Lawyers for Britney seems...

[RadicalOptimism]

I’d rather be forced to listen to Clowny Perry’s discography on loop in Guantanamo than to have to constantly see the same bitter betty’s debate the same topics day in and day out 

[Busybee]

8 minutes ago, lawyersforbritney said:

Putting ourselves out there how exactly?? It was an account full of court documents an explanations with "sorry, no media inquiries" in our bio. We never once put our real names out there. We never wanted credit, we still don't want credit. But when we are volunteering our time and money on all this stuff and multiple accounts put out a defamatory "statement" about us to thousands of people which causes us to be harassed, stalked, and attacked every hour on the hour, then yea, it's time to move on with our lives.

And to respond to someone else's point that we should be willing to fight harder because we are lawyers, the difference is when we are in a courtroom, we are getting PAID to be there. People seem to forget we are NOT getting paid for any of this. Not to mention all the thousands (yes, literally thousands) we have spent on all the court docs.

We aren't "quitting" because of "criticism" or "backlash" or whatever else people are trying to blame it on. We are walking away from what has become an extremely toxic situation for us. Going after the conservatorship was nothing compared to trying to defend ourselves from the constant attacks from the fan base. That should say something.

We may not know you personally but we know you as the entity Lawyers for Britney. You have made a name for yourselves and built up a reputable reputation until recently which I agree was done poorly and unnecessarily. I dont condone what was done on new years. And I apologize if I misinterpreted this but to me this sounds like you inferring that you had something to do with what was happening in court:

"Did people not notice that we were specifically going after James and Lou? Did the fact that Lou stepped down just days after we posted about her using Britney's money on her own attorneys to sue BK go unnoticed, too?"

I think its honorable that yall spend so much of your time and money on this but again no one asked you to. If you are doing it out of the kindness of your heart then that should be it. No one is making you do that so it's not a reasonable argument in my opinion.

as far you quitting I applaud you for stepping back from what feels toxic for you. You won't be good for anyone if you can't take care of yourself it just wasn't made clear on your original post and felt like you were blaming it on the criticism.

not trying to bash yall at all! Just think we can all grow when we learn from our mistakes and take accountability when we are wrong

[Slayer]

38 minutes ago, lawyersforbritney said:

We never once put our real names out there.

you clearly did as mentioned by another user:

Dec 19, 2019

https://www.lamag.com/mag-features/the-battle-for-britney-spears/

So it's pretty clear this was already out there and not as a result of BG.

In vein of your comment regarding your names being 'exposed', you exposed their personal contact details. So let's not be hypocrites.

38 minutes ago, lawyersforbritney said:

 We never wanted credit, we still don't want credit.

meanwhile 3 hours ago as just one example...

3 hours ago, lawyersforbritney said:

The reality is, by highlighting specific court docs and putting actual public pressure on James, Lou, and their attorneys when no other big media outlet would, we did more for Britney than the people who posted the "statement" against us.

Also you say the below

38 minutes ago, lawyersforbritney said:

 

We aren't "quitting" because of "criticism" or "backlash" or whatever else people are trying to blame it on. We are walking away from what has become an extremely toxic situation for us. Going after the conservatorship was nothing compared to trying to defend ourselves from the constant attacks from the fan base. That should say something.

You could easily resolve that by turning comments off on instagram or stop reading the responses.

If you TRULY wanted Britney free, you'd continue. In my opinion it seems like you're trying to run away when things have been brought to light.

Honestly i've supported you guys in the past but the way you've been going about things as of late has just been down right messy. You constantly bash the entire fanbase when it is actually a small minority that bash you.

If you are truly on the 'right' side you'd help Britney regardless. 

All you have to do is persevere and show by your actions you have good intentions but you're just running away making yourselves look guilty whilst bashing an entire fanbase.

Also the absolute AUDACITY to compare a fanbase to people who have imprisoned Britney and treated her like a 'racehorse' for over 12 years. With these sort of comments it is no surprise at all you get negative feedback.

[STJ]

 

 

1 hour ago, Jordan Miller said:

Super disagree with this. Also the overall tone of your post could definitely use some finessing. I think it's important we show respect towards others and not belittle them - even if you vehemently disagree. Thank you. 

 

Of course you're going to defend them, you're on their side. 

I never called them names but simply pointing out their flawed arguments. But come for me, I guess.

 

2 hours ago, lawyersforbritney said:

We aren't "quitting" because of "criticism" or "backlash" or whatever else people are trying to blame it on. We are walking away from what has become an extremely toxic situation for us. Going after the conservatorship was nothing compared to trying to defend ourselves from the constant attacks from the fan base. That should say something.

 

I'm glad you're quitting because this is the most terrible and passive aggressive thing that you could say about Britney's fanbase. Even worse than your tweet that implies Britney wants to be in a conservatorship and/or she could have the free will to sign a petition to want to continue the conservatorship.

 

Literally comparing us (brit's fanbase) to that she-devil known as Lou taylor who put britney through 12 years of metaphorical prison. Very nicely done.

 

Yet I'm the one whose tone needs fixing... yeah Ok. I'm done with this, here to celebrate Britney, not be involved in this transparent drama and calculated moves for attention/fame. 

[Justin Woodpond]

25 minutes ago, lawyersforbritney said:

Again, congratulations on the detective work. But this stuff would have never come out if the "statement" was not released. Our names and photos never appeared on our account. Nobody would have ever known to look for them. Our privacy was violated in a very major way, which is a big reason why we decided to shut down our accounts. 

I've done enough explaining at this point. People are going to believe what they want to believe no matter what the facts are. 

You have your reasons for stepping back. Fair enough.

But, with or without the “statement”, it is not at all difficult to locate your identities using a few key words in Google, namely “lawyersforBritney”or "lawyers for britney". The results come up on the first page.

If you (both) wanted to remain anonymous, you didn’t exactly do a stellar job.

There is more to this story, but we are not the ones to tell it.

[lawyersforbritney]

@Jordan Miller If you could deactivate our account, I’d appreciate it. I can’t figure out how to do it. 

[MyahJeanSpears]

This is how I feel about this whole topic in general:

This lawyers for Britney wank has gone on for four whole topics/threads each with over 10 pages. Can we just move on? I see people here dragging them and yet asking them to continue leaking docs in the same breath. lol 

I think we can agree that everyone involved is a messy *****. We should let LFB step down if that's what they want to do and stop talking about this. It's been two weeks into 2021 and this topic has been dragged out to death. FreeBritneyLA will continue to do their thing. Lisa & BJ will continue to do their thing. Slo4n will continue to do their thing. This "movement" will not die because one party (any party) decides to step down. 

The fact that 💩 is continuing to get flung around is sad.

LFB thank you for your contributions to the movement. But at this point this just needs to die because all its doing is causing harm to an otherwise good cause. Britney's situation is bigger than any one person or account. Anyone that is just looking to grow their instagram accounts or greenlight a film (or looking for any financial gain) has got to take a step back. Unfortunately, that's most of the people that will continue to remain active in their "activist" roles... 

[anittawarmhart]

Why are LawyersForBritney claiming that they've always been anonymous? This is from December 2019:

 

[Sea flower]

If they are quitting, good for them, i would probably do the same if i were on their position. It is not worth to risk their careers and their health.  I can see some people going too intense and bullying them, this is not good at all. I think in the future they will be missed, or who will provide the court documents from now on?

Ok all those self called "big accounts" can step in and take over...that is what they wanted all along.

[Justin Woodpond]

10 hours ago, anittawarmhart said:

Why are LawyersForBritney claiming that they've always been anonymous? This is from December 2019:

 

This is the same article I have mentioned/posted a number of times.

https://www.lamag.com/mag-features/the-battle-for-britney-spears/

We can let it go now.

[Steel Magnolia]

25 minutes ago, Elvira_fr said:

If they are quitting, good for them, i would probably do the same if i were on their position. It is not worth to risk their careers and their health.  I can see some people going too intense and bullying them, this is not good at all. I think in the future they will be missed, or who will provide the court documents from now on?

Ok all those self called "big accounts" can step in and take over...that is what they wanted all along.

 

The fanbase sent Lou Taylor death threats...

They literally gave her the ammunition that she needed to continue to have court docs redacted.

But the fans will keep patting themselves on the back...

For what, I have no clue.

[Jordan Miller]

1 hour ago, STJ said:

Of course you're going to defend them, you're on their side. 

I never called them names but simply pointing out their flawed arguments. But come for me, I guess.

Sigh. I'm not taking sides. I took issue with your delivery. 

You called them LawyersForBabies, LoyalistsForJamie, say they are living in delusion, called them disgraceful and then proceeded to discredit the entire Free Britney movement and all fans. 

I would have said the same about all the other advocate accounts. 

[Jordan Miller]

1 hour ago, MyahJeanSpears said:

This is how I feel about this whole topic in general:

I legit laughed out loud at this. I love this movie. Eat... my....

[Isla]

DDD why do I keep missing these threads?  

[feo]

7 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

1. Talking to a camera and making a move through the courts are two completely different things.

2. Britney attempted to hire Adam Streisand during the first week, but had already been assigned Ingham.

3. Blair Burke is a criminal defence attorney, not a probate lawyer. Britney visited her between her second and third rehab stay, a full year before the conservatorship went into effect.

4. Yes, Britney clearly left a voicemail for Jon Eardley in January 2009. Why in the WORLD would ANY fan want that to have been successful? Jon Eardley was besties with Sam Lutfi. I'm HAPPY that didn't work out, and you should be, too.

5. Wanting out and actually filing a motion through the courts are two very different things.

6. Again, stating that you want out and filing a motion through the courts are two very different things.

7. I agree that no normally functioning adult would want to be in a conservatorship. But not wanting to be in it and filing a motion through the courts are two separate things.

My point is...

Despite her feelings, Britney never engaged in the court process in a meaningful way until 2019. 

Why?

Likely because she could never be assured that she could maintain access to her children.

It wasn't until Jamie assaulted Preston, and her visitation hours were reduced, that she felt she had "nothing left to lose."

 

1.  You make it sound so easy for a conservatee to make a move through the courts.  You do know that as they have NO control of their money and they don't have much in the form of power, right?  Also, as we have seen from Britney's experience when Domination was cancelled that any acts of rebellion can cause punishment to the conservatee, such as when she was held involuntarily in a mental health facility.  Do you understand why conservatees can't easily make legal moves?  In a way they are like abused spouses as they are often financially and emotionally manipulated/intimidated.

2. You said it yourself.  She attempted to hire a lawyer, but had been 'assigned' Ingham already.  Does that tell you something?  Isn't that extremely significant of what she tried to do, and how she was denied her rights from the very beginning?

3. You can see the sketchiness of Blair Berk right here.  Essentially Britney sought Berk for her custody issues, and then Berk turned around and started working for her father.  That is a big problem of conflict of interest, and very likely corruption.

https://twitter.com/BritneyHiatus/status/1342510880689250304

4. We should be happy Britney's attempts to hire her own lawyer weren't successful?  Have you missed out on the 12 years of legal imprisonment?  I definitely don't like Lutfi but at least she would have had the counsel that she wanted.  Isn't what Britney 'wants' what you appear to be defending?

5-7. See point #1

If Britney had not fraudulently lost her legal capacity and access to her money, you can bet she would have fought against this.  Ask a homeless person why they can't sue for the failures by their city/state/country that put them in their situation.  Or ask a battered spouse why they don't just stand up to their abuser?  Without money or power how can you even expect victims to stand up for themselves? 

Society already painted Britney as 'crazy' so her acting out in 2008 and saying her father is holding her prisoner would have been used as proof against her of her craziness.  Don't make things sound so simple.

 

 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, ElenaB said:

do you think she doesn’t know all of this? it’s her own life, she’s being isolated but she’s not a child, she understands what she’s going through. i think sometimes fans talk about her like she was a child. no. it’s her life, she knows way more about it than you or me.

I dont think Britney is silly, but the problem is the situation shes in where shes treated like a child. Just look at the many women that are abused but stay with their partners bc they believe they love them and many times they cant even understand how bad their situations are. The same thing goes to cult's victims or people that were kidnapped and develop a stockholm syndrome. Britney has been obviously controlled, isolated and gaslighted all these years. On situations like these - one that has been going on for 13 years and counting -, even the toughest and smartest people can break and give in. Its her life, but shes surrounded by vultures that are only out for themselves and they will tell her what benefit them the most. Sometimes people in such a bad situation cant see how bad its bc they have been abused for so long. We all know people who have ****ty parents or husbands who cant see they are being mistreated, and Britney doesnt even have her freedom to try to break loose from people that are harming her, the same people keep manipulating her and are supported by the state, by law. Her situation is really bad. I mean, is she even allowed to do therapy? Many people only realize some ****ed up things once they do. 

[feo]

8 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

You seem to be missing something...And I'm not sure why you're not "getting" this...

But there is a PROCESS to removing the conservatorship. The process involves Ingham - her court appointed attorney. 

Britney did not ask her court appointed attorney to begin the process...Or maybe she did, and he said no?

Did you ever consider that there was a REASON why he said no?

Britney wanted it all in 2009 -- full freedoms, full access to her children, the ability to tour to refill her coffers. The courts would not allow her access to her children without a monitor. The insurance companies would not insure her without assurances that she would show up to perform.

The conservatorship AT THE TIME was the only way for her to see her children and to tour. So I imagine Ingham took these facts into account.

In 2019, the situation changed. The conservatorship no longer served her, and hadn't for quite some time. So at that point, yes, it made sense for Ingham to support her.

But there is a PROCESS in place. That's the way the law works. Just because she's Britney Spears doesn't mean she gets to be exempt from the law.

You are making A LOT of unfortunate assumptions.  Among them, you are assuming Britney even cared about touring, or that a conservatorship was the only way for her to see her children.

I actually have plenty of court experience in custody cases and can tell you that in fact I have NEVER seen a conservatorship required for custody/access to children, even if parents were alcoholics, **** addicts, mentally ill etc.  Supervised access with children, AA, narcotics anonymous, psychotherapy/psychiatry, medication etc. are all suitable ways of allowing a parent to slowly regain access and/or custody of their children.  A court can be convinced that a parent is making an effort to better themselves or that precautions are being taken so children are never at risk.

And a court does so because it is in the best interests of the children that they be able to see their parents. 

The conservatorship fraud here is very apparent.  There is no way around that.

 

[feo]

6 hours ago, Jordan Miller said:

Can someone explain to me what's wrong with trademarking your entity? 

I don't think there's anything wrong generally speaking, except that (unless I am remembering incorrectly) LFB came after the other groups for trademarking theirs, which sounded hypocritical.

[Steel Magnolia]

4 minutes ago, feo said:

 

1.  You make it sound so easy for a conservatee to make a move through the courts.  You do know that as they have NO control of their money and they don't have much in the form of power, right?  Also, as we have seen from Britney's experience when Domination was cancelled that any acts of rebellion can cause punishment to the conservatee, such as when she was held involuntarily in a mental health facility.  Do you understand why conservatees can't easily make legal moves?  In a way they are like abused spouses as they are often financially and emotionally manipulated/intimidated.

2. You said it yourself.  She attempted to hire a lawyer, but had been 'assigned' Ingham already.  Does that tell you something?  Isn't that extremely significant of what she tried to do, and how she was denied her rights from the very beginning?

3. You can see the sketchiness of Blair Berk right here.  Essentially Britney sought Berk for her custody issues, and then Berk turned around and started working for her father.  That is a big problem of conflict of interest, and very likely corruption.

https://twitter.com/BritneyHiatus/status/1342510880689250304

4. We should be happy Britney's attempts to hire her own lawyer weren't successful?  Have you missed out on the 12 years of legal imprisonment?  I definitely don't like Lutfi but at least she would have had the counsel that she wanted.  Isn't what Britney 'wants' what you appear to be defending?

5-7. See point #1

If Britney had not fraudulently lost her legal capacity and access to her money, you can bet she would have fought against this.  Ask a homeless person why they can't sue for the failures by their city/state/country that put them in their situation.  Or ask a battered spouse why they don't just stand up to their abuser?  Without money or power how can you even expect victims to stand up for themselves? 

Society already painted Britney as 'crazy' so her acting out in 2008 and saying her father is holding her prisoner would have been used as proof against her of her craziness.  Don't make things sound so simple.

 

 

1. Yes. I'm aware of that. My point is that she didn't make legal moves, as others in this thread have alleged. Voicing her thoughts to a TV camera, or being recorded on an answering machine is not the same as filing a motion through the courts.

2. She was denied her rights from the beginning because she was deemed incompetent. Anyone AT THE TIME could see that was true. She had been running on no sleep for days on end, chugging Red Bulls, taking Adderall, drinking alcohol, and was being fed a cocktail of antipsychotics that Lutfi was crushing and putting in her food. She was babbling incoherently. AT THE TIME, the conservatorship application was not permanent -- it was temporary, and was meant to stabilize her and separate her from Lutfi. AT THE TIME, Ingham was right to deem her incompetent. He was just doing his job.

3. Blair Berk has nothing to do with the conservatorship. Why is she being brought up in this thread? (Also, I doubt Britney was consulting her on custody issues -- it is more likely she was consulting her because ***** had been found planted in her home and she was facing legal ramifications, aka "criminal charges," if she did not check herself back into rehab.)

4. Yes, I'm happy that Jon Eardley wasn't successful. Britney was not thinking clearly when she called him. She should have known that anyone associated with Lutfi would've given Jamie, Kevin Federline, and the entire group of them even more ammunition against her. Contacting him was a very bad decision on her part. Any other lawyer? Not so much. But affiliated with Lutfi? It was stupidity.

Britney likely didn't fight the conservatorship after 2009 because:

a) the conservatorship guaranteed her access to her children
b) the conservatorship guaranteed her the ability to tour and make millions
c) the conservatorship provided a shield against the many lawsuits piling up against her

It served its purpose, up until around 2010. At that point it should have been slowly phased out.

Anything after that was pure ****ery.

[Steel Magnolia]

11 minutes ago, feo said:

Well, I'm a lawyer and I can tell you that my apparent twin @Easy There seems to understand the courts better than you to be honest.

 

Well, that gave me a good laugh.

I won't waste any more of my time on you, either. lol.