[ad_1]
Britney Spears won big in her guardianship case when her father, Jamie, was suspended from duty on Wednesday amid allegations of abuse. She is now celebrating an island getaway, as her lawyer continues her “top-down” investigation into Jamie’s “fault”, saying “serious ramifications” are ahead.
Jamie’s statement after his ouster was provocative. He described his forced exit as “frankly, a loss for Britney”. He insisted that he had always had the star’s “best interests” at heart, even going so far as to suggest even more than his new lawyer, Mathew Rosengart.
That’s not what Britney said. At a hearing in June, she accused her father of abuse of guardianship. The star, 39, claimed she was forced to work, take medicine and be treated in a mental health treatment center against her will. Rosengart, who became Britney’s attorney in mid-July, accused Jamie of abusing his control over Britney’s finances and dissipating her fortune. He disputed roughly $ 2 million spent by Jamie – $ 1.3 million in attorney fees to fight his dismissal as curator and a payment of $ 500,000 to his former management company, among others.
But this is the tip of the iceberg. On Wednesday in court, Rosengart called Jamie’s service “abusive”, “toxic” and “cruel”, pointing to a shocking situation New York Times report claiming Britney’s phone and room were tapped by security personnel working for her father. Her conversations with her boyfriend, sons and former lawyer were monitored, according to a former security staff member.
That surveillance was a subject in court on Wednesday, despite protests from Jamie’s lawyer. And when Rosengart left the Stanley Mosk courthouse, victorious after convincing the judge to suspend Jamie and replace him with temporary curator John Zabel, he was asked if it was determined Jamie had embezzled money. , if Britney would pursue him to get him back.
“Absolutely,” retorted the former prosecutor. “The ramifications are going to be more serious than just civil litigation against Mr. Spears based on my current understanding of what happened.”
He explained during the press conference as #FreeBritney protesters cheered him on.
“Jamie Spears and others are going to face even more serious ramifications for his misconduct,” he said. “I said at the start that my company and I were going to take a top-down review of what Jamie Spears and his reps have been doing here. It’s already happening and it’s still going on. [until we get] justice for Britney. “
He continued: “I suspect that law enforcement – and it is law enforcement’s decision, not mine – will carefully consider what the Times discovered … One question we’re going to ask of Mr. Spears’ representatives – not just the lawyers – is what and when did they know about eavesdropping, setting up a listening device under Britney Spears bed. In his room. Something very, very disturbing. This is something law enforcement, not myself, must draw the ultimate conclusion about. But my company will be looking at it. “
So, could Jamie possibly be the one to see his rights deprived – and face some sort of criminal charges?
“Jamie Spears and others are facing more than just pecuniary damages,” California family lawyer Christopher C. Melcher of Walzer Melcher told Yahoo Entertainment.
“Criminal liability exists for the interception of electronic communications and the recording of private activities,” he continues. And if Jamie was recording and monitoring Britney without his knowledge, as Alex Vlasov, a former Black Box Security employee claimed, he “did not act alone, so anyone who participated or conspired with him could also be charged. . own penalties, and it could have gone on for years. ”
According to Melcher, the torts of recording or intercepting communications “are generally charged with offenses punishable by up to one year in the county jail.”
However, there is a time limit for laying criminal charges, “which could be as little as a year from the time the act took place. It depends on the charges laid. Federal law may offer a better way to deal with it. lay charges for older conduct. “
What really opens that up in terms of potential evidence is that Jamie’s suspension means that 13 years of communication he’s had with the Guardianship attorneys – that he would never expect. ‘they are made public due to attorney-client privilege – will now be handed over to the estate’s newly appointed interim curator, Zabel. This is because the holder of the attorney-client privilege is the one who acts as the custodian of the estate.
“These communications could contain powerful evidence,” Melcher said.
It’s also why Rosengart fought to remove Jamie at Wednesday’s hearing, instead of ending the guardianship. If the guardianship ended, this privileged communication would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.
The next guardianship hearing, which will seek to end it, will take place on November 12. But for now, the star is celebrating her release from her father’s grip. She is on vacation with her fiance Sam Asghari on an island in the “Pacific” – and it was an optional dress trip.
[ad_2]
Source link