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

[Ghoulia]

11 minutes 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?  

this one 

Yep, he sure did say that was false.  This is what is burned into my brain from one of the leaks. @RebellionSparkles

 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by Ghoulia

[RebellionSparkles]

1 hour ago, Darec said:

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

The part that I’m legit confused about is Jamie’s team’s basis for wanting to depose Britney.

You can only depose someone if that person is the only one capable providing information necessary for discovery in a lawsuit. This lawsuit is about Jamie’s financial malfeasance. Britney has no unique information about Jamie’s financial malfeasance. Britney’s deposition would not even be reliable because she is not a trained financial expert.

[Iiquoricebabe]

16 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.

I fully agree with this.

The strategy of Rosengart is to make it clear what the cship is, it’s goal and, and the duty of the conservators.

That’s why he is constantly questioning the role of Jamie and Tri-Star as conservators as well as their actions.

On the other side, the strategy of Weingarten is to make it appear that it was all cool. That it was all court approved and that Britney was aware of all it, that she was coerced even agreed to all of it.

It’s laughable.

If I were him, and Rosenzaddy was coming for me, I’d be heading for the hills 

[Kaitlyn Johnson]

Funny, they claimed she didn’t have the mental capacity to sit through a deposition for the Sam Lufti trial, but now she does. 

[Ghoulia]

2 minutes ago, RebellionSparkles said:

The part that I’m legit confused about is Jamie’s team’s basis for wanting to depose Britney.

You can only depose someone if that person is the only one capable providing information necessary for discovery in a lawsuit. This lawsuit is about Jamie’s financial malfeasance. Britney has no unique information about Jamie’s financial malfeasance. Britney’s deposition would not even be reliable because she is not a trained financial expert.

His argument is that he doesn't need a reason to depose her, it's his RIGHT!!!!!!!  It reminds me of those wacky sovereign citizens (usually men) who are obsessed with interpreting the law in their own way to suit their interests. 

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

[Ghoulia]

Just now, Kaitlyn Johnson said:

Funny, they claimed she didn’t have the mental capacity to sit through a deposition for the Sam Lufti trial, but now she does. 

Hopefully, Judge Penny will take that into consideration (all the times that Britney was not allowed to be deposed).

[Ghoulia]

6 minutes ago, RebellionSparkles said:

The part that I’m legit confused about is Jamie’s team’s basis for wanting to depose Britney.

You can only depose someone if that person is the only one capable providing information necessary for discovery in a lawsuit. This lawsuit is about Jamie’s financial malfeasance. Britney has no unique information about Jamie’s financial malfeasance. Britney’s deposition would not even be reliable because she is not a trained financial expert.

I think of it in terms of dogs.  Jamie and his German shepherds and his guns.

He wants Britney to roll over on her back and cry for mercy. ONE MORE TIME.

[Headed Peckerhead]

🔴New : BRITNEY SPEARS’S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO JAMES P. SPEARS’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF BRITNEY JEAN SPEARS

 

Download : https://drive.google.com/file/d/13do3Asa7QKxO9oVMITk7FMBREhIcBJPE/view

[Ghoulia]

6 minutes ago, Iiquoricebabe said:

I fully agree with this.

The strategy of Rosengart is to make it clear what the cship is, it’s goal and, and the duty of the conservators.

That’s why he is constantly questioning the role of Jamie and Tri-Star as conservators as well as their actions.

On the other side, the strategy of Weingarten is to make it appear that it was all cool. That it was all court approved and that Britney was aware of all it, that she was coerced even agreed to all of it.

It’s laughable.

If I were him, and Rosenzaddy was coming for me, I’d be heading for the hills 

It's a completely s.hit show. I cannot believe Jamie is fighting this hard against the stuff that is already laid out in his own court documents. This is what gives lawyers a bad name.  

[Headed Peckerhead]

9 minutes ago, RebellionSparkles said:

The part that I’m legit confused about is Jamie’s team’s basis for wanting to depose Britney.

You can only depose someone if that person is the only one capable providing information necessary for discovery in a lawsuit. This lawsuit is about Jamie’s financial malfeasance. Britney has no unique information about Jamie’s financial malfeasance. Britney’s deposition would not even be reliable because she is not a trained financial expert.

I see it as a desire to humiliate and ridicule her in public.... He no longer knows what to do.

I only know that there are -17 days left for him to testify. 

[Iiquoricebabe]

19 minutes ago, RebellionSparkles said:

The part that I’m legit confused about is Jamie’s team’s basis for wanting to depose Britney.

You can only depose someone if that person is the only one capable providing information necessary for discovery in a lawsuit. This lawsuit is about Jamie’s financial malfeasance. Britney has no unique information about Jamie’s financial malfeasance. Britney’s deposition would not even be reliable because she is not a trained financial expert.

Like the other mentioned, he’s like:

“If I am gonna be deposed, then Britney has to be deposed as well because why not” 

Ridiculous.  

[Ghoulia]

3 minutes ago, Darec said:

I see it as a desire to humiliate and ridicule her in public.... He no longer knows what to do.

I only know that there are -17 days left for him to testify. 

I agree. This is not a rational argument. He wants to hurt someone because he's in trouble.

What happens if the 17 days pass and he doesn't testify?

[rik]

51 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

 

And every time I see him in my dreams I see lous face it’s haunting me

[rik]

Didn’t he claim for 14 years that Britney couldn’t speak out in court because of her mental capacity??? What’s the truth Jamie? 

[ElectricPlatypusLove]

 I know it's not exactly a trial but...Jamie dude, Britney isn't the one on trial here, you are! 

[MonaLisa613]

Someone needs to throw that broken record in the trash where it belongs.

[Headed Peckerhead]

36 minutes ago, Ghoulia said:

I agree. This is not a rational argument. He wants to hurt someone because he's in trouble.

What happens if the 17 days pass and he doesn't testify?

Jamie would have ''A default judgment'' against him.

 

´´A default judgment (also known as judgment by default) is a ruling granted by a judge or court in favor of a plaintiff in the event that the defendant in a legal case fails to respond to a court summons or does not appear in court. The default decision may be vacated if the defendant can establish valid reasons for not appearing in court or ignoring a summons´´.

 

 

[allthat88]

If he truly thinks she had said wrong this about him & has defamed it then he can sue her for defamation!

 

otherwise it’s just bullying. 

[blissfuloutsider]

hes so full of **** and I hope judge penny denies anything because to be honest it is abusive to put a former conserve tee through this. It was him that did the wrong doing NOT HER!! 

[KatieKat]

He really doesn’t even have the smallest shred of remorse or shame.

What a sociopath. 

If I were you Jamie, I would try really hard to stay healthy and live a long life because I feel like theres just fire for you in the afterlife.