[Poohbah]

OK, fine.

You still haven't actually connected the dots here.

(a) To have an annual review of the guardianship report and plan.

When was the last annual review?

(b) To have continuing review of the need for restriction of his or her rights.

If anything, this is an EXTREMELY continuous review.

(c) To be restored to capacity at the earliest possible time.

Correct. Is Schiavo actually physically capable of this?

The woman is allegedly in a non-responsive coma. There seems to be disagreement here. That's why we have courts.

(d) To be treated humanely, with dignity and respect, and to be protected against abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

The woman is allegedly in a non-responsive coma. There seems to be disagreement here. That's why we have courts.

(e) To have a qualified guardian.

The woman is allegedly in a non-responsive coma. There seems to be disagreement here. That's why we have courts.

(f) To remain as independent as possible, including having his or her preference as to place and standard of living honored, either as he or she expressed or demonstrated his or her preference prior to the determination of his or her incapacity or as he or she currently expresses his or her preference, insofar as such request is reasonable.

The woman is allegedly in a non-responsive coma. There seems to be disagreement here. That's why we have courts.

(g) To be properly educated.

The woman is allegedly in a non-responsive coma. There seems to be disagreement here. That's why we have courts.

(h) To receive prudent financial management for his or her property and to be informed how his or her property is being managed, if he or she has lost the right to manage property.

The woman is allegedly in a non-responsive coma. There seems to be disagreement here. That's why we have courts.

(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.

The woman is allegedly in a non-responsive coma. There seems to be disagreement here. That's why we have courts.

(j) To be free from discrimination because of his or her incapacity.

The woman is allegedly in a non-responsive coma. There seems to be disagreement here. That's why we have courts.

(k) To have access to the courts.

Based on the sheer volume of filings, this right is being enforced with a vengeance.

(l) To counsel.

Based on the sheer volume of filings, this right is being enforced with a vengeance.

(m) To receive visitors and communicate with others.

The woman is allegedly in a non-responsive coma.

(n) To notice of all proceedings related to determination of capacity and guardianship, unless the court finds the incapacitated person lacks the ability to comprehend the notice.

The woman is allegedly in a non-responsive coma.

(o) To privacy.

OK.

We've walked through the list and you have yet to actually tie any specific ruling to a violation of this statute.

This ain't rocket science; if there were real grounds for removing the judge, the motion would've been filed already unless the Schindlers' attorney is too stupid to figure that out...

[jmc813]

The woman is allegedly in a non-responsive coma.

Have you seen the video on the website? She is most certainly NOT in a non-responsive coma, alledgedly or otherwise.

[yesnettv]

You have obviously not looked into Terri's situation. She can say yes and no appropriately. She can move her limbs on command. She laughs and cries appropriately.
Quit talking about stuff you know nothing about.

[yesnettv]

You have obviously not looked into Terri's situation. She can say yes and no appropriately. She can move her limbs on command. She laughs and cries appropriately.
Quit talking about stuff you know nothing about.

[Ohioan from Florida]

The woman is allegedly in a non-responsive coma. There seems to be disagreement here. That's why we have courts.

I bolded the key words of your response. What would it take to convince you that Terri is NOT in a non-responsive coma? Video? Go check out the previously mentioned website. Or are you one of those who won't believe until you see her for yourself? Then I can't help you, and Michael won't let you go see her. He's too afraid that the world will find out how alive Terri really is.

[iowamomforfreedom]

(l) To counsel.

Based on the sheer volume of filings, this right is being enforced with a vengeance.

WRONG. Terri has never been represented by counsel. For a brief time she had a Guardian Ad Litem, but when he said he thought that Terri's tube should not be removed, hubby asked him to be removed. Greer obliged. And he was never replaced.

I can show where Greer has fallen down on the job on at least half of these rights, but this one jumped out at me.

If you had been following this for even a couple of months you would see what a travesty of justice this is. This is positively frightening, and I guarantee you I will NEVER step foot in Florida because of it. Unfortunately, this will eventually reach all of us.

[iowamomforfreedom]

Oh, and your "that's why we have the courts" response IS the problem. Greer is corrupt, or being blackmailed, or is tied in with the "death with dignity" crowd. There is no other explanation. And Terri's attorneys have tried to get Greer off the case. They filed a petition for him to recuse himself. He denied the motion. What kind of court system is that? This would be funny if an innocent woman wasn't about to be legally murdered by the state of Florida.

[lakey]

Isn't it true that, if this were a criminal trial, a judge would be guilty of bias in accepting only the hearsay of three people over five, especially if one of the three had a personal and financial interest in seeing his wife dead?

Again, in a criminal trial, not being an expert in the field of medicine, would a judge accept only the testimony of a certain select group of physicians chosen by the interested party, rather than comparing the opinions from the opposing side of five?

The key word, allegedly, is why we have courts to examine both sides, without bias.