Hint to Twitter Activists: If you wake up and find yourself on the same side if Amy issue as Matt Getz, it may be time to re-evaluate your life plan.
On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 2:52 PM Steve Timko <steveti...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAH5J8yxLyJfGYi45LK0TcptrLWpXunO_1ZzKC4x9LBbuUn-z7A%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/CAKGtkYKS9cpm3J0Oqw4FDYtGoMj4Mqae9qaqOhwtCeNGm1eAyw%40mail.gmail.com.
