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