Free Britney
June 22, 2021 6:16 PM Subscribe
Britney Spears Quietly Pushed for Years to End Her Conservatorship "Her father and others involved in the conservatorship maintained that it was a smooth-running machine that had rescued her from a low point and benefited Spears, and that she could move to end it whenever she wanted.
All the while, she stayed largely silent on the subject in public.
But now, confidential court records obtained by The New York Times reveal that Spears, 39, expressed serious opposition to the conservatorship earlier and more often than had previously been known, and said that it restricted everything from whom she dated to the color of her kitchen cabinets."
"On Wednesday, Spears is scheduled to address the Los Angeles court directly — a rare move she requested on an expedited basis. It is unclear whether her remarks will be made in public, but her relationship with her father is expected to be a central topic."
Original article from the NYT, link posted here is a reprint from Yahoo News.
The podcast Even the Rich did a series on Britney awhile back:
Part 1: A Girl Named Lucky
Part 2: Circus
Part 3: Stronger
Part 4: Vox’s Constance Grady on Britney’s Legal Battle (article posted again here).
Previous Free Britney on Metafilter here, here, and here.
"On Wednesday, Spears is scheduled to address the Los Angeles court directly — a rare move she requested on an expedited basis. It is unclear whether her remarks will be made in public, but her relationship with her father is expected to be a central topic."
Original article from the NYT, link posted here is a reprint from Yahoo News.
The podcast Even the Rich did a series on Britney awhile back:
Part 1: A Girl Named Lucky
Part 2: Circus
Part 3: Stronger
Part 4: Vox’s Constance Grady on Britney’s Legal Battle (article posted again here).
Previous Free Britney on Metafilter here, here, and here.
Something that jumped out at me from the article is that her alcoholic father only deigned to take one alcohol test before refusing to take any more on the grounds of the request being 'inappropriate', while as recently as 2016 she has to take multiple drug tests weekly. I don't really know any details of what she did when she was in the news in the late 00's that might explain why she is being treated this way, but the double standard here is fucked.
posted by coolname at 9:20 PM on June 22, 2021 [32 favorites]
posted by coolname at 9:20 PM on June 22, 2021 [32 favorites]
It was 2003 when Diane Sawyer asked a 21yo woman if she was a virgin on national TV. Makes me cringe just to think about it, Diane was the one who kept her career though. This was a time when if a celebrity sex-tape leaked, the woman would apologize for disappointing their fans or whatever. But it was a question the gutter press speculated on daily.
Are we there again? I don't want to be part of that mob. I wish her peace too, and if she's been abused by her family, which sounds likely, I hope she finds justice. The abuse she receives from celebrity gossip culture though, still no end in sight.
Turn off TMZ.
posted by adept256 at 9:22 PM on June 22, 2021 [25 favorites]
Are we there again? I don't want to be part of that mob. I wish her peace too, and if she's been abused by her family, which sounds likely, I hope she finds justice. The abuse she receives from celebrity gossip culture though, still no end in sight.
Turn off TMZ.
posted by adept256 at 9:22 PM on June 22, 2021 [25 favorites]
The abuse she receives from celebrity gossip culture though, still no end in sight.
On the upside, the corn harvest remains bountiful.
posted by flabdablet at 9:50 PM on June 22, 2021 [13 favorites]
On the upside, the corn harvest remains bountiful.
posted by flabdablet at 9:50 PM on June 22, 2021 [13 favorites]
On the upside, the corn harvest remains bountiful.
Ah yes, the Rite of Spring.
posted by deadaluspark at 10:05 PM on June 22, 2021
Ah yes, the Rite of Spring.
posted by deadaluspark at 10:05 PM on June 22, 2021
Here's the primary NYT source article for the new info...
posted by kaibutsu at 11:31 PM on June 22, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by kaibutsu at 11:31 PM on June 22, 2021 [2 favorites]
This is basically just modern coverture, right?
posted by corb at 12:52 AM on June 23, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by corb at 12:52 AM on June 23, 2021 [3 favorites]
I thought conservatorship was a stepping-up program aimed at helping the -tee to be encouraged and motivated to learn new skills and be rehabilitated into independent living with reduced hours of support. This really appears to be an abusive use of the system.
posted by parmanparman at 1:40 AM on June 23, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by parmanparman at 1:40 AM on June 23, 2021 [9 favorites]
The...corn harvest? What?
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:12 AM on June 23, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:12 AM on June 23, 2021 [1 favorite]
The...corn harvest? What?
It's a reference to an (alleged?) ancient pagan practice of sacrificing young women to ensure a good harvest, like in Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. It's implied that Spears is the sacrifice.
posted by suburbanbeatnik at 5:47 AM on June 23, 2021 [3 favorites]
It's a reference to an (alleged?) ancient pagan practice of sacrificing young women to ensure a good harvest, like in Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. It's implied that Spears is the sacrifice.
posted by suburbanbeatnik at 5:47 AM on June 23, 2021 [3 favorites]
The...corn harvest? What?
In the midst of Britney's 00's breakdown, South Park did a very disturbing (but ultimately sympathetic-to-Britney) episode in which the constant public and media attention/scrutiny is revealed to be a ritual intended to destroy her (and other young stars) akin to Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery."
posted by Navelgazer at 5:49 AM on June 23, 2021 [5 favorites]
In the midst of Britney's 00's breakdown, South Park did a very disturbing (but ultimately sympathetic-to-Britney) episode in which the constant public and media attention/scrutiny is revealed to be a ritual intended to destroy her (and other young stars) akin to Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery."
posted by Navelgazer at 5:49 AM on June 23, 2021 [5 favorites]
As the fight drags on, the bills are piling up — and, in a quirk of the conservatorship system, Ms. Spears has to pay for lawyers on both sides, including those arguing against her wishes in court. A recent $890,000 bill from one set of Mr. Spears’s lawyers, covering about four months of work, included media strategizing for defending the conservatorship.
!?! Every time I read about this it just seems worse and worse. If a person as high profile as Britney Spears can't get out of this what would an average person in an abusive conservatorship do?
posted by geegollygosh at 6:17 AM on June 23, 2021 [30 favorites]
!?! Every time I read about this it just seems worse and worse. If a person as high profile as Britney Spears can't get out of this what would an average person in an abusive conservatorship do?
posted by geegollygosh at 6:17 AM on June 23, 2021 [30 favorites]
Mr. Spears’s lawyer said he took one random test, but refused to take any more, calling the request inappropriate.
“Absolutely inappropriate," the judge replied. “And who is she to be demanding that of anybody?”
Sounds like an episode of Law & Order.
posted by Rat Spatula at 6:36 AM on June 23, 2021 [3 favorites]
“Absolutely inappropriate," the judge replied. “And who is she to be demanding that of anybody?”
Sounds like an episode of Law & Order.
posted by Rat Spatula at 6:36 AM on June 23, 2021 [3 favorites]
geegollygosh: what would an average person in an abusive conservatorship do?
Lily Allen made that point in a chapter of her book My Thoughts Exactly, which I've just finished.
From the cosy comfort of their desks, journalists sat in judgement on this young woman: feeling fine about scrutinising and damning her looks, her weight, her friends, her clothes, her decisions and her parenting. But when there was an actual story about her being stalked by a paranoid schizophrenic with murderous ideation, the press was conspicuously absent / silent . . . because Allen as victim was harder to process than othering Allen as Bad Rich Bitch. Allen instructed a lawyer to go with her to all the hearings and the trials of the stalker. Without journalists, they almost doubled the audience in court. It cost her £40,000. She also reflected that there is no training course for youngsters who suddenly find themselves awash with dollars.
posted by BobTheScientist at 6:41 AM on June 23, 2021 [5 favorites]
Lily Allen made that point in a chapter of her book My Thoughts Exactly, which I've just finished.
From the cosy comfort of their desks, journalists sat in judgement on this young woman: feeling fine about scrutinising and damning her looks, her weight, her friends, her clothes, her decisions and her parenting. But when there was an actual story about her being stalked by a paranoid schizophrenic with murderous ideation, the press was conspicuously absent / silent . . . because Allen as victim was harder to process than othering Allen as Bad Rich Bitch. Allen instructed a lawyer to go with her to all the hearings and the trials of the stalker. Without journalists, they almost doubled the audience in court. It cost her £40,000. She also reflected that there is no training course for youngsters who suddenly find themselves awash with dollars.
posted by BobTheScientist at 6:41 AM on June 23, 2021 [5 favorites]
This is so disturbing and just seems like outrageous abuse of the system based entirely on greed. People are allowed to make bad decisions and make them every day. Your right as a human being with free will is to determine your own destiny, even if it's a bad road, especially if your decisions really only harm you. Obviously, there are limits where the govt can put in place a TEMPORARY plan for your own protection, but the key is that this is supposed to be temporary, not to last for decades. I mean, parents can become permanent caretakers and decision makers for permanently disabled children...but it doesn't seem like that's the case here. Even in those situations, every effort is supposed to be made to include the child/adult in the decision making process. They are supposed to have as much control over their own lives as is possible...it doesn't sound like Brittany has ANY real control over her life...she's like a prisoner in a gilded cage.
Money has completely corrupted the system here...like the judge that was sentencing teenagers to a for-profit wilderness boot camp or reform school for mild offenses because he was making a kickback for each kid he sentenced. It was appalling, went on for years and completely derailed hundreds of kids lives. He should have gone to jail but I think he just had to stop being a judge. The people in the justice system and legal system that seem to be colluding to keep this "protection" in place should seriously be investigated for fraud.
posted by victoriab at 7:17 AM on June 23, 2021 [7 favorites]
Money has completely corrupted the system here...like the judge that was sentencing teenagers to a for-profit wilderness boot camp or reform school for mild offenses because he was making a kickback for each kid he sentenced. It was appalling, went on for years and completely derailed hundreds of kids lives. He should have gone to jail but I think he just had to stop being a judge. The people in the justice system and legal system that seem to be colluding to keep this "protection" in place should seriously be investigated for fraud.
posted by victoriab at 7:17 AM on June 23, 2021 [7 favorites]
Slave for you indeed. Absolutely tragic.
posted by Jubey at 7:42 AM on June 23, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Jubey at 7:42 AM on June 23, 2021 [2 favorites]
What I don't understand is that she can't choose her own lawyer, and maybe someone with more knowledge can explain this. Why wouldn't a judge assume that a lawyer she chose who is in good standing with the bar association would be OK? How is this not her decision?
posted by FencingGal at 7:45 AM on June 23, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by FencingGal at 7:45 AM on June 23, 2021 [3 favorites]
victoriab: “This is so disturbing and just seems like outrageous abuse of the system based entirely on greed. ”Re: Abusive guardians
“How the Elderly Lose Their Rights,” Rachel Aviv, The New Yorker, 02 October 2017
P.S. “Ex-Nevada guardian to serve up to 40 years behind bars,” David Ferrara, The Las Vegas Review-Journal, 04 January 2019
posted by ob1quixote at 9:28 AM on June 23, 2021 [7 favorites]
Spears spoke for the first time in open court about the conservatorship today -
Britney Spears asks judge to free her from conservatorship: "Spears called the conservatorship “abusive,” and condemned her father and the others who have controlled it. ... 'This conservatorship is doing me way more harm than good,' she said. 'I deserve to have a life.'"
Also from today: Britney Spears Isn't Allowed to Remove Her IUD Under Conservatorship
posted by thebots at 3:05 PM on June 23, 2021 [3 favorites]
Britney Spears asks judge to free her from conservatorship: "Spears called the conservatorship “abusive,” and condemned her father and the others who have controlled it. ... 'This conservatorship is doing me way more harm than good,' she said. 'I deserve to have a life.'"
Also from today: Britney Spears Isn't Allowed to Remove Her IUD Under Conservatorship
posted by thebots at 3:05 PM on June 23, 2021 [3 favorites]
I saw the IUD story today. Everything about this is fucked up, but that stopped me in my tracks. Spears may need a lot of help, but it doesn’t seem like this is help.
posted by obfuscation at 3:39 PM on June 23, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by obfuscation at 3:39 PM on June 23, 2021 [4 favorites]
I somehow can't say I am shocked about the IUD. But anyone remember when she was engaged to some dude for awhile while under the conservatorship? I seriously wondered how that would go if it actually happened. Like, Jamie was going to transfer ownership of his property to some other guy? Yeah, right.
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:15 PM on June 23, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:15 PM on June 23, 2021 [2 favorites]
Variety has a transcript of her testimony. It is, indeed, quite the bombshell.
posted by mhum at 4:53 PM on June 23, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by mhum at 4:53 PM on June 23, 2021 [3 favorites]
It seems like a lawyer could have helped her present a better case.
She's caught between a rock and a hard place there though, since she can't retain her own lawyer, and her appointed lawyer isn't particularly interested in helping her make that case.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 9:06 PM on June 23, 2021 [7 favorites]
She's caught between a rock and a hard place there though, since she can't retain her own lawyer, and her appointed lawyer isn't particularly interested in helping her make that case.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 9:06 PM on June 23, 2021 [7 favorites]
I read the transcript, and I thought the point was quite clear: She's an adult human, and needs to be able to make her own choices, same as any other adult human. She obviously isn't happy with the people who have been put in charge of making choices on her behalf, and is currently, legally, trapped with them. She may well make bad decisions once out of the conservatorship, but really has to be given the right to. People make terrible decisions all the time, but it is, indeed, their right to. It's also part of the process of learning to /not/ make terrible decisions.
The part where she's trapped into using a lawyer who she thinks is working against her interests and pay for every side of the legal work is just crazypants.
It's clear that the arrangement needs to end, and that she needs friends and a support network which is not composed entirely of vampires. Yet the current vampire-network seems to be working hard to isolate her from non-vampires: If she had a good support network, she'd be able to get herself out of the current mess, and that wouldn't pay the bills. It's obviously an abusive relationship. Healing and growth require getting out of it.
posted by kaibutsu at 12:52 AM on June 24, 2021 [14 favorites]
The part where she's trapped into using a lawyer who she thinks is working against her interests and pay for every side of the legal work is just crazypants.
It's clear that the arrangement needs to end, and that she needs friends and a support network which is not composed entirely of vampires. Yet the current vampire-network seems to be working hard to isolate her from non-vampires: If she had a good support network, she'd be able to get herself out of the current mess, and that wouldn't pay the bills. It's obviously an abusive relationship. Healing and growth require getting out of it.
posted by kaibutsu at 12:52 AM on June 24, 2021 [14 favorites]
I just don't get why she is required to work or be in the public eye.
In 2020, Britney's mother, Lynne, said that Jamie once told her Britney is "like a racehorse and needed to be handled like one". Articles have reported he receives $16,000 a month salary for her conservatorship; she's literally a money-making pony show for him. It's not hard to see why he continues to force her on stage or wants to keep his power over her life.
posted by lesser weasel at 1:08 AM on June 24, 2021 [11 favorites]
In 2020, Britney's mother, Lynne, said that Jamie once told her Britney is "like a racehorse and needed to be handled like one". Articles have reported he receives $16,000 a month salary for her conservatorship; she's literally a money-making pony show for him. It's not hard to see why he continues to force her on stage or wants to keep his power over her life.
posted by lesser weasel at 1:08 AM on June 24, 2021 [11 favorites]
Based on what I heard, if I were honest I must say I would be inclined to think this is a not person who knows how to take care of herself or knows what is in her best interest. She sounded like a troubled maladapted child.
To me she sounded way more coherent than Trump ever has, and he got to be the fucking President.
Free Britney.
posted by flabdablet at 1:21 AM on June 24, 2021 [31 favorites]
To me she sounded way more coherent than Trump ever has, and he got to be the fucking President.
Free Britney.
posted by flabdablet at 1:21 AM on June 24, 2021 [31 favorites]
This whole situation is infuriating. I cried reading the transcript. She doesn't sound manic to me, she sounds desperate to get her story out, to share everything she can while she has the chance, because the moment that call ends--like she says--she's going to meet with a wall of denials and people refusing to budge on letting her have a breath of privacy or control of her own goddamn life.
From the transcript:
JUDGE: Ms. Spears, you’re quite welcome. And also, I just want to tell you that I certainly am sensitive to everything that you said and how you’re feeling and I know that it took a lot of courage for you to say everything you have to say today, and I want to let you know that the court does appreciate your coming on the line and sharing how you’re feeling.
I really, really hope she's telling the truth. That she actually feels some shred of fucking empathy. This has gone on for too long.
posted by lesser weasel at 1:24 AM on June 24, 2021 [10 favorites]
From the transcript:
JUDGE: Ms. Spears, you’re quite welcome. And also, I just want to tell you that I certainly am sensitive to everything that you said and how you’re feeling and I know that it took a lot of courage for you to say everything you have to say today, and I want to let you know that the court does appreciate your coming on the line and sharing how you’re feeling.
I really, really hope she's telling the truth. That she actually feels some shred of fucking empathy. This has gone on for too long.
posted by lesser weasel at 1:24 AM on June 24, 2021 [10 favorites]
I'm surprised the judge didn't end the the conservatorship the second the IUD revelation came out.
posted by PenDevil at 3:04 AM on June 24, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by PenDevil at 3:04 AM on June 24, 2021 [5 favorites]
I was going to make some smart comment about "1st world problems" but really this is a "0th world problem"
posted by mbo at 3:51 AM on June 24, 2021
posted by mbo at 3:51 AM on June 24, 2021
That's one way to look at it. Another is to note that if even somebody with Spears's level of celebrity clout can be subjected to systemic abuse as egregious as this, then the systems of oversight for arrangements of this kind are manifestly unfit for purpose and in dire need of reform. How many others are living under similarly indefensible conditions that nobody is ever going to hear or care about?
posted by flabdablet at 4:30 AM on June 24, 2021 [28 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 4:30 AM on June 24, 2021 [28 favorites]
Probably not as many as should be
I think you might have skipped over the "indefensible" qualifier.
Sure, there are plenty of people who would certainly benefit, on balance, from having somebody else take on the responsibility of managing their affairs for a while. And sure, since the 80s there has been a worldwide push to remove all support from as many of those people as possible and then blame them for their resulting inability to cope.
But what's needed to fix that is more funding for properly run and properly audited social services, including involuntary management for those in genuine need of it, not the kind of wholly parasitic free-for-all that anybody with half a brain can see is being inflicted on Spears. Nobody is better off living under that.
posted by flabdablet at 5:34 AM on June 24, 2021 [6 favorites]
I think you might have skipped over the "indefensible" qualifier.
Sure, there are plenty of people who would certainly benefit, on balance, from having somebody else take on the responsibility of managing their affairs for a while. And sure, since the 80s there has been a worldwide push to remove all support from as many of those people as possible and then blame them for their resulting inability to cope.
But what's needed to fix that is more funding for properly run and properly audited social services, including involuntary management for those in genuine need of it, not the kind of wholly parasitic free-for-all that anybody with half a brain can see is being inflicted on Spears. Nobody is better off living under that.
posted by flabdablet at 5:34 AM on June 24, 2021 [6 favorites]
She sounds open to therapy to me??
I feel like they’re making me feel like I live in a rehab program. This is my home. I’d like for my boyfriend to be able to drive me in his car. And I want to meet with a therapist once a week, not twice a week. And I want him to come to my home. Because I actually know I do need a little therapy. (Laughing.)
I would like to progressively move forward and I want to have the real deal, I want to be able to get married and have a baby.
posted by lesser weasel at 6:02 AM on June 24, 2021 [8 favorites]
I feel like they’re making me feel like I live in a rehab program. This is my home. I’d like for my boyfriend to be able to drive me in his car. And I want to meet with a therapist once a week, not twice a week. And I want him to come to my home. Because I actually know I do need a little therapy. (Laughing.)
I would like to progressively move forward and I want to have the real deal, I want to be able to get married and have a baby.
posted by lesser weasel at 6:02 AM on June 24, 2021 [8 favorites]
This subject however, Britney Spears, is clearly not well and was reckless/unaware enough in court to basically disclaim the concept of treatment and medication.
I listened to the audio, and she sounded nervous but much more lucid and self aware than I had expected to believe she would be. It also sounded like she is against the current regime of therapy and medication she is under because to her the entire aim of it is keeping her father and management in charge of her life.
If she is capable of working every night, then she is capable of looking after herself. If she wants to spend her money on gambling and Bitcoin she should be allowed to do so.
posted by PenDevil at 6:07 AM on June 24, 2021 [20 favorites]
I listened to the audio, and she sounded nervous but much more lucid and self aware than I had expected to believe she would be. It also sounded like she is against the current regime of therapy and medication she is under because to her the entire aim of it is keeping her father and management in charge of her life.
If she is capable of working every night, then she is capable of looking after herself. If she wants to spend her money on gambling and Bitcoin she should be allowed to do so.
posted by PenDevil at 6:07 AM on June 24, 2021 [20 favorites]
I'm not going to argue the therapy thing after this, but honestly, come on, would you really trust in the therapeutical process if you were forced to go to someone you can't even reject? Forced to have multiple sessions a week with someone she doesn't feel safe with?
I’ve never in the past had to see a therapist more than once a week. It takes too much out of me going to this man I don’t know.
Therapy does not work if coerced! She can't even shop around for a doctor she trusts, for god's sakes. No fucking wonder she doesn't "believe in therapy"; she's been abused and traumatized for the last 13 years.
posted by lesser weasel at 6:13 AM on June 24, 2021 [39 favorites]
I’ve never in the past had to see a therapist more than once a week. It takes too much out of me going to this man I don’t know.
Therapy does not work if coerced! She can't even shop around for a doctor she trusts, for god's sakes. No fucking wonder she doesn't "believe in therapy"; she's been abused and traumatized for the last 13 years.
posted by lesser weasel at 6:13 AM on June 24, 2021 [39 favorites]
This subject however, Britney Spears, is clearly not well
You are not her physician, or her therapist, or her psychiatrist. For all we know, you're not a physician/therapist/psychiatrist at all. Yet you've spent this entire thread making armchair diagnoses based on your personal interpretation of a single recording made during a stressful situation, one that has led you to repeatedly infantilize an adult woman. WTF?
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 6:34 AM on June 24, 2021 [49 favorites]
You are not her physician, or her therapist, or her psychiatrist. For all we know, you're not a physician/therapist/psychiatrist at all. Yet you've spent this entire thread making armchair diagnoses based on your personal interpretation of a single recording made during a stressful situation, one that has led you to repeatedly infantilize an adult woman. WTF?
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 6:34 AM on June 24, 2021 [49 favorites]
Mod note: floam, you're hyper-commenting in here in a way that forces the thread to be about you. Please take a step back for a while and let the thread breathe.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:56 AM on June 24, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:56 AM on June 24, 2021 [7 favorites]
Wow, this thread is super disturbing.
Help definitely should be available for those who need support with mental illness.
But that is not what's at issue here for Britney Spears, in terms of "can she afford help." It's that those around her tasked with her guardianship are profiting dramatically from doing so, continue to force her to work (why?), and basically have no clear interest in actually helping her become well and independent. It's not exactly an uncommon story historically for wealthy women to be determined to be mentally unwell in order for other people to access their wealth.
My question is, are the courts actually working to ensure that those helping her are working in her own interest and actually re-evaluating her mental health. The testimony about her lack of reproductive freedom is horrifying, but I find the testimony about being required to work and take gigs she doesn't feel ready for equally monstrous. What possible benefit to her mental health could there be in forcing her to do shows in Las Vegas that she doesn't want to do? And if she's capable of doing that why is it she doesn't get to make decisions, even bad ones?
Also, what precisely is the harm that this adult woman is being prevented from doing to herself? Like...it's been 13 years, are there records of her being suicidal or homicidal recently? Wanting not to do therapy and to have a life are not indications of a lack of mental fitness.
Maybe after a year of not doing therapy she would decide to do it. Maybe with no therapy she would lock herself in a house and only talk to her dogs Grey Gardens style.
That's her right. It's her right! She doesn't have to perform normalcy in order to be afforded agency!
Of course it's worrying that she might be suicidal and of course her kids need support. And I haven't followed all the ins and outs at all but is there actual proof that she's as suicidal as she reportedly was 13 years ago? What PROOF makes it okay for her to continue to have very little say in her own life.?
While we can recognize the privilege in the financial end of the scale, Spears' struggles seem to be along the line of many people who seek help -- she's not getting it.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:17 AM on June 24, 2021 [44 favorites]
Help definitely should be available for those who need support with mental illness.
But that is not what's at issue here for Britney Spears, in terms of "can she afford help." It's that those around her tasked with her guardianship are profiting dramatically from doing so, continue to force her to work (why?), and basically have no clear interest in actually helping her become well and independent. It's not exactly an uncommon story historically for wealthy women to be determined to be mentally unwell in order for other people to access their wealth.
My question is, are the courts actually working to ensure that those helping her are working in her own interest and actually re-evaluating her mental health. The testimony about her lack of reproductive freedom is horrifying, but I find the testimony about being required to work and take gigs she doesn't feel ready for equally monstrous. What possible benefit to her mental health could there be in forcing her to do shows in Las Vegas that she doesn't want to do? And if she's capable of doing that why is it she doesn't get to make decisions, even bad ones?
Also, what precisely is the harm that this adult woman is being prevented from doing to herself? Like...it's been 13 years, are there records of her being suicidal or homicidal recently? Wanting not to do therapy and to have a life are not indications of a lack of mental fitness.
Maybe after a year of not doing therapy she would decide to do it. Maybe with no therapy she would lock herself in a house and only talk to her dogs Grey Gardens style.
That's her right. It's her right! She doesn't have to perform normalcy in order to be afforded agency!
Of course it's worrying that she might be suicidal and of course her kids need support. And I haven't followed all the ins and outs at all but is there actual proof that she's as suicidal as she reportedly was 13 years ago? What PROOF makes it okay for her to continue to have very little say in her own life.?
While we can recognize the privilege in the financial end of the scale, Spears' struggles seem to be along the line of many people who seek help -- she's not getting it.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:17 AM on June 24, 2021 [44 favorites]
Listening to the transcript - my god, these people are monsters. With her wealth, they won’t even let her have a therapist who comes to her house? When she’s expressed going out to a public place with paparazzi is stressful? My fucking god.
posted by corb at 7:37 AM on June 24, 2021 [11 favorites]
posted by corb at 7:37 AM on June 24, 2021 [11 favorites]
There are some here making excuses and taking the word of an unwell patient over the courts and medical professionals.
The thing to remember about deference to medical professionals is that this is the same profession that gave us Tuskegee, the theft of Henrietta Lacks' bodily material, and MKULTRA, to name just a few of the profession's many sins. Medicine has a well known problem with misogyny that it refuses to deal with, and you don't get to ignore that because it's inconvenient for your position of deference.
Given the history of how it was used as a weapon against her, why should Spears believe in therapy? All therapy has meant is abuse and loss of control of her life, so it's perfectly rational that she distrusts it. Arguing that her rejection of a tool of the abuse piled on her is somehow a sign of her being "unwell" is just cheerleading that abuse.
So no, the issue isn't that we're "making excuses" - it's that you're blindly accepting the words of those who have enabled Spears' abuse and exploitation purely on credentialism, then wondering why everyone is looking at you askance.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:34 AM on June 24, 2021 [33 favorites]
The thing to remember about deference to medical professionals is that this is the same profession that gave us Tuskegee, the theft of Henrietta Lacks' bodily material, and MKULTRA, to name just a few of the profession's many sins. Medicine has a well known problem with misogyny that it refuses to deal with, and you don't get to ignore that because it's inconvenient for your position of deference.
Given the history of how it was used as a weapon against her, why should Spears believe in therapy? All therapy has meant is abuse and loss of control of her life, so it's perfectly rational that she distrusts it. Arguing that her rejection of a tool of the abuse piled on her is somehow a sign of her being "unwell" is just cheerleading that abuse.
So no, the issue isn't that we're "making excuses" - it's that you're blindly accepting the words of those who have enabled Spears' abuse and exploitation purely on credentialism, then wondering why everyone is looking at you askance.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:34 AM on June 24, 2021 [33 favorites]
Literally every one of the specific "medical professionals" involved has a high level of financial interest in keeping her under the conservatorship's control. So no, I don't see any reason why I should take their word over hers.
posted by augustimagination at 9:44 AM on June 24, 2021 [19 favorites]
posted by augustimagination at 9:44 AM on June 24, 2021 [19 favorites]
If she is that unwell, it’s utterly unethical to force her to work so hard. And if she’s capable of working that hard, how can possibly she be so unwell as to require these kinds of restrictions?
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 9:47 AM on June 24, 2021 [15 favorites]
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 9:47 AM on June 24, 2021 [15 favorites]
And if your hope is that the "courts appoint someone neutral" it's clear you have absolutely no knowledge of the severe abuses of non-famous people that happen under that exact system.
posted by augustimagination at 9:47 AM on June 24, 2021 [11 favorites]
posted by augustimagination at 9:47 AM on June 24, 2021 [11 favorites]
Considering Spears' profile, I doubt she would make an attractive victim, considering the attention that will be paid to the case.
Are you kidding me? They've been fleecing her of thousands if not millions of dollars over the course of almost her entire adult life.
Most social workers aren't abusers and medical professionals generally are not Dr. Mengele.
Key word being "most." The ones described in the court certainly sound unethical and abusive.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 11:48 AM on June 24, 2021 [3 favorites]
Are you kidding me? They've been fleecing her of thousands if not millions of dollars over the course of almost her entire adult life.
Most social workers aren't abusers and medical professionals generally are not Dr. Mengele.
Key word being "most." The ones described in the court certainly sound unethical and abusive.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 11:48 AM on June 24, 2021 [3 favorites]
> floam:"Most social workers aren't abusers and medical professionals generally are not Dr. Mengele."
The other co-conservator (aside from Jamie Spears) until 2019 was laywer Andrew Wallet, who apparently asked to be paid >$400K per year in that role. I'm guessing most social workers also don't earn in the mid six figures.
posted by mhum at 11:51 AM on June 24, 2021 [6 favorites]
The other co-conservator (aside from Jamie Spears) until 2019 was laywer Andrew Wallet, who apparently asked to be paid >$400K per year in that role. I'm guessing most social workers also don't earn in the mid six figures.
posted by mhum at 11:51 AM on June 24, 2021 [6 favorites]
Spears is a late-30s adult who should not be restricted unless she’s a threat to herself or others, even if she suffers from a mental illness. (I can’t comment on anything to do with kids.) Conservatorship is for people who can’t manage basic necessities - eating etc. Obviously I am not party to her life but she shaved her head. That’s her big crime. Like, there are way more reasons for her father to try to keep control than to assume someone fully capable of choreographing and carrying out pop star shows is unable to feed herself.
The whole “you have to do rehab, you have to do therapy” is SO WEIRD. Adults are allowed to not do rehab and screw up their lives! It makes sense where you’re making a judgement on her custody of her kids but what, exactly, is the bar she has to pass here? That she doesn’t speak weirdly? If she can put together a whole show, she should have agency in her treatment. If she wants to parade the streets shouting about Jesus, get drunk, spend her money, etc., she should get to do that. Then if there’s an issue, re-evaluate.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:57 AM on June 24, 2021 [20 favorites]
The whole “you have to do rehab, you have to do therapy” is SO WEIRD. Adults are allowed to not do rehab and screw up their lives! It makes sense where you’re making a judgement on her custody of her kids but what, exactly, is the bar she has to pass here? That she doesn’t speak weirdly? If she can put together a whole show, she should have agency in her treatment. If she wants to parade the streets shouting about Jesus, get drunk, spend her money, etc., she should get to do that. Then if there’s an issue, re-evaluate.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:57 AM on June 24, 2021 [20 favorites]
Meanwhile, Kanye West can run for president, get divorced, date, whatever, and I seem to recall his wife saying they couldn't do anything about him....
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:00 PM on June 24, 2021 [25 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:00 PM on June 24, 2021 [25 favorites]
I guess ya'll talking about her meds and therapy and sounding manic or maladjusted missed the part where she said that she'd been stable on medication for FIVE YEARS (administered by the same woman the whole time) and then three days after she cancelled her Vegas show her (allegedly abusive, now deceased) therapist took her off all her meds and put her on Lithium, which in her own words, incapacitated her. And that all precipitated the most recent multiple day-a-week therapies and residential rehab stints.
I just have a hard time understanding how anyone can look at someone who has had their mental health intentionally destabilized in order to gain compliance and easier manipulation and think that person deserves what's happening to them in any way.
posted by ApathyGirl at 12:32 PM on June 24, 2021 [30 favorites]
I just have a hard time understanding how anyone can look at someone who has had their mental health intentionally destabilized in order to gain compliance and easier manipulation and think that person deserves what's happening to them in any way.
posted by ApathyGirl at 12:32 PM on June 24, 2021 [30 favorites]
As someone with bipolar disorder herself, when I listened to her speak I thought, uh-oh, maybe she's manic, but more likely she is extremely nervous about getting everything across to the judge, about getting her whole story out, about being heard completely and fully - and she is reading from a script, and she's reading it very fast. Speed of speech alone does not = mania.
Anyhow, the discussion of whether she's manic really bugs me. I'm a free woman who is 'allowed to be manic' without being forcibly committed to an institution - which is precisely what has been done to her (I've voluntarily committed myself and it's the same thing - forced medication, forced evaluation, control over your possessions and who you can see/speak with and where you can go - this was a good experience for me BTW, that's besides the point). The point is, she's effectively institutionalized in a workhouse masquerading as a home-based pysch ward.
posted by kitcat at 1:19 PM on June 24, 2021 [23 favorites]
Anyhow, the discussion of whether she's manic really bugs me. I'm a free woman who is 'allowed to be manic' without being forcibly committed to an institution - which is precisely what has been done to her (I've voluntarily committed myself and it's the same thing - forced medication, forced evaluation, control over your possessions and who you can see/speak with and where you can go - this was a good experience for me BTW, that's besides the point). The point is, she's effectively institutionalized in a workhouse masquerading as a home-based pysch ward.
posted by kitcat at 1:19 PM on June 24, 2021 [23 favorites]
"What I don't understand is that she can't choose her own lawyer, and maybe someone with more knowledge can explain this. Why wouldn't a judge assume that a lawyer she chose who is in good standing with the bar association would be OK? How is this not her decision?"
So, the rules in California are kinda fucked up, and distorted by big money + massive drug use in Hollywood, where a LOT of people who earn a LOT of money have a vested interested in keeping (say) Judy Garland or Johnny Depp working. (This is true not just in conservatorships, but in divorce court, where celebrity divorces sometimes have incredibly perverse outcomes that are clearly being dictated by money and lawyers running roughshod over the actual law or the best interests of the children, and judges will accept that (sometimes) out of fear that otherwise one super-wealthy parent will flee to a non-extradition country with the children on a private jet.)
Illinois is a lot more aggressive about ordering court-appointed reviews of conservatorships; it also requires court approval of major financial decisions (like Britney going on tour), and so on -- but Illinois has one of the most progressive conservatorship/guardianship laws in the US. BUT my husband does a certain amount of conservator work -- typically for either prisoners or for people who are seriously ill or for people who lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs but their family member caretaker has died. An awful lot of people in conservatorships are quite mentally ill and legitimately a danger to themselves (generally from not remaining housed; refusing medication miiiiiiiiight be a reason, but the court is more likely to say "look, the lawyer is going to pay your rent; take your meds or don't, but you can't give all your money to aliens who live in the sewers"). Given the chance to choose their own attorneys, they choose the attorney who promises to give all their money to the sewer aliens, and then swindles it -- or they represent themselves, because they're so suspicious of all authorities by that point.
I can say, I have sat in Illinois courtrooms where conservatorship hearings were going on for people with serious mental illnesses, and they were nowhere near as coherent as Britney Spears is in this hearing. You've got to be a lot less coherent than this to end up in conservatorship -- or be worth a lot of money to a lot of people who develop a vested interest in making you appear incoherent. (And honestly not trusting therapists is a super-normal state of mind and not at all grounds for putting someone in conservatorship.) In Illinois, she would absolutely meet the coherency standard to take over a lot more of her own decisions, based on this transcript. Depending on specific facts, her money might still be under the control of a trustee, or she might be ordered to continue particular medical treatment or psychiatric treatment (not an IUD, though -- that wouldn't be permissible in the 7th Circuit under these circumstances -- there would have to be a VERY strong medical (not psychiatric) reason). But the court wouldn't permit her conservator to force her to work at a particular job, and they wouldn't permit her to be cut off from friends who weren't either felons or serious, specific threats to her.
(Illinois also has a fondness to splitting up the personal and monetary guardians, in a long-term situation when they are not a family member -- sometimes even when they are family members! -- so that the personal guardian has to make a case for spending non-routine money, and the monetary guardian can't make medical or safety or housing decisions on the cheap or run up lots of nonsense bills.)
"The transcript doesn't exactly match up with the audio I'm hearing verbatim. It seems like they edited for brevity in a lot of spots."
It literally says in the transcript, twice, that the judge asked her to slow down because the court reporter couldn't keep up with the transcription.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:24 PM on June 24, 2021 [16 favorites]
So, the rules in California are kinda fucked up, and distorted by big money + massive drug use in Hollywood, where a LOT of people who earn a LOT of money have a vested interested in keeping (say) Judy Garland or Johnny Depp working. (This is true not just in conservatorships, but in divorce court, where celebrity divorces sometimes have incredibly perverse outcomes that are clearly being dictated by money and lawyers running roughshod over the actual law or the best interests of the children, and judges will accept that (sometimes) out of fear that otherwise one super-wealthy parent will flee to a non-extradition country with the children on a private jet.)
Illinois is a lot more aggressive about ordering court-appointed reviews of conservatorships; it also requires court approval of major financial decisions (like Britney going on tour), and so on -- but Illinois has one of the most progressive conservatorship/guardianship laws in the US. BUT my husband does a certain amount of conservator work -- typically for either prisoners or for people who are seriously ill or for people who lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs but their family member caretaker has died. An awful lot of people in conservatorships are quite mentally ill and legitimately a danger to themselves (generally from not remaining housed; refusing medication miiiiiiiiight be a reason, but the court is more likely to say "look, the lawyer is going to pay your rent; take your meds or don't, but you can't give all your money to aliens who live in the sewers"). Given the chance to choose their own attorneys, they choose the attorney who promises to give all their money to the sewer aliens, and then swindles it -- or they represent themselves, because they're so suspicious of all authorities by that point.
I can say, I have sat in Illinois courtrooms where conservatorship hearings were going on for people with serious mental illnesses, and they were nowhere near as coherent as Britney Spears is in this hearing. You've got to be a lot less coherent than this to end up in conservatorship -- or be worth a lot of money to a lot of people who develop a vested interest in making you appear incoherent. (And honestly not trusting therapists is a super-normal state of mind and not at all grounds for putting someone in conservatorship.) In Illinois, she would absolutely meet the coherency standard to take over a lot more of her own decisions, based on this transcript. Depending on specific facts, her money might still be under the control of a trustee, or she might be ordered to continue particular medical treatment or psychiatric treatment (not an IUD, though -- that wouldn't be permissible in the 7th Circuit under these circumstances -- there would have to be a VERY strong medical (not psychiatric) reason). But the court wouldn't permit her conservator to force her to work at a particular job, and they wouldn't permit her to be cut off from friends who weren't either felons or serious, specific threats to her.
(Illinois also has a fondness to splitting up the personal and monetary guardians, in a long-term situation when they are not a family member -- sometimes even when they are family members! -- so that the personal guardian has to make a case for spending non-routine money, and the monetary guardian can't make medical or safety or housing decisions on the cheap or run up lots of nonsense bills.)
"The transcript doesn't exactly match up with the audio I'm hearing verbatim. It seems like they edited for brevity in a lot of spots."
It literally says in the transcript, twice, that the judge asked her to slow down because the court reporter couldn't keep up with the transcription.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:24 PM on June 24, 2021 [16 favorites]
I mean, I would ask why it's important to you that Britney Spears be that severely mentally ill despite all the appearances of her being, y'know, not that at all.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 4:31 PM on June 24, 2021 [15 favorites]
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 4:31 PM on June 24, 2021 [15 favorites]
Mental illness is complicated with its ups and downs and severity. But you cannot evaluate someone in a courtroom in a extremely stressful situation and say anything about them other than they are in an extremely stressful situation. Most people even with severe mental illness can live independently without daily therapy. Even without weekly therapy.
Complicating factors is that society and the DSM as a whole classifies outward responses to trauma as mental illnesses, when they are perfectly rational and normal things for a brain to do! Bad things happen, the brain wants to avoid those things, while simultaneously thinking about it to make sure it finds the thing. That's PTSD in a nutshell. Her trauma, her family (of choice and the ones controlling her), her work, her bodily autonomy are all in question here. We know that the media is a toxic environment. We know she's suffered at the hands of many people in this whole thing because she is telling us so. The fact that she's standing and explaining at all is pretty amazing honestly.
Having strong emotional reactions to events, normal. Wanting basic human rights also normal. Her wanting privacy normal!
None of this means anything except that she is an alert and oriented human being with basic desires and wants.
The treatment plans recommended for her (the work is a requirement when she doesn't have access to get own money because she is to sick) the therapeutic requirements (where, with who, how often), the medication requirements are all extreme, and don't take into account her at all. It's terrifying and the laws have to change.
posted by AlexiaSky at 5:49 PM on June 24, 2021 [13 favorites]
Complicating factors is that society and the DSM as a whole classifies outward responses to trauma as mental illnesses, when they are perfectly rational and normal things for a brain to do! Bad things happen, the brain wants to avoid those things, while simultaneously thinking about it to make sure it finds the thing. That's PTSD in a nutshell. Her trauma, her family (of choice and the ones controlling her), her work, her bodily autonomy are all in question here. We know that the media is a toxic environment. We know she's suffered at the hands of many people in this whole thing because she is telling us so. The fact that she's standing and explaining at all is pretty amazing honestly.
Having strong emotional reactions to events, normal. Wanting basic human rights also normal. Her wanting privacy normal!
None of this means anything except that she is an alert and oriented human being with basic desires and wants.
The treatment plans recommended for her (the work is a requirement when she doesn't have access to get own money because she is to sick) the therapeutic requirements (where, with who, how often), the medication requirements are all extreme, and don't take into account her at all. It's terrifying and the laws have to change.
posted by AlexiaSky at 5:49 PM on June 24, 2021 [13 favorites]
Just because Britney may need help with her mental health from time to time, or she suffers from anxiety, depression or other mental health issues, does not mean she deserves to have all her civil liberties stripped from her. This is inhumane and disgusting.
posted by pandanpanda at 12:30 AM on June 25, 2021 [11 favorites]
posted by pandanpanda at 12:30 AM on June 25, 2021 [11 favorites]
Slate just ran a great interview with a professor of guardianship law.
"She’s been working all through this conservatorship. Is that common?
Usually they’re not working. They might have inherited family money. And so the conservator is managing the family inheritance.
Is it correct to assume, then, that if you are working, that’s an indication that you are capable enough?
Yes. You’re able to engage in the activities of daily living. We all have the right to make foolish decisions now and then. Otherwise, we should all have conservators. So I don’t know if she’s mismanaged money or what, but she’s got the money, so it doesn’t matter. It’s her money."
posted by nakedmolerats at 11:23 AM on June 25, 2021
"She’s been working all through this conservatorship. Is that common?
Usually they’re not working. They might have inherited family money. And so the conservator is managing the family inheritance.
Is it correct to assume, then, that if you are working, that’s an indication that you are capable enough?
Yes. You’re able to engage in the activities of daily living. We all have the right to make foolish decisions now and then. Otherwise, we should all have conservators. So I don’t know if she’s mismanaged money or what, but she’s got the money, so it doesn’t matter. It’s her money."
posted by nakedmolerats at 11:23 AM on June 25, 2021
And the final quote:
"Do you have any final thoughts on Spears’ situation?
This case goes back almost 10 years. I was surprised by the original appointment. I couldn’t understand why it was made. That was 10 years ago. And I’m surprised today why it’s still in force."
posted by nakedmolerats at 11:24 AM on June 25, 2021 [2 favorites]
"Do you have any final thoughts on Spears’ situation?
This case goes back almost 10 years. I was surprised by the original appointment. I couldn’t understand why it was made. That was 10 years ago. And I’m surprised today why it’s still in force."
posted by nakedmolerats at 11:24 AM on June 25, 2021 [2 favorites]
Oh my, I listened to that audio and it just makes things that much more infuriating. She is under a high pressure situation surrounded by people she doesn't trust. Her entire fucking life is at stake, her freedom, her personal choices from control over her body to how she spends every minute of every day. Yeah, it might make someone emotional and nervous. I think she sounds amazing in the parts I listed to.
Yeah, she doesn't want to be evaluated again to "gain" her freedom. She feels like she's been evaluated 24/7 for the last 14 years and apparently has failed to convince people that she doesn't need to be treated like a 12 yo child forever. She thinks this entire game is bullshit and she's right. No, she doesn't want to have to jump through another hoop to prove something she thinks is obvious...she is in no way represents what conservatorship was designed for. Yes, she might be mentally ill, she might be emotionally stunted, she might make bad decisions...but that doesn't mean she loses her civil rights and the ability to live her life free of invasive supervision, oversight and control. Ugh...the whole thing is a Kafkaesque nightmare and makes my skin crawl.
posted by victoriab at 11:35 AM on June 25, 2021 [9 favorites]
Yeah, she doesn't want to be evaluated again to "gain" her freedom. She feels like she's been evaluated 24/7 for the last 14 years and apparently has failed to convince people that she doesn't need to be treated like a 12 yo child forever. She thinks this entire game is bullshit and she's right. No, she doesn't want to have to jump through another hoop to prove something she thinks is obvious...she is in no way represents what conservatorship was designed for. Yes, she might be mentally ill, she might be emotionally stunted, she might make bad decisions...but that doesn't mean she loses her civil rights and the ability to live her life free of invasive supervision, oversight and control. Ugh...the whole thing is a Kafkaesque nightmare and makes my skin crawl.
posted by victoriab at 11:35 AM on June 25, 2021 [9 favorites]
"She's not really doing herself favors with the "I don't even believe in therapy" and insisting on ending the conservatorship without an evaluation."
Yeah, if someone subjected me to 14 years of "therapy" without me having any control over 1.) who was providing the therapy, 2.) the kind of therapy I was receiving, and/or 3.) the kinds of drugs they were forcing me to take....well, I'm not sure I'd believe in therapy either. Therapy against your will could also be torture or brainwashing in many circumstances.
posted by victoriab at 11:44 AM on June 25, 2021 [14 favorites]
Yeah, if someone subjected me to 14 years of "therapy" without me having any control over 1.) who was providing the therapy, 2.) the kind of therapy I was receiving, and/or 3.) the kinds of drugs they were forcing me to take....well, I'm not sure I'd believe in therapy either. Therapy against your will could also be torture or brainwashing in many circumstances.
posted by victoriab at 11:44 AM on June 25, 2021 [14 favorites]
Here's Exactly What Needs to Happen for Britney Spears to End Her Conservatorship: An attorney who specializes in these cases walked us through what's next for Britney Spears, step by step.
Opposed? I don't think we're going to have anything until 2023. A case as significant as this, with the resources that are available, you could see this case dragging on for years. Years and years and years.
It could go to an evidentiary hearing in three years. Say we're in 2024. There's a trial, there's an order, somebody wins, somebody loses—somebody appeals it. That appeal takes a year, roughly. And then the trial basically restarts if somebody wins the appeal. And then you have another trial, and then that's appealed. Potentially, you could be talking decades. There's a lot riding on this.
Suffice it to say she will never have more children.
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:02 PM on June 25, 2021 [3 favorites]
Opposed? I don't think we're going to have anything until 2023. A case as significant as this, with the resources that are available, you could see this case dragging on for years. Years and years and years.
It could go to an evidentiary hearing in three years. Say we're in 2024. There's a trial, there's an order, somebody wins, somebody loses—somebody appeals it. That appeal takes a year, roughly. And then the trial basically restarts if somebody wins the appeal. And then you have another trial, and then that's appealed. Potentially, you could be talking decades. There's a lot riding on this.
Suffice it to say she will never have more children.
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:02 PM on June 25, 2021 [3 favorites]
And that shows the core problem with conservatorships - they are meant to be an extreme measure, yet once formed they become the default, with the person involved needing to show that it should be ended. To fix this, we need to end the idea of a permanent conservatorship, and state in law that all conservatorships are temporary but renewable - however, the burden of proof needs to be on the conservators to demonstrate that it should be renewed.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:27 PM on June 25, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:27 PM on June 25, 2021 [4 favorites]
I've seen things move a lot quicker than that when forced to by the court of public opinion. Almost anything is possible if the public wills it so.
posted by peacheater at 4:29 PM on June 25, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by peacheater at 4:29 PM on June 25, 2021 [2 favorites]
Well, I think the public's on Britney's side, but what difference is that going to make if the judge is totally unsympathetic and Jamie will never let the cash cow go?
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:53 PM on June 25, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:53 PM on June 25, 2021 [2 favorites]
I believe the current judge is 'new' on the case, replacing the one who made all of the previous decisions. So, the sympathy of the judge really is in play. Secondly, the judge is elected, so a loud public and national eye can make a real difference. I think her next election isn't for a very long time, though.
posted by kaibutsu at 11:21 AM on June 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by kaibutsu at 11:21 AM on June 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
Rolling Stone: Can Britney Spears’ Conservators Legally Bar Her From Having a Baby?
Under California law, someone in Spears’ position would not automatically be barred from marrying or making her own medical decisions; rather, there would have to be an explicit court order to that effect — an order that, in Spears’ case, does not appear to have been made.posted by jenfullmoon at 10:55 AM on June 27, 2021 [5 favorites]
The fact that Spears told the court she believes she’s not allowed to marry or remove her IUD raises serious questions about the advice she is receiving from her court-appointed lawyer, Samuel Ingham III, who was appointed to her case in 2008, shortly after her well-publicized mental breakdown. '
“The handbook for conservators in California, it’s absolutely explicit that, unless the court order granting the conservatorship says that you don’t have a right to marry, you have a right to marry — even if you’re conserved,” says Leslie Francis, a disability rights lawyer and professor at the University of Utah, who has written extensively on the rights of the conserved to make reproductive decisions.
That Spears says she believes she can’t get married not only raises questions about the efficacy of her legal representation, it also casts a troubling light on the comments of at least one judge who has presided over the case. According to a 2014 court transcript obtained by the New York Times, Ingham previously raised Spears’ concern that the conservatorship prevented her from getting married and having children. At the time, Judge Reva G. Goetz reportedly replied, “I don’t recall that we made any orders about the right to marry, but you may not want to tell her that.” (“Somehow that did not come up in the conversation,” Ingham told the judge.)
In a motion filed in March of this year to remove Spears’ father as conservator of her person — Jamie Spears remains co-conservator of the singer’s estate — Ingham cited a 2014 order that ostensibly determined Spears had an “incapacity to consent to any form of medical treatment.”
However, according to notes made by the judge in probate court records in April, not only does there appear to be no record of such an order on the date Ingham cited, no capacity declaration had ever been filed in this case, and “previous letters for conservatorship of the person… do not reflect that the Court made an order that the conservatee lacks medical capacity.” In other words, contrary to Spears’ lawyer’s statements in court, Spears appears to have been legally allowed to make her own medical decisions for the last 13 years. (Ingham did not respond to requests for comment from Rolling Stone.)
“The only one who’s been comatose over the last 13 years is her lawyer, OK? He’s either comatose or corrupt or both.”
“Her lawyer, who’s made millions of dollars from being Britney’s lawyer in conservatorship, who’s ethically required to file a petition to terminate her conservatorship at any moment that Britney says, ‘I want this over,’ and in 13 years he’s never done it. Ask yourself why,” Striesand says. (According to reporting from the New York Times, between his appointment in 2008 and 2019, the last year when information was available, Ingham had been paid nearly $3 million for his work on Spears’ behalf.)
“You can give your client advice, but if your client says ‘I want this over,’ then you have one job and only one job: You do everything within your power to terminate the conservatorship,” Streisand says. “And he’s never filed a petition [in] 13 years to seek to terminate the conservatorship. […] Instead it seems like he’s just manipulated her into believing that she has no right to know anything, no right to hear anything, and no right to say anything.”
Spears herself told the judge on Wednesday, “I haven’t really had the opportunity, by my own self, to actually handpick my own lawyer by myself. And I would like to be able to do that.” After Spears statement, Ingham said that he would step aside if asked.
Tragically for Spears — who spoke openly and enthusiastically about her desire to be a mother not only recently but also early in her career, only to have custody of her two sons taken away from her when they were still toddlers — this question of control over her body has lingered well into her childbearing years.
Francis, the disability rights lawyer, likened Spears’ situation to the once-widespread practice of sterilizing mentally ill women. “We don’t sterilize people anymore. But, I mean, she’s 39 years old — she’s got a biological clock going tick, tick. One way to think about this is: [The conservatorship] is, in effect, making it impossible for her to reproduce.”
Judge Denies Britney Spears' Request To Have Her Father Removed From Conservatorship
This is never going to end and I'm so disgusted WHYYYYYYYYYYY WOULD YOU LET HIM STAY WHEN SHE'S AFRAID OF HIM YOU FUCKER.
LegalEagle on the topic.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:07 PM on June 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
This is never going to end and I'm so disgusted WHYYYYYYYYYYY WOULD YOU LET HIM STAY WHEN SHE'S AFRAID OF HIM YOU FUCKER.
LegalEagle on the topic.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:07 PM on June 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
I can’t wrap my head around this. The decision is incomprehensible.
posted by iamkimiam at 11:46 PM on June 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by iamkimiam at 11:46 PM on June 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
It's frustrating, but the news sites are being a bit clickbaity with the headlines. This was not Britney's last shot. From Variety:
These documents are not in direct response to last week’s hearing, where Spears gave an explosive testimony; though Spears delivered a powerful 24-minute statement, the judge cannot make any ruling based on what she said as she still has yet to file a petition to terminate her conservatorship.
There is another hearing set for July 14 and it is likely she and her legal team will file a petition at that time.
posted by castlebravo at 12:55 PM on July 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
These documents are not in direct response to last week’s hearing, where Spears gave an explosive testimony; though Spears delivered a powerful 24-minute statement, the judge cannot make any ruling based on what she said as she still has yet to file a petition to terminate her conservatorship.
There is another hearing set for July 14 and it is likely she and her legal team will file a petition at that time.
posted by castlebravo at 12:55 PM on July 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Meanwhile, the firm that was slated to be a new co-conservator can see which way the wind is blowing, "Company Set to Manage Britney Spears’s Estate Asks to Withdraw (NYT 2021/07/01, archive.org link):
Bessemer Trust, a professional wealth management firm that manages more than $100 billion in assets, said in a court filing that it wants to resign “due to changed circumstances.” In its court filing, the firm said it was told that Ms. Spears’s conservatorship was voluntary and that she had consented to the company acting as co-conservator. But in a court hearing on June 23, Ms. Spears excoriated the arrangement and demanded it end.Also, Jamie Spears seems to be doing a "we're all trying to find the guy who did this*", "Britney Spears’ Father Files Court Docs Saying Daughter’s Treatment Under Conservatorship Is Not His Fault (Variety, 2021/06/30):
This week, an attorney for Jamie Spears filed new documents, obtained by Variety, with the Los Angeles Superior Court regarding the conservatorship of his daughter, stating that he is “concerned” about her treatment.posted by mhum at 2:00 PM on July 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
But the elder Spears is saying he is not responsible, and he is placing the blame on others, specifically his daughter’s temporary conservator, Jodi Montgomery, and her attorney, Samuel Ingham III.
I am really hoping the the denial in this motion is due to the judge expecting her to request termination entirely on 7/14...like, there's little point to removing him today if they're just going to end it entirely in two weeks? Christ.
posted by ApathyGirl at 5:43 PM on July 1, 2021
posted by ApathyGirl at 5:43 PM on July 1, 2021
Is Britney really "allowed" (literally) to try to get out of it? Isn't that a conflict of interest for Ingham?
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:49 PM on July 1, 2021
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:49 PM on July 1, 2021
“Britney Spears’s Conservatorship Nightmare,” Ronan Farrow and Jia Tolentino, The New Yorker, 03 July 2021
posted by ob1quixote at 6:02 AM on July 3, 2021
posted by ob1quixote at 6:02 AM on July 3, 2021
The Farrow article is incredibly (and unsurprisingly) good.
posted by meese at 11:09 AM on July 3, 2021
posted by meese at 11:09 AM on July 3, 2021
ACLU: Britney Spears' Reproductive Freedom is a Disability Rights Issue.
posted by box at 6:35 AM on July 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by box at 6:35 AM on July 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
Farrow & Tolentino article archived link. Terrible details. [Judge] Goetz appointed a probate lawyer named Sam Ingham as Spears’s advocate, and then granted the conservators’ petition to waive the requirement to notify her that any of this was happening. Ingham remains in the role; Spears covers his annual salary of five hundred and twenty thousand dollars. (Her own living expenses in 2019 were $438,360.) Jamie became a co-conservator, sharing duties with a lawyer named Andrew Wallet, who was appointed by the court. On the petition to establish the arrangement, Jamie or someone working with him checked a box indicating that Spears had dementia.
Early on, Ms. Spears did attempt to hire her own counsel: 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 [psychiatrist James] 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.
[Spears, in her testimony last month: "I deserve changes. I was told I have to sit down and be evaluated, again, if I want to end the conservatorship. Ma’am, I didn’t know I could petition the conservatorship to end it. I’m sorry for my ignorance, but I honestly didn’t know that." She's footed the bill for 13 years of legal proceedings.]
At one point, that attorney Spears contacted, Eardley: [F]iled another declaration, arguing, among other things, that Spears was being denied due process. “It is obvious that the conservatorship was planned well in advance of its implementation as a tool to influence the custody proceedings in the family law court and for other illicit purposes,” he wrote. In another document, he stated that, the last time Spears attempted to call him, her phone was taken away from her, and that the number was disconnected the next day. Eardley soon has legal problems of his own; In later hearings, Jamie’s lawyers alleged a conspiracy [...] to undermine the conservatorship, and claimed that audio of Spears talking to Eardley had been doctored. Eardley’s career unravelled: the state bar of California filed disciplinary charges against him for attempting to represent Spears without having obtained consent to do so. He was subsequently found culpable of misconduct for writing bad checks on his client trust account, and was disbarred.
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:42 PM on July 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
Early on, Ms. Spears did attempt to hire her own counsel: 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 [psychiatrist James] 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.
[Spears, in her testimony last month: "I deserve changes. I was told I have to sit down and be evaluated, again, if I want to end the conservatorship. Ma’am, I didn’t know I could petition the conservatorship to end it. I’m sorry for my ignorance, but I honestly didn’t know that." She's footed the bill for 13 years of legal proceedings.]
At one point, that attorney Spears contacted, Eardley: [F]iled another declaration, arguing, among other things, that Spears was being denied due process. “It is obvious that the conservatorship was planned well in advance of its implementation as a tool to influence the custody proceedings in the family law court and for other illicit purposes,” he wrote. In another document, he stated that, the last time Spears attempted to call him, her phone was taken away from her, and that the number was disconnected the next day. Eardley soon has legal problems of his own; In later hearings, Jamie’s lawyers alleged a conspiracy [...] to undermine the conservatorship, and claimed that audio of Spears talking to Eardley had been doctored. Eardley’s career unravelled: the state bar of California filed disciplinary charges against him for attempting to represent Spears without having obtained consent to do so. He was subsequently found culpable of misconduct for writing bad checks on his client trust account, and was disbarred.
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:42 PM on July 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
There's also the timeline I'd forgotten: Spears had a 55-hour marriage to a childhood friend in January 2004, met Federline a few months later, and married him in that fall (thanks to family interference, they were wed in September but they "were not legally married until three weeks later on October 6 due to a delay finalizing the couple's prenuptial agreement"). Spears gave birth to their first son in September 2005, and to their second son in September 2006. She filed for divorce in November 2006. Some of the Spears 'instability' in 2007 was a possible addiction issue, but also an anguished response to Federline being awarded primary custody of the two kids, but also "people who were close to Spears during her early career suspect that she was dealing with postpartum depression, but none of them remembers anyone bringing it up with her".
The conservatorship began in early 2008. There are so many conflicts of interest concerning so many of the players, this reads like there was a conspiracy to promote it.
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:49 PM on July 5, 2021
The conservatorship began in early 2008. There are so many conflicts of interest concerning so many of the players, this reads like there was a conspiracy to promote it.
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:49 PM on July 5, 2021
Iris Gambol: [She's footed the bill for 13 years of legal proceedings.]
I have a hard time deciding what incenses me the most about all this.
However, one of my major gripes has to be the knowledge that Britney Spears is paying her conservatorship attorney -- the unremarkable legal mind Samuel D. Ingham III -- over $500,000 a year to treat her like a child.
posted by virago at 6:04 AM on July 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
I have a hard time deciding what incenses me the most about all this.
However, one of my major gripes has to be the knowledge that Britney Spears is paying her conservatorship attorney -- the unremarkable legal mind Samuel D. Ingham III -- over $500,000 a year to treat her like a child.
posted by virago at 6:04 AM on July 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
He's treating her like an oil well. The appointed attorney's duty of loyalty is only to the client. The appointed attorney's role is to investigate the status of the proposed conservatee and client, to determine the client's interests as the client can articulate them and to represent those interests in court. - A Lawyer is a Lawyer is a Lawyer, California Trusts and Estates Quarterly, Volume 25, Issue 1 (2019)
The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Local Court Rules, Chapter 4: Probate Division Rules, 4.125 ETHICAL GUIDELINES
Court-Appointed Counsel Panel attorney’s primary duty is to represent the interests of his or her client in accordance with applicable laws and ethical standards. The Court-Appointed Counsel Panel attorney’s secondary duty is to assist the court in the resolution of the matter to be decided. The Court-Appointed Counsel Panel attorney must, if practical, ensure that the client is afforded an opportunity to address the court directly.
A conservatee retains certain rights, and in her 20-minute address to the court Spears detailed how many of hers have been violated. It wasn't nitpicking, that she spoke of being denied permission to change her kitchen cabinets due to expense; while she's given a small allowance from her considerable earnings, she's to have the ability to direct spending from that allowance herself. Unless a judge declares her incapacitated (or there are other restrictions formally in place), Spears is supposedly able to do things like: get married if she chooses; make her own health-care decisions (having an IUD, or being treated with lithium); and ask a judge to end the conservatorship. When Spears said she didn't know petitioning to end the conservatorship was an option, that's more evidence that Ingham failed in his duty to his client. In doing so, he's made millions. I hope Spears gets out of this quagmire soon, retains competent legal representation, and initiates several lawsuits. Including proceedings against her awful dad; nevermind his salary from his conservator role, his percentage from her tour & merchandising profits is in conflict with his conservatorship duties -- as is the restraining order against him on behalf of her sons.
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:37 PM on July 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Local Court Rules, Chapter 4: Probate Division Rules, 4.125 ETHICAL GUIDELINES
Court-Appointed Counsel Panel attorney’s primary duty is to represent the interests of his or her client in accordance with applicable laws and ethical standards. The Court-Appointed Counsel Panel attorney’s secondary duty is to assist the court in the resolution of the matter to be decided. The Court-Appointed Counsel Panel attorney must, if practical, ensure that the client is afforded an opportunity to address the court directly.
A conservatee retains certain rights, and in her 20-minute address to the court Spears detailed how many of hers have been violated. It wasn't nitpicking, that she spoke of being denied permission to change her kitchen cabinets due to expense; while she's given a small allowance from her considerable earnings, she's to have the ability to direct spending from that allowance herself. Unless a judge declares her incapacitated (or there are other restrictions formally in place), Spears is supposedly able to do things like: get married if she chooses; make her own health-care decisions (having an IUD, or being treated with lithium); and ask a judge to end the conservatorship. When Spears said she didn't know petitioning to end the conservatorship was an option, that's more evidence that Ingham failed in his duty to his client. In doing so, he's made millions. I hope Spears gets out of this quagmire soon, retains competent legal representation, and initiates several lawsuits. Including proceedings against her awful dad; nevermind his salary from his conservator role, his percentage from her tour & merchandising profits is in conflict with his conservatorship duties -- as is the restraining order against him on behalf of her sons.
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:37 PM on July 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
Well, sounds like the attorney is resigning... Taker the money and run before the going gets rough, I suppose.
posted by kaibutsu at 7:08 PM on July 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by kaibutsu at 7:08 PM on July 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
^yowza. Per that Buzzfeed link, "Ingham's resignation comes days after Bessemer Trust, a wealth management firm that was appointed to manage Spears' estate with her father, filed to resign as a co-conservator, saying that it 'heard the Conservatee and respects her wishes.' In a separate filing last week, her father, Jamie Spears, denied any involvement in his daughter's care and asked the court to investigate her claims."
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:04 PM on July 6, 2021
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:04 PM on July 6, 2021
Britney Spears’ Longtime Manager Larry Rudolph Resigns As Singer Weighs Retirement (Deadline, July 5, 2021) “It has been over 2 1/2 years since Britney and I last communicated, at which time she informed me she wanted to take an indefinite work hiatus,” Rudolph, who has been Spears’ main manager since the early years of her career in the mid-1990s, wrote in a letter Monday sent to Spears’ co-conservators Jamie Spears and the court-appointed Jodi Montgomery. “Earlier today, I became aware that Britney had been voicing her intention to officially retire.”
He added, “As her manager, I believe it is in Britney’s best interest for me to resign from her team as my professional services are no longer needed.” (See the full letter below.)
At Yahoo Entertainment, July 6: Per Rudolph's timeline, he last spoke to Britney Spears — who has not directly said she plans to retire, only that she has no immediate plans to perform — around the time she called off her Las Vegas residency in January 2019. Around that time, Rudolph gave an interview saying Britney Spears's "meds stopped working and she was distraught over" Jamie Spears's near-fatal colon rupture in late 2018. He said the singer was excited to tour, but then stopped returning his calls. She "clearly doesn't want to perform now... From what I have gathered it's clear to me she should not be going back to do this Vegas residency, not in the near future and possibly never again." It was later revealed that Britney had been involuntary hospitalized in a psychiatric facility in early 2019 as all this played out.
In Britney Spears's court testimony, she claimed "my manager" called her therapist while she was prepping for her tour and said "I wasn’t cooperating or following the guidelines in rehearsals," which she said was untrue. "And he also said I wasn’t taking my medication, which is so dumb, because I’ve had the same lady every morning for the past eight years give me my same medication." She also claimed her "management" threatened, "If I don’t do this tour, I will have to find an attorney" because she would be sued.
Rudolph (manager for several other artists, including Aerosmith's Steven Tyler) had worked with Britney Spears more-on-than-off for 25 years (1997-2004, 2006-2007, and then 2008-2021); they first met when she was 13. He was brought back on as her manager after the singer entered conservatorship, at Jamie Spears's request. Before his artist management career, Larry Rudolph was an entertainment lawyer.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:47 AM on July 7, 2021
He added, “As her manager, I believe it is in Britney’s best interest for me to resign from her team as my professional services are no longer needed.” (See the full letter below.)
At Yahoo Entertainment, July 6: Per Rudolph's timeline, he last spoke to Britney Spears — who has not directly said she plans to retire, only that she has no immediate plans to perform — around the time she called off her Las Vegas residency in January 2019. Around that time, Rudolph gave an interview saying Britney Spears's "meds stopped working and she was distraught over" Jamie Spears's near-fatal colon rupture in late 2018. He said the singer was excited to tour, but then stopped returning his calls. She "clearly doesn't want to perform now... From what I have gathered it's clear to me she should not be going back to do this Vegas residency, not in the near future and possibly never again." It was later revealed that Britney had been involuntary hospitalized in a psychiatric facility in early 2019 as all this played out.
In Britney Spears's court testimony, she claimed "my manager" called her therapist while she was prepping for her tour and said "I wasn’t cooperating or following the guidelines in rehearsals," which she said was untrue. "And he also said I wasn’t taking my medication, which is so dumb, because I’ve had the same lady every morning for the past eight years give me my same medication." She also claimed her "management" threatened, "If I don’t do this tour, I will have to find an attorney" because she would be sued.
Rudolph (manager for several other artists, including Aerosmith's Steven Tyler) had worked with Britney Spears more-on-than-off for 25 years (1997-2004, 2006-2007, and then 2008-2021); they first met when she was 13. He was brought back on as her manager after the singer entered conservatorship, at Jamie Spears's request. Before his artist management career, Larry Rudolph was an entertainment lawyer.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:47 AM on July 7, 2021
One senses the cockroaches scattering as the light comes on. I wonder what the paper trail is going to look like if Britney actually gets the ability to hire her own lawyers and they start going through the financials.
Still, the judge refused to remove her father, so I'm not sure how much this is going to help her, if the judge thought even that basic step was too far despite hearing the litany of abuse Britney has endured. I suppose she could possibly be planning to assent to the termination instead, but the legal explainers I saw suggested that any such termination could be tied up for years in appeals and discovery.
posted by tavella at 4:45 PM on July 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
Still, the judge refused to remove her father, so I'm not sure how much this is going to help her, if the judge thought even that basic step was too far despite hearing the litany of abuse Britney has endured. I suppose she could possibly be planning to assent to the termination instead, but the legal explainers I saw suggested that any such termination could be tied up for years in appeals and discovery.
posted by tavella at 4:45 PM on July 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
“Britney Spears wins right to choose own lawyer in conservatorship case -NY Times,” Reuters, 14 July 2021
posted by ob1quixote at 5:51 PM on July 14, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by ob1quixote at 5:51 PM on July 14, 2021 [6 favorites]
The scene outside Britney Spears's conservatorship hearing has been a wild one on Wednesday, with dozens of protestors — and U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz — showing support for the singer. "Britney's been abused by the media, she's been abused by her grifter father and she's been abused by the American justice system." Gaetz added, "We need to come together to create a federal change in the law that will free Britney and the millions of Americans who are impacted by a corrupt guardianship system that empowers people to take advantage of the weak ... that should unite all Americans." (Yahoo) From July 1: Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida and a handful of other Republicans [Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Burgess Owens (Utah) and Andy Biggs (Ariz.)] have invited pop star Britney Spears to testify before Congress about her conservatorship. June 30: Rep. Gaetz & known associates letter to Spears.
Britney Spears’ new lawyer [Mathew Rosengart, a former federal prosecutor and veteran entertainment litigator], speaking publicly on her behalf for the first time, called on her father Jamie to voluntarily step down as her conservator, saying it was “in the best interest” of his client. (CNN, July 14)
Who Is Mathew Rosengart, Britney Spears' New Lawyer? (NPR, July 15, 2021) [Rosengart] represents Steven Spielberg and his Amblin Entertainment, actors Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Keanu Reeves, actor Sean Penn and his non-profit aid group CORE, musician Eddie Vedder and the talent and sports agency Creative Artists Agency. Other clients include Shark Tank's Daymond John, actor Winona Ryder and Miami Heat basketball player Jimmy Butler. He has also been named repeatedly to The Hollywood Reporter's annual "power lawyer" list, including in 2021. Before turning his attention to the entertainment industry, Rosengart served as a federal prosecutor, and worked at the Justice Department as an assistant U.S. attorney. According to a recent New York Times profile, he also clerked for David Souter, when the former Supreme Court justice was a state judge in New Hampshire.
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:07 AM on July 15, 2021
Britney Spears’ new lawyer [Mathew Rosengart, a former federal prosecutor and veteran entertainment litigator], speaking publicly on her behalf for the first time, called on her father Jamie to voluntarily step down as her conservator, saying it was “in the best interest” of his client. (CNN, July 14)
Who Is Mathew Rosengart, Britney Spears' New Lawyer? (NPR, July 15, 2021) [Rosengart] represents Steven Spielberg and his Amblin Entertainment, actors Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Keanu Reeves, actor Sean Penn and his non-profit aid group CORE, musician Eddie Vedder and the talent and sports agency Creative Artists Agency. Other clients include Shark Tank's Daymond John, actor Winona Ryder and Miami Heat basketball player Jimmy Butler. He has also been named repeatedly to The Hollywood Reporter's annual "power lawyer" list, including in 2021. Before turning his attention to the entertainment industry, Rosengart served as a federal prosecutor, and worked at the Justice Department as an assistant U.S. attorney. According to a recent New York Times profile, he also clerked for David Souter, when the former Supreme Court justice was a state judge in New Hampshire.
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:07 AM on July 15, 2021
“What we’ve learned about Britney Spears’s conservatorship case changes everything,” Constance Grady, Vox, 15 July 2021
posted by ob1quixote at 11:26 AM on July 15, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by ob1quixote at 11:26 AM on July 15, 2021 [1 favorite]
I don't understand what Gaetz et.al is hoping to get out of this (aside from going where there are cameras)?
posted by ApathyGirl at 1:48 PM on July 15, 2021
posted by ApathyGirl at 1:48 PM on July 15, 2021
Less cynical: Hoping to win some votes from suburban white women.
More cynical: Hoping to get his alleged crimes out of the news cycle.
posted by box at 2:14 PM on July 15, 2021
More cynical: Hoping to get his alleged crimes out of the news cycle.
posted by box at 2:14 PM on July 15, 2021
I would love it if someone well-informed about California law could speak about the reporting on the most recent developments. My not-a-lawyer understanding is that California law means that Britney had this right all along, but her lawyer and the judge in the case agreed between themselves that they shouldn't make her aware of this right.
posted by Lexica at 5:13 PM on July 15, 2021
posted by Lexica at 5:13 PM on July 15, 2021
“Ronan Farrow On The Free Britney Movement” [14:25]—The Dan Le Batard Show With Stugotz, 15 July 2021
posted by ob1quixote at 6:43 PM on July 15, 2021
posted by ob1quixote at 6:43 PM on July 15, 2021
"I don't understand what Gaetz et.al is hoping to get out of this"
Not to be super-gross, but Gaetz in particular is the right age for his sexuality to have been deeply informed by the "Hit Me Baby One More Time" music video. I kind of think Britney actually matters to him for that gross reason.
(And TO be gross, that's apparently still the "jail-bait" age he likes his sex partners, so, you know, lots of "ew" to be had in pondering why he cares about Britney.)
Also they get to bitch about liberal state overreach because it's California, but California conservatorship laws are abusive in precisely these ways, intended to keep female stars feeding the money train come hell or high water, and kept docile with drugs and threats. This is a Hollywood problem as expressed in the cozy LA bench, and not representative of blue states overall.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:25 PM on July 15, 2021 [1 favorite]
Not to be super-gross, but Gaetz in particular is the right age for his sexuality to have been deeply informed by the "Hit Me Baby One More Time" music video. I kind of think Britney actually matters to him for that gross reason.
(And TO be gross, that's apparently still the "jail-bait" age he likes his sex partners, so, you know, lots of "ew" to be had in pondering why he cares about Britney.)
Also they get to bitch about liberal state overreach because it's California, but California conservatorship laws are abusive in precisely these ways, intended to keep female stars feeding the money train come hell or high water, and kept docile with drugs and threats. This is a Hollywood problem as expressed in the cozy LA bench, and not representative of blue states overall.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:25 PM on July 15, 2021 [1 favorite]
Gaetz is staying busy--his campaign is paying off firms connected to Roger Stone (this firm is also an alleged Stone tax scam) and lawyers who defended Jeffrey Epstein.
posted by box at 7:22 AM on July 16, 2021
posted by box at 7:22 AM on July 16, 2021
Last Monday, the ACLU and the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, with the support of 25 civil rights and disability rights organizations, filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in support of Britney Spears’s right to select her own attorney for her conservatorship proceedings. Amicus brief, Tuesday press release.
July 14 court activity, as reported by CNN: “I want to press charges against my father today,” Spears told the court by phone, breaking down in tears at times. “I want an investigation into my dad.” [...] Spears initially asked for the courtroom to be cleared before she changed her mind and spoke for about 20 minutes. In a series of new bombshell allegations, Spears called the conservatorship “f—–g cruelty,” describing severe limitations she is living under, like not being able to have a cup of coffee. “If this isn’t abuse, I don’t know what is,” the singer said. “I thought they were trying to kill me.”
Vivian Thoreen, an attorney for Jamie Spears, said in court he would not resign.
July 14 court activity, as reported by Reuters: Speaking for about 10 minutes on Wednesday, Spears, 39, said she had always been "extremely scared of my dad." She said she was fed up with multiple psychological evaluations in the last 13 years and wanted the conservatorship brought to an end without another one. “I’m not a perfect person .. but their goal is to make me feel like I’m crazy," Spears said. Details of Spears' mental health issues have never publicly been disclosed.
Jamie Spears' attorney on Wednesday said that many of the singer's complaints were not valid. “I’m not sure Ms. Spears understands she can in fact make medical decisions and can have birth control devices implanted or not," attorney Vivian Thoreen said.
20 minutes of remarks versus 10 minutes (USA Today, with 15 minutes), coffee caviling as an example of abuse versus disclosure of a lifelong fear of her father... neutral, nearly identical coverage, nothing to see here.
Another hearing in the conservatorship scheduled for Sept. 29.
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:51 AM on July 16, 2021
July 14 court activity, as reported by CNN: “I want to press charges against my father today,” Spears told the court by phone, breaking down in tears at times. “I want an investigation into my dad.” [...] Spears initially asked for the courtroom to be cleared before she changed her mind and spoke for about 20 minutes. In a series of new bombshell allegations, Spears called the conservatorship “f—–g cruelty,” describing severe limitations she is living under, like not being able to have a cup of coffee. “If this isn’t abuse, I don’t know what is,” the singer said. “I thought they were trying to kill me.”
Vivian Thoreen, an attorney for Jamie Spears, said in court he would not resign.
July 14 court activity, as reported by Reuters: Speaking for about 10 minutes on Wednesday, Spears, 39, said she had always been "extremely scared of my dad." She said she was fed up with multiple psychological evaluations in the last 13 years and wanted the conservatorship brought to an end without another one. “I’m not a perfect person .. but their goal is to make me feel like I’m crazy," Spears said. Details of Spears' mental health issues have never publicly been disclosed.
Jamie Spears' attorney on Wednesday said that many of the singer's complaints were not valid. “I’m not sure Ms. Spears understands she can in fact make medical decisions and can have birth control devices implanted or not," attorney Vivian Thoreen said.
20 minutes of remarks versus 10 minutes (USA Today, with 15 minutes), coffee caviling as an example of abuse versus disclosure of a lifelong fear of her father... neutral, nearly identical coverage, nothing to see here.
Another hearing in the conservatorship scheduled for Sept. 29.
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:51 AM on July 16, 2021
« Older 15 Hours In Breakfast Purgatory | Stonewall Inn to pour Bud Light down the drain in... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by rogerroger at 9:19 PM on June 22, 2021 [32 favorites]