Replies

Partly, yes. However, as pertains to the judge, the attorney made several VERY IMPORTANT and unusual comments to be addressed to a judge about the judge's order and what the judge's procedures on this matter will be based upon.

The attorney said it very much appears that the judge is preventing Gov. Bush the ability to cross-examine witnesses, obtain discovery so he can properly answer any charges, is allowing "hearsay" into the instant case and, is instead, calling them facts, simply because they were argued/presented in another case, but a case the Governor was not a party to, and, therefore, should not be allowed in AT ALL, unless the Gov. is given the opportunity to refute/admit those facts based on has own discovery; that it appears that the judge has already made up his mind about what "facts" are necessary for him to make a decision.....in essence, the attorney is strongly implying, that the judge is being biased, and by making the decisions he's making, it will be an err in law, not in discretion. An err in law can be appealed. An "err" in discretion cannot.

And I would think that Felos & gang would not want the Gov's legal team to cross examine....Bush could have access to all previous court records pertaining to Terri?

Does this mean also that the challenge to the constitutionality of Terri's law would be dead?
thanks

discovery in law: being able to get all kinds of documents, photographs, information that MS's attorney may have or knows about, examine witnesses (depositions under oath or testimony at trial under oath---getting people to tell you things that might help your case, all under oath).

The "discovery" process usually takes weeks. MS's attorney is trying to "circumvent" that process.

Also, Bush's attorney said it appeared that MS's attorney was trying to get an "ex parte" order. This means that MS's attorney was trying to get the judge to issue an order based on a legal document that Bush did not have (legally) or did not know about, until AFTER the judge ruled.

Ex parte orders are highly unusual. It goes against everything "fair" about the judicial system.....what your're trying to do is go behind the back of the party you're against and get the judge to do something that person won't know about until the judge issues the order. This should only be done in extreme circumstances, such as a judge issuing an search warrant on a party who the police will arrest---they must have a compelling reason to "go behind someone's back."

Bush's attorney said that MS's lawyer did not meet the threshold required for that kind of ex parte contact with the judge. This was not "life threatening" that the feeding tube be withheld. Then the attorney also said that there were other procedures that could be followed if and when something is not life threatening, but a party still wants immediate action from a judge.....but Bush's attorney said even those procedures were not followed by MS's attorney.

Thank you for all that info. I am unable to access the pdf files on Terris site. And hooray for Bush's atty. Excellent work.