It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michael Schiavo - Sworn Affidavit by RN Ciyer

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

As I've said for days now, the scary thing in all this, regardless of your feelings on the case, is the gross abuse of power demonstrated by both the governor and the President in this matter, as well as their attempts to undermine the checks and balances system as established by the Constitution.


But Gazrok and Rant looks to me that is the whole idea of the "conspiracy" between the two brothers, soon after Bush was on TV yesterday talking on the case, Bush Governor came with the "miraculous finding" that it claims "she is not in an all vegetable stage"

So, what is next? I guess the Bushes are just pushing to see how far they can go, and how much the American public, is willing to give up.

Isn't that what the whole circus is all about? Total control.




posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   


So, what is next? I guess the Bushes are just pushing to see how far they can go, and how much the American public, is willing to give up.


I suspect you are correct, all behind the mask of doing it "for Terri"...
Short of an executive order though, they still have to go before judges on anything, and so far, the judges have upheld the law in this. Unfortunately, all it would take is to have it go before a judge who's been promised a cabinet position in Jeb's '08 administration to probably push it through as a stall tactic...

Yes, I'm fully aware Jeb has said he isn't running, but I don't believe it, and neither should anyone imho...



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by shots
They had this so called Nurse on live last night and frankly
she did not seem creditable to me at all.

Medical blog site - info both supporting and against the nurse.
medpundit.blogspot.com...


I didn't find anything supporting the nurse at all on that link, only this comment from the court:



Greer dismissed Iyer's charges, noting that they -- along with a similar affidavit given by Heidi Law, another nurse who formerly took care of Terri Schiavo -- were "incredible to say the least" and that "[n]either in the testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits as they purport to detail activities and responses of Terri Schiavo." From Greer's decision:

The remaining affidavits deal exclusively with events which allegedly occurred in the 1995-1997 time frame. The court feels constrained to discuss them. They are incredible to say the least. Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which would include the staff of Palm Garden of Lago Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. Her affidavit clearly states that she would "call them (Mr. and Mrs. Schindler) anyway because I thought they should know about their daughter." The affidavit of Ms. Law speaks of Terri responding on a constant basis. Neither in the testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits as they purport to detail activities and responses of Terri Schiavo. It is impossible to believe that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would not have subpoenaed Ms. Iyer for the January 2000 evidentiary hearing had she contacted them as her affidavit alleges.



It seems that nobody has taken the nurse's story seriously and you have to admit she does sound like a crackpot. The husband controlled the entire hospice staff and administration and openly plotted her death with them? Every day for over a year the nursing logs were altered? It would make a good story for the twilight zone but nothing else.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Hearing some reports that the Supreme Court refused yet again to hear the case...no confirmation yet though.

Did see this though...(source = www.baynews9.com)



Judge Greer said he will decide by noon Thursday on both DCF motions that were rolled into one petition.


This is on two motions filed by DCF to reinsert the tube.

Here's a scary sign of the cooperation of the two Bushes (confirmation instead of speculation)



While hosting a summit with leaders from north and south of the U.S. border Wednesday, President Bush addressed the Schiavo case.

"I have not discussed the next steps with my brother," Bush said. "I have looked at all actions prior to [the] action last weekend in consort with Congress, and we felt [the] actions taken with Congress were the best course of action.

"This is an extraordinary and sad case. And I believe in a case such as this, legislative branch, the executive branch ought to err on the side of life. And I will watch the courts make their decisions, but we looked at all options from the executive branch perspective."


In effect, he's hinting at an Executive Order here, as this is about the only option left...and such an Order would be a gross overstepping of bounds here, and a flagrant abuse of the powers of office. Regardless of your feelings on this case...such an Order would set a very dangerous precedent in allowing the Commander in Chief to basically override the decision of the Supreme Court. That's a very scary road to go down folks...

EDIT: Confirmed Supreme Court ruling...
www.cnn.com...


[edit on 24-3-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

In effect, he's hinting at an Executive Order here, as this is about the only option left...and such an Order would be a gross overstepping of bounds here, and a flagrant abuse of the powers of office. Regardless of your feelings on this case...such an Order would set a very dangerous precedent in allowing the Commander in Chief to basically override the decision of the Supreme Court. That's a very scary road to go down folks...

EDIT: Confirmed Supreme Court ruling...
www.cnn.com...

[edit on 24-3-2005 by Gazrok]


How is it scary that the executive branch is following the constitution. The supreme court does not have the final say in anything. The congress and people do. The judiciary is acting like a "kingdom" far outside Article 3.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Thats is exactly what I heard earlier the two brothers are taking over, I wounder how Americans are going to take this insult to the American rights, by nothing more and nothing less that two brothers in power.

I guess if something is done by them, Americans better see what is going on, our country is own by the bush family.

Very scary thing indeed, if they come out publicly and tell the public that they are in charge at the end.

***Warning*** government conspiracy in the making.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

How is it scary that the executive branch is following the constitution


Maybe following the letter, but certainly not the spirit.

Funny how they can't pass a bill affecting millions in a week, but they can propose, pass, and approve a bill in hours in a midnight session when the President wants to impede on an individual's rights.

Maybe you're comfortable with such machinations, but I certainly am not.
Executive Orders have always been a way to skirt the Constitution, and are valuable when used properly, but even hardcore supporters would have to agree that THIS is not an issue that falls under such categories, like secrecy or national security, or other applicable uses of such orders.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The entire "judiciary".................

www.house.gov...



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

www.usconstitution.net...

Note part FIVE...............



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
What that means Dr.Horacid? that you approved a take over by the bush brothers in America?

You still don't get it do you, you still think is all about a dying woman in Florida, do you.

Unbelievable.

This dirty politics at its best if our rights are trample over.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   


5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


I wasn’t aware Terri’s citizenship was being questioned…as this is what the article pertains to…




The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity


Sorry, but I fail to see where your point is being made. Indeed, you’ve just reinforced mine. That the power to enforce and interpret the law is that of the Judicial, not the Executive branch.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Seems they aren't even above breaking the law... Coming to light that DCF (no doubt under Jeb's marching orders) was going to try and forceably remove Terri yesterday, but a judge quickly enacted a motion against it.

Just as an FYI, DCF has gestapo like powers. Had it not been brought to the judges attention, DCF would have shown up yesterday and taken her from the Hospice! They did not have to go to a judge to do this (they have that power), but it did take going to a judge to stop them from doing so.

baynews9.com...

[edit on 24-3-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok


5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


I wasn’t aware Terri’s citizenship was being questioned…as this is what the article pertains to…




The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity


Sorry, but I fail to see where your point is being made. Indeed, you’ve just reinforced mine. That the power to enforce and interpret the law is that of the Judicial, not the Executive branch.


"nor shall any State deprive any person of life" is the important part. Due process HAS not happened.

The courts DO NOT have the power to interpret the law. Find that "term"........anywhere,



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   
The Supreme Court does, it interprets whether or not a law is unconstitutional.



"nor shall any State deprive any person of life" is the important part. Due process HAS not happened.


Ahh...but the State isn't depriving her of life. That decision is in the hands of the one who speaks for her while incapacitated, which, as ruled over and over again, by law, is her spouse.



Due process HAS not happened


You don't consider 29 hearings on this due process? I'd love to hear your definition....


You're not even a bit concerned that agencies of the government were willing to violate the law to remove her (i.e. the DCF story I linked to).???

What if it was YOUR spouse lying in that bed for 15 years and you knew that they wouldn't want to go on in that condition, but the state decided you don't have that decision, even though granted to you all the way to the Supreme Court???

[edit on 24-3-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Well it looks that if Jebb with the help of the DCF gets involve and take her out of the hospice without the judge rule it will be kidnapping.

So this is turning ugly.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Well, the judge stopped THAT at least, so Jeb's next step is to try and get the court to grant him custody. To do that, he'd have to prove good suspiscion of abuse (so that DCF then takes her, and makes Jeb the Guardian)...something the courts, and even his OWN report on it, denies (the abuse). Any sane judge is likely to toss it right where it belongs, but there is no shortage of insane judges in FL.

DCF (prior to Greer's motion) had the power and intended to do just that, but the judge silenced the attempt early enough, and now has made such action illegal.


[edit on 24-3-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Point -1 The Supreme Court does, it interprets whether or not a law is unconstitutional.

Point-2 You're not even a bit concerned that agencies of the government were willing to violate the law to remove her (i.e. the DCF story I linked to).???

Point - 3 What if it was YOUR spouse lying in that bed for 15 years and you knew that they wouldn't want to go on in that condition, but the state decided you don't have that decision, even though granted to you all the way to the Supreme Court???

[edit on 24-3-2005 by Gazrok]


Point -1 - No where in the consitution does it grant the power of review to the supreme court it was 'taken" in 1803 marbry v madison. Jefferson went nuts. The next time it was used was Dread-scott, then not until the 1950's and the Warren court. Time to take them down............ALL power is with the Congress, not Exec or Judiciary.

Point -2 I hope DCF does save terris life so she can rehab and testify against her dear hubby...that's why he want to kill her.

Point- 3 been there done that with my father. Big difference between "life support" and "food, water". She is alive and needs only food and water. She can eat on her own without the tube, but judge won't let her "she might choke". How's that for a ruling................



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   


Point -1 - No where in the consitution does it grant the power of review to the supreme court it was 'taken" in 1803 marbry v madison. Jefferson went nuts. The next time it was used was Dread-scott, then not until the 1950's and the Warren court. Time to take them down............ALL power is with the Congress, not Exec or Judiciary.


Regardless of your thoughts on the matter, the fact remains that they DO have that power, which was my point.



Point -2 I hope DCF does save terris life so she can rehab and testify against her dear hubby...that's why he want to kill her.


Yeah, that's it...
That's why the governor's OWN investigation showed the abuse allegations were false... Seriously, even if he DID do such things (which isn't supported by the way), would he really be worried about a woman in a coma for 15 years and in a PVS with massive brain damage, testifying???
Not really a worry here now is it?




Point- 3 been there done that with my father. Big difference between "life support" and "food, water". She is alive and needs only food and water. She can eat on her own without the tube, but judge won't let her "she might choke". How's that for a ruling................


The claim of eating on her own is bs, as ruled by the aforementioned doctors. Even if you didn't take into account the massive brain damage...if I was kept a prisoner in MY body for 15 years with no interaction with the outside world, when I finally died I'd come back and haunt every last one responsible!!! Maybe YOUR idea of "living" is being a human vegetable for over a decade...but it sure isn't mine...and according to the law, it wasn't Terri's either.

Regardless of any of the above though, the gross abuses of power and overstepping of politicians simply to further their agendas is a much scarier issue, but people aren't seeing the forest for the trees....



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Dr. Horacid, the poor woman will never come back from her stage, sorry but it seems that you as a Dr. should know something about her condition.

The Terri case affect all of us in more ways that some can imagine.

But the law is the law and we have to abide by them, is not what a minority ones or a majority or the government. Is the Rights of all of us to make decisions for our loves one under the law.

I care about my rights to chose and not minority group is going to take that away from me, if God wants to come to earth and do it for me then let him do it itself, but not body human in this country is going to make that decision is his name for me.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Curious...

After Terri went in the coma, Terri's parents always had a good relationship with Michael, and after a few years, even set him up on dates and encouraged him to move on and date. Does THIS sound like the actions of parents who thought he had abused Terri? (you can read this all in the governor's own report, shown earlier by Rant, if you like)

Ok...sure...




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join