amarante

Obviously none of us have all the facts in terms of how Tom paid Erika. It is alleged that he made a $20 million payment into her corporation but that isn't enough to make Erika CRIMINALLY liable if Tom acquired the money unlawfully. Based on their marriage he has paid a lot of money to her over the years - the Pat The Pussy Road Show was never a money making affair. I would imagine that Tom took generous tax write-offs every year since theoretically she was doing it as a business and not as a hobby. They might also have structured payments to her glam squad so that a lot of the money was also a tax write-off. The laws regarding clothing and makeup/styling are a bit of a gray area. You can't write off standard clothing even if you use it when you make a professional appearance. However, you would most likely be able to write off makeup/hair services and so many people just allocate a lot of payments towards the tax write-off services.

Are these Christmas episodes another HH shtick or are there actually people who buy homes based on whether there is a window to display a Christmas tree? And the homes also for the most part didn't have windows on the street so what is the point anyway of where it would be placed since only people living in the home would really enjoy it? On the same topic, are there people who actually sit on their front porches in this era? What is this desire for a front porch - are they all yentas? I understand wanting a private backyard of some kind although I do the eye roll when people live in metropolitan areas and complain about neighbors. The Christmas couple moving to the Pacific Northwest - give me a break as some of the grounds require more than just someone to mow the lawns. Either you have to be an absolutely dedicated talented gardener or you have professionals take care of it for you.

Unless a defendant requests it, the jury decides all factual matters and evaluates the truthfulness of the witness. That is the reason why witnesses are required to testify in person. The judge rules on issues of law like whether evidence or even witnesses are admissible. The Judge would craft the jury instructions which are enormously important. You can only appeal on matters of law and not on factual issues which are determined by the jury. The right to a jury of one’s peers is one of the most fundamental rights. At any rate, it is almost never that Federal crimes go to trial especially ones involving financial crimes. They are almost always negotiated in a plea deal because financial crimes leave paper trails. Her personal cost will be losing her over the top lifestyle but I don’t think that she will become unemployable in the realm of entertainment and social influencing. Her persona has never been that which could really be damaged. Why would fans of pat the pussy be offended? Teresa has continued to thrive professionally.

Ruth Madoff was not criminally liable. Leona was criminally liable for tax evasion but she owned and ran the company. In fact her husband was not criminally liable because he had nothing to do with the operation of the business at that point. Teresa was liable because she signed the fraudulent bankruptcy papers and the joint tax returns. There is no evidence that Erika was ever involved in the actual business operation of the firm. It doesn’t come down to a judge determining her credibility. It comes down to proof of her actually being involved amd with financial transactions there is always a paper trail and people at the firm testifying regarding her involvement. None of the other lawyers at the firm were involved. I doubt Erika ever was involved in running the law firm. Why would she be? It had nothing to do with her as she didn’t work at the firm.

The money could be clawed back. However she wouldn’t be criminally liable unless it could be proven that she was involved with the law firm. She would have had to participate in the actual criminal activity to be criminally liable. And I doubt she was. Ruth Madoff faced no criminal liability but all of the assets were seized. Similarly Erika would not be able to keep the money or anything bought with it. It is all community property. But thst is different from the criminal liability which Tom faces in addition to the civil liability in terms of bankruptcy.

The reason why penalties are so severe regarding misuse or commingling of the client trust funds is because disbursement relies on the integrity of the lawyer. The settlement is paid to the law firm and the law firm deposits it into the trust account and then writes a check to the client. This is because there are legitimate amounts that are taken out of the settlement for the lawyer and these are between the lawyer and the client - e.g. percentage owed as the contingency fee as well as any legal costs that are incurred. It is unlikely that Erika will be charged with any kind of crime based on what happened at the law firm because it was unlikely that she was involved with the finances of the firm on that level. However, the criminal liability is completely separate from the amount of money owed and since it is all community property any money paid to her and all of her assets - clothing, jewelry, whatever - can be seized and sold. And since they are likely heading into involuntary bankruptcy the Trust will put them on a budget. Under community property law, once Erika legally filed for divorce - *theoretically* her earnings would no longer be part of community property. However it is pretty murky in terms of tracing the money and what amount of restitution she would be responsible for since that would be an on-going obligation. Easy to freeze assets based on selling clothing since they were acquired prior to the separation and therefore are community property.

Just a comment under a very air brushed photo of Erika saying - You better believe she is going to talk about it"

While it's true that Erika has an excellent excuse for deflecting discussion about the case - and for sure if she actually continues to shoot, she will NOT discuss it in any way except to deny and say it is being handled by lawyers and she knew nothing about it. However, will the OTHER ladies discuss amongst themselves and also discuss in their confessionals. They generally have banded together to protect the other housewives and so there are these ridiculous seasons in which everything interesting is ignored and instead there is Puppygate or whether Denise Richards should have asked the ladies to be more circumspect in terms of loud sexual talk when there were children around. And the completely WTF cares about whether she slept with Brandi - and to a great extent the housewives were allowed to get away with the hypocrisy of treating Brandi as a factual source. In this case they will ignore actual legal pleadings and substantiated rulings by a Federal judge.

Based on what is public information at this point, Tom definitely could face criminal prosecution at this point. Whether he actually serves time given his age - 🤷🏼‍♀️ I think it unlikely that Erika would face criminal charges because it would be difficult to prove that she had actual knowledge of how Tom was handling his law practice finances. Teresa actually signed fraudulent tax returns and the bankruptcy petition. However, Erika will have to deal with the consequences of the civil litigation - i.e. she is on the hook for a lot of money. Even if Tom wasn't involved in criminal stuff, he still owes a lot of money and so all of his assets would be thrown into the pot including any assets theoretically held by Erika or by Erika's corporations. That is where it is going to hurt because she is going from a lifestyle that was spending millions and millions a year to something that is considerably less lavish. Even assuming the most favorable outcome for her - i.e. her future earnings are now frozen in order to be used for restitution, she still would have a limited income - obviously a nice income but a huge difference between private planes and half a million annually for your glam squad. To clarify, even assuming the best outcome, that she emerges from all of this with the ability to keep her future earnings intact - i.e. there aren't liens on her future earnings based on restitution for the creditors, she will face greatly reduced financial circumstances. She still has earning potential from promotional stuff; possible Bravo salary, maybe some acting gigs or spots on shows like Dancing With The Stars or Celebrity Big Brother. There seems to be a way that these D level reality stars seem to move on without needing to get normal jobs. However, her lifestyle would not be that which she enjoyed when Tom was funding it. Most of us would envy a lifestyle where one makes $1 million or so a year but that doesn't go that far realistically in the world of the rich. The $20 million that was paid into her LLC is clearly going to be clawed back by the Trustee in Bankruptcy. It doesn't matter that it was paid into a corporation - it was still money that would be subject to being party of the assets used to pay off the creditors. Of course the interesting issue will be the coming years in which the creditors will monitor all of her income and spending in order to keep track of the assets in order to get them paid over. Madoff's Trustee spent years tracking down money and clawing it back. The attorneys for Ron Goldman's family are still pursuing money from OJ based on the civil judgment they got.

The San Diego condos were all very inexpensive for San Diego and they showed. Of course it's hard to tell exactly where they are located but San Diego is a really expensive real estate market. Obviously $400,000 or $350,000 would buy a mansion in some areas of the US but location determines fair market value. I agree about the location of the washer dryer being odd because it was placed in the dining area as a hulking monster. I live in a condo with a washer dryer installed retro and the solution is to get a European style washer/dryer which has a ventless dryer. The stackable units can be installed anywhere there is a plumbing line to tie into. Mine is installed in the master bedroom closet but many of my neighbors have them in their bathrooms - and they fit elegantly behind cabinets because they are relatively small. The condos in San Diego reminded me of the 1970's vintage condos that are scattered around Los Angeles and are similarly expensive - or inexpensive depending on how one views the real estate market. A lot of them were originally built as apartment buildings which is why they generally have very basic finishes and layouts. My condo was converted from apartments and had the original unattractive cheap finishes when I moved in,

Wow - Tamara Tattles has provided updates concerning Erika's PERSONAL liability with a hearing for HER scheduled next Tuesday (12/22) https://tamaratattles.com/2020/12/18/erika-girardis-assets-have-also-been-frozen/ Tamara's article is based on tweets from an attorney - evidently Erika is on the Board of one of Tom's LLC's - which would mean that she is probably on suffiicient "notice" for making her personally liable Also - at least based on the most recent information Tom went beyond commingling the settlement accounts but actually signed off on settlements without the authorization of the plaintiffs he was representing. Someone upthread questioned why someone of Tom's *stature* as an attorney would do this but when I read the LA Times article, Tom stated that he was essentially a gambler since he took cases on contingency. I assume he had the kind of personality that was driven to take risks because he thought he was above normal constraints - and it worked for him for a long time until it didn't and the Ponzi house of cards collapsed.

She would be able to keep up whatever she does becaise she would be able to get whatever she wants comped in exchange for promoting it. She wouldn’t be able to keep up with the kind of looks that require two hours in the makeup and hair chair unless it’s for a promotional shoot. The recent Instagram post was promotion for Fenty lingerie so she would have been paid plus the hair and makeup supplied for the shoot. But the kind of looks she and Dorit display isn’t normal even for wealthy women. Kyle spends a lot on hair and cosmetic procedures but she doesn’t look like Dorit or Ericka who essentially dress for a photo shoot all the time.

As I posted, anyone with a shred of a brain cell realizes that this divorce has nothing to do with fidelity and everything to do with protecting assets. To the extent either of them were screwing around, I doubt that either party cared as they had an arrangement of some kind which worked until the money stopped coming in. What is interesting is that Ericka seems to be moving away from the friendly discreet type of divorce that she seemed to be attempting to peddle in the beginning when it was a coy release about moving apart yada yada yada. Seems entirely too coincidental that it coincided with the news of the total collapse of Girardi and that - at least for the record - he has no assets. While they search for assets, everything is frozen including Ericka's assets. I think they would be able to get a lien on her paycheck from BRAVO as part of the involuntary bankruptcy orders. As I recall they would then be put on a very strict budget where they have to account to the Trustee in Bankruptcy to justify all their expenses.

Taylor Armstrong had to bring her Birkin to a creditor's settlement and it turned out to be fake anyway,

Pretty ordinary

I suspect Ericka’s PR or legal people are attempting some kind of damage control because *coincidentally* today Page Six has a story which states that she is divorcing Tom because of his multiple affairs throughout the marriage but just recently decided thst despite her efforts, she couldn’t make the marriage work. 🤮🤮🤥🤥🤥

https://realityblurb.com/2020/12/17/erika-jaynes-husband-tom-girardi-faces-involuntary-bankruptcy-as-prosecutors-begin-probing-case-are-rhobh-singers-assets-in-jeopardy-plus-another-lawsuit-is-filed-against-the-attorney/ According to a series of tweets by one of the attorney's for Girardi's creditors, he is heading into involuntary bankruptcy with a hearing happening this afternoon. According to the tweets, Erika's communal property will be part of the proceedings. I don't know what property Ericka has that isn't community property as all of her income is considered to be community property. She didn't bring assets into the marriage - she was a cocktail waitress at Chasens This would be a fabulous story but I doubt whether BRAVO would actually cover it so it would be another one of those bizarre housewives' plot lines where everything is happening off camera and what is happening on camera bears no relationship to reality.

The Los Angeles Times has a long article on the rise and fall of Tom Girardi https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-17/tom-girardi-erika-jayne-rhobh-divorce

Bankruptcy appears to be inevitable. There is no claim by Girardi that he doesn't owe the money. If he had the ability to pay the money and meet other monetary obligations, he would have done so rather than have the house of cards collapse. Clearly the divorce was intended to shield assets in some way. Whether it was Erika leaving a sinking ship or the both of them conspiring who knows. Girardi has no ability to earn money at this point. He will be disbarred but even but that is irrelevant. He is an 83 year old whose lifestyle depending on his rainmaking abilities in terms of getting large class action lawsuits. Obviously that gravy train left the station a few year ago and so he was wildly juggling plates in an attempt to keep things afloat. What will be litigated will be getting at his assets and what those assets are and where he has hidden them. In general you are shielded from personal financial liability if you incorporate which Girardi did as he owns LLC (Limited Liability Corporations). However, the "corporate shield" (i.e. protection) can be demolished if you don't act or do act in certain ways. It is very likely that this will occur so that the corporate financial shenanigans will cause Girardi and Erika to become personally liable. I would imagine the Pasadena home might still have some equity in it and somehow Erika is still getting an income stream from somewhere so that she is supporting what is a fairly lavish lifestyle - isn't she in a $7000 condo which isn't as lavish as a mansion but still isn't a chicken shack even in Los Angeles.

Assets have been frozen as a Federal Court is pretty serious. I assume the firm suing Girard knows where some of the *assets* are but of course the question is what are the assets available since there doesn't seem to be any money to meet payroll and how well has Girard hidden assets. Evidently the Girard firm has been running a giant Ponzi scheme and it caught up as Girard probably lost his rainmaking ability so large class action suits dried up. He would be criminally liable because embezzlement is a crime - as well as grounds for disbarment. It is probably the most basic ethical breach an attorney can do aside from breaching privilege. Ericka would not have criminal liability for the embezzlement since she would have had nothing to do with how the firm managed its fund - or at least nothing provable. It is odd that Tom's lawyers are pleading mental incompetency since it is a fairly low bar and wouldn't be any defense against the civil action for the money which is what Tom and Ericka care about. There is not any way that Tom is going to jail - even if he eventually was found guilty or pled guilty (as most Federal criminal cases do), he will either be dead or be so infirm at that point that they will give him some form of probation. And losing the lifestyle is what will really hurt them. Obviously Ericka sought to protect assets by filing for divorce but I don't see how that maneuver really helps. Whatever assets that would theoretically be paid for alimony or split of assets would be used to pay off the amounts due and it does't seem as if there are funds available. Again, they could be hiding funds somewhere offshore but it seems as though if Tom actually had $3,000,000 off shore he would have used it to make this go away rather than have it explode in this way. Ericka actually might wind up owing alimony to Tom since she has a relatively high income and Tom has no visible means of support since he can't practice law and he is 83. He would get Social Security and I think that one's retirement funds are safe from judgment - at least they were for OJ. But Erika wouldn't be able to support her lifestyle on her BRAVO salary even augmented by her side promotions and ventures. I can't imagine she could be on the show and not have this a part of the storyline even if she deflects by saying she can't discuss legal matters.

I haven't seen doorless bathrooms with exposed toilets. My experience is the the 1970's style where the sink and often the closet are exposed and the shower and toilet are in a separate little room. I think that it theoretically enables one to have a smaller footprint. What I am seeing in the International version are bathrooms which have a large glass wall so that if you are on the toilet or in the shower you are completely exposed to the bedroom and theoretically if the drapes are open in the bedroom - to the outside world. I don't even understand why one would want a glass wall. I live in apartments where the bathrooms don't have windows so it's not as if a bathroom needs natural light. I thought one was an aberration but then it popped up again in another country.

The changes made to the Ventura condo were astoundingly bad and didn't do a single thing to remedy the issues. Painting bathroom tiles BLACK - painting tiles is bad enough but black. And painting wood kitchen cabinets is expensive and/or a PITA if DIY because you can't just slap a coat of paint on them because they walk look terrible and crack and chip almost immediately. And leaving the light fixture in the kitchen AND the white tile. They would have been better off changing the light fixture and stopping there because at least wood cabinets and white tile are durable and don't look as discordant as what is probably a slap dash paint job. And why do people look at bedrooms and say it is good for a nursery. Unless the people well and truly plan to move out after they have children, the bedroom will be theoretically used for children - how is a room okay for children but not for a nursery. The only time this observation makes any kind of space is when there is some kind of small annex off the *master* bedroom 🙂 which is convenient when you need an infant near you for night feedings or whatever.

I thought all of the Montana condos were pretty terrible for the price. I was expecting something higher end or unusual in some way. I wonder whether it reflects the demographics of people buying a condo in Bozeman. At one of the developments, the realtor mentioned that it was close to the university so perhaps that is the market buying them. I would assume that most people deliberately living in a place like Wyoming would want a single family home - preferably one not jammed in with neighbors. Just seems odd. And those condos were all so sad. They looked like the equivalent of quonset hut housing and the interiors weren't particularly outstanding either.

I don’t give a rat’s patootie about someone’s sexual orientation. I am not shocked or appalled that Jacob wants to dress in drag. I just don’t think it is the wisest move to use it as a storyline on a reality television show. I don’t think he will be bullied or whatever in school and I don’t think Jacob particularly cares if at school he doesn’t hang with the football sorority boring crowd. I just think it is exploitative and poor parenting to use any minors as a storyline because it will follow them the rest of their lives and not because there is a stigma attached to gay or trans but because NO adolescent should have to showcase their lives on television except in the most superficial way. There is a reason why the wisest celebrity parents go to great lengths to AVOID having their kids’ private lives exposed in any manner.

Like almost everyone I find Elizabeth's statements to be confusing and obviously intended to present a fake image. While I understand why it might have been necessary to not discuss specifics of the divorce while it was on-going it certainly wasn't necessary to be actively deceptive rather than just *discreet*. I had assumed that Elizabeth had a long term marriage to the ex and to the extent I thought about it, assumed she was equivalent to Sutton from Beverly Hills - e.g. that she had married a guy when they were both relatively young. Boy was I wrong and boy does the reality not comport with the smoke screen she is weaving. She was some kind of cocktail waitress when she met the MUCH OLDER man - just the same as any other regulation gold digger. His first wife was more of less a childhood sweetheart - married when he was poor and had three children. And then divorced. Elizabeth was only married to him in 2012 and divorce proceedings started in 2017 - this is so NOT the kind of relationship she continues to spin. Am I the only person who assumed this was a long term relationship? In general it is not uncommon for older men marrying trophies to NOT want children from the trophy marriage and to have a prenup in place - seems as though she was attempting to go beyond the terms of the prenup. And the divorce settlement seems fairly generous for someone with a five year marriage and no kids. She is getting $31,000 per month but that sum also specifically includes the $11,000 mortgage on the beach house as well as the lease payments on the Bentley and Rolls - why is it that these fake rich people have leases on cars. So $360,000 a year in alimony paid until she dies or remarries. With alimony (unlike child support) she pays taxes. It's a nice amount but it doesn't make her obscenely wealthy - taxes on the beach house (for example) would be at least $2000 per month. I posted this exposition because the reality stands in such stark comparison with the narrative and image she presented. Even with all the inconsistencies, she was consistent about purporting to have been in a long term marriage and was absolutely emotionally crushed yada yada yada. Am I being cynical to just believe that she is your run of the mill gold digger who was replaced by a shinier trophy and is now *crushed* because the prenup provided her with a nice but not extravagant amount after the divorce.