Right-wing lies exposed: The final report on Terri Schiavo

April 23, 2005

Guest Post by Morbo

Here’s a follow-up to last week’s post about attorney David C. Gibbs III and his accusations against Michael Schiavo.

Last week, the Florida Department of Children and Families issued a report finding that none of the 89 complaints of abuse levied against Michael Schiavo since 2001 is credible.

According to a report in the Orlando Sentinel, the Department found that “Michael Schiavo ensured his wife’s physical and medical needs were met, provided proper therapy for her and had no control over money. They also found no evidence that he beat or strangled her, as his detractors have repeatedly charged.”

The department did a thorough job. Some of the abuse allegations were obviously specious but were investigated anyway. For example, one woman called the department to report that Terri Schiavo was suffering from an untreated infection at the point where the feeding tube met her stomach. Asked for her source, she named a Yahoo chatroom.

Claims that Michael Schiavo attacked his wife or neglected her became articles of faith among the Religious Right. Addressing a right-wing gathering in Washington, D.C., April 7, Gibbs, the attorney for Terri Schiavo’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, recycled these scurrilous charges. Gibbs strongly implied that Michael Schiavo had attacked his wife and then accused him of denying Terri treatment in order to get his hands on her money. Gibbs portrayed the man as a heartless, money-grubbing monster.

Every single charge Gibbs leveled has been debunked by this report. Gibbs claims to be a deeply committed Christian, yet he spread malicious lies about Michael Schiavo. An apology is in order.

One more thing: Some Carpetbagger readers wondered if Michael Schiavo would have grounds for a slander lawsuit against Gibbs. I sought an opinion from a friend of mine who is an attorney specializing in libel/slander law. Her opinion is that Gibbs’ comments are clearly defamatory, but she noted that Michael Schiavo, as a “public figure,” would have to prove that Gibbs made the comments with “reckless disregard for the truth.”

In my humble opinion, this standard should be easy to meet. Gibbs was intimately connected with the case and must have known that these stories were bunk. He spread them anyway.

Michael Schiavo probably has no interest in dragging this matter into the courts, but I wish he would give it some thought. If there is a God, he will hold Gibbs accountable on Judgment Day, but I’d like to hedge my bets in case there isn’t and see an earthly power punish him in the here and now.

The Schindler’s attorney went so far as to put all the scurrilous charges of abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of funds in the pleadings he filed after the Schiavo Bill passed and he appealed in federal court. He was unable to provide a shred of evidence to prove any of it. Judge Greer, in his response, noted that the claims had been found to be absolutely without merit. I think he even called them frivolous at one point.

Schiavo may very well win a defamation suit. If he’s angry enough about the treatment of him by the right, he may just do it for the sake of publicizing the morally bankrupt insitgators of the entire circus.

I know I would.

  • Clearly Gibbs’comments were in reckless disregard — I would submity they were intentional disregard — of the facts. However, that higher “public figure” standard would not apply, in my opinion, as Michael Schiavo is not a “public figure” in the defamation sense. He happened to be a party to a lawsuit, and the fact that one resorts to the court to enforce one’s rights — the only legal recourse available in most circumstances — is not thereby rendered a “public figure”. Sure, the court documents are normally public records, and proceedings are normally conducted in open court. However, Michael Schiavo did everything in his power to maintain his privacy; he is not a public official; he cannot have “public figure” status thrust upon him by merely being a party to a lawsuit or because the media chooses to focus on you fro their own commercial advantage. Even Bill Gates is not a “public figure” except in his business capacity; his private life is still off limits. That is why Hollywood types can and do win defamation lawsuits when the actions have invaded their personal privacy.

    Gibbs is still a slimeball, and deserves to have as much grief visited upon him as can legally be done. At the minimum, his actions were unethical and way beyond a lawyer’s duty to zealously represent his client (he is to do that WITHIN the bounds of the law), and a grievance should be filed against him in whatever jurisdiction that issued his law license. He makes me ashamed for the entire profession, and I have spent more than 27 years toiling as an attorney, and make sure to avoid the appearance of impropriety in both my professional and personal lives — nothing heroic about that; that is the MINIMUM conduct required of all fiduciaries, especially attorneys!

  • As much as we would all wish that Mr. Gibbs could be boiled in oil in the public square, we should remember that Michael Schiavo spent * fifteen years * dealing with the most hideous situation imaginable, even before the big broohaha came up. And he did it with incredible grace and diligence, the pressure of which would have broken most of us long ago.

    He deserves a vacation from it all, for the rest of his life if he wants it. If he gets his strength back before the statute of limitations expires and wants some well-justified retribution, more power to him. But if not, it will be up the rest of us to carry on his legacy of courage and decency in the face of the most monstrous assaults in the history of the republic.

    So I say: Take a break, Michael. You earned it.

  • An apology would be in order in a civilized society. When dealing with pseudochristians, I am reminded of the scene in To KIll A Mockingbird when the rabid dog is in the street. Civilization has to protect itself.

  • Some on the far right are still saying those who did not side with them “advocated judicial murder” including, politicians radio commentators etc. They are so nasty! I’ve worked with people with brain damage,what a horrible nightmare for Michael. It would have been much easier for him to have walked away from this ugly mess. They are using it still today as one of the themes for thier INjustice Sunday.

    • Comments are closed.