Jump to content

[REMOVED PER LOU TAYLOR'S REQUEST]: Lou Taylor's investment firm allegedly moved around $600,000,000 to an offshore account days after Bessemer Trust was approved


Recommended Posts

On 4/11/2021 at 8:49 PM, chizwhiz said:

Like I said previously, it is contempt of court for a lawyer to lie on record.

Doing so risks them losing their licence and undermining the whole profession.

When people come in here with some cold hard evidence, then I'll believe it.

The evidence that she was in dire finances is there though, expense reports from 2007/8 that show all of her properties were mortgaged, this statement from a lawyer on the californian bar, the list goes on.

You really want to go through the ringer of examples that team con lied to get Britney into a conservatorship? Dementia, unable to hire her own lawyer, unfit to testify? 

Britney is literally in a situation where she cannot personally choose someone to fight against these people. Who is going to challenge them in court when she cant pick? the court appointed lawyer who benefits from it?

 

Also, while we're here and you're still going! whether Britney was making bank or blowing it all on Strawberry Frappachinos is irrelevant. The Conservatorship in place is still fraudulent.  Britney is entitled to blow all of her money on whatever she wants and wanted. That doesn't justify a conservatorship.  On what grounds does that make Vivian's statement correct?

  • Love 9
Link to comment
2 hours ago, ICouldntThinkOfOne said:

You really want to go through the ringer of examples that team con lied to get Britney into a conservatorship? Dementia, unable to hire her own lawyer, unfit to testify? 

Britney is literally in a situation where she cannot personally choose someone to fight against these people. Who is going to challenge them in court when she cant pick? the court appointed lawyer who benefits from it?

 

Also, while we're here and you're still going! whether Britney was making bank or blowing it all on Strawberry Frappachinos is irrelevant. The Conservatorship in place is still fraudulent.  Britney is entitled to blow all of her money on whatever she wants and wanted. That doesn't justify a conservatorship.  On what grounds does that make Vivian's statement correct?

Exactly.  Her money. She  can do what she wants with it. Her family trying to protect her money over her life is hugely problematic

  • Love 5
Link to comment
On 5/26/2021 at 11:53 PM, ICouldntThinkOfOne said:

You really want to go through the ringer of examples that team con lied to get Britney into a conservatorship? Dementia, unable to hire her own lawyer, unfit to testify? 

Britney is literally in a situation where she cannot personally choose someone to fight against these people. Who is going to challenge them in court when she cant pick? the court appointed lawyer who benefits from it?

 

Also, while we're here and you're still going! whether Britney was making bank or blowing it all on Strawberry Frappachinos is irrelevant. The Conservatorship in place is still fraudulent.  Britney is entitled to blow all of her money on whatever she wants and wanted. That doesn't justify a conservatorship.  On what grounds does that make Vivian's statement correct?

But we don't know for certain yet do we, because so much of the court filings for the conservatorship has been redacted due to personal reasons. It's highly likely everything is elaborated on in sealed medical files.

This forum is the wrong place to build an argument for the agreement, as I understand why many of you are for abolishing it. 

 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, chizwhiz said:

But we don't know for certain yet do we, because so much of the court filings for the conservatorship has been redacted due to personal reasons. It's highly likely everything is elaborated on in sealed medical files.

This forum is the wrong place to build an argument for the agreement, as I understand why many of you are for abolishing it. 

 

We know enough to recognise that it was flawed. 

If Britney was suffering from mental health issues that were so debilitating she required a conservatorship, she should be under a different type of a conservatorship where her consrtvstors did not financially gain from it, and frankly, she would not be working months after it was implemented. If she's fit enough to work, she should not be in a conservatorship. 

Her right to council of her choice was removed from her. Her due notice was removed from her.

Abd ultimately, why would Lou and The lawyers goes after Courtney Love and Lindsey Lohan to put them in similar systems?

We know enough, get lost with your pro conservatorship logic that justifies. 

  • Love 2
Link to comment
On 5/28/2021 at 11:34 PM, ICouldntThinkOfOne said:

We know enough to recognise that it was flawed. 

If Britney was suffering from mental health issues that were so debilitating she required a conservatorship, she should be under a different type of a conservatorship where her consrtvstors did not financially gain from it, and frankly, she would not be working months after it was implemented. If she's fit enough to work, she should not be in a conservatorship. 

Her right to council of her choice was removed from her. Her due notice was removed from her.

Abd ultimately, why would Lou and The lawyers goes after Courtney Love and Lindsey Lohan to put them in similar systems?

We know enough, get lost with your pro conservatorship logic that justifies. 

What type of conservatorship exists without a means of profit? In the current court system that exists there isn't one and that's a problem within the context of society. 

The current teams evidence of why she was made to work is there, she was spending more than she earned. Not arguing here but the figures accepted by the courts are there. If Vivian is right and she was down to $2 million, it would have not lasted long. Rumours were she released blackout for the advance the record label gave, even Bryan said in that zoom call that she got millions for a release based on her contract. I know the finances are a contentious point. 

There is a difference between being supportive of someone's rights (which I am) to defying common sense and burying your head in the sand. If so much of the case is sealed that speculating at this point gets people's hopes up, it makes sense to why fans are disappointed after every court case. 

 

Link to comment

The Britney Spears brand is a company, if it goes broke due to mismanagement, it's not a guardianship case. How many US companies go bankrupt each year? Besides, I don't think Britney personally handled her financial affairs. These people should be held criminally accountable.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
2 hours ago, chizwhiz said:

What type of conservatorship exists without a means of profit? In the current court system that exists there isn't one and that's a problem within the context of society. 

The current teams evidence of why she was made to work is there, she was spending more than she earned. Not arguing here but the figures accepted by the courts are there. If Vivian is right and she was down to $2 million, it would have not lasted long. Rumours were she released blackout for the advance the record label gave, even Bryan said in that zoom call that she got millions for a release based on her contract. I know the finances are a contentious point. 

There is a difference between being supportive of someone's rights (which I am) to defying common sense and burying your head in the sand. If so much of the case is sealed that speculating at this point gets people's hopes up, it makes sense to why fans are disappointed after every court case. 

 

An LPS conservatorship is a type of conservatorship especially for people with mental health issues and is designed with the detail that they can’t profit from it in mind. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
6 hours ago, chizwhiz said:

What type of conservatorship exists without a means of profit? In the current court system that exists there isn't one and that's a problem within the context of society. 

The current teams evidence of why she was made to work is there, she was spending more than she earned. Not arguing here but the figures accepted by the courts are there. If Vivian is right and she was down to $2 million, it would have not lasted long. Rumours were she released blackout for the advance the record label gave, even Bryan said in that zoom call that she got millions for a release based on her contract. I know the finances are a contentious point. 

There is a difference between being supportive of someone's rights (which I am) to defying common sense and burying your head in the sand. If so much of the case is sealed that speculating at this point gets people's hopes up, it makes sense to why fans are disappointed after every court case. 

 

Firstly, clearly you do not know what you're talking about if you do not know that there isn't just one type of conservatorship.

Additionally, if the conservatorship was just to stop Britney spending (something she is entitled to do with her money), why was it made permanent? 

The finances are only "contentious" because they do not add up, and there is enough information available to recognise that there are numerous issues and blank spots when it comes to reporting finances. 

Additionally, we know, as a matter of fact:

- The conservatorship was not a last ditch attempt; it was planned atleast 6 months in advice.

- Britney's right to notice were stripped when Britney was involuntarily 5150'd 

- her right to council was removed on the grounds that she did not have the capacity.

- no medical declaration was ever filed.

 

Now, if the argument that Britney was spending so much that she was going to be bankrupt was so strong and based on fact, then there would have been no need to do the above, yet alone, claim with no basis other than word of mouth  for 13 years. Money and accounting should the most factual element of this issue. 

Furthermore, if this was simply about finances, why did her team continue a bad mental health narrative?

Do we really need to talk about about Vivian Thoreen who stated she had nothing to do with conservatorship, only to then announce she was involved again, and go on a media campaign saying "Daddy loves Britney"? 

 

If the finance argument was strong enough, then it would be grounds enough!

  • Love 5
Link to comment

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