Jump to content

bluelatte

Spark
  • Posts

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by bluelatte

  1. I really liked this part: Jamie's legal team used pages upon pages to attack his ex-wife. For instance, there's a section stating that Lynne has been estranged from Britney through most of the conservatorship and they don't speak, yet it's noted Britney's conservatorship foots the $150,000 annual bill for the upkeep of Lynne's Louisiana mansion. "Jamie said things in that opposition that are really damaging," Melcher says. "In trying to make Lynne look bad, he states that Lynne has been feeding off this trough too... What Jamie doesn't think about or realize is he's the one who approved those expenses. There's no reason for Britney's money to be used to support anyone other than Britney. He's now admitted to misuse of Britney's money. He's made a very damaging admission." Britney Spears's dad may be on his way out as her controversial conservator, but he hasn't officially stepped down as some headlines suggest. On Thursday, triumphant cries were heard far and wide as news circulated that Jamie Spears — who has overseen and profited off of the conservatorship for the last 13 years — "agreed" to resign his controversial post. And while that is potentially great news for the star, who has accused him of conservatorship abuse, Jamie's filing actually argued that he "should not be suspended or removed." It also noted that he "is willing to step down when the time is right, but the transition needs to be orderly and include a resolution of matters pending before the court." Jamie Spears's filing from Aug. 12. NBC News confirmed with his legal team that he isn't stepping aside at this time. "Jamie Spears is not stepping down unless the court approves payment of the attorney's fees that he's seeking of $1.2 million dollars and his compensation," California-based family law attorney Christopher C. Melcher of Walzer Melcher explains to Yahoo Entertainment. "So he's conditioned his exit on the court approving things that Britney has previously objected to." Jamie Spears's filing (Credit: Los Angeles Superior Court) That's reflected in the filing, where it talks about "pending matters" related to his role as conservator, noting specifically the "Twelfth Account and a final account." That section also notes there "are no urgent circumstances justifying Mr. Spears’ immediate suspension," a claim we know the pop star disagrees with, as "every day matters," when he is in charge of her estate, her attorney Mathew Rosengart has said. It also provides no timetable for him stepping down. Jamie Spears filing (Credit: Los Angeles Superior Court) Within the pending accounting is the controversial $531,065 Jamie spent of Britney's money for "media matters." That included non-legal work spent by one of the law firms representing him rehabbing Jamie's public image. It includes paying a crisis PR expert $146,000, over four months, to do damage control on Jamie's behalf. It also covered putting his attorney Vivian Thoreen on TV to spread the message that the 39-year-old's "daddy" loves her. "That doesn't benefit Britney," says Melcher, who is representing Kanye West in his divorce from Kim Kardashian. "So to condition his withdraw on a payment of a contested bill that clearly doesn't benefit the estate, I think is a breach of fiduciary duty. Also, it's a breach for him to even ask for those payments to be made and disguise them as attorneys fees because they're not. Attorneys can only bill for time spent by an attorney or a paralegal. It's improper to bill for a non-legal professional. They disguised it as legal services." Spears's new attorney has claimed Jamie "dissipated" Britney's fortune. Another outstanding accounting issue is Jamie being accused of having "grossly overpaid" Britney's former business manager, Tri Star Sports and Entertainment, by $200,000 while the star was on her work hiatus. Melcher believes that Jamie sees the writing on the wall — in that he will ultimately be removed and perhaps as soon as the Sept. 29 hearing — and wants the fees to be paid so he's not stuck with them. "This is an attempt to stave off any potential lawsuit that Britney would likely bring against Jamie later on," Melcher thinks. So what's next in this saga? The Sept. 29 hearing at which Melcher predicts "the court will remove Jamie because he himself is now stating he's willing to leave." For those keeping track, Britney has called for him to be removed and so has the conservator of Britney's person, Jodi Montgomery, the star's medical team and Britney's mother, Lynne Spears. However, Melcher hopes that the judge won't sign off on the accounting fees in question at the same hearing — until there's an investigation. "Britney has never had a real opportunity to investigate" the questionable handling of her finances, Melcher says. While her former lawyer Samuel Ingham III did previously object, Britney "was poorly represented" and should have the chance to have "new counsel come in, do an investigation and have a hearing on those fees." Also ahead, as Rosengart said in his statement after Jamie's filing on Thursday, is the fact that Jamie will be deposed prior to the next hearing. "That will happen whether Jamie's removed or not," Melcher explains. It will be a "compelled statement under oath" in which Rosengart "basically cross-examines or interrogates Jamie on all these issues." Also, while it was considered a setback that Britney's request to move up the hearing date was denied, Jamie's filings could work in her favor. For instance, in Thursday's filing, Jamie's legal team used pages upon pages to attack his ex-wife. For instance, there's a section stating that Lynne has been estranged from Britney through most of the conservatorship and they don't speak, yet it's noted Britney's conservatorship foots the $150,000 annual bill for the upkeep of Lynne's Louisiana mansion. "Jamie said things in that opposition that are really damaging," Melcher says. "In trying to make Lynne look bad, he states that Lynne has been feeding off this trough too... What Jamie doesn't think about or realize is he's the one who approved those expenses. There's no reason for Britney's money to be used to support anyone other than Britney. He's now admitted to misuse of Britney's money. He's made a very damaging admission." Jamie Spears's filing (Credit: Los Angeles Superior Court) Further, Jamie disclosed things in the filing about Britney that he should be keeping private, including the parts about alleged addiction and mental health issues. Jamie Spears's filing (Credit: Los Angeles Superior Court) Jamie Spears's filing (Credit: Los Angeles Superior Court) "Even if that is true, he should be keeping that private," Melcher says. And Jamie has claimed to not be involved in Britney's health care, but the filing has extensive details outlining how Britney came under psychiatrist Dr. Benson's care and talks all about her being put in a treatment facility in 2019. Britney has claimed she was forced into it against her will. Melcher also questions Jamie's claim in the document that Britney was able to come and go while she was in the treatment facility while it also notes that she had her two sons come to the facility to see her. "No parent would want their child visiting them at a mental facility," especially if she could just check out and go see them," Melcher says. "That indicates to me that she didn't know she could leave." Jamie Spears filing (Credit: Los Angeles Superior Court) As for the forever burning question — when will Britney be free? — "It's going to take a bit," the lawyer says. Rosengart's strategy seems to first get rid of Jamie. Then, put in a professional, like Jason Rubin who would hopefully be aligned with Britney's best interest. "That would then create smooth sailing to have the conservatorship ended," says Melcher. He adds, "Rosengart should attack the conservatorship — saying it's not needed to go forward — but also that it was never properly placed upon Britney in the first place. No notice given to her," when she was forced into it in 2008. "No capacity determination. And what she's said suggests there was nothing voluntary about it. There are systematic failures." https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/jamie-spears-willing-step-down-britney-conservator-what-happens-next-213056110.html
  2. I really like first two albums BOMT and Oops(but I am biased a was a teenager then) after that only selected songs but I am more into her performances and there I can watch anything because Britney is a great performer
  3. Jared Lipscomb(@jaredlips) saw him in California. He forgot to ask if Britney writes her own captions. Please someone check out his stories I am on my phone and cannot add screenshots
  4. The photos definitely look differently but I do believe the news outlets choose not the best pics who knows why. She looks amazing on IG
  5. f\jdf Britney Spears stopping car to jump out and pet a pig is just pure joy | Metro News ppi ai
  6. I don't like tattoos in general but these look cute. Great job!
  7. It's amazing the case of Britney Spears is changing the laws around the world. Changes in cship laws in Germany will come into effect in 2023 https://www.rbb24.de/panorama/beitrag/2021/07/interview-vormundschaft-britney-spears-dagmar-zorn.html google translate US pop star Britney Spears is under guardianship - and is not even allowed to decide on a possible pregnancy. The lawyer Dagmar Zorn explains why this would not be possible in Germany - and how guardianship is regulated here. Dagmar Zorn works as a lecturer in the administration of justice at the University of Economics and Law (HWR) in Berlin - even at the moment when the interview request from rbbl24 reaches her. She uses a break in her lecture to call back. rbbl24: Ms. Zorn, the singer Britney Spears got a guardian in the USA, since then she has not been allowed to determine whether she becomes pregnant or how she does her job. In Germany there is something like a guardianship, but here it means legal support ... Dagmar Zorn: That's right, in Germany guardianship for adults was replaced by legal support in 1992. However, such care must be geared very closely to the interests of the person being looked after. This part of the law is currently being reformed. The reform is based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and once again strengthens the rights of those in care. As a result, the person being looked after is placed even more in the center than before. The concept behind this is called assisted decision making. What is the new concept about? The reform will come into force in 2023 and from then on all decisions that can somehow be made by the person being cared for must also be made by them. This means that the supervisor has to support people in their independence and in their own decision-making even more than before. When and how can it be determined that people have to give up part of their autonomy? The legislature says that in Germany an adult who is unable to take care of his affairs himself due to a physical disability or illness gets a carer. Assuming I had dementia and could no longer take care of my financial affairs myself: Then I would get a supervisor for it. Unless I have made provisions myself for this case and have given a third party a power of attorney in the event of illness. If this is not the case, the state stands by and orders care. But who decides that one person can no longer manage their affairs alone? This is actually checked in a very formal process. Usually, relatives, neighbors or employees in care facilities bring the information to a care court from the outside that a person needs someone to take care of their affairs because they are no longer able to do so themselves. Then a custody court procedure starts. At the end of the day, supervision can be ordered, which is then checked again at the latest after seven years and the whole process starts all over again. As a rule, experts are then commissioned to provide an expert opinion in which they consider appropriate support to be necessary. How does that go? It is mostly experts from the medical field who get a personal impression of the person concerned. The respect of the person is prescribed. It then comes down to a technical examination. What can the person no longer do? Why can't she do that anymore? If it is found that the person can no longer regulate certain things, a check is made: Has he made provisions for this case? What, for example, may legal guardians decide instead of the person being cared for? It can happen that a person is deprived of liberty, for example in a psychiatric ward, if there is a risk of self-harm or harm to others. In practice, however, there are also very often housing issues that people cannot perceive themselves. In such cases, after a corresponding judicial review and approval, caregivers may also sell an apartment from the property of the cared for. These are far-reaching decisions. What are the formal requirements for training a legal advisor? This is currently not regulated and we want to formulate this point for the first time in a working group in the Federal Ministry of Justice. The point is to define requirements for the people who do legal care professionally. The legislature still assumes that volunteer carers perform these tasks, often relatives. In recent years, however, it has been more and more common that no relatives have been found. That is why the care workers are on the rise. And for that we need minimum requirements. How often does it happen that important decisions are made against the will of the person being cared for? Something like that can happen, but as a supervisor I always have to orientate myself towards the wishes of the person being cared for. If someone wants to buy a Ferrari and has the money for it, then I can't stand in the way just because I don't like cars like that. Supervisors may only shift their own opinion instead of that of the person being cared for if this is actually necessary to protect the person being cared for. And it is the task of the court to check at least once a year whether the supervisor is also fulfilling these obligations and is not acting inadmissibly against the will of the person being cared for. Apart from the annual reporting obligation that exists for every supervisor, a court can always turn to the supervisor itself to find out what has happened in this or that matter. But if the supervisor writes the report on his or her own activity, then it is easy to imagine that he or she leaves out certain conflicts in this report. That's right. But as a court I always have the opportunity to ask the person concerned myself. And as far as I know, the courts are making more and more use of this. Then would you consider it impossible for a court in Germany to intervene as strongly in private life as the US judiciary in the Britney Spears case? We couldn't have a Britney Spears case. A marriage, for example, has nothing to do with the caregiver. If the person being cared for is able to marry, they can marry at any time. It is the other way around with divorce. Another example is interference with the right to vote. The arrangement of supervision used to have an impact on the right to vote. It was entered in the election book that this person has a supervisor for all matters, and so this person was neither actively nor passively entitled to vote. All of that has been done away with. The supervised person can also conclude or draw up wills or inheritance contracts if he is authorized to do business. However, it can happen that the person being cared for has children - and if the carer is of the opinion that this person cannot carry out his or her duties as a legal guardian, then there can be a reference to a family court with the request to review custody. Indeed, there are always conflicts on this point. Thank you for the interview! The interview was conducted by Roberto Jurkschat.
  8. In my opinion people who are in the middle of court battle cannot do many things because they want to win the case and modesty and prudence help, that is why people as well do not wear revealing clothes to the court hearing
  9. The nails are still not done, her shirt in the background. I‘ve got a feeling that this photo was not intended for a public use
  10. here it seems they play Britney's songs all day long but there are ads https://radiostationusa.fm/online/95-7-the-party or here https://streema.com/radios/play/No_More_Games_Radio
×
×
  • Create New...

We noticed you're using an ad blocker  :badthoughts_gun_kris_genner_thinking_debating:

Thanks for visiting Exhale! Your support is greatly appreciated 💜  

Exhale survives through advertising revenue. Please, disable your ad block extension to help us and continue browsing Exhale. 🙏

I've disabled ad block