Jump to content

Sam Ingham III is not going to #FreeBritney [Opinion]


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

HDU, he has Britney's best interests at heart. Always had.

Two things... 1) Dementia vs. Undue Influence The dementia claim was only made during the application for the temporary conservatorship...By the next round of documents, that box was no longer b

Sam Ingham is Britney’s Court-appointed attorney. Sam Ingham is a conservatorship/trusts/estates attorney, NOT a mental health law/human rights attorney. His job is managing the money and finances of

5 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Two things...

1) Dementia vs. Undue Influence

The dementia claim was only made during the application for the temporary conservatorship...By the next round of documents, that box was no longer being checked, and Team CON had switched their argument to "susceptible to undue influence."

Sam Lutfi's lawsuit stretched into 2016, so they were able to continue using the "susceptible to undue influence" excuse straight through until then without the fanbase questioning it.

2) Legal strategy

I believe at this point Britney and her legal team are less concerned with eliminating the conservatorship quickly, and more concerned with painting Jamie and Lou into a corner on the financials.

Time will tell, but I suspect this is their legal strategy: to get the past 12 years of financials onto the court record so that Bessemer can do a full forensic audit.

I suspect they are ultimately aiming for criminal charges against Lou M. Taylor.

But they can't do that without proof.

1) CA Court guidance documents state: “ probate courts across the country increasingly must deal with conservatorship petitions alleging that undue influence is imminent, is actively taking place, or took place within the prior few months and is in danger of occurring again”. They would have to show continuously that it is imminent or actively taking place or took place within the prior few months and is in danger of occurring again. Surely the basis of an inference that this is in danger of occurring again would be a medical/psyche report which indicates that she is susceptible to this influence?

 

I don’t see how they would be able to show this criteria any other way. Maybe I don’t know enough about California Law, but if it were my client then I would have to rely on medical/psychiatric evidence to explain to the Court that they are a person who is particularly vulnerable to undue influence. Maybe you could explain this to me if I am missing something here please?
 

2) They can obtain this information themselves if the conservatorship is repealed, and then they can put it in open Court record when they file their civil suit or pursue criminal proceedings. Probably both. Surely in probate Court, they are likely to not be disclosed on the public record?

 

Also, Bessemer have the power now to do a full forensic audit. They are acting as Britney Jean Spears in relation to her estate, the same way Jamie is.

  • Like 2
Link to post
7 minutes ago, kleinbritney said:

Britney has submitted to guardianship because she was threatened never to see the children again. You should always keep this fact in mind. You would have legally had some options to take action against the guardianship. But she didn't because of her children

It doesn’t help her custody rights to be considered incapacitated under the law.

  • Like 4
Link to post
8 minutes ago, Haburo said:

1) CA Court guidance documents state: “ probate courts across the country increasingly must deal with conservatorship petitions alleging that undue influence is imminent, is actively taking place, or took place within the prior few months and is in danger of occurring again”. They would have to show continuously that it is imminent or actively taking place or took place within the prior few months and is in danger of occurring again. Surely the basis of an inference that this is in danger of occurring again would be a medical/psyche report which indicates that she is susceptible to this influence?

 

I don’t see how they would be able to show this criteria any other way. Maybe I don’t know enough about California Law, but if it were my client then I would have to rely on medical/psychiatric evidence to explain to the Court that they are a person who is particularly vulnerable to undue influence. Maybe you could explain this to me if I am missing something here please?
 

2) They can obtain this information themselves if the conservatorship is repealed, and then they can put it in open Court record when they file their civil suit or pursue criminal proceedings. Probably both. Surely in probate Court, they are likely to not be disclosed on the public record?

 

Also, Bessemer have the power now to do a full forensic audit. They are acting as Britney Jean Spears in relation to her estate, the same way Jamie is.


1) I think she probably was susceptible to undue influence in the very early years of the conservatorship. But that claim has grown weaker and weaker over time.

I really just wanted to debunk or clarify this "dementia" claim that everyone seems to be stuck on...It was literally a single box that was checked on the first set of documents. It didn't go any further than that, so I'm not sure why everyone is dwelling on it.

2) Britney has formally requested that there be transparency with her case. She has requested her proceedings become public.

EDIT:

Apparently, Ingham hasn't filed the paperwork yet for Bessemer to officially come on board. He asked for it orally, but didn't file the necessary documents...I was assuming the reason for this is that they're waiting for the 120 day "discovery" period to conclude before proceeding.

  • Love 1
  • Like 1
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Haburo said:

It doesn’t help her custody rights to be considered incapacitated under the law.

Even if Britney is free, it would be years before she could win a custody battle. Simply because her vita says 13 years of incapacitation. No judge in the world will give her custody

  • Love 1
  • Like 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:


1) I think she probably was susceptible to undue influence in the very early years of the conservatorship. But that claim has grown weaker and weaker over time.

I really just wanted to debunk or clarify this "dementia" claim that everyone seems to be stuck on...It was literally a single box that was checked on the first set of documents. It didn't go any further than that, so I'm not sure why everyone is dwelling on it.

2) Britney has formally requested that there be transparency with her case. She has requested her proceedings become public.

EDIT:

Apparently, Ingham hasn't filed the paperwork yet for Bessemer to officially come on board. He asked for it orally, but didn't file the necessary documents...I was assuming the reason for this is that they're waiting for the 120 day "discovery" period to conclude before proceeding.

1) I get what you’re saying and thanks very much for clarifying. It makes it a little bit more suspicious for me, as if they were ticking that box in the first instance only to access the probate conservatorship as opposed to a mental health conservatorship. If she doesn’t have this dementia related illness and she is no longer susceptible to undue influence (not with that other Sam guy who they got the restraining order against), they should be submitting updated medical evidence I think.

 

2) If they filed a petition to repeal or appeal the conservatorship, the documents would still be public in those proceedings. I get what you’re saying but she doesn’t need to be in a conservatorship for this stuff to go on a public Court record.

 

If Sam Ingham III put Bessemer on board properly and filed the papers, they could just get this information themselves. Do you think they are waiting for the discovery period to elapse to obtain the financial information? Thanks very much for all your insight.

  • Like 2
Link to post
9 minutes ago, kleinbritney said:

Even if Britney is free, it would be years before she could win a custody battle. Simply because her vita says 13 years of incapacitation. No judge in the world will give her custody

What?

 

Family Court is not going to ignore the ruling of the Conservatorship/Probate Court if updated medical evidence is submitted to show she has capacity, and they have to rule that the conservatorship is no longer needed. Further, this information ought to be made available to the family Court in any kind of custody proceedings where her capacity is being questioned.

 

This is more of a reason to get a new medical/psyche report.

  • Like 4
Link to post
27 minutes ago, Haburo said:

 

This is more of a reason to get a new medical/psyche report.

i highly doubt that you can be under a conservatorship with only 1 medical/psyche report. In these case the patient don't need to be checked constantly? i think they need to know if the situation is going to be better or worse

Link to post
33 minutes ago, Haburo said:

1) I get what you’re saying and thanks very much for clarifying. It makes it a little bit more suspicious for me, as if they were ticking that box in the first instance only to access the probate conservatorship as opposed to a mental health conservatorship. If she doesn’t have this dementia related illness and she is no longer susceptible to undue influence (not with that other Sam guy who they got the restraining order against), they should be submitting updated medical evidence I think.

 

2) If they filed a petition to repeal or appeal the conservatorship, the documents would still be public in those proceedings. I get what you’re saying but she doesn’t need to be in a conservatorship for this stuff to go on a public Court record.

 

If Sam Ingham III put Bessemer on board properly and filed the papers, they could just get this information themselves. Do you think they are waiting for the discovery period to elapse to obtain the financial information? Thanks very much for all your insight.


1) I certainly wouldn't put it past them to check the dementia box purely for strategic reasons...I actually hadn't heard the "dementia" claim mentioned once in 12 years, until the new sleuths recently joining the #FreeBritney movement began paying for court docs and posting them on Twitter.

I thought there was a new medical evaluation ordered back in the summer when Lynne Spears first requested to be included as a "party of interest"...but we've barely heard a peep about it since.

I wonder what the result of that was?

2) I'm guessing they're waiting for the discovery period to elapse before bringing Bessemer onboard...Perhaps so there is a "clean" transition of power?

Lou Taylor quit, which makes obtaining the financials more difficult...But the discovery period allows them to "collect information via document requests or depositions under oath."

Can they compel Lou to sit for a deposition?
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, OnlyBeyonce said:

i highly doubt that you can be under a conservatorship with only 1 medical/psyche report. In these case the patient don't need to be checked constantly? i think they need to know is the situation is going to be better or worse


In FTR, Britney referred to a team of doctors who checked on her daily. She said if they weren't there she would, "feel so free."

I wonder if that daily monitoring has continued into present day?

  • Like 3
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:


In FTR, Britney referred to a team of doctors who checked on her daily. She said if they weren't there she would, "feel so free."

I wonder if that daily monitoring has continued into present day?

how is possible that someone who need daily checks can be able to do a world tour or a tv program?
Someone in this story is lying

  • Like 6
Link to post
18 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:


In FTR, Britney referred to a team of doctors who checked on her daily. She said if they weren't there she would, "feel so free."

I wonder if that daily monitoring has continued into present day?

Hey, can u help me with smt about 2007?

Link to post
1 hour ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Two things...

1) Dementia vs. Undue Influence

The dementia claim was only made during the application for the temporary conservatorship...By the next round of documents, that box was no longer being checked, and Team CON had switched their argument to "susceptible to undue influence."

Sam Lutfi's lawsuit stretched into 2016, so they were able to continue using the "susceptible to undue influence" excuse straight through until then without the fanbase questioning it.

2) Legal strategy

I believe at this point Britney and her legal team are less concerned with eliminating the conservatorship quickly, and more concerned with painting Jamie and Lou into a corner on the financials.

Time will tell, but I suspect this is their legal strategy: to get the past 12 years of financials onto the court record so that Bessemer can do a full forensic audit.

I suspect they are ultimately aiming for criminal charges against Lou M. Taylor.

But they can't do that without proof.

I would really hope so. The only reason why I’m skepticAl of this theory is that Ingham was a lawyer this whole time for her- so if they want to find skeletons in the closet, he would be involved as well... meaning he has no incentive to do that. 

  • Like 3
Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • 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