[Opinion] As it stands now, her conservatorship (WITH BESSMER serving as co-conservator) is probably for her protection

[PokemonSpears]

14 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

The situation was far more complex than you're making it out to be.

You're typing this in 2021. She was going through it in 2007 without the benefit of hindsight.

you can make it as complex as you want it to be, it doesn't matter, conservatorships simply aren't made for that purpose. If the reason was to remove her from the paparazzi and send her back to work, and protect her from lawsuits, then they're abusing a legal resource that wasn't created to help troubled celebrities, but to protect old people that can't provide for themselves, and that on top of everything, is stripping her out of her rights and money.

They're so worried about her giving her money to a scammer like Sam Lutfi, yet they've allowed a bunch of useless lawyers to drain her fortune for 13 years, and allegedly LouLou I guess that's better.

[PokemonSpears]

2 hours ago, zxcvb said:

To be fair, I clearly included the quote about Jordan saying that there were other ways to approach this besides a conservatorship.

Like the Steel Magnolia agreed, given that she's been in the conservatorship, Bessemer now being the co-conservator is for her protection.

But I never suggested that if she was going to be in a conservatorship in 2008, her pathetic father should have ever been the co-conservator.

We all now know about the conservator abuse going on in the courts.

even if the conservator was another person, the bottom line is still the same: conservatorships aren't made for troubled celebrities that are struggling with finances and lawsuits. Otherwise, any other artist would put themselves under voluntary conservatorships so they have to avoid getting directly sued, or to avoid the media.

Yes she needed help, in the form of guidance, professional advise, she definitely needed to move from L.A. even if that meant staying away from her kids for a while, she wasn't seeing them anyways. She didn't need someone to take full control of her life and make all her decisions for her, as if she completely lacked any capacity to understand what was happening around her. You quoted Streisand yourself, she was perfectly aware of the situation. That fact by itself disqualifies her to be put under a conservatorship.

You can't protect your daughter or friend of bad influences by putting her in a cage. She had the right to make mistakes, to associate with the wrong people, even if they eventually ended up scamming her, that's a lesson she had to learn by herself, and it wasn't anyone's business if she lost everything to something like that. The trust still existed independently to protect her kids, so they weren't going to lose anything, and EVEN if they did, then Kevin, who had sole custody, should've been the one that had provide for them.

There's never been any evidence of her putting her own life at risk or anyone else's, and if that was the case, she should've been sent to a mental hospital (or jail) instead of a tv set to guest star on How I Met Your Mother.

The problem is not ONLY the fact that James is the conservator, the problem is a conservatorship wasn't needed at all, and that's why they had to do the whole process in an illegal way by stepping over her rights to be notified beforehand, let her hire an attorney and defend herself, have several tests and opinions to determine a proper diagnosis, allow her to be on the hearings, because if they allowed her to do all that, she would've proved that she didn't need the  conservatorship they planned for weeks.

 

[Steel Magnolia]

11 hours ago, PokemonSpears said:

you can make it as complex as you want it to be, it doesn't matter, conservatorships simply aren't made for that purpose. If the reason was to remove her from the paparazzi and send her back to work, and protect her from lawsuits, then they're abusing a legal resource that wasn't created to help troubled celebrities, but to protect old people that can't provide for themselves, and that on top of everything, is stripping her out of her rights and money.

They're so worried about her giving her money to a scammer like Sam Lutfi, yet they've allowed a bunch of useless lawyers to drain her fortune for 13 years, and allegedly LouLou I guess that's better.

I agree with you in principle.

But at the time, this was supposed to be a temporary conservatorship. There was no mention in the moment of the conservatorship lasting longer than a few weeks.

In February of 2008, nobody knew what Jamie's intentions were. Nobody knew that he was already thinking long-term. (Otherwise, the fans would have started fighting against it in 2008...Not over 10 years later.)

What I'm trying to get at is that you can't argue one way or the other as to how Britney felt about the conservatorship. We know she didn't want Jamie as a conservator, but she has never stated how she's felt about the conservatorship in and of itself.

Your opinion about it is only your opinion — it is not hers.

The temporary conservatorship could have been a positive thing for her. The only thing that made it detrimental was Jamie.

[TSmidnighTS]

Your source is Fox News?

[Goten21]

Is this the moment where we bring back excommunication

[Peachy]

Financial advisors and money management/banks/executors exist without having to be in a con... but honestly it’s not ours or anybody else’s business even her father.. how or where she spends her money or even what she does PERIOD

[PokemonSpears]

4 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

I agree with you in principle.

But at the time, this was supposed to be a temporary conservatorship. There was no mention in the moment of the conservatorship lasting longer than a few weeks.

In February of 2008, nobody knew what Jamie's intentions were. Nobody knew that he was already thinking long-term. (Otherwise, the fans would have started fighting against it in 2008...Not over 10 years later.)

What I'm trying to get at is that you can't argue one way or the other as to how Britney felt about the conservatorship. We know she didn't want Jamie as a conservator, but she has never stated how she's felt about the conservatorship in and of itself.

Your opinion about it is only your opinion — it is not hers.

The temporary conservatorship could have been a positive thing for her. The only thing that made it detrimental was Jamie.

My opinion is just my opinion, that's ok, and we don't know what Britney felt and we don't know either how informed she was about it (for what we've seen a lot of people don't even know what a conservatorship is or entails).  But the facts are in what the law says.

Not even Britney agreeing to it makes it ok. I go back to the same point, conservatorships weren't created for the purpose they're using it, and especially not for a person of Britney's characteristics (now nor then). 

Otherwise, anybody that's struggling in life would go to the court and ask to be placed in a conservatorship so someone else fixes their problems, but that's not what it's for.

All I care about is the FACT that conservatorships are not meant for someone like her, nor are meant to be hybrid business models. I don't care if it was meant to be temporary or if Britney agreed to it (mostly convinced that it wss the only way to have the kids back, which is also wrong).

If the case was ruled by an uncorrupt judge, they would've had to stick to the steps dictated by the law and the petition would've been denied.

[Steel Magnolia]

2 hours ago, PokemonSpears said:

My opinion is just my opinion, that's ok, and we don't know what Britney felt and we don't know either how informed she was about it (for what we've seen a lot of people don't even know what a conservatorship is or entails).  But the facts are in what the law says.

Not even Britney agreeing to it makes it ok. I go back to the same point, conservatorships weren't created for the purpose they're using it, and especially not for a person of Britney's characteristics (now nor then). 

Otherwise, anybody that's struggling in life would go to the court and ask to be placed in a conservatorship so someone else fixes their problems, but that's not what it's for.

All I care about is the FACT that conservatorships are not meant for someone like her, nor are meant to be hybrid business models. I don't care if it was meant to be temporary or if Britney agreed to it (mostly convinced that it wss the only way to have the kids back, which is also wrong).

If the case was ruled by an uncorrupt judge, they would've had to stick to the steps dictated by the law and the petition would've been denied.

The "hybrid business model" suggestion is just hideous.

And I absolutely agree with you when it comes to the permanent conservatorship. That never should have happened. They never should have let that enter into their greedy little brains.

It's important to make a distinction between the "temporary conservatorship" and the "permanent conservatorship," though...In my mind, those are two very different things.

I think Britney's mental health, in the days leading up to her second 5150, and the weeks directly following, was far worse than fans want to admit.

There is a thing called "****-induced dementia," and judging from the pap videos at the time, it's not a stretch of the imagination to think she was exhibiting the symptoms of it. And based on Lutfi's own lawsuit, which didn't conclude until 2016, she was in a position to succumb to "undue influence." He had talked her into a management contract that would have earned him millions — despite the fact that he was an amateur with no management experience at all. He saw nothing wrong with parading her in front of the paps in situations that robbed her of her dignity...And while I've never caught him in a lie, the damage that he was doing to her health, reputation, finances, and custody arrangements was almost irreparable. 

It's easy to say, in hindsight, that things should have been done differently...But I'm not convinced. It was a very complex situation that involved two toddlers, a physical and mental health crisis, and millions of dollars.

I believe a temporary conservatorship, with the right people at the helm, could have provided the support she needed to begin making better decisions.

Unfortunately, Jamie's heart wasn't in the right place...What he's done is not just unethical. It's downright disgusting.

[zxcvb]

38 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

I think Britney's mental health, in the days leading up to her second 5150, and the weeks directly following, was far worse than fans want to admit.

I believe a temporary conservatorship, with the right people at the helm, could have provided the support she needed to begin making better decisions.

I agree 100%.  She was not in a good state at all.  Although I maintain Britney should have approached the music business differently way back in 2004-2005, if not leave it entirely if she was fed up; those contracts probably tied her up a lot.

We ALL agree if a TEMPORARY conservatorship was to be instituted, her father never should have been the conservator.  I definitely never made that case.  

I'm sure the conservatorship will be eliminated at some point, but at least now an independent party is handling her finances.

46 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Unfortunately, Jamie's heart wasn't in the right place...What he's done is not just unethical. It's downright disgusting.

Here's an important read from attorney Lisa MacCarley as to just how conspiratorial the set up was:

"Our California constitution and the United States Constitution provide very clearly that everyone is entitled to a fair process, an unbiased judge, and most importantly, your own attorney. I was shocked because I had never seen before that when James Spears’ attorneys filed the packet of paperwork to commence the conservatorship on February 1, 2008, they literally prepared an order for the judge to sign nominating Sam Ingham as Britney Spears’ attorney. I’ve never seen that before. It still shocks me that I’m even saying it. But what was worse was when I found out that Britney had picked for herself a very good attorney, Adam Streisand, and Adam Streisand shows up and says, “I’m representing Britney.” And Judge Reva Goetz, says, “No, we’ve decided that Britney Spears doesn’t have capacity to retain her counsel.”

There is no such thing. That’s absolutely false, absolutely wrong, absolutely a violation. Unethical. But it even gets worse than that. Apparently, Sam Ingham had written some kind of report, or he was one of the two who had written a report, basically saying that Britney Spears didn’t have the capacity to retain counsel. Which is, again, another ethical violation as well. But the problem is that the judges are untouchable. There’s nothing that you can do when a judge goes off the charts, and does what Reva Goetz did. What these attorneys all know is that in probate court, the judges control your fees, so they control your income, and they will retaliate. This court of appeals doesn’t help. There’s no place to go for recourse when a judge does things that Reva Goetz did.

They violated the very basic notion of her constitutional rights. They did everything wrong. It was almost like they looked for ways to do it wrong. She couldn’t have her own attorney. They appointed the judge’s favorite crony, Sam Ingham. This was all a setup. It was well known in the Los Angeles probate court at the time that Sam Ingham and his office cohort, Jackson Chen, were the judge’s favorite attorneys, and especially Judge Reva Goetz’s favorites. Judge Reva Goetz had a great fondness and bias towards Sam Ingham and Jackson Chen. Sam Ingham actually had the audacity at some point to say “I specialize in celebrity conservatorship.” It’s just cronyism.

Does Britney need a conservatorship? No, I don’t think she’s needed one forever. Does she need people to help her? Yes. Does she need mature women around her? Yes. I wouldn’t let a man near her, except for her boyfriend and her sons, obviously. But, yes. She needs help. Does she need a conservatorship? Didn’t seem that way to me, given the way she’s able to perform and everything else.

https://uproxx.com/pop/britney-spears-conservatorship-lisa-maccarley-interview-framing-britney-spears/

 

[One More Time]

20 hours ago, s&m said:

Oh don't you know it? In one of the past hearings Ingham exposed Jamie for attempting to reach Bessemer. Bessemer immediately called Ingham to inform him

And? It could be a strategy to "apparently" not have any connection between them 

 

[s&m]

2 hours ago, One More Time said:

And? It could be a strategy to "apparently" not have any connection between them 

 

[Applejack]

That's the same vague terms Wallet uses. Anyways, there were quite a few breach of contract lawsuits, but from what I've gathered they were because the people responsible for her finances/career were sloppy. And it included some of the same people still working for her (Larry...). I do think she was set up.

[I love Britney]

Adam said in the doc she didn’t want her father to be her conservator and I think it’s because she knew it would go on and on with him around. If an outside party was in charge I think she would’ve been out of it sooner. 

[Haburo]

There are two kinds of control conservatorships can offer: control over the conservatee’s person and control over the conservatee’s estate. It makes sense to have someone like a parent or caregiver fulfil the “person” aspect of it, when conservatees are unable to feed/wash themselves and need help going to the bathroom and identifying their medical needs. It is weird to me that, for someone with such a large estate (at least 13 years ago... it is really bad that it’s not even $100m) they would have thought her dad from Kentwood Louisiana and his random-*** business manager whom he hired (that Lou Taylor woman I suppose?) would be fit to take in this role.

 

We should keep in mind who these kinds of conservatorships are for:

I agree that, if Britney Spears is demonstrably unable to feed, clothe or shelter herself in 2021, this is in place for her safety. However, the issue is that she looks like she is able to feed, clothe and shelter herself and that this should be exhibited to the Court in an updated medical/psyche report.

[Haburo]

10 hours ago, zxcvb said:

I agree 100%.  She was not in a good state at all.  Although I maintain Britney should have approached the music business differently way back in 2004-2005, if not leave it entirely if she was fed up; those contracts probably tied her up a lot.

We ALL agree if a TEMPORARY conservatorship was to be instituted, her father never should have been the conservator.  I definitely never made that case.  

I'm sure the conservatorship will be eliminated at some point, but at least now an independent party is handling her finances.

Here's an important read from attorney Lisa MacCarley as to just how conspiratorial the set up was:

"Our California constitution and the United States Constitution provide very clearly that everyone is entitled to a fair process, an unbiased judge, and most importantly, your own attorney. I was shocked because I had never seen before that when James Spears’ attorneys filed the packet of paperwork to commence the conservatorship on February 1, 2008, they literally prepared an order for the judge to sign nominating Sam Ingham as Britney Spears’ attorney. I’ve never seen that before. It still shocks me that I’m even saying it. But what was worse was when I found out that Britney had picked for herself a very good attorney, Adam Streisand, and Adam Streisand shows up and says, “I’m representing Britney.” And Judge Reva Goetz, says, “No, we’ve decided that Britney Spears doesn’t have capacity to retain her counsel.”

There is no such thing. That’s absolutely false, absolutely wrong, absolutely a violation. Unethical. But it even gets worse than that. Apparently, Sam Ingham had written some kind of report, or he was one of the two who had written a report, basically saying that Britney Spears didn’t have the capacity to retain counsel. Which is, again, another ethical violation as well. But the problem is that the judges are untouchable. There’s nothing that you can do when a judge goes off the charts, and does what Reva Goetz did. What these attorneys all know is that in probate court, the judges control your fees, so they control your income, and they will retaliate. This court of appeals doesn’t help. There’s no place to go for recourse when a judge does things that Reva Goetz did.

They violated the very basic notion of her constitutional rights. They did everything wrong. It was almost like they looked for ways to do it wrong. She couldn’t have her own attorney. They appointed the judge’s favorite crony, Sam Ingham. This was all a setup. It was well known in the Los Angeles probate court at the time that Sam Ingham and his office cohort, Jackson Chen, were the judge’s favorite attorneys, and especially Judge Reva Goetz’s favorites. Judge Reva Goetz had a great fondness and bias towards Sam Ingham and Jackson Chen. Sam Ingham actually had the audacity at some point to say “I specialize in celebrity conservatorship.” It’s just cronyism.

Does Britney need a conservatorship? No, I don’t think she’s needed one forever. Does she need people to help her? Yes. Does she need mature women around her? Yes. I wouldn’t let a man near her, except for her boyfriend and her sons, obviously. But, yes. She needs help. Does she need a conservatorship? Didn’t seem that way to me, given the way she’s able to perform and everything else.

https://uproxx.com/pop/britney-spears-conservatorship-lisa-maccarley-interview-framing-britney-spears/

 

There are mental health conservatorships. Britney is under a permanent probate conservatorship for people who are nearly dead and have dementia. That shouldn’t be the case in 2021 and probably shouldn’t have been the case 12/13 years ago.

 

Also, there are things which can be done.

 

First, the judge must consider all relevant evidence and documentation when looking at this case. That would include a new medical/psyche report from 2021 which would say that Britney has capacity ie that she does not have a dementia-related disease and that she is not particularly vulnerable to undue influence. Sam Ingham should be doing/have done this. If he won’t, Lynne should organise one and submit it to the Court with an application to become a notice party in these proceedings (which I saw in another thread she at least stamped to do? But the doctor died?).

 

If the Judge does not consider the new medical/psyche report, you can appeal their decision in appellate Court. However, Britney would be the relevant notice party so she would need to either (a) convince Sam Ingham to appeal, or (b) address the capacity issue in her appeal with a new lawyer.

 

These medical reports are the basis of rulings on capacity. Capacity to instruct Counsel is a low threshold. I don’t see how a medical/psyche report could find her incapacitated to the extent that she cannot legally instruct Counsel. If that did happen, then maybe she should be under this probate conservatorship. I don’t think it would though.

 

These lawyers are not human rights lawyers. They basically manage probate/trusts/estates with accountants. They wouldn’t ever have to challenge this kind of conservatorship on the basis of human rights and capacity. They are letting their bills paid while it is kept in place.

 

Sam Ingham waited 12 years before submitting that the Bessemer Trust should come onboard as co-conservators of Britney’s estate.

[One More Time]

15 hours ago, s&m said:

You are laughing at me and don't see the corruption since the start of the conservatorship and the court sistem didn't you read about what the judge and lawyers have done to Britney?  

[Steel Magnolia]

8 hours ago, Haburo said:

There are mental health conservatorships. Britney is under a permanent probate conservatorship for people who are nearly dead and have dementia. That shouldn’t be the case in 2021 and probably shouldn’t have been the case 12/13 years ago.

Do you want to hear something crazy?

I've been following this story, in minute detail, since February of 2007.

I have never once heard anyone explain the difference between a probate conservatorship and a mental health conservatorship.

This is why it is important to have lawyers involved in this story!

I'm a legal researcher (not related to probate law) but I'm not a lawyer...I can remember every little detail of what's happened since 2007, but I don't know probate law and never knew what to do with all of the information I had collected.

By around 2013, I had given up...Nobody seemed to care about this story, and Britney wasn't fighting it, so I started to focus on other stories about other injustices.

I wish we had lawyers involved in this from the beginning. It would have made such a difference. 

[s&m]

45 minutes ago, One More Time said:

You are laughing at me and don't see the corruption since the start of the conservatorship and the court sistem didn't you read about what the judge and lawyers have done to Britney?  

[Haburo]

1 hour ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Do you want to hear something crazy?

I've been following this story, in minute detail, since February of 2007.

I have never once heard anyone explain the difference between a probate conservatorship and a mental health conservatorship.

This is why it is important to have lawyers involved in this story!

I'm a legal researcher (not related to probate law) but I'm not a lawyer...I can remember every little detail of what's happened since 2007, but I don't know probate law and never knew what to do with all of the information I had collected.

By around 2013, I had given up...Nobody seemed to care about this story, and Britney wasn't fighting it, so I started to focus on other stories about other injustices.

I wish we had lawyers involved in this from the beginning. It would have made such a difference. 

I wish there were more we could do. The documentaries will help.

 

Have people tried contacting the ACLU about this?

[Steel Magnolia]

16 minutes ago, Haburo said:

I wish there were more we could do. The documentaries will help.

 

Have people tried contacting the ACLU about this?

They have:

https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/how-conservatorship-threatens-britney-spears-civil-rights/

That's why I'm assuming that Ingham has a legal strategy and that he's playing the long game.

The heat is on him now, and the world is watching, so he needs to advocate for his client.

However, there must be a reason why they're not moving quickly...I had assumed, after reading the most recent documents, that it was tied to her financials. It seems as if they're waiting for the 120 day discovery period to conclude before officially bringing Bessemer on board.