Posted on 03/31/2005 6:55:11 AM PST by Eurotwit
To clarify the conflict of interest:
Michael said Terri wanted to die, and he hired a lawyer to get permission to kill her.
Terri's parents said Terri wanted to live, and they hired a lawyer in order to prevent Michael from killing her.
Who represented Terri? The GAL was appointed to make sure her rights were protected, and Florida law allowed, but did not require, the GAL to recommend that independent counsel be appointed for her. Please note that by "appointed" the law doesn't mean "paid for by the government." She had plenty of money for her own lawyer.
Is your pro-death "list" (sooooooooo scary) include those that objected to federal intervention, armed kooks, and calls for voting 3rd party? If so, you are a freaking idiot. Being against the above did not mean that people were "pro-death".
Please do not post to me.
That is my fear also. I can't understand when there is a question of abuse, PLUS an existing bone scan showing past fractures, that there couldn't be and wouldn't be an independant autopsy done? The corruption in this county is unbelievable. It reaches EVERYWHERE.
I agree with all of what you said. I am "ashamed" to be an American right now. No one except her family really stood up for Terri. The rest was all (you nailed it) "theatrics."
Embarrassing.
Please do not post to me.
Rest in peace, dear sister.
Yesterday I decided to stop practicing law and investigate other fields. It's not just Terri, but this atrocity certainly helped me finally make the decision.
You're welcome. I'm proud to do it. He got himself a couple of days suspension over there. He posted your remark(i believe) and they suspended him for it. I don't understand it.
I don't really know either. All that I can figure is that you are not supposed to post a post over again...I think I read that somewhere. However, I had no problem at all with him reposting what I said.
Good luck to you.
I guess that's it. He should be shed of time out by tomorrow I think.
As far as his claim that he wouldn't post anything like what he did post 'in public,' that is patently false. What he obviously meant to say was that he wouldn't actually post it to the people he was talking about. He has been posting the same stuff, in the main forum, for a week.
I would follow protocol and copy him with this, but he doesn't want me to post to him. Feel free to pass it along. But his false whiny charge of harrassment will not go unanswered.
Thanks so much. I'll keep you posted. By the way, your posts about the judicial takeover are right on.
Please do not post to me.
It's at the judicial level we as a country are going to be in big trouble.
Jawhol, mein capitan.
But you find the notion that "entitled to counsel" being exactly identical to "must always have counsel" sensible? Interesting.
That's not what I was looking for. The presumption, I believe, is that one's legal guardian is acting in one's best interests. Under what circumstances is that presumption overturned, and outside representation required - aside from the obvious conflict of interest, that is.
No I don't say they are identical(the law states no such thing), but I do construe "right to counsel" as something more than using someone else's counsel especially when there are potentially colliding interests.
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.