Jump to content

[Opinion] As it stands now, her conservatorship (WITH BESSMER serving as co-conservator) is probably for her protection


Recommended Posts

The Bessemer Trust Group serving as co-conservator for her finances can only be a good thing for securing her financial future. (Although I don't know why they weren't added a decade ago)

Mark Vincent Kaplan makes points that "Prior to the conservatorship being placed over Ms. Spears, her finances were in a terrible state of disarray, there were multiple lawsuits around for breaches of contract and things like that, and now based on what I’ve seen in the press, her estate is north of $50, $60 million, so from that standpoint it seems to me the conservatorship has benefited her financially in that regard," Kaplan argued. "The tradeoff as far as how it impacts her personal freedom or creativity, I can’t speak on that."

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/britney-spears-kevin-federline-attorney-conservatorship-provides-layers-protection

That still doesn't mean she was broke, but what I do agree with is that she was facing lawsuits for breaches of contract.  This always goes back to my point that she was only in the spotlight from 2004-2006 because of her contractual obligations, when she should have been out of the spotlight completely to enjoy her marriage. 

All that bull**** from people magazine, us weekly and other tabloids-they all had something to do with her contracts with her label to keep her in the spotlight.  Was she ever really going to enjoy her marriage and motherhood with all that media coverage????  It doesn't make ANY sense in retrospect.

Any reasonable person should agree that, if she wasn't performing during those 2004-2006 years, she shouldn't have been covered at all. (She wouldn't have been if she had moved to Idaho or Montana or New Mexico)  

So this comes back to her label.  Britney worked extremely hard for what she wanted from ...Baby One More Time to In The Zone, with her label's backing.

But the truth is that Britney's label are as much responsible as Justin Timberlake for all that terrible fall out.  They were the ones who presented her as an innocent, virginal image to the media/public so when she was alleged to have cheated, the pathetic media started to try to find more mistakes from her and dissect her personal life.  (She obviously was never going to live up to her teen image standard)  That's the problem with the whole thing: the narrative that only one of them cheated.  That was clearly the false narrative everybody was presented with.

So moving beyond that, while I understand Britney has incredible resiliency, this is challenged by her constantly being scrutinized, which is exacerbated by the pathetic media scrutinizing her social media posts.   

The tightrope is that Britney does not want to dwell on the past but because its so public and she is so famous, she will continue to be an object of not necessarily welcome fascination unless she truly leaves the industry.

 

 

  • Love 2
Link to post
  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don’t agree, In my opinion I think Britney needs a good business manager chosen by herself. Not a conservatorship where dozens of people make money off it 

you don't need a conservatorship to get help with finances, otherwise every artist would be under one   heck, Mexican singer Paulina Rubio is currently going through lots of lawsuits in the

lmfao if it's for her own good then why does literally no one else have one? like did they seriously have to strip away her right to vote or even purchase a starbucks?? if you think having a mental il

27 minutes ago, zxcvb said:

lawsuits around for breaches of contract

 

28 minutes ago, zxcvb said:

what I do agree with is that she was facing lawsuits for breaches of contract

The problem is that people don't look into what people were actually accusing about what allegedly happened with Britney's finances:

 

On 1/31/2021 at 2:20 PM, Steel Magnolia said:

The WEG Lawsuit:


Within the court documents it stated:

"Upon information and belief, SPEARS and BTI concealed from WEG a series of negotiations and agreements for otherwise commissionable Gross Receipts payable to WEG, thus diverting those commissions to SPEARS directly or indirectly, or to corporate entities without the knowledge, consent, or agreement of WEG, both before and after the termination Agreement."

:ehum_britney_um_unsure_confused_what:

Michael Sands:

In February 2008, following Adam Streisand's unsuccessful attempts to represent Britney, lawyer Jon Eardley filed documents with the court claiming she had been robbed. Eardley's spokesman, Michael Sands (who was also the spokesman for Sam Lutfi) claimed that RICO Act violations had taken place. He claimed the theft was on a grand scale, involving racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering, and that the theft "occurred prior to the conservatorship taking place and continues still."

Source: https://www.mtv.com/news/1582277/britney-spears-has-been-robbed-her-self-proclaimed-lawyer-insists/

:gross_britney_ew_sick_red_sunglasses_cringe_disgusted:

 

  • Love 2
Link to post

She was in a financial downfall, she had lawsuits all ove her, she lost custody of her children... yes. The conservatorship shilded her from a lot of things and granted her visitations rights to see the boys but that was in the beginning.

The problem is what happened later on. Under the conservatorship there were still lawsuits due to Jamie's missmanagement. Her brand made millions upon millions of dollars and her networth didnt have a proper increase, meaning that either Jamie distribuited her money across the companies he created to avoid taxes or, in the most realisitic scenario, Britney was robbed by her own father and his vultures. Not to mention that she was fed strong medication that maybe she never needed, just to put her in a more influenceable state. 

Kevin's lawyer shouldnt be giving any insights on Britney's situation cause well... he doesnt advocate for her nor is related to her case in any capacity. Bessemer Trust is a well known fiduciary company and now that the judge aproved a 50/50 agreement in the conservatorship of her estate, it means that they have the power to audit everything Jamie did in these last 13 years to track her money and maybe get it back. Plus analize and/or reject any future business coming from Jamie that they dont see fit for Britney's wealth. Bessemer is not only good for her financial future but also to investigate what happened in the past. 

  • Love 3
  • Like 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, zxcvb said:

The Bessemer Trust Group serving as co-conservator for her finances can only be a good thing for securing her financial future. (Although I don't know why they weren't added a decade ago)

Mark Vincent Kaplan makes points that "Prior to the conservatorship being placed over Ms. Spears, her finances were in a terrible state of disarray, there were multiple lawsuits around for breaches of contract and things like that, and now based on what I’ve seen in the press, her estate is north of $50, $60 million, so from that standpoint it seems to me the conservatorship has benefited her financially in that regard," Kaplan argued. "The tradeoff as far as how it impacts her personal freedom or creativity, I can’t speak on that."

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/britney-spears-kevin-federline-attorney-conservatorship-provides-layers-protection

That still doesn't mean she was broke, but what I do agree with is that she was facing lawsuits for breaches of contract.  This always goes back to my point that she was only in the spotlight from 2004-2006 because of her contractual obligations, when she should have been out of the spotlight completely to enjoy her marriage. 

All that bull**** from people magazine, us weekly and other tabloids-they all had something to do with her contracts with her label to keep her in the spotlight.  Was she ever really going to enjoy her marriage and motherhood with all that media coverage????  It doesn't make ANY sense in retrospect.

Any reasonable person should agree that, if she wasn't performing during those 2004-2006 years, she shouldn't have been covered at all. (She wouldn't have been if she had moved to Idaho or Montana or New Mexico)  

So this comes back to her label.  Britney worked extremely hard for what she wanted from ...Baby One More Time to In The Zone, with her label's backing.

But the truth is that Britney's label are as much responsible as Justin Timberlake for all that terrible fall out.  They were the ones who presented her as an innocent, virginal image to the media/public so when she was alleged to have cheated, the pathetic media started to try to find more mistakes from her and dissect her personal life.  (She obviously was never going to live up to her teen image standard)  That's the problem with the whole thing: the narrative that only one of them cheated.  That was clearly the false narrative everybody was presented with.

So moving beyond that, while I understand Britney has incredible resiliency, this is challenged by her constantly being scrutinized, which is exacerbated by the pathetic media scrutinizing her social media posts.   

The tightrope is that Britney does not want to dwell on the past but because its so public and she is so famous, she will continue to be an object of not necessarily welcome fascination unless she truly leaves the industry.

 

 

No it was a negative trade off . Keep ur money but lose ur will to live. Let’s be honest when they accounted for her assets they highly undervalued on purpose so they could start off stealing her money on the right path. The only thing Britney needed was time off , someone truly on her side with her well being their best interest. Heal from her post partum depression, a competent money manager but most importantly her kids and love and time and she would have been fine.  Rest and relaxation and rejuvenated spirits instead they stole the light out of her eyes for YEARS and bound the mother of dragons in chains and stole her babies.  The only benefit was that she didn’t kill herself and is still alive to fight for what is fast becoming public knowledge. It’s TIME for her to be free 

  • Love 4
Link to post
2 hours ago, danny1994 said:

The conservatorship might be the only thing keeping her with visitation rights of her kids. That’s about the only positive thing I can think of from it.

She barely sees her kids, 10% of their time between late 2018-2019. Last year from what Jayden said, it seemed like he saw her every two weeks. And if she had got out of this bs years ago, she could have fought on courts for more time with them. 

Link to post

Im so sick of everyone having an opinion about Britneys life when she cant even speak, let alone this pro cship rat that Britney has to pay for him to defend Ktrash.

They keep pushing the story she only has 50-60 millions. She had over 100m in 2008 and she earned almost 300m in 7 years of the cship. 

  • Love 9
Link to post
  • Exhale+
3 hours ago, I love Britney said:

I don’t agree, In my opinion I think Britney needs a good business manager chosen by herself. Not a conservatorship where dozens of people make money off it 

 

1 hour ago, PokemonSpears said:

you don't need a conservatorship to get help with finances, otherwise every artist would be under one

 

heck, Mexican singer Paulina Rubio is currently going through lots of lawsuits in the US because of all the things you mention, breach of contract, debt, she's even engaged in a never ending battle with her ex-husband because of their child, and she's still a free person, that still somehow manages to have gigs and release music every now and then, and keeps pretending to be living the life of her dreams

 

Even if Britney or any artist went broke, it's not the end of the world, and with someone like Britney that at least back then still had the potential to make a comeback in music, she would've earned back anything that she might've lost in lawsuits. People make mistakes and they have to learn from them, or pay the consequences, but that was a lesson Britney had to learn. She didn't need and doesn't need now any special protection, not more than any other artist of her caliber

 

 

1 hour ago, Scrappy said:

She didn't need a conservatorship to get out of debt. In fact, she should have had proper financial advisors right when her career started. The fact there was none speaks volumes to the ill-advice of her parents from the get-go.  We already know that the con-ship has swindled Britney as evidenced by the use of her funds to file lawsuits on fans. So, no, it's not entirely for her benefit. It benefits the machine, including K-Fed, that she was enslaved to.  If it was really for her benefit, they would have set her up with a fishing pole and taught her how to fish. Keeping her ignorant is an effort to keep her powerless. The patriarchy is toxic at this point to her mental health and well being.

 

1 hour ago, slayyyterhoe said:

lmfao if it's for her own good then why does literally no one else have one? like did they seriously have to strip away her right to vote or even purchase a starbucks?? if you think having a mental illness means you can have your rights stripped then you're a total scumbag.

 

1 hour ago, NewDisplayName said:

I'm kind of confusing what I've read tbh : ))

1. Leave lawsuits to lawyers;

2. Britneys brand faced more lawsuits after c-ship imo ("scream an shout", perfume line things etc) where she is loosing millions, right?.. and back in 2007 she drove over paparazzi's foot by accident and custody battle of course.. So I guees It is James narrative once again that they are SAVERS!

3. for managing finances people hire FINANCIAL MANAGERS and not conservators (not James savingmoney Spears/not Lou saving soul Taylor etc)..

4. even she wasn't doing much in 2004-2006 her brand was selling good she still was one of the main interests of planet (not to mention all the money she already had).

5. agree with label that they done it wrong. I felt like they don't respected Britney like she deserved and let her alone in some situations cause knew she would sell her music anyway and haven't showed much care.. It's a business I get it but in business wise they had make many mistakes and as a people they don't really deserve to called like ones of course after putting young Britney in that machine of torture 

 

52 minutes ago, Hungry Hun said:

She was in a financial downfall, she had lawsuits all ove her, she lost custody of her children... yes. The conservatorship shilded her from a lot of things and granted her visitations rights to see the boys but that was in the beginning.

The problem is what happened later on. Under the conservatorship there were still lawsuits due to Jamie's missmanagement. Her brand made millions upon millions of dollars and her networth didnt have a proper increase, meaning that either Jamie distribuited her money across the companies he created to avoid taxes or, in the most realisitic scenario, Britney was robbed by her own father and his vultures. Not to mention that she was fed strong medication that maybe she never needed, just to put her in a more influenceable state. 

Kevin's lawyer shouldnt be giving any insights on Britney's situation cause well... he doesnt advocate for her nor is related to her case in any capacity. Bessemer Trust is a well known fiduciary company and now that the judge aproved a 50/50 agreement in the conservatorship of her estate, it means that they have the power to audit everything Jamie did in these last 13 years to track her money and maybe get it back. Plus analize and/or reject any future business coming from Jamie that they dont see fit for Britney's wealth. Bessemer is not only good for her financial future but also to investigate what happened in the past. 

:mimiclap_mariah_clapping_applause_proud_yes_Yas:

  • Love 1

Young Billie Run Pop :lemmetellu_telling_preaching_yelling_talking_points_finger:

Link to post
3 hours ago, Slave4yew said:

It’s been 13 years, sis. 

50 minutes ago, Hungry Hun said:

She was in a financial downfall, she had lawsuits all ove her, she lost custody of her children... yes. The conservatorship shilded her from a lot of things and granted her visitations rights to see the boys but that was in the beginning.

The problem is what happened later on. Under the conservatorship there were still lawsuits due to Jamie's missmanagement. Her brand made millions upon millions of dollars and her networth didnt have a proper increase, meaning that either Jamie distribuited her money across the companies he created to avoid taxes or, in the most realisitic scenario, Britney was robbed by her own father and his vultures. Not to mention that she was fed strong medication that maybe she never needed, just to put her in a more influenceable state. 

Kevin's lawyer shouldnt be giving any insights on Britney's situation cause well... he doesnt advocate for her nor is related to her case in any capacity. Bessemer Trust is a well known fiduciary company and now that the judge aproved a 50/50 agreement in the conservatorship of her estate, it means that they have the power to audit everything Jamie did in these last 13 years to track her money and maybe get it back. Plus analize and/or reject any future business coming from Jamie that they dont see fit for Britney's wealth. Bessemer is not only good for her financial future but also to investigate what happened in the past. 

This point kind of nails what I was saying.  I NEVER contended her father should have EVER been her conservator,  That's most important.  That should have NEVER HAPPENED.  And it should have been temporary.

3 hours ago, I love Britney said:

I don’t agree, In my opinion I think Britney needs a good business manager chosen by herself. Not a conservatorship where dozens of people make money off it 

1 hour ago, PokemonSpears said:

you don't need a conservatorship to get help with finances, otherwise every artist would be under one

Even if Britney or any artist went broke, it's not the end of the world, and with someone like Britney that at least back then still had the potential to make a comeback in music, she would've earned back anything that she might've lost in lawsuits. People make mistakes and they have to learn from them, or pay the consequences, but that was a lesson Britney had to learn. She didn't need and doesn't need now any special protection, not more than any other artist of her caliber

26 minutes ago, Derrickr411 said:

No it was a negative trade off . Keep ur money but lose ur will to live. Let’s be honest when they accounted for her assets they highly undervalued on purpose so they could start off stealing her money on the right path. The only thing Britney needed was time off , someone truly on her side with her well being their best interest. Heal from her post partum depression, a competent money manager but most importantly her kids and love and time and she would have been fine.  Rest and relaxation and rejuvenated spirits instead they stole the light out of her eyes for YEARS and bound the mother of dragons in chains and stole her babies.  The only benefit was that she didn’t kill herself and is still alive to fight for what is fast becoming public knowledge. It’s TIME for her to be free 

1 hour ago, NewDisplayName said:

3. for managing finances people hire FINANCIAL MANAGERS and not conservators (not James savingmoney Spears/not Lou saving soul Taylor etc)..

In terms of the specific period in January/February 2008, even Adam Streisand said Britney understood why she may need a TEMPORARY conservatorship.

Nobody in the world had the type of terrible coverage she was getting except Michael Jackson.  Something needed to stop that downward spiral.    It's just that her father should have never been her conservator.

1 hour ago, NewDisplayName said:

4. even she wasn't doing much in 2004-2006 her brand was selling good she still was one of the main interests of planet (not to mention all the money she already had).

 The problem I have with those years is the abusive coverage she was getting from the media and the public.  If she wasn't in the spotlight would 2007-2008 happen?

1 hour ago, NewDisplayName said:

5. agree with label that they done it wrong. I felt like they don't respected Britney like she deserved and let her alone in some situations cause knew she would sell her music anyway and haven't showed much care.. It's a business I get it but in business wise they had make many mistakes and as a people they don't really deserve to called like ones of course after putting young Britney in that machine of torture 

As good as Blackout is, Britney should have truly re-negotiated her contract back in 2004/2005 or started her own label.  She was the one already fighting  Jive with Original Doll/Mona Lisa/Do Somethin back then.

Outrageous, the song she injured her knee on, wasn't even a song she wanted as a single. 

It was long past time for her to get out of that machine abusive machine (One that favored Timberlake for probably cheating on her)

 

Link to post
12 hours ago, zxcvb said:

The Bessemer Trust Group serving as co-conservator for her finances can only be a good thing for securing her financial future. (Although I don't know why they weren't added a decade ago)

Mark Vincent Kaplan makes points that "Prior to the conservatorship being placed over Ms. Spears, her finances were in a terrible state of disarray, there were multiple lawsuits around for breaches of contract and things like that, and now based on what I’ve seen in the press, her estate is north of $50, $60 million, so from that standpoint it seems to me the conservatorship has benefited her financially in that regard," Kaplan argued. "The tradeoff as far as how it impacts her personal freedom or creativity, I can’t speak on that."

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/britney-spears-kevin-federline-attorney-conservatorship-provides-layers-protection

That still doesn't mean she was broke, but what I do agree with is that she was facing lawsuits for breaches of contract.  This always goes back to my point that she was only in the spotlight from 2004-2006 because of her contractual obligations, when she should have been out of the spotlight completely to enjoy her marriage. 

All that bull**** from people magazine, us weekly and other tabloids-they all had something to do with her contracts with her label to keep her in the spotlight.  Was she ever really going to enjoy her marriage and motherhood with all that media coverage????  It doesn't make ANY sense in retrospect.

Any reasonable person should agree that, if she wasn't performing during those 2004-2006 years, she shouldn't have been covered at all. (She wouldn't have been if she had moved to Idaho or Montana or New Mexico)  

So this comes back to her label.  Britney worked extremely hard for what she wanted from ...Baby One More Time to In The Zone, with her label's backing.

But the truth is that Britney's label are as much responsible as Justin Timberlake for all that terrible fall out.  They were the ones who presented her as an innocent, virginal image to the media/public so when she was alleged to have cheated, the pathetic media started to try to find more mistakes from her and dissect her personal life.  (She obviously was never going to live up to her teen image standard)  That's the problem with the whole thing: the narrative that only one of them cheated.  That was clearly the false narrative everybody was presented with.

So moving beyond that, while I understand Britney has incredible resiliency, this is challenged by her constantly being scrutinized, which is exacerbated by the pathetic media scrutinizing her social media posts.   

The tightrope is that Britney does not want to dwell on the past but because its so public and she is so famous, she will continue to be an object of not necessarily welcome fascination unless she truly leaves the industry.

 

 

Mark Vincent Kaplan is one of the most expensive lawyers in America. He's been Kevin Federline's attorney since the Britney custody battle. He made millions out of it. He organized the entire smear campaign against Britney in order to get custody of Kevin Federline. He is the last to speak. Both Federline and Kaplan planted the seeds to put Britney under guardianship

  • Love 1
  • Like 7
Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

We noticed you're using an ad blocker  :badthoughts_gun_kris_genner_thinking_debating:

Thanks for visiting Exhale! Your support is greatly appreciated 💜  

Exhale survives through advertising revenue. Please, disable your ad block extension to help us and continue browsing Exhale. 🙏

I've disabled ad block