Anonymous wrote:I think we’ve entered Michael Jackson territory. People want to free Britney but with that freedom will come predatory press which can she truly handle?

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with Britney? What kind of mental illness does she have and is there proof of it?

Anonymous wrote:That’s silly whataboutism. Complain to your elected officials that there isn’t a federal domestic terrorism law that they can be charged with. They are most of them charged with misdemeanors and allowing work related travel while on conditions of release prior to trial and while the presumption of innocence attaches is actually proof that the courts ARE working. The judges are being impartial and applying the law regarding bailable offenses as intended.

<rolling eyes>

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like folks posting here are largely ignorant of the very strong legal protections for persons with mental illness and other incapacities under California law especially.

There is simply no way that a conservatorship would remain in place after such a length of time absent substantial clinical evidence, provided to the court by medical professionals, that she is incompetent to manage her own affairs. The court would not insist on keeping her father in place as conservator if there was any credible evidence he’s abused that position (conservators must provide very detailed reports to the court on a regular basis, at least annually if not more often), and the fact that the court has reaffirmed him as conservator repeatedly despite her efforts to have him removed rather suggests that her objections to him are viewed by the court as stemming not from any substantive failure on his part to carry out the duties properly, but is rather likely rooted in her incapacity.

For those who argue she can’t be incompetent and carry on her career as she is - please remember she is in the one industry in the world where a talented person can carry on working despite serious incapacity, because outrageous behavior is tolerated and most artists have an entourage of individuals buffering them in their interactions with the real world. She just has to show up, dance and sing.

Having a fair bit of experience in the field of law at issue, I have zero concern that she isn’t being protected by the system. The very fact that movies like this are out, and a whole fan movement, and her repeated opportunities to challenge aspects of the conservatorship in court, all points to her being free to speak out without fear.

I can guess at what her diagnoses are, but certainly they are not inconsequential by any means. I wish her healing and am deeply sorry for her that so many people who consider themselves her fans that care about her are actually feeding into her paranoia and fueling her disease with the whole ‘free Brittney’ thing.

I’m sorry, but having watched two judges let alleged insurrectionists go on vacation internationally while they’re out on bail, I don’t have quite the same faith in the legal system that you have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like folks posting here are largely ignorant of the very strong legal protections for persons with mental illness and other incapacities under California law especially.

There is simply no way that a conservatorship would remain in place after such a length of time absent substantial clinical evidence, provided to the court by medical professionals, that she is incompetent to manage her own affairs. The court would not insist on keeping her father in place as conservator if there was any credible evidence he’s abused that position (conservators must provide very detailed reports to the court on a regular basis, at least annually if not more often), and the fact that the court has reaffirmed him as conservator repeatedly despite her efforts to have him removed rather suggests that her objections to him are viewed by the court as stemming not from any substantive failure on his part to carry out the duties properly, but is rather likely rooted in her incapacity.

For those who argue she can’t be incompetent and carry on her career as she is - please remember she is in the one industry in the world where a talented person can carry on working despite serious incapacity, because outrageous behavior is tolerated and most artists have an entourage of individuals buffering them in their interactions with the real world. She just has to show up, dance and sing.

Having a fair bit of experience in the field of law at issue, I have zero concern that she isn’t being protected by the system. The very fact that movies like this are out, and a whole fan movement, and her repeated opportunities to challenge aspects of the conservatorship in court, all points to her being free to speak out without fear.

I can guess at what her diagnoses are, but certainly they are not inconsequential by any means. I wish her healing and am deeply sorry for her that so many people who consider themselves her fans that care about her are actually feeding into her paranoia and fueling her disease with the whole ‘free Brittney’ thing.

I’m sorry, but having watched two judges let alleged insurrectionists go on vacation internationally while they’re out on bail, I don’t have quite the same faith in the legal system that you have.

Anonymous wrote:It seems like folks posting here are largely ignorant of the very strong legal protections for persons with mental illness and other incapacities under California law especially.

There is simply no way that a conservatorship would remain in place after such a length of time absent substantial clinical evidence, provided to the court by medical professionals, that she is incompetent to manage her own affairs. The court would not insist on keeping her father in place as conservator if there was any credible evidence he’s abused that position (conservators must provide very detailed reports to the court on a regular basis, at least annually if not more often), and the fact that the court has reaffirmed him as conservator repeatedly despite her efforts to have him removed rather suggests that her objections to him are viewed by the court as stemming not from any substantive failure on his part to carry out the duties properly, but is rather likely rooted in her incapacity.

For those who argue she can’t be incompetent and carry on her career as she is - please remember she is in the one industry in the world where a talented person can carry on working despite serious incapacity, because outrageous behavior is tolerated and most artists have an entourage of individuals buffering them in their interactions with the real world. She just has to show up, dance and sing.

Having a fair bit of experience in the field of law at issue, I have zero concern that she isn’t being protected by the system. The very fact that movies like this are out, and a whole fan movement, and her repeated opportunities to challenge aspects of the conservatorship in court, all points to her being free to speak out without fear.

I can guess at what her diagnoses are, but certainly they are not inconsequential by any means. I wish her healing and am deeply sorry for her that so many people who consider themselves her fans that care about her are actually feeding into her paranoia and fueling her disease with the whole ‘free Brittney’ thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was so sad to me. The way that she was absolutely destroyed by the tabloids. I remember when all of that happened, of course, but I was so judgmental myself. It seems so wrong that she can't get an independent conservator.

Agreed. I wasn’t ever really invested in what was going on with her but looking back I feel like no one was defending her.

Including me.

But I do think now, she deserves some kind of independence. Perhaps just putting the majority of her money in a trust and preventing her current boyfriend from raiding it would be acceptable to let her be free of her dad.