![]() |
|||||||
|
« Today in Jewish History | Main | Lagrange Hospice and Mae Magouirk: What does it have in common with the Woodside Hospice? » April 7, 2005New Message From Ken Mullinax Regarding Mae MagouirkTopics: Action Items- Email Posted by richard at April 7, 2005 9:45 PM Articles Related to Action Items:
Comments
If they followed the rules, they wouldn't have to worry. This means bringing the prisoner in shackles if items are found in their shoes, didn't make biased rulings, etc. The judicial system is doing itself in. Posted by: Julie at April 7, 2005 10:24 PM Why would federal judges think there will be any sympathy for them after a judge ignored 2 subpeonas? Posted by: Julie at April 7, 2005 10:25 PM I'll be sending faxes tomorrow morning. How is Mae Magouirk's surname pronounced? "Ma-GOO-irk"? I'd like to say her name correctly when talking to the agencies. Posted by: Mary in LA at April 7, 2005 10:35 PM Interview with Mae's nephew Ken Mullinax on The David Allen Show http://www.thedavidallenshow.com/medialibrary/interviews/ataudio.2005-04-08.5890983887 Posted by: purple_kangaroo_Angela at April 8, 2005 4:43 AM What if... Mae had appointed a guardian ad lidem group of doctors and clergy to protect her? What if that group had teeth, in the form of a crack team of attorneys expert in these matters? (along the lines of the ACLU) What if the doctors in this group monitored the care she was being given and the attorneys in this group routinely prosecuted anyone who did anything detrimental to Mae or the others who had appointed them. What if...these people weren't so very under protected by the rest of the sheep, but had a sheep dog to protect her? What if, by appointing this group as her guardian, Mae had placed herself in a shelter, BEFORE all this began, a shelter with the power to make the wolves take notice and back off? When Terri died I knew they would become ever more brazen. With Mae we are watching their arrogance balloon outrageously. They no longer bother with any pretence or artifice. I am praying for a sheep dog for Mae, but I don't know who it would be outside of God, because we haven't gotten around calling this "dog" into existence yet. Posted by: mary et. al. at April 8, 2005 7:38 AM MARY I LOVE IT THAT IS THE ANSWER_YOU HAVE TO POST THAT EVERYWHERE!!!!! Granted, it might not help her now, but this is what you have been trying to say to all of us for days now-this is it! That is an awsome, awsome plan-a group like that , that people could appoint as their guardians before they ever got sick-that really makes so much sense, I do not even feel confused thinking about it! Posted by: alwayschooselife at April 8, 2005 12:20 PM Mary, And alwayschooselife - I completely, completely agree! Mary, you have put this awesome plan together! I totally believe in this idea. I hope you keep on posting it at "the top article" on this site - everyone needs to see and hear this! Blessings to you!! Posted by: juleni at April 8, 2005 1:51 PM Oh, yes, mary, good idea. Sounds expensive, I wonder who would pay for it? Posted by: that woman at April 9, 2005 3:44 AM |

Poll: 78% don't want more security for judges
Federal Judges Urge Congress, White House to Give Them More Protection
The Associated Press
Concerned about recent attacks, federal judges urged Congress Wednesday to provide them with more protection, including increased services by U.S. marshals and $12 million for home security systems. The request by the Judicial Conference of the United States follows the February murder of a federal judge's family in Chicago, the March courtroom shooting deaths in Atlanta and some critics' emotional comments after judges refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1112778310131
In a recent poll with nearly 20,000 participants, Americans said they don't want to pay for increased security for judges.
March 11-13, 2005
Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to protect judges and other public officials?
* 19297 responses
Yes 22%
No 78%
MSNBC.
Could it be that many Americans believe judges could care less about citizens safety?
Posted by: that woman at April 7, 2005 9:56 PM