Terry Shiavo Poll

[The Duke]

Aha!  We have found the explaination for Michael Schiavo's sudden change of heart!

Schiavo never mentioned Terri's supposed desire to die until 1997, and now we know why no such claim was made.  He filed a lawsuit, malpractice, against her gynecologist in 1995.  He demanded $20 million, claiming that this is what would be needed to care for Terri based on estimates that assumed that a woman in he condition had a life expectancy of living until 51.  Of course, Michael has made sure she doesn't reach that age.  He did not recieve $20 million, but somewhere between $1 and $2 million.

Later that year, Michael became engaged to his new girlfriend.

Shortly after basing his demand for relief on Terri's natural life expectancy, he got a new lawyer, George Felos, who has made his name litigating right to die cases.  Michael suddenly began telling the story of how his wife wanted to die if in a situation like this.

Cash in, get out, marry the new broad.

[The Duke]

I have repeatedly made it clear that I am under no onus to rpovide evidence that Schaivo wanted to live.  No credible evidence has been produced that she wants to die, and no, the magically appearing hearsay does not qualify.

From Thwe Weekly Standard

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From National Review[url=http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050316235609990012&ncid=NWS00010000000001]Inclsion Daily Express]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From Inclsion Daily Express

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The Duke]

I have sued the terms insurance settlement and malpractice settlement interchangably.  The one is the other.

I have repeatedly addressed your second question, and it borders on psychosis for you to continue to ask it.

[The Duke]

Everything that you've cited, which was written by one author, is a commentary piece, not a news report.

What is the point of me providing evidence to you when any evidence that contradicts what you already believe to be true is dismissed without addressing the merits of thee argument?  This is why I don't want to dig through Lexis Nexis hits on your behalf, its not my fault your ill-informed, and its not my job to fix it.

[The Duke]

Everything that you've cited, which was written by one author, is a commentary piece, not a news report.

What is the point of me providing evidence to you when any evidence that contradicts what you already believe to be true is dismissed without addressing the merits of thee argument?  This is why I don't want to dig through Lexis Nexis hits on your behalf, its not my fault your ill-informed, and its not my job to fix it.

If you don't understand the difference between evidence and opinion, you have my condolences. I will be availible to testify at your compentency hearing.

I'll ask again:

1. Where is there a credible source than Mr. Shiavo has a life insurance policy worth "a few hundred thousand," "a million," or "$1.2 million," on Mrs. Shiavo?

2. Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as an adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

Why don't you answer them? Are you afraid you've told some lies and have been caught in it? Would that be sinful?

I'm going to post this again, and then I'm not going to post it anymore.

I have sued the terms insurance settlement and malpractice settlement interchangably. The one is the other.

I have repeatedly addressed your second question, and it borders on psychosis for you to continue to ask it.

If you're unable to properly read the thread, you have my condolences as well.

[The Duke]

I have sued the terms insurance settlement and malpractice settlement interchangably. The one is the other.

I have repeatedly addressed your second question, and it borders on psychosis for you to continue to ask it.

If you're unable to properly read the thread, you have my condolences as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm very sorry, I was unable to understand what you meant by, "I have sued the terms ... ."  (In all seriousness, dyslexia?)

This is what I'm talking about, YOU'RE 43 YEARS OLD!  You know that was a typo, everyone else knows it was a typo.  Yet you insist on insulting people.

You're 43, its past time to get beyond this nonsense and have a real debate.

I have repeatedly addressed your second question, and it borders on psychosis for you to continue to ask it.
[/Ah, you are free to run away and hide if you'd like. Or you can admit the truth, but perhaps that will take admitting it to yourself first.

Just quitting while I'm ahead.

Took a look at your posting history and saw that you started your time here defending James Zogby and AAI.  Typical of the firts Republican to volunteer to be shot by firing squad.

[The Duke]

John, considering that the in the older of the two articles by Wesley J. Smith you cited, there is either a factual error or a deliberate stretching of the truth, I’m not inclined to give the author any weight whatsoever in this case.  He states baldly that “Terri collapsed from unknown causes in 1990” when every other source I’ve seen that coverred the collapse indicated that it had been determined she suffered her brain damage as a result of a heart attack due to a potassium deficiency brought about by an eating disorder.  Granted, what caused the eating disorder is AFAIK unkown, but that’s an awfully long stretch to make, especially without mentioning the other stuff.  In short, I find the author to be clearly biased and not credible.


Under the existing standards for end-of-life legal cases, all the i’s have been dotted and the t’s have been crossed in the case of Terri.  Changing what will happen in her case will require changing those standards, which the Florida Senate has declined to do.

She did not suffer a heart attack.  It is most likely she suffered a heart arrythmia, which was apparently severe enough to stop bloodflow to the brain.  This is somewhat suspicious, since she did not recieve any diagnosis of or treatment for coronary artery disease (The first cause of heart arrythmia severe enough to do this) and she has not recieved a pacemaker, which is the common treatment for the other cause (degradation of the heart itself).  Since she never was diagnosed, even after the incident, with serious heart trouble, nor was treated for serious heart trouble, nor has she had a recurrence of this arrythmia that was supposedly severe enough to cut of circulation to the brain, its fair to say that the cause is not really known.

We know she had a heart arrythmia, since the paramedics treated her for it on the scene, but there has been speculation that this was not the root cause of the brain injury, though no counter thesis has been presented.  In any case, it hardly central to the story now, or to the article.

[The Duke]

This is so typical of you!  You didn't even post your full post!

Hi, this is my first post. 

James Zogby, the President of the Arab American Institute (AAI), is the bother of John Zogby, the pollster.  I have heard about the AAI and I don't believe they could be called "radical."  The site posted below is a State Department release about a meeting with the group and Secretary Powell, who I wouldn't class as "radical" either.

http://usembassymalaysia.org.my/0403pwlaai.htm

That said, I too have noticed a problem with Zogby polls, polls at the same time, in the same state, tend to add more points to Bush.  This is true when compared with other media conducted polls, not candidate polls.  I tend to add 2-3 points to Bush in Zogby's results.

One problem is that they use registered voters and not likely voters; that alone could account for the problem.  I don't think it's bias based Zogby being of Arab extraction.  One recent Gallop Poll showed Bush with 13 point lead, while all others showed a much smaller lead.

You directl defended the AAI, and then your defense is to post a partial transcript of that post!  Did you even think to cover your tracks by deleting the original?  Did you think I couldn't look the thing up?

I am typing on a laptop, and the buttons are not very large.  I am also typing faster than should, for whatever reason.  This computer has no word program installed, so the place where I usually type long posts is not here.  If I want to edit a sentence, i find it harder to do so in the post space, but that's what I'm stuck doing.  This is the reason there are so many typos and mixed sentences.  During the week there are no such things, because I'm on my desktop.  "sued" should be "used".

[The Duke]

She did not suffer a heart attack.  It is most likely she suffered a heart arrythmia, which was apparently severe enough to stop bloodflow to the brain.  This is somewhat suspicious, since she did not recieve any diagnosis of or treatment for coronary artery disease (The first cause of heart arrythmia severe enough to do this) and she has not recieved a pacemaker, which is the common treatment for the other cause (degradation of the heart itself). 

Actually, it's believed to have been related to bulemia.  Dr. Michael Baden raised the issue of cause a few years ago.  Last month he was interviewed by FOX:

BADEN: Greta?

VAN SUSTEREN: Yes. Go ahead, Dr. Baden.

BADEN: Yes. No. What's interesting about what Mr. Fox [represented the Schiavos in the malpractice suit] is saying, there were lots of diets, especially many years ago, that had bizarre dietary eating habits and got electrolytes mixed up, as Mr. Fox said, mostly the potassium. If you got too high potassium or too low potassium, then the heart stops...

VAN SUSTEREN: And that's what happened.

BADEN: But it's not from a hardening of the arteries. It stops the heart. If there's not enough blood going to the brain for five minutes because of the heart stoppage, then it causes permanent brain damage.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Gary, Dr. Baden, thank you both very much.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148756,00.html

She had some damage from her collapse, a spinal fracture, bruised ribs.  

The jury in the malpractice case actually ruled that she was 70% responsible for her condition because she induced vomiting.

This does not address what I said.

I said the two main causes of heart arrythmia that cna do this to a patient are coronary artery disease and heart damage.  Pottassium deficiency causes heart damage.  To correct this, a pacemaker is typically installed.

However, both the coronary artery disease and the heart damage would require significant medical treatment, but none was recieved.  The condition has never recurred.  This is a bit unusual and suggests that the loss of oxygen to the brain may have been caused by something else, as her arrythmia may not have been serious enough to cause this damage.

This is not to say she did not have a potassium deficiency, or that the deficiency did not cause the arrythmia.  It is not to say that arrythmia did not cause the damage to her brain.  It does however substantiate the idea that the author cans ay that there is dispute about the cause of the brain damage.

This is so typical of you!  You didn't even post your full post!

Hi, this is my first post. 

James Zogby, the President of the Arab American Institute (AAI), is the bother of John Zogby, the pollster.  I have heard about the AAI and I don't believe they could be called "radical."  The site posted below is a State Department release about a meeting with the group and Secretary Powell, who I wouldn't class as "radical" either.

http://usembassymalaysia.org.my/0403pwlaai.htm

That said, I too have noticed a problem with Zogby polls, polls at the same time, in the same state, tend to add more points to Bush.  This is true when compared with other media conducted polls, not candidate polls.  I tend to add 2-3 points to Bush in Zogby's results.

One problem is that they use registered voters and not likely voters; that alone could account for the problem.  I don't think it's bias based Zogby being of Arab extraction.  One recent Gallop Poll showed Bush with 13 point lead, while all others showed a much smaller lead.

You directl defended the AAI, and then your defense is to post a partial transcript of that post!  Did you even think to cover your tracks by deleting the original?  Did you think I couldn't look the thing up?

Yes, and I do it now; as you indicated, the Secretary of State was meeting with them. I've also referred to this post at other times. I don't have a problem with Arabs or any other ethnic or national group. Do you, or are just trying to hide you the fact that most of what you've posted on this thread is fiction? That is typical of you you, make false charges and then try to avoid the truth.

But you didn't admit to this until I psosted it, in fact you intentionally and directly lied about the rest of the content of your post.

[The Duke]

John Ford and JJ, neither of you is going to convince the other one that he is right.  i'd be willing to give you each some gladiator weapons though and watch you fight to the death.  trident and net vs sword and spear.

I call sword and spear.

[The Duke]

Here is an interesting story that shows why JJs interpretation f the hearsay exemption statutes is wrong, and dangerous.

A friend of Terri Schiavo says Terri was beaten and abused by Michael, and she wanted a divorce.  Now, under JJs interpretation of the statute, this not only can be, but in fact must be admitted since Terri herself cannot be in court to refute or confirm these facts.

Under my interpretation fo the statute, a narrower (and correct, and precedent supported) view, this could never be allowed in court.  Unde rJJs view, anyone who knew Terri can come forward and make something up without needing to substantiate it.  This makes it very easy for his case to be undermined, and for the trial itself to become a kangaroo court.

[The Duke]

You haven't seen it anywhere else because its not a credible claim.  This is why it should not be admitted in court.  Yet, under JJs standard for hearsay admission, if the claim was made, credible or not, it must be admitted.

The point is not that the testimony is valid, or that Michael is a bad person, its to say that JJs mind numbing insistence that Michael's hearsay be admitted in court is plain wrong.

EDIT: MSNBC has a story that abuse has been alleged.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7012932/

[The Duke]

The stories may differ, but the fact that there are stories of abuse is very relevant, and they are admissible.

If it could be shown that Michael Schiavo was abusive, he could be removed as guardian.  If he is removed as guardian, then Terri lives.

[The Duke]

When you're "on the road to divorce", its a bit more than  a Honeymooners episode.  To potray this as very normal in a happy marriage is wrong.

The testimony is not refuted by the Court appointed guardian saying Michael is fine, since the Court appointed guardian was not charged with investigating the Schiavo's marriage.

This next part should be fun:

1. Do you have any evidence that Terri wasn't beaten?

Have fun with the irony of this exchange.

[The Duke]

This next part should be fun:

1. Do you have any evidence that Terri wasn't beaten?

Have fun with the irony of this exchange.

In the American legal system, guilt is assumed before innocence as a matter of course. What relevance does this have?

Its a shot at JJ, who spent half this thread asking me exactly this type of question, knowing full well it had no legal merit.  This is why I said I hope JJ appreciates the irony of the exchange.

[The Duke]

JJ has reverted to quantity over quality, as if extracting voluminous quotes from the Wolfson report makes up for the lack of quantity of sources.

[The Duke]

Since its obvious that Terri Schiavo is going to die by court order, I don't see much point to continuing in this thread (I'm like a boxer, I've already retired from the thread once, so if people assume I'll be back, I don't totally blame them ) but I want to raise a point that has not been raised in this discussion.

The congressional resolution passed by the House (and I'm almost certain the joint version contains this as well) demands a de novo hearing.  This means that a new full hearing is held, and that the factual findings of the original courts are not accepted, be re-examined.

Do you who are so eager to kill Terri Schiavo, and so adamant that her due process rights have been followed (though not one person here has addressed the SUBSTANTIVE due process claims, or even acknowledged their existence) how do you defend the fact that the de novo proceeding to which Terri Schaivo's parents were entitled to never happenned?

I also hope that this incident will finally expose Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia for what they are.  They are not Federlists, but Confederalists, and their Constitutional theories are the Confederate theory of the Constiution.  They simply do not accept Federal supremacy, and all have at varying points authored insane opinions, thankfully in dissent more often than not, radicaly restraining the commerce caluse to limit that Federal govenrment and ruling against the supremacy doctrine every time they thought they could get away with it.  They are not Federalists, and neither are their supporters, they are Confederalists, and henceforth should not be treated as descendants of Hamilton and marshall, nor even conservatives in the trdition of Webster and Lincoln.  Their ancestors are John Calhoun and Jefferson Davis, who never were comfortable with Federal supremacy and like the Confederate trio always thought the Union was a compact of states before it was a unified nation (Despite the fact that only Texas, Florida, and California have any actual history as independent states.

[The Duke]

This question has already been addressed (addressing both whether the hearsay is admissible and whether I need to produce contrary evidence), and I am no longer in this thread.  Repeating it in bold face doesn't mean it hasn't been answered.

[The Duke]

Sigh.  I said I'd stay out, and again I'm back in.

You linked (again) to a partial text (again) that (again) distorts the information contained in the document.  The bill says the courts amy act (they did) and if they did, it would be a de novo hearing (it was not).

The invokation of Jefferson Davis was not meant to be issue specific, but philosophical.  Philosophically, he believed the states were coequals to the Federal government.  This is essentially what Rehnquist et al believe, and its wrong.  It appears to be what you believe.  The Federal government is in fact the superior to the states, and its Constitution is superior over them.  Jefferson Davis did not believe this, the Conferderate trio do not believe in this, and it appears that you don't much believe in it either.  Thats fine, but don't call yourself a Federalist.  You are a Confederalist, who believes that the US is a compact of the states, not a nation with provincial divisions.

[The Duke]

This question has already been addressed (addressing both whether the hearsay is admissible and whether I need to produce contrary evidence), and I am no longer in this thread.  Repeating it in bold face doesn't mean it hasn't been answered.

The evidence rules regarding hearsay (which would cut both ways) has been addressed; the rule has been cited and posted indicating where it can be admitted.

Even here you have again failed to answer it.

I will ask it again:

Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as a competent adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

Let me ask this one:

Why are you avoiding answering the question?  Is it because you know that there isn't any evidence?  Is it because it would indicate that your ideology isn't what governs.

And finally, this one.

Is a lie by omission a sin?

I alrerady have answered the question.  Many times, actually.  my answer is that I do not intend to provide any evidence that Terri Schiavo said she wanted to live because I am under no obligation to given the law.  The assumption is that she wanted to live going into the case under our laws, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the state's protection of the life interest outweighs the liberty interest of the right to die (Cruzan).  The burden is not on me to prove anything, so I didn't.

I have also addressed your interpretation fo the hearsay exceptions, which I believe are dangerously broad and that your interpretation breaks with both the intent of the statute, its previous uses, and endangers the entire judicial process in cases like this.  Its a reckless interpretation, and I have provided examples from this case as to why a universal application of the statute to all hearsay testimony therin would turn the case into a kangaroo court.

I think its also worth pointing out that Michael Schiavo's version of events which was played in a 2003 interview with Larry King (rerun this week on CNN) are completely different from his brother's account of the story told this week on MSNBC (Countdown?  I can't remember exactly).  The stories are completely different, taking place in different ways at different times, and different ways, in front of different people.  And again, if Michael knew Terri wanted to die, why did the story not appear until AFTER the malpractice hearing in 1995, the verdict of which was based on the notion that Terri would live out her natural life span?  I do not accpet your intepretation fo the hearsay statute.  Boldface it all you want.

If you really demand some indication that Terri wanted to live, there is the now famous story that she moaned "I waaa" when her family's lawyer tolf her that if she said she wanted to live, this would all be over.  I'm sure it was just coincidental that she made that noise at that exact moment, though.  Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.

Since I'm not a Christian, I don't accept the idea of sin per se.

[The Duke]

Sigh.  I said I'd stay out, and again I'm back in.

You linked (again) to a partial text (again) that (again) distorts the information contained in the document.  The bill says the courts amy act (they did) and if they did, it would be a de novo hearing (it was not).

No, this for issuing the stay.  Here is the text again:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The law gave the Schindler's the right to raise the issue in Federal Court.  They went to the District Court, filed suit, and applied for the stay.  They were denied that stay.  They then appealed, the judge's decision not to grant the stay to the 11 Ciruit, and up to the Supreme Court.  All courts, after looking at the case, said that the judge was correct in not issuing the stay.  The case is still out there and could possibly be heard, and appealed.  The trial will have be considered de novo; this proceding was not the trial.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe that the states do have rights under our system, but I also believe that the Federal government, under that 14th Amendment that you seem to be so interested in, can create laws protecting groups (and possibly an individual, as in this case).  

They did, and the courts followed the law.  They made a correct determination that, under the rules under which they function, a stay was not required.  The courts have not ruled the statute unconstitutional, at this point, only said that the stay, or court order requiring the feeding tube to be re-inserted, should not be issued prior to the trial.  

You're dodging the issue.  You're the only one who's arguing about whether a stay should be given, I'm saying a de novo hearing should be given.  There is neither textual or non-textual basis for believing that a de novo hearing was not the intended result.  It is logical that a stay would be issued until the de novo hearing is complete, but that's not a central point.  The central point, which you did not address, is that Congress asked for a de novo hearing and one was not held.

I am interested in the 14th Amendment because it is the basis for nearly all Federal intervention in state affairs today.

[The Duke]

I didn't say the congress demanded a stay.  I said a stay would logically be issued in order for a de novo hearing to be conducted under circumstances where we could avoid irreperable harm to Mrs. Schiavo (her dying, for example).

I didn't think i said that Michael Schiavo wanted to have Terri die that night, and I'm not sure where you got that.  I think its beyond dispute he wants to kill her now though.  My question about that night was very simple.  It is my view that while a heart arrythmia could have caused Terri Schiavo's injuries, it is not my view that its very likely that her specific type of heart arrythmia was the cause of her brain injury (since the arrythmia was not all that serious, and never recurred).  I think, therefore, that when Wesley J. Smith says the cause of her injury is undetermined that he retains credibility, something Ernest had questioned.

[The Duke]

You're overlooking the fact that in 1997, when Michael Schiavo began his mission to get the feeding tube removed, the money in the malpractice trust fund was not exhausted.  he can't well stop now, it would seem a bit odd if he suddenly quit when the money was gone.

The fact that Congress mandated a de novo hearing demonstrates that there is sufficient chance of success to issue a stay.  Remember, in a de novo hearing the judge has to start over on all fact finding.  How can he say there isn't chance of success if he is starting over on fact finding?  There's no legal basis for doing so.

[The Duke]

Terri did not have a heart attack, she had a heart arrythmia.

JJ has contradicted himself.  He claims that Michael Schiavo only wants what his wife wanted, yet he has repeatedly defended Michael by saying two contradictory things.

The first is that Michael is a good husband because he tried to get Terri al the treatment he could.  The second is that Terri's wishes were to no be treated, and Michael is good for carrying out those wishes.

Both cannot be true.

Either he is a bad person for treating his wife and a good one for killing her, or he is good for treating her and bad for killing her.  You can't have it both ways.

[The Duke]

The New York Times has published the abuse allegations.