JUGGERNAUT

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11203641.htm It doesn't look good. I can't blame Whittemore. To grant the restraining order the Schindlers need to produce at least 1 legal argument suggesting that Florida procedurally failed to insure Terri's rights. They didn't do that. It's as the article suggests. They were hoping the emotional fervor surrounding the case would be enough to grant the order & buy them more time. The biggest weakness coming from the fact that FL law allows a judge to assume a surrogate role in decisions amounting to Terri's care. That's the law in FL so you can't argue it on that basis. You have to make the claim it violated her US constitutional rights. It doesn't seem like they did that. I imagine the appelate court is going to work hard in trying to find any path in what the Schindler's have filed to expand upon it to grant the order. Similar to what happened in the 2000 election w the USSC. They took whatever they could use in the motion & expanded upon it to make their case.

If Bonds is out for the season or a long time I could see SFG trying to get Griffey. That might bring a 3-way into the mix involving Garland. So maybe we should be looking at what the Giants have to offer the ChiSox.

About the rent structure. Do you know if it was always like that or was it renegotiated after the 1st phase of renovation? I remember reading something along those lines but it was so long ago I wouldn't know where to look. There's the ISFA site but I'm not sure if they would have the history listed.

Tex, I don't want to interrupt your chat but you overlooked an important part. Judge Greer assumed the role of guardian over Terri's life when Michael deferred that decision to the courts. This didn't occur in the first decision (2000) but it did occur in the subsequent decisions. Essentially when Michael knew he the Judge was on his side he changed his motion. This is one of the basis that some feel Terri's due process rights were denied. She did not have legal representation at the time this decision was rendered. Her parents legal representation does not constitute her own & many feel her right to live/die could not be assumed by the court without legal representation.

Is Letterman still hip to high schoolers or would Meatwad, Frylock, & Master Shake be a better sale?

Update on the case: It currently reside in the 11th Crt Ct of Appeals in ATL. The motion filed is based on Whittemore not adhering to the sections of the new Schiavo law: Section 2: - clearly requires the court determine de novo the merits of the case Section 3: - requires the judge to grant a temporary restraining order because he cannot fulfill his or her recognized duty to review the case de novo without first keeping Terri Schiavo alive They knew what they were doing when they wrote the bill, those voting in the Senate passed the bill unanimously, the house vote was 203-58. The likely outcome is that the Appealate court will recognize the new law & order the tubes back. If that decision is rendered Michael armed by the ACLU will immed file an appeal to the USSC in an effort to declare the Schiavo law uncons.

I agree. Hernandez makes no sense. Williams raves about his health & he's looked pretty strong in ST & yet he comes down with an ailment? Not believable. Contreras on the other hand as looked pretty bad in ST & it would be more believable that something was wrong with him.

So in your opinion can anything be done to help prevent this? What about mandatory guidance counseling?

It's worth updating this thread. Get ready for a shocker. Couhey (arrested 26 times) actually held a teaching role in that county & had come in contact with Jessica as a 3rd grader. It seems like a no-brainer to check against this stuff but there are teacher's unions & the issues of profiling which make it difficult to legislate & enforce. Though I have to believe something will get moving this time around. This is quite different than Carly Brucia. He was not a teacher. Can you believe that during the process of his being hired as a contract teacher no one at FL board of education did a background check? No one in the teacher's union bothered to check him out either?

Glad to here you finally decided upon someone. From my experience girls tend to like the little stuffed animals & figurines more than the flowers. Long after the flowers are dead they will remember you by the little things around their room you gave them. It's much better to ask her in a private setting (1-on-1) than in a public setting (like lockers in a hall). Try to think of times when you might be able to arrange a 1-on-1.

Hannity & Combes: 1-Terri has never had an MRI or a PET which would present a much clearer picture of her condition. 2-There is the possibility that in the event of Terri's death Bobby Schindler will pursue a murder charge against Michael Schiavo. 3- Bobby Schindler stated that what the Federal law does is afford right-to-life patients the same rights that convicted killers receive on death row. That is the right to question whether due process rights were violated in the state's deliberation of the case. 4- They are awaiting on a decision by the Federal Court of Appeals in ATL as to whether the tube is to be re-inserted. 5- Carla Sauer Iyer has very damaging testimony against Schiavo. Her sworn affidavit states that Schiavo would ask when she is going to die, how long before she dies, & why hasn't she died yet in 1995-1996. She likewise stated that Terri was noticeably upset after Michael's visits in 1995-1996. Carla also indicates that Terri actually was speaking small words after that time. There are two more affidavits by care givers supporting Carla's testimony. She appearently said "Mommy help me." There have been 33 medical professionals who have observed Terri who do not believe that Terri is in a PVS. We're looking at this from colored classes but it's a different experience if you are there live watching your sister looking worse & worse as each day goes by. Even if I was a neurosurgeon & knew better I would cling to any hope even if it was less than 1% to keep my sister alive if I thought deep down inside that's what she wanted. I don't know if this helps but we've talked about this extensively over the weekend. We both believe in sci-tech's future & the leap's our society will make in the decades to come. That's heavily influencing our decision. Our living will: If either of us should find ourselves in a state where our right-to-die rights are called into question we choose right-to-live. The only exception being that of unanimous medical opinion in conjunction with either herself or me that we are experiencing intolerable pain. When you pursue a field in science, engineering, R&D, there is one central theme that should follow you throughout your life: nothing is impossible. We don't look upon limits as universal but rather temporary. They exist simply because we lack the knowledge to overcome them.

I got around to reading the Sun-Times today & they've got good coverage throughout the paper. A couple things came to the light that some of you might not have known & I failed to mention: 1-USSC ruled on this issue in 1990 on behalf of an 82 IL man. The USSC set the precedent where guardians/proxies as well as the state as the right to take someone off life support where there is clear & concise evidence that's what the person wanted. This would explain why the USSC refused to hear the Schiavo case. There already exists a precedent that establishes a high bar for determining right -to-die. 2-The Sun-Times reports there are only 2 substantial links to determining what Terri wanted: Michael's assertion that upon watching a tv program Terri said "I would never want to live like that." The Schindler's assertion that Terri was a devout practicing Catholic prior to her brain damage & in their conversations with her she expressed a right-to-live. Everything else amounts to character witnesses & opinion offered to the court. 3- The Sun-Times alledges that at most there is 300K left of the original settlement money. 4- There was no mention of any life insurance policy on Terri's life. 5- Judge Greer has ruled on the case in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, & 2004 to let Terr die. In that process Michael shifted his initial motion to one of seeking the right to disconnect the tubes to that of leaving it to the discretion of the courts. This is why most feel Michael's loss of guardianship will not have an effect on the case. 6- Judge Greer has essentially taken the opposite view of the USSC decision. Placing a heavy burden on the Schindler's to make a convincing argument attesting to Terri's right to live. The USSC decision placed the heavy burden on the right to die. 7- The Schindler may be winning the court of public opinion. There was reference to many Americans having seen the audio & video tapes released over the weekend. This would pre-date the latest polls on the issue. Many columnists, radio stations, tv networks, newspapers, & of course congressmen have been flooded with e-mails, v-mails, & letters coming out in support of Terri's right-to-live. One columnist after viewing & hearing the tapes came to the conclusion he just didn't know & he felt we couldn't know. He stated that was rare for any media person to admit that. He seemed to be leaning in favor of letting her live. 8- The biggest concern with the recent congressional law is that it is so generic on the issue of right-to-die & right-to-live that it is foreseeable that the Fed could rule on the right-to-die just as much as the right-to-live. This is unlikely considering a motion must make it's way through the appelate courts before it can be taken before the Fed. Note: On O'Reilly tonight he confirmed that Terri is not feeling pain. She is heavily medicated at this time. The Reaper is due to arrive for Terri in the next 10 days

Well Steff we can agree on something. I agree whether you are raising kids or not it shouldn't cloud your impartiality on this issue. For me it doesn't. My contention is whether Schiavo's conduct is befitting that of a spousal guardian. I contend as Gov Bush does that it does not. Therefore guardianship should be stripped from Michael & granted to Terri's parents.

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art.../503220347/1134 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is he reading SOXTALK? I've only been telling him to do this for about 4 days now :rolly I agree I don't think it will have much affect because the burden that Greer put on the parents as to do with her condition & not Michael's guardianship. But at least it will allow Terri's family the right to see her die with a little more dignity if he should get it passed. More importantly this issue has really galvanized the Christian voting block. Wow! They sort of woke up with the gay marriage thing but the protests & the flooding of calls is rivaling that of the superbowl obscenity & we all know what that led to. As I said earlier this had the potential of being a powder-keg on the Democrats in 2006 & it seems to be doing just that. The headline at Yahoo is focusing on the judge being a Clinton appt. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ged_woman_judge They might represent a little over 40% of Americans but they are a whole lot more galvanized than the rest. Death prayer wishes on Dems? Weren't the Dems suppose to woo some of the Christians to their side for 2006?

No prize for you I realized I could easily search on 50 QUOTE: Jugger It's the law Steff. Spouses in all 50 states have the right to sue for divorce on the grounds of adultery. No where is there a mention of books or even legislation. Just the right to sue Reminder: stop voting kill. The morphine is addressing the suffering. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180451119 - Schiavo case in detail.

For those voting Kill. Again, there is no reason to do so. She is being fed morphine through an IV. That addresses the suffering.

I do not recall the original post but I will concede this point: If my original post implied that there was specific legislation pertaining to adultery in all 50 states that was not my intention. I apologize for the confusion. In context with the Schiavo discussion I meant solely that adultery was sufficient grounds for filing for divorce in all 50 states. It's one of the few grounds that meet both the no-fault & fault states' criteria. =============================================== As you probably can tell as this discussion as gone on I more concerned about the general case study then the specifics of the case. As I see it the case is done. Schiavo is going to die & there is not much anything who supports a culture of life can do about it. There is simply no time. The general ramifications of this case are more important. I hope that FL is the first to change the guardianship laws pertaining to incapacitated spouses. The % of Americans who have living wills is low to the point it's insignficant. That might change some but most people don't want to have to deal with the decision until it's too late. That means for nearly all Americans right to die & right to live rights will lie in the hands of the state, their family, closest friends, or spouses. As much as we'd like to believe all of them have good & honorable intentions belief is not something our laws should trust in alone. There need to be standards in place to govern the conduct of those holding the guardianship in such cases. Adultery would certainly be conduct un-befitting guardianship for spouses. In the case of adultery the state should either award the rights to someone more befitting or assume them on behalf of the state. Let's assume the hypothetical that Michael had remained faitful to his wife. In this regards the purpose of the standards is to insure that the guardian is taking all steps possible to the proper care & management of the incapacitated spouse. That determination would be at the discretion of the state & would be provided by a review board. Based on what I've read If such standards had been adopted in the state of FL I do not believe the review board would have ruled that Michael's management of her care was satisfactory enough to retain guardianship rights. The bottom line is that with the adoption of such standards & practices of guardianship rights the executive branch would have the power to insure the care of such incapacitated individuals was up to par with the state's culture of life. I just want to say that had Michael remained faitful Terri & basically given the parents as much lee-way as possible in determining what was best for Terri I would have supported Michael's assertion that Terri sought a right-to-die in this circumstance. In my opinion if he had acted in such a way that exhibited a man's undying love for his wife there would be no reason to question is guardianship or is belief in her right-to-die.

That seems to imply it's out of the hands of both the workers & the board. Does trying to discern problem behavior through a brown bag lunch system constitute profiling? Would the recent patriot act circumvent first amendment rights in that regards? If members of the board or workers were constitute policies that were associated with anti-terrorist preventionism would that pass muster by the USSC?

My response will be scripted out of your ethics as they are defined in your posts in this thread. That being it's ok to use to defame what a person says in any manner as you see fit just so long as you do not call that person a name directly. So you can say what a person write's is bulls***, & you can say that everything a person write's is bulls*** but you can NOT call that person a bulls***ter. Just want to be clear on that. I'll remember it from now on & follow it to the letter Sir! Following that protocol what you hav written above is complete & utter bulls***. In a subsequent post in reference to the swinger question I clearly use a derivative of the word sarcastic. Feel free to look it up. If that isn't blatantly obvious nothing is. Posing a swinger question to a person is insulting but referring to everything they write or something in particular is not? Um, ok. :rolly I feel I dealt with the sarcasm question already, so let's see what else .. You make reference to my mentioning 60% (a little less actually) but then you make reference to it not being mentioned :rolly Putting all that aside you make a valid point. Majority rules on this issue. There are two areas to consider: state level & national level The best measure of majority rules in our courts system today is trial by a jury of your peers. The peers are suppose to represent the majority of the citizens of the state of FL on this matter. In that respect Gov Bush was right in seeking a jury trial in the state of FL to decide this matter at the state level. Likewise he had a chance to submit legislation to change the laws pertaining to guardianship in the state. Again if such legislation had been pursued & passed that would have been a decision reflecting the majority of voters. I believe regardless of Terri's outcome Bush will pursue such legislation in the near future. Next is the national level. The appeals process allows for the Gov to pursue his cause to seek a trial by jury to the appelate courts, the federal appeals courts, & the USSC. All of that is on behalf of the state of FL. The decision by the legislature to move such cases from state courts to federal courts is one that was supported by unanimous votes in the Senate & had about 200 votes in the House. They are more likely to understand the complexities in the case & they are the ones who have to answer to the majority of voters who elected them. QUOTE: Steff Sorry but I'm not a mind reader and I can only comment on the bs you post that I can see with my eyes and not assume that you mean something else other than what you actually posted. Adultry as a grounds for divorce is NOT on the books in 22 states. As I can only comment on the non-sensical & utterly inconsequential bs & drivel that you post. I stil fail to see where you have proven any where at all where adultery is not sufficient grounds to sue for divorce in all 50 states. That's all I said in my original post & you don't have to be a mind reader to understand that. But you do have to possess a fairly reasonable understanding of the english language & logic in the use of words :rolly

============================================= http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180451119 Final thoughts for today: What I find disturbing the most in this case is that the court gave greater credence initially to Schiavo's family over the Schindler's. In 1992, Michael received 300K for his pain & suffering & 700K for Terri's future medical expenses. Shortly thereafter he had a falling out with Terri's parents on the basis that they believed he didn't want to provide Terri necessary medical treatment so she would die and he could keep all the money. From 1993 to 1998, the Schinder's attempted to obtain both Terri's medical records & guardianship. Michael refused to share her medical records with her parents. In 1996 Michael became engaged to another woman. In 1998 Michael filed a petition to kill Terri by having the tubes removed. In 2000 Greer presided over a week long trial in which Schiavo, his brother Scott, & Terri's sister Joan testified that Terri would have exercised her right to die. Terri's parents, her brothers, close friends, & parishoners sought to testify that Terri would have exercised her right to live. From there on it's clear that Greer is the central figure in the case & that he placed much greater importance on Terri's prognosis than whether Michael should retain guardianship. He essentially linked the two together & as long as he felt there was no reason to believe Terri would improve upon a persistent vegetative state he was not open to hearing challenges to Michael's guardianship. I think there lies where we draw the line in the sand. I feel that was the wrong thing to do. Law is not intended to be decided based on special circumstances. The judge should have looked upon the guardianship independantly of Terri's condition. As a judge he is suppose to rule on the matter of guardianship from a more general pespective. If Terri was simply comatose with a better prognosis should Michael retain guardianship in lieu of his adultery & engagement to another woman? Now it is possible the affair was not known when Greer first ruled on this in 2000. But this case has come back to Greer several times since & that was public knowledge the last time he had to make a ruling. Florida is a no-fault divorce state which means the burden for finding grounds for divorce is simply that there is no means of reconciliation. Engagement to another woman & fathering that woman's children would certainly seem to meet that burden. In my opinion what the American people should be asking themselves is does Michael's conduct meet reasonable expectations of a spousal guardian? If you answer no then he should not remain her guardian regardless of her state of mind. It's also important to not that Joan has retracted her testimony in 2000 stating she did not fully understand the nature of the question being asked her. Today she sides with the parents in supporting Terri's right-to-live. Which leaves only Michael & his brother Scott as the only major sources testifying to Terri's right-to-die. With that I'm out of here. Having addresses all questions & challenges posed to me on a multitude of subjects my work is done here.

http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/faultstates.htm This is a better link & simple logic proves my point. If a state is no-fault that means any reason including adultery may be admitted for grounds in seeking a divorce. If a state requires a fault grounds for divorce include cruel and abusive treatment, adultery, abandonment, and other types of misconduct. Hence all 50 states recognize adultery as a grounds for divorce :rolly

You involved me in your post! That gives me the right! What is obvious is my post referring to it as SARCASM. That' what's obvious. When you prove me wrong, let me know. If it has any basis in logic I'll accept it. In the process be sure to look over the entire thread to save us all some time. As for my proving you wrong: 1) I identified a LAW.COM link that chronicles every judicial decsion including those that prevented Michael from removing the tube. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180451119

http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/tdocs/part2.htm Homologous artificial insemination within marriage cannot be admitted except for those cases in which the technical means is not a substitute for the conjugal act but serves to facilitate and to help so that the act attains its natural purpose. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180451119 Reminder of where to get the DETAILED FACTS on the Schiavo case. Summary of political lines of thought on this matter: social liberals - support Michael's right to kill & cremate his wife over regardless of his being engaged to another woman & fathering two of her children social conservatives - the right to life trumps the right to die in nearly all circumstances social moderates - Call into question whether Michael should have remained Terri's guardian when he became formally engaged to another woman. He could not legally marry her w/out divorcing his wife & it would seem the $ he was awarded outside of Terri's medical care costs was the driving factor in not divorcing Terri at the time.

When you get time strip all this sparring crap out of the thread into another thread. You made a statement relating to ethics by equating an insinuation as implied by a question to a blatant offensive remark. In doing so I have a right to call into question your ethics on the matter. I specifically made reference to the word "ethics" to NOT call into question your morality. You obviously didn't pick up on that distinction & as a result resort to a quick and erroneous judgement of hypocrisy on my point. There is no need to clutter this thread any more on pointless semantics based sparring.

SS, you're a little slow today I guess. I already posted a LAW link to Schiavo & identified two decisions that ruled against Michaels desire to remove the tube. I would think a LAW link trumps mainstream news articles. :rolly As for the swinger comment 1) I already identified it as a sarcastic remark removing any insinuating I considering one 2) I'm not surprised according to your ethical beliefs that you would equate blatant name-calling with asking a question. For those who care more about the facts & less about this sparing between a social moderate who leans toward conservatism & the social liberals who feel a need to jump in this again is the most comprehensive link on the case I've found: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180451119 It chronicles everything including his relationships & something that has not been talked much about here: The right for this case to be decided by jury. Gov. Bush requested a right to take discovery and sought an evidentiary hearing and a jury trial. Judge Baird denied his motion. Gov. Bush then filed an appeal & the appellate court then passed it on to the FLSC "as a question of great public importance." Before the FLSC, Gov. Bush argues that Judge Baird violated his due process rights. He argued a jury trial was necc to determine Terri's present wishes "in light of the present circumstances." Those being that Michael essentially abandoned his marital relationship with his ENGAGEMENT to another woman. When did he get engaged? 1996. They have had two children since. He has remained married to Terri while engaged to another woman. ============================================ For social liberals who seem to think foul language is the best course of action to take in a debate don't. You're not impressing any one. You're actually embarrassing yourself.