Probably that is why judge Whittemore is taking so long tonight.
I expect a big surprise and a miracle tonight. Didn't the Blake decision surprised us all? March could be the month of surprises. Keeping my fingers crossed here.
Post #27 follows; its worthy of a repost.
"No sale. Whittemore addressed this issue in his decision. He quotes a Senator, during the debate, as saying that nothing in the law requires the issuance of an injunction. It is not true to say that Whittemore simply ignored the intent of Congress. He took the time to find out what occurred during the debate to try to divine exactly that.
The problem was that the Schindlers' attorney failed to ask for the de novo trial on the facts that Congress had intended. Instead he filed a petition essentially seeking review of Greer's decisions, thus dragging the whole Florida state court proceedings into what should have been a new trial on the facts.
A huge mistake; one I am told they have since rectified in the new petition that is before Whittemore now. My read of Whittemore's previous decision is that he is not opposed to issuing the injunction. But the Plaintiff has to give him a reason to do it. He can't just make up a case that Plaintiff didn't bring.
"If — and it's a big if — somebody got in there and explained to Gibbs & Co. how to get this done, I think there's a reasonable chance Whittemore will order the tube back in tonight."
27 posted on 03/24/2005 8:52:05 PM PST by Nick Danger (You can stick a fork in the Mullahs -- they're done.)
"The problem was that the Schindlers' attorney failed to ask for the de novo trial on the facts that Congress had intended. Instead he filed a petition essentially seeking review of Greer's decisions, thus dragging the whole Florida state court proceedings into what should have been a new trial on the facts. "
The court should have applied the statute in the clear and plain meaning of the legislature's intent, instead they chose to give it a narrow interpretation, Gibbs offered tstimony etc...but it wasn't allowed. This first hearing with Whittemore the judge was very much focused on certain questions as if the judge planned it that way. This is a trial court and a de novo trial is in order that includes a jury as per the plaintiff's rights and testimony and presentation of new evidence.
thank goodness you understand - Gibbs was the problem and many others lawyers have had time now to let him know what really needed to do. Let's hope it worked.
The other part of the thread - post #1 - may also play into it. But some people don't think so and some do. The 3 page letter ( http://mullings.com/leader-03-25-05.pdf ) that was sent by the GOP (Friends of the Court) to the judge are thinking that is why he chose to listen to the case again.
As you can see I still have some hope that the higher court will rule in favor of Terri's life.