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

Skip to comments.

(Florida State Supreme Court) Order Dismissing for Lack of Jurisdiction
Florida Supreme Court ^ | March 21, 2005

Posted on 03/21/2005 9:57:11 PM PST by 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


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: schiavo; terri; terrischiavo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-117 next last
To: Havoc

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


81 posted on 03/21/2005 10:36:57 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Don'tMessWithTexas

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.


82 posted on 03/21/2005 10:37:10 PM PST by Midwestguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Torie
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 ??

83 posted on 03/21/2005 10:39:32 PM PST by Mo1 (Why can't the public see Terry - What are they afraid of ??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: onyx

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


84 posted on 03/21/2005 10:39:44 PM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. ©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Don'tMessWithTexas; Admin Moderator

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.


85 posted on 03/21/2005 10:40:33 PM PST by Next_Time_NJ (NJ demorat exterminator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

GRRRRR

make it a happen = make it a habit


86 posted on 03/21/2005 10:40:54 PM PST by Mo1 (Why can't the public see Terry - What are they afraid of ??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

So which court is it ..??


87 posted on 03/21/2005 10:41:21 PM PST by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: 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.


88 posted on 03/21/2005 10:42:38 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

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


89 posted on 03/21/2005 10:43:36 PM PST by bd476 (I may not like the law of gravity but I find that it's best to make the attempt to obey it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bd476

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?


90 posted on 03/21/2005 10:45:29 PM PST by l.tecolote (doing what I can from California)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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

91 posted on 03/21/2005 10:47:51 PM PST by Mo1 (Why can't the public see Terry - What are they afraid of ??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
So which court is it ..??

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

92 posted on 03/21/2005 10:48:16 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

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.


93 posted on 03/21/2005 10:49:51 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

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.


94 posted on 03/21/2005 10:51:18 PM PST by rdl6989
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: l.tecolote

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/


95 posted on 03/21/2005 10:51:27 PM PST by Midwestguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Midwestguy

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.


96 posted on 03/21/2005 10:52:45 PM PST by Don'tMessWithTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: bd476

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.


97 posted on 03/21/2005 10:54:03 PM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Agreed

98 posted on 03/21/2005 10:54:09 PM PST by Mo1 (Why can't the public see Terry - What are they afraid of ??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

FL Supreme, not the US District that I thought initially


99 posted on 03/21/2005 10:54:14 PM PST by thoughtomator (Death to Terri! Death to Israel! Death to the Great Satan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Don'tMessWithTexas

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.


100 posted on 03/21/2005 11:07:24 PM PST by Midwestguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-117 next last

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.

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