Wiki-Leak or Prank For Jersey Housewives?

http://absurdtosublime.net/2011/02/27/tara-revealed-on-real-housewives-of-new-jersey-season-3/

Sometime late last night, someone posted an addition to an entry to Wikipedia.org. At the bottom of the Real Housewives of New Jersey page, information was added with episode listings, air-dates, and titles for season III.
Shortly after that, Absurd 2 Sublime took a screen-shot of the information, and posted a blog about it.
Lucky thing they were on-the-ball, because sometime today, someone deleted the information.
Absurd2Sublime made note of the fact that one of the up-coming season's episodes is, (supposedly), titled, Joe & Tara something or other.
They, (Absurd 2 Sublime), did make a slight error in their report, there are 14 episodes listed, not 28!
 (28 is total number of episodes aired so far?).
Also of interest, are the presumed air-dates, and Season III show premiere. The, (deleted) Wiki-entry, lists Saturday May 7th, for episode 1, of Season III.
I don't recall The Housewives running on Saturdays, so that's pretty suspicious.

While this is an "unofficial" release of information, aside from some Twitter messages from the Real Housewives of New York cast members, (citing various dates the first week in April), and one slightly ominous attribution of an, April 1st, (April Fool's day!?), premiere there have been no official announcements, about when the re-scheduled Real Housewives of New York will return. Seeing schedule info.about the Jersey Girls, while the New York franchise is still up-in-the-air, has got to have some people more than a just little bit worried.

The link to Wiki, posted at the top of this item, is the revision-page for Real Housewives of New Jersey. In checking previous revisions, it is interesting to note that there has been some back-and-forth, revision going-on. Apparently, someone keeps going-back to the article and adding Kim G., and them someone else returns, and deletes her name from the page, and so on. Kim's name is/was also included in one-of the listed episode titles, "(episode) 6. Kim G. Steps In- June 18, 2011"

I guess we'll have to "Watch What Happens"-(Bravo), to see if any of the information is correct. If it is, this would be the first time that an entire season of episodes were laid-out in advance. Usually information about up-coming episodes/titles etc. is released after-the-fact, or no more than the standard two-weeks advance block-scheduling.

Nikkie Finke from Deadline Hollywood is claiming that press credentials were revoked because she commited the journalistic crime of publishing too much advance information about this year's Oscar Awards.
So I'm wondering if this Wikipedia drive-by, was someone's idea of a way to publish privileged information, without risking sanctions?

Kim, "Granny-Panties" Granatell Dishes-out Dirt on Teresa & Joe

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/movies/real-housewives-of-new-jersey-fans-might-be-able-to-guess-identity-of-this-scam-artist

I found a link to the item posted above on my Facebook page.  How ironic is it Kim posts a blog full-of accusations about a cast-member after trying to force another blogger to delete information about herself?
(The recent  incident with The Really Old Housewife of Manatee County)
Kim and her lawyers may think that by not mentioning Joe and Teresa Giudice that she can make these allegations, but we'll just have to see if Kim can dish it out like this like this and get-away with it. We already know that she can't take it. Keep in mind that Kim has dropped enough hints that we don't have to guess to know that she is talking about Teresa & Joe.
(copied from article by Kim)

"I actually was approached by a guy to invest in a business that I found out later never existed. He was just so convincing. I saw the lifestyle he had: several homes in all the right zip codes, a private jet, a fleet of luxury cars in a parking lot the size of a mini mall... (and all with other peoples hard earned money). But I was too smart and way ahead of his game, playing him like he was playing others.
These people want what other people have. They basically do not want to work for it or do not have a strong business sense to succeed on their own. Instead of being happy in their own skin, they desire to excel, but at the expense of others...and get away with it!!!
They are Pros. They have a lot of self confidence and feel they are above the law. In many recent conversations with my girlfriend, who is a high powered attorney, I have discussed this topic with her. Some people skirt the law with their actions... often worse than morally bankrupt. They are morally empty.
The example(s) I am about to cite are true and committed by basically one family or person. I have left out the names to protect the Not-So-Innocent individual's family. The story may be familiar to you. So, here's how it goes.
It starts with the little things. In one instance, this person went into a local boutique and took (I can't say bought) hundreds of dollars of clothing for her children, and said "oh I will be back to pay you," and never went back. She did this on several occasions throughout many boutiques in the area, not just for the children but for herself also.
From there she graduated on to bigger and better things. She had "wild" spending on credit cards, racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars without a thought in mind to ever pay them. She built an add-on million dollar house (of course not in the right zip code) and bragged about how many more millions it was worth and that it was, indeed, brand new. So not true. It was built on swamp land with a major highway in the backyard, out in the middle of nowhere. She gave minimal deposits to all the contractors on the job and when the time came to make the final payment after the jobs were completed, these guys were "you know what" out of luck."-Kim Granatell

Fabu~la~si~tee Means Dough! For Teresa

Teresa Giudice Tweeted a message to her fans that she has already begun to line-up her Spring book tour. (please read to end of post for update from her current tour).

The new book, once-again co-authored by Heather Maclean, is available for pre-order on Amazon, even though it is not scheduled to be realeased 'till May 3. The pre-order deal from Amazon as usual, carries the price guarantee, which is great, but right now, (Feb 11),  the pre-order price is about as low as I think we will see for a new copy of this book. The Title of Book II, is Fabulicious!-(more about that below). Gia is on the cover, or at least the preview version. Even though it has not yet been released, Fabulicious! is in the top 3 hundred-thousand sellers, on Amazon, and moving-up.

PRE-ORDER page:Fabulicious!: Teresa's Italian Family Cookbook Click HeRE

I found a few other books with the "FAB..."-word in the title on Amazon too. One is from the Coca~Cola™ company:

One Hundred Fabulicious Drinks Amazon (click here) Only 5 available

While I was researching this item, I noticed that Teresa's website is named, "Fabulicious"™. With a Trademark. That's right-it looks like Teresa owns the ™ to, "Fabulicious"™. Someone even made sure that when you use the word for a Google©-search, Teresa's website is the first result.

http://www.teresagiudice.com/ 

And yes, I looked it up. It looks like everything is copacetic as far as Teresa filing with the US Trademark office. Or is it? To tell you the truth, aside from knowing how to hold-down the "alt" key and hit 0153 to make the little ™ deely, I know almost nothing about Trademarks. But this is interesting info. to help understand the process. HERE is a link to  the current Trademark information for Teresa. Apparently, it will be official with publication in the Federal Register, sometime in March.
But, HERE is a link to the US Trademark search-page results for, "Fabulicious"™, and you can see that Teresa has had an interesting history trying to trademark this word. And so have a few other people, including a fragrance company who apparently still owns some rights to the word! (photo below)-How does that work?? Maybe the exclamation point has something to do with it? !

Getting-back to the main topic of this post, (Teresa's book tour), I found a review to a recent stop on Teresa's current book tour from fairytalefeasts.com. (entire review and more here)

"I first had the chance to taste these healthful recipes last weekend when Teresa ventured outside of Jersey and took a trip down Interstate 80 to Mount Airy Casino and Resort in the Poconos. There, Teresa held a book signing and hosted a dinner at Mount Airy's Italian restaurant, La Sorelle Cucina, which prepared a menu using recipes straight from Teresa's cookbook. For $59 a person, Teresa's guests received a copy of Skinny Italian and feasted on a generous tasting menu of her favorite dishes. The highlight of the night was, of course, Teresa, who personally greeted each guest, posed for photos, and signed each book."-(fairytalefeasts.com)

Wow! A copy of the book, a personal meet & greet, AND a full-course meal for 59 dollars?? How can that not be the deal of the century? The only thing that fairytalefeasts did not mention was anything about wine-pairings as far as I could tell, so I don't know if that occurred or not. The original invite from the Casino in the Poconos also highlighted a wine-pairing to go with this crazy-fantastic deal.
You can say anything you want about Teresa's messy financial problems, (and I probably have;)), but this lady puts on a mean book tour, and she has done incredibly well for the book business too. I noticed that on Amazon, people who bought Teresa's first book tended to be buyers of cookbooks in general, as opposed to people more interested in The Real Housewives.
It has been stated that Housewives have to give a percentage of their merchandising profits to Bravo. I can't remember, and of-course I don't really know for sure how that applies, or if all of the Housewives are obligated to share profits with the network.
As far as food is concerned, Teresa can do no wrong.  Unless her mama's meatball recipe is a stinker. Meatballs have been known to cause controversy, but I think its how you cook them/like them. I usually prefer mine of the mushy variety-cooked right in the sauce, although lately I've been aiming-for a crispy-crust on the outside. Teresa's mom was making meatballs for her kids at about the same time that my mom was, and I still use that recipe today because its so easy to remember. (-those sneaky moms put shredded carrot in, but I never do that). The never-fail recipe that I use is: One cup of bread crumbs, one cup of water, one egg, and one pound or so package of ground meat .(1+1+1+1-1carrot = Meatballs!-none of that 2/3-cup business for me!)

They Didn't-Did They?

It looks like they did! Radar Online has all of the Exclusive DETAILS! (here).

Its BaAak---Tweet Maxine reincarnated and Tweeting-up a storm!

http://hollywoodgiants.com/2011/02/06/bravo-tweetmaxine-is-back-and-bigger-than-ever-as-bravomaxine/

I can't remember why Maxine was deleted from Twitter late last year, but I do remember that there were more than one person taking the credit for her/(or his?) deletion.
She had been particularly rough on Simon. And Claudine, (Dina Manzo), had some problems with her also.

I found an announcement of Maxine's return, on Jim Star's blog, (link above) who has been Tweeting back & forth with Maxine since her recent return, which was January 24th, on a Twitter account that had been set-up in December, but only had two messages on it. Maxine has posted 865 messages since her quiet return exactly two weeks ago.

Star identifies himself as being involved in public relations in his messages to Maxine.

I read most of the Tweets, and they are as juicy as they were in the old days, (meaning 2010). I won't repeat the ones that were exceptionally interesting, because I fell into Maxine's trap of lies when I first began doing research for my NY Housewives blog. She does report at least twice that Kim Z. will be giving birth to a baby boy. As many of you will remember from her Bethenny announcement, (complete with imaginary sources in the hospital where she claimed that Bethenny was giving-birth),  that Jill Zarin repeated, well-she has a track-record for BS. There was one item where The Enquirer was referred-to as a source, and I looked-for confirmation and could not find it. Maybe Maxine was referring to that site that calls itself Enquirer, but anybody can post anything on it-NOT the National Enquirer Celebrity gossip rag?

The Tweets that I tried to verify, (but again could find nothing, and I only bothered to look because a source was posted), were something about Joe and Teresa Giudice being first cousins. Maxine also claimed that that info. was discovered by Bernie Kerik, on behalf of Caroline Manzo. (Kerik is Caroline's friend who worked in law enforcement until he was indicted.)  She/or he, also claims that Jackie has not been seen in public lately, due to bad plastic-surgery. And a lot of other interesting, but possibly/probably  fictitious gossip about The Housewives. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

Up until recently, Maxine urged her followers, (a little more than 200 at this point), to keep her return on the down-low. But today she posted the following on her Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001606009398&sk=wall

that she wants people to be able to find her. The blog mentioned above was also posted some time on the 6th of February.
Maxine reminds people often in her Tweets, that she has been on Facebook all-along, complete with video, and tells people that she can be found there in the event that she is disappeared again on Twitter. Until that happens, she/he/it? is happily chirpping-away as BRAVOMAXINE  (click-through), on Twitter.

Some Advice to Bravo-lebrities when Dealing-with Bloggers

*I'm not mentioning the blog yet because the blogger has requested discretion 'till they figure this out

One of my favorite Real Housewives bloggers, has recently received a threatening registered-letter from a lawyer concerning some material on her blog. The blogger is refraining from action 'till they can get professional legal advice.
The blogger has also stated, in so many words, that had they been asked nicely, they probably would have deleted upon request.
I agree with this blogger, because that is the same policy that I have with my Housewives blogs. (*I have never been asked to delete/remove anything about the Housewives here, and only asked to delete something else, which I did upon request, as stated.)-And really in all of my blogs, and I have been directly asked by public people to delete things, and the requests were granted.
But this is different. This has caused the blogger in question, to go to the time & expense, and the personal stress of being financially threatened by "deep-pockets", of responding to a legal summons.

Yes, I suppose sending a personal request carries the risk of further personal embarrassment, because such a request could be posted online & mocked, but its the right thing to do. The thing not to do is send your legal henchmen to scare and threaten a blogger who's biggest mistake is being interested in your client.

With that being said, I have some bullet-point advice for Bravo-lebrities, and anyone holding themselves out to the public as an onscreen representation of real life:

• This was what you signed-up for

• You don't get to choose which reality the public wants to focus-on

• Reality TV is different from drama or fiction. Think-of it more like politics. YOU are choosing to put yourself, AND your family, in the public arena.

• If you want something deleted/removed ASK NICELY, and BE HUMBLE, this is YOUR FAULT!

• IF the Blogger is nice and deletes the material, it is their right to let their readers know that an omission  has occurred, at your request.

• If something is said about your life, or your family, because you are presenting yourself as, "real", you do NOT have the expectation of privacy that even an actress or actor has. You are asking for attention from the public, and you don't get to decide what is said.

Whatever the blogger in question decides to do, they have my support. It isn't fair to ask someone who doesn't even run ads on their site, to fight a Goliath, even-though ALL of our First Amendment rights are being trampled-on here. I honestly don't know what I would do if someone approached me with the big guns in an instance like this. I resent that a fellow blogger is being threatened like this, and I'm kind-of hoping that they picked the wrong blogger to mess-with!

Some of you People Really Scare me. Cedric was Robbed!

I was going-to copy and paste some of the comments that I've seen on other sites & blogs about the Lisa/Cedric problem, but instead-of humiliating other bloggers and blog-readers, I'll just paste here what The LA Times had to say about it. It pretty much says what a LOT of you are saying:

"He cast himself as the victim: It was Lisa who woke him up and made him go to the gym with her each morning. It was Lisa and her husband, Ken, who dragged him around as though he were a companion like Jiggy the dog. He was used by them, then thrown to the curb, or so he claimed.It made me wish NeNe Leakes from Atlanta could have made a cameo to set it straight. He mooched off the Vanderpump family. He lived in their home. He drove their cars. And he was 37 years old, still living as a child. Shameful!"-LA Times http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2011/02/real-housewives-of-beverly-hills-reunion-coming-together-after-all-the-drama.html#more

Here's a screen-shot of a poll that was taken today:

http://acepolls.com/polls/1184209-tell-me-whose-side-are-you-on

I don't dislike Lisa and Todd Vanderpump at all. In fact, personally, I thought that the Vanderpumps, along-with Adrienne & Dr. ?, managed to make it through the season virtually unscathed. And maybe that is the problem.  Even-though I respect them, they are wrong. If they did not compensate Cedric properly when he left their home, they took advantage of him. Starcasm.com re-capped Part II of the reunion, and they have a video and some quotes:

"...he called them and asked to meet. When they showed up Cedric asked for something they “weren’t prepared to give him” ...
He also complains that he only got compensated in “flowers and puppies” for the work he did for Ken and Lisa..."-Starcasm http://starcasm.net/archives/84085

What did Cedric ask-for? If he was only paid in flowers and puppies, aside from what he earned while he was on the payroll at their restaurant, I'd say they owe him at least the going-rate for live-in domestic help for however long he lived with them. I guess they weren't prepared to give him any cash?
As a comparison, the blog, I Saw Your Nanny.Com (here), has a pretty regular Saturday feature called, CL-WTF?, where readers report, and comment on recent Craigslist postings throughout the country. The reason I use it as a comparison is because many times, people try to dangle "FREE ROOM AND BOARD", as payment for domestic work.
Responses are made directly to Craigslist, to the would-be slave-drivers who post the advertisements. Comments about WTF? are also made on the I Saw Your Nanny blog, comment-space.
I know it seems a little off-topic, since Cedric was not a nanny, but HUMAN TRAFFICKING is a big problem, all over this world, AND in the USA. The professional Nannys and domestics who keep an eye on the Craigslist postings, and discuss the wages and working conditions for live-in domestic help, have a lot of light that they shed on this problem.Even-if Cedric was living in the lap-of-luxury, he deserves compensation.
Cedric's main job for Lisa was not child-care, but he is definitely, "live-in" help.
What was Cedric's job-title? I know that it was supposed to be a cute running-joke. "Permanent Houseguest", pest, Cato Katlin. ha ha. Was Cedric a Care-Taker? A Companion? Assistant? Personal-Trainer? Man-in-Waiting? Butler? Houseman?
Another fact that many people seem to be including as a generous "gift" from Lisa & Todd to Cedric, his immigration costs to Beverly Hills, probably reveal a guarantee and promise of employment. I don't think that we grant Visas for "permanent house-guests". There are responsibilities that visitors and employers promise when they immigrate.
We have laws in this country to protect citizens, and visitors. One of these laws is the  Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000. I found a refrence to this law on the Wikipedia page devoted to Indentured Servitude, (which is of course illegal in the USA). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

"unlike slaves, servants could look forward to a release from bondage. If they survived their period of labor, servants would receive a payment known as "freedom dues" and become free members of society....

Current legal status 

Article 4 of the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (passed in 1948) declares such servitude as illegal, but only national legislation could rectify that illegality. In America, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000 extended servitude to cover peonage as well as Involuntary Servitude"-Wikipedia

While we're talking about HUMAN TRAFFICKING, I guess this is a good time to bring another Real Housewife of Beverly Hills into it. Camille.
What does Camille have to do with this? Plenty. Starting with the fact that Camille was herself, a product in the Human Traffic market. The story of Camille's employment with prince jefri (Googled© here) , (I spit when I type his name and under-capitalize out of disrespect), has been widely reported. Camille may not have complained publicly, but other American women including at least one former Miss USA, have sued the harem/pimp for being held captive as a, "sex-slave".
Maybe that's why Camille doesn't have any unpaid, "help", but she sure has taken a lot of flack for having, "PAID FRIENDS". Even Andy Cohen  on WWHL was pressured into asking Camille about having her friends on the payroll.-THAT, has become another running-topic this season of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.
The HBO show Entourage,  pretty-much validates the reality of the Hollywood habit of paying your friends to work for you. It may be a little embarrassing or awkward for both parties, but its a lot better than NOT-PAYING your friends to work for you.
And finally, as far as Camille is concerned, being a wife in a "Community Property" state, with no pre-nup, and proud of it, she  is looking-forward to being awarded a great deal of the money that was earned by Kelsey. Why? Because the law recognizes the value and worth of a spouse's contribution, even-if that contribution is mostly the "domestic"-kind.
(*and yes I have to mention an aside here. New York Real Housewife Ramona's demented warped statements  have gone unchallenged for three seasons about how her mother stayed in an abusive marriage because she didn't have, "her own money". Ramona's mother had plenty of her own money because she was legally entitled to her marital assets-yet Ramona gives this dangerous incorrect advice every season.When you broadcast material about "Real Housewives", you are responsible to answer to the Housewives Homemakers Union and I'm calling you out on this again Bravo.)
Here's a snip from a Q&A interview that Cedric did with Wet Paint:

"Did you go with them when they moved to Beverly Hills?
No, no. Not at all. They lived in the South of France. I lived in London. So I’d never lived with them before. When they asked me if I wanted to come here, I jumped at the opportunity, because I’d always wanted to come to America. I thought it would be a great opportunity, and I didn’t want to miss it. And plus, I am very fond of them, so I accepted."-Cedric

Did Cedric really, "blackmail" and/or attempt to extort money from the Vanderpumps? Or did he simply ask for what he was entitled-to?  The story is that he threatened them with selling personal information or something like that to the media. The way that I heard it sounded more like he mentioned that he was aware that he could possibly make some of the money that he needs to live, now that he is looking-for another place/job, by doing media interviews.
If he came-across as threatening, than that would be wrong. But is it extortion to ask for what you deserve and need? Of course it isn't! And aside from some catty personal opinions about Lisa's, "ego", I haven't seen ANY, "juicy secrets" about the Vanderpumps attributed to Cedric, and he really doesn't need to take that approach.
Lisa and Todd, really should pay the man at least the going-rate for minimum-wage for domestic live-in help, for the time that he lived with them. And from all of the articles that I've read, he did not live with them for 15 years as mis-reported, he lived with them for less than two years.
I get that Lisa feels bad about what happened, but that she is being very careful to keep her loyalty and prioritys where they should be. I think that Lisa feels guilty, AND SHE SHOULD! Personally, I am aghast that Todd and Lisa are getting nothing but public support for this situation. If Cedric took this to a lawyer, I don't see how he could lose. Maybe Lisa & Todd should ask their attorney what their responsibilities are?
Make sure to tell him/ or her, that:

• You asked Cedric to come to the US and assisted with his immigration with whatever that entails
• He was not an independent contractor, since you controlled his time by waking him up etc.
• He was a live-in employee
• He left/was asked to leave/was terminated and asked to be compensated
• This request was treated as a threat
• The public and media were encouraged to humiliate this man for asking for compensation, and Cedric has been denied his rights by intrinsically implied misrepresentation of his rights.
• Although it has nothing to do with it, Cedric is considered a minority in the US, (homosexual), which may afford him some additional protections in considering the termination of their arrangement.

So-let me get this straight. This season of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, we learned that you will be mocked and interrogated if you are wealthy and you pay your friends a salary, or money, for their time and help, but if you drag them into a foreign country, and then toss them out when you're finished with them, without adequate resources to live, you will have our support and righteous indignation at how ungrateful this, "freeloader" , (meaning="free help"), has been. Did I get that right? 'Cause that's what it looks like to me. Yes that is my idea of sarcasm. And its a rhetorical question so don't bother answering because I've already seen what a lot of you have to say about this and I think it scary.