Jump to content

OPINION: The conservatorship should only have been temporary


Recommended Posts

I just posted this in another thread, but I think it's worth repeating due to the juicy discussions that will be generated out of it... :dontlike_chewing_gum_zoom_bomt_britney:

I know it's a very unpopular opinion...but...

The conservatorship should only have been temporary.

Right now, Jamie Spears and his team of lawyers are guided by the probate laws of the State of California. They can only maneuver within those laws.

The same goes for Samuel Ingham. He also must work within what is already written in the law books of the State of California.

Both sides may have done things that seem unethical or unfair to Britney (and often are) but they're simply working within the rules that have already been set out. If they stray outside of those rules they can be disbarred and no longer be able to practice law.

If the probate laws were to change to only allow temporary conservatorships in this kind of situation then:

- Jamie would have had a set time limit on his powers.
- Jamie would have had to achieve everything he wanted within those time limits (e.g. six months or one year maximum).
- Ingham would have a set time limit on his powers.
- There would no longer be a financial incentive for either side because there would be no possibility of extensions.

If there was a one-year time limit on Britney's conservatorship, it would have concluded by the end of the Circus promo tour. We would have FTR, but there would have been no Circus Tour...No FF tour...No POM residency.

Britney would have spent from February 2009 onwards:

- Working on gaining unsupervised visitation rights with her kids.
- Working on taking her medication herself without a nurse monitoring her on a daily basis.
- Learning how to manage her day-to-day life (e.g. maintaining her security detail, maintaining an assistant, learning emotional intelligence, etc.).
- Learning how to work with her business manager effectively.

These are all things that should have been taught to her by her parents, but likely weren't, because she spent her entire teen years on the road touring. She's literally had an assistant waking her up every single morning to make it to appointments her entire life. She probably doesn't even know how to manage a full day on her own!

Instead of teaching her life skills, Jamie took it upon himself to start doing all of these things for her. He made himself indispensable so that there would be more and more reason to keep him around forever.

I'm going to suggest that the biggest problem — where the permanent conservatorship took a dark turn — is when Jamie was awarded the "Tour Manager" position in 2011 for the FF tour. It suddenly gave him a multi-million dollar incentive to keep the conservatorship going forever.

Source: https://www.tmz.com/2011/09/27/britney-spears-dad-jamie-spears-larry-rudolph-manager-conservator-tour-manager-seven-figure-deal-femme-fatale-tour/

How was the probate court allowed to do this? It's a serious conflict of interest.

Take away the financial incentive, and a conservatorship is no longer about control — it becomes about safety and security. That's a big difference.

Thoughts?

Come at me. :sipney_britney_starbucks_straw_sipping_drinking_spill:

  • Love 2
  • Like 2
Link to post
  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Wrong, multiple laws have been broken. 1. no judge or lawyer can declare that somebody is incapacitade without an evaluation, both reva and ingham did that, 2. the conservatee must me notified of thei

she should not have been in one, and come on, she knows how to make appointment for ****s sake.. none of the reasons listed award a conservatorship... alcoholics who are homeless and cannot take care

No, Britney should not have been placed under a temporary, much less a permanent Cship.  And it's a strange question about what her parents were supposed to do to help her, considering that her own pa

14 minutes ago, ♔ monalisaney ♚ said:

Wrong, multiple laws have been broken. 1. no judge or lawyer can declare that somebody is incapacitade without an evaluation, both reva and ingham did that, 2. the conservatee must me notified of their hearing, britney's right was waived by reva when she has no authority do to so, therefore also denying her the right to due process, 3. britney has the right to hire her own lawyer, that right was taken away by reva and ingham. I'm pretty sure there is more but these came to the top of my head.

 

Also just to add, britney does not qualify for a conservatorship in the first place so this whole agurment falls apart before it even begins.

 

 

1) If this is true, then let's get them disbarred. 

But I need far more evidence than what I'm seeing written on this forum.

2) If not a conservatorship, what could have been done in February of 2008 to help her:

- receive proper medical attention
- visit her children face-to-face
- allow her better safety and protection from the paparazzi, stalkers, and rabid fans (she had no security detail)

What else was available under the law that was not used?

Link to post
24 minutes ago, ♔ monalisaney ♚ said:

Wrong, multiple laws have been broken. 1. no judge or lawyer can declare that somebody is incapacitade without an evaluation, both reva and ingham did that, 2. the conservatee must me notified of their hearing, britney's right was waived by reva when she has no authority do to so, therefore also denying her the right to due process, 3. britney has the right to hire her own lawyer, that right was taken away by reva and ingham. I'm pretty sure there is more but these came to the top of my head.

 

Also just to add, britney does not qualify for a conservatorship in the first place so this whole agurment falls apart before it even begins.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

 

1) If this is true, then let's get them disbarred. 

I need far more evidence than what I'm seeing written on this forum.

2) If not a conservatorship, what could have been done in February of 2008 to help her:

- receive proper medical attention
- visit her children face-to-face
- allow her better safety and protection from the paparazzi, stalkers, and rabid fans (she had no security detail)

What else was available under the law that was not used?

@Steel Magnolia is right, also no idea pertaining to the evaluation thing (I'm pretty sure they got an evaluation, it was just done by a doctor whom wasn't Britney's after Britney's decline) but sure these other things you mentioned are "rights" but they (at least I def know the legal representation choice, not sure about the other but it probably can be too) can be legally waived if one is a conservatee. Is it morally right? No. But in the eyes of the law, the "right" thing happened. 

Link to post

Neglect

https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/neglect/

Abuse

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/abuse

 Conservatorship Abuse

https://www.robinsonandhenry.com/colorado/probate/conservator-abusing-power/

The Surprise Witness on IG really explains a lot so wonderfully, and her humor is great.

But yes they broke the law by denying Ms Spears Due Process for example. But there are so many things wrong with this case. Their documentation is laughable and so unprofessional yet Brit pays thousands and top dollar prices. 
 

 

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


How does this apply when no crime has been committed?

Please expand on how this would apply under the probate laws of California so we can all understand what you mean.

Hahahahahaha Denying an American Citizen of Due Process is the crime. 

  • Love 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, LordofTheMoodRing said:

Hahahahahaha Denying an American Citizen of Due Process is the crime. 


The link you posted explained how due process is different under American laws than it is in other countries.

I'm not American...You're going to have to explain how this applies specifically under the California probate laws.

Link to post

For those of you posting, "It never should have happened."

Why can't you explain to me how her loved ones could have helped her?

You seem to have lots of energy to criticize, yet don't ever seem to come up with any suggestions on how she could have been helped in February of 2009. :oprah_well_there_you_have_it_proof_see_hand:

  • Love 1
Link to post
11 minutes ago, LordofTheMoodRing said:

Neglect

https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/neglect/

Abuse

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/abuse

 Conservatorship Abuse

https://www.robinsonandhenry.com/colorado/probate/conservator-abusing-power/

The Surprise Witness on IG really explains a lot so wonderfully, and her humor is great.

But yes they broke the law by denying Ms Spears Due Process for example. But there are so many things wrong with this case. Their documentation is laughable and so unprofessional yet Brit pays thousands and top dollar prices. 
 

Another corruption example: Jamie Lynne the trustee  moved 600m to an off shore before getting court permission, breaking the law. But Ill let you do the research this time.

If y’all can find out how many times Britney wore a dress or what date and time she released a track I am confident in your abilities to look up laws, and rights that apply to yourselves and your loved ones 💕😉☘️

 


If the conservatorship had a time limit...there would be no $600-million to steal. 

If the conservatorship was temporary...Britney would be a dance teacher right now, living off of what remained in her trust account back in February of 2009. 

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:


The link you posted explained how due process is different under American laws than it is in other countries.

I'm not American...You're going to have to explain how this applies specifically under the California probate laws.

The California Constitution, Article I, Section 7, provides: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law

  • Love 2
Link to post
Just now, LordofTheMoodRing said:

The California Constitution, Article I, Section 7, provides: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law


:outwithit_go_on_wave_britney_femme_fatale_ff_documentary:

You're going to have to expand on that...It's awfully vague.

Link to post
Just now, Steel Magnolia said:


If the conservatorship had a time limit...there would be no $600-million to steal. 

If the conservatorship was temporary...Britney would be a dance teacher right now, living off of what remained in her trust account back in February of 2009. 

You can not legally strip people of their rights then just give them back. It is the last resort option for dying people. It is not like being punished or going to jail, you are denying a human of what our country has determined God Given Rights

  • Like 1
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