Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Terri's Fight - (Daily Thread/Updates) November 8 -10
Various | November 7, 2003 | sweetliberty

Posted on 11/07/2003 7:54:47 PM PST by sweetliberty

(Thread 6 - November 8-10, 2003)
(Link back to thread 5 - Nov. 5-7)


Contained in Thread 4:

Link to article on Michael Schiavo from hometown newspaper, information on death by starvation and dehydration, information on hospice eligibility and hospice and medicare/medicaid fraud, e-mail address for Judge Greer, transcript of Larry King Live interview with Michael Schiavo and George Felos, Terri's address at the hospice and the address for the foundation, to send cards for Terri's birthday (December 3), transcript of O'Reilly interview with Kate Adamson, e-mail addresses for Florida legislature, transcript of Abrams Report interview with George Felos and Pam Anderson, transcription of Terri's bone scan, legalese for dummies version of Gov. Bush's motion to dismiss Sciavo's suit against the Constitutionality of Terri's Law, link to FatherOfLiberty's research on HBOT (Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy), links to ACLJ involvement in Schiavo case and Father Rob Johansen's daily update.

There are four other relevant posts that I want to highlight here in case anyone missed them or didn't get pinged. These are a general Terri thread troll alert, an especially thoughtful post about the sincere effort that FReepers are making in Terri's behalf, the Father's Love Letter , and remarks made by Jim Robinson on this issue and reposted here by lonevoice.


Click on pic for Terri's website


This thread serves as a place for posting all new general information and references, along with links following Terri's case, plus information on cable news and talk radio shows dealing with the issue, court cases and press releases. This is also the place to post contact information, prayers and general discussion.

If you have something that qualifies as BREAKING NEWS or FRONT PAGE NEWS, please post it on a separate thread in that category in order to give it maximum exposure and then post a link to the article/thread here so that it will be included in the next update of links. Also, if you post links to articles from original sources and there is also a thread on FR, please link to the FR thread. Many original links become corrupt over time and we want to be able to access the information at will.

There was a tremendous amount of information posted on the previous thread. For anyone who hasn't been following the daily threads, links to relevant posts and information from the previous thread are contained in the body of the present one. I have found that very helpful in trying to find something later. You people are doing a spectacular job of getting information out and also in helping to keep all of us updated here. What a great joint effort. This fight, to me, illustrates beautifully what Free Republic is about and what it means to be a FReeper. Way to go FRiends. Keep up the good work!


Latest threads On Terri's Case

Pro-Life Group Questions 'Quality of Life' Premise in Schiavo Case

Judge Lets Parents Challenge Custody of Terri Schiavo

Dean blasts governor over Schiavo case

Husband Must Defend His Guardianship of Terri Schiavo

Judge Bans Terri Schiavo's Parents From Legal Battle

Dean 'Appalled' That Florida Lawmakers Saved Schiavo

A Woman's Life Versus an Inept Press (Nat Hentoff on Terri Schiavo

Terri Schiavo Case: Gov. Bush Asks To Meet New Guardian

Terri Schiavo Case: Creditable Witnesses & the 1st Guardian

Judge Rejects Bush Effort in Schiavo Case


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Government; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: attorneyfromhell; buttout; daily; euthanasia; florida; forcesofevil; georgefelos; guardianfromhell; hino; merchantsofdeath; michaelschiavo; righttolife; schiavo; schiavothread; schindler; terri; terrischiavo; terrischindler
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 1,401-1,405 next last
To: No More Gore Anymore
Clear Channel Communications owns the billboard space in Pinellas County. Just thought you might want to know that. Glenn Beck is on Clear Channel too.
161 posted on 11/08/2003 7:44:05 AM PST by floriduh voter (Breaking at FR Site)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: No More Gore Anymore
Please no spoons. Please send cards and gifts through the Foundation Address which is at The family takes stuff to Terri when they visit her.
162 posted on 11/08/2003 7:46:04 AM PST by floriduh voter (Breaking at FR Site)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
Your #12. Is that clickable?
163 posted on 11/08/2003 7:46:57 AM PST by floriduh voter (Breaking at FR Site)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lone Voice in the hinterlands
You should probably get into the habit of visiting A new and improved web site. As soon as humanly possible, they put up court documents there.
164 posted on 11/08/2003 7:48:34 AM PST by floriduh voter (Breaking at FR Site)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
Pro-Terri site: www.michaelschiavo.

By the way, there are now over 150 web sites with a Terri page or entirely devoted to Terri's fight. PRETTY AMAZING ISN'T IT?

165 posted on 11/08/2003 7:50:48 AM PST by floriduh voter (Breaking at FR Site)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Lone Voice in the hinterlands
A "Judge" didn't step in and resume the feeding. IT WAS THE FLORIDA HOUSE, SENATE AND GOVERNOR BUSH. Just thought I'd correct the record on that very important point. I held Jeb Bush's faxed E.O. in my hand when it came to an undisclosed location.

Further, if you visit, there's a little something about Jeb Bush seeking to WIDEN THE INVESTIGATION of what Terri's been through - I hope it means EVERYTHING.

166 posted on 11/08/2003 7:54:15 AM PST by floriduh voter (Breaking at FR Site)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: All
What has been bothering me so much about this whole case is that stupid attorney, George Felos's, contention that people who want to die will naturally stop eating. I buried my mother 18 years ago today and I can tell you, she didn't stop eating so she would die. She stopped eating because her body was already dying and the because of the pain caused by the cancer raging its battle within her.

Having had other friends die of terminal illnesses, I know that Felos has his cause and effect mixed up. You stop eating because your body is dying. You don't stop eating to make your body die.

And this whole Hospice thing has me really riled up. My mother wasn't accepted into Hospice until the day before she died!!! The same thing happend to a woman I worked with, her husband wasn't admitted either until the day before he died. How can you have a non-terminally ill person living at a Hospice for 2 years!!

And finally, my best friend is a social worker who spent many years working at one of the top geriatric hospitals in the country, and she assisted 100's of patients in doing up living wills. My father is a very healthy 94 but she was telling us that he should get a living will because , at least here in Connecticut, I would not be allowed to make any life and death decisions for him because as the only child, I would have a financial benefit he died!!!

So how can a man, who would have obvious financial and personal gain, be allowed to kill his non-terminally ill wife, who is living in a hospice!!! How can anyone with a minimally functioning brain not see the evil and illegality in this!!!

Sorry to be preaching to choir here I've just had these thoughts in my head ever since finding out about this case. And November has been a bad month ever since my mother died.

167 posted on 11/08/2003 7:54:24 AM PST by KosmicKitty (There are no atheists in the foxholes!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: floriduh voter
Yes, on the "search records". Then, unfortunately, you have to type in the first and last names of the parties you want to search.

When I tried to post the link for actual search results I had performed, I kept getting an error message.....I guess that site won't allow a direct connection to search results. Had it allowed me to do that, I wouldn't have copied the search results and posted them here because it's just so "in your face."

168 posted on 11/08/2003 7:54:35 AM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: daylate-dollarshort
That testimony helped a judge decide in 2000 ...George Felos, Michael Schiavo's attorney, said, (apparently sometime after Michael's testimony) "It's true Michael never affirmatively said Terri would never want to be kept alive if there was no hope. Then again, he didn't lie. Nobody ever asked him the question."

"I was trying to make decisions on what Terri would want," Schiavo said in late 1993, ... "I would never want to live like that. I would want to just die," Schiavo recalled his wife saying.

Within days of that testimony, a doctor first presented him the idea of pulling his wife's feeding tube. "This woman died four years ago," Schiavo said a doctor who examined his wife told him.

So, when did he first say what his wifes wishes were? This article sure muddies those waters. It would be amazing if not one single doctor ever asked him about this even in the first four years. But I guess he was never asked under oath so Felos' statement can be parsed as 'not technically a lie'.

169 posted on 11/08/2003 7:55:53 AM PST by TigersEye ("Where there is life there is hope." - Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: floriduh voter
there are now over 150 web sites with a Terri page or entirely devoted to Terri's fight. PRETTY AMAZING ISN'T IT?

Yes, actually. I think many people feel a connection to this....they know of people/family members who've been seriously ill; it's one thing to remove machines that make you's quite another to murder someone via starvation.

170 posted on 11/08/2003 7:57:02 AM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: msmagoo
Re: your post. The right to die crowd is missing the point. TERRI IS NOT TERMINALLY ILL OR HOOKED UP TO MACHINES. SHE IS RESPONSIVE. We do not kill disabled people - or if we are, we need to stop!
171 posted on 11/08/2003 7:57:51 AM PST by floriduh voter (Breaking at FR Site)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Maybe when the "trolls" do a little work they will understand and decide that defending Schiavo is not worth their effort.

But this is the major reason of why they're trolls.....they don't read, research, use common sense, or try to understand. They are willfully ignorant and willfully stubborn.

172 posted on 11/08/2003 8:04:22 AM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
                            IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA                    
                                          SECOND DISTRICT

                     In re GUARDIANSHIP of Theresa Marie SCHIAVO, Incapacitated.
                          Robert Schindler and Mary Schindler, Appellants,
           Michael Schiavo, as Guardian of the person of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Appellee.

           Michael Schiavo, as Guardian of the person of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Appellant,
                           Robert Schindler and Mary Schindler, Appellees.
                              Nos. 2D00-1269, 2D01-1836, and 2D01-1891.
                                           July 11, 2001.
        Joseph D. Magri of Merkle & Magri, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants/Appellees,     
        Robert Schindler and Mary Schindler.
        George J. Felos of Felos & Felos, P.A., Dunedin, for Appellee/Appellant, Michael   
         ALTENBERND, Judge.
            In these three related cases involving the pending guardianship proceeding of  
        Theresa Marie Schiavo, we conclude that a final order entered in a guardianship     
        adversary proceeding, requiring the guardian to discontinue life-prolonging         
        procedures, is the type of order that may be challenged by an interested party at   
        any time prior to the death of the ward on the ground that it is no longer equitable
        to give prospective application to the order.   See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(5).    
        In most, if not all circumstances, the interested party should challenge the final  
        order by a motion for relief from judgment filed in the adversary proceeding in the 
        guardianship.   In the rare event that an independent action might be required to   
        challenge such an order under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, that           
        independent action must be filed as an adversary proceeding within the guardianship.
            At this time, Robert and Mary Schindler, Mrs. Schiavo's parents, have not     
        filed a facially sufficient motion for relief from the order discontinuing          
        life-prolonging procedures.   Thus, in appellate case number 2D01-1836, we affirm   
        the guardianship court's denial of the Schindlers' motion for relief from judgment  
        because the motion filed was facially insufficient.   On remand, however, we provide
        the Schindlers with an opportunity to file, if appropriate, a revised motion for    
        relief from judgment pursuant to rule 1.540(b)(5) on the basis that it is no longer 
        equitable that the order should have prospective application.   We caution, however,
        that any proceeding to challenge a final order on this basis is extraordinary and   
        should not be filed merely to delay an order with which an interested party         
        disagrees or to retry an adversary proceeding.   The interested party must establish
        that new circumstances make it no longer equitable to enforce the earlier order.    
        In this case, if the Schindlers believe a valid basis for relief from the order     
        exists, they must plead and prove newly discovered evidence of such a substantial   
        nature that it proves either (1) that Mrs. Schiavo would not have made the decision 
        to withdraw life-prolonging procedures fourteen months earlier when the final order 
        was entered, or (2) that Mrs. Schiavo would make a different decision at this time  
        based on developments subsequent to the earlier court order.
            In appellate case number 2D01-1891, we reverse a temporary injunction entered by a 
        judge of the general civil division.   That injunction was entered in a separate    
        action filed by the Schindlers against Mr. Schiavo, the ward's husband.   The order 
        granting the injunction lacked the necessary findings. Moreover, the pleadings and  
        the evidence supporting the injunction were insufficient.   To the extent that this 
        separate action was intended as an independent action seeking relief from the       
        guardianship order pursuant to rule 1.540, that action, and any motion seeking a    
        temporary injunction related to it, must be filed as an adversary proceeding within 
        the guardianship.
            Finally, in appellate case number 2D00-1269, the case number for the original      
        appeal of the guardianship court's order authorizing the discontinuation of         
        life-prolonging procedures, we deny the motion to enforce mandate filed by Mr.      
            As discussed at the end of this opinion, on remand, the guardianship court should  
        make all efforts to expedite these postjudgment challenges.
                                            I. THE FACTS
            On February 11, 2000, after Theresa Marie Schiavo had been in a persistent         
        vegetative state for nearly a decade, the guardianship court entered an order       
        pursuant to chapter 765, Florida Statutes (2000), and In re Guardianship of         
        Browning, 568 So.2d 4 (Fla.1990), determining by clear and convincing evidence that 
        Mrs. Schiavo would then elect to cease life-prolonging procedures if she were       
        competent to make her own decision. [FN1]  The guardianship court authorized her    
        husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo, to discontinue the life-prolonging     
        procedures.   Mrs. Schiavo's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, were interested    
        parties in the guardianship proceeding and they appealed the order.   This court    
        affirmed that decision in January 2001, and denied rehearing on February 22, 2001.  
        In re  Guardianship of Schiavo (Schindler v. Schiavo), 780 So.2d 176 (Fla. 2d   
        DCA 2001).   The Florida Supreme Court denied review of the case on April 23, 2001. 
         The guardianship court then authorized Michael Schiavo, as guardian, to discontinue
        the life- prolonging procedures.  Those procedures were discontinued on April 24.
            FN1. "Life-prolonging procedure" is a statutorily defined term.  See <section>  
            765.101(10), Fla. Stat. (2000).  It includes the methods to provide sustenance  
            and hydration that are involved in this case.
            Almost as soon as the procedures were discontinued, the Schindlers were informed of
        new evidence that they believe establishes that their daughter would either not have
        made that decision fourteen months earlier at the time the original order was       
        entered, or that she would make a different decision at this time.   On April 26,   
        2001, the Schindlers filed a motion for relief from judgment in the guardianship    
        proceeding.   That motion alleged that the Schindlers had discovered new evidence in
        the form of testimony from a new witness.   According to the motion, this witness   
        was a former girlfriend of Mr. Schiavo.   She allegedly would testify that Mr.      
        Schiavo told her that Mrs. Schiavo and Mr. Schiavo never discussed what Mrs.        
        Schiavo's wishes would be in her present condition.   The motion alleged that this  
        testimony was contrary to Mr. Schiavo's testimony at trial, and that it might prove 
        Mr. Schiavo committed perjury in the proceedings.   The Schindlers attached two     
        affidavits to the motion.   Neither of these affidavits was executed by the witness.

            Instead, the affidavits were given by Mr. Schindler and by a private investigator 
        hired by Mr. Schindler, and contained hearsay allegations regarding what this       
        potential witness told them. [FN2]
            FN2. Technically, the notary stated in each affidavit that the witness          
            "acknowledged" the "foregoing instrument."   The notary did not use the normal  
            language "sworn to or affirmed and signed before me."
            The guardianship proceeding had been assigned to Judge Greer for several years.    
        He is the judge who heard and evaluated the evidence in the proceeding to           
        discontinue life-prolonging procedures in February 2000.   He reviewed the motion   
        for relief from judgment and entered an order denying it.   The order denying the   
        motion found that the only two grounds for the motion were intrinsic fraud and newly
        discovered evidence.   The trial court did not reach the merits of this motion, but 
        denied it as untimely, because a motion made upon either of these two grounds must  
        be filed within a year of the entry of the final order or judgment from which relief
        is sought.   See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(2), (3).
            After the guardianship court denied this motion, the Schindlers immediately filed a
        separate action in the general civil division of the circuit court.   The "verified 
        complaint" filed in this separate action appears to have been prepared by a lawyer, 
        but it was signed only by Mr. and Mrs. Schindler.   Oddly, in the acknowledgment,   
        the notary affirmatively states that the Schindlers did not swear to the facts of   
        the complaint under oath.
            In this complaint, the Schindlers attempted to bring suit as the "natural          
        guardians" of Theresa Marie Schiavo, even though they know she is an adult, married 
        daughter with an appointed legal guardian and a pending guardianship proceeding.    
        The complaint initially sued Mr. Schiavo, individually, and did not sue him in his  
        capacity as legal guardian.   The complaint alleged that certain actions had been   
        taken by Mr. Schiavo in his care of Mrs. Schiavo. These actions appear to be matters
        that had been presented at earlier times before Judge Greer.   The complaint then   
        alleged that after the entry of Judge Greer's final order in February 2000, the     
        Schindlers had discovered a new witness, Mr. Schiavo's former girlfriend, who would 
        testify that Mr. Schiavo perjured himself during the initial trial when he     
        testified that he and Mrs. Schiavo had discussed her desires regarding extraordinary
        life-prolonging procedures.   According to the complaint, Judge Greer had found Mr. 
        Schiavo's perjured testimony credible and had relied upon it in making a decision   
        within the guardianship proceeding.   After briefly setting forth the factual       
        allegations, the last two paragraphs of the complaint alleged, in pertinent part:   
        "Defendant has engaged in an intentional, outrageous, deceptive, and intolerable    
        course of conduct that amounts to perjury and fraud on the court.... This course of 
        conduct has caused the Plaintiffs a decade-long ordeal ... and has caused Plaintiffs
        extraordinary mental anguish, suffering and virtually total disruption of their     
        lives."   In the ad damnum clause, the Schindlers demanded "judgment for damages"   
        and requested a jury trial.
            Along with the complaint, the Schindlers filed a motion for emergency temporary    
        injunction.   This very terse motion, which was signed by an attorney, alleged that 
        Mrs. Schiavo was in imminent danger of death, which death would cause irreparable   
        injury to the Schindlers, and that Mrs. Schiavo should be kept alive until the court
        could resolve the issues presented in the complaint.   The motion sought an order   
        requiring Mr. Schiavo to resume the life-prolonging medical treatments.
            Under the standard procedures for assignment of civil cases, this lawsuit was      
        assigned to Judge Quesada.   He received the pleading during the afternoon of April 
        26, 2001.   Judge Quesada provided immediate notice to Mr. Schiavo's attorney and   
        convened an emergency hearing at 7:15 p.m. that evening.   During that hearing, the 
        trial court permitted the Schindlers to amend their complaint to sue Mr. Schiavo,   
        individually, and as guardian of Theresa Marie Schiavo. Mr. Schiavo moved to        
        transfer these proceedings, particularly as they related to the medical treatment of
        Mrs. Schiavo, to the guardianship division of the court.   The trial court denied   
        this request.   The Schindlers presented the two affidavits that had been previously
        filed in the guardianship court with the motion for relief from judgment.   The     
        Schindlers also presented other court documents from the guardianship proceeding and
        documents from a resolved medical malpractice case brought by Mr. Schiavo on behalf 
        of Mrs. Schiavo several years earlier.   No other evidence was presented.   At the  
        conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted the request for an injunction.   
        The order entered by Judge Quesada contains no specific findings, but it required   
        Mr. Schiavo to take the necessary steps to restore life-prolonging procedures to    
        Mrs. Schiavo until further order of the court.   Judge Quesada recognized that the  
        facts in the case were still developing, so he stressed that once further discovery 
        had been obtained, Mr. Schiavo could seek dissolution of the injunction.
            In response to this injunction, Mr. Schiavo filed an emergency motion with this    
        court to enforce the mandate from our prior opinion affirming the guardianship      
        court's order.   This motion sought an order from this court vacating the injunction
        in the separate civil action filed by the Schindlers, and ruling that no circuit or 
        county judge would have any authority to enter any order under any claim or theory  
        pertaining to the life-prolonging procedures without first obtaining the permission 
        of this court.
            This court questioned whether an order enforcing mandate could affect the judge and
        parties in an action other than the case that had been appealed. Therefore, we      
        issued an order requiring further argument on the motion to enforce mandate.   
        Meanwhile, Mr. Schiavo filed a nonfinal appeal of the temporary injunction in the   
        separate civil action, and the Schindlers filed an appeal of the denial of their    
        rule 1.540 motion in the guardianship proceeding.
            This court expedited briefing in all of these matters.   In light of the procedural
        complexities of the matter and the serious due process issues affecting life, we    
        also permitted oral argument on all three cases.   We now consolidate these three   
        appellate proceedings solely for the purpose of this opinion.
                                     II. APPEAL NUMBER 2D01-1836
                                   DENIAL OF THE RULE 1.540 MOTION
            The Schindlers sought relief from the order of the guardianship court pursuant to  
        rule 1.540 with allegations that suggest that they viewed the legal proceeding as a 
        typical lawsuit in which Mr. Schiavo was the plaintiff and they were the defendants.

            In this emotionally charged proceeding, they apparently view themselves as the    
        defendants against whom some final judgment has been entered in law.   Before this  
        court can determine the application of rule 1.540 to the guardianship order of      
        February 2000, it is necessary to take a more dispassionate view of the proceedings.
            After the supreme court's decision in In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4, 
        the legislature wisely revised chapter 765 to better address the issues of          
        life-prolonging treatment.  Ch. 92-199, Laws of Fla. The Florida Probate Rules      
        Committee created a new rule to allow rapid resolution of these issues when         
        necessary.   See Fla. Prob. R. 5.900.   This rule contemplates a quick proceeding in
        which the trial court approves the decision already reached by the guardian.
            In this case, as explained in our earlier opinion, Mr. Schiavo, as guardian, did   
        not file a petition under rule 5.900.   Given years of bitter disagreement between  
        the Schindlers and Mr. Schiavo, he filed a petition requesting the trial court to   
        make an independent determination of Mrs. Schiavo's terminal condition and to make  
        the decision to continue or discontinue life-prolonging procedures.   See In re     
        Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d at 16.   Mr. Schiavo, as guardian, requested the
        court to function as the proxy in light of the dissension within the family. [FN3]  
        Mr. Schiavo immediately and appropriately asked the trial court to treat the        
        petition as an adversary proceeding pursuant to Florida Probate Rule 5.025.
            FN3. By statute, both Mr. Schiavo and the Schindlers could serve as the proxy   
            for this decision, but Mr. Schiavo had priority.   See <section> 765.401(1),    
            Fla. Stat. (1997).
            The Schindlers are not defendants from whom anything was requested in this     
        adversary proceeding.   Although it would not appear that they qualified as "next of
        kin," see <section> 744.102(12), Fla. Stat. (1997), they were "interested persons"  
        who were entitled to appear in the adversary proceeding and present their viewpoint.
         See Fla. Prob. R. 5.025(b);  <section> 731.201(21), Fla. Stat. (1997).
            When the adversary proceeding concluded, the trial court entered an order      
        authorizing the guardian to discontinue life-prolonging procedures. Although the    
        Schindlers were undoubtedly disappointed by this order, no judgment was entered     
        against them like a judgment is entered against a defendant in a typical civil      
        lawsuit.   Because the Schindlers are only "interested parties," it is not clear    
        that they have standing after the appeal to file a motion pursuant to rule 1.540.   
        Because the judgment directly affects the ward only, it is possible that the   
        right to seek postjudgment relief should be limited to the ward's legal guardian.   
        We have found no case addressing this issue, but in this unusual context affecting  
        the ward's due process interest in life, we conclude that interested parties should 
        have standing--not directly for themselves but in the interest of the ward--to      
        request relief from a judgment of a guardianship court when the final order requires
        termination of life-prolonging procedures.
            The Schindlers' motion for relief from judgment alleged only two grounds, newly    
        discovered evidence and intrinsic fraud.   Although not specified in their motion,  
        these grounds request relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(2) and  
        (b)(3).   It has long been well-established that such grounds must be filed within  
        one year of a final order.   See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b) (stating that "[t]he      
        motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not
        more than 1 year after the judgment, decree, order, or proceeding was entered or    
        taken");  Hartley v. Andriuli, 595 So.2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992);  Wescott v.        
        Wescott, 444 So.2d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984);  Seven-Up Bottling Co. v. George Constr. 
        Corp. 153 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).   The Schindlers' motion was filed more than 
        one year after the entry of the final order in the adversary proceeding.
            The Schindlers ask this court to hold, for the purposes of rule 1.540, that the
        one-year period commences upon resolution of any appeal of a final order and not    
        upon entry of the appealed order.   This suggested rule is expressly contrary to    
        case law.  Seven-Up Bottling Co., 153 So.2d 11; Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum, 636 So.2d 
        579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).   See also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540 (author's cmt., 1967)     
        (stating that "[f]iling of an appeal, however, does not toll the one year limitation
        in which a motion to vacate a judgment must be filed").   The Schindlers rely       
        primarily upon Native Hammock Nursery, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont, 774 So.2d 727 (Fla. 3d  
        DCA 2000).  Native Hammock Nursery, however, is distinguishable.   It addresses the 
        separate question of when the one-year period commences if a trial court vacates a  
        final judgment and an appellate court thereafter reinstates the judgment.   It is   
        doubtful that this court even has the power to rewrite the content of rule 1.540(b) 
        to extend the one-year period in which to challenge a final order based on grounds 1
        through 3. We decline to make this change.  [FN4]  As a result, the one-year        
        limitation in rule 1.540(b) applies. The guardianship court properly denied the     
        motion because it was untimely on its face.
            FN4. We have considered whether a limited exception to the one-year limitation  
            should apply in a guardianship context.   In the context of a guardianship, the 
            trial court never loses jurisdiction over the ward, and the proceeding remains  
            pending in the circuit court.   In contrast, in a typical civil action, the     
            trial court loses jurisdiction at some point after the entry of the final       
            judgment.   Nevertheless, an adversary proceeding within the guardianship is    
            comparable to any other lawsuit. See Fla. Prob. R. 5.025(d).   It has a         
            beginning and an end that is separate from the overall guardianship proceeding. 
             We are concerned that a rule that eliminated the one-year restriction for final
            orders in such adversary proceedings could cause more mischief than merit.
           The discussion at oral argument in this case was fruitful.  It caused the   
        court to realize that the parties in this emotional case have overlooked the nature 
        of the order entered on February 11, 2000. Although guardianship law is now         
        predominately statutory, the statutes evolved from the equitable powers of chancery.
          See 39 Am.Jur.2d Guardian and Ward, <section> 34, at 37 (1999);  SunTrust Bank v. 
        Nichols, 701 So.2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The order requiring the termination
        of life-prolonging procedures is not a standard legal judgment, but an order in the 
        nature of a mandatory injunction compelling certain actions by the guardian and,    
        indirectly, by the health care providers. [FN5]  Until the life-prolonging          
        procedures are discontinued, such an order is entirely executory, and the ward and  
        guardian continue to be under the jurisdiction and supervision of the guardianship  
        court.   As long as the ward is alive, the order is subject to recall and is        
        executory in nature.
            FN5. The final order of February 11, 2000, stated that it "authorized" the      
            guardian "to proceed with the discontinuance of said artificial life support for
            Theresa Marie Schiavo."   At oral argument in these cases, the parties          
            recognized that despite the somewhat permissive nature of this language, the    
            trial court was not actually giving the guardian discretion on whether to       
            discontinue the life-prolonging procedures.   The guardian was obligated to obey
            the circuit court's decision and discontinue the treatment.   Because the order 
            was appealable, the trial court simply did not specify the date and time for    
            this mandated action.
            Rule 1.540(b)(5) has long permitted a party to challenge a judgment without    
        time limitation if "it is no longer equitable that the judgment or decree should    
        have prospective application."   In order to preserve the finality of judgments,    
        this ground has been rather narrowly construed.   See Hensel v. Hensel, 276 So.2d   
        227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). [FN6]  This ground was modeled after Federal Rule of Civil  
        Procedure 60(b)(5).   In federal cases, it has been applied specifically to         
        mandatory injunctions, consent decrees, and other ongoing or executory judgments.   
        DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 38 F.3d 1266 (2d Cir.1994).   See also Rufo v. Inmates of    
        Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992);  Paul     
        Revere Variable Annuity Ins. Co. v. Zang, 248 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2001);  Evans v.      
        Williams, 206 F.3d 1292 (D.C.Cir.2000).   We conclude that this ground should apply 
        to an order of a guardianship court that requires the termination of life-prolonging
            FN6. In many cases, courts have determined the rule to be inapplicable.   See,  
            e.g., State, Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Wright, 498 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 2d 
            DCA 1986) (refusing to apply rule where basis for motion was potential defense  
            to underlying action;  rule contemplates equities arising after final judgment);
             Gregory v. Connor, 591 So.2d 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (same);  Ellis Nat'l Bank 
            v. Davis, 379 So.2d 1310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (affirming denial of rule 1.540    
            motion when issue could and should have been raised as affirmative defense,     
            particularly when underlying action is not injunctive in nature); Gimbel v.     
            Int'l Mailing & Printing Co., 505 So.2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (affirming      
            denial of rule 1.540 motion when trial court had previously considered same     
            arguments during merits of trial and rejected them);  Curtiss-Wright Corp. v.   
            Diaz, 507 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (holding that money judgments do not    
            have "prospective application" necessary to invoke relief under this rule);  Am.
            Fire & Cas. Co. v. Dawson, 400 So.2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (same);  Pollock v. 
            T & M Invs., Inc., 420 So.2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (affirming denial of rule    
            1.540 motion;  although rule 1.540 is to be liberally construed to effect relief
            from an unjust judgment, this relief is available only in extraordinary         
            circumstances);  Cutler Ridge Corp. v. Green Springs, Inc., 249 So.2d 91 (Fla.  
            3d DCA 1971) (same).
            Like federal rule 60(b)(5), this rule provides "extraordinary relief" reserved 
        for "exceptional circumstances";  it requires the trial judge to strike the         
        "delicate balance" between the sanctity of final judgments and the need for ongoing 
        or executory equitable remedies to remain equitable.  See Zang, 248 F.3d at 5;      
        Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 841 F.2d 1133, 1138 (D.C.Cir.1988).   This
        ground does not allow a party to retry a case merely because the judgment provides  
        equitable relief and the party has found additional evidence.   Instead, the   
        rule requires the movant to establish that significant new evidence or substantial  
        changes in circumstances arising after the entry of the judgment make it "no longer 
        equitable" for the trial court to enforce its earlier order.
            Hypothetically, in a case involving life-prolonging procedures, if the ward's      
        condition dramatically and unexpectedly improved after trial, it might no longer be 
        equitable to conclude that the ward was in a terminal condition, see <section>      
        765.101(17), Fla. Stat. (2000), or that the ward would have exercised her informed  
        consent to withdraw the life-prolonging procedures.   Likewise, if an interested    
        party discovered the ward's advance directive  [FN7] or her written designation of a
        health care surrogate  [FN8] hidden in a desk after the trial, and it conflicted    
        with the court's judgment, that might be grounds for relief from the prospective    
        nature of the judgment.   Certainly, if medical research suddenly discovered a      
        complete cure for what had previously been thought to be a terminal condition as    
        defined in section 765.101(17), Florida Statutes (2000), we would treat that new    
        circumstance as a matter warranting relief from such a judgment.
            FN7. See <section> 765.101(1), Fla. Stat. (2000).
            FN8. See <section> 765.203, Fla. Stat. (2000).
            However, at this time, the Schindlers have not seriously contested the fact    
        that Mrs. Schiavo's brain has suffered major, permanent damage.   In the initial    
        adversary proceeding, a board-certified neurologist who had reviewed a CAT scan of  
        Mrs. Schiavo's brain and an EEG testified that most, if not all, of Mrs. Schiavo's  
        cerebral cortex--the portion of her brain that allows for human cognition and       
        memory--is either totally destroyed or damaged beyond repair.   Her condition is    
        legally a "terminal condition." <section> 765.101(17), Fla. Stat. (2000).  Although 
        it is conceivable that extraordinary treatment might improve some of the motor      
        functions of her brain stem or cerebellum, the Schindlers have presented no medical 
        evidence suggesting that any new treatment could restore to Mrs. Schiavo a level of 
        function within the cerebral cortex that would allow her to understand her          
        perceptions of sight and sound or to communicate or respond cognitively to those    
            The new information the Schindlers provided to the guardianship court in the       
        hearsay affidavits supporting their motion for relief from judgment is not as       
        forceful as the evidence described in our hypothetical scenarios. [FN9]  The        
        affidavits concern alleged statements by Mr. Schiavo several years ago.   We note   
        that the guardianship court's original order expressly relied upon and found        
        credible the testimony of witnesses other than Mr. Schiavo or the Schindlers.   We  
        recognize that Mrs. Schiavo's earlier oral statements were important evidence when  
        deciding whether she would choose in February 2000 to withdraw life-prolonging      
        procedures.   See <section> 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000);  In re Guardianship of   
        Browning, 568 So.2d 4, 16.   Nevertheless, the trial judge, acting as her proxy,    
        also properly considered evidence of Mrs. Schiavo's values, personality, and her own
        decision-making process.
            FN9. The deposition of the witness referred to in the affidavits was taken after
            these appeals were filed.   Although Mr. Schiavo has filed a copy of that       
            deposition with this court as part of his motion to enforce mandate, for the    
            purposes of this specific appeal the court concludes that it should consider    
            only the information available at the time the guardianship court denied the    
            motion for relief from judgment.
            This case is not the usual case in which a proxy makes a decision about life-      
        prolonging procedures.   Often, the decision to discontinue such procedures is 
        made within weeks or months from the time the ward is competent to make such a      
        decision.   Often the ward has lived to such an age that he or she has had ample    
        opportunity to reflect upon and discuss these issues of mortality.   In this case,  
        the proxy had to make a decision for a woman in her mid-thirties when she had not   
        been competent since her mid-twenties.   It would be unrealistic to expect the proxy
        to pretend that the ward was not aging and remained twenty-five.   The proxy had to 
        use the best available evidence to ascertain the decision that Theresa Marie Schiavo
        would have made in February 2000 if she had remained competent to assess her own    
        terminal condition and make her own informed decision.   We are confident that the  
        guardianship court understood this difficult task when it made its decision in      
        February 2000.
            Thus, although we conclude that the Schindlers have the right to seek relief  
        from judgment under rule 1.540(b)(5) for the benefit of the ward, we caution that   
        any such motion must allege new circumstances affecting the decision made by the    
        trial judge as the ward's proxy in February 2000, and those circumstances must make 
        it no longer equitable for the trial court to enforce its earlier decision.
             A motion for relief from judgment does not operate to stay a judgment.  Fla.  
        R. Civ. P. 1.540(b) (stating that "[a] motion under this subdivision does not affect
        the finality of a judgment or decree or suspend its operation").   Under the unique 
        circumstances of this case, however, we direct the guardianship court to refrain    
        from any attempt to enforce its original order until Monday, July 23, 2001, to give 
        the Schindlers an opportunity to file a facially sufficient motion pursuant to      
        Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(5). [FN10]  The Schindlers are authorized  
        to file such a motion in the guardianship proceedings on or before the regular close
        of court on Friday, July 20, 2001.   The trial court shall exercise its own judgment
        and discretion concerning the resolution of any such motion.   See Cutler Ridge     
        Corp. v. Green Springs, Inc., 249 So.2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
            FN10. To avoid any confusion, we expressly give jurisdiction to the guardianship
            court to consider either a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil       
            Procedure 1.540(b)(5) or an independent action for relief from the order prior  
            to the issuance of any mandate by this court.
            To avoid any confusion arising from the various proceedings since April of this    
        year, the trial court shall issue an order that either expressly enforces its       
        earlier order or vacates it.   If the trial court elects to enforce its earlier     
        order, it should enter an order informing all interested parties of the day and time
        that the guardian must instruct the health care providers to discontinue            
        life-prolonging procedures.
                                    III. APPEAL NUMBER 2D01-1891
                                      THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
            Judge Quesada was given an unenviable task in this case.   Late in the day he      
        received an emergency motion involving the life of a young woman.   The pleadings   
        were poorly drafted and the affidavits were little better.   He did not have the    
        benefit of any case law squarely addressing the issues presented to him.   None of  
        the lawyers involved in the hearing had had adequate time to prepare and reflect    
        upon these difficult issues.   We cannot fault him for wanting to enter some type of
        stay order to give himself and the parties the opportunity to review this matter in 
        a more deliberate fashion.   However, the record presented on that day was          
        insufficient to support the entry of a temporary injunction, and the temporary      
        injunction order entered is deficient in its content.   Moreover, we conclude  
        that any action challenging the final order of the guardianship court must be filed 
        as an adversary proceeding within the guardianship.   In light of our ruling        
        permitting an interested party to file a motion under rule 1.540(b)(5), we doubt    
        that an independent action is necessary in this matter.
            The action filed by the Schindlers in the general civil division did not  
        actually state a cause of action for an "independent action" as that term is used in
        rule 1.540.   An independent action is filed to "relieve a party from a judgment."  
        See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b).   At least under the circumstances in this case, such 
        an independent action must allege an extrinsic fraud upon the court.   See DeClaire 
        v. Yohanan, 453 So.2d 375 (Fla.1984);  Winston v. Winston, 684 So.2d 315 (Fla. 4th  
        DCA 1996).   The fraud must be alleged with specificity.   See Fla. R. Civ. P.      
        1.120(b);  Daugharty v. Daugharty, 456 So.2d 1271, 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (noting 
        rule of specificity is even more important in independent action).  The action filed
        by the Schindlers sought monetary damages from Mr. Schiavo in his individual        
        capacity.   It failed to state a cause of action that would allow                   
        anyone--particularly on behalf of the ward--to obtain relief from the judgment of   
        the guardianship court. [FN11]
            FN11. We do not need to decide whether the complaint stated a cause of action   
            for intentional infliction of emotional distress entitling the Schindlers to    
            damages from Mr. Schiavo.   Such a complaint must allege conduct "so outrageous 
            in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of  
            decency and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized 
            community."   See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson, 467 So.2d 277, 278-79       
            (Fla.1985) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts <section> 46 (1965)).   We    
            note that parents generally have no common law or statutory right to recover    
            damages for pain and suffering, grief, or emotional loss in the event that their
            married, adult daughter is the victim of a wrongful death.   See <section>      
            768.21(4), Fla. Stat. (2000). As a result, it is questionable whether they would
            be able to establish entitlement to those same types of damages in an action for
            infliction of emotional distress.
            The Schindlers' motion for a temporary injunction and the evidence they   
        presented to support it was also deficient.   In order to be entitled to a temporary
        injunction, a movant must establish four elements, including a substantial          
        likelihood of success on the merits of the case. Duryea v. Slater, 677 So.2d 79     
        (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).   The trial court abused its discretion in determining that the 
        content of this record established this element, particularly when the complaint    
        itself did not appear to state a valid cause of action.   Moreover, an order        
        granting a temporary injunction must contain clear, definite, and unequivocal       
        findings to support the four elements required for entry of an injunction.  Snibbe  
        v. Napoleonic Soc'y of Am., 682 So.2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).   This order contains 
        no such findings. Accordingly, we reverse the temporary injunction.
            We conclude that any independent action seeking relief from the order 
        entered in the guardianship proceeding, or any effort to obtain an injunction       
        contrary to the guardianship court's order, must be filed as an adversary proceeding
        within that guardianship.   As we explained earlier in this opinion, the Schindlers 
        take this action as interested parties for the benefit of the ward.   Given that the
        guardianship is still pending and that the guardianship court has continuing        
        jurisdiction over the ward, it is simply inconceivable that another circuit judge   
        can or should be given the power to override an order entered in the pending        
        guardianship.   As a general rule, one trial court judge does not have the      
        power to review the final order of another trial judge.   See Groover v. Walker, 88 
        So.2d 312 (Fla.1956); Davis v. Fisher, 391 So.2d 810 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).   Although
        the independent action allowed by DeClaire, 453 So.2d 375, may occasionally be an   
        exception to this general rule, when the initial action involves a guardianship that
        is still pending and that court has not lost jurisdiction over the ward, we see no  
        basis to allow a deviation from the general rule. Thus, although Judge Quesada had  
        jurisdiction to initially consider the merits of the pleadings placed before him,   
        upon learning of the pending guardianship proceedings, he was compelled to transfer 
        any independent action for relief from the guardianship order and any request for   
        temporary injunction related to the guardianship order to the guardianship court for
            It is unclear to this court whether the Schindlers maintain that they can now      
        allege in good faith a fraud upon the court as required for an independent action by
        DeClaire.   If they wish to plead such a fraud with the necessary specificity, that 
        action should be filed in the guardianship court within the same period that this   
        court has provided for the filing of a motion pursuant to rule 1.540(b)(5).   The   
        filing of such an action will not stay the February 11, 2000, order.   To stay the  
        earlier final order, the Schindlers would need to apply for, and prove entitlement  
        to, a temporary injunction in the guardianship court.
            Because we have permitted the Schindlers time to file a new independent action in  
        the guardianship proceedings, to the extent that the complaint filed before Judge   
        Quesada seeks this relief, that portion of the complaint should be dismissed.   Our 
        scope of review in this case does not include the question of whether the complaint 
        filed before Judge Quesada states a cause of action for money damages against Mr.   
        Schiavo personally.   Thus, that portion of the complaint is not affected by this   
        appeal and remains pending in the general civil division.
                                      IV. CASE NUMBER 2D00-1269
                                      MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE
            It is extremely rare for a trial court or a trial lawyer to disobey the order 
        of an appellate court when the matter returns to the trial court after the appellate
        court issues its mandate.   In those rare cases where compliance is an issue, a     
        motion to enforce mandate can be filed in the appellate court.   See Blackhawk      
        Heating & Plumbing Co. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 328 So.2d 825 (Fla.1975).   We can 
        at least envision the possibility of a situation in which an appellate court might  
        issue an order on a motion to enforce mandate that was directed to someone other    
        than a party to the appeal or a judge or court clerk involved in that proceeding on 
        remand in the trial court.   Such an order, which would be similar to a contempt    
        order, should be rarely, if ever, issued.
            In this case, Judge Greer has not disobeyed this court's mandate.   Because we     
        conclude that the Schindlers have standing to file motions or proceedings pursuant  
        to rule 1.540(b) to challenge the February 2000 order, that action does not violate 
        our mandate.   At this point, we are unwilling to conclude that the filing of any   
        such motion would be so baseless or frivolous as to constitute a violation of our   
        mandate.   The merits of the motion or action are better left to the trial court    
        that actually made the factual determinations supporting the February 11, 2000,     
        order.   Accordingly, the motion to enforce mandate and any pending amendment to    
        that motion is denied.
                                   V. FUTURE APPELLATE REVIEW
            This court recognizes that if the Schindlers file a renewed motion or         
        independent action seeking relief from the guardianship order, an order resolving   
        that motion or action is appealable.   An order by the guardianship court granting  
        or denying a temporary injunction would also be subject to appeal.   This court is  
        very aware that the postjudgment proceedings and the appellate process could delay  
        implementation of an order for many months. Accordingly, we encourage the           
        guardianship court to resolve this matter with all deliberate speed.   We will      
        expedite any appeal of a future order in this case.   Moreover, if the guardianship 
        court enters an order that is appealed, and the guardianship court is confident in  
        its own decision and is convinced that an appeal is sought merely to delay its      
        order, the guardianship court can use its discretion in determining whether to grant
        or deny a stay pending the appeal.   This court would review the grant or denial of 
        a stay on an expedited basis.   See Fla. R.App. P. 9.310(f).
            Because we have not consolidated these appeals, any motion for rehearing concerning
        this opinion should be filed in the specific appellate case.   We elect to expedite 
        the rehearing process.   Thus, any motion for rehearing must be filed and delivered 
        to opposing counsel before the regular close of court on July 16, 2001.   Any       
        response to such a motion for rehearing must be filed before the regular close of   
        court on July 18, 2001.   The filing of such a motion will not stay or automatically
        extend the period set forth in this opinion within which a motion or independent    
        action must be filed to seek relief from the guardianship order.
            Despite all of the published opinions and public interest in this case, it should  
        not be overlooked that the courts in this case are attempting to honor Theresa Marie
        Schiavo's constitutional right of privacy as it affects her medical decisions.   See
        In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4. The judicial process must be sufficient
        to assure the accuracy of the proxy's decision, but not so slow as to deprive the   
        ward of a final decision--one way or the other.
            Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent
        with this opinion.
         BLUE, C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.

173 posted on 11/08/2003 8:10:54 AM PST by daylate-dollarshort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: daylate-dollarshort
Is there a point to that spam other than to clog up the thread? Not even a highlighted section to narrow in on some percieved point you're trying to make?
174 posted on 11/08/2003 8:17:13 AM PST by TigersEye ("Where there is life there is hope." - Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
I guess some "rolls" are blissfully ignorant (their "belief" in "right-to-die") and others are informed but deceitful. In Terri's case, the "trolls" sound just like Satan tempting Jesus with all the riches of the world (Schiavo's reward).
175 posted on 11/08/2003 8:21:59 AM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty; RJayneJ; JohnHuang2; .30Carbine
Thank you, sweetliberty, for nominating my post #461 for quote of the day.

Today my post is post of the day!

That is a first as far as I know. Too cool!!! /horn tooting

Thanks, RJayneJ and JohnHuang2!

176 posted on 11/08/2003 8:26:25 AM PST by TigersEye ("Where there is life there is hope." - Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator; Budge; Pegita; cyn; Ladysmith; Calpernia; Babalu; floriduh voter; dandelion; ...

Just so everyone knows....I posted the information in post #94 about a radio program that I was alerted to via e-mail. It was not one that I was familiar with. I also posted the link in post 96 based on an e-mail I received from someone who is involved in the fight for Terri. The information is good on that page, and set up in a way that makes it easy to find specific items. I posted the link thinking it would be a good reference. It was after I had posted it that I looked at the page and scrolled all the way to bottom to click on on their main website. It looks to be pro Hitler, anti-semitic and just downright awful. There was a link to a streaming radio broadcast which I also clicked on, and it was more anti-American, neo-Nazi sounding stuff, so while the Terri information, and perhaps even the radio interview I posted the announcement about may be very good, I'm not sure that we want a link on FR connecting to that website.

I have asked the moderators to take a look and decide whether the posts relating to it should be pulled. It is also linked again in MSCASEY's #98.


177 posted on 11/08/2003 8:34:27 AM PST by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: msmagoo
Dr. Gema G Hernandez is former secretary of the department of elder affairs.

And the elderly of Florida rejoice that her reign is over. Watch out, she'e here for your liver.

178 posted on 11/08/2003 8:35:12 AM PST by NonValueAdded ("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." GWB 9/20/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: KosmicKitty

I'm sorry about your Mother. My Mother died in 1998 and I still think of her everyday.
179 posted on 11/08/2003 8:43:10 AM PST by pickyourpoison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; daylate-dollarshort
I just got done reading the whole thing and found it very informative as to the perspective of the Florida Supreme Kangaroo court and the history of the assertions made by MS, and what the courts are relying upon as "facts" that Terri would rather die than be fed.....most interesting is the fact that everything is relying upon the "words of MS" which HE ATTRIBUTES to Terri allegedly saying.

Also, it points out the UTTER LACK of GOOD REPRESENTATION by counsel had by Terri's parents to this point......the Schindler's counsel was out of their league fighting Felos.

Now, I think, the tables have turned and Felos will be battling with top notch, it would now come down to outrageous conduct/decisions on the part of the Kangaroo Court, once again.
180 posted on 11/08/2003 8:47:52 AM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 1,401-1,405 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
Topics · Post Article

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