Brittany Spears Conservatory case

[OtherJen]

^exactly

This case has been in and out of court so many times, especially for the last few years. This isn't the first that it's been scrutinized, it's just the first that anything Britney has said has been made public.

She's otherwise only communicated in performances or social media, all of which are controlled by her handlers.

It seems the only power she has is to refuse to work, which has been her latest move, and is why the finance co-conservator (aptly named Wallet) is gone.

He states that she'll likely be under conservatorship her entire life because she lacks the ability to make major financial decisions. But to me there's a difference between abdicating control of your finances vs having the courts dictate that you have no autonomy over any aspect of your personal life.

The legal team for the conservators (which Britney pays for because she has to pay for both sides), have always pointed to her financial success as an indicator that they do a great job, but that's where it gets so messy. Is being as financially successful as possible actually a well being indicator for a mentally ill person?

Are there different types of conservatorships in the US? Because iny country (NL) there's a form of financial conservatorship (called bewind) which handles only the financial side of someone's life. Bewind is quite common for people in debts, people with mental health issues, addiction, low IQ or other issues that mean they can't deal with money. The court appoints someone to deal with the bills and financial issues and the person under this financial conservatorship basically gets pocket money. The conservator has to send a financial overview to the court once a year.  There's another form of conservatorship called mentorship where a mentor is appointed to make medical and care decisions (but not financial).

Yes. My husband's grandmother had Alzheimer's disease. In the early stages of cognitive decline, she voluntarily entered a financial conservatorship that was managed by my FIL and his brother, both of whom lived in the same town and spent a lot of time with her. They made sure that her bills were paid and she wasn't scammed out of her money. As she became more dependent and cognitively impaired, the level of oversight increased as needed.

[jac941]

This whole situation is interesting and horrifying. It’s rare that I have any interest in celebrities and their issues - and I certainly don’t have interest in Britney Spears - but the legal aspects of this case are chilling.

I’ve seen a lot in the press about this and never know what to believe since I’m not a lawyer. But I’ve met a couple of estate attorneys and one that I know of wrote up an explanation from his outside perspective on his blog. He basically says that a conservatorship can only be used if it’s the “least restrictive alternative” and that based on Ms. Spears’ (coherent) statement that she wants out of the conservatorship that he would file a “Petition for Termination” immediately. That to me sounds like she has a way out unlike a lot of what I’ve seen in the news.

People with capacity have the right to make their own decisions even if it destroys their life. Just look at the drug addicts and schizophrenics living on the streets. Many are not tethered to reality at all. They get to make their own decisions. If this woman has the capacity to work as hard as she does, she certainly has the capacity to make her own decisions - even if they’re terrible.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

The issue reminds me of the issue of elder abuse and the movie I Care a Lot. Anything that can shed light on abuses is a positive thing, and hopefully, there will be change in both situations to reduce the possibility of abuse.

[OtherJen]

The issue reminds me of the issue of elder abuse and the movie I Care a Lot. Anything that can shed light on abuses is a positive thing, and hopefully, there will be change in both situations to reduce the possibility of abuse.

That movie was terrifying. Husband and I don't have kids. Whoever lives longest might end up in that situation.

[Villanelle]

This whole situation is interesting and horrifying. It’s rare that I have any interest in celebrities and their issues - and I certainly don’t have interest in Britney Spears - but the legal aspects of this case are chilling.

I’ve seen a lot in the press about this and never know what to believe since I’m not a lawyer. But I’ve met a couple of estate attorneys and one that I know of wrote up an explanation from his outside perspective on his blog. He basically says that a conservatorship can only be used if it’s the “least restrictive alternative” and that based on Ms. Spears’ (coherent) statement that she wants out of the conservatorship that he would file a “Petition for Termination” immediately. That to me sounds like she has a way out unlike a lot of what I’ve seen in the news.

People with capacity have the right to make their own decisions even if it destroys their life. Just look at the drug addicts and schizophrenics living on the streets. Many are not tethered to reality at all. They get to make their own decisions. If this woman has the capacity to work as hard as she does, she certainly has the capacity to make her own decisions - even if they’re terrible.

Except who would file that?  Because she has no right to hire a lawyer because that is A Decision, and she can't make those, and it requires paying him from the money she earned, and she's not allowed to do that, either.  At one point, she had hired her own lawyer and they got to court and the judge basically told the lawyer that Ms. Spears had no right or ability to hire him, so he could go home, thankyouverymuch.

That's the problem.  She isn't a person, so she can't do what is necessary to get the courts to reestablish her personhood.  She lost the right to be able to decide to do the things necessary to give her back the right to decide those things. 

I believe that blogger can't file a Petition to Terminate because he has no standing.  The only people with standing are the conservatorship and Brittney, whose interests are handled by the conservatorship. 

[Metalcat]

This whole situation is interesting and horrifying. It’s rare that I have any interest in celebrities and their issues - and I certainly don’t have interest in Britney Spears - but the legal aspects of this case are chilling.

I’ve seen a lot in the press about this and never know what to believe since I’m not a lawyer. But I’ve met a couple of estate attorneys and one that I know of wrote up an explanation from his outside perspective on his blog. He basically says that a conservatorship can only be used if it’s the “least restrictive alternative” and that based on Ms. Spears’ (coherent) statement that she wants out of the conservatorship that he would file a “Petition for Termination” immediately. That to me sounds like she has a way out unlike a lot of what I’ve seen in the news.

People with capacity have the right to make their own decisions even if it destroys their life. Just look at the drug addicts and schizophrenics living on the streets. Many are not tethered to reality at all. They get to make their own decisions. If this woman has the capacity to work as hard as she does, she certainly has the capacity to make her own decisions - even if they’re terrible.

Except who would file that?  Because she has no right to hire a lawyer because that is A Decision, and she can't make those, and it requires paying him from the money she earned, and she's not allowed to do that, either.  At one point, she had hired her own lawyer and they got to court and the judge basically told the lawyer that Ms. Spears had no right or ability to hire him, so he could go home, thankyouverymuch.

That's the problem.  She isn't a person, so she can't do what is necessary to get the courts to reestablish her personhood.  She lost the right to be able to decide to do the things necessary to give her back the right to decide those things. 

I believe that blogger can't file a Petition to Terminate because he has no standing.  The only people with standing are the conservatorship and Brittney, whose interests are handled by the conservatorship.

 I thought she had her own lawyers? but I don't know that she gets to pick her own lawyers, because yeah, that's a decision. The conservators have their own lawyers, which they get to choose, and she has to pay for.

ETA: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/arts/music/britney-spears-lawyer-samuel-ingham.html

[Villanelle]

This whole situation is interesting and horrifying. It’s rare that I have any interest in celebrities and their issues - and I certainly don’t have interest in Britney Spears - but the legal aspects of this case are chilling.

I’ve seen a lot in the press about this and never know what to believe since I’m not a lawyer. But I’ve met a couple of estate attorneys and one that I know of wrote up an explanation from his outside perspective on his blog. He basically says that a conservatorship can only be used if it’s the “least restrictive alternative” and that based on Ms. Spears’ (coherent) statement that she wants out of the conservatorship that he would file a “Petition for Termination” immediately. That to me sounds like she has a way out unlike a lot of what I’ve seen in the news.

People with capacity have the right to make their own decisions even if it destroys their life. Just look at the drug addicts and schizophrenics living on the streets. Many are not tethered to reality at all. They get to make their own decisions. If this woman has the capacity to work as hard as she does, she certainly has the capacity to make her own decisions - even if they’re terrible.

Except who would file that?  Because she has no right to hire a lawyer because that is A Decision, and she can't make those, and it requires paying him from the money she earned, and she's not allowed to do that, either.  At one point, she had hired her own lawyer and they got to court and the judge basically told the lawyer that Ms. Spears had no right or ability to hire him, so he could go home, thankyouverymuch.

That's the problem.  She isn't a person, so she can't do what is necessary to get the courts to reestablish her personhood.  She lost the right to be able to decide to do the things necessary to give her back the right to decide those things. 

I believe that blogger can't file a Petition to Terminate because he has no standing.  The only people with standing are the conservatorship and Brittney, whose interests are handled by the conservatorship.

 I thought she had her own lawyers? but I don't know that she gets to pick her own lawyers, because yeah, that's a decision. The conservators have their own lawyers, which they get to choose, and she has to pay for.

ETA: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/arts/music/britney-spears-lawyer-samuel-ingham.html

You are correct, and I was mistaken  She has a court-appointed attorney, instead of the attorney she initially chose herself and that the courts ultimately told to buzz off, in lieu of the court-appointed person. So she has a lawyer, not of her own choosing.  It's not entirely clear to me, however, whether the lawyer represents her (and what that means) or represents the interests of the court, and what rights she has. 

The lawyer she initially chose met with her and felt she was capable of choosing her own council.  The court disagreed, citing a medical document to which the lawyer had no access, and sent him away in favor of the court appointed lawyer. 

[Metalcat]

This whole situation is interesting and horrifying. It’s rare that I have any interest in celebrities and their issues - and I certainly don’t have interest in Britney Spears - but the legal aspects of this case are chilling.

I’ve seen a lot in the press about this and never know what to believe since I’m not a lawyer. But I’ve met a couple of estate attorneys and one that I know of wrote up an explanation from his outside perspective on his blog. He basically says that a conservatorship can only be used if it’s the “least restrictive alternative” and that based on Ms. Spears’ (coherent) statement that she wants out of the conservatorship that he would file a “Petition for Termination” immediately. That to me sounds like she has a way out unlike a lot of what I’ve seen in the news.

People with capacity have the right to make their own decisions even if it destroys their life. Just look at the drug addicts and schizophrenics living on the streets. Many are not tethered to reality at all. They get to make their own decisions. If this woman has the capacity to work as hard as she does, she certainly has the capacity to make her own decisions - even if they’re terrible.

Except who would file that?  Because she has no right to hire a lawyer because that is A Decision, and she can't make those, and it requires paying him from the money she earned, and she's not allowed to do that, either.  At one point, she had hired her own lawyer and they got to court and the judge basically told the lawyer that Ms. Spears had no right or ability to hire him, so he could go home, thankyouverymuch.

That's the problem.  She isn't a person, so she can't do what is necessary to get the courts to reestablish her personhood.  She lost the right to be able to decide to do the things necessary to give her back the right to decide those things. 

I believe that blogger can't file a Petition to Terminate because he has no standing.  The only people with standing are the conservatorship and Brittney, whose interests are handled by the conservatorship.

 I thought she had her own lawyers? but I don't know that she gets to pick her own lawyers, because yeah, that's a decision. The conservators have their own lawyers, which they get to choose, and she has to pay for.

ETA: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/arts/music/britney-spears-lawyer-samuel-ingham.html

You are correct, and I was mistaken  She has a court-appointed attorney, instead of the attorney she initially chose herself and that the courts ultimately told to buzz off, in lieu of the court-appointed person. So she has a lawyer, not of her own choosing.  It's not entirely clear to me, however, whether the lawyer represents her (and what that means) or represents the interests of the court, and what rights she has. 

The lawyer she initially chose met with her and felt she was capable of choosing her own council.  The court disagreed, citing a medical document to which the lawyer had no access, and sent him away in favor of the court appointed lawyer.

Yep, and the lawyer she has clearly has contempt for her as per that article.

I'm a very educated, very capable, very mentally healthy person. I'm in the middle of a lawsuit right now where the stakes are much lower. I can't fathom how stressed and distressed I would be if I didn't absolutely trust my lawyer. So I can't come close to imagining what it must be like for a mentally ill woman who has no autonomy to have her only advocate not seem to give a shit about her.

Fucking horrifying.

[PDXTabs]

This is a highly successful, top of her game professional who has ZERO autonomy when it comes to any of her own life decisions. That's fucking insane.

It's completely nuts. Even if she was living under a bridge as long as she isn't a danger to her self or others she deserves to function as an adult in society.

[jac941]

This whole situation is interesting and horrifying. It’s rare that I have any interest in celebrities and their issues - and I certainly don’t have interest in Britney Spears - but the legal aspects of this case are chilling.

I’ve seen a lot in the press about this and never know what to believe since I’m not a lawyer. But I’ve met a couple of estate attorneys and one that I know of wrote up an explanation from his outside perspective on his blog. He basically says that a conservatorship can only be used if it’s the “least restrictive alternative” and that based on Ms. Spears’ (coherent) statement that she wants out of the conservatorship that he would file a “Petition for Termination” immediately. That to me sounds like she has a way out unlike a lot of what I’ve seen in the news.

People with capacity have the right to make their own decisions even if it destroys their life. Just look at the drug addicts and schizophrenics living on the streets. Many are not tethered to reality at all. They get to make their own decisions. If this woman has the capacity to work as hard as she does, she certainly has the capacity to make her own decisions - even if they’re terrible.

Except who would file that?  Because she has no right to hire a lawyer because that is A Decision, and she can't make those, and it requires paying him from the money she earned, and she's not allowed to do that, either.  At one point, she had hired her own lawyer and they got to court and the judge basically told the lawyer that Ms. Spears had no right or ability to hire him, so he could go home, thankyouverymuch.

That's the problem.  She isn't a person, so she can't do what is necessary to get the courts to reestablish her personhood.  She lost the right to be able to decide to do the things necessary to give her back the right to decide those things. 

I believe that blogger can't file a Petition to Terminate because he has no standing.  The only people with standing are the conservatorship and Brittney, whose interests are handled by the conservatorship.

 I thought she had her own lawyers? but I don't know that she gets to pick her own lawyers, because yeah, that's a decision. The conservators have their own lawyers, which they get to choose, and she has to pay for.

ETA: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/arts/music/britney-spears-lawyer-samuel-ingham.html

You are correct, and I was mistaken  She has a court-appointed attorney, instead of the attorney she initially chose herself and that the courts ultimately told to buzz off, in lieu of the court-appointed person. So she has a lawyer, not of her own choosing.  It's not entirely clear to me, however, whether the lawyer represents her (and what that means) or represents the interests of the court, and what rights she has. 

The lawyer she initially chose met with her and felt she was capable of choosing her own council.  The court disagreed, citing a medical document to which the lawyer had no access, and sent him away in favor of the court appointed lawyer.

The court appointed attorney (Mr. Ingham) has an obligation to do what is in the client’s best interest and should take into consideration the conservatee’s wishes. He had an obligation to tell her she could petition to terminate the conservatorship.

The blog I read was by a local estate attorney who has prepared estate plans for a couple people I know and who has served as the court appointed attorney in similar cases. He breaks down the situation in an understandable manner and includes some nuance that I think the press is missing. If what he writes is accurate, it seems like she should be able to petition to get out of the conservatorship:

https://www.matthewbtalbot.com/blog/2021/6/24/britney-spears-calls-for-termination-of-her-conservatorship

In any case, I know this guy is an actual attorney who does this vs the press who have to interpret this from legal speak to something people want to read in the news.

So it sounds like she can get out of it, but a lot of people’s salaries depend on her staying in the conservatorship.

[Imma]

I am surprised this conservatorship is so easily turned into a permanent thing and it doesn't have to be renewed. Makes you wonder how many non-famous people are in situations like this.

Prior to information about the Spears case, it made sense to me. My experience with conservatorship was in my job as a school psych. When I had students with significant IDD (intellectual and developmental disabilities) who were clearly going to be living with their paarents/family for the rest of their lives, we would often work with those parents to obtain conservatorship. This was important because when parents did not make those deadlines the rights of the parents transferred to the student on their 18th birthday, which created some challenges with continuing services. Some of the parents needed significant support with the logistics of navigating the legal system for this (getting time off to go to court, responding to the court when information was sent, paying fees, etc). In all the cases where it came up in my work, it was abundantly clear that a lifetime conservatorship was appropriate and having periodic renewals would only, at best, create additional hassles for the parents on what was a formality or, at worst, risk disrupting services if for some reason the conservatorship was not renewed and there was a transfer of rights back to the adult with IDD.

That said, I never imagined a scenario like what is going on with Britney Spears, which is clearly disgusting.

I'm surprised that what seems such an extreme form of legal guardianship is choosen for kids with intellectual disabilities. I've worked in local social services, I have some people with disabilities like Down's Syndrome in my family, I've never ever personally heard of someone under a full conservatorship. In our law that would mean someone had 0 capacity at all and that's more associated with someone in a coma or a minimal state of consciousness. It happens but it's rare. In most cases one member of the family is appointed to handle financial affairs and another is appointed to handle medical affairs. But they would typically still have the right to shave their head if they wanted to because that would be within their capacity. Britney said she was even banned from having her nails done. That's the kind of control you'd have over a young child. It's very extreme. Even a teenager can go do that if they want to.

I’ve seen a lot in the press about this and never know what to believe since I’m not a lawyer. But I’ve met a couple of estate attorneys and one that I know of wrote up an explanation from his outside perspective on his blog. He basically says that a conservatorship can only be used if it’s the “least restrictive alternative” and that based on Ms. Spears’ (coherent) statement that she wants out of the conservatorship that he would file a “Petition for Termination” immediately. That to me sounds like she has a way out unlike a lot of what I’ve seen in the news.

^exactly

This case has been in and out of court so many times, especially for the last few years. This isn't the first that it's been scrutinized, it's just the first that anything Britney has said has been made public.

She's otherwise only communicated in performances or social media, all of which are controlled by her handlers.

It seems the only power she has is to refuse to work, which has been her latest move, and is why the finance co-conservator (aptly named Wallet) is gone.

He states that she'll likely be under conservatorship her entire life because she lacks the ability to make major financial decisions. But to me there's a difference between abdicating control of your finances vs having the courts dictate that you have no autonomy over any aspect of your personal life.

The legal team for the conservators (which Britney pays for because she has to pay for both sides), have always pointed to her financial success as an indicator that they do a great job, but that's where it gets so messy. Is being as financially successful as possible actually a well being indicator for a mentally ill person?

Yes. My husband's grandmother had Alzheimer's disease. In the early stages of cognitive decline, she voluntarily entered a financial conservatorship that was managed by my FIL and his brother, both of whom lived in the same town and spent a lot of time with her. They made sure that her bills were paid and she wasn't scammed out of her money. As she became more dependent and cognitively impaired, the level of oversight increased as needed.

So it seems there are obviously lighter alternatives that would help her out but would not remove any agency she has. In my jurisdiction anyone with an interest could file for a termination. If that's the same there, according to that lawyer, then for example Spears' boyfriend could file for her on her behalf.

[Metalcat]

I am surprised this conservatorship is so easily turned into a permanent thing and it doesn't have to be renewed. Makes you wonder how many non-famous people are in situations like this.

Prior to information about the Spears case, it made sense to me. My experience with conservatorship was in my job as a school psych. When I had students with significant IDD (intellectual and developmental disabilities) who were clearly going to be living with their paarents/family for the rest of their lives, we would often work with those parents to obtain conservatorship. This was important because when parents did not make those deadlines the rights of the parents transferred to the student on their 18th birthday, which created some challenges with continuing services. Some of the parents needed significant support with the logistics of navigating the legal system for this (getting time off to go to court, responding to the court when information was sent, paying fees, etc). In all the cases where it came up in my work, it was abundantly clear that a lifetime conservatorship was appropriate and having periodic renewals would only, at best, create additional hassles for the parents on what was a formality or, at worst, risk disrupting services if for some reason the conservatorship was not renewed and there was a transfer of rights back to the adult with IDD.

That said, I never imagined a scenario like what is going on with Britney Spears, which is clearly disgusting.

I'm surprised that what seems such an extreme form of legal guardianship is choosen for kids with intellectual disabilities. I've worked in local social services, I have some people with disabilities like Down's Syndrome in my family, I've never ever personally heard of someone under a full conservatorship. In our law that would mean someone had 0 capacity at all and that's more associated with someone in a coma or a minimal state of consciousness. It happens but it's rare. In most cases one member of the family is appointed to handle financial affairs and another is appointed to handle medical affairs. But they would typically still have the right to shave their head if they wanted to because that would be within their capacity. Britney said she was even banned from having her nails done. That's the kind of control you'd have over a young child. It's very extreme. Even a teenager can go do that if they want to.

I’ve seen a lot in the press about this and never know what to believe since I’m not a lawyer. But I’ve met a couple of estate attorneys and one that I know of wrote up an explanation from his outside perspective on his blog. He basically says that a conservatorship can only be used if it’s the “least restrictive alternative” and that based on Ms. Spears’ (coherent) statement that she wants out of the conservatorship that he would file a “Petition for Termination” immediately. That to me sounds like she has a way out unlike a lot of what I’ve seen in the news.

^exactly

This case has been in and out of court so many times, especially for the last few years. This isn't the first that it's been scrutinized, it's just the first that anything Britney has said has been made public.

She's otherwise only communicated in performances or social media, all of which are controlled by her handlers.

It seems the only power she has is to refuse to work, which has been her latest move, and is why the finance co-conservator (aptly named Wallet) is gone.

He states that she'll likely be under conservatorship her entire life because she lacks the ability to make major financial decisions. But to me there's a difference between abdicating control of your finances vs having the courts dictate that you have no autonomy over any aspect of your personal life.

The legal team for the conservators (which Britney pays for because she has to pay for both sides), have always pointed to her financial success as an indicator that they do a great job, but that's where it gets so messy. Is being as financially successful as possible actually a well being indicator for a mentally ill person?

Yes. My husband's grandmother had Alzheimer's disease. In the early stages of cognitive decline, she voluntarily entered a financial conservatorship that was managed by my FIL and his brother, both of whom lived in the same town and spent a lot of time with her. They made sure that her bills were paid and she wasn't scammed out of her money. As she became more dependent and cognitively impaired, the level of oversight increased as needed.

So it seems there are obviously lighter alternatives that would help her out but would not remove any agency she has. In my jurisdiction anyone with an interest could file for a termination. If that's the same there, according to that lawyer, then for example Spears' boyfriend could file for her on her behalf.

I'm not psychstache, but I worked for years with special needs children, and no, your typical Downs Syndrome child will not be put under total conservatorship.

Psychstache was referring to cases where the intellectual capacity is so compromised that it's clear that the child will never be able to make an autonomous decision. Not all kids with intellectual disabilities. There's a huge range.

[Sibley]

The world is not set up well to handle cases of abuse and control. At heart, whatever else is going on with her mental health, I see clear evidence of abuse. And that abuse is being aided and enforced by the courts. The court should be more cautious of this. Especially after the initial crisis faded, the situation should have been reviewed. The fact that it wasn't is the real failure, and there should be consequences for those involved.

Does she have a mental illness? Yep. If she's left to her own devices could she seriously screw up her life? Yep. But it is a human right to screw up your life. We're all capable of it.

[Cool Friend]

The world is not set up well to handle cases of abuse and control. At heart, whatever else is going on with her mental health, I see clear evidence of abuse. And that abuse is being aided and enforced by the courts. The court should be more cautious of this. Especially after the initial crisis faded, the situation should have been reviewed. The fact that it wasn't is the real failure, and there should be consequences for those involved.

Does she have a mental illness? Yep. If she's left to her own devices could she seriously screw up her life? Yep. But it is a human right to screw up your life. We're all capable of it.

Indeed, the world is set up to deliver abuse and control.

[Metalcat]

The world is not set up well to handle cases of abuse and control. At heart, whatever else is going on with her mental health, I see clear evidence of abuse. And that abuse is being aided and enforced by the courts. The court should be more cautious of this. Especially after the initial crisis faded, the situation should have been reviewed. The fact that it wasn't is the real failure, and there should be consequences for those involved.

Does she have a mental illness? Yep. If she's left to her own devices could she seriously screw up her life? Yep. But it is a human right to screw up your life. We're all capable of it.

Indeed, the world is set up to deliver abuse and control.

Exactly, I think I said before, it's really telling that her conservator team keeps pointing to her huge business success since they took over as evidence of how good a job they are doing.

As if turning her into a performing circus animal is the definition of her healthiest life.

[oldladystache]

Maybe 20 years ago my aunt was trying to get help with her husband who was beginning to have trouble managing his life. Somehow she was tricked into setting up a conservator for him. The conservator put him an a facility and as I recall tried to sell the house he owned that she lived in (memory is vague here) or otherwise take over everything. She couldn't get him out of the situation.

Fortunately one of her kids was a lawyer. The lawyer never got involved, never entered the state (Michigan) the parents lived in, but the other kids grabbed their dad in the middle of the night, and by morning he was in Hawaii, and nobody told the conservator where he was.

After that the kids managed to get the mom to Hawaii where she's lived ever since.

[jac941]

Does she have a mental illness? Yep. If she's left to her own devices could she seriously screw up her life? Yep. But it is a human right to screw up your life. We're all capable of it.

If this situation is an indication of the level of emotional abuse and gas lighting that she has endured for her whole life, it’s no wonder she has some sort of mental illness.

[BlueHouse]

Has anybody else watched The Guardians documentary?  It's terrifying.  As someone who expects to have a good amount of assets into the future with no dependents and few family members, this terrified me.  They go after the assets.  They have doctors and even judges in on it and because it's in family court and closed to public, it's difficult for outsiders to know that there's abuse happening.

Think it can't happen to you?  Think again. 

https://www.amazon.com/Guardians-Julie-Belshe/dp/B07KNN8B8W

[iluvzbeach]

@BlueHouse Wow, what a documentary and such a scary thought that this could and does happen. Thanks for mentioning it.

I watched the dark comedy I Care A Lot a few months back and now I’m wondering if the idea for the movie came from the situation in Vegas.

[Freedom2016]

Does she have a mental illness? Yep. If she's left to her own devices could she seriously screw up her life? Yep. But it is a human right to screw up your life. We're all capable of it.

If this situation is an indication of the level of emotional abuse and gas lighting that she has endured for her whole life, it’s no wonder she has some sort of mental illness.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Whatever signs of mental illness exist today are quite likely an EFFECT of being under this gross conservatory for 13 years, not the mental illness CAUSE requiring it. Modern day slavery by j-holes profiting off of her. I'm disgusted by this whole thing.

[Metalcat]

Does she have a mental illness? Yep. If she's left to her own devices could she seriously screw up her life? Yep. But it is a human right to screw up your life. We're all capable of it.

If this situation is an indication of the level of emotional abuse and gas lighting that she has endured for her whole life, it’s no wonder she has some sort of mental illness.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Whatever signs of mental illness exist today are quite likely an EFFECT of being under this gross conservatory for 13 years, not the mental illness CAUSE requiring it. Modern day slavery by j-holes profiting off of her. I'm disgusted by this whole thing.

The courts just determined that she's mentally too vulnerable because she would not be able to protect herself from scams and predatory people trying to abuse her wealth...

Okay...don't we know that most celebrities don't have the capacity not to be scammed out of their wealth? Isn't that why so many of them end up, oh y'know, scammed out of their wealth???

So the obvious answer is to control her life to the point that she feels like she's being abused, and strip her of all autonomy and bodily freedom to the point that she can't even choose her own lawyer??

Uh...okay.

Again, if there were no vast wealth involved, no one would care, and she would be free to fuck up her life like every other mentally ill celebrity out there.

Her going broke is treated like the worst possible thing that could happen to her. Personally I would rather be broke than a prisoner in my own life.

[OtherJen]

Company Set To Co-Manage Britney Spears' Conservatorship Asks To Withdraw (NPR)

The wealth management firm that had planned to act as co-conservator of Britney Spears's financial dealings has asked to leave the arrangement. In its request filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Thursday, the company, Bessemer Trust, cited the singer's anguished comments in court just over a week ago.

[Metalcat]

Company Set To Co-Manage Britney Spears' Conservatorship Asks To Withdraw (NPR)

The wealth management firm that had planned to act as co-conservator of Britney Spears's financial dealings has asked to leave the arrangement. In its request filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Thursday, the company, Bessemer Trust, cited the singer's anguished comments in court just over a week ago.

Yeah, apparently *her* lawyer told them she consented to the conservatorship.

[Freedom2016]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/entertainment/co-conservator-britney-spears-estate-resigns/index.html

So, is there finally momentum (i.e. imminent action by her lawyer) to terminate the conservatorship??

[Metalcat]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/entertainment/co-conservator-britney-spears-estate-resigns/index.html

So, is there finally momentum (i.e. imminent action by her lawyer) to terminate the conservatorship??

The judge just refused to remove her father despite her request, so it doesn't sound like the court is overly moved by any of this.

It's the structure of the laws as they stand that seem to be the problem, not just the ways in which the courts enforce the laws.

I think what's bigger is that there will be a push to reform the laws overall, which is what they're talking about in California because of this case.

So the public outrage may not help her case any time soon, but it may get meaningful change down the line.

ETA: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/britney-spears-invited-to-testify-in-congress-so-strict-conservatorship-does-not-happen-to-any-other-american/ar-AALFUs3?ocid=mmx&PC=EMMX20

This issue is being hailed as one of the first issues that both political parties seem to be coming together on. Lol

[partgypsy]

I'm suspicious. I don't think people are willy nillly taken off a regimen that has been working.  I get not liking the side effects.  And I'm not sure if people should be made to endure them. But I don't think meds are changed for no reason.  I do agree with the neutral party.

Not typically, but 1) it’s sadly not unheard of to dismiss concerns people with mental illness have about their experience with medication, etc. there are many treatment options, it didn’t have to be either a regimen or b regimen. 2) money can buy unscrupulous providers

See: Brian Wilson and Stevie Nicks for celebrities with histories of unscrupulous psychiatrists.

Also Stan Lee And Casey Casem, of shady decisionmaking...

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/stan-lee-needs-a-hero-elder-abuse-claims-a-battle-aging-marvel-creator-1101229/

[Freedom2016]

So the public outrage may not help her case any time soon, but it may get meaningful change down the line.

ETA: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/britney-spears-invited-to-testify-in-congress-so-strict-conservatorship-does-not-happen-to-any-other-american/ar-AALFUs3?ocid=mmx&PC=EMMX20

This issue is being hailed as one of the first issues that both political parties seem to be coming together on. Lol

Man, those are some strange bedfellows.

And, er, would Spears have to get permission from her conservator to testify in Congress? (?!?!!!)

[Metalcat]

So the public outrage may not help her case any time soon, but it may get meaningful change down the line.

ETA: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/britney-spears-invited-to-testify-in-congress-so-strict-conservatorship-does-not-happen-to-any-other-american/ar-AALFUs3?ocid=mmx&PC=EMMX20

This issue is being hailed as one of the first issues that both political parties seem to be coming together on. Lol

Man, those are some strange bedfellows.

And, er, would Spears have to get permission from her conservator to testify in Congress? (?!?!!!)

That's immediately what I wondered.

[BlueHouse]

@BlueHouse Wow, what a documentary and such a scary thought that this could and does happen. Thanks for mentioning it.

I watched the dark comedy I Care A Lot a few months back and now I’m wondering if the idea for the movie came from the situation in Vegas.

Yes, i saw that too and I immediately thought that it was going to be a fictional account of the real story.   

[Metalcat]

Ronan wrote a pretty Ronan-y piece all about this.
What I found interesting were comments near the end about how conservatorships are basically self perpetuating regardless of the outcome. If the person does well, then that's evidence that the arrangement is helping. If they do poorly, that's evidence that they need the arrangement.

In Britney's case they're pushing both narratives, that her anger and agitation are evidence of her instability, not evidence of her suffering because of the conservatorship, and her professional success is evidence of the positive influence of the conservatorship, not of her competence. When really, no matter what the outcome, it can be spun to justify the conservatorship.

What I find utterly loathsome is the Judge's comments to her lawyer that he probably shouldn't tell her that she is actually allowed to get married. I don't care if she is frankly fucking nuts and dangerous and absolutely should be in a conservatorship, her own lawyer AND THE JUDGE conspiring to keep her ignorant of her legal rights is beyond shocking.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/american-chronicles/britney-spears-conservatorship-nightmare

[OtherJen]

Well, this seems to be a step in the right direction. Britney Spears: US House of Representatives introduces bill to end conservatorship abuse (The Guardian)

[Metalcat]

Well, this seems to be a step in the right direction. Britney Spears: US House of Representatives introduces bill to end conservatorship abuse (The Guardian)

She was also finally able to hire her own lawyer.

Between scrutiny of the system and a lawyer who doesn't seem to loathe her, it sounds like there might be some traction to at least improve her situation. As many lawyers have commented, we have no idea what her cognitive reality is, but from the sounds of it, she had no one actually in her camp. At least now she has someone who is paid to actually represent her interests, so that's something.

[Metalcat]

What the actual fuck????

So Jamie Spears spends 13 years insisting that Britney is incapable of making ANY decisions about her own career or personal life, and then he steps down because the public has bullied him too much, and now he's turning around and basically saying "welp, if she says she can handle it, I guess she can handle it".

Someone make it make sense.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/09/07/entertainment/britney-spears-conservatorship-petition-to-end/index.html

[Sibley]

Assuming that the conservatorship is inappropriate/he has taken advantage of her money/abused her, he may think that this is a way to not get charged.

I could also see this being similar to the "if I can't have her, no one can" thought process.

Realistically, Britney probably does need some help. Mental illness doesn't generally just go away. Hopefully she's currently mentally healthy enough to recognize that and take steps to put her own guardrails in place before her health slips too far.

[Metalcat]

Assuming that the conservatorship is inappropriate/he has taken advantage of her money/abused her, he may think that this is a way to not get charged.

I could also see this being similar to the "if I can't have her, no one can" thought process.

Realistically, Britney probably does need some help. Mental illness doesn't generally just go away. Hopefully she's currently mentally healthy enough to recognize that and take steps to put her own guardrails in place before her health slips too far.

I've never doubted that she has major mental health issues, probably requires intensive care, AND should probably empower someone else to manage her finances for her.

My issue is that this isn't something that your typical, seriously mentally ill person with addiction problems has done to them. If anything, the legal system normally leaves people with these issues TOO much on their own to fend for themselves.

Had she been a poor mother, no one would have stripped her permanently of all of her rights.

I wouldn't be surprised that if the conservatorship ends, that she will likely go off the rails, and her father will point and say "see, I was preventing that from happening".

But being a mentally ill mother with addiction issues who has shit judgement is not a crime, and stripping someone of ALL of their rights, permanently, is what we do to criminals.

If she fucks up her life and her career without being under the iron fist of her father, then that's her right to do so. People are allowed to be fucked up and to handle things very, very poorly.

But not if they have a lot of money.

Hmm...I just remembered that her new lawyer is actively investigating him for how he dissipated her wealth. So yeah, it's probable that this is a move to get the investigation to go away.

[Sandi_k]

What the actual fuck????

So Jamie Spears spends 13 years insisting that Britney is incapable of making ANY decisions about her own career or personal life, and then he steps down because the public has bullied him too much, and now he's turning around and basically saying "welp, if she says she can handle it, I guess she can handle it".

Someone make it make sense.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/09/07/entertainment/britney-spears-conservatorship-petition-to-end/index.html

I think he hopes that if he agrees to step aside, the "need" to investigate the past 13 years becomes a lower priority. I think once she said she was not going to perform as long as he was in charge, the calculus changed.

I also think that her insistence in June of having the hearing be public changed things - everyone assumed that the conservatorship was primarily financial; once people realized she wasn't allowed to drive, and had had an IUD that could not be removed on her command, people were horrified.

Also, the fact that she was able to get her own attorney appointed meant that the clock was ticking for her father; Jodi Montgomery, the person who became BS's "personal conservator" is now on record as opposing Jamie continuing, even as only her financial conservator.

The whole story will be legally fascinating; my remembrance is that the judge who originally approved the conservatorship becoming permanent is no longer the judge on the case; this is the same judge who reviewed the initial medical file on B - which she REFUSED to share with B's attorney at the time - and the reason she refused to share it was the circular logic that B wasn't capable of hiring her own attorney, so therefore that attorney was NOT B's attorney, and therefore the court didn't need to share that medical report. So B has never seen the same medical report that was the grounds for her conservatorship. Now that she DOES have an attorney recognized as *her* attorney, the entire foundation crumbles. Since they've recognized her choice of attorney, she's de facto capable. Which means she is no longer in need of a permanent conservatorship.

The NY Times reports "Mr. Spears’s lawyer wrote that the singer should be able to choose her own doctor and manage her therapy. He also supported Ms. Spears’s request that the conservatorship end without a medical evaluation, which experts have said is unlikely."

I think they want NO MEDICAL report as part of the current record, especially if that forces the prior confidential report into the assessment and the current attorney's review - and possibly into the public eye. Because then the question becomes "Who benefited?" And it certainly looks like the very first answer to that question would be Jamie Spears.

#FreeBritney indeed.

[TrMama]

Assuming that the conservatorship is inappropriate/he has taken advantage of her money/abused her, he may think that this is a way to not get charged.

I could also see this being similar to the "if I can't have her, no one can" thought process.

Realistically, Britney probably does need some help. Mental illness doesn't generally just go away. Hopefully she's currently mentally healthy enough to recognize that and take steps to put her own guardrails in place before her health slips too far.

I've never doubted that she has major mental health issues, probably requires intensive care, AND should probably empower someone else to manage her finances for her.

My issue is that this isn't something that your typical, seriously mentally ill person with addiction problems has done to them. If anything, the legal system normally leaves people with these issues TOO much on their own to fend for themselves.

Had she been a poor mother, no one would have stripped her permanently of all of her rights.

I wouldn't be surprised that if the conservatorship ends, that she will likely go off the rails, and her father will point and say "see, I was preventing that from happening".

But being a mentally ill mother with addiction issues who has shit judgement is not a crime, and stripping someone of ALL of their rights, permanently, is what we do to criminals.

If she fucks up her life and her career without being under the iron fist of her father, then that's her right to do so. People are allowed to be fucked up and to handle things very, very poorly.

But not if they have a lot of money.

Hmm...I just remembered that her new lawyer is actively investigating him for how he dissipated her wealth. So yeah, it's probable that this is a move to get the investigation to go away.

I absolutely agree that Britney has the right to make more of her own decisions and can spend herself into the poorhouse if that's the result of those decisions. However, in her case she's not only very mentally ill and rich, she's also a public figure who's recognizable to anyone around the world. This makes her a target for anyone who'd like a slice of her wealth. I really hope someone responsible and ethical retains some kind of financial oversight, if only to provide a little protection from all the low lifes who'll come out of the woodwork after Britney.

[Metalcat]

Assuming that the conservatorship is inappropriate/he has taken advantage of her money/abused her, he may think that this is a way to not get charged.

I could also see this being similar to the "if I can't have her, no one can" thought process.

Realistically, Britney probably does need some help. Mental illness doesn't generally just go away. Hopefully she's currently mentally healthy enough to recognize that and take steps to put her own guardrails in place before her health slips too far.

I've never doubted that she has major mental health issues, probably requires intensive care, AND should probably empower someone else to manage her finances for her.

My issue is that this isn't something that your typical, seriously mentally ill person with addiction problems has done to them. If anything, the legal system normally leaves people with these issues TOO much on their own to fend for themselves.

Had she been a poor mother, no one would have stripped her permanently of all of her rights.

I wouldn't be surprised that if the conservatorship ends, that she will likely go off the rails, and her father will point and say "see, I was preventing that from happening".

But being a mentally ill mother with addiction issues who has shit judgement is not a crime, and stripping someone of ALL of their rights, permanently, is what we do to criminals.

If she fucks up her life and her career without being under the iron fist of her father, then that's her right to do so. People are allowed to be fucked up and to handle things very, very poorly.

But not if they have a lot of money.

Hmm...I just remembered that her new lawyer is actively investigating him for how he dissipated her wealth. So yeah, it's probable that this is a move to get the investigation to go away.

I absolutely agree that Britney has the right to make more of her own decisions and can spend herself into the poorhouse if that's the result of those decisions. However, in her case she's not only very mentally ill and rich, she's also a public figure who's recognizable to anyone around the world. This makes her a target for anyone who'd like a slice of her wealth. I really hope someone responsible and ethical retains some kind of financial oversight, if only to provide a little protection from all the low lifes who'll come out of the woodwork after Britney.

I totally agree, that's why I said that she should hand over financial control to someone, but someone of her choosing.

Of course she might choose someone sketchy and lose a ton of money, that's very possible. But if it were me, I would rather be financially defrauded than have all of my freedom stripped from me, including reproductive rights.

I understand the rationale to protect her, but the cost of that protection has been inhumane.

That said, my point about money wasn't just in reference to her, people with assets are more likely to be targeted for conservatorship abuse.

If you're poor and fucked up, you're allowed to keep your freedoms, but if you are wealthy and fucked up, you become a prime target for ending up with fewer rights than a death row inmate.

[jfer_rose]

Like others here I've been following this case with great interest despite not caring about Britney otherwise. I seriously hope that the public attention from this case helps lead to changes in laws regarding conservatorship. It's very unsettling to learn that there are people who have committed no crime and yet have so little control over their lives.

It's not right and I agree that it would be a better outcome to let someone deal with the consequences of their decisions even if it means they get scammed out of their fortune than to deprive them of their rights so unfairly.

[Villanelle]

Assuming that the conservatorship is inappropriate/he has taken advantage of her money/abused her, he may think that this is a way to not get charged.

I could also see this being similar to the "if I can't have her, no one can" thought process.

Realistically, Britney probably does need some help. Mental illness doesn't generally just go away. Hopefully she's currently mentally healthy enough to recognize that and take steps to put her own guardrails in place before her health slips too far.

I've never doubted that she has major mental health issues, probably requires intensive care, AND should probably empower someone else to manage her finances for her.

My issue is that this isn't something that your typical, seriously mentally ill person with addiction problems has done to them. If anything, the legal system normally leaves people with these issues TOO much on their own to fend for themselves.

Had she been a poor mother, no one would have stripped her permanently of all of her rights.

I wouldn't be surprised that if the conservatorship ends, that she will likely go off the rails, and her father will point and say "see, I was preventing that from happening".

But being a mentally ill mother with addiction issues who has shit judgement is not a crime, and stripping someone of ALL of their rights, permanently, is what we do to criminals.

If she fucks up her life and her career without being under the iron fist of her father, then that's her right to do so. People are allowed to be fucked up and to handle things very, very poorly.

But not if they have a lot of money.

Hmm...I just remembered that her new lawyer is actively investigating him for how he dissipated her wealth. So yeah, it's probable that this is a move to get the investigation to go away.

I absolutely agree that Britney has the right to make more of her own decisions and can spend herself into the poorhouse if that's the result of those decisions. However, in her case she's not only very mentally ill and rich, she's also a public figure who's recognizable to anyone around the world. This makes her a target for anyone who'd like a slice of her wealth. I really hope someone responsible and ethical retains some kind of financial oversight, if only to provide a little protection from all the low lifes who'll come out of the woodwork after Britney.

But how many lottery winners are broke after a few years?  How many major pro-athletes have nothing to their name eventually?  Mc Hammer went bankrupt.  There are so many examples.  Those people all made really awful financial decisions. Surely at least some of them also had some mental health issued.  They were taken advantage of.  But none of those things are illegal, and none of them are the judical system's job to stop.  Depending on her diagnosis, it may be appropriate to *require* some sort of professional financial oversight, but maybe not.  If she gets catfished or talked into buying land in the Spratly Islands or gives all her money to buy Louis Vuitton for a retired circus elephant, those things are stupid, but it is her right to be stupid with her money, just as it is anyone's right. 

If she were my friend, I'd encourage her to talk to a financial professional and set up some sort of both oversight and assistance.  But unless her MI is quite severe (and it may well be) in ways that truly damage her ability to make these decisions, I think she needs to be allowed to squander away her fortune if those are the choices she makes. 

This case makes me think about the people in similar situations who don't have a public following, as that seems to be what contributed to the changes.  I doubt it is an issue for too many poor people as there isn't as much of an incentive.  (Though some perverse might still enjoy the control and mental torture.)  But a private figure with a couple million dollars?  This could be happening and none of us would ever know.  I think it's clear we need some significant conservatorship reform is needed, and that should absolutely include periodic, independent reviews. 

[MudPuppy]

As I’ve told many patients leaving AMA, “this is a poor decision with significant consequences, but you are free to make it.”

Free Britney.

[Sibley]

https://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/2486118/britney-spears-conservatorship-changes-jodi-montgomery/

Looks like Britney is aware of her limitations and problems and is taking steps to put guiderails in. (Assuming that source is legit at least.)

[Sibley]

Look what you guys did, you got me interested in this.

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/freebritney-heads-court-judge-considers-terminating-britney-spears-conservatorship-n1279893

Big change there. Jaime Spears is out, and another hearing in November which could dissolve the conservatory entire.

Lot of mud slinging happening it seams. Not a good sign when there's courts involved.

[Metalcat]

Look what you guys did, you got me interested in this.

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/freebritney-heads-court-judge-considers-terminating-britney-spears-conservatorship-n1279893

Big change there. Jaime Spears is out, and another hearing in November which could dissolve the conservatory entire.

Lot of mud slinging happening it seams. Not a good sign when there's courts involved.

I started watching Britney vs Spears on Netflix in honour of her court date today. It's so ugly. They really start painting the picture of who benefits from this and how. That's always my question when I see a situation that doesn't seem to make sense "who benefits".

The puzzle piece that I couldn't understand was how her previous lawyer Sam Ingham benefitted from representing her so poorly, which has been evidenced by how effective Rosengart has been in such a short time, and they explained that it was in his best interests to not cross Jamie, because Jamie was the only one who could contest his work and his payment.

There are two ways a lawyer can really benefit from representing Britney, one is to play nice and keep the gravy train flowing, and the other is to make a big show of the fight and capitalize on the press.

Ingham himself has indicated that he rarely ever met with Britney, and never for very long, but that his work on the conservatorship has been extensive and complex. Okay...but he's not even meeting with his client...how does that even work?

I think it's no coincidence that he fucked off very quickly the moment the scrutiny turned on him after her public testimony.

Ingham did the former of benefitting from playing nice. Now Rosengart is benefitting from the publicity, but that works in her favour, because he's putting himself and his strategies out in the public to be seen, which adda accountability. The better her needs are perceived to be served, the more of a hero Rosengart appears to be, so win win.

But if it comes out that Ingham really did neglect representing her needs as brutally as it's appearing that he did, then that's a HUGE problem in the conservatorship system. Conservatees seem to be at the mercy of everyone and their lawyer is the *only* mechanism for expressing their own will. If there's inventive for those lawyers not to do so, and no recourse for conservatees to change lawyers, that leaves no checks and balances. Which is exactly what appears to have happened in this case.

There's a lot of criticism of this particular doc for how favourably it portrays Lutfi and Galib, which is kind of interesting, because this whole thing hinges on Lutfi being cast as dangerous at the time. The whole reason she was never able to have her own lawyer was because Jamie was able to convince the court that Lutfi was such an immediate danger that for her own good, the normal 5 day warning period was waived.

Apparently conservatees are entitled to 5 days of warning, within which time they can obtain counsel and challenge the order. She never got the 5 days, and Lutfi was the reason cited.

So it's an interesting angle that this doc really presents him as a far more reasonable person than he was made out to be in 2007. Certainly, the interviews with him make him come off as quite credible. That doesn't mean a lot, but I know that I was not expecting him to appear so reasonable based on the coverage I remember from the time.

What's interesting is that he was the reason she never had a chance to hire her own lawyer, but it doesn't seem like he was ever himself questioned by the court. So how did the court even decide that this guy presented such an immediate threat that she had even more crucial rights taken away?

Again, another unreasonable loophole in the system. If the person petitioning for control is taken at their word that someone else is a threat, and that threat is never directly evaluated, then where are the checks and balances?

It certainly seems like this is a case where there was heavy financial incentive for everything to go wrong for her that could have. That very savvy legal strategies were employed to exploit every single loophole to compromise every single check and balance built into the system to protect her interests.

So many little things had to go their way for this conservatorship to end up the way it did. It's hard to believe that it just happened that way, that the chips just happened to fall in such a way that she lost every right at every turn.

It should be incredibly improbable that every single thing worked out against her. That is, only if you ignore the enormous financial incentive for everything to turn out exactly as it did.

Where the doc really shows this is in the leaked records they have showing that much of the work that she was made to do was actually against medical advice, and that she was given extra stimulants on days she had to work.

Stimulants, the very drugs she had a problem with that lead to her losing her rights in the first place.

That's fucked up.

[Villanelle]

Look what you guys did, you got me interested in this.

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/freebritney-heads-court-judge-considers-terminating-britney-spears-conservatorship-n1279893

Big change there. Jaime Spears is out, and another hearing in November which could dissolve the conservatory entire.

Lot of mud slinging happening it seams. Not a good sign when there's courts involved.

I started watching Britney vs Spears on Netflix in honour of her court date today. It's so ugly. They really start painting the picture of who benefits from this and how. That's always my question when I see a situation that doesn't seem to make sense "who benefits".

The puzzle piece that I couldn't understand was how her previous lawyer Sam Ingham benefitted from representing her so poorly, which has been evidenced by how effective Rosengart has been in such a short time, and they explained that it was in his best interests to not cross Jamie, because Jamie was the only one who could contest his work and his payment.

There are two ways a lawyer can really benefit from representing Britney, one is to play nice and keep the gravy train flowing, and the other is to make a big show of the fight and capitalize on the press.

Ingham himself has indicated that he rarely ever met with Britney, and never for very long, but that his work on the conservatorship has been extensive and complex. Okay...but he's not even meeting with his client...how does that even work?

I think it's no coincidence that he fucked off very quickly the moment the scrutiny turned on him after her public testimony.

Ingham did the former of benefitting from playing nice. Now Rosengart is benefitting from the publicity, but that works in her favour, because he's putting himself and his strategies out in the public to be seen, which adda accountability. The better her needs are perceived to be served, the more of a hero Rosengart appears to be, so win win.

But if it comes out that Ingham really did neglect representing her needs as brutally as it's appearing that he did, then that's a HUGE problem in the conservatorship system. Conservatees seem to be at the mercy of everyone and their lawyer is the *only* mechanism for expressing their own will. If there's inventive for those lawyers not to do so, and no recourse for conservatees to change lawyers, that leaves no checks and balances. Which is exactly what appears to have happened in this case.

There's a lot of criticism of this particular doc for how favourably it portrays Lutfi and Galib, which is kind of interesting, because this whole thing hinges on Lutfi being cast as dangerous at the time. The whole reason she was never able to have her own lawyer was because Jamie was able to convince the court that Lutfi was such an immediate danger that for her own good, the normal 5 day warning period was waived.

Apparently conservatees are entitled to 5 days of warning, within which time they can obtain counsel and challenge the order. She never got the 5 days, and Lutfi was the reason cited.

So it's an interesting angle that this doc really presents him as a far more reasonable person than he was made out to be in 2007. Certainly, the interviews with him make him come off as quite credible. That doesn't mean a lot, but I know that I was not expecting him to appear so reasonable based on the coverage I remember from the time.

What's interesting is that he was the reason she never had a chance to hire her own lawyer, but it doesn't seem like he was ever himself questioned by the court. So how did the court even decide that this guy presented such an immediate threat that she had even more crucial rights taken away?

Again, another unreasonable loophole in the system. If the person petitioning for control is taken at their word that someone else is a threat, and that threat is never directly evaluated, then where are the checks and balances?

It certainly seems like this is a case where there was heavy financial incentive for everything to go wrong for her that could have. That very savvy legal strategies were employed to exploit every single loophole to compromise every single check and balance built into the system to protect her interests.

So many little things had to go their way for this conservatorship to end up the way it did. It's hard to believe that it just happened that way, that the chips just happened to fall in such a way that she lost every right at every turn.

It should be incredibly improbable that every single thing worked out against her. That is, only if you ignore the enormous financial incentive for everything to turn out exactly as it did.

Where the doc really shows this is in the leaked records they have showing that much of the work that she was made to do was actually against medical advice, and that she was given extra stimulants on days she had to work.

Stimulants, the very drugs she had a problem with that lead to her losing her rights in the first place.

That's fucked up.

As I understand it, he was technically meeting with his client.  His client was the conservatorship.  Brittany was essentially forbidden, until recently, from having her own lawyer, so she was never his client.  The conservatorship was the client, and he met with the conservatorship, which was essentially Jamie. 

That's the insidious part of all this.  The moment the conservatorship was established, she stopped having any legal voice, really.  She was too 'unwell' to have any say in anything so there was no requirement (or even need, in the eyes of the law) to meet with her.  In the eyes of the court, she was not all the meaningfully different than a person in a coma.  A lawyer wouldn't meet with a comatose patient, and Brittany's words and thoughts and opinions and wishes were of no consequence because she was supposedly so unwell that the right thing to do was not give her any say over her decisions, so there was no need to meet with her.

The lack of checks and balances is baked into the system.  She hired a lawyer and was told by the courts that she couldn't do so. (I'm blanking on the guy's name, but he was part of the documentary. Maybe that as Streisand?)

It's the quintessential Catch-22.  She is too unwell to have a say in her life, which means we don't trust her word when she says she isn't too unwell to have a say. 

It's terrifying, and it seems the only reason she is [hopefully] come out from under it is that she is famous and her case got some traction.  If she were some anonymous rich person, this likely would have continued indefinitely.

The system clearly needs serious reform, to include periodic, mandatory evaluation from an outside team, chosen by the conservatee if possible and if not, then appointed by the courts but entirely separate from the conservator. 

[Metalcat]

Look what you guys did, you got me interested in this.

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/freebritney-heads-court-judge-considers-terminating-britney-spears-conservatorship-n1279893

Big change there. Jaime Spears is out, and another hearing in November which could dissolve the conservatory entire.

Lot of mud slinging happening it seams. Not a good sign when there's courts involved.

I started watching Britney vs Spears on Netflix in honour of her court date today. It's so ugly. They really start painting the picture of who benefits from this and how. That's always my question when I see a situation that doesn't seem to make sense "who benefits".

The puzzle piece that I couldn't understand was how her previous lawyer Sam Ingham benefitted from representing her so poorly, which has been evidenced by how effective Rosengart has been in such a short time, and they explained that it was in his best interests to not cross Jamie, because Jamie was the only one who could contest his work and his payment.

There are two ways a lawyer can really benefit from representing Britney, one is to play nice and keep the gravy train flowing, and the other is to make a big show of the fight and capitalize on the press.

Ingham himself has indicated that he rarely ever met with Britney, and never for very long, but that his work on the conservatorship has been extensive and complex. Okay...but he's not even meeting with his client...how does that even work?

I think it's no coincidence that he fucked off very quickly the moment the scrutiny turned on him after her public testimony.

Ingham did the former of benefitting from playing nice. Now Rosengart is benefitting from the publicity, but that works in her favour, because he's putting himself and his strategies out in the public to be seen, which adda accountability. The better her needs are perceived to be served, the more of a hero Rosengart appears to be, so win win.

But if it comes out that Ingham really did neglect representing her needs as brutally as it's appearing that he did, then that's a HUGE problem in the conservatorship system. Conservatees seem to be at the mercy of everyone and their lawyer is the *only* mechanism for expressing their own will. If there's inventive for those lawyers not to do so, and no recourse for conservatees to change lawyers, that leaves no checks and balances. Which is exactly what appears to have happened in this case.

There's a lot of criticism of this particular doc for how favourably it portrays Lutfi and Galib, which is kind of interesting, because this whole thing hinges on Lutfi being cast as dangerous at the time. The whole reason she was never able to have her own lawyer was because Jamie was able to convince the court that Lutfi was such an immediate danger that for her own good, the normal 5 day warning period was waived.

Apparently conservatees are entitled to 5 days of warning, within which time they can obtain counsel and challenge the order. She never got the 5 days, and Lutfi was the reason cited.

So it's an interesting angle that this doc really presents him as a far more reasonable person than he was made out to be in 2007. Certainly, the interviews with him make him come off as quite credible. That doesn't mean a lot, but I know that I was not expecting him to appear so reasonable based on the coverage I remember from the time.

What's interesting is that he was the reason she never had a chance to hire her own lawyer, but it doesn't seem like he was ever himself questioned by the court. So how did the court even decide that this guy presented such an immediate threat that she had even more crucial rights taken away?

Again, another unreasonable loophole in the system. If the person petitioning for control is taken at their word that someone else is a threat, and that threat is never directly evaluated, then where are the checks and balances?

It certainly seems like this is a case where there was heavy financial incentive for everything to go wrong for her that could have. That very savvy legal strategies were employed to exploit every single loophole to compromise every single check and balance built into the system to protect her interests.

So many little things had to go their way for this conservatorship to end up the way it did. It's hard to believe that it just happened that way, that the chips just happened to fall in such a way that she lost every right at every turn.

It should be incredibly improbable that every single thing worked out against her. That is, only if you ignore the enormous financial incentive for everything to turn out exactly as it did.

Where the doc really shows this is in the leaked records they have showing that much of the work that she was made to do was actually against medical advice, and that she was given extra stimulants on days she had to work.

Stimulants, the very drugs she had a problem with that lead to her losing her rights in the first place.

That's fucked up.

As I understand it, he was technically meeting with his client.  His client was the conservatorship.  Brittany was essentially forbidden, until recently, from having her own lawyer, so she was never his client.  The conservatorship was the client, and he met with the conservatorship, which was essentially Jamie. 

That's the insidious part of all this.  The moment the conservatorship was established, she stopped having any legal voice, really.  She was too 'unwell' to have any say in anything so there was no requirement (or even need, in the eyes of the law) to meet with her.  In the eyes of the court, she was not all the meaningfully different than a person in a coma.  A lawyer wouldn't meet with a comatose patient, and Brittany's words and thoughts and opinions and wishes were of no consequence because she was supposedly so unwell that the right thing to do was not give her any say over her decisions, so there was no need to meet with her.

The lack of checks and balances is baked into the system.  She hired a lawyer and was told by the courts that she couldn't do so. (I'm blanking on the guy's name, but he was part of the documentary. Maybe that as Streisand?)

It's the quintessential Catch-22.  She is too unwell to have a say in her life, which means we don't trust her word when she says she isn't too unwell to have a say. 

It's terrifying, and it seems the only reason she is [hopefully] come out from under it is that she is famous and her case got some traction.  If she were some anonymous rich person, this likely would have continued indefinitely.

The system clearly needs serious reform, to include periodic, mandatory evaluation from an outside team, chosen by the conservatee if possible and if not, then appointed by the courts but entirely separate from the conservator.

That's not how I understood it though. Ingham didn't work for the conservatorship, he was appointed specifically to represent *her* I tests. She's always been entitled to legal representation, she's just been deemed incapable of *choosing* said representation, so the court was responsible for appointing someone, and they appointed Ingham.

That's why the second Ingham stepped down due to too much public scrutiny after her first public statements in court, she was able to get Rosengart as her lawyer, although I don't technicalky understand how he came into the picture if she's incapable of choosing her own lawyer?? I'm unclear on that.

But Rosengart has been ferociously attending to what appears to be her will. Which is exactly what Ingham was *supposed* to be doing, even though he barely spoke to her.

Suffice to say, it's pretty damning that basically the second she got a competent lawyer, something she has desperately tried to do for over a decade, the wheels started rapidly turning and the whole conservatorship started falling apart.

So the crux of this whole case going fucking sideways is how her father and his team conspired to make sure she never got a decent lawyer, ie, the one legal protection she was entitled to.

Had they not managed to get that 5 day warning period waived where she would have been able to secure her own choice of lawyer, this might have never even happened.

[jfer_rose]

I'm going to have to watch the Netflix doc, but I just finished two documentary episodes of the New York Times Presents currently on Hulu. One is from last year, called Framing Britney Spears and the other is new and called Controlling Britney Spears. Now I'm all riled up...

One point of interest to Mustachians. Apparently Britney was getting a million dollars per week deposited into her bank account during her long Las Vegas stint. Yet one of the staff who worked on her show said she wasn't allowed to buy herself a pair of Sketchers shoes when she wanted to. [Even I, a Mustachian, find Sketchers brand to be VERY affordable]

Her estate is only worth $60 million, and the documentary mentions that this is significantly smaller than other performers in the industry.

It certainly seems so frigging obvious that this arrangement is not actually in her best interest.

[MudPuppy]

Britney is free!

[Sibley]

I saw! Hopefully she's got enough support that she doesn't get way off track with her mental health or fall apart. And the article I read made it sound like she may sue her father or others involved for <insert legal terms for fraud/abuse>. It'll be interesting to see what happens next.

[MudPuppy]

This is probably extremely millennial of me, but I want all the best for her. She’s been through some stuff.