Jump to content

BJS Kids & Family Trust : A Research Thread


Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, RebellionSparkles said:

This is where it gets interesting to me…but I’m sure boring for everyone else…Britney’s family probably wasn’t able to prove incapacity for the SJB Trust (bc Trust usually require proof of incapacity, unlike the LA CON system). every spoiled trust fund kid cut out of a parents’ will has tried to prove their parents were incapacitated…so there are actually established requirements to prove incapacity.

I would have loved to be a fly On the wall during the trust convos at this time

I think Ivan Taback’s articles may have been inspired by the morbid conversations he was having with Team con!!  The article about billionaires who died in 2010 as “the year of no estate tax” was chilling.

Is that why there were rumors of a second breakdown in 2010? And the filing in late 2009 referring to Britney as “deceased”?? 
 :decisions_britney_thinking_confused_focusing_unsure_xfactor_bw_black_white:
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Ghoulia said:

I think Ivan Taback’s articles may have been inspired by the morbid conversations he was having with Team con!!  The article about billionaires who died in 2010 as “the year of no estate tax” was chilling.

Is that why there were rumors of a second breakdown in 2010? And the filing in late 2009 referring to Britney as “deceased”?? 
 :decisions_britney_thinking_confused_focusing_unsure_xfactor_bw_black_white:
 

 

Can we dig up sources for these?

I'd like to add these two events to the Chronological Timeline.

Link to comment
Just now, Steel Magnolia said:

None of which was the case with the SJB Revocable Trust.

Right, it wouldn’t apply. Unless you’re part of a hillbilly plan of criminals and you’re looking for a way to make a trustee seem unfit. Then numbers 1-2 would be the most likely to succeed.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, RebellionSparkles said:

Do you think?? What other trusts is Lutfi associated with? Courtney Love is all I can think of.

It sounds like the plot of a Lifetime movie, which is to say that it’s absurd yet grounded in reality. And it would explain why lutfi has lingered for all these years. I think it’s the kind of scenario that Lutfi would be the right guy for  

:demi_lipstick_flirt_red_pink_makeup:

  • Love 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, RebellionSparkles said:

Do you think?? What other trusts is Lutfi associated with? Courtney Love is all I can think of.

 

9 hours ago, Ghoulia said:

It sounds like the plot of a Lifetime movie, which is to say that it’s absurd yet grounded in reality. And it would explain why lutfi has lingered for all these years. I think it’s the kind of scenario that Lutfi would be the right guy for  

:demi_lipstick_flirt_red_pink_makeup:


It's an angle of the story that nobody has thought of.

The New York Times better give us credit for this one. :endit_sunglasses_fab_yas_queen:

Now how can we prove or disprove it? :calculating_confused_meme_blonde_math_woman_thinking_what:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Ghoulia said:

Ohhhhhh. This is the first result for me when I googled “how to prove incapacity trustee California”

https://www.dhtrustlaw.com/how-to-contest-a-trust-in-california/

spacer.png

Is it fair to say that Ivan Taback wrote the terms of the SJB Revocable Trust?

Was he the guy?

I'd also like to know how the revolving door of business managers were able to become trustees of the Love Shack Trust...Is there a standard template that must be filled out to fulfill the legal requirements?

It makes me wonder if Ivan Taback was consulted at any time throughout 2007 in regards to the SJB Revocable Trust? :ponderney_britney_thinking_sunglasses_hmm_wondering_deciding_orange_blue:

Check out the description of the law firm posted above:

"The Law Offices of Daniel A. Hunt is a California law firm specializing in Estate Planning; Trust Administration & Litigation; Probate; and Conservatorships. We've helped over 10,000 clients find peace of mind. We serve clients throughout the greater Sacramento region and the state of California."

  • Estate Planning
  • Trust Administration & Litigation
  • Probate
  • Conservatorships

It looks like these areas of the law are frequently grouped together. :ohdear_britney_glory_dear,_fingers_hand_face_orange_hide_uh_oh:

 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Check out the description of the law firm posted above:

"The Law Offices of Daniel A. Hunt is a California law firm specializing in Estate Planning; Trust Administration & Litigation; Probate; and Conservatorships. We've helped over 10,000 clients find peace of mind. We serve clients throughout the greater Sacramento region and the state of California."

  • Estate Planning
  • Trust Administration & Litigation
  • Probate
  • Conservatorships

It looks like these areas of the law are frequently grouped together. :ohdear_britney_glory_dear,_fingers_hand_face_orange_hide_uh_oh:

Yes, and Ivan Taback wrote articles about the connections between estate planning and probate conservatorships.  

Ivan Taback's current employment bio: https://www.skadden.com/professionals/t/taback-ivan

"Mr. Taback's practice extends to matters involving all aspects of sophisticated planning and wealth preservation for families and individuals. He has extensive experience in the preparation and administration of wills and trusts, and the formation and reorganization of closely held corporations, partnerships and limited liability companies."

2007 interview with Ivan Taback https://ccbjournal.com/articles/ways-reduce-tax-bite

"The concentration of my practice is in the federal estate, gift, and generation skipping transfer tax areas. I counsel clients in connection with their personal estate planning, particularly planning with privately held business interests."

 

 

 

@RebellionSparkles mentioned something about being a fly on the wall listening to Team Con's plotting. 

I think Ivan Taback WAS a fly on the wall, listening in on phone conversations from his office in NYC. He wrote or co-wrote each of these articles. I pulled out a few quotes that seemed relevant.

The Disappearing Billions (Feb 2011) Jan. 1, 2010 marked a day that most trusts-and-estates practitioners never thought they would see and one they had repeatedly told their clients would never come. On that day, the door opened for the heirs of some of the wealthiest individuals in the United States to receive billions of dollars worth of inherited assets entirely estate tax-free.

"Macabre Result?
As a new year commences and researchers begin to collect and analyze data about 2010 deaths in the United States, what will that data show? At the end of 2009, the estate planning community feared that if Congress failed to act, the lack of estate tax in 2010 might incentivize some wealthy Americans to hasten the course of nature to maximize estate tax savings. Or worse, that the family members of the elderly and infirm would make such a decision for them. Under the Act, the fear was lessened (somewhat), as only those with estates over $5 million still had something to lose. In 2009, however, over 8,500 of the approximate 15,000 estates that filed federal estate tax returns were valued at over $5 million. So, assuming a similar rate, how many people may have considered an untimely death to save taxes? It's a macabre thought, surely, but not one unsupported by historical evidence."

Private Life, Public Death (June 2011) Relatives of reclusive millionaire heiress, Huguette Clark, allege improper influence by attorney and accountant

"Undue Influence Alleged
Other than Pierre, Clark’s only regular contacts in the outside world appear to have been her attorney, Wallace “Wally” Bock, and her accountant, Irving Kamsler, both of whom are suspected by certain of Clark's relatives to have exerted undue influence on Clark in her later years. In fact, it has been reported that Clark’s relatives were so suspicious that in September 2010, they filed a petition in the Supreme Court, New York County, for the appointment of a guardian over the property and person of Clark."

A Touchy Dilemma (Feb 2012) What do you do if your client is suffering from diminished capacity? There are no bright line rules an attorney can rely on. I think this article might be throwing some shade at Ingham! At the very least, it highlights how much responsibility Ingham had to protect the interests of his client. 

"Most attorneys lack neurological or psychological training, yet they're expected to analyze the cognitive abilities of their clients."

"Above all, the attorney should speak with a client alone to encourage her to be honest and forthright."

"The attorney must be sure that a client is at risk of substantial physical, financial or other harm before she reveals any information to family members or other third parties."
 


 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Ghoulia said:

Yes, and Ivan Taback wrote articles about the connections between estate planning and probate conservatorships.  

Ivan Taback's current employment bio: https://www.skadden.com/professionals/t/taback-ivan

"Mr. Taback's practice extends to matters involving all aspects of sophisticated planning and wealth preservation for families and individuals. He has extensive experience in the preparation and administration of wills and trusts, and the formation and reorganization of closely held corporations, partnerships and limited liability companies."

2007 interview with Ivan Taback https://ccbjournal.com/articles/ways-reduce-tax-bite

"The concentration of my practice is in the federal estate, gift, and generation skipping transfer tax areas. I counsel clients in connection with their personal estate planning, particularly planning with privately held business interests."

 

 

 

@RebellionSparkles mentioned something about being a fly on the wall listening to Team Con's plotting. 

I think Ivan Taback WAS a fly on the wall, listening in on phone conversations from his office in NYC. He wrote or co-wrote each of these articles. I pulled out a few quotes that seemed relevant.

The Disappearing Billions (Feb 2011) Jan. 1, 2010 marked a day that most trusts-and-estates practitioners never thought they would see and one they had repeatedly told their clients would never come. On that day, the door opened for the heirs of some of the wealthiest individuals in the United States to receive billions of dollars worth of inherited assets entirely estate tax-free.

"Macabre Result?
As a new year commences and researchers begin to collect and analyze data about 2010 deaths in the United States, what will that data show? At the end of 2009, the estate planning community feared that if Congress failed to act, the lack of estate tax in 2010 might incentivize some wealthy Americans to hasten the course of nature to maximize estate tax savings. Or worse, that the family members of the elderly and infirm would make such a decision for them. Under the Act, the fear was lessened (somewhat), as only those with estates over $5 million still had something to lose. In 2009, however, over 8,500 of the approximate 15,000 estates that filed federal estate tax returns were valued at over $5 million. So, assuming a similar rate, how many people may have considered an untimely death to save taxes? It's a macabre thought, surely, but not one unsupported by historical evidence."

Private Life, Public Death (June 2011) Relatives of reclusive millionaire heiress, Huguette Clark, allege improper influence by attorney and accountant

"Undue Influence Alleged
Other than Pierre, Clark’s only regular contacts in the outside world appear to have been her attorney, Wallace “Wally” Bock, and her accountant, Irving Kamsler, both of whom are suspected by certain of Clark's relatives to have exerted undue influence on Clark in her later years. In fact, it has been reported that Clark’s relatives were so suspicious that in September 2010, they filed a petition in the Supreme Court, New York County, for the appointment of a guardian over the property and person of Clark."

A Touchy Dilemma (Feb 2012) What do you do if your client is suffering from diminished capacity? There are no bright line rules an attorney can rely on. I think this article might be throwing some shade at Ingham! At the very least, it highlights how much responsibility Ingham had to protect the interests of his client. 

"Most attorneys lack neurological or psychological training, yet they're expected to analyze the cognitive abilities of their clients."

"Above all, the attorney should speak with a client alone to encourage her to be honest and forthright."

"The attorney must be sure that a client is at risk of substantial physical, financial or other harm before she reveals any information to family members or other third parties."


"Susceptible to undue influence."

This is why I was never able to get on board with "the movement" while it was happening...The Twitter crowd got absolutely stuck on the "dementia" box that was ticked on the paperwork for the temporary conservatorship. Yet once those initial documents were filed, Team CON moved quickly over to "susceptible to undue influence" as being the justification for the conservatorship. They towed that line straight through 2016, when the Lutfi lawsuit ended, and Lou was still trying to paint Lutfi as the boogeyman in August of 2020 when she claimed that Lutfi wrote the emails calling her a "stalker."

There's an entire chapter of the story here that we haven't touched.

Big time. 

:riri_rihanna_take_bow_wink_flirt_hand_white:

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Ghoulia said:

 

@RebellionSparkles mentioned something about being a fly on the wall listening to Team Con's plotting. 

I think Ivan Taback WAS a fly on the wall, listening in on phone conversations from his office in NYC. He wrote or co-wrote each of these articles. I pulled out a few quotes that seemed relevant.


What is your impression having read all of these articles?

Was Ivan Taback horrified by what Team CON was doing and trying to warn the world through his articles? Was he trying to put the brakes on Team CON at all? Or was he actively participating in hollowing out the SJB Revocable Trust by bending the law to suit them?

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Question...

Which lawyer created the new BJS Kids & Family Trust?

Was it Ivan Taback?!

 

On 3/22/2021 at 10:04 AM, Steel Magnolia said:

The document which makes an amendment to the original SJB Revocable Trust, courtesy of LFB.

"Order granting petition to appoint Jamie Lynn as sole trustee of Britney Revocable trust SJB"

https://www.docdroid.net/Hs9V8Fk/jl-sjb-pdf


Nope.

Ivan Taback resigned...And nominated Jamie Lynn as the new Trustee.

The BJS Kids & Family Trust appears to be written by...Andrew Wallet.

  • Love 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:


What is your impression having read all of these articles?

Was Ivan Taback horrified by what Team CON was doing and trying to warn the world through his articles? Was he trying to put the brakes on Team CON at all? Or was he actively participating in hollowing out the SJB Revocable Trust by bending the law to suit them?

Question: Was Ivan Taback horrified by what Team CON was doing and trying to warn the world through his articles? My answer: No. Most of them were published in "Trusts & Estates" which is a niche trade publication.  Not exactly reaching a wide audience! Before reading Taback's articles, I'd never heard of Trusts & Estates magazine, and I had to use ProQuest research database to access it (or pay $250/year for a subscription 🤪).  These articles were written for a very specific audience of fellow attorneys and estate planners.

Was he trying to put the brakes on Team CON at all? My answer: not very effectively, if at all. There is so little of his voice in most of the case docs in BP108870 and BD109096. I suspect he was something of a wet blanket and they only consulted him if absolutely necessary.  Clark Byam acts as a representative for Taback and Bryan in most of the proceedings.

Or was he actively participating in hollowing out the SJB Revocable Trust by bending the law to suit them? My answer: That is a question for someone like @RebellionSparkles who has more financial knowledge.  I don't fully understand everything in the trust docs. For example, the minute order from January 14th, 2010:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ykXmQosZ-ke_fL_f_Oe0lhTSHRh798wT/view?usp=sharing 

"On the same day as Settler executed the trust, but immediately following the execution of the trust, Britney also executed and acknowledged before a notary public an assignment. The assignment states that Britney hereby assigns to herself, as the sole Trustee of the Trust, all of her right, title and interest in and to all of her property of whatsoever kind and character, including without limitation, all of her right, title and interest in her stocks and securities of every kind and character.

As sole Trustee, Britney executed a receipt acknowledging receipt of such property pursuant to the assignment.Petitioners seek an order confirming that the trust owns all rights in the following entities: BBS Entertainment, Inc, Britney Brands, Inc., Britney Films, Ltd, Britney On-Line, Inc., Britney Television, LLC, One More Time Music, Inc, Parklane Productions, LLC, Coastal
Operative, LLC, B and L Music, Inc., Fairy Zone Productions, Inc., Bridgemore Timber, LLC, Vista Peace Productions, LLC and Britney Touring, Inc.

Petitioners allege that Britney intended to transfer all of her property to the Trust. The interests have not been formally transferred to the trust. Mr. Taback, one of the petitioners and Britney's estate planning counsel declares that this was Britney's intent as indicated in the assignment." --> What does this say about Taback?  Is this in Britney's best interest? From his perspective, I think it does make sense for a guardian to have control over the various entities, but I'm not sure.  

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1To6q7HEVesIoszylISYN4EDCb2Igc6M8/view?usp=sharing - Taback through Byam February 2011 request to adjust investment strategies.  This doesn't seem nefarious, but I might be missing something. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Ghoulia said:

Was he trying to put the brakes on Team CON at all? My answer: not very effectively, if at all. There is so little of his voice in most of the case docs in BP108870 and BD109096. I suspect he was something of a wet blanket and they only consulted him if absolutely necessary.  Clark Byam acts as a representative for Taback and Bryan in most of the proceedings.

Wow...I should know this...But what is the difference between the two?

CON of the person vs. CON of the estate?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

We noticed you're using an ad blocker  :ehum_britney_um_unsure_confused_what:

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