Britney Spears’ Conservatorship Could Violate Her Civil Rights, According To the ACLU

by Gina Ragusa 

 

Britney Spears‘ conservatorship may be in violation of her civil rights, according to an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). 

Britney Spears attends the announcement of her new residency, “Britney: Domination” at Park MGM on October 18, 2018 | Gabe Ginsberg/FilmMagic

Following Spears’ request to have her father Jamie Spears removed as conservator, ACLU attorney Zoe Brennan-Krohn shared that the strict conservatorship Spears is under may not support her wellbeing or be in her best interest.

‘Conservatorships should be viewed with skepticism and used as a last resort,’ according to the ACLU

Brennan-Krohn said Spears’ conservatorship should be examined and questioned.

“So while it’s possible that this is an example of a thoughtful conservatorship that was implemented as the last resort and is being reviewed carefully, thoroughly, and regularly, that is not the norm for conservatorships,” she remarked in an ACLU report.

This is the same scooter 🛴 I had to use when I broke my foot and couldn’t walk around ... it was pretty fun then but now I use it like a daredevil through my house 😂🤷🏼‍♀️😜🙊 !!!! Hope you all have a wonderful Christmas 🎄🎅🏼🦌 !!!! pic.twitter.com/Y21LdL7NGx

— Britney Spears (@britneyspears) December 23, 2020

“And it appears inconsistent with what we see of Britney publicly,” she added. “Our view is that in general, conservatorships should be viewed with skepticism and used as a last resort.  In most cases, it’s done routinely and without substantive engagement.”

Britney Spears could have options beyond conservatorship

Brennan-Krohn added that a slew of alternatives exists beyond a conservatorship.

“We don’t know all of the risks and benefits at play, so we can’t speak to the specifics of her case,” she commented. “But we do know that the conservatorship itself also has risks. The risks in conservatorship can include financial, physical, and emotional abuse.”

“And even when there is no abuse, conservatorships limit a person’s ability to advocate for themselves, learn from their decisions and mistakes, and grow and develop,” Brennan-Krohn added.

“There is a risk in being told that your opinions, your likes and dislikes, don’t matter — it makes it harder to stand up to abuse or neglect,” she asserted.

“So in any conservatorship, including this, we would want to know that the real risks (and benefits) of both conservatorship and its alternatives have been seriously weighed.” The #FreeBritney movement has suggested that Spears is not in control of her social media or public comments.

Getting her rights back can be difficult

Spears’ father placed her under a conservatorship in 2008 after she displayed erratic behavior. Brennan-Krohn shared people end up in a conservatorship if a court deems them as having disabilities. This includes physical, mental, and psychiatric disabilities.

“This is not to say that all conservatorships are bad or wrong or unnecessary — conservatorships are complex and individual processes,” she said. “But the ease with which disabled people can be stripped of their rights, and the extraordinary difficulties they face getting those rights back, is a systemic disability rights issue about which we have serious concerns.”

Britney Spears arriving at the Los Angeles County Superior courthouse for a hearing regarding visitation rights for her two sons | Gabriel Bouys /AFP via Getty Images

Brennan-Krohn said she isn’t privy to Spears’ diagnosis. “But by virtue of being under a conservatorship, we know that the court has determined that she is disabled,” she said. And has stripped away her civil rights because of that disability. So it’s inherently a civil rights/civil liberties issue,” she said.    

Full Article & Source:

Britney Spears’ Conservatorship Could Violate Her Civil Rights, According To the ACLU

ACLU Threatens to Sue Nursing Home for Refusing to Help Patients Kill Themselves

A retirement home connected to the Catholic Church is being threatened with legal action for not allowing its patients to commit suicide under Hawaii’s new assisted suicide law.

Though there are social service programs and 24-hour hotlines dedicated to preventing healthy, young people from committing suicide, there is a growing movement in America to push suicide on those who are old or sick. They euphemistically call it “aid in dying,” though people do not have to be dying to qualify for assisted suicide.

Earlier this year, Hawaii became the sixth state to legalize assisted suicide, joining California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia. The law is slated to go into effect in January.

Those who oppose suicide in all its forms are being targeted by powerful liberal groups.
Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to the Kahala Nui retirement home in Honolulu demanding that it comply with the new anti-life law, the AP reports.

The elderly care home recently notified patients that they will not be allowed to commit assisted suicide there, according to the report. The Catholic Church, which owns the land where the nonprofit elderly care home is located, opposes assisted suicide, euthanasia, abortion and other life-destroying practices.

The ACLU claims that amounts to discrimination.

Here’s more from the report:

Mateo Caballero, the legal director of the ACLU of Hawaii, said the home was discriminating against those who weren’t Catholic and was telling residents they have to conform to the Catholic Church’s teachings.

“I couldn’t think of a more clear violation of the Fair Housing Act and Hawaii’s own anti-discrimination laws,” he said.

Caballero said he’s not aware of another case in which a retirement home prevented its residents from using a medically assisted suicide law.

Caballero said he wants the home to send another note to residents rescinding its May 11 memo and inform residents it was wrong. Caballero said he hopes the ACLU can work with the home on the issue. If not, he said the ACLU would weigh its options, including a potential lawsuit.

A spokesperson for the home said they do not discriminate against patients based on religion, race, sex, color or anything else. Executive Director Wendy Wong said they have asked their legal counsel to look into the ACLU’s demands.

The Hawaii law allows adults with a terminal diagnosis of six months or fewer to ask a doctor for prescription drugs to kill themselves. But the law — and the six others like it in the U.S. — is riddled with loopholes that fail to protect elderly and disabled people from abuse.

Not Dead Yet, a disability rights group that opposes assisted suicide, has documented on-going abuses of assisted suicide laws in Oregon and Washington, the first two states to legalize the deadly procedure. The group said both states prescribe the lethal drugs to people who are not terminally ill nearly every year.

There also are confirmed stories of patients being denied medical treatment coverage and offered assisted suicide drugs instead.

Stephanie Packer, a mother of four struggling with terminal scleroderma, is one of them. The California woman said her state Medicare plan initially refused to pay for her medical treatment but offered to pay for assisted suicide drugs instead. She has lived five years longer than doctors predicted, the National Catholic Register reported in June.

In separate incidents, Oregon cancer patients Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup also were denied medical treatment by their state health insurance plans and offered doctor-prescribed suicide instead.

Family members also have witnessed their loved ones being pressured to consider suicide instead of medical treatment. Oregon resident Kathryn Judson said doctors tried to pitch assisted suicide to her sick husband while she was out of the room one day. Judson said they switched doctors, and her husband lived for five more years.

Full Article & Source:
ACLU Threatens to Sue Nursing Home for Refusing to Help Patients Kill Themselves

ACLU sues Utah over disabled people's right to a lawyer in guardianship cases

SALT LAKE CITY — Civil rights advocates are challenging a Utah law that eliminated a requirement that disabled adults whose biological or adoptive parents petition courts to become their legal guardians have their own attorney.

The ACLU of Utah and the law firm Latham & Watkins sued the state in federal court Thursday on behalf of the Disability Law Center and two people identified as Katherine C. and Anthony M.

The law gives judges the final say on whether a potential ward needs legal representation in a guardianship proceeding. It applies only to guardianship petitions filed by biological or adoptive parents and if the potential ward’s assets are less than $20,000.

Members of the state's disability community and the Utah State Bar opposed the bill when the Legislature passed it in 2016. The law is set to expire in July 2018 unless lawmakers renew it when they convene next January.

People with disabilities face unique and serious threats to their freedom and independence when someone seeks legal guardianship over them, said Aaron Kinikini, Disability Law Center legal director.

"We want to ensure that our members have absolutely every legal protection they deserve when going through the guardianship process," he said.

Bill co-sponsor Sen. Lyle Hillyard, R-Logan, said the legislation affects him personally, both as the father of an adult child with disabilities and an attorney.

Many parents in the same circumstance have raised a child with disabilities from birth and have their best interests at heart but need guardianships to continue to help guide their child's medical, legal and financial affairs once they reach adulthood, Hillyard said.

Most of them, he said, can't afford to hire an attorney for themselves and their child.

"That just doesn't make sense to me. I think we get so anxious making sure everybody’s legal rights are protected that we actually price them out of the market," Hillyard said.

He called the law "very, very limited" because it only applies to those whose assets are less than $20,000. In addition, Hillyard said judges can stop the legal proceedings and appoint an attorney for the child if they believe one is needed.

The lawsuit, which names the state, Utah Administrative Office of the Courts and Utah Judicial Council as defendants, demands a right to a lawyer for anyone who is to be put under guardianship.

Plaintiff Katherine C. has schizophrenia and works as a junior law clerk at a Salt Lake nonprofit. She lives with her parents because of her disability, according to the lawsuit.

Anthony M. has developmental and intellectual disabilities. He works as a school custodian, and though he lives with his wife and son, he receives care and financial support from his parents, the lawsuit says.

Both have less than $20,000 in assets and have expressed concerns about losing the right to make important medical and housing decisions for themselves, should their parents gain legal guardianship over them at some time in the future, according to the ACLU.

Once granted, guardianship is rarely if ever revoked, said John Mejia, ACLU of Utah legal director.

"When facing the loss of the right to make deeply personal decisions for themselves for the rest of their lives, people with disabilities need to have unfettered access to legal assistance," he said.

Full Article & Source:
ACLU sues Utah over disabled people's right to a lawyer in guardianship cases

Private "Guardians" Jared E. Shafer and Patience Bristol Sue Blind Man for Libel, Now Ask Taxpayers to Pay the Bill

On April 10, 2014, private "guardians" Jared Shafer, his former employee Patience Bristol,  Shafer's business  Professional Fiduciary Services of Nevada (PFSN Inc.), PFSN office manager Amy Deittrick, Deittrick's  AVID BUSINESS SERVICES, their attorneys Mark Solomon, Dana Dwiggins, Alan Freer, and Robert Simpson, and CPAs Bruce Gamett and Shawn King filed a civil libel lawsuit against Charles Pascal who has been blind since birth.

 

Charles Pascal lives in Southern California and is indigent. He cannot afford an attorney and is acting pro se in this litigation. He also has a Masters Degree from Loyola Marymount University, a tremendous feat for a sightless person. On May 12, 2014, Pascal asked the Clark County District Court to require Shafer, Bristol, and the other plaintiffs to accommodate his disability by providing all legal filings in Braille and audio per the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Shafer and the other plaintiffs refused to comply, then last week reportedly tried to get the local District Attorney to criminally prosecute Pascal for the alleged misdemeanor crime of libel in order to try to save paying the Braille and audio court costs.

If the DA complies, the Braille and audio transcriptions his office pays to generate would become public record and could be used for free by Shafer, et. al., in their civil case against Pascal saving them an estimated $100,000.00 or more in court costs.  Unable to read or respond to his complaint, Pascal asked a friend who helps persons with visual disabilities to write a dictated letter to Clark County District Judge Joanna Kishner explaining his situation, and the plaintiff's refusal to abide by the ADA law. He also dictated letters to the ADA,  National Federation of the Blind, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asking for assistance.

The ACLU intervened on Pascal's behalf.  Judge Kishner, on June 12, 2014, issued an order requiring Shafer to transcribe his initial 1,600 page complaint into Braille and audio along with all future filings. It cost $5.00 per page to translate a document into Braille, hence Shafer's reaction to try get the taxpayers to foot the bill. The transcription cost does not include paying someone to read the documents into a recorder,  binding, packing or shipping.

It appears that unless the plaintiffs can get the taxpayers to foot the bill to comply with ADA requirements, they have been blind-sided by a legal requirement they should surely have known about before they filed their lawsuit.

Shafer accused Pascal of writing over one hundred RipOff Reports that contain allegedly libelous statements about him and his crew. Pascal claims to know nothing about the origin of the RipOff Reports. He also told INSIDE VEGAS that Shafer cost his mother-in-law Marcy Dudeck over $500,000.00 in excessive billings and legal fees drained from her trust account, though Shafer hadn't performed any guardian services for Mrs. Dudeck before her death.

The following check from the account of Marcy Dudeck was one of many secretly cashed by Jared Shafer. Mrs. Dudeck's family say they were never informed of the cashed checks after her death, and she was under guardianship at the time she purportedly signed the checks, therefore she was legally prohibited from being a signatory on any legal document. Marcy had been declared legally incompetent by the Nevada court in September 2006, over a year before her checks began being signed with her signature and cashed by Shafer. Dudeck's daughter, Heidi, claims her mother's signature was forged, something District Attorney Wolfson should rightfully be looking into - instead of reportedly considering the criminal prosecution of Mrs. Dudeck's blind son-in-law for allegedly committing the misdemeanor crime of libeling Shafer, et. al.

Full Article and Source:
Private "Guardians" Jared E. Shafer and Patience Bristol Sue Blind Man for Libel, Now Ask Taxpayers to Pay the Bill

See Also:
NASGA:  Marcy Dudeck, Nevada/California Victim

Private "Guardians" Jared E. Shafer and Patience Bristol Sue Blind Man for Libel

READ Charles Pascal's Letter to the Clark County District Judge

READ RipOff Reports containing allegedly libelous statements



Jared E. Shafer
 



Patience Bristol

Quinn Signs Sterilization Bill

When K.E.J. was 8 years old, she suffered a traumatic brain injury in a car accident.

When she was 26, her guardian attempted to obtain a court order to have the young woman sterilized. K.E.J., as she is known in court documents to protect her privacy, had no idea.

Before Tuesday, when Gov. Pat Quinn signed into law a measure that would require court orders approving the sterilization of people with disabilities, guardians could take steps to have their wards sterilized without the individual's consent.

Rep. Kathy Ryg (D-Vernon Hills), the original bill’s chief sponsor, says the law shows how society has evolved, citing the recent obituary of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, whose sister Rose was mentally disabled and had a lobotomy.

She says it also gives all parties protection under the law.

“I think it provides the due process that really protects all parties, most particularly the individual, but also the family, the guardian and the doctor,” Ryg says. “Once it was brought to people’s attention, it became clear there was a gap in the due process.”

“This is so important. All women need, deserve and should have all their options as to whether to become a parent or not to become a parent available to them,” says Shelley Davis, vice president of programs and advocacy for Chicago Foundation for Women.

In the case of K.E.J., her guardian’s request was denied twice. K.E.J., did not find out about her guardian's attempt to have her sterilized until she consulted with Equip for Equality on another matter. Court records were then uncovered.

Before Quinn signed the bill, Illinois was one of 16 states that did not require a court order to perform such a procedure. Other states in the Midwest that do not require a court order include Missouri, Iowa and Nebraska.

Leah Bartelt, staff counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, says the law adds another layer of oversight for guardians, who are already scrutinized by the courts.

“Bringing the court in to assess whether … the ward would be able to make the decision on their own is an important step,” she says.

Under the law, courts would assign an agent to meet with the ward to discuss the petition for sterilization. After consulting with the ward, reviewing his or her mental capacity and ensuring he or she understands the petition, the court will make a decision.

Full Article and Source:
Quinn Signs Sterilization Bill

Judge Violated 1st Amendment

The Court of Appeals sided with a minister who said his free speech rights were violated after he was imprisoned for criticizing a judge using biblical verses.

Michael Steinberg, Michigan legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Pinkney in his free speech claims: "The Court of Appeals opinion reaffirms the basic American value that citizens cannot be imprisoned for criticizing government officials or expressing their religious beliefs. To our knowledge, this case marks the first time in modern history that a preacher has been thrown in prison for predicting what God might do."

The minister had been sentenced to 3 to 10 years in prison for writing a newspaper article that criticized the judge who presided over his trial. In his criticism, he talked about what God would do to the judge. Quoting from the Bible, Pinkney said, "the Lord shall smite thee."

Full Article and Source:
Michigan news briefs: Court rules judge violated 1st Amendment

More information:
Minister Wins Right to Threaten Judge with Biblical Curses

Appeals court hears case of Rev. Pinkney

Rev. Pinkney barred from his own hearing

Rev. Edward Pinkney article:
Corrupt judge denies new jury trial in Pinkney case

Class Action Against Law Examiners

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana has launched a class action against that state's board of law examiners, asserting that inquiries into the mental health of those seeking a law license violate federal disabilities law.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of a woman licensed in Illinois who is seeking admission to the Indiana State Bar Association. Identified as "Jane Doe" in the action, the plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners from asking certain questions about mental fitness. She also seeks a declaratory judgment that the questions on the application and the board's follow-up procedures violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The case mirrors actions in other states that have challenged certain questions regarding mental health on professional license applications. Similar challenges have resulted in the removal or modification of such questions in Maine, New Jersey and Rhode Island.

Full Article and Source:
Lawsuit Claims Indiana Law Examiners Violate the ADA

"Disruption of Congress"

2005 - Activist Elena Sassower annoyed congress, her trial judge, and defenders of free speech—all the way to jail

Two days before Christmas, Elena Sassower walked out of the Washington, D.C., jail where she'd just finished serving a sentence that should frighten anyone inclined to protest in the halls of power.

For reading a 24-word request to testify at a judicial appointment hearing on Capitol Hill, an act that qualified as "disruption of Congress," Sassower was hit with six months' incarceration—the maximum allowed by law. Despite the grave constitutional implications of her case, not one of the dozen civil rights organizations she'd asked for help came to her assistance: not the ACLU, not Public Citizen, not People for the American Way, not Common Cause.

Her real crime, it seems, was her penchant for being a pest. Reached by the Voice, attorneys from three such organizations refused to comment or spoke only off the record. One attorney privately told the Voice that his group's unwillingness to lend Sassower a hand had "nothing to do with the merits of her claims" and "everything to do with her being a very difficult person." Sassower ended up acting as her own lawyer, doing herself no favors in the trial.

Full Article and Source:
The Scourge of Her Conviction

Futile Care Law

Those who want to extend the time some hospital patients may live before their life support is cut off are worried that their proposal is running into a wall at the Capitol.

Legislation by state Rep. Bryan Hughes would require life-sustaining treatment to continue for patients whose condition is deemed futile by doctors until a transfer to another medical facility can be arranged, if their family requests it.

Currently, hospitals can stop life support after 10 days in certain cases if the patient is terminally or irreversibly ill and cannot express treatment wishes.

Hughes: "No other state in the country has a law that Draconian. The balance of power is completely shifted against the patients and the families."

Hughes' bill is being pushed by Texas Right to Life and groups for the disabled, including the Coalition of Texans With Disabilities and Not Dead Yet of Texas, also back Hughes' proposal, as does the American Civil Liberties Union.

Full Article and Source:
Texas legislators fighting futile-care law fear roadblock

More information:
Patients' Rights Bill Stalled in Texas - Bill Backed by Disability Advocates, Right to Life and ACLU

Texas Lawmakers See Competing Bills to Scrap, Defend 10-Day Futile Care Law

Adoption Ban Trial

A lawsuit seeking to undo Arkansas' voter-approved law limiting access to adoption and foster care survived its first challenge when a Pulaski County circuit judge ruled the case should go to trial.

But Judge Chris Piazza did side with state attorneys in throwing out one part of the 11-point lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union - a challenge to the title of the ballot initiative that became Initiated Act 1 of 2008 by attracting 57 percent of the vote in the November election. The ACLU, representing 24 adults and children, is seeking to overturn the law, which bars cohabiting unmarried adults from fostering or adopting children, claiming the measure is unconstitutional.

Byron Babione, an Arizona attorney representing Family Council Action Committee, the conservative Christian political action committee that championed the law, Cordi contended that the ACLU was trying to fabricate a constitutional right that doesn't exist, a right by children to be adopted or placed in foster care. Adoption and foster care law arises from state statute, not the Arkansas or U.S. constitutions, they argued.

Babione: "There's no deep-rooted right in this nation's laws or history to adopt or foster."

Full Article and Source:
Trial on adoption ban approved

See also:
Halted Efforts

Act One Under Fire

Halted Efforts

The American Civil Liberties Union has halted its efforts - at least for the time being - to delay implementation of a law that bans unmarried cohabiting couples from fostering or adopting children after state's attorneys pointed out that the new law hasn't been applied to anyone.

Proposed Initiative Act 1 went into effect Jan. 1, and the ACLU, which is spearheading a lawsuit to have the law declared unconstitutional, had sought a temporary restraining order to block its implementation until the case can be heard in Pulaski County Circuit Court.

The restraining order was necessary to protect the interests of one of the 29 plaintiffs, Sheila Cole of Oklahoma, the ACLU said.

The attorney general's office opposed the restraining order, saying that proceedings involving Cole's granddaughter have not reached the point where Act 1 would apply. The new law wouldn't apply unless the state attempts to terminate parental rights to the child, which hasn't happened and might not happen.

ACLU lawyers agreed to withdraw their request for a restraining order on the condition that the attorney general's office notify them if Act 1 is going to be applied against Cole or anyone in a similar situation to permanently affect their eligibility to become foster or adoptive parents. The order requires the attorney general's office to notify the ACLU two weeks before it takes any action under the new law.

Full Article and Source:
ACLU halts effort to toss adoption ban

See also:
Act One Under Fire

Act One Under Fire

Just days before it's scheduled to take effect, the ACLU files a lawsuit to strike down initiated Act One. That act would ban unmarried couples who live together from adopting or fostering children.

The ACLU says it doesn't matter if you're single, married, gay, straight or co-habiting, every prospective foster or adoptive parent should be screened on a case by case basis.

But supporters of Act One say the people have already spoken and they're confident the ban will stay on the books.

The ACLU explained they currently have 29 plaintiffs in the suit, and more may follow.

The Family Council Action Committee, the group behind the ban, doesn't think this lawsuit will amount to much.

Full Article and Source:
ACLU Taking Act One to Court

More information:
ACLU files suit over Ark. adoption law

ACLU of Arkansas sues over adoption restrictions

ACLU Asks Court To Strike Down Arkansas Parenting Ban

See also:
Banning Unmarried Couples