CleverLeigh

2/2 Well, Kate Peter.. despite her recent numerous posts and comments trying to cosplay as a Netflix expert who knows better than to violate a Netflix contract, has bragged to everyone and anyone that would listen to her. Not only did she share with me very specific details of her involvement in the Karen Read documentary (and those of several others who had contracts); she has publicly mentioned and bragged about her involvement, long before Netflix even announced their project. Kate Peter and Jen McCabe shared very private details with me, even going as far as stating specific persons involved, locations of interviews, and.... DOLLAR AMOUNTS. I was told that Natalie the German was initially offered $30,000. That the producer and director flew to Cali to have dinner with her husband and father to try and coax them into an agreement, and that the $30k was turned down. I was told by Kate Peter that Michael Proctor & family was offered and/or paid $200,000 for his participation. Jen McCabe (on the day of "Operation Stakeout") as we were sitting in her family member's car at the Town Hall in Dedham, Ma secretly watching @DoctorTurtleboy speak with Bradl's PI in the parking lot of the Dedham, Ma police station @DedhamPD, asked me if 'Danielle had interviewed' me yet, before flashing a devilish grin as I answered, "Who?", and she turned back around, muffling a giggle as she said, "Nevermind", and quickly changed the subject.. clearly having advanced knowledge that they were intentionally trying to exclude me from having any part in said project (despite Kate desperately requesting to use my luxury apartment complex for a meeting with producers, followed by a fake interview in my apartment weeks later). The point: Yes, it is against all moral and ethical standards to compensate subjects of documentaries. BUT... When producers and big name streaming platforms such as Netflix find themselves in a bind with hesitant or unwilling interview subjects, they can, AND DO, cut corners, and breach this ethical rule by offering money for these subjects to sell their RIGHTS to their stories. And this is how Jen McCabe & co, and Kate Peter got away with being financially rewarded for their participation and likely lies in the upcoming documentary, The Karen Read Files. @netflix @SandpaperFilms

I was going to make this post as a video, but I'm still working on my ability to land the plane, so to speak, and getting to the point without rambling. So bear with me, this will be told in two parts, but you'll appreciate it more than me verbally explaining, I promise. This is post #1 out of 2: I know the doc 'You Can See Everything' is fairly new so many have likely not seen it yet, but there's a very interesting scene and part of the doc which is shown and discussed that gave me chills and reminded me SO much of the conversations that I personally took part in, and heard about, regarding the upcoming Netflix @SandpaperFilms Karen Read doc, The Trials of Karen Read (the one that Kate Peter is promoting and was a part of; the one that supposedly is going to be very one-sided and focus on showing Jen McCabe & co as victims and Turtleboy as the lying villain). Actually, the entire documentary of YCSE was fascinating to me because the public only knows Elizabeth Holmes as someone who was found guilty of defrauding investors with a device she claimed could do things it couldn't. But it's filmed in a way that makes you question every character, including Nathan Fielder (the co-director/on-scene subject), Elizabeth's former Theranos partner, 'Sunny', and especially, Elizabeth's husband, Billy. It makes you realize, or at least start to think, that not everything is always what is appears. One of the most fascinating scenes takes place at Liz's and Billy's home when they meet with Fielder and the production company A24. Liz claims she has to go check on the kids (which later delves into an entire other theory/debate about that part being staged by Liz and Billy versus Liz actually having no knowledge that the conversation ever took place). Anyway, this leaves Billy alone with Fielder and A24 producers, where he broaches the subject of being paid for their participation in the documentary A doc that THEY claimed they wanted to film ONLY to show their "truth", and humanize Elizabeth who's reputation and integrity had been torn to shreds because of the public narrative. He demands that Elizabeth and himself should receive a percentage of the documentary's profits. Billy's argument: If the production company stood to make millions of dollars by telling their story, they deserved to benefit financially as well. Fielder, and the A24 producers initially strongly object. They explain that this is completely unethical and unheard of, and that doc subjects are never paid for their participation. Reasons being: it could completely skew their ability to be truthful, or their reasons to be untruthful, etc. But Billy insisted that compensation was a condition of their participation. He told them that he knew about previous documentary subjects getting paid for their participation, even though the producers denied this. This argument and request by Billy gave him & Elizabeth ALL of the leverage at this point. They could have walked away from the entire project since their was nothing signed yet by either of them. The production company and Fielder were very well aware that this was going to be a massive box office hit... So eventually, A24 agreed to an undisclosed profit-sharing arrangement. Now.. how does this relate to the upcoming 3-part @netflix documentary, The Trials of Karen Read, produced by @SandpaperFilms and directed by Danielle Johnson and Rob Miller?....