oooo... now you're making me mad. I am *not* biased. And I am hearing this from someone who hasn't bothered to acquaint herself with the most basic facts of the case. This is, I suppose, proof of your objectivity?
Yes, the court documents are available. I posted the link in the course of a three-week dust-up a couple of months before you resubbed. Check the archives. Or you might want to google "abstract appeal", which is, I believe, the name of the Florida law blog that contains the links. I repeat, there was one judge, named Greer, who was repeatedly upheld. Actually, there was another for a few months at one point, but essentially the case was handled as an estate by Judge Greer. I really suggest that you take a look both at the archives and at the court documents before you tell me what I *would* know. > If you've read all of the court documents (which by the way, aren't > readily available) you would know that a single judge does not have > jurisdiction in multiple courts. Are you sure of this? I am not. It seems he did, actually. In a smallish county this would not however be terribly unusual, or necessarily proof of bias. But I repeat, that comment was meant generally. > The judge did not know the guy in question before any legal > proceedings or he/she would have been legally required to dismiss > his/herself from the case. Therefore your claim of bias in favor of > the defendant based on his "being a nice guy" are totally baseless. > The judge does not know if he is a nice guy. No, actually :) I am saying that decision of the prosecutor doesn't prove he didn't, or anything else for that matter except that insufficient evidence exists in 2005 to make a case. You are stating that the > judge made the decision to ignore the evidence in question based on > his/her personal feelings for the defendant. Uh, not sure if the following is naive or poorly phrased. But the evidence that was thrown out was thrown out because the judge did not believe it. As a matter of fact, there was at least one serious error of fact in his rationale for not believing it, but, and here is the really key point, THERE IS ONLY EVER ONE TRIER OF FACT IN AMERICAN LAW. EVER. Appeals concern only whether the law was complied with in the fact-finding trial, and apparently it was. In fact, in order for > such "ignoring of evidence" to stand up on appeal, the judge states > why the evidence was discounted. Therefore it is a matter of law why > the evidence was discounted. Actually, I didn't in that post, though I think it quite possible. And you believe wrong. >You stating that the judge was biased in > contradiction to his/her stated reasons, which would be a deriliction > of duty (which I believe was already appealed on and disagreed with) > and possible perjury. Actually, he can't, since he was in fact quite wrong on a key fact -- the date of the Karen Ann Quinlan case. But it doesn't matter. He complied with the law. That's all that *does* matter. The judge can prove his/her reasons, so making > such an accusation is either libel or slander. Since you typed it, > it's libel. No, assuming I were to say it, it would be my opinion as a private citizen on a matter of public record.. > The doctors who disagreed with the diagnosis did not personally > examine her for an extended period of time-- many of them saw an > edited video tape prepared by the family. This was true of some doctors on both sides. The only doctor who spent more than an hour with her though questioned the diagnosis. Did you know, by the way, that one of the "experts" on whose opinion the ruling of PVS was based has also diagnosed as suffering from this condition a patient who is capable of driving an electric wheelchair? Wouldn't you think that this would require a certain awareness of one's surroundings? The one guy who did disagree > after having examined her in person very briefly had previously > written articles claiming that her condition does not exist. He was > already biased before he saw her and he is considered a crackpot in > the medical community. I think you're talking about the guy who wanted to try bariatric therapy. All I can tell you is that a) he was not the only doctor who examined her, and you should get your facts straight before accusing other people of bias and b) maybe it would have worked. You would not believe the doctors who tell me I cannot possibly be cured of the things I've been cured of. Unfortunately, most MD's do not keep up with current research beyond perhaps the NEJM. > Your experience with similar issues has great standing in this case. Why? How do you know that? You don't even know what it is. > You are extremely biased against the person who repeatedly won legal > judgements in this case. Am i now. Why do you think that? It doesn't matter to you how many judges > agree with him Did they agree with him or agree that he had correctly applied the law as written? or how many people supported his decision (more than > half of this country) actually, no, this doesn't matter to me one bit. More than half the people on this list thought I was wrong about Iraq, too. I call them as I see them and I don't do a poll first. > or how many doctors agree upon the diagnosis. Hmm. Let's say that it troubles me that there are respected doctors who don't. > All you care about is that there are legally unfounded accusations > against him that may not have any bearing on the case whatsoever. Wow, and I am the one who is biased here? Who the hell are you to come tell me what I care about? Who exactly the fuck do you think you are spouting half-remembered media coverage and telling me what I would know if I knew what I was talking about? Go read the court documents and we'll talk if you really like, and if the tone of the discussion improves. > That's your bias. And it's completely obvious that it's your bias and > that you have personal issues with the accusation that make you tend > to believe that they are true by default. You're full of crap. You know nothing about my personal history and are extrapolating, mostly in error as it happens. I said I had been a participant, not a victim. No further comment. > As someone who also has personally issues involved with some aspects > of this case, I do not want you representing me, and that is what you > are pretending to do. I am? Representing you as what? A liberal? A Republican? A Christian? A female? I genuinely have not idea what *you* think I think would be the basis for such a claim. You are biassed and irrational about the case, > and not having been in this particular forum when previous discussions > happened does not mean that I am uninformed. Oooooooh. So although you haven't read the archives you've accepted someone else's version of the discussion. It makes more sense now. And this makes you more objective than I am does it... o-kaaaay. > And the remark about religious beliefs is completely relevant too. I > know a ton of people who change their religious beliefs and either do > not inform their parents or have their parents fail to respect their > change in religious beliefs. The parents and siblings specifically > said that their family's religious beliefs do not support her husbands > claims that she would not want to be kept alive artificially. Maybe that's true. The point that troubles me is that we do not know, we never will know and now the woman is dead. However, in the absence of specific knowledge should we really have decided her life was not worth living? Excuse me, but this is not an ignorant question and it could apply to you one day. As a matter of fact my own interest in the case stemmed far more from my discovery that my dad had had a stroke than from any identification of Michael Schiavo with some hypothetical past abuser, you brainless little twit. Do your own thinking next time, before you attack someone in a public form. You idiot. She > never talked to them about her wishes. With her family's strong > religious beliefs, I doubt that she would have told them if she did > not follow that same beliefs that they did. The reason that a husband > has the authority to make these decisions instead of the family is > that people are more honest with their spouses than with their > parents. We don't know. Could be. Could not be. > It honestly doesn't matter if you think she did or did not want to die > the way that she did. Let the poor woman rest in peace already. Indeed. So why the post? All I said was that the finding was not surprising :) All the rest was colored in by you and whoever was thinking for you, and baby, it wasn't pretty. Dana PS - since you seem to need people to do your heavy intellectual lifting, I found the link to the Abstract Appeal site for you. Gee, it's abstractappeal.com, and whoever you're getting your facts from never found it... I think that says all that needs to be said. I have a life, which has patiently waited for me as I composed this. So long, and I hope you enjoyed my respect while you had it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:164083 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
