• 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!

Cain said:
The crux of the disagreement is that she effectively has no money of her own because her estate is strictly governed by others. I cannot agree that she effectively has no money of her own if she has a personal allowance in excess of 100k/year. It's been established that she does indeed possess this allowance. Now, if she has to beg each time she wants to spend it, or if every ten-dollar item needed the personal approval of her father, then I would say that fits the characterization of obscene control, but something like that has not been established.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough you did not say if it woud also fit the characterisation of it not being her money. Would you still say that it is even if she can only spend it as someone else directs?
 
Cain said:
I suspect the court believes there is a worse alternative to the conservatorship, and that was Spears' life before the conservatorship. But this is all forgotten in the United States of Amnesia. In the public consciousness, Spears' identity has been rebranded: Victim.
Click to expand...

Which is a completely accurate description if all that has happened is that being out of control and surrounded by grifters has been replaced by different people exploiting her in a more orderly fashion. I think it's completely fair to challenge if the people controlling most of her life truly have her interests in mind instead of their own.
 
Last edited:
Cain said:
.....
I suspect the court believes there is a worse alternative to the conservatorship, and that was Spears' life before the conservatorship. But this is all forgotten in the United States of Amnesia. In the public consciousness, Spears' identity has been rebranded: Victim.
Click to expand...

The point is that those are not the only alternatives. Mental illness can be and usually is treated without taking away someone's civil life forever. As numerous links attest, conservatorship is intended for someone who is severely, permanently disabled, usually as a result of physical illness or injury, not someone experiencing a youthful crisis who can go on to earn many millions in a grueling career. And as Spears' father by all accounts contributed a lot to creating her problems, he's the last person in the world who should be controlling her life. She's an adult woman; when does she get to act like one?

The ACLU is on her side.
https://www.aclu.org/podcast/why-br..._conservatorship_cultivation-pod_gradead_sail
 
Bob001 said:
The point is that those are not the only alternatives. Mental illness can be and usually is treated without taking away someone's civil life forever. As numerous links attest, conservatorship is intended for someone who is severely, permanently disabled, usually as a result of physical illness or injury, not someone experiencing a youthful crisis who can go on to earn many millions in a grueling career. And as Spears' father by all accounts contributed a lot to creating her problems, he's the last person in the world who should be controlling her life. She's an adult woman; when does she get to act like one?

The ACLU is on her side.
https://www.aclu.org/podcast/why-br..._conservatorship_cultivation-pod_gradead_sail
Click to expand...

A Conservativorship must be:

Temporary....
Only considered after every other lesser extreme has been exhausted
Subject to regular review

Britney's situation was decided in under 10 minutes, making it HIGHLY unlikley any of these were satisfied.

And yes, Mental Illness is not sufficient grounds for a permanent conservatorship. Daddy has effectively enslaved his meal ticket and she deserves her life back, even if she screws it up completely. This is court overreach in the extreme.
 
From the California Courts Web site for Mental Health Based Conservatorships for those harping on the Bipolar thing:

https://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-conservatorship.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en

A mental health (LPS) conservatorship makes one adult (called the “conservator”) responsible for a mentally ill adult (called the “conservatee”). LPS conservatorships MUST be started by a local government agency, usually a county’s Public Guardian or Public Conservator.

LPS conservatorships last for only 1 year. If they are needed longer than that, they must be restarted and the conservator must be reappointed by the court. The government agency may recommend that a family member of the conservatee be appointed as LPS conservator, but this happens usually only after the first year.

These conservatorships are only for adults who are gravely disabled as a result of a mental illness listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The most common mental illnesses are serious, biological brain disorders, like:

Schizophrenia,
Bipolar disorder (manic depression),
Schizo-affective disorder,
Clinical depression, and
Obsessive-compulsive disorder.

LPS conservatorships are not for people with organic brain disorders, brain trauma, developmental disability, alcohol or drug addiction, or dementia, unless they also have one of the serious mental illnesses listed in the DSM.
 
From the same url:



As a conservatee, you generally keep the right to:

Directly receive and control your own salary;
Make or change your will;
Get married (unless a judge has determined you do not have the capacity to do so);
Get mail;
Get visits from family and friends (unless a judge has ordered restrictions on visits or other contact with you);
Have a lawyer;
Ask a judge to change conservators;
Ask a judge to end the conservatorship;
Vote, unless a judge says you are not able to;
Control personal spending money if a judge says you can have an allowance paid directly to you;
Make your own health-care decisions, unless a judge gives that right to a conservator;
Enter into business transactions to provide for your basic needs and those of your children;
Participate in other activities the court allows you to do when the conservator is appointed, or when a court order later gives you that right if you ask for it.
 
Maybe Spears was making bad decisions about how to live her life and who to associate with prior to the conservatorship. Maybe she was even better off after the judge ordered the conservatorship. I don't really care: those bad decisions were hers to make. I don't see a place for the legal system to interfere in people's lives in this way.

Moreover, those bad decisions were also hers to unmake at any time. If she realized that she was surrounded by parasites she could simply stop associating with those people, and if necessary get exactly those restraining orders that her father got, herself. Whether or not she wants to do that is her own business.

If someone else could show that those people were exploiting her without her consent, then there should be some way to separate her from them, but if she was a fully consenting party, it should be up to her to associate with whoever she chooses, whether that's a self-destructive choice or not.
 
Belz... said:
Interestingly enough you did not say if it woud also fit the characterisation of it not being her money. Would you still say that it is even if she can only spend it as someone else directs?
Click to expand...

It's all her money. Obviously she does not control the money that she does not control. As noted more than once... that's kinda the point. Spears' complaint in court was that her vacations were not long enough, and she could not go to the acupuncturist or nail salon during the pandemic (even though her maids could!). SO unfair. A self-described "powerful woman" and her nails pale in comparison to the help.

gnome said:
I think it's completely fair to challenge if the people controlling most of her life truly have her interests in mind instead of their own.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the system in place has the advantage of government oversight.

Roboramma said:
Maybe Spears was making bad decisions about how to live her life and who to associate with prior to the conservatorship. Maybe she was even better off after the judge ordered the conservatorship. I don't really care: those bad decisions were hers to make. I don't see a place for the legal system to interfere in people's lives in this way.

Moreover, those bad decisions were also hers to unmake at any time. If she realized that she was surrounded by parasites she could simply stop associating with those people, and if necessary get exactly those restraining orders that her father got, herself. Whether or not she wants to do that is her own business.
Click to expand...


The problem here is that autonomy is not just undermined from outside interference; a person experiencing a psychotic episode can do lasting harm when they are "not themselves." It's especially pernicious precisely because such harm might not be reversible. Good things usually take time; bad things happen suddenly. We spend decades and a lot of resources to raise an infant to adulthood. That same person can be killed in an instant.

As noted earlier, she didn't know she could challenge the conservatorship until recently. Maybe she'll win.
 
Cain said:
Be afraid. Be very afraid.




The crux of the disagreement is that she effectively has no money of her own because her estate is strictly governed by others. I cannot agree that she effectively has no money of her own if she has a personal allowance in excess of 100k/year. It's been established that she does indeed possess this allowance. Now, if she has to beg each time she wants to spend it, or if every ten-dollar item needed the personal approval of her father, then I would say that fits the characterization of obscene control, but something like that has not been established.

The "prisoner" etc stuff in this thread is just overblown rhetoric that short-circuits critical thinking.




I think a problem is that people believe this conservatorship is one of the worst things that could happen to her (or anyone), but before it took hold she was surrounded by grifters and out of control by the age of 26. In that unforgiving industry, performers are notorious for not making it to 28.

Most people only care about this case because it involves money and celebrity, two things that even well-adjusted people would have difficulty handling. There's also a huge difference between acquiring fame and riches later in life versus as a teenager, before full "executive function" develops.

Before the conservatorship, Spears had a credit card declined.



https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/the-tragedy-of-britney-spears-2-254735/

Her father has had the court remove these people from Spears' life. He wins restraining order after restraining order. He even manages to have the court curb former associates' First Amendment rights in that they can't even speak publicly about Spears.

I suspect the court believes there is a worse alternative to the conservatorship, and that was Spears' life before the conservatorship. But this is all forgotten in the United States of Amnesia. In the public consciousness, Spears' identity has been rebranded: Victim.
Click to expand...

To be fair, who hasn't suffered 'phone rage' of the vile gutteral animal type? :D


[Spears] ducks into the dressing room with Ghalib [a totally non-greedy member of the paparazzi who became her boyfriend because great life choices]. He emerges with her black Am Ex.

The card won’t go through, but they keep trying it.

“Please,” begs Ghalib, “get this done quickly.”

One of the girls runs to Britney’s dressing room, explaining the situation through a pink gauze curtain.

A wail emerges from the cubby — guttural, vile, the kind of base animalistic shriek only heard at a family member’s deathbed. ***** these bitches,” screams Britney, each word ringing out between sobs. “These idiots can’t do anything right!”

A new card finally goes through, but by then Britney is out the door, leaving her shirt on the ground and replacing it with the red top. ***** you, **** people, [f-word], [f-word], [f-word],” she keeps screaming.
Click to expand...
 
Wow, Vixen, that is pretty ******* cruel.

Maybe I'm misreading your tone, but you sound gleeful, like those vultures on TMZ (or whatever it was called back then) when poor Britney first got into trouble.

What is the big deal about someone having a flip-out?
 
Last edited:
Butter! said:
Wow, Vixen, that is pretty ******* cruel.

Maybe I'm misreading your tone, but you sound gleeful, like those vultures on TMZ (or whatever it was called back then) when poor Britney first got into trouble.

What is the big deal about someone having a flip-out?
Click to expand...

That's not my quote. Try Cain, who was quoting ROLLING STONE as an example of Britney's 'instability'.
 
Amanda Bynes is another former child star whose parents had to put her under a conservatorship due to mental illness and extremely erratic behavior. In my opinion, her actions leading up to this court decision were much more over-the-top than Britney's, but that's neither here nor there. If you look into Bynes's situation a bit, I think it gives a somewhat better idea of what this kind of arrangement should look like.

Obviously, 'm not privy to what goes on behind closed doors, but Bynes's family really seems to be trying to help her (especially compared to the Spearses). The arrangement is regularly reviewed, distinctions are drawn between financial, medical, and other types of legal control, etc. Amanda still isn't happy about it, by all indications, but I don't imagine that many conservatees who understand their situations are thrilled about them. There's still a "right way" to do things.
 
Vixen said:
That's not my quote. Try Cain, who was quoting ROLLING STONE as an example of Britney's 'instability'.
Click to expand...

I started skipping his posts, so I'm sorry, my mistake.

Cain, I know you're probably playing the delightful contrarian game again, but with something like this, it just sounds like misogyny and light sanctioning of Huxley-esque state control of people's brains. This one shaved her head and screamed at a reporter, can't have that! Off to the adult reconditioning center.
 
Roboramma said:
Maybe Spears was making bad decisions about how to live her life and who to associate with prior to the conservatorship. Maybe she was even better off after the judge ordered the conservatorship. I don't really care: those bad decisions were hers to make. I don't see a place for the legal system to interfere in people's lives in this way.

Moreover, those bad decisions were also hers to unmake at any time. If she realized that she was surrounded by parasites she could simply stop associating with those people, and if necessary get exactly those restraining orders that her father got, herself. Whether or not she wants to do that is her own business.

If someone else could show that those people were exploiting her without her consent, then there should be some way to separate her from them, but if she was a fully consenting party, it should be up to her to associate with whoever she chooses, whether that's a self-destructive choice or not.
Click to expand...


Its been reported that she has wanted her dad out of her life for years making the abusive exploitation of this court appointed slavery all the obvious. It should have never happened in the first place and in the case f a ten minute hearing you cannot convince me all the nessicary elements required by California state were met.
 
Vixen said:
That's not my quote. Try Cain, who was quoting ROLLING STONE as an example of Britney's 'instability'.
Click to expand...

The entire gleeful tome that some in this thread are putting forth is completely sickening. A citizen of the US, obvious not incapacitated has been basically enslaved by the court system and their own money was used to do it. It is obvious that TMZ and all their ilk and inherently parasitic as are all elements of the entertainment and music industries.
 
Cain said:
Sure, but the system in place has the advantage of government oversight.
Click to expand...

Having it in theory, and whether that oversight is functional and reliable, are two very different things. Do you understand that people are arguing that the oversight is insufficient? Noting that it exists on paper is not really a refutation of that.
 
Britney Spears is in a voluntary conservatorship

Correction:
I believe I need to make a correction to an earlier post #117 where I incorrectly said a psych eval led to Britney Spears being deemed incapacitated and that led to the conservatorship. The correction apparently is that:

BRITNEY SPEARS IS IN A VOLUNTARY CONSERVATORSHIP

According to an ABC News video, legal expert Christopher Melcher, said,
Melcher
1:33
This is what they’re calling a voluntary conservatorship. There was never a determination by the court that she was incapacitated. And so she was convinced into agreeing to it. And then now she’s finding a hard time getting out of it after all these thirteen years.

So it’s really remarkable that she would have understood the loss of liberty and freedom that she would have experienced now for thirteen years when this was initially placed on her.​

Source:

Davis, Linsey. “Britney Spears’ conservatorship ‘is a sinking ship’ at this point: Legal expert” ABC News. 13 July 2021. https[colon]//www[dot]youtube.com/watch?v=mVAThydya2Q
 
I admit that I myself wasn't willing to look into this situation at first, back when I first heard some details about it a few years ago. What I heard then was, there was a pack of rabid Britney Spears fans who had decided that her conservatorship was a conspiracy to imprison her. I was surprised to hear that Spears was still in that sort of arrangement since it had been so long since her publicized troubles, but like many people, I assumed there had to be a good reason for it if the courts kept giving it the go-ahead. So I felt annoyed by the hashtag loons, and I decided not to think about it much beyond that (especially since the idea of even a necessary conservatorship on a non-Alzheimer's patient has always made me personally uncomfortable).

But then more and more sources started mentioning the story, and I felt compelled to pay a little more attention. At this time, I was desperately searching for ANY reason that the conspiracists could be wrong, because if they were right, then we live in a world where these sorts of shenanigans can just happen, and the legal system will allow it. Repeatedly. That's horrifying.

So maybe a lot of the people having a knee-jerk reaction to mock this are coming from a similar place as I was originally. Otherwise, I just can't understand when society decided it's okay to toss wayward girls in proverbial asylums again (and that guy from the Beach Boys, too). "But she was behaving erratically!" Okay, and? That's what celebrities do. "She was risking legal troubles!" 2 words - Lindsay Lohan. "She would have frittered away all her money!!!" Um, Nicholas Cage? MC Hammer? Again, this is what some rich people do, and that's their business.

I would be very leery of any system that attempts to forcibly "correct" lucid people to this degree, even if they appear by all accounts to be in need of correction. Some people waste their lives, and that is very sad, but the state cannot force them to change. And people's families, especially shady families like the Spears, should definitely not be able to use the state as their muscle in this way. Give people every opportunity to accept help - hell, beg them, show up at their house, I don't care. But if they tell you to **** off, you gotta **** off. I thought that was basically the world we lived in, with few (and extreme) exceptions. I now think maybe I was wrong, and that is frankly speaking FREAKY.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom