amarante

Well in this particular instance it seems as though Erika was shrieking at production in the bathroom. I think it's partially that from what I have read, people start to forget there are cameras. I think that to some extent if something isn't mentioned in order to stir the pot, it might be lost in the editing as not being of particular interest or driving the story line. The whole thing about how Tom calls her being an issue is inscrutable. If Erika hadn't meant such a huge deal about it, no one would have thought it odd. No matter how "cold" a husband theoretically is, if the wife disappears one morning after theoretically dropping you off at work with a kiss and I love you, most husbands would attempt to call the wife to find out what was going on. Erika has attempted to spin so many lies that she can't keep them straight so inadvertently she is going to mess up. You don't have to remember the truth. Also - as has been pointed out - Erika was fully aware of the LA Times story dropping the next day and she was looking for any reason to be able to exit because the last thing she would want is to be on camera filming the morning of the story breaking.

She has got a normal body and I like that she dresses in high fashion that should theoretically only be worn by models. Also people rag on her not dressing for her body type but I think she is always appropriately dressed for her body type. Much better than showing all of those fake tits or squeezing into inappropriately tight latex or sequined jumpsuits with 5" stilettos. 🤣

I agree as it is part of the dialogue that non-racist people need to be having. I was also raised in a house where my parents were determined for me not to be racist - e.g. a very New York City ultra liberal environment. I remember when I found out that EENY MEENY was about catching an N-person and not a tiger. I asked my parents if they knew that and they said yes but we taught you tiger. I am a bit less clueless than Kathy since I have recognized that POC experience the world in a different way. There was an article by a black Newsweek reporter about 20 years ago in which he described how he was followed in one of the Fifth Avenue department stores - his only potential crime was shopping while black since he was dressed in typical business attire - e.g. suit and tie and the only thing that made him a target of suspicion was his race. There are microagressions which one has to deal with or be labeled as someone who is angry all of the time and there are the more obnoxious things like being followed in a department store and then there is the horror of having to give your son "the talk" which Garcelle alluded to.

People rag on Sutton's fashion but I think it is great. It is obviously expensive but it isn't obviously a particular designer unless you are extremely clued into couture and ultra high end clothing lines. She chooses what delights her as opposed to Dorit who looks like a poster board for initialed designer stuff. I could be wrong but I have yet to see Sutton dressed in anything that has "initials"

I always kind of liked Sutton - even last season. I enjoy her quirky fashion much more than Dorit's ridiculous draping herself in initials regardless of the style. Sutton obviously has her own style - even though the clothes are couture and obviously beyond expensive, they aren't blatantly labels in the same way wearing the kind of clothing Dorit does. The woman isn't stupid and she obviously knows how the truly rich handle money and LLC's 😄 I also think that she doesn't need the gig financially the way the others do and I don't think her ego is invested in it as much as Kyle's is. Rinna, Dorit and Kyle are desperate to stay on the show. Obviously Erika was as well because no sane individual would have gone on this season knowing what was about to happen unless they were desperate for the income and the promotional value in terms of monetizing her social media.

The Judge presiding over the bankruptcy proceedings just shot down Erika's attempt to have Ronald Richards thrown off the case. He is an attorney who was hired by the Trustee to track down the assets which means he is using those pesky forensic accountants that Erika fears to claw back the money that she and Tom schemed to hide. As has been posted by many of us, whether she actively knew or didn't know is beside the point because she is attempting by any means to hold on to every single dollar after knowing that it was stolen from widows, orphans and burn victims. Here is a portion of the Judge's ruling which is pretty damning The order reads, “It appears to be nothing more than a blatant attempt by Ms. Girardi to impede Mr. Richards’ efforts on behalf of the trustee to investigate allegedly fraudulent transfers of the debtor’s assets to Ms. Girardi and to prosecute an action against her to recover those transfers for the benefit of the estate.” Further, the judge says Richards’ tweets about Jayne did not violate any ethical rules. As a result, the investigation into Jayne will move forward full speed ahead. Jayne denies she knew anything about her husband's finances. She claims he left her in the dark. His creditors and victims feel otherwise.

I just wanted to add to the Dorit being almost as tone deaf as Ramona is that when Dorit made the obviously racist statement that her children loved their "brown" nannies and housekeepers and Garcelle challenged her on what people of color came to their house other than household help, Dorit floundered and then said that Garcelle had visited as if that proved that the children experienced a culturally and racially diverse home.😂 I will give Sutton a pass on the "victimless crime" because it was clear that she meant to distinguish between what Tom had done which was to steal from individuals and what is generally meant by "white collar victimless crime" which is to trade on insider information. Ponzi schemes are generally not considered to be white collar crimes although they are financial crimes because there was stealing from actual gullible victims. I don't buy into the conspiracy theory that Rinna is laundering money for Erika but I do think that her defense of Erika is based on more than her "claim" of having developed over the past year so she no longer feels it is right to act as she did in the past without mercy to her coworkers (or any one else presumably). Rinna and Erika share the same business management firm. At this point in time given what is actually known about Erika and Tom, her continued defense on WWHL makes no sense in terms of her still backing Erika unequivocally. You could take a more neutral position. Here is a clip of Rinna last night continuing to defend her defense of Erika and not requiring her to "own it". https://www.vulture.com/2021/08/watch-lisa-rinna-defend-erika-jayne-drop-f-bombs-on-wwhl.html#_ga=2.267564238.1793690821.1628778630-1519065426.1622489877 PK is hardly a beacon of moral integrity but in his amoral way he completely grasped the situation - you cannot support her if what is alleged is true. What is implicit in that statement is that after The LA Times article you must move back from the whole situation and start saying that you don't have all of the facts but that the alleged facts are reprehensible and that Erika's contradictory statements are suspicious. The LA Times article is worth reading just to put things into context in terms of what was known. As Garcelle said, the LA Times is NOT a tabloid of any kind - it is probably one of the respected metropolitan newspapers with many Pulitzers and other awards and it practices serious highly researched accurate reporting.

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.