You suggest here that any and all judicial appeals are superfluous and irrelevant. So why even have appellate and supreme courts? Since, according to you they make no difference, lets just get rid of them. Then we can save taxpayers one heck of a lot of money.

That's is not what I suggest Don and you know it. You are putting words in my mouth and misreading my post.

The purpose of appeals is precisely to question the efficacy and veracity of decisions made by the lower courts

Yes, and that's what I said, but when a standing judge makes a decision based on individual witness testimony no other judge is going to say that the judge made a mistake judging the individuals. How that judge thought the witnesses were lying, telling the truth or confused is undisputed UNLESS there is NEW evidence that could put some light on the outcome.

That doesn't mean *all judicial appeals are superfluous and irrelevant*, my goodness Don, it's not a cut a dry situation.

Only an idiot could ignore the fact that this case involved literally 30 distinct court decisions, all of which affirmed the husband's position.

That's not what I said, try reading what I said before you claim this high ground of supremacy.

all of which affirmed the husband's position

Do you even know what you are talking about Don? Only one judge affirmed the husband position, Judge Greer. All the others and I believe there was a total of 7 judges ruled on new evidence or motions to the case that could make a difference to change Greer's decision and affirmed Greer's decision.

As a general rule, one trial court judge does not have the power to review the final order of another trial judge.

This is from judge ALTENBERND's own mouth on his July 2001 decision, try reading it. Now you want to tell him he is an idiot?

Spin it Don. and call people names because that's all you have here.
BTW, go ahead and name all those 30 judges who reviewed this case.