This article is a long read – around 30 minutes.
You can buy it here https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1047340553/britney-spears-free-britney-botanical?ref=shop_home_active_7
To read Britney’s full, explosive testimony from 23rd June 2021, against her court-ordered conservatorship – please visit this website. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/variety.com/2021/music/news/britney-spears-full-statement-conservatorship-1235003940/amp/
Law enforcement in Ventura County, where Britney lives, confirmed Britney called 911 to report herself as a victim of conservatorship abuse, the night before her recent court hearing. Apparently, as reported by The New Yorker, “members of Spears’s team began texting one another frantically” which led to the conservatorship the next day, requesting that the June 23 transcripts be sealed. However, Britney contested before giving her testimony by stating she wanted them to be kept open.
According to Californian law, a Probate Conservatorship appoints powers to a responsible person to care for another adult, who cannot care for him/herself, or manage his/her own finances. In California, there are two main types of conservatorships: a Limited Conservatorship and a General Probate Conservatorship. There’s also two types of conservators too: Conservator of the person (oversees health affairs), and Conservator of the estate (for financial decisions). Each conservatorship is different, therefore allows different specific powers. According to Bet Tzedek’s Limited Conservatorship Guide, who are a non-profit, public interest law center that provides free legal advice to residents of LA, the court should “encourage a maximum of self-reliance and only give the conservator powers that the conservatee is unable to engage capably”. There is usually a document called a ‘Capacity Declaration’ that has to be filed alongside every voluntary general probate conservatorship (what Britney is under): this is where a doctor indicates the incapacity, or diminished capacity of the individual, therefore providing a medical opinion to justify the need for a legal conservatorship in the first place. HOWEVER, Britney Spears’ team has never submitted a capacity declaration. Probate notes state that a capacity declaration isn’t necessary when the conservatorship is voluntary. Since 2008, Britney has objected many times in court that she wants her dad (Jamie Spears) removed from proceedings and for the conservatorship to end. Considering the conservatorship has no medical opinion stating there’s impaired capacity, and it’s inception is based on Britney’s voluntary approval, since Britney is now not approving, and there is STILL no capacity declaration (the entire basis of omission being subject to the conservatee volunteering)… why should it not end? What’s the hold up?
Court documents show that Team Con had pre-planned to put Britney under conservatorship. You can see in an excerpt from a court document above, that “extensive research and analysis regarding numerous issues relating to a potential conservatorship” was discussed amongst multiple people, prior to Britney being held in an emergency 5150. In 2008, TMZ uploaded pictures of Britney strapped in a gurney against her will during the 5150 with the caption ‘Crazytown Express’. Lovely and sensitive. I hope those reading detected my sarcasm.
American Trial Lawyer, Adam Streisand, represented Britney prior to the conservatorship nightmare. The reason why Britney was unable to acquire his services further, was because she was already given a court-appointed lawyer, Sam Ingham. Sam was assigned to Britney the day Britney’s dad went to court, while Britney was in a psychiatric hold. So all of this happened without Britney, or proper representation being in the loop. As reported by MTV in 2008, Sam expressed to the court that “she lacks the capacity to retain direct counsel” to which Adam replied, “I am her lawyer”. As the court had already deemed Britney incapable, the court did not recognise the lawyer hired by Britney and ejected him from court. In February of this year, Adam told US Weekly “She didn’t want her father controlling her life. It was her one request. I tried to advocate for her. Why did it take Sam Ingham 12 years? If the judge thought she should have a different lawyer, fine. Be an advocate for your client, man. It’s the damn job.”. There’s an article from The New Yorker, Britney Spears Conservatorship Nightmare, that breaks down Britney’s life prior to her conservatorship and the circumstances leading up to it. I think it’s a very detailed account of events that were blown up and taken out of proportion by mainstream media at the time that I would recommend reading.
There are three audio recordings of Britney leaving voicemails to lawyers expressing the need for legal representation in 2009, that have surfaced recently. Again, if Britney was so incapable of understanding what was going on – how is she able to clearly vocalise her resistance? Britney’s documentary from 2008, For The Record, shows Britney speaking to the camera multiple times and talking about her restrained situation there, too. That doesn’t seem like somebody who has no idea what is going on.
During a hearing, Sam Ingham declared that Britney was under the impression that the conservatorship prevented her from getting married and having children. The Judge, Reva Goetz, who presided over Britney’s conservatorship from 2008-2015, reportedly stated ‘I don’t recall that we made any orders about the right to marry, but you may not want to tell her that’. What does that even mean? This is a woman’s life. To some it may be seen as ‘just’ a legal issue but that is not synonymous with a lack of humanity or empathy – the law is there to represent and protect the people.
It is important for context to be noted that during Britney’s 13 year conservatorship, she has made multiple appearances on TV shows and movies such as Jane the Virgin (2015), How I Met Your Mother (2008), Glee (2010), Jackass 3D (2010) and Corporate Animals (2019). She has also featured in more than 13 advertisements for household names such as Twister (2012), EE Limited (2016), Apple Music (2016) and Pepsi (2018) to name a few. She was the face of Kenzo in 2018, performed at the Super Bowl in 2015, and has partaken in countless televised interviews and sketches, while releasing multiple award winning albums, music videos and perfumes. Not to mention her 4 year Las Vegas residency. Despite Britney being deemed so incapable by the conservatorship in 2008 that she couldn’t choose her own lawyer, 4 years later, she became a judge on the US X Factor to mentor upcoming artists – and Britney was the highest paid judge on any singing show.
As pointed out recently on none other than Britney’s Instagram, most of Britney’s accomplishments were from before the conservatorship. It’s a fact that most of Britney’s iconic looks from music videos and performances such as Toxic, Oops, Slave 4 U, Baby One More Time, Stronger, Me Against The Music (just to name a few) were 2003 and earlier.
If we look at Britney’s achievements within the 13 year conservatorship, again, if we turn the argument around – If Britney was so incapable, was she then forced to work? Would it not have been beneficial to the conservatee if she indeed struggles as much as Team Con makes out she does, to have not signed her up to a strenuous 5-night-a-week Vegas deal? It’s not making sense! We, the audience, have seen her perform to the highest level, consistently for years. Performing with whips, rings of fire, snakes… Britney’s ability is not the thing in question, because we have seen and witnessed it. It has been presented to us countless times.
Where is the so-called incapacity that the entire basis of the conservatorship rests on? Where is the proof that Britney is so incapable? More importantly, why is that lack of proof and omission of relevant medical opinion enough for the Californian courts to have agreed to the conservatorship as long as it has? What basis, considering there was no capacity declaration submitted, warrants a 13 year conservatorship? If Britney was in any way impaired, why did the conservatorship sign her up to mentor people on a tv show? That leads to a following question, if Britney was mentally impaired somehow, how/why was she able to successfully pull off the X Factor mentoring gig? If Britney’s mental health is such an issue, why put her to work without a break? Why sign her up for an extensive Vegas residency? Britney’s former photographer, Andrew Gallery, allegedly reached out to Britney’s team for a letter of recommendation from Britney to apply for graduate school. It was reported that the request was refused as it could be possible proof and a way of demonstrating Britney was sound of mind. So, to hear that people have actually conspired to suppress evidence of capability, in order to keep up appearances to justify such control of her life is sinister and malevolent. Technically – if we use the conservatorship argument against them, as Britney does not have the ability to make decisions, how could she possibly even understand let alone agree to what she was doing? Keep in mind the fact that Britney cannot legally sign a document as she doesn’t have power of attorney, so this is not Britney agreeing to any/all of the contractually binding deals. Hell, that must mean she can’t even download her own apps on her mobile phone, as that involves some form of contract and terms and conditions.
As of 2018, the CDC (Centres for Disease Control) estimates that 1/5 Americans will experience a mental illness in a given year, and 1/25 live with a serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression. It’s also worth noting that millions of Americans are living with a mental illness, and they don’t have conservatorships.
Where is the line drawn between being able to make your own mistakes that are normal, stepping stones throughout your life, to someone actively carving your schedule so that you do not even have the authority to make your own mistakes and decisions. Even if Britney did, or still does have some kind of mental health issue, that does not warrant a conservatorship against her will! I recently seen a comment online while researching, that said “it’s easy to prove you’re insane but hard to prove you’re sane”. That in itself is true, but imagine having to prove your sanity after being regarded as incapable for so long – that’s a completely different ball game. Look at Britney now, despite having bravely spoken out against abuse she’s endured over the past 2 years, her fathers lawyers pull the ‘she isn’t well enough to recall memories correctly’ card. Again, playing into how hard it is to prove you’re not insane, once you’ve been treated as insane by people for as long as she has been (in regards to her court arrangement). Also, what is sane? What’s sane to one person, could be seen as erratic and irrational to another. Even the courts can’t decide what is reasonable to one person: hence why we have the law in the first place, to assist in defining what is reasonable. This is defined by a jury – Britney Spears is not on trial.
Despite the fact that Britney does not have legal rights, she has consistently brought it to us every single time. Britney’s capacity to perform, not just adequately, but extraordinarily, and exceeding expectations each time is clearly evident. I don’t know about you – but being under house arrest, unable to make my own personal and financial decisions, would be reason enough for me to not play ball. It must feel like another level of defeatism. It’s another level of abuse and control. Let’s call it what it is, considering the facts that are presented to us.
Britney’s June testimony
As stated by Britney herself in court on June 23rd, “I will be honest with you. I haven’t been back to court in a long time, because I don’t think I was heard on any level when I came to court the last time”. She then added, “The last time I spoke to you by just keeping the conservatorship going, and also keeping my dad in the loop, made me feel like I was dead – like I didn’t matter, like nothing had been done to me, like you thought I was lying or something. I’m telling you again, because I’m not lying. I want to feel heard. And I’m telling you this again, so maybe you can understand the depth and the degree and the damage that they did to me back then.”
I’m a second-year law student and familiar enough to recognise a breach – this is already setting off serious alarms bells. Britney is relaying the message that she has brought this to the attention of the court before, and ultimately as no action had been taken, this lead to further abuse within the legal arrangement. That sounds like major neglect considering the direct responsibility the court has for Britney’s wellbeing. According to confidential court records obtained by The New York Times, Britney actually told the court in 2019 that she had been forced to perform against her will. To top it off – the documents state that the conservatorship arrangement with her father “comes with a lot of fear” for Britney. So, the court heard this information in 2019 directly from Britney herself, and years later she is no better off… her situation actually worsened.
The world has proof of Britney’s claims that she was forced to work. During a live performance in 2018, Britney was on stage telling the audience “I’m about to pass out, and I’m sick. I have, actually, a 102 fever right now”. There’s another clip from her Piece Of Me tour in 2017, where Britney says “Honestly, without the music, and just the mic, it kinda feels illegal – like it’s quiet right now. It feels kind of illegal doing this with this mic in my hand right now”. There’s also pictures from a 2015 performance of Britney wearing a seemingly hand-decorated crop top, that states ‘you don’t own me’. As we know, we have evidence of Britney telling the court in 2019 that she was forced to perform against her will, and look – there’s videos on YouTube for crying out loud! To be honest, not only does it seem tone deaf and ignorant for those involved, and for the court system, that all of this evidence and information is available after a few seconds online. Snap into the 21st century! Why hasn’t the judge called a hearing after listening to her claims, and doing some simple research into video footage proving the exact thing she is claiming. Are we not there yet? If not, why? Or are we only cherry picking here? Team Con provided Perez Hilton articles slating Britney as supporting documents to the erection of the Conservatorship in the first place: so why can’t footage from a live performance of Britney claiming she is unwell be enough to give credence to her claims? Obviously, as no action was or has been taken against these claims, we can only accept the fact that Britney was not believed. It’s either that, or the court knowingly overlooked allegations of abuse.
Britney then expressed “They said if I don’t want to do the new Vegas show, I don’t have to because I was getting really nervous. It was like lifting literally 200 pounds off of me when they said I don’t have to do the show anymore, because it was really really hard on myself and it was too much. I couldn’t take it anymore. So I remember telling my assistant, but y’know what I feel weird if I say no, I feel like they’re gonna come back and be mean to me or punish me or something. Three days later, after I said no to Vegas, my therapist sat me down in a room and said he had a million phone calls about how I was not cooperating in rehearsals, and I haven’t been taking my medication. All this was false. He immediately, the next day, put me on lithium out of nowhere. He took me off my normal meds I’ve been on for five years. And lithium is a very, very strong and completely different medication compared to what I was used to. You can go mentally impaired if you take too much, if you stay on it longer than five months. But he put me on that and I felt drunk. I really couldn’t even take up for myself. I couldn’t even have a conversation with my mom or dad really about anything. I told him I was scared, and my doctor had me on six different nurses with this new medication, come to my home, stay with me to monitor me on this new medication, which I never wanted to be on to begin with. There were six different nurses in my home and they wouldn’t let me get in my car to go anywhere for a month.”
In England, modern slavery is clearly defined by law through the Modern Slavery Act. It is defined as “the recruitment, movement, harbouring or receiving of children, women or men through the use of force, coercion, abuse of vulnerability, deception or other means for the purpose of exploitation”. Hearing Britney say she’s performed against her will is disheartening to say the very least. It’s disturbing and downright wrong – nobody in this world should be forced to work against their will, or be coerced into working. People have fought against forced labour too, especially in America. I’m not going to sugarcoat or downplay anything either, it’s essentially slavery. We know via court documents that Britney has a weekly allowance of 2k when her estate is worth millions. She is under house arrest, has often been denied driving her own car, has her entire schedule carved out for her, and is threatened if non compliant. Her dad receives double that by the way, as he is given 16k a month allowance, plus 2k for office space.
Let’s say for arguments sake, that Britney does need a conservatorship (it even hurts me to say that hypothetically) and there is an argument for diminished capacity: ok! Why on earth have her objections against her father calling the shots been routinely ignored for years? Why does her voice, even if compromised or impaired somehow (again, killing me), not matter enough to change her abusive legal situation? Why did her experiences or feelings not be taken into account, given the sole purpose of this conservatorship is to care for the individual? Why is Jamie even being taken into account as the conservator? That then raises the next question: considering Britney’s children were granted a restraining order against their grandfather in 2019, after he was involved in a ‘physical altercation’ with one of Britney’s sons who was 13 at the time (a minor), and Britney has requested multiple times in court for her dad to be removed, how is the judge not removing Jamie?
In November, Sam Ingham filed a petition to get Jamie Spears removed as Britney was scared of her father and she would not perform again if he was in control of her life. So as to our recorded knowledge, that’s three times the court has heard that Britney fears her dad and his control – addressing the court in 2019 directly, again in 2021 and in November 2020 filing. Britney’s mum, Lynne Spears, has a book called Through The Storm which was released in 2008. In this she recalled verbal abuse from Britney’s dad, disappearing for a week whilst Britney’s mum was pregnant, and how his drinking problem gradually got worse. My earlier question seems to pop back up again here: what is the courts excuse? This is a high profile case, with information available online in seconds. They have all of this evidence in books, online articles, footage from live performances, TV interviews… it’s just mind blowing to me how out of touch this is all seeming. It’s out of touch, right? And not just actively allowing and overlooking a toxic situation to continue, irrespective of their legal obligations?
Britney also stated that her court appointed lawyer, Sam Ingham, has been very scared for her to go forward because “if I speak up, I’m being overworked in that facility of that rehab place, that rehab place will sue me”. I just want to make one thing clear: there is nothing/nobody that can or should stand in the way of Britney speaking up about what she has endured. Even gaslighting her into thinking she will be negatively impacted somehow for speaking up about her abuse, and bringing it to the attention of the court in order to stop the abuse is chilling. Britney also added that she was never made aware she could petition for the conservatorship to end. That should shock us all. Britney’s at-the-time lawyer, Sam, who resigned in July 2021 (24 hours after Britney’s manager Larry also resigned), was earning $10k a week from Britney alone, why wasn’t all of her legal rights and options expressed to her? He was the one, if not only one, being paid to be on her side and fight her corner whilst Britney has no legal voice. It would seem in the best interest of whoever is representing Britney to actually represent Britney’s interest, which is to end the conservatorship as she has been requesting all along. It must seem as though at every turn, Britney has been let down and ignored when she needed it most – her family, her lawyer, the court system… There’s case law in England that sticks out to me: Ross v Caunters [1979] that found solicitors can be liable to third parties where their negligence causes a foreseeable loss. The case is about a will that was prepared for a client – after the solicitors sent it to him for it to be signed and witnessed, they failed to warn that the will should not be witnessed by the spouse of any beneficiary. As it turns out, one of the witnesses was the husband of a beneficiary. Said person was then unable to inherit under the will, so she sued the solicitors for the loss suffered. With that argument in mind, given the circumstances may be different, in theory, the argument is the same. Due to an omission from a supposed legal expert, in Britney’s case, not being told for 12 years that she was capable of petitioning to end the Conservatorship/get her father removed from control, this lead to a loss. Not just financially, but emotionally too. We have proof of both: court testimonies, and the receipts of what Britney has paid out in conservatorship related fees.
Her entire testimony was so shocking and completely gut wrenching and demoralising. I was so saddened and angered to hear the audio of Britney stating she has an IUD implanted, and that her so-called team won’t let her get it removed. I wanted to hit the roof. This is not just a self-ownership issue, Britney has no autonomy over her own body and reproductive rights, even sexual freedom for that matter. For those of you reading that is unsure of what an IUD is, please visit NHS guidance. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/iud-coil/
According to NHS guidance, the IUD is 99% effective and once inserted into the body, typically last around 5-10 years. It is worth pointing out that there are less intrusive methods of contraception that are 99% effective too – if the ‘team’, as Britney stated in her testimony, has been or is in control of her reproductive rights, why an IUD? Why not daily birth control pills? Or a contraceptive patch? Is it because they did not trust Britney enough to take a daily tablet? Did they really not want her to have a patch, as there is a possibly of her removing it herself? WHY AN IUD? As I said, it is well known that they are one of the most intrusive and uncomfortable methods of contraception.
Pre-testimony
During a court hearing on 11th November 2020 regarding Britney’s conservatorship, it was recorded that Britney’s dad said to Britney’s mum: “Britney is like a racehorse and needs to be handled as one”, which only goes to show what he thinks of his daughter, or human beings for that matter. That’s kind of a Mark Zuckerberg move. Britney’s dad and Lou Taylor (Britney’s ex-business manager) actually flew to Jerusalem together in 2011 to be baptised, so there’s no doubt that they are close. You know? You must be familiar and comfortable enough with someone to agree to travel to a different country for a religious and spiritual experience with them. Despite Lou resigning as Britney’s business manager in 2020 after backlash, she is still affiliated with Britney’s estate. She also manages Britney’s sisters affairs too, so she is not quite out of the picture so to speak.
Lou Taylor also participated in an interview for TCW (Today’s Christian Woman) in 2007, where they “talked about the challenges of reaching out with compassion while living lives of holiness”. Here’s a short section that exhibits the theme of the interview:
According to Lynne Spears’ testimony, Jamie spears prayed and fasted with Lou Taylor before seeking the conservatorship. Around that time, Britney allegedly sought council from Gary Stiffelman in 2007 due to being contacted by a “crazy lady” who was sending stuff to her house.
Post-testimony
Jamie-Lynn Spears, (Britney’s sister) aka Zoey 101, released a short, quite rattled video on Instagram. She stated “I have nothing to gain or lose either way, this situation does not affect me either way.” This is factually incorrect, Jamie-Lynn was added as a trustee of Britney’s estate in 2018, alongside Jamie Spears, and attorney, Andrew Wallet. The trust, SJB Revocable Trust, was established in 2004 in order to hold and manage Britney’s assets for the use of her two children in the future. Although Wallet resigned from this position in 2019, Britney’s sister and dad are still trustees. Technically, the situation does affect her. As reported by the BBC in August 2020, Jamie Lynn asked for “control of money stored in a trust fund set up for Britney’s children” and requested for the money to be moved into accounts for which she is the custodian.
In 2001, Britney purchased a condo in Destin, Florida, through Bridgmore Timber LLC. In 2015, Jamie-Lynn reiterated on Twitter “we have a condo in Destin” which we know Britney pays for through her estate. Jamie-Lynn also said in an interview with CMT that she hosts “writing weekends at their place in Florida” where it was reported that Britney footed the 1M dollar bill.
Living expenses from Britney’s estate show multiple disbursements from 2012 for flights, under the name of ‘JL Spears’. Nobody else foots the bill of Britney’s estate, it’s solely Britney. Jamie-Lynn also tweeted in 2012 “if you can’t fly private… Then fly Southwest… #myfav #Truth”, alongside the fact that there are Southwest Airlines flight descriptions on the living expenses report under the initials JL.
Geraldine Wyle, as well as Vivian Thoreen, from Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP (“Luce Forward”) acted as counsel for Jamie Spears during the erection of the conservatorship in 2008, and still represent him now in 2021.
Wyle and Thoreen both produced sworn declarations into the events of February 2 2008 – the day Britney was held against her will in UCLA medical centre. The Adam Streisand email from 2008 presented earlier, is addressed directly to Vivian Thoreen and Cc’s Geraldine Wyle in. Luce forward was paid over 1m for co-conservator legal representation. Holland and Knight LLP, another firm, received almost 100k for co-conservator legal fees in early 2000’s. Geraldine Wyle now works for FFSLaw (Freeman, Freeman and Smiley, LLP) which also represents Jamie Spears. Evidence is below.
In 2002, Thoreen started her career as an associate with Holland & Knight. She then joined “Luce Forward” in 2006, before rejoining Holland & Knight again in 2008. There’s also online articles that lay claim to Wyle leaving Holland & Knight, for Luce Forward 13 years ago. Here’s an article from Vivian Thoreen and Stacie Chau from 2019 discussing “Thoughtful estate planning – is it really necessary?”.
In 2021, Holland and Knight named Vivian L Thoreen as “Lawyer of the Year” literally a few days ago, in the midst of a hugely media publicised happening and on-going court case. Even that feels like a huge conflict of interest as both law firms corroborated sworn declarations of events surrounding the controversial time Britney was placed under conservatorship, and years later, lawyers (and their firm) who are paid to be smart and to read the room, are the same ones who put Thoreen forward for an award. It stinks wether you want it to or not. Fancy doing that, when the whole world has heard Britney break down in court over re-living her abuse. We have all been a witness to that. It seems like a huge conflict of interest. Especially in court cases, stuff like that should be heavily monitored and policed so that there is no basis at all for impropriety. Not even a whiff.
Lindsay Lohan’s dad has publicly spoken about UCLA back in 2010 and alleged that Lou Taylor (a woman that’s heavily involved with Britney’s conservatorship) was responsible for leaking information to the press regarding Lindsay’s rehab visit. Lindsay was supposed to visit Morning Star health facility, but at the last minute was changed to UCLA. He claimed in the video “Sean and Lou Taylor leaked that to the press because they wanted Lindsay to get out sooner, and have her in UCLA, so she wouldn’t spend much time in a rehab”.
It is common knowledge that UCLA has been in the spotlight recently with the college admissions scandal. Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin hit the news as they bought their children’s way into a Ivy League college through bribes. There’s also an extremely well-informed Netflix documentary that covers exactly what happened, when and how – Operation Varsity Blues: The College Admussions Scandal. It provides re-enactments of the investigation into the admissions escandalo. As UCLA is already tarred with this brush, it doesn’t seem out of character that there’s further demonstration of dishonesty within the UCLA umbrella. Evidence of which can be found on the following links: Ex-UCLA coach to plead guilty to taking $200,000 for fake recruits, Could UCLA have stopped Rick Singer and the admissions scandal 5 years ago?, and The college cheating scandal: everything you need to know.
Britney’s cousin, Alli Sims, replied “confirmed” on the above Instagram post uploaded by (@dont.knock_on.my.door) that provides an email from Sam Lufti regarding ‘a drugged red bull’. Now, it’s not directly clear if Britney’s cousin is confirming that Britney was drugged, or wether she is replying to the part in the comment regarding ‘these people need to tell the truth’.
Things have kind of taken an odd turn. Prentice Penny, Judge Brenda Penny’s son, has made Britney-related headlines. He made it known on Twitter in February 2021, the Judge that presides over Britney’s conservatorship case is his mother. A fan account, that appeared on the Netflix documentary Framing Britney Spears (Twitter: @BritneyHiatus) tweeted – “Judge Penny has sided with Britney OVERRULING her father’s objections and will sign the order giving Bessemer Trust equal power #FreeBritney”. He then replied, stating “Also: Judge Penny is my ACTUAL mother. I could’ve told Britney’s dad: She don’t play”. As reported by The Hollywood Reporter, in response to a surprise reaction, Prentice Penny then proceeds to proudly uploaded a photograph of his mother being sworn in.
For the record: this is a judge’s child, who has his own platform, publicly speaking about a high profile, ongoing court case that his mother presides over. If that isn’t a major red flag in accordance with ethics and guidelines as a conflict of interest – I don’t know what isn’t. If it was one time, meh, still questionable. However it hasn’t been just the one time, that’s a recorded four times on Twitter alone.
ABC actually done a segment on conservatorship abuse within the LA court system that raised system-wide issues, such as ‘the same pattern of attorneys and medical experts’ being used over and over again. A conservatorship court case from 2006 has recently resurfaced and been brought to our attention by (Twitter account: @BritneyTheStan) concerning Judge Penny. The case states, amongst many things, that there was a ‘deprivation of rights and conspiracy against rights’: “Under probate code 1810, Commissioner Brenda Penny was directed by the legislature to appoint Mr. Ritch as conservator since Marshall Stern had appointed Mr. Ritch as his conservator in two separate writings. Yet Commissioner Penny ignored the law and refused to appoint Mr. Ritch and has failed to state any basis for not appointing Mr. Ritch. By failing to follow the statutory laws established by the legislature, Commissioner Penny exceeded her jurisdiction in the case and had no authority to deny Mr. Ritch’s appointment as the conservator of Marshall Stern. It also adds, “In doing the things herein alleged, defendants acted will-fully and with intent to cause injury to the plaintiff. The defendants were therefore guilty of malice, oppression, and fraud in conscious disregard of plaintiff’s rights, thereby warranting an assessment of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish defendants and deter others from engaging in similar misconduct”.
The document then proceeds to claim that Commissioner Penny placed restrictions on the conservatee, despite there being no basis for restrictions. Towards the end of the filing, the case also states that “The order of Commissioner Penny was part of the conspiracy to isolate Marshall Stern in an effort to gain control over his assets”. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, although it feels like one! This is well researched by experts in their fields and presented via court documents. If this has been going on as early as 2006, there is no argument against the possibility of that practise warping and mutating, especially pairing alongside the fact there has been no radical shift in statutory law, legal precedence or case law either.
The outpouring of support for Britney, and the #FreeBritney movement has never been as loud or as big as it is right now. It’s caught the attention of Congress, as Senator Elizabeth Warren has requested more federal oversight of the guardianship system. It’s better late than never; however during my research I have came across numerous proposals from lawyers expressing the need for conservatorship reform within the LA court system to be more transparent, which predates mainstream media’s coverage of Britney’s situation. Representatives Charlie Crist (Democrat), and Nancy Mace (Republican) introduced a “Free Britney Act” which is also known as the Freedom and Right to Emancipate from Exploitation Act. The proposed bill would give people under guardianship the right to ask that a court-appointed private guardian be replaced with a public guardian; assign an independent caseworker to those in conservatorship or guardianship and mandate states to update their databases on how many people are in conservatorship.
Senator Ben Allen, carried a conservatorship reform bill through successfully to the Governor, “who has until October 10 to sign it into law or veto”. His statement is below:
Where we are now
As of yesterday, Wednesday 8th September 2021, it looks as though Jamie Spears has petitioned for termination of the conservatorship of the person and estate. A 112 page filing from Jamie Spears’ lawyers claims he “respectfully presents his petition for termination of conservatorship of the person and estate of Britney Jean Spears”. As you can see via the court documents below, Jamie Spears has verified the filing however there is no date or time on the first page of the petition yet.
A statement was released shortly after from Mathew Rosengart “It appears that Mr. Spears believes he can try to avoid accountability and justice, including sitting for a sworn deposition and answering other discovery under oath, but as we assess his filing – which was inappropriately sent to the media before it was served on counsel – we will also continue to explore all options”.
This is in response to a 29th September petition from Mathew Rosengart on behalf of Britney, demanding Jamie step down by the end of September. Mathew Rosengart made it perfectly clear that he will be coming for them and is not dropping any sight of irregularities and financial discrepancies. He is also coming for what she is owed. Justice for now at the very least, as per Britney’s request, is for Jamie to be gone ASAP and reimbursement to Britney’s estate for unnecessary court charges and financial matters mentioned in the document (e.g, minimum of 500k spent on PR concerning “media matters”).
Jamie’s lawyers previously stated in a recent filing that “There are, in fact, no actual grounds for suspending or removing Mr. Spears as the conservator of the estate… and it is highly debatable wether a change in conservator at this time would be Ms. Spears’ best interests”. What’s also important here, is that Jamie’s lawyers were getting paid a lot more than Britney’s lawyer. That is not to say that lawyers should not get paid high amounts, that is not what the problem is here. The problem is, Britney’s dad as conservator was able to have the privilege of hiring expensive lawyers, who have 20 years conservatorship experience in LA, compared to a court-appointed lawyer who may not be an expert in the field of law that Jamie’s lawyers are. Just as you wouldn’t hire a lawyer with immigration experience for property law issues. Again, this is not to infer that one type of lawyer is better or worse than the other – there are just that many areas of law to specialise in. Jamie’s lawyer has a practice that focuses on ‘complex trust, estates, conservatorship and guardianship matters’: Britney’s dad was able to hire lawyers with specific experience, in order to best represent his intentions. Documents gathered by Forbes reveal Jamie Spears has been paid around $5 million since the beginning of the conservatorship in 2008.
It’s important to note that Britney’s dad has a bond as conservator for a recorded $47 million.
Mathew Rosengart released a statement yesterday after Jamie’s announcement of stepping down: “We are pleased but not necessarily surprised that Mr.Spears and his lawyer finally recognise that he must be removed. We are disappointed, however, by their ongoing shameful and reprehensible attacks on Ms. Spears and others”. He continued, “We look forward to continuing our vigorous investigation into the conduct of Mr. Spears, and others, over the past 13 years, while he reaped millions of dollars from his daughters estate, and I look forward to taking Mr. Spears’ sworn deposition in the near future. In the interim, rather than making false accusations and taking cheap shots at his own daughter, Mr. Spears should step aside immediately.”.
Respect to Iggy Azalea for raising concerns despite claiming to have signed an NDA. This isn’t the first time she has spoken out regarding Britney – during an interview with Andy Cohen on Watch What Happens Live in 2016, Iggy claimed that her house was searched by Britney’s team for drugs, before she visited for lunch.
#FreeBritney movement
I couldn’t finish this article without giving kudos to Britney fans, who were the ones throughout the years that picked up on hints and noticed something was terribly wrong. Let’s not forget, while Team Con were suing Britney fans for defamation, Britney was paying a house full of people’s wages and being forced to perform. The chutzpah is unbearable at this point. Pair that behaviour alongside the fact that Britney’s team would not allow her to write a recommendation letter, out of fears it could be used as evidence to prove her capability. Jamie’s dad was also releasing statements to the media saying “All these conspiracy theorists don’t know anything. The world don’t have a clue.”… Questions need to be asked about the methods and lengths Britney’s team went to in order to keep up this smoke and mirrors facade of incapability. Quite frankly there needs to be an entire investigation into the whole damn thing, and every person involved since 2008.
The first Britney fan Lou Taylor took to court (to our recorded knowledge) was Bryan Kuchar in 2019. Taylor accused Kuchar of ‘misleading internet users’ and defamation, due to Kuchar owning domain names loumtaylor.com and loumtaylor.net. Taylor’s counsel informed the court that a confidential settlement agreement had been reached with Defendant Bryan S. Kuchar” and both sides agreed to pay their own attorney fees.
Then again in 2019, Team Con took Anthony Elia to court, who runs the website AbsoluteBritney. It claimed in the filing that Elia “has made it his mission to spread false and malicious lies on the internet about Britney, her conservatorship and her team, including that those around Britney are harming her and not acting in her best interests”. The suit sought to permanently prohibit Elia from spreading information on the subject and unspecified damages.
Oh, we haven’t even finished yet… In 2020, Lou Taylor threatened to sue Jordan Miller (@JordanBreatheHeavy) for including quotes of an article from Courtney Love that discussed her history with Lou Taylor, as she alleged Lou tried to put Courtney in a conservatorship too. Miller uploaded a video on YouTube talking about his experience, where you can also see images of the letter he received threatening legal action. 4 months later (April 2021) Lou Taylor threatens further legal action against Jordan Miller. He uploaded another video on YouTube explaining he received yet another demand letter.
A break down of signs over the years
Watch the ‘I Wanna Go’ music video released in 2011, here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T-sxSd1uwoU. I would recommend watching the full 4 minute video – however, if you want to see specifically the part I am referencing, watch from 3 minutes 5 seconds, to 4 minutes 33 seconds.
The theme of the video is Britney appearing at a press conference where she is being hounded by journalists and paparazzi. In a day dream, Britney is pursued by evil paparazzi robots with red eyes, whilst she iconically attacks them with a microphone. Britney is then rescued by a presumable friend and taken back to real time (the press conference). The friend who saved her from the evil bots is a representation of her management/her security, as he takes over the press conference by saying “No more questions” on behalf of Brit, and gives her a hand full of seashells. As they are leaving the press conference, the man posing as Britney’s management/security turns to the screen and is shown to have the same evil, red eyes. It is followed by an evil muahahaha just to seal the deal on the indisputable underlying message portrayed in the video.
Director and photographer, David LaChapelle, spoke out in support of Britney back in 2019. He took to Instagram after the video he shot had been leaked, stating that “I find it very suspect that the video was “leaked” while Britney was “away”. He also brought attention to the fact that Britney’s only direction was to be filmed in a cage. He states, “At the time I didn’t understand why would you want to be filmed in a cage? At first I envisioned to film her as a tigress, but she wanted to be filmed more timid, like a kitten. For everyone on my team, at least, we could tell something was off… for the video “every time” the only direction Britney gave me for the video was that she wanted to die, that she wanted to die in the video…”. He continued, claiming “I have known Britney since she was 17. I shot her first cover, Rolling Stone, it was shot in Louisiana at her family home, filled with her pageant trophies. I could tell even back then something wasn’t right”.
In 2013, during an interview with 4Music, Britney played a game of “Would you rather?”. She was asked, “Which of these dangerous locations would you rather be stranded? Standing in a shark infested pool like your video in ‘Work’, or standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon like your video for ‘I’m Not A Girl?’” (0:44 seconds). Britney replied stating, “I would rather be standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon because it’s up to me wether I jump or not, and I have the control over that, and just to see the beautiful view would be amazing”.
The writer of I Wanna Go, 3, Hold It Against Me, and Baby One More Time, Max Martin, is a lover of Britney. Two years ago, he participated in a interview with The Guardian where he said: “She’s a genius. So much had happened to her in that [early period] and she had to grow up quickly. We had conversations with her about what she wanted to do and what she wanted to say.” Knowing Britney had such limited forms of self-expression, as she has been in a 13 year conservatorship, she is clearly as active as can be in voicing her opinion on the art and work she produces. As she stated in her testimony, Britney (during her four year Vegas residency) directed and choreographed most of the show and dancers herself. There’s plenty of videos online during rehearsal sessions where you can see Britney leading a group of more than 10 dancers and teaching routines. On the 18th July 2021, a post was uploaded to Britney’s Instagram stating that she was unable to perform remixes of her songs how she wanted to, so as far as we know, her creativity was also impeded and restrained. It wasn’t enough for them to tether Britney to multiple lucrative contracts and residencies for her to perform, even her performance had to be somebody else’s. She was forced to perform, and even then, the performance wasn’t something she had control over in any way. Sure, she is Britney – but she had no control over the set-list, was threatened after saying no to a dance routine, being gaslight as uncooperative in rehearsals for wanting a break considering her residency had been extended another two years… They are putting Britney in a hugely uncomfortable position, to say the very least. We know she has no control over her life – why not give her small wins, such as being able to change the way she performs her music, considering it in no way impacts the Conservatorship negatively? Is it because giving Britney room to prove her capability is such a threat to the Conservatorship/‘hybrid business model’? There are no justifications for this need of extensive control and cruelty.
In England, where I am writing from now, we have basically been in lockdown since the end of 2019 and only recently have places begun to open back up properly. I’m sure a lot of us will be understanding of just how alienating and difficult living in isolation is. Not only has being in isolation for so long affected my day to day life; I know for me, it has also had an impact on my not-so-distant future and personal plans/goals I had sketched for myself. But that’s okay, because the difference is that I was free to decide what to do next. Britney has had 13 years of living in isolation against her will – metaphorically, as we know she lives in a house full of people she employs. She was forced to take lithium, unable to remove her IUD… Britney as a 39-year-old woman, is told who she can and can’t go in a car with. Britney’s coffee is taken away, and she is told how many fizzy drinks she’s allowed to consume. Britney’s children are used as pawns by the conservatorship, in order to coerce her into complying and being submissive to their demands and requirements. Britney has also been denied access to a lawyer, which as an American citizen is one of the most basic rights. Given she had a court appointed attorney, she was unable to choose her own counsel. Despite paying out millions for legal defence, Britney had never once been aware of her legal right and capacity to petition to end the conservatorship. Imagine being her, having supposed access to legal advice via Sam Ingham, only to find out at a later stage that he had actually withheld vital information that could have lead to the collapse of her desperate situation.
As Britney’s testimony revealed the abuse she’s faced at the hands of the Californian court system, medical practices, doctors, lawyers, family, friends… My cynical side creeped towards the thought path of the US gov freeing Bill Cosby in some kind of deeply sick, and misguided attempt to temporarily sway the conversation from Britney. Bill Cosby being the metaphorical dead cat. However, that logic is kind of flawed, as both cases, despite being both high profile cases (although completely different), paint the US legal system in a pretty disgraceful light – ‘land of the free’ taking up entirely conflicting meanings. Oh, don’t worry- as I said, I’m writing from England. My country is just as messed up as yours at the minute and things need to change, radically. A radical shift to complete transparency is needed. As Julian Assange says, “transparency for the state, privacy for the rest of us”.
It took me over 10 weeks to research and write this, with much needed breaks in between. I don’t really love many pop stars, but my love for Britney Spears has travelled with me since I was a little girl. Singing Oops I Did It Again when it first came out on the radio, talking to my childhood best-friend, Josh, about how much we love Crossroads, and being absolutely obsessed with the Toxic music video. Whenever I think of Britney, I am immediately flooded with lovely, warm memories of her music that I still love and cherish just as much as I did when I was a kid. I remember being over the moon when she appeared on Sabrina The Teenage Witch (which I also loved), and when my favourite band Busted released a song called Britney, professing their love for Britney Spears.
Even writing about this has been hard in some ways, I want to present my writing in a way that is factual with court evidence and documents that’s thought provoking, without letting my personal opinion get in the way too much – however, pairing this research alongside my studies is only bringing out my personal frustration. In university, I study law and politics – we mainly focus on U.K/EU law, although often we study the US constitution and their branches of government and capabilities. America is so hot about infringing their constitutional rights – as they should. They have a codified constitution for a reason, and that’s for those rights to be adhered to. They are personal liberties guaranteed to each American citizen, and impeding those rights without just cause can be a federal/state offence. It seems as though many of Britney’s constitutional rights have been violated throughout the years, despite having court appointed legal representation. Right under their noses so to speak. I’ve found myself celebrating and putting my middle finger up in the air when I heard Mathew Rosengart ferociously representing Britney in court for the first time. I can only imagine what it must feel like for Britney to finally have her own representative, after all this time. When Britney is finally able to speak her truth, not that she owes the world anything, I’m sure there will be another article from me. There’s more of Britney’s Instagram that I would have liked to have included in this piece, as well as the facts surrounding the inception of the conservatorship and leading up to it – a lot of the information available right now is speculative at best, with ‘sources close to Britney’ being the culprit most of the time. For a situation that is still so convoluted and surreptitious, due to most of the court documents from the past 10 years being sealed, as well as the facts explored in this article, nobody else can be trusted to speak about Britney’s experience, only Britney. Nor can we trust anybody else to tell Britney’s story, evidently.
VOICE 
Leave a comment