amarante

Erika knew all about the LA Times article when she was at La Quinta. The article states that the reporters had asked both Tom and Erika for comments and had received no response. Here is the LA Times article https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-17/tom-girardi-erika-jayne-rhobh-divorce I don't know how much of their reporting is behind a fire wall as I have a subscription but the LA Times has been reporting on all of Tom's transgressions quite a lot and it is serious investigative reporting. I can't imagine the housewives and their husbands and their PR advisors 😀 aren't fully aware of everything that Tom and most probably Erika did. The interesting part is whether their public stance will change now that the filming has finally caught up with the reality. In other words, up until now they might have felt constrained from commenting on Erika because they are not supposed to comment on plot lines until episodes have been aired. I just can't imagine Mauricio wanting to be associated with them - even PK recognized that it is a huge issue to seem to support scamming widows and orphans and burn victims.

Erika is the only classic gold digger in the cast. Crystal is not as much of a stereotype but she also married an older very successful rich man. Kathy married a wealthy man and was trained to marry one but her husband was more or less the same age and they seemed to have had a long relatively happy marriage. As the saying goes, it’s just as easy to fall in love with a rich man as a poor one. I don’t particularly like her shtick but she isn’t a trophy wife. Sutton and her ex were teenage sweethearts and she married him before he was rich. She was a SAHM but why not. Rinna is many things and whatever the marriage has devolved into in terms of it being an arrangement, I think it was genuine love at the beginning or as much love as Rinna’s shriveled heart can muster. 🙄 Mauricio was poor when Kyle married him and if anything Mauricio could be said to have married her for her Hilton connection since his employment at Hilton & Hyland gave him his start. I think the initial bad blood between the sisters was when Mauricio left to form The Agency. I also think Kyle’s presence on the show and social media helped with the success of The Agency. I don’t think Mauricio bankrolled any vanity projects for her as the store in Beverly Hills was originally just a licensing arrangement with the woman who actually owned the store.

Ashley doesn't even get the normal terrible maternity leave women get from corporate America. 😁I agree with posters that Ashley is doing everything possible to guarantee a continuing place on the show. That girl was getting relatively glammed up to go to events and out to eat at a restaurant pre-birth when most women would stay at home with their feet up and driving down to Williamsburg from DC would also be a physical ordeal. Since it is for a day I would hope that she leaves the infant at home for the day - don't these women give a damn about COVID? Wendy is baffling this season - it is as of she had 100 IQ points surgically removed during the hiatus. Last season she might have been overbearing with her assertions of four (count them) FOUR degrees but at least she seemed authentic as a woman of color who prized academic and intellectual achievement. One would think that she would have used the platform to further goals that used her very real intellectual and theoretical communication abilities. Instead her goal is to be a doyenne of home stuff when there has never been any indication that she had this domestic passion or talent. And she manifests it by wanting to peddle candles which is oversaturated. Anyone with her academic/intellectual background would know the rudiments of starting a business - she acted as if she had never heard of anything called a business plan or a mission statement which is the first thing one does. The only housewife who really built an empire was Bethenny and Skinny Girl Margaritas was a logical extension of who she was on the show. She was her target aspirational audience and she inserted the brand even before it became a brand. While we didn't see it, I have no doubt that Bethenny had set it up as a business using lawyers and finance people. Wendy was even less *smart* about business than Sonja with her toaster oven idiocy. And again, Wendy's brand is being a smart woman while Sonja's brand was being a ditz. I just don't understand how Wendy thinks that acting like a ditz and focusing on plastic surgery enhanced boobs and asses makes her a more "valuable" housewife.

Rinna has the same accounting firm and she set up two corporations using him as well. One is called Just Own It and seems to be for her beauty products given the trademark applications for Lisa Rinna Lips - I find it astounding that anyone thinks those lips are attractive rather than a total plastic fail but okay. The other dates from 2014. =

I agree with you so I am not sure what we are debating. 😂😂🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

I think you are missing the issue. For the purpose of getting the money back. It doesn’t matter whether Erika knew it was fraudulently obtained. Tom had no legal right to any of the money she received from him so she is on the hook and she is the one with deep pockets since Tom has no earning potential. She has already made a claim that some lawsuits should not be transferred to another firm because she wants them to remain an asset she can lay a claim to. Erika doesn’t fear jail because that isn’t probable. She realizes that any funds left will be paid to the creditors and more than likely she will be required to repay any of the purported loans and gifts of valuable stuff like jewelry and artwork. Ruth Madoff kept nothing except a relatively small amount that she had inherited from her parents but all of her clothing, furs, jewelry, personal items etc. were auctioned and used to pay back those Madoff had swindled. And Erika is arguably in a worst position than Ruth Madoff because she will probably have liens against her future earnings and Ruth realistically had no future earnings.

Exactly. People have to differentiate between criminal liability which requires proof behind a reasonable doubt that Erika was involved in the fraud and embezzlement. That may or may not be true. However Erika is desperately trying to hold on to the assets accumulated through the fraud and not pay the creditors. That is completely different as They can claw back all of the assets that were transferred to her. She would be on the hook for the money and I think realistically that is what she fears and not a very unlikely criminal conviction.

I don't know if this is inside or outside what is permitted by this thread but there is no IF regarding Tom's embezzlement of client funds. Clients haven't been paid when money was paid to the firm and at least one of his clients (the young man who was horribly burned in the PG&E fire has a judgment against Tom for the $12 million he is owed - the firm was paid out the money in the settlement by PG&E but never paid it to the poor kid. What Erika is desperately trying to do is attempt to not be held responsible for all of this money - I think at this point Girardi is on the hook for $68 million dollars. That is why she is attempting to paint a portrait of someone who knew nothing about what Tom was up to and also that she would hardly be a confidante of Tom since he did not share anything about his life or finances - he gave her cash when she asked for it. Hell she didn't even know that he owned a house in Palm Springs - huge eye roll. How you reconcile her statement of getting Ruth Chris steaks every night and being emotionally present during the pandemic with the cruel and vindictive husband - who knows why she had to create that narrative. By her own words, she had been plotting to leave him for several months so at the time when she was discussing how wonderful the marriage was (on the boat) she theoretically was on the verge of depositing him at his lawfirm and leaving without a word. Which also begs the question of what she thought this "senile" person was doing at the firm and does anyone actually think Erika Jayne was getting up every morning to drop Tom off - isn't that what people have their drivers do. Was she also picking him up since he had no car.

It is almost impossible to keep track of all of her lies but I would imagine the attorneys for the creditors have it all in a computerized database. It is understandable that Erika can't keep her stories straight. As I posted, I am an aficionado of true crime television and the police always say that someone who is lying will find it impossible to not slip up because if you are telling the truth, you don't have to remember your lies - you just have to tell the truth. Erika certainly knew of what was going on just based on her public actions. I got this very well written synopsis of the first of the lawsuits that started bringing down the Girardi Ponzi scheme. For those who don't understand, for a long time Tom was probably able to run a classic Ponzi scheme by using money from new clients to pay off money he had embezzled. Probably at some point, his rain making skills dried up and so the cash wasn't coming in the way it used to so he had no money to keep the Ponzi going. Also he was borrowing from companies that specialize in funding litigation. Essentially a lawyer will take out a loan to fund the lawsuit and the collateral is the lawyer's probable fees from that lawsuit. The lenders that specialize in these kinds of loans will examine a case and have a pretty good sense of whether to lend the money based on the probably outcome and also the reputation of the lawyer for being able to repay. But obviously the whole thing was falling apart. I had forgotten about the 2019 reunion when Erika was asked about the lawsuits from these legal loans. So it is clear she knew all about the financial problems of the Girardi firm but stayed until the lawsuit in Chicago brought the entire house of cards tumbling From the Reddit thread At any rate, then in 2018, one of Tom's creditors got Tom to agree to a payment plan to repay $15 million dollars worth of loans from 2015. He gave them the first million dollar payment as agreed upon, then he basically ghosted them, so they filed a lawsuit in January 2019. He subsequently paid them in drips and drops, eventually knocking off about $10 million dollars of the debt. In April 2019, that same loan company tried to secure Tom's assets, basically lock them down, because he stopped communicating with them about the final 5 or 6 million dollars he owed, and they had learned that he was actively pursuing another $30 million dollars worth of loans, and at this time, they said that they believed that Tom was funneling millions of dollars to Erika's company. They ended up making some kind of payment arrangement. In June 2019, the Season 9 reunion was filmed, and at that time, Andy asked a question from the audience that essentially said "are you guys using this dog thing to take the focus off your own legal issues?" and Erika got very angry and claimed that the issue was resolved and that the Law Finance Group had apologized. But then by August, Tom had failed to repay the final 6 million dollars as ordered by the courts, so a judge ordered him to produce his financial information to try to figure out why. I wonder what financial information he ended up producing. All of this pre-pandemic mess was when the vultures started circling. Tom was finding it harder and harder to secure loans because Law Finance Group is not exactly a tiny fish in law lending circles. He could no longer rob Peter to pay Paul. Edelson, tired of being ghosted and strung along, finally filed that lawsuit in Chicago, and that kicked over the last of the hornet's nest. All the other creditors saw that even other law firms are not being paid, and they went into panic mode, and rather than own up to his thievery, he's gone the mental incompetent bankruptcy route.

People are almost never as smart as they think they are - I watch a lot of the Dateline type of true crime stuff as there are enough cases of very "smart" people who thought they could outsmart the police but make a few critical errors. I think Erika and Tom fall into the category of having lied so long and so successfully that they didn't think it would catch up with them. They both suffer the fate of many people with hubris - the "gods" ultimately punish them. Tom played the game successfully for so many years I don't think it entered his mind that it would catch up with him until the Ponzi scheme started to crumble and he was left with his pants down. I think Erika has so successfully created an artificial persona which is in essence lying to everyone around her and has done it for years. Most people accepted whatever she said at face value. Those who didn't probably shrugged and didn't think it worth it to expose her lies. I mean in my life, I have encountered people and what they say doesn't pass my "sniff test" - something about it triggers my instincts but it is not something I am going to pursue because their lies don't impact me in any way. I don't think Erika has friends at all - in the early years she was on the show she would state that repeatedly. I can't think of a single scene in which she was shown with a "friend". I doubt whether she was actually friends with any of the people she met when she was *playing* the part of Mrs. Tom Girardi. The closest we have seen to friends are her glam squad and I don't think anyone would call them her friends. I think Tom and Erika concocted a scheme to attempt to save some of the assets through a "well timed" divorce. I am sure that the legal documents have been filed because date of separation is an important deadline in California because it is used to separate separate property from joint property just as date of marriage does. It was not that long in "real time" between the filing of the divorce (which was Election Day in early November) and the disclosure in Palm Springs which was a few days before the very long expose in the LA Times which was highlighted in the previews for next week which was on December 17. I think it not at all unlikely that until the expose really exposed everything both Tom and Erika thought it would blow over because he had been getting away with his fraud for about 20 years. It is really difficult to lie consistently especially when one is dealing with fragmented situations. As we have watched the show this season the reality is that the information was coming out in bits and pieces and Erika was attempting to deal with putting out little fires because it hadn't yet exploded into a massive fire storm. ETA - Also in terms of timing, I am wondering what will happen to the support of the other housewives when the show starts to catch up with real time events as it will do in the next episode based on the preview. I think they are contractually not supposed to reveal any of the story lines except very obliquely and they could also not be reacting in "real time" to events that haven't yet occurred on the show in terms of their knowledge. These women (and their husbands) are not naive and it certainly is NOT a good look moving forward to fervently support someone who steals from widows and orphans (Tom) and someone who at best (Erika) feels no remorse and in fact flaunts it like the widows and orphans earrings she was wearing in the cartoon she posted on Instagram. Of course I could be completely wrong and the rest of the cast are venal (which we already knew) AND stupid and will continue to support her which is a terrible PR move. After all they went to the birthday party where they all wore the bathing suits; they wished her a Happy Birthday and I think there was some dinner fairly recently when they called themselves something and tacitly expressed solidarity. Really we won't know until the reunion what side of the fence they are going to land on.

Probably not for a long time because there will be extensive discovery prior to actual court trial. And even then the cases might be settled. so far there hasn’t been any mention of criminal proceedings. It is likely those would be done through a plea deal. Erika is going to be deposed for the civil cases. She is the deep pockets now because she is the one who has the ability to make money in the future to satisfy the judgments and restitution. They also will dig into what assets she has which is why she looked a bit ill when Sutton brought up the ability of forensic accountants to find where the money is even if hidden. Depositions are a strategic tool as they aren’t solely to gather information because a good lawyer already knows the answers to the questions. They are used to evaluate how someone would deal with testifying at trial - whether they would be a good witness. And of course in this case, all of her prior inconsistent statements would be used as she would be asked about them and asked whether they were true and since she would be under oath she would have to tell the truth or risk perjury. That would influence each side in terms of whether to settle.

Yes but it gives great joy to my black shriveled heart to know that Erika Jayne feels the walls circling in in her. Schadenfreude is such a wonderful feeling when I have no guilt because the person in question is utterly vile like Erika. I would love to be a fly in the wall when her attorneys are discussing how to deal with the pretty mess she has made by spending the last four years in the spotlight lying and contradicting.

There is a great thread on Reddit which compiles ALL of her inconsistent statements from all sources - not just the show. https://www.reddit.com/r/BravoRealHousewives/comments/oya63a/a_compilation_of_erikas_contradictions/

When I first spotted the carpet in the dining room, I thought hmm okay - not my taste but I could imagine a very Hollywood Glam type of dining room with lacquer furniture but then I saw that it extended throughout the house and that none of the other fixtures in the house reflected that kind of "fabulous" ironic style. Even at $1 or free I wouldn't install it in a house I was trying to sell because no one in their right mind would look at it and think hmm okay I could live with that :-). If the previous flooring was in bad shape, give a credit or reduce the price to reflect the fair market value.

As I explained, even though she isn’t under oath, all of her inconsistent statements and lies will be used to attack her credibility because she will be out under oath and be confronted with all of her lies. When police interrogate a suspect, they are just as happy if the suspect lies because that can be used to impeach their credibility.

Right. I had blocked her out. Her drunken spewing was so bad she was fired.

Monique attacked Candiace on RH of Potomac. That was truly scary because the producers had to physically restrain her and then she escaped from a side door and went racing across the lawn screaming that she was going to get Candiace. Nene on Atlanta attacked a camera man who was attempting to restrain her. She was angry because they wanted to film in her closet.

It doesn't matter whether she is lying under oath. She is still giving the lawyers a field day when she was deposed. They will have compiled all of her conflicting statements and they are on tape. They will be able to subpoena ALL of the footage including footage that wasn't aired. ETA to clarify - what I mean about not mattering whether she lied under oath is that all of her lies and inconsistencies whether under penalty of perjury or not can be used when she is deposed or in a trail. She would be sworn in at a deposition. She could plead the Fifth but that would be just as damning in terms of putting on record all of her inconsistent statements. They will then force her to either tell the truth or lie. Many of her lies are very easily exposed. For example, all of her testimony about Tom's accident and the injuries. There will be medical evidence of what injuries were sustained as well as testimony from anyone who interacted with Tom who will testify regarding his lack of injuries. She is not going to be able to lie about whether she has talked to Tom either - there would be records of phone calls unless they were both using burners. I think Erika's real exposure is the civil liability since she is effectively the deep pockets - there is the Pasadena crypt but not much will be left after the liens on it are paid off. I think Erika got VERY uncomfortable when Sutton was discussing forensic accounting. I don't think she really thought deeply about how all of her finances will be pored over. Standard of proof for civil litigation is preponderance of evidence and I can't imagine what kind of argument she would be making that any of the possessions she acquired prior to the separation aren't part of the marital estate. Once that is determined they would get a judgment against her which would follow her until repaid - in excess of $25,000,000 once all the creditors are added up.

The Washington couple were reasonable and the dog was adorable. I think they chose the best house for their current situation. It was perfectly adequate and I think given the location will increase value. And certainly making the cosmetic fixes always makes sense since you get exactly what you want and aren’t paying a premium for someone else’s taste. I don’t know who would buy a home in which the bedroom is reached by a small spiral staircase and the only bathroom is on the lower level. And the actual living area was quite small. The choice of the San Francisco area couple even more peculiar. They chose a fairly mediocre home that was flipped using the most inexpensive choices. Tiling over the fireplace? Nothing was particularly high end but the flipper certainly knew how to snooker his target buyers with a disproportionately large master bath with current trendy features and a kitchen that was trendier but builder grade. Of course the woman was an idiot and exposed her ignorance by asking whether marble or quartz was better. 🤡🤡

Mary McCarthy's Groves of Academe covered the same territory in her 1952 novel. The conniving goings on of the academic world never change.

I think having two babies in a relatively short period of time plus time spent filming for the show is sufficient for the moment. At this point between the BRAVO paycheck and monetization of her social media, she is doing quite well since she has no living expenses. Gizelle, Robyn and Karen are supporting their families. I am not sure what Eddie brings in but it seems that they were just a standard two income family so any of her money is needed to actually support their family. Mia is married to a sugar daddy and I don't believe for one instance that she is actively managing any of those franchises. I am not completely sure of what Candiace's finances really are because I don't understand how her mother was that wealthy. As a doctor or psychologist you make a decent living to be sure but generally it is not the income of the mega-rich. Was there some additional funds coming in that funded a lavish life style because in the early seasons I had assumed that Candiace was a serious trust fund kid and the heiress to one of the black fortunes - from the way she explained her situation. Of course why was she working as a hostess in a restaurant? And who is now paying for her record production costs? I doubt whether the record is going to do well because she seems like a talented amateur and she is a bit old to be starting a pop career anyway. But in the era of digital streaming, you don't need a record company to back you because you don't have the high manufacturing costs and you don't need their distribution system. If you are talented and lucky you can connect with your fans on line and through touring. The irony is that the real money is in touring and ancillary merchandising and not sales of records anyway.

As I said, were you given the money or did you earn it or sell something of value? The law also considers equitable principles. I was commenting solely on Erika's situation where there is absolutely no argument of fairness - only her greed in claiming she is somehow entitled to it because Tom gave her the stuff - e.g. she is claiming that as a gift it is not part of the marital estate and therefore not subject to the creditors having claims to it. But with Madoff charities did have to give back money in certain circumstances.

So evidently these fools managed to contract COVID - her husband was unvaccinated. She claims she has vertigo from her bout which is why she fell

How is it unfair to Erika if money that was given to her by her husband which was obtained through theft and fraud was taken back from her to satisfy the victims of the fraud. She did nothing to earn the money except theoretically be the wife of the fraudster - and that is assuming that she knew nothing about how the money was obtained. Where it gets to be more of a moral/ethical dilemma is if someone actually provided services in good faith and was paid for those services by ill gotten money. Or if one buys a stolen car in good faith and you are required to give it back. But Erika is an easy call since there is nothing unfair about making her responsible for the money she was happy to squander. Especially the $25 million loan to her production company/

That overskirt in the English version was just terrible and detracted from the dress. The dress had a lovely back which was part of the beauty of the original design. Why would you hide that by putting on a bulky layer of cheap net? The only time these overskirts work is when the original dress is very sleek and so a voluminous overskirt provides a more "traditional" princess look for the ceremony and then when it is taken off for the reception the bride has a different look and it is probably more comfortable than dragging around yards of fabric. The overskirt added nothing to the beauty of the dress during the ceremony. When the bride is walking down the aisle, you see the front of the dress. For most of the ceremony when people are viewing the back of the dress, the overskirt is actually less attractive than the gorgeous back of the dress. Pageant girl should step away from the botox and fillers. I don't understand why young women do this to themselves as it makes them look like a 50 year old real housewife. ETA - The British show was filmed before the pandemic as the close up of the wedding showed it was held in August 2019. From what I have read the pandemic has quite altered the economics of weddings and some are speculating that the changes are going to be permanent in terms of many people opting for smaller less expensive weddings even when restrictions have been fully lifted.