Jump to content

OPINION: The conservatorship should only have been temporary


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

 


How do you do that without the force of the law behind you?

They tried rehab in February of 2007. Her mom tried re-connecting with her all throughout 2007.

Absolutely nothing worked.

If nothing worked then that’s fine...

Britney was a grown woman doing whatever she wanted 

she committed no crimes and people do way worse than her aren’t in conservatorships

i mean Bill Cosby only went to jail for 3 years after ***ually abusing over a dozen women 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Just now, nthenwkiss said:

because they hear her but no one really listened they all wanted her to get back to work to get back to being the famous blonde girl that was on top of the world. maybe thats not what she wanted. she's a smart person, i think they didn't try hard enough or didn't do it right.

a conservatorship should only be used if you are legit insane, like you forget that you have to poo and you pee on yourself and you forget to eat and lose weight because you do; you forget to take medication, you refuse to shower, you become a thread to you and others... none of that is britney - she was just heavily misunderstood.


If the conservatorship was only temporary they wouldn't have been able to force her back to work.

It was the permanent conservatorship that allowed that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, ♔ monalisaney ♚ said:

Conservatorship attorny Lisa MacCarly disagrees strongly. Go to her social media, she is constantly saying that reva goetz had no standing in denying britney her rights. I think Lisa knows about consevatorship law


This is something we can work with.

More of this, please!

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Hooked-On-Knee said:

I'm pretty sure Lisa also knows that any person deemed incapacitated by the eyes of the law and subsequently put under conservatorship is appointed a court-appointed attorney. This is why there are bills trying to guarantee conservatees to be able to choose their own legal representation. 

But the whole point is that they had no grounds to put her in the conservatorship. They waived her rights before she was conserved. She couldn't go the the firts hearing that was to put her in a conservatorship because they waived her right. You're not getting it.

  • Love 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Britman512 said:

If nothing worked then that’s fine...

Britney was a grown woman doing whatever she wanted 

she committed no crimes and people do way worse than her aren’t in conservatorships

i mean Bill Cosby only went to jail for 3 years after ***ually abusing over a dozen women 


So you were okay with Sam Lutfi drugging her?

And it was okay with you that she was so out of it that she was being photographed by paparazzi with blood stains all over her underwear because she wasn't even aware that she had her own period?

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, ♔ monalisaney ♚ said:

But the whole point is that they had no grounds to put her in the conservatorship. They waived her rights before she was conserved. She couldn't go the the firts hearing that was to put her in a conservatorship because they waived her right. You're not getting it.

I'm looking more into it, do you have a source for the waiving on that right in particular? Or just Lisa MacCarly's page.

Some rights denied of would have been "okay" for it happen because she was already under conservatorship, from what I am thinking you are trying to say is that, Lisa claims she wasn't evaluated right away and thus the conservatorship should be "void" and that itself is a violation? 

Link to comment

C-ships are way too extreme, back then I thought It was the best decision initially, but now It never seemed right from the very beginning.

Every person needs to have the right of choice, no matter how bad the situation is. Britney didn't have that...

If she was so out of control (allegedly) they could try other options.

And I don't think any of her family members tried to help, not even today. Britney cut they all of her life and I think that fact was crucial for the c-ship plan "allegedly" Lou planned with Jamie. 

The c-ship should not exist for people like Britney.

  • Love 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Just now, Hooked-On-Knee said:

I'm looking more into it, do you have a source for the waiving on that right in particular? Or just Lisa MacCarly's page.

Some rights denied of would have been "okay" for it happen because she was already under conservatorship, from what I am thinking you are trying to say is that, she wasn't evaluated right away and thus the conservatorship should be "void"? 

What I'm saying is that there was an initial hearing that was meant to be the one to determine wether there would have a conservatorship or not. It is the persons right (Britney's) to be notified of the hearing 5(?) days in advance. This right was waived by reva goetz per Jamie's request, so she wasn't even aware of this hearing. Good pages with these documents are on instagram such as lawyersforbritney (but stick to the documents and don't fall for the propaganda) but you will have to look through it all to find it. There is also a docuseries on youtube by deepdive and they go into detail on how all of this went down and they show the docs, but it is long. For the law if you google it you can probably find it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:


If the conservatorship was only temporary they wouldn't have been able to force her back to work.

It was the permanent conservatorship that allowed that.

that's just sick, because her parents do not own her!!! - would it be ok if your mom sew your mouth because you were getting fat? stripping someone of their basic rights its just plainly wrong.!!! you need to help people not force them. nothing by the force works.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, nthenwkiss said:

that's just sick, because her parents do not own her!!! - would it be ok if your mom sew your mouth because you were getting fat? stripping someone of their basic rights its just plainly wrong.!!! you need to help people not force them. nothing by the force works.

I think you read my post wrong.

I said that a temporary conservatorship would not be able to force her to work.

A temporary conservatorship would focus on her health and safety, and nothing more.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Buffybot said:

C-ships are way too extreme, back then I thought It was the best decision initially, but now It never seemed right from the very beginning.

Every person needs to have the right of choice, no matter how bad the situation is. Britney didn't have that...

If she was so out of control (allegedly) they could try other options.

And I don't think any of her family members tried to help, not even today. Britney cut they all of her life and I think that fact was crucial for the c-ship plan "allegedly" Lou planned with Jamie. 

The c-ship should not exist for people like Britney.


What are the other options?

I keep seeing people mention "other options" but have never seen anyone explain what those other options may have been.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, ♔ monalisaney ♚ said:

What I'm saying is that there was an initial hearing that was meant to be the one to determine wether there would have a conservatorship or not. It is the persons right (Britney's) to be notified of the hearing 5(?) days in advance. This right was waived by reva goetz per Jamie's request, so she wasn't even aware of this hearing. Good pages with these documents are on instagram such as lawyersforbritney (but stick to the documents and don't fall for the propaganda) but you will have to look through it all to find it. There is also a docuseries on youtube by deepdive and they go into detail on how all of this went down and they show the docs, but it is long. For the law if you google it you can probably find it.

The 5 day notice if hearing can be waived, according to sections I've read up on pertaining to laws on temporary conservatorships, but only if "good cause" is provided. 

Thank you for the sources, I'll look into them. I'm wondering what the "good cause" provided in this case was so hopefully I'll be able to find an answer

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Tbh I do agree to an extent. Something had to be done to help Britney back then before things could have got worse. So many people thought she would have died had no one stepped in.

However, it's very suspicious that a lot of other US celebs who have had mental health issues have never been placed in a cship.... and let's be honest, it shouldn't have gone on THIS long, it's exploiting Britney at this point. 

  • Love 4
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:


What are the other options?

I keep seeing people mention "other options" but have never seen anyone explain what those other options may have been.

Well... How many celebrities do you see with severe problems with *****, alchool? How many do we know suffering with mental illness?

How many of them are trapped in c-ships?

We can say Britney's case is unique, but she was able to work weeks after the c-ship started. If she was that bad, how that would have happened?

If Britney needed rehab or a time in a facility, that's "ok". But removing her rights quickly, treating her like a child and putting her to work like nothing happened... Ugh, not such a protective daddy thing to do.

You can't help a person simply controlling her like a doll.

  • Love 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Hooked-On-Knee said:

The 5 day notice if hearing can be waived, according to sections I've read up on pertaining to laws on temporary conservatorships, but only if "good cause" is provided. 

Thank you for the sources, I'll look into them. I'm wondering what the "good cause" provided in this case was so hopefully I'll be able to find an answer

Found the doc, they make a bunch of claims without any actual backup https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ns7lGu4ODYWx-G27mVpOnmqNxxhWtjwN/view. They didn't have real reason (being 5150'd is not grounds if there is no diagnosis). Here is a timeline https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vTG3tRPhVjPfcwmYNudft9VoRTw8u9LZAfWMfneRiM8Tv2l2jAY9tJc8zFgA1ESFufSd132Pqa9oBWz/pub. Jamie only tried to get a capacity declaration after the conservatorship was put in place and failed (the first time). The declaration came on the 6 of february (dementia lol), the conservatorship was placed on the 31st of january. No due process.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:


What are the other options?

I keep seeing people mention "other options" but have never seen anyone explain what those other options may have been.

I believe people are refering to "Supported Decision Making". I'm not familiar with the process itself because I'm not american, but I remember a few people bringing it up as an alternative to the conservatorship.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/faq_about_supported_decision_making.pdf

  • Love 1
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