When Lawyers Define Life
By Sovereign Dave
_dwissel@adelphia.net_ (mailto:dwissel@adelphia.net)
I now take the opportunity to save something valuable from Terri’s fiasco:
That is education to save the rest of us. Jay Wolfson most likely did do a
very complete job of research; even going beyond the call of duty by examining
different philosophies. This is admirable and probably serves well as
justification for actions. All we can do is the best with the information and duty we
have at hand—even if we might be ignorant to wiser concepts at that time.
But just as a scalpel in the hands of an unskilled surgeon is dangerous, so too
are lawyers who try to fit the definition of life within the box called law
for government. Both might have the best of intentions yet the effect is
something even lawyers can understand: damage.
In this case I suspect we are witnessing something far worse with Jay
Wolfson--sent in as a last-ditch prop when numbers of people started questioning
the fabric of government. In this case the fabric of government stretched
their theft of unalienable rights to the point of becoming revealing to a large
proportion of the population when they tried to “socialize” the theft in the
name of public good. If history is to teach us anything, it is always to be
vigilant that we too are not becoming acceptable of the theft of any
unalienable right—even if our majority supports same in the name of public good.
Mr.
Wolfson instantly became the pawn in the game of actually two social agendas;
the victims in the war were Terri Shciavo and unalienable rights.
The lesson: One has to remember that government’s only power is obtained
through consent—your consent. When you start to question consent to be governed
by government you now relegate yourself to the likes of some famous people:
Jesus, Ghandi, Buddha, Paine, Adams, Jefferson, King, Parks, etc. The truth
popularized by government is that “we consent to be governed.” The myth is
that we consent to be governed….by them and their law for government called
statutory law.” The myth portion is the democracy and is nearly diametrically
opposed to the concept of unalienable rights. [Reflect upon that for a moment
and one realizes if myth is true, society degenerates into the powerful group
depriving the individual of rights—not unlike Terri Schiavo’s case.]
For years those in “lawyer-land” [black-robes, lawyers and their
derivatives—politicians] have led you astray. In the name of social agenda they
have
tried to shrink-wrap the law that applies to people within the law that
applies to government: to make matters worse they have “force-fed” that back to
you by the argument of the lesser of two evils. You are told: “Well if there is
no law, anarchy prevails.” In our ignorance, we accept this tale of
half-truth and give consent of the whip to our slave. But how can I say this is a
half-truth? Well this is quite simple: there are two forms of law! There exists
common law—the law for the people—and there exists statutory law, the law for
government. The common law contains the most “common-sense” of laws:
murder, theft, etc. It is the common law to which the people gave their consent to
be governed. It is common law to which people still to this day largely
govern their actions. Common law is so powerful that many states strictly
construe statues of statutory law [i.e law for government] that are in derogation of
it. Think about this: On a percentage of the population basis the people of
New Orleans’s Katrina behaved quite well under the common sense of their
common-law heritage of “Thou shalt not steal nor kill”. Yet where were the
statutory law enforcers in the wake of Katrina? Non-existent! In summary: The
problems of today can be traced to the sinful evils when law for government
(statutory law) is misapplied to the people under the disguise of public good and
as a replacement for common law. Sadly it takes incidents like Terri to “
wake-up” the population: unto itself a derived testament to how well people
behave under common law.
Within the context of this explanation of two laws, let us examine this qu
ote by lawyer Jay Wolfson:
“We can take the best law we can and apply it in the best way we can.
That is all we can do.”
* To which law is Mr Wolson referring? [Hint: All lawyers are trained
primarily in terms of statutory law: law for government.]
* As you have discovered, while he makes a truthful statement it is a
half-truth by virtue of three possible reasons: ignorance, sin of commission
or sin of omission.
* If the people have common law, why is government applying the other
law to you? Isn’t this really mis-applying?
* If the best law they have in government law doesn’t save an
unalienable right, isn’t that an acknowledgment of its inherent limitations when it
is mis-applied to people? In other words, Mr. Wolfson’s comments are an
admission of the weakness of government laws. {Thankfully]
I won’t dive into the definition of life or social agenda. In this issue,
this is the DISTRACTION. This distraction only popularizes the myth of “consent
to be governed by government.” The real issue is, “What right does
government have to define life?” In the supreme law for government called the
Constitution, I do not see this as a grant of power to government! When you grant
them this power, those in power take your acceptance as consent and
justification for the theft of more power. In essence you transfer a little more of
the
whip from your hands to that of your slaves.
____________________________________
From: Fight4Terri@aol.com [mailto:Fight4Terri@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 1:06 PM
To: Fight4Terri@aol.com
Subject: Terri Schiavo guardian shares his experience at lecture
RN Ford Comments:
If he cared enough, why would Wolfson not have recommended calling in the
true medical experts to evaluate Terri as was requested of him to do? Why did
he suddenly disappear off of the case when Governor Bush sent him
interrogatories to answer?
Sorry Jay.......your caring about Terri is not sincere and just doesn't fly
with those who knew better. She is gone now...... please allow her to rest
in peace and for her sake, go and find yourself another tragic story to talk
about. You did not care enough then....it's too late now!
Sadly folks, guilt certainly has a way of never leaving those who have
assisted in victimizing others.
Terri Schiavo guardian shares his experience at lecture
Guest Speaker: Jay Wolfson, Dr. P.H., J.D. spoke about his now former
client, Theresa Schiavo. courtesy photo
"I would sit with her and stroke her hair and hold her hand and I would take
her head in my hands and beg her to help me help her," said Jay Wolfson,
Dr. P.H., J.D. about his now former client, Theresa Schiavo.
As he talked about his personal thoughts and experiences of brain-damaged
Schiavo\'s case Nov. 10, the FIU community sat, and stood, in Graham Center
140, silently listening to Wolfson\'s every word.
Although the fight for Schiavo\'s future had been going on for years,
Wolfson, professor of public health and medicine at the University of South
Florida, came into the picture in 2003 as the court appointed Special Guardian ad
Litem.
He was the legal representative for Schiavo. He had a month to look through
all of the legal and medical documents "of a woman I didn\'t know." He
reported to Governor Jeb Bush and the courts as to whether or not Schiavo should
have more swallowing tests administered. This would guide the governor in his
decision-making about the case.
"I didn\'t follow the O.J. or the Schiavo case," said Wolfson. "All of a
sudden, I am asked to inject myself into this thing."
Wolfson did more than just read 30,000 pages worth of documents. He turned
to famous philosophers and writers such as Dante, Descartes and Nietzsche for
answers. He spent time with Schiavo\'s family, the Schindlers and with
Michael Schiavo, her husband. Wolfson also spent one to four hours a day with
Schiavo.
"I was seeking both information and knowledge," he said.
Wolfson had many special tasks as Schiavo\'s Guardian ad Litem. One of them
was to serve in the best interests of his ward. Wolfson said that the problem
he had with that task was whether or not he should do what he, or someone
else thought was best for Schiavo.
Another task Wolfson had was to determine if there was "feasibility and
value in swallowing tests and swallowing therapy given the totality of the
circumstances." Wolfson\'s problem with this was that value can be relative.
Wolfson had to make a decision concerning Schiavo\'s fate.
"The scientist in me had to come in," Wolfson said.
The rules given to Wolfson for his decision-making were clear. He had to
give competent, clear and convincing evidence.' '"We can take the best law we
can and apply it in the best way we can. That is all we can do," Wolfson
said.
Wolfson explained that when Schiavo had her accident, she fell and her brain
was without oxygen for 12 minutes. She had slipped into a coma and was put
on a respirator for a month. Two months later, she was considered vegetative.
Schiavo could not swallow liquids.
Wolfson showed on a projector a picture of Schiavo\'s cerebral cortex. He
explained that this was where reasoning is. It was where the consciousness may
be and it was beyond reflexes. Schiavo\'s cerebral cortex was found to be all
liquid.
"Her cerebral cortex was gone," Wolfson said.
Finally, Wolfson\'s decision was made. He decided that additional testing
could and would be done if everyone agreed in advance as to how the results
were to be used. An agreement was never made.
From within the whirlwind, Wolfson discovered two things.
"I wound up learning that there was something about this case, and it
involved a certain chemical - hope," Wolfson said. "Is hope maybe the ability of
human beings to have something beyond yourself that is a part of you?"
Wolfson called this ability the divine spark.
"It\'s that special thing which makes us human," Wolfson said.
The second thing Wolfson discovered involved perspective.
"Much of what we see and hear is just the tip of the iceberg, and everyone
will have different perspectives of the tip," he said. "What I do know is that
things that are said and are represented are not the same."
As the lecture came to an end, Wolfson said he could see why life is so
important to people. "The alternative is the unknown and could be not being," he
said.
Jay Wolfson is a spineless, gutless, fashion-driven, self-serving blowhard. He acts as if he lost his manhood in a mousetrap. He utterly failed in his legal responsibility as GAL and in his moral duty to Terri and to God.
Cheryl's book is like a guide so families don't get caught up in the "death care system" my words.