Its purpose is to create enough public distraction so that the targets of their criticism, along with the supporters of those targets, have to spend so much time and effort focusing on responding to the personal criticisms with the result that they don't have adequate time to push forward their agenda.
An ancillary issue is: how much am I paying in taxes for the increased number of congressional staffers needed to do the research and prepare the responses to personal attacks, rather than information about the legislative agenda?
And when the public does begin to pay attention, their interest is in the scandal or potential scandal rather than what they should be paying attention to.
The press is complicit in that most all of their questions relate to the criticisms of the individuals, not the legislative agenda.
This is getting pathetic.
6. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
The pending application by the ward’s husband for withdrawal of the of the Ward’s feeding tube which would inevitably result in the ward’s death creates at least the appearance of, if not Actual, conflicts of interest involving both the ward’s husband and her parents.
All parties to this proceeding acknowledge that the Ward has no will so that, upon her death, her entire estate will pass to her intestate heir (s). Thus, if the Ward dies while married to Mr. Schiavo, he inherits the entire guardianship estate. On the other hand, if the marriage between the ward and her husband is dissolved the ward’s parents become her intestate heirs and they for the survivor of them) will inherit the Ward’s estate upon her death. Thus, the Mr. Schiavo will realize substantial and fairly immediate financial gain if his application for withdrawal of life support is granted. On the other hand Mr. Schiavo’s petition for withdrawal of life support is denied, it may be anticipated that he would seek to dissolve his marriage to the Ward, in which case the Ward’s parents become her sole heirs-at-law. Of course, given the potential that the ward may have a normal life expectancy, there is no way to qualify the projected potential financial gain to the Ward’s parents upon her eventual death because there is no reliable way of predicting how much of her estate will be left.
8. GUARDIAN AT LITEM’S OPINION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
The principal issue presented in this case is whether the ward, if capable, would direct the removal of her feeding tube given her present circumstances.
There is no written advance directive of the ward in this case. Based on Browning. There is no presumption that evidence of oral statements of the ward are clear and convincing; that burden remains with the Petitioner.
The only direct evidence probative of the issue of the ward’s intent is the hearsay testimony of her husband, Mr. SCHIAVO, who seeks withdrawal of the ward’s feeding rube which would inevitably result in her death. However, his credibility is necessarily adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him of being the ward’s sole heir at law in the event of her death while still married to him. Her death also permits him to get on with his own life.
In the opinion of the undersigned guardian ad litem, Mr. SCHIAVO’S credibility is also effected by the chronology of the case. For the first four years (approximately) following the ward’s accident, he aggressively pursued every manner of treatment and rehabilitation conceivable. As well as lawsuits to compensate the ward for her injuries in connection with which he presumably argued that she could require substantial funds for future care and treatment.
At or around the time the litigation was finally concluded, he has a change of heart concerning further treatment which lead, according to the ward’s parents, to his falling out with them. From that point forward, the ward’s husband has isolated the ward from her parents, has on at least one occasion refused consent for the ward to be treated for an infection, and, ultimately, four years later, has filed the instant petition for the withdrawal of life support on the basis of evidence apparently known only to him which could have been asserted at any time during the ward’s illness.
Since there is no corroborative evidence of the ward’s intentions, and since the only witness claiming to have such evidence is the one person who will realize a direct and substantial financial benefit from the ward’s death, the undersigned guardian ad litem is of the opinion that the evidence of the ward’s intentions developed by the guardian ad litem’s investigation does not meet the clear and convincing standard. Based on Migliore v. Migliore, 717 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) , the credibility of the witness is a factor to be considered in determining whether evidence is clear and convincing.
Given the inherent evidentiary problems already mentioned, together with the fact that the ward has been maintained on the life support measures sought to be withdrawn for the past 8 years, it is the recommendation of the guardian ad litem that the petition for removal be denied.
In fairness to the petitioner, should this court disagree with the foregoing analysis of the evidence and find it to clearly and convincingly reflect the actual wishes and intentions of the ward, the guardian ad litem believes that Browning controls and, in that case, the feeding tube should be withdrawn. The undersigned guardian ad litem further asserts and recommends that due process requires that the ward’s interests continue to be represented in all further proceedings herein, whether by the undersigned guardian ad litem or other appropriate fiduciary.
There is no written advance directive of the ward in this case. Based on Browning. There is no presumption that evidence of oral statements of the ward are clear and convincing; that burden remains with the Petitioner.
B-I-N-G-O!!!!!!!