Matou Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 It's possible this was "voluntary" and accept the cship at that time. BUT she was forced to do if she wants to see her children. I can see the thing like "Britney it's better for you to do this for the custody, it's gonna be maybe 1 year, do a tour, everyone will see you're ok and that's it". The rest is history ... Link to comment
Forever222 Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 18 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said: 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. Ingham needs to step down. A lot could be done when Britney gets a new lawyer that actually takes action for once. He is the middle man that keeps the weave threading into madness. 3 1 Link to comment
Oprah Winfrey. Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 9 hours ago, Puppy said: 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 Wouldn’t be surprised not sure how lou Taylor became such a powerful woman. maybe by worming her way through talented rich peoples lives with the power of Jesus Link to comment
Steel Magnolia Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 26 minutes ago, Matou said: It's possible this was "voluntary" and accept the cship at that time. BUT she was forced to do if she wants to see her children. I can see the thing like "Britney it's better for you to do this for the custody, it's gonna be maybe 1 year, do a tour, everyone will see you're ok and that's it". The rest is history ... The word "voluntary" is a legal term. It isn't meant to be used colloquially like we would in everyday use. 1 Link to comment
Steel Magnolia Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 Back to... FINDINGS AND ORDER...Section 5... Capacity to make health care decisions...Jamie claims that Ingham and/or Jodi is relying on an order from 10/10/2014 stating that Britney does not have capacity to make health care decisions. However... - Jamie is claiming that no such ruling was made, and that the topics discussed that day were regarding accounting. - He says via his lawyers that a capacity declaration has not been made in this case. - He says that previous orders from 01/09/2009 do not reflect that the Court ruled she lacked medical capacity. The notes go on to say... - This is a "voluntary" conservatorship (this is a legal term). - The Conservator is named for somebody who "voluntarily requests the appointment." - There has never been a proposed finding of incapacity, so therefore an interview and capacity declaration are not necessary. Basically... Jamie is helping Britney here! He's basically calling Ingham and Jodi a bunch of liars, and is saying Britney is free to remove her IUD whenever she likes. 5 Link to comment
Steel Magnolia Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 6 hours ago, b42ad said: 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. "Voluntary" is a legal term. It will have specific sections of the probate code attached to it explaining what "voluntary" means in relation to the conservatorship. However... I'm now wondering if there was a miscommunication (if we want to call it that) when the temporary conservatorship transitioned over to the permanent conservatorship? They are two different conservatorships, with two different sets of legislation attached to them. The temporary conservatorship had the "dementia" claim attached to it. The permanent or "voluntary" conservatorship does not have the dementia claim attached to it (although others on this forum claim it does, I've yet to see anyone produce a document proving their claims!) The permanent "voluntary" conservatorship has a "susceptible to undue influence" claim attached it, which could relate to two different things — either fraud or *****/alcohol...It is this part which requires the evaluation to ensure she is not still susceptible before releasing her from the voluntary conservatorship. She can file to terminate without it, but any family member can contest the request for termination. 1 1 Link to comment
Scrappy Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 7 hours ago, b42ad said: 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. If it’s voluntary… she should be allowed to leave it. So, what’s the hold up? Why are they not letting her terminate? This is so corrupt I’m bewildered. 1 Link to comment
Slayer Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 12 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. I agree, I think it'd be best if she showed up. As otherwise all the Judge will hear are Team Con's comments putting Britney in a negative light and she needs to respond to those claims and back herself up. I think the more she speaks, the more it'll help her - going silent again won't help her in my opinion. Link to comment
One More Time Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 1 hour ago, Steel Magnolia said: Back to... FINDINGS AND ORDER...Section 5... Capacity to make health care decisions...Jamie claims that Ingham and/or Jodi is relying on an order from 10/10/2014 stating that Britney does not have capacity to make health care decisions. However... - Jamie is claiming that no such ruling was made, and that the topics discussed that day were regarding accounting. - He says via his lawyers that a capacity declaration has not been made in this case. - He says that previous orders from 01/09/2009 do not reflect that the Court ruled she lacked medical capacity. The notes go on to say... - This is a "voluntary" conservatorship (this is a legal term). - The Conservator is named for somebody who "voluntarily requests the appointment." - There has never been a proposed finding of incapacity, so therefore an interview and capacity declaration are not necessary. Basically... Jamie is helping Britney here! He's basically calling Ingham and Jodi a bunch of liars, and is saying Britney is free to remove her IUD whenever she likes. Jaime wants Britney to have a baby… but still have Britney under a conservatorship. I think he is doing what he has always done. If Britney refuse to end the conservatorship.. What I am saying he is not helping He is negotiating with his daughter about her capacity to have a baby Link to comment
Steel Magnolia Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 50 minutes ago, One More Time said: Jaime wants Britney to have a baby… but still have Britney under a conservatorship. I think he is doing what he has always done. If Britney refuse to end the conservatorship.. What I am saying he is not helping He is negotiating with his daughter about her capacity to have a baby I can't argue with you on that one! He's also trying to save face by portraying Ingham and Jodi as the "bad guys" in the situation...Because at the end of the day, they can both be removed and he can still remain her financial conservator. Link to comment
MmmBop Posted July 4, 2021 Share Posted July 4, 2021 16 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said: Back to... FINDINGS AND ORDER...Section 5... Capacity to make health care decisions...Jamie claims that Ingham and/or Jodi is relying on an order from 10/10/2014 stating that Britney does not have capacity to make health care decisions. However... - Jamie is claiming that no such ruling was made, and that the topics discussed that day were regarding accounting. - He says via his lawyers that a capacity declaration has not been made in this case. - He says that previous orders from 01/09/2009 do not reflect that the Court ruled she lacked medical capacity. The notes go on to say... - This is a "voluntary" conservatorship (this is a legal term). - The Conservator is named for somebody who "voluntarily requests the appointment." - There has never been a proposed finding of incapacity, so therefore an interview and capacity declaration are not necessary. Basically... Jamie is helping Britney here! He's basically calling Ingham and Jodi a bunch of liars, and is saying Britney is free to remove her IUD whenever she likes. Thank you for explaining this all to us basics ❤️❤️❤️ 1 Link to comment
MmmBop Posted July 4, 2021 Share Posted July 4, 2021 15 hours ago, One More Time said: Jaime wants Britney to have a baby… but still have Britney under a conservatorship. I think he is doing what he has always done. If Britney refuse to end the conservatorship.. What I am saying he is not helping He is negotiating with his daughter about her capacity to have a baby Where exactly do you get from any document, any interview or any quotes from anyone that “Jamie wants Britney to have a baby” ? Kind of a weird claim. Anything to support that? Link to comment
Alexanda Posted July 4, 2021 Share Posted July 4, 2021 Voluntary? It's like i'm robbing a bank and claim: They gave me everything for free, voluntarily. What kind of nonsense is this? Link to comment
Recommended Posts