Posted on 11/11/2003 10:17:59 AM PST by george wythe
Gov. Jeb Bush on Monday moved to block any quick action on the constitutional challenge to Terri's Law, a bid that could keep Terri Schiavo alive for at least as long as it takes to appeal a procedural issue.
Bush received an automatic stay of Michael Schiavo's lawsuit against him and Attorney General Charlie Crist by filing a notice of appeal on a decision by Circuit Judge Douglas Baird.
Now, before any constitutional challenge to Terri's Law can be decided, both sides will have to make their cases before the 2nd District Court of Appeal on whether the lawsuit was filed in the right county and whether the governor was properly notified that he is a defendant.
Michael Schiavo's attorney accused Bush of engaging in ``shameless delaying tactics.''
``The governor wants to delay this case through any possible legal maneuver for as long as he can,'' attorney George Felos said. ``I wish the governor would be a man about it and stand up and defend the law. He is almost like hiding in the bushes with his tail between his legs.''
Last week, Baird denied Bush's motion to dismiss Schiavo's lawsuit on the grounds that it should have been filed in circuit court in Tallahassee rather than in Pinellas County because the governor traditionally enjoys a home venue privilege.
Also, Bush complained he was not properly served notice that he was being sued.
Baird said a legal concept known as the ``sword-wielder exception to the home venue privilege'' allows citizens to defend themselves from government action in their home county.
Also, Bush waived his right to complain about not being properly served with the lawsuit when one of his attorneys participated in an emergency hearing Oct. 21, the night Schiavo's lawsuit was filed, the judge said.
That same night, Bush used the new state statute dubbed Terri's Law to order that a feeding tube be reinserted into Terri Schiavo's stomach so she could again receive liquid nutrition after almost seven days without food and water.
The feeding tube was removed Oct. 15 on court orders after an almost 5 1/2-year legal fight between Michael Schiavo and his wife's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler.
Terri Schiavo's brain was damaged in 1990 when she suffered heart failure at the age of 26.
The now 39-year-old woman has been in what her husband's doctors term a persistent vegetative state ever since. In a nonjury trial in January 2000, Circuit Judge George Greer agreed with Michael Schiavo's contention that his wife would not want to be kept alive with no hope of improvement.
The Schindlers contend their daughter reacts to them and could improve with therapy. In addition to battling their son-in-law in court, they have mounted an Internet-based public relations campaign featuring snippets of video that appear to show Terri Schiavo smiling at her mother and following a balloon with her eyes.
In August, Bush cited tens of thousands of calls and e-mails from Schindler supporters as his reason for seeking to intervene in the case.
Two months later, the Legislature responded by enacting Terri's Law, which gave Bush the power to stay a court order. The law also provided for the appointment of a guardian ad litem to investigate the case.
In a Nov. 6 letter to the new guardian, University of South Florida Professor Jay Wolfson, Bush requested a meeting to discuss issues the governor wants Wolfson to investigate.
Arrangements for a meeting were being discussed Monday, Bush spokesman Jacob DiPietre said.
Meanwhile, Michael Schiavo's attorney said he will ask Baird to lift the stay on his client's constitutional challenge to Terri's Law. The law violates Terri Schiavo's right to refuse medical treatment and improperly grants the governor power to interfere in a court case, Felos said.
Terri Schiavo has more to lose than Bush does if the stay remains in place, Felos said. It is a matter of her rights being ``violated on a daily basis'' versus Bush ``having to defend the case on its merits even though the sheriff did not knock on his door and serve him with a summons.''
Doesn't matter whether Terri can swallow or not.
I understand you did not bring the topic up. But since it's been brought up (again), what exactly IS the point of people who think that "to swallow, or not to swallow" makes the difference between someone who should be "allowed" to live, and someone who should be starved to death?
This lovely young woman, whose name is Maria Tetto, cannot swallow. She suffered severe brain damage and, like Terri, was pronounced hopeless by doctors. Her parents persisted, and after six years of intensive therapy, she can now talk, tell jokes, laugh, and write in her journal.
But she cannot swallow and has to be fed via feeding tube, just as Terri is.
Should she be starved to death?
Oh, look everyone, at how shamelessly the Governor delays court-sanctioned murder!
For shame! . . . . on the NGFBHINO Michael Schiavo.
Not to mention that Michael didn't mention it until 10 years after the supposed "heart attack." (And the $$$ was in the bank.)
I don't know him, but I know he has talked about Terri's case on both his radio and TV shows. I'm sure he can be e-mailed at Fox News. I'm positive he would help with contacting Mark F. This case definately does need a thorough investigation. There have also been rumors that Sean lurks here on Free Republic from time to time.
It doesn't matter how you attempt to side-step that issue with what you post about what Greer allowed into the court as evidence, or how the Appellate Court ruled on what Greer ordered. It's already been shown he won't allow all the necessary evidence in, and even when he does, he doesn't look at it all if it's contrary to what he agrees with. The fact that the Appellate Court doesn't care about that shows they are nothing but a farce, either.
Furthermore, this entire case would have no legs had it not relied solely upon MS's hearsay evidence (and his brother and his brother's wife's hearsay evidence) (which Greer calls "clear and convincing evidence") that Terri said she'd rather die than have life-sustaining machines on her. (And "life-sustaining" machines in this case is FOOD.) And even though MS has proven himself to have committed perjury, that Greer can even continue on with this farce shows that Greer doesn't even care about lies, as long as those lies sound better than the truth of other witnesses, such as nurses, doctors, and friends of Terri who detract from anything MS has said.
That's why Greer and his masquerade of "justice" is such a farce and you've been able to post nothing that can refute his partiality and farcical rulings. Greer is not a capable, fair, and wise judge, as pertains to this case, at the very least.
In addition:
1) The power of the court to make life or death decisions in cases like this is NOT statutory. Rather, it was set out IN in the Browning decision.
and
2) Subsequent to the Browning decision, FL statutes were revised to provide for the GUARDIAN to make life/death decisions. But in Terri's case, the decision HAS NOT BEEN MADE by the guardian -- instead, it has been made by JUDGE GREER, pursuant to the dicta in Browning. And this violates the express provisions of the current FL statutes..
You can read about that in the Amicus Brief filed by Rep. Byrd
Reporters continue to get the facts wrong.
Terri was not and is not suffering from "heart failure," in the sense in which this term is most commonly used:
Heart failure: The inability of the heart to pump blood at an adequate rate, resulting in congestion in the lungs, shortness of breath, edema in the lower extremities, and enlargement of the liver.
Terri's heart stopped for several minutes. The cause has not been adequately explained. But she she did not have "heart failure."
Quite so; thank you for your very insightful comment. They had to keep up the "Terri is gone" facade. That is, except when they lament about the "suffering" of a "vegetable." Is this two faced or what?
The ghouls are out in force again tonight.
Her rights? Her rights? What would this scumbag felos know about anyone's rights? What lagoon did this creature crawl out of?
This is the same line of crap that leftist liberals spout when confronted by debate over moral issues...They think that they have the insight to decide other people's rights. Only Terri herself has the right to ask for her rights and absent her ability to do so, then state has the moral legal ethical obligation to protect her from murder.
Nevertheless, I did not call you dense.
Judge Greer did not have to appoint a guardian ad litem, and both the appellate court and the Florida Supreme Court ruled on this matter.
It is settled law.
From the Second District Court of Appeals:
Under these circumstances, the two parties, as adversaries, present their evidence to the trial court. The trial court determines whether the evidence is sufficient to allow it to make the decision for the ward to discontinue life support. In this context, the trial court essentially serves as the ward's guardian. Although we do not rule out the occasional need for a guardian in this type of proceeding, a guardian ad litem would tend to duplicate the function of the judge, would add little of value to this process, and might cause the process to be influenced by hearsay or matters outside the record. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's discretionary decision in this case to proceed without a guardian ad litem.At any rate, I have not report you for abuse. I want the record to speak for itself. Who is involved in juvenile name-calling?
The law settles quite often for evil. That doesn't make it not evil.
To: nicmarlo
Has Pearse change his views in this case? Does Pearse now believe that his affidavit about Michael Schiavo's conflict interest is no longer applicable?
Good question; but since Judge Greer in effect removed him, that's just something else that's "no longer relevant," is it?
Is that a Yes?
Has Pearse changed his views in this case? Yes
Does Pearse now believe that his affidavit about Michael Schiavo's conflict interest is no longer applicable? Yes
54 posted on 11/11/2003 5:52 PM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: george wythe
Is that a Yes? THAT WOULD BE A NO.
Has Pearse changed his views in this case? THAT WOULD BE A NO.
Does Pearse now believe that his affidavit about Michael Schiavo's conflict interest is no longer applicable? THAT WOULD BE A NO.
You are dense, george
55 posted on 11/11/2003 5:55 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I've done my homework and I didn't rely on one article on one thread to support my posistion.
btw, i didn't get that bit about "contacting the Admins" - what is that?
I've never hit the abuse button before (you never know who is an ADMIN)but you make that option mighty tempting.
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.