Free Britney!

[HansMustermann]

For a time they do, if they are incarcerated. Once their sentence has been served, most of their rights are restored though.

Depends on what rights we're talking about. I think in most sane countries even if you're a murderer on death row (which you wouldn't be in sane countries either), someone doesn't get to unilaterally decide to stick a IUD inside you.

Also, at least in the EU there's no such thing as forced labour even if you are a convict. Compulsory work is explicitly forbidden by chapter 1 article 5 of the EU Charter of fundamental rights. It's lumped together with slavery, because really that's what it is.

You may be given advantages if you do work in prison, but ultimately you still have the final word on whether you do it or not. You can't be coerced to go there and do that work, whether you want to or not.

Which it sounds like essentially she's been subjected to. Whether she's been given money for it or not, it sounds like someone else was deciding for her where she should go and what shows should she do.

 

[Belz...]

I hadn't heard about this until a couple of days ago when it "trended". That sounds like exploitation to me. A sordid affair.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Reporting from the New Yorker strongly suggests that the conservators, including Spears own father, are bleeding her fortune dry and treat the aging performer as little more than a cash cow. The attorney that administers her conservatorship is being paid over half a million a year. Spears describes her father threatening to sue her if she refuses to go on tour. Any resistance to this scheme results in exorbitant legal fees that she must pay for.

It's entirely possible that Spears' mental health is poor and erratic enough that a conservator is appropriate, but I don't see why her family, who have been treating her as their meal-ticket since she was a child, should be involved in any way.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/american-chronicles/britney-spears-conservatorship-nightmare

 

[Belz...]

What kind of parent does that?

 

[HansMustermann]

You're right. It's probably just a grand conspiracy and the courts are out to get her, too.

I don't know if the courts (as in plural) are out to get her, but as was mentioned before, conservatorship is supposed to be for people who are fundamentally unable to take care of themselves. Like someone who's got advanced Alzheimer's or whatever.

Someone who can be trusted to do tours, train and choreograph her backup dancers, give interviews, and so on... yeah, I have a hard time seeing how that qualifies. If you can trust her to not break down and do something stupid on stage, in front of a couple thousand people, after being on a bus all night, I don't see how it would count as yeah, but she couldn't do other less stressful stuff without someone ordering her around.

Also note that the standard is how well someone is able to function, not exactly what the diagnosed illness is. That's generally the standard in psychiatry these days. So I have a hard time believing that whatever may be in her medical file can change the fact that, yes, she seems perfectly capable of functioning in complex and stressful situations just fine.

Now I'm not saying that there's some conspiracy, but let's just say, it wouldn't exactly surprise me if it turns out some corruption was involved either.

 

[TragicMonkey]

If she's that mentally ill why would her best interests not be to retire quietly and concentrate on getting well, rather than performing? Surely she has amassed enough wealth to live comfortably. It's difficult to imagine how she could simultaneously be incapacitated enough to not run her own affairs but be well enough to continue a demanding public career.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

If she's that mentally ill why would her best interests not be to retire quietly and concentrate on getting well, rather than performing? Surely she has amassed enough wealth to live comfortably. It's difficult to imagine how she could simultaneously be incapacitated enough to not run her own affairs but be well enough to continue a demanding public career.

Considering it's costing her half a mil a year to pay her "guardians" for their services, she's in quite the cash crunch.

But yes, if reports of her wealth are even close to accurate (60 million), she could easily live off the interest alone and live a more normal life as a retiree, assuming she could get rid of these parasites.

 

[Bob001]

You're right. It's probably just a grand conspiracy and the courts are out to get her, too.
....

Read the links. That's exactly what it looks like.

 

[jollyroger85]

It’s funny, my assumption on the matter would be the conservatorship had been based heavily on mostly public perception. I’m sure every one of us knows a person in a much worse position or serious mental illness than her that still retains a lot more decision making power.

I think the whole thing is bizarre and I feel very badly for her.

Daddy wants to cling to his meal ticket forever....

 

[Bob001]

Considering it's costing her half a mil to pay her "guardians" for their services, she's in quite the cash crunch.
....

Quite a bit more than that, actually. Her court-appointed lawyer alone gets $520 grand. A lot of people have their thumbs in the pie.

Goetz appointed a probate lawyer named Sam Ingham as Spears’s advocate, and then granted the conservators’ petition to waive the requirement to notify her that any of this was happening. Ingham remains in the role; Spears covers his annual salary of five hundred and twenty thousand dollars.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/american-chronicles/britney-spears-conservatorship-nightmare

 

[Vixen]

But does she need a conservator? Does she need to have certain rights taken away, like the right to control her own money, or all the other things they apparently have control over? She is an adult, right? She has not been convicted of any crime as far as I am aware? (I admit that I am not a big follower of celebrity "news" and gossip, so there may be some things I am not aware of.)

At her age, being told "No, you cannot have another baby; you must use this IUD and only the conservator can allow you to remove it" is effectively like sterilization since she won't be fertile for much longer.

Kanye West is also bipolar, but he doesn't have a conservator. He is free to make his own decisions like any other adult. That doesn't necessarily mean they will be the best decisions. But adults are free to make poor decisions with their life and suffer the consequences. Many celebrities make tons of money and yet manage to fritter it all away. Mike Tyson is one who comes to mind. All the money he made from boxing, supposedly he spent it all and was broke at one time. But later he was able to make more money doing other things. So somehow people muddle through even after making poor decisions with their money.

You have to admit, however, that Kanye West was a very embarrassing public spectacle and went on to harm the image of his daughter, as well as triggering divorce proceedings by his angry wife. Should people who are mentally ill be allowed to put themselves up for public mockery? I recall the Who drummer acting extremely erratically and he was obviously 'not well'.

I am not saying Britney should have conservatorship, just that we may not know the other side of the story. Her manager has now quit saying that as she has announced her retirement from show business, he is no longer needed.

It could be that the upcoming hearing 14 July IIRC will finally free Britney of her shackles.

 

[Mike!]

A friend of mine from high school was in a slightly similar situation. His father was a doctor who had done rather well for himself. My friend was an only child, and a bit of a goofball. His parents were well aware of his semi-responsible lifestyle, and as such, had it written into their wills, that he would not have any control over the estate, save a monthly "allowance", until he turned 45. A lawyer his father trusted was put in charge of the trust after their passing. Unfortunately, the trust his father placed in said lawyer was misplaced, as the lawyer started siphoning large amounts from the estate my friend had virtually no control over, despite it being his alone.
He ended up hiring a lawyer of his own to fight to get control of the estate. In the end, his lawyers were triumphant in court, and control was taken away from the lawyer his father had placed in control. But that wasn't the end of the story. While the lawyers he hired did get control taken from the shyster, the court would not give my friend direct control, since he hadn't turned 45 yet, and the will was quite explicit about when he could have full control over the sizable estate. Unfortunately, my friend died in a motorcycle accident at age 42.

 

[Bob001]

....
This whole situation reminds me of those cases in the UK where parents with brain dead children were trying to release them from the hospitals care so they could take some completely futile "treatment" abroad. The hospital and doctors were legally prohibited from disclosing the child's diagnosis and status but the parents were allowed to go out in public and make public statements to the media and effectively lie about how all their child needed was to have this treatment and they would be cured.
....

Comparing a fully functioning adult woman who earns many millions of dollars in a demanding industry to a brain-dead child is just ridiculous. Spears has not even been allowed to hire her own lawyer to represent her interests as she sees fit. The public does have an interest in knowing whether anybody is being abused, and whether the legal process is complicit.

 

[Warp12]

If she's that mentally ill why would her best interests not be to retire quietly and concentrate on getting well, rather than performing? Surely she has amassed enough wealth to live comfortably. It's difficult to imagine how she could simultaneously be incapacitated enough to not run her own affairs but be well enough to continue a demanding public career.

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

“I just want my life back. And it’s been 13 years. And it’s enough. It’s been a long time since I’ve owned my money. And it’s my wish and my dream for all of this to end without being tested.”

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.

“Any time Britney wants to end her conservatorship, she can ask her lawyer to file a petition to terminate it; she has always had this right but in 13 years has never exercised it,” Vivian Lee Thoreen, a lawyer for Mr. Spears, said in a statement to People earlier this year.

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.

 

[Bob001]

.....
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.

She can't file a petition herself. Her lawyer, who was appointed by the court and is paid through the conservatorship, has to file it for her.

We don't have to believe everything she says to observe that a lot of people, especially including her father, have a strong financial interest in maintaining her current status. Most people with mental illness are treated without being permanently turned into legal children.

 

[HansMustermann]

I'd also add that apparently according to her, she wasn't even told that she could file a motion.

As for comparing it to people with mental problems, actually, it's even worse. Most people with mental illnesses can even refuse treatment, unless it's at the point where they're just short of brain dead. Like, you can literally be a schizophrenic living under a bridge, and refuse to be medicated. It's your right. At least as long as you're not actually endangering anyone.


Additionally, in her case, it's not even that mysterious or hard to form an opinion. If she's diagnosed as bipolar, it just means what was previously called "manic depressive." We're not talking about some terminal Alzheimer's case who might forget how to get home, or some aggressive schizophrenic whose voices in the head tell them to sacrifice their neighbour to Nyarlathotep. It's just manic depression. That's it. It's an illness affecting 2.9% of the males and 2.8% of females in the USA, and almost all of them can function perfectly (albeit not happily) in spite of it. It CAN be crippling if you end up curled up in a corner during the depressive phases, or such. BUT here's an idea: if you can trust someone to do concerts and whatnot, without a fear that they'll just curl up on the stage if the depressive phase hits, then no, it's not crippling enough.

 

[Michel H]

I wonder why she doesn't give an interview to Oprah Winfrey (or to another talk show host), like Prince Harry and Meghan Markle did.

This could perhaps help to clarify a few things (even for herself).

She seems to be very shy with respect to the media these days.

 

[Warp12]

She can't file a petition herself. Her lawyer, who was appointed by the court and is paid through the conservatorship, has to file it for her.

We don't have to believe everything she says to observe that a lot of people, especially including her father, have a strong financial interest in maintaining her current status. Most people with mental illness are treated without being permanently turned into legal children.

Sounds like more conspiracy stuff, to me.

"My precious body has worked for my dad for the past f--king 13 years, trying to be so good and pretty."

Does the above sound a little odd, coming from a 39-year-old woman?

Britney Spears' father Jamie Spears has filed legal documents calling for an investigation into the singer's claims of mistreatment, which she detailed in a scathing court statement against him and the 13-year conservatorship he continues to partially control.

In a petition filed in Los Angeles on Tuesday, June 29, and obtained by E! News, Jamie, 68, said he is "concerned about the management and care of his daughter," noting that for the past two years, he has not managed her personal or medical affairs. He does co-manage her estate with a financial company.

https://www.eonline.com/news/128513...estigate-alleged-conservatorship-mistreatment

But, I guess this is all part of the conspiracy.

 

[Bob001]

I wonder why she doesn't give an interview to Oprah Winfrey (or to another talk show host), like Prince Harry and Meghan Markle did.

This could perhaps help to clarify a few things (even for herself).

She seems to be very shy with respect to the media these days.

Her conservators control all aspects of her life. They would need to approve such an interview. Not likely.

 

[Chanakya]

Most people with mental illness, whether bipolar disorder or something else, are treated without losing all of their rights forever. If she was in extreme distress -- about which there seems to be some dispute -- she could have been committed to an institution and treated until she recovered. Conservatorships are for people who cannot recover, as from advanced Alzheimer's or severe brain damage, not for people who can work to earn hundreds of millions of dollars, from which her conservators benefit directly.

Regardless of one's views on convervatorships in general, or on the kinds of conditions might be applicable for such, or on whether Britney herself was of that condition, this much at least is surely entirely beyond any argument at all.

It is preposterous that her father has, apparently, benefited, and continues to benefit, from this situation. Not only should this situation be put to the strongest legal scrutiny, and put to right, but if there turns out to have been a misapplication on the conditions for convervatorship in this case, then the father should actually be prosecuted and sent behind bars. (Although I don't know what charges can be raised against him. Whatever applies, broadly, to fraud, maybe?)

A friend of mine from high school was in a slightly similar situation. His father was a doctor who had done rather well for himself. My friend was an only child, and a bit of a goofball. His parents were well aware of his semi-responsible lifestyle, and as such, had it written into their wills, that he would not have any control over the estate, save a monthly "allowance", until he turned 45. A lawyer his father trusted was put in charge of the trust after their passing. Unfortunately, the trust his father placed in said lawyer was misplaced, as the lawyer started siphoning large amounts from the estate my friend had virtually no control over, despite it being his alone.
He ended up hiring a lawyer of his own to fight to get control of the estate. In the end, his lawyers were triumphant in court, and control was taken away from the lawyer his father had placed in control. But that wasn't the end of the story. While the lawyers he hired did get control taken from the shyster, the court would not give my friend direct control, since he hadn't turned 45 yet, and the will was quite explicit about when he could have full control over the sizable estate. Unfortunately, my friend died in a motorcycle accident at age 42.

But that's a whole different situation.

That was your friend's father's money. He left it as he thought best. Was his judgement correct? Maybe, maybe not. Whether right or wrong, whether in fact in your friend's best interests or not, that money was his father's, to do with as he thought best at that time.

(Not condoning the lawyer's dishonesty and opportunism, obviously, but merely pointing out that this case is very different from the ...absolute abomination, wholly unfair and entirely divorced from common sense, that Britney's situation seems to be.)