lasu

Will Caroline Manzo write a character defense letter for him?

Do you remember if this was on the reunion, or when by chance? She definitely made it sound this season like he stopped because he no longer was working. This would make her sound worse for sure, but burns Gina's reputation even worse since she would have known this as well. Also makes the ex a huge piece of garbage if he hasn't been paying his support this entire time.

She had to move because the previous owner sold the home, not because she didn't pay her rent.

I think she did think she had the funds, which changed when her ex stopped working and couldn't continue to contribute. If he stopped working and stopped contributing BEFORE she moved in, I'd be interested to know how the landlord thought the bills would be paid, or did he not ask for financials due to Gina vouching for Jenn*? An accurate timeline would help clear things up, but still, I don't think she moved in knowing she was going to be evicted. I just don't see that level of cunning or malice, much less what a bad mother that would make her. *Gina doesn't understand that she made a professional mistake. If her vouching for Jenn is what caused the landlord not to do his normal due diligence, then that's absolutely a huge professional lapse in judgement and I could see not wanting to work for her. Gina unfortunately showed that when she says, "you can trust my word," she hasn't always done the legwork to make sure you can, indeed, trust her word. I wonder why SHE thought Jenn could afford this place, and why she put her professional reputation on the line to back that up.

Did she? That's really what we don't know. Gina says she vouched for her, so perhaps Jenn didn't sign anything but the lease. I know my lease itself doesn't have my financial information in it. I provided my financial information BEFORE a lease was offered to me, and I didn't sign anything with that - I had to show them financial statements. If Jenn made up documents on her home computer and showed them to her landlord, I'll DEFINITELY change my mind on the fraud!! But I think perhaps this is what Gina is saying was handwaived due to her vouching for Jenn, and then Jenn just signed the lease.

Telling you I disagree with your opinion and explaining why I disagree isn't the same thing as telling you you are wrong. Again, you believe she moved in knowing she was going to cheat this person out of money and be evicted. I think she didn't.

You can feel free to stop engaging with me, but please don't tell me my opinions based on the same set of facts we are both using is wrong. I do not believe she committed fraud, with the information we currently have. If new information comes out, I'll be happy to check it out, but as of right now, it sounds like there was an expectation that her ex would pay a large portion of the rent AND that the landlord was in communication with her ex. That indicates that the landlord knew the ex was responsible for a portion of the rent. You definitely see malicious intent with Jenn that I don't. I don't particularly like her and think she's far too passive, but I think she's generally just not that bright, not that she's out to commit fraud on people. Like, even now, I'd definitely be surprised if she was a participant in any way with Ryan's illegal activities.

You're really reaching here. She signed a document based on getting support. Based on what we know from the show, she HAD been getting support until her ex stopped working. He had been contributing to her previous place. I simply don't believe that she took this place with the knowledge she would eventually get evicted. If new information comes out, I'll be glad to listen, but right now she's just a dim bulb who got in over her head when her ex stopped his support.

I love that we're accusing her of fraud now, lol. She had to move because the owner's of her last rental sold it, not because she wasn't paying for it. Did she say he was fired, or just that he wasn't working there anymore? It might have become too uncomfortable for either side to have him there, or he might have quit as to not have to pay Jenn. It happens more often than you would think. And her dad and Ryan DID pay a lot of her back rent, but she chose not to continue because, without her ex chipping in, she wasn't going to stay caught up. I'm unclear on if she was actually legally evicted, or if she just moved out. Either way, she should pay her remaining balance. That much I do agree with.

No. She thought she was getting money from her ex. Unless that's a lie, she didn't know the money wouldn't be there. I also have no reason to think she would move her kids into a situation she KNEW was going to work out this way. I think she went in with honest intentions - though I will absolutely agree her honest intentions seem VERY passive overall.

It's not a moot point at all. If she was entitled to spousal/child support that her ex withheld, that's a major thing to note, ESPECIALLY because finances are so often used as a weapon. We don't know enough here. I *think* what happened is that her ex had agreed to pay X amount, and then was no longer working (at the job with her family) and then didn't pay HIS obligations, making it impossible for her to meet her obligations. Again, this is the reason I wouldn't let myself get into this situation, because lots of women stay home and then get screwed over just like this situation. But again, it's definitely still not Jenn screwing over Gina. It looks to me like Jenn got screwed over by her ex, which in turn caused...nah, I still don't think Jenn screwed over Gina. Gina shouldn't have put her professional reputation on the line for a situation she wasn't sure of - that's poor professional judgment. If you can say Jenn is in this position because of Jenn, then Gina is certainly in this position because of Gina.

This isn't quite right. The rental house was never for sale (at least as far as this story goes). Jenn moved in, thinking her ex was going to be paying a large portion of the rent and she was going to be paying a small portion of the rent. She said that her ex then didn't get his financial in, and was not paying his portion of her rent. I'm not sure if it was reasonable for her to be thinking her ex was going to being paying this - I'm unclear on if she just made this up in her head, or if she had concrete reason to think he would be paying this, and he fucked her over. I wish I knew more about this, because I think it's vital in understanding what Jenn was thinking about being able to pay the rent when she moved in. Gina claims she vouched for Jenn, and Jenn didn't have to get a credit check because of Gina. This may be true, but Gina's vouching couldn't have been 100% because Jenn's father still cosigned. Then, Jenn is evicted. Another house (not the house Jenn rented) went on the market, and Gina had a chance to sell the house IF she could get another agent to share her clients. That agent did not text Gina back, and Gina did not sell the house, losing a potential $50K. It's unclear how Gina knows the only reason this agent didn't text her back is because of Jenn's eviction. It's also unclear how she is certain she absolutely would have sold the house if only the agent texted her back. Even if Gina is right, and the agent didn't text her back because of Jenn, Gina has a right to no longer be friends with Jenn, but Gina needs to understand she still showed poor professional judgment in vouching for someone whose financial and ability to pay on time were unknown to her. Gina is further showing poor professional judgment by talking about a client publicly. I wouldn't want to work with her as an agent or a client after this. IMO, she's really reaching to say Jenn took $50k from her, and it's INSANE to say Jenn's coming for her business. Even if you agree Jenn absolutely hurt Gina's business, I don't think anyone could say Jenn purposely is trying to undermine Gina. I will say that I do absolutely think that Jenn (or her ex, depending on how all that went down) needs to pay the landlord for the back rent. I'm not sure they knew she couldn't afford it, if it was reasonable to think her ex was going to be paying a large portion, which he then didn't. If she was supposed to be getting support from him and didn't, that's really her getting fucked over, not her fucking anyone else over. Oooh, this looked a million times worse knowing what we know now. I THINK at that time she thought he was just RICH and didn't have to work anymore (which fuck yeah, if I had enough money I would just live the dream too, too bad this one was a pipedream based on major illegal shenanigans). Jenn is the living embodiment of why I worry for women who decide to opt out of the workplace. I have 0% issue with someone not working, but the loss of independence is too scary for me. Jenn is sooooo passive it makes me nuts, and I can't imagine living this way.

And now chef Penny is suing Katie and Ariana. Lots o' lawsuits.

It truly was the delivery, wasn't it? Let me be clear, I think this was a trashy, inexcusable thing to say. But it was also FUNNY. The way she said it, like YES, it was an insult, but she was also dead serious. I swear, it sounded like she was disappointed in Jenn. I almost feel like if Danielle had liked what Jenn was wearing, she would have said, "cute dress, tho" on the way out! I don't like Danielle as a person, but she's completely growing on me as HW. And fwiw, I also feel Jenn is a terrible person but great on my tv. It's a real shame (to me) that's there's no likelihood of them both being asked back.

Her church would have already had to be approved for someone to do community service. When I got a DUI nearly 30 years ago, I did my community service at the Alzheimers Association, and I can assure you, it was far cushier than anything Shannon is doing. The women who worked there were so freakin' kind to me. They literally baked me cookies and mini quiches, and moved a TV into the room I was working in so I could watch soap operas while I stuffed envelopes. Yes, they knew why I was there, and they did scold me for it, but I would be a liar if I said anything about those 40 hours was a "punishment." However, that time and their kindness humbled me and did more to put me on the right track than any of the fines I had to pay or the pointless alcohol classes that were far more of a punishment. Sometimes reform is a far better goal for society as a whole than retribution ever will be.

Apparently NJ will film a non traditional reunion where the cast is in different rooms, and they will watch the finale and provide commentary. https://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/how-the-upcoming-rhonj-non-traditional-reunion-will-work-next-week/

@RoseAllDay I don't think Bravo brought on Alexis to make us sympathetic to Shannon. I think they did it because it's DRAMA. If Alexis had chosen kindness and compassion, there wouldn't even be much to be sympathetic over. I just think that's how it will play out, and Shannon should be grateful for it (as far as audience reactions go...I'm not sure she would have chosen to deal with this even if she knew for a fact it would make her more sympathetic.)

This is a solid point I hadn't considered. Now that you say it, I'm fully turned around that Shannon should be *grateful* that they cast Alexis and that Alexis is apparently going to choose to be an asshole. You're right that storyline will be one in which most people sympathize with Shannon, which will offset the drunk driving storyline in which most won't take her side.

The ONLY reason I'd enjoy Lala on this show would be to make her make short work of Janet. I'm too lazy to go find it again, but apparently Danny and Mia have an issue with Jax (big shocker) for making innuendos about their marriage, with Danny saying he was unsure if it would be resolved on or off camera. It's going to be interesting to see how the new season plays out, especially since they for reasons I'll never understand didn't have a reunion.

I think this season of VPR is one of the most fascinating seasons of reality tv I've ever seen. I honestly found it riveting, and watching Rachel was the majority of the reason why. The way she questioned Ariana about Tom was insane to me as a viewer - if this had been fiction I would have said it was too unbelievable!!

While I'll certainly change my mind if this irrefutable evidence proves to be just that, I do think they have a big nothing burger here. I've never heard of him before. BTW, I'm a NCSU lovin' Carolina Girl - best in the world! 😉

Ah...this seems to come the closest to answering my question. If they felt that what Ariana has said she's done counts as distribution, they would have said so. They would have said "additionally" when talking about her sending to other people than back to Rachel. They said that her story was laughable and that they have irrefutable proof she sent it to others. Again, if Ariana had admitted to doing something wrong in her response, they be pointing to that, not saying they have secret evidence of different wrongdoing. I also don't think Ariana’s lawyers would have let her incriminate herself. So, it seems Ariana making the recording isn't worth suing over, and sending it back to Rachel doesn't seem to be worth suing over. The lawyers say they have irrefutable proof she did more than that, so I'll be VERY interested to see that proof.

Claims of evidence are not evidence. There is still no evidence. At some point I assume these lawyers have to share their irrefutable evidence, but so far...no evidence. If what they have is indeed "irrefutable," there's no reason not to share it (because irrefutable would indicate it can't be covered up). Obviously you are certain Arianna did what she is accused of, and lack of evidence doesn't bother you and indeed actually somehow seems to make you more certain. I'm personally agnostic on whether or not she did, but I have to go where the evidence leads (or doesn't).

I understand revenge porn is illegal. My question is whether or not Ariana recording it to her phone and only sending it to Rachel counts as distribution. I personally think it should (but should carry a FAR lighter penalty than actual distribution), but these statutes don't actually address my specific question. Rachel filed suit in California, so those are the only ones that matter. No, it's not. Rachel filed a civil suit. No charges have been filed against either Arianna or Tom. If they can't prove it, they have no case. They literally HAVE to prove it. Again, I'm not saying I can prove Arianna did NOT show anyone the video, but so far, there is NO evidence - none. Zero. And I'm willing to say maaaaaaybe there is no evidence because everyone is lying and covering up, but I also think lack of evidence can certainly indicate lack of wrongdoing, and it's foolish not to consider that as an option. Just like if evidence DOES end up coming out, I'd be foolish to ignore that.

After spending the holiday with my family, I would have really appreciated a reminder of just how good I have it. 🙃