[zerelda]

Thank you for the information. I think everyone should know that George Felos made money contributions to Judge Greer, and Judge Greer took them, even while the Schiavo case was before Greer's court. (Don't forget Deborah Bushnell, who also contributed as I recall, and there may have been others in the firm who pitched in.)

You're welcome. I note that, as I predicted, you did not acknowledge your false statement regarding George Felos' making the "legal maximum" contribution.

As to Deborah Bushnell, you are apparently not aware (or, like the "legal maximum" contribution nonsense, are assuming that no one else is aware, so this will easily slip on by) that Deborah Bushnell and George Felos are not now, nor have they ever been, members of the same law "firm."

If you think $250 is a teensy contribution, I do hope you will contribute at least that teensy sum to Free Republic.

Interesting that you would presume that I haven't already done so.

Meanwhile, regardless of the amount, we have an obvious ethics violation by both Felos and Greer. Those donations do have the appearance of a litigant seeking to influence the judge with a gift of money.

George Felos was not a "litigant" before Judge Greer. Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers were "litigants." George Felos is an attorney. The State of Florida (whose election statutes are controlling in this situation) does not consider a campaign contribution from an attorney to a judicial candidate to be either an "ethics violation" ("obvious" or otherwise), or "the appearance of a litigant seeking to influence the judge with a gift of money." You feel differently, and while that is an opinion to which you are clearly entitled, your opinion represents neither fact nor law.

Like accepting cash favors, for instance.

So, you equate a campaign contribution to a "cash favor?" It appears that we have come full circle with hyperbole, false statements, and inflammatory rhetoric. I prefer to deal in facts, but YMMV.

[T'wit]

>> So, you equate a campaign contribution to a "cash favor?"

It looks that way to an observer of politics-as-usual. It certainly is a favor and it certainly is cash. The point is for a judge to be above reproach. He may not give the appearance of impropriety lest his impartiality be called into question -- as it is over and over and over in this case.

[T'wit]

>> I note that, as I predicted, you did not acknowledge your false statement regarding George Felos' making the "legal maximum" contribution.

Sorry, missed that. I acknowledge my error. Thank you for correcting the record.

>> Deborah Bushnell and George Felos are not now, nor have they ever been, members of the same law "firm."

I don't quite follow. Is it not a "firm"? Does she work in some other firm? I've never heard this. Please explain.

>> Interesting that you would presume that I haven't already done so.

You try to read minds? I made no such presumption.

>> It appears that we have come full circle with hyperbole, false statements, and inflammatory rhetoric. I prefer to deal in facts

Why the rude reply? I write you courteously.