EXCLUSIVE: Teresa Giudice Malpractice Lawsuit Bombshell — Her Attempt To Block The Trustee’s Actions Revealed! #RHONJ

Posted on Jul 6 2016 - 10:08am by Stacy Slotnick, Esq.

teresa giudice__rhonj

Fireworks may have ceased after the Fourth of July holiday but new legal documentation in Giudice v. Kridel has some highly explosive qualities. The Real Housewives of New Jersey, returning July 10, is a hotbed of epic legal discussion. Fasten your seatbelts, reality TV fans, because you are in for a wild ride.

Special Counsel

On July 5, 2016 Carlos J. Cuevas, co-counsel to Teresa Giudice, filed an Opposition To Application To Retain Special Counsel. In this document, Cuevas stated, “The Giudice Lawsuit is solely Teresa’s fight for justice.” He maintains, “The Trustee’s selection of Siegel & Siegel, P.C. to represent him in the Giudice Lawsuit violates the business judgment rule.” Cuevas continued, “The Trustee has adopted a strategy that benefits Mr. Kridel and harms the creditors.”

Several days prior, on June 30, 2016, John W. Sywilok (Trustee), made an application for retention of special counsel in the legal malpractice suit against James Kridel.  He sought permission from the court to have Michael D. Siegel from Siegel & Siegel, P.C. serve in said capacity. “Michael D. Siegel has a J.D. from the University of Chicago Law. He is admitted in the state of New Jersey and has expertise regarding allegations of the complaint in Giudice v. Kridel and litigating the same.”

Why would Cuevas et al. resist the appointment of special counsel in the malpractice suit? As I alluded to in an earlier blog, if her current lawyers – Carlos J. Cuevas and Anthony M. Rainone – cannot represent her in this suit, their agreement with Teresa (be it monetary or PR exposure) may not yield any quantifiable returns.

Bear Witness

Carlos Cuevas asserts that if John Sywilok seeks other counsel to prosecute the Giudice Lawsuit “it is doubtful that she will waive the attorney-client privilege because at this juncture she does not trust the Trustee.” With regard to which attorneys would refuse to talk, Cuevas is referring to Henry Klingeman (Teresa’s criminal attorney) and Miles Feinstein (Joe Giudice’s criminal attorney). Why would Teresa’s trust – or lack thereof – matter when Klingeman and Feinstein are on the witness stand? They must tell the truth regardless of whether they like or have confidence in the person examining them.

Her lawyers are establishing that Teresa may withhold her testimony and assert the attorney-client privilege, which would have the effect of the criminal lawyers involved with the Giudices being unable to testify about their representation, and then the trustee has no evidence against James Kridel. That theory may have previously been speculative but we now know that to be the case.  “How is the Trustee going to obtain the testimony of these important fact witnesses?” Cuevas seems to be telling the court that Teresa and her counsel are not going to cooperate unless the Trustee retains Rainone and him as special counsel.

Cuevas demands, “How can the Trustee maximize the value of the Giudice Lawsuit without Ms. Giudice’s full participation?”  We are led to believe that Teresa is holding testimony for ransom. Her counsel asserts that only they can fund the experts necessary to litigate the Giudice Lawsuit and provide the court with their client’s full participation. What do you make of that?

READ: Court Dismisses Teresa Giudice’s Malpractice Lawsuit Against Attorney James Kridel [EXCLUSIVE]

Ms. Giudice has lost faith in the Trustee,” Cuevas argued. Why is that? What evidence does Teresa have that the Trustee or special counsel will not be fair? Remember, the Trustee is concerned with maximizing the monetary value of all assets of the estate to help repay her creditors. The Trustee’s focus is on the creditors, not necessarily getting Teresa the largest cut of the action. That probably worries and troubles her to no end.

The Sum Of All Parts

The fact that Michael S. Kopelman (attorney for John W. Sywilok) or the Trustee elected not to make a deal with Cuevas or Rainone during the détente (so-called handshake agreement) probably means Kopelman and the Trustee did not have faith in the abilities or motivations of Teresa’s counsel to protect the creditors.  Cuevas and Rainone could have been appointed as special counsel to represent the claims against Kridel but alas, they were passed over. “What a blow to Teresa,” James Kridel told me.

Everything about the law is intricate. This case is no different from the truckloads of malpractice suits that have come before the court, save perhaps for the moxie of this debtor. Yet Cuevas emphasizes in objecting to the appointment of Michael Siegel, “The Trustee fails to appreciate the complexity of the Giudice Lawsuit. The Trustee fails to appreciate the fact and expert witnesses that are necessary to successfully prosecute the Giudice Lawsuit.”

The aforementioned are fighting words, and denigrate the integrity of the Trustee, a member of the bar. Lawyers who go after another’s honor and intelligence arguably do so because the legal and factual issues attendant to their case provide no sanctuary.

May 24, 2016 Hearing

On May 24, 2016, counsel for the Trustee Michael S. Kopelman testified before United States Bankruptcy Judge Stacey L. Meisel that the legal malpractice suit, to the extent that it has merit and produces a recovery “should not go strictly to the Debtor.” The law says that the cause of action (legal malpractice) will be property of the estate if it has sufficient roots in the debtor’s pre-bankruptcy activities.

During the hearing in which Judge Meisel ordered the bankruptcy case to be reopened and a Trustee appointed, we now know that Teresa’s counsel (Carlos Cuevas) admitted some of the malpractice occurred pre-petition. “There was some pre-petition malpractice,” announced Cuevas (see page 16).  On page 39, Judge Meisel made clear “everybody agrees that there was pre-petition conduct that led up to it.”

Debt Collector

There have been numerous statements made by Teresa’s camp as to what has been repaid. While Cuevas argued, “Ms. Giudice has reached agreements with the IRS, Treasury Department…there is a settlement with Alliance Laundry…” Judge Meisel replied, “Well, the priority claims have not been paid. They simply have been settled with payment plans…So they are not paid.” 

The court stressed, “So I am looking at the settlements as they have been negotiated and they are on a payment plan. They have not been paid.” The court is concerned about Teresa’s creditors. “I know you say they are fine,” Judge Meisel states, “but when I look at your own chart and when I look at the judgment report there are creditors that exist on this date for Ms. Giudice. They may have payment plans but they are not paid.”

Cuevas replied, “Ms. Giudice has acted responsibly…It was always her intent to pay her bills. The real damage occurred when she was taken away from her children, incarcerated for a year, had to give up her career, was labeled a felon, was subjected to public ridicule and the emotional strain that it put on her, Your Honor.”

In his opposition papers dated July 5, 2016, Cuevas cites, “Ms. Giudice has lost significant income because of her incarceration; it was Ms. Giudice who was involuntarily separated from her family; and it is Ms. Giudice’s reputation that has been irreparably damaged.”

Teresa willingly pled guilty in court to federal fraud charges that triggered her imprisonment. Is it an effective strategy to label her a victim and call her a responsible individual? In what way did the real damage occur during her imprisonment? Didn’t she admit to committing various crimes before she went to jail?

Judge Matters

James Kridel was particularly displeased about an exchange at the May 24, 2016 hearing in which Carlos Cuevas claimed “Ms. Giudice had retained Judge Lyons as her bankruptcy counselor to raise these issues and Judge Lyons …” Perhaps Cuevas represented to a federal judge that another judge served as Teresa’s legal counsel, which was not the case. The court interjected, stating that Mr. Lyons is a retired judge. Consider this morsel from James Kridel:

“Judge Lyons is a retired bankruptcy judge and I had recently appeared before him in a case and prevailed.  Judge Lyons cannot represent someone in a criminal matter. Citing Judge Lyons as an attorney to Teresa before the court is wrong. Judge Lyons would be livid.” 

Grab your gavel, join the conversation, and let us know what you think about the appointment of special counsel and the claims made by Teresa’s counsel. 

 

“Like” us on Facebook  “Follow” us on Twitter and on Instagram 

About the Author

Stacy Slotnick, a.k.a. The Foxy Jurist, holds a J.D., cum laude, from Touro Law Center and a B.A., summa cum laude, from the University of Massachusetts Amherst Commonwealth Honors College. Stacy is the recipient of the Honors Deans Award; Simon and Satenig Ermonian Memorial Scholarship; College of Social and Behavioral Sciences Opportunity Scholarship; and College of Humanities and Fine Arts Scholarship. She is also a William F. Field Alumni Scholar, an honor bestowed upon the most academically distinguished students. In law school, Stacy won two CALI Excellence For The Future Awards® and received an Achievement Scholarship. She is a member of the New York Bar. As an entertainment lawyer, Stacy counsels clients on contracts, branding, and public relations strategy. She negotiates with agents, producers, production companies, and lawyers to secure rights to projects on behalf of high-profile clients. Her clever, spirited, no holds barred legal analysis can be found in articles for The Huffington Post. * Facebook
 
* LinkedIn
 
* Twitter

  • Tammy

    Wow, just wow. This felon really refuses to give up the prospect of living a high life off the backs of others hard work. Her shamelessness is stunning. Poor Teresa. She is such a victim. I hope whichever judge presides over this case really pulls the rug out from under her and finally issues a judgement that puts her in her place….which should be in a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere in Jersey!

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Thanks for your comments! Why do you think her lawyers are painting her as the victim once again? Do you think if the judge rules against Cuevas and Rainone serving as special counsel, Teresa will indeed clam up and refuse to testify or prevent her criminal lawyers from testifying? See then the special counsel, without evidence, will have no case and she’ll still lose. What do you think her plan is?

      • YeahThat

        Morning Stacy….good to see you here..Hope all is well…Just a quick question based on your comment above…Are you saying it is a lose, lose situation for Theresa?

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Greetings! Thanks for joining us here. I think she is playing with fire should she her lawyers not be appointed special counsel and she refuses to testify. Then the special counsel cannot prove their case (most likely). If the Trustee decides not to go forward, conceivably her lawyers could file a state court claim again but that is a longshot. I don’t see the positive side of withholding testimony, especially if the proceeds from the malpractice suit could yield a payout. What are your impressions?

      • Tammy

        I think that Teresas lawyer knows that he wont get paid if he cant win this lawsuit, and he also knows that Teresa is also pretty ignorant and only responds to the promise of winning money. They on a foolish journey, but hey, if the FBI director is not recommending that Hillary Crookton be prosecuted for her crimes, its only logical that a huge star like Teresa Guidice be exonerated of her crimes too.

        Seriously, Im not sure what goes on in these lawyers heads. It seems to me that there shouldnt be any good reason for a malpractice lawsuit against Kreidel in the first place, and it should be a no brainer that the stiffed victlms of her admitted crimes should be paid first if there as any money to be received. And having the gall to claim Teresa has suffered and insinuate there should be consideration for her suffering is maddening to me. I hope it is for the presiding judge, as well.

        Thank you for this writeup, Stacey. The info is much appreciated!

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Applause goes out to you for connecting this case to another in the news, a.k.a. Hillary Clinton and the FBI’s recommendations not to prosecute. I have always wondered in this case how she would fare before a jury versus judge. My guess is that a jury would take less pity on her than a judge.

          You understand this case well. The Trustee and his lawyer want creditors paid first. That is a must for them as stated during the hearing on May 24. Her lawyers want Teresa paid. There is a conflict there which is precisely why special counsel Siegel should be appointed. Her lawyers have a conflict of interest and to suggest that Teresa’s woes began once she was incarcerated grossly misstate the facts. Thank you again for the fantastic thoughts and questions!

      • Sara

        With all due respect, I worked way too hard to follow this article…haha! It’s way too far into the legalese weeds. I read some parts over and over…perhaps a simpler layman’s intro to the intricacies of this case would be more reader-friendly. Just the gist, so to speak.

        And, btw, no self-respecting attorney would claim “irreparable harm” was done to his client by her incarceration since: 1. It’s not possible to prove future “harm” (as in a defamation suit) 2. She’s back on Bravo starring in the same show that made her a small fortune well beyond her true abilities would have otherwise earned her.

      • Winnie McGoogin

        Can she be forced to testify considering she brought the case?

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Legally she can take the Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify. While she brought the case in state court, now it is in bankruptcy court and the Trustee holds all the cards. He can decide, not her, whether and how to pursue the suit against Kridel.

          Follow me for a moment: If Teresa’s testimony is the smoking gun in the case against Kridel, that says to me there is no corroborating evidence establishing malpractice. Stated another way, there is no independent evidence supporting the malpractice claim. Why is her testimony so critical? Because that’s all they’ve got. But this is just a guess. I’d love to hear people’s thoughts.

          • TheBeverlyHillsHaveEyes

            And everyone knows Stacy that Teresa is not reliable when it comes to facts – so if her evidence is all they have then it’s a pretty poor show.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            That is a good point too. It is quite bold to suggest that her side won’t produce the expert witnesses necessary to prosecute the case unless Cuevas and Rainone are appointed as special counsel.

            You can’t even make the argument that this case is so complex and involved that only they are capable of prosecuting it. Doing so puts them on a higher level than other lawyers. That is an absurd argument and really should anger the judge, the trustee, and Siegel.

          • BBB1975

            Lol…right? Even her recent interview was inconsistent (putting it mildly)

          • Just a jersey girl

            Stacy, If Teresa testimony is the only evidence corroborating evidence against Mr. Kridel, there is no hope of her winning this case. There will be nobody telling her how to answer through a hidden mike.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            And yet that is exactly what her counsel is saying, namely, that the Trustee cannot maximize the value of the suit against Kridel without their client’s participation.

  • Shy-ra

    Very interesting Stacy! Thank you for taking the time to put this together- very much appreciated!

    It angers me to see this situation- she admitted responsibility for her crimes in court and I don’t think any of her lawyers statements should be entertained. It’s a lawsuit without merit to begin with- whether she testifies or not. Just throw it out and be done with it.

    Can’t she be subpoenaed to the stand? It’s her mess to begin with.

    And hopefully this can of worms she opened will eventually lead to her being marched back to prison where she belongs! I sound like a broken record every time I comment, but it’s so upsetting to see that she’s allowed to keep all of her stolen possessions and keep buying more. I’m seriously infuriated with all of this.

    She and her lawyers have big brass balls – no shame to their game in the quest for the almighty dollar. Disgusting

    • Sara

      It is upsetting to many of us to see TG retaining possession of all of her “stolen property”. But if a certain presidential candidate can “use the chapters” to wipe the slate clean In addition, lots of casino employees lost their jobs and suppliers lost their businesses), shouldn’t a less well-off person be allowed the same opportunity? Or should the bankruptcy laws be revised?

      • justanothermary

        wow

    • Stacy Slotnick

      It is my pleasure, and thank you so much for your excellent impressions. Exactly! Teresa willingly entered into a plea deal and admitted to committing crimes. Now she is backtracking in court documents much the same way she did on GMA. You can’t have it both ways. Moreover, statements as to her precarious predicament are self-serving, and I would hope that the judge sees it that way. Cuevas argues that Teresa is entitled to her day in court regarding the malpractice suit, but when she committed fraud and owed money to creditors, the law says the Trustee gets the case.

  • italiano bambino

    TERESA fighting for justice BAHAHAHA must be a joke right?

    • WestCoastFeed

      Hiope you had a lovely birthday. Today is my day I am 81 today.

      • YeahThat

        Happy Birthday

      • Sara

        Cheers!

      • Just a jersey girl

        Happy Birthday WCF. ,May you have another 81 beautiful years.

      • italiano bambino

        Aww WCF happy birthday

  • WestCoastFeed

    Stacy, I read this morning that Sywilok has asked for any monies awarded to be distributed as followsws–1/3 of the first $500K, 30% of the next $500K, 25% of the next $500k and d so on. Isn’t he putting the cart before the horse? We dont even know yet who, if anyone is going to prosecute the case.

    • Just a jersey girl

      Wow, this whole thing is ridiculous. I really am questioning the bankruptcy trustee too. Poor Mr. Kridel. He seems the only one to be acting professionally through this media circus.

      • Stacy Slotnick

        The Trustee wants special counsel (Siegel & Siegel) to prosecute the case. He doesn’t want Cuevas or Rainone involved.

        • Just a jersey girl

          Thank you for the clarification. Siegel & Siegel is a very prominent firm.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            Of course! I’m glad I could help. 🙂 There is no question that the Trustee wants someone neutral involved with this case. Cuevas and Rainone would be looking out for their client’s interests first and not the creditors. The Trustee had no choice but to hire a respected law firm. To paint the lawsuit as if it were somehow beyond their comprehension is reprehensible and maybe even libelous.

          • Just a jersey girl

            Stacy,
            I do not know if I am reading this correctly but it seems the Giudice’s owe $8M now or will the bankruptcy papers have to be updated to see what is still owed.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            The court, the Trustee, and the Trustee’s attorney may ask for a periodical accounting of what is still owed.

            I believe you are referring to pg. 22 of the transcript in which Cuevas states, “So in terms of putting a petition that looked fine in October of 2009 and saying there was $8 million of debt and that’s why this case needs to be reopened…”

          • Just a jersey girl

            Thank you so much Stacy. This should be interesting to see.

  • Winnie McGoogin

    Should seem awful fishy to a bankruptcy judge that Tree us driving fancy cars wearing newest shoes. Etc yet has not repaid ine dime to creditors she entered into payment agreements with.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      This is an important point. Judge Meisel says yes, there is a payment plan but not all her creditors have been repaid.

      • BBB1975

        I took that to mean there is a payment plan, but no payments have been made? I wonder, is she actually making payments? I know her Bravo checks are garnished….but isn’t that money just going to the IRS?

        • TheBeverlyHillsHaveEyes

          ITA. I doubt her Bravo check will stretch that far because she already had to pay off a good chunk to keep her own house from foreclosure, and then the restitution payment. I really doubt that her book advance or sales or Bravo are paying her enough to keep that roof over her head AND pay off her creditors…and we all know that Tre will look after her own interests first.

          • BBB1975

            She will not pay anything above what is specifically court ordered. I think, in her mind, a “payment plan” is flexible…that she can (and most likely is) defer payments. I can see her saying something dumb like “Its a payment plan…I thought it just meant I “plan” to pay at some point. I didn’t understand”

          • Stacy Slotnick

            I hope those payment plans with creditors are in writing and that penalties exist for late/overdue payments.

          • BBB1975

            So do I

          • TheBeverlyHillsHaveEyes

            I remember her saying in a WWHL interview when Andy questioned her spending that she earned money so she was allowed spend it on herself….that mentality has not changed, hence the Lexus.

          • BBB1975

            exactly. She doesn’t care about paying back the people she owes, and has no intention of doing so if she wins this case.

          • chacha1

            that is funny since she thinks she is smarter than everyone when she ‘plays’ dumb … I will always believe she was the mastermind on the crimes …..

          • BBB1975

            I’m with you chacha…I think Tre was the driving force behind these crimes as well.

          • chacha1

            what happened to the money Joe made with the girls when Tre was in prison .. didn’t that pay off the house ?

          • justanothermary

            It went to keep them in the house. They were very far behind in their mortgage payments. The house is not paid off and I suspect the reason they have never sold it is because they are so far underwater with their mortgage and construction loans that it would cost too much to make leaving make any sense. However, I imagine what is happening right now is that Tre is not making mortgage payments and is only paying minimal upkeep on the house. They will eventually be evicted but by then Tre will have a wonderful reason as to why she chose to leave her home.

          • TheBeverlyHillsHaveEyes

            I think he didn’t get what he wanted out of that Bravo deal – in the end it probably just about covered the downpayment on the Lexus and paid some bills.

        • chacha1

          thank you, so her Bravo checks are being garnished, I was wondering about that

          • BBB1975

            Yeah..25%

  • Just a jersey girl

    Good morning Stacy,
    Oh wow what fireworks!! I have read the eleven pages. I am still trying to digest this all. I hate that Mr. Kridel is having to deal with this nonsense. The time for Teresa to proclaim innocence or at least minor participation was before she signed that plea deal. I get today our criminal justice system is built on plea deals, but if I was truly ignorant about financial matters in the family I would have went to trial.
    Her time to proclaim victim has come and gone, she needs to move on and start rebuilding her life.
    Mr. Cuevas sounds like another slime ball attorney.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Greetings Just a jersey girl! I know there are a lot of documents, legal principles, and facts to digest. Thanks for making an awesome effort as always!!

      What do you make of the back and forth between Judge Meisel and Cuevas in which the judge says her creditors haven’t been repaid?

      • WestCoastFeed

        Thanks for including that info for us, Stacy. I’d like to see a complete accounting of just how much she has repaid those poor crditors who have been waiting so long to be paid.

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Good point. Cuevas goes into a sermon about “it was always her intent to pay her bills” and then the judge halts his train of thought and responds settlements have been “negotiated and they are on a payment plan. They have not been paid.” Now, the fact that there is a financial commitment in place allegedly between Teresa and her creditors is a good thing, but one must wonder whether rights and obligations are therein memorialized in writing. An enforceable contract with penalties has meaning to the court.

          • Just a jersey girl

            Stacy, I would love to see these payment plans. I do not believe it until I read it. Probably the only one who has a payment plan are the creditors who put leans against her home.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            I think the judge feels the same way, which is why it is on the record that Teresa’s debts haven’t been satisfied.

          • chacha1

            so will her Bravo salary be garnished?

          • Stacy Slotnick

            I am fairly certain there is an agreement in place that provides as much.

          • chacha1

            thank you kindly ….. I am hoping that the Hurricane Sandy victims will someday get back what they took from them

      • Just a jersey girl

        Wow,
        I feel bad for Teresa’s creditors mostly the small businesses. Judge Meisel was correct she has not paid one person back. Teresa is a narcissist who is blaming everyone else for her circumstances except herself.

      • Shy-ra

        It seems as if Cuevas just keeps trying to sweep the fact that a sh*t-ton of money is unpaid and unaddressed by Teresa under the rug. It’s just an “inconvenient ” fact that creditors remain unsettled all of these years later. Glad the judge isn’t letting him sidestep this!!!!

        Intentions can’t be cashed in Teresa. She clearly wants more shopping money and will never pay a dime back if not forced.

        Crazy that this can happen. She needs more reflection time in a cell. Please let that happen!!!!!

        • BBB1975

          But, but, but…she super duper promises to pay once she gets her settlement! So why would she object to the money going directly to her debt?

          • Stacy Slotnick

            Exactly. 🙂

            Her lawyers want the money from any malpractice suit to go to Teresa first so that she gets a cut and they get their fees/cut. Otherwise how do you explain why they would object to another firm trying the case?

          • BBB1975

            There is no other way to explain it. She wants the money, and her lawyers want their cut. To me, she clearly has no intention of paying, no matter what she claims. If it were me, I’d WANT the money to go directly to the debt. It would be such a relief to have some of that money paid. The fact that she is protesting this so much is a red flag to me. The Judge will see right through this.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            Too, this is all public record. Why would you throw Siegel under the bus in your motion? Come up with a decent legal argument. That will impress the judge. Cuevas states, “In the thirty years of bankruptcy practice I have never seen conduct detrimental to a bankruptcy estate as exhibited by the Trustee and his counsel.” I once was at a motion hearing in a personal injury case in which an eager and unseasoned attorney made a similar claim about medical reports and specifically, a rebuttal to a peer review. The judge looked at this attorney and responded, “I guess you haven’t lived yet.” The idea is that nothing about what you’ve seen as a lawyer is special or even really matters. You are an officer of the court and must rely on facts and the law. Everything else is subterfuge and a distraction.

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Great comments. Do you think we will see any of that “reflection time” this season on RHONJ? Will viewers get what they want? Those questions are somewhat rhetorical, especially since Cuevas states in his opposition “Ms. Giudice is concerned about the conduct of the Trustee and his counsel.” Really? Deflection much?

          • chacha1

            why isn’t her wages being garnished and also didn’t Joe make a bunch of money when he had his show raising his daughters while mommy was away ? and it is on the record that she wanted cash only at her book signing parties, has that been looked into?

  • BBB1975

    She wanted this lawsuit, and is now threatening not to testify. I don’t think she ever expected the Trustee to reopen her bankruptcy. Her plan backfired.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Isn’t that rich? Her lawyer plainly states, “If the Trustee seeks other counsel to prosecute [the legal malpractice suit] it is doubtful she will waive the attorney-client privilege.” Wow. Will the judge deciding the motion take kindly to threats?

      • BBB1975

        I doubt the Judge will be happy with threats, especially since Tre brought this on herself.

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Moreover, it is fine to assert claims but if you’ve got the judge’s attention (as in the case of a motion or oral argument), back up your positions! Her lawyers contend thins like, “The Trustee has acted imprudently and “The Trustee fails to appreciate the complexity of the Giudice Lawsuit.” How so? Where is your evidence? Knowing what I know about Apple and music lawsuits, which become highly complex because they involve technology, finances, IP, dozens of experts, etc., this case seems actually straightforward. Either Kridel breached his duty or he didn’t.

      • Contessa Bel Raven

        That is what blew my mind. Her lawyers are uttering threats on behalf of Tre as well as disparaging another lawyer and lying to the court (re: Judge Lyons). They are truly coming across as shady lawyers (& babies throwing a fit because they didn’t get their way about representing the creditors 😢😢😢)
        Thanks Stacy for another article that tries to make sense of this clusterf*ck

        • Stacy Slotnick

          You summed up the case perfectly. Rules of the litigation road state do not make threats about testimony in legal documents and don’t lie about another judge’s involvement in a case. If you violate said rules, you do not pass go and you won’t collect any money.

          I am compelled to think back to Season 1 of the RHONJ in which Teresa sat with Dina and Caroline and said something to the effect of, “If Danielle doesn’t have any money, she should go get a job.” Why is Teresa continuing with this lawsuit when the chances of recovery become less and less? If you want to get back your life, learn a skill and get to work. Don’t engage in wrongful behavior with the court.

          • chacha1

            Teresa feels entitled and Bravo has accommodated her ,,,

          • YeahThat

            How very True

          • sideof Sour Cream

            I wish I could upvote this a thousand times!!!

          • Stacy Slotnick

            You are wonderful! Spilling the legal tea means getting real, and it seems like many of the cast of characters in the legal malpractice suit haven’t quite faced that reality.

          • sideof Sour Cream

            The law is “real”. Yes. This statement reminds me of a scene from one of my favorite movies: The Devil’s Advocate, when Al Pacino explains why devils have changed over the years to focus on law, instead of religion.
            That character would be the perfect attorney for Teresa Guidice. !!

          • Contessa Bel Raven

            Oh but she is going to get certified as a yoga instructor, open a studio and sell workout gear. Will she be able to make a living doing that? Who knows. Yoga is popular now so there are many yoga studios and most gyms offer yoga classes. I personally do not see it happening. I think we are being fed another load of crap. Maybe that is her SL for this season? She is pretending to be all zen while showing no remorse at all for the crimes she has done. Her greed is in the way of her common sense so she tries to sue her former lawyer thinking she will get a big payday (not the creditors). She may not be flipping tables but she (along with her shyster lawyers) are trying to strong arm the courts because things are not going her way. Are these shenanigans supposed to stop them from looking too closely at her bankruptcy case (and possibly finding more things SHE lied about) since the judge has re-opened it? Thanks to Bravo Andy there is no reason to get a “real” job (she obviously is not thinking of paying off her creditors). She will just continue to live above her means as long as the cameras are rolling. Hmm since they are besties now maybe Melissa can give her a job in the store. Just until her yoga business gets off the ground. All those activities the girls are in don’t come cheap especially creating music videos.

          • Cindy

            I commented about that before I read your post lol great minds Contessa lol

          • Cindy

            Well she is doing just that Stacy lmao she is gonna be a yoga instructor and maybe open Tree Chains around the World 😂😂

      • justanothermary

        Just how valuable is her testimony anyway. She’s been shown lying throughout. What would make a court think she would tell the truth now?

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Great point! Even if she were to testify, she would be cross-examined and her testimony could be rebutted. Maybe its worthless anyway.

  • TheBeverlyHillsHaveEyes

    Wow. I just don’t know what to say other than thanks Stacy, as always such a interesting, if gobsmacking, read. Whatever happened to Teresa’s statement in Court to Judge Salas about making amends etc?

    • Just a jersey girl

      The great statement that got her staggered sentences that Wendy wrote.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Legally those statements wouldn’t have weight in terms of enforceability. I think we can mostly agree that Teresa says what she needs to at the appropriate times. She acts in self-interest and is an opportunist. That isn’t meant to belittle her – I’m just going by the court documents. Painting her as the victim to the court when she admitted guilt and was sentenced as part of a plea deal is inconsistent.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Legally those statements wouldn’t have weight in terms of enforceability. I think we can mostly agree that Teresa says what she needs to at the appropriate times. She acts in self-interest and is an opportunist. That isn’t meant to belittle her – I’m just going by the court documents. Painting her as the victim to the court when she admitted guilt and was sentenced as part of a plea deal is inconsistent.

  • MidwestMiddie

    Thanks, Stacy.
    WOW!
    I’m appalled by Teresa’s dismissal of our Court’s legal standards. She thinks what has served other citizens would some how unfair to her? Ugh! wish she could be fined for taking up the Court’s time with such obnoxious assertions.
    Teresa’s Lawyer claims she has already hired the retired Judge who can’t represent someone in a criminal matter. So who is lying ………. Fine them, both!!

    • Just a jersey girl

      Exactly MWM, This is federal court and waste of the whole countries tax dollars.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Thanks so much for your spot-on comments. You make an excellent point too that the rules don’t seem to apply to her, in her mind. Trustees will appoint special counsel often; sometimes they will be the original legal team but not always. Here it would have been a conflict of interest if her lawyers represented the creditors and Teresa in the malpractice suit. Having independent counsel is the fairest thing to do.

  • Biscuit

    Wow! My head is spinning. So basically she is suing Mr. Kridel because he did not keep her from going to jail even though she admitted wrong doings and signed a statement saying she committed crimes? She is also claiming that her incaceration cost her the lost of her career (I.e. all her side jobs like her wine business, hair care products, etc., which she failed to disclose all her income from said jobs at the time of her trial) and now she is label a felon and has lost her reputation as a result of her conviction and this is all Mr. Kridel’s fault? So now she wants money she thinks is due her because she never came clean with her lawyer in the first place? Ai YiYi. The moxie of this woman knows no bounds. Also, how high of a laundry bill does one incur where you are forced to go on a payment plan?

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Beautiful summation! You left no stone unturned. Any statements in particular from Judge Meisel or Carlos Cuevas you found particularly illuminating or shocking?

      • sideof Sour Cream

        I hope you teach law someday (other than here, lol). YOU would be an excellent professor.

        • Stacy Slotnick

          I appreciate your compliments more than you know. My heart is full. AATT provides such a great opportunity to talk about the law. These cases force us all to think more critically and use our brains to understand legal concepts with reality TV personalities as case studies. It is a fascinating conversation we have here on AATT. (Indeed it would be a thrill to serve as an adjunct professor someday. In the meantime, when my schedule permits, I give lectures/talks at colleges and law schools to students interested in entertainment law.)

          • sideof Sour Cream

            Your students are lucky.

    • chacha1

      how about when she was charging people $25.00 for a signature on her book and would only take CASH …. how did she get away with that ?

  • Biscuit

    I find the whole suing of Mr. Kriedel a ridiculous waste of taxpayers money and the courts time. Teresa wants money she thinks she is entitled to. She could careless about paying back her creditors. I hope this all blows up in her face. I know her spending habits were over the top, but I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that she owed such a large sum of money to a laundry service that she had to be placed on a repayment plan. Joe always looked like a slob, so I know she didn’t send out any laundry for him. She must have dry cleaned the whole house and then some. Hate Andy Cohen for giving her a free ride and a big paycheck for 3 months work when people that really need jobs can’t find them.

    • WestCoastFeed

      The laundry supply outfit must be the company that supplied the washers and dryers for their laundromat. It was in the same building as the pizzeria.

      • Biscuit

        Ahhh. Thanks for that clarification WCF. I kept thinking how the hell do you run up a laundry bill so high you have to go on a repayment plan. Dumb of me I know, but nothing would surprise me about these people

    • sideof Sour Cream

      My theory is that she brought this forward WITH BRAVO’S HELP because she needed an excuse to not talk about her thieving lifestyle on the show, during filming. She’s a scam artist and so is her squat-mate and their misdeeds will be visited upon their children. (the sad thing for them is they don’t know it yet)

      • Stacy Slotnick

        She can escape blame to some extent if Kridel is found to be civilly liable and committed malpractice. Your argument makes total sense that she filed this lawsuit to excuse her behavior or deflect responsibility. But no one has shown Teresa can meet her burden of proof in the malpractice case. If she committed crimes that occurred years before Kridel came onto the scene, there is no cause and effect with his legal representation and the harm allegedly committed to her. She was guilty of those crimes regardless of what he did or counseled her to do. Moreover, she admitted her guilt in open court.

        • sideof Sour Cream

          She and Bravo are just buying time, that’s my guess. She has nothing to lose–because she is already the most massive loser.
          In her shoes (which I would never wear because they are stolen goods) I might do the same thing.
          Again, because she’s a pariah, with nothing to lose; I wouldn’t touch her with a ten foot pole.

        • Poo

          Stacy, where are the funds coming from to pay the attys’ representing her right now. Aren’t they still working on contingency Some of their actions smell of desperation to me. There have got to be lots of court fees by now .

          • LuvsSnark

            There are some attorneys (like Fieger) who love the publicity they get from representing someone in the public eye or a case that is getting media attention even more than they do earning the $$$. High profile cases bring in more potential clients, and they’ll somehow make up the difference on their fees with other clients.

          • Poo

            I guess I just don’t think of Teresa As being high profile. She is just on a reality show and not a great one at that.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            You absolutely honed in on the essence of their outrageous allegations in the opposition her lawyers filed yesterday. The key is that they are probably only getting paid if she prevails. (They would get a cut of the settlement or award.) Now if the Trustee appoints special counsel, her lawyers have no claim to whatever fees are eventually collected or award received. This is why they seem desperate and their allegations unsupportable. I hope this helps. Thank you for the superb questions.

        • LuvsSnark

          Having worked in the legal world for 40 years, it cracks me up to see Tre whining about her legal affairs. Attorneys always go over paperwork before signature with their clients, and nine times out of ten they ask the client if he or she has any questions. If Tre didn’t understand something, she should not have signed. And then to go into Court, plead guilty and then cry over the fact she had to do time is just ridiculous. Sure, she might have walked out of the courtroom a free woman with a slap on the wrist (and I’m sure her attorneys told her it might be a POSSIBILITY), but the judge rightly felt that she deserved to do some time for obfuscating and pleading her remorse much too late.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            Excellent points and thank you so much for sharing your expertise today! Were you as gobsmacked as I was when her lawyers argued Teresa doesn’t have trust in the Trustee and Cuevas alleged that he’s never seen a Trustee act the way this one has in all his years of practice? Does he think the court will really take him seriously?

  • EllieGirl6

    Wait….what??? Can someone explain this in a slightly less legal fashion??

    • Stacy Slotnick

      What can we help you with? Which point needs clarification?

      • EllieGirl6

        all of them!! LOL!! But I am reading the comments in the thread and it seems to be that Teresa is just burning more bridges and not accepting any responsibility for her thefts!

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Keep in mind that it is imperative to accurately relay all legal developments. In doing so, I have liberally quoted from the transcript and motion papers. Teresa’s counsel wants to remain on the malpractice case. Since it is an asset of the estate, the Bankruptcy Trustee gets to select special counsel to prosecute the case. This makes Teresa and her team very unhappy because they might not prosecute the case after looking at the merits and they want to give the award to creditors, not Teresa. Hope this helps!

          • chacha1

            thank you for your clarifications and all the time you offer to us so we can get a clear picture of what is going on

          • Stacy Slotnick

            You are very welcome. Thank you for commenting here today and offering analysis. These matters are indeed complex and I think it serves everyone well by providing explicit reference to statements and the law. Anytime someone has a question, it is my pleasure to respond and make sense out of a wild set of circumstances.

          • EllieGirl6

            Thanks so much!!

    • Biscuit

      Stacy could do a much better job than I, but basically, if I am grasping this correctly, Teresa is claiming that she was not represented correctly by her then lawyer, Mr. Kridel. Before passing a sentence for Teresa, the judge asked her council, Mr. Kridel, if all of her income and other things that might be of monetary value, was reported in the bankruptcy suit she filed prior to her conviction for fraud. If I understand this right, Mr. Kridel submitted the statement given to him by the Guidices that what was reported income in th bankruptcy was correct. He went on the assumption his client was telling the truth, but she lied to her lawyer and the court because sh never reported her earnings from all her side jobs, like her wine business and hair company and many other businesses that were generating income. The court/judge found out about these hidden assets and made the decision that since Teresa was not forthcoming about all her assets/income she should serve a year in the Federal pen instead of house arrest, which the judge contemplated giving her prior to her lying about all her assets. Somehow, this is all Mr. Kridel’s fault. So she is suing Mr. Kridel for misrepresentation. Whew. Someone correct me if I got this all wrong.

    • TartLemon

      LOL Yep, that’s what I say too. I have to read, reread, rereread, etc. BUT that’s why I admire so much those who made it through law school. Give me a good old Dr Suess. Now that I can understand the first time around.

    • annienonymous

      1) If you steal enough money you can then pay attorneys to help you get away with stealing the money. At the most you get a slap on the wrist which is not commensurate with the amount you stole, or the amount of lies you have told.
      2) If you have been stolen from you have no chance of recouping money (unless you are the government)
      3) If you represent a crook in court most likely the crook will see you as the next payday

      • sideof Sour Cream

        Don’t forget it would behoove you to have a major media outlet on your side.

        • Stacy Slotnick

          Well said!

      • Stacy Slotnick

        You are a gifted writer. 🙂

        Are you surprised about the trajectory of the case? Do you think the court will allow the Trustee to appoint his own counsel a.k.a. Michael Siegel, despite Cuevas’ protestations? Thanks so much!

  • TartLemon

    Sounds to me that basically, Teresa wants to choose who has access to verifying her assets. Somebody who doesn’t already know what a fraud she is.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Any time you need help navigating a case I am happy to answer your questions. I felt compelled to provide readers with direct quotes, and sometimes they are full of legalese but to be precise, it was important to state this information.

      Teresa wants to prevent the Trustee from appointing anyone other than Cuevas and Rainone. Why? Independent counsel may think she has no case against Kridel. Cuevas states that Teresa has no trust in the Trustee (ironic much?) and that he is on the side of Kridel. But there are no facts to back that up. The reason this is all coming to a head now is because the Trustee named special counsel (Michael D. Siegel) and Cuevas filed legal docs opposing that motion.

      • Perturbed

        Thanks for the great blog, Stacy. Like many of the other posters, I just don’t understand how Teresa is legally permitted NOT to cooperate with these legal proceedings! Especially when the judge and trustee are trying to obtain what is rightfully owed the creditors?!

        • Stacy Slotnick

          I agree. It seems to defy logic that she brought this case and now she doesn’t want to testify unless the circumstances favor her. Just because a witness can been called to testify in a civil case doesn’t mean that the witness must answer every question. Witnesses still enjoy their federal and state Constitutional rights against self-incrimination, even in civil cases. She only does things that are in her own self-interest as evidenced by the latest legal filing (July 5, 2016 opposition to special counsel appointment).

  • AnEnigmaWrappedIn$nark

    As everyone knows, I’ve been team Tre ever since their legal troubles began. But yesterday morning I caught the very first original episode of RHONJ for the first time (I didn’t start watching until season 3), and I must say I was horrified at Teresa’s crude and blatant worship of money. We saw her shelling out over TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND dollars in CASH (cold hard THOUSAND dollar bills) for coffee tables and couches and THOUSANDS in designer kids clothes at local boutiques as one time fan Jacqueline giggled and marveled at Tre’s “free”? spending. If this wasn’t bad enough, while it’s one thing to read about it all these years, it was quite another to witness her uttering those immortal words of “I could never live in used house, that’s gross!”. I am now totally confused of which side I should be on, because while I feel a loyalty to Tre, I am now seeing her in entirely different light and understand the vitriol so many people have for her. But regardless, I found the episode fascinating; meeting the Manzos and Dina, seeing Danielle for the first time, a pre-surgery heavy set Jacqueline, a flat chested Tre, and how little her dorters all were. It was fascinating, knowing what we now know, yet tragic to witness.

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Its kismet! I DVRed most of Season 1 too the other day too and I was stunned when Teresa called Danielle out for not working. My how the tables have turned. I think many of her supporters see her as a doting mother and want everyone to move past her incarceration. Yet what keeps happening is deflecting or shirking responsibility, either on TV (GMA/ABC News) or in court documents. For example, Teresa’s lawyers claim that the Trustee isn’t competent to handle the malpractice suit. Why? Teresa’s lawyers claim Teresa won’t testify or cooperate with the lawsuit she filed against Kridel. Why? So many basic questions unanswered. How much of what is happening currently is because of her lawyers and how much is because of her calling the shots? Thanks for your comments!

      • AnEnigmaWrappedIn$nark

        Even though now I can’t deal with them (or their stupid spin-off), I actually thought the Manzos were kind of endearing and cute in this first season, and I actually liked Jacqueline too (but now can’t stand her). But what struck me as even more odd is that Tre herself was actually a real (unlikable) bitch in the beginning, and despite her legal issues, she seems to have mellowed out (for the better). I think these early seasons are SO much better than now and it seems apparent that the success and fame went to all of their heads.

        • Perturbed

          I always found Tre to be nasty, boastful, ignorant & unlikeable from that 1st season. She may be more PR savvy now, but she’s the same dishonest, greedy famewhore deep down inside that she was 8 years ago.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            She continues to blame others (Kridel) for her wrongdoings and finds fault with the system wherever possible. The allegations that she won’t testify unless she gets her way by having her own attorneys prosecute the case in bankruptcy court is pretty bold and outrageous.

          • AnEnigmaWrappedIn$nark

            Oh~! Fix it’ Jesus.

    • sideof Sour Cream

      It’s not just “gross”, living in a “used” house; it’s “shkeevy”. Don’t ever forget that. lol.

      • AnEnigmaWrappedIn$nark

        I think Kim Z. has been quoted as saying the same thing.

        • sideof Sour Cream

          really?

          • AnEnigmaWrappedIn$nark

            What is it with these self-entitled bishes? I guess it’s skeevy to sleep in a hotel room where other bodies have touched the mattresses, and drooled on the same pillows, and whose asses touched the same toilet seats. Now that I think about it, maybe they’re right! LoL

          • sideof Sour Cream

            not “skeevy”, but “sHkeevy”
            there’s a big difference,
            lol.

          • Why is this happening to us?

            Most people just move into a “used home,” buy a new toilet seat and call it a day! Lol

    • LuvsSnark

      Pretty shady, wasn’t it? And Tre was SO PROUD that she had all that $$$ to throw around. I’m not gonna knock you for being a Tre fan, but the signs that she was fiscally irresponsible and either didn’t care or know where the $$$ was coming from were a constant throughout all the seasons. Tre with her over-the-top parties, throwing money out the window on tacky clothes for her girls (you definitely gotta see one of the first shopping trips with her dorters where Gia demands she buys certain items . . . it was a real eye opener), and her descriptions of the (supposedly) highest quality materials that went into building that monstrosity she calls home.

    • TheBeverlyHillsHaveEyes

      Welcome to the Club!!! She later claimed that it was only $20,000 she was shelling out in dollar bills that day in the furniture store but even at that it was obscene. No one carries cash around like that unless they are hiding money from someone – usually their bank or the IRS!!!

      • Perturbed

        And getting “free money” from the banks (in the MILLIONS) or so she thought! Absolutely obscene watching her throw $$ around like that at the height of the recession!

  • Trippinhhard

    Sounds like Teresa is doing the same old dance around to not pay her creditors.. I don’t know how the court system allows her to still live in that house and drive an expensive car, when her creditors are left holding her debt. She has no plans to pay anyone back if the court system don’t make her.. Why is her checks from Bravo not being garnished???? Teresa is still the same old get over person she always was.. They are living way above their means and the creditors are still not getting paid..

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Your first sentence is very astute. Judge Meisel – just over one month ago – wanted to set the record straight that while Teresa may have payment plans, she hasn’t paid back every creditor in full. Cuevas and the judge did that dance for several pages of the transcript. Point being, she hasn’t paid back everything. Her checks from Bravo may very well be garnished but she owes a lot of people a lot of money. I think that is a fascinating question about whether she is living above her means and whether sale of the Towaco house would have been the right move both financially and as good PR.

      • TartLemon

        Since the bankruptcy was denied due to the fraud, is Teresa responsible for the full amount owed or has there been an agreement for pennies on the $$ like most repayment plans?

        • Stacy Slotnick

          It would be my guess that her creditors want to see funds and fast so they might have agreed to reduce the amount owed however if I were legally or financially advising these creditors, I would make sure the payment plan included hefty penalties for late payments. They should get a contract signed by Teresa that is legally enforceable.

      • Trippinhhard

        Thank you Stacy, but I don’t think Teresa has any plans to pay what she owes to her creditors.. She is living way above her means and it’s disgusting to know that she hasn’t changed one bit and don’t plan on changing anything.. I hope they throw the books at her

        • Stacy Slotnick

          The reason this all matters is because if creditors exist, and the alleged malpractice occurred pre-petition, the Trustee has ownership of that malpractice suit “asset.” It is his to pursue, not Teresa’s. I think it is clear by now that Teresa still owes money to creditors, and the Trustee wants to try and get some of that money back if indeed the malpractice suit is an asset. He may pursue other avenues and funds in his quest.

          • Trippinhhard

            They should make her sell her red bottom shoes, diamond rings, expensive handbag and whatever to pay her creditors.. I watch stars lose their pricey possessions to the IRS, why not Teresa.. Is there anyway she can do more jail time by testifying in her case.. I hope so they have treated her with silk gloves on compared to others..

          • Stacy Slotnick

            You make a highly convincing argument. If Teresa testifies and reveals others crimes she committed, she could be charged. I think the prosecutor in such a case would need evidence though to support anything she says. So yes, while she could inadvertently disclose other crimes for which she hasn’t been charged (remember the rule about double jeopardy), I think some proof would need to corroborate any self-inflicted statements she makes.

          • Trippinhhard

            So in other words, her attorney wouldn’t let her answer certain questions.. Teresa is dumber than a bag of rocks, she should just STFU and pay what she owes.. She’s really trying hard not to pay back what she owes..is their house still in their names???? If so how can they keep it and all the other thingees they have, when they haven’t paid back their creditors..

          • Stacy Slotnick

            It is my understanding that their Indian Lane home is still in both their names and they are up to date on mortgage payments. Could creditors try and go after that asset? Perhaps.

          • Trippinhhard

            Thank you Stacy for taking the time to give an attorney point of view and very detailed..
            Well the house is not worth anything, because they were upside down on the loan.l they owe more than the house is worth..

          • Stacy Slotnick

            You are quite welcome. Thanks for your wonderful remarks and questions. I’m so pleased we had such a robust discussion on the topic and that AATT readers got to see the allegations firsthand in these court filings and the transcript of the hearing. Have an excellent day!

          • justanothermary

            The house is not an asset if the mortgage is underwater. Any equity in a home would be an asset but I’m quite certain they are underwater on their mortgage and/or construction loans. It would cost them money to leave that house, thus creating another creditor. However, it must cost a small fortune to keep that house running so I’m quite certain they will be evicted at some point.

          • Trippinhhard

            IKR I posted the same thing, they owe more than the house is worth.. It’s disgusting seeming them still living over their means, while their creditors are left holding the bag of rocks.. They really don’t intend on paying anyone…

        • JrzShoreLady

          I don’t understand how they can afford the security system that Joe had installed that’s suppose to rival Fort Knox. Also, how they pay for all their kids activities? Gymnastics, etc are not cheap. It’s disgusting how they have no remorse & are still able to live so far beyond their means.

          • Trippinhhard

            I know it’s disgusting, my niece took gymnastics for 5-6 years, it was $600.00 a month here.. They also take dance, singing lessons and what about acting classes.. It’s sickening to still see her with her $20K purses and red bottom shoes, plus expensive dresses.. Ugh
            Then that huzzy comes home to a new expensive SUV, I don’t care if it’s lease, they still don’t make sense that they are allow to spend that type of money, when they owe so many
            Creditors… Ugh

          • Stacy Slotnick

            You make excellent points. Do you think they are receiving funds from their families to live the lifestyle they have become accustomed to (and don’t want to give up for anything)? Perhaps the payment plans with creditors allow them to pay back the money they stole in small increments.

          • JrzShoreLady

            I think they hid money. I work in payroll and handle IRS & creditor garnishments all the time, so I know they take a good portion of the pay. An IRS tax levy actually gives me the amount the employee is allowed to keep and after paying deductions (medical, dental, taxes, etc.) the balance goes to the IRS.

          • Stacy Slotnick

            Thank you so much for offering your impressions and very helpful expertise!

    • LuvsSnark

      For sure! Tre is gonna try her damnest to squeeze any $$$ she can outta her lawsuit against her former attorney, which she’ll pocket or blow on some stupid shite instead of paying off her creditors. As for the Trustee, wasn’t he appointed by the Court? It doesn’t matter whether Tre trusts him or not, cuz he is not answerable to her. Tre pled guilty and served her time (questionably a much shorter sentence than she should have gotten) and should get over it and move on. She has no integrity in the public arena, and there’s not a chance of getting it back by whining that she was given inadequate representation and had to do time as a result. Dumb as a box of rocks is how I see her.

      • Stacy Slotnick

        Absolutely! Teresa’s faith, trust, or whatever other emotion you want to attach to her feelings about the Trustee are irrelevant. The Trustee represents the creditors and wants to make sure they are made as whole as possible. To insinuate that Teresa can make a judgment call about the Trustee that carries any weight is ridiculous.

      • Trippinhhard

        I agree with everything you posted.. This crook needs to end up spending more time in jail..she has no plans nor does she wants to pay back all her creditors. She just wants to continue to live way above her means.. We all know you received everything by stealing and lying to get it.. She was lucky to get such a short sentence in the first place.. Where are all those diamond rings she had, and why didn’t they make her sell all her expensive item to help pay her debt off.. She got off easily and she’s still not happy.. Then the dumb heftier had a job and new car awaiting her return.. I still don’t understand how the IRS is letting her keep so much and get by so cheaply…

  • 🐯🌸 Tigerlily 🐅 *·.¸¸. *·

    Thanks so much Stacy & AAtT for always giving us the hottest tea in town!

    Yowza!

    I have no words for the crap this woman is capable of pulling. She is beyond vile & disgusting & imho, it seems she has found herself some attorneys that are just as shady as she is & are willing to sink to her level.
    To insinuate that the Trustee is not trustworthy but Teresa Giudice is?
    Are you chittin’ me???
    The fact that she even has the audacity to attempt to hold her testimony hostage to try & wrangle the courts into giving her what she wants is abominable.
    This is unfathomable to me!
    This woman & her scheming ways are exceedingly contemptible. It is beyond my comprehension that any of this is even allowed to go on.
    How can this even be considered as being legitimate? How can any of the BS Tre shovels be legal or even allowed?
    Tre admitted guilt. She stated in court that she was guilty & that she understood her plea deal. You don’t get to un-ring that bell.

    • Shy-ra

      Hi Tiger! I second every single point you made in your post. Not excluding “are you chittin’ me? “! 😂😂 that cracked me up so much.
      Because, in all seriousness, I really want to know how this foolishness is allowed? I only hope they’re entertaining these motions as a mean to an ends for T to go back to jail!! Please please let it be so. The court isn’t a forum for Teresa to have entitled tantrums- its disrespectful. Embarrassing to the court system. Like I said I sure hope there’s an ulterior motive, and it better be a doozy. Clink clink!

      • Stacy Slotnick

        There was very little substance in the opposition filed for Teresa’s counsel to maintain their hold on the legal malpractice case. Just because you say the case is too complex for this Trustee doesn’t make it so. Oh, and that statement is HIGHLY offensive.

        • Shy-ra

          Thank you -phew! I’m glad to be informed of how it’s perceived. The gall!!
          T ( if she is in fact calling the shots)is beyond crazy – don’t poke the bear!! What are you doing?! Lol

          • Stacy Slotnick

            The claims made about the Trustee and his counsel are outrageous. To suggest that the nuances involved in the malpractice action are too complex for them to prosecute insults the Trustee and other lawyers’ intelligence. The reality is, her lawyers want their fees so they have to be appointed as special counsel for that to happen and actually prosecute the case against James Kridel and prevail.

      • 🐯🌸 Tigerlily 🐅 *·.¸¸. *·

        Hi’ya Shy. It’s a Stacy blog so I’m trying to rein it in a little. lol, but I couldn’t help myself. Tee-hee!
        Love the clink-clink!
        The fact that her lawyer seems willing to stoop as low as his client is beyond my comprehension.
        Where does he get off trying to discredit the Trustee?
        Why?
        Because Mr. Sywilok decided that it was completely unfair to all the people the Giudices cheated to not be given some type of compensation for what the felons did to them & their families?
        Because Cuevas thought it was wrong that the felon should actually have to pay back some of her debts?
        & to toss out another Judges name as if it’s some kind of threat.
        Oh look out Tre has connections to a Judge who just happens to be an expert on bankruptcy.
        GTFOH felon & take that shiesty lawyer Cuevas with you!

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Hi Tigerlily! Thank you for the comments. I’m so glad you were able to piece together a full picture about what this all means for the case and the court. Any statements from Cuevas that you found particularly shocking? Why do you think Judge Lyons’ name got thrown around when he didn’t represent Teresa? I agree its wrong for Teresa to try and withhold her testimony if things don’t go her way.

      • 🐯🌸 Tigerlily 🐅 *·.¸¸. *·

        Hi Stacy! Thanks again so much for a great & informative blog.

        I am astonished that Cuevas has tried to muddy the waters by discrediting not only Mr. Kridel, who did nothing wrong in my opinion, but the Trustee also.
        Scandalous!
        & her lawyer, Cuevas throwing out Judge Lyons name as if he’s somehow trying to intimidate or scare the Trustee, Mr. Sywilok, his attorney Mr. Kopelman, Mr. Kridel & the court is dishonorable, improper, unseemly & sordid.
        (That’s all the synonyms I could think of, lol)

        Almost as dishonorable, improper, unseemly & sordid as his client Teresa Giudice.

        • Stacy Slotnick

          And remember, attorneys are held to a standard when it comes to legal filings. When you submit paperwork to the court, you cannot offer statements or proof that is faulty, fictitious or made in bad faith. Lawyers sign off on those motions and briefs knowing full well they owe a duty to the court to provide truthful and supportable claims.

          You absolutely sum up these developments perfectly. Kridel isn’t the only target of Teresa but it appears the Trustee and his lawyers and special counsel appointees are too subject to her wrath. Insanity.

          As you can see by the comment James Kridel provided me with regarding Judge Lyons, it is improper to misquote and misstate that a retired judge represented her.

          • 🐯🌸 Tigerlily 🐅 *·.¸¸. *·

            Stacy, that blows my mind! Imho there are no two ways about it. It’s testimonial blackmail, & to think Cuevas might have used a Judges name within a misrepresentation to the court?
            Dang!
            How outrageous.
            But then again this is Teresa Giudice. Like water she always seeks the lowest level & she knows no bounds when it comes to her greed & ego.
            & sadly some people are okay with it & enable it & now it seems to be catching.

          • Cindy

            And any AWARD Money NOT to go solely to her Creditors SMH and I still can’t believe Bravo is paying her felon ass Big Bucs!! I for one will NOT be watching that phoney show!!

          • 🐯🌸 Tigerlily 🐅 *·.¸¸. *·

            Ditto Cindy. I won’t be watching either. I’ll just come here for the recaps, great blogs & snark & sass from all the posters.
            😉

          • Cindy

            And I’ll be here with you to see what they all have to say lol, personally I hope this whole Bravo thing tanks on them and people realize wtf they are doing by watching and buying her “crap” Guess I’ll see ya Monday lol 😉

  • gracwalk

    Stacy, do you know when the next court date is scheduled?

    • Stacy Slotnick

      Good question. I’m sure there will be a hearing on the matter of the Trustee’s special counsel appointment of Michael D. Siegel in the coming weeks, and I will be sure to bring AATT readers the latest scoop so keep checking back!

  • Orlando Chan

    She is and always will be a fraud and a crook.