Settlement terms

I want to be clear about one point at the outset: Being asked to make a film I did not consent to making is not an option. I declined that project at the time, and I continue to decline it now.

Following that refusal, I experienced what I regard as sustained and cumulative pressure. I am documenting this because the impact on my wellbeing was serious, prolonged, and required clinical intervention. This is my account of that period. Those records are not uniformly supportive of my position, nor are they always affirming. However, their timing and concentration coincide with a period of escalating dispute and pressure, and in my view they provide contextual support for that account rather than undermining it.

Institutional context and timing

In the period surrounding what I have previously referred to as Tory’s hate hui, there was a marked increase in documented interactions between me and mental health and institutional services. Prior to Tory Whanau’s hui, my mental health followed an intermittent, crisis-driven pattern, typically involving one acute episode followed by long periods of minimal specialist involvement, averaging approximately two to four recorded mental health service contacts per year.

In contrast, the period from late 2022 through my first FTAC interview on 28 April 2023 shows a marked escalation in service involvement. During this approximately six-month period, the clinical record documents at least fifteen distinct, time-stamped mental-health service interactions, equating to more than two contacts per month. These include multiple same-day entries and overlapping involvement from crisis, community, and specialist services, indicating sustained institutional engagement rather than episodic support.

Following the initial FTAC interview, the available record suggests a reduction in crisis clustering and a partial return toward lower-frequency contact. Taken together, this period represents a clear departure from my usual pattern of mental health service use. During the FTAC interview, the use of the term ‘erotomania’ appeared to reflect assumptions that were not grounded in anything I had said during the interview itself. As FTAC assessments draw on referral information, I am concerned that the framing of the referral may have influenced how my behaviour was interpreted. - In a blog post written from the emergency department during this period, I described the distress I was experiencing at the time and the pressures I felt in relation to ongoing creative and reputational disputes. https://www.amandamichelinasprogressiveparty.com/post/a-letter-from-the-emergency-room That contemporaneous account reflects how I understood and articulated my situation while it was unfolding, and is consistent with the subsequent escalation documented in my clinical records. In early 2023, I published further blog posts, particularly following my 3 ED visits between December 2022 and early February 2023, documenting acute distress, creative pressure, and my decision to pivot Weeded Out away from a conventional film pathway. These posts predate FTAC involvement or my later cease-and-desist letters, forming part of the documented timeline of the dispute. - Clinically, this period was marked by recurrent acute distress, heightened anxiety, and repeated crises requiring ongoing assessment and review. Rather than resolving after individual interventions, symptoms persisted over time, resulting in multiple crisis contacts, multidisciplinary involvement, and continued monitoring. I attribute this to the constant, inescapable nature of the threats I was receiving. I allege that the actions of multiple institutions intersected and compounded in ways that caused significant harm, including interference with my intellectual property and professional life. While I do not assert that these institutions acted pursuant to a single coordinated plan, their overlapping conduct, information flows, and failures to independently assess matters created a cumulative pressure that had serious consequences.

Employment and economic impact (conservative estimates)

Even on conservative assumptions, the economic impact of this period is significant.

• Had my 2019/20 part-time role at Isentia continued through to 2025, my earnings would have exceeded NZ$150,000. I left Isentia after my first crisis in 2020.
  

• Had my 2022/23 part-time role at RNZ continued, the lost income would be approximately NZ$90,000.
  

• A transition to full-time employment would have involved earnings in the vicinity of NZ$70,000 per annum, consistent with industry norms.
  

These figures are based on ordinary rates and existing employment trajectories, not speculative opportunities.

Creative work and valuation context

Weeded Out is a developed creative work with identifiable market value. For context only (and not as a claim about NZ-specific rates), typical global sync-licensing ranges are:

• Low-budget or local uses: hundreds to low thousands of dollars

• Commercial advertising or major releases: tens of thousands

• Large brands or wide distribution: six figures and above
  

In a hypothetical NZ$5m series context, a professional and budget-defensible position for music licensing would be:

• NZ$20,000 per song × 3 = NZ$60,000

• One season, global streaming, all media

• Trailer use included

• Soundtrack rights excluded

• APRA royalties preserved
  

This is standard industry practice and not an extreme position.

Screenplay valuation

If Weeded Out were treated as a standalone screenplay within a NZ$5m series context, industry-typical ranges would include:

• Screenplay IP: NZ$120,000 – NZ$180,000

• Writing fees: NZ$150,000 – NZ$250,000

• Music licensing (separate): NZ$45,000 – NZ$90,000
  

These figures are included to illustrate scale and context, not to assert entitlement.

IP concerns and representations

While the musical compositions themselves are not readily performable without my direct creative input, the lyrics constitute independent literary works capable of reproduction and adaptation. I raise concerns that the unauthorised use, circulation, or association of those lyrics with other projects interfered with my exclusive control over the works, created confusion as to their availability, and foreclosed their use in other screen projects I was developing.

In July 2025, a DeviantArt post under the name TinaBeingChloe asserted that negative or disparaging material about me would appear in a project titled Being Chloe if I did not agree to proceed with Weeded Out as created by Steve Barr. I have not seen a rough cut of Being Chloe and do not allege that any such material in fact exists, nor that the poster had editorial control. However, the post represented that reputational harm would follow my refusal to proceed.

I experienced that representation as coercive and as interfering with my ability to freely control my creative work and professional decisions.

Closing

I am placing these matters on the public record carefully and in good faith. My purpose is not to litigate through a blog, but to document my experience, the professional context, and the consequences of prolonged pressure following a sustained refusal of consent.

The threat I received in early July, a few days after my overdose. Speaks for itself, and I'm expecting my allies in the media and the screen sector to explain this, or to harangue Steve Barr until he does.