Posted on 03/31/2005 10:43:08 PM PST by churchillbuff
"Apparently, this hospice has been audited in the past for medicaid fraud, something like 14 million dollars worth. And, supposedly a number of people go into that place when they aren't terminal with 6 months to live."
The Hospice organization needs to be regulated through new law. Blind trust is not appropriate for any large entity.
"Apparently, this hospice has been audited in the past for medicaid fraud, something like 14 million dollars worth. And, supposedly a number of people go into that place when they aren't terminal with 6 months to live."
Follow the money... bump
You are correct in an oblique way. The gays took over our media along with their fellow travelers. The gay sensibility has taken over our media.
Checkout hyscience.com for yourself. Now there's a good reference!
I plan on sending a complaint against Felos to the Florida Bar because of his involvement with the hospice and the fraud investigation. It probably won't do any good, but I just feel like I have to do something. And I have emailed Rep. Sensenbrener of the Judiciary Committee and asked for a full investigation of Terri's death. Again, nothing may come of it but if we just sit back and complain, we are also to blame.
I saw where he had donated $250 and then I believe $500 (not sure about the $500). But it certainly wouldn't surprise me if there was more under the table. Greer is unworthy of being a judge, IMO. His failure to consider the EVIDENCE in the case should require he be impeached and disbarred. Not surprising he has announced he will retire after this term.
This is the 'tip of the iceberg' of what Terri and her family were up against.
Heres where Terri Schiavo Insurance money went:
These funds, the result of a malpractice suit, were meant solely to provide for Terri Schiavos care and rehabilitation.
=======================================================================================
Atty. Gwyneth Stanley - $10,668.05
Atty. Deborah Bushnell - $65,607.00
Atty. Steve Nilson - $7,404.95
Atty. Pacarek - $1,500.00
Atty. Richard Pearse (GAL) - $4,511.95
Atty. George Felos - $397,249.99
1st Union/South Trust Bank $55,459.85
Michael Schiavo - $10,929.95
Total: $545,852.34
Neglect and abuse complaints is that Michael Schiavo:
* Has not allowed therapy or rehabilitation since late 1992.
* Has prevented swallowing tests or swallowing therapy since 1993.
* Ordered caretakers not to clean Terri's teeth since 1995, resulting in removal of five teeth in April 2004.
* Placed Terri in hospice in 2000, despite the fact she is not terminally ill.
* Refuses to allow Terri to leave her room. She has not been outside since 2000.
* Ordered doctors not to treat Terri when she had a life threatening infection in 1993 and 1995.
Terri Schiavo had sustained a serious brain injury as the result of a suspicious incident in their home in 1990 and in 1992,
her husband had filed claims against several of her former doctors, claiming her collapse was caused by a misdiagnosis.
He received over $1.5 million in 1993 including $750,000 which had been specifically earmarked by the trial jury for Terris rehabilitation based on a life expectancy of 50 years.
Mary and Bob Schindler Sr., her parents, consulted a St. Petersburg attorney about removing Michael Schiavo as their daughters guardian and discussed the case at length with him.
Unfortunately, the Schindlers did not have the amount of money the attorney demanded as a retainer to take the case.
That attorney became the judge in the case-----a totally prohibited conflict of interest.
Thereafter, the attorney-judge approved the hiring of George Felos as the attorney for Schiavo to be paid from the trust fund and the stage was set for her judicial homicide.
The judge wasnt George W. Greer.
It was Mark I. Shames.
The money was then diverted to the Judicide G reer.
|
GREER DONOR |
AMOUNT |
POSITION |
ACTION |
Lawyers For |
Hamden Baskin III Felos & Felos Deborah Bushnell Gyneth S. Stanley Steven Nilsson Beth Wilson
|
$500 & $500 |
Michael Schiavos Lawyer[s] |
Greer |
|
Daniel Grieco
|
$300 |
Employer of Michael Schiavo at time of Feb. 25, 1990 then attorneyOf record for Michael up until the malpractice award, |
Incident when injuries occurred to Terri,Reappeared as attorney for selected pleadings |
State/County |
Frank Nagatani |
$50 and $50
|
DCF Attorney |
Squashed |
|
Bernie McCabe |
In-Kind |
State Attorney |
Allowed underling to appear in campaign ad for Greer |
|
Everett Rice |
$500 & In-Kind |
Sheriff/State Rep |
Didnt conduct criminal investigation into what really happened to Terri or allegations of abuse after initial incident |
|
John Carassas |
$100
|
Deputy Attorney General |
Florida Deputy Attorney General, involvement with |
|
James Hellickson
|
$150 & In Kind |
Assistant state attorney in office of Bernie McCabe, Pinellas/Pasco State Attorney |
|
|
Paula Shea |
In Kind |
Assistant Pinellas Public Defender |
Appeared in Greer Campaign Ad |
|
Andrew
|
$100 |
Officer in Guardianship monitoring program and Guardian ad litem pool |
Was supposed to: |
Misc. People w connections |
Richard La Belle
|
$100 |
Member of Board of Directors of |
Supposedly ACPD |
|
Battaglia, Ross, Disus and Wein
|
$250 |
Principal Kelli Crabb is past chairperson of Hospice Foundation of Florida Suncoast and member of Board of directors |
|
|
Gus Bilirakis
|
$40 cash |
Former Hospice Board member and of American Hellonic Education Progressive Assoc. (AHEPA) |
Felos past Governor |
|
Divito and Higham
|
$250 and $250 |
Law firm employed by St. Petersburg/Venice |
Terris Dioceses |
BREAKING: GOTTA SEE THIS:
Judgenfuhrer George Greer's biography
Scientology and Terri Schindler's Murder
Lawyer donations to the Murdering Judge
MICHAEL SCHIAVO'S lies and contradictory testimony in easy to read format
The Rule of Terri's Case Strikes Again. -2004- Judge Greer's crimes to Murder Terri
Law conveniently changed by Hospice where Terri was Judicially murdered
The Schiavo Case Is Not Judicial Murder (March 29, 2005)
(links available at the following website; not that any of you yahoos would be interested in the truth...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger35.html
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Contrary to popular opinion, the Schiavo case does not involve judicial murder or even euthanasia or assisted suicide. Instead, it is a case that turns on a factual determination in a court of law regarding Terri Schiavos intent with respect to the conditions under which she would want to be kept alive by artificial means.
Most legal disputes involve conflicts over facts. One side says, She said that if she ever found herself in this type of situation, she would want the tube to be pulled. The other side says, She never expressed any intent to have the tube pulled and never would have done so.
So, how is that factual dispute to be resolved? Letting everyone search websites on the Internet and then email his vote to the judge? Obviously, that would be silly.
The answer is: in a court of law. That is, in fact, why libertarians maintain that a judicial system is an essential part of limited government in order to provide people with an independent forum where they can resolve their disputes.
In a courtroom, each side presents his case by relying on the skills of his attorney. Unlike the Internet and television, presentations in the courtroom have to be through the sworn testimony of competent witnesses that is, witnesses who have personal knowledge of the facts and who are under oath.
Why is it important for witnesses to be under oath? Because oftentimes what a person says under oath (when he is subject to being convicted of perjury) and not under oath are two different things. My father, who was an attorney, once called a man to the witness stand to buttress his clients case. Much to my fathers surprise, the man testified exactly contrary to how my father expected him to testify. My father asked the witness, When I asked you yesterday to tell me what happened, didnt you tell me something exactly opposite to what youre testifying to today? The man responded, Yes, but yesterday I wasnt under oath and today I am.
Furthermore, over the centuries an entire body of law has developed with respect to the type of evidence that is admissible in a judicial proceeding. For example, there are rules against the admissibility of irrelevant evidence and hearsay, a prohibition that has no application on the Internet or in the press.
Once each side presents his case, who makes the decision as to the facts that are in dispute? Ordinarily, that is what juries are for. Thus, if the Schiavo case had been a jury trial, the jury would have been specifically asked whether Terri Schiavos intent was to have the feeding tube pulled if this type of situation were ever to befall her.
The jury would have been instructed to weigh all the evidence and render its verdict accordingly. Keep in mind also that the jury would have taken an oath to render a true and correct verdict based on the evidence, setting aside any biases or prejudices.
A jurys factual finding is final. And I mean final. It cannot be overturned on appeal. Thats why juries are so powerful and why people who serve on juries should always take their responsibilities very seriously.
So, why then do losing litigants appeal to higher courts? Because appellate courts, while not having the power to set aside a factual determination by a jury, do have the power to reverse cases based on an erroneous legal determination by the judge. If the judge has made a mistake on a matter of law (such as whether a certain piece of evidence should have been admitted), the appellate court can correct the mistake by reversing the judgment and remanding the case for a new trial. If someone disagrees with a jurys factual determination, on the other hand, the appellate court has no power to change it.
There is one exception to this rule. If there is no evidence whatsoever to support the jurys factual finding, the court of appeals can and must set aside the jurys factual determination.
But the Schiavo case didnt involve a jury trial. The judge made all the determinations without a jury.
That is correct, but in a non-jury trial the principles with respect to factual determinations are no different than they are in a jury trial. In a non-jury case, the judge wears two hats one hat as the jury (or, more accurately, as the finder of fact) and one hat as the judge. In his role as the fact-finder, the judge determines the facts, just as a jury would. In his role as the judge, he determines the law and applies it.
In a non-jury civil case the judge will oftentimes file two separate lists at the end of the trial, one containing his findings of fact and the other his conclusions of law. These two lists assist the appellate court to determine which findings they cannot tamper with (the findings of fact) and which conclusions they can review for possible error (the conclusions of law). (Such lists are not used in criminal cases.)
If you have not read the trial courts original opinion in the Schiavo case, it is worth your while to do so. As you read the judges opinion, see how he distinguishes between findings of fact and conclusions of law, and then examine the reasoning process by which he arrives at the critical factual determination as to Terri Schiavos intent.
Here is the link to the complete timeline of the Schiavo case, which contains links to many of the pertinent items in the case:
Schiavo Case Timeline
Here is the link to the judges original decision in the case (Feb. 11, 2001, on the timeline):
Trial Courts Original Schiavo Opinion
In fact, if you have not read the four opinions (yes, four) of the Florida Court of Appeals in this case as well as the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in the Jeb Bush/Terris Law case, you owe it to yourself to do so. (My father once told me that the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court related to him that before publishing a legal opinion, he would give it to his wife, who wasnt a lawyer, to read; if she couldnt understand it, he would rewrite it until she could because he wanted lay people to be able to read and understand his legal opinions.)
As you read the opinions in the Schiavo case, you are likely to discover something interesting: that the facts in the case are markedly different from what youve been seeing on the Internet and on television, where all kinds of unsworn statements, hearsay, and personal opinions are being circulated. You will also see a marked difference between the serious-minded approach that the courts have taken in the Schiavo case and the circus-like environment in which the congressional clowns have operated.
Here are the four legal opinions of the Florida Court of Appeals:
Schiavo I (Jan. 24, 2001, on the timeline)
The next three appellate opinions involved the parents' motion to reopen the original case and to set aside the original judgment based on newly discovered evidence:
Schiavo II (July 11, 2001, on the timeline)
Schiavo III (Oct. 17, 2001, on the timeline)
Schiavo IV (June 6, 2003, on the timeline)
Here is the Florida Supreme Courts opinion in the Jeb Bush/Terris Law case:
Florida Supreme Court decision (Sept. 23, 2004, on the timeline)
What was the evidence upon which the trial judge relied in arriving at his finding of fact with respect to Terris intent? The evidence came in the form of sworn oral testimony. Heres what the trial courts opinion stated:
statements to [Michael] prompted by her grandmother being in intensive care that if she was ever a burden she would not want to live like that. Additionally, statements made to Michael Schiavo which were prompted by something on television regarding people on life support that she would not want to live like that also reflect her intention in this particular situation. Also the statements she made in the presence of Scott Schiavo at the funeral luncheon for his grandmother that if I ever go like that just let go. Dont leave me there. I dont want to be kept alive on a machine, and to Joan Schiavo following a television movie in which a man following an accident was in a coma to the effect that she wanted it stated in her will that she would want the tubes and everything taken out if that ever happened to her are likewise reflective of this intent. The court specifically finds that these statements are Terri Schiavos oral declarations concerning her intention as to what she would want done under the present circumstances and the testimony regarding such oral declarations is reliable, is creditable and rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence to this court.
The opinion also pointed out:
The court has had the opportunity to hear the witnesses, observe their demeanor, hear inflections, note pregnant pauses, and in all manners assess credibility above and beyond the spoken or typed word.
There are people who now say, If I had been the on a jury in the Schiavo case, I wouldnt have believed Michael Schiavo or his relatives. I would have rendered a different verdict.
Fair enough, but theres one big problem. Those people were not on the jury. They didnt hear the live testimony. They didnt watch the witnesses and observe their demeanor. They didnt take an oath to render a true and correct verdict, setting aside their biases and prejudices. Their opinions are mostly based on what they have seen on the Internet and in the press.
Thus, the Schiavo case was not about whether Michael Schiavo thought it best that his wife die, and it was not about whether her parents thought it best that she live. It was a case about what Terri Schiavo wanted for herself.
If the judge had said, Im ordering the tube to be disconnected even though Terri Schiavo intended otherwise, we would have an entirely different case from the one at hand. But as much as some people might wish that that was indeed the situation in the Schiavo case, that wish is contrary to reality. This case is about a factual determination as to Terri Schiavos own intent and a legal determination that under Florida law such intent should be carried out.
Many people, including her parents, are assuming that Terri Schiavo would never have expressed such intent. Yet, is it really beyond the realm of reasonable probability that she would have? After all, lots of people are now rushing out and executing written living wills to cover the exact situation that Terri Schiavo is in. Why is it unreasonable to believe that she would have orally expressed the same intent?
Assuming that this was in fact Terris intent, which is what the judge (as fact-finder) found, whose intent should the court then honor hers or her parents? The law of the state of Florida dictates that her intent is determinative.
Yet, because they either misconstrue the central issue in the Schiavo case that is, Terri's Schiavo's own intent or because they simply believe that her intent should not be honored, all too many people, including even some libertarians, suggest that the courts should disregard Terri's Schiavos own intent as well as the Florida law that requires that such intent be carried out. What these people are essentially saying is: I disagree with the choice Terri Schiavo has made for her own life and I support the initiation of force to prevent her husband from carrying it out. Moreover, simply because they disagree with either the findings of fact or the conclusions of law in the Schiavo case, they unfortunately seem all too eager to toss aside the judicial system that they themselves agree is an essential part of the limited government paradigm.
Moreover, those who are suggesting that her husband should simply turn his wife over to her parents are in effect saying, Your wifes intent shouldnt matter to you. You should honor her parents wishes instead, and you should simply disregard the promise that you made to your wife.
You might respond, But that really wasnt Terri Schiavos intent. Which brings us back to the beginning: This case turns not on judicial murder but rather on a factual determination made by the finder of fact in a contested proceeding in a court of a law.
***
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
"Certainly the facts in all capital cases are determined by a jury."
No.
You can have a bench trial where the judge decides the whole thing.
Most opt for a trial. It's easier to fool people.
"Colmes tried to interrupt Dobson saying this is the Fox poll... Dobsob said whatever they are all using misinformation and he kept on reading."
I saw the show and agree. The people of decency (conservatives) show too much respect to these death lovers and anyone who opposes them on these type of talk shows. Most will stop in mid point to answer another off topic question. Pat Buchanon struggled the other night with Cathrine Crier, couldn't get his point across because she wouldn't stop talking and changing the topic. I love Pat, but he was showing too much respect to her and allowed her to go on and on. All these talk show hosts/guests should review Dr. Dobson's interview and take it as a lesson on how to start handling these freaks in our society. Randel Terry did the same thing with Colmes and basically Colmes was at a loss and could not function, he actually looked like a lost child who was all alone. I thought I heard him say "Mommy, Mommy" lol.
A jumped-up volunteer at Woodside Hospice, Felos became chairman of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, which runs Woodside, and only came off the board about a year after Michael Schiavo placed his estranged wife there.
Not just the money, JC. Much like pedophiles can be found where there are plenty of children, carrion vultures like Felos work or hang out where they can find their 'objects of desire'.
We are too be objective to Michael....when everything he does is to shove it in the Americans face, not only the Schindlers!
Michael Schiavo has locked hands with this Global Ethici/Bioethic aka Hemlock Society, Humanist Manifesto, look it up on the net their agenda....Global Humanity and when you do also include one of our notorious lefty and see how they endorse this "Ogreish Future Governemnt!"
It is important that us God fearing and those who also abide by the Law identify our enemy! Not so we can name call....but to know how we need to hold our own ground!
They want to divide and conqueror thinking they can call us Angry White Men.....our enemy wants to lable us and to demean us....that way we won't matter anymore than the weak disable Terri was, they claim she was bulimic and did this to her self so she has no one to blame but herself,
her rights as a citizen was usurp from her by a necrophiliac!
Many among us are Law abiding citizen who don't hold our religious views BUT DO WANT to live in a community that is SECURE for ALL of US!
This Global Humanist group which is a Ghoulish Religion some are humanist, some are satanist, some even claim to be from various religions of the world which is a mockery etc.
Run a check your doctor, lawyer, politicians, courts, Universties etc!
How many are in your life and you do not even know?
Yes some we have to do business with some, but we should know who we are dealing with THEY SURE KNOW US they have no quams about who we are and what they THINK about us, see how many endorse the Global Code of Ethics!
I see a story today where the BBC is upset with America for letting Terri starve...but who are they blaming one of the Global ethic friend, no! They are blaming the conservative right who stood up for Terri!
OMG. You're right. One of the things that has puzzled me in this whole sad story was how Hospice got involved. I suppose these vultures of death like Felos will get themselves into hospital ethics groups....maybe into handicapped rights groups, etc. just so they can tie their revulsive theories to legitamate names!
I just find it terribly suspicious that this woman supposedly had a heart attack from Bolemia. I have not heard anywhere that she was ever treated for Bolemia, heart problems before or since her collapse. Seems her heart held up pretty fine.
I would hate to be in Michael Schiavos world. Of course with the mainstream press off of his back this slithering snake can go back to his hole.
I did a google search last night and man the stuff it lead me to. Of course, you have to take most things with a grain of salt. But, this man had weaved his tentacles into some very interesting directions.
I can't remmber the name of the priest that was in the room with Terri for several hours during the last 12-18 hours of her life, but he basically destroyed whatever credibility that Felos had when Felos stated that Terri was (paraphrase) peaceful, etc. The priest reported that she was "panting", etc and that Terri was "not doing well".
I will believe the priest. I believe as time goes by, more and more people will recognize Felos for what is he - a ghoul.
Also, unreported by fox, there is a wquestion in the poll--do you agree or disagree with the removal of the feeding tube? It was only 42-38 in favor of removing the tube, with about 20% undecided. Big change from other polls.
Probably because you can buy a whole lot of judge with $14 million in Medicaid funds when you're trying to help the death industry really get rolling in (senior haven) Florida.
Sheesh. Just follow the money people. It ain't that hard. Sheesh. Just follow the money people. It ain't that hard.
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.