Posted on 01/06/2007 5:52:57 PM PST by wagglebee
Dallas, TX (LifeNews.com) -- Judge George Greer continues to travel the lecture circuit despite his controversial ruling allowing Terri Schiavo's former husband to kill her via euthanasia. Greer is slated to speak at a national summit concerning jury trials, even though he unilaterally allowed the taking of Terri's life without a jury deliberation.
Greer will be one of the speakers at next month's National Jury Summit hosted by the American Board of Trial Advocates.
The conference is an opportunity for legal experts to discuss the threats to the jury system.
The presentations will deal with the civil jury system, factors causing its deterioration, the benefits of preserving the jury trial, and what changes are needed to bring about recovery.
ABTA lists Judge Greer as the first in the line of speakers at the conference.
According to a press release of the event LifeNews.com obtained, ABTA says Greer "will address judicial independence and the civil jury system. He will discuss how the Terri Schiavo case and other recent events impact and damage the civil jury system in America."
Despite Greer's condemning Terri to a painful 13-day starvation and dehydration death, Greer was also a featured speaker at Loyola Law School Los Angeles last June.
There, Greer instructed members of the mainstream media in how to report on significant legal stories like the battle over Terri's life.
According to a statement from the school provided to LifeNews.com, Greer served on the faculty of the inaugural "Journalist Law School" at Loyola. The journalist law school was a three day long intensive seminar for reporters who write on the government, the courts, and individual court cases.
Journalists from CNN, CBS News, ABC News Radio, Bloomberg WNBC, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Philadelphia Daily News and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution attended the conference.
Greer also previously came under fire for speaking engagements at a bioethics forum at the University of Pennsylvania and a local Bar Association event in Florida.
Terri's brother Bobby Schindler has said that his family saw Greer's "pro-euthanasia, pro-death bias" for years during the legal battle and indicated the bias "tempered his decisions in my sister's case and caused him to unethically, immorally and illegally ordered her to die."
"How can any citizens of Florida have confidence that Judge Greer will remain unbiased now that he is on the speaking circuit justifying the killing of an innocent, disabled woman without any proof of her consent?" Schindler asked.
Schindler said Greer's public speaking "makes a mockery of the entire judicial system" and "certainly shows his bias against the disabled."
ACTION: You can protest Greer's ABTA speaking engagement by emailing ABTA Executive Director Brian Tyson at briant@abota.org. You can also contact the group at: American Board of Trial Advocates, 2001 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201, or call (800) 932-2682 or fax a letter to 214-871-6025.
Related web sites: Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation - http://www.terrisfight.org
Huh?!
What jury? What we had was one man condemn an innocent woman to one of the most inhumane deaths imaginable.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
3...2...1...
Ping
I think he is out pandering!!!
It's so fun to be told how "lucky" Terri was to be given such a "euphoric" death. (Of course, nobody has yet been able to explain how it is that a "brain dead vegetable" can experience things like euphoria.)
There is no provision in Florida probate law for a jury to determine what before Judge Greer; that decision is strictly a judge issue.
I suppose in Greer's mind Terri's "crime" was that she was still alive.
Nifong will be next year's speaker... on the topic of "damage to the fairness of prosecutors in exacting judgement based on political ambition"
He made the right ruling and hasn't deserved to be raked over the coals the way he has been. At some point enough is enough. Thousands of people are taken off life support in the US every year because they have no hope of recovery or no hope of ever waking up again. I don't see what made this case so different. If anything this was more justified than most of them. Terri had no cognitive ability and had essentially been a vegetable for more than a decade. She wasn't going to wake up. I know some easily misled people on here with good intentions like to pretend that she was able to feel pain and to think some complex thoughts but she wasn't. This was a really stupid case to pick to try to advance the pro-life cause and it really backfired on those who tried to use it. Opportunists like Frist, and Ol' Jeb really miscalculated.
"It's so fun to be told how "lucky" Terri was to be given such a "euphoric" death."
Straw man anyone?
First he killed her, now he's making money off of her.
Not that I would imagine. However, his taking advantage of his celebrity status would tend to argue against a sober dispassionate ruling.
Hearsay is sufficient for a living will?
"Judge George Greer continues to travel the lecture circuit despite his controversial ruling..."
Huh? Is there anything in the rules which would prevent him from being invited to speak?
Only in the minds of those who would give the state veto power over family medical decisions.
Feeding tubes ARE NOT "life support" they provide food and liquid. They have been used successfully for thousands of years, the only drawbacks in the past were from infection; however the development of antibiotics has taken care of this. Terri was killed for money, to advance an agenda and possibly to obstruct justice.
http://ncp.aspenjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/6/626
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/29/Tampabay/Feeding_tubes_snake_t.shtml
Are you saying that they DIDN'T claim she was experiencing euphoria?
Not to mention the fact that the hearsay wasn't recalled until years after the fact.
See my tagline. Greer is a pathetic excuse for walking skin. Hopefully, he'll die the same "beautiful" death that Terri got.
LMAO!
and all I can say to that is that Greer will have to face the ultimate judge in the afterlife and I wonder just what Christ plans to say to hi, or better yet, do to him.
PING
His day of judgment will come in the next.
What in the heck do you mean by that statement???
Judge Greer exercised veto power over Terri Schiavo's medical decisions, and over the jury's decision. He overturned the jury's decision to award the money for Terri's care. He diverted those funds to her estranged husband and his lawyers, for the purpose of overturning Terri's medical decisions.
The state also vetoed Terri's medical decisions. They were charged with upholding her rights, but they trampled all over them.
I do not believe the state, or any government agency, has the right to overturn any citizen's constitutional rights.
Judge Greer is speaking out in favor of the jury system, while standing by his right to break numerous laws in the process of overturning that very system.
We will all be judged on our own merits. I'm glad I won't be judged for a murder committed by others.
This is ridiculous! Greer overturned the jury's decision to award money for Terri's care. He turned that money over to her estranged husband and his lawyers, to pay the costs of killing her. He tried her for what he deemed to be a capital offense, denied her a jury trial, found her guilty, and ordered her execution. Now all of a sudden he believes in the jury system? LOL
ping
That's very cute rhetoric, but it isn't what happened here.
The state didn't make the medical decisions. Her husband did, as is his right and his obligation. That you don't like the decisions he eventually made does not justify sophistry.
I really believe that if you sell your soul to the Devil you do get benefits here on earth. Look at certain politicians.
However - and this is a BIG however - a day of reckoning will come in the next life.
What is the length of a man's life compared to eternity?
A guardian may not make medical decisions for his ward, nor can any guardian make a decision that would cause death or harm to the ward. There are exceptions for guardians who are qualified physicians, but the rule is, guardians are not permitted to practice medicine.
The whole case was framed on the ludicrous fiction that Terri made the decision, as is her right (to refuse treatment). The feeding tube was added by law to life-prolonging devices AFTER Terri's injury, so she could not possibly have given informed consent.
Waal, he made a heckuva lot of money off her before he killed her, too. Other than that, I have no quibble with your comment :-)
He did surely kill her (instead of letting her go with a divorce) in order to keep her potentially multi-million dollar estate.
I wonder what Jodi's estate is worth.
That would account for a great deal, wouldn't it?
The whole case was framed on the ludicrous fiction that Terri made the decision, as is her right (to refuse treatment). The feeding tube was added by law to life-prolonging devices AFTER Terri's injury, so she could not possibly have given informed consent.
Does not matter.
The guardian has the right to make any and all medical decisions concerning treatment, including withholding treatment on the advice of doctors. We don't expect people to have specifically prepared for every possible situation - if we did, doctors could just follow those instructions and there would be no need for a guardian. Sometimes the guardian is left without explicit instructions, and he has to choose what he thinks she would want. Such is the nature of guardianship.
It is his legal right and responsibility, and moral obligation to make those difficult decisions in what he and he alone determines to be in the patient's best interest.
Just because you don't personally like the decision he made does not mean we should go crying to the State to save us from having to make those difficult decisions.
Is there something strange to you about my Christian belief that we are each judged separately, and that none of us will be punished for the sins of another? What faith do you profess?
The core Christian belief is that on our merits alone, we ALL deserve death. I'm just wondering what sect teaches that we can get to heaven by being good boys and girls.
I'd like to know what cult preaches that you will be judged for your neighbor's sins.
By law, if Michael made the decision, it was murder. Which, of course, is why Michael and his lawyers always vehemently deny that it was his decision.
I don't understand your question. Who argued that?
You seem to be having difficulty grasping the concept that we are not judged for each other's sins. I'd like to know where you got your indoctrination.
I can't grasp where you got the idea I think that. I've never heard such a belief before. It's totally buzarre.
Well, there are a lot of people who don't think it's "totally buzarre." It seems perfectly natural that we are not judged for the sins of others. I don't see why that would seem strange to you.
Have fun. Find someone else to play your game.
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.
