RHoBH in the Media

[Surrealist]

10 minutes ago, RoseAllDay said:

Amsterdam — Amsterdamn! — is another must-see. That, and Brandi slapping LVP.

"Why don't you have a piece of bread, and maybe you'll calm down."

[RoseAllDay]

9 minutes ago, Surrealist said:

"Why don't you have a piece of bread, and maybe you'll calm down."

“Let’s talk about the husband!!!!”

Glass shatters. Chaos ensues. Another restaurant gets a check from Bravo to pay for damages.

[Surrealist]

1 hour ago, RoseAllDay said:

“Let’s talk about the husband!!!!”

Glass shatters. Chaos ensues. Another restaurant gets a check from Bravo to pay for damages.

I also loved how often the crew reused Rinna smashing her wine glass. Especially at the end of the season when she claimed to have matured. I swear they reused that clip for the next two seasons.

[RealHousewife]

Speaking of that fiasco . . .

https://pagesix.com/2022/06/20/lisa-rinna-kathy-hilton-told-me-kim-faked-harry-hamlin-rumors/

[CallmeCray]

9 hours ago, RealHousewife said:

Speaking of that fiasco . . .

https://pagesix.com/2022/06/20/lisa-rinna-kathy-hilton-told-me-kim-faked-harry-hamlin-rumors/

Not buying it.  If there wasn’t any “there” there, Rinna would not have reacted like she did. 

[dosodog]

16 hours ago, RealHousewife said:

Speaking of that fiasco . . .

https://pagesix.com/2022/06/20/lisa-rinna-kathy-hilton-told-me-kim-faked-harry-hamlin-rumors/

I saw that on Twitter.  It was very random.  Crystal posted a cute picture of her dog.  Kathy posted something about the dog.  Rinna replied to Kathy's comment about the dog with the whole "Hey I suddenly flashed on you saying Kim lied about having stuff on Harry".  It was weird.

But then I saw these from your link.  Do y'all know anything about these?

https://pagesix.com/2022/06/03/lisa-rinna-claims-kathy-hilton-paid-marketing-manager-to-start-feud/

https://pagesix.com/2022/06/06/patrick-somers-claims-he-and-lisa-rinna-concocted-kathy-hilton-feud/

What happened there?

[Polliwollidoodle]

Good lawd just when I thought it could not be any more contrived........I guess some people really need to feel important and be in the public eye.

[CallmeCray]

8 hours ago, dosodog said:

I saw that on Twitter.  It was very random.  Crystal posted a cute picture of her dog.  Kathy posted something about the dog.  Rinna replied to Kathy's comment about the dog with the whole "Hey I suddenly flashed on you saying Kim lied about having stuff on Harry".  It was weird.

But then I saw these from your link.  Do y'all know anything about these?

https://pagesix.com/2022/06/03/lisa-rinna-claims-kathy-hilton-paid-marketing-manager-to-start-feud/

https://pagesix.com/2022/06/06/patrick-somers-claims-he-and-lisa-rinna-concocted-kathy-hilton-feud/

What happened there?

Holy, jeez - what a total shitshow!  Lord only knows who's telling the truth, or some version of it.  I can’t imagine that anyone would have any amount of trust in Rinna at this point and would give her the benefit of the doubt.  I laughed pretty hard when I read that she’s “urging” people to clear her name.  

In a lineup of all of the HW’s, (IMO) Rinna comes in dead last when it comes to credibility - however, I can see how Kathy would be awfully motivated to shut down stories in which she (or her ilk) were throwing slurs around…

Edited June 22, 2022 by CallmeCray

[JD5166]

Kathy was friends with Michael Jackson for heavens sake, how could she be racist?! ☺️

[RealHousewife]

37 minutes ago, JD5166 said:

Kathy was friends with Michael Jackson for heavens sake, how could she be racist?! ☺️

[funnygirl]

I didn't know where to put this because it's a preview for next week, so: 

I am here for Garcelle getting in Kyle's meddling ass! 

Also, Kyle saying she's never once seen Erika lose her composure in the seven years she's known her? Are you fucking kidding me?! ROLL THE CLIPS, there are plenty! 

Edited July 7, 2022 by funnygirl

[Surrealist]

13 minutes ago, funnygirl said:

I didn't know where to put this because it's a preview for next week, so: 

I am here for Garcelle getting in Kyle's meddling ass! 

YES, Garcelle and Sheree!!!!

DRAG THEM.

[RealHousewife]

3 hours ago, funnygirl said:

I didn't know where to put this because it's a preview for next week, so: 

I am here for Garcelle getting in Kyle's meddling ass! 

Also, Kyle saying she's never once seen Erika lose her composure in the seven years she's known her? Are you fucking kidding me?! ROLL THE CLIPS, there are plenty! 

Sure Kyle, and we've never seen you do the splits!

[Happy Camper]

3 hours ago, funnygirl said:

Also, Kyle saying she's never once seen Erika lose her composure in the seven years she's known her? Are you fucking kidding me?! ROLL THE CLIPS, there are plenty! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haERgIplzUk&ab_channel=Bravo

Best part.... fast forward to 10:13 in this video. 

Now cut to this scene:

https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/3367887/rhobh-dorit-kemsley-son-jagger-erika-jayne-fraud/

Surprised  Erika didn't  tell Jagger to "Get the fuck out of here". 

[Baltimore Betty]

I think Rinna is looking at Garcelle and Sheree and realizes her time may be coming to an end on the RH's so she is trying to be more interesting and involved in everyone's business.

Kyle saying how great it is to see Erika letting loose is really sad because of the fact she is letting loose because of a drugs and booze combo. Maybe Kyle should remember how her sister was letting loose due to drugs and booze, was that fun for you Kyle?  

Does anyone else think apologies are less than sincere when the apologizer is inside wearing sunglasses whilst doing said apology?  

Was Crystal at Sutton's lunch?

Let's talk about that leg lift Erika did at the birthday party, please, please, please tell me she was wearing panties. Not to shame her but the perfect ice princess and sex goddess that Erika wants us to believe she is has cellulite, we all saw it.

[WhatAmIWatching]

10 hours ago, funnygirl said:

I didn't know where to put this because it's a preview for next week, so: 

I am here for Garcelle getting in Kyle's meddling ass! 

Also, Kyle saying she's never once seen Erika lose her composure in the seven years she's known her? Are you fucking kidding me?! ROLL THE CLIPS, there are plenty! 

Oh godddd not Erika with the "your boys were so well spoken" micro aggression! Why not just say they were articulate, you daft cow! 
 

Kyle can't help herself and always has to have ott expressions and has to stick her 8th nose into everything. It's not about you, Kyle! Erika can speak for herself. Quit excusing her horrendous behavior! She only wants Erika going off the rails so her own life isn't under scrutiny. I will never forget her physical abuse of Sutton, and if she's that comfortable assaulting someone on camera, how far does she go in private?
 

Lmao, Garcelle and Sheree shut Kyle tf down. That was amazing! Rinna Presley sitting there, wheels turning, trying to figure out how to keep Kyle, Erika and Dorit's mess from sticking to her. Can she switch sides and no one will notice? Lol. Yeah, you're backing the wrong team, you beast. Overly-verbose Dorit knows to keep her mouth quiet then, but I'll bet she's going to snark it up in her TH's or come for Garcelle and/or Sheree later.

Edited July 7, 2022 by WhatAmIWatching

[Jel]

Fucking Kyle! Garcelle says, “Under no circumstances can you disrespect a kid, but my kid…”

Cut to Kyle. Is she nodding in agreement? No. She’s making one of her slightly-skeptical-about-this faces.

Gtfo

Edited July 7, 2022 by Jel

[WhatAmIWatching]

1 hour ago, Jel said:

Fucking Kyle! Garcelle says, “Under no circumstances can you disrespect a kid, but my kid…”

Cut to Kyle. Is she nodding in agreement? No. She’s making one of her slightly-skeptical-about-this faces.

Gtfo

This is why I don't buy her recent "apology" post, which had zero apology in it, and was basically only a recap with justifications.

  She sat there while Garcelle and Sheree ever so politely and succinctly schooled her, so she's already known that she, Dorit and the giggle boys were way out of bounds. She lived this shit last year, she didn't have a Freaky Friday moment where she switched bodies with someone and had no idea what her body did all year, and the best she could come up with was 'I just saw the clips and that's not what I meant.'

And she still hasn't apologized for physically abusing Sutton, and still no apology to Garcellle and her family. Not a word from the rest of the clowns, either.

[chlban]

14 hours ago, RealHousewife said:

Sure Kyle, and we've never seen you do the splits!

Kyle is the worst. I mean, STFU, troublemaker. And spare us the never seeing Erika lose her composure. Are you effing brain dead? She "lost her composure" when poor Eileen MENTIONED Erika's adult son. She didn't criticize him, didn't tell him to get the F outta here, she simply mentioned him and Erika went ballistic. She has threatened people like she thinks she is Don Corleone and lost her shit almost as often as Teresa Guduice, but idiot, fake bitch, Vile Kyle has never seen her lose her composure? Goodbye Kyle.

Edited July 7, 2022 by chlban

[njbchlover]

8 minutes ago, chlban said:

Kyle is the worst. I mean, STFU, troublemaker. And spare us the never seeing Erika lose her composure. Are you effing brain dead? She "lost her composure" when poor Eileen MENTIONED Erika's adult son. She didn't criticize him, didn't tell him to get the F outta here, she simply mentioned him and Erika went ballistic. She has threatened people like she thinks she is Don Corleone and lost her shit almost as often as Teresa Guduice, but idiot, fake bitch, Vile Kyle has never seen her lose her composure? Goodbye Kyle.

Reading what I've bolded, it really makes me wonder what LVP and Ken have to say about this entire situation.  And, I know LVP could be a "sniper from the side", but I'm still believing her, regardless of what these other bitches have said.

I would seriously love to see LVP and Ken do a running commentary show like previous cast members do for Below Deck. 

Edited July 7, 2022 by njbchlover

[65mickey]

I am convinced that there are no depths to which Rinna, Erika and Kyle will not not sink to to split apart and drive away Garcelle, Sutton and maybe Crystal. They are especially threatened by Garcelle's popularity and they are probably shaking in their monsterous shoes that Sheree will be brought in on a regular basis. So they are doubling down on their hateful behavior. 

[Surrealist]

Jagger was ahead of the curve in calling out Erika as a "bad guy" before that Tom and money theft gossip started coming out.

I didn't care much for PK in the beginning, but when he called Erika "inherently cold," I was so glad someone told her to her face. Even the OG version of Dorit called her boring and ridiculous. Why did these two switch to the other side? SMDH.

[RealHousewife]

3 hours ago, njbchlover said:

Reading what I've bolded, it really makes me wonder what LVP and Ken have to say about this entire situation.  And, I know LVP could be a "sniper from the side", but I'm still believing her, regardless of what these other bitches have said.

I would seriously love to see LVP and Ken do a running commentary show like previous cast members do for Below Deck. 

My guess is Vanderpump would find all of this nuts. She didn't care for Eileen, but I think she still felt bad for her when Erika went psycho. 

I used to get Kyle's side somewhat when it came to issues with their friendship, but a lot of the stuff that annoyed Kyle about Vanderpump are traits she posses too. She wants to play chess, but she's no Bobby Fischer. She meddles under the guise of wanting to help, but she also puts her hands on people. She didn't like Vanderpump's non-apologies, but Kyle's are hardly genuine so what's the point.  She found Vanderpump's humor condescending, but at least we never saw her curse at kids or find hurting their feelings funny. 

[Sweet-tea]

I’ve never heard Sharrell go after someone they way she goes after Diana in this video.

Either I missed it for the Kyle and Mauricio headline is never addressed. 

[Surrealist]

49 minutes ago, Sweet-tea said:

I’ve never heard Sharrell go after someone they way she goes after Diana in this video.

Either I missed it for the Kyle and Mauricio headline is never addressed. 

This season gets cringier with every story that comes out.

[WhatAmIWatching]

Soo I was on Page Six for an article concerning the SLC HW's and I stumbled across this from June regarding Caroline Stanbury (currently on RHODubai, previously on Ladies of London):

https://pagesix.com/2022/06/17/caroline-stanbury-slams-kyle-richards-account-of-when-they-met/
 

On wwhl, Kyle said Caroline Stanbury stole a jacket of hers! When Caroline called her on it, Kyle acknowledged in Caroline's DM that Caroline did return said borrowed jacket, and then purchased one from Kyle's store. So on live tv, she lied and basically called Caroline a thief and didn't bother to set the record straight publicly! She's such a piece of work!
 

 What is going on with her this year? I know she has had mean tendencies over the years, but from my memory, she's not been quite this evil before.

[CharlizeCat]

May these two PLEASE by paired up on an upcoming RHUGT!

[Slakkie]

https://replay.dropbox.com/share/LwRZq2zJme6F6wpT?video_version_id=pid_rvv%3AAAAAAPhlMHJMLqXPpSMquioosNxr2tAo8vw-bW6fCBvfyDGr

Holy guacamole - Tom called an attorney and they recorded it - he is talking to Erica still.

[ZettaK]

4 minutes ago, Slakkie said:

https://replay.dropbox.com/share/LwRZq2zJme6F6wpT?video_version_id=pid_rvv%3AAAAAAPhlMHJMLqXPpSMquioosNxr2tAo8vw-bW6fCBvfyDGr

Holy guacamole - Tom called an attorney and they recorded it - he is talking to Erica still.

How old is this? Tom said he was in the assisted living facility, and he didn't sound like he had dementia. He discussed lawsuits, and asked about specific cases. 

[Slakkie]

50 minutes ago, ZettaK said:

How old is this? Tom said he was in the assisted living facility, and he didn't sound like he had dementia. He discussed lawsuits, and asked about specific cases. 

Per Ronald Richards - it happened TODAY.  Erika called him to discuss that she was going to be deposed which aligns to her being served for the civil RICO charges.

[Baltimore Betty]

1 hour ago, Slakkie said:

https://replay.dropbox.com/share/LwRZq2zJme6F6wpT?video_version_id=pid_rvv%3AAAAAAPhlMHJMLqXPpSMquioosNxr2tAo8vw-bW6fCBvfyDGr

Holy guacamole - Tom called an attorney and they recorded it - he is talking to Erica still.

It is suspect that Erika and Tom are still speaking but listening to Tom he sounds fuzzy on details, could have his dates and times confused, unless they searched his phone for his call records it would be hard to prove since he is supposedly non compos mentis.  When my father was near the end he would call me at all hours of the night and day, he was unaware of time of day or the day for that matter, he was hyper focused on his brokerage account, wanting every monthly statement put in a binder, spead sheets filled out...it was his main focus, that and retelling his tales of his Navy days in China during WWII, to me Tom sounded like he was having a conversation from months ago, he called a lawyer on a Saturday and is not even thinking about billiable hours and how much that call could cost him if the lawyer was to bill him.

[realityplease]

3 hours ago, Slakkie said:

Per Ronald Richards - it happened TODAY.  Erika called him to discuss that she was going to be deposed which aligns to her being served for the civil RICO charges.

2 hours ago, Baltimore Betty said:

to me Tom sounded like he was having a conversation from months ago, he called a lawyer on a Saturday and is not even thinking about billiable hours and how much that call could cost him if the lawyer was to bill him.

Let's not get confused.  Erika called Tom today to tell him she is going to be deposed - that deposition is likely in a currently on-going case.  Somewhat garbled, but I don't believe the RICO case was mentioned at all. Moreover, it's unlikely she'd be deposed yet in the RICO case. Even if served today/recently, she doesn't have to make an appearance in that action (i.e., answer the RICO complaint) for 20 days from service - or as extended by stipulation/order upon application.  And typically, in federal cases, there's a discovery hold for a period of time until an appearance is entered or discovery plan formed.               Nothing to suggest Tom's call took place months ago. And why would Tom care about calling an attorney on Saturday? To a litigator, Sat/Sun are just days of the week - to work or make/take calls, same as any other day, if they chose. Not unusual. Depends on attorney & caseload needs. Also, the call isn't charged to Tom - if he's speaking to Erika's attorney, it's charged to the client: Erika. Nor would Tom likely care about costs if he needed the attorney's input. You don't sweat the cost of every phone call.  It's a mere pittance weighed against the total case costs/client's needs.

[FlyingEgret]

Color me confused. Who recorded the call? Tom's attorney would never release that. Erika's attorney would never release that. Any attorney intimately involved in the proceedings would know the details of the multiple cases. Was it just a random attorney he saw on commercial while watching People's Court?

[Slakkie]

7 hours ago, FlyingEgret said:

Color me confused. Who recorded the call? Tom's attorney would never release that. Erika's attorney would never release that. Any attorney intimately involved in the proceedings would know the details of the multiple cases. Was it just a random attorney he saw on commercial while watching People's Court?

Tom called Ronald RIchards - personally I think the only thing that it shows is that he actually has dementia.  Oh and RR is an attention whore.  I do believe that it was really disgusting to post (but I did add the link here so maybe I am as well) but supposedly there is way more. 

[ZettaK]

36 minutes ago, Slakkie said:

Tom called Ronald RIchards - personally I think the only thing that it shows is that he actually has dementia.  Oh and RR is an attention whore.  I do believe that it was really disgusting to post (but I did add the link here so maybe I am as well) but supposedly there is way more. 

I listened to it again. It must be new because Erika's deposition was discussed. Erika called Tom- she calls him every now and then according to him, and he called the attorney. I don't think he has dementia, at least from listening to this short excerpt of a call because he was asking about cases, and he called after Erika told him about her recent lawsuit. He knows there are many cases (and lawsuits) anyway, and was asking about details of the case (which one was it). Erika was just sued again. I always said he didn't have dementia and he had a plan in case he was exposed. We have a relative with dementia (not even that advanced), and she doesn't remember names, or her relationship to a specific person. She doesn't even recognize a person if the person shows her a photo with themselves in it. 

[Hiyo]

Dementia isn’t the same for all people. My grandmother had dementia. Her first few years her memory was on and off. Sometimes she was fine, other times she was completely lost, sometimes she was inbetween.

[WhatAmIWatching]

1 hour ago, Slakkie said:

Tom called Ronald RIchards - personally I think the only thing that it shows is that he actually has dementia.  Oh and RR is an attention whore.  I do believe that it was really disgusting to post (but I did add the link here so maybe I am as well) but supposedly there is way more. 

 When I started the recording, I felt sick that Ronald Richards taped and released that call, it seemed over the line. Then I realized that Tom called *him*.  
 Why was Tom calling him? Was he going to try and intimidate and threaten him as in days of old? Was he going to try and placate him and play the good guy, as he did all the widows, orphans, burn victims, women battling breast cancer, and everyone else he stole money from? He sounded pretty off though, imo, so whatever he intended to do didn't work. He must have gotten stressed after Erika called him to tell him about the latest filing. I kinda wonder if she cussed him out or was harsh and this was him trying to fix it? I'm glad RR taped that, just to cover his own ass. 
 

 I've been on the fence with RR making everything so public. He seems pretty sleazy and skeevy, but then I remember all the people Tom stole from, and how Erika has behaved when it came to light; how she spent all of that money, and refuses to return anything. She even called those poor people liars. I also remember all the judges, and other people in power, who let this all happen in the first place, and then I'm glad RR puts it all out for everyone to know.
 

 I sure wish they'd go after the judges, the people in power at the Calif Bar, and everyone else that were bribed or intimidated by Tom, and enabled him to run his massive grift. I don't understand why the sole focus is Erika. Yes, she and Tom benefited the most, but a lot of other folks need knots yanked in their tails too.

[JonnieUniteUs]

18 hours ago, WhatAmIWatching said:

Soo I was on Page Six for an article concerning the SLC HW's and I stumbled across this from June regarding Caroline Stanbury (currently on RHODubai, previously on Ladies of London):

https://pagesix.com/2022/06/17/caroline-stanbury-slams-kyle-richards-account-of-when-they-met/
 

On wwhl, Kyle said Caroline Stanbury stole a jacket of hers! When Caroline called her on it, Kyle acknowledged in Caroline's DM that Caroline did return said borrowed jacket, and then purchased one from Kyle's store. So on live tv, she lied and basically called Caroline a thief and didn't bother to set the record straight publicly! She's such a piece of work!
 

 What is going on with her this year? I know she has had mean tendencies over the years, but from my memory, she's not been quite this evil before.

I wondered about menopause after seeing her rag on Mauricio about how he wasn’t stirring the pasta properly and the rag dolling of Sutton but as far as I know menopause doesn’t cause women to make up whopping lies🤔

[realityplease]

You're right, Tom was probably speaking to Richards or a cohort of Richards - not Erika's attorney or his own. Reason I got confused is that the release of this tape crosses so many ethical boundaries.

If Tom called this attorney on the phone, how can Richards (or any attorney) tape it? In California, a party to a telephone call needs the consent of the other party to tape it- and if Tom has been adjudged to have dementia, he is without ability to give consent.  Seems unethical/illegal to have taped, whether Richards (or whoever) taped the call and released it.

Second, if Tom called Richards (presumably an opposing counsel, or at least in a role in opposition to Tom), how can Richards speak directly with Tom, if Richards knows Tom is represented by counsel &/or because determined to have dementia, has an appointed representative.  Seems unethical to speak with any other than the opposing attorney, or given the dementia, if no opposing counsel, then Tom's appointed representative.

I never much believed the dementia claim (arising out of the blue just 1 month after Girardi served, articulately, on a panel on complex trial litigation, and 1 month or so after he gave a long and detailed taped interview for the ABA on complex litigation.) I know, I know - every dementia case is different - but whatever, the claim WAS given credence by the court - & Richards should know the ethical boundaries governing taped calls, directly speaking with opposing parties who are represented, and directly speaking with those deemed incompetent to participate in their own defense.

[Slakkie]

1 hour ago, realityplease said:

You're right, Tom was probably speaking to Richards or a cohort of Richards - not Erika's attorney or his own. Reason I got confused is that the release of this tape crosses so many ethical boundaries.

If Tom called this attorney on the phone, how can Richards (or any attorney) tape it? In California, a party to a telephone call needs the consent of the other party to tape it- and if Tom has been adjudged to have dementia, he is without ability to give consent.  Seems unethical/illegal to have taped, whether Richards (or whoever) taped the call and released it.

Second, if Tom called Richards (presumably an opposing counsel, or at least in a role in opposition to Tom), how can Richards speak directly with Tom, if Richards knows Tom is represented by counsel &/or because determined to have dementia, has an appointed representative.  Seems unethical to speak with any other than the opposing attorney, or given the dementia, if no opposing counsel, then Tom's appointed representative.

They are saying RR was not in CA so one party approval of recording was legal in the state he was in.   Tom has no attorney for the bankruptcy so there was no exparte communication.

Thats the RR story at least.

[realityplease]

1 hour ago, Slakkie said:

They are saying RR was not in CA so one party approval of recording was legal in the state he was in.   Tom has no attorney for the bankruptcy so there was no exparte communication.

Thats the RR story at least.

Good luck with that. Richards MUST know the court ordered Tom into a conservatorship, that is, due to dementia Tom is unable to participate in his own defense - whether or not "represented" by counsel in the bankruptcy in the typical sense.  (I really don't know the details of that.)

I think Richards is a California State Bar member & has offices here. The bankruptcy case & the new RICO case are in federal courts in California.   Whether Richards' conduct is deemed legal (as he'll contend) - or "merely" takes advantage of a demented Tom - or actually unethical/illegal & not in accord with federal court local rules/procedures in California, it seems risky to record a call with someone adjudged to need a conservator.  (Despite where the call was received.) By not immediately telling Tom he cannot speak with him given a ruling that Tom is unable to participate in his defense, Richards appears to take unfair advantage of Tom. Not a good look even if Richards wriggles around the ultimate legalities of it. This is what gives attorneys a bad name.  I have no sympathy for Tom AT ALL, but still want Richards to play fair - lest he lose all by not controlling his urges to take unfair advantage of Tom's mental state or coerce Erika into settlement.  The victims deserve a fair win - and return of money due them from Tom/Erika - NOT to have things stretched out or screwed up due to RR's apparent interest in publicity & impulse to release information outside of the courthouse.   

[Slakkie]

2 hours ago, realityplease said:

Good luck with that. Richards MUST know the court ordered Tom into a conservatorship, that is, due to dementia Tom is unable to participate in his own defense - whether or not "represented" by counsel in the bankruptcy in the typical sense.  (I really don't know the details of that.)

I think Richards is a California State Bar member & has offices here. The bankruptcy case & the new RICO case are in federal courts in California.   Whether Richards' conduct is deemed legal (as he'll contend) - or "merely" takes advantage of a demented Tom - or actually unethical/illegal & not in accord with federal court local rules/procedures in California, it seems risky to record a call with someone adjudged to need a conservator.  (Despite where the call was received.) By not immediately telling Tom he cannot speak with him given a ruling that Tom is unable to participate in his defense, Richards appears to take unfair advantage of Tom. Not a good look even if Richards wriggles around the ultimate legalities of it. This is what gives attorneys a bad name.  I have no sympathy for Tom AT ALL, but still want Richards to play fair - lest he lose all by not controlling his urges to take unfair advantage of Tom's mental state or coerce Erika into settlement.  The victims deserve a fair win - and return of money due them from Tom/Erika - NOT to have things stretched out or screwed up due to RR's apparent interest in publicity & impulse to release information outside of the courthouse.   

I think RR is a big famewhore myself and it was in poor taste however I did listen as well ha ha ha.  I think RR is almost as slimy 

[pasdetrois]

I thought Richards was no longer involved in any of the cases. If that's true, he can speak to anyone, yes?

I've posted before that I participate in a dementia support group (I am a caretaker for a family member). Many of the caretakers have family members with dementia who are still working. These include a physician, an attorney, and a high-ranking government official. They are in the earlier stages of the disease, and have others helping them do their jobs. Their "work muscle memory" is still strong. During these early to mid-stages of the disease, people can swing between capable and not. (Another of my family members did this until her Alzheimers was advanced.) There are dozens of types of dementia, and some come on very slowly and steadily (Alzheimers) and some come on swiftly, plateau, and then advance again.

I'm confused by Tom being in memory care, which is the last phase of the disease except for hospice. I believe he could occasionally call and speak coherently, but rarely. Perhaps that is what Richards experienced. I think when the cases come before a judge, there will be close scrutiny by the court on Tom's diagnosis. Perhaps an independent evaluation sponsored by the court.

"

Edited July 11, 2022 by pasdetrois

[MsTree]

While every case of dementia is different, it's something that does not get better over time.

I'm with the folks who believe Tom's "dementia" is just a ruse.  Uncle Junior anyone?!

[pasdetrois]

You may be right, MsTree. Certainly this gang is the type to try something like this.

But it's hard for me to believe that a licensed, regulated, designated memory care facility would accept a patient who does not have the correct diagnosis. An insurance company would object. Nationwide there is a scarcity of memory care beds and waiting lists.

Also, I've speculated that Tom has had the diagnosis for a while, or his family/law partners suspected it, and covered for him in order to keep him functioning as the firm's rainmaking figurehead. At least a half-dozen people relied on him to bring in big bucks to pay their salaries and afford them luxuries. Tom was a power broker, at least until the scandal broke.

Edited July 11, 2022 by pasdetrois

[heatherchandler]

On 7/10/2022 at 8:31 AM, WhatAmIWatching said:

 I've been on the fence with RR making everything so public. He seems pretty sleazy and skeevy, but then I remember all the people Tom stole from, and how Erika has behaved when it came to light; how she spent all of that money, and refuses to return anything. She even called those poor people liars. I also remember all the judges, and other people in power, who let this all happen in the first place, and then I'm glad RR puts it all out for everyone to know.

RR is skeevy, but I applaud him for putting all of the info out there, so we all know exactly what is going on.  If we didn't have RR, we would not know all of the details.  We would be given false BS from Erika.  I'm glad he is willing to look like a snake, and actually be a snake sometimes, since Erika is doing her best to cover everything up.  

20 hours ago, realityplease said:

Good luck with that. Richards MUST know the court ordered Tom into a conservatorship, that is, due to dementia Tom is unable to participate in his own defense - whether or not "represented" by counsel in the bankruptcy in the typical sense.  (I really don't know the details of that.)

I think Richards is a California State Bar member & has offices here. The bankruptcy case & the new RICO case are in federal courts in California.   Whether Richards' conduct is deemed legal (as he'll contend) - or "merely" takes advantage of a demented Tom - or actually unethical/illegal & not in accord with federal court local rules/procedures in California, it seems risky to record a call with someone adjudged to need a conservator.  (Despite where the call was received.) By not immediately telling Tom he cannot speak with him given a ruling that Tom is unable to participate in his defense, Richards appears to take unfair advantage of Tom. Not a good look even if Richards wriggles around the ultimate legalities of it. This is what gives attorneys a bad name.  I have no sympathy for Tom AT ALL, but still want Richards to play fair - lest he lose all by not controlling his urges to take unfair advantage of Tom's mental state or coerce Erika into settlement.  The victims deserve a fair win - and return of money due them from Tom/Erika - NOT to have things stretched out or screwed up due to RR's apparent interest in publicity & impulse to release information outside of the courthouse.   

Well pretty much everything Tom did is/was illegal, so if RR is willing to do some questionable stuff to get it all out there, then I say good.  I don't care if he plays fair - Tom was decidedly unfair by stealing from vulnerable people.

I doubt RR has the ability to muck up the case, he is not a part of it anymore.  

[realityplease]

15 hours ago, pasdetrois said:

I thought Richards was no longer involved in any of the cases. If that's true, he can speak to anyone, yes?

. . . Many of the caretakers have family members with dementia who are still working. These include a physician, an attorney, and a high-ranking government official. They are in the earlier stages of the disease, and have others helping them do their jobs. Their "work muscle memory" is still strong. During these early to mid-stages of the disease, people can swing between capable and not. .  .

I'm confused by Tom being in memory care, which is the last phase of the disease except for hospice. . .when the cases come before a judge, there will be close scrutiny by the court on Tom's diagnosis. Perhaps an independent evaluation sponsored by the court.

9 minutes ago, pasdetrois said:

But it's hard for me to believe that a licensed, regulated, designated memory care care facility would accept a patient who does not have the correct diagnosis. An insurance company would object.

Richards is a State Bar member & licensed attorney who WAS involved at some stage. A court ALREADY evaluated Tom's mental state. Tom's BEEN diagnosed. Richards KNOWS that after briefing & a hearing, the court ordered Tom into a conservatorship & that Tom resides in a memory care facility. Richards may not currently of record, but he's not clueless of Tom's condition & Richards is still bound by ethical rules that prohibit him from taking unfair advantage &/or laws governing phone call taping. As I said earlier, whether his conduct and whether legally/ethically problematic or justified, remains to be seen. But it's not a great look. 

You're under some mistaken assumptions.  Many facilities service early, middle OR late stage dementia. Not just "last phase." While some pay with long term insurance if they have it, it's not typically covered by insurance. You may qualify at some facilities if you have no means & qualify for Medicaid, etc, but many facilities (Tom's) are private pay tho Medicare may pick up some med costs. Also, I'm shocked that attorneys/physicians are practicing while impaired - even if assisted by others - because most importantly, they must maintain valid current malpractice insurance.  I'd hate to be the client/patient of someone swinging between capable & incapable (given no way to know the Dr/attorney's current state), even if permission sought, and I'm pretty sure no insurer would risk insuring the doctor/attorney if given the true facts. (As to government officials with dementia - well, no surprise there.)  Last, when I first dealt with a relative's dementia, I used the term caretaker and whenever I did, immediately corrected & told the proper usage is "caregiver."    

[pasdetrois]

2 hours ago, realityplease said:

Many facilities service early, middle OR late stage dementia. Not just "last phase."

I was referring to how the care is characterized: independent living; assisted living; memory care; and sometimes hospice. Some facilities serve only one, some serve more. Tom is in memory care, according to media. That service is for later phases of dementia.

[ZettaK]

I know there are different stages of dementia, but Tom's diagnosis when his fraud was exposed and was sued is a little bit too convenient. It appears as if he had a plan to be diagnosed and enter a facility at one point. It is unethical and illegal if he practiced law while his associates and relatives knew he had early ( ?) stages of dementia. 

Edited July 13, 2022 by ZettaK

[Natalie68]

On 7/10/2022 at 6:31 AM, WhatAmIWatching said:

 When I started the recording, I felt sick that Ronald Richards taped and released that call, it seemed over the line. Then I realized that Tom called *him*.  
 Why was Tom calling him? Was he going to try and intimidate and threaten him as in days of old? Was he going to try and placate him and play the good guy, as he did all the widows, orphans, burn victims, women battling breast cancer, and everyone else he stole money from? He sounded pretty off though, imo, so whatever he intended to do didn't work. He must have gotten stressed after Erika called him to tell him about the latest filing. I kinda wonder if she cussed him out or was harsh and this was him trying to fix it? I'm glad RR taped that, just to cover his own ass. 
 

 I've been on the fence with RR making everything so public. He seems pretty sleazy and skeevy, but then I remember all the people Tom stole from, and how Erika has behaved when it came to light; how she spent all of that money, and refuses to return anything. She even called those poor people liars. I also remember all the judges, and other people in power, who let this all happen in the first place, and then I'm glad RR puts it all out for everyone to know.
 

 I sure wish they'd go after the judges, the people in power at the Calif Bar, and everyone else that were bribed or intimidated by Tom, and enabled him to run his massive grift. I don't understand why the sole focus is Erika. Yes, she and Tom benefited the most, but a lot of other folks need knots yanked in their tails too.

I am cool with him playing it.  It might help those that are waiting for their waiting for their $.  Plus skeevy people being outed makes me smile.