Posted on 01/06/2007 5:52:57 PM PST by wagglebee
Dallas, TX (LifeNews.com) -- Judge George Greer continues to travel the lecture circuit despite his controversial ruling allowing Terri Schiavo's former husband to kill her via euthanasia. Greer is slated to speak at a national summit concerning jury trials, even though he unilaterally allowed the taking of Terri's life without a jury deliberation.
Greer will be one of the speakers at next month's National Jury Summit hosted by the American Board of Trial Advocates.
The conference is an opportunity for legal experts to discuss the threats to the jury system.
The presentations will deal with the civil jury system, factors causing its deterioration, the benefits of preserving the jury trial, and what changes are needed to bring about recovery.
ABTA lists Judge Greer as the first in the line of speakers at the conference.
According to a press release of the event LifeNews.com obtained, ABTA says Greer "will address judicial independence and the civil jury system. He will discuss how the Terri Schiavo case and other recent events impact and damage the civil jury system in America."
Despite Greer's condemning Terri to a painful 13-day starvation and dehydration death, Greer was also a featured speaker at Loyola Law School Los Angeles last June.
There, Greer instructed members of the mainstream media in how to report on significant legal stories like the battle over Terri's life.
According to a statement from the school provided to LifeNews.com, Greer served on the faculty of the inaugural "Journalist Law School" at Loyola. The journalist law school was a three day long intensive seminar for reporters who write on the government, the courts, and individual court cases.
Journalists from CNN, CBS News, ABC News Radio, Bloomberg WNBC, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Philadelphia Daily News and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution attended the conference.
Greer also previously came under fire for speaking engagements at a bioethics forum at the University of Pennsylvania and a local Bar Association event in Florida.
Terri's brother Bobby Schindler has said that his family saw Greer's "pro-euthanasia, pro-death bias" for years during the legal battle and indicated the bias "tempered his decisions in my sister's case and caused him to unethically, immorally and illegally ordered her to die."
"How can any citizens of Florida have confidence that Judge Greer will remain unbiased now that he is on the speaking circuit justifying the killing of an innocent, disabled woman without any proof of her consent?" Schindler asked.
Schindler said Greer's public speaking "makes a mockery of the entire judicial system" and "certainly shows his bias against the disabled."
ACTION: You can protest Greer's ABTA speaking engagement by emailing ABTA Executive Director Brian Tyson at briant@abota.org. You can also contact the group at: American Board of Trial Advocates, 2001 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201, or call (800) 932-2682 or fax a letter to 214-871-6025.
Related web sites: Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation - http://www.terrisfight.org
>> If he was thought to be compromised in that role, there should have been a challenge to his guardianship
There were several legal challenges. Did you read anything the case?
There were no successful legal challenges. None were found to have any merit.
Besides, Terri's parents obviously didn't think that he had a conflict of interest. Speaks volumes.
You are confused. The quote that you exerpted was a hypothetical, not referring to this case specifically.
That is a very peculiar reaction to me quoting you.
That is false. The Schindlers did not sue to challenge Michael's guardianship until they learned, years later, from attorney Deborah Bushnell, that Michael planned to kill their daughter.
You are taking a quote out of context.
I posted a hypothetical to another poster. You are pretending that I was referring to the Schiavo case in particular.
That is where the confusion comes in.
You didn't state it as hypothetical. It was 100% erroneous whether hypothetical or not.
Not false at all - the Schindlers encouraged Schiavo to date other people, years before they decided that they didn't like his guardianship.
The quote was made to me and it was about Michael Schiavo and nobody else.
But whatever. You are clouding the issue with semantics.
Not terribly helpful, but not terribly surprising, either - the Schiavo threads tend to be loaded with emotional responses.
Of course they did. That's a family question that has nothing to do with guardianship. They didn't object to his guardianship until he abused it to try to kill Terri.
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Perhaps you can tell who does not want treatment by reading their mind? You are a psychic maybe?
There is no legal distinction for a judge to determine all by himself, without a jury, that someone's life should be ended by the action of the state. That is tyranny, fascism, or whatever the hell you want to call it...
As for the "moral" distinction, your problem is you just like to play "god" and I'm an atheist...
You obviously didn't read the name "BykrBayb" very carefully if you think you were posting to a "him." And of course, the context WAS the Terri Schiavo case, just as I had it.
Here's what you said, word for word, annotated:
>>That's very cute rhetoric, but it isn't what happened here. [N.b. -- the "here" refers to the Schiavo case.]
>> The state didn't make the medical decisions. Her [Terri's] husband [Michael] did, as is his right and his obligation.
This is not a "hypothetical" husband now, is it? It's Michael. You do say he made the decision to kill Terri, just as I reported. You say it is "his right" to make the medical decision. That is nonsense. Guardians have no right either to practice medicine or cause harm or death to their wards. If Michael made the decision, as I noted earlier, he committed murder. That's why he vehemently denies that it was his decision.
Let's roll :-)
Thank you. Busy on other fronts for a bit but I will return to this with interest, be sure.
Yeap. One thing about an aborted baby and Terri Schiavo, neither of them are or were permitted in court. Keep up the good work for FR.
"the Schindlers encouraged Schiavo to date other people, years before they decided that they didn't like his guardianship."
Of course they did. That's a family question that has nothing to do with guardianship. They didn't object to his guardianship until he abused it to try to kill Terri.
See, here's the problem when you join in a conversation without reading all the relevant posts. My original post was in response to garv, who said:
When you say "husband" are you referring to the guy who was living with another woman and had fathered several children?
I'm glad you agree with me, that garv's attack on Michael Schiavo was without foundation and had "nothing to do" with the legitimacy of his guardianship.
Perhaps you can tell who does not want treatment by reading their mind? You are a psychic maybe?
When it comes to my wife, I don't need to read her mind (good thing, because she and I both know that I certainly can't). I have the legal right to infer what she would want in such circumstances, based on our private relationship.
The state should keep its grubby paws out of that relationship - they have no right to interfere with family medical decisions. If you don't want your spouse making such decisions on your behalf, that's easy enough to arrange.
Guardians have no right either to practice medicine or cause harm or death to their wards. If Michael made the decision, as I noted earlier, he committed murder. That's why he vehemently denies that it was his decision.
Come now, let's keep it clear. Michael's decision was to follow the medical advice of his wife's doctors in regards to her treatment.
You don't have to like the course of treatment that he and her doctors decided to pursue, but that is not particularly material to their decisions. Private family medical decisions should remain just that - private. Not the State's business.
From the court testimony that I have read, Michael lied about that. In fact, on one occasion, the nursing home had to step in and prevent him from killing her. It's all in the court records.
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.