61. Sixty Third, BITCHES! Woo hoo, eat it you bastards!!!

Posted at 9:16PM on Mar 24th 2008 by Uh...

62. Women are the bitchiest sex to their own gender.

It's easy to play here.

Posted at 9:16PM on Mar 24th 2008 by It's all about the Rainbow y'all

63. OK, so the appeals court rules that this attorney has filed a blatantly bogus motion. Why aren't they going after his license? Isn't streamlining the court docket what everyone has been wanting? If that's the case, why don't they puntatively slap this obviously media whoring dumbass attorney for his clogging the court with specious motions?

Posted at 9:21PM on Mar 24th 2008 by Question

64. I figured you liked to play with girls, Rainbow.

Posted at 9:24PM on Mar 24th 2008 by Tom

65. Because it was just a "teensy" clog of the system.

Posted at 9:53PM on Mar 24th 2008 by Jeff

66. LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California court on Monday denied an attorney's bid to challenge an order that gave control of troubled pop star Britney Spears' personal and business affairs to her father, Jamie Spears.

But attorney Jon Eardley vowed to continue his battle on behalf of the 26-year-old singer, saying he will now challenge the conservatorship order on two key issues.

A three-judge panel of California's 2nd District Court of Appeals said on Monday an appeal to the overall conservatorship granted to Jamie Spears cannot be heard because "granting letters of temporary conservatorship is specifically excluded from those orders made appealable" under California law.

However, Eardley said in a statement he will petition for a rehearing on grounds that two specific orders -- the inability of a conservatee to bind the estate and the inability of the conservatee to choose her own counsel -- can be appealed.

On March 11, Eardley filed his initial challenge to the conservatorship that put Jamie Spears and lawyer Andrew Wallet in charge of the singer's affairs. Wallet and Spears were made co-conservators by a California court in early February, and the order now extends to July 31.

Posted at 12:24AM on Mar 25th 2008 by soolespi

67. http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN2435027020080325

Posted at 12:29AM on Mar 25th 2008 by soolespi

68. jh @5:18 PM,

I've seen your posts before. They are always against the conservatorship, and have many unsubstantiated claims against Jamie Spears. I have NEVER read anywhere, except in postings from you and others of like mind like you, that:

1. Jamie Spears and Kevin Federline are going into business together ... using Britney's money.
2. Britney is being forced to go on a world tour.
3. Jamie is selling off Britney's assets for his own personal gain.

All of the above statements are completely false. Only people who are very naive, gullible, very young or just plain stupid will believe them.

As for Jon Eardley, the facts are that he lives AND works out of a house that is owned by his mother-in-law. His mother-in-law also lives there. He is NOT a successful lawyer. The court of appeals was correct to throw his challenge out without even a response from the conservatorship. (By the way, this saved the conservatorship thousands of dollars in attorney fees.) This is exactly the type of lawyer that I'd expect that someone like Sam Lutfi would be in contact with.

Hopefully, Sam Lutfi will never have any kind of contact with Britney ever again. I do believe that he used her for his own financial gain. Maybe some new information will come out when her business records have been gone through ... while they were under the control of Grossman.

Posted at 12:53AM on Mar 25th 2008 by DIANE T

69. I think that there is finally some control over her cash to weed out the greedy buggers.It good news.Over her we have the guardianship tribunal and I had an elderly friend that was being taken advantage of by his own soliciter and bank manager they made themselves guardians and helped themselves to his cash and tried to take his house so I went to the tribunal requesting a new guardian and got it.The bitches weren't too happy they thought they had it made and thought there positions wouldn't be questioned.There is a lot of greedy mongrels out there who will take advantage of the weak.

Posted at 7:37AM on Mar 25th 2008 by aussie girl

70. With all the poor baby turtles dying out on the highways, should we really be caring if a young lost idiot does good on a so-so TV show?

With all the poor baby turtles dying out on the highways, should we really be caring if a young lost idiot does good on a so-so TV show?

You know; I never wear panties and no one follows me around 24/7! I suck as a parent, I smoke, I talk on my cell phone while driving diagonally across parking lots, my friends are dumber than Paris Hilton, I like to drink a few good cold beers regularly, I've gained weight recently, I can't act or sing worth a shot, and You Are NOT a friggin' Perfect Person either! GET A LIFE you Sheep!

You know; I never wear panties and no one follows me around 24/7! I suck as a parent, I smoke, I talk on my cell phone while driving diagonally across parking lots, my friends are dumber than Paris Hilton, I like to drink a few good cold beers regularly, I've gained weight recently, I can't act or sing worth a shot, and You Are NOT a friggin' Perfect Person either! GET A LIFE you Sheep!

Posted at 11:35AM on Mar 25th 2008 by Tom Trifik