Terri Schiavo Page

The story told below is almost beyond belief.  My heart is breaking for Terri and for America.  E. Fox

CONTENTS  --  Earliest items at the bottom 

XV.  Where have all the Champions gone? - Allan Dobras

XIV. Rush to judgment - Thomas Sowell

XIII. The Shame of the Schiavo event

XII. Terris Money Used to Pay for Starvation

XI. Republicans Responsible  for Schiavo's Sacrifice

X. 2004, Psychiatric Expert Witness  profiles Michael Schiavo

IX. Priests for Life -  to Courts -- You have no authority

VIII. Government in America Has Lost Its Moorings

VII. Too Bad Terri’s Not a Terrorist.... 

VI. Mass Distortion

V. Starved for justice

IV. Culture of death stalks Terri Schiavo 

III. Why should Michael Schiavo not be charged with attempted murder? ....

II. Conflict of Interest in the Court?

I. Torturing Terri Schiavo


[COMMENT:  This story is a case study in spiritual warfare.  This is not (merely) a political event, it is a battle for the soul of America.  We are watching the same inevitable descent into bestial behavior which led up to the Nazi event.  And, to be fair to the Nazis, many others as well. 

When we lose our reason for existence, enshrined in the law of God, which is the only source for that "reason", we lose all reason.  Life becomes a power struggle, with the devil taking the hindmost.  And as he eats up the hindmost, he sooner or later catches up with the foremost as well.  

If the news in the pieces below is accurate, then Michael Schiavo is attempting to murder his wife for personal gain of some sort.  The "sort" is not hard to figure out, given his adultery and the money he apparently stands to gain by Terri's death.  Why have the courts not removed Terri from the care of Michael just on the grounds of adultery alone?  His claim to love her is silly.  Why does anyone believe it?  (See articles #10 & 11)

The evidence shows that Terri can be helped, that she is not comatose, but every day without food helps ensure that Terri will indeed become a vegetable, and not recover at all. 

I have yet to see an intelligent defense of what our government is doing.  (Knock! Knock!  "Hello, I am from the government, I am here to help you....")   I am appalled at what the courts and the press are doing to America.  Michael Schiavo has commandeered the government of America to perform for him the murder of his wife. 

If anyone knows of an article which reasonably defends the decisions of the courts and of Michael Schiavo, let me know, and I will publish it here.  So far, I know of nothing which can reasonably contradict the drift of the assertions made in the articles below.   

Is this the revenge of the pseudo-liberals for having lost the election to a conservative drift?  The American courts have lost their way and must be replaced.  No wonder the Democrats are grasping so doggedly to prevent new Supreme Court justices from being nominated.  

Jeb Bush should step in, with force, if necessary, to rescue Terri Schiavo with the authority he has as governor of Florida, to guarantee her an honest medical examination.  (See http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/march/0325_bush_more.shtml )

As one writer put it,

We had a meeting on Thursday between our folks (this time, Larry Klayman AND Ambassador Alan Keyes) and Gov. Bush's Chief of Staff. Dr. Keyes eloquently explained to him why  the Governor has the authority RIGHT NOW under Florida Law and the state constitution to take Terri into protective custody NOW, and save her life.

Gov. Bush failed to take action.

In fact, at one point, we received definitive word that the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) was on their way to the hospice where Terri is being held, to take her in and re-insert her feeding tube. Then, the little dictatorial tyrant, Judge Greer, gave an order for them to NOT take her. They could have -- and should have -- ignored this unconstitutional and illegal order... but Gov. Bush told them to stop.

Gov. Bush failed to take action.

This is OUTRAGEOUS. Judge Greer has shown more courage in trying to KILL Terri Schiavo than Gov. Bush has shown in trying to save her. But instead of facing Judge Greer down like he should have... Bush blinked. 

See also http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin226.htm by Chuck Baldwin on legal issues. 

Jeb Bush must be willing to put his reelection on the line, he must be willing to put jail time on the line, to speak and to act the truth. 

Without God, life descends into "feel good" rather than "relate well".   The Kingdom is all about relationships, as per the two Great Commandments.  They enshrine our reason for existence, to love God and one another.  The world, the flesh, and the devil are all about "feel good" and, consequently, power struggle. 

Pray for Terri, for America, for Western Civ., and get out and do something about it.  Not just any old thing.  Get on your knees, study the Bible, and look carefully around you to see what God is doing.  Then join God in what He is doing.  

What He is doing is first of all dealing with His own people who have allowed (even encouraged) America to come to this point.  The first order of business is for Christians, for the Church, to repent. 

We are at war, and the sides are becoming more and more clear.  Which side, dear reader, are you on?  And where are you willing to put your life on the line?  

As scary as such clarity of evil may be, that is all to the good, because clarity always favors truth.  David will, sooner or later, topple Goliath.  Truth will prevail -- when the people of God get their backbone again, when they regain their intellectual, moral, and spiritual credibility.     E. Fox] 


XV. Where have all the Champions gone?

By Allan Dobras

“Each man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” John Donne (1572-1631), English poet, chaplain to King James 1, and Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral.

By Allan Dobras

In the acclaimed military courtroom drama, A Few Good Men, two young marines— Lance Corporal Dawson and PFC Downey—face a court martial over the controversial death of a fellow marine, Willy. In an emotionally charged final scene, the lawyer for the defense entraps their commanding officer into admitting that he ordered the “code red” that resulted in the marine’s death. Nevertheless, the two marines are found guilty of conduct unbecoming a United States marine and dishonorably discharged.

Stunned by the bad conduct discharge, PFC Downey turns to Dawson in disbelief: “Hal…what does this mean? I don’t understand. Colonel Jessup ordered the code red! We did nothing wrong!”

As the seriousness of the verdict sinks in, Dawson sorrowfully replies, “Yes, we did. We were supposed to fight for people who couldn’t fight for themselves…we were supposed to fight for Willy.”

Terry Schiavo, like Willy, couldn’t fight for herself…she needed a champion. Someone who would take up her cause and challenge with uncommon boldness those who endeavored to see her life end. Unfortunately, the champion never came and Terri succumbed after hanging onto life for 13 days without food or water.

Some say this was a matter of a right to die. It was really a matter of a right to life. Even if Terri had a living will that precluded heroic measures to keep her alive, depriving her of sustenance would still have evoked acrimonious debate considering the controversy over her care and state of awareness. Actually, Terri’s condition was not terminal and her circumstances were little different from that of thousands of mentally and physically handicapped persons who depend on others for care.

But there was no champion for Terri. The sustained efforts of her family, although heroic, carried no legal authority. As it turned out, those who were able to make a difference were not advocates, but rather adversaries: Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, who acquired a common law wife and fathered two children during the early years of her hospitalization, petitioned to have her feeding tube removed, denied her physical therapy, and rejected later medical examinations to more accurately assess her condition.

Dr. Ronald Cranford, selected by Michael Schiavo to initially examine Terri, diagnosed her to be in a “persistent vegetative state,” which continued to be the diagnosis of record throughout the legal process. Dr. Cranford is a member of the pro-euthanasia Hemlock Society (now called The Choice in Dying Society) and an advocate for right-to-die issues. He calls himself, “Dr. Humane Death,” and has written about the “physician's role in killing and the intentional withdrawal of treatment.” He was the physician who ordered Terri’s feeding tube to be removed.

Attorney George Felos was hired by Michael Schiavo to defend Terri’s right-to-die and is a nationally recognized expert in such cases. He helped establish an individual’s “constitutional right to refuse or have withdrawn unwanted medical treatment” in the 1990 landmark case of Estelle Browning, which he successfully argued in front of the Florida Supreme Court. Mr. Felos was a founding member of the National Legal Advisors Committee on Choice in Dying, and served as Board Chair of The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, which is the parent organization of the hospice that housed Terri Schiavo.

There was no champion for Terry among the judiciary. Pinellas County Probate Judge George W. Greer was the only judge who tried the facts of the case and directed Michael Schiavo to discontinue her nutrition and hydration—a decision that was upheld on appeal.

The Congress and the president requested the federal court review the case de novo, that is, anew. Nevertheless, United States District Judge, James D. Whittemore denied injunctive relief, concluding that, “Theresa Schiavo's life and liberty interests were adequately protected by the extensive process provided in the state courts.” [Emphasis added].

Perhaps the most egregious example of judicial arrogance was that offered by 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals judge, Stanley F. Birch, Jr., who rejected an appeal of Judge Whittemore’s denial of injunctive relief. He ruled:

“Any further action by our court or the district court would be improper. While the members of her family and the members of Congress have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for dispassionate discharge of duty.” In other words, he said it was his duty to discontinue Terri’s nutrition and hydration.

In concluding his decree, Judge Birch said: “In resolving the Schiavo controversy, it is my judgment that despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers blueprint for the governance of a free people, our Constitution…I must respectfully concur in the denial of the request for rehearing en banc. I conclude that this is unconstitutional, and therefore this court and this district court are without jurisdiction in this case under that special act and should refuse to exercise any jurisdiction that we may otherwise have in this case.”

This was quite a remarkable decision by Judge Birch since Article III of the Constitution grants to the Congress power to establish federal courts and has jurisdictional authority over them. It a strange dichotomy of thought, the courts have reached deep into the Constitution and discovered that sodomy is a constitutionally protected right; that same-sex couples have a right to marry; that babies can be aborted up to the time of delivery; that the Ten Commandments have no place in the public domain; that a twelve-year-old child has a right to an abortion without parental notification, and yet nowhere within the Constitution can life be found for Terri Schiavo.

Sadly, the people’s representatives—who could have been Terri’s champion—were confronted directly by the judiciary in a matter over which the legislature has authority….and the peoples representatives blinked. Then Terri died.

So, in the final analysis, who really failed Terri? It was we the people who failed her because we elect the representatives who manage the affairs of government. We did not elect them to “blink” at the peculiar rulings of un-elected activist judges…judges who legislate from the bench in accord with a cultural agenda that is in direct conflict with the values we so preciously hold. But that is our lot. As a result, we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position described by the poet/pastor, John Donne: “…never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

[COMMENT:  Dobras is right.  The real culprits are we who elect such cowards and ignoramuses.  We are getting what we deserve, and nothing much will change until "we the people" repent.  E. Fox] 


XIV. Rush to judgment

By Thomas Sowell 
Washington Times 3/28/05  


[COMMENT:  The legal fine points below are very enlightening about the appeals process. 

The more information that comes in about the Schiavo event, the more absurd, tragic, and treasonous this who event shows itself to be.  Treason because our rulers are betraying us.  Eternal vigilance is still the price of freedom.  We had better take action quickly.  But we do not seem to be able to count on our elected officials.  And that means we cannot count much on our voters who put them there. 

That is where we must begin -- raising up a new generation of voters.  And, even more important, of worshippers of God.  We Christians have been monumental failures.  That is how far the fabric of our society has corrupted.  Deep repentance is the first order of business.    E. Fox]  

    Liberals have repeatedly used the talking point of how many judges have heard the case of Terri Schiavo. But that is as misleading as most of the rest of what they and the mainstream media have said.
    When a case goes to a higher court on appeal, the issue is not whether they agree with the merits of the decision of the lower court. In a criminal case, for example, the issue before the appellate court is not the defendant's guilt or innocence, but whether the trial was conducted properly.
    In other words, the defendant is not supposed to be tried again at the appellate level. So, no matter how many appellate judges rule one way or the other, that tells you absolutely nothing about the fundamental question of guilt or innocence.
    Similar principles apply in a civil case, such as that of Terri Schiavo. Liberals can count all the judges they want, but that does not mean all these judges agreed with the merits of the original court's decision. It means they found no basis for saying the original court's decision was illegal.
    The law passed by Congress authorized a federal court to go back to Square One and examine the actual merits of the Terri Schiavo case, not simply review whether the previous judge behaved illegally. Congress authorized the federal courts to retry this case from scratch -- "de novo," as the legislation says. But the federal courts have refused to do that.
    There is no way federal District Judge James Whittemore could have examined this complex case, with its contending legal arguments and conflicting experts, from scratch in a couple of days, even working round the clock without eating or sleeping.
    Judge Whittemore ignored the clear meaning of the law passed by Congress and rubberstamped the decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.
    Nor could the Appeals Court judges have gone through all of this "de novo" in a couple of days after Judge Whittemore's decision. They added to the number of judges liberals can count but did not follow the law -- which is what really counts.
    The federal judges rushed to judgment -- in a case where there was no rush legally, despite a medical urgency. Terri Schiavo was not dying from anything other than lack of food and water. These federal judges could have ordered the feeding tube restored while they gave this issue the thorough examination authorized -- and indeed prescribed -- by the recent congressional legislation.
    As dissenting Judge Charles Wilson of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said, the "entire purpose of the statute" is to let federal courts look at the case "with a fresh pair of eyes." But, by the Circuit Court decision, "we virtually guarantee" the merits of the case "will never be litigated in a federal court" because Terri Schiavo will be dead. Never -- regardless of how many judges are counted as talking points.
    The liberal line, both in politics and in the media, is Congress somehow behaved unconstitutionally. All federal courts except the Supreme Court are created by Congress. The Constitution itself gives Congress the authority to define or restrict the jurisdictions of federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Is the Constitution unconstitutional?
    The lessons of this tragic episode are as momentous as they are painful, if only because we should never want to see such a miscarriage of justice again. The issue was not only whether Terri Schiavo should live or die, important as that is.
    Another important issue was whether self-government in this country will live or die. Judges who ignore the laws passed by elected representatives are slowly but surely replacing democracy with judicial rule. Meanwhile, the media treat judges as sacrosanct and criticism of them as almost blasphemy.
    All this adds more urgency to the need to install judges who will follow the written law, not their own notions. We can only hope Senate Republicans have the guts to do so.

XIII. The Shame of the Schiavo event

Paul Walter.  Moral cowardice and moral corruption feed on each other. 
See http://www.newswithviews.com/paul/paul31.htm

XII. Terri's Money Used to Pay
for Her Own Starvation 
Sarah Foster -- See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43510

XI. Republicans Responsible
for Schiavo's Sacrifice

See http://www.newswithviews.com/McGinley/kelly13.htm
Kelly McGinley

[This story gets more and more bizarre.  But the truth will out.   E. Fox]


X. 2004, Psychiatric Expert Witness
profiles Michael Schiavo

[COMMENT:  this is absolutely astonishing -- that Michael Schiavo's behavior has not made it into the press or the considerations of the courts -- not even for investigation.  I have to suspect that there has been collusion among the parties. 

The depth of this tragedy goes far beyond even Terri's impending wrongful death, that is to say, murder.  It tells us about the nature of America today.

We are long past the point of being able to repair the moral/spiritual life of our nation and society with politics, economics, or any of the other usual ways we try to "fix" things.  We must rebuild the deepest levels of our foundations, meaning restore our Biblical commitment to trust and obey God.  That will not be done without great pain and sacrifice.

That means the way of the cross, precisely what Holy Week is all about.  Life through death-to-pseudo-self.   So let's get on with it.    E. Fox] 

In response to several reader's emails asking if a psychiatrist had ever profiled Michael Schiavo's demeanor or possible psychiatric problems, I offer the following 2004 expert witness testimony. Mindful that this is an expert witness in behalf of the Schindler's position and therefore prejudicial to Michael's case. However, according to Dr. Lieberman's testimony, Michael's own psychiatrist warned the Schindlers to call the police. 

--- "Michael has been under psychiatric care, including being prescribed several psychotropic medications. One of his treating therapists, Dr. Peter Kaplan, told Terri’s father that he should have called the police after Michael argued with Terri’s sister, Susanne, and Michael tried to attack her. This occurred right after Terri’s collapse, when they were all in a house together. Terri’s father told Susanne to lock her door and keep a hammer nearby."

---  "Michael fits the profile of an abusive husband. He should most definitely be investigated as the perpetrator of the ‘incident’ that caused Terri’s collapse and her current condition."

Testimony of Carole Lieberman, M.D., M.P.H., Psychiatrist/Expert Witness
Diplomat, American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology
Clinical Faculty, UCLA Department of Psychiatry
247 South Beverly Drive, Suite 202
Beverly Hills, CA 90212

July 12, 2004

Preliminary Thoughts On How Terri Schiavo's Husband, Michael, Fits The Profile Of A Wife Abuser.

Based upon my interviews of Terri’s father, Robert Schindler, and my research into media accounts of her case, I can provide the following preliminary opinions at this time:

--As the author of the book, Bad Boys: Why We Love Them, How to Live with Them and When to Leave Them, I have studied men who exhibit pathology in their relationships with women. Profiles of the twelve different types of bad boys are explained. Michael Schiavo fits the profile, described in the book as the Prince of Darkness (see chapter 13). O.J. Simpson was cited as a classic example of this type, and there are indeed similarities between the two men. It is especially significant to note that O.J. flew into a homicidal rage when he realized that Nicole was totally abandoning him, as is characteristic of these impulsive men who most dread being abandoned by their woman. Similarly, Michael Schiavo was likely to have known that Terri had begun making plans to divorce him, since she had told a coworker and family member. Stalking is characteristic of this type of man, as well. And a girlfriend of Michael’s, Cindy, accused him of stalking her in 2001.

--Terri’s personality fits that of a woman who would have been attracted (and attractive) to such a man. She was a loner as a child. In high school she was overweight and not popular with boys. She had low self-esteem. She was extremely compassionate, nurturing and subservient. They met when Terri was 20 years old, and married by the time she was 21. Such whirlwind courtships are typical of these men, who are able to spot a vulnerable woman they can dominate, and eager to seal her commitment to him.

Terri was frightened to object to Michael’s pathologically controlling behavior. For example, he would monitor her odometer to control where she went. He tried to isolate her from her friends and family. She had to account for every penny, though they often lived on her income, since he would be fired, sometimes only after two weeks. He would splurge on $400 suits for himself, while she had to economize. He called her at work 3-4 times a day, often complaining of hating his job because no one appreciated him. He was often observed scolding her.

--Terri’s family observed black and blue marks on her before the incident that plunged her into her current state. Medical records and/or experts have revealed that her neck injury was consistent with strangulation. A bone scan revealed multiple fractures occurring within 1-2 months before or after the incident, which has been described as equivalent to her being “hit by a mack truck”. Michael has given three different explanations of how he found Terri after the incident.

--Michael has had Terri’s jewelry re-set into a ring for himself. Terri had two beloved cats that she adopted from an animal shelter, where they’d landed after being mistreated. When he moved in with his girlfriend, Cindy, he had Terri’s cats euthanized. Psychologically, this is symbolic of what he is trying to do now to Terri.

--Michael has been under psychiatric care, including being prescribed several psychotropic medications. One of his treating therapists, Dr. Peter Kaplan, told Terri’s father that he should have called the police after Michael argued with Terri’s sister, Susanne, and Michael tried to attack her. This occurred right after Terri’s collapse, when they were all in a house together. Terri’s father told Susanne to lock her door and keep a hammer nearby.

--As a psychiatric expert witness, I have had experience performing psychiatric examinations of men like Michael Schiavo, and testifying in court about similar cases. The above is simply meant to illustrate some of the indications that Michael fits the profile of an abusive husband. He should most definitely be investigated as the perpetrator of the ‘incident’ that caused Terri’s collapse and her current condition. If Terri were to be allowed to die, as Michael has been desperately struggling to achieve for years, it could help him escape detection. This would be a grave miscarriage of justice.

For more information, you may contact Dr. Carole Lieberman at (310) 456-2458 or via email at drcarole@drcarole.com.



IX. Priests for Life to Courts
on Schiavo Case:
You Have No Authority

To: National Desk

Contact: Jerry Horn of Priests for Life, 540-785-4733

NEW YORK, March 25 /Christian Wire Service/ -- In response to the latest denial of the Federal courts to save the life of Terri Schiavo, Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, issued the following statement:

"No court, either in the United States or anywhere else, has the authority to authorize the starvation of a human being. Exactly ten years ago today, Pope John Paul II issued the following words in his document "The Gospel of Life": 'Laws which authorize and promote ... euthanasia are ... completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. ...A civil law authorizing -- euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law' (no.72).

"The Terri Schiavo case has demonstrated that we are being governed by un-elected judges, and that the legislative and executive branches of government lack the will to stand up to them when they authorize acts of violence. The matter, therefore, now rests with the people. When government fails to protect life, the people must do so directly. Today must mark the beginning of a new era of civil disobedience and conscientious objection, with simultaneous, determined efforts to curb the authority of the courts and restore government to the people through their elected representatives

[COMMENT:  Halleluiah!   There are very few persons indeed who understand that the only law is the law of God, that no human source can legitimately conflict with the law of God.  Our founding fathers understood that, and every Christian should be saying it.  (See Defining 'Oughtness' and "Love")  Any government which violates the law of God is an outlaw government.

At least some rabbis see the point.  See http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/27/111203.shtml    E. Fox]

VIII. Government in America
Has Lost Its Moorings

Dr. Michael L. Ford

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."      --Thomas Jefferson

    The performance of the branches of government related
to the well being of one of its citizens, Terri
Schiavo is a demonstration that the government of
these United States has lost its moorings in its
founding principles. It should not matter what any
other government or court is doing anywhere in the
world to the actions of our American system for our
ideals and principles were founded out of the failures
of their systems. Indeed our activities in the care
and provision for our citizenry should be the light
shining on a hill for all of the rest of the world to
set as their goal and standard for what is right.
    Our nation's Founding principle: "We hold these
Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...." requires
that we first of all and in every case must choose
life. The simple reason for this is that without life
none other unalienable right is pursuable. Players in
the Schiavo case, whether it be officers of the court,
such as lawyers, judges in the various judiciaries, or
members of legislative and executive bodies have all
overlooked this in the pursuit of their own self
    The case of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, being put to
death by dehydration and starvation, under court
order, has been an exercise in the struggle for power
between the judicial and all other branches of
government. It has also been the blatant display of
people with power pursuing their own selfish agendas,
using their offices to further those agendas, instead
of using what has been entrusted to them to protect
this woman.

    There is an axiom in the American way of life that
says each time a single citizen is diminished, all of
us are lessened. I think that some in this fiasco are
not only aware of this but have desired that to be the
ultimate result because they are not only Terri’s
enemy but also America’s. Why has not those wronged in
the past cried loud and spared not less we forever
lose our way?


VII. Too Bad Terri’s Not a Terrorist
or a Condemned Murder

By my esteemed colleague, Jan LaRue, CWA's chief counsel.   --  Robert Knight
I’m fed up with liberal hypocrisy.

By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel

I’m a conservative Christian attorney who has practiced criminal and juvenile defense. I wholeheartedly advocate that no matter how heinous the crime, the accused must be afforded his or her constitutional rights. That includes appeals and writs of habeas corpus to obtain federal review after state court remedies have been exhausted. I support the rights of convicted criminals to have DNA testing that may prove their innocence, no matter how many courts have reviewed their cases.

Question: When it comes to Terri Schiavo, where are the usual liberal civil-rights advocates, the criminal defense bar, liberal law professors? A few are speaking out for Terri’s rights, but very few. And I applaud their consistency.

Everybody agrees that Terri’s wishes should be paramount, but why is a hearsay statement supposedly said 20 years ago credible? And why does anyone think that if she said it, she was talking about a feeding tube? Who considered food and water to be artificial life support back then?

What lawyer wouldn’t challenge probable cause for a search warrant based on the kind of stale and highly suspect hearsay that Judge Greer found to be clear and convincing evidence of Terri’s wishes, sufficient for him to order her death?

Where are those who file suit when some terrorist detainee in Guantanamo Bay didn’t get a cookie on his lunch tray or suffered the “torture” of having a guard dog growl at him? Where are those who file every motion, brief or appeal based on any and every argument they can think of in order to save the life of a serial murderer or a child-killer? Why aren’t they making arguments and filing briefs for Terri? They’ve either become mute or they’re in the media arguing against the kind of zealous advocacy on behalf of Terri that they regularly engage in.

And no surprise—where is the ACLU?—advocating for Terri’s death while they advocate for convicted murders who killed and sodomized a young boy in Massachusetts.

There’s constant harping about how many judges have reviewed Terri’s case. So what? None of them has reviewed the evidence to see if, as a matter of law, it’s sufficient to sustain the court’s orders. That’s what Congress ordered to be done in “Terri’s law.” But it wasn’t.

Suddenly it’s all about state rights and limiting review to state courts and federalism. And how dare Congress interfere by enacting a statute that gives Terri the same kind of federal review that Scott Peterson will have? The reason “Terri’s law” applies only to her is because the Senate Democrats refused to agree to unanimous consent to pass a bill unless it applied only to Terri. How convenient that they now blame Republicans who wanted a bill that would apply to anyone in Terri’s circumstances.

In Robles v. Coughlin, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that “the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does require that prisoners be served ‘nutritionally adequate food that is prepared and served under conditions which do not present an immediate danger to the health and well being of the inmates who consume it.’”

Too bad Terri isn’t confined in a prison instead of a hospice. That’s where her husband placed her after he won a large award in a malpractice case, where he promised to care for her.

In 1984, the New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld a trial court order that authorized a prison warden to feed and nourish a prison inmate over his objection, even though he was mentally competent and wanted to die by starvation. Here we have a judge ordering the removal of food and water to cause starvation. Even if we knew that's what Terri wants, Florida law makes aiding and abetting a suicide a felony, and there's no black-robed exemption.

Terri Schiavo isn’t dying from a disease, she isn’t on a ventilator, she doesn’t meet Florida’s definition of “persistent vegetative state,” and she committed no crime. She’s being killed by a judge on the flimsiest of evidence.

Some missing advocates need to step up to the Bar.

Concerned Women for America
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806
E-mail: mail@cwfa.org


VI. Mass Distortion 

This contains two small edits, based on information I just obtained from the Schindler family spokesman. In the sentence about physicians disputing the "persistent vegetative state," I took out the part about 33 filing affidavits, and changed it to: "is disputed by numerous physicians" since that came from one media source and I can't confirm directly from the lawyers representing Terri. It could well be 33, the spokesman said, but the standard here is: When in doubt, leave it out. Also, Terri's condition has been variously described in media outlets as "persisent vegetative state" and "permanent vegetative state." I had both references, but have made them both "persistent" for consistency's sake.  -- Bob Knight


Media, biased polls are giving America a warped view of Terri’s plight.

By Robert Knight

Last Sunday, two days after Terri Schiavo’s water and food were cut off, 501 Americans were told by an ABC News Poll that Terri “has been on life support for 15 years,” and that “doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible.”

Then they were asked: “Do you support or oppose the decision to remove Schiavo’s feeding tube?”

Not surprisingly, given the inaccurate picture conjured of a coma victim hooked up to multiple machines to sustain what amounts to a living corpse, 63 percent supported Michael Schiavo’s intent to kill his wife by slow starvation. Only 28 percent opposed it, and 9 percent were not sure.

Some 70 percent also said they disagreed with Congress’ intervention. That soon became widely confused as 70 percent of Americans applauding Terri’s starvation.

The ABC Poll was quickly echoed throughout the media, on broadcast networks and in major newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post. Word grew on Capitol Hill, where Republicans were rushing to enact legislation to protect Terri’s right to a federal court hearing, that the American people were not with them. The figures also were noted in Tallahassee, where the Republican-controlled Senate refused to approve a bill to reinstate Terri’s food and water while legal issues were being fought.

On March 22, WorldNetDaily revealed the poll’s miswording.

In a subsequent poll on March 22 by CNN/USA Gallup, in which Terri was still described as “in a persistent vegetative state who was being kept alive through the use of a feeding tube,” the number of those supporting the kill order dropped to 52 percent. Was word getting out, at last, that Terri is not a “vegetable”?

Leave aside, for a moment, the fact that physicians have filed affidavits disagreeing with the diagnosis of a “persistent vegetative state,” and that there is ample testimony from Terri’s parents, siblings, nurses and others that she is responsive, emotional, and by no means a “vegetable.” These should clearly be grounds enough to support doubt and halt this grisly execution. Convicted killers are spared with far less doubt.

But the case has been surrounded by so many lies and distortions, many politicians are running scared of the polls.

Here is more evidence that America is being manipulated into accepting what amounts to a public execution of an innocent woman whose parents are begging for her life.

A majority of media coverage has centered on claims by Michael Schiavo, Terri’s adulterous husband, who says she told him she wanted this. By contrast, Terri’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, who are willing to care for her and take on all expenses, garner far less airtime and print. The Media Research Center reports that of 31 reports on major networks between March 17 to March 21, 60 percent concentrated on Michael Schiavo’s claims and 40 percent featured the Schindlers’ case.

No poll has been taken to ask these questions:

  • Are you aware that Michael Schiavo is living with another woman, has sired two children by her, and admitted melting down his wife’s wedding ring to make jewelry for himself?


  • Did you know that Michael Schiavo never mentioned any alleged statement by Terri that she did not want to be kept alive this way until years later, when a settlement was reached in a malpractice lawsuit awarding him more than $1 million for Terri’s rehabilitation, and around the time he moved in with the other woman?


  • Did you know that the description of Terri being in a “persistent vegetative state” is disputed by numerous physicians, including a Mayo Clinic neurologist?


  • Did you know that Carla Iyer, a nurse who cared for Terri in the mid-’90s, filed an affidavit (available at www.terrisfight.net) saying that Michael openly pined for Terri’s death, prohibited the nurses from providing even the smallest comfort, such as a cool washcloth, apparently tampered with Terri’s charts showing any rehabilitative progress, and reportedly asked, “When is that b---ch going to die?”

On another level, the media are working strenuously to persuade us that starving to death is actually a pleasant experience. Here’s how the Los Angeles Times’ “Body in decline” graphic (March 23) describes it, accompanied by a healthy-appearing body: “Experts say dehydration and starvation in the terminally ill are painless.” The text next to the brain in the picture reads: “Compounds produced by the body create a sense of euphoria.”

First, Terri is not terminally ill. She is not dying. She is being killed by starvation. Second, if such patients do not feel anything, how can they feel euphoria?

Doctors such as David Stevens, president of the Christian Medical Association who has practiced medicine in Africa (where dehydration, sadly, is quite common), sharply dispute the notion that starving to death is not painful.

Dr. Stevens notes in a press release, "As dehydration begins, there is extreme thirst, dry mouth and thick saliva. The patient becomes dizzy, faint and unable to stand or sit; has severe cramping in the arms and legs as the sodium and potassium concentrations in the body go up as fluids go down.

"In misery, the patient tries to cry but there are no tears. The patient experiences severe abdominal cramps, nausea and dry-heaving as the stomach and intestines dry out.

"By now the skin and lips are cracking and the tongue is swollen. The nose may bleed as the mucous membranes dry out and break down. The skin loses elasticity, thins and wrinkles. The hands and feet become cold as the remaining fluids in the circulatory system are shunted to the vital organs in an attempt to stay alive. The person stops urinating and has severe headaches as their brain shrinks from lack of fluids. The patient becomes anxious but then gets progressively more lethargic.

"Some patients have hallucinations and seizures as their body chemistry becomes even more imbalanced. This proceeds to coma before death occurs. The final event as the blood pressure becomes almost undetectable is a major heart arrhythmia that stops the heart from pumping.

"Contrary to those that try to paint a picture of a gentle process, death by dehydration is a cruel, inhumane and often agonizing death."

Whether the media pick up on this sobering reality check is anybody’s guess. Given the previous coverage, it will probably take Divine intervention and a profound change of heart. Let’s pray that this happens.

Robert Knight, a former news editor for the Los Angeles Times and former Media Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, directs Concerned Women for America’s Culture & Family Institute.

Concerned Women for America
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806
E-mail: mail@cwfa.org


V. Starved for justice

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43464

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Posted: March 23, 2005  6:35 p.m. Eastern

© 2005 Ann Coulter

Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: 1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard), 2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms), and 3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans. In two of the three cases mentioned above, the Democrats' use of force was in direct contravention of court rulings. Admittedly, this was a very long time ago – back in U.S. history when the judiciary was only one of the three branches of our government. Democratic Gov. Orval Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard expressly for purposes of defying rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts.

The decadent buffoon Bill Clinton sent armed agents from the INS to seize a small boy from an American family – despite rulings by the majestic and infallible Florida courts granting custody of the boy to that very family.

None of these exercises of military force has gone down in history as a noble moment, but that's because of the underlying purpose of the force, not the fact that force was used.

To the contrary, what has gone down in history as a glorious moment for the republic was when President Dwight Eisenhower (Republican) called out military force of his own. In response to Gov. Faubus' abuse of the National Guard, Eisenhower simultaneously revoked Faubus' control of the National Guard and ordered the 101st Airborne Division to escort black students to school. (Minutes later, Democrats pronounced the Arkansas public schools a "hopeless quagmire" and demanded to know what Ike's exit strategy was.)

As important as it was to enforce the constitutional right to desegregated schools, isn't it also important to enforce Terri Schiavo's right to due process before she is killed by starvation?

Liberals' newfound respect for "federalism" is completely disingenuous. People who support a national policy on abortion are prohibited from ever using the word "federalism."

I note that whenever liberals talk about "federalism" or "states' rights," they are never talking about a state referendum or a law passed by the duly elected members of a state legislature – or anything voted on by the actual citizens of a state. What liberals mean by "federalism" is: a state court ruling. Just as "choice" refers to only one choice, "the rule of law" refers only to "the law as determined by a court."

As a practical matter, courts will generally have the last word in interpreting the law because courts decide cases. But that's a pragmatic point. There is nothing in the law, the Constitution or the concept of "federalism" that mandates giving courts the last word. Other public officials, including governors and presidents, are sworn to uphold the law, too.

It would be chaotic if public officials made a habit of disregarding court rulings simply because they disagreed with them. But a practice borne of practicality has led the courts to greater and greater flights of arrogance. Sublimely confident that no one will ever call their bluff, courts are now regularly discovering secret legal provisions requiring abortion and gay marriage and prohibiting public prayer and Ten Commandments displays.

Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court. Any incorrect ruling will do, but my vote is for a state court that has ordered a disabled woman to be starved to death at the request of her adulterous husband.

Florida state court Judge George Greer – last heard from when he denied an order of protection to a woman weeks before her husband stabbed her to death – determined that Terri would have wanted to be starved to death based on the testimony of her husband, who was then living with another woman. (The judge also took judicial notice of the positions of O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson and Robert Blake.) The husband also happened to be the only person present when the oxygen was cut off to Terri's brain in the first place. He now has two children with another woman.

Greer has refused to order the most basic medical tests for brain damage before condemning a woman to death. Despite all those years of important, searching litigation we keep hearing about, Terri has yet to receive either an MRI or a PET scan – although she may be allowed to join a support group for women whose husbands are trying to kill them.

Greer has cut off the legal rights of Terri's real family and made her husband (now with a different family) her sole guardian, citing as precedent the landmark "Fox v. Henhouse" ruling of 1893. Throughout the process that would result in her death sentence, Terri was never permitted her own legal counsel. Evidently, they were all tied up defending the right to life of child-molesting murderers.

Given the country's fetishism about court rulings, this may be a rash assumption, but I presume if Greer had ordered that Terri Schiavo be shot at her husband's request – a more humane death, by the way – the whole country would not sit idly by, claiming to be bound by the court's ruling because of the "rule of law" and "federalism." President Bush would order the FBI to protect her and Gov. Bush would send in the state police.

What was supposed to be the "least dangerous" branch has become the most dangerous – literally to the point of ordering an innocent American woman to die, and willfully disregarding congressional subpoenas. They can't be stopped – solely because the entire country has agreed to treat the pronouncements of former ambulance-chasers as the word of God. The only power courts have is that everyone jumps when they say "jump." (Also, people seem a little intimidated by the black robes. From now on we should make all judges wear lime-green leisure suits.)

President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The court's ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived.

If Gov. Jeb Bush doesn't say something similar to the Florida courts that have ordered Terri Schiavo to die, he'll be the second Republican governor disgraced by the illiterate ramblings of a state judiciary. Gov. Mitt Romney will never recover from his acquiescence to the Massachusetts Supreme Court's miraculous discovery of a right to gay marriage. Neither will Gov. Bush if he doesn't stop the torture and murder of Terri Schiavo.


IV. Culture of death stalks Terri Schiavo

The Christian Underground

March 22, 2005
J.D. Mullane

In a video, Terri Schiavo appears pale, puffy and fragile.

Her mother, Mary Schindler, faces Terri, back to the camera from a
three-quarter shot.

Mrs. Schindler lifts her left hand to caress Terri's face.

Terri smiles.

But this can't be, for we have been told that Terri Schiavo is hopelessly
brain damaged and in a "persistent vegetative state" or, as one doctor who
recommended starving her to death put it, in "wakeful oblivion."

Another video. It shows Terri grimacing and turning away when a doctor
places a cotton swab in her mouth.

Who knew that someone in a persistent vegetative state could feel discomfort
enough to react as anyone might when a swab is shoved in your face?

Terri seems wakeful, but not oblivious. Another video. Terri's eyes follow a
Mylar balloon as it is moved over her, back and forth.

Huh. A profoundly brain-damaged woman who appears to have the ability to

Oh, it's probably just a reflex.

More video. Terri laughs. Terri moans. Terri tries to speak. (Yesterday the
Internet was ablaze with a 2004 audiotape of Terri attempting to speak to
her father.)

Laughter? Moaning? Speech? From someone whose brain forever spins somewhere
near Jupiter?

Of course, who am I to question the wise men of medicine who actually
examined Terri? These doctors gave their opinions to a Florida state judge,
who used them to rule that "persistently vegetative" Terri should die by

Among the doctors the judge relied on is Ronald Cranford, a neurologist who
has taught at the University of Minnesota's Center for Biomedical Ethics.

I'm sure it's just a slip among us in the media, but it hasn't been widely
reported that Cranford has long advocated starving the brain damaged,
especially those suffering from Alzheimer's. He even wrote an op-ed piece in
the Minneapolis Star-Tribune about it.

"In Europe," he wrote, "feeding tubes are rarely seen in nursing homes.

Once a patient is so severely brain damaged that only artificial nutrition
can sustain life, many doctors and families ask, 'What's the point?' "

The point, doctor, is that brain-damaged people can improve, and the
videotapes of Terri Schiavo are evidence.

I had a cousin who suffered an aneurysm and lay comatose for weeks. Several
doctors examined him and said there was nothing more to do.

Compassion dictated that life support be turned off. But one doctor had an
unscientific hunch that my cousin would recover. Several weeks later, my
cousin was talking.

Today, you'd never know that he had nearly been a victim of medically
induced "compassion."

What stalked my cousin, and what's stalking Terri Schiavo, is what Pope John
Paul II calls the "culture of death."

That is putting to death someone who is medically helpless in the name of
compassion or for the sake of our own convenience.

It's becoming normalized.

Just last Sunday, The New York Times, quoting "experts," reported that
inducing death by withholding food and fluids "can lead to a gentle death" -
as if none of us have seen the horrific images of Dachau and Bergen-Belsen.

If Terri Schiavo dies, she won't be the first victim the culture of death
has claimed. She'll merely be the most famous among millions who've been
silently terminated because it was decided that their life was more trouble
than it was worth.

--- @@@ --- @@@ --- @@@ --- @@@ ---


Posted to the CU: 2005-03-22 09:54:26 CST

The Christian Underground

III. Why should Michael Schiavo not be charged
with attempted murder?

[COMMENT: ...and maybe certain judges and doctors as well?  (See article on conflict of interest below.)   As the article above notes, Terri is being stalked -- by the culture of death.  This has nothing to do with science or with compassion.  This is a work of the father of lies.  See also, http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd95.htm ]

Add to Mr. Gacek's observations below that the ABC poll that is being cited widely as showing that 70 percent of the American people accept the judge's order is based on a question that flat out lies about her condition. She is said to be "on life support," a term that conjurs up images of a comatose patient on multiple machines, sustaining essentially a dead person.  This kind of dishonesty exceeds even the usual liberal media bias and must be exposed.  

 -----Original Message-----
From: Chris Gacek [mailto:chrisgacek@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 8:40 AM
To: Chris Gacek; Weyrich, Paul; Minnery, Tom; Donovan, Charles; Wendy Wright; Earll, Carrie Gordon; George, Prof. Robert; Arkes, Hadley; Bob Knight; Destro, Robert_CUA Law
Subject: News in Schiavo case

With today's bad news in the Schiavo case, I think there are some important points to consider and to use in arguments regarding this matter that don't seem to be getting to the larger public:
1) This is case is not like hundreds or thousands of others all across the country.  I don't know of other cases in which a court has commanded that an incapacitated person be killed by the denial of water and food.  I certainly have seen no precedent cited in recent articles.  This is an unusual event precisely because a court is ordering it.  This action is being taken by the state and creates an entirely different category of precedent and moral statement. 
2) Compare the protections Scott Peterson has had and will have compared to Terri Schiavo. Here are some cursory thoughts. The relevant facts in his case were established by a jury using the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard; his conviction and sentence are subject to federal habeas corpus review.  Schiavo's fate has been settled by one judge - not a jury - based presumably on either the preponderance of the evidence standard (or the clear and convincing evidence standard).  This judge, it seems to me, has received extraordinary deference that a court making criminal court would not receive (e.g., the scope of evidence presented to the court to establish her cognitive state).  There is no established federal review to protect Schiavo, and there are no established constitutional or federal statutory standards in this area.  Federal courts and the Congress have spent countless hours debating what federal procedural safeguards should protect criminals - especially those sentenced to death.
3)  Terri Schiavo is not "brain dead" - see the rather astounding article below.  Shouldn't it be relatively easy to find out who is correct about this woman's physical condition?  This is not a past event clouded by hazy memories - she's alive in a room in Florida.
These observations may be off the mark, but we need to delineate these cases and explain these differences to the public.  Any corrections would be appreciated.

Renowned neurologist:
Schiavo can eat with aid & is not in ‘persistent vegetative state’
Mar 21, 2005
By Joni B. Hannigan

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (BP)--A doctor close to the Terri Schiavo case told the Florida Baptist Witness that the 41-year-old disabled woman could actually be fed orally if it were allowed.

"The important thing for people to understand is that she can eat and swallow right now,” said William Hammesfahr, a neurologist who has examined Schiavo. He is in many of the videos circulated through the news media showing that Schiavo is at times responsive and aware.

"They are truly withholding food from a person who is awake, alert, and can eat and swallow,” Hammesfahr said. After spending at least 10 hours with Schiavo several years ago, he told Florida Judge George W. Greer that she can improve with therapy.

Hammesfahr said his credibility had been questioned at the time, but he has since been vindicated in court and currently maintains a thriving private practice in Clearwater, Fla. Despite reports attacking him, he said he has never lost his license to practice medicine and currently is involved in litigation surrounding the ordeal.

Hammesfahr was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology in 1999 for his work in brain injury and stroke. He is a recognized expert in treating neurological disorders, having successfully treated thousands of patients using vasodilator therapy, which increases blood flow to the brain, thus healing conditions previously thought to be untreatable.

Standing with a handful of supporters outside of the hospice late in the evening Mar. 19, Hammesfahr told the Witness Schiavo previously has swallowed pudding and daily swallows almost two liters of water by virtue of being able to process her own saliva and sinus drainage.

"That’s liquid and that’s the most difficult thing to swallow," Hammesfahr said of her saliva. "If she can swallow that she can swallow food or pudding."

Other doctors who testified before Greer in 2003 had limited exposure to Schiavo and did not complete standard evaluations for brain injuries, Hammesfahr said. The court-appointed doctors maintained Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), with no chance for recovery.

"Terri’s not that bad," Hammesfahr said. "She is like a child with cerebral palsy. She can speak. At least when I saw her, she would speak very slowly. She would sort of form words, she would move her arms and legs at command. She could understand questions in English.”

Hammesfahr said there are at least 50 physicians he knows of, in private practice and related to medical universities who have said Schiavo is not in a PVS or in a coma.

In 1990 Schiavo suffered brain damage after her heart stopped. Nearly a decade ago, Schiavo’s husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo, petitioned the court to halt the dispensing of nutrition and hydration through a feeding tube to his disabled wife.

Her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, as well as family and supporters have argued that she could improve were she provided rehabilitation services. Michael Schiavo has refused to provide those services since around 1993, they say.

Although Michael Schiavo says his wife would want to die, no written request from her exists. Terri Schiavo’s parents have challenged his continued guardianship of their daughter, citing conflict of interest. Michael Schiavo has lived with his girlfriend, by whom he has fathered two children, for 10 years.

Greer ruled Feb. 25 that Schiavo’s nutrition and hydration be discontinued and in subsequent decisions ruled she cannot undergo more medical testing and cannot be fed by mouth. Greer also rebuffed a request by Florida’s Department of Children and Families for a 60-day stay of his motion so that they could investigate allegations that Michael Schiavo has abused and neglected his wife.

Hammesfahr said that about 30 percent of his cases are more severe than Terri Schiavo’s, and that she most likely could improve, whether by his approach or another.

"You can get almost anybody with a brain injury or a stroke better," Hammesfahr said. "I think that’s the long and short of it.

"It’s not that [Schiavo simply] deserves a chance, she deserves rehabilitation," Hammesfahr continued. "She’s not going to get the rehabilitation if she gets killed off here."

Each day Schiavo is off the feeding tube increases the chance that she will end up in a coma, Hammesfahr said. He described what happens to the human body when it is deprived of food and water.

"People who die of starvation, their acid eats through their stomach, they develop infections in their body, their body starts to dissolve from the inside out, they develop seizures, [and] frequently it breaks their back," he said. "They have to have medications to essentially put them into a coma to not have their body break their back or something of that nature."

He explained that the process of putting someone in a coma after withholding nutrition and hydration is part of an "exit protocol" that involves delivering powerful drugs like Morphine and Valium to the patient when they are expected to die.

"The danger for Schiavo is that if she is in a coma, she will not have the type of monitoring that could help her recover if the feeding tube is reinserted.

"Putting a person in coma is very dangerous,” Hammesfahr said, and after 7-8 days she might end up in an irreversible coma or with further brain damage.

Angel Watson, a Pinellas Park, Fla., resident who works with the Caring and Sharing Center for Independent Living, said she once was considered to be in a PVS, after a skiing accident left her paralyzed, but that she made remarkable improvements because of her strong will to live.

Referring to the two other times Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed and surgically re-inserted, Watson said it is wrong to treat Terri as if she would not want to live.

Watson questions Michael Schiavo’s insistence that he loves his wife and cares deeply for her. Michael Schiavo, Watson said, has had ample proof that his wife wants to live.

"She’s the embodiment of a living will,” Watson said. "She is a living will. He’s tried to kill her twice and she has the will to live.

"What more [evidence] could you possibly want?"

[NOTE:  see also http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/20/102601.shtml ]

II. Conflict-of-Interest in the Court?

This was received today from people monitoring the case quite closely.  I am forwarding it as received -- I do not have any further information which would verify it. -- But, I think responsible journalists should be checking into these claims, rather than focusing on four year old photos of Terri Schiavo. -- To save space, I am deleting all initial routing info, but leaving the original source. -- Joan


Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:08:11 -0500

Phil's note: Here is an information sandwich from Free Republic's JennysCool regarding the Pinellas Players. In my view, an independent prosecutor could make a RICO case, fold in attempted murder, wrongful death, grand larceny, abuse, and $14 million in Medicare fraud.

Here's some interesting background on the Pinellas gang, originally posted by JustaCowgirl:

Check out what I just found about the underground workings of Judge Greer, Michael Schiavo and their 'friends' in Pinellas County. Posted on

I can't personally vouch for the truth of any of these statements, but they're verifiable. Worth getting out there if even partly true. It explains a lot, because it's been obvious for a while that there's something incestuous about this whole situation.

The Hapless Misadventures of the Pinellas County Court System: An incestuous tale

If this doesn't leave you scratching your head in confusion and wondering how this is happening in the year 2005 when our legal system is supposed to be squeaky clean, you have no hair!

Judges are impartial, right? Not Judge George Greer, the judge that has ordered Terri Schiavo executed by starvation and dehydration, twice.

Our good ole boy judge has worked side by side as county commissioner with Barbara Sheen Todd (county commissioner) for eight years. Barbara Sheen Todd is on the board of, you guessed it, the hospice where Terri Schiavo is kept prisoner by her husband, Michael Schiavo, who lives with another woman that he has two children with.

Also, Judge Greer's fellow judge, Judge John Lenderman is the brother of Martha Lenderman, also on the, you got it, the same hospice board.

Our fine judge accepted as the basis of his rulings, the questionable testimony of Michael Schiavo that Terri would wish to be killed, yet Michael never stated this until after he had received the 1.2 million dollar settlement during which time he portrayed himself as a loving husband that just wanted to bring his wife home and take care of her.

The judge also accepted as the basis of his rulings, the "opinion" of a third doctor who is the brother of a close associate of George Felos, Michael Schiavo's right-to-kill attorney, and very significantly, former Chairman of, you got it again, the same hospice board, Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, which operates Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida.

Still have some hair left? Let's see what we can do about that!

Mary Laybak, CEO of Woodside Hospice has direct ties to Euthanasia Society of America and Hemlock for Hospice, an organization that seeks to accelerate the dying process. Federal funds may not be used for these purposes.

The Hospice is a federally funded program designed for terminally ill and those whose death is eminent. Terri has been in Woodside Hospice illegally for three years under Medicaid payments, for free, courtesy of, yep, George Felos. Felos combined and conspired with Michael Schiavo to arrange for Terri's "free" stay at Hospice Woodside as part of an "exit protocol" designed to advance Felos' self-perceived messianic mission of "helping" incapacitated people to die by categorizing them as "terminal," warehousing them, and depriving them of therapy and rehabilitation services.

US Dept of Health and Human Services is currently trying to collect $14.8 million from Florida Suncoast Hospice, owed to them since 1997. The squeaki-clean(not) Hospice is accused of patient brokering and several lawsuits filed by Attorney Jonathan Alpert are pending.

And back to our friend the judge, just what kind of testimony has he weighted to put Terri in a hell on earth without chance of parole?

Judge Greer refused to acknowledge testimony of 10 doctors and 3 nurses who have cared for Terri and who testify that:

a) Terri is not in a persistive vegetative state

b) Terri is able to be rehabilitated with care and therapy

c) Terris original injuries are questionable and consistent with spouse abuse and attempted strangulation

d) Terri has been abused and neglected by her husband; denied treatment for infection and possible attempted murder while in nursing home care (discovery of empty insulin vial and temperature in room set at 64 degrees)

Judge Greer instead chose to believe contrary testimony by two of Michaels representatives who are:

a) A doctor who rarely sees Terri (Dr. Gambone who has now resigned as Terris doctor)

b) Ronald Cranford, Hannipeg County Medical Center , Minnesota who makes an avocation of testifying in cases such as Terri's throughout the country, always on the side of dehydration and starvation.

I. Torturing Terri Schiavo

> March 17, 2005, 7:58 a.m.

> She’d be better off if she were a terrorist.
> A few months back, I wrote an article for Commentary arguing that we
> ought to reconsider our anti-torture laws. The argument wasn’t novel.
> It echoed contentions that had been made with great persuasive force
> by Harvard’s Professor Alan Dershowitz: that under circumstances of
> imminent harm to thousands of moral innocents (the so-called “ticking
> bomb” scenario), it would be appropriate to inflict, under
> court-supervision, intense but non-lethal pain in an effort to wring
> information from a morally culpable person — a terrorist known to be
> complicit in the plot.
> As one might predict with such a third rail, my mail was copious and
> indignant. Opening the door by even a sliver for torture, I was
> admonished, was the most reprehensible of slippery slopes. No matter
> how well-intentioned was the idea, no matter the lives that might be
> saved, no matter how certain we might be about the guilt of the
> detainee, the very thought that such a thing might be legal would
> render us no better than the savages we were fighting.
> Well, lo and behold, a court-ordered torture is set to begin in
> Florida on Friday at 1 P.M.
> It will not produce a scintilla of socially useful information. It
> will not save a single innocent life. It is not narrowly targeted on a
> morally culpable person — the torture-victim is herself as innocent as
> she is defenseless. It is not, moreover, meant to be brief and
> non-lethal: The torture will take about two excruciating weeks, and
> its sole and only purpose is to kill the victim.
> On Friday afternoon, unless humanity intervenes, the state of Florida
> is scheduled to begin its court-ordered torture-murder of Terri
> Schiavo, whose only crime is that she is an inconvenience. A nuisance
> to a faithless husband grown tired of the toll on his new love
> interest and depleting bank account — an account that was inflated
> only because a jury, in 1992, awarded him over a million dollars,
> mostly as a trust to pay for Terri’s continued care, in a medical
> malpractice verdict.
> In this instance, though, deafening is the only word for the silence
> of my former interlocutors — -civil-liberties activists
> characteristically set on hysteria auto-pilot the moment an al Qaeda
> terrorist is rumored to have been sent to bed without supper by Don
> Rumsfeld or Al Gonzales (something that would, of course, be rank
> rumor since, if you kill or try to kill enough Americans, you can be
> certain our government will get you three halal squares a day).
> Not so Terri Schiavo. She will be starved and dehydrated. Until she is
> dead. By court order.
> Terri is a 40-year-old woman who suffered brain damage after a
> diagnosed heart attack when she was 26. In state legal proceedings
> dominated by macabre right-to-die activists, a judge found her to be
> reduced to a permanent vegetative state (PVS), drawing on examinations
> that appear grossly inadequate to the task of what objective
> specialists say is a complex diagnosis. Whether she would technically
> be found a PVS case by a court that was honestly interested in getting
> a real fix on her condition — rather than breaking new ground in just
> how far the Left can go in deciding whose life has value — is beside
> the point. She is alive and, periodically, both alert and responsive.
> Her parents love her and want to care for her. Imagine if you had a
> child who was defenseless, dependent, and vulnerable — many of us,
> indeed, need not imagine — and the state told you not only to step
> aside but that you had to watch, helpless, while it took two weeks to
> kill her. That’s what’s happening in Florida. Starting Friday.
> On another Friday, seven years ago, Mohammed Daoud al-`Owhali and
> Khalfan Khamis Mohammed blew up the American embassies in Kenya and
> Tanzania, killing over 240 people. They were brought to the United
> States for trial. They were given, at public expense, multiple, highly
> experienced capital lawyers, and permitted extensive audiences to
> plead with the Justice Department not to seek the death penalty. When
> a capital indictment nevertheless was filed, they were given weeks of
> voir dire to ensure a jury of twelve people open to the notion that
> even the lives of mass-murderers have value. They were then given
> seven months of trial and sentencing proceedings, suffuse with every
> legal and factual presumption that their lives had worth and should be
> spared. And so they were.
> That’s what the law says we must do for terrorists seeking to destroy
> our country and to slaughter us indiscriminately.
> What is the law doing for Terri Schiavo?
> What kind of law is it, what kind of society is it, that says the
> lives of Khalfan Khamis Mohammed and Mohammed Daoud al-`Owhali’s have
> value — over which we must anguish and for the sustenance of which we
> must expend tens of thousands annually — but Terri Schiavo’s is
> readily dispensable? By court-ordered torture over the wrenching pleas
> of parents ready and willing to care for her?
> What kind of society goes into a lather over the imposition of bright
> lights and stress positions for barbarians who might have information
> that will save lives, but yawns while a defenseless woman who hasn’t
> hurt anyone is willfully starved and dehydrated? By a court — the
> bulwark purportedly protecting our right to life?
> The torture starts Friday, at 1 P.M. Unless we do something to stop it.
> — Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against
> Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is a senior fellow at the
> Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Go to: => TOP Page; => Life Library; => Politics Library; => ROAD MAP