Replies

It is clear that Whittemore did not even attempt to follow the intent of the new law, and he committed a reversible error, as his opinion seems to defer to the Greer findings.

He's not allowed to do that. The whole point of the law was to make Greer's findings NOT determinative. In assuming that the Schindlers would not prevail in a new federal venue, this judge has implied that he believes no other facts will help Terri. He's advocating for Greer, in effect.

This is WRONG. His opinion should be quickly reversed.

Of course, I am speaking as a layman, not a lawyer.

He's not allowed to do that. The whole point of the law was to make Greer's findings NOT determinative. In assuming that the Schindlers would not prevail in a new federal venue, this judge has implied that he believes no other facts will help Terri. He's advocating for Greer, in effect. This is WRONG. His opinion should be quickly reversed. Of course, I am speaking as a layman, not a lawyer.

Then you ought to go to law school because you nailed it. Of the four prong test for injunctive relief, the judge ruled that the Schindlers met three of the four prongs. The only prong not met and the basis for his reviewing the case was that the Schindlers did not have a substantial chance of winning on the merits.

However, the law passed by Congress states that de novo review of the Schindler's case shall take place in federal court. By refusing to grant the injunctive relief, Whittemore has essentially made sure a de novo review never takes place.

That's why DeLay et al were so sure this legislation would get the tube installed.

"Of course, I am speaking as a layman, not a lawyer."

This layman agrees with what you say. It was supposed to be de nevo (sp) (e.g., all new evidence) and it doesn't appear he did that. There were no witnesses, nothing but a 2 hour hearing - disgusting.