Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
ScoobieDoobs

Bethenny & Jason: The Divorce Showdown

Recommended Posts

On 6/13/2017 at 1:26 AM, lunastartron said:

Cookie seems to be a lot like her mom. "Tossed," "harmed," brutalized, victimized, etc. Except not even Bethenny has made those claims.

And, yeah, the idea that putting a pet within an enclosed interior space inside the home constitutes some sort of psychological torture is frankly bizarre to me because I, too, have had to secure my cats within bathrooms, bedrooms, even (gasp!) carriers at times when my apartment was scheduled to have a maintenance visit during the workday, I had to move, or, yes, prevent them from attacking guests for their salmon fillets.

Somehow they have survived without any lasting emotional damage

None that you know of... LOL! Maybe your dog needs therapy and you don't even know it..... ;-)

Share this post


Link to post

12 hours ago, Yours Truly said:

None that you know of... LOL! Maybe your dog needs therapy and you don't even know it..... ;-)

I'll keep an eye out for hysterics over seafood entrees. Oh, wait - they're cats.

I guess my first clue will be if they start ferally shrieking about "sluts" and "the biggest whores in Macy's window." 

I'm going to chalk any screeching about "bitches" to commentary on canines, though. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, lunastartron said:

I guess my first clue will be if they start ferally shrieking about "sluts" and "the biggest whores in Macy's window." 

 

..and then start grabbing pussy! : )

Edited by film noire
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/13/2017 at 1:26 AM, lunastartron said:

Cookie seems to be a lot like her mom. "Tossed," "harmed," brutalized, victimized, etc. Except not even Bethenny has made those claims.

And, yeah, the idea that putting a pet within an enclosed interior space inside the home constitutes some sort of psychological torture is frankly bizarre to me because I, too, have had to secure my cats within bathrooms, bedrooms, even (gasp!) carriers at times when my apartment was scheduled to have a maintenance visit during the workday, I had to move, or, yes, prevent them from attacking guests for their salmon fillets.

Somehow they have survived without any lasting emotional damage. 

The storage room isn't in the apartment.  If it had been it wouldn't have been a big deal. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Lemons said:

The storage room isn't in the apartment.  If it had been it wouldn't have been a big deal. 

Bethenny herself said the storage room was in the apartment.

Of course, she somehow simultaneously never exaggerates yet speaks hyperbolically to the frequency that it's just her signature manner of speech. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I read a bunch of these comments to my son who rolled his eyes several times and then burst out laughing.

He's a veterinarian.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, lunastartron said:

Bethenny herself said the storage room was in the apartment.

Of course, she somehow simultaneously never exaggerates yet speaks hyperbolically to the frequency that it's just her signature manner of speech. 

She's got a very dramatic way of speaking but the storage unit is outside of the apartment. People sometimes say in our apartment instead of in our apartment building. For example, we have a roof top pool at our apartment. 

1 hour ago, Gam2 said:

I read a bunch of these comments to my son who rolled his eyes several times and then burst out laughing.

He's a veterinarian.

He must be used to pet owners who treat their pets like equal family members. People who wouldn't want their dog anxious and scared anymore than they would want their child anxious or scared. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

 Oh, he was just laughing over all of the speculation about where the storage unit was, if the dog was used to going in there when work was being done on the apartment, etc. He has 3 dogs, a cat, a bearded dragon and some tortoises. He's says animals are much more adaptable than we usually give them credit for. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/7/2017 at 6:31 AM, Yours Truly said:

I get that their living situation was all kinds of messy but that still doesn't excuse a dog that goes after people. I'm not a fan of defending unruly pets and aggressive behavior. That's what creates unfortunate accidents. And considering the situation wasn't an ideal one to begin with she shouldn't have expected Jason to bend over backwards for a pet that isn't his...

... But I do side eye Beth more cause she didn't make sure HER pets needs were met and decided to be stubborn because of the nature of their living arrangement and allowed someone she knew wouldn't give Cookie the same amount of attention and leeway as she does to deal with her. She left Cookie in what some may think is a vulnerable position. That's on her.

I realize that to some people, Cookie is "just a dog" and a nippy one at that.  But that apartment was just as much her home as anyone else's.  And she was the same dog Jason had been living with for quite a while at the point of the incident in question.  He'd been left alone with her before.  He'd had guests and family around her before.  Why did he suddenly decide that the poor old girl needed locking up that way?  I don't suppose it had anything to do with his deteriorating relationship with Bethenny and wanting to do something to hurt her.  Nah, of course not.  

What really confuses me is the idea that somehow it's Bethenny's fault for having the sheer gall to go off and leave her aging dog at rest in her own home the exact way she had done hundreds, maybe thousands of times.  That somehow it was unreasonable of her to expect Jason to deal with Cookie the same way he had for years previously because he and Bethenny weren't getting along any more ... that suddenly Jason was no longer was under any obligation to treat Cookie with kindness just because he was mad at Bethenny.  And Bethenny is to blame for what happened because she should have somehow anticipated all this.

Maybe my point will be easier to understand if I put it in these terms ... suppose instead of it being a "mere dog" in question, a woman is on the verge of divorce with her second husband of several years.  He has always been kind to her children from her first marriage up to this point, but one night he suddenly decides that "her" kids are a pain and treats them in a way they have never been treated before even though they were just being the same old kids they had been for years.  Is it "on" the woman in question because she should have somehow know that the deteriorating situation in the home would cause her husband to act differently toward the children than he had before?  Or is it "on" the husband for letting his emotions cause him to treat perfectly innocent, if somewhat annoying children, in a way he had never treated them before just because he is mad at their mother?

I firmly believe that the blame is totally on the husband in my scenario.  And the blame is 100% on Jason for what he did to Cookie.  Taking your anger out on an innocent, helpless party is a horrible thing to do and there is just no justification for it in my opinion.  None.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

Do we have any actual proof of Jason mistreating Cookie or just Beth's word for it? She's certainly prone to hyperbole, exaggeration, histrionics, etc. I don't know the answer to this question but thought some of you might have more confirmed information on this situation.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Gam2 said:

Do we have any actual proof of Jason mistreating Cookie or just Beth's word for it? She's certainly prone to hyperbole, exaggeration, histrionics, etc. I don't know the answer to this question but thought some of you might have more confirmed information on this situation.

No, there is nothing more than Bethenny's word that Jason did anything wrong, nothing! LOL

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/13/2017 at 3:22 AM, Alonzo Mosely FBI said:

 

"Lost at sea."

"Homeless."

"I don't have parents."

You definitely have to have your hyperbole shield engaged while listening to her.  But at the same time I have to wonder ... when she says something like "I was so upset my head literally exploded. Brains and blood everywhere!" is there anyone who is later surprised to learn that her head didn't explode?

Maybe I have an extra good exaggeration screen or something because her dramatic style does not phase me, and it doesn't cause me to question her story-telling credibility because I know she's not being literal when she says this stuff. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, WireWrap said:

No, there is nothing more than Bethenny's word that Jason did anything wrong, nothing! LOL

Well, there is that pesky felony arrest thing he has going on for being a nutjob who was stalking and harassing and threatening Bethenny LOL. This of course on the heels of what I consider to be years of him regularly dishing emotional and psychological abuse to her. So it's not just Bethenny's word; there is a context in which Jason's behavior can be judged. And to me that context suggests Jason isn't above being cruel to a dog just to screw with the woman he is at war with.  

I acknowledge that Bethenny has a rather tiresome tendency toward hyperbole, but really doesn't change anything for me.  Her story, distilled down and free of dramatics, is that for some reason Jason decided to lock up a poor old dog in a way he never felt the need to do before he and Bethenny fell out.  That's the bare bones of it.  And as so eloquently stated here by BBHN, that was ... 

 

On 6/7/2017 at 9:55 PM, BBHN said:

Such a dick move on Jason's part.

LOL!  It's funny, the word "dick" is used so often in regard to Jason.  It suits him so well.

 

48 minutes ago, Jel said:

You definitely have to have your hyperbole shield engaged while listening to her.  But at the same time I have to wonder ... when she says something like "I was so upset my head literally exploded. Brains and blood everywhere!" is there anyone who is later surprised to learn that her head didn't explode?

Maybe I have an extra good exaggeration screen or something because her dramatic style does not phase me, and it doesn't cause me to question her story-telling credibility because I know she's not being literal when she says this stuff. 

I completely agree.  A person need only listen to Beth for five minutes to know that she speaks in hyperbole and exaggerates things just for dramatic effect.  It can be silly, perhaps, and even annoying after a while.  But I don't think of it as some kind of attempt to truly mislead people into believing complete and utter falsehoods.  And I don't think it is cause to dismiss everything she says as pure rubbish.

For example, she may describe a situation as being "hell" where another person might just call it "difficult."  I don't think that type of exaggeration warrants completely dismissing her description of her emotional experience, but some people seem to think that.  I don't get it.  Or as you mention, Jel, she talked about being "lost at sea."  Of course she was exaggerating. They were stuck without power briefly, IIRC, but not shipwrecked Gilligan's Island style or something, lol.  But that exaggeration became an excuse to dismiss her entire seafaring debacle as a sham.  

I just don't agree with dismissing every word out of her mouth as necessarily a damnable lie just because she tends to get a little too full of herself and speak in dramatic terms sometimes.  I feel like you do - I think I have a pretty good hyperbole shield and her way of speaking doesn't phase me, either.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

Well, there is that pesky felony arrest thing he has going on for being a nutjob who was stalking and harassing and threatening Bethenny LOL. This of course on the heels of what I consider to be years of him regularly dishing emotional and psychological abuse to her. So it's not just Bethenny's word; there is a context in which Jason's behavior can be judged. And to me that context suggests Jason isn't above being cruel to a dog just to screw with the woman he is at war with.  

I acknowledge that Bethenny has a rather tiresome tendency toward hyperbole, but really doesn't change anything for me.  Her story, distilled down and free of dramatics, is that for some reason Jason decided to lock up a poor old dog in a way he never felt the need to do before he and Bethenny fell out.  That's the bare bones of it.  And as so eloquently stated here by BBHN, that was ... 

 

LOL!  It's funny, the word "dick" is used so often in regard to Jason.  It suits him so well.

 

I completely agree.  A person need only listen to Beth for five minutes to know that she speaks in hyperbole and exaggerates things just for dramatic effect.  It can be silly, perhaps, and even annoying after a while.  But I don't think of it as some kind of attempt to truly mislead people into believing complete and utter falsehoods.  And I don't think it is cause to dismiss everything she says as pure rubbish.

For example, she may describe a situation as being "hell" where another person might just call it "difficult."  I don't think that type of exaggeration warrants completely dismissing her description of her emotional experience, but some people seem to think that.  I don't get it.  Or as you mention, Jel, she talked about being "lost at sea."  Of course she was exaggerating. They were stuck without power briefly, IIRC, but not shipwrecked Gilligan's Island style or something, lol.  But that exaggeration became an excuse to dismiss her entire seafaring debacle as a sham.  

I just don't agree with dismissing every word out of her mouth as necessarily a damnable lie just because she tends to get a little too full of herself and speak in dramatic terms sometimes.  I feel like you do - I think I have a pretty good hyperbole shield and her way of speaking doesn't phase me, either.

First, my comment was in response to another poster asking if there was evidence/proof that Jason did anything to Cookie other than the great exaggerators claims and as I said, No, there was nothing. 

As for these misdemeanors Jason is "charged" with, he has not been convicted, he has not pled guilty and he hasn't told his side of the story yet. I will wait to hear his side before I believe someone who exaggerates to the point of lying with such pride. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

when she says something like "I was so upset my head literally exploded. Brains and blood everywhere!" is there anyone who is later surprised to learn that her head didn't explode?

Apparently, there are those who are surprised...

Quote

Well, there is that pesky felony arrest thing he has going on for being a nutjob who was stalking and harassing and threatening Bethenny LOL. This of course on the heels of what I consider to be years of him regularly dishing emotional and psychological abuse to her. So it's not just Bethenny's word; there is a context in which Jason's behavior can be judged. And to me that context suggests Jason isn't above being cruel to a dog just to screw with the woman he is at war with.  

Exactly.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, WireWrap said:

First, my comment was in response to another poster asking if there was evidence/proof that Jason did anything to Cookie other than the great exaggerators claims and as I said, No, there was nothing. 

I disagree with your assertion that there is nothing else besides Bethenny's word to take into consideration. That is what I meant by referencing the "context" ... A context has been created by Jason's arrest and the behavior he has exhibited toward Bethenny over the years.  I don't think it is necessary to judge his actions in a vacuum limited to only what Bethenny specifically said about one event.  The guy has a history of emotional abuse.  An arrest record. I'm not going ignore that, even if others choose to do so. 

 

Quote

As for these misdemeanors Jason is "charged" with, he has not been convicted, he has not pled guilty and he hasn't told his side of the story yet. I will wait to hear his side before I believe someone who exaggerates to the point of lying with such pride. 

I thought it was established upthread that Jason has been charged with a felony.  Downplaying the seriousness of the offense with which he has been charged seems like an attempt to diminish the seriousness of the behavior he is accused of engaging in.  Granted, he has not yet been convicted of anything.  Innocent until proven guilty, of course.

And like every other person accused of felonious criminal behavior, Jason will have his day in court to defend himself.  I look forward to hearing him try and justify his behavior.  Bethenny's veracity will be taken into consideration, as well.  We will just have to wait and see who turns out to judged as the wrongdoer, I suppose.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

I disagree with your assertion that there is nothing else besides Bethenny's word to take into consideration. That is what I meant by referencing the "context" ... A context has been created by Jason's arrest and the behavior he has exhibited toward Bethenny over the years.  I don't think it is necessary to judge his actions in a vacuum limited to only what Bethenny specifically said about one event.  The guy has a history of emotional abuse.  An arrest record. I'm not going ignore that, even if others choose to do so. 

 

I thought it was established upthread that Jason has been charged with a felony.  Downplaying the seriousness of the offense with which he has been charged seems like an attempt to diminish the seriousness of the behavior he is accused of engaging in.  Granted, he has not yet been convicted of anything.  Innocent until proven guilty, of course.

And like every other person accused of felonious criminal behavior, Jason will have his day in court to defend himself.  I look forward to hearing him try and justify his behavior.  Bethenny's veracity will be taken into consideration, as well.  We will just have to wait and see who turns out to judged as the wrongdoer, I suppose.

The bolded statement is how I view things, especially coming from someone who has claimed she was "raised by wolves" and was "lost at sea" despite facts proving otherwise. As far as I am concerned, Jason hasn't "done" anything, he has only been accused by someone, someone that has been hell bent rewriting history so that she is always viewed as the victim with the exception of her business acumen, which she claimed she did "on her own", "by herself", with "no help" even though we know for a fact she did have help/guidance. As I have said since Bethenny pulled her stunt during the custody trial, until we hear from Jason himself, his side, we will never have the full story and I have no doubts that Bethenny will try all she can to avoid him having his say in court again this time. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

8 minutes ago, WireWrap said:

As I have said since Bethenny pulled her stunt during the custody trial, until we hear from Jason himself, his side, we will never have the full story and I have no doubts that Bethenny will try all she can to avoid him having his say in court again this time. 

Well, there is little Bethenny will be able to do to stop Jason from explaining how he is innocent of all wrongdoing this time.  The case is in criminal court and she will not be able to call a halt the proceedings when she has the upper hand like was been claimed she did during their earlier proceedings.  Jason will have carte blanche to explain his side, unfettered and uninterrupted.  It's HIS trial.  His chance to tell his story.  His chance to clear his name.

I can't wait.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Celia Rubenstein said:

Well, there is little Bethenny will be able to do to stop Jason from explaining how he is innocent of all wrongdoing this time.  The case is in criminal court and she will not be able to call a halt the proceedings when she has the upper hand like was been claimed she did during their earlier proceedings.  Jason will have carte blanche to explain his side, unfettered and uninterrupted.  It's HIS trial.  His chance to tell his story.  His chance to clear his name.

I can't wait.

Well, she could withdraw the charges, refuse to testify, so yes, there is something she could do to stop him telling his side in court. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, WireWrap said:

Well, she could withdraw the charges, refuse to testify, so yes, there is something she could do to stop him telling his side in court. 

Actually, she can't drop all of the charges.  Not all charges can be dropped by the victim. For example, domestic assault charges can't be dropped. In most states, stalking does fall under domestic violence so it couldn't be dropped by Bethenny. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

A person doesn't necessarily have the right to just to "withdraw the charges" in a case like this once prosecution has begun in the state of New York.  That was how it worked on 1970's TV but not in real life today.  It may be out of Bethenny's hands now, especially given that she has already made sworn statements and submitted all the emails to the prosecutors as evidence already.  At this point, she is just like any other witness to a crime, and it is not her sole decision to unilaterally decide to to drop the matter. 

She could of course just decide to not show up in court.  Not sure what that would mean for her if she were under subpoena.  But her absence would not necessarily prevent a trial from proceeding.  The defense could try to demand it. And if a trial proceeded, there would be nothing barring Jason from taking the stand to tell his side of the story. He has that right.  He is entitled to his day in court to stand up and clear his name whether Bethenny shows up or not.  I am sure many defendants have quite happily taken advantage of the situation when their victims fail to appear in court and for some reason the prosecution decides to proceed. 

I would think Jason in particular would enjoy the opportunity to finally speak unchallenged in his own defense should Bethenny decide to not show up, you know ... given how he was supposedly forced into silent submission by her devious scheming behavior in previous court cases and all, lol.  

I guess we will see! 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, WireWrap said:

Well, she could withdraw the charges, refuse to testify, so yes, there is something she could do to stop him telling his side in court. 

The charges against Jason are B Misdemeanors-no felonies. 

I have previously quoted the verbatim comment (according to Bethenny) Jason made at the school and the comment was directed at Dennis.  The C&D letter came from Dennis' attorney, so there is the possibility since Dennis is out of Bethenny's life the prosecution may take a different look or even Dennis may decide that he doesn't want to be involved.  What Bethenny released is Jason has accused her of having a series of men introduced into their daughter's life.  Recently Bethenny gave an interview that she was "open for business".  SO it seems she is pretty determined to continue the behavior.

If history repeats itself and Bethenny is satisfied with all the negative press surrounding Jason and the arrest and TRO served its purpose in abating the e-mails and set new ground rules as to what Jason will be allowed in the form of contact with Bethenny or any of her assistants or boyfriends, Bethenny may have a change of heart.   

I don't think prosecutors are dying to try this case, and it really isn't the same as DV case as there was no violence.  Prosecutors want to win cases and there could very well be enough questionable behavior on the part of the victim/ Dennis in regards to the situation that Bethenny asking to drop charges would be a blessing.  She and Jason may agree to some sort of mutual restraining order (I say this only because usually if the aggressor is barred from contacting the victim, the victim is not allowed to contact aggressor), and counseling.   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I would think Jason in particular would enjoy the opportunity to finally speak unchallenged in his own defense should Bethenny decide to not show up, you know ... given how he was supposedly forced into silent submission by her devious scheming behavior in previous court cases and all, lol.  

I would the same thing too...;)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

6 hours ago, diadochokinesis said:

Actually, she can't drop all of the charges.  Not all charges can be dropped by the victim. For example, domestic assault charges can't be dropped. In most states, stalking does fall under domestic violence so it couldn't be dropped by Bethenny. 

There was no physical violence/domestic assault, so that doesn't apply with Jason/Bethenny at all.

6 hours ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

A person doesn't necessarily have the right to just to "withdraw the charges" in a case like this once prosecution has begun in the state of New York.  That was how it worked on 1970's TV but not in real life today.  It may be out of Bethenny's hands now, especially given that she has already made sworn statements and submitted all the emails to the prosecutors as evidence already.  At this point, she is just like any other witness to a crime, and it is not her sole decision to unilaterally decide to to drop the matter. 

She could of course just decide to not show up in court.  Not sure what that would mean for her if she were under subpoena.  But her absence would not necessarily prevent a trial from proceeding.  The defense could try to demand it. And if a trial proceeded, there would be nothing barring Jason from taking the stand to tell his side of the story. He has that right.  He is entitled to his day in court to stand up and clear his name whether Bethenny shows up or not.  I am sure many defendants have quite happily taken advantage of the situation when their victims fail to appear in court and for some reason the prosecution decides to proceed. 

I would think Jason in particular would enjoy the opportunity to finally speak unchallenged in his own defense should Bethenny decide to not show up, you know ... given how he was supposedly forced into silent submission by her devious scheming behavior in previous court cases and all, lol.  

I guess we will see! 

So far, Jason has kept his mouth closed to the press and I don't see that changing if Bethenny dropped all the charges. Bethenny and Jason have very different approaches to their battles, Bethenny puts her feelings first by going public, trashing him when she can and Jason keeps his mouth closed putting their daughter's feelings first.

Edited by WireWrap
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, WireWrap said:

The bolded statement is how I view things, especially coming from someone who has claimed she was "raised by wolves" and was "lost at sea" despite facts proving otherwise. As far as I am concerned, Jason hasn't "done" anything, he has only been accused by someone, someone that has been hell bent rewriting history so that she is always viewed as the victim with the exception of her business acumen, which she claimed she did "on her own", "by herself", with "no help" even though we know for a fact she did have help/guidance. As I have said since Bethenny pulled her stunt during the custody trial, until we hear from Jason himself, his side, we will never have the full story and I have no doubts that Bethenny will try all she can to avoid him having his say in court again this time. 

I feel confident saying that when she said she was "raised by wolves", she was speaking metaphorically, so I don't see the need for a truth test.  I understand that not everyone likes that way of communicating, but I am sure when she uses a metaphor she expects everyone to understand that it's a metaphor, that is, she's not intentionally trying to mislead anyone into thinking she was the feral child of Northern California.  To nit pick a little, I think "raised by wolves" is usually used for someone who has terrible manners, so I am not sure it's the best metaphor, but I get her point.

I just read the link that Lunastartron posted.  If they were at sea and the vessel lost power, but they were always aware of their position, they were not genuinely lost.  But being in open water without a functioning motor, for someone who doesn't sail very much is definitely unnerving.  So maybe she should have said "distressed at sea" instead of "lost"?  But she can't, because she's Bethenny Frankel, wordsmith! So, she likes to use the catchy and well known phrases.  She generated some buzz and publicity for her show for sure, but the camera crew was on board for the couples therapy session, so they still would have had footage even if the engine didn't conk out, temporarily.

Don't we all complain/comment/notice/suspect that drama is often manufactured and and situations are staged for these reality shows? We roll our eyes, shake our heads, snark a bit, and maybe sigh heavily and perhaps silently condemn the Kardashians or MTV for bringing this whole thing into our lives in the first place.  

It seems like Bethenny is held to a different standard by viewers -- instead of eye rolling and sighing, in her case, manufactured TV drama, the same manufactured drama we see on so on many of these shows, is used as an example of her poor character.  When one reality star is involved in sketchy fakeness, it's pfft! reality tv fakeness!, but when it's Bethenny Frankel, it's a reflection on her personally.  I don't understand why.  

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Jel said:

I feel confident saying that when she said she was "raised by wolves", she was speaking metaphorically, so I don't see the need for a truth test.  I understand that not everyone likes that way of communicating, but I am sure when she uses a metaphor she expects everyone to understand that it's a metaphor, that is, she's not intentionally trying to mislead anyone into thinking she was the feral child of Northern California.  To nit pick a little, I think "raised by wolves" is usually used for someone who has terrible manners, so I am not sure it's the best metaphor, but I get her point.

I just read the link that Lunastartron posted.  If they were at sea and the vessel lost power, but they were always aware of their position, they were not genuinely lost.  But being in open water without a functioning motor, for someone who doesn't sail very much is definitely unnerving.  So maybe she should have said "distressed at sea" instead of "lost"?  But she can't, because she's Bethenny Frankel, wordsmith! So, she likes to use the catchy and well known phrases.  She generated some buzz and publicity for her show for sure, but the camera crew was on board for the couples therapy session, so they still would have had footage even if the engine didn't conk out, temporarily.

Don't we all complain/comment/notice/suspect that drama is often manufactured and and situations are staged for these reality shows? We roll our eyes, shake our heads, snark a bit, and maybe sigh heavily and perhaps silently condemn the Kardashians or MTV for bringing this whole thing into our lives in the first place.  

It seems like Bethenny is held to a different standard by viewers -- instead of eye rolling and sighing, in her case, manufactured TV drama, the same manufactured drama we see on so on many of these shows, is used as an example of her poor character.  When one reality star is involved in sketchy fakeness, it's pfft! reality tv fakeness!, but when it's Bethenny Frankel, it's a reflection on her personally.  I don't understand why.  

No, I don't hold her to a different standard than I do the others. Yes, they all puff themselves up, the all exaggerate some but none to the level Bethenny does. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, zoeysmom said:

The charges against Jason are B Misdemeanors-no felonies. 

I have previously quoted the verbatim comment (according to Bethenny) Jason made at the school and the comment was directed at Dennis.  The C&D letter came from Dennis' attorney, so there is the possibility since Dennis is out of Bethenny's life the prosecution may take a different look or even Dennis may decide that he doesn't want to be involved.  What Bethenny released is Jason has accused her of having a series of men introduced into their daughter's life.  Recently Bethenny gave an interview that she was "open for business".  SO it seems she is pretty determined to continue the behavior.

If history repeats itself and Bethenny is satisfied with all the negative press surrounding Jason and the arrest and TRO served its purpose in abating the e-mails and set new ground rules as to what Jason will be allowed in the form of contact with Bethenny or any of her assistants or boyfriends, Bethenny may have a change of heart.   

I don't think prosecutors are dying to try this case, and it really isn't the same as DV case as there was no violence.  Prosecutors want to win cases and there could very well be enough questionable behavior on the part of the victim/ Dennis in regards to the situation that Bethenny asking to drop charges would be a blessing.  She and Jason may agree to some sort of mutual restraining order (I say this only because usually if the aggressor is barred from contacting the victim, the victim is not allowed to contact aggressor), and counseling.   

 

One of the charges is a felony. 

9 minutes ago, WireWrap said:

There was no physical violence/domestic assault, so that doesn't apply with Jason/Bethenny at all.

So far, Jason has kept his mouth closed to the press and I don't see that changing if Bethenny dropped all the charges. Bethenny and Jason have very approaches to their battles, Bethenny puts her feelings first by going public, trashing him when she can and Jason keeps his mouth closed putting their daughter's feelings first.

1

You would have to consult an attorney that practices in NY but from my understanding from what I read of NY state law, stalking falls under the category of domestic violence. Within that category, charges can't be dropped by the victim. The police department or state can drop the charges but not the person that initially filed the complaint. 

8 minutes ago, Jel said:

I feel confident saying that when she said she was "raised by wolves", she was speaking metaphorically, so I don't see the need for a truth test.  I understand that not everyone likes that way of communicating, but I am sure when she uses a metaphor she expects everyone to understand that it's a metaphor, that is, she's not intentionally trying to mislead anyone into thinking she was the feral child of Northern California.  To nit pick a little, I think "raised by wolves" is usually used for someone who has terrible manners, so I am not sure it's the best metaphor, but I get her point.

I just read the link that Lunastartron posted.  If they were at sea and the vessel lost power, but they were always aware of their position, they were not genuinely lost.  But being in open water without a functioning motor, for someone who doesn't sail very much is definitely unnerving.  So maybe she should have said "distressed at sea" instead of "lost"?  But she can't, because she's Bethenny Frankel, wordsmith! So, she likes to use the catchy and well known phrases.  She generated some buzz and publicity for her show for sure, but the camera crew was on board for the couples therapy session, so they still would have had footage even if the engine didn't conk out, temporarily.

Don't we all complain/comment/notice/suspect that drama is often manufactured and and situations are staged for these reality shows? We roll our eyes, shake our heads, snark a bit, and maybe sigh heavily and perhaps silently condemn the Kardashians or MTV for bringing this whole thing into our lives in the first place.  

It seems like Bethenny is held to a different standard by viewers -- instead of eye rolling and sighing, in her case, manufactured TV drama, the same manufactured drama we see on so on many of these shows, is used as an example of her poor character.  When one reality star is involved in sketchy fakeness, it's pfft! reality tv fakeness!, but when it's Bethenny Frankel, it's a reflection on her personally.  I don't understand why.  

Exactly. My husband jokes that he was raised by wolves. Nobody actually thinks he was raised by wolves. It is a popular saying to show that you had little to no adult supervision or strong role models in how to act appropriately in a variety of social situations. 

People often are dualistic in their thinking and you see it with Bethenny.  She isn't all good nor is she all bad. Like most people, she has her positives and she also has her negatives. What disturbs me is the victim shaming. Just because people dislike her, they automatically assume that she is either lying or at fault for the horrific treatment she received at the hands of Hoppy. To worsen matters, we are operating with only partial knowledge of the situation. As I said a couple of weeks ago, I trust the judicial system. There is obviously something in the evidence that made them file these specific charges against Hoppy. He will have his day in court to make his case. It will be interesting to see what the final outcome is. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, WireWrap said:

No, I don't hold her to a different standard than I do the others. Yes, they all puff themselves up, the all exaggerate some but none to the level Bethenny does. 

Okay, but is it possible Beth's word's and behaviors are being viewed, by some viewers, through an "I don't like Bethenny Frankel filter", and so nearly anything she does or says gets a really high, sometimes extreme, level of scrutiny? 

I'll use myself as an example here -- one of my least favorite HWs of all time was Heather Thompson -- she did and said some things that I thought were legitimately bad, but mostly I just didn't like her personality, so for me, with her, a lot of it was "bitch eating crackers" syndrome (My blood boils at the thought of the annoying way Heather Thompson would eat crackers! -- j/k -- nope, not joking -- legitimately mad! -- naw, joking--well, mostly. Ah, let's just be honest, I'd be annoyed.) ;)  It seems to me that there's a bit of that happening with Bethenny.

I don't think it matters all that much, I mean we're all just shooting the breeze on the internet, except when it gets to the level of abuse. Like diadochokinesis said above, it seems like victim shaming sometimes.  Outside, disinterested parties think there was enough evidence to charge Jason with a crime, several crimes; doesn't that count for something?  

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

There was no physical violence/domestic assault, so that doesn't apply with Jason/Bethenny at all.

But, as someone posted, stalking can fall under physical violence/domestic assault in some states...so if it does apply to New York, then Jason...well...

Quote

Jason keeps his mouth closed putting their daughter's feelings first.

We have no clue what Jason's motives are regarding staying silent.

Quote

I understand that not everyone likes that way of communicating, but I am sure when she uses a metaphor she expects everyone to understand that it's a metaphor, that is, she's not intentionally trying to mislead anyone into thinking she was the feral child of Northern California

Seriously.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

2 minutes ago, Jel said:

Okay, but is it possible Beth's word's and behaviors are being viewed, by some viewers, through an "I don't like Bethenny Frankel filter", and so nearly anything she does or says gets a really high, sometimes extreme, level of scrutiny? 

I'll use myself as an example here -- one of my least favorite HWs of all time was Heather Thompson -- she did and said some things that I thought were legitimately bad, but mostly I just didn't like her personality, so for me, with her, a lot of it was "bitch eating crackers" syndrome (My blood boils at the thought of the annoying way Heather Thompson would eat crackers! -- j/k -- nope, not joking -- legitimately mad! -- naw, joking--well, mostly. Ah, let's just be honest, I'd be annoyed.) ;)  It seems to me that there's a bit of that happening with Bethenny.

I don't think it matters all that much, I mean we're all just shooting the breeze on the internet, except when it gets to the level of abuse. Like diadochokinesis said above, it seems like victim shaming sometimes.  Outside, disinterested parties think there was enough evidence to charge Jason with a crime, several crimes; doesn't that count for something?  

I am sure some view her using a BEC lens, it happens to all the HWs, not just Bethenny or Heather. I base my opinion of Bethenny on her own behaviors, what I have seen throughout the many years she has been this show/her own 2 shows and her Talk/Radio shows. She is not a nice person, she uses and abuses most people around her then discards them when they are of no further use to her. As for Heather, I like her and I admit, she wasn't perfect, she was far from it but she wasn't selfish/cruel like Bethenny is and I never saw Heather get enjoyment from destroying a person, Bethenny gets her rocks off doing to others. 

As to the weight of charges leveled against Jason, until he is found guilty, he is presumed innocent, and the charges are misdemeanors plus 1 possible minor felony (equating out to the level of a misdemeanor). I think some here have already found him guilty even though none of us know both sides. Yes, it is possible that he went off the rails even though we have never seen Jason do that before. But we have seen Bethenny try and twist things in her favor before, she refuses to admit she does anything wrong, she tends to blame her victims for "making her go there" and she tends to run when it is time for her to face the music. Bethenny does not believe in compromise, it is her way or the high way in all things. That has served her well in business but it is not healthy or realistic in ones private life, which is why she burns through people like she does IMO.

As for the fact that having charges filed against Jason automatically means where there's smoke there's fire, that simply isn't true, I have seen (firsthand) how little it takes anymore. 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jel said:

Okay, but is it possible Beth's word's and behaviors are being viewed, by some viewers, through an "I don't like Bethenny Frankel filter", and so nearly anything she does or says gets a really high, sometimes extreme, level of scrutiny? 

I'll use myself as an example here -- one of my least favorite HWs of all time was Heather Thompson -- she did and said some things that I thought were legitimately bad, but mostly I just didn't like her personality, so for me, with her, a lot of it was "bitch eating crackers" syndrome (My blood boils at the thought of the annoying way Heather Thompson would eat crackers! -- j/k -- nope, not joking -- legitimately mad! -- naw, joking--well, mostly. Ah, let's just be honest, I'd be annoyed.) ;)  It seems to me that there's a bit of that happening with Bethenny.

I don't think it matters all that much, I mean we're all just shooting the breeze on the internet, except when it gets to the level of abuse. Like diadochokinesis said above, it seems like victim shaming sometimes.  Outside, disinterested parties think there was enough evidence to charge Jason with a crime, several crimes; doesn't that count for something?  

Due to the nature of the crimes Jason is charged with, the mindset of Bethenny's is a factor.  Twelve jurors have to decide whether or not Jason's behavior rises to a level of annoyance to Bethenny.  So her personality will be figured in.  Compare it to Tinsley criminal act-it is easily defined she trespassed.  The more she exposes her "real" self in the media the more questions arise.  Even age old things such as making up a story about being lost at sea and the tug boat captain disputing it might lead one to wonder if she is using her access to media for more exposure and her brand of justice. 

From what has been released Bethenny is annoyed to the point of harassment by some of the following statements:

She has run through a lot of men and she is evil and the inevitable end of their relationship. This from an ex-husband and father of her children directed at her then present married boyfriend.  Compare to Bethenny going after Tom and intentionally and repeatedly making defamatory comments about the two of them, on the air and in the media for well over a year.  She hadn't even met Tom when a bulk of the profanity laden comments were made.  Even two weeks before the wedding Bethenny was telling Luann her now husband would cheat on her.   It would seem to me weighing the two that Jason is just as entitled to his opinion of Bethenny as Bethenny is entitled to her opinion of Tom and Luann.  I don't see where one is worse than the other.  Two weeks later Bethenny publicly announced that Dennis was married and the relationship was winding down.

Jason has said Bethenny is ugly, old and irrelevant.  I don't know how this rises to criminal behavior but taken with the other comments it appears Bethenny is very concerned with her public image and does battle on a pretty regular basis for anyone attacking and/or diminishing her brand.  Best example is her tirade against Sonja last year.  On the upside it appears Bethenny after making Draconian statements is able to reel it back in and reconnect-and in the case of Sonja even make out with her.  This year Bethenny is commenting on Ramona's face and Tom's physical appearance in a negative fashion.  Once again why would she be bothered by Jason's statements when she has no problems publicly expressing the same thing. 

One of things that seem to bother people is Jason refers to her by her mother, Bernadette's name.  From one of Jason's e-mails:  Despite your games, I'll never let you do to me what your mother did to your father.  I will never go away."  So we have Bethenny testifying earlier that she told Jason he would never see his daughter again, and apparently Bethenny has expressed that Bernadette was instrumental in driving a wedge between her and her father. 

Another issue and it is at the heart of the complaint is Jason continued to cc Dennis Shields with e-mails to Bethenny.  I think Jason is a bit cavalier in thinking he could contact the guy but he offers this defense:

"As a concerned father I often have to contact others when I cannot reach my daughter through her mother."  Apparently, an assistant has been used in the past to facilitate custodial exchanges.  I don't have a problem with an assistant being there for the exchange as it is no different to me than a daycare provider being there when the child is picked up or delivered.  I do think if the child acts up, as in throws a temper tantrum during an exchange between the parents, perhaps it is in the best interests of the child the parents aren't face to face during an exchange. 

A couple of old links:    http://allthingsrh.com/inside-jason-hoppys-emails-bethenny-frankel/

http://www.eonline.com/news/811591/jason-hoppy-why-i-won-t-stop-e-mailing-bethenny-frankel-s-boyfriend

I do think even C-list celebrities have a bit of an uphill battle because they make and break their brand by publicity.  If it were two celebs doing battle then it would be one thing, but one celeb vs. an ex might give rise to the theory it is an attention getter.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, WireWrap said:

I am sure some view her using a BEC lens, it happens to all the HWs, not just Bethenny or Heather. I base my opinion of Bethenny on her own behaviors, what I have seen throughout the many years she has been this show/her own 2 shows and her Talk/Radio shows. She is not a nice person, she uses and abuses most people around her then discards them when they are of no further use to her. As for Heather, I like her and I admit, she wasn't perfect, she was far from it but she wasn't selfish/cruel like Bethenny is and I never saw Heather get enjoyment from destroying a person, Bethenny gets her rocks off doing to others. 

As to the weight of charges leveled against Jason, until he is found guilty, he is presumed innocent, and the charges are misdemeanors plus 1 possible minor felony (equating out to the level of a misdemeanor). I think some here have already found him guilty even though none of us know both sides. Yes, it is possible that he went off the rails even though we have never seen Jason do that before. But we have seen Bethenny try and twist things in her favor before, she refuses to admit she does anything wrong, she tends to blame her victims for "making her go there" and she tends to run when it is time for her to face the music. Bethenny does not believe in compromise, it is her way or the high way in all things. That has served her well in business but it is not healthy or realistic in ones private life, which is why she burns through people like she does IMO.

As for the fact that having charges filed against Jason automatically means where there's smoke there's fire, that simply isn't true, I have seen (firsthand) how little it takes anymore. 

Wait a minute, You are innocent BEFORE you get a chance to get into court and prove you aren't as bad as the charges filed against you?

I think the court of public opinion is just as flawed as the assholes that run it? ; )

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I don't think it matters all that much, I mean we're all just shooting the breeze on the internet, except when it gets to the level of abuse. Like diadochokinesis said above, it seems like victim shaming sometimes.  Outside, disinterested parties think there was enough evidence to charge Jason with a crime, several crimes; doesn't that count for something?  

Yeah, pretty much.

Quote

Twelve jurors have to decide whether or not Jason's behavior rises to a level of annoyance to Bethenny.  So her personality will be figured in. 

Yeah they do, but why would her personality be figured in? And why would the jury give a fuck about what Bethenny said about Tom, Luann, Sonja, The Jolly green Giant, etc, when none of them are involved in this case? This is between Bethenny, Jason, and Dennis, to an extent. The rest don't factor in, and really shouldn't.

Quote

one celeb vs. an ex might give rise to the theory it is an attention getter.

A theory which doesn't make sense, given that this a divorce that isn't what one would call amicable.

Quote

I think the court of public opinion is just as flawed as the assholes that run it? ; )

Possibly, given that people from all sides seem to be a part of that court in some way ; )

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, BBHN said:

Yeah, pretty much.

Yeah they do, but why would her personality be figured in? And why would the jury give a fuck about what Bethenny said about Tom, Luann, Sonja, The Jolly green Giant, etc, when none of them are involved in this case? This is between Bethenny, Jason, and Dennis, to an extent. The rest don't factor in, and really shouldn't.

A theory which doesn't make sense, given that this a divorce that isn't what one would call amicable.

Possibly, given that people from all sides seem to be a part of that court in some way ; )

The case goes to trial June 27th - I will try to remember to post articles from the NY papers

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, diadochokinesis said:

One of the charges is a felony. 

You would have to consult an attorney that practices in NY but from my understanding from what I read of NY state law, stalking falls under the category of domestic violence. Within that category, charges can't be dropped by the victim. The police department or state can drop the charges but not the person that initially filed the complaint. 

 

Here is how a case is charges in NYC.  http://manhattanda.org/criminal-justice-system-how-it-works?s=38&page=2  The reason I believe Jason charges are all misdemeanors is after his arraignment in March when he turned down a plea to a simple violation, the matter was set for trial.  If it had been a felony it would have been referred to Dept F, and brought before the Grand Jury for an indictment.  None of that happened.  He declined the plea and the case was immediately set for trial.  It is my understanding the trial was originally set for April but due to the judge having a scheduling conflict it was set over until June 26th.

I am a little surprised one of the many gossip sites has not had a copy of the complaint.  Usually they are thrilled to show the documents.

The charges against Jason Hoppy fall with the 240 section of the New York State penal code.  I am unable to find any correlation to Domestic Violence in the section.  http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article240.htm  In this case if a complaining witness withdraws or does not want to testify there is no case.  It is her state of mind as to the content of the e-mails and statements by Jason.  There were no threats or implied threats of violence.  To her credit Bethenny did not call the police to the school.

I have no issue with the DA's office going forward on the complaint of a witness who claims she is in fear of her safety.  There is no downside to the DA's office filing and prosecuting the case.  If they win, they win, if they lose they lose.  They have immunity.  It is not as if the DA's office is making a big deal out of this case holding press conferences regarding the case or even giving statements.  All comments came from bethenny's personal attorney.

It is my understanding-in lieu of a victim's testimony they can use 911 calls, previous statements to police  health care workers from the victim to establish the crime occurred.  This prevents prosecuting the victim for contempt of court. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

he turned down a plea to a simple violation

My conspiracy theory: I think he's fighting this to lay the groundwork for mounting a custody battle. I wouldn't be surprised if he has threatening emails/texts/phone calls from her (warning him he'd never see his daughter again, she has the best lawyers in town to take him down, etc etc). She's never shown  any self awareness, so I find it easy to believe she would threaten to take his daughter away,  without having any sense of how creepy that would sound to the world outside her own head.  She slut shames and calls it truth-telling; she savages an anorexic and calls it "taking care of herself"; she could easily send vicious emails herself while considering them blazing torches of freedom-fighting.

Or this is the one time Frankel is telling the truth and he is every bit the crazed monster she painted him to be.

Edited by film noire
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, film noire said:

My conspiracy theory: I think he's fighting this to lay the groundwork for mounting a custody battle. I wouldn't be surprised if he has threatening emails/texts/phone calls from her (warning him he'd never see his daughter again, she has the best lawyers in town to take him down, etc etc). She's never shown  any self awareness, so I find it easy to believe she would threaten to take his daughter away,  without having any sense of how creepy that would sound to the world outside her own head.  She slut shames and calls it truth-telling; she savages an anorexic and calls it "taking care of herself"; she could easily send vicious emails herself while considering them blazing torches of freedom-fighting.

Or this is the one time Frankel is telling the truth and he is every bit the crazed monster she painted him to be.

There was a reason he turned the simple plea-it had a permanent restraining order attached to it which would keep him away from his daughter's school.  Bethenny has already testified she has threatened Jason with -"you will never see your daughter again."  It seems to me, he is working hard to keep that from happening.  I am thinking we are not going to see Jason be hauled out of misdemeanor trial court in a straight jacket.  Jason married her knowing she was pretty high strung and she married him knowing he was pretty stodgy. 

Sometimes things backfire-maybe the a family law court won't find Bethenny stable enough for shared custody.  Be careful what you wish for, it is always not everyone else's view.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, film noire said:

My conspiracy theory: I think he's fighting this to lay the groundwork for mounting a custody battle. I wouldn't be surprised if he has threatening emails/texts/phone calls from her (warning him he'd never see his daughter again, she has the best lawyers in town to take him down, etc etc). She's never shown  any self awareness, so I find it easy to believe she would threaten to take his daughter away,  without having any sense of how creepy that would sound to the world outside her own head.  She slut shames and calls it truth-telling; she savages an anorexic and calls it "taking care of herself"; she could easily send vicious emails herself while considering them blazing torches of freedom-fighting.

Or this is the one time Frankel is telling the truth and he is every bit the crazed monster she painted him to be.

This cracked me up. 

The wording makes me imagine Bethenny as the protagonist portrayed by Rebecca DeMornay in the forgettable mid-'90s thriller Never Talk to Strangers, in which RB's heroine turns out to be stalking herself.

Edited by lunastartron
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I just can't imagine anyone "stepping" in to the step parent role on either side of the Bethenny/Jason battle. Who the hell would want to date either of them and have to deal with the psycho drama of Beth and Jason? 

The person that volunteers for this would have to be a drama addict in order to be ok with this bullshit. That will not be good for Jason, Beth or especially Bryn.

They are both f'd regarding finding emotionally healthy partners. 

No wonder Dennis cleared out.

Edited by Happy Camper
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Happy Camper said:

I just can't imagine anyone "stepping" in to the step parent role on either side of the Bethenny/Jason battle. Who the hell would want to date either of them and have to deal with the psycho drama of Beth and Jason? 

The person that volunteers for this would have to be a drama addict in order to be ok with this bullshit. That will not be good for Jason, Beth or especially Bryn.

They are both f'd regarding finding emotionally healthy partners. 

No wonder Dennis cleared out.

Dude, I've had friends start dating men who were divorced and bailed once they figured out the ex was psycho. Watching the drama on tv is one thing. Actually living it and being forced to deal with it daily is something else. 

I think some people are misconstruing our withholding support of Hoppy and saying Bethenny is getting what she deserves as going on and saying he is guilty. I will speak for me only but I don't know if he is innocent or guilty. I don't have all of the evidence in front of me and the testimonies to make that judgment. However, what I do know is the US has a disturbing trend of blaming the woman when it comes to domestic violence, sexual harassment, rape, stalking, etc. When a girl gets raped in college then it is blamed on her (she shouldn't have been drinking, she shouldn't have been partying, she shouldn't have been wearing a short skirt, etc). These crimes are the only ones in which the victim is presumed guilty and has to prove innocence and that is wrong. If she is making all this up and blowing it out of proportion then that will come out when the case goes to trial. Until then, I'm reserving my judgment on Hoppy's innocence/guilt in all of this but I will defend the victim's right to also be presumed innocent. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Who the hell would want to date either of them and have to deal with the psycho drama of Beth and Jason? 

Apparently neither of them have trouble finding dating partners...

Quote

No wonder Dennis cleared out.

Well, we don't know the specifics of who dumped whom, or if it was mutual, so hard to say if he cleared out.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

12 hours ago, zoeysmom said:

Due to the nature of the crimes Jason is charged with, the mindset of Bethenny's is a factor.  Twelve jurors have to decide whether or not Jason's behavior rises to a level of annoyance to Bethenny.  So her personality will be figured in.  

This is not at all how the case will be decided.  Bethenny's personality will not be taken into account. She is not the one on trial here.  Jason is.  And it is his behavior that will be judged in terms of whether or not he was following her or engaging in other behavior that would put a "reasonable person" in fear of harm.  Bethenny's personal propensity to find something annoying is not the key issue.  It will turn on how the jurors view what he did, not how Bethenny viewed it.

If what you are saying were true, then hyper-sensitive people would be able to get people convicted at the drop of a hat and cavalier people would never be able to bring a successful case no matter what anyone did to them.  Which would be a ridiculous way for a law to operate. 

 

Quote

 

From what has been released Bethenny is annoyed to the point of harassment by some of the following statements:

She has run through a lot of men and she is evil and the inevitable end of their relationship. This from an ex-husband and father of her children directed at her then present married boyfriend.  Compare to Bethenny going after Tom and intentionally and repeatedly making defamatory comments about the two of them, on the air and in the media for well over a year.  She hadn't even met Tom when a bulk of the profanity laden comments were made.  Even two weeks before the wedding Bethenny was telling Luann her now husband would cheat on her.   It would seem to me weighing the two that Jason is just as entitled to his opinion of Bethenny as Bethenny is entitled to her opinion of Tom and Luann.  I don't see where one is worse than the other.  Two weeks later Bethenny publicly announced that Dennis was married and the relationship was winding down.

Jason has said Bethenny is ugly, old and irrelevant.  I don't know how this rises to criminal behavior but taken with the other comments it appears Bethenny is very concerned with her public image and does battle on a pretty regular basis for anyone attacking and/or diminishing her brand.  Best example is her tirade against Sonja last year.  On the upside it appears Bethenny after making Draconian statements is able to reel it back in and reconnect-and in the case of Sonja even make out with her.  This year Bethenny is commenting on Ramona's face and Tom's physical appearance in a negative fashion.  Once again why would she be bothered by Jason's statements when she has no problems publicly expressing the same thing. 

 

First of all, this stuff is all from a heavily-edited, semi-scripted reality show where people's jobs depend on them creating drama.  It's like trying to hold an actress accountable in her personal life for things the characters she plays on screen do.  It's completely irrelevant in terms of making a legal determination about whether or not Jason broke the law. 

More importantly, it is simply not necessary that Bethenny demonstrate she is a nice person in order for her to prove her case.  She can be as mean to other people as she wants to be and it has nothing to do with what Jason did to her. Her behavior toward completely uninvolved third parties does nothing to offset the potential wrongfulness of Jason's actions and it frankly smacks of an attempt to justify his actions toward her on the basis that she is a bitch.  Thank goodness that is not how the law works.  Because even the most rude, loud-mouthed, abrasive people are entitled to go through life without being followed, bombarded with unwanted communications, and threatened when they are just trying to drop their little girl off at school. 

 

2 hours ago, diadochokinesis said:

These crimes are the only ones in which the victim is presumed guilty and has to prove innocence and that is wrong. If she is making all this up and blowing it out of proportion then that will come out when the case goes to trial. Until then, I'm reserving my judgment on Hoppy's innocence/guilt in all of this but I will defend the victim's right to also be presumed innocent. 

Bless you for saying this.   Bethenny's lack of popularity is no more an excuse for dismissing her claims off the bat than not liking Jason is a reason to assume he is guilty. 

Edited by Celia Rubenstein
  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

It will turn on how the jurors view what he did, not how Bethenny viewed it.

 

No, the law says otherwise -- in 1999, NY state changed the charge to include the state of mind of the stalking victim, and any fear the stalker’s behavior was likely to have caused the victim -- so Bethneny's mindset is part of the assessment of whether he stalked her, as well as a "reasonable person" standard. (I posted the link to the stalking in the fourth degree  law - punishable by ninety days in  jail - in the Two Weeks episode thread awhile back).

Edited by film noire
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think some legal terms are being conflated here.   Let me see if I can explain this ...

When it is stated that the victim's state of mind is to be taken into consideration, it doesn't mean the actual victim's actual personal state of mind is determinative of the case. 

It means the victim's state of mind which is presumed to be that of a reasonable person is a factor to be considered by the jury when deciding if a defendant's behavior violated the law (by being behavior that the defendant either knew or should have known would cause a reasonable person fear under the circumstances).  It is a change from old law which required a showing of "specific intent" to cause fear on the part of the defendant (which is sometimes hard to prove) and shifts the focus to how the victim could reasonably be expected to feel under all the circumstances and what a defendant should reasonably be expected to realize. It makes a case much easier to prove. 

Essentially, it works like this: it is assumed that (a) Bethenny would respond like a reasonable person, and (b) the jury is capable of discerning how a reasonable person would feel. The jury comes to a decision about whether or not fear was reasonable under all the circumstances, and that mindset is imputed to Bethenny.  Instead of an inquiry into the specific intent of the defendant, the question becomes "Would Bethenny, being a reasonable person, have been afraid considering everything that happened?" That is what "taking the victim's mindset into consideration means. 

Edited by Celia Rubenstein · Reason: clarity
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, film noire said:

No, the law says otherwise -- in 1999, NY state changed the charge to include the state of mind of the stalking victim, and any fear the stalker’s behavior was likely to have caused the victim -- so Bethneny's mindset is part of the assessment of whether he stalked her, as well as a "reasonable person" standard. (I posted the link to the stalking in the fourth degree  law - punishable by ninety days in  jail - in the Two Weeks episode thread awhile back).

Obviously it is the law and pertinent to a defense to the accusation.  I presume Jason will put on a defense and not just rest after the prosecution rests.   Jason is entitled to a defense.  It is up to the court to decide what comes in and what is relevant.  There are also some ins and outs if the parties are required through business or this case shared custody to communicate, to be in the same spot at the same time.  This isn't some fan situation or jilted lover situation.  Neither of these people have publicly shown a high degree of regard for the other and they both are very sardonic and contemptuous when addressing each other.  IIRC one of the published e-mails Bethenny reacted to contained the phrase, "I will pray for you".   Not sure if a statement is harassing by a reasonable person standard.

What I remember about Bethenny's return is the others were walking on eggshells when it came to Bethenny and her custody issues.  She literally began crying and berating Heather when she asked a fairly benign question about when Bethenny had her daughter.  I do not find that a reasonable response.  She had another meltdown while trying to plan a work vacation over how long she could be gone and ending her trip a day early so she could see her daughter's recital.  Again I don't know if a jury would find her reactions all that reasonable. 

Bethenny can't have it both ways as far as her reality show.  There are volumes of interviews where she claims it is all real and she never blames editing.  Her production company is B Real, her radio show was used to discuss the couple's divorce, she gave interviews, discussed her daughter calling her mother, who she now claims is some over the top insult if Jason refers to her by her mother's name, wrote books about her relationship.

Guess we will know the answers a week from today.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

What I remember about Bethenny's return is the others were walking on eggshells when it came to Bethenny and her custody issues.  She literally began crying and berating Heather when she asked a fairly benign question about when Bethenny had her daughter.  I do not find that a reasonable response.  She had another meltdown while trying to plan a work vacation over how long she could be gone and ending her trip a day early so she could see her daughter's recital.

None of which honestly has much to do with the case at hand...

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, zoeysmom said:

Obviously it is the law and pertinent to a defense to the accusation. 

The language about the "victim's mindset" that Film Noire used is not from the law itself.  It is a snippet of the general commentary that has been made to explain how the 1999 statute is different from how things were done before.

Here is the law itself: 

Quote

 

Code SectionPenal 240.26, .31; 120.45 to .60

Stalking Defined asStalking in the 4th degree: intentionally and with no legitimate purpose engages in conduct that s/he knows or should reasonably know: will cause reasonable fear of material harm to victim or member of victim's immediate family or causes material harm to mental or emotional health of victim or member of victim's immediate family or causes a reasonable fear that victim's employment or business is threatened; 

 

I have bolded the relevant portion.  Nowhere in the statute is there a requirement that a victim has to convince the jury that she was actually afraid of the defendant.  A victim need only convince the jury that a reasonable person would have been afraid. 

That means there is not going to be any inquiry into how nasty a person Beth is or any inventory taken of all the mean things she has said to people in an attempt to prove that she could not really have actually been afraid of Jason because she is some kind of monstrous bitch.  Lord help us all if that ever becomes how the law operates. Defendants would have a field day putting their victims through an extenuated hell forcing them to defend themselves - one of the very things inserting the "reasonable person standard" into this law was meant to prevent from happening.

 

Quote

What I remember about Bethenny's return is the others were walking on eggshells when it came to Bethenny and her custody issues.  She literally began crying and berating Heather when she asked a fairly benign question about when Bethenny had her daughter.  I do not find that a reasonable response.  She had another meltdown while trying to plan a work vacation over how long she could be gone and ending her trip a day early so she could see her daughter's recital.  Again I don't know if a jury would find her reactions all that reasonable. 

Are you suggesting that Bethenny is actually under and obligation to take the stand and PROVE she is a reasonable person before she can claim protection under the statute?  That she will have to answer for her reality show shenanigans before she will judged worthy of being entitled to assert her right to be free from harassment? 

The entire purpose of the "reasonable person" construct in the law is to provide and objective, comparative basis of perception in order to avoid forcing the jury to delve into the very types of irrelevant personal inquiries you have described.  Honestly, none of these cases would ever be resolved if every trial turned into an inquisition into the behavior of the victim in situations that have absolutely nothing to do with the case.  Such a scenario would bode a return to the days when women would avoid bringing rape charges out of fear they would be put on trial and their own behavior and personal histories would be torn apart and used against them.  I myself would prefer that dark chapter of American jurisprudence remain in the past.

Sorry for the long lecture, everybody.  But this is an important type of law which New York was one of the first states to enact-  a brave step in the right direction.  And it troubles me to see it repeatedly mischaracterized.  

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

Sorry for the long lecture, everybody.  But this is an important type of law which New York was one of the first states to enact-  a brave step in the right direction.  And it troubles me to see it repeatedly mischaracterized.  

Troubling, but man it is sure not surprising.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

This is not at all how the case will be decided.  Bethenny's personality will not be taken into account. She is not the one on trial here.  Jason is.  And it is his behavior that will be judged in terms of whether or not he was following her or engaging in other behavior that would put a "reasonable person" in fear of harm.  Bethenny's personal propensity to find something annoying is not the key issue.  It will turn on how the jurors view what he did, not how Bethenny viewed it.

If what you are saying were true, then hyper-sensitive people would be able to get people convicted at the drop of a hat and cavalier people would never be able to bring a successful case no matter what anyone did to them.  Which would be a ridiculous way for a law to operate. 

 

First of all, this stuff is all from a heavily-edited, semi-scripted reality show where people's jobs depend on them creating drama.  It's like trying to hold an actress accountable in her personal life for things the characters she plays on screen do.  It's completely irrelevant in terms of making a legal determination about whether or not Jason broke the law. 

More importantly, it is simply not necessary that Bethenny demonstrate she is a nice person in order for her to prove her case.  She can be as mean to other people as she wants to be and it has nothing to do with what Jason did to her. Her behavior toward completely uninvolved third parties does nothing to offset the potential wrongfulness of Jason's actions and it frankly smacks of an attempt to justify his actions toward her on the basis that she is a bitch.  Thank goodness that is not how the law works.  Because even the most rude, loud-mouthed, abrasive people are entitled to go through life without being followed, bombarded with unwanted communications, and threatened when they are just trying to drop their little girl off at school. 

 

Bless you for saying this.   Bethenny's lack of popularity is no more an excuse for dismissing her claims off the bat than not liking Jason is a reason to assume he is guilty. 

Even assholes can be the victims of crime! And if Jason wants to suggest that her anger/outbursts/attacks from RHoNY are somehow relevant, I'm sure she'll point out that she's playing a reality tv version of herself on a reality tv show, not exposing her real self.   And, in fairness,  it seems most people understand that, given how often she is called a lying liar for presenting her life to be one thing on RHoNY, when in reality, it's something else.  (For example, Dennis  -- when she was first dating him but didn't ever mention that on the show, people took issue with that.)

Personally, I find Jason a little bit creepy sometimes. He appears to have a tendency to go very low:  calling Bethenny (referring to her by that name is what's floating around in my head, from Carole, I think) when he knows how she feels about how she was mothered. The dog thing really bothered me, the "I'm sorry you have to go with Mommy" (alleged!) remark really bothered me. If he did say that, there's literally no way to interpret that statement as benign, imo; a willingness to be that manipulative of your 5 or 6 year old daughter is beyond creepy to me.  Sure, make the little girl feel sad, or afraid, or that she's disappointed you because you don't like your ex. Just awful.  But I think the truth is that he knows Bethenny is a good mother to Bryn; if he didn't, he wouldn't have to plant those kinds of seeds against her because there would be no need.  

I wish they would both just suck it up for the sake of their only child.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size