Jon and Kate Plus 8, Official Thread--Part 7

[DMRick]

A small part of what you have posted is correct - the rest is wrong.. But I'd rather not argue about - considering I don't have my sources right here on hand, so we'll have to agree to disagree

I don't agree. I'm not arguing about it. This is the official copyright site. It's not just a 'website' someone found to prove what they thought.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

"The court papers contend that Jon’s contract is overly restrictive and “against Public Policy and therefore, unenforceable and null and void.”

Then Jon shouldn't have signed them.


"His lawyers say that neither Jon nor Kate (nor the kids) were represented by a lawyer or manager when they negotiated their first contract in 2005 with the network."

That may very well be. However, they had legal representation in 2008 and that is when the last contract was signed.

I would think their basis of improper represenation is null and void.

The contract from 2005 has been completed and is no longer active. Unless they are suing for retroactive pay. But even then, that's a bit greedy IMHO as each year they renegotiated and I don't think the most recent contract was the only one with representation.

What the heck does "against public policy" mean? Anyone know? I'd love to discuss about it, but I have no idea what I'd be discussing.

Is there a Public policy that prohibits production companies from having their "talent" out in public in a less than stellar light?

Isn't that why the "Dude, you got a dell" dude got canned? He got busted for pot. His contract was cancelled darn near immediately.

Sure Jon did not do anything illegal. But contracts can legally limit certain things so as not to sully the image of whatever the person represents.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Hmmmm.....

Section 6:
There is no law in PA governing these children and an active, but not closed, investigation is cited as evidence.

God bless them--the contract cannot be null and void on that merit until Dept of Labor makes a decision.

Oh dear, and they claim that they failed to get 8 permits for the kids pursuant to the law.

Did the sextuplets turn 7 and I miss it?

Section 7:
He is not in violation of the contract since show is on indefinite hiatus.

Umm--he's being sued for actions prior to the hiatus. The show's current status would have no impact on nullifying what he did PRIOR to the hiatus.


----I gotta say, in my layperson's reading, this looks like a shoddy put together countersuit--reminiscent of how Jose Baez petitions to have things dismissed in the Casey Anthony Case. He is shot down pretty much almost every single time by the judge. Granted this is not a criminal trial, but the alleged "legal mumbo jumbo" that supposedly lets Jon off the hook in this counterclaim, appear to be written by a grade schooler.


#9
I think there is a grammatical error that completely alters the meaning of this sentence:

Shouldn't it say that "Plaintiff cannot quantify damages" if they "fail to establish irreparable harm"?
I'm thinking advertisers so concerned they will pull the plug...can quantify damages.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Oh geeze.....

#10


Plaintiff also fails to demonstrate how the denial of injunctive relief will injury (sic) it more than the greater injury that will be caused to Mr. Gosselin if an injunction is granted.

Okay--I am not DISBoard grammar police, but shouldn't an attorney know that an verb should be used instead of a noun???

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I love #16 in the arguments....

We now have legal confirmation that Jon and Kate were unsophisticated. (I know that has legal meaning, but it sounds funny as heck!)

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I think the spirit of the countersuit is sound, but it is riddled with errors.

I do think it is damning.


But #86, they coudn't use a camera in their home??

Huh?

And Jon's career is screwed, so I don't know why they presume that he will be any type of personality.


And the show is on indefinite hiatus b/c Jon pulled the plug. They can't film the show--b/c Jon won't let them. So they are being damaged by Jon's actions. (to what tune, who knows?)


#112 and #113..not sure why they argue that TLC cannot use a Delaware court case, but early in the counterclaim, unless I misread, Jon's team used a court case from England.



My final question--does TLC's lawsuit sue for the right to film the children, or just to Jon's actions?


I do not agree that TLC is as evil as the Heller's convey and why the STate of Pennsylvania did not act sooner knowing full well the nature of this show and who was on it and not acting until recently?

 

[madge]

ratings for Monday night's show: 1.615.

no controversy= low ratings... my guess is they'll amp up the press :::yawn::: for Monday's episode.

 

[C.Ann]

ratings for Monday night's show: 1.615.

no controversy= low ratings... my guess is they'll amp up the press :::yawn::: for Monday's episode.

What could they possibly come up with that would interest the viewers?

Grab the life jackets..

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

ratings for Monday night's show: 1.615.

no controversy= low ratings... my guess is they'll amp up the press :::yawn::: for Monday's episode.

Didn't they already start by saying they will show...

what...


REALLY....

happened....

last....


spring.

YAWN! I just can't watch. It is too sad.

 

[madge]

Didn't they already start by saying they will show...

what...


REALLY....

happened....

last....


spring.

YAWN! I just can't watch. It is too sad.

I'm sure she'll do a segment on The Today Show, since they're in bed with TLC now.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I'm sure she'll do a segment on The Today Show, since they're in bed with TLC now.

Which surprises me since they hopped onto the exploitation bandwagon pretty quick over the summer.

I guess Matt Lauer doesn't have as much clout as he thought.

 

[DMRick]

ratings for Monday night's show: 1.615.

no controversy= low ratings... my guess is they'll amp up the press :::yawn::: for Monday's episode.

Hmm..so what really happened? Nothing. Jon will wake up in the shower and come tell Kate about his weird dream. And all of us will have been had, and the ratings will be 10 million.

(OK, am I dating myself, or do some of you remember Dallas? You better watch, so we can discuss it LOL!)

 

[kidshop]

I think the spirit of the countersuit is sound, but it is riddled with errors.

I do think it is damning.


But #86, they coudn't use a camera in their home??

Huh?

And Jon's career is screwed, so I don't know why they presume that he will be any type of personality.


And the show is on indefinite hiatus b/c Jon pulled the plug. They can't film the show--b/c Jon won't let them. So they are being damaged by Jon's actions. (to what tune, who knows?)


#112 and #113..not sure why they argue that TLC cannot use a Delaware court case, but early in the counterclaim, unless I misread, Jon's team used a court case from England.



My final question--does TLC's lawsuit sue for the right to film the children, or just to Jon's actions?


I do not agree that TLC is as evil as the Heller's convey and why the STate of Pennsylvania did not act sooner knowing full well the nature of this show and who was on it and not acting until recently?

I'm not up for reading the documents tonight, but as far as I know, TLC is not suing to film the children. They only claimed Jon was fine with filming all these years and said no only recently. But he is the father, and I don't see how they could ever force him to film the kids. They are suing him for breach of contract for the interviews, his behavior (morals clause?) and refusing to film that one day in Sept. I think.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Hmm..so what really happened? Nothing. Jon will wake up in the shower and come tell Kate about his weird dream. And all of us will have been had, and the ratings will be 10 million.

(OK, am I dating myself, or do some of you remember Dallas? You better watch, so we can discuss it LOL!)

Can't help you on Dallas...but didn't they do the same on Newhart?

He had the original show, then the show with the Inn, then on the series finale, he was in bed, woke up and Suzanne Pleshette was next to him and him owning an Inn was all a dream. (Which is a good thing I guess b/c that meant Larry, Daryl and Daryl were but a figment of his imagination.)

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I'm not up for reading the documents tonight, but as far as I know, TLC is not suing to film the children. They only claimed Jon was fine with filming all these years and said no only recently. But he is the father, and I don't see how they could ever force him to film the kids. They are suing him for breach of contract for the interviews, his behavior (morals clause?) and refusing to film that one day in Sept. I think.

While I get the reason they are mentioning child labor laws as a basis for the contract being null and void, it's almost like it is a counter-suit to not have the children filmed at all and that is what has me confused.

 

[DMRick]

Can't help you on Dallas...but didn't they do the same on Newhart?

He had the original show, then the show with the Inn, then on the series finale, he was in bed, woke up and Suzanne Pleshette was next to him and him owning an Inn was all a dream. (Which is a good thing I guess b/c that meant Larry, Daryl and Daryl were but a figment of his imagination.)

Yep, they figured it worked the first time, why not try it again LOL.

 

[3prettyprincesses]

Ok, I've read some of Jon's counter suit against TLC. Am I reading this correct, that Jon is saying the contract is null and void because the kids were never compensated? Nor were the correct child working permits obtained? Also, he mentions that they didn't have representation when entering into the contract and media with TLC. I took this to mean the very 1st contract they signed, right? Has Kate ever said they had legal representation before they signed on for season 5? I can't remember but it seems Jon is insinuating they didn't. It also sounds like Jon is saying that anything he's done since the hiatus was announced isn't a breach of contract on his end since TLC are the ones who put the show on hiatus. And by the way, what on earth does 'against Public Policy' mean??

Does this all mean that Jon has a new attorney then? Christopher A. Hostage?

And one last question...how the heck does radaronline get copies of these documents????

 

[madge]

And one last question...how the heck does radaronline get copies of these documents????

money talks.

 

[madge]

Ok, I've read some of Jon's counter suit against TLC. Am I reading this correct, that Jon is saying the contract is null and void because the kids were never compensated? Nor were the correct child working permits obtained?

I'm not sure that I understand much of what's in Jon's claim ... and I think some of it really is gobbly gook, but I think the language about the permits or lack thereof may translate to something significant. (or it may not. it may just sound like a big deal. LOL)

and $2000/episode in the beginning. wow.

 

[DMRick]

money talks.

I take it then, that these documents are not under the Freedom of Information Act?