The Free Britney Act is set to be introduced to congress on Tuesday.

[Jefferson Silva]

3 minutes ago, Prachi said:

Please everyone look at this impact giving some highlights: 

1. Biggest teen act ever - 35M albums from the 1st one 

2. Sold more than 105 pure albums WW (data till 2011) - maybe more now

3. World-wide success

4. Holds relevant records not like most 24 hour watched video which breaks after 3 months 

5. Banned from the radios and still was only behind Eminem in selling 

6. Just sang lonely on her BF's story and is now charting in Brazil above BTS songs 

7. Changing laws 

8. Has compassionate fans who doesn't care if she comes back or not - true love, no obsession over 'please collaborate with this artist etc' 

10. Free Britney movement > some pop careers combined 

11. And last but not the least 'It's Britney B' - sorry guys I don't know but when will you fave? like when? 

lmaaao I had to go check the itunes BR

 

[Alexanda]

Erase the conservatorships once and for all.

[OutofKontrol]

I just love how Jamie's precious republican party has put him on blast lmao

[Lucky☆]

Free Britney act?

What? Omg iconic and all the fans should be super proud , we are the ****

[SlayOut]

35 minutes ago, Applejack said:

this act ain't it, it ain't gonna change anything and it possibly can make things worse because no one is tackling the root problem

elizabeth warren had the right idea: we need better data on conservatorships/guardianships, which can be a first step to guarantee better and wider oversight on every kind of guardian/conservatorship and then we need laws to ensure accountability for those who harm conservatees' livelihood and estates or just do not comply with the law, be them judges, lawyers, court reporters, health professionals or the conservators themselves

 

what's the use for independent conservator when we established those are in position to harm conservatees? (april parks in nevada, the new abusive private conservator in the news right now)

My thoughts exactly. Like Jodi Montgomery is an independent conservator/fiduciary and while Britney is working with her to terminate the conservatorship… it’s not like she may be the best person for that position. And not like Britney had a choice or voice in the matter anyway.

I’ll be awaiting that data Elizabeth Warren and Bob Casey requested!

[ConceptD]

This is NOT good. Jamie is evil, but the vast majority of the time someone is better off with a family member being their conservator who probably has compassion towards them than a random professional who views them as just another face on the board. It’s being sold as good news, but it is very very bad. 

[mnopstuv2005]

How can that be a law . It is only a free britney law it doesnt effect the whole country of USA . i am not understanding whats going on can someone explain what is happening

[fays1]

I mean most conservatorship abuse happen by none family members. This act will give more power to lawyers instead of family members. We heard alot of stories of lawyers taking away a family member from their family, and take the money.

[Danielle1987]

Is it really called THE FREE BRITNEY ACT? For real? OMG 

THE IMPACT!!!

 

& does this have to be voted on, or is it a for sure thing?

[Korb]

It's a cultural reset

[Markthepop]

3 hours ago, rockinedges said:

Key here is that when it’s not a family member, professional conservators should be  very closely monitored as they are often the bad actors who see conservatees solely as cash cows. 

the whole system is just so depressing…

Yes. Very weird thing to still have legal year 2021. 

[mnopstuv2005]

well , funny name for a american law

[Janecita]

3 hours ago, ConceptD said:

This is NOT good. Jamie is evil, but the vast majority of the time someone is better off with a family member being their conservator who probably has compassion towards them than a random professional who views them as just another face on the board. It’s being sold as good news, but it is very very bad. 

Exactly my thoughts! 

[PokemonSpears]

3 hours ago, ConceptD said:

This is NOT good. Jamie is evil, but the vast majority of the time someone is better off with a family member being their conservator who probably has compassion towards them than a random professional who views them as just another face on the board. It’s being sold as good news, but it is very very bad. 

the thing is the whole concept is prone to abuse either way, whether it comes from family or professionals. 

In my opinion, the conservators should be professionals, people with studies either in medical care, finances, or whatever is their role. But these professionals should be paid by the government, not from the conservatee's assets. But I don't think that's happening. 

[A.a.A]

7 hours ago, Applejack said:

wish they would go for better and wider government and health oversight over the arrangement rather than this vague stuff that will not be effective anyway... (it's obvious many cship cases don't observe all the laws about cships anyway so???)

 

  Hide contents

and of course such a badly thought-out act was made by two republicans smh

 

Acts and bills in congress are by their nature vague. They quite literally can’t be specific as they are needed to be interpreted for a variety of different situations that might arise in the future. 

That’s literally the only way they’ll be passed

[Matou]

YEEEEES call the Free Britney Investigators

[Corruptured Colon]

On 7/19/2021 at 11:41 AM, Applejack said:

wish they would go for better and wider government and health oversight over the arrangement rather than this vague stuff that will not be effective anyway... (it's obvious many cship cases don't observe all the laws about cships anyway so???)

 

  Hide contents

and of course such a badly thought-out act was made by two republicans smh

 

Yeah, I'm thinking this might not be very good news. Usually the family isn't the problem.  By putting measures in place to help prevent family members from being conservators, they're making it easier for illicit, deceptive players to step in as conservators instead. These "independent" conservators could still have ties to the lawyers, judges, and doctors. Players in this space are typically way smarter and more calculated than family, and better equipped to isolate, medicate, and liquidate their conservatees. 

That Surprise Witness has a very insightful video about why we should oppose this: 

 

[Miguelblackpink]

How bout the ability to be able to choose their own conservator and lawyer? 

[Anti-Hero]

2 minutes ago, Miguelblackpink said:

How bout the ability to be able to choose their own conservator and lawyer? 

Hopefully they add additional amendments to the bill

[Corruptured Colon]

At first glance, this seems like a win. But upon closer inspection, it's pro-conservatorship. I wonder if it'd be worth making another post about why this act is problematic.