Jump to content

feo

Flame
  • Content Count

    206
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Points

    3,439 [ Give ]

Community Reputation

586 Fire

About feo

  • Rank
    Altair

Profile Information

  • Interests
    My dog's name is 'Feo, which means 'ugly' in Spanish hehe. The name isn't meant be about me as I don't consider myself ugly =)(not that anyone should think of themselves as such) ;)
  • Gender Identity
    Male
  • Orientation
    Gay

Recent Profile Visitors

912 profile views
  1. 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, drug/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 drug 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 =)
  2. But that's the thing, it was not a 'genuine' question coming from lawyers who should know better. If it was another fan, sure they might not fully understand how limited a person's rights are as conservatee in a conservatorship. But LFB are allegedly lawyers and they SHOULD know better. I agree, their statement alone does not make them team con automatically. But the fact that they are even asking fans about a question that has not even brought up directly by Britney, something that is reliant on an improper legal assumption (that a conservatee signing a declaration to stay in a conservatorship is expressing free will while STILL in a conservatorship), given LFB's inability to explain why they are bringing this up and why they are making such improper legal assumptions, and finally their gaslight-ey statements about fans who disagree not caring about Britney's 'happiness'...RED FLAGS.
  3. I think it is a stretch to say that just because Britney was acting erratically that she has somehow lost 'competence' forever, or for the past 12 years. In fact, her accomplishments over the past 12 years strongly suggest that is not the case, especially as we have seen that the original court docs that got her stuck in the conservatorship based in on 'dementia'. Other celebrities like Heather Locklear, Robert Downey Jr., Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton etc. have all had different degrees of acting erratically, the first 2 probably worse than Britney. And are either of them in a conservatorship? No. There appears to be no legal basis whatsoever for her declaration of incapacity or for this conservatorship.
  4. I generally agree lol (and I am a lawyer). But we do have our uses
  5. But that's the thing. Comments from LFB like the one I raised in this thread that I made are NOT legal facts. They are naive at best, and misleading at worst. And they have made many such comments. And the problem is that LFB seem to want to be the only legal opinions that matter. They seem to ignore other lawyers challenging them. Other lawyers have already said that Britney should have directly filed for a termination of the conservatorship, which might actually make sense. After all, James Spears is going to fight hard whether we are filing for termination or filing to replace him. Filing to replace him might just be wasting time. But we will see. In any case, LFB has often not been stating 'legal facts', and ignore any legal challenges to their assumptions. That is the problem.
  6. I totally agree with you. Most of those 'leader' accounts have acted inappropriately with each other and in general. However, my focus is on LFB because while the others have done terrible things to each other, LFB is releasing these strange ideas to the fandom which might directly affect Britney and the movement. If fans start to think that Britney can freely sign anything while in a conservatorship, and that fans should feel safe about that because these alleged independent lawyers said so...that is concerning. Any decent lawyer would know that Britney signing a declaration that she wants to continue in a conservatorship while STILL in a conservatorship is extremely suspect.
  7. I don't have proof either way, but I am suspecting there is an infiltrator here in one of the big groups, and JUST based on their own comments on twitter and instagram (such as the one that is the subject of this thread) I am starting to suspect it is LFB. I don't believe LFB is on James' side or Lou's. If they are on any side I think it is Ingham's for a few reasons: 1. They have been VERY focused on removing James and attacking Lou. Those 2 are part of the unholy trinity (with Wallet) so I don't think they side with any of those 3. 2. They have been VERY pro Ingham and Jodi (who is alleged to be his close ally) 3. They have repeatedly made comments that make it sound like Britney might want or otherwise benefit from a conservatorship of the estate, which is of course the biggest red flag as to their potential interests. I think less informed fans may believably think that, but for lawyers to even suggest that after everything we know is VERY odd. Especially as there are so many other options that are less abusive/restrictive than a conservatorship. That suggests they are supporting whoever will be in charge after James leaves (probably Ingham and his team of lawyers, doctors, and even Bessemer). LFB's comments seem to be softening the ground (preparing) for someone like Ingham to claim Britney 'wants' to stay in a conservatorship of the estate and for fans to say 'yeah ok, because LFB mentioned that already months ago'. Of course this is speculation, but the facts are starting to support it. Like I said, I support Ingham too, but we should all watch him very closely. If he or anyone else comes out with the idea that Britney 'wants' to stay in a conservatorship of the estate, we should start asking a LOT of questions.
  8. I don't think there's anything wrong generally speaking, except that (unless I am remembering incorrectly) LFB came after the other groups for trademarking theirs, which sounded hypocritical.
  9. You are making A LOT of unfortunate assumptions. Among them, you are assuming Britney even cared about touring, or that a conservatorship was the only way for her to see her children. I actually have plenty of court experience in custody cases and can tell you that in fact I have NEVER seen a conservatorship required for custody/access to children, even if parents were alcoholics, drug addicts, mentally ill etc. Supervised access with children, AA, narcotics anonymous, psychotherapy/psychiatry, medication etc. are all suitable ways of allowing a parent to slowly regain access and/or custody of their children. A court can be convinced that a parent is making an effort to better themselves or that precautions are being taken so children are never at risk. And a court does so because it is in the best interests of the children that they be able to see their parents. The conservatorship fraud here is very apparent. There is no way around that.
  10. 1. You make it sound so easy for a conservatee to make a move through the courts. You do know that as they have NO control of their money and they don't have much in the form of power, right? Also, as we have seen from Britney's experience when Domination was cancelled that any acts of rebellion can cause punishment to the conservatee, such as when she was held involuntarily in a mental health facility. Do you understand why conservatees can't easily make legal moves? In a way they are like abused spouses as they are often financially and emotionally manipulated/intimidated. 2. You said it yourself. She attempted to hire a lawyer, but had been 'assigned' Ingham already. Does that tell you something? Isn't that extremely significant of what she tried to do, and how she was denied her rights from the very beginning? 3. You can see the sketchiness of Blair Berk right here. Essentially Britney sought Berk for her custody issues, and then Berk turned around and started working for her father. That is a big problem of conflict of interest, and very likely corruption. https://twitter.com/BritneyHiatus/status/1342510880689250304 4. We should be happy Britney's attempts to hire her own lawyer weren't successful? Have you missed out on the 12 years of legal imprisonment? I definitely don't like Lutfi but at least she would have had the counsel that she wanted. Isn't what Britney 'wants' what you appear to be defending? 5-7. See point #1 If Britney had not fraudulently lost her legal capacity and access to her money, you can bet she would have fought against this. Ask a homeless person why they can't sue for the failures by their city/state/country that put them in their situation. Or ask a battered spouse why they don't just stand up to their abuser? Without money or power how can you even expect victims to stand up for themselves? Society already painted Britney as 'crazy' so her acting out in 2008 and saying her father is holding her prisoner would have been used as proof against her of her craziness. Don't make things sound so simple.
  11. Except I answered your question above
  12. Check out the Deep Dive videos on Britney if you haven't already. I would have to watch it again to remember everything, but off the top of my head here are several strong indications we have that Britney has wanted to end the conservatorship since its inception: 1. In For the Record Britney talks about not wanting to be under the 'restraints' she is under 2. Britney hired Adam Streisand to fight it, but Ingham shot down that representation by claiming that she was 'incapable' after meeting her for a few minutes 3. There is paparazzi footage showing that Britney went to consult that lawyer (something Burke I believe?) who ended up betraying her and going behind her back to instead help her father. 4. That voicemail to that Eardley lawyer is clearly Britney's voice, where she asks him to help her get out of the conservatorship, and that her father is threatening to take her babies away from her. I seem to recall Britney's father even testified about this under oath. 5. Bryan Spears has stated specifically that his sister has 'always' wanted to get out. 6. Letter released by Andrew Gallery allegedly by Britney talks about getting out of the conservatorship. 7. Who the heck would want to be in a conservatorship. Especially somebody who has always been as fiercely independent as Britney. What more do you need?
  13. I agreed with you on everything except Sam Lutfi. That guy is scum and he is the reason that team CON was able to take over Britney's life as they used him as an excuse to 'protect her' from him. And he is so shady. Considering he was also hanging around Courtney Love (and I believe Amanda Bynes ) I would even suspect he is or was working with team CON to try to make other rich women look 'troubled' and then cons can put them in conservatorships. WE HAVE TO STOP LOOKING AT SAM LUTFI AS SOME SORT OF POSSIBLE SAVIOR. He is as dangerous as team CON. Just look at the amount of restraining orders against him.
  14. That is exactly it though, we can never know what Britney 'wants' while Britney is still in a conservatorship. That is clear as day given how much power conservators have to silence her or force her to say/do things. That is why LFB's tweet is so disturbing. It is saying that if she simply signs a sworn statement while still in a conservatorship to the effect that she wants to stay in a conservatorship of the estate, then we should all accept that as clear evidence of her wishes, and that if we don't then we do not care about her happiness. That is gaslighting, and it is not the only time they have done that. And as I have said above, LFB has been very helpful to the movement. They have fed rally members, disclosed court docs etc. And I always supported them for that. But just because they did that are we not allowed to question them when they make statements that don't make any sense? What's worse, with statements like that a lot of fans might start to believe that Britney signing a declaration like that would be good enough to prove her wishes without the presence of undue influence. IT SHOULD NOT BE. Even if it is the hand that fed us, we should not allow it to intentionally or unintentionally misdirect us. There are many other people in the movement that can purchase court documents if LFB keeps making nonsense statements about the law.
×
×
  • 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