Posted on 03/22/2005 6:13:43 AM PST by sonsofliberty2000
per Fox
It means that the judge is supposed to make his decision without regard for any earlier court proceedings, except to the extent that transcripts of such proceedings may be admissible as evidence in certain limitted circumstances (e.g. "Michael Schiavo, according to this 1992 court transcript you stated that your wife would probably live 50+ years and you would care for her as long as you lived. Why did you not mention your wife's wishes then?")
If the judge was really pursuing the case de novo, he would have to agree to the preliminary injunction because it is Michael's job to show that feeding should be denied.
If the trial is de novo, shouldn't Michael have to prove by clear and compelling evidence that Terri wants to die? And if it's de novo, he obviously hasn't done that yet. So how can the judge predict failure unless he knows he's going apply Rules of Terri #1/#2?
Sinkemperor had his judge nminees vetted thoroughly before sending them for confirmation ... allegiance is the most serious issue with the death cult demoncrats. Whittemore was completely predictable ... especially when liberal bilgespittlists immediately claimed he was the most fair judge Terri could have hear the appeal. Obviously, he was in the end just a clinton appointee protecting the florida liberal court system from whence he arose ... and of course, preventing democrat embarrassment.
"After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life."This is the controlling section- not the one you cited. And it was without delay.....
But would they continue to after hearing the facts of the case? Especially if Michael was forced to allow them to see Terri unsedated?
I've pondered more than most. My mind and conscience are clear. What is happening to Terri Schiavo is appalling, inhumane, and callous.
I don't know how the polls went about getting people to support the killing of Terri, but I do know, they DON'T support the killing.
It is up to the Gibbs as the plaintiff's attorney in this motion to show why there would be a likelihood of success on the merits. He did not do so. It has nothing to do with Greer.
what de novo means everywhere else.
As far as Greer goes, his unjust rulings and his misconduct as a judge were evident in 2003. The pastor's rebuke is too little, too late.
No you never used the word automatic. You really nailed me there.
Tell me though, how else am I supposed to interpret your argument.
He committed adultery, therefor, he has forfeited his right legally, and morally to consider himself her husband.
Am I getting that wrong? It seems to me your quibbling over semantics here. Or do I understand your position incorrectly?
You need to calm down so we can see your Christ-likeness.
Please. Do a little reading. I'm not the one throwing names around and questioning peoples motives and honesty here. I don't see you asking those people to display their Christ-likeness. It goes both ways you know. I've been nothing but polite to everyone here. You cannot say the same for many of the other Christians on this board.
de novo -- new trial from the start, not an appeal process
This pastor was not at that church in 2003: he came late in 2004.
...
Reference - lots more good information on that page - written by a doctor involved in the case.
Perhaps not as helpful as it appears on the surface. I think you need to do some research and report back to us about Dr. Ronald Cranford. This whole case has alot of agenda begind it.
Here, let me give you a helping hand.
Yes he does, but he ignores the basic premise of the new law and that is not to look at the state court stuff.
How could Gibbs show that he could prevail without presenting his witnesses and evidence?
This wasn't a trial. It was a hearing regarding a motion. There was a footnote in the judge's decision where he noted that Gibbs submitted affidavits of health care professionals regarding Terri and their opinions on how treatment could improve Terri's condition. However, Gibbs didn't discuss these affidavits in his filing to the Court. In other words, it looks like Gibbs just dumped a bunch of papers on Whittemore and didn't make a cogent argument tying it all together.
My entire point is that is WAS NOT overridden, and many here were claiming that is was is some way. Weather or not it should be in beside the point. It wasn't.
So stop repeating over and over that he is her husband.
I'm only repeating it because people keep bringing it up. I'd love to quit repeating it! If others would drop it, I will.
The quote you supplied here, isn't mine, either. I never wrote that.
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.