Replies

Jeb Bush also served upon Felos "interrogatories" (interrogatories are questions. The Defendant always has the right to ask the plaintiff specific questions; they are limited in number, and the number may vary according to the state. In Colorado, I believe the number was 50, but I have forgotten). Felos may not answer them all....he may claim that they "are not likely to lead to admissible evidence." Then Bush would have to file a Motion to Compel, asking the Judge to force Felos to have HINO answer them....the judge makes the decision as to whether or not HINO would have to answer a particular question.

Bush also appears to have subpoenaed records from the Sun Coast hospice....Felos may have issued the Motion for Protective Order for that, as well, saying that they shouldn't have to supply any documentation to Bush, for the same reason "not likely to lead to admissible evidence." Another Motion to Compel might follow that, too, and then Felos' objection to it....which then puts the judge back into deciding if evidence must be given to Bush.

As you can see, Greer can do many things in this case to help Felos. And Greer is more likely than not to make sure that anything he does will be to help out Felos.....the other thing is: things that are within Greer's "discretion" cannot be appealed.

The only thing that Bush can appeal concerning Greer is if Greer errs on "matters of law"......otherwise, it's all "discretionary." We already know what Greer's discretion is.

Can't Bush refile his motion for Baird to remove himself for bias if Baird's rulings seem overly protective of Felos and Greer? Bush has already expressed concern that there is a conflict of interest, and is well aware that Greer has skirted the issue of HINO's multiple children out of wedlock. Wesley J. Smith called Schiavo's new family the "bull elephant in the living room", that no one wants to acknowledge.

Of course that is relevent, as is the question of who has paid Terri's medical bills, or have they been paid, and if not, why not, and why is she in a hospice for "terminally ill" patients when she is not terminally ill, and why has the hospice been sued for maltreatment of patients, etc. etc.

Because this is a constitutional challenge, and the FL Supreme Court having ruled that parties to a constitutional challenge cannot waive an evidentiary hearing, because the record left is insufficient; Bush should be allowed to ascertain what the facts ARE in order to mount a well-crafted defense.