No. However, that conflict of interest must be demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence. The Schindlers have failed to meet this standard.
Actually, the Schindlers haven't managed to get the matter heard in court since Michael moved in with Jodi and fathered children by her. They've filed for a hearing in September of 2002, but Judge Greer has continuously postponed it.
Question 2: If a person has openly stated his intention to marrying the mother of his bastard children as soon as his wife is dead, but he cannot marry that person until he either divorces his wife or she dies, and he refuses to divorce his wife, would this not pretty clearly indicate a conflict of interest between the husband and wife?
Not in and of itself.
Interesting. Someone who has an obvious and overt personal interest in seeing another person dead can be presumed to be acting in that person's interests when seeking to have the person killed?
If I might be so bold, what would you suggest might be examples of cases where a guardian would have a conflict of interest with a client that would be strong enough to be worthy of a court's notice?
Question 3: How is it possible that Terri could have made any legally binding request to be starved and dehydrated, when such requests could not be legally made until after she'd been incapacitated for years?
An interesting question. And an irrelevant one. Schiavo has guardianship; for all legal intents and purposes, he IS Terri Schiavo.
First of all, Michael's guardianship is irrelevant to the question. If it weren't for the claim that Terri personally made statements about her wish to be starved and dehydrated prior to her incapacitation, Michael's desire to starve and dehydrate her would be irrelevant--he'd be forbidden from doing so.
Judge Greer has declared that the testimony of Michael and his relatives that Terri made some statement not wanting to be hooked up to machines like Karen Ann Quinlan constitutes "clear and compelling" evidence that she would want to be starved and dehydrated. At the time she would have had to have made such statements, they could not have been used to justify her starvation or dehydration. I see no evidence whatsoever that what she meant was "In the event that the legislature decides to allow people to be starved and dehydrated, I'd like that to happen to me." Michael doesn't claim she said any such thing, and I see no evidence whatsoever--much less "clear and compelling" evidence that she meant such a thing.
And have they used the various legal avenues available to get said hearing expedited? (My guess: no.)
Also, consider this: the Schindlers have gone with some quack doctors and "therapists" (Google the Galaxy Wave Group) in their effort.
Believe me, this stuff gets into the evidentiary record--and the court can and does take note of it when considering motions by both sides.
Interesting. Someone who has an obvious and overt personal interest in seeing another person dead can be presumed to be acting in that person's interests when seeking to have the person killed?
That's the problem: you have not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that said condition actually exists.
You merely engage in arm-waving.
One also has to demonstrate that granting guardianship to the Schindlers is likely to generate significant benefit to Terri Schiavo. This is where the Schindlers' continuing associations with quackery clobber them, every time.
First of all, Michael's guardianship is irrelevant to the question.
It is entirely relevant.
If it weren't for the claim that Terri personally made statements about her wish to be starved and dehydrated prior to her incapacitation, Michael's desire to starve and dehydrate her would be irrelevant--he'd be forbidden from doing so.
But, as the guardian and the husband, he has a much better position to actually make his claim than Terri's parents do the contrary.
Judge Greer has declared that the testimony of Michael and his relatives that Terri made some statement not wanting to be hooked up to machines like Karen Ann Quinlan constitutes "clear and compelling" evidence that she would want to be starved and dehydrated.
This is an area where some of the moves made by the Schindlers hurt them very badly.
The Schindler's video snippet looks good--but when the entire tape is played, it shows as an extremely atypical moment. The Schindlers worked night and day to generate the impression that the snippet was a reflection of the totality of the tape.
It wasn't. The rest of the tape shows Terri not reacting in the slightest to a wide range of stimuli.
Bottom line: Michael Schiavo suddenly looks more credible in the eyes of the court than the Schindlers do. If he says "Terri said..." and the parents say, "She couldn't have said..." the judge is going to listen to Michael, because the parents have destroyed their credibility. When a witness impeaches himself, he has one hell of a time reversing the process.
At the time she would have had to have made such statements, they could not have been used to justify her starvation or dehydration.
True. However, they can now be used to justify it.
I see no evidence whatsoever that what she meant was "In the event that the legislature decides to allow people to be starved and dehydrated, I'd like that to happen to me."
You may not see it. But Michael Schiavo--the man with more credibility in the court, because he hasn't been caught misleading the court--claims to see it, and the judge is going to pay more attention to it.
Michael doesn't claim she said any such thing, and I see no evidence whatsoever--much less "clear and compelling" evidence that she meant such a thing.
Your perception of the evidence is irrelevant. The judge's perception is the relevant perception. And the Schindlers blew their chance in front of the judge.