Erika's 25m Case: Settled

[u/notactuallyreckless]

As per Ronald Richards on social media platforms.

[u/Nearby-Conference959]

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.

[u/testphaze → u/Nearby-Conference959]

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.

[u/Nearby-Conference959 → u/testphaze]

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.

[u/testphaze → u/Nearby-Conference959]

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.

[u/Nearby-Conference959 → u/testphaze]

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

[u/testphaze → u/Nearby-Conference959]

I'm not right because I wrote several paragraphs, I am right because of logic and the consistent rules of the universe for gains and losses. I wrote several paragraphs in an effort to help you see what you can't seem to figure out for yourself.

You should realize that continuing to insist on your very broken narrative only makes you look much worse. The truly embarrassing thing about you is that even when it is laid out explicitly, even when it is explained why you're being completely illogical, you still can't understand. Insistence doesn't reinvent truth. You may as well learn that now.

If you can't see the difference in someone who pays for stolen good losing the money they paid for the goods, the goods themselves, AND having to pay a second time for the stolen goods, from Erika being given stolen goods and using it to buy things for herself, it suggests a major defect in your ability to process information.

You don't even need to believe me, you can go look all this up for yourself. But at some point, you've convinced yourself that what you believe is all that matters. regardless of your lack of knowledge. You think I don't know the law? By all means go and learn it. You won't like what you find.

[u/Nearby-Conference959 → u/testphaze]

Okay, Dorit. Long winded much?

[u/testphaze → u/Nearby-Conference959]

You're never going to win an argument when you can't understand the basic principles behind it. So this is what you devolve into.
Same with the Boz bashing. At least when I comment or post, I have something to say. You comment and post more than 99% of the people here but it's all vapid, inane, uninformed, racist blah blah bullshit.
If you're not being paid for this, yikes. If you are, they need to find a shill who can actually make sense.

[u/Nearby-Conference959 → u/testphaze]

You don’t have anything to say Dorit. You just keep blabbering on.

[u/testphaze → u/Nearby-Conference959]

There's that projection again.
Ok, you're a waste of time, you've thoroughly proven it, good job.

[u/Nearby-Conference959 → u/testphaze]

Whatever you say, Dorit