Posted on 03/23/2005 9:37:12 AM PST by xzins
Can someone press charges against Terri? I mean someting that is still within statute of limitaions? Something like. I would like to press charges against her for breaking into my car in 1983.
Or how does her and Mike the "piece of Sh1t's" tax records look? Any descrepencies there?
Can anyone sue Terri for anything? Sue her for slander in the past. Almost everyone is guilty of that. I don't know what the statute is on this.
Any ideas? Anyone have anything stolen in the same neighborhood she used to live? Around the time she would have been there?
Could she be a witness to anything that could have happened back then?
I see Federal Stormtroopers armed with Uzi's entering Terri's room and reinserting the feeding tube while brandishing their weapons at the police and arresting those that resist.
Yes.
Or, if there is any dispute over whether an order has been given forbidding the natural ingestion of food and water, he could "oversee" remedy without protective custody.
Then why aren't YOU doing something. I notice that you're here, in front of your computer, instead of being there defending Terri. You want President Bush to lay his career on the line, but you won't lay yours on the line.
Irrelevant. You do the right thing regardless of some future hypothetical.
I would bet cash money that the hospice has overbilled on medications, treatments, etc. and is guilty of Medicare or Medicaid fraud. If my suspicion is correct and the government has found billing records which would support an investigation, then I believe the executive branch has the authority to subpoena the owners of the hospice, employees, and patients. This would involve the DOJ, not the Congress. It also would require a federal grand jury. In the process, one would gain access to medical records and could reinsert the tube pending the review of the medical records.
I realize this is a pretty far stretch, but I am trying to think of something legal and effective. Those who disagree with me, please point out where I am wrong.
I see a G-man informing the local constabulary by phone that he is assuming jurisdiction under an executive order, displaying his badge at the hospice and authorizing a medical professional who hasn't wiped his posterior with the Hippocratic oath to direct care.
And you assert this...how? By pulling it out of a rectal orifice? Certainly not by reading the statute. I read it a few days ago, and it provides that interfering with a Congressional witness is a felony. Now, not after Congress says the interference has occurred. The executive is empowered to prevent the commission of crimes and to protect witnesses in federal matters, including Congressional inquiries, and need not wait for a Congressional action.
You have mistakenly confused the statute that involves protection of Congressional witnesses and subpoenaed things, with the process for finding a witness in contempt of Congress.
Sometimes condenscension is warranted.
I'm speaking out, at least. Besides, I'm not the president. Regardless, I was just discussing this with my wife today. I would love to be arrested delivering water to Terri. But I have a family to support. If I got arrested, I would spend time in jail, might be out of a job, and Terri would still be dead. OTOH, if enough people did it, we might save Terri's life. If I was single, I probably would be there.
Then why don't you go to the Hospice and insert the feeding tube yourself.
You speak in a clear voice. It is a comfort for those of us who see no sense in any of this.
I woke up around 2 am this morning and read the bad news from the 11th circuit. I went back to bed around 6:30 and when I woke up again a haunting melody of a song for Terri was playing in my head. It still is.
Then I turned on the tv and the first thing I saw was a group of people reading from the Bible. A 70 years old woman from that group was arrested for trying to take a cup of water to Terri. I was brought to tears and cried out to Jesus.
Bless those whose hearts have not grown cold and have not forsaken the Lord or his children. Prayers for Terri and her family.
We need a miracle, and soon.
Yes, and if President Bush broke the law he could be impeached. And just where would that leave the WOT and all those kids who are laying their lives on the line over in Iraq?
You're probably right. But I also would see him sending over a numerous escort of heavily armed FBI plainclothes mem with sunglasses and overcoats to ensure compliance and non-interference by police,lawyers,thugs and Michael Schiavo.
Fox just said that DOJ has filed as having interest in the 11th District en banc meeting.
Don't let it get you down. It's in God's hands and He always manages to turn things into good. Terri's life is important, but that life is not dependent on her body. I want her to live, I want us to find a way, but if that is not His plan, than we need to figure out what it is.
Actually, it's not irrelevant at all. Our judicial system is built on precedence. However, I think we're on the same side. I want Terri's life to be saved and I am certain that it could be done in a manner that would not set precedent.
There are federal civil rights statutes that might allow President Bush to act, too. For all I know, there are protections deep in federal regulations that the feds could say have been violated, and he could act to protect her. But the Congressional subpoena provides an obvious and legal basis for executive action.
I know that some of you may take this the wrong way and I'll be flamed like I died and went to he**.
But I just want to look on the other side of the coin. Suppose my directive says that I want hydration and a feeding tube and all the life saving options I can have. Now, my family doesn't want to see me suffering like that and decides to override my wishes and have me removed.
Don't I want the same steadfastness in that respect as seems to be in this case? Do I really want my wishes to be overridden by well meaning relatives and a blind justice court system?
I know, I know, Terri did not have written instructions, but the point I am trying to make is that I want the courts and the family to have their hands tied and my wishes be the ones that are tantamount.
I'm not looking at this from Terri's point of view, I am looking at it from a societal point of view.
A wonderful idea! But is there time? I could see doing that later--and I hope the feds do just what you suggest. But wWouldn't they have to have some evidence before they can subpoena those records?
http://www.house.gov/rules/95-464.htm
Note that nowhere does it say the executive branch can find a witness in contempt of congress sua sponte. (Sua Sponte means on its own in Latin.)
(1) Inherent Contempt
Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned in the Capitol jail. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the end of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. When a witness is cited for contempt under the inherent contempt process, prompt judicial review is available by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In an inherent contempt proceeding, although Congress would not have to afford the contemnor the whole panoply of procedural rights available to a defendant in a criminal case, notice and an opportunity to be heard would have to be granted. Also, some of the requirements imposed by the courts under the statutory criminal contempt procedure might be mandated by the due process clause in the case of inherent contempt proceedings.(70)
The inherent contempt power has not been exercised by either House in over sixty years because it has been considered to be too cumbersome and time consuming for a modern Congress with a heavy legislative workload that would be interrupted by a trial at the bar.
(2) Statutory Contempt
Recognizing the problems with use of the inherent contempt process, a statutory criminal contempt procedure was enacted in 1857 which, with only minor amendments, is codified today at 2 U.S.C. §§192 and 194. Under 2 U.S.C. § 192, a person who has been subpoenaed to testify or produce documents before the House or Senate or a committee and who fails to do so, or who appears but refuses to respond to questions, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and imprisonment for up to one year. Section 194 establishes the procedure to be followed if the House or Senate refers a witness to the courts for criminal prosecution. A contempt citation must be approved by the subcommittee, the full committee, and the full House or Senate (or by the presiding officer if Congress is not in session). The criminal procedure is punitive in nature. It is not coercive because a witness generally will not be able to purge himself by testifying or supplying subpoenaed documents after he has been voted in contempt by the committee and the House or the Senate. Under the statute, after a contempt has been certified by the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House, it is the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney "to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action." It remains unclear whether the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to present the contempt to the grand jury is mandatory or discretionary, since the sparse case law that is relevant to the question provides conflicting guidance.(71)
This potential conflict between the statutory language of §194 and the U.S. Attorney's prosecutorial discretion was highlighted by the inability of the House of Representatives in 1982 to secure a contempt prosecution against the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Burford. Burford, at the direction of President Reagan, had asserted executive privilege as grounds for refusing to respond to a subpoena demand for documents. She was cited for contempt by the full House and the contempt resolution was certified by the Speaker and forwarded to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for presentment to the grand jury. Relying on his prosecutorial discretion he deferred doing so.
The Burford controversy may be seen as unusual, involving highly sensitive political issues of the time. In the vast majority of cases there is likely to be no conflict between the interests of the two political branches, and the U.S. Attorney can be expected to initiate prosecution in accordance with § 194.
(3) Civil Contempt
As an alternative to both the inherent contempt power of each House and criminal contempt, Congress enacted a civil contempt procedure which is applicable only to the Senate.(72) Upon application of the Senate,(73) the federal district court is to issue an order to a person refusing, or threatening to refuse, to comply with a Senate subpoena. If the individual still refuses to comply, he may be tried by the court in summary proceedings for contempt of court, with sanctions being imposed to coerce his compliance. Civil contempt might be employed when the Senate is more concerned with securing compliance with the subpoena or with clarifying legal issues than with punishing the contemnor. Civil contempt can be more expeditious than a criminal proceeding and it also provides an element of flexibility, allowing the subpoenaed party to test his legal defenses in court without necessarily risking a criminal prosecution. Civil contempt is not authorized for use against executive branch officials refusing to comply with a subpoena.
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.