 |
| Robert's attorney, Martin Garbus |
Garbus is asserting the defenses of statute of limitations, failure to state a cause of action, and first amendment protections under opinion, factual statements and matters of public concern. Garbus has defended Nelson Mandela, Cesar Chavez, Robert Redford, Michael Moore, and numerous major First Amendment cases including the famous Ashton v. Kentucky case in 1966, now in every Constitutional Law textbook.
Here is his answer, courtesy of Jon's attorney Shawn Tuma:
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 1 of 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
)
KATE GOSSELIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) JONATHAN GOSSELIN, ROBERT HOFFMAN, ) and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20 ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)
KATE GOSSELIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) JONATHAN GOSSELIN, ROBERT HOFFMAN, ) and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20 ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)
Case No. 13 Civ. 4989 (JLS)
ROBERT HOFFMAN’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Defendant Robert Hoffman (“Hoffman”), through his undersigned counsel, hereby responds to the allegations of the Complaint, dated August 26, 2013 (the “Complaint”) of plaintiff, Kate Gosselin, with the following Answer:
RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS
1. Denies the allegations of plaintiff’s “Preliminary Statement,” except admits that plaintiff is the mother of eight children, including sextuplets, admits that defendant Jonathan Gosselin (“Jonathan”) had been married to plaintiff, admits that plaintiff and Jonathan are divorced, and admits that plaintiff and Jonathan starred in a popular television reality show called “Jon and Kate Plus 8” or “Kate Plus 8” from in or around 2007 to in or around 2011.
2. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Complaint.
3. Denies the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint, except admits that Hoffman is an adult individual.
Defendant Robert Hoffman (“Hoffman”), through his undersigned counsel, hereby responds to the allegations of the Complaint, dated August 26, 2013 (the “Complaint”) of plaintiff, Kate Gosselin, with the following Answer:
RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS
1. Denies the allegations of plaintiff’s “Preliminary Statement,” except admits that plaintiff is the mother of eight children, including sextuplets, admits that defendant Jonathan Gosselin (“Jonathan”) had been married to plaintiff, admits that plaintiff and Jonathan are divorced, and admits that plaintiff and Jonathan starred in a popular television reality show called “Jon and Kate Plus 8” or “Kate Plus 8” from in or around 2007 to in or around 2011.
2. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Complaint.
3. Denies the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint, except admits that Hoffman is an adult individual.
{00011257.DOC;1}
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 2 of 13
4. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
of the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
5.
law to the
6. law to the
7. law to the
8. law to the
9.
13. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
of the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
14. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
of the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
15. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
of the allegations of paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
16. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
of the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
6. law to the
7. law to the
8. law to the
9.
-
Admits the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
-
Admits the allegations of paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
-
Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
13. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
of the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
14. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
of the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
15. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
of the allegations of paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
16. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
of the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 5 of the Complaint, and refers all questions of
Court.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Complaint, and refers all questions of Court.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 7 of the Complaint, and refers all questions of Court.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Complaint, and refers all questions of Court.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Complaint, and refers all questions of Court.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 7 of the Complaint, and refers all questions of Court.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Complaint, and refers all questions of Court.
Admits the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
{00011257.DOC;1} 2
{00011257.DOC;1}
3
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 3 of 13
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 18 of the Complaint, and refers all questions
19. Denies the allegations of paragraph 19 of the Complaint, except admits that plaintiff is a celebrity and that certain information about her may be of value.
20. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
21. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
22. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
23. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
24. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
25. Denies the allegations of paragraph 25 of the Complaint, except admits that Hoffman and Jonathan have a friendship with one another.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 28 of the Complaint, except denies knowledge
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4
Filed 09/19/13 Page 4 of 13
30. Denies the allegations of paragraph 30
legally obtained certain information of public interest
disposed of by plaintiff.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 31
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 32
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 33
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 34
of the Complaint, except admits that he
about plaintiff, including information
of the Complaint.
of the Complaint.
of the Complaint.
of the Complaint, except admits that he
of the Complaint.
of the Complaint.
of the Complaint.
of the Complaint, except admits that he
wrote a book about plaintiff entitled “Kate Gosselin: How She Fooled the World”.
39. Denies the allegations of paragraph 39 of the Complaint, and refers all questions of law to the Court.
40. Denies the allegations of paragraph 40 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
41. Denies the allegations of paragraph 41 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 35 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 36 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
-
As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 38 of the Complaint,
39. Denies the allegations of paragraph 39 of the Complaint, and refers all questions of law to the Court.
40. Denies the allegations of paragraph 40 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
41. Denies the allegations of paragraph 41 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
{00011257.DOC;1} 4
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 5 of 13
42. Denies the allegations of paragraph 42 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court
all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
43. Denies the allegations of paragraph 43 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
44. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 44 of the Complaint.
45. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
46. Denies the allegations of paragraph 46 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
43. Denies the allegations of paragraph 43 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
44. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 44 of the Complaint.
45. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
46. Denies the allegations of paragraph 46 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 47 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 48 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 49 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 50 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 51 of the Complaint.
-
As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 52 of the Complaint,
{00011257.DOC;1} 5
{00011257.DOC;1}
6
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 6 of 13
53. Denies the allegations of paragraph 53 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court
all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of
the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
54. Denies the allegations of paragraph 54 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
55. Denies the allegations of paragraph 55 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
56. Denies the allegations of paragraph 56 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
57. Denies the allegations of paragraph 57 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
58. Denies the allegations of paragraph 58 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
59. Denies the allegations of paragraph 59 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
60. Denies the allegations of paragraph 60 of the Complaint.
54. Denies the allegations of paragraph 54 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
55. Denies the allegations of paragraph 55 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
56. Denies the allegations of paragraph 56 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
57. Denies the allegations of paragraph 57 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
58. Denies the allegations of paragraph 58 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
59. Denies the allegations of paragraph 59 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
60. Denies the allegations of paragraph 60 of the Complaint.
{00011257.DOC;1}
7
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 7 of 13
61. Denies the allegations of paragraph 61 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court
all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of
the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
65. Denies the allegations of paragraph 65 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Stored Communications Act.
66. Denies the allegations of paragraph 66 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Stored Communications Act.
67. Denies the allegations of paragraph 67 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Stored Communications Act.
68. Denies the allegations of paragraph 68 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Stored Communications Act.
69. Denies the allegations of paragraph 69 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 62 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 63 of the Complaint.
-
As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 64 of the Complaint,
65. Denies the allegations of paragraph 65 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Stored Communications Act.
66. Denies the allegations of paragraph 66 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Stored Communications Act.
67. Denies the allegations of paragraph 67 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Stored Communications Act.
68. Denies the allegations of paragraph 68 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Stored Communications Act.
69. Denies the allegations of paragraph 69 of the Complaint.
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 8 of 13
70. Denies the allegations of paragraph 70 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court
all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of
the Stored Communications Act.
71. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 71 of the Complaint, repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 70 of the Complaint.
72. Denies the allegations of paragraph 72 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
73. Denies the allegations of paragraph 73 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
74. Denies the allegations of paragraph 74 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
75. Denies the allegations of paragraph 75 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
71. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 71 of the Complaint, repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 70 of the Complaint.
72. Denies the allegations of paragraph 72 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
73. Denies the allegations of paragraph 73 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
74. Denies the allegations of paragraph 74 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
75. Denies the allegations of paragraph 75 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 76 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 77 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court
{00011257.DOC;1} 8
{00011257.DOC;1}
9
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 9 of 13
78. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 78 of the Complaint,
repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 77 of the
Complaint.
79. Denies the allegations of paragraph 79 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
82. Denies the allegations of paragraph 82 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of 18 Pa. C.S. §4120.
83. Denies the allegations of paragraph 83 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of 18 Pa. C.S. §8315.
79. Denies the allegations of paragraph 79 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 80 of the Complaint.
-
As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 81 of the Complaint,
82. Denies the allegations of paragraph 82 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of 18 Pa. C.S. §4120.
83. Denies the allegations of paragraph 83 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of 18 Pa. C.S. §8315.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 84 of the Complaint.
-
As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 85 of the Complaint,
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 86 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 87 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 88 of the Complaint.
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 10 of 13
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 89 of the Complaint.
-
As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 90 of the Complaint,
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 91 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 92 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 93 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 94 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 95 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 96 of the Complaint.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 97 of the Complaint.
-
As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 98 of the Complaint,
99. Denies the allegations of paragraph 99 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the common law of Pennsylvania with respect to privacy.
-
Denies the allegations of paragraph 100 of the Complaint.
First Affirmative Defense
-
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Second Affirmative Defense
-
The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by governing statutes of limitations.
Third Affirmative Defense
{00011257.DOC;1}
10
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 11 of 13
103. If and to the extent plaintiff purports to state a claim for defamation, such claim is
barred in whole or in part based on the truth of any statements and comments by defendant about
plaintiff.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
104. If and to the extent plaintiff purports to state a claim for defamation, such claim is barred in whole or in part based on the grounds that any statements and comments by defendant about plaintiff constitute constitutionally protected statements of opinion.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
105. If and to the extent plaintiff purports to state a claim for defamation, such claim is barred in whole or in part on the basis of the qualified and conditional privilege with respect to reporting, commentary and statements by defendant on matters of public interest.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
104. If and to the extent plaintiff purports to state a claim for defamation, such claim is barred in whole or in part based on the grounds that any statements and comments by defendant about plaintiff constitute constitutionally protected statements of opinion.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
105. If and to the extent plaintiff purports to state a claim for defamation, such claim is barred in whole or in part on the basis of the qualified and conditional privilege with respect to reporting, commentary and statements by defendant on matters of public interest.
{00011257.DOC;1} 11
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 12 of 13
WHEREFORE, defendant requests judgment dismissing the Complaint and awarding to
defendant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
/s/ James P. Golden______________
James P. Golden
I.D. Nos. 32169
HAMBURG & GOLDEN, P.C. 1601 Market Street, Suite 3310 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1443 (215) 255-8590 goldenjp@hamburg-golden.com
Martin Garbus, Esq. (pro hac vice pending) Brendan R. Marx, Esq. (pro hac vice pending) Eaton & VanWinkle, LLP
3 Park Avenue
16th Floor
New York, NY 10016 bmarx@evw.com MGarbus@evw.com Telephone: (212) 779-9910 Facsimile: (212) 779-9928
James P. Golden
I.D. Nos. 32169
HAMBURG & GOLDEN, P.C. 1601 Market Street, Suite 3310 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1443 (215) 255-8590 goldenjp@hamburg-golden.com
Martin Garbus, Esq. (pro hac vice pending) Brendan R. Marx, Esq. (pro hac vice pending) Eaton & VanWinkle, LLP
3 Park Avenue
16th Floor
New York, NY 10016 bmarx@evw.com MGarbus@evw.com Telephone: (212) 779-9910 Facsimile: (212) 779-9928
Dated: September 19, 2013
{00011257.DOC;1} 12
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 13 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, James P. Golden, certify that the foregoing answer has been filed electronically and is now available for viewing and downloading from the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System and that the answer has been served on September 19, 2013, by email and regular mail.
I, James P. Golden, certify that the foregoing answer has been filed electronically and is now available for viewing and downloading from the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System and that the answer has been served on September 19, 2013, by email and regular mail.
A. Jordan Rushie, Esquire
Mulvihill & Rushie LLC
The Fishtown Lawyer
2424 E. York Street, Suite 316 Philadelphia, PA 19125 Jordan@FishtownLaw.com
Marc J. Randazza, Esquire Randazza Legal Group 3625 S. Town Center Drive Las Vegas, NV 89135 mjr@randazza.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Kate Gosselin
Shawn E. Tuma, Esquire BrittonTuma
7161 Bishop Road, Suite 220 Plano, Texas 75024 stuma@brittontuma.com
Richard L. Orwig, Esquire Orwig Law Offices
2213 Quarry Dr., Suite B001 West Lawn, PA 19609 rlorwig@orwiglaw.com
Attorneys for defendant Jonathan K. Gosselin
Dated: September 19, 2013
The Fishtown Lawyer
2424 E. York Street, Suite 316 Philadelphia, PA 19125 Jordan@FishtownLaw.com
Marc J. Randazza, Esquire Randazza Legal Group 3625 S. Town Center Drive Las Vegas, NV 89135 mjr@randazza.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Kate Gosselin
Shawn E. Tuma, Esquire BrittonTuma
7161 Bishop Road, Suite 220 Plano, Texas 75024 stuma@brittontuma.com
Richard L. Orwig, Esquire Orwig Law Offices
2213 Quarry Dr., Suite B001 West Lawn, PA 19609 rlorwig@orwiglaw.com
Attorneys for defendant Jonathan K. Gosselin
Dated: September 19, 2013
/s/ James P. Golden
JAMES P. GOLDEN
{00011257.DOC;1}
593 sediments (sic) from readers:
«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 593 Newer› Newest». Denies the allegations of plaintiff’s “Preliminary Statement,” except admits that plaintiff is the mother of eight children, including sextuplets,
&&&
LOL. But not a SINGLE mother. Nice touch.
The fact that this case could be dismissed and that TWF may have to pay Robert really warms my heart. How much is this fiasco going to cost the kids financially?
Marie
I have no doubt that she expected J and R to not address the lawsuit because she has million$ and they do not.
&&&
Apparently she's never heard of something called pro bono. #oops.
She probably thinks Pro Bono is that guy from U2.
Thanks! Haven't read it yet but I find it intersting that Tuma forwarded R's response. Innnterressting
Razzmatazz is in Las Vegas? Now why does that make me laugh?
Anyone think ol' Marty Singer is doing the happy dance of relief to not be her attorney of record?
And poor stupid Ms. Goody, tweeting about this being the worst example of what JG had done to hurt the mother of his children. To use a Kate phrase, ummm, or ummm, this is just a little backwards, don't you think? Let's flip it back to the list, the long list, of all KG has done to hurt the father of her children. There, the universe is in order once again.
And yes, someone in the law offices of Razzmatazz, Esq is going have the onerous task of explaining this to the woman who has to tweet help for a washing machine error message. Not a post-it note large enough I think.
Karma in a very large coffee cup this morning.
I can't find a link to the original filing by TFW. Can someone post a link so I can compare them point by point?
She probably thinks Pro Bono is that guy from U2.
_____________________
HA! Or Chaz's long-lost sibling.
Admin, is this sufficient? It looks like line after line of "I don't know nuttin' about whatever she is sayin'."
You know, the psychology of all this is mesmerizing to me. Her frame of mind that focuses so much rage on Jon. Since she failed to control him completely as she had assumed she would and could, she now assumes he must be controlling HER? She fantasizes that he is in secret control of every disappointment in her day to day life. That every person who objects to her socially unacceptable behavior only does so because Jon spurs them on? Man, I would love to delve into her upbringing and her life long relationships with her parents.
As a friend of mine said a few weeks ago: "Yep, Jon sends me a dollar every time I post something negative about Kate. I'll be buying a yacht by next week." ;-)
And poor stupid Ms. Goody, tweeting about this being the worst example of what JG had done to hurt the mother of his children. T
&&&
This is getting so obnoxious. KATE sued Jon. SHE sued him! What is he supposed to do, lay down and die? For goodness sake, if someone comes after you guns blazing with some high powered attorney suing the pants off you threatening to get you for every last cent you ever have, you have every right to fight. He was minding his own business working in a restaurant and taking care of his kids with no T.V. and internet in the woods for heaven sake. Talk about kicking a puppy. The way they view this is so ass-backwards. He fought back this time, that's what she gets.
You don't get to leave the door open, then get all pissed off when a swarm of bats fly in, bite you and give you rabies.
I love these:
Third Affirmative Defense
103. If and to the extent plaintiff purports to state a claim for defamation, such claim is barred in whole or in part based on the truth of any statements and comments by defendant about plaintiff.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
104. If and to the extent plaintiff purports to state a claim for defamation, such claim is barred in whole or in part based on the grounds that any statements and comments by defendant about plaintiff constitute constitutionally protected statements of opinion.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
105. If and to the extent plaintiff purports to state a claim for defamation, such claim is barred in whole or in part on the basis of the qualified and conditional privilege with respect to reporting, commentary and statements by defendant on matters of public interest.
localyokul-Here's the link to the original filing:
http://media.nbcphiladelphia.com/documents/Gosselin+Lawsuit.pdf
Mr. Tuma would have never forwarded that if it wasn't already public record. I have no doubt of that.
Admin, is this sufficient? It looks like line after line of "I don't know nuttin' about whatever she is sayin'."
&&
LOL.
HIs style appears to be deny deny deny SEE YOU IN COURT. That's definitely a TRIAL LAWYER strategy and what I would expect from him.
Shawn, the "professor" is more cerebral, let's talk this out logically on paper first and you'll see why this is a tad ridiculous, your honor.
I like both their styles, but they're different.
There is also another lawyer listed for Jon: Richard L. Orwig. Do the locals know anything about this lawyer?
This is just all so fascinating! Better than any TLC "reality" show.
Kate, nor her sheeple, never believed her actions would come full circle back to her.
"karma's a-comin' and she don't play!"
#WhatYouTalkinAboutTFW?
It was filed yesterday electronically, therefore it is public record and Shawn can forward it to whoever he wants.
LMAO:
3. Denies the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint, except admits that Hoffman is an adult individual.
Paragraph three states Hoffman lives in Reading PA. I assume the whiteout part has his address. Did the defective detective give Razzy the info?
By the way I guess it didn't occur to TFW and her croonies to ask to seal this case as confidential?
I'd love to see this go to trial, although I don't like the thought that Jon, Robert or the kids will suffer financially. If I'm understanding this, precedent setting law could be made and that's both important and fascinating. Although I don't think any of us knew this back in the early days of this blog when the Gosselin saga was beginning to unfold (well, maybe Admin did!) but not only has this become a friendly, interesting, snarky, politely argumentative place to gather, but we're also getting a bit of a legal education. Really, how cool is that?!
Jane no I never saw it coming either. :)
It just occurred to me, there is a big crowd on the internet who loves following big court cases. I wonder if this will interest them and we might get some of those.
I think this sums up Goody's thinking.
______
Viktor Winetrout, Jr @Cpin42 19 Sep
It’s like Mom always said: If you can’t say anything nice, you may be a psychopath incapable of empathy.
Retweeted by MsGoody2Shoes21
Shawn Tuma did his level best to get this thrown out of court to save Jon a lot of aggravation and money. Garbus is more like, "Bring it on, baby". Now that Garbus has thrown down the gauntlet, I'll bet Shawn feels the same way. It's not every day you get to try a case with a legend. This is going to be epic.
Haven't read this, but want to respond to why I said that RH's story is discredited:
Here is the glaring inconsistency in RH's story. Here is the timeline from the motion:
On June 22, 2009, Kate filed for divorce. After Kate filed for divorce, Jonathan moved out of the family home and into an apartment above the garage of the family home (the “Apartment”); Jonathan left the Dell Computer in the family home for continued use by his children. Jonathan was still permitted access to the family home during this time. On or about April 2010, Jonathan observed the hard drive of the Dell Computer was failing so he performed a backup of it and stored the data on DVD disks. Jonathan created two copies of the DVDs, one for himself and one for Kate. These final backup DVDs included family pictures, business contracts, and other information. The backup DVDs were labeled and dated for archiving purposes.
Once the divorce was final, Jonathan was required to move from the Apartment; Kate continued living in the family home. When Jonathan moved from the Apartment, he left Kate’s copy of the backup DVDs in the Apartment in a box along with other items he believed Kate would want. He informed Kate that the DVDs were in the box. The following day Kate called Jonathan and asked if he would be returning for any other items left in the Apartment and he responded that he was not and she could discard the items as she saw fit. The children told Jonathan that Kate (and a friend of hers) threw away in the trash everything left behind in the Apartment. Jonathan has not wrongfully access any computer, online accounts, or telephone belonging to Kate—it is far more plausible that Kate herself threw out the DVDs in the tras
Here is where RH's version is, IMO, discredited.
According to the motion, Jon moved into the apartment when the divorce was filed in June 2009. He moved out when the divorce was finalized in December 2009. When was the dark and stormy night? If he was helping Jon move out, it was 4 months before the disks were created.
I tend to believe the timeline on the legal document. I don't think that it matters at this point, since Jon seems to have the rights to the computer. But, I'm not just making stuff up--his story stinks.
Since she failed to control him completely as she had assumed she would and could, she now assumes he must be controlling HER? She fantasizes that he is in secret control of every disappointment in her day to day life. That every person who objects to her socially unacceptable behavior only does so because Jon spurs them on? Man, I would love to delve into her upbringing and her life long relationships with her parents.
&&&
What is this? Serious question. Is this paranoia? It really sounds like paranoid, delusional thinking. I fear for those kids with this kind of possible mental break going on.
Here's a guy waiting tables getting ice cream with his kids holding baby deers. But he's part of some massive elaborate conspiracy to bring Kate down when really he's just worried about groceries for the weekend for the kids. The thing is, she IS on a mission to bring Jon down so now she's just flipped the tables and thinks Jon is too.
To anyone with any rational thought at all, that's just silliness.
I wonder if Kate's history with Sylvia LaFair helped to compel these expert lawyers to represent J+R. LaFair WON her case against Kate and just couldn't keep up financially and perhaps, emotionally when Kate dug her heels in and filed an appeal.
Kate's got more money and more hate that fuels her for the long run. LaFair made the right call, imo, because it's not worth it. It's just not.
LaFair should have received her 10K, but she chose to MOVE ON.
LaFair would rather be happy than right, while Kate always, always choses being right over being happy.
Maybe these high-powered attorneys will be what it takes to get Kate to back down. I hope it is. For the sake of the kids, I hope Kate drops her lawsuit.
I know, I know, a snowball's chance in hell, right? But, from what I've read here, Robert's lawyer is threatening to collect fees, costs and damages from Kate. That might be just the ticket-- hit her where it matters, which is, of course, money.
"You can never have enough money".
Christina Wetherby @ChrisseyMae 30m
@Kateplusmy8 I have ur back girl. I was attacked by these jokers yesterday Ur a gr8 mom & person & I'll defend u anyday everyday#kategr8mom
-----
-----
Too late to the party. Milo already has her back, her front, and all other body parts that she rocks in a bikini.
He denies (paragraph 34) that his book was pulled due to false and illegally obtained info. I'm sure it was pulled due to copyright claims.
Shawn must be so excited, feeling like this is surreal even. Trying a big case in federal court not just with Garbus but ALIGNED with him, more or less.
How cool is that? Whatever your field is, think of who is the top person in the field. Then imagine all of a sudden you're working with them, side by side. So rad. Shawn will remember this forever. It will be on his resume forever.
I think Kate wanted this public the same way Raamatazz and BV wanted it public. They wanted the world to see a good old fashioned beatdown of Jon Gosselin where everyone wins but Jon. #OOPS
He denies (paragraph 34) that his book was pulled due to false and illegally obtained info. I'm sure it was pulled due to copyright claims.
&&&
FINALLY. It drives me nuts Radar keeps saying that. No, how many times does it have to be explained? A copyright complaint was filed with Amazon. It is Amazon's policy when such claims are filed with them to pull the book until they get word the complaint is resolved. Then they will happily return the book to the shelf. It does not matter if your complaint is the most bogus thing ever, the book is pulled. Strict policy.
Amazon does not make judgement calls about whether something is illegal. That is for the courts. Amazon is a company, not a courtroom.
She probably thinks Pro Bono is that guy from U2.
-----
-----
Or Cher and Sonny's long lost son.
Ex-Nurse -- Although Robert's account and the document SEEM to contradict each other, they aren't mutually exclusive. Jon continued to stay at the McMansion, in the garage apartment, during his custody weekends, even though he was no longer officially "living" there. Perhaps the "dark and stormy night" occurred after TFMJG decided to bar Jon from setting foot on the property for any reason.
What is this? Serious question. Is this paranoia? It really sounds like paranoid, delusional thinking. I fear for those kids with this kind of possible mental break going on.
-----
-----
Geez...talk about your real life Walter Mitty!
Admin, a lot of people are asking if Kate will drop this lawsuit. If she withdraws it isn't she admitting she brought is in bad faith? If you have been harmed so seriously that you file a federal lawsuit you'd better be ready to see it through or I'd think you could face stiff penalties. (just guessing here)
Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 1
. Denies the allegations of plaintiff’s “Preliminary Statement,” except admits that plaintiff is the mother of eight children, including sextuplets,
&&&
LOL. But not a SINGLE mother. Nice touch.
(((
LOL Good Catch
Does anyone know if Jon can ask for an audit of the kids trust funds/accounts to make sure she doesn't use their money for this lawsuit?
I've just come to accept the fact that TFW could beat the crap out of her kids in front of her 12 stupid(and they are INCREDIBLY STUPID)fans' faces...and they'd turn a blind eye... saying she was was stressed and the kids deserved it.
Kate is a twit said... 11
localyokul-Here's the link to the original filing:
http://media.nbcphiladelphia.com/documents/Gosselin+Lawsuit.pdf
***
Thanks! Don't want to give Bullyville hits
I don't have a legal mind so much of this stuff is hard for me to understand but, I have a question. Say, Kate pulls the plug on going forward with this lawsuit, can Jon and Robert turn around and sue her? Also, if she drops this suit, does Robert then have the freedom to sell his book again? It seems to me that Kate has 'screwed the pooch' either way. If she goes ahead with the lawsuit then the discovery process will bury her. If she drops the lawsuit the book will bury her. It's a no win situation for her. What part of this doesn't she understand??
She probably thinks Pro Bono is that guy from U2.
-----
-----
Or Cher and Sonny's long lost son.
----------------------
My morning cup of Karmic Koffee just got sprayed. Good one
Paula said... 14
This is just all so fascinating! Better than any TLC "reality" show.
Kate, nor her sheeple, never believed her actions would come full circle back to her.
"karma's a-comin' and she don't play!"
====
Kate should have listened to her inner-child self that said ignore, ignore, ignore and just continued on, skipping through her field of daisies.
When this finally sinks in I have visions of her sitting at her kitchen table in a raging fit of anger, a la No More Bööby-guard style.
Oh boy, Frizzy and Finn are gonna get an earful.
I just logged on, so I'm way behind, but I just want to say that now TFMJG is about to experience what Jon did when she and her backers rolled over Jon. I don't think she will ever have a moment of insight...but the rest of us can!
Jane said... 21
''....I'm confused. Are you saying the Does are some of the more vocal haters and they'll be used to bolster Kate's case? This is about computer theft and fraud. I'm not getting the connection.''
~~~~~~~~
I may be wrong, but I believe that the 20 John/Jane Does are people that Robert interviewed for his book that told about behind the scenes things that TFW did.
Off to read what Robert's attorney has to say.
This is getting so obnoxious. KATE sued Jon. SHE sued him! What is he supposed to do, lay down and die? For goodness sake, if someone comes after you guns blazing with some high powered attorney suing the pants off you threatening to get you for every last cent you ever have, you have every right to fight
*******
2 words for Goody, Hobson's Choice.
Laying down, handing over your wallet and bank account, forfeiting your home, taking the shirt off your back and placing your wrists out in front of you saying "cuff me and take me away to the slammer", is really, truly, NOT a choice for Jon.
Is this hard? I don't think it's hard. Is it?
*scratches head*
I love getting another chance to say this-- it's like trying to explain gravity to a chicken.
She probably thinks Pro Bono is that guy from U2.
-----
-----
Or Cher and Sonny's long lost son.
&&&&&&&&&
Ah ha haha ... That's funny
Marie
Cerebral Integrity vs a Motley group of fame whores
Whenever I think about this situation I go back to one fundamental question, if I found journals documenting such horrid behavior would I walk away from it?
Jane no I never saw it coming either. :)
It just occurred to me, there is a big crowd on the internet who loves following big court cases. I wonder if this will interest them and we might get some of those.
((((
Yep. I'm a trial junkie currently frustrated that the Jodi Arias penalty phase re-do keeps being delayed. I read every single document in the Caylee Anthony case.
but not only has this become a friendly, interesting, snarky, politely argumentative place to gather, but we're also getting a bit of a legal education. Really, how cool is that?!
*******
I try to explain this to DH when he rolls his eyes and says "so, what's new with the 15 min. girls?"!
From movies, to tv series, to books, to cooking, to fun virtual trips to academia, this has been a fascinating ride.
Admin-I posted this on the last thread, but it didn't go through. You can watch the full documentary "Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech" both on Vimeo and on YouTube:
http://vimeo.com/38265857
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLj-GX59OEM
Curious, am I the only person posting who likes reading about the doings of the local court every week? I still get newspaper from my hometown so I can see who went to court about what and what sentence they got. All court proceedings are public record except in certain cases.
So, to me, this is a fascinating saga. I am recalling all the commotion about Anna Nicole Smith and the ancient husbands will and feud with the oldest son and the appeal of one court decision went to Supreme Court and how after both of them died the court case lived on and on and on.
TFMJG has created something that is much bigger than she or her PR rep or Discovery Network attorneys or purse boy can control. And it is all public record.
Should have listened to Laverne and Shirley.
Btw, I disliked TFMJG after observing her behavior on the tlc show. I REALLY disliked TFMJG after watching her abuse of Saint Tony of the Ballroom and her blatant waste of a wonderful opportunity on DWTS. Jon and Robert did not make me dislike her or post on the interwebs that I don't like her. TFMJG did that all on her own.
If TFMJG does read here, I sincerely hope she sees a mental health professional who can help her. At the very least she will need support to cope as this case proceeds. Everything will be public record at some point, and that may be quite uncomfortable for her.
When everything comes out in the wash, and if it is found that there is no libel or defamation in the book and that everything printed there was from Kate's own journals, e-mails, whatever...what will be the sheeple's response? Will they, led by Millo and Goody, still claim that Kate didn't punish those kids with severe spankings, maintaining that Robert altered the journals and that Kate is still a saint?
"Apparently she's never heard of something called pro bono. #oops."
Has it been confirmed that either of these attorneys is working pro bono? If not, that's a pretty big assumption to make.
With the names of the attorneys revealed, maybe we should rearrange the letters in her name: "TFW" to "WTF"--as I imagine that's the frozen expression on her face.
With all the denials, this attorney is definitely looking for a trial. No explanations either. Just bring it on. TFW will be paying for this lawsuit dearly, unless she's able to find someone who will also take her on pro bono, but unlike Jon and Robert, she has the money to pay it forward.
Kate Gosselin @Kateplusmy8 4h
Just making sure you saw my newest update about our new 'school'...
Read about it here:
http://www.kateplusmy8.com/
We saw it, Kate. We saw it. We just have "bigger fish" to fry, hahaha.
With these kind of heavy hitters for lawyers I am sure this case is going to make the main stream media especially if it is precedent setting. FINALLY, after 7 years, the curtain is being pulled back on the wicked witch from the land of Oz by Tuma and Garbus standing by with a bucket of water. (Bullyvile, Razzmataz and all TFW blind fans are the flying monkeys he-he.)
laurajean
Ex Nurse (23)
"According to the motion, Jon moved into the apartment when the divorce was filed in June 2009. He moved out when the divorce was finalized in December 2009. When was the dark and stormy night? If he was helping Jon move out, it was 4 months before the disks were created."
Not ALL disks were created around April 2010. In the document presented by Tuma, it is clearly written that "Jonathan regularly backed up the hard drive of the Dell Computer and the backups were saved to CD ROM or DVD disks. The backups included .pst files containing Personal Folders belonging to Jonathan Gosselin and Kate Gosselin which were stored in the Microsoft Outlook email program under the following directory: C:/Documents and Settings/outlook."
So I assume that there are two sets of discs: those that Jon made on a regular basis, as described in the above paragraph. And "the FINAL back-ups", (as they are named in the court document) containing mostly family pictures and contracts. And that it's the first set, the regular back-ups copies, that were left behind on that dark and stormy night.
I'm not a Jon inconditionnal, but really, I don't find anything fishy in his version of the facts.
rainbowsandunicorns said... 30
She probably thinks Pro Bono is that guy from U2.
88888888
LOL! Hilarious!
I have a question could part of TFW's lawsuit (e.g., against Jon) be dismissed and the other half (e.g., against Robert) go forward or is
it all or nothing?
Also, have folks noticed ROL's inconsistency regarding what was allegedly stolen or taken from the trash? Depending on the story,
it's a hard drive, disks or paper.
Also, I agree with those who stated that TFW believed/believes in a giant conspiracy wherein Jon and Robert were posting on RWA. No
evidence of that so far.
p.s. I'm bring the pizza. Napkins, no tin foil. (There's a shortage, don't you know).
rainbowsandunicorns said... 30
She probably thinks Pro Bono is that guy from U2.
________
Or Cher and Sonny's long lost son.
________
Ya'll are killing me today!
And Admin, you are silly silly silly. They would never seal this!
I really believe Raz and BV could not care less if TFW wins or loses. I'm guessing at least one of them is getting paid, and they are both getting the publicity they so desperately seek. TFW is just the means to an end. I wonder if she's figured that out yet?
Saw this link on Kim Weiss' FB page. According to this, HCI has printed 50,000 copies of Kate's book. Sounds like more spin. High hopes, indeed!!
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/59147-hci-has-high-hopes-for-gosselin-cookbook.html
Kate is a twit said... 11
localyokul-Here's the link to the original filing:
http://media.nbcphiladelphia.com/documents/Gosselin+Lawsuit.pdf
~~~~~~~~~
Thank you for the link, Kate is a twit. Having it in front of you as you read Mr. Garbus step by step denial really helps.
#sweetreckoning
Dot (28)
Totally agree. She was planning to expose J and R as low-life bullies who conspired to defame a poor, defenseless mom of 8. She intended for the whole thing to be public and to not only sink them financially, but to so completely discredit them that if the book ever sees the light of day, no body would believe a word of it. I've always thought that the second purpose to the lawsuit was her last ditch effort to either stop the book, or have the mainstream view it as the rantings of some mom-haters.
If the media begins to cover the lawsuit now, they will have to take J and R's sides more seriously, just given the caliber of their representation. Jon may have been an Ed Hardy loving skirt chaser, and Robert does give off dumpster-diving, hate-stalker vibes at times, but their very excellent lawyers, likely working pro bono, gives real meat to their version of the story. Loving it.
Ex Nurse:
I do not keep track of exact dates or months when things happened, but as I recall, there was a period of time after Jon moved out of the apartment above the garage, where he and Kate would take turns being in the house with the kids. (Remember that strange event when it was Jon's custodial time in the house and Kate comes to the gate, wanting in, and the police were called?)
So although he is technically moved out, perhaps he still had possessions that were in the apartment above the garage. When it was decided to no longer time share the home, could be when Robert helped him move some of his remaining stuff?
In any event, I don't think that particular detail will matter in this lawsuit, or not matter a great deal. The main thrust of the arguments against the lawsuit are that she waited too long to file this complaint, that she can't prove up her allegations under the particular fraud statute, and in Robert's case - that he is allowed to express an opinion, etc. Jon had legal access to the computer, Jon's version is that he made two sets of back up disks when the hard drive began to fail, that he left one for Kate, which she apparently then threw out with other of his possessions.
Hoffman does reference that police were called to the scene and a report was filed. So on some date, that event occurred. To me, it seems likely that Hoffman may have been regularly checking the trash left curbside, and probably was very vigilant during the divorce and after the police incident, and got those disks exactly the way he said he did - by digging in the trash.
That is the main defense for him. He did not creep into the home and steal them. He found them in the trash, on the public street. If he embellished the story of how this came to be, it is embarrassing to have to admit that in court. However, if the main detail is that he got them legally by digging in her trash, then the other details tend to fall by the wayside.
localyocul said... 26
He denies (paragraph 34) that his book was pulled due to false and illegally obtained info. I'm sure it was pulled due to copyright claims.
*****
Exactly. And it would seem that Hoffman would have e-mail or other correspondence from Amazon explaining exactly why they were pulling his book, which he could produce during discovery.
ExNurse (23)
I may be mistaken about this, and I don't have time right now to double check, but I recall Robert giving a date in April 2010 (post divorce) for the dark and stormy night. I seem to remember him giving the date, because there was a police report to back him up. Jon nor Robert said he was helping him move out inititally, but returning to collect final items left behind. If I am not mistaken, then the two stories may still not be identical, but they are on the same time frame, at least. Is this what you meant by inconsistency?
I just talked to an attorney friend of mine who is sort of following this lawsuit thing and I told her that Robert Hoffman hired a lawyer. I told her to take a guess -- he's the best trial attorney in the country.
She thought a minute and said, "Marty Garbus?"
A few expletives followed.
#helltopay
Marie
Many thanks Administrator!! Delighted to hear that both Jon and Robert have top notch quality representation.
After Jon's interview on ET I was beginning to think the public is being set up by both Jon and his FW for celebrity therapy on either the Dr. Phil or Dr. Drew "shows".
Now that Robert's lawyer has answered on his behalf, I feel sure we will get to read How She Fooled the World. Much as I hope KK will be assessed with damages, I fear the children will be the most damaged both emotionaly and financially.
bm
#katiebarthedoor
What an impressive list,including Lenny Bruce and Daniel Ellsburg.!
http://www.martin-garbus.com/clients/
It's is kind of funny that KK wanted to stop the book by Robert.
And she could have just zipped it and left Robert alone. But now Jon went on ET the whole world knows the title of the book.
#GoodjobTFW
#SuperFunLawsuit
Admin., please correct me if I'm wrong, but with Robert's attorney denying so much regarding TFW's lawsuit, will TFW's lawyer be required to present more proof regarding her events leading up to the lawsuit and not Robert's? She's really stepped into it this time and she doesn't have TLC's backing and unless she can solicit another attorney that may be interested in her suit, she's most likely paying a premium for attorney fees at this point. I know you explained that the burden of proof leans on her, but when an attorney just denies almost everything regarding a lawsuit, then what happens? These two motions for Jon and Robert are so different in their context, I just have to wonder if one is looking for a trial and the other wants the suit to be dismissed.
I am with Auntie Ann, #superfunlawsuit, is the perfect hashtag!
TFW is just the means to an end. I wonder if she's figured that out yet?
=============
Nah, she's too busy naming fish and blogging about them. You know -- the important things in life.
AuntieAnn said... 74
#SuperFunLawsuit
88888888
LOL!
AuntieAnn said...74
#SuperFunLawsuit
_________________________________________
Okay - best one so far, imo.
Ex-Nurse, if you actually read all documentation and take it in context, there is nothing that "stinks" here. The evidence just doesn't support your constant "Jon and Robert are bad" postings.
If the media begins to cover the lawsuit now, they will have to take J and R's sides more seriously, just given the caliber of their representation
*********************************************
This in a nutshell is proof enough, for me anyways, that the discrepancies don't matter one lick. It's such a minor detail to focus on. Jon had nothing to do with how Hoffman got his hands on the disks, hard drive, soft drive, memory stick, Jimmy Hoffa! It's such a trivial aspect of this huge David & Goliath story. These attorney's wouldn't have take the cases.
Lalalalala said... 40
I don't have a legal mind so much of this stuff is hard for me to understand but, I have a question. Say, Kate pulls the plug on going forward with this lawsuit, can Jon and Robert turn around and sue her? Also, if she drops this suit, does Robert then have the freedom to sell his book again?
----------------
I wondered about this also and would love to know if Kate could be sued for damaging Jon and Robert. After all, Jon did say it was almost impossible for him to get work.
I'm thinking she may withdraw the case and use the kids as her excuse. That she's afraid all the publicity Jon and Robert have brought to the case will upset them. Of course, only Kate would think there's logic in that.
Auntie 74
#SuperFunLawsuit
... And Auntie does it again :)
#SnortNeedANewKeyboard
#superfunlawsuit
Kate has used and hid behind her kids; poor mother of 8 doing it all by herself. BS! Both of these lawsuits are going after Kate for her actions. She has no where to hide. Finally and thank heaven for that. The curtain is being pulled back, the children are not (largely) involved, she did it for publicity and to destroy RH and Jon. And it all back fired. Big time. Oh, she is getting the publicity but the type she wasn't expecting.
I too believe this could be a precedent setting case because it exposes what happens on a reality TV show that involves children. The drama doesn't necessarily end when the filming is over. It continues as the Former Star continues to try to get back into the limelight at all costs.
I could never have imagined the twists and turns this saga has taken. It has morphed from a mere reality show to something bigger; child labor laws being reviewed and tighted in PA, TV executives power over the principles possibly being exposed, long term affects of reality TV on children. This was not a show about "chlidren playing in front of the camera". It has become much much more.
I'm grateful for this site so I can stay informed of the happennings. Its enough to make a person's head spin.
AuntieAnn - I should have read all the comments before posting!
I haven't posted in a couple of days, been busy. I switched dialysis companies and I am only a few blocks! away from the new one. They have been open a couple of months. I was traveling by ambulance over 60 miles a week. It takes just a couple of minutes to get there. Personally know the facility administrator and he knows my medical needs and I am doing so much better. He used to be my RN at the old place. He was 24 there and they promoted him to FA in another town. To be 24 and get that job? Super Amazing.
This new post is super fantastic, mindblowing and kate's wrath. You reap what you sow, kate.
Isn't it funny that Jon had only bad lawyers, the only ones that he could afford,or when he went to court without attorney representation. And kate all those years she had TLC pit bull elite lawyers and the high priced Laverne and Shirley in LA.
Schlemeel, Schlemazel, Hasenfeffer Incorporated.
Code for Steve, Steve, kate Incorporated!
Now, the soap opera has flip flopped. kate now has the Razzamatazz lawyer who was in Vegas when the ANSWER hit the fan! Laverne and Shirley won't touch it now since this famous wonderful 1st Amendment attorney has taken little Robby and Jonny's case? Congratulations, Robert and Jon! God bless the Gkids!
His answer was soooo professional. It is outstanding. I think Admin is impressed.
This will make the big time news media. ROL, just keep posting your silly posts while the real media goes buck wild on this one!
Robert has a new post! It is hilarious! Hint: It is a video of a classic crooner!
Leelee, I'm not going to argue about the gist of your comment because I agree with your point.
However, in Jon's post divorce days I really think he wore the Ed Hardy shirts because he thought he was going to get work with that Christian
A. guy. I don't think he wore them for any other reason. He so much as said so in one of his interviews. Was it People? I don't recall.
As far as skirt chasing goes, I'm sure there are many ways to define
what was going on there. Both Deanna Hummel (?) and Jon said it was nothing more than a friendship, and since then he's dated Hailey, Ellen and Liz. Who else? Kate Major for a very brief time before he saw the light there. So, 3 fairly long relationships, one very short one - if it was even a relationship at all - and one mutually friends-only friendship since he and TFW said goodbye to their own relationship.
I don't understand the persistent claims that Jon was a womanizer.
r
#Gotacoupon4alawyer
I believe that the reason TFMJG didn't ask for her lawsuit to ''seal this case as confidential'' is that she thought she was going to roll over him again just as she did when they divorced.
In her delusional narcissistic mind, she is RIGHT, and she wanted the public to see how awful Jon and Robert were to her. I really think that she thought that she would not only 'expose' Jon and Robert, but get Jon's parental rights taken away, and prevent Robert's book from ever being seen again. And she wanted every word of their ruin to be public!
LeeLee said... 53
******
Loved your post! Yup, that about sums it up!
#Lordybeeyoucan'tsueme!!#
Best Comments of the Day:
Virginia Pen Mom said... 53
With the names of the attorneys revealed, maybe we should rearrange the letters in her name: "TFW" to "WTF"--as I imagine that's the frozen expression on her face.
AuntieAnn said... 74
#SuperFunLawsuit
Rhymes with Witch said... 59
''.......Also, have folks noticed ROL's inconsistency regarding what was allegedly stolen or taken from the trash? Depending on the story,
it's a hard drive, disks or paper.''
~~~~~~~~~
No matter what ROL and/or TFMJG say, in Robert's book he clearly said that he found not only discs, but lots of paper stuff. Remember that he had a copy of her purchase of the fertility stuff from Canada? Robert said he had it all spread out on a table at his house, and took photos of all of it.
To me, that 'sounds like' TFW when she is in a rage...grab things and throw them in the trash w/o even looking at or thinking about what she is doing. We have seen her do that very thing on more than one episode!
TFW put out the statement on her website that she is moving forward with her lawsuit. How is she going to explain it if she withdraws it? That she feels it's in the best interest of the children not to proceed? It would be the only thing she could come up with. Of course, she'll be a laughingstock because nobody, except for a few sheeple, would ever believe it, especially considering the timing with the announcement of the defendants' attorneys. A withdrawal would only serve to show that she's scared s##tless and she'd never admit that.
Sonny and Cher's son's name is Elijah Blue Bono.
Admin, loved the post where kate thought that Pro Bono was with U2! hahahaha
Happy, Happy, Happy that they have such a great lawyer, Mr. Garbus!
OOPS! I made a mistake!
Elijah's parents are Greg Allman and Cher.
His name is Elijah Blue Allman.
Sorry for the confusion. Had Sonny on my mind.
Now that Robert's lawyer has answered on his behalf, I feel sure we will get to read How She Fooled the World. Much as I hope KK will be assessed with damages, I fear the children will be the most damaged both emotionaly and financially.
bm
********
I agree.
Kate has to stop "rearranging the deck chairs" and let what's going to happen, happen.
Let Robert publish the book(ps, if she'd kept her mouth shut, I don't think it would have received anywhere near the attention it's going to now), deal with the backlash, OWN IT, apologize, and like any other celebrity who f*cks up in today's culture, sit back and wait to make your comeback.
Elijah is Cher's son w/ Greg Allmann.
Auntie Ann, love #superfunlawsuit!
Rhymes with witch, #katiebarthedoor is great too!
Luke bandit, cher was married to Greg Allman for about fifteen minutes and they had Elijah Blue Ullman. Chaz Bono is Sonny and cher s child.
disregard my post admin lol
I'm thinking she may withdraw the case and use the kids as her excuse.
*******
This is one time I'd be HAPPY to see her use her kids.
Watching this go forward would be *fascinating*, especially our discussing it here. But, what's best for everyone, especially the kids, is to drop the lawsuit and somehow, some way, get Jon and Kate to bury the hatchet.
She's either going to slither away like the snake-narc she is or there's going to be a huuuuge mental episode/breakdown. But you cannot back down from a narcissist hell bent on blood and revenge. There would be no end to it unless you S.T.O.P her. I hope this is finally the conclusion, the exit, the END to her control of Jon. She will never ever ever respond to any therapy so there is absolutely NO reason to make any other attempts than going full throttle. He's been left with NO OTHER CHOICE. The light at the end of the tunnel is just over the horizon for him.
Fidosmommy said:
I don't understand the persistent claims that Jon was a womanizer.
*****
Yes, me either. I think most posters here agree that Kate was essentially done with her marriage to Jon long before they initiated action divorce proceedings. We have heard tell of a contract she alleged presented to Jon, where they would continue with a public facade of being married, but that allowed him to discreetly date others if he wished. That she wanted nothing more to do with him, except to continue filming and bringing in that TLC money. That she had no interest in marriage counseling. That Jon actually tried to save the marriage.
Since finding his equilibrium after the divorce, he's shown that he prefers to be in a stable monogamous relationship. That appears to be what makes him happiest - not dating a different woman each month.
So I too am confused at the womanizer label for Jon. I just don't see it.
Also, if she drops this suit, does Robert then have the freedom to sell his book again?
****
As I understand it, the reason Amazon withdrew his book is because TLC or some division of TLC had indicated there were possible copyright issues. If Hoffman has edited his book to the point it satisfies those concerns, then I think the objections would be gone and he could put it back up on Amazon. It was never withdrawn because of anything Kate said or did.
I can't wait for the sheeple spin on this. How on earth are they going to explain the calibre of legal representation acquired by Jon and Robert if they're merely spreading lies?
I concur on the #superfunlawsuit as comment of the day...too funny Auntie.
#YouGetWhatYouGetAndYouDon'tGetUpset
Luke bandit, so glad you have dialysis facility close by now!
Rhymes with witch, you bring the pizza. I will stop by Walmart and pick up a great big box of Twinkies and Hostess Cupcakes to share! This event calls for something really special. Afterwards we can run around the court house to burn those calories!
thank you Robert H. The other shoe has dropped.
I can't wait for the sheeple spin on this. How on earth are they going to explain the calibre of legal representation acquired by Jon and Robert if they're merely spreading lies?
-----
-----
They'll deflect and keep harping on the "Kate was so wonderful that she relieved Jon of child support" thing. They won't address the caliber of representation, but instead bash Jon for hiring an expensive lawyer when he refuses to pay tuition or child support.
It's scary when you can think like a sheeple! ;-)
chefsummer said... 46
#Robert&JonPluslawyers
Call Me Crazy said... 107
#YouGetWhatYouGetAndYouDon'tGetUpset
These two are my favorites...can't choose just one!
Call Me Crazy said... 107
#YouGetWhatYouGetAndYouDon'tGetUpset
____
Followed by.
#I'mincharge&that'snevergoingtohange
To me, that 'sounds like' TFW when she is in a rage...grab things and throw them in the trash w/o even looking at or thinking about what she is doing. We have seen her do that very thing on more than one episode!
-----
-----
Are there coupons for paper shredders on her #superfuncouponsbykate site? If so, I would hope that she's made good use of them.
#IThoughtIHadHisBallsUnderLockAndKey
Paula said... 79
AuntieAnn said...74
#SuperFunLawsuit
_________________________________________
Okay - best one so far, imo.
Ex-Nurse, if you actually read all documentation and take it in context, there is nothing that "stinks" here. The evidence just doesn't support your constant "Jon and Robert are bad" postings
**********
I agree!
Mr. Garbus did good by denying and leaving Kate & Co. to their proofs. If Kate withdraws or the MTD is granted it better be with prejudice or Kate will never stop.
Ugh at ROL saying Jon dragged the kids into this. This all falls on Kate and only Kate. I hope Robert and Jon are awarded damages, although Jon didn't request any type of relief. That doesn't surprise me though. Jon does not seem like that type of guy to me, if he were their divorce proceedings would have been much different. I don't know how he keeps his cool. Wonder if any other lawsuits will stem from this.
I hope this lawsuit continues. Maybe it will finally put Kate in her place and this all can stop for good.
Now would probably be a good time for a welfare check on the kids and for the state to review prior complaints of abuse against her.
If Jon, Robert or the attorneys happen to read here, to Jon and Robert I am so thankful you have excellent counsel to represent you. To Mr. Tuma and Mr. Garbus, I highly respect both of you. Thank you so much for coming forward and representing the good guys.
So, if you just respond to a lawsuit by denying everything, does that mean that the plaintiff must present all their evidence to a judge for him to decide to dismiss the charges? By just denying everything, is that a way to keep your cards close when the lawsuit goes to trial? Wow. I wonder what the attorneys' strategy is? Kate is cruisin' for a bruisin' if this goes to trial. Just think of all the dirt!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL. She is such an idiot this time around when it comes to attorneys. She has done this for publicity but now the big boys are going after her.
Fidosmommy (88)
I wrote those descriptions of Jon and Robert sarcastically, to mirror some people's view of them, not my own. I often forget that sarcasm doesn't always translate to the written word. Maybe we need a special font for snark. ;-)
The last time anyone cared about Jon, that's what he was known for, and is often the only thing mentioned about him today. As for Robert, the only thing anyone knows about him (besides us) is he hates Kate and dug through her trash. That's all I meant.
Tucker's Mom said... 102
''......This is one time I'd be HAPPY to see her use her kids.
Watching this go forward would be *fascinating*, especially our discussing it here. But, what's best for everyone, especially the kids, is to drop the lawsuit and somehow, some way, get Jon and Kate to bury the hatchet.''
~~~~~~~
IF we were talking about anyone other than TFMJG, I would agree with you. However, since we are discussing TFMJG, I believe that the only way to stop her from continuing on and on and on is for the lawsuit to continue and come to a conclusion. Hopefully the conclusion would somehow silence TFW, at least till all the children are 18, with HUGE monetary fines if she breathes even a hint of a word publicly about either Robert or Jon!
IF it were possible for TFW to bury the hatchet, Jon would have done it years ago. One person can't bury the hatchet...it takes two.
Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 25
Since she failed to control him completely as she had assumed she would and could, she now assumes he must be controlling HER? She fantasizes that he is in secret control of every disappointment in her day to day life. That every person who objects to her socially unacceptable behavior only does so because Jon spurs them on? Man, I would love to delve into her upbringing and her life long relationships with her parents.
&&&
What is this? Serious question. Is this paranoia? It really sounds like paranoid, delusional thinking. I fear for those kids with this kind of possible mental break going on.
Here's a guy waiting tables getting ice cream with his kids holding baby deers. But he's part of some massive elaborate conspiracy to bring Kate down when really he's just worried about groceries for the weekend for the kids. The thing is, she IS on a mission to bring Jon down so now she's just flipped the tables and thinks Jon is too.
To anyone with any rational thought at all, that's just silliness
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
In the last post, I suggested several times that Jon find a good forensic psychologist who can start seeing the kids in order to assess the damage done by living with TFMJG and to write a report for the court with a view to making a custody bid. Aren't there divorced dad groups out there that could hook him up with someone who might also be willing to work pro-bono? I'm also going to agree that he needs to ask the court for a forensic review of the children's monies--that they still have what they previously earned and to make sure that TFMJG does not use their money for this stupid lawsuit. It's obvious that TFMJG's name is going to be around for a long time . . . in textbooks used in college psychology classes, law classes, entertainment law, etc. and in bills re: minors working in TV, case law re: frivolous claims and who knows what else? Probably not what she envisioned all those years ago.
Jon has momentum now--he needs to go for the trifecta.
Gee, the only "Ex Nurse" that comes quickly to mind is Kate.
Admin if Kate wanted to have this sealed now, which I suspect she would, what would be the criteria to have that done? Do you think it would be granted?
chefsummer said... 89
#Gotacoupon4alawyer
Vanessa said... 92
#Lordybeeyoucan'tsueme!!#
Both of those are pretty good too!
#wecan'tgoback
I Just Want You to Know #I'mf*cked
#raretreat
This is fun! LOL
#I'mDONE
ha! thanks ladies.
Jane- I wanted to say great minds and all that, but Kate owns it. Yikes! Hope she doesn't sue us.
Tucker's Mom said... 98
Let Robert publish the book(ps, if she'd kept her mouth shut, I don't think it would have received anywhere near the attention it's going to now), deal with the backlash, OWN IT, apologize, and like any other celebrity who f*cks up in today's culture, sit back and wait to make your comeback.
====
She would have to find a very comfortable chair.
We (as in the people on this blog) can usually call her next move, but this is a tough one. Will she go ahead with this if it isn't dismissed or withdraw? I'm sitting on the fence right now.
White Organza said...
Not ALL disks were created around April 2010.
_________
The paragraphs in the motion that follow your quote seem very specific that the disks that are addressed in the lawsuit were created on 04/10/2010. The opening paragraph, IMO, was to state that it was a matter of routine for Jon to back up the hard drive.
I don't think that it will matter--it is clear that there is a solid basis for Jon's rights to the disks. It isn't a crime to lie online, but it does speak to RH's credibility. I think he was covering up Jon's personal involvement, and covering his own ass legally.
Bitchy Pants --I agree--the date that the Ice Queen banished the poor farm boy from the royal palace is not a public record. I am moving on from this...please pass the popcorn and rumspringa!
I feel the need to address this issue because it keeps coming up and people are saying Roberts and Jon's stories contradict.
Jon lived at the house until April 28, 2010. That is the supposed dark and stormy night. The divorce was finalized in December 2009, but Jon lived at the house during his custody weeks with the kids because there was a custody suit, which was not settled until the spring. Remember Kate's crying fits during DWTS? Jon officially moved out April 28, 2010. Therefore, those discs would have been made and then left in the apartment when he left at the end of the month.
There is NO discrepancy between their stories. Robert is 100% accurate and Jon's account further indicates this. Kate is claiming this illegal information was obtained in October 2009. That is easily disproved. Also, any computer forensics person could tell you when those discs were burned. I'll bet Jon has his copy at home and Robert can produce the copy labeled KATE!
~Ally
Watching this go forward would be *fascinating*, especially our discussing it here. But, what's best for everyone, especially the kids, is to drop the lawsuit and somehow, some way, get Jon and Kate to bury the hatchet. 102
Tucker's, with all due respect I believe that the only way that kate will bury the hatchet is in Jon.
The lawsuit is a separate issue.
Sorry could not get my name on my comment but I did sign it.
It all started with the 2 of us #TFW♥BULLYVILLE
Auntie Anne, good job! #superfunlawsuit !!!
Love the post Robert put up. A singer, old school, Best of the Best is the name of the album.
I took that as Robert and Jon got the Best of the Best attorney in this lawsuit.
And the song! Fits perfect. Trying not to spoil, just hints. I hope the kids have a cell phone nearby to call for help when kate explodes on some of the kids.
#silverlinings
#We get what lawyer we get and don't get upset
Your dad and Robert got what lawyer who is the best and we DO GET UPSET!
#superfunlawsuit I am going to lose!
I wonder if she thinks that if she lost, that she could appeal and they would drop it. And that they would say she didn't have to pay.
Like in Mrs. Lafair's lawsuit. kate knew she had to pay that bill! She refused, pushing it on Jon. Then Mrs. Lafair took her to court and won! kate had to pay. She refused. Then Mrs. Lafair said, it is not worth it.
kate got away with over 10,000 worth of free therapy. Well, kate, you reap what you sow, by at least 10 fold. That is over 100K now.
I remember when you moved from etown to the McMansion that you owed 1800 dollars for water or some kind of utility bill. You refused to pay it. You called and harassed them for weeks and finally they reduced it to 1100.
You have taken advantage of everyone, your children, your husband, your friends, drs., the volunteers, the church you went to, the churches your fleeced, the nannys, your family, your inlaws and more sadly used Jon's father as your personal ATM.
How sad is that? very sad.
Well finally Jon has the upper hand in one of their many legal issues. He has always been the underdog going into court but not this time. No TLC backing for Kate. I really hope she is sweating!
I read her latest craptastic bog last night and what really stands out to me is she has 8 kids and 2 1/2 months of summer and all she can list that she misses are swims, grilling and lie ins! and I'm pretty sure that's about all they did.
No trips to the beach, carnivals, visiting relatives, camps, play dates, museums? Because even though I felt I didn't do enough for my 7 year old daughter over the summer (I work 40 hours a week) if I were to write that same blog I could list these activities. I could also add trips to our community pool where she could play with her friends, we are very mediocre and we don't have our own a pool.
She purchased two fishes almost a month ago and makes a whole blog post about it. Life must be very exciting for those children NOT
#StayingInStaringAtTheWalls
Happy to see others are contacting Jon's Lawyer to thank him for taking the case.
If I lived there, I would for sure go and listen to the happenings, I hope someone from here will be there and let us know how things are going.
I have never felt so far away before!
RE: Bullyville
His reports are not accurate and the IPs are not verified. Is that libel? Defamation? What recourse do the outed people have?
I don't think that it will matter--it is clear that there is a solid basis for Jon's rights to the disks. It isn't a crime to lie online, but it does speak to RH's credibility. I think he was covering up Jon's personal involvement, and covering his own ass legally.
______________
Didn't he say that he passed a polygraph? He must be darn good to be able to fool such an exam.
I believe Robert, who knows exactly what went on, and when. He's smart enough to know that we weave tangled webs when we attempt any sort of coverup.
#ShriekingAndSquealingButNotWithDelight
#she'sruined
I googled Jon Gosselin and there is one article on "Celebrity's Dirty Laundry" that makes me sick! They are actually blaming Jon and stating that Jon has now made it so she has to sue her own children!! Are people totally incapable of reading the motion to dismiss. When Kate filed this lawsuit, were they concerned about the kids? So Jon states the truth and he is slammed as a horrible dad because now Kate is forced to sue her kids....what?!? The article actually stated that Jon stated that he left copies of a flash drive (where do they get this crap from) for his kids and they threw it in the trash!! Ummmm, where was that EVER STATED!! This is totally disgusting trash tabloid reporting at its finest. How hard is it to understand the actual document. I don't often think this but a retraction should be reported because of the slander and ridiculously absurd statements about the children. I am livid!!! Jon dares to defend himself in a very classy, sensible and no accusatory
Effects of child abuse can last a lifetime: Watch the 'still face' experiment to see why.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/09/16/affects-of-child-abuse-can-last-a-lifetime-watch-the-still-face-experiment-to-see-why/
The above was tweeted by one of the non-fans. The video that accompanies the article is chilling. Many here have spoken of their own abuse - this discusses neglect and the profound and lasting effect it can have on a baby.
How did TFW get hooked up with Razzle Dazzle?
Thanks for the clarification, Leelee. I guess I was aiming my comments at anybody who keeps calling Jon a playboy or whatever. Sorry it all flooded out while trying to tell you it was a great post - except for those wretched references to Jon that won't go away because some people apparently need to hate Jon even more than they love TFW.
You're out of my crosshairs now, Leelee. ;-)
Anonymous (Ally) said... 128
''....There is NO discrepancy between their stories. Robert is 100% accurate and Jon's account further indicates this. Kate is claiming this illegal information was obtained in October 2009. That is easily disproved. Also, any computer forensics person could tell you when those discs were burned. I'll bet Jon has his copy at home and Robert can produce the copy labeled KATE!''
~~~~~~~~~
Thank you, Ally. Facts are facts, but for some people, facts just don't work. Bernard Baruch, said "Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.''
My iPad froze...to finish...how can someone be chastised for defending themselves against a lawsuit? Jon's name is forever tarnished in the court of public opinion. He will never be seen as anything but a whoring, cheating horrible dad and that could not be further from the truth. Kate was very much responsible for that image! She is a bitch.
Anyway, about her cookbook, what constitutes plagiarism? Here's what I know. Katherine, her chef, and container labels are where some of her recipes are from. Her Fettucchini Alfredo is from a yogurt lid, photographed and posted on her website a while ago. Her recipe for sauerkraut and pork chops and chicken pot pie are both dishes that katherine made for the family and I read katherines email about how to reheat the dishes in Roberts book. She also put that American flag cake recipe in, but called it a white chocolate cake. Is that how she gets around the plagiarism? Change an ingredient, add an ingredient or cook it in a crock pot instead of actually cook it?
The more recipes I go through, the more I find the sources elsewhere. Lastly, some are totally inedible, proportions are totally off and apparently NO ONE edited the book. It's a mish-mash hodgepodge book.
FYI - if you go to amazon and go down to the discussion boards, under "why?", you will find 2 of my reviews of her book. You can easily match up my names!
Rhymes with witch, I agree with you, the only way TFMJG will bury the hatchet willingly is in Jon. Ms LaFair did counseling and we see how well that worked.
I also agree that I hope someone is checking on the children, and that some of them will be able to live with their father full time.
Only five more years before the older children will be old enough to bring suit for an accounting of their rightful earnings, or to ask TLC why they were not given basic rights during filming.
It's near impossible to have a court record in a civil case in federal court sealed. The only time I have seen anything sealed is if a brief or exhibit contains trade secret or proprietary information. Even then, only the particular document gets sealed, never the whole file. Court proceedings, except for some family court matters, are intended to be public.
Tucker's, with all due respect I believe that the only way that kate will bury the hatchet is in Jon.
*****
I know, Rhymes, I know!
Wishful thinking on my part. This is the fork in the road, without a doubt. I believe there is time and opportunity to just stop--stop before this gets way worse.
I guess it's just not easy for me to understand how Kate can't (or won't) see around the corner and get a good glimpse of what's about to come.
I agree about this being a good time to ask for a professional to assess how the kids are really doing. We know it's not unicorn farts, as Kate would have us believe.
I know we're not supposed to engage the trolls but I can't let this one go...
========
who is zooming who? said... 120
Gee, the only "Ex Nurse" that comes quickly to mind is Kate.
========
Although some of us may disagree with our "Ex Nurse" at times I can guarantee that she IS NOT Kate. Now go back and play on twitter.
If this goes forward and everything comes out, it will be interesting to hear about the very suspiciously detailed text message that Hailey Glassman got from Jon which Kate wanted to get her hands on. Or was it Mr. McBullyville who was after them? I can't recall anymore.
we are very mediocre and we don't have our own a pool.
******
We joined a community pool too and love it. Having a pool at home for the G kids is great too, but it's not a substitute for socializing, and it's certainly not the sole agenda for an entire summer.
I think early on, Kate allowed the children to be responsible for each other's socialization. It put the burden on them, and not on her to nurture their friendships outside of the family. It's like, "oh well, they're never alone, so I don't need anyone else's stinky kids coming over, and don't need to be a taxi service".
I think Kate really began circling the wagons around the brood when their show took off.
First off, the kids are over-scheduled with filming as it is. Then, there's wanting to shroud production in secrecy and script the kids' responses to inquires about the show.
"We don't talk about that", is what Kate instructed them to say.
OK. If their life is the show, and the show is their life, they can't even speak about it?
#ThisIsSoOver
#IJustWantYouToKnow#TumaIsInTheMix#GarbusIsInTheMix#MultipleBlessings
One of the sheeple was tweeting links to old ROL articles regarding the child support, the lawsuit and the article about Jon's alleged text messages to Hailey. So I looked up Hailey's twitter, and on the day the lawsuit was file she tweeted:
Hailey Glassman @hAiLeYgLaSsMaN1 26 Aug
Dear God, will the Gosselins ever stop bringing my family & I into their drama..I don't have time 4 my own dramz, never mind their's #MoveOn
I guess Hailey was none too happy that her name was again mentioned in the ROL article about the lawsuit filing.
HCI Books @HCI_Books 29m
We're getting excited over here at HCI for the publication of Kate Gosselin's book, #LoveIsInTheMix! @Kateplusmy8 http://bit.ly/1bwjfcf
Don't they know that it's been on the shelves of B&N?
Fired Up 4 Kate @MiloandJack 47m
@Kateplusmy8 He's patiently waiting 4 #LoveIsInTheMix so we get some NEW meal ideas & he gets the tasty leftovers! >>
Hey, Milo. Jack's going to get fattened up some. You eat a spoonful of those greasy canned casseroles, and the plates will go on the floor for Jack to finish. #CheesyBeansAndAlpoTime
If this goes forward and everything comes out, it will be interesting to hear about the very suspiciously detailed text message that Hailey Glassman got from Jon which Kate wanted to get her hands on. Or was it Mr. McBullyville who was after them? I can't recall anymore.
---------------
It all kind of blends together after awhile, doesn't it, Auntie? Would a few shots of rumspringa help sort things out, or would that just make it worse?
Wishful thinking on my part. This is the fork in the road, without a doubt.
-------------------------
...and as the great Yogi said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
TFW doesn't know which way to go. Such dilemmas at this stage in her life. Wonder if she's learned not to poke that bear, or will there be more poking and prodding in the years to come?
Auntie, #superfunlawsuit, perfect!!
Also agree with you Paula #79, about the skirt chasing, to me he wasn't chasing skirts, not at all. But he was finally able to be a normal man, and breathe clean air the way he wanted to.
I am not worried about the future of the 8 when it comes to financially taking care of them. There are Kevin and Jody, plus Beth Carson and her hubby, no one would leave the 8 destitute. Jon is skilled in his field, there is no way the kids would not be properly taken care of. They don't need expensive things, all they need are the basics, like what we provide our children with, plus lots and lots of love and cuddles.
Can you just imagine the ratings if this trial was televised? It would be crazy! Whenever I go to read anything about the Gosselin's, I make sure to add to my comments both the website here, and also Robert's website at gosselinbook, as so many people are now more interested than ever. I am pretty sure that Robert reads here often, and so will Shawn Tuma. They are the best places to read the truth. Maybe even Robert's Lawyer will read them as well. Can't get any better for documentation of things that have gone down. I just kind of wish that Jon had internet, so he could read here to get our support. Learning so much about the law here, even though Canadian laws are likely very different. But no matter what the County is, lying and cheating are pretty universal.
Black Dog Cafe @BlackDogStPaul 3h
It all makes sense now, the incessant calls from @TMZ and #KateGosselin 's attorney. http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/09/jon-gosselin-waiting-tables-and-living-cabin … Did he split w/ #EdHardy too?
Oh, lukebandit, am happy to hear your good news!
Now you will have a lot more time in your days, with such a shorter way to travel. Good luck to you!
Summer Days And Nights said
It all kind of blends together after awhile, doesn't it, Auntie? Would a few shots of rumspringa help sort things out, or would that just make it worse?
====
haha! It would make it so I'd forget what I was asking. Which would probably not be a bad thing.
You are so right though. It is one fine mess she's gotten herself into and I wouldn't want to be the lawyer who has to sort it out for her. How would you know when she was telling the truth? This is Kate Gosselin for crying out loud.
I was listening to Good Morning America this morning while I was getting ready for work and they had a segment on Jon. I didn't get to really hear it, but I thought if people were interested, it's probably available online.
Can you just imagine the ratings if this trial was televised? It would be crazy!
******
Nancy Grace's head would explode!
#CAN I SUE??
Well....hmmmm...things are definitely getting interesting. I think it's a hoot that TFW's motives have always been to annihilate Robert and Jon and she was so freakin' confident (aka narcissistic) that she was convinced that this lawsuit would publicly prove that he is a snake, she is the perfect yet bullied doing it all on her own mother of 8 count em' 8 kids and that she would win and Robert's book would be buried and then she could go on a world tour proving to everyone that she needs and deserves to stay on tv.
Instead, all she has done is bring more light to Robert's book...and now that these attorneys are in the picture, if this gets the publicity I think it will, all it's going to do is make MORE people want to read it because it will be proven and public knowledge that she was and is an abusive, greedy, money hungry, conniving, stealing (from the church) biotch!
Well Jon...you are a Christian....and it DOES say "do unto others as they would do unto you". I guess TFW didn't think you would actually do it!! Lol....careful TFW what you do unto others lest they do it to you! Go Jon!
#WithoutAPaddle
Ally said... 146
''...how can someone be chastised for defending themselves against a lawsuit? Jon's name is forever tarnished in the court of public opinion. He will never be seen as anything but a whoring, cheating horrible dad and that could not be further from the truth. Kate was very much responsible for that image! She is a bitch.''
~~~~~~~~~~
Ally, I agree that so far, Jon's name has been tarnished, BUT that is because TFMJG and the mighty network, with the help of ROL have controlled the information about Jon. Most people don't know as much as we do. Most people haven't read Robert's book with TFMJG's detailing her horrific abuse of her toddlers.
I read on one board a comment that was having a hissy fit over Jon, because he was mad that TFW wouldn't let him use the kids in his own reality show! I didn't even try to correct it.
However, that was then...this is now. The high profile attorneys for Jon and Robert are now in control. The more information that is exposed, the more people will turn against TFMJG, and realize that Jon and his children are her victims.
Ex Nurse 140
#she'sruined
Oh, Snap! LOL
after reading BV's reports on people from RWA, IMO I think some sheep have some pretty good cases for harassment. The will of course still have to shell out bucks for subpoenas and lawyers but he has given them a good head start.
I am NO fan of Kate Gosselin but I am also against what some try to do to the sheep.
SCgal said... 163
I was listening to Good Morning America this morning while I was getting ready for work and they had a segment on Jon. I didn't get to really hear it, but I thought if people were interested, it's probably available online
I found this clip, although the article is dated yesterday, the video might be from today. They basically recapped what Jon said on his ET interview, but also had a clip of Jon's boss. At the end, the consensus of the GMA panel was "Good for him. He's working".
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/jon-gosselin-waiting-tables-living-cabin/story?id=20304377
These hastags are hilarious. can we compile a list of them somewhere?
Yes, Tucker's Mom, Nancy Grace would have a coronary! I remember how she was so mean discussing Jon, and wonder if, when the entire truth is finally out, will she ever apologise?
Has anyone heard from Al or Polly about these latest happenings?
Here's the video of GMA about Jon.http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/jon-kate-star-jon-gosselin-now-waiting-tables-20316624
At the end all the panel says
"Good for him"
"Exactly"
"He's working"
"Good for him"
The ball is in his court and his humble job is making him look way better than TFW who still tries to pretend she's a StAHHHHH....
Jane (142)
That was hard to watch. I wouldn't last the two minutes of that experiment, even if it was someone else's baby. Thanks for sharing though; it really drives home the immediate effects of having a cold, detached and heartless mother. It's heartbreaking to imagine a child going through that day after day. It is also very relevant here, as TFW was filmed ignoring her kids or was angry at them in so much of the JandK+8 footage. No wonder they leap into the arms of anyone who enters the house. Also, seeing that baby's attempts to desperately get mom's attention back mirrors, in my mind, why some of the G8 go so overboard in trying to please TFW. So, so sad.
And what is going to happen when she is doing her rounds on T.V, radio and in person at book signings, with the jumbo-size pink elephant in the room? How can Katie Couric and other well known news people just ignore all of this? TFW has no shame what-so-ever! If it was me, I would curl up in a ball, and would not want to show my face anywhere!
And for those who say that this will damage the 8, I think that they have been damaged already, by their mother.
TFW doesn't know which way to go. Such dilemmas at this stage in her life. Wonder if she's learned not to poke that bear, or will there be
more poking and prodding in the years to come? 158
Just my opinion, but I think she is hell bent on going forward (no never means no).
If she loses, I don't think it will stop her. I do think she'll have even more difficulty finding legal representation and may rely more on "legal eagles" like bullyville going forward.
This is a woman on a mission, however misguided.
Tucker's Mom said... 164
Can you just imagine the ratings if this trial was televised? It would be crazy!
====
I would have to invest in a dvr thing to record it!
''The ball is in his court and his humble job is making him look way better than TFW who still tries to pretend she's a StAHHHHH....''
~~~~~~~~~~~
I think that it is becoming more and more obvious that Jon is a nice guy that enjoys people. I liked that he said his job was fun...he gets to talk to people, and they sort of 'know' him. I've never met Jon, but I am positive that I would have a good time talking and laughing with him!
prairiemary said... 173
''Yes, Tucker's Mom, Nancy Grace would have a coronary! I remember how she was so mean discussing Jon, and wonder if, when the entire truth is finally out, will she ever apologise?''
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Can you even imagine Nancy Grace's face as she read how TFMJG toilet trained her toddlers. How she beat the child because he wasn't toilet trained after five days? Talk about Nancy's head exploding!
How can Katie Couric and other well known news people just ignore all of this?
*******
Hmmm.... pre-taping the Katie show JUST before Jon's and Robert's motions were filed is interesting timing, n'est-ce pas?
#howshefooledtheworld
The image of Kate that will always haunt me was the interview they did after the sextuplets were born. Her eyes were dead and she spoke in a monotone voice. She said that she spent a lot of time crying and they weren't tears of joy. It gave me the chills. I could probably find it somewhere on the net but it disturbed me so much I really don't want to see it again.
"Is she begging for a new one on twitter yet?"
Kate Gosselin@Kateplusmy8
Help! My attorney's broken. How do I fix this? @lawyersforlamerealitystars #Grifting
This site's comments are so funny. We need like buttons.
#TooLateKate
She thought a minute and said, "Marty Garbus?"
A few expletives followed. 67
Crusin',meant to tell you that your comment made me smile. Big time.
TUCKERS MOM 177
Hmmm.... pre-taping the Katie show JUST before Jon's and Robert's motions were filed is interesting timing, n'est-ce pas?
------------
IIRC Kate is supposed to do a media blitz next week on the 24th ... so are you saying she has already met with Katie Couric and filmed the segment? Has it aired yet?
Because now with Jon being on ET and mentioning not only Robert's book but that he can't talk about the lawsuit, I can't see the subject NOT coming up even if Kate only wants to promote her cookbook. To ignore it at this point will only looks like Kate is hiding something.
Last but not least, I have an issue with the media who say that Jon has hit rock bottom because he is waiting tables -- is the media saying that anyone who has a job waiting tables has hit rock bottom? If so that is unfair to so many people.
FTR I agree with GMA -- at least Jon is *working* in order to support himself and his children and anyone who has a job - any job - should have the credit that they deserve.
Anyone new reading here might wonder about some of the terms.
TFW = The Former Wife
TFMJG = The Former Mrs. Jon Gosselin
Ms Kreider = Katie Irene Kreider = TFW
Yes, Tucker's Mom, Couric's show was pre-taped, but does that now mean that nothing currently in the news can be added to it? And if Couric is somehow not wanting to go ahead with what was taped to be on her show, can the network just skip it, and not air it? I mean that things have really changed since that taping. I wonder if this will impact anything on her publicity tour.
Anyone think that if Robert's new book is published and if he is getting so much publicity, that he will have his own Book Signing Tour? Oh, I would SO love it if it did happen that way!
Sorry for hogging comments today, that's how you know I am having a bed-ridden day. Time for a nap:)
#Hellllooooo
Marie
#feelingvomitus
#kartmeaway
Marie
Fired Up 4 Kate @MiloandJack 47m
@HCI_Books @Kateplusmy8 Wow...excited indeed! So happy 2see her bk has already gone back 4second printing! #WishingHerTheBestOfSuccess :)
Fired Up 4 Kate @MiloandJack 49m
@KatieShow Yay! Supporters 4 @kateplusmy8 R excited2see this! Kate's one tough mom& lady/always #ReachingForTheStars/doing her best 4her 8!
i wonder what Milo wants from Kate (besides *that*...)
#itistooagoodbra
Paige C @Paige_Kate8fan 18m
@Kateplusmy8 I have absolutely no idea what to wear to these shows!!! Ahh
Kate is facing what most likely is one of the worst predicaments of her life, and Paige is stressing over what to wear when she meets her hero. Oh, to be young again, when you can't sleep because you have to choose between the Little Black Dress or dark denims and a suede jacket!
Remember how Kate blamed what she was going through (the divorce) on her horrible DWTS appearance?
Now, when the crookbook sales fall flat and her media blitz is a bust, will she blame it on the stress from the lawsuit, Jon's MTD and Robert's Answer?
And when the shakedown of the Khaters falls flat, what will she blame THAT on?
I'm going to sit back, grab some more popcorn and laugh, laugh, laugh.
#superfunembarrassmentforahasbeenrealitystah.
#thisissomediocre
Marie
Completely Off this world topic
YEAH, new season of "The Neighbours"
WOOT WOOT!!!x8
Joy, may be at Jokers Sun, round nineish..c u there.
BTW..
That was franky, previous post.
PS,#karmatrain
Finally!
franky
New comments are not allowed.