Jump to content

🚨 Judge Luna doesn't care about Britney Spears being trafficked; Rosengart: "We're surprised and disappointed by the situation we are all in." Judge Luna: "I'm not. It's the best seat in the house as far as I'm concerned." 


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, humstarr said:

Will there ever be a case on actual human trafficking? This is a federal crime, i believe. Or are they just going to pretend it was a "conservatorship"? 

Good question. Right now, the case is still in probate court. I don't know if a prosecutor will take it up at a later date. It depends on how compelling the evidence is. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
13 hours ago, PokemonSpears said:

title takes it completely out of context, but yeah

 

Reading through the whole transcript, it's very frustrating.

  • All lawyers against Rosengart: Weingarten, but there's also Thoreen, Cohen, Wyle and now even Ingham who's still not cooperating with Rosengart.
  • Rosengart's litigation style is kind of exasperating at times too, he gets very eloquent and he recites a full book before going to the point. I think for a criminal trial that could work, but for these probate matters, I think it just plays against him.
  • Judge Luna not only is new to the case, but if I'm not mistaken, she says in the transcript she's also new to probate? I read "4 years in probate" but I think it was her talking. The lawyers keep telling her like what to do with the motions and stuff

But anyways, I understand now why we got those documents signed by Britney. The old lawyers of Jamie were pushing for the objections to be filed by Britney or otherwise they said they weren't technically legal. I don't understand the point of that, isn't that why Rosengart is representing her? :wyd_wtf_meme_hand_umm_wth_what_the_hell: Like what's the point of having a lawyer if you still have to be there confirming that you agree with all his actions, when he is the expert.

 

Which is partly why the judge wanted Britney to be deposed. Because at the end of the day, she's just trying to be objective.

 

I know all of us want a benevolent judge that comes from above to touch their heart and rule out in Britney's favor, and send everyone to jail, but any judge, whether is Luna, Paul, Penny or whoever else they call has to go through the case based on the evidence that is presented to them. They can't go by their feelings, or by what they've read on the press or heard on the media. They have to go by the documents from the case, and even in Luna's situation, only what was handed to her from Penny. Even part of the discussion was how many motions she had, because she was saying that Penny didn't give her one from April 2022 or something like that.

So I'm not saying I'm glad, but I do understand Judge Luna's position. She can't be inclined in favor of any party, or give preferential treatment to anyone. Rosengart tried to convince her that not all cases can be treated equally, and that there needs to be some sense of humanity, and perhaps she did change her mind after listening to him, but the point is she can't go by default being "team Britney" when she's been called to be a referee in the first place, and technically, legally, Britney hasn't been declared as a victim of abuse by her father or anything like that, EVEN if we all know it, even if all of us can guess it, to the judge, any judge that oversees the current motions, is just a former conservatee whose conservatorship was terminated, a bunch of lawyers wanting to have their fees paid, and the former conservatee objecting to that. There's no reason for the judge to assume she can't be called for deposition or things that any other person would go through in a legal process like this.

 

Again, I do feel bad for Rosengart, because it seems like all the other lawyers, including Ingham, are ganging up on him, with all the experience they have in probate.

Rosengart is one of the biggest lawyers of California. Hard to believe he wasn't prepared for all of this.

Rose was paid millions for this case alone... I don't need to feel bad for him.

If he doesn't know how probate works... no one knows.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Fita said:

I googled it but couldn't find the actual meaning behind the best seat in the house expression?

As a judge she has the best seat in the house because she can watch lawyers battle it out. It's a very cynical and unprofessional remark.

MelanieVeronica wrote that today's mediation happens in the mediator's office.

  • Like 3
Link to comment

Rosengart withdrew Robin Greenhill's deposition? Does that mean he didn't go ahead with it, or didn't submit it? Could she be co-operating with him?

"Best seat in the house". It means the judge has a front row seat to the spectacle. Kind of a weird remark, but I find American judges weird.  Rosengart is hot. Like, he's had enough of the strange world of probate, where lawyers have had the playground to themselves for years, shamelessly making incremental delays and submitting outrageous bills.  And where it's hard to respect the judges, since they appear to let themselves be easily led.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Psammead said:

Rosengart withdrew Robin Greenhill's deposition? Does that mean he didn't go ahead with it, or didn't submit it? Could she be co-operating with him?

"Best seat in the house". It means the judge has a front row seat to the spectacle. Kind of a weird remark, but I find American judges weird.  Rosengart is hot. Like, he's had enough of the strange world of probate, where lawyers have had the playground to themselves for years, shamelessly making incremental delays and submitting outrageous bills.  And where it's hard to respect the judges, since they appear to let themselves be easily led.

According to Weingarten, he didn't go ahead with it considering it a waste of money & "pointless".

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Lola2790 said:

According to Weingarten, he didn't go ahead with it considering it a waste of money & "pointless".

 

Since Rosengart himself did not divulge the reason, could Greenhill actually cooperate like Psammead says?  I don't know how she knows about the financial schemes.

Link to comment

That's not what she meant. She referred to the fact that she was seeing really good lawyers arguing things (in this case, Rosengart). Probate court must be filled with lawyers who don't really know what to do, law and whatever. She's just saying she's witnessing really good lawyers discussing things.

  • Love 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment

Leave a comment!

Not so fast! Did you know you can post now and register later? If you are already a member of Exhale, sign in here and start posting!
If you are not logged in, your post will need to be manually approved by an Exhale moderator before it's visible to everyone.

Guest
Tap to reply!

×   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  :ehum_britney_um_unsure_confused_what:

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