BJS Kids & Family Trust : A Research Thread

[Onyx1Boss]

On 8/4/2020 at 1:47 AM, UnyewsualYew said:

More:

He ain't playing. Come thru king/queen

 

On 8/3/2020 at 7:33 PM, UnyewsualYew said:

 

 From SwatTeamForBJS and Meaner03 posts (good posts on Twitter!) 

It seems they had found ways to access and drain the SJB trust years ago 

Why is it a target now.. they seem to have workarounds and trustees already in place, took out 9 million from Trust at the start of the con. Didn't they already have access? 

(Not a lawyer or accountant, nor even in the US, but very curious about all this stuff, pardon the butting in )

[Steel Magnolia]

2 minutes ago, Onyx1Boss said:

 

 From SwatTeamForBJS and Meaner03 posts (good posts on Twitter!) 

It seems they had found ways to access and drain the SJB trust years ago 

Why is it a target now.. they seem to have workarounds and trustees already in place, took out 9 million from Trust at the start of the con. Didn't they already have access? 

(Not a lawyer or accountant, nor even in the US, but very curious about all this stuff, pardon the butting in )

I suspect that @RebellionSparkles just nailed it over in the "Lynne Spears' Legal Manoeuvres" thread.

It's not about what's in the Trust...It's about what the Trust would have allowed them to do.

[SumoCyco2017]

35 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

I suspect that @RebellionSparkles just nailed it over in the "Lynne Spears' Legal Manoeuvres" thread.

It's not about what's in the Trust...It's about what the Trust would have allowed them to do.

Heading over to that thread now..but for lazy horn bags such as myself that might now want to trapeze to other threads, could u summarize please dahling

[Steel Magnolia]

5 minutes ago, SumoCyco2017 said:

Heading over to that thread now..but for lazy horn bags such as myself that might now want to trapeze to other threads, could u summarize please dahling

It's not about what's in the Trust...

It's about the CON being enabled by Andrew Wallet's bond.

When they lost Andrew Wallet in April 2019, they also likely lost the bond...So the CON was beginning to fall apart.

The "BJS Kids & Family Trust" may have allowed them to secure a new bond through Stonebridge...That is, until JL pulled out and they could no longer move the money to Stonebridge.

Bessemer was a way for them to keep the ruse of the CON going because Bessemer would be bondable...But they had to boot Jamie out first.

I don't know if I'm summarizing that properly...We're working the details of it out right now.

[SumoCyco2017]

27 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

It's not about what's in the Trust...

It's about the CON being enabled by Andrew Wallet's bond.

When they lost Andrew Wallet in April 2019, they also likely lost the bond...So the CON was beginning to fall apart.

The "BJS Kids & Family Trust" may have allowed them to secure a new bond through Stonebridge...That is, until JL pulled out and they could no longer move the money to Stonebridge.

Bessemer was a way for them to keep the ruse of the CON going because Bessemer would be bondable...But they had to boot Jamie out first.

I don't know if I'm summarizing that properly...We're working the details of it out right now.

R u surprise witness? Or daddy rose?

[Steel Magnolia]

Do we have access to the court documents from November 2, 2020 when Ingham asked to have himself appointed as guardian of the BJS Kids & Family Trust?

Or should I add that to the "Missing Court Documents" thread?

[DulaPeeps]

I hope Britney reads this ENTIRE thread. I mean I'm sure Rosendaddy and Britney know fully what's going on. 

 

Britney if you read this. We got you, babe. We'll continue to be your eyes online. You WILL get justice 😘😘 

[RebellionSparkles]

3 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

It's not about what's in the Trust...

It's about the CON being enabled by Andrew Wallet's bond.

When they lost Andrew Wallet in April 2019, they also likely lost the bond...So the CON was beginning to fall apart.

The "BJS Kids & Family Trust" may have allowed them to secure a new bond through Stonebridge...That is, until JL pulled out and they could no longer move the money to Stonebridge.

Bessemer was a way for them to keep the ruse of the CON going because Bessemer would be bondable...But they had to boot Jamie out first.

I don't know if I'm summarizing that properly...We're working the details of it out right now.

Brief-ish summary of what was said on Lynne legal maneuvers thread:

Whatever changes made to the SJB Trust in 2017/2018 likely had to do with the loans, etc. that the CONs were allowed to take out against SJB…this was about what they were allowed to do to SJB, and getting access to coffers that had not yet been pillaged.

Andrew Wallet = the bag man; he’s the one holding the bag if things go belly up. Once he left, no one on Team CON had enough assets or credit to get approval for a $60mm CON bond. So, the CON was on the verge of falling apart.

Jamie would not have been able to secure a $60mm surety bond because he’s broke.

The easiest solution is to move the money to a wealth management firm that would be willing to hold the $60mm CON bond…a Bessemer Trust, for example.

Bessemer Trust would have added a lot of oversight…obvs oversight is really bad for Jamie and his gf, Lou.

Jamie’s team makes a really complicated plan to avoid moving the money to Bessemer. BJS Kids, Stonebridge, all of this seems to be part of the Team Jamie plan.

Sam Ingham wants the straightforward, logical option of moving the money to a wealth manager…this allows the CON to continue, and he still gets his $500k/year. I speculate that Sam Ingham worked with Lynne on the Bessemer plan. Potentially there was a promise to have Lynne replace Jamie as chief CON in charge

 

Longer summary and commentary:

Things we know:

The CON Bond

You need a surety bond to be a conservator—the CON bond. This serves as an insurance policy to protect the estate in case the conservator mishandles the finances. For instance, if Jamie steals $10mm from Britney’s estate, the insurance company would have to pay back $10mm to the estate. And then the insurance company would sue Jamie for the $10mm.  This is why the credit worthiness of the conservator is relevant. At the end of the day, Jamie’s assets and credit are backing the CON bond.

Jamie has no assets or credit.  He’s declared bankruptcy and said he was near broke when the CON started. A bank or insurance company would likely would not give him a $60mm CON bond.

Andrew Wallet held the vast majority of the CON bond. This information is available in the annual accounting statements. Andrew Wallet held the risk, so, if any malfeasance or financial mismanagement occurred, Andrew Wallet would have to pay.

Andrew Wallet = the bag man; he’s the one holding the bag if things go belly up.

Debt against SJB trust

We know that the SJB Trust loaned money to the CON, but we also know that the CON repaid at least some of this loan back to SJB Trust (receipts = accounting filings). So clearly there were some repayment requirements/restrictions that the CON had to abide by.

Morgan Stanley/Merryl Lynch/UBS, whoever was managing the SJB Trust, would have some latitude to loan this money to the CON, but there would be strict requirements for repayment and amount that could be loaned. Morgan Stanley/Merryl answers to federal law—the buck stops here.

…I assume the changes proposed to the SJB Trust would have mitigated the restrictions that are enforced by Morgan Stanley/Merryl

Commentary: a typical rich person thing to do is to take out asset-backed loans (mortgages for mere mortals)…but much fancier arrangements for rich people. When the SJB Trust “loaned” money to CON, it wouldn’t have actually handed dollars from SJB to CON, Morgan Stanley/Merryl/whoever would have given CON the bank’s dollars as a loan, and it would have been backed by the assets in the SJB Trust...its a way for rich people to avoid taxes.

If you want to steal money from an account/Trust, you don’t have to physically withdraw the cash, you just have to take out enough asset-back debt until the amount of debt> value of assets. But the gov’t is extremely aware of this trick, so there are very strict debt regulations that an investment bank like Morgan Stanley would have to adhere to.

Whatever changes that were happening to the Trust in 2017/2018 likely had to do with the loans, etc. that CONs were allowed to take out against SJB…this was about what they were allowed to do to SJB, and getting access to coffers that had not yet been pillaged.

 

Surety bonds:

“A fiduciary bond is court-ordered protection, a form of insurance.  It is not protection for the guardian but it is protection for the person who needs a guardian.  By issuing a bond the bonding agency agrees to repay the ward any money that might be lost because of the guardian’s actions or mistakes.  Fiduciary bonds are also called “surety bonds” but in general they are usually just called “bonds.”

Not every guardian must get bonded.  Guardians for Personal Needs usually do not have to get a bond, but most Guardians for Property Management do, unless the ward’s assets are very limited and the judge decides that a bond is not needed. The Order and Judgment is the document that states the judge’s decision about whether or not you must get a bond and, if so, for how much.”

http://ww2.nycourts.gov/ip/gan/manual/fiduciary_bond.shtml

[RebellionSparkles]

3 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Do we have access to the court documents from November 2, 2020 when Ingham asked to have himself appointed as guardian of the BJS Kids & Family Trust?

Or should I add that to the "Missing Court Documents" thread?

I haven't seen this! could you please add to the missing court document list?

[Steel Magnolia]

2 hours ago, RebellionSparkles said:

Brief-ish summary of what was said on Lynne legal maneuvers thread:

Whatever changes made to the SJB Trust in 2017/2018 likely had to do with the loans, etc. that the CONs were allowed to take out against SJB…this was about what they were allowed to do to SJB, and getting access to coffers that had not yet been pillaged.

Andrew Wallet = the bag man; he’s the one holding the bag if things go belly up. Once he left, no one on Team CON had enough assets or credit to get approval for a $60mm CON bond. So, the CON was on the verge of falling apart.

Jamie would not have been able to secure a $60mm surety bond because he’s broke.

The easiest solution is to move the money to a wealth management firm that would be willing to hold the $60mm CON bond…a Bessemer Trust, for example.

Bessemer Trust would have added a lot of oversight…obvs oversight is really bad for Jamie and his gf, Lou.

Jamie’s team makes a really complicated plan to avoid moving the money to Bessemer. BJS Kids, Stonebridge, all of this seems to be part of the Team Jamie plan.

Sam Ingham wants the straightforward, logical option of moving the money to a wealth manager…this allows the CON to continue, and he still gets his $500k/year. I speculate that Sam Ingham worked with Lynne on the Bessemer plan. Potentially there was a promise to have Lynne replace Jamie as chief CON in charge

 

Longer summary and commentary:

Things we know:

The CON Bond

You need a surety bond to be a conservator—the CON bond. This serves as an insurance policy to protect the estate in case the conservator mishandles the finances. For instance, if Jamie steals $10mm from Britney’s estate, the insurance company would have to pay back $10mm to the estate. And then the insurance company would sue Jamie for the $10mm.  This is why the credit worthiness of the conservator is relevant. At the end of the day, Jamie’s assets and credit are backing the CON bond.

Jamie has no assets or credit.  He’s declared bankruptcy and said he was near broke when the CON started. A bank or insurance company would likely would not give him a $60mm CON bond.

Andrew Wallet held the vast majority of the CON bond. This information is available in the annual accounting statements. Andrew Wallet held the risk, so, if any malfeasance or financial mismanagement occurred, Andrew Wallet would have to pay.

Andrew Wallet = the bag man; he’s the one holding the bag if things go belly up.

Debt against SJB trust

We know that the SJB Trust loaned money to the CON, but we also know that the CON repaid at least some of this loan back to SJB Trust (receipts = accounting filings). So clearly there were some repayment requirements/restrictions that the CON had to abide by.

Morgan Stanley/Merryl Lynch/UBS, whoever was managing the SJB Trust, would have some latitude to loan this money to the CON, but there would be strict requirements for repayment and amount that could be loaned. Morgan Stanley/Merryl answers to federal law—the buck stops here.

…I assume the changes proposed to the SJB Trust would have mitigated the restrictions that are enforced by Morgan Stanley/Merryl

Commentary: a typical rich person thing to do is to take out asset-backed loans (mortgages for mere mortals)…but much fancier arrangements for rich people. When the SJB Trust “loaned” money to CON, it wouldn’t have actually handed dollars from SJB to CON, Morgan Stanley/Merryl/whoever would have given CON the bank’s dollars as a loan, and it would have been backed by the assets in the SJB Trust...its a way for rich people to avoid taxes.

If you want to steal money from an account/Trust, you don’t have to physically withdraw the cash, you just have to take out enough asset-back debt until the amount of debt> value of assets. But the gov’t is extremely aware of this trick, so there are very strict debt regulations that an investment bank like Morgan Stanley would have to adhere to.

Whatever changes that were happening to the Trust in 2017/2018 likely had to do with the loans, etc. that CONs were allowed to take out against SJB…this was about what they were allowed to do to SJB, and getting access to coffers that had not yet been pillaged.

 

Surety bonds:

“A fiduciary bond is court-ordered protection, a form of insurance.  It is not protection for the guardian but it is protection for the person who needs a guardian.  By issuing a bond the bonding agency agrees to repay the ward any money that might be lost because of the guardian’s actions or mistakes.  Fiduciary bonds are also called “surety bonds” but in general they are usually just called “bonds.”

Not every guardian must get bonded.  Guardians for Personal Needs usually do not have to get a bond, but most Guardians for Property Management do, unless the ward’s assets are very limited and the judge decides that a bond is not needed. The Order and Judgment is the document that states the judge’s decision about whether or not you must get a bond and, if so, for how much.”

http://ww2.nycourts.gov/ip/gan/manual/fiduciary_bond.shtml

How would Atara Tours, LLC fit into this scenario?

[Steel Magnolia]

2 hours ago, RebellionSparkles said:

Brief-ish summary of what was said on Lynne legal maneuvers thread:

Whatever changes made to the SJB Trust in 2017/2018 likely had to do with the loans, etc. that the CONs were allowed to take out against SJB…this was about what they were allowed to do to SJB, and getting access to coffers that had not yet been pillaged.

Andrew Wallet = the bag man; he’s the one holding the bag if things go belly up. Once he left, no one on Team CON had enough assets or credit to get approval for a $60mm CON bond. So, the CON was on the verge of falling apart.

Jamie would not have been able to secure a $60mm surety bond because he’s broke.

The easiest solution is to move the money to a wealth management firm that would be willing to hold the $60mm CON bond…a Bessemer Trust, for example.

Bessemer Trust would have added a lot of oversight…obvs oversight is really bad for Jamie and his gf, Lou.

Jamie’s team makes a really complicated plan to avoid moving the money to Bessemer. BJS Kids, Stonebridge, all of this seems to be part of the Team Jamie plan.

Sam Ingham wants the straightforward, logical option of moving the money to a wealth manager…this allows the CON to continue, and he still gets his $500k/year. I speculate that Sam Ingham worked with Lynne on the Bessemer plan. Potentially there was a promise to have Lynne replace Jamie as chief CON in charge

 

Longer summary and commentary:

Things we know:

The CON Bond

You need a surety bond to be a conservator—the CON bond. This serves as an insurance policy to protect the estate in case the conservator mishandles the finances. For instance, if Jamie steals $10mm from Britney’s estate, the insurance company would have to pay back $10mm to the estate. And then the insurance company would sue Jamie for the $10mm.  This is why the credit worthiness of the conservator is relevant. At the end of the day, Jamie’s assets and credit are backing the CON bond.

Jamie has no assets or credit.  He’s declared bankruptcy and said he was near broke when the CON started. A bank or insurance company would likely would not give him a $60mm CON bond.

Andrew Wallet held the vast majority of the CON bond. This information is available in the annual accounting statements. Andrew Wallet held the risk, so, if any malfeasance or financial mismanagement occurred, Andrew Wallet would have to pay.

Andrew Wallet = the bag man; he’s the one holding the bag if things go belly up.

Debt against SJB trust

We know that the SJB Trust loaned money to the CON, but we also know that the CON repaid at least some of this loan back to SJB Trust (receipts = accounting filings). So clearly there were some repayment requirements/restrictions that the CON had to abide by.

Morgan Stanley/Merryl Lynch/UBS, whoever was managing the SJB Trust, would have some latitude to loan this money to the CON, but there would be strict requirements for repayment and amount that could be loaned. Morgan Stanley/Merryl answers to federal law—the buck stops here.

…I assume the changes proposed to the SJB Trust would have mitigated the restrictions that are enforced by Morgan Stanley/Merryl

Commentary: a typical rich person thing to do is to take out asset-backed loans (mortgages for mere mortals)…but much fancier arrangements for rich people. When the SJB Trust “loaned” money to CON, it wouldn’t have actually handed dollars from SJB to CON, Morgan Stanley/Merryl/whoever would have given CON the bank’s dollars as a loan, and it would have been backed by the assets in the SJB Trust...its a way for rich people to avoid taxes.

If you want to steal money from an account/Trust, you don’t have to physically withdraw the cash, you just have to take out enough asset-back debt until the amount of debt> value of assets. But the gov’t is extremely aware of this trick, so there are very strict debt regulations that an investment bank like Morgan Stanley would have to adhere to.

Whatever changes that were happening to the Trust in 2017/2018 likely had to do with the loans, etc. that CONs were allowed to take out against SJB…this was about what they were allowed to do to SJB, and getting access to coffers that had not yet been pillaged.

 

Surety bonds:

“A fiduciary bond is court-ordered protection, a form of insurance.  It is not protection for the guardian but it is protection for the person who needs a guardian.  By issuing a bond the bonding agency agrees to repay the ward any money that might be lost because of the guardian’s actions or mistakes.  Fiduciary bonds are also called “surety bonds” but in general they are usually just called “bonds.”

Not every guardian must get bonded.  Guardians for Personal Needs usually do not have to get a bond, but most Guardians for Property Management do, unless the ward’s assets are very limited and the judge decides that a bond is not needed. The Order and Judgment is the document that states the judge’s decision about whether or not you must get a bond and, if so, for how much.”

http://ww2.nycourts.gov/ip/gan/manual/fiduciary_bond.shtml

How does this fit into this scenario?

“The conservatorship is engaged in numerous ongoing business activities requiring immediate attention and it therefore is in the best interest of the conservatee that the acceptance of Wallet’s resignation and the issuance of amended letters of conservatorship of the estate occur immediately and without delay,” court documents read at the time.

The legal papers continued: “Substantial detriment, irreparable harm and immediate danger will result to the conservatee and her estate if the relief requested herein in not granted on an ex parte basis.”

Source: https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/britney-spears-conservatorship-andrew-wallet-is-seemingly-back-in-role/

[Steel Magnolia]

I bet Atara Tours was going to stick Britney's estate with the bill for the cancelation of Domination.

In fact, I suspect Rosengart already has the forensic accounting to prove it.

[Letslearn]

also let it be noted that eresidentagent inc is what replaced lou taylor in britney brands inc, although im not sure how important it is. 

[B. Leigh]

I read the nov. 10 2020 transcript today and this was how Ingham described Jamie/Lou's plan to continue the conservatorship once Wallet left:

Quote

"I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY 15 EXPLAIN THE BACKGROUND AS TO WHY MY CLIENT AND I HAVE 16 REACHED THE DECISION THAT MR. SPEARS NEEDS TO BE SUSPENDED. AND INDEED, MUCH OF THIS ARISES OUT OF THINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THE ORIGINAL PETITION TO APPOINT BESSEMER WAS FILED. WE ARE, TODAY, AT THE END OF A LONG JOURNEY. THE JOURNEY BEGAN IN JANUARY WHEN I STATED TO THE COURT THAT BRITNEY WISHED TO BRING IN A CORPORATE FIDUCIARY. AND I EXPLAINED TO THE COURT AND TO MR. SPEARS AND COUNSEL THAT THE REASON FOR THIS, IN LARGE PART, WAS DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THE EXISTING MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE. WE HAD MR. SPEARS, WE HAD TRI-STAR, AND WE HAD TWO TEAMS OF OUTSIDE INVESTMENT MANAGERS, HOWEVER, MR. SPEARS RESISTED THE NOTION OF BRINGING IN A CORPORATE FIDUCIARY AT THAT  POINT. HE BELIEVED THAT THE EXISTING TEAM WAS OPTIMAL. SO LET'S CALL THAT TEAM PLAN A. MR. SPEARS, TRI-STAR, AND THE TWO OUTSIDE INVESTMENT MANAGERS. SIX MONTHS AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF MY CLIENT'S WISH TO INVOLVE A CORPORATE FIDUCIARY, THERE WAS NO STEP FORWARD FROM MR. SPEARS' TEAM TO WORK ON THAT IDEA OR EVALUATE IT. INSTEAD, WHAT WE GOT WAS A FIELD REPORT BY MR. SPEARS, ONE COMPONENT OF WHICH INVOLVED REPLACING THE EXISTING INVESTMENT MANAGERS WITH SOMEONE HOPEFULLY CONNECTED WITH TRI-STAR, AND ALSO TO ADD YET ANOTHER LAYER OF COMPLEXITY, AN OUTSIDE CONSERVATOR. MS. WYLE REPRESENTED THAT THAT PLAN WOULD BE FORTHCOMING, BUT IT ACTUALLY NEVER CAME ABOUT. LET'S CALL THAT PLAN B. 14 A MONTH LATER, IN AUGUST, WE GET AN UNANNOUNCED, UNDISCUSSED, UNILATERAL PETITION BY MR. SPEARS TO APPOINT  MR. WALLET AS CO-CONSERVATOR. LET'S CALL THAT PLAN C.  AND THAT PETITION CAME IN A -- IT ARRIVED UNILATERALLY, 1AND YOU HEARD IT UNILATERALLY AFTER WE FILED OBJECTIONS TO IT. AT THAT POINT WE FILED THE PETITION TO APPOINT BESSEMER, THAT WAS ON AUGUST 31ST. AND UNBEKNOWNST TO ME, MR. SPEARS AND HIS COUNSEL ENTERED INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH BESSEMER, AND APPARENTLY ARRIVED AT SOME PLAN THAT WAS AT LEAST WORTHY OF THEIR CONSIDERATION, WHICH WOULD INVOLVE BESSEMER WORKING TOGETHER WITH TRI-STAR. SO LET'S CALL 25 THAT PLAN D. THEN AT THE END OF OCTOBER, WE GET THE  ANNOUNCEMENT THAT TRI-STAR IS RESIGNING, AND THAT MR. SPEARS HAS GONE OUT -- APPARENTLY HE HAD TIME TO DO SUBSTANTIAL DUE DILIGENCE BUT WE WERE NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THIS -- AND HE WENT OUT AND NAMED A NEW BOSINESS MANAGER. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT MR. KANE'S COMPENSATION IS. WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIS TERMS OF HIS AGREEMENT. BUT NOW WE HAVE A PLAN THAT MR. SPEARS HAS COME FORWARD THAT HE WANTS TO ACT TOGETHER WITH BESSEMER AND MR. KANE. LET'S CALL THAT PLANE. SO IN THE TIME BETWEEN JANUARY AND OCTOBER, WE HAVE FIVE DIFFERENT RESPONSES TO -- OR FOUR DIFFERENT NEW RESPONSES TO MY CLIENT'S SIMPLE SUGGESTION THAT WE PLAN TO BRING IN A CORPORATE FIDUCIARY. NONE OF THESE PLANS WERE DISCUSSED WITH ME OR WITH MY CLIENT. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, NONE OF THESE PLANS ADDRESSED MY CLIENT'S WISH FOR SIMPLICITY."

A Timeline Summary of bringing in Bessemer and How Jamie and Co Responded to it According to Ingham Under Oath Nov. 10 2020:

-In January 2020 either Britney, Lynn, Ingham, and Jodi, one of them, or all of them, introduced the idea to Jamie and co. of bringing on Bessemer as a professional fiduciary in contrast to the current managing style. They wanted Bessemer to simplify and replace Tri-star and two outside investment managers (I don't know who the outside investment managers were)...Jamie and co wanted none of this and wanted to maintain the status quo...

-Jamie responded 6 months later with a plan to replace the two investment managers with someone from Tri-star and add a professional conservator (we don't know who that professional conservator was or the who additional person from Tri-star was) I can only assume that this new conservator would be the new bag man...

-A month after that in early August 2020 Jamie files to have Andrew Wallet reinstated as co-conservator without asking Britney, Jodi, or Ingham and I assume without asking Lynn...

-On August 31, 2020 Ingham files petition to appoint Bessemer after objecting to Wallet being reinstated...

-Then without notifying Ingham and co. Jamie approaches Bessemer and works out a deal for them to work with Tri-star

-At the end of Oct 2020 Ingham is notified that Tri-star is resigning and Jamie already appointed the new business manger (perhaps he was one of the investment managers that had already been working on Britney's estate)

 

***So from this we can gather that the issue isn't just that Andrew left and Ingham/Jodi/Lynn need a new bag man...they for whatever reason had an issue with Andrew Wallet and the management style of Tri-star and the two investment managers...Ingham keeps mentioning Britney's wants but I have a feeling Britney had little to do with most of this and this was more so Ingham/Lynn/Jodi against Jamie/Lou/Vivian/the Wyles...and for w/e reason Ingham and co wanted Wallet, Tri-star, and the investment managers gone...

 

Also from the Nov 10th 2020 transcript Ingham said this:

Quote

I AM PLEASED THAT MR. SPEARS HAS CONSENTED TO THE APPOINTMENT OF BESSEMER AS CO-CONSERVATOR. SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY ISSUE ABOUT THAT. 16 BASED ON ADDITIONAL FACTS THAT HAVE COME TO MY 17 POSSESSION SUBSEQUENT TO FILING THE ORIGINAL PETITION 18 WHICH WAS BACK ON AUGUST 31ST, I FILED A SUPPLEMENT 19 INDICATING THAT I WOULD BE SEEKING MR. SPEARS' REMOVAL, 20 AND THAT, IN TURN, PROVIDES A PROCEDURAL MECHANISM BY 21 WHICH I CAN ALSO REFLECT THAT MR. SPEARS BE SUSPENDED 18 22 UNDER SECTION 2654. AS I POINTED OUT BEFORE, THAT SECTION 23 DOES NOT REQUIRE NOTICE, IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE 24 ON THE COURT'S OWN MOTION. 25 AND SO BEFORE THE COURT FINALIZES THE APPOINTMENT 26 OF BESSEMER TRUST AS CO-CONSERVATOR, I WOULD LIKE THE 27 COURT TO VISIT THE ISSUE OF SUSPENSION.

 

 

So in reference to the bolded passage above, new facts came into play after August 31st 2020, that led Ingham to go from wanting Tri-star and the investment managers out with Bessemer as co-conservator to wanting Jamie out as well with Bessemer as the sole conservator...

1. Why was Ingham against Wallet and Tri-star at first?

2. Why would Lou quit after Jamie got Bessemer and Tri-star to make an arrangement to work together?

3. What happened after August 31st that made Ingham want Jamie gone as well?

[RebellionSparkles]

6 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

I bet Atara Tours was going to stick Britney's estate with the bill for the cancelation of Domination.

In fact, I suspect Rosengart already has the forensic accounting to prove it.

Yes exactly. Whatever is in the Domination contract would be lurking Larry’s domain. 
At some point I read that LiveNation would only provide the performance insurance for Britney Vegas shows if she was in the CON (which is BEYOND problematic btw). But I would LOVE to see this contract. I’m curious if that means that the conservatorship (aka Wallet and Jamie) were liable for the monetary damages of Britney not doing Domination. This could have been the reasoning behind incarcerating Brit in that mental health facility—they had to prove she was “too distraught to work” in order prevent paying the damages. But then Jamie changes The President of Atari to Britney, to stick her estate with the bill for Domination.—>If this is true then Brit’s incarceration would have primarily been for the benefit of A Wallet and Larry—whatever their liability for Domination was. This would explain why A Wallet suddenly realized he had to GTFO. A Wallet and Larry would have gained the most benefit  from Britney being held against her will in the facility. 
 

^^This is mostly speculation because we don’t have the Atari Tour contract; but it’s a believable situation.

personally, Im 100% convinced that It was Larry’s decision to put Britney in the mental health facility…this has always been his M.O. Larry and Jamie are the only ones evil enough to do this.

[B. Leigh]

11 minutes ago, RebellionSparkles said:

personally, Im 100% convinced that It was Larry’s decision to put Britney in the mental health facility…this has always been his M.O.

Can you elaborate on this...why do you think its Larry?

I always wanted more insight on his involvement...I already know about the rehab thing before the conservatorship...

[RebellionSparkles]

5 hours ago, B. Leigh said:

1. Why was Ingham against Wallet and Tri-star at first?

2. Why would Lou quit after Jamie got Bessemer and Tri-star to make an arrangement to work together?

3. What happened after August 31st that made Ingham want Jamie gone as well?

1. Wallet and Tri-star is part of Jamie’s convoluted, complicated scheme to keep Jamie in charge of the CON. Ingham probably doesn’t think this scheme is going to work and starts working with Lynne on the much more straight forward solution of Bessemer. Ingham just wants to CON to continue—he doesn’t care if Jamie or Lynne is at the helm.

Also, Ingham would specifically dislike Tri-star at this point because Tri-star stopped paying Ingham once they viewed him as a “threat to the CON”—more accurate, Ingham was a threat to a Jamie led CON. 
 

2. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION IMO. I think Lou was either kicked out of the CON by the lawyers because she pushed the limit too many times (even Vivian Lee Thoreen objected to Britney’s estate paying for Lou’s legal bills). OR Lou left voluntarily because she secured a position on the Kar-Jenner gravy train.

3. Tristar stopped paying Ingham’s fees and Jamie and his gf Lou were doing egregious stuff like charging Lou’s legal bills to the estate. Ingham was probably concerned that Jamie/Lou’s antics would cause him to lose his law license.

[RebellionSparkles]

9 minutes ago, B. Leigh said:

Can you elaborate on this...why do you think its Larry?

I always wanted more insight on his involvement...I already know about the rehab thing before the conservatorship...

I wish I had more facts to back up my opinion…but lurking Larry KNOWS how to avoid a paper trail, so there are so few documents with his name on them.

Im Mostly thinking about Brit in 2007 “go to the light and see Jesus” moment, when she says says that her management put her in rehab and are idiots…this obvs means Larry. 
So Promises and Antigua seem to be Larry’s doing.

We also know Larry is cold…he cares about his interests above all others. We now know that Larry’s orchestrated rehab stints—Brit’s stays “in and out of rehab” were used against Brit in her custody case. Putting Brit in rehab must have served Larry’s purpose in some way, and he did not give an eff about the trauma this caused by Brit losing custody.

 

I confess my theory about Larry’s involvement in Britney’s 2019 incarceration is just an opinion because we don’t have any facts about this decision. 
but, to me, the lack of paper trail reeks of Larry; and Larry has a history of committing Brit to rehab for his own benefit. This is enough for me to indict him in my head cannon until facts can prove otherwise.

[Tar_isa]

16 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

This is exactly why I mentioned that Susan Bassi might become our biggest ally.

Susan will know how to find those documents better than anyone else.

Susan, if you're reading...Can you help us out? 

These tweets made a thought pop up in my head. What if the sudden 70/30 change in visitation was prompted not so much by Kevin's push but by Britney's?

What if Britney started pushing (because she didn't want to do the POM tour) and they punished her by taking 20% visitation from her. What if this time it didn't work as well as it used to and instead it ended in her declaring war and going on strike? What if this caused the kids to complain and that kind of lead to the conflict with their grandpa and eventually the restraining order? Not saying that happened, I'm just floating it around as a possibility.

[DuranDuran]

18 hours ago, Steel Magnolia said:

It went in the other direction.

Kevin's visitation went from 50% up to 70% while Britney's went from 50% down to 30%.

I wonder what provoked that change?

Note below that an "ex parte" hearing means either "emergency" or "without notice to the other party."

Key date:

Aug. 3, 2018 - During an ex parte hearing in family court, Britney's private visitation deal with Kevin is modified from 50/50 to 70/30. It is not formalized by the probate court until a year later.

Interestingly, B was represented by Laura Wasser in this ex parte hearing on Aug 3, 2018:

And we know that B fired Laura after her involvement in so-called "intervention":

Laura's another important player in the camp of team con