Log in

View Full Version : Shiavo circus in Florida



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

discretedancer
03-25-2005, 06:23 AM
If someone close to you falls victim to such an awful situation, the best thing to do is shake them off and wish them the best.
1. forget "better or worse, till death do us part?" - wow, so much for promises!

2. "Shake them off" isn't exactly what Michael is doing...to shake her off he would sign over POA rights, or at least not fight to enforce his opinon of what should be done for her. Sexually (who wouldn't need it after a few years?) he's moved on - probably emotionally, but this is not an example of "shaking her off

3. If you're on the "need" side like Terri - would you want to be "shaken off"

4. Who takes responsibility when the person is "shaken off" by all their loved ones?? is that when I as taxpayer have to step in?

By the way De, what does your spouse think of this theory, or your parents?

Melonie
03-25-2005, 10:30 AM
because polls have been showing 70% of the populace believes this is a family decision and the government should stay the heck out of it.

yes, 70% of people who were under the mistaken impression (encouraged by the mainstream media who conducted the poll) that Terri's medical condition was terminal for any reason other than starvation, were under the impression that Terri was an undisputed vegetable, etc. I guarantee you that if a new poll were taken today that the results would change based on the mistaken impression being at least partially dispelled.

Deogol
03-25-2005, 10:33 AM
1. forget "better or worse, till death do us part?" - wow, so much for promises!

2. "Shake them off" isn't exactly what Michael is doing...to shake her off he would sign over POA rights, or at least not fight to enforce his opinon of what should be done for her. Sexually (who wouldn't need it after a few years?) he's moved on - probably emotionally, but this is not an example of "shaking her off

3. If you're on the "need" side like Terri - would you want to be "shaken off"

4. Who takes responsibility when the person is "shaken off" by all their loved ones?? is that when I as taxpayer have to step in?

By the way De, what does your spouse think of this theory, or your parents?


They know the definition of "sarcasm." Here, let me share it with you:

Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to indulge in sarcasm>

erotictonic
03-25-2005, 11:26 AM
If it does become a cornerstone of the next election, I sure hope go with the flow of the people - because polls have been showing 70% of the populace believes this is a family decision and the government should stay the heck out of it.

I don't believe polls shown on tv.... they can make up anything to support their agenda, in order to sway the mind in their direction. Polls prove nothing. It's just like when you go in to take a timeshare tour and you put your name in a box for a drawing to go to Hawaii. There is no drawing. (I worked in timeshare).

erotictonic
03-25-2005, 12:03 PM
We need to get into some facts on this Terri thing. I know I did before I can make any informed opinions.


Here is some rumor control.

The short is regarding "that bastard is trying to kill her and never did anything to help her" DID spend three years as well as above and beyond experimental therapy to try and get his wife back. That most of her brain is literally mush.

The short also is - if someone close to you falls victim to such an awful situation, the best thing to do is shake them off and wish them the best. To do otherwise means you will be paraded around the internet and TV as an attempted murderer. That you will be presented as cold and uncaring even though you spent 15 years trying to get her back. That your name will be dragged through the mud by the emotional ignorant people who believe anything based on little information.

The long is:



Q: What is a "persistent vegetative state" and how is it diagnosed? Is it unusual for doctors to disagree?

A: People in a persistent vegetative state have lost all higher brain function, including the ability to think, experience emotions and understand the world around them. However, they continue to sleep and wake; open their eyes; breathe on the their own; and even make noises and facial expressions.

This is because their brain stems - the portion of the brain that controls basic functions such as heartbeat and breathing - continue to function.

Those suffering from this condition do not track objects with their eyes, blink on command or respond consistently to cues in the environment. When a patient fails tests over a period of time, doctors consider the condition "persistent".

There is no single test, such as a brain scan, that can peer inside the brain and absolutely determine a person's level of mental function. But doctors can diagnose the condition by testing a patient's ability to interact with his or her environment.

Doctors who have been appointed by Terri Schiavo's husband and the courts have determined that she is in a persistent vegetative state with no chance of recovery. Her parents and their physicians do not agree, maintaining that she is not vegetative and can recover.

Doctors who examine the same patient can reach different conclusions, but time is the best arbiter of diverging views, said Dr. Michael Pulley, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Florida campus in Jacksonville.

"The way to resolve it is to see if there is any change (in the patient's ability to interact) over time," Pulley said, adding that improvements would be expected within the first weeks or months of the injury.

Terri Schiavo has been in this state for 15 years.

Q: Terri Schiavo appears to respond to her mother in a video released by the family. Her father said that she smiled Monday when he told her that her feeding tube soon could be re-inserted. Doesn't this show that she is not in a persistent vegetative state?

A: Terri Schiavo's parents say this is evidence that she is not in a vegetative state. But court-appointed physicians have not been able to document a consistent, predictable response from Terri that would indicate she is aware of her surroundings.

Q: Isn't there new technology that could provide more insight into Terri's condition?

A: There is a device called functional magnetic resonance imaging - or fMRI - that tracks blood flow to regions of the brain while a person is performing certain tasks. Doctors say this can be used to get more information about a person's brain function, but it is not a conclusive test.

Terri Schiavo has undergone a series of diagnostic tests in the past, including such procedures as CT scans and EEGs, which showed her brain's electrical function to be flat, court records show. The outcome of those tests supports the diagnosis of "persistent vegetative state." Brain scans show that the area of the brain responsible for higher thinking, the cerebral cortex, has suffered severe atrophy and has been replaced by liquid.

Q: Terri Schiavo's parents and a neurologist who examined her several years ago, Dr. William Hammesfahr, say the woman could get better with therapy. Would she be helped by rehabilitation?

A: Other doctors have concluded that she will not improve with rehabilitation, and previous attempts with therapy had no effect.

Terri underwent more than three years of rehabilitative therapy after her collapse in 1990, and her husband took her to a California center in late 1990 to have an experimental device implanted in her brain in hopes of stimulating activity.

According to a court-appointed guardian who reviewed the medical information for Terri's case in 2003, there is no reason to believe that she can recover.

Jay Wolfson, who reported to the court in December 2003, wrote: "In recent months, individuals have come forward indicating that therapies and treatments can literally regrow Theresa's brain tissue, restoring all or part of her functions. There is no scientifically valid, medically recognized evidence that this has been done or is possible, even in rats."

etc.

#1 This is not rumor control. This is one person's opinion. I explained why he would play "good guy" for a couple of years. He had to take out the lawsuit in order to prove he didn't commit the crime. Then he began killing her. Have you SEEN pictures of this guy? If you know anything about sociopaths, you would know he is one, and that in no way, shape, or form they can be trusted. You must not have had much experience with them. My judgements are NOT based on emotional reactions but experiences. This guy is a backstabber at best.

15 years trying to get her back eh? You need to look at the timeline.

I would say the bone scan report PC provided is as much information as I need. And I don't appreciate your view that I am ignorant, although honestly, I KNOW you are. Maybe one day you will experience the court system yourself and find out how things really work.

So you are going to cite ONE guy's wimpy opinion as END ALL eh? After TONS of doctors, nurses, and friends have come forth to show this guy out for who he truly is, not to mention the timeline.

Now, I believe that it is controversial whether the woman is in a persistent vegetative state or not. Since she has received no pep scan or MRI, nor has she been examined by family doctors or any doctors RECENTLY, I don't think it should be assumed. The fact that the physicians were court-appointed is questionable. I have learned from other media sources that one was appointed by that shithead Judge Greer, who I wouldn't trust to deliver my mail, much less make a judgement on someone's life. He is not morally capable. Have you seen Judge Greer? If I saw him, I would run.... he's creepy as all hell... he looks like a sex offender. And two were appointed by Michael. If we go according to this article she has been looked at by COURT-APPOINTED physicians, which especially after your beloved courts who you trust with the end of your life just totally broke the law, you shouldn't trust either! They are obviously on a power trip... go figure. There are neurologists that claim she has hope, MANY may I add. If you want to support the ones appointed by the TRUSTWORTHY court system, then be my guest, SUCKER. The point is, without new testing conducted by someone who actually gives a shit, how do you or anyone else know what Terri is capable of? NOW, I believe that Terri may need to be put down as much as the next person. But I want information from doctors I can trust, and I want modern testing BEFORE she is!!! Any time the family tried to have her examined by their doctors they were denied. Why do you think Michael had a reason to deny them????? Explain his behavior, Einstein.



Yes, usually it would be a case of the husband acting as POA, but it should not be that way if the husband can not be trusted and the family thinks he is a murderer, which is obviously the case here. And yes, the government should be involved in this case. He should be behind bars where he belongs. If the judge wasn't accepting to evidence, then what could anyone do to prove this? I believe the family has as much right as the husband to show evidence and have it recognized.

Since you are so vehemently opposing the family and you are convinced Michael, who Terri wanted a divorce from, is such a loving guy, then I am calling you out Deogol. I want you to go down to the timeline PC posted and explain why he denied the parents visitation, why he barred pictures, why he would not allow family-appointed doctors to examine her, and why he does not allow modern testing done. Could it be that he did not want more complete and detailed testing because it may show that she had a blow to the skull? I also want your explanation of the bone scan that was done, is that just completely disregarded in your mind or what? I also want to know your take on why all the doctors and the nurses with the signed affidavits came forward to help. I want to know why they conducted an examination and claimed she could be helped. I want to know why a nurse would come forward to say that she honestly believed Michael had been giving her shots, because when she went in there Terri was distraught and had to be saved. And Deogol, if he has two children with another woman, WHY DIDN'T HE DIVORCE HER? He had no reason in the world not to, to give custody to the parents and forget about it. That is unless he had something to hide, and he wanted to make sure she was not rehabilitated so she could tell the real story. EXPLAIN IT.

No loving husband would ever stop visitation from their wife's mother.

Thank God I'm in California, and for any decent people who are in Florida, I suggest you get out.

SthnrnGrl77
03-25-2005, 02:36 PM
agreed ET.
I'm glad you're out of that relationship. They're easy to spot, aren't they ?
You are right about that, no loving hubby would keep his MIL away from seeing her ill daughter. Do you think that was included in her wishes ?

VenusGoddess
03-25-2005, 02:53 PM
If nothing else, I truly believe that the judges should assign more tests as to what caused the state Terri is now in. I know that everyone has their own opinion...however, the circumstances ARE very questionable. The other thing I have a problem with is the fact that the bastard Schiavo wanting to forgo the autopsy and head straight to the creamatorium. What's he got to hide? If he did nothing wrong, then he should be totally willing to let "unbiased" doctors take a look at her...and should allow the forensic science teams have a go at it after she passes away. Why should he care? He's made it so plainly clear that he believes that she's "dead" so what would a few more tests do? What's the problem with the autopsy?

The reason is because he has something to hide. People who have nothing to hide do not try to hide behind closed doors.

The courts VERY rarely get into the middle of "family decisions". However, it has been noted that this is not "any" case...it is a case where the victims family is accusing the husband of attempted murder. It is a case that is touching on evidence tampering, etc.

If they don't have a look at her now, the husband should be ordered to give up the body upon death and see what comes up then. No excuses...no misunderstandings. To not do so would warrant a charge of obstruction.

Of course, it's much easier said than done since we've made our laws so complicated with so many loopholes that an 800 lb. man could gaily skip through them...

And, the drama continues.

erotictonic
03-25-2005, 03:03 PM
If nothing else, I truly believe that the judges should assign more tests as to what caused the state Terri is now in. I know that everyone has their own opinion...however, the circumstances ARE very questionable. The other thing I have a problem with is the fact that the bastard Schiavo wanting to forgo the autopsy and head straight to the creamatorium. What's he got to hide? If he did nothing wrong, then he should be totally willing to let "unbiased" doctors take a look at her...and should allow the forensic science teams have a go at it after she passes away. Why should he care? He's made it so plainly clear that he believes that she's "dead" so what would a few more tests do? What's the problem with the autopsy?

The reason is because he has something to hide. People who have nothing to hide do not try to hide behind closed doors.

The courts VERY rarely get into the middle of "family decisions". However, it has been noted that this is not "any" case...it is a case where the victims family is accusing the husband of attempted murder. It is a case that is touching on evidence tampering, etc.

If they don't have a look at her now, the husband should be ordered to give up the body upon death and see what comes up then. No excuses...no misunderstandings. To not do so would warrant a charge of obstruction.

Of course, it's much easier said than done since we've made our laws so complicated with so many loopholes that an 800 lb. man could gaily skip through them...

And, the drama continues.

Good points.

SthnrnGrl77
03-25-2005, 03:44 PM
just the fact that people are speculating he "killed" her should get his blood boiling and make him want to prove them wrong.
There was a similar case where the husband wanted the body immediately cremated but lost. they did dig her up a few yrs later and come to find out he had poisoned her. Dont remember the name but he got busted. Same type situation, going around with other women, etc.

CuriousJ
03-25-2005, 03:50 PM
Well I feel bad for all involved and I hope this is a lesson to all of you to fill out the proper paperwork so that you are making the decision beforehand and not cause such hate and discontent between families and not to mention all the financial costs associated with this . I am doing the paperwork this weekend !!

Hello~Kitty
03-25-2005, 04:06 PM
Culture of Life ? Really Since when ?

1999 Texas Advance Directives Act signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush.

GOP is just using Terri.

erotictonic
03-25-2005, 04:22 PM
Culture of Life ? Really Since when ?

1999 Texas Advance Directives Act signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush.

GOP is just using Terri.

Yea, I figured as much. Funny how when a case gets media attention, Bush jumps into action to do what people would want.

polecat
03-25-2005, 04:24 PM
Well, I'm not falling for the 'Living Will' propaganda that so many lawyers are now bandwagoning in order to make massive profit off this event.

From what we've seen in Florida the past few years, it's obvious that one (1) Judge can revoke any written law- be it from the executive branch, 100's of witnesses/signed affidavits or even written documentation from dozens of MD's across the nation.

I somehow have little faith or confidence in a document that I would write/sign when documents hundreds have written and signed have now been PROVEN to not be worth a damn.. and that the judiciary is beyond and all-powerful to decide when/where to ignore this.

What we have seen in Florida and at the federal level the past few weeks basically disproves 'Government for the people, by the people'... it no longer exists. Our system of government, with all it's checks and balances are being denied from the bench. Laws put into play aren't being disputed for their constitutionality, nor are they abided by or followed. Instead, we have judicial members that have decided to just flatly ignore them, with no comment. We also do not have convenient ways to outst defective or improperly behaving judical branch members.

The good people of Florida (and other states..) need a stronger Recall policy for executive branch officials... and should be the strongest recoil coast to coast from this effort- and something that both liberals and conservatives should be aligned with. Once easy, painless elected official recall laws are put in place, this gives governors the license to use their FULL executive powers without worry of copy-cat backlash in other states. This is truly the only thing holding back Jeb Bush from taking custody of Terri Schiavo- he fears if he exercises his executive authority to overrule the judicial branch, that suddenly governors in New York and California will follow suit by doing the same for Gay marriage, subsidized healthcare or other non-emergency situations, riding on his actions as precedent. It becomes a war of partisan politics and ugliness... and double-standards. This is what our 'public servants' in our two-party system have devolved to. Partisan politics and double-standards backlash has basically castrated our public officials.

Lastly, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Michael Schiavo is guilty of not only his wife's condition, but also is antagonistic towards reaching the truth of her condition. Anyone that disagrees with this has surely not collected ALL the evidence and facts in the case and is relying upon selective and conditioned information. Sun Herald opinion columns are no example of an outline of facts. The court history, judgement history, documents and witnesses are.

The case is so riddled with holes and has so much evidence that isn't even being given the chance to be heard that anyone not raising an eyebrow isn't being very rational.

I find it interesting that the 'pro-kill-her' side cautiously ignores the bone-scan documents, ignores the signed affidavits of 33+ MD's from coast to coast, ignores how NO MRI or petscan has ever been allowed, as well as has ignored the fact that all 'expert witness' evidence submitted has been from PAID sources, whereas the evidence from voluntary MD's is completely ignored and discredited. It is a conflict of logic to say '34+ MD's are all quacks.. but those paid two or three in the case... they are trustworthy.' It's VERY similar to citing 'Common sense is neither common nor sensical'.. where this is just a ploy to try and convince someone to ignore a massive mountain of evidence in favor of two or three paid, biased and attached sources... sources that also have a mountain of evidence, witnesses, testimony and factual evidence that should, at the very least, cry out for investigation. But no investigation is being allowed. Why is that?

Whenever you see selective (without comment, or with dubious comment) admonishment of evidence in ANY situation, it should be enough to make any rational thinking individual raise an eyebrow. The truth of the matter is with Terri's case- 90% of the evidence in the case has been barred or otherwise disallowed to ever hit a courtroom. This has all been from the actions of her husband. The judge has been siding with the 'timeliness' of evidence, rather than the applicability of evidence. Facts do not have an expiration date. And a judge completely ignoring law should also raise a big, red flag. They do not have that luxury- their only positional option is to dispute said law, prove it unconstitutional and have it striken from the books.

Lastly, the fate of one person's life hangs completely and unequivocably on hearsay evidence. The husband's testimony of what 'he said/she said'... and of even more consequence, her husband's hearsay evidence has challenges by other witnesses. Add to this there is evidence that may prove her husband as negligent, abusive or otherwise untrustworthy towards her estate and well-being. ALL of this should be allowed to hit a courtroom and either be debunked or taken under advisement. But in all cases, one (1) judge has decided to just ignore or throw it out.

There is no possible or rational way, nor are there any whimsical or hackneyed phrases that can disqualify, erase or overrule these facts. While Terri may still die, the people of Florida have a job to do. We as Americans also have a job to do with the same behavior at the federal level. When the very fabric of what makes our democracy work is conveniently thrown down the toilet, every liberal and conservative American should take notice and realize there is much work to be done.

Hello~Kitty
03-25-2005, 04:36 PM
Yea, I figured as much. Funny how when a case gets media attention, Bush jumps into action to do what people would want.

Not to be argumentitive, but every poll that I have heard about this , including a Gallup, says that over 60% of Americans did not want the President, Governor nor Congress involved.

70 some % also would not want themselves to be kept alive like Terri has been, if they were in Terri's state, so I am afraid have to disagree that Bush stepped in to do the "will of the people"

Deogol
03-25-2005, 04:54 PM
Oh good Lord polecat, has someone stolen your login? This cannot be you writing some of this...


Well, I'm not falling for the 'Living Will' propaganda that so many lawyers are now bandwagoning in order to make massive profit off this event.

Clever login thief, to write something I would agree with coming from polecat, and indeed I too agree with.


From what we've seen in Florida the past few years, it's obvious that one (1) Judge can revoke any written law- be it from the executive branch, 100's of witnesses/signed affidavits or even written documentation from dozens of MD's across the nation.

If a law is against a state constitution or the national constitution - you bet they can revoke it. That is part of the check and balance of the three branches of government.

My question - did these MDs actually see her - visit her - examine her? Or are they Culture of Life types with a political agenda and not a medical one. Personally I don't know. But to accept medical advice from someone who hasn't even seen the patient - I don't think I would take the advice of a doctor who hasn't seen me.

I will readily admit I do not know the list of these other physicians and if they have seen her.


I somehow have little faith or confidence in a document that I would write/sign when documents hundreds have written and signed have now been PROVEN to not be worth a damn.. and that the judiciary is beyond and all-powerful to decide when/where to ignore this.

There are many - especially on the right and the republican party who want the third branch of government to simply roll over and do as they ask. That is not the job of the third branch of government.

But I too am not especially enthused about the quality of work done by some judicial organizations - such as the ninth "circus" court and the whole OJ Simpson case. This is going to be another case that makes it into law schools when it is all hashed out.


What we have seen in Florida and at the federal level the past few weeks basically disproves 'Government for the people, by the people'... it no longer exists. Our system of government, with all it's checks and balances are being denied from the bench. Laws put into play aren't being disputed for their constitutionality, nor are they abided by or followed. Instead, we have judicial members that have decided to just flatly ignore them, with no comment. We also do not have convenient ways to outst defective or improperly behaving judical branch members.

Laws are abided by the law enforcement community and the people. Otherwise they are mere paper without the gun of the police to enforce them.

Of course, to simply say to the courts - this is bullshit and we will not follow the ruling - that is a whole nother can of worms.

Ousting of judges is meant to be hard, because sometimes they are expected to make hard decisions. Do you really want the judicial branch to be acting like a bunch of congressmen?


The good people of Florida (and other states..) need a stronger Recall policy for executive branch officials... and should be the strongest recoil coast to coast from this effort- and something that both liberals and conservatives should be aligned with. Once easy, painless elected official recall laws are put in place, this gives governors the license to use their FULL executive powers without worry of copy-cat backlash in other states. This is truly the only thing holding back Jeb Bush from taking custody of Terri Schiavo- he fears if he exercises his executive authority to overrule the judicial branch, that suddenly governors in New York and California will follow suit by doing the same for Gay marriage, subsidized healthcare or other non-emergency situations, riding on his actions as precedent. It becomes a war of partisan politics and ugliness... and double-standards. This is what our 'public servants' in our two-party system have devolved to. Partisan politics and double-standards backlash has basically castrated our public officials.

I agree. The two parties are making a problem out the system. Neither one wants to budge an inch towards the center - they all want to go further apart. They want to call each other perverts and welfare recipients or religious nuts and backwards. That is not the definition of compromise which our form of government depends on. This is why I am so third party oriented lately.


Lastly, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Michael Schiavo is guilty of not only his wife's condition, but also is antagonistic towards reaching the truth of her condition. Anyone that disagrees with this has surely not collected ALL the evidence and facts in the case and is relying upon selective and conditioned information. Sun Herald opinion columns are no example of an outline of facts. The court history, judgement history, documents and witnesses are.

None of these things can guarantee facts. Even witnesses have been shown to be unreliable as DNA tests free men jailed for rapes they never committed - even though the witnesses swear it was that person.

I was simply trying to throw a couple of facts that can be relatively well regarded into the conversation other than how "someone looks" another poster seems to rely on for their information.


The case is so riddled with holes and has so much evidence that isn't even being given the chance to be heard that anyone not raising an eyebrow isn't being very rational.

Is it the whole court system that is troublesome? People keep referring to this one judge - but the case has been through multiple appeals over and over. Perhaps the parent's lawyer is an idiot. I don't know. I just have trouble believing the whole court system in Florida is broken.


I find it interesting that the 'pro-kill-her' side cautiously ignores the bone-scan documents, ignores the signed affidavits of 33+ MD's from coast to coast, ignores how NO MRI or petscan has ever been allowed, as well as has ignored the fact that all 'expert witness' evidence submitted has been from PAID sources, whereas the evidence from voluntary MD's is completely ignored and discredited. It is a conflict of logic to say '34+ MD's are all quacks.. but those paid two or three in the case... they are trustworthy.' It's VERY similar to citing 'Common sense is neither common nor sensical'.. where this is just a ploy to try and convince someone to ignore a massive mountain of evidence in favor of two or three paid, biased and attached sources... sources that also have a mountain of evidence, witnesses, testimony and factual evidence that should, at the very least, cry out for investigation. But no investigation is being allowed. Why is that?

Whenever you see selective (without comment, or with dubious comment) admonishment of evidence in ANY situation, it should be enough to make any rational thinking individual raise an eyebrow. The truth of the matter is with Terri's case- 90% of the evidence in the case has been barred or otherwise disallowed to ever hit a courtroom. This has all been from the actions of her husband. The judge has been siding with the 'timeliness' of evidence, rather than the applicability of evidence. Facts do not have an expiration date. And a judge completely ignoring law should also raise a big, red flag. They do not have that luxury- their only positional option is to dispute said law, prove it unconstitutional and have it striken from the books.

Lastly, the fate of one person's life hangs completely and unequivocably on hearsay evidence. The husband's testimony of what 'he said/she said'... and of even more consequence, her husband's hearsay evidence has challenges by other witnesses. Add to this there is evidence that may prove her husband as negligent, abusive or otherwise untrustworthy towards her estate and well-being. ALL of this should be allowed to hit a courtroom and either be debunked or taken under advisement. But in all cases, one (1) judge has decided to just ignore or throw it out.

The husband does have scientific tests on his side. Tests that are in use today.

Educate me: What is the 90% of the evidence that has been barred from multiple court rooms by multiple judges? Notes written by doctors who have not even seen Terri? Speculation of lawyers and people that Michael put her in this condition - one would think this investigated at the time of the event. Husbands are always the number one suspect when something happens to the wife. You speak of hearsay evidence - but how much of this 90% of the evidence is hearsay it's self?


There is no possible or rational way, nor are there any whimsical or hackneyed phrases that can disqualify, erase or overrule these facts. While Terri may still die, the people of Florida have a job to do. We as Americans also have a job to do with the same behavior at the federal level. When the very fabric of what makes our democracy work is conveniently thrown down the toilet, every liberal and conservative American should take notice and realize there is much work to be done.

I agree. We need to make sure this kind of controversy does not happen again, but we must be careful about the remedies that take place because as you so pointed out about the governors - they can come back and bite us in the ass.

polecat
03-25-2005, 04:55 PM
Yes, I know all about back stabbers and users - I have been to a strip club or two.
Honing those skills, have you? 8)


Well that's funny - since I write court and law enforcement software. I guess I don't have a clue about how the system works. It does sound like someone talking about something she doesn't know anything about - which is quite common for people who talk about things they don't know shit about.
Big deal. I guess because John Carmack wrote Quake and Doom3 that he's an expert on how to kill people and weapons fire.

Which is besides the point- court and law enforcement software has no knowledge of court and law. It's simply filing, categorization and database software.

I have yet to see a piece of court or law enforcement software that throws up a "Would you like to use a criminal prosecution wizard?" and after keying in a bunch of evidence, it pops up a "Judge It!" button.

I should also make clear note that 'business card' references are a surefire sign of someone without any form of argument. When someone has no actual evidence or debate/argument, it always demotes down to the typical "Well, I work at XYZ so I'm right.." kind of misdirection. It's the same thing as disqualifying evidence from someone that works 'lower' industries. This is the SAME mindset (but in reverse) that makes it so strippers testifying against being beaten and raped in courts have their testimony withdrawn. After all, she's just a 'dumb stripper' yet her assailant is a 'man of high stature that works for Chase Manhattan Bank'

Alternatively, people of substance instead rely upon bringing forth rational evidence, non-selective facts, arguments.. things of tangible value.


Her bone scan is unreliable because Terri had an eating disorder - that means she had brittle bones - which means she bruises easily and can crack things up easily.
This is typical misdirection.

You have bone-scan reports that show an opinion of having been derived from trauma... and healing. You also take 'an eating disorder' as a given without the desire to research why/how there even was an eating disorder. Statistics will show a large majority of eating disorders stem from psychological issues or trauma.

Lastly, you have completely ignored WHY the bone-scan wasn't allowed to enter into the case as evidence. Obviously, if you feel so strongly that bone trauma in her head, ribs, neck, both knees and ankles are easily identifiable as being the result of an eating disorder- professionals used as witnesses could testify to this fact and have this evidence debunked properly in a court of law... yet you bandwagon that such evidence should be *selectively* removed from the entire case? Why is this? Why is it that only evidence that could possibly be *against* Michael Schiavo should not be allowed into a court of law, yet evidence *for* Michael Schiavo be allowed?

It's sounds to me as if misogyny is equally ugly to man-hating... just my opinion. I believe all evidence should hit a courtroom and be allowed to stand-up for itself... not selective evidence.


Yea - all those other doctors and judges with a differing opinion don't have a clue. In fact science doesn't have a clue - perhaps we all should pray for her.
This is an inaccurate portrayal... and more evidence of a strongly biased opinion.

"ALL those other doctors" = three paid doctors. The defense has a coalition of 34+ doctors. "ALL those judges" = two FL judges.


Misinformation - she has had multiple scans showing her brain dead and liquid where tissue should be.
She has never been allowed a petscan OR an MRI. So she hasn't had 'multiple scans' as you suggest. False information.

Once again, you have 30+ neurosurgeons that have written and signed that the kind of determinations made conderning Terri's cortex and brain condition couldn't possibly be determined from the kinds of brain scans that have been performed. This is their signed, professional opinions. The opinions of two (2) Florida paid/appointed doctors overrule the medical community.


More misinformation - the courts are not breaking any laws. And those other physicians - being board certified, educated, and having clinical experiences - what the fuck do they know compared to ____?
Actually, the courts ARE breaking laws. The laws that are currently on the books clearly state that Terri's feeding tubes are to be returned and re-attached.

The only 'debate' in this matter is if these executive orders in FL (and now at the US Supreme Court) are a gross misuse of executive power. But the Judges in Florida, nor the US Supreme Court has taken this response. They have just chosen to ignore the laws, let them lie unchallenged, and not abide by them. This IS breaking the law.

When emergency congressional sessions put forth new laws and the judiciary winds up with these new laws dropped on their laps, they can either abide by them or challenge them. They have done neither.



Yea - those EEGs and scans aren't modern testing. They cannot determine if there is REALLY a brain there or not. They are the equivalent of listening to an echo when tapped on the skull. Once again, I am with ya - what the fuck does science know?
Science knows that there are these cool little things known as MRI's and petscans that can add further accuracy to 50+ year old brain scan technology.


Yes, the evidence is so obvious to his being a murderer.
The people will never know because all the evidence has never been allowed to be heard. So whether or not it's 'obvious' or not, making any such declaration is foolhardy.



The things that happen in this case effect more than just Terri - they effect us all. And if we make decisions based on ranting, misinformation, and emotional turmoil - we will have a far bigger mess to clean up than the single situation going on here now.
I agree with this 100%.. which is why ranting, misinformation, selective evidence, and the complete disregard for our executive->judicial system should raise red flags for any aware and unbiased American.

Is Michael Schiavo an abusive husband? I don't know- nobody knows. Any evidence of such has been barred from entering trial. Is Michael Schiavo enforcing the will of his wife? Nobody knows- any evidence in this has not been allowed to enter a court of law. Is Terri Schiavo truly brain-dead or in an unconscious/random reflexive, persistant vegitative state? Nobody knows- any evidence, testing or research in this has been thrown out or disallowed to be performed.

That's the point... and it's all readily available in the form of facts, testimony, witnesses, signed affidavits, and family wishes. The courts HAD to step-in in this case since the husband has barred any logical tests of credibility to ensure he is indeed acting on the will of his wife/former wife.

Deogol
03-25-2005, 05:46 PM
Honing those skills, have you? 8)

Big deal. I guess because John Carmack wrote Quake and Doom3 that he's an expert on how to kill people and weapons fire.

Which is besides the point- court and law enforcement software has no knowledge of court and law. It's simply filing, categorization and database software.

There is a key difference between John's software and mine.

John's is a game - you can turn it off and go do your thing.

Mine puts and keeps people in jail via the judicial and law enforcement workflow - you can't just turn it off - and it does directly effect people's lives.

That is a hell of a big difference.:O

And to write that software - I need to know what those fields in "just databases" are doing and what those "just screens" are being used for to properly service the judicial and law enforcement system.

I am more than a coder - I am a designer - I need to know what I am designing the software for - what it needs to do to work in and enable the system.

That experience and law education (but not bar certified - simply enough to know procedure and what is being attempted) leads to more understanding of what happens out there in the court system and law enforcement community than the common lay person.

While I am not working in Florida, this judicial system bashing maybe a little closer to my heart than some others.

When I am in the jails or the parole offices and see people handcuffed and shackled - I damn sure want to know what I am doing and that it is doing it correctly. All it takes is a mistake in the warrant system and those police officers will go out to fuck up someone's life.


I should also make clear note that 'business card' references are a surefire sign of someone without any form of argument. When someone has no actual evidence or debate/argument, it always demotes down to the typical "Well, I work at XYZ so I'm right.." kind of misdirection.

That may be so, but I wasn't making an argument.

I was accused of not knowing the court system. I replied that I do know the court systems - and this is why.


It's the same thing as disqualifying evidence from someone that works 'lower' industries. This is the SAME mindset (but in reverse) that makes it so strippers testifying against being beaten and raped in courts have their testimony withdrawn.

I agree. That is fucked up.


Alternatively, people of substance instead rely upon bringing forth rational evidence, non-selective facts, arguments.. things of tangible value.


I agree. And I have certainly attempted to do so.


You have bone-scan reports that show an opinion of having been derived from trauma... and healing. You also take 'an eating disorder' as a given without the desire to research why/how there even was an eating disorder. Statistics will show a large majority of eating disorders stem from psychological issues or trauma.

I agree - opinion is extracted from evidence.

But those issues you mention are not direct testimony against the husband but that the woman had issues. You are attempting to imply an argument simular to "other people make an alcoholic drink." We know an alcoholic is simply an alcoholic.

I am no expert, but have had a girlfriend with an eating disorder. I understand eating disorders are generally found in people who feel they have no control of their situation or insecurity. So they try to gain control by controlling the one thing they can control.

These things can be from childhood long before she met her husband.


Lastly, you have completely ignored WHY the bone-scan wasn't allowed to enter into the case as evidence. Obviously, if you feel so strongly that bone trauma in her head, ribs, neck, both knees and ankles are easily identifiable as being the result of an eating disorder- professionals used as witnesses could testify to this fact and have this evidence debunked properly in a court of law... yet you bandwagon that such evidence should be *selectively* removed from the entire case?

I don't think it should be removed from the case - but it should be explained. There has been an explaination. If the explaination was so bad - then perhaps the police would move in to deal with that.


It's sounds to me as if misogyny is equally ugly to man-hating... just my opinion. I believe all evidence should hit a courtroom and be allowed to stand-up for itself... not selective evidence.

I agree.


This is an inaccurate portrayal... and more evidence of a strongly biased opinion.

Opinions generally are biased by life experiences... or lack of them.


"ALL those other doctors" = three paid doctors. The defense has a coalition of 34+ doctors. "ALL those judges" = two FL judges.

So being paid invalidates their medical experiences, education, and skills. I would think the parent's attorneys would attempt to throw these "quacks" out of the case if they weren't up to par.

Apparently they are up to par.

Regarding the judges - this reads like way more than two judges to me.



There are nearly twenty judges (including a supreme court justice or two to determine if the case would be taken) who have read the evidence and the procedures that were used in the case. All have decided things are in order - thus rejecting the appeals. If things were out of order - then the appeal would have been fulfilled and on it's way.

As it appears - things are in order and the trial progressed in the proper manner.

This is not misinformation - this is fact - judges in plural means way more judges than most cases have seen.


She has never been allowed a petscan OR an MRI. So she hasn't had 'multiple scans' as you suggest. False information.




Once again, you have 30+ neurosurgeons that have written and signed that the kind of determinations made conderning Terri's cortex and brain condition couldn't possibly be determined from the kinds of brain scans that have been performed. This is their signed, professional opinions. The opinions of two (2) Florida paid/appointed doctors overrule the medical community.

This is certainly a question - and the source of all the debate.


Actually, the courts ARE breaking laws. The laws that are currently on the books clearly state that Terri's feeding tubes are to be returned and re-attached.

If the courts are breaking any laws or not following proper procedure, the appeals (multiples of them) would have been upheld and the case would be in trial. There are many judges who obviously believe the lower court is not breaking any laws.


The only 'debate' in this matter is if these executive orders in FL (and now at the US Supreme Court) are a gross misuse of executive power. But the Judges in Florida, nor the US Supreme Court has taken this response. They have just chosen to ignore the laws, let them lie unchallenged, and not abide by them. This IS breaking the law.

The courts do not enforce laws. That is the executive branch's job and they do so via the police powers. If the police and governor's believe the court is breaking the law, they are obligated to send in the police to insure the feeding tube is in place and to put the national guard on alert if it gets to crazy.

Otherwise they feel the court is not breaking the law or they have another agenda.

I skipped over this in the previous post, but the judicial branch doesn't have executive powers. Only the executive branch does. These are judicial orders.


When emergency congressional sessions put forth new laws and the judiciary winds up with these new laws dropped on their laps, they can either abide by them or challenge them. They have done neither.

Science knows that there are these cool little things known as MRI's and petscans that can add further accuracy to 50+ year old brain scan technology.

I agree. The new tests would be very helpful.

The legislature can put new laws into effect and if this is so important to the governers they can arrest the judge under their police powers. It is not like judges have not been arrested before.



The people will never know because all the evidence has never been allowed to be heard. So whether or not it's 'obvious' or not, making any such declaration is foolhardy.

It and even some evidence that is not evidence is certainly making the rounds on the internet. There is an increasing noise/signal ration occuring the longer this goes on.


I agree with this 100%.. which is why ranting, misinformation, selective evidence, and the complete disregard for our executive->judicial system should raise red flags for any aware and unbiased American.

I agree - it should be debated outside the judicial process so that process can be reformed if need be.


Is Michael Schiavo an abusive husband? I don't know- nobody knows. Any evidence of such has been barred from entering trial. Is Michael Schiavo enforcing the will of his wife? Nobody knows- any evidence in this has not been allowed to enter a court of law. Is Terri Schiavo truly brain-dead or in an unconscious/random reflexive, persistant vegitative state? Nobody knows- any evidence, testing or research in this has been thrown out or disallowed to be performed.

The evidence that has not been disallowed certainly is making the media and mainstream.


That's the point... and it's all readily available in the form of facts, testimony, witnesses, signed affidavits, and family wishes. The courts HAD to step-in in this case since the husband has barred any logical tests of credibility to ensure he is indeed acting on the will of his wife/former wife.

The courts stepped into the case because Terri's parents requested that they step in.

I will say it once again, the reason for this case is because there is no good remedy in place for what is to happen when different relatives have different opinions about what should happen.

polecat
03-25-2005, 06:07 PM
Oh good Lord polecat, has someone stolen your login? This cannot be you writing some of this...
Do I sense an air of prejudice here? ;D

Nope, it's good old me.. the same me as always.



If a law is against a state constitution or the national constitution - you bet they can revoke it. That is part of the check and balance of the three branches of government.
Yup, but that didn't happen. This should be infuriating any American citizen. No matter what side of the camp you stand on, the inaction of the judiciary branch in Florida and the US Supreme Court is just baffling.

Much of the debate going on with the internet is because conservatives and liberals can argue what this 'complete inaction' assumes. By not challenging, is it assuming these laws constitutional? By ignoring the written letter of the new laws, is it assuming it's unconstitutional? Both sides are equally valid. They need to answer this.


My question - did these MDs actually see her - visit her - examine her? Or are they Culture of Life types with a political agenda and not a medical one. Personally I don't know. But to accept medical advice from someone who hasn't even seen the patient - I don't think I would take the advice of a doctor who hasn't seen me.
Dr. Fahr actually did observe the patient for multiple days, but was NOT allowed to perform any form of testing by the expressed wishes of the husband. This should be an enormous red-flag.

The medical advice from other MD's is also sound advice. It has nothing to do with Terri Schiavo, but instead the accuracy of known testing methods.

If one doctor shoving a thermometer up a baby's ass says it proves that baby has cancer (elevated temperature), the entire medical community can say "such means are dubious at best and thus require additional testing for complete assurance." This is what the rest of the medical community is asserting.

A Petscan shows biological function- clearly and completely. An EEG does not. A petscan also leaves no room for interpretation. Density differences *assumed* as spinal fluid will not have synaptic activity, so therefore will not show color in a petscan. It's a non-invasive, completely determinant test that only takes a few minutes and reveals what parts of the brain are actually in use, and which parts are dead. It even shows brain tumors or aneurisms long before any form of EEG could ever hope to. Palsy victims that are high functioning have EEG's that show the same or worse density differences as Terri. This is what MD's coast to coast are using as evidence. Brain-scans of functioning individuals with larger EEG cortex densities than Terri has that are walking and talking. But these are not to be allowed solely by the wishes of Mr. Schiavo.

When Terri was flown to CA for advanced medical procedures, Mr. Schiavo would not allow CA neurosurgeons to perform a petscan. Under no circumstances has Mr. Schiavo allowed this test to be performed. Why is there fear of imaging a section of brain that he is so certain is just spinal fluid?



There are many - especially on the right and the republican party who want the third branch of government to simply roll over and do as they ask. That is not the job of the third branch of government.
Nope, but it is the job of the third branch of government to contest or challenge such actions. They failed.



Ousting of judges is meant to be hard, because sometimes they are expected to make hard decisions. Do you really want the judicial branch to be acting like a bunch of congressmen?
But what is the solution? What we've seen sets a scary precendent of 'ruling from the bench'.. as a direct response to attempts to 'rule from the executive branch'... The people are left standing, around completely out of the loop.

This is the boiling point our two-party system was absolutely heading for.


None of these things can guarantee facts. Even witnesses have been shown to be unreliable as DNA tests free men jailed for rapes they never committed - even though the witnesses swear it was that person.
Which is why, we as Americans, when DNA evidence is disallowed by the one claiming rape, we should scratch our chins. It's the same precendence.


I was simply trying to throw a couple of facts that can be relatively well regarded into the conversation other than how "someone looks" another poster seems to rely on for their information.
No determination of guilt can be arrived at- but it does look extraordinarily bad for Mr. Schiavo. He can clear his name quite easily by not being so antagonistic. It also causes much confusion when trying to explore "why" he wont allow so much data and evidence from ever being heard.



Is it the whole court system that is troublesome? People keep referring to this one judge - but the case has been through multiple appeals over and over. Perhaps the parent's lawyer is an idiot. I don't know. I just have trouble believing the whole court system in Florida is broken.
The "whole court system" of Florida really comes down to one Judge- who has been ruling on every major appeal and evidence submission from the parents.

There have been mainly two other Florida judges that have ruled in this case, but motions to strike or stays by their rulings have been overruled by Mr. Greer. Honestly, the lower courts have done a marvelous job, but the shit has always rolled uphill and been conveniently discarded.

And yes, the family's lawyer should be taken out and be shot. They needed a much bigger legal team, but obviously haven't been able to afford it. All of Terri's trustfund and awards are in the lap of the husband. They have had evidence since 1998 that is only entering the appeals process NOW. This is due to the fact the family's lawyer had too many current issues to deal with.


Educate me: What is the 90% of the evidence that has been barred from multiple court rooms by multiple judges?
Not by multiple judges. Just one. Greer.

You have the signed affidavits of three hospice nurses, that over the course of a few years, will testify that Mr. Schiavo has ordered the destruction of evidence. Nurses logs, journals and status reports of Terri's condition were ordered to be destroyed. And there are witnesses that will testify on the bench with this evidence.



Speculation of lawyers and people that Michael put her in this condition - one would think this investigated at the time of the event.
Michael moved in with the family and gave the impression he was on his wife's side. You'll notice a severe change in the relationship two years later- when historical bone-scan reports deflected by Mr. Schiavo and friends of Terri starting communicating with the parents.


You speak of hearsay evidence - but how much of this 90% of the evidence is hearsay it's self?
The testimony is not hearsay. There are peopl willing to go on the witness stand and directly testify what they have directly heard Mr. Schiavo say to them.

Amethyst
03-25-2005, 06:14 PM
Regarding the timeline - here's a more detailed one. Granted it is on a website devoted to saving Ms. Schiavo, but I haven't been able to find anything that would prove it false:

http://www.terrisfight.net/

As far as Michael Schiavo being a "loving husband who is simply looking out for the best interests of his brain-dead wife", review some specifics on the timeline. Some interesting stuff starts happening from Nov. 92 - 1993. Check out the transcripts (links provided on site) and affidavits (I like the Guardianship testimony transcript where M.S. admits to telling a doctor to NOT treat Terri's UTI and WHY he wouldn't make that decision again). My kinda hubby.


While you're wandering around that website, look at some of the videos of Ms. Schiavo and then decide on how "brain-dead" this woman is.

http://www.terrisfight.org

IMO, this whole debacle is disgusting and poor Ms. Schiavo is being used as a pawn on both sides, especially by the GOP. However, as appalled as I am by the GOP's tactics, I am horrified by the manner in which she is being killed. Yes, killed. Starving and dehydrating someone is not a natural death.

erotictonic
03-25-2005, 06:43 PM
The rest of the article....

Terri may never fully recover from her current state, but that doesn’t mean that she’s to be killed. What kind of a society would allow such a thing? What kind of person fights for so long to kill his wife? What kind of judge simply turns a blind eye to the law, and supports the murder of another human being?

In my opinion, Michael Schiavo is a sociopath. His behavior shows it. That pattern of behavior, and his demands on how his wife is to be taken care of, only reinforce that assessment. He will not allow more comprehensive tests to be run, refuses to allow the nurses to turn his wife to avoid skin ulcers, won’t let the nurses take care of basic hygiene for his wife, and won’t let nurses give needed medications, like antibiotics. Further, he has requested that his wife be cremated upon death.

In my opinion, this is a serious travesty, and a grave miscarriage of justice. And if a miracle cannot be found before Friday, Terri Schiavo is going to be forced to starve to death. And quite honestly, if that happens, Michael Schiavo’s life won’t be worth a plug nickel. If I were in his shoes, and I thank God I’m not, after my wife was dead, I’d change my name to "George" and move to Hoboken. Otherwise some formerly fine and upstanding American may just help Michael to his eternal reward.

Publius II

erotictonic
03-25-2005, 09:56 PM
Anyone who is interested in the REAL DEAL, check this out. This is a great site with investigated info:

Deogol
03-25-2005, 10:25 PM
Anyone who is interested in the REAL DEAL, check this out. This is a great site with investigated info:




:-\

You realize that Ginger Berlin, the publisher of The Empire Journal, believes that pornography, strip clubs, homosexuality, and promiscuity are immoral and perverse and should be banned/outlawed. She would consider you "the enemy."

You should give her writings a google and see what comes up.

erotictonic
03-25-2005, 10:35 PM
:-\

You realize that Ginger Berlin, the publisher of The Empire Journal, believes that pornography, strip clubs, homosexuality, and promiscuity are immoral and perverse and should be banned/outlawed. She would consider you "the enemy."

You should give her writings a google and see what comes up.

Honestly, in many cases, I can understand why. It's not good for a lot of girls, the ones who aren't equipped to protect themselves.

madgrad
03-26-2005, 12:43 AM
Regarding the Schiavo circus in Florida:

The Tampa Federal Judge basically told the President, and the U.S. Congress with his actions on the Schiavo case that both branches of the U.S. Government overstepped their bounds of authority given to them by the U.S. Constitution.

If he let GW and Delay proceed with thier wishes, it would've bassically set a dangerous legal precedent in destroying the checks and balances established in the U.S. Constitution seperating the authority of the Executive Branch, and Legislative Branch, over the Judicial branch. This also includes the authority of the Federal Government over State and Local issues too.

Melonie
03-26-2005, 04:55 AM
If he let GW and Delay proceed with thier wishes, it would've bassically set a dangerous legal precedent in destroying the checks and balances established in the U.S. Constitution seperating the authority of the Executive Branch, and Legislative Branch, over the Judicial branch. This also includes the authority of the Federal Government over State and Local issues too.

I agree that a 'dangerous' legal precedent would have been set in modern historic terms at least i.e. a judge actually following the letter and spirit of a new law. As to 'destroying' constitutional checks and balances, some would argue that such balance has already been pretty well destroyed over the past 20 years - rereading Article 3 of the Constitution might help put the 'mainstream media's' interpretation of checks and balances into proper perspective.

Even though it's essentially too late to do Terri any good, I'm still hoping that this issue of judicial 'power' receives additional attention by congress and the supreme court. After all, 'Marbury vs. Madison' was just one more supreme court decision, and the legal doctrines stemming from that decision do NOT originate in the Constitution.

Hello~Kitty
03-26-2005, 10:25 AM
I doubt Congress will get any further involved because polls show that the majority of voters disagree with government being involved in this issue.Both political sides have to think about the 2006 and 2008 elections.

I was surprised to see such little comments here about the 1999 TX law that the now President passed. That law orders the removal or end of life support for people who cannot pay for their own care, even against the wishes of the persons family.The purpose of the directive is to limit or eliminates State supported healthcare for life support patients.

An example of this law in a is the baby named Sun, who was taken off life support last week against the mothers wishes at Texas Childrens Hospital.

In my humble opinion, this newly developed "Culture of Life" deal with the Bush brothers is nothing more than political sham being used against, or for depending on your point of view, about 30% of the GOP's core base.

polecat
03-26-2005, 01:46 PM
I was surprised to see such little comments here about the 1999 TX law that the now President passed. That law orders the removal or end of life support for people who cannot pay for their own care, even against the wishes of the persons family.The purpose of the directive is to limit or eliminates State supported healthcare for life support patients.

An example of this law in a is the baby named Sun, who was taken off life support last week against the mothers wishes at Texas Childrens Hospital.
I didn't see you rushing to Texas to volunteer to pay for that baby Sun's medical care.

I also find it quite humorous to say 'aganst the mother's wishes' when she was either too distracted or too lazy to seek out government or local privatized insurance pool lotteries to get care for her baby.

Terri's case isn't even CLOSE to the 1999 law that was passed. She HAS medical care and a massive trust fund to pay for her hospice care. Moreover, most of the hospice care she has provided has had organizations step forward to pay.

The 1999 Texas law specifically falls under the lines of people that are too moronic to have children or too lazy to flip the bill for healthcare of children or elderly. I pay a HUGE chunk of my salary every week in order to pay for the ghetto women in Southern California to pump out 4-6 children while I'm of questionable income (after taxes) to have children myself. If you don't see what's wrong with that picture, you REALLY need your head examined.

I also give yearly contributions to both children's hospitals as well as the Make a Wish Foundation.

The 1999 law in Texas wasn't a "right to death" bill, it was a "right to a big fucking mouth" bill. You can't open it unless you're willing to get off the crack, get a fucking job, or start doing footwork with brokers to get into a terminally ill healthcare lottery (which ALL insurance companies have). It's not hard. But it's much easier to truly NOT give a shit about one's children, but go on national TV, and anti-conservative publications and pretend to do so.

I'd be happy to apply the 1999 Texas law to Terri Schiavo when we can go back in time and make her a crackhead, unemployed loser without a pot to piss in and having absolutely no care in the world by anyone in her family or friends circle ready to flip the bill for her healthcare. Until that point, it's just a feeble attempt by a liberally biased loon to turn this into a political debate. I know how important it is to turn life and death of this woman into partisan politics, I'd just ask you wait until the poor woman has died before making a stand for your political party- which is obviously more important than one woman's life, in a completely incomparable situation to an 'anti-ghetto bitch' law passed in Texas.

Amethyst
03-26-2005, 05:25 PM
^^ Re: Sun Hudson's mother:

Where did we figure out she was a crack head? With the exception of one ultra right-wing website that offered no supporting documents, I have not found any publication stating the mother was a lazy crack head who was too lazy to find healthcare for her child. With the exception of the aforementioned website, the only thing I can find out on what she DID try to do was find another facility for Sun, and was denied by 40 of them:

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2005/03/23/Opinion/Terminal.Care.In.Texas-900250.shtml?page=1

Even if she WAS a crack head, why does her son need to punished for her mistakes?

You are right - Ms. Schiavo's being starved & dehydrated to death should NOT be politicized, but Jebbers and Co. made it political when they jumped at the opportunity to wave their Pro-Life flag and fire up their Con-Christian base, getting into what should have been a matter between Ms. Schiavo's family, doctors, and the courts. Liberals followed suit, and VOILA! Terry Schiavo = Political Pawn.

polecat
03-26-2005, 07:26 PM
I didn't say Sun Hudson's mother was a crackhead, although there have been conservatives that have suggested such without the proper evidence to prove it.

I simply stated the 1999 law in Texas was aimed at this specific problem.

100's of babies die at the hands of single mothers in South Central LA, and this in a state where relief and healthcare services ARE provided to some degree. I pay a mint out of my pocket for this luxury. It obviously isn't helping. Who's championing their lives? Nobody, that's who...

The Texas law was meant to curb this behavior. If you're unemployed, have no insurance and absolutely no solid means of having children- then don't fuck, or use a condom. End of discussion.

It is tragic what happened to that poor, innocent child- but liberal loons are blaming George Bush, and not the correct source; the dumbass mother that had no business having children. If it wasn't rape, then prosecute the mother and enforce mandatory counseling. And castrate and jail the father. We'll see how many babies are born without insurance or proper parents under that environment.

The ones that applied themselves in high school, went to college, earn decent wages and get bent-over year after year for taxes aren't breeding. The dumb-asses in the inner cities without any form of responsibility or even the slightest chance of providing decent healthcare or raising of a child are. This makes the problem grow rather than shrink.

I'm a FIRM believer in social services. We MUST take care of our elderly, provide for people in low points in their lives/unemployment, and we MUST provide healthcare to those in those conditions. Unfortunately, I do have to side with the law in Texas as it does make a stand against the situation we have here in California- where we dump millions into free childbirthing to single moms on their 5th and 6th illegitimate child... as well as illegal aliens crossing the border for free hospital care, then a quick trip back to Mexico.

Baby Sun died because of it's parents. Plain and simple. Any more discussion on the 1999 Texas law should go on it's own thread since this is indeed the flurry of a liberal loon trying to derail Terri Schiavo's life as a vehicle to partisan politics propaganda.

Hello~Kitty
03-26-2005, 09:29 PM
I'd be happy to apply the 1999 Texas law to Terri Schiavo when we can go back in time and make her a crackhead, unemployed loser without a pot to piss in and having absolutely no care in the world by anyone in her family or friends circle ready to flip the bill for her healthcare. Until that point, it's just a feeble attempt by a liberally biased loon


First of all I have to ask who is it that are you calling names like a loon ?

Also I am wondering do you know who is paying for Terri's care ?

It's not her parents. I don't think alot of people realize that part. This is another reason why the TX 1999 law has some merit in the discusion of this topic.


Any more discussion on the 1999 Texas law should go on it's own thread since this is indeed the flurry of a liberal loon trying to derail Terri Schiavo's life as a vehicle to partisan politics propaganda.

Once again, who exactly are you calling names like a loon ?

And that law doesn't have any right to be mentioned because... why ?

Is this not a discussion about removing life support and the merits or problems and issues surrounding court and government involvment in such matters ?

Is that law not an example of court and government involement in end of life issues ?

Sergent D
03-28-2005, 02:41 PM
There is no money at stake nowdays. Court records show that there is less than 50k left.

You're so quick to jump to conclusions about him yet you won't even consider the most obvious answer to why he hasn't filed for divorce. Isn't it possible that he's stayed married because he strongly believes that he has her best interests at heart? It's the most simple and obvious reason why he's stuck around for 15 years. By divorcing her, he'd lose custody of her and then the parents would be able to keep her alive indefinitely. If he knows she wouldn't want to live like that he'd be doing her a great disservice by allowing that to happen.

As far as the new family, he's moved on. It's been 15 years. You can't expect someone to linger on doing nothing with their life.

The arguement that he's trying to kill her to cover up evidence doesn't add up. If that's the case, why did he wait 8 FUCKING YEARS to have her feeding tube taken out and why did he send her to CA right after the accident for aggressive experimental treatment and then take her back to FL for more treatment?

Rhiannon
03-28-2005, 02:58 PM
There is no money at stake nowdays. Court records show that there is less than 50k left.

Hmmm.. Even though I doubt there's less than $50k left in her account, we'll say hypothetically that it's true. Exactly how much of that money do you suppose has been allotted to Terri's care? He's used just enough of that to keep her alive, and the remainder of it for his court costs and legal fees in his fight to kill her.


You're so quick to jump to conclusions about him yet you won't even consider the most obvious answer to why he hasn't filed for divorce. Isn't it possible that he's stayed married because he strongly believes that he has her best interests at heart? It's the most simple and obvious reason why he's stuck around for 15 years. By divorcing her, he'd lose custody of her and then the parents would be able to keep her alive indefinitely. If he knows she wouldn't want to live like that he'd be doing her a great disservice by allowing that to happen.

As far as the new family, he's moved on. It's been 15 years. You can't expect someone to linger on doing nothing with their life.


Sorry, but he moved on WELL before he started seeing this current woman. He's had relationships dating back to 1992. That's well documented, and even a couple of his "exes" made statements about his character and plans for his wife but refused to testify against him, saying that they feared for what he'd do to them.


The arguement that he's trying to kill her to cover up evidence doesn't add up. If that's the case, why did he wait 8 FUCKING YEARS to have her feeding tube taken out and why did he send her to CA right after the accident for aggressive experimental treatment and then take her back to FL for more treatment?

He didn't spend very much time on her care, considering he had discontinued it in 1991, legally in 1992. He went against doctors suggestions which could have helped her a great deal. Bone scans were done on Terri and they showed multiple fractures and HEAD TRAUMA. Last time I checked, none of that is caused by Bulimia. All of that has been conveniently ruled inadmissable though, as well as caregiver statements about Terri's responsiveness and progress, even without the rehabilitation that Michael denied her. He's even denied proper hygiene which included tooth-brushing. That resulted in Terri having 5 teeth pulled. What a guy.

But by all means, go on defending him, and buying into his loyal, loving Husband routine.

(yeah, I said I try to stay out of PP.. "Try" is the key word here.)

polecat
03-28-2005, 03:07 PM
Jeeze Sergent.. why are you on this massive misinformation brigade?


There is no money at stake nowdays. Court records show that there is less than 50k left.
Please provide the link to this.

The fact is- financial disclosure was requested, but denied. To date, there has been NO full disclosure of Michael Schiavo's finances nor the settlement trust fund.

Also, on the other thread, you were championing that medicare is what has paid Terri's hospice care. So which is it? Is the trust fund tapped or is it empty? Or is it more a case of using what misinformation and redirection pick-n-choose whichever fits your opinion?

The only acceptable opinion on this matter is- until there is FULL DISCLOSURE, nobody can make the statement you have made. I also cannot assume if there are or aren't financial motivations here. NOBODY CAN.


The arguement that he's trying to kill her to cover up evidence doesn't add up. If that's the case, why did he wait 8 FUCKING YEARS to have her feeding tube taken out and why did he send her to CA right after the accident for aggressive experimental treatment and then take her back to FL for more treatment?
1) He didn't wait 8 years.. He was moving for removing her from feeding as little as 2-years after the accident (read the motions in 1995 and 1998).
2) He sent her to CA in order to get clout/court evidence for this move. There are CA doctors, on the record, that have signed affidavits and wish to submit testimony that Michael Schiavo:
a) Michael signed various AMA forms to disallow them from proper rehabilitation treatments (i.e. they introduced parallel bars/walking training but Michael banned this treatment. He also banned/disallowed any form of physical therapy involving weights/bars for her arms/hands.)
b) Michael signed various AMA forms to disallow any form of diagnosis of his wife. A petscan and MRI were both denied, against the neurosurgeons wishes.
c) Michael forced nurse and hospital workers to destroy daily logs and journals reporting her progress

Lurker
03-28-2005, 03:12 PM
Every time I pop into this thread, I'm not sure what we're arguing about. Should Terri Schiavo live because:

1. Her family wants her to?
2. Her husband is a schmuck?
3. Her family will pay for her, and as long as they are willing to do so it's up to them?
4. All the legal rulings to date have gotten it wrong?
5. All of the above?

I'm just not sure what the point of talking about the husband is. Evil or not, he apparently has the law on his side. I'm much more interested in the several big questions the case raises. Should any interested party who is willing to foot the bill be able to prolong the life of someone in Terri Schiavo's state? Is it morally incumbent on a family to sacrifice some significant fraction of their net worth to keep someone alive in that state?

PC, I know nothing about the Sun baby case. I DO know that it costs $10K+/day to keep an infant in the NICU even if there's nothing particularly wrong with them. You have to have a pretty big nut to cover the costs of caring for someone at the limits of modern medical technology. When does mortgaging your life for your past loves take a back seat to living your life in the present?

I just find those questions far more important to answer than whether or not in this ONE case this ONE guy is evil or not.

Rhiannon
03-28-2005, 03:12 PM
What PC said. These facts are very well documented, and I for one would definitely love to see references where you've gotten your information from.

Terri was awarded $1.4 million in one lawsuit, and $650,000 in another. These were both brought about by Michael on her behalf, claiming malpractice. He originally went for $20 million, but took what he was awarded, claiming that he needed it for Terri's care. If Medicare has picked up the tab for the past 15 years, I would love to know how much really remains in her trust fund.

Michael himself was also awarded $600,000 in his OWN lawsuit. I'm guessing that when he'd depleted his money, he dipped into hers.

If there's another explanation, again, I'd love to see it.

Sergent D
03-28-2005, 03:38 PM
Sergent D
There is no money at stake nowdays. Court records show that there is less than 50k left.


Please provide the link to this.

Even the Terri Schiavo Foundation ackowledges that there is less than 50k left.
http://www.terrisfight.org/myths.html

Keep it up people, don't let facts get in the way of your great conspiracy theories.

polecat
03-28-2005, 03:52 PM
Every time I pop into this thread, I'm not sure what we're arguing about. Should Terri Schiavo live because:
The case really has nothing to do with "Should Terri Schiavo live", honestly.

If it was within Terri's wishes to not live in the state she is in, then by all means, some form of euthanasia should be investigated.

The issue is- is this what Terri wants? The whole issue is whether or not Michael's allegations are in the spirit of Terri's wishes... and if Michael is of proper authority or guardianship of Terri.

The biggest problems are- the state Terri is in and Terri's wishes. These have never been allowed to be determined. Michael has a landslide of evidence to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that his process for 15 years has been one of thwarting or otherwise disallowing anyone from determining what state she is in. Moreover, his actions and evidence proves he is not a proper guardian for Terri, nor even under Florida state law legally of being such guardian. To add more insult to injury, Michael has also conflicted with himself by his very actions. He's just had so much settlement money that he can totally pull an "OJ" on the courts, which is why the state of Florida has stepped in so many times... but denied due to one(1) judge... Judge Greer.

By Florida law, in absence of a living will, the spouse assumes guardianship and full power of attorney in such cases. Unfortunately, there is evidence of adultery in the form of an SO and two children which negates Michael from being the spouse of Terri Schiavo... yet he continues to be deemed the 'spouse' of Terri despite this uncontested evidence.

Moreover, there are specific checks and balances in Florida guardianship laws. The bone-scan reports, testimony of Terri's family and several of Terri's friends are all evidence that would disqualify Michael from his guardianship. There is a MASSIVE landslide of witness testimony in the form of girlfriends, friends of Michael, doctors, nurses, hospice workers, 33+ MD's coast to coast, the family and even loads of circumstantial evidence that would all easily disqualify Michael from guardianship. Judge Greer will not allow any of this evidence to ever hit a courtroom- and deems it 'untimely'.. he has defined Michael's guardianship based on Michael's signed statements of hearsay of Terri's wishes, and one (1) doctor (against a flurry of dozens of others) that state Terri is in a "Permanent Vegitative State".. while both of these standpoints have weeks worth of courtroom evidence to challenge them, Judge Greer will not allow them to be heard.


PC, I know nothing about the Sun baby case. I DO know that it costs $10K+/day to keep an infant in the NICU even if there's nothing particularly wrong with them. You have to have a pretty big nut to cover the costs of caring for someone at the limits of modern medical technology. When does mortgaging your life for your past loves take a back seat to living your life in the present?
This would best belong in the 1999 Texas Law Circus thread. These are VERY important topics to be discussed.. but they truly are not applicable to Terri's case. The hospice, several special interest groups, and dozens of private Florida citizens have come forth to accept full financial responsibility to pay for Terri's possible future healthcare bills.. completely aside from her 'trust fund' which still hasn't had any form of financial disclosure to determine how much may still be held within.

polecat
03-28-2005, 04:00 PM
[/i]
Even the Terri Schiavo Foundation ackowledges that there is less than 50k left.
http://www.terrisfight.org/myths.html

Keep it up people, don't let facts get in the way of your great conspiracy theories.
You obviously didn't even read the link you provided:


The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo’s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him.
Judge Greer ruled the 'trust fund' prior ruled to be only used for medical care from the settlement, of which only 3/4 of that ONE settlement, could be tapped into for legal fees. George Felos has received over $400K to date.

Michael Schiavo also has an additional $1M+ from settlements outside of that trustfund, but the family is under the belief all of George's fees have been taken from Terri's trustfund.

Either case, anyone with half a brain should realize- what Judge Greer ruled upon invalidates the settlement terms. The $600K+ or so put in the trustfund was delivered under the pretenses that it was to go towards hospice/medical care for Terri. This is further evidence of Greer's complete and total throwing out of the law. It would also make it quite clear that Michael has no guardianship rights if he has consumed his wife's medical care fund on legal fees from which to kill her.

Sergent D
03-28-2005, 04:11 PM
MYTH: This is just a family battle over money.
FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo’s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him. This same attorney, at the expense of Terri’s medical fund, publicly likened Terri to a “houseplant” and has used Terri’s case on national television to promote his newly published book.

That is right out of the family's website. That's about as biased towards the family as you can get.


Judge Greer ruled the 'trust fund' prior ruled to be only used for medical care from the settlement, of which only 3/4 of that ONE settlement, could be tapped into for legal fees. George Felos has received over $400K to date.

Take a math class, 400k is a lot less than 3/4 of 1.2 million. If up to 3/4 can be spend on legal costs, then Felos was able to recieve 500k more out of the trust fund.

kitana
03-28-2005, 04:40 PM
You're so quick to jump to conclusions about him yet you won't even consider the most obvious answer to why he hasn't filed for divorce. Isn't it possible that he's stayed married because he strongly believes that he has her best interests at heart? It's the most simple and obvious reason why he's stuck around for 15 years. By divorcing her, he'd lose custody of her and then the parents would be able to keep her alive indefinitely. If he knows she wouldn't want to live like that he'd be doing her a great disservice by allowing that to happen.

Sorry man, but if her family wants her alive and she wants to live (see one post about that) then he should keep his nose outta it.


As far as the new family, he's moved on. It's been 15 years. You can't expect someone to linger on doing nothing with their life.

Actually YES I CAN! If I were him and my hubby was in the same situation as she is, I would be by his side through it all. That's called LOVE. We married for better or for worse, in SICKNESS and in health. It's his DUTY as a husband to be beside her, and fight for her. Not pull the crap he has.

Went the stupic fucker goes and and fucks another person while his wife is fighting for her life, and then her pops out 2 BASTARD kids from said bitch on the side. And the has the GALL to kill his WIFE's 2 animals trying to erase her completly; the fucker should fry himself!


The arguement that he's trying to kill her to cover up evidence doesn't add up. If that's the case, why did he wait 8 FUCKING YEARS to have her feeding tube taken out and why did he send her to CA right after the accident for aggressive experimental treatment and then take her back to FL for more treatment?

He was trying to pull her tube under 2 yrs after she was put in the hospital. And if you really think he "cares" why did he look for a new house for his bitch, instead of being by his wifes side?

If she dies, I hope the fucker fries!

Kitana

polecat
03-28-2005, 04:57 PM
did you graduate high school polecat? RTFA:
Yes I did, and no, not in a ROTC capacity which is obviously the case with others.. I also moved on to higher education as well, rather than military rankings, which is why I can understand these rather simple principles that you are having such a difficult time understanding.

Here's what that blurb you reported actually reports:
1) The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. The medical fund money was awarded and placed in a trustfund from which it is deemed ILLEGAL to touch, with the exception of medical care directly for Terri.
2) Judge Greer rules that Michael, at his discretion, can spend that money on attorney fees if he so wishes... against the prior rulings.
3) Michael also is awared another $1M+ in settlement and lawsuit rewards.
4) Felos has received over $400K in attorney fees to date.

I'm unsure why you are having such a difficult time understanding this. What part of "SEALED from inspection" are you not able to understand.

Let me give you an elementary school example, in hopes that maybe you might be able to understand this.
--------------------
Sally has $2 lunch money SEALED from inspection, and that $2 is ruled to only be allowed to be spent on lunch. This means that no one can see it, nobody can look at it, in fact, nobody knows how much of that $2 lunch money she actually has at any given time of the day.

Later, she gets $10 from teachers and friends... and she has overdue library books from which she owe's $1.50. The cafeteria then states that lunch is free today.

At this point, Sally gets a call from her Mom that says she can spend her lunch money on overdue library books if she wants.

At the end of the day, we have no idea if she still has her $2 lunch money, but we do know she got lunch for free and expended $1.50 for overdue library books. Sally's point of expenditures is totally unknown and she is not asked to divulge how/where/what she spent and from what pool of money.

Then along comes some knucklehead deeming that she MUST have only $0.50 of her lunch money fund.

Because no financial disclosure has occurred, you are making a jump of logic. While this may be a reasonable ASSUMPTION, the true state of Terri's trustfund is still an unknown. It has NEVER been disclosed. While Judge Greer went against rulings by the state of Florida that clearly stated not a dime was to be touched outside medical expenses for Terri, Michael went to bat with his good buddy Greer to have this reversed. Has he been actually siphoning funds from this trust for the attorney fees or using his >$1M estate? NOBODY KNOWS.. NOR CAN THEY UNTIL FULL DISCLOSURE OCCURS.

Once again, you illustrate your complete inability to conceive propaganda from factual evidence. This clearly solidifies why your opinion is so biased and compromised of flat, unproven theories and speculation instead of a keen observance of fact/evidence. I'm sure anyone reading here in the media will be overjoyed to see they have yet another mindless sheep from which they can distort and twist reality so easily with.

Sergent D
03-28-2005, 05:14 PM
Yes I did, and no, not in a ROTC capacity which is obviously the case with others.. I also moved on to higher education as well, rather than military rankings, which is why I can understand these rather simple principles that you are having such a difficult time understanding.

There you go ASSuming things about me. This is Sergent D:

http://www.majesticdarkness.com/sodcd.jpg

He's a fucking metal character. I've never been in the military and I have a BSE in Chemical Engineering. Now take the advice this guy is offerring:

http://www.tyrellcorp.org/Funnies/moran.jpg

Since I know you will refuse, look up the report from the guardian ad litem that Jeb Bush appointed in 2003 to review the case (including the money trail). He found no wrongdoing had occurred in the money management. Also, SEALED FROM INSPECTION means only that you can't get detailed information about how much was spent on what, not how much is there. Quit talking out your collective asses and do some research outside of the right-wing talk show circuit.

Sergent D
03-28-2005, 05:21 PM
It's funny that I am the one being accused of believing unbased theories. Everthing I have brought up here can be verified in the court records or from the parent's website. You people are the ones coming up with crazy theories such as saying he abused her, he wants her dead for money, or that he doesn't care about her. Sure, many docs may say they can help but they have not examined her and have not viewed her records extensively. None of the claims about abuse and whatnot have been substantiated. The few that have been presented in court were deemed invalid.

Sorry but the facts are on my side.

polecat
03-28-2005, 05:24 PM
Sorry but the facts are on my side.
And you can keep on believing that if you so choose.

But unfortunately, reality is on MY side, which is the plain and simple fact, that aside from full financial disclosure, anyone making statements about Michael Schiavo's finances are coming from one's ass.


look up the report from the guardian ad litem that Jeb Bush appointed in 2003 to review the case (including the money trail). He found no wrongdoing had occurred in the money management.
Correct. Whether or not funds are siphoned or not, there would be no wrong doing given Greer's later ruling, undoing the prior ruling.

You are still left with completely undisclosed finances. Third base.

Sergent D
03-28-2005, 05:33 PM
And you can keep on believing that if you so choose.

But unfortunately, reality is on MY side, which is the plain and simple fact, that aside from full financial disclosure, anyone making statements about Michael Schiavo's finances are coming from one's ass.


Correct. Whether or not funds are siphoned or not, there would be no wrong doing given Greer's later ruling, undoing the prior ruling.

You are still left with completely undisclosed finances. Third base.

The person Bush appointed to review everything in 2003 was able to view the sealed records. Sealed means sealed from the public, not from the courts. He noted that all of the paperwork was perfect and everything was accounted for. Look it up.

I'm left with facts, you have baseless accusations.

Later.

Sergent D
03-29-2005, 05:46 PM
Sure, I'm dense. I read court documents and reports issued by the state. The information I post here is fact. Here is the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) report from 2003 about Terri's condition (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/1203galrpt.pdf#search='bush%20ad%20litem%20report' )



There is a ton of information in there. The GAL was appointed by Jeb Bush to review all of hte records. There is shocking information there:

The Schindlers were the ones that pushed Michael to start dating. He was living with the family at the time and they even met the women.

Page 9 talks about the money. It was out of Michael's control and managed excellently.

Look at page 14, there is some great information about the 'heros' that are the Schindler family. They are scum.

Summaries of doctor's reports following the 2nd DCA case (2002) start at page 15.
Five doctors examined her: 2 appointed by Michael, 2 by the Schindlers, one by the courts. The Drs appointed by Michael and the court provided sound scientific analysis, the Schindlers Drs gave mostly anectdotal testimony.

Throughout the report the GAL mentions that Michael takes excellent care of her.

Have fun reading that (I know you won't because you don't want your views challenged), it just might open your eyes to the truth of the situation.

Sergent D
03-29-2005, 06:06 PM
Oh, another thing. You know how all the conspiracy theorists have been saying that Michael is going to creamate her to 'hide the evidence'?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20050329/ts_latimes/tocleardoubtsschiavoautopsyplanned


"We didn't feel it was appropriate to talk about an autopsy prior to Mrs. Schiavo's death," Felos said. But persistent rumors that Michael Schiavo was trying to hide something by planning to have his wife cremated led him to make the announcement, Felos said.

I guess that theory has been blown two shit.

Let's summarize:

He did it and he's trying to hide the evidence - Actually, she will get an autopsy and the results will be made public

He's in it for the money - Actually, the money has been properly spent, as referenced by the GAL report. The recordkeeping has been excellent.

He doesn't care because he's shacked up with a new chick - No, the GAL report shows that he has cared for her very well and only started seeing women again after being pushed by the Schindlers.

Damn this is fun.

VenusGoddess
03-29-2005, 06:27 PM
ET and Sarge...I think you both need to chill out. You're both kinda going over the line here. I know that this topic is touchy, but could you both please stop with the name calling?

polecat
03-29-2005, 06:35 PM
lol, you don't even read my posts, do you? dumb, mother fucking, brainwashed, moron. Who is the one calling names?
Now, now, now.. you haven't been called a single name from here. And perhaps a breath mint is in order?

And why, of course, I do read your posts- I find endless amounts of entertainment as well as confidence that marketing in America will remain strong in the infomercial-style capacity knowing there are citizens such as yourself that can be lead however a media source wishes to lead you. This is why I continue to debunk points and clearly point out factual evidence, rather than your endless barrage of propaganda and misinformation.

This "report" you are basing the life and death of this woman on was written by one person- Jay Wolfson. Jeb Bush himself completely and totally ignored his banter as it contained none of the facts the report was supposed to address. This is why Jeb discarded this 'commentary' in favor of factual evidence... which amounts to a landslide.

Moreover, you still haven't provided a single source documenting disclosure of how much is remaining in Terri's trust fund. Why? Because no such document exists. No matter how many times you bombard a forum with ".. but, but, but.. reports say there was no mishandling of the fund!.." - you just can't seem the bridge the miniture gap that this does not equate to ".. the fund has $X remaining within.."

Maybe someday you will learn what 'full disclosure' actually means. Without such, there is no way to determine the condition, state or amount in that trustfund as it is sealed.

Found within the report itself are very clear guidelines of what the report was intended to accomplish:

".... The report will specifically address the feasibility and value of swallow tests for this ward and the feasibility and value of swallow therapy. Additionally, the report will include a thorough summary of everything that has taken place in the trial court and appelate court concerning this case."

As the family, the family's lawyers, and friends/hospice workers, doctors, and caregivers all disagree with this 'commentary' written by one individual, I'm truly laughing how you decide this guy's commentary is somehow a fact-finding expedition. It was challenged by Jeb Bush from every angle.

Maybe you should stick to sunherald articles. I think the commentary there you'd find better suited to your intellect level. Hey, if commentary = 'factual evidence' to you, there truly is no difference.

Cheers

erotictonic
03-29-2005, 06:49 PM
ET and Sarge...I think you both need to chill out. You're both kinda going over the line here. I know that this topic is touchy, but could you both please stop with the name calling?

He asked for it, but yea, it's silly. Nuff said.