Sid Lashkowitz is an old acquaintance of mine - we did some stuff in an improv group back in the nineties. He's an assistant district attorney from Long Island. We had lunch yesterday, and talked about the Schiavo case.
MITCH BERG: So my question is, is Florida law right - from the standards of ethics and justice - in the Schiavo case.
SID LASCHKOWITZ: Well, it's all on the record. Read the record.
MB: Yeah, I know, but the problem is, the record only shows what a court decided about existing law. Laws have flaws. Judges make mistakes.
SL: But they decide according to the law. Read the record.
MB: Yeah, but they get hemorrhoids, their wives yap at them about things on the way to work and they get distracted, they're human, they have prejudices...
SL: Well, it's all on the record. Read the record.
MB: The court didn't "rule" on whether there might be flaws in existing Florida law, though...
SL: What are you, an idiot? Everything you need to know about this case is in the record!
MB: Really? The court ruled, on philosophical grounds, on the ethics of the laws that were applied in this case?
SL: You obviously are a retard.
MB: Mommy? No, seriously, are you saying the courts did rule on the philosophical and ethical questions involved?
SL: Courts rule on the law.
MB: In other words, no?
SL: It's in the record. You can either read the record, or live in your little made-up universe. Are you going to finish those fries?
MB: Help yourself. Again, I'm not quibbling about the record, I'm saying that my real question is "is the law right".
SL: Do you or don't you believe in the rule of law? Or should we just allow people to decide things on the fly by themselves?
MB: I'm not talking about anarchy or renouncing the rule of law, I'm talking about a philosophical and ethical debate over whether the law is right. I'm talking about looking for a deeper truth...
SL: All truth is in the record.
MB: Hell, forget the "truth" for a moment. As a voter and citizen, I am asking if the law is *right*, morally and ethically.
SL: That's what judges are for.
MB: Ai yi yi. OK, then, different question: You're a lawyer...
SL: Read the record.
MB: ...I know, so you know as well as I do that if a party to a case has a problem getting information into the record and the "Finding of facts" in the initial case, they're pretty much screwed forever - the "finding of facts" isn't subject to appeal unless you get a de novo trial, and those are rare. Now, the quality of the lawyer you have has a huge effect on the "facts" that get "found". That's why OJ is a free man today. So what about the story that the Schindlers had a pro bono lawyer who made major, but non-appealable, mistakes...
SL: This soup is awful.
MB: ...that's why I ordered the sushi. And Michael Schindler had hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of representation. So even the "facts" that were "Found" might well reflect less of the truth than they do the respective talents of the lawyers.
SL: Chimpy chimpy Bushitler Halliburton.
MB: Check, please?
Mitch,
"an improv group"??
At some point, can you list the things you have NOT done in your life? Seesm like it might be a short list.
Posted by: JamesPh. at April 1, 2005 02:41 PMWow, I hope the food was delicious.
And I mean, delicious in a way that will make you weep at every future meal, no matter how expertly and lovingly prepared, for the memory of this lunch is so sweet. Because otherwise, you wasted an hour and a half of your life that you will never get back.
Oh well, at least you're not doing it every day! Um...right?
Posted by: Brian Jones at April 1, 2005 02:46 PMNah. Just the usual SOS.
I raid the fridge some mornings. More because it's interesting to see what crap other people have left there than because the food's any good.
Posted by: mitch at April 1, 2005 02:51 PMMitch,
Is there more to the anagram in Sid's name other than "Slash"?
Am I the only one who gets your humor?
I have a lot of time on my hands - some moonbat took over my blog.
LF
Posted by: LearnedFoot at April 1, 2005 02:59 PMYikes! There's a coincidence!
My office blocks blogspot - what happened w/KAR?
Posted by: mitch at April 1, 2005 03:05 PMYou haven't seen it?
You really should read this when you get the chance (and soon, as it will be deleated once we regain control of the blog):
http://koolaidreport.blogspot.com/2005/04/mitch-berg-big-green-booger-of.html
LF
Posted by: LearnedFoot at April 1, 2005 03:15 PMMitch,
I just got the craziest message on my answering machine. This guy I know who leads a therapy group for recovering testosterone addicts in St. Paul demanded that I ask you these questions:
“Perhaps you could tell us, Mitch, which of these laws you think are wrong and should be changed?
The laws that establish the legal system such that factual disputes are resolved by having a judge (or jury) hear live witness testimony, resolve credibility and weight of evidence issues, and decide what the facts of a case are, subject to appellate review? In other words, are you arguing that courts should not resolve factual disputes such as what a patient’s condition is or what her wishes are?
The law that allows the end of life-sustaining treatment in accordance with a patient’s wishes? In other words, are you arguing that no patient should be allowed to end life-sustaining care no matter what her wishes are?
The law that classifies a persistent vegetative state as a circumstance in which a patient can opt to end life-sustaining treatment? In other words, are you arguing that everyone in a persistent vegetative state must be kept alive no matter what their wishes are?
The law that defines a surgically-implanted feeding tube as one of the life-sustaining measures that can be removed in accordance with a patient’s wishes? In other words, are you arguing that no one can have a feeding tube removed no matter what their wishes are?
Which of these laws do you think is wrong?”
The guy then went off on this rant about how people who disagree with him are America-hating death-lovers, but I edited that stuff out.
Posted by: Slash at April 1, 2005 03:29 PM/jc
Jeez, Slash. So cutting. I was talking about Sid. Criminy.
“Perhaps you could tell us, Mitch, which of these laws you think are wrong and should be changed?"
Perhaps I could. Perhaps I could not. But I'll take a stab at it.
"The laws that establish the legal system such that factual disputes are resolved by having a judge (or jury) hear live witness testimony, resolve credibility and weight of evidence issues, and decide what the facts of a case are, subject to appellate review? In other words, are you arguing that courts should not resolve factual disputes such as what a patient’s condition is or what her wishes are?"
If I thought you were asking the question to be obtuse, I'd say "either you think I'm an asshole, or you are being one". Since I know that's not why you're asking, though, I guess a simple "no" should do.
"The law that allows the end of life-sustaining treatment in accordance with a patient’s wishes? In other words, are you arguing that no patient should be allowed to end life-sustaining care no matter what her wishes are?"
Of course not. Read the record; I said no such thing.
"The law that classifies a persistent vegetative state as a circumstance in which a patient can opt to end life-sustaining treatment? In other words, are you arguing that everyone in a persistent vegetative state must be kept alive no matter what their wishes are?"
Again, of course not. If people with PVS got offed, Mike Molloy and Sam Seder would be in deep schvitz.
"The law that defines a surgically-implanted feeding tube as one of the life-sustaining measures that can be removed in accordance with a patient’s wishes? In other words, are you arguing that no one can have a feeding tube removed..."
This verges, again, on obtusion. on't be absurd.
"...no matter what their wishes are?"
Now we're getting somewhere.
I think there's something to be said for investigating the process by which we determine otherwise undocumented wishes. I'm not one who sees conspiracy theories in every one of Michael Schiavo's actions - do try to remember that, for a change, OK?
But I've asked you at least twice now, Slash - what about the idea that someone can barge into a courtroom with a really shite-hot lawyer, determine what "facts" will become part of the record more through lawyerly manipulation of the system than a painstaking search for the truth, and thus create a miscarriage of justice? Answering "read the record" is no help; either is your repeated refusal to answer the question. There are allegations that that's exactly what happened; Michael Schiavo's lawyer outmaneuvered the Schindlers' inexperienced pro-bono attorney, so that the "Facts" that were "Found" in the initial litigation - the only trial that really counts for purposes of determining fact, and which sets factual precedents that can not be easily un-done on appeal, as you've said yourself - were perhaps "facts", but arguably not "the truth". So when you ask...
"Which of these laws do you think is wrong?”"
...I'd suggest that we might want to have a dialogue about the notion of changing the burden of proof for removing life support to something a little more explicit than it would seem Florida law requires. Some debate and discussion would be interesting. The last I checked, we non-lawyers get to do that.
Right? Do I have to read some "record" to verify that?
"The guy then went off on this rant about how people who disagree with him are America-hating death-lovers, but I edited that stuff out."
He's such an embarassment. He's a DFLer, and he's been indicted for vote fraud.
Posted by: mitch at April 1, 2005 03:47 PMFoot - I can't link to blogspot.com from my office; it is blocked at the firewall.
Any way you could email me a screenshot?
Posted by: mitch at April 1, 2005 03:49 PMI have no idea how to do that. Just read it when you get home. It should be there until tomorrow.
LF
Posted by: LearnedFoot at April 1, 2005 03:54 PMFoot,
Flash emailed me the screenshots. Wow - sure does suck when moonbats take over your site. I hope you can regain control soon!
Posted by: mitch at April 1, 2005 04:15 PMIt is amazing how difficult it is for some folks to grasp that legislatures have legitimate, perfectly constitutional, input regarding standards of evidence. Equally amazingly, they find it difficult to grasp that some may think documentary evidence, as opposed to testimony that depends on memories of years-old conversations, should be required to determine whether a non-communicative person did not wish to receive food and water through a feeding tube.
One senses that if a trial judge dropped some acid one morning, and dismissed a slip and fall lawsuit, because gravity no longer existed, these folks would climb up on the roofs of their employers' buildings, and attempt to fly home.
Posted by: Will Allen at April 1, 2005 07:37 PMMore amazing still is how difficult it is for some to grasp that the government, acting through the judiciary, resolved a private family dispute by starving to death one of its members.
It is the law, they say. The courts were just doing their job. It's on the record! This is, of course, exactly what the defendants claimed at Nuremburg, but the record then means nothing now for those whose cause is championed, and who do not learn from history.
Posted by: Eracus at April 2, 2005 11:59 AMcsSorry for my links girls in body stockings
Posted by: petra at June 26, 2006 05:50 PMhttp://silkpanties.honeywhores.com/
legs pantyhose
http://silkpanties.honeywhores.com/legs-pantyhose.html
panties teen
http://silkpanties.honeywhores.com/panties-teen.html
panty handjob
http://silkpanties.honeywhores.com/panty-handjob.html
chubby p0Rn galleries free
http://silkpanties.honeywhores.com/chubby-p0Rn-galleries-free.html