Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (105406)	3/22/2005 2:41:53 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793801

Based on my experience as a lawyer in Virginia which does allow trials de novo, I would have drafted a petition asking for a trial de novo and an emergency injunction. It looks to me like the parents' lawyers were not expecting the law which was drafted, and should have taken more time to draft the motion. I think they retreaded a motion based on the law which was being suggested earlier in the week, which would have given habeas corpus review. As you say, if all the federal judge was asked to do is determine whether things had been done right in the state court, that was not likely to be fruitful, because it has already been reviewed, over and over again. The law was signed by Bush about 1:00 a.m. Monday and the motion was filed, if I recall correctly, about 4 or 5 a.m. Not enough time to do it right, I guess. If I had been the lawyer, based on what the judge was asking during the hearing, I might have asked for the opportunity to submit additional pleadings. But federal judges are not very patient people. If you don't have your ducks in a row, beware.

To: JDN who wrote (105406)	3/22/2005 2:57:40 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793801

Because it is doubtful that the original filing precludes a request for a trial de novo, I suspect that such a suit will be filed shortly. When filed, food and water will be provided because the judge has to preserve the status quo ante while evidence is gathered and pretrial proceedings take place. He cannot let Schiavo die while the case is pending. We'll see, however. It's difficult to comment on the Schindler family's lawyers' tactics and even more difficult to make sense out of them. Their purposes are opaque at best. Filing an immediate request for a de novo trial would have been the humanitarian thing to do if their purpose is to compel that Schiavo be fed and given liquids. If they had done so, the tube would have been inserted by now. I presume they are filing an appeal to the 11th Circuit, which is also counter-productive since it is highly unlikely that the Tampa judge will be reversed. The lawyers are running around like headless chickens. I am heartened to note that most of the public seems to recognize that Congress acted improperly in passing the law.