MANIFESTO OF THE WPPFF/WILD TURKEYS/COALITION OF THE SANE

We, the Witness Protection Program For Freepers, aka the Wild Turkeys, aka the Coalition of the Sane, have through mutual discussion and rigourous thought, determined that:

1. The discussion threads regarding Terri Schiavo (hereafter referred to as "TS") have become too full of innuendo, rumormongering, hyperbole, hysteria, namecalling, paranoia, and general poor behavior to warrant participation.

2. Said threads have degenerated into "echo chambers", wherein the same, common thoughts are continually posted again and again, and the same old disreputable, unconfirmed and/or false urban myths are propagated.

3. Anyone who joins in said theads with alternative viewpoints to the most extreme posts are routinely driven away with slander, accusations, and vile namecalling.

4. No data or evidence contrary to the "prevailing opinions" are accepted, considered, or discussed; and in fact are rejected outright in most instances.

5. That the continued calls for armed insurrection, military or paramilitary involvement, impeachements of politicians and judges, and death threats are embarassing, stupid, shortsighted, doomed to failure, and contrary to most if not all conservative thought prior to this case, as well as damaging in the extreme to FR and the conservative movement as a whole.

6. That such emotional, hyperbolic, and propaganda-driven hysteria is in fact contrary to all conservatives USED to stand for.

7. That the holding up of swastika and other Nazi imagery towards the police and the Bushes, the use of children as political props, and the disruption of the peace at the Woodside Hospice can only reflect badly on conservatives in general, and should be discouraged.

8. That the pursuit of this issue to the exclusion of all others by the GOP has damaged, perhaps beyond repair, the pursuit of other important issues as well as the reputation of the GOP, FR, and conservatism.

The WPPFF is NOT of one mind as to the case of TS or its correct outcome. In fact, wide disagreement exists within our little group. However, we are united in our wish that reason and sanity be respected in the discussion, as well as the rights of all parties involved or participating. We wish to discuss this as adults and intellectuals, as conservatives and as FRiends, not as children screaming past each other on some playground of hysteria. We wish for facts and evidence to be provided, discussed reasonably, and considered fairly.

We reject all accusations of Naziism, "death cultism", or other slander as methods of debate. We reject the practice of "spamming" multiple threads, of posting unending vanities, and the posting of propaganda and calls for violence. We reject, in fact, all unseemly and childish behavior which has come to characterize this case on FR.

We DO invite others to come and reasonably discuss the issue. We have no problem with FReepers who wish to debate in a rational and fair manner, and with due respect for their fellow FReepers. We have NO problem with those whose views are formed by religion; however we reject "preaching" or "being beaten with a Bible" as legitemite debate tactics. Not all of us are Believers, and such tactics only cheapen the source.

If a FReeper finds this an acceptable meansd to discuss this and other issues, they are welcome to join in and participate. Those who find pleasure in attacks, flame-baiting, slander, stalking, and personal atacks will be ignored, and their egos will go unfed.

We assume this thread to be a zone of sanity in an overheated atmosphere. Thus, a general amnesty is in effect. If posters conduct themselves within the guidlines above, we will be happy to discuss and debate with you. If a poster wishes to apologize for past slips of the tongue, or for possible "over-the-top" statements to another, it will be graciously accepted, and your company welcome.

Please bring a sense of humor; we feel that too many have been taking themselves too seriously lately.

The judges basically disregarded the Federal law that was passed specifically for this case.

And before you go on about the law wasnt worded exaclt carefully enough, or some other bland argument, the fact is Judges are required to fashion common sense equities weighing competeing interests. Thats why we have Judges, and not Computers to administer the Law.

There are four parts to the test to see if a case merits an injunction like the one sought from the 11th circuit.

Every Judge agreed that 3 of the 4 were clearly successfully met. That leaves the first part

As we stated in Gonzalez, “where the balance of the equities weighs heavily

in favor of granting the [injunction], the movant need only show a substantial case

on the merits.” Gonzalez, 2000 WL 381901 at *1 (internal citations omitted)

(alteration in original). In this case, the balance of the equities weighs heavily in

favor of granting the injunction. We determine the balance of the equities by

examining the three final factors required to grant a preliminary injunction.

Garcia-Mir, 781 F.2d at1453.

“A showing of irreparable harm is the sine qua non of injunctive relief.”

Northeastern Fla. Chapter of the Ass’n of Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of

Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 1990) (citation and internal quotation

omitted). Here, the immediate irreparable injury is not only possible, it is

imminent. I am aware of no injury more irreparable than death. Clearly, the

threatened injury of death outweighs any harm the proposed injunction may cause,

i.e. reinserting the feeding tube. In fact, I fail to see any harm in reinstating the

feeding tube. On the other hand, a denial of the request for injunction will result in

the death of Theresa Schiavo. Finally, an injunction in this case clearly would not

be adverse to public interest, thus satisfying the fourth and final criteria necessary

to grant a preliminary injunction. Upon reviewing these three factors, it is obvious

that the equities weigh heavily in favor of granting the injunction.

I now consider the first prong, whether Plaintiffs presented a substantial case

on the merits. In the complaint, Plaintiffs claim that Theresa Schiavo’s Fourteenth

Amendment due process rights were violated in that she was not provided a fair

and impartial trial, she was not given adequate procedural due process, and she was

not afforded equal protection of the laws. Further, Plaintiffs contend that Theresa

Schiavo’s First Amendment freedom to exercise her religion has been burdened by

the state court’s order to remove the feeding tube. Plaintiffs also allege a violation

of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000cc-1(a).

The establishment of a “substantial likelihood for success on the merits” is a

heavy burden, but not an insurmountable one. A movant need not establish that he

can hit a home run, only that he can get on base, with a possibility of scoring later.

In fact, our circuit jurisprudence establishes that the movant need not establish a

“probability” of success, taking all things into consideration. The merits of

Plaintiffs’ substantial claims warrant a more complete review. I do not mean to

suggest that Plaintiffs will definitely prevail on the merits, but merely that she has

presented a sufficient case on the merits. She raises legal issues necessitating the

grant of the preliminary injunction and should be afforded an opportunity to defend

the merits of her claims. Adjudication on the merits is impossible if we do not

grant the injunction.

Finally, I note that awarding an injunction is an equitable decision. We have

broad powers to fashion a remedy in equity. We are required to balance the

Page 21

equities, and when we do, we should find that the gravity of the irreparable injury

Theresa Schiavo would suffer could not weigh more heavily in Plaintiffs’ favor. In

contrast, there is little or no harm to be found in granting this motion

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.