Replies

"The only "expert" testimony afforded a fair hearing was from experts chosen by the husband - and that is NOT a fair hearing.

Also, from what I have read here, all of Terri's indications of consciousness and responsiveness have been by way of physical reaction. If the judge is incapable of seeing such responses, HE IS INCAPABLE OF RENDERING JUDGEMENT, AND OUGHT TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THIS CASE. His failure to do so manifests gross judicial misconduct, and ought to be grounds for impeachment and REMOVAL. "
___________________________________________________________

Theodore:
This just reminded me of another thing I ran across in my reading of the statutes! I'm posting exactly as I wrote it on my other page:

744.3725 Procedure for extraordinary authority.--Before the [KANGAROO] court may grant authority to a guardian to exercise any of the rights specified in s. 744.3215(4), THE [KANGAROO] COURT MUST:.......

(1) Appoint an independent attorney to act on the incapacitated person's behalf, and the attorney must have the opportunity to meet with the person and to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses at any hearing on the petition for authority to act;

(2) Receive as evidence independent medical, psychological, and social evaluations with respect to the incapacitated person by competent professionals or appoint its own experts to assist in the evaluations;

(3) PERSONALLY MEET WITH THE INCAPACITATED PERSON to obtain its own impression of the person's capacity, so as to afford the incapacitated person the full opportunity to express his or her personal views or desires with respect to the judicial proceeding and issue before the court; ******[OH MY GOSH!!! PAGE THE FREEPER WHO IS ALWAYS SAYING, 'JUDGE GREER, YOU SHOULD HAVE LOOKED INTO TERRI'S EYES AND ASKED HER IF SHE WANTED TO EAT'!!!!]

(4) Find by clear and convincing evidence that the person lacks the capacity to make a decision about the issue before the court and that the incapacitated person's capacity is not likely to change in the foreseeable future;

(5) Be persuaded by clear and convincing evidence that the authority being requested is in the best interests of the incapacitated person; and.....

__________________________________________________________

****AGAIN.

*****(3) PERSONALLY MEET WITH THE INCAPACITATED PERSON to obtain its own impression of the person's capacity, so as to afford the incapacitated person the full opportunity to express his or her personal views or desires with respect to the judicial proceeding and issue before the court; ******[OH MY GOSH!!! PAGE THE FREEPER WHO IS ALWAYS SAYING, 'JUDGE GREER, YOU SHOULD HAVE LOOKED INTO TERRI'S EYES AND ASKED HER IF SHE WANTED TO EAT'!!!!]

NOW I'M HEARING THE KANGAROO COURT IS LEGALLY BLIND!!?? CAN THIS CASE GET ANY MORE WEIRD???

"NOW I'M HEARING THE KANGAROO COURT IS LEGALLY BLIND!!?? CAN THIS CASE GET ANY MORE WEIRD??? "

Yeah, I find the blindness rather ironic in this case.

Can it get any weirder? Well, based on past experience when dealing with radical, left-wing nutjobs and an out of control, agenda driven judiciary, I would say that it not only CAN get weirder , but undoubtededly WILL. I learned a long time ago to never say "this will be the last straw."

I wanted to tell you Ethan, that I, for one, appreciate all your effort to research and post documentation pertinent to this case. Keep up the good work.