IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags britney spears , celebrity incidents , celebrity issues

Reply
Old 13th July 2021, 06:42 AM   #201
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
The crux of the disagreement is that she effectively has no money of her own because her estate is strictly governed by others. I cannot agree that she effectively has no money of her own if she has a personal allowance in excess of 100k/year. It's been established that she does indeed possess this allowance. Now, if she has to beg each time she wants to spend it, or if every ten-dollar item needed the personal approval of her father, then I would say that fits the characterization of obscene control, but something like that has not been established.
Interestingly enough you did not say if it woud also fit the characterisation of it not being her money. Would you still say that it is even if she can only spend it as someone else directs?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2021, 07:22 AM   #202
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,237
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I suspect the court believes there is a worse alternative to the conservatorship, and that was Spears' life before the conservatorship. But this is all forgotten in the United States of Amnesia. In the public consciousness, Spears' identity has been rebranded: Victim.
Which is a completely accurate description if all that has happened is that being out of control and surrounded by grifters has been replaced by different people exploiting her in a more orderly fashion. I think it's completely fair to challenge if the people controlling most of her life truly have her interests in mind instead of their own.
__________________


Last edited by gnome; 13th July 2021 at 07:23 AM.
gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2021, 07:57 AM   #203
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 13,933
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
.....
I suspect the court believes there is a worse alternative to the conservatorship, and that was Spears' life before the conservatorship. But this is all forgotten in the United States of Amnesia. In the public consciousness, Spears' identity has been rebranded: Victim.
The point is that those are not the only alternatives. Mental illness can be and usually is treated without taking away someone's civil life forever. As numerous links attest, conservatorship is intended for someone who is severely, permanently disabled, usually as a result of physical illness or injury, not someone experiencing a youthful crisis who can go on to earn many millions in a grueling career. And as Spears' father by all accounts contributed a lot to creating her problems, he's the last person in the world who should be controlling her life. She's an adult woman; when does she get to act like one?

The ACLU is on her side.
https://www.aclu.org/podcast/why-bri...d_gradead_sail
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2021, 08:36 AM   #204
jollyroger85
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 301
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The point is that those are not the only alternatives. Mental illness can be and usually is treated without taking away someone's civil life forever. As numerous links attest, conservatorship is intended for someone who is severely, permanently disabled, usually as a result of physical illness or injury, not someone experiencing a youthful crisis who can go on to earn many millions in a grueling career. And as Spears' father by all accounts contributed a lot to creating her problems, he's the last person in the world who should be controlling her life. She's an adult woman; when does she get to act like one?

The ACLU is on her side.
https://www.aclu.org/podcast/why-bri...d_gradead_sail
A Conservativorship must be:

Temporary....
Only considered after every other lesser extreme has been exhausted
Subject to regular review

Britney's situation was decided in under 10 minutes, making it HIGHLY unlikley any of these were satisfied.

And yes, Mental Illness is not sufficient grounds for a permanent conservatorship. Daddy has effectively enslaved his meal ticket and she deserves her life back, even if she screws it up completely. This is court overreach in the extreme.
jollyroger85 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2021, 09:06 AM   #205
jollyroger85
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 301
From the California Courts Web site for Mental Health Based Conservatorships for those harping on the Bipolar thing:

https://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-c...eLocaleAttr=en

A mental health (LPS) conservatorship makes one adult (called the “conservator”) responsible for a mentally ill adult (called the “conservatee”). LPS conservatorships MUST be started by a local government agency, usually a county’s Public Guardian or Public Conservator.

LPS conservatorships last for only 1 year. If they are needed longer than that, they must be restarted and the conservator must be reappointed by the court. The government agency may recommend that a family member of the conservatee be appointed as LPS conservator, but this happens usually only after the first year.

These conservatorships are only for adults who are gravely disabled as a result of a mental illness listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The most common mental illnesses are serious, biological brain disorders, like:

Schizophrenia,
Bipolar disorder (manic depression),
Schizo-affective disorder,
Clinical depression, and
Obsessive-compulsive disorder.

LPS conservatorships are not for people with organic brain disorders, brain trauma, developmental disability, alcohol or drug addiction, or dementia, unless they also have one of the serious mental illnesses listed in the DSM.
jollyroger85 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2021, 09:11 AM   #206
jollyroger85
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 301
From the same url:



As a conservatee, you generally keep the right to:

Directly receive and control your own salary;
Make or change your will;
Get married (unless a judge has determined you do not have the capacity to do so);
Get mail;
Get visits from family and friends (unless a judge has ordered restrictions on visits or other contact with you);
Have a lawyer;
Ask a judge to change conservators;
Ask a judge to end the conservatorship;
Vote, unless a judge says you are not able to;
Control personal spending money if a judge says you can have an allowance paid directly to you;
Make your own health-care decisions, unless a judge gives that right to a conservator;
Enter into business transactions to provide for your basic needs and those of your children;
Participate in other activities the court allows you to do when the conservator is appointed, or when a court order later gives you that right if you ask for it.
jollyroger85 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2021, 05:23 PM   #207
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,866
Maybe Spears was making bad decisions about how to live her life and who to associate with prior to the conservatorship. Maybe she was even better off after the judge ordered the conservatorship. I don't really care: those bad decisions were hers to make. I don't see a place for the legal system to interfere in people's lives in this way.

Moreover, those bad decisions were also hers to unmake at any time. If she realized that she was surrounded by parasites she could simply [i]stop associating with those people, and if necessary get exactly those restraining orders that her father got, herself. Whether or not she wants to do that is her own business.

If someone else could show that those people were exploiting her without her consent, then there should be some way to separate her from them, but if she was a fully consenting party, it should be up to her to associate with whoever she chooses, whether that's a self-destructive choice or not.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 01:33 AM   #208
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,605
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Interestingly enough you did not say if it woud also fit the characterisation of it not being her money. Would you still say that it is even if she can only spend it as someone else directs?
It's all her money. Obviously she does not control the money that she does not control. As noted more than once... that's kinda the point. Spears' complaint in court was that her vacations were not long enough, and she could not go to the acupuncturist or nail salon during the pandemic (even though her maids could!). SO unfair. A self-described "powerful woman" and her nails pale in comparison to the help.

Originally Posted by gnome View Post
I think it's completely fair to challenge if the people controlling most of her life truly have her interests in mind instead of their own.
Sure, but the system in place has the advantage of government oversight.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Maybe Spears was making bad decisions about how to live her life and who to associate with prior to the conservatorship. Maybe she was even better off after the judge ordered the conservatorship. I don't really care: those bad decisions were hers to make. I don't see a place for the legal system to interfere in people's lives in this way.

Moreover, those bad decisions were also hers to unmake at any time. If she realized that she was surrounded by parasites she could simply [i]stop associating with those people, and if necessary get exactly those restraining orders that her father got, herself. Whether or not she wants to do that is her own business.
The problem here is that autonomy is not just undermined from outside interference; a person experiencing a psychotic episode can do lasting harm when they are "not themselves." It's especially pernicious precisely because such harm might not be reversible. Good things usually take time; bad things happen suddenly. We spend decades and a lot of resources to raise an infant to adulthood. That same person can be killed in an instant.

As noted earlier, she didn't know she could challenge the conservatorship until recently. Maybe she'll win.
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Diablo: You're a lousy bigot. Apologise and withdraw that remark.
Cain: Nah.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 03:08 AM   #209
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
It's all her money. Obviously she does not control the money that she does not control.
Well in my mind if you have no control over something you can't be said to possess it.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 03:22 AM   #210
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 23,787
...
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

Last edited by Vixen; 14th July 2021 at 03:24 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 03:23 AM   #211
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 23,787
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Be afraid. Be very afraid.




The crux of the disagreement is that she effectively has no money of her own because her estate is strictly governed by others. I cannot agree that she effectively has no money of her own if she has a personal allowance in excess of 100k/year. It's been established that she does indeed possess this allowance. Now, if she has to beg each time she wants to spend it, or if every ten-dollar item needed the personal approval of her father, then I would say that fits the characterization of obscene control, but something like that has not been established.

The "prisoner" etc stuff in this thread is just overblown rhetoric that short-circuits critical thinking.




I think a problem is that people believe this conservatorship is one of the worst things that could happen to her (or anyone), but before it took hold she was surrounded by grifters and out of control by the age of 26. In that unforgiving industry, performers are notorious for not making it to 28.

Most people only care about this case because it involves money and celebrity, two things that even well-adjusted people would have difficulty handling. There's also a huge difference between acquiring fame and riches later in life versus as a teenager, before full "executive function" develops.

Before the conservatorship, Spears had a credit card declined.



https://www.rollingstone.com/feature...ears-2-254735/

Her father has had the court remove these people from Spears' life. He wins restraining order after restraining order. He even manages to have the court curb former associates' First Amendment rights in that they can't even speak publicly about Spears.

I suspect the court believes there is a worse alternative to the conservatorship, and that was Spears' life before the conservatorship. But this is all forgotten in the United States of Amnesia. In the public consciousness, Spears' identity has been rebranded: Victim.
To be fair, who hasn't suffered 'phone rage' of the vile gutteral animal type?


Quote:
[Spears] ducks into the dressing room with Ghalib [a totally non-greedy member of the paparazzi who became her boyfriend because great life choices]. He emerges with her black Am Ex.

The card won’t go through, but they keep trying it.

“Please,” begs Ghalib, “get this done quickly.”

One of the girls runs to Britney’s dressing room, explaining the situation through a pink gauze curtain.

A wail emerges from the cubby — guttural, vile, the kind of base animalistic shriek only heard at a family member’s deathbed. ***** these bitches,” screams Britney, each word ringing out between sobs. “These idiots can’t do anything right!”

A new card finally goes through, but by then Britney is out the door, leaving her shirt on the ground and replacing it with the red top. ***** you, **** people, [f-word], [f-word], [f-word],” she keeps screaming.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 04:46 AM   #212
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 7,586
Wow, Vixen, that is pretty ******* cruel.

Maybe I'm misreading your tone, but you sound gleeful, like those vultures on TMZ (or whatever it was called back then) when poor Britney first got into trouble.

What is the big deal about someone having a flip-out?
__________________
Get these tribbles off the bridge

Last edited by Butter!; 14th July 2021 at 04:47 AM.
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 04:52 AM   #213
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 23,787
Originally Posted by Butter! View Post
Wow, Vixen, that is pretty ******* cruel.

Maybe I'm misreading your tone, but you sound gleeful, like those vultures on TMZ (or whatever it was called back then) when poor Britney first got into trouble.

What is the big deal about someone having a flip-out?
That's not my quote. Try Cain, who was quoting ROLLING STONE as an example of Britney's 'instability'.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 04:58 AM   #214
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 7,586
Amanda Bynes is another former child star whose parents had to put her under a conservatorship due to mental illness and extremely erratic behavior. In my opinion, her actions leading up to this court decision were much more over-the-top than Britney's, but that's neither here nor there. If you look into Bynes's situation a bit, I think it gives a somewhat better idea of what this kind of arrangement should look like.

Obviously, 'm not privy to what goes on behind closed doors, but Bynes's family really seems to be trying to help her (especially compared to the Spearses). The arrangement is regularly reviewed, distinctions are drawn between financial, medical, and other types of legal control, etc. Amanda still isn't happy about it, by all indications, but I don't imagine that many conservatees who understand their situations are thrilled about them. There's still a "right way" to do things.
__________________
Get these tribbles off the bridge
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 05:00 AM   #215
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 7,586
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That's not my quote. Try Cain, who was quoting ROLLING STONE as an example of Britney's 'instability'.
I started skipping his posts, so I'm sorry, my mistake.

Cain, I know you're probably playing the delightful contrarian game again, but with something like this, it just sounds like misogyny and light sanctioning of Huxley-esque state control of people's brains. This one shaved her head and screamed at a reporter, can't have that! Off to the adult reconditioning center.
__________________
Get these tribbles off the bridge
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 05:45 AM   #216
jollyroger85
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 301
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Maybe Spears was making bad decisions about how to live her life and who to associate with prior to the conservatorship. Maybe she was even better off after the judge ordered the conservatorship. I don't really care: those bad decisions were hers to make. I don't see a place for the legal system to interfere in people's lives in this way.

Moreover, those bad decisions were also hers to unmake at any time. If she realized that she was surrounded by parasites she could simply [i]stop associating with those people, and if necessary get exactly those restraining orders that her father got, herself. Whether or not she wants to do that is her own business.

If someone else could show that those people were exploiting her without her consent, then there should be some way to separate her from them, but if she was a fully consenting party, it should be up to her to associate with whoever she chooses, whether that's a self-destructive choice or not.
Its been reported that she has wanted her dad out of her life for years making the abusive exploitation of this court appointed slavery all the obvious. It should have never happened in the first place and in the case f a ten minute hearing you cannot convince me all the nessicary elements required by California state were met.
jollyroger85 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 05:48 AM   #217
jollyroger85
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 301
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That's not my quote. Try Cain, who was quoting ROLLING STONE as an example of Britney's 'instability'.
The entire gleeful tome that some in this thread are putting forth is completely sickening. A citizen of the US, obvious not incapacitated has been basically enslaved by the court system and their own money was used to do it. It is obvious that TMZ and all their ilk and inherently parasitic as are all elements of the entertainment and music industries.
jollyroger85 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 05:53 AM   #218
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,237
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Sure, but the system in place has the advantage of government oversight.
Having it in theory, and whether that oversight is functional and reliable, are two very different things. Do you understand that people are arguing that the oversight is insufficient? Noting that it exists on paper is not really a refutation of that.
__________________

gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 06:16 AM   #219
Ernie M
Muse
 
Ernie M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 942
Britney Spears is in a voluntary conservatorship

Correction:
I believe I need to make a correction to an earlier post #117 where I incorrectly said a psych eval led to Britney Spears being deemed incapacitated and that led to the conservatorship. The correction apparently is that:

BRITNEY SPEARS IS IN A VOLUNTARY CONSERVATORSHIP

According to an ABC News video, legal expert Christopher Melcher, said,
Melcher
1:33
This is what they’re calling a voluntary conservatorship. There was never a determination by the court that she was incapacitated. And so she was convinced into agreeing to it. And then now she’s finding a hard time getting out of it after all these thirteen years.

So it’s really remarkable that she would have understood the loss of liberty and freedom that she would have experienced now for thirteen years when this was initially placed on her.
Source:

Davis, Linsey. “Britney Spears’ conservatorship ‘is a sinking ship’ at this point: Legal expertABC News. 13 July 2021. https[colon]//www[dot]youtube.com/watch?v=mVAThydya2Q
__________________
paranormalstateillustrated.com

Taking a close look at what you see and hear
on a "Real Life. Drama." TV series.
Ernie M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 06:21 AM   #220
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 7,586
I admit that I myself wasn't willing to look into this situation at first, back when I first heard some details about it a few years ago. What I heard then was, there was a pack of rabid Britney Spears fans who had decided that her conservatorship was a conspiracy to imprison her. I was surprised to hear that Spears was still in that sort of arrangement since it had been so long since her publicized troubles, but like many people, I assumed there had to be a good reason for it if the courts kept giving it the go-ahead. So I felt annoyed by the hashtag loons, and I decided not to think about it much beyond that (especially since the idea of even a necessary conservatorship on a non-Alzheimer's patient has always made me personally uncomfortable).

But then more and more sources started mentioning the story, and I felt compelled to pay a little more attention. At this time, I was desperately searching for ANY reason that the conspiracists could be wrong, because if they were right, then we live in a world where these sorts of shenanigans can just happen, and the legal system will allow it. Repeatedly. That's horrifying.

So maybe a lot of the people having a knee-jerk reaction to mock this are coming from a similar place as I was originally. Otherwise, I just can't understand when society decided it's okay to toss wayward girls in proverbial asylums again (and that guy from the Beach Boys, too). "But she was behaving erratically!" Okay, and? That's what celebrities do. "She was risking legal troubles!" 2 words - Lindsay Lohan. "She would have frittered away all her money!!!" Um, Nicholas Cage? MC Hammer? Again, this is what some rich people do, and that's their business.

I would be very leery of any system that attempts to forcibly "correct" lucid people to this degree, even if they appear by all accounts to be in need of correction. Some people waste their lives, and that is very sad, but the state cannot force them to change. And people's families, especially shady families like the Spears, should definitely not be able to use the state as their muscle in this way. Give people every opportunity to accept help - hell, beg them, show up at their house, I don't care. But if they tell you to **** off, you gotta **** off. I thought that was basically the world we lived in, with few (and extreme) exceptions. I now think maybe I was wrong, and that is frankly speaking FREAKY.
__________________
Get these tribbles off the bridge

Last edited by Butter!; 14th July 2021 at 06:23 AM.
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 06:24 AM   #221
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Ernie M View Post
Correction:
I believe I need to make a correction to an earlier post #117 where I incorrectly said a psych eval led to Britney Spears being deemed incapacitated and that led to the conservatorship. The correction apparently is that:

BRITNEY SPEARS IS IN A VOLUNTARY CONSERVATORSHIP

According to an ABC News video, legal expert Christopher Melcher, said,
Melcher
1:33
This is what they’re calling a voluntary conservatorship. There was never a determination by the court that she was incapacitated. And so she was convinced into agreeing to it. And then now she’s finding a hard time getting out of it after all these thirteen years.

So it’s really remarkable that she would have understood the loss of liberty and freedom that she would have experienced now for thirteen years when this was initially placed on her.
Source:

Davis, Linsey. “Britney Spears’ conservatorship ‘is a sinking ship’ at this point: Legal expertABC News. 13 July 2021. https[colon]//www[dot]youtube.com/watch?v=mVAThydya2Q
One would think that something voluntary would end as soon as it ceases to be voluntary.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 06:25 AM   #222
Ernie M
Muse
 
Ernie M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 942
I don't see any mention of a "voluntary" type conservatorship on the California Courts, The Judicial Branch of California's website, Conservatorship page.
__________________
paranormalstateillustrated.com

Taking a close look at what you see and hear
on a "Real Life. Drama." TV series.
Ernie M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 06:25 AM   #223
jollyroger85
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 301
Originally Posted by Ernie M View Post
Correction:
I believe I need to make a correction to an earlier post #117 where I incorrectly said a psych eval led to Britney Spears being deemed incapacitated and that led to the conservatorship. The correction apparently is that:

BRITNEY SPEARS IS IN A VOLUNTARY CONSERVATORSHIP

According to an ABC News video, legal expert Christopher Melcher, said,
Melcher
1:33
This is what they’re calling a voluntary conservatorship. There was never a determination by the court that she was incapacitated. And so she was convinced into agreeing to it. And then now she’s finding a hard time getting out of it after all these thirteen years.

So it’s really remarkable that she would have understood the loss of liberty and freedom that she would have experienced now for thirteen years when this was initially placed on her.
Source:

Davis, Linsey. “Britney Spears’ conservatorship ‘is a sinking ship’ at this point: Legal expertABC News. 13 July 2021. https[colon]//www[dot]youtube.com/watch?v=mVAThydya2Q
Being gaslit is not agreement
jollyroger85 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 06:28 AM   #224
jollyroger85
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 301
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
One would think that something voluntary would end as soon as it ceases to be voluntary.
Which by her own recent testimony, it clear has and has been less than voluntary (if it ever was) for a very long time.
jollyroger85 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 06:29 AM   #225
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 7,586
I saw a source that said Britney originally agreed to the conservatorship arrangement because her family told her it would prevent her children being taken away. (Talk about pressure.) I can't find it again at the moment, though, so I'm entering this post under the category of "they out here sayin..."
__________________
Get these tribbles off the bridge
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 06:31 AM   #226
Ernie M
Muse
 
Ernie M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 942
Originally Posted by jollyroger85 View Post

Originally Posted by Ernie M View Post
Correction:
I believe I need to make a correction to an earlier post #117 where I incorrectly said a psych eval led to Britney Spears being deemed incapacitated and that led to the conservatorship. The correction apparently is that:

BRITNEY SPEARS IS IN A VOLUNTARY CONSERVATORSHIP

According to an ABC News video, legal expert Christopher Melcher, said,
Melcher
1:33
This is what they’re calling a voluntary conservatorship. There was never a determination by the court that she was incapacitated. And so she was convinced into agreeing to it. And then now she’s finding a hard time getting out of it after all these thirteen years.

So it’s really remarkable that she would have understood the loss of liberty and freedom that she would have experienced now for thirteen years when this was initially placed on her.
Source:

Davis, Linsey. “Britney Spears’ conservatorship ‘is a sinking ship’ at this point: Legal expertABC News. 13 July 2021. https[colon]//www[dot]youtube.com/watch?v=mVAThydya2Q

Being gaslit is not agreement

Gaslit.

Yes, I believe that sums up Britney Spears' (of what appears to be an) abusive, exploitive, and perhaps fraudulent, conservatorship.
__________________
paranormalstateillustrated.com

Taking a close look at what you see and hear
on a "Real Life. Drama." TV series.

Last edited by Ernie M; 14th July 2021 at 06:35 AM. Reason: Added spacing between sections. Added the abusive, exploitive, fraudulent part of a sentence.
Ernie M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 06:44 AM   #227
Ernie M
Muse
 
Ernie M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 942
Originally Posted by Butter! View Post
I saw a source that said Britney originally agreed to the conservatorship arrangement because her family told her it would prevent her children being taken away. (Talk about pressure.) I can't find it again at the moment, though, so I'm entering this post under the category of "they out here sayin..."

IANAL, but if so, that sounds like some people used coercion, extortion, and undue influence against Britney. I get the sense Britney was bullied, intimidated, gaslit, presented with misleading options, presented with options harmful to her, where whoever was involved withheld information from Britney.

Coercion quoted form online Oxford dictionary:
the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

Extortion quoted form online Oxford dictionary:
the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

Undue influence quoted form online Oxford dictionary:
influence by which a person is induced to act otherwise than by their own free will or without adequate attention to the consequences.
__________________
paranormalstateillustrated.com

Taking a close look at what you see and hear
on a "Real Life. Drama." TV series.
Ernie M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 06:48 AM   #228
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 7,586
Originally Posted by Ernie M View Post
IANAL, but if so, that sounds like some people used coercion, extortion, and undue influence against Britney. I get the sense Britney was bullied, intimidated, gaslit, presented with misleading options, presented with options harmful to her, where whoever was involved withheld information from Britney.

Coercion quoted form online Oxford dictionary:
the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

Extortion quoted form online Oxford dictionary:
the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

Undue influence quoted form online Oxford dictionary:
influence by which a person is induced to act otherwise than by their own free will or without adequate attention to the consequences.
As a fellow NAL, I agree!
__________________
Get these tribbles off the bridge
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 07:47 AM   #229
Ernie M
Muse
 
Ernie M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 942
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post

Originally Posted by Ernie M View Post
Correction:
I believe I need to make a correction to an earlier post #117 where I incorrectly said a psych eval led to Britney Spears being deemed incapacitated and that led to the conservatorship. The correction apparently is that:

BRITNEY SPEARS IS IN A VOLUNTARY CONSERVATORSHIP

According to an ABC News video, legal expert Christopher Melcher, said,
Melcher
1:33
This is what they’re calling a voluntary conservatorship. There was never a determination by the court that she was incapacitated. And so she was convinced into agreeing to it. And then now she’s finding a hard time getting out of it after all these thirteen years.

So it’s really remarkable that she would have understood the loss of liberty and freedom that she would have experienced now for thirteen years when this was initially placed on her.
Source:

Davis, Linsey. “Britney Spears’ conservatorship ‘is a sinking ship’ at this point: Legal expertABC News. 13 July 2021. https[colon]//www[dot]youtube.com/watch?v=mVAThydya2Q

One would think that something voluntary would end as soon as it ceases to be voluntary.

Once a person is in the horrifically-broken conservatorship/guardianship system, typically the conservatee (in a conservatorship) or ward (in a guardianship) gets out by DYING.

Britney Spears' case is unusual in that information about her conservatorship has been made public on a grand scale. For the majority of conservatorships and guardianships and abusive & exploitive power of attorney cases–most are not public and you never hear about them.

Much information is kept from public scrutiny due to a biased and harmful network of laws, nepotism, cronyism, and favoritism.

Nepotism quoted form online Oxford dictionary:
the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs.

Cronyism quoted form online Oxford dictionary:
the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.

Favoritism quoted form online Oxford dictionary:
the practice of giving unfair preferential treatment to one person or group at the expense of another.

The Free Britney movement has been instrumental in bringing to light some of the highly-problematic and harmful issues of conservatorships/guardianships/power of attorney abuse.

Tracing the money flow would help define the who/what/where/when/why/how, was involved in this apparently abusive, exploitive, and fraudulent conservatorship. A (public) financial accounting is needed.

I stand with those who support efforts to Free Britney. I also stand with efforts to hold those accountable who I believe robbed Britney Spears of quality of life, civil and constitutional liberties, finances, and emotional stability.

Free Britney and shed light on the abusive systems.
__________________
paranormalstateillustrated.com

Taking a close look at what you see and hear
on a "Real Life. Drama." TV series.
Ernie M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 07:53 AM   #230
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Ernie M View Post
Free Britney and shed light on the abusive systems.
The more I hear about this conservatorship system, the less I like it.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 08:31 AM   #231
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 13,933
Originally Posted by Ernie M View Post
IANAL, but if so, that sounds like some people used coercion, extortion, and undue influence against Britney. I get the sense Britney was bullied, intimidated, gaslit, presented with misleading options, presented with options harmful to her, where whoever was involved withheld information from Britney.
.....
It's important to note that Spears became her family's meal ticket as a performer around age 11, and an international pop star at 16. She's had limited education and "normal" life experience, and she was controlled and manipulated for gain way before the conservatorship. It's not a surprise that at some point she would flip out, but that reflects her circumstances more than some permanent incapacity. Her situation should have ended a long time ago.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 09:20 AM   #232
jollyroger85
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 301
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
The more I hear about this conservatorship system, the less I like it.
Read deeper with Google, it's conceivable relatives could do this to anyone, at least get it to court....
jollyroger85 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 09:35 AM   #233
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 13,933
Originally Posted by jollyroger85 View Post
Read deeper with Google, it's conceivable relatives could do this to anyone, at least get it to court....
They don't have to be relatives, just anybody who wants your stuff.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...e-their-rights
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 09:45 AM   #234
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,237
Seems like the ace in the hole needed is either a sympathetic or negligent judge, to disregard or paper over matters that would challenge the arrangement.
__________________

gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 10:03 AM   #235
Ernie M
Muse
 
Ernie M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 942
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post

Originally Posted by Ernie M View Post

Free Britney and shed light on the abusive systems.

The more I hear about this conservatorship system, the less I like it.

I CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING MOVIES TO BE CULTURALLY AND HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT:

I Care a Lot. Netflix. Written and Directed by J Blakeson. Release date 19 February 2021.

Exquisite. Superlative. Excellent cinematography. Don’t be put off by negative reviews which were likely written by those who don’t want you to understand the devastation, control, and lucrative abilities of a broken guardianship/conservatorship/trust, system.

Superb acting. Peter Dinklage, who portrayed Tyrion Lannister on the HBO television series Game of Thrones, conveys subtle emotions and intent with his facial expressions. Rosamund Pike portrays the cruel, sadistic court-appointed guardian Marla Grayson. This film expertly captures the breadth and depth of the broken guardianship system and (broken) courts, and other enabling broken systems.

The Guardians. Directed by Billie Mintz. 2019. Available free on Amazon Prime.
There are some connections I'll make in a later post that tie-in work by different authors and reporters.

A movie you can no longer see but I consider culturally and historically significant also:

Guardians, Inc.” Dirty Money. Directed by Kyoko Miyake. Released on Netflix, March 11, 2020 in Season 2, Episode 5.

“Guardians, Inc.” was removed from Netflix’s library due to lawsuit from attorney Nicholas Louisa.

Sadly, attorney Lisa Belanger has been disbarred.

Rachel Aviv, reporter, for The New Yorker, (“How the Elderly Lose Their Rights”) made hard-hitting points about broken and abusive guardianships.

Hopefully Netflix's, Dirty Money: "Guardian's Inc." episode will air again.
__________________
paranormalstateillustrated.com

Taking a close look at what you see and hear
on a "Real Life. Drama." TV series.
Ernie M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 11:24 AM   #236
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,358
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
The fact that you don't understand, or pretend not to understand, something that's self-evident isn't my fault. You can say "weasley" or "squirm" all you want, if it makes you feel better. But if you need permission to use the money I give you and can only spend it on what I tell you, then it's not your money. There's no difference with me spending my money to buy you wnat I decide you can have.

But hey, you decided that this was going to be your hill, so you can't back down now. You have to deny every argument or point.



No, I get the sarcasm because that's nearly all you're capable of. I meant you're playing words with "treated like a child".

Woosh.
Another disturbing aspect of this is that Britney's allowance is a fraction of what her father and "her" attorney are getting, all from money that Britney has earned. Whatever Britney's mental state and ability to make her own decisions might really be, the whole situation stinks.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 11:38 AM   #237
jollyroger85
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 301
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
They don't have to be relatives, just anybody who wants your stuff.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...e-their-rights
allowing for common sense in the case of the court (Hopefully), there needs to be made a credible case for your incapacitation though, making a family member more likely to pull it off.
jollyroger85 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 12:04 PM   #238
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,237
Originally Posted by Ernie M View Post
I CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING MOVIES TO BE CULTURALLY AND HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT:

I Care a Lot. Netflix. Written and Directed by J Blakeson. Release date 19 February 2021.

Exquisite. Superlative. Excellent cinematography. Don’t be put off by negative reviews which were likely written by those who don’t want you to understand the devastation, control, and lucrative abilities of a broken guardianship/conservatorship/trust, system.

Superb acting. Peter Dinklage, who portrayed Tyrion Lannister on the HBO television series Game of Thrones, conveys subtle emotions and intent with his facial expressions. Rosamund Pike portrays the cruel, sadistic court-appointed guardian Marla Grayson. This film expertly captures the breadth and depth of the broken guardianship system and (broken) courts, and other enabling broken systems.
I loved and hated it. I was right there with hating Rosamund Pike's character, I mean I was snarling. It could have been a very satisfying movie for me but

I didn't like how he joined her in the end. I felt like the movie itself was surrendering to her, and the shooting at the end was not very satisfying. What I really wanted was gangster-Tyrion's mom to rally the goons, rescue him, and take care of her decisively.
__________________

gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 12:57 PM   #239
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
 
Butter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 7,586
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
It's important to note that Spears became her family's meal ticket as a performer around age 11, and an international pop star at 16. She's had limited education and "normal" life experience, and she was controlled and manipulated for gain way before the conservatorship. It's not a surprise that at some point she would flip out, but that reflects her circumstances more than some permanent incapacity. Her situation should have ended a long time ago.
This is such a good point. I'm sure it's also easier to convince a judge that someone is mentally deficient if they are fairly uneducated and somewhat childlike, the way Spears can often come across.

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

All the people out there paternally tutting "Well, she's just too erratic, clearly she needs this sort of guidance" need to pull their heads out of their asses, frankly. None of us would be safe from this if someone wanted to do it to us. Not as long as there's a system in place that allows for such shady arrangements for trivial reasons (yes, in the context of permanent, involuntary conservatorships ONLY, I am calling bipolar disorder trivial).
__________________
Get these tribbles off the bridge
Butter! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2021, 01:13 PM   #240
Joe Random
Master Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,914
I never thought I'd say this, but this thread has managed to make me care about what happens to Britney Spears. Not being sarcastic - I'm genuinely shocked and appalled that this sort of controlling abuse of a not-incapacitated person is possible and legal.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.