The National Council On Disability (NCD) Deny Being in Possession of Records Pertaining To Britney Spears Perturbing Conservatorship - # W (AACL) - # Michael A. Ayele

National Council on Disability
An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress

to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families.
September 9, 2021
W (AACL)
Michael A. Ayele
PO Box 20438
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Re: FOIA Request NCD-2021- 12
Dear W:
This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, dated July
19, 2021, in which you requested:
“My request for records are as follows. 1) What formal and informal ties exist
between the National Council on Disability (NCD), the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), the HHS Administration for Children and Families (ACF),
the HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the HHS Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the HHS
Administration for Community Living (ACL), the HHS National Institutes of Health
(NIH), the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation
Research (NIDILRR), the Department of Veteran Affairs (V.A), the Department of
Education (DoED) Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services
(OSERS), the DoED Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), the National
Home and Community-Based Services Quality Enterprise (NQE), the
Developmental Disabilities Councils, University Centers for Excellence in
Developmental Disabilities (UCEDDs), the Protection and Advocacy (P&A)
organization, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Social Security Administration
(SSA), the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and your offices?
Which undergraduate, graduate and law schools have Clyde E. Terry, Benro T.
Ogunyipe, Billy W. Altom, Rabia Belt, James T. Brett, Bob Brown, Daniel M. Gade,
Wendy S. Harbour, Neil Romano, Amged Soliman, Ana Torres-Davis, Anne
Smmers, Phoebe Ball, Stacey S. Brown and Keith Woods previously attended and
visited? What are their respective roles and responsibilities? How long have they
been with the NCD? What are their annual salaries? 2) What communications in
the form of e-mails and postal correspondence have you had about the NCD
March 22nd 2018 report entitled Beyond Guardianship: Toward Alternatives That
Promote Greater Self-Determination? ii Had the NCD previously informed the HHS
(CMS), the HHS (SAMHSA), the HHS (ACL), the HHS (NIH), the NIDLILRR, the
V.A, the DoED (OSEP), the DoED (OSERS), the NQE, the UCEDD, the P&A, the
DOJ, the SSA and the GAO that they were going to lead a factfinding mission into
the system of guardianship in the United States of America (U.S.A)?
1331 F Street, NW ■ Suite 850 ■ Washington, DC 20004

202-272-2004 Voice ■ 202-272-2022 Fax ■ www.ncd.gov
What communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence have you
had about guardianships and/or conservatorships generally involving a state-court
determination that an “individual lacks the capacity to make decisions with respect
to their health, safety, welfare, and/or property?”
had about guardianships entailing the “removal of rights protected by the U.S
Constitution?”
had about the NCD position that (i) the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) is
applicable to guardianship proceedings, (ii) the need for assistance with activities
of daily living or even making decisions does not give rise to a presumption of
incapacity and (iii) guardianship should be a last resort that is imposed only after
less restrictive alternatives have been determined to be inappropriate or
ineffective? (See page 19 of the NCD March 22nd 2018 report.)
What feedback were provided by the HHS (CMS), the HHS (SAMHSA), the HHS
(ACL), the HHS (NIH), the NIDLILRR, the V.A, the DoED (OSEP), the DoED
(OSERS), the NQE, the UCEDD, the P&A, the DOJ, the SSA and the GAO to the
NCD finding that (i) “there is a lack of data on existing guardianships and newly
filed guardianships,” (ii) “people with disabilities are widely and erroneously seen
as less capable of making autonomous decisions,” (iii) “people with disabilities are
often denied due process in guardianship proceedings,” (iv) “capacity
determinations often lack a sufficient scientific or evidentiary basis,” (v)
“guardianship is considered protective, but courts often fail to protect individuals,”
(vi) “most states statutes require consideration of less-restrictive alternatives, but
courts and others in the guardianship system often do little to enforce this
requirement,” (vii) “every state has a process for restoration, but this process is
rarely used and can be complex, confusing, and cost prohibitive?” (See pages 18 –
24 of the NCD March 22nd 2018 report.)
What feedbacks were provided by the HHS (CMS), the HHS (SAMHSA), the HHS
NCD recommending for (i) the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Department of Veteran Affairs
(VA), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
to collect data on whether or not the individuals they serve are subject to
guardianship; (ii) states to be offered incentives and technical assistance with
developing electronic filing and reporting systems that collect basic information
about guardianships from the moment a petition is filed, (iii) the Department of
Justice (DOJ), in collaboration with the HHS to issue guidance to states
(specifically Adult Protective Services (APS) agencies and probate courts) on their
legal obligations pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), (iv) the
Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
(OSERS) to create model supported decision making and powers-of-attorney
forms geared toward transition age youth, (v) the Department of Education Office
of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to instruct Parent Training and Information
Centers to prioritize and provide meaningful training on school-toadult transition
2
and alternatives to guardianship, (vi) HHS to issue guidance regarding the
responsibility of medical professionals and hospital to accommodate the needs of
individuals who may need assistance making medical decisions, (vii) HHS to
adequately explain procedures and draft documents provided to patients in plain
language, (viii) medical professionals to be educated about the ADA and the need
to accommodate people with disabilities, including those with intellectual
disabilities and cognitive impairments, (ix) the National Home and Community
Based Services Quality Enterprise (NQE) to include decision making assistance
and use of alternatives to guardianship such as supported decision making in their
priorities, (x) the NQE to include best practices as part of its resources, training,
and technical assistance, (xi) the Administration for Community Living (ACL) to
allocate funding to assist state adult protective services systems to develop greater
awareness of ways to enhance the self-determination of adults considered
vulnerable or in need of services, as well as the availability and use of alternatives
to guardianship, (xii) the Developmental Disabilities Councils, University Centers
for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDDs), and the Protection and
Advocacy (P&A) organization to link work that has been done on advancing the
self-determination of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (ID/DD)
with avoiding guardianship, (xiii) the Attorney General’s model legislation to
incorporate the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship & Other Protective
Arrangements Act (UGCOPAA) to include provisions for preventing unnecessary
guardianships, (xiv) incapacitated individuals facing guardianship to be provided
with independent legal representation that will advocate for the individual’s desired
outcome, especially if that person expresses a desire to avoid guardianship or
objects to the proposed guardian, (xv) federal grant money to be made available to
help promote the availability of counsel, (xvi) a state guardianship court
improvement program to be funded to assist courts with developing and
implementing best practices in guardianship, including training of judges and court
personnel on due process rights and less-restrictive alternatives, (xvii) the National
Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR),
National Institutes of Health, and other agencies that fund scientific research to
provide grants to researchers who are trying to develop a better understanding of
how people make decisions and how a variety of conditions – such as dementia,
intellectual disabilities, brain injuries, and other disabilities – impact the ability of
individuals to make and implement informed decisions, (xviii) resources to be
geared toward developing functional approaches to capacity assessments that
take into account the possibility that someone may need decision making
assistance but not necessarily a surrogate or substitute decision maker, (xix)
states to be provided with incentives to establish statewide boards that can provide
for the accreditation and oversight of professional guardians, (xx)
states to require family guardians to undergo training to ensure they understand
their ongoing responsibilities to the person subject to guardianship and to the
court, (xxi) the ACL grants to be expanded to be able to fund more geographically
and demographically diverse projects and pilots that specifically test SDM models
and use SDM and the court systems to restore people’s rights as a matter of law,
particularly for people who are older adults with cognitive decline, people with
3
psychosocial disabilities, and people with severe intellectual disabilities, (xxii) the
DOJ to make funding available to train judges in the availability of alternatives to
guardianship including, but not limited to, supported decision making, (xxiii) the
DOJ to develop guidance that recognizes alternatives to guardianship (…) even
when it is determined that the individual meets the definition of incapacity, (xxiv) a
grant to be given to the Protection and Advocacy system to provide legal
assistance to individuals who are trying to have their rights restored or avoid
guardianship? (See pages 18 – 24 of the NCD March 22nd 2018 report.)
NCD March 22nd 2018 report having noted that the way “capacity determinations
are made is deeply problematic. Many states rely heavily on physicians and
psychiatrists, who provide opinions that are based largely on generalities on a
person’s diagnosis rather than on any observable trait of the particular individual.
Although statutes that require a physician or psychiatrist to report to the court
regarding the capacity of the individual are based on the assumption that these
scientists will submit to the court an unbiased and scientifically based opinion,
physicians and psychiatrists are often not trained in administering the kinds of tests
that may provide the most insight into an individual’s ability to make decisions and
might not have the requisite skills and experience with the particular disability to
render a valid judgment. (…) Even if they have a clinical basis for determining what
a person can or cannot do, the experts that make these determinations may not
have sufficient legal context to determine whether the individual is incapacitated as
the law defines it. In one study, only 30 percent of doctors were able to correctly
apply the definition of legal competence (capacity) in a fact-pattern drawn from an
actual legal case. Additionally, although psychiatrists were able to answer
theoretical questions about the standards for legal capacity, they were often wrong
when applying those standards to facts. In addition, only a small minority of doctors
were able to understand that a person could be diagnosed with dementia or
depression and still be legally competent. Medical doctors simply are trained in the
legal, functional, and medical assessments that could lead to a reliable
determination regarding an individual’s capacity. (…) Even in the best-case
scenario in which a physician with relevant expertise is appointed, the medical
profession’s relationship to disability has historically been a paternalistic one. In
medical terms, a patient benefits from anything that reverses or ameliorates any
disease or disability ‘…that threatens to shorten the life or limit the functional
capacity of the patient. Harm is characterized as anything that impedes or
compromises the efficacy of those diagnostic or therapeutic measures.’ This
weighs heavily in favor of restricting autonomy in an attempt to ensure safety and
may inevitably lead to overly restrictive guardianships?” (See pages 77 - 80 of the
report.)
NCD having noted in their March 22nd 2018 report that “sexuality is an incredibly
4
fraught topic for people with disabilities that raises issues not only about consent
and mental capacity, but also ‘the forced sterilization of people with disabilities, the
rights of people with disabilities in institutions to have sex and be free from sexual
abuse, and the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people
with disabilities. Against this complex backdrop, NCD recognizes that ‘the desire to
enter into intimate personal relationships, including sexual relationships, is one of
the most personal rights there is’ and that ‘desire is no less important for the many
adults with disabilities who are under some form of guardianship?’” (See page 106
of the report.) 3) What communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence have you had about the circumstances, which led to the much-
publicized emotional duress and distress experienced by Britney Spears in 2007?
Specifically, what communications in the form of emails and postal
correspondence have you had about Diane Sawyer November 13th 2003 interview
of Britney Spears? What communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence have you had about Diane Sawyer noting on her interview with
Britney Spears (dated November 13th 2003) that her net worth equated
$100,000,000 (one hundred million) U.S dollars? What communications in the form
of e-mails and postal correspondence have you had about Diane Sawyer
having noted that Britney Spears idolized Madonna? What communications in the
form of e-mails and postal correspondence have you had about Diane Sawyer
asking for Britney Spears reaction to remarks made by Kendall Ehrlich (wife of the
former governor of the State of Maryland) saying: “Really, if I had an opportunity to
shoot Britney Spears, I think I would?” What communications in the form of e-mails
and postal correspondence have you had about Britney Spears response to Diane
Sawyer’s question? What communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence have you had about Diane Sawyer failing to forcefully condemn
on Television (T.V) Kendall Ehrlich encouraging for Britney Spears to incur
physical harm? iii What communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence have you had about the much-publicized decision of Britney
Spears to cut her hair on February 16th 2007? iv What communications in the form
ofe-mails and postal correspondence have you had about Britney Spears having
lost custody of her children with Kevin Federline on October 01st 2007? v What
communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence have you had
about Britney Spears involuntary civil commitment in the month of January 2008?
vi What communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence have
you had about Britney Spears and her estate being placed under the temporary
control of her father (Jamie Spears) and Andrew Wallet on or around February
01st 2008? vii What communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence have you had about Britney Spears having vocally objected to her
father being appointed as a guardian of her person and her estate in 2008? What
about Jamie Spears having become the permanent guardian of Britney Spears in
the month of October 2008? viii What communications in the form of e-mails and
postal correspondence have you had about Britney Spears net worth having
decreased from over $100,000,000 (one hundred million) U.S dollars to
$60,000,000 (sixty million) U.S dollars? What communications in the form of e-
5
mails and postal correspondence have you had about Jamie Spears having been
paid at least $5 million since the start of Britney Spears conservatorship in 2008?
had about Britney Spears having paid at least $3 million to Samuel D. Ingham
since 2008? ix What communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence have been exchanged between the National Council on Disability
(NCD) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about (i) the
circumstances surrounding Britney Spears conservatorship, (ii) the money
pocketed by Jamie Spears since the beginning of Britney Spears conservatorship
and (iii) the money pocketed by Samuel D. Ingham for his representation of Britney
Spears since the beginning of her conservatorship? What communications in the
form of e-mails and postal correspondence have you had about Britney Spears
having previously been informed that the terms and conditions of her
conservatorship prohibited her to get married and have children? What
about the desire of Britney Spears (now aged 39 years old) to get married and
have children? xi What songs of Britney Spears do you have on your cell-phone,
your tablet, your laptop and other music listening devices? What communications
in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence have you have you had about
Britney Spears recently publicized decision to no longer perform in concerts? xii
What I am requesting for prompt disclosure are all records within your possession
detailing (1) formal and informal ties existing between the NCD, the HHS (CMS),
the HHS (SAMHSA), the HHS (ACL), the HHS (NIH), the NIDLILRR, the V.A, the
DoED (OSEP), the DoED (OSERS), the NQE, the UCEDD, the P&A, the DOJ, the
SSA and the GAO; (2) the academic background, the professional responsibilities
and annual salaries of Clyde E. Terry, Benro T. Ogunyipe, Billy W. Altom, Rabia
Belt, James T. Brett, Bob Brown, Daniel M. Gade, Wendy S. Harbour, Neil
Romano, Amged Soliman, Ana Torres-Davis, Anne Smmers, Phoebe Ball, Stacey
S. Brown and Keith Woods; (3) all letters submitted by the NCD informing the HHS
DOJ, the SSA and the GAO that they were going to lead a fact-finding mission into
the system of guardianship in the United States of America (U.S.A) (4) your
communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the NCD
March 22nd 2018 report entitled Beyond Guardianship: Toward Alternatives That
Promote Greater Self- Determination; (5) your communications in the form of e-
mails and postal correspondence about guardianships and/or conservatorships
generally involving a state-court determination that an “individual lacks the capacity
to make decisions with respect to their health, safety, welfare, and/or property;” (6)
your communications in the form of e-mails and postal about guardianship entailing
the “removal of rights protected by the U.S Constitution;” (7) your communications
in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence the NCD position that (i) the
American with Disabilities Act (ADA) is applicable to guardianship proceedings, (ii)
the need for assistance with activities of daily living or even making decisions does
not give rise to a presumption of incapacity and (iii) guardianship should be a last
resort that is imposed only after less restrictive alternatives have been determined
6
to be inappropriate or ineffective; (8) feedbacks provided to the NCD by the HHS
DOJ, the SSA and the GAO in response to their finding that (i) “there is a lack of
data on existing guardianships and newly filed guardianships,” (ii) “people with
disabilities are widely and erroneously seen as less capable of making autonomous
decisions,” (iii) “people with disabilities are often denied due process in
guardianship proceedings,” (iv) “capacity determinations often lack a sufficient
scientific or evidentiary basis,” (v) “guardianship is considered protective, but courts
often fail to protect individuals,” (vi) “most states statutes require consideration of
less-restrictive alternatives, but courts and others in the guardianship system often
do little to enforce this requirement,” (vii) “every state has a process for restoration,
but this process is rarely used and can be complex, confusing, and cost
prohibitive;” (9) feedbacks provided to the NCD by the HHS (CMS), the HHS
(SAMHSA), the HHS (ACL), the HHS (NIH), the NIDLILRR, the V.A, the DoED
(OSEP), the DoED (OSERS), the NQE, the UCEDD, the P&A, the DOJ, the SSA
and the GAO in response to their recommendation for (i) the Social Security
Administration (SSA), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the
Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA) to collect data on whether or not the individuals
they serve are subject to guardianship; (ii) states to be offered incentives and
technical assistance with developing electronic filing and reporting systems that
collect basic information about guardianships from the moment a petition is filed,
(iii) the Department of Justice (DOJ), in collaboration with the HHS to issue
guidance to states (specifically Adult Protective Services (APS) agencies and
probate courts) on their legal obligations pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), (iv) the Department of Education Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) to create model supported decision making and
powers-ofattorney forms geared toward transition age youth, (v) the Department of
Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to instruct Parent Training
and Information Centers to prioritize and provide meaningful training on school-to-
adult transition and alternatives to guardianship, (vi) HHS to issue guidance
regarding the responsibility of medical professionals and hospital to accommodate
the needs of individuals who may need assistance making medical decisions, (vii)
HHS to adequately explain procedures and draft documents provided to patients in
plain language, (viii) medical professionals to be educated about the ADA and the
need to accommodate people with disabilities, including those with intellectual
disabilities and cognitive impairments, (ix) the National Home and Community
Based Services Quality Enterprise (NQE) to include decision making assistance
and use of alternatives to guardianship such as supported decision making in their
priorities, (x) the NQE to include best practices as part of its resources, training,
and technical assistance, (xi) the Administration for Community Living (ACL) to
allocate funding to assist state adult protective services systems to develop greater
awareness of ways to enhance the selfdetermination of adults considered
vulnerable or in need of services, as well as the availability and use of alternatives
to guardianship, (xii) the Developmental Disabilities Councils, University Centers for
7
Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDDs), and the Protection and
Advocacy (P&A) organization to link work that has been done on advancing the
self-determination of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (ID/DD)
with avoiding guardianship, (xiii) the Attorney General’s model legislation to
incorporate the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship & Other Protective
outcome, especially if that person expresses a desire to avoid guardianship or
objects to the proposed guardian, (xv) federal grant money to be made available to
help promote the availability of counsel, (xvi) a state guardianship court
improvement program to be funded to assist courts with developing and
implementing best practices in guardianship, including training of judges and court
personnel on due process rights and less-restrictive alternatives, (xvii) the National
Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR),
National Institutes of Health, and other agencies that fund scientific research to
provide grants to researchers who are trying to develop a better understanding of
how people make decisions and how a variety of conditions – such as dementia,
intellectual disabilities, brain injuries, and other disabilities – impact the ability of
individuals to make and implement informed decisions, (xviii) resources to be
geared toward developing functional approaches to capacity assessments that take
into account the possibility that someone may need decision making assistance but
not necessarily a surrogate or substitute decision maker, (xix) states to be provided
with incentives to establish statewide boards that can provide for the accreditation
and oversight of professional guardians, (xx) states to require family guardians to
undergo training to ensure they understand their ongoing responsibilities to the
person subject to guardianship and to the court, (xxi) the ACL grants to be
expanded to be able to fund more geographically and demographically diverse
projects and pilots that specifically test SDM models and use SDM and the court
systems to restore people’s rights as a matter of law, particularly for people who are
older adults with cognitive decline, people with psychosocial disabilities, and people
with severe intellectual disabilities, (xxii) the DOJ to make funding available to train
judges in the availability of alternatives to guardianship including, but not limited to,
supported decision making, (xxiii) the DOJ to develop guidance that recognizes
alternatives to guardianship (…) even when it is determined that the individual
meets the definition of incapacity, (xxiv) a grant to be given to the Protection and
Advocacy system to provide legal assistance to individuals who are trying to have
their rights restored or avoid guardianship; (10) feedbacks provided by the HHS
DOJ, the SSA and the GAO to the NCD in response to the March 22nd 2018 report
having found that the way “capacity determinations are made is deeply problematic.
Many states rely heavily on physicians and psychiatrists, who provide opinions that
are based largely on generalities on a person’s diagnosis rather than on any
observable trait of the particular individual. Although statutes that require a
physician or psychiatrist to report to the court regarding the capacity of the
8
individual are based on the assumption that these scientists will submit to the court
an unbiased and scientifically based opinion, physicians and psychiatrists are often
not trained in administering the kinds of tests that may provide the most insight into
an individual’s ability to make decisions and might not have the requisite skills and
experience with the particular disability to render a valid judgment. (…) Even if they
have a clinical basis for determining what a person can or cannot do, the experts
that make these determinations may not have sufficient legal context to determine
whether the individual is incapacitated as the law defines it. In one study, only 30
percent of doctors were able to correctly apply the definition of legal competence
(capacity) in a fact-pattern drawn from an actual legal case. Additionally, although
psychiatrists were able to answer theoretical questions about the standards for
legal capacity, they were often wrong when applying those standards to facts. In
addition, only a small minority of doctors were able to understand that a person
could be diagnosed with dementia or depression and still be legally competent.
Medical doctors simply are trained in the legal, functional, and medical
assessments that could lead to a reliable determination regarding an individual’s
capacity. (…) Even in the best-case scenario in which a physician with relevant
expertise is appointed, the medical profession’s relationship to disability has
historically been a paternalistic one. In medical terms, a patient benefits from
anything that reverses or ameliorates any disease or disability ‘…that threatens to
shorten the life or limit the functional capacity of the patient. Harm is characterized
as anything that impedes or compromises the efficacy of those diagnostic or
therapeutic measures.’ This weighs heavily in favor of restricting autonomy in an
attempt to ensure safety and may inevitably lead to overly restrictive
guardianships;” (11) feedbacks provided to the NCD by the HHS (CMS), the HHS
(SAMHSA), the HHS (ACL), the HHS (NIH), the NIDLILRR, the V.A, the DoED
(OSEP), the DoED (OSERS), the NQE, the UCEDD, the P&A, the DOJ, the SSA
and the GAO in response to their March 22nd 2018 report having noted that
“sexuality is an incredibly fraught topic for people with disabilities that raises issues
not only about consent and mental capacity, but also ‘the forced sterilization of
people with disabilities, the rights of people with disabilities in institutions to have
sex and be free from sexual abuse, and the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) people with disabilities. Against this complex backdrop, NCD
recognizes that ‘the desire to enter into intimate personal relationships, including
sexual relationships, is one of the most personal rights there is’ and that ‘desire is
no less important for the many adults with disabilities who are under some form of
guardianship;’” (12) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence about the circumstances, which led to the much-publicized
emotional duress and distress experienced by Britney Spears in 2007; (13) your
communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Diane
Sawyer November 13th 2003 interview with Britney Spears; (14) your
Sawyer noting on her interview with Britney Spears (dated November 13th 2003)
that her net worth equated $100,000,000 (one hundred million) U.S dollars; (15)
your communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about
Diane Sawyer having noted that Britney Spears idolized Madonna; (16) your
9
Sawyer asking for Britney Spears reaction to remarks made by Kendall Ehrlich
(wife of the former governor of the State of Maryland) saying: “Really, if I had an
opportunity to shoot Britney Spears, I think I would;” (17) your communications in
the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Britney Spears response to
Diane Sawyer’s question; (18) your communications in the form of e-mails and
postal correspondence about Diane Sawyer failing to forcefully condemn on
Television (T.V) Kendall Ehrlich encouraging for Britney Spears to incur physical
harm; (19) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence
about the much-publicized decision of Britney Spears to cut her hair on February
16th 2007; (20) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence about Britney Spears having lost custody of her children with Kevin
Federline on October 01st 2007; (21) your communications in the form of e-mails
and postal correspondence about Britney Spears involuntary civil commitment in
the month of January 2008; (22) your communications in the form of e-mails and
postal correspondence about Britney Spears and her estate being placed under the
temporary control of her father (Jamie Spears) and Andrew Wallet on or around
February 01st 2008; (23) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence about Britney Spears having vocally objected to her father being
appointed as a guardian of her person and her estate in 2008; (24) your
communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Jamie
Spears having become the permanent guardian of Britney Spears in the month of
October 2008; (25) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence about Britney Spears net worth having decreased from over
$100,000,000 (one hundred million) U.S dollars to $60,000,000 (sixty million) U.S
dollars; (26) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence
about Jamie Spears having been paid at least $5 million since the start of Britney
Spears conservatorship in 2008; (27) your communications in the form of e-mails
and postal correspondence about Britney Spears having paid at least $3 million to
Samuel D. Ingham since 2008; (28) your communications in the form of e-mails and
postal correspondence with the National Council on Disability (NCD) and the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) about (i) the circumstances surrounding
Britney Spears conservatorship, (ii) the money pocketed by Jamie Spears since the
beginning of Britney Spears conservatorship and (iii) the money pocketed by
Samuel D. Ingham for his representation of Britney Spears since the beginning of
her conservatorship;(29) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence about Britney Spears having been informed that the terms and
conditions of her conservatorship prohibiting her to get married and have children;
(30) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about
the desire of Britney Spears (now aged 39 years old) to get married and have
children; (31) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence about Britney Spears testimony in the judicial branch of the
California government, where she stated that she was being forced to take Lithium
without her consent;xiii (32) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence about the amount of psychotropic drugs taken by Britney Spears
despite her being a wellfunctioning and high-earning music superstar; (33) the list
10
of Britney Spears songs on your cell-phone, your tablet, your laptop and other
music listening devices; (34) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence about the recently publicized decision of Britney Spears not to
perform in concerts.”
NCD has enclosed the requested salaries of NCD personnel from FY 2020. NCD has
no other responsive records for this FOIA request.
For tracking purposes, your tracking number is NCD-2021-12.
If you need further assistance, you may contact Amy Nicholas, NCD’s FOIA Public
Liaison at 202-272-2008 or anicholas@ncd.gov. Please include your tracking number
with any correspondence. If needed, it is your right to seek dispute resolution services
from NCD’s Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS).
OGIS may be reached at:
Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)

National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001
OGIS@Nara.gov
202-741-5770
fax 202-741-5769
NCD’s appeal process allows you to appeal withheld information or the adequacy of
NCD’s search by writing within 90 days of your receipt of this letter to:
Anne Sommers McIntosh

Executive Director
National Council on Disability
1331 F St. NW.
Suite 850
Washington DC 20004
Your appeal must be in writing and should contain a brief statement of the reasons
why you believe the requested information should be released. Enclose a copy of your
initial request, request number and a copy of this letter. Both the appeal letter and
envelope should be prominently marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.”
After processing, actual fees must be equal to or exceed $25 for the Council to require
payment of fees. See 5 CFR §10,00010k. The fulfillment of your request did not
exceed $25, therefore there is no billable fee for the processing of this request.
Respectfully,
11
Joan Durocher
Chief FOIA Officer
12
REQUEST FOR RECORDS
W (AACL) July 19th 2021

Michael A. Ayele
P.O.Box 20438
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
E-mail: waacl13@gmail.com ; waacl1313@gmail.com ; waacl42913@gmail.com
Request for Records
Hello,
This is Michael A. Ayele sending this message though I now go by W. You may call me W. I
am writing this letter to file a request for records with your offices. The bases for this records
request are (1) the March 22nd 2018 National Council on Disability (NCD) report entitled
Beyond Guardianship: Toward Alternatives That Promote Greater Self-Determination i and
(2) the several deeply troubling aspects of Britney Spears conservatorship.
1) Request for Records
My request for records are as follows. 1) What formal and informal ties exist between the
National Council on Disability (NCD), the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), the HHS Administration for Children and Families (ACF), the HHS Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the HHS Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA), the HHS Administration for Community Living (ACL),
the HHS National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Institute on Disability, Independent
Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR), the Department of Veteran Affairs (V.A),
the Department of Education (DoED) Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation
Services (OSERS), the DoED Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), the National
Home and Community-Based Services Quality Enterprise (NQE), the Developmental
Disabilities Councils, University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities
(UCEDDs), the Protection and Advocacy (P&A) organization, the Department of Justice
(DOJ), the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) and your offices? Which undergraduate, graduate and law schools have Clyde E.
Terry, Benro T. Ogunyipe, Billy W. Altom, Rabia Belt, James T. Brett, Bob Brown, Daniel
M. Gade, Wendy S. Harbour, Neil Romano, Amged Soliman, Ana Torres-Davis, Anne
Smmers, Phoebe Ball, Stacey S. Brown and Keith Woods previously attended and visited?
What are their respective roles and responsibilities? How long have they been with the NCD?
What are their annual salaries? 2) What communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence have you had about the NCD March 22nd 2018 report entitled Beyond
Guardianship: Toward Alternatives That Promote Greater Self-Determination? ii Had the
NCD previously informed the HHS (CMS), the HHS (SAMHSA), the HHS (ACL), the HHS
(NIH), the NIDLILRR, the V.A, the DoED (OSEP), the DoED (OSERS), the NQE, the
UCEDD, the P&A, the DOJ, the SSA and the GAO that they were going to lead a fact-
finding mission into the system of guardianship in the United States of America
(U.S.A)? What communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence have you
had about guardianships and/or conservatorships generally involving a state-court
determination that an “individual lacks the capacity to make decisions with respect to their
health, safety, welfare, and/or property?” What communications in the form of e-mails and
postal correspondence have you had about guardianships entailing the “removal of rights
protected by the U.S Constitution?” What communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence have you had about the NCD position that (i) the American with Disabilities
W (AACL) - MICHAEL A. AYELE 1
REQUEST FOR RECORDS
Act (ADA) is applicable to guardianship proceedings, (ii) the need for assistance with
activities of daily living or even making decisions does not give rise to a presumption of
incapacity and (iii) guardianship should be a last resort that is imposed only after less
restrictive alternatives have been determined to be inappropriate or ineffective? (See page 19
of the NCD March 22nd 2018 report.) What feedback were provided by the HHS (CMS), the
HHS (SAMHSA), the HHS (ACL), the HHS (NIH), the NIDLILRR, the V.A, the DoED
(OSEP), the DoED (OSERS), the NQE, the UCEDD, the P&A, the DOJ, the SSA and the
GAO to the NCD finding that (i) “there is a lack of data on existing guardianships and newly
filed guardianships,” (ii) “people with disabilities are widely and erroneously seen as less
capable of making autonomous decisions,” (iii) “people with disabilities are often denied due
process in guardianship proceedings,” (iv) “capacity determinations often lack a sufficient
scientific or evidentiary basis,” (v) “guardianship is considered protective, but courts often
fail to protect individuals,” (vi) “most states statutes require consideration of less-restrictive
alternatives, but courts and others in the guardianship system often do little to enforce this
requirement,” (vii) “every state has a process for restoration, but this process is rarely used
and can be complex, confusing, and cost prohibitive?” (See pages 18 – 24 of the NCD March
22nd 2018 report.) What feedbacks were provided by the HHS (CMS), the HHS (SAMHSA),
the HHS (ACL), the HHS (NIH), the NIDLILRR, the V.A, the DoED (OSEP), the DoED
(OSERS), the NQE, the UCEDD, the P&A, the DOJ, the SSA and the GAO to the NCD
recommending for (i) the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to collect data on whether or not the
individuals they serve are subject to guardianship; (ii) states to be offered incentives and
technical assistance with developing electronic filing and reporting systems that collect basic
information about guardianships from the moment a petition is filed, (iii) the Department of
Justice (DOJ), in collaboration with the HHS to issue guidance to states (specifically Adult
Protective Services (APS) agencies and probate courts) on their legal obligations pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), (iv) the Department of Education Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) to create model supported decision
making and powers-of-attorney forms geared toward transition age youth, (v) the
Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to instruct Parent
Training and Information Centers to prioritize and provide meaningful training on school-to-
adult transition and alternatives to guardianship, (vi) HHS to issue guidance regarding the
responsibility of medical professionals and hospital to accommodate the needs of individuals
who may need assistance making medical decisions, (vii) HHS to adequately explain
procedures and draft documents provided to patients in plain language, (viii) medical
professionals to be educated about the ADA and the need to accommodate people with
disabilities, including those with intellectual disabilities and cognitive impairments, (ix) the
National Home and Community Based Services Quality Enterprise (NQE) to include decision
making assistance and use of alternatives to guardianship such as supported decision making
in their priorities, (x) the NQE to include best practices as part of its resources, training, and
technical assistance, (xi) the Administration for Community Living (ACL) to allocate
funding to assist state adult protective services systems to develop greater awareness of ways
to enhance the self-determination of adults considered vulnerable or in need of services, as
well as the availability and use of alternatives to guardianship, (xii) the Developmental
Disabilities Councils, University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities
(UCEDDs), and the Protection and Advocacy (P&A) organization to link work that has been
done on advancing the self-determination of people with intellectual and developmental
disabilities (ID/DD) with avoiding guardianship, (xiii) the Attorney General’s model
legislation to incorporate the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship & Other Protective
REQUEST FOR RECORDS

outcome, especially if that person expresses a desire to avoid guardianship or objects to the
proposed guardian, (xv) federal grant money to be made available to help promote the
availability of counsel, (xvi) a state guardianship court improvement program to be funded to
assist courts with developing and implementing best practices in guardianship, including
training of judges and court personnel on due process rights and less-restrictive
alternatives, (xvii) the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and
Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR), National Institutes of Health, and other agencies that
fund scientific research to provide grants to researchers who are trying to develop a better
understanding of how people make decisions and how a variety of conditions – such as
dementia, intellectual disabilities, brain injuries, and other disabilities – impact the ability of
individuals to make and implement informed decisions, (xviii) resources to be geared
toward developing functional approaches to capacity assessments that take into account the
possibility that someone may need decision making assistance but not necessarily a surrogate
or substitute decision maker, (xix) states to be provided with incentives to establish statewide
boards that can provide for the accreditation and oversight of professional guardians, (xx)
states to require family guardians to undergo training to ensure they understand their
ongoing responsibilities to the person subject to guardianship and to the court, (xxi) the ACL
grants to be expanded to be able to fund more geographically and demographically diverse
projects and pilots that specifically test SDM models and use SDM and the court systems to
restore people’s rights as a matter of law, particularly for people who are older adults with
cognitive decline, people with psychosocial disabilities, and people with severe intellectual
disabilities, (xxii) the DOJ to make funding available to train judges in the availability of
alternatives to guardianship including, but not limited to, supported decision making, (xxiii)
the DOJ to develop guidance that recognizes alternatives to guardianship (…) even when it is
determined that the individual meets the definition of incapacity, (xxiv) a grant to be given to
the Protection and Advocacy system to provide legal assistance to individuals who are trying
to have their rights restored or avoid guardianship? (See pages 18 – 24 of the NCD March
22nd 2018 report.) What feedback were provided by the HHS (CMS), the HHS (SAMHSA),
the HHS (ACL), the HHS (NIH), the NIDLILRR, the V.A, the DoED (OSEP), the DoED
(OSERS), the NQE, the UCEDD, the P&A, the DOJ, the SSA and the GAO to the NCD
March 22nd 2018 report having noted that the way “capacity determinations are made is
deeply problematic. Many states rely heavily on physicians and psychiatrists, who provide
opinions that are based largely on generalities on a person’s diagnosis rather than on any
observable trait of the particular individual. Although statutes that require a physician or
psychiatrist to report to the court regarding the capacity of the individual are based on the
assumption that these scientists will submit to the court an unbiased and scientifically based
opinion, physicians and psychiatrists are often not trained in administering the kinds of tests
that may provide the most insight into an individual’s ability to make decisions and might not
have the requisite skills and experience with the particular disability to render a valid
judgment. (…) Even if they have a clinical basis for determining what a person can or cannot
do, the experts that make these determinations may not have sufficient legal context to
determine whether the individual is incapacitated as the law defines it. In one study, only 30
percent of doctors were able to correctly apply the definition of legal competence (capacity)
in a fact-pattern drawn from an actual legal case. Additionally, although psychiatrists were
able to answer theoretical questions about the standards for legal capacity, they were often
wrong when applying those standards to facts. In addition, only a small minority of doctors
were able to understand that a person could be diagnosed with dementia or depression and
REQUEST FOR RECORDS
still be legally competent. Medical doctors simply are trained in the legal, functional, and
medical assessments that could lead to a reliable determination regarding an individual’s
capacity. (…) Even in the best-case scenario in which a physician with relevant expertise is
appointed, the medical profession’s relationship to disability has historically been a
paternalistic one. In medical terms, a patient benefits from anything that reverses or
ameliorates any disease or disability ‘…that threatens to shorten the life or limit the
functional capacity of the patient. Harm is characterized as anything that impedes or
compromises the efficacy of those diagnostic or therapeutic measures.’ This weighs heavily
in favor of restricting autonomy in an attempt to ensure safety and may inevitably lead to
overly restrictive guardianships?” (See pages 77 - 80 of the report.) What feedback were
provided by the HHS (CMS), the HHS (SAMHSA), the HHS (ACL), the HHS (NIH), the
NIDLILRR, the V.A, the DoED (OSEP), the DoED (OSERS), the NQE, the UCEDD, the
P&A, the DOJ, the SSA and the GAO to the NCD having noted in their March 22nd 2018
report that “sexuality is an incredibly fraught topic for people with disabilities that raises
issues not only about consent and mental capacity, but also ‘the forced sterilization of people
with disabilities, the rights of people with disabilities in institutions to have sex and be free
from sexual abuse, and the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people
with disabilities. Against this complex backdrop, NCD recognizes that ‘the desire to enter
into intimate personal relationships, including sexual relationships, is one of the most
personal rights there is’ and that ‘desire is no less important for the many adults with
disabilities who are under some form of guardianship?’” (See page 106 of the report.) 3)
What communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence have you had about
the circumstances, which led to the much-publicized emotional duress and distress
experienced by Britney Spears in 2007? Specifically, what communications in the form of e-
mails and postal correspondence have you had about Diane Sawyer November 13th 2003
interview of Britney Spears? What communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence have you had about Diane Sawyer noting on her interview with Britney
Spears (dated November 13th 2003) that her net worth equated $100,000,000 (one hundred
million) U.S dollars? What communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence
have you had about Diane Sawyer having noted that Britney Spears idolized Madonna? What
communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence have you had about Diane
Sawyer asking for Britney Spears reaction to remarks made by Kendall Ehrlich (wife of the
former governor of the State of Maryland) saying: “Really, if I had an opportunity to shoot
Britney Spears, I think I would?” What communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence have you had about Britney Spears response to Diane Sawyer’s question?
What communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence have you had about
Diane Sawyer failing to forcefully condemn on Television (T.V) Kendall Ehrlich
encouraging for Britney Spears to incur physical harm? iii What communications in the form
of e-mails and postal correspondence have you had about the much-publicized decision of
Britney Spears to cut her hair on February 16th 2007? iv What communications in the form of
e-mails and postal correspondence have you had about Britney Spears having lost custody of
her children with Kevin Federline on October 01st 2007? v What communications in the form
of e-mails and postal correspondence have you had about Britney Spears involuntary civil
commitment in the month of January 2008? vi What communications in the form of e-mails
and postal correspondence have you had about Britney Spears and her estate being placed
under the temporary control of her father (Jamie Spears) and Andrew Wallet on or around
February 01st 2008? vii What communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence have you had about Britney Spears having vocally objected to her father
being appointed as a guardian of her person and her estate in 2008? What communications in
the form of e-mails and postal correspondence have you had about Jamie Spears having
REQUEST FOR RECORDS
become the permanent guardian of Britney Spears in the month of October 2008? viii What
communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence have you had about
Britney Spears net worth having decreased from over $100,000,000 (one hundred million)
U.S dollars to $60,000,000 (sixty million) U.S dollars? What communications in the form of
e-mails and postal correspondence have you had about Jamie Spears having been paid at least
$5 million since the start of Britney Spears conservatorship in 2008? What communications
in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence have you had about Britney Spears having
paid at least $3 million to Samuel D. Ingham since 2008? ix What communications in the
form of e-mails and postal correspondence have been exchanged between the National
Council on Disability (NCD) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about (i) the
circumstances surrounding Britney Spears conservatorship, (ii) the money pocketed by Jamie
Spears since the beginning of Britney Spears conservatorship and (iii) the money pocketed by
Samuel D. Ingham for his representation of Britney Spears since the beginning of her
conservatorship? What communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence
have you had about Britney Spears having previously been informed that the terms and
conditions of her conservatorship prohibited her to get married and have children? x What
communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence have you had about the
desire of Britney Spears (now aged 39 years old) to get married and have children? xi What
songs of Britney Spears do you have on your cell-phone, your tablet, your laptop and other
music listening devices? What communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence have you have you had about Britney Spears recently publicized decision to
no longer perform in concerts? xii
What I am requesting for prompt disclosure are all records within your possession detailing
(1) formal and informal ties existing between the NCD, the HHS (CMS), the HHS
(SAMHSA), the HHS (ACL), the HHS (NIH), the NIDLILRR, the V.A, the DoED (OSEP),
the DoED (OSERS), the NQE, the UCEDD, the P&A, the DOJ, the SSA and the GAO; (2)
the academic background, the professional responsibilities and annual salaries of Clyde E.
Terry, Benro T. Ogunyipe, Billy W. Altom, Rabia Belt, James T. Brett, Bob Brown, Daniel
M. Gade, Wendy S. Harbour, Neil Romano, Amged Soliman, Ana Torres-Davis, Anne
Smmers, Phoebe Ball, Stacey S. Brown and Keith Woods; (3) all letters submitted by the
NCD informing the HHS (CMS), the HHS (SAMHSA), the HHS (ACL), the HHS (NIH), the
NIDLILRR, the V.A, the DoED (OSEP), the DoED (OSERS), the NQE, the UCEDD, the
P&A, the DOJ, the SSA and the GAO that they were going to lead a fact-finding mission into
the system of guardianship in the United States of America (U.S.A) (4) your communications
in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the NCD March 22nd 2018 report
entitled Beyond Guardianship: Toward Alternatives That Promote Greater Self-
Determination; (5) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence
about guardianships and/or conservatorships generally involving a state-court determination
that an “individual lacks the capacity to make decisions with respect to their health, safety,
welfare, and/or property;” (6) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal about
guardianship entailing the “removal of rights protected by the U.S Constitution;” (7) your
communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence the NCD position that (i)
the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) is applicable to guardianship proceedings, (ii) the
need for assistance with activities of daily living or even making decisions does not give rise
to a presumption of incapacity and (iii) guardianship should be a last resort that is imposed
only after less restrictive alternatives have been determined to be inappropriate or
ineffective; (8) feedbacks provided to the NCD by the HHS (CMS), the HHS (SAMHSA), the
HHS (ACL), the HHS (NIH), the NIDLILRR, the V.A, the DoED (OSEP), the DoED
(OSERS), the NQE, the UCEDD, the P&A, the DOJ, the SSA and the GAO in response to
REQUEST FOR RECORDS
their finding that (i) “there is a lack of data on existing guardianships and newly filed
guardianships,” (ii) “people with disabilities are widely and erroneously seen as less capable
of making autonomous decisions,” (iii) “people with disabilities are often denied due process
in guardianship proceedings,” (iv) “capacity determinations often lack a sufficient scientific
or evidentiary basis,” (v) “guardianship is considered protective, but courts often fail to
protect individuals,” (vi) “most states statutes require consideration of less-restrictive
alternatives, but courts and others in the guardianship system often do little to enforce this
requirement,” (vii) “every state has a process for restoration, but this process is rarely used
and can be complex, confusing, and cost prohibitive;” (9) feedbacks provided to the NCD by
the HHS (CMS), the HHS (SAMHSA), the HHS (ACL), the HHS (NIH), the NIDLILRR, the
V.A, the DoED (OSEP), the DoED (OSERS), the NQE, the UCEDD, the P&A, the DOJ, the
SSA and the GAO in response to their recommendation for (i) the Social Security
Administration (SSA), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the
Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) to collect data on whether or not the individuals they serve are
subject to guardianship; (ii) states to be offered incentives and technical assistance with
developing electronic filing and reporting systems that collect basic information about
guardianships from the moment a petition is filed, (iii) the Department of Justice (DOJ), in
collaboration with the HHS to issue guidance to states (specifically Adult Protective Services
(APS) agencies and probate courts) on their legal obligations pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), (iv) the Department of Education Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) to create model supported decision making and powers-of-
attorney forms geared toward transition age youth, (v) the Department of Education Office
of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to instruct Parent Training and Information Centers
to prioritize and provide meaningful training on school-to-adult transition and alternatives to
guardianship, (vi) HHS to issue guidance regarding the responsibility of medical
professionals and hospital to accommodate the needs of individuals who may need assistance
making medical decisions, (vii) HHS to adequately explain procedures and draft documents
provided to patients in plain language, (viii) medical professionals to be educated about the
ADA and the need to accommodate people with disabilities, including those with intellectual
disabilities and cognitive impairments, (ix) the National Home and Community Based
Services Quality Enterprise (NQE) to include decision making assistance and use of
alternatives to guardianship such as supported decision making in their priorities, (x) the
NQE to include best practices as part of its resources, training, and technical assistance, (xi)
the Administration for Community Living (ACL) to allocate funding to assist state adult
protective services systems to develop greater awareness of ways to enhance the self-
determination of adults considered vulnerable or in need of services, as well as the
availability and use of alternatives to guardianship, (xii) the Developmental Disabilities
Councils, University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDDs), and
the Protection and Advocacy (P&A) organization to link work that has been done on
advancing the self-determination of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities
(ID/DD) with avoiding guardianship, (xiii) the Attorney General’s model legislation to
incorporate the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship & Other Protective Arrangements
Act (UGCOPAA) to include provisions for preventing unnecessary guardianships, (xiv)
incapacitated individuals facing guardianship to be provided with independent legal
representation that will advocate for the individual’s desired outcome, especially if that
person expresses a desire to avoid guardianship or objects to the proposed guardian, (xv)
federal grant money to be made available to help promote the availability of counsel, (xvi) a
state guardianship court improvement program to be funded to assist courts with developing
and implementing best practices in guardianship, including training of judges and court
REQUEST FOR RECORDS
personnel on due process rights and less-restrictive alternatives, (xvii) the National Institute
on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR), National
Institutes of Health, and other agencies that fund scientific research to provide grants to
researchers who are trying to develop a better understanding of how people make decisions
and how a variety of conditions – such as dementia, intellectual disabilities, brain injuries,
and other disabilities – impact the ability of individuals to make and implement informed
decisions, (xviii) resources to be geared toward developing functional approaches to capacity
assessments that take into account the possibility that someone may need decision making
assistance but not necessarily a surrogate or substitute decision maker, (xix) states to be
provided with incentives to establish statewide boards that can provide for the accreditation
and oversight of professional guardians, (xx) states to require family guardians to undergo
training to ensure they understand their ongoing responsibilities to the person subject to
guardianship and to the court, (xxi) the ACL grants to be expanded to be able to fund more
geographically and demographically diverse projects and pilots that specifically test SDM
models and use SDM and the court systems to restore people’s rights as a matter of law,
particularly for people who are older adults with cognitive decline, people with psychosocial
disabilities, and people with severe intellectual disabilities, (xxii) the DOJ to make funding
available to train judges in the availability of alternatives to guardianship including, but not
limited to, supported decision making, (xxiii) the DOJ to develop guidance that recognizes
alternatives to guardianship (…) even when it is determined that the individual meets the
definition of incapacity, (xxiv) a grant to be given to the Protection and Advocacy system to
provide legal assistance to individuals who are trying to have their rights restored or avoid
guardianship; (10) feedbacks provided by the HHS (CMS), the HHS (SAMHSA), the HHS
(ACL), the HHS (NIH), the NIDLILRR, the V.A, the DoED (OSEP), the DoED (OSERS),
the NQE, the UCEDD, the P&A, the DOJ, the SSA and the GAO to the NCD in response to
the March 22nd 2018 report having found that the way “capacity determinations are made is
deeply problematic. Many states rely heavily on physicians and psychiatrists, who provide
opinions that are based largely on generalities on a person’s diagnosis rather than on any
observable trait of the particular individual. Although statutes that require a physician or
psychiatrist to report to the court regarding the capacity of the individual are based on the
assumption that these scientists will submit to the court an unbiased and scientifically based
opinion, physicians and psychiatrists are often not trained in administering the kinds of tests
that may provide the most insight into an individual’s ability to make decisions and might not
have the requisite skills and experience with the particular disability to render a valid
judgment. (…) Even if they have a clinical basis for determining what a person can or cannot
do, the experts that make these determinations may not have sufficient legal context to
determine whether the individual is incapacitated as the law defines it. In one study, only 30
percent of doctors were able to correctly apply the definition of legal competence (capacity)
in a fact-pattern drawn from an actual legal case. Additionally, although psychiatrists were
able to answer theoretical questions about the standards for legal capacity, they were often
wrong when applying those standards to facts. In addition, only a small minority of doctors
were able to understand that a person could be diagnosed with dementia or depression and
still be legally competent. Medical doctors simply are trained in the legal, functional, and
medical assessments that could lead to a reliable determination regarding an individual’s
capacity. (…) Even in the best-case scenario in which a physician with relevant expertise is
appointed, the medical profession’s relationship to disability has historically been a
paternalistic one. In medical terms, a patient benefits from anything that reverses or
ameliorates any disease or disability ‘…that threatens to shorten the life or limit the
functional capacity of the patient. Harm is characterized as anything that impedes or
compromises the efficacy of those diagnostic or therapeutic measures.’ This weighs heavily
REQUEST FOR RECORDS
in favor of restricting autonomy in an attempt to ensure safety and may inevitably lead to
overly restrictive guardianships;” (11) feedbacks provided to the NCD by the HHS (CMS),
the HHS (SAMHSA), the HHS (ACL), the HHS (NIH), the NIDLILRR, the V.A, the DoED
(OSEP), the DoED (OSERS), the NQE, the UCEDD, the P&A, the DOJ, the SSA and the
GAO in response to their March 22nd 2018 report having noted that “sexuality is an
incredibly fraught topic for people with disabilities that raises issues not only about consent
and mental capacity, but also ‘the forced sterilization of people with disabilities, the rights of
people with disabilities in institutions to have sex and be free from sexual abuse, and the
rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people with disabilities. Against this
complex backdrop, NCD recognizes that ‘the desire to enter into intimate personal
relationships, including sexual relationships, is one of the most personal rights there is’ and
that ‘desire is no less important for the many adults with disabilities who are under some
form of guardianship;’” (12) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence about the circumstances, which led to the much-publicized emotional duress
and distress experienced by Britney Spears in 2007; (13) your communications in the form of
e-mails and postal correspondence about Diane Sawyer November 13th 2003 interview with
Britney Spears; (14) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence
about Diane Sawyer noting on her interview with Britney Spears (dated November 13th 2003)
that her net worth equated $100,000,000 (one hundred million) U.S dollars; (15) your
communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Diane Sawyer
having noted that Britney Spears idolized Madonna; (16) your communications in the form of
e-mails and postal correspondence about Diane Sawyer asking for Britney Spears reaction to
remarks made by Kendall Ehrlich (wife of the former governor of the State of Maryland)
saying: “Really, if I had an opportunity to shoot Britney Spears, I think I would;” (17) your
communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Britney Spears
response to Diane Sawyer’s question; (18) your communications in the form of e-mails and
postal correspondence about Diane Sawyer failing to forcefully condemn on Television (T.V)
Kendall Ehrlich encouraging for Britney Spears to incur physical harm; (19) your
communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the much-publicized
decision of Britney Spears to cut her hair on February 16th 2007; (20) your communications
in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Britney Spears having lost custody of
her children with Kevin Federline on October 01st 2007; (21) your communications in the
form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Britney Spears involuntary civil
commitment in the month of January 2008; (22) your communications in the form of e-mails
and postal correspondence about Britney Spears and her estate being placed under the
temporary control of her father (Jamie Spears) and Andrew Wallet on or around February
01st 2008; (23) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about
Britney Spears having vocally objected to her father being appointed as a guardian of her
person and her estate in 2008; (24) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence about Jamie Spears having become the permanent guardian of Britney Spears
in the month of October 2008; (25) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence about Britney Spears net worth having decreased from over $100,000,000
(one hundred million) U.S dollars to $60,000,000 (sixty million) U.S dollars; (26) your
communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Jamie Spears having
been paid at least $5 million since the start of Britney Spears conservatorship in 2008; (27)
your communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Britney Spears
having paid at least $3 million to Samuel D. Ingham since 2008; (28) your communications
in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence with the National Council on Disability
(NCD) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about (i) the circumstances
surrounding Britney Spears conservatorship, (ii) the money pocketed by Jamie Spears since
REQUEST FOR RECORDS
the beginning of Britney Spears conservatorship and (iii) the money pocketed by Samuel D.
Ingham for his representation of Britney Spears since the beginning of her conservatorship;
(29) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Britney
Spears having been informed that the terms and conditions of her conservatorship prohibited
her to get married and have children; (30) your communications in the form of e-mails and
postal correspondence about the desire of Britney Spears (now aged 39 years old) to get
married and have children; (31) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal
correspondence about Britney Spears testimony in the judicial branch of the California
government, where she stated that she was being forced to take Lithium without her
consent;xiii (32) your communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about
the amount of psychotropic drugs taken by Britney Spears despite her being a well-
functioning and high-earning music superstar; (33) the list of Britney Spears songs on your
cell-phone, your tablet, your laptop and other music listening devices; (34) your
communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the recently
publicized decision of Britney Spears not to perform in concerts.
2) Request for a Fee Waiver and Expedited Processing
The requested records have posed an imminent threat to the physical safety and well-being of
Britney Spears. The NCD has previously recognized that (1) guardianships and/or
conservatorships generally involve a state-court determination that an “individual lacks the
capacity to make decisions with respect to their health, safety, welfare, and/or property;” (2)
guardianships entail the “removal of rights protected by the U.S Constitution.” On these bases
alone, I believe this request for records should be expedited and all fees waived.
As a representative of the media and a member of the general public, I instinctively presume
that guardianships are unnecessary and that there may be less restrictive alternatives that can
address the individual’s need. As a representative of the media and a member of the general
public, I have previously asked whether conditions or environmental factors that may be
affecting decision making ability could be mitigated or reversed, alleviating the need for
guardianship. Indeed, I first became somewhat familiar with the system of guardianship in
Fiscal Year (F.Y) 2013, when I was a public employee of the Department of Mental Health
(DMH) Fulton State Hospital (FSH) located 600 East 5th Street, Fulton, Missouri. As a
former employee of the DMH (FSH), I had previously objected to the selective appointment
of a translator to patient/prisoner Muhammer Suljacer, then held in the FSH Biggs Forensic
Center (BFC) Social Learning Program (SLP). Patient/prisoner Muhammer Suljacer was at
the time I was a public employee of the FSH a person who came to the USA at the age of 4
and had according to his personal health information (PHI) a “high-school education.” His
PHI had also noted that he spoke English fluently and that he came to the USA from Bosnia,
Europe. Living in the same ward as Muhammer Suljacer in F.Y 2013 was patient/prisoner
Aschalew Belachew, who came to the U.S.A in the 1980s from Ethiopia. According to his
PHI, Aschalew Belachew spoke English with a “low-tone of voice.” As a former employee of
the FSH who had experience speaking English with people all over the world, I had a very
difficult time understanding Aschalew Belachew whenever he spoke to me in English.
However, I understood him perfectly when he spoke in Amharic: the official language of
Ethiopia. In my conversations with him, I gleaned that he was from the northern part of
Ethiopia, very possibly Tigray: a region neighboring Eritrea. As a former employee of the
FSH, I would like to attest that I was subjected to negative glares whenever I spoke to
Aschalew Belachew in Amharic. As a former employee of the FSH, I objected to Aschalew
Belachew not having been appointed a translator even though Muhammer Suljacer had a
REQUEST FOR RECORDS
translator. As a former employee of the FSH, I would like to attest that Muhammer Suljacer
was much more fluent in English than Aschalew Belachew. I would again like to reiterate this
point I had previously made in my former capacity as a Forensic Rehab Specialist (FRS) of
the DMH (FSH). As a former employee of the FSH, I was never opposed to the appointment
of a translator for Muhammer Suljacer as part of his “treatment plan.” Nonetheless, I thought
it was problematic that Ashcalew Belachew did not have a translator even though his English
was significantly less fluent than that of Muhammer Suljacer. As a former employee of the
FSH, I believed this discrepancy in the service of healthcare was discriminatory. I also
believed that this discrepancy in the service of healthcare was inconsistent with the letter and
spirit of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). For your
information (FYI), Aschalew Belachew was at the time I was a public employee of the FSH a
patient/prisoner with a guardian.
As a representative of the media and a member of the general public, I was shocked by
Britney Spears testimony in the judicial branch of the California government. As a
representative of the media and a member of the general public, I do believe that any terms
and conditions of a guardianship, which would prohibit people to get married and have
children is outrageous. As a representative of the media and a member of the general public, I
don’t believe forcing people (struggling with depression) to take psychotropic drugs (such as
Lithium) without their consent is something that should be condoned. I, personally find it
abhorrent. As a representative of the media and a member of the general public, I have
serious concerns about the quality of legal and medical care provided to Britney Spears. As a
representative of the media and a member of the general public, I have been following the
career of Britney Spears because I enjoy listening to her songs: I do think she’s an extremely
talented artist. As a representative of the media and a member of the general public, I do
believe the psychotropic drugs have taken a toll on her. In several photographs taken of her
following her fall-out with the media, I have noticed that she looked significantly older than
her relatively young age of 39. As a representative of the media and a member of the general
public, I do believe the psychotropic drugs she begun taking following her 2007 meltdown
played a significant role in her looking older than her age. As a representative of the media
and a member of the general public, I have come to be deeply concerned about several
aspects of her conservatorship. Take care. FREE BRITNEY SPEARS!
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that all the statements I have made are to the best of
my knowledge true and accurate.
Respectfully submitted:
W (AACL)
Michael A. Ayele
Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist
Audio-Visual Media Analyst
Anti-Propaganda Journalist

REQUEST FOR RECORDS
Work Cited
i
Beyond Guardianship: Toward Alternatives That Promote Greater Self-Determination for
People With Disabilities, National Council on Disability.:
https://ncd.gov/publications/2018/beyond-guardianship-toward-alternatives
ii
Beyond Guardianship: Toward Alternatives That Promote Greater Self-Determination for
People With Disabilities, National Council on Disability.:
https://ncd.gov/publications/2018/beyond-guardianship-toward-alternatives
iii
Britney Spears Primetime Interview With Diane Sawyer 2003,
Youtube.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4CvSRCA9Ro
iv
Britney Spears reveals devastating reason she shaved her head during 2007 public
meltdown, The Sun.: https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/2350620/britney-spears-reason-
shaved-head-public-meltdown/
v
Britney Spears loses custody of her children, The
Guardian.: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/02/pop.usa
vi
Britney Spears taken to LA hospital after custody
standoff, Reuters.: https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-31245020080104
Britney Spears on psychiatric hold in hospital, Reuters.: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-

spears-hospital/britney-spears-on-psychiatric-hold-in-hospital-idUSN3128619820080201
vii
Court gives father control of money, The Guardian.:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/02/musicnews.usa
‘Framing Britney Spears’ Full Documentary # Free

viii
Britney, YouTube.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=937Cli3jIqM

ix
How much has 13 years under conservatorship cost Britney Spears, Market
Watch.: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-much-has-13-years-under-conservatorship-
cost-britney-spears-
11624654464#:~:text=As%20a%20result%2C%20Spears%20has,%2460%20million%2C%2
0according%20to%20Forbes.
x
Britney Spears FULL Conservatorship Hearing (Leaked HQ Audio) Opening Testimony;
YouTube.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVrhKBhMrEI
Can Britney Spears’ Conservators Legally Bar Her From Having a Baby? Rolling Stone.:
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/britney-spears-conservators-baby-marriage-
rights-1188207/
xi
Planned Parenthood reacts to Britney Spears’ IUD allegation, CBS.:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/planned-parenthood-britney-spears-iud/

REQUEST FOR RECORDS
xii
Britney Spears says won’t perform while her father controls career; Reuters.:
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/britney-spears-says-wont-perform-while-her-father-
controls-career-2021-07-18/
xiii
Britney Spears FULL Conservatorship Hearing (Leaked HQ Audio) Opening Testimony;
YouTube.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVrhKBhMrEI

The National Council On Disability (NCD) Deny Being in Possession of Records Pertaining To Britney Spears Perturbing Conservatorship - # W (AACL) - # Michael A. Ayele

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The National Council On Disability (NCD) Deny Being in Possession of Records Pertaining To Britney Spears Perturbing Conservatorship - # W (AACL) - # Michael A. Ayele

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The National Council On Disability (NCD) Deny Being in Possession of Records Pertaining To Britney Spears Perturbing Conservatorship - # W (AACL) - # Michael A. Ayele

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Council on Disability

An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress

Re: FOIA Request NCD-2021- 12

1331 F Street, NW ■ Suite 850 ■ Washington, DC 20004

For tracking purposes, your tracking number is NCD-2021-12.

Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)

Anne Sommers McIntosh

W (AACL) July 19th 2021

Request for Records

1) Request for Records

Arrangements Act (UGCOPAA) to include provisions for preventing unnecessary

2) Request for a Fee Waiver and Expedited Processing

W (AACL) - MICHAEL A. AYELE 10

Britney Spears on psychiatric hold in hospital, Reuters.: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-

‘Framing Britney Spears’ Full Documentary # Free

Britney, YouTube.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=937Cli3jIqM

W (AACL) - MICHAEL A. AYELE 11

W (AACL) - MICHAEL A. AYELE 12

You might also like