Civil Disobedience and Terry Schaivo

[ReillyT]

This is hyterical---you really believe judges feel bound by any rules or are held accountable???

Yes, judges are bound by rules, and by and large they follow them. No, judges are for the most part not accountable. That is intentional.

 

[dilloduck]

Yes, judges are bound by rules, and by and large they follow them. No, judges are for the most part not accountable. That is intentional.

If they are not held accountable then nothing is preventing them from doing the moral thing here !!

 

[ReillyT]

I just want to be clear on this point..What you are esentially saying is the judges themsleves decide what information gets in and what doesn't based on their personal view of the merits of each piece of information? So a judge looked at the nurses afidavits and decided their testimony had no merit or believablity to the case and shed no light as to the character and motivations of Michael, and so forth?

That is correct. Judges as finders of fact act in the same way as a jury does. They listen to the evidence and then decide whether the evidence is credible and should be believed, or is not credible and should be discounted. That is the way finders of fact always work and must work. A finder of fact could never arive at any decision if it had to give every piece of evidence the same weight and believe it was all true and credible.

Of course a judge can listen to evidence, find it relevant and find it credible but still not feel it has sufficient probative weight to change the outcome of the case.

 

[dilloduck]

That is correct. Judges as finders of fact act in the same way as a jury does. They listen to the evidence and then decide whether the evidence is credible and should be believed, or is not credible and should be discounted. That is the way finders of fact always work and must work. A finder of fact could never arive at any decision if it had to give every piece of evidence the same weight and believe it was all true and credible.

Of course a judge can listen to evidence, find it relevant and find it credible but still not feel it has sufficient probative weight to change the outcome of the case.

Strange---why all of the sudden are they expected to operate like judges are supposed to?

 

[ReillyT]

If they are not held accountable then nothing is preventing them from doing the moral thing here !!

First, people disagree about what the moral thing is here.
Second, judges are first and foremost supposed to do the legal thing, not what some people believe is the moral thing.

One caveat, judges are accountable in that their decisions can be appealed and reviewed by different judges.

 

[ReillyT]

Strange---why all of the sudden are they expected to operate like judges are supposed to?

I don't understand what you mean.

 

[dilloduck]

First, people disagree about what the moral thing is here.
Second, judges are first and foremost supposed to do the legal thing, not what some people believe is the moral thing.

One caveat, judges are accountable in that their decisions can be appealed and reviewed by different judges.

then what in the hell are they doing making moral decisions in other cases for then?

 

[no1tovote4]

A judge cannot refuse to listen to whichever evidence he wants. He can refuse to listen to evidence that was clearly available to a party in the first instance but not presented at that time. Otherwise, a judge as decision-maker must examine all the available evidence but must only give it the weight he or she feel it deserves based upon its relevance and credibility. In this particular case, new evidence was presented to the judge as late as 2001. The judge in the case either found that the new evidence was not relevant, not credible, or insufficient to allow the court to reach a different decision than it did in the first case.

I never said the Judges have done anything wrong. I have stated consistently that I think the laws should be changed to reflect new standards of evidence and to insure that those that are not convicted of a crime have at least as much protection as those who are.

In this case there is clearly reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the information used to decide this woman's fate. There are a huge amount of reasonable people that can see that doubt.

Personally I don't think that this even reached the standards of "clear and convincing" evidence, even when hearing the little from the other side that I have heard I can see many doubts as to the information used.

We can begin with the fact the woman has never had a PET scan or an MRI, the fact that every doctor that I know has stated that a CAT scan is not enough to diagnose the PVS of a person. That the man has been unwilling to allow the family to visit because they brush her teeth. That the video that is shown to the world was taken by Mr. Schiavo himself to win a lawsuit, but he wants to deny the veracity of it himself now that it no longer suits his purpose. And this is just a bare beginning, there is a mountain of evidence that suggest that there is a doubt as to the wants of this person in this case.

However, when I stated that judges can choose to hear evidence based on their opinion, that opinion would be based on what they think of the evidence, of its value in forming their judgement. Your statement in their defense was conclusive evidence that they can choose to listen to what they wish and give more credence to wherever they think it should lie. This IMO is not good enough, therefore the Laws need to be changed in order to allow for the protection of a person in her state of being, to at least be sure beyond reasonable doubt that this would be her wish and not based on what Mr. Schiavo thinks as he clearly admitted in his interviews lately on the news.

 

[ReillyT]

IHowever, when I stated that judges can choose to hear evidence based on their opinion, that opinion would be based on what they think of the evidence, of its value in forming their judgement. Your statement in their defense was conclusive evidence that they can choose to listen to what they wish and give more credence to wherever they think it should lie. This IMO is not good enough, therefore the Laws need to be changed in order to allow for the protection of a person in her state of being, to at least be sure beyond reasonable doubt that this would be her wish and not based on what Mr. Schiavo thinks as he clearly admitted in his interviews lately on the news.

A fact-finder has to judge the credibility of the evidence. Otherwise, any time two witness contradict one another, a judge or jury would come to an impass and be unable to give a decision. It is precisely for this reason that we have courts - to hear evidence and make decisions for one side or the other based on the amount and credibility of the evidence presented.

As for establishing a higher standard in cases like this, I think that might be a good idea. However, that is a question for the legislature of the state of Florida, not the courts. State laws generally establish standards of proof.

 

[Eightball]

Since it's less than a week before Easter, I was thinking about Jesus's last hours before His death.

Didn't He say to all those that wanted Him dead, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

That's about all I can express at this very sad time in the history of mankind, and more specifically the U.S.A.. Many who have expressed that Terry's expedient death was the most humane answer. We might crack open the bible and meditate on Jesus's life.........right up to the crucifixion, and of course there-after to see if there are some answers or direction in this situation.

Many didn't hate Jesus, but felt that His death was for the common good......i.e. Israel didn't need some political zealot that would usurpt Caesar or Rome. Other's just thought He was a "thorn" in the sides of the religious traditions of the time. In fact, Jesus's radical departure from following, and venerating the established law as a means of approaching God, was just plain blasphemous to the religious folks. The Law reminded men of there short-comings(sinfulness), yet Jesus never once said it was bad. He just pointed to a way that circumvented the Laws condemnation, and called it the "Law of Life". Jesus was the embodiment of the Law. He was the truth, He was Life itself.......embodied in Flesh, for all to see the true nature of God...........face to face...........

Terry's demise, would ease the minds of many that really don't want to delve into the ramifications of what life and death really mean, on a spiritual level. For a few exceptions, it would be interesting to poll a random sampling of folks to see how their thoughts rest in respect to Terry Schiavo's life, and they're own thoughts about life. I know that a couple folks in this thread have expressed that they are Christians, yet seemed to fall in the "camp" of those that sided with Terry's husband.

It's interesting, but for those that have read the bible, there is an interesting dynamic going on presently, that reminds me of the thoughts expressed by the Apostle Paul, or Paul of Tarsus, or Saul or Tarsus. Paul seemed to spend much of his time attempting to show how Jesus had come to abolish the written law as a means to approach God. Jesus never, "dished" the written Law, but expressed that the Law was "trumped" in regards to a new Law that was to be written on men's/women's hearts. This new Law would cause these men and women to be hated, despised, and basically not understood by the secular world. The secular world would continue to seek and find answers through following a set of written edicts(the law of man), but would totally miss the spirit of the new Law. The new Law would cause all those that possessed it to be considered a strange, or peculiar people.

Now presently, we have a faction that says, the law, the law, the law saith in respect to Terry Schiavo's life. Certainly, scripture says that God allowed man to establish nations, governments, and all the rules, and regulations that come with that. In fact, Paul was quite adamant in telling Christians to obey the government. Paul didn't protest against the Roman death penalty, yet Paul did stand up against those that followed the Law of man, and not the Law of God. Jesus, said, to his disciples that complained of Roman taxation, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's."

Terry Schivo's life is ultimately not her husband's property, or any other human being's. Not even her parent's, yet God did entrust us humans with the lives that he created. I have heard a preacher liken parents as those who have checked out a prescious book for a short time, but ultimately return it to the library, for all to share......i.e...that prescious book being our children. God made us care-takers of this flawed terrestrial ball(earth), and that entails some big responsibilities. Number one, it reminds us that ultimately, we really don't own anything in the big scheme of things, yet in some mysterious way, we have a big responsibility to take "good" care of that which is dropped in our laps.

Terry, is God's property above all things. From all accounts of friends of her's, she was a bubbling, young women that loved life, loved to live it, and was very Pro-life in thought. Even with that aside, she now is at the mercy, it would seem of the law. The law being the established system of government that run's or manages this country that we reside in, the U.S.A.. Now, if this man-established system in any way, abrogates Terry's right to live, it automatically impacts a higher law, or the law that was written in the hearts men via the Spirit of Christ, or the Law of love, or the Truth.

Let's do a little imagining if we can, and picture if the Jesus of the bible were here, right now in 2005. In fact let's make it even more specific, and place Jesus in the same room that Terry Schiavo is in right now. If Jesus were standing at Terry's bed, what would He say to her? What might He do or not do? In lieu of bible scripture, I would have to say that Jesus definitely would express His love to Terry. I think He would definitely touch and caress her. I could see Terry looking back in His eyes, and just being bathed in His gaze of love.

Now here's the sticky part........I could not see Jesus slowly pulling the feeding tube out of Terry's body, and saying "peace be with you Terry".

I personally believe that every human life created was not an accident, but has/had a purpose in God's incredible scheme. Terry's life in comparison to mine, is extremely limited if I look at her life as it would relate to the world and all of the worlds offerings and opportunities. How does God see Terry's life in the category of "worth"? Does God measure Terry's life on earth, as, how well she communicates, if she can use her limbs, % of brain function, how she looks physically, or...........? God, knew omnipotently that one day, this one child that He made, would end up very crippled indeed. Why? I'm not God. I have only scripture, to go on, and scripture reveals to me a God that has infinite Love, and a plan for His creation that takes into account, all the trials and tribulations that befalls individual man. Terry, isn't a mistake. I don't say this lightly. Yet, Terry's life is a test in my estimation. A test to reveal the true heart of mankind. Will man's edicts win over, common sense, and the presciousness of life, though this life is limited beyond comprehension. Will total, objective, blindered, loyalty to man's laws be the victor?

God has made us all caretakers of Terry Schiavo's life. None of us are exempt. Will we choose man's, "Ultimate Solution", or will we do some soul searching and really face what motivates us to trivialize one human life, namely Terry Schiavo. Is it truly for her good, to remove the tubes and starve her, or is it for our benefit that we allow this? Is Terry's life awakening something in us, that hasn't been dealt with? Our we trying to escape, the word, "commitment", and, "looking beyond ourselves" when dealing with Terry's life?

Is quality of life a commodity that man has a good understanding of? If you look back in history, you will see that man has only defined quality of life in terms of power, identity, manipulation, pride, recognition........and all of the before-named under the heading of "self". Self, basicallys says, "How will this benefit me.". Our we really looking at Terry's life and how it might benefit her to be cared for by others. God did not create us to be little islands. In fact, receiving care or help is the ultimate of humility, and fosters a humble heart in those that are recipients. It also fosters a growth of heart in those that provide the care through their self-sacrifice.

Terry Schiavo is forcing self-centered man out of his cocoon of convenience, and many want to leave the solution to expediency. To maintain Terry's life is to make a commitment. A major commitment. People are standing in line to do this. Man's solution is to weigh Terry's life in terms of cost.....and ultimately to evaluate what "quality" of life is in Terry's situation on that basis. Suffering has been brought up as a reason for expediency, but again, we measure suffering in terms of what Terry's abilities are in comparison to humans without disabilities or limited abilities, both mental and physical.

Terry's quality, of life, can't be measured in the most popular human terms, but that doesn't mean that her life has lost "quality".

Terry's life has impacted more people in spiritual ways, than she would have if she was a vibrant, walking, talking, young lady. Would Terry like to be in her present condition, and not like the old Terry?............I doubt that in a big way, yet in the big scheme of things, her life has quality to some, and no quality to others. The one camp that sees no quality must really rethink where their paradigm for quality of life comes from.

To think that this is happening right on the heels of Easter too.

 

[ReillyT]

then what in the hell are they doing making moral decisions in other cases for then?

I can only assume you are talking about times when judges rule laws invalid because the judges feel the laws conflict with the Constitution. In those cases, the judges don't feel they are making moral decisions, but are following their interpretation of the Constitution. Schools of thought on how to interpret the Constitution differ however, and it is this difference that often causes splits among judges about what the law may permissibly be.

Do judges sometimes make decisions based upon their own moral belief system? I am sure that they do, but I think it is less common than most people think. More often than not, decisions that we may feel are made upon a moral basis are made upon a philosophical theory about how to interpret the Constitution. That is a topic for another thread however.

 

[no1tovote4]

A fact-finder has to judge the credibility of the evidence. Otherwise, any time two witness contradict one another, a judge or jury would come to an impass and be unable to give a decision. It is precisely for this reason that we have courts - to hear evidence and make decisions for one side or the other based on the amount and credibility of the evidence presented.

As for establishing a higher standard in cases like this, I think that might be a good idea. However, that is a question for the legislature of the state of Florida, not the courts. State laws generally establish standards of proof.

I understand that, however the rules are legislated by which they weight the standard of evidence. As I said about three times in the conversation between you and I alone, the Judges have done nothing wrong according to current FL law. It is my opinion that this is where Society has failed Terry, at the Legislative level.

And I have repeatedly stated that the State Legislature needs to change the laws in order to reflect a higher standard of evidence. So on that one we agree. I have, in fact, contacted my State Representatives to insure that the laws in CO reflect a higher standard, if they do not I will begin to apply what pressure that I can in order to get those laws changed.

 

[ReillyT]

Since it's less than a week before Easter, I was thinking about Jesus's last hours before His death.

Didn't He say to all those that wanted Him dead, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

That's about all I can express at this very sad time in the history of mankind, and more specifically the U.S.A.. Many who have expressed that Terry's expedient death was the most humane answer. We might crack open the bible and meditate on Jesus's life.........right up to the crucifixion, and of course there-after to see if there are some answers or direction in this situation.

Many didn't hate Jesus, but felt that His death was for the common good......i.e. Israel didn't need some political zealot that would usurpt Caesar or Rome. Other's just thought He was a "thorn" in the sides of the religious traditions of the time. In fact, Jesus's radical departure from following, and venerating the established law as a means of approaching God, was just plain blasphemous to the religious folks. The Law reminded men of there short-comings(sinfulness), yet Jesus never once said it was bad. He just pointed to a way that circumvented the Laws condemnation, and called it the "Law of Life". Jesus was the embodiment of the Law. He was the truth, He was Life itself.......embodied in Flesh, for all to see the true nature of God...........face to face...........

Terry's demise, would ease the minds of many that really don't want to delve into the ramifications of what life and death really mean, on a spiritual level. For a few exceptions, it would be interesting to poll a random sampling of folks to see how their thoughts rest in respect to Terry Schiavo's life, and they're own thoughts about life. I know that a couple folks in this thread have expressed that they are Christians, yet seemed to fall in the "camp" of those that sided with Terry's husband.

It's interesting, but for those that have read the bible, there is an interesting dynamic going on presently, that reminds me of the thoughts expressed by the Apostle Paul, or Paul of Tarsus, or Saul or Tarsus. Paul seemed to spend much of his time attempting to show how Jesus had come to abolish the written law as a means to approach God. Jesus never, "dished" the written Law, but expressed that the Law was "trumped" in regards to a new Law that was to be written on men's/women's hearts. This new Law would cause these men and women to be hated, despised, and basically not understood by the secular world. The secular world would continue to seek and find answers through following a set of written edicts(the law of man), but would totally miss the spirit of the new Law. The new Law would cause all those that possessed it to be considered a strange, or peculiar people.

Now presently, we have a faction that says, the law, the law, the law saith in respect to Terry Schiavo's life. Certainly, scripture says that God allowed man to establish nations, governments, and all the rules, and regulations that come with that. In fact, Paul was quite adamant in telling Christians to obey the government. Paul didn't protest against the Roman death penalty, yet Paul did stand up against those that followed the Law of man, and not the Law of God. Jesus, said, to his disciples that complained of Roman taxation, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's."

Terry Schivo's life is ultimately not her husband's property, or any other human being's. Not even her parent's, yet God did entrust us humans with the lives that he created. I have heard a preacher liken parents as those who have checked out a prescious book for a short time, but ultimately return it to the library, for all to share......i.e...that prescious book being our children. God made us care-takers of this flawed terrestrial ball(earth), and that entails some big responsibilities. Number one, it reminds us that ultimately, we really don't own anything in the big scheme of things, yet in some mysterious way, we have a big responsibility to take "good" care of that which is dropped in our laps.

Terry, is God's property above all things. From all accounts of friends of her's, she was a bubbling, young women that loved life, loved to live it, and was very Pro-life in thought. Even with that aside, she now is at the mercy, it would seem of the law. The law being the established system of government that run's or manages this country that we reside in, the U.S.A.. Now, if this man-established system in any way, abrogates Terry's right to live, it automatically impacts a higher law, or the law that was written in the hearts men via the Spirit of Christ, or the Law of love, or the Truth.

Let's do a little imagining if we can, and picture if the Jesus of the bible were here, right now in 2005. In fact let's make it even more specific, and place Jesus in the same room that Terry Schiavo is in right now. If Jesus were standing at Terry's bed, what would He say to her? What might He do or not do? In lieu of bible scripture, I would have to say that Jesus definitely would express His love to Terry. I think He would definitely touch and caress her. I could see Terry looking back in His eyes, and just being bathed in His gaze of love.

Now here's the sticky part........I could not see Jesus slowly pulling the feeding tube out of Terry's body, and saying "peace be with you Terry".

I personally believe that every human life created was not an accident, but has/had a purpose in God's incredible scheme. Terry's life in comparison to mine, is extremely limited if I look at her life as it would relate to the world and all of the worlds offerings and opportunities. How does God see Terry's life in the category of "worth"? Does God measure Terry's life on earth, as, how well she communicates, if she can use her limbs, % of brain function, how she looks physically, or...........? God, knew omnipotently that one day, this one child that He made, would end up very crippled indeed. Why? I'm not God. I have only scripture, to go on, and scripture reveals to me a God that has infinite Love, and a plan for His creation that takes into account, all the trials and tribulations that befalls individual man. Terry, isn't a mistake. I don't say this lightly. Yet, Terry's life is a test in my estimation. A test to reveal the true heart of mankind. Will man's edicts win over, common sense, and the presciousness of life, though this life is limited beyond comprehension. Will total, objective, blindered, loyalty to man's laws be the victor?

God has made us all caretakers of Terry Schiavo's life. None of us are exempt. Will we choose man's, "Ultimate Solution", or will we do some soul searching and really face what motivates us to trivialize one human life, namely Terry Schiavo. Is it truly for her good, to remove the tubes and starve her, or is it for our benefit that we allow this? Is Terry's life awakening something in us, that hasn't been dealt with? Our we trying to escape, the word, "commitment", and, "looking beyond ourselves" when dealing with Terry's life?

Is quality of life a commodity that man has a good understanding of? If you look back in history, you will see that man has only defined quality of life in terms of power, identity, manipulation, pride, recognition........and all of the before-named under the heading of "self". Self, basicallys says, "How will this benefit me.". Our we really looking at Terry's life and how it might benefit her to be cared for by others. God did not create us to be little islands. In fact, receiving care or help is the ultimate of humility, and fosters a humble heart in those that are recipients. It also fosters a growth of heart in those that provide the care through their self-sacrifice.

Terry Schiavo is forcing self-centered man out of his cocoon of convenience, and many want to leave the solution to expediency. To maintain Terry's life is to make a commitment. A major commitment. People are standing in line to do this. Man's solution is to weigh Terry's life in terms of cost.....and ultimately to evaluate what "quality" of life is in Terry's situation on that basis. Suffering has been brought up as a reason for expediency, but again, we measure suffering in terms of what Terry's abilities are in comparison to humans without disabilities or limited abilities, both mental and physical.

Terry's quality, of life, can't be measured in the most popular human terms, but that doesn't mean that her life has lost "quality".

Terry's life has impacted more people in spiritual ways, than she would have if she was a vibrant, walking, talking, young lady. Would Terry like to be in her present condition, and not like the old Terry?............I doubt that in a big way, yet in the big scheme of things, her life has quality to some, and no quality to others. The one camp that sees no quality must really rethink where their paradigm for quality of life comes from.

To think that this is happening right on the heels of Easter too.

In this country, the higher law is the Constitution, not the Bible.

The issue isn't whether her life has quality to me or to you or even to God. The question is: Does this life have quality to Terri? This question has been asked many times and the courts have determined that the answer is no. Terri did not want this. We have a process to determine Terri's wishes. The process has been followed and a determination has been made. We act with human fallibility but do the best that we can.

 

[ReillyT]

I understand that, however the rules are legislated by which they weight the standard of evidence. As I said about three times in the conversation between you and I alone, the Judges have done nothing wrong according to current FL law. It is my opinion that this is where Society has failed Terry, at the Legislative level.

And I have repeatedly stated that the State Legislature needs to change the laws in order to reflect a higher standard of evidence. So on that one we agree. I have, in fact, contacted my State Representatives to insure that the laws in CO reflect a higher standard, if they do not I will begin to apply what pressure that I can in order to get those laws changed.

I think that is a wonderful idea, although I would encourage you to establish a living will so that you don't have to worry about how this would play out in your case. Unless, of course, you already have - in which case I would say well done.

I only wish that the importance of having a living will had had a greater visibility when Terri was still a fully functioning person..

 

[no1tovote4]

I think that is a wonderful idea, although I would encourage you to establish a living will so that you don't have to worry about how this would play out in your case. Unless, of course, you already have - in which case I would say well done.

I only wish that the importance of having a living will had had a greater visibility when Terri was still a fully functioning person..

I already have. I appointed a friend of mine with Medical Power of Attorney if I am found to be unable to give assent to care for myself.

 

[Bonnie]

eightball..Now here's the sticky part........I could not see Jesus slowly pulling the feeding tube out of Terry's body, and saying "peace be with you Terry".

I personally believe that every human life created was not an accident, but has/had a purpose in God's incredible scheme. Terry's life in comparison to mine, is extremely limited if I look at her life as it would relate to the world and all of the worlds offerings and opportunities. How does God see Terry's life in the category of "worth"? Does God measure Terry's life on earth, as, how well she communicates, if she can use her limbs, % of brain function, how she looks physically, or...........? God, knew omnipotently that one day, this one child that He made, would end up very crippled indeed. Why? I'm not God. I have only scripture, to go on, and scripture reveals to me a God that has infinite Love, and a plan for His creation that takes into account, all the trials and tribulations that befalls individual man. Terry, isn't a mistake. I don't say this lightly. Yet, Terry's life is a test in my estimation. A test to reveal the true heart of mankind. Will man's edicts win over, common sense, and the presciousness of life, though this life is limited beyond comprehension. Will total, objective, blindered, loyalty to man's laws be the victor?

God has made us all caretakers of Terry Schiavo's life. None of us are exempt. Will we choose man's, "Ultimate Solution", or will we do some soul searching and really face what motivates us to trivialize one human life, namely Terry Schiavo. Is it truly for her good, to remove the tubes and starve her, or is it for our benefit that we allow this? Is Terry's life awakening something in us, that hasn't been dealt with? Our we trying to escape, the word, "commitment", and, "looking beyond ourselves" when dealing with Terry's life?

Great post! I too have reflected on the fact that this is Easter Week. I pray that if/when she does die, her death will make others more appreciative of life itself, all life, not just what we deem society's version of life ougth to be.

 

[dilloduck]

I think that is a wonderful idea, although I would encourage you to establish a living will so that you don't have to worry about how this would play out in your case. Unless, of course, you already have - in which case I would say well done.

I only wish that the importance of having a living will had had a greater visibility when Terri was still a fully functioning person..

Not having one may result in Terri having helped make a whole lot of people be aware that they need to be responsible for this aspevt of their lives !!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

A fact-finder has to judge the credibility of the evidence. Otherwise, any time two witness contradict one another, a judge or jury would come to an impass and be unable to give a decision. It is precisely for this reason that we have courts - to hear evidence and make decisions for one side or the other based on the amount and credibility of the evidence presented.

As for establishing a higher standard in cases like this, I think that might be a good idea. However, that is a question for the legislature of the state of Florida, not the courts. State laws generally establish standards of proof.

A fact finder? is that an elected position? these judges just simply shut their ears to evidence they didn't like.
Don't point you finger at the state legislature because of the judge's closeminded agenda.

 

[ReillyT]

A fact finder? is that an elected position? these judges just simply shut their ears to evidence they didn't like.
Don't point you finger at the state legislature because of the judge's closeminded agenda.

I have always believed, although I have rarely responded to any of your posts, that you are one of the least thoughtful, least articulate persons on this board. I just wanted you to know where I stand.

A fact-finder is the finder of fact in a court. Sometimes it is a jury, sometimes it is a judge, depending on the proceeding and wishes of the parties.

 

[dilloduck]

I have always believed, although I have rarely responded to any of your posts, that you are one of the least thoughtful, least articulate persons on this board. I just wanted you to know where I stand.

A fact-finder is the finder of fact in a court. Sometimes it is a jury, sometimes it is a judge, depending on the proceeding and wishes of the parties.

In theory anyway