feo

Ok Lawyers for Britney / minion They didn't have to show their face if they didn't want to. They could have stayed anonymous. Instead they outright lied and then tried to play victim. All they do is lie and manipulate

LOL. Lawyers for Ingham are getting caught in their own ridiculous lies. They are clearly infiltrators working for Ingham. Period. Did you guys see they were the only 'freebritney' account Ingham followed on his private insta? And they expect us to believe their dramatic shift towards defending Ingham at all costs is not because Ingham clearly reached out to them (or vice versa)? Pfffffffffft.

Care to elaborate? Or are you another Lawyers for Ingham finsta? This will cause an investigation into whether Ingham was either negligent or complicit, which could even result in his removal from the case. That could result in Britney being able to choose her own lawyer, or at least getting a new lawyer who isn't compromised. Doesn't sound 'pointless' to me...

That is possible, BUT if that happens then we can hold the Bar accountable for doing so given the documentary evidence screaming fraud in this case. The Bar might not want to see itself on the wrong side of the law or the facts.

We might not. First, the current law says that conservatees have the right to choose their own lawyer (with Reva Goetz and Ingham violated). With all the scrutiny now I doubt Judge Penny would be willing to say Britney doesn't have capacity, especially after everything we have seen her do since 2008. Second, the new law going through to better protect conservatees makes the right to choose own counsel a bigger deal. Again, Penny would have to be a moron or too boldly corrupt to not let her choose. Third, even if there was another court appointed attorney then at least it is not someone like Ingham who is trying to cover their butt at the expense of their client's freedom.

I was going to say the same thing. I saw that in the thread about the open letter that one of them repeatedly said something like 'well Ingham did commit crimes years ago, but who's to say he is still doing it? We should support him.' That is such bad logic. If Ingham commited crimes or misdeeds at the outset of this conservatorship then he is in a serious conflict of interest now as he will be looking to protect himself rather than Britney. It is pretty obvious. Ingham deserves to be investigated HARDCORE.

Did you guys hear? The movement will be filing complaints against Ingham to the California Bar on May 10, 2021! It is about freakin' time. This link has everything each of us need to do our complaint: https://linktr.ee/InghamEndItNow

GOOD! Ingham has not done anything to end the conservatorship in the past 2 years (let alone the last 13 years). FREE BRITNEY NOW!!!

So sorry just saw this now. It depends on what both sides agree to or if there is no agreement then the court can impose a deadline and what disclosures should be produced

I agree with pretty much everything you said EXCEPT that Britney would benefit from a conservatorship of the estate. As an attorney as well, I think that considering a conservatorship should be the absolute last resort and considering it is a system that has abused her for 13 years now I completely disagree that it should even be considered. It would only serve to traumatize her further. Britney needs to be empowered to be able to make her own decisions and control her own estate as much as possible. It doesn't mean she can't have trusts, accountants, managers etc. But SHE needs to have the final say. Conservatorships (even just of the estate) are clearly not made for capable people like Britney. There are far less potentially abusive options out there to teach her and help her manage her estate.

Thanks for clarifying. And kudos for being open to feedback!

Great article Jordan. The only part I have issues with is the statement: "While I can agree the conservatorship was instrumental in stopping Britney’s dire circumstance, it’s been abused." Under NO circumstances should this conservatorship have been created, particularly in the probate courts (which is generally for the elderly and not someone as young or capable as Britney). If any conservatorship was absolutely necessary because of any (alleged) mental health issues then it should have been in the mental health courts (where conservators are NOT compensated). That is why Wallet tested the waters and put this in probate court (where compensation is possible) and he, Lou Taylor, James Spears, Ingham and all the other doctors and lawyers have made themselves rich ever since. However, even a mental health conservatorship should have been the ABSOLUTE last resort. Just because Britney may have been acting erratically that did NOT justify this conservatorship in any shape or form. We have seen many other people , including other celebrities, acting erratically to the same degree or even worse than Britney. Heather Locklear, Robert Downey Jr., Shia Leboef, Drew Barrymore, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and so many more come to mind. None of them were put in a conservatorship, even though the first 3 of those have perhaps had even worse public 'misbehaviours' than Britney ever demonstrated. Britney was also followed by more paparazzi than anyone had (and possibly has) ever encountered so a lot of that 'erratic' behaviour may have been instigated or made worse by that dangerous and stressful situation. Human beings go through difficulties in their lives, but through counselling, ****/alcohol treament, financial planning, the creation of trusts etc. or a combination of these, things can get better. Robert Downey Jr. suffered from VERY serious **** addictions, but with proper support and time he is freakin' Iron Man now. I think the conservatorship was like amputating a finger for a paper cut. I do NOT think we can credit the conservatorship for putting a stop to anything. It merely assumed total control of that person and proceeded to abuse her financially and emotionally. I don't think we should ever say it 'stopped' anything. We should be careful how we describe it. And not to harp back to the Lawyers for Britney drama, but I remember I had an exchange with them on instagram where they also described the conservatorship as possibly having been a 'good' thing in the beginning, which irked me. I know how you told me that they gave you some advice for this article, and this might be a part of their influence. This again makes me think that they may have some link to Ingham or his side of things since that is the narrative that he would want fans and the media to eat up. Basically: the conservatorship was necessary in the beginning because Britney was so wild, but now it is no longer needed which is why I am heroically taking her out of it. NO. The conservatorship was unnecessary, fraudulent (no notice & no evidence provided on 'dementia') and abusive from the start. No way around that. Britney working on television a few months after it was created shows us that conclusively. As I said before, I support Ingham for now, but if I see that he is trying to still keep her in a conservatorship or otherwise just cover his own butt at Britney's expense, my support is gone. In the meantime, I think it is better if we do not spread the notion that the conservatorship was ever helpful. Other than that the article was great and I am looking forward to part 2. Just my 2 cents and I am happy to hear any feedback =)

Awesome that you have an open mind like that and can have discourse. Kudos:)

Or she's afraid of being institutionalized again against her will as she already has? Ingham has also confirmed she is afraid of her father. I mean this respectfully, but you do understand that an abused person may be afraid of taking any action right? Just like so many abused spouses that sometimes never 'say something'. Kind of naive to believe 'any human being' has the same liberties or circumstances that would merit taking action