What situation? Your pissiness at being busted? You said that Michael Schiavo is a low-life for killing his wife. Unless he murdered her, this makes no sense. Weaselly word games don't change that.
You keep shifting the burden of proof. If the burden were on everyone else to prove that Ms. Schiavo wanted to live, then the only way to carry that burden would be to prove that Mr. Schiavo and his brother and sister were part of a conspiracy to muder Terri. However, the burden of proof is on the people trying to prove that she really wanted to die.
A burden satisfied by their testimony.
Their statement alone does not adequately carry the burden, because they are interested parties.
Your only evidence that Michael was an interested party is that he filed the motion which was his duty as her husband. Your only evidence that Scott and Joan were interested parties is that they are related to Michael. Unless you claim they had something to gain through her death, they are not interested parties in the sense in which you are using the term.
...and the credentials of the judge are irrelevant? For example, his opinion carries ultimate weight with you even after learning that he's a complete boob who has 2/3 of all his cases reversed on appeal, and who made substantive errors of fact in his findings (for example, blowing the date of decease of Karen Quindlen)?
Yes, they are irrelevant. His order was upheld.
You clearly aren't interested in an intellectual discussion. Instead, you keep making pronouncements, without attempting to justify your assertions or to counter the reasoned arguments of others.
Your only evidence that Michael was an interested party is that he filed the motion
which was his duty as her husband.
We know he filed the motion. We don't know his motivation. You claim to know it; I do not.