dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Britney is 41 years old.
God, that makes me feel old.
God, that makes me feel old.
Free Britney!
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
The issue isn't even whether Spears has mental illness. The issue is whether she is so extremely unwell that she can't be treated -- or seek treatment for herself -- without applying a legal tool that is intended for people with advanced Alzheimer's or brain injuries. She is functional enough to make hundreds of millions of dollars in a grueling concert schedule, from which her conservators benefit greatly.
Most people with mental illness don't become prisoners of their greedy fathers.
Last edited:
//Slight Hijack//
That's weird. For some reason 41 was sticking in my head as her age as well. I could swear I heard her referred to her as that age in reporting of this dispute.
Probably a brain fart.
Belz...
Fiend God
Granted.
There's nothing "weasley" about what I said. You might think it was hyperbolic, although I wouldn't agree, but if you can't spend the money you have as you want, then it's not your money. You're the one who's being too literal.
I'm the one who provided the substance! What a ******* crock.
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
As I see it there are three aspects to these (and you did good to bring up and to discuss in such detail this issue here, that might otherwise not have drawn [many] people's attention [as likely it wouldn't have drawn mine]):
First, the broad principle of overreach and/or misuse of the principle and provisions of conversatorship. Like you've discussed yourself here, and as it, apparently, applies particularly to the aged. And as it might apply to Britney Spears as well.
Second, Britney Spear's specific case. It seems in her case it goes well beyond a general misuse of the provisions of conservatorship, into something approaching fraud. (For instance, after reading this thread I did some quick clicking around to check some of the facts for myself, and I came across this NYT article --- that I don't have the link just now, but shouldn't be too difficult to locate, either by someone else or else by me --- where the lawyer who'd originally testified against Britney and was instrumental in getting this conservatorship in place is on record saying she deeply regrets what she'd done, and that she thought at the time she was helping Britney, but has now come to see that she has been an inadvertent party to an exploitative arrangement.
And thirdly, and most conspicuously, that low-life of a father mooching off of Britney Spears. Apparently --- and I again reference that same NYT article, and should someone demand for it I guess I could hunt out the link again --- his own career was entirely pedestrian, not even a pedestrian professional but simply a pedestrian tradesman. (Which is not to denigrate pedestrian tradesmen in the slightest, but only to point out this man's qualifications or lack of them.) This man seems to have made a career of living off his daughter's earnings, and seems to have been doing it for years and years and years together, and doing it against his daughter's wishes. What exactly are this man's qualifications for handling this delicate situation, and this large estate, and in the process drawing a salary a fraction of which he'd have been hard pressed to earn otherwise? (And probably plenty of other perks as well, but there I guess Cain is right, one shouldn't claim that latter without being able to back up that claim.)
Thing is, regardless of the first two points, and even if it turns out that, first, conservatorship is a perfectly cromulent arrangement, and, two, that Britney's interests are best served by a conservatorship, even then, given that sh'e clearly paying top dollar, why on earth must she be saddled with this creep of a father who has no qualifications for the job, and whom she herself doesn't want around? Why has he been allowed to stick on against her wishes for long, he specifically?
This absolutely needs to be properly investigated, and, as Britney Spears herslef says (again in that NYT article), her father should be carted off to jail if it turns out that he's guilty of misrepresenting her case.
Last edited:
Cain
Straussian
I suspect the judge is aware of this. I also suspect the judge has a better understanding of Spears' mental illness than you, me, or the FreeBritney activists. Ideally, there's more public oversight, but medical records are by nature intensely private.
And Spears refuses to be re-evaluated.
It's strange how people are so confident in their proclamations while operating in relative darkness. The prisoner has a boyfriend she loves, access to social media, and tens of thousands of dollars.
I want to say most people with mental illness do not become multi-millionaires. This guy is a show-biz parent who raised Britney Spears. As far as I'm concerned, that's two strikes against him. Yet the judge consistently rules in his favor.
Even if the father is replaced, someone will inevitably benefit from overseeing her estate (death threats notwithstanding). The asset managers who do not take a fee are the ones who end up costing the most. It's also totally understandable that the state is predisposed to award a conservatorship to a family member.
Lots of people in the entertainment industry are capable of earning tons of money, but not managing it (example: Johnny Debt). That make tens of millions despite being fall-down drunks and drug-addicts. Maybe Britney Spears should have that same freedom to blow through a fortune that could sustain her bloodline for several generations. Excuse me if I have doubts about the people casting villains and engaging in overheated rhetoric.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
She refuses to be re-evaluated by the same people who put her in this position in the first place. I think that's an extremely reasonable stance.
Cain
Straussian
I think that when it comes to "permission," you have no idea what you're talking about. We don't really know the nature of this relationship, but that's not stopping people from filling in the blanks with their worst fears.
The evil government treats me like a child when it takes away MY money for Social Security. Never mind that I could get a much better return than the state, or that I have a credit score in excess of 800.
Agree to agree that you're wrong.
Except that is not her stated stance. She didn't say, "I am willing to be evaluated by a different team of court-appointed doctors". She just says, she doesn't want to be evaluated. Her implication is that she shouldn't have to be evaluated.
She is free to have that opinion; but, if the court doesn't agree, that is a reasonable stance.
Belz...
Fiend God
No, I think you don't know the nature of this relationship because you selectively discount some of the data we have, for no apparent reason, and then you presume that this ignorance extends to everyone.
No it doesn't. Now you're playing word games.
jollyroger85
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
- Messages
- 301
Excuse me for finding your forgiveness of such a brazen robbery of their fundamental rights sickening. People all over have a free to screw up their lives royally. The hearing for the conservativetorship back in 2008 was less than 10 minutes...... that only is incredibly fishy.
Bipolarism doesnt justify court mandated slavery.
jollyroger85
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
- Messages
- 301
The original hearing was under 10 minutes, the courts failed her 13 years ago, nothing they have to say at this point is reasonable, this is about nothing more than money and exploitation.
Yes, as an adult she should have the same freedom other adults have to make bad decisions. Johnny Depp was never put into conservatorship, despite far more serious misconduct, including crimes. "Sustain her bloodline?" What kind of drivel is that? The fact is that she has been permanently deprived of her rights through a legal process that was never intended for this purpose. It should be up to authorities to prove that her conservatorship is required for her own safety, not up to her to prove that it's not. And the state has no interest in "sustaining her bloodline."
If you look at her history, she became her family's meal ticket when she was about 11. They provided her with limited education and promoted her for maximum returns. Her father is an abusive drunk. The great tragedy of her life is that nobody called CPS when she really was a child, instead of treating her as one now.
The broader issue is that this could happen to anybody who has something somebody else wants. If you've got some money and some greedy relatives, look out. I repost this link:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-the-elderly-lose-their-rights
Ernie M
Graduate Poster
Yes:
The biggest hurdle to end the conservatorship is based on the decision/permission of one judge.
Why? One judge is the ultimate and sole decision-maker. No public courtroom jury will hear the facts and vote to end Britney's conservatorship.
This is one of the problems in a broken and corrupt probate court system.
Britney's conservatorship will be decided by one judge using their judicial discretion.
Judicial discretion means the judge can use their powers to make a decision based on his or her individualized evaluation, guided by the principles of law. Judicial discretion gives courts immense power which is exercised when legislature allows for it. [1]
source:
[1] Cornell Law School. "judicial discretion" Legal Information Institute.
Last edited:
It's actually worse than that. In criminal and civil proceedings, a judge's decisions and a jury's verdict can be appealed at multiple levels. In Spears' case, it doesn't appear that there's an appeals process. Our legal system was never intended to empower dictators.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
She did hire her own lawyer, and the court ruled that since she's not allowed to under the terms of her conservatorship that she could not have hired her own lawyer. If she does, then it's literally legally deemed not to have happened.
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
Truly amazing. The more one hears of this, the more bizarre --- and wholly outrageous --- the whole thing seems.
And, it occurs to me, apart from the legal effort, this is a case where public opinion, pubic outrage, if loud enough and concerted enough and over a large enough base, can actually help make a difference. Both to Britney Spear's individual case, as well as this bizarre institution, that is apparently often directed against the elderly. Many did not even know that such a bizarre system exists at all, like I didn't. It's good that it's all coming out into the open like this, and creating a public outcry.
Let's hope the public outcry results in reform, both for this specific case and, eventually, at a systemic level as well. Britney Spears is at least, while not young, but not elderly and incapacitated. She's young enough and healthy enough and lucid enough and, most importantly, popular enough, to have her case brought to people's attention. Imagine the plight of those elderly people who might be victims of this system. Who can they appeal to, to whose notice will those unfortunates bring their plight? Let's hope this case makes such a big splash that they too end up getting benefited, at a systemic level.
And, it occurs to me, apart from the legal effort, this is a case where public opinion, pubic outrage, if loud enough and concerted enough and over a large enough base, can actually help make a difference. Both to Britney Spear's individual case, as well as this bizarre institution, that is apparently often directed against the elderly. Many did not even know that such a bizarre system exists at all, like I didn't. It's good that it's all coming out into the open like this, and creating a public outcry.
Let's hope the public outcry results in reform, both for this specific case and, eventually, at a systemic level as well. Britney Spears is at least, while not young, but not elderly and incapacitated. She's young enough and healthy enough and lucid enough and, most importantly, popular enough, to have her case brought to people's attention. Imagine the plight of those elderly people who might be victims of this system. Who can they appeal to, to whose notice will those unfortunates bring their plight? Let's hope this case makes such a big splash that they too end up getting benefited, at a systemic level.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
I bet Johnny Depp wishes he had been under conservatorship, after blowing his entire wealth on a libel case against a p!sspoor hack in a populist tabloid SUN Dan Wootton, whom I promise you nobody ever read, let alone retained a memory of what he did write twenty nanoseconds later, for mentioning in passing Depp was a wife beater; known in the UK as 'banter'. Well Depp got the fan worship on the steps of the High Court but I bet he now wakes up in the morning thinking, 'OMG! WHAT WAS I THINKING?! Now the entire world knows I'm a wife beater...and I'll never work again...'
Maybe Depp is technically mentally ill but the effect of excess drug taking and alcohol can have the same serious impact on your behaviour...and consequent downfall. On the plus side, Britney has been protected from adverse publicity, blowing all of her money and will live confortably well into old age.