Posted on 03/22/2005 6:13:43 AM PST by sonsofliberty2000
He stated very clearly what the basis was under which he could grant injunctive relief. He then denied it on the grounds that they were unlikely to prevail. He ruled they were unlikely to prevail based on the findings of the trial court, even though the legal procedure prescribed by the Congress required him to try the case de novo.
What was laid before him for the injunction was that plaintiff/petitioner would die prior to trial if he did not grant injunctive relief.
I've been at work all day - can someone update me with what has happened today, Tuesday, March 22? Too many entries to read and sort through.
Thanks.
Gibbs' argument for due process violations was premised on the procedures and orders of Greer. It was Gibbs who introduced Greer into the proceedings for Whittemore's consideration. Regarding the de novo trial, Whittemore has not yet tried the case.
Surprisingly little. The most favorable development is probably that some state senators have turned toward supporting Terri so we may only need to win over one more.
Forget all the suspicious circumstances around her getting unconscioous.Simply on his standing to gain financially in the event of her death, he could not remain as guardian and petition for her death. You could not get away with it on the board of your local soccer club. If you were to gain financially from a contract with the club,lets say supplying uniforms, you would not be able to vote on the awarding this contract.
Do you understand that concept, is it too complicated?
The fact that Sadist Greer did not disqualify him on that basis, does not change the nature of the conflict.
It means that the judge ERRED, just like the judge ERRED when he ordered that she was to be denied having her teeth brushed for years.
Or do you think the judge was right in doing so?(IF so please state your source for such inhumane treatment)
Maybe you are just one of those who believes that if a judge says something, it is always true?
We all know that, and if plaintiff/petitioner dies in the meantime - which is highly probable as the judge points out - there will be no trial. That is one of the reasons preliminary injunctions are issued.
Not necessarily. I don't know what are the rules but I do know that Lemrick Nelson was tried for violating the civil rights of Yankel Rosenbaum years after Nelson murdered him.
Yes necissarily. The judge stated the rules quite clearly and succinctly in his decision. He just gave the - oh it is all hopeless based on the findings of the trial court argument, which argument he was required to set aside.
The issue at hand was whether or not the case could go forward after Terri died, not whether the plaintiffs would prevail.
GOOD LORD PEOPLE! Are any of you listening to Hannity tonight? This Michael Schiavo is a REAL B*$**rd!!!!
Terri is NOT in a vegetative state. There is a difference between brain dead, and brain damaged!
The issue at hand under the laws of the United States is whether or not her civil rights have been violated. If she is dead by the direct complicity of this court before that determination is made, and if it is then found that her civil rights have been violated, then this court is complicitous in the violation of those civil rights.
Furthermore, there was enough evidence presented to a quorum of the Congress to provide a reasonable basis for belief that her civil rights had been violated - enough of a basis for the Congress to act. It is therefore highly presumptious of this judge to dismiss a finding of the Congress without hearing a fact as the congress directed him to do. BTW finding fact is a term of art in law - it means you hear evidence provided by the sworn testimony of witnesses. Even document are only admissible to the extent that a witness is present to explain the document and attest to its veracity.
Michael is a Godless heathen.
Cordially,
I wish it would but I doubt if it is going anywhere.
I think that they will just rubberstamp what was done in Tampa. And the Supreme Court will not hear it.
I believe that they are going to kill her this time.
In my opinion, the backlash building on this case is
going to be bad, very bad!
From the China Daily
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/23/content_427459.htm
And we have been critizing them for human rights
violations - what will they have to say if Terri dies?
Read some of the comments from Moveon.org
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=266
I heard this on Sean Hannity and I thought it was an EXCELLENT point...Michael Schiavo claims to be "staying faithful" to Terri's alleged wish to be starved to death, yet he failed to stay faithful to their wedding vows (which are more provable than the so-called death wish) so WHY should we believe him?? If he can't stay true to his wife in marriage, why would he possibly want to stay true to some flippant remark she made about dying?
Moreover, if the left is so gungo-ho about it's a woman's body and she is the only one who can decide what she can do with it....their primary abortion argument.
So why all of the sudden to we need to listen to a man telling us what to do with his wife's body. Furthermore, listen to a man who is shacking up with another woman, not his wife, and fathered 2 children in open and flagrant adultery.
I have some hope that the 11th will do something,because Greta had a panel with one of the lawyers that argued the elections case in the Supreme Court in 2000,(can't remember the name)I believe he was Gore's lawyer.
He seemed to be confident that they would issue a stay, have the tubes reinserted and send the matter back to federal trial court.
On the other hand there was another little sniveling youngish lawyer who was a total apologist for judge Greer,saying how he was a christian,republican had been kicked out of his church and was a wonderful judge.
Come to think of it I think that lawyer was actually on these threads this afternoon saying what great man Greer is.
Now your questioning my intelligence. Nice.
Maybe you are just one of those who believes that if a judge says something, it is always true?
More insults. You've got a real persuasive argument there.
I have to say you're pretentious, condescending manor has won me over. Boy was I wrong. I mean, it's obvious when you think about it. It's a big conspiracy to kill one previously unknown woman. The husband, the judge, all the doctors, they're all in on it. They're all going to make a killing from letting this woman die. Never mind the money the husband was offered to walk away from it all. That doesn't fit, so we must disregard that.
But it's not about money anyway. Oh no. He's covering up a crime. Yea. He's just covering up his abuse of her, and the judge is in on it with him. Yea that's it. But abusers don't stop abusing when they move on to another relationship. And the girlfriend he's been with for years hasn't shown any signs of abuse.
No? OK, well then they're all just evil. Evil death loving monsters. And anyone who disagrees with us is an evil death loving monster too. Yea! We win.
I'm tired of the name calling, insulting and questioning of my morals. This is why I stayed out of it for so long. You guys are so predictable. I'm done with this one.
So am I. Just imagine how Terri's family is feeling right now. I would have to be sedated if I were her mother. Either that, or I would have been arrested because I would have tried to give her water.
Absolutely...I think, as Rush said, the feminists are sitting this one out because the precedent of death is more important to them than the idea of a husband deciding the fate of his wife. They are giddy at the thought that murder will actually be given sanction, so they can stomach a "man's right" for the time being.
What is taking those slothful 11th circuit judges so LONG!??!
AND WHAT HARM would be done if they would just allow Terri to eat while all the legal wrangling is sorted out? These jerks are just riding the clock and hoping she'll die.
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.