Here is 0ne for the "Pull the Tube People" Out there

The Coffee Shop
1

From the Canadian Free Press

http://www.torontofreepress.com/2005/cover033105.htm Mainstream media unreported conflicts of interest in Schiavo tragedy

*by Judi McLeod, Editor, *
**Thursday, March 31, 2005 **

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.

    *![http://www.burstbeacon.com/view/50982/23404/34967/61639/820/1F26BAFB/](http://www.burstbeacon.com/view/50982/23404/34967/61639/820/1F26BAFB/)  ![http://www.burstnet.com/cgi-bin/ads/ad11122a.cgi/ns/v=2.0S/sz=300x250A/](http://www.burstnet.com/cgi-bin/ads/ad11122a.cgi/ns/v=2.0S/sz=300x250A/)   *       *     ![http://media.fastclick.net/w/get.media?sid=18589&m=6&tp=8&d=s&c=1](http://media.fastclick.net/w/get.media?sid=18589&m=6&tp=8&d=s&c=1)  *     ![http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imp.gif?event=noiframe&client=ca-pub-2577119061684342&dt=1112310313848&lmt=1112308502&format=300x250_as&output=html&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.torontofreepress.com%2F2005%2Fcover033105.htm&color_bg=FFFFFF&color_text=333333&color_link=000000&color_url=666666&color_border=CCCCCC&ad_type=text_image&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rushlimbaugh.com%2Fhome%2Ftoday.guest.html&u_h=768&u_w=1024&u_ah=738&u_aw=1024&u_cd=16&u_tz=-360&u_java=true](http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imp.gif?event=noiframe&client=ca-pub-2577119061684342&dt=1112310313848&lmt=1112308502&format=300x250_as&output=html&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.torontofreepress.com%2F2005%2Fcover033105.htm&color_bg=FFFFFF&color_text=333333&color_link=000000&color_url=666666&color_border=CCCCCC&ad_type=text_image&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rushlimbaugh.com%2Fhome%2Ftoday.guest.html&u_h=768&u_w=1024&u_ah=738&u_aw=1024&u_cd=16&u_tz=-360&u_java=true)***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.

**

Sure seems that there is a fair amount of conflict of interest here. You have Dr Cranfor whos testimony was the mainstay of Micheal Shiavo Case calling himself "DR Humane Death"and was a feature speaker for the Hemlock Society. It seems to me this guy was looking for a reason to Kill Terri- but the mainstream media never questioned his background or his judgment, yet when the Schindlers produce a Dr who has another opinion the Dr is written off as a quack.

There there is Greer whos longtime friend was a board member of the hospice and hired Michael Shiavo and has other close ties to the Hospice.

This is really scary that one Judge who may have a serious conflict of interest can hold the fate of a person in his hand and base his decision on hearsay evidence and a self proclaimed “Dr of Humane Death”.

2

I’m going out on a limb here but the tone of that editorial and some of the language used makes me believe that the author might be a teensie weensie bit biased.

3

"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. "

**

The internet is certainly where I go to find credible news information.

4

I’m going out on a limb here but the tone of that editorial and some of the language used makes me believe that the author might be a teensie weensie bit biased.
Why is that? becasue you happen to disagree with what what was posted? Or did you read something that is untrue or false in the story?

5

I guess you think the editorial is “fair and balanced”.

C’mon take off your blinkers for a second. The author is pushing her agenda, its clear as day. Her sophmoric name calling is pretty embarassing for someone who claims to be a newspaper editor.

6

I guess I am missing something.

Please list all of the facts in the stroy that are incorrect?

Or is pushing an agenda of truth a bad idea?

7

I like the way you titled this thread, as if it was just a few people out there that believed the federal government has no place in this mess, and that she should be allowed to die with dignity as she wished. It was over 70% of the population. Nice, subtle distortion.

8

I’m not disputing the alleged “facts” I was merely stating that its GLARINGLY FREAKING OBVIOUS that the author of this piece of rubbish has an agenda and she is pushing it. Its not a credible source of information…TAINTED BY HER GLARINGLY FREAKIN OBVIOUS BIAS AND AGENDA.

Sheesh.

9

I like the way you titled this thread, as if it was just a few people out there that believed the federal government has no place in this mess, and that she should be allowed to die with dignity as she wished. It was over 70% of the population. Nice, subtle distortion.

Just curious what exactly was it that the federal government did wrong of where did it overstep it bounds?

And BTW -That fact that she wanted to die with dignity is hearsay from one source who miraculously remembered after 7 years and two sworn affidavits that he didn’t know Terri’s desires.

10

I like the way you titled this thread, as if it was just a few people out there that believed the federal government has no place in this mess, and that she should be allowed to die with dignity as she wished. It was over 70% of the population. Nice, subtle distortion.

Just curious what exactly was it that the federal government did wrong of where did it overstep it bounds?

And BTW -That fact that she wanted to die with dignity is hearsay from one source who miraculously remembered after 7 years and two sworn affidavits that he didn’t know Terri’s desires.

You have the facts wrong - her brother and sister both testified, along with Michael, that Terri wouldn’t want to live in a persistive vegetative state. I suggest you do a little reading on the facts of the case before posting any more on this.

The Federal Govt overstepped its bounds when the Congress created a jurisdictional statute that applied ONLY to the Terri Schiavo case, to allow the federal courts (which previously had no jurisdiction to hear any of the claims) to do a de novo review of the case and, essentially, overturn the decisions of the state courts, which Congress decided it did not like! In all likelihood, the law passed by Congress was/is unconstitutional, but we’ll never know because it is now moot due to her death. Congress tried to usurp the powers of the state courts to make the final determination on these types of issues - and to do so after the fact is plainly wrong. Poll after poll showed that the American public agrees that Congress and Bush should not have meddled with this issue. Shouldn’t they be working on Social Security or border security?

It’s amazing how so-called conservatives, who once claimed to be champions of a minimally invasive federal government, have completely abandoned that principle.

11

I’m not disputing the alleged “facts” I was merely stating that its GLARINGLY FREAKING OBVIOUS that the author of this piece of rubbish has an agenda and she is pushing it. Its not a credible source of information…TAINTED BY HER GLARINGLY FREAKIN OBVIOUS BIAS AND AGENDA.

Sheesh.

For a minute lets pretend that we know for a fact that the author has an agenda as you say.

WHO GIVES A CRAP

The facts are the facts, and what they prove is a serious conflict of interest by many of those who were directly involved in Terri’s, decision making, care, and legal disputes. Scary stuff if you choose to open your mind enough to thin about it.

And while we’re at it, I wonder if all of the news organizations that you gather you facts from are agenda driven? Does that also mean that those facts are no longer relevant? By your logic it does.

12

Who says they are facts? A woman with a very obvious agenda? I prefer to get my information from impartial sources.

Here’s a couple of pointers for you…when the author calls people names, that should start your red light flashing. When the author constantly and childishly ridicules the subject of her piece your alarm bells should begin to sound. As soon as you hear the words “mainsteam media” used in a disparaging way go to defcon 4, put on your aluminum hat and run for the hills.

You should be more careful where you get your news from. Just becasue they say its FAIR AND BALANCED on the label doesn’t make it so inside.

13

I didn’t read the whole story, but the most important fact you are mistaken about is that the court placed so much emphasis on Mr. Schiavo’s doctor. He along with the doctors the Spindler’s got were basically ignored in favor of a neurologist, whose name escapes me, who was flown in from Cleveland. He was brought in by the court as a doctor with absolutely no ax to grind.

It was his testimony that carried the day. All the other experts had an ax to grind and just cancelled each other out.

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

I also don’t see how having a bunch of people on the same Board is a conflict, but maybe it is in some arguable fashion.

14

You have the facts wrong - her brother and sister both testified, along with Michael, that Terri wouldn’t want to live in a persistive vegetative state. I suggest you do a little reading on the facts of the case before posting any more on this.

Exactly- Theytestified that it was Their OPINION that Terri would not want to live that way. Her brother and sister did not testify that they had heard Terri say she did not want heroic measures to keep her alive. And Michael did not have his revelation about his conversation with Terri “saying she would not want heroic measure” until 7 years after the she had her initial problem. Michael’s revelation oddly coincided with the time he moved in with current lover. There are also two sworn affidavits prior to Michael’s revelation where he states that he did not know Terri’s intentions. Maybe you should read up?

The Federal Govt overstepped its bounds when the Congress created a jurisdictional statute that applied ONLY to the Terri Schiavo case, to allow the federal courts (which previously had no jurisdiction to hear any of the claims) to do a de novo review of the case and, essentially, overturn the decisions of the state courts, which Congress decided it did not like! In all likelihood, the law passed by Congress was/is unconstitutional, but we’ll never know because it is now moot due to her death. Congress tried to usurp the powers of the state courts to make the final determination on these types of issues - and to do so after the fact is plainly wrong. Poll after poll showed that the American public agrees that Congress and Bush should not have meddled with this issue. Shouldn’t they be working on Social Security or border security?

So does congress have the authority or not to set the federal judiciaries jurisdiction or not? Death penalty cases get De Novo review by the federal judiciary, why shouldn’t an innocents woman?

15

Who says they are facts? A woman with a very obvious agenda? I prefer to get my information from impartial sources.

A couple of posts ago you said you weren’t disputing the facts. Which is it?

16

You have the facts wrong - her brother and sister both testified, along with Michael, that Terri wouldn’t want to live in a persistive vegetative state. I suggest you do a little reading on the facts of the case before posting any more on this.

Exactly- Theytestified that it was Their OPINION that Terri would not want to live that way. Her brother and sister did not testify that they had heard Terri say she did not want heroic measures to keep her alive. And Michael did not have his revelation about his conversation with Terri “saying she would not want heroic measure” until 7 years after the she had her initial problem. Michael’s revelation oddly coincided with the time he moved in with current lover. There are also two sworn affidavits prior to Michael’s revelation where he states that he did not know Terri’s intentions. Maybe you should read up?

The Federal Govt overstepped its bounds when the Congress created a jurisdictional statute that applied ONLY to the Terri Schiavo case, to allow the federal courts (which previously had no jurisdiction to hear any of the claims) to do a de novo review of the case and, essentially, overturn the decisions of the state courts, which Congress decided it did not like! In all likelihood, the law passed by Congress was/is unconstitutional, but we’ll never know because it is now moot due to her death. Congress tried to usurp the powers of the state courts to make the final determination on these types of issues - and to do so after the fact is plainly wrong. Poll after poll showed that the American public agrees that Congress and Bush should not have meddled with this issue. Shouldn’t they be working on Social Security or border security?

So does congress have the authority or not to set the federal judiciaries jurisdiction or not? Death penalty cases get De Novo review by the federal judiciary, why shouldn’t an innocents woman?

You have seen an affidavit where Michael Schiavo states that he did not know Terri’s intentions? Show me a link. Prove it.

Congress should not be granting jurisdiction to OVERTURN a case for ONE WOMAN where the case has already been vigorously litigated, and some in Congress don’t like the outcome (but love their opportunity for political grandstanding). Do you think Congress should be able to overturn any court decision it wants by passing a law and/or bestowing federal jursidiction for a federal court to hear an already-decided case? It would be one thing if there was already a collateral review process in place, like death penalty cases, but there wasn’t.

I keep hearing Bush say that “any doubts should be resolved in favor of life.” So does this mean he no longer supports the death penalty? There are some doubts in almost every case.

17

The congress absolutely has the right to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Article III, Section 2 In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdictions, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulation as the Congress shall make.

As to your other comments about what Congress should do, I basically agree. It may also be true that this particular law might fail constitutional muster as a Bill of Attainder or Ex Poste Facto law. I simply don’t know the answer there.

Had Congress simply changed the law in a blanket manner by redrawing jurisdictional lines in such cases, there would have been no Constitutional question at all. Some in Congress tried that, but they couldn’t get the votes.

18

I never said that Congress didn’t have right to determine federal court jurisdiction. The manner in which it was accomplished in this case was troublesome and likely unconstitutional.

Imagine that, Art. We agree.

19

Damn, I said I wasn’t sure if it was constitutional or not. Since you are confident it was not, I guess I have to decide that it was.

Hate to lose our consistency here.

This case is a tough one. I agree with the desired end result, though not the reasons of people I never normally agree with.

20

Congress should not be granting jurisdiction to OVERTURN a case for ONE WOMAN where the case has already been vigorously litigated, and some in Congress don’t like the outcome (but love their opportunity for political grandstanding). Do you think Congress should be able to overturn any court decision it wants by passing a law and/or bestowing federal jursidiction for a federal court to hear an already-decided case? It would be one thing if there was already a collateral review process in place, like death penalty cases, but there wasn’t.

While I agree that it would have been nice for Congress to pass a law giving jurisdiction to the fed courts for everyone, and not just Terri, it would not fly, as Art pointed out. So in this case it was the only option available to Congress to give hTerri another opportunity for review. Remember the government is here to protect and serve all of it citizens, whether it is 10,000,000 or 1. What is so wrong with one more additonal review when we are talking about life and death. Again it is ok for Felons