Well Vicki Gunvalson's latest court shenanigans should make for interesting TV!
The Real Housewives of Orange County star was sued, un-sued, and then re-sued by her Vicki's Vodka partner Robert Williamson III. In response Vicki is not backing down from the man Brooks Ayers attempted to blackmail (and kill?) – allegedly – and is demanding a federal jury trial to determine who is responsible for the collapse of the partnership. Um…
Vicki claims she naively believed Robert was a competent business partner and that she was too trusting of his motives and behaviors. “Mr. Nicholson (Vicki's other partner) and Ms. Gunvalson believed everything Mr. Williamson said about his ability to help capitalize the business and distribute the vodka.”
CLICK THE CONTINUE READING BUTTON FOR THE REST!
Robert initially took action against Vicki claiming fraud, "unjustly enriching herself" at his expense, and that she failed to uphold her end of their agreement, especially when it came to promoting the product. They temporarily settled, and then Robert all but immediately sued again after appearing on WWHL as the guest bartender, of course! Now Vicki has filed countersuit contesting that Robert, a professional poker player, "failed to perform his obligations to the business, tried to extort her and leveled the shocking claim that he operates an unlicensed revenue-raising gambling venture.”
According to court documents obtained by Radar Online, Vicki's attorneys are requesting the case be moved to federal court and argued against Robert's demand of a financial settlement because "he has unclean hands due to his own bad faith and unconscionable conduct."
Perhaps the most scandalous of Vicki's claims against Robert are when she calls into question his ethics and suggests that he routinely engaged in a "pattern of illicit conduct" with what seems like an attempt to frame, expose, or blackmail Vicki to some extent. Not only that she seems to be implying he used scammed money to provide his share of the start-up capital (which was a far greater initial investment than Vicki's).
Per the documents filed by Vicki, such illicit conduct includes: "illegally downloading and retaining electronic communications, illegally recording conversations, operating an unlicensed revenue-raising gambling venture some of the proceeds of which were used to fund the company and hire Mr. Barket, fraudulent business activities, violating the alcohol beverage laws, extortion and the like as an enterprise, continuously and with the intention of profiting from his illicit conduct.”
Furthermore, they claim all business loose money and essentially blame Robert's own stupidity in trusting Brooks for the fact that he lost money. If you recall the whole thing started when according to Robert, Vicki gifted Brooks a percentage of her stake in the company and then Brooks sold that share to Robert under false pretenses, then Vicki demanded the company be returned to a 50/50 partnership.
“To the extent that Mr. Williamson lost any money in connection with Vicki’s Vodka it was due to the inherent risk in starting a new business and launching a new product, his own failure to perform his obligations as a member of a venture, and not proximately caused by any alleged breach of any alleged agreement or any fiduciary duty by defendants.”
Vicki alleges when Robert became disappointed with the results of the company's growth (which was apparently not rapid enough for him) he attempted to blame her for faulty behavior.
Apparently Robert also had some famewhoring aspirations of his own. “He also said that he was a bigger celebrity than Ms. Gunvalson and that his celebrity status would help promote the product,” Vicki's documents attest. Then why was the company named "Vicki's Vodka", I ask?
I think moral of the story here: Brokes is bad news and if you do business with him… well you end up in court!
[Photo Credit: Judy Eddy/WENN.com]
TELL US – WILL VICKI'S CASE GO TO TRIAL? WHAT DO YOU THINK OF HER ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ROBERT?
