And just in the interest of a complete historical record, here is a relevant NYT piece from a few days ago expanding in what Spears claim that she is somehow being prevented from removing her IUD is so shocking.
This claim is shocking enough that I continue to lean towards not believing it is literally true. If it is true, then this alone would justify all the fan site histrionics. But what I found particularly interesting is the speculation here as to why Jamie Spears might be trying to prevent his daughter from getting pregnant: he may be trying to prevent her BF and the likely father of any baby from gaining a claim to control some or all of Brittany’s assets. This is interesting because this worry about Brittany being vulnerable to “undue influence” seems to be at the heart of the justification for the PC in the first place. Again, it strikes me as unbelievable that in 21st century California any court would stand for forced sterilization (even a temporary kind); more likely Jamie is making something else Brittany wants contingent on her having IUD in place (perhaps, in conjunction with their father, who would have a similar self-interest, access to her children). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/health/britney-spears-forced-IUD.html?referringSource=articleShare On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 at 10:19 AM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: > LAT has a good analysis article this morning. Their conservation expert > (Leslie > Salzman, a clinical professor of law at the Cardozo School of Law) > articulates several of the concerns I have been focusing on. The story also > points out how cozy the relations are between the different players in this > process, and there really isn’t an independent, objective advocate for the > conservatee. But they still don’t explain how a psychiatric dx qualifies > someone for this kind of Conservatorship. > > I used to do forensic evaluations for the state of California (Competency > to Stand Trial and Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity). One of the most > common things we would say in our reports is something like: “Yes, this > subject does have a mental illness, but no, it does not make them > incompetent to stand trial.” I suspect I would say something similar about > Spears if I were evaluating her, unless there is some huge deficit or > pathology that has just not come out publicly. > > “According to the New York Times, which reviewed an internal 2016 report, > Spears told her probate investigator that the conservatorship was > oppressive and that she wanted out. The investigator said it should > continue because of her “complex finances, susceptibility to undue > influence and ‘intermittent’ drug issues, yet called for ‘a pathway to > independence and the eventual termination of the conservatorship.’ > > Salzman was troubled by several aspects of the proceedings from the > beginning. One, the judge didn’t allow Spears to hire her own attorney. > Two, her court-appointed attorney, according to Spears’ testimony > Wednesday, never told her that she could file a petition to terminate the > conservancy. And three, against Spears’ objections, the judge did not > appoint a neutral conservator but selected her father, with whom she was > known to have a rocky relationship.” > > > https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-26/britney-spears-conservatorship-claims-raise-serious-concerns > > > > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 8:28 AM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Under California law a conservatorship justified for a “person who is >> unable to provide properly for his or her personal needs for physical >> health, food, clothing, or shelter,” or for someone who is >> “substantially unable to manage his or her own financial resources or >> resist fraud or undue influence.” >> >> https://apnews.com/article/6a484c43ce6c5ff1e73af0dfd97d948a >> >> The standard Kevin invokes is for temporary involuntary hospitalization >> (in California often referred to as a 5150). >> >> Spears is not being conserved because of tabloid rumors or raunchy >> behavior. She is being conserved because a Court found that she can not be >> trusted to care for herself. Almost always this is done because an older >> person is in full on Alzheimer’s, or a younger person suffered serious >> brain damage, or something else from which folks don’t recover. In Spears >> case it appears to be because of a psychiatric disorder, probably bipolar, >> which is unusual. It is possible she did something to injure her brain >> (trauma or drugs) that we don’t know about. >> >> The AP article says the Conservatorship specifically makes medical >> decisions for her, which I guess explains the IUD, but that still is the >> most shocking example of how unusual this is to me. >> >> The article also points out what may be obvious but is worth keeping in >> mind, which is that it is almost impossible that the court will simply >> grant her request to be released from Conservatorship. Legally. One someone >> is conserved, the burden of proof shifts to them to demonstrate that they >> are competent; the state does not have to continue to show that they are >> incompetent. This is why, even though one predicate for her being conserved >> is bipolar disorder, in my view it almost certainly can not be the only >> reason. I can’t think of a single purely psychiatric (as opposed to clearly >> neurological) condition that could be assumed to be so unchangingly active >> and severe as to justify the presumption a person is perpetually >> incompetent (including something like schizophrenia). >> >> This is not to say she can never be released from the Conservatorship, >> but it means it will take more than her outrage (or public outrage) to do >> it. She will need proper medical judgement that whatever previous condition >> led her to be incompetent is now clearly resolved. >> >> One more thing; if I wanted to fan the conspiracy flames, I would focus >> on the allegation she made yesterday that her lawyer had never told her >> over all these years that she could or should formally request to have the >> Conservatorship removed. This raises the question of whose interest the >> lawyer is acting in. >> >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 8:50 PM Kevin M. <drunkbastar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> To reiterate my prior comments, I only had brief encounters with her >>> when I worked in the industry. While she was odd, so are most in the >>> industry, including me. What the public saw most certainly is not “the real >>> Britney,” but — again — that’s indicative of Hollywood. Your experience is >>> good at framing the key issues, but ultimately we can only speculate. The >>> public argument for keeping her in someone else’s care is that she is >>> incapable of making sane, sober life choices… see previous sentence about >>> being indicative of Hollywood. To me, the only reason to legally deny her >>> access to what she has earned (for better or worse) is that she is a danger >>> to herself or others. She has publicly abused substances, but that alone >>> doesn’t seem to be a deal breaker in re sanity. My conclusion therefore is >>> there is a giant chunk of the puzzle which we are not aware. I don’t think >>> we are entitled to be aware, but that’s a different argument. >>> >>> Regarding her dad being in charge of her… yeah, that needs to be >>> changed. That’s ten levels of wrong, morally and ethically. >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 6:11 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> BS had another hearing today, and for first time formally requested to >>>> have conservatorship terminated. >>>> >>>> Brief quote: >>>> >>>> “ I feel ganged up on, I feel bullied and I feel left out and alone," >>>> Spears said. "And I'm tired of feeling alone." >>>> >>>> She detailed parts of her life that had been unknown. She said that she >>>> was being exploited and that she can't sleep, is depressed and cries every >>>> day. She stated that she wants another baby but is forced to keep an IUD in >>>> place. >>>> >>>> "All I want is to own my money and for this to end.” >>>> >>>> She asked that her opening statement be made in public, most of the >>>> rest that transpired was closed (as it ought to be). >>>> >>>> While the claims made by Spears have to be taken serious and >>>> investigated, they can not be assumed to be true, or complete, as they >>>> stand. Presumably she is in this situation due do a Dx psychiatric >>>> condition, and I can testify to the fact that for a number of reasons not >>>> everything people in that situation say can be assumed to be accurate. >>>> >>>> Several questions remain unanswered (as far as I can tell, I only read >>>> this story about today’s events): >>>> >>>> 1. Why is she on a Probate Conservatorship (rare for a young >>>> person who obviously can take care of her basic ADLs)? >>>> >>>> 2. What harm is the court trying to protect Spears from? This is >>>> basically another way of asking Q1. Presumably part of the answer is damage >>>> to her large estate, and future earning potential, but I have to think >>>> there is more than just financial interest at play here. I continue to >>>> suspect that A) She is seen as being unduly influenced by a potentially >>>> unreliable source and B) there is concern that the physical, psychological >>>> and financial well being of her children is threatened. >>>> >>>> 3. Why does the Court continue to allow her father to be part of >>>> the Conservatorship, given his questionable history with her and conflict >>>> of interest? There are objective, professional Conservators who could do >>>> this. >>>> >>>> 4. Is it really possible for a Conservator to require the use of >>>> an IUD? I suspect this is a question that does not come up very often, as >>>> the large majority of people under PC are past child bearing age, or are >>>> men. I am trying to think of a justification for this requirement. I >>>> recently had a patient whose OB-GYN had documented in clear terms that her >>>> postpartum depression and psychosis was so bad, increasingly, with first 4 >>>> pregnancies that under no circumstances should she get pregnant again (I >>>> was seeing her because she was pregnant again). I guess if that pt has been >>>> conserved she could have been forced to have an IUD inserted, though for an >>>> outpatient it seems like a difficult requirement to enforce. It seems more >>>> likely to me that somehow her father was able to use some financial >>>> leverage to get her to agree to not getting pregnant again (I can’t really >>>> believe that any conservator could make a decision specifically about an >>>> IUD – even very disturbed women would have the right to select their own >>>> contraceptive method, or at least have it made for them by their >>>> physician). >>>> The Rolling Stone story confirms that she has been on Lithium, which >>>> almost certainly confirms that she has been diagnosed with Bipolar >>>> Disorder, which is consistent with my hypothesis about her. I have treated >>>> hundreds of pts with this disorder, and never seen one on PC - but again, >>>> none of them had $50 Million. >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/britney-spears-jamie-conservatorship-hearing-1186966/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 11:15 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Okay, I watched the “Framing Britney Spears” “documentary” on Hulu. >>>>> Yikes. >>>>> >>>>> 1. How did the NYT let its name be attached to this? It looks and >>>>> smells more like TMZ. It is little more than a summary of what has been >>>>> said and reported by people on social media, with little or no actual >>>>> independent reporting from the NYT. >>>>> >>>>> 2. One of the most basic things missing is an explanation of what it >>>>> means to be on conservatorship in CA (there are several different kinds) >>>>> and what a judge had to have found to be true to put her on one. I am most >>>>> familiar with LPS Conservators, who do have the power to commit people to >>>>> psychiatric hospitalization. It appears that Spears has a Probate (not >>>>> LPS) >>>>> Conservatorship, for both Person and Estate. These conservators (even for >>>>> Person) can not hospitalize the conservatee against their will. So, if >>>>> Spears was hospitalized against her will, it would have had to have been >>>>> because doctors found her to be a danger to herself or others, or (much >>>>> less likely) gravely disabled. We know she was hospitalized on a 5150 back >>>>> in the 2008 period, but I don’t think we know what the status was of the >>>>> most recent hospitalization. Her father could have coerced her into >>>>> accepting hospitalization, since he controls her finances and many aspects >>>>> of her person, but again we don’t know (and again, the NYT offers no >>>>> original reporting about this). >>>>> >>>>> 3. There is always the possibility of gross corruption (the father >>>>> pays off the judges and others to rule in his favor), but to assume this >>>>> without evidence is the definition of a conspiracy theory. More likely is >>>>> that, whatever else is going on, Spears suffers from a serious psychiatric >>>>> disorder. I am surprised that for all the histrionic “Leave Brittany >>>>> Alone!” Type Fan groups cited in the Doc, there seemed to be little >>>>> recognition of or care about this basic fact by people who claim to love >>>>> her. The court has to be primarily concerned with the mental health and >>>>> well-being of Spears, and the fact she is still conserved suggests that >>>>> the >>>>> court has evidence that she continues to have significant problems. >>>>> Whatever else is going on, she likely continues to be a very disordered >>>>> and >>>>> unhappy person. >>>>> >>>>> 4. While I am not as familiar with probate Conservatorship, what I do >>>>> know leaves me surprised and somewhat suspicious that it is being used in >>>>> Spears case, at least for Person. What the documentary does not tell us is >>>>> why the court settled on Conservatorship, when, as I understand it, to do >>>>> so they have to first consider and reject several other less restrictive >>>>> arrangements. I have never treated anyone as wealthy as Spears, but it >>>>> does >>>>> smell like this entire scheme was designed with the well-being of her >>>>> estate (and perhaps the financial interests of record and other >>>>> corporations) in mind, rather than of Spears herself. >>>>> >>>>> 5. My guess is that at the heart of all this is the judgement that >>>>> Spears was found to be pathologically vulnerable to influence by >>>>> suspicious >>>>> people, like Sam Lutfi. This is alluded to in the documentary, but with >>>>> very little actual reporting. As suspicious as I am of her father, by >>>>> relying on tabloid and social media memes the documentary is probably >>>>> unfair to him. More likely the courts have repeatedly found that without >>>>> the Conservatorship, Spears would fall under the control of Lutfi and >>>>> people like him who would be more harmful to her than her father. If >>>>> something like this is true, I can see why the courts would be reluctant >>>>> to >>>>> eliminate the Conservatorship, or even to name someone as Conservator of >>>>> Spears own choosing. It is actually possible that the current arrangement >>>>> gives Spears as much freedom as is consistent with her own well-being, and >>>>> that of her children, by limiting the ability of unsavory influencers to >>>>> manipulate her to drain her resources and harm others. >>>>> >>>>> The reason we know so little about this is that most of it is not >>>>> properly our business. The Courts are there to review the case and protect >>>>> her interests, not Instagrammers. Still, with so much money at stake, it >>>>> may be appropriate for the press to ensure that the courts are acting >>>>> properly. I just wish the press in this case was doing a better job. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 2:48 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ok, sounds like maybe I will check out the doc. My take on her around >>>>>> that time was that she needed a conservator, but it should not have been >>>>>> her father, or anyone who stood to profit from commodifying her. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 1:00 PM Tom Wolper <twol...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 10:58 AM Kevin M. <drunkbastar...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yeah, yesterday Diane Sawyer trended because people suddenly >>>>>>>> decided her interview of Spears from nearly two decades ago was bad, >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> is a bit like people only just now realizing Geraldo is really bad at >>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>> job. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I miss Ferguson on late night. I understand why he got out when he >>>>>>>> did, but I still wish he’d have stayed through Trump. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wanted to watch the Britney doc on Hulu before responding so I >>>>>>> could avoid hot takes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have taken to watching documentaries about bands from when I grew >>>>>>> up, usually on YouTube. There are two types: movie length promotions >>>>>>> made >>>>>>> for fans where the band is awesome, all their music is awesome, and >>>>>>> they'll >>>>>>> be beloved until the end of time. And then there are more reflective >>>>>>> documentaries, made a couple of decades after the band broke up, where >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> musicians, managers, record company executives, etc talk about the rise >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the band, what life was like at the top, and why it fell apart. Those >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> the documentaries I watch. I'll even watch if it's about a band or an >>>>>>> artist who was very popular but I didn't follow at the time. I figure I >>>>>>> can >>>>>>> put my biases aside and see if I missed out on any good music. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Britney documentary was not about her music. The frame is a >>>>>>> legal battle over conservatorship, a status she entered into in 2008. >>>>>>> The >>>>>>> first half of the doc is about her life up to 2008 and the second half >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> about the conservatorship, the legal situation, and a movement from her >>>>>>> fans to end the conservatorship. The first half is tough to watch even >>>>>>> though it happened in recent enough memory. The tabloids saw dollar >>>>>>> signs >>>>>>> in covering her and they had no conscience about any damage they might >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> doing to her and certainly no restraint. And the attitude infiltrated >>>>>>> into >>>>>>> mainstream celebrity coverage like the Diane Sawyer interview. It would >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> at least as much of a relief for me to know that she gives up music >>>>>>> altogether and goes to live a quiet life somewhere raising her kids (and >>>>>>> there's no sign of that happening) as hearing she is recording a new >>>>>>> album. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As for Craig Ferguson he brought his own vulnerability into his >>>>>>> monologues and the show and it was really refreshing to see him so >>>>>>> fearless >>>>>>> talking about his past. He had an empathy for his guests and I miss >>>>>>> that, >>>>>>> too. In the late stages of his show he burned out and stopped putting >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> effort into it. I really liked the show during his peak, but I'm glad he >>>>>>> got out of it in time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiFFEGuM9THGVeGuW7-6Li0qjfWiJubzxUhz0MX_xDzvfQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiFFEGuM9THGVeGuW7-6Li0qjfWiJubzxUhz0MX_xDzvfQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYL1XRqYkEpsTZQJUmEgYcQL%2B_3WHde78U4%2BPZ7oMDmW2w%40mail.gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYL1XRqYkEpsTZQJUmEgYcQL%2B_3WHde78U4%2BPZ7oMDmW2w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>> -- >>> Kevin M. (RPCV) >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4AwD4psWYC3oEVduWnqmdoRmw7N2Q%2BZ4KkN-aKgkc0imQ%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4AwD4psWYC3oEVduWnqmdoRmw7N2Q%2BZ4KkN-aKgkc0imQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- >> Sent from Gmail Mobile >> > -- > Sent from Gmail Mobile > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYL2zUrZZTyT-%3Dzk9P8%3DjWa2gngSz9ovEnx3LtYbFe82fQ%40mail.gmail.com.
