So if I'm understanding this right, the judge is saying that the fact that medical facilities have refused access to Terri or her records does not constitute "personal knowledge" that Michael failed to instruct them to provide such access.
Still, it would seem in a case like this that a reasonable judge would require the respondent to carry out the order in such manner as to provide proof of its execution [e.g. by having a process server give appropriate notice to the medical personnel and facilities in question].
BTW, did Michael give any testimony or post any affidavits in this manner? If not, the fact that someone swears under oath that they were denied access to documents they should have been allowed to access should at least be grounds for enough suspicion to make the court ask the respondent whether the previous court's orders had been carried out.
Otherwise there's a brilliant catch-22: unless they receive Michael's order, the medical facilities won't provide any evidence of whether or not they've received any order, and if they won't provide evidence of not having received it, then in Greer's view Michael can't be charged with not having given it.
Key statement "a reasonable judge" . . . again the question is what recourseis there for Terri, esp. now that she is showing signs of neglect -- 2 missing teeth and a gaping bedsore.