Posted on 03/28/2005 7:48:32 PM PST by Theodore R.
Schindlers Were Outgunned by Lawyers Early
In case you were wondering, with so many facts in dispute about the Terri Schiavo case, the answer is relatively clear: The Schindlers, well-intentioned as they have been, were outgunned in the early legal fight that sealed their daughter's fate.
The early legal maneuvering created "facts" that are now beyond dispute in higher courts. One is the unbelievable claim by Michael Schiavo that Terri wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death.
One Florida attorney told the story on Steve Sailer's Web blog (www.isteve.com).
Here's what the lawyer wrote:
"I have been following the case for years. Something that interests me about the Terri Schiavo case, and that doesn't seem to have gotten much media attention: The whole case rests on the fact that the Schindlers (Terri's parents) were totally outlawyered by the husband (Michael Schiavo) at the trial court level.
"This happened because, in addition to getting a $750K judgment for Terri's medical care, Michael Schiavo individually got a $300K award of damages for loss of consortium, which gave him the money to hire a top-notch lawyer to represent him on the right-to-die claim. He hired George Felos, who specializes in this area and litigated one of the landmark right-to-die cases in Florida in the early '90s.
"By contrast, the Schindlers had trouble even finding a lawyer who would take their case since there was no money in it. Finally they found an inexperienced lawyer who agreed to take it partly out of sympathy for them, but she had almost no resources to work with and no experience in this area of the law. She didn't even depose Michael Schiavo's siblings, who were key witnesses at the trial that decided whether Terri would have wanted to be kept alive. Not surprisingly, Felos steamrollered her.
"The parents obviously had no idea what they were up against until it was too late. It was only after the trial that they started going around to religious and right-to-life groups to tell their story. These organizations were very supportive, but by that point their options were already limited because the trial judge had entered a judgment finding that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to live.
"This fact is of crucial importance -- and it's one often not fully appreciated by the media, who like to focus on the drama of cases going to the big, powerful appeals courts: Once a trial court enters a judgment into the record, that judgment's findings become THE FACTS of the case, and can only be overturned if the fact finder (in this case, the judge) acted capriciously (i.e., reached a conclusion that had essentially no basis in fact).
"In this case, the trial judge simply chose to believe Michael Schiavo's version of the facts over the Schindlers'. Since there was evidence to support his conclusion (in the form of testimony from Michael Schiavo's siblings), it became nearly impossible for the Schindlers to overturn it. The judges who considered the case after the trial-level proceeding could make decisions only on narrow questions of law. They had no room to ask, "Hey, wait a minute, would she really want to die?" That "fact" had already been decided.
"In essence, the finding that Terri Schiavo would want to die came down to the subjective opinion of one overworked trial judge who was confronted by a very sharp, experienced right-to-die attorney on one side and a young, quasi-pro bono lawyer on the other.
"Nothing unusual about this, of course. It's the kind of thing that happens all the time. But it's an interesting point to keep in mind when you read that the Schiavo case has been litigated for years and has been reviewed by dozens of judges ... yadda yadda yadda.
"By the way, I'm guessing that George Felos is probably quite happy to work the Schiavo case for free at this point since it's making him one of the most famous right-to-kill -- I mean right-to-die -- lawyers in the country. His BlackBerry has probably melted down by now, what with all the messages from the hurry-up-and-die adult children you've been blogging about."
Media savvy yes, a day (or twelve) late and a dollar short.
Reagan80
Actually the team of Attornies Gibbs and Weller of Seminole, FL are a highly competent duo. But they took over the case in late 2004, and Judge Greer had already been "persuaded" by Michael Schiavo in the year 2000 that Terri was in a "persistent vegetative state".
No lawyers, no matter how competent, were going to win this case, because the powerful, highly organized death cult had the deck stacked against them from the beginning. Just witness the fact that not the Governor of Florida, the U.S. Congress, nor the President of the United States could so much as make these bastards budge an inch. Do you really think a more polished argument by some lawyer was going to make any difference? I don't.
I get it......but only two days ago. It takes curiousity, digging, and persistence. And a stomach to handle the reality. That's the hardest part.
Then how do you explain the fact that the dissenting Appeals Justices felt strongly that they were given more than enough legal reason to hold a full appeal for Terri Schiavo? Did the Schindler attornies present different appeals to each Justice on the same panel?
The Schindlers have been railroaded by the corrupt Judge Greer, Felos and the entire organized cult of death. These scum have gone so far as to endear the notion of forced starvation by calling it "euphoric". They will stop at nothing.
"most normal people think that it would be cruel to make Terri continue living 'like this' when she plainly didn't want to live by 'unnatural means'. They're buying the lies hook line and sinker."
Just heard Osama Obama say Terri made it known that she'd want her feeding tube removed. Excuse me, O.O., but Florida did not even consider g-tubes as life support until after the her "collapse."
I think I understand, although the legal process confuses me. It just seems to me that since in the Cruzan case the SCOTUS didn't simply say - this is a state issue and we uphold their decision - but instead made some very strong statements supporting life - one could appeal to them pleading for them to apply that support for life to Terri's case.
I know I am not making much sense. If any of what I am suggesting were possible, hopefully, some lawyer would have come forth with it and offered to help. I am just so sad!
Actually, it does. It stems from the belief that the people, in the form of a jury, should be the triers of fact, and the judges should stick to interpreting the law. When you have a case where there's no jury trial, the judge ends up filling both roles but the appeals process remains unchanged. This is true for both civil and criminal cases. Frankly, I'm not sure there's a better way of doing it.
Which is probably why Brian Nichols shot people in the Atlanta courthouse. The first jury was hung. The 2nd trial was going against him and he knew he would never have a chance once the verdict came back. The logic is then, "If you're gonna do the time, you might as well do the crime."
Yeah, it's a sad situation. When there's an issue requiring judgment, the outcome will always be to the detriment of someone. But the alternative, from the standpoint of constructing an ideal system, is to have one where a decision is never reached, or every decision gets made at the top. Both of those results, from a public policy standpoint, would be a mess. Maybe there's a way to design a way of assuring a fairer approach to the fact-finding process, though.
Case law-wise, an opinion contains the actual facts upon which the ruling was made, then it also often contains a long discussion of the philosophy of the court in making that decision. The second part, which lawyers call "dicta", is not binding precedent. That's where most of the discussions you've referenced in Crusan are located. Only the portion involving the actual specific decision made is binding on future decisions, and that decision was just to stay out of the state's business. The rest of it does provide some hints about how the court might rule in the future, and lawyers will often use those hints in figuring out how to approach the court on another case that has some similarities.
Well, here's the thing... if you're ever going to reach a decision on anything, then at some point the fact finding process has to stop. The system still provides a lot of room to argue about how the facts were decided, what the facts mean, and whether the law was interpreted properly. Some people, strangely enough, resent being held responsible for their own actions. To me, that's a bigger factor in Brian's case than any feeling his options had been foreclosed.
....but also ORDERED that she not be allowed food or liquid naturally (by mouth) is the key. It;s one thing to pull the plug on life support, but another to deny an innocent human being food and water by mouth and mandate that person to die!
'
......
Wonder if this is a tipping point. Does the law allowing their actions skirt the attempt to feed her by mouth and allow sipping of water? Without trying that, would seem this is the same action that a parent who starved a child would be tried for murder for.
Could this be a point for action by Jeb?
Makes me wonder if Greta's Scientology connection is why she ignored FReeper info and pleas to cover this story in-depth over a year and a half ago. Guess Scott Peterson was more important. . .
Just a note about Scientology/gists:
I have a good friend whose parents were heavily into Scientology as she was growing up, and still believe in much of its - shall we say - belief system?
Her mother used to mention stuff like "Pull the plug when I'm useless", and when my friend's little boy was diagnosed with a rare bone disorder, her mother told her it was HER fault her son is disabled! And has shown zero compassion or even interest in her own grandchild's condition.
A smaller population would be easier to control. And a population living in fear is easier to control.
The whole thing stinks so bad it's shocking more people don't smell it.
Thanks for the link.
Just from the first Google page you linked to, there's mention of T. Turner's desire to remove 2 billion people from the earth, and T. Turner's "approval" of China's one child policy.
What life haters... could it be they hate the Author of all life?
Good article .. just one thing I'm in disagreement with
The "overworked trial judge " part
He gave a court order for this girl to die
If he can't handle his job and do it right .. then he should step down from the bench
EXACTLY!!
But at the same time .. this poor family had poor legal advisers
Especially when Felos had the likes of the ACLU backing him up
Now you understand why they hate Christaninanty.
Your fath opposes their plans.
Summary:
Some prominent reformers and ecologists - Jacques Yves Cousteau, Ted Turner, Paul Ehrlich, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Robert Muller, and other trendy folk - believe that the world population needs to radically decrease. Some say there should be 2 billion people on earth - or fewer, a steep decrease from the current 6 billion population. Ted Turner proposes to reach the goal via a global, "voluntary" one-child policy for the next 80-100 years; others do not specify how they would achieve their goal of depopulating the earth.
Conditions of use:
This story is an extract from a book-length manuscript by me titled "False Dawn, Real Darkness: the Millennial Delusions of the United Religions and the New Age Movement." You may re-distribute this story by hard copy or electronically, and you may abridge or quote from this story - IF you give credit to Lee Penn as the author, and IF you include - in the body or as a footnote - the following statement:
"Excerpted from "The United Religions Initiative: Foundations for a World Religion" (Part 2), to be published in the fall of 1999 by the Journal of the Spiritual Counterfeits Project. You may order the complete story from the Journal, or subscribe to the Journal, by calling (510) 540-0300, or by writing to the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Post Office Box 4308, Berkeley, CA 94704, or by visiting the SCP web site, http://www.scp-inc.org/."
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.