"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?
I suggest you review Article III again, considering it in light of the Judiciary Act of 1793, and subsequent amendments.
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.
Again with this - this is the third time, and it just isn't true. Pearse presented his report, and then he was discharged. Guardian ad litem is not a permanent position, and he was never "fired".
She is DEAD now and you want to talk about whether or not she was a criminal?
No, I am pointing out that your notion of how probate works is not correct.