James Spears seeks to depose Britney Spears, She should be compelled to sit for a deposition just as all parties are required to do.

[Headed Peckerhead]

There is zero legal authority to support depriving Jamie of his basic and well-established discovery and due process rights.

The only petitions pending before the Court are Jamie’s routine conservatorship
administration petitions which Britney chose to object to by making voluminous (and false)
allegations of wrongdoing by Jamie. Britney could have filed simple, legal objections.

Anything other than compelling Britney to be deposed would be an unprecedented departure from well-established law that allows a party to depose an opposing party. Indeed, Britney’s counsel insisted that Jamie needs to be deposed about Britney’s allegations while making the remarkable claim that Britney does not need to be deposed about her allegations.

 

DOWNLOAD FULL FILE BELOW --- https://drive.google.com/file/d/10ECAHLMoHS8R8S6X3irY_yb0Up7AvG_K/view

 

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ALEX M. WEINGARTEN IN SUPPORT OF JAMES P. SPEARS’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF BRITNEY JEAN SPEARS

DOWNLOAD FULL FILE BELOW --- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ePgF6Mtrw0DDSQ-8woWoEbbrPZcmRNKj/view

🟡Credit: @FreeBritneyLA

[One More Time]

This piece of crap 

[ChrisBritSlo]

I want him to stop using the "Spears" last name. Have It renamed to Colon or something. I just can't read It anymore next to his name

[easy]

britney 👏🏻 isn't 👏🏻 making 👏🏻 the 👏🏻 allegations 👏🏻 

rosengart will get him. this is such a poor argument. 

[KrisJ]

Can you die already..or go to jail. 

[Britneylandia]

Ew. I hope to see Jamie locked yo in jail.

[Markoct]

One word: AUDACITY 

[Watch Me Work It]

every time I read one of this dude's documents I feel like it's written in such an amateur way lol I don't know how to explain it

 

[Ghoulia]

This is like, theater of the absurd or something. 

"Britney did not have to object to Jamie’s outstanding, routine conservatorship administration petitions. See Cal. Prob. Code § 2622 (providing a conservatee may file written objections)."

"Good cause is not required to obtain a deposition... There is no obligation for Jamie to identify topics for a deposition."

"Britney expressly approved each business opportunity in writing." 

"Britney’s testimony is necessary to illustrate the central role Britney played in choosing the care she received."

 

[Ghoulia]

Re: Electronic Surveillance

Jamie explains that one of the things he needs to ask Britney about is bugging her private bedroom.

Britney alleges in her objections that Jamie “monitored and contemporaneously captured [her] text communications.” ...Britney further alleges that: “Mr. Vlasov was charged with finding monitoring software and installing it as a hidden ‘app’ on Britney’s phone, which Britney could not see and to which she did not have the password.” 

Jamie wants Britney deposed because "Britney’s testimony is necessary to respond to these allegations because Britney knows: (1) why monitoring was necessary and in her best interest; (2) about the court-approved monitoring; and (3) what monitoring she was aware of."

 

This is just cruel. It's a horrible power play. Jamie wants Britney to be forced to say, "I was monitored because the court allowed it. I didn't know about it because they didn't have to tell me. My dad said it was in my best interest and he was in charge." 

[ICouldntThinkOfOne]

What does Britney have to prove to Jamie, and Lou to be honest?

As Jamie was acting as Conservator, he was acting as an extension of the Courts and therefore, should be acting accordingly, in good faith, with no conflict of interests, no self dealing and for Britney's best interest.

Firstly, you had several conflicts of interest you failed to present to the court, such as the loan and your relationship with Tristar and/or Lou, you gave yourself cuts of Britney's contracts and You fought against Britney's wishes failing to act in her best interest, and this all before we acknowledge the lack of medical declaration.

You don't get to attack Britney, you're the only being objected to Jamie. It's your actions as Conservator that are in question.

[Ghoulia]

12 minutes ago, Watch Me Work It said:

every time I read one of this dude's documents I feel like it's written in such an amateur way lol I don't know how to explain it

 

It's like he breaks down the code into phrases and picks and chooses the ones that apply to suit his needs.  He's not using the entire sentence. Like if the directions for say, cleaning a baseball glove started out with, "Apply lotion to palm of glove," Weingarten would say it's fine to put the leather polish directly on your hand because the directions say "apply lotion to palm."

[very_urban]

2 minutes ago, Ghoulia said:

Re: Electronic Surveillance

Jamie explains that one of the things he needs to ask Britney about is bugging her private bedroom.

Britney alleges in her objections that Jamie “monitored and contemporaneously captured [her] text communications.” ...Britney further alleges that: “Mr. Vlasov was charged with finding monitoring software and installing it as a hidden ‘app’ on Britney’s phone, which Britney could not see and to which she did not have the password.” 

Jamie wants Britney deposed because "Britney’s testimony is necessary to respond to these allegations because Britney knows: (1) why monitoring was necessary and in her best interest; (2) about the court-approved monitoring; and (3) what monitoring she was aware of."

 

This is just cruel. It's a horrible power play. Jamie wants Britney to be forced to say, "I was monitored because the court allowed it. I didn't know about it because they didn't have to tell me. My dad said it was in my best interest and he was in charge." 

I’m not well versed in legal stuff but didn’t they record other people without their knowledge which is illegal? So the whole “in her best interest” argument makes no sense whatsoever.

[pieceofphil]

For 13 years she was not allowed to talk and now she is?

I wish she would be able to just go to a deposition and burn Jamie alive with every answer of the truth she gives. But yeah they'd just ask gaslight questions.

[Ghoulia]

1 minute ago, very_urban said:

I’m not well versed in legal stuff but didn’t they record other people without their knowledge which is illegal? So the whole “in her best interest” argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Somewhere in the custody agreement, there is a line that approves of the conservator's surveillance of Britney's children's bedrooms. I think they're going to argue that all of the bedrooms were bugged because her sons sometimes slept in their mother's room. 

[x.rox]

This is pissing me off 

[Watch Me Work It]

9 minutes ago, Ghoulia said:

Re: Electronic Surveillance

Jamie explains that one of the things he needs to ask Britney about is bugging her private bedroom.

Britney alleges in her objections that Jamie “monitored and contemporaneously captured [her] text communications.” ...Britney further alleges that: “Mr. Vlasov was charged with finding monitoring software and installing it as a hidden ‘app’ on Britney’s phone, which Britney could not see and to which she did not have the password.” 

Jamie wants Britney deposed because "Britney’s testimony is necessary to respond to these allegations because Britney knows: (1) why monitoring was necessary and in her best interest; (2) about the court-approved monitoring; and (3) what monitoring she was aware of."

 

This is just cruel. It's a horrible power play. Jamie wants Britney to be forced to say, "I was monitored because the court allowed it. I didn't know about it because they didn't have to tell me. My dad said it was in my best interest and he was in charge." 

also didn't Jamie sign a document a few days ago saying that he had no knowledge about the monitoring? so they are saying Jamie didn't know but Britney did AND was okay with it? the hell?  

this one 

[Ghoulia]

6 minutes ago, ICouldntThinkOfOne said:

What does Britney have to prove to Jamie, and Lou to be honest?

As Jamie was acting as Conservator, he was acting as an extension of the Courts and therefore, should be acting accordingly, in good faith, with no conflict of interests, no self dealing and for Britney's best interest.

Firstly, you had several conflicts of interest you failed to present to the court, such as the loan and your relationship with Tristar and/or Lou, you gave yourself cuts of Britney's contracts and You fought against Britney's wishes failing to act in her best interest, and this all before we acknowledge the lack of medical declaration.

You don't get to attack Britney, you're the only being objected to Jamie. It's your actions as Conservator that are in question.

Jamie wants to prove that "Daddy was officially in charge." Because he's a megalomaniac. Or narcissist. Or something.  Wetbrain? Idk. 

[Ghoulia]

1 minute ago, Watch Me Work It said:

also didn't Jamie sign a document a few days ago saying that he had no knowledge about the monitoring? so they are saying Jamie didn't know but Britney did AND was okay with it? the hell?

Yes, lol. Or, Jamie's argument might be neither of them (Jamie and Britney) knew about it but Britney was the conservatee and didn't get to say no to things like that.

[RebellionSparkles]

3 minutes ago, Ghoulia said:

Somewhere in the custody agreement, there is a line that approves of the conservator's surveillance

Whaaaaa? Which doc?? THAT’s insane!