smouthwick

Dolly Parton. Wow is she ever adorable and tiny! Naomi Judd: the sweetest woman in the universe.

Follow the money! When a person in a conservatorship has a lot of money, the shennenigans are usually related to greed and conflict of interest when it comes to the flurry of people paid our of the estate. If this removal of 600,000 is true, and it's revealed by evidence, they will argue somehow that this was in britney's best interest. (You'd be amazed by many nightmares are created in the best interest of a person with no rights. Bessimer is an excellent company and a good choice for Britney. To have a lay person,or a for-profit conservator ,in charge of Brit's finances is crazy. That person should be one step removed from the money.

Brenda fairly recently attended a conference with Sam Ingham, Britney's court-appointed attorney. They were two out of the three speakers. He works as an arm of the court in Britney's "best interest." For someone paid as much as he is, where do his self-interests really end and her best interests begin? The line in many cases is shady. A gray area that often causes harm to wards.

It's especially bad since some of the people who supposedly only have Britney's interests at heart have been caught exploring conservatorship as a possible hybrid business model in which everybody involved could get not just so-so rich, but REALLY rich. Everybody wins! Doesn't this sound a little like greedy people trying to turn a cash cow into their own personal Triple Crown Racehorse? How dare these people. Does Britney need owners and a jockey? Of course, I'm sure it's much more complicated than that, but it's NOT A GOOD LOOK.. I'm pretty sure Andrew Wallet has seen the light and is running away before somebody takes a closer look at the ethics of this. I could be wrong, of course.

You've really thought this out and this makes a lot of sense. It would be easy for people to try to dismiss what you're saying because they have no understanding of how severely Conservatorship itself restricts freedoms and basic rights. I think you are on to it.

Thank GOD! Thanks, too, for telling me! I should have known.

Thank GOD!!!

I've been thinking about the news on this. Very puzzling. My guess is that Jamie is trying to register the guardianship itself in three different states. The press doesn't know what this means and some are assuming that he is filing more than one Conservatorship to have all his bases covered in terms of his control. My point is that the press covering this story is in the dark about Conservatorship, and they have a lot of naive assumptions. I hope they quit misleading the public and actually get down to studying the serious violations of rights that are occurring every day in these court-appointed situations. It's truly sickening. i'm not saying that this is happening to Britney--she's a public figure, and chances of that should be slim. But what about taking a look at just how Draconian this system really is? (Created ,as we know it, back in the 1300's. It is incredibly easy for those in charge to abuse wards for personal gain because that person has been rendered helpless to do anything about it by a court of law in an aggressive act.

I don't know the context, and I don't know anything about the woman quoted, but this response is really awful in my personal opinion. It's like saying little boys are always safe around priests because a priest's job is sacred. When will people expect absolute accountability when it comes to those in positions of trust and power over the vulnerable? When will people care enough to actually ensure that what they assume is really true? Don't human beings without power over their own lives deserve respect?--- somebody just told me this is satire. Thank God!!! And thank you for telling me.

You've said it well. My thoughts too.

He basically replaces Britney as decision-maker on her behalf. He can override her wishes (basing his thinking on what would be best for Britany.) I.e. "in her best interest". Last time I heard that phrase was when my brother beat me up for my own good when we were kids.

It's the judge's duty to choose the least restrictive alternatives possible before slapping an innocent human being with the most restrictive civil penalty of all---removing our roles as masters of our own lives. Wait a minute. I thought that was called a prison sentence.

Yikes. That seems blatantly obvious now that you've said it.

Totally agree. "There's a crack in everything"-- Leonard Cohen. This is a BIG one, more like a ravine.