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

[DMRick]

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.

What will be interesting, is if Kate and Jon get charged for not having the permits. If the contract says they were supposed to get them, then how can they accuse TLC of not getting them. I don't know if it's like putting new wiring in your house. The responsibility is on the homeowner to either get the permits, or make sure yoru electrician has gotten them.
This may not work like Jon had in mind.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

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.

To me that sounds like a lot of money.


I had some other thoughts that came to me this morning....random thoughts that may or may not matter, so bear with me.


1. They film several things out of the state of PA, for example--Wyoming...and of course CA. Some states have enterainment laws and some do not. Just popped into my head, but no idea if it is relevant.

2. Kate denied the water, not TLC or whomever was conducting that particular interview that the papers included as evidence of exploitation.

My only issue with this is--the child in question is prone to be manipulative and just b/c water was denied on the video, it does not mean that she was without water or nutrition before they set up the interview piece. Are they suggesting that a parent is not permitted to have a child wait until something is completed and then letting them have a drink?

Just rubs me the wrong way as they are alluding to the exploitation but it is clearly KATE who made the decision. Noone off set said anything (and perhaps they had a cup of water off camera or something).

Just some random thoughts on the inclusion of that video which I think was more a ploy than anything else to have it included.

3. Permits and documentaries:

Not here, but on other sites, it has been alluded that animals have more protections than these children.

But what is curious--they do vet documentaries, nature documentaries and all those things and I just cannot believe those animals get the same...protections if you will as a dog being used in a movie. Somehow, I believe it is legally different. Of course they can't go abuse the animal and honor laws that protect the animal (outside of filming), but they don't have to go above and beyond as a working animal might in a show, film, or tv show.

Weird thing to correlate--but documentary is just a different animal and I believe they will have a tough time in their counterclaim if TLC can properly defend that format.

I don't know how they will do it--but observing is not the same as asking a child to perform and it can be defended that in the first couple of seasons, the kids were truly being documented.


It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Again these were random thoughts that popped into my head more as discussion points and not necessarily my opinion as to them being correct or incorrect.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

What will be interesting, is if Kate and Jon get charged for not having the permits. If the contract says they were supposed to get them, then how can they accuse TLC of not getting them. I don't know if it's like putting new wiring in your house. The responsibility is on the homeowner to either get the permits, or make sure yoru electrician has gotten them.
This may not work like Jon had in mind.

I am not sure on the interpretation of the law...

But the next thing the Heller's will do despite what the counterclaim states is defend Jon's ignorance of the law if that is the case.

But I don't think permitting a filming/taping works the same as permitting work on a home.

******

Thank you earlier for pointing out the Freedom of Information Act.

Unless the judge were to seal this case, I believe this is all a matter of public record and the only money required is whatever fees the courthouse charges to provide a copy of the documents.

There is no need for any media to pay an exhorbitant "bribe" or "payout" to a celebrity to get the documents when they have access to them anyway.

 

[madge]

What will be interesting, is if Kate and Jon get charged for not having the permits. If the contract says they were supposed to get them, then how can they accuse TLC of not getting them. I don't know if it's like putting new wiring in your house. The responsibility is on the homeowner to either get the permits, or make sure yoru electrician has gotten them.
This may not work like Jon had in mind.

I don't think it's going to work out like anyone had in mind. Ultimately, all the lawsuits, claims, etc. take money away from the children. That's the saddest part of all.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foia.html

This is a university--they can be trusted.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
The U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a law ensuring public access to U.S. government records. FOIA carries a presumption of disclosure; the burden is on the government - not the public - to substantiate why information may not be released. Upon written request, agencies of the United States government are required to disclose those records, unless they can be lawfully withheld from disclosure under one of nine specific exemptions in the FOIA. This right of access is ultimately enforceable in federal court.

The exemptions (best summary I could find http://www.sec.gov/foia/nfoia.htm):

Freedom of Information Act Exemptions
The Freedom of Information Act entitles the following exemptions on documents being requested by the public:

*Those documents properly classified as secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy;

*Related solely to internal personnel rules and practices;

*Specifically exempted by other statutes;

*A trade secret or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information obtained from a person;

*A privileged inter-agency or intra-agency memorandum or letter;

*A personnel, medical, or similar file the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

*Compiled for law enforcement purposes, the release of which

could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings,

would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication,

could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,

could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source,

would disclose techniques, procedures, or guidelines for investigations or prosecutions, or

could reasonably be expected to endanger an individual's life or physical safety;

*Contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports about financial institutions that the SEC regulates or supervises; or

*And those documents containing exempt information about gas or oil wells.

FULL TEXT for the legal junkies:
http://www.justice.gov/oip/amended-foia-redlined.pdf

Dept of Justice--again a trustworthy link.



So no--money doesn't talk, justice does. No bribery involved. The only money involved would be to the extent that there might be a fee for printing or whatever. Nothing more than the average citizen would pay.


So let's stop throwing the tabloids under the bus on this one. They are exercising their rights and it essentially costs them nothing to do that.

 

[madge]

To me that sounds like a lot of money.

maybe it is. I don't know. $2000 for 10 people, plus the use of the house for many hours of work each week? After taxes, that doesn't seem like a lot.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

maybe it is. I don't know. $2000 for 10 people, plus the use of the house for many hours of work each week? After taxes, that doesn't seem like a lot.

Converting to that to an annual salary....

That's $104,000 a year taxable as any other family who makes that amount of money.

I don't know about you--but families can survive pretty well on that and it is a pretty respectable salary.

And while we have not seen legal evidence of a filming schedule. It has been reported that they filmed only 3-4 days per week (coincidentally mostly in the daytime).

Here are SAG union wages, but there is no listing for documentaries and neither are any of the Gosselins card carrying members of SAG.
http://www.sag.org/files/documents/2009 TV Theatrical Rates 6 11 09 final.pdf

 

[DVCisME]

Just wanted to add that $2000/episode might not sound like a lot but think about all the filming that has been done in the last two years. That is quite an income for two years of taping with almost no break.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Just wanted to add that $2000/episode might not sound like a lot but think about all the filming that has been done in the last two years. That is quite an income for two years of taping with almost no break.

That was there first season.

They have made substantially more money in the last 2 years.
(I believe $20K per episode was floating around. Of course that tidbit is missing from the counterclaim. Based on a 40 episode season, that is $800,000.)

 

[kidshop]

maybe it is. I don't know. $2000 for 10 people, plus the use of the house for many hours of work each week? After taxes, that doesn't seem like a lot.

*cough* To sell your kids' childhood to TLC for $2000? No, that is not a lot of money. TLC has taken advantage of 2 not-so-bright people, IMO. I don't the think the 22,500 per episode last season was very much...not enough to self destruct on TV. TLC made hundreds of million off these people.

You're right, though. This will turn out very different than all the players think it will.

 

[kidshop]

That was there first season.

They have made substantially more money in the last 2 years.
(I believe $20K per episode was floating around. Of course that tidbit is missing from the counterclaim. Based on a 40 episode season, that is $800,000.)

They didn't make it to 40 episodes. I do believe the low pay (for a successful TV show making millions for a network) was the reason for the non-stop filming. Regular shows do not film year round with no break, but they had to, to afford the lifestyle they wished. It's a circular model of how to destroy a family for greed and entertainment.

 

[DMRick]

TLC has taken advantage of 2 not-so-bright people, IMO. I don't the think the 22,500 per episode last season was very much...not enough to self destruct on TV. TLC made hundreds of million off these people.

You're right, though. This will turn out very different than all the players think it will.

I thought they did have a lawyer at their last signing. Also, a lot was talked about on these boards about all the free stuff they got above their salary, and they made a pretty penny off the books and the appearances that they would not have made if they weren't doing the show. It's a little late for Jon to say they were underpaid (just talking money here, not the fact the kids were on the show). TLC also took a chance..they couldn't have known it was going to be a success.
I don't think they had other offers, and they did accept this one, so IMO the blame, if there is any, is on their shoulders. So far only Jon is complaining about the pay.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

They didn't make it to 40 episodes. I do believe the low pay (for a successful TV show making millions for a network) was the reason for the non-stop filming. Regular shows do not film year round with no break, but they had to, to afford the lifestyle they wished. It's a circular model of how to destroy a family for greed and entertainment.

Not this last season, but the season prior they did. They made significantly more.

And the deal is--we have no legally sound proof of filming schedules. We have all hearsay. So until such documents are provided, it is all opinion regarding the length of filming.

The fact that all 5 seaons of salaries do not appear in the counterclaim was purposeful omission of his attorneys to make TLC appear worse than they are.

And actually--much opinion is included in the counterclaim as opposed to actual facts.

I'll be anxious to see how the state of PA rules on the Gosseline family. If they rule in favor of the children, then Jon and Kate were in trouble without the martyr mention in the counter claim.

If they rule in favor of TLC that no wrong doing occurred based on the law as written, this counterclaim is up the creek without a paddle.

What I find egregious is that Jon is worried about his own butt, but never once considered suing TLC for violating laws on behalf of his children.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I thought they did have a lawyer at their last signing. Also, a lot was talked about on these boards about all the free stuff they got above their salary, and they made a pretty penny off the books and the appearances that they would not have made if they weren't doing the show. It's a little late for Jon to say they were underpaid (just talking money here, not the fact the kids were on the show). TLC also took a chance..they couldn't have known it was going to be a success.
I don't think they had other offers, and they did accept this one, so IMO the blame, if there is any, is on their shoulders. So far only Jon is complaining about the pay.

For compensation purposes, *free stuff* isn't really a valid way to compensate. It is more like a bonus and not included in the per episode fee. (I.e. if they were acting in SAG roles, they would have to be paid a minimum earnings that couldn't be offset by comped items.)

Not all documentaries are compensated at all and TLC has done them for years, so it will be difficult t prove shenanigans in the first season as the family was no different than any other documentary they have done.

 

[kidshop]

What I find egregious is that Jon is worried about his own butt, but never once considered suing TLC for violating laws on behalf of his children.

I didn't read Jon's suit yet, but he is not suing on behalf of the kids? For them not being compensated and not having permits, as well as an overly restrictive contract? (the permits are his fault too)

I don't think he was aware of any laws (again, his fault) until recently,if you mean why didn't he sue earlier.

I wonder why the Labor Dept has kept so quiet. Is their info public?

 

[C.Ann]

Wasn't it mentioned somewhere here that TLC's suit against Jon does NOT include their desire to begin filming the kids again? If in fact that is the case, it's all good.. No more cameras in the kids faces and this family will finally fade away into the sunset..

Most people don't want to see these children worked and exploited any further, so the childrens best interests will be served..

The only way I could see any of that changing is if Kate is granted full custody of the children ("iffy" at this point) and she and/or TLC pursues the matter further.. At that point if Jon - as their father - with or without custody - still disagrees and claims it's harmful, the children could then be forced to be evaluated by child psychologists/psychiatrists so the courts could make a determination.. Is the parental desire to continue to earn money off of these children important enough to subject them to that? I would certainly hope not - but who knows..

 

[C.Ann]

I wonder why the Labor Dept has kept so quiet. Is their info public?

The last report I saw was that it was still an open case - an ongoing investigation - whatever that means..

 

[MusiqChic99]

I was happy to see that they will be spending the holidays as a family.

I just hope nothing happens before then to prevent that.

 

[DMRick]

For compensation purposes, *free stuff* isn't really a valid way to compensate. It is more like a bonus and not included in the per episode fee. (I.e. if they were acting in SAG roles, they would have to be paid a minimum earnings that couldn't be offset by comped items.).

Yes, I understand that. I was posting to another
about how there was much more to consider than 'just' the salary. Of course these items were bonuses. Bonuses they got because TLC put them on the air. Their book certainly would not have sold as much and J & K would not have been considered for all the speeches, if no one know them.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I didn't read Jon's suit yet, but he is not suing on behalf of the kids? For them not being compensated and not having permits, as well as an overly restrictive contract? (the permits are his fault too)

I don't think he was aware of any laws (again, his fault) until recently,if you mean why didn't he sue earlier.

I wonder why the Labor Dept has kept so quiet. Is their info public?

The way that I read the suit with my layperson's eyes...

All the mention of child exploitation was for the sole purpose of declaring Jon's contract null and void. It seeks nothing on behalf of the children at all. In other words, it's just to get HIM off the hook and seeks nothing for the children at all. (The children are not mentioned in the lawsuit anywhere as individual parties to the lawsuit (or even as Jon on behalf of....).


It only includes a statement that Jon will abide by any findings and deal with the consequences of fines and that he understands that.

I questioned why he isn't suing now, not earlier. Why did his counsel not sue? Tells me that Jon's needs are more pressing but by the language in the lawsuit it would seem that they should be having the kids sue TLC.

I don't know why we haven't seen anything from the Labor Dept.
My understanding of the FOIA is limited to known things such as court filings, police reports, mug shots and that sort of thing.

I get lost when it comes to investigations.