Jump to content

[RUMOR] Netflix documentary will have "lawyersforbritney" and is *allegedly" pro-conservatorship


Recommended Posts

I disagree with too many of LFB’s opinions to call myself a supporter. I’ll wait it out. I just hope they have more free Britney ppl than just them in that documentary, because they’re not the face of the movement, no one is, and having just them there to represent the free Britney movement would be a massive mistake. Lisa MacCarley should be in it, or people like her, not LFB, Billy B or whoever else.

  • Like 2
Link to post
  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

People thought framing Britney Spears was going to be pro c-ship. Just let things play out. If there is no hard evidence, there's no need to start rumors. 

Guys of course it won’t be pro conservatorship - it’s not cool to hate Britney anymore; they would get so much backlash... the world is moved by how unfair we were to her. So no, don’t stress it won’t

Taking into account LFB's track record, all their statements, they are clearly a pro-Cship... So I don't support LFB, to put it mildly. But if they are involved in Netflix documentary, it does no

Let’s just wait and see...

And if SO, then the backlash Netflix would receive would be big (also consider my account cancelled :tiffdrink_miss_ms_ny_new_york_drinking_sips_sipping_tea_straw:). WE’D let the world know that the doc was trash and to instead watch Framing Brit II (or whatever else there is by that time). 
 

This has too much momentum to be stopped by one pro-con documentary - even if it is Netflix. 
 

 

Do we have a timeframe for its release? 

  • Love 2
Link to post

Thank you for sharing. I am not opposed that LFB appears in the documentary, they are professionals and have their own opinion. I am sure more people will participate in the documentary besides them.

I have faith in Erin and honestly, after the NY times did an esplendid work, is Netflix going to say something pro conservatorship? They would get a lot of backlash, no?

  • Like 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

I don't understand why people view LFB as being "pro-c-ship."

6 hours ago, Jordan Miller said:

but do we really think LFB are pro conservatorship?

For example, here is one of many examples of why many people think so:

EyweqkwW8AEVrZq?format=jpg&name=medium

Eql_8c1W8AE3F0o?format=jpg&name=large

1. Cship is not meant for managing high functioning individuals and their business. If Britney isn't qualified to be under Cship, then it must be terminated, and it doesn't matter if Britney wants to keep it + there are many other ways to help her without violating her rights and freedom.

2. She is under Cship for 13 years already... 13 years of manipulation, gaslighting and isolation cannot but leave mental scars... She now may even think that she needs Cship because of it all. So while she is under Cship, we cannot be 100% sure that she is not being unduly influenced to believe that she still needs it:

3. Everything we heard about Brit's wishes, we heard from others, and not directly from her. It scares me.

 

8 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

- Britney's conservatorship is far more complex than the average case, with Jamie owning her LLC's, trademarks, social media, brokering her contracts, etc., and she can't earn a living without disentangling herself from that. Sure, she can do that through the civil courts, but that will take years as well.

Everything that you have listed relates to the Cship of the estate. Yeah, may be there is some point of not terminating the Cship of the estate for now, although i still have my doubts about the benefits of such a strategy. But the Cship of her person can be terminated now instead of making it permanent.  So that Britney at least would have control over her personal life, where to go, who she will meet and when and etc. There is really no point in making Jodi permanent from a strategic point of view, if Ingham has plans to terminate it. LFB claims that this is being done so that James could not return as her conservator of her person, but Lisa said, that there is literally no such thing as “temporarily” resigning as conservator. So it's another bs which LFB tries to feed us. James is no longer her conservator of her person. Period.

But, yeah, then they will not be able to silence Britney if they do not control her personal life too.  So...

 

  • Love 5
Link to post
11 hours ago, Hungry Hun said:

Also, fans have suggest several times for her to include TheSurpriseWitness and Lisa MacCarley in this body of work.

Well I have some great news, Erin Lee Carr follows TheSurpriseWitnes on Twitter and Lisa MacCarley on Instagram.

Link to post

No, LFB are not pro-conservatorship. It's just that y'all bully them for believing in another legal strategy and for having a different opinion on reaching the same goal. They're not wrong at all - with Jamie out first, the path for anything Britney wants gets easier. But y'all got too caught up in the "omg he wants Jamie out but not Ingham" as if... y'all didn't actually want Jamie out, y'all want a revolution steady and fast right now. Well, I'd love to see that happen but ain't gonna be steady and fast and right now.

We just got to ground ourselves into the reality and with what we have. That's the strategy here.

I am personally ecstastic to see an abuser like Jamie out of Britney's life. I can't imagine the threats and harsh words and...

Spoiler

spankings?

 

  • Love 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, DuranDuran said:

Everything that you have listed relates to the Cship of the estate. Yeah, may be there is some point of not terminating the Cship of the estate for now, although i still have my doubts about the benefits of such a strategy. But the Cship of her person can be terminated now instead of making it permanent.  So that Britney at least would have control over her personal life, where to go, who she will meet and when and etc. There is really no point in making Jodi permanent from a strategic point of view, if Ingham has plans to terminate it. LFB claims that this is being done so that James could not return as her conservator of her person, but Lisa said, that there is literally no such thing as “temporarily” resigning as conservator. So it's another bs which LFB tries to feed us. James is no longer her conservator of her person. Period.

How would Britney have control over her personal life if her father still controls her contracts, her business manager, her team, her social media? The cship of the person in a probate cship regards medical treatments, the decision of taking the treatment or not.

It's not simple at all. Not even Amanda Bynes' case is similar - Amanda's network of people working for her is not as big or as entrenched in her life post-cship.

Lynne herself could request termination or to take over the cship, estate and personal. She's the mother, she has a good relationship with Britney, she'd have a lot of sway in court. Why do you think she hasn't? What she's doing is being involved as a watch dog in the due legal process. There's something much more complex that we can't pinpoint on what exactly is, but we can say that it's a messy spider web regarding Britney's businesses.

  • Love 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, DuranDuran said:

1. Cship is not meant for managing high functioning individuals and their business. If Britney isn't qualified to be under Cship, then it must be terminated, and it doesn't matter if Britney wants to keep it + there are many other ways to help her without violating her rights and freedom.

2. She is under Cship for 13 years already... 13 years of manipulation, gaslighting and isolation cannot but leave mental scars... She now may even think that she needs Cship because of it all. So while she is under Cship, we cannot be 100% sure that she is not being unduly influenced to believe that she still needs it:

3. Everything we heard about Brit's wishes, we heard from others, and not directly from her. It scares me.

 

Everything that you have listed relates to the Cship of the estate. Yeah, may be there is some point of not terminating the Cship of the estate for now, although i still have my doubts about the benefits of such a strategy. But the Cship of her person can be terminated now instead of making it permanent.  So that Britney at least would have control over her personal life, where to go, who she will meet and when and etc. There is really no point in making Jodi permanent from a strategic point of view, if Ingham has plans to terminate it. LFB claims that this is being done so that James could not return as her conservator of her person, but Lisa said, that there is literally no such thing as “temporarily” resigning as conservator. So it's another bs which LFB tries to feed us. James is no longer her conservator of her person. Period.

But, yeah, then they will not be able to silence Britney if they do not control her personal life too.  So...

 

1. Everyone is assuming she has already passed a medical evaluation.

As Vivian Thoreen has stated, the burden is on Britney to prove to the court that she is capable...What if she cannot pass an evaluation until her "trigger" is permanently removed from her life?

2. We also can't be confident that we're not removing her agency by automatically assuming she isn't capable of knowing what she wants.

3. I view her silence as a legal strategy when it comes to James — he would not allow her to speak freely for 12 years, so Ingham is simply feeding his own tactics straight back to him. He implied this in one of the court documents.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Applejack said:

How would Britney have control over her personal life if her father still controls her contracts, her business manager, her team, her social media?

Now she has no control even who she can meet and when or leave the house whenever she wants. Her conservator of her person has this control over her. But if personal one is terminated, Britney will have much less restrictions than if both Сships are in place. Right?

Also, speaking about contracts and control, Ingham instead of pushing the basis that she has capacity to file declaration, he says it's his view that Britney lacks that capacity... Some strange strategy he has... That is, this strategy continues to deprive her of the chance to even sign papers, her signature is not even needed for the documents/contracts/petitions to be approved

EympsGDW8AAI87D?format=jpg&name=medium

For example, there is her signature on the appointment of Bessemer, so we at least know that she agreed to it, but after that hearing, her signature is nowhere to be found in the petition to appoint Jodi. Very convenient.

Full doc: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f6faddf8ed7155b91ae16a7/t/6070975cffddd531f7d77f58/1617991518077/2020.10.26+Notice+of+Errata+re+Brief+re+Applicability+of+Hearsay+Rule.pdf

  • Love 4
Link to post

 

22 minutes ago, DuranDuran said:

Now she has no control even who she can meet and when or leave the house whenever she wants. Her conservator of her person has this control over her. But if personal one is terminated, Britney will have much less restrictions than if both Сships are in place. Right?

Also, speaking about contracts and control, Ingham instead of pushing the basis that she has capacity to file declaration, he says it's in his view that Britney lacks that capacity... Some strange strategy he has... That is, this strategy continues to deprive her of the chance to even sign papers, her signature is not even needed for the documents/contracts/petitions to be approvedFor example, there is her signature on the appointment of Bessemer, so we at least know that she agreed to it, but after that hearing, her signature is nowhere to be found in the petition to appoint Jodi. Very convenient.

 

Not really.

The conservatorship of the person in a probate cship is mainly meant for medical decisions, because we're talking about people in a coma, with Alzheimer's. There are those ramifications, such as the right to vet who the conservatee can associate with, but that one is deeply entrenched with the conservatorship of the estate. As long as Britney's millionaire's contracts, her entire business team, custody arrangements and her security are all handled by her father, no, she won't have complete control over her public or private person. As of now, Jamie is not the conservator of the person and it looks like there's a gag order still. For an example, I think in 2018 Amanda Bynes' conservatorship of the estate was dissolved - was she really free afterwards? Her mom still controlled her money in regards to medical treatments. Both cships are very linked to the other.

But... the way it is, the law of the court considers Britney someone incapable. If the court put her in a cship, it means she is incapable. The fact she signed something speaks volumes, but she doesn't really have to sign everything. In court processes you don't really sign everything.

I mean, your fears are not unfounded and it could be a real thing to be afraid of, but I think that's the most liberating thing coming from her since her conservators prohibited everyone around her to say the word "conservatorship."

Link to post
19 minutes ago, Applejack said:

The conservatorship of the person in a probate cship is mainly meant for medical decisions, because we're talking about people in a coma, with Alzheimer's. There are those ramifications, such as the right to vet who the conservatee can associate with, but that one is deeply entrenched with the conservatorship of the estate. As long as Britney's millionaire's contracts, her entire business team, custody arrangements and her security are all handled by her father, no, she won't have complete control over her public or private person. As of now, Jamie is not the conservator of the person and it looks like there's a gag order still. For an example, I think in 2018 Amanda Bynes' conservatorship of the estate was dissolved - was she really free afterwards? Her mom still controlled her money in regards to medical treatments. Both cships are very linked to the other.

But... the way it is, the law of the court considers Britney someone incapable. If the court put her in a cship, it means she is incapable. The fact she signed something speaks volumes, but she doesn't really have to sign everything. In court processes you don't really sign everything.

I couldn't find the doc what powers James had, but here are the powers granted to Jodi as a temporary conservator of Britney's person.

Evo8gtVXUAAxa8K?format=jpg&name=large

The fact that Bessemer is still not on board and that James still has complete control as the conservator of the estate, it's also because of Ingham.

And I get that the law of the court considers Britney someone incapable, but at least Sam, who ,in ideal, should defend her, could have refrained from pushing his narrative that it's his view that Britney lacks capacity. It's kinda sus, imo.

Link to post
28 minutes ago, DuranDuran said:

I couldn't find the doc what powers James had, but here are the powers granted to Jodi as a temporary conservator of Britney's person.

Evo8gtVXUAAxa8K?format=jpg&name=large

The fact that Bessemer is still not on board and that James still has complete control as the conservator of the estate, it's also because of Ingham.

And I get that the law of the court considers Britney someone incapable, but at least Sam, who ,in ideal, should defend her, could have refrained from pushing his narrative that it's his view that Britney lacks capacity. It's kinda sus, imo.

 

Those are the exact same powers that James had. I just viewed his document not that long ago, and it looks the same. So it's just transferring control from one person to the other without making any changes.

In terms of the "capacity" issue, again, I think that's Ingham just feeding James back his own bull****.

James was trying to get Britney to attend hearings — presumably so he could look at her face-to-face and "wear her down" emotionally by forcing her to look him in the eye. I presumed Ingham was getting around that by playing the "capacity" card. So in this case, it was for Britney's own benefit to say she lacked capacity.

Link to post
14 hours ago, Switchy said:

People thought framing Britney Spears was going to be pro c-ship. Just let things play out. If there is no hard evidence, there's no need to start rumors. 

I have the feeling Netflix only cares for the views and making numbers. The only thing I am excited for is that Netflix is a huge streaming platforn so this will reach many more people than the NYT doc which was not only a serious journalistic company but the doc was done entirely by women. That's why it was done with the respectful treatment it got. 

I am very skeptical towards netflix tbh. :ehum_britney_um_unsure_confused_what:

They had a chance to make something great with the I Care A Lot movie but it ended up being a weird comedy-drama-action film which isnt bad but they carried out the c-ship theme poorly. :schoolingtime_talking_telling_glasses_preaching:

Link to post
1 hour ago, Million Billion said:

I have the feeling Netflix only cares for the views and making numbers. The only thing I am excited for is that Netflix is a huge streaming platforn so this will reach many more people than the NYT doc which was not only a serious journalistic company but the doc was done entirely by women. That's why it was done with the respectful treatment it got. 

I am very skeptical towards netflix tbh. :ehum_britney_um_unsure_confused_what:

They had a chance to make something great with the I Care A Lot movie but it ended up being a weird comedy-drama-action film which isnt bad but they carried out the c-ship theme poorly. :schoolingtime_talking_telling_glasses_preaching:

You MUST watch The Keepers...if you haven't already.

 

Link to post
5 hours ago, s&m said:

Lou knowing the Director of Marketing doesn't mean sheet.. She has no say in the content made for Netflix. Please do you even know what marketing is? :katyclown_makeup_mess_pie_meme_smile:

Its not *me* babe, the whole post was made about what people on Twitter is talking about or is afraid of. I only brought the discussion to the forum so we could deliver our take on the matter :indulge_McDonalds_food_yum_fast_chew_eat_chomp_bite:

Link to post
19 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:


- Britney's conservatorship is far more complex than the average case, with Jamie owning her LLC's, trademarks, social media, brokering her contracts, etc., and she can't earn a living without disentangling herself from that. Sure, she can do that through the civil courts, but that will take years as well.
- Britney deserves the right to make her own decisions about when the conservatorship ends. It's not up to the fanbase.

Overall, I think Britney's way smarter and more capable than the majority of the fanbase gives her credit for...And Ingham personally has a ton of dirt on Jamie, so there's an advantage to sticking with him while she rides this out.

Give the Netflix film a chance..."True crime" has to show all sides, or it doesn't fit the genre.

 

Britney's father owns nothing. He is only responsible for the period that Britney is under guardianship. During this time he only managed Britney's life and finances. As soon as Britney is fully functional again, all ownership will be returned to Britney. Your father then has no decision-making authority. He signed all contracts on Britney's behalf. As he is Britney's legal representative. After that, his name will be replaced by Britney's name. And everything goes back to Britney. He will not hold a position directly related to the guardianship that he negotiated on Britney's behalf.

To Netflix; We will have to wait and see what position this documentation takes. But it had to be clear to everyone that the other side would also strike to justify their side of the version.

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