| Stockman91790@yahoo.com 2005-04-12, 6:25 pm |
| You are learned council, if not wordy. That does not make you lord
ruler of our domaign or correct in all matters- legal, moral, and
common sense.
I also have some intel., experience in matters in live and death, and
common sense. Your arguments are very persuasive and I considered them
carefully looking for flaws in my way of thinking. I do not accept
things Carte Blanch even if every person in the legal field were to
tell me I was wrong I would only carefully reconsider all facts over
again and examine carefully my reasoning processes. I do not accept an
assessment that I am fixed in my statements. Prove me wrong and I will
admit it without reservation. In this case I stand by my statements
because I see flaws in your argument- major flaws that I will point out
to you now.
Jay Williams wrote:
quote:
> Not every statement relayed by another witness is hearsay. Hearsay
if it is
quote:
> used merely to prove the statement was made, and not the truth of the
matter
quote:
> asserted, it is not hearsay.
It remains heresay if relayed by another party. As I said previously
there are exceptions to the heresay rule which you proceed to point
out.
quote:
> the evidence code in Florida is found at chapter 90, Florida
Statutes.
quote:
> Hearsay begins at 90.801, specifically 90.801(c) "'Hearsay' is a
statement,
quote:
> other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or
quote:
> hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter
asserted."
You support my assertion with the Fl law.
quote:
> http://tinyurl.com/6wwoh
>
> I also suggest the "bible" of Florida evidence, Erhardt on Evidence.
>
> To make a long story short, there are numerous exceptions to the
hearsay
quote:
> rule, depending on whether the declarant is available or unavailable
and by
quote:
> legislative fiat, even the statements that would be considered
hearsay may
quote:
> be considered not to be hearsay because the legislature says they are
not
quote:
> hearsay.
If something is heresay it can not be dismissed by a wave of a magic
wand- it remains heresay but may be admitted anyway. The definition
remains intact even if the court rules it acceptable.
"Hearsay" is actually one of the most complex areas of evidence.
quote:
> It is one which takes weeks in law school to garner a reasonable
grasp of
quote:
> it's complexities and a life time to actually master (due to the
exceptions
quote:
> and exceptions to the exceptions). It is unfortunately, one which
all to
quote:
> often laypeople decide they are competent to make a determination
whether
quote:
> something is hearsay (and whether it falls under an excpetion) based
upon
quote:
> watching "Matlock" and without an appreciation of the nuances
involved.
quote:
> Lawyers run into this problem when speaking to or deposing witnesses
who
quote:
> don't tell us information they have because they believe it is
hearsay. It
quote:
> is now part of my routine pre-deposition speech to tell the witness
not to
quote:
> worry about the rules of evidence in the deposition, the lawyers will
work
quote:
> that out later.
Your statement of "work that out later" acknowledges that it is not a
"Clear and convincing" matter at all. Regardless I do not want to get
bogged down on the heresay point which you yourself acknowledge can be
nebulous and debateable legally.
quote:
> The trier of fact (in this case the probate judge) determined that
the
quote:
> evidence standard of "clear and convincing" was met.
It may have been "convincing" but I will never accept that it was
"clear" unless Terri came back and agreed to it.
Appellate courts from
quote:
> the Florida DCA level to the US Supremes were given a chance to
review the
quote:
> evidence and set aside that finding.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Supreme Court refuse 3x to
hear this case? If any of the courts had reversed the decision would
that be the definitive decision or could it have bounced like a yoyo
forever. I predict this is not the end of this matter and further laws
will be passed that will also be challenged for years. Am I alone in
stating this will continue? Are only hard heads like me refusing to
submit to the court decisions or are many more legal minds from this
whole country and the world going to continue contemplating what
happened in this matter? Even you admit to doubts about it before
coming to a decision using court decisions to do it.
None have done so. In part, the
quote:
> decision was apparently made on the basis of the husband's testimony
as well
quote:
> as at least two other witnesses to Terri's statements (after
attending
quote:
> funerals of loved ones who had been chronically ill for years) that
she
quote:
> would never want to be kept alive that way.
Even granting that it is true, even if she was able to speak and of
sound legal mind there is no law in Fl or any other state with
exception of Or that even covers a right to die decision. She would not
have qualified even in OR and so even her decision to die which would
be suicide has no law to uphold it. A hospital has a duty to act in the
best medical direction to keep a pt. alive- they must provide the basic
needs to do it- food and water. She would have to be removed from a
hospital and then she would have a choice to refuse food and water and
die. If anyone caring for her denied it to her it would also be
considered murder subject to prosecution.
What would you call it if you were denied food and water? An act of
charity?
quote:
> I've previously posted the link to the Guardian Ad Litem's report
setting
quote:
> forth the factual history. As before, a few significant facts are
that in
quote:
> the entire time, Terri did not develop a single decubitus ulcer
(bedsore).
quote:
> This is unheard of.
If so, I fail to see the relevance or point to be made. Good care?
Also, the nursing home became so frustrated with the
quote:
> husband's constantly riding their XXX about her care that they
actually
quote:
> (unsuccessfully) sought an injunction against him.
I can not read the husband's mind and do not know his motivation about
her care.
quote:
> I too have asked the question; "why did the husband continue to
fight?"
quote:
> Reportedly he has a new life with a new woman and children of that
union.
quote:
> It would be simple to divorce Terri in Florida (Florida has no-fault
> divorce). He was offered approximately one million dollars on one
> occassion, and ten million dollars on another to do just that and
turn her
quote:
> care over to her parents. It doesn't make sense then that he sought
her
quote:
> death because she was too much of a burden, because he has a new
woman in
quote:
> his life, or because he wants Terri's money. (BTW, he would be
entitled to
quote:
> half the marital assests anyway under Florida law). It has been
postulated
quote:
> he was trying to cover up his abuse of her, yet he has agreed (in
fact,
quote:
> requested) an autopsy by the county medical examiner. He also still
fought
quote:
> her parents on whether she should be cremated or buried (purportedly
her
quote:
> wishes were to be cremated - on the same occassions that she
expressed her
quote:
> desire to not be kept alive in that state, returning from a funeral,
she
quote:
> allegedly stated she did not want to be put in the ground with worms
- a not
quote:
> uncommon decision). The conclusion that I have reached is that the
claims
quote:
> that he has some nefarious intention do not hold water. Every
argument that
quote:
> I have seen regarding that simply is refuted by the evidence. I have
quote:
> reached the conclusion that he fought these battles because he
genuinely
quote:
> believed that is what Terri wanted and that he was complying with her
quote:
> wishes. As I've said before; would that someone would love me that
much
quote:
> when my time comes.
Her time had not come- she was killed. The fact that many questions
remain even for you does not lead one to believe that it is a "clear"
decision even for you. Even proving her wishes does not excuse the
decision to kill her as I have stated over and over again. There is no
law that covers it except that Congress passed one just for her and our
pres. signed it. That is the CONGRESS that we elected to serve our
people- not a single man with a black robe who does not have the power
to make up their own law.
quote:
> Some agree with the decision of the courts. Some do not. That is
the way
quote:
> it always is. If you don't like the law, you have legislators that
you can
quote:
> ask to change it.
There was no law about it other than the one our congress passed to
cover it.
Regardless it will come up again- few among us accept what happened and
we are law abiding citizens.
The law was applied in this case.
What law?
Evidence was heard and
quote:
> considered, the trier of fact made a decision based on the evidence
and the
quote:
> applicable burden of proof (the burden of proof was on the husband
and the
quote:
> level of proof was "clear and convincing").
Regardless of the decision- not accepted by me and many others.
Appellate courts reviewed that
quote:
> decision (the level of review was "abuse of discretion") and the
decision
quote:
> upheld. Multiple rehearings were provided, multiple requests for
TROs were
quote:
> heared, etc. The rules regarding successive hearings and appeals
were
quote:
> ignored so as to give the parent's every opportunity. The hearings
and
quote:
> legal actions went far beyond "full and fair."
The same few judges heard this case over and over- fair would have been
new judges and consideration of any law concerning it- there was no
law.
I have stated that I want as many "bites of the apple" as nec.- I know
in law that once that statement is made the fat lady has sung but I
would not stop until fair was exhausted.
quote:
> Once again, for anyone who actually cares what the evidence was, the
last
quote:
> GAL's findings as well as other evidence can be located here. In
reality,
quote:
> however, I seriously believe that those who scream the loudest will
be the
quote:
> least likely to want to be inconvenienced by the facts.
I scream loud- convice me of facts- I am open to inconvenience with
facts. I scream because of injustice and the excuse of murder.
quote:
> http://www.abstractappeal.com/ has a discussion of the Carla Iyer
affidavit
quote:
> http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html for a good timeline
and
quote:
> links to documents in the case.
>
> For those that at least care what the facts and applicable law are
> concerning this matter (and I suspect that as usual, that will not
include
quote:
> those who scream the loudest) the original order of the trial court,
stating
quote:
> the evidence reviewed by the trier of fact, issues regarding
credibility of
quote:
> the witnesses, factual findings of the trier of fact, and the order
of the
quote:
> court is found here
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
quote:
> and once again the report of the GAL appointed under "Terri's Law" to
advise
quote:
> Governor Jeb Bush is here (and I highly recommend reading it)
> http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf
Make it simple for me- a simple person- what civil law was used to
murder a citizen who has broken no laws? What excuse was given to take
away Terri's right to life, liberty, and persuit of happyness? What law
was used to uphold a wish for suicide? What law was used to claim that
withholding food and water is not a death sentence? What law was used
to uphold a spouse ordering the murder of his wife? What medical
evidence can be discovered in autopsy that proves someone abused
someone else that convicts the husband?
Answer those questions and your opinion is confirmed by me.
The laws are arbitrary, morality denied.
quote:
>
> The last paragraph of the standard jury instructions (read to the
jury at
quote:
> the end of the case and just before they retire to consider their
verdict)
quote:
> in Florida goes something like this...
>
> "Even if you do not agree with the law, you must apply it. For 200
years we
quote:
> have agreed to live by the law and the Constitution. No one of us
has the
quote:
> right to violate rules we all share."
Give me the law and I will apply it- there is no law covering it.
quote:
> Nothing is going to be able to change Stocky's mind
The truth will set me free and I will change my mind if you give it to
me.
(nor the parents). If a
quote:
> living will were found tomorrow, those that feel strongly about this
would
quote:
> state it was forged.
Regardless, it is not the final word- it takes more than a desire for
suicide.
If the recently departed pope, Mother Theresa and the
quote:
> Southern Baptist and Assemblies of God deceased preachers of your
choice
quote:
> were to appear in saintly raiment, stating that Terri was hanging out
with
quote:
> them, they'd just finished attending a Richie Valen's concert, and
Terrie
quote:
> wanted us all to know that removing the feeding tube was EXACTLY what
she
quote:
> wanted and she just wanted to thank everyone, those that cared enough
to
quote:
> remove the tube and set her free from the prison her body had become
and
quote:
> those who cared enough to do what THEY believed was right and fight
to keep
quote:
> her alive, it still would not change these folks minds.
Few of us goes readily into the darkness- those who are given 5 more
min. of life would gladly give all their worldly possessions to have
it. I have seen death many times first hand- not by heresay and all of
us will be afraid when our time has come if aware. From the time we
fight for our first breath until the last one we fight to breathe- your
body will not let us do otherwise.
We, as a civilized people believe in life- we do not sacrifice it
without a good reason, we fight to save our children from harm, and we
fight to live. We have laws that punish those who take our lives away
from us and our legal system has a long, hard, uphill fight to take it
away.
We all will be set free someday- in my case, why rush it? Thank you for
letting me live- I always thought I had a right to do it. Now, who do I
thank for killing me? Thank you, O.J., thank you Scott Peterson, thank
you Hitler.
Auschwitz, U.S.A.
quote:
>
> Just like OJ Simpson, just like Michael Jackson, just like Bruno
Hauptman,
quote:
> Mumia what's-his-name, Sacco and Vanzetti, etc... those that are
rational
quote:
> will always be drowned out by the irrational ones (and there are
plenty of
quote:
> those on both sides of the issue).
>
> Personally, I may occasionally correct mis-statements of Florida law
> (including the evidence code) and procedure on this matter (I'll try
not to,
quote:
> but sometimes the errors are so patent that they grate like
fingernails on a
quote:
> blackboard and I find it hard to ignore them), but I will not bother
to
quote:
> address facts any longer. The facts are ignored and will always be
ignored
quote:
> by those who choose to ignore them. They were not ignored by the
court, the
quote:
> trial judge had the opportunity to hear and observe the witnesses and
quote:
> therefore had the best opportunity to make whatever credibility
> determinations needed to be made. Just as in any case, there comes a
point
quote:
> where the judgment stands and the matter is no longer subject for
review.
quote:
> That point should have been reached the first time that cert was
denied by
quote:
> the US Supreme Court. With any other case, it would have been. That
point[vbcol=seagreen]
> has certainly been reached now.
>
>
>
> <Stockman91790@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1112722238.754444.11460@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
hope[vbcol=seagreen]
as[vbcol=seagreen]
refused[vbcol=seagreen]
rational[vbcol=seagreen]
bed to[vbcol=seagreen]
able to[vbcol=seagreen]
nec.[vbcol=seagreen]
clear[vbcol=seagreen]
since[vbcol=seagreen]
other[vbcol=seagreen]
remain[vbcol=seagreen]
have.[vbcol=seagreen]
church[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
Gods[vbcol=seagreen]
decision.[vbcol=seagreen]
without[vbcol=seagreen]
believe[vbcol=seagreen]
mearly[vbcol=seagreen]
our[vbcol=seagreen]
wishes[vbcol=seagreen]
case,[vbcol=seagreen]
what[vbcol=seagreen]
principled[vbcol=seagreen]
it in[vbcol=seagreen]
someone-[vbcol=seagreen]
best[vbcol=seagreen]
not[vbcol=seagreen]
|