To: MarMema
Those lawyers have got to go back into Judge Lazzara's courtroom Tuesday and argue for all it's worth the following from the Amended Complaint (in my humble, legally-challenged opinion, since I'm a law school dropout!)
78. The state court proceedings and the minimal quality of proof required to
establish clear and convincing evidence of Terri's supposed intent to refuse food and
water as medical treatment constitute insufficient due process for protection of her federal
constitutional right to life.
79. Terri's Fifth Amendment right to life is also violated by the ex post facto
application to her situation of a 1999 Florida statutory amendment which by its terms
operates only prospectively, adding food and hydration to the categories of medical
treatment a patient has the right to refuse under that state's Living Will Law and that
state's Constitution.
80. There was no evidence in the state court proceedings that Terri ever referred
specifically to food and hydration in her alleged remark about "nothing artificial" made at
a time when Florida law did not allow for termination of food and hydration.
Supposing (and that's a big IF) she told Michael that she didn't want anything "artifical", she CERTAINLY DIDN'T SAY SHE WANTED TO STARVE TO DEATH AND DEHYDRATE AND SHRIVEL UP!!!! Where's the proof of that, Michael??
AND, even if she had, the State of Florida would not have let her, since it was ILLEGAL until 1999.
Terri never had the chance to consider the 1999 statutory amendment. A court may only assume she meant the "artificial means" that were in the law's definitions at that time. How can a court presume to 'read the mind' of a person regarding food and water, WHICH WERE NOT DEFINED in 1990 as "extraordinary" or "artifical" treatments.
(They still aren't in many states, including ILLINOIS).
IN FACT, food and water were considered ORDINARY means of sustenance in 1990 in Florida. That's what the people of Florida knew them to be. It was common knowledge. It's reflected in the statute. How does the court "know" that Terri considered them "artificial"? How did Judge Greer discern that? He's never even visited Terri!
How does he know something about Terri's wishes is 1990 that the Law didn't even contemplate?
The law MUST apply to her and her situation in 1990, NOT 1999. In 1990, depriving a patient of food and water was ILLEGAL. It's STILL ILLEGAL to do this to Terri. If she had collapsed a day after the 1999 amendment was signed into law, it might be a different story.
THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
They're going to deprive her of her Fifth Amendment rights to life EX POST FACTO.
They don't even deprive condemned prisoners of their lives EX POST FACTO.
"Judge Lazzara, You MUST NOT allow this to happen. You are a FEDERAL JUDGE, and YOU DAMN WELL HAVE JURISDICTION when a state judge is hell-bent on violating a person's FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Those are FEDERAL RIGHTS!
What do you say, Your Honor?"
3,666 posted on
09/13/2003 3:24:43 PM PDT by
Deo volente
(God willing, Terri will live.)
To: Deo volente
Fron a fellow law school drop-out - my reaction to your post 3666 :
Badda Bing,Badda Bang!!!
To: Deo volente
In the U.S. Constitution, "ex post facto" pertains only to criminal violations, I believe. I would imagine that George W. Greer, not being a criminal judge, considers himself unbound by ex post facto considerations here. I don't know how a federal judge would reconcile the ex post facto problem for Greer, Felos, and Schiavo. I am afraid this federal judge will refuse to get into the matter and say it is a FL issue -- he may be a Pontius Pilate, 2003 version.
To: Deo volente
Is there an uproar in Pinellas Co. over this case? Apparently, it is being fully covered only in Pinellas Co. There seems to be a national blackout of the case. I seem to recall the Finn case getting more national coverage back in 1998-99 than Terri's fight is now receiving.
Greer will go through with the killing if he thinks he can survive politically. Even if he has to yield his seat (which he would doubt), he is so determined to kill the poor creature that nothing short of divine intervention AGAIN can stop him before he kills.
Oh, Lord, please stop George W. Greer before he starves this woman to death.
To: Deo volente
Good post bump. The fact that they are retroactively applying law really bothers me as well. Seems utterly ridiculous and certainly illegal. I say email your perspective to both judges.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson