Jump to content

Probate Court Notes in Advance of July 14th Court Date


Recommended Posts

  • Super Mods
2 hours ago, AP4 said:

It’s just insane to me that without any diagnosis, any proof, anything to show she lacks the capacity to make her own medical decisions they are just allowed to say she can’t make them herself. It seems like a huge illegal violation of her rights, since that’s the whole point of having capacity declarations. I’m guessing they couldn’t find a doctor willing to risk their license by declaring her incapacitated and still able to tour and perform. 

That’s what makes the whole 2007 so sketchy…like Lou Taylor was in her life even during the “go to the light and see Jesus” so call it conspiracy but it’s almost as if she encouraged paps to capture her in a bad light to only go to the courts with justification that she deserves to be one because exhibit A look at how crazy she acts on tmz 

  • Love 2
  • Like 6
Link to comment

I'm curious about what happened on 10/10/2014... they keep mentioning an order that deemed her incapable to consent to any form of medical treatment at that date. She perfomed at her Vegas residency that day. I wonder what she contested for them to use that sort of thing, it was during her relationship with Lucado which we know by the Times article investigations showed they were not happy with the conservatorship and the court + the conservators were conspiring against her boyfriend possibly influencing her against it. I feel like maybe she was trying to get her IUD removed to have kids with Lucado considering how he mentioned she wanted to have more babies precisely a baby girl. If so then the court probably is aware of them not allowing her to have any more kids and is okay with that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Posey said:

It seems like a cluster****...the temporary cship wasn’t voluntary since they played dirty with the 5150/notice/dementia claim so technically during that time, would she even be considered to have had legal capacity to consent to the voluntary cship?  

 

2 hours ago, AP4 said:

It’s just insane to me that without any diagnosis, any proof, anything to show she lacks the capacity to make her own medical decisions they are just allowed to say she can’t make them herself. It seems like a huge illegal violation of her rights, since that’s the whole point of having capacity declarations. I’m guessing they couldn’t find a doctor willing to risk their license by declaring her incapacitated and still able to tour and perform. 



It's all very odd and contradictory really. The form her dad and his lawyers used to petition for her conservatorship was a permanent one not a temporary. Also, they filled a box where it clearly states 'for someone diagnosed with dementia'. Later on the court document rejecting Adam Streisand as an attorney of her choice again states she has dementia and is incapacitated to hire her own lawyer suggesting the jugde accepted this diagnosis Jamie presented. But then when she started doing tv shows and appearances on awards like the VMA they started refering to it as a temporary conservatorship due to expire by 2009. 

I'm pretty sure they kept changing her diagnosis according to their wishes. Putting a dementia patient to work, specially on tv memorizing lines and interacting with a huge crew to make that happen doesn't seem like the smartest thing to do. So I guess at some point they changed it to voluntary and the previous claims of incapacity were just put behind it.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
5 hours ago, AP4 said:

How is it that they aren’t required to have capacity declarations but she is also found to be unable to provide her own medical care. Like with no basis at all they just said “hey she’s unable to make medical decision because we say she is **** a doctor agreeing on it.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-the-elderly-lose-their-rights

read this article, a lot will suddenly make "sense"

Link to comment

Jamie is really trying to shift the attention Britney’s testimony has brought to him (I don’t see how this could possibly work considering most of what Brit said was about what Jamie did / allowed to be done to her).

”Voluntary” is an interesting way to describe the conservatorship considering Britney was put into it without due notice, the right to her own counsel, has protested against it many times, has been threatened with the rights she holds most dear to stay silent and has spoken publicly against it. Dirty, dirty games. 

  • Love 9
Link to comment

How without any declaration this is even happening? I am not a US citizen, but how is this even legal? In my country law is corrupt, but as compared to this my country's law shines a lot better. 

Can someone explain how this will impact her future hearings? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment

There's a lot to unpack here.

I'm going to try to unpack it in steps...

First, if the "...petitioner expressly reserves the right to petition for termination..."  ...then why is Britney claiming she "didn't know" that she could file for a termination?

Is it that she didn't know she could file for a termination without an evaluation?

(Also, did any of us know this? I didn't know this until after her testimony two weeks ago.)

  • Love 1
Link to comment

The Objector (Jamie Spears) is actually making some great points here!

He's also throwing Ingham and Jodi under the bus at the same time...Which is maybe exactly where Ingham needs to be?

Jamie is alleging:

- That Ingham has misled Britney into believing she doesn't have the capacity to make medical decisions (e.g. removing the IUD)
- He says that Ingham has told Britney there was a decision made about this on 10/10/14.
- Jamie says this is untrue, and there is no such decision made and no such order.
- He says that Ingham and Jodi appear to be relying on a what amounts to a fictional order.
- He says that he relinquished his role as personal conservator two years ago.
- He alleges that Britney herself didn't sign the order making Jodi her personal conservator.
- He said that Britney's statement that she wants out of the conservatorship conflicts with Ingham's statement that she wants Jodi as her personal conservator. 
- He's basically wondering, without saying it openly, if Ingham and Jodi are depending on falsehoods in order to maintain their power within the personal conservatorship.
- He wants an investigation into this.

When you put it this way...Jamie is actually making some great points...Especially when you consider that, due to the restraining order, Britney and Jamie haven't spoken in a long time.

Keep in mind, everything Britney spoke about on the stand related to something that happened two years ago...So her claims against Jamie are not current. They are rooted in the past.

  • Love 3
  • Like 4
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Onyxgirl17 said:

Given these notes I feel like Britney HAS to show up on the 14th of July like Jamie requested (can’t  believe I’m siding with him here) but if she doesn’t they will just move forward and appoint Jodi. 

Britney better attend every hearing from now on going forward it’s the only way to get anywhere. She needs to attend court it’s about her. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • Super Mods

So they're saying the conservatorship is voluntary? That's good news in the sense that it seems like it would make it easier for Britney to get out of it. It doesn't make sense in that isn't that basically a walking dichotomy? Someone who is cognitively aware enough to know they need a conservatorship probably doesn't need one. Seems like some revisionist history to try to cover their *****.

It's so evident how all of them have been misleading, taking advantage of, and abusing Britney to keep their power and money.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I'm now on FINDINGS AND ORDER...Section 5.

Section 5 deals with her medical capacity...There are a lot of notes about the probate code here, which I need to mentally unpack.

However...

What is becoming apparent is that the probate court (Judge Penny) was likely not aware that Britney had never been informed that she could terminate. And Judge Penny may not be aware that Ingham and Jodi have been relying on a falsehood stemming back to 2014.

This also may be the reason why Judge Penny has asked Bessemer to appear on July 14th to explain their stance on the "voluntary conservatorship."

Perhaps Judge Penny isn't as corrupt as I thought she was...And that it's Ingham who is really the snake all along?

Perhaps it's only starting to become apparent to her now?

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

The Objector (Jamie Spears) is actually making some great points here!

He's also throwing Ingham and Jodi under the bus at the same time...Which is maybe exactly where Ingham needs to be?

Jamie is alleging:

- That Ingham has misled Britney into believing she doesn't have the capacity to make medical decisions (e.g. removing the IUD)
- He says that Ingham has told Britney there was a decision made about this on 10/10/14.
- Jamie says this is untrue, and there is no such decision made and no such order.
- He says that Ingham and Jodi appear to be relying on a what amounts to a fictional order.
- He says that he relinquished his role as personal conservator two years ago.
- He alleges that Britney herself didn't sign the order making Jodi her personal conservator.
- He said that Britney's statement that she wants out of the conservatorship conflicts with Ingham's statement that she wants Jodi as her personal conservator. 
- He's basically wondering, without saying it openly, if Ingham and Jodi are depending on falsehoods in order to maintain their power within the personal conservatorship.
- He wants an investigation into this.

When you put it this way...Jamie is actually making some great points...Especially when you consider that, due to the restraining order, Britney and Jamie haven't spoken in a long time.

Keep in mind, everything Britney spoke about on the stand related to something that happened two years ago...So her claims against Jamie are not current. They are rooted in the past.

thanks thanks thanks!!!Britney Spears Thank You GIF

  • Love 1
Link to comment

MATTERS TO CLEAR:

In this section the court is requesting more information about Jamie's status as conservator of the person.

Ingham is claiming that he has asked for Jamie's resignation.

Jamie is claiming that Jodi should take responsibility for the past two years.

There's a conflict there...Who takes responsibility for what has transpired over the past two years if Jamie hasn't actually resigned?

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

I'm now on FINDINGS AND ORDER...Section 5.

Section 5 deals with her medical capacity...There are a lot of notes about the probate code here, which I need to mentally unpack.

However...

What is becoming apparent is that the probate court (Judge Penny) was likely not aware that Britney had never been informed that she could terminate. And Judge Penny may not be aware that Ingham and Jodi have been relying on a falsehood stemming back to 2014.

This also may be the reason why Judge Penny has asked Bessemer to appear on July 14th to explain their stance on the "voluntary conservatorship."

Perhaps Judge Penny isn't as corrupt as I thought she was...And that it's Ingham who is really the snake all along?

Perhaps it's only starting to become apparent to her now?

I agree. Ingham Is making Penny look bad. He is known to write “reports” telling judges what to do. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

It would be interesting to compare Jamie's filed response to the court with the statement that Jodi uploaded to her website.

Jamie is throwing Jodi under the bus with his filed responses to the court, and Jodi is pushing back with her statement.

In the middle is Ingham...Who is the one constant between the two of them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...