Saturday, November 19, 2005

When Lawyers Define Life

When Lawyers Define Life

By Sovereign Dave

I now take the opportunity to save something valuable from Terri’s fiasco: That is education to save the rest of us. Jay Wolfson most likely did do a very complete job of research; even going beyond the call of duty by examining different philosophies. This is admirable and probably serves well as justification for actions. All we can do is the best with the information and duty we have at hand—even if we might be ignorant to wiser concepts at that time. But just as a scalpel in the hands of an unskilled surgeon is dangerous, so too are lawyers who try to fit the definition of life within the box called law for government. Both might have the best of intentions yet the effect is something even lawyers can understand: damage.

In this case I suspect we are witnessing something far worse with Jay Wolfson--sent in as a last-ditch prop when numbers of people started questioning the fabric of government. In this case the fabric of government stretched their theft of unalienable rights to the point of becoming revealing to a large proportion of the population when they tried to “socialize” the theft in the name of public good. If history is to teach us anything, it is always to be vigilant that we too are not becoming acceptable of the theft of any unalienable right—even if our majority supports same in the name of public good. Mr. Wolfson instantly became the pawn in the game of actually two social agendas; the victims in the war were Terri Schiavo and unalienable rights.

The lesson: One has to remember that government’s only power is obtained through consent—your consent. When you start to question consent to be governed by government you now relegate yourself to the likes of some famous people: Jesus, Ghandi, Buddha, Paine, Adams, Jefferson, King, Parks, etc. The truth popularized by government is that “we consent to be governed.” The myth is that we consent to be governed….by them and their law for government called statutory law.” The myth portion is the democracy and is nearly diametrically opposed to the concept of unalienable rights. [Reflect upon that for a moment and one realizes if myth is true, society degenerates into the powerful group depriving the individual of rights—not unlike Terri Schiavo’s case.]

For years those in “lawyer-land” [black-robes, lawyers and their derivatives—politicians] have led you astray. In the name of social agenda they have tried to shrink-wrap the law that applies to people within the law that applies to government: to make matters worse they have “force-fed” that back to you by the argument of the lesser of two evils. You are told: “Well if there is no law, anarchy prevails.” In our ignorance, we accept this tale of half-truth and give consent of the whip to our slave. But how can I say this is a half-truth? Well this is quite simple: there are two forms of law! There exists common law—the law for the people—and there exists statutory law, the law for government. The common law contains the most “common-sense” of laws: murder, theft, etc. It is the common law to which the people gave their consent to be governed. It is common law to which people still to this day largely govern their actions. Common law is so powerful that many states strictly construe statues of statutory law [i.e law for government] that are in derogation of it. Think about this: On a percentage of the population basis the people of New Orleans’s Katrina behaved quite well under the common sense of their common-law heritage of “Thou shalt not steal nor kill”. Yet where were the statutory law enforcers in the wake of Katrina? Non-existent! In summary: The problems of today can be traced to the sinful evils when law for government (statutory law) is misapplied to the people under the disguise of public good and as a replacement for common law. Sadly it takes incidents like Terri to “wake-up” the population: unto itself a derived testament to how well people behave under common law.

Within the context of this explanation of two laws, let us examine this quote by lawyer Jay Wolfson:

“We can take the best law we can and apply it in the best way we can.

That is all we can do.”

To which law is Mr Wolson referring? [Hint: All lawyers are trained primarily in terms of statutory law: law for government.]
As you have discovered, while he makes a truthful statement it is a half-truth by virtue of three possible reasons: ignorance, sin of commission or sin of omission.
If the people have common law, why is government applying the other law to you? Isn’t this really mis-applying?
If the best law they have in government law doesn’t save an unalienable right, isn’t that an acknowledgment of its inherent limitations when it is mis-applied to people? In other words, Mr. Wolfson’s comments are an admission of the weakness of government laws. {Thankfully]
I won’t dive into the definition of life or social agenda. In this issue, this is the DISTRACTION. This distraction only popularizes the myth of “consent to be governed by government.” The real issue is, “What right does government have to define life?” In the supreme law for government called the Constitution, I do not see this as a grant of power to government! When you grant them this power, those in power take your acceptance as consent and justification for the theft of more power. In essence you transfer a little more of the whip from your hands to that of your slaves.


From: []
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 1:06 PM
Subject: Terri Schiavo guardian shares his experience at lecture

RN Ford Comments:

If he cared enough, why would Wolfson not have recommended calling in the true medical experts to evaluate Terri as was requested of him to do? Why did he suddenly disappear off of the case when Governor Bush sent him interrogatories to answer?

Sorry Jay.......your caring about Terri is not sincere and just doesn't fly with those who knew better. She is gone now...... please allow her to rest in peace and for her sake, go and find yourself another tragic story to talk about. You did not care enough's too late now!

Sadly folks, guilt certainly has a way of never leaving those who have assisted in victimizing others.

Terri Schiavo guardian shares his experience at lecture
Guest Speaker: Jay Wolfson, Dr. P.H., J.D. spoke about his now former client, Theresa Schiavo. courtesy photo

"I would sit with her and stroke her hair and hold her hand and I would take her head in my hands and beg her to help me help her," said Jay Wolfson, Dr. P.H., J.D. about his now former client, Theresa Schiavo.

As he talked about his personal thoughts and experiences of brain-damaged Schiavo\'s case Nov. 10, the FIU community sat, and stood, in Graham Center 140, silently listening to Wolfson\'s every word.

Although the fight for Schiavo\'s future had been going on for years, Wolfson, professor of public health and medicine at the University of South Florida, came into the picture in 2003 as the court appointed Special Guardian ad Litem.

He was the legal representative for Schiavo. He had a month to look through all of the legal and medical documents "of a woman I didn\'t know." He reported to Governor Jeb Bush and the courts as to whether or not Schiavo should have more swallowing tests administered. This would guide the governor in his decision-making about the case.

"I didn\'t follow the O.J. or the Schiavo case," said Wolfson. "All of a sudden, I am asked to inject myself into this thing."

Wolfson did more than just read 30,000 pages worth of documents. He turned to famous philosophers and writers such as Dante, Descartes and Nietzsche for answers. He spent time with Schiavo\'s family, the Schindlers and with Michael Schiavo, her husband. Wolfson also spent one to four hours a day with Schiavo.

"I was seeking both information and knowledge," he said.

Wolfson had many special tasks as Schiavo\'s Guardian ad Litem. One of them was to serve in the best interests of his ward. Wolfson said that the problem he had with that task was whether or not he should do what he, or someone else thought was best for Schiavo.

Another task Wolfson had was to determine if there was "feasibility and value in swallowing tests and swallowing therapy given the totality of the circumstances." Wolfson\'s problem with this was that value can be relative.

Wolfson had to make a decision concerning Schiavo\'s fate.

"The scientist in me had to come in," Wolfson said.

The rules given to Wolfson for his decision-making were clear. He had to give competent, clear and convincing evidence.' '"We can take the best law we can and apply it in the best way we can. That is all we can do," Wolfson said.

Wolfson explained that when Schiavo had her accident, she fell and her brain was without oxygen for 12 minutes. She had slipped into a coma and was put on a respirator for a month. Two months later, she was considered vegetative. Schiavo could not swallow liquids.

Wolfson showed on a projector a picture of Schiavo\'s cerebral cortex. He explained that this was where reasoning is. It was where the consciousness may be and it was beyond reflexes. Schiavo\'s cerebral cortex was found to be all liquid.

"Her cerebral cortex was gone," Wolfson said.

Finally, Wolfson\'s decision was made. He decided that additional testing could and would be done if everyone agreed in advance as to how the results were to be used. An agreement was never made.

From within the whirlwind, Wolfson discovered two things.

"I wound up learning that there was something about this case, and it involved a certain chemical - hope," Wolfson said. "Is hope maybe the ability of human beings to have something beyond yourself that is a part of you?"

Wolfson called this ability the divine spark.

"It\'s that special thing which makes us human," Wolfson said.

The second thing Wolfson discovered involved perspective.

"Much of what we see and hear is just the tip of the iceberg, and everyone will have different perspectives of the tip," he said. "What I do know is that things that are said and are represented are not the same."

As the lecture came to an end, Wolfson said he could see why life is so important to people. "The alternative is the unknown and could be not being," he said.