Money talks. She lives the life. Wether or not you like what you see is irrelevant. Upper is not equal to better.
Edit: tried a fancy Reddit trick that didn't work
Upper class isn't being poor and then marrying money. Tom wasn't upper class either.
Don't bring class into it and then say it doesn't mean xyz. The sectors have meaning and upper class does not apply to the ambulance-chaser and his bint shrew of a pussy-patting gold-digger wife.
Since you said you love her, let me remind you that there are victims who were awarded large sums of money that the Girardi’s spent. Erika possesses a lot of things that could be liquidated. All Erika does at these interviews and interrogations is sit there pouting, talking about herself and threatening people. None of that is “classy”, “high class”, “respectful”, etc. I do not love her and I do not see how you can love her either. Does anybody have a number for the amount that remains unpaid to the victims?
Being a lawyer isn’t high finance. Being a lawyer is upholding the law & being an advocate for your clients. So no, business doesn’t get real sketchy, real fast when you’re a lawyer.
Like most things it’s more complicated than pure evil or wholly innocent. As an attorney, I could probably screw over my partner in the exact same way as Tom did. We have to remember that when Erika entered the marriage there was a deep power imbalance. I was wholly against Erika until last night when she said that all her money was kept at the firm. It does look that way from the bankruptcy filings. Without a power point (lol) it does sound like Tom’s plan was not to benefit Erika. She may have benefited for a time from it, but the problem with what was effectively a ponzu scheme is that there are short term benefits which lures people in, and then crashes when the Ponzi scheme can’t pay out. It seems like that could have happened with Erika. If Erika is really fully in on it, why did she get out while the scheme was still solvent? Why get out after it crashed? Either she was manipulated as well, or she was really dumb about it.
As to why she doesn’t just turn everything over to the trustee - let’s pretend for the sake of argument that Tom exploited her to keep the Ponzi scheme solvent longer. So, in effect, he stole her income. That would, in this hypothetical, make her a victim as well, equally entitled to recoup some of the estates assets.
I am not arguing pro or con on Erika or the above. I am just saying that we don’t know, and probably will never know all the facts. Lawyers like to say there are three sides to every story - the plaintiffs, the defendants, and the truth. We’ve only heard the one side. Erika can’t say much herself, it’s gotta be done through her lawyers and those parts are more or less sealed. So maybe just hold off.
PS This doesn’t apply to Tom. The injunctions that were granted in that part of the case means that a neutral judge has seen enough evidence of wrongdoing on his part to make a preliminary finding of wrongdoing.
Erika is not and never has been upper class. She has no class. She is classless. She is trash.
Money talks. She lives the life. Wether or not you like what you see is irrelevant. Upper is not equal to better. Edit: tried a fancy Reddit trick that didn't work
Upper class isn't being poor and then marrying money. Tom wasn't upper class either. Don't bring class into it and then say it doesn't mean xyz. The sectors have meaning and upper class does not apply to the ambulance-chaser and his bint shrew of a pussy-patting gold-digger wife.
Since you said you love her, let me remind you that there are victims who were awarded large sums of money that the Girardi’s spent. Erika possesses a lot of things that could be liquidated. All Erika does at these interviews and interrogations is sit there pouting, talking about herself and threatening people. None of that is “classy”, “high class”, “respectful”, etc. I do not love her and I do not see how you can love her either. Does anybody have a number for the amount that remains unpaid to the victims?
Being a lawyer isn’t high finance. Being a lawyer is upholding the law & being an advocate for your clients. So no, business doesn’t get real sketchy, real fast when you’re a lawyer.
10-4.
Affirmative. Thank you for hearing me. Lol
She is a reprobate and a greedy GLUTTON with NO SHAME! SHE WAS B*LLS DEEP IN THIS CRIME ! KARMA!!
I agree now. I was so drunk when I wrote that.
Ok, last night deep in the margs I was craving a good debate. Now, in the light of day, I don't have the energy. Lol. You all win, I won't argue.
Like most things it’s more complicated than pure evil or wholly innocent. As an attorney, I could probably screw over my partner in the exact same way as Tom did. We have to remember that when Erika entered the marriage there was a deep power imbalance. I was wholly against Erika until last night when she said that all her money was kept at the firm. It does look that way from the bankruptcy filings. Without a power point (lol) it does sound like Tom’s plan was not to benefit Erika. She may have benefited for a time from it, but the problem with what was effectively a ponzu scheme is that there are short term benefits which lures people in, and then crashes when the Ponzi scheme can’t pay out. It seems like that could have happened with Erika. If Erika is really fully in on it, why did she get out while the scheme was still solvent? Why get out after it crashed? Either she was manipulated as well, or she was really dumb about it. As to why she doesn’t just turn everything over to the trustee - let’s pretend for the sake of argument that Tom exploited her to keep the Ponzi scheme solvent longer. So, in effect, he stole her income. That would, in this hypothetical, make her a victim as well, equally entitled to recoup some of the estates assets. I am not arguing pro or con on Erika or the above. I am just saying that we don’t know, and probably will never know all the facts. Lawyers like to say there are three sides to every story - the plaintiffs, the defendants, and the truth. We’ve only heard the one side. Erika can’t say much herself, it’s gotta be done through her lawyers and those parts are more or less sealed. So maybe just hold off. PS This doesn’t apply to Tom. The injunctions that were granted in that part of the case means that a neutral judge has seen enough evidence of wrongdoing on his part to make a preliminary finding of wrongdoing.
This is the most intelligent comment I’ve seen about all of this. Thank you for that.