Here's what actually happened at Britney's conservatorship hearing

[Gimme More 33,901]

The energy behind the #FreeBritney movement is at an all-time high. Millions of people are demanding change for a perceived injustice happening before our very eyes to one of the most powerful pop icons of our generation.

12 years ago, Britney was involuntarily placed in personal and financial conservatorships that legally removed her rights to fundamental basic civil liberties, including hiring her own representation, choosing her doctors... even freely seeing who she wants, voting or driving. 

Yesterday, July 22nd, a court hearing took place in downtown LA to discuss the status of Britney's conservatorships. Britney was scheduled to appear via video conference, however she did not. What happened? 

Fans outside the court hearing began claiming they were told she never appeared due to a connection error.

This inspired a wave of backlash because it prompted a very legitimate concern that Britney was being censored or purposefully blocked from speaking on the conservatorship, thus prolonging her undesirable situation further. Basically, fans felt she was once again being censored.

However, a source close to the court hearing, who finds it important to create an honest dialogue with supporters, reveals to BreatheHeavy that the connection error story is untrue.

What actually happened is that four individuals who originally joined the video call with the judge were ordered to exit the call before Britney signed on because the information is confidential. However, they ignored the judge's requests, likely in an effort to stumble upon sensitive information, and continued to pop in and out of the stream prior to Britney's virtual arrival. As a result, the judge delayed the hearing as it was imperative to keep what Britney had to say completely private.

Before the conspiracy theories begin, I'd like to point out that I was not paid or swayed in any way. What I do want to emphasize is that this is an honest attempt at communicating the truth, which I think is something many of us find very valuable amidst all of the uncertainty. This is a positive step, and while I know this information will be scrutinized anyway, I'd like to remind you that I personally champion the notion of Britney gaining more independence. I also am an advocate for transparency regarding this sensitive subject (or at least, finding a balance), and I think this is an instance where that happened. 

There's a new court date scheduled for August 19th.

Source: Breatheheavy/Exhale

[urgirl 991]

why didn't the court/judge have the power to keep those 4 ppl out of the video call? shouldn't it be an invitation only sort of connection that the judge could revoke when their time is up? it seems to weird to postpone the whole thing over that

[Mister G 9,172]

1 minute ago, urgirl said:

why didn't the court/judge have the power to keep those 4 ppl out of the video call? shouldn't it be an invitation only sort of connection that the judge could revoke when their time is up? it seems to weird to postpone the whole thing over that

Chances are if it’s a Zoom call, they have the meeting information and can dial in as they please. I’m sure the courthouse could either block people from dialing in or just make a new meeting room with new log in details. This situation is such a mess and Britney as usual is the one losing out in the end.

[Gimme More 33,901]

3 minutes ago, urgirl said:

why didn't the court/judge have the power to keep those 4 ppl out of the video call? shouldn't it be an invitation only sort of connection that the judge could revoke when their time is up? it seems to weird to postpone the whole thing over that

I work at a law firm and have attended quite a few virtual hearings as of late due to COVID19 and you all get the same link emailed to you about half an hour before the hearing by the Judge's clerk - so even if they'd be asked to leave all they had to do was just click on the link again and log in.

This is how it is in courts in England & Wales, I assume it's the same in California

[Brecht 7]

Sounds stupid. Just create a zoom room with a password?

[Gimme More 33,901]

5 minutes ago, urgirl said:

why didn't the court/judge have the power to keep those 4 ppl out of the video call? shouldn't it be an invitation only sort of connection that the judge could revoke when their time is up? it seems to weird to postpone the whole thing over that

I agree they could have made time to have another session later in the day and create a new invitation/link to a virtual hearing.

[TerrenceV2 2,001]

They could've just created another meeting with a different url/code for Britney and the Judge.

 

What is this? 2004?

Also like aren't they LEGALLY obliged to leave the livestream? Why would they keep joining the call without legal consequences? It is a courtroom session after all.

This sounds like complete bullshit.

[Guest]

Please let Britney finally be free of all this BS 🙏 she is more than capable of taking care of herself, I’m sure she’s learned from what she’s been through.

[Doot 2]

13 minutes ago, Brecht said:

Sounds stupid. Just create a zoom room with a password?

Exactly. 

This whole thing stinks of bullshit.