Thread by @SwatTeamForBjs

A master thread about how Britney was denied every single lawyer trying to help her fight the conservatorship back in 2008.

#FreeBritney #BritneySwatTeam #EndTheConservatorship #EndConservatorshipAbuse

February 1, 2008: 
James filed for temporary conservatorship over Britney - both over the person and the estate.

Both was granted by Reva Goetz the very same day.

Samuel Ingham was assigned as Britney’s court-appointed counsel on February 01, 2008.

Trope & Trope (Britney’s attorneys in the family matter) recommended Adam Streisand from Loeb & Loeb to Britney.

He is the first lawyer Britney tried to be represented by in her conservatorship case.

According to Vivian, she had a “pleasant conversation when talking with Ronald Rale (from Trope&Trope). 

But Adam Streisand accused her (and James) of a “hostile take over of [Britney]”.

In an odd email reply, Jeryll asked Adam to reconsider his position because “you are a father too” and to “put our heads together [..] to save this young woman’s life” which is, at the very least, inappropriate.

At the hearing on Feb 4 the court found that Britney "had no capacity to retain Mr. Streisand". 

Adam Streisand was ejected from the hearing/court. 

Also Dr. Marmer is supposed to file a report by Feb 13 about the fact if Britney has the "ability to retain and direct counsel".

It is also worth noting that in the letters of Britney's conservatorship issued on February 1st & 4th, James was granted the power to limit Britney’s visitors and she was deemed to not have capacity to retain a lawyer on Feb 4th.

BUT James did not have the power to restrict any of Britney's meetings with other lawyers (even though she could not retain them during that period).

This changed though.

After Adam Streisand appeared on Britney's behalf on February 4th, James asked to amend the Letters of conservatorship to include the phrase:

This could, allegedly be, because at the time (February 4th), the official medical evaluation was not performed yet, so there might have been the possibility that Britney could have been deemed capable of retaining counsel in the future (after the evaluation).

But James made sure that even if that was the case, he had the power to approve (or refuse) or at least be present with his lawyers in case Britney would be allowed to meet and / or retain counsel herself.

James’ lawyers claim that Howard Grossman (Britney’s business manager at the time), instructed Mercedes to deliver one of Britney’s cars, against James’ instructions and set up and attended the meeting between Britney and Adam (which Howard denies having attended).

Later that same afternoon, Adam was informed of the standing Orders prohibiting Britney to meet with anyone, even attorneys, without James’ consent, and according to Geraldine, Adam said he “immediately discontinued the meeting with Britney”.

The same day that Adam allegedly dropped Britney (Feb 6th), she called Gary Stiffelman (entertainment lawyer who had worked with her in the past). She also called him on Feb 9th and 11th. 

He refused to reveal the content of the conversations due to attorney-client privilege.

Sidenote: Eardley contacted Britney before the conservatorship was put in place.

Eardley was retained by Britney “on or about February 12th”. 

On the 14th he filed the Notice of Removal (move Britney's conservatorship case from the Probate Court to Federal Court).

Sidenote: 

This was the notice that, had it been filed just 22min earlier, the letters of conservatorship would have expired, which would have given Eardley and Britney a fighting chance.

(see post about the "missing minutes")

It’s very possible that Jon Eardley was "linked" to Sam Lutfi in some way (they had the same spokesperson Michael Sands). 

Sam maybe was the one to connect Britney with Eardley.

Among other things, Jon Eardley listed in his filing all the rights that Britney had been deprived of.

Eardley also made an allegation that James was “supplementing” Britney’s medication.

He also alleged that the medication Britney was prescribed was for out-patient use and that James keeping her confined was negatively impacting her health, instead of helping her.

Sidenote: according to Geraldine’s declaration from September 12, 2008, “the paparazzi dramatically thinned out”, which was a consequence of Britney being mostly, allegedly, confined in her own home, rather than helpful actions taken by James.

He called James’ pleading “a colorable claim of manipulation”, “artful pleading designed to prevent removal”, “may be a sham or fraudulent device”.

On Feb 19 James and his lawyers filed a Motion to Remand the case in Probate Court.

James’ lawyers asked the Court to have Eardley pay the costs and fees related to this action, specifically citing that this could have “resulted in dire consequences” because he almost managed to stop the extension of the conservatorship letters and orders.

They also threatened him with more severe consequences, which eventually did lead to his disbarment.

They also asked the Court to compel Eardley to inform them under penalty of perjury of all the persons involved and their exact role in this action.

Eardley stood his ground and filed an opposition to James’ motion to remand together with a declaration.

Eardley explained in even more detail what happened during those first days: indicating that James had moved in with Britney and put her “in a form of private confinement” and “denied her fundamental rights”.

He added that “the conservatorship is palpably biased” and that “there are financial issues which involve the possible misappropriation of assets”.

“Counsel has learned that there have been significant verbal attacks by her live-in father”. 

Eardley said that he was extremely concerned for Britney’s “emotional and physical safety”.

He said he would file an application that was going to include “federal claims involving witness intimidation, victim intimidation, and other federal claims”.

“It is obvious that the conservatorship was planned well in advance [..] as a tool to influence the custody proceedings [..] and for other illicit purposes.”

Eardley also claimed that “the conservatorship was granted in violation of the five day notice” and stated that Lynne’s declaration was false.

“Her rights have been significantly violated [..] many, if not all, of Britney’s other rights have been deprived”: right to freedom of association, right to due process, right to counsel of her own choosing, right to meet with counsel in private, right to a jury trial/fair trial.

Eardley claimed he spoke to Britney on several occasions. 

“The last time she attempted to call me, the telephone was taken away from her, and the number was disconnected the next day”.

Jon Eardley also handed in a declaration from Professor William McGovern, "a Professor of Law".

In his declaration he went over all the rights Britney has been stripped of: no notice was given, good cause did not exist for not giving notice, representation by chosen counsel, more than 30 days without the opportunity to appear and be heard, etc.

"To permit a temporary conservatorship created ex parte to last more than 30 days without giving the conservatee an opportunity to appear and be heard infringes her right to due process under the U.S. and California constitutions as well as the spirit of the Probate Code."

James’ arguments (or "explanations") against the accusations that Jon Eardley made were at the very least bizarre. ⬇️

James’ lawyers claimed that James couldn’t supplement Britney’s medication (as Eardley had alleged) because the Court hadn’t given James the power to do so.

James didn’t even deny Britney had talked to Eardley; his lawyers simply stated that the powers given to him by the Court didn’t impose such limitation (re: phone calls) and that it was inconsistent to claim Britney was denied phone access, but she spoke with Eardley by phone.

This in itself is not an argument, given that James denying Britney phone access does not necessarily mean she didn’t manage to talk to Eardley (or other people) somehow.

Sidenote: This is sustained by Gary Stiffelman’ declaration, an entertainment lawyer who worked with Britney before the conservatorship.

In it he claimed that Britney called him on February 6, 9 and 11 “from more than one telephone number”.

On March 24th, 2008 the Court found that “Jon Eardley has no authority to act on behalf of Britney”.

Due to his implication in Britney’s case and another case, Jon Eardley currently is not eligible to practice.

John Anderson, who had been contacted by Jon Eardley, also tried to represent Britney in 2009.

Unfortunately we don't have any further information about John Andersons involvement in Britneys conservatorship case.

Here's a basic timeline of the first days Britney was under the conservatorship and how she was fighting against it.

#FreeBritney #BritneySwatTeam #EndTheConservatorship #EndConservatorshipAbuse