Replies

I'm not quite sure what your point is in posting something that most of us have already read. Since you brought it up however, I would like to highlight this portion:

At this time, Robert and Mary Schindler, Mrs. Schiavo's parents, have not filed a facially sufficient motion for relief from the order discontinuing life-prolonging procedures. Thus, in appellate case number 2D01-1836, we affirm the guardianship court's denial of the Schindlers' motion for relief from judgment because the motion filed was facially insufficient. On remand, however, we provide the Schindlers with an opportunity to file, if appropriate, a revised motion for relief from judgment pursuant to rule 1.540(b)(5) on the basis that it is no longer equitable that the order should have prospective application. We caution, however, that any proceeding to challenge a final order on this basis is extraordinary and should not be filed merely to delay an order with which an interested party disagrees or to retry an adversary proceeding. The interested party must establish that new circumstances make it no longer equitable to enforce the earlier order. In this case, if the Schindlers believe a valid basis for relief from the order exists, they must plead and prove newly discovered evidence of such a substantial nature that it proves either (1) that Mrs. Schiavo would not have made the decision to withdraw life-prolonging procedures fourteen months earlier when the final order was entered, or (2) that Mrs. Schiavo would make a different decision at this time based on developments subsequent to the earlier court order.

The opinion you posted was dated July 11, 2001. On Nov 15, 2002, the Schindler's delivered to Michael's attorneys a copy of their petition to remove Michael. The new petition states that Michael has squandered the money her money, refused to give her necessary medical treatment and has admitted on national TV to committing adultery.

Most honest people would agree that if Terri could fight for herself she would not allow her 'loving husband' to commit adultery at her life's expense.

I forgot to mention in my previous post that the new petition I mentioned was the one that Michael tried to have dimissed. Judge Greer denied Michael and said that the Schindlers can be heard on this.

I only have one small problem with the way the Schindler's lawyers have handled this new petition...

This would be the same "loving husband" who admitted under oath that right after her still-unexplained injury, he removed her wedding ring and diamond engagement ring and had them melted down to make a fine new piece of jewelry for himself.

The Nazis did that with their victims at Bergen-Belsen, Maidanek and Auschwitz.

Hmmmmm. I wonder if MS had Terri's gold fillings removed.