S11.E13: Season’s Grillings

[janiema]

I am wondering whether the loans to the LLC were Tom’s way of tying Erika to him. In the event of a divorce, could he have required all loans to be either paid back or offset against any marital settlement? That would surely discourage most thoughts of divorce. She only filed for divorce when it seemed that some serious criminal charges and bankruptcy was in the offing so that she might get something from the bankruptcy.

The fact that EJ Global was an LLC indicates that the losses (it is doubtful that there was any net income) could be written off against the couple’s other income thereby reducing their taxes. If the IRS had been on the ball, this should have bern investigated as a hobby loss after so many years of losses.

[amarante]

1 minute ago, janiema said:

I am wondering whether the loans to the LLC were Tom’s way of tying Erika to him. In the event of a divorce, could he have required all loans to be either paid back or offset against any marital settlement? That would surely discourage most thoughts of divorce. She only filed for divorce when it seemed that some serious criminal charges and bankruptcy was in the offing so that she might get something from the bankruptcy.

The fact that EJ Global was an LLC indicates that the losses (it is doubtful that there was any net income) could be written off against the couple’s other income thereby reducing their taxes. If the IRS had been on the ball, this should have bern investigated as a hobby loss after so many years of losses.

The issue of "hobby" is also one I was thinking of.

In her "memoir", she wrote that they were about to shut down her Erika Jayne entertainment stuff in 2011 before she was cast as a housewife because it was costing so much with no return.

The Page Six data indicates that these payments for the entertainment stuff started in 2008 which would have meant approximately 3 years (at least). I believe that the test for a non-hobby is three years of consecutive losses which would mean that they were closing it down when they would have not been able to take further losses. Any tax experts can chime in because I am basing this on having a boss who owned an almond farm for the tax write off 😀 but I know that at a certain point you lose the ability to take the deduction.

Interesting speculation as the motivation for the loan rather than gift but I tend to think it was structured as a loan so it wouldn't raise immediate red flags. I think that Tom never thought the house of cards would collapse so I don't think he thought that strategically. He was just scrambling to get enough money to pay off whoever needed to be paid in order to keep the whole thing floating. 

I think to the extent he thought at all he assumed he would be dead before it collapsed. The 2008 financial crisis brought Madoff down and I think Tom - however spry he remained - was still 81 years old and I imagine he wasn't getting the same kind of cases he was getting previously so there wasn't new money from settlements coming in to that could be used to pay off his creditors and the clients.

As I recall he was borrowing huge amounts of money from firms that specialize in funding litigation. And they were among the creditors who forced his collapse. Again - as I recall - he was pledging the same collateral to multiple lenders which is a criminal offense. I believe that it is a Federal offense and I think the judge in Chicago referred a lot of stuff to the US Attorney's division in Chicago. 

[ichbin]

This is my first season viewing BH so I had no previous opinion of Sutton.  When I first started watching I thought she was a flake but fairly harmless.  Wow, has my opinion of her changed.  She is no flake and she is made of a lot stronger stuff than those first episodes of this season indicated.  While the others might have the kind of smarts associated with self-preservation, Sutton, Garcelle, and Crystal seem to be the ones with true intelligence.  

On 8/19/2021 at 10:27 AM, 90sfan said:

I do also understand that Erika can't really answer any of their questions.

Regardless if she is innocent or guilty, she is caught between a rock and a hard place.  She probably needs the Bravo $$ but they are obviously demanding she address the matter.  She is also probably getting advice about making making herself look innocent which is becoming difficult to do considering a lot of damaging information which was made public during filming.  If she didn't film she loses money plus appears to be hiding something,  Filming risks exposure of things which can be damning.

On 8/19/2021 at 12:26 AM, For Cereals said:

I thought it was Charo until her name came up.

OMG, yes!

On 8/19/2021 at 9:19 AM, eleanorofaquitaine said:

Unpopular opinion: I don't think Kyle is trying to get a cooking show or what have you with all of the cooking she's doing. I think that everyone last year, she was stuck in the house and forced to do a lot of the cooking for her family.

Covid!  Wasn't indoor dining not allowed in California restaurants during that time of filming (judging by the Christmas decorations, late November, December 2020)?  Like you say, the situation forced it.  Getting it professionally catered would probably have exceeded the number of individuals allowed to gather also once the cast and production people were added up.

 

 

[amarante]

4 minutes ago, ichbin said:

 

Covid!  Wasn't indoor dining not allowed in California restaurants during that time of filming (judging by the Christmas decorations, late November, December 2020)?  Like you say, the situation forced it.  Getting it professionally catered would probably have exceeded the number of individuals allowed to gather also once the cast and production people were added up.

 

 

No indoor dining in Los Angeles at that point but there would be no problem getting that kind of meal delivered as there was lots of takeout available. It didn't look like the kind of meal that needed a really professional catering firm - it looked like the kinds of dishes that are routinely delivered during the holidays - mashed potatoes, turkey, ham, sweet potatoes etc. 

Even the most lowly supermarket has that kind of spread available for takeout or delivery but you can also splurge at have it delivered by a high end restaurant. At least in Los Angeles a lot of the very expensive restaurants will have a special catering menu for takeout for Christmas and Thanksgiving. 

 

[ichbin]

9 minutes ago, amarante said:

No indoor dining in Los Angeles at that point but there would be no problem getting that kind of meal delivered as there was lots of takeout available. It didn't look like the kind of meal that needed a really professional catering firm - it looked like the kinds of dishes that are routinely delivered during the holidays - mashed potatoes, turkey, ham, sweet potatoes etc. 

Even the most lowly supermarket has that kind of spread available for takeout or delivery but you can also splurge at have it delivered by a high end restaurant. At least in Los Angeles a lot of the very expensive restaurants will have a special catering menu for takeout for Christmas and Thanksgiving. 

I don't disagree at all.  If anything, as others have pointed out those foil trays do make it appear that some kind of take-out situation did occur but Kyle cooking (which we never really saw) makes a better story for the camera.  If I were to learn that came from Ralph's I would not be at all surprised.

[njbchlover]

23 hours ago, MissFeatherbottom said:

Yeah I agree those foil pans looked like packaging from either a catering company or restaurant. I don't know why she felt the need to say she cooked everything, we all know she cooks and it was a lot of food to make, I don't think any of the other ladies (or us) would judge her if she admitted to buying the food to serve. Heck, if I could afford it, I would too!

I don't know, but I think that Kyle may have done a lot of the cooking/prep work earlier in the day, or at least she "supervised" the cooking.   I think she used the disposable aluminum pans for ease of clean up, and serving from the sterno racks/chafing dishes.  She used the same disposable pans when making the lasagna in La Quinta.

I use disposable pans when pre-prepping food for a larger party, but never when serving for only 8-10 guests.  There was a TON of food there for 7 women who hardly ever let food cross their mouths. 

Maybe Kyle was also planning on feeding the production crew, sort of a Christmas celebration for them, too, and had to come up with a solution on how to keep the food hot for several hours while filming, etc.

I would think that someone who entertains as often as she does, Kyle would have some fancy chafing dishes, or at least rent them.  I guess this is one of the things that I kind of like about Kyle.  Even though she embraces alot of the trappings of a very upscale lifestyle, she still also keeps things around her kitchen, at least, sort of normal.

 

[gingerella]

1 hour ago, amarante said:

I believe that the test for a non-hobby is three years of consecutive losses which would mean that they were closing it down when they would have not been able to take further losses. Any tax experts can chime in because I am basing this on having a boss who owned an almond farm for the tax write off 😀 but I know that at a certain point you lose the ability to take the deduction.

I am not a tax expert but in the State of CA, it's 5 years to show a profit, any profit  to differentiate a hobby from a business.

[HeddaGabler]

Erika looked like the final scene in "Death Becomes Her". You would think that she would have learned a few tricks from her make up crew over the years.

I have to admit, even though Sutton was a jackass at the beginning of this season, I have always liked her. Not sure why, but this last episode really nails it for me. She is definitely eccentric, but she she is smart enough to read the room. And the actual newspaper. These other dummies didn't even try. I think the LA Times aims for a reading level of a 9-10 year old. 

I am NOT a fan of using disposable trays for serving food in my own house. I am shocked that Kyle would keep doing this. At the very least, it's an opportunity to have an amazing presentation, and use beautiful serving dishes! In Kyle's case, it just seems.... lazy? It reminds me of whatsherface in Queen of Versailles, and all their styrofoam cups throughout the house. 

[chlban]

3 hours ago, HotHW said:

Wasn't RM living off of the funds of her husband's crime? She wasn't given a loan with dirty money that she legitimately used to run a legitimate business. She pocketed the money and went shopping with it. She also worked at her husband's firm and many lawyers have stated they do not believe she did not know but just decided against prosecuting her. I could see where she would have no choice but to sell off everything she has to make restitution. Now if she was a private company given dirty money by an investor who knows how it would have turned out. 

And then again the question remains, if dad gave me $20K. And had $100K in the bank BEFORE the robbery, how do we know if he gave me the legit savings or the robbery proceeds? Because if they were part of his legit savings account, why should I have to pay back for his crime? Now if he had $100 in his account Monday, had $20,100 on Tues, and gave me $20K on Wed, I think a forensic accountant could easily figure out I profited from his crime. But otherwise...????

Nothing shown thus far leads me to believe EJ knew TG was giving her stolen money. Whether she signed loan docs or not. Now if it was a solid loan he gave her, with loan docs, she should absolutely pay it all back, regardless of the crime. No question. 

And remember,  Sutton found out AFTER her divorce she owned 2 baseball teams. To think these wealthy men share anything like this with their wives is foolish. 

It doesn't matter whether she knew where the money came from or not. The courts know where it came from.

 

3 hours ago, WhatAmIWatching said:

I'm very 'I don't know how any of this works' , so.. I'm curious why Tom set the money up as loans? Why that and not just straight transfers or checks or deposits? A loan has to be paid back, no? Was he supposed to do something to forgive the loans, write it off or what have you, and he forgot or ran out of time?

 

  

 

Because gifts over a certain amount, used to be $15,000, are taxable. Loans are not. 

[Yours Truly]

Okay, it's driving me nuts and I wish I could like call into WWHL one night and share this point of view but GUYS...!!

Tom's been doing shady dealings for a long time however I do believe the "3 year package" as Sutton has named it (awesome by the way) is valid. I think that after his injury/mental decline he was no longer able to manage and hide his dealings well. This caused, what was an already bursting at the seams scandal, to truly start spilling out into the mess it is now. I believe the 3 year mark is when he started to slip up and trip up due to his declining health and everything has completely come out as a result. 

As for Erica, I don't find it hard to believe that for the most part she didn't know details but not because she was some innocent babe in the woods but because she didn't care where the money was coming from. I'm guessing that she was more than happy to believe that her stuff was being funded from Tom's deep deep pockets and couldn't be bothered to question the wealth he bestowed upon her.  I think her crime is greed and blissful ignorance and squashing away any question or concern that would have or may have ever crept into her mind about where the money was coming from. 

You know, that every so often the question mark popped up over her head but then little devil Erica appeared on her shoulder telling her "No, don't do it girl. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. You don't need to know shit! If it funds your hearts desire just leave well enough alone." That's where I really believe her knowledge in his dealings reside. I'll also leave room for her maybe catching whiff of something fishy here and there but never really digging in and getting answers cause she knew it would mean giving up her lifestyle. Which is still unacceptable. 

[NoWhammies]

16 hours ago, WhatAmIWatching said:

Owning my laugh! And I just have a small question..was the 12 hours he was unconscious the time sitting in someone's -or maybe his own- lawn chair? Or was that while at the bottom of the cliff? 😆 

I mean really. Neighbors may have known about this accident, but no once called for help? What about his totaled car? Did they just keep that as a lawn ornament? Lol

Looks like not reporting an accident can mean legal trouble. Hmm let's just rack up those crimes and make it a whole spree!

So here's what I think happened.

You saw Up, right? Thank God Tom had a lawn chair, balloons, and a tank of helium in the trunk of the car when he flew off the cliff. Because the wildlife saw the poor, addled man thrown from his car lying on the rocky ground bleeding, and they quickly flew into action.

Tom's trunk had popped open in the accident, so, clever little MacGyvers that we all know forrest critters can be, they went into the trunk to get the stuff there. They set up the lawn chair, put Tom in it, and blew up the balloons with helium (well, not the porcupines...they had to watch that part). They fashioned a seatbelt around Tom, tied the balloons to the chair, retrieved his cell phone and placed it in his hand, and sent him gently up, up, up where he floated to the back yard.

As he did, the porcupines leaped into action. They raced up to the hill, positioned themselves in the backyard, took aim, and shot their quills high in the air. They popped the balloons...just a few at a time so the descent was gentle. They continued until Tom landed softly, woke up, noticed his phone, and called Erika.

Mystery solved.

[StatisticalOutlier]

5 hours ago, chlban said:

Yes, if your dad robbed a bank and gave you the money you would absolutely be responsible to pay it back. Your dad cannot give you someone else's money.

 

4 hours ago, amarante said:

It doesn't matter whether you or Erika knew about how the money was obtained. They are not holding you criminally liable - they are just taking back the money that was illegally or fraudulently obtained by your father because he had no legal right to the money.

I'm not doubting you, but I'm interested in the justification for making an innocent recipient give back the money.  And I'm really interested in the example @HotHW gave, where Dad had $100,000 before he robbed a bank, and gives @HotHW $20,000; how is it determined that the $20,000 is from the bank robbery?

I'm trying to research this, but apparently can't think of the right terms.  (I'm NOT interested in gift card scams, Google!)  What legal doctrine covers all this?  Maybe I could search using that.

[amarante]

23 minutes ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

 

I'm not doubting you, but I'm interested in the justification for making an innocent recipient give back the money.  And I'm really interested in the example @HotHW gave, where Dad had $100,000 before he robbed a bank, and gives @HotHW $20,000; how is it determined that the $20,000 is from the bank robbery?

I'm trying to research this, but apparently can't think of the right terms.  (I'm NOT interested in gift card scams, Google!)  What legal doctrine covers all this?  Maybe I could search using that.

The law deals with specific fact situations as applied to statutory law and/or precedent.

In the specific instance of Erika, there is a huge amount of money that is owed to multiple creditors including his clients whose settlements were embezzled.

The Bankruptcy Trustee is going to claw back all of the money that should never have been paid out. 

Erika's LLC can repay the loan of course. However she doesn't want to be personally on the hook for $28 million and the LLC obviously doesn't have the means to repay the loan. Therefore the Trustee will pierce the corporate veil using one of the legal standards which are used - and they will most probably be successful. So the LLC will be deemed to be a legal fiction and the loan will be viewed legally as a personal loan to Erika and not protected by the corporate sham enterprise. 

 

 

[janiema]

44 minutes ago, NoWhammies said:

So here's what I think happened.

You saw Up, right? Thank God Tom had a lawn chair, balloons, and a tank of helium in the trunk of the car when he flew off the cliff. Because the wildlife saw the poor, addled man thrown from his car lying on the rocky ground bleeding, and they quickly flew into action.

Tom's trunk had popped open in the accident, so, clever little MacGyvers that we all know forrest critters can be, they went into the trunk to get the stuff there. They set up the lawn chair, put Tom in it, and blew up the balloons with helium (well, not the porcupines...they had to watch that part). They fashioned a seatbelt around Tom, tied the balloons to the chair, retrieved his cell phone and placed it in his hand, and sent him gently up, up, up where he floated to the back yard.

As he did, the porcupines leaped into action. They raced up to the hill, positioned themselves in the backyard, took aim, and shot their quills high in the air. They popped the balloons...just a few at a time so the descent was gentle. They continued until Tom landed softly, woke up, noticed his phone, and called Erika.

Mystery solved.

This is at least as believable as Erika’s story!

[Cosmocrush]

3 hours ago, HeddaGabler said:

I am NOT a fan of using disposable trays for serving food in my own house. I am shocked that Kyle would keep doing this. At the very least, it's an opportunity to have an amazing presentation, and use beautiful serving dishes! In Kyle's case, it just seems.... lazy? It reminds me of whatsherface in Queen of Versailles, and all their styrofoam cups throughout the house. 

I would normally agree but then @njbchlover posted that maybe it was for ease of cleanup and I can see that.  We saw her regular household help working the kitchen and maybe she didn't want them (and her) to spend hours after the party washing platters and bowls  that don't fit in a dishwasher.  She was leaving for Aspen the next day. 

As someone who has spent the very late hours of Christmas Eve washing dishes I'm thinking maybe the disposable stuff wasn't such a bad idea.   Wonder what the dirty dish averse Dorit uses?  

[WhatAmIWatching]

1 hour ago, NoWhammies said:

So here's what I think happened.

You saw Up, right? Thank God Tom had a lawn chair, balloons, and a tank of helium in the trunk of the car when he flew off the cliff. Because the wildlife saw the poor, addled man thrown from his car lying on the rocky ground bleeding, and they quickly flew into action.

Tom's trunk had popped open in the accident, so, clever little MacGyvers that we all know forrest critters can be, they went into the trunk to get the stuff there. They set up the lawn chair, put Tom in it, and blew up the balloons with helium (well, not the porcupines...they had to watch that part). They fashioned a seatbelt around Tom, tied the balloons to the chair, retrieved his cell phone and placed it in his hand, and sent him gently up, up, up where he floated to the back yard.

As he did, the porcupines leaped into action. They raced up to the hill, positioned themselves in the backyard, took aim, and shot their quills high in the air. They popped the balloons...just a few at a time so the descent was gentle. They continued until Tom landed softly, woke up, noticed his phone, and called Erika.

Mystery solved.

This is BEAUTIFUL! I can picture this in my mind's eye and am laughing so hard.

[tranquilidade]

1 hour ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

 

I'm not doubting you, but I'm interested in the justification for making an innocent recipient give back the money.  And I'm really interested in the example @HotHW gave, where Dad had $100,000 before he robbed a bank, and gives @HotHW $20,000; how is it determined that the $20,000 is from the bank robbery?

I'm trying to research this, but apparently can't think of the right terms.  (I'm NOT interested in gift card scams, Google!)  What legal doctrine covers all this?  Maybe I could search using that.

 If you receive stolen property as a gift or a loan you have to give it back, and this is so even if you pay for it.  

Let's say a person steals a diamond ring and gives it to his girlfriend.  The ring does not belong to the person giving it, so it cannot be legally gifted.  Even if the receiver doesn't know the status of the ring, it is not a legal gift.  The person who received the gift loses out and cannot keep it.  Just think, if that was your ring, you would want it back and be entitled to getting it back.

[kassa]

8 hours ago, chlban said:

Everyone needs to stop pretending this divorce, even aside from the criminal dealings, is anything like other divorces we have witnessed on these shows. David and Shannon, Mario and Ramona even Kelsey and Camille...however badly their marriages had become, at some point they were real marriages where they loved each other, raised children,  built a life.  

 

But are there parallels to Gregg/Nene from RHoA? Their divorce happened precipitously around a lawsuit involving somebody seeking assets from him, did it not? And then after a year of her going on fake Bravo dates they got back together happier than ever? (until they weren't). I'm not saying Gregg/Nene never loved each other, just that even people who do love each other can divorce for scammy reasons.

1 hour ago, Cosmocrush said:

As someone who has spent the very late hours of Christmas Eve washing dishes I'm thinking maybe the disposable stuff wasn't such a bad idea.   Wonder what the dirty dish averse Dorit uses?  

I tell you -- at one point we had a lot going on in our family and a big holiday coming up and as a joke we decided to use disposable plates (the heavy duty plastic Costco ones because we're classy like that) for ease of cleanup and when I tell you the JOY of clearing the table by tossing dirty dishes in the trash and only putting serving dishes and silverware and pans in the dishwasher ... to not spend 45 minutes cleaning up after dinner is a wonderful thing.  (Yes, I know it's bad for the environment and we're still on the original package we bought. We do it on Easter, Christmas and Thanksgiving, only.)

My analogy on the Erika "giving it back" question is like when you try to pay for something with a counterfeit bill. You may have no clue and just gotten it from the ATM, or as change in a store. But it's fake, and they take it away from you, and you're out of luck (and still on the hook to pay for the thing you were buying with real money).

[Redfrog]

1 hour ago, tranquilidade said:

 If you receive stolen property as a gift or a loan you have to give it back, and this is so even if you pay for it.  

Let's say a person steals a diamond ring and gives it to his girlfriend.  The ring does not belong to the person giving it, so it cannot be legally gifted.  Even if the receiver doesn't know the status of the ring, it is not a legal gift.  The person who received the gift loses out and cannot keep it.  Just think, if that was your ring, you would want it back and be entitled to getting it back.

 

 

1 minute ago, kassa said:

But are there parallels to Gregg/Nene from RHoA? Their divorce happened precipitously around a lawsuit involving somebody seeking assets from him, did it not? And then after a year of her going on fake Bravo dates they got back together happier than ever? (until they weren't). I'm not saying Gregg/Nene never loved each other, just that even people who do love each other can divorce for scammy reasons.

I tell you -- at one point we had a lot going on in our family and a big holiday coming up and as a joke we decided to use disposable plates (the heavy duty plastic Costco ones because we're classy like that) for ease of cleanup and when I tell you the JOY of clearing the table by tossing dirty dishes in the trash and only putting serving dishes and silverware and pans in the dishwasher ... to not spend 45 minutes cleaning up after dinner is a wonderful thing.  (Yes, I know it's bad for the environment and we're still on the original package we bought. We do it on Easter, Christmas and Thanksgiving, only.)

My analogy on the Erika "giving it back" question is like when you try to pay for something with a counterfeit bill. You may have no clue and just gotten it from the ATM, or as change in a store. But it's fake, and they take it away from you, and you're out of luck (and still on the hook to pay for the thing you were buying with real money).

If you extend this and think of a house: I own my house. Your dad fraudulently obtains title and then gives or sells it to you. I can demand my house back, because it’s mine. You may be innocent but that doesn’t mean you keep my house because you were innocent in the fraud and thought you got it honestly. You can’t give away something you don’t legally possess. I think it’s hard because money seems intangible, but Tom didn’t “own” any of the money to give or lend. It legally belonged to the clients for whom he gained a settlement. He was a custodian only. He can pay himself his fees and relinquish the money to his client—there are super stringent laws about lawyers funds, commingling, etc. so 

So whether Erika got it honestly or not she still has to pay it back—Tom never had ownership and couldn’t give or lend it to anyone legally. 

[chlban]

1 hour ago, kassa said:

But are there parallels to Gregg/Nene from RHoA? Their divorce happened precipitously around a lawsuit involving somebody seeking assets from him, did it not? And then after a year of her going on fake Bravo dates they got back together happier than ever? (until they weren't). I'm not saying Gregg/Nene never loved each other, just that even people who do love each other can divorce for scammy reasons.

 

I never even got through a full Season of Atlanta, so I can't compare. My point was less about the reasons for the divorce though. I do not believe Tom and Erika were ever a love match. That doesn't mean they had no affection for each other, but I doubt the marriage would have taken place if Tom was a truck driver. Tom bought himself a young trophy wife. He is hardly the only guy to do so.

[JD5166]

3 hours ago, Cosmocrush said:

I would normally agree but then @njbchlover posted that maybe it was for ease of cleanup and I can see that.  We saw her regular household help working the kitchen and maybe she didn't want them (and her) to spend hours after the party washing platters and bowls  that don't fit in a dishwasher.  She was leaving for Aspen the next day. 

As someone who has spent the very late hours of Christmas Eve washing dishes I'm thinking maybe the disposable stuff wasn't such a bad idea.   Wonder what the dirty dish averse Dorit uses?  

I always used disposable when I had a lot of people, but I’m not rich! She might have cooked it but why bother with this group? SHe could’ve just burnt some perfectly good salmon. 

[endure]

Anyone else thinking Rinna is sticking with Erika just because for her there’s no bad publicity or because she’s just a bestie to the end?  I kind of think she just likes the publicity🤔 
 

[RealHousewife]

15 minutes ago, endure said:

Anyone else thinking Rinna is sticking with Erika just because for her there’s no bad publicity or because she’s just a bestie to the end?  I kind of think she just likes the publicity🤔 
 

It's hard to tell. Rinna does seem to genuinely kind of like Erika to a degree. If you really look at them, they have some similarities. They're two of the most aggressive. If Rinna truly gave everyone benefit of the doubt and was all about loyalty, cool. We all know she's not though. 

 

[PixieDust]

On 8/19/2021 at 9:21 AM, oakville said:

Didn't one of Dorit's creditors chase her around the pool when the show was filming at Bahamar , Bahamas. The show edited that clip out.

Please tell me more. I find This highly entertaining 😂

[dosodog]

 

[tinderbox]

On 8/19/2021 at 9:44 AM, chlban said:

We have all seen how little it takes to trigger Erika's temper. They not only questioned her story, they told her that they had meeting about her, and she sat there, barely reacting. Yep, she was totally stoned. Not a good night to drive herself, which was obviously another ploy to show us how poor she is now. As if we don't all know BRAVO would provide her with a driver. 

I believe Lisa informed Erika about everything that was discussed at the meeting, days ahead of Kyle’s dinner.  It seems Erika had about a week to mentally prepare herself and come up with a plan.  Therefore, I don’t think she was stoned.  I believe she was ACTING.  

[Anne Thrax]

I thought everyone was dressed nicely for the Christmas dinner - except WTF is that atrocity Garcelle is wearing?  I can't believe she did a mirror check and said to herself "yeah that's the look I'm going for".  She's a big woman anyway and that outfit makes her look 3 times bigger.  Further emphasized by the stretched tight hairstyle.

[oakville]

34 minutes ago, dosodog said:

 

@PixieDust

[goofygirl]

21 hours ago, Cosmocrush said:

I would normally agree but then @njbchlover posted that maybe it was for ease of cleanup and I can see that.  We saw her regular household help working the kitchen and maybe she didn't want them (and her) to spend hours after the party washing platters and bowls  that don't fit in a dishwasher.  She was leaving for Aspen the next day. 

As someone who has spent the very late hours of Christmas Eve washing dishes I'm thinking maybe the disposable stuff wasn't such a bad idea.   Wonder what the dirty dish averse Dorit uses?  

Dorit lets the caterer decide for themself.  She probably doesn't even GO into her kitchen.  Might catch a calorie or two.

[Anne Thrax]

On 8/18/2021 at 5:44 PM, Mindthinkr said:

Erika is the epitome of game face. She must be making big bucks to sit there. 

I was thinking the same thing.  It has to be a very hard tightrope to walk and she's not doing it all that well.  But what choice does she have?  Let's face it - showing up for the cameras is the only thing coming between Erika paying her rent and Erika on the street.

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by Anne Thrax

[Anne Thrax]

On 8/18/2021 at 5:57 PM, 65mickey said:

Even Sutton is going soft on Erika. Why didn't Sutton come back at Erika when she said that she was kept away from the books for her LLC?  At the meeting Sutton said if her name is on the LLC she is responsible. Now it is we all love and support you.  Come on ladies ask the question and stop pussyfooting around with this. 

Erika's story is definitely starting to fall apart.  Erika knew he was cheating on her but she was okay with making it look to the world as if everything was hunky dory - even after she became a HW and started making her own money.   All because she wanted a vanity career for Erika Jayne?

Yet her story is she was told to sign things allowing him to put her name on things and preventing her from seeing any books, but she's not wondering why and thinking something is going on that might not be kosher?  Tom had to have told her something about what it was for, which doesn't jive with her claim she was told nothing.

She's better off not saying anything than the things she's been saying.  If she was smart she'd say "I can't say anything about anything, sorry ladies.  So please don't ask me - I can't talk about it."  And then zip it about the Tom stuff.  The media will do all the reporting the show will need for drama and she will still be able to talk on the show about how sad and tired she is and how hard her life is for her while it's all happening.

Sutton called it when she said that given time, the forensic accountants will follow the money and tell the true story.

Edited August 21, 2021 by Anne Thrax

[PixieDust]

@oakville @dosodog

thank you! 

[amarante]

Ronald Richards, the attorney for the Bankruptcy Trustee has posted a fairly good explanation of why Erika can not hide behind the shield of her LLC and claim that she personally is not responsible for the loan repayment.

There are a few hurdles in order to get Erika on the hook for repayment - the money was loaned to an LLC which theoretically means there is no personal liability for the obligations/debts of a legitimate LLC. To hold Erika personally liable, you have to "pierce the corporate veil" which can be done in certain circumstances. 

This is a civil liability issue - not dealing with criminal culpability. The standard is preponderance of the evidence - i.e. is it more likely than not - 51% versus criminal culpability which is behind a reasonable doubt - of course the doubt must still be "reasonable" and not fantastical 🤣 Sometimes people think that this very high standard in a criminal trial means that there must be absolutely no doubt however unreasonable that doubt is. In other words, belief that a Martian flew down in his space ship to commit the crime wouldn't be reasonable. 

 

[film noire]

On 8/19/2021 at 9:14 PM, Polliwollidoodle said:

The line that really got me was Dorit - after the widows and children- "it HURTS me".

Right? ("How dare Tom abandon children!  I'd never abandon a helpless young creature ....oh, wait..") I am so looking forward to watching Garcelle chew on Dorit like a nylabone.

Despite her tears & often too-convenient fears,  Sutton for the win!

Edited August 21, 2021 by film noire

[Anne Thrax]

On 8/18/2021 at 7:26 PM, islandgal140 said:

The California bar also has a lot to answer for. You can't tell me there weren't complaints. When people don't paid money due, they start filing complaints with the board. 

I was talking to my boss back when the LA Times story broke and it turns out he has been introduced to Tom Girardi before and that Girardi has a thing about always being well connected, which he is at the State Bar, and makes a point to be tight with people in high places (such as the former Chief of LAPD who we briefly saw in one episode).  He said that long prior to this current shit show, Tom has had complaints against him that were allowed to be resolved in such a way as to result in no discipline for Tom Girardi.

Edited August 21, 2021 by Anne Thrax

[Castina]

I am with Sutton.  I 100% do not buy the 3 year package that Erika is trying to stretch to 3.5 to 4 years.  I think that time frame has to do with statements and/or depositions Tom has given since all this litigation started.  I heard somewhere that the strategy would be to have those dismissed or something on the basis Tom was mentally incapacitated.  In addition he wouldn't have to give any more statements etc.. because he is not competent to stand trial.  

I am not a lawyer so my wording is probably off in places but the gist is there.  

In the course of this season we have gone from:
1.  Arrogant asshole who has dismissed her their whole time together.
2. Cheater
3.  Mental decline that started at a very opportune time.  

Tom does look rough these days but my father is the same age.  Under extreme stress he looks rough and bewildered as well.  They are seeing these episodes airing along with us and he can't be thrilled with how bad this is looking.  

 

[Anne Thrax]

On 8/20/2021 at 8:54 AM, amarante said:

I think to the extent he thought at all he assumed he would be dead before it collapsed. The 2008 financial crisis brought Madoff down and I think Tom - however spry he remained - was still 81 years old and I imagine he wasn't getting the same kind of cases he was getting previously so there wasn't new money from settlements coming in to that could be used to pay off his creditors and the clients.

As I recall he was borrowing huge amounts of money from firms that specialize in funding litigation. And they were among the creditors who forced his collapse. Again - as I recall - he was pledging the same collateral to multiple lenders which is a criminal offense. I believe that it is a Federal offense and I think the judge in Chicago referred a lot of stuff to the US Attorney's division in Chicago. 

I don't think the collapse of the scheme had to do with not being able to get more cases.  I think it all turned on his ability to keep juggling things. 

In Madoff's case, the 2008 financial crisis couldn't be controlled.  In Tom's case, he couldn't foresee the pandemic -- it closed the courts and halted day to day business that he had been able to capitalize on in the past.  I'm thinking it caused an unavoidable lag time that his juggling ability wasn't able to cover or bridge quickly enough to keep his head above water.  My half-baked theory, anyway.

Edited August 22, 2021 by Anne Thrax

[nosedive]

56 minutes ago, Anne Thrax said:

I don't think the collapse of the scheme had to do with not being able to get more cases.  I think it all turned on his ability to keep juggling things. 

In Madoff's case, the 2008 financial crisis couldn't be controlled.  In Tom's case, he couldn't foresee the pandemic -- it closed the courts and halted day to day business that he had been able to capitalize on in the past.  I'm thinking it caused an unavoidable lag time that his juggling ability wasn't able to cover or bridge quickly enough to keep his head above water.  My half-baked theory, anyway.

From what I gleaned from the infamous and oh-so-lengthy LA Times article mentioned on the show, the fur hit the fan in 2019 when one of the loan companies from which his firm had borrowed gained access to some of the firm's books, and grew concerned at what they found. After nine months of demanding repayment and being ignored, they filed a suit against him. It turns out that for several years he had been taking loans from different loan institutions, using the same collateral (primarily the anticipated proceeds from future settlements) for all of them.  So when his firm won a settlement, the firm not only owed a portion to their clients, but to all these loan institutions.  Each loan company believed that they would be the beneficiary of the settlement, but because there were multiple lenders, there wasn't enough to go around.  And some of the loans were at an interest as high as 20%.  So Loan Company A was expecting to be repaid when a settlement was made, but so were Loan Companies B, C and D.  Plus the clients.  By the time he settled with the loan company that sued him in 2019, and presumably word was out about his nefarious business practices, there was a line out the door of people and businesses suing for the money he owed them.   And standing in that line was his first wife (Erika is #3), who is suing him for $10,000 a month in alimony, which had been awarded after their split in 1983.  She says the payments abruptly stopped.  

 

Edited August 22, 2021 by nosedive
addition

[gingerella]

35 minutes ago, nosedive said:

From what I gleaned from the infamous and oh-so-lengthy LA Times article

Wait! You read the whole article? But it was so long and had so many words. 

You is smart! 👍

[nosedive]

2 minutes ago, gingerella said:

Wait! You read the whole article? But it was so long and had so many words. 

You is smart! 👍

I'm booking a weekend at Canyon Ranch to recover😉.

 

[J80134]

Dorito backpedaled so fast she must have whiplash. 

Lips is like a little troll living in the cave of Erika Disdains ass.

Sutton recovered nicely from being thrown under the bus. Gar & Crys were there to help her wipe the tire marks off her dress.

Lil Kathy gives zero fucks about any of it.

Kyle's going to ride the neutral train all the way home.

Erika is trying every tactic. If financial woes, tears, denial,  deflection, ridiculous stories and your baby voice don't work...shift to stone-faced, low-pitched and emotionally void.

Why in the hell was Ted on my screen? Pack your advice, your death diet and your shit stirring stick into your saddle bag and trot on home ponygirl. 

[65mickey]

It's had to fathom why Erika would even consider going on the reunion show. She has told so many bizarre  and contradictory tales this season. One little slip up at the reunion saying the wrong thing and she could be dooming herself. I can't imagine her attorney sanctioning this. She has nothing to gain from this and everything to lose. But if she does make an appearance I bet she will be medicated to the point of being almost comatose so as to prevent her from losing her temper and shooting her mounth off.

[Polliwollidoodle]

45 minutes ago, 65mickey said:

It's had to fathom why Erika would even consider going on the reunion show. She has told so many bizarre  and contradictory tales this season. One little slip up at the reunion saying the wrong thing and she could be dooming herself. I can't imagine her attorney sanctioning this. She has nothing to gain from this and everything to lose. But if she does make an appearance I bet she will be medicated to the point of being almost comatose so as to prevent her from losing her temper and shooting her mounth off.

I agree with you mostly--- but don't think Erika will be medicated..If her guard is down, it's not realistic to think she can keep saying that she would love to answer but was advised not to due to the pending litigation. 

Also, the part about Lisa recommending her advisor is just another way to drive home the point that as much as these women try to be relatable yet glorified-----they ARE different from you and me. I don't have such in my life. We do have an attorney and friends and family who are attorneys to ask preliminary advice, but we rarely have any need for that........and I don't have a personal advisor for my image and such. 

Furthermore,as far as multiple friends or acquaintances using the same person, I find given the professional nature of CPA or financial advisor, they are duty bound to NOT discuss one's bizniz with anyone else. Maybe the overall advisor/coach doesn't have the same requirements as a CPA or attorney. Just thinking out loud and not trying to be argumentative at all.

I really enjoy the discussion and knowledge shared here.

 

[WhatAmIWatching]

12 hours ago, Castina said:

I am with Sutton.  I 100% do not buy the 3 year package that Erika is trying to stretch to 3.5 to 4 years.  I think that time frame has to do with statements and/or depositions Tom has given since all this litigation started.  I heard somewhere that the strategy would be to have those dismissed or something on the basis Tom was mentally incapacitated.  In addition he wouldn't have to give any more statements etc.. because he is not competent to stand trial.  

I am not a lawyer so my wording is probably off in places but the gist is there.  

In the course of this season we have gone from:
1.  Arrogant asshole who has dismissed her their whole time together.
2. Cheater
3.  Mental decline that started at a very opportune time.  

Tom does look rough these days but my father is the same age.  Under extreme stress he looks rough and bewildered as well.  They are seeing these episodes airing along with us and he can't be thrilled with how bad this is looking.  

 

Don't forget that in one of the episodes, Erika said that lockdown was great, because she and Tom sat and had great conversations together every day!

 

8 hours ago, SassyCat said:

Words fall from her lips, like shit, from Ramona Singer's ass. 💩

I edited that just a bit 😂 

 

30 minutes ago, janiema said:

Yes. Although I hope that Ronald Richards can get to the bottom of this I find his comment about the professionalism of the CPA and management company to be offensive.

I agree. Unless the company is known around town for being shady, I don't see what they have to do with anything?
Now with Rinna, the attorney can make her squirm all day long and I am happy! He can chew her up, and spit her out just for the heck of it because I dislike her so much 😆 

[pasdetrois]

I wonder if Erika confided details, or even just referenced, her financial difficulties to Rinna. The timing of that conversation(s) and those details could be damning.

Although he didn't say it, I assume this scenario is what the bankruptcy attorney is referring to. Otherwise he sounds like a bit of a bully. (And no, I don't have sympathy for Rinna.)

Wow, Sutton really knows her stuff.

ETA: would the attorney also subpoena Garcelle and Crystal because of the private convo Erika had with them about Tom communicating with her?

 

Edited August 22, 2021 by pasdetrois

[jkitty]

I only got through half the thread, but we’re any other litigators reflexively shouting “don’t answer that!” when Sutton was asking Erika questions about conversations with her attorneys? Girl almost got Erika to waive attorney-client privilege on national TV! 
 

Kathy Hilton saying “they will get to it,” and then saying “It’s good practice,” while everyone laughs, but sitting there serious and stone faced are easily top 10 housewives moments for me. 

[emma675]

1 hour ago, janiema said:

Although I hope that Ronald Richards can get to the bottom of this I find his comment about the professionalism of the CPA and management company to be offensive.

Agreed. I want everything uncovered but this Ron Richards guy seems like as big an asshole and fame whore as Erika. I have not liked multiple things he's done and said throughout this whole mess. Why is everyone (excluding the victims  of course) involved so despicable?!

On the reunion, does anyone know if they are contractually required to at least show up or if they forfeit any money if they don't? I could see Erika showing up if it means more cash, she's desperate for it now.

[65mickey]

Luann missed a reunion during the time that she was going through her legal problems after her arrest. Jacqueline on NJ RH missed a reunion and Adrienne on Beverly Hills opted out of a reunion. I don't know if they lose any money. Erika is so arrogant that she will probably show up for the reunion. A probing question asked by one of the other housewives could cause her to lose her temper, we've seen this before, and blurt out something that she may regret saying. 

[65mickey]

1 hour ago, pasdetrois said:

I wonder if Erika confided details, or even just referenced, her financial difficulties to Rinna. The timing of that conversation(s) and those details could be damning.

Although he didn't say it, I assume this scenario is what the bankruptcy attorney is referring to. Otherwise he sounds like a bit of a bully. (And no, I don't have sympathy for Rinna.)

Wow, Sutton really knows her stuff.

ETA: would the attorney also subpoena Garcelle and Crystal because of the private convo Erika had with them about Tom communicating with her?

 

Oh that's a good question abut Garcelle and Crystal possibly being quetioned about the telephone calls from Tom. I am convinced that something was cut out of that scene when they were walking and Erika said Tom calls me everyday. Garcelle and Crystal said almost at the same time "he does?" Erika said I don't speak with him. I think she may have slipped up and said that she answers the calls and talks with him. And this is why she asked Crystal not to bring it up and why she went ballistic on Garcelle. I also think she was begging production in the bathroom to edit the part out of the scene where she admitted to speaking with Tom.  

[Persnickety1]

11 hours ago, SassyCat said:

Words fall from her lips, like shit, from ass. 💩

Wait, was Ramona from NYC in this episode and I missed it?