Well .. I'm just going to comment on a few statements you made so you can see where I'm coming from.
While you seem to believe that even if Greer had removed Michael - somehow by appeal he would have been reinstated. I'm not sure I believe that. Greer has been the LEADER on all these issues - with the appeals courts agreeing with everything Greer did - why would they suddenly change their opinions and not go with him?
And .. please stop repeating the "proxy" statement - we can all read it once and get the message. No one is arguing who or what a "proxy" is. We are arguing that Michael was NOT THE PROPER PERSON - AS AN "ESTRANGED HUSBAND" WITH ANOTHER WIFE AND CHILDREN. And .. we agree that the proper person should have been her parents.
But .. as usual .. when convenient to the left - the sanctity of marriage was to be upheld at all costs - even if the spouse was suspected of being a batterer - that consideration was never investigated in determining the appropriateness of the person chosen as a "guardian". Terri's X-rays when she was admitted to the hospital showed multiple bone franctures. That alone should have been suspicion enough for Greer to challenge the husband as guardian.
You said: "I find it hard to believe that so many judges would intentionally violate the law".
I don't find it hard to believe at all. Judges have been ruling from the bench for years. And .. the left's only power source is these activist judges. It's no mystery at all as to why they would all stick together. They know the public is getting wise to the fact that these judges have been acting outside of their scope of authority and jurisdiction for years - and quite frankly we're sick of it.
And .. what most people are ignoring - and I have stated many times - the appeals courts only LOOKED AT THE COURT'S PROCESS OF THE CASE [which I'm not disputing] - BUT THEY DID NOT REVIEW THE FACTS OF THE CASE - which Congress and the President requested the federal courts do; the legislation gave them jurisdiction to "REVIEW THE FACTS" of THE CASE. Now .. we have a statement from the 11th circus judge saying that congress did not have any authority to tell them what to do (but Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America) does say that Congress determines JURISDICTION. Obviously, this learned judge did not know this information, which renders him an unlikely candidate to even be a judge.
It wasn't Felos who did a better job - it was the left that leaned toward Felos, thereby giving him the edge with the public, by making falacious statements about Terri's condition. I don't have enough fingers to count the media outlets who completely misled the public about her condition - and gleefully allowed Felos to try to glorify STARVING HER TO DEATH as somehow beautiful and serene.
You said: "If Judge Greer kept records from being presented that would be an issue that is appropriate to review on appeal."
I agree - and although several nurses gave affidavits [which I have read] concerning how Michael treated Terri - denied her rehab even though a jury had awarded money for it - how he always required he be left alone and the door locked when he visited Terri - after his visits .. how the nurses found Terri in hypoglycemic shock and empty viles of insulin were found in trash .. while tests on Terri's blood sugar levels showed an overdose of insulin in her system - how a nurse who recorded these circumstances found that her statements about it had been REMOVED from the computer records regarding Terri's care - how Michael said, "when is this bitch gonna die" - how Michael would call and ask, "is it dead yet".
No self-respecting judge (after reading those affidavits) should allow that type of person to be the guardian of a dog - let alone a disabled person. And because the judge chose not to believe these nurses who saw Terri on a daily basis - it seems to me the judge was providing lots of leeway to the husband and denying the affidavits of the nurses to have any standing in the case.
I believe it was stated in the records of the case that Greer disallowed the affidavits because they were submitted TOO LATE - which was a lie.
We do agree that the case should have been "reviewed" - but as I have stated earlier - this did not take place - the only thing the appeals courts did was review THE PROCESSES GREER USED - NOT THE FACTS OF THE CASE UPON WHICH HE RULED.
I saw the court order from judge Greer saying that the funds could be used for attorneys fees - and it even listed the persons who would receive the monies. Most of them turned out to be affiliated with the Hospice is some way. This is very, very troubling. I do hope it is determined his action in this regard was illegal - and all those people have to return the money to the trust. Of course, now that Terri's dead - I don't suppose that will happen either - because the husband would get the money anyway and just give it back to the lawyers. [sigh ..]
Please stop assuming that these judges are god-like and have the best of intentions. THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS WITH LIKES AND DISLIKES AND AGENDAS AND PREJUDICES - just like the rest of us. To ascribe some sort of superior status to these people is what the left has been promoting for years and years - in order to give the judges standing to legislate from the bench and be presumed as having the authority to do so.
Thankfully, this arrogant overreaching by the courts is going to be challenged by Congress - and hopefully it will not take tens of years to get it done.
I'm not going to talk about this any more, because I just keep repeating myself - and people just keep asking the same questions. These are my opinion - and nobody is required to believe them.
I wanted Terri to live and I do believe that the courts, especially the federal appellate courts and the liberal members of the Supreme Court of the US are legislating from the bench. Their decision on abortion and religion, and gay rights have not only been baseless in Constitutional law, but these judges have imposed their own liberal agenda to create rights that only Congress should have the power to create; having said that I will try to respond to your post:
Greer has been the LEADER on all these issues - with the appeals courts agreeing with everything Greer did - why would they suddenly change their opinions and not go with him?
I know that some of the judges did not agree with the outcome, but there were no legal errors upon which the courts could reverse. I do not believe that every judge who reviewed the decision was corrupt. The statute gives the judge no discretion to substitute the parents for the husband.
We are arguing that Michael was NOT THE PROPER PERSON - AS AN "ESTRANGED HUSBAND" WITH ANOTHER WIFE AND CHILDREN.
I certainly agree that the parents should have been making the decisions for Michael. The only legal consequences of Michael’s conflicting interests is that the Judge would have the discretion to weigh his credibility in light of the circumstance. The judge would not have the discretion under the law as written to disqualify Michael. The law should be amended to give the probate judge that discretion.
appropriateness of the person chosen as a "guardian”. Terri’s case was not one where a guardian would be appointed according to the applicable Florida statute. I have posted the statute that deals with that situation. In Terri’s case the statute provides that the husband has the right to be the “proxy”, I do not mean to insult you but you said:
please stop repeating the "proxy" statement - we can all read it once and get the message.
I’m sorry but you didn’t get the message or you would know the difference between the appointment of a guardian and a ‘proxy”. Reread what I posed please.
It's no mystery at all as to why they would all stick together. They know the public is getting wise to the fact that these judges have been acting outside of their scope of authority and jurisdiction for years - and quite frankly we're sick of it.
I hope you are right about the public. If they are becoming educated it is only because of all the conservative news programs, websites, and talk shows. The MSM only try to discredit conservative judges like Scalia.
BUT THEY DID NOT REVIEW THE FACTS OF THE CASE
This has been the case for the past 200 years. Appellate courts only review trial error, they do not consider the credibility of the witnesses.
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America) does say that Congress determines JURISDICTION. Yes, but it is limited by states rights. Maybe I will post an article on this issue when I have the time. I’m sorry I can’t elaborate here.
It wasn't Felos who did a better job - it was the left that leaned toward Felos, thereby giving him the edge with the public, by making falacious statements about Terri's condition. I read the opening statements of both attorneys. Ms. Campbell in her opening statement conceded that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state. I have posted an article dealing with the subject of Pamela Campbell. You can do a word search and find it if you wish.
(after reading those affidavits)
Affidavits are not admissible in evidence at the trial, because of the hearsay rule, and the right of confrontation. If the testimony of the witness who executed the affidavits could have been produced at trial “new” evidence rule, which permits the judge to grant a new trial does not apply.
I saw the court order from judge Greer saying that the funds could be used for attorneys fees
Do you know of a web address where I can check it out? If the funds were placed in an account with the Surrogate, it is possible that an order exists. Please let me know more. I’m very interested in knowing.
Please stop assuming that these judges are god-like and have the best of intentions.
I do not make any such assumption. In fact if you read “Men In Black” by Mark Levin, as I did, and I agree with Mr. Levin 100%, you will find concrete examples of how judges are merely human and have alter motives. I do not have enough information to pass judgment on Greer, that’s all I’m saying.
These are my opinion - and nobody is required to believe them. Believe is probably not the word I would use. I believe you, I just can not agree with your legal conclusions. But I want to say that I am convinced that you are sincere, and you are a great American and I am glad to have been able to discuss this topic with you.