Posted on 03/21/2005 8:01:25 PM PST by freedomdefender
This federal judge in Tampa seems to be dragging his feet. Terry is starving. Are there any appellate lawyers out there who can tell me: Can Gibbs, the Schindlers' lawyer, make any kind of appeal to the 11th circuit in Atlanta before the district judge makes a ruling? If the judge stalls and stalls, the case will be moot because Terri will be dead. Is it possible to make an emergency appeal - at least for food, water for Terri pending a decision on the case - without a formal decision to appeal from?
I'm not an attorney, but could he be charged with "contempt of court" (yep - his own) for failing to rule in a timely manner on an issue of imminent life-or-death?
Love to see it happen if he doesn't rule by midnight tonight.
I thought there already was an appeal petition in Atlanta, based on last Friday's case. Could that be a vehicle for relief??
"he was told by the judge to write a treatise on why he thinks the new law isn't unconstitutional"
Where or by whom was that reported? Sounds wrong. If anything, judge should be telling Felos to show why he thinks the new law is unconstitutional, since any new law is presumptively constitutional.
The report I read, another thread, was that Felos was the one who raised, with brief in hand, the issue in today's hearing.
I thought there already was an appeal petition in Atlanta, based on last Friday's case. Could that be a vehicle for relief??
Having said that, I think this district judge is behaving shamefully. This case is emergency with a capital E. he doesn't have to rule for the parents, but he knows that the time he is taking is affecting the possible outcome on appeal. He's delaying an appeal, he's risking that Terri die before an appeal can be finalized.
It's rather obvious that Congress acted in an emergency intending that Terri be kept alive while a further review is effected. The district judge is deliberately ignoring that in order to take the sense of urgency off the case. He's behaving arrogantly at this point by sending the message that he's in no hurry.
The only plus is he may be annoying the appellate judges, because they know this thing is coming to them on an emergency basis, and he is putting them in a tighter timeframe, maybe even letting Terri die before they can hear the appeal.
Sadly, I think you are probably right.
If Terri were my daughter, I might have just shot that ba$tard Shiavo. Sure, I'd probably go to prison, but at least he wouldn't starve my baby to death.
What are we if we treat are to treat human beings as if they were animals? In fact, I wouldn't even starve an animal to death. It's inhumane.
This is so bad.
"The report I read, another thread, was that Felos was the one who raised, with brief in hand, the issue in today's hearing.
I thought there already was an appeal petition in Atlanta, based on last Friday's case. Could that be a vehicle for relief??
_______________
There is an appeal pending in 11th Cir. from the prior fed. dist. ct. judge's denial of an injunction. 11th requested supplemental briefing, which was filed on Sunday and thus before the enactment of the law. 11th requested explanation of implications of a passage of the law as it was at that moment described. So I'm thinking there's a possibility that relief could come from the 11th, but a poster, in a reply to me, has stated a belief that they'll wait for a decision by the present dist. ct. I have no basis to dispute or agree with that. From where the injuctive relief comes will not matter, however, if Terri is killed first.
Nothing legal here, just venom. If the murderers in our great legal system had the courage of their convictions, they would be humane and demand she die by lethal injection, anything would be better than the slow death she faces.
But that's on a different, prior issue - a habeus corpus petition. What I want to know is whether - given the district judge's refusal to rule on the emergency request for food reinstatement while the merits are considered -- the 11th circuit could be petitioned on that limited matter (food and water), without a decision on that issue from the district court. The district court can put the plaintiffs in limbo by simply refusing to issue a ruling - -- - can they break out of this limbo with an emergency petition of some sort to the appeals court?
Perhaps enough to make them open to a mandamus action, ordering the district court to do something?
But that doesn't happen with death sentences.
There are explicit "rules" (granted that there is also an explicit deadline set by the state) for all sorts of last-minute/last second appeals ... on behalf of the criminal.
Here, he is simply "playing the game" - hoping she'll die while he waits.
Appeals and phone calls and lines to judges for a handicapped woman trapped in the court by her "husband"?
Nothing . ... The deomcrats want her to die.
It's all "abortion" rights......... and in shear hatred of Teri's pro-life supporters.
I wonder how well versed (and well advised) the Schindler's attorney is, in big-time federal litigation. I hope that as this case's profile has skyrocketed, some higher-powered legal types have stepped forward to offer strategy and coaching.
"But that's on a different, prior issue - a habeus corpus petition. What I want to know is whether - given the district judge's refusal to rule on the emergency request for food reinstatement while the merits are considered -- the 11th circuit could be petitioned on that limited matter (food and water), without a decision on that issue from the district court. The district court can put the plaintiffs in limbo by simply refusing to issue a ruling - -- - can they break out of this limbo with an emergency petition of some sort to the appeals court?"
____________________
Appeal to 11th is from both denial of injunction and petition for writ of habeas corpus. As for whether they can petition 11th w/o a dist. ct. decision, my short answer is I'm not sure but since they are already asking the 11th for a restoration of food and water, it seems like it would be redundant. I do know that if the dist. ct. were to decide against Terri and she were still alive, they could appeal and simultaneously seek a stay of imposition of the judgment [i.e., the order to kill her]. That stay request would have to be made first to the dist. ct. judge and then upon his rote denial to the 11th. But then you're up at the 11th with two requests for the same relief. It's truly dizzying. Must make Gibbs so made he can't spit. I think he's doing a fine job under the circumstances.
I don't think that's so. There hasn't been a ruling on the request of an injunction, at the district court level, has there? I didn't think there's been any ruling at all by the district court on Monday. So they haven't had a ruling to appeal from. That's why I want to know whether they can go straight to the 11th, asking for a ruling on food and water, without having secured a ruling on food and water from the district court.
"Or does Michael Schiavo have surveillance cameras set up so no one can do this?"
No.
"I wouldn't put it past that worthless piece of $hit to have 24-hour guard on the room so nobody can get near that poor girl."
That's exactly what he's done.
I have always been surprised about how lame some of thier arguments are. Forget the good guy routines. HARDBALL TO THE MAX!
If he intended a genuine and impartial review of the matter, he would have ruled that feeding go on until he ruled. You'd think he'd at least do that to pretend he would attempt to be objective!
Is anything going on with Greer? It would have saved a lot of people a lot of time, trouble and expense over the years if they had only realized a congressional subpoena could just be sloughed off without consequence!
As to annulment, there are two kinds: civil and religious. You don't hear much about civil annulments anymore -- the usual grounds AFAIK is non-consummation of the union. A religious annulment has no effect on civil matters, i.e., you wouldn't be able legally to remarry on just a religious annulment (but, as a practical matter, they're not granted until after a civil divorce).
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.