Britney Spears (2018) Photo by Alberto E. Rodriguez ( Getty Images)Britney Spears' legal conservatorship, which she has been living in since 2008, is something that outsiders have difficulty understanding. A conservatorship, by its very nature devalues the viewpoint of the person it is being applied to. Britney's statements on her living situation, including her request to speak out in public court, were filtered through default. This includes people who oversee her social media, Samuel Ingham (her court-appointed legal advocate), and the many public relations professionals employed by the conservatorship. The default legal reasoning behind the conservatorship's existence is that Spears is allegedly not able to speak for herself, even though she can record music, tour and make money for her multimillion-dollar estate. This means that any legal filing, public statement, etc., must be carefully analyzed. Each legal filing, public statement, etc. must be carefully examined for any signs of self-interest by the parties around her. They are all trying to claim that they are the ultimate arbiter of Spears' wishes.AdvertisementRonan Farrow, Jia Tolentino and Jia Tolentino have compiled a New Yorker report that brings all of this into sharper focus. Britney Spears Conservatorship Nightmare is based on interviews and research from a variety of people who were part of the singer's orbit before and after the conservatorship was created. It attempts to give the most accurate picture of the origins of the arrangement and its persistence for thirteen years. It is also a horrifying account of Spears' loss of control. This is reflected in a series clandestine anecdotes about her attempts to access an unmonitored phone so she could consult independent legal counsel. She has no legal capacity or right to do this, according to the courts.The report, among other things, raises questions about Ingham's loyalty to court-set attorneys. Jacqueline Butcher is a former family friend who was present at the discussions that led to the conservatorship. She claims that Ingham provided information on Spears' movements to her father. The piece also mentions that Ingham receives $520,000 per year from the conservatorship for his job, which is paradoxically less than what Spears received in 2019 as the result of her labor. Ingham filed motions to remove Jamie Spears from his role of financial co-conservator for Spears. This is a remark that makes it seem like Ingham has been putting Britney Spears' interests first.Farrow and Tolentino conclude their report by pointing out the Catch-22 Spears and thousands of others who have had their legal autonomy taken away in similar circumstances face. It is possible to show that Spears, who has been threatened with withholding her children, has been motivated repeatedly throughout the long process. And what if she succeeds? You see, that's exactly what she needed.The complete New Yorker article can be found here.
