Britney Sphear's is I hear sitting on a nest egg of 60 million dollars, but it is being controlled by her father and lawyers. Of the 60 million dollars, she gets to claim $2000 per week, which depending on where you live is or isn't a lot of money. But for a 60 million dollar nest egg, 100k/year is really a slap in the face-though she does spend 400k/year on personal expenses. Also her dad gets 128k/year of her money doing uh....nothing? https://www.insider.com/inside-britney-spears-conservatorship-freebritney-movement-2020-12 . She can't get her nails done without her daddy's consent, and she's been forcefully sterilized against her will meaning she can't have kids without her daddy's consent. She's just expected to perform as a singer making millions a year, and having no ability to live life. Her dad reportedly can forcefully medicate her. Even if you were a prisoner, the state cannot force you to take medical treatment against your consent. The legal matter is more complex, a new conservator is/maybe replacing her dad, and the dad is asking for a greater salary (16k+2k)/month and also 3m in legal fees. https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/pictures/britney-spears-mental-health-battle-conservatorship-explained/lynne-vs-jamie/ . Makes you wonder if there is a breach of fiduciary responsibility with all that pork.
Certainly she has problems, but are they problems that warrant a conservatorship? She shaved her beautiful blond hair off, but so hasn't Rose Mcgowen, kate Perry, Miley Cyrus, and plenty of other God aweful feminists (at least Rose is consistent regardless of party). She let her nono's slip out going into public, but do we tell PETA or FEMEN models that they aren't competant in making life decisions-Should we tell PETA their models probably make men more likely to eat meat? Do we apply the same standards on bunny ranch girls, playboy bunnies, or ethots as the court does Britney? If these are the reasons why Britney is troubled-ok she is troubled-but these instances alone do not rise to the level of justifying a conservatorship. So what is she recently thinks she is a snake, does that make her crazier than the guy on discovery channel willingly being swallowed by a snake? Or steve Irwin dangling his baby over a croc? Or worse than parents who send their kids to drag queen story hour?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eaten_Alive_(TV_program)
https://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/01/02/australia.crocodileman/
Ok, it did start went she went to a psychiatric hospital. Rose said on Tucker that Britney she was diagnosed as dementia (not say schizophrenia), which is a remarkable diagnosis given her billboard topping singing talent and ongoing music gigs. Suppose that is true that she has dementia, is she more incompetent than an Amish man or woman who religiously cannot achieve an education above 8th grade nor use electricity? Certainly the Amish are more skilled at many things more than you or I with significantly less tools to work with, But are the courts really saying she functionally worse than an 8th grader. Should we bring out Jeff Foxworthy out to ask if she is smarter than a 5th grader-which surprisingly most adults aren't? Just how bad is she with her life decisions, compared to say normal women?
In recent days and weeks it has been more and more Clear that Britney has been exploited, and held as a performance prisoner where she cannot even enjoy the profits of her labor-but parasites can. About 500k/year for one attorney before he resigned-then got a 100k golden parachute.
If anything, the best way to stop this level of abuse is to stop working and use that as a leverage-and that tactic wasn't used until recently. Can she be held liable? I am not sure that she can legally enter into a contract, and I think it would immediately create a conflict of interest with the trustee. Are they going to drug her and force her onto the stage like a side show freak and expect her to give show quality performance. Speaking of which, at any point during he 13 years, she could have spoke to the audience about the ongoing abuse.
Another issue is that with 100k/year, plus the income of her body building boy friend, they could have, more than I am able to, easily moved overseas and perhaps sought asylum so the US had no jurisdiction over her. I am not sure what would happen to the nest egg that she wasn't given full access too, but what would stop her from going on tour everywhere but the USA? A contract accepted by her daddy that she had probably no consideration, nor legal capacity, nor legal mutual assent, to enter into?
There comes a point in life where many people realize they are a slave, but more in a metaphorical sense. When you been red pilled and see that it isn't just a metaphor (i.e. government is involved), your first instinct is too escape if you can. What happened to Britney should have been a red-pilling experience, but rather than take flight she acquiesced.
Now that the conservatorship is 13 years old, she is fighting to end it again. Certainly a wise move if she prevails in reclaiming her money and her freedom, but if she fails then she might have to suck it up as a loss and escape to enjoy the freedom and family that she seems to wants. In maybe a decade, she may be too old to have kids-so escaping her prison should be a top priority if she really wants to have kids.
Even though I don't believe Britney is cognitively all there, I think the legal system has completely and intentionally failed her. There is a type of trust that probably would better fit her wants and needs, and one that would take care of her if she really did start making bad decisions. It is called a spendthrift trust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spendthrift_trust Usually in estate planning a parent [or grandparent or other person] can set aside money so that the trust pays for a person's home or rent, food, etc-and it is off limit to creditors in normal circumstances. So let us suppose a 10 year annuity. In 2019, the interest rates for annuities paid 4% a year. https://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/t003-c032-s014-7-on-a-fixed-annuity-don-t-believe-it.html. So basically, a 10 year annuity of $2.5m would be able to provide Britney $100k/year. Which I am sure would more than pay for food and shelter and even enough insurance to drive to the grocery store (yes celebrities need that)-and a lot more. Let's double that in case she needs body guards. Maybe more is required for costumes, dancers, sound/musicians, lighting, pyrotechnics, photographers, choreographers, advertizing, etc-but I'm pretty sure her manager would handle those kind of details. So why does her father and her lawyers need to restrain the other $55 million dollars, why do they demand that she can't have kids, can't get married, can't live life, make mistakes, learn from life mistakes. It appears they are financial and psychic vampires draining the life energy out of her for their own sustenance, she can't find her way out of a paper bag, and the courts have totally failed her.
As tempting as it is to say there ought to be a law to prevent things like this, I would say there already is. People need to be prosecuted for fraud and civil rights violation-especially the judicial officers involved.
Some libertarians may rightfully ask, why would it be just to set aside even $5m of her money against her will. And that is a valid point. The argument typically would be that a person is so far gone that they can no longer make these types of decisions. Should ole grandpa with advance Alzheimer's being starved to death in a hospice bed marry "hello nurse", and have his entire estate go to the gold digger instead of his kids? There are valid reasons to protect his estate from fraud. Obviously Britney isn't an end of life situation, she isn't a poor imbecile. But the courts have treated her as such.
. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
-Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
A spendthift trust would be an more equitable remedy, and something that the courts could have ordered, or something competent counsel could have settled on. Instead, without committing any crime [other than maybe accidental indecent exposure] she has been held a prisoner for 13 years under the belief she isn't able to make decisions for herself. There are plenty of folks given both inpatient and outpatient care, sometimes for repeated crimes, sometimes because of mental illness. While some can be locked away on an NGRI for stealing $20 in jewelry for 40 years (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/red-alert-politics/man-spent-40-years-mental-institution-stealing-20-necklace), I suspect most aren't treated as poorly as Britney and they can have as many kids as they want on the taxpayers dime. The difference may be that they didn't have all that money for a daddy to love.
One thing I find amusing, is that her parents sought a restraining order to enjoin a Sam Lufti from talking negatively about them. This isn't just an ordinary unconstitutional prior restraint, it is also content based discrimination. But if what CNN reports is the conservator's position, that Britney spear's has been restored, why does the conservatorship continue?
“Only through the intervention of the conservatorship years ago (and obtaining a temporary restraining order) was he effectively extracted from her life and her well being restored.”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/09/entertainment/britney-spears-sam-lufti/index.html
Hmm, they pleaded that her well being was restored.
Of course Britney could be exaggerating things too using what remaining clout she has over the years, using man's natural desire to aid a damsel in distress. To me, I think her emotional public pleadings and inaction makes me to defend her right to try-and likely fail. If she fails, then she'll have that spendthrift trust I suggested to get her by in her opportunity to attempt to have happiness. Reality should have been the judge in the first place, and to make matters worse her dad is trying to prevent others from knowing reality and legally robbing her blind in the process.
Whenever a person seeks a restraining order to gag a person, the petitioner should be sent to a psychiatric ward or federally prosecuted for civil rights violations. Depriving others of logos is evidence of severe psychosis and murderous intent.