Replies

Perhaps I am either misremembering or misinterpreting, but I seem to recall statements about this judge's demeanor in the courtroom with respect to the Schindlers, their lawyers, and their witnesses, that indicated a complete unwillingness to consider what they had to say.

The only "expert" testimony afforded a fair hearing was from experts chosen by the husband - and that is NOT a fair hearing.

Also, from what I have read here, all of Terri's indications of consciousness and responsiveness have been by way of physical reaction. If the judge is incapable of seeing such responses, HE IS INCAPABLE OF RENDERING JUDGEMENT, AND OUGHT TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THIS CASE. His failure to do so manifests gross judicial misconduct, and ought to be grounds for impeachment and REMOVAL.

There has been some discussion about the nature and extent of his visual impairment - specifically, can he read court documents? Reading is not enough. Computer technology today can easily magnify and enhance images to the point of displaying a single letter at a time on a giant screen, with contrast enhanced to any desired degree. Also, many text to voice systems (read aloud) are available, such as Dragon or IBM offer. But no amount of magnification or enhancement could show her following an object with her eyes.

He has failed to consider any position but the husband's, and ignored every indication of a conflict of interest on his part. Other, higher courts have NEVER been allowed to question his findings of "fact" (that are not fact), only Greer's legal determinations. A law that allows ONE MAN this kind of power over the very life or death of another ought to scare every one of us.

Terri Schindler ought to receive a course of therapy sufficiently long and intense to establish positively what her actual state of being is, whether she is capable of benefiting from further treatment, and whether she is, or can become, capable of making decisions about her further treatment. Making decisions about the "quality of life" of another human being is one of the foulest acts concievable. And Florida needs to make some permanent changes to its laws covering similar situations. It is one thing if all interested parties agree, but another where there is such stark disagreement, and no actual evidence of the wishes of the subject.

People can disagree, even with all the facts, but this judge has avoided or ignored too many facts to be considered fit to sit in judgement about what to have for dinner, much less whether another human being lives or dies.

"The only "expert" testimony afforded a fair hearing was from experts chosen by the husband - and that is NOT a fair hearing.

Also, from what I have read here, all of Terri's indications of consciousness and responsiveness have been by way of physical reaction. If the judge is incapable of seeing such responses, HE IS INCAPABLE OF RENDERING JUDGEMENT, AND OUGHT TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THIS CASE. His failure to do so manifests gross judicial misconduct, and ought to be grounds for impeachment and REMOVAL. "
___________________________________________________________

Theodore:
This just reminded me of another thing I ran across in my reading of the statutes! I'm posting exactly as I wrote it on my other page:

744.3725 Procedure for extraordinary authority.--Before the [KANGAROO] court may grant authority to a guardian to exercise any of the rights specified in s. 744.3215(4), THE [KANGAROO] COURT MUST:.......

(1) Appoint an independent attorney to act on the incapacitated person's behalf, and the attorney must have the opportunity to meet with the person and to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses at any hearing on the petition for authority to act;

(2) Receive as evidence independent medical, psychological, and social evaluations with respect to the incapacitated person by competent professionals or appoint its own experts to assist in the evaluations;

(3) PERSONALLY MEET WITH THE INCAPACITATED PERSON to obtain its own impression of the person's capacity, so as to afford the incapacitated person the full opportunity to express his or her personal views or desires with respect to the judicial proceeding and issue before the court; ******[OH MY GOSH!!! PAGE THE FREEPER WHO IS ALWAYS SAYING, 'JUDGE GREER, YOU SHOULD HAVE LOOKED INTO TERRI'S EYES AND ASKED HER IF SHE WANTED TO EAT'!!!!]

(4) Find by clear and convincing evidence that the person lacks the capacity to make a decision about the issue before the court and that the incapacitated person's capacity is not likely to change in the foreseeable future;

(5) Be persuaded by clear and convincing evidence that the authority being requested is in the best interests of the incapacitated person; and.....

__________________________________________________________

****AGAIN.

*****(3) PERSONALLY MEET WITH THE INCAPACITATED PERSON to obtain its own impression of the person's capacity, so as to afford the incapacitated person the full opportunity to express his or her personal views or desires with respect to the judicial proceeding and issue before the court; ******[OH MY GOSH!!! PAGE THE FREEPER WHO IS ALWAYS SAYING, 'JUDGE GREER, YOU SHOULD HAVE LOOKED INTO TERRI'S EYES AND ASKED HER IF SHE WANTED TO EAT'!!!!]

NOW I'M HEARING THE KANGAROO COURT IS LEGALLY BLIND!!?? CAN THIS CASE GET ANY MORE WEIRD???