"For The Record" photographer Andrew Gallery Speaks Out About #FreeBritney, Reads Letter Britney Wrote To Fans: I Have Been Silenced & Threatened

[LLuvia]

1 minute ago, MANDIXMX said:

Maybe the fact she got better was because she was “behaving” and didn’t resist as much, especially during BJ and the start of POM. They didn’t need to **** her as much, but 2011-2016 was still worst than anything from 2008-2009, the damage was already done.

She was better at that time in 2016  because her brother was around her.

[waynebradybyday]

1 hour ago, Applejack said:

Lynne agreed with the conservatorship up until 2012 at least that I know (because she was all cuddles with Jamie in court). The question is why she was okay with him being a conservator from the beginning and it's in this question that may lie something she only realized recently. (Cue that email)

 

Man, you're making a storm in a glass of water over the smallest and most meaningless things 💀💀💀💀💀⚰️⚰️⚰️⚰️⚰️⚰️⚰️ Misogynist vibes, sorry

Ad hominem attacks are always signs of weak arguments. I think Britney's "fans" are often her worst enemies. I've been a fan since 1998. Britney has never really had a firm grasp on reality, and that has partially led to her having issues with fame. She used to think she would be able to have a normal life when not performing and being off the stage and that people wouldn't hound her, photograph her and invade her privacy. At one time, she thought all of that (i.e. paparazzi, no privacy) would just disappear. She's practically a child star, and all of them tend to go down the wrong path. She is not well. She was down the road to destroying herself and her career. I remember even some fans thought she looked happy and "free" during the Blackout era. I will trust a court of law to make the right decision for someone, who by all accounts has improved drastically from 2007. Aside from some weird things here and there (like burning down her gym), Britney seems happier and healthier in her life now.

And on another note, most of you don't even believe she has the capacity to post on her own Instagram, and don't even believe its her posting - yet at the same time think its a stretch and completely wrong to think she can be naive and lacking in good judgment and intelligence if the manner of that letter was supposed to be a ploy to shield her identity, which I don't even think makes sense. I think she was just writing in third person probably for some compartmentalization. If its a storm out of a glass water, then don't respond to my posts

[PokemonSpears]

21 minutes ago, MANDIXMX said:

Maybe the fact she got better was because she was “behaving” and didn’t resist as much, especially during BJ and the start of POM. They didn’t need to **** her as much, but 2011-2016 was still worst than anything from 2008-2009, the damage was already done.

Yeah, there were rumors in 2016 that they had stopped giving her the meds.

She was seen around her kids all the time, she was performing better, she sounded good in interviews, she had more "control" over Glory and even dared to talk about the conservatorship at that UK interview (we should push them to leak that material as well).

The only thing that never left was her anxiety and shyness. But I meant that at least in comparison to 2011, she did got better in the following years.

 

[2K16NEY]

45 minutes ago, LLuvia said:

The paripé they made with a reconciliation playing to be a happy marriage because that situation is supposed to be more beneficial for him  in court.

 

OMG @ Jamie Spears sounding just like Bobby Boucher from The Waterboy I - 

[LLuvia]

1 hour ago, Applejack said:

James Spar

 

(Everything is here too, although it needs an update: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17jeZV78SCwgQGsOkad0H0PA8jqjgRsxgSqD9f_f1yAk/edit?usp=drivesdk)

Yes, James Spar  organized the whole medical issue but I  refer  @MANDIXMXthe psychiatrist who hired weeks before the incident with Jayden James ...I think @Meaner03 put the woman's name  I have tried to find but I can not find it.

[monalisaney81]

10 minutes ago, waynebradybyday said:

Ad hominem attacks are always signs of weak arguments. I think Britney's "fans" are often her worst enemies. I've been a fan since 1998. Britney has never really had a firm grasp on reality, and that has partially led to her having issues with fame. She used to think she would be able to have a normal life when not performing and being off the stage and that people wouldn't hound her, photograph her and invade her privacy. At one time, she thought all of that (i.e. paparazzi, no privacy) would just disappear. She's practically a child star, and all of them tend to go down the wrong path. She is not well. She was down the road to destroying herself and her career. I remember even some fans thought she looked happy and "free" during the Blackout era. I will trust a court of law to make the right decision for someone, who by all accounts has improved drastically from 2007. Aside from some weird things here and there (like burning down her gym), Britney seems happier and healthier in her life now.

Girl bye, you are delusional if you think Britney is happy rn under the restrains shes in. People have pet dogs with more freedom than Britney. As far as healthy, her IG does not show her at all so healthy. She’s not herself, they’ve pumped so much medication into Britney her entire personality has changed. You can believe whatever you want, but at the end of the day if she chose to destroy her  career, waste all her money, thats her prerogative. Its her life, she’s the one who has worked and earned it all. She’s not your *****. 

[waynebradybyday]

1 minute ago, MANDIXMX said:

Girl bye, you are delusional if you think Britney is happy rn under the restrains shes in. People have pet dogs with more freedom than Britney. As far as healthy, her IG does not show her at all so healthy. She’s not herself, they’ve pumped so much medication into Britney her entire personality has changed. You can believe whatever you want, but at the end of the day if she chose to destroy her  career, waste all her money, thats her prerogative. Its her life, she’s the one who has worked and earned it all. She’s not your *****. 

And you think that's in her best interest? Thankfully, the law disagrees because that is not in the best interest of the person or society.  These laws are designed for people who are "a danger to him/herself or others. Or, unless the person cannot take care of him/herself."

[Applejack]

25 minutes ago, waynebradybyday said:

Ad hominem attacks are always signs of weak arguments. I think Britney's "fans" are often her worst enemies. I've been a fan since 1998. Britney has never really had a firm grasp on reality, and that has partially led to her having issues with fame. She used to think she would be able to have a normal life when not performing and being off the stage and that people wouldn't hound her, photograph her and invade her privacy. At one time, she thought all of that (i.e. paparazzi, no privacy) would just disappear. She's practically a child star, and all of them tend to go down the wrong path. She is not well. She was down the road to destroying herself and her career. I remember even some fans thought she looked happy and "free" during the Blackout era. I will trust a court of law to make the right decision for someone, who by all accounts has improved drastically from 2007. Aside from some weird things here and there (like burning down her gym), Britney seems happier and healthier in her life now.

Where is the ad hominem attack? "Misogynistic vibes"? Wow. 

Pointing out you keep calling her naive and unintelligent and "why did she write this in the third person" (which is obvious why... and not because she didn't want for people know it was herself), all based on your own third person observations, and for you that's enough reason to lock her entire life with her abusive father. Really, we don't know what happens or happened in the background, so you might even be right saying she was on the road to destroying herself -- but that's just rationalizing an injustice. We only know Jamie is abusive and she's under a probate conservatorship meant for people in coma or in vegetative state. 

Unless you really think she is mentally challenged, that doesn't bode well. So she is a woman who isn't behaving to your standards and who you think is dumb, so she can't have control of her life. Uhh! Great! Let's go out the streets hunt down naive and dumb rich adults and throw them all under a cship -- I know plenty of them! After all, taking their autonomy away is a perfect way to learn!! Look at Britney, for example -- 12 years!!

 

Without seeing her children and being involuntarily checked into one star mental facilities, do you think she's happier now? Really you'd think it's fine a perfectly healthy young woman is under a cship meant for people in a coma? Well, ok!

[monalisaney81]

6 minutes ago, waynebradybyday said:

And you think that's in her best interest? Thankfully, the law disagrees because that is not in the best interest of the person or society.  These laws are designed for people who are "a danger to him/herself or others. Or, unless the person cannot take care of him/herself."

But you speak as if the law has never been corrupt, or willing to turn a blind eye to certain things in favor of some extra cash under the table. Wake the hell up and join us in the real world, the justice system is anything but just. If it was black men wouldn’t be spending 25 years for ********* possessions while white people are let out for parol after 7 years after attempted ******.  
 

What has Britney done to make her a danger to herself or others exactly?

[waynebradybyday]

3 minutes ago, Applejack said:

Where is the ad hominem attack? "Misogynistic vibes"? Wow. 

Pointing out you keep calling her naive and unintelligent and "why did she write this in the third person" (which is obvious why... and not because she didn't want for people know it was herself), all based on your own third person observations, and for you that's enough reason to lock her entire life with her abusive father. Really, we don't know what happens or happened in the background, so you might even be right saying she was on the road to destroying herself -- but that's just rationalizing an injustice. We only know Jamie is abusive and she's under a probate conservatorship meant for people in coma or in vegetative state.

 

Without seeing her children and being involuntarily checked into one star mental facilities, do you think she's happier now? Really you'd think it's fine a perfectly healthy young woman is under a cship meant for people in a coma? Well, ok!

The court thought so and a court of law is not nearly as emotionally biased as Britney's fanbase. Yes, that was an attack on me, by the way. I never said her writing the letter in the third person was reason to lock her entire life  with her abusive father, as you put it. You concocted that interpretation on your own.

[BRITannico]

10 hours ago, Towelney said:

(He’s on the left)

 #JusticeForAndrewGallery

I want him to get me pregnant.

[Towelney]

1 minute ago, OOPSY said:

I want him to get me pregnant.

[monalisaney81]

3 minutes ago, Towelney said:

Never seen this Tinashe mv  

[Applejack]

26 minutes ago, waynebradybyday said:

The court thought so and a court of law is not nearly as emotionally biased as Britney's fanbase. Yes, that was an attack on me, by the way. I never said her writing the letter in the third person was reason to lock her entire life  with her abusive father, as you put it. You concocted that interpretation on your own.

Not my interpretation. You're saying you trust the courts -- the judge knows better. You're here saying that you think she's naive and dumb (through a third person letter), so there must be truth to the courts ruling. Basically rationalizing the conservatorship against all the points that raises eyebrows like her father or the fact her own conservator called the cship a business model.

Not here trying to attack you or anything. Just a sincere convo, but it just sounds very misogynistic, sorry! "Someone else knows better". She never really had time to heal from any trauma or illness. The conservatorship in 2008 was basically only a company being restructured.

BTW, I'd advise not to trust the courts all that much. Guardianship abuse is a very old and scary tale and you have plenty of examples. But if you feel this way, I feel like I can't change your mind. It would really be very logical if there was an actual motive for the conservatorship -- she's famous and beloved, so you'd think the courts would have the utmost care with her case, right?

[monalisaney81]

28 minutes ago, waynebradybyday said:

The court thought so and a court of law is not nearly as emotionally biased as Britney's fanbase. Yes, that was an attack on me, by the way. I never said her writing the letter in the third person was reason to lock her entire life  with her abusive father, as you put it. You concocted that interpretation on your own.

Just to add, ultimately there are other ways to help Britney manage her money, her estate, and make career choices if thats what she needed. But c-ships are reserved for individuals who are mentally incapable to make any life choices and are very sick. How is it possible that Britney was too “sick” to make her own choices but just MONTHS after her breakdown she was already able to work? And not just work, but she was doing aerobatics in the air during the Circus tour and touring all over the world.

If they cared about the well being of this “oh so sick” person wouldn't it have been in her best interest to move her away from the spotlight for a few years till she got better? I mean thrusting her back mere months after her breakdown into the very same thing that brought her breakdown, the spotlight? Sounds like they were thinking about the money her “comeback” would generate and not about her. Britney obviously wasn’t ready, and didn’t want to do it. So if they still went ahead against her best interest, what makes you think this c-ship isn’t just another tactic to milk her dry against her best interest. Open your eyes, this isn’t just a fan conspiracy, this is a real thing happening, and you won’t believe it until they kill Britney. Smh 

[Applejack]

2 minutes ago, MANDIXMX said:

Just to add, ultimately there are other ways to help Britney manage her money, her estate, and make career choices if thats what she needed. But c-ships are reserved for individuals who are mentally incapable to make any life choices and are very sick. How is it possible that Britney was too “sick” to make her own choices but just MONTHS after her breakdown she was already able to work? And not just work, but she was doing aerobatics in the air during the Circus tour and touring all over the world.

If they cared about her about the well being of this o “oh so sick” person wouldn't it have been in her best interest to move her away from the spotlight for a few years till she got better? I mean thrusting her back mere months after her breakdown into very same thing that brought her breakdown, the spotlight? Sounds like they were thinking about the money her “comeback” would generate. Britney obviously wasn’t ready, and didn’t want to do it. So if they still went ahead against her best interest, what makes you think this c-ship isn’t just another tactic to milk her dry? Open your eyes, this isn’t just a fan conspiracy, this is a real thing happening, and you won’t believe it until they kill Britney. Smh 

To add even more. She was hospitalized twice in January 2008. The cship was filed in January 31st iirc. The initial cship court dates happened in February 2008. In March 2008 she was guest starring in How I Met Your Mother, looking perfectly normal.

[monalisaney81]

7 minutes ago, Applejack said:

To add even more. She was hospitalized twice in January 2008. The cship was filed in January 31st iirc. The initial cship court dates happened in February 2008. In March 2008 she was guest starring in How I Met Your Mother, looking perfectly normal.

And to add add to this, Micheal Lohan came out saying that Lou Taylor and Dinah Lohan wanted to send Lindsay to rehab so they can serve her c-ship without her getting in the way. Like how low is that? If Lou was gonna bamboozle Lilo then show obviously did the same to Brit.

Thankfully Lou wasn’t able to capture Lindsay too, and I mean granted, Lindsay has had hiccups here and there but shes MATURED and hasn’t hurt herself or anyone else. Imagine had Lindsay been forced into a c-ship and been constantly fed pills against her will to keep her compliant how she would be now.

Britney was only a kid when she was forced into a c-ship, what 25 year old does not do stupid ****? But she never had a DUI, hurt herself or hurt anyone else. The most she did was shave her head. This narrative that Britney was a danger to herself and others and thats why shes in the c-ship has to stop.  
 

What Britney needed was a 5-6 year long break with her babies in Hawaii. Had her figure herself out, live peacefully in a private property in Hawaii away from Hollywood. But instead they forced her into a c-ship and straight back to work in Hollywood. How is that looking out for her at all?

[waynebradybyday]

27 minutes ago, Applejack said:

Not my interpretation. You're saying you trust the courts -- the judge knows better. You're here saying that you think she's naive and dumb (through a third person letter), so there must be truth to the courts ruling. Basically rationalizing the conservatorship against all the points that raises eyebrows like her father or the fact her own conservator called the cship a business model.

Not here trying to attack you or anything. Just a sincere convo, but it just sounds very misogynistic, sorry! "Someone else knows better". She never really had time to heal from any trauma or illness. The conservatorship in 2008 was basically only a company being restructured.

BTW, I'd advise not to trust the courts all that much. Guardianship abuse is a very old and scary tale and you have plenty of examples. But if you feel this way, I feel like I can't change your mind. It would really be very logical if there was an actual motive for the conservatorship -- she's famous and beloved, so you'd think the courts would have the utmost care with her case, right?

I didn't call her dumb. I said naive and unintelligent (a kinder word than dumb) based on the reasoning that some posted regarding her writing the letter in the third person as a method to conceal her identity. It's her handwriting. That makes no sense for her to do that and if so, it shows her naivety and just lack of intelligence if so. Just my opinion, why so bothered?

That was a comment on the letter. Nowhere did I say or imply that she should be in a conservatorship based on writing in the third person. That would be dumb.

Saying "someone knows better" is not what I said, and to even construe misogyny based on that, makes no sense, since there is absolutely nothing to do with misogyny in that. And its not just "someone" who knows better, it is a legal process and a court of law, that knows better than biased fans.

[TakeYourHand]

9 hours ago, waynebradybyday said:

In my opinion, its bizarre for her to write like that and naive to think it wouldn't be linked back to her. I'm not understanding the thought process of her writing in third person, which seems odd, and the reasoning behind it being that it won't be linked back to her, when its her handwriting which is very distinctive. Just my observations.

I thought the same thing but her handwriting is also very distinctive and it gives the man releasing it more credibility that it did come from Britney. Had he typed it people would only speculate. It’s very smart actually and someone could have suggested it if not her. We just know she wanted us to hear the message and third person is the only safe way to protect herself. It’s also sketchy that they did indeed take it and destroy it. It’s her life and her story to share. Nothing wrong with that. That should be more bizarre in all honesty. 

[Applejack]

1 minute ago, waynebradybyday said:

I didn't call her dumb. I said naive and unintelligent (a kinder word than dumb) based on the reasoning that some posted regarding her writing the letter in the third person as a method to conceal her identity. It's her handwriting. That makes no sense for her to do that and if so, it shows her naivety and just lack of intelligence if so. Just my opinion, why so bothered?

That was a comment on the letter. Nowhere did I say or imply that she should be in a conservatorship based on writing in the third person. That would be dumb.

Saying "someone knows better" is not what I said, and to even construe misogyny based on that, makes no sense, since there is absolutely nothing to do with misogyny in that. And its not just "someone" who knows better, it is a legal process and a court of law, that knows better than biased fans.

Dumb is a shorter word, tho, so no gripes on that. Not that serious. I'm not bothered by your opinion (well, I am but that's not the point). I'm just bothered that you're using your opinion to rationalize the cship. You just said the legal process and a court of law know better than fans -- you trust them. For which reason would they approve a cship?? Because she's unintelligent and naive -- which apparently is also your opinion. The fact you think that of her makes the court's decision be even sounder. Just that! That's it, sis. It's basic "this" -> "that" -> "therefore, conclusion", so I don't get all the gymnastics, but okay.

"Saying 'someone knows better' is not what I said.' All I'm getting is that I have to quote you word by word? Like... you just said the courts know more than biased fans. Is... someone... knows... better something way too outlandish??

And the conversation around the cship is very rooted in that there is misogyny in this kind of thinking that, if you think someone is "destroying" themselves or behaving out of our expectations, people are perfectly fine if they are a man. If they are a woman, solution: conservatorship -- she needs someone to take care of her and take over her life, because she's so unintelligent and can't take of herself (she's analog to someone with acute mental development issues!!). Someone knows better than this woman. In this case, courts and conservators.