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

[Lisa loves Pooh]

It now seems obvious to me that TLC and Kate are working together to discredit Jon -- sort of a one-two punch. Work with TLC to get Jon off the show, refuse to go to mediation so that the divorce cannot be finalized as a no-fault divorce (thus preventing the division of assets), force Jon to pay money back to the account, remove any assets he has to pay the money back. And then he's expected to show up in divorce court and prove that he deserves joint custody of his kids -- we all know that he won't get it now. And once Kate has full-custody, the kids will be back on the show and there is nothing Jon can do about it.

What is sad about this, no matter which side you are on, is that Jon will be ruined, both in the public's eyes and his kids' eyes. He might as well just die before it gets any worse so they'll at least have some good memories of him.

You were probably trying to make a poit--but he might as well die????????? I don't get why it was necessary to bring it up.

Jon IMHO has been a jerk--and when people behave like jerks, other people have to do what they can to stop the jerk from being a jerk.

I know there are two sides to every story--but honestly, Jon is NOT doing a good job of portraying his.

I know folks enjoy that hte kids RUN up to Jon for his hugs and kisses and use that as a sign that they might enjoy him more than Kate. I see it differently--they see Kate all the time and Dad's (as my husband would say of his own personal observations outside of Kate and Jon's world)--dad's tend to be more fun.

My kids have lots of fun with my husband. So when he comes home--it's like PARTY PARTY PARTY to them sometimes.

Actually--since I've been out of commission--it's not quite so fun, they now come to me looking for my hugs and cuddles..b/c he makes them work a little.

Just my observations.

Sure they love their daddy--but it doesn't mean they hate Kate or that Kate's a terrible mom and I have always felt that there wasn't a lot of credence to "Jon's side of the story".

If there were--there would be no reason for him to act out.

Yes, I know men who have custody of their daughters b/c mom is a nutjob. It does happen. And they are truly nutjobs. If there is credence to the accusations, it usually stands out on its own.

But Jon is going down--and that is of his own doing.

Divorces can be as amicable or as hate filled as the couple desires them to be. Him prancig around with a new girlfriend so freakin' soon after they announced it--shows that he didn't desire to do it amicably. It showed he decided to say "screw you Kate, look at me now".

Jon made some poor choices--noone made Jon make those choices.

Regardless of who broke the divorce news to the other one--I have found Kate to behave more like an adult in all of this.

So no--Jon doesn't need to die or anything of that nature.

He needs to grow up--and deal with this very grown up issue like an adult. His actions in the past 4 months or so has not done him any favors.

 

[TanyaLovesPooh]

I blame his idiot lawyer for this mess. Right or wrong, you can't just blow off a contract whenever you feel like it or it doesn't suit you anymore. Jon claimed on LKL that when he signed TLC contract neither he or Kate had a lawyer, they just signed it, not really knowing what they signed. I didn't believe that for one second. Kate is not stupid and I was sure they had representation, especially for the most recent contract.

So, Michael Lohan wants Jon on his stupid Divorced Dads Club. Michael Lohan hooks Jon up with creepy lawyer. Creepy lawyer tells Jon to make demands and to just go on all the shows they want him, (ET, Insider, ect...) Creepy lawyer is getting a cut of what they are paying him, I'm sure, so what does he care? He probably told Jon he would fix everything, not to worry about it, ect...Creepy lawyer probably isn't licensed to practice in Maryland either, so now what is Jon going to do?

ITA 100%!!!!

Add to that Hailey's inexperienced 22 year old instructs/opinions and you have the recipe for certain disaster. Jon needs to seek the advice of a pastor or someone that has nothing to gain by their advice.

 

[FergieTCat]

You're right. I can't think clearly today -- cold medication is fogging up my brain.

I can't believe Jon would take advice from Michael Lohan. The only thing Michael Lohan and Jon have in common is that both of them have domineering wives who are using their kids for income. However, I can stomach Kate much more than Dina Lohan (who I despise).

Two things. The house is in both Jon and Kate's name, so they would need permission from him to film on that property. More importantly, Jon is the kid's father and he can object to his children being filmed. Just because they release Jon from his contract doesn't mean he doesn't have any say so about his children and his property.

I blame his idiot lawyer for this mess. Right or wrong, you can't just blow off a contract whenever you feel like it or it doesn't suit you anymore. Jon claimed on LKL that when he signed TLC contract neither he or Kate had a lawyer, they just signed it, not really knowing what they signed. I didn't believe that for one second. Kate is not stupid and I was sure they had representation, especially for the most recent contract.

So, Michael Lohan wants Jon on his stupid Divorced Dads Club. Michael Lohan hooks Jon up with creepy lawyer. Creepy lawyer tells Jon to make demands and to just go on all the shows they want him, (ET, Insider, ect...) Creepy lawyer is getting a cut of what they are paying him, I'm sure, so what does he care? He probably told Jon he would fix everything, not to worry about it, ect...Creepy lawyer probably isn't licensed to practice in Maryland either, so now what is Jon going to do?

 

[WaltD4Me]

I wonder if Jon will be on ET tonight. Anybody know if they promoted him being on again last night?

 

[daughtersrus]

I'm not sure we'll ever know exactly what TLC has paid for in regards to non-monetary compensation. That is outside of clear donations from advertisers and such.
.

Are these perks taxable?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Two things. The house is in both Jon and Kate's name, so they would need permission from him to film on that property. More importantly, Jon is the kid's father and he can object to his children being filmed. Just because they release Jon from his contract doesn't mean he doesn't have any say so about his children and his property.

I blame his idiot lawyer for this mess. Right or wrong, you can't just blow off a contract whenever you feel like it or it doesn't suit you anymore. Jon claimed on LKL that when he signed TLC contract neither he or Kate had a lawyer, they just signed it, not really knowing what they signed. I didn't believe that for one second. Kate is not stupid and I was sure they had representation, especially for the most recent contract.

So, Michael Lohan wants Jon on his stupid Divorced Dads Club. Michael Lohan hooks Jon up with creepy lawyer. Creepy lawyer tells Jon to make demands and to just go on all the shows they want him, (ET, Insider, ect...) Creepy lawyer is getting a cut of what they are paying him, I'm sure, so what does he care? He probably told Jon he would fix everything, not to worry about it, ect...Creepy lawyer probably isn't licensed to practice in Maryland either, so now what is Jon going to do?

I figurd somethng like this would come.

Jon's attorney tried to claim the contract was null and void. However--I wonder if he read it.

And I think Jon is screwed. (And his claim about the children will prove to be a convenient epiphany as opposed to a long standing issue.)

 

[WaltD4Me]

You're right. I can't think clearly today -- cold medication is fogging up my brain.

I can't believe Jon would take advice from Michael Lohan. The only thing Michael Lohan and Jon have in common is that both of them have domineering wives who are using their kids for income. However, I can stomach Kate much more than Dina Lohan (who I despise).

Well of all the things that Kate has said, I 100% believed her when she said Jon follows or listens to who is next to him. Apparently even Michael Lohan when he dropped by the house last weekend, was trying to get Jon away from Creepy lawyer, but Jon thinks that lawyer "has his back" so apparently he's still listening to him. I don't understand why Jon keeps attaching himself to people he barely knows and believes they have his best interests at heart.

 

[redrosesix]

Uhm, Jon has some responsbility for his own actions too.

He was the one caught with another woman (Deana, was it?) back in January. Not to mention his affair with Hailey. Maybe if he had used some discretion, things wouldn't have gotten so ugly so quickly.

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.

I didn't think you were crazy!

The part you bolded though still says the kids don't understand why they can't go to NYC. They could be mad at mom for not taking them - I really belieive that kids that age have no concept of the money and shouldn't be a part of the circus their parents are living in to try and understand. No way do I think Kate should have answered their question with "well daddy told TLC to go away and took all of our money out of our account so we can't pay the bills and TLC isn't paying mommy any more or sending us on free trips". They could be mad that daddy lives there and won't take them. They could be mad that their friends from TLC (crew) weren't going. We have no way to know what the kids were told or not told other than what we've heard from the parents - which is almost total opposites.... I guess I'm trying to say (not very well this morning!) that I really don't think the kids "get" it - maybe Mady and Cara a little bit but if their "crowd" goes on trips and stuff anyways, maybe that's a "normal" life for their friends so they think it's pretty normal as well other than the cameras with the Gosselins on their trips.

I just have to go back to she could have taken them but how would that have looked with her claiming she only had $1000 in the account and bills she couldn't pay?

Sorry - I'm not trying to be a pest - I'm really not! We'll just have to agree to disagree.

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.

Two things. The house is in both Jon and Kate's name, so they would need permission from him to film on that property. More importantly, Jon is the kid's father and he can object to his children being filmed. Just because they release Jon from his contract doesn't mean he doesn't have any say so about his children and his property.

I blame his idiot lawyer for this mess. Right or wrong, you can't just blow off a contract whenever you feel like it or it doesn't suit you anymore. Jon claimed on LKL that when he signed TLC contract neither he or Kate had a lawyer, they just signed it, not really knowing what they signed. I didn't believe that for one second. Kate is not stupid and I was sure they had representation, especially for the most recent contract.

So, Michael Lohan wants Jon on his stupid Divorced Dads Club. Michael Lohan hooks Jon up with creepy lawyer. Creepy lawyer tells Jon to make demands and to just go on all the shows they want him, (ET, Insider, ect...) Creepy lawyer is getting a cut of what they are paying him, I'm sure, so what does he care? He probably told Jon he would fix everything, not to worry about it, ect...Creepy lawyer probably isn't licensed to practice in Maryland either, so now what is Jon going to do?

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"...

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Are these perks taxable?

They are depending on how they were donated.

My parents had to pay taxes to all donations for their home from being This Old House.

The value of the items is taxable income and the family would be issued 1099s.

Now if it is something that TLC can yank and take with them--then it could be different. But there is no way that if they have donated items--such as a kitchen appliances, that they would get away without having a 1099 and paying the tax liability.


(using the appliances as an example as that is a physical tangible asset that now belongs the house--I have no idea if they were donated or not.)

This would include any discounts if they were offered--say in exchange for name dropping on the show--they got something for half price or whatever---then the company that donated the item can 1099 that value.

Usually companies that do this will do so for tax benefit (for business expense) and for them to claim the "donation"---someone on the other end has to take the hit on "receiving the item" and only not-for-profits get out of any tax liability.


Not sure how it works for trips and travel--I can only speak to strictly donated items for a television show.

In my parents case--one of the donors,a flooring company--overstated the value of the service/item that they donated (astronomically). My parents filed their taxes reflecting the true value and they lost their "case" with IRS and were obligated to pay taxes on the declared value (even though the company falsified the information). Nothing my parents could do.

 

[Starbrite]

Jon claimed on LKL that when he signed TLC contract neither he or Kate had a lawyer, they just signed it, not really knowing what they signed. I didn't believe that for one second. Kate is not stupid and I was sure they had representation, especially for the most recent contract.

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"...

Those TLC court papers say there was J&K counsel present everytime (Beginning w/ the 2nd season) they mention a new contract being signed.

 

[3prettyprincesses]

I didn't think you were crazy!

The part you bolded though still says the kids don't understand why they can't go to NYC. They could be mad at mom for not taking them - I really belieive that kids that age have no concept of the money and shouldn't be a part of the circus their parents are living in to try and understand. No way do I think Kate should have answered their question with "well daddy told TLC to go away and took all of our money out of our account so we can't pay the bills and TLC isn't paying mommy any more or sending us on free trips". They could be mad that daddy lives there and won't take them. They could be mad that their friends from TLC (crew) weren't going. We have no way to know what the kids were told or not told other than what we've heard from the parents - which is almost total opposites.... I guess I'm trying to say (not very well this morning!) that I really don't think the kids "get" it - maybe Mady and Cara a little bit but if their "crowd" goes on trips and stuff anyways, maybe that's a "normal" life for their friends so they think it's pretty normal as well other than the cameras with the Gosselins on their trips.

I just have to go back to she could have taken them but how would that have looked with her claiming she only had $1000 in the account and bills she couldn't pay?

Sorry - I'm not trying to be a pest - I'm really not! We'll just have to agree to disagree.

You're not a pest! And I don't mind disagreeing with you either. You actually made some interesting points. I really don't know what Kate told the kids about filming in NY. I must have been remembering someone else's post about it. Blech, the whole thing is sad and ridiculous at the same time, isn't it? Why oh why have J&K done so many stinking interviews? Their words are forever in print now and something their own children can read later on.

 

[C.Ann]

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.

Does anyone know exactly how child custody works in the state of PA? I know of a family who lives in PA right now who are involved in a nasty, nasty divorce.. The "mom" is really bad news - far worse than anything Jon has said and done - and the "dad" has been told that unless "mom's" behavior was much, much worse (living with a pedophile; selling her "services" with the children in the home; etc.), the general rule is always "joint custody".. Just wondering if someone from PA could speak to that..

I know for a fact that in many other states, the same rule applies.. Too many dad's were getting the shaft when it came to custody of their kids in the past and that's where the concept of "joint custody" came to be..

As far as the house, again I have to wonder what the laws are in PA.. I can think of two people right off the top of my head (in NY) who divorced while there were still young children in the home.. The "old" rule of the mom being allowed to remain in the house until the youngest child turned 18 no longer applied if the dad insisted that the house be sold.. Either "mom" had to buy out "dad's" share or the house had to be sold, the remaining mortgage paid off, and anything that was leftover was split 50/50.. In one case this resulted in the mom having to take two jobs, put the house up for sale, and move into a very small apartment with her children..

How does marital property law work in PA?

 

[WaltD4Me]

Those TLC court papers say there was J&K counsel present everytime (Beginning w/ the 2nd season) they mention a new contract being signed.

The papers said they counsel and managers present. Another reason you don't want to be blabbing everything on TV. Once you do that it isn't just hearsay anymore, there is taped evidence of what you said that you can't deny. So this is all going to come out and those interviews are going to be played over and over and Jon is just going to be viewed as a liar.

Just like his comments in the car about what Jodie and Kevin were saying. He went on and on about how the filming was fine for the kids, how the kids loved the crew and filiming, ect... then he goes on LKL and they show that clip of him. He tries to say he was under contract and he couldn't say anything bad or agree. But he could have said "no comment" or better yet, nothing at all.

 

[redrosesix]

TMZ has the lawsuit documents if anyone wants to read it.

http://www.tmz.com/2009/10/16/jon-gosselin-kate-jon-and-kate-plus-eight-lawsuit-tlc/

According to the suit, filed by Paul Gaffney of the law firm of Williams & Connolly in DC, the day TLC recast the show as "Kate Plus 8," Jon's lawyer contacted TLC and demanded that they release him from the "exclusivity" provision of the contract, even though Jon was still drawing a full salary. The suit claims Jon's lawyer gave an ultimatum -- either release him from the exclusivity clause within one hour, or Jon would block the filming of the TLC show on grounds it was "detrimental to his children."

IMO, TLC had to do this. The early comments on their move, such as the one's on Z's blog, were not in their favour. I would expect more dirt to be thrown as the day goes on.

If they were in Canada, their next move would be a motion to freeze his personal bank accounts, since the assets in those are the money that they claim is rightfully theirs. Which would mean that Jon is going to jail on the 26th, not handing the judge a cheque.

I have a question about the court paperwork - the first page shows it's TLC vs Jon Gosselin and JKID, Inc - isn't that the bank account referrenced in the recent alligations?? Wouldn't Kate be tied to that account as well??? On the second page, it says in 4. that it's a "loan out" company - can anyone explain to me what that means??? - and that Jon was supposed to be the one in charge of the company (and account if it's the same thing). I thought all along both J&K have agreed that Kate handles all of the finances, so again, doesn't that bring Kate into the mix? I haven't gotten very far in but these were things that popped out at me right away. Hopefully someone can help me make sense of this stuff....

Not sure -- Jon's response/counter-claim referred to it as the JKIG bank account.

They are depending on how they were donated.

My parents had to pay taxes to all donations for their home from being This Old House.

The value of the items is taxable income and the family would be issued 1099s.

Now if it is something that TLC can yank and take with them--then it could be different. But there is no way that if they have donated items--such as a kitchen appliances, that they would get away without having a 1099 and paying the tax liability.


(using the appliances as an example as that is a physical tangible asset that now belongs the house--I have no idea if they were donated or not.)

This would include any discounts if they were offered--say in exchange for name dropping on the show--they got something for half price or whatever---then the company that donated the item can 1099 that value.

Usually companies that do this will do so for tax benefit (for business expense) and for them to claim the "donation"---someone on the other end has to take the hit on "receiving the item" and only not-for-profits get out of any tax liability.


Not sure how it works for trips and travel--I can only speak to strictly donated items for a television show.

In my parents case--one of the donors,a flooring company--overstated the value of the service/item that they donated (astronomically). My parents filed their taxes reflecting the true value and they lost their "case" with IRS and were obligated to pay taxes on the declared value (even though the company falsified the information). Nothing my parents could do.

The new house is owned in a trust -- I'm not sure how that affects your tax laws.

 

[newtodis]

You're not a pest! And I don't mind disagreeing with you either. You actually made some interesting points. I really don't know what Kate told the kids about filming in NY. I must have been remembering someone else's post about it. Blech, the whole thing is sad and ridiculous at the same time, isn't it? Why oh why have J&K done so many stinking interviews? Their words are forever in print now and something their own children can read later on.

Yes it's a lot out there swirling around for the kids to find some day.....

As for the house, if Jon's name being on the house is the thing stopping them from deciding where they film, why hasn't TLC filmed trips and such or Kate just "buy" Jon out of his half of the house. I would think TLC would front that money to Kate (or they would even buy him out) to continue getting their income from sponsors.

 

[DMRick]

What is sad about this, no matter which side you are on, is that Jon will be ruined, both in the public's eyes and his kids' eyes. He might as well just die before it gets any worse so they'll at least have some good memories of him
Well, this has settled one thing for me -- Jon wouldn't have pulled the plug at that time if it had not been for TLC's move (although I do believe he had been in negotiations with TLC to get his kids off the show during the divorce at least). That had been really troubling me once I realized it had been done close to the twins' birthday.
.

He's ruining himself. And it is a shame.

I have no idea if he had been in negotiations to get the kids off during the divorce. He could have gone to family court, they would have given the kids their own lawyer, and if they found it detrimental, they would have been off. I think (my opinion) he used them as a bargaining chip, and still is.

 

[Starbrite]

Does anyone know exactly how child custody works in the state of PA? I know of a family who lives in PA right now who are involved in a nasty, nasty divorce.. The "mom" is really bad news - far worse than anything Jon has said and done - and the "dad" has been told that unless "mom's" behavior was much, much worse (living with a pedophile; selling her "services" with the children in the home; etc.), the general rule is always "joint custody".. Just wondering if someone from PA could speak to that..

I don't know the laws...but I can speak for my case only...

I was awarded Full physical & Legal custody - Ex has limited visitation. In our case, there were no illegal acts, svcs, drugs, etc....but dad was a loose cannon. Much like Jon. Emptied bank accounts, moved from house to house, girl to girl, made threats, etc etc. Judge felt he was too unstable - physically, financially, emotionally, mentally, etc etc & awared me full custody.
So it's not out hands-down Joint Custody in PA


I can't really speak for marital assets - 'cause everything was in my name solely before we were even married.

 

[SaraJayne]

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

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

The new house is owned in a trust -- I'm not sure how that affects your tax laws.

The trust would still pay taxes, I would think. A trust is not a "not for profit" entity.


And the old house was not in trust.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

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

Why do you say that?