Posted on 04/15/2005 1:05:20 PM PDT by phenn
Clearwater, FL - The volunteers with the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation were astonished to learn of the behavior of former Dunedin, Florida Attorney Constance d'Angelis. d'Angelis is the former wife of George Felos, legal representative to Michael Schiavo.
In a press release issued through PR Web, titled "Lawyer Who Presented CT Scan & Medical Evidence in Court Analyzes Autopsy Results in Terri Schiavo Case" Ms. d'Angelis claims she will be available to interpret the anticipated Medical Examiner's report on the late Terri Schiavo.
Quoted from her release: "Upon the release of the autopsy report, she can analyze the results and weigh in on the important matters of how--by reason, not emotion--the "persistent vegetative state" diagnosis of Terri Schiavo was arrived at, and why."
The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation would like to take this opportunity to point out that not only was Ms. d'Angelis co-counsel to George Felos during the guardianship proceedings on behalf of Michael Schiavo, she is not qualified to interpret or analyze a Medical Examiner's report. She is only licensed as an attorney and as a massage therapist.
Ms. d'Angelis is the former owner of lovinglawsuits.com and the author of "Pancha Karma - A Life Changing Experience". She aided George Felos in bringing forth a petition to remove 'artificial life support' from Terri Schiavo that originated in 1998 though current law at that time did not provide for the removal of a feeding tube under Terri's circumstances.
Her release goes on to say: "The judge's February 2000 ruling was sustained throughout numerous appeals in both the State and Federal Courts." However, Ms. d'Angelis fails to make clear that no Federal Court has ever reviewed either Terri's case or the medical evidence presented to the lower court. Instead, they have declined jurisdiction.
It is, therefore, our conclusion that the Ms. d'Angelis is either attempting to capitalize on this tragic situation or preparing to support her former husband's contentions on a subject matter she is wholly unqualified to remark on.
Statement of Pamela Hennessy, Media Coordinator for the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation: "The former Mrs. Felos is not a doctor, a surgeon, a pathologist or even an orderly. She is a massage therapist. Certainly, she can lend absolutely no analysis or insight into the results of the Medical Examiner's report. Rather, she can only recant what her former husband suggests as the truth to Terri's condition. Medical analysis is best left to medical practitioners and not lawyers."
###
Ms. d'Angelis Press Release: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/prweb/20050415/bs_prweb/prweb229659_1
Well, as they say, "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bull$hit.
Well, as they say, "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bull$hit.
Now that is just the typical answer I would expect from someone (like you) who can not refute a verbatim Testimony from your boy! He is pretty heartless, eh? Admits to giving orders of no antibiotics until the home informs him it's unlawful. Asked it were lawful, would he do the same again, yup. Odd how Death Judge Greer didn't even get after him for this abuse seems so one sided, have to wonder why. Actually the whole bunch of them, death now for Terri group, bunch of sickos.He knew EXACTLY what he was doing and that death could come without antibiotics. He used the word sepsis.
Here is another cut paste: Michael knew and Judge Greer did NOTHING he knew exactly what an untreated urinary tract infection might lead to and so did the Judge unless he was busy cutting his toenails and not listening, which might of been the case:
Sepsis infection is a serious condition. When a sepsis infection has occurred it is because an individual's body has experienced another infection leading up to the sepsis infection. The events leading up to a sepsis infection can vary but bed sores from neglectful nursing home care can eventually cause the dangerous bacterial condition. Despite medical advances and aggressive sepsis infection treatments, nothing as of yet has been able to curb or decrease the fatalities associated to sepsis infection.
This was not abuse or and attempt to abuse according to
da most esteemed Judge and straight from the lips of Michael Schiavo.
Let see how folks die from sepsis
Sepsis Shock
Sepsis shock is another name for sepsis, the serious and severe illness that results from a bloodstream infection. When sepsis shock occurs because of nursing home neglect, a resident may have a poor prognosis due to other health complications that exist, in addition to a reduced immunity level. Bed-ridden nursing home residents have an increased risk for sepsis shock because untreated bedsores can lead to a bloodstream infection.
Sepsis shock is a life-threatening condition that can be difficult to effectively treat. Every person with sepsis shock responds to varying treatments differently, some people will benefit while others will have worsened conditions. It is extremely important to receive timely and appropriate sepsis shock treatment. By eliminating nursing home abuse, instances of sepsis shock can be prevented.
________________
Hmm Looks like your boys intentions were clear way back when the Schindlers complained of abuse. Looks like the Judge was WRONG. Wrong? A your most esteemed Judge could he be wrong, did he care? I think he MIGHT have known the eventual outcome all along, have to wonder why he didn't even whisper a warning to pig boy who trotted around wearing the rings he had once given to his "beloved Terri".
Living with his common law wife with two kids.
Any right thinking Judge would have removed pig boy of
custody five years earlier. Gotta wonder why, what a tragic travesty and pervert justice this turned into when folks team up together to murder a disabled woman, imo.
You are way too weird for me and a flat-out waste of my time. Maybe we'll debate some other time, after you get back on your meds.
Adios.
They earned those names (if not worse), I knew from the onset with your "Death Now" mentality that this was a waste of time, you finally caught on. Additionally it is hard to refute a clear testimony straight from the mouth of MS aka pig boy that he knew the results of his actions when he illegally asked that no antibiotics be given to her and that he had Terri's best interest at heart is a real bad joke. Moreover the crime that this awful Judge did not recuse himself from this case when given the opportunity is atrocious. Adios bud.
You are way to weird for me also and a flat out waste of my time as well, I dont know if there a pills to heal
what ails you. It's hard to relate to someone who refuses
to debate a verbatim truth spoken by your champion.
Figure you must end this "debate" since it's not going your way by insulting me. Fine. Adios.
The FACT is that he never mentioned it during the previous litigation where he said the exact opposite - that he needed the money to take care of Terri "IN THE STATE SHE WAS IN" for a lifetime. He needed enough money to do that. The statement that she never wanted to live like that would have been extremely damaging to his prospects of getting a lot of money during that trial. However it would have been extremely relevant in that case - yet he failed to mention it. So he either "forgot" it or did not think it would help his case for getting the money. Either way he can not during one case say she would need enough money to be taken care of for a lifetime and then turn around the next year after receiving the money and say that she would not want to be kept alive like this. Can you not see the dishonesty involved?
That was excellent PR because he had nothing to loose - he knew full well that her parents would never agree to allow him to kill her, so that is all that was - good PR. You are very naive if you think it was anything more than that.
You are wrong. The judge admitted that her testimony was VALID - but that he wasn't going to change his mind so the outcome would be the same so what he said was that her testimony did not matter. There is A DIFFERNCE.
The fact is all this "testimony" was from Michaels side. Why is it that Greer only believed Micheal's side - and discounted Terri's best friend who said just the opposite. No matter how you slice this it still comes out as a lopsided verdict, Greer only believed one side and just because Greer says so does not make it right - it only made it LEGAL.
This is completely based on Michaels account of things. If Micheal told you the sky was green sounds like you would believe that too. Why have you placed him in such high regard? Why is it not possible for you to see that he is possibly lying about everything. Why does that man have such a hold over you?
Wrong again. 2 of the 5 Doctors that examined her saw her as having potential to recover. The 2 Doctors that Michael got to examine her are pro euthanasia doctors so they had no interest in coming to a conclusion that would not support the killing of Terri. Same goes for the court appointed Dr. The entire court proceeding was a classic Alice In Wonderland sham.
When was that trial, 1992? Is was possible, though not likely, that Terri could have regained some awareness. If she did, Michael would have needed every penny to care for her in that condition.
As it was, he didn't do anything until 1997, five years after the trial and one year after that 1996 CAT scan which showed that her cerebral cortex was gone and that there was no hope of recovery.
Now, to say that Michael "forgot" what Terri had told him, then suddenly "remembered" in 1997, is pure horse$hit and you know it.
Call it what you will. He made the offer, in writing. He did not have to do that.
"he knew full well that her parents would never agree to allow him to kill her"
Hey! Guess what happenened anyways?
And let's not paint her parents as saints. After the January, 2000 hearing when they learned that Terri did not want to live that way, did they change their mind? No.
Promising in-home care to Terri, her parents knew they would be the sole recipients of that $700,000. Pretty tempting to a couple coming out of bankruptcy.
The bottom line is this. Diane Meyer's testimony was in error when she claimed that Terri said this in 1982. Since Terri was quoted by Diane as using the present tense (twice) during their conversation, the conversation had to have taken place prior to 1976 before the plug was pulled (the judge mistakenly said before she died, equating the two acts, a logical mistake).
Judge Greer's decision was appealed based on his error. The judge addressed this issue in writing during the appeal, and stated that it did not affect the outcome. The statements had to have been made prior to 1976 when Terri was only 11 or 12.
Wrong again - he put a DNR on her chart immediately after he got the money from the first trial and stopped all therapy for her. He had TO WAIT till 1998 to act on the desire to have her killed because it wasn't until 1998 that the Fl legislature passed the law that made it ok to kill someone that is in a PVS state and also that hearsay evidence could be used. This legislation was key in allowing Michael to get Greer to order Terri's feeding tube to be removed. And in case you did not know it Felos and others on the Board of Directors at Suncoast Hospice including King were key in getting that legislation past.
On the other hand, the judge found the testimony from her husband, Michael, his brother, Scott, and her best friend, Joan, to be "clear and convincing" evidence as to what Terri wanted.
Yes I forgot Michael walks on water for people like you.
Wrong again - by the time they wanted to pull Terri's plug Michael had squandered the majority of the money. So there was something like $50,000 left. The parents still wanted her - so it was never about the money for them - that much is clear. However, it was about the money for Michael - because he could have stood to inherit 700,000 if Terri would just die. And don't bring up that - "but he offered to give it to charity" bull s%it because that is all that was PR bullsh%t.
I believe I can find where the father admitted it. Of course, then your story will simply change to "Yeah, but he promised them ...".
So why should I bother?
Yes - same old line - if the judge says so well it must be true. You need to get over your infatuation that everything that comes out of a judges mouth is the truth, judges get things wrong.
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.