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.
Re #24...Its much more than $250. Details available within this thread if you choose to study them.
Did they do it while the had a case in front of the judge?
C. Judges and Candidates Subject to Public Election. (1) A candidate, including an incumbent judge, for a judicial office that is filled by public election between competing candidates shall not personally solicit campaign funds, or solicit attorneys for publicly stated support, but may establish committees of responsible persons to secure and manage the expenditure of funds for the candidate's campaign and to obtain public statements of support for his or her candidacy. Such committees are not prohibited from soliciting campaign contributions and public support from any person or corporation authorized by law. A candidate shall not use or permit the use of campaign contributions for the private benefit of the candidate or members of the candidate's family.So much for this.....
It's just the tip of the iceberg.
Look at it this way: It's the camel's nose in the tent.
"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."
OK, I'll be a good boy and do what Clarabelle says. Clarabelle makes the rules.
http://clipart.disneysites.com/imgLinker.php?img=Characters/Clarabelle_Cow/clarabelle01a.gif
Imagine for one moment how loud the hue and cry would be if a judge were to rule against Planned Parenthood, and it were to be discovered that that judge had received a cash contribution from the attorney arguing against PP.
this is about money.
someone needs to look at the hospice board minutes.
terri is out of money and the judge is not going
to allow his wife's hospice to go under.
Judge George W. Greer has caused public confidence in the judiciary to deteriorate due to his rulings regarding Terri Schiavo and thus violated Judicial Canon.
Judge George W. Greer has made rulings, which advance the private interests of Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Senate President Jim King by allowing the statutes, which apply, to persons with terminal illness to order the death of Terri Schiavo by dehydration and starvation at the request of Michael Schiavo and thus is in violation of Judicial Canon.
Florida State is truly evil.
No you don't.
Also, there is the law to consider:
Judge George W. Greer has caused public confidence in the judiciary to deteriorate due to his rulings regarding Terri Schiavo and thus violated Judicial Canon.
Judge George W. Greer has made rulings, which advance the private interests of Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Senate President Jim King by allowing the statutes, which apply, to persons with terminal illness to order the death of Terri Schiavo by dehydration and starvation at the request of Michael Schiavo and thus is in violation of Judicial Canon.
Why the snotty remark?
I was wondering about blackmail too. I wonder if Mikey is making regular payments to fend off a murder conviction...
Heck, I'd be ok with somebody offering Greer $1 million if he'd let Terri have some food and water again.
Nothing like a little wild speculation [based on a fictional movie, no less] to spice up the conversation, eh? When facts fail, speculate.
---
Wild speculation? Maybe so, what's the harm in spectulating. Umteen doctors have speculated about Terri's true state the husband,judges, and doctors. I can too. I'm speculating that those Hospices are death mills for human organ harvesting of the unwanted and probably is a natural occurance there on a daily basis just like in hospitals.
Still, the amount of contributions add up to thousands -- not a small amount.
Felos and the judge's wife's association with the hospice, that the hospice was cited for over charging more than a million in medicare and other info does make this seem a very fishy situation involving rather commonplace corruption and abuse of power.
Someone (one of the doctors, I think) believes (might have been felos, giving the invterview, I cannot recall) is of the opinion that people with PVS do not require Constitutional Rights.
Know what that means?
Their bodies have no protection....After death and I'm willing to bet before death.
You may have thought you were kidding.
It IS A REAL POSSIBILITY.
If an baby still in the mother is legally considered a non-human, and not covered under the Consitution and what it entails what makes you think a human body OUT of the body can't be cut up and marketed? Especially if (and today, anything's becoming possible) PVS people are declared non-human because they're considered 'only shells.'
You can't sell a baby's body parts. But I do not think anything stops DONORs of RESEARCH from contributing to those places who get the babies to begin with.
Just thoughts...
This really happened:
I once saw a lamp being shown in an old (bonafide) nazi film. It's shade was unique: Human flesh. They were trying to see if they could use up everything.
Not kidding. Still get sick when I picture the man standing next to it, he was so sickenly proud.
And I don't think I want to forget it: Because I don't want to ever be part of any country which could produce people like that.
We may be turning another corner on that path.
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.
