[winstonchurchill]

You, on the other hand remind me of lawyers I know that think they are always right. It seems to me that we can have a debate over this issue without being condescending.

I did not intend to be 'condescending' and apologize if it came across that way. I am tired of people here insulting the judge and suggesting he was taking money, just because they don't like the result.

That was what my comment was directed to. I have had many clients over the years who, if they lost the case, said the judge was 'on the take.' They simply couldn't envision that an honest judge might weigh the evidence differently than they did. I told them precisely what I said here, "consider the possibility that he might be right and you might be wrong."

[jackibutterfly]

"They simply couldn't envision that an honest judge might weigh the evidence differently than they did."

Yes, and honest judge would. BUT, Greer is far from honest as he won't EVEN LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE!!!! Did you not read my Post #681??

[jackibutterfly]

Please read this article:

http://nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp

Sorry, I can't link - I haven't figured it out yet.

[jwalsh07]

Greer is ignoring the law. The law is quite clear. If the guardian "may have a conflict of interest, he or she is to be removed"

I don't care what motivates Greer to ignore the law, I do care that he and the superior courts have blatantly disregarded it.