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

[FergieTCat]

Jon insists on talking to the paps because he says it is easier if you are friendly with them and besides they are just doing their jobs and have families to support too. (really, he said that.)

But if he is so friendly with them, why doesn't he say..."Please don't come to the bus stop and ask me stuff when the kids are around, I'll meet you out at the fence when we get home."

How generous of Jon. Any word on what he's doing to support his family?

 

[3prettyprincesses]

How generous of Jon. Any word on what he's doing to support his family?

 

[TanyaLovesPooh]

Jon's court date is the day after my birthday!!

fellow Sagittarian...mine is the 9th.

I can tell you right now, if that were my DH, he'd have been all up in that guy's grill if he tried filming our kids.

Mine too, in fact he probably would have gotten himself in trouble.

I'm not sure--but the G-children can't possibly be the only children being picked up at that location. And even if they are--it could have very easily been a decision the school made that is beyond the G's control.

Yes, other children are picked up and dropped off there as well.

That's probably true (the 75% of the time remark), but it "seems" like we're informed of what they're doing 275% of the time.. LOL..

I agree, All Gosselin All the time is what it feels like. It has eased off a bit but a few weeks ago they were everywhere.

How generous of Jon. Any word on what he's doing to support his family?

Unfortunately, I think these photo ops with the paps are what Jon is doing for cash. It is very poor judgment to talk to them at all but it is just disgusting when the kids are a part of it. The other day one of the twins had to roll the window of Jon's car down and tell him to "come on" as he was still talking with the paps.

 

[madge]

more details about the TLC case:
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...vertisers-complained-tlc-about-jon-gosselin’s

I have one (generally speaking) question about this set of papers ... when did tabloid media become acceptable as evidence? Many of the articles cited in the papers use "sources" and not names. We have a hard time accepting those articles as truth on this thread, why are they admissable in court?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

more details about the TLC case:
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...vertisers-complained-tlc-about-jon-gosselin’s

I have one (generally speaking) question about this set of papers ... when did tabloid media become acceptable as evidence? Many of the articles cited in the papers use "sources" and not names. We have a hard time accepting those articles as truth on this thread, why are they admissable in court?

Good question.

The writers of the article and the photographers can also be called in as witnesses to testify to the truth of the content of the articles.

As for the pics--Jon cannot lie if they are him, and if they are him--then he would have to explain himself.

Wasn't a part of the contract something about presenting himself in an image contrary to the show or something like that. He's a "family man", so he shouldn't be shown partying or with other women.

Celebs will sue a tabloid if there are lies printed. And they will win. Tabloids are more "legit" than we are giving them credit for. IF they weren't, there would be a lot more lawsuits and losses on their part. It is in their best interest to print only what they have found credible.


ETA: There is some precedence on the naming of sources--a reporter does not have to disclose a source. However, it can make it much more difficult to prove the validity of a story if they refuse to do so. Not so difficult when it is a simple photograph and a source is not required.

 

[TanyaLovesPooh]

more details about the TLC case:
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...vertisers-complained-tlc-about-jon-gosselin’s

I have one (generally speaking) question about this set of papers ... when did tabloid media become acceptable as evidence? Many of the articles cited in the papers use "sources" and not names. We have a hard time accepting those articles as truth on this thread, why are they admissable in court?

It looks like they are using those articles to show why the advertisers on TLC were nervous about Jon's actions and behavior.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

It looks like they are using those articles to show why the advertisers on TLC were nervous about Jon's actions and behavior.

Plus didn't Jon validate some of the articles. He may have written them off as nothing, but the contract doesn't state that he can be taken for his word. I think it says he can't convey a certain impression. I might be wrong though. I really don't want to read legal language again.

 

[3prettyprincesses]

Has this been posted yet? Sorry if it has.

http://www.wqow.com/global/story.asp?s=11441420

QUOTE:

Kate Gosselin: I was wrong to treat Jon that way

© Genius Products
Kate Gosselin says she regrets berating and bossing around her estranged husband, Jon, on episodes of Jon & Kate Plus 8, conceding she was "wrong to treat him that way."

"I was very hard on him and I would never deny that," Gosselin told Natalie Morales on Monday's TLC special Kate: Her Story. "I felt very much like a lot of weight rested on my shoulders."

The matriarch was often captured chewing out her husband on the early seasons of the show and says critics were right "to a degree" that she emasculated him. "Was it good, healthy and wonderful? No," she said. "Am I proud of those moments that were captured? No."

Gosselin said she doesn't have much sympathy for her ex, though, when it comes to his grievances about missing out on his youth because he became a father at 23. "I think once you become a parent, it's too late to worry about what should've, could've, would've been done," she said.

Things between the couple got bad "so quickly," the 34-year-old said, noting that their goals and visions had changed. She said she knew they were over on a plane flying home, but did not specify when. "I remember thinking, 'We're not going to recover from this," she said. "At the end of the day, I looked at him and he looked at me, and we were just completely different people."

She added, "I still wake up every day, and I think the phone will ring and it'll be the old Jon."

Addressing reports of infidelity, Gosselin said it's "disgusting" Jon suggested she was having an affair with her bodyguard, Steve Nield, whom she travels with because "people have a lot of contempt and hate for me and at the end of the day, I need to come home safely to my kids."

As for Jon's personal life, Gosselin said his relationship with Hailey Glassman is "another one of the things that I am dealing with." The women met once a few years ago for two minutes when Gosselin received a free tummy tuck from Glassman's father, Dr. Lawrence Glassman.

Gosselin said she understands Glassman's claims that Jon is emotionally abusive. "I know that he has a lot of anger."

Gosselin maintains their reality show did not cause the pair's split, but said the series has been a blessing — as it provides a source of income — and a curse because of "all the negativity out there." Despite the relentless media scrutiny and a "hate-hate" relationship with the paparazzi, she won't step out of the spotlight.

"We're too far gone," she said. "Stepping out of the spotlight when it's prudent to do so is a good thing. ... I would go back and do [the show] again." -- Joyce Eng

 

[madge]

Celebs will sue a tabloid if there are lies printed. And they will win. Tabloids are more "legit" than we are giving them credit for. IF they weren't, there would be a lot more lawsuits and losses on their part. It is in their best interest to print only what they have found credible.

I absolutely agree. I've always said that there is some truth in the tabloids. There have been many stories that broke in magazines such as the National Enquirer long before they made it to mainstream media. There are too many facts to check to prevent lawsuits for them not to have at least some truth to them. Interesting that in this case, it seems as though the roles are reversed, LOL

 

[DMRick]

I've always thought there was a bit of truth in all the stories..but sorting out the bit was the hardest. I don't think much was the full truth on either side. For a lawsuit, doesn't it have to be proven that it's a not only a lie, but that there was harm caused? With J & K I think that would have been hard to prove, since they were putting so much out there themselves.

 

[redrosesix]

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebritynews/photos/jon-gosselin-yoga-2009511/sk/be

Words escape me...

Yeah, I agree...weird

I don't think she said it was the actual getting ready, but more the feeling of going now that they are 9, instead of 10. She indicated it was hard to go as 9. I think even with this crazy couple, divorce affects them with lots of sad feelings of a marriage gone sour, even if they no longer wish to be with that person as a wife/husband. I would imagine, that like a newly widowed person, there are firsts to get through.
The tups were prob in Sunday School in that episode you saw. Usually, once they are school age, they sit in church for a while, then go to Sunday School, (parents stay up in church, at least in our church and the AoG church here that we have attended occasionally) not that that makes a difference in how someone would feel about going.

Without discussing religion, I can say that my grandmother was very involved in her church (and in such a small town the church was where half of the community gathered each week, the other half at the Roman Catholic church) before my grandfather died -- part of the women's auxilliary, etc. But she rarely attended church after he died, would only attend weddings and funerals. It was just something they had always done together.

Having said that, I would buy that as a good excuse from Kate if she hadn't been the one to end the marriage, to file for divorce, etc. I'm just not ready to see her as the devoted wife that my grandmother was. For the remaining 20 years of her life, whenever she spoke of him, she would say something like "And Fred -- that's my husband -- he said...." They were never separated, even in death.

Jon insists on talking to the paps because he says it is easier if you are friendly with them and besides they are just doing their jobs and have families to support too. (really, he said that.)

But if he is so friendly with them, why doesn't he say..."Please don't come to the bus stop and ask me stuff when the kids are around, I'll meet you out at the fence when we get home."

Yup, but I was going to suggest they meet him at a coffee shop, or better yet in NYC. No reason why he can't set the ground rules.

Why drop them off at this wonderful spot for the paps. Why can't the bus come to the house? Why can't they drive them to school the paps are not allowed on the school property.

Yes, the paparazzi even bother the nannies when they pick up/drop off the kids -- those women should demand hazard pay. I think the kids should be taken directly to/from school.

OMG -- we just agreed for the first time

Good question.

The writers of the article and the photographers can also be called in as witnesses to testify to the truth of the content of the articles.

As for the pics--Jon cannot lie if they are him, and if they are him--then he would have to explain himself.

Wasn't a part of the contract something about presenting himself in an image contrary to the show or something like that. He's a "family man", so he shouldn't be shown partying or with other women.

Celebs will sue a tabloid if there are lies printed. And they will win. Tabloids are more "legit" than we are giving them credit for. IF they weren't, there would be a lot more lawsuits and losses on their part. It is in their best interest to print only what they have found credible.


ETA: There is some precedence on the naming of sources--a reporter does not have to disclose a source. However, it can make it much more difficult to prove the validity of a story if they refuse to do so. Not so difficult when it is a simple photograph and a source is not required.

You should review the precedents set by invoking your First Amendment. This isn't a criminal trial, and the reporters would be the witnesses, not the defendants.

IMO, it is interesting the TLC has seemingly dropped the claims against Jon re talking about the marriage/divorce (or at least this witness has). And I think that they are really reaching -- despite the wording of anything that Jon signed, their contract cannot suppress people who are not a party to the contract (even if the specific terms of the contract are found to be valid) -- it is impossible for TLC therefore to make any claims against Jon for statements made by Mike Heller, unless he specifically states that he is making that statement on behalf of Jon. Similarly, they can't sue Jon for any negotiations that were made on his behalf if Jon did not sign a contract to perform that duty eg. the issue about his manager asking for $12,000 for Jon to do an appearance with a Florida radio station.

These are just a few of the holes I wanted to point out -- TLC is not going to have a slam dunk if this is representative of their case. But this affidavit is just that -- an affidavit. It is one part of the claim being made by TLC, without the response from Jon's side, and most importantly without a ruling by the judge on what is or is not admissable in court. It may very well be that some of the claims in the lawsuit are dismissed by the judge before they are ever argued in front of a jury.

 

[DMRick]

Having said that, I would buy that as a good excuse from Kate if she hadn't been the one to end the marriage, to file for divorce, etc. I'm just not ready to see her as the devoted wife that my grandmother was. .

I agree that she was prob not devoted. More that her family is no more a family. I'm sure that is sad to most people in the worst case divorce. As awful as they were to each other, they were a family. Now they aren't. At least not together. I don't really think people have to believe her excuse..but it is her excuse and we really can't say that she doesn't feel bad about not going and why.
I don't know the whole story about how the marriage ended or why she filed for divorce first, when Jon was going to be the one to file. She only said to protect her kids. Are there any reasons where that would have been ok to do..file first? Or would it never have been, and should she have stuck it out no matter what the circumstances? In the context of feeling bad that her family was not split up.

 

[redrosesix]

I agree that she was prob not devoted. More that her family is no more a family. I'm sure that is sad to most people in the worst case divorce. As awful as they were to each other, they were a family. Now they aren't. At least not together. I don't really think people have to believe her excuse..but it is her excuse and we really can't say that she doesn't feel bad about not going and why.
I don't know the whole story about how the marriage ended or why she filed for divorce first, when Jon was going to be the one to file. She only said to protect her kids. Are there any reasons where that would have been ok to do..file first? Or would it never have been, and should she have stuck it out no matter what the circumstances? In the context of feeling bad that her family was not split up.

Actually, I've never heard that implied by anybody but Kate. And even if he had threatened to file, he didn't -- Kate did.

I think there are a lot of times when it is ok to file first, if not courageous -- but those would be more extreme cases, such as abuse, addictions, cheating, abandonment. Sometimes it is in the best interests of the children to do so, even if the spouse who files doesn't really want to. The person who files does have to shoulder more of the blame for walking away from the marriage, and for giving up on the family as it was. When there are children involved, there is some amount of making amends that has to be done if they were not endangered by the other spouse -- the person who files has literally made the decision to tear the family apart.

 

[DMRick]

We'll be disagreeing about this. Not knowing why she felt she had to file, I would be in no position to say if she was right or wrong. I could never say that because one person filed first they made a decision to tear the family apart.

But in any case, even if I agreed, I would not say that she or anyone wouldn't have the right to feel sad over the break up and not want to visit places right away that they had been together at in the past.

I thought that Jon had said he planned on filing and he didn't know why Kate filed first. But it's been awhile so I'll admit I'm not sure about that.

Actually, I've never heard that implied by anybody but Kate. And even if he had threatened to file, he didn't -- Kate did.

I think there are a lot of times when it is ok to file first, if not courageous -- but those would be more extreme cases, such as abuse, addictions, cheating, abandonment. Sometimes it is in the best interests of the children to do so, even if the spouse who files doesn't really want to.The person who files does have to shoulder more of the blame for walking away from the marriage, and for giving up on the family as it was. When there are children involved, there is some amount of making amends that has to be done if they were not endangered by the other spouse -- the person who files has literally made the decision to tear the family apart.

 

[hbkfan637]

But in any case, even if I agreed, I would not say that she or anyone wouldn't have the right to feel sad over the break up and not want to visit places right away that they had been together at in the past.

ITA. IMO, for any couple, it doesn't matter who filed divorce first.

 

[walden]

Yeah, I agree...weird



Without discussing religion, I can say that my grandmother was very involved in her church (and in such a small town the church was where half of the community gathered each week, the other half at the Roman Catholic church) before my grandfather died -- part of the women's auxilliary, etc. But she rarely attended church after he died, would only attend weddings and funerals. It was just something they had always done together.

Having said that, I would buy that as a good excuse from Kate if she hadn't been the one to end the marriage, to file for divorce, etc. I'm just not ready to see her as the devoted wife that my grandmother was. For the remaining 20 years of her life, whenever she spoke of him, she would say something like "And Fred -- that's my husband -- he said...." They were never separated, even in death..

The bolded above is just so sweet. I'd like to have known your grandmother.

You should review the precedents set by invoking your First Amendment. This isn't a criminal trial, and the reporters would be the witnesses, not the defendants.

IMO, it is interesting the TLC has seemingly dropped the claims against Jon re talking about the marriage/divorce (or at least this witness has). And I think that they are really reaching -- despite the wording of anything that Jon signed, their contract cannot suppress people who are not a party to the contract (even if the specific terms of the contract are found to be valid) -- it is impossible for TLC therefore to make any claims against Jon for statements made by Mike Heller, unless he specifically states that he is making that statement on behalf of Jon. Similarly, they can't sue Jon for any negotiations that were made on his behalf if Jon did not sign a contract to perform that duty eg. the issue about his manager asking for $12,000 for Jon to do an appearance with a Florida radio station.

These are just a few of the holes I wanted to point out -- TLC is not going to have a slam dunk if this is representative of their case. But this affidavit is just that -- an affidavit. It is one part of the claim being made by TLC, without the response from Jon's side, and most importantly without a ruling by the judge on what is or is not admissable in court. It may very well be that some of the claims in the lawsuit are dismissed by the judge before they are ever argued in front of a jury.

Absolutely! The only thing I can add is that I am surprised that Jon's attorney is being deposed and can't act for him in the case. What happened to attorney/client privilege?

Also many thanks for posting the link to the affidavit above. Here it is again for those interested. http://www.tmz.com/2009/10/16/jon-gosselin-kate-jon-and-kate-plus-eight-lawsuit-tlc/

I did need to reread it to refresh my memory, but my memory was correct. TLC is suing both Jon and the Corporation called JKIG formed by the Gosselins. That seems to imply that Jon can draw on the Corporation funds to defend the case, and that should TLC win on any of the points (and I do not think they necessarily will win), the Coorporation would be responsible for paying any damages.

Similarly, I have to keep reminding myself that although Kate has been assigned responsibility for the Gosselin accounts during arbitration, all the money does not belong to her alone. Up until June, when she filed, it was communal property. Until the divorce is final and division of property settled, Jon could easily petition for access to family monies existing pre-June to pay his attorney fees.

So TLC by filing this case is essentially draining funds that could be used to support the children. I rather think that stinks!

Now I need to get back on my 12 step program and make breakfast for the houseful of guests I have this weekend!

 

[MAKmom]

Actually, I've never heard that implied by anybody but Kate. And even if he had threatened to file, he didn't -- Kate did.

I think there are a lot of times when it is ok to file first, if not courageous -- but those would be more extreme cases, such as abuse, addictions, cheating, abandonment. Sometimes it is in the best interests of the children to do so, even if the spouse who files doesn't really want to. The person who files does have to shoulder more of the blame for walking away from the marriage, and for giving up on the family as it was. When there are children involved, there is some amount of making amends that has to be done if they were not endangered by the other spouse -- the person who files has literally made the decision to tear the family apart.

One problem in PA is there is no legal separation. So if you have a spouse who is spending out of control too bad it is your debt too. The only way you can stop it is to file.

I think Kate was advised she needed to protect the family. We know Jon was acting out at least since the school teacher scandal early in 09.

We do not know what went down but something did to make her do it & make that statement.

 

[3prettyprincesses]

Similarly, I have to keep reminding myself that although Kate has been assigned responsibility for the Gosselin accounts during arbitration, all the money does not belong to her alone. Up until June, when she filed, it was communal property. Until the divorce is final and division of property settled, Jon could easily petition for access to family monies existing pre-June to pay his attorney fees.

So TLC by filing this case is essentially draining funds that could be used to support the children. I rather think that stinks!

And that is the thing that will probably ruin TLC's reputation in some people's eyes. Yes, they're going after Jon, but it's the family $ that will be used to combat them. Just further proof that TLC doesn't give a hoot about the Gosselins no matter what their warm and fuzzy press releases say. All they care about is lining their own pockets. No wonder Jon called them a monster.

 

[DMRick]

Unless the masses stop watching their shows, that won't hurt them. I never got the idea that TLC was warm and fuzzy, but out to make money. And if they allow Jon to break his contract, others from TLC shows could do the same. Jon should have thought about that before he signed the contract and then broke it (if it's proven he in fact, did). I only hope that the kids money is secure and that it can't be used for this. If not, than shame on Jon and Kate for not making sure it was in an unrevocable trust. I would blame J & K if TLC wins this suit and takes any of the kids share of the money.

IMO, if Jon and Kate were being honest in telling the public they could quit at any time if one of them wanted to, he should have taken that route and taken TLC to court to end it if TLC didn't honor the contract allowing that, not threaten that the kids wouldn't film if he didn't get his way. If that wasn't in the contract (that they could stop at any time), then J & K (or whichever said that) lied.

I haven't read the papers in a while, but I thought the monetary amount they were suing for was rather low, anyone know what that is? I thought they were suing more for Jon to live up to the contract.

And that is the thing that will probably ruin TLC's reputation in some people's eyes. Yes, they're going after Jon, but it's the family $ that will be used to combat them. Just further proof that TLC doesn't give a hoot about the Gosselins no matter what their warm and fuzzy press releases say. All they care about is lining their own pockets. No wonder Jon called them a monster.

 

[redrosesix]

The bolded above is just so sweet. I'd like to have known your grandmother.





Absolutely! The only thing I can add is that I am surprised that Jon's attorney is being deposed and can't act for him in the case. What happened to attorney/client privilege?

Also many thanks for posting the link to the affidavit above. Here it is again for those interested. http://www.tmz.com/2009/10/16/jon-gosselin-kate-jon-and-kate-plus-eight-lawsuit-tlc/

I did need to reread it to refresh my memory, but my memory was correct. TLC is suing both Jon and the Corporation called JKIG formed by the Gosselins. That seems to imply that Jon can draw on the Corporation funds to defend the case, and that should TLC win on any of the points (and I do not think they necessarily will win), the Coorporation would be responsible for paying any damages.

Similarly, I have to keep reminding myself that although Kate has been assigned responsibility for the Gosselin accounts during arbitration, all the money does not belong to her alone. Up until June, when she filed, it was communal property. Until the divorce is final and division of property settled, Jon could easily petition for access to family monies existing pre-June to pay his attorney fees.

So TLC by filing this case is essentially draining funds that could be used to support the children. I rather think that stinks!

Now I need to get back on my 12 step program and make breakfast for the houseful of guests I have this weekend!

Yes, that surprised me too. He can choose to not answer certain questions based on attorney-client privilege. He must not be representing Jon in Maryland, although we haven't heard who will be.

As for the money issue, I can't help but believe that all of this isn't somehow orchestrated to work together eg. Jon being sued by TLC while the divorce proceedings are delayed as the arbitrator deals with Kate's accounting of all of the bank accounts. We know that Kate wants to do the show, and I think TLC is trying to rake Jon over the coals in order to make a deal with him to allow the kids to film -- much of their claim is disputable ie. not an open/shut case, but it will be expensive and time consuming.

Yes, TLC is suing JKIG too -- that's actually the bank account where they had all of the trouble last month.

One problem in PA is there is no legal separation. So if you have a spouse who is spending out of control too bad it is your debt too. The only way you can stop it is to file.

I think Kate was advised she needed to protect the family. We know Jon was acting out at least since the school teacher scandal early in 09.

We do not know what went down but something did to make her do it & make that statement.

Funny how people love to make excuses for Kate The "Kate must have had a reason to do what she did" thing is getting old real fast, considering none of us know her (or Jon) or what was really going on at their home.