Jump to content

Something is holding "Framing Britney Spears" back + Deuxmoi post


Almost Mystical

Recommended Posts

Considering how Tri Star and LT have (allegedly) huge involvement in Britney's money laundering, why did they hold back on them? Is it because LT is behind something's bigger than New York Times? Or is there an episode 2 in the works?

My biggest fear is that they are trying to put all the blame to Jamie, and trying to make him disappear. But then LT and the gang will come back with a new name and put Britney on square one. I hate Jamie and all of his guts, but to be completely honest, he is dumb as a doorknob. There is no way he can pull this whole conservatorship off without LT and their set of conservatorship mafia. This is not just a family abuse, but also a court and legal system abuse. And why "Framing Britney" just stop there?

I'm curious to what you guys think.

Edit: just saw this on Deuxmoi, not sure what it really meant tho :(

PSGrSEO.png

Link to comment
  • Replies 27
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 minutes ago, neverover said:

Considering how Tri Star and LT have (allegedly) huge involvement in Britney's money laundering, why did they hold back on them? Is it because LT is behind something's bigger than New York Times? Or is there an episode 2 in the works?

My biggest fear is that they are trying to put all the blame to Jamie, and trying to make him disappear. But then LT and the gang will come back with a new name and put Britney on square one. I hate Jamie and all of his guts, but to be completely honest, he is dumb as a doorknob. There is no way he can pull this whole conservatorship off without LT and their set of conservatorship mafia. This is not just a family abuse, but also a court and legal system abuse. And why "Framing Britney" just stop there?

I'm curious to what you guys think.

We should petition for Framing Britney Spears part 2 tbh

I agree with you. I mean we have no proof, but my gut instinct is that LT has connections to the bigger picture. She's Tristar after all, they are huge.

They're a company with the power to the pull strings of peoples with huge careers, aka Britney's. They can pull strings on a lot of things. MY humble opinion.

Link to comment

Not enough legal evidence to "frame" her. Most of the weird/creepy things we know about her are from Sam Lutfi leaked emails, and they can't post that, considering there are not "confirmed" and denied by her lawyers. They should have at least added the moment she resigned as a bussiness manager and the fact she used Britney's money to sue a fan, because those are true facts. But yes, she probably has contacts somewhere :receipts2_britney_um_browsing_browse:

Link to comment

Yeah, It was underwhelming the lack of mention of Lou and we only saw Larry's name there once. The guy was/still is her manager and they didn't even showed his face. 

Framing Britney didn't have enough time to explore more of the real story, and they lose much time with the controversies of her younger days.

I think If this doc was more focused on the c-ship issue Lou's name definitely would pop up... Or not, Lou is a powerful business woman afterall.

I also have the same fear about Jamie "villain role", he is nothing next to the real problem. 

But again, I don't feel like this doc ever was about the c-ship and more about the misogyny and media consequences for Britney.

Link to comment

because there's no money laundering proven. it's a theory. they can only show off things they can actually verify that happened.

accusing someone of money laundering is not to be taken lightly;

I was even surprised they included the BG voicemail and claimed they did not verify the source, but we all kinda know who it was.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Applejack said:

because there's no money laundering proven. it's a theory. they can only show off things they can actually verify that happened.

accusing someone of money laundering is not to be taken lightly;

I was even surprised they included the BG voicemail and claimed they did not verify the source, but we all kinda know who it was.

I can't remember the name of the guy?

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Applejack said:

because there's no money laundering proven. it's a theory. they can only show off things they can actually verify that happened.

accusing someone of money laundering is not to be taken lightly;

I was even surprised they included the BG voicemail and claimed they did not verify the source, but we all kinda know who it was.

I definitely get that. But they could just leave the fact hanging there, like how Britney's estate stayed the same but Tri Star have $600 million assets increase. 

But nonetheless, Lou's role is pivotal in framing Britney Spears. Pun intended.

Link to comment

They could have included the court docs that show she was involved since the beginning, also Lynne's own book. I mean, those fans must have mentioned her to them. 

Another thing is why Britneys voicemail and letter werent included? Both Andrew Gallery and that other lawyer could confirm they are legit. These are two things that prove Britney has been feeling trapped, manipulated and threatned since the beginning. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, neverover said:

Considering how Tri Star and LT have (allegedly) huge involvement in Britney's money laundering, why did they hold back on them? Is it because LT is behind something's bigger than New York Times? Or is there an episode 2 in the works?

My biggest fear is that they are trying to put all the blame to Jamie, and trying to make him disappear. But then LT and the gang will come back with a new name and put Britney on square one. I hate Jamie and all of his guts, but to be completely honest, he is dumb as a doorknob. There is no way he can pull this whole conservatorship off without LT and their set of conservatorship mafia. This is not just a family abuse, but also a court and legal system abuse. And why "Framing Britney" just stop there?

I'm curious to what you guys think.

Edit: just saw this on Deuxmoi, not sure what it really meant tho :(

PSGrSEO.png

I'm unsure what they mean by DOA?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, GregReid said:

I'm unsure what they mean by DOA?

Probably they are saying that the documentary is relevant and true, so that it's not dead on arrival.. What got me wondering is that they said that "If someone once worked with her is now speaking out, that is inaccurate."

Not sure which part they're talking about tho.

Link to comment

The documentary was perfect for what it was. The amount of time they had to make it, the amount of information that rushed in within only a couple of years and the time constraints they had! 
They did an excellent job.

Did they miss a few things? Yes. But this documentary is well made and is the opportunity for this situation and the movement to gain exposure!!

Instead of complaining about what’s missing, let’s use this exposure as momentum for the movement and continue pushing accurate information while more eyes watch!

This is the perfect catalyst for the good side. Don’t lose faith, don’t lose hope! Continue spreading truth! AND petition for a Part 2!

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, ChaosMoogle said:

The documentary was perfect for what it was. The amount of time they had to make it, the amount of information that rushed in within only a couple of years and the time constraints they had! 
They did an excellent job.

Did they miss a few things? Yes. But this documentary is well made and is the opportunity for this situation and the movement to gain exposure!!

Instead of complaining about what’s missing, let’s use this exposure as momentum for the movement and continue pushing accurate information while more eyes watch!

This is the perfect catalyst for the good side. Don’t lose faith, don’t lose hope! Continue spreading truth! AND petition for a Part 2!


It easily could have been a three-hour feature doc, or a six-part half-hour series.

The issue is clearly that the NY Times and Samantha Stark have been threatened by Jamie and Lou's lawyers.

Otherwise, there would be far more material to work with.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Applejack said:

because there's no money laundering proven. it's a theory. they can only show off things they can actually verify that happened.

accusing someone of money laundering is not to be taken lightly;

I was even surprised they included the BG voicemail and claimed they did not verify the source, but we all kinda know who it was.

Huh, I didn't expect to find you here :shocked_what_xfactor_britney_pink_surprised_wow:

I'm glad you're back and I hope you're doing well :hugs_madonna_britney_ftr_2008_circus_hugging_friends_support:

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

We noticed you're using an ad blocker  :ehum_britney_um_unsure_confused_what:

Thanks for visiting Exhale! Your support is greatly appreciated 💜  

Exhale survives through advertising revenue. Please, disable your ad block extension to help us and continue browsing Exhale. 🙏

I've disabled ad block