Britney Spears’ Estranged Father Demands Whistleblower Who Accused Him Of Spying On Pop Star Be Sanctioned
Jan. 9 2023, Published 5:15 p.m. ET
Britney Spears’ father Jamie has rushed back to court demanding the “whistleblower” who accused him of spying on his pop star daughter be sanctioned $2,500 for playing legal games, RadarOnline.com has learned.
According to court documents obtained by RadarOnline.com, Jamie and his legal team accuse Alex Vlasov of refusing to turn over any documents they requested.
Vlasov worked for the security company Black Box. Last year, he appeared in the New York Times documentary, Controlling Britney Spears, as a whistleblower.
He claimed Jamie had hired Black Box to spy on Britney, specifically, he said they were instructed to listen in on her phone calls and texts.
In a recent motion, obtained by RadarOnline.com, Vlasov revealed Jamie served him with a subpoena demanding documents relating to Black Box. Jamie wants information from Vlasov to defend himself against accusations made by Britney in court.
He said the sole purpose of the subpoena was “to harass and punish Vlasov for blowing the whistle on Jamie’s wrongs, probable crimes and other misconduct while serving as a court-appointed conservator in this matter.” He denied having any documents in his possession to turn over.
- Britney Spears ‘Whistleblower’ Who Accused Pop Star’s Dad Jamie Of Spying Fighting Subpoena In Court
- Britney Spears’ Dad Demands Whistleblower Who Accused Him of Wiretapping Pop Star’s Bedroom Turn Over Alleged Evidence
- Britney Spears’ Lawyer Accuses Pop Star’s Father Of Harassing Whistleblower Who Spoke Out Against Alleged Bedroom Spying
“There is no secret that Mr. Vlasov worked for Black Box for a number of years, nor any question that many of the documents Mr. Spears seek to compel Mr. Vlasov to produce are (or were) held by Black Box,” his lawyer explained.
Now, Jamie has demanded that Vlasov turn over documents believing they are indeed in his possession.
“His excuse is a bizarre and incorrect invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights. Vlasov’s Fifth Amendment rights (which did not prevent him from voluntarily producing documents to others) provide no justification for failing to produce any documents to Jamie in response to Jamie’s valid subpoena,” Jamie’s lawyer wrote.
Jamie’s attorney added, “As it stands, there are a core set of documents that apparently form the basis of Britney’s case and Jamie cannot obtain any of them through discovery. This is not the law. Jamie must be given a full and fair opportunity to defend the claims made against him.”
The judge has yet to rule.