Posted on 03/22/2005 3:26:06 AM PST by tsmith130
Just heard on Fox....so sad.
Stalin would kill his head of Secret Police every one or two years lest that person get too powerful. One way to shake up the administration -- head of secret police was a job that only had a life expectancy of one to two years.
But after reading about how people were scared to death when Queen Hillary walked the halls of the White House, maybe we should be concerned about the bid in '08 by Hillary.
I still consider Hillary had something to do with the appointment of this Judge, so I think I should put the blame where I can with a current elected official...
1 The caption of Petitioners’ Emergency Petition for Temporary Injunction incorrectly
identities Robert and Mary Schindler as “Robert and Mary Schiavo.”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
THERESA MARIE SCHINDLER
SCHIAVO, Incapacitated ex rel,
ROBERT and MARY SCHIAVO,
her Parents & Next Friends,
Petitioners,
v. Case No. 8:05-cv-522-T-30TGW
THE HONORABLE GEORGE W. GREER,
Circuit Court Judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit of
the State of Florida, in his official capacity,
and as Surrogate Health Care Decision-
Maker for Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo,
Incapacitated; MICHAEL SCHIAVO, as
Guardian of the Person of Teresa Marie
Schindler Schiavo, Incapacitated; and
THE HONORABLE CHARLIE CRIST,
Attorney General of the State of Florida,
Respondents.
_____________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE come before the Court upon Petitioners’ Emergency Petition for
Temporary Injunction and Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. # 1). Robert and Mary
Schindler,1 on behalf of their incapacitated daughter Theresa Marie Schiavo, have petitioned
the Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and temporary restraining order enjoining the
withholding of food and fluids from Ms. Schiavo. Petitioners allege that Respondents have
Page 2 of 4
violated Ms. Schiavo’s rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the Constitution of the United States. The Court, having given the Petition the utmost
consideration, finds that it should be denied.
This Court concurs with Judge Lazzara’s previous decisions holding that the Court
has no jurisdiction to review Petitioners’ claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See
Robert Schindler v. State of Florida, 8:01-cv-784-T-26EAJ, Dkt. # 12; Robert and Mary
Schindler v. Michael Schiavo et al., 8:03-cv-T-26EAJ, Dkt. # 58; see also District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,
263 U.S. 413 (1923). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that “a party losing in state
court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state
judgment in a United States District Court based on the losing party’s claim that the state
judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights.” Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997,
1005-06 (1994). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine not only bars review of issues that were
adjudicated by the state court, but it also prohibits federal courts from reviewing issues that
are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s judgment. See Goodman ex rel.
Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F.3d 1327, 1332 (11th Cir. 2001).
Petitioners have previously litigated their claims in state court and now, in effect, seek
a review of various state courts’ decisions involving Mrs. Schiavo. See generally In re
Guardianship of Schiavo, No. 2D05-968, 2005 WL 600377 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 16, 2005)
(outlining this matter’s extensive state court legal history). But this Court is not an appellate
court for state courts’ decisions. Moreover, Petitioners cannot escape the fact that their
Page 3 of 4
claims are “inextricably intertwined” with the numerous state courts’ decisions involving
Mrs. Schiavo. As Judge Altenbernd observed, “[n]ot only has Mrs. Schiavo’s case been
given due process [in state court], but few, if any, similar cases have ever been afforded this
heightened level of process.” In re Schiavo, 2005 WL 600377 at * 3. The fact that
Petitioners have exhausted their state court appellate options without success does not
provide this Court with jurisdiction over this matter. Therefore, the Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus is denied.
Additionally, Petitioners have failed to satisfy the elements for a temporary restraining
order. A party seeking a temporary restraining order must establish that: (1) there is a
substantial likelihood that the moving party will prevail on the merits; (2) the moving party
will suffer irreparable injury if the temporary restraining order is not granted; (3) the
threatened injury to the moving party outweighs the threatened harm the proposed injunction
may cause the opposing party; and (4) the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the
public interest. See Johnson v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 734 F.2d 774, 781 (11th Cir.
1984). Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that there is not a substantial likelihood
that Petitioners will prevail on their federal constitutional claims. Accordingly, Petitioners’
Emergency Petition for Temporary Injunction is denied.
It is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1. Petitioners’ Emergency Petition for Temporary Injunction and Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. # 1) is DENIED.
2. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
Page 4 of 4
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on March 18, 2005.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Even\2005\05-cv-522.wpd
SORRY for the bad formatting...but Adobe...
The guardian who opted for Terri's life was dismissed as biased.
Two words - States' rights.
One word answer: abortion?
Typical liberal picks and chooses when states' rights matter and when they do not.
Who bestowed the title of lead forensic scientist in the world on Dr. Baden?
Just because you see him on TV all the time as a paid consultant, doesn't make him the lead FS in the world.
Besides, I believe his "analysis" was refuted by other dr's who have reviewed this case.
Can't argue your point with rational and adult debate?
Oops, I'm so sorry for quoting a sworn affidavit in the matter.
At least one of guardians was a joke. In the GAL's report, from 2003 I think, there were tests he recommended that he never saw carried out, if I recall correctly. Terri's still never had even an MRI. Some guardians.
No wonder this judge was nominated by Clinton.
I want Terri to live and hope the 11th CCA will grant the TRO, but technically when they testified about Terri's "Wishes" it is not hearsay as her alleged words have independent legal significance and as such are an exception to the hearsay rule. I think Michael is lying about what Terri said and I think more than the mere recitation of The HINO and his brother and sister in law should have been necessary to starve someone to death.
Is that the one who had no medical experience?
Taxpayer money should never be used to take care of you.
How do you feel about the poor murderers being put to death humanely in prisons? Do you join the perverts standing outside the prison with their candles?
Have you been screaming about inhumane treatment of terrorists in Abu Ghriab and GT?
You're rejoicing in the agony of Terri Schiavo and her family and now the agony of all that feel life has been made in God's image and only God has the right to take it.
Why should ANYONE be on life support or feeding tube? Since it has been determined in this country, it is ok to starve people to death, perhaps our Medicaid, Medicare problem has been solved.
I wouldn't want to be your mother.
It may well have been.
And this ruling respects Terri's wishes.
That point is not clear. We only have hearsay evidence from a potentially questionable source: Michael Schiavo.
Please, enough with the tin foil hat brigade!
The money "won" in the malpractice has been used 1. for her care because that's expensive and 2. for legal action, presumably, to help put her to rest. That money is gone. How, again, is Michael coming out ahead in your latest conspiracy theory?
It would seem that there are a few individuals, appropriately robed in black, who have made their choice. Too sad.
Could you please elaborate? I really want to understand this.
Since it isn't a sentence of execution handed down by a criminal court, since she's an innocent woman, they CAN'T issue a stay of execution. It simply doesn't apply. That's one of the most horrible aspects of this case. Because she is guilty of nothing, all of the remedies available to the worst criminals are simply not possible for her. Hell, if she was a murderer, Bush could PARDON her.
That would be funny if it wasn't so disgustingly plausible.
And I would expect no difference in those types of outrageous statements you've been spouting either.
This is the link to the AP story in the Tampa Trib. I'd post it, but my broken arm makes it tough to do.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BRAIN_DAMAGED_WOMAN?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME
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.