Replies

Oh, quit it, I've seen your posts on other Terri threads. You're one of those quite happy to hide behind euphemisms like "let her slip away" or "let her go" rather than admit this comes down to a case of killing someone who is inconvenient to society.

You are a liar; I've never said anything CLOSE to that.

So far you've called me an ass and a liar, but you've not answered my questions.

What's the matter, calling it like it is making you uncomfortable?

I didn't say you "said," I put you in the same company as. Big difference.

I have to admit, I'm enjoying the fact I've upset you while reducing you to claiming something I didn't say.

Is this the best you can do? Or, do you just want to admit you can't justify your position?

Hello Dear. I see things are going as usual.

Stop, take a breath, don't asborb the anger and hate being directed at you.

I wanted to ask you something.

Judge Greer is Custodian or Guardian of the estate(insurance settlements) money.

That money was placed in his trust for the rehabilitation, care, and concern of Terri.

Michael wanted to file a pleading to have the court discontinue food/water to Terri and essentially kill her, since it is a fact that she is not 'dying'. She may be AWARE or NOT, but she was not Dying.

Judge Greer authorized Michael spending the money on a lawyer to file that pleading in front of the court. Judge Greer's court, to be specific.

How can the Judge claim to be fair, and just, and unbiased when he authorized giving out the money to attempt putting her to death?

This seems to be a clear case of bias and prejudice. It would make one think he had already decided TERRI could be put to death before he heard the evidence and ruled on that evidence.

What do you, with your long and valuable experience in that area, think?