 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
The issue in most federal Habeas Corpus cases is the resolution of whether the petitionier's constitutional rights were violated. |
Which is done in CRIMINAL cases, Ned. You aren't listening! Habeus corpus review does not apply in civil cases. Habeus corpus is a petition that you are being held unfairly. That doesn't apply to the civil side.
|
"habeas corpus
Lat. "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. In family law, a parent who has been denied custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition. Also, a party may file a habeas corpus petition if a judge declares her in contempt of court and jails or threatens to jail her.
In Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1778 (1992), the court observed that the Supreme Court has "recognized the fact that`[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.' Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969). " Therefore, the writ must be "administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected." Harris, 394 U.S. at 291.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Individuals have the right to refuse medical treatment.
I assume no one here has ever read the original finding of the court and what evidence they used to make the finding that Terry Schiavo would have refused medical care. What the Schindlers or their people say is irrelevant, since they are utterly biased parties.
As for "new proof", what "new proof" can there possibly be about what Terry's wishes were?
As for the notiont aht no courts ever examined the findings of fact of the first court- how can that possibly be?? In the original appeals by the Schindler's one assumes they at that point challenged the finding of facts, unless the Schindler lawyers have been utterly incompetent throughout. |
GePap, the scope of review of an appellate court does not extend to it substituting its finds of facts for the facts found below based on whether it disagrees with the findings below. It is only to legal error and to whether the judge's findings of fact were clearly erroneous.
From my understanding, there has been only one hearing on this matter. At that hearing, Terri was not represented by an attorney to test whether her husband was lying or not about Terri's wishes.
Over the course of the last several days I have heard numbers of witnesses flatly contradict the so-called court experts on Terri's consciousness, and on whether Terri ever gave consent to her being put to death. Tonight on Hannity's show, a co-worker/friend of Terri's testified that Michael and Terri would often fight and would leave Terri with bruises. The day before the event, she had a major row with Michael over spending $80 on her hair. She told her friend that she was contemplating divorce.
Another former friend of Michael and Terri flatly states that Michael is lying about the consent issue, and about a lot of other issues as well. She describes a party where she overheard Michael tell another girl that he had no idea what Terri would have wanted in this condition.
She said that Micheal changed into a monster after the coming into possession of the malpractice award and revoked all his prior promises to take care of Terri, etc. Instead, he began to use the money to end Terri's life.
I have heard nurse after nurse declare that Terri is conscious, can talk and does talk.
Finally, there is the most recent testimony that Terri declared her wish to stay alive last Friday. Her attorney asked her to just say "I want to live." Terri exclaimed "I." Then she stuggled. Then she screamed "Wannnnnn..." Then she struggled some more and started to cry.
Her sister was present when this occurred and confirms the facts. The guard outside the door also heard the screams and can testify.
Biased? I think there are enough people who have no interest whatsoever in the the outcome of this case who have flatly contradicted the testimony of Michael, someone who has an apparent conflict. Biased? Bull.
This is judicial tyranny at its most vile.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Nurses ain't MDs, Ned.
And not all MDs are neurologists.
That woman is not conscious. She can not talk. She does not talk.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Not trying to belittle you, Mrs. T. I'm just saying that RNs ain't experts in determining what constitutes conscious actions. Neither am I.
Neurologists, on the other hand, are. And every court-appointed neurologist has come to the same conclusion--no higher brain activity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
An unfortunately story, NYE, and honestly a similar experience with my family is what pushed me into medicine, i.e. "I can do this better."
But that is the exception, rather than the rule.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-03-2005 06:17
|