I think I meant trust. Estate is not the right word, anyway. Dana
On 7/8/05, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > -- Nobody's laughing now But you could always make me laugh out loud ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:5:164090 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
