Erika Girardi/Erika Jayne: Let them eat cake

[amarante]

Today's LA Times has an interesting article on Girardi's affair with the judge. Erika had "outed" her back in 2020. The judge was gifted with stuff paid for with funds from the Client Trust Funds and recently returned them - unlike Jessica.

There is a funny bit regarding Erika's deposition testimony when EJ learns that Girardi had sent the Judge $300,000 for a purchase of a vacation condo. 

The Judge seems like a piece of work - she was carrying on a long term affair with Girardi (four years until approximately 2016) and at the time she was engaged. I mean - it is wrong to have an affair when one is married but at least there is theoretically justification in that one might not want to be officially divorced because of children or finances or whatever. But why in the world would one have an affair if one is only engaged - what kind of person with no moral compass would be able to justify cheating on a fiance with a long term relationship.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-08-31/appellate-justice-condo-tom-girardi-affair-wire

I can't imagine EJ didn't know that Girardi was having at least that one affair - I wonder if the start of the affair coincided with Girardi starting to bankroll her "entertainment" career.

[Blondie]

7 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

Hi Blondie, I don't think you should have been made to feel that you had to delete your post. Not everyone reads every subject in every topic. I, for one, missed the "original", so I would have appreciated reading all about it. 

I didn't feel as if I had to delete it.  I haven't been watching the show because I don't care for Ms Just own it, or Kyle, or Erika.  I think they have a lot of problems.  I only deleted because it was old news that had been discussed a few months ago.   I get my info about whats going on through all you wonderful people here on the forums and from some of my private friends.

If you want to read what was referenced just Google. Erika White/Erika Giardia  and Bank of America.

[RoseAllDay]

https://pagesix.com/2022/08/31/erika-jayne-scores-win-in-5m-aiding-and-abetting-lawsuit/

Judge says she knew nuthin’ about where the money came from.

Quote

Erika Jayne scored a major win in court this week in the $5 million fraud lawsuit two of her estranged husband Tom Girardi’s former colleagues – attorneys Philip R. Sheldon and Robert P. Finn – filed in late 2020.

Los Angeles Judge Richard Fruin found no evidence that the “Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” star, 51, participated in “any wrongdoing,” Jayne’s attorney Evan C. Borges exclusively confirmed to Page Six on Tuesday.

Money, apparently, just started showing up in her LLC. 🤷‍♀️

Quote

The judge cited Jayne’s deposition, in which she told the court, “Listen, they did all the books at Girardi & Keese. They were in charge of all of the ledgers … I didn’t do the invoices.”

The “Housewife” added, “I just thought it would all be taken care of. I didn’t really ask. Like, it’s not like I was raking in millions of bucks … I didn’t know what they were doing down there.”

But wait, there’s more.

Quote

The judge said he also made his decision on the grounds that Sheldon and Finn did not prove that Jayne owed them any fiduciary duty, which is the obligation a party has to act in another party’s best interest.

He also pointed out that Girardi was also not at fault for this – as attorneys “do not owe fiduciary duties to their co-counsel.”

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Ronald Richards, exclusively tells Page Six Wednesday in response that there is a “discrepancy” in the judge’s ruling because he “wrongly focused” on a duty they were “not arguing” was violated.

The civil litigation attorney says that they plan to show in their appeal that Girardi “had a fiduciary duty to third parties who were expecting money” from a trust account.

It’s not over for the widows, orphans, and burn victims. How could Tom NOT have a fiduciary duty to the third parties? 

Any analysis by our resident legal eagles will be much appreciated. Bur AFAIC, where there’s smoke…

[realityplease]

Blondie: I don't think that you should feel that you should have deleted your post. As I said, it's hard to know where to post sometimes given overlapping topics. Don't want you to feel bad in any way. It just happens.  And the threads are long & sometimes we can't go all the way back in time to where we left off.  We all do it.

(In fact, I just posted in the Media thread about the LA Times article - the judge returned the jewelry - but not sure she returned the $300k given to her from Tom for an oceanfront condo purchase.  The judge claims she thought it was from Tom directly but turns out it actually came from a client trust account meant to hold settlement money for clients.  I could have posted it here, but opted for the Media thread.)

[realityplease]

1 hour ago, RoseAllDay said:

https://pagesix.com/2022/08/31/erika-jayne-scores-win-in-5m-aiding-and-abetting-lawsuit/

Judge says she knew nuthin’ about where the money came from.

It’s not over for the widows, orphans, and burn victims. How could Tom NOT have a fiduciary duty to the third parties?

Appears Sheldon and Finn were attorneys who referred many, many cases to Tom over the years.  Sheldon and Finn were to share in the attorneys fees recovered if & when Tom favorably resolved the cases.  Appears Tom resolved certain of these cases but stiffed Sheldon & Finn on their share of the fees & they sued.

An attorney owes fiduciary duties to one's client. But an attorney (here Tom) owes no "fiduciary" duty to co-counsel, that is, an obligation to look out for their best interests. (Nor does an attorney owe fiduciary duties to opposing counsel or to many other types of "third parties.")  Tom fleeced ALL of them, but only the client can assert breach of fiduciary duty, not co-counsel. 

Since there was no evidence that Erika had anything to do with Tom's contracts or agreements with his co-counsel or actual knowledge of his misdeeds to the co-counsel - she, personally, prevailed against Sheldon & Finn's claims.  But sounds as if her entity, EJ Global is still in the case & don't know enough about the case to know why. 

To the extent this has bearing on any other matters, could be argued that this FEES dispute has nothing to do with Erika's part, if any, in Tom's settlement money shuffle or whether money was or wasn't shuffled out of Tom's client trust accounts to her EJ Global entity or elsewhere, & her knowledge, if any, about THAT.

[Surrealist]

She's still an asshole, regardless of whether she was vindicated in this one regard.

She's shown zero sympathy for the victims.

[amarante]

1 hour ago, Surrealist said:

She's still an asshole, regardless of whether she was vindicated in this one regard.

She's shown zero sympathy for the victims.

I don't think this is a "major" win for EJ as the real issue is whether her company will have to pay back the roughly $25 million that came from the Trust funds.

It really has never been about whether EJ actually *knew* about Girardi's abuse of the trust funds - the issue is that the funds were stolen and so she has no right to them anymore than someone who gets a stolen car has a right to keep the car. 

[realityplease]

10 minutes ago, amarante said:

I don't think this is a "major" win for EJ as the real issue is whether her company will have to pay back the roughly $25 million that came from the Trust funds.

It really has never been about whether EJ actually *knew* about Girardi's abuse of the trust funds - the issue is that the funds were stolen and so she has no right to them anymore than someone who gets a stolen car has a right to keep the car. 

Yes. I agree - not a major win against a lawsuit by Tom's stiffed co-counsel.  (Just like dismissal of the Illinois case was not cause for celebration. The dismissal was not on the merits & merely because the case was filed in the wrong jurisdiction - & now re-filed.) And I wholly agree with you that what she actually "knew" doesn't really matter in the bankruptcy case that will require her to disgorge trust funds she received. 

But she's facing a number of other lawsuits.  Some allege, among other things, causes of action for fraud, for RICO (with a predicate criminal enterprise), for fraudulently obtaining a loan from B of A. etc..  These WILL require proof of knowledge: what she knew & when.  Knowing about Tom's agreements with co-counsel over fees is not at all the same as knowing about money shuffled out of trust funds & into her corporation.  Certainly no cause for any victory dance for her yet.  

[amarante]

2 minutes ago, realityplease said:

Yes. I agree - not a major win against a lawsuit by Tom's stiffed co-counsel.  (Just like dismissal of the Illinois case was not cause for celebration. The dismissal was not on the merits & merely because the case was filed in the wrong jurisdiction - & now re-filed.) And I wholly agree with you that what she actually "knew" doesn't really matter in the bankruptcy case that will require her to disgorge trust funds she received. 

But she's facing a number of other lawsuits.  Some allege, among other things, causes of action for fraud, for RICO (with a predicate criminal enterprise), for fraudulently obtaining a loan from B of A. etc..  These WILL require proof of knowledge: what she knew & when.  Knowing about Tom's agreements with co-counsel over fees is not at all the same as knowing about money shuffled out of trust funds & into her corporation.  Certainly no cause for any victory dance for her yet.  

I don't think EJ will be charged with anything criminally because proof of her mens rea would be almost impossible to prove. 

And I don't think the government is really interested in doing it because unlike the Giudices (for example) there is nothing better to convict high profile people because it puts the fear of god and makes others think twice. High profile and/or major sums of money plus a good chance of winning or getting a guilty plea.

They haven't made a move against Tom criminally and I suspect that given his age they will let it drop. I would be much more interested in there being some kind of strong investigation of all of the people who enabled Girardi throughout the years like the Bar which had complaints against him but had someone investigating him who Girardi was paying off - and it was obvious that he was doing so. I think Girardi hired his son to work in the firm.

But truly EJ is worried about having to give back the money - I think the EJ payments alone are over $25,000,000 and even if there is a settlement 50% of that amount is a LOT.

My question is how is EJ actually funding all of these lawyers. Lawyers don't come cheap and she is filing a lot of motions on multiple cases.

[Surrealist]

31 minutes ago, realityplease said:

Yes. I agree - not a major win against a lawsuit by Tom's stiffed co-counsel.  (Just like dismissal of the Illinois case was not cause for celebration. The dismissal was not on the merits & merely because the case was filed in the wrong jurisdiction - & now re-filed.) And I wholly agree with you that what she actually "knew" doesn't really matter in the bankruptcy case that will require her to disgorge trust funds she received. 

But she's facing a number of other lawsuits.  Some allege, among other things, causes of action for fraud, for RICO (with a predicate criminal enterprise), for fraudulently obtaining a loan from B of A. etc..  These WILL require proof of knowledge: what she knew & when.  Knowing about Tom's agreements with co-counsel over fees is not at all the same as knowing about money shuffled out of trust funds & into her corporation.  Certainly no cause for any victory dance for her yet.  

Erika has a fanbase on social media and in the HW subreddits. They seem to think we all should apologize for calling her a liar and a criminal.

Fat chance that'll happen on my end.

[realityplease]

6 hours ago, amarante said:

I don't think EJ will be charged with anything criminally because proof of her mens rea would be almost impossible to prove. . .

They haven't made a move against Tom criminally and I suspect that given his age they will let it drop. . .

 I would be much more interested in there being some kind of strong investigation of all of the people who enabled Girardi throughout the years like the Bar which had complaints against him but had someone investigating him who Girardi was paying off - and it was obvious that he was doing so. I think Girardi hired his son to work in the firm. . .

I don't think criminal prosecutions will/can be brought.  They can't proceed against Tom. He's been adjudicated incompetent due to Alzheimer's. Can't mount a defense or testify in his own defense.  As for Erika - not a sure enough win to be worth it.  And if the RICO claim succeeds (tho very tough to prove & 70% fail on these types of claims), it's a civil action but has tough civil & criminal penalties attached - treble damages, jail time. 

The State Bar is investigating, but Girardi given a pass by them so many times - going back decades - and the Bar itself is under scrutiny.  Girardi had plenty of enablers at the State Bar, among the bench (even the otherwise respected judge who was his mistress for 4 years), private judges, attorneys inside & outside the firm. They all wanted to be part of the gravy train.  Tho Girardi was slapped on the wrist for unethical parties & lavish cruises with judges & others, the prior investigations never went anywhere.  Girardi was finally disbarred fairly recently in the scheme of things but absent disbarrment or censure, the Bar usually leaves it up to private citizens to pursue civil claims & damages.

Yes, I think the state bar guy's son worked at the Girardi firm. Girardi's son-in-law also worked at the firm.  Like rats off a sinking ship when everything hit the fan. 

Surrealist tells us Erika's fan base wants an apology to Erika for questioning her lies (Tom's fall down the hill will always be classic.) No chance in hell.  She lied at worst, told conflicting stories at best. She hasn't been vindicated yet.

Edited September 1, 2022 by realityplease
clarity

[janiema]

Does anyone else think Tom will remain “incompetent” until statutes of limitations for criminal matters pass? 
I, too, have wondered where the $$ are coming from to pay all of Erika’s legal expenses. Where are all the $$ coming from to pay for Tom’s residence at the memory care place. That doesn’t come cheap. If one has a long term care policy that could cover the cost but purchasing a long term care policy does not feel like a Girardi type of action to take . Is there a stash somewhere?

[CrinkleCutCat]

23 minutes ago, janiema said:

Does anyone else think Tom will remain “incompetent” until statutes of limitations for criminal matters pass? 
I, too, have wondered where the $$ are coming from to pay all of Erika’s legal expenses. Where are all the $$ coming from to pay for Tom’s residence at the memory care place. That doesn’t come cheap. If one has a long term care policy that could cover the cost but purchasing a long term care policy does not feel like a Girardi type of action to take . Is there a stash somewhere?

Re Tom: There must be cash/assets stashed somewhere! Maybe his brother has access?

Re Empty Erika (empty as she has no soul or compassion): plenty of rumours/blind items online about her having men who pay her expenses.

[janiema]

2 minutes ago, CrinkleCutCat said:

Re Tom: There must be cash/assets stashed somewhere! Maybe his brother has access?

Re Empty Erika (empty as she has no soul or compassion): plenty of rumours/blind items online about her having men who pay her expenses.

I’m not sure those rumors are true. First of all, she is neither a sweet young thing any longer nor would she be considered any sort of trophy to have on one’s arm. Secondly, I would think that any man with money would be hesitant to become financially involved with her for fear of being drawn into the controversy. Finally, as PK noted so many seasons ago, she is inherently cold.

[TOL]

Let’s pretend she wasn’t living the high-life on the backs of widows and orphans, etc.  let’s pretend she never said she didn’t care and didn’t have to be coaxed into returning whatever ill-gotten gains she has.  

She still massively sucks as a person, and her behavior towards others (supported by Rinna and Diana) is as awful as I’ve seen on this franchise.  

Edited September 1, 2022 by TOL
Stupid autocorrect :/

[amarante]

2 hours ago, janiema said:

I’m not sure those rumors are true. First of all, she is neither a sweet young thing any longer nor would she be considered any sort of trophy to have on one’s arm. Secondly, I would think that any man with money would be hesitant to become financially involved with her for fear of being drawn into the controversy. Finally, as PK noted so many seasons ago, she is inherently cold.

I think she can get some old codgers to pay her - emotional coldness has nothing to do with the services she provides. 

There have been several "articles" regarding why rich and/or famous men use hookers when they theoretically could at least have the *illusion* of a girlfriend and the answer is because the men want absolutely no emotional involvement - not even having to deal with seeing the woman in the morning and offering her coffee.

She might not find someone to marry her or even seriously "date" her but I do think her notoriety would make her more desirable to a certain ilk. And payment can come in many forms - as I recall one of the guys was a very old casino owner in Vegas who she made some lucrative personal appearances for. It is astounding to me but this is how monetizing social influence works - EJ (or any D-lister) shows up - is photographed with venue noted and it has promotional value. And then of course there are the gigs where someone is paid to show up for an hour and tickets are sold for the club for a huge amount so that people can say they "partied" with Scott Disick or other piece of excrement. 

[RealHousewife]

Some Erika news.

https://pagesix.com/2022/08/31/erika-jayne-scores-win-in-5m-aiding-and-abetting-lawsuit/

[njbchlover]

Looks like the auction of some of Erika and Tom's belongings will take place at the end of September:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/john-moran-auctioneers-presents-property-190000183.html

I looked through the items - with the exception of the Steinway piano, I think a lot of this stuff is over-valued.

I also noticed that the painting that Tom gave Erika several seasons back isn't in the catalog.  I can't remember who the artist was, but I know it was supposed to be a masterpiece from a famous artist - I remember the scene where it was just leaning against a wall and she mentioned something about having to get it framed or something. 

Wonder what happened to that?  

[hoodooznoodooz]

3 hours ago, njbchlover said:

I also noticed that the painting that Tom gave Erika several seasons back isn't in the catalog.  I can't remember who the artist was, but I know it was supposed to be a masterpiece from a famous artist - I remember the scene where it was just leaning against a wall and she mentioned something about having to get it framed or something. 

Wonder what happened to that?  

I think it was a Chagall?

Edited September 7, 2022 by hoodooznoodooz

[Stats Queen]

4 hours ago, njbchlover said:

Looks like the auction of some of Erika and Tom's belongings will take place at the end of September:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/john-moran-auctioneers-presents-property-190000183.html

I looked through the items - with the exception of the Steinway piano, I think a lot of this stuff is over-valued.

I also noticed that the painting that Tom gave Erika several seasons back isn't in the catalog.  I can't remember who the artist was, but I know it was supposed to be a masterpiece from a famous artist - I remember the scene where it was just leaning against a wall and she mentioned something about having to get it framed or something. 

Wonder what happened to that?  

It was a Marc Chagall, and interesting it isn’t in the auction.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Stats Queen

[njbchlover]

5 minutes ago, hoodooznoodooz said:

I think it was a Chagall?

5 minutes ago, Stats Queen said:

It was a Marc Chagall, and interesting it isn’t in he auction.

Weird, right?  If it was a genuine Chagall, it would be worth more than all those other knick-knacks and dirty patio furniture put together.  It would be worth around the same amount (or more) than those damn earrings she's holiding onto.

That would be a good question for the reunion, since the painting was shown on film.

[hoodooznoodooz]

Sutton will bring it up, and Erika will call Sutton a c- - -.

(I don’t want this to happen, but I do believe, like any normal, stable person, Sutton has the same questions we have.)

Edited September 7, 2022 by hoodooznoodooz

[ZettaK]

4 hours ago, Stats Queen said:

It was a Marc Chagall, and interesting it isn’t in the auction.

That's not surprising.

[hoodooznoodooz]

They used that money for so much worthless bologna!!!!! 

I am so disgusted by what they did with the clients’ money.

Did Tom pay someone to cast Erika in Chicago?

Did he pay for tickets to her appearances/“performances,” so that she looked successful/popular?

Edited September 8, 2022 by hoodooznoodooz

[Baltimore Betty]

9 hours ago, Stats Queen said:

It was a Marc Chagall, and interesting it isn’t in the auction.

Neither was any of her jewelry.

I really loved that outdoor table and chairs with the blue cushions and the Rahm artwork...If I hit the jackpot in Las Vegas this week maybe I'll bid on a few things, lol.  

9 hours ago, Stats Queen said:

It was a Marc Chagall, and interesting it isn’t in the auction.

Maybe it was borrowed for filming, you know just for show, like those Cartier bracelets or rings she wore on her first appearance, we never saw those again, did we?

[Mindthinkr]

44 minutes ago, Baltimore Betty said:

Neither was any of her jewelry.

Why does this not surprise me. She is a very selfish woman. 

[Baltimore Betty]

1 minute ago, Mindthinkr said:

Why does this not surprise me. She is a very selfish woman. 

Watching Erika loose all the trimmings of her once rich and fabulous life gives me Blue Jasmine vibes.

[pasdetrois]

6 hours ago, hoodooznoodooz said:

Did Tom pay someone to cast Erika in Chicago?

I've heard that the stunt casting is sometimes "sponsored" - a big fat infusion of cash to the production.

[Keywestclubkid]

Have I said how much I detest Erika Jayne? 

[Cosmocrush]

Seems like Diana hasn't heard the whole story. 

[janiema]

Is Diana encouraging people to give to her own foundation in that tweet? How do we know where that money will eventually go? To the victims? To Erika? 

[Stats Queen]

7 minutes ago, janiema said:

Is Diana encouraging people to give to her own foundation in that tweet? How do we know where that money will eventually go? To the victims? To Erika? 

Yea, the lip licker after bad press decide to pledge $100,000 to her own charity. What a crock of ba

[SweetieDarling]

17 minutes ago, janiema said:

Is Diana encouraging people to give to her own foundation in that tweet? How do we know where that money will eventually go? To the victims? To Erika? 

Lip gloss

[goofygirl]

On 9/6/2022 at 9:23 PM, Stats Queen said:

It was a Marc Chagall, and interesting it isn’t in the auction.

Maybe a private buyer?

[amarante]

The Erika Jayne mask of decency certainly came off in last night's episode.

I wonder if she has done lasting damage to her *image* in terms of monetizing her *fame*.

When the news first broke she did immediately lose some high end endorsement deals like Rihanna's Fenty lingerie as that company dropped her immediately.

I don't follow her social media stuff and so I don't know whether she has replaced that. She has the hair extensions and anything she happens to mention in a post she would be paid for.

She seems to have a fan base that is completely oblivious to her awfulness. I never particularly cared for her but prior to the whole embezzlement issues I could understand how she could be enjoyed as a tough moll type of persona - like she was playing Barbara Stanwyk in some move of her mind.

Granted I don't idolize any of the housewives so I am not purchasing anything branded by them or mentioned by them but obviously she still has fans who seem to support her much as Teresa Giudice still has fans despite her repulsiveness - or more accurately her repulsiveness to people with normal standards of behavior.

When I am on this site or other sites which have comments like the fabulous recaps on Vulture, the sentiment seems to be entirely against her but I don't know if that is also true of her fan base. But again I can't even begin to understand how she has maintained any kind of fan base given the very simple facts - her life of luxury was purchased over the bodies and suffering of her husband's clients. If she didn't know then she knows now and seems to have no guilt and no pity for anyone other herself who has had to downsize into a $10,000 a month rental and not have the services of a glam squad every day but still seems to have them for any kind of public occasion - I mean most of us *civilians* are lucky to have professional makeup done for our wedding or kids' weddings. 

Edited September 9, 2022 by amarante

[Keywestclubkid]

1 hour ago, amarante said:

She seems to have a fan base that is completely oblivious to her awfulness.

Oh no they arnt oblivious they just don’t care.  I have heard she’s a top tier housewife BECAUSE of the nastiness so she gets a pass or she is entertaining so she gets a pass. They just don’t care she is fabulous off the backs of widows and orphans

or actually saying that they arnt victims at all but the actual SCAMMERS themselves.. I still can’t believe after she sat there and said that ANYONE would defend her but here we are 

Edited September 9, 2022 by Keywestclubkid

[amarante]

18 minutes ago, Keywestclubkid said:

Oh no they arnt oblivious they just don’t care.  I have heard she’s a top tier housewife BECAUSE of the nastiness so she gets a pass or she is entertaining so she gets a pass. They just don’t care she is fabulous off the backs of widows and orphans

or actually saying that they arnt victims at all but the actual SCAMMERS themselves.. I still can’t believe after she sat there and said that ANYONE would defend her but here we are 

I am not sure *oblivious* is the right word. What I really think I meant was whether those people who still support Erika only watch the show and are unaware of what actually happened and what Erika is doing so they take her protestations at face value. 

Her behavior last night was so beyond anything that even Kyle was not able to justify it. 

Of course with Kyle and Rinna they weren't reacting to EJ's awfulness but to what it might mean to THEIR public images if they continued to support her or claim that they don't know the facts well enough to judge.

I really can't believe even Crystal who isn't stupid couldn't have just replied that the "facts" have already been proven - checks were paid FROM the trust funds. That isn't in issue. The only arguable issue is whether Erika can keep stolen property. 

[RealHousewife]

It definitely says a lot when even Kyle and Rinna are floored and can't defend Erika. They've had her back during pantygate, her Hong Kong "meltdown," threatening Sutton and calling her the c word, cursing out Jax, hitting on Oliver, all of it. 

Most of the audience and Housewives who aren't part of Fox Force 5 wondered where Erika's anger was towards Tom and where her outrage was on behalf of the victims. We all saw that she was just upset by her "fucked up life," losing money, and dealing with lawsuits. Never anything about how her husband scammed orphans and widows to fund her disgustingly over the top lifestyle. 

Let's say we give her the benefit of the doubt that she can't admit to guilt on behalf of Tom Girardi because of the lawsuits. Last episode, she just flat-out says, these POTENTIAL victims were suing her, so why should she have sympathy that they lost parents, spouses, deal with severe burns from explosions, none of that is Erika's problem. She not only lacks sympathy for them them nor wants to help them, she sees the victims as the bad guy in all of this. Absolutely disgusting. I literally don't think I've ever seen someone who's so beautiful on the outside be such an ugly person. 

[tranquilidade]

On 9/9/2022 at 12:40 PM, Keywestclubkid said:

Oh no they arnt oblivious they just don’t care.  I have heard she’s a top tier housewife BECAUSE of the nastiness so she gets a pass or she is entertaining so she gets a pass. They just don’t care she is fabulous off the backs of widows and orphans

or actually saying that they arnt victims at all but the actual SCAMMERS themselves.. I still can’t believe after she sat there and said that ANYONE would defend her but here we are 

It is shocking that she would kick those people when they are down.  It would cost her nothing to either keep her mouth shut or actually say: I can't believe Tom did that.  Damn....she is COLD.

[Castina]

I have always suspected that the reason Erika has such difficulty saying what Tom did was wrong or by showing sympathy is because this whole divorce with Tom was planned by the both of them (when it was clear they could no longer dodge the lawsuits/reckoning coming from his years of misuse of clients funds).  It was to move whatever assets they could to her so they would (in theory) no longer be his assets from creditors to come after when he was on his own. 

I do think the whole thing became much bigger and more complicated than Erika ever imagined .  And I imagine Tom thought he had it all figured out because he was able to weasel his way through life for decades prior to this.   And in a wicked twist of fate I think Erika's quest for fame is the reason this is the mess it is today.  This man was clearly protected by a community who knew what he was up to forever ago and if his wife wasn't a controversial figure on a reality tv show might have been settled long ago. 

[janiema]

22 hours ago, Castina said:

I have always suspected that the reason Erika has such difficulty saying what Tom did was wrong or by showing sympathy is because this whole divorce with Tom was planned by the both of them (when it was clear they could no longer dodge the lawsuits/reckoning coming from his years of misuse of clients funds).  It was to move whatever assets they could to her so they would (in theory) no longer be his assets from creditors to come after when he was on his own. 

I do think the whole thing became much bigger and more complicated than Erika ever imagined .  And I imagine Tom thought he had it all figured out because he was able to weasel his way through life for decades prior to this.   And in a wicked twist of fate I think Erika's quest for fame is the reason this is the mess it is today.  This man was clearly protected by a community who knew what he was up to forever ago and if his wife wasn't a controversial figure on a reality tv show might have been settled long ago. 

In one sense Tom did manage to weasel out of consequences. He had himself declared incompetent so it seems he can’t be criminally charged. I still think there may be a stash somewhere. Where does the money come from to pay for his stay at the memory care facility?

[pasdetrois]

Tom may have long-term care insurance. It's also possible his family members are chipping in to pay the fees. In the DC area, the nicer facilities charge around $8000+ monthly, which Medicare does not cover.

I agree there is money stashed somewhere. I don't watch RHoBH regularly, or I FF through much of it, but I swear that right before this scandal hit, Erika made a joke in a talking head about storing money offshore. I think she made the comment in response to something else. They had a lot of time to stash it where the feds cannot reach it.

[RealHousewife]

I’m curious if there were whispers about how the heck Tom had that money. Erika’s spending never made sense. 

[janiema]

2 hours ago, pasdetrois said:

Tom may have long-term care insurance. It's also possible his family members are chipping in to pay the fees. In the DC area, the nicer facilities charge around $8000+ monthly, which Medicare does not cover.

I agree there is money stashed somewhere. I don't watch RHoBH regularly, or I FF through much of it, but I swear that right before this scandal hit, Erika made a joke in a talking head about storing money offshore. I think she made the comment in response to something else. They had a lot of time to stash it where the feds cannot reach it.

Purchasing a long-term care policy would be such an un-Girardi type of thing to do.

[Jel]

Is anyone surprised that Erika went this low? 

I am not.

[Keywestclubkid]

Made me lol 

[Keywestclubkid]

Oh and yea there was this 

[Jextella]

I personally think EJ knew all about Tom's shenanigans and likely from the beginning. She/he were just smart enough to keep her name out of the paperwork (as far as we know). I honestly don't know how she couldn't know given that "people talk".

Having said that, I actually agree with what EJ said the last two episodes.  Let's assume EJ is completely oblivious to everything and entirely innocent. Through no fault of her own, she will have lost all her money, and her reputation will have been irreparably damaged thereby limiting future income opportunities. In this way, EJ owes nothing to the victims. She'd be one of them herself in many ways.

So, I do get where she's coming from, probably for the first time.

I still don't believe she didn't know and I do believe she has funds hidden offshore. She's far to composed and controlled to not have a backup plan. Seems she also would declare herself a "victim" if she really was one. 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Jextella

[BusyOctober]

In addition to all of Erica’s snarling and swearing and bullying, and the statement she made about only caring about herself, something else this dumb twat said in the episode last night infuriated me.  As she was basking in her “legal win” in the fancy ski shop (that she couldn’t  afford to be sitting in if she weren’t with Diana), she was gloating how stupid and foolish everyone who came after her would look once the word got out she was exonerated (she was not).  And said something to the effect that she couldn’t wait until they all would have to apologize to her for falsely accusing her/making her life hell.

 Excuse me?  How narcissistic and sociopathic is this bitch anyway?

Cancer patients, burn victims, orphans and widows who very clearly have suffered unimaginable tragedies, and have been financially wronged by Erica’s  morally corrupt husband will not ever owe that c**ty witch an apology. 

[Salacious Kitty]

I cracked up when she hugged Rinna, crying out "without prejudice!" I think the bitch was confused. 😂