TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

Federal Judge Says It Seems Bogus To Him

2/20/2008 5:55 PM PST BY TMZ STAFF

A Federal judge in the Britney conservatorship case has issued a tentative ruling that the move to make a federal case out of it is ridiculous.
Click to launch documents!
Judge Philip Gutierrez set a deadline of February 29 for Britney's so-called lawyer, Jon Eardley, to explain why on Earth the federal court has any business getting involved in Britney's mental affairs.

The court said it sure seems the Feds have no jurisdiction to interfere, and unless Eardley can convince the judge to the contrary, the case will go back to State court on Feb 29.

Stay tuned ...

146 COMMENTS

No Avatar
121.

Keith Richard Radford Jr    

She needs the right to make a Fed. case, and has every right to do so.

2382 days ago
122.

cheetos    

Wow, just been reading the posts. there's going to be some fireworks in the courtroom pretty soon! The court date is Feb 29 if Im not mistaken and I will be tuning infor that show for sure! That lawyer sounds like a real piece of work, as well as whoever put him up to this. The judge will see through this charade!

2382 days ago
123.

abhisaha    

Does no one see that regardless everything else (i.e. how evil Lufti and co might be), this is fundamentally a case of civil liberty violation. The only thing we know is that Britney has been behaving in a way most of us would not. However, last time I checked, bizarre behavior was not a crime. There is NO evidence that Britney is gravely disabled or dangerous. Taking her freedom away is cruel and against everything this country stands for. If you think Britney needs help, convince her with emotional means to see a psychiatrist. Do not lock her up without her consent. That will not do any good, and more importantly you have no right to do it.

2382 days ago
124.

anonymous    

Y'all don't know what you are talking about. Conservatorships do not violate civil liberties, they preserve liberties, pr the right to gain real liberty. Conservatorships are going on all over the country, the world, today. You only know about this case. Why don't you fight for the thousands, maybe millions, of people who are being protected under conservatorships right now? Most of them are mad about it, too.

2382 days ago
125.

anonymous    

Britney is not accused of a crime. Criminals are not usually put under conservatorships. They are put in prison. Britney has been deemed to be unable to take care of herself and her business right now. The court appointed lawyer who examined her said she could not even remember things he just told her, and he found it impossible to carry on a real discussion with her about her life and her business. He found he unable to make any decision at this time, and found her unable to participate in any court case where her life or business was concerned.


According to a family source, Britney realizes something is wrong with her, or she would have her children with her. Perhaps she is just not quite sure what is wrong, isn't convinced how to take care of it, doesn't know what action to take. She's been very self-sufficient for many years. It's probably hard for an adult, especially one who's been calling all the shots about her personal life until this illness took over, to turn her life over to someone else, even her parents and court appointed doctors and lawyers. She'll get there, though, despite all the hateful ill wishes sent her way by Internet moronic devils.

2382 days ago
126.

t chaps    

let her have a private life .

2382 days ago
127.

Dr. Adams    

A direct quote from the “Times” news paper, “A judge put the breaks on “Britney Spears driving with out a license case Wednesday after her lawyers said they don’t believe she is capable of resolving the matter.
Superior Court Judge T.K. Herman continued the misdemeanor case until March 20th after lawyer J. Michael Flanagan said Spears Spears’ conservator ship attorneys “do not think she is qualified or capable of entering into a binding agreement” at this time. Well what do you think of that….she seems capable of shopping, ordering dinner, teaching kiddies to dance, according to her last performance, she‘s the one who desperately needs the dancing lessons, showing off her “Beaver”….in this country when you have the bucks you can go above and beyond the laws …..I’m just sayin

2382 days ago
128.

OCD    



Looks like Brit and her attorneys aren't going to be able to find (what they hoped would be) a "friendlier" court.

It's hard to make an argument for something which has no basis in fact or law....unless you are Johnnie Cochran and are up against a team of incompetents.



2382 days ago
129.

dee    

Hope Sammy the snake has to pay out of pocket for this web he is trying to weave. Sorry Sammy your time is over and to the slammer you will go.

2382 days ago
130.

HooplaOinkOink    

Mike Huckabee for prez and Britney Spears for VP in 2008!!!

2382 days ago
131.

dee    

Everyone is talking about how much Jamie Spears is spending on lawyers, bodyguards etc.. Did everyone forget that Britney makes 700K a month? I am willing to bet that Sam Lufti and his den of thieves spent alot more than that while they pimped out Britney to the press almost killing her. Her safety is worth whatever they are spending. Her flashing her cootch the other day just goes to show she still needs help. Lay off her father he is doing whatever it takes to keep his daughter alive and healthy. I still dont trust Adnan but I guess he is the lesser of the 2 evils and he is under the watchful eye of Jamie Spears. So if he screws up out he goes.

2382 days ago
132.

Stop Blaming the Paps For Everything Brit Does    

To la Laa post at 11:35 PM: To answer your question, I don't think Eardley will actually have any oppportunity to appear before the judge. No hearing has been set, and I seriously doubt there will be oral argument on this ridiculous attempt to assert federal jurisdiction. All that has happened at this poiint is that the judge ordered Eardley to file a responsive memorandum of points and authorities (a legal brief) by the 29th. I can't wait to see how Eardley contorts precedent in a vain attempt to make a federal question out of what has long been recognized as a state law matter. The court can rule on the basis of the pleadings or, if it feels the need to hear oral argument, set it for argument. The latter won't happen -- there will be an Order remanding the case to the state court almost immediately after Eardley files.

2382 days ago
133.

HooplaOinkOink    

To celeBRITy (msg #59): you clearly know nothing about the law. Conservatorships are granted all the time in cases like this, and they are not violations of people's constitutional rights. And one of the definitions of a conservatorship is that the person loses some of his or her civil rights while it is in force. Any law intern would know this, let alone a full-fledged lawyer like Eardley. Unless he is on some seriously mind-altering drugs, he couldn't possibly believe in the validity of the claim he made in Federal Court, and he is just doing it to try to gum up the works and influence the media against the Spears family.

Britney's UCLA doctors have submitted to the court that she left the facility Against Medical Advice. Anyone on a 14-day hold has the right to contest that hold, and if they are minimally functional to the point where they can clothe and feed themself and have some shelter to go to, Calif. law stipulates that they have to be released, even if their doctors diagnose them with a serious psychological disorder. In Britney's case, the UCLA doctors deemed her to not be fully in possession of her mental faculties, which is why when they were forced to let her go, they stated that it was Against Medical Advice.

The critieria for 14-day holds and the criteria for putting someone under conservatorships are DIFFERENT. There are plenty of people who are able to keep their clothes on in public and can get food from their plates to their mouths and have a place to sleep with a roof over their head (more or less the minimal criteria for release from a 14-day hold) but who still are suffering from psychological disorders that are serious enough warrant their being put under conservatorships. This is determined by the courts and the doctors, and it's what has happened in Britney's case.

And as I've already stated, it's the _definition_ of a conservatorship that the person loses some of their civil rights while it is in effect. And it's perfectly legal.

The place where civil rights and Constitutional issues are decided are in Federal Court. The justice of the Federal Court rejected Eardley's petition as not involving issues of civil rights or Constitutionality. Do you think that you know more about this than a Federal Judge whose job is to decide these kinds of things?

As is always the case, the judge gave Eardley something like 7 or 8 days to resubmit his petition, if he (Eardley) thinks he could do a better job the second time around of showing that the case has merit. But I'll bet you anything that either (1) Eardley doesn't bother to refile; or (2) he does refile and the judge throws it out again.

In other words, it's perfectly constitutional for people to be held in conservatorships under certain cases, and when they are, their civil rights are not being violated. This is as true for Britney as it is for the thousands of other people who are living under conservatorships.

The fact that the Federal petition is so void of legal merit, this shows the desperation of Eardley and Sam.

Britney's conservatorship expires on March 10. She will have another chance to contest it then. That's only 2-1/2 weeks from now. She has a much better chance of having it lifted at that time by showing how much she has improved psychologically than for any of these childish and desperate legal maneuvers on the part of Sam to have any effect.

2382 days ago
134.

Stop Blaming the Paps For Everything Brit Does    

122. Wow, just been reading the posts. there's going to be some fireworks in the courtroom pretty soon! The court date is Feb 29 if Im not mistaken and I will be tuning infor that show for sure! That lawyer sounds like a real piece of work, as well as whoever put him up to this. The judge will see through this charade!


Posted at 2:57AM on Feb 21st 2008 by pinky

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

Pinky, don't settle in with your popcorn and drink to watch the fireworks just yet. The "court date" is a just a deadline for Eardley to file a brief ("the Court orders defendant(s) to show cause in writing no leter than Friday Feb. 29, 2008 ..."). I don't think there will be anything happening in court -- this will just be remanded to the state court without a lot of fanfare.

The real fireworks will probably be on this blog, because there will be some ppl who read whatever BS argument that Eardley makes and think it has some valid basis in law. Eardley has a tough row to hoe, because as the minute entry noted, there appears to be no way to make a federal question out of a proceeding that is traditionally left to the state courts.

2382 days ago
135.

HooplaOinkOink    

To britaculous (msg #74):, the difference between K-Fed missing some hearings and Britney missing some of hers is this: K-Fed always showed up when he was _required_ to do so, and Britney didn't. Also, K-Fed always complied with all of his court orders, and Britney didn't. I'm not saying K-Fed is an angel; he's more than likely a scheming low-life. However, he has been able to play his game intelligently while Britney played her side of it like a self-destructive idiot.

The U.S. court system strongly favors the mother in child disputes, and all Britney had to do was to behave like a semi-responsible semi-adult, and nothing K-Fed would have done could have prevented her from having visitation rights and possibly even custody. But Britney kept shooting herself in the foot by disobeying court orders and by refusing to show up when she was _required_ to do so. This is why she lost access to her kids.

I'm sure that Britney loves her children. However, she was unable to do the simple things necessary in order to keep them. I believe that this is due to her self destructive nature which is part of her mental problems. Until she starts acting more intelligently and in her own bests interests, all the users and schemers will continue to walk all over her. At least her parents are trying to fill in where Britney's judgment is currently (and I hope temporarily) absent.

2382 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web