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

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Forever222 said:

Sam Ingham at this stage is trying to protect the system. The system he lead with Jamie’s team. He was smart enough to see the writing on the wall and begun to collaborate with Britney. Since she appeared in court with her mom and told them about the facility stay and wanting more freedoms. He had no choice. When Jodi jumped in she probably saw the red flags as well.
Andrew wallet is just as bad as Sam. He took the risk and called the c-ship a hybrid business model and an experiment to test probate court. Andrew wallet took Advantage of Britney’s system to make a ton of money. 

Jodi was chosen by Jamie himself to replace him tho 

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, phareezy said:

This quote always really bothered me. She was in the hospital, going through a lot, and then this dude ran in threw a bunch of information her way, he took it as her not understanding then left. No way he could properly answer her questions and have an appropriate conversation with her in that amount of time. Not to mention, as her lawyer, isn't it his ******* job to make sure his client understands what is at stake??? God, the injustices thrown her way are incredible. 

This was a ploy from the beginning. I'm amazed Sam is even doing anything remotely favorable for her now. I guess with Judge Reva Goetz gone he feels he needs to actually help his client now. Sick.

Not to mention... Is he a doctor to evaluate someone like this? Saying she couldnt choose her own lawyer? That she couldnt retain direct counsel? I mean, wtf. This was a set up from the start, Britney never had a chance. And I think Ingham is just trying to save face, who knows If he didnt see people were digging his shady past too. 

[phareezy]

16 minutes ago, Bundy said:

Not to mention... Is he a doctor to evaluate someone like this? Saying she couldnt choose her own lawyer? That she couldnt retain direct counsel? I mean, wtf. This was a set up from the start, Britney never had a chance. And I think Ingham is just trying to save face, who knows If he didnt see people were digging his shady past too. 

Completely. They underestimated her fans. They're going to get exposed. My only regret is Britney put up with this nonsense for as long as she has.

It's even more amazing they were able to strip the rights of someone as famous as Britney. Imagine what they do to regular people.

[Haburo]

7 hours ago, rower2222 said:

Can someone sum this up simply. I'm busy and theres too much to read through.

Why isn’t Sam Ingham III getting another medical/psyche report to exhibit to the Court to show Britney’s capacity?

 

7 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

I think that's exactly it.

The onus is on Britney to prove to the court that she doesn't need the conservatorship.

Her mental health will never be in good shape as long as Jamie is at the helm. She needs to remove him first before she can prove to the court that the conservatorship as a whole is no longer needed.

I hear what you are saying but the kind of conservatorship she is under is a last resort probate conservatorship, not a mental health conservatorship. She is under the wrong kind of conservatorship (and there were problems in filing an application for it when it was originally granted) so it should be repealed/appealed now with new medical evidence.

 

6 hours ago, s&m said:

Yes, I don't know why this is not talked much more because it's completely contradictory with her Probate Conservatorship 

This is the point!

 

7 hours ago, TomasBR said:

After hearing a lot of people who works with California laws saying, after the doc, that no one ever comes out of this kinda of conservatorship, I think there is some strategy to remove James before trying ending the whole thing. Mainly because he is a control freak, and in order to actually be able to produce some proof in Brintey's favor she needs some liberty. Everything is decide by him right now, even her encounters with the lawyer. 

That being said, I don't trust this Igham. Specially after knowing he wasn't a random lawyer appointed by the court, he was chosen by James himself. 

This probate conservatorship is for dead/nearly dead people with dementia, not international pop stars. The lawyers who work with trusts/estate/probate probably never have to challenge one before or look at this from a human rights angle. They are more like commercial lawyers rather than human rights lawyers.

[Haburo]

8 hours 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 if the situation is going to be better or worse

I know that in FTR she said she was seeing doctors regularly, and that she’s allegedly been in hospital for a period since then. However, this is different to paying a doctor to write a report for the purposes of exhibiting same in legal proceedings. You have to pay doctors separately to do this, it’s not something they do while they are seeing you as a normal patient and not all doctors do these kinds of reports. I don’t imagine in a probate conservatorship, that the conservatee would be subject to ongoing medical/psyche evaluations for Court reports because dementia is incurable so it would be pointless for the people who this kind of conservatorship is meant to be for.

8 hours 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?

See above.

 

————————————————————

Others in this thread mentioned two things which I think we need to look at more closely: (1) that the doctor who was supposed to make the Lynne Spears-related medical/pachyderm report died. It sounds like people don’t know whether a new medical/psyche report was exhibited before the Court from this time. Do we know?

(2) If probate conservatorships have never been reversed, lawyers in this field who deal with probate conservatorships probably are inexperienced in dealing with this question and their lives would be easier if they couldn’t be reversed. Contesting wills and probate itself is common, but contesting a probate conservatorship sounds uncommon if you can’t get out of them.

[OnlyBeyonce]

3 hours ago, Haburo said:

I know that in FTR she said she was seeing doctors regularly, and that she’s allegedly been in hospital for a period since then. However, this is different to paying a doctor to write a report for the purposes of exhibiting same in legal proceedings. You have to pay doctors separately to do this, it’s not something they do while they are seeing you as a normal patient and not all doctors do these kinds of reports. I don’t imagine in a probate conservatorship, that the conservatee would be subject to ongoing medical/psyche evaluations for Court reports because dementia is incurable so it would be pointless for the people who this kind of conservatorship is meant to be for.

I know it but i bet that X Factor or Vegas company behind the residency have asked for an updated medical report before book her for a very long commercial agreement. 
So at this point i think that the conservatoriship has nothing to do to her mental health
It's not possibile to need a conservatoriship and be a popstar at the same time

[Haburo]

17 minutes ago, OnlyBeyonce said:

I know it but i bet that X Factor or Vegas company behind the residency have asked for an updated medical report before book her for a very long commercial agreement. 
So at this point i think that the conservatoriship has nothing to do to her mental health
It's not possibile to need a conservatoriship and be a popstar at the same time

It can’t legally be allowed to continue if the Court knows about medical evidence that says she has capacity. And if any party to proceedings (ie Sam Ingham, Jamie Spears, etc) know of any medical evidence that says she has capacity, they have a duty to make this known to the Court. It would be 100% unlawful then and the Judge would be in serious doodoo.

[OnlyBeyonce]

17 minutes ago, Haburo said:

It can’t legally be allowed to continue if the Court knows about medical evidence that says she has capacity. And if any party to proceedings (ie Sam Ingham, Jamie Spears, etc) know of any medical evidence that says she has capacity, they have a duty to make this known to the Court. It would be 100% unlawful then and the Judge would be in serious doodoo.

but you need have capacity to sustain a tour with 97 show like the Circus tour, there is no way that someone can be a popstar on stage and be an unable person in her home at the same time

[Haburo]

43 minutes ago, OnlyBeyonce said:

but you need have capacity to sustain a tour with 97 show like the Circus tour, there is no way that someone can be a popstar on stage and be an unable person in her home at the same time

In law capacity is not a general thing. Someone can have capacity to sign cheques but not to consent to medical treatment, for example. It’s a case-by-case question which needs to be answered by a psychiatric evaluation submitted to the Court to address this issue. The Court can’t infer anything about Britney’s capacity, specifically her capacity to instruct Counsel which IMO is the most important issue here, from the Femme Fatale tour.

 

But just to be clear I do agree with you that she obviously has capacity.

 

But her attorney Sam Ingham needs to submit evidence of this (medical report) to the Court. If he does, and the Court accepts the findings, Britney will be allowed to appoint her own Counsel and Sam Ingham will be off the case and not receiving any more money from her.

[Mr. Cavill]

Since I don't want to make a separate thread about it, I'll leave this here.

 

Whoever the girl is, she's decided to include #FreeBritney in a conspiracy chart. Don't come for her though. We're in the category 'We have questions' which is past the speculation line BUT before leaving reality, which is good, I guess. I wonder if we'll get into the 'Things that actually happened' category once we have the full picture.

[OnlyBeyonce]

1 hour ago, Haburo said:

In law capacity is not a general thing. Someone can have capacity to sign cheques but not to consent to medical treatment, for example. It’s a case-by-case question which needs to be answered by a psychiatric evaluation submitted to the Court to address this issue. The Court can’t infer anything about Britney’s capacity, specifically her capacity to instruct Counsel which IMO is the most important issue here, from the Femme Fatale tour.

 

But just to be clear I do agree with you that she obviously has capacity.

 

But her attorney Sam Ingham needs to submit evidence of this (medical report) to the Court. If he does, and the Court accepts the findings, Britney will be allowed to appoint her own Counsel and Sam Ingham will be off the case and not receiving any more money from her.

of course capacity in legal terms in something more specific than its general meaming
But the real question is:
Someone who is under conservatoriship is able to work as a superstart?

That legal istitute is a way to protect eldery people or someone with huge damage

If you are a popstar you need to have the full control of your body and your mind to work properly, you need to meet a crazy amount of people and you need to deal with an incredible stress, it's not like to work in private office alone

honestly it's simply not possible

[Avatar]

Honestly the focus needs to be equally spread onto everyone involved that financially gaining from keeping her in it, not just Jamie. If we put focus on everyone involved they'll all eventually quit the way Andrew Wallet did and suddenly all say that Britney doesnt need it so they can come off as heroes.

[phareezy]

This chart is why I kept my #FreeBritney comments to myself in polite company until the doc aired because it does sound insane when you start going in to it. Especially with all of the detail and history that it involves to even try to make this make sense to someone who hasn't been following lol

3 hours ago, Geralt_of_Rivia said:

Since I don't want to make a separate thread about it, I'll leave this here.

Whoever the girl is, she's decided to include #FreeBritney in a conspiracy chart. Don't come for her though. We're in the category 'We have questions' which is past the speculation line BUT before leaving reality, which is good, I guess. I wonder if we'll get into the 'Things that actually happened' category once we have the full picture.

 

[Steel Magnolia]

8 hours ago, Haburo said:

I know that in FTR she said she was seeing doctors regularly, and that she’s allegedly been in hospital for a period since then. However, this is different to paying a doctor to write a report for the purposes of exhibiting same in legal proceedings. You have to pay doctors separately to do this, it’s not something they do while they are seeing you as a normal patient and not all doctors do these kinds of reports. I don’t imagine in a probate conservatorship, that the conservatee would be subject to ongoing medical/psyche evaluations for Court reports because dementia is incurable so it would be pointless for the people who this kind of conservatorship is meant to be for.

The "dementia" claim was only made on the first set of documents for the temporary conservatorship.

It was simply a box that was checked.

On all other documents going forward after the initial application, they switched it to "susceptible to undue influence."

As far as I know, they haven't made the dementia claim since February of 2008.

[Mr. Cavill]

12 minutes ago, phareezy said:

This chart is why I kept my #FreeBritney comments to myself in polite company until the doc aired because it does sound insane when you start going in to it. Especially with all of the detail and history that it involves to even try to make this make sense to someone who hasn't been following lol

 

Totally agree. You can also see why a lot of celebrities were/are still very hesitant to speak about it. It will take a while before it's cemented as a valid thing to worry about and question. However, we still need more transparency.  

[phareezy]

4 minutes ago, Geralt_of_Rivia said:

Totally agree. You can also see why a lot of celebrities were/are still very hesitant to speak about it. It will take a while before it's cemented as a valid thing to worry about and question. However, we still need more transparency.  

I would even add that Britney doesn't seem to have a lot of celebrity friends anymore so it's likely many celebrities don't know her or her situation well enough to comment. It's one thing to add some light to a movement like #MeToo or #BLM because it involves a lot of different people and stories. #FreeBritney is (primarily) about one person who a lot of people don't know personally and should they be wrong about it, would look foolish. Like you said, more transparency is needed.

[Mr. Cavill]

2 minutes ago, phareezy said:

I would even add that Britney doesn't seem to have a lot of celebrity friends anymore so it's likely many celebrities don't know her or her situation well enough to comment. It's one thing to add some light to a movement like #MeToo or #BLM because it involves a lot of different people and stories. #FreeBritney is (primarily) about one person who a lot of people don't know personally and should they be wrong about it, would look foolish. Like you said, more transparency is needed.

I'm so glad you share this view on the situation because I'm kind of the same. I ask myself some questions from time to time. Being critical while still being sympathetic are key factors I think.

[phareezy]

1 minute ago, Geralt_of_Rivia said:

I'm so glad you share this view on the situation because I'm kind of the same. I ask myself some questions from time to time. Being critical while still being sympathetic are key factors I think.

Haha it's very hard to be! There's so much information out there that isn't entirely verified but seems completely plausible. You want to be realistic but at the same time, buying into the Britney story does take some imagination because it's almost unfathomable that this could happen to a person as famous as her. I really feel like a Facebook mom sharing info in a WhatsApp group sometimes.

[Drunkerella91]

9 minutes ago, phareezy said:

I would even add that Britney doesn't seem to have a lot of celebrity friends anymore so it's likely many celebrities don't know her or her situation well enough to comment. It's one thing to add some light to a movement like #MeToo or #BLM because it involves a lot of different people and stories. #FreeBritney is (primarily) about one person who a lot of people don't know personally and should they be wrong about it, would look foolish. Like you said, more transparency is needed.

Well ....I'm gonna be a damn stupid fool if it turns out we're wrong with FreeBritney. The way I talk about the movement and basically annoy everyone I have to leave Germany and move somewhere else where I have to start from 0 then 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[phareezy]

1 minute ago, Drunkerella91 said:

Well ....I'm gonna be a damn stupid fool if it turns out we're wrong with FreeBritney. The way I talk about the movement and basically annoy everyone I have to leave Germany and move somewhere else where I have to start from 0 then 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Oh if I happen to be wrong, I'm never going to hear the end of it LMAO but there's enough evidence out there at this point that shows at the very least an injustice has been done for little ol nobody me to talk about it. Rihanna, on the other hand, can't afford that kind of embarrassment.