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

[RebellionSparkles]

9 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?

 

3 minutes ago, Ghoulia said:

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).

 

I think the court can automatically assign a lawyer to a proposed conservatee ASAP. The dementia part seems to be so that the CONs could administer the control **** cocktail to Britney.

The met with Aviva K Bobbs on Friday Feb 1, 2008. The email that came out yesterday said "we have run in a problem with the judge. The only one we can see on Friday will not approve psychotropic *****." (paraphrased)

^^Therefore they had to say B had dementia in order to administer the control cocktail

[Steel Magnolia]

7 minutes ago, Ghoulia said:

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).

 

 

4 minutes ago, RebellionSparkles said:

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.

I take from this that the answer is "no."

Ticking the "dementia" box does not trigger an automatic appointment of legal counsel.

Unless this...

"Probate Code section 1471 presently lists limited situations in which representation by counsel is mandated..."

...includes "dementia" on the list of limited situations.

Am I reading that correctly?

[RebellionSparkles]

4 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

 

I take from this that the answer is "no."

Ticking the "dementia" box does not trigger an automatic appointment of legal counsel.

Unless this...

"Probate Code section 1471 presently lists limited situations in which representation by counsel is mandated..."

...includes "dementia" on the list of limited situations.

Am I reading that correctly?

I'm thinking the answer is "no." BUT, its possible to Judge was following standard protocol for the LA court. Just because it is standard protocol does not exonerate it from being unconstitutional.

So, Aviva K Bobbs intention/motivation is unclear to me still (was she corrupt or not?). But intention doesn't matter if a judge violates a constitutional right.

[Steel Magnolia]

9 minutes ago, RebellionSparkles said:

 

I think the court can automatically assign a lawyer to a proposed conservatee ASAP. The dementia part seems to be so that the CONs could administer the control **** cocktail to Britney.

The met with Aviva K Bobbs on Friday Feb 1, 2008. The email that came out yesterday said "we have run in a problem with the judge. The only one we can see on Friday will not approve psychotropic *****." (paraphrased)

^^Therefore they had to say B had dementia in order to administer the control cocktail

"Dementia" is a curious choice.

If Britney was suffering from dementia, it would have been ****-induced dementia...Which, theoretically, could have been possible given that Britney had been receiving "miracle pills" from Lutfi for approximately five days leading up to the CON.

Lynne's declaration lists three *****. Two had likely been prescribed by Dr. Nadel. The other Britney apparently admitted to taking when she arrived at the hospital.

Basically, they were laying the "dementia" claim at the feet of Sam Lutfi.

...

Jan. 25, 2008 - Britney visits Dr. Deborah Nadel for the first time after the family court forces her to undergo a psychological evaluation.

Source: https://www.x17online.com/2008/01/x17_xclusive_britney_visits_psychiatrist

[Steel Magnolia]

2 minutes ago, RebellionSparkles said:

I'm thinking the answer is "no." BUT, its possible to Judge was following standard protocol for the LA court. Just because it is standard protocol does not exonerate it from being unconstitutional.

So, Aviva K Bobbs intention/motivation is unclear to me still (was she corrupt or not?). But intention doesn't matter if a judge violates a constitutional right.

That's exactly what I'm trying to figure out...

Because we know that Team CON will try to exonerate themselves using these arguments.

Lisa is saying Britney's constitutional rights were violated (on this specific point).

NYH appears to be saying her rights were not violated (on this specific point).

NOTE: B's rights were clearly violated on a number of points. I'm just trying to nail down which ones RosenDaddy can nail Team CON on.

[RebellionSparkles]

2 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

"Dementia" is a curious choice.

I think the dementia triggers additional powers for the CON of the person to administer psychotropic *****. That's why they ticked dementia.

[Steel Magnolia]

14 minutes ago, RebellionSparkles said:

I think the dementia triggers additional powers for the CON of the person to administer psychotropic *****. That's why they ticked dementia.

If so...

Let's find that piece of the probate code.

The justification for the CON became "undue influence" for the permanent conservatorship.

So why select "dementia" for the temporary conservatorship? Why not "undue influence" for the temporary conservatorship as well?

[RebellionSparkles]

6 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

If so...

Let's find that piece of the probate code.

The justification for the CON became "undue influence" for the permanent conservatorship.

So why select "dementia" for the temporary conservatorship? Why not "undue influence" for the temporary conservatorship as well?

https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/17626/636879848350130000

[RebellionSparkles]

12 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

If so...

Let's find that piece of the probate code.

The justification for the CON became "undue influence" for the permanent conservatorship.

So why select "dementia" for the temporary conservatorship? Why not "undue influence" for the temporary conservatorship as well?

California’s Probate Code establishes due process requirements for imposing conservatorship. Probate Code 1801 states the evidentiary standard of “clear and convincing evidence.” Probate Code 1827 states the right to a jury trial. The Notice of Conservatee’s Rights enumerates rights retained by a conservatee: the right to be represented by a lawyer, the right to ask a judge to replace the conservator, and the right to ask a judge to end the conservatorship. But in practice, those rights are rarely accessible to a proposed conservatee. Once conservatorship is imposed, it is impossible to exercise those rights without assistance from the conservator.

 

https://www.madinamerica.com/2021/08/sins-conservatorship-britney-spears/

 

[Mx_Defying]

7 hours ago, Ghoulia said:

Mormons are a force to be reckoned with. I lived with some Mormons and they were like, aggressively cheerful. And they make up a lot of the CIA and FBI!

They make up a lot of the State Department too.

Religious organizations are great at laundering money and families typically stick together. We are talking about numerous powerful and wealthy family dynasties that are tied together to the right wing of US politics.

This isn’t about Britney being a “family business”, but about a conglomeration of family businesse$:

The Azoffs

The Kardashians

The Rudolphs 

The Maloofs 

Explore the ties between Billy Graham’s family (1 of the first & most powerful/richest  Christian televangelists) & Lou Taylor down in Florida!
 

Rob Taylor has been working with Stephan Tchvidjian for a long time.There’s A LOT of business records to go through in South Florida! But know that Lou is deeply connected to Stephan Tchvidjian and Steven Screnci (lawyer for Niki Taylor after her 2001 car crash and Ron Artest after Malice at the Palace).
 

Guess who has recently worked for or interned with Tri Star Sports & Entertainment? Blesi Tchvidjian and Lia Screnci!

 

[ItsSway]

5 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Okay.

Well...Just scroll on past next time?

No no, you just need to know how to respond to people. This is a free forum and if I felt you came off a certain way, than it is my point of view to call it out. You didn’t ask me what I meant from my question until after I snapped at you and now you wanna try and be like “well be quite next time” like ew.

[Steel Magnolia]

59 minutes ago, RebellionSparkles said:

https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/17626/636879848350130000

Take a look at the entry just below "Medication Authorization."

Under "Attorneys"...

"...unless authorization to treat dementia is requested, in which case an attorney is appointed by the court."

And there we go.

So...

Walking it backwards...

Team CON knew they wanted to go with a "dementia" diagnosis because it meant, 

a) They could have their chosen attorney (Ingham) appointed, and
b) They could administer medication.

So how do they secure a "dementia" diagnosis?

[Steel Magnolia]

3 minutes ago, ItsSway said:

No no, you just need to know how to respond to people. This is a free forum and if I felt you came off a certain way, than it is my point of view to call it out. You didn’t ask me what I meant from my question until after I snapped at you and now you wanna try and be like “we’ll be quite next time” like ew.

I honestly just can't be bothered to scroll back through the thread to see why you have your panties in a knot.

When I respond to anyone on this forum I include tons of information so all the members who are reading can follow along.

I can't control how you perceive my response...You're filtering it through your own lens.

[Steel Magnolia]

1 hour ago, RebellionSparkles said:

California’s Probate Code establishes due process requirements for imposing conservatorship. Probate Code 1801 states the evidentiary standard of “clear and convincing evidence.” Probate Code 1827 states the right to a jury trial. The Notice of Conservatee’s Rights enumerates rights retained by a conservatee: the right to be represented by a lawyer, the right to ask a judge to replace the conservator, and the right to ask a judge to end the conservatorship. But in practice, those rights are rarely accessible to a proposed conservatee. Once conservatorship is imposed, it is impossible to exercise those rights without assistance from the conservator.

 

https://www.madinamerica.com/2021/08/sins-conservatorship-britney-spears/

 

So are those ***** approved for dementia patients in their 20's?

From your article:

"When my mother objected to her situation, when she fought or begged for help, she was chemically restrained with psychotropic ***** Risperdal, Seroquel, and Haldol. Probate Code 2356.5 requires that a conservator must show the court “clear and convincing evidence” that a conservatee has would benefit from administration of such medications. My mother’s CAC testified, “Dementia powers would be a special power granted to a conservator pursuant to the probate court that would … give the conservator the power to authorize dementia medications.” When asked if the step-granddaughter obtained dementia powers over my mother, the CAC testified, “I don’t believe she did.” When the step-granddaughter was asked if she had dementia powers, she testified, “I’m not familiar with dementia powers.”

Psychotropic medications like Risperdal, Seroquel, and Haldol are not approved for treatment of dementia in elderly patients."

Note to self: Look up Probate Code 2356.5.

[RebellionSparkles]

16 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

I honestly just can't be bothered to scroll back through the thread to see why you have your panties in a knot.

When I respond to anyone on this forum I include tons of information so all the members who are reading can follow along.

I can't control how you perceive my response...You're filtering it through your own lens.

@Steel Magnolia…don’t feel bad that you didn’t notice this…maybe I’m just a genius 💅…but I think @ItsSway doesn’t like you.

I guess you can’t sway them all 😂

maybe it’s Blair witch project?

[Mx_Defying]

28 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Take a look at the entry just below "Medication Authorization."

Under "Attorneys"...

"...unless authorization to treat dementia is requested, in which case an attorney is appointed by the court."

And there we go.

So...

Walking it backwards...

Team CON knew they wanted to go with a "dementia" diagnosis because it meant, 

a) They could have their chosen attorney (Ingham) appointed, and
b) They could administer medication.

So how do they secure a "dementia" diagnosis?

This analysis is brilliant!

[Steel Magnolia]

6 minutes ago, RebellionSparkles said:

@Steel Magnolia…don’t feel bad that you didn’t notice this…maybe I’m just a genius 💅…but I think @ItsSway doesn’t like you.

I guess you can’t sway them all 😂

maybe it’s Blair witch project?

Joined January 22, 2019...But only has 128 posts.

Two of which were to "call me out."

[Ghoulia]

10 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

So are those ***** approved for dementia patients in their 20's?

From your article:

"When my mother objected to her situation, when she fought or begged for help, she was chemically restrained with psychotropic ***** Risperdal, Seroquel, and Haldol. Probate Code 2356.5 requires that a conservator must show the court “clear and convincing evidence” that a conservatee has would benefit from administration of such medications. My mother’s CAC testified, “Dementia powers would be a special power granted to a conservator pursuant to the probate court that would … give the conservator the power to authorize dementia medications.” When asked if the step-granddaughter obtained dementia powers over my mother, the CAC testified, “I don’t believe she did.” When the step-granddaughter was asked if she had dementia powers, she testified, “I’m not familiar with dementia powers.”

Psychotropic medications like Risperdal, Seroquel, and Haldol are not approved for treatment of dementia in elderly patients."

Note to self: Look up Probate Code 2356.5.

Probate code 2356.5 is quite different now than the earliest 2015 view in the Wayback Machine. I started to compare the two and became frustrated

[RebellionSparkles]

3 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

So are those ***** approved for dementia patients in their 20's?

From your article:

"When my mother objected to her situation, when she fought or begged for help, she was chemically restrained with psychotropic ***** Risperdal, Seroquel, and Haldol. Probate Code 2356.5 requires that a conservator must show the court “clear and convincing evidence” that a conservatee has would benefit from administration of such medications. My mother’s CAC testified, “Dementia powers would be a special power granted to a conservator pursuant to the probate court that would … give the conservator the power to authorize dementia medications.” When asked if the step-granddaughter obtained dementia powers over my mother, the CAC testified, “I don’t believe she did.” When the step-granddaughter was asked if she had dementia powers, she testified, “I’m not familiar with dementia powers.”

Psychotropic medications like Risperdal, Seroquel, and Haldol are not approved for treatment of dementia in elderly patients."

Note to self: Look up Probate Code 2356.5.

Dementia has never been documented in someone in their 20s, so I doubt Cali probate has any age limitation on a diagnosis. I think it’s more that the hospital isn’t allowed to give these ***** to a patient unless a court signs off on it BECAUSE these ***** are control *****. This didn’t become a story until 10 years after Britney’s incident about caretakers abusing control ***** with dementia patients. But this is extremely well known amongst any family dealing with dementia.

@Mx_Defying has also recently discussed Risperdal on Twitter…it’s not a therapeutic ****.

my mom was put on the exact cocktail of Risperdal, Seroquel, Haldol…it’s a cocktail in California. It’s no bueno.

[RebellionSparkles]

9 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Joined January 22, 2019...But only has 128 posts.

Two of which were to "call me out."

That’s is literally the most likely date Britney was institutionalized. I am re-listening to GramGirls rn! 🥰 them