Mathew Rosengart EXPOSES Tri-star and proves they were involved in Conservatorship and took $18 million

[RebellionSparkles]

5 minutes ago, breathe_on_me_toxic said:

I thought they stole 600mio?

So Rosengart throws not so subtle shade at this $600mm that made a little trip to Panama by calling out the Kardashians 

it smellls like tax evasion. And they have a chance to fess up now and blame everything on Lou before things get ugly 

 

[Steel Magnolia]

Can ya'll help me get this entry right?

Half of this is Goetz and half of this is Bobb...I'm just not sure who should take the full blame for what. 

Feb. 1, 2008 - The probate laws of California are broken by the Superior Court when Judge Reva Goetz places Britney Spears under a temporary conservatorship (Case # BP108870). The cause of the temporary conservatorship is due to "dementia." A violation of due process occurs when James Spears' attorneys select Samuel Ingham III to represent Britney, despite the California Probate Code specifying that Britney receive a document telling her she may select her court-appointed attorney herself. Judge Goetz includes a handwritten note: "PVP Counsel shall review and discuss the orders and related proceedings with the Conservatee. PVP Counsel shall retain all copies of the orders and pleadings and shall not leave them with the Conservatee." James Spears and Lynne Spears sit with attorney Blair Berk throughout the hearing, smiling and embracing after the announcement that James and Andrew Wallet have officially been named co-conservators of Britney’s estate. The New York Times later reports that “With the court’s permission, they immediately fired her business manager. Another team of lawyers was hired for the conservators and quickly set out to assess the financial damage. Yet another lawyer was appointed by the probate court, as is routine, to look out solely for Ms. Spears’s interests. Ms. Spears’s brother Bryan, along with a lawyer, were given control of her revocable trust, which contains all her liquid assets, so they could begin paying her bills. And Ms. Spears’s criminal lawyer, Blair Berk, was said to be overseeing the whole Humpty Dumpty-like effort.”

[Pending] Source:  https://twitter.com/notedyourhonor/status/1410326975885893634 

Source: Interview with Probate Attorney Lisa MacCarley, March 15, 2021, https://www.instagram.com/tv/CMbaVE6lmpW/?igshid=1oxr0jgiw717a

Source: “With Britney in Hospital, Her Family Takes Drastic Steps to Stop Her Spiral,” Tampa Bay Times, February 2, 2008. Accessed June 26, 2022 from https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2008/02/02/with-britney-in-hospital-her-family-takes-drastic-steps-to-stop-her-spiral/

Source: “In the Drama of Britney Spears, a Show Business Fortune Is at Risk,” David M. Halfinger and Geraldine Fabrikant, New York Times, February 25, 2008, Accessed June 30, 2022 from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/business/media/25britney.html

Related:

 

 

[Alestaos]

This is great news for Britney and for Justice!

Get em Rosengart!

[TimeLoveJoySpaceKnee]

3 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Can ya'll help me get this entry right?

Half of this is Goetz and half of this is Bobb...I'm just not sure who should take the full blame for what. 

Feb. 1, 2008 - The probate laws of California are broken by the Superior Court when Judge Reva Goetz places Britney Spears under a temporary conservatorship (Case # BP108870). The cause of the temporary conservatorship is due to "dementia." A violation of due process occurs when James Spears' attorneys select Samuel Ingham III to represent Britney, despite the California Probate Code specifying that Britney receive a document telling her she may select her court-appointed attorney herself. Judge Goetz includes a handwritten note: "PVP Counsel shall review and discuss the orders and related proceedings with the Conservatee. PVP Counsel shall retain all copies of the orders and pleadings and shall not leave them with the Conservatee." James Spears and Lynne Spears sit with attorney Blair Berk throughout the hearing, smiling and embracing after the announcement that James and Andrew Wallet have officially been named co-conservators of Britney’s estate. The New York Times later reports that “With the court’s permission, they immediately fired her business manager. Another team of lawyers was hired for the conservators and quickly set out to assess the financial damage. Yet another lawyer was appointed by the probate court, as is routine, to look out solely for Ms. Spears’s interests. Ms. Spears’s brother Bryan, along with a lawyer, were given control of her revocable trust, which contains all her liquid assets, so they could begin paying her bills. And Ms. Spears’s criminal lawyer, Blair Berk, was said to be overseeing the whole Humpty Dumpty-like effort.”

[Pending] Source:  https://twitter.com/notedyourhonor/status/1410326975885893634 

Source: Interview with Probate Attorney Lisa MacCarley, March 15, 2021, https://www.instagram.com/tv/CMbaVE6lmpW/?igshid=1oxr0jgiw717a

Source: “With Britney in Hospital, Her Family Takes Drastic Steps to Stop Her Spiral,” Tampa Bay Times, February 2, 2008. Accessed June 26, 2022 from https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2008/02/02/with-britney-in-hospital-her-family-takes-drastic-steps-to-stop-her-spiral/

Source: “In the Drama of Britney Spears, a Show Business Fortune Is at Risk,” David M. Halfinger and Geraldine Fabrikant, New York Times, February 25, 2008, Accessed June 30, 2022 from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/business/media/25britney.html

Related:

 

 

It looks like Bobb also showed up on the consent to act as conservator of the estate application for Andrew Wallet

Full doc here

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hMli4O5oUhCZuI3yNdmse4a0oAI9dnK0/view?usp=drivesdk

[ICouldntThinkOfOne]

9 hours ago, ROL said:

LFB are in kahoots with sam ingham, I thought we all knew that!

Yeah, didn't they literally say big name Free Britney supporters were jealous of them, and the voicemail was a hoax?

[bitbitboi]

MANY things need to be resolved here, but at the end of everything I want to be reassured that my queen isn't worth only 60 millions, that's nuts for a celebrity of her caliber... 

[queenofhearts]

If anyone is interested, here's a site where you can go and review kylie jenner's (kylie's cosmetics) company

https://www.trustpilot.com/review/kyliecosmetics.com

I just told them i refuse to purchase from a company who's business manager profited off humane trafficking

[Steel Magnolia]

4 hours ago, DuranDuran said:

Feb 1, 2008

This appears to conflict with Lisa MacCarley's legal opinion. In this interview Lisa says that (paraphrasing):

Feb. 1, 2008 - A violation of due process occurs when James Spears' attorneys select Samuel Ingham III to represent Britney, despite the California Probate Code specifying that Britney receive a document telling her she may select her court-appointed attorney herself. Judge Goetz (or is it Judge Bobb? EDIT: It was Goetz) includes a handwritten note: "PVP Counsel shall review and discuss the orders and related proceedings with the Conservatee. PVP Counsel shall retain all copies of the orders and pleadings and shall not leave them with the Conservatee."

Question...

Lisa shows the document from James' attorneys in her interview, so I don't doubt that the document exists...but...

Does the "dementia" box being ticked mean that Ingham was automatically assigned (as per @notedyourhonor), or was there a violation of due process when James' lawyers selected Ingham and the Judge (either Goetz or Bobb) agreed with them and instructed Ingham not to leave copies of documents telling Britney that she could select her own court-appointed counsel (as per Lisa)?

(I hope that makes sense.)

[RebellionSparkles]

2 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Can ya'll help me get this entry right?

Half of this is Goetz and half of this is Bobb...I'm just not sure who should take the full blame for what. 

Feb. 1, 2008 - The probate laws of California are broken by the Superior Court when Judge Reva Goetz places Britney Spears under a temporary conservatorship (Case # BP108870). The cause of the temporary conservatorship is due to "dementia." A violation of due process occurs when James Spears' attorneys select Samuel Ingham III to represent Britney, despite the California Probate Code specifying that Britney receive a document telling her she may select her court-appointed attorney herself. Judge Goetz includes a handwritten note: "PVP Counsel shall review and discuss the orders and related proceedings with the Conservatee. PVP Counsel shall retain all copies of the orders and pleadings and shall not leave them with the Conservatee." James Spears and Lynne Spears sit with attorney Blair Berk throughout the hearing, smiling and embracing after the announcement that James and Andrew Wallet have officially been named co-conservators of Britney’s estate. The New York Times later reports that “With the court’s permission, they immediately fired her business manager. Another team of lawyers was hired for the conservators and quickly set out to assess the financial damage. Yet another lawyer was appointed by the probate court, as is routine, to look out solely for Ms. Spears’s interests. Ms. Spears’s brother Bryan, along with a lawyer, were given control of her revocable trust, which contains all her liquid assets, so they could begin paying her bills. And Ms. Spears’s criminal lawyer, Blair Berk, was said to be overseeing the whole Humpty Dumpty-like effort.”

[Pending] Source:  https://twitter.com/notedyourhonor/status/1410326975885893634 

Source: Interview with Probate Attorney Lisa MacCarley, March 15, 2021, https://www.instagram.com/tv/CMbaVE6lmpW/?igshid=1oxr0jgiw717a

Source: “With Britney in Hospital, Her Family Takes Drastic Steps to Stop Her Spiral,” Tampa Bay Times, February 2, 2008. Accessed June 26, 2022 from https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2008/02/02/with-britney-in-hospital-her-family-takes-drastic-steps-to-stop-her-spiral/

Source: “In the Drama of Britney Spears, a Show Business Fortune Is at Risk,” David M. Halfinger and Geraldine Fabrikant, New York Times, February 25, 2008, Accessed June 30, 2022 from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/business/media/25britney.html

Related:

 

 

Jan 31, 2008 – Andrew Wallet consents to act as CON of the estate. Filing is submitted by Jamie’s lawyers (Jeryls & Vivian Thoreen). The filing is addressed to Judge Aviva K Bobb for hearing on Feb 1, 2008 at 10:30AM.

Spoiler

 

Feb 1 2008 – Geraldine Wyle files EX PARTE APP. FOR ORDER EXCUSING NOTICE OF HEARING RE CONSERVATOR, asking the court to place Britney in the CON while she was on the 5150 hold, and with no notice. No judge is directly addressed.

Spoiler

 

Feb 4, 2008 – 8:30AM James P Spears request judicial notice in Britney’s divorce case. Judge Scott Gordon Pro Tem

Spoiler

 

Feb 4, 2008 – 8:45AM Divorce minutes entered. Judge Scott Gordon Pro Tem

Spoiler

 

Feb 4, 2008 - 1:30PM SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JAMES P. SPEARS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEMPORARY CONSERVATOR. Reva Goetz is addressed as judge pro tem.

Spoiler

 

Feb 4, 2008 – Minutes entered for petition of CON of Britney Spears. Reva Goetz is addressed as judge pro tem. Adam Streisand appears as Britney’s attorney. Samuel Ingham appears as court appointed PVP for Britney Spears.

Spoiler

Included in the notes address the need to file a capacity declaration and a report to address the possibility for psychotropic medication for Ms. Spears.

Spoiler

 

//

PVP’s request for the court to retaun an expert pursuant to Evidence Code 730 and suggestion of Dr. Steven (Stephen ?) Marmer is heard and granted. PVP shall contact Mr. Marmer to ascertain his willingness and availability. Mr Marmer shall file a report by February 13, 2008, if not sooner re Ms Spears 1) capacity to participate in the Conservatorship proceedings, 2) ability to manage her financial affairs, 3) ability to retain counsel, and/or 4) her susceptibility to undue influence. Mr. Marmer’s reports shall also address the possibility for psychotropic medication for Ms. Spears.

//

[Ghoulia]

1 hour ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Can ya'll help me get this entry right?

Half of this is Goetz and half of this is Bobb...I'm just not sure who should take the full blame for what. 

Feb. 1, 2008 - The probate laws of California are broken by the Superior Court when Judge Reva Goetz places Britney Spears under a temporary conservatorship (Case # BP108870). The cause of the temporary conservatorship is due to "dementia." A violation of due process occurs when James Spears' attorneys select Samuel Ingham III to represent Britney, despite the California Probate Code specifying that Britney receive a document telling her she may select her court-appointed attorney herself. Judge Goetz includes a handwritten note: "PVP Counsel shall review and discuss the orders and related proceedings with the Conservatee. PVP Counsel shall retain all copies of the orders and pleadings and shall not leave them with the Conservatee." James Spears and Lynne Spears sit with attorney Blair Berk throughout the hearing, smiling and embracing after the announcement that James and Andrew Wallet have officially been named co-conservators of Britney’s estate. The New York Times later reports that “With the court’s permission, they immediately fired her business manager. Another team of lawyers was hired for the conservators and quickly set out to assess the financial damage. Yet another lawyer was appointed by the probate court, as is routine, to look out solely for Ms. Spears’s interests. Ms. Spears’s brother Bryan, along with a lawyer, were given control of her revocable trust, which contains all her liquid assets, so they could begin paying her bills. And Ms. Spears’s criminal lawyer, Blair Berk, was said to be overseeing the whole Humpty Dumpty-like effort.”

[Pending] Source:  https://twitter.com/notedyourhonor/status/1410326975885893634 

Source: Interview with Probate Attorney Lisa MacCarley, March 15, 2021, https://www.instagram.com/tv/CMbaVE6lmpW/?igshid=1oxr0jgiw717a

 

 

A violation of due process occurs when James Spears' attorneys select Samuel Ingham III to represent Britney, despite the California Probate Code specifying that Britney receive a document telling her she may select her court-appointed attorney herself.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PROB&division=4.&title=&part=1.&chapter=4.&article=

[RebellionSparkles]

2 minutes ago, Ghoulia said:

 

A violation of due process occurs when James Spears' attorneys select Samuel Ingham III to represent Britney, despite the California Probate Code specifying that Britney receive a document telling her she may select her court-appointed attorney herself.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PROB&division=4.&title=&part=1.&chapter=4.&article=

 

40 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

This appears to conflict with Lisa MacCarley's legal opinion. In this interview Lisa says that (paraphrasing):

Feb. 1, 2008 - A violation of due process occurs when James Spears' attorneys select Samuel Ingham III to represent Britney, despite the California Probate Code specifying that Britney receive a document telling her she may select her court-appointed attorney herself. Judge Goetz (or is it Judge Bobb? EDIT: It was Goetz) includes a handwritten note: "PVP Counsel shall review and discuss the orders and related proceedings with the Conservatee. PVP Counsel shall retain all copies of the orders and pleadings and shall not leave them with the Conservatee."

Question...

Lisa shows the document from James' attorneys in her interview, so I don't doubt that the document exists...but...

Does the "dementia" box being ticked mean that Ingham was automatically assigned (as per @notedyourhonor), or was there a violation of due process when James' lawyers selected Ingham and the Judge (either Goetz or Bobb) agreed with them and instructed Ingham not to leave copies of documents telling Britney that she could select her own court-appointed counsel (as per Lisa)?

(I hope that makes sense.)

the timeline is a little murky because some of these actions are happening minutes apart from each other, and not all of the docs have time stamps

[Ghoulia]

15 minutes ago, RebellionSparkles said:

 

the timeline is a little murky because some of these actions are happening minutes apart from each other, and not all of the docs have time stamps

In my understanding of the probate code, the timeline is irrelevant. The judge should be appointing counsel for a proposed conservatee, not the proposed conservator's legal team. Also, if Britney said she wanted Streisand, that should be enough to satisfy this: (d) If a conservatee, proposed conservatee, or person alleged to lack legal capacity expresses a preference for a particular attorney to represent them, the court shall allow representation by the preferred attorney, even if the attorney is not on the court’s list of a court-appointed attorneys

 

@notedyourhonor and Lisa are both correct.  Unless I'm missing something, they're both saying that Jamie & the Jerylls had a patsy lined up.  Ingham.  By ticking the "dementia" box, they gave the court authority to immediately assign an attorney.  Ingham steps in and immediately files a motion to prevent britney from being informed of everything happening.  Vivian Thoreen plays junkyard guard dog at the hospital to prevent any one from visiting Britney and alerting her to the events unfolding.  

 

Edit again.

Oh, I see what you mean now about timeline.

Well, it would be: 

-->dementia box ticked-->judge to assign proposed conservatee legal counsel-->Sam Ingham immediately appointed to that role as recommended by Jamie's team-->Ingham files prepared motion to deny Britney knowledge of the events

Edited July 3, 2022 by Ghoulia

[Ghoulia]

Bobb appoints Ingham.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BW7_CG-WMmq01Nblz3tyBJRnq3SE0C-b/view?usp=sharing

[Steel Magnolia]

22 minutes ago, Ghoulia said:

Edit again.

Oh, I see what you mean now about timeline.

Well, it would be: 

-->dementia box ticked-->judge to assign proposed conservatee legal counsel-->Sam Ingham immediately appointed to that role as recommended by Jamie's team-->Ingham files prepared motion to deny Britney knowledge of the events

I'm not sure if the timeline matters...

It's more about legal points.

From what I'm understanding, @NotedYourHonor and Lisa MacCarley are saying two different things about the probate code.

Lisa: "The judge violated the law by appointing the court-appointed counsel that James' team requested."

NYH: "The dementia box was ticked which triggers an automatic appointing of court-appointed counsel."

In the first scenario, the judge is corrupt...In the second scenario, the judge is not corrupt.

[Ghoulia]

2 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

I'm not sure if the timeline matters...

It's more about legal points.

From what I'm understanding, @NotedYourHonor and Lisa MacCarley are saying two different things about the probate code.

Lisa: "The judge violated the law by appointing the court-appointed counsel that James' team requested."

NYH: "The dementia box was ticked which triggers an automatic appointing of court-appointed counsel."

In the first scenario, the judge is corrupt...In the second scenario, the judge is not corrupt.

I don't see NYH as exonerating the judges' roles in this, especially if it's done at the same time.  Judge has letters of conservatorship that claim the proposed conservatee is gravely disabled due to dementia and in the same session, signs off on Jamie's chosen probate attorney for the proposed conservatee.

It seems that the judge/s must be complicit with the team in approving the motions being requested, otherwise, what's the rush?

[Steel Magnolia]

Just now, Ghoulia said:

I don't see NYH as exonerating the judges' roles in this, especially if it's done at the same time.  Judge has letters of conservatorship that claim the proposed conservatee is gravely disabled due to dementia and in the same session, signs off on Jamie's chosen probate attorney for the proposed conservatee.

It seems that the judge/s must be complicit with the team in approving the motions being requested, otherwise, what's the rush?

I'm not saying NYH is exonerating the judge on the other legal points.

I'm just asking...

Does ticking the "dementia" box trigger an automatic appointment of a court-appointed counsel?

[RebellionSparkles]

3 minutes ago, Ghoulia said:

It seems that the judge/s must be complicit with the team in approving the motions being requested, otherwise, what's the rush?

The rush was they wanted to get B in a CON while she was locked up in the hospital on the 5150. So they prob had to assign a lawyer to her ASAP or risk everything falling apart.

I cant tell which judge would/would not approve psychotropic medication. 

//Additionally, one of Jamie's lawyers emailed Taylor before going to court to create the conservatorship in 2008 saying, "We have run into a problem with [the] judge selection ... the only judge who will be able to hear our case on Friday is the one **** [sic] who will not give Jamie the power to administer psychotropic *****."//

[Forever222]

So Bobb is a critical part of the inception of the Con. What is she doing now? A private judge like Gotez? 

[Ghoulia]

1 minute ago, Steel Magnolia said:

I'm not saying NYH is exonerating the judge on the other legal points.

I'm just asking...

Does ticking the "dementia" box trigger an automatic appointment of a court-appointed counsel?

I think the wording allows for this to happen. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PROB&sectionNum=1471.

1471.  (a) If a conservatee or proposed conservatee has not retained legal counsel and does not plan to retain legal counsel, whether or not that person lacks or appears to lack legal capacity, the court shall, at or before the time of the hearing, appoint the public defender or private counsel to represent the person in any proceeding listed in subdivision (a).

 

[RebellionSparkles]

5 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

I'm not saying NYH is exonerating the judge on the other legal points.

I'm just asking...

Does ticking the "dementia" box trigger an automatic appointment of a court-appointed counsel?

70. Automatic appointment of counsel

Probate Code section 1471 presently lists limited situations in which representation by counsel is mandated and leaves it to the discretion of the court for all other matters. It is the task force’s view that the Judicial Council should adopt a policy that an attorney should be automatically appointed for the proposed conservatee in connection with every petition to establish a conservatorship. A basic premise of the current statute is that counsel be appointed for those who request appointment. The reality is that if the individual truly lacks capacity and cannot request an appointment of counsel, that is when advocacy is most needed. The task force concludes that practices in appointing counsel vary widely within the state, with many jurisdictions appointing attorneys only when mandated and others appointing attorneys in every instance. The needs of conservatees for representation do not vary by physical location within the state and should be met uniformly. This was the most far-reaching policy issue that the task force grappled with. In forming its recommendation, the task force likened the situation of a conservatee to that of others within the judicial system. Conservatees are as vulnerable as dependents in our juvenile dependency system, are as at risk as minors in our family law system, and are as subject to deprivation of personal liberty and property as defendants in our criminal law system. Putting all of these factors together, it became apparent that the most effective way of affording protection to conservatees is to require the appointment of counsel in all cases. This need to safeguard the rights of the conservatee, the task force decided, far outweighs the arguments that it would be too costly or not necessary in all cases. The

27. Psychotropic medication

The Legislature should amend Probate Code section 2356.5 to require compliance with that section before a conservator of the person may consent to administration of a psychotropic medication for treatment of dementia or for any other purpose.