that "The right to receive necessary services and rehabilitation is a retained right.”
Regardless of the current medical debate regarding Terri’s precise diagnosis, the law states that retained rights, including the right to necessary rehabilitative therapy may not be delegated to the guardian (Section 744.3215(3)), because the ward retains these rights for the duration of guardianship. The law is furthermore clear in extending no authority to the court to waive, remove or delegate the retained right to receive necessary services and rehabilitation.
Section 765.401 pertaining to termination of life-prolonging procedures does not permit the guardianship court to prohibit such therapy, or to convey authority to do so to the guardian. By seizing such non-conveyable authority and by actively prohibiting such therapy, Mr. Schiavo proved himself delinquent in the lawful exercise of guardianship and stands in violation of Florida law.
Mr. Schiavo’s violations include but are not limited to obstructing Terri’s retained right to the service necessary for rehabilitating her swallowing function. The need for this rehabilitation is underscored by the guardianship court’s recent order to have Terri’s feeding tube removed. Without adequate use of swallowing muscles Terri is in danger of death. By this unlawful act, Mr. Schiavo additionally violated and continues to violate Terri’s Constitutional right to life.
The guardianship court’s deferral to Mr. Schiavo’s claims that his wife wished to remain free of artificial life support cannot be construed to indicate her wish to die from lack of the basic necessities of food and water. At the time of her alleged expression of an aversion to artificial life support, feeding tubes were not included under that definition. That inclusion did not occur until the passage of an amendment to the Florida Statutes in 1999. As you well know, new legal definitions cannot be retroactively applied to prior situations.
Nothing in the court’s findings indicates that Terri would consider oral feeding or the necessary therapy to facilitate it a violation of her privacy. If that is
not the case, then the withdrawal of food and water and the therapy necessary to facilitate oral feeding must be regarded as an invasion of her privacy and an assault against her person. By no interpretation of the law can Terri be said to have relinquished her retained right to receive necessary rehabilitative therapy.
Therefore Mr. Schiavo’s refusal to honor these rights is in direct contravention of Florida law and constitutes a punishable felony under Section 744.3215(1)(i).
In contravention of 2003 FS 825.102(3)2., Mr. Schiavo failed to request an investigation indicated when a bone scan of Terri’s body revealed multiple fractures and head trauma. In defiance of a court order, he then failed to inform Terri’s family of the discovery and proceeded to have the record of these injuries sealed for over ten years. By these acts, Mr. Schiavo additionally raises suspicions of his possible complicity in the causation of Terri’s injuries. This possibility must be investigated under criminal statutes in addition to those pertaining to neglect, abuse and aggravated abuse of a disabled adult.
In contravention of 2003 FS 744.3215(1)(a) (The right of persons determined incapacitated to have an annual review of the guardianship report and plan), Mr. Schiavo failed to provide the mandatory guardianship report and plan for three consecutive years.
In contravention of 2003 FS 744.3215(f), Mr. Schiavo moved Terri into hospice three years ago without the mandatory certification by two physicians, thereby falsely imprisoning her and preventing her from being in a more health-supporting environment such as the one Terri’s family is willing to provide for her.
He forbade free and unsupervised visits to Terri by her parents and siblings, despite evidence that their presence provides warmth and comfort to her.
In contravention of 2003 F S 744.3215(l) (The right of persons determined incapacitated to counsel and 2003 FS 744.3215(k) (The right of persons determined incapacitated to have access to the courts), Mr. Schiavo caused the dismissal of and failed to replace Terri’s Guardian ad Litem, thereby depriving her of her retained rights to counsel and access to the courts.
Mr. Schiavo has been and is in the process of committing class 3 and class 2 felonies under Sections 825.102(1), (2) and (3) pertaining to abuse, aggravated abuse and neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult.
In contravention of 2003 FS 825.102(1), Mr. Schiavo forbade the rendering of basic oral hygiene to Terri, thereby increasing the possibility of dental disfigurement and loss. He forbade the application of standard joint mobilization movements, and by thus impacting Terri’s lymphatic activity and suppressing her immune system put her at risk of disease, loss and disfigurement.
Upon the Governor’s issue in October of this year of a specific executive order to replace Terri’s feeding tube, Mr. Schiavo endangered her life by instructing his lawyer Barbara Bushnell to threaten medical personnel with lawsuits, should they obey the law by reinserting Terri’s feeding tube.
During the period immediately preceding the executive order, he forbade the administration of the Last Rites of Terri’s faith, in particular the spiritual comfort of Holy Communion, thereby causing spiritual anguish and loss of salvatory hope. By this act, Mr. Schiavo additionally violated Terri’s civil right to the exercise of her religion.
In contravention of 2003 F S 825.102(2)(b), Mr. Schiavo forbade the placing of a washcloth to prevent Terri’s fingernails from cutting into her palms, thereby increasing the risk of painful, disfiguring lacerations and health-threatening infections.
He failed to repair or permit the replacement of a broken wheel chair that would allow Terri to be taken outdoors, thereby depriving her of the comfort and the health-giving effects of fresh air, sunshine and auditory stimulation.
He reduced the possibility of beneficial therapy by illicitly holding Terri in a death-oriented hospice for three years, despite the fact that she showed no signs of impending physical death. By this act, Mr. Schiavo additionally violated Federal Statutes mandating a diagnosis of “terminal” by two independent physicians prior to placement in hospice.
In contravention of 2003 FS 825.102(2)(c) Mr. Schiavo endangered Terri’s life by seeking to prevent the realization of an executive order by Governor Bush to
replace Terri’s feeding tube, despite the fact that the Florida Legislature had empowered the Governor through passage of a specific law.
In contravention of 2003 FS 825.102(3)(a)1., Mr. Schiavo forbade the administration of standard antibiotics for infections resulting in pain, possible disfigurement and potentially fatal sepsis. He refused to allow Terri’s
examination by neurology specialists, thereby diminishing Terri’s opportunities to benefit from new therapies discovered during the ten years that he had deprived her of therapy altogether.
He failed to allow Terri to receive treatment by a speech therapist, thereby depriving Terri of opportunities to demonstrate consciousness and communication facility.
He ordered the removal from Terri’s room of faith inspiring and comforting symbols of her religion, thereby neglecting Terri’s spiritual well being.
He ordered the removal from Terri’s room of pictures of her loved ones, comfort-giving items from her past and objects that could provide beneficial sensory stimulation, thereby diminishing Terri’s opportunity for gaining responsiveness.
The above and other felony offenses by Mr. Schiavo are punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084 and other sections of the criminal statutes.
In light of these alleged multiple felony violations by Mr. Schiavo I urgently request that you investigate his behavior and make the necessary reports to law enforcement within the specified time frame. It is of the utmost urgency that you carry out your mandate as Attorney General of the State of Florida and protect Terri Schindler-Schiavo, a vulnerable adult, against further neglect, abuse and other harm from Mr. Schiavo.
Please contact me at the earliest possible time to inform me of the course of action you are taking in this matter of grave concern. I specifically request that you inform me in case there are additional steps I should take to ensure that these allegations are investigated by you in the spirit of Florida Statute 415.104 and all applicable Florida laws.
Please be aware that I will consider an absence of additional instructions from you as your agreement that my report to you followed proper protocol and that you will treat it with all diligence described by Florida law.