So, is anyone following the court case surrounding the Britney Spears' conservatorship? I must admit I was not paying much attention to it, but some of the details that come out are pretty concerning.
An article on the topic from the most recent court hearing:
Quote'I deserve to have a life': Britney Spears asks court to end conservatorship
Singer directly addresses the court: 'This conservatorship is doing me way more harm than good'
Britney Spears has called for an end to the "abusive" conservatorship that has governed her life for 13 years, delivering an emotional speech to a Los Angeles court and saying: "I just want my life back."
Spears addressed the court during a hearing on the unusual legal arrangement that has stripped the singer of her independence since 2008. The conservatorship has given her father, Jamie Spears, control over her estate, career and other aspects of her personal life.
"I want to end the conservatorship without being evaluated," Spears said in a lengthy speech, during which she condemned her father and the others who have controlled the arrangement.
"This conservatorship is doing me way more harm than good," she said. "I deserve to have a life ... I'm great at what I do. All I want is to own my money ... [and] share my story to the world. I want to be able to be heard."
Spears said she has been forced to work against her will, and that the conservatorship has blocked her from getting married and having a baby. She said she wanted to get her birth control removed so she could try to have another child, but that she was not allowed to go to the doctor. She said her boyfriend is also prohibited from driving her in his car, and that she is blocked from seeing some friends.
She directly excoriated her father, saying, "He loved the control to hurt his own daughter 100,000%." At one point, she said, she cried for an hour on the phone and said he "loved" it and enjoyed having control over someone as powerful as her.
"I've lied and told the whole world I'm OK and I'm happy," Spears said, adding that she wanted to sue her family. She compared her situation to "sex trafficking", noting that she was forced to work while having no control over her finances and no independence: "The people who did that to me should not be able to walk away so easily."
Spears, who appeared by phone and spoke rapidly, said her management had threatened to sue her if she didn't perform in 2018: "It was very threatening and scary ... I'm not here to be anyone's slave."
She said her management falsely accused her of not taking her medication at the time. She also said the conservatorship has recently forced her to attend therapy in Westlake, where she gets bombarded by the paparazzi, and she requested that she be allowed to do therapy in her home: "I deserve privacy ... It's not OK to force me to do anything I don't want to."
She said she was at one point forced to take lithium, which was very strong: "I felt drunk. I couldn't even have a conversation with my mom or dad really about anything ... my whole family did nothing." At the hearing, she requested that she be allowed to choose her own lawyer, and that she be permitted to speak out, noting that her parents give media interviews while she is barred from talking to press.
"I shouldn't be in a conservatorship if I can work," she said, adding: "The laws need to change ... I don't feel like I can live a full life."
In a short statement at the end of the hearing, Vivian Thoreen, the attorney for Jamie Spears, said: "He is sorry to see his daughter suffering and in so much pain. Mr Spears loves his daughter and misses her very much."
The judge, Brenda Penny, said the singer's lawyer could file a formal petition to end the conservatorship.
An attorney for Jodi Montgomery, Spears's licensed conservator, said in an email that the lawyer has an "obligation to uphold Ms Spears' medical and other privacy rights", adding, "We look forward to addressing all of Ms Spears' concerns and setting forth her medical team's perspective on them in a care plan that we will file with the court."
'This is unacceptable'
The singer's appearance was highly anticipated; the 39-year-old star almost never participates in the court proceedings, but her lawyer this year told the judge she wanted to speak out and requested a hearing "on an expedited basis".
It also comes one day after the New York Times reported on confidential documents revealing that Spears has for years strongly objected to the conservatorship and the many powers her father has had over her.
Outside the courtroom on Wednesday, fans had gathered hours before the hearing was due to start, wearing #FreeBritney flags and shirts and holding cardboard cutouts of the star.
"I want people to understand that this is unacceptable. This is not a gray area, he-said-she-said situation. In my view, a crime has been committed against Britney Spears," said Tess Barker, the co-host of the popular Britney's Gram podcast, who has consistently attended the singer's hearings.
Carlos Morales, 26, who showed up with a large Britney flag, added, "She's been with me all my life. Her music is inspiration to me, and I'm here to support her and pay her back."
Fellow celebrities also voiced their support for Spears following the hearing. "We love you Britney!!! Stay strong," Mariah Carey tweeted, while Brandy said she was sending "love and support to Britney Spears and her fans". The actor and activist Rose McGowan; the Planned Parenthood president, Alexis McGill Johnson; and the View co-host Meghan McCain also spoke out on Twitter against Spears' conservatorship.
Justin Timberlake, her former boyfriend who has faced widespread scrutiny for the way he treated the star, tweeted, "We should all be supporting Britney at this time ... No woman should ever be restricted from making decisions about her own body."
Conservatorship is a type of court-appointed guardianship intended for people who can no longer make decisions for themselves, typically older and infirm people. But critics have argued that the process can be exploited and have pointed to Spears's case as an example of such abuse.
Spears's arrangement has faced intense scrutiny in the months since the release of Framing Britney Spears, a New York Times-produced documentary that chronicled the fraught process that led the courts to place the singer under a conservatorship. The film cast a harsh light on the abusive paparazzi and media that aggressively covered Spears's mental health challenges, and also depicted her father as being largely absent from her life until he took control of her estate amid the singer's struggles.
A lawyer who claimed to have met with Spears in 2008 told the film-makers that she had said at the time she did not want her father as a conservator. The documentary further highlighted the apparent contradictions of her arrangement – that she could be performing sold-out shows and making millions, but also be considered incapable of making basic decisions about her health and finances.
Spears's lawyers, appointed by the court, filed for Jamie to be removed as a conservator last year, alleging that the singer was "afraid of her father" and claiming she would not perform while he continued to exercise control of her estate. Jamie is a co-conservator of the estate alongside a corporate fiduciary, known as Bessemer Trust.
Her father had previously acted as a personal conservator, giving him authority over her medical and mental health treatment, but a professional licensed conservator has taken over that job.
'A controlling tool'
The Times report on Tuesday revealed that Spears told a court investigator in 2016 that the conservatorship had "become an oppressive and controlling tool against her" and she had raised concerns that the arrangement gave her father authority over who she dated and befriended, how she designed her kitchen and how much money she was given as a weekly allowance. She also said she was forced to perform while sick with a 104F fever.
#FreeBritney activists, who were featured in the documentary, have pushed for Jamie to be ousted and for the conservatorship to be entirely dissolved.
"I want her to be able to speak freely from her heart, and I'm praying that the judge actually listens," said Junior Olivas, a #FreeBritney advocate, before the hearing. "The whole world is watching this case, and the time is now for Britney to really let them know what she wants."
The 33-year-old longtime fan, who appeared in the documentary, has for years rallied outside the courtroom in support of the singer.
"In the beginning, no one paid attention or laughed us off ... but finally people are paying attention and actually understanding that something is wrong here." The revelations this week added fuel to their cause, he said: "She was crying for help but nobody was listening."
Megan Radford, another #FreeBritney advocate, noted that male celebrities have not faced the same kind of scrutiny and loss of autonomy when they have suffered public breakdowns.
"It's dangerously stigmatizing to say someone who may or may not have mental health struggles needs to have their rights stripped away from them and reassigned to another human being," she added. The Times report, she said, made clear that the "justice system has failed Britney ... She has been totally robbed of 13 years of her life for no reason."
"I watched Britney grow up. I've been a fan since she was a teenager," said Kim Van Doorn, 45, outside the courthouse on Wednesday. Van Doorn came with her wife to LA, traveling from Bakersfield, hours north of the courthouse. "I want whatever she wants for her future. But of course as a fan, I want her to continue to make music and come back as the bad Britney bitch that she is."
Spears appeared to endorse the #FreeBritney movement in a statement from her lawyer last year that said, "Britney welcomes and appreciates the informed support of her many fans." Her father had dismissed the campaign as a conspiracy theory.
A representative for Jamie's lawyer declined to comment on the New York Times report on Tuesday. His attorney told reporters in February, "Jamie Spears has diligently and professionally carried out his duties as one of Britney's conservators, and his love for his daughter and dedication to protecting her is clearly apparent to the court."
And some of the key claims:
QuoteDenied another child, forced to perform: key claims from Britney Spears' hearing
The singer detailed the conservatorship's control including not allowing her to remove her IUD and forcing her to take medications
Spears said the conservatorship has had control over the most intimate details of her life, including her reproductive health
The singer, who has two children from a previous relationship, said she'd like to get her IUD removed and have another child, but the conservatorship, which controls her medical care, won't allow it. "I want to be able to get married and have a baby," she told the court. "I was told right now in the conservatorship I am not able to get married or have a baby." She said she is banned from seeing her friends who live minutes away from her, and that her boyfriend is not allowed to drive her in his car.
Spears said she was forced to take medications that she did not want
She said she has had no control over her healthcare, alleging that doctors changed her medication to lithium, a mood stabilizer, after she had told management she wanted to discontinue her Las Vegas residency. "I felt drunk. I couldn't even have a conversation with my mom or dad about anything," she said of the experience, adding that her family did not come to her aid. "My whole family did nothing," she said. She said she wants to do therapy at home, but instead has been forced to go to a location where the paparazzi stalks her.
She said she was forced to perform against her will
Spears alleged that her management threatened to sue her in 2018 if she didn't do her concerts. She said her management falsely reported to her therapists that she wasn't taking her medications. Spears had issued a similar statement to a judge in 2019, confidential court records obtained by the New York Times revealed earlier this week. "It was very threatening and scary," she told the court on Wednesday. "The only similar thing to this is called sex trafficking ... The people who did this to me should not be able to walk away so easily ... I'm not here to be anyone's slave. I can say no to a dance move."
She said the conservatorship was abusive and unnecessary, echoing the arguments that #FreeBritney activists have made for years
Spears said it "made no sense" that the conservatorship deemed her able to perform at the highest level of the entertainment industry, but she was unable to make basic life decisions or spend the money she is earning. "I'm great at what I do," she said, adding that there are a "thousand conservatorships that are abusive as well". "I shouldn't be in a conservatorship if I can work," Spears said. "The laws need to change ... I don't feel like I can live a full life." The people who control her life, she said, "need to be reminded they actually work for me".
She said her father has not had her best interest at heart and enjoyed controlling her.
"He loved the control to hurt his own daughter 100,000%," she said, noting that at one point she was forced to go to rehab against her will and pay $60,000, and her father didn't care about how distraught she was: "I cried on the phone for an hour and he loved every minute of it." She said, "Anything that happened to me had to be approved by my dad."
She lamented that she has been unable to speak out
Spears noted that her parents are able to give interviews with the press whenever they want but she is barred from speaking to the media: "I can't say one thing ... I have a right to use my voice."
"I've lied and told the whole world I'm OK and I'm happy," she continued, adding that she initially feared speaking out. "I honestly don't think anyone would believe me."
She started the hearing by noting that she had not addressed the court since a closed door session in 2019, and did not feel heard by the judges in her case. "I don't think I was heard on any level when I came to court last time." The Times report this week suggested that she had expressed grave concerns about the conservatorship to an investigator in 2016, but that her pleas at the time did not lead to any major changes in the arrangement.
At the start of the hearing, an attorney for the conservator raised concerns about her testimony being public, but Spears quickly interjected and said: "I feel like it should be an open court hearing and they should listen and hear what I have to say." The judge agreed.
What the hell? I have never even heard of this before. You can be put under somebody else's care and forced to work against your will to financially benefit others? I thought slavery had been outlawed.
What a weird freaking law. Clearly meant for elderly people who have dementia or something.
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2021, 07:50:01 AM
What the hell? I have never even heard of this before. You can be put under somebody else's care and forced to work against your will to financially benefit others? I thought slavery had been outlawed.
Not just that, but also removing her say from decisions regarding her physical and mental health, as well as her relationships with others. She seems to be basically a puppet, while still being a very active entertainer who keeps generating plenty of money for others.
Besides the economic stuff, what I find more egregious is how she had an IDU forcefully implanted on her which she can't remove herself, and how her desire to get married to her current partner has been blocked.
QuoteWhat a weird freaking law. Clearly meant for elderly people who have dementia or something.
That's what the article claims, that it's more commonly used for the elderly and infirm who can't take care of themselves anymore, but that the law itself can be exploited.
Ok the whole reason we have judges is so a person can be there to make sure that stupid bullshit like a law intended for elderly demented people doesn't get applied to working adults who can then be ordered to work against their will to enrich other people. Seems highly unconstitutional and a violation of human rights. That judge should be disbarred for life.
Regardless of whether she's in a mental state to look after herself and conservatorship is justified - it seems at least very odd that she's then still deemed fit to appear in front of audiences to perform.
I honestly have no idea.
If what she is saying is right then its an absolute shambles, completely shows up the whole system of guardianship for the mess it is. If a high profile case like Britney can go through this then what hope is there for normal people?
On the other hand she's in this situation because of her dodgy mental health. Who knows how much of this is real.
I'm in no position to say either way. Hope the courts figure it out.
I don't know what the relevant laws say. It does seem weird that a person who can work is considered to be unable to make basic decisions.
The documentary on this was incredible - I had no idea about this system - but it was also about the wider level of (from the perspective of now) incredible misogyny and weirdness around her when she became huge. It went through that - and also the framing of her various "break-downs" (in particular they look a lot more explicable if you have a wide lens and see how many paps are surrounding her) through to the conservatorship.
I am convinced and fully on the free Britney wing.
FWIW I don't think the situation as described would be legal in Sweden.
Quote from: The Brain on June 24, 2021, 08:46:42 AM
FWIW I don't think the situation as described would be legal in Sweden.
It shouldn't be legal anywhere. It is a gross violation of civil and human rights.
But I guess it is possible the story is being misreported.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 24, 2021, 08:42:27 AM
The documentary on this was incredible - I had no idea about this system - but it was also about the wider level of (from the perspective of now) incredible misogyny and weirdness around her when she became huge. It went through that - and also the framing of her various "break-downs" (in particular they look a lot more explicable if you have a wide lens and see how many paps are surrounding her) through to the conservatorship.
I am convinced and fully on the free Britney wing.
I am really curious if this is actually a system or a highly illegal abuse of the law. Surely it is a criminal offense to force somebody to work and for you to get paid for their labor.
Does she have mental health issues? I would think that she would have to have some pretty severe issues for a court to go along with such virtual enslavement of a pretty famous person (it shouldn't matter, but obviously it does). If she does, then I do wonder how someone would consider it appropriate to conserve her but to still send her out for entertainment.
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2021, 08:57:46 AM
I would think that she would have to have some pretty severe issues for a court to go along with such virtual enslavement of a pretty famous person (it shouldn't matter, but obviously it does).
Well for the same reason that giving over custody-ship of a child becomes more problematic if that child happens to have a billion dollar trustfund.
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2021, 08:53:00 AM
I am really curious if this is actually a system or a highly illegal abuse of the law. Surely it is a criminal offense to force somebody to work and for you to get paid for their labor.
I don't know about illegal - but I think it's definitely an abuse of this process which may have limited circumstances where it's justified.
See the statement by the court-appointed lawyer for her conservatorship (especially that last paragraph):
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4msdrBXMAA9GiB?format=jpg&name=small)
And he's been getting paid $10k a week by Spears for this (since 2008). According to an email submitted in yesterday's hearing neither he nor the court have any record of his initial appointment including fees of that size. I think the closest it gets was the initial order saying his fees were "not to exceed" $10k a week.
Everything I've read about it makes it seem like it's profoundly dodgy and a maybe unexamined bit of the law that is a way for unscrupulous families and lawyers to basically steal off someone. Spears is illuminating it because she's famous and rich and still working but I wouldn't be surprised if this also covered things like some forms of elder abuse or effectively stealing from someone who genuinely has severe disabilities who has a decent trust to pay for their care etc.
This reminds me of the movie "I Care a Lot".
Something that has to be taken into account is that this is not something new, this has been going on since 2008. There are rumours that the conservatorship was only meant to last for a year, but has been going on for more than a decade already.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 24, 2021, 09:11:58 AM
This reminds me of the movie "I Care a Lot".
Yeah I was just thinking. Too bad it went silly near the end. It's as if they were super-paranoid about appearing misogynistic because of the female villains so they went all in on the girlpower thing way over what the story required or could bear.
Oh, absolutely Free Britney. Probably true since 2010.
Her full statement to the court can be read here: https://variety.com/2021/music/news/britney-spears-full-statement-conservatorship-1235003940/ (https://variety.com/2021/music/news/britney-spears-full-statement-conservatorship-1235003940/)
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2021, 07:50:01 AM
What a weird freaking law. Clearly meant for elderly people who have dementia or something.
Yes that is typically what they are used for. And it can get to be a mess because the probate and surrogate courts that typically handle these kinds of applications are not always at the pinnacle of the legal profession.
I had a prospective client come in once with a case involving a conservatorship - the file history was a nightmare. I didn't take the case, I was at a loss of what could be done.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 24, 2021, 09:07:41 AM
Everything I've read about it makes it seem like it's profoundly dodgy and a maybe unexamined bit of the law that is a way for unscrupulous families and lawyers to basically steal off someone. Spears is illuminating it because she's famous and rich and still working but I wouldn't be surprised if this also covered things like some forms of elder abuse or effectively stealing from someone who genuinely has severe disabilities who has a decent trust to pay for their care etc.
There is something to that - in my limited experience there seemed to be an ecosystem of court appointed lawyers clipping fees - and add to that mix the dynamic of brutal family quarrels between siblings etc. for control over the conservatorship.
So.
No.
BBC News - Britney Spears: Judge denies request to remove father from conservatorship
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57676545
We all saw that film with Peter Dinkage right?
The world: FREE BRITNEY!
The US legal system: We will give you Cosby. You are welcome.
From the outside it looks completely crazy; but then we don't get to look at her medical reports :hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 01, 2021, 05:56:37 AM
From the outside it looks completely crazy; but then we don't get to look at her medical reports :hmm:
My wife listened to her testimony in its entirety and came away thinking she has serious mental health issues.
The detail that seems to be hidden or underplayed in most reports is what was the purpose that of hearing.
QuoteHowever, the judge cannot make a ruling based on her statement until she files a formal petition to terminate the arrangement.
The documents filed on Wednesday refer only to the November request, in which Spears asked for the private wealth management firm the Bessemer Trust to be appointed as her "sole conservator".
Although Judge Brenda Penny refused to remove Jamie Spears from his position, she did agree to the Bessemer Trust's role as co-conservator of the star's multi-million dollar estate.
I'm struggling with her being under conservatorship on one side because she can't take care of herself, and her recording albums and performing on stage on the other. But I'm sure medical professionals have said it's ok? :unsure:
Quote from: alfred russel on July 01, 2021, 06:05:38 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 01, 2021, 05:56:37 AM
From the outside it looks completely crazy; but then we don't get to look at her medical reports :hmm:
My wife listened to her testimony in its entirety and came away thinking she has serious mental health issues.
She's hardly alone in that condition. That's not a basis for a conservatorship.
I don't understand why she could not collapse the Conservatorship when she reached the age of majority. Here the only thing she would have to establish is that she is competent - and that is a pretty low bar.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 01, 2021, 10:52:52 AM
I don't understand why she could not collapse the Conservatorship when she reached the age of majority. Here the only thing she would have to establish is that she is competent - and that is a pretty low bar.
It was established when she was an adult.
I know nothing of her legal or mental status, and less about the applicable US laws.
However, on the face if it - it is very odd to have someone so ill that they require some sort of guardianship, yet at the same time able to work at a demanding job like a professional entertainer.
Would not those two things be sort of mutually exclusive?
I get that it is likely she has some sort of mental problems, but so do lots of people. It is odd to me that they are evidently severe enough to legally remove her control over her life and finances, but not severe enough to prevent her from working.
Yeah agreed on all of that.
And I don't know English law in this area either but my impression of it is unless someone is a serious risk to themselves or others, then their assets and earning might be held by a trust but not themselves personally. Which is the thing I find baffling.
It's not that baffling.
Either someone screwed up or someone got paid off.
Probably #1 because never of the principle of never ascribe to malice what which can be explained by incompetence, although the system is so riddled with inherent conflicts of interest how do your disentangle the two?
Her testimony, while far from a model of clarity, was more cogent then a filing I received last month from an attorney that was recently reinstated to the Bar (apparently despite evidence of mental instability). Comparing to others in the entertainment profession, it was more coherent then the average Kanye West pronouncement and displayed a better grasp of the spoken English language then (for example) Justin Bieber or Donald Trump.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 01, 2021, 11:08:43 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 01, 2021, 10:52:52 AM
I don't understand why she could not collapse the Conservatorship when she reached the age of majority. Here the only thing she would have to establish is that she is competent - and that is a pretty low bar.
It was established when she was an adult.
Even more inexplicable.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 01, 2021, 12:37:02 PM
It's not that baffling.
Either someone screwed up or someone got paid off.
Probably #1 because never of the principle of never ascribe to malice what which can be explained by incompetence, although the system is so riddled with inherent conflicts of interest how do your disentangle the two?
If #1, one wonders how flawed the system must be and how many less high profile people are being victimized.
There must be perverse economic incentives built into the legal system in which this was permitted to occur.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2021, 10:06:19 AM
If #1, one wonders how flawed the system must be and how many less high profile people are being victimized.
Wild guess, I'd say about 7 or 8 out of 10, and as to the latter it depends how much money they have.
Spears is notable not just for her fame but because she has such a large present stream of earnings.
QuoteThere must be perverse economic incentives built into the legal system in which this was permitted to occur.
Well lawyers get paid when a guardianship is in place but not if it isn't. You can do the math right there.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 02, 2021, 10:39:08 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2021, 10:06:19 AM
If #1, one wonders how flawed the system must be and how many less high profile people are being victimized.
Wild guess, I'd say about 7 or 8 out of 10, and as to the latter it depends how much money they have.
Spears is notable not just for her fame but because she has such a large present stream of earnings.
QuoteThere must be perverse economic incentives built into the legal system in which this was permitted to occur.
Well lawyers get paid when a guardianship is in place but not if it isn't. You can do the math right there.
Is there no oversight? Here that role is performed by Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2021, 11:51:16 AM
Is there no oversight? Here that role is performed by Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee.
Every state has there own system but typically oversight is through the judicial system - in NY for example the "Surrogates Court"
The Canadian system seems superior in that respect but its gubmint that taxes would have to be to support so not the 'murican way.
This article is good - it doesn't add much not in the docs I've seen etc. But is still interesting:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/american-chronicles/britney-spears-conservatorship-nightmare
And the details on her legal rights and the way people are making money on her is still incredible:
QuoteFrom the earliest days of the conservatorship, Spears appeared to chafe against her constraints. While hospitalized, she had contacted a lawyer named Adam Streisand. He represented her in a court hearing on February 4th, attesting that Spears had a "strong desire" that Jamie not be a conservator. But the judge, based on a report from Ingham and testimony from Spar, ruled that Spears had no capacity to retain an attorney. Spears spoke with another lawyer, Jon Eardley, who attempted to move the case to federal court. The lawyers for the conservatorship argued that "Britney lacked the capacity to hire Mr. Eardley to file the Notice of Removal on her behalf, and therefore could not have hired him." The lawyers noted that Spears did have the right to meet with legal counsel: Sam Ingham, who met with Spears for about fifteen minutes two days after the conservatorship was granted, when he visited her at the U.C.L.A. hospital. Several sources close to the situation felt that Ingham was loyal to the conservatorship and to Jamie, despite nominally representing Spears. Butcher recalled Jamie saying that Ingham reported to him on Spears's movements and activities. (Ingham did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this story.)
[...]
As Spears privately resisted her father's involvement in the conservatorship, he used her money to fight back. Recent court documents show that Jamie's lawyers billed nearly nine hundred thousand dollars for four months of work, from October, 2020, to February, 2021. The bill accounts for hundreds of hours of work by crisis-P.R. specialists who charged between five hundred and nine hundred dollars an hour to respond, they claimed, to media requests.
[...]
Conservatorships can protect people who are elderly, or who live with profound disabilities or catastrophic mental illness. But there is also a wide range of alternatives to conservatorship that are less strict than what Spears has experienced, such as conditional powers of attorney or formal shared control of finances. As conservatorship law is written, the court is required to determine that a conservatorship is—and remains—necessary. "In practice," Zoë Brennan-Krohn, a disability-rights attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said, "this is absolutely not the case. What should be happening is that a judge at a reëvaluation hearing would ask, 'What else have you tried? Why isn't anything else working?' And, if the conservator hasn't shown that they've tried less restrictive options, the conservatorship should be suspended. But I've never heard of a judge asking that in any situation."
[...]
The idea that Spears needs this conservatorship to function is, to some degree, self-reinforcing. In that respect, experts said, her case is common. Martinis, the disability-rights lawyer, said that many guardianships can prove inescapable, which is why they are vulnerable to abuse. In the extreme cases, he said, "the strategy is isolate, medicate, liquidate. You isolate them, medicate them to keep them quiet, liquidate the assets." If a conservatee functions well under conservatorship, it can be framed as proof of the arrangement's necessity; if a conservatee struggles under conservatorship, the same conclusion can be drawn. And if a conservatee gets out, and stumbles into crisis or manipulation—a likelihood increased by time spent formally disempowered—this, too, might reinforce the argument for their prior legal restraints. "Our mistakes make us who we are, and teach us who we can be," Martinis said. "Without bad choices, we can't be wholly human. And with the best of intentions, we say to people with disabilities: we'll keep you from ever making a mistake." He added, "Should Britney get out, just watch. The first mistake she makes, fingers will wag, and people will say this would never have happened if she were under guardianship."
"There's this concept of the dignity of risk," Brennan-Krohn, the A.C.L.U. lawyer, said. "Most of us have a very wide range of bad choices we can make that society is O.K. with, but, in a conservatorship, you're subject to the decision-making rubric of best interest. And it's possible we'd all be better off if someone was making decisions for us like that, but those are not the values of the society we live in." In her remarks this June, Spears gestured, briefly, to the wider world of broken guardianships: "We can sit here all day and say, 'Oh, conservatorships are here to help people,' but, Ma'am, there's a thousand conservatorships that are abusive, as well." As she said this, the #FreeBritney supporters at the courthouse, their glittery signs laid down on the concrete, let out an impassioned "Yes!"
https://twitter.com/IGGYAZALEA/status/1410433707052204034
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5Ld5e8VgAUcat6?format=jpg&name=medium)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5Ld-nDUYAIEOIw?format=jpg&name=large)
Iggy? :yeahright:
And her father is stepping down.
:w00t:
And she's free!
QuoteBritney Spears's conservatorship terminated after nearly 14 years
Musician regains independence after legal arrangement denied her right to make key life decisions
A judge has approved the termination of Britney Spears's conservatorship, freeing the pop star from the controversial legal arrangement that has controlled her life for nearly 14 years.
The ruling marks an extraordinary victory for the singer who had fought for years to regain her independence from the courts, which in 2008 took away her rights to make basic decisions about her finances, career and personal life.
Friday's decision to dissolve the conservatorship, a form of court-appointed guardianship, means that Spears will retake control of her estate and will no longer be required to pay a team of professionals and attorneys to oversee her affairs.
"The conservatorship of the person and of the estate of Britney Jean Spears is hereby terminated," said the Los Angeles judge Brenda Penny, announcing the ruling.
The end of the conservatorship comes five months after Spears, 39, spoke publicly about the arrangement for the first time in court, saying she had been forced to take medications and perform against her will, and that her father, Jamie Spears, had been an abusive conservator who tightly controlled intimidate details of her life. A judge suspended her father from the conservatorship in September.
The case has sparked international protests and prompted widespread scrutiny of the media's treatment of female pop stars and of the opaque guardianship system that affects millions of people. Fans, who have been organizing #FreeBritney demonstrations for years, shut down the street outside the courthouse in downtown Los Angeles on Friday to rally in support of termination and planned a "freedom party" in the evening.
Spears was first placed into a conservatorship while facing apparent mental health struggles amid vicious paparazzi abuse in 2008. She quickly objected to the arrangement and her father's role in it, reporting has since revealed, and she tried to hire her own lawyer to advocate for her. But the courts ruled that she did not have the capacity to select an attorney, and instead gave her a court-appointed lawyer, Samuel D Ingham III.
Conservatorships are typically put in place for older or infirm people who can no longer make decisions for themselves, but in Spears's case, the courts established an indefinite conservatorship even as she continued with her hugely successful career. The arrangement forced her to pay Ingham, her father and his legal team, and others involved in the court case.
Spears strongly objected to the arrangement for years, the New York Times reported this year, citing confidential court documents, but Ingham, who made an estimated $3m representing Spears, charging $475 an hour, did not advocate for the conservatorship to end. In 2016, while Spears was performing her hit Las Vegas residency and releasing her ninth studio album, she outlined a range of disturbing allegations to a court investigator, the records showed.
She allegedly told the court that those involved in the conservatorship had made her perform while sick with a fever, that her security team and assistant held her credit card and used it whenever they wanted, that she was limited to a weekly allowance, and that her father prohibited her from making cosmetic changes to her kitchen. In a closed-door hearing that year, the Times reported, she also said she was forced into a mental health facility against her will, which she viewed as retaliation for speaking up in a rehearsal.
Despite those private objections, the arrangement continued for years with few changes. Ingham more recently began raising concerns about Jamie's treatment of his daughter, saying in court last year that she was "afraid of her father", but the lawyer did not file for Spears to regain her independence.
The case took a dramatic turn in June when Spears requested that she be allowed to speak publicly and then detailed her complaints, including claims that her boyfriend wasn't allowed to drive her in his car and that she was barred from removing her birth control. She also said she did not know that she could file a petition to end the conservatorship.
In July, Spears was allowed to hire her own lawyer, Mathew Rosengart, who has since aggressively advocated for Jamie to be removed and has vowed to investigate his actions and handling of her money.
Amid the upheaval prompted by Spears's testimony and two explosive documentaries about the case, the parties on all sides of the conservatorship came out and said they now supported termination.
Junior Olivas, one of the first fans to protest outside court, said when he had begun rallying in April 2019, he thought Spears would be freed from the conservatorship within a month. He had no idea it would be a years-long battle: "It took documentaries and the whole world talking about it, but oh my God, we're finally here ... I knew this day would come. But it felt like it took for ever."
Meg Radford, another longtime #FreeBritney organizer, noted that it was just earlier this year that Jamie was calling fans "conspiracy theorists" for expressing concerns about her wellbeing. "Jamie Spears was able to control the narrative by calling us crazy ... and the court records were sealed for so long that people weren't able to find the truth."
Even with the arrangement terminated, Rosengart has said he will continue investigating Jamie, including the recent claims that he hired a security team that monitored his daughter's private communications.
The case has prompted guardianship reform efforts at the state and federal level, with California recently passing a law that establishes conservatees' rights to hire their own counsel.
Jasmine E Harris, a University of Pennsylvania law professor and expert in conservatorships, said this kind of termination was rare. Once a court deemed someone incapable of making decisions, she said, it was difficult for that person to prove that their rights should be restored, and most often, conservatorships lasted until the individual died.
"I think this would have gone another 13 years had it not been for that moment ... when Britney was allowed to speak on her own behalf," Harris said, adding that she hoped the public now understood that people of all ages could lose their independence through the guardianship system, and that this was a disability rights issue. She also urged more investments to alternatives to conservatorship so that people could get the support they needed without the "nuclear option" of having their fundamental rights stripped away.
Radford said the #FreeBritney activists would continue to fight for accountability in Spears's conservatorship and for broader reform: "I think this court case will go down in history books, and Britney's case will be the catalyst for significant change for conservatorships and guardianships and how we treat our elderly and our disabled in the court system."
She added: "I hope Britney takes time to heal and learn how to re-enter the world ... And when she's ready, if she wants to tell her story, I would love to hear this story from Britney directly someday."
:cheers:
:w00t:
Good for her. So, bankrupt within 10 years?
Part of being a celebrity is the freedom of exercising one's sovereign right to make a utter train wreck of one's life.
Quote from: Syt on July 01, 2021, 06:30:57 AM
I'm struggling with her being under conservatorship on one side because she can't take care of herself, and her recording albums and performing on stage on the other. But I'm sure medical professionals have said it's ok? :unsure:
Heh, I know, my thoughts on this exactly when it was first in the news. She can perform and with her staff do all the work and coordination with dancers, bands, organizers and venues yet she's incompetent otherwise? I assume there was a reason for it initially but as others are saying, it seems that conservatorships can be too restrictive and take advantage of a person, especially a wealthy person. Different states would have differing aspects to conservatorships.
Maybe she's got a rain man kind of thing going on only for singing and dancing? :p