Replies

Guardianship law means a lot more to people here than it does to Judge Greer. Once Michael declared his intention to marry Jodi Centonze, that made quite apparent and undeniable a craven interest in Terri's death which would outweigh any claimed legitimate interest he might have therein. As such, he was no longer legally entitled to be Terri's guardian.

OK, I have heard this urban myth too many times. Please post the relevant EXACT statute that says this.

Terri's parents filed in September of 2002 to remove Michael as guardian. When scheduling the hearing after Terri's second scheduled execution attempt proved insufficient, Judge Greer granted a continuance. When that proved insufficient, Michael simply refused to show up at the hearing. Because Greer somehow failed to give Michael official written notice of the hearing (never mind that he clearly knew about it) he declined to hold Michael in contempt and instead rescheduled the hearing well into the future. When that proved insufficient, he granted another continuance. And when Michael again failed to show up, "Oops... no proper notice. Sorry about that."

Yes, well, proper notice is such a silly legal nicety. I think I will sue you, ask the newspaper to mention it, then not get around to actually serving you. When you don't show, I'll ask the judge to hold you in contempt for not being there when I wanted you to be.

Are you a lawyer? I really hope not.

It was illegal for Michael to continue to act as Terri's guardian after declaring his engagement to Ms. Centonze. People here were wanting Judge Greer to follow the law.

Again, what law? FR opinion isn't "law." He was the legal guardian. It takes a HECK OF A LOT of legal momentum to overcome stare decisis.

OK, I have heard this urban myth too many times. Please post the relevant EXACT statute that says this.

Title XLIII Chapter 744 section 474, among others.

"A guardian may be removed for any of the following reasons, and the removal shall be in addition to any other penalties prescribed by law: (11) Development of a conflict of interest between the ward and the guardian".

Do you deny that a married man who has betrothed himself to another woman would have an interest in seeking his wife's death, regardless of what his wife would want?

It's also worth noting that 744.446(1) states "The fiduciary relationship which exists between the guardian and the ward may not be used for the private gain of the guardian other than the remuneration for fees and expenses provided by law." Where did Michael get the money for his house and car? And when he was first trying to kill Terri--before her trust fund was drained, and thus when he would have stood to inherit hundreds of thousands of dollars--would not such funds have constituted "private gain"?

Do you think Greer's failure to provide written notice was accidental?