Court documents: Jamie Spears accounts what happened after Britney was hospitalized in 2008.

[Saoru]

38 minutes ago, ICouldntThinkOfOne said:

, they would have allowed her to maintain counsel, attend court, prove herself and not claim she had dementia.

I've made this point a few times but feel the need to make it again. The dementia claim may be very real. Dementia is a misunderstood term. Dementia is not an illness. Dementia is a symptom. Dementia as a symptom has many different causes and can be temporary. 

Dementia is not Alzheimer's disease. 

https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/what-dementia-symptoms-types-and-diagnosis

 

Other conditions that cause dementia-like symptoms can be halted or even reversed with treatment. For example, normal pressure hydrocephalus, an abnormal buildup of cerebrospinal fluid in the brain, often resolves with treatment.

In addition, certain medical conditions can cause serious memory problems that resemble dementia. These problems should go away once the conditions are treated. These conditions include:

Side effects of certain medicines
Emotional problems, such as stress, anxiety, or depression
Certain vitamin deficiencies
Drinking too much alcohol
Blood clots, tumors, or infections in the brain
Delirium
Head injury, such as a concussion from a fall or accident
Thyroid, kidney, or liver problems

[ICouldntThinkOfOne]

3 minutes ago, Saoru said:

I've made this point a few times but feel the need to make it again. The dementia claim may be very real. Dementia is a misunderstood term. Dementia is not an illness. Dementia is a symptom. Dementia as a symptom has many different causes and can be temporary. 

Dementia is not Alzheimer's disease. 

https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/what-dementia-symptoms-types-and-diagnosis

 

Other conditions that cause dementia-like symptoms can be halted or even reversed with treatment. For example, normal pressure hydrocephalus, an abnormal buildup of cerebrospinal fluid in the brain, often resolves with treatment.

In addition, certain medical conditions can cause serious memory problems that resemble dementia. These problems should go away once the conditions are treated. These conditions include:

Side effects of certain medicines
Emotional problems, such as stress, anxiety, or depression
Certain vitamin deficiencies
Drinking too much alcohol
Blood clots, tumors, or infections in the brain
Delirium
Head injury, such as a concussion from a fall or accident
Thyroid, kidney, or liver problems

 

No doctor before the conservatorship made an official diagnosis other than postnatal depression, but suddenly, as the papers are being filled, she has dementia and then days later shes rehearsing and filming a cameo.

 

The timeline doesnt add up.

[Steel Magnolia]

56 minutes ago, ICouldntThinkOfOne said:

A conservatorship is a last case scenario that britney never needed and was filed on fraudulent grounds, while removing Britney's core constituental rights.

If Britney was hiring Lawyers recognised as the best in the nation, and was making public statements about "never wanting to be a prisoner", "the people around me arent listening" etc. Then it was never welcomed by Britney and clearly no one else in Britneys family understood what a conservatorship was.

How can a situation be welcomed and necessary if it was planned up to a year in advanced? That's called setting someone up. If it was truly to help her, they would have allowed her to maintain counsel, attend court, prove herself and not claim she had dementia.

 

In case you're not reading between the lines...

I'm agreeing with you. 

[DuranDuran]

17 minutes ago, Saoru said:

I've made this point a few times but feel the need to make it again. The dementia claim may be very real. Dementia is a misunderstood term. Dementia is not an illness. Dementia is a symptom. Dementia as a symptom has many different causes and can be temporary. 

The thing is the dementia claim was not backed up by anything. They just needed her case to go under probate Cship with this claim.

There was no official medical diagnosis at that time. In fact, she was placed under Cship and was even denied the right to hire her own lawyer before there was an official medical report  And worth noticing that two doctors did not want to give her a diagnosis that could justify Cship, but team Con found a third doctor who made up the diagnosis in literally 2 days.

[Steel Magnolia]

13 minutes ago, Saoru said:

I've made this point a few times but feel the need to make it again. The dementia claim may be very real. Dementia is a misunderstood term. Dementia is not an illness. Dementia is a symptom. Dementia as a symptom has many different causes and can be temporary. 

Dementia is not Alzheimer's disease. 

https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/what-dementia-symptoms-types-and-diagnosis

 

Other conditions that cause dementia-like symptoms can be halted or even reversed with treatment. For example, normal pressure hydrocephalus, an abnormal buildup of cerebrospinal fluid in the brain, often resolves with treatment.

In addition, certain medical conditions can cause serious memory problems that resemble dementia. These problems should go away once the conditions are treated. These conditions include:

Side effects of certain medicines
Emotional problems, such as stress, anxiety, or depression
Certain vitamin deficiencies
Drinking too much alcohol
Blood clots, tumors, or infections in the brain
Delirium
Head injury, such as a concussion from a fall or accident
Thyroid, kidney, or liver problems

 

THANK YOU!

It is absolutely reasonable that Britney was suffering from ****-induced dementia at the time that Samual Ingham visited her in her hospital room. She'd gone for several weeks with having someone else slip crushed anti-psychotics in her food, which was mixing with the other prescription meds she'd been taking. 

Short-term dementia and being "susceptible to undue influence" are both conditions that should not have affected her capacity to hire her own lawyer...However, depending on when Ingham visited her, the dementia very well could have presented itself in front of him.

That being said...

I do believe her family was attempting to set her up in a conservatorship up to a year in advance. Her trip to rehab in February 2007 set the legal foundations for that.

However...

The law should not have allowed for a permanent conservatorship.

Was a temporary conservatorship reasonable in this specific situation? Yes.

Was a permanent conservatorship reasonable in this specific situation? No. And it should not have been legally possible for them to even attempt it.

[Steel Magnolia]

4 hours ago, Goten21 said:

+1

 

the people who “already knew” aren’t shocked because they still don’t realize everyone spun the story against her. Literally everyone

I've been following this story since she filed for divorce from Kevin Federline and Larry Rudolph, of all people, suddenly showed up at her side. 

Believe me, I've know they spun the story against her...I've been watching them do it consistently since November of 2006.

I've been one of the sole people on this forum to consistently speak out about the conservatorship since 2009. Can you claim that? (Probably not.) 

But I refuse to see this situation in black and white terms...That doesn't help Britney to gain her freedom any faster. 

The reality is that we're working with outdated probate laws, a mental illness or addiction of some type, and a highly dysfunctional family...Helping Britney to gain her freedom has to take all of that into account. Human beings are messy, and that's just the reality of life. 

 

[Steel Magnolia]

4 hours ago, kleinbritney said:

"Britney Spears' blood and urine test, taken during her 72-hour stay at Cedars Sinai Clinic in Los Angeles, is negative. There are no indications of illegal ***** or alcohol, they say. The star was therefore officially called "clean". An unspecified source said, "The test shows she is clean. The woman is as clean as anyone can be."

https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article1530995/Popstar-Britney-Spears-clean-aber-nackt.html

The facts speak against it. Doctors always had the option of forcibly taking her to a mental hospital for long periods of time. Why did that never happen? Because there was no reason. It's as simple as that. Britney was a wreckage because she wasn't allowed to see the children. She had a normal nervous breakdown. She probably threatened to kill herself. Out of sheer desperation. Guardianship was planned. Everything has been tried to regain control of Britney. Her family has always been part of Britney's career. But not from 2006 to 2008. Britney did what she wanted. Britney was placed under guardianship for dementia. Not because she had dementia but because there was no other legal possibility to place her under guardianship. All the stories from that time were inflated by the media and for the most part never corresponded to the truth. Besides, it doesn't matter how long I've been registered here. I have been involved with Britney's life for over 30 years. How old were you in 2008 I was almost 40 years old with a lot of life experience. How could you let an allegedly terminally ill woman go to dance training just 9 days after her forced admission? Please explain that to me.Please turn on your logical mind. And please read serious press articles. With US Weekly, Radar online, Tmz ... Germans wipe their butts but they don't read. There is no serious journalism there, only headlines are produced there.

 

 

 

"There are no indications of illegal ***** or alcohol..."

No, there wasn't.

Because it was her own prescription medication that Lutfi was crushing and putting in her food.

Why does everyone keep dropping Sam Lutfi out of the story, as if he never existed? 

How bizarre.

[Steel Magnolia]

39 minutes ago, ICouldntThinkOfOne said:

No doctor before the conservatorship made an official diagnosis other than postnatal depression, but suddenly, as the papers are being filled, she has dementia and then days later shes rehearsing and filming a cameo.

 

The timeline doesnt add up.

 

Here's where all of the new fans who have recently jumped on the bandwagon keep leading everyone astray...

The "dementia" claim was made once on a box that was checked on the initial form for the temporary conservatorship. After that initial document, the dementia claim was never used again.

From then on out, once the medical evaluation came back, it was "susceptible to undue influence," meaning that Britney allows other people to take advantage of her.

In January of 2009, she accepted a cell phone from a man who only one year earlier admitted to drugging her. He also talked her into a multi-million dollar management contract...She attempted to hire a lawyer who was working closely with the man who had been drugging her and who had talked her into the contract.

Her accepting that cell phone just further proved to the judge, her doctors, Ingham, and her conservators, that she was still susceptible to undue influence. She has had to battle her way out of that self-created situation ever since.

[Steel Magnolia]

The same goes for conservatorships.

[DuranDuran]

1 hour ago, Steel Magnolia said:

From then on out, once the medical evaluation came back, it was "susceptible to undue influence," meaning that Britney allows other people to take advantage of her.

Britney has two types of Cship. And "susceptible to undue influence" is ticked only for Cship of estate. While in the Cship of a person, it's "unable to properly provide for her personal needs for physical health, food, clothing or shelter".

I am interested in your opinion, why do you think Sam does not try to terminate the Cship of a person, what is the strategy?  You know how I feel about Ingham, I only have negative thoughts about him, in my opinion, everything that he does now and did before, all this is not in Britney's best interests and never was.

btw, no shade, just some info, Lawyer_ops from Britney Law Army expressed the opinion that only Cship of estate is advantageous to leave for now... but Cship of a person should/can be terminated instead of making it permanent.

[MonaLisa613]

21 hours ago, Arianna said:

Why aren’t we friends?! Right by PHL

Cool, nice to know there’s another fan, I sometimes feel like I’m alone, lol

[officialmaurice]

I’m sorry but those Super Bowl guests would’ve had to eat some cheese and crackers! But then again, I actually love my daughter so... *exits*

[Goten21]

18 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

I'll one up you here. 

I think the conservatorship was planned a full year in advance...and that they railroaded her into rehab to set the foundation for it. 

But I've stuck to the same story since 2008.

A temporary conservatorship was welcomed and necessary in this particular situation...but a permanent conservatorship for someone Britney's age in her situation should not be legal.

Hey I’m on mobile, you quoted me in another comment about how you know about the situation etc and imo a temporary conservatorship doesn’t make sense. It’s like appointing a temporary dictator. It’s a concept that’ll never work. 

I’m not sure if the comment you quoted was only about you tbh but either way for you specifically this is what I disagree about. You seem very knowledgable but I 100% disagree she needed anything like a conservatorship. She got forced into rehab, idk how you can know that and still think a temporary conservatorship was welcome tbh

[Steel Magnolia]

58 minutes ago, Goten21 said:

Hey I’m on mobile, you quoted me in another comment about how you know about the situation etc and imo a temporary conservatorship doesn’t make sense. It’s like appointing a temporary dictator. It’s a concept that’ll never work. 

I’m not sure if the comment you quoted was only about you tbh but either way for you specifically this is what I disagree about. You seem very knowledgable but I 100% disagree she needed anything like a conservatorship. She got forced into rehab, idk how you can know that and still think a temporary conservatorship was welcome tbh

The purpose of a temporary conservatorship  — had it been with a conservator who had her best interests at heart — could have been to achieve everything Jamie had achieved by October of 2008.

And then it would be DONE. 

Had Jamie gone this route, he could have:

- separated her from Sam Lutfi so he could no longer **** her (She's not a hard core **** user like Courtney Love...He could have killed her!)
- stabilized her medications
- hired proper security (She had none! That alone was dangerous for a celebrity of her stature.)
- connected her with her children (She had zero visitation rights!)
- helped settle her multiple lawsuits (e.g. the WEG lawsuit)

And most importantly, he could have set her up with a team of life coaches, etc. and then passed the responsibility over to them instead of taking it all on himself.

Basically, everything Jamie did within the first ten months was in her best interest. Even up to the end of the Circus Tour was helpful — she would not have been able to tour for several years if she was not under the conservatorship. (That's why the entire fanbase welcomed the temporary conservatorship! They could visibly see the positive changes in her within weeks...and then they suddenly had a huge new era to celebrate.)

I believe she was told all along that this was the plan...It was never supposed to be a "hybrid business model." It was meant to stabilize her, and nothing more.

The problem is that:

1) Jamie was power hungry.
2) The law allowed them to make it permanent.

The probate laws need to change. And the faster they change, the quicker Britney is going to be out of this mess.

[LordofTheMoodRing]

This is horrifying!!!  There were fans from the get go who were against it.  I am, always was, and will be. I stopped *****ing online when Jordan and other fans were threatened.  End of the Circus tour you could tell something happened a lot of fans questioned but they went after people. So we became crazy Britney fans lol i could not imagined it was like this though. You do not help someone by stripping their rights. Period!  These folks need our help.  She was put in this illegally so it’s invalid, all people involved should be tried and prosecuted for abuse and neglect. He is manipulating her. Makes me wanna throw up. If Brit lost custody she could have gotten help and eventually more custody back. Like a lot of single mothers and fathers in US experience. She knew he was lying. 
 

cute that a ******* superbowl catering is more of a commitment than the daughter who so urgently needs help that you just hospitalized and you are already complaining she calls too much.  Not she couldn’t remember... she is calling to be freed from a forced hold you put on her.

[Goten21]

15 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

The purpose of a temporary conservatorship  — had it been with a conservator who had her best interests at heart — could have been to achieve everything Jamie had achieved by October of 2008.

And then it would be DONE. 

Had Jamie gone this route, he could have:

- separated her from Sam Lutfi so he could no longer **** her (She's not a hard core **** user like Courtney Love...He could have killed her!)
- stabilized her medications
- hired proper security (She had none! That alone was dangerous for a celebrity of her stature.)
- connected her with her children (She had zero visitation rights!)
- helped settle her multiple lawsuits (e.g. the WEG lawsuit)

And most importantly, he could have set her up with a team of life coaches, etc. and then passed the responsibility over to them instead of taking it all on himself.

Basically, everything Jamie did within the first ten months was in her best interest. Even up to the end of the Circus Tour was helpful — she would not have been able to tour for several years if she was not under the conservatorship. (That's why the entire fanbase welcomed the temporary conservatorship! They could visibly see the positive changes in her within weeks...and then they suddenly had a huge new era to celebrate.)

I believe she was told all along that this was the plan...It was never supposed to be a "hybrid business model." It was meant to stabilize her, and nothing more.

The problem is that:

1) Jamie was power hungry.
2) The law allowed them to make it permanent.

The probate laws need to change. And the faster they change, the quicker Britney is going to be out of this mess.

But you kinda completely ignored my point about how it's like assigning a country a "temporary" dictator. It just doesn't work like that.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, DuranDuran said:

Britney has two types of Cship. And "susceptible to undue influence" is ticked only for Cship of estate. While in the Cship of a person, it's "unable to properly provide for her personal needs for physical health, food, clothing or shelter".

I am interested in your opinion, why do you think Sam does not try to terminate the Cship of a person, what is the strategy?  You know how I feel about Ingham, I only have negative thoughts about him, in my opinion, everything that he does now and did before, all this is not in Britney's best interests and never was.

btw, no shade, just some info, Lawyer_ops from Britney Law Army expressed the opinion that only Cship of estate is advantageous to leave for now... but Cship of a person should/can be terminated instead of making it permanent.

 

[Steel Magnolia]

2 hours ago, Goten21 said:

But you kinda completely ignored my point about how it's like assigning a country a "temporary" dictator. It just doesn't work like that.

How so?

[kgid]

16 hours ago, kleinbritney said:

"Britney Spears' blood and urine test, taken during her 72-hour stay at Cedars Sinai Clinic in Los Angeles, is negative. There are no indications of illegal ***** or alcohol, they say. The star was therefore officially called "clean". An unspecified source said, "The test shows she is clean. The woman is as clean as anyone can be."

https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article1530995/Popstar-Britney-Spears-clean-aber-nackt.html

The facts speak against it. Doctors always had the option of forcibly taking her to a mental hospital for long periods of time. Why did that never happen? Because there was no reason. It's as simple as that. Britney was a wreckage because she wasn't allowed to see the children. She had a normal nervous breakdown. She probably threatened to kill herself. Out of sheer desperation. Guardianship was planned. Everything has been tried to regain control of Britney. Her family has always been part of Britney's career. But not from 2006 to 2008. Britney did what she wanted. Britney was placed under guardianship for dementia. Not because she had dementia but because there was no other legal possibility to place her under guardianship. All the stories from that time were inflated by the media and for the most part never corresponded to the truth. Besides, it doesn't matter how long I've been registered here. I have been involved with Britney's life for over 30 years. How old were you in 2008 I was almost 40 years old with a lot of life experience. How could you let an allegedly terminally ill woman go to dance training just 9 days after her forced admission? Please explain that to me.Please turn on your logical mind. And please read serious press articles. With US Weekly, Radar online, Tmz ... Germans wipe their butts but they don't read. There is no serious journalism there, only headlines are produced there.

 

 

 

I'm sure you said... something... But I just can't be bothered to read it.  

I'll just go ahead and say, you're right.  Not because you are, mind you.  Because I'm over it.  

 

[thisforumwhacknow]

On 3/27/2021 at 1:07 PM, RedBloodedWoman said:

The paparazzi had been notified before it all happened it was a major set up by Lou & Jamie that unfortunately worked and Britney has suffered tremendously because of it. She didn’t need to be in that damn psych ward nor be medicated for over a decade when she has zero mental health diagnosis. Of course Britney’s psychiatrist died says before his report on Britney was due... it’s a huge ****ed up situation schemed by truly evil people. 

UGH