"So what?" So saying that someone was "essentially fired" is misleading BS, and intentionally misleading BS at that, that's what. It misrepresents the situation by suggesting that the guardian was involuntarily removed as some sort of retaliation for his recommendations, when that is absolutely false, and you know it.
And the reason an attorney should have been appointed at that time is that Michael's action was demonstrably injurious to the well-being of Terri.
That's not what I asked - I asked you what an attorney would have accomplished that wasn't accomplished anyway, what an attorney would have done that wasn't done anyway. Riddle me that one, Batman.
The GAL was dismissed because when he found that Michael Schiavo had a conflict of interest, Felos filed for his dismissal on the grounds that the GAL (Pearson) was biased. And of course, Greer obliged- as ALWAYS to whatever Felos said or wanted.
That was Greer's ACTIONS through all of this. "If ya don't agree with me, you must be biased, whack, ignored, and/or sealed."
I'm not batman, but would LOVE to respond..
An attorney would be compelled to represent TERRI.
NOt her husband, not her parents, JUST TERRI!
Weather we want to admit it or not- both sides had self- interests.
Those of Michael, to move on, and those of her parents- the natural instinct to protect their child, nurture her and hold-out hope. I, of course, can easily see the motives of the parents as more pure than those of Michael.
But someone to represent Terri would literally be putting themselves in HER shoes. Would she want a guardian that sat in court professing his love for her and desires to honor his wedding vows while bedding another woman, only to turn around after he didn't get the 20 million he wanted- to then deny her the care he promised and begged for the money in order to give to her? I think not. Imagine being TOTALLY helpless, and the one speaking for you is your husband- bedding another woman, and taking the money for your care, then stopping all your care. PATHETIC!
No one would want a guradian like that!
Our courts are about LAW, not truth and justice- this is NOT what our forefathers intended.... but rather what they feared.....
So when is my opinion intentionally misleading? You are intentionally misleading, since I did not intend that and you overtly put "words in my mouth". I expressed an opinion. I still think tha t he was essentially fired. He requested to stay on. He was denied after, Michael Schiavo fought the GAL's opinion and called him biased. I did not say he was fired. I used the word essentially for a reason. Now you may not like my opinion, but guess what? SO WHAT? I'm sincerely tired of discussing this with you when you have such an attitude. So have at it with someone else. The law clearly states "right to counsel". Terri did not have counsel when the Judge ordered her to be killed. END OF STORY.