To: drt1
No. If a person has a lawyer representing him/her alone, that lawyer has the right to file appropriate pleadings in his/her name. To be specific, a husband cannot order counsel for a wife NOT to file a divorce action.
Billybob
129 posted on
04/01/2005 9:12:14 PM PST by
Congressman Billybob
(Proud to be a FORMER member of the Bar of the US Supreme Court since July, 2004.)
To: Congressman Billybob
Me again. I could be wrong about this as well but my understanding of Terri's position was that she had no standing, that her legal being is/was embodied in her Guardian. That would explain why all of the legal moves on her behalf emanated on behalf of the Schindlers and they were directed towards removing the stranglehold of MS's Guardianship. Again, other input invited.
155 posted on
04/01/2005 9:21:04 PM PST by
drt1
To: Congressman Billybob
No. If a person has a lawyer representing him/her alone, that lawyer has the right to file appropriate pleadings in his/her name. To be specific, a husband cannot order counsel for a wife NOT to file a divorce action. Only a guardian may file a divorce action on behalf of an incapacitated ward. The fact that grounds existed for divorce implied a conflict of interest with Michael's guardianship and should have disqualified him as guardian. Unfortunately, King George refused to let the guardianship challenge move forward.
311 posted on
04/01/2005 10:22:26 PM PST by
supercat
("Though her life has been sold for corrupt men's gold, she refuses to give up the ghost.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson