Britney vs Spears: Exposing a scam in the name of the Guardianship



Britney vs Spears was released on September 28, 2021 on Netflix. Photo: Collected


Britney vs Spears was released on September 28, 2021 on Netflix. Photo: Collected

Directed by Erin Lee Carr, the Netflix production, “Britney vs. Spears” documents the events that led to the guardianship and neglect that Britney Spears faced for thirteen years. It was released on Netflix on September 28, 2021.

The documentary begins with Carr and journalist Jenny Eliscu calling people to talk about the Britney Spears case. This is followed by old footage to remind or shed light on how much of a star Britney was in the 2000s, her marriage to Kevin Federline in 2004 followed by a speedy divorce and her loss of custody for the new generation. her children in 2007.

Britney was devastated by the divorce and the loss of her children. Things escalated when she was plunged into a media frenzy. Other footage shows how she was pursued by paparazzi whenever she left her residence. One of them, named Adnan Ghalib, approached the singer. They dated for a year, during which time Britney had two psychiatric detentions. Although Ghalib has played a very controversial role in Britney’s personal life, he seems to favor her in the documentary by noting how people have so quickly concluded that she is mad, but not upset, angry or hurt.

Eliscu reveals that a source told him Britney was afraid her family would step in, which is exactly what happened on February 1, 2008, when she was placed under temporary guardianship. This made Britney’s father Jamie Spears her only conservative, as he shared guardianship of the estate with court-appointed attorney Andrew Wallet.

Next, the filmmakers play clips from their interview with a guardianship lawyer named Tony Chicotel, to correlate statements from lawyers, a doctor, and others who knew Britney during the guardianship. Chicotel explains that a guardianship is only imposed as a last resort after having tried all the other alternatives. This prevents the beneficiary from making decisions in their life, whether personal, professional or financial, from choosing their own treatments and who they want to communicate with, or even how they spend their money.

Britney Spears accepts the Favorite Pop Artist Award at the 2014 People’s Choice Awards in Los Angeles, California on January 8, 2014. Photo: REUTERS


Britney Spears accepts the Favorite Pop Artist Award at the 2014 People’s Choice Awards in Los Angeles, California on January 8, 2014. Photo: REUTERS

Images of court documents available to the public are then displayed on the screen. One shows that the supervision had been declared as a “hybrid business model”. In what appears to be a search for further evidence in the documents, the filmmakers discuss and assess how the guardianship was deliberately placed.

Eliscu says Britney suffered from dementia, which is very rare in young women. She also says Britney was denied the right as an attorney on five days’ notice to challenge or find a lawyer. It was done under the pretext that she needed protection from her then manager, Sam Lutfi. In an interview with the filmmakers, Lutfi denies the allegation and also claims that it was used as a scapegoat to deprive Britney of any knowledge of the opinion.

Britney was also denied the right to a lawyer of her choice. Old footage coupled with Carr’s storytelling shows everything Britney had to do to get Adam Streisand as a lawyer. Streisand says he appealed to the court for Britney to have an independent as conservative. The judge denied because a medical report confirmed the singer’s inability to function on her own and to maintain a client-lawyer relationship.

A court-appointed lawyer named Sam Ingham was then appointed to represent Britney. Another high-risk attempt was made in January 2009, by Eliscu for Britney to obtain another lawyer, which was overturned by the court on the grounds that Britney’s signature had been forged. In 2009, the guardianship became permanent. Chicotel claims that this is a hole in the legal system because it allows the courts to decide on the representatives of the conservatory.

Fortunately for the filmmakers, the medical report was leaked to them by an anonymous sender. He says Britney was unable to “retain and direct a lawyer” and manage her finances when in fact Britney was working on the set of “How I Met Your Mother” when the report was originally filed. Carr evaluates the documents and concludes that Dr. Edward Spar would be one of the authors of the document. However, she is unable to prove her signature on the document during her interview with the doctor.

Chicotel informs that a curator generally does not have a job. Yet Britney toured and was overworked against her will, while the doctor’s report was used against her when it came to appointing a lawyer, using her own money, or just living her life according to her. its own conditions. The singer was also coerced into stimulants while touring, but was turned down on other occasions.

In conclusion, the documentary was able to roughly summarize the events leading up to the Guardianship as 90 minutes is not enough to cover the intricacies of a whole scam. While much focused on Jamie Spears, understandably, he did not thoroughly investigate others such as Larry Rudolph, Britney’s longtime manager, and Louise Taylor, his business manager who were the alleged precursors of the Guardianship, as well as Andrew Wallet and other lawyers, Adnan Ghalib, Sam Ingham and Jason Trawick, Britney’s ex and former co-curator. Their involvement and inaction are also questionable in maintaining the ground for thirteen long years.

It appears the documentary was hastily released to solidify public support for Britney ahead of Jamie’s suspension as a Tory trial. A clear picture would have been induced if the filmmakers had waited for Jamie Spears’ final dissolution, or at least his suspension, which came a day after his release.

The author is a freelance journalist. Email: [email protected]



Leave A Reply