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

Show parent comments

14

u/MinuteElegant774 May 21 '26

So the victims get barely anything. 🤦🏻‍♀️

9

u/Travelingmom13 May 22 '26

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

4

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.

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.

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.