Bethenny & Jason: The Divorce Showdown

[Ellee]

38 minutes ago, Jel said:

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.

Oversimplifying here ... but she might want to be very careful.  Personally I'd be telling B to pick a lane.  Either her reality tv life is 'not real' in which case the comments made about Jason would fall into the category of 'not real' or she goes by her motto that she always 'tells the truth'.   We all pick apart every aspect of the RWs and an answer that 'this comment was real but this comment was not' won't fly.   Or at least I think it wouldn't.

Lol, I didn't know I was able to speak Greek!  :D :D :D  Hope you all understand what I'm trying to say. 

Have a great day everyone.

[zoeysmom]

56 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

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: 

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.

 

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.  

The portion of the law you cited also contains some very important language regarding legitimate purpose.  Jason has a legitimate purpose in contacting Bethenny or being at the school-they have a daughter in common. Unless there is a court order somewhere saying Jason is not allowed at the school then the stalking charge is pretty much out the window.  Same with "immediate family", by no stretch of the imagination is Dennis SHields a member of Bethenny's immediate family.  He has a wife and family.  So those are just two parts of the sentence unhighlighted that are part of the elements of the crime.

Bethenny isn't a party to the action it is The People of the State of New York, and as prosecutors they have the duty to prove each and every element of the crime.  Even a half asleep defense attorney will work to poke holes in "no legitimate purpose" "will cause of material harm" to victim or a member of their immediate family.  So it is on the side of the prosecution to PROVE the crime occurred  and Bethenny is their victim/witness, so yes, Bethenny would be the likely person to testify.  Her testimony is evidence used to PROVE the elements of the crime charged.  The prosecution isn't allowed to put some random "reasonable person" on the stand to make their case.  I am not saying she cannot feel fear because she is a monstrous bitch, I am saying she has on a very regular and public basis delivered scorching often times unwarranted verbal assaults that have been shown to cause material harm to the person on the other end.  Even after this case was charged Bethenny was claiming she would have kicked Phaedra's ass had she done to her what she did to Kandi, because it is harming Kandi's brand.   There have been ample examples of Bethenny dishing out harmful, hurtful comments to others with little or no provocation.  Bethenny has had several documented cases of exaggeration and out and out lies in describing events that have happened to her.  The most glaring being the Coast Guard had to rescue them when they were lost at sea.  It goes to the credibility of the witness and how they fit into the reasonable person box.   

First off they have to see what is contained in the e-mails that would indicate he would cause harm.  Second they need to see Bethenny's responses, if any to the offense or even inoffensive e-mails. 

Claiming protection and seeking a criminal conviction are two different things.  There are civil remedies available to Bethenny which have a lower threshold of proof.

The prosecution is not relieved of their burden to prove and the defense has an absolute right to question and cross examine the veracity of the witness. 

[zoeysmom]

44 minutes ago, Jel said:

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.

Bethenny has repeatedly said what you see on the show with her is real.  I suppose she could ask her good friend Luann to testify that her verbal assault on Luann was staged.  I wouldn't hold my breath but she could ask. 

More disturbing would be Bethenny throwing water on a sleeping Jason and threatening him with never seeing his child again.  Bethenny testified she did this and called him "white trash".  I do think Jason is a little bit stodgy and seems to be too literal in his interpretation of matters.  I can see the statement being benign.  The kid is pitching a fit and you have to let her know those are the rules and you can't change them.  As in "Sorry, this is mommy's time."  Or, "sorry, but you have to go with mommy." There was recent broadcast where it was reported a witness (friend of the broadcaster) claimed he had seen Bryn yelling and screaming about not wanting to go while being returned to Bethenny in the lobby of her building.  Even the broadcaster was quick to offer it could mean anything-I want to go to the toy store or I want ice cream.  Comments taken out of context and just replacing a word or putting emphasis where there was none can make all the difference.   

[QuinnM]

Quote

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.  

Really well put.  It's hard to explain why she be crazy does not excuse criminal behavior but you did it perfectly.

 

Quote

Jason has a legitimate purpose in contacting Bethenny or being at the school-they have a daughter in common.

If the custody agreement has guidelines in place for calls with the daughter and an intermediary then he has no legitimate purpose.  I think he did have a legitimate purpose to being at the school since it was noted in the filing that it was his custodial day.  So that means that the stalking is coming from something else.  It also means it isn't just bumping into her at a restaurant in the Hamptons once.  And lucky for all of us this idiot is going to fight the charges.  So we get to see all the dirty laundry.  I'm hoping that against all legal advice he decides to go with the 'she's mean to me' defense which is light years better than 'she hit me first' defense.  None of this ends up looking very adult for either person.

My guess?  Cuz I have no life and have a shit load of friends that have divorced and about 1 in 4 are contentious.  He was following her on social media and making remarks about what he saw.  The second he had a restraining order B and Bryn started traveling every weekend.  You know, private jet traveling.  So I'm wondering if his not being able to go after her in email gave her wings, literally.

Off topic but fascinating to me - Oprah has not flown commercial in 25 years.  Ahhh to be Oprah.

[BBHN]

Quote

Even assholes can be the victims of crime! 

Jason was the victim of a crime?
 

Quote

Bethenny has repeatedly said what you see on the show with her is real.  I suppose she could ask her good friend Luann to testify that her verbal assault on Luann was staged.  I wouldn't hold my breath but she could ask. 

Or common sense could dictate the show has nothing to do with the case between Bethenny and Jason.

[zoeysmom]

31 minutes ago, QuinnM said:

Really well put.  It's hard to explain why she be crazy does not excuse criminal behavior but you did it perfectly.

 

If the custody agreement has guidelines in place for calls with the daughter and an intermediary then he has no legitimate purpose.  I think he did have a legitimate purpose to being at the school since it was noted in the filing that it was his custodial day.  So that means that the stalking is coming from something else.  It also means it isn't just bumping into her at a restaurant in the Hamptons once.  And lucky for all of us this idiot is going to fight the charges.  So we get to see all the dirty laundry.  I'm hoping that against all legal advice he decides to go with the 'she's mean to me' defense which is light years better than 'she hit me first' defense.  None of this ends up looking very adult for either person.

My guess?  Cuz I have no life and have a shit load of friends that have divorced and about 1 in 4 are contentious.  He was following her on social media and making remarks about what he saw.  The second he had a restraining order B and Bryn started traveling every weekend.  You know, private jet traveling.  So I'm wondering if his not being able to go after her in email gave her wings, literally.

Off topic but fascinating to me - Oprah has not flown commercial in 25 years.  Ahhh to be Oprah.

The telephone thing has always bothered me.  This started when Bryn was four years old.  I don't think there was ever an intermediary as who would be tasked to be on Jason's end?  I get the Court thinks it is in the best interests of the child to have continuing and significant contact with both parents but it just seems to lend itself to frustration.  Awhile back Carole, very sincerely stated she had been with Bethenny when she was trying to get ahold of Bryn in the timeframe (I believe it was 7:30-8:00 pm) and that Bethenny had to try several times before Jason answered.  Now we have Jason claiming her sent multiple e-mails to various associates of Bethenny's because she was unavailable.  So by the reasonable person standard:, Is it reasonable to call several times in a half hour period?  Is it reasonable to e-mail 170 times over several months?  Are both reasonable or are both unreasonable?  They both had a common purpose and that is supposedly the child. 

Attorneys usually direct the defense based the best possible outcome for their client.  There is an old saying, "if you have the facts on your side, pound the facts, if you have the law on your side pound the table, if you have neither pound the table."  My guess is like any good attorney Jason's will argue the elements haven't been met based on the evidence presented and since there seems to be a number of e-mails, there will have to be someone to verify the e-mails are true and correct and then Jason if the e-mails appear to be damaging will have to explain.  Of all the charges I think the stalking is probably the weakest just because there seems to be a lawful purpose for Jason to be at say the school.  I don't think following someone on social media would constitute stalking.  

Hasn't Bethenny regularly taken Bryn on trips?   I remember pre-restraining order, Bethenny had her in Aspen and Mexico, this past winter.   

[diadochokinesis]

Ok, who here is a lawyer?  My law degree comes from Google (and a law class in my doctorate program) but I'm hearing a lot of differing interpretations of the law.  So, is anyone here a practicing attorney?

[BBHN]

Quote

So, is anyone here a practicing attorney?

In the state of New York, too.

[Martinigirl]

bueller bueller anyone

[Yours Truly]

On 6/17/2017 at 3:37 PM, Celia Rubenstein said:

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.

I think one of the biggest points is that there is alot of stretching of the imagination.

Either that day was the same as any old day and Jason didn't do what Beth claimed and Beth is exaggerating in order to make Jason look bad OR

Beth knew that Jason's patience has been waning about Cookie but decided Oh well, too bad so sad, deal with it (her own selfish and stubborness) and Cookie ended up taking the brunt of it.

Both scenarios require people to believe something no one knows for sure.

It also requires people use what they do know about the people in question.

Many things we know of Jason come from the grand exaggerator herself and allegations that are still being deliberated whereas most of what I base my opinion of Beth comes from what she's shown IN PUBLIC. 

Jason can be criticized for "allegedly" mistreating Cookie AND Beth can be criticized for being so stupidly stubborn that it was more important "on principle" to leave Cookie in the home with someone who wouldn't treat her in the same pampered manner she does. I mean yeah, there's enough to go around.

I also have to admit that I'm among those that don't think NOT treating an animal exactly like a person constitutes torment. Sorry. 

Edited June 19, 2017 by Yours Truly

[Yours Truly]

On 6/17/2017 at 2:02 PM, Gam2 said:

 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. 

LOL..

My thoughts exactly....

On 6/17/2017 at 5:18 PM, 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.

Nope, nothing, nada. LOL!

[Yours Truly]

On 6/17/2017 at 10:25 PM, 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. 

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. 

For real...

[Jel]

2 hours ago, Ellee said:

Oversimplifying here ... but she might want to be very careful.  Personally I'd be telling B to pick a lane.  Either her reality tv life is 'not real' in which case the comments made about Jason would fall into the category of 'not real' or she goes by her motto that she always 'tells the truth'.   We all pick apart every aspect of the RWs and an answer that 'this comment was real but this comment was not' won't fly.   Or at least I think it wouldn't.

Lol, I didn't know I was able to speak Greek!  :D :D :D  Hope you all understand what I'm trying to say. 

Have a great day everyone.

I think you are right, and that's the reason none of the tee vee Bethenny will be relevant.  I'm no lawyer, but it seems like an easy defense to say that's only tv me. Besides, she isn't on trial, Jason is -- I assume they are looking at real life events only in this case.  So, as Celia Rubenstein explained one million times better than I could, it's a reasonable person's interpretation of what would be frightening/intimidating that matters. Would brooding stares? Would showing up at places you need not be at, just to make your presence known, count?  Would a whole bunch of texts and emails? Would saying things like "You're evil" "I'll never stop" be considered scary or harassing? For me, the answer is yes, especially from someone with whom I have an acrimonious relationship.

Leaving personal opinion of Bethenny out of it for a second, I'll ask if everything that Bethenny is alleging about what Jason has said or done is true, is that kind of stuff scary or creepy or intimidating?  The trial will determine if what she alleges is true, but other parties, police, prosecutor have already determined that it's plenty creepy or they wouldn't have filed charges against him in the first place, right?  Of course it's okay to dislike Bethenny, but no matter how horrendous one might find her, she's still entitled to the same protection under the law as the USA's nicest person. Turnabout might be fair play in one's own life (I don't think it is, but no one asked, so whatevs!), but it isn't in a court of law. I think.  "You reap what you sow" is a good way to live your life, but it's not a carte blanche to commit crimes against someone who has sinned against you. In the eyes of the law anyway. (Gah, someone's going to point out that judges often point out that a person's past behavior factors in to decisions like sentencing, and to them I will say (criminal past! And mostly Pfft! Stop arguing with me! ;)

Granted, she may have some trouble in the court of public opinion with that though, and I agree with you that she should pick a lane, but in a way, I'm sure this all makes perfect sense to her, since she does not seem to be at all "literally minded" what with the being raised by wolves and giving zero fucks and all. I assume they try to pick jurors who don't watch RhoNY?

It'll be interesting to see how it turns out, but no matter the verdict, the verdict itself will surely not be the last word typed on the subject. I'm psychic like that ;)

[film noire]

1 hour ago, diadochokinesis said:

Ok, who here is a lawyer?  My law degree comes from Google (and a law class in my doctorate program) 

Ha! 

A NYC attorney working in stalking/domestic abuse would be great (I have a friend who's a NYC lawyer but she's in corporate finance, so no help there). This was written by an assistant D.A. , explaining reasonable fear/mind of the victim changes in the law back in 1999:

“While we have had laws on the books for many years that apply to stalking-like behavior, the new stalking laws focus specifically on the state of mind of the stalking victim and the fear that the stalker’s behavior is likely to cause the victim. This is quite a change from the traditional "stalking" crimes of harassment, menacing and criminal contempt, which require a specific intent on the part of the stalker to either harass, annoy or alarm the victim, or to place her in fear of injury.

...In many of the new laws, an element of the crime involves the "likelihood" that the offender’s behavior will cause the victim to "reasonably" fear a certain type of harm or result. This deliberately specific language raises two very important considerations.

First, this language tells us that the victim of the stalking behavior does not have to actually be placed in fear. Rather, the stalker’s actions must be likely to cause fear. Indeed, as it is not uncommon for a victim of domestic violence to become somewhat hardened and immune (shell shocked) to her batterer’s pattern of abuse, it is important to remember that a victim’s lack of fear does not alleviate the offender’s criminal responsibility.

Second, it is important to note that the term "reasonable" necessarily imparts great relevance to the history that precipitated the stalking behavior. If the fear that the victim is likely to experience must be "reasonable", then her past experiences with, and knowledge of, her stalker become highly probative of her state of mind.

For example, consider the case of a woman who has recently ended her relationship with a man with whom she had been romantically involved. A few days after she broke off the relationship, her former boyfriend left a lily on her doorstep. In fact, he did so three mornings in a row. The victim says that these actions have scared her to death. Is her fear reasonable? We do not know. Add to this example the following additional fact: The former boyfriend had told the victim, in the course of their relationship, that if she ever left him he would kill her. Now is the fear induced by the lilies reasonable? Not yet. Add one more fact: The victim hates lilies because they remind her of funerals . . . and her ex-boyfriend knows this. Now, finally, the victim’s fear makes sense. In stalking cases, context is everything. And, without knowledge of the history precipitating the stalking behavior, there is no context from which to make sense of the state of mind of the stalking victim.”

http://www.correctionhistory.org/northcountry/html/knowlaw/stalkingcontextdj3.htm

So if (for example) Bethenny testifies "I told him over and over during our marriage that if I were to turn out like Bernadette, I would kill myself" and two years later, Jason is calling her Bernadette, and then asking for her life insurance policy number,  that's very different than Jason calling her Bernadette after Bethenny tried to keep him from seeing his daughter, and asking for the insurance policy number because his tax lawyer told him he needed it -- or Bethenny herself calling him by his father's name whenever Jason did something she didn't like  -- walking around in his shorts or leaving the seat up (or whatever the lawyers dig up on each side).  Without the state of mind of the victim, seemingly innocuous acts of stalking went unpunished, so they changed the law to include it.

Edited June 19, 2017 by film noire

[BBHN]

Quote

Beth knew that Jason's patience has been waning about Cookie but decided Oh well, too bad so sad, deal with it (her own selfish and stubborness) and Cookie ended up taking the brunt of it.

Heaven forbid she should have any expectations about keeping her own dog in her own home...especially a dog that preceded her marriage lol

Quote

Many things we know of Jason come from the grand exaggerator herself and allegations that are still being deliberated whereas most of what I base my opinion of Beth comes from what she's shown IN PUBLIC. 

I think Jason's actions have spoken louder than Bethenny's words did.

[Jel]

2 hours ago, zoeysmom said:

Bethenny has repeatedly said what you see on the show with her is real.  I suppose she could ask her good friend Luann to testify that her verbal assault on Luann was staged.  I wouldn't hold my breath but she could ask. 

More disturbing would be Bethenny throwing water on a sleeping Jason and threatening him with never seeing his child again.  Bethenny testified she did this and called him "white trash".  I do think Jason is a little bit stodgy and seems to be too literal in his interpretation of matters.  I can see the statement being benign.  The kid is pitching a fit and you have to let her know those are the rules and you can't change them.  As in "Sorry, this is mommy's time."  Or, "sorry, but you have to go with mommy." There was recent broadcast where it was reported a witness (friend of the broadcaster) claimed he had seen Bryn yelling and screaming about not wanting to go while being returned to Bethenny in the lobby of her building.  Even the broadcaster was quick to offer it could mean anything-I want to go to the toy store or I want ice cream.  Comments taken out of context and just replacing a word or putting emphasis where there was none can make all the difference.   

I think out of context is usually a fair point, ZM, but saying (and assuming we're talking about normal, non abusive parenting here, which I think we are in Bethenny''s case) "I'm sorry you have to go with Mommy", even if she was saying I DON'T WANT TO GO WITH MOMMY!, is not the right, or even an okay thing to say to a small child.  Imo, there's no context where it's okay to say that if you have the child's best interests in mind. You say things like, "You'll go have a wonderful time with Mommy, play with your toys, visit your friends, go to the park, blah blah, then soon you will come back to my house etc." Keep it light and positive for the kid to help with the transition. 

The Bethenny/Bryn pitching a fit scenario could legitimately be Bryn not wanting to go to Bethenny's, and wanting to stay with her dad right then. But it's his job to ease that burden for her, not make it worse with his sad sack facial expressions or hand wringing distraughtness. That's not going to help anyone.

[Yours Truly]

17 minutes ago, BBHN said:

Heaven forbid she should have any expectations about keeping her own dog in her own home...especially a dog that preceded her marriage lol

I think Jason's actions have spoken louder than Bethenny's words did.

I mean it would have been the smart thing to do. But it went against the spite war they were having so ummm yeah sure just overlook that detail Beth. Some animal lover..

What actions? I mean actions that have been actually witnessed and not claims by Beth. We seem to be lacking of any real verifiable or official recorded examples to refer to 'round here.

Most of Jason's "actions" actually go off of what Beth CLAIMS.

[BBHN]

Quote

I mean it would have been the smart thing to do. But it went against the spite war they were having so ummm yeah sure just overlook that detail Beth. Some animal lover..

Leaving her pet in her home? What a bitch! How dare she! lol

Quote

What actions? I mean actions that have been actually witnessed and not claims by Beth. We seem to be lacking of any real verifiable or official recorded examples to refer to 'round here.

Stalking, harassment, etc. Y'know, stuff like that...

[film noire]

Here's the law (in full):

"A person is guilty of stalking in the fourth degree when he or she intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose, engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person, and knows or reasonably should know that such conduct:

1. is likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to the physical health, safety or property of such person, a member of such person's immediate family or a third party with whom such person is acquainted; 

2. causes material harm to the mental or emotional health of such person, where such conduct consists of following, telephoning or initiating communication or contact with such person, a member of such person's immediate family or a third party with whom such person is acquainted, and the actor was previously clearly informed to cease that conduct;

 3. is likely to cause such person to reasonably fear that his or her employment, business or career is threatened, where such conduct consists of appearing, telephoning or initiating communication or contact at such person's place of employment or business, and the actor was previously clearly informed to cease that conduct.

Stalking in the fourth degree is a class B misdemeanor."

http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/publicsafety/repository/files/New York Stalking Laws.pdf

[Yours Truly]

1 minute ago, BBHN said:

Leaving her pet in her home? What a bitch! How dare she! lol

Stalking, harassment, etc. Y'know, stuff like that...

Simplifying it doesn't change the outcome.

She's a bitch regardless.

But the situation with Cookie just makes her stupid too.

Well I was talking about stuff like Beth's behavior on BEA and BGM and RHoNY. You know stuff viewers HAVE seen, on film, all that jazz.

But if all of this Jason stalking and harassment stuff happened on film somewhere that verifies Beth's C-L-A-I-M-S..... so that awaiting an outcome of the trial is unnecessary.....

Then I'm all about catching all that footage I missed.

I don't know I'm sort of a stickler that way.

[film noire]

3 hours ago, QuinnM said:

It's hard to explain why she be crazy does not excuse criminal behavior

I don't think anybody said her craziness excused him stalking her (if that's what he actually did). What has been said is that her crazy behavior will be brought up by his lawyers. Nobody's coming out of this looking anything but unfit to be a parent (and the ultimate victim will be Bryn, regardless of who "wins").

Edited June 19, 2017 by film noire

[BBHN]

Quote

Simplifying it doesn't change the outcome.

She's a bitch regardless.

But the situation with Cookie just makes her stupid too.

Well I was talking about stuff like Beth's behavior on BEA and BGM and RHoNY. You know stuff viewers HAVE seen, on film, all that jazz.

But if all of this Jason stalking and harassment stuff happened on film somewhere that verifies Beth's C-L-A-I-M-S..... so that awaiting an outcome of the trial is unnecessary.....

Then I'm all about catching all that footage I missed.

I don't know I'm sort of a stickler that way.

And he is an asshole regardless. So what?

No, the situation with Cookie makes her look gullible for possibly thinking and trusting that her ex wouldn't be an asshole about it.

Her behavior on BEA, BGM, and RHoNY has zero to do with the issues regarding her divorce. Because the stuff we HAVE seen, on film? I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T to whatever is going on with Jason and her divorce.

I'm all about keeping things in perspective and how they relate to the issue at hand.

I don't know, I guess I'm sort of a stickler in my own way.

[Jel]

21 minutes ago, film noire said:

I don't think anybody said her craziness excused him of stalking her (if that's what he actually did). What has been said is that her crazy behavior will be brought up by his lawyers -- nobody's coming out of this looking anything but unfit to be a parent. 

While no one is saying her craziness excused it, I feel it comes close at times. It does seem like some are de-legitimizing or dismissing her claims of abuse as not abusive (it's not abuse to put Cookie in the storage locker because the storage locker may have been in the actual apartment). Or he had to email her so many times because of custody issues, and 172 emails in two months isn't really a lot, etc.  He's showing up where he need not be just because, etc.  She said so many shitty things to him and others, she lies all the time, she exaggerates a lot, so how can we take her word for any of this.  In reading this thread it seems like many people here, if they were the DA, would not have found cause to bring any charges against Jason. 

And being really honest, I get a "oh well, sowed and reaped" vibe sometimes. Maybe I am misinterpreting that, but it is how it sometimes comes across to me.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Jel
Changed from "reaped and sowed" because, dumbassery!

[Yours Truly]

1 hour ago, BBHN said:

And he is an asshole regardless. So what?

No, the situation with Cookie makes her look gullible for possibly thinking and trusting that her ex wouldn't be an asshole about it.

Her behavior on BEA, BGM, and RHoNY has zero to do with the issues regarding her divorce. Because the stuff we HAVE seen, on film? I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T to whatever is going on with Jason and her divorce.

I'm all about keeping things in perspective and how they relate to the issue at hand.

I don't know, I guess I'm sort of a stickler in my own way.

Stupid, gullible

Tomato, tomahto... <shrug>

Huh? Those shows CAPTURED most of their marriage and the nature of their relationship with each other. As well as how they treated each other once upon a time.

Can't see how that's less relevant than behaviors that haven't been seen up close and personal by the majority of her audience.

A lot of the opinions are based on Jason's nature and whether Beth's claims have any weight. For me those shows are a reference point, at least until the court gets to these issues.  Once those finding are made public then there is a new set of LEGITIMATE information I can refer to.

On one hand we have actual footage of how heinously raised by wolves Beth can and has been to Jason and his family and on the other we have allegations made by the wolf herself. Hmmmmmm.

Maybe I'm missing something..?

Oh that's right missing any actual verification that Jason's actions are ACTUALLY Jason's and not just his actions as Beth tells it.

To me that's a pretty relevant distinction to make, but maybe that's just my rational thinking getting in the way.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Yours Truly

[BBHN]

Quote

Stupid, gullible

Tomato, tomahto... <shrug>

Nah, not quite.

Quote

Huh? Those shows CAPTURED most of their marriage and the nature of their relationship with each other. As well as how they treated each other once upon a time.

Did they capture the divorce as well? And Bethenny and Jason being on film together post-show? Again, I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T lol

Quote

Oh that's right missing any actual verification that Jason's actions are ACTUALLY Jason's and not just his actions as Beth tells it.

Besides being charged for stalking and harassment? Not sire how that isn't Jason and is Bethenny just "telling it" lol

Quote

To me that's a pretty relevant distinction to make, but maybe that's just my rational thinking getting in the way.

Well, my rational thinking doesn't get in my way ;)

[film noire]

59 minutes ago, Jel said:

And being really honest, I get a "oh well, sowed and reaped" vibe sometimes. Maybe I am misinterpreting that, but it is how it sometimes comes across to me.

I think what you're seeing (in part) is that some people give great weight to charges being laid -- and point to that as proof Hoppy must be guilty (and see the emails/Bernadette/storage room through that lens)  -- and others don't consider the charges proof of anything.  Since I don't trust the justice system, the charge has little value in my eyes. It could be a "cover our ass" move, or it could be a serious thing. We won't know until they get into court -- and that means I'm seeing the Bernadette / emails / storage room as not enough to prove abuse without much more evidence.

And since I also don't trust Frankel -- who has a pattern of lying and exaggerating -- I'm really not assuming anything she says can be taken at face value. If the texts show abusive language, that's one thing.  Her just saying he sent abusive texts  is another.

By the way, her horrific storage room is bigger than my bathroom, where I've put my pup when maintenance has come in to work ; ) 

It's also on the same private floor as the apartment, so the only thing that would inch this towards animal abuse for me is if the dog barking - in distress -- could not be heard.

Edited June 19, 2017 by film noire

[KungFuBunny]

January 27th, 2017

Thanks NYPD

Oh Jason, you're such a douchebag

[Diane Mars]

5 hours ago, Jel said:

... (For example, Dennis  -- when she was first dating him but didn't ever mention that on the show, people took issue with that.)

The problem was not her not telling what was happening in her life, but the fact that she was not OK with other HW not discussing openly what whas happening in THEIR lives ! Double standard. IMHO.

[Yours Truly]

4 minutes ago, BBHN said:

Nah, not quite.

Did they capture the divorce as well? And Bethenny and Jason being on film together post-show? Again, I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T lol

Besides being charged for stalking and harassment? Not sire how that isn't Jason and is Bethenny just "telling it" lol

Well, my rational thinking doesn't get in my way ;)

Charged vs. Convicted?

That's a job for Merriam Webster

Welp, it's apparent that different gauges are used.

Too each their own.

I'm waiting for verifiable information and not the screeching of an unreliable woman that puts her own needs ahead of others... Including her own daughter.

Some of these behaviors I've actually witnessed with my own eyes.

More info will hopefully come out with the hearings but for now, there really isn't any slam dunk case against Jason. Maybe in the future once the details are finally out but for now I'll stick with the more plausible outcome to all of these alleged events.

But minus my crystal ball, who knows? <shrug>

[BBHN]

Quote

Charged vs. Convicted?

That's a job for Merriam Webster

No, that's a job for the NY legal system.

Quote

I'm waiting for verifiable information and not the screeching of an unreliable woman that puts her own needs ahead of others... Including her own daughter.

Some of these behaviors I've actually witnessed with my own eyes.

You know Bethenny in person? Because the stuff on Bravo really has no bearing on the the actual case, because its I-R-R-E-L-...ah, you get the idea.

Quote

But minus my crystal ball, who knows? <shrug>

I guess we'll have to wait and see. <shrug>

7 minutes ago, KungFuBunny said:

January 27th, 2017

Thanks NYPD

Oh Jason, you're such a douchebag

Bwahahahahahahaha!

[Martinigirl]

Here is some proof...

Jason had NO reason what so ever to contact Dennis. He has no relationship with him, no way he was contacting him with good intentions. 

Edited June 19, 2017 by Martinigirl

[Yours Truly]

9 minutes ago, BBHN said:

No, that's a job for the NY legal system.

You know Bethenny in person? Because the stuff on Bravo really has no bearing on the the actual case, because its I-R-R-E-L-...ah, you get the idea.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. <shrug>

Bwahahahahahahaha!

Which hasn't happened yet.

Which is the point.  :-)

No it doesn't have any bearing on the case but it does have bearing on how I form my opinion surrounding the case and how much of her allegations I feel are CACA!

But at least I have those references to make those determinations for myself.

Those shows also give me the only background I have to form an opinion of Jason.

If there is some other footage or recordings that could influence my opinion of him (that doesn't have anything to do with the rantings of the unstable shrew that is Beth) and that isn't still in process of being tried then I'd be more than happy to check them out. Otherwise what else is there really?

That's why I'm excited about the trial.

New info! REAL info!

Yaaaaaayyyy!

Edited June 19, 2017 by Yours Truly

[BBHN]

Quote

Which hasn't happened yet.

Which is the point.  :-)

Were there is smoke, there is fire.

Which is the point too. :-)

Quote

No it doesn't have any bearing on the case but it does have bearing on how I form my opinion surrounding the case and how much of her allegations I feel are CACA!

But at least I have those references to make those determinations for myself.

I have references too!

Except, mine are limited to the case itself so far.

Quote

Otherwise what else is there really?

Stuff that is happening in real life? Off the show?

REAL info?

[Diane Mars]

4 minutes ago, Martinigirl said:

Jason had NO reason what so ever to contact Dennis. He has no relationship with him, no way he was contacting him with good intentions. 

I H.A.T.E. my SIL mother. She has the same feelings towards me. But when -and if- my hubby doesn't answer her regarding "our" son, she messages me. We both H.A.T.E. that, but, when it's about "our" son, we communicate the best we can.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Diane Mars

[BBHN]

Quote

Jason had NO reason what so ever to contact Dennis. He has no relationship with him, no way he was contacting him with good intentions. 

Yeah, pretty much.

[Yours Truly]

7 minutes ago, BBHN said:

Were there is smoke, there is fire.

Which is the point too. :-)

I have references too!

Except, mine are limited to the case itself so far.

Stuff that is happening in real life? Off the show?

REAL info?

Like I said I would love to be directed to any VERIFIABLE references that absolutely CONFIRMS Beth's claims.

I may have missed it.

Feel free to share.

11 minutes ago, Martinigirl said:

Here is some proof...

Jason had NO reason what so ever to contact Dennis. He has no relationship with him, no way he was contacting him with good intentions. 

Proof of what? Criminal activity or just being a dick?

I think that's what the trial is going to clarify however the trial isn't until June 26, 27?

Edited June 19, 2017 by Yours Truly

[BBHN]

http://people.com/celebrity/bethenny-frankel-ex-husband-jason-hoppy-arrested-charged-alleged-stalking-harassment/

http://people.com/celebrity/bethenny-frankel-ex-jason-hoppy-court-appearance-stalking-harassment-charges/

http://pagesix.com/2017/01/31/bethennys-ex-husband-jason-hoppy-arrested-for-harassment-stalking/

http://www.realitytea.com/2017/03/14/jason-hoppy-refuses-plea-deal-harassing-bethenny-frankel-heading-court-april/

http://www.tmz.com/2017/01/31/bethenny-frankel-jason-hoppy-arrested-stalking/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4177162/Bethenny-Frankel-s-ex-Jason-Hoppy-arrested-stalking.html

http://www.eonline.com/news/825833/bethenny-frankel-s-ex-husband-jason-hoppy-arrested-for-alleged-stalking-and-harassment

[WireWrap]

4 minutes ago, BBHN said:

http://people.com/celebrity/bethenny-frankel-ex-husband-jason-hoppy-arrested-charged-alleged-stalking-harassment/

http://people.com/celebrity/bethenny-frankel-ex-jason-hoppy-court-appearance-stalking-harassment-charges/

http://pagesix.com/2017/01/31/bethennys-ex-husband-jason-hoppy-arrested-for-harassment-stalking/

http://www.realitytea.com/2017/03/14/jason-hoppy-refuses-plea-deal-harassing-bethenny-frankel-heading-court-april/

http://www.tmz.com/2017/01/31/bethenny-frankel-jason-hoppy-arrested-stalking/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4177162/Bethenny-Frankel-s-ex-Jason-Hoppy-arrested-stalking.html

http://www.eonline.com/news/825833/bethenny-frankel-s-ex-husband-jason-hoppy-arrested-for-alleged-stalking-and-harassment

Once again, this is all based on Bethenny's word, there is nothing from Jason. These are not legal conclusions, he has not been found guilty by a court of law. To accept Bethenny's word alone is akin to accepting Ramona's word that Mario never cheated on her. 

[film noire]

26 minutes ago, Martinigirl said:

Here is some proof...

Jason had NO reason what so ever to contact Dennis. He has no relationship with him, no way he was contacting him with good intentions. 

Off the top of my head:

"Bethenny will not listen,  so I'm hoping that you -- as a father - will. My daughter has expressed unhappiness with her mother's boyfriends being around when she's at her mother's.  Would it be possible to keep your dating life away from my daughter, until you become a permanent part of Bethenny's  life?"

"Bryn has said she's uncomfortable with you coming to her birthday party."

"Bethenny has asked if you can pick up Bryn at the hand off this Thursday.  I wanted to make it clear to both you and Bethenny that is not okay with me.'

"RUN RUN RUN!  RUN FOR YOU LIFE!" 

Edited June 19, 2017 by film noire

[Martinigirl]

JASON is the one who got ARRESTED.

[Yours Truly]

12 minutes ago, BBHN said:

http://people.com/celebrity/bethenny-frankel-ex-husband-jason-hoppy-arrested-charged-alleged-stalking-harassment/

http://people.com/celebrity/bethenny-frankel-ex-jason-hoppy-court-appearance-stalking-harassment-charges/

http://pagesix.com/2017/01/31/bethennys-ex-husband-jason-hoppy-arrested-for-harassment-stalking/

http://www.realitytea.com/2017/03/14/jason-hoppy-refuses-plea-deal-harassing-bethenny-frankel-heading-court-april/

http://www.tmz.com/2017/01/31/bethenny-frankel-jason-hoppy-arrested-stalking/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4177162/Bethenny-Frankel-s-ex-Jason-Hoppy-arrested-stalking.html

http://www.eonline.com/news/825833/bethenny-frankel-s-ex-husband-jason-hoppy-arrested-for-alleged-stalking-and-harassment

 

I'm not opening them all but are all these charges all done and over with verdicts and rulings or are they still pending?

I thought all of the above are what this upcoming trial will cover?

Plus aren't some of these "references" duplicates of the same thing and not separate instances?

I was hoping for something a bit more substantial.

Guess I'll just wait for the trial. Thinking that's a good bet.

6 minutes ago, film noire said:

Off the top of my head:

"Bethenny will not listen,  so I'm hoping that you -- as a father - will. My daughter has expressed unhappiness with her mother's boyfriends being around when she's at her mother's.  Would it be possible to keep your dating life away from my daughter, until you become a permanent part of Bethenny's  life?"

"Bryn has said she's uncomfortable with you coming to her birthday party."

"Bethenny has asked if you can pick up Bryn at the hand off this Thursday.  I wanted to make it clear to both you and Bethenny that is not okay with me.'

"RUN RUN RUN!!! RUN FOR YOU LIFE!" 

 

"

Oh the horror of a man trying to Parent his own child!!!!

Are these legitimate transcripts of his emails or wishful thinking???

Can't question one point of reference without doing it all around. ;-)

So please, oh please, tell me this is from somewhere credible. :-)

OR,

is this your way of showing how it is indeed believable that he reached out in a non negative way?

Either way, Bravo to your point!

Edited June 19, 2017 by Yours Truly

[BBHN]

Quote

Once again, this is all based on Bethenny's word, there is nothing from Jason

And? He was the one charged, not her.

Quote

he has not been found guilty by a court of law

...yet.

Quote

To accept Bethenny's word alone is akin to accepting Ramona's word that Mario never cheated on her. 

Not quite the same thing.

Quote

I thought all of the above are what this upcoming trial will cover?

Yes and unlike what Bethenny has done on her reality shows, these are actually related to the actual upcoming trial...

Quote

Plus aren't some of these "references" duplicates of the same thing and not separate instances?

They are multiple sources. I figured one link might be dismissed, but quite a few? Not so easy to dismiss.

Quote

I was hoping for something a bit more substantial.

Guess I'll just wait for the trial. Thinking that's a good bet.

You might besides actual documented evidence of an arrest?

Keep waiting...

[film noire]

10 minutes ago, Martinigirl said:

JASON is the one who got ARRESTED.

Lots of innocent people are arrested. They're usually POC or poor, but white men can also be arrested unfairly.

eta: @Yours Truly  - that was an off-the-cuff list of possible "good" reasons for Jason contacting Dennis, not secret access to trial evidence ; )

Edited June 19, 2017 by film noire

[KungFuBunny]

Jason Hoppy and his lawyer Alex Spiro.

Alex Spiro is a high profile Criminal Lawyer and very expensive.

This is not Family Court. He's in a different building - Criminal Court

Alex Spiro was just in court June 16th, 2017 - he is representing Thomas Gilbert Jr.

Mr Thomas Gilbert Sr, a $200M banker was killed with a gunshot wound to the head

Thomas Gilbert Jr. was indicted for killing his father.

Jason is going to have to take a 3rd mortgage out on that apartment

[WireWrap]

3 minutes ago, Martinigirl said:

JASON is the one who got ARRESTED.

He was arrested on Bethenny's word and again, he has not been convicted of anything.

[BBHN]

Bethenny's word and some shady shit too, I'm guessing...

[Martinigirl]

I would think it impossible to get someone arrested AND a six month restraining order without a demonstrated need.

[Yours Truly]

2 minutes ago, BBHN said:

 

 

 

Yes and unlike what Bethenny has done on her reality shows, these are actually related to the actual upcoming trial...

They are multiple sources. I figured one link might be dismissed, but quite a few? Not so easy to dismiss.

You might besides actual documented evidence of an arrest?

Keep waiting...

Beth has been shown to lie.

What is out there are her allegations towards Jason so her tendency to LIE does have something to do with the upcoming trial. Her LIES and EXAGGERATIONS could have set up the alleged grounds for these charges brought against Jason.

Beth has been shown to treat Jason like shit so believing that she is quite capable of spitting out baseless or exaggerated allegations against Jason to be taken into account during the course of the trial is a pretty safe bet using what I've seen from her.

Hey all I'm saying is that I use details from what I've actually seen with my own eyes and what's been already proven through film and footage of the participants in question.

The jury is still out (literally) on the rest of that "legitimate" information out there.

No one has to drink from my well of filtered water.  It's all good.

My route isn't for everyone and that's OK. :-)

[WireWrap]

Just now, Martinigirl said:

I would think it impossible to get someone arrested AND a six month restraining order without a demonstrated need.

Not really. The restraining order is a TRO, which are not difficult to get against someone, hence why they are called "temporary" and as for the charges, all Bethenny had to do is file a complaint with the police telling them she "is afraid" and Jason would have been arrested. Again, he has not been convicted of anything and until he is, he is considered innocent of all charges. 

[Yours Truly]

17 minutes ago, film noire said:

Lots of innocent people are arrested. They're usually POC or poor, but white men can also be arrested unfairly.

eta: @Yours Truly  - that was an off-the-cuff list of possible "good" reasons for Jason contacting Dennis, not secret access to trial evidence ; )

A very real point that for some reason is completely ignored for some strange reason..

My heart is crushed... :-(  I really thought you had something there... LOL!

But regardless good point.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Yours Truly