Court admits there was never a capacity declaration ever filed in Britney's "voluntary" conservatorship case

[Grace Kelly]

48 minutes ago, blackingouthenegativity said:

If you watching the Framing Britney Spears documentary, it does sound like she signed onto it at some point, but when it was temporary. In the letter Andrew Gallery read on TikTok, Britney mentioned that she was "set up." I might be making too big of a leap, but I believe she meant she was set up when she signed onto it when it was temporary.

They probably told her if she signed on and did another album/tour, she'd get her kids back and it would end. 

Yes, the kids are key to it I think when the conservatorship was temporary. She may have "legally" agreed, but it was the threat of not seeing her young sons that led her to that, so on this basis it was "legally" but absolutely not "ethically" voluntary. It takes a special kind of low life to use a mother's love of her children as a means to maintain control and for money. It makes me angrier than I can say. The court that should of protected her, failed her and enabled a number of abusers. Judges have immunity from criminal prosecution when it comes to their rulings, but I hope Reva and Penny can sleep at night.  

[Steel Magnolia]

Just because it's "legal" doesn't make it ethical...So I'm not saying what they did was ethical.

I'm just saying that at some point during the permanent conservatorship, they must have had either her signature or a statement on the court record that enabled them to continue the con.

Things that used to be legal in the United States that are no longer legal:

• alcohol
• inter-racial marriage
• shopping on Sunday
• fortune telling
• birth control
• dancing during the Star-Spangled Banner
• Sunday football
• assault weapons
• witchcraft
• women voting

[Grace Kelly]

1 hour ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Just because it's "legal" doesn't make it ethical...So I'm not saying what they did was ethical.

I'm just saying that at some point during the permanent conservatorship, they must have had either her signature or a statement on the court record that enabled them to continue the con.

Things that used to be legal in the United States that are no longer legal:

• alcohol
• inter-racial marriage
• shopping on Sunday
• fortune telling
• birth control
• dancing during the Star-Spangled Banner
• Sunday football
• assault weapons
• witchcraft
• women voting

Completely with you on this one. This case is probably a good example of something being "legal" is not necessarily ethical.  

[Easy There]

When does the hearing starts ?

[Jejf]

3 hours ago, Grace Kelly said:

Yes, the kids are key to it I think when the conservatorship was temporary. She may have "legally" agreed, but it was the threat of not seeing her young sons that led her to that, so on this basis it was "legally" but absolutely not "ethically" voluntary. It takes a special kind of low life to use a mother's love of her children as a means to maintain control and for money. It makes me angrier than I can say. The court that should of protected her, failed her and enabled a number of abusers. Judges have immunity from criminal prosecution when it comes to their rulings, but I hope Reva and Penny can sleep at night.  

I am confused with this logic, when she was on a temporary conservatorship she couldn't get her own lawyer as she didnt have the mental capability  to but she could agreed to making it to a permanent conservatorship voluntarily ? She either has the capability to choose or not? What it is then?
 

I am not a lawyer but this doesn't make sense to me. 

[Mmdellavecchia]

On 12/6/2021 at 6:11 PM, Jordan Miller said:

In one of the court docs from the termination hearing, the court admits "there was no capacity declaration filed stating that Britney Spears lacked capacity." 

That's the reasoning why Britney never had to prove her capacity for the court to dissolve the conservatorship (something she was adamant about not having to participate in).

ADVERTISING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Skip

Ads by

 

×

"Therefore, there is no need for a submission by her of a capacity declaration stating that she has capacity for the court to consider in making an order terminating the conservatorship." 

Interestingly, the court called it a "voluntary" conservatorship, when in actuality it wasn't. In 2008, Britney's family, including her co-conservator/father Jamie and co-conservator Andrew Wallet, among others, went behind her back and placed her in the conservatorship without her knowledge or consent. Britney's former court-appointed attorney Sam Ingham was complicit. 

Back then, they cited dementia as a means to place her in the conservatorship and Judge Reva Goetz approved it. 

Britney attempted to hire her own legal counsel to stop the conservatorship from happening, but her efforts were thwarted. The court claimed she did not have the capacity to make legal decisions for herself, but again.... THERE WAS NO CAPACITY DECLARATION. 

This was fraudulent since day one and now it's in a court record. In plain black and white.

 

 

This makes the whole thing even more disgusting.

 

[Steel Magnolia]

7 hours ago, DuranDuran said:

In her July testimony, and no, it was said in the context of a medical evaluation as reasons why she lost confidence in their evals and did not want to go through a new one.

But she never said that her Cship was voluntary.

Ah, now I see what you're saying...I'd never read the July transcript until just now.

What you're referring to is on page 28:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zFFmuwU9jZcQSAPmJe5HmkYzhgFnQgx0/view

What I was thinking of was in the June 23rd transcript...At least I thought it was. But it's not there, either.

Maybe it's an Instagram caption? Or...Am I dreaming it?

I could have sworn she referred somewhere to agreeing to the conservatorship for the purposes of the Circus tour.

Now I'm wracking my brain trying to figure it out.

[Alexanda]

Is not voluntary, not at all. 

[Steel Magnolia]

29 minutes ago, Alexanda said:

Is not voluntary, not at all. 

But here you've posted evidence that proves my point.

She agreed to remain in the permanent conservatorship voluntarily so that Jamie and Kevin wouldn't prevent her from seeing her children.

If she said "no" to the permanent conservatorship, they could reduce or eliminate her visitation rights at will.

Is what they did ethical?

Absolutely not.

But is it legally accurate to say that she likely — on the court record or in a document — agreed to the situation in order to maintain visitation rights with her children?

Yes it is.

[blackingouthenegativity]

30 minutes ago, Alexanda said:

Is not voluntary, not at all. 

Right, no one is saying this was Britney's fault. We're basically backing up this voicemail. 

[queenofhearts]

15 hours ago, Tar_isa said:

Actually, it's not like "they were just hoping the judge would assume a declaration was in the filings", it's even worse because the judge was actually in on the con. It was the actual judge who said that sentence. She told Adam Streisand directly that she had a document signed by Dr Spar (who she knew Streisand respected highly) stating B had no capacity to retain counsel, so he couldn't be her lawyer and had to leave. If I recall correctly Streisand wanted to see the document but the Judge said she didn't have it right there, but she could assure him it existed or something like that, so she basically kicked Streisand out, and he left believing there was actually a document somewhere, and that's how they left Britey defenseless for 14 years.

you're right I forgot about the part of her telling Streisand she had the document somewhere but wouldn't let him see it. That's so weird bc Dr. Spar must be as confused as us.

[Alexanda]

1 hour ago, blackingouthenegativity said:

Right, no one is saying this was Britney's fault. We're basically backing up this voicemail. 

Yeah, i know, i just wanted to point out that it is so ridiculous.  

[Tar_isa]

6 hours ago, queenofhearts said:

you're right I forgot about the part of her telling Streisand she had the document somewhere but wouldn't let him see it. That's so weird bc Dr. Spar must be as confused as us.

Honestly, he didn't seem very confused to me in the Britney vs Spears doc. I could be wrong, but the whole interaction gave me vibes of him just covering his *** because he may or may not have agreed to have his name used in court to set up a fraudulent conservatorship

[Tar_isa]

On 12/8/2021 at 5:12 AM, Steel Magnolia said:

I don't disagree. Your statement is factually accurate.

However, it's not legally accurate.

I was referring to Jordan's statement:
 

At some point, Britney must have voluntarily agreed to the permanent conservatorship...Vivian doesn't make statements that aren't legally accurate. At least I've never seen her do it.

I'm with you here. I think she did agree, even Streisand said something like (paraphrasing here) "she accepted it, she only asked her father not be conservator". But she was (probably) told if she didn't agree to a conservatorship she would lose her children, so that coercion/blackmail should make the "voluntary" aspect void?

Also, regardless of whether it was voluntary or not, and taking into account that yes, maybe legally it was actually voluntary because she technically agreed, there's the matter of the court denying her capacity to retain counsel, which is, to me, the bigger issue here since they just denied her that right based on nothing.

Even if she entered it voluntarily at the beginning, had she been able to hire her own attorney she would have been out soon enough, or at the very least the conditions would have been very different, I'm sure. That's what makes me the most angry about all this.

[Steel Magnolia]

9 hours ago, Tar_isa said:

I'm with you here. I think she did agree, even Streisand said something like (paraphrasing here) "she accepted it, she only asked her father not be conservator". But she was (probably) told if she didn't agree to a conservatorship she would lose her children, so that coercion/blackmail should make the "voluntary" aspect void?

Also, regardless of whether it was voluntary or not, and taking into account that yes, maybe legally it was actually voluntary because she technically agreed, there's the matter of the court denying her capacity to retain counsel, which is, to me, the bigger issue here since they just denied her that right based on nothing.

Even if she entered it voluntarily at the beginning, had she been able to hire her own attorney she would have been out soon enough, or at the very least the conditions would have been very different, I'm sure. That's what makes me the most angry about all this.

That's exactly what I'm saying!

That is why it was so important to have Kevin Federline on board with the plan...Without the private visitation agreement between Kevin and Jamie they would not have been able to force Britney to agree to the "voluntary" permanent conservatorship. It all would have been over within weeks when the temporary conservatorship ran out.

I suspect this plan was put in place as early as February 2007 when they first forced her into rehab.

Larry Rudolph was the person coordinating in February 2007...The hands of Larry and Kevin are much dirtier than they'd like to admit.

[Tar_isa]

9 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

That's exactly what I'm saying!

That is why it was so important to have Kevin Federline on board with the plan...Without the private visitation agreement between Kevin and Jamie they would not have been able to force Britney to agree to the "voluntary" conservatorship. It all would have been over within weeks when the temporary permanent conservatorship ran out.

I suspect this plan was put in place as early as February 2007 when they first forced her into rehab.

Larry Rudolph was the person coordinating in February 2007...The hands of Larry and Kevin are much dirtier than they'd like to admit.

Exactly. 

I don't think the Con was the plan as early as feb '07 though, but it was definitely then when the blackmailing began with taking her kids away, so they knew exactly how they could get B to do what they wanted when the time came. 

About KF, he definitely was essential to the whole setup. Even if he might have not known the full extent of what they were doing (which I honestly doubt he did), he played a key role in the beginning and he definitely stood by watching it happen all these years, which maybe it wasn't his place to fight the con but, I mean, it's ethically ****ed up.

Larry I believe was all in on the con, but he was smart enough to stay in the background, it's so annoying he's going so unnoticed.

[DuranDuran]

21 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

She agreed to remain in the permanent conservatorship voluntarily so that Jamie and Kevin wouldn't prevent her from seeing her children.

But why Ingham pretended that there was a Capacity Declaration but he just didn’t know how to locate it? Cuz it turned out voluntary Cship does not even require a medical capacity declaration. And didn't they just start calling it voluntary relatively recently?

 

[Forever222]

Ingham is corrupt. He normalised her situation because conservatorships as an industry are meant to silence, isolate and control conservatees as much as possible. 
 

He was way in over his head and was in deep denial of the classic music industry slavery he let his client be forced to partake in because Jamie and his team (LT and Larry) needed her to work. 
I hope she sues him. 

[Musicandsoul]

I think its safe to say the next 6months is going to be fascinating! They must be brought down and must pay, there absolutely must be consequences and the entire LA court system needs investigating. People certainly were rewarded for this and those people on both sides must pay. Point blank. 

[LordofTheMoodRing]

Britney Spears needs to sue the State of California