As Britney Spears‘ conservatorship case drags on in court, the singer has been granted a bit of a reprieve. According to Variety.com, Spears was granted the right to expand her legal team in her conservatorship struggle against her father, Jamie Spears.
According to Entertainment Tonight, the 38-year-old singer was not in attendance for the hearing, but Jamie, her mother Lynne, and her attorney Samuel Ingham were present.
Jamie filed paperwork last week, contending the petition as unnecessary spending and that it would cost Spears too much money. ‘Clearly, James’ objectives are either to filibuster the appointment of a corporate fiduciary indefinitely or to dominate the entire process himself, including the selection of the fiduciary,’ Ingham contended last week.
The conservatorship has been in effect for approximately 12 years. Jamie Spears is paid around $130,000 and probably expenses per year. Variety reports, “according to court documents obtained by ET, the largest expense of Britney’s estate in 2018 was her legal and conservator fees, which, in total, equaled over $1.1 for that year.”
Britney objected to her father’s filing last month, where he requested to seal court proceedings, as she wants her fans informed of what’s going on behind closed doors.
‘Britney strongly believes it is consistent not only with her personal best interests but also with good public policy generally that the decision to appoint a new conservator of her estate to be made in as open and transparent a manner as possible,’ the Daily Mail reports.
A social media movement called #FreeBritney has exploded on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other outlets. The movement essentially maintains that Britney is being held captive. Her lawyer says the conservatorship is voluntary.
We don’t know whether the conservatorship is voluntary or if Britney is being held captive in one sense or another. We can say, without hesitation, there has been a lack of transparency surrounding this case.
We recognize that state and federal laws and ethical considerations can limit the parties from publicly commenting on certain aspects of the case. However, this is a spectacular case that requires added transparency. The parties have not lived up to their responsibilities and, in the process, given the court and the parties a negative outlook. This is not fair to Britney.
Contact writer at email@example.com