Why Terri's Parents Lost: the Real Story

Newsmax.com | 03-29-05 | Newsmax.com

[Robert A Cook PE]

They didn't anticipate the depth of hatred Greer/Micheal/Felos have for for Terri.

Killing her has been their LIFE for 15 years:

Greer - > For the POWER he gets by thwarting her parents, and national executive body. It's a power thing now for him" They threatened HIS POWER as a judge, and showed HIS prejudiced and incompetence as a judge. ANd he cannot let her live to show he was wrong.

Micheal just (now) wants her dead.

Felos wants a long-term "death" business, and the "name" he received for fighting HIS law through the FL legislature.

Facing that, Bush got his head cut off. Those three continued to scheme AGAINST Terri deliberately after the US law was written.

[wouldntbprudent]

I'm with you: I've been thinking all along, what's up with the parents' lawyers? They seem to have fallen down on the job on several fronts.

[ontos-on]

read the article again.

[MHGinTN]

Torie, I'm recalling a discussion held here back in 2000 (I think it was) when the Florida Hospice program and the inappropriateness of Terri being moved there was raised. I believe Greta's husband is also Scientology and they are listed on the 'magnanimous donors' list. An FR search of Scientology might turn something of a link ... I run see if I can find it.

[Torie]

My guess after pondering this matter, and after making some rather polemical posts to the contrary, is that the best lawyer would not have changed the outcome. The federal claims are too weak, absent an "activist" lower court judge that wanted to force higher courts to make the Curzan decision symmetrical. I suspect that I would have done that. I would have been activist.

Having said that, we will never know, because yes the lawyering was weak, and too little too late (per the amended complaint which at that point would have exposed Whittemore as having endangered Terri's life based on a poor pleading, and thus that maybe generated a bias against reversing his ruling), and I would assume based on the poor pleadings, had equally poor briefs.

The sad thing is I suspect, is that the right to life movement in this context, simply does not have access to the best and brightest federal constitutional lawyers. They simply don't have Olson and the Federalist Society types on speed dial. And of course it needed to be on speed dial; there was so little time. Indeed, the whole thing really needed to be prewritten by the right brains in anticipation. Just another guess.

[Torie]

Understand I am not suggesting you are wrong. It is just so rather serious a charge, that it needs to be verified in my view.

[Guenevere]

to read later

[Robert A Cook PE]

Oh, so true.

It's been all about "abortion" since day one.

And the democrats, the media, and every judge and newscaster, and reporter, and judge appointed by the Clinton's have that.

Now, they aren't saying it, but they know it.

[Lancey Howard]

They were outgunned. They just wanted to take care of their daughter.

That's where you figure somebody in charge will step in and prevent a court-sanctioned murder. Unfortunately, "somebody" could only shrug his shoulders and say there is nothing he can do. The county probate judge will not be denied this murder, this demonstration of his power over life and death.

Tick....

[karenz]

I have some legal questions. First, I appreciate Congress' effort to afford Terri the same appeals process as criminals have, but I do not understand why their action was needed. The Supreme Court has accepted appeals in such cases before - most importantly - the Nancy Cruzan case. 1 - Couldn't the lawyers have asked in appeal to the SCOTUS, "will you please weigh in and give Terri the same consideration you gave to Nancy Cruzan"?

2 Doesn't it violate Terri's equal rights for the SCOTUS to hear the Cruzan case and not Terri's case?

3 In the Cruzan case (same physical state as Terri), the parents had sued to have the feeding tube removed. The state denied the request saying there was not evidence that Nancy would have wanted the tube removed. The SCOTUS ruled with the state - not simply because it was a states right. Rehnquist wrote the LONG opinion "erring" on the side of life. Schindler's lawyers would have had an easy time writing their brief, as they could have used Rehnquist's own words taken straight from his opinion. The parents eventually won in state court by producing enough evidence to convince the judge that it would have been Nancy's choice to die, but that doesn't change what the SCOTUS decided and said. Am I making this too simple?

[Ann Archy]

You are sick......do you HONESTLY think the Schindler's are "taking copious notes for their movie deal"?? Sick....Sick...SICK!

[ontos-on]

I think that the bad lawyering at the federal district court resulted from two things:

(1) the time pressure they felt they were under because the tube had already been removed; and

(2) the false belief that the district court would read the new law passed by Congress the way they wanted it to be read and not as it could and was read by a judge who wanted no part of all this. Their pleadings make it look like they felt that the district court would accept them with open arms--so they did not prepare a case that would have forced the district case to find that there were realistic questions as to the due procees required when a court is taking someone's life, is involved.

False confidence and euphoria that the Congress passed that law--with not enough good thinking.

[onyx eyes]

Well, I am in Florida and Florida stinks so bad, we cant hardly stand it, down here. A fact. If you're gonna hear any bad news, any weird news, any sad news, it is usually, as a rule, out of Florida.

[MHGinTN]

She brings it up in her book, My Turn At The Bully Pulpit (I think that's the title).

[MHGinTN]

The title for the book about Terri's execution ought to be 'Murder By Court Decree' but the other Florida courts have the deadly 'rubber stamp' to cover Greer's arse ... and Whittemore did his best to abide same, denying a de novo hearing.

[ontos-on]

The circuit court of appeals judge on the 11th circuit panel that wrote the good dissent was a Clinton appointment--although because he graduated from Notre Dame college and law school, he probably had a greater sensitivity to the life issue than the pro death judges that seem to abound.

[Torie]

The problem with that is that Curzan dropped the standard from clear and convincing to perponderance of the evidence, as to the right to die. In Florida, the right to deny life was by the clear and convincing standard. So the pleading needs to be that there is a right to life by the perponderance of the evidence that is not met, and such right is a substantive due process right not yet created by SCOTUS but it is there, and if presented with the case, SCOTUS would find it, and that there was state action because the court ordered it, as opposed to the state action being a state statute. Thus one has two novel questions posed for a trial court judge to ponder.

That is my current take. But this is a learning process for me. I am not sure I have it quite right even yet.

[TheCrusader]

"They were lousy lawyers. Instead of presenting the de novo case, they dredged up all the old stuff against Greer's decisions. And, the federal judge pointed that out"

As usual stinkspur, you feel most comfortable when siding with the forces of darkness.

There were dissenting Federal appellate judges who sided with the Schindler attorney and strongly condemned the majority Judges for ignoring important legal facts the Schindler attornies provided for them.

One Federal appellate Judge from the 11th Circuit also said his fellow judges were overtly ignoring the will of the Congress in rejecting their emergency legislation calling for an FULL appeals hearing, and to keep Terri Schiavo alive in the meantime.

So no matter how you slice it, enough evidence and points of law were provided to satisfy at least some appellate Judges. But it's impossible to mollify the lusts of the death cult.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Wasn't there an old joke about God losing a battle in court because there were no lawyers in Heaven?

Pendantic enough for you? :)

[ArmstedFragg]

Am I making this too simple?

Or perhaps not simple enough. The Cruzan case stands for the principal that the state has a right to countermand the orders of the next of kin regarding withdrawing nutrition and fluids. This case involves the state agreeing to go along with that request. Both cases involve the Supreme Court declining to intervene in a state issue.

While some of the facts are similar in both cases, the legal questions raised are not. If anything, Cruzan supports the Supreme's repeated refusal to hear this case.