Mrs peel
-
Posts
917 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Mrs peel
-
-
8 hours ago, chlban said:
Staff is rarely ever brought into these things unless they were actively and knowingly involved in Fraud. I had a friend that worked for a Mortgage/Escrow company that was busted years ago. None of the employees knew the owners were using other people's money that was supposed to be in an Escrow trust account. How would they? I am sure it's the same in most firms. Maybe a couple of high level employees might have some idea but the worker bees? No.
Right. The law firm is accountant, who knows about and has access to the client trust account, might have problems because s/he would know the money never made it to the client account. But not the other employees.
if one of the attorneys knew about it, that might be an ethics issue, IIRC CA attorneys don’t have an obligation to report bad deeds by other attorneys. And none of them were equity partners.
5 minutes ago, hoodooznoodooz said:Oh, that’s right! Nice catch. They apologized!!!
IF the apology happened, it was likely demanded as part of the settlement - you get the money you are owed, but we get the case dismissed and you say sorry. At least those clients seem to have gotten paid.
edited to add - Crystal is another wimp. I couldn’t believe she said “it’s not a problem” (or something like that) when Erika gave a half-hearted apology for snapping at her. You want to accept the apology? Ok, say that. But don’t act like Erika wasn’t completely out of line. HEY - maybe that’s the kind of apology the plaintiffs gave in the dismissed/settled case!
-
7
-
-
4 hours ago, renatae said:
I like how this cur is saying she's trying everything possible to help the victims, all the while resisting any efforts to repay the money.
Well, she did hire counsel to protect the real victim — herself. <sarcasm off>
she really is disgusting.
-
14
-
-
I’m watching on tape delay as I couldn’t watch last night. Hideous so far.
1. Erika says she talks with Tom, asks him how could he do this to HER. Nice way to care about the real victims. But then she says he’s too out of it to know what happened. Honey, then he can’t answer you! Again, pick a side!
2. Denies she had $20MM in her LLC, or seemingly that Tom put any money in her LLC. But then admits she spent $14MM on her credit card. Who paid that bill honey?3. If the credit card bills were paid by the LLC (the bankruptcy court receiver has spoken about how much cash was funneled thru the LLC, including that for all but one year the LLC reported tax losses).
Erike says the $14Mm was over 12 years, so it’s spending $2MM a year. So, not a math whiz…..Then she says it’s the typical amount spent by each of them each year. Hmmm…. First, if paid by the LLC, for most of those years that money was supposed to be only for business purposes. Typical “work” clothing is not tax-deductible. Her performance outfits, travel and glam squad for the Erika Jayne “shows” could be deductible. But not likely anything for RHOBH, since these are supposedly their normal lives being shown.
And that money seems to be just what she spent on herself, not housing, food, family trips, etc. heck, she couldn’t even pay the glam squad off the credit card (unless she paid their rent or something - which I doubt and would be problematic for proving these “business” costs for tax purposes). So she and Tom were spending HUGE amounts……hmmm.
looks like she outted herself for tax fraud (for the LLC).
rinna is as disgusting as everyone said in earlier posts.
-
2
-
14
-
-
17 hours ago, RyjackAunt said:
Were they? Or is this a way to secure a storyline? Maybe I'm just old (I am) and cynical (I am). It's quite fishy to me that the alarm or some sort of security did not get to the "robbers" until they reached the master bedroom.
Also, burglaries usually take place when people aren’t home. But if true, a horrifying experience and I hope the children slept through it.
-
9
-
-
7 hours ago, Keywestclubkid said:
Andy explaining to Kathy why this is different then T in New jersey because there are actual victims in this instance this wasn't someone not paying taxes and that this effects other live human beings
Erika: Understood however! we don't know he did that (paraphrasing here)
No there is no fucking However Erika there isn't a counter point to this ... your husband defrauded burn victims and widows and orphans there is no other side to that. there is NO HOWEVER. he did not give these people their money and suddenly its just "gone" BOTH of you guys have been sued before for default on money STOP this bullshit.. and to turn it around at the end and once again make it about yourself LOL
Also, tax fraud is fraud against every taxpayer. I was disgusted by his comment.
-
1
-
17
-
-
4 hours ago, Baltimore Betty said:
Thank you so much for the compliment, I'd like to buy you a Birkin, what color would you like?
Cobalt blue for me 😇😈😄
-
8
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, HotHW said:
Well playing devils advocate for a minute, was Andy (or any of us) really expecting...
A: Did you know?
E: Yes I did.
I mean, seriously?
Now, I say AFTER legal proceedings are done and she is exonerated (or locked up) ask her the same question and maybe expect a different answer. But now? That's just folks looking to make anything she says some big bad lie. Which it may be, but would anyone of us go on national tv and admit to guilt before our day in court if in the same situation? And even afterwards, if she wants a job in the public eye, she will never admit to wrongdoing. She ain't Martha Stewart
I've worked with men at the level of Tom G and have seen how they live their daily lives and treat their spouses. Erika didn't know anything about this as it was happening. He would never discuss this with her like a typical middleclass husband and wife talked about how they're going to pay the credit cards every month. And she won't admit that because she wants to keep up the illusion that he was a loving and caring husband. Which again, knowing what I've seen, he was not. Her stories now are way more believable. His firm made alot of money over the years, so him depositing millions into her account is like my husband investing $5000 when I started by business. Now his partners, accountant etc should have been wondering how the hell he was continuing to live his lifestyle (including financing her), and I dont understand why they are not under the spotlight like she is?
well, she could have said NO. But I get that the question put her in a difficult position, and since she has claimed mostly that she’s telling the truth, she can’t as easily hide behind “there are things I can’t say” (unlike, damn girl, you could express sympathy for the “alleged” victims).
As to others, to start, he had NO partners, he was apparently the only equity partner at the firm. No other attorney had access to the books.
accountant? Well, there are some ethics at issue, but mostly they take the info you give and prepare the financial documents, taxes. An accountant can hide behind the statements of the client - if Tom and Erika said the glam squad was for the business, ok then. If they said the clothes were solely for work, ok then.
as to knowing, one of her problems is her past statements- they were so close, she sat in on client/case meetings to the degree she could have practiced law” (all of which would be a problem ethically and breach client-attorney privilege). So now to say she was a kept woman who knew nothing? Honey, choose a side.
-
15
-
-
On 10/18/2021 at 7:22 PM, Mindthinkr said:
I suspect Rinna is hiding assets for Erika. In her garage.
Nah, Erika can’t fit into the dresses in rinna’s garage.
-
7
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, kristen111 said:
Another thing. The old man had three side pieces my ass. He barely could lift up a toilet seat, never mind a chick.
As long as he could sign the credit card bill, he could find someone. That’s how he found Erika after all.
-
7
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, izabella said:
Yes, at the beginning of Part 2, they played that clip of Erika at the 2019 Reunion saying that one of the lawsuits was "Resolved, and they apologized."
It’s not clear she was lying about that “particular” lawsuit. It could be he paid out the cash to them, and the case was dismissed.
And that would fit what I think is the pattern of what happened. What Tom was doing likely started years ago, and escalated over time. It probably started with moving money (settlement payments, law firm loans. Litigation funding cash, maybe personal loans) around, intending to pay the clients “eventually.” So he got a settlement payment, which he SHOULD have put into his client account (separate from the regular law firm accounts), and forwarded that money to the clients (minus his fees). Instead, he spent that money on himself and Erika (and her fake career). Then when the next settlement came in, he reimbursed the previous successful clients, and delayed the reimbursement to the current successful clients. Along with giving the clients bullshit excuses for why the checks aren’t out the door. Rinse and repeat. All of it “worked” as long as the settlements kept coming in, and until (I suspect) the personal spending got so high he could not continue to juggle all the balls (past clients, law firm loans, litigation funding loans, current clients, Erika). But it stopped working, heck maybe he did start having memory problems and couldn’t manage the firm, bring the new cases in to continue the cash pipeline, or maybe he and Erika just spent so much damned money that wasn’t really theirs.
if the CA Bar Assn ever does release the files on the - apparently many - ethics complaints against the firm, I suspect we will see the same pattern. Client says they didn’t get their money, the firm provides a response which is basically }come on, you know clients don’t understand the complexities, and besides the check is now out to them.” Bar believes the lawyer, the client now has the cash, case closed.
because here’s the thing, if the clients are lying, there are checks from the law firm’s IOLTA (client) accounts showing the payments to them. But NO ONE has said those checks exist. There ain’t nothing “alleged” about the theft.
How much was any one particular client owed? All that may be in dispute, but not the lack of payment. Because if it was simply bad accounting (putting the settlement money into the wrong account) and not theft, the money would be sitting in the law firm accounts. But it’s NOT. The firm is in bankruptcy, the office items were sold at auction.
-
1
-
22
-
-
1 hour ago, Talented Tenth said:
That would be a great PR statement. Again, if she said that from the beginning that doesn't mean it would have been genuine. This also gives credence to my point that if she had said what people wanted to hear, the public opinion would most likely be more favorable -- irrespective of whether she was complicit or not. I'm not invested in how she's behaving now; I'm interested in whether or not there is proof that she was complicit and so far that is absolutely none.
She doesn’t have to be “complicit.” Look at Madoff. His wife likely knew nothing, but she lost most of her money and certainly the real estate.
if you live off I’ll-gotten gains, you lose.
-
1
-
23
-
-
6 hours ago, Yours Truly said:
This sentiment I can get behind! She'd be better off falling into the background and letting everything play out the way it's going to without trying to hold on to the public persona she so desperately wants to keep ownership off. I think one of her biggest mistakes is that she doesn't want to lose her "celebrity" or at least the little she's tasted from being on this platform. She needs to humble herself, fall into the background as much as she can and wait out the storm without trying to keep her Erika Jayne alter ego. Let that bitch go and hide out for awhile.
I hate to say it cause Erika has NEVER been on my like list since day one but she isn't wrong when she says that she just turned 50 and she still has to SURVIVE this. She can't give people what they want because she's still in the middle of some VERY legal stuff and as much as we want her to be real, human and deliver what WE think she should be emotion wise she's still trying to push forward with her very serious dilemma. I don't expect her to carve out time to give the public some nuggets of humanity. Like in all honesty, I think she's just robotically getting through it and if I was her I'd be so all over the place internally that I would most likely steel myself up as much as I could while traveling through the maze.
There's a part of her that just looks absolutely deer in headlights. As if she's just letting her lawyers give her the script, point her in the direction and nudge her forward one step at a time. I actually don't fault her for being cautious in how she offers up information. She stepped in it big time at the beginning so now her more structured attempts at following the protocol her lawyers are setting down for her sound absolutely suspect but all in all she can't let sentiment drive her legal approach.
I can believe that Erika handed everything to Tom to handle including her finances. Let's be honest, she was a kept woman and WANTED it that way. I don't think there really was anything truly sinister in the set up where Tom handled the finances and Erika didn't have to think about price tags ever. That's a reasonable trade off. Do I think her being hands off in this area was a something that became a source of tension over time? I can believe that too but not enough to cause Erika to truly push for more control. What I do believe is that as Erika got older and more capable she may have made more attempts at being involved and wanting a hand but quickly realized that was a non negotiable topic with Tom.
Can I believe that Erika had uh-oh moments during her marriage about this? Absolutely. Do I think it reached a level where she was trapped and couldn't escape? Maybe, but I'm more inclined to believe Erika reasoned with herself and said why would I want to leave? This set up still appeals to me, I get what I want regardless, I'm satisfied with this arrangement and the trade off is more than adequate. I can even believe that she had moments where there were inklings of dealings that didn't completely make sense to her but that she chose not to pursue more answers. Being uncomfortable and unsettled about how uninvolved she was in the household finances, income and dealings isn't the same as being trapped. I'm sure she noticed that she wasn't in the best position to start kicking up a fuss and raising eyebrows, or to bolt and start fresh somewhere, cause I will always give the benefit of the doubt that a man can do waaaayyy more harm that we really think if they want to make a spouses live difficult for leaving. Tom definitely had the means to do that if he wanted so I won't deny Erika that. With that said, not being in the most optimal position to go off and start over in the same lavish lifestyle that you're accustomed isn't the same as having to leave a marriage running scared with nowhere to go.
I can believe that the law firm accountant also handled their personal accounts. But her LLC has been the subject of an investigation by the CA franchise board for tax fraud. She’s not innocent here (@and apparently that money came from the law firm).
and had she filed for divorce before the shit hit the fan, with a long term marriage, a wealthy husband, her having no real job prospects (she would suddenly remember she never made any real cash), she would get temporary support while the divorce was in progress.
ironically, she may have screwed herself by waiting, because it may be difficult if not impossible to divorce him now that he has been declared disabled.
-
1
-
6
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
49 minutes ago, Surrealist said:I can't get over how much Kathy is so protective of Big Kathy (who was not a good person).
I'm blown away by it.
She has more than enough money to get psychotherapy, so she can realize her mother was not a saint. She might also process that mentioning her “good friend” (and pedophile) Michael Jackson is not a good thing. I must be going to hell, because I thought the crying was over the top.
so “Erika answered every question” - except the ones she didn’t. I don’t buy that she couldn’t say when she sought legal counsel (though she shouldn’t discuss her discussions with them). And obviously she didn’t want to say how quickly she got another guy with a private plane (hope he really owns it honey!). She is disgusting.
she didn’t leave him because of the affairs, she didn’t leave him because of the money, she didn’t leave him because of the dementia - she left him because he stopped having long conversations with her? What?? Honey, no one buys that.
I can actually believe that doctors were reluctant to deal with him (though I don’t think he did traditional med-mal cases), but the idea that competent doctors were encouraging risky surgery if he had TBI is unbelievable. I did notice she admitted there was no police report, hmmm.
I agree with others that Crystal’s silence on the dementia was deafening.
-
31
-
3 hours ago, Wicked said:
And the butterflies, so many butterflies!!
Hi managed to black out on that! Hideous.
-
2
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, RealHousewife said:
Kyle at the premiere of Halloween Kills. She looks incredible in her sexy costume from Trashy Lingerie!
She has a much better figure than her usual clothing choices show.
but damn, she has bought the Erika kool aid.
-
6
-
-
9 hours ago, Wicked said:
Wow that’s ugly. I thought gray was over. And I don’t know what to say about the faux greenery outdoor furniture.
but those views are amazing.
-
6
-
-
13 hours ago, amarante said:
I am posting the dress as worn by a model and by Erika in the same frame to illustrate how awful it actually looks on Erika.
The bottom line is that Erika truly has absolutely no sense of style but is drawn to stripper style and/or clothing that is meant to be worn by drag queens (meaning no disrespect) as drag queens typically dress DELIBERATELY as caricatures as part of their shtick. It is like emulating Mae West or Dolly Parton deliberately as part of one's "every day" style and thinking it is chic.
Beyond that Erika simply doesn't have the body to carry off this kind of extremely difficult style and fabric. Not that anyone should WANT to attempt to carry it off but I can't recall any housewife on this franchise who so consistently looks as badly dressed as Erika - even when she isn't attempting to be overtly over-sexual she somehow looks off.
I can't imagine who would buy the dress even as shown on the model but I don't know how Erika could have tried on the dress and actually decided that it was a flattering look for her - walking, standing, sitting or even lying down it looked awful. It is astounding that with a room filled with expensive clothing that she decided that this was the dress to be worn that would be memorialized in four television episodes as well as numerous clips and be dissected on the internet.
I don’t care that she has more curves. But what hit me about the dress was how badly the left (her left) top side fit. It’s very loose, when the other side is not. Which is how I noticed how hard her left breast seemed. It’s floating above the fabric for crying out loud!
another thought about Erika. Honey, you claimed you couldn’t divorce Tom because he was such a powerful lawyer (which I don’t buy, there are divorce lawyers who specialize in representing the women of wealthy men), but if that was true (“where was I going to go” she claimed), why would you tell him to divorce you? Not buying the attempt to change the narrative.
On earrings - Not a fan of suttons’s earrings. But kathy’s look like the the real thing.
-
2
-
5
-
-
6 hours ago, SemiCharmedLife said:
I agree with your points about how Sutton is being portrayed at the reunion and WWHL. I'm wondering if it is Andy's doing or the producers of the shows. Andy's Jackhole roast of Sutton fell flat with the studio audience, so hopefully he gets the message.
He won’t. There have been numerous polls on Sutton v Erika, and Sutton has won them all, overwhelmingly.
-
2
-
20
-
-
6 minutes ago, oakville said:
Does Kyle practice her "reaction shots" to everything that the other Housewives say during the reunion ?
If so, she needs a new acting coach.
-
13
-
6
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
2 hours ago, bosawks said:Do you think if they stuck a pin in her face it would make the same sound as when you slowly let air out of a balloon?
Or if they stuck a pin in her breast. Man are they hard, the dress was falling off her but the left breast stayed in place. Wonder if she had them done/re-done recently.
and Erika, it’s not “alleged” victims. If they had been paid the settlement money, the firm would be able to show the checks from the firm’s client account. It’s pretty simple. Shocked you don’t know that, since you once claimed you could almost practice law.
god kyle’s entire look was horrible. Her breasts were being held hostage and I kept wondering how many baby birds were in her hair/nest.
I didn’t hate Dorito’s look, and I’m ashamed of myself for that.
Poor Crystal looked horrified to be on the couch with the coven. I noticed early on Dorit, Lisa and erika were backing each other up on everything. But then it started to fall apart.
kathy seems depressed or medicated, so situation normal.
-
1
-
26
-
On 10/2/2021 at 6:23 PM, nexxie said:
Can’t decide if Erika is a psychopath or a sociopath - but I know for sure she’s a narcissistic con artist who shouldn’t be given a platform.
And what a bunch of dumbshits, nodding their empty heads in agreement while the wife who abandoned her husband complains that other people aren’t helping him. Of course the richer or poorer, sickness and health stuff doesn’t apply to Erika.
Also nodding as she said how bad assisted living facilities are, including the one in which her grandmother lived! Honey, you could have cared for her at home!
-
9
-
-
On 9/23/2021 at 6:24 PM, Feline Goddess said:
To state that the Ghiradi's lifestyle was soley funded by money stolen from widows and orphans would suggest that particular case was Tom's only source of income. Maybe he's been skimming for years, but that case is the one everyone's focusing on.
Lots of wealthy husbands invest in the wive's vanity project - often as a tax write-off. My mother worked in a boutique that was established for the sole purpose of doing that. When it started turning a profit despite all efforts to spend frivolously, the husband made his wife close the store.
Do I believe Tom was controlling? Yes. He wouldn't even let her redecorate the house he owned before their marriage. Maybe Erika would've liked a fresh start in a house they'd chosen together. I'll bet a lot of their life was 'his way or the highway' due to the age and wealth gap and Erika went along with it because that was their dynamic. He wanted a trophy wife and she happily obliged. She's able to walk away now the money is gone because she was never truly invested emotionally.
Do I think she can't keep her story straight? Yes. But she also isn't obligated to explain anything to her co-workers. She probably would've been better off simply telling them it was none of their business. Which it isn't.
No one is saying “solely. But he stole from multiple clients. The lawsuit in Chicago is about not paying out the settlements to numerous clients re the Lion Air crash. The burn victim is a separate case. There are others. And apparently for years there were complaints that he didn’t pay out the settlement monies promptly.
iMO, you can’t call him controlling if she happily went along with what he wanted. He put millions into her fake career, that’s not being controlling.
-
8
-
-
- Popular Post
2 hours ago, pasdetrois said:I speculated in earlier posts that the law firm, Erika and perhaps Tom's family prevented anyone from knowing of Tom's declining cognition. After all, it would mean the end of the firm, or a drop in billables. The firm was supporting a lot of people, directly and indirectly.
But then the lawsuits blew open the story, leaving everyone without a plausible explanation for their behavior. They didn't have time to cover up and redirect adequately. Perhaps they hoped to somehow recover enough funds to replace stolen assets and ran out of time.
This kind of thing happens all the time with for-profit businesses when leadership is ill, indisposed, is suffering a tragedy, etc. The staff and families will do everything to cover as long as possible.
If Erika knew Tom was incompetent, why didn't she report it to the proper authorities or escalate her worries to people who would respond properly?
Because she didn’t see anything is my guess.
but the simple fact is his theft started way earlier than the TBI car accident or anything else. The attempt to blame it all on dementia is a lie.
-
2
-
23
-
2 hours ago, njbchlover said:
Exactly what I was thinking.
And, Kathy did not want anyone to know this.
I'm not a big fan of Kathy - I find her vacuous, extremely entitled and rather ignorant of anyone or anything that doesn't specifically affect her life. Or else, she is just playing at being an uninformed, spoiled rich lady.
She doesn't even know how to plug in a fan or open a bottle of wine? Give me a fucking break!!!! She can't be that ignorant. She really was not "to the manor born" - she wasn't uber rich until she married Rick Hilton.
Right. The clue that neither was “to the manor born” was their reaction to the presidential suite. Over the top, acting like they had never seen anything so nice.
of course, Kyle seems to really live in a house with pink lights in the foyer, so…..
-
7
-
S11.E24: Reunion (Part 4)
in The Real Housewives Of Beverly Hills
Another one talking about how these events affected “her.” No apologies for the victims of her attacks, of course. Disgusting. And all will be forgotten when she attacks the next “friend.”
And Kyle and Kathy sat silently……. (I get that Kim probably wasn’t sober, but still, tell rinna she was an ass for talking about their sister!)