Posted on 03/31/2005 6:55:11 AM PST by Eurotwit
Breaking now on CNN
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I am home finally and have been reading the last 150 or so posts---you are doing great, friend---
Are you afraid of the un-named that are getting on to you from their new club, WPPFFF?
I hope not, but just in case, I've got your back!
That doesn't get you anywhere near universal representation for the incapacitated unless you, again, define conflict of interest so broadly that nobody can possibly avoid it. For situations where there appears to be the potential for conflict of interest, we have judges and other to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. This is not even in the same solar system as counsel being automatically required in all cases.
I know where they come from and it's a different place than I. Their opinions are the opposite of mine so why should I debate with them? They are like the left, 'you are free to have an opinion as long as it's the same as mine'. The hypocrisy they spew is mind boggling.
I don't recall ever being afraid of a typist....lol
Then the legal guardian has to try to prove in court that he's right and the 'permanent counsel' is wrong. If the 'permanent counsel' is doing his job, the guardian will only be able to prove that he's right if he is, in fact, acting in the ward's best interest.
To be sure, the notion of a state-appointed advocate poses many problems, but without somebody to oppose guardians' actions incapacitated wards would have zero protection.
How often was Terri represented in court by someone who both (1) wanted her to be rehabilitated rather than killed, and (2) had full access to her medical and guardianship records? If the only people with full access to a ward's medical records want the ward dead, that would seem to rather tilt the scales against the possibility of the ward being allowed to live, would it not?
In many guardianship cases, a guardian will never do anything particularly controversial and thus there will be no need for a guardian ad litem, attourney ad litem, or any other such advocate for the ward. If a guardian wanted to buy 20 cases of Ensure for a ward who regularly consumed it, I would see no need for a guardian ad litem to oppose use of the ward's funds for such a purpose.
Suppose, however, a guardian wanted use the ward's funds to buy a new Rolls Royce with which to transport the ward. In that case, a court should appoint a guardian ad litem to argue against the purchase. The guardian should then have to prove that the ward would receive considerably greater benefit (with the extra cost) from a Rolls than from some cheaper automobile. Perhaps, if the Rolls in question had a built-in wheelchair ramp and other such accessories, the guardian could justify it and the court should allow it. But the court should not allow such a purchase without the guardian having to prove, over opposition, that it's in the ward's interest.
So basically, the permanent counsel effectively has a veto over every single thing the guardian does, by the simple expedient of forcing the guardian into court to defend every single decision. And your family will be happy with this arrangement, where a complete stranger comes in and demands that they answer to him insofar as your care is concerned, will they? Seems a bit doubtful to me - if you don't think you or your family would enjoy being subjected to that, and I don't think that I or my family would enjoy being subjected to that, then odds are lots of families would object, and hence this is going nowhere fast.
... but without somebody to oppose guardians' actions incapacitated wards would have zero protection.
The guardians are supposed to provide that protection, as the ones who know you best and care about you most. I fail to see how replacing your loved ones with strangers "protects" you better. Now, granted, the law isn't perfect, and there will occasionally be cases that fall through the cracks, because the law isn't perfect. So the question is, is the attempt to perfect it worth the intrusion on families we're talking about? Because I'm pretty sure it's not...
I repeat again, the law means something and it states "right to counsel". That is not met by someone else's counsel. You can keep presenting pretzels and imagined scenarios to your satisfaction. That does not change the law. It states clearly, "right to counsel".
"I don't recall ever being afraid of a typist?..."
Exactly---that is the whole point--the Freepers that are starting their own club and/or leaving are leaving a terrific place, that at one time, they obviously enjoyed, because of TYPED WORDS---
I keep thinking of the old playground saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!"
Oh, well--I see the Freepathon is on and I pray that those that want spirited debate on a variety of subjects sign up and stay---
If someone has such thin skin as to leave because of posts during this time of passion, then that is their lacking and not FR's IMO.
You have to figure this Terri issue would bring some crazy uncles out of the closet to post.
Well, it is their loss, as far as I am concerned---
Before the Terri problems started, there were the immigration "problems" and election "problems"---
There will be new ones soon, but I depend on the intelligence, patriotism, life experience, empathy, and most of all, HUMOR of the Freepers to make my life experience a richer one---
Therefore, I for one will NOT give up on Freeperville-in fact I will be renewing my dollar-a-day pledge and I think I just might send a little extra in my new granddaughters name-(preparing the way for new generations of Freepers, doncha know)---
You are right, some people will come and go, but for the most part, this place gets better.
I have always said Mr. Robinson has created here a very special thing that could go down in history.
He has formed the first national grass roots conservative activist movement in America IMO.
Very nice, great family people mostly and something for Jim to be proud of IMO.
I think I'm not in a fighting mood lately because of the tragic things that have been happening in the last couple of weeks. There is such a sense of sadness, I guess I'm in mourning for Terri.
Now the Pope is dying. Though I'm not Catholic, I believe he tried to serve his flock to the best of his abilities and it just saddens me as well.
I love to fuss and fight on FR. When I return to my old self the sparks will fly.
When I'm on Islamofacist and border threads my blood boils and I'm me. :-)
ping...sorry...it's how I feel.
Well, it is good to see there are at least three of us, that are sticking it out---
Like ya'll said, it is a family affair, and no matter how many fights you have with family, you don't quit on 'em.
pbrown--I know how you feel about being sad, I have felt that way for two weeks and I am not Catholic either, but I know how I would feel if it were Bush daddy and there are over a billion Catholics! WOW--
We better be ready for mostly Pope most of the time- at least until another one is chosen, gosh I remember when this one was chosen, I must have been a baby! LOL
I'm sorry, but the state does choose sometimes, as it did with Jay Wolfson...The recommendations proffered herein are intended for both the Governor and the court, on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo. and Richard Pearse
Mr. Pearse also recommended that a Guardian Ad Litem continue to serve in all subsequent proceedings.
In response to Mr. Pearse's report, Michael Schiavo filed a Suggestion of Bias against Mr. Pearse. This document notes that Mr. Pearse failed to mention in his report that Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate. The criticism continues to note that Mr. Pearse's concern about abuse of inheritance potential was directly solely at Michael, not at the Schindlers in the event they might become the heirs and also choose to terminate artificial life support. Further, significant chronological deficits and factual errors are noted, detracting from and prejudicing the objective credibility of Mr. Pearse's report.
The Suggestion of Bias challenges premises and findings of Mr. Pearse, establishing a well pleaded case for bias.
Yeah, now we do it sometimes, on a case-by-case basis, where the systems we have set up have produced a determination that it is warranted. AC, on the other hand, apparently wants to do it all the time, in every case, for every family, whether they want it or need it or not. I'm sure you can grasp the difference between the two, and why "always" is a far greater intrusion than "sometimes".
I remember the smoke coming from that tall pipe on the roof when Pope Paul was chosen. A million years ago it seems.
You keep citing something that I never said. I stated, and quite clearly, that the law states, "the right to counsel". I also stated, that that does not mean the guardian's counsel. Nevertheless, an incapacitated person retains the "right to counsel".
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.