Bethenny & Jason: The Divorce Showdown

[ZoloftBlob]

Quote

Tax dollars and time being wasted pursuing a case involving a plea deal in which the supposed criminal doesn't even have to admit guilt -- what the fuck are they playing at? 

Since this conceit is so often insisted upon with other media topics, since *Jason Hoppy* and or *official representatives of Jason Hoppy* have not publically confirmed the details of this plea deal, there is absolutely no reason to believe this plea deal was offered as described. 

Because really, there's no reason for Jason to not take the deal as described. He admits no guilt and has no record. And for those who want to argue that Jason is such a proud man standing firm on going to trial and declaring his innocence since the public will always deem him guilty unless he takes that proud stand.... the damage is done, and he doesn't get to get his money back for his extensive legal fees if the state drops the charges or if he's found not guilty so there's really no benefit to him.

Is there any non news rag confirmation of the terms of the most recent plea deal?

[film noire]

1 hour ago, QuinnM said:

Not any more.  That deal went away on the 27th.  

But why did they offer it to begin with, Quinn?

If -- as you say -- the prosecution believes he's dangerous, the last thing they should have offered was a deal in which there was  no admission of guilt, and it would all be erased after a year.

Why slap harsher charges on Hoppy, then offer him an even lighter plea deal? Talk about inviting a supposed stalker to escalate. 

It doesn't make sense -- which leads me to believe they're just playing games to get any kind of win they can.

Edited September 29, 2017 by film noire

[QuinnM]

Quote

But why did they offer it to begin with, Quinn?

All the offers included RO and successful completion of anger management.  The first had lifetime RO.  They make those kinds of offers to encourage the abuser to get help.  Most often it's someone like Hoppy where its first offense.  

But make no mistake there are violent dangerous ex's out there with nothing but a piece of paper, RO, between them and the person they end up killing.  Prosecutors do what they can.  But women and children die everyday at the hands of men that have been in court a dozen times.

The admission of guilt was no big deal.  He'll never admit guilt anyway.  They wanted him to complete anger management.  The most frightening part of this is that he feels he can send someone hundreds of emails using vicious language and that it's his right to communicate as he sees fit.  He's not intimidated by these bozos in the AG's office.  He's Jason Hoppy.  My guess is they'll be ready for trial just before the one year anniversary of the arrest.

[zoeysmom]

1 hour ago, film noire said:

I haven't seen anything about the deal including a permanet lifetime restraining order -- I could have well missed it -- the deal I've read is that all charges will be dismissed after a year, if Hoppy doesn't harass Frankel during that year, and no admission of guilt to any of the charges against him. 

There has to be an end game for this case.  Personally, I don't think Bethenny wants anything more than a zero contact order regarding Jason.  At the end of the day trial or no trial  her daughter has to have a continuing relationship with Jason.  

 

40 minutes ago, QuinnM said:

Not any more.  That deal went away on the 27th.  So now he goes to court.  He fights.  He wins and go back to his previous behavior.  He loses and goes to jail.  This can happen over and over.  But what is unlikely is that he will change.  It is what makes domestic conflict so very difficult to stop.

And one continuance was judge, one was Hoppy, one was both, one was a deal deadline and one was prosecution.  Pretty typical for NYC.

Everytime the "deal goes away" prosecutors lower the bar.  I have lost interest in what happened almost a year ago but I don't think the prosecutors ever thought Jason a real danger.  Jason will never be able to freely contact Bethenny again. It is within her rights to not have to have contact with him.  She and Jason can behave like every other divorce coupled with children in common who can't get along and subject themselves to Family Wizard as a way of communicating.  Real time, real people reviewing correspondence between the two and determing what is appropriate.  I do believe he knows that to be the case.  I am laboring under the impression he is one of those rare birds that feels only exoneration through a judicial determination be it by the Court or through a jury trial will restore his reputation.  Do I think he is being stubborn?  Yes.  I have also seen people risk unfavorable judicial determination when they feel they are innocent and lose.  Jason will always have stalker attached to his name, win lose or draw.  

I am unaware of any Hoppy continuance.  Once the prosecution filed additional charges, by matter of law they had to give the defense the opportunity to review discovery.  I am puzzled why this case is so difficult to get to trial.  It seems Jason was offered a not so good deal that included anger management, then it was his turn and his dismissal was denied and the prosecutors upped the ante with more charges, then it was a no admission of guilt offer good for six weeks, and now it is the prosecution wasn't ready for trial?  

3 minutes ago, QuinnM said:

All the offers included RO and successful completion of anger management.  The first had lifetime RO.  They make those kinds of offers to encourage the abuser to get help.  Most often it's someone like Hoppy where its first offense.  

But make no mistake there are violent dangerous ex's out there with nothing but a piece of paper, RO, between them and the person they end up killing.  Prosecutors do what they can.  But women and children die everyday at the hands of men that have been in court a dozen times.

The admission of guilt was no big deal.  He'll never admit guilt anyway.  They wanted him to complete anger management.  The most frightening part of this is that he feels he can send someone hundreds of emails using vicious language and that it's his right to communicate as he sees fit.  He's not intimidated by these bozos in the AG's office.  He's Jason Hoppy.  My guess is they'll be ready for trial just before the one year anniversary of the arrest.

Only the first deal involved anger management.  There have only been two deals.  I believe the term is a permanent restraining order.  Not a lifetime restraining order.  

[film noire]

19 minutes ago, QuinnM said:

The admission of guilt was no big deal. 

I disagree. Admitting you committed a crime would be a huge deal if your ex wanted to revisit custody. 

Edited September 29, 2017 by film noire

[ZoloftBlob]

Quote

I am puzzled why this case is so difficult to get to trial. 

In fact, this is in no way an unusual amount of time to take for a legal proceeding. I was tangentially involved in a civil suit that threatened to go to trial and from start to finish, not counting an appeal, it was almost two years.

Quote

Why slap harsher charges on Hoppy, then offer him an even lighter plea deal? Talk about inviting a supposed stalker to escalate. 

It doesn't make sense -- which leads me to believe they're just playing games to get any kind of win they can.

Again - there's actually not been any official confirmation of what the second plea deal's terms were so we really don't know that it was lighter.  That more charges were added makes me continue to think it wasn't a super sweet deal.

Aside from the reality that all prosecutors like to win their cases, I don't know why the state of New York would have such a pressing need to nail Jason Hoppy to the cross. I mean, at last check, they do have other fish to fry in the city. ;)

[film noire]

9 hours ago, zoeysmom said:

Everytime the "deal goes away" prosecutors lower the bar.  

So true.

Three charges  =  deal requiring Hoppy plead to harassment and attend anger management.

Five charges = "Mwah mwah!" kissy face deal of adjournment within a year.

At this pace, by October, they'll be slapping kidnapping charges against Hoppy while offering him a dismissal, a case of every Skinnygirl competitor on the market, and all day access to the ADA buffet.

eta:  the guy handling the prosecution has been there only two years, so maybe that's what's going on?

Edited September 30, 2017 by film noire

[zoeysmom]

1 hour ago, ZoloftBlob said:

In fact, this is in no way an unusual amount of time to take for a legal proceeding. I was tangentially involved in a civil suit that threatened to go to trial and from start to finish, not counting an appeal, it was almost two years.

Again - there's actually not been any official confirmation of what the second plea deal's terms were so we really don't know that it was lighter.  That more charges were added makes me continue to think it wasn't a super sweet deal.

Aside from the reality that all prosecutors like to win their cases, I don't know why the state of New York would have such a pressing need to nail Jason Hoppy to the cross. I mean, at last check, they do have other fish to fry in the city. ;)

Civil and criminal are two different animals as Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment protections apply to criminal cases.  Jason is having to waive time in these continuances.  I guess he could have been a dick and said no and the Court would then have to make a finding as to why the prosecution would be entitled to more time or commence the trial.  The US Supreme Court has an arbitrary "one year" as a violation of the Speedy Trial Act.   There are exceptions and ironically one of the reasons for the speedy trial provision (which dates back to the time of the Magna Carta) is the continuing damage it does to a defendant's reputation with the cloud of suspicion over one's head.  

I am basing my comments on news reports from journalists that were in court.  I guess one could ask for the minutes but the reporting seems fairly consistent.  Prosecutors generally don't make out of court statements-on a bunch of misdemeanors, and Hoppy's attorney(s) have not made any out of court statements since his arrest.  It is just some person, a reporter, attending the proceedings and reporting on what transpired.  I discount any conjecture such as "Jason wants his day in court," or "Jason thwarted Bethenny, she doesn't show in court," to me that is the tabloid nonsense.  

As to adding charges that worked for the prosecutors because they automatically got a continuance and it was a way to convey they weren't backing down.  Then at the next hearing they had the slow plea or conditional plea or a diversion plea.  Most defendants reason rejecting these types of pleas as they don't want the Court to have continuing jurisdiction  or have it considered a prior.  It is kind of a not guilty for the COurt's convenience.

My guess is there has been press in this case and Bethenny has used the press to get her side of the story out.  So for the prosecution to decline further presentation may be sending the wrong message.  That is just conjecture on my part.

[ZoloftBlob]

Quote

Civil and criminal are two different animals as Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment protections apply to criminal cases. 

Sure, but at the end of the day, my point is that trials do take time and this is not in any way an unusual amount of time. I'm sorry I didn't use a criminal case as an example but for that I would just cite how many criminal cases take literal years to come to trial. If there's a legitimate "speedy trial" complaint, Jason has a lawyer who appears competent and will make the complaint if necessary. But really, this isn't an unusual amount of time and none of the delays look untoward. It's just not a fast process.

Quote

I am basing my comments on news reports from journalists that were in court.

Right, the same news rags that are not allowed to be considered factual sources when discussing the pre-nup or the custody case because Jason has not spoken about the situation and therefore we can't know anything at all and must agree that nothing can be said as fact until it comes direct from Jason Hoppy's mouth. Jason Hoppy has not spoken about this plea deal, no one directly involved in the case can be cited, so my point is that we can't know the actual terms of the plea deal and since this deal was reportedly incredibly sweet to where it's essential offering Jason dismissal, it is entirely possible it's not factually accurate at all.

Quote

My guess is there has been press in this case and Bethenny has used the press to get her side of the story out.  So for the prosecution to decline further presentation may be sending the wrong message.

It's just as likely that the assigned prosecutor is over scheduled or as mundane as an inability to reserve a courtroom for the required amount of time. Believe me, I'd much rather we get the trial of the century on it's way... I just doubt there's any sinister behavior in the delay. I mean, the New York City court system is not admired for it's speed.

[WireWrap]

18 minutes ago, ZoloftBlob said:

 

Right, the same news rags that are not allowed to be considered factual sources when discussing the pre-nup or the custody case because Jason has not spoken about the situation and therefore we can't know anything at all and must agree that nothing can be said as fact until it comes direct from Jason Hoppy's mouth. Jason Hoppy has not spoken about this plea deal, no one directly involved in the case can be cited, so my point is that we can't know the actual terms of the plea deal and since this deal was reportedly incredibly sweet to where it's essential offering Jason dismissal, it is entirely possible it's not factually accurate at all.

It's just as likely that the assigned prosecutor is over scheduled or as mundane as an inability to reserve a courtroom for the required amount of time. Believe me, I'd much rather we get the trial of the century on it's way... I just doubt there's any sinister behavior in the delay. I mean, the New York City court system is not admired for it's speed.

No reporter saw the pre-nup, the divorce was private, so no reporters had access to the courtroom or to any transcripts. The custody case was public and all of the Jason legal team quotes were taken directly from what they said in the court room, Jason never testified in the custody case, only Bethenny did and she settled before Jason's lawyers could question/challenge her account . There is a world of difference between quoting actual court testimony and speculating what may have been said/rumors IMO. 

[zoeysmom]

10 minutes ago, ZoloftBlob said:

Sure, but at the end of the day, my point is that trials do take time and this is not in any way an unusual amount of time. I'm sorry I didn't use a criminal case as an example but for that I would just cite how many criminal cases take literal years to come to trial. If there's a legitimate "speedy trial" complaint, Jason has a lawyer who appears competent and will make the complaint if necessary. But really, this isn't an unusual amount of time and none of the delays look untoward. It's just not a fast process.

Right, the same news rags that are not allowed to be considered factual sources when discussing the pre-nup or the custody case because Jason has not spoken about the situation and therefore we can't know anything at all and must agree that nothing can be said as fact until it comes direct from Jason Hoppy's mouth. Jason Hoppy has not spoken about this plea deal, no one directly involved in the case can be cited, so my point is that we can't know the actual terms of the plea deal and since this deal was reportedly incredibly sweet to where it's essential offering Jason dismissal, it is entirely possible it's not factually accurate at all.

It's just as likely that the assigned prosecutor is over scheduled or as mundane as an inability to reserve a courtroom for the required amount of time. Believe me, I'd much rather we get the trial of the century on it's way... I just doubt there's any sinister behavior in the delay. I mean, the New York City court system is not admired for it's speed.

I would agree it is not an unusual amount of time as it is under a year.  It has had a lot of court appearances.  Each time Jason appears, he waives time.

This is the basis for the pleas deal representations.  When this was news there was an open court offer of anger management, permanent RO and no time.  Jason passed in open court.  Then back in September in open court the prosecution offered another deal (the present one) with the slow plea or conditional plea. Jason's attorney needed time to consider it.  Jason waived time and they were ordered back to court earlier this week.  Jason declined the offer and this is conjecture, probably before the court appearance.  I say this only because we don't have jury pools showing up or witnesses.  So the details were back in August and rejected in September in open court.  It really has nothing to do with the attorneys speaking out of court it is what transpired in court.  

I am not saying there is sinister behavior on the behalf of anyone.  I have no opinion of either counsel as we have not heard either side's presentation of the case.  The whole idea behind setting these dates so they can in fact schedule a courtroom and it is not unheard of for trials to go over or an in custody to bump a trial date for someone out on bail.  A great deal of the time in court during these motion hearings is spent usually calendaring the next hearing or trial so counsel does not have a conflict.  If Jason's attorney for example were to say, "I have a three week trial starting December 1st," the court would most likely set the trial date after the first of the year.  The prosecution is a little different but not much.  It is just interesting from the standpoint that presently all the continuances have been at the request of the court or prosecution.  

[ZoloftBlob]

Quote

No reporter saw the pre-nup, the divorce was private, so no reporters had access to the courtroom or to any transcripts.

Has a reporter seen this plea deal that basically allows Jason to walk away? Jason certainly has not spoken on it. And I have looked but not seen anyone related to the case (Bethenny, attorneys on either side) discuss the terms of the second plea deal that was turned down.

Quote

There is a world of difference between quoting actual court testimony and speculating what may have been said/rumors IMO. 

I agree. The terms of the plea arrangement that was turned down is all speculation.  We don't know if Jason was offered a sweet "you don't even have to admit guilt and it won't be on your record" deal at all. He may have been offered the same deal as before - a restraining order and counseling.

[WireWrap]

9 minutes ago, ZoloftBlob said:

Has a reporter seen this plea deal that basically allows Jason to walk away? Jason certainly has not spoken on it. And I have looked but not seen anyone related to the case (Bethenny, attorneys on either side) discuss the terms of the second plea deal that was turned down.

I agree. The terms of the plea arrangement that was turned down is all speculation.  We don't know if Jason was offered a sweet "you don't even have to admit guilt and it won't be on your record" deal at all. He may have been offered the same deal as before - a restraining order and counseling.

The plea deals were reported on by someone that was in the court room and heard Jason turn it down, heck, there have even been pictures of Jason/his lawyers taken each time he was in court over this. And you are correct, Bethenny hasn't said anything about this publicly since the reunion filmed, which is odd for her but nice to see. 

[ZoloftBlob]

Well... if someone in the court room said they heard it, I guess it must be true.

Actually, I am not understanding why this is considered a factual source of actual court testimony.  Doesn't this fall under speculation since the source has no name and can't be verified?

eta - the only place I have seen the plea discussed are newsrags like Page Six

And in this article - also a news rag - http://hollywoodholler.com/2017/08/09/jason-hoppy-putting-bethenny-frankels-plea-deal-hold/

The deal is described as Jason pleads guilty and if he leaves Bethenny alone after a year, the whole thing is dismissed... not a "he doesn't even have to admit guilt" thing.

Edited September 30, 2017 by ZoloftBlob

[WireWrap]

6 minutes ago, ZoloftBlob said:

Well... if someone in the court room said they heard it, I guess it must be true.

Actually, I am not understanding why this is considered a factual source of actual court testimony.  Doesn't this fall under speculation since the source has no name and can't be verified?

eta - the only place I have seen the plea discussed are newsrags like Page Six

You can go back here, on this thread and maybe someone posted a link that was with the photos of Jason in court where the plea deal was mentioned in the article. Other than that, all I can recommend is Google. As for page 6, they are a hit and miss gossip site for sure. LOL

[ZoloftBlob]

I have. No names as sources in the articles and differing details as to what the terms of the plea were. I also searched on google and found the same articles that don't provide any source names or details. Which to me means the terms of the plea deal are mostly speculation - and probably not as sweet as some of the articles make them. No one appears willing to commit to "I was there and I heard x, y, and z" which is ok, but it does make the terms of the deal speculation. 

[WireWrap]

1 hour ago, ZoloftBlob said:

I have. No names as sources in the articles and differing details as to what the terms of the plea were. I also searched on google and found the same articles that don't provide any source names or details. Which to me means the terms of the plea deal are mostly speculation - and probably not as sweet as some of the articles make them. No one appears willing to commit to "I was there and I heard x, y, and z" which is ok, but it does make the terms of the deal speculation. 

Do they list an 'author/writer"? Maybe they are the source, that they are the ones that went to the courthouse and heard it themselves. Just a thought.

[ZoloftBlob]

Different articles have different authors listed (when they have writers listed at all) and the articles on the same day covering the same event report the terms differently - some say he had to plead guilty and some say he didn't have to admit guilt. So we're back to "someone said" and different someones are saying different things about the same event. Which to me means they're speculating about the content of the plea. Put another way - they all can't be different and also right. 

[film noire]

2 hours ago, WireWrap said:

The plea deals were reported on by someone that was in the court room and heard Jason turn it down, heck, there have even been pictures of Jason/his lawyers taken each time he was in court over this. 

As well, ABC news reported on the two plea deals:

March:  "His attorney confirmed to ABC News that Hoppy turned down the prosecution's offer to plead to a harassment violation in exchange for going to anger management."

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/bethenny-frankels-jason-hoppy-rejects-plea-deal/story?id=46101464

August: "The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office had offered Hoppy a one-year adjournment in contemplation of dismissal but he declined."

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/bethenny-frankels-rejects-plea-deal-stalking-case/story?id=49096184

An ACD carries no admission of guilt: 

"The granting of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal shall not be deemed to be a conviction or an admission of guilt.  No person shall suffer any disability or forfeiture as a result of such an order.  Upon the dismissal of the accusatory instrument pursuant this section, the arrest and prosecution shall be deemed a nullity and the defendant shall be restored, in contemplation of law, to the status he occupied before his arrest and prosecution."

http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/criminal-procedure-law/cpl-sect-170-55.html

ABC news also gives a wider timeline for the 160 emails than ninety days:

"According to the criminal complaint obtained by ABC News, Hoppy allegedly sent hundreds of text messages and emails to Frankel...More than 160 in all, the messages began in August, the complaint said, and continued through Jan. 17..."

Five months = roughly one email a day. 

[zoeysmom]

Thanks for the research @film noire that pretty well settles the issue about the origin of the terms of the plea deals.

This case just feels like a stinker to take to trial.  I totally understand why someone would not want to have someone make negative comments about them and that is all that really is.  Jason doesn't like the very public negative comments Bethenny makes about him and Bethenny really, really dislikes the private negative comments Jason makes about her.   Regardless of who is correct and they both can be the bottom line is they are both hurt by the other's words.  

Clearly there was something going on in the fall that caused the escalation.  I think this is just one of those things that Jason has to suck up and realize that Bethenny will get her way as to Jason not being able to direct his thoughts and feelings towards her.  Jason will get his way and be in his daughter's life.   The strangest thing to me is Bethenny did to Jason exactly what he threatened to do to her-destroy his reputation.  He should have seen it coming.  Dumb ass,  money is a very big lever to power.  

[KungFuBunny]

On 9/28/2017 at 8:10 PM, QuinnM said:

Nothing will be dismissed without a permanent RO.  If that was the inclination it would have happened about when they added charges.  So if the plan is to stand until they dismiss this is going to cost him a lot of money.  ADA sees this as domestic violence.  He's not getting out without something being done.  And like I said this is NYC.  People wait IN JAIL for years to be dismissed.  So he's out there doing his thing.  RO in place.  ADA can sit on this forever.  Bethenny has what she wants which is zero contact.  The only person suffering is Hoppy who is paying an attorney every time there is a letter or a phone call.

Financially Hoppy is doomed. He's been getting billed from Alex Spiro's office for every minute of work. Money he will never recoup.

Douchebag is going down!

[BBHN]

That could cause him to become even more vindictive and nasty to try and bilk Bethenny for more money that the douchebag isn't entitled to.

[zoeysmom]

3 hours ago, KungFuBunny said:

Financially Hoppy is doomed. He's been getting billed from Alex Spiro's office for every minute of work. Money he will never recoup.

Douchebag is going down!

There doesn't seem to be all that much going on with the case.  They go to court and get another court date.  The attorney files a motion to dismiss.  I don't think this case is a big money maker-just another expense for Jason.  The attorney will never be able to achieve any type of goal, if was even a goal after his arrest, for Jason to have any contact with Bethenny.  So now it is just all about Jason trying to restore his reputation, which I don't understand since he maintains this zero contact with the media.  

I just wish out of the mouths of both parties they could acknowledge the other is a good parent and the child loves both of her parents.  As much as I would like to know the content of the texts and e-mails and the context, I don't see any upside for Bryn.  There may come a day where as parents they need to communicate regarding a serious issue such as health or behavioral problems and they can't see to get past their own hurt feelings or egos.  Somewhere between being best buddies with your exes and scorched there has to be a warm middle.  

It always goes back to the child and the effect on her life.  There will come a day when Cookie dies or Jason's parents and all Bryn and publicly documented is how Daddy didn't like Cookie and Mommy didn't like Grandma and Grandpa.  Great source of comfort for the child.  I just don't buy Bryn has no idea of what is going on. 

[Jel]

How does that play out in his life -- is the sending of the "I will destroy you" emails his top priority, like Pinky and the Brain's world take over preparation, or is he more casual about it, like, oh crap, it's 10 and I haven't written my daily threatening email yet? Or, does he skip a couple days and instead send several catch up "I will destroy you" emails on one day? 

[WireWrap]

19 minutes ago, zoeysmom said:

There doesn't seem to be all that much going on with the case.  They go to court and get another court date.  The attorney files a motion to dismiss.  I don't think this case is a big money maker-just another expense for Jason.  The attorney will never be able to achieve any type of goal, if was even a goal after his arrest, for Jason to have any contact with Bethenny.  So now it is just all about Jason trying to restore his reputation, which I don't understand since he maintains this zero contact with the media.  

I just wish out of the mouths of both parties they could acknowledge the other is a good parent and the child loves both of her parents.  As much as I would like to know the content of the texts and e-mails and the context, I don't see any upside for Bryn.  There may come a day where as parents they need to communicate regarding a serious issue such as health or behavioral problems and they can't see to get past their own hurt feelings or egos.  Somewhere between being best buddies with your exes and scorched there has to be a warm middle.  

It always goes back to the child and the effect on her life.  There will come a day when Cookie dies or Jason's parents and all Bryn and publicly documented is how Daddy didn't like Cookie and Mommy didn't like Grandma and Grandpa.  Great source of comfort for the child.  I just don't buy Bryn has no idea of what is going on. 

Clearing his name may have something to do with his job as a Pharmaceutical sales rep, a criminal conviction could get him fired, even for a misdemeanor conviction, with some pharmaceutical companies.

[BBHN]

Quote

How does that play out in his life -- is the sending of the "I will destroy you" emails his top priority, like Pinky and the Brain's world take over preparation, or is he more casual about it, like, oh crap, it's 10 and I haven't written my daily threatening email yet? Or, does he skip a couple days and instead send several catch up "I will destroy you" emails on one day? 

Where asshole douche-bags like him are concerned, it's hard to say which...

[zoeysmom]

1 hour ago, WireWrap said:

Clearing his name may have something to do with his job as a Pharmaceutical sales rep, a criminal conviction could get him fired, even for a misdemeanor conviction, with some pharmaceutical companies.

Oh I had not thought of that.  I wonder if Jason has suffered repercussions from his arrest on the work front?  

[WireWrap]

1 minute ago, zoeysmom said:

Oh I had not thought of that.  I wonder if Jason has suffered repercussions from his arrest on the work front?  

I'm pretty sure he has, the Pharmaceutical companies keep their reps on short leashes and any legal/criminal scandal would put their job in jeopardy, especially one that is being reported nationally. 

[film noire]

14 hours ago, zoeysmom said:

Thanks for the research @film noire that pretty well settles the issue about the origin of the terms of the plea deals.

You're usually the one dropping links -- glad to return the favor,  ZM ; )

ABC news also had access to the criminal complaint.  In the complaint, Hoppy was over the top (and beyond selfish losing his shit at Bryn's school) but the altercation at the school did not include the Page Six threat of Jason screaming, "I will destroy you! You can get all the lawyers you want! You’ve been warned!”

There were no threats of bodily harm or destruction, and the warnings appear to be to Dennis (about Frankel) not to Bethenny (about Jason destroying her):

"...Frankel claims in the criminal complaint Hoppy approached her and her boyfriend and allegedly said, "OK I see. This is how you want to do this. OK. You can play your game. It doesn't matter. You can get 10 lawyers. There's nothing you can do to stop me. You'll be sorry. You've been warned. I can't help it. She's pure evil. You've been warned. Don't say I didn't warn you."

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/bethenny-frankels-rejects-plea-deal-stalking-case/story?id=49096184

From "You'll be sorry" on, it looks like he's talking to Shields, imo. 

Hoppy might have sent her emails that justify the stalking charges -- and if so, he should be punished and forced to accept guilt -- but with the games the prosecution is playing,  I'm wondering if @biakbiak is right and a dismissal is coming.  

Edited October 1, 2017 by film noire

[Celia Rubenstein]

22 hours ago, film noire said:

As well, ABC news reported on the two plea deals:

March:  "His attorney confirmed to ABC News that Hoppy turned down the prosecution's offer to plead to a harassment violation in exchange for going to anger management."

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/bethenny-frankels-jason-hoppy-rejects-plea-deal/story?id=46101464

August: "The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office had offered Hoppy a one-year adjournment in contemplation of dismissal but he declined."

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/bethenny-frankels-rejects-plea-deal-stalking-case/story?id=49096184

An ACD carries no admission of guilt: 

"The granting of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal shall not be deemed to be a conviction or an admission of guilt.  No person shall suffer any disability or forfeiture as a result of such an order.  Upon the dismissal of the accusatory instrument pursuant this section, the arrest and prosecution shall be deemed a nullity and the defendant shall be restored, in contemplation of law, to the status he occupied before his arrest and prosecution."

http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/criminal-procedure-law/cpl-sect-170-55.html

ABC news also gives a wider timeline for the 160 emails than ninety days:

"According to the criminal complaint obtained by ABC News, Hoppy allegedly sent hundreds of text messages and emails to Frankel...More than 160 in all, the messages began in August, the complaint said, and continued through Jan. 17..."

Five months = roughly one email a day. 

As part of an ADC, the court could have required Jason to attend counseling.  I wonder if that is why he turned it down.  I can't think of any other reason he would reject such a deal. 

I suspect that's why he rejected the first offer - it included anger management.  Jason may see agreeing to such a requirement as an admission he needs help so he refuses to do it. 

Just a guess.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Celia Rubenstein

[zoeysmom]

13 hours ago, film noire said:

You're usually the one dropping links -- glad to return the favor,  ZM ; )

ABC news also had access to the criminal complaint.  In the complaint, Hoppy was over the top (and beyond selfish losing his shit at Bryn's school) but the altercation at the school did not include the Page Six threat of Jason screaming, "I will destroy you! You can get all the lawyers you want! You’ve been warned!”

There were no threats of bodily harm or destruction, and the warnings appear to be to Dennis (about Frankel) not to Bethenny (about Jason destroying her):

"...Frankel claims in the criminal complaint Hoppy approached her and her boyfriend and allegedly said, "OK I see. This is how you want to do this. OK. You can play your game. It doesn't matter. You can get 10 lawyers. There's nothing you can do to stop me. You'll be sorry. You've been warned. I can't help it. She's pure evil. You've been warned. Don't say I didn't warn you."

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/bethenny-frankels-rejects-plea-deal-stalking-case/story?id=49096184

From "You'll be sorry" on, it looks like he's talking to Shields, imo. 

Hoppy might have sent her emails that justify the stalking charges -- and if so, he should be punished and forced to accept guilt -- but with the games the prosecution is playing,  I'm wondering if @biakbiak is right and a dismissal is coming.  

The conversation/altercation was directed at Shields-who was the one who sent the cease and desist letter.  My guess is perhaps Shields may not want to be involved in the prosecution.  These really aren't fighting words-more of my lawyer can beat your lawyer up -type comments.  

The destroying comments were in one of the e-mails and I believe were about destroying her public image.  I don't think there have ever been claims of threats of physical violence.

9 hours ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

As part of an ADC, the court could have required Jason to attend counseling.  I wonder if that is why he turned it down.  I can't think of any other reason he would reject such a deal. 

I suspect that's why he rejected the first offer - it included anger management.  Jason may see agreeing to such a requirement as an admission he needs help so he refuses to do it. 

Just a guess.

I don't think an anger management course is really getting help.  It is just something to require of a defendant and see if he or she complies with court orders by attending.  I am sure there are those who do receive benefit, I just don't see it in this case.  The goal of the victims in this case is there be zero contact not that Jason comport his behavior to Bethenny's requirements.  

[BBHN]

Quote

As part of an ADC, the court could have required Jason to attend counseling.  I wonder if that is why he turned it down.  I can't think of any other reason he would reject such a deal. 

I suspect that's why he rejected the first offer - it included anger management.  Jason may see agreeing to such a requirement as an admission he needs help so he refuses to do it. 

Just a guess.

He needs a lot more than anger management.

[film noire]

10 hours ago, zoeysmom said:

The destroying comments were in one of the e-mails and I believe were about destroying her public image. 

I could have missed it, but I can't find any links (even to gossip sites like Page Six) showing an email saying "I'll destroy you/your public image".  This is what's out there:

“We could have a much different relationship but you’re unwilling to shut your mouth about me and my daughter [a]nd refuse to cooperate. Ball[‘]s in your court to change it. I’m happy to meet for to discuss. And you know you’re the problem. But if not I wil[l] proceed as I see fit.”

“Love how you (s) peak in the phone. You really have problems. Have a great weekend. She (6 year old daughter Bryn) loves me so much. It's amazing the love a daughter has for her  father and vice versa."

"Despite your games I'll never let you do to me what your mother did to yoru father. I'll never go away."

http://starcasm.net/archives/372426

And PEOPLE saw the court docs (post additional charges) and I think they would have included something that juicy - but they don't:

"Frankel alleges....she received a text message from Hoppy stating,

“Despite your games, I’ll never let you do to me what your mother did to your father. I’ll never go away.”

“You left me no choice but to go to extremes and include your staff and current boyfriend…to try and get through to you.”

“Your definition of harassment is comical. I will continue to communicate with you as I see fit.”

“I will continue to communicate with you as I see fit,” as well as a text message with the same statement.

After she sent him an email on Nov. 8, 2016 requesting that he stop communicating with her, Frankel alleges that Hoppy sent her repeated emails requesting to meet her in person and provide copies of her life insurance policy."

http://people.com/crime/bethenny-frankel-jason-hoppy-stalking-allegations-as-he-files-dismissal/

The one reference to "being destroyed"  I found was Frankel on the stand, during the custody hearing;

“He said, ‘I’m going to destroy you. I’m going to have you and your publicist crying and crumbling in a corner. Now you’re going to see what I was like on the basketball court,’ ” Frankel, 43, testified before breaking into tears."

http://people.com/crime/bethenny-frankel-jason-hoppy-battle-over-custody-of-daughter-bryn/?http://p=2639329&preview_id=2639329

Again, I could have missed it -- I did a pretty quick search -- but I'm not sure there's any email/text of Hoppy threatening to "destroy her".  His emails are nasty and condescending and bullish, but I'm not sure where the "threat to her physical safety" comes in, with the additional charges.  

Edited October 1, 2017 by film noire

[Jel]

Film Noire, I think I'm the one who highlighted and emphasized the "I will destroy you" emails, by writing an irreverent (and to me and my off base humor, funny) post.  It's true, he didn't used the cartoon-baddie expression "I will destroy you" in every email, but does he need to? Does that long laundry list of things he's actually said or written not speak volumes?  True, he chose different verbs, but the message comes across loud and clear.  

It seems to me that reasonable people would see genuine problem with the type of shit he's said (as you posted above).  And (allegedly!) this isn't once, in an omg I lost it moment, it's every day (on average).  That's not normal.

[ryebread]

28 minutes ago, Jel said:

 It seems to me that reasonable people would see genuine problem with the type of shit he's said (as you posted above).  And (allegedly!) this isn't once, in an omg I lost it moment, it's every day (on average).  That's not normal.

I agree.  Same with reasonable people seeing what a maniac Bethenny is.  I can't imagine her outbursts are an 'omg, I lost it' moment either.  I've only read about Jason's anger but I've seen Beth's.  If what y'all say about him is true, these two had no business being together, much less breeding.  I hope it's not genetic because if it is, then Bryn got a double whammy of whack.

[film noire]

1 hour ago, Jel said:

Film Noire, I think I'm the one who highlighted and emphasized the "I will destroy you" emails, by writing an irreverent (and to me and my off base humor, funny) post. 

Not just you, Jel -- pretty sure I posted it myself (re: him screaming "I will destroy you" at Frankel at the school, which turned out to be false) somewhere back in this thread, and at this point, I'm just trying to nail down what was actually sent/said/done. B/c the ADA being willing to let him go with an air kiss sounds like smoke vs fire to me, or him falling down on the job big time.

And the difference between what Hoppy sent versus emailing "I will destroy you" is vast, to me. The level of crazy in writing "I will destroy you" and then emailing it - with no moment of sanity taking over to keep you from sending it -- is way beyond the nasty, vicious codependent bullshit in the (so far) released emails. 

Edited October 1, 2017 by film noire

[WireWrap]

2 hours ago, Jel said:

Film Noire, I think I'm the one who highlighted and emphasized the "I will destroy you" emails, by writing an irreverent (and to me and my off base humor, funny) post.  It's true, he didn't used the cartoon-baddie expression "I will destroy you" in every email, but does he need to? Does that long laundry list of things he's actually said or written not speak volumes?  True, he chose different verbs, but the message comes across loud and clear.  

It seems to me that reasonable people would see genuine problem with the type of shit he's said (as you posted above).  And (allegedly!) this isn't once, in an omg I lost it moment, it's every day (on average).  That's not normal.

I don't know, Bethenny keeps talking about Jason (show/interviews) and if she hadn't I don't think there would have been a problem with Jason. Seriously, how hard would it have been for her to not talk about him or have her bf, Carole, do it for her? So, I understand him saying he would destroy her public image if she continued, she needs to stop, just as much as he needs to stop emailing her. Bethenny does this, it's a pattern IMO, be it with Jason or her mother, they say stop talking about me or I will expose your lies, she refuses and then plays the victim. Just STFU Bethenny, stop talking about them!

[HunterHunted]

5 hours ago, zoeysmom said:

The conversation/altercation was directed at Shields-who was the one who sent the cease and desist letter.  My guess is perhaps Shields may not want to be involved in the prosecution.  These really aren't fighting words-more of my lawyer can beat your lawyer up -type comments.  

The destroying comments were in one of the e-mails and I believe were about destroying her public image.  I don't think there have ever been claims of threats of physical violence.

I don't think an anger management course is really getting help.  It is just something to require of a defendant and see if he or she complies with court orders by attending.  I am sure there are those who do receive benefit, I just don't see it in this case.  The goal of the victims in this case is there be zero contact not that Jason comport his behavior to Bethenny's requirements.  

I'm starting to wonder if Jason's need to continue to contact Bethenny and Shields is Jason feeling like he has to prove to the people in his life that Bethenny was/is evil. I can imagine that the people in his life are aware that B sucks, but have told him to move on. 

As much as I'm not a fan of Dr. Phil, Jason's actions come across as "right fighting." Dr. Phil posits it as choice between being happy and being right. Bethenny and Jason have an intermediary. When Bethenny stopped responding to Jason, he could have chosen to go through their intermediary. Instead, he chose to escalate and continue to contact Bethenny directly and then involve Shields. This typifies right fighting. Using their agreed upon mediator would have allowed him to let Bethenny know what was up with Bryn to raise the happiest version of their child that they could. Instead, he doubled down and escalated the acrimony to prove that Bethenny is a gorgon. I wish someone would tell him that he's proved that Bethenny is an asshole, but that he might be unstable. Talk about winning the battle, but losing the war.

[WireWrap]

29 minutes ago, HunterHunted said:

I'm starting to wonder if Jason's need to continue to contact Bethenny and Shields is Jason feeling like he has to prove to the people in his life that Bethenny was/is evil. I can imagine that the people in his life are aware that B sucks, but have told him to move on. 

As much as I'm not a fan of Dr. Phil, Jason's actions come across as "right fighting." Dr. Phil posits it as choice between being happy and being right. Bethenny and Jason have an intermediary. When Bethenny stopped responding to Jason, he could have chosen to go through their intermediary. Instead, he chose to escalate and continue to contact Bethenny directly and then involve Shields. This typifies right fighting. Using their agreed upon mediator would have allowed him to let Bethenny know what was up with Bryn to raise the happiest version of their child that they could. Instead, he doubled down and escalated the acrimony to prove that Bethenny is a gorgon. I wish someone would tell him that he's proved that Bethenny is an asshole, but that he might be unstable. Talk about winning the battle, but losing the war.

It seemed to me that his complaint was that Bethenny keep talking about him on the show and in interviews, which was against the divorce courts orders, and that was according to Bethenny when she was on WWHL both during and after the divorce was finalized. She doesn't seem to feel that she needs to follow the courts orders though, so I get his frustration. They both need to stop playing games, both of them! As much as Bethenny tries, she is no innocent victim in this, she thinks the rules don't apply to her and that only her opinion matters no matter what.

[Jel]

3 hours ago, ryebread said:

I agree.  Same with reasonable people seeing what a maniac Bethenny is.  I can't imagine her outbursts are an 'omg, I lost it' moment either.  I've only read about Jason's anger but I've seen Beth's.  If what y'all say about him is true, these two had no business being together, much less breeding.  I hope it's not genetic because if it is, then Bryn got a double whammy of whack.

I think that's a fair point, Ryebread, but I'll say that even though I do not (gad, I hope) express my anger like Bethenny, I find her horrible behavior more relatable.  She lashes out and loses it and you can see the emotion in her - Jason (and if these allegations are true) keeps his anger just under the surface. I find that so much more menacing.  The whole "Your idea of harassment is comical and I will communicate with you as I see fit" sent a chill up my spine.

 

2 hours ago, film noire said:

Not just you, Jel -- pretty sure I posted it myself (re: him screaming "I will destroy you" at Frankel at the school, which turned out to be false) somewhere back in this thread, and at this point, I'm just trying to nail down what was actually sent/said/done. B/c the ADA being willing to let him go with an air kiss sounds like smoke vs fire to me, or him falling down on the job big time.

And the difference between what Hoppy sent versus emailing "I will destroy you" is vast, to me. The level of crazy in writing "I will destroy you" and then emailing it - with no moment of sanity taking over to keep you from sending it -- is way beyond the nasty, vicious codependent bullshit in the (so far) released emails. 

It's true that sending one I will destroy you email per day is extra bad, but no one said he's doing that, except me, and jokingly, so fortunately that's not even something we need to address (because yes, it would be scary weird if he did that).  When I said he's sending one "I will destroy you email" per day, it was a smart assed shorthand for any of these types of things -- destroying her public image, taunting her about how much his daughter loves him (which is a weird and creepy taunt), telling the bf that she's pure evil, You won't stop me, all of that stuff.  One of those on it's own is a bad day/poor judgment. One negative, insulting, threatening or taunting email or text per day, even without the word destroy in there, is getting into very creepy territory. 

 

1 hour ago, WireWrap said:

I don't know, Bethenny keeps talking about Jason (show/interviews) and if she hadn't I don't think there would have been a problem with Jason. Seriously, how hard would it have been for her to not talk about him or have her bf, Carole, do it for her? So, I understand him saying he would destroy her public image if she continued, she needs to stop, just as much as he needs to stop emailing her. Bethenny does this, it's a pattern IMO, be it with Jason or her mother, they say stop talking about me or I will expose your lies, she refuses and then plays the victim. Just STFU Bethenny, stop talking about them!

Even if all that's true, WireWrap, and the only reason he sent her threatening emails and texts is because "she drove him to it", that's blaming the victim. Jason is an adult and is responsible for his behavior.  I think it's less scary (with lesser consequences) if he was threatening to destroy her public image instead of her person, but it doesn't make it any less of a threat. 

[QuinnM]

Quote

It seemed to me that his complaint was that Bethenny keep talking about him on the show and in interviews, which was against the divorce courts orders, and that was according to Bethenny when she was on WWHL both during and after the divorce was finalized. She doesn't seem to feel that she needs to follow the courts orders though, so I get his frustration. They both need to stop playing games, both of them! As much as Bethenny tries, she is no innocent victim in this, she thinks the rules don't apply to her and that only her opinion matters no matter what.

We don't know what the final decree said.  We know that the judge said they couldn't talk to the media.  But the final decree determines what can be said going forward.  And if she talks about the divorce and it being hard etc.  That's not talking about Jason.  So fine line there.  Plus if she is doing something that the divorce decree forbids.  He can take her to court and get cash money.  And we know he loves the cash money.  So I'm guessing he just doesn't like it.  He doesn't like her talking about the divorce.  He doesn't like her friends talking about him.  He doesn't like her dating a man that is really rich.  He doesn't like this man in his daughters life.  He doesn't like her getting the apartment.  He doesn't like her suing the attorney he hired to set up the trust that was declared fraudulent. He doesn't like her giving Bryn riding lessons, flying Bryn to Vail and Aspen to learn how to ski.  He doesnt' like her living and breathing and making more money that he does.  He needs help.  If he gets court ordered anger management he will end up better off or in more intensive therapy.

Edited October 2, 2017 by QuinnM

[WireWrap]

1 hour ago, Jel said:

I think that's a fair point, Ryebread, but I'll say that even though I do not (gad, I hope) express my anger like Bethenny, I find her horrible behavior more relatable.  She lashes out and loses it and you can see the emotion in her - Jason (and if these allegations are true) keeps his anger just under the surface. I find that so much more menacing.  The whole "Your idea of harassment is comical and I will communicate with you as I see fit" sent a chill up my spine.

 

It's true that sending one I will destroy you email per day is extra bad, but no one said he's doing that, except me, and jokingly, so fortunately that's not even something we need to address (because yes, it would be scary weird if he did that).  When I said he's sending one "I will destroy you email" per day, it was a smart assed shorthand for any of these types of things -- destroying her public image, taunting her about how much his daughter loves him (which is a weird and creepy taunt), telling the bf that she's pure evil, You won't stop me, all of that stuff.  One of those on it's own is a bad day/poor judgment. One negative, insulting, threatening or taunting email or text per day, even without the word destroy in there, is getting into very creepy territory. 

 

Even if all that's true, WireWrap, and the only reason he sent her threatening emails and texts is because "she drove him to it", that's blaming the victim. Jason is an adult and is responsible for his behavior.  I think it's less scary (with lesser consequences) if he was threatening to destroy her public image instead of her person, but it doesn't make it any less of a threat. 

As I said, they both need to stop it. Also, Bethenny has been destroying Jason's reputation since they separated and as I pointed out, his job could be in danger because of her nasty comments. He has kept his opinions/side of this out of the public eye, she hasn't by a long shot.

1 hour ago, QuinnM said:

We don't know what the final decree said.  We know that the judge said they couldn't talk to the media.  But the final decree determines what can be said going forward.  And if she talks about the divorce and it being hard etc.  That's not talking about Jason.  So fine line there.  Plus if she is doing something that the divorce decree forbids.  He can take her to court and get cash money.  And we know he loves the cash money.  So I'm guessing he just doesn't like it.  He doesn't like her talking about the divorce.  He doesn't like her friends talking about him.  He doesn't like her dating a man that is really rich.  He doesn't like this man in his daughters life.  He doesn't like her getting the apartment.  He doesn't like her suing the attorney he hired to set up the trust that was declared fraudulent. He doesn't like her giving Bryn riding lessons, flying Bryn to Vail and Aspen to learn how to ski.  He doesnt' like her living and breathing and making more money that he does.  He needs help.  If he gets court ordered anger management he will end up better off or in more intensive therapy.

Bethenny stated herself that she was not supposed to talk about Jason and has done so a couple of times on WWHL both before and after the divorce was finalized. As for what he wants, other than for Bethenny to stop talking about him, we know nothing, nothing at all because he has said nothing to the press, nor have his lawyers/families/friends. The only one that can't keep their mouth shut is Bethenny and her good friend Carole. 

[film noire]

2 hours ago, Jel said:

but no one said he's doing that, except me, and jokingly, so fortunately that's not even something we need to address 

My reply was to Zoey M's comment (that "I will destroy you" was sent in an email) so -- if nothing else -- at least I thought it needed to be addressed :)

Quote

Bethenny stated herself that she was not supposed to talk about Jason and has done so a couple of times on WWHL both before and after the divorce was finalized.

True. (I always forget that she's admitted that herself.)

Edited October 2, 2017 by film noire

[QuinnM]

Quote

Bethenny stated herself that she was not supposed to talk about Jason and has done so a couple of times on WWHL both before and after the divorce was finalized. As for what he wants, other than for Bethenny to stop talking about him, we know nothing, nothing at all because he has

The same interview on WWHL she stated she was allowed to talk about her feelings.  And she really hadn't talked about him until he started abusing her again.  Which just coincided with Dennis.  And we don't know what he wants because he has never talked to the press. So I can guess all I want.  

And he wants Bethenny to not sue the lawyer which may drag his mother into court.  And he wants all men out of his daughters life.  And he wants Bethenny to dance to his tune.  Answer his emails.  Do what he says.  Tell him what he wants to know when he wants to know it.  Or he just wants her to stop talking about her feelings and the divorce.  And I guess the best way to do that is to call her ugly and irrelevant and verbally attack her and Dennis at Bryn's school.  Sorry but I'm not seeing how any of this was about her talking about him.  

It sure looks like it's about a whole lot more than just that.  And if that is what it is about.  And there is language in the final papers about it I don't believe for one second he wouldn't drag her ass into court.

[Jel]

27 minutes ago, WireWrap said:

As I said, they both need to stop it. Also, Bethenny has been destroying Jason's reputation since they separated and as I pointed out, his job could be in danger because of her nasty comments. He has kept his opinions/side of this out of the public eye, she hasn't by a long shot.

Bethenny stated herself that she was not supposed to talk about Jason and has done so a couple of times on WWHL both before and after the divorce was finalized. As for what he wants, other than for Bethenny to stop talking about him, we know nothing, nothing at all because he has said nothing to the press, nor have his lawyers/families/friends. The only one that can't keep their mouth shut is Bethenny and her good friend Carole. 

I think if Jason's reputation is tarnished and his job is in jeopardy it's more likely because of his own actions (the criminal charges brought on by his own behavior) than anything Bethenny has said.  

[Happy Camper]

Does anyone know if Dennis is divorced yet? Is there any confirmed news on this?

http://people.com/tv/bethenny-frankel-dennis-shields-back-together-after-split/

He kind of gives me the creeps.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Happy Camper

[WireWrap]

29 minutes ago, QuinnM said:

The same interview on WWHL she stated she was allowed to talk about her feelings.  And she really hadn't talked about him until he started abusing her again.  Which just coincided with Dennis.  And we don't know what he wants because he has never talked to the press. So I can guess all I want.  

And he wants Bethenny to not sue the lawyer which may drag his mother into court.  And he wants all men out of his daughters life.  And he wants Bethenny to dance to his tune.  Answer his emails.  Do what he says.  Tell him what he wants to know when he wants to know it.  Or he just wants her to stop talking about her feelings and the divorce.  And I guess the best way to do that is to call her ugly and irrelevant and verbally attack her and Dennis at Bryn's school.  Sorry but I'm not seeing how any of this was about her talking about him.  

It sure looks like it's about a whole lot more than just that.  And if that is what it is about.  And there is language in the final papers about it I don't believe for one second he wouldn't drag her ass into court.

Bethenny has talked about Jason, not just her "feelings" on the show, WWHL and in numerous interviews she has given since the court told them to not talk about the other publically. She has crossed that line way to often on her own and then has Carole chime in when she can so that she can claim she didn't break the court order. 

Bethenny wants Bryn all to herself and has since left Jason. Her bottom line is that she didn't need a father and neither does Bryn!

27 minutes ago, Jel said:

I think if Jason's reputation is tarnished and his job is in jeopardy it's more likely because of his own actions (the criminal charges brought on by his own behavior) than anything Bethenny has said.  

Well, he has not been convicted of any crime as of yet so he hasn't done anything to tarnish his reputation beyond marrying and having a child with someone that doesn't want to share anything/anyone with anyone. Do I think Jason is innocent....No but I also don't think he is at fault for Bethenny not keeping her mouth shut like she is supposed to when it comes to him.

1 minute ago, Happy Camper said:

Does anyone know if Dennis is divorced yet? Is there any confirmed news on this?

He is still married, hasn't officially filed for divorce from everything I have read. 

[BBHN]

Quote

It's true, he didn't used the cartoon-baddie expression "I will destroy you" in every email, but does he need to?

He comes off like a dick enough as it is.

Quote

He doesn't like her talking about the divorce.  He doesn't like her friends talking about him.  He doesn't like her dating a man that is really rich.  He doesn't like this man in his daughters life.  He doesn't like her getting the apartment.  He doesn't like her suing the attorney he hired to set up the trust that was declared fraudulent. He doesn't like her giving Bryn riding lessons, flying Bryn to Vail and Aspen to learn how to ski.  He doesnt' like her living and breathing and making more money that he does.  He needs help.

And he wants Bethenny to not sue the lawyer which may drag his mother into court.  And he wants all men out of his daughters life.  And he wants Bethenny to dance to his tune.  Answer his emails.  Do what he says.  Tell him what he wants to know when he wants to know it.  Or he just wants her to stop talking about her feelings and the divorce.  And I guess the best way to do that is to call her ugly and irrelevant and verbally attack her and Dennis at Bryn's school.

Sorry, I take it back. He is a supreme dick.

Quote

I think if Jason's reputation is tarnished and his job is in jeopardy it's more likely because of his own actions (the criminal charges brought on by his own behavior) than anything Bethenny has said.  

Seriously.

[film noire]

5 hours ago, Happy Camper said:

Does anyone know if Dennis is divorced yet? Is there any confirmed news on this?

http://people.com/tv/bethenny-frankel-dennis-shields-back-together-after-split/

He kind of gives me the creeps.

Me too. Shields being amused by Frankel's slut shaming & not dissuading her from using his daughter as a cheap wrecking ball at the reunion =  lowlife pig. 

Edited October 2, 2017 by film noire

[gundysgirl]

12 hours ago, Jel said:

 

Even if all that's true, WireWrap, and the only reason he sent her threatening emails and texts is because "she drove him to it", that's blaming the victim. Jason is an adult and is responsible for his behavior.  I think it's less scary (with lesser consequences) if he was threatening to destroy her public image instead of her person, but it doesn't make it any less of a threat. 

Exactly - the victim gets blamed time and time again.

The part about it that fascinates me is the timing of it all. I haven't read through it all as carefully as I could have, but it seems like the deal with the texts and emails started after the season ended. After the reunion. Was Bethenny, Carole, or anyone else talking much about Jason at that time? It seems like most of the conversation about Jason was happening during the season. If it were all so hard, why not make a big thing of it then? Why not mention in any of the dozens of communications that she was breaking some sort of court-ordered arrangement? Why not get the courts involved if there were rules being violated? That would seem to be the sensible thing to do. Remind her of the fact that she was supposedly breaking some rule or something. It seems like he was harassing her after the divorce was finalized, the season was over, and she had pretty much moved on with her life. She seemed to be interviewing that she was happy to be moving on. I cannot help but think that drove him nuts.