[kattracks]

While these friends and political allies of Judge Greer have such glowing things to say about him, two things from this article struck me.

Judge Greer is blind, so he cannot actually see Terri responding to her parents.

Judge Greer allowed a woman in another case to try therapy. In all the years this case has been before him, why not allow limited therapy in Terri's case also?

[Route66]

I'm not sure I'd call allowing a therapist to administer 'a' treatment session allowing therapy. I don't know of any treatment for health situations such as this that could be expected to show significant results in one session.

[Notwithstanding]

FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"

---

[ Browse | Search | Topics | Post Article | My Comments ]

Click to scroll to commentary.

DEFAMATION -- LIBEL: In Florida, Plaintiff Must Prove Falsity
Third District Court of Appeal ^ | March 28, 2003 | COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT

Posted on 10/25/2003 12:22 PM EDT by Notwithstanding

Next, in Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 89 L. Ed. 2d 783, 106 S. Ct. 1558 (1986), the court found that at least where a media defendant is concerned, an actionable statement on matters of public concern must be provable as false by the plaintiff before there can be liability under state defamation law. The Hepps court limited its holding to cases involving media defendants and left open the question of the standard for non-media private defendants raising statements of public concern about public figures. n9 This is precisely the issue presented here. That is, this case raises the question of the applicable [*480] standard for an alleged defamed public official by a private defendant on matters of great public concern.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n9 See Hepps, 475 U.S. at 779 n.4.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the absence of any direct precedent from either the United States Supreme Court or Supreme Court of Florida on this issue, I believe that at the very minimum, the standard set forth in the New York Times [**21] line of cases, requiring actual malice, must govern. See Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20 n.6 ("prior to Hepps, . . . where public official or public figure plaintiffs were involved, the New York Times rule already required a showing of falsity before liability could result." (citations omitted)).

Since actual malice requires more than the mere publication of a falsity, I believe that footnote 6 of the majority's opinion is misplaced. The ultimate issue here is not whether Horan's statements were false, but rather whether Horan knew or "recklessly disregarded" that his statements were false. See Nodar, 462 So. 2d at 806. Thus, it is not necessary, or even desirable, for Barnes to subpoena and depose the attorneys and sitting judges in Monroe County. n10 Moreover, the results of the "opinion poll," embraced by the majority, could not reliably discern the truth or falsity of Horan's assertions regarding Monroe County's judges' and lawyers' opinions of Barnes as a lawyer and/or candidate. See, e.g., Ollman v. Evans, 242 U.S. App. D.C. 301, 750 F.2d 970, 1006 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (a community's opinion of a plaintiff's stature [**22] in the community is incapable of being adjudicated with any expectation of accuracy). (Bork, J., concurring). Accordingly, I believe that such discovery is impermissible and should not be allowed to take place.

Barnes v. Horan, 841 So. 2d 472, 479-480 (Fla. App. , 2002)

==================

Foremost, we think Hepps [ Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 106 S. Ct. 1558, 89 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1986)] stands for the proposition that a statement on matters of public concern must be provable as false before there can be liability under state defamation law, at least in situations, like the present, where a media defendant is involved. (footnote omitted) Thus, unlike the statement, "In my opinion Mayor Jones is a liar," the statement, "In my opinion Mayor Jones shows his abysmal ignorance by accepting the teachings of Marx and Lenin," would not be actionable. Hepps ensures that a statement of opinion relating to matters of public concern which does not contain a provably false factual connotation will receive full constitutional protection (footnote omitted).

Next, the Bresler-Letter Carriers-Falwell [**13] line of cases provide protection of statements that cannot "reasonably (be) interpreted as stating actual facts" about an individual. Falwell, 485 U.S., at 50. This provides assurance that public debate will not suffer for lack of "imaginative expression" or the "rhetorical hyperbole" which has traditionally added much to the discourse of our Nation. See id., at 53-55.

The New York Times-Butts and Gertz culpability requirements further ensure that debate on public issues remains "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open," New York Times, 376 U.S., at 270. Thus, HN6where a statement of "opinion" on a matter of public concern reasonably implies false and defamatory facts regarding public figures or officials, those individuals must show that such statements were made with knowledge of their false implications or with reckless disregard of their truth. Similarly, where such a statement involves a private figure on a matter of public concern, a plaintiff must show that the false connotations were made with some level of fault as required by Gertz.

Milkovich, 110 S. Ct. at 2707. Thus, in the instant case [**14] assuming medical costs and insurance are a subject of public concern, which we concede they are, if the statements are capable of being proved false, they are not protected.

Florida Medical Center, Inc. v. New York Post Co., 568 So. 2d 454, 458 (Fla. App. , 1990)
Excerpted - click for full article ^
Source: http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/3d01-2472.pdf

---

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Florida; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: LIBEL; TERRI; Click to Add Keyword

---

[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]

---

If George Jones is still alive and John Smith has never even been in the same state as George, you can not post "John Smith killed George Jones" without subjecting yourself to a defamation action.

If George Jones is still alive but John Smith is purposefully seeking to have George's respirator turned off - and the case is widely reported in the news and all three branches of government have taken action on the issue - then you can post "John Smith is a murdering SOB" on a forum that notes on every page that all posts are opinions of the authors - without fear of losing any defamation claim.

<font

[JennysCool]

Methinks Judge Greer has got some friends in the media who will be spinning his role in this thing like a top -- particularly with more and more questions being asked about Michael Schiavo's possible culpability in his wife's condition. While Blind Justice may be revered, Stupid Justice seldom is.

[kaylar]

I wonder if subconsciously , he's trying to prove that his own state of near-handicap doesn't make him "too sentimental" over questions of handicapped people's rights? If the things the nurses stated in their affadavits are true ("Why doesn't that bitch die?"), PLUS the questions regarding what MS said under oath (never mentioned Terri's wishes to die, said he'd care for her for life) versus how he behaved once the money was in his pocket (no therapy, DNR order) PLUS the questions regarding life insurance policies (which MS neither confirmed nor denied) then at the very least, MS's ability to be a fair guardian for his wife is questionable. And that's not even considering testimony and evidence re: physical abuse prior to Terri's mysterious 'collapse'.

[FollowingTheGrace]

Judge Greer is blind, so he cannot actually see Terri responding to her parents.

Not necessarily. My husband is legally blind, has not driven for 10 years, but has about 10 degrees of vision correctable to 20-25...he would be able to see the videos just fine. The designation "legally blind" doesn't always mean totally blind.

[Salvation]

No way does this judge qualify as compassionate or conservative!!!

A conservative judge would ALWAYS err on the side of life!

[Brilliant]

The rhetoric is off the charts, but on the other hand, I see no way that this judge could have concluded that the testimony of the husband that Terri would have wanted to die is "clear and convincing evidence" by itself. To me, it looks like the court just made a judgment that this woman's life is not worth living. That is a judgment that our courts are not authorized to make.

[ClancyJ]

Sorry, he is not doing the right thing or he would call for an independent medical review of Terri's condition rather than relying on heresay evidence to condemn her to death.

It takes a mighty cold judge to be able to defend a man trying to commit murder and ignore the fact that possibly Terri is not brain dead.

[Long Cut]

LOOK OUT!! With stories like this, people might start to see the judge as....human.

Doesn't sound at all like some folks here have been describing him, huh?

[CedarDave]

A heart attack in 1990 left Terri Schiavo, now 39, in a persistently vegetative state and court-appointed doctors believe there is no hope of recovery. Greer ruled Michael Schiavo showed "clear and convincing" evidence his wife did not want to be kept alive artificially and permitted him to end her nourishment.

These two items are contradicted by the video which clearly shows her to be brain damaged, but not vegetative, and the belief by many that she could be taught to swallow if rehabilitation had not been denied by her husband. This whole case reeks of decaying slime and any objective observer who looks at the video or studies statements by her parents or her caregivers would conclude there is another side that is being ignored by the court and the press. With the unresolved issues of her condition being debated, why not err on the side of caution and let her live in the care of her willing and loving parents? It's obvious that national anti-life and media forces are determined to treat this innocent women with less compassion than they give a convicted, cold-blooded killer. A very sad commentary on the state of our society today.

[longtermmemmory]

simple solution: make the transcript open to the public. Lets read the details of the actual testimony and see what was said.

[T'wit]

>> "He is such a good and decent man...

The woman who said this has a glowing career ahead in stand-up comedy.

The liberals like to gloat that Michael Schiavo has "consistently" prevailed in court. That is Judge Greer at work. He has been consistently inhumane and cruel toward to a helpless, invalid woman who cannot fight back. Terri depends on this judge to protect her rights but he denies her medical care and orders her death.

So like the liberals to try to rehab this bastard's reputation. But his own works condemn him forever.

[Smocker]

I read he gave Felos free reign to speak in court without interruptions, and that the attorney, Ferrara for the Schindlers was interrupted constantly and practically not allowed to speak.

From what I have read, it seems to me that Greer is not impartial, or agonizing about squat. It seems he had his opinion formed, and was not willing to change his mind.


I think any judge in the nation that is willing to starve a brain damaged woman to death has a serious lack of respect for human life.

[tuckrdout]

I don't understand what a "probate" judge is doing handling the case?! Shouldn't it be a family services judge, or someone like that?

[Cicero]

First this article calls him a "conservative" and then it calls him a "moderate Republican." Well, I think we know what "moderate" means when used by a member of the media--it means a liberal, pro-abortion, pro-death Republican.

As for his being a Baptist, that's all very well, but so is bill clinton. And Teddy Kennedy is a Catholic. Such labels mean little or nothing without knowing what kind of Baptist he is.

As for these two cases, in the first instance the man made out a clear living will. Maybe they should have given acupuncture a few months to show its effects. I personally don't think anyone should be allowed to use a hospital to kill himself, but I can understand that the law would see it differently.

With Terri Schiavo there is no living will and basically no evidence but the husband's unsupported word that she wanted to be starved to death. This husband has considerably weakened his credibility by his actions--including not using the money he was awarded for his wife's attempted rehabilitation, its stated purpose.

Since death is irreversible, a prudent judge would never have acted as Greer did. He was obviously biased by his political views.

[MainFrame65]

Perhaps I am either misremembering or misinterpreting, but I seem to recall statements about this judge's demeanor in the courtroom with respect to the Schindlers, their lawyers, and their witnesses, that indicated a complete unwillingness to consider what they had to say.

The only "expert" testimony afforded a fair hearing was from experts chosen by the husband - and that is NOT a fair hearing.

Also, from what I have read here, all of Terri's indications of consciousness and responsiveness have been by way of physical reaction. If the judge is incapable of seeing such responses, HE IS INCAPABLE OF RENDERING JUDGEMENT, AND OUGHT TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THIS CASE. His failure to do so manifests gross judicial misconduct, and ought to be grounds for impeachment and REMOVAL.

There has been some discussion about the nature and extent of his visual impairment - specifically, can he read court documents? Reading is not enough. Computer technology today can easily magnify and enhance images to the point of displaying a single letter at a time on a giant screen, with contrast enhanced to any desired degree. Also, many text to voice systems (read aloud) are available, such as Dragon or IBM offer. But no amount of magnification or enhancement could show her following an object with her eyes.

He has failed to consider any position but the husband's, and ignored every indication of a conflict of interest on his part. Other, higher courts have NEVER been allowed to question his findings of "fact" (that are not fact), only Greer's legal determinations. A law that allows ONE MAN this kind of power over the very life or death of another ought to scare every one of us.

Terri Schindler ought to receive a course of therapy sufficiently long and intense to establish positively what her actual state of being is, whether she is capable of benefiting from further treatment, and whether she is, or can become, capable of making decisions about her further treatment. Making decisions about the "quality of life" of another human being is one of the foulest acts concievable. And Florida needs to make some permanent changes to its laws covering similar situations. It is one thing if all interested parties agree, but another where there is such stark disagreement, and no actual evidence of the wishes of the subject.

People can disagree, even with all the facts, but this judge has avoided or ignored too many facts to be considered fit to sit in judgement about what to have for dinner, much less whether another human being lives or dies.

[mvpel]

In the other case, there was clear and convincing evidence of the vegetative patient's wishes, unlike in the Schiavo case.

[Bonaparte]

In 2000, Gore only won Pinellas county by 50-46. Greer may not be bullet-proof.

[tessalu]

Judge Greer is NO King Solomon. I wonder if the truth were known, if he would like to die in the manner that he perscribed for Terri Schiavo? I could never have any confidence in this man, for any reason!

[Graymatter]

YOUR HONOR:

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.


(Freepers, excuse the caps. He has poor vision.)