[Theodore R.]

We don't know how much he collects when she dies and we may never know -- it may not be "public information." He says he will collect no more, but who could believe him or his "lawyer." One thing for sure, he has the law in FL solidly on his side.

[Windshark]

You mean the judges.....

I think the new law is not on his side.....but as we have seen judges with an agenda can change that.

"L'Etat, C'est Moi!"

[supercat]

One thing for sure, he has the law in FL solidly on his side.

Only insofar as he has a blind judge on his side who's willing to ignore reality when making findings of fact.

With regard to Terri's condition, there's not really enough evidence to prove Greer's decisions wrong (though I would regard them as dubious). But at least two of his other findings defy reason:

• The "fact" that Michael's hearsay regarding Terri's alleged statements constitutes "clear and compelling" evidence of her desire to be fatally dehydrated. Even if Michael's credibility were not in doubt, it would hardly be clear that Terri's remarks, even if she made them, were to be taken as a wish that she be fatally dehydrated if she became incapacitated. If someone says "I wouldn't want to live like that" upon seeing a homeless person, does that mean the person would want to be killed if they lost their house!?
• The "fact" that there isn't even a potential conflict of interest between a wife and an openly-adulterous husband who would have much to gain if the wife died.

Both of these findings of "fact" fly in the face of legislative intent when they put in the "clear and compelling" evidence standard for right-to-die case and the potential conflict of interest standard for guardian-ad-litem appointments.