What an investigation THIS will be.

Jarochai Alabaster · Post by **Jarochai Alabaster** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:13 am

2) No one that wants Terri Schiavo to die wants to address what I have brought up... which is, if Michael is violating Florida law while 2 timing his incapacitated wife, why is he still the #1 voice in her life/death decisions.

Most likely because the state can't bring him up on charges. I'm not sure if it can or not, but I would assume if it could it would have already. That being the case, I would assume the only one who could would be Terri, or since he is her legal guardian, Michael. Kinda funny actually, if this really is the case.

I read in my local paper that Michael has ordered a full autopsy once she dies, so that everyone can see the full extent of damage to her brain, as well as to disprove allegations of abuse (The fact that such allegations have been made in the first place is absurd if you ask me. Who the fuck would abuse a vegetable?! What's the point?). There were also reportedly accusations that he would have her cremated (Which he intends to do, after the autopsy) to destroy any evidence of conscious brain function, or abuse.
Not that it's gonna do any good. For a week or two after she dies, the nut cases will still be out there burning candles at the hospice. The media will buzz about wether it was the right thing or not, as they have thus far. Her parents will weep before the cameras and talk about the injustice of it all.
Then no one will care anymore.

Ozbee's Revenge · Post by **Ozbee's Revenge** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:39 am

Why the state can't charge him with adultery is a mystery to me. It IS against the law in Florida, even if it is only a misdemeanor. The 2 kids and a simple genetic test should be all the proof needed. Jesus, it doesn't even take a lawyer or the Supreme Court to figure out that one.

That, and South Park has the biggest cajones of any broadcast media for taking on these issues the old fashioned way, through cartoons. Great episode. South Park needs an Emmy, or something for this weeks show. Just for balls. Big balls.

Ozbee
...still fondling my balls after all these years. As far as you know.

Post by **Ddrak** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:47 am

Ozbee,

Michael never made the decision so your point has no legal basis. Please read the facts of the case.

Dd

Jarochai Alabaster · Post by **Jarochai Alabaster** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:51 am

Even if he were charged with adultery, the state can't file for divorce on Terri Schiavo's behalf, therefore he is her legal guardian and will be until the day she dies.

Ozbee's Revenge · Post by **Ozbee's Revenge** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:06 am

Ddrak,
The court made it's decision based on 'facts' and 'assertions' provided by Michael and others. An adultery conviction (or 2 or more - 2 kids) could very easily sway the 'weight' of his assertion that she wanted to die in a civil court (where this is being decided - remember civil courts require 50.1% preponderence of evidence).

The legal basis is sound, and as of yet untried. Go back to law school double-d, and brush up on the civil law part.

Ozbee
...is a lawyer for all you know Ddrak. A damn good lawyer, but no Johnnie Cochran since he died the other day.

Post by **Ddrak** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:10 am

Ozbee is not a "damn good lawyer" if that trash constitutes his legal opinion. If he were a "damn good" lawyer then he would realize that the recent USSC decision on Lawrence v Texas renders the Florida adultery statute unenforceable.

If Ozbee were a "damn good lawyer", he would also realize the Florida adultery statute hasn't been enforced for quite some time, and if it were then it would have to be uniformly enforced - making it impossible to just nail Michael, but would have to nail a significant portion of the Florida population.

If Ozbee were a "damn good lawyer" then he would know that the court, as Terri's surrogate, made it's determination that Terri wished to not be sustained under these conditions based more on the evidence of four other people than the evidence of Michael which it stated was not "clear and convincing evidence of intent". The fact that all the petitioner's witnesses were convincing in court with consistent stories that did not change under cross, compared to the respondant's witnesses who wavered under cross and used language indicating a degree of confusion about events is what sealed the case.

So, if Ozbee were really a "damn good lawyer" he'd understand that Michael's position as Terri's guardian makes no difference at all. Should he be removed by some second degree misdemeanor charge (ie equivalent to driving without a license) then the courts decision would remain unchanged because Michael's testimony still stands as do the four other witnesses who corroborate the story.

And lastly, if Ozbee were a "damn good lawyer" then he would have read the court documents of 4/2001 where this issue was brought before the court and dismissed.

Ddrak
...is not a lawyer, just gets his facts from public legal documents - something alleged "damn good lawyers" seem incapable of. /shrug.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:02 am

(Don't you fuckers know an Rsak impersonation when you see one?)

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:07 am

*yawn*

You have every peice of information you need to get started on that contract and selecting a shrink. Go ahead and squirm and wiggle as you extract your oversized foot from your mouth.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:20 am

I can't select a shrink unless I know what your health plan is, Waterhead, and you know that. No point in getting you a diagnosis from a doctor you can't keep seeing afterwards. See? You're a chickenshit. You know you're crazy, and are hiding.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:21 am

Oh, and Terri Schiavo's dead. Finally.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:28 am

As we have previously discussed treatment is not at issue only identifying a problem. If the doctor identifies the problem you can regain your money from escrow and share with the board that you won and I lost as you revel in my proven insanity.

However if that impossiblity occured then I would select my own doctor supported by my health insurance to seek treatment on my own terms without your involvement.

If you conflate diagnosis and treatment one more time then this conversation is over and your word is as meaningless as I always expected.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:33 am

Waterhead, it's not about diagnosis and treatment being the same thing, it's about diagnosis and treatment being by the same doctor so the treating doctor doesn't have to go over the diagnosing doctor's work.

If you refuse to disclose your health care plan so I can do the work of selecting an appropriate doctor for you then I guess it shows how you know you're crazy and are just too much of a coward to admit it!

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:10 am

Relbeek,

If the treating doctor has to go over the diagnosing doctor's work then it would mean I have to pay more for those services which should be considered for you.

That said this conversation is over and you will never stand up to your word. Whether you want to blame yourself rather then my willingness to accept this bet you have been pwned.

Enjoy yourself.

p.s. you do a horrible impersonation.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:16 am

OK, I accept that you've backed down, and blocked me from contacting your healthcare organization to contract the services of a doctor on your plan.

I accept that you're a nutter, and that you know you're a nutter, and when the chips are down you will do anything rather than let it be proven.

It's a shame you can't even admit it to yourself! But then it's no surprise, given your history.

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:42 am

Holy, evil jesus, could you two stop. Neither one of you are or have been sincere this entire ridiculous argument. It's like watching two people play Pong.

A. You don't need to know his healthcare plan if you are offering to pay for the diagnosis. He doesn't have to continue treatment.

B. Rsak will never, ever give you personal information even if you did put money in an escrow account.

You both are bluffing and absolutely, positively full of bullshit.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:57 am

I'm not bluffing. I'm mocking him. Jesus, Harl, I thought you of all people would see that.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:37 am

What we see is a tiresome, pedantic and boorish bunch of drivel. I expect it from Rsak, but not from you.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:11 pm

Harlowe,

Actually I am completely sincere and would be very willing to give personal information once a contract is signed and the money is in that account. That contract would stipulate the consequences for revealing any private information for both sides.

And besides it is not like the information is something Relbeek has never seen before. He got such information when I have donated to the board in the past.

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:25 pm

It's just so draaaawn out. Mommy...make it stop.

Akhbarali · Post by **Akhbarali** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:42 pm

Embar Angylwrath wrote:What we see is a tiresome, pedantic and boorish bunch of drivel. I expect it from Rsak, but not from you.

I expect it from both.

Akhbar