Rio Scarcelli | staff columnist
Oct. 7, 2021
The fight with the court is never over for Britney Spears as her most recent hearing on Sept. 29 ruled that accountant John Zabel would be in charge of Britney’s person, finances and estate in lieu of her father Jamie Spears’ suspension.
Members of the Free Britney movement and Britney herself are ecstatic about the removal of her father from the 13-year-long conservatorship.
“#FreeBritney movement … I have no words … because of you guys and your constant resilience in freeing me from my conservatorship … my life is now in that direction !!!!! I cried last night for two hours cause my fans are the best, and I know it,” Spears said on social media this week.
The celebration was short-lived in preparation for the upcoming hearing on Dec. 31. Within the terms of the court hearing, Jamie Spears’ position was only a temporary suspension as opposed to a termination with Zabel vicariously managing Britney through the conservatorship.
In spite of Jamie’s suspension, many fans have formed protests and rallies saying that the conservatorship should be fully ended sooner rather than later and that Zabel’s presence within Britney’s estate and finances is only procrastinating her liberation.
While it is true that justice should be served, that has been placed in the public eye with The New York Times’ second installment detailing Britney’s conservatorship: “Controlling Britney Spears.”
This new documentary relied on investigative journalism with a vast majority of interviewees breaking their Non-Disclosure Agreements administered to them by Jamie Spears and his legal team. But many of those who could provide insight into the unscrupulous business-management that Jamie and others created were too scared to receive backlash from an egregious legal power.
Regardless, of the people who were still shown in the film, a standout source provided explosive allegations that would be enough to corroborate the violations of Britney as a conservatee.
Alex Vlasov, a former employee of Black Box security, went into full detail regarding his position within the business, Britney’s life and as a mole. He worked closely alongside Edan Yemini, the founder of Black Box, and Jamie himself to regulate the communications aspect of Britney’s conservatorship.
When Vlasov began to allege that Yemini and Jamie went through continual efforts to screen mirror her phone, set up recordings within the confines of her bedroom and monitor all of her texts/phone calls without her knowledge or consent, news hit the fan.
To current plaintiff-attorney Matthew Rosengart, this information was enough for him to create a case saying that Jamie had clearly infringed upon the terms of his conservatorship and the interests of Britney as the conservatee. In what Britney had called a “demoralizing display,” the allegations sparked enough emotion to give her the reprieve she had been asking for: Jamie’s suspension.
With all of this in mind, the information presented by Vlasov is merely a heated-allegation that sparked the fire for the Sept. 29 case. In the goal of temporarily suspending Jamie’s role in the conservatorship, Rosengart had succeeded.
But by entirely terminating the conservatorship Jamie Spears can exit the situation free of any charges.
In being temporarily suspended in his role within the person, estate and finances of Britney, Jamie is still required to answer to the court with any legal documentation of any medium pertaining to the past 13 years. In a situation where existing, private tapes of Britney within her own home may potentially be lying on a hard-drive, the time to be incriminated comes closer.
The year 2021 has given a home to the idea of “holding people accountable.” Whether it was an immoral action from yesterday or one spanning 13 years ago, the internet has taken hold of the things that people said and did in their past. This not only brings attention to the actions that people thought of, but also puts them in a position where they should openly apologize for and rectify that behavior in the future.
If this is the logic that people wish to hold themselves in for the contemporary age of media, the same should be said for Jamie Spears and his violation of privacy and unempathetic behavior put toward his own daughter.
Fans who feel that the conservatorship should have been put to an entire close last week have a passionate right to believe that. Regardless, there are many more steps that can be taken to not only “Free Britney,” but also to atone for the treatment given to her by the person who dealt it.
Letting Jamie Spears leave the conservatorship with no existing amount of remorse would only be a win for him. The money would be in his pocket and the damage would have already been dealt. In his vehement denial of any harm to the former-pop star through many social media statements, that should be enough to say that an eye-opener is necessary for Jamie and members of his team.
If prolonging the conservatorship is a way to properly serve justice to those who deserve it, then the preparation has to start with the incrimination of Jamie Spears on Dec. 31.
Until that day, nobody can say that Britney has truly been freed.
