news #FREEBRITNEY | Britney’s Gram Received Worrying Voicemail Regarding Britney

[GirlOnTheMoon]

8 minutes ago, marioh said:

Jason Trawick really let himself go...

 

[DollyParton]

1 hour ago, MeAgainstTheMusic_ said:

How does it not make sense? Ok Team B I can categorically say that Britney will NOT have access to the internet. If she did she would have looked for a way out long before now. Her mangement control her social media and in an interview for the intimate collection in 2014 she is heard asking Robyn to tweet something out. She does not have control. 

So you really think Larry tells the media that Britney will not ever been in shape again to perform, and then days later post a video on instagram where she is killing some dance moves? How does that make any sense?

[Derrick]

4 hours ago, troubleforyou said:

Better than 2016 and 2008.

Definitely recent. 

Probably after her Gayle interview, fresh manicure!

Gahhhh if it’s true I can’t wait!

 

[holditagainstbritney]

27 minutes ago, jordeezy said:

Lol Courtney Love just told me to read her "Breaking a Butterfly Op ed"... does anyone know where I can find that?  2019 is weird, yall

I think she meant the op-ed in defense of Mick Jagger

[C0CKy]

20 minutes ago, marioh said:

Jason Trawick really let himself go...

He looks better than ever, imho. 

[LiquoriceBabe]

2 hours ago, Cigarettes&Cologne said:

why do people think it's her team posting them though? and what's so wrong with posting old photos lol? don't we all do it?

Britney doesn't have access to a phone or the internet 

 

We shouldn't be discussing the pics, they're a distraction.

[MadameFreedom]

17 minutes ago, Alex_1991 said:

 

her hair, light make up and hairbrows look exacly the same, and this pic is from yesterday. 

And she looks happy same as on the photos with Sam

[div]

43 minutes ago, breatheheavy said:

These don't look new to me  but regardless she looks amazing 

How ? She looks like today’s candids

[PokemonSpears]

8 minutes ago, JKW said:

So you really think Larry tells the media that Britney will not ever been in shape again to perform, and then days later post a video on instagram where she is killing some dance moves? How does that make any sense?

[jokobish]

dude in the middle knows what’s up. He said himself he thinks her team are using her “mental disorder” as a ploy so they don’t have to pay back MGM. The girls keep cutting him off and agreeing with Larry , but he knows what’s up. He also said she has no say in anything and compared her to being chained up. The stupid ******* keep saying there’s something wrong with her. But shoutout to them for all loving blackout I guess ??‍♂️

[summer2summer]

There's an alleged audio of her "gayle interview" . 

And there's a psychic that says her "end" is this year   if you know what i mean and that it will be late for us to save her 

[LiquoriceBabe]

24 minutes ago, JKW said:

So you really think Larry tells the media that Britney will not ever been in shape again to perform, and then days later post a video on instagram where she is killing some dance moves? How does that make any sense?

Larry acted by himself to safe his face, though. 

He said something he wasn't supposed to, so they cut him. To fix it, Taylor posted the video, the pics and got CNN to release the article:

"It's not even about whether she will work again, maybe she will or won't," one source said. 

[Avatar]

3 minutes ago, summer2summer said:

There's an alleged audio of her "gayle interview" . 

And there's a psychic that says her "end" is this year   if you know what i mean and that it will be late for us to save her 

When the **** did they say that? 

[holditagainstbritney]

41 minutes ago, jordeezy said:

Lol Courtney Love just told me to read her "Breaking a Butterfly Op ed"... does anyone know where I can find that?  2019 is weird, yall

Couldn’t find any op-ed under Courtney’s name, but I did find the Mick Jagger op-ed she references

Spoiler

Who Breaks a Butterfly on a Wheel?

Mr. Jagger has been sentenced to imprisonment for 3 months. He is appealing against conviction and sentence, and has been granted bail until the hearing of the appeal later in the year. In the meantime the sentence of of imprisonment is bound to be widely discussed by the public. And the circumstances are sufficiently unusual to warrant such discussion in the public interest.

Mr. Jagger was charged with being in possession of four tablets containing amphetamine sulphate and methyl amphetamine hydrochloride; these tablets had been bought perfectly legally in Italy, and brought back to this country. They are not a highly dangerous ****, or in proper dosage, a dangerous **** at all. They are a Benzedrine type and the Italian manufacturers recommend them both as a stimulant and as a remedy for travel sickness.

In Britain, it is an offence to possess these ***** without a doctors prescription. Mr. Jagger's doctor says that he knew and had authorized their use, but he did not give a prescription for them as indeed they had already been purchased. His evidence was not challenged. This was, therefore, an offence of technical character which before this case drew the point to public attention any honest man might have been liable to commit. If after his visit to the pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury had bought propriety air sickness pills on Rome Airport and imported the unused tablets into Britain on his return, he would of risked committing precisely the same offence. No one who has ever traveled and bought proprietary ***** abroad can be sure that he has not broken the law.

Judge Block directed the jury that the approval of a doctor is not a defence in law to the charge of possessing ***** without a prescription, and the jury convicted. Mr. Jagger was not charged with complicity in any other **** offence that occurred in the same house. They were separate cases, and no evidence was produced to suggest that he knew Mr. Fraser had ****** tablets or that the vanishing Mr. Snidermann had cannabis resin. It is indeed no offence to be in the same building or the same company as people possessing or even using *****, nor could it reasonably be made an offence. The ***** that Mr. Jagger had in his possession must therefore be treated on their own as a separate issue from the other ***** that the other people may have had in their possession at the same time. It may be difficult for lay opinion to make this distinction clearly, but obviously justice cannot be done if one man is to be punished for a purely contingent association with someone else's offence.

We have therefore, a conviction against Mr. Jagger purely on the grounds that he possessed four Italian pep pills, quite legally bought, but not legally imported without a prescription. Four is not a large number. This is not a quantity which a pusher of ***** would have on him, nor even the quantity one would expect in an addict. In any case Mr. Jagger's career is obviously one that does involve great personal strain and exhaustion; his doctor says that he approves the occasional use of these *****, and it seems likely that similar ***** would have been prescribed if there was a need for them. Millions of similar ***** are prescribed in Britain every year, and for a variety of conditions. One has to ask, therefore, how it is that this technical offence, divorced as it must be from other people's offences, was thought to deserve the penalty of imprisonment. In the courts at large it is most uncommon for imprisonment to be imposed on first offenders where the ***** are not major ***** of addiction and there is no question of **** traffic. The normal penalty is probation, and the purpose of probation is to encourage the offender to develop his career and to avoid the **** risks in the future. It is surprising therefore that Judge Block should have decided to sentence Mr. Jagger to imprisonment, and particularly surprising as Mr. Jagger's is about as mild a **** case as can ever have been brought before the courts.

It would be wrong to speculate on the judge's reasons, which we do not know. It is, however, possible to consider the public reaction. There are many people who take a primitive view of the matter, what one might call a pre-legal view of the matter. That consider that Mr. Jagger has 'got what was coming to him.' They resent the anarchic quality of the Rolling Stones performances, dislike their songs, dislike their influence on teenagers and broadly suspect them of decadence, a word used by Miss Monica Furlong in the Daily Mail.

As a sociological concern, this may be reasonable enough, and at an emotional level, it is very understandable, but it has nothing at all to do with the case. One has to ask a different question: Has Mr. Jagger received the same treatment as he would have received if he had not been a famous figure, with all the criticism his celebrity has aroused? If a promising undergraduate had come back from a summer visit to Italy with four pep pills in his pocket would it have been thought necessary to display him, handcuffed, to the public? There are cases in which a single figure becomes the focus for public concern about some aspects of public morality. The Steven Ward case, with it's dubious evidence and questionable verdict, was one of them, and that verdict killed Steven Ward. There are elements of the same emotions in the reactions to this case. If we are going to make any case a symbol of the conflict between the sound traditional values of Britain and the new hedonism, then we must be sure that the sound traditional values include those of tolerance and equity. It should be the particular quality of British justice to ensure that Mr. Jagger is treated exactly the same as anyone else, no better and no worse. There must remain a suspicion in this case that Mr. Jagger received a more severe sentence than would have been thought proper for any purely anonymous young man.

- William Rees Mogg, july 1st 1967
 

 

[Isla]

The video is definitely old although I do think Britney deliberately chose Scream to be featured in the background. I'm not sure about the pics with Sam but I don't think they're that old.

[summer2summer]

35 minutes ago, Avatar said:

When the **** did they say that? 

I dont know , i just randomly read it when i was browsing that so called gayle audio . I think we should just ignore it . They predicted the same thing last year but got it wrong , im just being paranoid maybe 

This whole piece of **** events are stressing me out . God knows how she feels .

[jordeezy river red]

3 minutes ago, holditagainstbritney said:

Couldn’t find any op-ed under Courtney’s name, but I did find the Mick Jagger op-ed she references

  Hide contents

Who Breaks a Butterfly on a Wheel?

Mr. Jagger has been sentenced to imprisonment for 3 months. He is appealing against conviction and sentence, and has been granted bail until the hearing of the appeal later in the year. In the meantime the sentence of of imprisonment is bound to be widely discussed by the public. And the circumstances are sufficiently unusual to warrant such discussion in the public interest.

Mr. Jagger was charged with being in possession of four tablets containing amphetamine sulphate and methyl amphetamine hydrochloride; these tablets had been bought perfectly legally in Italy, and brought back to this country. They are not a highly dangerous ****, or in proper dosage, a dangerous **** at all. They are a Benzedrine type and the Italian manufacturers recommend them both as a stimulant and as a remedy for travel sickness.

In Britain, it is an offence to possess these ***** without a doctors prescription. Mr. Jagger's doctor says that he knew and had authorized their use, but he did not give a prescription for them as indeed they had already been purchased. His evidence was not challenged. This was, therefore, an offence of technical character which before this case drew the point to public attention any honest man might have been liable to commit. If after his visit to the pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury had bought propriety air sickness pills on Rome Airport and imported the unused tablets into Britain on his return, he would of risked committing precisely the same offence. No one who has ever traveled and bought proprietary ***** abroad can be sure that he has not broken the law.

Judge Block directed the jury that the approval of a doctor is not a defence in law to the charge of possessing ***** without a prescription, and the jury convicted. Mr. Jagger was not charged with complicity in any other **** offence that occurred in the same house. They were separate cases, and no evidence was produced to suggest that he knew Mr. Fraser had ****** tablets or that the vanishing Mr. Snidermann had cannabis resin. It is indeed no offence to be in the same building or the same company as people possessing or even using *****, nor could it reasonably be made an offence. The ***** that Mr. Jagger had in his possession must therefore be treated on their own as a separate issue from the other ***** that the other people may have had in their possession at the same time. It may be difficult for lay opinion to make this distinction clearly, but obviously justice cannot be done if one man is to be punished for a purely contingent association with someone else's offence.

We have therefore, a conviction against Mr. Jagger purely on the grounds that he possessed four Italian pep pills, quite legally bought, but not legally imported without a prescription. Four is not a large number. This is not a quantity which a pusher of ***** would have on him, nor even the quantity one would expect in an addict. In any case Mr. Jagger's career is obviously one that does involve great personal strain and exhaustion; his doctor says that he approves the occasional use of these *****, and it seems likely that similar ***** would have been prescribed if there was a need for them. Millions of similar ***** are prescribed in Britain every year, and for a variety of conditions. One has to ask, therefore, how it is that this technical offence, divorced as it must be from other people's offences, was thought to deserve the penalty of imprisonment. In the courts at large it is most uncommon for imprisonment to be imposed on first offenders where the ***** are not major ***** of addiction and there is no question of **** traffic. The normal penalty is probation, and the purpose of probation is to encourage the offender to develop his career and to avoid the **** risks in the future. It is surprising therefore that Judge Block should have decided to sentence Mr. Jagger to imprisonment, and particularly surprising as Mr. Jagger's is about as mild a **** case as can ever have been brought before the courts.

It would be wrong to speculate on the judge's reasons, which we do not know. It is, however, possible to consider the public reaction. There are many people who take a primitive view of the matter, what one might call a pre-legal view of the matter. That consider that Mr. Jagger has 'got what was coming to him.' They resent the anarchic quality of the Rolling Stones performances, dislike their songs, dislike their influence on teenagers and broadly suspect them of decadence, a word used by Miss Monica Furlong in the Daily Mail.

As a sociological concern, this may be reasonable enough, and at an emotional level, it is very understandable, but it has nothing at all to do with the case. One has to ask a different question: Has Mr. Jagger received the same treatment as he would have received if he had not been a famous figure, with all the criticism his celebrity has aroused? If a promising undergraduate had come back from a summer visit to Italy with four pep pills in his pocket would it have been thought necessary to display him, handcuffed, to the public? There are cases in which a single figure becomes the focus for public concern about some aspects of public morality. The Steven Ward case, with it's dubious evidence and questionable verdict, was one of them, and that verdict killed Steven Ward. There are elements of the same emotions in the reactions to this case. If we are going to make any case a symbol of the conflict between the sound traditional values of Britain and the new hedonism, then we must be sure that the sound traditional values include those of tolerance and equity. It should be the particular quality of British justice to ensure that Mr. Jagger is treated exactly the same as anyone else, no better and no worse. There must remain a suspicion in this case that Mr. Jagger received a more severe sentence than would have been thought proper for any purely anonymous young man.

- William Rees Mogg, july 1st 1967
 

 

I think she must have made a post correlating this with Britney.. I asked her where I could find her Op Ed and she hasn't replied...

[LiquoriceBabe]

Courtney's talking about the last paragraph:

6 minutes ago, holditagainstbritney said:

One has to ask a different question: Has Mr. Jagger received the same treatment as he would have received if he had not been a famous figure, with all the criticism his celebrity has aroused? If a promising undergraduate had come back from a summer visit to Italy with four pep pills in his pocket would it have been thought necessary to display him, handcuffed, to the public? There are cases in which a single figure becomes the focus for public concern about some aspects of public morality. The Steven Ward case, with it's dubious evidence and questionable verdict, was one of them, and that verdict killed Steven Ward. There are elements of the same emotions in the reactions to this case. If we are going to make any case a symbol of the conflict between the sound traditional values of Britain and the new hedonism, then we must be sure that the sound traditional values include those of tolerance and equity. It should be the particular quality of British justice to ensure that Mr. Jagger is treated exactly the same as anyone else, no better and no worse. There must remain a suspicion in this case that Mr. Jagger received a more severe sentence than would have been thought proper for any purely anonymous young man.

- William Rees Mogg, july 1st 1967

 

[zxcvb]

1 hour ago, Meaner03 said:

You are not the only one, even based on court documents nothing is clears, the narrative sold is that she was nearly broke (lol) and they secured everything and made her estate increase . But when you add up the gross values of her contracts + the facts they were supposed to invest her money to get good returns it does not add up . Even if it increased, it did not the way it was supposed to or had the potential too .

 

Being granted the right to invest her money at her risk is such a f**kery, it opens the doors to the worse where it is so easy to say, sorry we lost money on this investment and millions can disappear like this .

This is their narrative via TMZ since at least 2011:

"TMZ has obtained legal documents in the conservatorship case, showing that in December 2008, the assets controlled by Britney's conservators totaled $2,826,362.68.

Now get this ...TMZ has learned ... exactly one year later -- in December, 2009 -- the assets controlled by the conservators swelled to $27,500,000 ... almost a 10 fold increase in 1 year.

Most of the gains came from Britney's wildly successful Circus Tour.

Now the figures are deceiving. The conservators only control a portion of Britney's total estate. She has a lot of money and property in various trusts and other business entitites, which the conservators do not control."

https://www.tmz.com/2010/12/01/britney-spears-conservatorship-money-assets-wealth-millions/

No court docs of course, but as the conservatorship estate continued to increase, they always pointed out that the conservatorship is only a 'portion of the conservatee's total assets." in subsequent reports on her conservatorship finances...

"At the end of 2015, the docs show Britney had cash and property worth $51,141,000, around 5 million more than she had at the beginning of the year...BTW ... the documents only reveal a portion of Britney's wealth. There are millions more in various trusts."

-TMZ, August 2016

https://www.tmz.com/2016/08/05/britney-spears-money-accounting-pet-expenses/

" Her total property and assets at year's end were $55,745,288 -- up about $5 million from 2015 -- and that number doesn't even include untold millions more in various trusts."

https://www.tmz.com/2017/09/12/britney-spears-expenses-massages-conservatorship/

-TMZ, September 2017

And then there's the widely seen court doc from 2014 from Reva Goetz

“The conservatorship estate entails the active management of Britney Spears substantial career, business interests and assets as well as numerous trusts and entities. The conservatorship estate represents a portion of the conservatee’s total assets.”

 https://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/britney-spears348b.pdf

So does Britney really have hundreds of millions of dollars in trusts and entities outside her conservatorship estate or was that money put in those shady businesses??

And regards to that comment about her 'nearly going broke' there was also this report from MTV in early 2008...

Streisand, who said he was referred to the singer by her custody lawyers at Trope and Trope, had also questioned the expertise of court-appointed co-conservator Andrew Wallet, claiming that he didn't have the expertise to handle the estate or the trust, given that Britney's estate is worth $40 million, encompasses 15 separate entities and is in the middle of a $17 million audit. Streisand had asked the court to instead name Northern Trust Bank and Spears' business manager Howard Grossman as co-conservators. Grossman, who hadn't yet handed over the financial information to Wallet because he didn't know if he was supposed to, said he would be "happy to help" his client and her family in any way.

https://www.mtv.com/news/1580917/britney-spears-lawyer-ejected-from-courtroom-after-judge-doesnt-recognize-him-as-her-counsel/

No court docs, but again, Is that $40 million supposed to be part of the money outside her conservatorship that these reports suggest?

And then there is Adam Streisand.  Why was he replaced by Wallet, who allegedly had little experience (and as Britney's Gram pointed out, has a degree from a college that doesn't even exist anymore)?

[Itsbad_imsad]

28 minutes ago, jokobitch said:

dude in the middle knows what’s up. He said himself he thinks her team are using her “mental disorder” as a ploy so they don’t have to pay back MGM. The girls keep cutting him off and agreeing with Larry , but he knows what’s up. He also said she has no say in anything and compared her to being chained up. The stupid ******* keep saying there’s something wrong with her. But shoutout to them for all loving blackout I guess ??‍♂️

They would use videos of some of her worst performances at POM