Replies

"It would have been consistent with Florida law. If MS was found conflicted and removed which he should have been, his testimony becomes garbage. The initial finding is set aside and the new guradian, be it he parents or siblings, simply withdraws the claim."

I'd be all for that, because I never believed his testimony. Had she told him, he should have said something years earlier.

But technically, how would that work? As soon as MS backed out, would a GAL be appointed in the interim? If so, could he just say "nevermind" the 2001 decision, or would they re-try it? You still have the other 2 witnesses up against the single (and no more credible) testimony of Meyers, and her parents, who only said they didn't know what she wanted, and even if she had told them, they wouldn't do it.

I mean, I agree with erring on the side of life. But would the evidence that they did have of her wishes be blown off?

I noticed above somewhere (I've missed a lot of posts juggling) I think it was you who said the 2DCA found a conflict of interest and did nothing about it. But that was with regard to the $ interest - they said that if they used that to disqualify a guardian, it would be a mess, since it is our very closest family members who typically do inherit something.

I don't remember their commenting on his other relationship. It was a point at trial as Pearse testified...
I do think that point should have counted against MS - particularly due to the timing.

I wont argue with your hopes that someday the courts will make this federal. I'm too conflicted. I hate federal gov't, but I also don't trust single local judges with so much power. I would have loved to see it tried de novo. As it is now, tho - I don't see how they operated outside the law as written.

I do see many discretionary things that make it unacceptable to me - like gambling her trust $ on legal fees, not bringing in more court-appointed docs, and worst of all, not giving her therapy and retesting her swallowing after all these years. The only way I could possibly justify not offering anything by mouth is if there was no shadow of a doubt that it would only make inevitable death less humane.

I would like you to address each of these issues: 1,2,3 were clear and blatant violations of Florida law.

1) Florida law states that a judge can not act as a guardian of someone who's case they are deciding. Judge Greer did this, which was a violation of that Florida statue.

2) Florida law states that a guardian must final an annual plan, detailing both the financial and care proved the ward. MS did not do this, which was a violation of that Florida statue.

3) Greer has allowed Michael to unlawfully place Terri in a Hospice and engage in a Medicare and Medicaid fraud. She is not terminal and the "certification" presented was not done lawfully.

4) Greer took campaign contributions from MS's lawyers. In most courts I know of, this is an almost instant and immediate reason for a judge recusing himself from those attorney's cases. Greer did not do this, refusing five requests for his recusal.