Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Terri Schiavo has passed away
CNN ^ | 3/31 1005 | CNN

Posted on 03/31/2005 6:55:11 AM PST by Eurotwit

Breaking now on CNN

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 2ndrevolution; allterriallthetime; byebyemrsamericanpie; dayofsadness; dredscott; enoughalready; evilhasitsday; giveitarest; hitlerwouldbeproud; homicide; husbandisanadulterer; likegoodgermans; murder; murderbyjudge; nazimedicine; obituary; pontiuspilate; rip; ripterri; schiavo; sheisinparadise; shesdeadjim; socialistmedicine; someofuaresickidiots; terripalooza; terrischiavo; terrischindler; terrisfight; terrismurder; thomasellis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,761-2,7802,781-2,8002,801-2,820 ... 2,921-2,924 next last
To: af_vet_rr
Well, why not? Why do it piecemeal, one case at a time? Let's just federalize all probate matters and be done with it. Surely Congress doesn't want to treat my wife any differently than Michael Schiavo's wife, right?
2,781 posted on 04/01/2005 11:13:25 AM PST by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2780 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter
How long before Kryptonite can come back, a couple of days? If I may add, you handled yourself beautifully there.
2,782 posted on 04/01/2005 11:18:55 AM PST by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2762 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Ummm, no, what you appear to want is to take a right available during a specific proceeding and turn it into a universal and perpetual right.

No, I'm saying that words mean things and they are not just space fillers. In Florida, an incapacitated person has the "right to counsel" despite your feelings on the matter.

2,783 posted on 04/01/2005 11:33:16 AM PST by AndrewC (All these moments are tossed in lime, like trains in the rear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2779 | View Replies]

To: Bigturbowski

OK, I apologize for letting my irritation make more of your first post than was warranted. Have a good day.


2,784 posted on 04/01/2005 11:34:29 AM PST by Orca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2701 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
In Florida, an incapacitated person has the "right to counsel" during proceedings to determine their incapacity despite your feelings on the matter desire to give them lawyers for life.

Fixed that for you.

2,785 posted on 04/01/2005 11:36:31 AM PST by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2783 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Fixed that for you

Sorry. the law does not give you the right to change it.

"744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated.--(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right:" means something. In any case, a guardian could be anybody depending on the situation.

2,786 posted on 04/01/2005 11:52:12 AM PST by AndrewC (All these moments are tossed in lime, like trains in the rear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2785 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Oh, yeah, why not a lawyer for a guardian? What does that next of kin know, anyway?

Regardless of whether or not the guardian can be literally anyone, your argument falls apart the instant we realize that the incapacitated person retains the right to counsel, but by virtue of their incapacity, the guardian is empowered to exercise that right on their behalf - that's what guardians are for, to exercise rights on behalf of others who are not capable of so doing for themselves. It most certainly does not mandate lawyers for incapacitated people, particularly lawyers imposed regardless of the patient's or guardian's wishes. "The concept still applies" - please. That penumbra will be emanating all over you before you know it.

2,787 posted on 04/01/2005 12:03:27 PM PST by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2786 | View Replies]

To: pbrown
Judge Greer's actions cannot override the will of God. This is not the place for a theological discussion about it, so I'll leave it at that.

The righteous indignation you have is shared by almost all of us. What we do with it is what will determine whether we make progress in solving the deep problems this country faces right now.

2,788 posted on 04/01/2005 12:14:54 PM PST by ohioWfan ("If My people, who are called by My name, will humble themselves and pray.....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2771 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Regardless of whether or not the guardian can be literally anyone, your argument falls apart the instant we realize that the incapacitated person retains the right to counsel, but by virtue of their incapacity, the guardian is empowered to exercise that right on their behalf

No it doesn't. The guardian is prohibited from some activities. PERIOD.

2,789 posted on 04/01/2005 12:19:24 PM PST by AndrewC (All these moments are tossed in lime, like trains in the rear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2787 | View Replies]

To: pbrown

Don't know about Kryptonite, hopefully he will be back soon. Thanks for the compliment. Thanks for being a great defender of Terri and all the issues that surrounded her murder.


2,790 posted on 04/01/2005 12:28:17 PM PST by yellowdoghunter (The Terri issue is legally complicated, but not the moral issue. I want to be on the side of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2782 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Which brings us right back around to where we were before - what, exactly, do you think guardians are for? What do they do, if not protect and exercise the rights of those who cannot protect and exercise them on their own?

You know, your child has the right to counsel also - that's not affected by their minor status. If your child is arrested or some such, they have the right to counsel. Of course, we don't expect them to exercise that right for themselves, as minors - as a practical matter, they can't. We expect you to exercise that right on their behalf, as their guardian. But now you want to go way, way beyond that, and argue that because your child has a right to counsel, counsel must be provided regardless of circumstance, and regardless of your wishes as a parent and guardian - it is mandatory. "The concept still applies", after all.

You have created a standard for mandatory counsel that would, if applied to others who cannot exercise their rights, effectively terminate your guardianship of your own child, by giving some complete stranger veto power over your exercise of right and authority on your child's behalf. Well, okay - none for me, thanks, but if you're okay with that, it's your choice. Hope you draw a fairly laid back lawyer, and not one who decides that your brand of politics, your religious practice, your standard of behavior is somehow unhealthy for your child.

2,791 posted on 04/01/2005 12:32:29 PM PST by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2789 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Which brings us right back around to where we were before - what, exactly, do you think guardians are for? What do they do, if not protect and exercise the rights of those who cannot protect and exercise them on their own?

Which brings us back to the "right to counsel" which is distinct from the right to guardianship and is retained after being declared incapacitated. Can a father's counsel represent his child in a case involving incest by the father?

2,792 posted on 04/01/2005 12:36:42 PM PST by AndrewC (All these moments are tossed in lime, like trains in the rear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2791 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Can a father's counsel represent his child in a case involving incest by the father?

Oh, I see - we'll justify universal mandatory counsel by defining conflict of interest so broadly that nobody can possibly hope to avoid running afoul of it. Are you sure this is the peg you wanna hang your hat on?

2,793 posted on 04/01/2005 12:47:05 PM PST by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2792 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Oh, I see - we'll justify universal mandatory counsel by defining conflict of interest so broadly that nobody can possibly hope to avoid running afoul of it.

The right to counsel is mandatory because the law states it. Surely "(g) To be properly educated. " is something that a guardian would consider for the well-being of the incapacitated person yet it is explicitly mentioned in the law. Why?

The law doesn't say the incapacitated person must live in court. It mandates the right to counsel.

2,794 posted on 04/01/2005 12:52:55 PM PST by AndrewC (All these moments are tossed in lime, like trains in the rear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2793 | View Replies]

To: general_re

I do think Terri should have had her own lawyer. There was a potential conflict of interest between both she and her parents and she and her husband. The Guardian Ad Litem should have requested that the court allow one to be hired for her.

Michael Schiavo should have had to use his own funds to hire his own lawyer, and Terri's funds should have been used for her lawyer.

I probably should send a letter to the Florida Bar Association to that effect, it seems like legal malpractice as well as a breach of ethics.


2,795 posted on 04/01/2005 12:56:09 PM PST by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2785 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue

Does the law mandate such an appointment? Should it, and if so, under what circumstances?


2,796 posted on 04/01/2005 1:00:56 PM PST by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2795 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
The right to counsel is mandatory because the law states it.

The exercise of that right is certainly not mandatory. I have the right to counsel, but nobody is mandating that I hire a lawyer, or that a lawyer be hired on my behalf regardless of circumstance.

2,797 posted on 04/01/2005 1:02:21 PM PST by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2794 | View Replies]

To: baseballmom

Prayer bump.


2,798 posted on 04/01/2005 1:08:03 PM PST by JudgemAll (Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: general_re
The exercise of that right is certainly not mandatory. I have the right to counsel, but nobody is mandating that I hire a lawyer, or that a lawyer be hired on my behalf regardless of circumstance.

Then you are saying the law is meaningless. That is just plain senseless. "(g) To be properly educated. " (i) "To receive necessary services and rehabilitation. " etc.

2,799 posted on 04/01/2005 1:09:21 PM PST by AndrewC (All these moments are tossed in lime, like trains in the rear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2797 | View Replies]

To: general_re

The Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit representation of multiple clients when there is a potential conflict of interest, unless the client consents, which Terri could not do.

RULE 4-1.7 CONFLICT OF INTEREST; GENERAL RULE

(a) Representing Adverse Interests. A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to the interests of another client, unless:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the lawyer's responsibilities to and relationship with the other client; and

(2) each client consents after consultation.

(b) Duty to Avoid Limitation on Independent Professional Judgment. A lawyer shall not represent a client if the lawyer's exercise of independent professional judgment in the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person or by the lawyer's own interest, unless:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and

(2) the client consents after consultation.

(c) Explanation to Clients. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the implications of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved.


2,800 posted on 04/01/2005 1:10:55 PM PST by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2796 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,761-2,7802,781-2,8002,801-2,820 ... 2,921-2,924 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson