Replies

pc93 alerted me to this slime piece in the
Clearwate Bar Association Newsletter
I wrote a very long response, which I will
have to edit down to a smaller size. I
want to share the full text with you,
because I believe there is some good
material. Anyway, I had fun writing it.

Link to the article:
http://www.clwbar.org/Res%20Ipsa%20Newsletter%20Oct-Nov.pdf

My response:

Mr. Dickinson III:

Your article “Governor Infringes on an Independent
Judiciary” in the Oct./Nov. 2003 issue of Res Ipsa
Loquitur begins weakly and ends in a humiliating
display of impotence. I offer you corrections on
the slim hope that there may be a vestigial part
of the being in you that once knew honesty. If you
have not yet foreclosed your self, you may benefit
from reading what follows. If not, others will.
It is with displeasure that I enter the morass of
manipulative verbiage you pass off as insight.
You call the Governor’s letter “thought-provoking”,
but whatever it provoked in you must have been
aborted long before it gestating into anything
resembling thought.

You had reason to abstain from thinking, since
you prefer feigning puzzlement over why the Governor
“felt it appropriate to write” his letter. The
Governor’s own straightforward explanation of the
six short paragraphs evidently did not relieve
your confusion, because the obvious escapes the
scrutiny of faked discernment. A sixth grader
could have read the letter and explained what it
was about. You chose a circuitous approach in
order to allow the “Clearwater Bar Association’s
Board of Directors” the dubious distinction of
conducting a “thorough review”. Even that proved
inadequate and had to be topped by “a lengthy
discussion”.

The pretentious text of the resolution you
subsequently passed merely gives the impression
that the lengthy discussion aimed at the banality
of determining whether Governor Bush and the
Honorable George W. Greer serve different branches
of state government. As if at last satisfied that
they in fact do, the Board then “unanimously
approved and resolved” that the Governor had
attempted to “influence the decision of a Circuit
Judge” thereby impairing “the independence of the
judiciary”. Clap, clap.

Consequently you found the Governor in violation
of the “constitutional doctrine of separation of
powers.” In Florida where the judiciary has been
known to moonlight deciding an election, the
doctrine seems rather malleable. As no doubt
intended before the “lengthy discussion”, the
Board concluded that the Governor’s paragraphs
“warrant the rebuke of the citizens of the State
of Florida”. May we count among the rebukers the
quarter million citizens who asked the Governor
to keep an eye on the Honorable George W. Greer’s
vigilante-type bench?

Your thorough review and lengthy discussion
brought you no closer to grasping the Governor’s
message. One shudders at your arduous labor
divining the purport of six paragraphs in prose.
You finally defaulted to the desperately contrived
conclusion that “what is important is that the
Governor’s actions threaten the independence of
our judiciary as well as infringe on basic
constitutional principles. ”The truth is that
the Governor intended to save the judiciary from
losing its independence to the Honorable
George W. Greer’s chronic infringing on the
basic constitutional rights of a disabled
Florida woman.

The citizens asked Governor Bush to intervene
because the Honorable George W. Greer suffered
the “partisan influence” of George J. Felos, Esq.
and other board members of the Hospices of the
Suncoast. Shady activities ranging from sickly
book deals to the illicit hospice detention of
a non-terminal patient are what threatened to
“compromise the independent judiciary”, not
the Governor’s kindness in raising a
warning voice.

Citizens were understandably perturbed by the
Sixth Judicial Circuit’s apparent fraternizing
with the Hospice of the Suncoast, an operation
under federal investigation, with a convicted
felon staffing its finance department and two
class action suits litigated by defrauded
donors. You identify the substance but
obfuscate the particulars by writing “the
Governor’s actions undermine and threaten
the public’s confidence in the independence
and objectivity of the judiciary.” The public’s
confidence was indeed undermined and threatened
but not by the Governor, as you well know.

The public rued the rule of law because the
Honorable George W. Greer had arrogated too
much independence from the constraints of
Florida laws and Judiciary Canons. He
disgraced the bench through a visible lack
of objectivity in his findings on Terri
Schindler-Schiavo. The public rose against
the terror of law he wielded with insulting
arrogance. The citizens appealed to the
Governor because the Honorable George W. Greer’s
alien brand of jurisprudence “undermined the
State of Florida’s ability to impartially
administer justice.”

Again you enslave the truth to your awful
agenda of complicity by writing, “the Florida
Supreme Court and The Florida Bar” should
“address this matter”. Be assured that what
the citizens demand from these venerable bodies
is not addressing the Governor’s humane letter,
but the egregious miscarriage of justice against
Terri Schindler-Schiavo that was orchestrated
by George J. Felos, Esq. before the Honorable
George W. Greer’s private bench.

The Clearwater Bar Association Board of
Directors never did reach the understanding
that a simple reading of the Governor’s short
letter would convey. From this point, your
writing spirals downward with increasing
velocity. On your own now without the Board,
you compound errors in an exponential progression.
You begin by citing “the Terri Schiavo case, a
case involving a husband’s/guardian’s right to
refuse or withdraw medical care from his spouse
in accordance with the spouse’s previously
expressed wishes.”

Your mislabeling of the case has the watermark
of George J. Felos, Esq. The June 1999 issue
of the Clearwater Bar Associacition’s newsletter
hints at cozy bonds. Jo Flower, CLA in her
“Legal Assistant’s Update” took note of the
exceptional dinner meetings speakers that year,
among them George J. Felos, Esq. It seems that
he charmingly initiated the Pinellas County
Chapter of Florida Legal Assistants into the
refined pleasures of “The Living Will and
right-to-die issues.” He also used the
occasion to define himself as “guardian of
an incompetent person kept alive against her
wishes.”

This was before the Honorable George W. Greer
had fully adopted George J. Felos, Esq.’s
vision of a brave dead world. The statement
that Terri Schindler-Schiavo was then being
“kept alive against her wishes” was a somewhat
indiscreet revelation of things to come.
Absent an understanding with the Honorable
George W. Greer, it is difficult to see how
George J. Felos, Esq. could unilaterally
determine that Terri was being kept alive
against her will. Regardless, the Felos
doctrine found its ways into meetings under
the auspices of the Clearwater Bar Association
as early as 1999. It is not surprising to
see its pervasive presence in your article.

Terri Schindler-Schiavo’s case is not a
“husband’s/guardian’s right to refuse or
withdraw medical care from his spouse in
accordance with the spouse’s previously
expressed wishes.”

The Honorable George W. Greer’s extrapolated
“clear and convincing evidence” from an anecdote
by Mr. Schiavo of a casual comment his wife made
“sometime in the mid-1980s” in the afterglow of
an emotional TV show. Not only should evidentiary
rules safeguard against such hearsay’s usurping
the force of a Living Will, but the story was
unborn in Mr. Schiavo’s mind for some thirteen
years. Neither a malpractice jury trial six
years earlier, nor successive litigation until
1989 revived the lost memory. It sprang forth
only when George J. Felos, Esq. began proceedings
to have Terri’s feeding tube removed.

If this does not meet the threshold of suspicion
at the Clearwater Bar Association, perhaps the
sequel will. It is said to have taken two
more years after the spontaneous recall to
produce corroborating statements. That is when
Mr. Schiavo’s brother and sister-in-law had
similarly astonishing epiphanies that they had
heard it from Terri too. The Honorable George
W. Greer expanded to find “clear and convincing
evidence” from this, and contracted to exclude
contradictory testimony from Terri’s good
friend Diane Meyers to whom she indicated
after watching a movie about Karen Quinlan
that she would never want anything like that
to happen to her.

What could have swayed the Honorable George
W. Greer’s impartiality to such an extent?
Feeding tubes were not even considered
artificial life support until a 1999 amendment
to the Florida Statutes included them. For
nearly fifteen years after Terri’s alleged
declaration, the removal of a feeding tube
to hasten death would have been a felony
offense. The Honorable Greer’s retroactive
grafting of the procedure onto Terri’s
declaration of intent is the kind of unsound
jurisprudence that “undermines the public’s
confidence in the rule of law.”

But why focus on the Honorable George W. Greer’s
lapses of judgment? Your own fabrications, Sir
leave ample room for criticism. You write:
“Mrs. Schiavo has been in a persistent
vegetative state since she suffered a heart
attack in February of 1990. Sadly Mrs. Schiavo’s
husband and parents have not been able to agree
on a course of treatment for her and the resulting
legal disputes have continued since July 1993.”
Heart attack? Do you still believe in the
Easter Bunny too? Does the concept of a
history of trauma mean anything to you?
Recent petitions to suppress deposing medical
testimony? Bone scans of multiple fractures
sealed on order of Mr. Schiavo for a decade?
I will not even begin talking about the
phenomenal money trail. I am sure that your
sources are at least as good as mine are.

While it is true that two neurologists contracted
by George J. Felos, Esq. gave a diagnosis of PVS,
two presented by the Schindler family diagnosed
brain damage but not PVS. The Honorable George
W. Greer appointed a fifth expert as independent
tiebreaker whose opinion made 3:2 in favor of PVS.
On the strength of this slim majority Terri’s
feeding tube was ordered removed. The court-
appointed physician Dr. Peter Bambakidis is
said to have later been found lacking qualification
to provide an impartial review of the medical
evidence. George J. Felos, Esq. ran afoul of
bench rules by failing to disclose his relationship
with the Bambakidis family. It appears that he
shared membership in the Greek fraternal
organization AHEPA with one of the brothers,
Gust Bambakidis. To a layman’s understanding,
such a conflict of interest should disqualify
the Bambakidis part of the opinion, leaving
an even 2:2 split over Terri’s supposed
persistent vegetative state.

The next point you make leaves you dangling
over an abyss of raging nonsense. You write:
“Although the legal issues involved in the
Schiavo case are important, they are not
the subject of this column. What concerns
me more is that the Governor felt it
appropriate to involve himself officially
in a pending lawsuit in which neither he or
the State is a party or witness...” With
the facile term “legal issues” you try to
sweep away an entire mine field of statute
breaches, civil rights violations and denial
of due process! You also deprive yourself
(and your hapless readers) of the very
ground wherein resides the answer to your
question concerning the Governor’s standing.
Allow me help you.

Has it escaped you that your skip-hop over
the problem is miscalculated? You say that
the “legal issues may be important” but not
relevant to your inquiry into the Governor’s
involvement. And what would you call this
if not a legal issue? Would “constitutional
issues” be more to your liking? Very well,
let us talk constitutional then. I assume
that you are familiar with the self-evident
constitutional rights to life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness?

I challenge you to demonstrate your pet issue
of the separation of powers as superseding
the personal liberties guaranteed by the
Constitution. It is the Governor’s sworn
duty to uphold and enforce law in all its
aspects. It can be ascertained that Terri’s
rights were and are being violated by the
Honorable George W. Greer. First among these
violations is the denial of the constitutional
right to life. It is well within the Governor’s
province to risk the appearance of a constitutional
infringement when the matter concerns the
prevention of an egregious constitutional
violation already in progress.

Will George J. Felos, Esq. assert his influence
over you again now with implied limitations of
rights due to Terri’s incompetence? All you
are going to accomplish with that is the
tedium of getting to read a list of violations
of rights guaranteed under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and violations of Florida
law under FS 415.104. All pertain to past
and ongoing abuse and neglect of a vulnerable
adult and obviate the continuation of any
other litigation until the issues are resolved.
Each of the following violations of Florida
law is the result of actions or omissions by
Mr. Schiavo.

By unlawful guardianship actions Terri’s
estranged husband denied her “the right to
be restored to capacity at the earliest possible
time”. For ten years up to the present time
Mr. Schiavo explicitly forbade medical personnel
to provide therapy for Terri that could accomplish
speedy restoration to which the law entitles her.
By this he knowingly and willfully contravened
Section 744.3215(1)(c) of the 2003 Florida
Statutes. Mr. Schiavo also denied his disabled
adult ward essential rehabilitative therapy
guaranteed under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
and rights enumerated in the 2003 Florida Statutes
as "retained rights". By this he knowingly and willfully
contravened Section 744.3215(1)(i), which states that
"The right to receive necessary services and
rehabilitation is a retained right.”

Although adjudicated incapacitated, there is
significant disagreement among medical experts
of similar standing concerning Terri’s diagnosis
of PVS. Regardless of the eventual outcome of
the debate, Terri retains the rights. The law
states that retained rights, including the
right to necessary rehabilitative therapy may
not be delegated to the guardian (Section 744.3215(3)),
because the ward retains these rights for the duration
of guardianship.

THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT THE COURT TO WAIVE, REMOVE
OR DELEGATE THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE NECESSARY SERVICES
AND REHABILITATION. SECTION 765.401 (PERTAINING
TO TERMINATION OF LIFE-PROLONGING PROCEDURES) DOES
NOT AUTHORIZE THE GUARDIANSHIP COURT TO PROHIBIT
SUCH THERAPY, OR TO CONVEY ANY RIGHT TO DO SO TO
TERRI’S GUARDIAN.

Mr. Schiavo seized the non-existent authority
from the generous but unauthorized hands of the
Honorable George W. Greer. He is thus delinquent
in the exercise of guardianship and stands in
violation of Florida law, particularly by obstructing
Terri’s retained right to the service necessary for
rehabilitating her swallowing function. The need
for this rehabilitation is underscored by the
guardianship court’s recent order to have Terri’s
feeding tube removed. Without adequate use of
swallowing muscles Terri is in danger of death.
There is furthermore sworn testimony that Terri
took food and water by mouth before Mr. Schiavo
ordered the feeding tube inserted for reasons
only known to him.

Swallowing rehabilitation is now necessary only
because Terri was forcefully habituated to tube
feeding. Medical expert opinion states that
Terri can be de-habituated with proper protocol,
which is her retained right. Even adverse
medical opinion would not remove Terri’s
retained right to access therapies specified
in a contested opinion. Mr. Schiavo’s persistent
efforts to have the feeding tube removed that
he previously forced on Terri, make it imperative
that the law guaranteeing her necessary therapy
is upheld and enforced against the willful
machinations of her guardian.

While the guardianship court deferred to
Mr. Schiavo’s claims that his wife wished to
remain free of artificial life support, this
cannot be construed to indicate a wish for
dying from lack of food and water. AVERSION
TO ARTIFICIAL LIFE SUPPORT DOES NOT EQUATE
WITH AN AVERSION TO BEING FED AND HYDRATED
BY MOUTH. NOTHING INDICATES THAT TERRI WOULD
CONSIDER ORAL FEEDING OR THERAPY FACILITATING
IT A VIOLATION OF HER PRIVACY. THEREFORE TERRI
CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE RELINQUISHED HER
RETAINED RIGHT TO RECEIVE NECESSARY
REHABILITATIVE THERAPY.

Mr. Schiavo has been and is in the process of
committing class 2 and class 3 felonies under
Sections 825.102(1), (2) and (3) pertaining
to abuse, aggravated abuse and neglect of an
elderly person or disabled adult. Among other
crimes, he is alleged to have violated the
law in the following specific instances. He
is said to have:

…forbidden the performance of basic oral
hygiene on Terri, thereby increasing the
possibility of dental disfigurement and loss.
…forbidden the application of standard joint
mobilization movements for countering the
debilitation of a bedridden existence, thereby
slowing Terri’s lymphatic activity and
suppressing her immune system.
…endangered Terri’s life by instructing his
lawyer to threaten medical personnel with
lawsuits, should they obey the law by reinserting
Terri’s feeding tube.
…forbidden the administration of the Last Rites
of Terri’s faith, in particular the spiritual
comfort of Holy Communion, thereby causing
spiritual anguish and loss of salvatory hope.
[2003 F S 825.102(1)]
…forbidden the placing of a washcloth into
Terri’s hands to prevent her fingernails from
cutting into her palms, thereby increasing the
risk of painful, disfiguring lacerations and
health-threatening infections.
…failed to repair or permit the replacement
of a broken wheel chair that would allow Terri
to be taken outdoors, thereby depriving her of
the comfort and the health-giving effects of
fresh air, sunshine and auditory stimulation.
…reduced the possibility of beneficial therapy
by holding Terri in a death-oriented hospice,
despite the fact that she showed no signs of
impending physical death for the entire three
years.
[2003 F S 825.102(2)(b)]
…endangered Terri’s life by seeking to prevent
the realization of an executive order by
Governor Bush to replace Terri’s feeding tube,
despite the fact that the Florida Legislature
empowered the Governor through
passage of a law mandating the tube replacement.
[ 2003 FS 825.102(2)(c)]
…forbidden the administration of standard
antibiotics for infections resulting in pain,
possible disfigurement and potentially fatal
sepsis.
…failed to allow Terri’s examination by
renowned neurology specialists, despite the
fact that the service was offered free of
charge, thereby diminishing Terri’s opportunities
to benefit from new therapies discovered during
the ten years that her guardian deprived her of
therapy altogether.
…failed to allow Terri to receive treatment
by a renowned speech therapist, despite the
fact that the service was offered free of
charge, thereby depriving Terri of opportunity
to demonstrate consciousness and communication
facility.
…ordered the removal from Terri’s room of
faith inspiring and comforting symbols of her
religion, thereby neglecting Terri’s spiritual
well being.
…ordered the removal from Terri’s room of
pictures of her loved ones, comfort giving
items from her past and objects that could
provide beneficial sensory stimulation, thereby
diminishing Terri’s opportunity for gaining in
responsiveness.
[2003 FS 825.102(3)(a)1.]
…failed to request an investigation indicated
when a bone scan revealed multiple fractures
and head trauma. In defiance of a court order,
he then failed to inform Terri’s family of the
discovery and proceeded to have the record
of these injuries sealed for over ten years.
[2003 FS 825.102(3)2.]
…failed to provide the mandatory guardianship
report and plan for the past three years.
[2003 FS 744.3215(1)(a)]: The right of persons
determined incapacitated to have an annual
review of the guardianship report and plan.
…illegally moved Terri into hospice three
years ago without the mandatory diagnosis by
two physicians that Terri was in a terminal
state, thereby preventing her from being in
a more health-supporting environment.
N.B.: Terri’s parents and siblings uphold a
long standing request to have Terri move
back into their home, where they would provide
her with an environment commensurate with
Terri’s preference
prior to the incapacity.
[2003 FS 744.3215(f)]
…forbidden free and unsupervised visits to
Terri by her parents and siblings, despite
evidence that their presence provides warmth
and comfort to her, thereby depriving Terri
of the subtle effects of love on the dynamics
of healing.
[2003 FS 744.3215(m)]
…caused the dismissal of and failed to replace
Terri’s guardian ad litem for a protracted
period, thereby depriving her of counsel and
access to the courts.
[2003 F S 744.3215(l)]: The right of persons
determined incapacitated to counsel and
[744.3215(k)]: The right of persons determined
incapacitated to have access to the courts.

Even a liberal assessment makes it clear that
due process failed. Because of these and
numerous other irregularities, the proceedings
under the Honorable George W. Greer did not
meet the standards of jurisprudence delineated
in Florida Statutes, particularly those
pertaining to retained rights. It is for this reason that a public outcry prompted the Florida Legislature to intervene on behalf of Terri.

The passage of Terri’s law empowered Governor
Bush to issue an executive order. While Terri’s
Law may eventually be found unconstitutional,
this is not ground for the conclusion that
the Governor cannot ask for the case to be
re-opened under a different judge. Defending
the constitutionality of Terri’s Law is
secondary to rectifying the miscarriage of
justice that necessitated Terri’s Law as an
eleventh hour measure preventing the
victim’s death.

All you, Sir have to weigh against this mass
of statute violations, denials of constitutional
rights and due process is theatrical outrage
over a six-paragraph letter by Governor Bush
to the Honorable George W. Greer? This is
not unlike suggesting that General Eisenhower
was in serious breach of international law
by not applying for a visa before invading
Germany in 1945. Are you sure that you
want to be known as the trivia king of the
Clearwater Bar Association? You can search
The Federalist Papers or any other classic
of the American Republic, but you will not
find a more fundamental and defensible
principle than the Right to Life.

Thousands have read Governor Bush’s letter
to the Honorable George W. Greer without
distress. Its salient points are an urgent
request to abide by Florida Statutes such
as the retained right of a disabled person
to counsel and access to the court. The
Honorable George W. Greer removed Terri’s
guardian ad litem and put himself in his
place. If you suggest that this was an
act of upholding Florida law then I would
like to offer you some fine oceanfront
property in the Sonora Desert.

The Governor also urged the Honorable
George W. Greer to “ensure that no act of
omission or commission adversely affect
Mrs. Schiavo’s health before the September
11 hearing…” Protection of Florida citizens
is the Governor’s sworn duty. The Honorable
George W. Greer had on more than one occasion
turned a blind eye to egregious human rights
violations by Mr. Schiavo against his disabled
wife. He was also made aware of George
J. Felos, Esq.’s “exit protocol”. At the
time when the Governor’s letter was written,
Terri was in the throes of a life-threatening
illness. Mr. Schiavo’s addiction to denying
basic medical care to Terri was known to
the Honorable George W. Greer. The Governor
was not amiss in communicating that no further
underhanded exit protocol scenarios by the
trigger-happy pair would be tolerated,
whether or not found worthy of censure by
the Honorable George W. Greer.

You, Sir can howl all you want over perceived
attempts by the Governor to influence the
decisions of the court. If you choose to
make yourself the laughing stock of clearly
thinking persons, it is your right to do so.
Your cries of foul are so transparently
disingenuous that they present a rather
pathetic sight. There are not many people
who will be fooled by ersatz integrity. The
article you wrote could benefit from being
composted. It is a manifesto of deceit and
cowardice. It knows nothing of decency
and dignity. Your references to hallowed
works of the Republic are like graffiti on
a treasure. I trust you can do better in
the next attempt.

Hoping for your reformation, I remain,

.........