Replies

MS agreed with Larry King that "nobody talks about death" and yet his attorney says Michael "promised" Terri he would kill her if she became disabled? All this occurred presumably by telepathy in the presence of Terri's friends yet was accepted as "clear and convincing evidence" by the court? What a sick joke.

Felos did NOT repeat that MS won't "get a single penny" from Terri's death, as he has said in the past. Instead he launched into an argument that since spouses are MOST OFTEN also beneficiaries of the disabled spouse's estate, finding a conflict of interest would effectively place guardianship of disabled persons with loving spouses into state guardianship.

Which is a thoroughly rotten argument, since most spouses are indeed loving and not seeking to profit from the death of their disabled partner while spawning illegitimate children right and left. It's Michael's infidelity that makes him unfit to be Terri's guardian, in addition to being the sole person with her at the time of her 'collapse' AND being the beneficiary of her estate.

THREE STRIKES AGAINST MIKEY.

Make sure and read my post #150. Judge Greer refuses to schedule hearing on getting rid of Michael as the Guardian.

You posted in #151
Felos did NOT repeat that MS won't "get a single penny" from Terri's death, as he has said in the past. Instead he launched into an argument that since spouses are MOST OFTEN also beneficiaries of the disabled spouse's estate, finding a conflict of interest would effectively place guardianship of disabled persons with loving spouses into state guardianship

My Reply- HA! It is about the money. It has always been about the money. Most spouces are not denying their disabled spouces, wheel chairs, Holy Communion, melting of ther spouces wedding and engagment ring into theri won jewlery. etc. etc. ad nausium!

Instead he launched into an argument that since spouses are MOST OFTEN also beneficiaries of the disabled spouse's estate, finding a conflict of interest would effectively place guardianship of disabled persons with loving spouses into state guardianship.

It would suffice to do what Ann Coulter suggested, namely to not accede to pull-the-plug demands from such a spouse absent a living will. Oh what wonderful family values.