The legal team representing Jamie has informed the court they have no plans to back down. They want Britney to have to sit and answer questions under oath about her allegations.
For the past couple of years, Britney has been outspoken about her father and how she believed he mistreated her while her conservator. She accused him of forcing her to work, pushing her to take medicine, taking away her right to drive, not allowing her to see her friends and family when she wished, and spying on her cell phone.
Britney told the court she fears Jamie misused her money and even overpaid her ex-business managers to the tune of $300k+.
Jamie has been making moves for months to try and depose Britney. The pop star has refused and accused Jamie of asking her for one as a form of revenge.
Her powerhouse lawyer Mathew Rosengart said he believed Jamie only made the request after Britney demanded he sit for a deposition himself.
In his new motion, Jamie said California law makes it clear that his daughter MUST sit for a depo. He said while Britney and her counsel continue to “cobble together a series of woefully misguided arguments in a desperate attempt to evade deposition.”
Jamie said Britney argued he could get the information he desires from other parties and not put her through it.
- Britney Spears’ Estranged Father Rushes To Court Over Pop Star’s Bombshell Claims That Family 'Threw Me Away & Treated Me Like Nothing'
- Britney Spears’ Estranged Father Jamie Refusing To Sit For Second Deposition After Being Accused Of Evading Questions
- Judge Orders Britney Spears' Estranged Dad To Sit For Deposition Grilling Over 'Bedroom Bugging'
In court documents, the pop star’s father even took issue with Britney’s lawyer bringing up the allegations from the New York Times documentary, Framing Britney Spears.
The film featured testimony from an ex-employee of a security firm that was allegedly hired by Jamie. They claimed Jamie and Britney’s business managers signed off her bedroom being bugged, and her calls being monitored without her knowledge.
Jamie said that Britney and her lawyer started their motion off with the “same recycled, unsubstantiated rhetoric and citations to the New York Times that open each of Britney’s briefs.”
He argued, “the court has not made any findings against Jamie nor has Britney’s counsel proven any of these allegations with admissible evidence in a Court of law. And, of course, New York Times articles are neither evidence of wrongdoing nor a window into Britney’s personal knowledge about any of her allegations.”
Jamie said he is entitled to depose his daughter to “prove with admissible evidence that Britney’s allegations are untrue and dispel Britney’s accusations regarding the administration of her Estate
Jamie believes since Britney made the accusations public, he has a right to grill her on the matter. A judge has yet to rule.