More stories

  • in

    Another Possible Aretha Franklin Will Surfaces in Estate Dispute

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyAnother Possible Aretha Franklin Will Surfaces in Estate DisputeLawyers for two of the singer’s sons say the document was in the files of a law firm she had engaged to help her with estate planning.Aretha Franklin was initially thought to have died without a will, but now still another document that may  represent her last wishes has been found.Credit…Paul Natkin/Getty ImagesMarch 11, 2021Updated 6:08 p.m. ETThe estate of Aretha Franklin just got a bit more complicated.When the legendary singer died at 76 in 2018, her family assumed she had no will. Then, nine months later, a few handwritten documents, which may represent two or even three wills, were found in Franklin’s home, leading to a dispute among her four sons over how her estate should be run and its assets divided.Now, a detailed document has emerged that lawyers for two of Franklin’s sons say is a draft of yet another will, from Ms. Franklin’s final years. The papers, filed in a Michigan court this week, include an eight-page document, titled “The Will of Aretha Franklin” and apparently drawn up in 2018, along with another 23 pages that lay out the terms of a trust.Both are stamped “draft,” and neither document has her signature.According to the lawyers in their filing, Ms. Franklin had retained a Detroit lawyer, Henry M. Grix, to help with her estate planning. The filing includes correspondence from Mr. Grix, dated December 2017, in which he summarizes an estate plan for Ms. Franklin, asks her some questions and refers to earlier discussions between them. The filing includes further handwritten notes, said to be from Ms. Franklin, in which she lists family members and other lawyers, along with her properties.The filing, by lawyers for her sons Ted White Jr. and Clarence Franklin, says the documents show that Ms. Franklin had been in discussions with Mr. Grix “for over two years,” and that the correspondence included her initials. After Ms. Franklin “fell very ill,” they said, another lawyer informed Mr. Grix that she was unable to sign.It is not clear how the document would affect ongoing negotiations over the estate, which has an estimated worth of as much as $80 million. The discovery of the handwritten wills upset the peace among Ms. Franklin’s sons and led to the resignation of her niece, Sabrina Owens, as executor.The new draft will would establish a trust to benefit Clarence, who has a mental illness, and would otherwise largely split Ms. Franklin’s assets among her three other sons, Mr. White and Kecalf and Edward Franklin, along with specific bequests to other relatives. That would not differ much from the likely outcome in the event Ms. Franklin had no will at all; in that case, under Michigan law, her estate would simply be divided among her four children.But the new draft will does call into question the handwritten documents found previously. The latest of those, dated 2014, would give a greater share to Kecalf, Ms. Franklin’s youngest son, and less to Clarence. A trial to determine whether any of the handwritten documents should be formally declared a will, and thus govern the estate, is set for August.The filing this week says little about how the draft documents were found. But in response to questions from The New York Times, Joseph P. Buttiglieri, a lawyer who represents the guardian for Clarence Franklin, said the documents had been turned over late last year in response to a subpoena.The filing actually says the documents were discovered in 2019, but Mr. Buttiglieri said that was a mistake.“The file was received by my office in response to a subpoena on or about Dec. 18, 2020,” Mr. Buttiglieri added. He declined to elaborate further.Mr. Grix declined to comment.Although the document was not signed by Ms. Franklin, under Michigan law it could be accepted as a valid will, said David P. Lucas, a lawyer in Battle Creek, Mich., who is the chair of the probate and estate planning section of the State Bar of Michigan, and is not involved with Ms. Franklin’s case.“If the person who wants this to be Aretha Franklin’s will can prove in court by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Franklin wanted this to be her will,” Mr. Lucas said, “then yes, the court may decide that this is her will.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    Britney Spears’s Father Says He Hopes She Won’t Need a Conservatorship

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Britney Spears’s Legal BattleControl of Spears’s Estate‘We’re Sorry, Britney’Justin Timberlake ApologizesWatch ‘Framing Britney Spears’ in the U.S.AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyBritney Spears’s Father Says He Hopes She Won’t Need a ConservatorshipThe father’s lawyer shared his opinions on the conservatorship on CNN and NBC News recently, almost a month after a documentary examining the arrangement was released.Jamie Spears, left, Britney Spears’s father, has been one of her conservators for more than a decade. He’s telling his side of the story, through a lawyer, on television.Credit…Associated PressMarch 3, 2021Updated 2:48 p.m. ETAs the legal battle and public fallout over Britney Spears’s finances and personal life continue, a lawyer for her father, Jamie Spears, has told CNN that Jamie “would love nothing more than to see Britney not need a conservatorship.”The comments came not long after “Framing Britney Spears,” a TV documentary by The New York Times, released last month, revisited the details of the conservatorship that has shaped this pop singer’s life. Since it aired, Jamie Spears’s lawyer has sought to tell her client’s side of the story on national television programs, including “Good Morning America” last week and NBC News this week.The #FreeBritney campaign, which was also explored in the documentary, has for years campaigned to portray the conservatorship arrangement as an unjust means to control Spears’s life and finances.On Tuesday night, Vivian Lee Thoreen, Jamie Spears’s lawyer, defended the singer’s conservatorship to NBC News.“Britney being safe and not being taken advantage of is his No. 1 priority,” Thoreen said about Jamie Spears as Britney Spears’s co-conservator.Spears has been in a conservatorship, or guardianship, since 2008, after a series of public meltdowns captured by paparazzi. The complicated arrangement designates a representative to manage someone’s personal affairs and their estate if they are unable to care for themselves or if they are vulnerable to outside manipulation.Thoreen told CNN that Jamie Spears “would love nothing more than to see Britney not need a conservatorship.”“Whether or not there is an end to the conservatorship really depends on Britney,” Thoreen added. “If she wants to end her conservatorship, she can file a petition to end it.”Thoreen, who once represented Jamie Spears before the documentary, has rejoined his legal team. She did not return calls seeking comment on Tuesday.In the documentary, though, she told The Times: “Of the cases I’ve been involved in, I have not seen a conservatee who has successfully terminated a conservatorship.”Jamie Spears has been one of his daughter’s conservators for more than a decade, controlling crucial aspects of her life such as her finances and her mental health care. In 2019, citing health problems, he walked back his role, and a professional conservator filled in temporarily.Britney Spears’s court-appointed lawyer, Samuel D. Ingham III, made clear for the first time in a court filing in August that the singer “strongly opposed” having her father as the conservator. Spears had rarely commented on her conservatorship. Ingham, who declined to comment on Tuesday, said at that hearing that Britney Spears believed that the conservatorship “must be changed substantially in order to reflect the major changes in her current lifestyle and her stated wishes.”Then, at a hearing in November, Ingham said that Britney Spears would not perform again as long as her father was in charge of her career. “My client has informed me that she is afraid of her father,” he told the judge.The judge, Brenda Penny, fulfilled a request by Britney Spears that Bessemer Trust, a corporate fiduciary, be added as a co-conservator. But Judge Penny did not remove Jamie Spears as a conservator of Spears’s estate. Britney Spears and her father were back in court on Feb. 11, but the judge did not order any substantive changes.In the week after the release of The Times’s documentary, some media outlets responded with apologies for their past coverage of Spears’s mental health, mothering skills and sexuality. Spears’s former boyfriend Justin Timberlake also apologized to her after the documentary re-examined their breakup.Joe Coscarelli and Julia Jacobs contributed reporting.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    Settlement Reached in Suit Accusing James Franco of Sexual Misconduct

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }What to WatchBest Movies on NetflixBest of Disney PlusBest of Amazon PrimeBest Netflix DocumentariesNew on NetflixAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storySettlement Reached in Suit Accusing James Franco of Sexual MisconductTwo former students of Mr. Franco’s have agreed to drop their claims that he had intimidated them into performing explicit sex scenes. Mr. Franco has denied the allegations.James Franco. Two former students withdrew their allegations about him.Credit…Valerie Macon/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesFeb. 21, 2021Updated 4:57 p.m. ETTwo former students who filed a lawsuit in 2019 accusing the actor and filmmaker James Franco of subjecting them to sexually exploitative auditions and film shoots at an acting and film school that he founded have agreed to drop their claims against him as part of a settlement reached earlier this month.A joint status report that was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Feb. 11 said that the two women who brought the suit, Sarah Tither-Kaplan and Toni Gaal, had agreed to drop their individual claims against Mr. Franco Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.Details of the Feb. 11 filing were reported Saturday by The Associated Press. On Sunday, lawyers for the plaintiffs confirmed the settlement, which they said would be formalized in a court filing at a later date. They did not provide further details.Ms. Tither-Kaplan and Ms. Gaal said in a 2019 filing that Mr. Franco had intimidated them into performing gratuitous sex scenes while denying them the protections of nudity riders when they were students in a master class on sex scenes at his school, Studio 4, which operated from 2014 to 2017 and had branches in Los Angeles and New York.According to the suit, Mr. Franco “sought to create a pipeline of young women who were subjected to his personal and professional sexual exploitation in the name of education.” The two women said those who cooperated were led to believe that doing so would land them roles in Mr. Franco’s films.Lawyers for Mr. Franco did not respond to an email seeking comment on Sunday. Mr. Franco has previously denied the allegations.Mr. Franco’s production company, Rabbit Bandini, and his partners, who include Vince Jolivette and Jay Davis, are also named as defendants. The two parties had been discussing a settlement for several months, according to the filing, and the lawsuit’s progress had been paused while they did so. Lawyers for Mr. Jolivette did not respond to an email seeking comment.The claims of other plaintiffs in the class-action filing will be dismissed without prejudice under the terms of the settlement, according to the report, which means they could be refiled at a later date.Before she filed the 2019 lawsuit, Ms. Tither-Kaplan and several other women had accused Mr. Franco of sexual misconduct in a Los Angeles Times story after he won a Golden Globe for his performance in “The Disaster Artist” in January 2018. Other women discussed their experiences with Mr. Franco in social media posts they shared during and after the broadcast, which came amid the #MeToo movement.Mr. Franco continued to appear in public in the days following the allegations, in which he explained that he supported the rights of women to call out acts of sexual misconduct but said the specific claims about him were inaccurate.Mr. Franco denied the allegations in an appearance on “The Late Show,” but told the host, Stephen Colbert: “If there’s restitution to be made, I will make it. I’m here to listen and learn and change my perspective where it’s off.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    Obscure Musicology Journal Sparks Battles Over Race and Free Speech

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyObscure Musicology Journal Sparks Battles Over Race and Free SpeechA scholar’s address about racism and music theory was met with a vituperative, personal response by a small journal. It faced calls to cease publishing.A debate about racism, musicology, free speech and the music theorist Heinrich Schenker — pictured here with his wife, Jeanette — has roiled academia.Credit…N. Johnson for The New York TimesFeb. 14, 2021Updated 4:27 p.m. ETA periodical devoted to the study of a long-dead European music theorist is an unlikely suspect to spark an explosive battle over race and free speech.But the tiny Journal of Schenkerian Studies, with a paid circulation of about 30 copies an issue per year, has ignited a fiery reckoning over race and the limits of academic free speech, along with whiffs of a generational struggle. The battle threatens to consume the career of Timothy Jackson, a 62-year-old music theory professor at the University of North Texas, and led to calls to dissolve the journal.It also prompted Professor Jackson to file an unusual lawsuit charging the university with violating his First Amendment rights — while accusing his critics of defamation.This tale began in the autumn of 2019 when Philip Ewell, a Black music theory professor at Hunter College, addressed the Society for Music Theory in Columbus, Ohio. He described music theory as dominated by white males and beset by racism. He held up the theorist Heinrich Schenker, who died in Austria in 1935, as an exemplar of that flawed world, a “virulent racist” who wrote of “primitive” and “inferior” races — views, he argued, that suffused his theories of music.“I’ve only scratched the surface in showing out how Schenker’s racism permeates his music theories,” Professor Ewell said, accusing generations of Schenker scholars of trying to “whitewash” the theorist in an act of “colorblind racism.”The society’s members — its professoriate is 94 percent white — responded with a standing ovation. Many younger faculty members and graduate students embraced his call to dismantle “white mythologies” and study non-European music forms. The tone was of repentance.“We humbly acknowledge that we have much work to do to dismantle the whiteness and systemic racism that deeply shape our discipline,” the society’s executive board later stated.At the University of North Texas, however, Professor Jackson, a white musicologist, watched a video of that speech and felt a swell of anger. His fellow scholars stood accused, some by name, of constructing a white “witness protection program” and shrugging off Schenker’s racism. That struck him as unfair and inaccurate, as some had explored Schenker’s oft-hateful views on race and ethnicity.A tenured music theory professor, Professor Jackson was the grandson of Jewish émigrés and had lost many relatives in the Holocaust. He had a singular passion: He searched out lost works by Jewish composers hounded and killed by the Nazis.And he devoted himself to the study of Schenker, a towering Jewish intellect credited with stripping music to its essence in search of an internal language. The Journal of Schenkerian Studies, published under the aegis of the University of North Texas, was read by a small but intense coterie of scholars.He and other North Texas professors decided to explore Professor Ewell’s claims about connections between Schenker’s racial views and music theories.They called for essays and published every submission. Five essays stoutly defended Professor Ewell; most of the remaining 10 essays took strong issue. One was anonymous. Another was plainly querulous. (“Ewell of course would reply that I am white and by extension a purveyor of white music theory, while he is Black,” wrote David Beach, a retired dean of music at the University of Toronto. “I can’t argue with that.”).Professor Jackson’s essay was barbed. Schenker, he wrote, was no privileged white man. Rather he was a Jew in prewar Germany, the definition of the persecuted other. The Nazis destroyed much of his work and his wife perished in a concentration camp.Professor Jackson then took an incendiary turn. He wrote that Professor Ewell had scapegoated Schenker within “the much larger context of Black-on-Jew attacks in the United States” and that his “denunciation of Schenker and Schenkerians may be seen as part and parcel of the much broader current of Black anti-Semitism.” He wrote that such phenomena “currently manifest themselves in myriad ways, including the pattern of violence against Jews, the obnoxious lyrics of some hip-hop songs, etc.”Timothy Jackson, a professor at the University of North Texas, was removed from the Journal of Schenkerian Studies after publishing an issue that was denounced as racist.Credit…N. Johnson for The New York TimesNoting the paucity of Black musicians in classical music, Professor Jackson wrote that “few grow up in homes where classical music is profoundly valued.” He proposed increased funding for music education and a commitment to demolishing “institutionalized racist barriers.”And he took pointed shots at Professor Ewell.“I understand full well,” Professor Jackson wrote, “that Ewell only attacks Schenker as a pretext to his main argument: That liberalism is a racist conspiracy to deny rights to ‘people of color.’”His remarks lit a rhetorical match. The journal appeared in late July. Within days the executive board of the Society for Music Theory stated that several essays contained “anti-Black statements and personal ad hominem attacks” and said that its failure to invite Professor Ewell to respond was designed to “replicate a culture of whiteness.”Soon after, 900 professors and graduate students signed a letter denouncing the journal’s editors for ignoring peer review. The essays, they stated, constituted “anti-Black racism.”Graduate students at the University of North Texas issued an unsigned manifesto calling for the journal to be dissolved and for the “potential removal” of faculty members who used it “to promote racism.”University of North Texas officials in December released an investigation that accused Professor Jackson of failing to hew to best practices and of having too much power over the journal’s graduate student editor. He was barred him from the magazine, and money for the Schenker Center was suspended.Jennifer Evans-Crowley, the university’s provost, did not rule out that disciplinary steps might be taken against Professor Jackson. “I can’t speak to that at this time,” she told The New York Times.Professor Jackson stands shunned by fellow faculty. Two graduate students who support him told me their peers feared that working with him could damage their careers.“Everything has become exceedingly polarized and the Twitter mob is like a quasi-fascist police state,” Professor Jackson said in an interview. “Any imputation of racism is anathema and therefore I must be exorcised.”This controversy raises intertwined questions. What is the role of universities in policing intellectual debate? Academic duels can be metaphorically bloody affairs. Marxists slash and parry with monetarists; postmodernists trade punches with modernists. Tenure and tradition traditionally shield sharp-tongued academics from censure.For a university to intrude struck others as alarming. Samantha Harris, a lawyer with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, a free speech advocacy group, urged the university to drop its investigation.She did not argue Professor Jackson’s every word was temperate.“This is an academic disagreement and it should be hashed out in journals of music theory,” Ms. Harris said. “The academic debate centers on censorship and putting orthodoxy over education, and that is chilling.”That said, race is an electric wire in American society and a traditional defense of untrammeled speech on campus competes with a newer view that speech itself can constitute violence. Professors who denounced the journal stressed that they opposed censorship but noted pointedly that cultural attitudes are shifting.“I’m educated in the tradition that says the best response to bad speech is more speech,” said Professor Edward Klorman of McGill University. “But sometimes the traditional idea of free speech comes into conflict with safety and inclusivity.”There is too a question with which intellectuals have long wrestled. What to make of intellectuals who voice monstrous thoughts? The renowned philosopher Martin Heidegger was a Nazi Party member and Paul de Man, a deconstructionist literary theorist, wrote for pro-Nazi publications. The Japanese writer Yukio Mishima eroticized fascism and tried to inspire a coup.Schenker, who was born in Galicia, part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, was an ardent cultural Germanophile and given to dyspeptic diatribes. He spoke of the “filthy” French; English, and Italians as “inferior races”; and Slavs as “half animals.” Africans had a “cannibal spirit.”Did his theoretical brilliance counter the weight of disreputable rages?Professor Ewell argued that Schenker’s racism and theories are inseparable. “At a minimum,” he wrote in a paper, “we must present Schenker’s work to our students in full view of his racist beliefs.”The dispute has played out beyond the United States. Forty-six scholars and musicians in Europe and the Middle East wrote a defense of Professor Jackson and sounded a puzzled note. Professor Ewell, they wrote, delivered a provocative polemic with accusations aimed at living scholars and Professor Jackson simply answered in kind.Neither professor is inclined to back down. A cellist and scholar of Russian classical music, Professor Ewell, 54, describes himself as an activist for racial, gender and social justice and a critic of whiteness in music theory.Shortly after the Journal of Schenkerian Studies appeared in July, Professor Ewell — who eight years ago published in that journal — canceled a lecture at the University of North Texas. He said he had not read the essays that criticized him.“I won’t read them because I won’t participate in my dehumanization,” he told The Denton Record-Chronicle in Texas. “They were incensed by my Blackness challenging their whiteness.”Professor Ewell, who also is on the faculty of the City University of New York Graduate Center, declined an interview with The Times. He is part of a generation of scholars who are undertaking critical-race examinations of their fields. In “Music Theory and the White Racial Frame,” the paper he presented in Columbus, he writes that he is for all intents “a practitioner of white music theory” and that “rigorous conversations about race and whiteness” are required to “make fundamental antiracist changes in our structures and institutions.”For music programs to require mastery of German, he has said, “is racist obviously.” He has criticized the requirement that music Ph.D. students study German or a limited number of “white” languages, noting that at Yale he needed a dispensation to study Russian. He wrote that the “antiracist policy solution” would be “to require languages with one new caveat: any language — including sign language and computer languages, for instance — is acceptable with the exception of Ancient Greek, Latin, Italian, French or German, which will only be allowed by petition as a dispensation.”Last April he fired a broadside at Beethoven, writing that it would be academically irresponsible to call him more than an “above average” composer. Beethoven, he wrote, “has been propped up by whiteness and maleness for 200 years.”As for Schenker, Professor Ewell argued that his racism informed his music theories: “As with the inequality of races, Schenker believed in the inequality of tones.”That view is contested. Professor Eric Wen arrived in the United States from Hong Kong six decades ago and amid slurs and loneliness discovered in classical music what he describes as a colorblind solace. Schenker held a key to mysteries.“Schenker penetrated to the heart of what makes music enduring and inspiring,” said Professor Wen, who teaches at the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia. “He was no angel and so what? His ideology is problematic but his insights are massive.”How this ends is not clear. The university report portrayed Professor Jackson as hijacking the journal, ignoring a graduate student editor, making decisions on his own and tossing aside peer review.A trove of internal emails, which were included as exhibits in the lawsuit, casts doubt on some of those claims. Far from being a captive project of Professor Jackson, the emails show that members of the journal’s editorial staff were deeply involved in the planning of the issue, and that several colleagues on the faculty at North Texas, including one seen as an ally of Professor Ewell, helped draft its call for papers. When cries of racism arose, all but one of those colleagues denounced the journal. A graduate student editor publicly claimed to have participated because he “feared retaliation” from Professor Jackson, who was his superior, and said he had essentially agreed with Professor Ewell all along. The emails paint a contradictory picture, as he had described Professor Ewell’s paper as “naive.”Professor Jackson hired a lawyer who specialized in such cases, Michael Allen, and the lawsuit he filed against his university charges retaliation against his free speech rights. More extraordinary, he sued fellow professors and a graduate student for defamation. That aspect of the lawsuit was a step too far for FIRE, the free speech group, which supported targeting the university but took the view that suing colleagues and students was a tit-for-tat exercise in squelching speech.“We believe such lawsuits are generally unwise,” the group stated, “and can often chill or target core protected speech.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    Control of Britney Spears’s Estate Debated at Court Hearing

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Britney Spears’s Legal BattleControl of Spears’s Estate‘We’re Sorry, Britney’Justin Timberlake ApologizesWatch ‘Framing Britney Spears’ in the U.S.AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyControl of Britney Spears’s Estate Debated at Court HearingLawyers for the pop star and her father, from whom she is estranged, discussed how he would share management of her finances with a corporate fiduciary.Fans of Britney Spears returned to a courthouse in Los Angeles on Thursday to argue in favor of ending the conservatorship that now directs her life and finances. Credit…Mike Blake/ReutersJoe Coscarelli and Published More

  • in

    Britney Spears Conservatorship Case Heads Back to Court

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyBritney Spears Conservatorship Case Heads Back to CourtAfter a new documentary about Spears by The New York Times was shown, calls to #FreeBritney were joined by a new message: “We are sorry, Britney.”Behind the scenes during the shoot for the “Lucky” music video in 2000. A moment captured by Britney’s assistant and friend Felicia Culotta.Credit…Courtesy of Felicia CulottaFeb. 9, 2021Updated 7:01 p.m. ETThe legal battle over who should control Britney Spears’s finances and personal life is scheduled to return to the courtroom later this week amid a renewed discussion of how she was treated during her meteoric rise as a teenage pop star and during her subsequent mental health struggles.The issue resurfaced in recent days after “Framing Britney Spears,” a documentary by The New York Times, premiered Friday on FX and Hulu. The film centers on the conflict over Spears’s conservatorship, a legal arrangement that has allowed other people — primarily her father — to manage her career, her personal life and her finances since 2008.In tracing back the origins of the current legal battle, the documentary tells a story of a gifted performer who for decades has been surrounded by people seeking to capitalize off her, and who was ultimately driven to desperation by an insidious celebrity culture and paparazzi who would not leave her alone.The film also explores the #FreeBritney movement, a campaign by fans that seeks to portray the conservatorship as a money-hungry means to exert control over Spears.Since the new documentary’s debut, these calls have multiplied, with several celebrities joining in and amplifying a movement that was once confined to a niche group of activists and superfans. In posts on Instagram and Twitter on Tuesday, Spears appeared to comment indirectly on the documentary by sharing a performance of hers from a few years ago and writing, “I’ll always love being on stage …. but I am taking the time to learn and be a normal person ….. I love simply enjoying the basics of every day life!!!!”“Remember, no matter what we think we know about a person’s life,” she wrote, “it is nothing compared to the actual person living behind the lens.”With a hearing scheduled on Thursday in Los Angeles, here is a breakdown of the conservatorship controversy.Dressed in a pink silk dress, Britney poses with her chaperone and friend, Felicia Culotta, in 2000.Credit…Courtesy of Felicia CulottaWhat is a conservatorship?Sometimes known as a guardianship, a conservatorship is a complex legal arrangement typically reserved for the old, ill or infirm. A representative is designated to manage the person’s affairs and estate if that person is deemed to be unable to take care of themselves or vulnerable to outside influence or manipulation.Spears has lived under a conservatorship since 2008, after a string of public meltdowns (which, the documentary notes, were aggressively captured by paparazzi who followed Spears nearly everywhere she went). For more than a decade, Spears’s father, James P. Spears, known as Jamie, has overseen much of his daughter’s financial and personal life as one of the conservators. The appointed conservators have control over everything from Spears’s mental health care to where and when she can travel; the setup means that Spears’s conservators are required to submit detailed accounts of her purchases to the court — even minor charges like $5 purchases at Sonic Drive-In or Target.Conservatorships are always portrayed as being for a person’s protection. Representatives for Jamie Spears have said that his stewardship over her career likely saved her from financial ruin. He said in court filings that his “sole motivation has been his unconditional love for his daughter and a fierce desire to protect her from those trying to take advantage of her.”Jamie Spears stepped back from his role as his daughter’s personal conservator in 2019, citing health problems; a professional conservator took his place temporarily. The current court battle revolves around control over Spears’s estate.A new documentary from The New York Times examines the so-called Free Britney movement made up of fans of the pop star Britney Spears.CreditCredit…G. Paul Burnett/The New York TimesWhere does the issue stand in court?Last summer, the contours of the case changed drastically when Spears’s court-appointed lawyer, Samuel D. Ingham III, said in a court filing for the first time that his client “strongly opposed” her father as conservator. In requesting that Spears’s temporary personal conservator, Jodi Montgomery, a professional in the field, be made permanent, Ingham left open the possibility that Spears might one day seek to terminate the conservatorship fully.“Without in any way waiving her right to seek termination of this conservatorship in the future,” Ingham wrote, “Britney would like Ms. Montgomery’s appointment as conservator of her person to be made permanent.”In November, a judge declined to immediately remove Jamie Spears as head of his daughter’s estate; at the same time, the judge added a corporate fiduciary, Bessemer Trust, as co-conservator, as the singer requested.In December, the judge extended Montgomery’s temporary role as personal conservator until September of this year.The hearing on Thursday in Los Angeles will likely include a discussion of the roles that Jamie Spears and Bessemer Trust will play in managing the estate. A lawyer for Jamie Spears did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Britney poses with a rose on her head during a photo shoot in 2000. Rose imagery recurs throughout Britney’s career — today roses are woven throughout her Instagram feed.Credit…Courtesy of Felicia CulottaWhat does Britney Spears want?What has become clear in recent months through her lawyer, according to court filings, is that Britney Spears no longer wants her father to serve as her conservator.At a court hearing in November, the singer’s lawyer said that “she is afraid of her father,” whom she has not spoken to in a long time, and that she will not perform again if her father maintains control over her career, The Associated Press reported.For years, Spears had largely ignored the calls from fans to #FreeBritney, but more recently, she signaled some approval when her lawyer wrote in a court filing that his client “welcomes and appreciates the informed support of her many fans.”(Her father has referred to #FreeBritney activists as “conspiracy theorists.”)What is less clear is whether Britney Spears intends to try to terminate the conservatorship in the near future. Her initial aversion to the arrangement was clear in 2008, when, in an interview with MTV, Spears compared her circumstances to a jail sentence with no end.In her social media posts on Tuesday, Spears wrote, “Each person has their story and their take on other people’s stories.”Her current boyfriend, Sam Asghari, came out earlier Tuesday with a blunt criticism of Jamie Spears, writing in an Instagram story that he has “zero respect for someone trying to control our relationship and constantly throwing obstacles in our way.”Who else has spoken up?The #FreeBritney movement has gotten attention from celebrities before, such as when Miley Cyrus shouted out the phrase during a concert in 2019. But the film has amplified the support — and sparked a reckoning from journalists and others around how they may have played into the hypercritical Britney obsession of the aughts.In the days after the documentary dropped, celebrities like Sarah Jessica Parker, Bette Midler and Andy Cohen tweeted out the hashtag. Calling the documentary a “gut punch,” the actress Valerie Bertinelli tweeted a list of men who she believed to have harmed Spears throughout her career. The singer Hayley Williams wrote that “no artist today” would have to endure what Spears did.In the days after the documentary’s debut, another message, which was popularized by celebrities including the singer Courtney Love, began trending: “We Are Sorry, Britney.” It was a sorrowful admission that the intrusions into Spears’s private life, the fixation on her sexuality and the relentless focus on her mistakes rested on the shoulders of many.Joe Coscarelli contributed reporting.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    FKA twigs Sues Shia LaBeouf, Citing Abusive Relationship

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyFKA twigs Sues Shia LaBeouf, Citing ‘Relentless’ Abusive RelationshipThe lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles by the musician, accuses the actor of sexual battery, assault and infliction of emotional distress.The musician FKA twigs, born Tahliah Debrett Barnett, filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court that accuses the actor Shia LaBeouf of sexual battery, assault and infliction of emotional distress.Credit…Ana Cuba for The New York TimesKatie Benner and Dec. 11, 2020Updated 6:12 p.m. ETJust after Valentine’s Day in 2019, the musician FKA twigs was in a car speeding toward Los Angeles. At the wheel was her boyfriend, the actor Shia LaBeouf. He was driving recklessly, she said in a lawsuit filed on Friday, removing his seatbelt and threatening to crash unless she professed her love for him.They were returning from the desert, where Mr. LaBeouf, the star of “Transformers,” had raged at her throughout the trip, FKA twigs said in the lawsuit, once waking her up in the middle of the night, choking her. After she begged to be let out of the car, she said he pulled over at a gas station and she took her bags from the trunk. But Mr. LaBeouf followed, and assaulted her, throwing her against the car while screaming in her face, according to the suit. He then forced her back in the car.The gas station incident is at the heart of the lawsuit that says Mr. LaBeouf, 34, abused FKA twigs physically, emotionally and mentally many times in a relationship that lasted just short of a year. Her aim in coming forward, she said in an interview, was to explain how even a critically acclaimed artist with money, a home and a strong network of supporters could be caught in such a cycle.“I’d like to be able to raise awareness on the tactics that abusers use to control you and take away your agency,” FKA twigs, 32, born Tahliah Debrett Barnett, said.Mr. LaBeouf responded Thursday to the concerns raised by Ms. Barnett, and a second former girlfriend who has accused him of abusive behavior, in an email that broadly addressed his conduct.“I’m not in any position to tell anyone how my behavior made them feel,” he said in an email to The New York Times. “I have no excuses for my alcoholism or aggression, only rationalizations. I have been abusive to myself and everyone around me for years. I have a history of hurting the people closest to me. I’m ashamed of that history and am sorry to those I hurt. There is nothing else I can really say.”The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, says that Mr. LaBeouf knowingly gave Ms. Barnett a sexually transmitted disease. It accuses him of “relentless abuse,” including sexual battery, assault and infliction of emotional distress.Mr. LaBeouf and his representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.“I have no excuses for my alcoholism or aggression, only rationalizations,” Mr. LaBeouf wrote in an email to The New York Times. Responding to specific accusations in another email, he wrote that “many of these allegations are not true.”Credit…Mark Blinch/ReutersKarolyn Pho, a stylist who is another of Mr. LaBeouf’s former girlfriends, described similarly tumultuous experiences to The Times, some of which are also outlined in the lawsuit. Once, the suit says, he drunkenly pinned her to a bed and head-butted her, enough that she bled. Afterward, she began to grapple with the idea that he was abusing her. “So much goes into breaking down a man or woman to make them OK with a certain kind of treatment,” she said in an interview.Presented with a detailed account of the claims that the women made against him, in interviews and subsequently in the lawsuit, Mr. LaBeouf, responding in a separate email, wrote that “many of these allegations are not true.” But, he continued, he owed the women “the opportunity to air their statements publicly and accept accountability for those things I have done.”He added that he was “a sober member of a 12-step program” and in therapy. “I am not cured of my PTSD and alcoholism,” he wrote, “but I am committed to doing what I need to do to recover, and I will forever be sorry to the people that I may have harmed along the way.”Mr. LaBeouf has a long history of turbulent behavior. He has been arrested several times on charges that have been dismissed, including assault and disorderly conduct, according to newspaper reports and public records. In 2015, strangers recorded video of him arguing with his girlfriend at the time, the actress Mia Goth, telling her, “This is the kind of thing that makes a person abusive.” After the men recording Mr. LaBeouf gave him a ride, he told them: “If I’d have stayed there, I would’ve killed her,” according to the video.Ms. Barnett said Mr. LaBeouf would squeeze or grab her to the point of bruising. But she did not go to the police, she said, first out of a misguided concern about harming his career, and later because she thought her account would not be taken seriously, and it would be futile.Though many states have laws that treat gender-based, sexual or domestic violence as a civil rights violation, tort suits of the kind Ms. Barnett is pursuing, with a daunting account of painful moments, are relatively uncommon; most often, allegations arise amid divorce or custody proceedings, or while seeking orders of protection. But there has been a slight uptick in civil claims since the #MeToo movement, amid more attention on the complex nature of abuse, said Julie Goldscheid, a law professor at CUNY Law School who studies gender violence and civil rights.Three women die each day at the hands of their abusers, according to the National Organization for Women. The pandemic has exacerbated dangerous situations by forcing partners to stay without interruption in close quarters, law enforcement officials said, and hotlines around the world have reported an increase in calls for help.In the lawsuit, Ms. Barnett describes how she met Mr. LaBeouf in 2018, when she was cast in “Honey Boy,” a mostly autobiographical film he wrote, and they started dating after the movie wrapped. The early days of their relationship were marked by his “over-the-top displays of affection,” she says in the lawsuit, which helped earn her trust.In an abusive relationship, there’s often a “honeymoon phase,” as some experts call it, that builds intimacy and sets a benchmark for how happy the romance could be. It serves as a powerful lure; though flashes of bliss may remain, they are meted out through increasingly controlling demands and impossible standards of behavior.Noah Jupe and Ms. Barnett on the set of “Honey Boy,” a mostly autobiographical film Mr. LaBeouf wrote.Credit…Amazon StudiosIn the lawsuit, Ms. Barnett and Ms. Pho said that Mr. LaBeouf did not like it if they spoke to or looked at male waiters; in an interview, Ms. Barnett said she learned to keep her eyes down when men spoke to her. She also stated in the suit that Mr. LaBeouf had rules about how many times a day she had to kiss and touch him, which he enforced with constant haranguing and criticism.Mr. LaBeouf convinced Ms. Barnett to stay with him in Los Angeles, she said, rather than move back to London where she and her professional circle lived. It was a step toward her isolation, she said. And he would often say that her creative team used her, a message that eventually led her to doubt them.But living with him became frightening, she said. The lawsuit says that he kept a loaded firearm by the bed and that she was scared to use the bathroom at night lest he mistake her for an intruder and shoot her. He didn’t let her wear clothing to bed, and would spin a trifling disagreement — over an artist she liked and he didn’t, for example — into an all-night fight, depriving her of sleep, the suit says.The situation came just as she was completing what became her most critically lauded album, “Magdalene.” Ms. Barnett said she found herself in stasis, struggling to fulfill her professional duties, and confounding her friends and colleagues. “Twigs is always the driving force behind her career — always a step ahead of everyone else,” said her longtime manager, Michael Stirton. “This was an extreme change in her personality and character.” The album’s release was delayed multiple times, and a tour was rescheduled at great cost, Mr. Stirton said, as Ms. Barnett receded. “I could speak to her,” he said. “But I couldn’t reach her.”As Ms. Barnett grew more isolated, she said she felt as though her safety nets were unraveling. The gas station incident had happened in public, she said, and no one stepped to her aid; an early attempt she made to tell a colleague was brushed off. “I just thought to myself, no one is ever going to believe me,” she said in an interview. “I’m unconventional. And I’m a person of color who is a female.”Slowly, with the help of a therapist, she began to strategize her exit. While she was packing to leave in spring 2019, Mr. LaBeouf turned up unannounced and terrorized her, according to a sworn statement from a witness, her housekeeper, in the lawsuit. When Ms. Barnett wouldn’t leave with him, the statement says, he “violently grabbed” her, picked her up and locked her in another room, where he yelled at her.Escaping him began to seem “both difficult and dangerous,” the lawsuit says. And even as she grew in resolve, she felt overwhelmed, she told her therapist, in an email The Times has reviewed. Though she had the means, it took several attempts for Ms. Barnett to extricate herself, she said in an interview. And it was only afterward that she realized how broken down she had become.“The whole time I was with him, I could have bought myself a business-flight plane ticket back to my four-story townhouse in Hackney,” in London, she said. And yet she didn’t. “He brought me so low, below myself, that the idea of leaving him and having to work myself back up just seemed impossible,” she said.In her lawsuit, Ms. Barnett said she plans to donate a significant portion of any monetary damages to domestic-violence charities. “It was actually very expensive, and a massive undertaking of time and resources, to get out,” she said in an interview. Her status makes her situation unusual, she said. But she wanted to share her story because it was otherwise so common.“What I went through with Shia was the worst thing I’ve ever been through in the whole of my life,” she said. “I don’t think people would ever think that it would happen to me. But I think that’s the thing. It can happen to anybody.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More