From the Desk of:

Gordon W. Watts, Editor-in-Chief, The Register

821 Alicia Road, Lakeland, FL 33801-2113

(863) 688-9880, Gww1210@aol.com

http://GordonWayneWatts.com / http://GordonWatts.com

Robert J. More,

P.O. Box 6926, Chicago, IL 60608 -6926 Monday, 29 March 2010

(312) 545-1890, Anselm45@GMail.com, RE: 'Schiavo' Legal Research

ThirstForJustice@GMail.com, ThirstForJustice@Yahoo.com

http://ThirstForJustice.777host.us ; http://ThirstForJustice.Tripod.com

Dear Mr. More:

Pursuant to our conversation yesterday afternoon, I am replying as quickly as I can. I apologize for the slowness in replying, but right after I got off the phone with you, there was a death in the family, and I could not get back with you then. I hope my reply is still timely and answers your questions. As you recall, you expressed concern that some members of the judiciary had violated federal laws in the highly-publicized 'Terri Schiavo' case which concluded 4 years, 363 days ago, 31 March 2005, the day that Ms. Schiavo passed away, and you asked for professional research in order to confirm your suspicions; therefore, I will attempt to give you my professional opinion and not let my personal or religious biases cloud my analysis. ** LEGAL DISCLAIMER ** Although I am the legal editor (as well as editor-in-chief) of my paper, I AM NOT A LAWYER (nor do I play one on TV), but since judges/justices often 'split' in their 'opinions,' this implies that some of these professionals are wrong -and therefore not infallible. To that end, I will investigate various actions taken and offer thoughts on whether any federal laws were broken:

* Did any judge violate Terri Schiavo's civil rights by not finding Michael Schiavo guilty of spousal abuse? MY THOUGHTS: No – At least two documented 'pro-life' Schiavo experts (who were trying to save Terri's life) have looked at the evidence and have not been convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Michael Schiavo physically abused his wife; therefore, no judge (who should be unbiased) could be reasonably expected to be convinced thereof:

Expert #1: Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. (FOR WHOM DOES TERRI SCHIAVO'S BELL TOLL?, March 28, 2005, http://NewsWithViews.com/Vieira/edwin4.htm ; http://EdwinVieira.com/edwin4.htm), was trying to save Terri's life (“On what possible theory of rational criminal jurisprudence can a judge order the death of the prime witness and destruction of the key evidence?,” par.7), but even Dr. Viera was not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Michael had abused Terri (“Apparently, some evidence suggested that she may have been the victim of abuse, and that perhaps abuse was responsible for the original trauma that eventually led to her present condition,” par.2; “If abuse did take place, one may speculate as to who the perpetrator might have been. But if--and, of course, I speak here only hypothetically...,” par.3, emphasis added for clarity).

Expert #2: I, Gordon Wayne Watts, came closer to saving Terri Schiavo's life In Re: GORDON WAYNE WATTS (as next friend of THERESA MARIE “TERRI” SCHIAVO), No. SC03-2420 (Fla. Feb.23, 2003), http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/dispositions/2005/2/03-2420reh.pdf denied 4-3 on rehearing: picking up 42.86% of my panel (my 4-3 close-call makes me an 'expert'), than did even Gov. Jeb Bush In Re: JEB BUSH, GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, ET AL. v. MICHAEL SCHIAVO, GUARDIAN: THERESA SCHIAVO, No. SC04-925 (Fla. Oct.21, 2004), http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/dispositions/2004/10/04-925reh.pdf denied 7-0 on rehearing: picking up 0.00% of his panel –or Terri Schiavo's own family: Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo ex rel. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 2005 WL 648897 (11th Cir. Mar.23, 2005), http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628.pdf denied 2-1 on appeal, picking up 33.3% of their panel; however, even as 'pro-life' as I am, I did not ever take issue with the allegations of abuse leveled at Michael Schiavo -simply because I did not have evidence –physical or testimonial –beyond reasonable doubt that he had committed abuse. (And I did look for evidence.)

* Did any of the judges involved in this case violate 18 USC 1346?

First, let's look at this law: 18 U.S.C. § 1346 : US Code - Section 1346: Definition of "scheme or artifice to defraud" states that “For the purposes of this chapter (chapter 18), the term "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” According to Randall D. Eliason (“The truth about 'honest services',” http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202434237507&hbxlogin=1 Nat'l Law Journal, October 5, 2009), “Honest services fraud, a sweeping charge with ill-defined boundaries, is rapidly becoming the corruption statute of choice for federal prosecutors” (par.4), but cautions that “Section 1346 does not, however, define "honest services," and in the 20-plus years since it was passed, chaos has reigned. Perhaps no area of federal criminal law has generated greater confusion and controversy”(par.10). TRANSLATION: It is a very useful tool to prosecute anyone who breaks the law -judges and justices included, but its application is a grey area of case law.

Mr. More, even if I can find violations of law by some of the judges involved in the Terri Schiavo case, I feel that it would be next to impossible to take any action -simply because so many people were so emotionally involved in the case to be objective -and all it would take is one such emotionally-charged person to defeat the prosecution of such a rogue judge -by hanging the jury; however, in conversations you have had with me about US Attorney Robert Mosakowski, I am impressed with your descriptions of him and his grand jury insofar as they seem to be reputable and willing to uphold the 'Rule of Law,' no matter who is the violator, so I will trust the Federal staff and attorneys. (Let me remind you that the Grand Jury need only 'probable cause' to return an indictment –so there is hope for your matter; it is up to the Petit Jury to convict or clear -under the higher standards of guilt.)

Nonetheless, even in 'less controversial' cases, it is especially hard it is to bring suit against a judge -no matter how egregious his/her acts are -including the repeated denial of DNA testing of incarcerated citizens later found to be innocent of any crime who in many cases sit in jail for 20-30 years before being proven innocent. But, based on your descriptions of these Federal employees dedication, I will naively proceed with my analysis. It will be assumed, for the purposes of my analysis, that any act serious enough to warrant a return of indictment of a Federal Grand Jury on section 1346 will also have indicated that actors committed a violation of 42 USC 242 (DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW), as punishable in 42 USC 1983 (Civil action for deprivation of rights) –and possibly under 42 USC 241 (CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS) –if a conspiracy was involved (which might possibly also trigger RICO, since RICO is –by the definition: 'Racketeering Corrupt Influenced Organization,' a form of conspiracy). (Definitions follow – followed by discussion.)

CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

Summary:

Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/crim/241fin.php

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

Summary:

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping (sic) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/crim/242fin.php

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983

§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html

* Did any of the judges involved in this case violate 18 USC 1346 or 42 USC 242?

Yes, in obstruction of justice – at least twice – once against the state government, and once against the federal government.

#1 – A State judge ruled that Michael Schiavo could be deposed (“Judge: Terri Schiavo's Husband Can be Deposed in Guardianship Battle,” by Steven Ertelt. LifeNews.com Editor, http://www.LifeNews.com/bio401.html July 27, 2004) Cf.: “Circuit Court Judge George Greer ruled less than a week later that legal counsel for Terri Schiavo's parents can depose her estranged husband Michael under oath, in the first deposition since 1999, LifeNews reported July 27.” --Terri Schiavo's faith rights must be protected, attorney argues, by Joni B. Hannigan http://sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=18776 July 29, 2004) However, the very judge that ordered this would not enforce his own order and proceeded to rule without the benefit of having the depositions that were ordered, thus deniying evidence, testimony, Redress, Due Process, and Equal Protection under the law -not to mention violating his own order: “Michael Schiavo Again Skips Deposition in Terri Guardianship Case,” by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor, http://www.lifenews.com/bio475.html September 28, 2004) Cf.: “During the week of March 7, Judge Greer: o Denied the Schindlers' motion to compel Michael Schiavo's deposition in their case challenging his guardianship.” CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS,

“The Death of Terri Schiavo,” http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=37860

May 01, 2005)

#2: A state judge not only ordered that Schiavo's feeding tube be removed (questionably legal) but also that she not be given any regular food and water (illegal according to state and federal statutes). This was obstruction of justice insofar as it prevented Terri Schiavo from responding to a Federal Subpoena by killing the witness: “The removal came after a dramatic sequence of legal feints that began Friday morning when the House Government Reform Committee issued subpoenas to Schiavo, a woman who has been unable to speak for 15 years; her husband, Michael Schiavo; and several doctors and employees of her hospice, ordering them to appear at a congressional hearing March 25.” --”Schiavo's Feeding Tube Is Removed: Congressional Leaders' Legal Maneuvering Fails to Stop Judge's Order,” By Manuel Roig-Franzia, Washington Post Staff Writer

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46505-2005Mar18.html Saturday, March 19, 2005; Page A01)

Conclusion: Not only did Judge George Greer's interference in #1 and #2 above violate 18 USC 1346 and 18 USC 242, his actions also violated the following Federal Codes for Obstruction of Justice:

• 18 USC § 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigations (by the House Committee)

• 18 USC § 1509. Obstruction of court orders (his own in one case)

• 18 USC § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant (Terri was both witness and victim, and Greer attempted to -and succeeded in -tampering here)

• 18 USC § 1514. Civil action to restrain harassment of a victim or witness (Too late to invoke this protective measure)

• 18 USC § 1518. Obstruction of criminal investigations of health care offenses (the Congressional subpoena was investigatory of healthcare abuse allegations, so this applies)

* Did any of the judges involved in this case violate Terri's civil rights by denial of feeding tubes?

Possibly (but not certain), since to deny medical treatment to handicapped persons who later die (or are injured) is a felony crime, but this matter is not clear-cut -since the feeding tube was (by Florida state law) considered life-support, not 'food/water,' and Terri's wishes were not known beyond a reasonable doubt regarding life-support measures.

* Did any of the judges involved in this case violate any federal law by denial of food/water?

When Pinellas County, Florida, circuit judge, George Greer, in his March 08, 2005 ruling, ordered (see: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder030805.pdf and/or attachment) that food and water (not to be confused with a feeding tube) be denied to Terri Schiavo, this violated both state and federal laws:

STATE: §825.102(3),Fla.Stats. “(a) “Neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult” means: 1. A caregiver's failure or omission to provide an elderly person or disabled adult with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the elderly person's or disabled adult's physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the elderly person or disabled adult; or

(b) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects an elderly person or disabled adult and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in §775.082, §775.083, or §775.084.” (Emphasis added)

FEDERAL: OASAM Code of Federal Regulations, Part 35: NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES provides that necessary and appropriate rehabilitation services and physical motor skill therapy may not be denied a substantially disabled patient in the United States of America, §35.130(e)(2) states, “Nothing in the Act or this part authorizes the representative or guardian of an individual with a disability to decline food, water, medical treatment, or medical services for that individual.” (Emphasis in bold face)

Also: All the appellate judges above were aware of Judge Greer's violation of law (at the very least by virtute of *my* case (SC03-2420) –and my supplamental amicus in Gov. Jeb Bush'se case (SC04-925) –

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/04/04-925/Filed_07-29-2004_AmicusAppendixGordonWatts.pdf

–and do a key-word search of the PDF document for the terms '102.825' * 'OASAM' to verify that all judges and justices were so notified -therefore this means that the judges were covering for one another -and, as some eould put it, “it's a racket,” but the legal term for 'a racket' is 'RICO': defined as Racketeering Corrupt Influenced Organization.

* Did any state official violate and laws by placing Terri Schiavo in a hospice?

Yes – By state law, a hospice may only house a person who is 'terminally ill' (see state & federal definitions below) –therfore all parties who had the ability to remove her (e.g., judges, justices, and hospice officials –and possibly district state attorneys who could have brought charges here –but didn't) are guilty. Let's review the law -and then review their actions –to determine of anyone broke the law.

THE LAW (State) – §400.6095(2), Fla.Stats. Admission to hospice limited to “terminal illness by a physician licensed pursuant to chapter 458 or chapter 459...” (Accord §400.609(4),Fla.Stats.)

THE LAW (Federal) – In order to receive federal payment for hospice care, within Federal Medicare guidelines, the Woodside facility must obtain a certification from the attending physician within two calendar days of initial admission that the patient’s “prognosis is for a life expectancy of 6 months or less if the terminal illness runs its normal course.” 42C.F.R.§418.22(b)

THE FACTS: It is clear, after roughly three (3) years of residency at Woodside, that Terri is not “terminal” within the 6 month definition above. Although some people would certainly like to see Terri dead (and have almost killed her), these attempts to abridge or violate her rights under state and federal abuse laws do not constitute a “terminal” condition. Such reasoning, when it has apparently been used in the past, is circular logic: “Since we want to kill her, that must make it right automatically.” Not.

Conclusion of this partial – Many state actors placed (or aided and abetted in keeping placed) a non-terminal patient in a hospice.

* Did any state (or even federal) officials commit (or aid an ebet in the commission of) a euthanasia or an assisted suicide?

Yes – if it were indeed Terri Schiavo's wishes to be denied food and water (not merely feeding tube), then we must conclude that this was an illegal assisted suicide. To understand things as they truly are, we must remember Dr. Jack Kevorkian's conviction for this crime -and the threat by Florida to convict him under the statutes below if he were to bring his act to Florida.

If, however, it were not Terri Schiavo's wishes to be illegally denied food & water (not merely feeding tube), then we must conclude that this was not an 'assisted suicide' but rather a 'euthanasia' as defined under the law:

§782.08,Fla.Stats. “Assisting self-murder. [e.g., Assisted Suicide]--Every person deliberately assisting another in the commission of self-murder shall be guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in §775.082, §775.083, or §775.084.” (Accord: §§782.051 “Attempted felony murder”; 782.07, Fla.Stats. “Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult...”) “Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished.-- (1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act [be it lethal injection or lethal starvation, dehydration] or omission [of food and water] to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying. (2) The withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures [defined below] from a patient in accordance with any provision of this chapter does not, for any purpose, constitute a suicide.” §765.309 (1) and (2), Fla.Stats. (Emphasis supplied; comments in brackets)

CONTEXT: We must remember that if these acts were committed against even a criminal (who are often forc-efed when they attempt suicide) –or a willing participant (ala Dr. Jack Kevorkian) –or, even an animal, it would be a serious crime:

It is illegal to kill a pet dog with starvation: §828.13(2)(a),Fla.Stats. “Whoever: Impounds or confines any animal in any place and fails to supply the animal during such confinement with a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in §775.082 or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both imprisonment and a fine.” Emphasis added (Accord: §828.12,Fla.Stats., Cruelty to animals--) (Double standards are used and in effect here.) It is illegal to kill a prisoner with starvation. (Generally the courts have not permitted such: Accord: Art.I,§17,Fla.Const.: “Excessive punishments--Excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishment...Any method of execution shall be allowed, unless prohibited by the United States Constitution. Methods of execution may be designated by the legislature...”

CONCLUSION of the major partial (but not whole) matter:

Many actors -state judges and other state agencies (and even a private hospice) have violated laws -and met at least three (3) –possibly all four (4) standards of criminal law:

#1 – Carelessness/Negligence: Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so it is safe to assume many state (and some federal) actors were definitely negligent – actions speak louder than words. (Ignorance of the factys may be an excuse, but ignorance of the law –especially ignorance by judges –is civillay –and probably criminally prohibitted.)

#2 – Recklessness: Such as when when one is not intent on killing or harming a person –just meeting their own needs (i.e., speeding with no intent or knowledge that you're dangerous, but reckless in violating the law nonetheless –illegal!)

#3 – Knowledge: No person of ordinary intelligence can reasonably be expected to believe that depriving Terri of both feeding tube AND food/water was going to help her in any tangible way. (And, no person or even sub-standard intelligence can be remotely expected to believe that the judges were ignorant of the law –and the consequences of the many violations they ordered under the color of law). In 1961, when Monroe v. Pape was decided, the Supreme Court admonished that 42USC§1983 "should be read against the background of tort liability that makes a man responsible for the natural consequences of his actions." Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 187, 81 S.Ct. 473, 484, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961). The Supreme Court has not retreated from this view, and neither should you.

#4 – Intent: Whether it was the intent of the judges/justices and other state/federal officials to kill Terri Schiavo, thus risking exposing her to pain and fear –is known only to two people –the alleged perpetrator and The Creator (if such a being exists). However, This standard need not be met in all cases to indict -since, after all, the grand jury need not reach a conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt; that is the job of the Petit Jury. All the grand jury need to is understand that if it seems likely or probable that even **one** law was broken by **any** entity named herein (or even if not named), it must bring charges and indict –and pray for the jury of it's peers to sort through the mess.

While not as imprtant as the rest (and hence 'after' the so-called 'partial' Conclusion), the denial of a jury trial (which both Jeb Bush and Terri Schiavo's parents requested in their seperate, respective cases), it is worth nothing, this might be worth note as well -and is so appended:

DEPRIVATION AND DENIAL OF TRIAL BY JURY:

“Whereas ward's right in this “suit[] at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved” (see e.g., Seventh Amendment, U.S. Constitution), by what right was this guaranteed right abridged and denied in many of the proceedings, in which the 'value in controversy' consisted of a large monetary award -and the ward's life?”

(Accord: SPARF v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51 at 106 (1895), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that “No instruction was given that questioned the right of the jury...On the contrary, the court was careful to say that the jury were the exclusive judges of the facts, and that they were to determine-applying to the facts the principles of law announced by the court...In this separation of the functions of court and jury is found the chief value, as well as safety, of the jury system. Those functions cannot be confounded or disregarded without endangering the stability of public justice, as well as the security of private and personal rights.”) (Accord: Chapter 86, Fla.Stats: §§86.011 “Jurisdiction of trial court.--The circuit and county courts have jurisdiction...”; 86.071 “Jury trials...the issue may be tried as issues of fact are tried in other civil actions...the issues may be submitted to a jury...”; 86.101 “Construction of law.--This chapter is declared to be substantive and remedial. Its purpose is to settle and to afford relief from insecurity and uncertainty with respect to rights, status, and other equitable or legal relations and is to be liberally administered and construed.”; 86.111, Fla.Stats. “Existence of another adequate remedy; effect.--The existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief...”) (Accord: RULE 1.430(a),Fla.R.Civ.P. “Right Preserved. The right of trial by jury as declared by the Constitution or by statute shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.”)

See also controlling precedent in quotes of the constitutional forefathers:

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

As stated by James Madison, considered by many to be the “Father of the Constitution,” “In suits at common law, a trial by jury is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existing rights of nature.”

America's second President, John Adams, said in 1771: “It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

ONE LAST THING:

Although I must state a bias (I am a Protestant Christian), my personal bias is not relevent here: It is a fact that Terri Schiavo (A Catholic Christian) adhered to not only the Pope (who spoke out against the removal of the feeding tube) but also the Holy Bible –which speaks out against denial of regualr food and water –and this is relevant because to violate these standards here is not only abhorant (practical analysis) –not only illegal (as shown above: State & Fed), but also immoral (a violation of her religious beliefs). Observe:

31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy [NU-Text omits holy] angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer Him,[NU-Text and M-Text omit Him] saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

--Matthew 25:31-46 (Holy Bible, New King James Version, words of Jesus in red)

Now, I am not certain of this one pioint, but I am told that there is a five (5) year statute of limitations on some of these issues, and since that time expires in two (2) days, I would urge the readers to indulge this writer. Robert, per your request, I am including a copy of this response to Robert Mosakowski (813-274-6129, Robert.Mosakowski@usdoj.gov), the US Attorney you referenced in your last set of communications.

With kind regards, I am, Sincerely,

Gordon Wayne Watts