Replies

There is little value in trying to prevail on the ancillary legal issues.

The law provides that Michael is her guardian. That means he speaks for her, as if he were her. In other words, although the grounds might exist for Terri to obtain a divorce, sue for a writ of mandamus on disabled rights issues, etc., Michael would have to be the one to initiate the process, because in a legal sense, Michael IS Terri.

Three types of groups have tired to get him removed. The family, "interested groups" and wackos. Interested groups might be her church, an anti-hospice group, etc.

Of these, the family had the best shot. It was a very difficult task and they failed. So did the interested groups and the wackos. It is wholly within the jurisdiction of the judge to take Michael's position away or leave him as guardian.

There is amply case law to justify leaving Michael in place. The parents have far from clean hands in this and the judge just did not buy removing Michael and denying him his legal rights.

So, who speaks for Terri in a legal sense? Michael and only Michael.

The bottom line is that Michael wants something. Everyone does. It's obviously far more than just her death. The question is, just what does Michael want. Determine that. Negotiate it. Get him the negotiated answer, and he cedes Terri to the parents. End of case.

Since Terri's case involves such a major issue as life or death, no judge is going to let in turn on a lesser point such as a life insurance policy. May not like it, but that's reality.

Everyone expects a judge's opinion to be short, sweet and perfect. Everyone expect the complete preservation of Terri's "rights." Her family has rights too. Do does Michael.

Those differing rights are in conflict.

Courts come into play when the answer is not easy and rights are in conflict.

The other thing holding her back right now is the incredibly bad PR work we have seen in this matter, and the resultant turn in public opinion.

She needs much better assistance.