Additional recommended, related reading:
December 28, 2003
December 29, 2003
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPELLATE DIVISION
GORDON
WAYNE WATTS, Individually,
as
a Florida Citizen, Generally, on behalf of similarly
situated Citizens, and Specifically on behalf of Theresa Marie Schindler-Schiavo, Case
No.: 2003-005071AP-88A UCN522003AP005071XXXXCV Petitioner
V.
City
of Pinellas Park, Florida Police
Dept., et al.,
Respondents __________________________________/
MOTION
TO REVERSE THE ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF PENDING PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF QUO
WARRANTO, PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS Preface:
These petitions are coming to This Court in both standard postal mail
(duplicate) to satisfy signature requirements; However, the FAX
transmission which shall come before this court in an instantaneous
manner shall be legally binding at least to the extent that many if
not all of the request do not
need the signature nor any further formal request from
Petitioner to be granted - in that This Court has authority to sua
sponte (on its own motion) grant many or all of the
below-enumerated requests and petitions. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION. Petitioner,
Gordon W. Watts, comes before This Court in response to the Order of
this Court dated December 19, 2003, in which This Court dismisses
without prejudice the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to test the
illegal deprivation of Theresa Schiavo as next friend. Petitioner also
requests consideration of petitions so enumerated in the title and
currently before the court. This
cause came before This Court as a petition for four (4) original
writs, directed at proper and varied entities, depending on the type
and nature. Further consideration was wrought by way of documentation
submitted for clarification as to the exact identity of respondents,
which paperwork was requested by a clerk acting in her official
capacity. In response, and in accordance with Fla.R.App.P. 9.300,
attorneys for Woodside Hospice House, one named respondent, filed with
this court petitions dated 11 December 2003, seeking the dismissal of
this cause. Pursuant to this Rule, 9.300(a), service of this motion
tolled (suspended) the time schedule for 10 days, allowing Petitioner
time to serve 1 response to this motion, the time not being officially
shortened or lengthened by the court. However,
allowing the eventual issuances of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to test
Theresa Schiavo's illegal deprivation of liberties may still be
inappropriate for various reasons. While not "legal" grounds
to dismiss, nonetheless petitioner acknowledges that rendering of a
writ, with petitioner as the closest "next friend," would
imply some sort of guardianship on the part of petitioner, possibly a
heavy burden, not to mention resultant news media exposure. Thus, if
other remedies can be found (a sound legal argument), then Habeas is
not the proper remedy. Nonetheless, if no other remedy is possible,
Habeas lies to compel explanation for deprivation of potentially any
liberty. (Hence, the title, "The Great Writ.") The
tenth day fell on 21 December 2003, a Sunday. The time of the act not
being counted (RULE 9.420(e)), it was timely that day. That day,
however, was not computed (Id.), as it was on a Sunday, thus the next
day became timely for filing. Pursuant to this rule, Petitioner filed
his response on 22 December 2003, and sent in copies by postal mail
and FAX transmission. Rule 9.420(d) proscribes 5 additional days after
service by mail is added to the aforementioned time, and the FAX was
sent in on the day of timeliness, late in the evening, howbeit, before
midnight of that night, both copies having been received. However,
This Court ruled on this motion in error prematurely, at approximately
5pm that evening (22 Dec), before time had expired to file a response
by petitioner, and that portion of the ruling which states dismissal
should temporarily be a nullity and void ab
initio, until such time is allowed for petitioner to respond to
all motions in a timely manner. This
Court should not be swayed by the "small" stature of
petitioner, nor by the delay in filing a response to Woodside Hospice
House, one in which petitioner waited until only hours before the time
expired before filing an answer - yet, this delay prejudiced The
Court, but was necessary to give time to petitioner Watts to
investigate all legal remedies and properly answer Woodside's
petition. Petitioner did not have intention to inconvenience This
Court with any unnecessary delay. Nonetheless,
This Court is within its technical jurisdiction to rule one-way or the
other eventually. And, to that end, petitioner makes a
response: This
Court cites Doroucher v Singletary, 623 So.2d 482, 485 (Fla.
1993) as its justification for dismissal of the Habeas petitions;
however, Doroucher is legally distinguishable from the instant case,
to wit: In
Doroucher, the target of the petition for writ of habeas corpus
willingly refused the assistance offered by any potential writ. In the
case at bar, however, the target proper of this attempted habeas writ
is unable to speak or object. In normal circumstances, the
court-appointed guardian(s) would normally be able to speak/answer for
target Schiavo, however, it is
these "guardians" who are depriving Ms. Schiavo of the
protections of several State Laws, thus they would have no legal
standing to be viewed as "objective" representatives of
Schiavo. (Controlling precedent here on "conflict of
interest" is seen in the laws which prohibit
a notary public from notarizing his/her own
signature; Likewise, the varied guardians can not "notarize"
or verify their own objectivity when they, themselves are the alleged
perpetrators. That authority must come from an outside source. This
holding, whether or not supported by current case law, would be
defensible on appellate review because no other known holdings
conflict with it.) Three
"guardians" of recent have included the following: (a)
Michael Schiavo; (b) The Courts; and, (c) Court-appointed GAL, Dr. Jay
Wolfson. They
have all deprived Schindler-Schiavo of liberty as follows: (a)
Michael Schiavo attempted to withhold generic (regular) food and
water, when the courts had only authorized the withholding of
"life-prolonging procedures," in accordance with s.
765.309(1), Fla. Stats. which, according to the definitions (s.
765.101(10)), do not include standard food and water. In that
"guardian" Michael Schiavo violated both court covenants and
State Laws, he deprived Theresa of liberties under protection by laws.
It is also undisputed fact that he illegally withheld from court
discovery the bone scans, which indicated very likely spousal abuse.
For most, but not all, of her incapacitations, he has deprived Theresa
of rehabilitation, a retained right, which he is not allowed to take
away from her. (s. 744.3215(1)(i)) (b)
The courts have violated the doctrines of res
judicata and collateral
estoppel in attempting to prohibit rehab ordered by prior courts,
in that, outside review by way of appeal, the courts are not allowed
to reconsider or relitigate previously litigated matters. The
"courts" as guardians have further
deprived Theresa of protection under the color of law by contravening
(violating) s. 765.3215(1)(i), Fla. Stats. ; And by purposely allowing
a felony attempted mercy killing - or, if Theresa was unwilling, then
a felony attempted murder. (c)
GAL, Wolfson willfully refused to intervene, before he had been
dismissed as GAL, thus he deprived Theresa of protection. (d)
Woodside Hospice, The City of Pinellas Police Department, The SIXTH
Circuit State Attorneys' Office, and the Dept of Children and
Families, Adult Protective Services also all had opportunities to
prevent the illegal deprivations of liberty of Theresa -in their
"official capacity" to do so -and did not do so
freely and willingly. For
reasons outlined in prior filings - and as this matter is legally
distinguishable per supra,
the petitions for writ of habeas corpus are legally defensible: Schiavo
is under constant threat or is in jeopardy in her surroundings. Up
until this point, the illegal deprivation of liberties have not been
properly challenged or tested by Habeas
or Quo Warranto - and the
only attempt to issue a writ of Mandamus
was to compel the State's Governor to uphold the law, when a more
appropriate use of this writ would have been to direct it to the local
police. The Writ of Prohibition
has not ever been directed to the courts for their overstep
in authority in regards to prohibiting rehab prior discussed, and the
deprivation of liberties from Theresa have proceeded by default.
Woodside Hospice and other respondents would no doubt have This Court
believe that Petitioner lacks standing to proceed in this action. I
disagree. The United States Supreme Court has held that in order to
appear before the Court as next friend, an individual
must provide an adequate explanation-such as inaccessibility,
mental incompetence, or other disability-why the real party in
interest cannot appear on his own behalf. Whitmore v. Arkansas,
110 S. Ct. 1717, 1727(1990). I do not read Durocher v. Singletary, 623
So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1993), as holding otherwise. Petitioner
Watts has raised in this Court the allegation that the trial
courts dismissal order is based on a faulty premise-i.e., that
Theresa Schiavo had the ability to speak for herself - or be
objectively represented. The State does not contest Watts' present
assertions undermining that premise: that Ms. Schiavo in fact was
diagnosed as incapacitated, hence unable to speak for herself. Woodside
in its motion thus raises serious questions concerning Watts'
standing, which the State has not properly rebutted with case law or
state law. In fact, the State earlier asked the Petitioner Watts to
submit additional paperwork, eventually assigning it a case number.
Because of the critical nature of this issue and the lack of any prior
review, I would return this case to the trial court by reversal of the
order of dismissal so that court can hold a limited hearing on the
issue of Watts' standing to proceed. Unlike the situation in Durocher,
the validity of the trial courts standing decision in the present
case has never been subjected to appellate review. This Court has
cited no case where a trial courts standing decision concerning a
"next friend" holding has not been subjected to appellate
review. Further, this Courts citation of Durocher is inapposite.
There, no substantive allegation of incompetence was made as in the
instant case with Ms. Schiavo. In light of the finality of the -and
the sometimes fatal -deprivation of protection of state law and the
fact that, up until now, this case has proceeded without the safety
mechanism of a complete appellate review (as Petitioner Watts is
requesting), I believe this Court has a duty to ensure that Watts has
standing to proceed without delay. This Court has jurisdiction to so
order. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, Watts has made separate
petitions in a proper fashion for the appropriate Writs of
Mandamus, Quo Warranto, and Prohibition, each writ being different and
distinct in its flavor. These
petitions are on file with the court in this case number. Should the
petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice,
petitioner respectfully requests that these other petitions in this
cause be reviewed fairly, and transferred, without prejudice, in a
different case number, if administratively necessary to ensure fair
review. Respectfully
submitted, Gordon
Wayne Watts Gordon
Wayne Watts
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE I
HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent
to the following parties by FIRST CLASS US POSTAL MAIL, this _29th_
day of December, 2003. *
Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Florida - APPELLATE DIVISION -
Room 170 - 315 Court Street North - Clearwater, FL 33756-5165 *
Patricia Fields Anderson, Esq. - 447 Third Avenue North, STE 405 - St.
Petersburg, FL 33701 727-895-6503 Fax: 727-898-4903 *
George J. Felos, Esq. - 595 Main Street - Dunedin, FL 34698 727-736-6060 Fax: 727-736-5050 *
Deborah A. Bushnell, Esq. - 204 Scotland Street - Dunedin, FL 34698 727-733-9064 Fax: 727-733-0582 *
Christina Calamas, Esq. - 400 S. Monroe St., STE 209 - Tallahassee, FL
32399-6536 850-488-3494 Fax: 850-488-9810 *
George LeMieux, Esq. - Office of the Attorney General - Plaza Level 01
- 400 S. Monroe Street - Tallahassee, FL 32399-5536 850-488-3494 Fax: 850-488-9810
*
Jay Alan Sekulow, Esq. - American Center for Law and Justice - 201
Maryland Ave., NE - Washington, DC 20002 *
Randall C. Marshall, Esq. - American Civil Liberties Union of Fla. -
4500 Biscayne Blvd., STE 340 - Miami, FL 33137 *
Thomas J. Perrelli, Esq., Robert M. Portman, Esq., Nicole G. Berner,
Esq. - 601 13th Street, NW, STE 1200 - Washington, DC 20005 *
City of Pinellas Police Department - 7700 59th Street North - Pinellas
Park, FL 33781-3247 *
Woodside Hospice House - 6770 102nd Ave. - North Pinellas Park, FL
33782-2909 *
Michael D. Malfitano, Esq., John W. Campbell, Esq., and Monica J.
Williams, Esq., Attorneys for Woodside Hospice House, Pinellas Park
Florida c/o Costangy, Brooks, & Smith, LLC (100
West Kennedy Boulevard, STE 500) Post Office Box 1840 - Tampa, FL
33601-1840 813-223-7166
/ Fax: 813-223-2515 *
Hon. George W. Greer, Judge, c/o Florida
Sixth Judicial Circuit Court - Rm. 484 315
Court Street, Clearwater, FL
33756-5165 *
Hon. W. Douglas Baird, Judge, c/o Florida Sixth Judicial Circuit Court
- Rm.
468 315
Court Street, Clearwater, FL 33756-5165 *
Kenneth L. Connor, Esq., Counsel for Respondent Governor Jeb Bush -
c/o Wilkes & McHugh, P.A., One North Dale Mabry, STE 800 Tampa, FL
33609-2755 813-873-0026
or 1-800-255-5070 ; Fax: 813-286-8820 or 813-872-1836 *
Kenneth L. Connor, Esq., Counsel for Respondent Governor Jeb Bush -
19928 Evergreen Mill Road - Leesburg, VA 20175-8741 703-669-8108
Fax: 703-669-9702 *
(Service in duplicate for Fla. DCF, once again - due to new
respondent status) The
Florida Department of ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES c/o Florida
Department of Children and Families-APS 1317
Winewood Blvd. - Bldg. 6 Room 366 Tallahassee,
FL 32399-0700 850-922-4076 *
Bernie McCabe, State
Attorney for Pinellas County Florida P.O.
Box 5028 Clearwater, FL 33758 *
Bernie McCabe, State
Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit Room
100 14250
49th Street - Clearwater, FL 33760 Respectfully
submitted,
Gordon
Wayne Watts GORDON
W. WATTS, Petitioner / Plaintiff / Appellant 821
Alicia Road - Lakeland, Florida 33801-2113 Home
Phone: 863-688-9880 Work
Phones: 863-686-3411 and 863-687-6141 Electronic
Mail: Gww1210@aol.com Acting
Attorney for the Appellant: Gordon
W. Watts, PRO SE
http://m-blog.com/terrischiavo (a
must-read, especially the right side of this page with the transcript
of Terri's dad on Hannity and Colmes/FOX NEWS)
|
||||||||||||||