The only bone I have to pick with that post is that NO ONE owes Michael Schiavo an apology. I will continue hating his slimey guts forever. So what if her brain was damaged beyond repair. That is NOT a capital offense. Civilized people should not approve the murder of their disabled citizens solely based on the hearsay evidence of an adulterous husband.

Zelda -

1. M Schiavo was truthful. Everything that came out of a Schindler mouth, including their deceitful video - was a lie.

2. Being an all-but officially brain dead vegetable is not a "disability".

3. Courts don't issue "murder" orders. 20 courts reviewing such an order do not endorse murder. Hospice workers are not murderers. Doctors & nurses that pull the plug are not murderers.

4. The court believed the testimony of the "adulterer" who spent almost every day at his wifes bedside for 15 years over the repeated lies of the Schindlers, their lying witnesses, and their RTL henchmen. Go figure!

(Did you know that slimey little sanctimonious piece of shit Bobby Schindler visited his sister a sum total of 4 times from 1990 to 2001???)

5. You are utterly clueless of what "hearsay evidence" is. No hearsay evidence was admitted, only direct testimony from witnesses on what T Schiavo said before all her personality, memories, cognition was wiped out when her heart stopped.

6. You come across as just another blindly vicious man-hater looking for your next Scott Peterson fix.

7. Like most RTLr's, not a peep out of you about the 50,000 veggies unplugged in America since T Schiavo died....no equating by you of those family's end of life decisions with capital punishment.
(But think of all the eeeeviiiiil Scott Peterson types that pull the plug on beloved family members - guys like Tom Delay (his dad) - or deny "disabled people" - those with a destroyed unrecoverable heart - days, months, or years of futile medical care (noted Senator and plug-puller on hundreds of patients Dr Bill Frist).

8. You don't owe an apology to Michael Schiavo or by implication the millions of "murdering" families involved in similar end of life decisions. You DO OWE an apology to every teacher you had for wasting their time trying to educate you.

Cedarford: You are the one that is utterly clueless as to the definition of hearsay -- not Zelda.

And, many here consider you an all-but officially brain dead vegetable, yet no one is suggesting we off you.

Pity you fail to identify your brave, chest puffing words of courage with a nametag, "june".

Hint, dummy, if someone tells you something directly, and you relate that in court, as M Schiavo and 3 witnesses who heard T Schiavo tell them how she felt about "tubes", then that is admissible direct witness testimony, not hearsay

Pity you fail to identify your brave, chest puffing words of courage with a nametag, "june".

It is a hell of a lot better than the nametag of cedarford!

Hint, hearsay is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

T Schiavo tell them . . . = out of court statement.

how she felt about "tubes" = offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

You're dumber than even I thought you were, cedarford! Bless your pointy little head!

Cedarford, I have not personally attacked or anyone I've disagreed with on this blog. So maybe if you refrained from personally attacking total strangers, people might respect you for a change.

Zelda -

Please don't lecture me about harsh words when you sling about accusations of adultery and tens of millions of American families being murderers of the handicapped.

Or your willingness to say you "hate" someones "slimey guts forever" based on the now disproven manipulative lies of the Schindlers and their followers.

Perhaps you should be more concerned with being respected as a cognitive thinker than worry about who here likes or dislikes me.

Most of the heat I get at ACE regards me criticizing the One Country That Must Never Be Criticized....Which can be ignored as easily as the outrage that Saudi sympathizers have towards the Islamophobia of any critivism directed at them or their favorite country.

Cedarford,

The fact that I hate Michael Schiavo's slimey guts is my personal opinion, which I have every right to. Also the adultery in this case is a fact, which most people chose to ignore, not just a personal attack on my part.

Now you're entitled to disagree with me and vice versa. But personal attacks are totally uncalled for.

Otherwise, I'm not worried about who here dislikes you. That's your own business. Whatever people may or may not think of my "cognitive thinking" is up to them. They can think whatever they please.

No, cedarford, people dislike you because you are an effin antisemite.

Oh "June" !! And I suppose you would be hurt to the bone if someone called you Islamophobic or a French hater.. We have Muslims, Jews, and some ethnic groups in America that have loyalty issues...they love America less than some foreign land and seek to throw money at politicians to favor their foreign land over America's best interests. Right now, the worst offenders are the Saudi-lovers, India-lovers, China-lovers, and lovers of the Country It is Taboo to Ever Criticize..

The old "bigotry!!!" charge was used to broadly and too long as a means to stifle criticism here of that country. The rest of the world freely does, and overuse of the Hate label here is finally causing people to rethink a policy of "Why am I free to criticize every nation, even America, but supposed to never criticize That One Country??"

The Arabs wish to ape them and declare any criticism of Saudia Arabia, other Arab nations and Islam itself "Pure Anti-Islam Bigotry".

I could care less what CAIR thinks.

Nah, I don't care what people call me. But, unlike you, the anti-semite, people don't scatter when I enter a room. You're a whackjob, cedar. You're tolerated here as an oddity.

I'm a conservative Christian from the South and I'm Pro-Life. That being said. I just want to say that I back ole' Cedarford 100% on this topic. I may disagree with 99.9% of the other stuff he says, but facts are facts. Her brain was 1/2 the size it was supposed to be. Now we can always find ways to make an arguement for our own side and ignore the facts. If you do, you are acting like the extreme left-wing liberals that you all love to bash.

Now lemme hear it! Tell me I'm not a conservative. Tell me how I'm the one who is acting liberal for backing Cedarford. TELL ME HOW TO THINK.

Johnny Reb makes a good point. We have a pack of hard core Right-Wingers that want to define minimum acceptable conservatism as about a mile to the right of what Reagan was, and anyone not idealogically where they are - are Liberals...weak-kneed Democrats

They fail to understand that 43% of the country term themselves moderate, 31% conservative, 26% liberal. And politics is not about the base as much as keeping the base energized while you vie for the Center.

If we look at the hard-core folks, well to the right of Reagan we see:

1. Opposition to all abortion, even health of the mother and severe birth defect embryos...ignoring the moderates do want some abortion legal but want real restrictions on the current laissez faire abortion practices.

2. Keep all vegetatives alive at any cost, but don't raise any taxes to pay for it.

3. Favor an endless stream of military invasions and occupations "First Iraq, then Lebanon, then Syria, then Iran, then Saudi Arabia." "Faster, faster! Please!" Yet oppose any tax increase or the Draft which would be needed to build the military to the size needed for such adventures. Which don't really protect America as much as safeguard another country. In fact, they want tax cuts and are silent as the inventory of tanks, fighter planes, Naval ships draw down from what was handed to Bush by Clinton.

4. Far Right conservatives believe that knee-jerk support of whatever the leaders of One Country want is obligatory, and that country is not America.

5. Far Right conservatives ignore the growing threat to the middle class from trade and globalization as long as business owners are happy, they ignore our urgent need for an energy conservation/independence policy, our out of control Borders, the massive damage to America's goodwill overseas. Reasoning - if Bush isn't concerned - they shouldn't be either.

The point is that even most Republicans have some issues that they want moderate, even liberal measures enacted on. It could be Terri Schiavo and leaving end-of-life decisions to the courts and families, not allow RTL forces to meddle. It could be they agree with Nancy Reagan on stem cell research. It could be they seek a balanced ME policy to help achieve some non-military solutions to the rise of radical Islamist terrorism. It could be that a very conservative Republican has become very concerned about 100 dollar a barrel oil happening in the near future and want us to get serious about gas guzzlers.

And are growingly getting miffed that Bush ignores the moderate aspirations and only panders to hard-core fringe dwellers and the Religious Right. And miffed that when they say "seek the middle ground" extremists shout them down for such perfidy. ACE has many such fringe-dwellers who brook no deviance from hard-core policy. Keep in mind they are a fringe...

Johnny Reb,

The fact that you choose to make your stand with a Jew-hater says all that needs to be said about the value of your opinions.

Brewfan,

I said I made my stand with him on this issue and that I would probably disagree with about 99.9% of whatever else he says. Maybe not, I don't know. Is he a jew hater? I don't know. If so then why is that? He is obvioulsy way more liberal and way more to the left than me, but that doesn't mean I am going to disagree with everything he says.
Also, you don't know what my opinions are. But I feel I can disagree with someone on something I feel very strongly about and not resort to name calling and personal attacks. So do you automatically think I am an idiot now for agreeing wih him on this? He obviously doesn't like Bush. I voted for Bush. Do I still make my stand wih him? I'll disagree with Cedarford. But I won't call him a jew hater unless I see it for myself.

Cedarford,

Why are you called a "Jew Hater"?

Cedarford, Brewfan!! You guys out there? Please reply. I wanna hear your thought.

Mainly because I have criticized Israel for it's colony-building in Gaza & the West Bank, and the neocons for publicly calling for America, alone if necessary, to wage a series of invasions and occupations of the nations that adjoin or threaten Israel, in large part to preserve Israel's regional monopoly on nuclear and biological weapons - while Israel sits pat and wastes not a shekel or a single life.

And criticism of some Americans who put Israel 1st and work towards advancing Israel's interests over America's. The same sort of criticism I give to Muslim-Americans who are too cozy with Saudi Arabia, and the Sinophiles here that think China can do no wrong.

This drives Zionists like Spewfan, Jack M. - who believe in kneejerk support of Israel and attempting to stifle any who dare criticize it or it's supporters - crazy.
1. Remember 2 years ago, the neocon war cry was "Iraq is done. Now onto Lebanon and Syria to locate the transferred Iraqi WMD. Then onto Iran. Then Saudi Arabia. Faster, America! Faster, please!" Even then the UK said they would not join us in a series of additional wars that mainly benefited Israel, not the UK or the War on Terror.

2. Even though we opposed Israel moving settlers into Gaza from day 1, with America saying it violated the 4th Geneva Convention protocol on colonization and violated UN Res 242 - Israel thumbed their noses and did it anyways. And, just like the Sinai settlers that also were placed disregarding American opposition, Israel is now working with its well-lobbied and well-greased allies in the US Congress to pay the half million dollars "compensation" for each Gaza colonist willing to leave. (We Americans paid similar resettlement expenses for the illegal Sinai settlers back when Jimmy the Dupe Carter was played like a hooked fish by the Israelis at Camp David - which was the start of Israel's 3 billion a year plus annual welfare stipends..(half of American foreign aid for 25 years has gone to Israel and it's "partner in peace" Egypt)

I personally believe this war with radical Islam (not the stupidly named "War on Terrorists") cannot be won on a purely military basis, especially with no allies left other than our "best pals" pet leech we cannot use anywhere - for future invasions of Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia. And, not with real military challenges elsewhere, having nothing to do with Muslims, now getting more threatening - A. North Korea. B. Narcowar/Chavez Leftism in Columbia, Venezuela. C. The Rise of the Modern Chinese Military.

So I advocate a balanced ME policy, a settled Border between Israel and Palestine, and intensive efforts to show certain Muslim countries a more moderate path is possible where they can progress and be at peace with other countries - something radical Islamists and US military adventurists (just as long as we don't have to join the US military ourselves!) oppose.

In truth I think this will wait on the next President, while nothing much happens because there is no support for with Congress or the American punblic for us starting another war while Iraq and Afghanistan already stretch our military..Because Bush is a Christian Zionist, it's a strong part of his belief system, and he will not cross his "good friend", Ariel Sharon...

Cedarford,

Damn boy. You spewed abuncha stuff.

I don't feel that Israel colonizes, but secures themselves from other hostile regions. Remember they are a jewish state in the middle of a muslim world. If the surrounding countries had there way, they desimate Israel. At the same time, our country does seem to back Israel regardless. Israel IS NOTalways right. And I disagree with you saying Bush is a Zionist. What does Schiavo have to do with all this?

Break this shit down. I'm not gonna discuss this whole post. to much. You are obviously a Jew Hater :) Ya know because you disagree with Israel. Ya damn jew hatin' swatika bearin' lefty or righty?

Where is Brewfan? He told me in Dick Durbin Blog that I made my bed, now sleep in it. Does that mean that folks in this blog won't be my friends? Oh the fear!!!

Seriously, I just wanna discuss stuff. Cedaford, I would rather have you down to south to Alabama to go hunting this fall rather than Brewfan. At least you have balls. I don't see Brewfan writing on a liberal post. I may eat those words because he may do just that, but I doubt it.

Johnny, when the light turns on and you realize what kind of person Cedarford really is, come back and let us know. I'm curious to know how long it will take you.

Sortelli,

Tell me what kind of person he is. What will I see when the lights come on? Liberal? I can see that. Tell me what I need to fear. What would be wrong with having him go hunting with me? Would he take a shot a good ole' conservative southern boy like me?

"Ole times there are not forgotten"

Read his posts, braniac. There's a whole blog full of his comments all around you. A magical world waiting for discovery after you're done reminding us what a conservative good old boy you are. Way to go, conservative good old boy. Say, you wouldn't happen to be from the South, would yer?

Do you say "ya'll" in casual conversation? Seriously, that would be very interesting to me to hear you talk about that.

Hearsay!!

I am way late here but there is some legal confusion that has to be sorted out. Both sides are right! And wrong! Hooray.

Comments made by Ms. Schiavo concerning her opinions and told to court are most definitely hearsay. However, there are many exceptions to the hearsay rule that allow such statements to be admissible.

One such exception is impossibility. The textbook case is the dead witness. Another classic is the witness who has fled the county. Ms. Schiavo is the third type of textbook case. The unconscious witness.

Her statements are assuredly admissible. So claiming that they are hearsay is correct and false. In that merely calling a statement hearsay is meaningless.

Hope this clears up the confusion. Of course, the suggestion that the Florida Judicial system is so clueless, top to bottom, as to not understand the basic rules of evidence, and instead needs the help of the geniuses on this blog is silly. About as silly as lay people disparaging the autopsy report.

Seattle Slough:

Impossibility? Dead Witness? Fled the County? Unconscious witness? You don't have a clue how stupid you sound, do you?

About as silly as lay people disparaging the autopsy report.

You already made yourself look like a fool in one area, let's not try for two.

Run a long, moonbat. You are way over your head here.

Sortelli -

Why is it that you proclaim how concerned you are with Reb's education...yet you come across as smarmy and condescending??? Don't like the guy's language and his saying he is a good 'ol boy? Oh, the horrors!

Yeh Reb, I could down a brew or two with you.

My main fear is the US being manipulated into fighting a series of wars in the ME that give us little benefit but cost us tremendously - Iraq is 200 billion bucks tossec now, will pass Vietnam as our 3rd most expensive war in a year, and the neocons say we still have to invade Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia all on our own.

1700 troops lost is smaller than most people think, 15,000 total casualties. That was a bad week in WWII...a bad day in the Civil War...but our volunteer military is burning out and we cannot bite off any more wars and occupations for years to come if we want to keep American military readiness levels acceptable. We have big problems in Asia to worry about, and we can't wreck our military to keep Israel perfectly safe and not having to expend any money or troops on it's regional threats.

I was also pissed in the later stages of the Cold War as Canada and Europe got the free ride on America doing most of the military work.

As for Settlers being cool, imagine the Yanks won and instead of carpetbaggers, came in with 100's of thousands of Settlers, picked out choice land, seized it from the southern owners, then constructed "Yankeevilles" all through the South bordered in barbed wire and said any Southerner was barred entry? And connected all the "Yankeevilles" with "Yankee-only allowed" highways. And the Yankees were the worst - believers in a Greater Yankee Nation that was destined to expand with more and more Settlers & "Yankeevilles" and take over the South someday and then push all the Southerners into Mexico.

That's the crap the Palestinians have had to deal with for 40 years. Many have turned snakeshit rabid and are fighting back. And because most people in most nations on the planet have known war or colonization on their own soil - they sympathize with the Pals - and even give radical Islam, which is fighting the Zionists - a certain legitimacy.

What America needs, as Blair has hammered Bush endlessly on - is to get the Settlers out, establish final ME Borders, and a peace deal. Only then will radical Islam lose one of it's main pillars of support - the Palestinian Cause. It is hard because the Palestinians are self destructive rabid folks that legitimize murder & terrorism, and the ardent Zionists (only half the Jews in Israel fit that category) are fanatic, greedy land grabbers who see both real estate wealth and destiny in their seized Palestinian lands...

I think it will not happen with Bush, but will wait until we have a better President less religiously beholden to doing what Israel demands..

To anonymous idiot who disparaged my sensible, non-partisan legal analysis:

I can see why you posted anonymously.

Perhaps you'd like to take a peek at FRE 804(a)(4)? Or are you too stupid to look it up on findlaw?

Why is it the stupidest idiots post anonymously?
Is it because they are so stupid they forgot their names? Or is it that they know they are stupid and in a brief moment of non-stupidity, post anonymously to avoid the embarrassment of everyone knowing how stupid they really are?

Stupid stupid stupid.

Stupid anonymous idiot said: "Run along moonbat. You are [in?] way over your head here."

I ask: Over my head in what? Stupidity?

To anonymous idiot who disparaged my sensible, non-partisan legal analysis:

There was nothing sensible, nonpartisan, legal, or analytical about your post.

I can see why you posted anonymously.

As did you. Or, are you going to post your birth certificate so we can see that your legal name is: Slough, Seattle? I doubt it.

Perhaps you'd like to take a peek at FRE 804(a)(4)?

No thanks.

Or are you too stupid to look it up on findlaw?

I prefer lexis. What ever made you think that the FRE applied? Oh, yeah, you're stupid.

Why is it the stupidest idiots post anonymously?

Just because you post anonymously doesn't make you the stupidest idiot. I mean, you are extremely stupid, I'll grant you that. But not the stupidest. Close to the stupidest, though.

Is it because they are so stupid they forgot their names?

Go look at your birth certificate if you can't remember your name.

Stupid stupid stupid.

You You You.

Stupid anonymous idiot said: "Run along moonbat. You are [in?] way over your head here." I ask: Over my head in what? Stupidity?

Lawyers, dumbass. Half the people who post on this blog are attorneys. Obviously, you are not one of them. So, run along moonbat, you are way over your head.

Hey dummy,

Are you claiming that F.S.A. §90.804 is (or at least was prior to 2005) in anyway different from FRE 804? Because it isn't. At all. But if you think it is, I am all ears. Better warm up that Lexis password.

Since you are too stupid to look it up, here it is:

FSA §90.840 Hearsay Exceptions; declarant unavailable

(1) Definition of unavailability.--"Unavailability as a witness" means that the declarant:
---
(d) Is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or because of then-existing physical or mental illness or infirmity;

Sure, some claim that a living will is a statement against interest and thus not an exception, but Florida Law has never held this. Some also claim that Michael put Terri in this predicament, so he can't present her testimony. But, as there is no evidence to support this belief, the court correctly decided to allow the testimony.

You can make THAT argument, but you didn't. You stupidly acted like the dead/sick witness exception was a some sh*t I was just making up.

Obviously you were wrong. Dead wrong. And you obstinately continue to be wrong. Ouch. Kinda hurts to watch.

As for my birth certificate. Of course I use a pseudonym. It is the internet fer crissakes. At the same time, I can be found. I left a valid e-mail address. I gave a link to a (rarely updated) blog, where one can leave a comment. And if I return here, rest assured I will use the same name; the same name I use everywhere I comment or post.

In other words, while I am not giving you any personal information about me, I am not a nameless "troll" who will hit and run with baseless comments. Like you.

p.s. As for real live lawyers, (which you apparently decided I am not), any lawyer, not just me, will tell you that saying "X is hearsay" is all but legally insignificant. It is a preliminary matter. Police reports are hearsay. Doctors notes are hearsay. Deposition transcripts are hearsay. So what. The court did not screw up by allowing this "hearsay." Any suggestion that it did, especially on a board crawling with lawyers such as this, is pathetic.

cheers,
seattle slough

Just incase someone out there is questioning my education, I do have two Bachelors. Not bragging, just hate it when fols think all southerners are dumb. Don't get me wrong there are a lot of stupid people down.

To the brainiac comment. Like I said, you disagree with someone, and they call you names. Sorry, but I just can't read all of cedarford's long ass posts. But I just don't see him as a jew hater, please.
Sortelli,

Yes I say ya'll quite a bit. and fixin'. It's called culture. Get over yourself dude. this is just a silly blog. None of us are really all that important.

The court believed the testimony of the "adulterer" who spent almost every day at his wifes bedside for 15 years...

(Chuckle) So where'd the other kids come from, then?

Cedarford's an anti-Semite, but he's not always wrong. Questioning Israel and its leaders is sacrosanct and should not be.

That said, the Yankee analogy is poor and folks like Cedarford never tell us if we should just let Israel fight on their terms and turn the Middle East into a buzzing glass wasteland.

When we fight for the benefit of our allies, sometimes the ally isn't the first one that comes to mind. You can reform the ME peacefully (relatively) or you can wait for the keg to blow and suffer the consequences. But you may not like the way things shake out even if the "good guys" win.

Well, I have to say Cedarford pretty much controlled this little debate from his first post onward, and everyone else just fell back on calling him names. Hey, if he's THAT bad a bigot, how come y'all couldn't refute his arguments?

I have to say it was amusing to see "Zelda" call Mr. Schiavo an "adulterer," then say "I will continue hating his slimey guts forever" (regardless of, and not even mentioning, any relevant facts), and then lecture others about personal attacks.

So much for the "Christian" right's moral high ground.

"We hates it! We hates it! We hates it forever!" Where have I heard that before?

"how come y'all couldn't refute his arguments?"

You must be new here.

Oh yeah, that's right, I am...It's hard to remember that when the arguments are so old.