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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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. <[email protected]> >>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 10:58 AM Kevin M. < >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> 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 [email protected]. >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>> 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 [email protected]. >>> >> 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 [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4DO4LKAC-n6%3DcDD%3DoQa3EOvcAm33qenxUJgjH6_gBXi8w%40mail.gmail.com.
