• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Free Britney!

Warp12 said:
I have no problem with her generalizing.

The problem is, any rational person would likely be demanding an evaluation, if they understood that was probably key in their freedom. They might insist upon a certain group of "evaluators", or demand that a certain group be excluded.

But to say, to paraphrase, "I want out immediately, but not if I have to get another "stupid" evaluation"? That just sounds pretty ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I can allow the possibility that her rationality is compromised. In fact it would be surprising if it weren't. That is not the same is delusional.
 
"LOL we destroyed the mental state of a little girl and now we're going to make a big showy production out of not trusting her to run her own life as an adult."
 
tyr_13 said:
Exactly this.

Conservatorships are supposed to be only for the most extreme situations, and yet 'hasn't behaved in our definition of optimally for a woman' consistently gets cited as evidence of mental impairment for her.
Click to expand...

I thought earlier about posting that I might detect a hint of sexism in those kinds of decisions, but not knowing the proportion of men and women in conservatorships I elected against it.
 
TomB said:
Jamie is a dependent.
Click to expand...

That is certainly my biggest problem with the situation, and appears from my perspective to be the problem that most proponents and advocates for Spears' liberty have with the situation. Jamie Spears lives in luxury as his daughter's conservator and has no known fallbacks if that situation were to end apart from Britney's own goodwill towards him - which it is now abundantly clear has been effectively destroyed by his "management". As a result he has a personal stake in her conservatorship continuing for as long as possible - a conflict of interest that ought to render him ineligible to be her conservator.
 
Basically whatever value the Conservatorship might have is overshadowed by the fact that one party has a vested interest in keeping the other person in it beyond the other person's best interests.
 
JoeMorgue said:
According to Forbes Britney Spears has a net worth of about 60 million.

James Spears could live like a king for the rest of his life already. What's the plan to work Britney to death just for the hell of it?

(And yes I know the answer is greed for the sake of greed.)
Click to expand...


There could be issues of hate, cruelty, and sadism, towards Britney. A malicious desire to control someone.

I get the sense therein lies schadenfreud: Pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune.

Yes, greed could be the only reason. But I hypothesize that greed and schadenfreude are behind James Parnell "Jamie" Spears' conservatorship control over his daughter Britney Spears.
 
Ernie M said:
There could be issues of hate, cruelty, and sadism, towards Britney. A malicious desire to control someone.

I get the sense therein lies schadenfreud: Pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune.
.
Click to expand...

Also, using the same logic, Sasquatch.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Basically whatever value the Conservatorship might have is overshadowed by the fact that one party has a vested interest in keeping the other person in it beyond the other person's best interests.
Click to expand...

That is what my Attorney sister does not get about this case. Standard Procedure in setting up a conservatorship is that the person adminstering it has nothing to gain from it and any payment would be a basic fee for services. She tbinks the lawyer involved in setting up the SPears concervatoiship is the kind of slezebag attorney that gives lawyers a bad name.
 
Warp12 said:
Ernie M said:
There could be issues of hate, cruelty, and sadism, towards Britney. A malicious desire to control someone.

I get the sense therein lies schadenfreud: Pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune.

Yes, greed could be the only reason. But I hypothesize that greed and schadenfreude are behind James Parnell "Jamie" Spears' conservatorship control over his daughter Britney Spears.
Click to expand...


Also, using the same logic, Sasquatch.
Click to expand...


No. Greed is the intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food. And greed could be the only reason why Jamie Spears wants to be a conservator in the conservatorship.

Or, there could be an altruistic position that Jamie wants the conservatorship because he's sincerely looking out for Britney's best interests (and no greed).

But, given the family dynamics, imposed limitations, and controlling circumstances, and Britney's address to Judge Brenda Penny on June 23, 2021, I believe there's more to Britney's abusive conservatorship than if it's just greed.

I get the sense it's more than greed that lurks in Jamie Spears' thoughts, feelings, and actions. And that, I hypothesize, is schadenfreude.

While greed could be the only factor that plays into abusive, exploitive, and fraudulent conservatorships, I hypothesize that schadenfreude plays a significant role in the hate, cruelty, and sadism that abusive conservators or guardians unleash upon their conservatee or ward.

I'm trying to understand and explain how people can be so full of hate, so cruel, and so sadistic in their control and manipulation over a fellow human being, even if the person is family. Look at the harm, look at the trauma, look at the unjust deaths.

A conservator or guardian can control every aspect of a conservative's or ward's life: property, finances, medical decisions, housing, social relationships; they can isolate you from your family, put you in a nursing home and medicate you until you die. That's how most people get out of a conservatorship or guardianship– they die.

Abusive conservatorships, guardianships and power of attorney needs to be exposed. Broken systems need to be corrected. Abusers need to be held accountable. Abuse needs to stop.

Free Britney.

And keep in mind the big picture: all abusive, exploitive, and fraudulent conservatorship / guardianship / power of attorney needs to stop.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
Empathy is highly overrated.
Click to expand...

139035361828.png
 
That could be the case, but history has shown that greed alone is enough of a motivation to justify all manner of control and abuse.

I haven't personally seen evidence that Jaime positively wants his daughter to suffer. I am content to believe it is only self-interest that drives him. Like any Hollywood parent, he doesn't want to see the end of the gravy train; and he has lucked out in the sense that a single bad episode - not vastly worse than many other child performers have gone through at the low-points of their lives - provided him with this rare opportunity to convince a court to legally suspend his money-child's adulthood indefinitely and give him personal control over every dollar she earns, and frame even mere dissatisfaction with her personal situation or any expressed desire to stop performing and settle down as "evidence" that she is "irrational" or even "mentally ill" and thus proof that the conservatorship should continue.
 
Warp12 said:
I have no problem with her generalizing.

The problem is, any rational person would likely be demanding an evaluation, if they understood that was probably key in their freedom. They might insist upon a certain group of "evaluators", or demand that a certain group be excluded.

But to say, to paraphrase, "I want out immediately, but not if I have to get another "stupid" evaluation"? That just sounds pretty ridiculous.
Click to expand...

What if that rational person thought that an evaluation was just an excuse to keep her in the conservatorship for longer, as had been the case for her entire adult life? In that case I think it would be rational to say, "Look, I don't need an evaluation, whatever such an evaluation may show, I shouldn't be in this conservatorship."

That reaction seems entirely reasonable to me.
 
A broader view of conservatorships.
Shira Wakschlag, senior director of legal advocacy and general counsel at The Arc — an organization that helps people with intellectual and developmental disabilities — told Salon that one of the problems in the Spears case, and for disabled people more generally (it is unclear whether Spears herself is disabled due to mental health issues), is that they simply are not taken seriously. This is evident in the fact that Spears is merely asserting basic constitutional rights, like being able to choose her own counsel or make choices about her own body, and has to go to such lengths to convince people to receive them.
Click to expand...
https://www.salon.com/2021/07/16/br...s-against-those-who-live-with-mental-illness/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom