Lynne Spears' Legal Manoeuvres : A Research Thread

[Applejack]

19 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

So is Lutfi breaching a restraining order by talking to Lynne Spears right now, or no?

Or is it only their lawyers communicating to "get their legal defense right" before the **** hits the fan? 

everything was dropped 

 

5 hours ago, PrincessAkwa said:

Someone mentioned they extended the c-ship to other states. Could it be because Britney got the information she could live out of state for six months and the c-ship would dissolve. 

Regardless whether that is correct information she was given (remember JL stated she had given information to Britney several times) 

Remember her phone was mirrored (allegedly). 

The extension was in 2019. JL's text was from 2020.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17jeZV78SCwgQGsOkad0H0PA8jqjgRsxgSqD9f_f1yAk/edit?usp=sharing

What actually lines up with JL's phone text was Ingham (incomplete) 1st petition to remove Jamie, Jamie Lynn quitting moving the trust assets to blocked accounts, JL resigning as a trustee and Lou dropping as accountant. Literally a few days after that, JL sent the text. That part is not in the link above, I need to add it.

[Steel Magnolia]

6 minutes ago, Applejack said:

everything was dropped 

Do we have access to those documents?

I'd like to purchase them, but want to make sure they're not floating around in cyberspace first.

https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_State_Los_Angeles_County_Superior_Court/20STCP01095/BRITNEY_J._SPEARS_ACTING_BY_AND_THROUGH_JAMES_B._SPEARS_CONSERVATOR_OF_THE_ESTATE_OF_BRITNEY_J._SPEARS_VS_OSAMA_"SAM"_LUTFI/

[Applejack]

4 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Do we have access to those documents?

I'd like to purchase them, but want to make sure they're not floating around in cyberspace first.

https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_State_Los_Angeles_County_Superior_Court/20STCP01095/BRITNEY_J._SPEARS_ACTING_BY_AND_THROUGH_JAMES_B._SPEARS_CONSERVATOR_OF_THE_ESTATE_OF_BRITNEY_J._SPEARS_VS_OSAMA_"SAM"_LUTFI/

Not that I know.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ctbMNCZcKrhaPGUR6E4PNe7QvLLmla47

There are links to other people's drives here too, but I couldn't find anything on Lutfi.

All I still know is from the case info in lacourt.org

[B. Leigh]

19 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Do you recall when the judge asked to hear from Britney?

Was it in the hearing directly prior to her June testimony? I'd like to find it so I can add it to my Chronological Timeline.

A few things:

It was not on the nov 10 hearing (which I think was the last public hearing noted before June)...the thing with Britney's case is they had all these sealed hearings....it was sometime between nov 10 and the June court date...I do think it was sometime in dec though...because I also remember after the judge requested to see Britney that her hearing kept getting pushed back...I will link the Nov 10 2020 transcript below (I don't remember if it was posted in this thread), but in it they make a date for dec and in the nov 10 hearing Vivianne kept bringing up that Ingham said that Britney didn't need to sign what he was posting into court due to her lack of capacity (saying she had the capacity of a comatose patient) while also describing her as a high functioning conservatee who should have a say in the way her conservatorship was run... 

Nov 10 2020 Transcript 

Just some easter eggs that I found in the transcript: Ingham says something happened after august 31st 2020 which made him change his position from appointing bessemer as a co-conservator to wanting Jamie removed all together...

Quote

MR. INGHAM: YES, YOUR HONOR. SAMUEL INGHAM. THANK 7 YOU. I THINK MS. THOREEN MAKES A VERY LAWYER-LIKE 8 ARGUMENT, BUT THE FACT IS, I STATED IN MY PREVIOUS 9 COMMENTS THAT MY CLIENT WILL AGREE TO THE APPOINTMENT OF 10 11 12 13 14 15 BESSEMER TRUST AS CO-CONSERVATOR. THAT IS THE POSITION THAT WE STATED AT THE OUTSET OF ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS MONTHS AGO ABOUT APPOINTMENT OF A CORPORATE FIDUCIARY. AND I AM PLEASED THAT MR. SPEARS HAS CONSENTED TO THE APPOINTMENT OF BESSEMER AS CO-CONSERVATOR. SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY ISSUE ABOUT THAT. 16 BASED ON ADDITIONAL FACTS THAT HAVE COME TO MY 17 POSSESSION SUBSEQUENT TO FILING THE ORIGINAL PETITION 18 WHICH WAS BACK ON AUGUST 31ST, I FILED A SUPPLEMENT 19 INDICATING THAT I WOULD BE SEEKING MR. SPEARS' REMOVAL, 20 AND THAT, IN TURN, PROVIDES A PROCEDURAL MECHANISM BY 21 WHICH I CAN ALSO REFLECT THAT MR. SPEARS BE SUSPENDED 18 22 UNDER SECTION 2654. AS I POINTED OUT BEFORE, THAT SECTION 23 DOES NOT REQUIRE NOTICE, IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE 24 ON THE COURT'S OWN MOTION. 25 AND SO BEFORE THE COURT FINALIZES THE APPOINTMENT 26 OF BESSEMER TRUST AS CO-CONSERVATOR, I WOULD LIKE THE 27 COURT TO VISIT THE ISSUE OF SUSPENSION. IF MR. SPEARS IS 28 NOW NOT AGREEABLE TO ACCEPTING APPOINTMENT AS 1 2 3 CO-CONSERVATOR SUBJECT TO SUSPENSION AND REMOVAL, THEN WE CAN CONSIDER THAT. I'M NOT TRYING TO BACK ANYBODY INTO A CORNER HERE. IF THIS RELIEF REQUESTED TO HAVE SUSPENSION 19 4 AND REMOVAL CHANGES THE GAME PLAN FOR MR. SPEARS, I'M FINE 5 TO GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO CONSIDER THAT. BOT AS FAR AS I'M 6 CONCERNED, MY PETITION IS RIPE, IT'S READY, I'M NOT 7 CHANGING THE RELIEF REQUESTED WITHIN THE PETITION, I AM 8 SIMPLY SEEKING ADDITIONAL RELIEF UNDER A DIFFERENT CODE 9 SECTION WHICH WOULD REQUEST SUSPENSION.

More info on timeline when Britney, Ingham, or Lynn asked for Bessemer, this is Ingham describing the back and forth between his side of the conservatorship and Jamie's in terms of fighting off Bessemer as a co-conservator (this is before Ingham requested Jamie's removal)...I think it naive to say that becasue Vivianne used to work for one of the lawyers at bessemer that they would have covered for Jamie or been an ally...the excerpt below also gives a better idea on a timeline:

Quote

AS FAR AS GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL, I THINK THAT THE 3 ACTION OF MR. SPEARS IN ENTERING INTO AN UNDISCLOSED 4 ARRANGEMENT WITH ANOTHER BUSINESS MANAGER CHOSEN 5 UNILATERALLY BY HIM TRACKS EXACTLY THE FIRST OBJECTION TO 6 HIS -- TO THE ACCOUNTING. WE HAD AN UNDISCLOSED FEE 7 ARRANGEMENT WITH TRI-STAR WHICH, FROM THE CONSERVATEE'S 8 PERSPECTIVE, IS HIGHLY DISADVANTAGEOUS AND INAPPROPRIATE. 9 I RECOGNIZE THAT MR. SPEARS HAS EVERY RIGHT TO LITIGATE 28 10 THAT ISSUE, BUT IN TERMS OF WHY HE SHOULD BE SUSPENDED, HE 11 HAS DONE EXACTLY THE SAME THING OVER AGAIN, AND I THINK 12 THAT IN AND OF ITSELF WOULD PROVIDE REASON FOR THE COURT 13 TO BE CONCERNED AND TO SUSPEND HIM, HOWEVER, THERE IS A 14 LOT MORE THAN THAT GOING ON HERE, AND I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY 15 EXPLAIN THE BACKGROUND AS TO WHY MY CLIENT AND I HAVE 16 REACHED THE DECISION THAT MR. SPEARS NEEDS TO BE SUSPENDED. AND INDEED, MUCH OF THIS ARISES OUT OF THINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THE ORIGINAL PETITION TO APPOINT BESSEMER WAS FILED. WE ARE, TODAY, AT THE END OF A LONG JOURNEY. THE JOURNEY BEGAN IN JANUARY WHEN I STATED TO THE COURT THAT BRITNEY WISHED TO BRING IN A CORPORATE FIDUCIARY. AND I EXPLAINED TO THE COURT AND TO MR. SPEARS AND COUNSEL THAT THE REASON FOR THIS, IN LARGE PART, WAS DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THE EXISTING MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE. WE HAD MR. SPEARS, WE HAD TRI-STAR, AND WE HAD TWO TEAMS OF OUTSIDE INVESTMENT MANAGERS, HOWEVER, MR. SPEARS RESISTED THE NOTION OF BRINGING IN A CORPORATE FIDUCIARY AT THAT  POINT. HE BELIEVED THAT THE EXISTING TEAM WAS OPTIMAL. SO LET'S CALL THAT TEAM PLAN A. MR. SPEARS, TRI-STAR, AND THE TWO OUTSIDE INVESTMENT MANAGERS. SIX MONTHS AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF MY CLIENT'S WISH TO INVOLVE A CORPORATE FIDUCIARY, THERE WAS NO STEP FORWARD FROM MR. SPEARS' TEAM TO WORK ON THAT IDEA OR EVALUATE IT. INSTEAD, WHAT WE GOT WAS A FIELD REPORT BY MR. SPEARS, ONE COMPONENT OF WHICH INVOLVED REPLACING THE EXISTING INVESTMENT MANAGERS WITH SOMEONE HOPEFULLY CONNECTED WITH TRI-STAR, AND ALSO TO ADD YET ANOTHER LAYER OF COMPLEXITY, AN OUTSIDE CONSERVATOR. MS. WYLE REPRESENTED THAT THAT PLAN WOULD BE FORTHCOMING, BUT IT ACTUALLY NEVER CAME ABOUT. LET'S CALL THAT PLAN B. 14 A MONTH LATER, IN AUGUST, WE GET AN UNANNOUNCED, UNDISCUSSED, UNILATERAL PETITION BY MR. SPEARS TO APPOINT  MR. WALLET AS CO-CONSERVATOR. LET'S CALL THAT PLAN C.  AND THAT PETITION CAME IN A -- IT ARRIVED UNILATERALLY, 1AND YOU HEARD IT UNILATERALLY AFTER WE FILED OBJECTIONS TO IT. AT THAT POINT WE FILED THE PETITION TO APPOINT BESSEMER, THAT WAS ON AUGUST 31ST. AND UNBEKNOWNST TO ME, MR. SPEARS AND HIS COUNSEL ENTERED INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH BESSEMER, AND APPARENTLY ARRIVED AT SOME PLAN THAT WAS AT LEAST WORTHY OF THEIR CONSIDERATION, WHICH WOULD INVOLVE BESSEMER WORKING TOGETHER WITH TRI-STAR. SO LET'S CALL 25 THAT PLAN D. THEN AT THE END OF OCTOBER, WE GET THE  ANNOUNCEMENT THAT TRI-STAR IS RESIGNING, AND THAT MR. SPEARS HAS GONE OUT -- APPARENTLY HE HAD TIME TO DO SUBSTANTIAL DUE DILIGENCE BUT WE WERE NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THIS -- AND HE WENT OUT AND NAMED A NEW BOSINESS MANAGER. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT MR. KANE'S COMPENSATION IS. WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIS TERMS OF HIS AGREEMENT. BUT NOW WE HAVE A PLAN THAT MR. SPEARS HAS COME FORWARD THAT HE WANTS TO ACT TOGETHER WITH BESSEMER AND MR. KANE. LET'S CALL THAT PLANE. SO IN THE TIME BETWEEN JANUARY AND OCTOBER, WE HAVE FIVE DIFFERENT RESPONSES TO -- OR FOUR DIFFERENT NEW RESPONSES TO MY CLIENT'S SIMPLE SUGGESTION THAT WE PLAN TO BRING IN A CORPORATE FIDUCIARY. NONE OF THESE PLANS WERE DISCUSSED WITH ME OR WITH MY CLIENT. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, NONE OF THESE PLANS ADDRESSED MY CLIENT'S WISH FOR SIMPLICITY. MY CLIENT IS NOT PERFORMING. IT IS STILL QUESTIONABLE TO ME WHETHER SHE NEEDS TO HAVE A BUSINESS MANAGER, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, AS COULD HAVE MR. KANE, BUT INSTEAD MR. SPEARS SIMPLY ACTED UNILATERALLY TO THROW THESE DIFFERENT IDEAS BEFORE THE COURT HOPING THAT ONE OF THEM WOULD STICK. SO THEN WE ARRIVE AT THE RESPONSE TO MS. THOREEN WHICH WE FILED AND SERVED LAST FRIDAY. THE RESPONSE I'M PLEASED THAT MS. THOREEN RECOUNTED IT AS WELL AS SHE DID. SHE DID A VERY GOOD JOB OF ENCAPSULATING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE RESPONSE. AND THE VERY WORDS THAT SHE USED TO EXPLAIN HER CLIENT'S POSITION ALSO EXPLAINED WHY IT IS PROBLEMATICAL TO BRITNEY AND TO ME. WE HEAR WORDS LIKE, "MR. SPEARS HAS FULL AUTHORITY TO ACT. MR. SPEARS IS NOT OBLIGATED TO GIVE NOTICE OF RESIGNATION OF TRI-STAR. MR. SPEARS IS NOT OBLIGATED TO CONSULT WITH MR. INGHAM WITH REGARD TO THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW BUSINESS MANAGER." LEAVE ASIDE FOR A MOMENT THE FACT THAT A BUSINESS MANAGER IS INTIMATELY INVOLVED WITH MY CLIENT'S  CAREER ACTIVITY, THE NOTION THAT A CONSERVATORSHIP SHOULD FUNCTION FROM A TOP-DOWN FASHION. "I AM THE CONSERVATOR, I HAVE THE BADGE, I MAKE THE RULES, AND I DON'T HAVE TO TELL ANYBODY WHAT I'M DOING IF I'M DOING WHAT THE CODE PERMITS  ME TO DO," IS CERTAINLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE WAY THIS CASE WAS HANDLED UP UNTIL A SHORT WHILE AGO. AND IN THE INDICATION OF A HIGH-FUNCTIONING CONSERVATEE LIKE MY CLIENT, IS SIMPLY NOT APPROPRIATE. THEN WE GET TO THE REAL CRUX OF MS. THOREEN'S  RESPONSE. THERE ARE TWO ITEMS IN IT THAT I FIND REALLY  INTRIGUING. THE FIRST IS A FOOTNOTE WHICH MR. SPEARS HAS SAID, QUOTE, MR. SPEARS VEHEMENTLY DENIES THAT HE HAS ANY DISPUTES WITH HIS DAUGHTER, BRITNEY, DESPITE MR. INGHAM'S ASSERTIONS. YOUR HONOR, I'VE BEEN MARRIED 34 YEARS, AND I  AM NOW SPEAKING UNDER OATH. IF I WERE TO TELL YOU THAT I  HAVE NO DISPUTES WITH MY WIFE, VEHEMENTLY TO TELL YOU THAT, YOU COULD PROBABLY HAVE ME ARRESTED FOR PERJURY. EVERY RELATIONSHIP HAS PROBLEMS. EVERY RELATIONSHIP HAS  PROBLEMS.  IF MR. SPEARS HAD SAID, "YOU KNOW, IT'S TOUGH BEING CONSERVATOR FOR MY DAUGHTER, BUT ALL IN ALL, IT'S WORKING OUT. WE'RE DOING OUR BEST, AND WE'LL WORK THROUGH  THINGS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. INGHAM." I COULD ACCEPT  THAT. BUT TO VEHEMENTLY DENY THERE ARE ANY DISPUTES IS SIMPLY NOT CREDIBLE TO ME. AND FROM THERE WE GET A FURTHER STATEMENT WHICH IS EVEN MORE INTERESTING. THE RESPONSE THAT SAYS, QUOTE, QUERY WHETHER THAT IS TRULY WHAT THE CONSERVATEE WANTS OR IF IT IS IN HER BEST INTEREST FOR HERSELF. WHEN I READ THAT, I STARTED WORKING MYSELF INTO A HIGH JUDGMENT, BUT THEN I STOPPED AND I REALIZED FOR A SECOND, WAIT A MINUTE. MR. SPEARS HAS TO PLAY THE CARDS HE HAS. AND THAT'S REALLY PRETTY MUCH THE STRONGEST CARD THAT HE HAS, BECAUSE IF WHAT I AM SAYING ABOUT MY CLIENT'S STATE OF MIND, MY CLIENT'S WISHES IS CORRECT, HE HAS BEEN IN DEEP TROUBLE AS CONSERVATOR. SO HERE IS THE BOTTOM LINE: I AM SEEKING TODAY AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, AND I HAVE BEEN SWORN, AND I AM STATING THAT MY CLIENT HAS INFORMED ME ON MANY OCCASIONS THAT SHE IS AFRAID OF HER FATHER. SHE HAS ALSO INFORMED ME ON MANY OCCASIONS THAT SHE WILL NOT PERFORM AS LONG AS HER FATHER IS IN CHARGE OF HER CAREER. AND SHE HAS ALSO INFORMED ME THAT SHE DOES NOT WANT HER FATHER TO WORK WITH BESSEMER TRUST. SO WE ARE NOW REALLY AT A CROSSROADS. WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO BRING IN A NEW CONSERVATOR WHO, DESPITE A LITTLE BIT OF BACK PEDALING BY MS. THOREEN, HAS NOT BEEN OBJECTED TO BY HER CLIENT. FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, AND THE CONSERVATEE'S POINT OF VIEW, THE LOSS AND INJURY COMES NOT JUST FROM THE RISK THAT I MENTIONED IN TERMS OF THE OBJECTIONS, BUT A CONSERVATORSHIP IN WHICH THE CONSERVATOR AND THE CONSERVATEE HAVE NO VIABLE WORKING RELATIONSHIP. MY CLIENT HAS NOT SPOKEN TO MR. SPEARS IN A LONG WHILE. IT IS NOT A RECIPE THAT IS VIABLE FOR MY CONSERVATEE'S POINT OF VIEW. WE HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE A FRESH START WITH A NEW  CORPORATE FIDUCIARY. I CERTAINLY HAVE NO DESIRE TO WEIGH A HEAVY HAND ON WHAT THEY DO. I THINK THAT THE BESSEMER  TRUST IS IDEALLY SUITED TO WORK WITH MY CLIENT'S ENTERTAINMENT TEAM TO CONTINUE HER FINANCIAL STABILITY.  AND FINALLY, I WOULD JUST SAY, THIS IS A VOLUNTARY CONSERVATORSHIP. AS LONG AS MY CLIENT'S CHOICE  OF CONSERVATOR IS REASONABLE, I THINK THAT SHE SHOULD BE 13 ALLOWED TO WORK WITH A QUALIFIED CORPORATE FIDUCIARY OF HER CHOICE. AND I THINK THAT THE PATH THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH, THE ENTIRE SUMMER WITH ACRIMONY AND REPEATED  ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTIONS FROM MR. SPEARS, SIMPLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EXISTING ARRANGEMENT IS NOT SATISFACTORY, IT DOES PRESENT A RISK TO MY CLIENT, AND THAT TO CONTINUE WITH BESSEMER AND THIS LOCKED-IN WITH  THESE TWO, THESE TWO, MR. SPEARS AND BESSEMER TOGETHER, I THINK IS - - IT MAY WELL -- I AGREE WITH MS. THOREEN'S STATEMENT. SHE SAYS THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN  MR. BESSEMER AND MR . SPEARS, AND I SUSPECT THAT IS TRUE,  HOWEVER, THERE IS CLEARLY NO SEAT FOR MY CLIENT AT THE TABLE, AND I THINK THAT REPRESENTS A TREMENDOUS PROBLEM, LOSS, INJURY TO HER. AND WITH THAT, I WILL CONCLUDE.

 

[B. Leigh]

Actually it may have happened in april 2021 and not dec 2020...if anyone can find april 2021 court transcript I think that will hold the key...I remember this vividly because some sources were saying Ingham requested it and others were saying the Judge requested it...but then it was later revealed to have been the judge (I think it was suprise witness who showed it was the judge but I could be mistaken on who said that)...

[B. Leigh]

41 minutes ago, Applejack said:

Not that I know.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ctbMNCZcKrhaPGUR6E4PNe7QvLLmla47

There are links to other people's drives here too, but I couldn't find anything on Lutfi.

All I still know is from the case info in lacourt.org

Thank you...this has the guardian ad litium request from jodi that I was talking about...

guardian ad litium request

It states this:

"This Petition for the Appointment of a Guardian ad Litem arises from the fact that the Conservatee, Ms. Spears, wants to select her own attorney, does not want one appointed solely by this Court, and does not want to undergo any additional evaluations to determine her capacity. In 2008, more than 13 years ago, after a medical evaluation, this Court found that Ms. Spears did not have capacity to retain her own attorney. Instead, the Court appointed Samuel D. Ingham, III, as Ms. Spears’ court-appointed counsel, and many years thereafter Loeb & Loeb, as associated court-appointed counsel. Mr. Ingham and Loeb & Loeb have just tendered their joint Resignations of Counsel on July 6, 2021. In their joint Application, they request that the resignations “be accepted upon the appointment of new court-appointed counsel.” In other words, they want the Court to appoint counsel for Ms. Spears yet again. Ms. Spears, however, unequivocally disagrees."

 

We now know that the bolded is a lie and there was no capacity declaration...so Ingham wanted Britney to get another court appointed attorney and Jodi wanted to get a third party to spy on Britney with her new lawyer of her "choice" under guardianship "guidance"...

[B. Leigh]

1 hour ago, Onyx1Boss said:

She doesn't believe it: she disclaims repeatedly "this was what I thought" "from what i understood" as if she wasn't sure. She knows it was BS.

Britney is rebelling and daddy sends favorite sister in to soften up big sister. Move in with us... Hoping Britney will buy the "6 months out of state solution."

Goal being to manipulate Britney back to working  or cooperating with hoovering (love bombing) and lies. 

Dangle a carrot, try good cop as bad cop isn't working. 

Britney didn't fall for it 

To be clear JL was absolutely on Jamie/Lou's side which is why they used JL to give that message to Britney...I also think JL has strong narc tendencies and that probably has to do with her upbringing...

With that said JL released those text messages because she believed they proved that she gave Britney everything she needed to get out of the conservatorship and all Britney had to do was "walk through the door"...if these text messages were leaked by Britney or Rosengart I would have believed it was just JL being manipulative but the fact JL released them herself as public vindication means she thought she really did give Britney the keys to get out and Britney didn't take it...I think we are all over estimating JL and she might just be an idiot being manipulated by Lou...

[Ghoulia]

1 hour ago, B. Leigh said:

Thank you...this has the guardian ad litium request from jodi that I was talking about...

guardian ad litium request

It states this:

"This Petition for the Appointment of a Guardian ad Litem arises from the fact that the Conservatee, Ms. Spears, wants to select her own attorney, does not want one appointed solely by this Court, and does not want to undergo any additional evaluations to determine her capacity. In 2008, more than 13 years ago, after a medical evaluation, this Court found that Ms. Spears did not have capacity to retain her own attorney. Instead, the Court appointed Samuel D. Ingham, III, as Ms. Spears’ court-appointed counsel, and many years thereafter Loeb & Loeb, as associated court-appointed counsel. Mr. Ingham and Loeb & Loeb have just tendered their joint Resignations of Counsel on July 6, 2021. In their joint Application, they request that the resignations “be accepted upon the appointment of new court-appointed counsel.” In other words, they want the Court to appoint counsel for Ms. Spears yet again. Ms. Spears, however, unequivocally disagrees."

 

We now know that the bolded is a lie and there was no capacity declaration...so Ingham wanted Britney to get another court appointed attorney and Jodi wanted to get a third party to spy on Britney with her new lawyer of her "choice" under guardianship "guidance"...

This makes sense. There was some sort of falling out between Ingham and Jamie after 8/31/20. Perhaps it was catching Jamie’s attorneys lying about surveillance of Britney (emails from 8/23-8/24 from Edan, Ingham, the Geryls). Or Jamie trying to bring back Andrew Wallet in paperwork from 9/16/20 - this was not a good look for team Con. Also, he stops getting paid by Lou in August of 2020. That’s probably the most annoying part of all.

  Either way, he wasn’t interested in giving up being the court appointed lawyer of a wealthy celebrity conservatee. He had forged a relationship close enough with Jodi that they were sharing snacks from a ziplock bag. Maybe he had the confidence to strike out on his own at this point by floating the idea of canceling Jamie,  bringing in Bessemer trust, and continuing jodi’s role. Britney may have even gone along with this idea at some point as it would have eliminated the need for her to be evaluated (which we know was one of her biggest fears in June 2021) and her father would have been out of the picture. 

[RebellionSparkles]

1 hour ago, Ghoulia said:

This makes sense. There was some sort of falling out between Ingham and Jamie after 8/31/20. Perhaps it was catching Jamie’s attorneys lying about surveillance of Britney (emails from 8/23-8/24 from Edan, Ingham, the Geryls). Or Jamie trying to bring back Andrew Wallet in paperwork from 9/16/20 - this was not a good look for team Con. Also, he stops getting paid by Lou in August of 2020. That’s probably the most annoying part of all.

  Either way, he wasn’t interested in giving up being the court appointed lawyer of a wealthy celebrity conservatee. He had forged a relationship close enough with Jodi that they were sharing snacks from a ziplock bag. Maybe he had the confidence to strike out on his own at this point by floating the idea of canceling Jamie,  bringing in Bessemer trust, and continuing jodi’s role. Britney may have even gone along with this idea at some point as it would have eliminated the need for her to be evaluated (which we know was one of her biggest fears in June 2021) and her father would have been out of the picture. 

Great points - Sam Ingham is mad because he finds out about Team Jamie lying about surveillance and Lou stops paying Ingham in August 2020.

Also this is when mainstream channels starting discussing #FreeBritney; so, the heat was finally on the CONs. 

[PrincessAkwa]

9 hours ago, Applejack said:

everything was dropped 

 

The extension was in 2019. JL's text was from 2020.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17jeZV78SCwgQGsOkad0H0PA8jqjgRsxgSqD9f_f1yAk/edit?usp=sharing

What actually lines up with JL's phone text was Ingham (incomplete) 1st petition to remove Jamie, Jamie Lynn quitting moving the trust assets to blocked accounts, JL resigning as a trustee and Lou dropping as accountant. Literally a few days after that, JL sent the text. That part is not in the link above, I need to add it.

Thanks for info.  Regarding moving to another state and it would dissolve is not as easy as JL claimed it would. I checked it out and the chanses are very slim. Especially a c-ship of that caliber. 

[PrincessAkwa]

8 hours ago, B. Leigh said:

To be clear JL was absolutely on Jamie/Lou's side which is why they used JL to give that message to Britney...I also think JL has strong narc tendencies and that probably has to do with her upbringing...

With that said JL released those text messages because she believed they proved that she gave Britney everything she needed to get out of the conservatorship and all Britney had to do was "walk through the door"...if these text messages were leaked by Britney or Rosengart I would have believed it was just JL being manipulative but the fact JL released them herself as public vindication means she thought she really did give Britney the keys to get out and Britney didn't take it...I think we are all over estimating JL and she might just be an idiot being manipulated by Lou...

I believe she believed that to be true. 

Regardless, there were no basis on granting the c-ship in the first place which Rosengart made clear in the transcript from July 14th 2021. 

Edit: if anyone needs it I have it. It can be downloaded here as well:  https://www.freebritney.net/post/transcript-of-july-14-2021-hearing

[Tar_isa]

10 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

I suspect that the surveillance of Britney and Ingham's conversations was how they kept Ingham in line from 2008 onwards.

We've heard that both Adnan Ghalib and David Lucado were tailed, and David was so frightened that he contacted law enforcement.

I can't imagine that they wouldn't pull this with Ingham as well.

Unless he knew and was ok with it for 12 years because he wasn't really an opposing side to Team Con, just a player who sometimes did something to look like he cared for his client without threatening the status quo. Then 12years later something changed, and he told them "i'm not on your side anymore, you can stop monitoring me or I'll rat you out."

I mean, the boyfriends were opposed to the Con, but Ingham was fine with the arrangement, he even helped set it up.

 

11 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Random thought while reading the "BJS Kids & Family Trust" thread...

Which side do you think Kevin Federline was on? 

My guess is that during 2019, Kevin snuggled up closer to Grandma.

Key dates:

Aug. 16, 2017 - The conservators file court documents asking to change Britney's will so her sons cannot access the entire SJB Revocable Trust at the age of 18. 

I think Kevin is only on his own team and has always been, playing game up to a certain point or doing little things that happened to benefit the conservatorship only because it benefitted him at the time.

I'm willing to bet this right here, the change in Britney's will, is what made him make a move 'against' the con in 2017/18 and ask for the financials etc. Again, as a way of saying "You're doing something that goes against my&my kids' interests, so hook me up or I'll rat you out because I know you're cooking the books."

I agree in 2019 he got closer to grandma, I'd say he has always been closer to team Lynne, even before the con they seemed to be somewhat close. 

 

A little off topic, but ever since I read JL's text messages I keep thinking of that time in 2020 when they all lived for a while under one roof, like a psichological thriller but also a comedy show? I mean, the cold wars happening behind the scenes, everyone scheming and trying to overthrow the other and playing mind games with each other, while Britney tries to cut up the biggest squash she'd ever seen but JL has to do it because it's too big for her, meanwhile Lynne sharing docs with lawyers or Lutfi or who knows, everyone is watching FreeBritney explode while Britney was right there with them playing with her niece... 

[Tar_isa]

9 hours ago, B. Leigh said:

To be clear JL was absolutely on Jamie/Lou's side which is why they used JL to give that message to Britney...I also think JL has strong narc tendencies and that probably has to do with her upbringing...

With that said JL released those text messages because she believed they proved that she gave Britney everything she needed to get out of the conservatorship and all Britney had to do was "walk through the door"...if these text messages were leaked by Britney or Rosengart I would have believed it was just JL being manipulative but the fact JL released them herself as public vindication means she thought she really did give Britney the keys to get out and Britney didn't take it...I think we are all over estimating JL and she might just be an idiot being manipulated by Lou...

JL is sooooo deep in the lie she can't even see it. She's so deep up L0u's butt hole she can't afford to even imagine Lou is a terrible person because then her whole world and who she is would crumble and collapse. So she has only one choice to 'survive': believe wholeheartedly that Britney needed the conservatorship (because she can't be trusted) and Lou was an angel who came to help, and believe anything and everything Lou tells her, without questioning it, even a little bit. That's why she actually might think the advice about living 6 months in Lousiana or "just get a new lawyer" made sense, because she never thought to question it. Even if she felt something was fishy, she couldn't afford to question it. It's exactly like a cult.

[B. Leigh]

1 hour ago, PrincessAkwa said:

I believe she believed that to be true. 

Regardless, there were no basis on granting the c-ship in the first place which Rosengart made clear in the transcript from July 14th 2021. 

Edit: if anyone needs it I have it. It can be downloaded here as well:  https://www.freebritney.net/post/transcript-of-july-14-2021-hearing

I know there was no basis for the conservatorship....there wasn't even a capacity declaration and this was all "voluntary" don't ya know......lmao the audacity of team con...

[PrincessAkwa]

10 minutes ago, B. Leigh said:

I know there was no basis for the conservatorship....there wasn't even a capacity declaration and this was all "voluntary" don't ya know......lmao the audacity of team con...

I know. But I can't write about how angry I am how this was allowed by the state of California and how many money hungry people tagged along. 

 

[Onyx1Boss]

Britney refuses to work, refuses meds, con unravels and they panic and prep for her death and control of her assets?

Quote

So she goes on strike. They try coercion, the factions jostle for control, they try to remove Parnell to get Britney back to work. Lou (Parnell's puppet master) won't have it, but resigns to save herself, as she realizes he is facing resistance. (She likes to work through manipulating people in key positions from behind the scenes,  not act directly)

Wallet flees liabilities, they pin Domination costs on Britney, things are unravelling. 

FreeBritney and documentaries heating things up.

So then JL is moving funds maybe as part of preparation for Britney's death? 

Bullying no longer works, so entice with JL family love, other side tries with Lynne mama love, doesn't work, everyone wants control of what is left as the next step is Britney's death.

I wonder if she was refusing meds and that was causing panic.

(There was a closed Aug 19 2020 hearing where  Ingham asks for Jamie to step down. Was that important in August? Or they just were fed up of Parnell, outlived his usefulness.

Maybe "new facts" Ingham had was the surveillance, he got a denial in writing and wanted to prove they were lying (as he knew about it)  as a lever to get rid of Parnell)

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/aug/24/britney-spears-request-remove-father-guardianship-delayed  )

A few timelines 

https://www.freebritney.army/timeline

https://www.pagesix.com/article/britney-spears-conservatorship-timeline-why-she-has-it

https://www.insider.com/inside-britney-spears-conservatorship-freebritney-movement-2020-12

https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/world-news/952687/a-timeline-of-the-battle-to-free-britney-spears

 

[RebellionSparkles]

2 hours ago, Onyx1Boss said:

Britney refuses to work, refuses meds, con unravels and they panic and prep for her death and control of her assets?

 

yup, that sounds like the CONs. What else would you do with a race horse that won't perform anymore?

[LikeShatteredGlass]

On 1/30/2022 at 5:15 PM, Ghoulia said:

https://youtu.be/9DttU77syN4?t=478

"My sister asked me to oversee a trust if something were to happen to her...I was approached by her team of lawyers or whatever. They were like, 'well you have to get a lawyer in order to do that.' I was like...[trails off and cuts to] so I did not even follow through with the steps to be a trustee over that will or anything." 

Is this even accurate or another one of JL's lies? I oversee a trust for someone and their lawyer just handed off some paperwork for me to sign. I didn't need my own lawyer.

[Steel Magnolia]

4 hours ago, Tar_isa said:

I think Kevin is only on his own team and has always been, playing game up to a certain point or doing little things that happened to benefit the conservatorship only because it benefitted him at the time.

I'm willing to bet this right here, the change in Britney's will, is what made him make a move 'against' the con in 2017/18 and ask for the financials etc. Again, as a way of saying "You're doing something that goes against my&my kids' interests, so hook me up or I'll rat you out because I know you're cooking the books."

I agree in 2019 he got closer to grandma, I'd say he has always been closer to team Lynne, even before the con they seemed to be somewhat close. 

100%

I'm betting the change in the will is what provoked him in 2017/2018 as well.

[LikeShatteredGlass]

21 hours ago, PrincessAkwa said:

Someone mentioned they extended the c-ship to other states. Could it be because Britney got the information she could live out of state for six months and the c-ship would dissolve. 

Regardless whether that is correct information she was given (remember JL stated she had given information to Britney several times) 

Remember her phone was mirrored (allegedly). 

Going back to the phone mirroring and JL's texts informing Britney about team con wrongdoings, is it possible that if con saw these texts from JL they booted her from the Trust idea because her ideas didn't align with their goals?