| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
| Locked on 03/23/2005 8:35:06 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason: |
Posted on 03/22/2005 6:31:40 PM PST by STARWISE
Edited on 03/22/2005 9:46:25 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
I'm not a lawyer. just a lay person making assumptions. My assumption is these are what is filed as a motion for the judge to sign.
Yeah, I'm skeptical that no news services have broken with this. It may be a prior ruling.
Lord Jesus, we know you're in this. Thank you! Please let her be all right. Please let them take her within the hour for hydration and food. In Jesus name, amen.
I am getting a little hopeful again because of the long period of this hearing. If this was to be thrown out at once, why have twelve hours of deliberations? Just to bring her that much closer to death or what?
What I reposted was the shorthand that NCLaw441 posted.....I was trying to guess at deciphering its meaning.....before we are told what the documents actually say...the law uses titles...sometimes you can kind of guess stuff by reading document titles.
I forgot about the injunction that Felos sought...and NCLaw felt the injunction requested and denied was that one, not the one seeking reinsertion of the feeding tube.
Me too! I also have an excruciating headache from worry all day.
Ok...on the 18th of March, an injunction was filed to the fed dist court on behalf of Terri, to stop the removal of the tube...this was before the jurisdiction was given by congress....so I am thinking what is posted on the 11th in the filings is the ruling on THAT...it is not on what they are deciding today. Sit tight and pray while you do.
I think so too that it is the case file information from Whittemore's, but I NEED THE LINK OR WEB ADDDRESS SO I CAN SEE WHAT CONTEXT IT IS POSTED......
Yeah, but here is the language...doesn't seem to make sense to be a prior ruling.... 2005 case.... Here is the pertinent language again, a summary of a filing......
Judgment of the district court is Vacated and Remanded with instructions; Application for COA Granted In Part & Denied As Moot In Part; Motion for Injunction Denied Without Prejudice; Mandate issued immediately. (EEC/FMH/CRW)
What do all those nos mean???
Great day in the morning, Cranford sounded like a psycopath! It's all too clear what his agenda is.
PING to here and pass it on ;)
There is no difference but I feel more optimistic this time also.
I don't know how many times I have to ask for the link or info. I have been at the 11th's website and can't seem to find the log.
MS brother Scott talking by phone to Greta.
Ok, I went to the 11th district court's web site myself and looked aht the Opion page of rulings that have come down today. There is nothing there about Terri Schiavo, sorry. So, i guess this means that what was posted was the appeals themselves, not the decisions.
I think it is response to Moody not Wittemore...what they are deciding NOW is in response to Whittemore
Friday's decision reversed? That's the habeas corpus, right? Clearly going to take us a while to sort this out. Stay with it, help us non-lawyers. Thanks!!!
That sounds like the tube will not be reinserted. Or did you say this could be a Felos motion? I am never too optimistic about poor Terri.
Here is the link to the 11th circuit, but you have to have an account to access it.
https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?court_id=11ca
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.