This link was posted earlier, but I thought it deserves a separate post for a legal discussion on what has happened recently.
-----
We had a situation where Agents of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement were about to confront local police officers and take Terri Shiavo away from her residence, defying a judge's order. More than likely, a phonecall by Jeb and/or George W. Bush was made to the state agency, attempting to use their power to defy a judge's order, because this would have never happened on its own.
For a period of about a day, we had a situation where a few top members of the White House and the Governor of Florida, exercised their powers to override a judge's order to extricate Terri Shiavo from her residence.
For a period of approximately a few weeks, we had more than just a Constitutional Crisis. We had a form of Coup D'etat and a Despotic Country. We had our President and his brother in Florida, exercise their powers beyond the normal realms of what their positions are supposed to be used for.
This is, at best, a blatant ethical violation of many counts, and should be investigated by Congress. At worse, we have two men who appear to lack the appreciation and respect of a ruling of law, and who violated the trust of Americans.
I say this was a Coup D'etat, because we have a few top leaders circumventing the rulings of law, attempting to establish their own form of government, whereby anyone else not in their Circle Of Agreement, would be pushed aside legally, and who knows, maybe even physically as demonstrated by the potential face-off of Florida's law enforcement agencies.
Canadian Bacon
03-26-05, 08:34 PM
Nothing that happens in Florida surprises me any more -ohbfrank-
the Bush's, both W and Jeb have been ignoring laws for as long as they've been in office. So why should we expect different?
If this crap continues where the state rights are ignored I would'nt be shocked to see Civil war II instead of being the Union vs the Confederate States it'll be all states vs the Federal Govt.
Pharoh
03-26-05, 08:41 PM
:hscratch:
I must have been out of town for a few days. What was it that President Bush did again to establish his own form of government?
DVD Polizei
03-26-05, 08:44 PM
You're kidding. Right.
Canadian Bacon
03-26-05, 08:46 PM
:hscratch:
I must have been out of town for a few days. What was it that President Bush did again to establish his own form of government?
stole votes
-wink-
OldDude
03-26-05, 09:19 PM
Not to rain on your theory, but a few questions
(All right, I admit I'm pissing on the theory)
Usually, the purpose of a coup is to overthrow the head of a country, so can the President really lead a coup?
Jeb Bush may have tried to use a state agency to take Terri. It should be looked into. If GWB tried, wouldn't he have used a Federal agency or Federal troops, that answer to him?
How is a Congress that passed a law it had no fucking business passing going to investigate this this with a straight face?
al_bundy
03-26-05, 09:23 PM
I just read the story on Yahoo. Jeb Bush didn't do anything illegal and followed the law. They filed an appeal and this stayed the judge's order that the feeding tube can be removed. Nothing about the president doing anything.
But then again if you don't like the president, then you blame him for the rain and the scorching sun.
classicman2
03-26-05, 09:52 PM
If this crap continues where the state rights are ignored I would'nt be shocked to see Civil war II instead of being the Union vs the Confederate States it'll be all states vs the Federal Govt.
:lol:
:lol:
Surely you jest!
classicman2
03-26-05, 09:55 PM
You're kidding. Right.
I agree with Pharoh. What again did he do to establish his own government.
What conspiratorial magazine(s) do you subscribe to? What conspiratorial websites do you visit?
You're one of the most conspiratorial minded members we have on the forum.
Do you really perceive a conspiracy behind anything that the government does?
wildcatlh
03-26-05, 09:57 PM
While I might not necessarily agree with his assessment of the gravity of the events of the last week WRT the Schiavo case (it's not good, but it's not THAT bad)... I don't see anything that suggests any conspiracy in the original post in this thread.
Jason
03-26-05, 10:29 PM
Coup D'etat probably isn't the right term, but the massive abuse of power displayed in this sad situation is both shameful and disgusting.
classicman2
03-26-05, 10:46 PM
I heard this same shit 31 years ago. Nixon would use the military to remain in power and suspend civil liberties. What happened? Nixon resigned. Gerald Ford was sworn in as President just as prescribed in the Constitution and Richard Nixon got on a plane and flew to California. No civil war. No coup d'etat. No great upheaval.
Massive abuse of power - come on.
The Reconstruction was a massive abuse of power.
What FDR did in the '30s dwarfed this, and I wouldn't call what FDR did as a massive abuse of power.
Breakfast with Girls
03-26-05, 10:50 PM
If this crap continues where the state rights are ignored I would'nt be shocked to see Civil war II instead of being the Union vs the Confederate States it'll be all states vs the Federal Govt.:lol: The states have enough problems of their own.
mikehunt
03-26-05, 10:58 PM
man, this is really stretching it
the bush haters are getting really desperate
DVD Polizei
03-26-05, 11:00 PM
Coup D'etat, by definition, has to do with a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics. Definitions by several dictionaries conflicted, and I hesitated for a moment in posting a Coup D'etat, but it actually meets the definition, but in an unusual way.
Normally, you would think a small group would have to be attempting to overthrow the current government, but this is only part of what a Coup D'etat is. We have a small group of individuals, within the US government (George and Jeb), attempting to alter laws already laid down by a judge's ruling.
In addition, a normal citizen couldn't get close to performing the legal circumventions George and Jeb did--and we're not talking about private individuals here--they are publicly elected officials. Overall, you're talking about abuses of power, and a small group of individuals who had tunnel vision, disregarding ethical obligations of their offices, and going with their personal religious beliefs, which is illegal under Separation of Church And State.
In fact, George W. Bush and Jeb Bush have violated the US Constitution under SoCaS (Separation Of Church And State). They have purposely used their own powers to match their religious beliefs, and with their powers, have slanted the legal system, as well as their public office.
DVD Polizei
03-26-05, 11:03 PM
I heard this same shit 31 years ago. Nixon would use the military to remain in power and suspend civil liberties. What happened? Nixon resigned. Gerald Ford was sworn in as President just as prescribed in the Constitution and Richard Nixon got on a plane and flew to California. No civil war. No coup d'etat. No great upheaval.
Massive abuse of power - come on.
The Reconstruction was a massive abuse of power.
What FDR did in the '30s dwarfed this, and I wouldn't call what FDR did as a massive abuse of power.
FDR was not infringing on religious beliefs, which is an essential part of the Constitution.
Big difference.
natevines
03-26-05, 11:04 PM
As much as I wish there were a coup d'etat, this is as specious as the fellow who claimed the Bush government was 'fascist'. Talk about SMEARING. You don't like a president and his administration, so you accuse him of being a fascist and completely misconstrue his actions as a coup d'etat. Yikes.
Jason
03-26-05, 11:06 PM
FDR was not infringing on religious beliefs, which is an essential part of the Constitution.
Big difference.
FDR wasn't signing legislation that was written for the benefit of a single person to shore up his eroding support from his core constituency either.
DVD Polizei
03-26-05, 11:07 PM
natevines,
FYI, I voted for Bush, so don't try the Anti-Bush thing on me. Apparently, you haven't been around here long enough to know. Make sure to research my posts before assuming I'm a Bush Hater.
P.S. I don't have to be a Liberal Left-Wing Wackie to comment on my distaste for recent events.
Pharoh
03-26-05, 11:09 PM
FDR was not infringing on religious beliefs, which is an essential part of the Constitution.
Big difference.
Wow, I must have really missed a whole bunch.
Seriously, this is one of the biggest stretches I have seen around here.
Pharoh
03-26-05, 11:10 PM
FDR wasn't signing legislation that was written for the benefit of a single person to shore up his eroding support from his core constituency either.
No, he just did whatever he wanted to, and stacked the Supreme Court so there would be nobody to oppose him. But yeah, you are correct, President Bush signing one bill passed by Congress, which did nothing, is much worse.
sfsdfd
03-26-05, 11:28 PM
If this crap continues where the state rights are ignored I would'nt be shocked to see Civil war II instead of being the Union vs the Confederate States it'll be all states vs the Federal Govt.
:lol: Paging Mr. Titor... Mr. Titor, please report to thread #5921584...
The problem with this theory is that a civil war implies two or more armies, and those armies are usually comprised of people. You'd have to have a good number of Americans take up arms and join an army. Given the apathy and selfishness of the typical American, we can rest assured that this will never, ever happen.
- David Stein
kvrdave
03-26-05, 11:49 PM
Holy Crap. :lol:
I mentioned before the election that the one reason I would hope Bush lost would be so that I could quit listening to stupid stuff like this. Now I am glad he won because I didn't anticipate that it could be this entertaining.
rotfl
Coup D'etat and a Despotic Country
rotfl
natevines
03-27-05, 12:08 AM
natevines,
FYI, I voted for Bush, so don't try the Anti-Bush thing on me. Apparently, you haven't been around here long enough to know. Make sure to research my posts before assuming I'm a Bush Hater.
P.S. I don't have to be a Liberal Left-Wing Wackie to comment on my distaste for recent events.
Sorry if that seemed if that seemed to be addressed to you (I did use the word 'you' when I should've used 'one'), but it wasn't intended to be. You presented rational arguments and said yourself that you were hesitant to call it coup. I was talking about those loonies who just spread their smear crap without sufficient evidence to support their outrageous claims.
DVD Polizei
03-27-05, 12:25 AM
natevines,
Oh. Ooops. My apologies. :)
David,
You make a good point about American selfishness, but, selfishness can be replaced with plain hatred for the other over time. Forcing one's beliefs on the majority are becoming rather typical, and over time, we may see people joining groups to fight other groups. Religious groups fighting non-religious groups. Currently, it's just political, but as we've already seen, if you can't win politically, you resort to physical possibilities to get your way.
Of course at the same time, we should not forget the bombing of a federal building not too long ago. Here we are attempting to protect ourselves from the outsider terrorist, when we have many domestic terrorists, just waiting for the justification to do some damage.
sfsdfd
03-27-05, 12:42 AM
You make a good point about American selfishness, but, selfishness can be replaced with plain hatred for the other over time.
Hatred? Has it risen to that level? I think we're a very long way from that, and I have extremely strong confidence that we won't be going there in the next 100 years.
Forcing one's beliefs on the majority are becoming rather typical, and over time, we may see people joining groups to fight other groups.
I don't think society has changed much in this regard - I believe that it's becoming more visible, thanks to pervasive media and the Internet. But this is not a runaway trend; exposure to this constant barrage of talking-points is only going to desensitize people and push them away from the national debate. The result is apathy, not the passion needed to take up arms.
Of course at the same time, we should not forget the bombing of a federal building not too long ago.
Every country has nutjobs. I don't think we're any safer from them now than in 1993, but it's likely to be a series of one-off events. If you're arguing that Oklahoma City was the start of a trend, I disagree - I don't think the public at large has the motivation (or means) to turn into white-trash militiamen.
- David Stein
eXcentris
03-27-05, 01:10 AM
exposure to this constant barrage of talking-points is only going to desensitize people and push them away from the national debate. The result is apathy, not the passion needed to take up arms.
- David Stein
Except that moderates have no voice so the media talking points you refer to mainly consist of extreme opposing points of view because "trash talk" sells. If you beat people over the head with those points of view long enough they will tend to adopt them and you get a polarized society with an increasing number of extremists on both sides. You're still far away from the passion required to take arms but I don't agree with your conclusion that this leads to apathy. The anger and tunnel vision are there and they are real.
kvrdave
03-27-05, 02:08 AM
Except that moderates have no voice so the media talking points you refer to mainly consist of extreme opposing points of view because "trash talk" sells. If you beat people over the head with those points of view long enough they will tend to adopt them and you get a polarized society with an increasing number of extremists on both sides. You're still far away from the passion required to take arms but I don't agree with your conclusion that this leads to apathy. The anger and tunnel vision are there and they are real.
I agree with David. Beat people over the head with extreme opposing points, and people (the majority, anyway) start to tune out. It is like hearing the war cry of Global Warming. Now, to be heard, they must yell louder and crazier because the average Joe doesn't see any fruit from all the doomsday talk that has been going on forever. Constantly talk about how bad things are, and people still take notice that there day-to-day lives have not changed.
And after the next election cycle, the tables turn and the other side gets to spew this kind of crap for 4-8 years.
I still believe that people may violently disagree with each other, but only the nuts will ever take up arms against their neighbor over this kind of thing. And I believe that kind of thing was much more likely in the 1800s than it is now, and even in the "cold war" era. If we didn't take up arms against our communist neighbors during an absolute frenzy about communism, we won't do it over anything that has happened recently.
kvrdave
03-27-05, 02:11 AM
And if you look at the postions held throughout the world, we have nothing but moderate voices here. Our extreme left and right tend to be barely average left and right throughout the world. But, you come from a land that has the majority further left than our left, so I can see where you might get that impression.
eXcentris
03-27-05, 02:36 AM
Well, I'm not comparing extremism in the US what extremism in other countries and as I said, you're still far away from people taking arms, but I think you are overestimating the majority's ability to tune out. I think the media are breeding more and more extremists, nor reducing their numbers, even though they are still a minority.
I also don't think that global warming is a very good example because frankly it's too abstract a concept, so people just don't care and they won't care until it really starts to affect their daily lives. But just look at abortion or the Schiavo case. How many death threats have been issued and how many people have or are ready to come to blow over these issues?
Of course, any sensible government will keep feeding the fear of an outside threat (at this time terrorism) to keep the masses from thinking too much about local issues and getting any ideas about revolt. :)
DVD Polizei
03-27-05, 02:50 AM
I still believe that people may violently disagree with each other, but only the nuts will ever take up arms against their neighbor over this kind of thing. And I believe that kind of thing was much more likely in the 1800s than it is now, and even in the "cold war" era. If we didn't take up arms against our communist neighbors during an absolute frenzy about communism, we won't do it over anything that has happened recently.
But once the nut cases take up arms against each other, you'll have the moderates on both sides in-between the war. Picture this. An extremist organization blows up a coffee shop associated with their enemy's ideals. The coffee shop explosion kills a few dozen people, who were mostly moderates.
Now you have the families and friends of those moderates who were killed, re-thinking their moderate position, and quite possibly heading towards a more extreme view of the people who killed their relatives and friends.
This has happened in other parts of the world, over similar circumstances. One extremist group kills innocent civilians, creating even more hatred.
classicman2
03-27-05, 08:13 AM
FDR was not infringing on religious beliefs, which is an essential part of the Constitution.
Big difference.
And neither were the Bushes.
Do you seriously believe Bush (either one) violated the EC of the First Amendment of the Constitution? If you believe that, tell me how, because this is the first time I've heard that argument. :rolleyes:
The Shiavo case is not a case about religion. It's a case of how you view & value life, IMO. A person doesn't have to be religious to hold to the view that we should err on the side of life. I'm opposed to the death penalty. It has nothing to do with my religion - the fact that I'm a Christian. I simply believe that it devalues the society's view of life. I believe society should hold life dear.
Nick Danger
03-27-05, 02:30 PM
As I see it, Bush and Congress tried to pull a fast one, and got stopped by the Juciciary. The three branches of government are expected to be in contention. I don't have a problem with it.
If a coup is a small group of individuals overthrowing the state, what is the word for the head of state dismissing or arresting the legislature and assuming absolute power?
JasonF
03-27-05, 02:43 PM
The Shiavo case is not a case about religion. It's a case of how you view & value life, IMO.
And I view it as a case about who should make the life-and-death decisions about a person who can no longer make them for herself, which has metamorphosized into a case about when the legislature can override a particularized decision by the judiciary.
JasonF
03-27-05, 02:48 PM
If a coup is a small group of individuals overthrowing the state, what is the word for the head of state dismissing or arresting the legislature and assuming absolute power?
This is exactly why I think the people who are saying an elected president can't stage a coup are dead wrong. At the risk of being accused of comparing Bush to a Nazi (I'm not), Hitler staged a coup in Germany -- even though he came to power through the democratic process (albeit democratic processes that he manipulated), he quickly changed the laws to remove democratic checks on his power.
If -- and this is not what happened here -- Bush had defied the lawful and constitutional orders of the courts, that would be a coup d'etat, because it would be an overthrow of our constitution.
Red Dog
03-27-05, 03:10 PM
FDR's 'coup' was worse. ;)
VinVega
03-27-05, 05:56 PM
My 2 cents, not a coup. Not even close. A definite overstep of separation of powers, but thankfully we have the judicial system in place to keep overzealous legislators in check once in a while. ;)
Groucho
03-27-05, 06:02 PM
Well, I think we all can agree that Bush is pretty much the 21st century version of Hitler. The real question: are the checks and balances in our constitution more robust than they were in Germany's constitution circa 1983 (or whenever it was Hitler seized power).
mikehunt
03-27-05, 06:30 PM
I hope the hitler comment was a joke
classicman2
03-27-05, 07:55 PM
This is exactly why I think the people who are saying an elected president can't stage a coup are dead wrong.
Huge difference between the U. S. and Germany. Germany had a very short history of democratic institutions. The U. S. has a long, long history of democratic institutions - going back to England.
You coup conspiratoralists have watched Seven Days in May too much. It's an excellent film, but not to be taken seriously. ;)
DVD Polizei
03-27-05, 08:08 PM
JasonF,
But didn't Jeb and/or George Bush defy the judges order when they told state agents to take Terri out of the hospital? It was only when the state agents decided to back down after talking with the local PD that the physical inevitability went away. I think George and/or Jeb said, "Do what you have to do." and then left the decision of just how far the state agents would go, in their hands. Just imagine if there was a physical confrontation. I'm sure the Bush family would deny any involvement. The state agents just didn't pick up the phone and demand that Terri would be taken because they felt like it. No, they received a phonecall from the Governor of Florida, and/or maybe even the President Of The United States.
And I agree about Bush being a Nazi--he's not. Ths one situation is really making me doubt how he would handle future religious situations, though.
Huge difference between the U. S. and Germany. Germany had a very short history of democratic institutions. The U. S. has a long, long history of democratic institutions - going back to England.
I think in a country with a long history of democracy, a coup is less likely to succeed, but that has no impact whatsoever on whether it is possible for a President to attempt a coup.
JasonF
03-27-05, 08:29 PM
JasonF,
But didn't Jeb and/or George Bush defy the judges order when they told state agents to take Terri out of the hospital? It was only when the state agents decided to back down after talking with the local PD that the physical inevitability went away. I think George and/or Jeb said, "Do what you have to do." and then left the decision of just how far the state agents would go, in their hands. Just imagine if there was a physical confrontation. I'm sure the Bush family would deny any involvement. The state agents just didn't pick up the phone and demand that Terri would be taken because they felt like it. No, they received a phonecall from the Governor of Florida, and/or maybe even the President Of The United States.
And I agree about Bush being a Nazi--he's not. Ths one situation is really making me doubt how he would handle future religious situations, though.
I doubt President Bush sent state troops; he doesn't have that kind of authority. And I think if Governor Bush had gone through with seizing Terry Schiavo, that would have been a coup. I think he backed down because he recognized that that's not the way we do things in this country.
classicman2
03-27-05, 09:01 PM
And I agree about Bush being a Nazi--he's not. Ths one situation is really making me doubt how he would handle future religious situations, though.
Please stop calling this a religious situation.
BTW: Again - tell me how the both Jeb & George violated the EC of the Constitution.
al_bundy
03-27-05, 09:37 PM
JasonF,
But didn't Jeb and/or George Bush defy the judges order when they told state agents to take Terri out of the hospital? It was only when the state agents decided to back down after talking with the local PD that the physical inevitability went away. I think George and/or Jeb said, "Do what you have to do." and then left the decision of just how far the state agents would go, in their hands. Just imagine if there was a physical confrontation. I'm sure the Bush family would deny any involvement. The state agents just didn't pick up the phone and demand that Terri would be taken because they felt like it. No, they received a phonecall from the Governor of Florida, and/or maybe even the President Of The United States.
And I agree about Bush being a Nazi--he's not. Ths one situation is really making me doubt how he would handle future religious situations, though.
no because they appealed to a higher court and by florida state law this automatically stayed greer's decision
DVD Polizei
03-27-05, 10:40 PM
Please stop calling this a religious situation.
BTW: Again - tell me how the both Jeb & George violated the EC of the Constitution.
Since you're saying this isn't a religious situation, I simply cannot figure out what angle you're coming from. Are you saying George and Jeb are agnostics--maybe even athiests, as well as the Shiavo parents and the people protesting outside the hospice building?
Last time I checked, religion is the core of this entire conflict.
Yep. It sure isn't about religion...My opinion on this case has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It's based totally on my views on morality.
gcbrowni
03-28-05, 07:56 AM
If I recall correctly, these are the Operation Rescue nut jobs. The head of the group is/was in contact with the parents, so it looks like he's mobilized his legion of extremists to make a PR showing. Any analogy between these peoples views and the rest of the country is only implied, which is their goal.
classicman2
03-28-05, 08:36 AM
My opinion on this case has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It's based totally on my views on morality.
IMO, it's really not so much a moral issue as it is a societal issue.
The argument that there are religious groups involved is meaningless. There were religious groups pushing for Bush's tax cuts. Religious conservatives often unite in conservative causes - having nothing to do with religion itself.
Democratic candidates often speak in black churches. Are they violating the principal of separation of church and state? Apparently,according to some, that is a 'religious event.'
Religious groups pushed for civil rights legislation in the '60s. Does that mean that it was a violation of the separation of church and state for them to do so? BTW: Many argued that the maintenance of segregation was a states' rights issue, and they too decried federal intervention.
Pharoh
03-28-05, 09:17 AM
Yep. It sure isn't about religion...
:hscratch:
Why don't I see the President or his brother in any of those pictures?
Pharoh
03-28-05, 10:02 AM
I am not disputing that it happened, but could somebody please point out to me with a reputable mainstream source where Governor Bush sent in state troops to extract Terri Schiavo, only to have them withdraw after confronting local police? I tried looking but couldn't find anything, and looking through the main thread is not the easiest thing to do. Thanks.
JasonF
03-28-05, 10:16 AM
I am not disputing that it happened, but could somebody please point out to me with a reputable mainstream source where Governor Bush sent in state troops to extract Terri Schiavo, only to have them withdraw after confronting local police? I tried looking but couldn't find anything, and looking through the main thread is not the easiest thing to do. Thanks.
Posted on Sat, Mar. 26, 2005
Police 'showdown' averted
BY CAROL MARBIN MILLER
Hours after a judge ordered that Terri Schiavo was not to be removed from her hospice, a team of state agents were en route to seize her and have her feeding tube reinserted -- but they stopped short when local police told them they would enforce the judge's order, The Herald has learned.
Agents of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement told police in Pinellas Park, the small town where Schiavo lies at Hospice Woodside, on Thursday that they were on the way to take her to a hospital to resume her feeding.
For a brief period, local police, who have officers at the hospice to keep protesters out, prepared for what sources called ``a showdown.''
In the end, the squad from the FDLE and the Department of Children & Families backed down, apparently concerned about confronting local police outside the hospice.
''We told them that unless they had the judge with them when they came, they were not going to get in,'' said a source with the local police.
''The FDLE called to say they were en route to the scene,'' said an official with the city police who requested anonymity. ``When the sheriff's department and our department told them they could not enforce their order, they backed off.''
The incident,known only to a few and related to The Herald by three different sources involved in Thursday's events, underscores the intense emotion and murky legal terrain that the Schiavo case has created. It also shows that agencies answering directly to Gov. Jeb Bush had planned to use a wrinkle in Florida law that would have allowed them to legally get around the judge's order. The exception in the law allows public agencies to freeze a judge's order whenever an agency appeals it.
CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
Participants in the high-stakes test of wills, who spoke with The Herald on the condition of anonymity, said they believed the standoff could ultimately have led to a constitutional crisis and a confrontation between dueling lawmen.
''There were two sets of law enforcement officers facing off, waiting for the other to blink,'' said one official with knowledge of Thursday morning's activities.
In jest, one official said local police discussed ``whether we had enough officers to hold off the National Guard.''
''It was kind of a showdown on the part of the locals and the state police,'' the official said. ``It it was not too long after that Jeb Bush was on TV saying that, evidently, he doesn't have as much authority as people think.''
State officials on Friday vigorously denied the notion that any ''showdown'' occurred.
''DCF directed no such action,'' said agency spokeswoman Zoraya Suarez.
Said Bush spokesman Jacob DiPietre: ``There was no showdown. We were ready to go. We didn't want to break the law. There was a process in place and we were following the process. The judge had an order and we were following the order.''
Tim Caddell, a spokesman for the city of Pinellas Park, declined to discuss Thursday's events.
SHELTER FOR SCHIAVO
The developments that set Thursday morning's events in motion began the previous afternoon, when the governor and DCF chief Lucy Hadi held an impromptu news conference to announce they were considering sheltering Schiavo under the state's adult protection law. DCF has been besieged, officials say, by thousands of calls alleging Schiavo is the victim of abuse or neglect.
Alerted by the Bush administration that Schiavo might be on her way to their facility, officials at Morton Plant Hospital went to court themselves Wednesday, asking Circuit Judge George Greer, who ordered the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube last week, what to do.
''It's an extraordinary situation,'' said Beth Hardy, a hospital spokeswoman. ``I don't think any of us has seen anything like it. Ever.''
Greer signed an order Wednesday afternoon forbidding DCF from ''taking possession of Theresa Marie Schiavo or removing her'' from the hospice. He directed ''each and every and singular sheriff of the state of Florida'' to enforce his order.
But Thursday, at 8:15 a.m., DCF lawyers appealed Greer's order to judges at the Second District Court of Appeal in Lakeland.
That created the window of time to seize Schiavo. When DCF filed its appeal, it effectively froze the judge's Wednesday order. It took nearly three hours before the judge found out and canceled the automatic stay, shortly before 11 a.m.
Administrators of the 72-bed hospice, who have endured a withering siege of their facility by protesters since Greer ordered Schiavo's feeding tube removed on March 18, declined to discuss Thursday morning's events in any detail.
''I don't really know, or pretend to know, the specifics of what is going on behind the scenes,'' said Mike Bell, a spokesman for Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, which operates Woodside.
DCF INTENTIONS
According to sources, DCF intended to take Schiavo to Morton Plant Hospital, where her feeding tube had been reinserted in 2003 following a previous judicial order allowing its removal. But hospice officials were aware that the hospital was not likely to perform surgery to reinsert the tube without an order from Greer.
''People knew that taking [Schiavo] did not equate with immediate reinsertion of the feeding tube,'' a source said. ``Hospital officials were working with their legal counsel and their advisors, trying to figure out which order superseded which, and what action they should take.''
Hardy, the hospital spokeswoman, said she does not believe the hospital was made aware Thursday morning that DCF and state police planned to bring Schiavo in. ''We were not aware of that three-hour period,'' she said. ``It's not a discussion we even had, really.''
George Felos, Michael Schiavo's attorney, said he does not think DCF officials knew of the window of opportunity they had created until well after they filed their appeal.
''Frankly, I don't believe when they filed their notice of appeal they realized that that gave them an automatic stay,'' Felos said. ``When we filed our motion to vacate the automatic stay . . . they realized they had a short window of opportunity and they wanted to extend that as long as they could.
``I believe that as soon as DCF knew they had an opportunity, they were mobilizing to take advantage of it, without a doubt.''
Herald staff writers Phil Long and Marc Caputo contributed to this story.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/11233240.htm
Pharoh
03-28-05, 10:25 AM
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/11233240.htm
Thank you.
I am glad they didn't go as far as federal forces did in the Elian Gonzalez case. It was a very stupid call and would have created a nightmare if they continued, though it would not appear to have been an illegal action.
classicman2
03-28-05, 03:13 PM
There's a greater chance of kvrdave becoming President of the United than a coup d'etat in this country. :)
movielib
03-28-05, 04:04 PM
There's a greater chance of kvrdave becoming President of the United than a coup d'etat in this country. :)
I thought that was just about a sure thing.
Wait. Oh yeah, I was thinking about the Nobel Prize.
Red Dog
03-28-05, 04:08 PM
There's a greater chance of kvrdave becoming President of the United than a coup d'etat in this country. :)
Good, now that we that settled, can we dispense with the 'I need guns to stop a tank rolling up my driveway' argument in future gun control debates. :)
Breakfast with Girls
03-28-05, 04:16 PM
Good, now that we that settled, can we dispense with the 'I need guns to stop a tank rolling up my driveway' argument in future gun control debates. :):lol:
eXcentris
03-28-05, 04:16 PM
There's a greater chance of kvrdave becoming President of the United than a coup d'etat in this country. :)
But Dave would quickly be overthrown by a coup from the canine population.
kvrdave
03-28-05, 04:20 PM
There's a greater chance of kvrdave becoming President of the United than a coup d'etat in this country. :)
Buy: