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

[walden]

I may be alone in this opinion, but as bad as Jon looks in this whole thing, I think TLC looks worse.

No, you are not alone.

TLC filing this suit has some very negative implications, that go way beyond J & K. I think there could well be a huge backlash by child advacy groups. It smacks of blackmail on TLC's part to continue filming -- and whatever stupid things Jon has done, as the children's father he should be allowed to express reservations as to the impact of filming on their well-being and stop it if he sees fit.

By holding him to the "exclusive" contract they are cutting him off from income from other sources (although perhaps they will let him get an IT job). We don't have any info on where the funds are coming from for the legal teams of either J or K, but I would guess that they are both allowed to draw on the family assets. I hope they have some money left for the kids after all of this. Also, by holding him to the contract it puts his future earning potential at risk -- compared to Kate. Nasty.

More importantly, by filing this suit TLC is signalling to other reality TV families that they sign away all their rights to free speech and can't back out of a contract even if they should decide that it is not good for the children. That is really bad.

I don't know whether Jon has the integrity (if he genuinely believes the kids are negatively impacted from being filmed) or the guts to stick this one out. Note: I am giving him the benefit of the doubt here, that it was not just a bargaining chip in the divorce.)

However, if he does fight it in court, then I think all confidentiality agreements will be null and void. Look forward to subpoenas being issued to the film crew, the nannies, the neighbors, volunteers, Jodi, Kevin and Beth.

I'd love to get a look at that darn contract!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

About the TLC lawsuit, it's all about money. If Jon will sell the kids back to them, they will drop the lawsuit.

I agree it is about money, but not in the way that you think.

Ad sales and sponsorships in which TLC was under contract now have to be cancelled and often--that loses money for the network for not being able to fulfill their obligations.

Jon willy nilly deciding to pretend to care for his children that coincidentally timed with them allowing him to not be on the show per his request--comes with consequences that are likely spelled out in his contract.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

More importantly, by filing this suit TLC is signalling to other reality TV families that they sign away all their rights to free speech and can't back out of a contract even if they should decide that it is not good for the children. That is really bad.

Contract law goes back for years!

I don't think any other reality families have anything to fear--except perhaps forgetting to obtain good counsel before signing a contract.

Please--free speech?

Jon was perfectly kosher with this whole deal until his antics were no longer tolerated by TLC. Then suddenly it wasn't Kosher.

He broke the contract--um, yes, there are legal repercussions to doing that.

It seems other families have smarter contracts b/c they don't seem to have nearly quite the same difficulties as the Gosselins.

It actually reminds me of the whole Suzanne Summers fiasco on Three's Company.

 

[momrek06]

(if he genuinely believes the kids are negatively impacted from being filmed)

If Jon thought that "the kids are negatively impacted from being filmed", why didn't he pull the plug years ago...you know when they were about to turn 2, or 3, or 4?? It is kinda funny that Jon pulled the plug on the show AFTER TLC pulled his plug from the show.

As far as all the PAP business goes and the kiddos...I really believe all the photographing of J&K and the kiddos did not spiral out of control until the rumors started that J&K's marriage was in trouble. Then the media descended on them like crazy.

 

[WaltD4Me]

Contract law goes back for years!

I don't think any other reality families have anything to fear--except perhaps forgetting to obtain good counsel before signing a contract.

Please--free speech?

Jon was perfectly kosher with this whole deal until his antics were no longer tolerated by TLC. Then suddenly it wasn't Kosher.

He broke the contract--um, yes, there are legal repercussions to doing that.

It seems other families have smarter contracts b/c they don't seem to have nearly quite the same difficulties as the Gosselins.

It actually reminds me of the whole Suzanne Summers fiasco on Three's Company.

Really. Free speech means you won't be arrested for what you say. It in no way promises that there won't be any other reprecussions for what you say. If Jon signed a contract limiting what he says, that is entirely on him.

 

[redrosesix]

I meant to post this yesterday....And let me say, I don't believe it AT ALL, but at the grocery store yesterday I saw the new US Weekly cover and it said Jon and Kate's BFF Jamie are having an affair! They had a very small picture of Jamie on the cover that looked like it came from her FB pictures. The quote on the cover said Kate felt she had been stabbed through the heart.

No, you are not alone.

TLC filing this suit has some very negative implications, that go way beyond J & K. I think there could well be a huge backlash by child advacy groups. It smacks of blackmail on TLC's part to continue filming -- and whatever stupid things Jon has done, as the children's father he should be allowed to express reservations as to the impact of filming on their well-being and stop it if he sees fit.

By holding him to the "exclusive" contract they are cutting him off from income from other sources (although perhaps they will let him get an IT job). We don't have any info on where the funds are coming from for the legal teams of either J or K, but I would guess that they are both allowed to draw on the family assets. I hope they have some money left for the kids after all of this. Also, by holding him to the contract it puts his future earning potential at risk -- compared to Kate. Nasty.

More importantly, by filing this suit TLC is signalling to other reality TV families that they sign away all their rights to free speech and can't back out of a contract even if they should decide that it is not good for the children. That is really bad.

I don't know whether Jon has the integrity (if he genuinely believes the kids are negatively impacted from being filmed) or the guts to stick this one out. Note: I am giving him the benefit of the doubt here, that it was not just a bargaining chip in the divorce.)

However, if he does fight it in court, then I think all confidentiality agreements will be null and void. Look forward to subpoenas being issued to the film crew, the nannies, the neighbors, volunteers, Jodi, Kevin and Beth.

I'd love to get a look at that darn contract!

ITA with all of this. Just reading the petition by TLC is

They didn't have the right to talk to anybody about the show without the prior consent of TLC, and didn't have the right to express concerns about the show. I assume this is done with every contract, but how could any family know in advance how doing a reality show was going to affect their kids. It also states that once they signed for season 4, it was TLC's right to require them to do additional seasons ie. Jon could not opt out at that point, even though it was clear on the final show that he had reservations (so now I have to apologize to Jon for being a duffus and signing up for season 5, but send him a virtual slap on the head for signing a contract like that)

I noticed one other thing -- when Jon did LKL he said that he had not been filming the previous week, in direct contradiction of TLC's claim that he had expressed no reservations about filming "as late as last week" But now TLC is suing Jon for not showing up for filming on Sept. 24th and as a result no filming took place that day after which they decided to make the announcement on Sept. 29th cutting him out of the show.

Interesting that TLC has "demanded" a jury trial -- wonder how they figure that will work in their favour. I guess they don't plan to show video of Jon hugging his kids.

I don't know, but a lot of the language in the petition does make it sound like the children were "working" -- wonder how the PA Dept. of Labour is going to read this.

 

[MAKmom]

I thought that they had filed for separation before he started dating Hailey but I could be wrong.

After posting, I did find something about spousal support in PA. From reading this link, it appears like Jon may have a claim but I have no experience with law or divorce so I could be way off.

I have never known anyone who got alimony in PA. Spousal Support is even hard to get & that is before the divorce is final only.

http://www.divorcesupport.com/divorce/Pennsylvania-Spousal-Support-Maintenance-Alimony-713.html

Alimony/Maintenance/Spousal Support in a Pennsylvania Divorce See generally: Article on Alimony and Support (FAQs)

Alimony is payment made by one party to the other after the divorce, either by court order or by mutual agreement. This type of post-divorce payment is also sometimes referred to as maintenance. Until 1980, there were no provisions under Pennsylvania law for alimony. The Divorce Code of 1980 provides that the court may allow alimony to either party "only if it finds that alimony is necessary." Under Pennsylvania law, married people are financially responsible for each other — the husband has a duty to support his wife, and the wife has a duty to support her husband. This duty lasts until the final Decree in Divorce is granted. It doesn't stop simply because the couple separates. Once the parties file for a mutual-consent no-fault divorce, they must wait at least 90 days and often significantly longer before the final Decree in Divorce is granted. During this period, an agreement on support payments may be appropriate if the parties are separated. Alimony in Pennsylvania is authorized in limited situations and is not the broad remedy that it is in other states. Alimony in Pennsylvania is either "rehabilitative" or "permanent" .

Rehabilitative alimony is intended to be a short-term measure which enables a spouse to get back on his or her feet. Alimony is awarded to enable the other spouse to go back to school or to acquire needed skills that would enable the spouse to be competitive in the job market. Usually a spouse who has chosen the role of becoming a homemaker and raising children has not been able to develop the skills necessary for productive and gainful employment.

"Permanent alimony" continues for a long period of time, possibly until the death of the party receiving the alimony and is usually awarded when one of the parties is unable to work due to age physical or mental illness.
If the court determines that a spouse is eligible for alimony, the following factors are then considered in the award:

(1) the financial resources of the spouse seeking alimony, including both separate and community property and liabilities;

(2) the spouse's ability to meet his or her needs independently;

(3) the education and employment skills of the spouses;

(4) the time necessary for the supported spouse to acquire sufficient training or education to enable him or her to find employment;

(5) the availability and feasibility of that training;

(6) the duration of the marriage;

(7) the age, employment history, earning ability, and physical and emotional condition of the spouse seeking alimony;

(8) the ability of the supporting spouse to meet their own needs and make any child support payments;

(9) excessive or abnormal expenditures, concealment or destruction of any property by either spouse;

(10) the comparative financial resources of the spouses, including medical, retirement, insurance or other benefits, and any separate property;

(11) the contribution of one spouse to the education, training, or increased earning power of the other spouse;

(12) the contribution of either spouse as homemaker;

(13) any marital misconduct of the spouse seeking alimony;

(14) whether the party seeking alimony lacks sufficient property to provide for his or her needs;

(15) the efforts of the spouse seeking alimony to obtain self-support skills while the divorce is pending or during any separation;
and
(16) property brought to the marriage by either spouse.

(17) any tax ramifications;[Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Annotated [Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann.), Title (Tit) 23. Section (Sec.) 3701,

 

[kidshop]

If Jon thought that "the kids are negatively impacted from being filmed", why didn't he pull the plug years ago...you know when they were about to turn 2, or 3, or 4?? It is kinda funny that Jon pulled the plug on the show AFTER TLC pulled his plug from the show.

As far as all the PAP business goes and the kiddos...I really believe all the photographing of J&K and the kiddos did not spiral out of control until the rumors started that J&K's marriage was in trouble. Then the media descended on them like crazy.

Concern for the kids on this show (by the viewing public) goes back a few years, long before Jon was 'caught' with Deanna. This is new for reality TV, kids growing up on camera as themselves, and their life being the show. And it's wrong that their lives are now a business dealing, and they make a lot of adults a ton of money, yet earn none themselves.

 

[TanyaLovesPooh]

If Jon thought that "the kids are negatively impacted from being filmed", why didn't he pull the plug years ago...you know when they were about to turn 2, or 3, or 4?? It is kinda funny that Jon pulled the plug on the show AFTER TLC pulled his plug from the show.

As far as all the PAP business goes and the kiddos...I really believe all the photographing of J&K and the kiddos did not spiral out of control until the rumors started that J&K's marriage was in trouble. Then the media descended on them like crazy.

Right on. The pap business started when Jon was photographed with college girls at a bar. Then came the photos of Deanna and it has gone from crazy to insane since then. I remember those photos, I was one that came to Jon's defense...he would never cheat on Kate...blah...blah..

 

[redrosesix]

If Jon thought that "the kids are negatively impacted from being filmed", why didn't he pull the plug years ago...you know when they were about to turn 2, or 3, or 4?? It is kinda funny that Jon pulled the plug on the show AFTER TLC pulled his plug from the show.

Apparently he couldn't -- once they had signed up for Season 4, they were obligated to TLC for 3 more seasons

Really. Free speech means you won't be arrested for what you say. It in no way promises that there won't be any other reprecussions for what you say. If Jon signed a contract limiting what he says, that is entirely on him.

ITA with this, however their contract would not be valid where I live -- although confidentiality agreements are par for the course in many industries, there is no way a company can keep you from talking about certain things related to your occupation, and none of the clauses would be binding on the children or anybody speaking on their behalf.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Concern for the kids on this show (by the viewing public) goes back a few years, long before Jon was 'caught' with Deanna. This is new for reality TV, kids growing up on camera as themselves, and their life being the show. And it's wrong that their lives are now a business dealing, and they make a lot of adults a ton of money, yet earn none themselves.

So why is Jon getting all this praise for what he did--when he was along for the ride willingly all this time?

He should have never signed a contract in the first place. But his greed got in the way. Now he's pretending he isn't greedy--very sweet and all....but very much in breech of contract with the ultimatum's he issued.

He certainly could have taken the legal route through a court system and gotten an emergency hearing for an emergency stay (which his attorney should have known)--but instead he presumed that he had authority to cancel the contract.

Sadly, he did not have that authority and is now in breech.

IF anyone is at fault--it's his sheister of an attorney for providing crappy legal advice. Without a court intervening, Jon is in breech and is thus being sued.

This isn't like forbidding your kids from having a sleepover at someone's house.

Again--he's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[TanyaLovesPooh]

So why is Jon getting all this praise for what he did--when he was along for the ride willingly all this time?

He should have never signed a contract in the first place. But his greed got in the way. Now he's pretending he isn't greedy--very sweet and all....but very much in breech of contract with the ultimatum's he issued.

He certainly could have taken the legal route through a court system and gotten an emergency hearing for an emergency stay (which his attorney should have known)--but instead he presumed that he had authority to cancel the contract.

Sadly, he did not have that authority and is now in breech.

IF anyone is at fault--it's his sheister of an attorney for providing crappy legal advice. Without a court intervening, Jon is in breech and is thus being sued.

This isn't like forbidding your kids from having a sleepover at someone's house.

Again--he's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Which is why IMO, Mark Heller should have had his license terminated not just for 5 years but from ever practicing law again.

 

[MAKmom]

I'm leaving to go camping now. Everyone slow down..my wifi will be iffy and my friends will only buy..exceuse me I have to go to the bathroom so many times in a day!

Have a great time. I went back to work on Thursday & it really is interfering with my posting

 

[kidshop]

So why is Jon getting all this praise for what he did--when he was along for the ride willingly all this time?

He should have never signed a contract in the first place. But his greed got in the way. Now he's pretending he isn't greedy--very sweet and all....but very much in breech of contract with the ultimatum's he issued.

He certainly could have taken the legal route through a court system and gotten an emergency hearing for an emergency stay (which his attorney should have known)--but instead he presumed that he had authority to cancel the contract.

Sadly, he did not have that authority and is now in breech.

IF anyone is at fault--it's his sheister of an attorney for providing crappy legal advice. Without a court intervening, Jon is in breech and is thus being sued.

This isn't like forbidding your kids from having a sleepover at someone's house.

Again--he's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Jon is an idiot, yes, no question. TLC is greedier than J&K and worse than I ever could have imagined. They want to own those kids to line their pockets. It's disgusting.

The kids are the losers.

 

[MAKmom]

This is true. And Jon did have the option of not signing the contract for the next season, given that things were so bad at home.



But I have to agree with this post. Having said that, one of the lawyers who was on LKL did bring up a good point. He said that he believed that both Jon and Kate were telling the truth about their kids' reaction to doing or not doing the show ie. that they were telling daddy they wanted to do the same things as their friends and crying to mommy about the show stopping because it has become too much a part of their lives.



I don't think this is going to hold true if Kate gets full custody of the kids and as a result gets the house in the division of assets.

As for not having a lawyer to review the contract they first signed, well that was just the first contract -- no excuse on the subsequent contracts -- and they were signing for their kids. And then there's the old saying: "a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client"...

If she gets full custody or she becomes the primary care giver she can get the house only to the kids are 18 then it would be sold.

But she can buy Jon out of the house if he agrees as part of the settlement.

The division of assets will be fair no matter what. The most Kate might get is 45/55 split.

 

[redrosesix]

And now the rest of the entertainment shows are starting to weigh in on the lawsuit:
http://ca.eonline.com/uberblog/b149304_jon_gosselin_about_be_steamrolled_by_tlc.html

You knew it was only a matter of time before Jon Gosselin got served.

While some might argue he needs to be served something a bit more bonecrushing, we don't condone violence, so today's TLC-sanctioned lawsuit will have to do.

The network behind Jon & Kate Plus 8 or Kate Plus 8 or whatever it's called these days filed suit in Maryland this morning against the former headliner for breach of contract.

This is not because Kate Gosselin's estranged hubby has halted production on the reality series claiming the show is not in the 8's best interest. Rather, Jon has signed his life over to is an exclusive employee of TLC and is not really supposed to be running his mouth on programs like Entertainment Tonight or The Insider, which are paying him to appear. And he's further ignoring his obligations by making unauthorized disclosures about behind-the-scenes antics.

In a statement, the network says it's been trying "privately and patiently" for months to convince Jon to honor his contract, but "those efforts have been unsuccessful."

And TLC isn't messing around—the net has hired the high-powered Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Williams & Connolly to help convince Jon to follow the rules outlined in his contract and give up any money he's made for appearing elsewhere.

Something tells us this is just the beginning of the octodad backlash.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Jon is an idiot, yes, no question. TLC is greedier than J&K and worse than I ever could have imagined. They want to own those kids to line their pockets. It's disgusting.

The kids are the losers.

Even so--Jon was not entitled to circumvent the system and TLC has the right to seek damages. And I do not blame them for it. Much money and resources were in place for future episodes and Jon killed them all when he did not have the legal authority to do so.

It would have been quite easy for Jon to obtain the legal authority. The blame is squarely with Jon and his attorneys.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

And now the rest of the entertainment shows are starting to weigh in on the lawsuit:
http://ca.eonline.com/uberblog/b149304_jon_gosselin_about_be_steamrolled_by_tlc.html

You knew it was only a matter of time before Jon Gosselin got served.

While some might argue he needs to be served something a bit more bonecrushing, we don't condone violence, so today's TLC-sanctioned lawsuit will have to do.

The network behind Jon & Kate Plus 8 or Kate Plus 8 or whatever it's called these days filed suit in Maryland this morning against the former headliner for breach of contract.

This is not because Kate Gosselin's estranged hubby has halted production on the reality series claiming the show is not in the 8's best interest. Rather, Jon has signed his life over to is an exclusive employee of TLC and is not really supposed to be running his mouth on programs like Entertainment Tonight or The Insider, which are paying him to appear. And he's further ignoring his obligations by making unauthorized disclosures about behind-the-scenes antics.

In a statement, the network says it's been trying "privately and patiently" for months to convince Jon to honor his contract, but "those efforts have been unsuccessful."

And TLC isn't messing around—the net has hired the high-powered Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Williams & Connolly to help convince Jon to follow the rules outlined in his contract and give up any money he's made for appearing elsewhere.

Something tells us this is just the beginning of the octodad backlash.

It's seems the lawsuit is not what we thought it was and upon reading this--seems extremely appropriate to me.

He's using his image/knowledge for personal gain elsewhere and that is a big ol' no no per his contract.

 

[C.Ann]

If she gets full custody or she becomes the primary care giver she can get the house only to the kids are 18 then it would be sold..

This no longer applies across the board in NY - not sure of PA.. Here one party either has to buy the other out - or the house must be sold - regardless of the age of the children.. This happened to someone we know quite well just 3 years ago - and also happened when a relative of mine divorced (3 children well under the age of 18)..

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

This no longer applies across the board in NY - not sure of PA.. Here one party either has to buy the other out - or the house must be sold - regardless of the age of the children.. This happened to someone we know quite well just 3 years ago - and also happened when a relative of mine divorced (3 children well under the age of 18)..

For some reason I find that more fair. Though in an extreme circumstance--I would be okay if one partner got stuck paying the mortgage for the other.

I have a feeling that the house will be in a similar situation even if it is in trust.