Who, What, When, Where?!: Miscellaneous Celebrity News 2.0

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I was surprised to see Jia Tolentino as the co-author of that piece.  Her parents were revealed to be human traffickers, which she somehow got scrubbed from Wikipedia.  I know that Ronan's father isn't some prince but everyone knows and Ronan's totally transparent about it and hasn't tried to hide anything.... 

 

Unless she was involved I’m not sure I understand why that is relevant. Everyone knows about Woody Allen because he’s Woody Allen. 

[letter8358]

Ice Cube fights over new Friday movie and the list is endless

[letter8358]

Larry David probably has one more season of Curb Your Enthusiasm in him, Jeff Garlin says

Edited July 3, 2021 by letter8358

[aradia22]

Quote

Running the business of Britney had become routine: every Thursday at noon, about ten people responsible for managing Spears’s legal and business affairs, public relations, and social media met to discuss merchandise deals, song-license requests, and Spears’s posts to Instagram and Twitter. (“This is how it works without her,” one member of the team said.) Spears, according to her management, typically writes the posts and submits them to CrowdSurf, a company employed to handle her social media, which then uploads them. In rare cases, posts that raise legal questions have been deemed too sensitive to upload. “She’s not supposed to discuss the conservatorship,” the team member said.

Quote

Jacqueline Butcher, a former friend of the Spears family who was present in court for the conservatorship’s creation, said she regrets the testimony that she offered to help secure it. “At the time, I thought we were helping,” she said. “And I wasn’t, and I helped a corrupt family seize all this control.”

[...] Urged on by Lynne, who said her throat hurt and that she was too fatigued to provide details, Butcher spoke with Wyle for about an hour, providing a comprehensive account of the events at Spears’s house in the previous days. Wyle said she would write up a report and submit it to the court. In retrospect, Butcher feels that she was exploited. “I didn’t know how a conservatorship worked,” she said. “It was supposed to be temporary.”

[...] “The whole process was maybe ten minutes,” Butcher said. “No one testified. No questions were asked.” At the time, she felt relief that she’d helped to protect Spears. Now she is haunted by the event. “A conservatorship was granted without ever talking to her,” she said. “And, whatever they claim about any input she had behind the scenes, how could you have assessed her then? Shouldn’t you wait a week, then interview her? She never had a chance.” (Goetz disputed this account, saying that there were lengthy confidential discussions addressing Spears’s health, and that it was incorrect to say that Spears was not meaningfully assessed or given opportunities for input. She added, “I can tell you unequivocally that I did not coördinate anything related to the case with anyone connected to the case before it came in.”

[...] Butcher said, “You have to understand—even when she was free, when did she pay a bill? Never. When was she able to pick her friends? Never. When was she ever taught to trust anybody? Never. Anytime she’s trusted anyone, the family has smeared their name and told her she was stupid to trust them.”

Quote

California requires that conservatees be given five days’ notice before a conservatorship takes effect, but this can be bypassed if a judge decides that they could suffer “immediate and substantial harm.” Goetz appointed a probate lawyer named Sam Ingham as Spears’s advocate, and then granted the conservators’ petition to waive the requirement to notify her that any of this was happening. Ingham remains in the role; Spears covers his annual salary of five hundred and twenty thousand dollars. (Her own living expenses in 2019 were $438,360.)

Quote

Over the holidays, Spears and Gallery were smoking cigarettes outside a dinner party when Spears gave him a handwritten letter on lined paper, which told her story in the third person, and asked him if he could read it on TV. She had been asking Gallery to help her find another lawyer. “She was lied to and set up,” the letter read. “Her children were taken away and she did spin out of control which any mother would in those circumstances.” Spears wrote that she “had no rights,” and that the conservatorship would go on “as long as the people are getting paid.” Gallery told her, “Look, I will read this on TV, but you know I will be removed from your life immediately.” He asked her to sit on it for a couple days. “Then, all of a sudden,” he said, “every lawyer on the team is calling me and demanding I come in and surrender this letter.” He gave the letter to the lawyers, and soon afterward, he said, he was pushed out of her employment. (Gallery read a copy of the letter on TikTok last year.) He recalled contacting one of Spears’s managers a few years later, to see if Spears could give him a recommendation for his application to graduate school. He said that the manager refused, telling him that any such document would serve as proof that Spears was of sound mind.

Quote

In sealed court records recently obtained by the Times, Spears said that she was limited to a two-thousand-dollar weekly allowance, no matter how much she earned.

Most of the article is a recap of her life but these parts stood out to me from more recent years. I do think the entire article is worthwhile as a way of painting a picture of how crazy her life has been and how much she was pressured to perform while also being harassed by the paparazzi. I will say this one paragraph really helps contextualize what was happening around the infamous umbrella incident.

The business of her trying to retain a lawyer and repeatedly being thwarted... Ingham doesn't seem trustworthy at all.

Quote

Spears had her second child, Jayden James, in September, 2006. Three weeks later, Federline took a private jet to Vegas to party with his friends. Spears filed for divorce in November, reportedly notifying Federline by text message. At a night club, he scrawled on a bathroom wall “Today I’m a free man—f**k a wife, give me my kids bitch!” He requested full custody. While the divorce was being adjudicated, he and Spears divided parental duties. Preston was a little more than a year old, and Spears was still nursing Jayden; she wanted to be with them all the time, and hated being at home without them. “I did not know what to do with myself,” she said later, in an MTV documentary. Spears and Federline both went out on their free nights, but Spears was the one who became the target of tabloid blood sport. (“mommy’s crying,” Us Weekly blared, over a full-page photo of Preston.) In February, 2007, she shaved off her hair, at a salon in Tarzana; five days later, she attacked a paparazzo’s car with an umbrella. The two incidents cemented her image as “crazy.” Both were precipitated by her driving to Federline’s house, trailed by photographers, and being refused access to her kids.

It also gives context for her locking herself in the bathroom with Jayden.

Also, yeah, Jamie continues to sound like a nightmare.

Quote

“Jamie said, ‘Baby,’ ” Butcher recalled, “and I thought he was going to say, ‘We love you, but you need help.’ But what he said was ‘You’re fat. Daddy’s gonna get you on a diet and a trainer, and you’re gonna get back in shape.’ ” Butcher felt sick. Jamie pointed at the TV and said, “You see that TV over there? You know what it’s going to say in eight weeks? That’s gonna be you on there, and they’re gonna say, ‘She’s back.’ ”

In the following weeks, Jamie wore Spears down. “He would get all in her face—spittle was flying—telling her she was a whore and a terrible mother,” Butcher said. Spears was told that she could see her kids again only if she coöperated. “Lynne was just, like, ‘Obey Daddy and they’ll let you out,’ ” Butcher added. Spears behaved, and regained limited access to her children. But Jamie got rid of anyone his daughter had been close to. The housekeeper who worked for Spears during the custody dispute remembers being let go at this time. “Anyone that works for her from now on goes through me,” Jamie told her. When Spears called the housekeeper a few days later, asking her to come back, the two of them cried on the phone together. “I love you and I miss you, too,” the housekeeper recalled saying, “but your dad told me I’m not allowed to work for you.” After that, she said, Jamie told her not to accept Spears’s calls. Spears went back to the studio, to record her sixth album, “Circus.” 

Quote

As Spears privately resisted her father’s involvement in the conservatorship, he used her money to fight back. Recent court documents show that Jamie’s lawyers billed nearly nine hundred thousand dollars for four months of work, from October, 2020, to February, 2021. The bill accounts for hundreds of hours of work by crisis-P.R. specialists who charged between five hundred and nine hundred dollars an hour to respond, they claimed, to media requests.

I hope that we hear from more lawyers.

Quote

As conservatorship law is written, the court is required to determine that a conservatorship is—and remains—necessary. “In practice,” Zoë Brennan-Krohn, a disability-rights attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said, “this is absolutely not the case. What should be happening is that a judge at a reëvaluation hearing would ask, ‘What else have you tried? Why isn’t anything else working?’ And, if the conservator hasn’t shown that they’ve tried less restrictive options, the conservatorship should be suspended. But I’ve never heard of a judge asking that in any situation.” [...] “There’s this concept of the dignity of risk,” Brennan-Krohn, the A.C.L.U. lawyer, said. “Most of us have a very wide range of bad choices we can make that society is O.K. with, but, in a conservatorship, you’re subject to the decision-making rubric of best interest. And it’s possible we’d all be better off if someone was making decisions for us like that, but those are not the values of the society we live in.”

Martinis, the disability-rights lawyer, said that many guardianships can prove inescapable, which is why they are vulnerable to abuse. In the extreme cases, he said, “the strategy is isolate, medicate, liquidate. You isolate them, medicate them to keep them quiet, liquidate the assets.” If a conservatee functions well under conservatorship, it can be framed as proof of the arrangement’s necessity; if a conservatee struggles under conservatorship, the same conclusion can be drawn. And if a conservatee gets out, and stumbles into crisis or manipulation—a likelihood increased by time spent formally disempowered—this, too, might reinforce the argument for their prior legal restraints. “Our mistakes make us who we are, and teach us who we can be,” Martinis said. “Without bad choices, we can’t be wholly human. And with the best of intentions, we say to people with disabilities: we’ll keep you from ever making a mistake.” He added, “Should Britney get out, just watch. The first mistake she makes, fingers will wag, and people will say this would never have happened if she were under guardianship.”

 

[Ms Blue Jay]

3 hours ago, Dani said:

Unless she was involved I’m not sure I understand why that is relevant. Everyone knows about Woody Allen because he’s Woody Allen. 

She's kind of a celebrity (published author, NY times writer, etc.) and this is the celebrity news thread.  I thought people might be interested.

Edited July 3, 2021 by Ms Blue Jay

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

She's kind of a celebrity (published author, NY times writer, etc.) and this is the celebrity news thread.  I thought people might be interested.

No, I don’t understand why it matters if she is transparent about it. You post seemed to imply that she was doing something wrong. 

[AimingforYoko]

I believe this is the textbook definition of a shit-eating grin.

[Spartan Girl]

On 7/2/2021 at 8:44 PM, letter8358 said:

Bruce Lee's daughter tired of white men retelling Bruce's story

And I was so glad she called out Tarantino! I was waiting for someone to say something.

[MissAlmond]

3 hours ago, AimingforYoko said:

I believe this is the textbook definition of a shit-eating grin.

[Rootbeer]

On 7/1/2021 at 7:48 PM, Vermicious Knid said:

She may be required to be on birth control because of the Lithium prescription, it's been know to cause horrific birth defects. I was looking at another site's discussion of the Britney situation and there were several people on there who were convinced her own statement actually proved why she needed to be under conservatorship.

I also have never deliberately listened to a podcast, I say deliberately because sometimes they are played on NPR when I have it on. For me it's because I'm a fast reader. This is also why I don't do audiobooks. Why should I spend 14 hours listening to something I can read in 3-4. Or 24 minutes of a podcast I can read in 10.

There are many medications that can cause serious birth defects, but no one is 'required' to be on birth control while taking them.  Lithium has been associated with severe heart defects in infants exposed to it in utero.  However, the risk is somewhere between 2-3% of babies whose mothers are on the drug.  So, over 97% of children born to women taking Lithium in the first trimester do not have heart defects.  If a woman taking Lithium is willing to take a less than 3% risk that her child will have a cardiac defect, many of which are correctible after birth, then she is entitled to do that.  

The vast, vast majority of reproductive age women taking Lithium do not have a personal conservator and are allowed to weigh the risks for themselves.  I haven't seen any evidence that Britney wouldn't be able to decide for herself if she wants to get pregnant, knowing the risk of a heart defect.

Edited July 4, 2021 by Rootbeer

[biakbiak]

15 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

There are many medications that can cause serious birth defects, but no one is 'required' to be on birth control while taking them.

Except for Accutane but probably not applicable. 

[letter8358]

Two actors coming out at the same time...one I was not expecting!

Jack Dylan Grazer comes out as bisexual

Tyler Possey says he's queer and sexually fluid, thanks to former girlfriend

Whatever they do is their business. I don't condemn or shun them. It's their life. You should be proud as to who you are. Be you and no one else is what I'll say to them. 

 

All I say is good luck and Happy 4th of July. 

[Rootbeer]

8 hours ago, biakbiak said:

Except for Accutane but probably not applicable. 

Even Accutane.  Dermatologists counsel women about the risks, usually tell them to use 2 methods of birth control, may even make them sign a contract and/or show proof from their gyn that they are on the pill or have an IUD; but, in the end, no one is policing the woman to make she she adheres to the agreement.  She can still stop taking the pill or have an IUD removed and nobody is going to prevent her from doing it. 

This country is based on personal freedom and, even in the case where a woman willfully risks having a child with severe birth defects, no one can legally stop her.  Now, if her derm finds out she is not contracepting, she may not be able to get refills on her Accutane, but that's the way it goes.  Someone who is bipolar and on Lithium who tells their psychiatrist they are not using birth control and wants to get pregnant is probably not getting a refill on their Lithium either, but will be switched to another, safer, med.  Physicians also have free will when it comes to what sorts of risks they feel that they are willing to participate in when it comes to their patients.

Best case scenario for a woman like Britney, on Lithium who wants to conceive is that she goes to her psychiatrist and honestly tells them what she would like to do and, together, they work out a plan to discontinue the Lithium and try something safer and monitor the situation for a few months to be sure she is stable before she tries to get pregnant.  Happens all the time.

Accutane, BTW causes severe malformations of the brain which often result in early death and kids born with these issues usually have devastating neurologic deficits, both intellectual and physical.

Edited July 4, 2021 by Rootbeer

[Jane Tuesday]

Britney says she never wanted to be in lithium in the first place, so if that's the objection to her getting pregnant, take her off it.

That article on the New Yorker is heartbreaking. How does that happen? Yikes. How is she (or anybody) supposed to ever get out? When she can't even hire her own lawyer, and instead gets one assigned by the court, whose gravy train will end with the conservatorship?

You'll never convince me this isn't 100% about the money. If she was poor, she'd be free to make whatever shitty life choices she wants, and nobody would care. They obviously aren't doing this out of love and concern. 

[bobalina]

Everybody assuming Britney is telling the truth. Her team has said they instituted written agreements with her because she would agree to something then turn around and deny it. I think we need to wait to hear both sides. If the team can produce the agreements  then Britney's the liar.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, bobalina said:

Everybody assuming Britney is telling the truth. Her team has said they instituted written agreements with her because she would agree to something then turn around and deny it. I think we need to wait to hear both sides. If the team can produce the agreements  then Britney's the liar.

Source? We will never hear both sides because Britney’s medical and personal information is and should be protected. Regardless of if she is telling the truth mental illness isn’t enough to take away a person’s freedom and right to make bad choices which is the heart of the whole discussion. Whether Britney benefits from a conservatorship and whether or not she should be in one legally are completely different issues.

If she wants out she should be able to get out. Now that may mean her life spirals downward and she loses access to her children but she should be free to make those choices.

At this point my real doubt is over whether or not Britney wants out enough to deal with the consequences. She seems to have a pretty simplistic and naive outlook. She wants out without an evaluation which I believe she should be able to do. That also means Federline and the courts will take steps to protect her kids from her if necessary. That’s why I think the outrage that the judge hasn’t ended the conservatorship is premature. Britney hasn’t actually taken the step necessary to request that it ends. 

Edited July 4, 2021 by Guest

[Jane Tuesday]

Lots of people lie, cheat, steal... and still get to manage their own lives. 

[biakbiak]

Nick Cannon’s 4th kid this year, seventh overall arrived. 

[tessaray]

3 hours ago, bobalina said:

Everybody assuming Britney is telling the truth. Her team has said they instituted written agreements with her because she would agree to something then turn around and deny it. I think we need to wait to hear both sides. If the team can produce the agreements  then Britney's the liar.

I would assume that any agreement she signed was under duress.  

Or if she really isn't well enough to manage her own life, how can they expect her to 1)  be able to sign anything and 2) be able to act on it?  They can't have it both ways.  

That Britney may be exaggerating or misremembering is possible.  Maybe she doesn't have all the facts, maybe her accusations are targeted at the wrong people.  But her anger and her anguish feel justified. The system has been rigged against her.  That much is clear from the reporting that's coming out. 

[peachmangosteen]

1 hour ago, tessaray said:

Or if she really isn't well enough to manage her own life, how can they expect her to 1)  be able to sign anything and 2) be able to act on it?  They can't have it both ways.  

And if she's so mentally unfit that she can't decide these things then how can they say she can go on tour and do a Vegas residency and shit. Come on now!

[bobalina]

3 hours ago, Dani said:

Source? We will never hear both sides because Britney’s medical and personal information is and should be protected. Regardless of if she is telling the truth mental illness isn’t enough to take away a person’s freedom and right to make bad choices which is the heart of the whole discussion. Whether Britney benefits from a conservatorship and whether or not she should be in one legally are completely different issues.

If she wants out she should be able to get out. Now that may mean her life spirals downward and she loses access to her children but she should be free to make those choices.

At this point my real doubt is over whether or not Britney wants out enough to deal with the consequences. She seems to have a pretty simplistic and naive outlook. She wants out without an evaluation which I believe she should be able to do. That also means Federline and the courts will take steps to protect her kids from her if necessary. That’s why I think the outrage that the judge hasn’t ended the conservatorship is premature. Britney hasn’t actually taken the step necessary to request that it ends. 

It was either a TMZ story or an item m on Yahoo news.

I have a cousin with a conservator. She cannot endtge conservatorship wIth court hearings and psychiatric exams and permission. Why not just jump through the hoops? Although t h e examiners should be court appointed and not attached to either side.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, bobalina said:

I have a cousin with a conservator. She cannot endtge conservatorship wIth court hearings and psychiatric exams and permission. Why not just jump through the hoops? Although t h e examiners should be court appointed and not attached to either side.

When you read the details in the New York Times article about the conservatorship being granted it is shady as fuck. A 10 minute hearing with no testimony or questions asked. There is nothing there that points to a careful analysis of her mental capacity. It reeks of railroading and because of that making her jump through hoops in light of the allegations is wrong. She’s been evaluated and there are people involved who raise legitimate concerns. Those aspects can and should be investigated without forcing another evaluation on her. 

Edited July 5, 2021 by Guest

[aradia22]

 

[cleo]

I don't understand why the judge hasn't ordered some kind of investigation bc some of Spears allegations were serious. I was reading another lawyer in the field who said that would be the appropriate action. 

Instead it's just going to carry on as is? No wonder abuse is so rampant in these situations.

[bobalina]

4 hours ago, tessaray said:

I would assume that any agreement she signed was under duress.  

Or if she really isn't well enough to manage her own life, how can they expect her to 1)  be able to sign anything and 2) be able to act on it?  They can't have it both ways.  

That Britney may be exaggerating or misremembering is possible.  Maybe she doesn't have all the facts, maybe her accusations are targeted at the wrong people.  But her anger and her anguish feel justified. The system has been rigged against her.  That much is clear from the reporting that's coming out. 

What was said  this was so could prove to her she had agreed earlier. Using ( I think) that after her residency was over nothing  was planned for the next year. She asked for something to do, so a European tour was suggested. She agreed, was enthusiastic. After it was all arranged and had started she changed her mind.

Most of the reporting is coming from her. Hold th hearings so all sides can be heard.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, cleo said:

I don't understand why the judge hasn't ordered some kind of investigation bc some of Spears allegations were serious. I was reading another lawyer in the field who said that would be the appropriate action. 

Instead it's just going to carry on as is? No wonder abuse is so rampant in these situations.

There is a current investigation being done based on the 911 call that Britney made the night before she spoke in court. They are not necessarily carrying on as is because these cases are constantly ongoing. There is another hearing in 10 days.
 

Jamie was already supposed to have been removed from having complete control of anything. The financial company asking to be removed creates a lot of problems. 

2 minutes ago, bobalina said:

What was said  this was so could prove to her she had agreed earlier. Using ( I think) that after her residency was over nothing  was planned for the next year. She asked for something to do, so a European tour was suggested. She agreed, was enthusiastic. After it was all arranged and had started she changed her mind.

Most of the reporting is coming from her. Hold th hearings so all sides can be heard.

If she is not mentally competent enough to make any choices for herself anything she signs would be completely meaningless even without possible coercion claims. That is one of the problems with the whole thing. Simultaneously claiming she can choose somethings (like to work) and not others (her own lawyer). 

No, the hearings should not be opened so all sides can be heard. This is her life and personal information and it should never become fodder for the masses. She’s not a criminal. This is supposed to be about protecting her. 

[letter8358]

Henry Winkler.....WTF, man?

So disappointed with that tweet. I thought he was much better than that. 

[Kel Varnsen]

10 minutes ago, letter8358 said:

Henry Winkler.....WTF, man?

So disappointed with that tweet. I thought he was much better than that. 

So The Fonz just read Watchmen for the first time it seems?

[tessaray]

2 hours ago, bobalina said:

What was said  this was so could prove to her she had agreed earlier. Using ( I think) that after her residency was over nothing  was planned for the next year. She asked for something to do, so a European tour was suggested. She agreed, was enthusiastic. After it was all arranged and had started she changed her mind.

Most of the reporting is coming from her. Hold th hearings so all sides can be heard.

Agreed.  There needs to be hearings to get to the bottom of things.  (For Britney, not the general public. Though we do deserve to know laws are being applied fairly.) 

In the example above, if she agrees to touring and then cancels, assuming she pays any penalties involved, I think she has every right to choose not to perform.  Contracts are broken every day of the week.  

I haven't really followed the Britney saga, just articles that have come out since the hearing where she addressed the judge.  It's been eye-opening. 

[GiuliettaMasina]

2 hours ago, bobalina said:

What was said  this was so could prove to her she had agreed earlier. Using ( I think) that after her residency was over nothing  was planned for the next year. She asked for something to do, so a European tour was suggested. She agreed, was enthusiastic. After it was all arranged and had started she changed her mind.

Most of the reporting is coming from her. Hold th hearings so all sides can be heard.

She's not allowed to change her mind? I get that there may be penalties for breaking contracts that were signed, and they could, you know, just explain that to her. They have the power to make her do it anyway. Showing up with months old documents saying "No, see, you actually want to do this," as if people do not change their minds all the time sounds like gaslighting and only serves to humiliate/shame the very person whose well-being they are legally bound to protect. 

If they are claiming she literally cannot remember what she agrees to from month to month, then how is she capable of retaining complex choreographies for months on end during tours/residencies? How is it safe for her to be around pyrotechnics and rigging and other common stagecraft that requires careful adherence to safety guidelines? 

The math is not mathing here. 

Edited July 5, 2021 by GiuliettaMasina
grammar

[bobalina]

4 hours ago, Dani said:

There is a current investigation being done based on the 911 call that Britney made the night before she spoke in court. They are not necessarily carrying on as is because these cases are constantly ongoing. There is another hearing in 10 days.
 

Jamie was already supposed to have been removed from having complete control of anything. The financial company asking to be removed creates a lot of problems. 

If she is not mentally competent enough to make any choices for herself anything she signs would be completely meaningless even without possible coercion claims. That is one of the problems with the whole thing. Simultaneously claiming she can choose somethings (like to work) and not others (her own lawyer). 

No, the hearings should not be opened so all sides can be heard. This is her life and personal information and it should never become fodder for the masses. She’s not a criminal. This is supposed to be about protecting her. 

They weren't talking about contracts. Just reminders of her agreement, nothing legally binding. And I want the judge to hear all sides, not the public.

Edited July 5, 2021 by bobalina
my tablet hates me.

[bobalina]

2 minutes ago, GiuliettaMasina said:

She's not allowed to change her mind? I get that there may be penalties for breaking contracts that were signed, and they could, you know, just explain that to her. They have the power to make her do it anyway. Showing up with months old documents saying "No, see, you actually want to do this," as if people do not change their minds all the time sounds like gaslighting and only serves to humiliate/shame the very person whose well-being they are legally bound to protect. 

If they are claiming she literally cannot remember what she agrees to from month to month, then how is she capable of retaining complex choreographies for months on end during tours/residencies? How is it safe for how to be around pyrotechnics and rigging and other common stagecraft that requires careful adherence to safety guidelines? 

The math is not mathing here. 

Canceling dates does more than cost fines, it trashed professional reputations and makes it harder to insure performers. Look at Michael Jackson.

[GiuliettaMasina]

Just now, bobalina said:

Canceling dates does more than cost fines, it trashed professional reputations and makes it harder to insure performers. Look at Michael Jackson.

It's not their job to maintain her professional reputation, especially at the expense of her mental health. She doesn't even need to work. If it's causing her stress, maybe stop suggesting "sign this high pressure contract that will place huge demands on you physically, mentally, and emotionally and on which millions of dollars and thousands of jobs are depending" as an option when she asks for "something to do." 

[biakbiak]

10 hours ago, bobalina said:

Canceling dates does more than cost fines, it trashed professional reputations and makes it harder to insure performers. Look at Michael Jackson.

Pretty sure that’s not all that trashed Michael Jackson’s professional reputation. Not quite sure what your point is given he was never put under a conservatorship and made those decisions/dealt with the consequences.*

eta: *by dealt with the consequences, I simply mean in reference to paying penalties/difficulty getting insured not anything else. 

Edited July 5, 2021 by biakbiak

[Guest]

1 minute ago, bobalina said:

They weren't talking about contracts. Just sraElena's of her agreement, nothing legally binding. And I want the judge to hear all sides, not the public.

It doesn’t matter if they are contacts or not. What she signs is meaningless if she has no control of her own life. You can’t say she doesn’t have the mental capacity to drive a car or function on her own and then say but this paper proves she agreed to this thing. 

The judge has heard the other side. The conservators, doctors and lawyers have been filing reports for years. 

3 minutes ago, bobalina said:

Canceling dates does more than cost fines, it trashed professional reputations and makes it harder to insure performers. Look at Michael Jackson.

So. I really don’t understand what this has to do with anything. Besides, do you really think it makes it harder to insure her than the very public knowledge that she has been deemed incompetent to manage her own life? The very nature of the conservatorship means that her mental health is tenuous enough she could be not fit to perform at any moment.

Yes, let’s look at Michael Jackson. His issues make Britney look like the picture of mental health by comparison and he didn’t have a conservatorship. Even though he was a threat to himself and others. 

[aradia22]

Quote

So disappointed with that tweet. I thought he was much better than that. 

It's not like I'm not going to watch Barry season 3 (if I ever decide to get HBO again) but this is yet more evidence we should stop looking to celebrities for wisdom. 

[RealHousewife]

9 hours ago, biakbiak said:

Nick Cannon’s 4th kid this year, seventh overall arrived. 

Why's Nick so reckless with his penis? 

[GaT]

1 hour ago, RealHousewife said:

Why's Nick so reckless with his penis? 

He says it's in the bible

Quote

Nick responded to the comedy with his own amusement. “Open that book up right next to you to Genesis 15 where it says to be fruitful and multiply,” Nick told Tyrese. 

 

[merylinkid]

8 hours ago, Dani said:

It doesn’t matter if they are contacts or not. What she signs is meaningless if she has no control of her own life. You can’t say she doesn’t have the mental capacity to drive a car or function on her own and then say but this paper proves she agreed to this thing. 

She is saying that she has no control and these things are forced on her.   By having her sign statements, they can show, no these were her idea.    The conservators are showing they ARE letting her make decisions, which she then later claims she wasn't allowed to make.   It's CYA.   If Britney says "they forced me to tour" and they say "No wait you ASKED us to set up a tour for you" it kinda shows they aren't making decisions without her input.   it's not that they are legally binding or she's not allowed to change her mind.   It's that she says one thing one day, the conservators act on it, then the next day she claims they are controlling her and not listening to her.  

this is not people with mental illness make bad decisions or change their minds.   It's people with mental illness HAVE MENTAL ILLNESS.   For some that requires a conservatorship (someone brought a Kanye several pages back, based on his behavior he should have one, but the Ks only wanted access to the Alist they didn't care about his mental health and he has no one else who cares about him as a human being to ask for one).   For others it might not.

Her having a court appointed lawyer is how it works.   This is only ONE of probably many cases her attorney handles.   If her conservatorship ends, he has others and will get more.   It's not llike the the Britney case is his sole source of income.   Also he is not making huge pots of money off this.   Court appointed has a set fee they can charge an hour.   He's not the one screwing her.   It's paying for her dad's crisis PR team that is.   The court should disallow anything that is not attorney/paralegal time.   Crisis PR team is not a necessity to the proper administration of her estate.

Having said all that, Ronan Farrow getting involved always makes me go "hmmmm something ain't right here."   So hopefully a full investigation will be done and it will proceed from there.   but they can't just drop the conservatorship because Ronan Farrow publlished an article calling it bullshit.   

 

[letter8358]

7 hours ago, aradia22 said:

It's not like I'm not going to watch Barry season 3 (if I ever decide to get HBO again) but this is yet more evidence we should stop looking to celebrities for wisdom. 

Absolutely! Just hearing it from the Fonz was equally more disappointing. I expected better from him.....but I don't think we can, unfortunately. There is a brilliant article from the Washington Post(?) a couple of weeks back that describes that the average person shouldn't take advice from celebrities and he cited some examples, but mainly focused on the recent news of Jon Stewart and the author gave examples of that. Pretty interesting read.

Edited July 5, 2021 by letter8358

[Blergh]

16 hours ago, biakbiak said:

Nick Cannon’s 4th kid this year, seventh overall arrived. 

I have to wonder if Miss Alyssa Scott truly believes she's gaining anything besides the chance to be a single parent to a child whose male DNA Donor has been known to not married the mothers of at least four previous offspring! Yes, I believe Mr. Cannon is being rather irresponsible and   inconsiderate to all his offspring (including those by his ex-wife Miss Carey) but it's not as though he's completely hidden his track record under a bushel. 

Regardless, I hope the children are somehow healthy and happy despite IMO their parents not having made the most pragmatic or brilliant choices re co-parents. 

[SuprSuprElevated]

7 hours ago, aradia22 said:

we should stop looking to celebrities for wisdom. 

 

[letter8358]

Florence Pugh discusses her romance with Zach Braff

[aradia22]

Quote

Her having a court appointed lawyer is how it works.   This is only ONE of probably many cases her attorney handles.   If her conservatorship ends, he has others and will get more.   It's not llike the the Britney case is his sole source of income.   Also he is not making huge pots of money off this.   Court appointed has a set fee they can charge an hour. 

"Ingham remains in the role; Spears covers his annual salary of five hundred and twenty thousand dollars."

Seems like a lot for a guy that barely meets with her and half-heartedly petitions the court but what do I know? 

Also, I don't know how they would prove that Britney called them (without coercion by Jamie) to set up new gigs, tours, etc. Contracts mean nothing. I'm just very skeptical that, at this point, she loves performing in this way and would be calling people to set things up for her.

[biakbiak]

9 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

Seems like a lot for a guy that barely meets with her and half-heartedly petitions the court but what do I know? 

Seriously! It’s insanity and the court have in fact approved these expenses and Jamie’s lawyers and the crisis PR. 

[peachmangosteen]

10 hours ago, GiuliettaMasina said:

The math is not mathing here. 

This. Very this.

[Blergh]

50 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

"Ingham remains in the role; Spears covers his annual salary of five hundred and twenty thousand dollars."

Seems like a lot for a guy that barely meets with her and half-heartedly petitions the court but what do I know? 

Also, I don't know how they would prove that Britney called them (without coercion by Jamie) to set up new gigs, tours, etc. Contracts mean nothing. I'm just very skeptical that, at this point, she loves performing in this way and would be calling people to set things up for her.

Agree! Besides, the way things seem to be now, it would be more likely that anyone getting the calls would be going 'are we sure Miss Spears truly wants this because she's supposed to be too whacked to pick her own kitchen cabinets? I guess we'll have to wait to see if her conservator Mr. Spears has okayed this!'

TREMENDOUS FAIL by the courts for having allowed this to have happened- and continue with no evident end in sight! 

[BetterButter]

Blake Shelton and Gwen Stefani Are Married

Quote

Nobody but you! Blake Shelton and Gwen Stefani are officially married, Us Weekly confirms. The pair wed on Saturday, July 3, on Shelton’s Oklahoma ranch.

 

[ratgirlagogo]

11 hours ago, letter8358 said:

Henry Winkler.....WTF, man?

So disappointed with that tweet. I thought he was much better than that. 

I see this more as a problem using Twitter to express a complicated - well, no, not even that complicated an idea.  People seem shirty about the use of the word "cataclysmic" and I'd say he's more just expressing a basic idea about group dynamics - the idea that a group becomes united in the face of a common enemy and that if all the members of the group do not feel equally threatened by that enemy, they don't unite.

I think he's just naive in believing that any kind of cataclysm would unite people who hate each other. You'd think the cataclysmically disastrous U.S. weather of the last ten or so years would unite Americans around fighting climate change, but no.

[biakbiak]

10 minutes ago, ratgirlagogo said:

I think he's just naive in believing that any kind of cataclysm would unite people who hate each other. You'd think the cataclysmically disastrous U.S. weather of the last ten or so years would unite Americans around fighting climate change, but no.

Or you know 600k+ Americans dying in a pandemic.