Britney Spears Braves Slavery In The Legal System.
This blog entry features Chapter Eleven of Twenty-Seven: The Human Right The Music Industry Forgot.
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The Bill of Rights – Article 13 (1865)
“Conservatorships,” such as what was experienced by music star Britney Spears, are most times forcibly held in place by public security forces, as well as by all the city departments such as the DMV, as well as some of the federal agencies, and regardless of the fact that slavery is immoral and illegal. Troops might have been mustered, but it doesn’t mean they ever were permitted to do so by law, nor by the people of the United States of America.
Only a worldwide superstar could guarantee such a massive income stream that if the artist were finagled to become dominated under a “conservatorship”, the controlling party could bring in billions of dollars, ultimately, by redirecting the artist’s cash-flow unto themselves, solely.
In a 2021 Netflix documentary entitled Britney Vs Spears, the American Songwriter and performance-giver Britney Spears, was portrayed by journalist Jenny Eliscu and filmmaker Erin Lee Carr as controlled by a limiting and powerful “conservatorship”. She worked and her performances and merchandise sales brought in millions in revenue internationally, if not billions. However, Britney wasn’t allowed to control her own affairs, such as staying away from home very long without her father requiring that she be returned by the whomever he had temporarily authorized her to travel with. Thirteen years passed and, in 2021, Britney Spears was reported to have been released by the “conservator” becoming agreeable, finally, to release her.
How could such a thing even take place, at all, in these United States?
In social media posts, the performance-giver remarked discontentedly. Was she denied her basic rights as well as betrayed by family members who had held her trust?
The significance of Britney’s circumstances in relation to a quest for human rights protections for music makers deals with the Thirteenth Article of The Bill of Rights, i.e. slave conditions, once again, inside the nation. The use of a “conservatorship,” indeed, is nefarious. It is a devious tool concocted by scoundrels close to money so as to enforce slavery. If money is never involved, a “conservatorship” is never made, at all, not for any reason, not in this land.
One should be very aware of the trouble existing right now in the United States where a “conservatorship” is ever allowed to happen, to anyone, in any capacity at all. One judge’s allowance is the precedence to place an able-bodied American Songwriter under a ”conservatorship.” It is not only sinful but inherently illegal as it allows slavery, once again. A “conservatorship” is made only to acquire land, money and property. “Conservatorships” strike down the Bill of Rights by the scribble of a conceited judge’s pen, on behalf of the collector of the other party’s cherished belongings. A human rights campaign is needed to erase their use.
Historic horrors of such an awful yet complex undertaking are beautifully presented in a paper by Professor of Law at the University of Dayton, Ms. Andrea Seielstad, entitled, “The Disturbing History of How Conservatorships Were Used To Exploit, Swindle Native Americans”. It gives some idea of the complex nature of the undertaking.
Britney Spears publicly commented upon her inability to visit, by her own choice, with her children, or have them remain solely under her care, without pensive “authorization”. The extravagant use of Spears’ public image, body and voice to generate income for outside parties, at all, in any manner, during her servitude under that mandated restrictive “conservatorship” constituted the principal illegality known as slavery.
Despite the stress of public attention, and the challenges she voiced at her home, Britney carried forward as a professional entertainer in a world-class marketplace. She performed around the world. Her ability to work successfully and earn her personal wherewithal has always been apparent to the audience.
Spears’ work necessitated that she function very nicely with other people, and in front of tens of thousands of people. Most people don’t even try to do this very well. Having done this, she demonstrated a level of sane and able regard to what elements her life contain. She carried forward, even when it seemed like her survival was at odds with the people closest to her. All of this is what is required of any citizen to live free.
The afore mentioned documentary Britney Vs Spears revealed to global audiences how the music-maker worked within her life to generate revenue which sustained hundreds, if not well over one thousand, more individuals other than herself. The documentary tallied earnings through the toil and physical struggle by Britney Spears, the artist, during the time of her “conservatorship”, at something like $500,000,000.
Britney talked openly to the press and on social media. She stated she felt she had been denied fair respect in front of her children. She expressed an urgent personal wish to fulfill a traditional motherly role. How, then, did it become all right to play a woman’s control of her children, and for the world’s audiences to be forced to watch the thing happen to her.
It happened in the music industry, certainly.
During Britney’s struggle, all the world would read the seething tabloids which seemed to ask for Britney to be categorized in a certain light. This use of publicity to hurt another has been proven to push down people to great depths of personal sadness and hopelessness. It may be argued that those who raked in the money, in effect, sought to also use the “conservatorship” itself in order to drive the artist Britney Spears into a fit of insanity by removing her basic American lawful rights, as they were promised to her by the Founders of this wondrous country and clearly inscribed within the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. As Britney would have studied these documents as a child, the reversal of the Founders’ promise directly unto her, as the fair citizen of this wonderful land, would be enough to warrant any skilled authority to note a hateful control used towards Britney’s life in the attorney’s wonton “conservatorship” which could be witnessed as a deliberate attempt to vehemently evoke fake but temporary “insanity” inside of Spears’ mind, such as anyone might feel a profound sense of loss or desperation in being denied—or even simply threatened to remove her from—the mother’s role, with her children, to live beside them, and to interact with them at her personal determination.
With the proposal of the Bill of Rights to the states, in 1789, it was fully agreed America’s citizens should have the power to protect themselves, both against the government, as well as any other threat to their personal freedom. The Second Amendment gave every citizen the right to defend themselves, their lives, and their property.
That said, gas-lighting, theft, abuse, coercion, and a deceitful presentation of the American justice system beyond belief—given the coercive nature of public ridicule in the press—happened in front of one and all to Britney Spears. It tells us, coldly, how invasively the human rights of artists are at risk. Laws are needed to protect them, and to bring to justice those who harm them.
The world has yet to witness those guilty of enslaving Britney Spears brought to trial for reckless violation of the Bill of Rights, Article 13. In the end, if justice has already been served to the molesters of Britney’s mind and life, then the people should hear how it was taken to conclusion, fairly.
The matter of ugly money working behind the scenes of the artists’ public lives, so as to dominate the American music industry through the courts, as scoundrel attorneys have been already permitted to do, is the nature of this chapter.
With assets and fame comes, certainly, control of the marketplace. With guaranteed income, one can gain an edge. If it’s the only way they ever knew how to survive, a desolate company with loans or inheritances at its disposal can affect certain control of off-duty police officers, retired members of America’s court system who yet are well-connected, and of politicians and legislative forces willing to please—if someone is willing to pay for these things—and with so much money these would-be murderers struggle to control the life of artist, as their slave.
In reality, this is the world artists deal with, often.
Songwriters and performers often will find they need financial help. There are high costs in order to hire musicians, book a studio, produce albums, or go on tour. Laws could be enacted to protect the lives of artists from slavery, if business dealings do not work out. There are ways to resolve poorly worked out income-earning strategies, without destroying the reputation or the security of either side. Again, human rights protections must be the priority, not wealth. Rather than taking another person’s home away and leaving them without rebuildable trust in the community, law-work could be done to find a safer escape route for everyone who works in music.
It’s not easy to make heads nor tails out of the Britney Spears “conservatorship”. It happened, we know.
There is another trouble and it begins all the way back at the beginning of the struggle between the artist and the folks wishing to deal in the artist’s songs and recordings: It is a carefully developed public appearance of music-makers being “under the thumb” of law enforcement as though songwriters, musicians or performance-givers constitute a dangerous gang of pranksters, or deceptive con artists, or worse. This reputation can be hard for a songwriter. They are usually trying to behave with honesty even if most writers like to cause commotion in the songs that they sell. Artists commonly see a higher road, and it is usually a fairer road than what is laid today. Their eyes often see a world where everyone can be trusted and believed in, completely.
One could easily draw associations between the faulty legal attacks made against music-makers of today, to the rebels of the American revolution and the British monarchy who ruled them from afar. In other words, with artists in music, they can be subjected to hate campaigns drawn up to benefit, financially, the other side.
Today, in 2024, a purchase could be made of $26.99 for a T-shirt. On it, nine famous faces stare violently: Frank Sinatra (adultery), Elvis Presly (disorderly conduct after being rushed by fans), Johnny Cash (public drunkenness), Jimi Hendrix (drugs, Canada), Jim Morrison (immoral exhibition), David Bowie (possession of pot), Mick Jagger (assaulted a photographer), Janis Joplin (vulgar language), and Kurt Cobain (graffiti).
Who is helped by furthering the public shame of these men and women in music? At the very least, the person who is selling the shirt.
Jail is no small thing. There, one can die under unjust circumstances. When one is let go, even if the charges have been called “dropped”, one can be hunted by those who heard only of the arrest. Strangers—or even the audiences the American Songwriter sings to—rarely take any extra time to get facts straight once some uglified fact is sold off to them. Many register “the bad” in an effort to protect themselves. They pass “the bad” along to others, too, you know?
Men and women despair when facing a legal charge in the courts. Threats by lawyers have gone so far as to mislead a professional who is hard at work. For it is too stressful to consider going to jail. The threat of court dates can close workmen down, or shut their companies, or end the lives of their spouses and kids from physical abuse, for that matter—before any charge was even conclusively decided upon.
If we expect our nation’s songwriters, musicians and performers to stand in the public eye, we must have fair treatment in the courts.
We must ask the police to be well-informed always before taking someone in for booking. The police force must not be purchased by wealth at hidden points. They must have certainty that their secretive sources are trustworthy. No official procedure can take place without clear evidence, as well as due process. That’s how it has to be every time when it comes to police authority inside any American community.
If we don’t insist on accuracy then we cannot, ever, as a nation, eliminate unlawful arrests. Unjustly controlling another person through unfair detention in jail, or through a “conservatorship”, is the very contest already that gave the American Revolutionary heroes their spurs. The nation’s promise of freedom primarily means no unfair or even any disruptive treatment at the hands of the country’s legal system.
It’s a large and dreadful thing to be attacked. Everything has deteriorated for the song-maker once jail time has been used. Public shame, as a campaign, is already underway, in the case of an artist on the world’s stage. And the memory of unfair incarceration is never reprieved until fair treatment is finally rendered with the innocent exonerated. The innocent must be paid damages for anything bad that happened as a result of picking on them.
This is a classic look at historical divides between the artists one sees going up and up, and the people close by who pull them to pieces and control their money or their power, or both.
Consider these solutions:
1) A bottom-level certificate in law offered without prejudice to people of high school diploma so anyone can know enough to protect the nation’s basic policy inside their own lives, at home, one that gives a patent certification and requires less than four hundred hours of study.
2) Lawmakers required to simplify finished legal work so that the common people can read it and understand it.
3) Allow only a single mandate per law.
Nowhere is a lack of easy access to fair treatment when it comes to law enforcement more threatening than in the music industry. There, people of every type and kind speak their un-bridled minds. Others might react.
Until we abolish all slave-like conditions, such as “conservatorships” that deal without remorse in the body and names of our American Songwriters and performance-givers, we, as a nation, tremble.
The nation can never enable unfair control of artists in the nation who are speaking their minds, for that is just so much hinderance of freedom. And, in that, war brews, for the fight for freedom never dies.