• 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!

I get the sense that remote audio access for the public and the media will not be restored.

Withholding public remote access benefits corrupt conservatorships/guardianships/power of attorney authorizations in part because is it conceals. I need to expand on this explanation in a future post.

Britney wanted her voice to be heard, and said so in her court address on June 23, 2021. Britney stated:
Transcript, Page 7, line 21 through 25
Ms. Britney Spears:
I think they've done a good job at -- at exploiting my life in the way that they've done, um, my life, and I feel like it should be an open court hearing, and they should listen and, um, hear what I have to say.​

(Highlighted for emphasis)

Court proceedings at this level should be open to the public and the media.

There's no jury in superstar Britney's conservatorship case. (I paraphrased from the First Amendment Coalition's Nov 29, 2021 brief to the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court).

Open court proceedings, audio with video, are in Britney's best interests.
 
Kind of late to maintain secrecy, it ought to be open. But it should be the shortest hearing- to revoke a voluntary conservatorship:

"Judge, we'd like to" Clack!( gavel whacking)
"This court approves of the cessation of the voluntary conservatorship. Clack! Nest case!~
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/19/...ip-tri-star.html?referringSource=articleShare

“...

In early 2008, a small-time Tennessee company with big-time aspirations made a loan to Britney Spears’s father, who for years had struggled financially.

Less than a month later — after consulting with the owner of the company, Tri Star Sports & Entertainment Group — James P. Spears had his daughter placed into a conservatorship, a legal arrangement typically reserved for people unable to care for themselves or work. He would wield vast power over her life and finances.

Mr. Spears soon sent his daughter on a 97-show international tour. And he hired Tri Star, to whom he still owed at least $40,000, to manage Ms. Spears’s business.

Over the ensuing decade, that assignment would generate millions of dollars for Tri Star and help transform it and its owner, Louise M. Taylor, into one of the premier managers in entertainment, with clients including the Kardashians.


…”

All of course to ensure Spears was healthy and cared for.
 
Great that Britney's got her life back, but the lowlife father doesn't seem to be facing charges*. That's a pity.


* at least, not that I've noticed. Could be I'm mistaken. I hope I am.
 
Darat said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/19/...ip-tri-star.html?referringSource=articleShare

“...

In early 2008, a small-time Tennessee company with big-time aspirations made a loan to Britney Spears’s father, who for years had struggled financially.

Less than a month later — after consulting with the owner of the company, Tri Star Sports & Entertainment Group — James P. Spears had his daughter placed into a conservatorship, a legal arrangement typically reserved for people unable to care for themselves or work. He would wield vast power over her life and finances.

Mr. Spears soon sent his daughter on a 97-show international tour. And he hired Tri Star, to whom he still owed at least $40,000, to manage Ms. Spears’s business.

Over the ensuing decade, that assignment would generate millions of dollars for Tri Star and help transform it and its owner, Louise M. Taylor, into one of the premier managers in entertainment, with clients including the Kardashians.
.....
Click to expand...

Britney was her family's cash cow from her early teens. The great tragedy of her life is that nobody investigated her parents for child abuse when she was actually a child.
 
Darat said:
Not according to quite a few legal experts.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain that if any law firm thinks they can score a win against the father, they will be anxious to jump on it. Especially her team, since she seems to want such action?

"Legal experts" are a dime a dozen.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
I'm fairly certain that if any law firm thinks they can score a win against the father, they will be anxious to jump on it. Especially her team, since she seems to want such action?
.....
Click to expand...

Her attorneys are working on it, starting with obtaining the financial records that daddy and his shady associates are refusing to provide.
 
Darat said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/19/...ip-tri-star.html?referringSource=articleShare

“...

In early 2008, a small-time Tennessee company with big-time aspirations made a loan to Britney Spears’s father, who for years had struggled financially.

Less than a month later — after consulting with the owner of the company, Tri Star Sports & Entertainment Group — James P. Spears had his daughter placed into a conservatorship, a legal arrangement typically reserved for people unable to care for themselves or work. He would wield vast power over her life and finances.

Mr. Spears soon sent his daughter on a 97-show international tour. And he hired Tri Star, to whom he still owed at least $40,000, to manage Ms. Spears’s business.

Over the ensuing decade, that assignment would generate millions of dollars for Tri Star and help transform it and its owner, Louise M. Taylor, into one of the premier managers in entertainment, with clients including the Kardashians.


…”

All of course to ensure Spears was healthy and cared for.
Click to expand...

This, if it's true, is a bit closer to the kind of shoe I had a feeling may drop.

Thus far the charitable reading has been that the conservatorship was imposed, rightly or wrongly, and Mr. Spears came to like his new position and thereafter sought to extend it indefinitely for his own benefit and profit. If this latest allegation is true, though, then the entire idea of the conservatorship from its conception was to make money for Mr. Spears and his creditor.
 
psionl0 said:
How could he? Everything he did was legal.
Click to expand...


What an astonishing POV that is. Everything about this thread is a discussion on the gross misapplication of conservatorship, effected by Britney's no-good lowlife father to live off of his golden goose of a daughter.

One part of that has clearly been proven now, which is that at this time that arrangement isn't appropriate. Britney's life and money had to be prised off of his claws by sheer force of law (as opposed to proactively and voluntarily on the part of the lowlife father).

The second part has not been proven, obviously, the part about the arrangment never ever having been appropriate, and effected as essentially a fraud in order to victimize Britney to her no-good father's profit. That is the part that has not yet been resolved, to my knowledge.

It is astonishing, at this point, that anyone should mumble out "But he hasn't done anything illegal!". Yes, that illegality hasn't been proven, sure, else he'd had been in jail already, that's obvious enough. But whether that ([strong] possibility of) illegality is being explored in a court of law yet, and if not then why not --- as it absolutely should, both in the interests of justice in this specific case, and also, and more importantly, as precedent that might affect other such cases that haven't received and won't ever receive this kind of publicity, as well as deterrent to other lowlifes considering pulling off this kind of utterly heartless scam in future --- is what I was wondering.
 
Last edited:
Chanakya said:
.....
One part of that has clearly been proven now, which is that at this time that arrangement isn't appropriate. Britney's life and money had to be prised off of his claws by sheer force of law (as opposed to proactively and voluntarily on the part of the lowlife father).

The second part has not been proven, obviously, the part about the arrangment never ever having been appropriate, and effected as essentially a fraud in order to victimize Britney to her no-good father's profit. That is the part that has not yet been resolved, to my knowledge.
.....
Click to expand...

Whether crimes were committed has yet to be proven, and may never be. But the evidence is overwhelming that Spears' problems were never severe enough to merit the imposition of a permanent conservatorship, and could have been treated with less drastic measures.
 
Chanakya said:
....
The second part has not been proven, obviously, the part about the arrangment never ever having been appropriate, and effected as essentially a fraud in order to victimize Britney to her no-good father's profit. That is the part that has not yet been resolved, to my knowledge.

....
Click to expand...

Bob001 said:
.... But the evidence is overwhelming that Spears' problems were never severe enough to merit the imposition of a permanent conservatorship, and could have been treated with less drastic measures.
Click to expand...

But wasn't it a 'voluntary conservatorship'? She should have been able to absolve it any time- if she was allowed her own legal council. And it was- once she got her own lawyer. It wasn't the start of the conservatorship that is the point, it was the continuation perpetuated by preventing her from getting to court in her own 'defense'.
 
casebro said:
But wasn't it a 'voluntary conservatorship'? She should have been able to absolve it any time- if she was allowed her own legal council. And it was- once she got her own lawyer. It wasn't the start of the conservatorship that is the point, it was the continuation perpetuated by preventing her from getting to court in her own 'defense'.
Click to expand...


It started as a temporary conservatorship. There seems to be a debate about whether it started as voluntary, and whether she truly understood her rights. In any case, Daddy was able to convert it to an involuntary permanent conservatorship within months. At that point she became legally a child. And for most of its duration she couldn't hire her own lawyer and didn't know that she could petition that it be dissolved. At one point she reportedly went to a police station near her home for help and got nothing.

The histoiry:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/american-chronicles/britney-spears-conservatorship-nightmare
 
Chanakya said:
What an astonishing POV that is. Everything about this thread is a discussion on the gross misapplication of conservatorship, effected by Britney's no-good lowlife father to live off of his golden goose of a daughter.
Click to expand...
Maybe I have misunderstood but it seems that conservatorships are readily handed out just for the asking. Even if it needs to be shown that somebody needs a conservator, a bit of doctor shopping can easily solve that problem.

I'm not sure that the surveillance is illegal given that her father became responsible for her safety (probably to be tested).

Possibly her father could be accused of misappropriation of funds but that seems to be a complex legal question too.

Of course, "legal" doesn't mean moral. Britney definitely suffered abuse because of the conservatorship but the legal system seems to be complicit in this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom