THE FIGHT TO SAVE TERRI SCHIAVO - Chris Ferrara's Legal Brief for Terri

Catholic Legate ^ | October 23, 2003 | John Pacheco

[Dante3]

Yes, where is the guardian? Terri has to be protected from Michael.

This case brings to mind Sunny Von Bulow. After 20 years she is still in a coma. Her husband was convicted for trying to murder her. This was later reversed in a second trial when crucial infomration was kept out.

I don't recall if there have been similar outcries about keeping her alive even though the husband sure wanted it to get at her wealth. In Sunny's case, the children have mae sure that she is kept alive.

[FR_addict]

Thanks for the post.

Here's an excerpt from Felos' book that is on his publisher's site:

http://www.bluedolphinpublishing.com/Felos.htm

"While standing in the house with the realtor, I knew I would live there, as improbable as the circumstances made it seem. Believing that something will happen is not foresight. Rather, it is the actual experience in the present of something that will occur in the future. The paradox with this form of intuition is that the future is no longer the future because it becomes for that moment the present. When I entered that house for the first time, I knew I would live there because, through foresight, I realized I was already living there.

Most times this "knowing" for me is sensed as a feeling. Sometimes I hear it, and sometimes I see it. This is not to say that I go around every day intuiting tomorrow's events. I'm stuck in my head a good portion of the time, like most of us in our mentally over-developed culture. This means that most of our energy is tied up intellectually, engaged in thought and reacting to thought. And much of the time our reactive thought process drives our emotions. How we feel depends upon whether we happen to be attracted to, averse to or indifferent to what we are thinking.

Intuition does not lie in the rational mind. Sometimes it is "seen" through other centers of the body, such as the heart or solar plexus. Everybody has had that "gut feeling." For me, the experience of intuition through sight is like seeing two different realities at the same time. To use a Star Trek analogy, it's dimensionally multi-phasic. (I wondered whether I could write this book without referring to Star Trek, and didn't get past page three!)

The crew of the Enterprise, beset in one episode by all types of strange maladies, discovered that they were infected by invisible parasitic creatures attached to their bodies. The creatures were unseeable because they existed in another phasic dimension. They occupied the same space and time, but at a different vibrational level. With the benefit of a hand-held "multi-phasic viewing device" constructed by our heroes, they could press a button and observe the creatures on their skin. Release the button and they were gone. Intuitive seeing is somewhat like that for me. A transparent image exists and is there, and then it's not. While extremely subtle, it is also undeniably real."

---

Felos' thinks he can predict the future. No wonder he is so mad. All our emails and phone calls were not part of his "vision" of starving Terri to death.

[Sabatier]

Meanwhile the media continues to spread disinformation, on a local radio station (KTAR) a commentator offering things like "Terri was a cash cow for her family", that all their legal help had been free, the only people supporting Terri's family were "fundamentalists", her family was making money off her foundation, that all the settlement money was "gone on Terri's care and legal fees" and "the husband didn't stand to benefit from her death", etc., etc. It sures sound like Felos and his sympathizers in the media are doing their best to muddy the waters. They are attacking Terri's family (as if they haven't suffered enough) because public scrutiny is turning toward the husband and his lawyer and they don't look pretty close up.

[secretagent]

Ronald Cranford is hardly one to give an unbiased opinion. He is a proponent of euthanasia and is an expert witness in trials like Terri's (in fact, he testified for Michael Schiavo to the opinion that she will never recover) where he always testifies to absolute certainty of a patient's PVS and zero chance of recovery. He has been know to be wrong, in that those about whom he has testified have gone on to do just that - recover.

Source, please.

[secretagent]

45. "Non-party co-conspirator Felos has been paid $550,000, virtually the entirety of Terri's estate...and no funds from the estate have been used for her rehabilitation..."

Perhaps not entirely so:

"She's not a vegetable," Ms. Sauer insisted as she rested her tired feet. "She knows voices, she responds. She can follow commands, and she tries to communicate by blinking her eyelids 'yes' and 'no.'" And then there's the most important detail of all: "We used to feed her with a spoon, and she swallowed on her own."

That was seven years ago, when Ms. Sauer was a nurse at a rehab facility in Largo, Fla. At that time, Ms. Schiavo was getting physical therapy and full-time attention from skilled nurses. But the facility charged $4,000 a month, as Ms. Sauer recalls, and Mr. Schiavo soon chose to discontinue his wife's therapy and move her into the much cheaper hospice system. She's languished there for six years, tethered to a feeding tube while a fierce legal battle swirled around her.

http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/10-25-03/national_4.asp

Terri did get physical therapy at a "rehab facility" up until 95 or 96, according to Sauer. I don't know what went into that therapy, or how long it lasted, or how how much of the settlement money it consumed.

Mr. Schiavo did say that Terri went to several hospitals and at one point had a "brain stimulator" tried on her. Cost unknown.

[FR_addict]

"Terri Schiavo, smiled yesterday when her father told her he would bring her a milkshake; she later called him by name."

Is this true? Did the father say this? Did anyone else here? Is there anyway to get another video in the room?

I took the time to read Chris Ferrara's Legal Brief for Terri. It sums up most of what we have heard.

Excellent brief!

[supercat]

Excellent brief!

I don't think so. IANAL, but my understanding is that every frivolous claim in a legal brief undoes the effects of several meritorious ones. And some of the claims here are IMHO obviously frivolous.

For example, the last comment on the ADA claim notes that nothing in [the ADA] shall be construed to authorize the discontinuance of feeding/hydration. That may be true, but so what? If there's nothing in the ADA which forbids such discontinuance and there's something in such other statute that allows it, then it's legal. If there is something in the ADA which forbids such discontinuance or there's nothing in another statute to allow it, then the action is illegal but unaddressed by this claim. In short, the comment about the ADA and feeding tubes does nothing to support the claim, and weakens other aspects that would otherwise be meritorious.

I don't mean to disparage the people who are trying to fight on Terri's behalf, but sloppiness in legal procedings can be deadly. There are enough claims of substantial merit that including frivolous claims severely weakens the Schindler's case.

[FR_addict]

"That may be true, but so what? If there's nothing in the ADA which forbids such discontinuance and there's something in such other statute that allows it, then it's legal."

There are enough claims of substantial merit that including frivolous claims severely weakens the Schindler's case. "

I certainly don't see this as a frivolous suit. And your complaint doesn't seem very strong to me.

On page 17, the lawsuit actually says:

Moreover, the pertinent federal regulations for implementation of the A.D.A. specifically provide that "Nothing in the Act or this part authorizes the representative or guardian of an individual with a disability to decline food, water, medical treatment, or medical services for that individual."(cf. 28C.F.R. Ch. 1, sub part B, Section 35.130)

In other words the federal guidelines for implementing A.D.A. specifically says that the representative is not authorized to decline food and water for that individual.

So basically, you are saying it's ok for the State of Florida to go against the Federal regulations. I don't think that's what the State of Florida intended to do. That's why they came back and changed the law. The first law allowed for starving a person to death if that person had a living will, but did not address the issue if there is no living will and there is a dispute as to the wishes of the disabled.

Now with Terri's law, they have a chance to address this issue.

I don't believe most people want to starve to death. Pulling the plug on someone that is brain dead is a completely different issue. Other states allow pulling the plug, but do not allow starving a person to death.

[supercat]

I certainly don't see this as a frivolous suit. And your complaint doesn't seem very strong to me.

The suit as a whole is not frivolous. But parts of it are poorly written and make frivolous points.

On page 17, the lawsuit actually says:

Moreover, the pertinent federal regulations for implementation of the A.D.A. specifically provide that "Nothing in the Act or this part authorizes the representative or guardian of an individual with a disability to decline food, water, medical treatment, or medical services for that individual."(cf. 28C.F.R. Ch. 1, sub part B, Section 35.130)

In other words the federal guidelines for implementing A.D.A. specifically says that the representative is not authorized to decline food and water for that individual.

No, it says "nothing in this act shall authorize..." It says nothing about whether there exist other acts--federal or state--which could offer such authorization. I suspect that particular language probably exists to prevent someone like Felos from using the ADA to starve someone on the grounds that doing so would "improve" their condition.

So basically, you are saying it's ok for the State of Florida to go against the Federal regulations. I don't think that's what the State of Florida intended to do. That's why they came back and changed the law. The first law allowed for starving a person to death if that person had a living will, but did not address the issue if there is no living will and there is a dispute as to the wishes of the disabled.

All the above quoted text from the ADA says is that the ADA shall not istelf be construed as providing authorization for denial of food or liquid. It says nothing which would prohibit such denial if it was otherwise authorized.

Suppose I have a card in my pocket which says "Acme Fitness Center Main Facility Guest Pass--THIS CARD DOES NOT AUTHORIZE USE OF RACQUETBALL COURTS". Does the allcaps text say that I am not authorized to use the raquetball court? What if I have another card in my pocket which says "Acme Fitness Center Racquetball Court Guest Pass--THIS CARD DOES NOT AUTHORIZE USE OF MAIN FITNESS CENTER"? Would the two cards contradict each other?

Now with Terri's law, they have a chance to address this issue.

More people need to be informed of what a feeding tube is and isn't. That would be one important start.

I don't believe most people want to starve to death. Pulling the plug on someone that is brain dead is a completely different issue. Other states allow pulling the plug, but do not allow starving a person to death.

That needs to be fixed, as do a number of other weaknesses in existing law. For example, IMHO the most important is that the law which requires the appointment of a guardian ad litem in case of a potential conflict of interest between guardian and ward needs to be amended so as to make explicit certain cases in which such a person must be appointed whether or not the judge acknowledges a potential conflict of interest.

Out of curiosity, I always hear these things refered to as "starving"; is that because, except in Terri's case, they provide hydration?

[FR_addict]

On page 17, the lawsuit actually says:
Moreover, the pertinent federal regulations for implementation of the A.D.A. specifically provide that "Nothing in the Act or this part authorizes the representative or guardian of an individual with a disability to decline food, water, medical treatment, or medical services for that individual."(cf. 28C.F.R. Ch. 1, sub part B, Section 35.130)

In other words the federal guidelines for implementing A.D.A. specifically says that the representative is not authorized to decline food and water for that individual.

[supercat replies] All the above quoted text from the ADA says is that the ADA shall not istelf be construed as providing authorization for denial of food or liquid. It says nothing which would prohibit such denial if it was otherwise authorized.

-------
I disagree with you. You’ve added the words “the ADA shall not itself”. It is not in the original brief and does change the meaning somewhat. It seems that you are objecting because of the negative in the original statement.

I also looked up the CFR – Code of Federal Regulations

Here are the rules of interpretation:

Sec. 35.103 Relationship to other laws.

(a) Rule of interpretation. Except as otherwise provided in this part, this part shall not be construed to apply a lesser standard than the standards applied under title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791) or the regulations issued by Federal agencies pursuant to that title.
(b) Other laws. This part does not invalidate or limit the remedies, rights, and procedures of any other Federal laws, or State or local laws (including State common law) that provide greater or equal protection for the rights of individuals with disabilities or individuals associated with them.

So Florida can pass laws giving Terri more rights, but not less rights. The Federal Government is trying to protect Terri’s rights. It specifically states a guardian doesn’t have the right to decline food, water, or medical treatment. I think it is obvious that Florida cannot deny Terri her rights.

The ADA seems to have foreseen a case like Terri’s where an unscrupulous guardian could have her killed by the state for his convenience.

Here is the whole paragraph from the CFR:

Some commenters expressed concern that Sec. 35.130(e), which states that nothing in the rule requires an individual with a disability to accept special accommodations and services provided under the ADA, could be interpreted to allow guardians of infants or older people with disabilities to refuse medical treatment for their wards. Section 35.130(e) has been revised to make it clear that paragraph (e) is inapplicable to the concern of the commenters. A new paragraph (e)(2) has been added stating that nothing in the regulation authorizes the representative or guardian of an individual with a disability to decline food, water, medical treatment, or medical services for that individual. New paragraph (e) clarifies that neither the ADA nor the regulation alters current Federal law ensuring the rights of incompetent individuals with disabilities to receive food, water, and medical treatment. See, e.g., Child Abuse Amendments of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(10), 5106g(10)); Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794); the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 6042).

In the same way that the Civil Rights Act, prevents Florida or any other state from denying someone the right to vote because of an immaterial error or omission, the ADA prevents Florida from authorizing Terri’s husband to decline food, water, medical treatment, or medical services. I would say that Federal law trumps state law in this case.

[nosofar]

The ACLU finally got into it....on the husband's side, of course. The B.S. is getting deeper.

[Coral Snake]

I think you should send some of the material on this site to Larry King:

http://www.hospicepatients.org/Hosp-FL-Suncoast-entrypage.html

He may be a big pro death liberal but he also knows that a good scandal helps keep the TV ratings up. (Kobe is a good example of this.) And if this doesn't qualify than I don't know what does.

[Tax Government]

I just want to what WE all can do to bring a firestorm down on this b*stard husband, the judge, and everybody who has been obstructing an open inquiry into the woman's condition.

[cyn]

did you ever find Chris Ferrara's Legal Brief? the above PDF link is dead (like you said).

[cyn]

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:JA2mdJxCPkgJ:catholiccitizens.org/newsletter/+Chris+Ferrara+legal+brief+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

>> BINGO >> http://catholiccitizens.org/content/img/f9306/ferrara%20doc.pdf

[Coral Snake]

If we really want to stop this some pro lifer who knows enough about the case HAS
to get the guts to place Michael Schiavo under citizen's arrest for Domestic
Violance and Attempted Murder based on that Bone Scan and other valid evidence
of such activity. This seems to be the ONLY way to stop Terri's starvation and dehydration now. I will also be posting this to the Terri Schiavo threads at TOS as EVERYONE involved with the case needs to know this.

[floriduh voter]

bttt and someone was looking for some financials. Here's the Catholic League's Legal Brief. There's some financials in here. Ping me if it helped. FV

[floriduh voter]

Here's a good thread to check out.

[floriduh voter]

Missed this one last time around.

[floriduh voter]

bttt. I missed this the first time around. Lots of material here that's worth reviewing at this time.