Free Britney!

[Warp12]

As already stated, there is squat for evidence that the girl has dementia etc, and you have purposely ignored that, so your obtuseness to these things already laid bare proves otherwise.

As I say, do you have any court transcripts/documentation of claims of Dementia being the sole factor in determination of her mental condition? Of course you don't. You might have something that is floating around on the internet. Like some of the "official" Roswell documents. If you choose to consider that sort of thing as "evidence", ok.

 

[arthwollipot]

Britney Spears's lawyer says she 'will not be extorted' by her father, Jamie Spears, seeking $2 million in payments

Britney Spears and her new attorney say her father is trying to get about $US2 million ($2.7 million) in payments before stepping down from the conservatorship that controls her life and money, a move they liken to extortion in a court filing.

The document filed by lawyer Mathew Rosengart said the upcoming scheduled accounting of the conservatorship, which Jamie Spears said he wants to complete before he steps down, will mean significant payments for him.

"Britney Spears will not be extorted," the filing said.

"Mr Spears's blatant attempt to barter suspension and removal in exchange for approximately $2 million in payments, on top of the millions already reaped from Ms Spears's estate by Mr Spears and his associates, is a non-starter."

 

[Warp12]

Britney Spears's lawyer says she 'will not be extorted' by her father, Jamie Spears, seeking $2 million in payments

Perhaps he is legitimately owed these funds, or will be, by the end of the process.

 

[arthwollipot]

Perhaps he is legitimately owed these funds, or will be, by the end of the process.

Yeah, and perhaps he's not. Isn't it you who keeps saying that we shouldn't be drawing conclusions on insufficient evidence?

 

[Warp12]

Perhaps he is legitimately owed these funds, or will be, by the end of the process.

Yeah, and perhaps he's not. Isn't it you who keeps saying that we shouldn't be drawing conclusions on insufficient evidence?

I'm not drawing a conclusion. The implication, in your post, is that her father is behaving in an unscrupulous manner.

I'm leaving the door open for the facts to emerge. Hence, I used the word "perhaps".

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm not drawing a conclusion. The implication, in your post, is that her father is behaving in an unscrupulous manner.

I'm leaving the door open for the facts to emerge. Hence, I used the word "perhaps".

Obviously, Mr Spears' contention is that he is or will be legitimately owed that money by the end of the process. Ms Spears and her lawyers are arguing that given all the money he has reaped from her estate in the past, he doesn't deserve it.

Please also remember that this is all taking place in a court of law. People are obligated to tell the truth in a court of law, otherwise they could be found guilty of contempt. Neither Ms Spears nor her lawyer are knowingly lying to the judge.

 

[Warp12]

Obviously, Mr Spears' contention is that he is or will be legitimately owed that money by the end of the process. Ms Spears and her lawyers are arguing that given all the money he has reaped from her estate in the past, he doesn't deserve it.

Please also remember that this is all taking place in a court of law. People are obligated to tell the truth in a court of law, otherwise they could be found guilty of contempt. Neither Ms Spears nor her lawyer are knowingly lying to the judge.

Well then, by that logic, everything her father and his legal team says is true.

Glad we got that situated.

 

[arthwollipot]

Well then, by that logic, everything her father and his legal team says is true.

Glad we got that situated.

Obviously nothing either party submits will be a deliberate lie, but courts of law exist for resolving differences of opinion about how the law applies. When Ms Spears says that the conservatorship was abusive, the very least we can do is that under oath, she is telling the truth, and that she genuinely believes that it has been abusive.

 

[Warp12]

Obviously nothing either party submits will be a deliberate lie, but courts of law exist for resolving differences of opinion about how the law applies. When Ms Spears says that the conservatorship was abusive, the very least we can do is that under oath, she is telling the truth, and that she genuinely believes that it has been abusive.

Deliberate lies and/or distortion of facts occur in court, frequently. Whether in testimony or as presented by counsel.

 

[arthwollipot]

Deliberate lies and/or distortion of facts occur in court, frequently. Whether in testimony or as presented by counsel.

Yes, and people who do that are convicted of contempt, frequently.

 

[Warp12]

Please also remember that this is all taking place in a court of law. People are obligated to tell the truth in a court of law, otherwise they could be found guilty of contempt. Neither Ms Spears nor her lawyer are knowingly lying to the judge.

Well then, by that logic, everything her father and his legal team says is true.

Obviously nothing either party submits will be a deliberate lie, but courts of law exist for resolving differences of opinion about how the law applies. When Ms Spears says that the conservatorship was abusive, the very least we can do is that under oath, she is telling the truth, and that she genuinely believes that it has been abusive.

Deliberate lies and/or distortion of facts occur in court, frequently. Whether in testimony or as presented by counsel.

Yes, and people who do that are convicted of contempt, frequently.

I'm pretty sure you can see how your trail of logic does not add up, here.

How about we let it play out in court, rather than making assumptions and/or implying motives?

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm pretty sure you can see how your trail of logic does not add up, here.

The fact that people who do it are frequently convicted of contempt has the result that not very many people try it. But it does happen from time to time.

How about we let it play out in court, rather than making assumptions and/or implying motives?

What, and miss out on the pleasure of playing the SIWOTI Game?

 

[jollyroger85]

As I say, do you have any court transcripts/documentation of claims of Dementia being the sole factor in determination of her mental condition? Of course you don't. You might have something that is floating around on the internet. Like some of the "official" Roswell documents. If you choose to consider that sort of thing as "evidence", ok.

Your argument is in your ...... because as is already pointed out correctly, the court is NOT a medical expert. What it is is the instrument that was abused to take away Britney's adult rights in the space of ten minutes and all existing evidence, which you ignore points to that direction. Show us the proof where she met the conditions of conservatorship or quickly frankly, pack it up.

 

[jollyroger85]

Perhaps he is legitimately owed these funds, or will be, by the end of the process.

Show the proof.

 

[jollyroger85]

Deliberate lies and/or distortion of facts occur in court, frequently. Whether in testimony or as presented by counsel.

Especially the original criteria that robbed her of her life and dignity in the space of ten minutes.

 

[Roboramma]

Obviously nothing either party submits will be a deliberate lie,

I don't think that's obvious at all. While there are good reasons not to lie in court, there are also possible incentives to do so if you think you'll get away with it. It's not at all obvious that neither party will deliberately lie when millions of dollars and Britney's freedom are on the line.

I think it's pretty likely that neither party will deliberately lie when they judge the chance of being caught in such a lie (and subject perjury charges or whatever is applicable here) to be sufficiently high.

 

[Roboramma]

Of course it matters. We know that she doesn't suffer from any condition that would justify a conservatorship. Whatever else she does suffer from, and you're right that we are ignorant about that, doesn't change that fact.

Warp12 I think this is still the issue: while we don't know the exact details of Britney's mental health, we do know that she doesn't suffer from anything that would justify a conservatorship, particularly one lasting for this length of time.

Similarly, we haven't fully explored that planet Mars, there are a lot of details about it's geology, geochemistry, and even conceivably biology that we don't know. But we know enough to conclude that there is no advanced technological civilization there.

 

[Ernie M]

Britney Spears's lawyer says she 'will not be extorted' by her father, Jamie Spears, seeking $2 million in payments

Perhaps he is legitimately owed these funds, or will be, by the end of the process.

Britney Spears is under a court-approved conservatorship.

Jamie Spears and his legal team will likely say that judges ruled (Commissioner Reva Garfunkel Goetz Judge Pro Tem, and Brenda J. Penny), allowing the financial arrangements, and therefore the financial arrangements are 'legal,' and need to be paid.

In essence, one judge's (or commissioner's) ruling can make things...'legal.'

But that's part of what's at the core of an abusive, and/or exploitative, and/or fraudulent, conservatorship; one judge (or commissioner) makes a ruling. A question to ask is, does a ruling serve the best interest of the conservatee?

A judge's (improper) decision/ruling could be a result of legal error, judicial misconduct, or a combination of the two.

This needs to be talked about in detail, but part of what's at the core of crooked conservatorships is what author Michael Larsen wrote about in the section of his book, Guardianship Fraud, and that is SECRET #2, It's all legal if a judge approves [1]

A judge can say they ruled/decided based on a court investigator, and/or information from lawyers representing the parties.

I get the sense that Britney is in an abusive, and/or exploitative, and/or fraudulent, conservatorship, and in part I base that on what California attorney Christopher Melcher said in an ABC News video [2]:

Christopher Melcher
1:33
This is what they’re calling a voluntary conservatorship. There was never a determination by the court that she was incapacitated. And so she was convinced into agreeing to it. And then now she’s finding a hard time getting out of it after all these thirteen years.

So it’s really remarkable that she would have understood the loss of liberty and freedom that she would have experienced now for thirteen years when this was initially placed on her.​

Sources:

[1] Larsen, Michael. Guardianship Fraud. Germain, 2016. Page 197.

[2] Davis, Linsey. “Britney Spears’ conservatorship ‘is a sinking ship’ at this point: Legal expert” ABC News. 13 July 2021. https[colon]//www[dot]youtube.com/watch?v=mVAThydya2Q

Posted about 9:37 a.m. (EDT) 01 September 2021 by Ernie Marsh.

 

[jollyroger85]

Britney Spears is under a court-approved conservatorship.

Jamie Spears and his legal team will likely say that judges ruled (Commissioner Reva Garfunkel Goetz Judge Pro Tem, and Brenda J. Penny), allowing the financial arrangements, and therefore the financial arrangements are 'legal,' and need to be paid.

In essence, one judge's (or commissioner's) ruling can make things...'legal.'

But that's part of what's at the core of an abusive, and/or exploitative, and/or fraudulent, conservatorship; one judge (or commissioner) makes a ruling. A question to ask is, does a ruling serve the best interest of the conservatee?


A judge's (improper) decision/ruling could be a result of legal error, judicial misconduct, or a combination of the two.

This needs to be talked about in detail, but part of what's at the core of crooked conservatorships is what author Michael Larsen wrote about in the section of his book, Guardianship Fraud, and that is SECRET #2, It's all legal if a judge approves [1]

A judge can say they ruled/decided based on a court investigator, and/or information from lawyers representing the parties.

I get the sense that Britney is in an abusive, and/or exploitative, and/or fraudulent, conservatorship, and in part I base that on what California attorney Christopher Melcher said in an ABC News video [2]:

Christopher Melcher
1:33
This is what they’re calling a voluntary conservatorship. There was never a determination by the court that she was incapacitated. And so she was convinced into agreeing to it. And then now she’s finding a hard time getting out of it after all these thirteen years.

So it’s really remarkable that she would have understood the loss of liberty and freedom that she would have experienced now for thirteen years when this was initially placed on her.​

Sources:

[1] Larsen, Michael. Guardianship Fraud. Germain, 2016. Page 197.

[2] Davis, Linsey. “Britney Spears’ conservatorship ‘is a sinking ship’ at this point: Legal expert” ABC News. 13 July 2021. https[colon]//www[dot]youtube.com/watch?v=mVAThydya2Q

Posted about 9:37 a.m. (EDT) 01 September 2021 by Ernie Marsh.

All in the space of 10 minutes for that hearing.

 

[Bob001]

How wrong you are. I am just looking for real evidence, and not making assumptions. Like I have said before, no transcripts, no medical documentation, nothing...you have nothing. I trust that the truth, whatever it is, will be enough to make a determination.

I'm not inclined to rush to judgement to libel and/or slander everyone involved in the conservatorship. That's the "grand conspiracy" approach. There are some people in this thread who are in pretty deep, and outlandishly enraged. It is a bit amusing, imo.

But you are rushing to judgment and making assumptions when you insist that her conservatorship was correctly and properly imposed, extended and managed. Where's your evidence? Depriving a young woman of all her legal rights forever is an extraordinary step. The law itself requires that a conservatorship be the last resort after all other measures have failed. It is intended for people who are suffering from irreversible dementia or brain damage, not treatable mental illness.

It's up to the people promoting and making money from Spears' conservatorship to prove beyond doubt that it's essential, not to anyone else to prove it's not.