Jump to content

smouthwick

Fire
  • Content Count

    206
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Points

    114 [ Give ]

Everything posted by smouthwick

  1. Tonight, at 8pm ET, and corresponding times throughout the nation, Jordan Miller, creator of breatheheavy (which gave birth to the Free Britney Movement) will be talking about the Britney Spears case. Don't miss it. This will tell you what it's like to have someone else tell you when you can visit your kid, and when others can visit you. She lost control over her own decisions in 2008 and remains in an expensive conservatorship to this day. You can also listen later. The show will be archived. https://www.blogtalkradio.com/marti-oakley/2021/04/01/ts-radio-network-jordan-miller-advocates-for-britney-spears
  2. Dolly Parton. Wow is she ever adorable and tiny! Naomi Judd: the sweetest woman in the universe.
  3. Jordon,  I loved your review of 'Framing Britney".   You are so humble, full of grace, and truly knowledgeable when it comes to Britney.  Not to mention that you are a natural for the media--a person with poise and class.  I wish you'd gotten more attention throughout all of this because you really are the cause and creator of this incredible movement.

    CHEERS TO YOU!

  4. 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.
  5. Have you seen Dirty Money's section on Guardianship? --Same as "conservatorship" in some states Check it out. it describes how the system is used to exploit and profit from the people who have had their fundmental rights to freedom and assets removed.
  6. If the court were to set up a supported decision-making arrangement for Britney instead of a Conservatorship, Britney's life would be private again, with heavy guidance through legal arrangements with people she trusts. She would also get her rights back. The conservatorship lacks transparency, which why Britney is in the press so much. She's under the thumb of attorneys and her father. It doesn't seem right to the public. The instinct of her fans is to want to protect Britney FROM those who are put in control over her. That's a sad state of affairs. And similar reactions are common. People on the outside are always questioning the over-arching power given to a conservator. They SHOULD be questioning it.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Totally agree. "There's a crack in everything"-- Leonard Cohen. This is a BIG one, more like a ravine.
  15. 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
  16. 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?
  17. 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.
  18. To be honest I've never heard of a person being conserved in three states. Usually it's one state.
×
×
  • Create New...

We noticed you're using an ad blocker  :badthoughts_gun_kris_genner_thinking_debating:

Thanks for visiting Exhale! Your support is greatly appreciated 💜  

Exhale survives through advertising revenue. Please, disable your ad block extension to help us and continue browsing Exhale. 🙏

I've disabled ad block