Posted on 03/21/2005 11:54:31 AM PST by BB62
I passed along the affidavit which many of us have seen, presumably by Carla Sauer Iyer. Is it FAKE or real??
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/aff2-terri.pdf
My sister, a notary public (not in FL), came back with the following:
"Please do not believe everything you read. This supposed notarized document is not legal…it is missing the county in which the notary resides, along with her name printed, typed or stamped beneath her signature. In addition, there is no record of a Patricia Anderson with that commission number listed with the state of Florida. In other words, like most of the stuff you get via email, IT IS A HOAX designed to get you to believe something that is completely fabricated. I hope you forward this information to the same people to whom you sent the original email."
Forgive my unsureness with posting. I hope I have put things in the right place in this post.
So... I throw open the subject to those more knowledgeable than I - is it fake? One thing I noticed and questioned, even before receiving my sister's e-mail, was the neither the "did/did not" was circled at the end of the document. I found that very strange.
BB62
She has every right to be grinning, I would too, if I were in her situation. All the work that's been done and NOW they've given her an arsenal.
BTW, I guess if I pointed out that the person who wrote this email said the same thing, you'd take offense at that, too, right?
I was just pointing out that you stated it both ways...NOT REQUIRED in post #25 and REQUIRED in post #35.
Er, did you not understand that I changed my statement AFTER I saw what you said?
I didn't make a big deal out of it; I just took your word for it.
For some reason YOU need to make a point out of it, so carry on.
I am working on a large post, based on all the information give me here - THANKS!
A few things really trouble me, though.
1) How about a web site that is not a no name site with document pdfs? The http://www.zimp.org/stuff/nav.htm site could be BS. (I don't think so, but still...)
2) Why would an attorney, and attorneys are sticklers for detail, IMHO, not have put her typed name on the document? Sloppy work, if you ask me.
3) Further to my stickler point, why weren't one of the "did/did not" oath choices circled? Again, sloppy.
I want this document to be real, but I think it only fair to apply the same level of scrutiny to it as was applied to Dan "See BS" Rather's "proof".
BB62
Like everything else in this society, standards for documents have deteriorated at some times, probably happens all the time. A technicality wouldn't necessarily invalidate as far as I am concerned, probably should legally, but I still am not sold on it, shouldn't even say I would like it to be true. If it is true, it makes the husband look worse than my impression of him if the document never came into it.
Human nature being what it is, I would not be surprised at people feeling like that in ordeals that go on and on.
I've followed this case from the beginning, not as intensely as some dedicated people on here, and my mind is up, and I don't want to look at any more documents or web pages.
I've discussed other controversial issues until I'm practically blue in the face, and people are intractable. They very seldom can be persuaded. They just dig in and defend their positions all the more stubbornly.
I hope she gets a fair shake by the judge now.
Personally, there are some aspects of this I took for granted before. Someone mentioned living wills/advance directives are a form of assisted suicide, and I had never thought of that. Off topic for what you are trying to do.
Welcome. I welcome you more if you are on Terri's side, possible faked documents and misinformation on either side notwithstanding.
The questions I raised in my post # 45 still stand unanswered. Those things seem strange, unnerving.
HOWEVER, because of everyone's help here (THANK YOU LOADS!)I can make the following statements:
1) The state and county is listed on the top of the first page - this seems to be standard practice in FL. http://www.zimp.org/stuff/ . Also, see the Stephen Wise affidavit at http://terrisfight.org/ .
2) Patricia Anderson was the attorney for the Schindler's, as referenced in this article (among others) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34175
PATRICIA FIELDS ANDERSON, ESQ.
Fla. Bar No. 352871
447 THIRD AVENUE NORTH, SUITE 405
ST. PETERSBURG, FL 33701
Phone: (727) 895-6505; Fax: (727) 898-4903
http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/1-05-04%20Schindlers%20petition%20to%20reappoint%20GAL.htm
3) There IS a Patricia Anderson listed as a notary public in FL, with a different commission #. Suspicious? NO. Here you can look her up: http://notaries.dos.state.fl.us/ If you go directly to this page, http://notaries.dos.state.fl.us/notidsearch.asp?id=12714 you will note that the name matches the above, and that the issue date is the day after the expiration date of the seal on the document which started this all. You may have noted that the middle initial is different than what is on the document. This can be easily explained by the fact that some (liberated?) women use their maiden name as their middle initial.
4) For whatever reason, a different commission number is used on the latest Patricia Anderson commission. The best I can tell, the "CC" series denotes a set of issue or expiration years. The DD series are the most recent commissions issued.
For whatever reason, the attorney's printed, stamped or typed name below her signature is not present, except as contained in the notary seal. This is sloppy work for an attorney, **at least in my state** - but in FL, things may be different: http://www.zimp.org/stuff/ (look at the Heidi Law #23 affidavit for similarity purposes). You can also examine the court documents at http://terrisfight.org/ for examples of diversity in affidavits.
The document is legal as best I can tell, but it is definitively NOT a hoax for the reasons my sister proffered.
NOW - how about the remaining inconsistencies?
BB62
Respecfully submitted,
TGH JKS
Courage Poohbah....Courage.
Just had to, it was way too tempting. ;)
nice job
Just what is a "vanity posting", and how does one post one?
To answer your question from another post, I am very much on Terri's side.
The wait while the Federal judge "reviews" the matter makes me sick to my stomach. I am greatly angered and distressed by this ridiculous wait. There is NO EXCUSE in my mind why he has not put a TRO in place while he studies the matter.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned - Terri dies while Judge Whittemore "studies". Sickening.
If anyone has any suggestions as to where I can productively vent my anger, let me know.
BB62
I don't know what the current policy concerning posting them is, if you stick around, you will occasionally see some, but I've only posted one in as many years as I've hung around here (it wasn't very good actually). The vanity privilege seems to have been abused by cluttering up the board, so unless you really have something new and important to say and are a very could writer, I can't encourage you to write and post one. You could try to clear it first with management, I suppose.
Yes, the judge is effectively killing Terri by sitting on it and another day has been lost. It is making me sad beyond words. Naturally he has to carefully weigh what he has heard, but the clock is ticking, ticking . . .
I'm afraid all this has been posturing to shut up all the people who have made such a stir with calls and emails. If Terri dies, things will eventually blow over (actually I predict otherwise) . . .
I'm still hoping someone will intervene in time, but I'm not very optimistic at this point.
LOL! After the parade of media frauds we've seen in the last few years, from Jayson Blair to Dan Rather, how can anyone still believe this?
The answer is not responsive to the question. I would not be surprised to find the document as insufficient for formal reasons (e.g., absence of typed notary name, no striking of the suitable words regarding taking of an oth or not, before signing the instrument, etc.). And there is always the question about the truth of the statements made in the instrument.
Given that the nurse appeared on TV this morning and repeated the same things, I find it quite believeable that she put those statements in writingat some point.
Well, this morning I just happened to turn on FNC and who else is on but CARLA SAUER IYER!!
I caught only the last of her comments, but there is no doubt in my mind now that the affidavit is REAL.
Thank God for FNC. What I would like to know is how to contact them to encourage that they get to people like this woman BEFORE life ending, etc. decisions are made. It is sickening, absolutely sickening, that only the "conservative" newspeople dig beyond the surface.
BTW, here is another Carla thread on FR: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1367833/posts
BB62
"If so, then the folks who pushed the GOP into this need to pay one HELL of a price. As in, they NEED to get shut out."
I couldn't agree more. Even if this affidavit is valid, this has been a disaster for the Republican party. And if it's bogus, well....
I wrote the afternoon talk radio show the following email:
I can tell you, as a person who participated in the Internet debate this weekend, that while U.S. conservatives will normally strongly defend the sanctity of marriage, they have been demanding that the President, his brother, and the Republican party take action.
In this case, there have been many sinister allegations made about Terri's husband. Some are based on an affidavit filed in the Florida courtroom; others are pure speculation. As a result, those who would normally never support the intrusion of the federal government into a private family matter want action, and they want it now.
One thing is for sure--if Michael Schiavo is telling the truth, and the allegations about him are spread by people with an agenda, then the Schindlers have been badly abused, because they have literally begged the Internet community to help them."
Carla is on CNN right now.
1. That the alleged "murder weapon" was simply tossed in the trash at the scene of the crime.Sorry; I was born at night, but not last night.2. That the alleged "murderer" left before the deed was complete, when simply staying a few more minutes would have guaranteed success.
3. That needle marks were left when such evidence could have been easily avoided by injection into the life-support system instead.
4. That there is a perfectly good reason why no facility administration record to substantiate the claim has been produced.
5. That there is a perfectly good reason why no police record to substantiate the claim has been produced.
6. That she simply walked away from a slam-dunk wrongful termination lawsuit.
Sorry; I was born at night, but not last night.steve-b lives in an isolated, antiseptic cocoon-of-a-world where murder and other crimes against humanity have NEVER occured?
Can I come in?
I am a lawyer in Florida.
This affidavit is perfectly valid.
State of Florida, County of Pinellas appears at the top of the document.
The notary seal includes Ms. Anderson's name. She was the attorney in the case. I have not researched the commission number, but she might not have renewed once it expired, which would explain why she is not currently registered, I don't know.
Do you mean to tell me there are those who would believe that an attorney would risk her license by ginning up a fake notary commission stamp and notarize false documents in such a high profile case?
That is really grasping at straws!
Rest assured, this document is NOT FAKE!!!
Where did it say he left a needle in the waste can?
Putting insulin into a gastric feeding tube wouldn't have the desired effect -- too diluted, too long to absorb into the blood. To have the desired effect, it has go directly into the blood stream.
And the wrongful termination law suit? It says that they used other "unrelated" issues to fire her. Those could be any number of things, trivial or serious infractions and she would not be successful if she sued claiming this was the reason.
The one question I have is the "locked door". I have never seen a lock on patient rooms in a care facility.
I'm not saying I'm buying this story, but these are serious charges. If they are untrue, it would seem the husband has a powerful defamation suit against her and those publicizing this story. Why wouldn't he go after them?
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.