Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ravi; All

I think it is very worth noting, because all media including FNC, that this only will give jurisdiction to the federal courts. It does NOT guarantee the federal courts will not agree with the state courts.

I DO also think that this Felos lawyer needs to clarify who he represents. Does he represent Terri? the husband? Is he maintaining that he represents both? Does he represent a right to die organization? Attroney Felos will not get removed from the case, but who he represents should be clarified. Especially after his wacko outburst. It is the exact kind of audio Rush would play to show the aburdity of the left in their own words. Felos is a kook who has prevented this case from reaching a REASONABLE mediation.

Under normal circumstances the husband would have the final say in such a case. We need to keep that in mind as the federal courts will have to be shown why this is not a normal circumstance and why the facts argue this is not a normal circumstance.

Right now, the law presumes do all in the absence of documentation to the contrary. I think attorneys like felos want to change the presumption to death.


79 posted on 03/19/2005 11:54:32 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: longtermmemmory
Right now, the law presumes do all in the absence of documentation to the contrary. I think attorneys like felos want to change the presumption to death.

You hit the nail on the head. The "legal presumption" in incapacity cases is what's at stake here, and it's a HUGE issue that goes way beyond Terri. Florida law says that the judge must presume against withholding feeding, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that that's what the patient wants. AS a Florida Internation U. Law Professor wrote in the Miami Heral last week, obviously there isn't "clear and convincing" evidence that Terri would want to have nutition and water withheld. All they have are ambiguous statements, offered into evidence as hearsay, annd there are statements that go both ways. So in the absense of clear evidence pointing one way, you don't withhold the nutrition. The law prof. wrote that it was "shocking" that greer had order nutrition withheld, on such flimsy evidence. Essentially, as you say, he's turned the presumptions on their head - - he's presuming for death, not for life. If this is a change that society is going to make, the legislative branch must do so - - NOT the judiciary. Felos seems to want to get it done through the courts.

114 posted on 03/19/2005 12:02:57 PM PST by freedomdefender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: longtermmemmory
"I DO also think that this Felos lawyer needs to clarify who he represents."

It is very clear who Felos represents. He represents himself, his ghoulish, pro-death agenda, his own delusional ideations of being able to reach nirvana by talking to the dead and perforning in the courtroom, his own pathological need to manipulate the powers of life and death and finally, and probably most significantly, his need to get the final chapter of his book to his publisher before he has to pay back whatever advance he got for it. From Felos' perspective, everybody else on the stage are just supporting performers to his starring role.

257 posted on 03/19/2005 12:33:25 PM PST by sweetliberty ("To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson