|
Pinellas County probate court judge George W. Greer appeared on Law Day, May 1, as the lead speaker at the 10th anniversary symposium of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics in Philadelphia, Pa.
The theme of the two-day symposium was "The Legacy of the Terri Schiavo Case: Why Is It So Hard To Die in America". Greer, the judge who signed Terri's death warrant and made his arbitrary rulings in the case for over seven years, spoke on the topic of "Who Should Decide: Courts/Legislators".
During his 15 minute presentation, Greer took issue with a lot of things concerning the Schiavo case, especially ridiculing Terri's parents for appealing to higher courts for a review of Greer's rulings.
He emphasized that by his count, "we had some 30 judges and Supreme Court justices in both the state of Florida and the federal system review the evidence submitted".
Once again, Greer is wrong. Thirty judges didn't review the merits of the case.
During the pendency of the Schiavo case, Florida attorney Matt Conigiliario wrote many commentaries on his appellate law blog, Abstract Appeal at abstractappeal.com.
About a year before Terri's death, George Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo, commented that Terri should die because 19 judges had reviewed the case and had agreed with him, upholding Greer's decision.
In summing up Felos' statement, Conigiliario said, "So, we have 19 judges who at some point made rulings Michael Schiavo supported, but that's a very empty statement". Now the number has swelled to 30 with Greer's exaggeration. It's like telling a fish story. Every time he and Schiavo tell it, the fish gets bigger----and so do the lies.
Conigiliario's comments on the Felos statement from Thursday, May 20, 2004, can be found here:
http://abstractappeal.com/archives/2004_05_01_abstractappeal_archive.html
"Someone recently asked me if I had any insight into how someone came up with a statement that 19 judges had ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo's request to withdraw Terri's feeding tube. I thought I'd share the pertinent portion of my response. It's a bit long and rather informal.
"I would not make any sort of statement regarding how many judges have ruled in someone's favor in this case. There have been so many cases, so many issues, and the question of "what does lack of jurisdiction mean?" is so complex, that it is very difficult to say anything meaningful here in a concise way.
"I'll try to show you why:
"Judge Greer ruled in Michael's favor in the original decision on whether Terri would choose to keep or remove her feeding tube under her present circumstances. That ruling was upheld by a three-judge panel of the Second District (Judges Altenbernd, Parker, and Blue), and the Florida Supreme Court denied review (Justices Harding, Lewis, Pariente, Anstead, and Quince) for lack of jurisdiction. The decision that the court lacks jurisdiction to take the case is not one on the merits of the case, so I wouldn't count these five if you're talking about the merits of the case.
"Next, Judge Quesada ruled in favor of the Schindlers when they sought to enjoin the removal of Terri's feeding tube, but the Second District (Judges Altenbernd, Parker, and Blue) effectively reversed that decision by ordering the case transferred to the guardianship proceeding before Judge Greer. I'm not sure what category the Second District's decision goes in, but Judge Quesada did not rule in Michael's favor.
"Separately, Judge Greer ruled against the Schindlers when they sought relief from the earlier judgment. That decision was affirmed in part and reversed in part by the Second District (Judges Altenbernd, Parker, and Blue) in the appellate case that ordered the Judge Quesada case transferred, so I'm still not sure what category this decision goes in.
"Next, Judge Greer ruled against the Schindlers on their motion for relief from judgment. That decision was reversed on appeal by the Second District (Judges Altenbernd, Parker, and Blue).
"Next, Judge Greer held a trial and ruled against the Schindlers on the merits of their motion for relief from judgment. The Second District (Judges Altenbernd, Fulmer, and Stringer -- FYI: by now, Judge Parker had passed away and Judge Blue had retired to private practice) affirmed that decision, and the Florida Supreme Court (Justices Anstead, Wells, Lewis, Pariente, Quince, Cantero, and Bell) again denied review based on a lack of jurisdiction.
"The Schindlers also filed two federal cases, one before Judge Lazzara and one before Judge Merryday. Both cases were dismissed on procedural grounds. As with the Florida Supreme Court's decisions, I do not consider those to be rulings in favor of Michael Schiavo on the merits of the feeding tube issue.
"After Terri's law was passed, Michael's constitutional challenge landed before Judge Baird. He recently ruled (2004) that the law is unconstitutional.
"Governor Bush filed an appeal during the constitutional challenge regarding some procedural issues, and he lost before the Second District (Judges Davis, Fulmer, and Wallace), but I don't see how that could count here. It had nothing to do with the merits of the constitutional challenge. Governor Bush also filed an original proceeding in the Second District regarding some discovery issues in the constitutional case, and he won (Judges Wallace, Fulmer, and Davis) but that didn't have anything to do with the merits of anything either. Governor Bush also filed an original proceeding in the Second District to disqualify Judge Baird, and the Second District rejected that petition (Judges Wallace, Fulmer, and Davis). That was arguably a win for Michael but it had nothing to do with the merits of the feeding tube issues or the constitutional challenge.
"Separately, Terri's parents sought to intervene in the constitutional challenge. That motion was denied by Judge Baird, but on appeal the Second District (Judges Davis, Fulmer, and Wallace) reversed that order on the basis that specific findings needed to be made. That was sort of a win for Terri's parents, but a weak one since Judge Baird could reach the same result with more specific findings (as he later did), and in any event this had nothing to do with the merits of the feeding tube issue.
"By my count, 6 judges ruled in Michael Schiavo's favor on the merits of the "what would Terri do?" issue -- Judges Greer, Altenbernd, Parker, Blue, Fulmer, and Stringer. One judge has ruled in Michael's favor on the constitutional challenge -- Judge Baird. Let me put this carefully: That's 7 judges who have directly determined, or upheld the merits of the decision, that Terri Schiavo would not wish to continue receiving her feeding tube under the present circumstances. Eight Florida Supreme Court justices ruled against getting involved in the case because the earlier decisions did not create a conflict in Florida's case law, and two federal judges decided they could not get involved in the case because the federal district courts have no ability to overrule state court decisions. Judges Wallace and Davis were involved in decisions that went for and against Michael, but those decisions had nothing to do with the merits of the feeding tube decision or the constitutional challenge.
"So, we have 19 judges who at some point made rulings Michael Schiavo supported, but that's a very empty statement ..." 5-09-06
© 2006 North
Country Gazette
|
