So whats this now?

She got all the care she needed? She wasnt abused? She wasnt beaten and punched and infected? Her husband didnt do all this?

But people on the internet said he did! Must be a dirty liberal leftist coverup. Stupid liberal media.

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/nation/11407434.htm - http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/nation/114 07434.htm

Records show no evidence Terri Schiavo was abused, mistreated

BY MAYA BELL

The Orlando Sentinel

ORLANDO, Fla. - (KRT) - In the four years after Michael Schiavo won the right to remove his wife's feeding tube, the state's social welfare agency methodically investigated 89 complaints of abuse, but never found that he or anybody else harmed Terri Schiavo, records released late Friday show.

To the contrary, the state Department of Children & Families repeatedly concluded that Michael Schiavo ensured his wife's physical and medical needs were met, provided proper therapy for her and had no control over her money.

They also found no evidence that he beat or strangled her, as his detractors have repeatedly charged.

The 45 pages of confidential abuse reports made public by court order Friday show that despite the litany of complaints, investigators never found that Terri Schiavo had been abused.

That raises what Michael Schiavo's attorney said is a key question: Why, during her last weeks of life, did DCF twice try to intervene in the seven-year dispute pitting Terri Schiavo's husband against her parents?

"The answer is obvious," said attorney Hamden Baskin III. "From the get-go, this was nothing but a political intervention. There was and continues to be no reason for them to have been involved."

DCF spokeswoman Zoraya Suarez would not address the charges of political interference directly, saying only, "The reports speaks for itself. ... We have a duty to protect the vulnerable and investigate allegations of abuse."

Terri Schiavo died March 31, nearly two weeks after the feeding tube that had kept the badly brain-damaged woman alive for 15 years was removed.

The courts had ruled that she was in a persistent vegetative state and had not wanted to be kept alive artificially. But her parents countered that she responded to them and wanted to live, setting off an international debate over right-to-die issues.

Her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, could not be reached for comment Friday night. They were attending a memorial service for their daughter in Pennsylvania.

The records, which media outlets in Tampa Bay fought to make public, show that DCF took its duty to investigate the alleged abuse of Terri Schiavo seriously.

Eighty-nine times, DCF investigated calls to their hotline alleging abuse that have become familiar fodder on the Internet: Terri Schiavo was dirty and unkempt. She did not receive proper dental care ore rehabilitative therapy. She was kept in isolation. Her husband beat her, and broke her bones. He wanted her dead for her money, or to remarry.

He pumped her full of insulin, hoping to kill her. He often asked, "When will (she) die?" Her lips were cracked and dry.

The names of the complainants were blacked out under Pinellas Circuit Judge George W. Greer's orders.

But DCF investigators looked into the charges and closed them as unfounded with such comments as "the spouse has always been courteous and very compassionate toward his wife" and "all her needs being met."

In at least one case, the caller found the evidence of Terri Schiavo's alleged abuse on the Internet.

In January 2004, a female caller reported that Terri Schiavo had an infection on her stomach, at the site of her feeding tube, that was not being treated. But, when questioned, she said she had no first-hand knowledge of her complaint.

"(She) stated that her information on current infections and lack of treatment was from Yahoo chatline," the report said.

In another instance, Terri Schiavo's parents were the subject of a complaint by a caller who alleged the Schindlers were exploiting their daughter by selling videotapes of her on the Internet for $100. That, too was, ruled unfounded.

DCF first attempted to intervene in the long-running dispute between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo in late February, when the agency asked Judge Greer to postpone his order authorizing the withdrawal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube on March 18. At the time, the agency said it had received a few days before about 30 new allegations of her abuse or exploitation on its hotline and needed time to investigate them.

Six days after her tube was removed, DCF attempted to step in again, citing an opinion by a doctor on their adult protective services team that Terri Schiavo was minimally conscious, rather than in a persistent vegetative state.

At the time, Michael Schiavo's lawyers argued the investigation was orchestrated to circumvent Greer's order. The judge agreed and twice refused DCF's intervention, saying he had reviewed all of the supposedly new abuse allegations and found them to be baseless.

The records released Friday did not include any of the 30 latest allegations. Those are still under investigation, but Greer has ruled that they are not new, either.

"In the latest round, DCF says he exploited her financially, but - as these records show_they were well aware Michael had no control over the money," Baskin said.

---

© 2005, The Orlando Sentinel (Fla.).

Visit the Sentinel on the World Wide Web at http://www.orlandosentinel.com/ - http://www.orlandosentinel.com . On America Online, use keyword: OSO.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: From our own forumers...

Impressive collection...   :)

just let the whole thing die

HA HA!

oldsoldier wrote: Illregardless of Micheals intent, the intent of many here and the Judges involved is that her life was defined as not worthy to be continued and she was in the view of many becoming a "burden to society" so Judges in thier infinate wisdom decided that she should die, in a manner that these same Judges have decreed is too "cruel and inhuman" to inflict on the worst convicted criminal sentenced to death. These Judges bring to mind the decree of 1934, where National Socialist Judges decreed the "value" of "life" and those deemed infirm, and or deemed mentally deficient were a burden to the Greater German Reich and were to be eliminated, and out rolled the death vans. The begining..... And the sad part is that many here and in the DNC rejoice in Teri's death as a legal milestone, "Those who do not learn the lessons of history, are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past"

The current Administration is cutting Medicare and brought about tort reform.  The two things that have kept her alive as long as it did.  Sounds like you need to point the Reich finger someplace other than the DNC.

oldsoldier wrote: Illregardless of Micheals intent, the intent of many here and the Judges involved is that her life was defined as not worthy to be continued and she was in the view of many becoming a "burden to society" so Judges in thier infinate wisdom decided that she should die, in a manner that these same Judges have decreed is too "cruel and inhuman" to inflict on the worst convicted criminal sentenced to death. These Judges bring to mind the decree of 1934, where National Socialist Judges decreed the "value" of "life" and those deemed infirm, and or deemed mentally deficient were a burden to the Greater German Reich and were to be eliminated, and out rolled the death vans. The begining..... And the sad part is that many here and in the DNC rejoice in Teri's death as a legal milestone, "Those who do not learn the lessons of history, are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past"

Your refrence to those who are on Death Row is indeed insignificant, for they are not already on the path to what is a certain death in the sense that Terri was. No matter what proof is brought against those who wanted to keep Terri alive and suffering, they just wont see the side that was more humain than there own.

oldsoldier wrote: Illregardless of Micheals intent,

I can't stand it.  The word is "regardless".  Many people incorrectly use "irregardless" (which of course would mean "regardful"), but your word is new and exciting.

...the intent of many here and the Judges involved is that her life was defined as not worthy to be continued and she was in the view of many becoming a "burden to society" so Judges in thier infinate wisdom decided that she should die, in a manner that these same Judges have decreed is too "cruel and inhuman" to inflict on the worst convicted criminal sentenced to death.

Haven't we been over this already, OS?  You went on in a previous thread about t3h evilzorz judges in this case, when in fact the judges did nothing but ENFORCE THE LAW AS WRITTEN.  I pointed that out to you in detail in that thread, but apparantly you forgot.

For somebody who complains about "judicial activism" as you do, I would think you would applaud the judiciary for doing their job correctly here.

What you appear to be upset about is that the judges did NOT engage in "judicial activism" - at least not enough for your taste (or perhaps just the wrong kind).  That, OS, is plain old hypocrisy.

These Judges bring to mind ... blah blah blah...

I thought we would have one OS post without a random irrelevant rant.  I was wrong. 

And the sad part is that many here and in the DNC rejoice in Teri's death as a legal milestone...

One.  Just one.  Please point to ONE SINGLE SOLITARY person, either here or in the DNC, who is honestly "rejoicing in Teri's death."

"Those who do not learn the lessons of history, are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past"

"Those who do not recall threads of the past, are destined to repeat the mistakes of past threads."

Clark, is that a tantrum?  Irregardless of your true political leanings, you always get stuck with me.  I find you irrepressable when you get irritated.  I got something in my eye once requiring irrigation.  It was a small speck of irridium.  It made me act irrational. 

lol - tantrum?  Moi?

C'est n'est-ce pas possible...

:)

(ok, maybe just a little one)

oldsoldier wrote: Hey Clark..Please reference the US Code and or Penal, Criminal, and or Civil Law that sanctions death in cases of severe physical incapacitation and or mental defect, really interested in the "Word of Law" as it is "written".

Ok.  Florida Statutes, Title XLIV, Chapter 765.  It's pretty clear, really.

(This being a Florida state matter, despite what Tom DeLay and other "states'-rights advocates" say, Florida law is the relevant law)

Depends on whose "rants" you find illrelevant, on where you target your wrath, only against a certian political leaning, while you support those who choose to post thier "illrelevant" issues against, again a certian political leaning.

You're going to have to translate that into English for me.

Ejp414 wrote: Clark Kent wrote: Depends on whose "rants" you find illrelevant, on where you target your wrath, only against a certian political leaning, while you support those who choose to post thier "illrelevant" issues against, again a certian political leaning. You're going to have to translate that into English for me.   I think he said something to the effect of "Liberals suck."

That wouldn't be a suprise on the Tippmann Forums.

-me

Clark Kent wrote: Ok.  Florida Statutes, Title XLIV, Chapter 765.  It's pretty clear, really.

How rude of me.  I should have provided a http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0765/titl0765.htm&StatuteYear=2004&Title=%2D%3E2004%2D%3EChapter%20765 - link .

I do not believe that the Statute is "pro-death", per se, but it does line up nicely the process for determining when to pull the plug.  401 in particular is pretty clear that hubby gets to decide before parents.

My point was principally that the courts in this case clearly followed the law.  There was no judicial activism - rather the complete absence thereof.  And that makes Tom DeLay a complete hypocrite.  "Demanding" a different outcome in the Schiavo case is to demand that the courts completely ignore and flaunt the law.

But - as to the purpose of the law, 102 is the section that descrbes the legislature's intent.  Good reading.

Sure, OS - the people are welcome to change the law any time they want.  But the people put this law on the books (and on the books of most states), and it is therefore the job of the executive and judicial branches to enforce that law, subject only to constitutionality.

The DA doesn't get to decline to prosecute druggies because he thinks pot should be legal.

The judge doesn't get to keep Schiavo alive because he thinks pulling the plug is wrong.

That's not how the system works.  What you are proposing is essentially anarchy.

Nononononono

Bad laws get thrown out if they are unconstitutional, not just "bad".

Otherwise, you wait for the legislature to change it.  This law is clearly not unconstitutional, so we have to enforce it until the legislature changes it.  That's the process.

If judges/DA's/Presidents had the authority to simply declare a law void, they would not be laws at all. 

There are two ways to change a law:  Either it is found unconstitutional, or a new law is passed to change it.  Those are the only two ways.

The President and Congress can throw out judicial review?? Since when? If that was the case....Roe v. Wade would have been thrown out years ago.

Yet their judgment in the past 50 years has been the most followed in the country...they do have power.

Judicial review is the one of the few reasons we as a people have become more free in the past 50 years.