Mainstream media unreported conflicts of interest in Schiavo tragedy (Rush read this article today)

Toronto Free Press ^ | March 31 05 | Judi McLeod,

[churchillbuff]

Every time a rock is lifted in the Terri Schiavo tragedy, another conflict of interest comes slithering out.

The conflict-of-interest potential in the right-to-die connections among current figures involved in the case are only outdone by the Woodside Hospice board of director’s conflict of interest reality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There’s the death-is-beautiful, right-to-die activist Michael Schiavo attorney George Felos.

Don’t make eye contact with Felos, who claims he can ascertain a person’s desire to die by "looking into their eyes" and letting their spirits speak directly to him.

A jumped-up volunteer at Woodside Hospice, Felos became chairman of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, which runs Woodside, and only came off the board about a year after Michael Schiavo placed his estranged wife there.

Then there’s Dr. Ronald Cranford, handpicked by Michael Schiavo to examine Terri and on whose say-so Terri was categorized in "persistent vegetative state". Cranford is the MD who officially ordered Terri’s feeding tube removed on March 18. A neurologist, Cranford testifies in cases such as Terri’s around the country, always pumping the dehydration and starvation side. He was 1992’s featured speaker for the pro-euthanasia Hemlock Society, which was renamed The Choice in Dying Society. (WorldNetDaily).

Cranford nicknamed himself, "Dr. Humane Death".

A bioethicist, and a pioneer in euthanasia and right-to-die issues, Dr. Humane Death is a fully-fledged member of The Choice in Dying Society.

At least Cranford is not a board member of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast.

Mary Labyak, CEO of Woodside Hospice has direct ties to the Euthanasia Society of America and Hemlock for Hospice, described by Hyscience.com as "an organization that seeks to accelerate the dying process."

Everett Rice, former Pinellas County Sheriff (1988-204) endorsed Judge George Greer for reelection in campaign ads. Rice, a former board member for the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, hired Michael Schiavo while Schiavo’s guardianship proceedings were being heard in the courtroom of his longtime friend, Judge George Greer.

Senator Jim King, who originally upheld the passage of "Terri’s Law", was a board member of Woodside.

Then there’s Gus Michael Bilirikis, Florida State representative 1998-2000 and between 2001-2003, who was on the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast board of directors.

As a county commissioner, Judge Greer was a working colleague of Barbara Sheen Todd (county commissioner) for eight consecutive years. Sheen Todd is also on the board of the hospice where Terri lingers.

Judge Greer’s fellow judge, Judge John Lenderman is the brother of Martha Lenderman, on the same board.

The mainline media has not reported on the myriad conflicts of interest connected to the Terri Schiavo tragedy, although any one interested can read about them on the Internet.

[jazzlite]

"I heard one guy today say that a Zogby poll is going to come out tomorrow that will go completely against these polls."

I heard this..I really hope this is true..Even if 33% or 1/3 of this population is extremely upset by this, it will change the face of America. I once read that only 3% of a committed population can change everything..My own sense is that we are going to see coalitions of the most unlikely people, people who were literally political enemies in the past, coming together to fight this very serious threat to the U.S. of rights and freedom. Civilized nations do not put handicapped people to death. I see Terri's death as being eventually more traumatic to America than 9/11 because the longterm implications are more ominous..We know what the goals of 9/11 were..We will not know what the goals of those promoting death for others are until they have been achieved through "the law and the courts." Then it will be impossible to stop without revolution.

[jazzlite]

"Apparently, this hospice has been audited in the past for medicaid fraud, something like 14 million dollars worth. And, supposedly a number of people go into that place when they aren't terminal with 6 months to live."

The Hospice organization needs to be regulated through new law. Blind trust is not appropriate for any large entity.

[1ofmanyfree]

"Apparently, this hospice has been audited in the past for medicaid fraud, something like 14 million dollars worth. And, supposedly a number of people go into that place when they aren't terminal with 6 months to live."

Follow the money... bump

[dennisw]

You are correct in an oblique way. The gays took over our media along with their fellow travelers. The gay sensibility has taken over our media.

[JoeGar]

Mary Labyak, CEO of Woodside Hospice has direct ties to the Euthanasia Society of America and Hemlock for Hospice, described by Hyscience.com as "an organization that seeks to accelerate the dying process."

Checkout hyscience.com for yourself. Now there's a good reference!

[mlc9852]

I plan on sending a complaint against Felos to the Florida Bar because of his involvement with the hospice and the fraud investigation. It probably won't do any good, but I just feel like I have to do something. And I have emailed Rep. Sensenbrener of the Judiciary Committee and asked for a full investigation of Terri's death. Again, nothing may come of it but if we just sit back and complain, we are also to blame.

[mlc9852]

I saw where he had donated $250 and then I believe $500 (not sure about the $500). But it certainly wouldn't surprise me if there was more under the table. Greer is unworthy of being a judge, IMO. His failure to consider the EVIDENCE in the case should require he be impeached and disbarred. Not surprising he has announced he will retire after this term.

[AmericaUnited]

Fight back! Join the OOWPPFF today.

What is the WPPFF?

[Malesherbes]

This is something right out of the Twlight Zone. In 21st century America the greatest blessing is to die of natural causes at home in your own bed.

[Diogenesis]

Bingo. You got that right. All they lawyers gave. Want 1 years data?

---

This is the 'tip of the iceberg' of what Terri and her family were up against.

Here’s where Terri Schiavo Insurance money went:

These funds, the result of a malpractice suit, were meant solely to provide for Terri Schiavo’s care and rehabilitation.
=======================================================================================
Atty. Gwyneth Stanley - $10,668.05
Atty. Deborah Bushnell - $65,607.00
Atty. Steve Nilson - $7,404.95
Atty. Pacarek - $1,500.00
Atty. Richard Pearse (GAL) - $4,511.95
Atty. George Felos - $397,249.99
1st Union/South Trust Bank – $55,459.85
Michael Schiavo - $10,929.95
Total: $545,852.34

---

Neglect and abuse complaints is that Michael Schiavo:

* Has not allowed therapy or rehabilitation since late 1992.
* Has prevented swallowing tests or swallowing therapy since 1993.
* Ordered caretakers not to clean Terri's teeth since 1995, resulting in removal of five teeth in April 2004.
* Placed Terri in hospice in 2000, despite the fact she is not terminally ill.
* Refuses to allow Terri to leave her room. She has not been outside since 2000.
* Ordered doctors not to treat Terri when she had a life threatening infection in 1993 and 1995.

---

Virtually as soon as Michael Schiavo received the monies from the medical malpractice claim involving his wife, Terri Schindler-Schiavo,
he withheld all therapy and rehabilitation services from her.

Terri Schiavo had sustained a serious brain injury as the result of a suspicious incident in their home in 1990 and in 1992,
her husband had filed claims against several of her former doctors, claiming her “collapse” was caused by a misdiagnosis.
He received over $1.5 million in 1993 including $750,000 which had been specifically earmarked by the trial jury for Terri’s rehabilitation based on a life expectancy of 50 years.
Mary and Bob Schindler Sr., her parents, consulted a St. Petersburg attorney about removing Michael Schiavo as their daughter’s guardian and discussed the case at length with him.
Unfortunately, the Schindlers did not have the amount of money the attorney demanded as a retainer to take the case.
That attorney became the judge in the case-----a totally prohibited conflict of interest.
Thereafter, the attorney-judge approved the hiring of George Felos as the attorney for Schiavo to be paid from the trust fund and the stage was set for her judicial homicide.
The judge wasn’t George W. Greer.
It was Mark I. Shames.

---

The money was then diverted to the Judicide G reer.

	GREER DONOR	AMOUNT	POSITION	ACTION
Lawyers For Michael Schiavo	Hamden Baskin III    Felos & Felos            Deborah Bushnell     Gyneth S. Stanley    Steven Nilsson         Beth Wilson	$500  & $500 $250 $250 $150 and $250 $250 and $250 $250 and $100	Michael Schiavo’s Lawyer[s]	Greer denies many or all of Schindler’s in favor of Felos Greer Allows hearsay as evidence/disallows Schindler’s statements Felos former chairman of board of directors of Hospice of Florida Suncoast
	Daniel Grieco	$300	Employer of Michael Schiavo at time of Feb. 25, 1990 then attorneyOf record for Michael up until the malpractice award,	Incident when injuries occurred to Terri,Reappeared as attorney for selected pleadings
State/County Employees/Elected	Frank Nagatani	$50 and $50	DCF Attorney	Squashed testimony for DCF Investigator to appear on behalf of abuse allegations
	Bernie McCabe	In-Kind	State Attorney	Allowed underling to appear in campaign ad for Greer Will not call Grand Jury
	Everett Rice	$500 & In-Kind	Sheriff/State Rep	Didn’t conduct criminal investigation into what really happened to Terri or allegations of abuse after initial incident Allowed Deputy & use of county property to appear in campaign ad for Greer
	John Carassas	$100	Deputy Attorney General	Florida Deputy Attorney General, involvement with Rice in Sept. 2003 motion for Greer recusal dueTo improper discussion of case
	James Hellickson	$150 & In Kind	Assistant state attorney in office of Bernie McCabe, Pinellas/Pasco State Attorney	Appeared in Greer Campaign Ad
	Paula Shea	In Kind	Assistant Pinellas Public Defender	Appeared in Greer Campaign Ad
	Andrew Sasso	$100	Officer in Guardianship monitoring program and Guardian ad litem pool	Was supposed to: “evaluate information about the well-being and property of all persons adjudicated of having a legal incapacity so that the court can fulfill its legal obligation to protect and preserve the interests of the ward,” FL COURTS
Misc. People w connections	Richard La Belle	$100	Member of Board of Directors of Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities	Supposedly ACPD doing investigation into Schiavo case
	Battaglia, Ross, Disus and Wein	$250	Principal Kelli Crabb is past chairperson of Hospice Foundation of Florida Suncoast and member of Board of directors
	Gus Bilirakis	$40 cash	Former Hospice Board member and of American Hellonic Education Progressive Assoc. (AHEPA)	Felos past Governor
	Divito and Higham	$250 and $250	Law firm employed by St. Petersburg/Venice Dioceses	Terri’s Dioceses

 

 

 

 

BREAKING: GOTTA SEE THIS:

Judgenfuhrer George Greer's biography

---

Scientology and Terri Schindler's Murder

---

Lawyer donations to the Murdering Judge

---

MICHAEL SCHIAVO's private Insurance company
JERGER & CENTONZE INSURNACE AGENCY, INC.
Notice how 'insurance' is conveniently misspelled and his squeeze's name is misspelled, too

---

MICHAEL SCHIAVO'S lies and contradictory testimony in easy to read format

---

The Rule of Terri's Case Strikes Again. -2004- Judge Greer's crimes to Murder Terri

---

Law conveniently changed by Hospice where Terri was Judicially murdered

[amacneill]

The Schiavo Case Is Not Judicial Murder (March 29, 2005)

(links available at the following website; not that any of you yahoos would be interested in the truth...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger35.html

by Jacob G. Hornberger

Contrary to popular opinion, the Schiavo case does not involve “judicial murder” or even euthanasia or assisted suicide. Instead, it is a case that turns on a factual determination in a court of law regarding Terri Schiavo’s intent with respect to the conditions under which she would want to be kept alive by artificial means.

Most legal disputes involve conflicts over facts. One side says, “She said that if she ever found herself in this type of situation, she would want the tube to be pulled.” The other side says, “She never expressed any intent to have the tube pulled and never would have done so.”

So, how is that factual dispute to be resolved? Letting everyone search websites on the Internet and then email his vote to the judge? Obviously, that would be silly.

The answer is: in a court of law. That is, in fact, why libertarians maintain that a judicial system is an essential part of limited government – in order to provide people with an independent forum where they can resolve their disputes.

In a courtroom, each side presents his case by relying on the skills of his attorney. Unlike the Internet and television, presentations in the courtroom have to be through the sworn testimony of competent witnesses – that is, witnesses who have personal knowledge of the facts and who are under oath.

Why is it important for witnesses to be under oath? Because oftentimes what a person says under oath (when he is subject to being convicted of perjury) and not under oath are two different things. My father, who was an attorney, once called a man to the witness stand to buttress his client’s case. Much to my father’s surprise, the man testified exactly contrary to how my father expected him to testify. My father asked the witness, “When I asked you yesterday to tell me what happened, didn’t you tell me something exactly opposite to what you’re testifying to today?” The man responded, “Yes, but yesterday I wasn’t under oath and today I am.”

Furthermore, over the centuries an entire body of law has developed with respect to the type of evidence that is admissible in a judicial proceeding. For example, there are rules against the admissibility of irrelevant evidence and hearsay, a prohibition that has no application on the Internet or in the press.

Once each side presents his case, who makes the decision as to the facts that are in dispute? Ordinarily, that is what juries are for. Thus, if the Schiavo case had been a jury trial, the jury would have been specifically asked whether Terri Schiavo’s intent was to have the feeding tube pulled if this type of situation were ever to befall her.

The jury would have been instructed to weigh all the evidence and render its verdict accordingly. Keep in mind also that the jury would have taken an oath to render a true and correct verdict based on the evidence, setting aside any biases or prejudices.

A jury’s factual finding is final. And I mean final. It cannot be overturned on appeal. That’s why juries are so powerful and why people who serve on juries should always take their responsibilities very seriously.

So, why then do losing litigants appeal to higher courts? Because appellate courts, while not having the power to set aside a factual determination by a jury, do have the power to reverse cases based on an erroneous legal determination by the judge. If the judge has made a mistake on a matter of law (such as whether a certain piece of evidence should have been admitted), the appellate court can correct the mistake by reversing the judgment and remanding the case for a new trial. If someone disagrees with a jury’s factual determination, on the other hand, the appellate court has no power to change it.

There is one exception to this rule. If there is no evidence whatsoever to support the jury’s factual finding, the court of appeals can – and must – set aside the jury’s factual determination.

“But the Schiavo case didn’t involve a jury trial. The judge made all the determinations without a jury.”

That is correct, but in a non-jury trial the principles with respect to factual determinations are no different than they are in a jury trial. In a non-jury case, the judge wears two hats – one hat as the “jury” (or, more accurately, as the “finder of fact”) and one hat as the judge. In his role as the fact-finder, the judge determines the facts, just as a jury would. In his role as the judge, he determines the law and applies it.

In a non-jury civil case the judge will oftentimes file two separate lists at the end of the trial, one containing his “findings of fact” and the other his “conclusions of law.” These two lists assist the appellate court to determine which findings they cannot tamper with (the “findings of fact”) and which conclusions they can review for possible error (the “conclusions of law). (Such lists are not used in criminal cases.)

If you have not read the trial court’s original opinion in the Schiavo case, it is worth your while to do so. As you read the judge’s opinion, see how he distinguishes between “findings of fact” and “conclusions of law,” and then examine the reasoning process by which he arrives at the critical factual determination as to Terri Schiavo’s intent.

Here is the link to the complete timeline of the Schiavo case, which contains links to many of the pertinent items in the case:

Schiavo Case Timeline

Here is the link to the judge’s original decision in the case (Feb. 11, 2001, on the timeline):

Trial Court’s Original Schiavo Opinion

In fact, if you have not read the four opinions (yes, four) of the Florida Court of Appeals in this case as well as the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in the Jeb Bush/Terri’s Law case, you owe it to yourself to do so. (My father once told me that the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court related to him that before publishing a legal opinion, he would give it to his wife, who wasn’t a lawyer, to read; if she couldn’t understand it, he would rewrite it until she could because he wanted lay people to be able to read and understand his legal opinions.)

As you read the opinions in the Schiavo case, you are likely to discover something interesting: that the facts in the case are markedly different from what you’ve been seeing on the Internet and on television, where all kinds of unsworn statements, hearsay, and personal opinions are being circulated. You will also see a marked difference between the serious-minded approach that the courts have taken in the Schiavo case and the circus-like environment in which the congressional clowns have operated.

Here are the four legal opinions of the Florida Court of Appeals:

Schiavo I (Jan. 24, 2001, on the timeline)

The next three appellate opinions involved the parents' motion to reopen the original case and to set aside the original judgment based on newly discovered evidence:

Schiavo II (July 11, 2001, on the timeline)

Schiavo III (Oct. 17, 2001, on the timeline)

Schiavo IV (June 6, 2003, on the timeline)

Here is the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in the Jeb Bush/Terri’s Law case:

Florida Supreme Court decision (Sept. 23, 2004, on the timeline)

What was the evidence upon which the trial judge relied in arriving at his “finding of fact” with respect to Terri’s intent? The evidence came in the form of sworn oral testimony. Here’s what the trial court’s opinion stated:

statements to [Michael] prompted by her grandmother being in intensive care that if she was ever a burden she would not want to live like that. Additionally, statements made to Michael Schiavo which were prompted by something on television regarding people on life support that she would not want to live like that also reflect her intention in this particular situation. Also the statements she made in the presence of Scott Schiavo at the funeral luncheon for his grandmother that “if I ever go like that just let go. Don’t leave me there. I don’t want to be kept alive on a machine,” and to Joan Schiavo following a television movie in which a man following an accident was in a coma to the effect that she wanted it stated in her will that she would want the tubes and everything taken out if that ever happened to her are likewise reflective of this intent. The court specifically finds that these statements are Terri Schiavo’s oral declarations concerning her intention as to what she would want done under the present circumstances and the testimony regarding such oral declarations is reliable, is creditable and rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence to this court.

The opinion also pointed out:

The court has had the opportunity to hear the witnesses, observe their demeanor, hear inflections, note pregnant pauses, and in all manners assess credibility above and beyond the spoken or typed word.

There are people who now say, “If I had been the on a jury in the Schiavo case, I wouldn’t have believed Michael Schiavo or his relatives. I would have rendered a different verdict.”

Fair enough, but there’s one big problem. Those people were not on the jury. They didn’t hear the live testimony. They didn’t watch the witnesses and observe their demeanor. They didn’t take an oath to render a true and correct verdict, setting aside their biases and prejudices. Their opinions are mostly based on what they have seen on the Internet and in the press.

Thus, the Schiavo case was not about whether Michael Schiavo thought it best that his wife die, and it was not about whether her parents thought it best that she live. It was a case about what Terri Schiavo wanted for herself.

If the judge had said, “I’m ordering the tube to be disconnected even though Terri Schiavo intended otherwise,” we would have an entirely different case from the one at hand. But as much as some people might wish that that was indeed the situation in the Schiavo case, that wish is contrary to reality. This case is about a factual determination as to Terri Schiavo’s own intent and a legal determination that under Florida law such intent should be carried out.

Many people, including her parents, are assuming that Terri Schiavo would never have expressed such intent. Yet, is it really beyond the realm of reasonable probability that she would have? After all, lots of people are now rushing out and executing written “living wills” to cover the exact situation that Terri Schiavo is in. Why is it unreasonable to believe that she would have orally expressed the same intent?

Assuming that this was in fact Terri’s intent, which is what the judge (as fact-finder) found, whose intent should the court then honor – hers or her parents’? The law of the state of Florida dictates that her intent is determinative.

Yet, because they either misconstrue the central issue in the Schiavo case – that is, Terri's Schiavo's own intent – or because they simply believe that her intent should not be honored, all too many people, including even some libertarians, suggest that the courts should disregard Terri's Schiavo’s own intent as well as the Florida law that requires that such intent be carried out. What these people are essentially saying is: “I disagree with the choice Terri Schiavo has made for her own life and I support the initiation of force to prevent her husband from carrying it out.” Moreover, simply because they disagree with either the findings of fact or the conclusions of law in the Schiavo case, they unfortunately seem all too eager to toss aside the judicial system that they themselves agree is an essential part of the limited government paradigm.

Moreover, those who are suggesting that her husband should simply turn his wife over to her parents are in effect saying, “Your wife’s intent shouldn’t matter to you. You should honor her parents’ wishes instead, and you should simply disregard the promise that you made to your wife.”

You might respond, “But that really wasn’t Terri Schiavo’s intent.” Which brings us back to the beginning: This case turns not on “judicial murder” but rather on a factual determination made by the finder of fact in a contested proceeding in a court of a law.

***

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

[nmh]

"Certainly the facts in all capital cases are determined by a jury."

No.

You can have a bench trial where the judge decides the whole thing.

Most opt for a trial. It's easier to fool people.

[judgedredd1]

"Colmes tried to interrupt Dobson saying this is the Fox poll... Dobsob said whatever they are all using misinformation and he kept on reading."

I saw the show and agree. The people of decency (conservatives) show too much respect to these death lovers and anyone who opposes them on these type of talk shows. Most will stop in mid point to answer another off topic question. Pat Buchanon struggled the other night with Cathrine Crier, couldn't get his point across because she wouldn't stop talking and changing the topic. I love Pat, but he was showing too much respect to her and allowed her to go on and on. All these talk show hosts/guests should review Dr. Dobson's interview and take it as a lesson on how to start handling these freaks in our society. Randel Terry did the same thing with Colmes and basically Colmes was at a loss and could not function, he actually looked like a lost child who was all alone. I thought I heard him say "Mommy, Mommy" lol.

[arasina]

Sheesh. Just follow the money people. It ain't that hard.

A jumped-up volunteer at Woodside Hospice, Felos became chairman of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, which runs Woodside, and only came off the board about a year after Michael Schiavo placed his estranged wife there.

Not just the money, JC. Much like pedophiles can be found where there are plenty of children, carrion vultures like Felos work or hang out where they can find their 'objects of desire'.

[restornu]

We are too be objective to Michael....when everything he does is to shove it in the Americans face, not only the Schindlers!

Michael Schiavo has locked hands with this Global Ethici/Bioethic aka Hemlock Society, Humanist Manifesto, look it up on the net their agenda....Global Humanity and when you do also include one of our notorious lefty and see how they endorse this "Ogreish Future Governemnt!"

It is important that us God fearing and those who also abide by the Law identify our enemy! Not so we can name call....but to know how we need to hold our own ground!

They want to divide and conqueror thinking they can call us Angry White Men.....our enemy wants to lable us and to demean us....that way we won't matter anymore than the weak disable Terri was, they claim she was bulimic and did this to her self so she has no one to blame but herself,
her rights as a citizen was usurp from her by a necrophiliac!

Many among us are Law abiding citizen who don't hold our religious views BUT DO WANT to live in a community that is SECURE for ALL of US!

This Global Humanist group which is a Ghoulish Religion some are humanist, some are satanist, some even claim to be from various religions of the world which is a mockery etc.

Run a check your doctor, lawyer, politicians, courts, Universties etc!

How many are in your life and you do not even know?

Yes some we have to do business with some, but we should know who we are dealing with THEY SURE KNOW US they have no quams about who we are and what they THINK about us, see how many endorse the Global Code of Ethics!

I see a story today where the BBC is upset with America for letting Terri starve...but who are they blaming one of the Global ethic friend, no! They are blaming the conservative right who stood up for Terri!

[chgomac]

OMG. You're right. One of the things that has puzzled me in this whole sad story was how Hospice got involved. I suppose these vultures of death like Felos will get themselves into hospital ethics groups....maybe into handicapped rights groups, etc. just so they can tie their revulsive theories to legitamate names!

[Maurice1962]

I just find it terribly suspicious that this woman supposedly had a heart attack from Bolemia. I have not heard anywhere that she was ever treated for Bolemia, heart problems before or since her collapse. Seems her heart held up pretty fine.

I would hate to be in Michael Schiavos world. Of course with the mainstream press off of his back this slithering snake can go back to his hole.

I did a google search last night and man the stuff it lead me to. Of course, you have to take most things with a grain of salt. But, this man had weaved his tentacles into some very interesting directions.

[Fury]

Don’t make eye contact with Felos, who claims he can ascertain a person’s desire to die by "looking into their eyes" and letting their spirits speak directly to him.

I can't remmber the name of the priest that was in the room with Terri for several hours during the last 12-18 hours of her life, but he basically destroyed whatever credibility that Felos had when Felos stated that Terri was (paraphrase) peaceful, etc. The priest reported that she was "panting", etc and that Terri was "not doing well".

I will believe the priest. I believe as time goes by, more and more people will recognize Felos for what is he - a ghoul.

[texjan]

Also, unreported by fox, there is a wquestion in the poll--do you agree or disagree with the removal of the feeding tube? It was only 42-38 in favor of removing the tube, with about 20% undecided. Big change from other polls.

[DTA]

worth repeating:

Probably because you can buy a whole lot of judge with $14 million in Medicaid funds when you're trying to help the death industry really get rolling in (senior haven) Florida.

Sheesh. Just follow the money people. It ain't that hard. Sheesh. Just follow the money people. It ain't that hard.