S11.E13: Season’s Grillings

[Mar]

https://realityblurb.com/2021/08/19/pasadena-police-have-no-record-of-tom-girardis-car-accident-as-erika-jaynes-account-is-questioned-journalists-find-no-evidence-of-crash/

[Polliwollidoodle]

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

She is perhaps the phoniest, most contrived of all. And I think she has gone overboard with the plastic surgery. Watching her last night, her face was so distorted. It's like emoting on steroids when she does nothing.

[Showthyme]

Ronald Richards is Special Counsel assigned to find the assets. He said on a podcast today that the majority of the $20M receivable on Erika’s book is the result of an American Express bill that was paid by the law firm. Accountant here…the firm’s bookkeeper knows that Erika’s expenses are not law firm related so s/he shows it as a receivable owed from Erika to the law firm. Therefore, Erika can say that she didn’t know anything about money being transferred into her account because it wasn’t as clean as taking money out of one account and putting it in another. The money is definitely owed to the law firm and Erika did sign the tax returns that showed the receivable. I think that all of the crying and stress is because she didn’t know that she would actually have to pay all of those Amex charges! 

Dorit has no place to talk when it comes to finances.

Kyle should put her ugly yellow pants in the donation box or give them to Sutton. They look like something that Sutton would wear with an ugly top.

 

[amarante]

16 minutes ago, Showthyme said:

Ronald Richards is Special Counsel assigned to find the assets. He said on a podcast today that the majority of the $20M receivable on Erika’s book is the result of an American Express bill that was paid by the law firm. Accountant here…the firm’s bookkeeper knows that Erika’s expenses are not law firm related so s/he shows it as a receivable owed from Erika to the law firm. Therefore, Erika can say that she didn’t know anything about money being transferred into her account because it wasn’t as clean as taking money out of one account and putting it in another. The money is definitely owed to the law firm and Erika did sign the tax returns that showed the receivable. I think that all of the crying and stress is because she didn’t know that she would actually have to pay all of those Amex charges! 

Dorit has no place to talk when it comes to finances.

Kyle should put her ugly yellow pants in the donation box or give them to Sutton. They look like something that Sutton would wear with an ugly top.

 

Page Six has a breakdown of exactly where the money went. I think Richards had subpoenaed the financial documents and so this information would have been gotten from the records of her company

https://pagesix.com/2021/08/19/heres-how-erika-jaynes-company-allegedly-spent-25m/

A demand letter asking for the return of $28 million was sent to Erika and Erika has claimed that she doesn't owe the money - so much for sympathy for the victims since she knows at this point that all of those expenses were from payments owed to widows, orphans and burn victims

What will be interesting are any amounts actually paid to Erika during the 10 years she was spending lavishly on her *career*. Did income from her BRAVO salary get paid to her corporation? What amount was she actually paid for her appearances - how much could someone make on club dates given that she spent $1,532,774.88 just for payments for dancers and choreographers.''

Erika wasn't kidding when she said there was more to come - one thing she was honest about. 🤣

ETA - The lawyer for the bankruptcy Trustee and Erika's lawyer issued the following statements to Page Six

Ronald Richards, a lawyer representing the trustee, told Page Six in a statement that Jayne owes Girardi Keese over $28 million for her purchases plus interest. 

“It is immaterial whether she knew her husband had improperly diverted funds from clients,” Richards’ statement added. “What is relevant is that she received complete and total value for the receivable and a formal demand for payment was sent. We are hopeful she backs up her on-air statement last night that the victims come first. “

This is the crux of the case against Erika and what she fears - having to pay back all of the money that was fraudulently transferred to her. You can pierce the corporate veil and hold an individual responsible for the debts of an LLC under certain circumstances and I am pretty certain that those criteria will be met

Jayne’s attorney, however, told Page Six in a separate statement that “Erika never had and does not have personal liability for any debts or obligations of EJ Global LLC, period.”

Her attorney also called the trustee’s allegations a “malicious” and “reckless publicity grab,” as “none of the payments and no money whatsoever went to Erika.” 

“On behalf of Erika, we will seek all appropriate remedies against all responsible parties for claims such as these,” read the statement from Jayne’s attorney.

This is Erika's position - she has not responsibility for the moment. 

What is totally bizarre is the attorney stating that "none of the payments went to Erika". I mean WTF - all of those payments were made on behalf of Erika. If I buy something at Saks, I can't claim that the money didn't go to me just because I used money to pay for stuff. 😂

Edited August 20, 2021 by amarante

[amarante]

37 minutes ago, Mar said:

https://realityblurb.com/2021/08/19/pasadena-police-have-no-record-of-tom-girardis-car-accident-as-erika-jaynes-account-is-questioned-journalists-find-no-evidence-of-crash/

The reporters who wrote the original LA Times story were interviewed and stated they had checked and there was no record of any auto accident. Given the extent of the injuries there had to be an ambulance called and he must have been taken to a hospital and the hospital would report to police for that kind of serious injuries.

It is astounding what a poor liar she is when all is said and done. She is lying on stuff that is easily checked and it is not as if any of these lies were critical to her defense. Surely a better set of lies could have accomplished obfuscating her complicity and not have been so ridiculously easy to puncture.

[Cosmocrush]

3 hours ago, nosedive said:

And what's with Rinna's wardrobe this season?  Did she hijack the clown costume car from a circus parade?  You're trying too hard, girl.  

Hahaha!   I think she did.  In every scene in every episode.   The mink stole thing she sported at Dorit's for the Talk About Erika meeting looked like a picture of my then 50 something year old grandmother in the early 1960s.  The get up she wore to Kyle's Christmas dinner would be good on a 25 year old, minus the ratty wig.

Trying too hard is a perfect description.  👏

[Cosmocrush]

From the realityblurb article about Tom's car crash linked above:

We’ve been hearing about this for six months, eight months and trying to look for public records on it but the Tom loyalists will always [tell] you that he was supposedly found in his backyard — or someone else’s backyard — sitting on a lawn chair, completely out of it. It’s a very gripping story. I mean, did they literally, did no one call the police at all?” she wondered.

Tom called Erika from the backyard with a head injury, broken clavicle and ankle?    That must be after he crawled up the cliff.  With his phone.   Found a lawn chair.  Called Erika, but no one called 911.   Okay then.   Sheesh. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

36 minutes ago, amarante said:

Jayne’s attorney, however, told Page Six in a separate statement that “Erika never had and does not have personal liability for any debts or obligations of EJ Global LLC, period.”

In this fantasy world they are cooking up, where are they pretending Erika's money that she spent was coming from?  Her one past divorce?  Her ONE album?  The Bravo salary?  That cannot equal the millions and millions she's clearly been spending?

[WhatAmIWatching]

39 minutes ago, amarante said:

Page Six has a breakdown of exactly where the money went. I think Richards had subpoenaed the financial documents and so this information would have been gotten from the records of her company

https://pagesix.com/2021/08/19/heres-how-erika-jaynes-company-allegedly-spent-25m/

A demand letter asking for the return of $28 million was sent to Erika and Erika has claimed that she doesn't owe the money - so much for sympathy for the victims since she knows at this point that all of those expenses were from payments owed to widows, orphans and burn victims

What will be interesting are any amounts actually paid to Erika during the 10 years she was spending lavishly on her *career*. Did income from her BRAVO salary get paid to her corporation? What amount was she actually paid for her appearances - how much could someone make on club dates given that she spent $1,532,774.88 just for payments for dancers and choreographers.''

Erika wasn't kidding when she said there was more to come - one thing she was honest about. 🤣

ETA - The lawyer for the bankruptcy Trustee and Erika's lawyer issued the following statements to Page Six

Ronald Richards, a lawyer representing the trustee, told Page Six in a statement that Jayne owes Girardi Keese over $28 million for her purchases plus interest. 

“It is immaterial whether she knew her husband had improperly diverted funds from clients,” Richards’ statement added. “What is relevant is that she received complete and total value for the receivable and a formal demand for payment was sent. We are hopeful she backs up her on-air statement last night that the victims come first. “

This is the crux of the case against Erika and what she fears - having to pay back all of the money that was fraudulently transferred to her. You can pierce the corporate veil and hold an individual responsible for the debts of an LLC under certain circumstances and I am pretty certain that those criteria will be met

Jayne’s attorney, however, told Page Six in a separate statement that “Erika never had and does not have personal liability for any debts or obligations of EJ Global LLC, period.”

Her attorney also called the trustee’s allegations a “malicious” and “reckless publicity grab,” as “none of the payments and no money whatsoever went to Erika.” 

“On behalf of Erika, we will seek all appropriate remedies against all responsible parties for claims such as these,” read the statement from Jayne’s attorney.

This is Erika's position - she has not responsibility for the moment. 

What is totally bizarre is the attorney stating that "none of the payments went to Erika". I mean WTF - all of those payments were made on behalf of Erika. If I buy something at Saks, I can't claim that the money didn't go to me just because I used money to pay for stuff. 😂

Thank you for the links and for breaking this down. My jaw is on the floor! She wasted MILLIONS on nothing. Absolutely nothing. I can't even wrap my brain around it all. It was all frivolous and outrageous expenses that amount to not a darn thing. 

 (This is what my parents were talking about when they taught me that earning what I own means more, and is much more appreciated than having things handed to you.)

 So, since she was sole owner of her company, her attorney trying to say she has zero responsibility, and that she had no hand in TOM's companies is complete bs, right? If it's only her name, she has to deal with it, no?

 

My evens are so shocked they've stopped can't-ing.

 

[Thumper]

“spent $1,532,774.88 just for payments for dancers and choreographers.''”

Yowza!!!!! 

[Cosmocrush]

15 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

In this fantasy world they are cooking up, where are they pretending Erika's money that she spent was coming from?  Her one past divorce?  Her ONE album?  The Bravo salary?  That cannot equal the millions and millions she's clearly been spending?

Oh I think Erika knew it was coming from Tom/Tom's law firm but she never ever expected she'd have to pay it back.  She hadn't yet.    This was the deal - he pays all her bills, she stays in the marriage.   When she found out it was ill gotten gains and she would be liable for the debt, she left. 

[chlban]

Anyone else notice that when they were sitting around the table and Chrystal said something about the accident 3 years ago when Tom changed, but the article says stuff happened further back? Erika says- "three and a half, almost four  years ago" in response? She basically moved Tom's "issues" back another year in a matter of seconds.woman is such a LIAR her pants would be on fire  if she wore them.

[WhatAmIWatching]

45 minutes ago, Cosmocrush said:

From the realityblurb article about Tom's car crash linked above:

We’ve been hearing about this for six months, eight months and trying to look for public records on it but the Tom loyalists will always [tell] you that he was supposedly found in his backyard — or someone else’s backyard — sitting on a lawn chair, completely out of it. It’s a very gripping story. I mean, did they literally, did no one call the police at all?” she wondered.

Tom called Erika from the backyard with a head injury, broken clavicle and ankle?    That must be after he crawled up the cliff.  With his phone.   Found a lawn chair.  Called Erika, but no one called 911.   Okay then.   Sheesh. 

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!

Edited August 20, 2021 by WhatAmIWatching

[phoenix780]

I want to believe Erika. I also think the meeting with the others was reasonable, and I'm glad they aired it. 

I don't get why Erika is not just selling him out instead of reinforcing the story that seems to be from lawyers defending him. Love, maybe, but he cheated and was mean. She didn't play it right. 

More importantly, did Crystal and Sutton casually agree? That deserves a beat. 

[funnygirl]

I can't wait for the tapes to roll at the reunion, because these ladies got a workout at this dinner dancing around what they said at the meeting. Thank goodness for Garcelle and Sutton, who aren't afraid of the little clique and are keeping it honest. Without them, this entire season would've been an Erika Jayne/Girardi circle jerk. 

"The victims are the most important thing. You'll always be okay." I love Garcelle! She looked that thief in her eyes and said that. 😅

Edited August 20, 2021 by funnygirl

[JAYJAY1979]

No wonder Sutton got promoted, she's carried the whole season on her shoulders 

[MsTree]

15 hours ago, janiema said:

So her undying, professed loyalty to Erika begs the question, what’s in it for Rinna?

I think Rinna is drawn to Erika because they share some similar traits (cold-heartedness, lying, selfishness, etc.)...and maybe she also admired Erika's ambition to promote herself and make money. People are drawn to others with similar tastes/traits, and for all we know, Rinna might be having her first girl crush.

[Polliwollidoodle]

12 hours ago, nosedive said:

Because the coven, whoops, I mean her "best friends" are semi-literate, with the exception of Rinna who has starved to death most of her brain cells from years of a diet consisting of Sweet n' Low packets and celery leaves.  She's preserving the few that remain to grace the world with her Volume 2 Sex Manual.  

And what's with Rinna's wardrobe this season?  Did she hijack the clown costume car from a circus parade?  You're trying too hard, girl.  

Why is Kathy Hilton on this show?  I like her.  She's good for a chuckle.  But she has absolutely no storyline going, and if she's even in the scene, she's like wallpaper.  

And should we assume Kyle "forgot" to give her a heads-up that there would be cameras at the Christmas feast?   She looked so normal, almost like a real person, while all the others were glammed to their eye teeth.  Not that Kyle would be passive-aggressive like that.

The kissing up and bowing down to Erica is nauseating.  It's bad enough that the cast does it, but the producer, too?  "You've been so strong!"  Please.  

This whole season of allowing her to have center stage is downright gross.  All true, but especially Rinna's wardrobe. The one that totally got me was when they were hanging out in what seems to be pajamas early morning and she is wearing a HAT? What's that about? Sorry I could barely listen to the dialogue I was so so so fixated on trying to understand the HAT.  It wasn't even a cozy looking (Still stupid indoors but...) ski hat. Can someone help me out?

If I could give you additional points for this post I would.

I don't know what happened to the rest of my post- too lazy to retype but I was commenting on the scene where they are in their pajamas early morning- and Rinna was wearing a hat with that outfit. It was a silly looking hat and who wears a HAT first thing in the morning in California in the house??? Can anyone help me out?

[pasdetrois]

Rinna is hiding her thinning hair/bad wig situation.

[Baltimore Betty]

9 hours ago, Thumper said:

“spent $1,532,774.88 just for payments for dancers and choreographers.''”

Yowza!!!!! 

And all she got out of it was "Pat the Puss."

[pasdetrois]

All the hangers-on took one look at Erika and Tom and thought "easy mark."

I suppose some of the dancer/choreographer funds were for travel.

[kassa]

9 hours ago, phoenix780 said:

I don't get why Erika is not just selling him out instead of reinforcing the story that seems to be from lawyers defending him. Love, maybe, but he cheated and was mean. She didn't play it right. 

My guess is that at the time of the "he was a monster, I was hiding what a horror my marriage was" revelations, that was the plan. Poor emotionally abused wife who knew NOTHING. And then the govt rejected it (or her team realized they would reject it) because they had her dead to rights on actively participating.

And all of this is why lawyers tell you to keep your mouth shut (and certainly don't do interviews/go on national television), because your defense becomes constrained by anything you say.  Had she backed out of the show, she could have issued one of those "I can't discuss these legal matters but I am confident in the end everyone will see that I'm blameless" statements and then rolled the dice at time of trial/settlement with the best story to counter whatever they have on her.  Instead, now her team has to deal with fallout from the car accident story.

[blixie]

Yeah I think her lawyers realized they are too tightly tied together on these things and so she's liable so better to argue he was mentally incompetent, still not sure how that would get her off the hook, you being all la la la I just don't know where all the money came from nor where it went, is ALSO incompetence I guess.

[Lassus]

On 8/18/2021 at 10:42 PM, oakville said:

It's bizarre that Lisa Rinna is more loyal to Erika than Denise Richards who she was friends with  for over 20 years.

I mean, Soap Opera is Rinna's life.  Various housewives can decide to come or go, but she's ride or die with this kind of nonsensical drama. 

[Lassus]

10 hours ago, Thumper said:

“spent $1,532,774.88 just for payments for dancers and choreographers.''”

Yowza!!!!! 

I see this and all I can think is "thank god someone is properly paying professional dancers".

Edited August 20, 2021 by Lassus

[nosedive]

2 hours ago, pasdetrois said:

Rinna is hiding her thinning hair/bad wig situation.

Thinning hair wouldn't surprise me.  Years of deprivation of adequate nutrition could do that. 

 

[65mickey]

2 hours ago, pasdetrois said:

Rinna is hiding her thinning hair/bad wig situation.

I have thought that for the past 2 years when she started wearing wigs and hats. It's all those years of starving herself to look like a scarecrow catching up to her.  He hair is falling out. Younger women may be able to get away with the extreme starvation diet and looking like a stick but at Lisa's age it is not a good look. It's aging.

[janiema]

10 hours ago, phoenix780 said:

I want to believe Erika. I also think the meeting with the others was reasonable, and I'm glad they aired it. 

I don't get why Erika is not just selling him out instead of reinforcing the story that seems to be from lawyers defending him. Love, maybe, but he cheated and was mean. She didn't play it right. 

More importantly, did Crystal and Sutton casually agree? That deserves a beat. 

I would guess that his lawyers perhaps made her an offer she couldn’t refuse. Go along with the mental incompetence story or we will implicate you too. I may have watched too many crime stories on TV. 

[nosedive]

10 hours ago, phoenix780 said:

Love, maybe, but he cheated and was mean

Is there evidence that he cheated?  I know Erika posted photos, but does a photo taken with a woman necessarily mean he was cheating?  It could have been colleagues or friends having dinner together.  I have no reason to think he's morally above infidelity, but I also wonder if the cheating accusation was just another fabrication in Erika's "Tom victimized me" narrative.  

[pasdetrois]

Aren't attorneys supposed to avoid and prevent collusion?

[HotHW]

20 hours ago, Slakkie said:

What I find interesting is that Erika seems to have ZERO care for the victims.  I mean people who SUFFERED are missing money, its theft but she does not seem to really care.  Even if she had nothing to do with it you would think she would be appalled. 

Using Dorito - Widows and Orphans??  SHe does not seem to care at all - it is all about HER....

Admitting there are "victims" to feel bad for equals admitting to his guilt no? The law degree I earned from decades of Law n Order watching says if she speaks about them directly as a victim she is admitting she knows he hurt them. Right now they are just "people making accusations"? 

[charliesan]

At first I didn't think she would do jail time, but given this information I'm not so sure anymore. Erika, girl, please don't do the reunion... I mean I know you know you'll have the collective protecting you, including Andy, but I'm sure Sutton will have a binder better than Monique's and Garcelle is not scared to confront people or be confronted. 

12 hours ago, amarante said:

how much could someone make on club dates given that she spent $1,532,774.88 just for payments for dancers and choreographers.''

Seriously, you'd think she was headlining national tours in stadiums or at least a Vegas residency, didn't she just do occasional dates on some clubs? I know this is a horrific situation but I'm glad the entourage got paid. Sonja Morgan should've contacted Erika, instead she only got 500 dollars with Lu. 

[HotHW]

11 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

In this fantasy world they are cooking up, where are they pretending Erika's money that she spent was coming from?  Her one past divorce?  Her ONE album?  The Bravo salary?  That cannot equal the millions and millions she's clearly been spending?

This is in reply to the Page 6 article, not the quote above....

As a business owner, I dont understand how she is personally liable for money someone invested in her company. In the beginning my parents and husband gave me money to get my business off the ground. I in turn paid everyone under the sun. So according to this lawyer, if my dad had unbeknownst to me robbed a bank and gave me that money, I'd be personally responsible for giving it back? I mean I guess its possible but why would I be crucified for accepting the payment? And what would it matter what I spent it on? I think the point of her lawyers is that she used those funds to pay for business services, she did not pay herself $20MM. Her income I'm sure came from appearances, concerts etc. And if I had to guess it wasnt much which could play a part in her demeanor now, she knows the world is about to find out she was not as "successful" as she appears. 

I still stand by if things were turned around, and she was likable and working hard to start a career of her own, and her extremely wealthy husband refused to invest in her we'd be blasting him for not doing so. Tom was loaded in a legit way before all of this. $20MM was nothing to him. For all we know the funds she received were part of his legit earnings. Maybe it will come down to that....when did she receive funds compared to when he started embezzling funds. 

[amarante]

1 hour ago, HotHW said:

This is in reply to the Page 6 article, not the quote above....

As a business owner, I dont understand how she is personally liable for money someone invested in her company. In the beginning my parents and husband gave me money to get my business off the ground. I in turn paid everyone under the sun. So according to this lawyer, if my dad had unbeknownst to me robbed a bank and gave me that money, I'd be personally responsible for giving it back? I mean I guess its possible but why would I be crucified for accepting the payment? And what would it matter what I spent it on? I think the point of her lawyers is that she used those funds to pay for business services, she did not pay herself $20MM. Her income I'm sure came from appearances, concerts etc. And if I had to guess it wasnt much which could play a part in her demeanor now, she knows the world is about to find out she was not as "successful" as she appears. 

I still stand by if things were turned around, and she was likable and working hard to start a career of her own, and her extremely wealthy husband refused to invest in her we'd be blasting him for not doing so. Tom was loaded in a legit way before all of this. $20MM was nothing to him. For all we know the funds she received were part of his legit earnings. Maybe it will come down to that....when did she receive funds compared to when he started embezzling funds. 

The money wasn't invested. It was a loan from the law firm and Erika signed papers that the loan would be repaid. ETA if the money had been invested that would typically mean that the "investor" was investing money in exchange for a certain amount of shares which was obviously not what they wanted and would have been even a clearer case for the "owners" to owe the money "invested".  

Although normally an individual is not liable for the debts or other liabilities of a corporation, the corporate veil can be pierced (as the legal expression goes) if certain conditions are met

There are a number of circumstances meriting piercing including not treating the corporation as a corporate identity - i.e. not keeping the paperwork; not dealing with the finances as a corporate entity; mingling accounts. 

I think this one would probably be successful

A corporation or LLC's owners may also be held personally liable if they are found to have committed fraud. If the owner made fraudulent representations or omissions when applying for a business loan, he or she can be held personally responsible for the resulting harm to the creditor and risk losing personal assets. Alternatively, if a corporation or LLC was created to further a fraudulent cause or business, a court can pierce the corporate veil to get to the owners as well.

Edited August 20, 2021 by amarante

[chlban]

54 minutes ago, nosedive said:

Is there evidence that he cheated?  I know Erika posted photos, but does a photo taken with a woman necessarily mean he was cheating?  It could have been colleagues or friends having dinner together.  I have no reason to think he's morally above infidelity, but I also wonder if the cheating accusation was just another fabrication in Erika's "Tom victimized me" narrative.  

I have no trouble believing he cheated. I also have no trouble believing Erika could not care less as long as the money was flowing in her direction. 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.  This was a business deal from the get go. That doesn't mean there couldn't have been some form of attachment, he gave her the life she wanted and I think she was appreciative of that. But Truly a love match? Nope. By 10-15 years in, I would bet she knew he cheated and didn't care. Probably insisted he be discrete, since cheating on his sex queen wife didn't fit her image, but beyond that, she wouldn't care.

 

Edited August 20, 2021 by chlban

[chlban]

33 minutes ago, HotHW said:

This is in reply to the Page 6 article, not the quote above....

As a business owner, I dont understand how she is personally liable for money someone invested in her company. In the beginning my parents and husband gave me money to get my business off the ground. I in turn paid everyone under the sun. So according to this lawyer, if my dad had unbeknownst to me robbed a bank and gave me that money, I'd be personally responsible for giving it back? I mean I guess its possible but why would I be crucified for accepting the payment? And what would it matter what I spent it on? I think the point of her lawyers is that she used those funds to pay for business services, she did not pay herself $20MM. Her income I'm sure came from appearances, concerts etc. And if I had to guess it wasnt much which could play a part in her demeanor now, she knows the world is about to find out she was not as "successful" as she appears. 

I still stand by if things were turned around, and she was likable and working hard to start a career of her own, and her extremely wealthy husband refused to invest in her we'd be blasting him for not doing so. Tom was loaded in a legit way before all of this. $20MM was nothing to him. For all we know the funds she received were part of his legit earnings. Maybe it will come down to that....when did she receive funds compared to when he started embezzling funds. 

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. It would matter what you spent it on because if you were unable to return it in cash, they would looking for tangible assets, Real Estate, cars, jewelry, art  which could be liquidated to return that money. It's been done with drug dealers for decades, it was done when Bernie Madoff was busted and Ruth lost everything although she wasn't charged. 

Edited August 20, 2021 by chlban

[WhatAmIWatching]

18 minutes ago, amarante said:

The money wasn't invested. It was a loan from the law firm and Erika signed papers that the loan would be repaid.

Although normally an individual is not liable for the debts or other liabilities of a corporation, the corporate veil can be pierced (as the legal expression goes) if certain conditions are met

There are a number of circumstances meriting piercing including not treating the corporation as a 

I think this one would probably be successful

A corporation or LLC's owners may also be held personally liable if they are found to have committed fraud. If the owner made fraudulent representations or omissions when applying for a business loan, he or she can be held personally responsible for the resulting harm to the creditor and risk losing personal assets. Alternatively, if a corporation or LLC was created to further a fraudulent cause or business, a court can pierce the corporate veil to get to the owners as well.

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?

 

   Late last night I put my conspiracy hat on, as one does, and I'm wondering if the whole original car accident story from years ago wasn't a set up for today? They've just embellished it as the muck got deeper when they realized it was a zoo's worth of poo going to hit the fan blades instead of just a little splat.

 As in, they've known for years now (probably 3 to 3.5) that the shit was heading for the fan, and they had time to fabricate this whole soap opera and get some ducks lined up, right?  He had a lot of high-power people under his thumb, and could've called in help from many quarters.

 

 This is where I get really mad. The Bar, the judges and whoever else who has known his shadiness and activities and let it all slide need to be investigated and prosecuted as well. There needs to be more focus on the other players of this drama instead of keeping the spotlight mostly on Erika and Tom. Is any of that even in play?

[HotHW]

25 minutes 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. It would matter what you spent it on because if you were unable to return it in cash, they would looking for tangible assets, Real Estate, cars, jewelry, art  which could be liquidated to return that money. It's been done with drug dealers for decades, it was done when Bernie Madoff was busted and Ruth lost everything although she wasn't charged. 

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. 

Edited August 20, 2021 by HotHW

[amarante]

6 minutes 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?

 

 

I have no real experience with this level of fraud but I would imagine that it was structured so that it theoretically looked like a valid business transaction. The money was NOT from Tom himself but was a loan from the LAW FIRM. There is no way you can justify a payment of $25 million from a law firm to an LLC owned by your wife. 

By structuring it as a titular loan to an innocuously named company - EJ Global (or whatever it was called), it wouldn't raise red flags to whoever was doing accounting. No one at the firm was doing any kind of forensic accounting or even the kind of standard audits that a publicly held corporation does. Also I don't believe there were any equity partners so the "books" wouldn't be carefully reviewed - they just needed to not raise blatant red flags.

 

[amarante]

Just now, 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. 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 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.

In Erika's case it is unlikely that she will be found guilty of CRIMINAL charges because that is a higher standard of proof which would involve proving that she had some degree of knowledge and/or complicity.

But civil liability doesn't require that - you are not entitled to keep "gifts" that were stolen. 

[pasdetrois]

I used to operate my business as a sole proprietor, and my attorney hounded me until I set up an LLC for exactly the reasons amarante explains. My attorney drilled into me the warnings about mixing assets, separate accounts, separate loan resources, all that jazz. (I knew someone who owned a successful gift shop. She just threw cash and checks in and out of her cash register. The IRS went nuts on her.)

Quote

I'm glad the entourage got paid.

About two months ago social media reported that Erika is being sued for nonpayment of some of her glam squad, and that they had all quit. She had an ad for free glam squad in exchange for recognition/experience.

ETA:

Seems as if the obligations to the wronged parties (the burn and airline victims) supersede Erika's right to hold onto her ill-gotten gains, even if she is innocent or unknowing about the transactions.  That first obligation trumps her own needs.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2021 by pasdetrois

[HotHW]

8 minutes 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.

In Erika's case it is unlikely that she will be found guilty of CRIMINAL charges because that is a higher standard of proof which would involve proving that she had some degree of knowledge and/or complicity.

But civil liability doesn't require that - you are not entitled to keep "gifts" that were stolen. 

So in other words there are most likely ALOT of people that Tom's firm has paid, or loaned money to over the years, that are shaking in their boots right now. Because going back to the beginning of time, if Tom gave you cash, the judge is about to come and take it back. 

[WhatAmIWatching]

13 minutes ago, amarante said:

I have no real experience with this level of fraud but I would imagine that it was structured so that it theoretically looked like a valid business transaction. The money was NOT from Tom himself but was a loan from the LAW FIRM. There is no way you can justify a payment of $25 million from a law firm to an LLC owned by your wife. 

By structuring it as a titular loan to an innocuously named company - EJ Global (or whatever it was called), it wouldn't raise red flags to whoever was doing accounting. No one at the firm was doing any kind of forensic accounting or even the kind of standard audits that a publicly held corporation does. Also I don't believe there were any equity partners so the "books" wouldn't be carefully reviewed - they just needed to not raise blatant red flags.

 

Wow, just wow. So he knew exactly what he was doing when he did all that. Since he was the only signatory on any of the banking or accounts or whatever, there were no checks or balances. That makes him so much more evil.

So, since RR showed loan docs with Erika's signature on them, she's going to have to cough up whatever those loan amounts state. Yikes! If she indeed didn't know, it's making less sense that she's not angry at Tom and still trying to help cover his butt.

 

Ok I see your later post, that this is all civil proceedings so far...I wonder if the feds are going to jump on this at some point? There's got to be some wire fraud or something in here, too, no? There's just so so much! I sincerely hope that enough money can be recovered to at least pay off the victim's claims, at least that they get most of what they're owed and not token amounts.

 

I'm still so shocked that it's this bad, this big and went on for so long.

[amarante]

1 minute ago, WhatAmIWatching said:

Wow, just wow. So he knew exactly what he was doing when he did all that. Since he was the only signatory on any of the banking or accounts or whatever, there were no checks or balances. That makes him so much more evil.

So, since RR showed loan docs with Erika's signature on them, she's going to have to cough up whatever those loan amounts state. Yikes! If she indeed didn't know, it's making less sense that she's not angry at Tom and still trying to help cover his butt.

 

Ok I see your later post, that this is all civil proceedings so far...I wonder if the feds are going to jump on this at some point? There's got to be some wire fraud or something in here, too, no? There's just so so much! I sincerely hope that enough money can be recovered to at least pay off the victim's claims, at least that they get most of what they're owed and not token amounts.

 

I'm still so shocked that it's this bad, this big and went on for so long.

There is definitely criminal liability because Tom STOLE from his clients. 

The issue is whether Erika is criminally liable. That is more difficult and I think that is not what Erika fears. She is fighting the civil liability which would force her to pay back all of the money that was paid to her AND would mean that she has no right to the community assets.

She is trying to claim that she is the owner of the expensive jewelry, art and other valuable assets. As I recall she is also fighting in terms of retaining "her" share of the Pasadena mausoleum. 

[amarante]

12 minutes ago, pasdetrois said:

 

About two months ago social media reported that Erika is being sued for nonpayment of some of her glam squad, and that they had all quit. She had an ad for free glam squad in exchange for recognition/experience.

 

 

 

Which would explain the decline in her makeup and styling. Free glam squad just isn't as skilled as $25 million glam squad. 

It would also explain why she runs around town looking disheveled. Not that anyone needs to get dressed to run errands but I think her real hair is so fried that the only way to make it look human is with very elaborate extensions and styling which needs a stylist. Also even her makeup when she shows up for events doesn't look as flawless as it used to.

BRAVO provides professional makeup and hair stylists when they do the confessionals but not when they are just filmed for ordinary production shoots.

Edited August 20, 2021 by amarante

[NoWhammies]

The same person who a few episodes ago said of EJ Global, LLC, "It's a very expensive business to run," now says, "I was kept away from the books." Sure, Jan. Also, fuck you. 

[Talented Tenth]

On 8/18/2021 at 9:55 PM, Ms Blue Jay said:

Even if Erika's psychotic story about Tom not knowing anything is true, then how could she spend millions of dollars and not question where it came from.  Anyone would have to be really really really really stupid to believe this.  

Tom was living lavishly before he got with Erica and she became a kept woman. He was a prestigious, famous lawyer with a lot of clout in Los angeles. It's not like their lifestyle drastically changed.  They didn't go from a 2 bedroom apt. to a mansion for instance, so why would she assume it's anything other than money he made from the firm?

[nosedive]

45 minutes ago, chlban said:

I have no trouble believing he cheated. I also have no trouble believing Erika could not care less as long as the money was flowing in her direction.

Agree with both statements.  He is obviously a snake (with all due apologies to snakes) and she is Opportunist Extraordinaire.  But other than the story that a fan reported seeing him at a restaurant with an "older woman," who he kissed when he stood up, and Erika's allegations of his cheating, is there anything else floating around to substantiate the long-term affairs Erika has alleged?  Many people regularly kiss friends hello and goodbye, male or female.  Maybe he was so happy that he was able to stand up on his first try at 80-whatever, it was just a celebratory kiss.  Not that it matters a lot, and as far as I know, infidelity is not a prosecutable crime, but I can't help but suspect that this is just another layer she's plastering on to make herself look like an emotionally abused victim.   

[mytmo]

Regardless of when Tom's signs of mental decline appeared does not exclude his firm from liability of his professional actions.  Erica's putting out the narrative that Tom's mental decline caused these nefarious actions is the ultimate worst.  If Erica is listed as a trustee in any LLC involved she can plead ignorance all she wants but she will be held liable as well.

Edited August 20, 2021 by mytmo

[WhatAmIWatching]

2 minutes ago, amarante said:

There is definitely criminal liability because Tom STOLE from his clients. 

The issue is whether Erika is criminally liable. That is more difficult and I think that is not what Erika fears. She is fighting the civil liability which would force her to pay back all of the money that was paid to her AND would mean that she has no right to the community assets.

She is trying to claim that she is the owner of the expensive jewelry, art and other valuable assets. As I recall she is also fighting in terms of retaining "her" share of the Pasadena mausoleum. 

Yes, I should've separated Erika from Tom on that. He's 100% a criminal! He believed it would never catch up to him, or that he'd croak first I bet. From my pov, I doubt she knew the nuts and bolts, but was happy to have whatever money thrown at her and didn't know or care where it originated.

Will the causes and politicians they donated loads to have to repay that?

 

  Thank you so very much for your patience and answering so many questions -in layman's terms- and for sharing your knowledge! I really appreciate it and am soaking it up like a sponge.