Terry Shiavo Poll

[J. J.]

I have sued the terms insurance settlement and malpractice settlement interchangably. The one is the other.

I have repeatedly addressed your second question, and it borders on psychosis for you to continue to ask it.

If you're unable to properly read the thread, you have my condolences as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm very sorry, I was unable to understand what you meant by, "I have sued the terms ... ."  (In all seriousness, dyslexia?)

Okay, as has been noted, that has been spent, so we can rule out the financial issue.  There have been bloggers who claimed a life insurance policy existed.

You answer to my second question seems to be that there is absolutely no evidence wanted her body to keep functioning in this case.  There is evidence that that she did not wish to be kept alive in this condition.

Ah, you are free to run away and hide if you'd like.  Or you can admit the truth, but perhaps that will take admitting it to yourself first.

[J. J.]

Commentary or not, those are despicable acts by Michael Shiavo. Although some Reps may be grandstanding on this, do any of you Dems or lefties really want to tie yourselves to supporting this kind of individual?

Also untrue.

Here is the official report on the award, from the Wolfson Report:

Michael Schiavo, on Theresa's and his own behalf, initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against the obstetrician who had been overseeing Theresa's fertility therapy. In 1993, the malpractice action concluded in Theresa and Michael's favor, resulting in a two element award: More than $750,000 in economic damages for Theresa, and a loss of consortium award (non economic damages) of $300,000 to Michael. The court established a trust fund for Theresa's financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa's estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

Jay Wolfson was the Guardian appointed under "Terri's Law."  According to same report when he filed to remove the tube in 1998, "...Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate."

I've posted a long series of posts on this on the other thead.  Wolfson was appointed by the court and is not employed by Mr. Schiavo.

One of the most disturbing things in the report is this:

It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating. But this was just prior to the malpractice case ending.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

I have not tried to question anybodies motives, but this is strange.

[J. J.]

I'm very sorry, I was unable to understand what you meant by, "I have sued the terms ... ."  (In all seriousness, dyslexia?)

This is what I'm talking about, YOU'RE 43 YEARS OLD!  You know that was a typo, everyone else knows it was a typo.  Yet you insist on insulting people.

You're 43, its past time to get beyond this nonsense and have a real debate.

I have repeatedly addressed your second question, and it borders on psychosis for you to continue to ask it.
[/Ah, you are free to run away and hide if you'd like. Or you can admit the truth, but perhaps that will take admitting it to yourself first.

Just quitting while I'm ahead.

Took a look at your posting history and saw that you started your time here defending James Zogby and AAI.  Typical of the firts Republican to volunteer to be shot by firing squad.

I'm not attempting to insult you, I could not tell "sued" meant "used."  Just like in this last post, you change letter order in words; you do it very frequently.  I'm very serious in asking if you are dyslexic.  It's not an insult and being dyslexic is nothing to be ashamed of.

BTW, this is what I said in my first post:

I too have noticed a problem with Zogby polls, polls at the same time, in the same state, tend to add more points to Bush.  This is true when compared with other media conducted polls, not candidate polls.  I tend to add 2-3 points to Bush in Zogby's results.

That was quite prophetic.

You'll also note that I didn't, John D FALSE until you said I was dishostest.  If you are going to complain, be civil. 

I disagree, civilly, with numerous posters, but if you decide to make it personal, or post factually incorrect statements, expect it.

[J. J.]

She did not suffer a heart attack.  It is most likely she suffered a heart arrythmia, which was apparently severe enough to stop bloodflow to the brain.  This is somewhat suspicious, since she did not recieve any diagnosis of or treatment for coronary artery disease (The first cause of heart arrythmia severe enough to do this) and she has not recieved a pacemaker, which is the common treatment for the other cause (degradation of the heart itself). 

Actually, it's believed to have been related to bulemia.  Dr. Michael Baden raised the issue of cause a few years ago.  Last month he was interviewed by FOX:

BADEN: Greta?

VAN SUSTEREN: Yes. Go ahead, Dr. Baden.

BADEN: Yes. No. What's interesting about what Mr. Fox [represented the Schiavos in the malpractice suit] is saying, there were lots of diets, especially many years ago, that had bizarre dietary eating habits and got electrolytes mixed up, as Mr. Fox said, mostly the potassium. If you got too high potassium or too low potassium, then the heart stops...

VAN SUSTEREN: And that's what happened.

BADEN: But it's not from a hardening of the arteries. It stops the heart. If there's not enough blood going to the brain for five minutes because of the heart stoppage, then it causes permanent brain damage.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Gary, Dr. Baden, thank you both very much.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148756,00.html

She had some damage from her collapse, a spinal fracture, bruised ribs.  

The jury in the malpractice case actually ruled that she was 70% responsible for her condition because she induced vomiting.

[J. J.]

This is so typical of you!  You didn't even post your full post!

Hi, this is my first post. 

James Zogby, the President of the Arab American Institute (AAI), is the bother of John Zogby, the pollster.  I have heard about the AAI and I don't believe they could be called "radical."  The site posted below is a State Department release about a meeting with the group and Secretary Powell, who I wouldn't class as "radical" either.

http://usembassymalaysia.org.my/0403pwlaai.htm

That said, I too have noticed a problem with Zogby polls, polls at the same time, in the same state, tend to add more points to Bush.  This is true when compared with other media conducted polls, not candidate polls.  I tend to add 2-3 points to Bush in Zogby's results.

One problem is that they use registered voters and not likely voters; that alone could account for the problem.  I don't think it's bias based Zogby being of Arab extraction.  One recent Gallop Poll showed Bush with 13 point lead, while all others showed a much smaller lead.

You directl defended the AAI, and then your defense is to post a partial transcript of that post!  Did you even think to cover your tracks by deleting the original?  Did you think I couldn't look the thing up?

Yes, and I do it now; as you indicated, the Secretary of State was meeting with them.  I've also referred to this post at other times.  I don't have a problem with Arabs or any other ethnic or national group.  Do you, or are just trying to hide you the fact that most of what you've posted on this thread is fiction?  That is typical of you you, make false charges and then try to avoid the truth.

[J. J.]

This does not address what I said.

I said the two main causes of heart arrythmia that cna do this to a patient are coronary artery disease and heart damage.  Pottassium deficiency causes heart damage.  To correct this, a pacemaker is typically installed.

However, both the coronary artery disease and the heart damage would require significant medical treatment, but none was recieved.  The condition has never recurred.  This is a bit unusual and suggests that the loss of oxygen to the brain may have been caused by something else, as her arrythmia may not have been serious enough to cause this damage.

Well considering I do of a case, an MI, where there was no additional surgery and medication wasn't prescribed for eight years, it doesn't strike as unusual in the least.  This is especially true in the case of temporarily changed electolyte "mix up."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it is to say that this was likely the cause.  There was no evidence of any other cause.

This is so typical of you!  You didn't even post your full post!

But you didn't admit to this until I psosted it, in fact you intentionally and directly lied about the rest of the content of your post.

No, I've said the same thing that I'm saying now.  I would not chharaterize AAI as "radical."  I will say tha Zogby is not a particulary good pollster, but I've that opinion for a long time.  Shira, or perhaps Mypalfish, can attest to that.

It seems irrelevant to the question at hand.  Why don't you answer the question I've asked:

Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as an adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

[J. J.]

John Ford and JJ, neither of you is going to convince the other one that he is right.  i'd be willing to give you each some gladiator weapons though and watch you fight to the death.  trident and net vs sword and spear.

Who ever said I was trying to confince him.  Someone who is willing to post deliberately false information on this subject, like John D. FALSE, probably cannot be convinced.

[J. J.]

John Ford and JJ, neither of you is going to convince the other one that he is right.  i'd be willing to give you each some gladiator weapons though and watch you fight to the death.  trident and net vs sword and spear.

I call sword and spear.

AK-47, the matchup then would give me the same advantage that I have this debate.

[J. J.]

I'm not attempting to insult you, I could not tell "sued" meant "used."  Just like in this last post, you change letter order in words; you do it very frequently.  I'm very serious in asking if you are dyslexic.  It's not an insult and being dyslexic is nothing to be ashamed of.

More likely, John is just a bad typist like myself.  For all am I disagreeing with John on the main point, I have to also agree with him that quibbling about spelling typos is childish.

I'm not complaining.  I didn't realize that when he typed "sued" he meant "used," expecially when he was referring to a lawsuit settlement

I seroiusly thought this guy was dyslexic, from the inverting of letters. 

There is nothing "wrong" with being dyslexic, and both Nelson Rockefeller and Gen. George S. Patton were.

[J. J.]

Here is an interesting story that shows why JJs interpretation f the hearsay exemption statutes is wrong, and dangerous.

A friend of Terri Schiavo says Terri was beaten and abused by Michael, and she wanted a divorce.  Now, under JJs interpretation of the statute, this not only can be, but in fact must be admitted since Terri herself cannot be in court to refute or confirm these facts.

Under my interpretation fo the statute, a narrower (and correct, and precedent supported) view, this could never be allowed in court.  Unde rJJs view, anyone who knew Terri can come forward and make something up without needing to substantiate it.  This makes it very easy for his case to be undermined, and for the trial itself to become a kangaroo court.

No, I just question the relevence of any of this.  Did they have arguments?  I'm pretty sure they did.  Does this have anything to do with her wishes, or her medical condition?  No.

Here is the account of the argument:

The last time she spoke to Terri, Rhodes says, she had just gone to get her hair done. Terri was toying with going back to her natural color, so Rhodes called that Saturday to ask what she had decided. Terri, Rhodes says, was in tears; she and Michael had had a fight over the cost of the salon visit.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7290818/page/3/

Big deal, a married couple has fights over a spouse spending money.  I'm not exactly seeing this something unusual.

That a friend thinks they were headed down the road to divorce isn't really evidence of what Mrs. Shiavo was planning to do.

You'll note that contrary to your statement, this is up on MSNBC site and it's from the Washington Post.  It would be admissible under the hearsay rule, if it was relevent and repeated under oath, and the story on Newsmax differs in material detail from the one in the WP.

[J. J.]

The stories may differ, but the fact that there are stories of abuse is very relevant, and they are admissible.

If it could be shown that Michael Schiavo was abusive, he could be removed as guardian.  If he is removed as guardian, then Terri lives.

To married people having an argument over spending money is not abuse.  At worst, it's every fourth episode of I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners, The Flintstones or The Simpsons. 

You have access to the court appoint guardians finding as Mr. Shiavo's and they have said repeatedly that his conduct was exceptionally proper.  Repeated attempt by the Schindlers on this ground for over a decade, including prior to request to remove the tube, has been rejected.

It is very interesting that the Schindlers enocouraged Mr. Shiavo to date other women and had no complaints about his treatment of their daughter, prior to Mr. Shiavo declining to give them any money from the malpractice settlement.

[J. J.]

When you're "on the road to divorce", its a bit more than  a Honeymooners episode.  To potray this as very normal in a happy marriage is wrong.

The testimony is not refuted by the Court appointed guardian saying Michael is fine, since the Court appointed guardian was not charged with investigating the Schiavo's marriage.

This next part should be fun:

1. Do you have any evidence that Terri wasn't beaten?

Have fun with the irony of this exchange.

A third party claiming that to two other people are "on the road to divorce" isn't hearsay or evidence.  It's non expert opinion.  

There is another problem; they were trying to have a baby.  It is kind of hard to say the marriage was in trouble if they were trying to start a family.  That kinda indicates longer term commitment.

Ironically, there is evidence that Mrs. Schiavo was never beaten.  She worked and her co-worker was her friend.  She just describe in detail aspects of that relationship and didn't indicate any marks indicating beatings nor any conversations where Mrs. Schiavo indicated that she was ever abused.  

Further, as part of her attemps to conceive, Mrs. Shiavo had medical treatmemt, where she was examined.  There was no indication of a beating.  

Further, her injuries at the time of the collapse were to her lower back, ribs and legs, and not consistent with her being hit.  While that doesn't prove a negative, it does show that there is a preponderance that was not involved in any altercation.

Other that showing how desparate you are, illustrating you continued attempts at an ad hominim attack against Mr. Schiavo, without evidence, and illustrating you pitiful attempts at logic, what is the point of your question?

Now, here is a question in the affirmative:

2. Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as an adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

There is credible evidence that she did not.  Hearsay, as to a comment from her, stating that she wanted to be kept alive with tubes in her, would count.  If she discussed this with her parents, siblings, or friends, where is the evidence?  Why don't they come forward?

[J. J.]

Commentary or not, those are despicable acts by Michael Shiavo. Although some Reps may be grandstanding on this, do any of you Dems or lefties really want to tie yourselves to supporting this kind of individual?

Also untrue.

Here is the official report on the award, from the Wolfson Report:

Michael Schiavo, on Theresa's and his own behalf, initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against the obstetrician who had been overseeing Theresa's fertility therapy. In 1993, the malpractice action concluded in Theresa and Michael's favor, resulting in a two element award: More than $750,000 in economic damages for Theresa, and a loss of consortium award (non economic damages) of $300,000 to Michael. The court established a trust fund for Theresa's financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa's estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

Jay Wolfson was the Guardian appointed under "Terri's Law."  According to same report when he filed to remove the tube in 1998, "...Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate."

I've posted a long series of posts on this on the other thead.  Wolfson was appointed by the court and is not employed by Mr. Schiavo.

One of the most disturbing things in the report is this:

It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating. But this was just prior to the malpractice case ending.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

I have not tried to question anybodies motives, but this is strange.

Okay, let's get back to the point I was emphasizing. Especially note what I bolded, please::
From Thwe Weekly Standard
[emphasis is mine - WMS]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He killed her cats and melted down their rings so he could have one for himself? And didn't have her teeth cleaned, thus causing the extraction of five teeth? What you posted didn't respond to those issues...

*edit*
Something Interesting From Slate

First of all, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the cats (or their age/health).  I also cannot determine if the rings were melted; if so, he might have wanted something as a symbol of them being together.  Not that it is not claimed that he sold the rings.

As for his not providing for her care, the court appointed guardian evaluated her at the time:

As part of the first challenge to Michael's Guardianship, the court appointed John H. Pecarek as Guardian Ad Litem to determine if there had been any abuse by Michael Schiavo. His report, issued 1 March 1994, found no inappropriate actions and indicated that Michael had been very attentive to Theresa. After two more years of legal contention, the Schindlers action against Michael was dismissed with prejudice. Efforts to remove Michael as Guardian were attempted in subsequent years, without success.


http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

Now, I have a hard time equating "no inapproiate action" and "Michael had been very attentive to Theresa" with "he wanted his wife dead."  Note that the Schindler's suit claiming this was dismissed by the court.

Teeth due decay and cleaning someone elses teeth is difficult.  It should also be noted that Mrs. Schiavo has not been in the physical care of Mr. Schiavo, but (except for two weeks) in the care of health facilities.  The guardian appointed under "Terri's Law" noted:

After the malpractice case judgment, evidence of disaffection between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo openly emerged for the first time. The Schindlers petitioned the court to remove Michael as Guardian. They made allegations that he was not caring for Theresa, and that his behavior was disruptive to Theresa's treatment and condition.

Proceedings concluded that there was no basis for the removal of Michael as Guardian Further, it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as "a nursing home administrator's nightmare". It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa's collapse, she has never had a bedsore.

(same source)

Now, none of this sounds like any abuse, quite the opposite.  The report also noted:

Of Michael Schiavo, there is the incorrect perception that he has refused to relinquish his guardianship because of financial interests, and more recently, because of allegations that he actually abused Theresa and seeks to hide this. There is no evidence in the record to substantiate any of these perceptions or allegations.

Now, these are the opinions of the guardian, Jay Wolfson, who was appointed under "Terri's Law," a law enacted to support Mrs. Schiavo.  These are also the opinions of the other guardian appointed by the court as well.  It should be noted that as guardian, Wolfson, spent 30 days observing her.  Now, neither of these was employed by either party and, in Wolfson case, was accepted by both parties.

The commentator's claim here that, "Terri's parents sued to mandate care, and their relationship with Michael was forever poisoned," is false.  Here is what happened:

By 1994, Michael's attitude and perspective about Theresa's condition changed. During the previous four years, he had insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care. This was in the face of consistent medical reports indicating that there was little or no likelihood for her improvement.

In early 1994 Theresa contracted a urinary tract infection and Michael, in consultation with Theresa's treating physician, elected not to treat the infection and simultaneously imposed a "do not resuscitate" order should Theresa experience cardiac arrest. When the nursing facility initiated an intervention to challenge this decision, Michael cancelled the orders. Following the incident involving the infection, Theresa was transferred to another skilled nursing facility.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

There was no suit by the Schindler's and Mr. Shiavo withdrew the DNR order, voluntarily.  Here the commentator misstated facts.  Speaking as someone who has guardianship, in a different state, I am routinely asked to sign DNR orders for my ward at every hospital visit.  There is nothing particularly unusual in this.

The commentator, who is not a reporter covering the story, and did not cite the souces for his claims, infers that Mr. Schiavo has control of the $700,000 received in the settlement, by saying, "As soon as Terri's money was safely in the bank.... " Again, this inference is false.  The report says:

The court established a trust fund for Theresa's financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa's estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained.

As had been noted, the fund has dwindled to $40-50 K.

I cannot claim that the claims to the cats or rings are accurate, and if accurate, what if any relevence they have to the case.  The commentator's comments and inferences that can be verified are either mistatements or false.

I would suggest you read the report in full.  It is neutral and detailed as to her treatment.

[J. J.]

You haven't seen it anywhere else because its not a credible claim.  This is why it should not be admitted in court.  Yet, under JJs standard for hearsay admission, if the claim was made, credible or not, it must be admitted.

The point is not that the testimony is valid, or that Michael is a bad person, its to say that JJs mind numbing insistence that Michael's hearsay be admitted in court is plain wrong.

EDIT: MSNBC has a story that abuse has been alleged.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7012932/

Well, here is what the story really says:

Those allegations, which have been raised before, are based partly on bone scans showing Terri Schiavo suffered fractures and statements she made to family and friends that she was unhappy in her marriage. Michael Schiavo has denied harming his wife.

You are trying to claim that being "unhappy" is "abuse."  Not even her parents or her friends are claiming that she ever said she was abused or that they saw any evidence of her being abused.

Actually, if she had made such a statement, it would have been admissible under the rules of hearsay.  The Schindlers don't even have hearsay evidence to support their claims.

[J. J.]

I'll get back to you, J.J., when I've read the report...

Please do, and read a few of the press interviews with Dr. Wolfson.

Just a note, while he does have an extensive background in rehabilitation, he is a Ph D, not an MD.

[J. J.]

JJ has reverted to quantity over quality, as if extracting voluminous quotes from the Wolfson report makes up for the lack of quantity of sources.

Hardly.  I just prefer to use an objective source, agreed to by both parties, the court (and Jeb Bush, in this case), with good credentials, who has actually been present.

[J. J.]

This next part should be fun:

1. Do you have any evidence that Terri wasn't beaten?

Have fun with the irony of this exchange.

In the American legal system, guilt is assumed before innocence as a matter of course. What relevance does this have?

Its a shot at JJ, who spent half this thread asking me exactly this type of question, knowing full well it had no legal merit.  This is why I said I hope JJ appreciates the irony of the exchange.

You obviously don't understand the question.

This is it, with word added:

Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as a competent adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

I am not asking you to prove anything.  I am asking, if at any point her adult life, prior to her collapse, did she ever talk to anyone about this subject? 

Because of the hearsay rule, that would be admissible.  If she talked to her parents, siblings, friends or co-workers and said something like, "I don't believe people should removed from life support," that would be enough (provided it was credible).  There isn't even that to day.  If there was credible evidence, I'd reverse my opinion.

Right now, there are three statements that she has expressed her opinion, hearsay, but admissible.  These three are all indicate that her wishes were to be removed.  Where is the evidence that she said something else?

[J. J.]

Since its obvious that Terri Schiavo is going to die by court order, I don't see much point to continuing in this thread (I'm like a boxer, I've already retired from the thread once, so if people assume I'll be back, I don't totally blame them ) but I want to raise a point that has not been raised in this discussion.

The congressional resolution passed by the House (and I'm almost certain the joint version contains this as well) demands a de novo hearing.  This means that a new full hearing is held, and that the factual findings of the original courts are not accepted, be re-examined.

Do you who are so eager to kill Terri Schiavo, and so adamant that her due process rights have been followed (though not one person here has addressed the SUBSTANTIVE due process claims, or even acknowledged their existence) how do you defend the fact that the de novo proceeding to which Terri Schaivo's parents were entitled to never happenned?

Wrong again!  Here is what the text really says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note the word may.  While the suit will be heard de novo, that is not grounds for issuing a stay.  The courts, Federal District, 11 Circuit, and Supreme, after looking at the case, determined that there was not enough likelihood of success to issue the stay.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is interesting that you should cite the Calhoun and especially Davis, as the Legislature of one of the states governed by Davis voted against changing the law to require written intent to permit this type of action.  They chose not to (probably because of so many elderly people in that state only have verbal expression of their wishes).  The FL Supreme Court, in overturning "Terri's Law," cited the involvement of the Governor in the process as being unconstitutional; the proposed change had none of that.

Now, we don't have Federal supremacy, or judicial supremacy, or Congressional supremacy, or state supremecy.  We have a constitutional form of government, which all of the parties have taken an oath (as I have, BTW) to preserve and protect.

[J. J.]

This question has already been addressed (addressing both whether the hearsay is admissible and whether I need to produce contrary evidence), and I am no longer in this thread.  Repeating it in bold face doesn't mean it hasn't been answered.

The evidence rules regarding hearsay (which would cut both ways) has been addressed; the rule has been cited and posted indicating where it can be admitted.

Even here you have again failed to answer it.

I will ask it again:

Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as a competent adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

Let me ask this one:

Why are you avoiding answering the question?  Is it because you know that there isn't any evidence?  Is it because it would indicate that your ideology isn't what governs.

And finally, this one.

Is a lie by omission a sin?

[J. J.]

Sigh.  I said I'd stay out, and again I'm back in.

You linked (again) to a partial text (again) that (again) distorts the information contained in the document.  The bill says the courts amy act (they did) and if they did, it would be a de novo hearing (it was not).

No, this for issuing the stay.  Here is the text again:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The law gave the Schindler's the right to raise the issue in Federal Court.  They went to the District Court, filed suit, and applied for the stay.  They were denied that stay.  They then appealed, the judge's decision not to grant the stay to the 11 Ciruit, and up to the Supreme Court.  All courts, after looking at the case, said that the judge was correct in not issuing the stay.  The case is still out there and could possibly be heard, and appealed.  The trial will have be considered de novo; this proceding was not the trial.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe that the states do have rights under our system, but I also believe that the Federal government, under that 14th Amendment that you seem to be so interested in, can create laws protecting groups (and possibly an individual, as in this case).  

They did, and the courts followed the law.  They made a correct determination that, under the rules under which they function, a stay was not required.  The courts have not ruled the statute unconstitutional, at this point, only said that the stay, or court order requiring the feeding tube to be re-inserted, should not be issued prior to the trial.  

[J. J.]

I will ask it again:

Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as a competent adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

Let me ask this one:

Why are you avoiding answering the question?  Is it because you know that there isn't any evidence?  Is it because it would indicate that your ideology isn't what governs.

And finally, this one.

Is a lie by omission a sin?

I alrerady have answered the question.  Many times, actually.  my answer is that I do not intend to provide any evidence that Terri Schiavo said she wanted to live because I am under no obligation to given the law.  The assumption is that she wanted to live going into the case under our laws, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the state's protection of the life interest outweighs the liberty interest of the right to die (Cruzan).  The burden is not on me to prove anything, so I didn't.

Here is the text from Crusan:

In our view, Missouri has permissibly sought to advance these interests through the adoption of a "clear and convincing" standard of proof to govern such proceedings. "The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of factfinding, is to 'instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.'"

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/cruzan.html


You'll note that the SCOTUS states that the states, MO in that instance, can establish a standard.  The Florida Legislature did and then, as per their constitution, gave the courts the responsibility of applying the standard.  If they don't like how those standards are applied by the courts, guess what, they can change them.  They had the chance to do so last week, and they said "No!"  They are permitted to keep the same standard too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here is the "hearsay exception rule' with some bolding:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's the rule and there are exceptions.  The statements admitted in trial were probative and, if you assume that it is against Mrs. Schiavo to be "disconnected,"it is against interest.  Hearsay evidence about a comment from Mrs. Schiavo that, "I don't agree with euthanasia," or "I believe that sick people shouldn't be unplugged," could be admitted under this rule.  The problem is, nobody has ever stated that she made such statements.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It has been posted and people reading it are free to make up their own minds.  It's not my interpretation.

You've raised points about what happend that night.  I would ask this:
If Mr. Schiavo wanted his wife to die that night, why call 911, quickly.  Why not just wait an hour or so and claim that he was asleep and didn't hear her fall?  Her weight at the time was 110 pounds; there wouldn't have been a loud thud.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if you claim it was speech, and not a randon vocalization, this could be "I waaa to die."  Of course, you might actually be right that it was a coincidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did not ask (or express) any Christian idea, but merely if you considered something to be a sin.  I will note that you don't believe in sin.  It gives me a prospective to your posts.  

[J. J.]

You're dodging the issue.  You're the only one who's arguing about whether a stay should be given, I'm saying a de novo hearing should be given.  There is neither textual or non-textual basis for believing that a de novo hearing was not the intended result.  It is logical that a stay would be issued until the de novo hearing is complete, but that's not a central point.  The central point, which you did not address, is that Congress asked for a de novo hearing and one was not held.

I am interested in the 14th Amendment because it is the basis for nearly all Federal intervention in state affairs today.

If the statute is constitutional, a de novo hearing should be give on the suit filed.  That has nothing to do with if the stay, a temporary restraining order (TRO), requires a de novo hearing. 

The result of the hearing (after appeals) would be the final determination under the statute.  That requires a de novo hearing.  The issuence of a TRO, does not.

The issuence of a TRO is based on the judgment of the trier as it if there is a likihood of the case being successful.  Congress did not, in the statute, say to the court, in effect, "If there is a suit under this statute, you must issue a TRO until the case is finally resolved."  Congress gave the courts permission to issue a TRO, but did not require the courts to grant a TRO.

[J. J.]

I'm uncomfortable with this case as a whole, but the bombardment is inevitable, and it seems completely wrong to let her die at this point. I would side with the protestors here. I do not believe it can be said with reasonable certainty that she is not experiencing anything. In this case, the GOP Congress is actually doing the right thing, though it may be political. Given that, the behavior of the courts is up to Ford and JJ to try and explain. But even more inexplicable is public opinion here. I don't see how the public can be "conservative" enough on so many other issues but not this one. It seems that the politics of convenience has permeated too much of our society.

The question is not and should not be is Mrs. Schiavo experiencing anything.  That's a complete red herring.

I thing most sides argree that Mrs. Schiavo is not, at this point, a compentent adult; this is why both sides want a guardian appointed; both sides agree that she is brain damaged and cannot make the decision herself.  The question is, in this condition, did Mrs. Schiavo, when she was competent, wish to kept on a feeding tube, in this condition?  That is the sole question.

Many people say that, even though they might be aware, they would not want treatment in certain circumstances.  Awareness has nothing to do with it.

[J. J.]

I didn't say the congress demanded a stay.  I said a stay would logically be issued in order for a de novo hearing to be conducted under circumstances where we could avoid irreperable harm to Mrs. Schiavo (her dying, for example).

No, it wouldn't.  The criteria for issuing the stay has to meet a four point criteria.  The first one is if it has, "(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits." 

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:ZjJFSutNHj8J:www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511556.pdf+%22likelihood+of+success%22+appeal&hl=en



This has been the stumbling block.  In the first hearing before the 11th Ciruit panel, two of the three judges said that it wouldn't meat that test.  Congress didn't require, as you've noted that the stay was required.  The rules relating to granting the stay, or temporary restraining order, were the same.  Even in other "life or death" cases, the court has established that the rule applies.

When the Schindlers appealed again, the remaining judge on the panel (the same three) reversed and and agreed with the other two that the appeal would unlikely to suceed on the merits.

On the possibility that their was some sort of an assault, the injuries were all "compression fractures" which are usually not caused as the result of an assault.  They can be caused by a fall, or, in the case of osteoporosis, occur natually. 

Further these occured in lumbar region of the spine (the lower region), the lower ribs, thigh, and knees.  Where there was no damage was the cervical region, the neck.  It is exceptionally hard to cut the oxygen supply below the neck. 

Futher, it would be very unlikely that, assuming these are not caused in a fall (such as a collapse during her heart attack) or naturally occuring, that injuries basically below the chest could be caused by personal assault, like a fight or beating.  About the only way would be if he were sitting or laying on her what she was prone; even that would not cause a disruption of oxygen to the brain.

So we have injuries that are not normally the result of an assault and in the wrong places for an assault.

Interestingly, the charges have been raised by the Schindlers; by their statements yesterday, Mrs. Shiavo had only "hours to live" as of the afternoon on Friday.  Their claim was false, as it has been more than hours.  We should consider the overall accuracy of the Schindlers' claims to date in judging this one.

[J. J.]

Here is the whole story, all 15 years of it.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463

There is evidence to suggest that Michael may have physical assaulted Terri, but this was never followed up on. And the tube should be re-inserted while an investigation takes place as once she dies, it can not be undone.

Here are some extracts from the report of the doctor cited in the article:

In May 2002, access to the patient was allowed for two physicians appointed by the family.  At that time, my observation of Terri Schiavo in person occurred, having previously viewed videotape that was first shown at her first trial.

The doctor who claimed a problem with the neck, William M. Hammesfahr, examined Mrs. Schiavo after she had been bedridden for 12 years.  This may be the cause of the problem.



The neck exam was abnormal. She had severe limitation of range of motion in the flexion, and to a lesser degree in extension.  Indeed, I was able to pick up her entire torso and head and neck area with pressure on the back of her neck in the suboccipital region.  These findings of cervical spasm and limitation of range of motion are consistent with a neck injury.  No bruits were identified.

Lung exam showed scattered wheezes in the right lung fields.  No rhonchi or rales were identified.  Cardiac exam was normal to my exam.  Interestingly, the significant arrhythmias identified by the electronic cuff, as well as my palpation of her wrist exam was not identified during this cardiac portion of the exam, suggesting the arrhythmia is intermittent.

http://libertytothecaptives.net/hammesfahr_dr._report.html

Ironically, Dr. Hammesfahr noted in his report that the arrhythmia is still present, refuting those claims that there is no continued evidence or a heart problem.  It should be added that he is the doctor hired by the Schindlers.  In short, while her neck is currently in bad condition (according to him) there is evidence of a heart problem (again, according to him).

He also said, suprisingly:



ENT:  The patient can clearly swallow, and is able to swallow approximately 2 liters of water per day (the daily amount of saliva generated). Water is one of the most difficult things for people to swallow.  It is unlikely that she currently needs the feeding tube. She should be evaluated by an Ear Nose and Throat specialist, and have a new swallowing exam.

Emphasis not added.  http://libertytothecaptives.net/hammesfahr_dr._report.html

Based on what he claims in this, which isn't particularly consistent with the other physicians and even those of the Schindlers, expecially that Mrs. Schiavo doesn't need the need the feeding tube,  perhaps his conclusions should be treated as questionable.