Posted on 03/05/2004 5:32:27 AM PST by cyn
Clearwater, FL (LifeNews.com) -- Attorneys for Terri Schiavo's parents Bob and Mary Schindler have re-filed a legal motion to intervene in the lawsuit filed by Terri's estranged husband Michael seeking to overturn Terri's Law. The action follows a victory in an appeals court case that said a local judge failed to follow proper standards when reviewing the original motion to intervene.
The American Center for Law and Justice, a pro-life law firm, filed the motion Thursday on behalf of the Schindlers. It asks Circuit Court Judge Douglas Baird to abide by the findings of the Florida appeals court and allow the Schindlers to defend Terri's Law along with attorneys for Governor Jeb Bush (R).
"The fact is that legally the parents of Terri Schindler Schiavo are interested parties whose viewpoint must be heard in this litigation," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the firm. "The Florida appeals court set forth the proper legal standard for intervention in this case and without question Robert and Mary Schindler meet those standards."
In February, the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled Baird "failed to follow the rule that has been established for determining motions to intervene."
Terri's family has a monumental interest in defending the law helping their daughter, that the appeals court says should be respected. The court ordered Baird's ruling denying intervention to be reversed and sent the case back to him for "further proceedings."
Pat Anderson, the family's main attorney, hopes Baird will be more receptive following the appeals court decision.
"Terri's parents are hopeful, of course, that Judge Baird will permit them to participate fully in this challenge to Terri's Law -- a law that saved their daughter's life," Anderson told LifeNews.com.
The re-filed motion to intervene says "not permitting them to intervene will, at a minimum, deprive the Schindlers of their input regarding issues affecting the life of their child, and, at a maximum, may violate their constitutional rights to be heard."
The appeals court also ruled that attorneys for Governor Bush who are seeking to defend the pro-life law in court should be able to question witnesses in the case.
Terri's Law is the legislation passed by the Florida state legislature that allowed Governor Bush to ask doctors to reinsert the feeding tube that is allowing Terri to stay alive.
If Baird rules the law unconstitutional, Michael will be able to remove her feeding tube for a third time, possibly causing her death.
Related web sites:
Terri Schiavo's family - http://www.terrisfight.org
It is also shocking to me that such an outcry is necessary for judges, lawyers, and legislators to protect the life and liberty of a disabled woman.
I do firmly believe that we must keep up the pressure by phone calls, emails, and letters to the above, and to the media; whoever is on our mind as this unfolds over time. As well as our prayers and petitions to the ultimate Judge!
We also want to remember in prayer those who are sick, have relatives who are sick, or who are undergoing surgery (I'll not mention any names, but you are each very special). Hugs to you all, and best wishes.
Let's hear it for formatting! :o)
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/index.html?ts=1078493694"Examples of Web activism abound. Dean was the first presidential candidate. . . '...the Internet gave them a way to actually do something.'
People interested in the Terry Schiavo case swamped Florida legislators with e-mail before Terry's Law was enacted to prevent removal of the feeding tube that has kept the Pinellas County woman alive since a 1990 heart attack. Florida Senate president Jim King, R-Jacksonville, recently described the pressure from e-mail and phone calls on legislators as enormous before they passed the law.
When Pinellas County proposed fluoridating its water supply, e- mails from around the world arrived from writers taking positions on a local issue."
lol, and King complained he got out-of-district and out-of-state emails about Terri?
Here is a case where the husband MIGHT have tried to kill his wife -- he certainly acts like he has a lot to cover up. Why else fight to keep the medical records secret? Why his frenzy to have Terri die? Is it because she can point a finger to him in case she recovers, as others in similar and worse condition have done? And obviously he is sadistic judging from the facts of this case.
Yay, formatting! No, truthfully, I could understand your post even w/o it. But it is easier on the eyes!
And while we're at praying for those in surgery, I just found out that AG Ashcroft has been hospitalized with Gallstones and pancreatitis this morning. Here's the link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1091294/posts?page=1,50
Let's take a moment, and a deep breath here.
There are two sides to this case. I'm not saying Michael is right, far from it, but to refuse to seriously review his case is to be like the radar control officer who was advised of the Japanese planes enroute to Pearl Harbor, and ignored them.
If this case is to be won, each and every aspect of his claim must be examined and dealt with. To say "he is a bad man" has no influence on the final verdict.
His points: As Terri's husband, he is her closest living relative. This is true. Her parents need to PROVE in court that they have some special standing to overturn his legal rights as her husband. Long before any decision can ever be made as to what the parents think is best, they need to move from a position of special interveners to equals with husband. Not an easy task.
Terri had expressed to him that she did not want to continue to live like this: Again, how does one prove that she did not communicate this to him. Granted, she has no "living will," but she also has no document saying she wanted to be kept alive as she now is.
Others (us) seeking to keep her alive have no legal standing: Probably true. The law does not recognize that somehow the rights of a group with certain moral and ethical beliefs, no matter how well intended they may be, trump the rights of Terri's husband, especially since Terri was not generally known to be part of such a group. Had she ever protested abortion, etc. Granted, we can make the argument that we are espousing Terri's rights, not the husbands, but if Terri could speak for herself, this matter would be moot.
The law as passed by the Florida legislature is improper: He has a small to moderate shot at winning on this. It could easily be described as a bill of attainder and ex post facto, re: Terri. They can claim it invades her right to make medical decisions for herself, as communicated to the husband, etc. We do not have a clear win in this area, but at least a good chance of prevailing.
Any claim that husband hurt her and therefore not entitled to standing is stale and never was based on fact: Reality, there is no way we are ever going to PROVE that he abused her, even if he did.
The fact husband had relationship with other woman after Terri's incapacitation is not legaly relavent: The key word is AFTER.
What they are trying to do is kindness to Terri and what protesters/parents are trying to do is influence the situation to promote their own beliefs, not Terri's: Here they will introduce testimony from religious leaders who will say that this discontinuation is entirely proper to do in Terri's case.
Again, I'm not saying he is right, but in order to win, we/parents must prevail on these points and more.
Consider this much like a military campaign. Anticipate their actions. Counter them. Win based on our actions and legal points, not our volume..... but still pray every day.
I don't think we can be sure of that until she is removed from the control of pro-death extremists and allowed the kind of treatment her parents would provide. If, after a reasonable time under her parents' control, she is still unable to improve, THEN we will be able to say that.
Incredible that someone who is not a doctor and has not reviewed her case would claim that she would never recover.
Let's not forget, Terri left no living will. And Michael never mentioned it was Terri's wish when he sued for big money, only many years later when it was convenient for him that she die.
In any case, I doubt she would have wanted to be starved to death. What a horrible way to die. We don't even do this to the worst of criminals.
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.