Text 11227, 100 rader
Skriven 2005-04-09 11:06:16 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
  Kommentar till text 11194 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
09 Apr 05 01:17, Ed Connell wrote to EARL CROASMUN:

 EC> Hey, EARL.

 EC>> Since the Florida law specifically allows oral declarations as to 
 EC>> one's wishes, it would not be possible to throw out all testimony 
 EC>> as to her oral declarations.

 EC>> But the testimony was not "hearsay" in the sense you mean.  Let's 
 EC>> say that you say OJ kill someone with a knife.  You later tell me 
 EC>> that you witnessed it.  If he goes to trial, you can be called as a 
 EC>> witness based on what you say.  But I cannot testify as to what you 
 EC>> saw.  Why? You might have been mistaken.  You might have been lying 
 EC>> to me.

 EC> Did her words to these third parties constitute a legal 
 EC> declaration or was it merely passing the time of day.  It seems that 
 EC> these people's testimony as to what she really desired right now leaves a 
 EC> lot to be desired.  Who knows, she might have just been going along with 
 EC> the consensus of that group of conversationalists.  Did she state to these

 EC> people that her words were to be remembered and that the report of her 
 EC> words were to be taken in lieu of a written declaration because she just 
 EC> didn't have time to write such a declaration?

Actually, yes, it does constitute a declaration of one's wishes.  Whether or
not anyone else chooses to go along and honor them is another subject
altogether.  As far as the written side of it, we both know that young people
seldom think of things involving death in relation to themselves in anything
approaching a responsible way.  Twenty-somethings are only slightly less
invulnerable than teenagers, and both groups can't conceive of not living
forever.  It wasn't a matter of forgetting to write down her wishes, as much as
it was just not something that high up on the list.

 EC>> In the matter of the hearing on Terri Schiavo's wishes, as best I 
 EC>> can tell from the stories on it, there was no hearsay evidence.  No
 EC>>  one passed on any second-hand testimony of her intent (such as 
 EC>> someone saying "I never met her, but a friend of mine said that she 
 EC>> heard Terri once say ____").

 EC> Nah, you are distancing it to double hear-say.  A report on a 
 EC> report of her words.

 EC>>  Her oral declaration, like the hypothetical murder by OJ, WAS the
 EC>> matter in question.

 EC> No.  Her current wish should be the matter in question.

 EC>> The witnesses were first-hand eye (ear) witnesses.

 EC> I can hear them now, "She said to me that..."

I take it you don't believe them?

 EC>> -> 2.  Let's say that one day, this woman thought that she 
 EC>> -> wouldn't certain things and talked about it to someone.  But 
 EC>> like -> suppose, the next day, -> her solutions were different.  
 EC>> Sometimes even I change my mind.  Women are -> notorious for changing 
 EC>> their minds.  So, since she changed her mind, she -> never did sign the 
 EC>> forms.  So how does this judge know what she wants now? -> It seems to 
 EC>> me that her more current wishes are more important than what she -> 
 EC>> mentioned to someone years ago.

 EC>> That's why the judge put far greater weight on what she said as an
 EC>> adult as opposed to things she might have said when she was 10 or 
 EC>> 11 years old.

 EC> That seems pretty weak.  Why not say that we didn't consider her 
 EC> desires as she first began to speak.  Different degree, but same flaw.

 EC>>  But the objection you are outlining would apply to any living 
 EC>> will, including written ones.

 EC> True.  At least a written will is done on purpose with the intent 
 EC> that it will speak for you at some subsequent date.  If one changes one's
 EC> mind, one can modify the words on the paper too and one knows where and 
 EC> what to change.  Her comments to these third parties were considered 
 EC> binding by her, do you think?

Oh, come on, Ed.  How many times have relatives hauled kin into court to
contest a clearly written and specific will when they didn't get what they
wanted from the deceased?  It happens all the time.

Look at what happened to Anna Nicole Smith. She married that rich old guy, who
then changed his will and gave most of his estate to her.  When he died a year
later, his son and other relatives tied things up in court for years.  It still
isn't over, by the way, and its the better part of a decade since it started.

That's why I am so adamant about following the rule of law, the state statutes,
in cases like this.  Seems to be the only way there can be ANY semblance of
fairness on either side.  Not everybody is going to come out happy in such
cases, no matter how delicately one steps.

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin: We are the Watchmen of our own Liberty! (1:379/1.99)