smouthwick

Dolly Parton. Wow is she ever adorable and tiny! Naomi Judd: the sweetest woman in the universe.

Follow the money! When a person in a conservatorship has a lot of money, the shennenigans are usually related to greed and conflict of interest when it comes to the flurry of people paid our of the estate. If this removal of 600,000 is true, and it's revealed by evidence, they will argue somehow that this was in britney's best interest. (You'd be amazed by many nightmares are created in the best interest of a person with no rights. Bessimer is an excellent company and a good choice for Britney. To have a lay person,or a for-profit conservator ,in charge of Brit's finances is crazy. That person should be one step removed from the money.

Brenda fairly recently attended a conference with Sam Ingham, Britney's court-appointed attorney. They were two out of the three speakers. He works as an arm of the court in Britney's "best interest." For someone paid as much as he is, where do his self-interests really end and her best interests begin? The line in many cases is shady. A gray area that often causes harm to wards.

It's especially bad since some of the people who supposedly only have Britney's interests at heart have been caught exploring conservatorship as a possible hybrid business model in which everybody involved could get not just so-so rich, but REALLY rich. Everybody wins! Doesn't this sound a little like greedy people trying to turn a cash cow into their own personal Triple Crown Racehorse? How dare these people. Does Britney need owners and a jockey? Of course, I'm sure it's much more complicated than that, but it's NOT A GOOD LOOK.. I'm pretty sure Andrew Wallet has seen the light and is running away before somebody takes a closer look at the ethics of this. I could be wrong, of course.

You've really thought this out and this makes a lot of sense. It would be easy for people to try to dismiss what you're saying because they have no understanding of how severely Conservatorship itself restricts freedoms and basic rights. I think you are on to it.

Thank GOD! Thanks, too, for telling me! I should have known.

Thank GOD!!!

I've been thinking about the news on this. Very puzzling. My guess is that Jamie is trying to register the guardianship itself in three different states. The press doesn't know what this means and some are assuming that he is filing more than one Conservatorship to have all his bases covered in terms of his control. My point is that the press covering this story is in the dark about Conservatorship, and they have a lot of naive assumptions. I hope they quit misleading the public and actually get down to studying the serious violations of rights that are occurring every day in these court-appointed situations. It's truly sickening. i'm not saying that this is happening to Britney--she's a public figure, and chances of that should be slim. But what about taking a look at just how Draconian this system really is? (Created ,as we know it, back in the 1300's. It is incredibly easy for those in charge to abuse wards for personal gain because that person has been rendered helpless to do anything about it by a court of law in an aggressive act.

I don't know the context, and I don't know anything about the woman quoted, but this response is really awful in my personal opinion. It's like saying little boys are always safe around priests because a priest's job is sacred. When will people expect absolute accountability when it comes to those in positions of trust and power over the vulnerable? When will people care enough to actually ensure that what they assume is really true? Don't human beings without power over their own lives deserve respect?--- somebody just told me this is satire. Thank God!!! And thank you for telling me.

You've said it well. My thoughts too.

He basically replaces Britney as decision-maker on her behalf. He can override her wishes (basing his thinking on what would be best for Britany.) I.e. "in her best interest". Last time I heard that phrase was when my brother beat me up for my own good when we were kids.

It's the judge's duty to choose the least restrictive alternatives possible before slapping an innocent human being with the most restrictive civil penalty of all---removing our roles as masters of our own lives. Wait a minute. I thought that was called a prison sentence.

Yikes. That seems blatantly obvious now that you've said it.

Totally agree. "There's a crack in everything"-- Leonard Cohen. This is a BIG one, more like a ravine.

Spot on. Sam Ingham too--the attorney appointed by the court to argue on behalf of what he believes would be good for Britney. Is he objective really? https://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/casey-kasem-death-investigation-widow-claims-scientologist-cash-grab-fortune-doc.pdf

The issue, maybe, is that Conservatorship is a severe penalty. Most people in conservatorships who are aware enough to know the situation, feel as if they're being treated like criminals. This is a sweeping removal of rights. When is it appropriate to do that to someone if they haven't committed any crime? On the other hand, for those in coma's etc. it's important to put someone in charge of decisions if there is no family, for example. People who have been severely injured, say, or who are truly harming themselves and others. What's right and wrong for Britney? We don't really know. BUT there are better solutions that have been put in place for those who have some capabilities but not all. Supported-decision making teams can be legally arranged without having a person cruelly processed through a court for rights removal. Has the court even bothered to explore any alternatives to rights removal for Britney? They are required by statute to do so. If they aren't, you've got to wonder, are they truly devoted to protecting an individual's rights?

I agree. I have never heard of one person conserved in three states. Usually the conservatorship is moved from one state to another. As for as I know, UUGPPIA was created only to ease transfers from one state to another--not to allow somebody to petition in three states at once.

To be honest I've never heard of a person being conserved in three states. Usually it's one state.

She can't flee, unfortunately. She'd be tracked down by order of the court. Usually wards like Britney aren't entitled to carry IDs or Passports

He (or his attorney) would need to petition either this court or all of them. I'm not exactly sure how it would work, but courts are now more connected state to state by the 2007 Uniform Law Commission laws to ease actions from one state to another. So yes, a petition to the court (or courts) would have to be a requirement. What you are saying is scary. Could they just move her to one of the three states if one state sets her free? Hadn't though of that.

You'd think she'd have that freedom but Britney has had her fundamental rights to freedom removed. She is now literally reduced to the status of a child with "parents" (parens patriae) in control. Parental rights over her are exercised through the courts and her "parents" are the court, lawyers, and a conservator. Think about that and how wrong it is for people's rights to be removed with disregard when it comes to their true abilities. Britney isn't in a coma. This system can be artificially imposed upon ANYONE if the people working these courts are seeking financial gain. They have ultimate control over every part of what happens to you if you should be subjected to this kind of court proceeding. The result sometimes is merciless exploitation of an innocent person. Let's hope that isn't true for Britney. She's a public figure with a spotlight on her. There are people all over the country unfairly deprived of fundamental rights with no one fighting for them. The good news is that Britney's case will help shine the light on the Draconian practices when it comes to Conservatorship and Guardianship in general throughout the country. This "dirty little secret" corner of the law is AMERIKA performing at it's best.

I agree. She could be bat **** crazy and we wouldn't know. My hunch is that anyone who has as many abilities as Britney would likely be driven bat **** crazy by the vast powers a probate court has granted the Conservator.-- he has basically been appointed to be puppet-master over a her life and assets. Who WOULDN'T be driven nuts by that??? Plus, the press is still going around saying how much all of this has helped Britney. She can't speak out so how would they even know? Outrageous.