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

Skip to comments.

Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation has harsh words for the former Mrs. Felos
The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation ^ | 04-15-05 | The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation

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


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: euthanasia; florida; law; righttodie; righttolife; terrischiavo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-172 next last
To: phenn

Millions of people will be "available to interpret the anticipated Medical Examiner's report on the late Terri Schiavo." And they will be equally unqualified, too.


121 posted on 04/18/2005 1:34:03 PM PDT by skr (May God bless those in harm's way and confound those who would do the harming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Are you saying that you don't believe that Terri's parents demanded half of Michael's loss of consortium award? You're saying that Michael made this up?

There are 2 side to this - not just Micheals side. Why is it that this man has such a hold over you? Not everything he says is the golden truth. From what I have read Michael put a DNR on her chart after he got the money which was supposed to be used for her. This is what prompted the Shindlers to ask him about the money.

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?

I don't know what was promised, or what transpired. But it is clear that the Shindlers wanted Micheal to spend Terri's money on Terri and that is when the falling out occurred.

122 posted on 04/18/2005 1:43:43 PM PDT by blueriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: blueriver
Those two? Dr. "Nominated for the Nobel Prize" (who stated in a sworn affidavit that Terri was not in a PVS eight months before he examined her? That guy?

And Dr. Hyperbaric new age radiologist (not neurologist)? Him?

Yeah, well, the court gave their testimony the consideration it deserved.

123 posted on 04/18/2005 1:45:38 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Those two? Dr. "Nominated for the Nobel Prize" (who stated in a sworn affidavit that Terri was not in a PVS eight months before he examined her? That guy? And Dr. Hyperbaric new age radiologist (not neurologist)? Him? Yeah, well, the court gave their testimony the consideration it deserved.

If they were not valid Dr's the court should have never allowed them to be 2 of the 5 Doctors that were going to decide on her state of mind. For the court to allow them to be a part of the jury and then to disqualify them based on their credentials just goes to show you how incredibly corrupt and bogus the entire trial was.

124 posted on 04/18/2005 1:55:05 PM PDT by blueriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: blueriver
You're the one who made the statement, "... and then turn around the next year after receiving the money and say that she would not want to be kept alive like this."

That's not what happened. How can you post such a lie?

Now you change it to DNR and discontinue therapy. Fine. That's correct. He did, after consulting with her doctor.

Big difference between what you said the first time and the second time. Get it right. You're starting to waste my time with this backpedalling.

"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."

In the 1990 Florida Browning case, the Florida Supreme Court said that feeding tubes can be withdrawn from persons in a PVS if they wanted treatment refused.

125 posted on 04/18/2005 2:03:09 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: blueriver
"that everything that comes out of a judges mouth is the truth"

I see. I should change that to "everything that comes out of blueriver's mouth is the truth?

No thanks. You're been wrong too many times in the brief time you've been posting on this thread. I'll stick with the judges.

126 posted on 04/18/2005 2:06:34 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: blueriver

>>There are 2 sides to this - not just Michaels side. <<

Does anyone know when Michael went to nursing school, and how he supported himself during nursing school? I have heard that he moved in with the Schindlers after the incident "to save rent money." I have heard that Terri was earning more than he was before she collapsed. I wonder if the Schindlers supported him for a couple of years before he got his judgment from the insurance co?


127 posted on 04/18/2005 2:08:08 PM PDT by maica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Valid, invalid, mattered, did not matter, yada yada. 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.

The judge ADMITTED HE WAS IN ERROR when he discounted her testimony because his DATES on when Quinlan died and when she had her tube removed were wrong. He threw out the testimony of Diane because he thought the comment would have had to of been made when Terri was 11 but as it turned out Kathleen Quinlan lived for several years after her tube was removed putting the age exactly where Diane's testimony said it occurred. Why that was not grounds for a retrial just adds to the evidence that this court was a complete sham.

128 posted on 04/18/2005 2:15:04 PM PDT by blueriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: blueriver
"This is what prompted the Shindlers to ask him about the money."

Sure. I can see where they would ask him about the $700,000 trust fund and how it was going to be used.

But that does NOT explain why they would demand half of his $400,000 loss of consortium award for their own personal use. Why did they do that?

"But it is clear that the Shindlers wanted Micheal to spend Terri's money on Terri"

He did. For fifteen friggin' years he spent Terri's money on Terri. Who do you think was paying the bills, for crying out loud?

Yes, he discontinued therapy in 1993 because it wasn't working. Why should he waste this precious "Terri" money on therapy that wasn't working?

(If Felos' daughter had the contract to provide the physical therapy that wasn't working, you'd be screaming to high heaven that Michael was paying off his friends and would have demanded that he discontinue therapy immediately. I can just hear you.)

And if her parents weren't constantly hauling him off to court for every little reason (they never once prevailed), there would have been even more in the trust fund.

129 posted on 04/18/2005 2:20:06 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: blueriver
"and then to disqualify them based on their credentials"

They were disqualified because of what came out of their mouths.

130 posted on 04/18/2005 2:21:40 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
You're the one who made the statement, "... and then turn around the next year after receiving the money and say that she would not want to be kept alive like this." That's not what happened. How can you post such a lie?

Now you change it to DNR and discontinue therapy. Fine. That's correct. He did, after consulting with her doctor. Big difference between what you said the first time and the second time. Get it right. You're starting to waste my time with this backpedalling.

Oh so you think by putting a DNR on her chart he is making it clear that TERRI WANTED to LIVE? No, he is saying very clearly that Terri does not want to live by doing so. You are just playing a game of semantics. DNR is synonymous with Let her die. Are are you implying that he put a DNR on her chart with no basis to do so? Or are you implying that he did it at that time because he wanted her to die regardless of her desires? Did he do it at that time because it was "Terri's" wish or was it done against Terri's wish.

In the 1990 Florida Browning case, the Florida Supreme Court said that feeding tubes can be withdrawn from persons in a PVS if they wanted treatment refused.

You left out the important legislation that occurred in 1998 that made hearsay evidence permissible in these types of cases.

131 posted on 04/18/2005 2:38:23 PM PDT by blueriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: maica

I wonder if the Schindlers supported him for a couple of years before he got his judgment from the insurance co?


Yes I think that's EXACTLY what did happened. Before he received the settlement they lent him money and once he received the $'s the rift between the Schinler's because up until a few months before settlement, they lived together. I assumed they were helping him with Terri as most good parents would do. They wanted the best for Terri. Some how thru Greer's judgement on that particular case, Greer said it was about money. Gotta wonder about that man.


132 posted on 04/18/2005 2:42:33 PM PDT by Gimme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
They were disqualified because of what came out of their mouths.

What came out of their mouth was that Terri could be rehabilitated and that she was not pvs. They were disqualified because Judge Greer decided that was not the diagnosis he wanted. And you were the one who in your previous post said the court did not give their testimony consideration,- your quote was"Yeah, well, the court gave their testimony the consideration it deserved." Which implies the court did not value them as having valid credential to to even listen to their testimony on Terri's state of mind. Which is why I say the entire court trial was a sham.

133 posted on 04/18/2005 2:48:07 PM PDT by blueriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
He did. For fifteen friggin' years he spent Terri's money on Terri. Who do you think was paying the bills, for crying out loud?

She was admitted to the hospice as an indentured patient. Medicaid has been paying her bills. Meanwhile he drives expensive cars and has spent most of the money on lawyers.

134 posted on 04/18/2005 2:51:29 PM PDT by blueriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
No thanks. You're been wrong too many times in the brief time you've been posting on this thread. I'll stick with the judges.

You have failed miserably in proving that anything I have said is wrong.

135 posted on 04/18/2005 2:53:22 PM PDT by blueriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
But that does NOT explain why they would demand half of his $400,000 loss of consortium award for their own personal use. Why did they do that?

I don't know if they did that or they did not do that. Where is this documented as fact? Or did you get this from the Larry King Live show?

136 posted on 04/18/2005 2:56:46 PM PDT by blueriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Yes, he discontinued therapy in 1993 because it wasn't working. Why should he waste this precious "Terri" money on therapy that wasn't working?

Oh yes much better use could be made of the money by spending it on himself to buy fancy new cars and other things. Maybe this will answer it plain enough - CAUSE THAT WAS WHAT THE MONEY WAS SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR.

137 posted on 04/18/2005 3:00:43 PM PDT by blueriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
And if her parents weren't constantly hauling him off to court for every little reason (they never once prevailed), there would have been even more in the trust fund.

So what is the net gain for Terri to have more in her trust fund when she is 6 feet under? I don't get your logic there.

138 posted on 04/18/2005 3:04:30 PM PDT by blueriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: blueriver

"Yes, he discontinued therapy in 1993 because it wasn't working." Per that paulsen fellow.

Well if you look at her picture when she was receiving therapy and before the settlement vs. the pictures several years later, they speak volumes. Of course therapy isnt going to work if you have none, ya know?


139 posted on 04/18/2005 3:57:17 PM PDT by Gimme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: blueriver

Which is why I say the entire court trial was a sham.

Yes, and which is why so many people are so upset re: the rulings. He (Greer) appointed Cranford who he knew would come back with the diagnosis acceptable to himself and they could then move on and starve, dehydrate, murder Terri,under Florida state twisted perverted law. Greer was gungho for the get go. Makes one wonder why.


140 posted on 04/18/2005 4:10:55 PM PDT by Gimme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-172 next last

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.

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