Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

A 16-year-old suspect has been taken into custody after a knife attack on female students at a school in southern Finland

Three schoolgirls have been injured in a stabbing rampage at a school in the southern Finnish town of Pirkkala. The attack was allegedly carried out by a fellow student, who has been taken into custody.

The incident unfolded early Tuesday, when the suspect, 16, dressed in black, randomly attacked female students in the hallway of the Vahajarvi school in Pirkkala, around 180km (110 miles) north of Helsinki, which has around 1,200 children ranging from preschool age to ninth grade.

The suspect had a camera attached to his body and streamed his attack online, disturbing footage of which made the rounds on social media.

The suspect was taken into custody without incident outside the school within minutes of the attack, local police said in a statement. A bladed weapon was seized.

Police said the victims’ injuries were not considered life-threatening. One of the girls sustained a knife wound to her neck, another was stabbed in the waist, and the third in the hand.

Law enforcement said they have been investigating a written manifesto supposedly published by the suspect ahead of the attack, but did not elaborate on the contents.

Local media reports suggest that the manifesto described the suspect’s intention to attack female students and stated that he had no friends and sought to gain fame through violence. The suspect also said he planned to surrender to police after the attack.

The suspect was reportedly planning the attack for around six months and used ChatGPT in preparation, for reasons that are not immediately clear.

A number of top officials have reacted to the attack. Education Minister Anders Adlercreutz took to X, saying: “all violence in schools is unequivocally condemnable.”

v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} Normal 0 false false false EN-CA X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

Below please find Margaret Dore's expert witness memorandum, prepared for a South Africa court case, Suzanne Walter v. Ministry of Health. See also the comment below from a South African advocate:  

A number of the points made by you are incisive and helpful. I found your interpretation of section 27 of the Constitution particularly useful.... The argument will, amongst others, find its way into the final legal argument before the High Court, and the courts that follow.

To view Dore's original memorandum, click here. To view the memorandum's three-part appendix, click part 1, part 2 and part 3.  

I. INTRODUCTION  

Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act was passed by a citizens initiative in 1994 and went into effect in 1997.[1] The Act was  promoted as limited to physician-assisted suicide, with euthanasia prohibited.[2] The Act, in fact, allows both practices, including on an involuntary basis. 

The Act applies to persons aged 18 and up, predicted to have less than six months to live due to a terminal disease.[3] In practice, such persons may have years or decades to live. 

The Act employs euphemistic language. Consider the word, “medication,” normally meaning a substance to cure or treat a disease or condition.[4] Per the Act, medication instead means a lethal dose to end a person’s life (kill the patient).[5] 

II. DEFINITIONS

    A. Physician-Assisted Suicide; Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia 

The Act does not define physician-assisted suicide, assisted suicide or euthanasia.[6] Per the American Medical Association, physician-assisted suicide occurs when “a physician facilitates a patient’s death by providing the necessary means and/or information to enable the patient to perform the life-ending act.”[7] For example:

Assisted suicide is a general term in which the assisting person is not necessarily a physician.  Euthanasia is the administration of a lethal agent by another person.[9] Euthanasia is also known as mercy killing.[10]

    B. Withholding or Withdrawing Treatment    

Withholding or withdrawing treatment (“pulling the plug”) is not euthanasia if the purpose is to remove burdensome treatment, as opposed to an intent to kill the individual. More importantly, the individual will not necessarily die. Consider this quote regarding a man removed from a ventilator:

III. FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND    
            
    A. Assisting Persons Can Have an Agenda

Persons assisting a suicide or euthanasia can have an agenda. Consider Tammy Sawyer, trustee for Thomas Middleton in Oregon. Two days after his death by legal assisted suicide, she sold his home and deposited the proceeds into bank accounts for her own benefit.[12] Consider also Graham Morant, convicted of counselling his wife to kill herself in Australia, to get the life insurance.[13] The Court found:

Medical professionals too can have an agenda. For an example closer to home, consider US physician, Mike Swango, who worked at the Mnene Lutheran Mission in Zimbabwe.[15] He allegedly poisoned patients to get a thrill.[16] He was eventually convicted of killing four patients in the US.[17] Consider also Harold Shipman, a doctor in the UK, who not only killed his patients, but stole from them and in one case made himself a beneficiary of the patient’s will.[18]

    B. Most US States Reject Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

In the US, 42 states do not allow assisted suicide and/or euthanasia. In 2016, the New Mexico Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision allowing physician aid in dying (meaning physician-assisted suicide).[19] In the last ten years, nine states have strengthened their laws against assisted suicide and/or euthanasia.[20]

    C. The Swiss Study: Assisted Suicide Can Be Traumatic for Family Members

A European research study addressed trauma suffered by persons who witnessed legal physician-assisted suicide in Switzerland.[21] The study found that one out of five family members or friends present at an assisted suicide was traumatized. These people,

experienced full or sub-threshold PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) related to the loss of a close person through assisted suicide.[22]

IV. OREGON’S ACT APPLIES TO PEOPLE WITH YEARS OR DECADES TO LIVE

    A. Chronic Conditions Can Be Sufficient for Death Via the Act
    
Oregon’s Act applies to people with a “terminal disease,” which is defined in terms of having less than six months to live. The Act states:  

In practice, this definition applies to people with chronic conditions such as diabetes, who are dependent on medication such as insulin to live.[24] Oregon doctor, William Toffler, explains:

Dr. Toffler adds:

    B. Doctor Predictions of Life Expectancy Can Be Wrong    

Eligible persons may also have years or decades to live because predictions of life expectancy can be wrong, sometimes way wrong. This is due to misdiagnosis and the fact that predicting life expectancy is not an exact science.[27] 

Consider John Norton, who was diagnosed with ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) at age 18.[28] He was told that he would get progressively worse (be paralyzed) and die in three to five years.[29] Instead, the disease progression stopped on its own.[30] In a 2012 affidavit, at age 74, he states:

    C. Treatment Can Lead to Recovery

Patients may also have years or decades to live because treatment can lead to recovery. Consider Oregon resident, Jeanette Hall, who was diagnosed with cancer in 2000 and made a settled decision to use the Oregon’s Act. Her doctor convinced her to be treated for cancer instead.[32] In a 2019 declaration, she states:

V. HOW THE ACT WORKS
    
The Act has an application process to obtain the lethal dose.”[34] Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight.[35] No doctor, not even a witness, is required to be present at the death.[36]

VI. THE ACT IS STACKED AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL

    A. Even If the Patient Struggled, Who Would Know?

The Act has no required oversight over administration of the lethal dose.[37] The drugs used are water or alcohol soluble, allowing them to be injected into a sleeping or restrained person without consent.[38] Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, puts it this way:

    B. The Act Allows Other People to Communicate on the Patient’s Behalf

The Act’s definition of “capable” allows other people to communicate on the patient’s behalf during the lethal dose request process. Such persons are not required to be the patient’s designated agent, such as a family member or guardian. The communicating person need only be “familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating.” The Act states:

Being familiar with a patient’s manner of communicating is a minimal standard. Consider, for example, a doctor’s assistant who is familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating in Chinese, but the assistant herself does not understand Chinese. That, however, would be good enough for her to communicate (agree to the lethal dose) on the patient’s behalf. Patients are not in control of their fate.

    C. Attending Physician Responsibilities

The Act enumerates responsibilities that the attending physician “shall” perform prior to writing a prescription for the lethal dose.[41] These responsibilities include making a determination as to whether the patient has a terminal disease, is capable and has made the initial determination to obtain the lethal dose voluntarily.[42] The Act however, also features a different message, that the attending physician shall:

The Act does not define “appropriate” or “accordance.”[44] Dictionary definitions of appropriate include “suitable or proper in the circumstances.” Definitions of accordance include “in the spirit of,” meaning “in thought or intention.”[45] 

With this language, the attending physician’s assessment of what is suitable or proper, or had a thought or intention to do, is good enough. 

VII. THE ACT ALLOWS EUTHANASIA AS TRADITIONALLY DEFINED

The Act refers to the lethal dose as “medication.”[46] Generally accepted medical practice allows doctors and family members to administer medication to a patient.[47] When the medication administered is a lethal dose, this is euthanasia as traditionally defined.[48]

VIII. THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT WOULD TRUMP ANY PROHIBITION OF EUTHANASIA

The Americans with Disability Act (ADA) is a US federal civil rights law “that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in every day activities, including medical services.”[49] Here, the Oregon Act describes prescribing the lethal dose as part of a medical practice, which renders it a medical service.[50]

Per the ADA, medical care providers are required “to make their services available in an accessible manner.”[51] This includes:

Here, the fundamental nature of the service is the provision of medication (the lethal dose) to end a patient’s life. If for the purpose of argument, the Oregon Act could somehow be read as requiring self-administration, the ADA would require providers to make a reasonable modification of procedures for individuals unable to self-administer, so as to make the service fully available, for example, by providing the assistance of another person to administer the lethal dose. This is euthanasia as traditionally defined. 

IX. CLINICAL PROBLEMS CAN AND DO LEAD TO EUTHANASIA

In practice, physician-assisted suicide is not always successful to kill patients, which can lead to euthanasia. See, for example, Johanna H. Groenewoud, MD, et. al., “Clinical Problems with the Performance of Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide in the Netherlands,” New England Journal of Medicine, 24 February 2000. 

X. DEATHS ARE “NATURAL” AS A MATTER OF LAW

    A. The Oregon Department of Health Recommends Reporting the Death as Natural

The Oregon Department of Health recommends that deaths per the Death with Dignity Act be reported as “natural.”[53] This result is also required as matter of law, which is explained is in the next section.

    B. The Death Must Be Reported as Natural

Oregon’s death certificate statute has six categories for reporting the manner of death, five of which are substantive: (1) natural; (2) accidental; (3) suicidal; (4) homicidal; and (5) legal intervention.[54] Legal intervention means an execution pursuant to ORS 137.463 (death warrant hearing) and other legal uses of force resulting in death.[55]

Per the Death with Dignity Act, death occurring in accordance with the Act does not constitute suicide or homicide as a matter of law.[56] The death is also not an accident or legal intervention. This leaves natural. The manner of death is natural as a matter of law.

XI. DR. SHIPMAN AND THE CALL FOR DEATH CERTIFICATE REFORM

Per a 2005 article in the UK’s Guardian newspaper, there was a public inquiry regarding Dr. Shipman’s conduct, which determined that he had “killed at least 250 of his patients over 23 years.”[57] The inquiry also found:

Per a subsequent article in 2015, proposed reforms included having a medical examiner review death certificates, so as to improve patient safety.[59] Oregon instead has moved in the opposite direction to require that deaths be reported as natural.

XII. OREGON RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN RENDERED SITTING DUCKS TO THEIR HEIRS AND OTHER PREDATORS

Per Oregon inheritance law, a “slayer” of the decedent is not allowed to inherit from a person that he or she kills.[60] The rational is that a criminal should not be allowed to benefit from his or her crime.[61]  Under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, however, a person who intentionally kills another person is allowed to inherit. This is due to the death being certified as natural.

With the passage of the Act, Oregon residents with money, meaning the middle class and above, have been rendered sitting ducks to their heirs and other financial predators.

XIII. ANN JACKSON’S TESTIMONY MUST BE DISALLOWED

    A. No Claimed Legal Training

I have been provided with the following documents regarding Ms. Jackson’s opinion as to the Oregon Death with Dignity Act:  

    (1) Sheena Swemmer, Centre for Applied Legal Studies’ Summary Notice in Terms of Rule 36(9)(b), 20 April 2020 (CALS 9, attached in the appendix at pages 66 to 82);

    (2) Ann Jackson, M.B.A., Bio Curriculum Vitae, 19 May 2019 (CALS 3, attached in the appendix at pages at 84 to 97); and  

    (3) Ann Jackson, “Supporting Affidavit,” 23 February 2016, submitted in Minister of Justice and Correctional Service and Others v Estate Late James Stransham-Ford  (531/2015) (CALS 2, attached at pages 98 to 126) (Emphasis added).

All three documents describe Ms. Jackson’s education as: (1) “Bachelor of Science, Elementary Education,” and (2) “Master of “Business Administration, Not-for-Profit Management.” 

Per these documents, Ms. Jackson makes no claim to legal training and/or as to being qualified to give a legal opinion regarding Oregon’s Act. 

    B. Oregon’s Act Does Not Require Self-Administration

Ms. Jackson’s supporting affidavit says that the patient "must be able to self-administer [the lethal dose]."[62] 

CALS makes a similar representation, stating:

There is no such requirement in Oregon’s Act.[64] Indeed, the Act does not and has never used the term, “self-administer.” A proposal to add the term in 2019 failed.[65] Ms. Jackson’s purported expert opinion, claiming that the Act requires self-administration, which has now been endorsed by CALS, is false and must be disallowed. 

    C. The Act Is Not Limited to Dying People

Ms. Jackson’s affidavit describes Oregon’s Act as having legalised “physician-assisted dying.”[66]  Indeed, her affidavit uses the term at least 10 times.[67] CALS’ Summary Notice similarly describes the Act as having to do with dying, i.e., by repeatedly using the term “medical aid-in-dying.”[68]

The Oregon Act, itself, does not use the word “dying.”[69] More importantly, the Act instead has a six months to live criteria, which in practice applies to people with years or decades to live.[70] Ms. Jackson’s affidavit and the CALS’ Summary Notice, both of which repeatedly imply that the Act is limited to dying people, are materially misleading. For this reason also, Ms. Jackson’s opinion and the CALS document are false and misleading and must be disallowed.

    D. Misreading the Act

Ms. Jackson’s supporting affidavit states that patients can “only” be prescribed the lethal dose “after meeting with a number of legal safeguards,” which include:

      b. The patient must be mentally competent; and     
    
      c. The patient must be diagnosed with a terminal illness or condition that will lead to their death within 6 months.

The Act, in fact, uses different terminology. Patients are described as “capable,” not “competent.” Moreover, as discussed supra, capable is a specially defined term, allowing another person to speak for the patient during the lethal dose request process.
    
XIV.  THE PROPOSED RIGHT TO DIE

    A. Overview

The Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) seeks to establish a “right to die” in South Africa. If granted, the right will allow the non-voluntary killing of South African persons. For this reason alone, the proposed right must be rejected and the case dismissed. 

    B.  The Proposed Right to Die must Be Rejected

        1. Establishing a right to die will lead to involuntary killing, which is unconstitutional

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Chapter 2, sets forth a Bill of Rights, including Section 11, titled “Life.” The section simply states:  “Everyone has the right to life.” 

Consistent therewith, the Republic of South Africa supports suicide prevention efforts, to preserve life.[71] Indeed, the South Africa Mental Health Care Act allows the non-voluntary commitment of suicidal individuals, to prevent their suicides.[72] CALS instead wants to establish a right to die. In 2016, the Supreme Court of New Mexico (USA) addressed the practical consequence of such a right, that it would lead to involuntary euthanasia. The Court stated:

For this reason alone, the proposed right to die must be rejected.  

         2. Section 27 of the South Africa Constitution, providing a right to health care services, does not support a right to die

Z v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (13472) [2014] ZATC 2 (18 November 2014), states:

CALS argues that denial of the right to die is an unjustifiable limitation on the right to health set forth in Section 27 of the South Africa Constitution, titled “Health Care, Food, Water and Social Security.”[74]  Section 27(1) states:

Per the above rule of construction, the general phrase in subsection (a), “health care services, including reproductive health care,” must be restricted to a sense analogous to the less general terms in subsections (b) and (c), both of which support life, i.e., through “sufficient food and water” and “social security, including ... appropriate social assistance.”

More to the point, Section 27 is concerned with promoting life, not death. For this reason, Section 27 cannot somehow be read as promoting the claimed right to die. For this reason also, the proposed right to die must fail.

XV. CONCLUSION

In the event this court recognizes the proposed right to die, the right will necessarily include involuntary euthanasia. This will similarly be true in the event this court would order the adoption of an Oregon-style Death with Dignity Act.

Assisting persons, including doctors and family members, can have an agenda, with the more obvious reasons being inheritance and life insurance, but also, as in the case of Dr. Swango, the thrill of seeing someone die. 

I urge you to reject the proposed right to die. 

            Dated this 29th day of January 2021,

            Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

Endnotes: 

To view original memo, click here. To view the memo's appendix, click Part 1 pages 1-43, Part 2 to page 84 and Part 3 to page 126. 

[1]  “Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act: The First Year’s Experience,” 18 February 1999, excerpts attached at appendix pages 1 to 3.  Information about the initiative is attached at page 3. 

[2]  Appendix page 3, third paragraph, last sentence.

[3]  Appendix pages 4 to 13. 

[4]  See “What is Medication?,” appendix page 14.

[5]  See the Act: “Written Request for Medication to End One’s Life ....,” at  appendix page 5.

[6]  See the Act in its entirety, appendix pages 4 to 13.

[7]  The AMA Code of Medical Ethics, Opinion 5.7, appendix page 15.

[8]  Id.

[9]  The AMA Code of Medical Ethics, Opinion 5.8, appendix page 16.

[10] See mercy killing definition, appendix page 17.

[11] Nina Shapiro, “Terminal Uncertainty — Washington's new 'Death with Dignity' law allows doctors to help people commit suicide — once they've determined that the patient has only six months to live.  But what if they're wrong?,” The Seattle Weekly, 13 January 2009; in the appendix, beginning at page 18; quote at appendix page 20.

[12] "Sawyer Arraigned on State Fraud Charges," KTVZ.COM, 07 September 2011, appendix page 22.

[13] R v Morant [2018] QSC 251, Order, 2 November 2018, excerpts available at appendix pages 23 and 24. Full opinion available here: https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2018/QSC18-251.pdf 

[14] Id. at appendix page 24, ¶ 78. 

[15] Joseph Geringer, “Michael Swango: Doctor of Death,” Crime Library on truTV.com, 27 June 1997, posted https://www.davidcoltart.com/1997/06/michael-swango-doctor-of-death

[16] Id. 

[17] Cf. Charlie Leduff, “Prosecutors Say Doctor Killed to Feel a Thrill,” The New York Times, 7 Sept 2000, appendix pages 25 to 27, https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/ny-times-killed-to-feel-a-thrill-1.pdf (“Basically, Dr. Swango liked to kill people.  By his own admission in his diary, he killed because it thrilled him.”) 

[18] David Batty, “Q & A: Harold Shipman,” The Guardian, 25 August 2005, at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/aug/25/health.shipman and appendix pages 28 to 30.

[19] Morris v, Brandenburg, 376 P.3d 836 (2016).

[20] Margaret Dore, “U.S. States Strengthen Their Laws Against Assisted Suicide, April 2, 2019, appendix page 31.

[21] “Death by request in Switzerland: Posttraumatic stress disorder and complicated grief after witnessing assisted suicide,” B. Wagner, J. Muller, A. Maercker; European Psychiatry 27 (2012) 542-546, available at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/family-members-traumatized-eur-psych-2012.pdf  

[22] Id.

[23] Or. Rev. Stat. 127.800 §1.01(12), appendix page 5.

[24] See excerpt from Oregon’s annual report for year 2019 (listing “diabetes” as an underlying illness sufficient for death via the Act). Available at appendix page 34.

[25] Declaration of William Toffler, MD, 20 April 2017, appendix pages 35 to 39; the quote is set forth at appendix page 36, ¶ 5.

[26] Id., ¶ 6. 

[27] Cf. Jessica Firger, “12 million Americans misdiagnosed each year,” CBS NEWS, 17 April 2014, attached hereto at appendix page-40; and Nina Shapiro, “Terminal Uncertainty — Washington's new 'Death with Dignity' law allows doctors to help people commit suicide — once they've determined that the patient has only six months to live. But what if they're wrong?,” The Seattle Weekly, 14 January 2009.  (Excerpts available at appendix pages 18 to 21).

[28] Affidavit of John Norton, ¶ 1 (Attached hereto at appendix pages 41-43).

[29] Id., ¶ 1.

[30] Id., ¶ 4.

[31] Id., ¶ 5.

[32] Declaration of Kenneth Stevens, MD, appendix pages 44 to 46; Jeanette Hall discussed at 44 and 45.  Hall declaration available at appendix page 47. 

[33] Attached hereto at appendix page 47.

[34] The Act, 127.805 § 201 to 127.860 § 310, at appendix pages 5 through 8.

[35] See the Act in its entirety, at appendix pages 4 to 13.

[36] Id.

[37] See the Act in its entirety, at appendix pages 4 through 13.

[38] See Oregon report excerpt at appendix page 48 (listing Secobarbital and Phenobarbital as drugs used to kill patients in Oregon). Per Drugs.com, Secobarbital is both water and alcohol soluble, while Phenobarbital is soluble in alcohol. Supporting documentation in appendix pages 49 and 50.

[39] Alex Schadenberg, Letter to the Editor, “Elder abuse a growing problem,” The Advocate, Official Publication of the Idaho State Bar, October 2010.

[40] The Act, Section 1, 127.800 § 1.01(3), at appendix page 4.

[41] See the Act, Section 3, attached at appendix page 6.

[42] Id., 127.815 § 3.01(1)(a) 

[43] The Act, Section 3, 127.815 § 3.01 (1)(k), appendix page 6. 

[44] See the Act in its entirety, appendix pages 4 to 13.

[45] Definitions attached at appendix pages 51 and 52.

[46] See, for example, the Act, 127.805 § 2.01 (describing “medication” as being “for the purpose of ending [the patient’s] life”). Appendix page 5. 

[47] Declaration of Kenneth Stevens, MD, 6 January 2016, ¶¶ 9-10, appendix page 46.

[48] Cf. AMA Code of Medical Ethics, Opinion 5.8, appendix page 16 (“Euthanasia is the administration of a lethal agent by another person”).

[49] U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Americans with Disabilities Act: Access to Medical Care for Individuals with Mobility Disabilities,” July 2010, excerpts at appendix pages 53 and 54.  Also available at https://www.ada.gov/medcare_mobility_ta/medcare_ta.htm 

[50] See the Oregon Act, located at appendix pages 4 to 13.

[51] U.S. Department of Justice, supra, attached hereto at appendix page 54.

[52] Id.

[53] See Oregon Health Authority website FAQ, as of 24/01/21 (stating: “The Oregon Health Authority, Center for Health Statistics recommends that physicians record the underlying terminal disease as the cause of death and mark the manner of death ‘natural.’”), available at https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONRESEARCH/DEATHWITHDIGNITYACT/Pages/faqs.aspx#deathcert 

[54] OR Rev Stat § 146.003, appendix page 57.

[55] Id.

[56] The Act, 127.880 § 3.14 states:
    
        Actions taken in accordance with [the Act] shall not, for any            purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or            homicide, under the law. (Emphasis added)

[57] David Batty, “Q & A: Harold Shipman,” The Guardian, 08/25/05, at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/aug/25/health.shipman. (Attached hereto in the appendix at pages 58 to 60). 

[58] Id., appendix page 60.

[59] Press Association, “Death Certificate Reform Delays ‘Incomprehensible,” The Guardian, 21 January 2015, appendix pages 61 and 62.

[60] ORS 112.465, “Slayer or abuser considered to predecease decedent,” copy available at appendix page 63.

[61] Cf. Ilene S. Cooper and Jaclene D'Agostino, "Forfeiture and New York's 'Slayer Rule', NYSBA Journal, March/April 2015 

[62] CALS 2, appendix pages 105 to 106, paragraph 23. 

[63] CALS 9 Summary Notice, page 9, ¶ 3.3.6.7

[64] See Oregon’s Act in its entirety

[65] Oregon House Bill 2232 (2019), available at https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2232/Introduced   

[66] Supporting Affidavit of Ann Jackson, pp 1 to 15, appendix page 98 through page 112.

[67] Id.

[68] See CALS Summary Notice at pp. 2-5.

[69] Do a word search, it’s not there.

[70] See Dore Memo submitted herewith.

[71] See e.g., South Africa Government Newsroom Release, promoting “World Suicide Prevention Day,” issued 10 September 2020. 

[72] https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2002-017_mentalhealthcare.pdf

[73] Morris v. Brandenburg, 376 P.3d 836, 838-839 (2016)

[74] Sheena Justine Swemmer, CALS, Founding Affidavit Application to Adduce Evidence, ¶¶ 15.5 to 15.8.

[75] The Constitution can be viewed in its entirety, at this link: https://justice.gov.za/legislation/constitution/SAConstitution-web-eng.pdf

The problems occurred after Telefonica attempted a network upgrade

Spain has been hit by a widespread communications outage, just weeks after a major power blackout affected the entire Iberian Peninsula. The network failure occurred due to an update by the telecommunications company Telefonica, which disrupted emergency services, landlines, and internet.

The outage, which began early Tuesday, affected regions including Madrid, Catalonia, Valencia, Andalusia, Aragon, and the Basque Country. In several areas, access to the 112 emergency hotline was interrupted, prompting the local authorities to provide alternative contact numbers for emergency services.

Telefonica, Spain’s largest telecom provider, confirmed that it did “some network upgrade work which has affected some companies’ fixed communication services (voice and internet).” The company said the affected systems were isolated and service teams were deployed to restore operations.

According to Telefonica, the origin of these problems stemmed from the network upgrade work, and access to services was “fully restored” by 12:30pm.

The Ministry for Digital Transformation said it was in contact with Telefonica throughout the day and requested a detailed report on the incident.

The disruption comes less than a month after a widespread power outage struck Spain and Portugal on April 28, affecting transport networks, telecommunications, and public infrastructure. The cause of the blackout is still under investigation, though preliminary assessments suggest a voltage anomaly led to automatic safety disconnections.

On Tuesday, Spanish Energy Minister Sara Aagesen said Madrid found no evidence that the blackout was caused by a cyberattack on power generation control centers.

 St. Peter’s Square is prepared for tremendous crowds at Pope Leo XIV Wednesday audience. During the reign of Pope Francis, there usually were chairs only in the first section and maybe a few in the second, but never were there chairs in the third section all the way past the obelisk! 

This is a screen shot I just took from the Vatican YouTube live feed:

Donald Trump is refusing to follow the Zelensky/European script for trapping Russia. The leaders of the UK, France, Germany and Poland made a desperate effort to get Trump to demand to Russia accept an unconditional, 30-day ceasefire, or face a new round of bone-crushing sanctions. Zelensky, like the trained monkey he is, repeated this mantra. Trump did not take the bait.

Presidents Trump and Putin spoke for about two hours on Monday (May 19). Trump used a big tube of lipstick to describe the conversation. President Trump characterized the conversation as “excellent,” announcing that Russia and Ukraine will “immediately” begin negotiations toward a ceasefire and an end to the war. He proposed the Vatican as a potential host for these talks and indicated that the US would not mediate, asserting that only the two countries understand the nuances of the conflict.

The Kremlin provided a more accurate account. According to the Kremlin’s readout, Putin described the call as “frank and substantive,” expressing Russia’s readiness to work with Ukraine on drafting a memorandum for future peace talks. However, he declined to support the US-proposed 30-day unconditional ceasefire, emphasizing that any ceasefire would require prior agreement on various unresolved issues.

Putin reiterated Russia’s core demands, including the demilitarization of Ukraine and limitations on Western influence, stating that these objectives remain unchanged. He suggested that a ceasefire could only be possible if numerous open questions are addressed beforehand.

In other words, Putin did not budge one inch in the Russian position he presented on 14 June 2024. This is consistent with Russia’s presentation to the Ukrainian delegation last Friday in Istanbul. Russia’s lead negotiator, Vladimir Medinsky, asserted that negotiations could proceed concurrently with ongoing military operations. He emphasized that Russia was prepared to continue the conflict for as long as necessary to achieve its objectives, referencing historical precedents such as the Great Northern War, which lasted 21 years. Medinsky reportedly stated, “We are ready to fight forever,” highlighting Russia’s readiness for a prolonged conflict.

Medinsky is not gaslighting. His words reflect the thinking of Putin and the Russian General Staff. The unanswered question is whether or not Trump and his national security team understand that Russia is not staking out a faux negotiation posture… i.e., presenting a tough demand, but are willing to make concessions? The answer is, NO!

Reprinted with permission from Sonar21.

Law enforcement is overstretched under the new rules, a representative has said

Germany’s new border crackdown can only be sustained for “a few more weeks,” the country’s police union has warned, citing mounting pressure on officers tasked with enforcing the policy.

The warning comes two weeks after the government introduced stricter border controls to curb the number of asylum seekers entering the country.

”We can only manage this because duty rosters have been adjusted, training for the units is currently on hold, and the reduction of overtime has been halted,” Andreas Rosskopf, chairman of the Federal Police and Customs division of the German Police Union, said. He warned that the controls can only be sustained “for a few more weeks.”

The measures represent a major shift in Germany’s migration stance and fulfill a key campaign promise of Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who vowed to tighten the immigration laws.

The May 7 order from Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt bans asylum applications at all land borders, reversing former Chancellor Angela Merkel’s 2015 open-border policy. Exceptions are made for children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable groups. Up to 3,000 officers are being added to the 11,000 already stationed at Germany’s borders.

The 2015 policy defined Germany’s approach to refugees, while also drawing fierce political backlash, with critics calling it “disastrous.”

A week after the measures were announced, Dobrindt claimed that the number of rejections increased by almost a half. However, according to Der Spiegel, the number of asylum applications remained largely stable in the week after May 7.

As the EU’s largest economy, Germany has been the most popular destination for asylum seekers. According to official statistics, foreigners currently make up 17% of the country’s population.

Migration remains a polarizing issue, with local authorities often warning that the number of asylum seekers is straining their budgets.

READ MORE: German spies grant AfD reprieve

The right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which is known for its strong anti-immigration stance, was designated a “confirmed extremist entity” earlier this month by the domestic intelligence agency (BfV), which said its activities could threaten Germany’s democratic order. The designation was later suspended after legal appeals and public outcry.

Catholic University of America (CUA) recognized Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., with an honorary degree on May 17 for his commitment to the rights of the unborn.

Catholic University also noted that Smith has authored legislation to prevent human rights violations, such as the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000.

In a speech at the CUA Honorees Dinner the prior evening, Smith thanked the university for the degree. He also celebrated the election and inauguration of Pope Leo XIV as the first American pope.

“The renewed hope and well-founded expectations are remarkable,” he stated. “Apart from the Holy Spirit, who saw that coming?”

Speaking in Father O’Connell Hall — named after the Bishop David O’Connell of Trenton, New Jersey, whom Smith called “the extraordinarily effective, wise and holy” shepherd of his own diocese — the congressman reflected on his decades of advocacy rooted in Catholic conviction and moral clarity.

“Protection of human rights is the core motivator for my service in Congress and it begins with the right to life,” Smith said. “Stopping the violence of abortion is what led me to run for the House, with the complete support of my dear wife Marie.”

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

Smith traced his political calling to his college years, where he and Marie co-founded a pro-life student group that would help pave the way for today’s Students for Life.

“She has been a powerful, talented and incredibly wise, faith-filled pro-life leader,” he said of Marie, who was unable to attend due to illness.

He praised her for her decades of international advocacy, including service with Holy See delegations to the United Nations and her founding of the Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues.

Even amid global suffering, from forced abortion in China to modern-day slavery and organ trafficking, Smith’s message focused on unwavering Christian hope.

“We are a people of indomitable hope—we absolutely refuse to entertain discouragement or defeat,” he said.

Bishop James Su Zhihim, part of China’s Underground Church, is an example of this hope, according to Smith.

Even after enduring decades of torture, Bishop Su still prayed for his captors, Smith noted: “An awe-inspiring example of faithfulness to Jesus’ teaching in the Gospel from Luke: ‘To you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.’”

Smith spoke of his continued work to expose and end human rights atrocities. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 has led to more than 2,225 convictions.

“The TVPA created a new, well-funded whole-of-government domestic and international strategy,” he stated, “and established numerous new programs to protect victims, prosecute traffickers and to the extent possible, prevent human trafficking in the first place.”

His latest legislation, the Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2025, targets what he called “the worldwide barbaric practice of murdering victims to steal their vital organs.”

“Each year, tens of thousands of young victims, perhaps more — average age 28 — are slaughtered by the Chinese Communist Party for their organs,” he explained.

Ethnic and religious minorities like Uyghurs and Falun Gong practitioners are disproportionately targeted in what he called  “a genocide for profit.”

Smith implored Catholic University, and, in particular, the Center for Human Rights, to raise up moral leaders in a world aching for justice who will put an end to these atrocities and protect victims.

Quoting Christ in Matthew 25:45, he offered a reminder that anchored his entire speech: “Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”

LifeNews Note: Grace Porto writes for CatholicVote, where this column originally appeared.

The post Catholic University Gives Amazing Pro-Life Congressman Chris Smith an Honorary Degree appeared first on LifeNews.com.

President Donald Trump has warned that placing further economic pressure on Moscow could hinder peace efforts

The EU and UK imposed new sanctions on Russia on Tuesday, escalating their campaign to pressure Moscow while ramping up support for Kiev.

The sanctions were announced shortly after a call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump. Following the conversation, Trump warned that imposing additional economic restrictions on Moscow could hinder efforts to achieve peace in the Ukraine conflict.

The European Council, comprising leaders of EU member states and top officials, approved the bloc’s 17th round of sanctions, targeting what foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas called “nearly 200 shadow fleet ships.” Kallas, a vocal critic of Moscow, stated that further measures “are in the works” in Brussels.

Western officials claim that the targeted fleet enables Russia to evade G7-led efforts to enforce a price cap on its crude oil exports. In a coordinated move, the UK added 18 vessels from the same network to its sanctions list on Tuesday.

In addition, the UK imposed sanctions on the St. Petersburg Currency Exchange and Russia’s state deposit insurance agency, citing efforts to sever critical financial lifelines. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the measures are intended to hold Putin accountable for supposedly “delaying peace efforts.”

Last week, delegations from Russia and Ukraine met for the first time since 2022, when Kiev abandoned negotiations in favor of pursuing victory on the battlefield, as advised by the then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

European backers of Ukraine initially supported Kiev’s demand for a 30-day unconditional ceasefire before resuming talks, and threatened additional sanctions if Russia refused. Zelensky later backtracked after the Trump administration supported Putin’s proposal for renewed diplomatic engagement.

Zelensky insisted, however, that Putin meet him in person in Türkiye to demonstrate his commitment to peace – an idea that the Russian president had not proposed. Ukrainian officials continue to call for expanded sanctions over what they describe as Moscow’s non-compliance with peace overtures.

READ MORE: No deadline set for Ukraine peace memorandum – Kremlin

The Putin-Trump call on Monday was characterized as productive by both leaders. Trump said he believes Putin is interested in ending the conflict and warned that additional economic pressure could obstruct US mediation efforts.

Putin has said Moscow and Kiev should negotiate a formal memorandum outlining a detailed path to a broader peace agreement, adding that a ceasefire could be part of the proposed road map.

Everyone was wondering if the next Pope would take the name Francis II. Now that this has not happened, we are all wondering how Pope Leo will deal with the legacy of his controversial predecessor. Yesterday Pope Leo made an address “to representatives of other churches and ecclesial communities and other religions” who had attended his inuguration Mass on Sunday. (The term “churches” is used for…

Source

Here's a difficult question: Which of these two groups is celebrated for the entire month of June and which is largely forgotten except for about 30 seconds while people grill a hamburger or a hot dog?

"The nation which forgets its defenders will be itself forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge 

"Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men have died to win them." —Franklin D. Roosevelt

This is Catholic orthodoxy:

1. It is orthodox to embrace all the social teachings of the Church, especially those in papal enclyicals like Pope Leo XIII! 

2. It is orthodox to allow migrants and those persecuted in their own countries to have access to countries when they can be safe and provide a standard quality of life for them and their families.

3. It is orthodox for countries to have laws that protect the integrity of their borders and allow controlled immigration verses an invasion of all kinds of people, even those with criminal records of violent crimes.

4. It is orthodox to ask secular governments who have allowed unbridled immigration to treat with respect and due process those who came in because the government allowed illegal immigration. It is orthodox to ask secular governments to allow those who have contributed to their new communities, are otherwise law abiding to have a way to be made regular without deportation.

5. It is orthodox to have a concern for the poor and marginalized and to promote the Church’s sexual morality without being mean spirited toward those who fail to follow Church teachings. 

6. It is orthodox to crack down on bad and immodest behaviors in the Church by those who practice disordered sexual preferences by flaunting it and demanding that they be included in the Church’s public worship while committed sacrilege and insults toward our Lord and then toward orthodox Catholics present for prayer and the liturgies of the Church. It is orthodox to demand proper and modest dress in church according to the cultural norms concerning the only two biological genders male and female.

7. It is orthodox for a Catholic to prefer the TLM and its ancillary sacramental liturgies.

8. It is orthodox to prefer a rubrical correct Modern Vernacular Mass and its ancillary liturgies

9. It is orthodox to allow both forms of the one Roman Rite to co-exist in the same parish

10. It is orthodox to reject an ecclesiology that becomes a false god and obfuscates Christ by placing human elements of organization and who does what above an experience of the Risen Lord

11. It is orthodox to reject the deification of any Council of the Church or any Pope making these a false god

12. It is orthodox to develop pastoral theologies that assist pastors and others who minister to people who are in broken and dysfunctional lives and relationships as long as these are within the internal forum 

13. Synodality is orthodox when it is relegated to the Faith, Morals and Canon laws of the Church and doesn’t become a false god that elevates walking together while neglecting the one who leads us, Jesus  the Risen Lord. 

I can go on and on!

Hillary Endorses White Replacement

Paul Craig Roberts

In a recent speech to a Democrat audience Hillary Clinton reaffirms that it is Democrat Party Policy to Replace White Americans with Immigrant-invaders. Hillary blasted the Trump regime’s emphasis on “return to the family, the nuclear family, return to being a Christian nation, return to producing a lot of children.”  It is all a dastardly right-wing trick to take away women’s rights to have careers instead of children.  Having children, she said is the function of immigrant-invaders, not of white women.

She told the Democrat audience that “this very blatant effort to basically send a message most exemplified by Vance and Musk, and others, that, you know, what we really need from you women are more children. And what that really means is you should go back to doing what you were born to do, which is to produce more children.”  Now that feminists have taught women to take over the male role, here are the vile Trump Republicans trying to roll back the liberation of women from the home and children.

The question is, where can an American male find a female life partner? That is not what an indoctrinated feminist wants to be.  She wants to be independent, not constrained by a supportive relationship. Perhaps white American males can find wives among the female immigrant-invaders.  The resulting miscegenation destroys both races, thus the result is to eliminate diversity.  Funny, isn’t it, that the dumbshit liberal-left is so stupid that they don’t realize that the result of multiculturalism is the elimination of racial diversity.

Hillary, in her unbridled ignorance, actually said that unlike Europe, America’s welcoming of immigrant-invaders has caused our economy  to do “so much better than comparable advanced economies across the world.” Hillary says, “we actually had a replenishment, because we had a lot of immigrants, legally and undocumented, who had, you know, larger than normal by American standards, families.”

Does Hillary not know that all of Europe and the formerly British are overrun with immigrant invaders, and that these invaders are protected by the EU and UK governments?  So what is the basis of Hillary’s claim that the US, unlike “comparable advanced economies,” is the beneficiary of illegal immigration?

Don’t ask the stupid Hillary.  She doesn’t know.

Will the morons who vote Democrat notice these revelations? Are they willing to turn their country over to immigrant-invaders in exchange for the right of white women to appropriate the male role?

It is absolutely clear that the achievement of feminism will be the elimination of white ethnicities. Already corporate advertisers are pushing miscegenation.  Seldom do you see a white family in a corporate ad.  Miscegenation is a two-edged sword.  It replaces both races with a new rootless being without a race, a history, and a culture.

America is being erased, both whites and blacks, but Americans are too insouciant to notice.

https://thepostmillennial.com/hillary-clinton-criticizes-pro-birth-policies-says-immigrants-are-key-to-us-growth 

The Hungarian parliament has approved a bill that enacts the withdrawal process

Hungary's parliament has approved a bill initiating the country’s formal withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC). The move advances Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s push to exit what his government has labeled a biased and discredited institution.

The National Assembly passed the legislation on Tuesday with 134 votes in favor, 37 against, and seven abstentions. The vote follows a decision in late April in which lawmakers agreed in principle to leave the ICC.

”Hungary firmly rejects the use of international organizations – in particular criminal courts – as political instruments,” read the bill published on parliament's website.

Hungary joined the ICC by signing the Rome Statute in 1999 and ratifying it in 2001. However, according to Orban, the country “has always been half-hearted” in its membership.

Orban announced the plan to quit The Hague-based institution last month during a state visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The ICC previously issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, alongside three Hamas leaders in November, over alleged war crimes in Gaza.

Orban accused the ICC of losing its impartiality and becoming a “political tribunal,” assuring Netanyahu that the court’s actions “will have no effect in Hungary.” The Israeli prime minister praised Hungary’s “bold and principled” stance against the “corrupt” court.

The ICC’s jurisdiction is currently recognized by 123 countries. Among the non-signatories are the US, Russia, China, and Israel. The court does not have its own police force and relies on member-states to detain and transfer suspects.

In February, the administration of US President Donald Trump sanctioned the ICC and its top prosecutor, Karim Khan, for going after Netanyahu and Gallant.

Earlier this month, Khan took a leave of absence amid a UN investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct.

READ MORE: Timing of sexual misconduct allegations against ICC prosecutor ‘suspicious’ – analyst (VIDEO)

In 2023, the court also issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and children’s rights commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova, accusing them of unlawfully deporting children from former Ukrainian territories. Moscow rejected the charges as “null and void,” insisting the children were evacuated from conflict zones for their safety and could be returned to their families upon request.

According to the terms of the Rome Statute, Budapest must notify the UN secretary-general of its intent to withdraw, and the decision would then take effect one year later.

The measures advocated by the EU could make the chances of settling the Ukraine conflict “much worse,” the US president has said

The US does not want to impose further sanctions on Russia “because there’s a chance” of progress towards a settlement of the Ukraine conflict, President Donald Trump said on Monday.

The remarks followed a two-hour phone conversation earlier in the day with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In a post on Truth Social following the call, Trump wrote that the tone and spirit of the conversation were “excellent.” Putin described the discussion as “very useful.”

Speaking to reporters at the White House shortly after the call, Trump suggested that he is opposed to ramping up the sanctions on Russia.

“Because I think there’s a chance of getting something done, and if you do that, you could also make it much worse,” the president said in the Oval Office, according to CNN. “But there could be a time where that’s going to happen,” he added.

Trump also stated that immediately after his call with the Russian president, he relayed the details of their conversation to Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, along with the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Finland, and the European Commission.

According to the Financial Times, EU leaders were “stunned” by Trump’s portrayal of what had been agreed to during the conversation. A source familiar with the call told the outlet it is evident that the US president is “not ready to put greater pressure” on Putin.

The EU is pushing to dramatically tighten the sanctions in order to compel Putin to end the Ukraine conflict.

EU ambassadors approved the 17th package of sanctions against Russia last week, targeting nearly 200 oil tankers that the West claims are part of a Russian ‘shadow fleet’.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said the US and EU must “go further” and impose “devastating sanctions” to “suffocate” the Russian economy “once and for all.”

The push has been encouraged by US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who proposed what he called “bone-crushing” sanctions, including 500% tariffs on exports from Russia if it resists peace talks.

Russia remains committed to seeking a long-term solution to the Ukraine conflict but will not tolerate being addressed in the “language of ultimatums,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said last week. He has also stated that Russia is accustomed to Western pressure and is not concerned about new sanctions.

The FIRE movement—short for Financial Independence, Retire Early—has gained popularity among those who want more control over their time and financial future. Unlike traditional retirement models, FIRE encourages aggressive saving and disciplined financial planning to reach financial independence far earlier than the typical retirement age.

Whether you dream of leaving the 9-to-5 grind in your 40s or simply want to build more freedom into your life, understanding the FIRE retirement strategy and how to build a financial independence plan is essential.

What Is the FIRE Movement?

FIRE is built on a simple but powerful concept: if you save and invest a significant portion of your income, you can build enough wealth to live off your investments and retire decades earlier than traditional timelines suggest.

While not everyone pursuing FIRE wants to stop working entirely, many aim to reach a point where work becomes optional. This flexibility offers the freedom to pursue passion projects, travel, spend time with family, or transition to part-time work.

There are several variations of FIRE, including:

• Lean FIRE – living frugally on a smaller budget
• Fat FIRE – maintaining a more traditional or higher-cost lifestyle
• Barista FIRE – reaching partial financial independence while working part-time or freelance jobs to cover essentials

Strategies to Achieve FIRE

Aggressive Saving

FIRE enthusiasts typically aim to save 50%–70% of their income. While this level of saving isn’t feasible for everyone, the principle is to live well below your means and prioritize long-term freedom over short-term spending.

Some methods to boost savings include:

• Downsizing housing and transportation
• Cutting non-essential spending
• Increasing income through side hustles or career growth
• Automating contributions to savings and investment accounts

Smart Investing

To grow your savings quickly, investing is a cornerstone of any financial independence plan. FIRE strategies often rely on a mix of:

• Low-cost index funds and ETFs
• Tax-advantaged accounts like 401(k)s, IRAs, and HSAs
• Taxable brokerage accounts for flexible, early access

A key part of FIRE is letting compound growth work in your favor by investing early and consistently.

Frugal Living

Living below your means is essential in both the accumulation and post-retirement phases of FIRE. This doesn’t mean deprivation—it means aligning your spending with your values and eliminating excess.

Building habits around intentional spending, budgeting, and avoiding lifestyle inflation can help sustain your plan long after you’ve reached financial independence.

How Much Do You Need to Achieve FIRE?

One of the most common benchmarks in the FIRE community is the 4% rule, which suggests that you can safely withdraw 4% of your investment portfolio annually to cover living expenses without running out of money.

To calculate your FIRE number:

Annual Expenses x 25 = Target FIRE Portfolio

For example, if you plan to spend $50,000 per year, you’ll need a $1.25 million portfolio.

However, it’s important to adjust this number based on:

• Market volatility
• Healthcare costs
• Taxes
• Lifestyle changes
• Inflation

Creating a Withdrawal Strategy

Once you’ve reached your FIRE number, having a sustainable withdrawal plan is essential to ensure long-term financial stability. A few things to consider:

• Use taxable accounts first to bridge the gap until you can access retirement accounts penalty-free.
• Roth conversion ladders can help access retirement savings earlier while managing taxes.
• Flexible withdrawals allow you to adjust spending during market downturns or periods of low returns.

Working with a fiduciary advisor can help tailor a withdrawal strategy that supports your lifestyle and protects your nest egg.

Ready to Build Your Financial Independence Plan?

Achieving FIRE takes discipline, strategy, and a clear plan. Whether you’re just getting started or looking to refine your path, working with a trusted financial advisor can make the difference between dreaming about financial independence and living it.

Contact RIA Advisors today to schedule a personalized consultation and build a financial independence plan designed for your goals.

FAQs

How do I know if FIRE is right for me?

FIRE is ideal for individuals who value freedom, can save aggressively, and are willing to live frugally in exchange for more control over their time.

Is the 4% rule still valid?

The 4% rule is a common starting point, but it should be adjusted based on your risk tolerance, investment strategy, and market conditions.

Can I pursue FIRE with a family?

Yes, many families pursue FIRE by budgeting carefully, increasing income, and planning for education and healthcare costs early.

What happens if I retire early and the market drops?

A diversified portfolio, emergency fund, and flexible withdrawal strategy help manage risk during market volatility.

What accounts should I invest in for FIRE?

A combination of tax-advantaged retirement accounts and taxable brokerage accounts offers growth and flexibility.

The post How to Achieve Financial Independence and Retire Early (FIRE) appeared first on RIA.

The speculations about what kind of pope Leo XIV will be range from outrageous scurrility to overenthusiastic embrace. I have read terrible things on the far end of the ultra “conservative” enclaves on the Internet and ridiculous things from the official liberal “Catholic” who seems to be whistling past the cemetery. Not only do some of the modernist voices chant “santo subito” about the recently…

Source