amarante

I don't follow social media unless it somehow reaches regular media. However, my understanding is that Monique's social media campaign went beyond bitchy tweets but they were also harassing friends and family of Chris and Candiace including actual threats - not just burning in hell type of hyperbole. When it reaches that level of harassment - especially to people who are completely uninvolved in the show - it has gone way too far. That was what Chris B was alluding to when he mentioned that "they" were coming after his children And I do think that Monique could have called off her dogs of war but instead chose to escalate the proxy war. I am just amazed that anyone thinks that Monique's physical attack on Candiace could be justified or explained or rationalized in any way. It was not tit for tat. From what I saw, if there had not been people actually physically restraining Monique she would have inflicted serious physical harm on Candiace. The only thing that stopped her was that she was physically held back but otherwise I saw a person who was trying to pummel Candiace - not merely just slap her or poke her - objectionable as those might be - but trying to get her on the ground and slam her head down repeatedly.

While many housewives have gone down in flames, there are some who have enough social intelligence and skills to navigate without it ruining their lives. Many of them get out when they sense that it is turning into a toxic environment for themselves and their families. I suspect that Wendy is smart enough to be able to navigate without damage. Heather Dubrow left and her family and marriage are intact. Eileen Davidson left BH. Carole Radziwill and Heather Thompson left. Jeanna Keogh from OC There are no doubt a few others who I can't think of in the moment. The ones who are destroyed either need the money and/or are psychologically damaged so that they thrive on the toxicity - Tamra and VIcki from OC come to mind.

As others have pointed out all of the ladies had their feet held to the fire. The difference is that none of the others including Candiace did anything that wasn't standard operating procedure. The housewives are PAID to be annoying and shady to each other and have feuds and alliances. However physical violence is outside of what is permitted especially when it is prolonged as Monique's was - this wasn't just some kind of reflexive action like when Cynthia kicked Porsha off her on the boat. The closest was Porsha attacking Kenya and she did suffer repercussions and did a MAJOR mea culpa including anger management. She didn't spend time making matters worse or offering a thousand different justifications for why she snapped. At any rate, I am probably in a minority as I thought Andy asked the questions I wanted asked of Monique and was just pointing out what was obvious to a non-biased viewer - that there was no "plot" and that even if there had been a "plot", Candiace wasn't involved as well as pointing out that Monique didn't seem to regret what she had done in any kind of meaningful manner.

I assume Monique was fired and allowed the usual face saving ability to say she is moving on because yada yada yada. The reality was that four women would not shoot with her and Bravo would have a difficult time justifying her return based on her actions - the fight; the lack of remorse and the social media bullying. Nothing Candiace did this season justified the insane demon that race around the grounds wanting to attack her again - and then was shown to be lucid enough to give a blow by blow description in the limo. Candiace had spent several episodes deliberately not responding to provocative remarks and removing herself from tense situations with Monique. Porsha was remorseful and was made to go through anger management before she was slowly let back on the show. I think the ladies were genuinely (and rightfully) afraid to film with Monique since part of the show is to have the ladies shade each other and engage in verbal blowups. How can you do that if one of the cast member is going to possibly physically attack you AND have an army of social media followers go after you. Evidently there were threats against Candiace's family members which in this era of lunatics is not something to be taken lightly. I don't mind Gizelle - she has a shade to do it and she does it with sass. She is amusing and not psychotic or unpleasant to watch. I don't care if she has a fake storyline with Jamal - I don't care if she doesn't have a storyline as she is fun to watch including wondering what terrible outfit she will show up in

The issue isn't race specific as there were similar studies done regarding white professional women who theoretically also faced the same small pool of eligible men since many men did not want and/or need to marry someone on their same educational or professional level. Years ago there was a study which claimed that your odds were the same as being killed by a meteor - although I suspect that was a bit of hyperbole. It seems far better to be single than to attach yourself to some of the extreme losers these women marry. Serial cheaters - controlling verging on abusive like Drew's husband.

The reason Cynthia was hell bent on having the wedding despite Covid restrictions was because it was supposed to be her main storyline. Weddings typically are highlighted on the BRAVO shows. Also by having the wedding being filmed for broadcast, she was able to get significant discounts or free stuff for the wedding. I mean seriously - how much business has that venue done during the pandemic even in a state like Atlanta which wasn't as locked down as others. The venue would probably have PAID CYNTHIA to be featured and host the wedding.

All I can say is Porsha should get an aware for the housewife who grew the most and became a genuinely admirable person. Sure she has still got normal human flaws but I NEVER would have thought that the woman who didn't know anything about the Underground Railroad has morphed into a woman her grandfather could be genuinely proud as carrying on his legacy. Looking back maybe she was being smart the first few seasons and deliberately adopting an airhead persona. Now all she needs to do is get rid of 175 pounds of ugly fat - aka Dennis. Why do these women seem to get into relationships with really awful men. With the exception of Todd they are uniformly terrible. Good for Kandi that she was able to look past the superficials in terms of marrying someone who was just an ordinary hardworking good guy - not flashy and he seems to have stepped up to the plate and really become her partner both professionally and personally.

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