Free Britney!

[Shadowdweller]

Is a transcript available somewhere?

I'll look. What I typed in post above is my own.

Transcripts for pretty much all of NPR's segments are available on their website. If you know the particular program on which the interview aired and the date/time.

EDIT: Here's a link to the interview. Of course, not finding a transcript

 

[Belz...]

How does permission to use her allowance work so that's it's not really her own money? I asked you before and you squirmed and dodged.

The fact that you don't understand, or pretend not to understand, something that's self-evident isn't my fault. You can say "weasley" or "squirm" all you want, if it makes you feel better. But if you need permission to use the money I give you and can only spend it on what I tell you, then it's not your money. There's no difference with me spending my money to buy you wnat I decide you can have.

But hey, you decided that this was going to be your hill, so you can't back down now. You have to deny every argument or point.

If sarcasm counts as word games, yes.

No, I get the sarcasm because that's nearly all you're capable of. I meant you're playing words with "treated like a child".

Woosh.

 

[jollyroger85]

A psychiatric hold is a short-term emergency, often limited to 72 hours. Patients are almost always released after their crisis and receive outpatient treatment, if they want it. She has been deprived of her rights as an adult for more than 13 years. Whether or not that was a legitimate decision when it was made, it should have been revisited regularly, and the burden should be on her conservators to prove that it is still necessary, not for her to prove that it is not. Even people accused of murder get a public trial with their own defense attorney, and they can appeal a bad verdict. Spears was basically locked down forever because her daddy -- who gets a percentage of her concert revenue -- demanded it.

And again, the fact that she can fulfill grueling concert tours in a demanding industry -- even being forced to perform when she was sick, she says -- is a strong argument against any claim that she is totally and permanently disabled. Most people with mental illness are treated without being forced into a conservatorship.

Many people have 72 hour holds, AND they can easily be mis applied. An abusive husband lied about his wife, saying she had threatened suicide (she hadn't), but she spent 72 hours on a hold before she was able to get the ear of a psychiatrist and convince him the husband had lied.

I've argued my way out of a needless trip to the Er for an eval with an overzealous cop because my GF called in a welfare check when I overslept years ago.

My point, that is not always an accurate measure of squat.

 

[Roboramma]

Her last live performance was in October of 2018. Her last stay at a mental health facility was in March of 2019.



She is basically refusing to get another mental health evaluation. I wonder why that is? If I felt I was mentally sound, I would be demanding it. Some will point to a larger conspiracy, however.



She still has not filed a petition.

I find it very interesting that people are quick to believe everything she says, even without the supporting evidence, and to theorize of conspiracies and such. Not surprising for the general populace, but in a Skeptics forum? That, I find somewhat surprising.

I don't need to believe in a conspiracy to think that anyone being treated this way is wrong.

 

[Ernie M]

Is a transcript available somewhere?

I'll look. What I typed in post above is my own

Transcripts for pretty much all of NPR's segments are available on their website. If you know the particular program on which the interview aired and the date/time.

EDIT: Here's a link to the interview. Of course, not finding a transcript

No transcripts

I called WBUR's Programming/General Inquiries phone number at 9:58 a.m. EDT, on Mon., 12 July 2021, and was told there are no transcripts.

I believe the quotes in my post #177 for LA County attorney Lisa MacCarley– in quotation marks, and indented text– are accurate. I made the transcription listening to the WBUR On Point discussion. There are additional significant points attorney Lisa MacCarley pointed out that I didn't include, partly because I didn't want to get in trouble for copyright infringement for posting too much of the discussion. I suggest listening to the entire discussion with all three guests.

It would've been nice if there was an online official transcript for the WBUR (Boston's NPR news station) On Point discussion, "What Britney Spears Teaches Us About Conservatorships In America" with guests Lisa MacCarley, Dr. Sam Sugar, and Patricia Keane Martin, that aired 01 July 2021, by Stefano Kotsonis and Meghna Chakrabarti.

I consider the WBUR On Point discussion to be of great significance, as it pertains to Britney Spears' unconstitutional conservatorship specifically, and highlighting some conservatorship (aka guardianship) abuse/exploitation/fraud issues generally.

 

[Bob001]

.....
It would've been nice if there was an online official transcript for the WBUR (Boston's NPR news station) On Point discussion, "What Britney Spears Teaches Us About Conservatorships In America" with guests Lisa MacCarley, Dr. Sam Sugar, and Patricia Keane Martin, that aired 01 July 2021, by Stefano Kotsonis and Meghna Chakrabarti.

I consider the WBUR On Point discussion to be of great significance, as it pertains to Britney Spears' unconstitutional conservatorship specifically, and highlighting some conservatorship (aka guardianship) abuse/exploitation/fraud issues generally.

I've never tried it, but I wonder if one of the speech-to-text programs could be used to produce one. Some of them are pretty sophisticated.

 

[theprestige]

Kotsonis, Stefano and Meghna Chakrabarti. “What Britney Spears Teaches Us About Conservatorships In America” WBUR (Boston’s NPR news station) On Point. 01 July 2021. https[colon]//www[dot]wbur.org/onpoint/2021/07/01/the-freebritney-movement-and-how-conservatorships-work

Spent some time with a relative this weekend. She's a healthcare provider, and her take on this is: Conservatorships are very difficult to sustain, at least on California. They're always temporary, usually lasting no more than a few days or weeks. They always expire automatically. Extra effort is needed to extend them, and the effort increases exponentially the longer the extensions go on. In her view, Spears's ongoing conservatorship is an extreme outlier. It bespeaks someone expending vast resources over many years to accomplish something highly unusual.

So I'm not sure Spears's situation teaches us much about conservatorships in America, simply because it is such an outlier. The biggest lesson seems to be that they're susceptible to failure modes arising from wealth and corruption. But this is true of pretty much anything, and is something we all already know.

 

[jollyroger85]

Spent some time with a relative this weekend. She's a healthcare provider, and her take on this is: Conservatorships are very difficult to sustain, at least on California. They're always temporary, usually lasting no more than a few days or weeks. They always expire automatically. Extra effort is needed to extend them, and the effort increases exponentially the longer the extensions go on. In her view, Spears's ongoing conservatorship is an extreme outlier. It bespeaks someone expending vast resources over many years to accomplish something highly unusual.

So I'm not sure Spears's situation teaches us much about conservatorships in America, simply because it is such an outlier. The biggest lesson seems to be that they're susceptible to failure modes arising from wealth and corruption. But this is true of pretty much anything, and is something we all already know.

Right, it's not a regular case, but one of oh so obvious exploitation. Which is why the conservators are fighting so hard to maintain it. Jamie Spear's biggest fear is having to fend for himself.

Ironically the case got mention in Congress, with both Dems and Ted Cruz of all people saying "this is *********g ridiculous that this can happen"

 

[Bob001]

Spent some time with a relative this weekend. She's a healthcare provider, and her take on this is: Conservatorships are very difficult to sustain, at least on California. They're always temporary, usually lasting no more than a few days or weeks. They always expire automatically. Extra effort is needed to extend them, and the effort increases exponentially the longer the extensions go on. In her view, Spears's ongoing conservatorship is an extreme outlier. It bespeaks someone expending vast resources over many years to accomplish something highly unusual.

So I'm not sure Spears's situation teaches us much about conservatorships in America, simply because it is such an outlier. The biggest lesson seems to be that they're susceptible to failure modes arising from wealth and corruption. But this is true of pretty much anything, and is something we all already know.

Your relative may have been talking about psychiatric holds or something similar. Multiple links have been posted herein making the point that conservatorships are intended for people who are permanently incapacitated by Alzheimer's, brain injury or something else, and once in place are very difficult to lift. Spears' lawyer has to petition the court to even begin the process. They aren't subject to more than perfunctory review. To obtain the conservatorship originally, Spears' father apparently claimed that she is suffering from early Alzheimer's. This is a mess, but it's not unique.

Again:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-the-elderly-lose-their-rights
https://www.newyorker.com/news/american-chronicles/britney-spears-conservatorship-nightmare
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/10/...ips-guardianships.html?searchResultPosition=3
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/...-conservatorship.html?searchResultPosition=13

 

[theprestige]

Ironically the case got mention in Congress, with both Dems and Ted Cruz of all people saying "this is *********g ridiculous that this can happen"

Yes, of course some of the most powerful people in the country are shocked - shocked - to discover abuses at the intersection of power and corruption.

 

[Cain]

The fact that you don't understand, or pretend not to understand, something that's self-evident isn't my fault. You can say "weasley" or "squirm" all you want, if it makes you feel better. But if you need permission to use the money I give you and can only spend it on what I tell you, then it's not your money. There's no difference with me spending my money to buy you wnat I decide you can have.

But hey, you decided that this was going to be your hill, so you can't back down now. You have to deny every argument or point.

The permission structure is unclear. If you have an "allowance," then that's in itself a kind of permission: You have X to spend. How is she not allowed to spend it? Or, what types of hoops must she jump through to spend it? I've asked and you resort to "it's simple English" which sets off all kinds of BS detectors, especially since this entire conversation thread stems from her father granting "explicit permission" even though the conservatorship is split into two parts and the personal side is monitored by Montgomery. Two grand a week for personal consumption (not housing, not medical expenses) is... quite a lot of money. Certainly far removed from "no money."

 

[Cain]

Ironically the case got mention in Congress, with both Dems and Ted Cruz of all people saying "this is *********g ridiculous that this can happen"

A white girl's in trouble. Pressing national news. It could happen to anyone.

 

[gnome]

That can be harnessed for good purpose, if the solutions might help everyone.

 

[Ernie M]

<snip>
Kotsonis, Stefano and Meghna Chakrabarti. “What Britney Spears Teaches Us About Conservatorships In America” WBUR (Boston’s NPR news station) On Point. 01 July 2021. https[colon]//www[dot]wbur.org/onpoint/2021/07/01/the-freebritney-movement-and-how-conservatorships-work

Spent some time with a relative this weekend. She's a healthcare provider, and her take on this is: Conservatorships are very difficult to sustain, at least on California. They're always temporary, usually lasting no more than a few days or weeks. They always expire automatically. Extra effort is needed to extend them, and the effort increases exponentially the longer the extensions go on. In her view, Spears's ongoing conservatorship is an extreme outlier. It bespeaks someone expending vast resources over many years to accomplish something highly unusual.

So I'm not sure Spears's situation teaches us much about conservatorships in America, simply because it is such an outlier. The biggest lesson seems to be that they're susceptible to failure modes arising from wealth and corruption. But this is true of pretty much anything, and is something we all already know.

Hi, theprestige. I'm in the process of writing some responses to the issues you raised. Bob001 and jollyroger85 gave some good answer, but I'd like to add more...eventually.

I say "eventually" because I was going to reference and quote from the "Conservatorship" webpage from the California Courts, The Judicial Branch of California's website...

But the courts.ca.gov website is down. (Continuing as of Mon., 12 July 2021, 5:10 p.m. EDT).

The California Courts website was up on-and-around 3:30 p.m.; I have a cached page open, and I made PDFs from the "Conservatorship" webpage.

I'll post soon but until the California Courts fixes their website, I don't want to post a link that no longer works.

Here's a brief summary: Conservatorships and guardianships are easy to maintain and sustain.

Usually the only way a conservatee (in a conservatorship) or a ward (in a guardianship) gets out of a conservatorship or guardianship–––is by death.

 

[Bob001]

A white girl's in trouble. Pressing national news. It could happen to anyone.

Actually, from the various links, it looks like it could happen to anyone, if \they've got something a greedy relative wants.

 

[Belz...]

The permission structure is unclear.

Can we agree that if she can only spend it strictly on what's allowed that it's not really her money? Wasn't that the crux of the disagreement?

 

[Roboramma]

I'm of two minds on this.

Why does she insist that she is freed without being tested? I can see being suspicious of anyone hired by the conservatorship, but surely an independent psychiatrist could be brought in.

Because regardless of whatever such testing finds, she should be freed. What possible finding could justify her not being able to make decisions about her own life? Are we expecting that it will turn out she's in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's?

I suspect that the reason she doesn't want to be tested is that after 20 years she doesn't trust the system. That seems entirely reasonable to me.

 

[jollyroger85]

Can we agree that if she can only spend it strictly on what's allowed that it's not really her money? Wasn't that the crux of the disagreement?

If she's the one earning the money, it SHOULD be her money, any thing else is strictly court allowed exploitation, if not pseudo slavery, again, set up through the court.

Can you abuse the court system to practically enslave a non invalid, non eldery person, whose mental/physical capacity is obvious enough for them to function? With the right amount of corruption, apparently you can.

 

[jollyroger85]

Because regardless of whatever such testing finds, she should be freed. What possible finding could justify her not being able to make decisions about her own life? Are we expecting that it will turn out she's in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's?

I suspect that the reason she doesn't want to be tested is that after 20 years she doesn't trust the system. That seems entirely reasonable to me.

Do a basic googling on Guardianship in any state and you'll find that in every case practically, they are intended to be

Temporary
Subject to regular review
Utilized only after every less restrictive measure has been considered first.

The original hearing for this nonsense went on less than 10 minutes..... the whole thing should be thrown out.

 

[Cain]

Actually, from the various links, it looks like it could happen to anyone, if \they've got something a greedy relative wants.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Can we agree that if she can only spend it strictly on what's allowed that it's not really her money? Wasn't that the crux of the disagreement?

The crux of the disagreement is that she effectively has no money of her own because her estate is strictly governed by others. I cannot agree that she effectively has no money of her own if she has a personal allowance in excess of 100k/year. It's been established that she does indeed possess this allowance. Now, if she has to beg each time she wants to spend it, or if every ten-dollar item needed the personal approval of her father, then I would say that fits the characterization of obscene control, but something like that has not been established.

The "prisoner" etc stuff in this thread is just overblown rhetoric that short-circuits critical thinking.

I don't need to believe in a conspiracy to think that anyone being treated this way is wrong.

I think a problem is that people believe this conservatorship is one of the worst things that could happen to her (or anyone), but before it took hold she was surrounded by grifters and out of control by the age of 26. In that unforgiving industry, performers are notorious for not making it to 28.

Most people only care about this case because it involves money and celebrity, two things that even well-adjusted people would have difficulty handling. There's also a huge difference between acquiring fame and riches later in life versus as a teenager, before full "executive function" develops.

Before the conservatorship, Spears had a credit card declined.

[Spears] ducks into the dressing room with Ghalib [a totally non-greedy member of the paparazzi who became her boyfriend because great life choices]. He emerges with her black Am Ex.

The card won’t go through, but they keep trying it.

“Please,” begs Ghalib, “get this done quickly.”

One of the girls runs to Britney’s dressing room, explaining the situation through a pink gauze curtain.

A wail emerges from the cubby — guttural, vile, the kind of base animalistic shriek only heard at a family member’s deathbed. ***** these bitches,” screams Britney, each word ringing out between sobs. “These idiots can’t do anything right!”

A new card finally goes through, but by then Britney is out the door, leaving her shirt on the ground and replacing it with the red top. ***** you, **** people, [f-word], [f-word], [f-word],” she keeps screaming.

...

[A young shopper] pulls herself up, mustering the strength to tap Britney’s shoulder. “Um, I’m from the South too,” she mumbles, “and I was wondering if I could get a picture with you for my little sister.”

Britney turns to Ghalib and grabs his arm. “I don’t want her talking to me!” she screams. She whirls around and stares the girl deep in the eyes, her lips almost vibrating with anger. “I don’t know who you think I am, bitch,” she snarls, “but I’m not that person.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/the-tragedy-of-britney-spears-2-254735/

Her father has had the court remove these people from Spears' life. He wins restraining order after restraining order. He even manages to have the court curb former associates' First Amendment rights in that they can't even speak publicly about Spears.

I suspect the court believes there is a worse alternative to the conservatorship, and that was Spears' life before the conservatorship. But this is all forgotten in the United States of Amnesia. In the public consciousness, Spears' identity has been rebranded: Victim.