[general_re]

You are saying that a Florida court has some right to determine the meaning of US laws and the US constitution?

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida is a federal court, which is empowered to do exactly that.

Also, how can Terri have received due process when she was never in court and she had no voice (attorney) speaking for her?

She had guardians ad litem appointed at various points throughout, and as her legal guardian, the whole point to this was that Michael Schiavo was empowered to speak for her. The Schindlers disagreed with his decisions, obviously, but this is the presumption that the law makes - that your next of kin is empowered to speak on your behalf. Don't see much we can or should do to change that, unfortunately.

In essence, she was not allowed to face her accusers in court.

This is probate, not criminal - there are no "accusers" in the sense you're thinking.

[Republic]

Sweetie---she had three guardian ad litems...two who were contributers to greer's campaign.

THere is LOTS of money to be made in the guardianship business in Pinellas County. Go to theEmpireJournal.com and read the article on how greer reaps his side bar money (he said HE would serve as Terri's voice in court.....of course...HE NEVER WENT TO VISIT HER....and he denied every appeal of the schindlers to remove michael except the LAST ONE that was still pending when Terri was dying of thrist and hunger.

THE THIRD GUARDIAN, attn Pearse (and yes...ad litems all get PAID...big time) WAS GREER FIRED BECAUSE HIS REPORT STATED THAT MICHAEL WAS MISTREATING TERRI and THAT HE (the guardian) felt that the therapys michael stopped after he got the malpractice suit money) would HELP TERRI. Pearse had the nerve to request THERAPY be reinstated for Terri.

And yes.....GREER DID FIRE HIM.

Michael WAS NEVER REMOVED as guardian.

HE FAILED TO APPEAR AT THREE SEPARATE DEPOSITIONS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS ACTIONS AS GUARDIAN, COURT SANCTIONED DEPOSITIONS, FOR WHICH GREER NEVER HELD MICHAEL ACCOUNTABLE FOR..

[supercat]

She had guardians ad litem appointed at various points throughout, and as her legal guardian, the whole point to this was that Michael Schiavo was empowered to speak for her.

In any legitimate proceding, if a guardian wants to do something which might not be in the ward's best interest, a guardian ad litem is supposed to be present to oppose the action and force the guardian to prove, over the GAL's objection, that the action is, in fact, in the ward's best interest.

When Terri had guardian ad litems that opposed what Michael was trying to do, he had them fired for opposing him despite the fact that it was their job to oppose him.

Net effect: in most proceedings, Terri had zero representation by anyone who didn't want her dead.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida is a federal court, which is empowered to do exactly that."

No, the US constitution only give the US Supreme court that power.

"Also, how can Terri have received due process when she was never in court and she had no voice (attorney) speaking for her?

She had guardians ad litem appointed at various points throughout, and as her legal guardian, the whole point to this was that Michael Schiavo was empowered to speak for her. The Schindlers disagreed with his decisions, obviously, but this is the presumption that the law makes - that your next of kin is empowered to speak on your behalf. Don't see much we can or should do to change that, unfortunately."

Actually, no. One Guardian ad litem was appointed for Terri in 1998 and when that guardian said that Terri should not have the feeding tube pulled, he was fired by the court that appointed him.

There was one other Guardian Ad Litem.

That guardian ad Litem was ordered by law to find the facts and report them to the Govenor of Florida. That guardian ad litem was not a lawyer for Terri and was appointed by the court. His report was very sappy and may as well have been George Felos talking points. There were inconsistencies in that report compared to the testimony of the witnessed.

Either way there was NO attorney there strictly to look out for Terri's rights. This constitutes lack of due process.

"In essence, she was not allowed to face her accusers in court.

This is probate, not criminal - there are no "accusers" in the sense you're thinking."

She is DEAD now and you want to talk about whether or not she was a criminal? Have you no shame? Have you no appreciation for her rights as an individual? Do you believe that a disabled person deserves to die because someone said so in court?