Schiavo Thread Part Deux

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SpencerH


I thought you already were a lawyer.

Naah, just had to deal with too many of 'em and deal with all sorts of regulatory horse**** in work.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


And yet the Federal courts, when they did look at this case before this new abomination of a law, could not find any issues which would indicate that her due process was violated.

That is the point- no court that has reviewed the original decision has found any reason to overturn it. If there were any substantial problems in the decision, it would have been overturned long ago under the glare this case has had.

GePap, the courts can only adjudicate issues raised by a party. The Substantive Due Process issues was not raised by the Shindlers and has not been decided.

I can only hope they raised it in tonight's hearing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
Imran, tragically, the Shindler lawyers did not raise this issue on the first pass before the Federal Courts.

Then they are estopped from bringing it again. You can't just bring in new issues in the middle of trial, why should you be able to do so after the trial is over, when you have a principle of finality of judgments?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Odin, I am a lawyer. Irman is a law student. I am admitted to practice to two states, several federal circuits and the Supreme Court of the United States. I have been practicing law for nearly thirty years. I have been a member of the Board of Directors of three national law associations because my peers voted for me.

And just about clueless about Constitutional law, especially in this area, unfortunetly.

Clueless? Hardly. But I do enjoy jousting with you regardless of you naive opinions. I say naive only because you have not been practicing as of yet and may actually believe in absolutes.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Naah, just had to deal with too many of 'em and deal with all sorts of regulatory horse**** in work.

Regardless, you have demonstrated time an again a good legal acumen. I salute you.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Then they are estopped from bringing it again. You can't just bring in new issues in the middle of trial, why should you be able to do so after the trial is over, when you have a principle of finality of judgments?

Not raising an issue on a TRO or a preliminary injunction does not estop a party from raising in subsequent proceedings. Even issues that were "decided" are still open for further litigation.

[Guynemer]

Imran!

Post in my topic!


...or I'll start BAPAYing every pick...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Clueless? Hardly. But I do enjoy jousting with you regardless of you naive opinions. I say naive only because you have not been practicing as of yet and may actually believe in absolutes.

You noticed the smily, I see... oh wait .

I don't believe in absolutes (except in politics), but I DO know that the courts in the country will resist any attempt by the Congress to dictate a decision to them. It definitely violates the theory and practically, the courts will not let them do it. Listen to Judge Napolionato (sp?) who is Fox's legal analyst.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
Not raising an issue on a TRO or a preliminary injunction does not estop a party from raising in subsequent proceedings. Even issues that were "decided" are still open for further litigation.

I'm not talking about prelim injunctions, I'm talking about in the case in general. If you don't bring the federal issues in at the beginning, you can't bring them up later. You have a choice, you can either go to state court or federal court on an issue, you can't pick both by asserting a federal issue in the middle (or after) a trial.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Imran!

Post in my topic!


...or I'll start BAPAYing every pick...

EEEP!

Yes sir!

[Agathon]

I see that the real intellectual heavyweights have chimed in...

http://www.ultimatewarrior.com/03.22.05.htm

I thought he was dead. But no.. apparently only insane..

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I'm not talking about prelim injunctions, I'm talking about in the case in general. If you don't bring the federal issues in at the beginning, you can't bring them up later. You have a choice, you can either go to state court or federal court on an issue, you can't pick both by asserting a federal issue in the middle (or after) a trial.

Imran, obviously, you have not litigate real cases. The question about raising new issues is always open as most case are litigated over time. As evidence presents new issues, they are litigated and decided in due course without necessarily requiring an amendment to the pleadings.

When a case is final, though, and on appeal, new issues normally cannot be presented and decided. But this does not estop the appellate court from raising them themselves and deciding a case on such new issues sua sponte. I have a party to more than one such case.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
I see that the real intellectual heavyweights have chimed in...

http://www.ultimatewarrior.com/03.22.05.htm

I thought he was dead. But no.. apparently only insane..

I don't know who that is, but he's indeed an idiot. He refers to Terri's parents as the Schiavos, which anybody with a passing knowledge of the case wouldn't say. And he calls her brain dead, which we all also know isn't the case. And then there's all the other crap.

But hey, he at least came to the right conclusion, if by dubious logical techniques.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Clueless? Hardly. But I do enjoy jousting with you regardless of you naive opinions. I say naive only because you have not been practicing as of yet and may actually believe in absolutes.

You noticed the smily, I see... oh wait .

I don't believe in absolutes (except in politics), but I DO know that the courts in the country will resist any attempt by the Congress to dictate a decision to them. It definitely violates the theory and practically, the courts will not let them do it. Listen to Judge Napolionato (sp?) who is Fox's legal analyst.

I agree that the Courts are not taking the opinions of Congress and the pres. and an edict to come to a predetermined result.

As to you personally, I eargerly await your "awakening" when you lose your first case, a case you thought you could not lose on any grounds, law or fact. The legal profession has its mysteries.

[Agathon]

I don't know who that is, but he's indeed an idiot.

Of course he is...

It's the Ultimate Warrior formerly of the World Wrestling Federation (translation - a muscular clown in fluorescent makeup). He famous for being mad and really believing that he is the Ultimate Warrior.

I stop by his site when I need a laugh... this was quite bizarre even for him though.