What an investigation THIS will be.
-
Relbeek Einre
- Der Fuhrer
- Posts: 15871
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 9:16 am
- Location: Eagan, MN
-
Embar Angylwrath
- President: Rsak Fan Club
- Posts: 11674
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
- Location: Top of the food chain
-
Ozbee's Revenge
- Perfect Mastah
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 12:23 am
Ddrak,
First of all 'Fags -vs- Texas" as you linked; is not about prohibiting adultery, nor does it make statutes related to adultery unenforcable. It says busting in on butt-fuckers does not make the sodomy law enforcable. Michael has 2 GENETICALLY PROVABLE CHILDREN by his GF. If you knew anything you'd realize it was a right-to-privacy issue and not an issue related to marriage or adultery otherwise provable.
Second, just because a law hasn't been enforced does not make it unenforcable. Ever.
Third, Judge Greer said he found Michael Schiavo more believable than the other witnesses when he rendered his decisions, and the adultery claim/charge could impinge on his believeableness to some other judge or judges. That issue was not rasied at that time in court.
Fourth, Michael's position as the most believable witness is the crux of Greer's argument, and if Michael's credibility is damaged so is the weight of his testimony.
Fifth, the law passed by Congress said that the federal courts were to readjudicate the matter and find their own facts, not rely on the previous fact finding of the state judge. De novo...
And lastly, since you referenced an adjudication in 2001, wouldn't you say that what I referenced above negates any of the findings in that reference?
I'd hand your ass to you on a platter, but I don't want my platter to be dirtied by your dinglebals or stench.
Ozbee
...ready to take on the like of Ddrak in court. Any day, any time.
P.S. Maybe I'm a lawyer, maybe I'm not. Maybe I'm just trolling your ass hard. But I damn sure can handle the pathetic arguments you toss out.
First of all 'Fags -vs- Texas" as you linked; is not about prohibiting adultery, nor does it make statutes related to adultery unenforcable. It says busting in on butt-fuckers does not make the sodomy law enforcable. Michael has 2 GENETICALLY PROVABLE CHILDREN by his GF. If you knew anything you'd realize it was a right-to-privacy issue and not an issue related to marriage or adultery otherwise provable.
Second, just because a law hasn't been enforced does not make it unenforcable. Ever.
Third, Judge Greer said he found Michael Schiavo more believable than the other witnesses when he rendered his decisions, and the adultery claim/charge could impinge on his believeableness to some other judge or judges. That issue was not rasied at that time in court.
Fourth, Michael's position as the most believable witness is the crux of Greer's argument, and if Michael's credibility is damaged so is the weight of his testimony.
Fifth, the law passed by Congress said that the federal courts were to readjudicate the matter and find their own facts, not rely on the previous fact finding of the state judge. De novo...
A quote from Section 2 of the act:A trial in a higher court in which all the issues of fact or law tried in a lower court or tribunal are reconsidered as if no previous trial had taken place
So the determination of Michael's standing and assertions was supposed to be readjudicated, as I read it. In Federal court. This from the link to the act http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schi ... 31905.html a very unreliable source, wouldn't you say?In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings.
And lastly, since you referenced an adjudication in 2001, wouldn't you say that what I referenced above negates any of the findings in that reference?
I'd hand your ass to you on a platter, but I don't want my platter to be dirtied by your dinglebals or stench.
Ozbee
...ready to take on the like of Ddrak in court. Any day, any time.
P.S. Maybe I'm a lawyer, maybe I'm not. Maybe I'm just trolling your ass hard. But I damn sure can handle the pathetic arguments you toss out.
-
Ddrak
- Save a Koala, deport an Australian
- Posts: 17516
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
- Location: Straya mate!
- Contact:
/yawn Ozbee. That's the best you got? /sigh.
Lawrence v Texas is about equal protection of private sexual behavior. If you bothered to read the court's findings you'd know that. It was absolutely a right to privacy issue, just as most moral rulings are - including marriage/adultery.
The law is unenforcable. I didn't say that it was unenforcable because it wasn't being enforced though - that's your own strawman. I said that if they were to enforce it then it would have to be uniformly enforced and not for legal reasons.
Please provide backup for your statement that Greer found Michael's testimony the most convincing and even the "crux" of his argument, because in the original order he clearly states that Michael's testimony is insufficient and goes on to say that ALL the testimony in favor of the petitioner was more credible than the testimony against. It wouldn't matter a damn if Michael had stayed quiet - there was clear and convincing evidence from the other 4 witnesses. That in itself means that your position is fallacious.
"Terri's law" as passed by congress (and assuming it was constitutional, which is a very big assumption) did require "de novo" consideration of the arguments brought forth by the Schindlers, not of the entire case - go read Section 2 for yourself. The problem is, every single thing the Schindlers brought forward were weak enough that the Federal Court was unable to grant a stay on any of them. Basically, they fucked up. Looking at their original appeal:
1. Judge had no right to make the decision - false. FL state law expressly gives the Judge that right.
2. Due process requires a guardian - false. Due process requires the adversarial system of which one side is presumed to represent Terri's wishes.
3. Judge never visited Terri - false. Judges aren't required to visit people, just listen to argument.
4. Discrimination - false. The judge is the incapacitated person's proxy - they have equal representation.
5. Freedom of Religion - false. General laws are not in breach of this (see Employment Division v Smith, 1990, USSC).
6. RLUIPA - false. Has to be a state facility, of which her hospice wasn't.
So, not granting the stay was correct. None of the cases in point had any chance, de novo or not. Michael's standing was NOT brought up by the Schindlers (even though they had the opportunity) therefore the Federal Court had no position to remark on it.
In addition, had they remarked then they would very likely have come to the same conclusions that Greer did originally - that Terri's expressed wishes were to not be sustained in this condition. After all, there was clear and convincing evidence from a number of reliable accounts vs. wavering and vague memories.
Remember, Terri's parents, brother and sister are not credible witnesses. Their story has demonstrably changed over the years and they've even gone so far as to say in testimony they would fight to keep Terri alive no matter what her personal directions on the matter were and even gone into gruesome detail about quadruple amputations and open heart surgery if it came to that. The simple fact remains that no credible witnesses exist that state Terri wanted to be kept alive. Doesn't matter what court you go to this case was always incredibly one sided. Almost 30 rulings to none.
Sorry Ozbee - you can't have my ass on a platter, and given the weakness of your argument, the absence of decent research and the significant lack of legal understanding, your pretense at being a lawyer is just a little unbelieveable. Keep talking yourself up though - say it enough and I'm sure you'll even convince yourself.
Oh, and she's dead in case you didn't hear. At this point you're just a sore loser. Emphasizing the last word.
Cheers,
Dd
Oh... yeah... this...
"I am the Puppetmaster and you have all done exactly what I wanted you to do in this rant" = "I sniff too much glue before posting. Oh, and I have a penis IRL, I think"
:)
Lawrence v Texas is about equal protection of private sexual behavior. If you bothered to read the court's findings you'd know that. It was absolutely a right to privacy issue, just as most moral rulings are - including marriage/adultery.
The law is unenforcable. I didn't say that it was unenforcable because it wasn't being enforced though - that's your own strawman. I said that if they were to enforce it then it would have to be uniformly enforced and not for legal reasons.
Please provide backup for your statement that Greer found Michael's testimony the most convincing and even the "crux" of his argument, because in the original order he clearly states that Michael's testimony is insufficient and goes on to say that ALL the testimony in favor of the petitioner was more credible than the testimony against. It wouldn't matter a damn if Michael had stayed quiet - there was clear and convincing evidence from the other 4 witnesses. That in itself means that your position is fallacious.
"Terri's law" as passed by congress (and assuming it was constitutional, which is a very big assumption) did require "de novo" consideration of the arguments brought forth by the Schindlers, not of the entire case - go read Section 2 for yourself. The problem is, every single thing the Schindlers brought forward were weak enough that the Federal Court was unable to grant a stay on any of them. Basically, they fucked up. Looking at their original appeal:
1. Judge had no right to make the decision - false. FL state law expressly gives the Judge that right.
2. Due process requires a guardian - false. Due process requires the adversarial system of which one side is presumed to represent Terri's wishes.
3. Judge never visited Terri - false. Judges aren't required to visit people, just listen to argument.
4. Discrimination - false. The judge is the incapacitated person's proxy - they have equal representation.
5. Freedom of Religion - false. General laws are not in breach of this (see Employment Division v Smith, 1990, USSC).
6. RLUIPA - false. Has to be a state facility, of which her hospice wasn't.
So, not granting the stay was correct. None of the cases in point had any chance, de novo or not. Michael's standing was NOT brought up by the Schindlers (even though they had the opportunity) therefore the Federal Court had no position to remark on it.
In addition, had they remarked then they would very likely have come to the same conclusions that Greer did originally - that Terri's expressed wishes were to not be sustained in this condition. After all, there was clear and convincing evidence from a number of reliable accounts vs. wavering and vague memories.
Remember, Terri's parents, brother and sister are not credible witnesses. Their story has demonstrably changed over the years and they've even gone so far as to say in testimony they would fight to keep Terri alive no matter what her personal directions on the matter were and even gone into gruesome detail about quadruple amputations and open heart surgery if it came to that. The simple fact remains that no credible witnesses exist that state Terri wanted to be kept alive. Doesn't matter what court you go to this case was always incredibly one sided. Almost 30 rulings to none.
Sorry Ozbee - you can't have my ass on a platter, and given the weakness of your argument, the absence of decent research and the significant lack of legal understanding, your pretense at being a lawyer is just a little unbelieveable. Keep talking yourself up though - say it enough and I'm sure you'll even convince yourself.
Oh, and she's dead in case you didn't hear. At this point you're just a sore loser. Emphasizing the last word.
Cheers,
Dd
Oh... yeah... this...
From the Rant - English Dictionary:Maybe I'm a lawyer, maybe I'm not. Maybe I'm just trolling your ass hard. But I damn sure can handle the pathetic arguments you toss out.
"I am the Puppetmaster and you have all done exactly what I wanted you to do in this rant" = "I sniff too much glue before posting. Oh, and I have a penis IRL, I think"
:)