[TV orNotTV] Free Brittany [Was: Craig Ferguson Refusal to...]

[PGage]

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 <two...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 10:58 AM Kevin M. <drunkba...@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+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiFFEGuM9THGVeGuW7-6Li0qjfWiJubzxUhz0MX_xDzvfQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Sent from Gmail Mobile

--

Sent from Gmail Mobile

--

Sent from Gmail Mobile

[Kevin M.]

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. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYL1XRqYkEpsTZQJUmEgYcQL%2B_3WHde78U4%2BPZ7oMDmW2w%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Tom Wolper]

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:50 PM Kevin M. <drunkba...@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.

One role of grassroots organizations is to let public officials know that someone is looking over their shoulder and holding them accountable for their decisions. It doesn't always lead to the organizations getting their way but the attention does change the process. The story is strange because we naturally assume everybody is acting in good faith and that leads to a conflict. If we want to ascribe bad faith to one side, our bias leads to the accusation since we can't get the whole story from sealed court documents. It's possible that the conservatorship turned out the way it did because it was all done behind closed doors and now that the judge knows her decision will be front page news she might choose differently.

[PGage]

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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4AwD4psWYC3oEVduWnqmdoRmw7N2Q%2BZ4KkN-aKgkc0imQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[PGage]

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

[PGage]

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

[Melissa P]

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.

[PGage]

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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPwey900C%3DtVG2H7UDYjKVCh3ODRFAuSffc0NsdERLe3Gw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Melissa P]

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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJJZoQ5kc%2BSh6stK7OJvgaaZJAkyK0JWDAu_Oh1sg0sWA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kevin M.]

I can imagine a father (though not a particularly good one) in this circumstance granting his daughter permission to make whoopie conditional on an IUD. 

Semi related, a dark comedy released this year starring Rosamund Pike and Dianne Wiest called “I Care A Lot” which centers around the corruption and manipulation in what has become an industry of conservation. Great cast, average script, and relevant to this discussion. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJJZoQ5kc%2BSh6stK7OJvgaaZJAkyK0JWDAu_Oh1sg0sWA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[PGage]

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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPxfhnQdzWqgGNtb6Yqp5Qb29rFt%3DMnQzwQJw4eZ%3D-n3Fw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kevin M.]

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/

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkY%2Bvj8811_mhr88mAqfaBcpHEkvX02hBA4OyUkCUOzAwWA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[PGage]

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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4DO4LKAC-n6%3DcDD%3DoQa3EOvcAm33qenxUJgjH6_gBXi8w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Steve Timko]

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYL2p31NDXnAxtsfM%2BTQg_iDXTUHGG%2BDeoiA0v%2ByyCtZVQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Steve Timko]

Matt Gaetz. Sheesh.

[Kevin M.]

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 2:52 PM Steve Timko <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:

Matt Gaetz. Sheesh.

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 2:51 PM Steve Timko <steve...@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

I suspect her conservators won’t allow it 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAH5J8yxLyJfGYi45LK0TcptrLWpXunO_1ZzKC4x9LBbuUn-z7A%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[PGage]

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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAH5J8yxLyJfGYi45LK0TcptrLWpXunO_1ZzKC4x9LBbuUn-z7A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bob Jersey]

A wealth-management firm daddy wanted to help him run the conservatorship has chickened out, saying they were (wrongly) told she consented to their involvement... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/arts/music/britney-spears-bessemer-trust-conservatorship.html (link)     B

PGage, to Steve Timko, July 1st:

[Bob Jersey]

She was freed yesterday by an LA judge to hire a new lawyer... Mathew S. Rosengart, a prominent Hollywood lawyer and former federal prosecutor.

It's on.

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/14/1015949197/britney-spears-conservatorship-case-live-updates (link)

B

Moi, to PGage, July 1st:

[PGage]

When you need permission to hire a lawyer, you are not “free”. Though I dispute the use of the word (free) in this context. 

--

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+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/d46e0ae2-662a-4f1c-a78e-1349efb1c996n%40googlegroups.com.

[Kevin M.]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 7:27 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

When you need permission to hire a lawyer, you are not “free”. Though I dispute the use of the word (free) in this context. 

Her previous lawyer was “court appointed,” though many in the media have erroneously stated that lawyer was hired by Papa Spears.

I’m just glad she didn’t choose Gloria Allred. 

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 7:43 AM 'Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV <tvor...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

She was freed yesterday by an LA judge to hire a new lawyer... Mathew S. Rosengart, a prominent Hollywood lawyer and former federal prosecutor.

It's on.

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/14/1015949197/britney-spears-conservatorship-case-live-updates (link)

B

Moi, to PGage, July 1st:

A wealth-management firm daddy wanted to help him run the conservatorship has chickened out, saying they were (wrongly) told she consented to their involvement... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/arts/music/britney-spears-bessemer-trust-conservatorship.html (link)     B

--
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+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/d46e0ae2-662a-4f1c-a78e-1349efb1c996n%40googlegroups.com.

--

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+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJtbLxfA38B862C1NdmpgKvJTnkisumPrDtzaB3_MdGvg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[PGage]

Right. Her next lawyer will be chosen by her, but only with the court’s permission. She is still conserved, and is not able to make most key decisions about her life. 

I don’t like the whole “Slavery/Freedom” frame applied to this, but the development today does not “free” her, or end her conservatorship status.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4BMb8zqg_-jAv4rrF0teipcFmLvGqW0KShbDQPm8vo3jg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bob Jersey]

Understood, but if daddy didn't approve of his selection, he and Rosengart (at least on the surface) are adversaries over it.   B

PGage, to Kevin and moi, July 16:

[Bob Jersey]

Petition to oust daddy from the arrangement filed Monday... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/26/arts/music/britney-spears-conservatorship-father.html

 (link)    B

Moi, to PGage, July 16:

[PGage]

Getting a new, disinterested Conservator is the #1 imperative in this case. I believe this is the first time the court has formally been asked to do this, which may be related to her father’s influence over who her attorney should be.

Of note, this filing did not ask to end the Conservatorship at this time.

I learned two new things (or was reminded of things I had forgotten):

1. The Probate Investigator in 2018 recommended a “pathway to independence and the eventual termination of the conservatorship.”

2. A previous judge in 2014 had agreed to consider ending the Conservatorship if Spears got into therapy and produced a year of clean drug tests.

--

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+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/f9a4ec27-c8ea-4e12-a0bd-02fb1b55573bn%40googlegroups.com.

[Kevin M.]

Britney’s father agreed to step down as conservator 

https://variety.com/2021/music/news/britney-spears-father-jamie-spears-quits-conservator-1235040690/

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYKZX%3DesX3XaM0ecp8BHDEAR-NpydDDZRKZrAYT9f79Urg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Tom Wolper]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 5:55 PM Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com> wrote:

Britney’s father agreed to step down as conservator 

https://variety.com/2021/music/news/britney-spears-father-jamie-spears-quits-conservator-1235040690

Since he didn't submit a timeline it could be a while.

[Kevin M.]

“Allegedly” more trouble for Britney 

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2021/08/19/britney-spears-under-investigation-for-striking-employee/

--

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+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiFODZ-PUagH4YsX22NM_oXws%2BKCyT7Y5LGM7JUC3pm7ng%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Bob Jersey]

Page 6 also mentioned this, but after a report of a theft in Britney's manse was called off when the deputies arrived... https://pagesix.com/2021/08/19/britney-spears-called-police-to-report-theft-at-her-home-last-week/ (link)   Coinkidink?   B

Kevin M, to Tom Wolper, August 19th:

[PGage]

Father has filed papers to end the Conservatorship, judge has not yet ruled.

As I’ve said, it’s not clear to me that she needs a conservator, but in general I would think it more prudent to ease out of it, by getting rid of the father and appointing a neutral conservator for a little while.

https://apnews.com/article/2a2ca49133e31af9c020a21cb29ef334

[Tom Wolper]

It's clear from articles that most of what's going on is happening behind the scenes and what gets reported is the PR spin provided by spokespeople for the sides.

[PGage]

And now the court has opted for the prudent course, suspending the Dad as conservator, but maintaining the Conservatorship, at least for the next month or two. A neutral, professional conservator has been named (this is what should have happened a long time ago).

One reason they are keeping the conservatorship is so they can force Dad to turn over papers that might reveal illegal activity on his part.

Brittany has not been a slave, and I still don’t think using the term “free” here is appropriate. But she never should been placed under the control of her father, and if it turns out he has been corruptly mismanaging her assets, I think some other folks involved in this bear responsibility.

Even so, with the recent announcement of her engagement, I also suspect there remains grounds for concern that she is subject to undue influence from parties who threaten the integrity of her estate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/29/arts/music/britney-spears-court-decision-conservatorship.html

[Kevin M.]

And her conservatorship has terminated.

https://variety.com/2021/music/news/britney-spears-conservatorship-termination-court-hearing-1235110694/

Why do I have a nagging “When the gods want to punish us, they give us what we want” feeling?

--

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+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJiHnNeKsvf3yQ11MQxNXk71neFYQwpM7rb4nn__Sp4bg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[PGage]

Well, ending the conservatorship is appropriate, but it almost certainly does not mean Brittany is free of the demons that plague her. Unless a danger to self or others or gravel disabled, adults should be allowed to make their own decisions, but that includes the right to make demonstrably bad decisions that squander resources and harm those who depend on them

Let’s hope for the best for Ms. Spears, but I would not hold my breath… 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4Ahsfk_SQc8-jcC_R8cd%3Dcw78y1xO_bqcYQrXFcGsrAVQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kevin M.]

This… does not bode well

https://twitter.com/britneyspears/status/1481768609684738048?s=21

I try to not draw mental health conclusions based on social media posts, but I’ve experienced “manic” writing before, and this resembles what I’ve seen. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYK4fnv0x9nraKzaw%3Dv775g_-_JMY_BjXAe1kYcELcwt9A%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[PGage]

Agreed. Who knows who wrote that, but whoever wrote it was in a manic episode, high on certain kinds of drugs, or pretending to be one or the other.

If it was written by Ms Spears, it’s sad, but not surprising.  I have been waiting for someone who actually cares about her to respond to the end of the Conservatorship, which was appropriate, by putting in place other appropriate measures to ensure, or at least increase the likelihood, that she gets the treatment she needs. If that has not been happening it would only be another sign that what all involved care about is her assets, not her.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4BmUozb%2B-56g9-1gcHMe%3DLga9H-DLZaZL5bmiGqigEmcA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Doug Eastick]

On a manic related note, Kanye is headlining day 3 of Coachella.  Other than that, the lineup there looks good, IMHO.

Too bad there's the COVID.

/Doug
eas...@mcd.on.ca

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYK-6%2BRHwniNXdVOaN1xsLz4M2Zf2Ben2tyYDqBveJ2pRA%40mail.gmail.com.