Cap87 Posted November 7, 2023 Posted November 7, 2023 I don't understand how he's receiving awards for doing nothing. We all see through Britney case that he's all talk and no action atleast for Britney. 2
bjorn Posted November 7, 2023 Author Posted November 7, 2023 4 hours ago, Cap87 said: I don't understand how he's receiving awards for doing nothing. We all see through Britney case that he's all talk and no action atleast for Britney. “For doing nothing” what do you think he’s been doing for the last 2 years leading up to the trial next year? His team collected what 10,000 documents of the conservatorship. The real challenge will be the trial. Then we can judge 1
rac7d Posted November 7, 2023 Posted November 7, 2023 On 11/6/2023 at 8:20 AM, PaloSanto said: things are about to get messy, her family will start a vile and vicious smear campaign against her I just know it Honestly he Will Proably die before the trial.
Cap87 Posted November 7, 2023 Posted November 7, 2023 6 hours ago, bjorn said: “For doing nothing” what do you think he’s been doing for the last 2 years leading up to the trial next year? His team collected what 10,000 documents of the conservatorship. The real challenge will be the trial. Then we can judge He's not forcing anyone to their depositions an depositions he has allowed statues of limitations to pass. 1
AvadaKedavra Posted November 7, 2023 Posted November 7, 2023 Lou Taylor is your time. Hope she gets exposed
SinnerCity Posted November 7, 2023 Posted November 7, 2023 1 hour ago, Cap87 said: He's not forcing anyone to their depositions an depositions he has allowed statues of limitations to pass. Oh, so you have a problem with him because he's not doing what you think he should be doing? gtf outta here mate. Jamie Spears is going on trial next year BECAUSE HE'S DOING WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
prettyinpink940 Posted November 7, 2023 Posted November 7, 2023 1 hour ago, AvadaKedavra said: Lou Taylor is your time. Hope she gets exposed She's not on trial.
Cap87 Posted November 7, 2023 Posted November 7, 2023 3 hours ago, SinnerCity said: Oh, so you have a problem with him because he's not doing what you think he should be doing? gtf outta here mate. Jamie Spears is going on trial next year BECAUSE HE'S DOING WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. Why is only going after Jamie Matt Rose is a flop and fraud 1
CarCAL22 Posted November 7, 2023 Posted November 7, 2023 7 hours ago, Cap87 said: He's not forcing anyone to their depositions an depositions he has allowed statues of limitations to pass. Only the judge can force depositions. Lou Taylor and Robin Greenhill, in cahoots with Jamie's lawyer, have skipped scheduled depositions for the past 2 years now, the most recent one just last month. They will eventually be forced to be deposed by the court as Jamie was after avoiding Rosengart's scheduled ones. Just because the US justice system moves at a glacial pace does not mean Rosengart is not doing his job. You have no clue what you're talking about and continue to spam your conspiracy theories on this site with no credible proof of anything. It's getting tired. I know after Britney called out Lou Taylor and TriStar multiple times in her book (and from which only Britney herself is profiting from), you got real quiet because you look like a clown now. Britney is free, she has a great lawyer and these legal cases will drag out years because that's how it works unfortunately.... just because some uneducated loser on the internet who is susceptible to outlandish conspiracies thinks otherwise isn't going to sway anyone. At this point, you're just an annoyance. No one here is taking anything you post seriously. Seek help. 3
Cap87 Posted November 7, 2023 Posted November 7, 2023 2 hours ago, CarCAL22 said: Only the judge can force depositions. Lou Taylor and Robin Greenhill, in cahoots with Jamie's lawyer, have skipped scheduled depositions for the past 2 years now, the most recent one just last month. They will eventually be forced to be deposed by the court as Jamie was after avoiding Rosengart's scheduled ones. Just because the US justice system moves at a glacial pace does not mean Rosengart is not doing his job. You have no clue what you're talking about and continue to spam your conspiracy theories on this site with no credible proof of anything. It's getting tired. I know after Britney called out Lou Taylor and TriStar multiple times in her book (and from which only Britney herself is profiting from), you got real quiet because you look like a clown now. Britney is free, she has a great lawyer and these legal cases will drag out years because that's how it works unfortunately.... just because some uneducated loser on the internet who is susceptible to outlandish conspiracies thinks otherwise isn't going to sway anyone. At this point, you're just an annoyance. No one here is taking anything you post seriously. Seek help. Oh yeah I forgot about Judge Brenda Penny whose a flop and fraud too like Matt Rose. Nothing I post is a conspiracy theory. There's receipts to back up most of what I post. Matt Rose lies about Britney not being in a careplan when court docs confirms she's in one. Britney is still to this day referred to as a conservatee in court docs. 1
gloamingtheplain Posted November 7, 2023 Posted November 7, 2023 13 minutes ago, Cap87 said: Oh yeah I forgot about Judge Brenda Penny whose a flop and fraud too like Matt Rose. Nothing I post is a conspiracy theory. There's receipts to back up most of what I post. Matt Rose lies about Britney not being in a careplan when court docs confirms she's in one. Britney is still to this day referred to as a conservatee in court docs. I think nearly everyone on this site has told you that they refer to her as a conservatee because she WAS at the time of the events they speak about. The same way they refer to someone as a “witness” at an event that occurred, that doesn’t mean they’re current witnessing does it? They will constantly refer to her as that because the case is about when she was under the conservatorship.
Cap87 Posted November 7, 2023 Posted November 7, 2023 2 minutes ago, gloamingtheplain said: I think nearly everyone on this site has told you that they refer to her as a conservatee because she WAS at the time of the events they speak about. The same way they refer to someone as a “witness” at an event that occurred, that doesn’t mean they’re current witnessing does it? They will constantly refer to her as that because the case is about when she was under the conservatorship. They removed her father out of the docs and removed other names like Andrew Wallet, James Ingham but they decide to leave Britney listed as a conservatee to this day. Wake up and smell the coffee 1
gloamingtheplain Posted November 7, 2023 Posted November 7, 2023 1 hour ago, Cap87 said: They removed her father out of the docs and removed other names like Andrew Wallet, James Ingham but they decide to leave Britney listed as a conservatee to this day. Wake up and smell the coffee Go ask a lawyer and come back to us. You are always referred to as the condition to the case. Britney will always be referred to as that because the case is about how she was treated under it.
SinnerCity Posted November 8, 2023 Posted November 8, 2023 4 hours ago, Cap87 said: Why is only going after Jamie Matt Rose is a flop and fraud Can you do a better job?
gloamingtheplain Posted November 8, 2023 Posted November 8, 2023 23 minutes ago, SinnerCity said: Can you do a better job? Sadly I don’t even think they’re trolling, they genuinely are struggling to grasp reality.
SinnerCity Posted November 8, 2023 Posted November 8, 2023 2 minutes ago, gloamingtheplain said: Sadly I don’t even think they’re trolling, they genuinely are struggling to grasp reality. That poster is not a troll, that poster is completely obsessed over the life of someone they don't know personally and commenting on things they don't clearly don't understand. It's concerning, to say the least. 1
Cap87 Posted November 8, 2023 Posted November 8, 2023 1 hour ago, SinnerCity said: Can you do a better job? Maybe 1
Cap87 Posted November 8, 2023 Posted November 8, 2023 1 hour ago, SinnerCity said: That poster is not a troll, that poster is completely obsessed over the life of someone they don't know personally and commenting on things they don't clearly don't understand. It's concerning, to say the least. What would you call Taylor Swift fans, the Barbz, beehive and others?
Joesuxx Posted November 8, 2023 Posted November 8, 2023 (edited) 5 hours ago, Cap87 said: Maybe Given your very flawed demonstrated knowledge of the legal system, it’s use of terminology and the repeated misunderstanding of its process I’m gonna suggest you can’t. it’s a long drawn out process, they have one go to get it right. Thirteen years of money laundering to so many recipients takes time to unpick, unless you’re a forensic accountant I don’t think you should be speaking like an expert witness, especially in a trial unlike no other that’s been seen before. Given that the abuse of the conservatorship could fall under a broken contract, then in the state of California there is a statute of 4 years. Given that it wasn’t considered an illegal breach until November 21 they still have another two years to bring charges. Edited November 8, 2023 by Joesuxx .
Cap87 Posted November 8, 2023 Posted November 8, 2023 9 hours ago, Joesuxx said: Given your very flawed demonstrated knowledge of the legal system, it’s use of terminology and the repeated misunderstanding of its process I’m gonna suggest you can’t. it’s a long drawn out process, they have one go to get it right. Thirteen years of money laundering to so many recipients takes time to unpick, unless you’re a forensic accountant I don’t think you should be speaking like an expert witness, especially in a trial unlike no other that’s been seen before. Given that the abuse of the conservatorship could fall under a broken contract, then in the state of California there is a statute of 4 years. Given that it wasn’t considered an illegal breach until November 21 they still have another two years to bring charges. Matt Rosengart has not even acknowledge that the conservatorship was illegal and she did not meet the qualifications to be under one in the first place.
Joesuxx Posted November 8, 2023 Posted November 8, 2023 Just now, Cap87 said: Matt Rosengart has not even acknowledge that the conservatorship was illegal and she did not meet the qualifications to be under one in the first place. Not publicly no, but you’re throwing that out there as if it suddenly makes all the other nonsense you’ve spouted true. When Jamie goes to trial the basis will be that the money was taken illegally. Mainly because she was held in an inappropriate conservatorship. If this is upheld and maintained then it will become recognised in the eye of the law that conservatorship was illegal and will more than likely lead to criminal proceedings. As this has never really happened before there is no blue print nor example for you to compare against to say what’s right or wrong. All we do know is Rosengart making public statements regarding his thoughts, opinions and potential plans is just giving away his hand, which isn’t in Britney’s best interests at all.
Recommended Posts