amarante

Just curious about whether the woman's accents reveal anything about their class, education etc. I am not familiar enough with the Australian accent but their accents do differ. In the US, for example, the accents of some of the housewives are pretty revealing as are accents of course in the UK. Is that also true in Australia in terms of these women?

This isn't what lawyers are for LOL. A lawyer is only as effective as their client enables them to be. Their criminal attorney just as their bankruptcy attorney would have told them the forms had to list everything under penalty of perjury. However, they are not responsible for ensuring the accuracy of what is on the forms. How could they be - lawyers don't go to people's home anymore than your tax attorney/tax preparer double checks to make sure you have given him/her all of your income sources. Do the lawyers know that the Juicy's didn't put down a pool table or whatever else. Lawyers deliberately do not sign off on stuff like this because of the possibility of being deceived. This isn't a gray area in which one is attempting to value a business and you call in an expert. The bankruptcy petition by the Juicys was equally stupid - and really their whole fraud scheme wasn't very sophisticated as it consisted of lying about one's income - hardly Madoff material.

I can't imagine how one could NOT know one's citizenship because at some point, the issue has to arise. I can imagine that in the past, things weren't as tight in terms of having to prove but post 9/11, how can you get a US pass port? Not that I think either of the Giudices would cast an informed ballot, but Joe obviously never made even an attempt to vote. My mother came to the US when she was a child and was definitely a US citizen but I don't remember talking about her becoming naturalized so I just googled and the minor child becomes a US citizen when the parents are naturalized which is how my mother became a US citizen because my grandparents became naturalized. This means that Mr. Juicy's parents never became citizens. I am all for immigration and cultural diversity but geez why are you living in a country in which you feel you have absolutely no stake in the democratic process in terms of becoming a citizen so you can vote. I know you are writing with a touch of hyperbole but technically most of us aren't descendants of the Romans to whom I think you are alluding LOL. The Giudice and their paisanos have that distinction. My people, although not Christian, were subject to a long history of their own martyrdom so I am not tarred with this particular brush. LOL

The fraudulent practices of the mortgage industry which almost sank the entire world economy are well documented elsewhere. There was a WHOLE lot of fraud going on which reached to the highest levels of the Wall Street investment banks which made huge amounts by bundling the crap mortgages and selling them to unsuspecting investors. No one gave a damn whether the underlying loan was valid or made to people who could pay it off - whether the property was assessed properly because everyone was playing a game of musical chairs and passing the risk along. The mortgage brokers/originating banks made a huge amount of money and then sold the loans. These were bundled by the investment banks without any kind of due diligence and many of the high level Wall Street investment banks KNEW they were selling a load of shit. A few of them took short positions against the loan bundles. Many people assumed that the real estate bubble was never going to burst and that property would appreciate in the same dizzying way it had been doing so that you could continue to refinance. Of course all bubble burst. Not to excuse the Giudices who committed fraud but their fraud was less than that of the investment banks and originating banks like Washington Mutual who gave loans to anyone who crawled into one of their offices. And a LOT of people were doing the same as the GIudices but on a smaller scale - i.e. misrepresenting their income to buy a house they couldn't really afford through what were known as liar loans which didn't require documentation of income. ETA - As far as I can tell, all of their lenders were subprime or heavily involved in the crap loans like Washington Mutual. I live in California and I remember during the height of the bubble I would be getting an enormous number of solicitations to refinance my mortgage. Since I am an old fashioned kind of person, I had no intention of refinancing or using my home as an ATM to get the equity as I was brought up to believe the best thing one could do is pay off your mortgage before you retire LOL. I really had no idea why I was being besieged by solicitations until the bubble collapsed and I realized that a huge number of people had refinanced and now owed way more than the original purchase price of their home and probably were underwater.

From what I have read, one of his employees was implicated in some kind of mortgage scam and the company had to enter into a settlement agreement with the government. So Jim cooperated with that investigation but not as an expert except in terms of the shady dealings of some of his employees. And slightly off topic, but the twins' father was serving time in prison when Rino allegedly hooked up with the mother. I know this isn't the twins' thread but yet another morally bankrupt member of the cast. He had his poor workers remove asbestos illegally without using proper equipment or removal and then dumped it. Between the assault on the environment and the complete disregard of the workers from this guy; the cancer drug scam of Marchese; the felonious conduct of the Giudices; the Laurita's draining their company of money to support their lifestyle; Big Al scamming the NJ government to collect health benefits, they truly are a bunch of degenerates.

Regarding the health insurance, I am not at ALL shocked since it goes along with their way of thinking. They stiffed their fertility doctor so they would have no qualms about stiffing the medical system for any other health care. Many people who didn't have group health care insurance in the pre Affordable Health Care Act days did not get insurance. The reason most people got health insurance is i in the event that of a medical catastrophe, they would lose everything financially to pay for it if they had assets or more likely would just assume the government would pick up the tab. But since the Giudices didn't pay for anything why would health insurance be different? Health insurance really isn't meant to cover the normal illnesses of day to day life since between co-payments and deductibles, most of that wouldn't be covered by health insurance anyway. Not that I am defending the Giudice's failure to get health insurance - just pointing out that since they never exhibited any fiscal responsibility, it comes from the same thinking. To some extent they are just extremes on a continuum of many people who bought more than they could really afford through credit and/or what were called liar's loans back during the housing bubble without considering the consequences. I don't think Italians are more prone to criminal activity than other ethnic groups. However, I do think that there are certain sub-cultures in which evading taxes and pesky government regulations is more acceptable. I am aware of it among a lot of the Russian immigrant community - not because Russians are inherently amoral but because they were used to a system in Russia in which one absolutely HAD to learn to circumvent pesky bureaucratic regulations in order to survive.

I think not leaving an estate for their spawn to inherit is the least of their bad parenting issues. While I personally find their lifestyle of conspicuous consumption to be a poor moral compass for ANY child, to have that vulgar lifestyle funded by fraud and criminal activity - isn't THAT the huge white elephant in the room in terms of any praise for the Giudices as model parents. I'm not really understanding the praise in terms of their "love" for their children. Granted there are parents who are abusive or neglectful emotionally or physically, but what special parenting did the Giudices exhibit that most other *normal* parents don't. Beyond not having health insurance, where was any money set up aside for the girls' college or graduate education. Granted any savings would have been taken by their creditors but at some point they made a conscious decision that living the *rich* life through fraud and any other means was the most important motivation in their lives.

I am not a bankruptcy attorney or even a "creditors' attorney" but I have dealt with foreclosures; judgements etc. so I think this is how it shakes out. As long as the Giudices' were in bankruptcy legally, the creditors listed on their petition can't go after them directly. It was only fairly recently that the bankruptcy was formally dismissed. Many of the on-line reports were wrong as the bankruptcy did NOT discharge the debts owed because of the fraud but merely closed out the bankruptcy proceedings and so the creditors are now able to proceed against the Giudices. The two homes are mortgaged and the mortgage lenders have first priority over any other creditors - that's how secured liens work. I would imagine the Giudices have been paying their mortgages because otherwise there would be foreclosure actions by the mortgage holders. So long as the mortgage holder is getting the payments, they are not going to foreclose. Restitution can NOT be discharged so whatever fines and restitution are owed will follow them until they die - and even after to the extent they leave an estate. You can't be forced to pay 100% of your earnings so they would be on a payment plan based on that. Taxes can NOT be discharged and they will owe any taxes forever - with interest accumulating. Judgments by non-secured creditors do have a "statute of limitations" in terms of how long you can attempt to collect them. I know in California, once you get a judgment, it's valid for 10 years and I think that it can be extended. Once you have a judgment, you can then attempt to seize any assets of the debtor by sending notice to banks, employers. People with judgments will often hire someone to find assets. Because the Giudices have actually been making a lot of money in the past few years - i.e. Bravo salary; appearances; sales of books and whatever else, they have been able to support their lavish lifestyle through those earnings. And of course, the houses have no equity and so long as the mortgage holder is being paid, they can stay in the home. I'm not sure if it's been answered but attorneys - especially criminal attorneys - will get a hefty retainer up front which is generally a fairly good estimate of what the costs will be if it goes to trial. An attorney would be a fool if they thought any of their criminal clients were going to pay AFTER services had been rendered. Hell, the Giudices stiffed their fertility doctor LOL. And IMO the attorneys did well by the Giudices in terms of getting fairly low sentences for the amount of fraud. It is not the responsibility of the attorney to fill out the assets of the defendant anymore than a bankruptcy attorney takes responsibility for making sure that the bankruptcy petition is accurate. The Giudices lied on their bankruptcy petition despite advice from their bankruptcy attorney and I am sure their criminal attorneys warned them to be honest on the pre-sentencing report as well. These people are stupid and greedy and filled with hubris. For many years, they chose to keep up their lavish lifestyle rather than make any attempt to pay back their creditors. If they had downsized their lifestyle immediately and used a large percentage of their earnings from the past few years to make payment to those they owed, I would bet Teresa would NOT be going to jail and Joe would have a shorter sentence because it would have shown genuine remorse. As a small aside, Martha Stewart did NOT serve time in Danbury although she requested placement there to be close to her family. It was denied based on proximity to the media.

When Jackson and his wife were convicted of white collar crimes, the wife had the shorter sentence and did it first and so I imagine Tre will serve her sentence and then Juicy. Makes sense because they are not going to wait 3 or so years for someone to start serving whereas Tre would probably be eligible for house arrest after a year or so. Not much to add except for the sheer chutzpah of their attempting to defraud the sentencing judge. Their level of moral blindness and greed really has no boundaries.

Actually within reason, it's easier to clean a large kitchen or bathroom - or no harder than a smaller room. Cleaning a smaller kitchen, in my experience, is more work because you have to move things out of the way to clean. What really makes it time consuming to clean is a lot of clutter. It's much easier to mop a clear expanse of floor or wipe down a counter that doesn't have a lot of crap on it that has no where else to be moved. Of course cleaning multiple bathrooms is more difficult than cleaning a few bathrooms - assuming they are all being used. But I assume that most people living in a large home have a cleaning service and so the multiple bathrooms wouldn't be an issue.

I will miss Andrea if we are lucky enough to have the second season aired because she is so utterly delusional and self righteously pretentious. Not that it needs to be pointed out, by the universe is not waiting for words of wisdom from a wealthy woman who has multiple nannies. I don't even accept that she is running a business in any real sense since I would suspect that it is an adjunct to her husband's plastic surgery practice as many of the large plastic surgery practices in Los Angeles have an adjunct "cosmetic" side and even peddle creams and cleansers. I would think most working mothers (hell most working people) would have no problem with organization if they had staff taking care of house and children and a job that provided the kind of flexible hours that she has. Jackie is the Australian version of hillbilly trash marrying a wealthy person. Her taste, such as it is, is governed by what is *trendy* at the moment and what it costs. However, she is well matched with Ben since he also seems to lack any kind of sophistication. I loathe psychics and other spiritualists on general principle but she seems harmless. Despite admiring Gina's coolness under the pressure, I don't quite understand why psychics are demons but traditional religion isn't. So far as I am concerned, belief in any form of religion is not less rational than a belief in psychics or any other kind of supernatural phenomena - they are all just fantasies. ETA - Andrea's book hasn't been published - Quel Surprise LOL. She blamed it on the editing which disparaged the book.

I give the writers a pass on this one as I think the dynamics of the situation were fluid since Ray had no idea what Bridget was going to say and what might tip the balance one way or another in terms of what would push her. There really wasn't anything Ray could have done in the situation since his presence would not have stopped her from saying she was there - if that was what she wanted to do. The issue of parental rights is really in terms of manipulating a suspect rather than a witness. I'm not sure what the "honesty" of the police force has to do with it since they weren't attempting to manipulate her to incriminate herself or a loved one. Of course it is a common trope in terms of *ghetto* murders that the police want witnesses to speak against their own self interest because of probably gang retaliation. However, I don't think the police really would be thinking that an upper middle class white girl would be in physical danger if she testified. I think all can agree that both the parents are horrendous parents - it's a miracle that Bridget is as *normal* as she is but the dynamics are pretty similar to Meadow and AJ in the Sopranos with the older daughter being, on the surface, a high achiever and the younger son being somewhat of a fuck up. But, in the end, Meadow wasn't able to escape the trajectory of her genes or upbringing since she essentially renounced the *good* part and threw her lot in with a gangster rather than escaping as I assume her parents probably wanted for her.

I don't really have personal experience with gangsters but theoretically (at least in books and movies), there seems to be a divide between the "old school" criminals who have their own code of ethics - i.e. you don't kill family and police and those without those kinds of boundaries. In general, Ray is more of the old school. He is not above blackmailing - i.e. revealing Ann Margaret's child but he wouldn't kill the child whereas Cookie actually killed just to make a point. Cookie would kill Bridget - Ray would find a way to blackmail "Bridget's" parents but wouldn't kill the child.

I have no idea why anyone would get a large dog in an apartment. I live in a high rise and I love dogs but most of the dogs in the building get walked perfunctorily - at best once around the block. I don't think having a park nearby alters the equation significantly because most people's schedules don't lend themselves to extended runs/walks exercise on a daily basis. Early morning most people are squeezing it in while trying to get out the door; home from work and again rushed and the late night walk for most people is when they want to get back and get ready for bed. As for the dog's height phobia, that's really the least of it. I used to dog sit my parents' dog and the first couple of times he got on the elevator it freaked him out because he experienced the floor - to him - literally dropping beneath his paws. After a few times, he was no longer fearful and associated it with good times.

I think police are permitted to question a minor without a parent being present. There is no requirement that anyone answer any questions by police so Bridget could have refused to answer questions - or made having a parent be present a condition of agreeing to be questioned. The issue of parental presence is more relevant when the minor is being questioned as a suspect rather than a witness since there may be issues of whether the minor was competent to actually waive Miranda rights.

I realize that the back stories of HHI bear almost no relation to reality but I don't understand - even as a plot device - why someone would move to a new country (or even a new state) with limited capital to start a business and also buy a house. There have been a few of those. Granted I lack the spirit of *adventure* but I have faced periods of uncertain income stream and the last thing I wanted to do was spend any of my capital for anything. Renting seems to make much more sense since it enables one to keep one's liquid assets readily available.

I think celebrities and other factors in our culture have obliterated any kind of social stigma regarding out of wedlock pregnancies. Combine that with the current mania regarding the importance of the wedding *party* in terms of the dress and the photos and many brides would see no reason not to schedule the wedding after the child (or children like Jessica Simpson :-) are born. I don't have issues with it from a morality point of view since I am assuming most adults have sex without being married. I am fascinated by the number of people who engage in sex without any form of contraception - let alone a condom with someone like Ratface. I think, for the most part, having a child so soon after meeting is going to put strains on the relationship and/or force it where it might not have lasted - but then with the kid and the *marriage*, you've created a situation in which the odds are that the parties will divorce - to the detriment of the poor children involved in the divorce. I can't imagine taking a chance on becoming pregnant with someone I've known for a relatively short period of time - and there are forms of contraception that are 99.9% effective.

You can't be forced to perform services but you can be enjoined from performing the SAME services for a different entity. This is to prevent a cast member (of any type of show) from being able to quit a show because they can get a better gig on another show. It's a pretty effective tool to prevent cast members from quitting if they want to stay on television. However, someone like Lydia was able to "quit" because she had no desire to be on any kind of television program - she just wanted to get out of the spotlight. If Shannon wants to not come back for a second season, she can legally do so. She wouldn't be able to be on a different television program until the term of her original option contract with Bravo had expired. Shannon may well decide not to come back like Lydia did because I do get the sense that she has real money and isn't a fame whore so I could see her walking away from it because why the hell does she need it since she is leaving on a high note just as Lydia did in her season.

That's a real blast from my past as I spent my summers in Colts Neck with my cousins whose parents owned the "General Store" - unrecognizable to me now as we literally walked down New Street and swam in the brook and the next door neighbor (a few houses down from the Inn) didn't have indoor plumbing but still used an outhouse. I don't have issues with that kid being schooled for the restaurant - or as it appears some kind of community college. He hardly seemed like Mensa material - nor does his family strike me as intellectually curious. Far better that his parents are preparing him to work in the business rather than sending him off to party for four years at some mediocre college. Hopefully, he doesn't go the way of the Manzo spawn and start feeding perpetually on the teat of reality television. I don't know where the show is going as there doesn't seem to be any bit of ironic editing with Teresa and her new role as someone who has decided that material goods aren't as important as the love of family - cough cough. Is the show now expecting us to take this at face value? Not particularly interested in the Rino Restaurant Empire and have no idea why someone would open up restaurants located in Little Italy, Bay Ridge Brooklyn and New Jersey - that's a LOT of geographical territory to deal with and seems incredibly inefficient. But at least there is something they are pushing as I am not their fans but the restaurants are well represented in the story. Not so much the cannolis - as several people have commented, who the hell brings a dessert as a hostess gift to a restaurant?

If you google Mortgage Now, ironically is was found deficient in a recent HUD investigation in terms of their loan practices - rolled eyes. And I don't understand why someone who chose to be on a reality show knowing who the cast members were, can with a straight face, claim they can't go bowling with a cast member because of facts known to the public at large. And I just can't with this ridiculous feuds over idle gossip. Everyone gossips and yet these shrews acts as if it is a cardinal sin. Now I agree that there is really evil gossip in which the intent is to deliberately and maliciously cause problems for the person being gossiped about. But stating that you had heard that a divorced person had an affair is the kind of thing that most people engage in when discussing why someone might have gotten a divorce.

Not to belabor the point, but why would it look strange if he grew hair that covered it. I realize hair might not be growing FROM the scar area but there are certainly haircuts in which the hairs are layered and some of the top layers would completely covered the scarred area. His hair was essentially shaved so there was no length at all to go over the scar. It would seem that the first thing a person would do would be to grow their hair out a bit to cover the scar rather than subject themselves to surgery.

I must be missing something but why didn't the hair guy just wear his hair slightly longer in the back so the scar would be covered. Seems easier to change your hair style slightly than to submit to painful unnecessary surgery.

The ladies can't break the fourth wall but the reason why they were pissed at Aviva for missing TWO trips is because that's what they are paid to do. None of the housewives particularly wants to go on these trips because unlike filming at their home base, they are being filmed 24/7 and it's arduous. These ladies are co-workers for the most part and not friends and I think most people would be pissed at hell if a co-worker were allowed to shirk the unpleasant work functions and for no good reason. And I think, whatever one thinks of Aviva and the rest, almost everyone agrees that there was no medical reason why Aviva couldn't go to Montana. During filming, the ladies did not know that Aviva would be edited out of episodes completely as that decision came during post-production. And let's cut the crap about the ladies actually "hosting", paying for and/or making any kinds of arrangements for the trips as they are completely a decision by BRAVO who decides which lady will be the hostess of the trip - in this case, for whatever reason, Kristen was chosen - probably process of elimination since Heather had already hosted the ladies at her place in the Adirondacks. Sometimes there is a logical reason for a trip - e.g. the trip to London last year was theoretically tied into Heather's business trip but in general, where they go is a product of how much production wants to spend - what kind of product placement deals they can get - and to a lesser extent whether a trip will make good television. Montana being a "fish out of water" scenario IMO as well as a relatively cheap vacation as I am quite sure the stay at the resort was free. I have no idea why BRAVO decided the "fans" of RHNY wanted to see them "glamping" for three or more episodes rather than just provide us with the porn we love - houses, fabulous social events, clothing etc. Bookgate was boring and dragged out WAY too long but at least it was about something genuine as I completely understand Carole's anger at Aviva's downplaying what Carole does and which is an important part of her identity. One can critique Carole's output but Carole is actually someone who supported herself through producing and writing and I don't begrudge her taking that very seriously. And without resurrecting the SAHM debate, Carole was absolutely correct (IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ARGUMENT) that Aviva had absolutely no knowledge of what it was like to actually try to make a living from writing. I'm not sure if it has been settled but Carole did not inherit serious money (or any money from her husband's family). Lee Radziwill wasn't left particularly wealthy after her divorce from Radziwill and, as I recall, Jackie helped Lee out financially. While Carole is obviously affluent by most people's standards, she isn't particularly wealthy and certainly needs income sources. She bought her apartment years ago and so her housing expenses are minimal. I wouldn't be surprised if the house in Los Angeles was rented out and also acquired earlier for a relatively small amount. She got a good advance for the Widows book and now has two years of Bravo salary which is why, IMO, she decided to redecorate. However, by NY standards, she isn't rich and doesn't really have a lot of expenditures - no children, no car, relatively cheap housing; relatively low entertainment expenses since most would be comped and/or paid for by others. In this, she is like Luann who isn't super-wealthy but also doesn't have to support an extravagant lifestyle.

Federal sentencing uses a quasi-formula which takes into account the type of crime and criminal behavior which spits out a range. Technically, aggravating factors can be presented in a trial but only insofar as they are part of the crime itself. For example, there are degrees to almost every crime - i.e. is it simple assault? assault with a deadly weapon? attempted murder? It is my understanding that the sentence is not determined when a defendant enters a guilty plea because as both sides are going to attempt to come up with their sentence recommendation (and the reasons for that) to present to the judge. Statistically, almost every Federal case ends with a guilty plea - and given the kind of evidence there was for the Giudices, I can't imagine their attorneys could actually advise they go to trial since there is a volume of paper documenting their fraud - there is nothing complicated about the kind of fraud they engaged in so it would be hard to imagine any jury finding reasonable doubt. I do believe that Tre will serve some time in prison - and she will probably get a fairly light sentence and will be permitted to serve it prior to Joe's incarceration for a significantly longer period of time. I have no idea what Tre did or didn't know about the mortgage frauds and/or whether the Juicy's filed taxes because it is entirely conceivable to me that Joe put papers in front of her and told her to sign without Tre actually having full knowledge of what is going on. However, she is absolutely guilty of the bankruptcy fraud since she was represented by counsel at that time who would have advised her repeatedly that she needed to be completely honest about what was stated in the petition and there is no way she didn't know about her separate bank accounts or the other egregious omissions and lies on the bankruptcy filing.

The Brownstone is a very successful catering location and there is a lot of profit in that kind of business if run well and I do believe Al and Tommy worked like dogs to make it successful. As I recall, they didn't move into the big house until a relatively short period of time before the show and they lived in a very modest home for most of their marriage. At this point, they are making a lot of money from other stuff besides the Brownstone. I don't think there is a disconnect so far between Rino's income from the restaurant and their lifestyle - even without any Bravo salary. They own two fairly successful restaurants in NY. And obviously, being on the show is excellent promotion for the two owned as well as the one they are planning on opening. I have no idea how the Gorga's support themselves aside from the salary from the show and the money they make from appearances which are pretty lucrative. If Apollo Nide can get $5000 or $10,000 for showing up to some obscure club, I would imagine that Melissa and Joe Gorga get at least that for their appearances. I think the Gorga's - like the Giduices - are fiscal idiots who spend all of their money on flash consumer consumable items to impress people and really are essentially one paycheck away from insolvency. Most people who make a high income would be looking towards the future - i.e. retirement, children's educational expenses; investments. Just because one has the money to spend $3000 on a car lease doesn't mean it's a prudent financial decision. It's the difference between someone being wealthy - i.e. having a lot of assets and not being dependent on income coming in to support a lifestyle and people who have a relatively high income and no assets. The Gorga's have NO ASSETS but a temporary large income stream which they are spending.