Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sinkspur

Well, at some point you would have mentioned the previous court because that is the one that removed the tube that is killing her.

But, Whittemore ruled on the issue of a de novo trial IMMEDIATELY and did it on the conclusion that based on the OLD COURT info (wasn't supposed to be considered), that the Schinlder might not win. Dumb, or deliberately malicious to stall.

So...the only thing before the court regarding the de novo hearing was to SCHEDULE a new trial at a later date AND act on the INJUNCTIONS that he didn't even really consider.


696 posted on 03/22/2005 8:40:20 PM PST by atruelady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 681 | View Replies ]


To: atruelady
But, Whittemore ruled on the issue of a de novo trial IMMEDIATELY and did it on the conclusion that based on the OLD COURT info (wasn't supposed to be considered), that the Schinlder might not win. Dumb, or deliberately malicious to stall.

He had to consider the old court info because Gibbs brought it into the new pleadings.

A judge has to consider what is before him.

The Schindlers are not going to win. It is obvious. I don't think the 11th is going to overturn Whittmore.

713 posted on 03/22/2005 8:43:44 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies ]

To: atruelady

"deliberately malicious to stall"

Hmmmmmmmmm. How many Clinton appointees are among these judges, and how many Clinton (both) phone calls have they received? Anyone know any inside scoop?


733 posted on 03/22/2005 8:46:26 PM PST by combat_boots (Dug in and not budging an inch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson