Replies

Followup to my #422. I thought Rus Cooper-Dowda was a he, but may be a she. She writes in another old post in the archives (February 24, 2003):

"Rev. Rus Cooper-Dowda, a minister, journalist, and free-lance writer in the St. Petersburg area, takes this case personally as well as politically.

"In 1985, my situation was much like Terri's. The hospital staff and my (ex) husband had written me off as being as good as dead, as someone who would never regain any kind of 'meaningful' function. Since then, I've earned a Master's degree and had a son. Having a son would have surprised them, too, since those same physicians had earlier pronounced me sterile."

Don't know if you saw this, but I'll post a partial clip here:

CNN TALKBACK LIVE

Ending Life Support: Who Decides?
Aired May 30, 2001 - 15:00 ET

JEFF ECKERT, ATTORNEY FOR SCHINDLER FAMILY: Well, I need to say something about what Mr. Felos said. First of all, she's not on artificial life support. She's not comatose. She's not TVS (ph). She's alert, cognitive and responds to those she knows and cares about.

He talks about going to trial. She had no attorney to represent her. He says these allegations that have come forward after and since we've gotten in this case in the last month, they're not allegations. They're sworn testimony found in the court file. He says they took depositions and disputed that. They took one deposition. The deposition of the witness supported our position that there was no such discussion between Michael Schiavo and his client, and he has not taken depositions as though there are more than one. She is on no tubes, not feeding. She is not artificial.

The court had nobody to dispute her situation with respect to an attorney to cross-examine him. And the appellate court relied upon the record as it was. It's always his mantra, Mr. Schiavo's and Mr. Felos', to carry out Terri's wishes. That's baloney. His client and he want to say to Michael Schiavo and discuss -- Michael Schiavo and Terri discuss starving his client to death or dehydrating her into convulsions. That's preposterous.

The Promisory Note that terri Owes Michael is still bothering me. There was plenty of money in the trust Account to Pay. Why would there be a Prom Note essentiall form Terri to Michael? We don't know how much is the overall face amount of the Prom Note we only know that on the Prom Note $3,500 ws paid out, we don't know the balance.

Say the Prom note ("Terri owes Michael")is for a couple Hunderd Thousand Dollars, that would explain why Michael is saying that there is 50,000 is less balance in the Trust Fund.

The only thing I can think of is that Michael is billing Terri for something that he is not 100% positive that he should get. He has filed a Promisorry note from Terri to himself in order to protect his weak claim. If it was not a weak claim he never would have taken a Prom Note he jsut would have written Himself a check form her Trust Account.

Of course there is a bank running the Trust so perhaps he doesn't have free reign. Perhaps the Trust Officer turned his money request down and only said that his request for $ was worth, $3,535 and so he didnt' agree so he took that $3,535 and then executed a Prom Note to make a record of the rest of the money that he feels is due to him.

Anybody else care to speculate?