Jump to content

Britney: I didn’t watch the documentary but I was embarrassed by the light they put me in, I cried for two weeks


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, senammoises said:

But what about those videos? Where do they come from? They force her to film? 

Im hella confused

I don’t think they force her, but instead they just give her instructions on what to do. They probably told her that the fans are loving her dance videos, so they need more. They also present her with a list of questions that literally not a single living soul has been asking her and tell her this is from the fans. She records the videos, sends it to them and they post it, hence the constant LQ of her videos. That’s how I think it works. 

 

  • Love 1
Link to post
  • Replies 527
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

THAT DOCUMENTARY DID NOTHING BUT PROJECT POSITIVITY ON HER Since that has aired she has the world rallying with her and behind her. If she wont speak WITH HER VOICE and not captions people w

I always say Britney posts but this screams bull**** - the documentary did nothing but paint her positively!

Interesting how the lawyers fees get leaked and now all the sudden Britney hates the documentary 🙄

Posted Images

I honestly think she’s going to try to push her fans away as she fights for her freedom. Like I don’t think she wants any attention so if she can push it all away she will. 

Imo what sucks about this as fans, is we all all grew up with Britney and she made us feel free and powerful. She gave us a voice and we were inspired and influenced by her and now that were adults it just sucks that she’s not where we are anymore ... it’s like we’ve all grown up 20 years but she hasn’t or hasn’t been able to . It’s tough seeing this all unfold and to have doubt that the girl who shaped our childhoods might have not really ever been there 

Link to post
8 hours ago, Geralt_of_Rivia said:

I agree, 100%. I think this is the key element here and it's the lawyer's job to interpret that law in favour of their client. 

Regarding the medical report, it is important to know what's in it because that's what the judge used against Streisand who Britney hired. Ergo, it was used against her to strip her from her right to have a lawyer of her choice.

The bottom line is, we can see what's happening here but how do you prove this in court? In my opinion, whatever's written on that medical record was used as leverage for the temporary probate conservatorship of the person and from then of the estate (although no doctor is needed for this one but once you have proof for the conv of the person, it's not that hard to prove why a conv of the estate is also needed). The thing that granted them that initial control was the medical record, they simply extended  their claws after that. You see, the initial conversatorship was granted for one reason but was extended for a totally different one. That's what I make out of it. The question is why didn't the judge say no to the indefinite extension and also did anyone oppose that decision/request? 

A LOT of questions that probably hold the answers.

 

This is important!

There's a huge difference between the temporary conservatorship (granted due to "dementia," which is reasonable following being drugged with crushed anti-psychotic meds) and the permanent conservatorship (apparently granted due to her being found to be "susceptible to undue influence.")

Fans are conflating the two, when they shouldn't be viewed interchangeably.

  • Love 1
  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, Steel Magnolia said:


Sam Lutfi is the key to exposing the entire Racket.

Not by working with him, but by exposing the intel both sides have on each other.

I agree. Why would Jamie pay so much on lawyers to have power over him? Why isn't a RO enough? Do u think he's somewhat gagged? Like team con made him sign smt and that's why he didn't spill the whole thing yet? He seems to hate Jamie and Lou (or makes it seem that way anyway), he was in Britney's life before the cship took place so its not like they made him sign a NDA, right? 

Link to post
14 hours ago, SUCCESSICA IS A QUEEN said:

Beautifully said. You guys as well - @Oxic, @SlayOut and @Dreams. Wish we had more of your logic on this forum. Sadly, people who think like us about Britney are usually silenced or are quick to be shunned by the radical theorists. I’d like to think we’re the silent minority (or majority??) because while we want the best for Britney, it’s important to respect her privacy first and foremost and not over-speculate on things we barely know a fraction of. Just because it’s not what someone wanted to hear doesn’t mean she MAY not feel that way.

I do think the documentary was great for her image overall but as I rewatch certain parts of it, I realize its shortcomings and things that could have been included but were left out instead. In my opinion, it should have focused more on her brilliance, resilience and talent rather than paint this ‘pity’ story. Keeping in mind, some of those 2006-7 clips should have been kept to a minimum. Those were traumatic so I can understand why it may have been a trigger and allegedly made her ‘cry’. Again, there is a lot we don’t know but one thing I can say is that this fanbase should learn to respect her privacy more and stop relying so heavily on theories. I hope this makes sense to at least someone else out there and that I don’t feel like I’m talking to a brick wall whenever I share my opinions on here.

What is the radical theory you’re talking about specifically

  • Like 1
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

There's a huge difference between the temporary conservatorship (granted due to "dementia," which is reasonable following being drugged with crushed anti-psychotic meds) and the permanent conservatorship (apparently granted due to her being found to be "susceptible to undue influence.")

Fans are conflating the two, when they shouldn't be viewed interchangeably.

"susceptible to undue influence" is ticked only for Cship of estate. While in the Cship of a person, it's "unable to properly provide for her personal needs for physical health, food, clothing or shelter".

Lawyer_ops from BritneyLawArmy expressed the opinion that only the Cship of estate is advantageous to leave for now, but the Cship of her person should/can be terminated instead of making it permanent. But then they will not be able to silence her if they do not control her personal life too. And I believe she doesn't support their narrative at all, otherwise she would have recorded a video message to us long ago.

Wish Britney had a lawyer who fights for her and not against her.

  • Love 1
  • Like 2
Link to post
14 minutes ago, Bundy said:

I agree. Why would Jamie pay so much on lawyers to have power over him? Why isn't a RO enough? Do u think he's somewhat gagged? Like team con made him sign smt and that's why he didn't spill the whole thing yet? He seems to hate Jamie and Lou (or makes it seem that way anyway), he was in Britney's life before the cship took place so its not like they made him sign a NDA, right? 


Oh, have I got theories on this one!

I believe Sam Lutfi was hired by either Lou Taylor or Mark Vincent Kaplan to railroad her into going to rehab in February of 2007...His involvement from that point forward set the legal foundation for the conservatorship, which followed one year later.

Nobody wants to believe me...So maybe that will be my next juicy thread. :jj_janet_smirk_hehe_haha_lmao_lol_giggle:

  • Love 2
Link to post
2 minutes ago, DuranDuran said:

"susceptible to undue influence" is ticked only for Cship of estate. While in the Cship of a person, it's "unable to properly provide for her personal needs for physical health, food, clothing or shelter".

Lawyer_ops from BritneyLawArmy expressed the opinion that only the Cship of estate is advantageous to leave for now, but the Cship of her person should/can be terminated instead of making it permanent. But then they will not be able to silence her if they do not control her personal life too. And I believe she doesn't support their narrative at all, otherwise she would have recorded a video message to us long ago.

Wish Britney had a lawyer who fights for her and not against her.


Yet it was "susceptible to undue influence" that Team CON relied on so heavily between 2009 and 2016 when they finally settled the lawsuit with Lutfi.

The line "susceptible to undue influence" was repeated over and over, throughout the years...Likely because:

a) It supported their narrative — that they had to protect her from the evil-doer Lutfi
and
b) How could they claim she is "unable to properly provide for her personal needs for physical health, food, clothing or shelter" when she's simultaneously able to perform on stage in front of thousands for three hours?

  • Like 3
Link to post
6 minutes ago, DuranDuran said:

Lawyer_ops from BritneyLawArmy expressed the opinion that only the Cship of estate is advantageous to leave for now, but the Cship of her person should/can be terminated instead of making it permanent.

Here is a video if anyone is interested

 

Link to post
8 hours ago, Geralt_of_Rivia said:

I agree, 100%. I think this is the key element here and it's the lawyer's job to interpret that law in favour of their client. 

Regarding the medical report, it is important to know what's in it because that's what the judge used against Streisand who Britney hired. Ergo, it was used against her to strip her from her right to have a lawyer of her choice.

The bottom line is, we can see what's happening here but how do you prove this in court? In my opinion, whatever's written on that medical record was used as leverage for the temporary probate conservatorship of the person and from then of the estate (although no doctor is needed for this one but once you have proof for the conv of the person, it's not that hard to prove why a conv of the estate is also needed). The thing that granted them that initial control was the medical record, they simply extended  their claws after that. You see, the initial conversatorship was granted for one reason but was extended for a totally different one. That's what I make out of it. The question is why didn't the judge say no to the indefinite extension and also did anyone oppose that decision/request? 

A LOT of questions that probably hold the answers.

30 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

 

This is important!

There's a huge difference between the temporary conservatorship (granted due to "dementia," which is reasonable following being drugged with crushed anti-psychotic meds) and the permanent conservatorship (apparently granted due to her being found to be "susceptible to undue influence.")

Fans are conflating the two, when they shouldn't be viewed interchangeably.

I think when you look at someone like Demi Lovato-who, not to compare mental health struggles, is someone who has overdosed on illicit drugs (that never happened to Britney), had admitted suicidal tendencies and has public mental health struggles yet is NOT even close to being in a conservatorship-it is 100% clear that the purpose of the conservatorship has nothing to do with her mental well being, because other rehabilitative efforts could have been instigated for Britney.

This has something to do with nefarious intentions involving money.

(For one thing Britney is supposed to be getting royalties for all the songs she didn't even write-based on that thread from songwriter Heather Bright, you get royalties from vocals in addition to songwriting)

"Take, for example, the song “I Will Always Love You” from the 1992 soundtrack for “The Bodyguard.” That version of the song was performed by Whitney Houston, the recording of which is owned Sony Music Entertainment division Arista Records. However the song was written by Dolly Parton, who owns the composition, including the lyrics and melody. Spotify would have to pay Sony to license the recording, who would then give Houston’s estate a percentage of the stream. It would also have to pay the music publisher and songwriter. In this case, Parton is both."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/28/how-spotify-licenses-and-pays-for-music-rights.html

"Those parties may have nothing to do with the people who write the lyrics and melody of the song and thus own the composition copyright. Sometimes they’re one and the same, in which case that lucky party gets double the cash flow. If they’re separate — as is the case with most pop songs and chart-topping hits — the sound recording copyright is split between artists and record labels, while the composition copyright is split between whatever songwriters and publishers are involved. In the case of Counting Crows’ “Big Yellow Taxi,” for example, the band takes sound recording royalties but Joni Mitchell, the song’s original writer, gets composition royalties."

https://prosoundmixx.com/how-artists-do-or-dont-make-money/

 

  • Love 1
  • Like 4
Link to post
21 minutes ago, zxcvb said:

I think when you look at someone like Demi Lovato-who, not to compare mental health struggles, is someone who has overdosed on illicit drugs (that never happened to Britney), had admitted suicidal tendencies and has public mental health struggles yet is NOT even close to being in a conservatorship-it is 100% clear that the purpose of the conservatorship has nothing to do with her mental well being, because other rehabilitative efforts could have been instigated for Britney.

This has something to do with nefarious intentions.

 

Absolutely!

The temporary conservatorship was originally set to last for two weeks...It was later extended...and then extended again.

It was made permanent on October 28, 2008 — presumably so she could be insured for the Circus Tour which launched four months later.

She'd already lost millions on the Onyx Hotel Tour because her insurance company refused to compensate her. (The case went to court, but I've never heard the result, so I'm going to assume she lost millions on Onyx.) It is highly likely it was her insurance company that provoked the unexpected switch from temporary to permanent.

Source: https://www.contactmusic.com/britney-spears/news/britney-sues-her-insurance-companies-over-onyx-hotel-tour

The permanent conservatorship can be seen as nothing more than a business deal...a "hybrid business model," if you will.

Nefarious indeed.

  • Like 4
Link to post
  • Twitter Team
2 hours ago, Christopher Spears said:

i remember back in the BJ's era when she posted a pic of a guy holding a towel and the we found out he's a social media asst he used to post for her on her instagram account and he accidentally posted his pic on her account and then the pic got deleted after a few minutes 

bottom line i don't trust any of her social media accounts that's not her !

Really? I don’t remember that.

  • Like 1
Link to post

Maybe she doesn't like people prying into her personal affairs... you know... like she has implied hundreds of times, for the past 15 years? It makes perfect sense why she would be against and embarrassed by a for-profit documentary made about her private affairs, without her input.

 

Kelly Rowland alluded to this a couple weeks ago, when she said she would not watch it, because it's Britney's business, and she wasn't involved.

  • Love 2
Link to post

It’s honestly unsettling that I can’t even remember the last time we heard from Britney and knew it was actually her. Ever since this started they built a solid wall between her and everybody else, especially us. And I think we all know why. They refuse to terminate the cship of her person because they know she would fight to terminate the estate cship too and that would get a lot of people, including Ingham, in trouble. By now I’m convinced as long as there’s no unrelated party willing to directly help Britney, this won’t end. Unless Ingham somehow grew a brain and developed a plan to get Britney out of this while also coming out of this unscathed himself, this will most likely end with Jamie gone full stop the end. Stop falling for their tricks. Stop listening to people telling you Britney might want to remain in an unjust cship that she technically isn’t even allowed to be in. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
34 minutes ago, DuranDuran said:

Here is a video if anyone is interested

 

Let's spam this to LAWYERS FOR SCAM. It should be everywhere so we all stop giving these rats an audience.

Link to post
  • Twitter Team
15 minutes ago, Roger said:

Mte, Instagram was not even a thing back then :snooptoya_jackson_snooping_looking_magnifying_glass_glasses_search:

Instagram was very much a thing during BJ era? I was using it dd

Link to post
28 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Absolutely!

The temporary conservatorship was originally set to last for two weeks...It was later extended...and then extended again.

It was made permanent on October 28, 2008 — presumably so she could be insured for the Circus Tour which launched four months later.

She'd already lost millions on the Onyx Hotel Tour because her insurance company refused to compensate her. (The case went to court, but I've never heard the result, so I'm going to assume she lost millions on Onyx.) It is highly likely it was her insurance company that provoked the unexpected switch from temporary to permanent.

Source: https://www.contactmusic.com/britney-spears/news/britney-sues-her-insurance-companies-over-onyx-hotel-tour

The permanent conservatorship can be seen as nothing more than a business deal...a "hybrid business model," if you will.

Nefarious indeed.

I'm glad you brought up the Onyx Hotel Tour and the fact that there was never a reported outcome of her lawsuit.

And you're actually saying  about the insurance company was actually reported on by OK Magazine back in 2009...

Britney is featured as the main cover story on this week’s issue of OK! magazine, in which the mag claims Britney “voluntarily” gave up time with her kids in order to tour.

“Last fall, as The circus Starring Britney Spears tour was being organized, Britney’s camp discovered that because of the star’s troubled history, they could not purchase insurance to cover her tour unless she was still under the conservatorship of her father, Jamie Spears. Until that point, the plan was for the conservatorship to be lifted on December 31, followed immediately by Britney, 27, going into family court with a petition to regain custody of Preston and Jayden. But “the insurance situation changed everything.”

https://www.breatheheavy.com/ok-magazine-january-19/

And yet, the conservatorship was still extended past Circus...

  • Love 3
Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

We noticed you're using an ad blocker  :badthoughts_gun_kris_genner_thinking_debating:

Thanks for visiting Exhale! Your support is greatly appreciated 💜  

Exhale survives through advertising revenue. Please, disable your ad block extension to help us and continue browsing Exhale. 🙏

I've disabled ad block