JUGGERNAUT

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180451119 This is the most comprehensive link of the entire time line of events leading up to Aug 31, 2004.

I see Staff is resorting to name-calling. Very typical from her kind. When she doesn't have anything logical or factual to state to support her obviously biased opinion that's her typical route. So childish an act in such a serious thread. Here's the fact's mam: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180451119 But the Schindlers immediately filed suit against Michael Schiavo, claiming that he had committed a fraud on the court. Pinellas Circuit Judge Frank Quesada granted the Schindlers' motion for an emergency injunction and ordered Terri's feeding and hydration tubes reinserted two days after they were removed. Michael appealed Quesada's order to the 2nd DCA, which transferred the case back to Judge Greer in the probate division. In its decision, the 2nd DCA gave the Schindlers another chance to prove that Judge Greer's ruling was in error -- but only if they could prove that Terri's condition could improve with a new medical treatment. Both of those decisions denied Michael the right to remove the tube. :rolly

Steff, that link has dead links when it comes to the actual divorce law in the states. A 2 line addendum concentrating on whether a state has no fault divorce or not does not suffice as evidence to the contrary. SS, let me see if I got this straight. I am suppose to consider an article from the UK that doesn't even know many decisions were rendered as the gospel truth on the matter? That might seem logical to you but it doesn't to me. I will look up the details of the decisions myself. I'm sure to find at least one judge declaring she goes back on the tube because otherwise she wouldn't be alive today.

No the problem is yours. First your assumption that what is posted is truthful. Secondly the probability that any one is going to discuss their acts of adultery behind their spouses back here are pretty small. It's simply ridiculous to suggest such a notion. All you can say is that you arrive at some general basis of what posters believe or disbelieve in by the nature of their posts. Any notion to extend that knowledge to a real world sense is foolish. You need first hand real world experience with the person for that sense.

You clearly misunderstood. There were 20 decisions in all (counting Mon/Tues). Not all of them were in favor of Michael. If they had been we would never have reached 20! (simple logic). :rolly

I'll need to check the Catholic Cathechism. I don't think it's cut & dry like that. I think there are exceptions for spouses who want children but prove to have fertility problems. It's definitely unacceptable for non-spouses & persons outside of the marriage. Surrogate mothers would be included in that.

Can we still add BMac to the rotation & bump Contreras to the pen?

You might think that's a perfectly logical statement but it's not. It implies directly that everyone around here knows enough about you to where they could make a judgement on that. Unless you're going around spreading that information to every poster on this board that's pretty a ridiculous assumption. The swinger statement obviously passed over head for you. It was a question dripping in sarcasm. I could care less whether you are or are not a swinger. But I do care when you try to pass such behavior off as being morally acceptable or on par with the mainstream. You're poor husband. I'm sure he takes comfort in knowing that you condone the right of an adulterous spouse to both kill & cremate their wife or husband. As for my family we have talked about this in detail & both of us have come to the same conclusion. We would want a unanimous consensus that there was no hope for our near-term & long-term outlook. As long as there was some minority of doctors who felt there was hope for our condition we would seek our right to live. This is how we are drawing up our living will. It's either all or nothing as to whether we live or die under these circumstances. No court appointed majority will rule our fate. On the subject of remaining married under such circumstances we both agreed that if the desire to make to love to another arises we would seek a divorce & annullment from the Church first. We would never allow our time together to become tainted with adultery or children born out of wedlock that arise from it. =============================================== Please name one state where adultery is not sufficient grounds for divorce.

Mike Imrem of the Daily Herald: Buehrle has been one of baseball’s most unspectacularly outstanding players the past few years, quietly becoming a No. 1 pitcher if not an actual ace. For those not paying attention over the last 4 yrs & crunched the numbers: 83 Mulder, Mark ***** TRUE ACE CUTOFF MARK ***** 71 Maddux, Greg 69 Buehrle, Mark 69 Garcia, Freddy 65 Wood, Kerry 26 Prior, Mark Based on assign pt values to the top 30 NPERA rankings each year. Mark was a step below Maddux in performance. Considering Mark plays home to the Cell, & Maddux split time between Turner & Wrigley I place Mark higher than Maddux on this list. Still several notches from a true ace over that time but clearly several notches ahead of Wood. Prior is too green & has accomplished to little to even be considered. Garcia benefited from Safeco to get that high so I don't consider him on par with Marky B.

Excuse me? Are you suggesting that the right of an adulterous husband to kill & cremate his wife is a question of people's morals or what they do in their bedroom? It's the law Steff. Spouses in all 50 states have the right to sue for divorce on the grounds of adultery & based on the division of property, assets, & children in such cases the court takes it pretty seriously. Much more seriously then it being a question of people's morals & what they do in their bedroom. It's neither sad nor hypocritical. It's logical. Though I'd suppose for swingers where adultery is perfectly acceptable & consented upon there may be a grey area here. I suppose they might consider it a question of morality. Would you happen to be a member of that group by chance?

Do you know how they met? Was it on-line or by regular mail? Did he travel to the Ukraine to meet her in person or did she travel to meet him? Are they living in America or the Ukraine?

Sure you do Steff. The words you've posted in this thread are obviously dripping with tears over your concern for Terri. We need more people like you in this world. What better way to control the population then to allow adulterous husbands the right to kill & cremate their wives? I'm not surprised you avoided the questions on the subject. Why not just go the Mark McGuire path? We shouldn't talk about the past. Let's talk about the future. :rolly

Wow! You have to explain to us all the details. You hear about these things but never from any one you know or in your circle of life. This is definitely rare.

We have created a tangent to this in the general discussion of divorce rights by incapacitated spouses on the grounds of adultery. This is limited in scope & does not in way suggest the absurd notion of legalizing shotgun weddings under such circumstances. IMHO, adultery is the one common denominator that clearly demonstrates a spouse has broken the vows of marriage. I believe that in the case of adulter the incapacitated spouse's right to sue for divorce should be proxied by family members. It clearly can not be placed in the hands of the cheating spouse. In the absence of family members that proxy would be passed to the state. Now I have a hypothetical for those of you representing the less than 60% seeking her death. If Terri had been able to sue for divorce on the grounds of adultery using her parents as a proxy would you still be advocating she should die? You can assume that in the process of filing the divorce the state would have stripped Michael of guardianship rights until the divorce was finalized. At which time the state would have awarded those rights to her parents. To me this is the biggest travesty in this case. An adulterous spouse earning the right to kill & cremate his wife. If Michael had been true to hear it would have made his argument that she sought her right to die in these circumstances more believable. But adultery is a form of betrayal & betrayal is rooted in deception & lies. That's just common sense.

Dude, you've completely misunderstood the teachings of the church. Artifical insemination is a sin because it's the act of conception outside the act of consumating the love between a man & a woman. The Church is not against technology or science. Many Cardinals owe their life to such things. Seeking to error on the side of life in Terri's case is simply upholding the sanctity of life. To those who advocate killing Terri or feel a need to justify that by claiming she's already dead I will remind you that the celeb status of this case has really reached this status only now. Men & women I capitol hill weren't even aware of the particulars in the case. So where is the harm in allowing Terri to live a little longer while a congressional investigation attempts to uncover all the facts & arrive at a recommendation on the case? The process will insure that every stone conceivable has been overturned & looked at to insure that the right decision is the best decision. This would actually help to exonerate Michael if death is the right choice. As it stands now no matter how you try to spin it an adulterous husband having reaped the $ he could from his wife's condition now seeks her death & cremation so that he can move on with his life. Contesting his desire are Terri's parents, her brother, her sister, her relatives, her parishioners, her closest life-long friends. They want to keep Terri alive until a unanimous consensus decides there is no hope. In support of Michael's efforts the plurality of judicial decsions have ruled in his favor. A little more than 40% of Americans are troubled by that.

I'm curious about some of the answers. Are those who are condoning his right to guardianship also condoning his infidelity? Do you even consider his actions outside of his marriage to Terri infidelity? If you could take a step into the circle of ethical/moral people for a minute does it not make sense to you that if a spouse reaches a decision that he can no longer live without sex that the most ethical & moral thing to do in this case would have been to divorce Terri BEFORE he began wooing another woman? For those who are married w or w/out kids place yourself in Michael's position. Would you divorce your spouse before starting a relationship with a new person or would you just moralize it was ok for you to commit adultery in that case? I read the poll. A little less than 60% favor Terri dying. I wonder how many of those polled even know he's been commiting adultery behind Terri's back even before the court appointed doctors concluded she was in a persistent vegetative state. I wonder how many might think twice if they knew that.

Here's an idea that actually makes sense to me. You know how all the colleges & some high schools have the ad post-it boards where you can find apts for rent & such, well create an ad for the schools nearby you & include a cell number. With a little more than a month to go keep it local. I would bet with the hook-up culture in colleges today you'll get some calls. Make the ad intriquing like you want to experience the spontaneity of a complete blind experience for prom. Sell yourself good in the ad. Many people look at those boards from time to time from apts to rent to concert tickets. Anythng someone is trying to sell or cash in gets put on those boards. I'm assuming your paying her way in this endeavor so you're selling a prom date. We're curious how this works out so please give it a try. Take your time on the ad. Do it right. I'm sure many here can help you come up with the words but it's best you try it yourself. You might find then your hearts not in. You should do some research on proms in the general sense to capture the ambience of the whole affair.

You're asking a lot SS. You're asking public school teachers to make a moral/ethical judgement based on the things kids talk about. That's not going to happen in our new found culture of secularist liberty. It's reminiscent in Columbine. How many kids listen to Manson music religiously & then daily recite the lyrics at lunch? If the faculty or admin had picked up on that maybe they could have prevented that tragedy. But to do so means having to make a moral/ethical judgement. They may not be capable of doing that. The answer of course lies in the local school boards. They can make that judgement for those who work in the school. If there is any blame to be cast it's for the members of the board. If they aren't capable or willing to make such judgements either than there is no hope of preventing these tragedies. It would seem to me that the most obvious solution is to do what corporate America does. Have the school workers participate in a brown bag program where they sit & have lunch with a student everyday & just talk to them. As you eluded to it's more than likely suspect behavior would be picked up in those sessions. But that won't happen until the school board desires it.

Dude, you're a tough case. You're asking us to help you find a 100% blind date for prom. I'll talk it over with my better 1/2 & get back to you on this. I'm sure she'll have more ideas. You sound pretty desperate so just try to follow what she says no matter how weird it might seem to you.

After discussing it with my better 1/2 I was told to tell you if it's junior prom don't sweat it. It's no big deal. That's just a $ grab. Senior prom is what counts. Not just yours but hers. She's right about that. I recall going to 4 prom's. First girlfriend's senior prom when I was a junior. Second girlfriend's senior prom when I was a senior & then my senior prom with her. My third girlfriend's senior prom when I was in college. My forth girlfriend's senior prom when I was a junior in college. I didn't have much luck & staying long in a relationship until that year. That one lasted 3 yrs. Then I moved to Michigan with my first big job. Got engaged a yr later. That didn't work out either. You get engaged by romance but you get married on compatibility. We just weren't compatible. It was pretty scary. She was 5'11" & hot. We went shopping for a house. I forget when but I had to go to Chicago on business. She had to stay behind & teach. She was the non-trusting kind. Called all the time acting like I was cheating on her. I tried to calm her down but I guess it didn't work. When I returned we were shopping for a house. Things were going well. Close to the time we were ready to make a purchase she confessed to me at dinner in December she had cheated on me that 1 weekend. She laid it out like it was my fault. Some guy from her passed called her up & convinced her I was cheating on her. Apparently this guy had gotten rough with her in the pass because she said he was rough when he came over. She was crying & all that s*** & well I was pretty much speechless. Anyways we never got the house & still have that engagement ring. You're pretty much stuck with them. You can use them for down payments on a new ring but don't do that with your girl present. You've got to do that in private. We saw each other off & on after that & I guess I started to forgive her, but then she unloaded the fact that she had an abortion years back & well that was pretty much it for me. Let's just say I learned too much that night. She was crying in a dark closet & I had to work pretty hard just to hold her. Any ways it was clear to me she had some major problems in the cookoo's nest & it was pretty much out of my control. I moved to Texas shortly thereafter & she came & visited me in the spring. I was a little bit of a wild child then so we actually got along pretty good. But then she kicked in the wall of the bathroom (don't know how) & well roaches flooded the tub she was in & well that was a nasty experience for both of us. Beware of dem dare apts in Texas. We had a nice time & all but she had to go back (I didn't want her quitting her job as a teacher to live with me) & we sort of just slowly grew apart after that. Anyways, you didn't need to hear that. After that I avg'd about a relationship a year until I finally met someone who didn't smoke, wasn't a lush, was a good looker, & I shared a lot in common with. Been pretty happy since. The moral of the story is prom is no big deal. No one I ever went to prom with remained in my life more than a few years. Don't sweat it.

I give up. http://boards.yourprom.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc...0102/r/60910403 www.matchmaker.com/teens You can't go wrong with Google. Can you? Anyways there's girls on that site that probably can offer you more help than we can. They might even be able to help you with your C-O-N-F-I-D-E-N-C-E problem. It's ok to be shy. Some girls actually like that. It's a turn on. But don't be a wimp or a coward at the same time. If you are shy, then be brave & bold. Dr Jugger Luv is signing off for the night. Good Luck!

Yes. My mistake. Her maiden name is Schindler. What do you mean by reliigous "usuals'? There is no law that says her husband should have the final say. The law states that in the absence of a living will it is up to the courts to decide upon a guardian. It is that process that is being called into question. The court would not allow a lot of testimony & audio/video evidence that would have supported her choosing her right to life. That testimony & a/v evidence supported her religious practice as a Catholic. They ignored essentially all evidence pertaining to that aspect of her life. This is a very complex case because so much time has passed. He's legally her husband because he never divorced her but as Tex said he's fathered another woman's child & is living & sleeping with her. Is that not ground's for divorce? Are we as a society going to say it's ok to sleep around on people like Terri because she can't contest? Should that right pass down to her parents when she is unable? As always when studying a legal problem let's generalize it a bit. Suppose spouse A is caught cheating by spouse B & in the process B suffers a mental breakdown & is declared mentally incompetent by the courts with spouse A assigned as her guardian. Spouse A then decides to father children & live/sleep with his girlfriend. Does spouse B have any legal recourse to divorce spouse A? Should s/he? I would think most of us would say yes. That recourse is only going to come from her family. The courts should recognize this. The parents of spouse B should have the legal recourse to sue for divorce on behalf of their child. it goes w/out saying that the transfer of guardianship should be included in the process. If this recourse had been available to the Schindler's this case would have been over a long time ago. Michael would have been removed from the process as a result of the divorce. With respect to the Church the marriage would be annulled. In my opinion that's where the FL legislature errored in their efforts to save Terri. They should have passed a law facilitating the means for the Schindlers to sue Michael for Terri's divorce on the grounds of infidelity. They should have signed into law that when that occurs guardianship is transferred to the state until the divorce is settled. At which time it would then transfer to the party who sued for divorce on her behalf.

The kid isn't even reading the thread! WTF?

Dude you need confidence if you're gonna do this. So you need to junk that attitude right now! Do you have a girl in mind? Is she single or seeing someone?

You should ask your wife, your g-friend, or your mom for a better answer. Your in a tux, she's in her best dress. Ring a bell? Speaking of bells, bells, bells? It doesn't matter whether you've been going steady, dated a few times, or your going at it blind. She will never forget that day. Even if you do.