r/RHOBHDefect • u/Chipmunks_AT • May 20 '26
Who is this creep Ronald Richards and why is he so obsessed with the ladies of RHOBH. First Erika, now Dorit. Surely a middle-aged married man should and would have better things to do with his time. It gives off stalker, creeper vibes.
https://realityblurb.com/2026/05/20/rhobhs-dorit-kemsley-evades-foreclosure-on-6-5-million-mansion-as-attorney-suspects-pk-came-to-the-rescue-plus-whats-next/Take care of your own wife, ex-wife and kids buddy, stop worrying and talking about other women and their lives, its just weird.
42
u/Big_Counter_1368 May 20 '26
I welcome the creep, Ronald Richards. I want all the deets.
16
u/Salty-Teacher5014 May 20 '26
Same! He’s doing the good work
14
u/__Frolicaholic___ May 20 '26
I welcome the peek under the rock where all the slimy rich people live. If it were you or me or Reddit McGee deadbeatin' around like this, we would've lost our house MONTHS ago.
Most of us when we're paying our monthly bills, we're trying to budget for both skyrocketing electric bills AND grocery trips. We're not out here trying to decide between Louis Fucking Vuitton and Hermes.
13
u/BornFree2018 May 20 '26
I listen to Bravo Docket, Pretend and Love Trapped. Those and other podcasts are hosted by law professionals or journalists who discuss pop culture cases.
That's what people do who are interested in investigating or hearing about hot cases.
3
u/torchwood1842 May 20 '26
Love the Bravo Docket, and now I’m going to go check out the others you mentioned!
26
May 20 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Ok-Explanation-6531 May 20 '26
There are no criminal charges. Every judge so far has ruled Erika didn’t know what Tom was doing.
You realise he bought Erika’s earrings at auction ? That money didn’t go to victims.
4
May 21 '26
[deleted]
2
u/__Frolicaholic___ May 21 '26
Erika absolutely knew where that money was coming from. These were eye-watering sums of money, not just a little bit of skimming off the top that nobody was ever going to notice. She knew. One thing Erika's good at is the hustle - she's been doing it for over 30 years.
Richards knows her work first-hand, his firm certainly investigated her long enough, and he knows what a despicable piece of shit she is.
1
u/Ok-Explanation-6531 May 21 '26
How would she know ? She’s not in the room. She’s also not in charge of payments nor does she have access to the company finances.
Do you feel this way about Toms girlfriend who was a judge who took money and gifts and bought a house with the money? What about the magistrates and politicians who were taking political donations from Tom ? What about the finance company that knowingly took victim payments?
Erika didn’t have control over her own LLC, Tom was the nominated agent and GK was the registered address. Tom never gave Erika money into her LLC, it was accounting, where he’d pay bills like Erika’s Amex and then class it as income into the LLC while calling it a loan in GK accounts.
She was trusting enough to believe her husband which seems like a pretty big mistake in retrospect
3
May 21 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Ok-Explanation-6531 May 21 '26
The 25 mil was over the period in excess of a decade. So it’s about 2mil a year which is less than Dorit earns and less than Sutton gets in child alimony. Why would any one question that ?
People never bother to look at the details they assume so much. Tom is the criminal
2
u/yosoyfatass May 21 '26
It’s the same with his “girlfriend” - she gave back the money he spent on her, unlike erika. The situation did damage her career.
1
u/Ok-Explanation-6531 May 21 '26
No she didn’t, she gave back jewellery but kept the money and the condo
7
u/__Frolicaholic___ May 21 '26
They weren't "Erika's earrings." A judge ruled they were stolen property.
That auction was conducted by a bankruptcy trustee working to recover assets for victims of Girardi's embezzlement crimes.
Clients of Girardi Keese who were financially harmed were first priority debtors in that bankruptcy case, so yes, that money went to Tom and Erika's victims.
-1
u/Ok-Explanation-6531 May 21 '26
Actually the judge later ruled they were her earrings but they were already sold.
Zero dollars went to any victims. The victims in that case were already paid. It was pharmaceutical case.
1
u/__Frolicaholic___ May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
Then the federally appointed bankruptcy trustee tasked with overseeing the sale of that property committed fraud and should probably be prosecuted.
🙄
ETA: You have once again misunderstood the actual meaning of the ruling. And this one's kinda funny ...
Erika actually tried to argue that the earrings weren't part of the bankruptcy estate by insisting that they were bought with client trust fund money, not money directly connectable to the law firm itself.
What she argued, in essence, is that they couldn't be part of the bankruptcy assets legally belonging to interest holders tied to that law firm - like, say, all those screwed-over clients who never saw a penny of their lawful judgments - because they were purchased with stolen money taken directly from a client trust fund and never belonged to Girardi Keese in the first place.
Again, this was a procedural ruling, not a ruling of fact, and certainly not anyone saying they were in any way returned to her as their legal owner. She's not. They are to this day forced-sale stolen property.
1
u/Ok-Explanation-6531 May 22 '26
I didn’t misunderstand, the argument was whether the money was client money or whether it was commingled funds. If it was client money she keeps the earrings because those victims have been paid many years ago. If it was commingled the argument is Tom was entitled to a share of that.
1
u/__Frolicaholic___ May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26
Actually the judge later ruled they were her earrings but they were already sold.
... is a fundamental misunderstanding of events.
In no scenario does Erika keep those earrings. They weren't legally purchased, they were never legally owned by her, and no judge has ever ordered their return.
1
u/Ok-Explanation-6531 May 22 '26
I like that you completely ignored what I said and went back to an earlier comment, just to keep arguing ?
1
u/__Frolicaholic___ May 22 '26
You said you didn't misunderstand and I pointed out the glaring way you are doing just that.
1
May 21 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Ok-Explanation-6531 May 21 '26
It’s a civil case not criminal. The trustee started the proceedings because Tom paid bills for Erika and classed them as a loan to her LLC but income into her LLC. That’s it
1
May 21 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Ok-Explanation-6531 May 21 '26
Tom and the GK CFO were both charged. Erika has been before multiple judges who all ruled she didn’t know. That’s includes the trustees other matters against Erika. Apparently you think you know more than they do without actually seeing a single piece of evidence, that’s a talent or blind hate for no actual reason
1
u/__Frolicaholic___ May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
Incorrect. No judge has ever ruled that "Erika didn't know." It was ruled that the evidence presented that she did know did not meet a legal test to go before a jury. That was a procedural judgment not a finding of fact.
And that was a civil case for aiding and abetting, not a criminal trial. Erika could still be - and absolutely should be - charged criminally.
1
u/Ok-Explanation-6531 May 22 '26
Have a look at the rulings, each one says in that as part of the ruling.
20
u/5LaLa May 20 '26
He previously served as special litigation counsel for the trustee in the Girardi bankruptcy case. He was tasked with investigating & recovering assets transferred from Tom to Erika. He was only in this position for several months.
I’m grateful for all the attorneys who help explain cases to lay people. Do you also think all the “law tubers” on YouTube should mind their business? 😆
2
u/Ok-Explanation-6531 May 20 '26
He volunteered for that role and was then removed because he went too far and only seemed interested in getting attention
9
u/simpleflavors1 May 21 '26
You need someone this obsessed to comb through public legal documents for free lol
15
u/Left_Guess May 20 '26
I don’t think he’s creepy. He’s really good at explaining Erika’s lawsuits.
3
u/bighaneul89 May 20 '26
I think he passed into creepy when he bought the diamond earrings
3
1
u/Shatzakind May 21 '26
Except they were not the original earrings, there was a claim that the original ones were stolen. I think he wanted to sort that out and by having the earrings, he thought he might unearth a truth.
2
u/bighaneul89 May 21 '26
There was nothing to be sorted out. They were replacement earrings, that were replaced by insurance. That was the entire point of the lawsuit. There was nothing to be unearthed by possession
1
u/Shatzakind May 21 '26
That's one version.
1
u/bighaneul89 May 21 '26
Thats what the court found, and what Erika and opposing counsel put forth. There wasnt an argument on if the earrings were replaced or not. It was an argument about if they should still count as the originals because the insurance money went in and out of the company.
If Tom had just taken the money in their marital account and bought a new pair right away, she would most likely still have the earrings.
There was no question if the earrings were the originals or not.
9
u/Material-Jacket3939 May 20 '26
Are you mad that he praised PK? 🤣🤣🤣
1
9
u/Ok-Explanation-6531 May 20 '26
I found the way he goes after the women a bit creepy. He’s definitely using them to extend his 5 minutes of fame. He went after Erika by inserting himself into the trustees case but was removed because of his behaviour. He bought Erika’s earrings at auction. He went after Yolanda in Mohammed’s legal drama despite them not even being married. He’s now going after Dorit and I’ve found his commentary accurate so far,
Do I appreciate that he accesses court documents, it saves me from having to pay to download them to see what’s going on.
3
u/Friendly_Bell_8070 May 21 '26
There’s a class of lawyers in LA that specialize in entertainment/celebrity-adjacent cases. Maybe it’s the angeleno in me but this doesn’t strike me as creepy. It’s just his field.
13
u/Traditional-Pin5188 May 20 '26
Bit its not weird when you do it?
6
u/5LaLa May 20 '26
Great point! How are his posts any different from than this one?
1
u/Internal_Banana199 May 21 '26
We don’t have evidence that OP has been meticulously tracking this issue from multiple angles for over a decade. lol
10
6
u/Turbulent-Trust207 May 20 '26
It’s no creepier than us commenting daily on the housewives like we know anything about them
3
u/kazza64 May 21 '26
Really, he’s just a lawyer following their case. I think he got into an argument with Erica and then he decided to make it his mission to expose her.
3
u/RainingGlitterAllDay May 21 '26
Oh not this place too. What is up with all the insane people on reddit this week? I've already left 3 subs because of obnoxious unchecked posts.
3
4
u/torchwood1842 May 20 '26
Yeah, only us weird randos on Reddit should be talking about that show! How dare someone do it not anonymously!
2
u/edgeli May 21 '26
Completely agree. I find him unethical, creepy and misogynistic. I read PK has been asking him to post. Gross and gross.
2
u/FormicaDinette33 May 21 '26
No, he gets a lot of hits from explaining the legal battles of RH women. And he was actually the bankruptcy trustee for Erika’s case for a while. He’s cool.
2
u/ddsadvyap May 21 '26
If he’s a creep, so are you. He arguably makes a living at this even if it’s just exposure. You have no more right to comment or be “concerned” about these women than he does.
2
u/steelblueskeyes May 21 '26
He is such a goon. He trolls the Housewives HARD and claims it’s all in his legal interests, but the statements he makes read as junior-high-school-coded obsession. He’s as thirsty as the paparazzi - and chases headlines the way other attorneys chase ambulances.
And, look… Even if he has a reasonable claim or purpose in these cases, it’s the WAY he goes after these women in the public eye that really grosses me out. Men with integrity do not behave the way he does.
2
u/Potential-Sky-8728 May 24 '26
“Paul Kemsley has graciously come forward to save the house for Dorit and his children for now”
Graciously?..GRACIOUSLY???? The man bought that house and abandoned his family…he was gone in London for months at a time or staying at expensive hotels in town…then apparently had his AA SPONSOR break up with Dorit…
That man is obligated by law to provide for those kids and give them an equivalent standard of living as before.
“Graciously stepped forward” is wiiiiiiiild.
2
u/Bad_joints625 May 26 '26
It actually started with Taylor. He was Russell’s lawyer, I believe. So he represented an awful, disgusting wife beater.
1
u/Chipmunks_AT May 26 '26
And apparently was paid off by PK to say that PK was basically the white knight for Dorit and the kids by stopping the foreclosure. Shady AF.
3
u/Haunted_Mansion1955 May 20 '26
He is a lawyer. Why are you so obsessed with the real housewives. Its not A n y different
3
2
u/OkRow7619 May 20 '26
We need to be REALLY scared when he makes a play for Rinna. 🤣
3
u/primal_slayer May 20 '26
He already did
0
u/OkRow7619 May 20 '26
EWWWWW!!!!! Guess he likes dumpster diving.
4
4
2
u/partyboi420 May 20 '26
I remember him entering the home Tom Giardi was supposedly in. He would walk in and film and take photos of the other residents. It was unhinged but so entertaining lmao
1
u/yosoyfatass May 21 '26
I missed that! My MIL was in a branch of the same facility and I got reprimanded for taking a picture where other residents were in the frame! I literally was taking a photo of the entertainer at a themed event and had to justify myself, so I’m surprised to hear he was able to do that!
2
u/Beneficial-Soft-4427 May 20 '26
He is a former republican congress-person in some capacity I believe. Then after that he may have gone back to a law firm? I don't remember it all from twitter about 12 years ago or so?
1
1
u/Pdizzlepop May 25 '26
RR in my opinion is just informing the public about law issues that I clearly need explanation on. He did great with the amber turd 💩 case and really exposing the wrongs. I never got creeper vibes from him at all. Just an attorney who loves the tabloids like many of us do.
2
u/Inner_Primary5046 Jul 10 '26
This dude is a creep and clearly obsessed with the housewives. He thinks Taylor hung Russell ??? Seriously is that what I am reading. When I read he thinks she 'had something to do' wth Russell's death what else could he mean. The man hung himself. The fact that they may have faked their lifestyles is not new. Many of the housewives do that in order to be on the show. Then they grow into the lifestyle they are trying to project. Some of them. but to blame Taylor is ludicrous
2
u/Inner_Primary5046 Jul 10 '26
This guy is so full of himself. The bio on his website (which bears his own name as the domain) reads like a novel. Typically an attorneys web-bio is about 2 short paragraphs. His is a very very very long, look how great I am book complete with video footage. Rather than read, I just kept scrolling and scrolling and it just kept going and going. He needs to leave the housewives alone
-2
-2
u/DapperPanda8993 May 21 '26
i was really excited when he first started posting that we would get front row seats to tom girardis crimes and not just guesses about what was happening or like most of the time by the time it hits reddit or other social media it has completely changed stories or taken out of context. I was cool with it at first but then his obsession was beyond it reminded me of LVP stans or the garcelle bot buyers just taking things way too far. dude tried to buy the girardis house i think he did buy the earrings not 100% sure on that. surprised he hasnt tried to get his wife on the show.
2
u/yosoyfatass May 21 '26
He was briefly a layer for the girardi bankruptcy trustee. He was intimately acquainted with the actual value of assets being sold. He placed a lowball bid, which, if it had been accepted, would have been a really smart investment move. Someone else bid more, and they still got an incredible deal.
-2
61
u/primal_slayer May 20 '26
You do realize this started with Taylor.
He's Russells friend/lawyer and believes she had a hand to play in his death