Matt Gaetz. Sheesh. On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 2:51 PM Steve Timko <steveti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Natt /Gaetz invites Britney to testify before Congress, saying the legal > system mistreated her. > > https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gaetz-britney-spears-speak-congress-mistreated-america-legal-system > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:08 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> As the article states, this is not even in response to her most recent >> motion. But she is never going to get what she is asking for (end of >> conservatorship forthwith, without further evaluation ). Whether she is >> incompetent or not, in her current state she has to prove she is competent. >> Contrary to what she is requesting, she needs an evaluation to end the >> Conservatorship. >> >> I know Kevin is being snarky, but he also is on to something with his >> Cosby invocation. Cosby could not prove he was innocent on the merits, but >> was able to convince the court that process errors made his conviction >> invalid. With a good and motivated lawyer Spears might be able to find a >> similar process problem with her conservatorship. >> >> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 8:43 PM Kevin M. <drunkbastar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Judge rules that the status shall remain quo >>> >>> Maybe if she hired Cosby’s lawyers? >>> >>> >>> https://variety.com/2021/music/news/britney-spears-conservatorship-request-denied-remove-father-1235009486/ >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 11:48 AM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> It’s not true fir any of the meds she is in record as taking. But the >>>> bigger point had to do with reproductive control. The US has a horrid >>>> history of trying to prevent “undesirables” from reproducing, and in >>>> response a body of law has developed making it very hard for the state to >>>> insert itself into this. Roe v Wade depends on this tradition, and while >>>> that is in shaky ground with the current court, the underlying foundation >>>> is not. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:44 AM Melissa P <takingupspace...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I certainly have no medical expertise, but somehow I know that >>>>> dermatologists won't prescribe a certain acne medication to women unless >>>>> they're on birth control. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps that's also true of one or more of the medications Britney is >>>>> taking, and a judge has ordered her to take that medication. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 1:31 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That may or may not be the best medical advice; we have lots of >>>>>> psychiatric pts who get pregnant, and there are ways around that, >>>>>> including >>>>>> taking a 9 month drug holiday. But regardless of whether it may not be a >>>>>> good idea for her to get pregnant, it is certainly her decision to make. >>>>>> I >>>>>> can’t imagine any court approving an order to force her not to get >>>>>> pregnant, based on psychiatric symptoms or medication. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 at 10:07 AM Melissa P <takingupspace...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, essentially she's already supporting Federline's 6 children, >>>>>>> only two of which are hers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But what makes most sense to me is that she shouldn't get pregnant >>>>>>> because of the psychotropic medications she's probably taking, which >>>>>>> could >>>>>>> harm unborn children. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 11:15 AM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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/CA%2B_fQPwey900C%3DtVG2H7UDYjKVCh3ODRFAuSffc0NsdERLe3Gw%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPwey900C%3DtVG2H7UDYjKVCh3ODRFAuSffc0NsdERLe3Gw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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/CAKGtkYJJZoQ5kc%2BSh6stK7OJvgaaZJAkyK0JWDAu_Oh1sg0sWA%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJJZoQ5kc%2BSh6stK7OJvgaaZJAkyK0JWDAu_Oh1sg0sWA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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/CA%2B_fQPxfhnQdzWqgGNtb6Yqp5Qb29rFt%3DMnQzwQJw4eZ%3D-n3Fw%40mail.gmail.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPxfhnQdzWqgGNtb6Yqp5Qb29rFt%3DMnQzwQJw4eZ%3D-n3Fw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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/CAKGtkY%2Bvj8811_mhr88mAqfaBcpHEkvX02hBA4OyUkCUOzAwWA%40mail.gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkY%2Bvj8811_mhr88mAqfaBcpHEkvX02hBA4OyUkCUOzAwWA%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/CAKgmY4DO4LKAC-n6%3DcDD%3DoQa3EOvcAm33qenxUJgjH6_gBXi8w%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4DO4LKAC-n6%3DcDD%3DoQa3EOvcAm33qenxUJgjH6_gBXi8w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- >> 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/CAKGtkYL2p31NDXnAxtsfM%2BTQg_iDXTUHGG%2BDeoiA0v%2ByyCtZVQ%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYL2p31NDXnAxtsfM%2BTQg_iDXTUHGG%2BDeoiA0v%2ByyCtZVQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- 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/CAH5J8yxLyJfGYi45LK0TcptrLWpXunO_1ZzKC4x9LBbuUn-z7A%40mail.gmail.com.
