Court lifts stay in Schiavo

An appeals court Tuesday lifted a stay that blocked a brain-damaged woman's husband's fight with Gov. Jeb Bush over a new law that restored her feeding tube.

The ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Lakeland is a victory for Michael Schiavo, who has fought his in-laws in court for years for the right to remove the tube, saying his wife, Terri, would not want to be kept alive artificially.

Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, asked the appellate panel Monday to let his constitutional challenge to the new law move forward while Bush takes issue with failing to be served with a formal notice of the lawsuit and in Tallahassee.

The three-judge appellate panel agreed, and also denied a motion filed Friday by Bush's attorneys asking that all proceedings in the case be halted.

"It's very bad news for Terri and good news for the voices of death," said Pat Anderson, an attorney for Bob and Mary Schindler, the parents of Terri Schiavo.

Felos said, "We were very pleased that the court ruled as it did and ruled so promptly. I think it's an indication that the court recognizes that fundamental human rights are at stake here."

The governor's office had no immediate reaction to the order. Bush's attorneys have until 5 p.m. today to file papers with their arguments on the constitutionality of the new law in Circuit Court in Clearwater.

"The court has forced the governor to stop delaying this case and show up in court and explain why he should be permitted to meddle in this case," said Howard Simon of the American Civil Liberties Union and Michael Schiavo's co-counsel.

Michael Schiavo contends that the hastily passed law that let Bush order reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube is unconstitutional because it violates her right to privacy and separation-of-power provisions of the Florida Constitution.

Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 when her heart temporarily stopped, cutting off oxygen to her brain. Her parents dispute that she is in a vegetative state and believe her condition could improve with therapy.

Florida courts had repeatedly affirmed the right of Michael Schiavo to remove the tube. It was removed for six days when Bush ordered it restored Oct. 21.

Attorneys for the governor insist Felos must serve legal papers as required and argue the lawsuit must be filed in Tallahassee, the seat of state government.

Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird issued an order Friday to let the lawsuit move ahead, but the appeals court issued a stay hours later on Bush's appeal.

"The governor should not be allowed to hide behind alleged procedural deficiencies to support further delay," Felos wrote.

Bush spokeswoman Alia Faraj said the governor is not trying to delay the case and just wants to ensure Felos follows proper procedure. She said the case should stop completely until procedural questions are settled.

Governor seeks new trial over brain damaged woman's wishes

- Gov. Jeb Bush fired a volley of legal shots Wednesday at the husband of a brain damaged woman who is at the center of a right to die case, saying there needs to be a jury trial on whether Terri Schiavo wanted to be kept alive artificially.
The governor also sought to remove Pinellas Circuit Court Judge W. Douglas Baird from hearing the constitutionality of the new law enacted to keep Terri Schiavo alive after her feeding tube was removed last month. In yet a third legal filing, the governor argues that Terri Schiavo's rights under the Florida Constitution are being protected, not violated.
Terri Schiavo went for six days without food and water after her husband Michael Schiavo removed her feeding tube. Florida lawmakers and Bush intervened, enacting a hastily drawn law that allowed the governor to order the feeding tube be reinserted.
Michael Schiavo has challenging the constitutionality of the governor's action. He contends his wife had said she did not want to be kept alive artificially before she suffered severe brain damage in 1990. Doctors have ruled she has been in a persistent vegetative state since, but her parents believe she is aware of her surroundings and could be rehabilitated.
Bush's attorney Ken Connor said a jury has to establish what Terri Schiavo's wishes were before a court can decide whether her private health care wishes were violated.
George Felos, Michael Schiavo's attorney, could not immediately be reached for comment.

Jury trial sought to decide what Schiavo wanted

Gov. Jeb Bush's attorneys want a jury trial to decide if Terri Schiavo really wanted to die rather than be kept alive by artificial means.
The attorneys also think the judge presiding over the lawsuit filed by Mrs. Schiavo's husband challenging "Terri's Law" is biased and want him removed from the case.
In a flurry of legal filings late Wednesday, Bush's office defended the constitutionality of the state law adopted Oct. 21 that allowed the governor to force doctors to reinsert Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube.
Ken Connor, the governor's lead attorney in the case, said the governor has the right to defend the law at trial and call witnesses to determine Mrs. Schiavo's wishes.
"Michael Schiavo is going to have to establish (at trial) that he has standing to represent his wife's interests," Connor said. "He's going to have to establish that her right to privacy is infringed, that the governor is interfering with her health care choice.
"You can't just say that. You have to prove it," he said.
Connor said the governor wasn't a party to previous litigation over Mrs. Schiavo, including the 2000 trial at which witnesses testified about her wishes.
"Simply because the governor is an elected official doesn't mean he is a second-class citizen," Connor said. "People don't get to just come in and make these bold assertions without having to prove them at trial."
George Felos, the lawyer representing Mrs. Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo, said the governor is simply seeking to delay the case at any cost. Felos said Mrs. Schiavo's wishes were determined by a court, and there is no need to repeat the process.
"To the general public, this is why they hate lawyers and they have disdain for the legal system," Felos said. "It is the legal system at its worst when one side just tries to set up smoke screens and tries to file anything to divert attention from real issues to delay a real reckoning."
Felos also said a jury trial is not required in the case because juries only decide factual issues. Michael Schiavo's constitutional challenge of "Terri's Law" involves only legal issues, Felos said.
"There are no factual issues in the case," he said. "It's not disputed that a court ruled that the feeding tube be removed. It's not disputed the Legislature passed the law. It's not disputed what the law said."
Mrs. Schiavo, who is severely brain damaged, has been kept alive by a feeding tube for more than 13 years after her heart stopped from a suspected potassium imbalance. Many doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state and cannot recover. Her parents disagree with that diagnosis.
At a trial in 2000, her husband and two members of his family said Mrs. Schiavo made statements during her life indicating she would never have wanted to be kept alive by artificial means.
A judge agreed, ordering her feeding tube removed on Oct. 15. Mrs. Schiavo went six days without food and water before Bush ordered the tube reinserted.
Wednesday's filings by Connor came just minutes before the deadline set by Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Douglas Baird for Bush's office to file legal arguments defending "Terri's Law."
Bush filed the brief, and more.
Connor sought Baird's disqualification from the case, saying a ruling Baird issued last week lifting a stay in the case showed he has pre-judged the lawsuit and is ready to rule against Bush.
In that ruling, Baird criticized "Terri's Law" as a violation of Mrs. Schiavo's constitutional rights. But Baird also said he wanted the state to file legal arguments before reaching a final decision.
"The court has, in the short time that this case has been pending, made it clear that the governor cannot be afforded a fair and impartial forum" in the case, the governor's motion said.
Felos said a judge can't be removed based on a ruling simply because a litigant disagrees with the decision.
"That motion is so out of line it is arguably frivolous," Felos said.
Connor's brief defending "Terri's Law" discarded arguments that it violates Mrs. Schiavo's right to privacy, which guarantees citizens the right to make decisions about their own medical care.
Connor said the law doesn't violate Mrs. Schiavo's constitutional rights. Instead, it simply provides an extra layer of protection for her, he said.
"Her right to privacy is actually furthered and enhanced," Connor said.
Felos ridiculed the argument, saying, "An extra layer of protection? That's a nice sounding platitude. Who does Terri need protection from? The courts?"

Schiavo clash is rooted in cash

The dispute between Michael Schiavo and his in-laws began when Bob and Mary Schindler said he owed them money, court records show.

By WILLIAM R. LEVESQUE, Times Staff Writer Published November 23, 2003

Valentine's Day, 1993.
Michael Schiavo sat by his brain-damaged wife, Terri, at a Largo nursing home as he studied for college classes. Schiavo had brought two dozen roses not long after a jury in a medical malpractice case awarded the couple about $1-million.
Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, walked in. An argument started. With an exchange of heated words, some involving that money, Schiavo's close relationship with the Schindlers ended.
Today, Schiavo and the Schindlers are combatants in the best known right-to-die case in the nation. They are divided by their hopes of Schiavo's recovery and their beliefs of whether she should live or die. But court records show that the origins of that decade-old dispute involved something far less critical than Schiavo's life.
It involved money.
Testimony in the guardianship case from 1993 and 2000 shows that the original family split came, in part, because the Schindlers thought their son-in-law owed them more than $10,000 in living expenses and had reneged on a promise to share his malpractice cash.
"I think one might conclude looking at the facts that a possible motivation on the part of the Schindlers is revenge," said Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, referring to the Schindlers' opposition to Schiavo's decision to pull his wife's feeding tube. "I certainly hope that's not true."
Bob Schindler said Saturday that the initial argument was more about how Schiavo reneged on promises to pay for continued therapy for their daughter, not about payment to the Schindlers.
"Felos wants to make it look like a money issue," Schindler said. "Our motivation was to make sure Terri would get the proper care."
He points to a July 1993 letter he wrote to Schiavo, in which he pleads with to honor a commitment to pay for Schiavo's continued care.
"Even if I'm as bad as (Felos) paints me, that's no excuse for not treating Terri," Schindler said.
Schiavo has said his wife would not want to be kept alive by artificial means. Her feeding tube was pulled for six days before unprecedented intervention by lawmakers forced doctors to reinsert it Oct. 21.
Schiavo, often accused by the Schindlers of wanting his wife dead for her share of malpractice money, refuses to comment.
Today, his wife's money is all but exhausted by the long legal fight.
Once, the Schindlers and Schiavo were close. So close, in fact, that they lived together after Schiavo collapsed in 1990 from a potassium imbalance that stopped her heart, depriving her brain of oxygen.
Together, the Schindlers and Schiavo shared in financial difficulties and in the unending work of caring for her.
In some ways, Schiavo was treated as a son. He once brought a girlfriend home to meet the Schindlers, seeking their approval, and said they had encouraged him to date.
"I think I said he deserved to start a new life," Bob Schindler said in testimony in 1993.
He said he hoped his son-in-law eventually would divorce his wife and start a new life.
At the medical malpractice trial against doctors who treated Schiavo in 1992, Mary Schindler spoke with admiration about Schiavo's attentiveness to her disabled daughter.
"He's there every day," she said. "He is loving, caring. I don't know of any young boy that would be as attentive. ... He's just been unbelieveable. And I know without him there is no way I could have survived all this."
In a jury verdict in that suit, Schiavo received more than $700,000, which was set aside for her continued care. Her husband received $300,000 for loss of consortium.
The Schindlers told lawyers they thought their son-in-law would share his $300,000 with them. Through the years, they said, they helped him financially. The Schindlers said they were owed more than $10,000.
Bob Schindler later testified that he vividly recalled Schiavo promising to give half of anything he won in court.
"I said to him we have to get something because of my tax situation," Schindler testified.
Mary Schindler also testified: "Michael would always talk to me about that. We were all in this together. We all had financial problems. Michael, Bob - we all did. It was a very stressful time. It was a very financially difficult time. He used to say, "Don't worry, mom. If I ever get any money from the lawsuit, I'll help you and dad."'
Schiavo denied making such promises.
The Valentine's Day argument erupted three months after the jury verdict. The Schindlers and Schiavo disagree on much of what was said.
Schiavo told lawyers that Bob Schindler entered the room and immediately asked about his share of the money.
Schiavo said he lied and told Schindler no one was getting any money because he had decided to funnel all of it into his wife's trust fund, where he couldn't get it.
According to Schiavo, Bob Schindler responded by pointing his finger at his daughter and saying, "How much money is she going to give me?"
In testimony, Schindler's account is different. He told the court that a few weeks before Valentine's Day, he had asked Schiavo if he remembered their "agreement" to share his part of the jury award. Schindler said Schiavo told him he'd get back to him on the matter, but never did.
Until Valentine's Day.
Schindler testified that he asked Schiavo: "Have you reconciled how we're going to settle this thing?"
When Schiavo told him that he planned to give all the money to the trust fund, Schindler said he responded: "Michael, you made an agreement with my wife and myself that you were going to share that money with us."
Schindler testified he also felt dissatisfied because he and his wife thought Schiavo was reneging on paying for continued therapy for their daughter.
The Schindlers said they thought Schiavo would buy a house where the Schindlers could stay with their daughter to care for her. They said he refused.
Within months, the Schindlers filed a challenge to replace Schiavo as their daughter's guardian, engaging a decade-long legal battle.
In 1998, Schiavo moved to have his wife's feeding tube pulled, saying she could not recover. Her parents disagreed, saying she might improve with therapy.
Pinellas-Pasco Judge George Greer concluded in a 2000 ruling ordering Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube removed that the argument was about money.
"It is clear to this court that (the argument) was predicated upon money and the fact that Mr. Schiavo was unwilling to equally divide his ... award with Mr. and Mrs. Schindler," Greer wrote. "Regretably, money overshadows this entire case and creates potential of conflict of interest for both sides."

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.