Posted on 11/19/2003 4:13:47 PM PST by sweetliberty
Gov. Jeb Bush fired a volley of legal shots Wednesday at the husband of a brain damaged woman who is at the center of a right to die case, saying there needs to be a jury trial on whether Terri Schiavo wanted to be kept alive artificially. The governor also sought to remove Pinellas Circuit Court Judge W. Douglas Baird from hearing the constitutionality of the new law enacted to keep Terri Schiavo alive after her feeding tube was removed last month. In yet a third legal filing, the governor argues that Terri Schiavo's rights under the Florida Constitution are being protected, not violated.
Terri Schiavo went for six days without food and water after her husband Michael Schiavo removed her feeding tube. Florida lawmakers and Bush intervened, enacting a hastily drawn law that allowed the governor to order the feeding tube be reinserted.
Michael Schiavo has challenging the constitutionality of the governor's action. He contends his wife had said she did not want to be kept alive artificially before she suffered severe brain damage in 1990. Doctors have ruled she has been in a persistent vegetative state since, but her parents believe she is aware of her surroundings and could be rehabilitated.
Bush's attorney Ken Connor said a jury has to establish what Terri Schiavo's wishes were before a court can decide whether her private health care wishes were violated.
George Felos, Michael Schiavo's attorney, could not immediately be reached for comment.
This reminds me of the case in California....the attorneys who defended the man who killed the little girl last year in the summer. O'Reilly brought up this similar issue of misrepresenting, intentionally, "facts." These kinds of things would have to be brought before the State Bar.....which means, you will have other lawyers, and judges, sitting in judgment on lawyers. Yes, they do this, but I would say it's less likely that they will do anything about what Felos has done/is doing.
I know lawyers are probably more likely to be investigated/disbarred over overt and flagrant violations of criminal laws, i.e., stalking/shootings, etc. I know a lawyer from Colorado who was disbarred for not paying child support and other domestic issues (fairly serious) with his ex-wife.....who, I also knew. IMHO, she was taunting him. He was not pristine, either.
How willing do you think the Florida Bar (the other good ol' boys) will be to go after Felos? What "proof" do we have that he actually "knows" anything? This would be a logical assumption/likelihood, but, right now, that's all the charge could be.
He's a snake.
By the way, Terri was in a chair until about 7:15 pm tonight. She's doing fine. Sorry I don't have the Judges' names.
Wheelchair? They fixed/got a new wheelchair? She was "allowed" out of her bed? This is wonderful!!! Thanks for the info. This is so good to hear good news.
Let me post some tidbits from a key case decided not too long along in California.
States Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff must produce "competent evidence of actual injury" in order to state a constitutional claim for defamation arising from matters of public concern. ... (iii) Plaintiffs Cannot Establish That Most Of The Statements At Issue Are Demonstrably False Statements Of Fact
Plaintiffs complain that Rosenthal has posted to Internet newsgroups her views that plaintiffs Barrett and Rosenthal are "quacks"; that Barren is "arrogant" and a "bully"; and that Barrett has tried to "extort" her. Such statements are not actionable, because they do not contain provably false assertions of fact, but rather are expressions of subjective judgment. As Justice Swager observed in Copp v. Paxton (1996) 45 Cal.App.4 829: "The issue whether a communication was a statement of fact or opinion is a question of law to be decided by the Court. In making the distinction, the courts have regarded as opinion any 'broad, unfocused and wholly subjective comment,' such as that the plaintiff was a 'shady practitioner,' 'crook,' or 'crooked politician.' Similarly, in Moyer, this court found no cause of action for statements in a high school newspaper that the plaintiff was 'the worst teacher at FUS' and 'a babbler.' The former was clearly 'an expression of subjective judgment.' And the epithet 'babbler' could be reasonably understood only 'as a form of exaggerated expression conveying the student-speaker's disapproval of plaintiff's teaching or speaking style.' (Cits. omitted; 45 Cal.App.4tTh at 837-838.) To the same effect, see Morningstar, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 23 CaJ.APP.4th 676, 691, n.5, citing cases holding that (a) referring to township clerk as "playing hide and seek" with township funds, (b) referring to William Buckley as a "fellow traveler of fascism," and (e) referring to a change of membership on public board as "sleazy sleight of hand," are nonlibelous because the comments arc phrased in vituperative terms or because the language was used in a "loose or figurative" sense. ...
"Although it may have been actionable to call someone a 'hypocrite' in 1916, or an 'old witch in 1955 (Opp. 8:24-9:5), today calling someone a 'thief" and a 'liar' in a public debate has been held to be constitutionally-protected rhetorical hyperbole.
The conclusion that Rosenthal's statements discussed above are protected opinion or rhetoric is also supported by the forum and context in which the statements were made, that is, in the "the general cacophony of an Internet" newsgroup, "part of an on-going free-wheeling and highly animated exchange" about health issues, where the "the postings are full of hyperbole, invective, short-hand phrases and language not generally found in fact-based documents." (Global Telemedia International v. Doe 1 aka PUSTEDAGAIN4O (C.D.Cal. 2001) 132 E.Snpp.2d E26l, 1267, A269-1270 [holding critical comments about Plaintiff in Internet chat-room, including that it "screwed" investors out of their money and lied to them, to be non-actionable opinion and rhetoric. Also see Gregori' v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.Sd 596, 601: "[Where potentially defamatory statements are published in a public debate, ... or in another setting in which the audience may anticipate efforts by the parties to persuade others to their positions by use of epithets, fiery' rhetoric or hyperbole, language which generally might be considered as statements of fact may well assume the character of statements of opinion.")
So in conclusion my Freeper friends... feel free to call HINO and Felos rats, scum, lowlifes, murderers, scoundrels, thieves, liars, etc., etc., without fear.
Daylate Dollarshort, legerdemain, Deep_6 (or was that Deep_Sh!te),...
But, absent actual documents, how would one prove what Felos "knew"? He could easily get around "knowing" things by instructing Mikhell not to write anything down that would incriminate either himself or Felos. Then there's the confidentiality of work product between a lawyer and his/her client....it would have to be subpoenaed---but to get that, you'd have to have a judge inclined to issue an order to investigate Felos. Then, there's shredder machines, so handy at one time for the Klintoon Whitewater crimes.
I have no doubt that Felos is doing wrong....but how would one prove this, that's the question.
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.