Shiavo Case - This is the best page for information

[MannyIsGod]

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#qanda

Seriously, I just browsed over that and after reading that I'm confident most people will firmly be in the husbands corner.

[Hook Dem]

Manny...I am not trying to discount what you are posting, but have you completely discounted the affadavits of the attending nurses that I posted yesterday?

[MannyIsGod]

No, I took them into account as well Hook. But I find them contradicting torwads much of the other evidence, and they just don't make sense. They swayed me, I'll admit.

But for me, what it comes down to is not what the husband has or has not done, but what Terri wanted. And the courts have ruled consitently on that.

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't wish for Terri Schiavo to die. But it's not my decision to make. Those who have been left to make those decisions have made them and those decisions have been consistently recognized by state and federal courts.

This whole thing has become a political football and it's become a proxy for absolute hypocrisy.

Conservatives have been lamenting for years that judges are "too activist." Now, here are courts that have been anything but "activist," given the conservative definition of that term.

The courts have considered only the facts presented in the courtroom, have concluded that those facts present clear and convincing proof (not just a preponderance of the evidence -- it's a huge difference) that Terri Schiavo did not wish to live if confined to a permanent vegetative state, and applying the written law of Florida have decided that she should be permitted to die.

Rather than accept this application of the law to the facts, conservatives are simply trying to change the law -- the very thing that they blast "liberal" judges for doing. They cloak themselves in this notion of protecting life, but in so doing, they are dictating how individuals can exercise their civil rights. The laws of this land (including the State of Florida) recognize an individual's right to die. Rather than accept that there is clear and convincing proof that Terri Schiavo wished to die (as proven by clear and convincing evidence), conservatives are falling all over themselves, essentially to prohibit the exercise of that choice. The party that claims to lament governmental intrusion into the lives of individuals has, now, chosen to inject itself into the life of a single person. It's hypocrisy.

[CrazyOne]

No, downtown.. one of the many problems is that it appears that Judge Greer will not allow all of the information available to be considered. He's consistently considered only one side, the side that wants to kill Terry. Without clear documentation from Terry outlining her wishes, he has condemned her to an horrific death. When there is some doubt as to her actual desires, is it right to deprive her of life when everyone else is the family is convinced (as well as a number of medical personnel) that she is alive and has cognizance and could be helped by therapy?

[MannyIsGod]

I disagree that he has only allowed one side. The judgement of the first trail explains his decision in great detail and gives reasoning.

There has been new evidence surfacing since the first trial, but it has been very inconsistant and many different judges, not just Greer, have ruled in the same way he has. Many, including Greer, have deemed much of the testimony unrelaible due to inconsitencies.

No, I think the trial's have all been fair, and clear cut. Terri's wishes are known, but the family continues to hang on to "hope" selfishly.

[CrazyOne]

Ultimately, her death is being ordered on "hearsay" evidence. Should that be enough to condemn her to death?

I found this article to be pretty good... http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/jgurwitz/stories/MYSA032305.07B.gurwitz.163b3a96b.html

[MannyIsGod]

I wrote Mr. Gurwitz an email last night on just how inacurate that article was! Too many discrepencies from actual fact in there.

It's not hearsay. It's testimony as to what she expressed. Hearsay would be brining me to testify that I heard someone who was a witness, but these people actualy witnessed the sentiments being issued.

Should it be enough? That's an angle I've thought of, but the court holds a very high standard for these cases, and it has consistently met it. This has been reviewed over 20 times in the judicial system with the same decision each time. It's really much more clean cut than what has been represented in the media has made it out to be.

Ultimately, the court has decided that Terri would have delined the medical services that are being given to her (or were), and that is a right that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. This is not assisted suicide, this is simply the right to refuse medical care.

[sbsquared]

Gee Manny - I've been listening to talk radio all day and they have a real different take than you do. Considering that they have brought on doctors, lawyers and other medical personnel who dispute the husband and the courts - why is it you think you know all there is to know? I find your comments quite arrogant and condescending!

For instance - right now there is the very real possibility that the Protective Services of Florida will take Terri into protective custody because they sincerely believe that there are real problems with this case! And there has been a neurologist from the Mayo Clinic who has examined the records and feels Terri was misdiagnosed and is not in a persistent vegitative state.

Lawyers who have examined the court records have said that Terri's lawyer was incompetent and did not give her good representation and many others from all over the country have said that the Courts did not rule according to law.

Given all this information, don't you think it would be prudent to re-insert the feeding tube until all this could be looked at more carefully? I think if a person on death row had all these questions arise, you would argue strenuously that they should be given a chance to present the new evidence!

[MannyIsGod]

Gee Manny - I've been listening to talk radio all day and they have a real different take than you do. Considering that they have brought on doctors, lawyers and other medical personnel who dispute the husband and the courts - why is it you think you know all there is to know? I find your comments quite arrogant and condescending!


To answer your last questions, I'll merely point out the difference in our sources.

Talk radio driven by ratings - YOU
Official court documents - ME

Talk radio profits from stirring the mud so to speak. Would simply saying that there is nothing really to debate here be in their best interests?

I invite you to read the judgements and find out first hand the justification for the actions rather than listening to talking heads on the radio.



For instance - right now there is the very real possibility that the Protective Services of Florida will take Terri into protective custody because they sincerely believe that there are real problems with this case! And there has been a neurologist from the Mayo Clinic who has examined the records and feels Terri was misdiagnosed and is not in a persistent vegitative state.


Nothing new, there is adament disagreement over whether or not she is in a PVS. However, the fact remains she is being kept alive on what Florida law defines as life support, and the court ruled that she would not want to be kept alive that way. Therefore, the debate surrounding her current medical state is irrelevent.



Lawyers who have examined the court records have said that Terri's lawyer was incompetent and did not give her good representation and many others from all over the country have said that the Courts did not rule according to law.


Ok. Terri didn't have a lawyer. Her parents had a lawyer, and her husband did. I can only assume that by this you mean the parental side had incompetent representation. There have been numerous appeals, there has twice been new legislation, and an incredible amount of attention placed on this case. They have had enourmous resources from which to draw upon.

This is the legal equivlant of grasping at straws, and it's already been visited in the courts several times. Each judge has ruled that there is no need for a new trial.



Given all this information, don't you think it would be prudent to re-insert the feeding tube until all this could be looked at more carefully? I think if a person on death row had all these questions arise, you would argue strenuously that they should be given a chance to present the new evidence!

Thats happend already. TWICE. Terri has already been given the equivlant of a midnight stay by courts TWICE, and they have gone back and removed the stay due to a lack of new evidence.

This is not something new. None of this is.

Once again, go to the site above, and read the timeline. they also have links to the actual court documents and Floridian law cited. I think thats a far more credible source than talk radio.

[MsMcGillyCutty]

Decisions such as these are made around the country all the time aren't they?
Why is there so much attention on this case?

[FromWayDowntown]

No, downtown.. one of the many problems is that it appears that Judge Greer will not allow all of the information available to be considered. He's consistently considered only one side, the side that wants to kill Terry. Without clear documentation from Terry outlining her wishes, he has condemned her to an horrific death. When there is some doubt as to her actual desires, is it right to deprive her of life when everyone else is the family is convinced (as well as a number of medical personnel) that she is alive and has cognizance and could be helped by therapy?

Part of the problem here is that people are being inundated with opinions and information without any predicate to show that it is: (1) material to Terri's case; or (2) accurate. Those who argue that the tube should be reinserted are inclined to view the evidence supporting that view as unassailable.

The problem is, that evidence apparently wasn't presented during the trial of this case, or if it was excluded from the trial, the appellate courts in Florida found no error. If, as you say, the trial court's order was rooted in the hearsay testimony of Michael Schiavo, I find it exceedingly unlikely that the Florida appellate courts would have permitted that conclusion to stand. I find that particularly unlikely given that almost half of the Florida Supreme Court is occupied by Jeb Bush appointees, who are more likely to find some basis to side with the Governor. That didn't happen, which suggests to me that there was no real legal error in what the trial court did. Absent a legal error, judges lack a basis to reverse a decision. To reverse because you don't like the result is the very activism that conservatives have decried for the last several years.


Lawyers who have examined the court records have said that Terri's lawyer was incompetent and did not give her good representation and many others from all over the country have said that the Courts did not rule according to law.

I find those claims to be pretty remarkable, but even so, they don't really get anyone anywhere. This is not a criminal case -- there is no right to counsel in a civil setting. This may sound harsh, but if her counsel was incompetent, the law says that forms the basis for a legal malpractice lawsuit; I could see an argument for inadequate counsel in a civil context (in fact, I've written in support of it in at least one instance) but it's not the law and it's certainly not a constitutional guarantee. Besides, were that a strong argument, I have no doubt that it would have been raised by somebody. To my knowledge, that argument has never been presented to any court in this case.

Lawyers on the losing side always say that the court did not rule according to the law. That's why we have appeals. What's more telling to me in this case is not the opinions of a bunch of lawyers from various jurisdictions who may or may not have knowledge of the laws of the State of Florida -- it's the determinations of the appellate courts, who must review the record and insure that the law is applied correctly to the facts. I've lost count of how many appellate judges have found no error in anything that has happened in this case.

* * * *

My post, however, was not about the courts. It was about Congress overstepping its bounds by gerrymandering a jurisdictional exception for a single case in an effort to manufacture a result when the existing result comports with the constitutional guarantees afforded to Terri Schiavo. After years of listening to complaints about judges who are alleged to ignore the law, here we have a series of judges who have done precisely what the law compels. And what do we get from that? A hew and cry from the right about the result and the fact that judges have actually applied the law!!!

I don't wish Terri Schiavo to die. But I do wish for the Florida courts to find facts and apply the existing law to determine what the result should be. If, in finding those facts and applying the law, they determine that there is clear and convincing proof that Terri did not wish to be kept alive in this situation, then I think the law respects that decision.

[Experiment2100]

Nice timeline, one question when did he move in with his sancha?

[travis2]

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#qanda

Seriously, I just browsed over that and after reading that I'm confident most people will firmly be in the husbands corner.

You certainly are the judgemental sort sometimes, Manny...

You are entitled to your opinion. Please don't try to speak for anyone else's.

[Samurai Jane]

Nice timeline, one question when did he move in with his sancha?

According to the timeline posted on Terrisfight.org, his engagement to the other woman was announced in July 1997.

[NeoConIV]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463

Another comprehensive report on the whole saga. Well referenced.

[samikeyp]

Ultimately, her death is being ordered on "hearsay" evidence. Should that be enough to condemn her to death?

Fair point Crazy....but on the same token is it fair for people to discount what her husband says because they don't agree with the actions he is taking? The guardian has to be given the benefit of the doubt. That sounds cold and heartless but actually in order to be objective you cannot allow emotion or personal feelings to get involved.

[MannyIsGod]

Neo, I just went to your site, and if something posted on there is correct, you may have just changed my mind, I'm looking for more info and I'm giong to verify on the origional judgement.

[MannyIsGod]

Nevermind. Good link though.

[samikeyp]

yes it was...good find.

[FromWayDowntown]

Having read the timeline, (which I take with a grain of salt, since the rhetoric obviously slants the piece in favor of the Schindlers' side of the story) I agree that there are many questions, but the main one in my mind is who in the hell represented the Schindlers in the original trial of this matter? If the timeline is correct, they apparently had a ton of evidence available to raise questions about Terri's wishes (and Michael's failure to adhere to his beliefs about her wishes) at the time of that trial, but apparently presented none of it. They can't argue that it's newly-discovered evidence, because evidence is "newly-discovered" only if it wasn't reasonably available at the time of the initial trial. Michael Schiavo's testimony certainly was reasonably available (and likely admissible) at that time. The statements of Terri's friends were also reasonably available (and, though hearsay, was likely admissible, too). Since those things were available, assuming the report to be correct and the testimony to be believeable, that information should have been introduced.

Curiously, I still have yet to read that anyone has challenged the competence of the Schindlers' lawyer at trial -- that would seem an obvious attack in lieu of any other availing avenues for appeal. I don't know that civil incompetence gets you anywhere, but the argument is certainly there to extend the law.

I'm a bit more skeptical about the after-acquired affidavits and the various expert opinions that have more recently surfaced. Experts are available to say anything in court anymore. If you paid enough, you could find an expert who would go to court and offer an opinion that the Earth is flat. Experts don't really change the case.

I wonder why Jeb Bush doesn't just have the authorities in Florida arrest Terri (not take her into protective custody, but actually arrest her) on some obscure criminal charge. Who is going to challenge an arrest, even if on trumped up charges? Certainly not the Schindlers. It would be dirty pool, but it might buy some time -- if she's under arrest and in State custody that way, it would seem to me that the State would be able to dictate (to some extent, at least) her treatment.

[NeoConIV]

"My aim is to carry out Terri's wishes," Michael Schiavo told WND after court proceedings in October 2002. "If Terri would even know that I had somebody taking care of her bodily functions, she'd kill us all in a heartbeat. She'd be so angry," he added.
Nice choice of words there killer...

[mookie2001]

yeah it would be better if after ruling on her case over and over, then to enforce the notion that big brother can step in any time in any way during matters concerning the family, then moments before death start feeding her again.

can you imagine what fox news would do if this was in a "blue" state and the governer was NOT the presidents brother
theyd climax on eachother

10 kids were killed in minnesota last week in a shooting
-havent really heard shit about that
-no public comment from bush
terry shiavo life has been over for 15 years, time for her to finally pass on
-act of congress
-24hr news coverage