Screw the law, chad87655 has spoken
 

Not certain, may be a long shot but one might argue dying declaration, statement against interest, etc.

habeas corpus, the sequel
 

Emphasis on that last.

Screw the law, chad87655 has spoken
 

The elitist liberal ruling class? hmmm? The GOP pretty much rules the country right now, whom are you speaking of? The bad , evil, activist Judges, sworn to uphold the constitution and the law? Get a grip. You, a patriot? Hardly. Eric Rudolph also considered himself to be a patriot, and we see where that got him.

habeas corpus, the sequel
 

God is dead. You evidently didn't get the memo. I'll forward it to you. You might want to review your distribution lists and make sure you're correctly copied as appropriate.

Screw the law, chad87655 has spoken
 

Any writing to that effect would be hearsay as well, in that it would be an out-of-court statement used to try to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein. The verbal/written issue goes to the reliability of the statements.

The answer to your question probably lies in FRE 803(3) -- creating a hearsay exemption for statements of the declarant's "then-existing state of mind (etc). . ." If not there, the residual exception under FRE 807.

There may also be statutory hearsay exemptions for written/notarized HCPOAs, because they are, after all, designed to speak for people who can no longer speak for themselves. There may also be some similar provision re verbal statements in Florida and/or other states where written proof is not required. The whole purpose of the inquiry is to find out what a person "would want" when they can't tell you.

S_A_M

Screw the law, chad87655 has spoken
 

Neither of those really fit.

The dying declaration exception under FRE 804 applies to statements about what caused your injury/death. The statement against interest exception also doesn't seem to do it. After all, if it were true -- it would be a statement in her expressed interest. (That section also focuses on penal, pecuniary, liability interests.)

S_A_M

Screw the law, chad87655 has spoken
 

A proscribed governmental form would come under an exception. I guess I'm curious how any inquiry into what a person "would have wanted" can happen when no evidence is admissible. Maybe the inquiry itself was as flawed as the idea of Congress passing a law?

Motherfucking jackass, part 281039171
 

Hot Tub Tom

Yeah, it's all about you, cocksucker.

Screw the law, chad87655 has spoken
 

From a report to Jeb Bush summarizing the case (italics mine.)

"In Theresa's case, evidence regarding her intentions consisted of admitted hearsay regarding conversations between Theresa and her spouse and spousal relatives. The context and nature of this hearsay were deemed sufficiently probative, competent and reliable to serve as a basis for admission, and was determined to be sufficiently clear and convincing. The court then served as proxy decision maker, essentially assuming the role of legal guardian. The privacy interests of the person, as established in the Florida Constitution, and as articulated with specificity in Browning (In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990) ) served as the legitimate legal bases for the court's conclusions to withdraw life support consistent with Florida Statute, 765. "


See here for the full text http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

a new low
 

That's an interesting take on federalism. It's okay to interfere with the rights of the several states to have a judicial branch, but Congress may lay waste to the checks and balances of our system when the "christian" right is offended. Thanks for this valuable insight.

Motherfucking jackass, part 281039171
 

Bottling up your true feelings can have serious long-term health consequences.

Quality Control at CBSNews.com
 

The Procedure is always more important than a single life. People die. That's sad. It's also inevitable. You're willing to send thousands to die in Iraq for the sake of the Procedure. Why is it that you're also willing to allow it to be perverted at the highest levels for the sake of one woman?

We have oh-oh!
 

so it came in under a catch-all? most of those weigh against if the evidence would be highly prejudical- i.e. major damage if wrong.

Quality Control at CBSNews.com
 

I'm going to give you an opportunity to rethink this statement, because it's one of the most vacuous things I've read here for a bit, and that's not a particularly high threshold given the last few weeks.

People don't die?
 

True. Bush lied so the procedure was flawed from the outset.