Kyle Richards: Pantene Poster Girl

[dosodog]

She seemed to be really annoyed that 70% of the audience thinks Teddi has her head up her ass.

[SunnyBeBe]

5 minutes ago, suomi said:

Fuckin' Kyle, on WWHL after part 2 of the reunion.

"The housewives, [we should be] talking about how we get along on the show, what we do on the show."

Also, (I missed what led into it) trying to clean up something about her husband by saying "Our kids, our husbands, they don't sign up to be on the show." (So there shouldn't be husband or kid questions or bombshells). 

This, from the women who clipped her husband's toenails on national TV and waxes rhapsodic about her husband and daughters on national TV every chance she gets.

I don't wish her ill exactly but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. 

Kyle is insufferable. Saw tonight on WWHL. She is so full of it. I've now decided that that if LVP breaks down and reconciles with her....I'll write LVP off. I feel that deeply about it. I am officially over this woman. Hard to believe I used to like her. 

[SuprSuprElevated]

[Jel]

On Twitter, Kyle says:

Oddly enough reality TV can be like that too. Dorit made a mistake. She should have turned the dog back into Vanderpump Dogs. There is no disputing that. Maybe it was the $5,000 return policy that made Dorit think finding a good home for Lucy on her own was a better choice.

The $5,000 penalty is not for returning the dog to VPD; it's for giving it away to someplace else. VPD, like any shelter, understands that not all adoptions work out and that's why they will accept back any dog they adopt out.  Because they want to know that the dog will go to a good new home, they put a clause in the contract that is designed to prevent people from rehoming a dog on their own.

So is Kyle so stupid she doesn't understand this very rudimentary and probably universal shelter policy, or is she intentionally misleading people?

I find it very hard to believe that Kyle doesn't know that, so I think she is being intentionally misleading here. Her vendetta continues.

[SweetieDarling]

10 hours ago, suomi said:

Fuckin' Kyle, on WWHL after part 2 of the reunion.

"The housewives, [we should be] talking about how we get along on the show, what we do on the show."

Also, (I missed what led into it) trying to clean up something about her husband by saying "Our kids, our husbands, they don't sign up to be on the show." (So there shouldn't be husband or kid questions or bombshells). 

This, from the women who clipped her husband's toenails on national TV and waxes rhapsodic about her husband and daughters on national TV every chance she gets.

I don't wish her ill exactly but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. 

Fine, then no gocart shopping sprees with Portia, no Farrahween, and no bogus Agency anniversary party,..and Especially no toenail clipping!

Funny how it's ok to sit around laughing at stoned Mo, but shyster Mo is off limits. Kyle can use Agency events as filming events, but we can't ask where all the money came from to pay for it. We can pretend to be impressed that PK manages Boy George, but his other financial dealings are off limits. We can see countless Beverly Beach promotions, but don't ask about the unpaid business loan stories in the news. 

If they aren't prepared for our opinions and unbelievable research abilities, they shouldn't be able to use it as their story line.

[RealHousewife]

Regarding the GD house, even from Kim’s perspective, I don’t think it’s fair to say Kyle and Mauricio stole her house. It was really ugly and has followed them all these years later. 

I agree with Kyle that kids should be off limits. I loved that Ken defended Lisa, but to think it’s fair to bring up the heartache of a teenager on the show, I’m with Kyle on that one-not cool.

Regarding the husbands, if they’re not prominently featured, I also tend to side with leaving them alone. Some of them, like Ken and Mauricio, have regularly filmed quite a bit, and they’re both big boys and know what there signing up for imo. Not at all the same thing as Rinna’s child, who is so young she could be Ken’s grandchild. 

I don’t want to think of Mauricio as a scammer, but Kyle didn’t clear the lawsuit up for me the way I’d hoped. She said because he didn’t pocket the difference in the amount it was sold the second time that he couldn’t have cheated the seller? Anyone else have more info? I never thought he stole Kim’s house and totally believe he has been a great brother in law, husband, and father. 

[smores]

2 hours ago, Jel said:

So is Kyle so stupid

Yes.

37 minutes ago, RealHousewife said:

I don’t want to think of Mauricio as a scammer, but Kyle didn’t clear the lawsuit up for me the way I’d hoped. She said because he didn’t pocket the difference in the amount it was sold the second time that he couldn’t have cheated the seller? Anyone else have more info? I never thought he stole Kim’s house and totally believe he has been a great brother in law, husband, and father. 

I THINK what Kyle was trying to say is that Mauricio didn't make the $32 or $36M on the house, that it was the profit over the purchase price.  So she was trying to deflect and make it sound like he didn't have huge profits, when in reality, he did.  

The short version of the suit is that the house was put up for sale and went under contract to a Mauricio Oberfeld for $33.5M.  Then, Mauricio U negotiated $1M in credits for repairs, so the ultimate purchase price was $32.5M.  Mauricio U was also partnered with Mauricio O in purchasing the house, a fact that was not disclosed to anyone until the house was put back up for sale at $69.9M a year later.

While the property was under contract to Mauricio O, another buyer had approached them and offered $8M to take over the deal.  They countered the other buyer, but did not tell the sellers or the DOJ about this other offer, and Mauricio O remained the buyer at the lower price.  There are also allegations that Mauricio U pushed the sellers to keep extending escrow without Mauricio O having to put down a required $1M deposit.  

[RealHousewife]

2 hours ago, smores said:

Yes.

I THINK what Kyle was trying to say is that Mauricio didn't make the $32 or $36M on the house, that it was the profit over the purchase price.  So she was trying to deflect and make it sound like he didn't have huge profits, when in reality, he did.  

The short version of the suit is that the house was put up for sale and went under contract to a Mauricio Oberfeld for $33.5M.  Then, Mauricio U negotiated $1M in credits for repairs, so the ultimate purchase price was $32.5M.  Mauricio U was also partnered with Mauricio O in purchasing the house, a fact that was not disclosed to anyone until the house was put back up for sale at $69.9M a year later.

While the property was under contract to Mauricio O, another buyer had approached them and offered $8M to take over the deal.  They countered the other buyer, but did not tell the sellers or the DOJ about this other offer, and Mauricio O remained the buyer at the lower price.  There are also allegations that Mauricio U pushed the sellers to keep extending escrow without Mauricio O having to put down a required $1M deposit.  

That was my impression too.

I love how puppygate has two John’s in the scandal, and the lawsuit has two Mauricio’s. Lol 

[movingtargetgal]

Mauricio U was representing the seller in this real estate transaction.  The US Dept of Justice also had a claim on some of the proceeds from the sale of the property.  Mauricio U secretly partnered with the buyer to buy the property.  He received higher offers but did not tell the seller OR the DOJ!  He is in big trouble.  At the very least he could lose his real estate license.  He defrauded  his client and the US Government.  He could be facing jail time.  On WWHL last night Kyle seemed really scared and she should be.  What if Kyle signed any paperwork on this deal.  She could also be in trouble.  

[Higgins]

1 hour ago, movingtargetgal said:

Mauricio U was representing the seller in this real estate transaction.  The US Dept of Justice also had a claim on some of the proceeds from the sale of the property.  Mauricio U secretly partnered with the buyer to buy the property.  He received higher offers but did not tell the seller OR the DOJ!  He is in big trouble.  At the very least he could lose his real estate license.  He defrauded  his client and the US Government.  He could be facing jail time.  On WWHL last night Kyle seemed really scared and she should be.  What if Kyle signed any paperwork on this deal.  She could also be in trouble.  

Fraud if proven. Loss of brokerage too.

[smores]

3 hours ago, Higgins said:

Fraud if proven. Loss of brokerage too.

Interestingly, the brokerage license wasn't in his name, it was in his partner something Rose.  I can't remember his first name at the moment and I'm being too lazy to look it up.  However, last October, when the first wave of the lawsuits broke, that partner removed himself as the partner on the brokerage license and someone else is now on it.  The Rose guy is now selling again primarily and according to a recent article, the bulk of the major listings they are getting are based on him and Mauricio, without the two of them, they wouldn't have the numbers they do, regardless of the hundreds of agents.  There is speculation that he had to go back to selling to boost the agencies numbers.

Also there is talk that they have traded on the fact that your listing might be on tv due to either RHOBH or Million Dollar Listing as a reason to list with them, that they could get you on tv.  It's kind of sketchy given that the Agency isn't actually the focus of either show and especially so since Kyle is all "our husbands don't ask to be on the show!"

[breezy424]

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-umansky-sweetwater-20180930-story.html

https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/investors-flip-malibu-estate-once-involved-in-corruption-scandal-for-69-9-million-59770

note:  The later offer was to the buyer.  The home was already in contract.

The home was totally renovated.  Just like all those flipping shows.  You can make lots of money because people don't want to do it themselves.  See Flipping Out, etc.

[smores]

The buyer was Mauricio Umansky.  Who was also the agent representing the seller.  See the problem?  He had a duty to the seller, as he was representing him.  They (the buyers), countered the offer to the buyers, but neglected to inform the sellers or the DOJ.  This is a major problem, given that Mauricio Umansky was also a buyer.  And that fact (that Mauricio Umansky was one of the buyers), was something else not disclosed to the seller or the DOJ.  

If I hire someone to do a job for me, like sell my house, I am trusting that they are representing MY interests above everything else.  Not that they are looking to snap up the best price on a deal for themselves.  

And we don't know what they did renovation wise.  The articles all say "spent millions" on renovations, but nowhere does it say "We spent $15M renovating the pool, putting a new roof, a new furnace, adding a guest house, blah, blah, blah"  That might actually justify doubling the price of the property somewhat if they could cogently say, we bought the property (other than Mauricio not disclosing that he was a buyer and all), for $32M and then spent $20M doing this, we gutted the house, added this, did all of that, and now we've turned it into this, which makes it worth $70M.  But that explanation has never happened, which honestly makes me wonder what actually was done, given that you'd think as realtors they'd pretty much be bragging about the improvements everywhere.  It is the simplest defense to justify the purchase price.

[breezy424]

According to the second article:

A construction trust deed for $26 million indicates the group put some sweat (and serious cash) into renovating the property before selling it off for double their money on March 31, according to records accessed through PropertyShark.

[walnutqueen]

1 hour ago, breezy424 said:

According to the second article:

A construction trust deed for $26 million indicates the group put some sweat (and serious cash) into renovating the property before selling it off for double their money on March 31, according to records accessed through PropertyShark.

Just because the construction trust deed was for $26 mil, it doesn't necessarily mean that was the amount they put into improvements, does it?

[Higgins]

2 minutes ago, walnutqueen said:

Just because the construction trust deed was for $26 mil, it doesn't necessarily mean that was the amount they put into improvements, does it?

The lack of dual agency disclosure and non disclosure of all offers is fraud and dereliction of his fiduciary responsibility under law. 

Edited July 25, 2019 by Higgins

[breezy424]

4 minutes ago, walnutqueen said:

Just because the construction trust deed was for $26 mil, it doesn't necessarily mean that was the amount they put into improvements, does it?

Why pay interest on money you're not going to use?

2 minutes ago, Higgins said:

The lack of dual agency disclosure and non disclosure of all offers is fraud and dereliction of his fiduciary responsibility under law. 

It wasn't an offer.  It was a letter of intent to the buyer.  It's not a legal document and the seller had already signed a contract which is legally binding.

[Higgins]

5 minutes ago, breezy424 said:

Why pay interest on money you're not going to use?

It wasn't an offer.  It was a letter of intent to the buyer.  It's not a legal document and the seller had already signed a contract which is legally binding.

It all depends. Was the earnest money deposit paid as contracted?

[heatherchandler]

8 minutes ago, breezy424 said:

Why pay interest on money you're not going to use?

It wasn't an offer.  It was a letter of intent to the buyer.  It's not a legal document and the seller had already signed a contract which is legally binding.

Mauricio must have done something hinky or the lawsuit would not be allowed to proceed, right?

[walnutqueen]

5 minutes ago, breezy424 said:

Why pay interest on money you're not going to use?

Who knows?  Without pertinent details, we're all just dancing in the dark.  But being the seller's agent as well as a secret (until the last minute, it would seem) partner of the buyer seems totally shady to me.   Therefore, it would not surprise me that other parts of this deal are also suspect ...

[langford peel]

 Everybody knows you have to grease the wheels of commerce to make it work and let’s face there is nobody as greasy as Mauricio.

[Lisin]

3 hours ago, heatherchandler said:

Mauricio must have done something hinky or the lawsuit would not be allowed to proceed, right?

For the sake of brevity... no.

Just because a lawsuit is not immediately thrown out of court or just because a motion to dismiss isn't granted does not automatically mean that the defendant is going to lose and the plaintiff is going to win. 

[BluBrd47]

On 7/24/2019 at 10:47 AM, SweetieDarling said:

Fine, then no gocart shopping sprees with Portia, no Farrahween, and no bogus Agency anniversary party,..and Especially no toenail clipping!

Funny how it's ok to sit around laughing at stoned Mo, but shyster Mo is off limits. Kyle can use Agency events as filming events, but we can't ask where all the money came from to pay for it. We can pretend to be impressed that PK manages Boy George, but his other financial dealings are off limits. We can see countless Beverly Beach promotions, but don't ask about the unpaid business loan stories in the news. 

If they aren't prepared for our opinions and unbelievable research abilities, they shouldn't be able to use it as their story line.

Quit with the damn white and Great Gatsby parties too. No more of those damn christmas card shoots or chats with the Morally Corrupt Faye Resnick (I know she's not one of the kids but she's another person Kyle tries to pimp out). No soup for you Kyle!!

Edited July 25, 2019 by BluBrd47

[heatherchandler]

57 minutes ago, Lisin said:

For the sake of brevity... no.

Just because a lawsuit is not immediately thrown out of court or just because a motion to dismiss isn't granted does not automatically mean that the defendant is going to lose and the plaintiff is going to win. 

I agree, but there has to be SOMETHING to this, it's not like this is a made-up issue, a judge looked at the facts and determined that there is enough to proceed, so it's not crazy talk to think he may be guilty.  

[Higgins]

20 minutes ago, heatherchandler said:

I agree, but there has to be SOMETHING to this, it's not like this is a made-up issue, a judge looked at the facts and determined that there is enough to proceed, so it's not crazy talk to think he may be guilty.  

In addition, his insurance company made a determination not to defend his practices. That act was not immaterial.

[suomi]

I hope the Kyle defenders and LVP haters saw this in The Media thread. It proves that LVP was lied about and piled on.

From Sessa to Kyle:

Don’t twist this & create ur own narrative. Here is the Location Agreement for the scene @VanderpumpDogs It was requested by production on 7/25 BEFORE the dog was dumped (on 7/29) & was supposed to be a scene between u and @teddimellancamp grooming ur dogs on 8/2)!

4 hours ago, Rhetorica said:

Heaven only knows if this is true:

https://realityblurb.com/2019/07/25/john-sessa-leaks-emails-from-rhobh-producers-and-shelter-to-disprove-kyle-richards-claim-that-lisa-vanderpump-set-up-puppy-gate-drama-at-vanderpump-dogs/

3 hours ago, MatildaMoody said:

It's true. The back and forth between him and Kyle is all over Twitter. I love that Kyle is being called out on her lies about smelling a setup when they were filming at VPD. Kyle knew she was scheduled to film there BEFORE Dorit even dumped the puppy. So all of her pearl-clutching and acting like LVP set up that filming specifically to throw Dorit under the bus, was complete and total BS and Sessa brought the receipts to prove it. 

 

Edited July 25, 2019 by suomi

[SweetieDarling]

3 minutes ago, suomi said:

I hope the Kyle defenders and LVP haters saw this in The Media thread. It proves that LVP was lied about and piled on.

 

So then, did Teddi tell Kyle about the setup? I ask because Kyle didn't bring a dog to groom. LVP seemed to be expecting her to bring one, and even asked her where the dog was. 

[Jel]

I remember Kyle making a point out of telling us that it was a lie that she was going there to get her dog groomed. That she had never had her dog groomed there, and she didn't even bring her dog.

Lisa said, Oh yes, Kyle is bringing her dog to be groomed.  There's the location agreement to prove that.

Is it possible that the Bravo production team didn't tell Kyle or give her the shooting schedule (or whatever it is they do) for that day? Maybe Kyle didn't know she was supposed to be having her dog groomed? Is that even possible?

[MatildaMoody]

4 minutes ago, SweetieDarling said:

So then, did Teddi tell Kyle about the setup? I ask because Kyle didn't bring a dog to groom. LVP seemed to be expecting her to bring one, and even asked her where the dog was. 

I believe she did. I think it's why Teddi and Kyle kept trying to make it happen even when LVP tried to shut it down. It also explains why months ago, Kyle was claiming that she would never take Cloe to be groomed because she was too old to be an alibi when absolutely no one mentioned the name of the dog she was supposed to bring to be groomed. She gave herself away and has been lying this entire time. She knew she was supposed to bring Portia and her dog to be groomed for filming that day. Now she is pretending the whole filming event was only set up to throw Dorit under the bus. She is a LIAR!

[Jel]

11 minutes ago, MatildaMoody said:

I believe she did. I think it's why Teddi and Kyle kept trying to make it happen even when LVP tried to shut it down. It also explains why months ago, Kyle was claiming that she would never take Cloe to be groomed because she was too old to be an alibi when absolutely no one mentioned the name of the dog she was supposed to bring to be groomed. She gave herself away and has been lying this entire time. She knew she was supposed to bring Portia and her dog to be groomed for filming that day. Now she is pretending the whole filming event was only set up to throw Dorit under the bus. She is a LIAR!

My personal fave of that epi was Kyle's TH "WHY is everyone trying to get me to notice this dog?!"

Cut to scene of no one even talking to Kyle about the dog and Lisa saying she doesn't want to talk about it and won't talk about it.

[Jel]

Here's a couple of Kyle's tweets:

I was brought there to unknowingly be a part of making Dorit look bad for entertainment purposes I suppose. Trust me , I know you think she didn’t need much help. I read the comments, see the preception of her from people that have never met her.

Immediately followed by:

People who have spent their entire life treating life as a game and “winning” at it have had lots of practice. When I was told to go to Vanderpump Dogs way back at the beginning of the season, I knew right away what was going on.

You were brought there unknowingly, AND you knew right way what was going on? You knew what was happening and you didn't know? Hmm.

Liars do tend to contradict themselves.

[dosodog]

Isn't Rinna's tagline this year:

In the game of life, Rinna takes all.

And here's Kyle with :  People who have spent their entire life treating life like a game and "winning" at it have had lots of practice. 

 

Edited July 25, 2019 by dosodog

[Door County Cherry]

7 hours ago, heatherchandler said:

I agree, but there has to be SOMETHING to this, it's not like this is a made-up issue, a judge looked at the facts and determined that there is enough to proceed, so it's not crazy talk to think he may be guilty.  

There is something to this but it's a civil case.   It might not be so black and white as guilty/not guilty since reasonable/greedy people can have equally strong beliefs.  Mauricio could be ordered to pay money and still feel everything he did was on the up and up.  Mauricio could also have no judgment against him and still have operated in a way most would find shady ethically but well within legal boundaries. 

The sellers selected an offer within the time frame they gave Mauricio to sell the house.  They think they should have been informed of any higher offers.  That position makes sense.  The buyers claim they never received any official/serious offers and didn't think it needed to be considered until they actually received one, especially since the house was already under contract.   That's also a legitimate point of view.  

I'm not a lawyer but all a judge not granting a dismissal says to me is that he didn't think the legal arguments the defendants used to argue for one merited that decision.  As far as I know, no actual evidence or facts have been put in play here. 

7 hours ago, Higgins said:

In addition, his insurance company made a determination not to defend his practices. That act was not immaterial.

Ah yes, insurance companies: the paragons of virtue who aren't greedy and always willing to pay big on behalf of their clients without a fight. 

[smores]

13 hours ago, breezy424 said:

Why pay interest on money you're not going to use?

It wasn't an offer.  It was a letter of intent to the buyer.  It's not a legal document and the seller had already signed a contract which is legally binding.

But then why did the buyer (ie, Mauricio Umansky), make a counter offer to the person who sent a letter of intent?  If the contract is legally binding, why would the buyer be negotiating on their end?  And since Mauricio was the buyer, he clearly had knowledge that they could potentially have a higher priced offer, which makes him responsible for notifying his client.  His first duty is to them, not himself.  

13 hours ago, Higgins said:

It all depends. Was the earnest money deposit paid as contracted?

Nope, it was not.  One of the contentions is that Mauricio Umansky pushed the sellers to take the offer from Mauricio O (and, unknowingly, Mauricio U), without the required $1 million deposit.  He also pushed them to continue to extend the escrow time period while Mauricio O (and, again, himself), obtained the financing.  All while not disclosing that he was a purchaser on the property.  

13 hours ago, walnutqueen said:

Who knows?  Without pertinent details, we're all just dancing in the dark.  But being the seller's agent as well as a secret (until the last minute, it would seem) partner of the buyer seems totally shady to me.   Therefore, it would not surprise me that other parts of this deal are also suspect ...

It was a secret until the time the property went up for sale at $70 million.  It was never revealed when the property was initially sold by Mauricio and the Agency to Mauricio O and Mauricio U.  They hid that.  It was only revealed when it was listed.  

6 hours ago, MatildaMoody said:

I believe she did. I think it's why Teddi and Kyle kept trying to make it happen even when LVP tried to shut it down. It also explains why months ago, Kyle was claiming that she would never take Cloe to be groomed because she was too old to be an alibi when absolutely no one mentioned the name of the dog she was supposed to bring to be groomed. She gave herself away and has been lying this entire time. She knew she was supposed to bring Portia and her dog to be groomed for filming that day. Now she is pretending the whole filming event was only set up to throw Dorit under the bus. She is a LIAR!

Yep.  We just need a clip of Camille saying "You're such a fucking liar KYLE!"  

[sunshine23]

On 7/23/2019 at 11:39 PM, SunnyBeBe said:

Kyle is insufferable. Saw tonight on WWHL. She is so full of it. I've now decided that that if LVP breaks down and reconciles with her....I'll write LVP off. I feel that deeply about it. I am officially over this woman. Hard to believe I used to like her. 

On 7/24/2019 at 10:47 AM, SweetieDarling said:

Fine, then no gocart shopping sprees with Portia, no Farrahween, and no bogus Agency anniversary party,..and Especially no toenail clipping!

Funny how it's ok to sit around laughing at stoned Mo, but shyster Mo is off limits. Kyle can use Agency events as filming events, but we can't ask where all the money came from to pay for it. We can pretend to be impressed that PK manages Boy George, but his other financial dealings are off limits. We can see countless Beverly Beach promotions, but don't ask about the unpaid business loan stories in the news. 

If they aren't prepared for our opinions and unbelievable research abilities, they shouldn't be able to use it as their story line.

Kyle is more than willing to showcase her family when it suits her and results in more money in her pocket. Well, with the positives, come the negatives. If you don't want your family's business out there, don't put it out there. She also can't dictate or control what other people say but she can control what she says and if you go back to previous seasons, she's made fun or and/or attacked other husbands on the show. Again, this just shows what a hyocrite she is. Her tagline should be "Do as I say, not as I do."

On 7/24/2019 at 11:08 AM, RealHousewife said:

Regarding the GD house, even from Kim’s perspective, I don’t think it’s fair to say Kyle and Mauricio stole her house. It was really ugly and has followed them all these years later. 

I agree with Kyle that kids should be off limits. I loved that Ken defended Lisa, but to think it’s fair to bring up the heartache of a teenager on the show, I’m with Kyle on that one-not cool.

Regarding the husbands, if they’re not prominently featured, I also tend to side with leaving them alone. Some of them, like Ken and Mauricio, have regularly filmed quite a bit, and they’re both big boys and know what there signing up for imo. Not at all the same thing as Rinna’s child, who is so young she could be Ken’s grandchild. 

I don’t want to think of Mauricio as a scammer, but Kyle didn’t clear the lawsuit up for me the way I’d hoped. She said because he didn’t pocket the difference in the amount it was sold the second time that he couldn’t have cheated the seller? Anyone else have more info? I never thought he stole Kim’s house and totally believe he has been a great brother in law, husband, and father. 

These women have been around the block a time or two or ten, especially Kyle and Rinna. They knew exactly what they were signing up for when agreeing to do this show and putting their kids on display. Its okay for them to criticize others and their children, or for their children to call bystanders names like chub chubs, etc., but when something is said about their family, they clutch their pearls. They have taught their daughters to hustle for a buck, even if it means getting more attention for opening up about an eating disorder, but again, when someone else brings it up its "hands off". I do believe if these two hadn't shoved the businesses, husbands, and children down our throats people would be more sympathetic to their perspective of Ken's tweets. 

[Jel]

31 minutes ago, sunshine23 said:

Kyle is more than willing to showcase her family when it suits her and results in more money in her pocket. Well, with the positives, come the negatives. If you don't want your family's business out there, don't put it out there. She also can't dictate or control what other people say but she can control what she says and if you go back to previous seasons, she's made fun or and/or attacked other husbands on the show. Again, this just shows what a hyocrite she is. Her tagline should be "Do as I say, not as I do."

These women have been around the block a time or two or ten, especially Kyle and Rinna. They knew exactly what they were signing up for when agreeing to do this show and putting their kids on display. Its okay for them to criticize others and their children, or for their children to call bystanders names like chub chubs, etc., but when something is said about their family, they clutch their pearls. They have taught their daughters to hustle for a buck, even if it means getting more attention for opening up about an eating disorder, but again, when someone else brings it up its "hands off". I do believe if these two hadn't shoved the businesses, husbands, and children down our throats people would be more sympathetic to their perspective of Ken's tweets. 

Exactly. And while the HWs may have a secret arrangement amongst themselves, to keep their dirtiest little secrets secret, I as a viewer do not have the same agreement, and I would never agree to that anyway. I watch this show expecting to see these women and their lives "warts and all".   

I think they've got a lot of flipping nerve actually, thinking they can have all the trappings of fame, all the great and lovely, all the money, all the admiration and adoration and the ability to pick and choose what the audience gets to see.  They are savvy to how the process works now, and know they can't really trust the producers to keep the unflattering truth out, so they agree to do it themselves. Welp, sorry, but I don't agree.  As you say, you take the good with the bad, and as  a viewer of a "reality show", that is my reasonable expectation of what we should get. When they agree to keep their secrets, they are kind of conspiring against the audience to prevent us from getting the full "reality". 

LAWSUIT!? Who's with me!? (kidding. Like 99% kidding. Unless we have a case! 😉

[dosodog]

Bravo is complicit in the conspiring too!

I still do not understand why they didn't show their footage of the Bahama Pool Chasing incident.

It happened WHILE THEY WERE ACTUALLY SHOOTING!  And they covered it up, indirectly, by not airing it.

This wasn't "she said to someone else, who said to someone else, the smoking gun is the word nip" situation. It really happened on Bravo's watch.  And they hid it.

And I think the only reason we saw it on the reunion is because someone at the pool uploaded it to the internet and it forced Bravo's hand.

Otherwise we would probably never had known that happened. Which makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

She is SO me.

[BluBrd47]

Did anyone actually glean anything from the Bahamas footage at the reunion? All I saw was Denise frolicking in her bikini. (No shade if I had her body I would spend my life at the beach.) I saw the original video and it was far juicier.

Edited July 26, 2019 by BluBrd47

[sunshine23]

1 hour ago, Jel said:

Exactly. And while the HWs may have a secret arrangement amongst themselves, to keep their dirtiest little secrets secret, I as a viewer do not have the same agreement, and I would never agree to that anyway. I watch this show expecting to see these women and their lives "warts and all".   

I think they've got a lot of flipping nerve actually, thinking they can have all the trappings of fame, all the great and lovely, all the money, all the admiration and adoration and the ability to pick and choose what the audience gets to see.  They are savvy to how the process works now, and know they can't really trust the producers to keep the unflattering truth out, so they agree to do it themselves. Welp, sorry, but I don't agree.  As you say, you take the good with the bad, and as  a viewer of a "reality show", that is my reasonable expectation of what we should get. When they agree to keep their secrets, they are kind of conspiring against the audience to prevent us from getting the full "reality". 

LAWSUIT!? Who's with me!? (kidding. Like 99% kidding. Unless we have a case! 😉

Sure, I'm in. Ha ha

Seriously, if we go by Kyle's "husbands and familes are off limits" statement then the following can't be shown or talked about;

Rinna - daughters "modeling careers", Harry's 3 seconds of airtime per season, Lois

Denise - Charlie Sheen, Aaron and his anatomy and sexual prowess/activities, Eloise's disability, Samantha going to prom

Dorit - PK promoting Boy George (loved Culture Club in the 80's), Jagger at photo shoots

Teddi - Edwin's security company, her kids' tantrums

Erika - anything Tom, but she really doesn't talk about him much. Its probably part of their arrangement. 

Kyle - Mauricio at work or wearing his logo when not at work, daughters at work, bringing daughters to school, cute and adorable Portia (not so cute and adorable anymore), Farrahween, family vacations, Kim, Kathy, anything Hilton, etc.

This would make the show almost more boring than this season already was. To quote "Facts of Life", "You take the good, you take the bad." 

Edited July 26, 2019 by sunshine23
forgot to add Harry's name

[dosodog]

We can trade out Tom and replace him with Mikey.

So no more Mikey!

[RealHousewife]

2 hours ago, sunshine23 said:

Kyle is more than willing to showcase her family when it suits her and results in more money in her pocket. Well, with the positives, come the negatives. If you don't want your family's business out there, don't put it out there. She also can't dictate or control what other people say but she can control what she says and if you go back to previous seasons, she's made fun or and/or attacked other husbands on the show. Again, this just shows what a hyocrite she is. Her tagline should be "Do as I say, not as I do."

These women have been around the block a time or two or ten, especially Kyle and Rinna. They knew exactly what they were signing up for when agreeing to do this show and putting their kids on display. Its okay for them to criticize others and their children, or for their children to call bystanders names like chub chubs, etc., but when something is said about their family, they clutch their pearls. They have taught their daughters to hustle for a buck, even if it means getting more attention for opening up about an eating disorder, but again, when someone else brings it up its "hands off". I do believe if these two hadn't shoved the businesses, husbands, and children down our throats people would be more sympathetic to their perspective of Ken's tweets. 

I actually loved Ken’s tweet. I’m sure it broke his heart that Lisa was hurting this  year and he was just trying to be a supportive husband. 

It’s true the women know what they’re signing up for, but I think the kind thing to do is keep it about the RH and leave someone like Delilah completely out of it. It’s possible Ken himself didn’t think much about that very small part of his tweet, so I don’t mean to sound like I’m picking him apart about it. Again, overall I loved that he tweeted all he did. I do agree with Kyle though, it can get quite mean when all gloves come off. If there are no boundaries, people like Brandi think it’s okay to get into really personal family stuff out of nowhere. 

I like Mauricio, but he’s been on RH so much and featured his career on it, so I get the argument about that situation being fair game. Ditto if someone brought up one of Lisa’s restaurants. If someone brought up something painful regarding any of their kids, I think it’s low. I also didn’t like Kim wanting to go after Harry because she was mad at Rinna. Harry hardly appeared on the show and didn’t do anything to Kim.

I know calling anyone chubby is mean, but I don’t think Rinna’s kids are evil for this. There was a RH of Miami whose son attacked a homeless person years ago, and I swear the outrage of the girls “chub chub” comments which weren’t even directed at anyone specific rivals the incredibly cruel act of what that guy did. Ken himself actually described Dana (expensive sunglasses chick) as chubby season 2. I know Rinna's girls aren’t the most polite and respectful, but I don’t personally think they deserve all the hate they get. 

[smores]

4 hours ago, Jel said:

Exactly. And while the HWs may have a secret arrangement amongst themselves, to keep their dirtiest little secrets secret, I as a viewer do not have the same agreement, and I would never agree to that anyway. I watch this show expecting to see these women and their lives "warts and all".   

I wouldn't mind so much if they didn't discuss the eating disorder of Rinna's daughter.  If her daughter wanted to keep that quiet and off camera, I think that would be fine, as long as we didn't have the whole family bbq scene, and Rinna had some other kind of storyline.  Rinna is the primary person, it's a pretty personal thing for her daughter, I could see skipping that particular topic.  

But we've seen The Agency for years and years.  The lawsuit against it is all over the place and yet we have to pretend that it's not happening? Even while you go and take lunch to Mauricio and your kids and we have to see multiple parties for the place? Nope.  You don’t get to build the place up with a free commercial without also letting us know that it might be fraudulent.  

3 hours ago, sunshine23 said:

Sure, I'm in. Ha ha

Seriously, if we go by Kyle's "husbands and familes are off limits" statement then the following can't be shown or talked about;

Rinna - daughters "modeling careers", Harry's 3 seconds of airtime per season, Lois

Also with Rinna, maybe we should have left Nicolette out? She isn't on the show, has nothing to do with it and yet somehow Rinna started an entire war with her for no particular reason.

[AntAnn]

12 hours ago, smores said:

Also with Rinna, maybe we should have left Nicolette out? She isn't on the show, has nothing to do with it and yet somehow Rinna started an entire war with her for no particular reason.

Rinna always has a particular reason...self promotion and her family if that works better. Weird really. 

[smores]

True, but how can you make the argument that husbands and children should be off limits when you're going to bring a completely unrelated person into the mix the way she did? Nicolette has nothing to do with the show.  Charlie has nothing to do with the show.  It's one thing to mention in passing that someone was once married to this person and that is how you met, but to tell some sort of personal business of theirs? 

[Happy Camper]

On 7/26/2019 at 2:16 AM, smores said:

But then why did the buyer (ie, Mauricio Umansky), make a counter offer to the person who sent a letter of intent?  If the contract is legally binding, why would the buyer be negotiating on their end?  And since Mauricio was the buyer, he clearly had knowledge that they could potentially have a higher priced offer, which makes him responsible for notifying his client.  His first duty is to them, not himself.  

Nope, it was not.  One of the contentions is that Mauricio Umansky pushed the sellers to take the offer from Mauricio O (and, unknowingly, Mauricio U), without the required $1 million deposit.  He also pushed them to continue to extend the escrow time period while Mauricio O (and, again, himself), obtained the financing.  All while not disclosing that he was a purchaser on the property.  

It was a secret until  time the property went up for sale at $70 million.  It was never revealed when the property was initially sold by Mauricio and the Agency to Mauricio O and Mauricio U.  They hid that.  It was only revealed when it was listed.  

Yep.  We just need a clip of Camille saying "You're such a fucking liar KYLE!"  

Kyle: “In Beverly Hills, the truth always has a way of rising to the top.”

[Higgins]

1 hour ago, Happy Camper said:

Kyle: “In Beverly Hills, the truth always has a way of rising to the top.”

Yes it does.

https://allaboutthetea.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NEW_AATT-Watermarked-Amended-Complaint-Mauricio-Lawsuit.pdf

[Happy Camper]

20 minutes ago, Higgins said:

Yes it does.

https://allaboutthetea.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NEW_AATT-Watermarked-Amended-Complaint-Mauricio-Lawsuit.pdf

What are they going to do with all of these?

[charming]

Funny how Kyle doesn't want anything negative about families mentioned. Isn't that her big gripe with LVP? That she wants to project an outward image of being perfect? Yet here goes Kyle and the puppygang doing the same thing.  Perfect marriages, perfect businesses, perfect finances, perfect children except not so much.

[langford peel]

8 hours ago, Happy Camper said:

Kyle: “In Beverly Hills, the truth always has a way of rising to the top.”

It’s true. She does rise to the top. Like pond scum.

[BluBrd47]

7 minutes ago, langford peel said:

It’s true. She does rise to the top. Like pond scum.

I think Mauricio is an amazing dad. (No pun intended.) I dont doubt he is as great with the girls as he appears. But I wonder if there are other truths about him that will rise to the surface.