Posted on 10/09/2004 5:24:26 PM PDT by churchillbuff
Pardon this vanity, but something about this Schiavo case doesn't compute. Help me understand, if you can. The court has focused on the claim that Terri said she "wished" - or some words like that - not to be kept alive if in a severely debilitated state. Well, if the focus is on what she might have desired for herself in various hypothetical situations, DID SHE EVER SAY SHE'D WANT TO BE DIVORCED IF HER HUSBAND WAS EVER TAKING UP WITH ANOTHER WOMAN AND HAVING CHILDREN BY THAT OTHER WOMAN? I wouldn't be surprised if she might have said something like that, in a casual way, to a friend at one time or another -- something like, "I don't know how so-and-so can live with that cheating husband; I know I'd demand a divorce if I had a husband who cheated."
If she DID ever say something like this, could it be cited to the judge - as grounds for giving her a divorce, now, from a husband who reportedly has a girlfriend, and kids by that girlfriend?
Also, does the Catholic Church allow annulment in such situations? I've read that a "religious rights" claim is now being filed on Terri's behalf - on the grounds that the pope has said disconnecting feeding tubes is wrong, and Terri would follow the pope's teaching, as a good Catholic. Well, doesn't the same argument apply when her husband's cheating - i.e., that as a good Catholic she wouldn't put up with it? Doesn't she have a "religious right" not to continue to live with an open philanderer who is flagrantly violating God's law against adultery?
Here follows a story that says her parents are asking the husband to divorce her - - - - but why shouldn't the court act on its own, in Terri's interest - and in support of her religious right - - to grant the divorce whether or not the husband objects?
If she and her husband took the usual vows --- which promised fidelity and love then her husband broke those vows when he began cheating on her. Adultery is cause for a divorce in the Bible -- and in the Catholic Church --- just that the Church doesn't allow remarriage even after adultery -- but definitely adultery breaks the marriage vows.
ping
Excellent point. I think you're right.
Her lawyers need to act on this immediately.
ping
The difficulty here is a catch-22: if Terri had an honest guardian, that person would have applied for a divorce long ago and almost certainly been granted one. Unfortunately, because Terri hasn't divorced Michael, he's able to use his position as her guardian to prevent her from doing so; further, unless or until she gets a divorce, he can use his position as her husband to try to maintain his position as guardian.
Has anyone ever offered to just pay Michael Schiavo a big fat chunk of change to divorce Terri?
It would have to be more than what his share of potential book sales/speaking engagements would be after he kills her.
Would something like three million dollars do it?
Yes, but I don't think any of Terri's supporters have enough money to buy Michael and Felos an extradition-proof island.
It is my understanding that Judge Greer appointed Terri's 'hubby' as her guardian ad litum, and as such Terri has absolutely no standing before a court except as represented by the one whom the Judge appointed. It is but one more reason why I and my extended family have removed Floriduh from ANY travel plans, it's just too dangerous to even be in that liberal sty.
Not at all. While it's not common, it's certainly not uncommon for a person to not want a divorce even after discovery of a spouse's infidelity.
Granted, I would ditch a woman who cheated on me, and most of the women in my life, I don't think, would want to hang around if I cheated on them.
But it happens.
The thing is that Terri does not really exist in the eyes of the people of FL and their laws. Terri is a "ward" of the court, and George W. Greer, reelected on Aug. 31 with 65 percent of Pasco-Pinellas voters, has decreed twice already that she must be starved and dehydrated if her "husband" so mandates. So really is a non-entity in the legal sense in liberal FL. Many Floridians really want this poor soul DEAD NOW.
While money means a lot to Michael R. Schiavo, George Felos, and George W. Greer, it is POWER that really motivates them. And they will show their masculinity in a big way by murdering a helpless, disabled woman. Go figure those "FL values."
Is there such a thing (since I know very little about law) of an "incompetent guardian"?
Seems like this could be proven, since Michael is living with another woman--thus committing adultery and thereby, not competent as Terri's guardian.
Surely there are ways and means to do this in the courts?? Have her lawyers tried this?
A person is ineligible to serve as guardian for a ward if a material conflict exists or develops between the interests of the guardian and those of the ward.
Any interested person may file a motion to have a guardian disqualified; indeed, such a motion is just about the only sort of legal action where the Schindlers would have or would have had real standing. One of the general problems the Schindlers have had with their other motions is that they didn't have any standing to demand access to evidence; the guardianship challenge is clearly the right primary legal focus.
Unfortunately, even though the Schindlers filed a motion to challenge Michael's guardianship in 2002--about two years ago--Greer has granted Michael/Felos perpetual continuances and has not yet heard the case. Unfortunately, while it would be possible (though likely futile) to appeal a decision by Judge Greer denying the challenge, a decision can't be appealed until it's made.
Surely there are ways and means to do this in the courts?? Have her lawyers tried this?
As noted, the guardianship challenge was filed in 2002. Unfortunately, I know of no way for them to force Greer to stop postponing it. If he were to hear the case, I think it would be very difficult for him to find that there is not a clear and material conflict of interest between Michael and Terri, especially given that Michael has openly said that he wants to marry the mother of his children and can't do so until Terri's dead. But since he won't hear the case, I don't know what the Schindlers can do.
One thing the Schindlers did try was to challenge Michael's authority to do certain things as guardian given that he had failed to perform some of the legally-required functions. Judge Greer dismissed the motion on the basis that such motions were intended for use only in cases where no other relief could be sought; in the extant case, relief could be sought by other means, to wit, by filing a challenge of guardianship. Since the Schindlers were obviously aware that such alternate means of relief was available, as evidenced by their having filed such a motion, there was no basis to grant relief under the challenge of specific authority.
If something doesn't seem quite right about the logic, don't worry--it means you're probably normal. Unfortunately, the court system in Florida seems to believe that relief is "available" if one can file for it, whether or not one's case will ever actually be heard.
"Have her lawyers tried this?"
Everything I've read leads me to the conclusion that this judge is utterly corrupt.
Unfortunately, so is the Florida Supreme Court.
Her lawyers can try anything, and these corrupt judges will just swat it down.
A hundred years ago somebody would have called them out.
"Have her lawyers tried this?"
Everything I've read leads me to the conclusion that this judge is utterly corrupt.
Unfortunately, so is the Florida Supreme Court.
Her lawyers can try anything, and these corrupt judges will just swat it down.
A hundred years ago somebody would have called them out.
Thanks for your knowledgeable answer.
Again, pardon my ignorance of the law, but is it possible to appeal to a higher court (or someone/something) to force a judge to hear a case (in a reasonable amount of time)?
I know you stated already that you knew of no way for them to force Greer to stop postponing. But I guess it's just hard to believe that in the court system there would be no way at all to make a judge hear a case after a certain length of time.
Seems like that would be a dangerous weapon in the hands of any (corrupt) judge, and laws should be passed to correct this.
Doesn't some "body" have the legal right to rule on this judge's actions and let the case be heard?
"A hundred years ago somebody would have called them out."
You're right on that. In fact, maybe even just 60 years ago......
Good point, c!
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.