Bethenny & Jason: The Divorce Showdown

[WireWrap]

26 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

But did he have a legitimate purpose to approach Bethenny at the school and say the things he said to her?  That is what he is accused of doing wrong.  Not just being there, but acting like an ass while he was there to the extent that he broke the law.

Who knows why, or if, Jason said what Bethenny alleges and who knows if Bethenny said anything to Jason first or if it came out of nowhere like she claims. That is the biggest part of the problem for me, we just don't have all the info. What we have/do know, is a one sided narrative from someone that loves to place herself as the victim at all times, including when she blamed Luann for "making her go there" when she attacked Luann. So, until we have all the info there is, I am unwilling to blame everything on Jason, especially in light of what I have seen/heard Bethenny do to others, including Jason, for years.

[breezy424]

Why Jason allegedly approached Beth (and Dennis), we don't know.  Apparently Bryn was in the custody of Jason that day.  Are there allowances for school recitals for both parents to be there?  We don't know the specifics of their child custody arrangement.  Posters can speculate all they want about what is usual.  The fact is that we don't know.

What I do feel, on a personal level, is why the heck was Dennis there?  Yeah, I know, I know.  Beth has the right, if she is allowed to be there for a school recital, to bring her 'boyfriend' but at the same time, is this the best thing for her child?  The guy was and is still married and they have since broken up.  I just don't think it was a good choice.  Let Bryn have her mommy and daddy moment.  Maybe it would be different if one of her parents were in a solid serious relationship.  This kid has been through a lot.  One week with mom and the next with dad has got to be hard on a child.  Should Jason have approached them, if he did?  No.  Call your lawyer.

Both of them have to come together for the sake of their child.  Shared custody is their reality.  If Jason wants to know about the life insurance, then answer him.  If he wants to talk to you about something else, and maybe he did, respond yourself or through your lawyer.  Beth also needs to shut up about Jason and her torture.  You have a daughter.  Just say it's a private matter when asked.  You have a daughter. 

I hate to see this all coming to trial.  It could have been resolved differently.  This is not good for their daughter.  They're both wrong.  This child should be the priority.  Not winning.

Edited June 25, 2017 by breezy424

[zoeysmom]

8 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

But did he have a legitimate purpose to approach Bethenny at the school and say the things he said to her?  That is what he is accused of doing wrong.  Not just being there, but acting like an ass while he was there to the extent that he broke the law.

I can't answer the question as from what I have read his comments were directed at Dennis Shields.  As in, "she is evil," and I question why Dennis was at the school.  Usually if you are asking someone to not interact with you, you don't present yourself where the person you don't want contacting you has a legitimate purpose in being there. 

There is a certain irony in most cases there is always a party with a phone recording the interaction.  The Court had previously stated the parties were not to film or record each other. 

I can't say any one person was being an ass, as when you send a C&D and then make it public why is Jason's behavior anymore assy than Dennis'?  I find it hard to believe Jason delivered a monologue.    From what Bethenny claimed was stated it seemed to me Jason was caught off guard by Dennis' presence.

[ZoloftBlob]

Quote

Yeah, I know, I know.  Beth has the right, if she is allowed to be there for a school recital, to bring her 'boyfriend' but at the same time, is this the best thing for her child?

In fairness, the problem is not whether Beth was inappropriate in bringing Dennis. Bringing Dennis might be a social faux pas, it might be bad for Bryn, but it is no way against the law. Betheny didn't break the law, and neither did Dennis. If Jason was upset about Dennis appearing at the recital, there is legal recourse. If he instead chose to make threats in public - a) that is against the law and probably why he's about to be on trial and b) its also not good for Bryn.

[zoeysmom]

4 minutes ago, breezy424 said:

Why Jason allegedly approached Beth (and Dennis), we don't know.  Apparently Bryn was in the custody of Jason that day.  Are there allowances for school recitals for both parents to be there?  We don't know the specifics of their child custody arrangement.  Posters can speculate all they want about what is usual.  The fact is that we don't know.

What I do feel, on a personal level, is why the heck was Dennis there?  Yeah, I know, I know.  Beth has the right, if she is allowed to be there for a school recital, to bring her 'boyfriend' but at the same time, is this the best thing for her child?  The guy was and is still married and they have since broken up.  I just don't think it was a good choice.  Let Bryn have her mommy and daddy moment.  Maybe it would be different if one of her parents were in a solid serious relationship.  This kid has been through a lot.  One week with mom and the next with dad has got to be hard on a child.  Should Jason have approached them, if he did?  No.  Call your lawyer.

Both of them have to come together for the sake of their child.  Shared custody is their reality.  If Jason wants to know about the life insurance, then answer him.  If he wants to talk to you about something else, and maybe he did, respond yourself or through your lawyer.  Beth also needs to shut up about Jason and her torture.  You have a daughter.  Just say it's a private matter when asked.  You have a daughter. 

I hate to see this all coming to trial.  It could have been resolved differently.  This is not good for their daughter.  They're both wrong.  This child should be the priority.  Not winning.

A lot of times the Court applies the wisdom of Solomon and sees which parent is about the child.  My personal opinion is neither parent to date has shown much interest other than their own.  Bethenny's statements and Jason's lack of statements.  From Bethenny's accounts Bryn is a pretty swell child but going back and forth between the two there is probably residual resentment the child bears. 

I still maintain Bethenny had a crappy exposure to being a child of divorced parents and blames her mom and Jason has no clue how to be a child of divorced parents as his parents have an intact marriage.   

There is always hope come Monday a deal is worked out.  Trust me the Court will be pushing for a deal. 

7 minutes ago, ZoloftBlob said:

In fairness, the problem is not whether Beth was inappropriate in bringing Dennis. Bringing Dennis might be a social faux pas, it might be bad for Bryn, but it is no way against the law. Betheny didn't break the law, and neither did Dennis. If Jason was upset about Dennis appearing at the recital, there is legal recourse. If he instead chose to make threats in public - a) that is against the law and probably why he's about to be on trial and b) its also not good for Bryn.

Sorry but Dennis, who was publicly out of the picture two weeks later can't have it both ways. He is married and Bethenny's quote when splitting the sheets was the world made a bigger deal of the relationship than it was.  He can't claim he is bothered to the point of a C&D and then show up where Jason has a legitimate purpose in being on the premises.  Now if Jason had showed up at Dress for Success that would be entirely different or any of Bethenny's public appearances.  I don't think Jason can control who Bethenny beds down with in her home but I do think Jason should not have to be subjected to Bethenny's latest swinging dick at his child's school.  I would feel the same way if Jason was bringing his latest girlfriend around.  Bethenny openly made the statement she was trying to form a team because she had no relatives.  And she suggested bringing her former step-father, the wife beater into her child's life?  Just yuck.  Thankfully she never went through with her plan.  I can see where she wants support because Jason has his parents but maybe the two of them should agree on boundaries when it comes to Bryn. 

[ZoloftBlob]

Quote

Sorry but Dennis, who was publicly out of the picture two weeks later can't have it both ways.

Again, Dennis's behavior doesn't actually matter as long as he was behaving within the law. No one is accusing Dennis of breaking the law. Even Jason is not accusing Dennis of breaking the law. If you're not following, then let me help. Dennis may have acted in bad faith or badly.

He still hasn't committed a crime.

Jason MAY have committed a crime - that will be decided, but the problem didn't start with Bethenny *committing a crime* by bringing Dennis to the recital at the school. NO ONE is claiming Betheny and Dennis were committing misdemeanors or felonies with ANY of their actions. The only one who may have committed a crime is Jason.

[diadochokinesis]

20 minutes ago, zoeysmom said:

A lot of times the Court applies the wisdom of Solomon and sees which parent is about the child.  My personal opinion is neither parent to date has shown much interest other than their own.  Bethenny's statements and Jason's lack of statements.  From Bethenny's accounts Bryn is a pretty swell child but going back and forth between the two there is probably residual resentment the child bears. 

I still maintain Bethenny had a crappy exposure to being a child of divorced parents and blames her mom and Jason has no clue how to be a child of divorced parents as his parents have an intact marriage.   

There is always hope come Monday a deal is worked out.  Trust me the Court will be pushing for a deal. 

Sorry but Dennis, who was publicly out of the picture two weeks later can't have it both ways. He is married and Bethenny's quote when splitting the sheets was the world made a bigger deal of the relationship than it was.  He can't claim he is bothered to the point of a C&D and then show up where Jason has a legitimate purpose in being on the premises.  Now if Jason had showed up at Dress for Success that would be entirely different or any of Bethenny's public appearances.  I don't think Jason can control who Bethenny beds down with in her home but I do think Jason should not have to be subjected to Bethenny's latest swinging dick at his child's school.  I would feel the same way if Jason was bringing his latest girlfriend around.  Bethenny openly made the statement she was trying to form a team because she had no relatives.  And she suggested bringing her former step-father, the wife beater into her child's life?  Just yuck.  Thankfully she never went through with her plan.  I can see where she wants support because Jason has his parents but maybe the two of them should agree on boundaries when it comes to Bryn. 

What it boils down to though is Bethenny didn't break the law by bringing Dennis. Hoppy had a choice of how to react to the situation. He could have brought it to his lawyers and discussed an amendment to the custody agreement regarding when to introduce boyfriend/girlfriends (I have a friend who had to have one of those added). He could have taken the high road and ignored Dennis. Instead, he chose to get into with Bethenny in front of witnesses.  Hoppy is responsible for his own behavior--not Bethenny. 

What I find interesting about the TRO that was issued was that it also limited Hoppy from going to Bryn's school. Why? It is really hard to get a restraining order to cover a school unless it is for the protection of the child. That is part of what makes me think that there is a lot more to the evidence than what has leaked out and it has to be fairly damning. 

[Celia Rubenstein]

17 minutes ago, zoeysmom said:

Sorry but Dennis, who was publicly out of the picture two weeks later can't have it both ways...

 He can't claim he is bothered to the point of a C&D and then show up where Jason has a legitimate purpose in being on the premises. 

Actually, he can.  The act of sending someone a cease and desist letter (in this case demanding they stop bombarding you with unwanted emails) doesn't mean that you are obligated to physically avoid them altogether.  It is just a demand they stop a particular behavior that you assert violates the law, with the threat that you will pursue legal activity if they persist.  It doesn't obligate Dennis to do or not to do anything.  

He had every legal right to be at the school, as insensitive and unnecessary as his presence might have been.

[breezy424]

No.  Dennis didn't break the law.  Like I said it just wasn't in the best interest of their daughter.  And 'that' should be the primary concern.  And that is what it boils down to.

Both Beth and Jason were 'emotionally' wrong.  And now, Dennis is out of Bryn's life.  It should be about Bryn.  She should be the primary concern.  Not someone's 'rights'. 

[zoeysmom]

10 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

Actually, he can.  The act of sending someone a cease and desist letter (in this case demanding they stop bombarding you with unwanted emails) doesn't mean that you are obligated to physically avoid them altogether.  It is just a demand they stop a particular behavior that you assert violates the law, with the threat that you will pursue legal activity if they persist.  It doesn't obligate Dennis to do or not to do anything.  

He had every legal right to be at the school, as insensitive and unnecessary as his presence might have been.

Well I would disagree-you can't claim to be haunted by someone and then show up in their space.  One of the elements of stalking is that the stalker was put on notice they were not to have contact with the "victim".  Obviously there is a prima facie  showing Jason was noticed.  That does not mean  Dennis can invade space that Jason has a right to be in.  I dislike Dennis Shields immensely  because I think he used and influenced Bethenny for his gratification.  I am not saying she is innocent in her dealings with Shields, but I thought it totally disrespectful he carried on a relationship with her while married and never even filed for divorce.   He brought their children together and carried on like a true suitor when he could not be bothered to file for a divorce.  If Bethenny was fearful or even uncomfortable being around Jason at the school she had Kevin her driver at her disposal.

I have to go with my BFF who is a judge and watches the show,  She told me Dennis can't have it both ways and what she gleaned from the Dennis/Jason conversation is Jason was addressing the legal issue between them. She doesn't even like Jason as she though tit absurd that he would camp out at a house where he could not even afford the monthly maintenance fees. The judge also told me until we see the content of the e-mails there is no way to make a determination as to the validity of the claims against Jason.  Dennis is out of Bethenny's life and it once again goes to why third parties should not be intertwined in parents custody issues.  

23 minutes ago, breezy424 said:

No.  Dennis didn't break the law.  Like I said it just wasn't in the best interest of their daughter.  And 'that' should be the primary concern.  And that is what it boils down to.

Both Beth and Jason were 'emotionally' wrong.  And now, Dennis is out of Bryn's life.  It should be about Bryn.  She should be the primary concern.  Not someone's 'rights'. 

Perfect.

[ZoloftBlob]

Quote

No.  Dennis didn't break the law.  Like I said it just wasn't in the best interest of their daughter.  And 'that' should be the primary concern.  And that is what it boils down to.

No, actually, what it boils down to is whether Jason broke the law.

I don't mean to sound uncaring about Bryn's emotional damage but this trial is about whether or not *Jason* committed a crime.

Dennis didn't commit a crime.

Bethenny didn't commit a crime.

Jason *may* have committed a crime.

If Bryn's best interests were the primary concern then let's see - her daddy is on trial for criminal acts. Her mom and her mom's boyfriend aren't. Whether or not Dennis should have been around doesn't in any way exonerate Jason if Jason committed a crime.

I hope Jason didn't commit a crime but if he did, he's gonna need to own it without any pratting how he did it for Bryn.

[WireWrap]

1 hour ago, diadochokinesis said:

Seriously?  She has no obligation to help everybody. Do you get upset when St. Jude's doesn't help adults?  Or that the American Cancer Society doesn't help someone with AIDS?  No.  Organizations have a targeted focus. That is her targeted focus. The fact that she has an organization out there that is doing good and y'all are still tearing her down...  She just can't do anything right according to y'all. 

Taking to Bethenny's thread....................................

[Celia Rubenstein]

17 minutes ago, zoeysmom said:

Well I would disagree-you can't claim to be haunted by someone and then show up in their space. 

I have to go with my BFF who is a judge and watches the show,  She told me Dennis can't have it both ways and what she gleaned from the Dennis/Jason conversation is Jason was addressing the legal issue between them. 

Dennis did not claim Jason was "haunting" him, lol.  He asserted Jason was sending him unwanted emails and he demanded that it stop.  I don't know of either one of them ever attempting to legally restrain the other's right to be in a given place at any time, and restrictions like that don't just create themselves out of thin air.  It takes legal action, and that has not happened between Dennis and Jason.  Restrictions on anyone's movement were certainly not created by the C&D letter about emails by some kind of default.  That's not how the system works.  

And I don't agree with your characterization that the school is Jason's "space."  It is a public space.  Just the same way that Dennis is still allowed to go to a Yankees game even though Jason has season tickets, he is allowed to attend events at Bryn's school.  Jason doesn't own the place. 

Perhaps your judge friend is confused about who is Jason is charged with harassing and stalking.  It is Bethenny, not Dennis. If Dennis were claiming Jason was a stalker and then started unjustifiably popping up where he knew Jason would be, it would undercut his credibility. But that isn't the case here.  The crimes alleged were committed against Bethenny.  And she had every right to be at Bryn's school.

Incidentally, your judge friend should know that when parties are represented by legal counsel (as we know Dennis was at the time), as a general rule they are discouraged from approaching each other to discuss their legal issues.  I certainly don't understand why she would think it was acceptable for Jason to approach Dennis at Bryn's recital to address their legal issues.  Wrong place, wrong time, and wrong person.  Jason should address his comments to Dennis's lawyer or have his lawyer contact Dennis's lawyer. Not get in the guy's face at his daughter's school event! 

[zoeysmom]

36 minutes ago, ZoloftBlob said:

No, actually, what it boils down to is whether Jason broke the law.

I don't mean to sound uncaring about Bryn's emotional damage but this trial is about whether or not *Jason* committed a crime.

Dennis didn't commit a crime.

Bethenny didn't commit a crime.

Jason *may* have committed a crime.

If Bryn's best interests were the primary concern then let's see - her daddy is on trial for criminal acts. Her mom and her mom's boyfriend aren't. Whether or not Dennis should have been around doesn't in any way exonerate Jason if Jason committed a crime.

I hope Jason didn't commit a crime but if he did, he's gonna need to own it without any pratting how he did it for Bryn.

It goes to the elements of the crime.  One does not have to commit a crime for a defendant to assert justification. 

[Celia Rubenstein]

4 minutes ago, zoeysmom said:

It goes to the elements of the crime.  One does not have to commit a crime for a defendant to assert justification. 

What you seem to be talking about is referred to as an "affirmative defense."  It doesn't really have anything to do with the elements of the crime, per se, but rather is a legally valid excuse a defendant puts forth for breaking the law.  

If I understand you correctly, I think you are suggesting that Dennis's presence as school was so provocative to Jason that his unlawful outburst should be excused.

He would be laughed out of court if he tried to suggest his behavior should be excused for this reason.  Valid affirmative defenses include self defense, entrapment, insanity and a few others.  I don't think any lawyer who values her reputation would walk into court and try to claim that her client's stalking and harassment should be excused because her client was really mad he had to tolerate the presence of his ex's new boyfriend.  In fact I think Jason would have excellent grounds to appeal his inevitable conviction for inadequate assistance of counsel if his lawyer attempted such a foolish maneuver, lol

[zoeysmom]

18 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

Dennis did not claim Jason was "haunting" him, lol.  He asserted Jason was sending him unwanted emails and he demanded that it stop.  I don't know of either one of them ever attempting to legally restrain the other's right to be in a given place at any time, and restrictions like that don't just create themselves out of thin air.  It takes legal action, and that has not happened between Dennis and Jason.  Restrictions on anyone's movement were certainly not created by the C&D letter about emails by some kind of default.  That's not how the system works.  

And I don't agree with your characterization that the school is Jason's "space."  It is a public space.  Just the same way that Dennis is still allowed to go to a Yankees game even though Jason has season tickets, he is allowed to attend events at Bryn's school.  Jason doesn't own the place. 

Perhaps your judge friend is confused about who is Jason is charged with harassing and stalking.  It is Bethenny, not Dennis. If Dennis were claiming Jason was a stalker and then started unjustifiably popping up where he knew Jason would be, it would undercut his credibility. But that isn't the case here.  The crimes alleged were committed against Bethenny.  And she had every right to be at Bryn's school.

Incidentally, your judge friend should know that when parties are represented by legal counsel (as we know Dennis was at the time), as a general rule they are discouraged from approaching each other to discuss their legal issues.  I certainly don't understand why she would think it was acceptable for Jason to approach Dennis at Bryn's recital to address their legal issues.  Wrong place, wrong time, and wrong person.  Jason should address his comments to Dennis's lawyer or have his lawyer contact Dennis's lawyer. Not get in the guy's face at his daughter's school event! 

Dennis claimed Jason was harassing him with sending cc's of e-mails.  It is just the way the law works you can't claim to be bothered about someone contacting you and then intentionally show up where you know they are going to be.  We are not talking MLB games.  IIRC the original report was that Bethenny and Dennis were at the school to drop Bryn off.  Initially my question was, "why the hell is Jason at the school when Bethenny is dropping her off?  This recital stuff is not something that appears in the press or police reports.  It is something that has been accepted as fact from a poster on this site. 

Dennis is deemed one of the victim/witnesses so his actions, words and deeds are relevant and the judge can read. 

The rule is an attorney may not contact a represented party.  There is no rule unless there is an order in effect that parties cannot communicate.  Certainly Bethenny and Jason communicated until January. We have no idea if Jason was represented by counsel at the time of the conversation at the school or the request for the insurance policy.  Some people cannot afford to have an attorney on retainer.  Many attorneys at the conclusion of a case substitute out so they are not tethered to on going issues with their client.  I did not say the judge thought it acceptable for Jason to approach Dennis.  So please honor my statements as you would like yours honored. 

[LIMOM]

2 hours ago, diadochokinesis said:

Seriously?  She has no obligation to help everybody. Do you get upset when St. Jude's doesn't help adults?  Or that the American Cancer Society doesn't help someone with AIDS?  No.  Organizations have a targeted focus. That is her targeted focus. The fact that she has an organization out there that is doing good and y'all are still tearing her down...  She just can't do anything right according to y'all. 

Absolutely. And frankly, her motives are far from being pure, imho.

[zoeysmom]

15 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

What you seem to be talking about is referred to as an "affirmative defense."  It doesn't really have anything to do with the elements of the crime, per se, but rather is a legally valid excuse a defendant puts forth for breaking the law.  

If I understand you correctly, I think you are suggesting that Dennis's presence as school was so provocative to Jason that his unlawful outburst should be excused.

He would be laughed out of court if he tried to suggest his behavior should be excused for this reason.  Valid affirmative defenses include self defense, entrapment, insanity and a few others.  I don't think any lawyer who values her reputation would walk into court and try to claim that her client's stalking and harassment should be excused because her client was really mad he had to tolerate the presence of his ex's new boyfriend.  In fact I think Jason would have excellent grounds to appeal his inevitable conviction for inadequate assistance of counsel if his lawyer attempted such a foolish maneuver, lol

You have to prove the elements of a crime.  Justification and legitimate purpose is part of the instructions to the jury. 

People have conversations with adversaries every day.  I cannot deem Jason's conversation an outburst.  As I have not heard sworn testimony.

Well I don't think we will see eye to eye on how the defense of a case is put together.  The prosecution has the burden of proof to prove each and every element of the crime charged including intent.  In this particular case there are elements and definitions that include legitimate purpose and justification.  It has nothing to do with insanity or entrapment or self defense.  

[LIMOM]

32 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

What you seem to be talking about is referred to as an "affirmative defense."  It doesn't really have anything to do with the elements of the crime, per se, but rather is a legally valid excuse a defendant puts forth for breaking the law.  

If I understand you correctly, I think you are suggesting that Dennis's presence as school was so provocative to Jason that his unlawful outburst should be excused.

He would be laughed out of court if he tried to suggest his behavior should be excused for this reason.  Valid affirmative defenses include self defense, entrapment, insanity and a few others.  I don't think any lawyer who values her reputation would walk into court and try to claim that her client's stalking and harassment should be excused because her client was really mad he had to tolerate the presence of his ex's new boyfriend.  In fact I think Jason would have excellent grounds to appeal his inevitable conviction for inadequate assistance of counsel if his lawyer attempted such a foolish maneuver, lol

As a lay woman, I do not expect the trial to go well for either party. I mean, can you imagine having to take off from work to be on the jury to listen to that bullshit? I would be pissed. 

Dennis is the typical Long Island asshole. I agree with Zoemom that he played Beth in a way. She was vulnerable and felt for his bullshit.

I really hope that Beth and Jason find a way to  coexist for Bryan's sake. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by LIMOM

[BBHN]

Quote

Dennis is the typical Long Island asshole

What is a typical Long Island asshole?

Quote

 In fact I think Jason would have excellent grounds to appeal his inevitable conviction for inadequate assistance of counsel if his lawyer attempted such a foolish maneuver, lol

Lets "pray" for Jason!

[Celia Rubenstein]

19 minutes ago, zoeysmom said:

You have to prove the elements of a crime.  Justification and legitimate purpose is part of the instructions to the jury. 

...  In this particular case there are elements and definitions that include legitimate purpose and justification.  It has nothing to do with insanity or entrapment or self defense.  

Yes, the jury will be instructed on justification ... which is the "affirmative defense" thing I described.   Every jury in a criminal case receives such instructions to the extent that they are legally applicable.  Should the jury find the state has proven all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, they will then take into account any legitimate affirmative defense Jason may offer that justify his behavior.  That is how it works.  

When I mentioned insanity and entrapment and self defense as being types of affirmative defenses, it was not to imply any of them will be at play in this case.  They were offered merely to help you understand what I was talking about.  The fact that they are not specifically mentioned in the jury instructions is because the jury instruction form you seem to be reading from provides only the basic starting point for what the judge will tell this particular jury.  Should Jason try to claim insanity (let's say), the judge would surely add that specific language to the jury instructions while discussing affirmative defenses.  A judge always tailors the jury instructions in this way to facilitate the jury's ease in understanding their charge.   Because a failure to do so properly can be grounds for reversal. 

 

41 minutes ago, zoeysmom said:

Dennis claimed Jason was harassing him with sending cc's of e-mails.  It is just the way the law works you can't claim to be bothered about someone contacting you and then intentionally show up where you know they are going to be...

Dennis is not on trial. I don't understand why what he did is being mentioned over and over as if it has anything to do with what Jason is on trial for.  

 

Quote

The rule is an attorney may not contact a represented party.  There is no rule unless there is an order in effect that parties cannot communicate.   

Yes, it will get you in hot water with the bar if as an attorney you start directly contacting people who are represented.  It is an undisputed firm rule.  But people who are in a legal dispute are also discouraged from contacting each other if they are represented, especially when there are allegations of harassment.  That is what I meant when I said that "as a general rule it is discouraged."  It does not rise to the level of a bar violation because ordinary people are not members of the bar and not subject to its discipline.  But it is discouraged by both lawyers and judges nonetheless, though not subject to the same kind of punishment a lawyer would face (absent a court order barring contact, of course).  

 

Quote

I did not say the judge thought it acceptable for Jason to approach Dennis.  So please honor my statements as you would like yours honored.

I presumed you were mentioning your friend's comment because it was of some relevance to your point.  If it was just a random observation your friend made that was included by you for no particular purpose, sorry but that was not clear in your post.  

[BBHN]

Quote

Dennis is not on trial. I don't understand why what he did is being mentioned over and over as if it has anything to do with what Jason is on trial for.

Apparently, this trial (and thread) doesn't involve Jason at all ;)

[Celia Rubenstein]

Maybe we should rename the thread.   

[film noire]

1 hour ago, BBHN said:

What is a typical Long Island asshole?

1 ounce vodka

1 ounce gin

1 ounce "Hey, NICE TITS!"

1 ounce white rum

2 ounces crotch-grabbing &  ten ounces "Hey, you with the nice tits -- want some of THIS ACTION?"

1 ounce white tequila

4 ounces "No, wait -- WAIT -- no, biatch, I'm blowing YOU off! I wouldn't fuck you with a ten foot pole!"

1/2 ounce Triple Sec

8 ounces  "PLEASE FUCK ME WITH A POLE. ANY POLE."

2 tablespoons freshly squeezed lemon juice.

Three cups of whispered begging and "PLEASE!!! MY FRIENDS ARE WATCHING!"

1/2 cup cola, or to taste

Three cups loud sobbing.

2 lemon wedges

32 ounces pizza vomit.

Stir.

YOU ARE SERVED.

Edited June 25, 2017 by film noire

[zoeysmom]

9 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

Yes, the jury will be instructed on justification ... which is the "affirmative defense" thing I described.   Every jury in a criminal case receives such instructions to the extent that they are legally applicable.  Should the jury find the state has proven all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, they will then take into account any legitimate affirmative defense Jason may offer that justify his behavior.  That is how it works.  

When I mentioned insanity and entrapment and self defense as being types of affirmative defenses, it was not to imply any of them will be at play in this case.  They were offered merely to help you understand what I was talking about.  The fact that they are not specifically mentioned in the jury instructions is because the jury instruction form you seem to be reading from provides only the basic starting point for what the judge will tell this particular jury.  Should Jason try to claim insanity (let's say), the judge would surely add that specific language to the jury instructions while discussing affirmative defenses.  A judge always tailors the jury instructions in this way to facilitate the jury's ease in understanding their charge.   Because a failure to do so properly can be grounds for reversal. 

 

Dennis is not on trial. I don't understand why what he did is being mentioned over and over as if it has anything to do with what Jason is on trial for.  

 

Yes, it will get you in hot water with the bar if as an attorney you start directly contacting people who are represented.  It is an undisputed firm rule.  But people who are in a legal dispute are also discouraged from contacting each other if they are represented, especially when there are allegations of harassment.  That is what I meant when I said that "as a general rule it is discouraged."  It does not rise to the level of a bar violation because ordinary people are not members of the bar and not subject to its discipline.  But it is discouraged by both lawyers and judges nonetheless, though not subject to the same kind of punishment a lawyer would face (absent a court order barring contact, of course).  

 

I presumed you were mentioning your friend's comment because it was of some relevance to your point.  If it was just a random observation your friend made that was included by you for no particular purpose, sorry but that was not clear in your post.  

An affirmative defense shifts the burden from the prosecution to the defense:  http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article25.htm

Affirmative defenses are codified:  http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article40.htm

Not all criminal cases involve an affirmative defense for obvious reasons. 

What the prosecution is charged with is proving the five elements in the case of stalking.  If the defense offers an explanation through testimony or other evidence it is up to the jury to weigh.  If the jury finds the prosecution has not proven even one count then they must acquit.  Here they are:

In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime the People are required to prove, from all the evidence in the case beyond a reasonable doubt each of the five elements:

1 That on or about___. in the county the defendant, Jason Hoppy engaged in a course of conduct directed at _______________________

2 The defendant did so intentionally and for no legitimate purpose;

3 That the conduct consisted of the following. telephoning, or initiating contact with

-a member of ______________immediate family

-a third party with whom ____________is acquainted

4That the defendant knew or should have reasonably known that such conduct would cause material harm to the mental or emotional health of  ____________

5That the defendant was previously clearly informed to cease such conduct.

 

Therefore, if you find that the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt each of these elements, you must find the defendant guilty of the crime of Stalking in the Fourth Degree as charged . . .

On the other hand, if you find the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt any one or more of these elements, you must find the defendant not guilty of the crime of Stalking in the Fourth Degree.

Please be clear I have never said Dennis or Bethenny are on  trial but as you can clearly see one of the elements of the crime is an acquaintance of presumably Bethenny, the defendant made contact  Another element is the defendant was clearly informed to cease such conduct.  That is why I mention Dennis.  The plaintiff is always the state and at no time have I deviated from this fact.. 

As to contact between parties if a party doesn't have an attorney who exactly informs them they shouldn't have contact with the other side?  Dennis and Jason didn't even have a case pending.  Part of the law is being clearly informed.  I correctly stated who is barred from contact with an opposing party. 

[BBHN]

Quote

YOU ARE SERVED.

So basically, nothing like Dennis at all.

Quote

Please be clear I have never said Dennis or Bethenny are on  trial

Because Jason is the one on trial...

Edited June 25, 2017 by BBHN

[Happy Camper]

19 minutes ago, film noire said:

1 ounce vodka

1 ounce gin

1 ounce "Hey, NICE TITS!"

1 ounce white rum

2 ounces crotch-grabbing &  ten ounces "Hey, you with the nice tits -- want some of THIS ACTION?"

1 ounce white tequila

4 ounces "No, wait -- WAIT -- no, biatch, I'm blowing YOU off! I wouldn't fuck you with a ten foot pole!"

1/2 ounce Triple Sec

8 ounces  "PLEASE FUCK ME WITH A POLE. ANY POLE."

2 tablespoons freshly squeezed lemon juice.

Three cups of whispered begging and "PLEASE!!! MY FRIENDS ARE WATCHING!"

1/2 cup cola, or to taste

Three cups loud sobbing.

2 lemon wedges

32 ounces pizza vomit.

Stir.

YOU ARE SERVED.

One ounce of the "good vodka" that Ramona saves just for you, and "that cross looks good......on your chest".

[film noire]

10 minutes ago, Happy Camper said:

One ounce of the "good vodka" that Ramona saves just for you, and "that cross looks good......on your chest".

Perfect!

[Celia Rubenstein]

1 hour ago, zoeysmom said:

An affirmative defense shifts the burden from the prosecution to the defense:  http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article25.htm

Affirmative defenses are codified:  http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article40.htm

Not all criminal cases involve an affirmative defense for obvious reasons. 

What the prosecution is charged with is proving the five elements in the case of stalking.  If the defense offers an explanation through testimony or other evidence it is up to the jury to weigh.  If the jury finds the prosecution has not proven even one count then they must acquit.  

... thanks for reposting to me exactly what I just explained to you I guess, lol  Am I supposed to grade this or something?  I will give you a B- ... Bonus points for the links.  It's important to always provided sources.  But I am deducting points for your statement about the jury being required to acquit if the state fails to prove "even one count."  It should read "even one element."  

 

Quote

Please be clear I have never said Dennis or Bethenny are on  trial but as you can clearly see one of the elements of the crime is an acquaintance of presumably Bethenny, the defendant made contact  Another element is the defendant was clearly informed to cease such conduct.  That is why I mention Dennis.  The plaintiff is always the state and at no time have I deviated from this fact.. 

I have to admit, I am not at all following what you are saying here. 

How is one of the elements of the crime an acquaintance of Bethenny?  The elements of the crime are not people.  The defendant made contact with who? with what?

Moving on, I am not positive, but I believe Dennis and his cease and desist letter is relevant only in terms of Dennis and Jason.  I don't think his letter counts as Bethenny putting Jason on notice that she considered his behavior wrongful and wanted it stopped. I continue to view it as more or less irrelevant to the real case against Jason.

And just an FYI, in criminal court the state is usually referred to as the "complainant" not the "plaintiff."  Plaintiff is a civil court term.

Quote

As to contact between parties if a party doesn't have an attorney who exactly informs them they shouldn't have contact with the other side?  

Usually it is done by the person who is actually being bothered by some unrepresented pain in the ass who keeps contacting them.    It typically takes the form of "call my lawyer and leave me the hell alone," but it can vary.  And contain more expletives. 

I want to tell you, Zoeysmom, I really enjoy your enthusiasm for this topic.  You are good natured even when we disagree and you really keep this thread hopping.  Or should I say "Hoppying" LOL

Edited June 25, 2017 by Celia Rubenstein

[film noire]

10 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

Am I supposed to grade this or something?  

 No, let me!  --  Zoey'sMom explains all this boring shit in a way that's interesting & easy to grasp  --  A ++ ; )

~sunday brunch and i'm serving shields long island iced tea -- who wants in?

[Celia Rubenstein]

4 minutes ago, film noire said:

 No, let me!  --  Zoey'sMom explains all this boring shit in a way that's interesting & easy to grasp  --  A ++ ; )

I myself tend to base my grades more on content and accuracy, but to each her own! 

[film noire]

11 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

I myself tend to base my grades more on content and accuracy

So do I -- if there's one thing I've learned over the years here, it's that Zoey'sMom (and @WireWrap - the memory on that one) have their factual ducks in a row ; )

Edited June 25, 2017 by film noire

[Celia Rubenstein]

7 minutes ago, film noire said:

So do I -- if there's one thing I've learned over the years here, it's that Zoey'sMom (and Wirewrap - the memory on that one) have their factual ducks in a row ; )

Oh, I agree ... some people around here have the facts about who said what to whom on these shows committed to memory like a human Wayback Machine.  It is incredibly handy at times.  But google does not confer law degrees on people, lol.  That subject is where I often find something to question. 

 

19 minutes ago, BBHN said:

 

Content and accuracy do matter ;-)

For certain subjects, content and accuracy are all that matters! 

[zoeysmom]

1 hour ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

... thanks for reposting to me exactly what I just explained to you I guess, lol  Am I supposed to grade this or something?  I will give you a B+ ... Bonus points for the links.  It's important to always provided sources.  But I am deducting points for your statement about the jury being required to acquit if the state fails to prove "even one count."  It should read "even one element."  

 

I have to admit, I am not at all following what you are saying here. 

How is one of the elements of the crime an acquaintance of Bethenny?  The elements of the crime are not people.  The defendant made contact with who? with what?

Moving on, I am not positive, but I believe Dennis and his cease and desist letter is relevant only in terms of Dennis and Jason.  I don't think his letter counts as Bethenny putting Jason on notice that she considered his behavior wrongful and wanted it stopped. I continue to view it as more or less irrelevant to the real case against Jason.

And just an FYI, in criminal court the state is usually referred to as the "complainant" not the "plaintiff."  Plaintiff is a civil court term.

Usually it is done by the person who is actually being bothered by some unrepresented pain in the ass who keeps contacting them.    It usually takes the form of "call my lawyer and leave me the hell alone," but it can vary.  And contain more expletives. 

I want to tell you, Zoeysmom, I really enjoy your enthusiasm for this topic.  You are good natured even when we disagree and you really keep this thread hopping.  Or should I say "Hoppying" LOL

Stalking in the Fourth degree consists of "following, telephoning or initiating contact with a -member of ___________ immediate family or a third party with whom __________is acquainted.  The blank would be Bethenny Frankel, the acquaintance would be Dennis Shields. 

The third element is that the defendant initiated contact (in this case if it was at the school) with Dennis Shields who is an acquaintance of Bethenny Frankel.   

The fifth element of the crime would be that Dennis Shields, the acquaintance of Bethenny Frankel had previously,clearly put the defendant Jason Hoppy on notice that he was to cease such conduct. 

Essentially Stalking in the Fourth Degree is when a person telephones, follows or initiates contact with a family member or acquaintance of a person and the family member or acquaintance has made it clear they do not want to be contacted.  It would be like Brandi Glanville contacting LeAnn Rimes regarding Eddie Cibrian after she sent a C&D demanding Brandi not contact her.   In layman's terms if you have a problem with A and start pestering B their family member or acquaintance and B clearly asks you to stop contacting them.  After being put on notice they do not want contact with you and you contact them you can be found guilty of Stalking in the Fourth Degree if the other three elements of the crime are proven.  So the easy elements are the relationship to A and clear notice.

Edited June 25, 2017 by zoeysmom

[Lisin]

 

In other words, if you all can't agree to disagree please just ignore each other. You're never going to change anyone's mind here on this issue. In short.

[Martinigirl]

Just now, Lisin said:

 

In other words, if you all can't agree to disagree please just ignore each other. You're never going to change anyone's mind here on this issue. In short.

LOL!!! 

[motorcitymom65]

1 hour ago, Lisin said:

 

In other words, if you all can't agree to disagree please just ignore each other. You're never going to change anyone's mind here on this issue. In short.

I know it is wrong to actually want to be scolded for bad behavior, but since I love these clips from Lisin when we misbehave, I don't mind the scolding so much. And if that is wrong, I don't want to be right. 

[motorcitymom65]

2 hours ago, zoeysmom said:

 

The fifth element of the crime would be that Dennis Shields, the acquaintance of Bethenny Frankel had previously,clearly put the defendant Jason Hoppy on notice that he was to cease such conduct. 

 

I am not a lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, so much of this legal stuff goes over my head. But I don't understand what Dennis sending Jason a C&D telling him to stop sending him emails has to do with Dennis going about living his life in a legal manner. Was Dennis slapped with an order telling him to stay away from Jason? Did I miss that in all of this? IMO, it sounds as if Jason was trying to put a wedge in the relationship that Beth was building with Dennis. If, in fact the things that have been leaked in the media are true that he was writing in those emails. Why, simply because Jason is all butt-hurt about the fact that Beth has moved on and is trying to be happy, does that mean that Beth and Dennis have to C&D being a couple and doing couple things? Does Jason get to win in this regard as well? When is Jason's behavior just going to be Jason's fault? Ever? 

[QuinnM]

The only hint we get of where Hoppy goes legally is the opening statement of the only court appearance.  His attorney's opening statement was that Bethenny was a terrible mother.  That she only cared about Bryan as a prop to exploit.  That she had her likeness in a book that was sponsored by her alcohol company.  (This was that Cookie meets Peanut book but before it came out). So if I was betting I would bet that his defense is that he needs to know everything about what Bryn is doing every second of the day because Bethenny can't be trusted with her.  That he needs to know everything about Dennis in case Dennis is a pedofile.

So I have seen these things go WEEKS.  I've also seen the second that the opening statements are over - bang the defendant takes a plea.  On a personal note, it appeared that Tuesday was going to be an all day heavy work responsibility and it turns out I'm free as a bird to stalk this case.  So if that dang judge makes up some other weak excuse like jury duty I just may lose it.

Meantime on snap, Bethenny is at the riding stable so Bryn is still liking riding lessons.  

[Jel]

22 hours ago, zoeysmom said:

When I think of cheeky I do think of irreverent  but more to the side of endearing or amusing not cruel or biting.

Here is what my issue is-Bethenny can feel harassed by Jason's texts and e-mails. I don't see how she feels threatened in a physical sense.  It is the over dramatization of the situation and choice of descriptive words.  Whether or not his comments taken in context and not just choice phrases rise to meet the elements of the crime is one for the trier of fact.  The "I'll pray for you," comment.  Surprise, there seems to be an issue about Bryn, a baptized Catholic, going to church too often.  Bethenny claims (and I do find this one hard to believe) it was agreed the child would only attend high holidays.  I can't imagine having my child, wanting to go to mass and getting a babysitter, because it offends the child's mother sensibilities the child is going to church  too frequently.  I would also find it unfair to Bethenny if Jason expected Bethenny to take Bryn to high holiday masses if she had custody.  So if that was part of the discussion and he closed off with, "I'll pray for you," it would not seem to be harassing.  If it is an expression Jason has coined to vent his frustration with the situation I also think he is entitled to use it.  I just don't ever see a court telling someone they are not to say, "I'll pray for you," more or less because of First Amendment issues.  Now if he signed off "toodles, bitch," or "I will pray for your old,  ugly irrelevant soul," he would have to know that would be annoying.

Since this is more about the upcoming trial and I see a problem in a jury having to discern what is truly upsetting over the hyperbole that Bethenny has graced the public with over the past ten years.  Even her initial entrance into network TV, Martha Stewart pointed out Bethenny cried a lot.   I don't think Martha was saying someone could never cry, it just hard to determine what the average person would do.  I would say it is safe to say anything that comes out of Jason's mouth or fingers on to a keyboard Bethenny finds annoying. 

As part of their divorce agreement they were required to carry life insurance policy's with the other as named as beneficiary.  Common practice and annual proof of  renewal would be important.   If inquiring about the policy is so upsetting to Bethenny perhaps she should not have demanded Jason carry a policy in her initial filings.  Again everything can't put one over the edge.  I am assuming since Bethenny was crying on TV about having a surgical procedure, Jason had to take her comments about having a person in case of death.  So it might be reasonable to ask if the policy was up to date.  Or better yet have the insurance carrier or agent send the beneficiary notice the premiums have been paid. 

"Toodles bitch" just had me guffawing -- perfect example of why I don't find you at all humorless, Zoeysmom :)  

I do understand these objections, and sure, he's entitled to say, "I'll pray for you", and there's nothing overtly offensive about that. But, honestly, in this instance, I see that more as evidence that he's a shady mofo, than he is a man concerned for her immortal soul.  It's like when someone says, "Nice dress", when she is looking you up and down with a look of near contempt on her face.  She said, "Nice dress", which is a compliment, but it wasn't intended or delivered as a compliment, so you know it was no compliment, because you know she thinks that dress is hideous.  But she can't really be busted for "saying anything mean".  That's pretty much how the "I'll pray for you" in that context comes across to me. I could be wrong, but that's the sense I get.  

The other thing that strikes me, is if Jason really was basically just a put upon, decent guy, concerned only for his daughter in this whole thing, would he behave as he has? Was asking for 2k a month for dry cleaning solely for Bryn for example?  I have known some decent people who divorced, and they did and do keep their kids as utmost priority. That means a functional, civil, even friendly relationship as exes. Shared holidays, flexibility in schedules, that sort of thing.  Sometimes, if one person is very difficult to deal with, the other person has to step up and put up, for the sake of the kid. In my estimation, if Jason were really just a very good guy, stuck divorcing a difficult shrew of a woman, he'd probably have done something like that and we wouldn't be hearing much about their divorce at all. It just doesn't pass my sniff test.  

Bethenny may be a difficult person,  but so is Jason, imo; he's just difficult in a different way, (a more socially acceptable way perhaps) -- passive aggressive and controlling.   

[zoeysmom]

3 hours ago, motorcitymom65 said:

I am not a lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, so much of this legal stuff goes over my head. But I don't understand what Dennis sending Jason a C&D telling him to stop sending him emails has to do with Dennis going about living his life in a legal manner. Was Dennis slapped with an order telling him to stay away from Jason? Did I miss that in all of this? IMO, it sounds as if Jason was trying to put a wedge in the relationship that Beth was building with Dennis. If, in fact the things that have been leaked in the media are true that he was writing in those emails. Why, simply because Jason is all butt-hurt about the fact that Beth has moved on and is trying to be happy, does that mean that Beth and Dennis have to C&D being a couple and doing couple things? Does Jason get to win in this regard as well? When is Jason's behavior just going to be Jason's fault? Ever? 

One more time, Stalking in the Fourth Degree is being charged against Hoppy because he allegedly initiated contact with an acquaintance of Bethenny Franke, to wit Dennis Shields, after that acquaintance previously and clearly informed Jason Hoppy to cease such conduct.

Dennis is not be charged or anything else-his relationship to the crime is he is the acquaintance of the alleged victim Bethenny Frankel.  Dennis was never slapped with an order nor was Jason.  Jason was sent a C&D letter.  A letter is not a Court order. It is on its face though the defendant was previously clearly informed to cease and desist such conduct. (Another element of the crime.)

Any comments about Jason have to do with a defense to the charge-not about Dennis being charged with anything.  Two other elements of the crime are:  That on or about_______< in the county the defendant, Jason Hoppy engaged in a course of conduct directed at ___________________(Bethenny Frankel).  The defendant did so for no legitimate purpose. 

It is not about Shields state of mind it is about Hoppy's.

I think people are confusing possible defenses the defense might use to defend Hoppy's conduct.  Hoppy doesn't have to show that either Bethenny or Dennis did something illegal.  All the defense would be asserting is that there was a legitimate purpose for Hoppy being at the school and his contact with Dennis.  

The prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, "that the defendant, Jason Hoppy, knew or should have reasonably known that such conduct would cause material harm to the mental or emotional health of____________, (Bethenny Frankel).

So there does have to  be a showing and that would be through direct testimony of Bethenny that she suffered material harm to her mental or emotional health.

The trial will settle if Jason is at fault. 

[zoeysmom]

58 minutes ago, Jel said:

"Toodles bitch" just had me guffawing -- perfect example of why I don't find you at all humorless, Zoeysmom :)  

I do understand these objections, and sure, he's entitled to say, "I'll pray for you", and there's nothing overtly offensive about that. But, honestly, in this instance, I see that more as evidence that he's a shady mofo, than he is a man concerned for her immortal soul.  It's like when someone says, "Nice dress", when she is looking you up and down with a look of near contempt on her face.  She said, "Nice dress", which is a compliment, but it wasn't intended or delivered as a compliment, so you know it was no compliment, because you know she thinks that dress is hideous.  But she can't really be busted for "saying anything mean".  That's pretty much how the "I'll pray for you" in that context comes across to me. I could be wrong, but that's the sense I get.  

The other thing that strikes me, is if Jason really was basically just a put upon, decent guy, concerned only for his daughter in this whole thing, would he behave as he has? Was asking for 2k a month for dry cleaning solely for Bryn for example?  I have known some decent people who divorced, and they did and do keep their kids as utmost priority. That means a functional, civil, even friendly relationship as exes. Shared holidays, flexibility in schedules, that sort of thing.  Sometimes, if one person is very difficult to deal with, the other person has to step up and put up, for the sake of the kid. In my estimation, if Jason were really just a very good guy, stuck divorcing a difficult shrew of a woman, he'd probably have done something like that and we wouldn't be hearing much about their divorce at all. It just doesn't pass my sniff test.  

Bethenny may be a difficult person,  but so is Jason, imo; he's just difficult in a different way, (a more socially acceptable way perhaps) -- passive aggressive and controlling.   

Thanks, I think, for not finding me entirely humorless.  :-D

I am not a good person for someone to say, "I'll pray for you," just because I feel uncomfortable with the phrase.  Having said I do believe people have the right to express their religious and spiritual beliefs.  It is really difficult for the court to assess if a party is true about attending church and their motives.  It is kind of hard to say-"hey don't take the kid to mass because it seems you are just doing it to irritate the child's mother."

As to the dry cleaning I believe the parties listed their expenses while living together.  When the court awards a sum of money short of specifically ordering a certain bill be paid i.e. child care, private schooling, it really isn;t anyone's business how the receiving parent spends it as long as they maintain a suitable home for the child and feed the child.   

One of the things that attracted this couple to each other was they were both quite curt and sardonic in their comments.  It is difficult is that is their norm to expect they would change.  THis is noe case where I have never seen so much attention placed on the parents' feelings, usually it is the child's feelings.  One would think they would be flexible with each other, of course we haven't heard any specifics as to what makes these two tick and what ticks them off.

[film noire]

46 minutes ago, zoeysmom said:

One more time, Stalking in the Fourth Degree is being charged against Hoppy because he allegedly initiated contact with an acquaintance of Bethenny Franke, to wit Dennis Shields, after that acquaintance previously and clearly informed Jason Hoppy to cease such conduct.

Dennis is not be charged or anything else-his relationship to the crime is he is the acquaintance of the alleged victim Bethenny Frankel.  Dennis was never slapped with an order nor was Jason.  Jason was sent a C&D letter.  A letter is not a Court order. It is on its face though the defendant was previously clearly informed to cease and desist such conduct. (Another element of the crime.)

 

So part of the stalking charge is:  Jason is charged with stalking Dennis (one of Frankel's acquaintances) but if Dennis is the one who made  a point of being in Jason's rightfully occupied space (the school)  then how can *Jason* be charged with something Dennis initiated -- and that's (you think) one possible line of defense Hoppy's lawyers will take? 

[ZoloftBlob]

Quote

but if Dennis is the one who made  a point of being in Jason's rightfully occupied space (the school) 

It's not Jason's home. It's Bryn's school, which is kind of a public place. Betheny invited Dennis to join her for the dance recital, a public event. (Public in the sense that parents were allowed to bring guests, I know schools have some different rules about people from the public just wandering in) . This isn't the same as getting a cease and desist order and then intentionally hanging around Jason's front door to be an ass. It's also not "we both went to the Yankees game, therefore he violated the order".

The view here seems to be "Dennis sent the cease and desist order so *Dennis* needs to change his lifestyle to avoid Jason" when actually, the problem is that Jason is the one stepping over the line in making contact and who needs to back off and reconsider some of his contact points.

Now I am NOT saying Dennis had more right than Jason to attend the recital, just that Dennis did have the right to attend without Jason approaching him, because Dennis wasn't "in Jason's space" in attending an event at a school that he was invited to by the child's mother. Jason, as a divorced parent, doesn't get to control his ex wife by deciding she can't bring anyone but herself to school events because he's decided school is "Jason space".

My point? I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you think Dennis, by sending a cease and desist order to Jason, no longer had the right to attend a school function with Bethenny because the school (a somewhat public venue)is officially off limits because Jason was told to stay away from Dennis.

People manage this all the time for the sake of the children. If Jason lost his temper over it, then he's the one harming Bryn by throwing a public fit at her recital.

[film noire]

10 minutes ago, ZoloftBlob said:

 I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you think Dennis, by sending a cease and desist order to Jason, no longer had the right to attend a school function with Bethenny

 

I don't think that's the point - the issue is, how can you charge Jason for stalking Dennis (at the school) when Jason was legally allowed to be at the school (he had "legitimate purpose") and Dennis chose to place himself in Jason's proximity (not the other way around)?

Unless the custody agreement includes provisions for dating partners around Bryn, Dennis may have every right to be at the school -- but you cannot then charge Jason for stalking HIM at the school,  if Jason had nothing to do with Dennis being there.  Jason did not seek out Shields; Dennis chose to cross Hoppy's path all on his own. 

[WireWrap]

15 minutes ago, film noire said:

I don't think that's the point - the issue is, how can you charge Jason for stalking Dennis (at the school) when Jason was legally allowed to be at the school (he had "legitimate purpose") and Dennis chose to place himself in Jason's proximity (not the other way around)?

Unless the custody agreement includes provisions for dating partners around Bryn, Dennis may have every right to be at the school -- but you cannot then charge Jason for stalking HIM at the school,  if Jason had nothing to do with Dennis being there.  Jason did not seek out Shields; Dennis chose to cross Hoppy's path all on his own. 

This makes me wonder if Bethenny thought the C&D letter from Shields to Jason would mean that Jason could not attend Bryn's recital! And if she thought that, did she say that to Jason which is what set him off in the first place? 

[ZoloftBlob]

Well, we'll see how it shakes out in court. I'm willing to wait on that. But, if Dennis had every right to be at the school (a possibility) the point is that Jason knew he'd been told to cease and desist. It's ENTIRELY possible to two grown men in a public setting to not approach each other or speak to each other. I suspect if Jason had just watched the recital and gone home, he wouldn't have been arrested at all. If he did approach Dennis at the school recital and had angry words... I suspect that is where it turns into stalking.  Because it's fair to say that Dennis was invited by Bethenny to attend and therefore also had legitimate purpose to be there. Part of being an adult is not losing one's shit in public and shouting threats simply because someone you don't like is in the same place you are. Jason had been told to leave Dennis alone, and aside from attending the event, there's no indicator (as yet, I am sure it will come up at the trial if Jason doesn't take a plea) that Dennis approached Jason first, spoke to Jason first, or initiated contact first.

The event was in a public place. Jason had already been warned not to approach Dennis. If he did - and if Dennis didn't initiate contact - then Jason is in the wrong.

Dennis doesn't HAVE TO avoid crossing Jason's path, it's understood by normal people that we sometimes run across people we don't get along with. A cease and desist letter is essentially a warning, it's not a restraining order and it's not something that places any legal restrictions on Dennis.

[zoeysmom]

1 hour ago, film noire said:

So part of the stalking charge is:  Jason is charged with stalking Dennis (one of Frankel's acquaintances) but if Dennis is the one who made  a point of being in Jason's rightfully occupied space (the school)  then how can *Jason* be charged with something Dennis initiated -- and that's (you think) one possible line of defense Hoppy's lawyers will take? 

My guess is the defense will argue Jason had a legitimate purpose for being at the school, was surprised to see Dennis at the school knowing he, Jason, would be there, after sending him a C&D letter. The comments were more of an excited utterance instead of a carefully thought out and in response to the C&D.  There may be evidence as to how many times Dennis has appeared at Bryn's events whether Jason was there or not, and if this was the first why did Dennis who did not want contact decide to go to the school?  Two weeks later Bethenny the victim was giving interviews there relationship wasn't all that.  It reminds me of person A drawing a line and telling the person B do not cross and do not contact me.  All of a sudden the genius A who drew the line realizes the restroom is on B's side of the room.  So when A needs to use the bathroom he crosses it and B calls him out on it and then A complains that person B spoke to him.. 

The second defense is obviously that Jason knew or should have reasonably known that such conduct would cause material harm to the mental or emotional state of Bethenny.  Volumes can be written how to defend against this element. 

I am still thinking this trial may be a no go.  Maybe Dennis does not want to give up his time to testify, maybe Bethenny has reconsidered and decided to work out a civil resolution.  I am doubting Hoppy will agree to a permanent restraining order that keeps him away for his child's school.

[film noire]

2 minutes ago, zoeysmom said:

  All of a sudden the genius A who drew the line realizes the restroom is on B's side of the room.

Ha! -- I will be devastated if there's a settlement, ZM -- I want to see those emails ;)

[QuinnM]

Quote

 

I am still thinking this trial may be a no go.  Maybe Dennis does not want to give up his time to testify, maybe Bethenny has reconsidered and decided to work out a civil resolution.  I am doubting Hoppy will agree to a permanent restraining order that keeps him away for his child's school.

This is not up to Bethenny. The state has charged him. So the prosecutor would have to drop it. Dennis doesn't get a choice. He can be subpoenaed. It's not Bethenny's decision any more. The state doesn't bring many charges like this if it's he said/she said.  So now that Hoppy has refused a plea.  They go to court.  They drag all the dirty laundry out before the media and then us.  

Fingers crossed it's all over Tuesday.  The long it goes on the more there is for Bryn to find out about in the future.