http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/al-arian/Opinions/Schiavo-v-Schiavo-2ndOrderDenyingTRO.pdf
I thought his 14th Amendment argument was particularly weak.
His 8th Amendment argument is even worse: he argues that starvation is not cruel and unusual punishment because Mrs. Schiavo hasn't been convicted of a crime.
That's completely daft: by that logic, if a convict complained that he was being not fed by the prison, the warden could argue that the prisoner was not being punished because the lack of food was unrelated to the prisoner's sentence, but due to some other reason, and it would be not be "cruel and unusual punishment" since it wasn't part of the sentence.
Judge Whittimore also states on page 4 of this tripe that Mr. Schiavo is not acting under color of state law. Then what is he acting under? The color of the law of Holland?
That is OUTRAGEOUS.
I haven't gotten there yet, but what do you think about this - Whittemore claims that she doesn't qualify under ADA because it requires that absent disability, she would have been eligible for the service being denied. Whittemore says that without her disability, she wouldn't need the feeding tube.
But Greer has ruled that she is not allowed oral nutrition and hydration either, something that she most DEFINITELY would need without her disability.
I sure hope Gibbs addressed this in his appeal.