(Florida State Supreme Court) Order Dismissing for Lack of Jurisdiction

Florida Supreme Court ^ | March 21, 2005

[bd476]

Supreme Court of Florida

MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2005
CASE NO.: SC05-460


COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES vs. MICHAEL SCHIAVO, ET AL.

___________________________________________________________________
Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)

The petition to invoke all writs jurisdiction is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because there is no independent basis alleged to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.

A True Copy

Test:

kd Served:

KERRY W. KIRCHER
GERALDINE R. GENNET
DAVID PLOTINSKY
DAVID CHARLES GIBBS, III
GEORGE J. FELOS
DEBORAH BUSHNELL

[HiTech RedNeck]

Would seem to me the order should be to Jeb Bush -- NOT to the court.

[Midwestguy]

Again, to try and help clarify, this order stems from the House's prior attempt to intervene in the state action brought by Terri's parents. They wanted to intervene to get an injunction stopping the removal of the feeding tube (or now the reinsertion of the tube) in order for there to be compliance with the Congressional subpoenas. The trial court denied this petition. Yesterday (the 21st), the House Attys then filed a notice of appeal with the FL Appellate Ct. seeking to reverse the trial. In conjunction with the filing of the appeal, they also filed a petition with the FL Supreme Ct. seeking an emergency order to reinsert the feeding tube while the appeal at the appellate court is being heard. To attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of the FL Supreme Ct., they cited to the FL Const. which contains a section known as "all writs" The order that started this thread is simply an order that denies jurisdiction based solely upon the "all writs" language. (If there are any FL attys out there you can probably clarify this better than I can). Simply put, this order means that the FL Supreme Ct. won't take action on the House's appeal before the appellate court does.
Well, now I'm sure I totally muddied the waters of clarity on this, but I'm trying to type as fast and briefly as I can.

[Mo1]

If this is about a federal subpoena, and I don't know, why would you think a state court would have jurisdiction to enforce it? We have federal courts for a reason.

I believe it was a federal subpoena for a witness and evidence for a Congressional Hearing

Do the State Courts normally make it a happen to blow off a Federal subpoena ??

[Squantos]

Wow I "guessed" right ?..........:o)

[Next_Time_NJ]

The Subpoena issue (which this ruleing is about) is old news. Its nothing at this point when it comes to Terri. Its an issue when it comes to courts trying to override congress, but for this case it means nothing.

The Subpoena issue as it relates to Terri was to keep her alive, BEFORE they passed the law. Now that the law has been passed this issue means nothing when it comes to her.

All this means is that the State court has went over the congress'es heads when it comes to Subpoena power. This ruleing has zero effect against Terri when it comes to keepign her alive.

I agree this is big news, but its going to make people think that this ruleing has to do with the petitions filed last night... and it doesnt.

[Mo1]

GRRRRR

make it a happen = make it a habit

[CyberAnt]

So which court is it ..??

[Torie]

State courts are not involved. But per the more knowlegable post above, it was not about the subpoena at all. Apparently Terri's parents' lawyers did a full court press and hit every court in sight on the feeding issue - sort of one of like firing one of those bullets that shatters and flies in all directions at once.

[bd476]

It's from the State court not the Fed. I'm sorry Mo1. Sure didn't mean to upset anyone.

[l.tecolote]

Certainly an interesting and intriguing dismissal document. But without seeing the originating suit documents, it's pretty confusing and hard to know what this really means.
Can you provide a link to the prior docs?

[Mo1]

State courts are not involved. But per the more knowlegable post above, it was not about the subpoena at all. Apparently Terri's parents' lawyers did a full court press and hit every court in sight on the feeding issue - sort of one of like firing one of those bullets that shatters and flies in all directions at once.

Ok .. I admit I'm extremely tired and a tad stressed with all the news

Is this or is this not a response to the Fed/Congress. subpoena ??

If it is not .. then I'll apologize for my error .. go back to my corner and mind my own business

[skinkinthegrass]

So which court is it ..??

...Federal court...and the court of public opinion. :^/

[Torie]

I don't know Mol. The post above seemed to be emanating from someone who acutally knows something, which I clearly do not. In any event, what this thread is about doesn't matter. It has been superseded by subsequent events.

[rdl6989]

I "THINK" this means that the matter is now a Federal issue so it doesn't go in a state court, but rather in a U.S. District Court.

[Midwestguy]

Here is a link to the pdf's of both the House's Petition and the court's dismissal order
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/05/05-460/

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Good analysis, but I have a question: what basis would Florida courts have to hear an appeal from Congress on a state court's refusal to acquiesce to a congressional subpoena? I mean I hate to be skunk at a garden party but folks it seems to me that Congress ain't got no business telling state courts what to do.

[taxesareforever]

This might sound sick but the people around Terri need to make a video of her dying so that it can be shown to the public. Often.

[Mo1]

In any event, what this thread is about doesn't matter. It has been superseded by subsequent events.

Agreed

[thoughtomator]

FL Supreme, not the US District that I thought initially

[Midwestguy]

Ok, I'll try and respond to your question (but remember I'm not a FL Atty). First, keep in mind that the House subpoenas have a return date of March 25, so compliance, or non-compliance, with the subpoenas can not be determined until that date. Next, if you review the House's petition at the above link you will see that they attempted to intervene in the "In re guardianship of Terri Schiavo" matter which has been ongoing since 1990 I believe (case no.: 90-2908-GD-003). Generally, there are two types of intervention - intervention of right and permissive intervention. The trial court ruled that the House did not present a sufficient basis to intervene in the "in re guardianship" action, and which the House is now appealing. By my reading, the House was not seeking to intervene to ENFORCE the subpoenas, rather they were seeking to intervene to get an injunction against the removal of the feeding tube in order to help ensure that when the 25th arrives Terri (with the feeding equipment in place and operating - which is what the subpoenas seek) will be available to be seen at the Congressional Field Hearings at the Hospice. Actual enforcement of the Federal subpoenas would appropriately be handled in Federal Ct. (even prior to the passage of last night legislation). Hope this helps clarify a bit more.