Replies

I did not know that Pat Anderson will try on Wednesday to have Schiavo removed as guardian. How can she do this? Will Demers even recognize her to make a motion?

Wouldn't it be Wolfson, who would have to make such a motion, and we all think he is pro-Schiavo? Moreover, there is no chance that Demers will permit Schiavo's removal as guardian. Demers is just George W. Greer with eyesight, as I see it.

"The family and the attorneys are not comfortable with Dr. Wolfson," Hennessy said. "He has stated on local television that he is opposed to Terri's Law, that he is uncomfortable with it, so we feel that creates an instant bias."

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:9R7jzmJfO0wJ:www.townhall.com/news/politics/200310/CUL20031028a.shtml+jay+wolfson+opposed+to+Terri%27s+law&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

anyone know the links to local news that may have video????

The pdf on Terri's site has a comment by Judge Demers that he did not believe there was proof of the statement by Wolfson and if there was that he didn't believe it would affect Wolfson's judgement....

evidently Demers doesnt' think Wolfson's behavior toward a female colleague will affect his behavior either.....

Pat is acting on behalf of the Schindlers, as Felos is acting on behalf of Michael (and supposedly Terri).

The appointment of Wolfson as guardian-at-litem does not supercede Michael's guardianship nor does it exclude the Schinders from exercising their rights in court.

Wolfson will report his findings to Jeb Bush, as I understand it. His findings will not carry the same weight as a judicial ruling, in fact I don't know if they will be made public, though I assume so.

Felos can be expected to challenge Michael's removal as guardian, if the court rules in Anderson's favor Nov. 5.

Also running in the background is the investigation into alleged abuse(s) by Michael Schiavo, of Terri as a disabled person, by the Florida agency (whose name escapes me right now) for elderly and disabled persons. We will not learn of their findings until that investigation has been completed.

Interesting article about the hospice here...(long, only posting tidbits)
http://www.hospicepatients.org/Saving-Hospice-from-Hospice-Extremists.html

Who are the extremists that have taken over the hospice and hijacked it for their own agenda? From the St. Petersburg Times and other documents, it is clear that the extremists who have taken over this hospice are Mary Labyak and Teresa Craig. Mary Labyak is the C.E.O. of the hospice and President of $uncoast $olutions. Teresa Craig is C.E.O. of the for-profit experimental venture, $uncoast $olutions, that is designed to make money for those on its payroll. $uncoast $olutions is not an altruistic charitable undertaking at all: it's all about money!

Mary Labyak is leading this hospice (and the industry) in a direction which furthers her extremist agenda in making hospice a place to kill the disabled! Mary Labyak is recognized as a leader of the national hospice industry, asked to speak at national conventions about hospice by the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization and other groups. Do these organizations question her extremist agenda of killing patients in hospice? Not one bit! Not one statement from these national groups has condemned the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast for wrongly admitting Terri Schiavo into hospice! That is very, very troubling, to say the least.

They are willing to violate the federal law that forbids admitting non-terminal patients into hospice.

Labyak admits that more than a million dollars has been diverted from the hospice to the for-profit $uncoast $olutions! She tries to explain it away by saying it is a "loan," but nobody has informed us of any loan declared on the books of the for-profit $uncoast $olutions. We would like to see it if it exists. Everybody knows that if a loan is taken out, a contract is written defining the terms of the loan, commonly with interest to be paid. When the public donated to this hospice, they did not intend for their donations to be used for profit! Not to the tune of more than a millions dollars, which is what Labyak admits. The class action lawsuit and hospice's own internal documents show that over $7 million has been diverted over the past few years to the for-profit. Labyak admits diverting the funds.

*****hope the source url can validate this next comment*****
When Mary Labyak drives around in her $ 31,000 (THIRTY-ONE THOU$AND DOLLAR) dark blue "free to her" 2003 Chrysler Sebring luxury convertible (paid for by donations to the hospice) visiting those clubs or sits around in her posh Condo, does she worry about the staff who may be overworked? Is she overly concerned about services to the patients? Does Teresa Craig worry about the staff or patient services when she drives around in her $30,000 (THIRTY THOU$AND DOLLAR) gold "free to her" Chrysler Sebring luxury convertible (paid for by donations to the hospice)? Does Mike Bell worry about the staff or patient services when he drives around in his $ 30,000 (THIRTY THOU$AND DOLLAR) silver "free to him" Chrysler Sebring luxury convertible (paid for by donations to the hospice)? Do they have a conscience that might bother them knowing that donations to the hospice pay for their luxury cars and other perks and bonuses? Obviously not.

They know that while big bonuses are being doled out over at $uncoast, while they get their perks like ("free" to them) luxury cars and bonuses (declared or hidden), those funds used to pay for their perks are not available to pay for services to the patients. They also know that staff salaries had been frozen for the past few years (oh yes, they finally gave them a small raise).

Anyone having further information about the Hospice of the Florida $uncoast and its practices is advised to contact the plaintiffs' attorney of record:

Jonathan L. Alpert, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 121970
THE ALPERT LAW FIRM
100 South Ashley Drive. Suite 2000
Post Office Box 3270
Tampa, Florida 33601-3270
(813) 223-4131 - Tel.
(813) 230-9915 - Tel.
(813) 228-9612 - Fax

my comments again,
this Mary Labyak must be one loaded woman, she is listed on 8 corporations.......
http://www.sunbiz.org/corpweb/inquiry/corioff.html

According to the Florida statutes, Pat Anderson can petition the court for removal of Michael as Terri's guardian. If the last time the guardianship was petitioned was pre-Sept. 2002, then possibly the actual births of two children by Michael and Jodi can act as evidence compelling enough to remove him. Let's hope whatever judge sees this will agree with the Schindlers.

744.3715 Petition for interim judicial review.--

(1) At any time, any interested person, including the ward, may petition the court for review alleging that the guardian is not complying with the guardianship plan or is exceeding his or her authority under the guardianship plan and the guardian is not acting in the best interest of the ward. The petition for review must state the nature of the objection to the guardian's action or proposed action. Upon the filing of any such petition, the court shall review the petition and act upon it expeditiously.

(2) If the petition for review is found to be without merit, the court may assess costs and attorney's fees against the petitioner.

History.--s. 56, ch. 89-96; s. 41, ch. 90-271; s. 1092, ch. 97-102.