Fed Judge to Brit -- You're Outta Here!

151. # Posted at 2:19PM on Feb 27th 2008 by Bill Waters

Hey, Bill, the last I checked my I.Q. it was 170. What is yours? If you believe that engaging in harmless gossip and blogging is a waste of time, you're entitled to your opinion, but why don't you spend your valuable time returning to 3rd grade and getting a refresher on grammar and learning how to properly spell a contraction. It is not "your" as in "Don’t be surprised when the results show your actually retarded!!" It is "you're" as in "you are".

Posted at 3:07PM on Feb 27th 2008 by Stickler for Grammar

152. And to todd lissner anti adult anti wholesomeness activist----- You need to join Bill in his refresher course on contractions. It's
"they're" as in "they are", not "there" as in "there violating her rights." And BTW, my ranting friend, Britney does NOT have the right to choose her own lawyer and her rights are NOT being violated. After you've finished grade school, maybe you can take some courses on constitutional law.

Posted at 3:27PM on Feb 27th 2008 by Stickler for Grammar

153. Wow, just stopped by here to see if anybody had responded to my query. Thank you to both lawdawg and britaculous.

Posted at 6:55PM on Feb 27th 2008 by Lee13

154. 143. Question for the lawyers on this thread. Let's say the judge had decided because that this was a frivolous case, the plaintiff had to pay defendant's attorney fees. In such judgments, who pays, the lawyer or the lawyer's client? In this case, Eardley is only the lawyer right? And he is claiming the Britney is his client. So if the judge had awarded attorney fees to the defendant, would Britney basically have to pay herself?

Also, I hear that the judge said that Brittney could not be Eardley's client because of the conservatorship. So what are the rules when a plaintiff "disappears"? Is there any precedent to hold the lawyer responsible?

Posted at 11:33AM on Feb 27th 2008 by ?????

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

If I understand your questions, you want to know who would have had to pay the conservatorships' legal fees if the judge had granted their request instead of denying it. The answer is: Eardley. The judge found that Eardley could not be Britney's attorney because the Probate Court had found she is unable to retain an an attorney and she is already represented by a court-appointed attorney. The conservators, when they asked the federal court to return the case to the state court, requested the court to order Eardley to reimburse their costs. They also brought to the attention of the court that in 2006 the federal court, in another case, had ordered Eardley to pay fees and costs when he tried a similar removal tactic. Assuming the court yesterday had ordered the conservators' fees to be paid (which I think should have been done), the order would have directed Eardley himself to pay them -- not Britney -- because it determined that Eardley did not have a client. Eardley would have had no way to pass this through to Britney because payment of her bills is made by the co-consrvators or by her brother, and they would have been justified in refusing to pay Eardley's billing invoice.

Sometimes when a frivolous suit has been brought and the court dismisses it, the court will order the client, the lawyer, or both to pay the other party's fees and costs. Usually the court is very specific about when the attorney can, and cannot, pass that through to his client. See DBK's response.

Posted at 7:29PM on Feb 27th 2008 by lawdawg

155. According to an article distributed by Reuters today, Eardley has vowed to keep on fighting. "We have only just begun the fight," Eardley said in a statement. "There is nothing that will stop me from dismantling, if necessary, this oppressive and unjust conservatorship." (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/arts/entertainment-spears.html?scp=1&sq=spears+britney&st=nyt).

Apparently this guy not only has an inflated ego and a lot of b***s, he must have a slush fund to finance this ridiculous litigation. Anyway, Eardley would be wise to brush up on current California law concerning conservatorships. The California Court of Appeals last year decided a case very similar to Britney's, CONSERVATORSHIP OF JOHN L., and rejected every argument that Eardley is making here.

Posted at 7:54PM on Feb 27th 2008 by lawdawg

156. You are pretty vile really SANDY or is it LUTFI or SIMS?Her friend Lutfi was a friend of her money, or did he suddently stop being a stalker after he met her, did he stop sending hateful emails after he met her, did he stop saying he hoped 'mothers' should be raped to death after he met her??? Did he actually become a nice guy upon meeting Spears? No thought not

Posted at 8:59AM on Feb 28th 2008 by OK

157. That twit Eardley (and perhaps even that cancer, Lufti) have just cost Britney $40,000.00 more from a distance. Money vultures who want someone else's cash are like a nasty disease. To harangue a family with an obviously ill individual is unconscionable, IMHO. I guess Lufti wants to keep the conservator all tied up in litigation so they don't have time to investigate and go after him should he have had his hands in Spear's money pot, never mind allegedly administering medications to her.

Posted at 4:54PM on Feb 28th 2008 by Greed