Jump to content

Attorney General Edmund Brown refused to investigate Britney’s conservatorship in 2008


Recommended Posts

  • Content Curators

There’s Attorneys protect the conservatorship/guardianship system when there’s abuse and exploitation happening in plain sight. They lack human decency and will go by these repressive medieval laws that are built on slavery. They only care about 💰 as we’re aware in the many cases we’ve heard since Britney’s  

  • Like 2
Link to comment

While I am in no way claiming the court should not have intervened, I think we're all forgetting one major factor here....

Britney did not have a lawyer working in her best interest, and her best interest alone; She had a court appointed lawyer who benefitted from the Conservatorship being in place. Britney was deemed incapable of hiring her own council, even though she literally did it....twice, and anyone who had the capacity to help her hire her own council was removed from her life. 

I'm not saying the courts had no idea; we know that this document proves that she was fighting in 2008, we know that she considered to retirement of her career to get out of it in 2012. An investigator told the courts it should be ended and not used as a oppressive tool against her in 2016, and we have all seen how 2019 through to 2021 played out, but ultimately, there was no one truly fighting Britney's corner....

The courts can only go on what is presented to them, and what is the accompanying evidence/precedent. We literally saw how 2019 through to 2021 played out under Ingham, his arguments were weak and flawed, despite bodies of evidence that Jamie should have been suspended.
 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, ICouldntThinkOfOne said:

While I am in no way claiming the court should not have intervened, I think we're all forgetting one major factor here....

Britney did not have a lawyer working in her best interest, and her best interest alone; She had a court appointed lawyer who benefitted from the Conservatorship being in place. Britney was deemed incapable of hiring her own council, even though she literally did it....twice, and anyone who had the capacity to help her hire her own council was removed from her life. 

I'm not saying the courts had no idea; we know that this document proves that she was fighting in 2008, we know that she considered to retirement of her career to get out of it in 2012. An investigator told the courts it should be ended and not used as a oppressive tool against her in 2016, and we have all seen how 2019 through to 2021 played out, but ultimately, there was no one truly fighting Britney's corner....

The courts can only go on what is presented to them, and what is the accompanying evidence/precedent. We literally saw how 2019 through to 2021 played out under Ingham, his arguments were weak and flawed, despite bodies of evidence that Jamie should have been suspended.
 

I agree, but there's also the fact that there's many people either benefiting from this or totally uninterested in the wellbeing of the conservatees.

I think one of the documentaries showed that there was records of an investigator, was it in 2014 or 2016? that said Britney did not want to be under the conservatorship, yet he still felt it was best for her. 

These investigators are supposed to be there precisely to make sure the lawyers, court-appointed or not, and everyone else involved is doing their job, but if they're not gonna do nothing and they won't have the conservatee's desires as their highest priority, then what is even the point? 

As you said, the court acts according to what is presented to them, but that also includes what these "third party" investigators say, and if they didn't say anything, they were just as complicit as everybody else. And maybe they weren't even benefiting directly from Britney, they were just incompetent, which shows how screwed up the system is.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, ICouldntThinkOfOne said:

The courts can only go on what is presented to them, and what is the accompanying evidence/precedent.

yes, but that was based on stuff that happened later on.

In 2008 we had Jon Eardley, Adam Streisand, then John Anderson in 2009. They were all saying Britney had objections to the procedure that weren't being heard. Jon Eardley tried to get the case to federal court and he was denied.

And I think placing a 26-year-old woman with huge wealth and a lot of media coverage under a probate conservatorship should've raised red flags and it didn't. I've always wondered why the story Lynne told about Lutfi didn't raise any flags either - it was grounds for a criminal inquiry. Yet no one did anything.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Applejack said:

yes, but that was based on stuff that happened later on.

In 2008 we had Jon Eardley, Adam Streisand, then John Anderson in 2009. They were all saying Britney had objections to the procedure that weren't being heard. Jon Eardley tried to get the case to federal court and he was denied.

And I think placing a 26-year-old woman with huge wealth and a lot of media coverage under a probate conservatorship should've raised red flags and it didn't. I've always wondered why the story Lynne told about Lutfi didn't raise any flags either - it was grounds for a criminal inquiry. Yet no one did anything.

Oh I completely agree, it should have raised red flags, but it didn't, and that is due to how nasty the court of public opinion was to Britney, regardless of her situation. I mean it took her audio going public before people really went "this isn't right".

Frankly, I'd love Rosengart to start pulling at threads relating to those involved in the conception of the conservatorship and whether or not they worked with media to give Britney further bad press, to benefit them.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, ICouldntThinkOfOne said:

Oh I completely agree, it should have raised red flags, but it didn't, and that is due to how nasty the court of public opinion was to Britney, regardless of her situation. I mean it took her audio going public before people really went "this isn't right".

Frankly, I'd love Rosengart to start pulling at threads relating to those involved in the conception of the conservatorship and whether or not they worked with media to give Britney further bad press, to benefit them.

Yes, but from a legal standpoint it should've raised red flags. In 2008 all it took was to research a bit more about conservatorships to get Jenny Eliscu spooked about it. There were Britney fans and sleuths who were spooked as well. And it didn't. That's wild.

Adam Streisand was booted out the court because he said Britney didn't want her dad as conservator. That's such a simple request and no one complied. Or cared.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

Leave a comment!

Not so fast! Did you know you can post now and register later? If you are already a member of Exhale, sign in here and start posting!
If you are not logged in, your post will need to be manually approved by an Exhale moderator before it's visible to everyone.

Guest
Tap to reply!

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...