web analytics

The text of Judge Whittemore’s second denial of Bob and Mary Schindler’s request to have their daughter, Terri Schiavo’s, feeding tube reinserted can be read here. (I would post it in its entirety, but it is 11 pages long.)

Note the last paragraph of the ruling:

Finally, the court would be remiss if it did not once again convey its appreciation for the difficulties and heartbreak the parties have endured throughout this lengthy process. The civility with which this delicate matter has been presented by counsel is a credit to their professionalism and dedication to their respective clients, and Terri.

As a lawyer, I understand what motivated Judge Whittemore’s remarks. I’m sure he just wanted the world to know that he recognizes the humanity of this case, even though he was constrained to weigh only the legal considerations.

Note to Judge Whittemore: Nobody ever said it was going to be an easy job.

But from Florida comes a more thorough translation of his ruling. This was forwarded to me by a friend of the author, who wishes to remain anonymous. The person who sent it to me said the author should be identified simply as “my brilliant friend, the smartest lawyer on the planet.”

So, from “the smartest lawyer on the planet,” here is what the Federal District Court really said about the Schiavo matter.

Evidentiary errors are a matter of state law.

Translation: Evidentiary errors which cause the intentional taking of a life are a matter of . . . , um, . . . not my job.

Reasoning: Nope, those pesky evidentiary errors could have been taken care of by the state. They’re killing her, not me, no way, that’s not a federal thingy, nosiree. I only have to be responsible for those good federal evidentiary errors and I’m not gonna have any of those because I’m not taking any evidence. Not now. Not until after she’s dead. Then, all I have to find on my de novo review is that she’s dead. It’s moot. No other evidence, no evidentiary errors. Whew.

Author

JHSiess successfully represented the late Florence Wendland and Rebekah Vinson in the landmark California case, Conservatorship of Wendland. Her writings here are dedicated to revealing her unique perspective. Siess is quick to point out that she felt from the case's inception that she was called to handle it as a matter and test of her commitment to the law and specific principles of social justice. Accordingly, she makes no pretense about being objective here and stresses that objectivity is not the goal. Rather, it is her hope that all who read about the protracted litigation that ended with a victory in the California Supreme Court for her clients, but Robert Wendland's death before the win was assured, will resolve never to let their family members speculate about their desires in the event of catastrophic illness or injury -- and not only talk in detail with their loved ones about their wishes, but also commit them to writing. Siess says she is confident you will, after learning what Robert Wendland's family members, caregivers and friends, in addition to the attorneys, judges and justices involved in this case endured, resolve never to permit your loved ones to become embroiled in such a battle. Questions may be addressed to jhsiess@comcast.net.

1 Comment

  1. Excuse the slang and lack of civility and professionalism, but the civility and professionalism stuff chaps my hide. Why do lawyers, judges and media people talk about these things when they are perpetrating grave injustices?