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.
Or 1789. Whatever.
"Pearse presented his report, and then he was discharged. Guardian ad litem is not a permanent position, and he was never "fired".
He requested more time and was discharged.
"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."
Does that make her any more alive right now? How she died was by court order that she could not dispute herself, and there was no attorney there to dispute it for her. Would you like to have been her in these circumstances? Is it ok with you if a judge ignores all of your rights and just passes them off to someone else that may not care at all about you?