Note that the "conservator" who abused that couple and her co-conspirators went to prison.
https://www.ktnv.com/news/contact-1...lead-guilty-in-guardianship-exploitation-case
Free Britney!
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
Note that the "conservator" who abused that couple and her co-conspirators went to prison.
https://www.ktnv.com/news/contact-1...lead-guilty-in-guardianship-exploitation-case
My first post in this thread, page 1:
From one of yesterday's articles:
Wow, I must be psychic. Either that, or I am looking at things somewhat objectively, and adopting a wait-and-see attitude.
The public does not know the full details, but it seems that the courts, family, and medical professionals might. Imagine that.
Last edited:
jollyroger85
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
- Messages
- 301
All that proves is that you agree with complete BS. She has never demonstrated such a decline in mental health to prove need for conservator of the person. Her frist hearing for this was 10 minutes and theres no way all the requirements were covered let alone met.
You are presuming that Jamie and his lawyer are sources of objective information. It is clear from numerous links that once a conservatorship is in place, the courts basically serve as rubber stamps, because they are only supposed to be established when the subject is irreversibly incapacitated, as from Alzheimer's or brain injury. If Jamie claimed Britney was suffering from dementia at age 24, as alleged, that's plain fraud right there. The question is not whether Britney was or is troubled; many people are. The question is whether she could have been treated in therapy without losing all her rights as an adult forever.
Last edited:
My presumption is that the courts, medical professionals, and family know more about her mental health than the general public does.
On the other hand, some people are more than happy to try, and convict, her father and everyone surrounding her, in the court of public opinion. Does "presumed innocent until proven guilty" ring a bell?
Last edited:
jollyroger85
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
- Messages
- 301
Theres ample evidence pointing his way to prison, let him have due process, then the rest of his life in prison.
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
Oh, the guy who is being accused of wrongdoing (and his lawyer) said there's more to the story that, if it were known, makes their actions perfectly okay. Case closed, then! Hahaha.
Warp, if I really believed you were that naïve and innocent, I might actually find it a little sweet.
Ultimately, it's sort of a shame that someone like Britney ended up being the face of this movement to investigate conservatorship corruption. There are individuals who will simply never be able to view the situation objectively, whether that's because they grew up laughing at Britney's original antics, they dislike women/celebrities/druggies/etc., or they just can't empathize with a figure whose life is so unusual. The bulk of people abused by fraudulent guardianships are regular people (albeit sometimes wealthy), often old people, who don't really have the sway to stir up an activist movement, even though they would probably be more sympathetic figures in the eyes of certain folk who object to Britney.
It just gets very tiring saying, over and OVER, different versions of, "This isn't a question of whether or not Britney Spears is mentally ill and/or on drugs. This is a question of what conditions are supposed to qualify a person for lifelong, inescapable conservatorships, and how those arrangements are supposed to work to minimize abuses."
I simply do not believe that people arguing against Britney's rights (in this thread and elsewhere) truly want everyone with bipolar disorder or addiction problems to be in conservatorships. I think they either aren't able to see past their dislike of her as a figure, or they are extremely unwilling to accept the possibility of such a grave legal abuse continuing on for so long, unmolested, in plain sight.
I agree, the latter is a pretty scary notion. That's why I myself didn't want to hear what the Free Britney people had to say at first.
Warp, if I really believed you were that naïve and innocent, I might actually find it a little sweet.
Ultimately, it's sort of a shame that someone like Britney ended up being the face of this movement to investigate conservatorship corruption. There are individuals who will simply never be able to view the situation objectively, whether that's because they grew up laughing at Britney's original antics, they dislike women/celebrities/druggies/etc., or they just can't empathize with a figure whose life is so unusual. The bulk of people abused by fraudulent guardianships are regular people (albeit sometimes wealthy), often old people, who don't really have the sway to stir up an activist movement, even though they would probably be more sympathetic figures in the eyes of certain folk who object to Britney.
It just gets very tiring saying, over and OVER, different versions of, "This isn't a question of whether or not Britney Spears is mentally ill and/or on drugs. This is a question of what conditions are supposed to qualify a person for lifelong, inescapable conservatorships, and how those arrangements are supposed to work to minimize abuses."
I simply do not believe that people arguing against Britney's rights (in this thread and elsewhere) truly want everyone with bipolar disorder or addiction problems to be in conservatorships. I think they either aren't able to see past their dislike of her as a figure, or they are extremely unwilling to accept the possibility of such a grave legal abuse continuing on for so long, unmolested, in plain sight.
I agree, the latter is a pretty scary notion. That's why I myself didn't want to hear what the Free Britney people had to say at first.
Last edited:
Sure. And your presumption seems to be that Britney deserves to be maintained in a state of legal infancy forever unless she can prove she doesn't deserve it, without even her own lawyer until a few weeks ago.
Last edited:
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 19,788
Quote:
Lawyer Vivien Thoreen, who submitted the documents to Los Angeles County Court on Jamie’s behalf, wrote:"If the public knew all the facts of Ms. Spears' personal life, not only her highs but also her lows, all of the addiction and mental health issues that she has struggled with, and all of the challenges of the Conservatorship, they would praise Mr. Spears for the job he has done, not vilify him.
"But the public does not know all the facts, and they have no right to know, so there will be no public redemption for Mr. Spears." /quote
Gee,I would think every body on a Skeptic site would recognize circular logic."we are innocent, but we can't tell you why, because that would be telling". Weeeelll, except in court. Possibly behind closed doors?
Regardless, she has her own lawyer who will at least be responsible for seeing that she gets a proper conservator. IF needed.
Hmm, I wonder if a person could voluntarily put him self under conservatorship to protect financial assets? Like bankruptcy prediction? hmm...
Lawyer Vivien Thoreen, who submitted the documents to Los Angeles County Court on Jamie’s behalf, wrote:"If the public knew all the facts of Ms. Spears' personal life, not only her highs but also her lows, all of the addiction and mental health issues that she has struggled with, and all of the challenges of the Conservatorship, they would praise Mr. Spears for the job he has done, not vilify him.
"But the public does not know all the facts, and they have no right to know, so there will be no public redemption for Mr. Spears." /quote
Gee,I would think every body on a Skeptic site would recognize circular logic."we are innocent, but we can't tell you why, because that would be telling". Weeeelll, except in court. Possibly behind closed doors?
Regardless, she has her own lawyer who will at least be responsible for seeing that she gets a proper conservator. IF needed.
Hmm, I wonder if a person could voluntarily put him self under conservatorship to protect financial assets? Like bankruptcy prediction? hmm...
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
Being found unfit to remain the executor of a conservatorship isn't a criminal conviction, though; he doesn't need to be "guilty" of anything for a removal to be in order, and being removed from that position in favor of someone better suited isn't some kind of prison sentence. Once removed Mr. Spears will be completely free to move on with his own life wholly unimpeded, barring any separate findings of actual criminal conduct.
Last edited:
He hasn't been found "unfit".
I don't particularly care if he exits the role, or must exit the role.
My whole point is, people are judging him without knowing the most relevant facts. Those facts being, the mental health history and status of Britney Spears.
People literally have zero evidence from the courts and medical professionals, but they are casting judgement. That is what is ironic about this thread, in a forum of skeptics. Skeptical thought demands verifiable evidence in order to draw a conclusion. Isn't that the claim?
Last edited:
jollyroger85
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
- Messages
- 301
The evidence would be needed to justify taking away one's life as well, and given the two criteria, one's personal liberty should be given the greater credence, she's shown NO evidence of being that far gone in current times. Slave driving daddy needs to go..... to prison.
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
The public may not know the full details, but it would be a lot more sympathetic to Jamie Spears if he didn't profit from Britney's grueling career. If Britney was as incapacitated as to require a conservatorship, it would be exceptionally cruel of him to make her work like that.
jollyroger85
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
- Messages
- 301
More to the point, if she was that far gone, she wouldn't be fit work, yet she never stopped. Daddy effectively enslaved his meal ticket daughter and fears greatly to need to get a real job. He belongs in prison in receipt of beatings.
Yawn. Children can go on tour, making millions. But, they are in no state to control the money, nor make major life decisions.
Are you against learning the true facts of her mental health history?
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
I would hope there are laws regulating how hard children can be made to work and how much say they have in what they do.
She was a judge in a talent show. So she was trusted to make major decisions on other peoples' life and career, but not her own.
Is this supposed to be comic relief?
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Comic Relief was a charity thing. The thing where she was a judge was X Factor.
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
Well, wasn't she? Full disclosure: I haven't seen the show.
Point is: she was able to tell other people whether they should continue on a career or whether they better quit, while not having the freedom to make such a decision for herself.
jollyroger85
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
- Messages
- 301
Nope, they'd only prove she got screwed by daddy all the more.