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
t'wit, did you post the Greer Goblet picture when he was thirsting for his awards in Broward County????? It's a pretty big goblet of water for someone who would deny an innocent a CHIP OF ICE after Greer, Judge Barrett and Judge Whittemore sentenced Terri to no nutrition or hydration which is against F.S. 825.14. They all committed a FELONY.
Not exactly sure what you mean but I've been posting here going on 9 years.
Death Lawyers stealing Terri's rehab money, stopping her rehabilitation and killing Terri were NOT family medical decisions. How many family medical decisions require the aid of the ACLU? Are you a fan of the ACLU? They were at counsel's table for the death lawyers.
Even the ACLU finds itself on the right side once in a great while (see "Limbaugh, Rush").
Perhaps if people didn't insist on inserting their sticky noses where they didn't belong, Terri's family wouldn't have had to spend so much time in court defending her course of treatment.
Only in the minds of those who would give the state veto power over family medical decisions.
Or those who would allow a summary execution without a trial by a jury of peers for the accused...
Meaningless rhetoric, betraying an emotionalism that overwhelms your good sense.
Liberals have to resort to emotional argunments. Conservatism is the ideology of the intellect.
Killing someone by decree without a trial by a jury of their peers is tyranny...
Killing someone by decree without a trial by a jury of their peers is tyranny...
I know that you want to blur the distinction because it suits your political ends, but there is a legal and moral distinction between "killing" and removing treatment from someone who does not want it.
If I get terminal cancer, and want to stop the treatment and let the cancer take its course, would you say that my doctors "killed" me?
Right-o. If a husband wants to ice his wife that's his damn business and nobody else's. And by-golly-gee the wife's own mommy and dadday and her brothers and her sisters are damn well NOT her family, once she's married!
Yes, damn it, she better damn well be able to stop your treatment. No antibiotics! The uncommunicative patient refuses them!
When you say "husband" are you referring to the guy who was living with another woman and had fathered several children?
And by-golly-gee the wife's own mommy and dadday and her brothers and her sisters are damn well NOT her family, once she's married!
Your sarcasm aside, you are absolutely correct.
My wife and son are my family. As I am an adult man, my mother is now my extended family, and she would have to yield to my wife when deciding what medical treatment was best for me.
Your definition of "moral obligation" is certainly different than mine. Since he had obviously moved on with his life what interest did he have in continuing to maintain control over Terri's treatment against the wishes of her family.
Your definition of "moral obligation" is certainly different than mine. Since he had obviously moved on with his life what interest did he have in continuing to maintain control over Terri's treatment against the wishes of her family.
Sorry for the double post, I had a stuttering finger.
Your definition of "moral obligation" is certainly different than mine. Since he had obviously moved on with his life what interest did he have in continuing to maintain control over Terri's treatment against the wishes of her family.
Ask Terri's parents, who encouraged him to date others without ever suggesting that to do so with be a conflict of interest.
Until, of course, they disagreed with his decisions. But only then.
Yes, that was the official Democratic Party line.
Entrusting conservative fortunes to Democrat thinking is like entrusting Nicole Simpson's throat to O.J.'s knife.
What?? There isn't any "someone." You assured us that Michael made the decision; Michael and nobody else. It was, you added, his complete legal right and moral obligation! You wrote,
> It is his [Michael's] legal right and responsibility, and moral obligation to make those difficult decisions in what he and he alone determines to be in the patient's best interest.
Obviously, since it is solely Michael's legal right and responsibility, nobody else has any legitimate say in the matter. Correct?
The "someone" has no say in the matter.
There were several legal challenges. Did you read anything the case?
His hatred for Terri and her family, and his greed for her estate. If he kills her instead of divorcing her, he inherits potentially multi-million dollar book, movie and TV rights.
Fyi, he tried to kill her privately in 1993 by essentially the same method, withholding her medicine. Specifically, he ordered her care facility not to give her antibiotics for a urinary tract infection. (Wives just love to die in agony from untreated UTIs.) This is decidedly against the law, despite the views of some posters. The doctors 'splained the law to Michael, overruled him, and gave Terri the needed antibiotics. The incident was allowed to pass as a "mistake," when transparently it was attempted murder for money. Still, Michael had to crawl when he was made to admit his effort to kill Terri in a cross-examination later. I should dig out that testimony, it's funny in a black sort of way :-)
Repeat, this was back in 1993, right after the malpractice awards, so he would have inherited the entire million-dollar award if he'd gotten away with killing her.
This was not the end of Michael's efforts to kill Terri privately, but those failed too. Eventually (1998) he went crying to the state and asked them to do it for him. After changing a few laws around to make it sound legal, the state executed her, on orders of George Greer (an employee of the government).
anything ^about the case?
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.