• 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!

SuburbanTurkey said:
At least divorce is an option to dump a mooching husband. Spears' father is parasite that is going to prove extremely difficult to detach from her bank account.
Click to expand...

He's reportedly paid $16,000 a month, which works out to less than 200K/year. I assume that's a competitive rate given the size of the estate he oversees. There are two ways people tend to lose money: Gradually and suddenly. She makes far more in royalties than what she pays this guy. He was probably more exploitive before the courts were involved. That said, I don't see why she should not be allowed to breed or marry (with lawyers putting a prenup in place). Or why a showbiz parent who pimped his daughter out to this unforgiving industry as a child would still be in charge through adulthood (against her wishes). Then again, if I came to my senses, I wouldn't concern with this mentally ill, wildly over-paid deca-millionaire when the system mistreats people living on the street.
 
Cain said:
He's reportedly paid $16,000 a month, which works out to less than 200K/year. I assume that's a competitive rate given the size of the estate he oversees. There are two ways people tend to lose money: Gradually and suddenly. She makes far more in royalties than what she pays this guy. He was probably more exploitive before the courts were involved. That said, I don't see why she should not be allowed to breed or marry (with lawyers putting a prenup in place). Or why a showbiz parent who pimped his daughter out to this unforgiving industry as a child would still be in charge through adulthood (against her wishes). Then again, if I came to my senses, I wouldn't concern with this mentally ill, wildly over-paid deca-millionaire when the system mistreats people living on the street.
Click to expand...

"As to Britney's right to marry, that is unaffected by the conservatorship under Probate Code §1900. As to family planning, that is also unaffected by the conservatorship," Montgomery's attorney Lauriann Wright said in the statement obtained by PEOPLE. "If Britney needs any assistance with either, Ms. Montgomery has and will be there to provide any assistance needed to Britney.
Click to expand...

https://people.com/music/britney-sp...nning-marriage-unaffected-by-conservatorship/
 
Michel H said:
Perhaps they could make a verbal agreement, and give the (interview's) money to charity.

More generally, it is perhaps important for her to be proactive, and - why not - learn to disobey some rules (or bad habits) that are really bad (this might be useful to others in comparable situations). I am facing some legal issues related to an inheritance myself these days, and I have found it important to not be just a "yes man".
Click to expand...

You really don't understand. She is closely supervised. She can't even have her own phone. She can't make her own medical decisions. She can't see her children without her conservators' permission. More important, if she actively resists her conservators, they would use it as more evidence that she needs close supervision. I doubt that your "legal issues" are in any way comparable.
 
Cain said:
....
Then again, if I came to my senses, I wouldn't concern with this mentally ill, wildly over-paid deca-millionaire when the system mistreats people living on the street.
Click to expand...

The fact that she is a deca-millionaire (I dunno if she's overpaid in comparison with a lot of other stars of limited talent) is the root cause of her situation. People living on the streets don't have anything anybody wants.
 
Bob001 said:
You really don't understand. She is closely supervised. She can't even have her own phone. She can't make her own medical decisions. She can't see her children without her conservators' permission. More important, if she actively resists her conservators, they would use it as more evidence that she needs close supervision. I doubt that your "legal issues" are in any way comparable.
Click to expand...
My legal issues are, in a sense, serious, because, in my country (Belgium) (and in other countries or states too), inheritors have to pay an inheritance tax. This doesn't seem to be a problem, ... except when some demand you pay tax, not on what you have actually received, but on the amounts you are somehow expected to receive (but have not actually inherited, for various reasons, for example because of a relative who doesn't want to cooperate). Because of the fairly large sums of money involved, this can become a serious problem.
She can't even have her own phone.
Click to expand...
This is something that I don't find normal, and which should perhaps be met with resistance.
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
My legal issues are, in a sense, serious, because, in my country (Belgium) (and in other countries or states too), inheritors have to pay an iheritance tax. This doesn't seem to be a problem, ... except when some demand you pay tax, not on what you have actually received, but on the amounts you are somehow expected to receive (but have not actually inherited, for various reasons, for example because of a relative who doesn't want to cooperate). Because of the fairly large sums of money involved, this can become a serious problem.

This is something that I don't find normal, and which should perhaps be met with resistance.
Click to expand...

She has tried to resist. She has had people bring her burner phones. They have been forcibly taken away from her. Read the link.

And you might be less inclined to "resist" if somebody could arbitrarily take your entire inheritance away from you.
 
Bob001 said:
You really don't understand. She is closely supervised. She can't even have her own phone.
Click to expand...

Britney Spears is not impressed by what the kiddies have these days. The 39-year-old pop singer today revealed she’s gotten herself a new phone, although it was quite a while into her Tuesday Instagram share for the reveal to come. Earlier today, the “Toxic” singer updated for her 30.1 million followers with an old-fashioned, black-and-white photo recalling old times, ones long before the Grammy winner was even born. Britney was talking about the two “rascals” in the photo she shared. See her stream of consciousness below.
Click to expand...

https://theblast.com/6492517/britney-spears-unimpressed-by-technology-with-new-phone/
 
Warp12 said:
https://theblast.com/6492517/britney-spears-unimpressed-by-technology-with-new-phone/
Click to expand...


That's a new development., As recently as 2019, she was not allowed to have a smartphone. The original link describes the lengths she had to go to to use phones.
https://www.wonderwall.com/news/why...led-how-she-spends-days-rules-3019661.article

Also from the New Yorker link: Her posts have to be pre-approved.
Spears, according to her management, typically writes the posts and submits them to CrowdSurf, a company employed to handle her social media, which then uploads them. In rare cases, posts that raise legal questions have been deemed too sensitive to upload. “She’s not supposed to discuss the conservatorship,” the team member said.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Goddamn our society loves making messed up celebrities for itself to gawk at and then blaming the celebrities for their own messedupedness.
 
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.

Also, I suspect that some people here have never run into a serious case of bipolar disorder. Full-blown manic episodes go way past fun and straight into psychosis. I know this because my first husband is bipolar. He'd only had one manic episode when we married, and it had just been written off as teenage wildness. At first he was so slow-cycling that it took a very long time for him to be properly diagnosed, and it wasn't until he was in the hospital with 2 broken legs that he was finally diagnosed and began treatment. The reason he had 2 broken legs is that he'd jumped off a second-story roof. To escape the police. Who were there because he was burglarizing a pawnshop. To get a handgun so he could hijack a car. Because he wanted to go visit someone on the other side of the country.

Did I mention he'd never learned to drive? That is the logic of mania.

On the flipside of the coin, people will be plunged into abject despair so deep that they feel unworthy to even be seen by other people, to breathe air, or to take up space. The suicide rate is very high for uncontrolled bipolar syndrome.

My ex has been stable for long stretches, but too often, in his and other cases, the drugs will just stop working suddenly and only if you find an entirely new drug that works well before the mania sets in will you avoid the collapse of your entire world.

This is why I have trouble with both sides of this story, and think it is best sorted out by a panel of people who have no connection to either side.

And for those who are interested, said ex is currently in supportive housing, no longer self-medicating, and trying to pick up the scraps of his life once again, after several years spent being one of the ranting street crazies of the Bay Area.
 
deadrose said:
.....
And for those who are interested, said ex is currently in supportive housing, no longer self-medicating, and trying to pick up the scraps of his life once again, after several years spent being one of the ranting street crazies of the Bay Area.
Click to expand...


I note that what you describe is vastly worse than anything Spears ever did, yet your ex apparently was never placed in a conservatorship. But he probably wasn't making multi-millions.

Once again, the point is not that Spears didn't need help; it's that mental illness can be and usually is treated with far less extreme measures than were imposed on her.
 
Chanakya said:
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?)






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.)
Click to expand...

It is quite wrong to suggest that administrators of a case can just help themselves to whatever fees they like. It is usually set out in a contract the maximum that can be taken as fees. Unfortunately, such positions do tend to be well-remunerated but it will be all set out.
 
Vixen said:
It is quite wrong to suggest that administrators of a case can just help themselves to whatever fees they like.
.....
Click to expand...

They can if they think they can get away with it. And lax supervision means they often do.

Again:
In the United States, a million and a half adults are under the care of guardians, either family members or professionals, who control some two hundred and seventy-three billion dollars in assets, according to an auditor for the guardianship fraud program in Palm Beach County. Little is known about the outcome of these arrangements, because states do not keep complete figures on guardianship cases—statutes vary widely—and, in most jurisdictions, the court records are sealed.
Click to expand...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-the-elderly-lose-their-rights
 
Last edited:
Did I say my ex wasn't in conservatorship? His brother is in charge of his money and other things. This is how he managed to get out of jail and into supportive housing instead of his usual cycle of release and arrest (for fighting, vagrancy, etc).

Also we have no idea what Spears may have done outside of the public eye.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom