On a lighter note... Can Madonna Sue?

by Laura James

The women who contribute thoughtful essays to this crime and justice site are serious professionals who grapple with profound and controversial legal questions. Hopefully they'll indulge me for considering a relatively frivolous legal issue today.

Some are honestly wondering about the legal ramifications of Madonna's recent fall from a horse, which her publicist blamed on an aggressive paparazzo. Her injuries, thank goodness, don't seem serious. But the incident offers a chance for a bit of exposition and education on the laws of personal injury. Can she sue? Would she win? Could she collect? The answers are sure, maybe, and probably not.

Can she sue?

Anyone with a hundred-dollar bill can file a lawsuit. The Material Girl didn't earn that moniker for nothing, so this one is a gimme.

Would she win?

Assuming that what her publicist says is true -- a photographer jumped from some bushes and scared her steed -- she'd have a pretty good case. If it came down to a he-said-she-said debate, she could get to a jury with it, and the jury would decide who is telling the truth.

Everyone, everywhere, at all times, has a "duty" under the law to act as a reasonable person would act in the same situation. That legal standard is vague, and it's usually up to a jury, and not a judge, to decide whether someone's actions were reasonable under the circumstances. I don't think it requires anything more than common sense to know that startling a horse can cause injury to its rider.

The department that rendered aid to her is releasing its own opinion on the matter. I found their statements rather curious. If Madonna said nothing to them about the photographer, that is neither here nor there. In the usual trip-and-fall, there's no reason for a responder to deeply delve. "How did this happen?" "I fell from my horse." That's as much of a conversation as I'd expect to see reflected in a police report.

Could she collect?

Assuming the jury believed Madonna's version of the dustup and gave her, say, a small verdict to compensate for a few hundred dollars in medical bills and a day or two of mild pain and suffering, collecting would probably be a challenge.

The press says he was a freelancer. Since he had no regular employer that could also be held accountable for his actions, there would be no insured corporate deep pocket to shake down. As a private person, he might own a home and might have homeowner's insurance. But it probably isn't much, and it might not cover such a claim since it arose from his line of business. Most homeowner's policies have limits or exclusions when you're sued because of the work that you do.

Believe it or not, as a rule lawyers do not like to pursue the personal assets of tort defendants (unless they've done something particularly egregious, and even then, I don't know many lawyers who would push to collect personally from an uninsured or underinsured person). If the jury did slam the fellow with a large verdict, he would have the option of filing for bankruptcy and blowing out the judgment there.

So even if Madonna did win a lawsuit against the fellow, she'd probably have a devil of a time getting any money from him. That's not to say I wouldn't take the case. If she needs a lawyer to handle the claim, gosh, I'm available!

Bottom line: While Madonna has credibility problems in general and a lifestyle that most people disdain, the paparazzi aren't doing much better these days in the court of public opinion. Given all the times when some jerk of a photographer sued a star for some stupid dustup, it might be fun to see the shoe on the other foot.

Tweet

Spector's Specter

by Donna Pendergast

The runaway roller coaster of a murder trial against Phil Spector, the aptly named celebrity songwriter and record producer, is off and running again.

Testimony began Monday in the trial where Spector, 68, is charged with killing 40-year-old former actress Lana Clarkson in 2003.

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines the word specter as "something that haunts or perturbs the mind" and there is no question that this case does both.

After three dates on a single night, Spector met up with Clarkson, down on her luck and working as a hostess at the House of Blues on Sunset Boulevard in West Hollywood. Clarkson (pictured right) left the club with Spector shortly after midnight the evening of February 3, and was later found shot at the mansion where he lived alone in the Los Angeles suburb of Alhambra.

Emergency responders to the scene found Clarkson dead in the foyer of Spector's mansion with a single gunshot wound to the mouth. Spector claimed that Clarkson had accidentally shot herself when she tried to kiss his gun. Kiss his gun? Give me a break.

While awaiting trial Spector remained free on a million-dollar bond. After numerous postponements, the first round of the circus called a murder trial began with a month-long jury selection in April 2007. Twelve jurors, including nine men and three women—along with seven alternates—were ultimately seated to hear the case.

When the trial progressed to testimony, the courtroom became a theater of the bizarre. The frock-coated defendant with electrified hair watched from the hot seat as a strange parade of self-promoters postured and preened in the limelight of the high-profile celebrity trial. From Clarkson's so-called best friend Irene "Punkin pie" Laughlin whose attire gained as much attention as her testimony . . . to convicted Hollywood madam Jody "Babydol" Gibson . . . the colorful cast of characters parading in and out of the courtroom seemed more suited to a television sitcom than to the seriousness of a murder trial.

Lost in the translation was the clear-cut evidence of Spector's guilt. Multiple witnesses testified about Spector's long history of violent confrontations with women, his obsession with guns and his previous trigger-happy threats to shoot various women in the head. The Medical Examiner found bruising on Clarkson's tongue consistent with the gun being shoved in her mouth and testimony from Spector's chauffeur revealed that shortly after the shooting Spector exited his mansion saying "I think that I shot somebody."

At the conclusion of last year's testimony, after a week-long impasse, jurors delared that they were deadlocked. A mistrial was declared on September 26th 2007. Spector remained free on bond awaiting retrial while all previous members of his defense team—with one exception—either resigned or were dismissed by Spector.

In a bizarre post-trial twist, Spector, apparently eager for another courtroom fight, sued his first attorney Robert Shapiro civilly to recoup his million-dollar retainer fee. Spector alleged that Shapiro had used the case for the purpose of garnering publicity for himself. Spector further claimed that Shapiro abused his trust and that he might not have been charged with the crime but for Shapiro's self-promoting actions.

The retrial, thankfully, is already showing signs that it will be a toned-down version of the first trial's debacle. Spector's disjointed legal team of the first trial has been replaced by veteran attorney Doron Weinberg. The jury selection was accomplished in half the time that it took in the first trial and both sides project that the trial will take about half of the six months that it took to try last time.

Even Spector's appearance is considerably toned down this time around. His "finger in the electric socket" hairstyle has been replaced by a much flatter and more modified style, while his frock coats have been replaced by long-coated suits.

Let's hope that this time the focus is where it belongs, squarely on the actions of a man whose history, words, and behavior scream out for a guilty verdict and on the fact-pattern that screams out for the justice that has been eluded for far too long.

Statements made in this post are my own and are not intended to reflect the views, opinions, or position of the Michigan Attorney General or the Michigan Department of Attorney General.

Tweet

MacKenzie Phillips Busted for Drugs . . . Again.

by Tina Dirmann

I am a true-crime author as well as a Hollywood news reporter. As a result, I usually use this space to combine my expertise and give you updates on whatever is happening with celebrity types who've landed on the wrong side of the law. Usually it involves some A-lister acting bratty (i.e. above the law). Or, at worst, highlighting a jury who let celebrity cloud their judgment, and let someone off the hook, mostly because the person was, you know, famous. . . .

This time, I'm having a little trouble coming down too hard on the notable name in the news this week: MacKenzie Phillips. You remember her, don't you? The lovable eldest daughter on the old sit-com One Day at a Time and daughter to John Phillips, the founding member of the ’60s band the Mamas and the Papas. Her battle with drugs has been long documented in the media. She's talked about it plenty—even credits the problem with her abrupt removal from the popular ’70s show.

"I grew up in mansions," she said years ago in an interview. "But everything was dirty and broken. Very little was going on inside except sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll."

In more recent years, Phillips went on to say that she successfully battled the problem. She's talked plenty, in interviews, promising not to be one of those childhood star statistics—the one who ends up in jail or, worse, deceased. She kicked the habit, she said.

Turns out, sadly, that wasn't exactly true.

Earlier this week, Phillips, 48, was charged with two felonies in connection to a drug bust at Los Angeles International Airport. On August 27, during a screening by a TSA officer, it was uncovered that Phillips had baggies and balloons containing heroine and cocaine, and had unauthorized possession of a syringe.

Yesterday, her high-powered entertainment attorney, Blair Berk (whose laundry list of celebrity clients include Mel Gibson and Lindsay Lohan), packed her up and sent her to rehab. It will be her tenth trip.

The judge in the case has already said in court that he expects to settle with MacKenzie. Now, I'm never one to advocate leniency in the world of criminal justice. But in this case, yeah, the judge is right on. This is a sad woman. A sick woman. Putting her in jail serves no purpose. She's abused drugs nearly three decades. A stint in jail isn't going to change that. I'm not sure what will, in fact. But a hospital bed, rather than a jail cell, feels right.

One other notable here in the world of celebrity crime news . . . albeit, this one really is only notable because of his famous (and infamous) niece. . . . Anyone following the case of Paul Sullivan, uncle to Lindsay Lohan (and brother to her reality star mom, Dina Lohan)?

I only bring it up because of the unbelievably low depths to which he sank to earn a buck. On August 29, Sullivan (pictured right) was sentenced to a year in jail for defrauding the government out of roughly $646,000.

How? He claimed he had a business that suffered losses in the 9/11 attacks. He didn't. No business at all. Just made it up. But he applied for a small business administration loan, made available to victims of the attacks, and cashed his check.

And you thought Lindsay's tabloid behavior was despicable. . . . I guess she's not quite the black sheep in the family after all.

Tweet

Mary-Kate: What Was She Hiding?

by Tina Dirmann

Who does Michael C. Miller think he's kidding? Really. Don't know who Michael C. Miller is? Well, I'm sure you know his high-profile client, Mary-Kate Olsen. Miller is the high-dollar attorney Olsen hired to block federal investigators from getting anywhere near her. Drug Enforcement Agency officers just wanted to chat with her a bit in connection to the accidental drug overdose of her dear friend, Heath Ledger.

Miller said no way.

"Despite tabloid speculation," Miller said in a prepared statement, "Mary-Kate Olsen had nothing whatsoever to do with the drugs found in Heath Ledger's home or his body, and she does not know where he obtained them."

Okay, so, then I think we're all a little confused as to why she repeatedly refused to cooperate with investigators—unless they promised her immunity.

Immunity from what, Mr. Miller? Ms. Olsen, care to weigh in?

Well, I'm sure she and her attorney are both breathing a sigh of relief since they will never have to answer that question. The Ledger death investigation was officially closed last week, with the U.S. Attoney's Office deciding not to enforce a subpeona against Olsen, issued in April. The key question for investigators looking into the accidental death was how Ledger was able to obtain the lethal cocktail of prescription drugs that he ingested before falling asleep in his Soho apartment on Jan. 22. An autopsy revealed that Ledger had, among other medications, the powerful pain killers Oxycontin and Vicodin in his system.

Ledger did not have a prescription for either medication and investigators wanted to know how he got the drugs.

It's unknown, obviously, whether Mary-Kate can answer that question. Something tells me—and this is just my opinion, mind you—but I'm guessing she had a pretty good idea. Why?

The two were not only good friends. They were party pals. Mary-Kate had become a constant in Heath's life, frequently hanging out with him late into the night. And so, it's no wonder when Heath's masseuse found his body unresponsive, she picked up the cell phone and called, not 911 . . . but Mary-Kate Olsen (who, in response, generously—cowardly—sent over her bodyguards). Thankfully, the massage therapist had also called paramedics by the time Olsen's tough guys arrived.

Is anyone else furious at Olsen? I don't blame her for Heath's mistake. He was an adult. He knew that he was abusing prescription medications. But Olsen, I'm saying she can't walk away by casually saying, "Oh, I don't know, I simply have no idea what happened. . . ."

Uh-huh. I don't think anyone is buying that. So, I'm sad to see this investigation come to an end without testimony from Mary-Kate.

I also want to note that every other person in this investigation made themselves open and available: Heath's housekeeper and masseuse (pictured left, respectively), his doctors, the bodyguards, staff, and Michelle Williams, the mother of Heath's 2-year-old daughter (both below).

As one investigator told the New York Times, "Everyone has been very eager to help, saying what a great guy Heath Ledger was—except Mary-Kate, who refused to speak."

Why? If there was nothing to hide, why stand behind a lawyer to say that. Why not sit next to an investigator and proclaim it?

Hmmmm . . . I don't know. But Ms. Olsen sounds to me about as innocent as a North Carlonia senator on the run from a pack of National Enquirer reporters. Hey, didn't he also discount accusations by calling them "tabloid"?

Nice try, guys. From now on, you'll have to do better than that.

Tweet

Celebrity Jail Birds

by Tina Dirmann

What's the saying? Birds of a feather flock together. Well, let's pause for a moment to check out these celebrity birds. Jail birds, that is. We have one who just got out of jail. Another who is headed to jail. And another who is sitting in the slammer right now. And in my opinion, as a long time crime and celebrity reporter, it's classic spoiled star behavior that's landed each of them in their current predicament.

Let's take them in order:

First, the one who just got out? Josh Brolin, presently in Louisiana shooting the Oliver Stone film "W," a fictional flick about the president's relationship with his father. After work, Brolin, 40, and several co-stars and crew members headed to a local bar Saturday night to blow off some steam. No problem there. Until the clock struck 2 a.m. and the rowdy bunch apparently had a problem leaving. In the end, 10 officers from the Shreveport Police Department were called in, arresting Brolin and fellow actor Jeffrey Wright (who plays Colin Powell in the film) for impeding the officers.

The actors and four others were charged with interfering with police, a misdemeanor, while another man, a lighting tech, was cuffed for resisting arrest and public intoxication. All were booked into city jail, according to a report by the Shreveport Times. Brolin and others posted $334 bond and were released.

Bratty jail bird number two? Khloe Kardashian: co-star of the E! reality show "The Kardashians," sister to the better known Kim Kardashian, and daughter to the late O. J. defense attorney Robert Kardashian. As if it wasn't bad enough that Khloe, 24, was booked March 4 on a DUI charge (registering, at the time, a .13 blood alcohol level). Afterward, she decided to blow off her probation requirements. The terms? Oh, the usual for a drunk driving offense. She had to work for Cal Trans (I'm assuming that means donning the infamous orange vest and picking up trash along the freeway). And she had to complete an alcohol education program. She did neither. Just forgot, I guess. I haven't heard, yet, a plausible explanation. Maybe because there isn't one. Oh well.

At least she's off the hook for that trash pick-up thing. Instead, on Friday, she'll begin serving 30 days in jail. Let's just hope she doesn't fair as well as Nicole Richie, who, last August, served just 82 minutes of a 4 day sentence after driving the wrong way on the freeway at 4 a.m. (while under the influence of marijuana and Vicodin, of course). Overcrowding at the jail was to blame, sheriff's officials said. Well, at least Khloe still has to enroll in alcohol education. Let's hope she learns something.

Dare to dream . . .

But the most outrageously bratty celeb jail bird behavior of them all? Nick Hogan, 17, currently serving an eight-month jail sentence in a Florida County Jail for felony reckless driving. You remember this case, right? While street racing, Nick lost control of his father's 1998 Toyota Supra, hitting a raised median and slamming the car into a palm tree. Nick's passenger and best friend, John Graziano, suffered a broken skull, lingered in a coma for several weeks, and will need life long care. Medical bills for John have already totaled more than $1 million.

Nick's sentencing was carried live on CNN.

Nick, son of wrestling super star Hulk Hogan and a regular on the family's reality show, "Hogan Knows Best," has proven himself entirely ungrateful, despite leaving the accident unscathed, and receiving a relatively light sentence. Instead, he's whined about his inability to make it in jail, pleading to serve out his time through home arrest, with an ankle bracelet. The judge said no.

In addition, he's repeatedly tried to capitalize on his time behind bars, going so far as to try to develop his own reality tv show about his jail experience. So far, thankfully, no one in Hollywood will touch the pitch.

But I can only assume Nick's tacky behavior is a family trait. After all, jail transcripts of phone conversations between Nick and his family show Hulk blaming John, the victim, for the accident. It was payback from God, Hulk told his son, because John was such a bad guy. Nick's mom, Linda, meanwhile, called John's mother "nasty," according to TMZ, and claims the real suffering is in the Hogan family.

Ugh. Anybody else's stomach turning here? On that note, we'll conclude today's look at the very un-glamorous side of Hollywood. I think we've had enough.

Tweet

Hollywood (In)justice - The Show Must Go On . . . Even When Celebrities Are Guilty

by Tina Dirmann

R. Kelly is not guilty.

Wow. Honestly, who could have seen that one coming?

Well, just about anyone, actually. As I wrote in my last blog posted May 20, exactly two weeks before the Chicago jury handed down their across-the-board acquittal on child pornography charges: "Ladies and gentlemen, I'd say get ready to see the latest celebrity charged with a crime walk away a free man!"

Oh, how I hate to use the phrase. . . . But, you know, I did. Told you so, I mean.

I'm not trying to gloat here. I'm actually sad that the inevitability of it all was so clear. Celebrity, once again, was the only piece of evidence a defense team need submit. Who cares if every other piece of evidence, including a videotape, showed Kelly having sex with a woman who looked an awful lot like his 13-year-old goddaughter?

Though I'm sure it didn't hurt that the R&B's fortune from fame allowed him access to the best defense attorneys money can buy. Even if the best they could come up with was to point out that it wasn't actually Kelly on the sex tape because a mole on the star's lower back region wasn't visible in the video. The defense put a video expert on the stand who declared that a small dot in that area--and obvious on film--was actually, get this: "digital noise," not a mole. And since there was no mole, well, it's not Kelly. Huh?

But the jurors, you know . . . They bought it.

One female juror, who asked to remain anonymous, said afterward, "At some point, we said there was a lack of evidence. There was nothing concrete enough to say it was him or her on that tape."

Even though there was the tape. With Kelly's apparent non-moled up twin on it.

I know, the "victim" in this case did deny it was her on the video. But the fact is, as any prosecutor who has worked with sex victims will tell you, it's often difficult to get them to say, publicly, they were abused. There's a lot of misplaced shame involved. And, in this case, the alleged abuser was the girl's famous, Grammy-winning, R&B star godfather. That's a lot to overcome. Perhaps the jurors, in their scant seven hours of deliberation, didn't have time to consider that fact. And apparently, they also didn't believe the girl's family members, who took the stand and swore it was, indeed, their 13-year-old relative having sex with Kelly.

A writer for the Village Voice, who ultimately lashed out at the unjust verdict, put it this way: "For entirely selfish reasons, it's natural enough to feel good when a favorite musician wriggles out of a predicament that would've kept him from making music for a long, long time."

It is? Is that why there were cheers--cheers--from courthouse clerks when the "not guilty" verdict was announced? I can't relate.

Isn't it ironic that R. Kelly's acquittal, on charges that could have brought him fifteen years in prison, by the way, comes just as HBO began airing its documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," which basically chronicles the charges brought against Polanski (pictured right) for having sex with an underage girl. Also thirteen years old, by the way. In that case, the intense media glare scared the victim so badly, she didn't want to testify.

Prosecutors in the 1978 case were willing to deal, dropping a laundry list of charges, including rape and supplying a minor with drugs and alcohol, but left unlawful intercourse with a minor. Polanski pled guilty, but fled the country, fearful that a media-adoring judge would sentence him to hard prison time. I think most people agree the judge in the case was a man driven more by reporters and public opinion than his law books.

But in the end, Polanski did engage in sex, even sodomy, with a minor. He now lives in France, where he is celebrated as one of the most brilliant filmmakers of our time. He refuses to return to the United States, where he'd be arrested. Technically, he's still a fugitive.

Still, I wonder if Polanski follows celebrity court cases in the United States today. And as he watches stars walk away from charges ranging from murder to child pornography, if he considers what would've happened if his case had been in a California court today. A media-obsessed judge would be irrelevant. All he'd need to set him free is your average, celebrity- obsessed jury.

Tweet

P.I.'s High-profile Clients Got Off Easy

by Tina Dirmann

Here in California, one of the splashiest cases to hit this state’s court just wrapped up. Anthony Pellicano, private investigator to the rich and famous, was found guilty on 76 counts of wire fraud, computer fraud, wiretapping, and racketeering.

Despite the number of counts, he’ll likely do just about 10 years in prison when he’s sentenced later this summer.

Although the case is long and involved, the gist is that Pellicano used mobster-like methods to spy on people for his high-powered clients. And the client list is a glitzy one. CAA talent agency co-founder Michael Ovitz and Paramount Pictures chief Brad Grey used Pellicano’s talents to get dirt on their enemies. Comedian Chris Rock hired Pellicano to investigate a woman claiming, erroneously, that she was carrying the comedian’s baby. And Sylvester Stallone was on the other end, a victim, wiretapped by Pellicano when the actor’s former business manager hired him to get dirt on Stallone that might help in a nasty court case between the two. Garry Shandling was a victim, too.

I don’t think anyone is sad to see a man like Pellicano go down. How low did it get? This self-described wanna-be Tony Soprano even dropped a dead fish onto the hood of a car belonging to reporter Anita Busch, hoping to intimidate her enough, she’d stop the negative articles she was writing about his clients (specifically, Michael Ovitz) for the New York Times.

But here’s what I’m wondering as Pellicano fades from the headlines.

How is it that Pellicano is going down – but none of the clients who hired this man for his below the belt information gathering tactics aren’t going down with him?

In the early stages of the six-year investigation, journalists following the case speculated that it could involve trials against Hollywood’s power elite. The highest rollers on Tinsel Town would be shown that they aren’t above the law.

But alas, the Hollywooders and moneyed types would go unscathed. Again. We didn’t even see most of these folks in the courtroom. Not even Bert Fields, THE de facto attorney to the stars. Witnesses described Fields as Pellicano’s mentor. And, later, his frequent employer. And though his name was mentioned repeatedly in court testimony, was he ever called to take the stand? No. He was not. Though I suspect if he was called, he may have stood up there and pleaded the 5th, for fear of implicating himself with each and every word.

It reminds me of the headline-grabbing profile madam cases, which typically end with the prosecution of the ladies. And who goes free? All of those high-power, high-dollar clients. I never see justice in that, either.

Tweet

Conviction for pop star Kelly? . . . Not likely

by Tina Dirmann

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd say get ready to see the latest celebrity charged with a crime walk away a free man. We've seen it happen so many times now, it's becoming a sadly predictable cycle. O. J. Robert Blake. Phil Spector. As far as I'm concerned, each one of those men should be serving out the rest of their days in prison for taking the lives of women who trusted them. But they aren't. Because they are celebrities.

I'm convinced of that fact, having been an entertainment reporter for many years now, and watching, close-up, what the power of celebrity can do. It brings money. It brings access. It brings adoration. And it brings a "get out of jail free" card.

Now our eyes turn to R. Kelly (pictured above), the wildly popular, Grammy-winning 41-year-old R&B star accused of videotaping himself while having sex with a 13-year-old girl.

Yesterday, attorneys in the Chicago case began screening 150 potential jurors. At the start, even Cook County Circuit Judge Vincent Gaughan warned them, "As you know, this is a high-profile case. And if you don't know, God love you. You're probably the only person on earth that doesn't."

Mark my words, there's not a chance he's going to go to jail for this one. But this time, even I have to admit, it's not because his high-dollar defense attorney (well-known Chicago attorney Ed Genson) will skillfully pack the jury with Kelly fans. No, this time, the hurdle actually might be a lack of solid evidence to convict him on the 14-count indictment.

First of all, the victim in this case, now 23, denies she's the one in the videotape. And by many accounts, those with access to the tape say it's just not clear if it is -- or not. In fact, prosecutors aren't even sure of the tape's date. They say is was made between 1998 and 2000, which could make the victim closer to 15 than 13. Still a crime, obviously. But to not have a clear victim, or a clear age, a clear date . . . This is going to be a tough one.

Then add to that, R. Kelly's celebrity, and the fact that those who know him will remember that his 1997 Grammy was for a gospel-like song, "I Believe I Can Fly," and I doubt there's much hope a conviction will happen. And if so, R. Kelly better thank his lucky stars. Because there's still a very young woman on that tape, whoever she is, having sex with an adult man. So, maybe the prosecutors won't be able to prove his guilt. But in my mind, that doesn't make him innocent, either.

Tweet

Justice for Britney?

by Tina Dirmann

I am loathe to add to the endless volumes already written about the ups and downs of poor little rich girl Britney Spears and her ongoing mental health issues.

But I think it's appropriate to take a moment to address an angle I've been hearing a lot lately. Namely, that Jamie Spears, Britney's father, who has been named temporary conservator of his daughter's estate, is really only interested in getting his hands on his daughter's millions. The allegation is so outrageously inappropriate, I'm not quite sure where to begin.

Let's start with the obvious. Clearly, this is a young lady in trouble. We've all seen her very public meltdowns stretching back more than a year. And who was there, stepping in to "help" the fallen pop princess? A new boyfriend -- a married paparazzi photographer, actually. I'm sure his motives were pure. . . . And before that, a character named Sam Lutfi, who has since been accused of grinding up narcotics and putting them in Britney's food.

The situation became so sad, Jamie Spears had no choice but to intercede. And yes, I know the strikes against him. It's true, he is otherwise unemployed. He does have a bankruptcy in his background, while struggling to support his family, way before Britney ever hit it big. And he has been very estranged from his daughter in recent months. I contend, however, that the last point is a direct result of Britney's sick mind.

It's typical of people suffering from a mental illness (bipolar disorder, in Britney's case) to have extreme paranoid episodes and accuse those closest to them of siding with the enemy, whoever that enemy is.

And that's exactly what Britney did, accusing her father of betraying her when he publicly sided with an old manager who demanded Britney enroll herself in rehab. Jamie did do that, of course, but only because he could see his daughter was hurting and needed something, anything, to get better. Britney enrolled in the rehab, and hated them for it.

Of course, it turned out, she wasn't addicted to drugs. In fact, anything she did may have been an effort to self-medicate as a yet-undiagnosed mental illness began taking over.

Most recently, a judge ordered that Jamie Spears' conservatorship should not only continue, but that he should be paid, from Britney's estate, $2500 a week for his service. The estate was also ordered to pay for the lease of a car. I know, this feeds right into the conspiracy theorists out there who want to call Jamie a money-grubbing father with questionable interests.

But I disagree.

I don't have a problem with Jamie getting funds while managing Britney's affairs. For me, the bottom line is, he loves his daughter. I believe that. I've spoken to people in her inner circle who echo that.

And I do believe he is there to protect her from the likes of paparazzi boyfriends and other "pals" with questionable motives -- because without him, that's who would be running wild with her credit cards and check books. She'd be a lamb in a field of wolves, too mentally vulnerable to protect herself.

And let's not forget that Jamie has to check in every few months with a Los Angeles Superior Court commissioner, who reviews the case and has the discretion to either remove Jamie's role, or extend it, as he did on March 8, giving him conservatorship status until at least July 31.

I say it was a good move. I applaud the court. This was a "just" decision. And I think even Britney will see that, eventually.

Hopefully, she is finally getting the treatment she needs. And we'll only see her improve. It would be awfully nice to see again the beautiful, talented pop princess we all came to know and love.

But until then, her dad is standing by her side -- on her side.

Tweet