| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
15 Jun 2005 07:53:35 PM |
| Object: |
Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
Now that the autopsy vindicates what Michael Schiavo was saying all
along he should make a long list of people to sue who defamed/libeled
him, starting with Fox News, the Repug National Committee, Randall Terry
and Operation Rescue, Bill First, Tom DeLay, Jeb Bush, George Bush, Bill
O'Reilly, Sean Insanity, Michael "Weiner boy" Savage, the Schindlers and
many more. Specifically, malpractice charges also need to be filed
against First for his incompetent and unethical attempt to diagnose
Terry Schiavo by watching heavily edited home video footage. If Schiavo
and Felos cast a wide enough net and sues enough of them then maybe some
of them will even settle out of court and it will give them millions to
establish some kind of foundation to defend the rights and privacy of
americans from attack by all the christo-fascist zombie assholes out
there. That would be so fucking sweet.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
19 Jun 2005 09:36:05 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
news:US3te.137082$J25.46480@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
"Enkidu the Atheist" <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9679747CE4666255229@130.133.1.4...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
news:sjZse.106971$8S5.90842@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb8n12.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<PSYse.106944$8S5.1284@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb89gk.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as
such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
It certainly had nothing to do with the DoI since slaves were
freed in the British Empire 30 years before they were in the US.
You have got to be kidding.
The three inalienable rights lists liberty as one of those rights.
How do you figure slkavery was abolished without such an
inalienable right?
It was not abolished by the Declaration of Independence. It was
abolished by the fact of American independence, and in fact it
lasted another generation because America was independent.
The Declaration was never law, and it isn't law now.
What nation are you a citizen of?
The DoI is fully legal.
To say it is not legal is to act traitorious to the USA.
The DoI is not the "law of the land" in the United States. The
Constitution is. Previous to the adoption of the Constitution, there
was another, different country called the "United States of America"
governed by the Articles of Confederation, with a president and a
legislature.
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
This government was superceded by our current Constitution, and is
not legally binding in any sense. The DoI precedes the Articles, and
is no more legally binding than they are.
While the DoI may have moral force, it is not a legal document in the
sense that the Bill of Rights or current tax law is a legal document.
More whining from someone who does not honor the DoI?
No, just stating the facts as they are, not as I'd wish them to be.
That's why I'm an atheist as well.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplin and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a whitish
fluid they force down helpless babies."
* W. C. Fields
(01/29/1880 - 12/25/1946)
US comic actor
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 11:50:11 PM |
|
|
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Enkidu the Atheist" <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in message
While the DoI may have moral force, it is not a legal document in the
sense that the Bill of Rights or current tax law is a legal document.
More whining from someone who does not honor the DoI?
You've alreday stated that you do not honor the DoI. You've stated
that if you could you'd dicard it and impose your own immoral
dictatorship.
You're just looking for an excuse to have people follow your immoral
and murderous decrees.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
19 Jun 2005 05:28:26 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 04:50:11 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <d92ti2$jjp$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
"Enkidu the Atheist" <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in message
While the DoI may have moral force, it is not a legal document in the
sense that the Bill of Rights or current tax law is a legal document.
More whining from someone who does not honor the DoI?
You've alreday stated that you do not honor the DoI. You've stated
that if you could you'd dicard it and impose your own immoral
dictatorship.
No, it has no meaning today and can be ignored.
You're just looking for an excuse to have people follow your immoral
and murderous decrees.
Propaganda rant.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
19 Jun 2005 05:27:35 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 21:30:58 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<US3te.137082$J25.46480@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Enkidu the Atheist" <Enkidu.the.Atheist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9679747CE4666255229@130.133.1.4...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
news:sjZse.106971$8S5.90842@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb8n12.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<PSYse.106944$8S5.1284@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb89gk.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
It certainly had nothing to do with the DoI since slaves were
freed in the British Empire 30 years before they were in the US.
You have got to be kidding.
The three inalienable rights lists liberty as one of those rights.
How do you figure slkavery was abolished without such an inalienable
right?
It was not abolished by the Declaration of Independence. It was
abolished by the fact of American independence, and in fact it
lasted another generation because America was independent.
The Declaration was never law, and it isn't law now.
What nation are you a citizen of?
The DoI is fully legal.
To say it is not legal is to act traitorious to the USA.
The DoI is not the "law of the land" in the United States. The
Constitution is. Previous to the adoption of the Constitution, there was
another, different country called the "United States of America" governed
by the Articles of Confederation, with a president and a legislature.
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
This government was superceded by our current Constitution, and is not
legally binding in any sense. The DoI precedes the Articles, and is no
more legally binding than they are.
While the DoI may have moral force, it is not a legal document in the
sense that the Bill of Rights or current tax law is a legal document.
More whining from someone who does not honor the DoI?
Honor is irrelevant.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 01:10:24 PM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<sjZse.106971$8S5.90842@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" < > wrote in message
news:slrndb8n12.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<PSYse.106944$8S5.1284@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" < > wrote in message
news:slrndb89gk.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" < > wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
It certainly had nothing to do with the DoI since slaves were
freed in the British Empire 30 years before they were in the US.
You have got to be kidding.
The three inalienable rights lists liberty as one of those rights. How do
you figure slkavery was abolished without such an inalienable right?
It was not abolished by the Declaration of Independence. It was
abolished by the fact of American independence, and in fact it
lasted another generation because America was independent.
The Declaration was never law, and it isn't law now.
What nation are you a citizen of?
The DoI is fully legal.
To say it is not legal is to act traitorious to the USA.
It's not law. It never was law. And if you are so corrupt that
the truth is treason to you, the shame is on you.
--
Lars Eighner http://www.larseighner.com/
"Do you have blacks, too?"
--George W. Bush, to Brazilian Presitdent Fernando Henrique Cardoso
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 08:30:16 PM |
|
|
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb8or5.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<sjZse.106971$8S5.90842@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb8n12.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<PSYse.106944$8S5.1284@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb89gk.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
It certainly had nothing to do with the DoI since slaves were
freed in the British Empire 30 years before they were in the US.
You have got to be kidding.
The three inalienable rights lists liberty as one of those rights. How
do
you figure slkavery was abolished without such an inalienable right?
It was not abolished by the Declaration of Independence. It was
abolished by the fact of American independence, and in fact it
lasted another generation because America was independent.
The Declaration was never law, and it isn't law now.
What nation are you a citizen of?
The DoI is fully legal.
To say it is not legal is to act traitorious to the USA.
It's not law. It never was law. And if you are so corrupt that
the truth is treason to you, the shame is on you.
You failed to answer my question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 08:42:30 PM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<eS3te.137081$J25.2309@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" < > wrote in message
news:slrndb8or5.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<sjZse.106971$8S5.90842@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" < > wrote in message
news:slrndb8n12.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<PSYse.106944$8S5.1284@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" < > wrote in message
news:slrndb89gk.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" < > wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
It certainly had nothing to do with the DoI since slaves were
freed in the British Empire 30 years before they were in the US.
You have got to be kidding.
The three inalienable rights lists liberty as one of those rights. How
do
you figure slkavery was abolished without such an inalienable right?
It was not abolished by the Declaration of Independence. It was
abolished by the fact of American independence, and in fact it
lasted another generation because America was independent.
The Declaration was never law, and it isn't law now.
What nation are you a citizen of?
The DoI is fully legal.
To say it is not legal is to act traitorious to the USA.
It's not law. It never was law. And if you are so corrupt that
the truth is treason to you, the shame is on you.
You failed to answer my question.
Unlike you, I am not a sniviling little meglomanic coward. I
post under my full true name. Use google to answer your own
question. There is no point in anyone else being bored by your
paranoia.
--
Lars Eighner http://www.larseighner.com/
It is the job of thinking people, not to be on the side of the executioners.
- Albert Camus
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 11:08:01 PM |
|
|
Lars Eighner <eighner@io.com> wrote in
news:slrndb9jat.19di.eighner@goodwill.io.com:
In our last episode,
<eS3te.137081$J25.2309@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb8or5.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<sjZse.106971$8S5.90842@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb8n12.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<PSYse.106944$8S5.1284@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb89gk.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely
and talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as
such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
It certainly had nothing to do with the DoI since slaves were
freed in the British Empire 30 years before they were in the US.
You have got to be kidding.
The three inalienable rights lists liberty as one of those
rights. How do
you figure slkavery was abolished without such an inalienable
right?
It was not abolished by the Declaration of Independence. It was
abolished by the fact of American independence, and in fact it
lasted another generation because America was independent.
The Declaration was never law, and it isn't law now.
What nation are you a citizen of?
The DoI is fully legal.
To say it is not legal is to act traitorious to the USA.
It's not law. It never was law. And if you are so corrupt that
the truth is treason to you, the shame is on you.
You failed to answer my question.
Unlike you, I am not a sniviling little meglomanic coward. I
post under my full true name. Use google to answer your own
question. There is no point in anyone else being bored by your
paranoia.
If I were "Johnny" (which I am forever grateful that I'm not), I would be
embarrased to publish my real name to his posts and responses. Can you
imagine someone who knows him seeing what a neocon whackjob he really is?
His family might even disown him.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 02:39:57 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:05:26 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<sjZse.106971$8S5.90842@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb8n12.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<PSYse.106944$8S5.1284@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb89gk.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
It certainly had nothing to do with the DoI since slaves were
freed in the British Empire 30 years before they were in the US.
You have got to be kidding.
The three inalienable rights lists liberty as one of those rights. How do
you figure slkavery was abolished without such an inalienable right?
It was not abolished by the Declaration of Independence. It was
abolished by the fact of American independence, and in fact it
lasted another generation because America was independent.
The Declaration was never law, and it isn't law now.
What nation are you a citizen of?
The DoI is fully legal.
It never was 'legal'.
To say it is not legal is to act traitorious to the USA.
Exactly where is that spelled out in law?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darklady" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 11:52:23 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:05:26 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb8n12.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<PSYse.106944$8S5.1284@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb89gk.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
It certainly had nothing to do with the DoI since slaves were
freed in the British Empire 30 years before they were in the US.
You have got to be kidding.
The three inalienable rights lists liberty as one of those rights. How do
you figure slkavery was abolished without such an inalienable right?
It was not abolished by the Declaration of Independence. It was
abolished by the fact of American independence, and in fact it
lasted another generation because America was independent.
The Declaration was never law, and it isn't law now.
What nation are you a citizen of?
The DoI is fully legal.
To say it is not legal is to act traitorious to the USA.
Great.
On top of everything, you don't know what make a person a
"traitor."
-- Darklady
http://www.darklady.com
http://www.masturbate-a-thon.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 02:39:03 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:34:54 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<PSYse.106944$8S5.1284@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb89gk.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
It certainly had nothing to do with the DoI since slaves were
freed in the British Empire 30 years before they were in the US.
You have got to be kidding.
The three inalienable rights lists liberty as one of those rights. How do
you figure slkavery was abolished without such an inalienable right?
None of those rights are supported or enforced by law, so what good
are they?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 03:55:12 PM |
|
|
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:i0u8b15p44ql10n8n4ke8gikp7n74ml2nn@4ax.com:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:34:54 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<PSYse.106944$8S5.1284@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb89gk.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
It certainly had nothing to do with the DoI since slaves were
freed in the British Empire 30 years before they were in the US.
You have got to be kidding.
The three inalienable rights lists liberty as one of those rights. How
do you figure slkavery was abolished without such an inalienable
right?
None of those rights are supported or enforced by law, so what good
are they?
Ever notice how the anti-choice loons and neocon wingnuts constantly bring
up the "liberty" clause from the DOI in their ng posts and responses, yet
these same Taliban wannabees try to take away that liberty from women faced
with unwanted or medically impaired pregnancies? I think that's called
hypocricy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 04:56:55 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:34:54 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb89gk.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
It certainly had nothing to do with the DoI since slaves were
freed in the British Empire 30 years before they were in the US.
You have got to be kidding.
The three inalienable rights lists liberty as one of those rights. How do
you figure slkavery was abolished without such an inalienable right?
What a pile of crap. People still go to jail, you know. How can that
be if liberty is an inalienable right?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 02:37:36 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 09:41:35 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
Because three Constitutional Amendments eliminate slavery in the US.
You are an fool.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 08:35:06 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:gut8b11sm8c4cfbbkctmk4lr8s8m2dk38n@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 09:41:35 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
Because three Constitutional Amendments eliminate slavery in the US.
You are an fool.
You are Pro-Choice.
LOL!!!!!!!
The joke is on you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 11:31:56 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
:"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
:news:gut8b11sm8c4cfbbkctmk4lr8s8m2dk38n@4ax.com...
:> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 09:41:35 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
:> in alt.abortion with message-id
:> <5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
:>>"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
:>>news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
:>>> In our last episode,
:>>> <kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
:>>> talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
:>>>>> Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
:>>>> July 4th, 1776. Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized
:>>>> as such.
:>>> That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
:>>*****. Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
:> Because three Constitutional Amendments eliminate slavery in the US.
:> You are an fool.
:You are Pro-Choice. LOL!!!!!!! The joke is on you.
You can quit demonstrating your stupidity, Wentzky. You've proved it beyond
any reasonable doubt.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
19 Jun 2005 05:32:23 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 21:35:06 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<LW3te.137092$J25.77573@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:gut8b11sm8c4cfbbkctmk4lr8s8m2dk38n@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 09:41:35 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<5sVse.106865$8S5.75441@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb885n.14u5.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
*****.
Why do you think the slaves were emancipated?
Because three Constitutional Amendments eliminate slavery in the US.
You are an fool.
You are Pro-Choice.
And proud of it. So what? That has nothing to do with the status of
the D of I or that you have amply demonstrated you are a fool.
LOL!!!!!!!
The joke is on you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 11:08:18 PM |
|
|
Lars Eighner <eighner@io.com> writes:
:In our last episode,
:<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
:talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
:>> Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
:> July 4th, 1776.
:> Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
:That there is a day for it, doesn't give it the force of law.
....and it's not even the right day, since Richard Henry Lee and John Adams
declared independence on the 2nd, and the letter explaining what they and the
Continental Congress concurred in was adopted on the 4th.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
18 Jun 2005 02:36:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 09:06:38 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<kXUse.106089$8S5.27907@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:c668b1pd2jijdvkblvfckaqp5arr6s0tc1@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:19:59 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:drd6b1t3v1k6b41rm3ioo6kftmnfjdmak4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:17:14 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<jlEse.108204$CR5.56927@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Because I am a U.S. Citizen, and I want my right to life protected if I
am
in such a situation.
Where is your 'right to life' to be found? Specifically?
In the legal documentation of this nation which says that we hold these
truths to be self-evident, that each person is endowed with three
inalienable rights of life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, endowed
by the creator.
Any more questions?
Yes. When did the DoI become a 'legal document'?
July 4th, 1776.
Had it not been legal it would not have been recognized as such.
It wasn't recognized by anyone but the Colonists, and not all of them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
16 Jun 2005 10:01:30 PM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<4Kqse.102976$8S5.50553@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
I really am not concerned about that. We have legal procedures
here to dictate what is to be done, and hearsay is NOT
admissible in a court of law.
You don't know what hearsay is. And you don't know what is
admissible. It is not too surprising, really. You know more
than doctors who actually examined and treated the patient, and
you know more than all the lawyers and judges who reviewed this
case many times over a number of years.
Here's a hint:
"Her husband told me she wouldn't want live under such
circumstances." Hearsay, if supposed to show what she said.
Not hearsay, if supposed to show what her husband said.
"She told me she wouldn't want to live under such
circumstances." Not hearsay.
--
Lars Eighner http://www.larseighner.com/
We can't send [Falwell] to Iraq, or we'd be indicted by the
UN War Crimes Tribunal for using a Weapon of Mass Stupidity.
--Gary S. Callison
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
16 Jun 2005 10:23:14 PM |
|
|
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb4f6g.uko.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<4Kqse.102976$8S5.50553@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
I really am not concerned about that. We have legal procedures
here to dictate what is to be done, and hearsay is NOT
admissible in a court of law.
You don't know what hearsay is. And you don't know what is
admissible. It is not too surprising, really. You know more
than doctors who actually examined and treated the patient, and
you know more than all the lawyers and judges who reviewed this
case many times over a number of years.
Here's a hint:
"Her husband told me she wouldn't want live under such
circumstances." Hearsay, if supposed to show what she said.
Not hearsay, if supposed to show what her husband said.
"She told me she wouldn't want to live under such
circumstances." Not hearsay.
Sorry. Hearsay is hearsay whether it is a spouse rendering an account of
what another person said or someone else rendering the account.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
16 Jun 2005 10:49:19 PM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<mirse.103040$8S5.31645@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" < > wrote in message
news:slrndb4f6g.uko.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<4Kqse.102976$8S5.50553@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
I really am not concerned about that. We have legal procedures
here to dictate what is to be done, and hearsay is NOT
admissible in a court of law.
You don't know what hearsay is. And you don't know what is
admissible. It is not too surprising, really. You know more
than doctors who actually examined and treated the patient, and
you know more than all the lawyers and judges who reviewed this
case many times over a number of years.
Here's a hint:
"Her husband told me she wouldn't want live under such
circumstances." Hearsay, if supposed to show what she said.
Not hearsay, if supposed to show what her husband said.
"She told me she wouldn't want to live under such
circumstances." Not hearsay.
Sorry. Hearsay is hearsay whether it is a spouse rendering an account of
what another person said or someone else rendering the account.
'fraid not. Back to law school for you.
This is the definition of hearsay:
Evidence based on the reports of others rather
than the personal knowledge of a witness and
therefore generally not admissible as testimony.
The husband has personal knowledge of his conversations with his
wife and therefore his account of those conversations is not
hearsay.
What is more, hearsay is not always inadmissible anyway.
Now tell us how it is that if it was hearsay, that point was
lost on the Schindlers' attorney, but you picked up on it right
away?
You don't know what hearsay is. You pull everything you say
right out of your *****.
--
Lars Eighner http://www.larseighner.com/
We must be prepared to make heroic sacrifices for the cause of peace
that we make ungrudgingly for the cause of war.
- Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
16 Jun 2005 11:13:36 PM |
|
|
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb4i05.uko.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<mirse.103040$8S5.31645@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb4f6g.uko.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<4Kqse.102976$8S5.50553@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
I really am not concerned about that. We have legal procedures
here to dictate what is to be done, and hearsay is NOT
admissible in a court of law.
You don't know what hearsay is. And you don't know what is
admissible. It is not too surprising, really. You know more
than doctors who actually examined and treated the patient, and
you know more than all the lawyers and judges who reviewed this
case many times over a number of years.
Here's a hint:
"Her husband told me she wouldn't want live under such
circumstances." Hearsay, if supposed to show what she said.
Not hearsay, if supposed to show what her husband said.
"She told me she wouldn't want to live under such
circumstances." Not hearsay.
Sorry. Hearsay is hearsay whether it is a spouse rendering an account of
what another person said or someone else rendering the account.
'fraid not. Back to law school for you.
This is the definition of hearsay:
Evidence based on the reports of others rather
than the personal knowledge of a witness and
therefore generally not admissible as testimony.
And, that is where you are amiss.
What Mr. Schiavo said was not KNOWLEDGE to the court. It was a hearsay
account of what he alleged his wife said.
The husband has personal knowledge of his conversations with his
wife and therefore his account of those conversations is not
hearsay.
That is unproveable as to whether it was knowledge or not.
That is why it is called hearsay.
Your excuses which make lies are insufficient to rule by.
What is more, hearsay is not always inadmissible anyway.
And, in this case it was admissible?
I know how you god damned liars who like to put innocent people to death
like to make up things as you go along to serve yourself.
Now tell us how it is that if it was hearsay, that point was
lost on the Schindlers' attorney, but you picked up on it right
away?
Because the whole fuckign ABA sucks.
Illustration.
Michael Schiavo's attorney did not even represent his best interest.
Michael Schiavo's attorney turned down $10 million payable to Michael to
keep Terri alive.
Michael Schiavo's attorney is a fool, literally.
You don't know what hearsay is. You pull everything you say
right out of your *****.
You are too stupid to tell me what the case is here.
The ABA is an unjust leech on our society.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whisper" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
17 Jun 2005 08:24:51 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:l3sse.132590$J25.14196@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb4i05.uko.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<mirse.103040$8S5.31645@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb4f6g.uko.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<4Kqse.102976$8S5.50553@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
I really am not concerned about that. We have legal procedures
here to dictate what is to be done, and hearsay is NOT
admissible in a court of law.
You don't know what hearsay is. And you don't know what is
admissible. It is not too surprising, really. You know more
than doctors who actually examined and treated the patient, and
you know more than all the lawyers and judges who reviewed this
case many times over a number of years.
Here's a hint:
"Her husband told me she wouldn't want live under such
circumstances." Hearsay, if supposed to show what she said.
Not hearsay, if supposed to show what her husband said.
"She told me she wouldn't want to live under such
circumstances." Not hearsay.
Sorry. Hearsay is hearsay whether it is a spouse rendering an account of
what another person said or someone else rendering the account.
'fraid not. Back to law school for you.
This is the definition of hearsay:
Evidence based on the reports of others rather
than the personal knowledge of a witness and
therefore generally not admissible as testimony.
And, that is where you are amiss.
What Mr. Schiavo said was not KNOWLEDGE to the court. It was a hearsay
account of what he alleged his wife said.
Wrong. Read some of the actual rulings. Michael Schiavo's brother and a
sister-in-law *both* testified that Terri had commented directly to them, on
separate occasions, that she would not want to be kept alive if severly
incapacitated. Direct testimony, NOT hearsay. W
<snip your other drivel>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
17 Jun 2005 02:32:23 PM |
|
|
"Whisper" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bd9ac$42b2cf4f$498f348$14606@DIALUPUSA.NET...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:l3sse.132590$J25.14196@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb4i05.uko.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<mirse.103040$8S5.31645@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb4f6g.uko.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<4Kqse.102976$8S5.50553@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
I really am not concerned about that. We have legal procedures
here to dictate what is to be done, and hearsay is NOT
admissible in a court of law.
You don't know what hearsay is. And you don't know what is
admissible. It is not too surprising, really. You know more
than doctors who actually examined and treated the patient, and
you know more than all the lawyers and judges who reviewed this
case many times over a number of years.
Here's a hint:
"Her husband told me she wouldn't want live under such
circumstances." Hearsay, if supposed to show what she said.
Not hearsay, if supposed to show what her husband said.
"She told me she wouldn't want to live under such
circumstances." Not hearsay.
Sorry. Hearsay is hearsay whether it is a spouse rendering an account
of
what another person said or someone else rendering the account.
'fraid not. Back to law school for you.
This is the definition of hearsay:
Evidence based on the reports of others rather
than the personal knowledge of a witness and
therefore generally not admissible as testimony.
And, that is where you are amiss.
What Mr. Schiavo said was not KNOWLEDGE to the court. It was a hearsay
account of what he alleged his wife said.
Wrong. Read some of the actual rulings. Michael Schiavo's brother and a
sister-in-law *both* testified that Terri had commented directly to them,
on separate occasions, that she would not want to be kept alive if severly
incapacitated. Direct testimony, NOT hearsay. W
It is still hearsay, even if two people heard it.
It does not have the force of law such as a living will.
<snip your other drivel>
Because you couldn't handle it, sacrificer?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whisper" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
17 Jun 2005 04:14:23 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:NrFse.108296$CR5.51165@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Whisper" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bd9ac$42b2cf4f$498f348$14606@DIALUPUSA.NET...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:l3sse.132590$J25.14196@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb4i05.uko.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<mirse.103040$8S5.31645@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb4f6g.uko.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<4Kqse.102976$8S5.50553@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
I really am not concerned about that. We have legal procedures
here to dictate what is to be done, and hearsay is NOT
admissible in a court of law.
You don't know what hearsay is. And you don't know what is
admissible. It is not too surprising, really. You know more
than doctors who actually examined and treated the patient, and
you know more than all the lawyers and judges who reviewed this
case many times over a number of years.
Here's a hint:
"Her husband told me she wouldn't want live under such
circumstances." Hearsay, if supposed to show what she said.
Not hearsay, if supposed to show what her husband said.
"She told me she wouldn't want to live under such
circumstances." Not hearsay.
Sorry. Hearsay is hearsay whether it is a spouse rendering an account
of
what another person said or someone else rendering the account.
'fraid not. Back to law school for you.
This is the definition of hearsay:
Evidence based on the reports of others rather
than the personal knowledge of a witness and
therefore generally not admissible as testimony.
And, that is where you are amiss.
What Mr. Schiavo said was not KNOWLEDGE to the court. It was a hearsay
account of what he alleged his wife said.
Wrong. Read some of the actual rulings. Michael Schiavo's brother and a
sister-in-law *both* testified that Terri had commented directly to them,
on separate occasions, that she would not want to be kept alive if
severly incapacitated. Direct testimony, NOT hearsay. W
It is still hearsay, even if two people heard it.
No, as Lars has pointed out to you numerous times, someone to whom Terri
made specific comments can testify about the conversation, because by
definition it is NOT hearsay. (Unless you think that every conversation you
have with a human being is hearsay rather than being your direct experience
of events.)
It does not have the force of law such as a living will.
Legally, it did/does.
<snip your other drivel>
Because you couldn't handle it, sacrificer?
No, because it was a stupid, incoherent rant not worthy of a further
investment of my time. W
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
17 Jun 2005 09:58:46 PM |
|
|
Notice those that testifies to Teri's supposed wishes were mikey's blood kin
and friends whereas Teri's parents & BLOOD kin said she never told them any
such thing.
It's also quite interesting that her BLOOD kin said she was leaving him when
she went into her coma!
LN
"Whisper" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:db58$42b33d38$498f38e$16624@DIALUPUSA.NET...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:NrFse.108296$CR5.51165@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Whisper" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bd9ac$42b2cf4f$498f348$14606@DIALUPUSA.NET...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:l3sse.132590$J25.14196@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb4i05.uko.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<mirse.103040$8S5.31645@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb4f6g.uko.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<4Kqse.102976$8S5.50553@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
I really am not concerned about that. We have legal procedures
here to dictate what is to be done, and hearsay is NOT
admissible in a court of law.
You don't know what hearsay is. And you don't know what is
admissible. It is not too surprising, really. You know more
than doctors who actually examined and treated the patient, and
you know more than all the lawyers and judges who reviewed this
case many times over a number of years.
Here's a hint:
"Her husband told me she wouldn't want live under such
circumstances." Hearsay, if supposed to show what she said.
Not hearsay, if supposed to show what her husband said.
"She told me she wouldn't want to live under such
circumstances." Not hearsay.
Sorry. Hearsay is hearsay whether it is a spouse rendering an account
of
what another person said or someone else rendering the account.
'fraid not. Back to law school for you.
This is the definition of hearsay:
Evidence based on the reports of others rather
than the personal knowledge of a witness and
therefore generally not admissible as testimony.
And, that is where you are amiss.
What Mr. Schiavo said was not KNOWLEDGE to the court. It was a hearsay
account of what he alleged his wife said.
Wrong. Read some of the actual rulings. Michael Schiavo's brother and a
sister-in-law *both* testified that Terri had commented directly to
them, on separate occasions, that she would not want to be kept alive if
severly incapacitated. Direct testimony, NOT hearsay. W
It is still hearsay, even if two people heard it.
No, as Lars has pointed out to you numerous times, someone to whom Terri
made specific comments can testify about the conversation, because by
definition it is NOT hearsay. (Unless you think that every conversation
you have with a human being is hearsay rather than being your direct
experience of events.)
It does not have the force of law such as a living will.
Legally, it did/does.
<snip your other drivel>
Because you couldn't handle it, sacrificer?
No, because it was a stupid, incoherent rant not worthy of a further
investment of my time. W
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whisper" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
20 Jun 2005 06:36:13 AM |
|
|
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:G5Mse.4140$Pa5.3742@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Notice those that testifies to Teri's supposed wishes were mikey's blood
kin and friends whereas Teri's parents & BLOOD kin said she never told
them any such thing.
And these statements by her "BLOOD kin" were discredited on the witness
stand as unreliable. Terri Schiavo's mother admitted on the witness stand
that even *if* Terri had made the statements that the "BLOOD kin" claimed
she had made, Terri would have been 11 years old at the time. (In contrast,
the court found that her statements to others were credible because the
testimony was consistent and because Terri was an *adult* when making those
statements.)
It's also quite interesting that her BLOOD kin said she was leaving him
when she went into her coma!
Then it's even *more* interesting that they didn't start making all their
accusations about him from the moment of her cardiac event.
The Schindlers have not done the right thing in this mess. W
LN
"Whisper" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:db58$42b33d38$498f38e$16624@DIALUPUSA.NET...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:NrFse.108296$CR5.51165@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Whisper" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bd9ac$42b2cf4f$498f348$14606@DIALUPUSA.NET...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:l3sse.132590$J25.14196@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb4i05.uko.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<mirse.103040$8S5.31645@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb4f6g.uko.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<4Kqse.102976$8S5.50553@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and
talented Johnny broadcast on alt.atheism:
I really am not concerned about that. We have legal procedures
here to dictate what is to be done, and hearsay is NOT
admissible in a court of law.
You don't know what hearsay is. And you don't know what is
admissible. It is not too surprising, really. You know more
than doctors who actually examined and treated the patient, and
you know more than all the lawyers and judges who reviewed this
case many times over a number of years.
Here's a hint:
"Her husband told me she wouldn't want live under such
circumstances." Hearsay, if supposed to show what she said.
Not hearsay, if supposed to show what her husband said.
"She told me she wouldn't want to live under such
circumstances." Not hearsay.
Sorry. Hearsay is hearsay whether it is a spouse rendering an
account of
what another person said or someone else rendering the account.
'fraid not. Back to law school for you.
This is the definition of hearsay:
Evidence based on the reports of others rather
than the personal knowledge of a witness and
therefore generally not admissible as testimony.
And, that is where you are amiss.
What Mr. Schiavo said was not KNOWLEDGE to the court. It was a hearsay
account of what he alleged his wife said.
Wrong. Read some of the actual rulings. Michael Schiavo's brother and a
sister-in-law *both* testified that Terri had commented directly to
them, on separate occasions, that she would not want to be kept alive
if severly incapacitated. Direct testimony, NOT hearsay. W
It is still hearsay, even if two people heard it.
No, as Lars has pointed out to you numerous times, someone to whom Terri
made specific comments can testify about the conversation, because by
definition it is NOT hearsay. (Unless you think that every conversation
you have with a human being is hearsay rather than being your direct
experience of events.)
It does not have the force of law such as a living will.
Legally, it did/does.
<snip your other drivel>
Because you couldn't handle it, sacrificer?
No, because it was a stupid, incoherent rant not worthy of a further
investment of my time. W
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Schiavo Should Sue ALL the ASSHOLES |
22 Jun 2005 07:23:50 AM |
|
|
"Whisper" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:d6740$42b6aa29$498f370$10704@DIALUPUSA.NET...
<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:G5Mse.4140$Pa5.3742@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Notice those that testifies to Teri's supposed wishes were mikey's blood
kin and friends whereas Teri's parents & BLOOD kin said she never told
them any such thing.
And these statements by her "BLOOD kin" were discredited on the witness
stand as unreliable. Terri Schiavo's mother admitted on the witness stand
that even *if* Terri had made the statements that the "BLOOD kin" claimed
she had made, Terri would have been 11 years old at the time. (In
contrast, the court found that her statements to others were credible
because the testimony was consistent and because Terri was an *adult* when
making those statements.)
So your argumenty is: Teri's parents (MOTHER & FATHER) never had any
relationaship or contact with their daugher after she married this
neadrathral, mikey?
You're a moron!
It's also quite interesting that her BLOOD kin said she was leaving him
when she went into her coma!
Then it's even *more* interesting that they didn't start making all their
accusations about him from the moment of her cardiac event.
So you're also a hypicrite since you don't scutinize mikey who suddenly
remembered that Teri's wishes were to die of starvation/dehydration 7-years
after her accident & INTERESTINGLY enough ONLY after mikey won a huge
SETTLEMT ON TERI'S behalf...
The Schindlers have not done the right thing in this mess. W
According to who YOU?
F--K you, they don't live according to your F--K up rules, you twisted liar!
LN
LN
"Whisper" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:db58$42b33d38$498f38e$16624@DIALUPUSA.NET...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:NrFse.108296$CR5.51165@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Whisper" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bd9ac$42b2cf4f$498f348$14606@DIALUPUSA.NET...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:l3sse.132590$J25.14196@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndb4i05.uko.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<mirse.103040$8S5.31645@bignews | | | | | | | | | | |
