[daylate-dollarshort]

Apparently you didn't read it too closely. This opinion is from the Second District Cout of Appeal- not the Florida Supreme Court.

Actually, I believe that Ms. Anderson has done well with what she had to work with.

It is obvious from the case that the Schlinders' witnesses would not make their statements under oath and pain of perjury. It would have been a very simple matter for the Schlinders to subpoena them to testify rather than attempt to submit affidavits from Mr. Schindler and his PI.

If you are truly interested in the legal history of this case read the opinion of the fourth appeal in this matter issued June 6, 2003. It might very well change your opinion of the courts involved in this tragedy.

[nicmarlo]

I believe that Ms. Anderson has done well with what she had to work with.

You would. She, through inadvertence and error, helped out your cause.

It is obvious from the case that the Schlinders' witnesses would not make their statements under oath and pain of perjury...

Is it? Do you know this as fact, or was there possibly error involved with the notary and others? I, for one, know that unintentional errors occur frequently and regularly in legal documents. Or are you now making assumptions based on what you perceive as "fact?"

Gov. Bush may now be able to ensure that these numerous legal errors are not repeated....and that, is doing very "well with what [one] has to work with." P.S., nothing will change my opinion of the Florida courts. They got too much press to sway my opinion to think anything good generally comes out of them, much as the Circus Court in California, which repeatedly gets its decisions overturned and handed back to them for gross errors in their opinions.