realityplease

She wasn't criminally charged but a civil RICO (racketeering) lawsuit, if won, exposes the defendant to severe civil & criminal penalties. (Serious stuff. Includes prison time &/or treble (double?) monetary damages.) Plaintiffs have to prove a pattern of criminal activity (2 or more crimes). Depending on the theories, things like intent, conspiracy or criminal enterprise must be proven. Not so easy to do. Of all the RICO cases filed, about 70% (??) are lost/dismissed on various legal/factual bases. This may cost Erika some big bucks to defend. Mikey & her other paid entourage better get paid upfront - cuz if she goes belly up, they'll be at the end of a long line of creditors - with attorneys placed first in line.

Richards is a State Bar member & licensed attorney who WAS involved at some stage. A court ALREADY evaluated Tom's mental state. Tom's BEEN diagnosed. Richards KNOWS that after briefing & a hearing, the court ordered Tom into a conservatorship & that Tom resides in a memory care facility. Richards may not currently of record, but he's not clueless of Tom's condition & Richards is still bound by ethical rules that prohibit him from taking unfair advantage &/or laws governing phone call taping. As I said earlier, whether his conduct and whether legally/ethically problematic or justified, remains to be seen. But it's not a great look. You're under some mistaken assumptions. Many facilities service early, middle OR late stage dementia. Not just "last phase." While some pay with long term insurance if they have it, it's not typically covered by insurance. You may qualify at some facilities if you have no means & qualify for Medicaid, etc, but many facilities (Tom's) are private pay tho Medicare may pick up some med costs. Also, I'm shocked that attorneys/physicians are practicing while impaired - even if assisted by others - because most importantly, they must maintain valid current malpractice insurance. I'd hate to be the client/patient of someone swinging between capable & incapable (given no way to know the Dr/attorney's current state), even if permission sought, and I'm pretty sure no insurer would risk insuring the doctor/attorney if given the true facts. (As to government officials with dementia - well, no surprise there.) Last, when I first dealt with a relative's dementia, I used the term caretaker and whenever I did, immediately corrected & told the proper usage is "caregiver."

Good luck with that. Richards MUST know the court ordered Tom into a conservatorship, that is, due to dementia Tom is unable to participate in his own defense - whether or not "represented" by counsel in the bankruptcy in the typical sense. (I really don't know the details of that.) I think Richards is a California State Bar member & has offices here. The bankruptcy case & the new RICO case are in federal courts in California. Whether Richards' conduct is deemed legal (as he'll contend) - or "merely" takes advantage of a demented Tom - or actually unethical/illegal & not in accord with federal court local rules/procedures in California, it seems risky to record a call with someone adjudged to need a conservator. (Despite where the call was received.) By not immediately telling Tom he cannot speak with him given a ruling that Tom is unable to participate in his defense, Richards appears to take unfair advantage of Tom. Not a good look even if Richards wriggles around the ultimate legalities of it. This is what gives attorneys a bad name. I have no sympathy for Tom AT ALL, but still want Richards to play fair - lest he lose all by not controlling his urges to take unfair advantage of Tom's mental state or coerce Erika into settlement. The victims deserve a fair win - and return of money due them from Tom/Erika - NOT to have things stretched out or screwed up due to RR's apparent interest in publicity & impulse to release information outside of the courthouse.

You're right, Tom was probably speaking to Richards or a cohort of Richards - not Erika's attorney or his own. Reason I got confused is that the release of this tape crosses so many ethical boundaries. If Tom called this attorney on the phone, how can Richards (or any attorney) tape it? In California, a party to a telephone call needs the consent of the other party to tape it- and if Tom has been adjudged to have dementia, he is without ability to give consent. Seems unethical/illegal to have taped, whether Richards (or whoever) taped the call and released it. Second, if Tom called Richards (presumably an opposing counsel, or at least in a role in opposition to Tom), how can Richards speak directly with Tom, if Richards knows Tom is represented by counsel &/or because determined to have dementia, has an appointed representative. Seems unethical to speak with any other than the opposing attorney, or given the dementia, if no opposing counsel, then Tom's appointed representative. I never much believed the dementia claim (arising out of the blue just 1 month after Girardi served, articulately, on a panel on complex trial litigation, and 1 month or so after he gave a long and detailed taped interview for the ABA on complex litigation.) I know, I know - every dementia case is different - but whatever, the claim WAS given credence by the court - & Richards should know the ethical boundaries governing taped calls, directly speaking with opposing parties who are represented, and directly speaking with those deemed incompetent to participate in their own defense.

Let's not get confused. Erika called Tom today to tell him she is going to be deposed - that deposition is likely in a currently on-going case. Somewhat garbled, but I don't believe the RICO case was mentioned at all. Moreover, it's unlikely she'd be deposed yet in the RICO case. Even if served today/recently, she doesn't have to make an appearance in that action (i.e., answer the RICO complaint) for 20 days from service - or as extended by stipulation/order upon application. And typically, in federal cases, there's a discovery hold for a period of time until an appearance is entered or discovery plan formed. Nothing to suggest Tom's call took place months ago. And why would Tom care about calling an attorney on Saturday? To a litigator, Sat/Sun are just days of the week - to work or make/take calls, same as any other day, if they chose. Not unusual. Depends on attorney & caseload needs. Also, the call isn't charged to Tom - if he's speaking to Erika's attorney, it's charged to the client: Erika. Nor would Tom likely care about costs if he needed the attorney's input. You don't sweat the cost of every phone call. It's a mere pittance weighed against the total case costs/client's needs.

Kyle: Your apology is pure b.s. You weren't preserving Diana's "moment." You deliberately inserted yourself and interrupted a private conversation that you weren't asked to join, you made Sutton out to be a liar just because YOU had no prior knowledge of her miscarriages AND you put your hands on Sutton (which is uncalled for in ANY situation.) (And I don't even thinking that Sutton was innocently trying to empathize with Diana - but whatever Sutton's motives - and likely useless effort given Diana's bitchery - it wasn't your business.) And you were happy to see Ericka drunk? Why? It was just another drunken gross performance in a series of drunken gross acts. That included the verbal abuse of a 14-year old. What about any of that should make you happy?

No, once served, she can't ignore the federal lawsuit. (Her attorney can accept service on her behalf.) Unless extended by judge-approved stipulation or application, she'll have 20 days to formally file an Answer to the Complaint, with any affirmative defenses, or alternatively, move to dismiss the complaint or strike certain claims of the complaint on grounds her attorneys deem applicable. This new suit means more attorneys fees for her to resolve this new complaint, and possibly, new or different claims to defend against. Whether it is truly something new, or brings in new plaintiffs or parties, or is just a rehash -- don't know .

Great response Ms Blue Jay! If used as a pick-up line, it's usually annoying. If not, it's just intrusive judgment. I liked it as a Women's Day joke.

Erika's NOT helping Tom or herself. The stories related are inconsistent, unbelievable & laughable. She's made statements she later tries to change, embellish, or stop from being aired or discussed. We're not a jury hearing evidence, we don't need PROOF. Real-time or not. Doesn't matter. We apply experience/common sense to WHAT she says & WHEN she says it (usually after she fails to say anything or states the opposite.) We see her over-the-top reactions to her circumstances & to questions. And come up with HUNCHES. You really think she thought she wasn't being recorded when she told Garcelle/Crystal about Tom's calls?? With a microphone pack under her clothes & someone standing in front of her aiming a camera at her?! I think it slipped out. Then she tried to prevent the statement from being aired or discussed. And failed. And went icy with Garcelle & ballistic in the bathroom (at the producers?) If she really didn't take Tom's calls, why care? But concurrently, their assets were frozen, a bankruptcy court sought assets, and Tom's dementia raised. So maybe she lied & WAS talking to Tom - who knows? They could have just said how-de-do OR they could have discussed the creation of defenses, "fact" coordination, or the hiding of assets. She was pretty exercised about disclosure of Tom's calls for one who hadn't responded & had nothing to hide. And thereafter - what do you know - she dropped all mention of his infidelities/cold behavior (deliberate conduct.) Instead, she leaned into stories about his years-old accident (now with brain injury) to show decline. In this episode, she revealed the conservatorship complete with overblown fear of over-medication in a "mental facility." Creating the notion of an insane asylum instead of a modern assisted living memory care. The better to distract with a portrait of a poor addled Tom rather than deliberate perpetrator of a house of cards. So no, we don't know whether or not she's complicit in Tom's acts to TAKE money/defraud loan companies. But once she DID know, was she complicit in trying to excuse it/cover it up/create defenses/hide assets?? She doesn't respond to subpoenas, still fritters money on glam, and belatedly raises earlier cognitive decline. And if she DID see decline, what did she do? Threw up her hands, obtained no medical/legal care or intervention, left for Broadway. Then hauled out, taking a van of assets with her. While continuing to TOUT his supposed legal prowess until, AND EVEN AFTER, she filed for divorce/knew of the fraud claims. After some false starts, every episode, including this one, shows the story she's trying to sell. Not buying it. No proof. Just HUNCHES.

With all due respect, dementia is easily faked (Plaintiffs in lawsuits claim it to justify bad investments & defendants claim it to justify bad acts. Some get away with it.) There's no scientific/medical test to confirm dementia. It's an educated guess. The mini-mental test to help assess it is a joke. (What day is it? Who's the President?) Until autopsy after death looks at the brain, there's no certainty. Certain types (Alzheimer is just one) generally have certain symptoms but these may wax & wane as one goes downhill. Where's there's wiggle room or uncertainty, there are always fakers to take advantage. Girardi moderated a complex litigation panel just weeks before his assets were frozen. Within weeks, he went from lucid to completely unable to participate in his defense. That progression was stunningly fast, quite unusual, & amazingly timed. For decades, his conduct was questioned (lavish Mediterranean cruises for judges, currying State Bar favor, sued by clients.) Still, he carried on. But the recent lawsuits/loans were his Waterloo. Greed (efforts to hold/hide assets), guilt (knowledge the noose was tightening), strategy (ability to aid his attorney yet avoid testimony or deposition) or sympathy grab in light of harsh & indefensible claims could well have trumped his considerable vanity. You opine that he is not of sound mind but what do you base that on? They say if you've seen one dementia patient, you've seen ONE. Each unique. Do we really know his mental state from mere glimpses of him on TV bloviating about John Wayne? This is a guy who has put on a performance in courtrooms for decades. So yes, it's not implausible that Tom is faking dementia. (With Erika to newly create a timeline/defense to that end.) But faked or not, dementia or not, Tom took money intended for his clients. The dementia is just a distraction - what trial attorneys create to keep everyone from focusing on the bad facts.

Sorry, Talented Tenth. If Erika or EJGlobal are brought to court in a civil case (& are, I believe, named defendants in certain matters), the legal standard will NOT be (as you seem to require), "indisputable evidence." It'll be a "preponderance of the evidence," that is, more likely than not she committed the alleged acts. (51% sure as opposed to only 49%.) Also, Sutton DID repeatedly describe a lie - the fishy, recently-changed story - an ankle injury that turned into a brain injury years later. And as now embellished - a traumatic brain injury - TBI. (Methinks the brain injury was created belatedly to raise the spectre of earlier decline - despite Tom's conduct to the contrary - to excuse years of bad acts by Tom & allow Tom to weasel out of testimony because, well, dementia.) You presume Erika pieced this together as details emerged. I presume Erika pieced this together as lawyers (or she & Tom) created defenses pre-or-post her flight from Pasadena. But she can't keep her mouth shut or stories straight. It's painful to watch her sit at parties/events full well knowing of certain critical events - her filing for divorce, his calling her, the conservatorship, his memory care needs - only to disclose them later to more limited audiences that accept her "unbelievable" versions and fact-changing. Rinna & Kyle (& Crystal) are so easily manipulated. The viewing public is far less gullible or charmed - as evidenced on this site. And don't need the indisputable evidence that even a court would not require.

Erika grouses: "You wanna know who your friends are? Get old & go broke." Aw c'mon. Tom didn't "go broke." His assets were FROZEN upon claims he stole client money. Erika grouses: Tom's family isn't around for him. (Except for the conservator brother.) But after 22 years, she must have an inkling why. An attorney son-in-law worked at the firm. Left before or when it blew up. Who knows how Tom's deeds affected the family? And she's no different. She's not around. She ran like a rat off a sinking ship. Dropped him off at work & with nary a word, moved out & filed for divorce. He calls - she doesn't answer his calls. And years earlier, despite "traumatic brain injury" ["TBI" Dorit!!] & her claim that FOR YEARS she recognized his cognitive decline, Erika left him alone to be on Broadway in "Chicago," and then, ultimately, just left him. On one hand, she saw cognitive decline. On the other hand, she threatened (promised!) Sutton that "he isn't dead yet & could still sue." (Oh oops, except for the dementia, those distracting victim lawsuits, & being deemed inactive by the State Bar at the time.) Alternative reality much? She's scornful that others would take him out of the burglarized home (up for sale anyway) & put him somewhere safer. She's decided home care is better than a memory care facility. (Sure is, if you DON'T really have dementia to the degree claimed! But maybe not IF you NEED the degree of skilled care that a facility can offer.) Both options are expensive. Is she paying?? Moving him into her 2nd bedroom? She didn't stick around and is not stepping up now. No, she saw problems & fled. But in her mind, OTHERS should be around for him!

Puhleeeze! In this "episode," Ericka turned into a cornered snarling animal. She coldly brushed off Garcelle's effort to comfort & attacked others for questioning her story & motives & connection to her. A "classy" party was turning into a down & dirty bar-fight. (Loved the butler who left skid marks in a race to tell the kitchen crew!) Erika's tears were over the loss of her high-living past life, Likely they also stemmed from frustration over her inability to sell a false narrative & garner sympathy. The tears were NOT over those who paid a price to fund that lifestyle or Tom's web of lies to gain it. What we saw was Erika cornered. She used the show to burnish Tom's litigator image - whether to enhance his reputation or raise her own status by association with him, or to shill for new clients on national TV. And she's using the show once again to cobble a defense: A 3-year timeline for Tom's dementia with conflicting/incredible accounts of his hill-tumble. Her lack of knowledge. (What? She never googled?? Some claims go waaay back and were very public: Conflict of interest claims when he chartered a lavish Mediterranean cruise for a slew of judges & attorneys; Lawsuits by the estate of Ed Masry (the REAL Erin Brockovich attorney) & others for failure to turn over settlement $$.) But in putting forth her narrative, she's being questioned & furious that Sutton/Dorit are in her face with glaring inconsistencies. Perhaps her lawyer advised her not to answer questions outside of certain parameters. But she can't really expect to foist her narrative & agenda without pushback. And so she got herself trapped at this dinner. Baring her fangs won't stop questions. She's not that good of a salesman or actress to turn a strong offense into a good defense. It's a questionable strategy to begin with --- and it's not working.

The reason I brought up UTIs in the first place is because what some viewers believe is just a waxing & waning of Tom's "dementia" - might be something else - if not outright fakery because the inability to participate in his defense seemed to arise so shortly - or only - after charges of settlement theft raised & his assets frozen. He may/may not have had earlier signs of dementia - but to go to the extreme example of being unable to participate in his defense seems fishy & the timing is very suspect. He can have a UTI with or without dementia - but it's an infection - not an example of waxing & waning dementia. His legal expert raised no historical evidence of stroke/catastrophic event (as with vascular dementia), didn't raise any other medical reasons, and described no Alzheimer-like behaviors. Pretty sure, though, in the coming season, Erika will try to re-write history.

Tom's a faker. If Tom had cognitive issues & Erika spotted it - would she run off to NY to be in "Chicago" for who knows how long? (She didn't know covid would shut it down.) Yes, cognitive abilities wax/wane but usually progress over years. Early stage, middle stage & late stage. Tom's NOT in late stage. Rare to participate in interviews/moderate panel discussions on complex issues but unable to participate in one's own defense just weeks later. (Except in movies.) Dementia is easily faked. The tests are short/easily failed. "Where are we?" If the office is in a suburb & you name the major city instead of the specific suburb. Wrong! "Who's the President?" My mom said "fat guy w/yellow hair." Hesitated, then said Trump. Trump wasn't her first answer. Wrong. "Draw a clock." Circle didn't precisely meet - by a hair. Wrong. Other medical issues can cause cognitive issues. A urinary tract infection can cause inability to speak/respond. Differs by person. UTI's are common but shockingly missed by hospitals, Drs, nurses, caregivers & misinterpreted as waxing & waning. A urine test, antibiotics & they're speaking/responding again. Still have dementia but what appears to be waxing & waning is just a treatable infection. Except for vacant staring some noticed (and I think was boredom), Tom went from lucid to major issues the day after his assets were frozen?? Yeah, right. True, families/co-workers often miss early signs or don't know what they're dealing with. But his major issues only first recognized & severe just at the moment that Tom needed a defense? Hmmm. My mom was in a memory care facility for 3 yrs. I visited 7 dys a week/12 hrs a day. Knew the residents/families. Every type of dementia: vascular dementia, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, alcoholic, frontal-temporal, Lewy Body - you name it. Some verbal, some non-verbal, some walked, some couldn't, some comprehended, some didn't. All stages: early, middle, late. All different except for some generalizations & habits based on the type of dementia. They say if you know one dementia patient, you know ONE dementia patient. So true. But NONE went from high functioning to inability to participate in defense in a month. (Unless due to stroke/something catastrophic & medically observable - NOT claimed for Tom.) So what Erika knew of Tom's cognitive function/financial dealings & when she knew it - TBD. The degree/type of dementia & when it manifested, also TBD. And the poor plaintiffs whose money was taken must wait while this legal ploy plays out. Insult to injury.

Dr. Lavid's declaration was slammed by the State Bar in a filed objection. It was said that Dr. Lavid provided no supporting evidence for his conclusion of "moderate" delusion & inability to appear. Dr. Lavid's declaration did not provide the required form to set forth evidence to support his conclusions. Nor explain Girardi's serving this past Nov., as a moderator to a panel of attorneys on complex trial issues or providing a lengthy interview last Oct. about his trial strategies. Nor set forth Lavid's historical observations (personal or otherwise) about changes in Girardi's mental state. Nor why Girardi can't appear even if allegedly impaired to some degree. (Because maybe the judge would question Girardi -- and he's not that good of an actor? We know that -- we've seen those stiff staged conversations with the housewives!) Dr. Lavid's on-line presence focuses on his experience with those who stutter, amateur boxer's stress, substance abuse. I may have missed it, but although, as linked in itsadryheat's reply, he shills himself as a retained expert witness for psych evaluations generally, I didn't see him touting vast expertise with geriatric psych issues and/or dementia (and there are so many types and varying manifestations.) Is the expert even competent to opine on Girardi's competence?

So many things wrong with the statement, "Famed Erin Brokovich Attorney Tom Girardi Loses License." First, the California State Bar put Girardi on inactive status. It hasn't disbarred him, i.e., taken his license away (yet.) He can't practice law while inactive. But he's still a member of the Bar. Playing fast & loose with client money is a certain ground to lose one's license. It may likely happen, it just hasn't happened yet. And to the extent he may try to delay Bar proceedings due to his alleged Alzheimer's, the Bar pointed to a recent (Nov. 2020?) legal conference at which Girardi glibly presided over a multi-attorney panel presentation. On video & not showing signs of impairment. Second, the REAL famed Brokovich attorney is attorney Ed Masry. Masry's firm hired Brokovich as a paralegal and they took on PG&E over the Hinckley issues. I may be wrong, but as I recall, Girardi came in at the end to assist with the settlement proceedings &/or trial (had it not settled.) The multi-plaintiffs case (over 600?) would have overwhelmed the small Masry firm and Masry needed to bring in others (among them, the Girardi firm) to assist. Masry died in 2005. After that, Girardi stepped it up to become known as THE FAMED Brokovich attorney -- with few to clarify his true & more limited role. That Erica would bring the Housewives before him to kiss his ring was a disgusting piece of hype that will gladly not be repeated. He didn't seem lost to me (although at times at a loss for words when faced with Erica's simpering, cackling, decades younger friends.) Rather, he basked in the covet - even when unearned by the twits who knew nothing of his reputation, ethics or the house of cards soon to tumble.

Mia naive??? After her marriage to Sinatra was over, and still a mere age 23, Mia became pregnant by Andre Previn while Andre was still married to Dory Previn. Andre and Dory divorced. Dory wrote the song "Beware of Young Girls" about Mia.

I like this new iteration quite a bit! I don't miss George's annoying cackle, and Brad is a worthy replacement. I also thought Kathy was spot-on and well suited to the task. She was able to dial down the crazy and manic - which drives me nuts when she interacts with Anderson Cooper on New Years Eve - yet make the witty and snarky comments so necessary for this show. I also appreciate that the background noises - the constant thumping huffs, puffs and pops on the Joan-led show - are less prominent. (Between George's cackle and those sounds, I had to watch with the sound turned way down or off -- now I can actually listen to the humor and comments.) Joan will always be dearly missed but this show is a worthy successor.

Another solid and excellent work from Moxie Firecracker! The hour flew by. The people selected to speak were fascinating and the clips and pictures that accompanied the program were well-selected and moving. I first became aware of Moxie Firecracker with the Ethel Kennedy documentary. That glimpse into the lives of Ethel and Robert Kennedy was so engrossing, thoughtful, and well done that you couldn't come away from it without feeling great admiration for the subjects. This documentary leaves you with the same feeling. Here too, you see exceptional, yet down-to-earth people, describe an extraordinarily difficult job -- or the extraordinary steps or bravery it took to get or to handle that job -- without a whiff of grandstanding or self-importance or complaint, but rather, amazing humility about themselves and admiration for others. Bravo to all involved in putting this work together.

I admit to having a lot to learn in this arena but several things bug me to no end: 1. On any given Real Housewives show, one housewife inevitably asks another housewife, "Are you kidding me RIGHT NOW?" (As opposed to "Are You Kidding Me?") What does the "right now" add to the inquiry? More air time for the extra words? 2. Has no one mentioned any of the Kardashian/Jenners yet? Can't believe it. It's difficult not to wince within ten minutes of listening to ANY of them. They are totally confused by the use of I, me, him, he, her, or she. The typical start to any sentence or story is, "Me and Kendall/Kylie/Khloe (fill in any name). . ." NONE of them get this right - from the young home-schooled twit to the older supposedly college-educated deadpan twit. Kris' grammar is slightly better but she bugs me too with her over-the-top descriptions - every event is "magical," North is "delicious," and Kanye's every burp is genius. Their self-absorption can be amusing for a bit, but watching Kim pose (at all times, everywhere) and check out her reflection (like a Budgie bird in any mirror or reflective surface) gets to be a bore, especially when the sound must be muted to avoid hearing any of them clobber the English language.

Tori's likely writing her next book - should be titled "Ignoring HisTORI." She knows he cheated, she eked out the details (though she didn't seem to believe him anyway) and even suspects he cheated other times. But because he made a grand gesture in letting this series be aired and swears it won't happen again, she's ok with that?? Because they were "soul mates" in a "fairy tale" after he accepted that he was getting Tori Spelling (the Star and all that implies!) when he married her??? What?????!!!! That was 8 years ago. Things change. Stuff happens. Forgive him if you want, but don't justify it with more delusion. They both have their heads so far up their own butts that neither can see (or ignores) what the other one needs. Their friction isn't new. They were butting heads even when there were only two kids. If they stay together, he's gonna be paying for his indiscretion for the rest of his life so long as she's stubbornly holding on to her her fairy tale and exercising her "voice" to rub his nose in it. Doesn't have to be that way, but they'd have to face reality (events as they ARE, not as they want them to be) and move forward together day by day -- sans fairy tale. And those poor kids? No wrist tattoo in the world is going to reverse the sight of seeing Mom wallowing in misery and crying a river of "happy" tears. It's only ink - not fairy dust. Nor will outlandish and expensive birthday parties make up for crazy dysfunction the whole rest of the year.

Papa Hoppy walked around the apartment in his underwear during a photo shoot?? (Sorry, didn't do the quote right) Hahahahaha. That's a hoot!! Maybe he thinks of an apartment as a place to live and relax -- as opposed to an apartment cum photostudio, beauty salon or place of business. Certainly Bethenny could have afforded to rent (if not buy) a studio or an office instead of trooping her entire business into the family living quarters. The whole set-up never made sense. And if Bryn also ran out in her underwear during that shoot, would she too be reflecting a family propensity for passive/aggressive behavior? Does anyone really think Papa Hoppy had either a deep desire or uncontrolled impulse to be seen in his underwear by various assistants, photographers, and minions? Please!! Paranoia will destroy ya!

I don't see the basis for speculation that Jason or his supporters leaked info to Radar. As shown on TV, Bethenny was surrounded by a slew of folks - assistants, publicists, hairdressers, makeup artists, SG people. They all seemed to work out of their living quarters. As such, they both aired crap in front of these folks that should have been private - but wasn't. Maybe they continued to do so - thinkingly or unthinkingly - after the show and cameras left. ANY of those folks could have witnessed any of it and then leaked it. (And so what if they did - or he did? On occasion, she certainly used her talk show as a bully pulpit to go after him.) Plus, some PTV and TWOP posters (mostly in Bethenny's camp) describe events or surmise what she feels or the basis for her actions with such force or detail that they seem directly connected and not merely uninvolved observers. Hmmm. So if Jason or her staff is leaking to Radar, is Bethenny (or an assistant to her) planting replies on various forums? Could happen. Who really knows? And it's petty tit for tat when their child's welfare should be first and foremost. Maybe one or neither could help themselves. Once a manipulator, always a manipulator. But the settlement offers a chance for their child to be the real winner - if they can only button it up and move on without regard to who got 49% and who got 51% or whatever percentage attached, if that's even the case. It's not a contest, it's a child's life. Further, I don't understand speculation that Jason will leak info about the settlement. The reports state that it was SEALED. If that's true, that means private. Many sealed agreements include huge liquidated penalties for the side that leaks information. This one may have, but even without it, who'd want to tick off the judge by leaking info given that the same judge still has to rule on other aspects or has continuing jurisdiction to enforce the settlement??