Suppose the judge ordered that a wheel-chair-bound person be transported and left at 1943 Twelfth Street and left there; the judge further stated that the facility there was suitable for care of the person and that he had reached that conclusion on the basis of reading a listing for XYZ Rehabilitation in the telephone book. Suppose further that, in fact, the location in question was a burned-out (unheated) building, the phone book in question was five years old, and the temperature outside was 20 below. Would that render the judge's order illegal?
If the judge was at all reasonable, he would upon discovering that the building was no longer suitable, order that the person be moved somewhere else. But suppose the judge instead reviews the evidence of the building's changed status and states that it is still the home of XYZ Rehabilitation. Under legal practice, a judge's finding of fact generally trumps any observations anyone else might make. So legally, the judge wouldn't be ordering the person to be left in an abandoned building; he'd be ordering that the person be left in a building which he found housed XYZ Rehabilitation.
Unfortunately, I suspect Felos and Greer have probably worked pretty hard to cover themselves with this sort of chicanery. My only hope is that they made some little mistake that will be their undoing.