Replies

I have not seen the pleadings that the parents' lawyer filed. However, my understanding from the text of the law is that Congress itself required a de novo review. So far, the federal courts have refused to do exactly what Congress commanded.

And I find it interesting that neither the federal trial judge nor the three members of the 11th Circuit panel have questioned the constitutionality of the new law. That, I thought, was the weakest aspect of the case.

I agree with you that the parents' attorneys have made errors. Why they did not seek to get Terri divorced from Michael, seven years ago.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Condi Rice & Pierce Flanigan's Father's Hat"

Re a divorce proceeding, it has been stated that only Terri could bring the suit.

She is caught in a perfect circle where she cannot free herself from the man who wishes her dead.

Again, people quote the "law" when they say that her parents may not act for her.

my understanding from the text of the law is that Congress itself required a de novo review.

Yes, but isn't it true that the judge can only rule on the case brought by Plaintiff? If the Plaintiff himself bases his plea on errors by Greer in the state proceedings, where does that leave the federal judge?

Have you read Whittemore's decision? He knows he's supposed to do a de novo review of the facts, but that isn't the case Plaintiff brought. The Plaintiff brought an appeal, based on alleged procedural errors by Greer. He left Whittemore no choice but to rule as he did.

Please look at this. You might be in a position to help. I'm not even a lawyer. To me it looks like the Schindlers' attorney totally missed the significance of having an opportunity to have the "findings of fact" re-visited. That is the key to saving Terri's life. So long as Greer's "finding of fact" that Terri is PVS stands, there is no chance. But there are enough doctors saying she isn't PVS to cast doubt on that "fact," and that's the only way to get her out of that hospice alive.