Scalia Death Suspicious "We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head."

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So you're claiming that 72.025, the actual bill that shows when an autopsy is required is a subhead, and not the actual law? Because that's where the 19 cases requiring an autopsy comes from. Ok, you keep right on believing that they're required to do an autopsy of famous people, even though they're not.

No, the subhead referred to is part of the policies promulgated pursuant to KRS 72.025.

In some cases it matters how someone died. In this case, it doesn't.

originally posted by: ScreamingMoon
He was old.

Thank you, Sherlock. Old people don't get murdered? He could have had another good five to eight years. But that would have been too inconvenient for some.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MotherMayEye

A policy is the outline for a goal that an institution intends to accomplish. A law is an established procedure or standard that must be followed by members of society. Policies are used to guide the decisions of an organization or institution, while laws are used to implement justice and order. A policy is informal in nature and is typically a document that states the intentions of an institution, while laws are more formal in nature and are used to offer equity in society, as explained by ETU.
In some cases, policy is used to create new laws, according to ETU. However, current policy must always comply with existing laws. Although these two aspects of society are interrelated, each has a distinct function. Laws are enforced by the penalties of the judicial system and help regulate the actions of members in society. There are several types of laws, which include civil law, criminal law and international law.

www.ask.com...

Key difference: A policy is a document that outlines what a government is going to do and what it can achieve for the society as a whole. A law, on the other hand, is a system of rules passed by the government. Laws must be obeyed by all, including private citizens, groups and companies as well as public figures, organizations and institutions.

www.differencebetween.info...

You are quoting ask.com. Try this:

GENERAL STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
It is the public policy of the Commonwealth that a public servant work for the benefit of the people of the Commonwealth. The Executive Branch Code of Ethics recognizes that public office is a public trust where government is based upon the consent of its citizens. Those citizens are entitled to have complete confidence in the integrity of their government. Thus, the following provisions provide general statements of required behavior of executive branch employees.

Employees must be independent and impartial;
Decisions and policies must not be made outside the established processes of government;
Employees should not use public office to obtain private benefits;
Employees’ actions should promote public confidence in the integrity of government;
Employees should not engage or be involved in any activity which has the potential to become a conflict of interest with their state employment.

The Justice Cabinet is part of the Executive branch and houses the Division of Kentucky State Medical Examiners Office.

Link

ETA: It sounds like you are fine with unethical, as long as it's not illegal. I'm not.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm quoting the difference between policy and law, which you can't seem to grasp. Policy is not the same as law. Policy must follow law, but it doesn't hold the same weight as law, which you can't seem to understand. And you have no idea what I am fine with.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I don't disagree that policy is different than law. I have stated policies are established written practices promulgated for the specific goal of operating according to the law.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

What do you think, ATS members, was there foul play in this tragedy?

We dont know because an autopsy wasnt performed!!

Texas law

Autopsy

Sec. 9. (a) If the cause of death shall be determined beyond a reasonable doubt as a result of the investigation, the medical examiner shall file a report thereof setting forth specifically the cause of death with the district attorney or criminal district attorney, or in a county in which there is no district attorney or criminal district attorney with the county attorney, of the county in which the death occurred. If in the opinion of the medical examiner an autopsy is necessary, or if such is requested by the district attorney or criminal district attorney, or county attorney where there is no district attorney or criminal district attorney, the autopsy shall be immediately performed by the medical examiner or a duly authorized deputy.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt"

"as a result of the investigation"

Just a piss-poor decision by the family and judge in my opinion!

a reply to: theantediluvian

Well that is the case concerning any investigation, there are always a few that you can never satisfy.

Course that number drops considerably when there is an autopsy performed, as well as a proper investigation conducted. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: BlueJacket
Here is something I dont get about the whole appointment process now in play since Scalia's death. Obama and his supporters say he has the consitutional right to appoint immediately, and I agree....YET he didnt seem to feel the constitutional impetus to replace the AG of the State Department during the entirety of the Clinton Secratary tour. I call BS

What exactly are you talking about? What position was vacant?

originally posted by: xuenchen
The issue isn't about whether or not Cinderella could or didn't have to order an autopsy.

The issue is why she didn't.

I wonder if she even knew who Scalia was ?

I remember reading an article about how she was told over the phone that Scalia was dead and she said she "knew immediately who he was" and that "this is history!" I've been looking for that particular article but I can't seem to find it now.

I'm a little confused. When did the owner find Scalia's body? Was it in the morning or was it in the afternoon? I'm reading conflicting reports on this.

I keep thinking about the nature of this 'Private' party...and it's participants.
It seems the utmost care is being taken to protect their anonymity.
An inquest would certainly jeopardize that; just as an autopsy that might lead to an investigation is being avoided, apparently at all costs.

I've heard it speculated, in this thread, that this was some kind of political 'Meet & Greet'...and it was even suggested there may have been occult activity.

I believe this gathering was a meeting of a secret society.
I believe this wealthy, "like-minded"...and anonymous group was probably Masonic in nature.

The number of 'guests' was put at '35' by the host, John Poindexter.
I believe the actual number of 'members' present was '33'.

John Poindexter's family is historically significant, in that he pridefully acknowledges it as being one of the oldest families in America. He is currently in the process of reclaiming his 1600's family lands and estate in Va. The original family home in VA. is one of the oldest still standing buildings in the U.S.
It is not irrational to assume Mr. Poindexter is a Freemason...and probably one of very high ranking.

If I were to venture a guess, I would say Justice Scalia would also have been a Freemason.

There is more...but let's allow this idea sink in...and discuss.

a reply to: WhateverYouSay

Are you kidding me? The Inspector General post, the one that performs ethics over -sights etc...in the State Department, was vacant for the 1st time in history (I believe) during Hillary Clintons time as Secretary of State. Oddly enough 6 billion was never accounted for and at the bare minimum Hillary would of at least SET UP a .gov address.
It was Obamas job to appoint that position too, but it was convenient apparently to leave this highly important post vacant.

Thats what Im talking about

I'll also add this:
It's been speculated that the reason Justice Scalia didn't engage in the hunting trip that day...and left the meeting/dinner early was due to his not feeling well.

Perhaps, Justice Scalia did not agree with what was being discussed and proposed at this meeting...and extricated himself from the process...keeping his distance and leaving the meeting early out of protest.

Could his objections and protest have resulted in him becoming a threat to some proposed course of action agreed upon by this secret society?

Hmmmm. So an angry, 79 year old, sedentary, overweight smoker with a history of heart problems and high blood pressure dies in his sleep but it was Obama who did it? Riiiiight. I call Jiggery-Pokery.

A body being whisked out of Texas happened before. His name was JFK and the president at the time was another Democrat names Lyndon Johnson.

Did Scalia decline U.S. Marshall protection and not bring his son along, because of the secret nature of this private gathering of a very secret society?

Supreme Court Judge Scalia...Freemason?
Interesting short video:
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: IAMTAT

Just cuz I can't help myself...following the your Masonic secret meeting theory..That might account for the unusually ordered manner the body was found in? Ritualistic almost?...Not a wrinkle to be had and his hands clasped across his torso..

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: IAMTAT

Just cuz I can't help myself...following the your Masonic secret meeting theory..That might account for the unusually ordered manner the body was found in? Ritualistic almost?...Not a wrinkle to be had and his hands clasped across his torso..

I asked earlier in this thread about the folded hands and got no answer. What did Poindexter mean by 'his hands were folded across the sheets"? I don't know how a body moves after the heart stops beating. Would that position be maintained, or does it require that someone place his arms and hands in that position?