Posted on 10/09/2004 5:24:26 PM PDT by churchillbuff
You're exactly right! It's a catch 22. Horrible position to be in. However, you'd think there would be some loophole or some obscure precedent somewhere lawyers could draw upon to obtain a divorce for Terri.
Not if the hubby has moved in with the woman he's cheating with and fathered her two children.
The Schindlers have offered money to Michael to relinquish his ill-gotten rights and let them have guardianship over her. No matter how much money they gave Michael, he cannot afford to take ANY amount of money in exchange for her guardianship, lest he be charged, tried and punished (executed maybe?) for his attempted murder of his wife.
Thanks for your post. The one thing you didn't address is my suggestion about folding into the new, "religious liberty" claim, an argument that she has a religious-based right to be divorced from a man who is openly flouting Catholic teaching by flagrant adultery and fathering illegitimate children.
In the eyes of her philandering husband and his supporters, she is already dead and the only reason her body is functioning is that the machine is doing it for her. They just don't see her as still being alive.
I believe that in most states, there are procedures by which one may file a writ of mandamus to try to force a judge to hear a case. Unfortunately, such procedures very seldom offer relief.
One of the problems with the court system is that judges are fundamentally presumed to be honest. This presumption applies not only to the fact that they're given power in the first place, but also to metters related to appeals, recusals, continuances, etc. Although appeals courts don't mind sometimes saying a judge made an honest mistake, they are **EXTREMELY** loath to do anything that would imply a judge is dishonest, corrupt, or even incompetant; worse, they tend to regard very harshly anyone who would try to make them do such a thing.
My vague understanding is that if the Schindlers were to apply for a writ of mandamus compelling Judge Greer to actually hear their case, he would be required to explain why he wasn't hearing it. He would most likely claim that he had a good reason for not having heard it yet, and--for that stage of request--that would be that. Although the Schindlers could appeal, claiming that Judge Greer did not actually have a good reason for delaying the case, remember what I said about appeals court judges. For them to rule that Greer should hear the case would be for them to basically accuse him of lying about having a good reason not to hear it; thus, they would be very loath to do such a thing.
Worse, the appeals court would probably sympathize with Judge Greer if he was annoyed at the Schindlers for having had the audacity to force him to hear the case, and he was consequently biased to rule against them. The appeals court would likely feel that if Judge Greer was biased against the Schindlers it was their own fault for having filed a writ of mandamus against him.
The checks and balances in the judicial system generally work well if judges are fundamentally honest. But there are almost no checks against dishonest judges. It is frightening to think that all it takes is one lowly probate court judge to sentence a person to death, but if all the courts in the state defer to that person's judgement, that is in fact all it takes.
Good point, c!
The only person with standing to make such a claim would be the guardian. Catch-22.
Regretably, I don't see the "religious freedom" argument going very far given the current "freedom from religion" atmosphere.
The only things I can really see helping Terri would be either (1) the impeachment of Judge Greer and his replacement with an honest judge to hear the guardianship case, or (2) some additions to the guardianship statutes to expressly ensure that a judge can't order that a person be put to death before a pending guardianship challenge is heard.
Show me a case of a divorce by proxy. I don't believe that such a legal animal exists. I don't think anyone can pursue a divorce on Terri's behalf. I welcome any evidence to the contrary.
I understand the catch 22 legal situation. Read the rest of my posts. It's a good point because of the similarity to Michael's argument that Terri had made a passing comment that she wouldn't want to live if she was ever in a vegetative state.
Have they tried to go to the court of appeal and ask for an order directing the judge to stop stalling?
"But there are almost no checks against dishonest judges."
Guess sometimes the only justice that takes place is in heaven.
Thanks again so much for your thorough answers. You've helped me understand the situation a lot better.
I have one question about the husband. Was he unfaithful throughout their marriage? Or did he start cheating on Terri only after he had lost hope for her recovery?
I don't know, and I don't think it really matters here. What does matter is that the actions of Michael over the last few years are not those of a man who considers himself to be married to his wife. If a man were in the process of receiving a divorce and were openly carrying on with another woman, one could reasonably say that the man--though still legally married to his wife--no longer considered himself to be married; his actions, even if inappropriate, would not be hypocritical.
Michael, on the other hand, has openly flouted and effectively renounced his wedding vows. By his actions, I think it is very clear that he no longer considers himself bound by them. He claims to still be Terri's husband, but he sure doesn't act like one.
That's deplorable. If he was abusive, particularly if his past actions contributed to her current state, his status of being a husband and caretaker is conflict of interest. And he's a serial adulterer on top of that. I hope that the woman he's currently with sees him for what he is and dumps him like last week's trash.
If he'd been a good husband when she was healthy and started cheating only after concluding that Terri's case was hopeless, I could feel some sympathy for the guy. But if he was never serious about being her husband while she was healthy, why should the judges take it seriously now? He deserves all the condemnation he's gotten.
I have one question. Now that the Florida Supremes have sentenced Terri to death, is it hopeless?
If he had not had relations with with Ms. Centozone until after he'd given up on his wife, that might be understandable BUT only if he undertook to get a divorce (granted automatically following three years of incapacity). It is absurd that he can still claim that he considers himself to be Terri's husband when he has openly stated plans to marry another woman.
Such conduct goes far beyond cheating and represents nothing less than a complete renunciation of wedding vows. While such renunciation could be considered understandable it should not be without the obvious consequences.
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.