Jump to content

New BreatheHeavy live stream TODAY at 3:30 pm PT

One-click subscribe to our YouTube channel!

why is everyone suddenly acting like removing jaime is the problem?


Recommended Posts

it's the whole thing that has got to go. - i just heard her testimony for like the 3rd time (its kinda hard to listen to it) and this girl needs total and absolute freedom. the conservatorship wasn't even needed in the first place.

i think we should all listen to her testimony again - as all i see is team con talking about things that do not matter. this is like those instagram questions... no one is asking those questions.

we don't care for bessemer, we don't care for jodi - we don't care for jaime, we don't really care for a new care program - WTF? we need the conservatorship to just END! it's been 13 years too long.

"i shouldn't even be in a room with anyone that offends me by trying to question my capacity of intelligence" - IVE DONE MORE THAN ENOUGH.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

This is all true. I think most people wish Judge Penny can just wave a wand and call an end to it all… but it doesn’t work that way.

Unless the California Supreme Court or some higher legal body intervenes to somehow dissolve the conservatorship (if that’s even possible) or open criminal proceedings against officers/agents of the conservatorship, then we’re seemingly at the mercy of the laws and court. No one other than Team Con likes that…

Yes, we all want the conservatorship to end and for Britney to be free. But what realistically must happen legally for it to end? And what’s the timeline to make that happen?

Idk if someone like @Steel Magnolia, who is a lawyer I believe, can explain this better or has a more informed perspective…

  • Like 2
Link to comment
10 hours ago, SlayOut said:

This is all true. I think most people wish Judge Penny can just wave a wand and call an end to it all… but it doesn’t work that way.

Unless the California Supreme Court or some higher legal body intervenes to somehow dissolve the conservatorship (if that’s even possible) or open criminal proceedings against officers/agents of the conservatorship, then we’re seemingly at the mercy of the laws and court. No one other than Team Con likes that…

Yes, we all want the conservatorship to end and for Britney to be free. But what realistically must happen legally for it to end? And what’s the timeline to make that happen?

Idk if someone like @Steel Magnolia, who is a lawyer I believe, can explain this better or has a more informed perspective…


I'm not sure if I can help here...I'm only a legal researcher, so I'm not familiar with the California probate laws. That area of the law is not my specialty.

However, I do know that the legal system is a process...Britney can't snap her fingers and make this all go away. She has to work within the California probate laws as they are currently written...Those laws could change in the future, but it doesn't matter. She's subjected to the laws that are on the books in this moment.

One thing interesting about her testimony...

"i shouldn't even be in a room with anyone that offends me by trying to question my capacity of intelligence" - IVE DONE MORE THAN ENOUGH.

That's not what they're evaluating her for...It's not about her intelligence. That's not what's at question here.

It's also not about the volume of work she's put in...That's not what's at question here, either.

They're likely evaluating her to determine if she's still "susceptible to undue influence." 

If the medical team evaluating her feels that she may still fall prey to either:

a) someone who could steal her money (much like my 80 year old dad who got talked into giving his credit card number to an online dating site, but it wasn't even a dating site) or,

b) someone who is going to offer her drugs or alcohol and subsequently cause her mental health to crumble, 

...then she's not going to pass her evaluations.

As the law is written, it is all up to Britney to prove to the court that the reason she was put in the conservatorship is no longer a reason to keep her in it. The "burden of proof" is all on her.

I believe a judge can waive that and Britney can file to terminate without the evaluation, but then the law says that any family member can contest the termination (e.g. Jamie, Bryan, etc.)

However...

That's just my understanding...

A lawyer specifically versed in the California probate code is the best person to explain this. 

  • Love 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment

Exactly. they are just doing the best they can to distract, manipulate the public by making it seem like removing jamie and placing a different conservator is a good thing.

Well no it's not. it would just be the same abusive system with a different name. Britney deserves and wants full freedom. There is no excuse for this. All of this must end now!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • Super Mods

tbh, the idea isn't much different than what we've been expecting since last year. 

Last year when we started seeing Ingham doing all those moves (that at the time seemed promising) we all wondered why he wasn't terminating it, and we all concluded that the strategy was to appoint a new co-conservator, then remove Jamie, and then once he was out of the picture, and things were a bit more stable in the sense of what was gonna be Britney's plan to manage both her personal and financial affairs, then file for termination (though Jamie could still contest in this context as a relative or interested party) 

So yeah, Britney and all of us want it to end altogether, but if the process doesn't allow it to happen magically, then the CLOSEST best thing that can happen is at least for Jamie to be removed. 

The "professional" lawyers involved, Ingham, Jodi, etc, could still hold on to the conservatorship, that's a possibility, but I think once they've been exposed like this, and considering they literally live off conservatorships, they rather play nice and finish this peacefully before there are further investigations, whereas Jamie seems to be completely out of his mind and will do anything to keep the conservatorship in place as long as he has the power. 

  • Like 3

Únete a Exhale Latino   ///   Vote at Exhale's Top 20 Week 6 here

Link to comment

@Steel Magnolia True. As I mentioned in another thread, Jamie recently said it is up to the court to decide whether or not the c-ship ends, but he did check that "susceptible to fraud or undue influence" box. Why was that? What could Britney possibly have said or done for Jamie and whoever else (incl. lawyers, doctors and therapists) to think she is so susceptible? Jamie did reveal years ago that Britney was caught trying to contact Sam Lutfi circa 2009. You remember that story... If I recall correctly, Sam Lutfi's sister gave Britney a phone so Brit would contact Sam. Sam is definitely seen as "undue influence" and even a "fraudster," but that was over ten years ago. And wasn't it Britney's idea to appoint Bessemer Trust as financial conservator? Doesn't seem like somebody that is so out of touch w/ financial reality and responsibility. Britney certainly wasn't pleased when Jamie told her her punitive rehab stay (for not doing Vegas again just after wrapping Piece of Me) would cost her $60,000 per month... Obviously, she's aware of the value of money.

And this leads us to this... The biggest irony is that her very handlers (and ex-husband) have been dilapidating her money by the millions! "Legally" stealing from her, and there are rumours of siphoning, etc. That's no different than Fernando Flores falsely accusing her of s** assault and other things, and then "legally" receiving a pay-off.

This situation, unless a superior legal body intervenes, in my prediction, will never ever end. If Britney, in their "opinion" or "expertise," is still not able to resist fraud or undue influences, is still not sound and stable enough, etc., she never will be. If compromised (they all are), they will always pretend she needs the c-ship just because they can keep all the while making tons of money, but I suspect things may take a dire turn as she's (rightfully) refusing to resume her pop activities.

 

4 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

That's not what they're evaluating her for...It's not about her intelligence. That's not what's at question here.

It's also not about the volume of work she's put in...That's not what's at question here, either.

They're likely evaluating her to determine if she's still "susceptible to undue influence." 


When consistently determining she is susceptible to fraud or undue influence, they are insulting her capacity of intelligence, like she's still so naïve and can't resist any of that when they are the frauds and undue influence.


 

  • Love 3
Link to comment

"The conservatorship, from the beginning, once you see someone, whoever it is, in the conservatorship making money, making them money, and myself money and working – that whole statement right there, the conservatorship should end. I shouldn’t be in a conservatorship if I can work and provide money and work for myself and pay other people — it makes no sense. The laws need to change. What state allows people to own another person’s money and account and threaten them saying, 'You can’t spend your money unless you do what we want you to do.' And I’m paying them."

  • Love 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Arckangel said:

@Steel Magnolia True. As I mentioned in another thread, Jamie recently said it is up to the court to decide whether or not the c-ship ends, but he did check that "susceptible to fraud or undue influence" box. Why was that? What could Britney possibly have said or done for Jamie and whoever else (incl. lawyers, doctors and therapists) to think she is so susceptible? Jamie did reveal years ago that Britney was caught trying to contact Sam Lutfi circa 2009. You remember that story... If I recall correctly, Sam Lutfi's sister gave Britney a phone so Brit would contact Sam. Sam is definitely seen as "undue influence" and even a "fraudster," but that was over ten years ago. And wasn't it Britney's idea to appoint Bessemer Trust as financial conservator? Doesn't seem like somebody that is so out of touch w/ financial reality and responsibility. Britney certainly wasn't pleased when Jamie told her her punitive rehab stay (for not doing Vegas again just after wrapping Piece of Me) would cost her $60,000 per month... Obviously, she's aware of the value of money.

And this leads us to this... The biggest irony is that her very handlers (and ex-husband) have been dilapidating her money by the millions! "Legally" stealing from her, and there are rumours of siphoning, etc. That's no different than Fernando Flores falsely accusing her of s** assault and other things, and then "legally" receiving a pay-off.

This situation, unless a superior legal body intervenes, in my prediction, will never ever end. If Britney, in their "opinion" or "expertise," is still not able to resist fraud or undue influences, is still not sound and stable enough, etc., she never will be. If compromised (they all are), they will always pretend she needs the c-ship just because they can keep all the while making tons of money, but I suspect things may take a dire turn as she's (rightfully) refusing to resume her pop activities.

 


When consistently determining she is susceptible to fraud or undue influence, they are insulting her capacity of intelligence, like she's still so naïve and can't resist any of that when they are the frauds and undue influence.


 

that is just an excuse to keep her locked up - the undue influence part; i guess because its very hard to prove correct or prove wrong.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Arckangel said:

@Steel Magnolia True. As I mentioned in another thread, Jamie recently said it is up to the court to decide whether or not the c-ship ends, but he did check that "susceptible to fraud or undue influence" box. Why was that? What could Britney possibly have said or done for Jamie and whoever else (incl. lawyers, doctors and therapists) to think she is so susceptible? Jamie did reveal years ago that Britney was caught trying to contact Sam Lutfi circa 2009. You remember that story... If I recall correctly, Sam Lutfi's sister gave Britney a phone so Brit would contact Sam. Sam is definitely seen as "undue influence" and even a "fraudster," but that was over ten years ago. And wasn't it Britney's idea to appoint Bessemer Trust as financial conservator? Doesn't seem like somebody that is so out of touch w/ financial reality and responsibility. Britney certainly wasn't pleased when Jamie told her her punitive rehab stay (for not doing Vegas again just after wrapping Piece of Me) would cost her $60,000 per month... Obviously, she's aware of the value of money.

And this leads us to this... The biggest irony is that her very handlers (and ex-husband) have been dilapidating her money by the millions! "Legally" stealing from her, and there are rumours of siphoning, etc. That's no different than Fernando Flores falsely accusing her of s** assault and other things, and then "legally" receiving a pay-off.

This situation, unless a superior legal body intervenes, in my prediction, will never ever end. If Britney, in their "opinion" or "expertise," is still not able to resist fraud or undue influences, is still not sound and stable enough, etc., she never will be. If compromised (they all are), they will always pretend she needs the c-ship just because they can keep all the while making tons of money, but I suspect things may take a dire turn as she's (rightfully) refusing to resume her pop activities.

 


When consistently determining she is susceptible to fraud or undue influence, they are insulting her capacity of intelligence, like she's still so naïve and can't resist any of that when they are the frauds and undue influence.


 

"Susceptible to undue influence" could also relate to drugs and alcohol.

Her Team wouldn't be doing things like searching Iggy Azalea's house in 2015 if that weren't a concern. 

Britney did refer to attending AA in her testimony, so it does sound as if that worry has continued past 2015.

However...

It's hard to prove that "susceptible to undue influence" is a legitimate concern...It's all too easy to pay off a medical evaluator to bend and twist the results to their liking.

And that may be exactly why Britney is requesting the conservatorship be dissolved without any further evaluations.

She knows she's being set up.

  • Like 1
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