Britney Spears DUI last night

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of people with mental illness, including very serious mental illness, are not in conservatorships. Even rarer is a conservatorship in which the conservatee has significant income and assets and where the conservator requires the coservatee to generate millions in revenue.

Brittany is mentally ill. Only weirdos think otherwise. But being mentally ill, even significantly so, does not mean your right to make decisions about employment and medical care should be taken away.

Your rose colored glasses need cleaning. People who think like you are responsible for the mentally ill homeless sleeping wherever they choose and not receiving proper care

Uh no. Brittany makes tons of money and is not homeless. She does make weird and poor choices. That does not meet the standard for being placed in a conservatorship. People who cannot care for themselves and are living on the streets typically do meet the standard for conservatorship. In Virginia, the standard is “gravely disabled” and unable to provide for one’s basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter. Brittany plainly does not meet this standard.

DP- Britney had to sell the rights to her music because she ran out of money. She spent millions on private jets to Mexico over the last few years. It was very reckless spending and those mooching off her have no reason to stop it.

Last time I checked, selling the rights to your music and spending the proceeds for fun doesn’t result in you losing your basic freedoms. Otherwise, like half the NFL retirees would be in conservatorships.

Spending your money on meth isn’t what most would call “fun.”

Zero credible evidence she's on meth. But blowing your money on drugs doesn't justify conservatorship under the law anyway. Once again, consider retired professional athletes. Should a substantial portion of them be in conservatorships for making idiotic financial decisions and having addictions?

Certainly those that have clear CTE damage engaging in bizarre behavior should be, yes.

DP. Plenty of male celebrities who have rumored to use drugs and wasted money that haven’t been forced into conservatorships. Chris Brown, Justin Beiber, Kanye west etc

Why do posters keep arguing that because plenty of x, y and z male celebrities/athletes do this then she can do it? Is there a troll who is just hell bent on arguing that she should never be under a conservatorship bc homeless people exist/ NFL players get DUIs/ Kanye West is bipolar/ Chris Brown (huh?)/male celebrities waste money……

Because it highlights that her public conduct doesn’t meet the standard for conservatorship.

I don’t suppose you’re arguing that all these other celebrities engaged in similar or worse conduct should be placed in conservatorships?

Please go to law school, or even a cohesive argument. You’re just babbling and throwing stuff around hoping anything will stick. You really don’t make any sense at all.

I’m a biglaw attorney.

Yikes

Nice work engaging in substantive arguments instead of substance-less ad hominem attacks! You’ve really proven yourself.

It’s pretty funny your reaction to posts on DCUM. And everyone is a big law attorney on DCUM, including me. Thanks for making my Friday.

Keep up with these comments. They really help persuade others about your point.

I’m not trying to persuade anyone of anything. It’s a discussion forum and I post my POV. You get worked up about it and think you’re throwing zingers and insults. Ok, but I don’t really care.

[Anonymous]

I’m not the big law poster but I agree with her that you can totally self destruct your life but it doesn’t justify a conservatorship over you, in a legal sense. People have the right to make terrible decisions and a large number of people exercise that right.

It’s all very sad. I feel really bad for her kids. It’s bad enough when your mom is a hot mess but this is so public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of people with mental illness, including very serious mental illness, are not in conservatorships. Even rarer is a conservatorship in which the conservatee has significant income and assets and where the conservator requires the coservatee to generate millions in revenue.

Brittany is mentally ill. Only weirdos think otherwise. But being mentally ill, even significantly so, does not mean your right to make decisions about employment and medical care should be taken away.

Your rose colored glasses need cleaning. People who think like you are responsible for the mentally ill homeless sleeping wherever they choose and not receiving proper care

Uh no. Brittany makes tons of money and is not homeless. She does make weird and poor choices. That does not meet the standard for being placed in a conservatorship. People who cannot care for themselves and are living on the streets typically do meet the standard for conservatorship. In Virginia, the standard is “gravely disabled” and unable to provide for one’s basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter. Brittany plainly does not meet this standard.

DP- Britney had to sell the rights to her music because she ran out of money. She spent millions on private jets to Mexico over the last few years. It was very reckless spending and those mooching off her have no reason to stop it.

Last time I checked, selling the rights to your music and spending the proceeds for fun doesn’t result in you losing your basic freedoms. Otherwise, like half the NFL retirees would be in conservatorships.

Spending your money on meth isn’t what most would call “fun.”

Zero credible evidence she's on meth. But blowing your money on drugs doesn't justify conservatorship under the law anyway. Once again, consider retired professional athletes. Should a substantial portion of them be in conservatorships for making idiotic financial decisions and having addictions?

Certainly those that have clear CTE damage engaging in bizarre behavior should be, yes.

DP. Plenty of male celebrities who have rumored to use drugs and wasted money that haven’t been forced into conservatorships. Chris Brown, Justin Beiber, Kanye west etc

Why do posters keep arguing that because plenty of x, y and z male celebrities/athletes do this then she can do it? Is there a troll who is just hell bent on arguing that she should never be under a conservatorship bc homeless people exist/ NFL players get DUIs/ Kanye West is bipolar/ Chris Brown (huh?)/male celebrities waste money……

Because it highlights that her public conduct doesn’t meet the standard for conservatorship.

I don’t suppose you’re arguing that all these other celebrities engaged in similar or worse conduct should be placed in conservatorships?

Please go to law school, or even a cohesive argument. You’re just babbling and throwing stuff around hoping anything will stick. You really don’t make any sense at all.

I’m a biglaw attorney.

Yikes

Nice work engaging in substantive arguments instead of substance-less ad hominem attacks! You’ve really proven yourself.

It’s pretty funny your reaction to posts on DCUM. And everyone is a big law attorney on DCUM, including me. Thanks for making my Friday.

Keep up with these comments. They really help persuade others about your point.

I’m not trying to persuade anyone of anything. It’s a discussion forum and I post my POV. You get worked up about it and think you’re throwing zingers and insults. Ok, but I don’t really care.

I’m not worked up about anything. Instead of substantively engaging, you’re just insulting me, which isn’t really effective at making a point. But keep at it if it makes you happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of people with mental illness, including very serious mental illness, are not in conservatorships. Even rarer is a conservatorship in which the conservatee has significant income and assets and where the conservator requires the coservatee to generate millions in revenue.

Brittany is mentally ill. Only weirdos think otherwise. But being mentally ill, even significantly so, does not mean your right to make decisions about employment and medical care should be taken away.

Your rose colored glasses need cleaning. People who think like you are responsible for the mentally ill homeless sleeping wherever they choose and not receiving proper care

Uh no. Brittany makes tons of money and is not homeless. She does make weird and poor choices. That does not meet the standard for being placed in a conservatorship. People who cannot care for themselves and are living on the streets typically do meet the standard for conservatorship. In Virginia, the standard is “gravely disabled” and unable to provide for one’s basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter. Brittany plainly does not meet this standard.

Well then you are missing the point. The only time Britney has had a remotely stable life was when she was under a conservatorship. A judge found the standards had been met with much more info than any of us have, and it was only dissolved after her dad stepped down in response to a ridiculous “free Britney” campaign. People seem fixated on the Las Vegas residency, and sure, she should have been allowed to stop that, although her TikTok’s suggest she misses performing. In any case, the “heavy medication” you derisively mention is likely what is needed to keep her sane, prevent her from self medicating with drugs like meth, and allowed her to maintain a relationship with a boyfriend and her children. Mentally ill people with serious disease often cannot make reasoned decisions about what will allow them to live a “fun” or fulfilling life.

DP- Britney had to sell the rights to her music because she ran out of money. She spent millions on private jets to Mexico over the last few years. It was very reckless spending and those mooching off her have no reason to stop it.

Last time I checked, selling the rights to your music and spending the proceeds for fun doesn’t result in you losing your basic freedoms. Otherwise, like half the NFL retirees would be in conservatorships.

Spending your money on meth isn’t what most would call “fun.”

Zero credible evidence she's on meth. But blowing your money on drugs doesn't justify conservatorship under the law anyway. Once again, consider retired professional athletes. Should a substantial portion of them be in conservatorships for making idiotic financial decisions and having addictions?

Certainly those that have clear CTE damage engaging in bizarre behavior should be, yes.

DP. Plenty of male celebrities who have rumored to use drugs and wasted money that haven’t been forced into conservatorships. Chris Brown, Justin Beiber, Kanye west etc

Why do posters keep arguing that because plenty of x, y and z male celebrities/athletes do this then she can do it? Is there a troll who is just hell bent on arguing that she should never be under a conservatorship bc homeless people exist/ NFL players get DUIs/ Kanye West is bipolar/ Chris Brown (huh?)/male celebrities waste money……

Because it highlights that her public conduct doesn’t meet the standard for conservatorship.

I don’t suppose you’re arguing that all these other celebrities engaged in similar or worse conduct should be placed in conservatorships?

Dp, This poster seems to argue that Britney is better off destroying her health and life, because some others destroyed their health and life. It’s a pretty ridiculous argument.

No, that’s not what I’m arguing at all. I’m arguing that her bad conduct doesn’t meet the standard for taking away most of her basic freedoms. The question isn’t whether she’d be “better off” (I don’t know). It’s whether the government can hand over her freedom to a private person.

People have the right to wreck their own lives and make bad decisions, like driving drunk and refusing medical care. I don’t think engaging in that kind of conduct alone justifies a conservatorship where you’re no longer able to make decisions about whether and to what extent you work, what happens to your money, whether you can have a baby, whether you can enter into contracts, where you can live, etc. The courts in every state happen to agree with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of people with mental illness, including very serious mental illness, are not in conservatorships. Even rarer is a conservatorship in which the conservatee has significant income and assets and where the conservator requires the coservatee to generate millions in revenue.

Brittany is mentally ill. Only weirdos think otherwise. But being mentally ill, even significantly so, does not mean your right to make decisions about employment and medical care should be taken away.

Your rose colored glasses need cleaning. People who think like you are responsible for the mentally ill homeless sleeping wherever they choose and not receiving proper care

Uh no. Brittany makes tons of money and is not homeless. She does make weird and poor choices. That does not meet the standard for being placed in a conservatorship. People who cannot care for themselves and are living on the streets typically do meet the standard for conservatorship. In Virginia, the standard is “gravely disabled” and unable to provide for one’s basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter. Brittany plainly does not meet this standard.

DP- Britney had to sell the rights to her music because she ran out of money. She spent millions on private jets to Mexico over the last few years. It was very reckless spending and those mooching off her have no reason to stop it.

Last time I checked, selling the rights to your music and spending the proceeds for fun doesn’t result in you losing your basic freedoms. Otherwise, like half the NFL retirees would be in conservatorships.

Spending your money on meth isn’t what most would call “fun.”

Zero credible evidence she's on meth. But blowing your money on drugs doesn't justify conservatorship under the law anyway. Once again, consider retired professional athletes. Should a substantial portion of them be in conservatorships for making idiotic financial decisions and having addictions?

+1
Certainly those that have clear CTE damage engaging in bizarre behavior should be, yes.

DP. Plenty of male celebrities who have rumored to use drugs and wasted money that haven’t been forced into conservatorships. Chris Brown, Justin Beiber, Kanye west etc

Why do posters keep arguing that because plenty of x, y and z male celebrities/athletes do this then she can do it? Is there a troll who is just hell bent on arguing that she should never be under a conservatorship bc homeless people exist/ NFL players get DUIs/ Kanye West is bipolar/ Chris Brown (huh?)/male celebrities waste money……

Because it highlights that her public conduct doesn’t meet the standard for conservatorship.

I don’t suppose you’re arguing that all these other celebrities engaged in similar or worse conduct should be placed in conservatorships?

Dp, This poster seems to argue that Britney is better off destroying her health and life, because some others destroyed their health and life. It’s a pretty ridiculous argument.

No, that’s not what I’m arguing at all. I’m arguing that her bad conduct doesn’t meet the standard for taking away most of her basic freedoms. The question isn’t whether she’d be “better off” (I don’t know). It’s whether the government can hand over her freedom to a private person.

People have the right to wreck their own lives and make bad decisions, like driving drunk and refusing medical care. I don’t think engaging in that kind of conduct alone justifies a conservatorship where you’re no longer able to make decisions about whether and to what extent you work, what happens to your money, whether you can have a baby, whether you can enter into contracts, where you can live, etc. The courts in every state happen to agree with me.

Except the Court hearing Britney’s case disagreed and that’s why she was in a conservatorship. The conservatorship only ended because her dad did not seek its renewal due to public pressure.

[Anonymous]

A court found Britney needed to be in a conservatorship and she actually had the only stable period in her adult life while under it. People seem fixated on the LV residency and fine, that should have gone away if it wasn’t what she wanted. She needed the treatment for her apparently serious mental illness, and like many seriously mentally ill, lacks the capacity to see the need for it. When she was what you call “heavily medicated,” she was coherent and able to maintain stable relationships with a boyfriend and her children. Not so now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A court found Britney needed to be in a conservatorship and she actually had the only stable period in her adult life while under it. People seem fixated on the LV residency and fine, that should have gone away if it wasn’t what she wanted. She needed the treatment for her apparently serious mental illness, and like many seriously mentally ill, lacks the capacity to see the need for it. When she was what you call “heavily medicated,” she was coherent and able to maintain stable relationships with a boyfriend and her children. Not so now.

Yes, but I think there is such a disconnect between her wealth enabling her to technically "take care of herself" and the scope of her illness that it's really hard to address and reconcile. Usually someone with her degree of mental illness would not have financial and logistical resources and be homeless in the streets or living in dangerous hoarder conditions. But she has a maid, an accountant, various people there so that part does not happen, and it feels like she perhaps does not "need" the conservatorship...Except then it also means her mental health needs are going neglected, and this can still endanger her and others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A court found Britney needed to be in a conservatorship and she actually had the only stable period in her adult life while under it. People seem fixated on the LV residency and fine, that should have gone away if it wasn’t what she wanted. She needed the treatment for her apparently serious mental illness, and like many seriously mentally ill, lacks the capacity to see the need for it. When she was what you call “heavily medicated,” she was coherent and able to maintain stable relationships with a boyfriend and her children. Not so now.

Yes, but I think there is such a disconnect between her wealth enabling her to technically "take care of herself" and the scope of her illness that it's really hard to address and reconcile. Usually someone with her degree of mental illness would not have financial and logistical resources and be homeless in the streets or living in dangerous hoarder conditions. But she has a maid, an accountant, various people there so that part does not happen, and it feels like she perhaps does not "need" the conservatorship...Except then it also means her mental health needs are going neglected, and this can still endanger her and others.

Well yes, but it also seems that people arguing for “ freedom” don’t have first hand experience with family members or others with serious mental illness. The illness dramatically affects their ability/competence to make decisions about what is or isn’t in their best interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A court found Britney needed to be in a conservatorship and she actually had the only stable period in her adult life while under it. People seem fixated on the LV residency and fine, that should have gone away if it wasn’t what she wanted. She needed the treatment for her apparently serious mental illness, and like many seriously mentally ill, lacks the capacity to see the need for it. When she was what you call “heavily medicated,” she was coherent and able to maintain stable relationships with a boyfriend and her children. Not so now.

Yes, but I think there is such a disconnect between her wealth enabling her to technically "take care of herself" and the scope of her illness that it's really hard to address and reconcile. Usually someone with her degree of mental illness would not have financial and logistical resources and be homeless in the streets or living in dangerous hoarder conditions. But she has a maid, an accountant, various people there so that part does not happen, and it feels like she perhaps does not "need" the conservatorship...Except then it also means her mental health needs are going neglected, and this can still endanger her and others.

Well yes, but it also seems that people arguing for “ freedom” don’t have first hand experience with family members or others with serious mental illness. The illness dramatically affects their ability/competence to make decisions about what is or isn’t in their best interest.

Your assumption is inaccurate. My father has bipolar and drug and alcohol addiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A court found Britney needed to be in a conservatorship and she actually had the only stable period in her adult life while under it. People seem fixated on the LV residency and fine, that should have gone away if it wasn’t what she wanted. She needed the treatment for her apparently serious mental illness, and like many seriously mentally ill, lacks the capacity to see the need for it. When she was what you call “heavily medicated,” she was coherent and able to maintain stable relationships with a boyfriend and her children. Not so now.

Yes, but I think there is such a disconnect between her wealth enabling her to technically "take care of herself" and the scope of her illness that it's really hard to address and reconcile. Usually someone with her degree of mental illness would not have financial and logistical resources and be homeless in the streets or living in dangerous hoarder conditions. But she has a maid, an accountant, various people there so that part does not happen, and it feels like she perhaps does not "need" the conservatorship...Except then it also means her mental health needs are going neglected, and this can still endanger her and others.

Well yes, but it also seems that people arguing for “ freedom” don’t have first hand experience with family members or others with serious mental illness. The illness dramatically affects their ability/competence to make decisions about what is or isn’t in their best interest.

I’m not so much arguing for her freedom more than arguing that Kevin Federline and Jamie Spears were not fit to run the conservatorship and showed time and time again that they did not have her best interest at heart.

I also think the way they used her children against her well before the conservativeship was cruel, inhumane, and greatly contributed to her mental health downfall. While it was clear that she should not have unfettered access to her children until she became more stable, the children should not have been used to bribe her to perform and that is what they did.

Jamie Spears was not fit to take care of himself. Google recent images of him, his extreme alcoholism has led to total destruction of his body, luckily he has some money left over that he can afford a full-time caregiver as he’s not able to manage by himself.

Kevin Federalline has mismanaged his finances so much that he was absolutely desperate when the child support payments dried up and had to sell that book which was a failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of people with mental illness, including very serious mental illness, are not in conservatorships. Even rarer is a conservatorship in which the conservatee has significant income and assets and where the conservator requires the coservatee to generate millions in revenue.

Brittany is mentally ill. Only weirdos think otherwise. But being mentally ill, even significantly so, does not mean your right to make decisions about employment and medical care should be taken away.

Your rose colored glasses need cleaning. People who think like you are responsible for the mentally ill homeless sleeping wherever they choose and not receiving proper care

Uh no. Brittany makes tons of money and is not homeless. She does make weird and poor choices. That does not meet the standard for being placed in a conservatorship. People who cannot care for themselves and are living on the streets typically do meet the standard for conservatorship. In Virginia, the standard is “gravely disabled” and unable to provide for one’s basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter. Brittany plainly does not meet this standard.

DP- Britney had to sell the rights to her music because she ran out of money. She spent millions on private jets to Mexico over the last few years. It was very reckless spending and those mooching off her have no reason to stop it.

Last time I checked, selling the rights to your music and spending the proceeds for fun doesn’t result in you losing your basic freedoms. Otherwise, like half the NFL retirees would be in conservatorships.

Spending your money on meth isn’t what most would call “fun.”

Zero credible evidence she's on meth. But blowing your money on drugs doesn't justify conservatorship under the law anyway. Once again, consider retired professional athletes. Should a substantial portion of them be in conservatorships for making idiotic financial decisions and having addictions?

Certainly those that have clear CTE damage engaging in bizarre behavior should be, yes.

DP. Plenty of male celebrities who have rumored to use drugs and wasted money that haven’t been forced into conservatorships. Chris Brown, Justin Beiber, Kanye west etc

Why do posters keep arguing that because plenty of x, y and z male celebrities/athletes do this then she can do it? Is there a troll who is just hell bent on arguing that she should never be under a conservatorship bc homeless people exist/ NFL players get DUIs/ Kanye West is bipolar/ Chris Brown (huh?)/male celebrities waste money……

Because it highlights that her public conduct doesn’t meet the standard for conservatorship.

I don’t suppose you’re arguing that all these other celebrities engaged in similar or worse conduct should be placed in conservatorships?

Dp, This poster seems to argue that Britney is better off destroying her health and life, because some others destroyed their health and life. It’s a pretty ridiculous argument.

No, that’s not what I’m arguing at all. I’m arguing that her bad conduct doesn’t meet the standard for taking away most of her basic freedoms. The question isn’t whether she’d be “better off” (I don’t know). It’s whether the government can hand over her freedom to a private person.

People have the right to wreck their own lives and make bad decisions, like driving drunk and refusing medical care. I don’t think engaging in that kind of conduct alone justifies a conservatorship where you’re no longer able to make decisions about whether and to what extent you work, what happens to your money, whether you can have a baby, whether you can enter into contracts, where you can live, etc. The courts in every state happen to agree with me.

No, people DON'T have the right to drive drunk. If they choose to destroy their own lives in the desert, then ok. If their choices endanger the lives of others like Britney driving for an hour drunk and/or on drugs, then absolutely no. Lock them up in a hospital or prison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of people with mental illness, including very serious mental illness, are not in conservatorships. Even rarer is a conservatorship in which the conservatee has significant income and assets and where the conservator requires the coservatee to generate millions in revenue.

Brittany is mentally ill. Only weirdos think otherwise. But being mentally ill, even significantly so, does not mean your right to make decisions about employment and medical care should be taken away.

Your rose colored glasses need cleaning. People who think like you are responsible for the mentally ill homeless sleeping wherever they choose and not receiving proper care

Uh no. Brittany makes tons of money and is not homeless. She does make weird and poor choices. That does not meet the standard for being placed in a conservatorship. People who cannot care for themselves and are living on the streets typically do meet the standard for conservatorship. In Virginia, the standard is “gravely disabled” and unable to provide for one’s basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter. Brittany plainly does not meet this standard.

DP- Britney had to sell the rights to her music because she ran out of money. She spent millions on private jets to Mexico over the last few years. It was very reckless spending and those mooching off her have no reason to stop it.

Last time I checked, selling the rights to your music and spending the proceeds for fun doesn’t result in you losing your basic freedoms. Otherwise, like half the NFL retirees would be in conservatorships.

Spending your money on meth isn’t what most would call “fun.”

Zero credible evidence she's on meth. But blowing your money on drugs doesn't justify conservatorship under the law anyway. Once again, consider retired professional athletes. Should a substantial portion of them be in conservatorships for making idiotic financial decisions and having addictions?

Certainly those that have clear CTE damage engaging in bizarre behavior should be, yes.

DP. Plenty of male celebrities who have rumored to use drugs and wasted money that haven’t been forced into conservatorships. Chris Brown, Justin Beiber, Kanye west etc

Why do posters keep arguing that because plenty of x, y and z male celebrities/athletes do this then she can do it? Is there a troll who is just hell bent on arguing that she should never be under a conservatorship bc homeless people exist/ NFL players get DUIs/ Kanye West is bipolar/ Chris Brown (huh?)/male celebrities waste money……

Because it highlights that her public conduct doesn’t meet the standard for conservatorship.

I don’t suppose you’re arguing that all these other celebrities engaged in similar or worse conduct should be placed in conservatorships?

Dp, This poster seems to argue that Britney is better off destroying her health and life, because some others destroyed their health and life. It’s a pretty ridiculous argument.

No, that’s not what I’m arguing at all. I’m arguing that her bad conduct doesn’t meet the standard for taking away most of her basic freedoms. The question isn’t whether she’d be “better off” (I don’t know). It’s whether the government can hand over her freedom to a private person.

People have the right to wreck their own lives and make bad decisions, like driving drunk and refusing medical care. I don’t think engaging in that kind of conduct alone justifies a conservatorship where you’re no longer able to make decisions about whether and to what extent you work, what happens to your money, whether you can have a baby, whether you can enter into contracts, where you can live, etc. The courts in every state happen to agree with me.

No, people DON'T have the right to drive drunk. If they choose to destroy their own lives in the desert, then ok. If their choices endanger the lives of others like Britney driving for an hour drunk and/or on drugs, then absolutely no. Lock them up in a hospital or prison.

You go to prison. You’re not put in a conservatorship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of people with mental illness, including very serious mental illness, are not in conservatorships. Even rarer is a conservatorship in which the conservatee has significant income and assets and where the conservator requires the coservatee to generate millions in revenue.

Brittany is mentally ill. Only weirdos think otherwise. But being mentally ill, even significantly so, does not mean your right to make decisions about employment and medical care should be taken away.

Your rose colored glasses need cleaning. People who think like you are responsible for the mentally ill homeless sleeping wherever they choose and not receiving proper care

Uh no. Brittany makes tons of money and is not homeless. She does make weird and poor choices. That does not meet the standard for being placed in a conservatorship. People who cannot care for themselves and are living on the streets typically do meet the standard for conservatorship. In Virginia, the standard is “gravely disabled” and unable to provide for one’s basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter. Brittany plainly does not meet this standard.

DP- Britney had to sell the rights to her music because she ran out of money. She spent millions on private jets to Mexico over the last few years. It was very reckless spending and those mooching off her have no reason to stop it.

Last time I checked, selling the rights to your music and spending the proceeds for fun doesn’t result in you losing your basic freedoms. Otherwise, like half the NFL retirees would be in conservatorships.

Spending your money on meth isn’t what most would call “fun.”

Zero credible evidence she's on meth. But blowing your money on drugs doesn't justify conservatorship under the law anyway. Once again, consider retired professional athletes. Should a substantial portion of them be in conservatorships for making idiotic financial decisions and having addictions?

Certainly those that have clear CTE damage engaging in bizarre behavior should be, yes.

DP. Plenty of male celebrities who have rumored to use drugs and wasted money that haven’t been forced into conservatorships. Chris Brown, Justin Beiber, Kanye west etc

Why do posters keep arguing that because plenty of x, y and z male celebrities/athletes do this then she can do it? Is there a troll who is just hell bent on arguing that she should never be under a conservatorship bc homeless people exist/ NFL players get DUIs/ Kanye West is bipolar/ Chris Brown (huh?)/male celebrities waste money……

Because it highlights that her public conduct doesn’t meet the standard for conservatorship.

I don’t suppose you’re arguing that all these other celebrities engaged in similar or worse conduct should be placed in conservatorships?

Dp, This poster seems to argue that Britney is better off destroying her health and life, because some others destroyed their health and life. It’s a pretty ridiculous argument.

No, that’s not what I’m arguing at all. I’m arguing that her bad conduct doesn’t meet the standard for taking away most of her basic freedoms. The question isn’t whether she’d be “better off” (I don’t know). It’s whether the government can hand over her freedom to a private person.

People have the right to wreck their own lives and make bad decisions, like driving drunk and refusing medical care. I don’t think engaging in that kind of conduct alone justifies a conservatorship where you’re no longer able to make decisions about whether and to what extent you work, what happens to your money, whether you can have a baby, whether you can enter into contracts, where you can live, etc. The courts in every state happen to agree with me.

No, people DON'T have the right to drive drunk. If they choose to destroy their own lives in the desert, then ok. If their choices endanger the lives of others like Britney driving for an hour drunk and/or on drugs, then absolutely no. Lock them up in a hospital or prison.

You go to prison. You’re not put in a conservatorship.

If you think that's preferable, then so be it. Prison for anyone with multiple DUIs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A court found Britney needed to be in a conservatorship and she actually had the only stable period in her adult life while under it. People seem fixated on the LV residency and fine, that should have gone away if it wasn’t what she wanted. She needed the treatment for her apparently serious mental illness, and like many seriously mentally ill, lacks the capacity to see the need for it. When she was what you call “heavily medicated,” she was coherent and able to maintain stable relationships with a boyfriend and her children. Not so now.

Yes, but I think there is such a disconnect between her wealth enabling her to technically "take care of herself" and the scope of her illness that it's really hard to address and reconcile. Usually someone with her degree of mental illness would not have financial and logistical resources and be homeless in the streets or living in dangerous hoarder conditions. But she has a maid, an accountant, various people there so that part does not happen, and it feels like she perhaps does not "need" the conservatorship...Except then it also means her mental health needs are going neglected, and this can still endanger her and others.

Well yes, but it also seems that people arguing for “ freedom” don’t have first hand experience with family members or others with serious mental illness. The illness dramatically affects their ability/competence to make decisions about what is or isn’t in their best interest.

I’m not so much arguing for her freedom more than arguing that Kevin Federline and Jamie Spears were not fit to run the conservatorship and showed time and time again that they did not have her best interest at heart.

I also think the way they used her children against her well before the conservativeship was cruel, inhumane, and greatly contributed to her mental health downfall. While it was clear that she should not have unfettered access to her children until she became more stable, the children should not have been used to bribe her to perform and that is what they did.

Jamie Spears was not fit to take care of himself. Google recent images of him, his extreme alcoholism has led to total destruction of his body, luckily he has some money left over that he can afford a full-time caregiver as he’s not able to manage by himself.

Kevin Federalline has mismanaged his finances so much that he was absolutely desperate when the child support payments dried up and had to sell that book which was a failure.

Do you actually know these people or do you just get your info from TMZ and People? I don’t ever remember Kevin trying to be the conservator. You seem very naive re dealing with a family member who is seriously mentally ill and an addict, and that’s probably a good thing since that would mean you don’t have that in your family. Unfortunately I do.

She doesn’t have any right to drive drunk or subject anyone to her mental illness. She is an adult. She makes her own choices. Either she’s too mentally ill because of what everyone has done to her so it’s not her fault OR she has enough agency to be allowed to make choices so she doesn’t need a conservator. What is it?

I wish she was well. I wish her kids had a healthier mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of people with mental illness, including very serious mental illness, are not in conservatorships. Even rarer is a conservatorship in which the conservatee has significant income and assets and where the conservator requires the coservatee to generate millions in revenue.

Brittany is mentally ill. Only weirdos think otherwise. But being mentally ill, even significantly so, does not mean your right to make decisions about employment and medical care should be taken away.

Your rose colored glasses need cleaning. People who think like you are responsible for the mentally ill homeless sleeping wherever they choose and not receiving proper care

Uh no. Brittany makes tons of money and is not homeless. She does make weird and poor choices. That does not meet the standard for being placed in a conservatorship. People who cannot care for themselves and are living on the streets typically do meet the standard for conservatorship. In Virginia, the standard is “gravely disabled” and unable to provide for one’s basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter. Brittany plainly does not meet this standard.

DP- Britney had to sell the rights to her music because she ran out of money. She spent millions on private jets to Mexico over the last few years. It was very reckless spending and those mooching off her have no reason to stop it.

Last time I checked, selling the rights to your music and spending the proceeds for fun doesn’t result in you losing your basic freedoms. Otherwise, like half the NFL retirees would be in conservatorships.

Spending your money on meth isn’t what most would call “fun.”

Zero credible evidence she's on meth. But blowing your money on drugs doesn't justify conservatorship under the law anyway. Once again, consider retired professional athletes. Should a substantial portion of them be in conservatorships for making idiotic financial decisions and having addictions?

Certainly those that have clear CTE damage engaging in bizarre behavior should be, yes.

DP. Plenty of male celebrities who have rumored to use drugs and wasted money that haven’t been forced into conservatorships. Chris Brown, Justin Beiber, Kanye west etc

Why do posters keep arguing that because plenty of x, y and z male celebrities/athletes do this then she can do it? Is there a troll who is just hell bent on arguing that she should never be under a conservatorship bc homeless people exist/ NFL players get DUIs/ Kanye West is bipolar/ Chris Brown (huh?)/male celebrities waste money……

Because it highlights that her public conduct doesn’t meet the standard for conservatorship.

I don’t suppose you’re arguing that all these other celebrities engaged in similar or worse conduct should be placed in conservatorships?

Dp, This poster seems to argue that Britney is better off destroying her health and life, because some others destroyed their health and life. It’s a pretty ridiculous argument.

No, that’s not what I’m arguing at all. I’m arguing that her bad conduct doesn’t meet the standard for taking away most of her basic freedoms. The question isn’t whether she’d be “better off” (I don’t know). It’s whether the government can hand over her freedom to a private person.

People have the right to wreck their own lives and make bad decisions, like driving drunk and refusing medical care. I don’t think engaging in that kind of conduct alone justifies a conservatorship where you’re no longer able to make decisions about whether and to what extent you work, what happens to your money, whether you can have a baby, whether you can enter into contracts, where you can live, etc. The courts in every state happen to agree with me.

No, people DON'T have the right to drive drunk. If they choose to destroy their own lives in the desert, then ok. If their choices endanger the lives of others like Britney driving for an hour drunk and/or on drugs, then absolutely no. Lock them up in a hospital or prison.

You go to prison. You’re not put in a conservatorship.

DUI doesn't typically result in any significant prison time. Nor does it necessarily help get her mental health treatment.

It's too bad there's not some version of mental health parole where you have someone monitoring that you're participating in mental health care while still having some ability to have freedoms. Especially if it's clear that you could be a danger to others, e.g., driving drunk, if you are not receiving appropriate mental health treatment. I agree that a conservatorship seems like it's a bit much, but she's not really just choosing this life either because her mental health isn't in a place where she's capable of making choices.