Posted on 03/27/2005 5:45:41 PM PST by JOHN W K
Although Terri’s case has evolved into an emotionally charged disputed issue as to what Terri’s wishes are, our legal system has been resorted to to carry out Terri’s wishes, not her husbands wishes, not he parents wishes, but Terri’s wishes. One would hope all opposing parties, and I mean all those who have strong feelings in the matter, would, at the very least, want Terri to receive the full protection and due process of law as provided for under Florida’s constitution and law.
Unfortunately, due process of law has not occurred in Judge Greer’s Star Chamber Court, as I shall have further occasion to show. Not only did Greer act as judge in Terri’s case, but also acted as Terri’s legal counsel, decision maker, and jury, and then issued a court order to end her life.
Greer, specifically skirted due process of law with regard to one of the most important parties in the case, Terri, and whose disputed wishes, once determined in his court, have sealed her fate.
It was said many times that Terri was not being afforded fundamental due process of law which common criminals are provided with. Even Florida’s Honorable Governor indicated Terri was not being afforded the right to be represented by independent legal counsel and the right to have the protection of a jury, whose assigned duties under our system would be to weigh testimony of those who claimed Terri made end of life wishes in their presence .
One does not have far to look to see that Terri was, without question, not afforded “due process of law” in Greer‘s Star Chamber Court.
Florida’s Declaration of Rights declares: that No person shall be deprived of any rightbecause of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability, and, No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.And, what due process is guaranteed? "The right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate."
This “due process of law”, the protection of a jury, is engrained in Florida’s Rules of Civil Procedure, RULE 1.430 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL; WAIVER,
]
“(a) Right Preserved. The right of trial by jury as declared by the Constitution or by statute shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.
(b) Demand. Any party may demand a trial by jury of any issue triable of right by a jury by serving upon the other party a demand therefor in writing at any time after commencement of the action and not later than 10 days after the service of the last pleading directed to such issue. The demand may be indorsed upon a pleading of the party.
(c) Specification of Issues. In the demand a party may specify the issues that the party wishes so tried; otherwise, the party is deemed to demand trial by jury for all issues so triable. If a party has demanded trial by jury for only some of the issues, any other party may serve a demand for trial by jury of any other or all of the issues triable by jury 10 days after service of the demand or such lesser time as the court may order.
(d) Waiver. A party who fails to serve a demand as required by this rule waives trial by jury. If waived, a jury trial may not be granted without the consent of the parties, but the court may allow an amendment in the proceedings to demand a trial by jury or order a trial by jury on its own motion. A demand for trial by jury may not be withdrawn without the consent of the parties.”
Please note that under such rules all parties may demand the protection of a jury, which clearly includes Terri!
Unfortunately, because Terri was not afforded a fundamental right which John Couey, a child molester and killer will receive, an independent legal counsel at taxpayer expense, Terri was put in a unique and untenable position in Greer’s Star Chamber Court, a position of not being able to demand, through an attorney, that she receive the protection of a jury.
It seems self evident that had the case gone before a jury, Michael’s ten year history of adulterous activities, and his relationship with his legal wife, which included assertions of wife abuse, would have played an important part in a jury’s evaluation of Michael’s testimony.
According to Michael, his wife told him early in their marriage, that she would never want to be given food and water if she ever became incapacitated. But Michael only revealed this after a large monetary malpractice settlement was awarded to Terri for her medical needs, which would have been a very relevant issue in the malpractice suit which awarded the monetary settlement, but was never made known in court during its proceedings.
Unfortunately, not only was Terri not represented in Greer’s Star Chamber Courtroom by independent legal counsel, but as soon as Terri received the monetary settlement, specifically earmarked for her medical needs, Greer had the nerve to allowed Terri’s adulterous husband to used the fund for legal fees to obtain a court order to put Terri, to death!
The sad truth is, Greer’s failure to provide Terri with independent legal counsel which resulted in Terri’s loss to demand the protection of a jury is not only a flagrant denial of due process of law in Terri’s unique position, it is an action forbidden by the 14th Amendment, and although Congress attempted to have the case reviewed, Greer’s Star Chamber Court extended itself even into our federal system, which refused to provide Terri with fundamental protections guaranteed under Florida’s Constitution and law, the important denial being the protection of a jury.
And what is a jury's purpose?
“…to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power -- to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the over-zealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge."-- see:Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 US 522 , 530 (1975)
And what is the function and separation of powers [ a phrase Judge Greer loves to use] between a judge and jury?
“The trial was thus conducted upon the theory that it was the duty of the court to expound the law, and that of the jury to apply the law as thus declared to the facts as ascertained by them. In this separation of the functions of court and jury is found the chief value, as well as safety, of the jury system. Those functions cannot be confounded or disregarded without endangering the stability of public justice, as well as the security of private and personal rights.” [/i]see: Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 106, (1895)
Apply the legal standards by which a court order has been issued to end Terri’s life in all future cases in which the state is called upon to end a person’s life and we are left with a Star Chamber Court process, a process in which a judge may act as judge, legal counsel, decision maker, jury, and then issue a court order to end a person’s life.
Please help Terri, there is still time to save her life. She has not been afforded due process of law!
Call Gov. Bush about denial of due process!
JWK
American Constitutional Research Service
If a little baby crawled out into a busy highway and sat in
the middle of the road, I'm quite sure that Governor Bush
would risk a jaywalking ticket to rush into the street and
save the child even if the Don't Walk sign was flashing !!!
Terri is an innocent and helpless child right now. Therefore, she
desperately needs someone to bravely risk arrest for jaywalking
to save her life from that evil mob of monsters who are blatantly
attempting to murder her ... in plain view of the entire world !!!
Jaywalk NOW Jeb !!!
Dammit... Jaywalk NOW !!!
Well, the governor might ask permission of Greer to offer a challenge that due process has not been afforded Terri because of Greer's conflicts of interest, but then Greer, being the most powerful man in Florida where Terri is concerned will just reject the request because it doesn't suit him or his agenda.
Judge Death will inform Jeb he should have asked three days ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.