The Ventura DA is currently reviewing the battery case against Britney Spears

The Clive Davis Pre-Grammy Party red carpet arrivals

Britney Spears was accused of battery on one of her housekeepers a few weeks ago. The backstory was complicated, but basically the housekeeper took Britney’s dogs away and gave the dogs to the dog-sitter and when Britney got upset about her missing dogs, she apparently smacked the phone out of the hand of the housekeeper. There is a belief – certainly by those on Team Britney – that Jamie Spears has been manipulating situations within Britney’s home to make Britney look out-of-control, and that perhaps this was a little drama orchestrated by Jamie. Britney ended up firing the housekeeper but the woman did file a police report with the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department, and there was a week-long investigation. Now the file has been turned over to the DA’s office.

Prosecutors are reviewing the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department’s investigation into Britney Spears after she was accused of misdemeanor battery by an employee. Blake Heller, a supervisor at the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office, confirms to PEOPLE that the case was passed onto prosecutors on Friday morning for a review of possible charges.

While it is routine for small misdemeanor cases to be sent over to the DA’s office for consideration, a source close to Spears tells PEOPLE they believe that the investigation itself would not have even gotten this far if it did not involve the star.

Last week, Capt. Eric Buschow of the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department confirmed to PEOPLE that Spears, 39, is the suspect in a battery investigation after the employee reported that the singer “struck them during a dispute” inside her home. Buschow declined to “discuss the particulars” of the incident but explained that misdemeanor battery occurs when there is “physical contact” with another person.

However, the source close to Spears previously told PEOPLE that the report is a complete fabrication. An insider added that she “didn’t hit anyone.”

“The housekeeper was holding her phone and Britney tried to knock it out of her hands,” said the insider.

Spears’ lawyer, Mathew Rosengart, has not commented.

[From People]

I agree that there would not be this kind of thorough investigation and statements given to the media if the situation involved two non-celebrities. But… I kind of understand why the cops are being careful about this and they want to be seen as doing everything by the book. I would hope that the DA’s office looks at the investigation and concludes that prosecuting this would be an enormous waste of time and resources, not to mention a complete legal quagmire given Britney’s still-present conservatorship.

Britney Spears pictured while out shopping at the Oaks Mall

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Britney’s IG.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

31 Responses to “The Ventura DA is currently reviewing the battery case against Britney Spears”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lizzie says:

    It sounds like the maid got fired and is trying to get revenge. However this is an interesting situation since we know Brittney cannot hire lawyers without her father or the courts say so. So she is not really free to defend herself as she would like.

    • Golly Gee says:

      She has hired her own lawyer, Matthew Rosengart.
      I believe the maid was fired after she reported the incident to the sheriff’s department, not before.

      • Lizzie says:

        She was prevented from hiring her own lawyer for a long time until a judge allowed it. That doesn’t mean she can freely hire a defense lawyer.

      • Golly Gee says:

        I highly doubt there will be criminal charges, but the maid could file a civil suit I suppose.

    • Sigmund says:

      I mean, I don’t see how there can even BE any kind of charges with the conservatorship in place. Britney is not even a person with rights at the moment. How can she be charged with anything? (Not that I think she should be, as the removing of her dogs was sketchy and likely orchestrated by Jamie.)

  2. Golly Gee says:

    Actually, Rosengart did issue a comment.
    “It is routine for a matter like this to be sent to the DA’s misdemeanor unit,” says Spears’ attorney, former federal prosecutor Mathew Rosengart.
    “This is nothing more than sensational tabloid fodder – an alleged misdemeanor involving a ‘he said she said’ regarding a cell phone, with no striking and obviously no injury whatsoever.“
    Rosengart maintained: “If this did not involve Britney Spears this never would have been reported at all.”

    • pottymouth pup says:

      I hope the end result is a charge of theft against the housekeeper (since dogs are considered property)

  3. Izzy says:

    I have zero doubt whatsoever that Jamie Spears’s greasy mitts are all over this. The sooner they can get him out of Britney’s life, the better.

    • Mac says:

      Agreed. He knew taking her dogs would upset her.

      • Sigmund says:

        And Jamie took away her dogs before, when the conservatorship was new. She never got those dogs back, either, which sheds some light on why her dogs would be a trigger for her (and why Jamie would target them now).

  4. Julia K says:

    I have smelled “set up” for a while now. Who is the instigator/encourager behind those bare breasted and almost nude videos? Boyfriend? And who is paying him? And why. To call into question her emotional stability? Her ability to make appropriate choices? Her fitness as a Mom? All so shady. She has no one to trust, imo. Feel so sorry for her. They all want money, even if it destroys her.

    • Robert says:

      But doesn’t what you just said prove she isn’t capable of taking care of herself? If she is that easily persuaded to post naked photos, then what else could she be talked into if she is free to do whatever she wants. Remember before the conservatorship the sleazy manager and boyfriend. They were stealing a lot of money from her. I agree that her father shouldn’t be her conservator. Not because I think he’s crooked. Maybe he is or not. But a family member shouldn’t be that involved. It should be an impartial person.

      • Golly Gee says:

        If being easily hoodwinked was grounds for being in a conservatorship, half the world would be in one. If that is even the case with Britney. She was young and naïve when Sam Lufti came into her orbit. She is now 39 years old and as a result of everything that has happened to her, she said she is very mistrustful of most people. The conservatorship has also done her the disservice of not letting her live and learn by her mistakes. So ironically, she may be more vulnerable as a result. In no way is this grounds for putting someone under conservatorship. If she wants to piss her money away, that is her right. It’s her money. Most wealthy people have someone else managing their money anyway.
        And as to why she’s posting the videos that she does, is pure speculation. It doesn’t mean someone is manipulating her into doing it.

      • SKF says:

        What? Taking photos in your underwear means you’re mentally unstable and can’t make decisions about your life? Okay, so millions of women on Instagram are about to enter conservatorships and lose their freedom then, I guess? That is an awfully long bow to draw. You may not personally like those photos but she has every right to post them and they are not a sign that she is unstable! If anything I see it as a sign that she is trying to show that only she owns her body and decides what happens to it. It’s a classic artistic move.

    • ElleE says:

      @Julia K, I expected new incidents to percolate up, after her statements at her hearing (forced to sit on a chair naked for hours, saying everyone should go the jail, etc.) It’s pretty genius to make it her former maid as the person she injured would have to be someone she has access to (which is no one except staff, family and a few friends). Also, no witnesses, but Brit may not be denying it.

      Random things:
      I don’t believe that Jamie Spears stepped down from anything. Those statements about him transferring some duties to Jodi (who Britney said should go to jail) don’t make sense and read like something Sara Palin would say.

      The US president appointed our 1st ever woman cyber security cabinet member to his cabinet. Her name is Jen, she has arguably one of the most important jobs at the WH and at her first press conference Jen the wore a black t-shirt that said, “ FREE BRITNEY”. Help is on the way Brit-Brit!!! Hang in there.

  5. February-Pisces says:

    If Britney is considered to be so mentally ill she needs a conservatorship Why not prosecute Jamie instead, he is suppose to be her conservator and she is under his care after all, shouldn’t he be responsible for her actions? If she has no rights herself and deemed “unable to make her own decisions” then is she accountable for her actions or are those caring for her accountable?

    Anyway it’s all a set up by Jamie, he probably made the housekeeper antagonise her to get a reaction, then leaked it to TMZ.

    • BountyHunter says:


    • Robert says:

      Jamie has only been in charge of the finances for the last few years. There is a woman who is in charge of Britney’s welfare. So she is the one who makes all of those decisions. Probably even the ones of who is hired. And Britney likes her. But she would be the one who made the decision about the IUD. Not Jamie. Everybody is just jumping on him without any proof. Maybe he is stealing from her I don’t know. But neither do you. I did though see the head shaving and the fake accent, etc. So she does have problems.

      • Golly Gee says:

        Is that you Jamie?
        Jamie has been in charge of her finances from the start along with a co-conservator named Andrew Wallet who is no longer involved. Now it’s solely Jamie who’s in charge of her estate. He was also her personal conservator until 2019 when he stepped down after a restraining order was taken out on him because he assaulted one of her kids. So the IUD would’ve been his doing.
        There is strong circumstantial evidence that Jamie and a woman named Lou Taylor who acted as Britney‘s manager, have been pilfering money from Britney’s estate. When you look at what she should be worth from her tours, her endorsements, and her Las Vegas residency, it doesn’t add up. There should be hundreds of millions of dollars and there is only roughly $60 million.
        And yes, let’s keep talking about the head shaving and fake accent from 13 long years ago. She may have mental health issues which can be managed without a conservatorship.

      • Sigmund says:

        @Robert I’ve seen you post these claims before. Jodi Montgomery, the woman you’re referring to, has publicly stated that Jamie, as the person who holds the purse strings, holds much more power than she (Jodi) does. Jodi can agree to let Britney to get her nails done, but if Jamie won’t approve the expense, it doesn’t happen. What Jodi agrees to can be (and often is) overridden by Jamie. Including hiring decisions.

  6. Stef says:

    This is so stupid. Battery? I’m more concerned about the health of those dogs, why isn’t there more about that?

  7. FC says:

    Unpopular opinion, but both things can be true: 1. Brit is unstable and has mental health issues, and 2. she was unfairly taken advantage of in her conservatorship.

    I’m old enough to remember before the conservatorship when she was locking herself in a bathroom with her son and letting creepy Sam Lufti call all the shots in her life. Yes, I want her to be free and have control of her money again, but I do think she needs real help and to be surrounded by good people who have only her best interests in mind.

    • Susan says:

      @FC I could not agree more. It’s not a popular opinion, and it makes people quite angry, but IMO there is—at best—some serious arrested development there. Is it a result of her family, the pop music machinery, terrible people in her life, possible drug use, possible postpartum psychosis etc? Most likely yes to all of the above. It’s a sad and complicated story but I don’t think getting rid of Jamie will eliminate all of her problems. some of them? Yes, absolutely. But not all.

      • Kirstin T says:

        @FC @Susan – I couldn’t have said it better and completely agree with you both.

      • Golly Gee says:

        I think that’s an unfair assessment. In general people are commenting about her not needing to be in a conservatorship even if she has mental health issues, which is really not clear either. There are so many possibilities which could explain her less conventional behaviors. It could be the result of medications she’s on, arrested development as mentioned, or just the fact that we are already looking at her actions through a lens which has judged her mentally ill. It is also possible that she does have mental health issues.
        I think what people get angry at, including myself, are commenters who are concerned about her mental health and think she should continue to be conserved. The conservatorship she is under is specifically for dementia sufferers which is what has allowed it to go on for so long. Most other forms of conservatorship are temporary. There is no comparison between her capacity and that of someone with dementia! Many of the keep-the-status-quo commenters also judge people who want her to be free of the conservatorship as being unconcerned about Britney’s well-being. I want the best for her which includes both support and freedom. One does not have to come at the cost of the other. Getting rid of Jamie may not solve all her problems, but it’s a good start.

    • Jaded says:

      Britney basically had no childhood. She was another Disney kid star who was rushed into stardom by her greedy parents and taken advantage of by the scumbags that propelled her into a career in pop. We’ve all seen how destructive that life can be on children and almost all of them struggle with emotional/psychological problems as adults. I agree that she needs someone to help her manage her life, her mental health issues, her kids, but it certainly isn’t her father. He appears to have been the genesis of her problems and continues to leech off of her success any way he can. The man has the morals of a bloodsucker.

    • Lboogi says:

      @FC well said

  8. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    At this point, if I were Britney, with any sort of mental capacity and the ability to make a decision, it’s time to get serious and stop pussyfooting around with orbital jughead family members, manipulators, instigators, gaslighters, social media, the public and the media. Get a f@cking gorgeous cabin somewhere on the planet (mountain, jungle, island, snow, sand, where the frak ever and start some seriously important self growth and maturation. Quit drawing attention to yourself and quit others from doing it regardless of intention. It’s time to give the finger to EVERYONE. My god, 40s is next. Adulthood is long overdue.

    • SKF says:

      She can’t. She is unable to do any of those things whilst under a conservatorship without the permission and funding from her conservators. You can’t be mature or an adult when you are treated as unpersoned and unable to make any decisions for yourself. Perhaps if the conservatorship is lifted, options like this may become available to her. Currently, the attention on her is helping her in her struggles to remove the conservatorship. In any case, if she wants to remain in the public eye, that’s her choice.

  9. Whirly says:

    I too believe that Jamie Spears doesn’t want to lose his conservatorship and certainly he wants to keep his powers over Britney’s fortune.

    • Mireille says:

      That or he wants to make sure no one finds out what really happened to Britney’s fortune. I think he’s scared shitless once he loses conservatorship all hell will break loose with the financial audit on Britney’s fortune. There’s a reason that she and her lawyer requested a forensic accountant to be her next conservator. Jamie should be more scared of Jason Rubin than Mathew Rosengart. According to Accounting Today, “Jason Rubin is a CPA with extensive experience in forensic, investigative accounting, and conservatorships.” They ain’t messing around. I hope they go after every filthy leech that took advantage of Britney.