How the Schiavo Federal Court Case Might Have Been Won(Long article worth the read)

Over the course of the past week, the Terri Schiavo case made headlines with its swift and unsuccessful journey through the federal courts. The string of court defeats might have left the impression that the case was doomed from the outset. Yet the litigation's failure may owe more to a poor tactical choice by the lawyers advising the Schindlers--Terri's parents--than to the case's underlying merits.

The original Schindler complaint included a variety of federal constitutional and statutory claims. Each of them was weak at best, as was quickly reflected in federal district judge James Whittemore's ruling that the Schindlers had failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of any of them.

Moreover, the claims set forth in the Schindlers' original complaint failed to take advantage of the procedural opportunities that Congress presented them in the special bill it passed on their behalf, now commonly known as Terri's Law. Each of the claims in the original complaint permitted the district court to decide the merits without receiving new evidence. Thus, Judge Whittemore refused to issue an order restoring the feeding tube pending the outcome of a trial he thought unnecessary. And neither the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals nor the U.S. Supreme Court was willing to intervene.

After their first unsuccessful trip all the way up the federal judicial ladder ended on March 24, the Schindlers returned to the federal district court the next day. The amended complaint they then filed contained one potentially meritorious claim, but by that time the courts had probably concluded that there was nothing to their case. Accordingly, Judge Whittemore and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals made short work of their five new claims.

Had the Schindlers put their best foot forward in the initial complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction, they might well have fared better.

What was the potentially successful claim that appears to have been tacked onto the end of the amended complaint as a mere afterthought? It asserted, fittingly enough, that disconnecting Terri Schiavo from her feeding tube violated a constitutional right to life protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. That claim was stronger than the others and should have positioned the Schindlers to make good use of Terri's Law. It had the added virtue of encapsulating what the case was really about, at least from their perspective. But presented as it was at the eleventh hour, the right-to-life claim came across as too little, too late.

To see how the Schindlers might have won, it is first worth examining why they lost--by looking at the weaknesses of each of the claims in their original complaint.

First, the Schindlers contended that the state court trial judge who had ordered the removal of Terri's feeding tube had denied her federal constitutional right to an impartial decision maker. Rather than acting as a judge, they argued, Florida Circuit Judge George Greer had become her health-care surrogate.

But Florida law expressly authorizes a trial judge to ascertain, based on all available evidence, what a patient's wishes are, where there is no written advance directive and the family members disagree. Judge Greer was simply acting as a judge, looking at evidence to decide a factual matter: what Terri would have wanted.

Second, the Schindlers claimed that Judge Greer violated constitutional due process by failing to appoint a guardian ad litem or a lawyer for Terri. But due process simply requires representation--and Terri had that in abundance. Michael Schiavo's lawyers made the arguments tending to show that she was in a persistent vegetative state and would want the feeding tube out, while the Schindlers' lawyers made the arguments tending to show that she had some cognitive function and would want the feeding tube to remain in. That is exactly how the adversary system is supposed to work, and additional lawyers would not have raised additional points.

Third, the Schindlers claimed that Judge Greer violated due process in that he never personally visited Terri. But there is no federal constitutional right to have a judge make a fact-finding field trip: Courts routinely hear evidence in their courtrooms. Here, the court took testimony from five physicians who had personally examined Terri.

Fourth, the Schindlers alleged that Florida law violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against incapacitated persons such as their daughter. How so? In general, Florida law permits judges to serve as proxy decision makers for their own family members but not for others; yet Florida permits judges to play this role (in certain circumstances) when a party before the court is incapacitated.

Under the relevant Supreme Court precedents, including the 2001 decision in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, distinctions on the basis of physical or mental disability are only subject to the most minimal judicial scrutiny; if they are barely "rational," that is enough. And of course it's rational to distinguish for this limited purpose between people who are too incapacitated to express their wishes and people who are not.

Fifth, the Schindlers argued that Terri's First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion had been infringed. But under the 1990 Supreme Court precedent of Employment Division v. Smith, the government does not infringe on the constitutional right to free exercise of religion when it applies a general law to someone whose religion would otherwise require a different outcome. And here, the Florida law for determining when a feeding tube may be removed was generally applicable.

Sixth, the Schindlers invoked the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which mandates a more generous standard for judging free exercise claims by persons whom the government has confined to an institution. For them, a condition is legally impermissible if it imposes a "substantial burden" on religious exercise, even if the burden arises out of a general law or policy--unless the burden serves a compelling interest.

Judge Whittemore thought this claim had little likelihood of success because the statute's language only applies to conditions imposed by "government." As I discuss below in connection with the "right to life" claim, that reasoning is questionable. Nonetheless, Judge Whittemore appears to have been correct in his bottom line conclusion that the RLUIPA claim had little likelihood of success on the merits. In addition to requiring government action, RLUIPA requires that the person on whose behalf the claim is being asserted be in a state-run institution, and The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, Inc., where Terri is institutionalized, probably does not count.

Terri's Law gave the Schindlers a remarkable--and in some ways, unprecedented--opportunity. Congress empowered them to litigate anew any issues relating to their daughter's condition. Violations of Terri's rights were to be determined without regard to any prior rulings by the state courts: de novo in lawyer's jargon.

Yet for the most part, the Schindlers and their lawyers squandered their opportunity by initially presenting claims that alleged that the state courts themselves had denied Terri her procedural rights. The only way for the federal courts to evaluate those claims was to look at what happened in state court--that is, to evaluate rather than ignore what occurred in state court. Not surprisingly, the federal courts were reluctant to say that anything that happened in state court was so irregular as to constitute a denial of due process.

To be sure, the religious freedom claims were capable of fresh evaluation but they had a different problem: They were subject to dismissal as legally insufficient without the necessity of a factual determination.

In sum, what the Schindlers needed--but what they failed to include in their original complaint--was some plausible allegation that would have required the district court to take evidence anew on two critical questions: (1) Was their daughter in a persistent vegetative state? (2) What would her wishes be, given her condition?

Only after they lost in the district court, before the three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit, before the en banc Eleventh Circuit court, and in the U.S. Supreme Court, did the Schindlers' lawyers discover the claim on which they should have staked their case in the first place. They asserted, finally, that their daughter has a federal constitutional right not to have her life extinguished by the state-ordered withdrawal of her feeding tube, absent evidence that she would have wished that result. Even then, they only included this potential winner after asserting four more fairly weak claims.

What is the basis for a federal constitutional right to life? Although there is no direct judicial authority for such a right, there is good indirect authority. In particular, the 1990 Supreme Court case of Cruzan v. Missouri Dep't of Health clearly stated that a person has a right not to be involuntarily connected to a feeding tube, and that the state must respect that right in the case of an incapacitated person by abiding by his or her previously expressed wishes. The Cruzan case permitted states to require clear and convincing evidence of a desire to be disconnected, but where such evidence was present, the Court made clear, the patient's wishes are paramount.

It stands to reason that if there is a right to have a feeding tube disconnected, there is also a right not to have such a tube disconnected--at least where the evidence shows that a patient would wish to remain connected. After all, most constitutional rights include their opposites: The right to speak includes a right not to speak; the right to have an abortion includes a right not to have an abortion; and so on.

To be sure, constitutional rights are also generally rights against state interference rather than rights to government assistance. Cruzan was rooted in the common law right to refuse medical treatment, and there is no corresponding right to receive medical treatment from the government.

But that distinction should have counted for little here, because the Schindlers were not asking for any affirmative assistance from the state. They were willing to provide care for their daughter. They just didn't want the state to prohibit them from doing so. In that sense, their constitutional right-to-life claim, like the claim in Cruzan, was also a claim against state interference.

Accordingly, Judge Whittemore appears to have been mistaken in his second ruling. He found that the right-to-life claim failed to allege "state action," a requirement that a plaintiff show that it is the government, not just a private party, that is the cause of injury. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed that result based on the same argument.

Yet, both Judge Whittemore and the Eleventh Circuit failed to come to grips with the fact that Judge Greer issued an order instructing Michael Schiavo to remove Terri's feeding tube, even specifying the exact date and time when he should do so. The state court did not merely stand idly by while permitting Michael to take such action; the court affirmatively mandated the disconnection. That ought to have counted as state action by a state actor--Judge Greer--who was a named defendant in the federal court lawsuit.

Had the Schindlers gotten over the state action hurdle, they would have had to contend with the response that the state had good reason to order Terri's feeding tube removed--namely the evidence that this is what she would have wanted. Yet the federal court could not have reached that conclusion without conducting a new trial of its own. Terri's Law requires de novo determination of such matters.

The federal court, then, could have directed that the feeding tube be reinserted so that this new trial could take place. (Remember, under Terri's law, prior state court determinations could not be cited to show that the Schindlers were unlikely to succeed at trial. So the "likelihood of success on the merits" component of the preliminary injunction showing necessary to reinsert the tube would have been easier for the Schindlers to satisfy.)

There remains the question of whether the federal statute is constitutional. The answer is not entirely clear.

The most obviously objectionable aspect of Terri's Law is that it establishes a rule of law for just one person--Terri Schiavo. Although that makes it a bizarre and, in my view, unjustifiable, exercise of Congressional power, this is not a constitutional flaw. There is a long history of so-called "private bills." As long as such bills do not impose criminal penalties, they do not run afoul of the Constitution.

What about the fact that Terri's Law requires the federal courts to disregard prior determinations by state courts? That too is objectionable on policy grounds but probably not on constitutional grounds. In habeas corpus cases, for many years, the federal district courts engaged in de novo review of federal legal questions that had previously been determined by state courts. The Supreme Court and Congress subsequently cut back on the scope of habeas review, but there is no reason to believe they were constitutionally required to do so.

Granted, Terri's Law goes farther than the old interpretation of the habeas statute in authorizing federal courts to give de novo reconsideration to questions of fact rather than just to questions of law, and in seeming to authorize even de novo reconsideration of questions of state law. (For reasons unknown, the Schindlers did not raise any claims under state law, even though there would have been jurisdiction to raise such claims once they were in federal court with federal claims.)

But while Terri's Law may be criticized as unwise, de novo review is probably constitutionally valid. Congress will sometimes have good reason to want to make a federal forum available for de novo litigation of suspect state court factual findings. For example, during Reconstruction and subsequent periods of racial conflict, Congress could have thought that state courts would not give African-American litigants a fair hearing.

I would argue that Congress would have had the power to authorize de novo federal court proceedings in those circumstances--to replace racist state court fact determinations with fairer federal court ones. If so, then the question whether the Schiavo case presents comparable circumstances is simply a policy question, not a constitutional one.

Perhaps Terri's Law ran afoul of the constitutional doctrine forbidding Congress from changing the outcome in a litigated case in which there has been a final judgment. Yet it didn't quite do that either; Terri's Law afforded a new forum, but it did not require a particular substantive outcome. (We know, of course, that Congress was hoping that the federal courts would rule for the Schindlers. But the very fact that they did not, shows that the law did not mandate any particular outcome.)

Finally, Terri's Law could be seen as a violation of Cruzan itself. That case clearly states that when there is clear and convincing evidence that a patient wishes to have a feeding tube disconnected, the government cannot insist that the tube remain in place. Yet in some sense, that is exactly what Terri's Law attempted to do. It authorized federal courts to hold extensive proceedings--and to prolong Terri's attachment to the feeding tube during those proceedings--even after her constitutional right to be disconnected had been established by clear and convincing evidence in the Florida courts.

Whether that or another constitutional attack on Terri's Law would have succeeded will likely remain forever unknown, for as this column goes to press in the early hours of March 26, 2005, the Schindlers appear to have run out of options in the federal courts. They may yet obtain relief in the state courts or elsewhere, but the federal courts that once seemed their best hope have turned a deaf ear to their claims.

Even if the Schindlers had brought their right-to-life claim at the outset, they might well have lost. Judge Whittemore and the Eleventh Circuit could have issued exactly the same legal rulings that they actually did, and even if the Schindlers managed to win on the law, at the end of the day, the federal courts might well have agreed with the state courts on the facts.

Yet given the weaknesses in the claims the Schindlers did bring in their original complaint, one is left to wonder why they didn't assert the one claim that had a better chance of success. One possibility is simply the rush of events. The Schindlers' legal team were undoubtedly drafting their complaint even as the legislation in Congress was changing by the minute.

Haste may indeed explain the Schindlers' initial failure to raise the right-to-life claim, but there is another intriguing, though highly speculative, possible explanation: Perhaps their lawyers were blinded by ideology. A federal "right to life" based on Cruzan falls within the general doctrine of "substantive due process," under which the Supreme Court has invalidated state laws prohibiting contraception, abortion, and sodomy. That doctrine is anathema to religious conservatives, who scorn it as judicial activism run amok. It is the doctrine that underwrote Roe v. Wade.

It is possible that in drafting their original complaint, the Schindlers' lawyers could not bring themselves to rely on cases that the pro-life movement abhors, and that they did so, in their second federal complaint, only when their desperation would color the courts' perception of the issue.

If this explanation is accurate, it would be ironic indeed, for it would mean that the Schindlers' and their lawyers' intellectual consistency precluded them from using to their advantage a gift bestowed by a Congress with no such qualms--a Congress that in enacting Terri's Law was willing to cast aside the spirit if not the letter of principles it often professes to hold dear: principles of federalism, separation of powers, and the rule of law.

Unfortunately, the Schindlers did not have the amount of money the attorney demanded as a retainer to take the case. That attorney then became the judge in the case-----a totally prohibited conflict of interest.

No money? Maybe this is why!

"They met in the Philadelphia suburbs, where Ms. Schiavo and Michael Schiavo spent their childhoods and married in 1984, barely past adolescence. The couple relied on the generosity of her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, first living in their basement in Pennsylvania, then moving to a condominium here that Mr. Schindler bought when he sold his heavy equipment business."

"The Schindlers followed the couple to this sunny coastal city, and though they did not see Mr. Schiavo often - he was working long hours at beachside restaurants - they had no problem with him. He called them Mom and Dad. They paid their daughter and son in-law's rent."

"In recent years, the Schindlers have also described Mr. Schiavo as a controlling husband who would keep track of the mileage on his wife's car, lash out at her for spending money and hound her to stay thin. They have said that the couple fought in the months before Ms. Schiavo's collapse and that Mr. Schiavo was, perhaps, harming his wife."

NYT

The Schindlers also claim they never received notice of Michael Schivo's guardianship intent(petition?) or success in receiving this "power" over Terri.

However there is the question: Who monitors the guardian to ensure that he or she does not take advantage of the ward?

"A guardian is required to submit periodic reports regarding the condition of the ward and/or the ward's assets. The Clerk's Office is responsible for the initial review of these reports. After the reports are audited by the clerk, they are taken to the general master for review, then to the presiding judge. If it appears that the guardian is not performing his or her duties properly, the court will take the necessary steps to protect the ward and/or the ward?s assets."

Florida Guardianship Questions

More on Cranford, from a search:

When Minnesota policeman Sgt. David Mack was shot in the line of duty in 1979, Dr. Ronald Cranford diagnosed his patient as being in a "persistent vegetative state," never to regain "cognitive, sapient functioning." Dr. Cranford was ready to end his patient's life, but 20 months after the shooting, Sgt. Mack regained consciousness and nearly all of his mental ability.

Source

In 1989, a group of physicians published a report in the New England Journal of Medicine in which they concluded that it would be morally acceptable for doctors to give patients suicide information and a prescription for deadly drugs so they can kill themselves. Dr. Ronald Cranford, one of the authors of the report, publicly acknowledged that this is "the same as killing the patient."

Source

In recent years, medical ethics and the law have been twisted in frightening ways. Food and water have been reclassified as "medical treatments" if they’re administered "artificially." Dr. Ronald Cranford has even testified in court that spoon-feeding may be classed as "artificial," presumably because helping people to eat is somehow unnatural. < /snip>

Dr. Ronald Cranford was a member of the board of the former Euthanasia Society of America, which eventually merged with Partnership for Caring. Partnership for Caring lists Mary Labyak as a current member of their Board of Directors; she is also the CEO of the hospice where Terri Schiavo lives. Both George Felos and Barbara Sheen Todd have served on the Board of Directors for that same hospice; Mr. Felos was in fact the Chairman of the Board until Terri Schiavo was moved there. Mrs. Todd serves as a Pinellas County commissioner. Judge George Greer served with her for eight years; it is he who has ordered Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube removed. He also appointed a supposedly "neutral" neurologist, Dr. Peter Bambakidis of Ohio, to break the tie between doctors who disagreed about Terri’s diagnosis. Dr. Bambakidis had never before testified in a case like Terri’s, but his brother and George Felos have both served as officers in the American Hellenic Education Progressive Association.< snip >

Dr. Cranford has been an instrumental force in redefining the determination of death. Death was once defined as the time when the heart permanently stopped beating. Through Dr. Cranford’s activism, it was changed to coincide with the cessation of brain waves. The motivation for this redefinition was so that human organs would survive the death of the patient and be available for transplant.

Source

"One of the two neurologists Felos solicited to give expert testimony in last week's trial, Dr. Ronald Cranford, is a bioethicist and renowned proponent of euthanasia. Cranford calls himself, "Dr. Humane Death." According to the staff directory for the University of Minnesota Medical School, "Dr. Cranford has specialized in the field of clinical ethics since the early 1970s. During this time, he served as a consultant to several national commissions on right-to-die issues." Dr. Cranford is a familiar face at right-to-die trials across the country. He authored a portion of a book titled "Intended Death: The Ethics of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia." His section deals with the "physician's role in killing and the intentional withdrawal of treatment."

Source

Cranford is a member of the board of directors of the Choice in Dying Society, which promotes doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia. He was also a featured speaker at the 1992 national conference of the Hemlock Society. The group recently changed its name to End of Life Choices.

In 1997, Cranford wrote an opinion piece in the Minneapolis Star Tribune titled: "When a feeding tube borders on barbaric." "Just a few decades ago cases of brain death, vegetative state, and locked-in syndrome were rare," he wrote. "These days, medicine's 'therapeutic triumphs' have made these neurologic conditions rather frequent. For all its power to restore life and health, we now realize, modern medicine also has great potential for prolonging a dehumanizing existence for the patient."

He explained that while landmark legal cases like those of Karen Ann Quinlan and Nancy Cruzan demonstrated it was "sensible to stop treatment in patients lingering in permanent vegetative states," it was now time to look beyond those cases.

"The United States has thousands or tens of thousands of patients in vegetative states; nobody knows for sure exactly how many," he wrote. "But before long, this country will have several million patients with Alzheimer's dementia. The challenges and costs of maintaining vegetative state patients will pale in comparison to the problems presented by Alzheimer's disease." The answer, he suggested, was physician-assisted suicide.

Source

Should of, would of, could of... Monday Morning Quarterbacking doesn't do Terri Schiavo any good. What can be done now while she is still with us? Can any investigations be brought up against Michael Schiavo? We should be concentrating on what can make a difference for the here and now.

03.27.05

Law Enforcement Officers Tell Bush to Open Criminal Investigation In Schiavo Case

Officer Jack McLamb (ret), the highest decorated police officer in the history of Phoenix, AZ, has joined with active and retired law enforcement officers asking Florida’s Gov. Jeb Bush to open a criminal investigation in the case of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, the disabled Florida woman who probate judge George W. Greer has sentenced to death by starvation and dehydration because she uses a feeding tube.

McLamb is founder of the American Citizens and Lawmen’s Association (ACLA), publisher of Aid and Abet Police and Military Newsletter. He is a former hostage negotiator for the FBI.

His letter to Gov. Bush follows:

Dear Governor Bush,

We active and retired, law enforcement police investigators, after reviewing the facts, evidence, witness statements, and investigative leads, in the Terri
Schiavo case have come to the determination that there must be a criminal investigation into the Schiavo case.

Our examination have caused we professional police investigators, to determine that there is evidence, witness statements (medical professionals and others)
that point to the strong probability that the victim/witness Terri Schiavo was violently attacked on the day of her injuries and this is likely what caused her disability. There are medical professionals who substantiate that Mrs. Schiavo was strangled and the blood was cut off to her brain for at least 4 to 5 minutes causing her brain damage. X-rays show that she received broken bones and other injuries on or around the same time as her alleged health problem on the day in question.

Testimony of witnesses state her husband Mr. Schiavo, even though being a trained nurse and did not start CPR at the scene of his wife's collapse. The emergency personal started CPR after they arrived which was some time after the "injuries" occurred.

We have assessed the person of Mr. Schiavo thought the witness statements of professional medical personal who have come in contact with him. Most of these witnesses have had contact with him in the medical or Hospice environment where his wife has been warehoused over the last decade. We say "warehoused" after much research into the total lack of rehab and medical treatment for
health problems such as infections, which he had demanded of the medical staff in each of these facilities.

Additionally, a true detriment to any criminal investigation conducted after Mrs. Schiavo dies, is that Mr. Schiavo has scheduled a cremation of her body
immediately after her death.

Governor Bush, we are concerned that the best evidence, witness statements, in any criminal investigation into alleged criminal attempted murder, capital assault and continued abuse, will die with Mrs. Schiavo. We also believe this is why Mr. Schiavo has had to turn down millions of dollars from donors, if he would but place Mrs. Schiavo's care into the hands of her family because of his concern that she may live and tell what happened to her on that fateful day. According to witnesses who spent months with Mrs. Schiavo, she could and did communicate with them during their duty hours at the Hospice centers.
Mr. Schiavo told these medical professionals he was wanting her to die. He also would cuss and say "Isn't that Bitch dead yet" and other words of disdain for his wife.

As you have heard, several professional medical nurses state that Mrs. Schiavo also ate and drank liquids during their tour of duty.

Governor Bush, this means that Mrs. Schiavo could be a witness to any possible crimes committed against her. Of course this will not be an option if she dies in the next hours. Our police investigators have read the witness statement of another professional medical staff member who said that on at least two occasions she and others believes that Mr. Schiavo tried to kill his wife while
he was in her room with the doors closed. These witnesses and investigative leads must be interviewed.

Governor Bush, we do not know what a full investigation into this case will determine, except we can be certain that more facts and evidence, will be discovered. But, one thing we are certain of, we police investigators need a
hero at this time to save the life of the prime witness and possible victim in this case. We are asking you to be that hero.

You do have the jurisdiction and power to start a criminal investigation into this case and suspend the death sentence of the prime witness.

Governor Bush, this is off subject, but it is a subject we lawmen know something about and we wish to share this with you. In the life of a man there are a few times when he is called on by the people to do something heroic. As you know, because of fear, most people pass up those very few opportunities to do what is right and be a hero of the people. This is why we see so few Americans in the
history books.

We don't have to tell you historically (even recent history) of men in high office who have answered the call to be a hero of the people. Yes, very few. But, some were governors who went on to gain higher office because of the
people's love and support for that heroic figure.

Governor Bush, do you know that the Pope and the Vatican have mentioned Mrs.Schiavo's terrible crucifixion here in this Easter week with her mother Mary nearby, and some Priests have now begun to reference it to the crucifixion
of a innocent man Jesus Christ, while His mother (Mary) stood nearby in anguish. Remember, Terri is a catholic and so is her family. You can be assured that most Catholics are going to side with the Pope.

Governor, very large Protestant organizations are on the side of saving Mrs. Schiavo's life until further tests can be accomplished and she can have real rehab to see if she can improve.

We have a letter of a very large national Jewish organization that wants Mrs. Schiavo saved. We can make all this available to you and your staff. But, Mrs. Shiavo's website has most of this material on it at www.terrisfight.org.

What we law enforcement officers wish to point out to you is that we professional investigators have our reasons to save this woman's life, i.e. we because she is a very important witness and the possible victim of a capitol
crime, but the world has heard of this case at this time. We even have a news article from a big Russia publication about American politicians letting a innocent women starve to death.

Governor Bush, the world and certainly most Americans want a hero today....this hour. The person who saves Mrs. Schiavo's life and gives her due process and a chance to tell her story of what actually happened to her will go down in history books. It is also true that after the books come out, and this story gets out about the facts, evidence of the conspiracy of government against this
innocent young women.... the people who allow her to die will also go down in history. It will mean the downfall of some in high places for their not wanting to step up and do their duty to protect the people and bring to justice
those who were the possible suspects in her demise.

Sir, I know that we are only law enforcement officers, but doubt us not, collectively we have been around a long time and know what we are talking about. There are already those in Hollywood who we know that are interested in the evidence and witness's into Terri Schiavo's side of this story.

Mel Gibson has issued a public letter on his own stationary to have our government leaders save her life. Some of our police association members are in contact with him and his family.

Governor, you are a good man. You could be a great man. There is no question this is a international situation and a heart warmer for any hero who steps forward to save this innocent, who "Pontious Pilate" (government leaders) has washed his hands of....here in this Easter week.

We police investigators look at all criminal cases as ...."does this case have jury appeal". Dear Governor, if any case has it.... this case has jury (massive public appeal).

Not only do you have the law on your side (one example - Judge Greer violated three state of Florida statutes in not defending Mrs. Schiavo as a disabled person when he pulled the tube of Mrs. Schiavo) ...we have the State Statutes, ....but you have Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson and other great leaders on your side. These great men and others, on numerous occasions, have stated that
the three areas of government, Executive, Judicial and Legislative, are to be separate and equal. You have publicly taken a lower and subordinate position to the judiciary - when this is not the case.

We criminal police investigators (and your Florida State Police) offer you a sound reason to be the people's hero and stop this young woman's horrible death thought dehydration, i.e.... THERE MUST BE A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO THIS CASE BEFORE THE PRIME WITNESS DIES! There are too many unanswered questions! Some of them may be criminal!

Governor Bush, you have your future before you, however some of that future may be linked to a young innocent who will die on your watch in the next few hours or days.

We believe in you, and we, along with millions of Americans, pray you will do the right thing, save a life, secure your witness... and be the people's hero.
We need a hero today.

Thank you for your efforts on behalf of all the people, even the weak and disabled.

Very sincerely,
Law officer Jack McLamb, Ret.
President of the American Citizens & Lawmen Association.

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.