amarante

Erika added her own caption that read: “Scapegoat when she posted on her own Instagram account

I always thought her singing career must be a total loss but but back when I assumed that Tom had money, I assumed he was structuring it as a tax write off. And when Erica got cast into the show, they would have been saved by it no longer being classified as a "hobby" in terms of too many years of losses on the books. I mean how much could one possibly make from being a marginal performer in an obscure music festival. I remember the performance in Greece several seasons ago. As I recall she sang one song but flew her glam squad out there. Did she use the private jet - I don't remember. Ruth Madoff escaped any kind of liability but she was only permitted to keep $1 million in assets and had to leave everything else behind. As I recall, she had a valid argument that she had inherited about that amount from her parents so it wasn't a product of the Ponzi scam. Of course one could argue that she should have left with nothing but in the scheme of things the $1 million was chicken feed. As karma more than paid her off - one son committed suicide on the second anniversary of Madoff turning himself in - the other son died of cancer a few years later. The sons refused to talk to her until she completely disowned Bernie. I think Erika will lose all of the assets - of course the sad part is that although she won't be living as high off the hog as she was, she will still be able to earn more money than most people from promotional opportunities. I mean if Slade and Gretchen have managed to support themselves by monetizing social media, Erika can have the same kind of business. I can almost guarantee that Erika is going to be liable for all of the money owed creditors to the extent it isn't discharged in bankruptcy. OJ was able to effectively avoid paying off the Goldman family because the money from his pension could not be touched and he didn't earn any money that could be reached. He did a lot of cash signatures as I recall. There might have been money but what an expense to try to track down sporadic cash payments. No one was giving him a 1099 slip. Erika is claiming that these were gifts and not part of the community property but in California there is a very limited gift exemption. Unless they are of nominal value, there has to be written evidence that they were intended to be gifts and this would be difficult to prove under the circumstances. It would be hard to believe that every single expensive item she acquired over the years was accompanied with a legal document regarding ownership. I think she is beyond morally corrupt. Even if she wasn't aware of how Tom was scamming from the victims, she continued to flaunt THEIR MONEY after it became public. She even had an instagram shot of her crucified with earrings that said Widows and Orphans - I mean WTF - who would do that. As you all know her bankruptcy attorneys moved to be excused from representing her. They can't reveal what the reason is without violating privilege but I have to imagine that some part of it was continuing to make a public spectacle and flaunting her caring zero f's about the victims. Not a good look in terms of optics and judges are only human and can take judicial notice of egregious behavior/

The amount it cost to fund their lifestyle goes beyond being merely very very wealthy. I think the Bar attorney alluded to it being both excessive as well as not being good optics. Obviously no one will know exactly where the money went and how much, if any, was hidden away but the expenditures seem out of line with someone who "only" has $50 million in assets. I have a close friend who married into a family with assets in the $50 to $100 million dollar range. And they lead a good life - a lavish home in Aspen and one in Boca but they don't spend with the kind of wild abandonment of Erika. Some of the movie stars like DeNiro and Johnny Depp probably have fortunes well in excess of $50 million and seem to have blown through their money. De Niro says he still has to work to maintain his lifestyle. There have been a few others who have managed to spend inconceivable amounts on their lifestyle as well which for one reason or another have been revealed. And the bottom line is that Tom did not actually have enough money to support the lifestyle as he was stealing from clients to fund it. I think most of the Ponzi schemers are so arrogant and sociopathic that they don't really think the whole apparatus will come tumbling down.

I think he would have been quite wealthy even without the Ponzi scheme but I don't think he could have afforded the absolutely over the tip lifestyle that he had. He started funding Erika's vanity project in 2007 which meant he was pouring millions into it for at least ten yers - he "lent" her company $10 million and I would imagine that was the tip of the iceberg into what she spent - as I posted upthread, the cost of just her glam squad would have been half a million each year and that isn't counting the actual products, clothing, wigs, extensions, plastic surgery that she had. Presumably he was also buying her "real" jewelry and the clothing costs are probably unfathomable to anyone with a normal wardrobe - even if they are buying at pricier shops. The cost of maintaining the Pasadena mansion would also be expensive - I can't imagine what the water bill would be :-) But there is staff and you would need a full time gardener or outside maintenance person. The cost of two private planes would be astronomical - beyond the cost of using them would be the cost of maintenance. A round trip from LA to NY private plane is about $50,000. Even the cost of the law firm would be a high overhead. Obviously at some point the merry go round stopped in terms of Tom's ability to generate new income which is when the whole thing fell apart as do all Ponzi schemes inevitably. I actually don't think that it is inconceivable that he blew through that money and the bulk of it isn't parked somewhere. Of course Erika could have created a stash of money that she kept hidden from Tom. The forensic accountants will have a field day tracking down disbursements. I think a few of the legal experts in the documentary alluded to the fact that even the highest compensated personal injury attorneys don't have the kind of lifestyle that Tom had. There are a few scattered around the country that are on Tom's level of "fame" and client base and they are certainly wealthy but their lifestyle is not anywhere near the level of Tom's.

I bought a bottle of the shampoo at a closeout sale. I wash my hair with pretty much anything so I figured why not? I don't think the fact that a relatively small number of people show up to meet a television celebrity at an event means anything in terms of whether the product will actually sell in the open marketplace. I don't know who wants to show up to "meet" anyone but there is evidently a lot of money to be made by almost any "celebrity" - even the lowest of the D list like these characters. A lot of them make significant money from showing up at clubs and openings. I don't know how much a D list makes but probably enough to make it worth while to show their face for an hour or so. The more famous can make $100,000 for showing up at one of the Vegas clubs. Am I the only person who found the Lion King party to be a cringeworthy cultural appropriation. I don't understand why it is acceptable for these people to have this themed party when Kenya was excoriated for dressing as an Indian - not that I am defending Kenya's Halloween costume but I am really not seeing the difference. Kandi could legitimately have a Coming To America themed wedding but I don't think GG should. It would be different if this was a legitimate children's party and her son was of an age when he was obsessed with the movie and she bought Disney tablecloths.

Andy's ideas of handling anything truthfully are far removed from what anyone on this board would recognize. I can't think of a single instance in which a housewife wasn't ultimately allowed to spew their own story. Even Tre was allowed to keep up the pretense even in the specials which were billed as being questions about everything. No. And I doubt he will. Perhaps something when the reunion has been taped and the powers that be make a decision or if Erika and her lawyers decide she needs to bow out. Brian Moylan's book explains that he actually doesn't have the final say in anything.

This a fairly good analysis of Erika's civil liabilities in terms of the creditors. It is an interview with a bankruptcy attorney in an article form Variety https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/erika-jayne-girardi-real-housewives-of-beverly-hills-1234976305/ Since they’ve been married since 2000, presumably most of Erika’s money before “Beverly Hills” comes from him. And it appears that Tom’s firm gave Erika’s company, EJ Global, lots of money: The Edelson PC lawsuit states that “Defendant Jayne’s company, Defendant EJ Global, has allegedly received tens of millions in ‘loans’ directly from Defendant GK, of which Tom is the sole equity shareholder.” Shechtman said about these so-called loans, “The trustees in those cases may have claims against her for every dollar that she received from Mr. Girardi or from Girardi Keese.” But that’s not all, according to Shechtman: “If she has property that was purchased with the debtor’s money — with their money — it’s probably community property. It probably belongs to the bankruptcy estate. It already belongs to the estate. “They should be liquidated to pay creditors. The only way that she would have property that isn’t the property of the bankruptcy estate is if she had separate property. And even if she had separate property, the size of the judgments against her for receiving so much from either Girardi Keese or Tom Girardi could result in a judgment that would mean that she’d have to turn over whatever separate assets she has.” And according to a Los Angeles Times story this week, the trustees in the bankruptcy case are focusing on Erika as “a key figure in the sprawling legal battles over what remains of his fortune.” So is there a risk to Erika continuing to appear on “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills”? Yes. “It’s unwise,” Shechtman said. “Anything that she does that flaunts her wealth, which is ostensibly everything she does, will be evidence against her. All of the assets, all the property that she has, is going to be a target. Everything that she does will be subject to scrutiny. And it’s not scrutiny in the tabloid sense, it’s scrutiny in the liability sense.” He continued: “If she ever is under oath, she’ll have a lot of evidence against her that she’ll have to account for. So you don’t want your client out there making public statements. “And her whole life is a public statement.”

Not defending Erika god knows but Teresa's case was factually much simpler. Teresa had actually signed the false bankruptcy petition after being warned by her attorney that you sign under penalty of perjury. It has been awhile but as I recall she also signed mortgage payments. That is quite a bit different than having to prove that Erika actually knew that her husband was running a Ponzi scheme. Again the issue is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There are markers which one lead one to believe since she was a secretary in a few of his businesses but there is nothing to indicate that she had knowledge of the embezzlement. As I posted upthread, Madoff's wife was not charged but did forfeit most of the marital property. Madoff's sons were not charged and they actually worked in the business - albeit not the portion of it that was running the Ponzi scheme which operated on a different floor. However they were physically in the office and should have known that there was no way that the Madoff fund could have been run by the few people who were on that floor. I think someone calculated that Erika could easily have gone through $10 million just on her glam squad and the stupid music videos. The Glam Squad alone was half a million per year and that isn't counting all of the clothing, makeup, wigs, hair pieces, jewelry etc. ETA - I am not defending Erika in terms of her knowledge as I would have no problems seeing her doing time. However, I am not sure based on what is currently out there in terms of evidence that there is proof. Of course the burden of proof is much lower for civil liability and I think she will definitely be held liable for that and all of the judgments might be payable by her - again not entirely sure of what the financial liability would be in California for her earnings AFTER she filed for divorce but any of the stuff she has would all be seized down to the designer track suits she is so fond of. They took all of Ruth Madoff's valuable clothing like furs, jewelry, handbags and a lot of Erika's designer clothing would be quite valuable on the vintage market.

I saw the Hulu documentary last night and then finished it this morning. As others have posted, the Erica stuff is well known to anyone who is on these boards or even is just a casual watcher of the show. This was a production of the news division and so it didn't speculate but stuck closely to what was in the public record in terms of what has been filed. That really is damning enough. The real focus of the show was on the victims and that was truly heartbreaking. Many of the commentators pointed out that the flaunting of wealth earned through the misery of victims was bad enough without the actual stealing from them. I don't know whether Erika will actually serve time as there needs to be proof of her actual complicity in the criminal activities. There is tangential proof like the "loans" to her corporation and her being a secretary on several of the shell financing corporations but whether that rises to proof beyond a reasonable doubt - who knows? However, every inch of footage will be subpoenaed - not just the ones that made the final cut and all of that expensive stuff she flaunted will now be taken back. Bernie Madoff's wife didn't get to keep much after it was all negotiated and she probably had less reason to be suspicious of Madoff's businesses. Watching the documentary made me realize how sociopathic Tom and Erika were. I don’t have high expectations that people will be saints and altruistic but I genuinely can’t wrap my mind around being able to live with oneself after stealing from horribly injured people, widows and orphans. And for what - so one can have people dress and style you so that you are photographed.

The cost of household help in places like Singapore is extremely cheap. The cost of household help in Ireland would be equivalent to the US - she could probably afford a cleaning lady once a week but certainly not a live in or even a daily. I wondered how the father of her children felt about having the children live in foreign countries for all those years. And conversely as I recall his children lived with the mother in the US so they have had not much contact with the non-custodial parents for a significant portion of their lives. At least their housing budget reflected what they wanted and/or needed.

I am sure there is a back story to the Azores woman. I just didn't quite understand why she didn't move to Portugal - there is something between Italy and an isolated island with a very limited number of people to socialize with. Again I don't think partnership in life is critical to happiness but it just seemed odd to mention lack of gay marriage in Italy any marriage is irrelevant. Obviously people want to exist in a friendly atmosphere but I don't think the actual population of Italy would be more homophobic than the inhabitants of an isolated island. If there was a hidden companion at the end, I missed it because I TIVO HH and fast forward through all of the fillers - especially at the end when essentially they all love whatever place they have chosen.

I also wondered what the real story was with Azores lady. I wondered why her sexuality mattered because what kind of gay lifestyle would she have in a place where the largest town is 6000 people. All power to people who want to remain single whatever there sexual persuasion is but I don't think I would move to such an isolated small place and then mention that sexuality was a factor in moving from Italy. As others have posted, it is difficult to believe it wouldn't be easier to find gay friends and potential partners in Bologna. If marriage was a factor (and she mentioned that Portugal allowed gay marriage) why not just move to Portugal where one is much more likely to have a large enough group of gay people so that one might find really compatible friends and potential partners

I don't disagree that Mike could quite possibly have been fired. However I do disagree that they would not have done what they did in order to provide Mike with a storyline. He makes a lot of money from being a Shah - it is his job essentially and he needs to provide producers with a storyline at the beginning of each season.

I probably know what the answer is but does anyone know what happened with that condo construction project that Mike was theoretically managing last season. Was the whole development absolutely bogus - i.e. the parents never owned property or was just Mike's storyline fake - i.e. that he was never going to actually do anything but his parents let him pretend he was going to be doing it for the sake of his storyline.

Probably a combination of both. I have friends in production and dealing with COVID restrictions is super expensive. So they probably would have had to find ways to cut costs in other areas and I imagine the fire scenes are the most costly as opposed to the "human interest" scenes. And I do think there was definitely a conscious focus on issues of systemic racism after Floyd's murder. I am a fan of escapist television but I also think that popular culture and television is really a way to move people's minds and hearts in a way that straight news and documentary doesn't. I am of an age when Julia was a HUGE television event and Guess Who's Coming To Dinner was viewed as very provocative. And now it is really great that to a great extent interracial friendships and relationships aren't viewed as "exotic". But I also think it is great that characters who are POC are able to provide a voice for what it is like to live as a POC in modern America and that their "friends" who are watching them through the screen might be moved and start to think about things a bit differently. So there is more of an understanding that all these "nice" "heroic" "middle class" POC have to deal with issues of racism and experience life quite a bit differently than their white counterparts even if they seem to be living parallel lives.

I currently live in a high rise located on a relatively busy urban street. I am located on a high floor. My neighbor who I am friendly with lives on the first floor. Because of the vagaries of how sound travel, I actually get more noise in some ways because the sound bounces off buildings. So I hear motorcycles, cars blasting their stereo especially when they are at the light and crashes at the intersection - I am trained to recognize the screech - a few seconds of silence and then the bang. My neighbor on the first floor actually gets less traffic noise although she obviously can hear people talking when they walk outside whereas I don't really hear people talking and walking unless they are drunk and shrieking or if there is the occasional fight. FWIW I don't live in a bad neighborhood but it is contiguous to where people go for clubbing and some of them are cheap and park in the more residential areas and then when they walk back to their cars at 2 AM at closing they can sometimes get rowdy. When I lived in Manhattan on the 10th floor, I would be woken up at dawn when they collected the trash - those are truly noisy and they make noise for a LONG time because they are either doing the whole street or because they are doing a commercial building. As others have said sirens from police and ambulances are so ubiquitous in an urban area that living next to a firehouse is really not going to make much difference. As others have posted, they don't leave the station with sirens blaring. The negative is that it is not a fully residential block. On the other hand - and nothing to sneeze at - there is a high safety factor. When I lived in Manhattan, I did live in a doorman building for safety and convenience and if I was walking home at night I would generally deliberately take routes that were either busy main streets or which I knew had doormen along the way. So having a block with a police station would definitely have made my list of streets to walk on. I am so familiar with that neighborhood - made me nostalgic because I went to school from 7th through 12th grade at Lexington and 68th Street. I would normally walk down to 59th Street with friends to explore Bloomingdales and then take the subway at that station since it was more of a central terminal and the 68th street station was just a local on the IRT line.

A small point regarding venting of dryers versus cooktops. There are dryers which don’t require venting to the exterior. They are typically European brands like Bosch and Miele but LG and Samsung also have good models. They are smaller and originated in Europe because of smaller apartments there. They are used quite a bit now in US urban apartments as they are also generally stacked and smaller. Therefore they don’t dry as much as a typical enormous US dryer but as Tyler said, it’s not an issue because the people in those apartments aren’t dealing with doing massive loads. Either the housekeeper is doing it or they are sending them out for pickup and the needs are different. A hood thst doesn’t vent to the op exterior is a much more significant issue because any time you cook, you will be dealing with smoke, odors and effluent.

So at the end - was Morales doing a suicide by cop when he aimed his weapon because obviously with three cops aiming at him, he was going to die. If it wasn't suicide by cop, why did he suddenly decide to take out Bell?

I found the houseboat episode to be completely bonkers. I can't imagine raising a child in a houseboat. What about when the child reaches toddler stage and it is potentially dangerous in the same way that having a pool in the backyard would be. I have always lived in a city so I understand wanting the benefits of a metropolitan area but at some point you commute. My parents moved from their Manhattan apartment to Brooklyn when they had children - and that was when Brooklyn was NOT a hip place to live. It was essentially suburban life - single family homes - tree lined streets where kids could played outside like you would in most suburban neighborhoods and everyone owned a car because it made life easier - it is far easier to take a subway into Manhattan from the outer boroughs than it is to get from one place in Brooklyn to another neighborhood. As others have posted, they have not invested money in a home. They have essentially bought a boat which is a depreciating asset which requires a good amount of very specialized upkeep. Why wouldn't they just do what most people do and find a child friendly rental within their budget. I can't imagine actually living with a child in that boat - children come with all kinds of paraphernalia that takes up lots of space.

You don't have to come from extremely wealthy families to get help with down payments. Many people I know had help from parents who were just middle class type of people who didn't live beyond their means. Grandparents die and it's not unusual for there to be money bequeathed. Some parents will give kids a choice of funding a wedding or a down payment or parents are pretty sure that they will have money to leave their kids so they are going to give them that sum for a down instead of waiting until they die and inherit it. You don't have to have millions or be in the top 1% to have assets you have to help your children with a down payment.

You are correct as asking price - and even negotiated "final" price doesn't really impact the appraisal. A house can be appraised for lower than the purchase price in which case the parties might not be able to complete the deal or the seller will have to lower the price. Often the listing price is set at deliberately artificially low price in markets where bidding wars are common. This is sometimes done because it will get a listing into the From To category at a certain amount which will draw in potential buyers. So a property might be listed at $795,.000 because if you list for $825,000 you might lose buyers who might be willing to go up if they really liked a place. And appraisals are really somewhat of an art rather than a science - or so my friends who are real estate agents have told me. An appraiser isn't going to completely falsify an appraisal but there are ways to make a property appraise higher. A bad impression even if there is nothing objectively wrong with the property could lead to a lower appraisal. And not to go to far astray, there was a recent case when a black woman had her white friend pretend to be the seller at an appraisal and it came in for significantly higher than when she was seen as the owner of the property.

Actually having just remodeled, $40,000 for a bathroom is NOT an outlandish amount if one is upgrading from builder grade finishes. Obviously you can remodel a bathroom for less money but bathrooms are expensive - but these aren't the ones that are sold at Home Depot :-). A tiled walk in shower can run about $10,000 or even more depending on what tile you choose - and that is just for the waterproofing, framing, tiles and installation of tiles. Throw in elegant shower fixtures which can be $2000 when plumbed and a frameless shower enclosure with an upgraded finish like Showerguard. Then there is mirrors, sconces, lighting, floors, counters, custom vanities and much of the work needs to be done with highly skilled plumbers, electricians and tile setters or you are taking risks. I actually find that most of the people on HH underestimate the cost of the "projects" when they discuss painting cabinets (as an example) as no big deal. Properly painting cabinets is quite expensive if done by a professional because it is not just slapping paint on but they need to be properly prepared and primed and done in a room with a controlled dust free environment or else you get an amateur job with streaks, blobs that will crack and chip in a short period of time.

The final fight was such almost a textbook (or video equivalent) example of how people completely miscommunicate and then escalate an argument based on erroneous perception of what was said. Whether Ramona is or isn't being hypocritical about Leah is irrelevant. Personally I find Leah to be completely vulgar and wish she would disappear completely as she brings nothing. However, the point that Luann was making was that she and Ramona had CATHOLIC upbringings including I would imagine attendance at a parochial school. This occurred at a particular time given and so they were absolutely brought up where that kind of explicit crude language wasn't spoken at events. Eboni then just misunderstood the specificity of Catholic upbringing to mean that it was a matter of "class" and "education" and people without education or class talked like that. Luanne then became offended since Eboni was using "educated" in a very specific way - e.g. that she had the most *academic* education of all of the women. Luanne might lack academic education but given her background she is a fairly erudite sophisticated woman and she is "educated" in the broad sense of the word albeit not having formal academic credentials. In terms of the argument - again putting aside Ramona being or not being a hypocrite for various reasons - my personal experience is that "polite" people don't generally talk like Leah does in social settings such as dinner parties. I travel in fairly progressive non-religious non-prudish circles and I have never encountered anyone behaving like Leah. Women talk about intimate matters with their friends to share experiences or they might jokingly refer to something sexual in a larger gathering in passing but I have never attended a dinner party where someone talked about sucking ass or repeatedly talked about the size of dicks.

I saw they picked up something at the end - didn't know exactly what it was. But how exactly did they know she was located in that desolate area to even search for a buried body. In my experience - which is limited to true crime shows :-) - bodies buried in desolate locations turn up fortuitously when a dog starts sniffing. There was verbal mention of making sure her phone was turned off but I didn't see that happening in the car. For some reason, I thought some of the deep undercover agents had GPS tracker chips inserted - of course now all they need is a COVID vaccine and the police can have Bill Gates locate the undercover person LOL

The original L&O (the mothership) was created by Wolf at a time when there was a very weak syndication market for one hour dramas. It was intended that it could be split into two half hour shows when it was sold into syndication. It is also a reason why there was almost no back story or "human interest" for the original as it also made it theoretically easier to sell to the syndication market. Wolf also had a fairly ruthless attitude towards actors and was more willing than other shows to replace people as necessary. The later shows really have come full circle in terms of being serialized as well as having back stories for most of the leads. Small point but one of the police who discovered Gina's body said that she left bread crumbs which presumably meant that in some way they were able to track her when it became clear that her not calling in was serious. I don't know what the bread crumbs were though as they didn't make that explicit.