The New York Times is premiering a new Britney Spears documentary on February 5th

[Iiquoricebabe]

And y’all saying #FreeBritney imploded 

[GlitterSlayDExhaleHI]

22 minutes ago, ToySoldier12 said:

And y’all saying #FreeBritney imploded 

Clever titles is why nearly all YouTuber are able to reach a bigger audience. You can’t be mad at Jordan for that. 

[Steel Magnolia]

12 hours ago, Bundy said:

I think I read the article at the time, but I havent read nowadays. Actually I tried to read today when I was searching for what David said about the cship then, but I couldnt read the whole piece. Do u mind posting here, please? 

Dont u think Ingham could be doing even more? Why dont he bring up the fact that Britneys kids have a restraining order against Jamie? I know the judge knows this, but itd be a good point when hes trying to remove Jamie. And why didnt he file anything to remove Jamie anymore? Tbh I have lil faith that hes on Britneys side. I think hes probably trying to save his *** and as long as he gets to collect his 10k a month... 

Tbh Ingham worked against her since the beginning of the cship, diagnosing her as if he was a doctor, saying she couldnt attent hearings about her life, pushing Streisand away. Isnt curious how Jamie only tried to stop paying Ingham last year? He didnt seem to have a problem with Ingham the years before. And why would Britney feel the need to call another lawyer or hand a letter to a photographer if she felt Ingham was helping her and working to get her out of it? I also think Britney tried to fight before, but then gave in for more time with her kids, trips and whatnot. She was also isolated, alone and manipulated. I understand that it must be tiring to fight alone when u cant even hire an attorney or access ur bank account. Did Britney start fighting again in 2019 or 2020? I still think its so weird how she was hanging out with Jamie after he abused Preston. That family is ****ed up. I still hope she doesnt give in for whatever broken promise they say to her to make her stop fighting Jamie or get back at work. 

I remember u mentioned this **** story before, and its very sus how Britneys former assistant and Lynne both said different stories about this matter. I wouldnt doubt Britney was set up so they would **** her up afterwards. Lynne said the cship was planned for weeks, but I wouldnt be surprised if it was actually for months. Its also very telling how Britney really became angry with Lynne after this, saying she sided with Kevin. I bet Britney wasnt crazy about this. Whats funny is there were many stories at the time that Britney was actually suffering from a post partum depression. I think maybe the ***** were planted, Britney denied but they were all like "no one is going to believe u, u have to go to rehab", so fearing she would lose her boys, she agreed with it. Isnt also curious how on that leaked emails, Britney calls Kevin out for baking *********... But no one never had a problem with him doing whatever the **** he was doing? Didnt Britney pass in many **** tests at the time too? When she was put in a 5150 hold, they also couldnt find ***** in her system. 

I hope this NYT episode will bring more attention to Britneys situation. I cant believe whats still happening to her. 

I just posted the NY Times article in this thread in two parts...Hopefully it all copied and pasted over properly.

Ingham...

I think there's been a lot of misinformation posted on this board about the early days of the conservatorship. It is really muddying the waters.

The NY Times article says that it was the judge that ruled Britney lacked capacity, and it was based on a doctor's evaluation. Meanwhile, others have written on BH that it was Ingham, and that he did it based on a 15-minute visit to her hospital room. Which is the truth? I tend to go with the NY Times. (EDIT: A review of the probate laws for California would answer this.) I would think there had to be a ruling on capacity BEFORE the court-appointed lawyer is actually appointed. One can't come before the other.

The same goes for the issue of Streisand.

Ingham would not have the power himself to approve Streisand coming on board. If Ingham had ALREADY  been appointed as her lawyer by the judge (based on a doctor's evaluation) then Ingham would have to request to the judge that Streisand be added. It's no different than what is happening in present day. At that point in February 2007, it was only meant to be a temporary conservatorship, so it likely made little sense to have two opposing lawyers fighting over a case that was only supposed to last weeks.

Was Ingham doing enough in the beginning?

I don't know. Jamie's biggest issue in 2007 (and an excuse he used up until the Lutfi lawsuit was settled) was "undue influence." It was repeated over and over in court docs and on places like TMZ. "Undue influence." To me, that seemed like a legitimate concern while the conservatorship was still temporary and Lutfi was trying to wedge himself back into her life (via Jon Eardley), but it became less valid with each passing year.

I think fans today don't want to admit just how far down the rabbit hole she had fallen in 2007. Kevin and his lawyer had a LOT of dirt on her, ranging from the high chair incident with Preston in 2006 to the "frequent and habitual" user of ***** ruling, to driving without a licence and running red lights with the boys in the car. They had tons of paparazzi videos to use in court — probably far more than we know about. Britney's **** tests may have been coming back clean, but that's because she was relying on prescription medication. She fully admitted to taking Adderall when she was 5150'd the second time (and also when she had a dirty **** test earlier in the summer of 2007), and it was her antipsychotic prescription meds that Lutfi was crushing and putting in her food. We have no idea how many times she "slipped" in the early years of the conservatorship by having a drink (or more). Maybe lots. Maybe not at all. We just don't know.

So there's two issues going on there — the custody case, and the conservatorship.

Even if the conservatorship never occurred, she was still dealing with the custody case. At the time, she had ZERO visitation with the boys, and when she did receive intermittent visits, it was with a court monitor. It was easy to see that situation continuing on for years based on the volume of dirt that Kevin had collected. Having the temporary conservatorship in place at least gave her a chance to spend time with them. Had it remained temporary, and Jamie had pure intentions, the conservatorship could have been a very positive thing for her. It was when it became intermixed with touring, and became a "hybrid business model," that it became abusive. 

And yes, I think they planned the conservatorship way further back than 2007. I think they started considering laying the groundwork as she was thinking of divorcing Kevin, and then actually followed through with the groundwork by forcing her into rehab (which legally handed Kevin physical custody of the boys). The moment Kevin had the upper hand in the courts, it opened the door for the possibility of a conservatorship.

As far as Ingham not doing enough now, I'm uncertain. I can't say I've been following the case as closely as others. But I can tell from reading the court docs that he appears to have a strategy — to paint Jamie into a corner on the financials in such a way that it becomes easy to remove him without a fight later on. 

Good lawyers don't just regurgitate the law — they develop strategies. A court case can be like a game of chess. You have to anticipate what your opponent is going to do several moves ahead, so that you can outwit them. To me, it feels like many in the "movement" want to see Ingham play checkers, when he's already shown through the court documents that he's more advanced than that.

The restraining order is already on the court record. The result was that Jamie has been removed as personal conservator and replaced by Jodi Montgomery. Now it's the financials that Ingham needs to focus on so they can remove Jamie as her financial conservator as well. From what I've seen, he's going after Jamie and Lou Taylor in such a way as that they now need to lay everything out on the table during the "discovery" process. If they try to hide anything, and are caught later on during a forensic audit by Bessemer, it could result in criminal charges. 

Is that actually Ingham's game plan right now? I don't know. But that's just the way it appears.

[2K16NEY]

OMGGG EXCITEDDDDD but I also hope this is accurate. If this was influenced at all by Jamie, I don’t want it.

[2K16NEY]

Ohhhh it’s one 35 minute episode. What a letdown. Not expecting much.

[car]

I really hope all these docs coming out DO talk about the wild success she’s had since her ‘breakdown’ in 2007. #1s, tours, Vegas. and then show her countless normal interviews too. I want everybody that watches these to think ‘wow she really did achieve a lot & wow wtf she looks normal, why is she in this’ 

im worried they’ll paint her as a washed up lunatic. 

[THE BAJAN VIBE]

21 hours ago, U_WannaLiveFancy said:

If BLACKPINK can get NetFlix, why can't Britney? Who watches Hulu in 2021

Actually, the Kardashians are going to premiere their new reality in Hulu this year. Britney and the Kardashians... iconic

[SkyNet]

I'm happy that more media brings attention to Britney once again. Hope this time is for good reason too.

I just hope it's not gonna be another "documentary " where there interview bunch of reporters and journalists. Get some people who can actually tell something new.

[icybaby]

Hope it'll highlight how cruel was to put 20smth woman into cship for 13 years just bc she had personal problems at a time. Never would happen with a man. #freeBritney. She is almost 40 still paying for her previous "mistakes"-that is nonsense

[Joman82]

21 hours ago, MonaLisa613 said:

Here’s hoping this is serious and has a lot of focus on the shady court documents and isn’t just focused on social media conspiracies.

Totally agree!!!

[HeySister]

Omg, if this ends up being pro Brit then this is just the beginning of much more progress to come. Once one media outlet starts the narrative, the rest will jump on the bandwagon. Soon we will have the likes of BBC, Netflix etc following suit and covering it.

But if its pro her team then we need to fight back stronger than ever, Britney can no longer be silenced.

 

 

[wukemon]

3 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

I think fans today don't want to admit just how far down the rabbit hole she had fallen in 2007. Kevin and his lawyer had a LOT of dirt on her, ranging from the high chair incident with Preston in 2006 to the "frequent and habitual" user of ***** ruling, to driving without a licence and running red lights with the boys in the car. They had tons of paparazzi videos to use in court — probably far more than we know about. Britney's **** tests may have been coming back clean, but that's because she was relying on prescription medication. She fully admitted to taking Adderall when she was 5150'd the second time (and also when she had a dirty **** test earlier in the summer of 2007), and it was her antipsychotic prescription meds that Lutfi was crushing and putting in her food. We have no idea how many times she "slipped" in the early years of the conservatorship by having a drink (or more). Maybe lots. Maybe not at all. We just don't know.

But none of these things justify probate conservatorship, which is designed for people who are literally incapacitated to the point of being unable to care for themselves. That’s the crux of the matter.

Whether or not the conservatorship was a “very positive thing” may be debated, but that’s exactly how so many were conditioned to stop questioning it. All of the above could and should have been addressed without denying Britney her civil rights and removing her autonomy.

[Steel Magnolia]

1 minute ago, wukemon said:

But none of these things justify probate conservatorship, which is designed for people who are literally incapacitated to the point of being unable to care for themselves. That’s the crux of the matter.

Whether or not the conservatorship was a “very positive thing” may be debated, but that’s exactly how so many were conditioned to stop questioning it. All of the above could and should have been addressed without denying Britney her civil rights and removing her autonomy.

 

Agreed. My mom just passed away from Alzheimers three weeks ago. Conservatorships are meant for people like her, who couldn't feed or bathe themselves.

That's why I say that it could have been positive if it had remained temporary — and if Jamie had good intentions.

When it began, it was only supposed to last several weeks. 

She was in very rough shape at the time she was hospitalized on the second 5150. She was babbling incoherently in the days leading up to it. To say that she couldn't feed or bathe herself may have been true within the first few days, when all of the ***** were making their way out of her system. But that would have eventually worn off.

Either way...

What's done is done. 

Everyone is stuck on "it never should have happened." But so what? It happened.

Now where's the strategy to get her out of it? 

Why isn't everyone focusing their energy on that?
 

[SamanthaJadeFanGroup]

2 hours ago, 2K16NEY said:

Ohhhh it’s one 35 minute episode. What a letdown. Not expecting much.

Same, since there are multiple episodes, the first one is probably just gonna recap her career and her bad years. 

[ObsessedBritFan1]

18 hours ago, Jordan Miller said:

From what I recall, when I was speaking with them, it was not meant to be recorded. So I was wearing an oversized purple Prince shirt and hair looking a mess 😂. The woman interviewing me was so compelled that she asked if she could start recording the convo. And I was like  but I wasn’t going to say no of course lol. So if I do somehow make the episode prepare for Trolldan

From my recollection they were pretty neutral, however it was clear (at least to me) this was meant to shed light on the injustice of it all. Didn’t feel pro conservatorship to me at all. Now, what the episode will air remains to be seen. That’s just my recollection. All in all it was a good experience being interviewed for it.

I don’t know if this is a good look if they are pro-conservatorship. 
 

lol jk

[eyesaregrin]

Yess Preach!

[4EverIntoxicated]

I’ve tried googling this and haven’t found anything about it... just framed pictures of our Queen 

[Jordan Miller]

1 hour ago, Steel Magnolia said:

 

Agreed. My mom just passed away from Alzheimers three weeks ago. Conservatorships are meant for people like her, who couldn't feed or bathe themselves.

That's why I say that it could have been positive if it had remained temporary — and if Jamie had good intentions.

When it began, it was only supposed to last several weeks. 

She was in very rough shape at the time she was hospitalized on the second 5150. She was babbling incoherently in the days leading up to it. To say that she couldn't feed or bathe herself may have been true within the first few days, when all of the ***** were making their way out of her system. But that would have eventually worn off.

Either way...

What's done is done. 

Everyone is stuck on "it never should have happened." But so what? It happened.

Now where's the strategy to get her out of it? 

Why isn't everyone focusing their energy on that?
 

I'm really sorry for your loss 😢 

[rennen]

 

[Manse]

2 hours ago, sjadeupdate said:

Same, since there are multiple episodes, the first one is probably just gonna recap her career and her bad years. 

It will only be one episode. Their series consists of short independent episodes about different relevant topics. Wish it was multiple episodes or a full documentary.