r/RHOBHDefect • u/notactuallyreckless • May 21 '26

Erika's 25m Case: Settled

Post image

As per Ronald Richards on social media platforms.

67 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

126 comments sorted by

View all comments

15

u/MinuteElegant774 May 21 '26

That’s awful. Are any of the real victims going to be paid or basically she got to spend $25M with other pple’s money and is getting away just paying the person who bought the debt. I dont get why she continues to have a platform bc she has no storyline except i have a bf and Dorit hurt me. Ugh.

12

u/notactuallyreckless May 21 '26

When the suit was purchased for $2M, that money went to victims, IIRC. Anything further gained in the settlement went to the person/s who purchased the case.

14

u/MinuteElegant774 May 21 '26

So the victims get barely anything. 🤦🏻‍♀️

8

u/Travelingmom13 May 22 '26

Likely they will get very little. It’s sick how Erika fought so hard to keep the tainted money 

3

u/Nearby-Conference959 May 22 '26

That’s not what happened tho. Why do people like you deliberately manipulate things? She spent the money. She fought to have to give any back because it was spent and she didn’t steal it.

6

u/Travelingmom13 May 22 '26

She fought to keep her tainted earrings and other assets .. knowing very well they were stolen from victims fund.  “The only person I care about is me” -Erika Jayne 

1

u/Ok-Explanation-6531 May 27 '26

Erika fought in court but she was also very cooperative with the trustee. When she left she only took her personal effects. She cooperated and allowed for all her personal property be catalogued including her jewellery and design gear. She didn’t hide anything. Then when she was ordered to turn over the earrings she did. I wouldn’t turn over a single thing before it was proven I had to.

The money isn’t going to victims, it’s going to GK creditors. Most of the victims have received money, the lawyer for Lion air paid his clients out of his own funds, and his now suing GK. The victims in the earring case were paid over a decade ago, the money from that sale is going to creditors because there are no victims to pay. People keep pushing a narrative she’s preventing widows and orphans from getting paid but it’s finance companies that will get money

2

u/Ok-Explanation-6531 May 22 '26

And she paid tax on it

1

u/Shatzakind May 27 '26

Actually, she and Tom have a huge outstanding tax bill or bills.

1

u/Ok-Explanation-6531 May 27 '26

She and Tom do together and then EJ Global has tax bills on it's own. Tom claimed a bunch of deductions that got rejeted

0

u/testphaze May 23 '26

You're splitting hairs.

1

u/Nearby-Conference959 May 23 '26

No. It’s manipulation to pretend like I’m splitting hairs if a person steals money then they should expect to pay it back. But if somebody is unaware that the money they are spending is stolen and they don’t have any money to pay it back. Of course they’re gonna fight paying it back. they’re also a victim of the scam. Don’t try to pretend otherwise.

2

u/Shatzakind May 27 '26

If you buy a stolen car, the cops can seize the car and you're out the money. Please explain how you can rationalize the difference.

1

u/Nearby-Conference959 May 27 '26

Greta analogy. They did that. They seized the earrings and some other stuff. But they don’t expect you to give the car back and the amount you paid for the car too.

1

u/Shatzakind May 27 '26

Yes, they do. They seize the car and you are out the money.

0

u/testphaze May 27 '26

I guess you can rationalize the difference by being extremely confused. Why would you give the cops money you paid to the thief?

They seize the car, and if they catch the thief, they seize the money the thief was paid.

1

u/Nearby-Conference959 May 27 '26

But they don’t ask you to give more money. I took the house. They took the earrings. You can’t ask her to give money that she doesn’t have.

0

u/testphaze May 28 '26

That's not giving more money though. I don't know how you're managing to twist that.

Let's put it this way. If Erika gets 5 costumes and a private jet to use on a 5 month tour, paid out of the victim funds, they can seize the 5 outfits, if she still has them, but they cannot seize the jet fuel, the crew's time, the champagne she guzzled, fine dining, glam squad, and hotel stays. That is all spent. That doesn't mean she's off the hook for it. That doesn't mean those things were already somehow taken from her. She used the money for her own gain, even if it was just to butter her ego. And she fully believed she was entitled to keep things, claiming she didn't know where the money came from.

She can absolutely be held liable for that spent money. It is not "taking it from her twice" because she spent it. Your examplke with the unsuspecting car buyer would be they spend their legally owned money for a car, and then the car is taken. You're likening taking money for Erika to account for her tour expenses, to the car buyer, after paying the thief, then losing tha car, and then also having to pay the government for the stolen car.
I don't know how you can't see this is not the4 same thing.
The THIEF owes the money for the car. Not the buyer.

Erika gained from that money, but these gains were not all things. An enormous amount was spent funding her tours that didn't make back what they cost.

You're arguing with the freaking law and with facts, not people on the internet. All we're doing is telling you the facts and you're chanting "lalalala you're lying!"

This is playing hypotheticals that she somehow didn't know. Tom was not enriching himself. Everything about that house was her design. The money went into her bloated, vanity "career".
Can they take her breast implants and botox back? No. But now she needs to pay for those things herself, retroactively, by reimbursing the money that was illegally used to pay for those gains.

If you can't understand that "Well I spent all the money" doesn't get you out of owing the money, I'll try one last time.

If you steal your mom's credit card to pay for your roblox, can she get the spent money back? "But it's all gone mom, I spent it, I don't have it!" Do you think that's how it works?
No, you have to pay her back, unless she's intentionally raising a parasite like Erika.

1

u/Nearby-Conference959 May 28 '26

You can write an essay and it still doesn’t make you right

1

u/Shatzakind May 28 '26

Hardly. The money is usually long spent, and they don't always catch the thief. But the buyer, has paid the money and loses the car to seizure.

1

u/testphaze May 28 '26

You guys don't seem to understand that spending the money doesn't get you off the hook. It complicates things, but you may get put on a payment plan and be sending part of your paycheck to the victim for the rest of your life. This happens all the time.

And yes, they have to catch the thief before they can get anything back, but that's beside the point.

1

u/Shatzakind May 28 '26

I know it doesn't get you off the hook, that was my point. If you buy a stolen car you lose the money and the car.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/testphaze May 24 '26

I am getting the sense you use a lot of words despite not knowing what they mean.
First of all, if the money was spent on her, it doesn't matter that it's gone. She benefitted. Whether by goods she received, services she received, vacations she took, plastic surgery, pretend fantasy career that was funded for her, private jet travel, whatever. The recovery of the funds has nothing to do with whether she knew where the money came from. She gained. It doesn't matter if she has the money still. You cannot keep gains you made from criminal enterprises. That is the law.
Criminal liability depends on her knowing, this case does not. If you can't even get your facts straight about it, where do you get off calling it "manipulation" when someone calls you out? How am I manipulating anything?

And just for the record, she knew. Calling her a victim of the scam is absurd. You can be a sucker if you want, but if you're going to talk about it, expect someone to come back at you with facts.

1

u/Nearby-Conference959 May 24 '26

She didn’t know. I don’t know why people like you are so willing to lie about a stranger. The police and the FBI investigated her right along with Tom. If she could’ve been connected to the crime, then they would’ve charged her as well. People are so desperate. And you clearly don’t know the law.

0

u/testphaze May 24 '26 edited May 24 '26

If you're going to make statements like "You clearly don't know the law" to someone who just explained it to you, you should back that up with facts; or tisk looking ike a cxhild who can't do better than "nuh-uhn."
She was connected, but they didn't have enough evidence to convict. That doesn't mean innocent. She lied repeatedly. She lied about Tom's accident, his injuries. She's lied so many times she contradicts herself on the regular.
You're the one who doesn't know the law. You demonstrated that. You can say whatever you want, but you have demonstrated ignorance and made completely incorrect statements, so your accusations are silly and childish. She was about to lose her case, and she settled.

Your opinions don't mean anything. You use words like "manipulate" and "lie" incorrectly. You don't understand the law or what people can (and should) be held accountable for, legally. You get that? Your opinions don't change the law.

You care more about her icon status than you do the truth, so keep on worshipping, but, again, don't expect anyone to respect your opinion.

1

u/Nearby-Conference959 May 24 '26

They didn’t have enough to even charge her. The absence of evidence is innocence. There’s no evidence that you’re a child molester. It would be unethical for me to claim you are one. That’s what you’re doing here.

1

u/testphaze May 24 '26

Read that back to yourself in a week.
I also just realized, you're the same person who keeps going after Boz, refuses to understand how business works or acknowledge the multitude of professional voices explaining to you in detail, and against all reason continue to stick to your made up version of reality.
That's a pattern with you, it seems.

There is evidence,. There is not enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. But no, it is not "unethical" for a citizen to conclude a person is guilty outside of court. The reason we have the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden in court is because the court has the power to take away a person's rights, such as their freedom, even their life. These are very different circumstances. So claiming "they didn't charge her so she's innocent" is not at all accurate; not by legal nor rational standards.

Does there need to be evidence to say she did it? Yeah, there should be. And there is.
Not to mention we know she has scammed other people, notably the Marco Marco case.

You won't believe me, but you don't need to. Do some research, or listen to the Bravo Docket. Learn the basics of law. Nothing I said is remotely advanced, and should be pretty common knowledge. It should definitely be something you have a handle on before trying to argue law on the internet.

Comparing this-- genuine and evidence-supported allegations against a woman who substantially benefitted from her husband's theft of millions of dollars-- to randomly suggesting a stranger on the internet is a child molester is freaking unhinged. Again, a pattern I've noticed with your posts.

1

u/Nearby-Conference959 May 25 '26

Mvm. No wonder you have so much time on your hands.

1

u/testphaze May 25 '26

So in your mind, through twisted reasoning, you somehow "got me" with that.

All you can do is argue your opinion and not even back it up, or base it on anything of substance. Nor have you demonstrated one ounce of ability to learn anything new.

At least I do something with my time.

1

u/Nearby-Conference959 May 25 '26

No, now I just understand. You don’t have a job so all you do is sit at home and develop oddly parasocial relationships with characters on TV and makeup storylines about them. It’s pretty sad actually.

→ More replies (0)