I relegated this issue to the "meh" bin coz I thought this was nothing more than a love triangle gone bad.
The issue involved a girl from Eat Bulaga, a guy who builds houses and a girl "who's not GRO" and so is now a provincial board member.
For me for you the issue has suddenly becoming interesting because now money, charity and elected officials are involved.
Before we get to that, let's get this out of the way: it's not true that there was a hair-pulling incident between Julia Clarete and Angelica Jones in a church after the former found out that her boyfriend is stepping out on her with the latter.. So...
The issue is getting juicier and juicier with neither party refusing to shut up and back down. Milking it for what its worth...
Illiac Diaz has accused Angelica Jones and her stagemother, Beth Jones, of failing to produce documentation to show the proper disbursement of funds for their water bottle school under Illac's My Shelter Foundation.
Of course Angelica and her mother invited reporters, entertainment writers mind you, to defend herself. basically saying the provincial government has not released funds through her and some of the money came from her own pocket.
I don't know who's telling the truth here and I don't care. What I want to find out is why Angelica keeps getting denied by men she claims to have dated. The first was Bobby Yan and now Illiac Diaz. Angelica told those who cares to hear that she and Illiac dated a while back. Illiac denied it and probably was laughing inside while saying 'not on your life.'
Angelica, despite being good looking and tisay, looks baduy, bakya and yes, cheap. I also get a desperate vibe from her and her stagemother - Desparate for fame and money.
Now Angelica is a board member of Laguna. Her first try she failed. I thought Angelica would finally disappear into obscurity. But no. She tried for a second time and this time winning!
Cheap issues keep hounding Angelica Jones, or she keeps finding it. I guess class in ingrained? And I guess an elected post can't get you respectability?
No comments:
Post a Comment