• 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:
The majority of the people in this thread have no concept of mental illness, and what that might mean, lol.
Click to expand...

What you don't understand -- or pretend to -- is that "mental illness," however defined, is rarely a legitimate reason to place someone into a lifetime conservatorship, and people who are legitimately placed in conservatorship are much more likely to be suffering from advance dementia or severe physical disability than mental illness.
 
Last edited:
xjx388 said:
Conservatorships aren’t designed to make people behave properly or ensure that they never make bad decisions. They are supposed to be designed to step in for people who are so incapacitated that they can’t handle their own affairs. They are supposed to, as Matthew Best pointed out, conserve an incapacitated person’s assets so that they can be properly cared for throughout their lives.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the thing. The speculative argument that Spears' bank balance is currently higher than it probably would have been if there had been no conservatorship, for instance, is specious; making money isn't the purpose of a conservatorship - nor is it, as you say, to act as a check against a spendthrift lifestyle. Conservatorships are supposed to be used in cases like a person being physically or mentally unable to perform the act of paying a bill, or are of such a degraded mental state that they will write their name upon request by anyone and on anything because they no longer understand what a signature is or what it enables.
 
Warp12 said:
gnome said:
It's thought terminating because, whether accurate or not, it dismisses the conversation.

If you don't think we're all qualified to talk about it, why participate?

If all you want to do is say that you don't think we know what we're talking about, your position is clear by now.
Click to expand...

Why is anyone posting in this thread? To express their opinion, that's why.

Some were hoping strictly for a cheerleading session, I think. Well, those people should be mostly happy, I think.
Click to expand...


Hi Warp12,

I post to show how EASY it is to get a corrupt and abusive conservatorship/guardianship over someone that deprives a vulnerable person of their quality of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law. I want to make public how easy it is to isolate someone, unjustly medicate, rob them of their dignity/friends/family/possessions/of their will…and kill them for financial gain.
 
Warp12 said:
The majority of the people in this thread have no concept of mental illness, and what that might mean, lol.
Click to expand...

How do you think people are misunderstanding mental illness, and how does that misunderstanding impact on whether or not Britney should be in a conservatorship?
 
Checkmite said:
This is exactly the thing. The speculative argument that Spears' bank balance is currently higher than it probably would have been if there had been no conservatorship, for instance, is specious; making money isn't the purpose of a conservatorship - nor is it, as you say, to act as a check against a spendthrift lifestyle. Conservatorships are supposed to be used in cases like a person being physically or mentally unable to perform the act of paying a bill, or are of such a degraded mental state that they will write their name upon request by anyone and on anything because they no longer understand what a signature is or what it enables.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Warp12 said:
The majority of the people in this thread have no concept of mental illness, and what that might mean, lol.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, some of us do.

Personal anecdote: I have been in a long-term relationship (close to 20 years) with someone who is currently in her final year for a master's degree in mental health care policy, has been accepted for a PhD in the same subject starting next year, speaks regularly at mental health care conferences, has been published in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of mental health care and government policy, and has also been diagnosed with PTSD and Bipolar II and works as an advocate for mental health care consumers. She and I have had more than a few conversations on the subject. While I don't attempt to claim that this makes me an expert or an authority on the subject, I happen know a fair bit about it.
 
Perhaps "hastened death" would've been more appropriate to use than the word "kill" in my post 406? I don't know.

An example could be where a conservatee or ward is give antipsychotic medication (for which they have no need), and where the medication makes them lethargic and stay in bed and not move around, that in turn could potentially cause illness through bed sores, and/or fluid build-up in the lungs leading to (deadly case of) pneumonia.

One way pneumonia could potentially be caused by frailty by indicator of low physical activity.

According to the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP), approximately 2.5 million patients develop pressure ulcers each year and 60,000 die as a direct result of these injuries. People who are bedridden or spend significant time in a bed or a chair and cannot shift positions on their own are at risk, according to "What Every Caregiver Should Know About Bed Sores," Carol Bradley Bursack, AgingCare.​

A conservatee's or ward's death could perhaps be caused or hastened by someone who may benefit financially.

"Legal Issues Related to Elder Abuse, A Desk Guide for Law Enforcement," by Lori A. Stiegel, JD. The American Bar Association, Commission on Law and Aging, 2015, describes in multiple chapters, "...to consider whether death may have been caused or hastened by someone who may benefit financially."

I'm not implying or saying anyone tried to kill Britney Spears, and please don't infer that.

This is just a general mention that typically a person only gets out of a conservatorship or guardianship by dying.
 
arthwollipot said:
On the other hand, some of us do.

Personal anecdote: I have been in a long-term relationship (close to 20 years) with someone who is currently in her final year for a master's degree in mental health care policy, has been accepted for a PhD in the same subject starting next year, speaks regularly at mental health care conferences, has been published in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of mental health care and government policy, and has also been diagnosed with PTSD and Bipolar II and works as an advocate for mental health care consumers. She and I have had more than a few conversations on the subject. While I don't attempt to claim that this makes me an expert or an authority on the subject, I happen know a fair bit about it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps most relevant, despite being diagnosed with mental illness she is a functioning adult who has not been placed in a conservatorship, right?
 
Bob001 said:
Perhaps most relevant, despite being diagnosed with mental illness she is a functioning adult who has not been placed in a conservatorship, right?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Despite being diagnosed with the same mental illness as Britney Spears - bipolar disorder - she is a functioning adult who has not been placed in a conservatorship.
 
Two reporters talk about the case. This stood out:
Yeah, I think Britney’s case is both extremely unique, but also universal in some ways to the guardianship or conservatorship system. Britney’s is very unusual [in] that she’s actively going out and performing and making money. So she’s a very unusual conservatee. Her own lawyer has called her a high-functioning conservatee, which conservatorship experts have noted is an oxymoron in the conservatorship system. If you’re high-functioning, how are you a conservatee?
The other thing that’s very interesting about Britney performing is that the conservators of the estate have the ability to enter into contracts for her. She’s the one doing the work, yet she’s not the one legally who is even able to consent and sign the deal. That raises all sorts of questions when her father, as conservator of the estate, is being paid not only a salary, but also was approved by the court to get a percentage of various deals that are multimillion-dollar deals. If he makes a decision for Britney to do a second Las Vegas residency, is that because it’s in her best interest? Or because he could make a percentage of that deal?
Click to expand...
https://www.propublica.org/article/...obsession-with-britney-spears-conservatorship

So she is bound by contracts that she didn't sign or approve? What does that sound like?
 
Checkmite said:
This is exactly the thing. The speculative argument that Spears' bank balance is currently higher than it probably would have been if there had been no conservatorship, for instance, is specious; making money isn't the purpose of a conservatorship - nor is it, as you say, to act as a check against a spendthrift lifestyle. Conservatorships are supposed to be used in cases like a person being physically or mentally unable to perform the act of paying a bill, or are of such a degraded mental state that they will write their name upon request by anyone and on anything because they no longer understand what a signature is or what it enables.
Click to expand...

In theory, from the standpoint of those handling Britney's conservatorship, it's pretty obvious the goal is to keep daddy's cash cow performing and making money and daddy controlling that money. It's called exploitation and it's not what Conservatorships are for.

Those advocating that she should be in this situation (You know who you are), may as well advocate for legalizing slavery. This situation isnt far off.
 
Bob001 said:
Two reporters talk about the case. This stood out:
Quote:
Yeah, I think Britney’s case is both extremely unique, but also universal in some ways to the guardianship or conservatorship system. Britney’s is very unusual [in] that she’s actively going out and performing and making money. So she’s a very unusual conservatee. Her own lawyer has called her a high-functioning conservatee, which conservatorship experts have noted is an oxymoron in the conservatorship system. If you’re high-functioning, how are you a conservatee?
The other thing that’s very interesting about Britney performing is that the conservators of the estate have the ability to enter into contracts for her. She’s the one doing the work, yet she’s not the one legally who is even able to consent and sign the deal. That raises all sorts of questions when her father, as conservator of the estate, is being paid not only a salary, but also was approved by the court to get a percentage of various deals that are multimillion-dollar deals. If he makes a decision for Britney to do a second Las Vegas residency, is that because it’s in her best interest? Or because he could make a percentage of that deal?
Click to expand...
https://www.propublica.org/article/...obsession-with-britney-spears-conservatorship

So she is bound by contracts that she didn't sign or approve? What does that sound like?
Click to expand...


I get the sense it sounds like systemically-broken & corrupt systems that take advantage of vulnerable people.

It's important to know how this all started. What was the intent of the conservatorship, and what was the intent of everyone involved?

Just one of many problematic issues in the broken-probate-courts is that one judge makes decisions/rulings using their judicial discretion, that in effect make things...'legal.'

One judge is the ultimate and sole decision-maker. No public courtroom jury will hear the facts and vote to end Britney's conservatorship.

A judge's (improper) decision/ruling could be a result of legal error, judicial misconduct or a combination of the two.

A judge can say they ruled/decided based on a court investigator, and/or information from the lawyers.

Good luck trying to find accountability; there'll be a lot of finger-pointing between lawyers, court investigators, and the judge.

It's important to know The Who/what/where/when/why/how, of Britney's conservatorship.

What role did her family play?
What role did the judge(s) play?
What role did the attorneys play?
What role did others play?
What role do broken systems of protection play?
What role as to lack of accountability play?
Lack of oversight.
Systemic issues, not just specific to the abusive situation Britney's in.

It needs to be understood what's in the medical files of James Edward Spar, M.D., who evaluated Britney Spears and how those evaluation were done; the judge in 2008 (I believe is Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Reva Garfunkel Goetz) who apparently wouldn't show a medical report to Britney's choice of hired legal counsel Adam Streisand and ruled on making the conservatorship with court-appointed lawyer Samuel Ingham III; and co-conservator Andrew Wallet.

There's a lot that stinks about Britney's abusive conservatorship.

Free Britney.

Hold the abusers accountable.
 
Last edited:
You figure at some point the fact that Britney, by amazing coincidence for well over a decade stayed just crazy enough to not have any control of her own life but just sane enough to keep touring, recording, acting, and making her conservators money would raise a few red flags.
 
JoeMorgue said:
You figure at some point the fact that Britney, by amazing coincidence for well over a decade stayed just crazy enough to not have any control of her own life but just sane enough to keep touring, recording, acting, and making her conservators money would raise a few red flags.
Click to expand...

The original Conservator hearing was 10 minutes, none of the failsafe considerations could have been properly weighed in so small an amount of time.
 
jollyroger85 said:
Those advocating that she should be in this situation (You know who you are), may as well advocate for legalizing slavery. This situation isnt far off.
Click to expand...

No, no, no. This is slavery only for those suffering from mental illness. That makes it better, somehow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom