10/7/2020 Britney Conservatorship Hearing Transcript

12
THE COURT: WAIT. WAIT. HOLD ON, MS. COHEN. I'VE
ALREADY TALKED T0 MS. MONTGOMERY'S COUNSEL.
AWNH
MS. MONTGOMERY'S COUNSEL IS INDICATING THAT, BASED ON THE
CODE SECTION AND HER UNDERSTANDING 0F THAT, WHICH MAKES
SENSE TO ME, AND I AGREE, IS THAT MS. SPEARS HOLDS HER OWN
mm
RIGHT TO PRIVACY. SO THE QUESTION IS, BASED ON WHAT
HAPPENED AT A PRIOR HEARING, IS THIS STILL THE ASSERTION
THAT YOUR OFFICE IS MAKING 0R NOT, BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO
GOVERN PART OF THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE.
10
11
MS. COHEN: WE AGREE THAT MS. SPEARS HOLDS HER OWN
RIGHT TO PRIVACY. NOBODY ELSE HOLDS HER RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
12
RIGHT TO
PRIVACY WAS NOT TAKEN AWAY FROM HER.
13
THE COURT:
THANK YOU.
14
15
16
17
18
19
SO, MR. INGHAM, HAVING HEARD THAT, IT SOUNDS LIKE
THAT ISSUE IS NOT ONE THAT NEEDS TO BE BRIEFED. EVERYBODY
IS IN AGREEMENT THAT MS: SPEARS HOLDS HER OWN RIGHT TO
PRIVACY.
MR. INGHAM: THIS IS SAMUEL INGHAM. YES, YOUR HONOR,
I AGREE. THANK YOU.
20
THE COURT:
YOU'RE WELCOME.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, LET'S COME BACK, THEN, TO THE ISSUE ABOUT
THE DECLARATION AND THE VERIFIED DECLARATION BY MS. SPEARS
AND THAT ISSUE. SO IT WAS RAISED IN THE CONTEXT OF AN
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION. AND, MR. INGHAM, IS IT YOUR
POSITION, THEN, THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THAT BRIEFED BECAUSE
YOU HAVE A CONCERN -- THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING -- THAT YOU
HAVE A CONCERN THAT THIS IS GOING TO COME UP AGAIN AND
THAT'S WHY YOU WANT THE BRIEFING. IS THAT WHY YOU'RE
17

QGU'IQMNH
13
REQUESTING
IT?
MR. INGHAM: THIS IS SAMUEL INGHAM. YES, YOUR HONOR,
IT
CAME UP AS AN EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION TO MY MAKING
STATEMENTS ON BEHALF OF MS. SPEARS' INTENT OR WISHES OR
WHATEVER, AND OBVIOUSLY THAT ISSUE HAS A SCOPE THAT GOES
BEYOND EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS T0 A MOTION TO SEAL,
AND I
THINK IT SHOULD BE BRIEFED, YES.
m
THE COURT:
OKAY.
SO, MS. COHEN, WHAT'S YOUR TIME LINE? IN LIGHT
lO
11
12
13
14
15
l6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
OF THE FACT THAT I AM PUTTING IT OVER TO NOVEMBER 10TH,
AND THIS IS OCTOBER 7TH, HOW SOON CAN YOU GET SOMETHING IN
ON THAT ISSUE? AND THEN I CAN LET MR. INGHAM KNOW WHEN HE
CAN RESPOND, AND THEN WHEN YOU CAN PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
MS. COHEN: THIS IS MS. COHEN SPEAKING. AGAIN, YOUR
HONOR, I AM A BIT CONFUSED. WE RAISED AN EVIDENTIARY
OBJECTION. I THINK THAT WE FIRST -- AND WE GAVE OUR
RATIONAL. THE FIRST BRIEF OPPOSING THAT EVIDENTIARY
OBJECTION OR SAYING THAT EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION SHOULD BE
OVERRULED, I THINK SHOULD BE FROM MR. INGHAM, AND THEN WE
WILL REPLY. WE RAISED THE OBJECTION, AND I THINK THAT IT
IS MR. INGHAM NOW WHO SHOULD BRIEF THE REASON WHY THAT
OBJECTION SHOULD BE OVERRULED, AND THEN WE'LL RESPOND.
THE COURT: WELL, YOU RAISED IT IN A --
MS. COHEN: -- WE AGREE WITH HIM.
THE COURT: OKAY. BUT MR. INGHAM, IS IT THAT YOU'RE
ASKING FOR SOME AUTHORITY FOR THAT BEYOND WHAT'S IN THE
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION?
MR. INGHAM: YES, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS SAMUEL INGHAM.
18

mLDIbLUNH
l4
THAT IS EXACTLY CORRECT. THE EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION, I
DON'T HAVE THE PLEADING BY MR. SPEARS' COUNSEL IN FRONT OF
ME, BUT THE PORTION OF IT THAT I QUOTED IN MY REPORT WAS
UNSUPPORTED. IT SIMPLY INDICATED THAT "WE OBJECT BECAUSE
THERE IS NO DECLARATION BY MS. SPEARS." AND FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE, IT IS SELF—EVIDENT THAT THE CONSERVATEE CAN'T
FILE
DECLARATIONS THAT ARE VERIFIED BECAUSE SHE LACKS
LEGAL CAPACITY TO DO SO. I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE
ARGUMENT. AND IF THE COURT WOULD LIKE TO RULE ON IT NOW
10
11
BASED ON THAT, I AM FINE WITH THAT. ONE HAS TO LOOK NO
FURTHER THAN CONSERVATORSHIP OF LINLAND (PHONETIC) TO
12
UNDERSTAND THAT
EVEN A COMATOSE CONSERVATEE CAN HAVE
13
l4
COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL
INTERESTS.
FILING REPORTS AND ASSERTING THEIR
15
l6
17
SO THAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE ARGUMENT, AND IF THE
COURT WOULD LIKE TO RULE ON THAT BASIS, THAT'S FINE. BUT
IF MS. WYLE AND MS. COHEN HAVE SOME AUTHORITY THAT I AM
18
NOT AWARE OF THAT SAYS THAT CONSERVATEES HAVE TO
FILE
l9
DECLARATIONS UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY,
I'D LOVE TO SEE THE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AUTHORITY. AND I THINK IT WOULD HELP THE COURT IN DEALING
WITH THIS CASE IN THE FUTURE ON OTHER ISSUES.
THE COURT: SO, MS. COHEN, DO YOU HAVE SOME AUTHORITY
BEYOND WHAT WAS STATED IN THE EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS,
WHICH I DO RECALL READING MYSELF.
MS. COHEN: SO, YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS SOME BRIEFING IS
CALLED FOR BECAUSE I HAVE A CONFUSION OF ISSUES HERE. WE
WERE NOT ADDRESSING IN THAT PLEADING WHETHER OR NOT THE
CONSERVATEE'S COUNSEL CAN SPEAK ON BEHALF OF CONSERVATEE.
19

15
ALL WE DID -- MR. INGHAM MADE SOME STATEMENTS THAT HE
ATTRIBUTED HAD BEEN MADE BY MS. SPEARS, AND WE RAISED A
HEARSAY OBJECTION.
AND WE OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF
THE EVIDENCE OF MS. SPEARS' STATEMENTS BY MR. INGHAM ON
THE GROUNDS THAT THEY ARE INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY. NOW, I'M
HAPPY TO BRIEF THAT
ISSUE FURTHER IF YOUR HONOR WOULD
LIKE, BUT THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT IS PENDING RIGHT NOW.
THERE IS, IN MY MIND, NO OTHER ISSUE BECAUSE WE DID NOT
ASK THAT
YOUR HONOR THROW OUT THE OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
TO SEAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT THERE WAS NO DECLARATION. WE
OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF AN OUT“OF-COURT STATEMENT
MADE BY MS. SPEARS THAT WAS CONVEYED BY MR. INGHAM, ON
HEARSAY GROUNDS. I DON'T THINK -- AND WE'LL BRIEF THIS --
I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS AN EXCEPTION T0 HEARSAY FOR
SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T HAVE CAPACITY, ALLEGEDLY. BUT WE'RE
HAPPY TO BRIEF THAT.
17
THE COURT:
OKAY.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MS. WYLE: AND THIS IS MS. WYLE. AND I WOULD JUST
EMPHASIZE, WE ARE IN NO WAY TRYING TO LIMIT MR. INGHAM'S
ABILITY TO ADVOCATE FOR HIS CLIENT, BUT IF THE STATEMENT
IS -- IF THE PLEADINGS CONTAIN A STATEMENT BY MS. SPEARS,
I THINK THAT THE RULES OF EVIDENCE REQUIRE THAT THERE BE
SOME KIND OF VERIFICATION OF THAT. PERHAPS IT WOULD BE
BEST FOR MS. SPEARS TO APPEAR SO THAT WE ALL KNOW WHAT SHE
IS THINKING. IT IS -- AND WE ARE NOT TRYING TO FORCE
MS. SPEARS INTO COURT EITHER, BUT THE STATEMENTS THAT ARE
BEING MADE AFFECT MR. SPEARS' ABILITY TO ADMINISTER, AND
THE RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE CALLED INTO PLAY TO MAKE THIS
20

16
PLAYING FIELD OPERATE IN A WAY THAT WE CAN ALL RELY UPON.
THE COURT: SO, MR. INGHAM, BASED ON WHAT I HEARD, IT
LON
SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED A BRIEFING SCHEDULE.
MR. INGHAM: YES, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS SAMUEL INGHAM.
I THINK WE DO. I THINK IT'S FAIRLY CLEAR FROM THE PATH
THAT COUNSEL WENT DOWN IN THE LAST ROUND OF DISCUSSION
THAT THEY DO HAVE A LARGER AGENDA HERE, SO I THINK WE NEED
TO GET THIS ISSUE RESOLVED SO IT DOESN'T POP UP ON US AT
THE NEXT HEARING. AND I THINK THERE IS A LARGER ISSUE
10
ll
12
THAN THE SIMPLE HEARSAY ISSUE. I THINK THE LARGER ISSUE
IS WHETHER ANY CONSERVATEE HAS THE CAPACITY TO EXECUTE A
DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY IN ORDER TO SUPPORT
13
ASSERTIONS MADE
IN A VERIFIED REPORT BY COURT-APPOINTED
l4
COUNSEL. SO I THINK IF WE FRAME THE ISSUE THAT WAY, I
15
THINK IT WILL BE EXTREMELY
ILLUMINATING TO ME AND TO THE
l6
COURT SO WE’RE READY
FOR THE NEXT HEARING.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE COURT: OKAY. SO, MS. WYLE, MS. COHEN, GIVEN THAT
TODAY IS OCTOBER 7TH, AND THE HEARING DATE FOR THESE
MATTERS IS GOING TO BE ON NOVEMBER 10TH, HOW SOON CAN YOU
GET SOMETHING IN TO ME, BECAUSE THEN MR. INGHAM IS GOING
TO HAVE TO PREPARE SOMETHING, AND THEN I'LL GIVE YOU AN
OPPORTUNITY TO FILE SOME SORT OF A RESPONSE.
MS. COHEN: THIS IS MS. COHEN. YOUR HONOR, I JUST
WANT TO CLARIFY, THERE IS NO BIGGER AGENDA HERE. WE ARE
ONLY TALKING ABOUT AN EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION. THAT IS ALL
THAT'S IN OUR MINDS IS AN EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION, A VERY
SIMPLE HEARSAY OBJECTION BASED ON THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.
THERE IS NO BIGGER AGENDA HERE WITH RESPECT TO THAT. I
21

17
WILL DEFER TO MY CO-COUNSEL, MS. WYLE, ON THE BRIEFING
SCHEDULE.
THE COURT: OKAY. AND, MS. WYLE, WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT
IN TERMS OF WHEN YOU CAN GET SOMETHING IN, KNOWING THAT
MR. INGHAM HAS GOT TO RESPOND, AND THEN GIVING YOURSELF
ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO GET SOMETHING IN IN RESPONSE TO
HIS, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE HEARINGS WILL BE ON
NOVEMBER 10TH?
MS. WYLE: WHAT IF —~ LET'S SEE. WHAT IF WE HAD OUR
10
PLEADING DUE ON OCTOBER 23RD, MR. INGHAM WOULD RESPOND ON
ll
OCTOBER 30TH,
AND WE WOULD REPLY BY NOVEMBER 6TH WHICH
12
l3
14
15
WOULD GIVE THE COURT THE WEEKEND TO REVIEW THE PLEADING?
THE COURT: MR. INGHAM, HOW IS THAT WORKING FOR YOU IN
TERMS OF THE --
MR. INGHAM: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS SAMUEL INGHAM.
16
THAT'S
FINE WITH ME.
17
18
l9
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE COURT: OKAY. AND WHAT I WOULD SAY, MS. WYLE, IS
THAT BECAUSE NOT ONLY DO I HAVE TO LOOK AT IT, THE
RESEARCH ATTORNEY HAS TO LOOK AT IT, I WOULD SAY RATHER
THAN FRIDAY THE 6TH, THE 5TH OF NOVEMBER FOR YOUR REPLY.
MS. WYLE: THAT WORKS, YOUR HONOR. OUR OFFICE IS
GOING TO BE CLOSED FOR AT LEAST A PORTION OF THAT WEEK AND
MAYBE ALL OF NOVEMBER 3RD SO EVERYBODY IS ABLE TO VOTE,
BUT THAT GIVES US THE 4TH TO FILE.
THE COURT: OKAY. SO THAT WILL BE THE SCHEDULE. THE
23RD FOR THE INITIAL BRIEFING BY MS. WYLE AND MS. COHEN.
MR. INGHAM, YOUR OPPOSITION WILL BE DUE ON THE 30TH. AND
THEN IF THEY CHOOSE TO FILE A REPLY, MS. COHEN AND
22

18
MS. WYLE, IT WILL BE DUE BY NOVEMBER 5TH.
MR. INGHAM: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS SAMUEL INGHAM.
¢WNH
THAT'S FINE WITH ME. THANK YOU. I DO HAVE ONE
HOUSEKEEPING ISSUE THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE.
GUI
THE COURT:
YES.
MR. INGHAM: IS NOW A GOOD TIME TO BRING THAT UP?
THE COURT: YES, THAT'S JUST FINE.
MR. INGHAM: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MY REPORT WAS
FILED BEFORE MR. SPEARS WITHDREW THE PETITION TO APPOINT
10
ll
l2
13
l4
15
l6
MR. WALLET, AND SO MY REPORT RECOMMENDED THAT THIS
BRIEFING SCHEDULE BE TIED TO THE MOTION TO SEAL, BUT
MR. SPEARS FILED -- WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITION FOR
MR. WALLET, MR. SPEARS HAS WITHDRAWN THE WALLET
APPOINTMENT PETITION, BUT THEY DIDN'T WITHDRAW THE MOTION
TO SEAL WITH RESPECT TO THAT PETITION. SO THE
HOUSEKEEPING QUESTION IS WHETHER THEY PLAN TO KEEP THAT
l7
MOTION TO SEAL ON CALENDAR FOR NOVEMBER 10TH,
AND IF NOT,
18
WHETHER WE NEED TO TIE THIS
BRIEFING SCHEDULE TO THE
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION TO SEAL WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCOUNTING SO IT'S NOT
JUST FLOATING OUT THERE IN SPACE.
THE COURT: OKAY. AND SO, MS. WYLE, YES?
MS. WYLE: MS. WYLE SPEAKING. THIS IS -- I THOUGHT WE
HAD MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE DEFERRED TO MR. INGHAM IN THE
LAST HEARING, BUT WE CERTAINLY WITHDRAW IT. WE DIDN‘T
WANT TO DO IT WITHOUT HIS AUTHORITY AND HIS AGREEMENT TO
DO SO, AND WE HELD BACK IN THE EVENT THAT HE WISHED FOR IT
TO CONTINUE, IT WOULD CONTINUE. AND SINCE MR. INGHAM IS
ASKING FOR THE MOTION TO BE WITHDRAWN, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO
23

l9
THAT, AND WE’D JUST ASK -— I THINK THAT THE CONSERVATOR OF
_,..- -.._
wNH
THE PERSON AGREES, EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE OF PRIVACY HAS
BEEN RESOLVED, AND SHE IS THE CONSERVATOR OF THE PERSON.
JUST SO IT'S ON THE RECORD THAT WE‘RE WITHDRAWING WITH
EVERYBODY'S CONSENT.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MS.
WRIGHT?
MS. WRIGHT: WAIT A SECOND. I THOUGHT WE JUST AGREED
THAT MY CLIENT DID NOT CONTROL THE CONSERVATEE'S RIGHT TO
PRIVACY, SO I DEFER TO MR. INGHAM.
ll
12
l3
14
15
16
l7
THE COURT: SO WHY DO YOU NEED MS. WRIGHT'S
CONCURRENCE?
MS. WYLE: WE JUST WANT TO -“
MS. COHEN: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS MS. COHEN. THIS IS
MS. COHEN. WE DON'T. AND ACTUALLY, I THINK THIS IS A
LITTLE CONFUSED BECAUSE I THINK THE EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION
IS MOOT BECAUSE THE MOTION TO SEAL IS WITHDRAWN, SO
18
DOESN'T THAT THE MAKE THE EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION MOOT?
AND
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WE HAVEN'T RAISED THIS ISSUE YET. I MEAN, BECAUSE THERE
HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING FILED WITH RESPECT TO -- WHICH WE
MADE AN EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION FOR THE MOTION TO SEAL ON
THE ACCOUNTING, SO I THINK WE DON'T NEED A BRIEFING
SCHEDULE. I MEAN, WE'RE BRIEFING SOMETHING THAT'S NOT AT
ISSUE ANYMORE, I THINK.
THE COURT: WELL, YOU KNOW, AND I'LL LET MR. INGHAM
SPEAK FOR HIMSELF. WHAT I HAVE HEARD IS SOME OF WHAT WAS
DISCUSSED IS A LARGER ISSUE THAN NECESSARILY THE MOTION TO
SEAL, BUT I MIGHT HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD. SO I'M HAPPY TO
24

KDmH-JGNU'I
20
{—5
HEAR FROM MR. INGHAM.
MR. INGHAM: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS SAMUEL
INGHAM. THIS WAS EXACTLY THE CONCERN THAT I HAD WAS
BECAUSE THIS ISSUE DID ARISE IN THE CONTEXT OF A MOTION TO
SEAL THAT IS NOW MOOT BECAUSE THE PETITION TO WHICH IT
RELATED, THE PETITION TO APPOINT MR. WALLET IS NOW GONE,
SO THEREFORE, THE MOTION TO SEAL WHICH TIES TO THAT
PETITION PROCEDURALLY PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN
AT THE SAME TIME, BUT IT WASN'T. MY CONCERN WAS, THE DAY
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
OF THIS HEARING, THE PETITION WOULD DISAPPEAR AND THIS
BRIEFING SCHEDULE WOULD DISAPPEAR ALONG WITH IT.
SO I WILL ASSERT, FOR THE RECORD, THAT I INTEND
TO INCLUDE IN MY OPPOSITION TO THE NEXT MOTION TO SEAL,
WHICH IS STILL PENDING, THE MOTION TO SEAL WITH REGARD TO
THE ACCOUNTING, I INTEND TO INCLUDE ASSERTIONS AS TO
MS. SPEARS' POSITION AND PERHAPS HER STATEMENTS WITH
l7
REGARD TO THE MATTERS THAT ARE BEING SEALED.
AND SO
18
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNLESS COUNSEL IS PREPARED ON THE RECORD TODAY TO WAIVE
THAT EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THAT MOTION,
AND ALL OTHER MOTIONS, AND ALL OTHER PLEADINGS, UNLESS
COUNSEL IS PREPARED TO WAIVE THAT OBJECTION, NOW IS AN
IDEAL OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEF IT AT OUR LEISURE SO WE HAVE
IT ALL TIED UP AND READY FOR RESOLUTION ON NOVEMBER 10TH.
SO THAT IS MY BASIS FOR THE SUGGESTION THAT WE TIE THIS
BRIEFING SCHEDULE TO THE MOTION TO SEAL FOR THE
ACCOUNTING, WHICH STILL PENDING.
MS. COHEN: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS MS. COHEN. THIS IS --
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN MAKE AN EVIDENTIARY
25

21
OBJECTION WHEN THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE TO BE OBJECTED TO
YET. SO ACTUALLY, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST, IN RESPONSE T0
MR. INGHAM'S STATEMENTS, IS THAT HE FILE HIS OPPOSITION TO
THE MOTION NO SEAL, AND THAT WE WILL AGREE THAT IF
STATEMENTS ARE ATTRIBUTED TO MS. SPEARS THAT WE BELIEVE
ARE SUBJECT TO HEARSAY OBJECTIONS, WE WILL, IN ADDITION TO
OBJECTING, INCLUDE A BRIEF THAT GIVES OUR LEGAL AUTHORITY
FOR
THE OBJECTION.
THE COURT: MR. INGHAM, WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT ON THAT?
10
11
12
l3
l4
15
16
17
18
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MR. INGHAM: WELL, YOUR HONOR, I THINK THIS IS A VERY
IMPORTANT ISSUE. AND I THINK THAT IT IS NOT FAIR TO THE
COURT OR FAIR TO BRITNEY SPEARS TO HAVE IT HANGING OUT
THERE WAITING TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT AT THE LAST
MINUTE IN THE DEFERRED BRIEFING SCHEDULE THAT WOULD BE
INVOLVED. IF I FILE AN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION AND THEN
THEY FILE ANOTHER REPLY DEALING WITH THE SAME ISSUE, WE'LL
BE RIGHT BACK IN THE SAME SPOT THAT WE ARE RIGHT NOW
WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEF IT.
AT THE LAST HEARING, THE COURT MAY RECALL THAT
MS. WYLE AND I HAD A VERY CIVIL CONVERSATION, AND WE BOTH
AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDED TO BE BRIEFED FOR THE
BENEFIT OF MR. SPEARS AS WELL AS THE BENEFIT OF
MS. SPEARS. AND SO I AM ASSERTING, FOR THE RECORD, THAT I
FULLY INTEND TO INCLUDE WHAT MS. COHEN HAS CHARACTERIZED
AS OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL. IF SHE INTENDS TO RAISE THAT
ISSUE, I THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO BE BRIEFED FULLY BECAUSE
IT IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. AND IF SHE DOESN'T INTEND TO
RAISE THE HEARSAY OBJECTIONS, THEN I THINK WE DON'T NEED
26

22
TO WORRY ABOUT IT. BUT THAT'S MY POSITION AT THIS POINT.
WNH
BUT IT SHOULD NOT -- THIS KIND OF IMPORTANT ISSUE SHOULD
NOT BE
DEFERRED TO THE VAGARIES OF THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE
ON A PARTICULAR MOTION.
THE COURT: I WOULD SAY ALSO, MS. WYLE AND MS. COHEN,
IS THAT THE ISSUE THAT IS GETTING BRIEFED IS MORE THAN
JUST KIND OF THEORETICAL DEPENDING ON WHAT'S SAID. IT IS
A LITTLE BIT OF A BROADER ISSUE SUCH THAT IT DOES LEND
ITSELF TO THE BRIEFING THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED, WHICH I
10
ll
12
13
14
15
l6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE COURT.
MS. COHEN: AND, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS MS. COHEN.
THE COURT: HOLD ON. I'M STILL SPEAKING.
MS. COHEN: YEAH. YEAH. NO. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY.
I CAN'T SEE, SO I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE STILL TALKING.
THE COURT: IT'S NO PROBLEM. I DON'T THINK IT'S A
THEORETICAL BRIEFING THAT HE'S GOING TO BE DOING, I THINK
IT ACTUALLY IS GOING TO BE INSTRUCTIONAL. I AM INCLINED
TO LEAVE THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE AS IT IS.
AND GO AHEAD, MS. COHEN, YOU MAY SPEAK.
MS. COHEN: YOUR HONOR, I AM STILL CONFUSED. NOT
EVERY OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENT IS SUBJECT TO A HEARSAY
OBJECTION. SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT STATEMENTS MR. INGHAM IS
GOING TO INCLUDE IN THE OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO SEAL.
WE CAN'T BRIEF A HEARSAY OBJECTION WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT
THE OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENT IS OR WHETHER THERE IS AN
OBJECTION THAT'S APPLICABLE. NOW, IF THERE IS A BIGGER
ISSUE, YOUR HONOR, WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS. SO
PERHAPS MR. INGHAM COULD FILE A PLEADING THAT DEFINES THE
27

23
ISSUE HE WOULD LIKE BRIEFED, AND WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO
BRIEF IT. BUT RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE
BRIEFING. ARE WE BRIEFING -— ARE WE BRIEFING -- ARE WE
GIVING A TREATISE ON
HEARSAY AND THE APPLICABILITY OF
HEARSAY IN GENERAL? BECAUSE THERE IS NO STATEMENT RIGHT
NOW THAT WE HAVE OBJECTED TO THAT'S PENDING.
THE COURT: MR. INGHAM, DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND?
MR. INGHAM: YES, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE A VERY SIMPLE
ANSWER TO THIS. MS. COHEN IS CORRECT, THERE IS NOT A
10
11
SPECIFIC EVIDENTIARY ISSUE WITH REGARD TO HEARSAY THAT
PENDING, HOWEVER, THE POSITION OF THEIR REPLY TO MY
IS
12
OPPOSITION WAS THAT MY CLIENT HAD TO
FILE A VERIFIED
13
l4
15
16
17
18
l9
DECLARATION IN ORDER TO ESCAPE HEARSAY OBJECTIONS. THAT
IS THE LARGER ISSUE I AM INTERESTED IN AS TO WHETHER MY
CLIENT HAS THE CAPACITY TO EXECUTE A VERIFIED DECLARATION
FOR ANY PURPOSE IN THIS CASE. AND SO THAT IS THE ISSUE.
IT‘S NOT MY ISSUE, IT'S THEIR ISSUE. I BELIEVE THAT SHE
DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO EXECUTE A DECLARATION FOR
ANY PURPOSE. IF COUNSEL BELIEVES THAT SHE HAS IT, THEN I
20
THINK THAT
ISSUE OF CAPACITY TO VERIFY A PLEADING OR
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXECUTE DECLARATIONS IS THE ONE THAT COUNSEL SHOULD BE
BRIEFING BECAUSE IT'S THEIR ISSUE.
THE COURT: YES. MS. COHEN, I AGREE WITH MR. INGHAM.
I THINK THAT THAT'S KIND OF THE LARGER ISSUE. AND I
UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, SO DON'T THINK THAT I
DON'T. I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. BUT IT KIND
OF GOES BEYOND THE NARROW POINT OF WHAT WAS RAISED WITH
REGARD TO THE PRIOR MOTION THAT HAS NOW GONE AWAY.
28

mxlmUI
24
MS. COHEN: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS MS. COHEN AGAIN. I AM
SORRY. I AM REALLY STILL CONFUSED. ARE WE BRIEFING THE
ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT A HEARSAY OBJECTION IS PROPERLY
wa
TAKEN TO AN OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENT MADE BY
SOMEBODY WHO
DOESN'T HAVE CAPACITY? IS THAT THE ISSUE WE'RE BRIEFING?
BECAUSE I HONESTLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE WE'RE
BRIEFING. ARE WE BRIEFING -- BY THE WAY, MR. INGHAM HAS
MISCHARACTERIZED WHAT WAS SAID IN OUR OPPOSITION. WE DID
NOT RAISE THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT MR. INGHAM CAN
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
l8
19
20
ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT, NOR, YOUR HONOR, IS IT
FOR US TO DECIDE WHETHER SHE HAS CAPACITY TO SIGN A
DECLARATION TO MAKE A STATEMENT TO INSTRUCT HER COUNSEL.
WE ARE NOT TAKING A POSITION ON THAT. THAT IS NOT FOR US
TO DECIDE.
NOW, IF MR. INGHAM IS TAKING THE POSITION HIS
CLIENT DOESN'T HAVE THE CAPACITY, I MEAN -- AGAIN, IS THE
ISSUE THAT WE ARE TO BRIEF WHETHER 0R NOT A HEARSAY
OBJECTION IS PROPERLY MADE TO AN OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENT
MADE BY SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T HAVE CAPACITY? IS THAT THE
ISSUE WE'RE BRIEFING?
21
THE COURT:
MY UNDERSTANDING -- AND I‘LL LET
22
23
MR. INGHAM SPEAK FOR HIMSELF TOO, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT THERE WAS INFORMATION OR STATEMENTS MADE IN HIS
24
OPPOSITION THAT WERE ATTRIBUTABLE TO MS.
SPEARS TO WHICH
25
26
AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED BECAUSE MR. INGHAM WAS THE ONE WHO
PROVIDED THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT MS. SPEARS SAID. AM I
27
28
MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT THE CONCERN WAS THAT WAS
MS. COHEN: WELL, AGAIN, IT WAS PURELY NOT
MADE?
29

Okomde'l
25
INFORMATION. NOT INFORMATION. WE WEREN'T OBJECTING TO
WNH
INFORMATION GIVEN.
WE WERE OBJECTING TO THE ADMISSION OF
AN OUT-OF—COURT STATEMENT MADE BY MS. SPEARS FOR THE TRUTH
.5
OF THE MATTER STATED.
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND.
MS. COHEN: THAT'S WHAT WE WERE OBJECTING TO ONLY. WE
WERE NOT OBJECTING TO MR.
INGHAM MAKING ARGUMENTS OR
PROVIDING INFORMATION NOT INCLUDING AN OUT-OF-COURT
STATEMENT MADE BY MS. SPEARS, BUT INFORMATION TO THE
COURT.
WE WERE NOT OBJECTING TO THAT NOR WOULD WE.
THAT'S WHAT ATTORNEYS DO ALL THE TIME.
12
THE COURT: YES. BUT I THINK IT CIRCLES BACK TO THE
l3
REASON WHY HE'S ASKING
FOR THE BRIEFING.
{Fa
14
15
16
MR. INGHAM, I'LL LET YOU SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.
MR. INGHAM: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THE ISSUE
IS A VERY SIMPLE ONE. IF MY CLIENT IS NOT LEGALLY CAPABLE
l7
OF EXECUTING A VERIFIED DECLARATION
BECAUSE SHE LACKS
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CAPACITY BECAUSE SHE IS UNDER A CONSERVATORSHIP, THEN THE
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION IN THIS CONTEXT OR IN ANY OTHER
CONTEXT IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY
FOR HER TO FURNISH A DECLARATION. THE COURT RECEIVED THIS
INFORMATION FROM ME IN A VERIFIED PLEADING, AND IT WAS
CLEAR FROM MS. WYLE'S FOLLOW-UP COMMENT THAT THE REAL
ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER I AM ACCURATELY REPORTING WHAT MY
25
CLIENT HAS TO
SAY.
26
27
28
AND SO IT IS MY VIEWPOINT THAT I AM THE EXCLUSIVE
SOURCE OF INFORMATION, IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC PLEADINGS
ANYWAY, AS TO WHAT MY CLIENT WANTS AND WHAT MY CLIENT'S
30

26
POSITION IS, AND SO IF I AM GOING TO RECEIVE AN
LUMP
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION TO EVERY TIME I MAKE AN ASSERTION AS
TO WHAT MY CLIENT BELIEVES, THEN I THINK IT WILL INDEED
HAVE AN
IMPACT AND CAST A PALL OVER EVERY OTHER ISSUE THAT
WE'RE DEALING WITH IN THIS CASE WITH REGARD TO THE
APPOINTMENT OF A NEW CONSERVATOR. AND SO I WOULD SUGGEST
THAT IT IS NOT A HEARSAY ISSUE AT ALL. IT IS AN ISSUE AS
TO WHETHER OR NOT -- AND I'LL EVEN PUT IT THE OTHER WAY
AROUND.
10
ll
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EVEN IF I WANTED TO FILE A DECLARATION, I SUSPECT
MY CLIENT WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO FILE DECLARATIONS AS
TO A LOT OF THINGS THAT PROBABLY MR. SPEARS WOULDN'T WANT
TO SEE, BUT IT'S MY VIEW THAT SHE LACKS CAPACITY TO DO
THAT, AND THEREFORE, IT'S MY ADVICE TO HER THAT SHE CAN'T
FILE DECLARATIONS. AND SO I THINK FOR A LOT OF REASONS IT
IS BENEFICIAL TO THE COURT, AND ALSO SO THAT I CAN ADVISE
MY CLIENT CORRECTLY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SHE CAN, IN FACT,
FILE DECLARATIONS. I BELIEVE SHE CANNOT. IF COUNSEL
BELIEVES SHE CAN, AND THEREFORE OBJECTS TO THINGS THAT SHE
DOESN'T DECLARE TO, THEN I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THAT
ISSUE RESOLVED SO WE KNOW WHAT THE RULES OF PLAY WILL BE
WHEN THE REAL ISSUES POP UP IN NOVEMBER.
THE COURT: MS. COHEN, UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING
FURTHER, I TEND TO AGREE WITH MR. INGHAM ON THIS, BECAUSE
IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S GOING TO COME UP AGAIN. AND HE MAY
MAKE SOME ASSERTIONS ABOUT A STATEMENT HIS CLIENT MAKES,
AND THEN WE'LL BE BACK IN THE SAME SITUATION. I'M HAPPY
TO SEE ANY AUTHORITY THAT CAN BE PROVIDED TO SUPPORT THAT,
31

27
AND IF HE'S GOT SOMETHING IN OPPOSITION TO THAT, I'M HAPPY
TO LOOK AT THAT, AND IF YOU HAVE A REPLY, I'M HAPPY TO
LOOK AT THAT. BUT I THINK THAT ISSUE DOES NEED TO GET
RESOLVED BECAUSE
IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN.
MS. COHEN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO
de‘l
BRIEF WHAT SOUNDS LIKE HE CHARACTERIZES AS THE ISSUE, BUT
FRANKLY, I AM STILL CONFUSED, BUT WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO
BRIEF IT. AND IF WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, HIT WHATEVER IT IS
\Dm
THAT HE SEEMS TO BE TALKING ABOUT, YOUR HONOR SEEMS TO BE
10
TALKING ABOUT, WHICH SOUNDS VERY THEORETICAL TO ME, BY THE
11
WAY,
YOU'LL ASK FOR FURTHER BRIEFING OR TELL US WE MISSED
12
l3
IT, AND YOU'LL ASK US TO ADDRESS SOME PARTICULAR POINT
THAT WE MISSED. BUT FOR THE RECORD, OUR CLIENT'S NOT
l4
15
TAKING A POSITION ON WHETHER OR NOT MS.
CAPACITY. IT'S NOT FOR HIM TO DECIDE.
SPEARS HAS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE COURT: WELL, I THINK, WHAT I UNDERSTOOD
MR. INGHAM -- AND I DON'T WANT TO BE REPETITIVE, BUT I
UNDERSTOOD WHAT MR. INGHAM IS SAYING IS THAT THERE WILL
LIKELY BE OTHER PLEADINGS THAT HE'S GOING TO FILE IN WHICH
HE MAY PROVIDE STATEMENTS IN THERE THAT HIS CLIENT HAS
MADE FOR WHICH THERE IS NO DECLARATION BY MS. SPEARS, SUCH
THAT THE SITUATION THAT OCCURRED WITH THE OTHER MOTION,
WITH HER AGAIN. AND HIS ARGUMENT IS IS THAT SHE DOESN'T
HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO IT, AND SO THERE‘S A WAY TO TRY TO
RESOLVE IT THROUGH BRIEFING. IT MAY OR MAY NOT RESOLVE
IT. I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEFORE ME YET IN TERMS
OF THE INFORMATION THAT I AM GOING TO GET IN TERMS OF THE
BRIEFING. BUT THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN TO BE.
32

28
MS. COHEN: YOUR HONOR, WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO ADDRESS
AS YOU HAVE CHARACTERIZED IT. WE WILL DO OUR VERY BEST TO
ADDRESS
IT.
THE COURT: OKAY. AND, MR. INGHAM, ANYTHING FURTHER
ON YOUR END ON THIS POINT FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE?
MR. INGHAM: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS SAMUEL INGHAM. MY
ONLY COMMENT IS THAT WE HAVE THREE BITES AT THE APPLE. I
THINK WITH ALL OF THESE LEGAL MINDS WORKING TO FRAME THIS
ISSUE, WE WILL HAVE IT RIPE AND READY FOR THE COURT TO
10
DEAL WITH ON NOVEMBER 10TH.
ll
THE COURT:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
12
IS
THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
THIS MORNING BEFORE WE CONCLUDE?
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS THAT I AM PUTTING THE
MATTER AT 2001 AND 2002 OVER TO THE NOVEMBER 10TH DATE AT
THE 1:30 HOUR, WITH THE RELATED MATTERS ON THE COURT'S
CALENDAR ON THAT DAY.
ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE CONCLUDE THIS MORNING
FROM ANYBODY?
MR. INGHAM: YES, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE ANOTHER
HOUSEKEEPING ISSUE. THIS IS SAMUEL INGHAM. THE PROBATE
22
NOTES
INDICATED THERE WERE A NUMBER OF DEFECTS THAT NEEDED
23
TO BE CLEARED BY MR. SPEARS WITH REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTING.
24
THE COURT:
YES.
25
26
27
28
MR. INGHAM: SINCE THE ANSWER TO THOSE QUESTIONS WILL
HAVE SOME BEARING ON MY OBJECTIONS, I'D LIKE TO REQUEST A
FILE-BY DATE FOR A SUPPLEMENT TO CLEAR THOSE NOTES. I
DON'T SEE THAT ONE HAS BEEN FILED.
33

29
THE COURT:
THANK YOU.
OKAY. MS. WYLE, WHAT'S YOUR TIMELINE TO GET A
SUPPLEMENT FILED TO CLEAR THE NOTES THAT WERE RAISED?
MS. WYLE: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE CONTACTED THE BUSINESS
MANAGER AND RAISED THE OBJECTIONS. THEY HAVE COMMENTS IN
THE NOTES. AND WE DID THAT SHORTLY AFTER WE RECEIVED THE
PROBATE NOTES. I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD GET SOMETHING,
LOOKING AT THE CALENDAR, ABOUT OCTOBER 19TH.
THE COURT: OKAY. SO MS. WYLE IS INDICATING THEY'LL
10
HAVE A SUPPLEMENT
FILED ON OR AROUND OCTOBER 19TH,
11
12
13
14
15
MR.
INGHAM.
MR. INGHAM: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS --
MS. WYLE: OR EARLIER.
THE COURT: YOU SAID PERHAPS EARLIER, MS. WYLE?
MS. WYLE: YES. WE WILL WORK TO GET IT TOGETHER. AND
16
KNOW THAT WE'VE
DONE OUR PART AND ARE WAITING FOR THE
l7
18
RESPONSE FROM THE BUSINESS MANAGER.
THE COURT: OKAY. YOU THINK YOU'LL HAVE IT FILED BY
l9
OCTOBER 19TH,
COUNSEL?
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MS. WYLE: YES, WE WILL DO OUR BEST, YOUR HONOR. WE
WILL FILE A SUPPLEMENT WITH AS MUCH INFORMATION AS WE HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO GATHER, AND WE HOPE TO HAVE EVERYTHING.
THE COURT: OKAY. MR. INGHAM?
MS. WYLE: WE'LL HANDLE THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS THAT
ARE IN THE ACCOUNT, SO I CAN'T -- AND WE DON'T KEEP THOSE,
A LIVE RECORD OF ALL THE TRANSACTIONS, SO I WISH I COULD
SPEAK WITH THE BUSINESS MANAGER, BUT THAT'S ABOUT AS FAR
AS I CAN TAKE IT WITHOUT COMPROMISING THEIR ABILITY TO GET
34

3O
WHAT THEY HAVE TO GET TO US.
THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU.
(AJNH
MR. INGHAM, HOW DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU?
MR. INGRAM: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS SAMUEL INGHAM. I
mmub
DON'T WANT TO CREATE A HARDSHIP FOR ANYONE,
AND WHATEVER
DATE WORKS FOR COUNSEL AND FOR THE COURT IS FINE WITH ME.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF COUNSEL WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE IF WE
SET IT A WEEK LATER TO THE 26TH, AND IF THAT DOESN'T
CREATE A HARD TIME FOR THE COURT, THAT WOULD BE FINE BY
10
ME. I WOULD RATHER -- RATHER THAN CREATING AN ARTIFICIAL
ll
DATE,
I'D RATHER HAVE A REALISTIC DATE WITH A COMPLETE
12
13
SUPPLEMENT THAN A PREMATURELY FILED,
SUPPLEMENT.
INCOMPLETE
fr"
14
15
16
l7
l8
19
20
21
22
THE COURT: THAT WILL WORK FOR THE COURT TOO. IF IT
COMES IN BY THE 26TH, THAT WILL GIVE THE PROBATE ATTORNEY
A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT AND UPDATE THE NOTES.
SO THAT WOULD WORK AS WELL, MS. WYLE, THE 26TH OF
OCTOBER. AND JUST BE SURE THAT THAT INFORMATION IS
PROVIDED TO COUNSEL, MR. INGHAM, SO THAT HE CAN GO AHEAD
AND DO HIS REVIEW, THAT HIS INFORMATION THAT HE WANTS TO
PROVIDE TO THE COURT IS TIMELY AS WELL.
MS. WYLE: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
23
THE COURT:
SURE.
24
25
MS. WYLE: I DO HAVE ONE MORE HOUSEKEEPING ISSUE.
THIS IS MS. WYLE.
26
THE COURT:
SURE.
27
28
MS. WYLE: ALL COUNSEL HAVE RECEIVED MY DECLARATION
YESTERDAY, I BELIEVE. WE WERE ORDERED TO FILE A RESPONSE
35

31
WHICH WAS DONE, T0 THE PETITION TO APPOINT LITIGATION
COUNSEL ON OCTOBER 2ND WAS FILED AND SERVED, WE SUBMITTED
FOR FILING. AND I ~- ACTUALLY, BECAUSE I WAS WORKING WITH
A RELIEF ASSISTANT STAYING ON THE PHONE BECAUSE I AM
WORKING REMOTELY WITH THE ASSISTANT THROUGH THE
PROCESS,
AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, ALTHOUGH I WAS ASSURED THE FILING
FEES BOX WAS CHECKED, IT WAS REJECTED BY THE COURT. ALL
COUNSEL WERE SERVED WITH THE RESPONSE.
AND BECAUSE THE
COURT'S WEBSITE SHUT DOWN BETWEEN 6:00 P.M. AND 11:00 P.M.
10
11
12
FRIDAY NIGHT, WE ONLY GOT NOTIFICATION MONDAY, AND WITHIN
MINUTES WE HAD RESUBMITTED IT. AND IT WAS CERTAINLY -- I
DID WHAT I COULD REMOTELY AND WE GOT EVERYBODY SERVED AND
13
EVERYBODY NOTICED.
AND WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE SURE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
THAT THE RESPONSE IS NOT REJECTED BY THE COURT BECAUSE IT
WAS FILED ON MONDAY RATHER THAN FRIDAY, OFFICIALLY. I
SUBMIT.
THE COURT: OKAY. MR. INGHAM, IS THAT -— IF WE GOT
IT, THEN IT'S BEEN RECEIVED, THEN IT WILL BE PROCESSED.
AND I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. I DON'T KNOW.
MR. INGHAM: YES, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS SAMUEL INGHAM.
I RECEIVED THE DECLARATION. THE RESPONSE OF MR. SPEARS
WAS SERVED IN TIMELY FASHION ON FRIDAY. I'VE ALREADY
FILED A REPLY TO IT. AND THE FACT THAT THE CLERK DIDN'T
CLEAR IT UNTIL MONDAY, WHATEVER DEFECT THAT WOULD BE, I
CERTAINLY WOULD WAIVE IN THE SPIRIT THAT NEXT TIME IT MAY
BE ME, SO OF COURSE I AM CONCERNED. IT SHOULD BE DEEMED
27
TO BE
FILED TIMELY.
28
THE COURT:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
36

mmwaH
32
AND THANKS FOR THE UPDATE, TOO, MS. WYLE, WE
APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I KNOW SOMETIMES THERE ARE
TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT CAN COME UP, AND I AM GLAD IT
GOT
RESOLVED.
OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANY COUNSEL THIS
MORNING BEFORE WE CONCLUDE? MS. WRIGHT, DID YOU HAVE
ANYTHING YOU NEEDED TO ADDRESS THIS MORNING?
MS. WRIGHT: NO. NOTHING FURTHER FROM ME, YOUR HONOR.
THANK YOU.
10
11
12
13
l4
THE COURT: OKAY. AND LET ME JUST ASK, MR. JONES, DIb
YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER ON YOUR END FROM YOUR TEAM THIS
MORNING?
MR JONES: NO, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US
TO PARTICIPATE.
15
THE COURT:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
AND MS. COHEN AND MS. WYLE, ANYTHING ELSE ON YOUR
END BEFORE WE CONCLUDE?
MS. COHEN: I DON'T THINK SO, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THANK YOU. AND THAT WAS MS. COHEN.
MS. COHEN: THIS IS MS. COHEN. SORRY. I APOLOGIZB.
I AM TRYING TO GET USED TO THIS SYSTEM.
THE COURT: I KNOW. IT'S ALL NEW FOR EVERYBODY. I
UNDERSTAND, IT'S NOT A PROBLEM.
AND, MR. INGHAM, WHAT ABOUT YOURSELF? ANYTHING
25
FURTHER ON
YOUR SIDE?
26
MR. INGHAM: THIS IS SAMUEL INGHAM. NOTHING FURTHER,
27
YOUR HONOR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
28
THE COURT: OKAY. YOU'RE QUITE WELCOME. SO WE'LL SEE
37

33
EVERYBODY BACK HERE, THE NEXT DATE IS OCTOBER 14TH, SO
MN
WE'LL SEE YOU THEN.
IS THE NOVEMBER 10TH DATE.
AND THEN THE NEXT HEARING AFTER THAT
THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH, I APPRECIATE THE CALL—IN
THIS MORNING.
THANK YOU.
MS. COHEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT:
THANK YOU.
10
11
12
13
MR. INGHAM: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
MS. WYLE: THANK YOU.
(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT
10:38 A.M.)
f“
14
15
l6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
38

VVUVVH’VVV
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. 4 HON. BRENDA J. PENNY, JUDGE
IN
RE:
THE MATTER OF NO. 8P10887O
BRITNEY JEAN SPEARS -
CONSERVATORSHIP.
REPORTERS
CERTIFICATE
11
12
13
I, LISA D. LUNA, CSR NO. 10229, OFFICIAL REPORTER OF
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE
l4
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE
15
16
17
18
19
FOREGOING PAGES 1 THROUGH 33, INCLUSIVE, COMPRISE A FULL,
TRUE, AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS TAKEN IN
THE MATTER OF THE ABOVE—ENTITLED CAUSE IN DEPARTMENT 4 ON
OCTOBER 7, 2020.
DATED THIS 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WQD/Jérbx ,
L/'LISA D. LUNA
OFFICIAL REPORTER
CSR No. 10229
39

1
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3
4
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 1888 Century
Park East, Suite 1500, Los Angeles, California 90067.
5
6
7
8
9
On October 26, 2020, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
REPORT AND DECLARATION OF GERALDINE A. WYLE IN SUPPORT OF JAMES P.
SPEARS’ RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR ORDER ASSOCIATING LITIGATION
COUNSEL FOR CONSERVATEE on the interested parties in this action as follows:
BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the
document(s) to be sent from e-mail address colleen.reid-rose@ffslaw.com to the persons at the e-
mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
FREEMAN, FREEMAN & SMILEY, LLP
1888 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 1500
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067
(310) 255-6100
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Samuel D. Ingham, III
444 South Flower Street, Suite 4260
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2966
singham@inghamlaw.com
Court Appointed Counsel for Ms. Spears
Lauriann C. Wright
Wright Kim Douglas ALC
130 S. Jackson St.
Glendale, CA 91205-1123
lauriann@wkdlegal.com
Attorneys for Jodi Montgomery,
Temporary Conservator of the Person
Request for Special Notice
Gladstone N. Jones, III
Jones Swanson Huddell & Garrison, LLC
Pan-American Life Center
601 Pyodras Street, Suite 2655
New Orleans, LA 70130
gjones@jonesswanson.com
Attorneys for Lynne Spears
Britney J. Spears
c/o Samuel D. Ingham, III
444 South Flower Street, Suite 4260
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2966
singham@inghamlaw.com
Conservatee
Jodi Montgomery
1443 E. Washington Blvd., Suite 644
Pasadena, CA 91104
Jodi@paismontgomery.com
Temporary Conservator of the Person
Request for Special Notice
Yasha Bronshteyn
Ginzburg & Bronshteyn, LLP
11111 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 1840
Los Angeles, CA 90025
yasha@gbllp-law.com
Attorneys for Lynne Spears
24
25
26
Kimberly Grant, Probate Investigator
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
111 N. Hill Street Room 208
Los Angeles, CA 90012
email address redacted for privacy
27
28
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
4708217.1 26244-330
3
NOTICE OF ERRATA RE CONSERVATOR JAMES P. SPEARS BRIEF RE HEARSAY RULE AND
DECLARATION OF GERALDINE A. WYLE IN SUPPORT OF BRIEF
40

1
Executed on October 26, 2020, at Los Angeles, California.
2
3
4
Colleen Reid-Rose
FREEMAN, FREEMAN & SMILEY, LLP
1888 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 1500
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067
(310) 255-6100
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4708217.1 26244-330
4
NOTICE OF ERRATA RE CONSERVATOR JAMES P. SPEARS BRIEF RE HEARSAY RULE AND
DECLARATION OF GERALDINE A. WYLE IN SUPPORT OF BRIEF
41