Jump to content
BadMediaKarma

Chad

Member
  • Content Count

    1,121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Chad

  1. I can hear "Britney", "pretty", and "bunny." All are disturbing for their own respective reasons.
  2. I'm VERY interested in knowing the answer to this, too. In 2011, she said via US Weekly that she doesn't own a cellphone, which was a bizarre thing to say given we had SEEN her photographed between 2008 and 2011 (and since) holding phones. Hell, we see throughout FTR texting with someone. I can only rationalize this by assuming her cell phone access is so limited that she feels/felt like she may as well not own one at all. Maybe she can only call or message pre-approved numbers? I have no idea. Pure speculation, but clearly her access was (and probably still is) heavily restricted.
  3. So I've skimmed through these docs and almost all of them have been widely reported on and discussed. I was NOT familiar with this document, which is essentially outlining Britney's argument against the conservatorship in 2008. In this doc, you can read everything that Britney lost access to in 2008, and still does not have legal access to today. Of course, she might have more control of her money, personal life, etc, but not in the eyes of the law. Any of these personal rights could be revoked by Jamie at any given time without trial. The person who shared these links is also the person who provided the summary, so either they have access to more documents than they've shared, or it's based on something else/speculation/fabricated.
  4. From her father's own testimony.
  5. I take back what I said re: these only being 2 docs from 2008. Several have leaked. (Leaked is a strong word, considering the PDFs are literally titled BRITNEY SPEARS COURT PAPERS, but alas.) Feb. 1, 2008: https://ll-media.extratv.com/archive/images/news/0205spearsorderpdf.pdf Feb. 4, 2008: https://www.docdroid.net/9xKiEoG/2077961-britney-spears-court-papers.pdf Feb, 4 & 6, 2008: https://ll-media.extratv.com/archive/images/news/0207spearspdf.pdf Feb 14, 2008: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2008cv01021/408362/1/0.pdf?ts=1217460676 Feb 27, 2008: https://ll-media.extratv.com/archive/images/news/0227spearspdf.pdf Jan. 28, 2014: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B242444.PDF Mar. 11, 2015: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B246253.PDF
  6. Yeah.... the "cancerous" Britney's Gram hosts probably photoshopped these documents, hacked the California courts database, and uploaded them to gain 300 followers on social media. Shame on them.
  7. These docs are from 2008 — one is a summary of when Britney legally tried to contest the conservatorship in 2008, and the second is from Jamie Spears vs. Sam Lutfi. The summary from Exhale must be separate from these documents... perhaps a timeline of docs that haven't leaked yet, or maybe even speculation. I don't, however, think these documents are irrelevant due to their timestamp given the fact that nothing has legally changed for Britney since. Any liberties she's been granted (seeing her friends, dating, time with her children, etc) are not upheld by the law and could be revoked at any given time by her conservators if she "misbehaves." This isn't based on insider scoop or a podcast, this is just how the law works. Given that Britney is still under this conservatorship, she essentially does not have custody of her own person.
  8. I'm literally paying my friend's husband, who is a lawyer, to read these and make sense of them for me.
  9. Look through this woman's Twitter. There's no way a rational person can think she's a legitimate source while also denouncing the hosts of Britney's Gram.
  10. Of course this is a possibility, but not a good enough reason to deprive an almost 40 year old woman of basic human rights. I think it's this type of thinking that has kept Britney in this conservatorship so long. "What if she chooses to stop taking her medication? What if she lets bad people into her life? What if she destroys her image again?" We of course don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but I reeeeeeally hope they've been working through some of those things and teaching her the fundamental building blocks of being her own person again. If not, it's going to be harder and harder to stand on her own the more time goes by.
  11. https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2018/08/blind-item-1_29.html
  12. The other thing I think is important to clarify to the Jamie truthers that have jumped out of the woodwork this week is that most of us are not speculating about Britney’s mental health. No one is discussing what she might or might not suffer from. This conversation is about control, about agency, about law, about the narratives we’ve been fed by Jamie, Larry, and the rest of her team over the past ten years and alllllll of the things (again, even outside of this podcast) that poke holes in that narrative.
  13. The way you’re using the word “rational” here is subjective, at best. If you think it’s irrational to examine the past ten years, outside of this podcast, and assume Britney is happy with these circumstances and enjoys living her life under these legal restraints, that’s definitely your prerogative to think that way. However it is not anywhere near “rational.”
  14. My god. I swear some of y’all are on Jamie’s payroll.
  15. Mario Lopez commented on this and said “I remember.” But wait, let me guess — shameful, just more groundless speculation, free to think whatever we want, Britney wouldn’t want us to share this, frankly disgusting, etc
  16. I didn't make it. I agree that it's in poor taste, but it made me chuckle considering how dark all these discussions are. (Plus I would never use that font.)
  17. I keep coming back to Kesha. Imagine if Kesha's fans would have been like "I mean, c'mon. Is Dr. Luke really that bad?"
  18. The fact that she still isn't allowed to speak publicly without a pre-approved script is evidence enough for me. This wouldn't be Britney's reality if there wasn't something to hide.
  19. BUT THE HAiR SALON!!!!!!!!111!!!
  20. If he was involved in the britney musical, he would have been involved with extending POM several years ago, no? The source is saying Adam was involved with keeping Britney in Vegas originally, not with Domination.
  21. The source isn’t saying Adam was involved in Domination...? The reading comprehension really is not jumping out.
×
×
  • Create New...