“Terri also has a right to life...for medical treatment that she has been denied!…”etc.
Terri also had a right to the protection of a jury trial in a case in which she was the most interested party, a case to determine her wishes, [see Schiavo's wishes recalled in records] and whose right to life and liberty was at stake. And, who has waived her right to the protection of a jury, and has done so without her knowing and willing consent [making it illegal]? Her alleged loving husband who has been out and about thinking with his little head, engaging in extramarital affairs! But not to fret as the Court had the audacity to permit this active adulterous spouse to continue as Terri’s guardian! For some reason I just get the feeling that Judge Greer, Judge Baird, and the infamous George J. Felos have something else in their minds other than Terri’s best interests. But who knows? Maybe they are just good friends….very, very good friends.
In re GUARDIANSHIP OF Estelle M. BROWNING: and I suggest you read the entire case, a case which I’m sure the infamous George J. Felos is familiar with, [it has been pointed out elsewhere this is the case which inspired him to hear voices,] the following quotes taken from the case are most interesting:
1. “The Ethics and Advocacy Task Force, as amicus curiae, raises a very legitimate concern that the "right to die" could become a license to kill. There are times when some people believe that another would be "better off dead" even though the other person is still fighting vigorously to live. Euthanasia is a crime in this state. 782.08, Fla.Stat. (1987). See 765.11(1), Fla.Stat. (1987).”
2. “We emphasize and caution that when the patient has left instructions regarding life- sustaining treatment, the surrogate must make the medical choice that the patient, if competent, would have made, and not one that the surrogate might make for himself or herself, or that the surrogate might think is in the patient's best interests.”
The bottom line is, our system of justice guarantees Terri a right to the protection of a jury in determining the facts in her case in which her life may be ended by the authority of the State. Until this protection and due process is afforded to Terri, which may not be perfect but is guaranteed by our system of justice, Terri’s case will not be concluded within the four corners of our Constitution, and those who move forward without providing this protection, will be doing so in violation of their oath of office and be willingly participants in the subjugation of our constitutional system.
See: Sec. 241 - Conspiracy against rights
Sec. 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
Civil Action For Deprivation of Rights (see 42 U.S.C. § 1983 )
Conspiracies to Interfere With Civil Rights (see42 U.S.C. § 1985 )
In Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 106, (1895)Justice Harland wrote:
“The trial was thus conducted upon the theory that it was the duty of the court to expound the law, and that of the jury to apply the law as thus declared to the facts as ascertained by them. In this separation of the functions of court and jury is found the chief value, as well as safety, of the jury system. Those functions cannot be confounded or disregarded without endangering the stability of public justice, as well as the security of private and personal rights.”
And, Justice Byron White, in Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 US 522 , 530 (1975)emphatically stated:
"The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power -- to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the over-zealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge." --
JWK
ACRS