Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


About Haburo

  • Birthday June 21

Profile Information

  • Gender Identity
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,256 profile views

Haburo's Achievements


Enthusiast (6/14)

  • Reacting Well
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges



  1. I have messaged them before because I am a lawyer who works in mental health law and human rights (not in California) and they weren't very responsive. They all seem to be wasting time following money when the issue is capacity, not how effectively her business interests are being managed. They are like financial regulators/investigators.
  2. If they could interview some actual mental health law/human rights attorneys to comment on the legality of the conservatorship, instead of probate/trust attorneys who are involved and whose legal expertise begins and ends at forwarding papers to an accountant, that would be nice.
  3. Just so people are aware, people usually liquidate assets before preparing to make a transfer of some kind. Liquidating assets means any $ you have that isn’t physically money in your bank account (like stocks&shares, real estate etc) get sold to turn it into money in your back account to make it easier to move around.
  4. This is a great idea to get the Judge onside(!) This man is a cancer. Stop giving him attention. Cut all ties.
  5. Sorry just to piggyback off @feo’s point, I really think we need to make clear that a probate conservatorship for control over someone’s estate is absolutely not designed to be a mechanism to managing lots of money, it is designed to be a mechanism to protect the human rights of incapacitated adults. I know that you are in no way advocating for it as a simple solution to a financial problem, but we need to really make clear that conservatorships are a mental health/human rights law mechanism and not strictly speaking one for probate/trusts (because conservatorships are also designed to confer authority over the personal). I don’t think it should be considered an appropriate solution to wealth management, if the conservatee meets the very low threshold of having capacity enough to seek advice, even as a last resort. The main issue with her conservatorship is not that she doesn’t have control of her estate, it’s that she is deemed legally incapable of instructing Counsel. It’s a rights issue. I think this is being overlooked by the attorneys currently involved. Lisa MacCarley seems to get it.
  6. Don’t be rude. She has that muscle grip. All the zaddies are lining up around the block for a taste of her sweet nectar.
  7. I am so relieved that another lawyer is saying this stuff. I felt like I was going crazy watching all this happen. Britney needs to just commission her own. You don’t have to be a lawyer to pay for a medical/psyche report. She just needs to get her own and bring it to the attention of the Court.
  8. If this happened it would mean that it indicated she doesn’t have capacity to get out of the conservatorship. I think for everyone, that would be surprising.
  9. I don’t know the specific answer to these questions but I just know that they would have had to prove she was susceptible to undue influence, more so than anyone is. Everyone would be susceptible to undue influence to some degree so it would likely take a medical professional spelling out in a psyche report why the patient was especially vulnerable to being influenced like this. I don’t know what California medical reports for Court look like, but ones I have commissioned have to include a declaration in the back for the doctor to sign which basically promises that they are impartial and are only acting in accordance with their duty of candor to the Court. So even though my client is paying the doctor for the report, if the doctor finds stuff that isn’t useful to the client’s case they would have to include that too. But having said that, how Britney was at the time of that assessment is obviously different to now and it’s possible that Jamie could have targeted a doctor that he knew would be likely to say what he wanted anyway (though I don’t know how he would do that, but I’m just saying it’s not impossible). If a patient had some kind of mental illness or learning disability which made them especially susceptible to undue influence, that would probably be highlighted in the medical/psyche report and would form the basis of the heart of the application: that Britney needs the conservatorship because she’s particularly vulnerable. Maybe they would have pointed to Lutfi’s hold over her at that time as further evidence, but (a) I don’t think that would be enough on its own without the medical/psyche report, and (b) that’s obviously not the case now. So I don’t get why Sam Ingham III hasn’t commissioned another medical/psyche report to examine the issue of capacity. I think a new medical/psyche report would show that Britney doesn’t lack capacity to instruct Counsel. The very fact that she’s refusing to do shows or anything for Jamie would indicate pretty strongly that she’s not susceptible to undue influence, and would reflect what Brian said in Framing Britney Spears- that it’s difficult to force the Spears women to do anything.
  • 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