The legendary Lisa MacCarley speaks out again and states the conservatorship is unlawful and unconstitutional

[rennen]

On 2/12/2021 at 11:07 PM, britneyluv said:

I'm so glad people are finally paying attention to the real legal issues surrounding Britney's situation. I think people just assume that because she has to be evaluated by a court or a judge that it must be "just". It's not. I don't practice probate work, but I've been a practicing attorney for almost 7 years and even though I'm not deluded enough to believe that every argument I present to a judge is a winning one, there are plenty of instances where judges are wrong, or have personal biases that result in an ethical obligation for them to recuse themselves.

You can present a well-researched position to a judge, supported by rules, statutes, and case law, and a judge can rule another way simply because they feel like it. I'll admit most of the judges I have cases in front of do care about the facts of the case, and make well-reasoned decisions, but it's the ones that don't who result in mistrust of the process and what basically seems like a human rights violation in Britney's case.

I worked for a firm in law school (similar to Bessemer) where I did trusts and estates so had a brief experience with probate law, but it primarily dealt with older individuals who were prone to being taken advantage of or wealthy individuals with numerous assets from various sources who needed help ensuring that their finances were kept in order and/or passed on to who they wanted without complications like unnecessary tax implications or other issues.

As a personal injury attorney, I've represented, and obtained, results for people who took whatever settlement they got and blew it on a trip to Vegas or something similar. Does that mean these people should be under a lifetime conservatorship because of unwise financial decisions? Probably not. 

I can see a conservator of the estate being beneficial for Britney because it's likely that she has so much income rolling in from so many avenues that she doesn't know what do with it or how to manage it. In this regard, she can earn as much money as she wants and can rest easy knowing that it's not being mishandled and is available for her to use in the way she wants. On the other hand, does Britney have the competency to find a reputable probate lawyer who can explain to her how to plan her estate? It seems like it, especially since she somehow found about Bessemer, but in this scenario, the money only goes to the people she wants and in a way that makes sense for her own financial situation - meaning vultures like Team Jamie are s*it out of luck.

The fact that it's harder to get out of a conservatorship than be placed in one goes against every legal principle on which this country is based. Presumption of innocence, the right to confront your accuser in court, right to due process and equal protection under the laws, basically ensure that an individual has an opportunity to be fully heard before their rights are taken away. A judge is meant to be a respected member of the bar who can hear arguments and make well-informed, unbiased decisions to protect these rights. This clearly has not happened in Britney's case, and the fact that probate is such a specialized area of law means that there are judges making what amount to life-and-death decisions without fully understanding the issues.

I could go on and on but don't want to write even more of an essay. Lisa MacCarley is absolutely correct, and the simpler these legal issues are made to the public, the better. I created a legal questions thread a little while back, but in light of the documentary, I just wanted to put it out there that I'm willing to answer any questions (obviously from an outsider perspective) that people have, since I genuinely enjoy being a lawyer and discussing these things, especially when it comes to Britney.

What.A.Post.

[FraFromThe90's]

Lisa and Adam Streisand need to step in as Britney'S advocates!!! 

[Fall2Pieces]

ITS A LOVE STORY 

[JessicaS89]

I have a theory about Sam Ingham. I think that the only reason that he is stepping up to plate and "helping" Britney now is that he wants to retire. I think that he secretly has wanted to retire for some time, but the judge and/or jamie wouldn't let him. He recently has come to the realization that freeing Britney may be the only way he can retire. Plus if it was jamie forcing him to stay on, that would explain all his recent legal attacks on jaime. 

[feo]

On 2/12/2021 at 6:07 PM, britneyluv said:

I'm so glad people are finally paying attention to the real legal issues surrounding Britney's situation. I think people just assume that because she has to be evaluated by a court or a judge that it must be "just". It's not. I don't practice probate work, but I've been a practicing attorney for almost 7 years and even though I'm not deluded enough to believe that every argument I present to a judge is a winning one, there are plenty of instances where judges are wrong, or have personal biases that result in an ethical obligation for them to recuse themselves.

You can present a well-researched position to a judge, supported by rules, statutes, and case law, and a judge can rule another way simply because they feel like it. I'll admit most of the judges I have cases in front of do care about the facts of the case, and make well-reasoned decisions, but it's the ones that don't who result in mistrust of the process and what basically seems like a human rights violation in Britney's case.

I worked for a firm in law school (similar to Bessemer) where I did trusts and estates so had a brief experience with probate law, but it primarily dealt with older individuals who were prone to being taken advantage of or wealthy individuals with numerous assets from various sources who needed help ensuring that their finances were kept in order and/or passed on to who they wanted without complications like unnecessary tax implications or other issues.

As a personal injury attorney, I've represented, and obtained, results for people who took whatever settlement they got and blew it on a trip to Vegas or something similar. Does that mean these people should be under a lifetime conservatorship because of unwise financial decisions? Probably not. 

I can see a conservator of the estate being beneficial for Britney because it's likely that she has so much income rolling in from so many avenues that she doesn't know what do with it or how to manage it. In this regard, she can earn as much money as she wants and can rest easy knowing that it's not being mishandled and is available for her to use in the way she wants. On the other hand, does Britney have the competency to find a reputable probate lawyer who can explain to her how to plan her estate? It seems like it, especially since she somehow found about Bessemer, but in this scenario, the money only goes to the people she wants and in a way that makes sense for her own financial situation - meaning vultures like Team Jamie are s*it out of luck.

The fact that it's harder to get out of a conservatorship than be placed in one goes against every legal principle on which this country is based. Presumption of innocence, the right to confront your accuser in court, right to due process and equal protection under the laws, basically ensure that an individual has an opportunity to be fully heard before their rights are taken away. A judge is meant to be a respected member of the bar who can hear arguments and make well-informed, unbiased decisions to protect these rights. This clearly has not happened in Britney's case, and the fact that probate is such a specialized area of law means that there are judges making what amount to life-and-death decisions without fully understanding the issues.

I could go on and on but don't want to write even more of an essay. Lisa MacCarley is absolutely correct, and the simpler these legal issues are made to the public, the better. I created a legal questions thread a little while back, but in light of the documentary, I just wanted to put it out there that I'm willing to answer any questions (obviously from an outsider perspective) that people have, since I genuinely enjoy being a lawyer and discussing these things, especially when it comes to Britney.

I agree with pretty much everything you said EXCEPT that Britney would benefit from a conservatorship of the estate.  As an attorney as well, I think that considering a conservatorship should be the absolute last resort and considering it is a system that has abused her for 13 years now I completely disagree that it should even be considered.  It would only serve to traumatize her further.

Britney needs to be empowered to be able to make her own decisions and control her own estate as much as possible.  It doesn't mean she can't have trusts, accountants, managers etc.  But SHE needs to have the final say.  Conservatorships (even just of the estate) are clearly not made for capable people like Britney.  There are far less potentially abusive options out there to teach her and help her manage her estate.

 

[britneyluv]

1 hour ago, feo said:

I agree with pretty much everything you said EXCEPT that Britney would benefit from a conservatorship of the estate.  As an attorney as well, I think that considering a conservatorship should be the absolute last resort and considering it is a system that has abused her for 13 years now I completely disagree that it should even be considered.  It would only serve to traumatize her further.

Britney needs to be empowered to be able to make her own decisions and control her own estate as much as possible.  It doesn't mean she can't have trusts, accountants, managers etc.  But SHE needs to have the final say.  Conservatorships (even just of the estate) are clearly not made for capable people like Britney.  There are far less potentially abusive options out there to teach her and help her manage her estate.

 

Very true and all great points that I agree with. I just meant that IF any kind of conservatorship had the possibility of benefitting Britney, it would be one of her estate. However, I do agree that it should be a last resort and she should be empowered to make her own decisions with the assistance of capable financial advisors. 

[Illegally EATEN]

The entire California judicial system and political system is rife with corruption. California is likely the most corrupt state in America.

[Haburo]

15 hours ago, britneyluv said:

Very true and all great points that I agree with. I just meant that IF any kind of conservatorship had the possibility of benefitting Britney, it would be one of her estate. However, I do agree that it should be a last resort and she should be empowered to make her own decisions with the assistance of capable financial advisors. 

Sorry just to piggyback off @feo’s point, I really think we need to make clear that a probate conservatorship for control over someone’s estate is absolutely not designed to be a mechanism to managing lots of money, it is designed to be a mechanism to protect the human rights of incapacitated adults. I know that you are in no way advocating for it as a simple solution to a financial problem, but we need to really make clear that conservatorships are a mental health/human rights law mechanism and not strictly speaking one for probate/trusts (because conservatorships are also designed to confer authority over the personal). I don’t think it should be considered an appropriate solution to wealth management, if the conservatee meets the very low threshold of having capacity enough to seek advice, even as a last resort.

 

The main issue with her conservatorship is not that she doesn’t have control of her estate, it’s that she is deemed legally incapable of instructing Counsel. It’s a rights issue. I think this is being overlooked by the attorneys currently involved.

 

Lisa MacCarley seems to get it.

[Catalin]

On 2/13/2021 at 5:49 AM, britneyluv said:

I don't necessarily disagree. I just meant that if treated properly and the way it's intended, a conservatorship over her ESTATE rather than her PERSON could be beneficial for her if she wants to be sure that her finances are being properly managed, and as long as the conservatorship is being handled by a reputable investment firm with periodic reviews by the Court and Britney and a lawyer of her choosing. However, we know that's not the case here and there are certainly less restrictive measures. 

At this point though, it's still such an uphill battle to get out of this thing that as long as she has a company like Bessemer overseeing her finances, rather than her croaking lizard of a father who seemingly bankrupted his family before Britney set them all up for life, she can focus more on proving that she doesn't need a conservatorship over her person, i.e., daily decisions such as driving, seeing whoever she wants without needing permission, etc. 

How would one justify the existence of a conservatorship of the estate if the conservatorship of the person is no longer needed? 

[FreeLou]

She’s got some serious GUTS. God bless this woman. I’m almost worried for her. 

[joanhs]

On 2/15/2021 at 6:38 PM, JessicaS89 said:

I have a theory about Sam Ingham. I think that the only reason that he is stepping up to plate and "helping" Britney now is that he wants to retire. I think that he secretly has wanted to retire for some time, but the judge and/or jamie wouldn't let him. He recently has come to the realization that freeing Britney may be the only way he can retire. Plus if it was jamie forcing him to stay on, that would explain all his recent legal attacks on jaime. 

I just dont see why he can't leave, but maybe this is the only way he can save his own legacy. I do believe he wants to retire, I also believe he has suddenly realised whatever is happening is really hurting now. I don't believe he is THAT bad as some people, but I deff. see why he is scared about just leaving and letting another firm find out what the **** has been going on. Better be the last person on the ship then to make sure they dont find the leaking hole..

[mythology]

Wow, honestly had no clue her situation was this bad.  Holy ****, this is unethical.  Jamie is a piece of ****, period

[Bigno]

I am aware Goetz is no longer the judge in the case, but this is very (if we needed more) enlightening about the conservatorship system, the procedures of families who want to get rid of their old rich parents or family members and enjoy ownership (stealing, if you will), the court system and the ethics of judge Goetz, who approved Britney's conservatorship. 

 

It's truly scary to imagine how many people are being exploited and abused by the legal system. If they were able to pull this off in front of the world's eyes, imagine what they do with less public cases. Ughh

https://www.citywatchla.com/index.php/2016-01-01-13-17-00/los-angeles/18822-how-los-angeles-superior-court-s-coven-of-evil-abuses-the-elderly

This scam might be the most prevalent because it can happen in any case where the family has money. It is almost axiomatic that only families with money seek a conservatorship to protect an elder’s real estate and other property. (I’ve seen attorneys who buck the system and cut their fees so that they are partially pro bono, but it is questionable whether any of the judges’ buddies cut their fees.)   

The wanton and unjustifiable aggrandizement of attorney fees seems to be a primary way conservatorship judges rip off the public. "

[britneyluv]

On 2/16/2021 at 6:56 AM, Catalin said:

How would one justify the existence of a conservatorship of the estate if the conservatorship of the person is no longer needed? 

Because in Britney's case, there is a separate conservatorship over her estate and one over her person. The one of the person is way more restrictive and seems to be more for people who can barely clothe and feed themselves let alone consistently work at an extremely high level for years and years.

We don't know all the facts so we can't really justify a c-ship over either her person or estate, but based on everything that's come out, it appears that whatever kind of c-ship she's under is being severely misused as a way to keep Britney under the thumb of her father and any other vulture who wants to take advantage of her and her money (which ironically, wasn't that the justification for placing her in the cship in the first place?)

[britneyluv]

9 hours ago, Bigno said:

I am aware Goetz is no longer the judge in the case, but this is very (if we needed more) enlightening about the conservatorship system, the procedures of families who want to get rid of their old rich parents or family members and enjoy ownership (stealing, if you will), the court system and the ethics of judge Goetz, who approved Britney's conservatorship. 

 

It's truly scary to imagine how many people are being exploited and abused by the legal system. If they were able to pull this off in front of the world's eyes, imagine what they do with less public cases. Ughh

https://www.citywatchla.com/index.php/2016-01-01-13-17-00/los-angeles/18822-how-los-angeles-superior-court-s-coven-of-evil-abuses-the-elderly

This scam might be the most prevalent because it can happen in any case where the family has money. It is almost axiomatic that only families with money seek a conservatorship to protect an elder’s real estate and other property. (I’ve seen attorneys who buck the system and cut their fees so that they are partially pro bono, but it is questionable whether any of the judges’ buddies cut their fees.)   

The wanton and unjustifiable aggrandizement of attorney fees seems to be a primary way conservatorship judges rip off the public. "

Excellent and very informative article. Thanks for sharing

[Bigno]

7 hours ago, britneyluv said:

Excellent and very informative article. Thanks for sharing

thank you for reading it.