State Court May Have Lost Britney Jurisdiction

196. Britney is incompetent

Posted at 7:25PM on Feb 16th 2008 by Love2Read

197. It seems everybody who wants to see Britney in full recovery so she can have a relationship with her precious children, again, supports this month-to-month co-conservatorship on her long-term behalf. What we are seeing here, as with the death of the fake bombshell a year ago, is a certain group of men attempting to destroy her life while gaining access to her monies during her weakened and vulnerable psychological state.

Posted at 11:34AM on Feb 16th 2008 by carrie

198. I remember seeing a video clip on tv with one of the court representatives stating that at the March court date a decision will be made on making it a permanent conservancy. If that is the case then Britney's parents have made the appropriate motions to continue and it is legal and soon possibly to be permanent.

Posted at 12:02PM on Feb 16th 2008 by binkie

199. 187.Her father left after the divorce and tried to have his own life free of their idiot spawn! The mother was busy getting served legal papers by her own daughter in a most distasteful fashion. Why I am wasting time on such a fool like you is beyond me!

Posted at 7:21AM on Feb 16th 2008 by Uh derrr!

Uh derrrr....I think it is you that are the fool. Daddy didn't try to live "his own life free of their idiot spawn" after the divorce, quite the opposite...he asked Brit to pay for his rehab, which she did, then he asked for a huge handout, millions, to open a new restaurant, and she obliged him. The restaurant went under (not surprising given he's a bankrupt).

Ma was busy doing magazine deals for Jamie Lynne and making as much out of her impending birth as possible.

Posted at 12:56PM on Feb 16th 2008 by Jamie & Lynne exploit kids

200. 193. It seems everybody who wants to see Britney in full recovery so she can have a relationship with her precious children, again, supports this month-to-month co-conservatorship on her long-term behalf.
Posted at 11:34AM on Feb 16th 2008 by carrie

Where in the world do you get "everybody" from. On my reading of the posts, the intelligent people all want to see pa booted back to the trailer park and her money handled by people who are capable of handling it. The guy is a bankrupt, hardly the best choice to manage a multi million dollar estate.

And...the intelligent people recognize the significance of human rights....people like you don't value those human rights, or think you should pick and choose who is entitled to them.

So...no, not "everytbody" agrees with you.

Posted at 1:00PM on Feb 16th 2008 by Jamie & Lynne exploit kids

201. I can't believe Pa would send Laura Wasser to go see Brit, and then argue. and inexplicably convince the Court, that Brit wasn't in good enough condition to be instructing lawyers. How stupid is the Commissioner? Is she only in good enough shape to see the lawyers Jamie wants her to see and completely unfit when she wants independent legal advice??

Posted at 1:15PM on Feb 16th 2008 by WTF

202. I’m just glad they got her off the roads before somebody got killed. Bystanders have rights too. You sound like a little kid who’s disappointed that the circus left town.

Posted at 2:29PM on Feb 16th 2008 by It's nunya business

203. I can't believe that the Feds want this case. How many people have you heard of asking the Governor of their state to take care of their custody cases? Not hardly. The fact that they are asking Arnold to get involved is nuts. It isn't like he doesn't have more important things to do. This is just not only crazy but, sick. I sincerely hope that one day Brit will somehow get back to where she once was and that this whole thing will end.

She is not confined to her home and she did see Adnan on Valentine's day. Why is it the feds concern anyways?

Posted at 3:07PM on Feb 16th 2008 by The real sh

204. I don't know whether the petition to move jurisdiction to the Federal District Court has any legal merit or not. But I know it sure does have PR merit in drawing public awareness to what is happening to Britney in this conservatorship and to the denial of the dignity and basic human rights we all take for granted in the United States. This petition asking the Federal District Court to seize control of the conservatorship case has drawn nationwide awareness and sympathy for the desperation of Britney's situation. Fueling the intense awareness and sympathy is news coverage of this desperate petition to change jurisdiction by Reuters, the United Press International, the Associated Press, MSNBC, FOXNews, CNN, USA Today, and hundreds of regional news sources like the Los Angeles Times, the Dallas Morning News, the Chicago Tribune, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the New York Daily News, the New York Post, the Boston Globe, etc., etc., etc., coast to coast. Whether the petition has legal merit or not, it's PR merit in drawing sympathy for Britney's desperate situation is no small achievement.

Posted at 3:19PM on Feb 16th 2008 by just me

205. I think something the judge did gives the California State Attorney General jurisdiction in this case too. Among the powers and duties of the Attorney General is the duty to investigate and prosecute judicial misconduct and the power to intervene in probate and other court proceedings where there is an incident of judicial misconduct in the court proceedings.

Jamie Spears was granted "temporary conservatorship" on February 1st.

Section 5352.1 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code states clearly; "Except as provided in this section, all temporary conservatorships shall expire automatically at the conclusion of 30 days, unless prior to that date the court shall conduct a hearing on the issue of whether or not the proposed conservatee is gravely disabled as defined in subdivison (h) of Section 5008."

"Except as provided in this section" (Section 5352) is in reference to; "unless prior to that date the court shall conduct a hearing on the issue of whether or not the proposed conservatee is gravely disabled as defined in subdivison (h) of Section 5008" as stated in Section 5352.1. It is also in reference to; "When the progress review determines that the goals have been reached and the person is no longer gravely disabled, a person designated by the county shall so report to the court and the conservatorship shall be terminated by the court" as stated in Section 5352.6. Since there was no request for a bench of jury trial to decide whether or not Britney is "gravely disabled" as defined by statute, those are the only exceptions which apply to the 30 day rule in "temporary conservatorship" and they are exceptions that would shorten the 30 day rule, not extend it.

The next hearing is set for March 10th, but 30 days from February 1st is March 2nd. The "temporary conservatorship" established on February 1st "shall expire automatically" on March 2nd. March 2nd falls on a Sunday. So the next hearing can be no later than the last court day before Sunday March 2nd.

The Probate Code and Welfare and Institutions Code, as well as all California Civil and Criminal Statutes, are written by lawmakers in the California State Legislature and signed into law by the Governor, and this judge cannot order anything in an arbitrary manner which is contrary to that law. To do so is judicial misconduct and subject to the jurisdiction of the State Attorney General to intervene.

The temporary conservatorship established on February 1st is not lawfully enforcable beyond March 2nd unless another petition is filed to re-establish "temporary" conservatorship, which by statute is a maximum 30 day term, or a petition to establish "permanent" conservatorship, which by statute is a 1 year term and reviewed after 6 months. All California conservatorships expire and must be re-established to remain in force.

This whole arrangement smells like a bad fish market and I'm hoping some legal eagle will take what is happening to task and file a judicial misconduct complaint and petition the Attorney General requesting an investigation in these temporary conservatorship court proceedings.

Posted at 3:46PM on Feb 16th 2008 by just me

206. Not so. There is no such provision in the code to "waive" the 30 day rule to extend the conservatorship beyond the statute limit such as you suggest, and understandably so. Why would any attorney in his right mind, to the detriment of his client, waive a statute limit? But what I think Sam Ingaham agreeing to the March 10 hearing does do is expose him to a nasty legal malpractice lawsuit that Britney could bring against him when she is again legally competent.

Posted at 12:57AM on Feb 16th 2008 by just me

****************

To just me: Law is more than codified law. It also encompasses long-recognized legal and equitable principles, one of which I mentioned in my post, equitable estoppel. Also, litigation -- including any hearing -- is governed by rules of procedure, including the California Rules of Civil Procedure and the Superior Court local rules, as well as by what is customary practice in the legal community. I know I am not going to persuade you from your position, but yes, Samuel Ingaham has the power to stipulate to a hearing and to agree to a court date, even a date that is out-of-time, and it was not malpractice for him to stipulate to a hearing date of March 10. In any event, he is a court-appointed officer and enjoys immunity from liability for all but gross negligence, so Britney would not have a case with merit. I'm sure you do not agree with it, but that is the law. I appreciate your argument and the sincerity of your opinion, but we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Posted at 5:16PM on Feb 16th 2008 by lawdawg

207. her father is saving her dumb life, if he hadn't stepped in the idiot would most likely be dead. stop complaining about her rights. she is alive and doing better now thanks to her father. enough said.

Posted at 5:25PM on Feb 16th 2008 by word-is

208. 5:16PM by lawdawg

I think you must not have noticed something I posted after I posted that which you are commenting on. I was wrong about Samuel Ingham, accepting as fact media reports that Samuel Ingham is Britney's court-appointed attorney and assuming that he was serving in the common capacity and duties of a court-appointed attorney representing a client's legal interests in a judicial contest. I discovered I was wrong about that after searching for more detail on his court-appointed duties. So after posting what you are commenting on, I posted the following:

I stand corrected on Samuel Ingham. Samuel Ingham is an attorney and he is court-appointed in this case to counsel Britney, but only to advise her of her rights and to explain the purpose and goal of the conservatorship. He is not court-appointed to represent Britney in court as her court-appointed attorney. He is County Counsel for the Public Guardian on conservatorship cases from the Los Angeles County Mental Health Department's Public Guardian Office. He is actually the court-appointed "investigator" who is serving the court by interviewing Britney and reviewing and reporting on Britney's psychological evaluations and medical reports and then he makes recommendations to the court on the need for conservatorship. In other words, if this opera ain't over until the fat lady sings, then Samuel Ingham is "the fat lady."

Posted at 6:40PM on Feb 16th 2008 by just me

209. NOBLE IS THE MAN WHO CAN CORRECT HIS OWN MISTAKE (S), BEFORE CORRECTED BY OTHERS, IT IS A TRIBUTE TO SELF-AWARENESS, AND GROWTH.

Posted at 7:45PM on Feb 16th 2008 by Kwai Chang Kane

210. Oh please. Her parents get control over her, they put her to work back in the studio and quicker than you can say 'gravy train' there's a world tour planned? And yet somehow, you all can still say 'it's the best thing that ever happened to her' that daddy got control. Papa Jaime and that heinous mother (not that she deserves that title) need to lay off. She doesn't need to be making any more money for these people.

Posted at 7:58PM on Feb 16th 2008 by Hello