Posted on 03/25/2005 11:32:07 AM PST by WBurgVACon
The judge who tried the Terri Schiavo case and most recently rejected Gov. Jeb Bush's request to intervene, received a campaign contribution from the lawyer pressing for the brain-injured woman's death, raising questions of a conflict of interest.
According to Florida's Department of State, Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge George W. Greer received a contribution of $250 for his 2004 re-election campaign from Felos & Felos, the law firm of George Felos.
Felos, known as a "right-to-die" advocate, represents Terri Schiavo's estranged husband, Michael Schiavo, who won a court order from Greer to have the woman's life-sustaining feeding tube removed one week ago.
The contribution's apparent conflict of interest was raised by an Internet site investigating the Schiavo case, the Empire Journal, and by Rev. D. James Kennedy's group Renew America.
The contribution from Felos came May 7, 2004, one day after Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge Douglas Baird ruled "Terri's Law" unconstitutional. The Florida Legislature's measure was designed to enable Gov. Bush to intervene in the previous instance in which Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed.
The contribution from Felos was the only one made that day, indicating it was not part of a fund-raising effort.
The Empire Journal also reported contributions to Greer were made by three other lawyers who represented Michael Schiavo at various stages in the case.
Deborah Bushnell, Gwyneth Stanley and Stephen G. Nilsson each contributed at least $250 to Greer's re-election campaign, as did court-appointed attorneys representing the husband's interest, Pacarek & Herman and Richard Pearse.
WND attempted to reach the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, the independent body that investigates complaints against state judges, but there was no response.
Felos' office in Dunedin, Fla., also could not be reached.
The Empire Journal notes that in Florida, a judge is not required to recuse himself if he receives a contribution from an attorney in a case over which he presides.
Nevertheless, a contribution can establish the appearance of impropriety, and the state's code of judicial conduct requires a judge to remove himself in such a case.
Ronald D. Rotunda, professor of law at George Mason University, told the Empire Journal he sees such contributions as problematic.
He cites a 2002 poll of the American Bar Association concluding 84 percent of all Americans are concerned that the impartiality of judges is compromised by their need to raise campaign contributions.
Rotunda said judicial campaign contributions constitute or appear to constitute a tacit quid pro quo in which the judge favors or tilts towards the contributor-litigant.
I believe everyone in a hospice is still living!
And, I guess everyplace on earth is for the dying, since that is what we are all doing the minute we are born.
Some people are bought rather cheaply.
If there was a huge campaign donation, I might agree with you.
But if there will be a conflict of interest charge over $250 then Greer won't be able to hear a lot of cases. I'm sure lots of people gave $250 or more. He should recuse himself everytime a lawyer or defendant who gave a donation to his campaign?
This is just a non-story. I would investigate all of his connections to the hospice instead of this.
that is no big deal because lawyers contributing to judges they regularly appear before is routine.
It is about as common as judges putting a pettion for support inside their courtroom and expecting all attorneys to sign it.
Just what is the mission of a hospice? Somehow I don't a hospice is the place to go for rehab, or to just live out your days.
the cap is $500 per contribution period.
Thus if there are three perios the max is $1500.
if two the max is $1000.00.
$250 is pretty common "tribute" contribution.
hospice is for the end.
I call this the DEATH FACTORY.
---
Yes..
They might be into organ harvesting aswell.. There was a movie called COMA featured about 25+ yrs ago. It was about a hospital who purposely killed people for the value of their organs. Big money in internal organ harvest/ trade.. Ya never know.
Judge Greer would have fit in well with the Nazi judges or Vishinsky's crew in Stalin's USSR.
Someone want to explain why this POS black tyrant should not have immediately recused himself from this case ?
He should have recused(spel?) himself to be above board on the issue. Now it has tainted his ruling.
thats what i thought. She must have been able to eat by mouth when she was admitted to the hospice, as I had been under impression feeding tubes wouldn't be in keeping with the purpose of a hospice.
That's the same kind of thinking that says Corzine has so much money of his own that he's impervious to corruption. Jersey, which held all previous records for corruption (Sorry, Mass.), has never been more corrupt than since Corzine appeared on the scene.
Where there's smoke, there's fire.
Re #13...WOW....Its all right there for everyone to see.
"Seriously, do people really believe that a judge was swayed by $250?"
No kidding. That's laughable.
"Just wait until Terri is declared dead. If you thought the Democrats and the MSM blamed Bush for everything last year, just watch what happens at this forum, for both Bushes.
It's already happening now, but it will get exponentially worse. We'll need to come up with a stronger term than "moonbat."
You've got that right.
We are ruled now by the tyrannical courts - but the Bushes will get all the blame.
And, the majority of Americans see nothing wrong with a judicial order to kill an innocent disabled woman.
I'm outa here - this country is finished.
I've stated my opinion about this judge and a $250 bribe. Any other situation you may bring up is not a point of discussion on this thread.
My take is that it may very well be a big deal because of the extensive connections detailed among the Judge, The attorney, and the client which goes well beyond $250 and is available for you to inspect.
Also, it would be interesting to note that opposite to what you say, some law firms contribute not just for connections and thus give to both sides, but because they want to support what they believe to be the best candidate and therefore support only one candidate...just like you and me.
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.