Article

2005-03-28 Home Front: Culture Wars

PowerLine Opinion: Thou Shalt Not Criticize Our Robed Masters

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2005-03-28 05:25|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Editors - delete if you choose.

It was such a well-written and reasoned piece I thought RBers would appreciate having a look.

Posted by .com 2005-03-28 5:26:54 AM|| 2005-03-28 5:26:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 .com - Power Line archive won't come up on my PC.

But, on another part of Powerline, more recent, a quote from Michelle Malkin seems appropriate.

I can't comment on the quality of the work done at the trial level without reading the transcript, but in general, what this lawyer says is correct. The reason why appeals don't often succeed is that all fact-finding is done in the trial court. If there is evidence to support the facts found by the judge or the jury, those facts are set in concrete from that point on. The question on appeal is only whether proper procedures were followed and the law was correctly applied. It is not hard to imagine that the Schindlers had no idea what they were getting into, and were ill-equipped, financially and otherwise, to fight a legal battle against their son-in-law. By the time they started garnering outside support, it was too late.

Also, BigEd is a troublemaker. (excuse vanity)

I EMailed any friendly talk show person I could on the campaign contribution issue simply to state what I had found. A link to the Florida division of elections, and what to input where.

At 5:00 AM I called Bill Bennett show, and talked to the screener who said my EMail had been given to Dr. Bennett. He also suggested I EMail DRUDGE, and I tld him that I had.

I did something else.

I printed out the page from the Florida Division of Elections,

Put a note at the bottom of the page "Is there something wrong here?" and put a note with an arrow to the date asking if the date was one day after the Judge overturned their law...

I FAXED this to every Republican member of the Florida State Senate...

I make no accusations, but...

One of my EMails reached Kevin James, overnight guy on KABC in Los Angeles. "My source sent me an Email..." He was reading from my EMail which also contained information how to access the Fla website... "I think some people should at least answer questions about the timing of this."

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-28 8:58:08 AM|| 2005-03-28 8:58:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Thanks for the article .com. WAY TO GO! BigEd. Ha!

And in this photo, we see the "evil" pro-lifers, fanatically gathering at a Roman Catholic mass for Terri Schiavo. Wonder what Michael was doing that same hour.

(hat tip: photo by Carolos Barria/Reuters @ mywaynews)

at this link

Posted by ex-lib 2005-03-28 10:52:13 AM|| 2005-03-28 10:52:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 The first flaw is that Michael Schiavo should not have had any input into the case after he ceased to be Terrri schindler's husband. Michael Schiavo ceased to be the husband of Terri Schindler when he bagan living with another woman, and fathered 2 children with her. Had she had adequate representation, her guardian would have been able to seek a divorce for infidelity, at a minimum. His rights as a guardian should have been termianted at that point and given to her next of kin, her parents.

Why did this not happen? Because the very same jude in the process to decide such things was also a self appointed guardian. This is the second flaw: that Terri had no independent voice to speak for her in the court. Judge Greer was her judge and supposed advocate, a clear conflict of interests and a violation of the presumed impartiality of the courts.

Third, the medical examinations were not competently done, with the "experts" being brought in for thier viewpoint instead of their competence. Outside expert neurologists who specialize in brain injuries were asounded that no MRI nor PET scans were done. A nobel Prize nominee examined Terri for 10 hours and then went over the medical history said that the diagnosis of PVS was in error and that Terri was treatable. This was discounted or ingored by the courts: a controversy of facts that should have required a re-hearing, and a stay.

Additionally, there was no written directive. It was only on hearsay from Michael Schivoa of an off-hand remark at a funeral of somone who died after heroic measures (ventilator, heart machines etc) that this case was build. A thin reed in comparison to Terri's professed Catholicism which says heroice measures need not be taken, but that basics like food, water and routine care shoudl be given.

And finally, all the courts ignored a Congressional directive (i.e. the elected voice of the people) to review the case De Novo (i.e. a clean slate look at the evidence, not a review of the process). They instead cast things so narrowly as to avoide the meaning of the law, looking only at the letter so as to avoid any change in the judicial process.

All these summed up give us the bottom line:

The bottom line is that procedures were followed, but an unjust result was produced, ending in a government mandated starvation of a human being who may or may not have been in a persistent vegetative state, at the behest of the lawyers for a man who has not de facto been her husband for years.

If the system is producing results that are obviously cruel (yes it is cruel to starve a human to death) then it is broken and needs to be fixed.

And that is why I am upset: as a real conservative one of my bedrock principles is that Life Has Value. From the abortable fetus to the severely impaired adult, the Law must err on the side of life, it must presume life to be valued to the point where it requires extraordinary things, not just hearsay and judicial fiat, in order for the state to end it. The Law must protect Life that has no voice.

For those who call themselves conservatives and are standing on the "let her starve to death" side of this (and that is the side you have joined, whether overtly or tacitly), you should question your position: you have abandoned the first and most important principle conservatives should hold, sacrificied life to your desire for less government intrusion, even when it was warranted.

In my eyes, you "procedure over life" types are no conservatives, selling out your highest principles for politics.

As the conservative icon Burke said: All that is neccesary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

And you, dear friends, former conservatives, are doing nothing.

Posted by OldSpook 2005-03-28 12:13:29 PM|| 2005-03-28 12:13:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 com and oldspook
Look at this perversion of justice to a froggy benefit by the same class of robed masters:

Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, 145 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (N.D.Cal. 2001)

Issue

Whether the State of California had jurisdiction over French citizens who attempted to enforce an order of a French court requiring Yahoo! Inc., a California resident, to comply with that order by modifying its computer hardware and software systems physically located in the United States?
Holding

Yes.
Reasoning

The California long arm statute permits California courts to assert jurisdiction over nonresidents consistent with the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction may be premised on general jurisdiction requiring systematic and continuous contacts or specific jurisdiction requiring "express aiming" at the forum. LICRA and UEJF had neither systematic nor continuous contacts with California. Consequently, the sole question was whether the French citizens had "expressly aimed" their conduct at California and otherwise met the requirements of specific jurisdiction: (1) the suit arises out of the contacts and (2) compelling the nonresidents to litigate in California is reasonable under the circumstances.

First, Yahoo! Inc. was the target of LICRA and UEJF, both located in France. The defendants knowingly engaged in conduct directed at Yahoo! Inc. in California. The activities were: the cease and desist letter delivered to Yahoo! INc. in Santa Clara, California, the obtaining of the French court order requiring Yahoo! Inc. to re-engineer its servers located in the United States, and the use of United States Marshals to serve process on Yahoo! Inc. in California related to the French lawsuit. Consequently, the District Court concluded that LICRA's and UEJF's contacts with California satisfied the "purposeful availment" test of specific jurisdiction because they should have known that they risked litigation in California based on their activities.

The holding was consistent with the "foreign effects" test. Nonresidents that commit a wrong in one jurisdiction intending that it have its effect in another jurisdiction are subject to the jurisdiction of that forum state. Although the filing of the lawsuit in France was proper under that country's laws, nevertheless it was wrongful from the United States's point of view. The purpose of the French litigation was to deprive Yahoo! Inc. of its First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. The Court, using the term "express aiming," emphasized that the key to jurisdictional analysis is knowing your target, not wrong doing. The Court found this view consistent with the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law Â§421(2)(j)(finding jurisdiction proper if the act outside the state has an effect in the state).

Second, but for the French court order Yahoo! Inc. would not have sought a judicial declaration of its enforceable effect in the United States. Hence, the action arose out of the contacts of the French nonresidents.

Third, compelling the French citizens (non-profit organizations) to litigate in California was not constitutionally unreasonable. The Court maintained that the defendants could communicate with their local counsel by e-mail, telephone or fax and that the case would be resolved largely on legal issues not requiring lengthy or substantial discovery. In addition, defendants' argument of inconvenience was not specific, relying instead on the generalized reference to the increased cost of litigating in a foreign country.

The Court also found that, as between the two sovereigns involved - France and the United States -- the United States had more at stake than France, since it was being asked to enforce a foreign censorship order; hence, there was no conflict with the sovereignty of France. In addition, California had a strong interest in resolving the dispute because of Yahoo!Inc.'s fundamental right of free expression. Lastly, the Court determined that California was the most efficient and effective forum in which to settle the dispute.
Conclusion

The United States Supreme Court formally adopted the "foreign effects" test in Calder v. Jones to prevent wrongdoers from avoiding litigation in their victim's forum state. In Calder, Shirley Jones filed a libel action against the National Enquirer that obtained enormous revenue from the sale of its paper in California. Likewise, in Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, Toeppen was a thoroughly unsympathetic "cyber-pirate" trying to extort money from Panavision. The Court stretched the "foreign effects" to make certain Toeppen was not getting off on a technical argument. The court in Yahoo! has taken the foreign effects test to its ultimate conclusion.

LICRA and UEJF did not do anything wrong; they did not make a financial gain nor seek to cause financial harm in California. Of course, they intended to effect Yahoo! Inc. by forcing it to comply with French law by obtaining a judgment against Yahoo! Inc. in France. That fact together with one cease and desist letter plus the use of officials to serve process in California is slim compared to the criteria supporting the result in Calder.

Rather, Yahoo! Inc. involves a clash of two legal systems in a world that is wired together. Whether a French magistrate has (or should have) the authority to require a United States corporation to re-engineer its Internet service to comply with French law is highly debatable and has far reaching consequences. But the language of Yahoo! Inc., for purposes of establishing jurisdiction over nonresidents, has the capacity to be misused later by other courts. The result is the extinction of any meaningful limits to court jurisdiction.

And yes the suit was about autions and sales of Nazi stuff but it is French censorship on media in the US.

Posted by 3dc 2005-03-28 2:15:59 PM|| 2005-03-28 2:15:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Punk Greer is a probate judge. And closely connected with Scientology which controls Clearwater Florida. The locals hacks, legal establishment (the connected courthouse crowd) and sheriff suck up to this wealthy cult. Can you believe a punk probate judge decided Terri Schiavo must die? A punk probate judge gave her a death sentence.

I'm glad that Rantburg posters were not fooled by Michael Schiavo. Ya'll passed the test :)

Posted by sea cruise 2005-03-28 7:13:03 PM|| 2005-03-28 7:13:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 The more I learn about the matter, the more I agree with Old Spook.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-03-28 7:16:58 PM|| 2005-03-28 7:16:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 The more I learn about the matter, the more I agree with Old Spook.

Good for you German ally. You thought differently ten days ago but you changed when presented with the facts.

Fact #1
Michael Schiavo is not be believed or trusted on anything. All one has to see is what he's done to Terri in the last decade to her and stealing her insurance settlement to spend on his pro-death lawyers. And that bastard judge Greer has accepted Michael Schiavo's lies. Terri never said a damn thing to him about wanting to live or not live in certain circumstances.

Posted by sea cruise 2005-03-28 9:22:46 PM|| 2005-03-28 9:22:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 The first flaw is that Michael Schiavo should not have had any input into the case after he ceased to be Terrri schindler's husband. Michael Schiavo ceased to be the husband of Terri Schindler when he bagan living with another woman, and fathered 2 children with her. Had she had adequate representation, her guardian would have been able to seek a divorce for infidelity, at a minimum. His rights as a guardian should have been termianted at that point and given to her next of kin, her parents.

Why did this not happen? Because the very same jude in the process to decide such things was also a self appointed guardian. This is the second flaw: that Terri had no independent voice to speak for her in the court. Judge Greer was her judge and supposed advocate, a clear conflict of interests and a violation of the presumed impartiality of the courts.

Third, the medical examinations were not competently done, with the "experts" being brought in for thier viewpoint instead of their competence. Outside expert neurologists who specialize in brain injuries were asounded that no MRI nor PET scans were done. A nobel Prize nominee examined Terri for 10 hours and then went over the medical history said that the diagnosis of PVS was in error and that Terri was treatable. This was discounted or ingored by the courts: a controversy of facts that should have required a re-hearing, and a stay.

Additionally, there was no written directive. It was only on hearsay from Michael Schivoa of an off-hand remark at a funeral of somone who died after heroic measures (ventilator, heart machines etc) that this case was build. A thin reed in comparison to Terri's professed Catholicism which says heroice measures need not be taken, but that basics like food, water and routine care shoudl be given.

And finally, all the courts ignored a Congressional directive (i.e. the elected voice of the people) to review the case De Novo (i.e. a clean slate look at the evidence, not a review of the process). They instead cast things so narrowly as to avoide the meaning of the law, looking only at the letter so as to avoid any change in the judicial process.

All these summed up give us the bottom line:

The bottom line is that procedures were followed, but an unjust result was produced, ending in a government mandated starvation of a human being who may or may not have been in a persistent vegetative state, at the behest of the lawyers for a man who has not de facto been her husband for years.

If the system is producing results that are obviously cruel (yes it is cruel to starve a human to death) then it is broken and needs to be fixed.

And that is why I am upset: as a real conservative one of my bedrock principles is that Life Has Value. From the abortable fetus to the severely impaired adult, the Law must err on the side of life, it must presume life to be valued to the point where it requires extraordinary things, not just hearsay and judicial fiat, in order for the state to end it. The Law must protect Life that has no voice.

For those who call themselves conservatives and are standing on the "let her starve to death" side of this (and that is the side you have joined, whether overtly or tacitly), you should question your position: you have abandoned the first and most important principle conservatives should hold, sacrificied life to your desire for less government intrusion, even when it was warranted.

In my eyes, you "procedure over life" types are no conservatives, selling out your highest principles for politics.

As the conservative icon Burke said: All that is neccesary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

And you, dear friends, former conservatives, are doing nothing.

Posted by OldSpook 2005-03-28 12:13:29 PM|| 2005-03-28 12:13:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by OldSpook 2005-03-28 12:13:29 PM|| 2005-03-28 12:13:29 PM|| Front Page Top

05:04 Crerert Ebbeting3481
23:38 Pappy
23:32 Alaska Paul
23:15 Frank G
23:13 Frank G
23:01 .com
22:52 BigEd
22:49 Ptah
22:47 Frank G
22:46 Frank G
22:41 crazyhorse
22:39 CrazyFool
22:37 Ptah
22:27 Ptah
22:19 anonymous2u
22:11 Dennis Kucinich
22:09 Mike Kozlowski
22:08 Mike Kozlowski
22:08 anonymous2u
22:08 mom
21:44 phil_b
21:26 sea cruise
21:23 TMH
21:22 sea cruise