the DOJ has told the 11th that Whittemore did not rule the way the law De Novo was written
This is what I have thought, that the statute was not interpreted correctly, but very narrowly by Whittmore and it was not what the legislators had intended, they intended, in simple words, throw out the old and bring in the new, but Whitnitmore only used old files and didn't allow Terri any De novo review
GOt a link?
DANG! YOU'RE KIDDING ME!
Is this out in the news yet???
Lord, listen to Your children praying, Lord, send Your spirit in this place; Lord, listen to Your children praying, Send us love, send us pow'r, send us grace!
Lord, listen to Your children praying, Lord, send Your spirit in this place; Lord, listen to Your children praying, Send us love, send us pow'r, send us grace!
Something's gonna happen Like the world has never known When the people of the Lord Get down to pray. A door's gonna swing open, And the walls come atumblin' down, When the people of the Lord Get down to pray. O when the people of the Lord, O the people of the Lord, When the people of the Lord Get down to pray.
A door's gonna swing open, And the walls come atumblin' down, When the people of the Lord Get down to pray.
All the people sang: Lord, listen to Your children praying, Lord, send Your spirit in this place; Lord, listen to Your children praying, Send us love, send us pow'r, send us grace!
And He's gonna take over, And He's gonna take control, He's gonna move the mountains, Make the waters roll, When the people of the Lord Get down to pray. O when the people of the Lord, O the people of the Lord, When the people of the Lord Get down to pray.
He's gonna move the mountains, Make the waters roll, When the people of the Lord Get down to pray.
Sing it children: Lord, listen to Your children praying, Lord, send Your spirit in this place; Lord, listen to Your children praying, Send us love, send us pow'r, send us grace!
You're gonna know it When the Lord stretches out His hand, When the people of the Lord Get down to pray. There's gonna be a brand new song Of vict'ry in this land, When the people of the Lord Get down to pray. O when the people of the Lord, O the people of the Lord, When the people of the Lord Get down to pray. There's gonna be a brand new song Of vict'ry in this land, When the people of the Lord Get down to pray.
Sing it children: Lord, listen to Your children praying, Lord, send Your spirit in this place; Lord, listen to Your children praying, Send us love, send us pow'r, send us grace! Send us love, send us pow'r, send us grace!
VERY interesting take on it here:
http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly
VERY interesting take on it here:
http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly
AMICUS BRIEF OF CONGRESSMAN DAVE WELDON,
THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE, AND LIBERTY COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ARGUMENT
This is not a right to die case. Rather, this case is about efforts to protect a vulnerable, disabled young woman from harm at the hands of those with manifest conflicts of interests.
This case has a long and complex history. The overriding question here, however, is whether to restore the status quo -- food and fluids for Terri Schiavo -- so that she will not die before the various important questions at issue can be duly sorted out.
I. Life-threatening situation
Terri Schiavos life is in imminent jeopardy. Her death will irreparably prejudice the proceedings herein. An injunction can always be reversed. But this Court has no power to resurrect the dead. Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 283 (1990) (An erroneous decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment . . . is not susceptible of correction).
To delay is to sentence Terri to an inhumane death. If she were a cat or a dog, her death by starvation and dehydration would not be tolerated. If she were a convicted felon, her death by starvation and dehydration would not be tolerated. Cf. State ex rel. White v. Narick, 170 W. Va. 195, 292 S.E.2d 54 (1982) (convict has no right to starve to death, even voluntarily); People ex rel. Ill. Dept of Corrections v. Millard, 335 Ill. App. 3d 1066, 1070, 782 N.E.2d 966, 969 (2003) (same) (citing cases).
That she is a gravely mentally disabled woman should not place her beyond basic human decency.
II. Factual assumptions
Because this case arrives at an emergent pleadings/TRO stage, this Court must indulge all factual inferences in favor of the complainants. Thus, this Court must assume that Terri Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state,
that she is aware and able to communicate, and that she could benefit from rehabilitation therapy.
Further, this Court must assume that Terri does not wish to die from starvation and dehydration, and that defendant Michael Schiavo, her estranged husband and legal guardian, wants Terri to die for his own selfish reasons (to inherit her estate and to marry his live-in fiancée).
It is black-letter law that, at the pleadings stage, a court must assess the facts in the light most favorable to the complaining party. E.g., Nelson v. Campbell, 124 S. Ct. 2117, 2120 (2004) (we assume the allegations in [the] complaint to be true).
In the present case, that means this Court must assume the following:
· Terri Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state,1
· Terris condition is neither terminal2 nor untreatable; rather, she could benefit
from therapy and regain some or all of the functions she has lost;
1See Fla. Stat. § 765.101(12) (persistent vegetative state defined to require unconsciousness, total absence of voluntary action and cognition, and inability to communicate or interact purposefully). Terri plainly does not satisfy this definition. See infra note 3.
· Terri is aware of her surroundings and is able to communicate;3 with therapy, Terri might regain some or all of her speech skills;
· Terri did not and does not want to die, especially by starvation and dehydration;4 2Terri turned 41 on December 3, 2004. 3See www.terrisfight.org (linking to videos of Terri).
4In his previous challenge to a Florida law that authorized the restoration of food and fluids to Terri, Michael Schiavo himself conceded in the state supreme court that, under his legal theory, determining Terris intent is not material, and that even if a hundred juries found against him on the issue of Terris intent, the challenged law would still supposedly be unconstitutional under the Florida constitution. Answer Brief at 9, Bush v. Schiavo (Fla. July 23, 2004). If Schiavo defends the current action on purely legal grounds, the same point would hold. If he defends on factual grounds, by contrast, an evidentiary hearing would be necessary, and the need for interim relief to preserve Terris life pending such a hearing would be obvious.
· Michael Schiavo, Terris legal husband and guardian and a defendant here, is living with another woman who has borne him two children; he wants Terri to die so he can marry this other woman without divorcing Terri;
· Michael Schiavo refuses to divorce Terri because to do so would cut off his inheritance of what remains of her assets;
· Michael does not have Terris best interests at heart; in fact, he may be responsible for having caused her condition (by battering her) and may have repeatedly physically abused Terri when she was still competent.
Michael Schiavo certainly has the right to contest the facts. In the present posture of the case, however, these factual suppositions must be taken as true.
CONCLUSION
This Court should grant immediate relief, restoring food and fluids to Terri Schiavo.
See www.terrisfight.org/images/bonescan.jpg (bone scan report finding evidence of history of trauma).
That make me more hopeful. Also reading the ACLJ Amicus Brief give hope.
That's what I thought too, about what Whittemore did.