Jamie Spears Says He’s Very Concerned About “The Dangerous” Rhetoric Against Him
Britney Spears’ father Jamie Spears said in a new court filing Thursday he is “very concerned” about the “dangerous rhetoric” around Britney’s conservatorship – the legal arrangement that has given him and others control over her life and money for the last 13 years.
In a document filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Jamie Spears speared to address the increasing public criticism against him as he asked the court to deny a request by Jodi Montgomery – the current conservator of Britney’s personal life, for an order instructing him to use his daughter’s finances to pay for Montgomery’s security costs.
People’s interest in the Spears’ case started again in February when the New York Times published the documentary Framing Britney Spears, which was questioning the control that Jamie Spears has continued to have over his daughter’s financial and physical welfare.
Last month, Britney Spears’ conservatorship case has made international headlined, because she spoke for the first time about the conservatorship as ABUSIVE in a public court hearing, adding that it has prevented her from doing many of the common things, for example, riding in her boyfriend’s car or getting her IUD removed so she can have another baby.
In the recent Thursday filing, Jamie Spears made it clear that the whole investigation and rhetoric have made him afraid.
“Mr. Spears is very concerned about the situation that has been developing for many months and the dangerous rhetoric that has been circulating for quite some time regarding the Conservatorship” – his attorneys wrote.
On Wednesday, attorneys for Montgomery asked the court to instruct Jamie Spears to pay for her security expenses, saying that in the wake of the singer’s testimony “there has been a marked increase in the number and severity of threatening posts.” Under the conservatorship, Britney’s father requires Montgomery to get court approval to pay for security, her attorneys said.
“The cost of physical security, although deemed urgent and necessary at this time for Montgomery, is cost-prohibitive for her to personally bear” – her attorney wrote.
But Jamie’s attorneys were questioning if the additional security was really necessary. They notes that Montgomery has contacted local law enforcement that added her to their patrol watch.
“Again, 24/7 coverage by a private security company is likely not required where others are already standing watch or other protections are already in place – which is the exact situation here” – wrote his attorney.