Details of Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star Dorit Kemsley‘s financial situation – EXTORTION, in this case – with her estranged husband, PK Kemsley, were reviewed with Attorney Ronald Richards.
The LA- and DC-based attorney took his commentary to social media, noting, “Tweets are my own opinions.” Ronald Richards provided legal documents to support his commentary.
From the desk of Ronald Richards:
“Bombshell filings in the Dorit ‘Poorit‘ Kemsley and Paul Kemsley divorce,” began the practicing attorney.
“Dorit is extorting Paul for immediate $50,000 payments, or she will expose him. She is spending $102,000 per month, mostly on high-end shopping.”
According to Ronald Richards, there are receipts, literally. “There is a battery of text messages between them that are too much to post here for now.”
“A well-known RA attorney also submitted a declaration showing that the property Dorit lives in is facing two foreclosures from two different lenders with over $6,538,634 in debt and mounting daily.”
Even worse, “There is not much equity to save here after commissions.”
Ronald Richards, who has provided oodles of commentary about Erika Jayne Girardi‘s legal issues, compared the RHOBH stars. “Dorit has an abusive and unrealistic spending problem, just like Erika Girardi.”
Regarding Dorit’s ex, “Paul is hanging on for dear life here,” explained Ronald Richards. “It was sad reading his papers,” concluded the attorney.
The legal jargon – From case number 25STFLO4139:
“During the call, Petitioner [Dorit] indicated that payment of $50,000 immediately, along with an additional $50,000 the following week, would prevent her from engaging in what she referred to as “dirty games.”
That includes “actions she suggested could cause reputational harm to Respondent [PK]. In that context, she specifically referenced Respondent [PK]’s significant other, Tatiana, and suggested that reputational allegations or publicity could negatively impact Respondent [PK]’s relationship with her as well.”
“I expressed concern that even if the initial $50,000 were provided by Respondent [PK], there was no assurance that additional financial demands would not follow in the future. In response, Petitioner [Dorit] stated, ‘PK knows me,’ which I did not interpret as providing any clear limitation or assurance regarding future demands.”
View on Threads
