Britney Spears asks paparazzi to please shut off their cameras in Santa Barbara. Courtesy of Kill the Lights, Dec 2009.
Joy is what I would feel to learn that a new filing at the Los Angeles Superior Court might mean that Britney Spears will be free.
Here is the filing:
12/10/2009 Notice-Hearing Consorshp/Guardshp (sic)
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner
But where is a motion to terminate the conservatorship? Or motion to terminate anything… Who is the petitioner in this case? (there are currently nine listed in the case file and they include Jon Eardley) Who is the attorney? Will the previously scheduled hearing on Dec. 22, 2009 make way for matters of more public interest than expenses?
Since the permanent conservatorship of Spears and her cash, there haven’t been any regularly scheduled hearings regarding the conservatorship save an August review that was scheduled in January. That hearing was scheduled solely to ascertain whether Clay Townsend, an attorney, could depose her in a Florida case. That case abruptly settled before the hearing could take place.
I don’t have answers yet but what would it have meant if Spears had been found eligible to testify?
Meanwhile, I’m not getting my hopes up but it is healthy to see some activity in front of the judge beyond money issues. Maybe recent publicity reports through fan sites such as Breatheheavy.com, and Britney Addiction, Dream of Britney and even a Britney Spears fan site in China that carried the report that I wrote that challenged TMZ’s claims spurred some concrete action?
Maybe Courtney Love’s accusations over the Thanksgiving holiday as to Jamie’s prior molestation of his daughter he now has control of (right down to the sex and dating) spurred action?
If Britney had been designated as capable of testifying in the Florida case that disappeared through settlement… what’s this girl got to say for anyone to fear?
Or maybe TMZ did have an inside lead, but the thing is I don’t trust them. See earlier stories to learn why.
Click here to see what a Notice of Hearing is.
Update: Further information has not become available as of Dec. 18, 2009.
Update two: From the Los Angeles Superior Court online case summary: 12/17/2009 MOTION – SEAL COURT RECORDS filed. New hearing set for Jan. 15, 2010 at 10:00 am in department 9 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 regarding a motion to seal court records. The previously scheduled hearing for Dec. 22 remains on calendar. Today is Dec. 19, 2009.
Britney Spears is now out of town and in New York with Jason Trawick say various celebrity news sites. I guess she is not needed in court or she’s only in NY for a very short stay.
The end of the year is coming and there’s still nothing happening at the courthouse to support claims that Britney will soon be free “…possibly by the end of December” as said by TMZ.
December 14, 2009 at 8:21 am |
aw thanks for using our site on your post
i’m not getting my hopes up either but hoping tho it does end.
December 14, 2009 at 9:44 am |
You are welcome Dream of Britney. You have some interesting artwork over there.
December 14, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
thank you
Antonio does the layout & i just update lol
December 15, 2009 at 4:06 am |
carmela i have a question
first i think c-ship over britney as a person will be lifted very soon this or next month .That would mean that britney could hire a lawyer at any point she feels somebody is stealing from her,go to court and fight for her right to be in control of her money.Am i right or not?
Second if britney is bipolar( you might think she is not that doesnt matter lets assume she is) would that give them right to keep her under c-ship to “protect” her money.Bc i did some research and Mel gibson.ben stiller,sting, tim robins adnjclaudevan dam all have bipolar disorders(millionars) and bno c-ship over their business.Could you please find out if law can put you under c-ship if your are bipolar only
and in the end i think and hope this will be ok specially of c.ship over a peson is lifted
it could be we are a little paranoic after all we dont know whats going on with her
December 15, 2009 at 9:13 am |
Good questions.
I am not a subject matter on bi-polar disorders.
There is very little information openly available on any case that might have been similar to Britney’s, i.e., permanent c-ship to freedom?
As a person I would like to see her gain at least 50% custody of her children and full control over her own assets with the help of professionals just like her dad has?
December 26, 2009 at 6:57 am |
Carmela, Do you know If they lift the c-ship on Britney the person, Can she gain the full custody of her children while her assets are being controlled by her dad and that lawyer ?
I want Britney to have her children’s full custody. Is that possible?
Because I don’t think Britney cares about controlling her money as long as she has her children 24/7.
December 26, 2009 at 1:58 pm |
I beg to differ on her lack of interest in controlling her own money. I think it was Lynne who wrote in her book that they couldn’t control her because she had so much money? I think my phrasing is a bit different from how she wrote it in the book but I am out of state without access to Through the Storm.
I don’t know the answer to your question. Does it come down to “what’s best for the children”? Is there even a precedent in American history where someone was set free, and then didn’t have access to their own assets?
It’s a really good question. I will try to get some answers this week.