Posted on 03/10/2005 12:22:56 PM PST by amdgmary
Again correct but Florida law states unambiguously that a guardian can not even have an "appearance of a conflict of interest". Two kids and a common law wife would seem to satisfy an appearance in this universe, the multiverse is anybody's guess.
Post a link to the law AND the transcripts from the hearings where a)guardianship was determined and b) the hearings where the allegations were presented and reviewed. Without those it is merely supposition on your part.
Late response but Michael Graham (630 am talk radio- wash dc area) this morning was defending Michael Schiavo's right to make the decision for Terri to die based on the fact that he turned down the 1 million $ (and apparently a 10 m$ offer) to hand over guardianship. I was screaming at radio as he claimed how informed he was. He basically called those trying to save Terri Black Helicopter theorists and dismissing anyone that called. He is probably still talking about it - on till 11:30 am ET I think.
2004->Ch0744->Section%20309#0744.309>Here you go.
"The court may not appoint a guardian in any other circumstance in which a conflict of interest may occur."
Splutter, laugh...ROAR!!!!!
No person who has been convicted of a felony or who, from any incapacity or illness, is incapable of discharging the duties of a guardian, or who is otherwise unsuitable to perform the duties of a guardian, shall be appointed to act as guardian. Further, no person who has been judicially determined to have committed abuse, abandonment, or neglect against a child as defined in s. 39.01 or s. 984.03(1), (2), and (37), or who has been found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, any offense prohibited under s. 435.03 or under any similar statute of another jurisdiction, shall be appointed to act as a guardian. Except as provided in subsection (5) or subsection (6), a person who provides substantial services to the proposed ward in a professional or business capacity, or a creditor of the proposed ward, may not be appointed guardian and retain that previous professional or business relationship. A person may not be appointed a guardian if he or she is in the employ of any person, agency, government, or corporation that provides service to the proposed ward in a professional or business capacity, except that a person so employed may be appointed if he or she is the spouse, adult child, parent, or sibling of the proposed ward or the court determines that the potential conflict of interest is insubstantial and that the appointment would clearly be in the proposed ward's best interest. The court may not appoint a guardian in any other circumstance in which a conflict of interest may occur.
Now show me the other links, as I requested, so that everyone can get the whole picture -- not just pieces of it.
Now please address that sentence which is law in Florida and quit making unfounded accusations.
May a man with a common law wife and two children by that wife have a conflict of interest regarding his other wife?
Mary, this is an honest question. Elsewhere you have said you are not campaigning for Terri's death...
...but you could've fooled me. Which is it?
Apparently for Judge Greer it is, though it sounds more than fair and reasonable to me.
These questions have been addressed over and over via hearings and testimony. Without access to those transcripts, yes, we are making judgements out of context. That is a fair assessment.
IOW's you admit the judge could not have followed the law because the law is quite clear. Thanks for the honesty Mary.
There you go again, putting words in people's mouths. I'm saying the judge did follow the law. That doesn't mean the law should be what it is. I say only that the judge followed the law.
I know what you think Mary, I was just yanking your chain.:-}
I post the law at your request. MS is clearly conflicted as codified and you tell me the judge is following the law.
I say balogna.
I say that's your interpretation of the law, based upon an incomplete knowledge of the testimony and hearings over the years.
In your opinion, should the law be bowed to if it is evil or unjust? Or should it be challenged?
I understand your reticence to answer because any rational person would say "Of course he may have a conflict" and by that acknowledgement you admit the Judge has erred.
A bit of intellectual honesty goes a long way.
Then the law should be changed. But taking the law into our own hands is not the answer.
A rational person would say that this issue has been reviewed thoroughly and found to be without substance.
We have the right to petition and peaceably assemble...yes? We have the obligation to shine a light on an evil law...yes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.