• 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!

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 expertABC News. 13 July 2021. https[colon]//www[dot]youtube.com/watch?v=mVAThydya2Q

Given that this was a "voluntary" conservatorship, in any rational legal system, her withdrawal of consent should put an end to it, or at the very least put the burden (and legal fees) of showing that it is necessary on the conservators. Of course I realize that we are likely not dealing with a rational legal system here.

I sincerely hope she succeeds in gaining control of her own life, for better or worse, and, if so inclined, I hope she sues her father and everyone involved in his racket for every last penny they have.
 
Last edited:
I never thought I'd say this, but this thread has managed to make me care about what happens to Britney Spears. Not being sarcastic - I'm genuinely shocked and appalled that this sort of controlling abuse of a not-incapacitated person is possible and legal.

Well, me too. I was never anything close to a fan. She's a decent dancer, a mediocre singer, and to my tastes, not particularly attractive. But, for reasons that I don't fully understand, she's been very successful as an entertainer, and nobody deserves to be exploited the way she's been exploited.
 
Seems like the ace in the hole needed is either a sympathetic or negligent judge, to disregard or paper over matters that would challenge the arrangement.


Overwhelming evidence of abuse, exploitation, and/or fraud perpetrated against Britney Spears, would be helpful.

A probate judge can be just one of many broken systems

When one judge presides over a conservatorship or guardianship case–with no trial by jury–that's just one issue of a broken 'justice' system. If you think qualified immunity doctrine for a (corrupt) police officer gives them free rein to use excessive force with impunity, I get the sense that judicial discretion for a (corrupt) judge's judicial discretion is akin to (corrupt) police officer's qualified immunity.

(I used the partial quote of, "free rein to use excessive force with impunity" from an article, "States tackling 'qualified immunity' for police as Congress squabbles over the issue," by Emma Tucker, CNN, 23 Apr 2021)

One judge rules in a conservatorship/guardianship probate system, and their decision can make something 'legal'

A judge is supposed to act with due diligence, follow the rule of law, and fulfill their honorable power of judicial discretion.

I'd be surprised if judge Brenda Penny rules to end Britney Spears' conservatorship in today's (Wed., 14 July 2021) closed court proceeding. There's a lot to consider before making that ruling.

Abusers will shield themselves and others from transparency, traceability and accountability.

There's a lot at stake trying to get out of a conservatorship/guardianship. Abusers don't want to get caught. There are many broken & corrupt systems.

From the Netflix movie, I Care a Lot, as it relates to starting a "guardianship grift" company that Roman proposes to Marla:

[Roman] Not just one company, a corporation with 80 different companies, all registered offshore, charging each other invoices, burying profit. A real estate arm, a legal arm, a training arm, a medical arm, a pharmaceutical arm.

[Marla] Our own chain of care homes.​

...and...

[Marla] How do we trust each other?

[Roman] If we make each other rich, the trust will follow. … So, are you in?​

In cases of abusive, exploitive, and/or fraudulent conservatorships/guardianships, the conservatee/ward usually only gets out of their conservatorship/guardianship by dying.

Family and friends experience mental anguish and trauma, too. They were likely unable to protect, save, or see their loved one, without fear of unjust retaliation by cruel, wicked, sadistic abusers. Family and friends are robbed of their rightful inheritance and time with their loved one.

Abusers can control pretty much every aspect of a conservatee or ward. The abusers can isolate the conservatee/ward, take their money, possessions, control who they can and cannot see, and ultimately take the conservatee's/ward's life.

Abusers can be cruel and sadistic, deriving pleasure from their unchecked power as they watch the life drain from their conservatee or ward.
 
I never thought I'd say this, but this thread has managed to make me care about what happens to Britney Spears. Not being sarcastic - I'm genuinely shocked and appalled that this sort of controlling abuse of a not-incapacitated person is possible and legal.

As best as I can tell, each states' Supreme Court makes laws intended to protecting elders, incapacitated or those with limited capacity, people with disabilities, and mental health issues. But those same laws can shield traceability and transparency because records can be (name of keeping from public can vary) redacted, sequestered, impounded, sealed, and/or destroyed. So at a state-level there are problems in safeguarding the protection of people from abusive/exploitive/fraudulent conservatorships/guardianships/trusts.

Broken legal systems, broken agencies you're supposed to report abuses to, cruel people, sadistic people, conflicts of interest, cronyism, nepotism, favoritism in various professions such as doctors/lawyer/judges(who are usually lawyers)/law enforcement, greedy people, family members who betray family.

And it takes a lot of people in power to stay in power, abusive, corrupt.

Trying to report and document abuse? The cards are stacked against you.

I can't help but think there's a psychological phenomenon about the cruelty and sadism that certain people will inflict on others, even their own family.
 
Last edited:
This is such a good point. I'm sure it's also easier to convince a judge that someone is mentally deficient if they are fairly uneducated and somewhat childlike, the way Spears can often come across.

There's a reason so many thrillers are based around a premise of the protagonist suddenly having to prove they're not insane in a corrupt system. Once someone has declared you crazy, anything you do can be construed as evidence of said craziness. Try to run away - crazy. Just sit there and take it - see, she knows she needs help, poor crazy girl. Scream and yell - crazy. Try to talk calmly - "You seem agitated, why are you so agitated? Perhaps you need a rest." Really think about it for a moment! There's nothing you can do once you're in that situation.

All the people out there paternally tutting "Well, she's just too erratic, clearly she needs this sort of guidance" need to pull their heads out of their asses, frankly. None of us would be safe from this if someone wanted to do it to us. Not as long as there's a system in place that allows for such shady arrangements for trivial reasons (yes, in the context of permanent, involuntary conservatorships ONLY, I am calling bipolar disorder trivial).

I'm reminded of a study done decades ago where completely healthy people admitted themselves to mental institutions and then just acted like normal healthy people for a while before asking to be let out. The people in charge always came up with a reason that their normal responses to a difficult situation was evidence of their mental illness. At the moment I can't remember exactly where I read about this, and I may have the details wrong, but maybe it rings a bell to someone else?
 
I never thought I'd say this, but this thread has managed to make me care about what happens to Britney Spears. Not being sarcastic - I'm genuinely shocked and appalled that this sort of controlling abuse of a not-incapacitated person is possible and legal.

My sister is a attorney, and thinks this is one area of law that despertly needs reform.
A start would be to make conservatorships automatically come up for review every year or even six months.
And ,of course, it is a very gray line between somebody being incapactated, and somebody just making a bunch of dumb decisions.
 
Britney gets her own lawyer, and her guy is an ex-federal prosecutor. Daddy's in trouble.
A judge allowed Britney Spears to hire an attorney of her choosing at a hearing Wednesday in which she broke down in tears after describing the “cruelty” of her conservatorship.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Brenda Penny approved Spears hiring former federal prosecutor Mathew Rosengart, who called on Spears’ father to immediately resign as her conservator.

“We will be moving promptly and aggressively for his removal,” Rosengart said outside the courthouse. “The question remains: Why is he involved?”
https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...s-can-hire-own-lawyer-in-conservatorship-case
 
As best as I can tell, each states' Supreme Court makes laws intended to protecting elders, incapacitated or those with limited capacity, people with disabilities, and mental health issues.
....

I just note that courts don't make laws, but they interpret and apply them. If the law passed by the legislature requires courts to supervise conservatorships, but judges just act as rubber stamps, both the laws and the judges are at fault.
 
Britney gets her own lawyer, and her guy is an ex-federal prosecutor. Daddy's in trouble.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...s-can-hire-own-lawyer-in-conservatorship-case


Yes, there's a high likelihood that Britney's dad, James Parnell Spears, is in trouble. I get the sense he will face criminal and civil charges.

I get the sense a number of corrupt lawyers will be in trouble, too.

I get the sense there will be other people, from various professions, who abused their authority and contributed to the abuse, exploitation and defrauding of Britney Spears, or have some level of culpability for making abuse happen or failure to report abuse, or stop abuse.

I wish success for Mathew Rosengart and his legal firm, and everyone helping to Free Britney. Hold the abusers accountable.

I wish that Britney gets her life back, as quickly as possible.

This is a rare case that may have a good outcome for Britney and those who truly care for her. Here's hoping you can soon go for a ride in your boyfriend's car, Britney.

Go, Mathew Rosengart! Help Britney. Your and your teams' work and accomplishments can help others who are in abusive conservatorships and guardianships.

Stop the conservatorship/guardianship fraud.

Free Britney.
 
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.

Well, that's only two lapses in reading. She didn't scream at the reporter in this incident (it was a young shopper). Maybe you confused it with the time mama bear locked herself in a bathroom with her young son (keepin' cool by wearing only panties -- not sure if she had a shaved head) and argued with police officers for several hours. She reportedly wanted her "vitamins." Maybe she's all better now. It's not like the mouth-breathing public encourages tiger-blooded celebrities. Deep State expert and Florida Man Matt Gaetz has rallied to her cause.
 
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.

Do you understand it's a comparison between before and after? Some oversight versus no oversight? Her estate has apparently doubled in value. What's happened in this case that's so obviously corrupt? We get these indirect, putting the system on trial arguments. But, yeah, whatev, FreeBritney.

Like someone said in the beginning, "It's sad that family members are taking advantage of her when a boyfriend-turned-husband could be taking advantage of her."
 
I'm reminded of a study done decades ago where completely healthy people admitted themselves to mental institutions and then just acted like normal healthy people for a while before asking to be let out. The people in charge always came up with a reason that their normal responses to a difficult situation was evidence of their mental illness. At the moment I can't remember exactly where I read about this, and I may have the details wrong, but maybe it rings a bell to someone else?
The Rosenhan experiment
 
Do you understand it's a comparison between before and after? Some oversight versus no oversight? Her estate has apparently doubled in value. What's happened in this case that's so obviously corrupt?
....

You don't seem to get that the choice is not and was never "no oversight" vs. "total control." If she was experiencing a crisis, most likely exacerbated by the way her family treated her from her preteens, that could have been treated. If she needed a money manager, one could have been appointed. The issue is that a questionable legal procedure was used to make her a legal child without rights in perpetuity, and that the people who benefit most from her conservatorship have every reason to perpetuate it. Her daddy gets $16,000 a month, office expenses, fat lawyer fees and a percentage of her concert revenue. Her court-appointed lawyer collected over $3 million before he quit. What's wrong is that people who should be caring for her and supporting her and ultimately helping her to become independent and self-reliant are milking her for millions.
 
Last edited:
I'm reminded of a study done decades ago where completely healthy people admitted themselves to mental institutions and then just acted like normal healthy people for a while before asking to be let out. The people in charge always came up with a reason that their normal responses to a difficult situation was evidence of their mental illness. At the moment I can't remember exactly where I read about this, and I may have the details wrong, but maybe it rings a bell to someone else?

Yes, it's called the insurance money hasn't run out yet. There's a chain of Mental Hospitals that fell under investigation for doing just that. You were in tehre until the money ran dry REGARDLESS of your specifics. It was sanctioned human trafficking and exploitation by an alledged medical institution. In one case a teen age girl was "brought there" by a cop after by left on the side of the road by her boyfriend following an argument (the new segment is on YouTube somewhere, happened in Texas), the cop "had nothing to charge her with" so why not take her to the mental hospital rather than help her get a ride home. Her parents had to get a lawyer/the court to intervene to get her out after that, and even then the scumbags dragged their feet.
 
My sister is a attorney, and thinks this is one area of law that despertly needs reform.
A start would be to make conservatorships automatically come up for review every year or even six months.
And ,of course, it is a very gray line between somebody being incapactated, and somebody just making a bunch of dumb decisions.

Thats the thing, I think they're supposed, AND they when voluntary if thats actually true and otherwise are typically intended to be TEMPORARY in a case like Britney's 13 years ago. She was a young mother going through stuff and maybe needed sometime to work through it at the time. 13 years is not temporary. It was a trap set by her overseer, er, Daddy.

In the news this am, she had a hearing where she was allowed to hire her own Lawyer, a huge win for her. Among the first things that Lawyer is saying: This whole thing is BS and Daddy has to go. She stated in the hearing emphatically, I want my Dad out of my life and have for years. Jamie has never acted in her best interests.
 
Yes, there's a high likelihood that Britney's dad, James Parnell Spears, is in trouble. I get the sense he will face criminal and civil charges.

I get the sense a number of corrupt lawyers will be in trouble, too.

I get the sense there will be other people, from various professions, who abused their authority and contributed to the abuse, exploitation and defrauding of Britney Spears, or have some level of culpability for making abuse happen or failure to report abuse, or stop abuse.

I wish success for Mathew Rosengart and his legal firm, and everyone helping to Free Britney. Hold the abusers accountable.

I wish that Britney gets her life back, as quickly as possible.

This is a rare case that may have a good outcome for Britney and those who truly care for her. Here's hoping you can soon go for a ride in your boyfriend's car, Britney.

Go, Mathew Rosengart! Help Britney. Your and your teams' work and accomplishments can help others who are in abusive conservatorships and guardianships.

Stop the conservatorship/guardianship fraud.

Free Britney.

#FreeBritney #HOLDTHEABUSERSACCOUNTABLE

Every one of them, daddy especially. Slavery is not okay. Thats effectively what this has been.

Also hopefully it springboards a sh****t ton of Guardianship/Conservatorship reform.
 
Do you understand it's a comparison between before and after? Some oversight versus no oversight? Her estate has apparently doubled in value. What's happened in this case that's so obviously corrupt? We get these indirect, putting the system on trial arguments. But, yeah, whatev, FreeBritney.

Like someone said in the beginning, "It's sad that family members are taking advantage of her when a boyfriend-turned-husband could be taking advantage of her."

Someone in the thread needs a reality check....
 
Do you understand it's a comparison between before and after? Some oversight versus no oversight? Her estate has apparently doubled in value. What's happened in this case that's so obviously corrupt? We get these indirect, putting the system on trial arguments. But, yeah, whatev, FreeBritney.

Like someone said in the beginning, "It's sad that family members are taking advantage of her when a boyfriend-turned-husband could be taking advantage of her."

I think you've set up a false dichotomy there. We can object to both. Currently, the former seems to be what is happening.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom