I’m somewhat suspicious of this attorney for the Department of Children and Families (DCF) in Pinellas County, Florida.

Remember this is the agency whose legal department buried the report of one of their investigators, Mitchell Turner, who alleged numerous accounts of felonious abuse of Terri Schiavo.

We then find Lima-Smith arguing before Judge George Greer that the DCF doesn’t need the judge’s approval to go in and take custody of Terri Schiavo, almost as though she is asking the judge to step in and prohibit DCF from acting. Since Florida state law provides total legal autonomy in cases of alleged abuse to agencies such as DCF, why even make a case before Judge Greer?

TownHall.com writes:

“The law allows the department to exercise both emergency protective services — intervention and emergency removal — either one or both,” Lima-Smith told Greer.

The statute also appears to specifically exempt DCF from an otherwise enforceable mandate to seek Michael Schiavo’s permission to remove Terri.

TownHall again:

“If the vulnerable adult’s caregiver or guardian is present, the protective investigator must seek the caregiver’s or guardian’s consent … before the vulnerable adult may be removed from the premises,” the law states, “unless the protective investigator suspects that the vulnerable adult’s caregiver or guardian has caused the abuse, neglect, or exploitation.”

The only authorization or requirement for the involvement of the courts in an emergency intervention or removal comes after DCF has taken its action. “The department shall, within 24 hours after providing or arranging for emergency removal of the vulnerable adult, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, petition the court for an order authorizing emergency protective services.”

It would seem the only reason Lima-Smith is bringing all this before the judge is to try and find a way to stop legally required action by DCF.

Then we find DCF attorney, Lima-Smith, trying to get Judge Greer to seal all the records of DCF regarding Terri Schiavo. I wonder why that would be? Her reason, “that it’s time to bring this case to an end” is very weak. Could it be that there is serious credible evidence Terri Schiavo was being abused? Could they be trying to hide a cover-up or incompetence or illegal activity and complicity? Could DCF want to hide the fact that they ignored the law in Schiavo’s case?

It’s interesting to note that in early March, 2005 Lima-Smith was trying to seal records of DCF because she was concerned for the safety of those reporting the incidents.

ABC News reported:

“Privacy rights and the concerns of other individuals may be affected by the release of that document,” Lima-Smith argued before Judge Greer in trying to prevent the documents she provided to the Judge from being released to the public.

The ever obliging Judge Greer sealed the records except for Michael Schiavo, Terri’s husband. He can look at them. Hmmm. I wonder why that would be. If Lima-Smith is concerned about the safety of informants, isn’t Michael’s access to these records running some risks given his reputation for being a hot head? Two of Michael’s former girlfriends were afraid of Michael Schiavo and what they perceived to be his threats of revenge. DCF was aware of this as was evidenced by a recorded telephone conversation with Bobby Schindler, Terri’s brother, and one of those girlfriends. Is it also possible Michael will be allowed to object to what was in the reports and consequently have the allegations removed or destroyed? Given the apparent corruption epidemic in Pinellas County Florida, this is certainly within the scope of possibilities.

It sure seems like the “preventing harm” argument of Lima-Smith was a smokescreen. But maybe it’s just the esteemed judge trying to silence anyone who might have the desire to come to Terri’s defense post mortem. Using Michael to intimidate would be a slick move by the one-sided court.

And then there’s Secretary Hadi.

According to the Tampa Tribune:

At an afternoon news conference (late March, 2005), while Governor Bush was weighing his options, Hadi cautiously stated, “DCF could take protective custody of Mrs. Schiavo, and I’ll leave it at that.” Later, she stated, “We have no present plans to take Terri Schiavo into protective custody.”

Why did she go public and alert the Felos bunch and Judge Greer that Governor Bush was actually going to enforce state law and have DCF take action?

The Chicago Tribune cites Hadi:

According to DCF Secretary Lucy Hadi under state law the agency is authorized to intervene and have Schiavo’s sustenance restored even without a court order.

So why didn’t DCF just do what they usually do, haul people away for the slightest hint of abuse?

It’s all very interesting and very suspicious. But then maybe it’s all just more innocuous coincidence like the rest of the web is supposed to be. Anybody interested in a good murder mystery?

Leave Strategic Petroleum Reserve Alone For Now

This bubble will burst before long and prices will return to normal. But the White House could help by leaving SPRO alone for now. Their reserves are full up enough. Leave it be and let markets find a more normal oil price level. Motorists and the economy will benefit.

If you’re looking for updates on the Schiavo memo, click here.

Rather than posting a whole bunch of entries as the story updates, I’ve just been adding to my original post.

And Scott Ott has this:

“Next thing you know, I get a visit from the CIA, then Colin Powell tells my story to the U.N.,” said Mr. Darling, who insisted that his Schiavo memo and work as ‘Curveball’ are part of “a lifelong mission to get people to stop relying on unnamed sources.”

The White Smoke watch will begin on April 18th.

In the mean time, if you want to buy Dan Brown’s “The DaVinci Code,” which discusses this process in depth in the course of the fictional plot, click here to buy it at Amazon.com. :-)

Editor and Publisher has a story

As always, not everyone in the press and on the Web agrees with the selection of Pulitzer Prize winners, announced earlier this week. But what’s relatively rare is that criticism surrounding one choice this year has a partisan edge.

The Pulitzer Board anointed 11 Associated Press photographers as winners in the category of breaking-news photography. The award-winning photos were from war-torn Iraq — and some in conservative circles claim the images were, on the whole, overly helpful to the insurgent cause. At least one of the photos raised an uproar from the same quarters when it was first published late last year.

It cites the Jawa Report (Rusty wonders if their site is HTML enabled). And then goes on to bash Malkin and Powerline.

Columnist Michelle Malkin and the popular Powerline blog, meanwhile, returned to the controversy over the widely published AP photo of terrorists executing Iraqi election workers in Baghdad. Malkin asked on Tuesday if the Pulitzer judges were “ignorant of the controversy.” Powerline called the award a “Pulitzer Prize for felony murder.” Last December it had charged that “the terrorists wanted to be photographed carrying out the murder, to sow more terror in Iraq and to demoralize American voters. That’s why they tipped off the photographer, and that’s why they dragged the two election workers from their car, so they could be shot in front of the AP’s obliging camera.”

The “tipped off” refers to the AP revealing that the photographer had been notified that a car bombing had occurred in the area where the attack on the election workers eventually took place. Contrary to the Powerline assertion, however, there is no evidence that the photographer knew anything about the attack in advance or, indeed, that the killers knew a photographer was poised and ready to snap that image. Indeed, according to AP, the lensman was 300 meters away. Salon.com quoted an unnamed AP source calling this charge of pre-arrangement “ridiculous.”

And all this has offended the AP.

Today, Kathleen Carroll, the AP’s executive editor, told E&P: “The allegations on these Web sites are complete baloney and deeply offensive.”

And Rusty Shackleford has more.

Our other objection is to the photos selected as worthy of the Pulitzer. Is the Associated Press an American organization or not? Cause, I was kind of under the impression that America was sort of in this little thing called a SHOOTING WAR!

Ernie Pyle is rolling over in his grave, right about now. I wonder if he ever got that up close and personal interview with the Waffen SS he always wanted to do? You know, to show their side of the story. Cause, you know, they had families too. And kids. And flower gardens. And kitties……

Interesting.

Local bureaucrats ordered Uqdah to cease and desist, or be “subject to criminal prosecution.” Why? Because he didn’t have a license. “It’s a safety issue,” said the regulators. Those who run a hair salon must have a cosmetology license. The chemicals they use dyeing or perming hair might hurt someone.

Hair dye is hardly a serious safety threat, but even if it were, Cornrows & Co. didn’t dye or perm hair. They only braided it. That didn’t matter, said the Cosmetology Board — they still had to get a license. In order to get one, Uqdah would have to pay about $5,000 to take more than 1,000 hours of courses at a beauty school.

HT: MHKing.