Didn’t you think that Shana purchased all those presents that she took down to the women’s shelter out of the goodness of her own heart AND her own money?
Well, if you thought that… you would be wrong!
Dana Wilkey, “friend of the Housewives,” says in the following video that she helped Shana procure all the products donated to the shelter. Shana’s posing with all the toys like she bought them all… not once mentioning that they were donated!
Dana also reveals that Shana asked her to get beauty products for the women at the shelter! Why is that strange? Because Shana is the “creative director” for beautyticket.com! Why would Shana need any help to obtain beauty products?
One can only speculate what Shana did with the “good” stuff that they wrangled from cosmetic companies… either kept the “good” products for themselves and donated the rest to the shelter women OR Shana sold the products on the beautyticket site.
The video gets better… watch as Dana tries to answer all the questions about domestic violence!
According to Dana, 50% of all married women have experienced abuse! Dana also says that abused women don’t even KNOW that they’re being abused!
Dana also says that the first step to knowing if you’re being abused is to “get educated.”
Note to Dana: Perhaps YOU need to get educated before spouting off statistics and statements!
Why weren’t these questions being asked of Shana???
Dana,
Again!,
Made Piley
So if a women is being hit and abused she dosnt know it , I know women make excuses for their abuser but im pretty sure deep down they know they are being abused.
not if he hits her hard enough.
Yea, I wake up and go….On My! How did I black my eye? Oh my! How did my jaw get wired shut!
Puleeeeezze! ShapeShifter shape into something smart for a chance!
MP: LMAO!!! I cannot stop laughing!!! Thanks! TFC!!! SH
Seems to me like ole Damna might have just taken a few too many hits to the noggin… could explain her gooofy laugh
Just when you think this “THING” can sink no lower,she does.I don’t believe there is anything she won’t do for attention.There isn’t a word in the English language bad enough to describe her.
This statistic is taken from a study conducted by the Department of Justice. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence. Washington DC, 2000.) Also found within here http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/183781.htm
Because not all dv is reported, it is an estimate.
If anyone is interested in raw statistics, without the implications or estimates attached you can find them here: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=315
Is there any way for the family of Russ to be able to sue Trash as well as bravo for the wrongful death of Russ? I was just wondering. It seems like its pretty well documented what was going on. So does anyone know if that is something that could happen? Just wondering. Sometimes karma actualy catches up to ratass basturds. Was hoping in this case those who did wrong would be made to pay one way or another……
The latest reports say Russell was sending emails to Bravo threatening to sue them and Bravo got fed up and told Traylor Trash she couldn’t be on the show anymore unless she dump Russell. Of course, TT dumped Russell in a hot sec, not because he supposedly abused her but because she wanted to stay on the show. Just when I thought the horror of this woman couldn’t get worse.
But to answer your question, the contracts signed by all members of the cast, including husbands, signs away their right to sue Bravo for anything so his family can’t sue.
The magic language is to the effect that “this contract is binding on my heirs, executors and assigns.” BUT, depending on the language describing just exactly what is being released, there might be some activity that a good plaintiff’s lawyer can say Bravo, or the production company personnel did that is not covered and therefore not released. For example, insurance contracts insure you for your negligent acts (bad driving, not shoveling your sidewal) but NOT for intentionally beating the crap outta somebody.
Slander/defamation and wrongful death are different animals altogether and are very much state-law driven. That good plaintiff’s lawyer I mentioned would be a good CA plaintiff’s lawyer as it would appear that most of the otherwise actionable activity took place in CA.
Mssuburbia and vp (and any other legal scholars) feel free to chime in!!
Not legal advice, but hypothetically:
If I were Russell’s executor/heir, I’d sue Bravo for wrongful death of Russell. I’d argue that the hold harmless/waiver of claim provision in the contract was unconscionable given the outcome (provocation to suicide), and that an heir can’t be bound by it. I’d have to do case law research on it to find the exact argument and controlling authority, but I do believe a strong case could be made, in light of Russell’s emails to Bravo. If I wasn’t so busy, I’d love to do a hypothetical on it. If the family is interested in educating themselves on potential grounds for a claim, I can point them in directions to look, but I can’t give legal advice.
Read headnotes in Nally v. Grace Community Church, 47 Cal. 3d 278. The case has received both positive and negative treatment, but the headnotes are great and lead to plenty of other case law. Here are some higlights from Nally: 1) “The elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress are (i) outrageous conduct by defendant [such as taking creative license with a "reality" show and prejudicing the audience based on fraud that was reasonably-known to defendant], (ii) an intention by defendant to cause, or reckless disregard [ignoring emails that stated, explitictly, that plaintiff was being irreparably slandered and harmed, and that he was in despair] of the probability of causing, emotional distress, (iii) severe emotional distress [despair leading to suicide], and (iv) an actual and proximate causal link between the tortious conduct and the emotional distress [yeah, duh]. The conduct to be outrageous must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community [duh, again]“; 2) “Factors to consider in determining whether to impose a duty of care [to present the truth on a "reality" show] on defendants include the closeness of the causal connection between defendants’ conduct and the injury suffered [definitely], and the foreseeability of the particular harm to the injured party [Russell told them, explicitly, and wanted his side told]“; 3) “In determining the existence of a duty of care in a given case, the court must consider several factors, including the foreseeability of harm to the injured party, the degree of certainty that he suffered injury [death is "certain injury," alright], the closeness of the connection between defendants’ conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to defendants, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendants and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved”; and 4): “A tort, whether intentional or negligent, involves a violation of a legal duty, imposed by statute, contract or otherwise, owed by the defendant to the person injured. Without such a duty, any injury is “damnum absque injuria,” injury without wrong. Thus, in order to prove facts sufficient to support a finding of negligence, a plaintiff must show that defendant had a duty to use due care [such as, portraying "reality," not a perverted, scripted version of "reality"], that he breached that duty, and that the breach was the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury [without a doubt, IMO].”
What do you think, Who?
WOW Mssuburbia, you’ve got me wishing I hadn’t flunked outta Fordham law school first year, so’s I might actually know wth I’m talking about!!
Seriously, this is an interesting case, but you know how headnotes are, they leave out stuff. This case came out of the suicide of a student and was filed against several caregivers for not preventing it. There is a citation to another case which actually is a wrongful death case arising out of the suicide allegedly caused by defendant’s bad acts. It is from 1960 but it seems to be more on point and may be more useful for sheppardizing..
Tate v. Canonica, 180 Cal. App. 2d 898
Now if you don’t mind, I’ve got sludge water to peddle!!
I figured you were a practicing attorney because you know your stuff. Oh wow–this is a good case to analogize Russell’s case with (and of course, now, I’m hooked in
). The “proximate cause” test works if you use Russell’s email, “I’m getting crucified.” I think it is the closest thing to a suicide note that he left. It indicates the cause for his despair which he could only “resolve” with suicide. I do believe that Bravo’s acts and omissions could rise to the level of “intention to cause injury,” because Rusell spelled it out for them, but Bravo chose the most lucrative course of action (creating the DV story line and selling Shana’s book and platform).
From Tate: “In a case where the defendant intended, by his conduct, to cause serious mental distress or serious physical suffering, and does so, and such mental distress is shown by the evidence to be a substantial factor in bringing about the suicide, a cause of action for wrongful death results, whether the suicide was committed in a state of insanity, or in response to an irresistible impulse, or not. This rule would not apply where the act of the defendant is intentionally done, but there is no intent to cause injury. It is applicable only where the actor intends to cause injury, and the injury is a substantial factor in bringing about the suicide, i.e., is really a cause, in fact, of the suicide. This does not mean that, in every case where the actor intentionally causes serious mental distress or physical suffering, and this is followed by suicide, the actor is necessarily liable for the suicide. The mental distress or physical suffering may not be, as a matter of fact, a substantial factor in bringing about the suicide.”
And it’s precisely that last part that Bravo will rely on–first, “he never told us he was suicidal, or even all that upset for that matter. In fact he was quite belligerent in his emails to Camille and to us and threatened to sue.” Next, we knew he was litigious so we naturally believed and had a right to believe that he was thicker skinned than that. And finally, he had way more stuff going on than just us–we were in his life for two years and he had demons coming after him from crap he did back in 2007, his wife filed for divorce, his credit cards were cut off etc etc, so, we’re sorry, but hey it wasn’t our fault.
Y’all need to fwd this thread to Russell’s attorney/POA… Case closed; slam dunk!
Well, as I do … We’re gonna need to get Who involved here.
I would imagine Russell’s family can sue Traylor for slander. I believe bitten has mentioned it’s in the works. My question for Who is: We know another off shore account exist. Once Traylor’s lying, scamming, good for nothin butt gets hauled in to court. Won’t the judge order her to give up the info on said account?
Romo: First, Merry Christmas!! Now, it’s been a few weeks since I read the MMR suit and Traylor’s response, but I believe MMR mentions the off shore accounts as the reason they insisted that Traylor sign the settlement agreement that is now being sued on. There were signature lines on that agreement for the trustee of the off shore trust to sign as well, so MMR had done its homework. That agreement was signed in 2007, so what money if any is left is problematic.
Now, fast forward to the collection phase, assuming the court doesn’t buy Traylor’s duress/threats defense, nor her defense that the 1.5million damages clause is illegal. In collection, you can call people in to testify in aid of executing on the judgment. One problem with the trust may be that people set them up off shore for privacy reasons and to try to insulate them from attachment.
Another problem would be attempting to trace funds belonging to Traylor or to Russell (at some point MMR is going to have to add his estate as a defendant) into that trust. Without knowing the terms of the trust, we don’t know who all can put money into it, who the beneficiaries are, etc. There might be money in there but it isn’t Traylor’s or Russell’s.
MMR does not have an easy road ahead of it. First, the damage clause may be well in excess of any actual damage that MMR has suffered, and Traylor has pled that MMR’s damages are very small. The appetite for chasing 1.5 million is far different from chasing several thousand because the work and the costs involved are pretty much the same.
We know there was a status conference on the 16th and there were some reports filed by MMR and Traylor: some depositions and other discovery has taken place already, and more is in the offing. I think they were anticipating a trial in June. Finally, there is a pending Motion for Protective Order filed by Traylor which I think is being argued in February.
Thanks Who and a very Merry Christmas to you as well! As usual that was awesome and very thorough. That’s why everybody knows you’re my SH legal eagle!
Of course a woman knows when she is getting abused. Dana says to get educated? It’s nice if we want to get educated, but anyone who gets hit KNOWS that she is getting abused. Children know! Anyone would know! Even mental abuse… We know. Same may be in denial, but we all know. That’s why we would do things to not upset our bf/husband. I’ve been abused before from my ex bf, and I would do things to try to not upset him. That’s why I don’t believe Taylor was EVER abused because she always calls the shots 95% of the time that I’ve watched her, and she’s always yelling, and going off on Russell & anyone who even makes her a little upset. She is a sociopath, and a nut job who needs heavy medication & a lot of therapy.
I beg to differ . . . If a pillow case gets thrown over your head every time before you’re beaten, you might never figure it out. In fact, you may never actually know that you’ve been abused, or that you’re being abused at all. The bruises and broken jaw could be from the wind, dog, cat, ghosts . . . walls moving in on you. If you have a really smart cat or dog, or an angry ghost or strong wind, it could happen like that.
LOL, or, you could think you have really angry pillow cases!!
Mental abuse…I do believe many women do not realize they are being abused. They justify it as being “Just the way he is or just the way our marriage works”. These abusers are cowards and need help!
Sounds like she might be settin SHAFT up to continue her story and why she married Russell. “Oh Dana…I didnt even know I was being abused! It’s in my book, I was so blindsided by him that I didnt know he was a bad boy, the shiny gold dollar signs in his eyes distracted me!”
She actually said something similar to that in the McGaw interview. “I thought I done wrong and I should have served pizza with veggies” (cue ugly cry face with no tears whao is me pity party bs)
Got yer veggie right here SHAFT!
somebody should call in this question at the reunion show…”Traylor, how do you make pizza?”…is there a certain crust you use? box? boboli, frozen, deli? crescent roll brand? add meat? what meat? Kennedy has allergies, right? What can she eat? Do kind of cheese do you buy?…..What veggies do the kids like?…WEIRD since most kids like cheese or pepperoni? so, what kind?….. we’ve heard from multiple sources she doesnt cook. How long do you bake it? How do you cut it? (diagnol or squares?)what’s the kids favorite way to cut it? do they like deep dish? regular? or thin crust?
Hmmm . . . I read the comments before watching the video of Dana and was prepared for her usual empty stupid comments but I am surprised. She actually chose her words very carefully and made sense. Her comment about getting educated about abuse wasn’t referring to physical abuse but rather verbal/emotion abuse, IMHO. Verbal/emotion abuse is much more insidious, harder to understand and, for some, harder to define, whereas there isn’t any doubt when someone hits you. She was dead on in describing the cycle of abuse: there is abuse, then the abuser becomes all lovey again, giving gifts, trips or otherwise for a honeymoon period and then the tensions start to build until he/she abuses again. She was also correct in saying that for some women leaving means changing their whole lives and that can be beyond scary. Not knowing where you can go, losing your home and what security you thought you had can paralyze one into inaction. (I don’t believe any of this applies to Traylor Trash.)
Her reference to 50% of wives being abused has been noted previously but the problem with that statistic is it includes all forms of abuse (verbal, emotional, physical) and is a estimate that includes unreported cases of abuse. It doesn’t measure the difference between a spouse saying horrible things during a heated argument (you are fat, lazy, a bad parent, worthless, etc.) and a spouse who physically attacks. All abuse is bad but not all abuse is equal.
Dana is not self-aware but she is rude, mean, silly and a fame whore who shills for any company that will let her but she was coached well for this clip.
Where did this chick even come from with the stupid outrageously expensive sunglasses? Taylor doesn’t need her help in pulling off her scams.
Dana shills for anyone who asks but claims she actually paid for the sunglasses. I have my doubts.