(The Register) Friday, August 06 2004-10:36am--This just in: Florida Governor, Jeb Bush has just filed a reply brief in Bush v. Schiavo, the highly anticipated "Terri's Law case." The Register learned of this development becasue editor, Gordon Watts, was served a copy of the brief by Fed Ex this morning. The brief, which is not currently on the Florida Supreme Court website's Schiavo Documents page, or available through the AP or CNN, is being reviewed in this article.

Bush's first argument is that Michael Schiavo's answer brief is proof that the lower courts did not develop a "competant factual record." This, Bush says, is due to lack of "discovery," the introduction of evidence and testimony.

Next, Bush Attorney, Camile Godwin, Ken Connor's colleague, argues that the lower courts did not distinguish between implication of privacy and an infringement on the right to privacy. "Implicating privacy" merely means affecting, not necessarily in a negative way.

Third, Bush tells the Supreme Court that his Federal Due process rights were violated due to a refusal to introduce evidence, testimony, or have a jury trial. Although the facts were examined by courts for other litigants, he has a right, he claims, to develop facts when he is sued, which is the case here. It is well-known that facts used in other trials are not legally binding on non-participant, only the legal rulings, which then become "case law" standards, to be followed in future similar situations.

Next, the Governor points out that "Terri's Law" does not actually allow him to nullify a court order, only act prospectively. Interestingly enough, State Law 810.015(2) clearly says that: "It is the intent of the Legislature that the holding in Delgado v. State, 776 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 2000) be nullified." If this law is not being challenged for overturning a case (the criminal Delgado case heard by the Supreme Court), then why should "Terri's Law" be denied this right? Bush does not mention this in his reply brief, but did mention it in his initial brief, and asks a good question:

Why, if State Law 810.015 can overturn a decision and not be challenged, would anyone criticize "Terri's Law," which does not explicitly overturn any court decision.

Lastly, Bush claims that the "alternate" grounds for invalidating "Terri's Law" be found insufficient:

A) The law, he calims, does not violate equal protection because it protects all equally --who qualify.

B) Terri's Law is not an unlawful bill of attainder becasue it does not single one person out for punishment.

C) Becasue Terri's Law acts "uniformly within the state," it is not an invalid special law.

Bush Attorney, Camile Godwin, who signed this brief, mentions, in conclusion, that Schiavio attorney, George Felos, admits to disrespect for jury trial rights by his "hundred juries" statement, in which Felos claims that even of 100 juries found Terris wanted water and food, it would be irrelevant. Goodwin does not address the issues raised by editor, Gordon Watts, who asked in his court filings, posted here and on The Register's Court Cases page, regarding consolidating other cases, or addressing other abuses.

The unanswered question of the moment is: "What if Bush wins?" A loophole in "Terri's Law," as shown on this press release, allows a future governor to remove the feeding tube, at his/her discretion.

What will Terri Schiavo allies do then? Call Register editor, Gordon Watts, and ask for help in his habeas and mandamus pleas? Better listen to the alternatives sooner than later, wisdom cries.

| HomeTown/AOL Mirror | GeoCities Mirror |

Other Links

| GeoCities site for Health/Diet Info | Tripod Mirror for Health/Diet Research |

"First, they [Nazis] came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me." (Martin Niemoller, given credit for a quotation in The Harper Religious and Inspirational Quotation Companion, ed. Margaret Pepper (New York: Harper &Row, 1989), 429 -as cited on page 44, note 17, of Religious Cleansing in the American Republic, by Keith A. Fornier, Copyright 1993, by Liberty, Life, and Family Publications.