Text 11488, 154 rader
Skriven 2005-04-14 06:26:12 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
  Kommentar till text 11472 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
14 Apr 05 01:00, Ed Connell wrote to John Hull:

 EC> Hey, John.

 EC>>> Hey, John.

 JH>>>>>> Actually, yes, it does constitute a declaration of one's 
 JH>>>>>> wishes.

 EC>>>>> You believe that she had in mind when she said those words that
 EC>>>>> they would be legally binding.  I'd hate to be legally bound by
 EC>>>>> each idea that I expressed.

 JH>>>> I doubt that she thought about the legality at all, nor do most
 JH>>>> people.

 EC>>> And that is the point.  If her words are to hold weight in a 
 EC>>> legal proceeding, then she should understand that, and if she did 
 EC>>> not, then the words should not have legal weight.

 JH>> What you are saying is essence is that what you say is meaningless
 JH>> unless it is put into writing and notarized to make it legally 
 JH>> binding. I don't think that's what you meant to say.

 EC> Pretty much that is what I meant to say.  Before someone kills me, 
 EC> I'd hope they have more than three or four persons who testify that 
 EC> killing me is my preference.

Her preference was that she not live in a permanent helpless state, NOT that
she be murdered.  Regardless of HOW she died, she was NOT murdered under the
law.

 EC>>>>> Her life is more important than the casual interpretation and
 EC>>>>> motivation of her dinner guests.

To the best of my knowledge from what I've read, she wasn't there anymore, Ed.
It was just an empty shell of flesh.

 JH>>>> I wouldn't call the first hand testimony of three people casual
 JH>>>> interpretation,

 EC>>> They can testify as to what they heard, but not what she thought.

 JH>> Absent any testimony from anybody to the contrary, that IS what 
 JH>> she thought.  That's the way our legal system is set up.

 EC> In essence, she is testifying at the hearing.  When they say, I 
 EC> heard her say thus and so, the court is then considering her words as her
 EC> testimony. Note however that those who give testimony must be subject to 
 EC> cross-examination.  She could not be so cross-examined, so her 
 EC> testimony is inadmissable.

No, the cross is only to make sure that the witness is accurately testifying to
what she said.  It doesn't negate HER words at all, or her wishes.  HER wishes
and words ARE admissable when the witness is considered credible, and the cross
exam is for the purpose of determining that credibility of the witness, nothing
more.

 JH>> ==================== clipped

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

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

 EC>>>>> That is another question.  The issue is were her words binding
 EC>>>>> upon her legally, and did she have that intention when she said
 EC>>>>> them? Did she then continue her life with the belief that this 
 EC>>>>> one possible future issue for her was settled by her 
 EC>>>>> conversation. If not, then if she wanted something else, she 
 EC>>>>> didn't know that she had to look up these persons and give them 
 EC>>>>> the new info.

 JH>>>> Are you prepared to undermine the entire judicial system?

 EC>>> I am prepared to change the law.

 JH>>>>  Because there are a whole lot of people in prison right now
 JH>>>> convicted on what they said and what was testified to by first 
 JH>>>> hand witnesses. If that can now be second guessed, and ignored 
 JH>>>> then all those people should be let out of prison.

 EC>>> But these witnesses cannot testify as to her wishes.  Only to 
 EC>>> what words they heard, and if she didn't consider those words as 
 EC>>> having legal significance, no legal weight can rightly be placed 
 EC>>> upon them.

Her wishes and her words are the same thing from a legal standpoint.

 JH>> And it is equally true that she may have considered what she said 
 JH>> to be legal. Assuming either way is delving into the unknown.  We 
 JH>> only have what she was heard to say, and that is what the decision 
 JH>> MUST be based on in order for the law to be impartial.

 EC> And you are willing for them to kill her based on the unknown?  
 EC> The fact that we are limited in our knowledge as you point out is no 
 EC> excuse to just take a guess.

 EC>>>>> I am questioning the validity of this law in condemning a 
 EC>>>>> United States citizen to death.  These are issues that should 
 EC>>>>> have been looked at by federal judges while they were doing the 
 EC>>>>> more important thing - giving the finger to the president, to 
 EC>>>>> congress, and to the people.

 JH>> The law didn't condemn her.  The law is only as good as the men 
 JH>> who wrote it. If its wrong, then it should be changed.

 EC> I'm for that.

 JH>>>> Was this case handled poorly from the start?  You bet.  Is 
 JH>>>> Michael a jerk or worse?  Without a doubt.  Did her parents have 
 JH>>>> a legal leg to stand on?  The courts said no for nearly 15 years.  
 JH>>>> The media blew this all out of proportion, and both sides handled 
 JH>>>> it badly, but the bottom line is that the law was followed.  Now, 
 JH>>>> I think its a good thing that people are upset, because maybe 
 JH>>>> now there will be enough impetus to rethink and revise the law so
 JH>>>>  that it is more flexible.  Without the law, however, we would 
 JH>>>> have anarchy, and this case is just a tiny example of how it 
 JH>>>> would start.

 EC>>> I don't see how we would have any more anarchy if that woman were
 EC>>> alive today.

 JH>> Tyranny or anarchy - both start the same way - by ignoring the 
 JH>> law, by passing bad laws, and by standing by and doing nothing to 
 JH>> correct such abuse.  It starts little by little, here and there, 
 JH>> until all of a sudden there's an 800 lb. gorilla tearing up the 
 JH>> house, and no way to stop it.

 EC> So this woman was killed to uphold this principle?  I'm still not 
 EC> sure how the nation would be harmed if this woman were still alive.

We, and our leaders, make a big deal all the time about this country being a
country that follows the rule of law.  You either do that or you don't, you
can't have it both ways when something distasteful and ugly happens.  You
either follow the law as it exists and then change it, or you don't, at which
point you have introduced potential anarchy (or tyranny) into the mix.

I prefer to follow the rule of law, as painful as it can be at times.

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)