Here is the full text of the new complaint:
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 1 of 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KATE GOSSELIN
Plaintiff, v.
JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN, and
ROBERT HOFFMAN and
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20 Defendants.
Plaintiff, v.
JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN, and
ROBERT HOFFMAN and
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20 Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION
NO.: 5:13-cv-04989
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NO.: 5:13-cv-04989
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Katie I. Gosselin ("Kate" or "Kate Gosselin"), by and through her attorneys, Randazza Legal Group, brings this action against Jonathan K. Gosselin ("Jon" or "Jon Gosselin"), and allege violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1030, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA") and other statutes. In support of her claims, Plaintiff state the following:
PRELIMARY STATEMENT
Kate Gosselin and Jon Gosselin became a household sensation after giving birth to sextuplets in 2004. The couple starred on the popular reality show "Jon and Kate Plus 8." Jon & Kate Plus 8 (renamed Kate Plus 8 for the sixth and seventh seasons) is a television reality series which aired from April 4, 2007 until September 12, 2011. In 2009, Jon and Kate separated in a very high profile and public divorce. Kate is currently a single mother raising eight children.
After the couple was separated, Jon illegally hacked into Kate's email account, and her phone, and bank accounts. Jon also stole a hard drive from Kate's house, which contained private and confidential material. Jon then gave the contents of Kate's email account and the hard drive, all of which were acquired illegally, to his friend and business partner, tabloid reporter Robert Hoffman. Hoffman used the illegally acquired data to publish a defamatory book about Kate called "Kate
Plaintiff, Katie I. Gosselin ("Kate" or "Kate Gosselin"), by and through her attorneys, Randazza Legal Group, brings this action against Jonathan K. Gosselin ("Jon" or "Jon Gosselin"), and allege violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1030, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA") and other statutes. In support of her claims, Plaintiff state the following:
PRELIMARY STATEMENT
Kate Gosselin and Jon Gosselin became a household sensation after giving birth to sextuplets in 2004. The couple starred on the popular reality show "Jon and Kate Plus 8." Jon & Kate Plus 8 (renamed Kate Plus 8 for the sixth and seventh seasons) is a television reality series which aired from April 4, 2007 until September 12, 2011. In 2009, Jon and Kate separated in a very high profile and public divorce. Kate is currently a single mother raising eight children.
After the couple was separated, Jon illegally hacked into Kate's email account, and her phone, and bank accounts. Jon also stole a hard drive from Kate's house, which contained private and confidential material. Jon then gave the contents of Kate's email account and the hard drive, all of which were acquired illegally, to his friend and business partner, tabloid reporter Robert Hoffman. Hoffman used the illegally acquired data to publish a defamatory book about Kate called "Kate
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 2 of 10
Gosselin: How She Fooled The World." The book was removed from large distributors like
Amazon.com because the information was obtained illegally. Nevertheless, the damage was done with
the release of the personal and private information, and the defendants continue to possess this illegally
obtained private information.
THE PARTIES
THE PARTIES
-
Plaintiff, Kate Gosselin is an adult individual residing in Sinking Spring, Pennsylvania.
-
Defendant, Jon Gosselin, is an adult individual residing in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania.
-
Defendant, Robert Hoffman, is an adult individual residing in Reading, Pennsylvania.
-
Upon information and belief, Defendants John and Jane Does 1 through 20 are individuals whose
names and addresses of residences are unknown.
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
-
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, as a federal
question is at issue, based upon the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
-
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, based upon the pendent and
ancillary jurisdiction of this Court.
-
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a), as all of the parties reside within the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
-
In April 2007, Kate Gosselin and her husband Jon Gosselin became celebrities after giving birth to six
children in addition to their previous two children. In total, Jon and Kate Gosselin had eight children.
-
The couple starred in the reality television series "Jon and Kate Plus 8."
-
In 2009, the couple separated in a high profile and public divorce.
-
After the divorce, Jon began accessing Kate's password-protected email account without her
authorization.
-
Kate learned of Jon’s unauthorized access only after it had occurred.
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 3 of 10
13. Jon knew he did not have authorization to access this e-mail account.
14.Jon also began accessing Kate's online, password-protected banking accounts without her
authorization.
independent value because of Kate's celebrity status.
14.Jon also began accessing Kate's online, password-protected banking accounts without her
authorization.
-
Jon knew he did not have authorization to access these password-protected online banking accounts as
well.
-
Jon also accessed Kate's cellphone without her authorization.
-
Jon also stole a hard drive from Kate's house, which contained protected, private and confidential
material.
-
On information and belief, the contents of this hard drive were provided to Robert Hoffman and the
John Doe defendants.
-
The information contained in Kate's password-protected email account, password-protected online
bank accounts, and cellphone is confidential.
independent value because of Kate's celebrity status.
-
At all times relevant to the Complaint, the above accounts were protected by a password.
-
At no point did Kate Gosselin give her password to Jon Gosselin or anyone else.
-
At no point was Jon Gosselin or anyone else authorized to access Kate Gosselin's protected email
account, online bank accounts, or cellphone.
-
On information and belief, Jon has continued to access Kate's email account, online banking account,
and cellphone.
-
On information and belief, Jon's unauthorized access to known password protected accounts through
the Internet has been continuous and systematic.
-
At some point in time, Jon Gosselin and tabloid reporter Robert Hoffman became close friends.
possession of 5,000 family photos, personal documents, tax and business records plus contracts – on
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 4 of 10
information and belief, they were acquired from Jon Goesselin, and were acquired with the knowledge
that Jon obtained them illegally.
1 http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/09/kate-gosselin-book-removed-amazon-jon-gosselin-pal-author-robert- hoffman/
that Jon obtained them illegally.
-
At a time currently unknown that will be uncovered in discovery, Jon Gosselin disseminated the
information he obtained from hacking Kate Gosselin's email account, bank records, computer and
cellphone to Defendant Robert Hoffman.
-
The Defendants then published the information that Jon Gosselin illegally obtained in several
publications.
-
Hoffman knew his activities were unlawful, and at one point even told Radar Online: "I’ll be sued by
one or more parties before this is over1."
-
Hoffman falsely claimed in certain publications that he recovered the data from Kate’s computer by
digging through her trash that he found on the street. This demonstrates his knowledge that the
materials were obtained illegally, as it is a sign of an attempt to cover up his unlawful activities. The
materials in his possession could not possibly be physically found in paper format to that extent. If
Hoffman was picking through trash on the street, he did not find this trove of personal information
while engaging in his trash-picking endeavors.
-
In reality, Hoffman, Jon Gosselin, and Does 1-20, acting in concert and on one another's behalf, hacked
into Kate Gosselin's various accounts – and the protected computers that contained the data they
accessed – then disseminated the illegally obtained information.
-
Hoffman and Jon Gosselin supplied various tabloids with stories painting Kate Gosselin in a poor light
after they had unlawfully obtained this private information.
-
Hoffman and Jon Gosselin then used the stolen private information to make stories more salacious for
the tabloids and draw further attention to the highly sensitive and private information they had
obtained, which equated to higher payouts for their information.
1 http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/09/kate-gosselin-book-removed-amazon-jon-gosselin-pal-author-robert- hoffman/
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 5 of 10
about Kate called "Kate Gosselin: How She Fooled The World" in 2012. Hoffman spoke to the media
about his publication in order to ensure it was more widely purchased, and that the private information
about Plaintiff that it contained in whole or in part received the widest possible public dissemination.
-
Hoffman's book contained defamatory and untrue information about Kate Gosselin, along with
information that painted Kate in a false and negative light.
-
Amazon.com pulled "How She Fooled The World" just two days after it was published, in part due to
the fact it relied in false information, and information Hoffman obtained illegally.
-
On information and belief, Defendants Hoffman, Jon Gosselin, and Does 1-20 illegally accessed Kate's
computer's confidential data, and then conspired among each other to spread false, defamatory, and
unflattering information about Kate Goesslin for the purpose of profiting from the book and the tabloid
publications.
COUNT I VIOLATION of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g)
-
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
-
Plaintiff asserts this Count against Defendants, jointly and severally pursuant to § 1030 of the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
-
Section 1030 provides in the relevant part:
(a) Whoever-
**** *
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without
authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains- (C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;
**** *
shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
(b) Whoever attempts to commit an offense under
subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
**** *
(g) Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason
of a violation of this section may maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief. . .. No action may be brought under this
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 6 of 10
subsection unless such action is begun within 2 years of the date of
the act complained of or the date of the discovery of the damage.
-
The term "protected computer" includes "a computer ... which is used in interstate or foreign commerce
or communication." 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)(B).
-
Within this section, the term "exceeds authorized access" means "to access a computer with
authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accessor is
not entitled so to obtain or alter." 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(6).
-
Kate Gosselin's email account and bank accounts were operated by computers used in interstate
commerce and protected by passwords – thus constituting “protected computer(s)” as defined in 18
U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)(B).
-
By accessing these accounts, the Defendants necessarily accessed these protected computers, wherein
the data relevant to Plaintiff’s accounts resided.
-
At no time did Jon Gosselin, nor anyone else, have legal permission or lawful access to Kate Gosselin's
password-protected email account, or online bank account, nor the computers or computer services on
which those accounts were accessible.
-
At no time had Jon Gosselin, nor anyone else, been given a password or authority to access Plaintiff’s
password-protected email account, or online bank account, nor the computers or computer services on
which those accounts were accessible.
-
Jon Gosselin, and potentially others – whose identities shall be determined during the course of
litigation – improperly used Plaintiff’s login information, namely her login user identity and her
password, without authorization to access the contents of those accounts and the computers on which
her password-protected and highly sensitive personal emails and banking information resided.
-
By accessing Kate's password-protected email account and online bank records without authorization,
each Defendant unlawfully accessed a protected computer without authorization, and/or accessed a
protected computer in excess of any authorization as prohibited by 18 U.S.C. §1030.
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 7 of 10
-
Defendants accessed Kate Gosselin's computer and computer services without authority to do so and in
doing so, caused in excess of $5,000 in economic losses arising from Jon’s unauthorized use of her
password-protected online accounts.
-
Specifically, Plaintiff’s losses arose in the form of the cost of her time in investigating and assessing the
harm caused by Jon and others’ unlawful access of the protected computers where her account
information was stored, ensuring the integrity of the information residing on those protected computers,
and the lost revenue and consequential damages Plaintiff suffered from conducting this investigation.
-
Since the Defendants were not authorized to access Kate Gosselin's email account, online bank
account, and cellphone, they exceeded the scope of their authorized access (which was no authority to
access it whatsoever).
-
By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for their violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
COUNT II
INVASION OF PRIVACY – PUBLICITY GIVEN TO PRIVATE LIFE
-
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every preceding allegation as if fully set forth herein.
-
At all times material hereto, and pursuant to the common law of Pennsylvania, Plaintiff had a
reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the contents of her e-mail account, online banking
account, and cellular phone.
-
The contents of Plaintiff’s e-mail account, online banking accounts, and cellular phone constitute
private facts that were not disclosed to the public, even despite Plaintiff’s stature following the
broadcast of “Jon and Kate Plus 8.”
-
By using this information in the publication of a book about Plaintiff, Defendants gave publicity to the
information obtained from Plaintiff’s private and password-protected e-mail account, online banking accounts, and cellular phone, and disclosed private facts obtained from these sources to the general public.
-
In fact, Defendant Hoffman’s book, which all Defendants contributed in creating in various ways, was
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 8 of 10
widely available for distribution on Amazon.com, one of the top sellers of books and e-commerce
websites in the world.
websites in the world.
-
Defendant Hoffman further engaged the media about the contents of his book, to ensure greater sales of
it and that more people would be exposed to its contents – including its disclosure of private facts
obtained from Plaintiff’s password-protected e-mail account and online banking accounts.
-
The publicity the Defendants generated by using this private, password-protected information to
publish a book about Plaintiff is highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether or not similarly
situated to Plaintiff.
-
The information Defendants drew upon and included, in whole or in part, in Defendant Hoffman’s
book is not of legitimate concern to the public, as it was password protected for the very sake of
keeping it private.2
-
Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of this invasion of privacy.
COUNT III CIVIL CONSPIRACY
-
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every preceding allegation as if fully set forth herein.
-
Defendants, both known and unknown, conspired together to engage in actions that violated above-
cited federal statute and Pennsylvania common-law tort as described in this Complaint.
-
Defendants shared a common, unlawful goal of invading Plaintiff’s privacy and committing the
unauthorized access of protected computers possessing data found within Plaintiff’s password-
protected private e-mail and banking accounts.
-
Defendants engaged in numerous overt acts in furtherance of this common purpose, including but not
limited to, actions detailed in paragraphs 8 through 62, ranging from the unlawful use of Plaintiff’s user identities and passwords for her e-mail and online banking accounts, the gathering of that information, and the publication of a book containing this information.
2 Indeed, financial information of the kind available in Plaintiff’s online banking accounts would have to be heavily redacted if it were to be filed with this Court.
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 9 of 10
-
While Defendants incidentally benefitted from the conspiracy’s fruits and their own subsequent actions,
their sole and common purpose for violating Plaintiff’s rights as set forth within this Complaint was the
violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
-
Only after conspiring to commit the tortious acts detailed within the Complaint, and committing those
acts, were Defendants able to use the fruits of their unlawful conduct for their personal benefit.
-
Plaintiff was damaged by the actions of the Defendants as set forth in paragraphs 8 through 62.
COUNT IV CONCERTED TORTIOUS ACTION
71. The Defendants and others did various tortious acts in concert with each other as set forth above in the
Complaint.
72. These Defendants' tortious acts were committed pursuant to a conspiracy and scheme to unlawfully
access Plaintiff’s private records and publicly disclose them Gosselin as set forth above.
73. Jon Gosselin gave substantial assistance and encouragement to the other Defendants and others to
engage in the tortious acts as set forth above in the Complaint.
-
Robert Hoffman gave substantial assistance and encouragement to the other Defendants and others to
engage in the tortious acts as set forth above in the Complaint, as he would ultimately be able to profit
from the fruits of his and the other Defendants’ unlawful conduct.
-
John Does 1-20 gave substantial assistance and encouragement to the other Defendants and others to
engage in the tortious acts as set forth above in the Complaint.
-
The Defendants' actions violate the federal statute and Pennsylvania common-law tort set forth in this
complaint, and also constitute an invasion of Kate Gosselin's privacy.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kate Gosselin, requests judgment in her favor and against
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 10 of 10
Defendants, Jon Gosselin, Robert Hoffman, and John Does 1-20, jointly and severally, as follows:
-
1) for losses in excess of $5,000 under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g);
-
2) for compensatory damages;
-
3) for actual damages;
-
4) for punitive damages based on the Defendants’ willful, reckless, and wanton conduct;
-
5) for attorneys' fees and costs;
-
6) for declaratory and injunctive relief; and
-
7) for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Dated: October 2, 2013
RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP
By: ___________________________ A. Jordan Rushie, Of Counsel
PA I.D. No. 209066
2424 E York Street, Suite 316 Philadelphia, PA 19125
P. (215) 385-5291 F. (215) 525-0909 ajr@randazza.com
Marc J. Randazza (pro hac vice pending)
3625 S. Town Center Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89135 702.420.2001 mjr@randazza.com
Attorneys for Kate Gosselin
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
By: ___________________________ A. Jordan Rushie, Of Counsel
PA I.D. No. 209066
2424 E York Street, Suite 316 Philadelphia, PA 19125
P. (215) 385-5291 F. (215) 525-0909 ajr@randazza.com
Marc J. Randazza (pro hac vice pending)
3625 S. Town Center Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89135 702.420.2001 mjr@randazza.com
Attorneys for Kate Gosselin
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I am an employee of Randazza Legal Group and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 and Local Rule 5.1.2,
served the foregoing document on all parties using this Court’s cm/ecf system on October 2, 2013.
Date: October 2, 2012
Employee of Randazza Legal Group
359 sediments (sic) from readers:
«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 359 Newer› Newest»Totally off topic but this is very interesting. I know people who "out" around the internet often pull mug shots. This little blurb makes a good point that a mug shot is just proof of an arrest not a conviction and that since it's innocent until proven guilty is it really fair to have your mug shot floating around there harassing you when you may have been perfectly cleared of all charges. Apparently some of these mug shot sites are blackmailing people into PAYING to take their mugshot down. This sounds so similar to that other lawsuit we were talking about I think with the cheater site? Where they were making people pay to take things down. After the mugshot sites were exposed in the New York Times this week suddenly some of the credit cards stopped processing payments to them and Google removed the pics from their first page of search. Wow.
"3. Pay up, or your mugshot goes online
What if your mugshot appeared online, for your friends, family, and employer to see? A New York Times exposé found that for-profit web sites like Mugshots, BustedMugshots and JustMugshots aren’t the civic-minded sites they appear to be, charging from $30 to $400 for someone to have their mugshot removed from the site.
“Mug shots are merely artifacts of an arrest, not proof of a conviction, and many people whose images are now on display were never found guilty, or the charges against them were dropped,” writes David Segal for The New York Times.
In one particularly tragic case, a medical student was being abused by her boyfriend when neighbors called the police. Both were arrested — he claimed she stabbed him, but the scratches on him were from her fingernails, and the charges against her were dropped. A few months later, her mugshot appeared on a mugshot site. She paid $30 to have it taken down, but it then appeared on other sites. One wanted $400 to remove it.
“Now studying for her medical boards and $200,000 in student loan debt, she is gearing up for a job search and worries that two photographs could wreck years of hard work to practice medicine,” writes Segal. In an email, she told her lawyer that if she wasn’t such a positive person, she would have considered ending her own life.
Following the New York Times article, MasterCard, Visa, and Discover promised to cut ties with mugshot sites, although as of October 16, only American Express appears to have actually stopped processing payments for those sites. In addition, Google has made adjustments to its algorithm that took the photos off the first page of Google’s search results."
Kate doesn't live in Sinking Spring, and Jon doesn't live in Wyomissing. Is this standard practice in complaints -- incorrect personal information about both parties?
"Hoffman's book contained defamatory and untrue information about Kate Gosselin, along with information that painted Kate in a false and negative light.
Amazon.com pulled "How She Fooled The World" just two days after it was published, in part due to the fact it relied in false information, and information Hoffman obtained illegally."
+++++++++++++
So the defamation allegation remains, as well as the "reason" Amazon pulled the book? It relied "in" false information? Doesn't anyone proof these complaints? Would Amazon be called to testify as to the reason the book was pulled? Amazon doesn't determine if the book contained false information, only that there would possibly have been issues involved rights owned by TLC and others.
Reading the response, I am still amazed at how immature it sounds compared to motions filed by Jon's and Robert's attorneys. I think they both have the better representation, frankly. Time will tell.
On a different note, I can't wait for the time change. I hate waking up in the dark.
Amazon.com pulled "How She Fooled The World" just two days after it was published, in part due to the fact it relied in false information, and information Hoffman obtained illegally."
&&&
Frustrating right?
For the 100th time, the ONLY reason Amazon pulled the book was because there was a complaint made and an ongoing dispute. They did not make a judgement call for themselves. If someone made such a complaint about Kate's cookbook they would pull that too, it doesn't mean they've decided for themselves the complaint is meritorious.
Amazon does not JUDGE whether information is false or obtained illegally. How in the world would they be in a position to do that? They are simply a distributor with a sound policy in place that if there is a dispute about a publication, they remove the item until it is resolved among the parties or in court. Once the dispute is resolved, they'll gladly put it back up. It's obvious the only reason they do this is for their own protection. If there is a real problem with a book they don't want to risk being sued too.
Sillimom I agree, it's much more amateur and immature sounding. It blatantly misstates the facts like about Amazon. It's still relying on innuendo and speculation.
When does the time change go? I want it too!
Such a frivolous lawsuit. A waste of the Courts time. Jon and Robert should countersue. Too bad Kitty Kelley didn't find that hard drive in Kates garbage. It would have been easier for her to publish a tell all on Kate especially since Kelley would not have backed down and be bullied by Kate.
From the amended document:
"Kate learned of Jon’s unauthorized access only after it had occurred."
Well, duh! You can't learn of something that was done BEFORE it occurs, can you? Unless, of course, you have psychic powers.
By the way Amazon doesn't mess around. They are in the middle of a copyright infringement lawsuit in Michigan over a sports photo sold on their site that was copyrighted. As far as I understand it they are not out of the woods yet even though they just "hosted" it. If you submit a legitimate complaint their legal department is going to pull the plug on the item in dispute, they did it with Hoffman's book and they've done it with many others. They're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars defending this Michigan suit. They can't be in the business of doing that for every little complaint. If there's a complaint you're done.
That was the biggest problem with Robert's book is he reproduced too much copyrighted material. He should have limited it to just the most important points and it probably would have worked. Speaking of Kitty Kelley that's what she does. She doesn't reproduce all the long documents she collected or emails or whatever, juicy as they may be. She pulls out the most important and relevant points. This is not just to create a good flow to the story but to guard against copyright.
Kates Lawyers said the book that Robert wrote ruined her reputation. What reputation. Duh. All one has to watch is one of the TLC episodes especially Pizza Gate and the Sarah Palin Incident and tell me how Robert ruined Kates reputation. She did it to herself and if the courts don't see it in these tapes they are blind. Jons lawyer should should get all these tapes to bring to court to show the " jury" how kate ruined her own reputation by her actions. JMO
Among the many issues with this complaint as we've discussed many times, what does "unauthorized" access mean? Is that a legal term? Or does that just mean Kate didn't want him to have access?
They never do explain how it is a legal husband is not legally permitted to access such things. Just take our word for it, it's unauthorized, do not pass go, do not cross the yellow tape! On the contrary, Shawn Tuma's brief explains it perfectly and all in a legal framework.
You can't just file a lawsuit and whine that you don't like things. You have to explain why what you don't like is a problem LEGALLY.
After reading Rasmatazz's counter claim and comparing it to Jon and Robert's responses, it's like amateur hour lawyers versus the Supreme Court. I'm not lawyer, but his responses are so amateur and like he pulled legal terms from the internet.
Also, if you are going to accuse someone, i.e. Jon and Robert of something, don't you have to provide actual proof?
Wait. If someone made a grounded complaint that the crapbook was full of plagiarized recipes, Amazon might pull it? Hmmm, but then again it's not exactly selling anyway.
Amazon.com pulled "How She Fooled The World" just two days after it was published, in part due to the fact it relied in false information, and information Hoffman obtained illegally."
+++++++
"in part." So what's the other part, or don't they know?
Again, how is she going to prove Jon gave Robert anything? It's her word against theirs. I guess she thinks everyone should automatically believe everything she, Kate Gosselin, says to be the real truth?
Totally OT from the other thread...
Anonymous said...(195)
PA dutch mom,
my Mamie too! Rolled, with brown sugar and cinnamon. She called them " pete de soeurs"
I'll let you Google that, bwahahaha, Quebecois inside joke.
thanks for the memories, off to buy some tenderflake and make some for dd=)
franky
*********************************************
Hehehe Franky, I know what they are in English. ;) They're a favourite of ours and we always pick up a package of homemade on our way up to the cottage in Bouchette. Mmmmmmm. :P
"Amazon.com pulled "How She Fooled The World" just two days after it was published, in part due to the fact it relied in false information, and information Hoffman obtained illegally."
----------------------------------------
To refresh everyone's minds this is what Amazon said in their email to Robert about why they were pulling the book. From Robert's site:
Saturday, September 29, 2012UPDATE
Hello,
We’ve received a notice from a third party claiming that the distribution of the following title you submitted for sale through the Amazon Kindle Store may not be properly authorized by the appropriate rights holder:
B009I8G824 KATE GOSSELIN: HOW SHE FOOLED THE WORLD by Robert Hoffman
As a result, we’ve suspended sales of this title, pending further investigation.
Below is the contact information of the third party who claims you infringed its rights. We expect that you’ll compensate this party appropriately for any infringing copies sold:
LAVELY & SINGER
espiegel@lavelysinger.com
We take violations of intellectual property rights very seriously. The submission of titles that violate third-party rights is a violation of our agreement and may lead to suspension or termination of your account, among other remedies. Please ensure that you own sufficient rights for all your ebook titles to publish them on the Kindle.
Best regards,
Lucy L.
Amazon.com
Nowhere does Amazon say that the information was false or obtained illegaly. They only pulled it because they were informed it MIGHT have violated someone's intellectual rights and they left it up to Robert and Laverne & Shirley to work it out.
Again, how is she going to prove Jon gave Robert anything? It's her word against theirs.
&&&
I have no idea. If she thinks she's going to do it with Hailey's text messages that suggests she has no understanding of what good evidence really is. Those texts would be laughed out of the courtroom. They prove nothing.
Talking about how you want something does not prove a single thing when it comes to what REALLY happened when and if that something was actually obtained.
This can be difficult to explain to clients. They might come in with mountains of paperwork they feel are so important and relevant. And lawyers often have to tell them only one or two documents in that entire pile have any bearing whatsoever on the case, if that. They often don't understand and then they think you're not doing your job when you refuse to submit irrelevant evidence to the court.
For example, back to the painted house case example, a client might say see look here I have all these paper clippings and whatnot about how all kinds of house painters are cheating good people like me. We have to submit those as "evidence"! And the attorney has to say that's tragic but how does that prove that YOU were cheated by this particular house painter? Your mountain of evidence is irrelevant.
Also, if you are going to accuse someone, i.e. Jon and Robert of something, don't you have to provide actual proof?
++++++++++
Not in a complaint. That's the purpose of having a trial by jury...it's for the court to decide based on the evidence.
We’ve received a notice from a third party claiming that the distribution of the following title you submitted for sale through the Amazon Kindle Store may not be properly authorized by the appropriate rights holder:
&&&
Thanks for that. Where in that statement does it say Amazon has made a judgement that Robert relied on false information or info obtained illegally? It doesn't.
All that says was we received a notice there MAY be a problem and have pulled it. That's it. I mean just based on that letter their brief is really a blatant lie. To suggest something other than that letter is improper.
Not in a complaint. That's the purpose of having a trial by jury...it's for the court to decide based on the evidence.
&&&
Sort of. You have to prove in your complaint that IF the allegations are true that you have a cause of action. You can't file a complaint saying Susie patted her head yesterday and I'm suing. Where's the cause of action? But if you file a complaint saying Susie hit me and that's assault, THAT's a good complaint. Even if Susie says I never hit you. That information will come later when you're litigating your allegations.
That was a big problem with their complaint to begin with, they couldn't even seem to explain how even if everything Kate said was true it aligned with a valid cause of action and within the SOLs. That's why I think they dropped so much of it, they just didn't have it.
I hope this amended lawsuit will finally put to rest the fans obsession with the ''Does'' and libel.
Unless I'm missing something, it appears that the ''Does'' are being accused with hacking and/or obtaining personal information by illegal means.
Obviously Kate and her law team think there was a conspiracy between ALL these people to steal and distribute Kate's info.
It is all so ridiculous it comical.
"On information and belief, Jon has continued to access Kate's email account, online banking account,
and cellphone"
"has continued..." This implies that he still does. So Jon uses Kate's cellphone? How does he manage to do this?
"Hoffman knew his activities were unlawful, and at one point even told Radar Online: "I’ll be sued by one or more parties before this is over1."
It doesn't mean he knew this at all. What it means is that he knew that Kate has a penchant for suing, and she'd sue over anything that presents her in an unfavorable light. What does "over1" mean? Is that supposed to be an exclamation mark?
Obviously Kate and her law team think there was a conspiracy between ALL these people to steal and distribute Kate's info.
&&&
It is comical. I mean you can see for yourself on this blog the comments from when Robert first came on the scene. Nobody had a clue. Most of us weren't even sure who he even WAS, and some were looking forward to whatever dirt he wanted to put out while a good number of others thought he was a tease and kinda weird. There isn't a single comment throughout that entire period, which only started a few months before the book was even released, suggesting anyone had ANYTHING to do with him, whatsoever. If there was a conspiracy, it's been hidden to an impressive degree.
Apparently saying oh I'm betting they'll probably sue is an admission of guilt. Good luck with that in court.
Not to mention, what does it matter whether Robert knew or didn't know whether what he was doing may have been unlawful? Is that an element of a cause of action? Not that I see. You have to feed these statements into elements and causes of action. Otherwise, you're just talking.
You know, Milo is so much like Kate in that everything is about her. She manages to direct the comments of others so that SHE is always involved somehow.
Fired Up 4 Kate @MiloandJack 36m
@gypsi001 @Kateplusmy8 U have someone running w/U? If not...in ur mind think of Milo poking U w/my cane 2keep U movin along! LOL
Fired Up 4 Kate @MiloandJack 38m
@gypsi001 @Kateplusmy8 Hey young lady..U can do this! I've had 2cross many bridges..start&re-start my life because of mis-haps! Ur a winner!
Kates Lawyers said the book that Robert wrote ruined her reputation. What reputation. Duh.
-----------
Gee, I didn't realize that the handful of those purchasing the book in just a few short days managed to derail her career and damage her reputation! I bet there were fewer of Robert's books purchased than the crookbook! I've never heard ONE person on teevee talk about the book, her journal....
She's desperate..I wonder what it's like, to be her..knowing that her journal is ready to go to print.
What will her staunchest fans say then?
Well, it sure looks like there is no stopping this train. Since the claims were amended, does Jon and Robert have another shot at a motion to dismiss, or has it already been determined that they were denied? Still no explanation as to how the timeline fits with the statute of limitations
I'm sure this will go down in history as one of the great conspiracies!
Obviously Kate and her law team think there was a conspiracy between ALL these people to steal and distribute Kate's info.
---------------
Yes, the Does, who have no names and no known addresses. Huge conspiracy there.
Why is Kate demanding a jury trial. Doesn't she keep saying in interviews that people hate her?
We’ve received a notice from a third party claiming that the distribution of the following title you submitted for sale through the Amazon Kindle Store may not be properly authorized by the appropriate rights holder:
&&&
Thanks for that. Where in that statement does it say Amazon has made a judgement that Robert relied on false information or info obtained illegally? It doesn't.
-------------
Unless Kate's attorneys are really stretching it by saying that Amazon's statement means that Kate is the appropriate rights holder because it's HER personal information that was included in the book.
They certainly are throwing everything into that complaint, aren't they?
Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 20
Otherwise, you're just talking.
-----------------------------------------------
Isn't that what TFW is doing? Talking and hoping someone sympathizers with her, the "sole supporter" of 8, count 'em 8, kids!
The law? Psh. The law doesn't matter. The only thing that matters to TFW is the world she creates in her head. In her world, whenever anyone does anything "wrong" to her, they must pay. Unfortunately, it was only reinforced with her TLC connection and her TV popularity. But it's back to reality, where "normal" people don't get the same breaks. Someone did something wrong to you? You brush it off and move on.
I sincerely hope that this doesn't end the way of LaFair. I hope the judge dismisses the case with prejudice, so that she cannot sue under the same grounds again, and there's no way to appeal.
Quick question for the lawyerish types: Should Razzmatazz decide this case is bad for him (no big payday, no chance of winning, what-have-you), can he quit at this point? I have no insider information, I'm just curious if a lawyer in a civil suit could/should/would quit when he realizes he's been led down the primrose path by his own client.
I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't this complaint sound unprofessional? It's like a playground dispute.
Jon took my bookbag and my pencil and never gave it back.
He called me a name. A mean name.
Everyone is making fun of me now.
Waaaaaaaaaah.
But didn't it come out that the reason Amazon pulled the book was because Discovery/TLC had complained that the book contained proprietary information, such as their contracts, that Robert had to remove? I remember having conversations about that here.
I think Robert put all of the memos, contracts, etc. in there on purpose because he knew Kate would sue and he realized the only way to show the real Kate to the world was to have this go to court where she would have to testify in discovery and perhaps in the courtroom itself as to the veracity of the information he published.
Does anyone think that this pre-trial hearing will make the news?
Tweet-le De Tweet-le DUMB said... 28
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Guess she's counting on her belief that people love her once they meet her ( see her) plus her gift-o-gab.
What does being in TLC & having a show has to do with the lawsuit? It doesn't mention TLC's trade secrets and contracts, whatever was in Ribet's book. It seems she keep bringing it up as if she is proud of having had a show. I just keep seeing it mentioned over and over in her lawsuit.
Suzy
Unless Kate's attorneys are really stretching it by saying that Amazon's statement means that Kate is the appropriate rights holder because it's HER personal information that was included in the book.
They certainly are throwing everything into that complaint, aren't they?
----------
What's PA law say about going through discarded trash? According to Robert, he found the dics, computer, whatever it was, in her trash, awaiting pick up. AND passed a lie detector test attesting to that fact.
If she didn't realize she threw her own journal in the trash, too bad so sad!
Why is Kate demanding a jury trial. Doesn't she keep saying in interviews that people hate her?
------------
That's common in most lawsuits..."jury trial demanded." I would bet that it wasn't up to Kate to include that legalese.
Newsflash to razzle dazzle: mammy of the posters here are BORED by TFMJG and have been for a long time. Many of us keep coming to this blog to discuss recipes, TV shows, actual children we are related to and their activities, pets, travel, documentaries, humor especially of the sarcastic variety, and of course the ever popular health problem topic, along with fashion tips such as what goes with crocs! TFMJG made herself an object of ridicule and unpopularity with her unpleasant antics on TV. Most obvious is the unpleasant and disrespectful way she treated her dance instructor Tony Dovolani. Please note Mr Dovolani EARNED the title of Saint Tony of the Ballroom for putting up with TFMJG without doing her bodily harm. TFMJG earned the title of Shopping Kart and Super Bitch from Hell from judge Bruno Tonioli, so will he be called to testify? Is Bruno one of the Does? Maybe Tony is a Doe and found out TFMJG Super Secret passwords and passed them on to Jon. Yeah, that's the ticket!
31. Hoffman falsely claimed in certain publications that he recovered the data from Kate’s computer by digging through her trash that he found on the street. This demonstrates his knowledge that the materials were obtained illegally, as it is a sign of an attempt to cover up his unlawful activities. The materials in his possession could not possibly be physically found in paper format to that extent. If Hoffman was picking through trash on the street, he did not find this trove of personal information while engaging in his trash-picking endeavors.
________________________________________
And Amateur Hour at the Razzmatazz Bar & Grill continues. They are still trotting out their spiel that the "trove of personal information" could not possibly have been physically found in paper format. Did they not do even the most cursory of investigating and learn that RH said he found disks?
And how, exactly, does RH saying he trash-picked demonstrate in any way, shape or form "his knowledge that the materials were obtained illegally, as it is a sign of an attempt to cover up his unlawful activities." ?
I suppose what they are trying to say is that RH used the trash picking story as a cover, but their verbiage does not convey that clearly. They could easily have included RH's exact, actual claims and indicated that those are not credible. Instead, they play fast and loose with the facts and make themselves appear uninformed and unprepared.
Amateur hour indeed.
Isn't the complaint saying that all of the Does also reside in the same district (Eastern Pennsylvania)? That lets out most, if not all, of the haterz on RWA.
Can other complaints emerge over the course of the trial, if there is new evidence that falls outside of the original complaint?
"On information and belief, Jon's unauthorized access to known password protected accounts through
the Internet has been continuous and systematic."
-----
-----
So they are saying that he continues to access her personal accounts?
"The Defendants then published the information that Jon Gosselin illegally obtained in several
publications."
-----
-----
Jon and Robert published information in several publications? What publications would those be?
"Jon Gosselin, and potentially others – whose identities shall be determined during the course of litigation – improperly used Plaintiff’s login information, namely her login user identity and her password, without authorization to access the contents of those accounts and the computers on which her password-protected and highly sensitive personal emails and banking information resided.
By using this information in the publication of a book about Plaintiff, Defendants gave publicity to the
information obtained from Plaintiff’s private and password-protected e-mail account, online banking accounts, and cellular phone, and disclosed private facts obtained from these sources to the general public."
-----
-----
They are not denying that any of the information obtained was altered or fabricated in any way, only that it was personal. It sounds like an admission that these "highly sensitive personal emails" were the real deal. How will the fans spin this...that what was on those emails and journals were, in fact, Kate's own words?
Newsflash to razzle dazzle: mammy of the posters here are BORED by TFMJG and have been for a long time. Many of us keep coming to this blog to discuss recipes,
-----
-----
lol, Joy! Who are the mammy posters? Just because quite a few wear muumuus and crocs does not make us mammies!
I'll bet you Robert took a picture of the stuff in the garbage before he grabbed it.
Hey, Kate, you might want to watch a little more Nightcourt next time you need to write another complaint! Goodness!
Maybe Kate thinks the Does are family, friends, or employees. It's her way of finding out who conspired against her. This lawsuit paints Kate as an angry and very sad individual .
It must suck to be Kate!
"On information and belief, Jon has continued to access Kate's email account, online banking account,
and cellphone.
On information and belief, Jon's unauthorized access to known password protected accounts through
the Internet has been continuous and systematic. "
This certainly sounds like they are alleging that the access has been going on continuously since after the divorce. So, I guess that is the timeline that they think keeps it within the statute of limitations period?
You know, there is a discrepancy in what Jon said in the Dad's Roundtable and what was reported in the latest round of media articles. In that article, from July, he said this about the internet:
"I don’t even have television. I have apple TV and download what my kids can watch and that’s it and that’s how I regulate. The Internet? They’re going to go to school; they can sit in the library and Google themselves. So why would I censor it here? And people have gone, ‘Oh, that’s bad’ but I’m sitting right here, if they want to go to YouTube they can."
It wasn't until after the lawsuit was filedd that he was quoted as saying he did not have internet access. Maybe he has discontinued it, or, he was misquoted. But, I find it hard to believe that an IT analyst would not have internet in his home for remote access.
Maybe none of this will matter because of lack of substantiation of the claim. But, if Jon has been recently accessing TFW's accounts, then he may have a big problem.
silimom said... 33
Does anyone think that this pre-trial hearing will make the news?
---------------------------
Not unless TFW plants it. I don't think anyone is looking for TFW stories (they way they do other celebs). Unless it's handed to them, they're not going to bother following the case.
Angie said... 35
What's PA law say about going through discarded trash? According to Robert, he found the dics, computer, whatever it was, in her trash, awaiting pick up. AND passed a lie detector test attesting to that fact.
--------------------
There's a supreme court case that rules trash on the curb as fair game. Trash on your property is not fair game. The ruling also clarified what's considered "on property". It specifically mentions that if it's outside of your fenced in property, it is fair game.
There can be state/local ordinances that say otherwise (I know in NY there is one), but I haven't been able to find any for PA in my Google search.
"Jon & Kate Plus 8 (renamed Kate Plus 8 for the sixth and seventh seasons) is a television reality series which aired from April 4, 2007 until September 12, 2011."
------------------
Actually, that's misleading. Take away the parenthetical phrase, and it reads, "Jon & Kate Plus 8 aired from April 4, 2007 until September 12, 2011." Wrong. Jon & Kate Plus 8 ended in 2009.
It should read that Jon & Kate Plus 8 aired from April 4, 2007 until November 23, 2009, and Kate Plus 8 aired from June 6, 2010 until September 12, 2011.
The attorneys got their information directly from Wiki...wording is the same:
"Jon & Kate Plus 8, renamed Kate Plus 8 for the sixth and seventh seasons, is an American reality television series which aired from April 4, 2007 until September 12, 2011, but the complaint omitted the word "American." Why?
It does look amateurish - and disjointed, just like her. I can just picture her lawyer jotting down her rantings, and her demanding it all be included.
My big question - If Jon "stole" the hard drive (as she claims above), why didn't she go to the police? Isn't that what most people would do? Wouldn't you file a report if a crime was committed? And then, wouldn't you sue for damages after the fact?
Anyways, one thing her Sheep will definitely gloss over - the information was true. Her disgusting diary entries, her gloating email about another woman miscarrying, her greedy demands for gift cards, and the selling of her children's privacy for money.
She disgusts me
Angie, also, if there was a state/local law that states you cannot go through someone's trash, Razmatazz should have mentioned it in his claim. Also, if it is illegal, I doubt Jon and Robert would have gotten such great representation if they had very obviously broken a law.
Jon may not be paying for internet access, but previously I would have bet dollars to donuts that he has a data plan for his phone. Therefore, he would have access, just not from a DSL or cable connection in his home. But as Ex Nurse points out, he must have something to download for Apple TV. Good catch.
FRP
I doubt he's "recently" accessing her accounts because she was aware of the alleged "hacking" way back when. She hasn't changed her passwords and such? He's a freaking genius if he continues to hack into anything. He should work for the Pentagon.
Rainbows and unicorns, the mammy posters here have also selected appointments to have their mammy grams during October, breast cancer month!
By the way, have I told you about my breast biopsies? No, well pull up a chair! I've had three, count'em, THREE fibroadenomas over the years! You get the mammys grammed, then you go back for other views because of those pesky abnormalities, THEN you get the needle biopsy that the doctor doesn't think will show anything anyway (so why are we doing this, I ask) THEN you finally get scheduled for the actual biopsy, then you have to wait for the results from the pathologist, then you have to listen to explanation of how this increases risk of cancer, but its not cancer, so don't worry, but its important to be aware, but no you don't need to remove anything at this time, and so on.
So I should worry, but not really worry, right? Right. Ok then. Think I will go shopping for some new crocs. Has anyone made any crocs with uncle Si's face on them yet?
Anyone have any good colonoscopy stories? Id love to hear them!
Ex nurse do you honestly believe there's even a remote possibility Jon is accessing Kate's accounts? For WHAT? Here's an idea, maybe Kate should change her passwords? Let's get real here. It's one thing to access a computer and accounts that are joint marital property during a divorce. Quite another to accuse someone years later of doing what amounts to a professional hacker job. I don't buy it for one second and frankly it's paranoid. Call the cops if someone is "hacking" for gosh sakes. Sheesh!
As far as Internet it's on many people's phones and tablets. 4g. That's how I assume they can get
YouTube. That's not the same as wiring your house for Internet. I know many people who don't bother with Internet anymore because of their phones and I don't take issue with them saying they don't "have" Internet or would dream of accusing them of lying. Technically they do have it just not in the traditional sense.
Apple TV doesn't require an Internet connection to play. In other words you can download to it off site at a friend's or cafe then take it home to watch. It can even mirror what's on your iPad or MacBook without ever paying for Internet. Your MacBook can act as the "server". If you google this you will see many people on forums who talk about having Apple TV without home Internet. It's sort if a popular thing with the frugal Internet crowd. Your phone can also act as the router.
Sorry, Admin, but you do need connectivity for Apple TV. I know someone who has it. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2208
She's right - the story has changed about not having internet, at the very least. Maybe the kids do have data plans for their ipads or phones, or there is no laptop available/connected, but Apple TV does not work without a hard network.
I don't think Jon has been accessing anything for a long time though. What would be the point? Maybe they're just trying to keep the case within the statute of limitations (or something) by making that allegation.
FRP
Anyone have any good colonoscopy stories? Id love to hear them!
***************************************************************************
LOL!
FRP no you don't. :) Not if you know how to set up a home "network" with your laptop etc. Jon, being an it guy, would have no problem. Google it and you can read about how people without Internet at home make it work.
It's too much if a hassle for ME but frugal people do it all the time.
OK, I stand corrected, had no idea it was possible. But wow, you have to be pretty cheap, I mean frugal, to go to all that trouble to avoid paying for cable!
I bet it chapped TFW's hide when he said he doesn't monitor them.
FRP
This person lives in an area with poor internet access but is able to get 3G on their phone. They explained on the imore forums how to get apple TV working just using your phone. No "real" internet. These directions are definitely simple enough for any IT person to figure out in a snap.
"The area that I happen to live in has pathetic internet access 'cause its about just 500 metres or so out of range of the nearest local access point. So the only way to get internet is through a 3G (or dialup ).
Luckily I happen to have a 3G pocketWIFI device which acts as a portable router with internet access.
1. I connected the Apple TV to the pocketWIFI (WITH INTERNET ACCESS) first, went into Settings > Computers > Turn on Homesharing.
2. I then follow the prompts to set it up etc. Once you finish, DO NOT turn off homesharing otherwise you're probably gonna have to do this again, which was a total ordeal for me due to wireless problems.
3. At this point, you have to go to the network settings and disconnect it from the internet, otherwise it will keep searching for rentals, movies, youtube, etc.
4. Connect to your home network router with NO INTERNET ACCESS. Make sure it is a fairly good router with a strong solid connection. Mine is a relatively crap Netgear MBR624GU router (wifi b/g). I tried WPA2 at first, but it was very patchy. I then tried WPA and it works fine.
5. Enjoy your iTunes Library!!"
This lawsuit paints Kate as an angry and very sad individual .
******
It seems to leave it wide open to interpret that the materials, whether obtained legally or not, are true.
And since Robert did seem to bluff and tease for a while before the first book was actually released, he DID deliver what he said he would, so I do believe he's been sitting on a whole lot more that may be in the new book.
As if the first book didn't have enough... can't imagine.
You absolutely do no need internet access for Apple TV. I am in no way technical, but somehow my BIL got his up and running with some type of router.
Ex-Nurse, yesterday you chided the blog about doubting Kate's kidney stone episode, but today you, again, want to tear apart Jon...obvious.
Not really the same thing, but one of my co-workers has a whole television setup, i.e. news, movies, etc., without the benefit of cable. It's amazing. I'd love to be able to get rid of my $100/month cable bill.
Admin said...
Ex nurse do you honestly believe there's even a remote possibility Jon is accessing Kate's accounts? For WHAT?
_________
Yes, I believe that the possibility exists. It becomes less of a remote possibility because of the wording of the complaint, which clearly states that the access was continuous and systematic.
If there was spyware installed on her computer, he wouldn't need passwords because spyware can send a record of every keystroke, email, etc. accessed, sent or received on her computer and phone. He may have also set up the home network so that he can remotely hack into any device in the home connected to the home network. So, even if TFW has upgraded her equipment, he can still acess remotely.
It was pretty clear to me that he was saying he has internet access in his house, that he does not restrict. Of course, anyone can read what they want into it. Can't speak to the Apple TV issue, but, as recently as that roundtable interview, Jon described himself as an IT analyst. I sincerely doubt that he is troubleshooting networks by remotely accessing servers from his phone. But, I could be wrong--I am, just like everyone here, piecin' and patchin' bits of information. In the case of the internet remarks, it was a direct quote.
I just don't find it believable that a legal team would launch this type of lawsuit based on thin air.
That complaint says a lot of things that are absolutely ludicrous and downright implausible.
If Jon is still "hacking" Kate can call the police. Have at it. I don't believe he cares anywhere near enough about her anymore to even dream of such a ridiculous notion nor can I imagine what it would accomplish. He is by nearly as preoccupied with her as she him.
I think people who go cable-less are awesome! All the power to them. It's just one of many expenses we've been programmed to just pay without question. Enough is enough.
This person lives in an area with poor internet access but is able to get 3G on their phone. They explained on the imore forums how to get apple TV working just using your phone. No "real" internet. These directions are definitely simple enough for any IT person to figure out in a snap.
++++++++++++++
I was just about to post that Jon may have no internet access, or very poor access. I know someone who lives not too far from there and they were just beyond the boundary where one of the internet/cable services doesn't reach. Their only option was another internet company and the cost of just that service alone was astronomical, so they have neither cable television nor internet at this time, but they did manage to do the Apple TV thing which works just fine -- without "real" internet.
And, by the way, there are subscription mobile wireless hotspots that be used anywhere, without wiring.
My husband works for Apple as a sr. Engineer going on more years then you have fingers and toes. As Admin said, you do not need internet to make AppleTv work. The kids can mirror off their iPads (if Kate allows them to bring them) or as others have said, you simply watch your downloaded iTunes movies etc through home sharing.
Admin, re: cable....totally agree. One months my local cable company added 3 jewelry channels and my bill went up $3.00. I don't watch, nor would I ever order jewelry from a tv channel!!!!
Ex nurse do you honestly believe there's even a remote possibility Jon is accessing Kate's accounts? For WHAT? Here's an idea, maybe Kate should change her passwords? Let's get real here. It's one thing to access a computer and accounts that are joint marital property during a divorce. Quite another to accuse someone years later of doing what amounts to a professional hacker job. I don't buy it for one second and frankly it's paranoid. Call the cops if someone is "hacking" for gosh sakes. Sheesh!
+++++++++++++++
Exactly. That's what is so ridiculous about that allegation. Why would he continue to access it if he knows he's being sued for that very reason? It would certainly be easy to prove if he were illegally accessing her current personal information. What reason would have to do that? If she thinks she's still doing it using her password, then change your darn passwords.
You can also run Apple TV through your iPhone. I do it all the time.
Wait, am I missing something? Because nowhere in this complaint do I see anything that suggests Jon, Robert and the DoeADeers are compromising the Gosselin kids' safety. Isn't that what TFW was intimating this whole lawsuit was about & for, when she was being interviewed on her book tour?
Ex-Nurse...spyware, really? OMG...
Can someone refresh my memory, what is going to happen on Oct. 22nd? I've forgotten.
I just don't find it believable that a legal team would launch this type of lawsuit based on thin air.
__________________________________
It seems they launched this lawsuit based on Kate's hot air.
One fame-seeking entity to another.
If there was spyware installed on her computer, he wouldn't need passwords because spyware can send a record of every keystroke, email, etc. accessed, sent or received on her computer and phone. He may have also set up the home network so that he can remotely hack into any device in the home connected to the home network. So, even if TFW has upgraded her equipment, he can still acess remotely.
+++++++++++++
Good grief. For what purpose? I don't believe it for one minute, especially since he's being sued for allegedly hacking. Continuing such actions doesn't make sense, no matter how you look at it. The attorneys would have a field day with that -- it would be easy to prove and make him look like a conspirator, a liar and a fraud.
It's also alleged that he's hacking into her cell phone, so I guess he's had access to her phone and has installed spyware on that, too? Somehow I can't see Jon sitting in his cabin all alone with wires in his ears, listening to Kate's phone conversations, frantically taking notes...for what reason? He certainly couldn't use the information in court..."How was that evidence obtained?" "Well, your honor, I've been hacking into her computer and cell phone."
I agree with whoever said before. . . If TFW believes someone is still accessing her accounts, CHANGE YOUR DAMN PASSWORD!
Marie
Spyware is a plausible reason that someone could still be accessing TFWs accts.
Marie
Over in TFW's County said, "Somehow I can't see Jon sitting in his cabin all alone with wires in his ears, listening to Kate's phone conversations, frantically taking notes...for what reason?"
Right!
So, he could be gathering all this confidential information. He is spending eons of time to collect reams of details ... for what purpose?
He isn't using it to sell to Radar Online. He isn't using it for a custody challenge. He isn't using it to leverage Kate into submission.
Just think what it would be worth for him to prove that Kate is having/has had an affair with Steve.
He seems to be waaaay over his ex-wife. I just don't see the conspiracy to invade her privacy.
Realistically, he could learn all he needs to know by questioning all six 9-year-old chatterboxes.
I don't know Jon well enough to know whether he would do something like use spyware to access TFWs computers, so I won't speculate, but it is possible.
Exactly. That's what is so ridiculous about that allegation. Why would he continue to access it if he knows he's being sued for that very reason? It would certainly be easy to prove if he were illegally accessing her current personal information. What reason would have to do that? If she thinks she's still doing it using her password, then change your darn passwords.
*******
That's some Jason Bourne stuff right there. Mr. & Mrs. Smith meets Enemy of the State.
Jon Gosselin, a slightly paunchy, balding and erstwhile down on his luck man, lives in his unassuming cabin, sequestered in the woods of PA, where he spies on his ex-wife from his underground lair (a repurposed, Nikita Khrushchev, grab-your-ankles-and-kiss-your-ass-goodby, paranoia- inducing, tin can-lined 1950's bomb shelter), equipped with Pentagon E-Ring trappings, allowing him to hack, bug and otherwise record every movement of his ex-wife, all the while, eluding the law, but moreover, his ex-wife's crack security- a Kiwi named Steve.
Realistically, he could learn all he needs to know by questioning all six 9-year-old chatterboxes.
******
Bingo. Jon's said as much- "I know the truth and my kids know the truth".
Wouldn't they use the word "spyware" INSTEAD of "hacking" if this were the case? That would be so easy to prove since it would have to have been installed on HER computer that is still in her hands.
They are wording it so that it says he continues to hack because they want to skirt the SOL.
Marie said... 77
Spyware is a plausible reason that someone could still be accessing TFWs accts.
Marie
*******
Does it make any sense at ALL, that Kate has had "security" for YEARS, in the form of Steve and Co. and something as pedestrian as spyware can't be discovered?
Is Steve the President of the Acme Private Detective Agency?
Didn't someone on a previous thread state that Steve's company profile now says something about cyber security or something like that? If that's true shouldn't "Uncle Steve" be able to run scans on TFW's computer and clean up anything that is found? Also, shouldn't she have been advised long ago to close down existing email and joint accounts and open new ones? I'd check Steve's site but don't know the name of the company.
Tucker's 80
Thanks for the.laugh!
Oct 22 (or was it 23rd?) is a status conference. Sometimes held in open court but more commonly held in chambers. Parties discuss pending motions, how long they will need for discovery, set cut-off dates, trial date, etc. After it is held a scheduling order listing all of the upcoming key dates will be filed and will be part of the public record.
That would make for a real snooze fest of an espionage. I picture Jon hacking into her checking account every morning only to discover yet anther manicure, nobu for lunch, and about 100 cookbooks bought off amazon. Once in awhile she mixes it up and orders from Barnes and noble. Thanks for the laugh.
Joy in VA said:
Anyone have any good colonoscopy stories? Id love to hear them!
*******************
There is no such thing as a good colonoscopy story! :) Well, I take that back. The good ones end with "we found nothing of concern."
Ex Nurse said... 63
''......
I just don't find it believable that a legal team would launch this type of lawsuit based on thin air.''
~~~~~~~~~~~
The lawsuit is based on information that TFMJG gave the legal team, which is the same thing as basing it on thin air!
Whoa.... Paula ! Your bill is $100.00 for your cable bill?? Mine is almost $300.00 and that's not even counting the NFL package. What state do you live in???
Frivolous and unsubstantiated lawsuits can and do get filed all the time. That's what 12b6 motions are for, to get rid of them. This hasn't even gone to the judge yet. On their own they're bailing on numerous allegations. They have dropped so much of the suit already. I guess even they admit at least some of it was thin air.
TFMJG probably went to all the tabloid sites to read about herself, then got ad malware on her computer , and thinks that means the father of the children hacked her, or sent it there with his IT voodoo, or used his powers of persuasion to make all theses nasty interwebs does put the stuff there!
I just don't find it believable that a legal team would launch this type of lawsuit based on thin air.
*****
Well, I've seen it happen on more than one occasion. Sometimes what happens is the client and his/her story sound quite plausible to an attorney. Maybe they are provided with some documents that seem to back up the story. They believe it is worthy of a lawsuit. Especially if they are charging by the hour and require a hefty retainer.
Then the lawsuit gets underway, and the other side of the story comes out. Evidence is provided that shows the claims are flimsy at best. The attorney may realize that his client has been untruthful.
Attorney do have an ethical duty to their clients to provide their best legal opinion on the issues, the likelihood of prevailing on their claim, give them a "worst case scenario" and then let the client decide whether to continue pursing a lawsuit.
Just because something is claimed in a complaint does not mean there is good evidence to back it up. Razzmatazz may say that the hacking is ongoing -- but he will need to prove it. I do not think Jon has gone anywhere near Kate's e-mail or bank accounts since they were first separated and fighting over how the assets were to be split. And if he did so at the time they were still legally married, I'm not even sure that's illegal.
Rhymes with Witch said... 85
Tucker's 80
Thanks for the.laugh!
******
Sometimes I get carried away with comical thought bubbles over my head....
No offense to Ex-Nurse and Marie-- it's just all in fun and of course, time will tell what is really what, hopefully, once and for all and this can get put to bed for the sakes of everyone who is involved, especially the children.
On a security note, we have Lifelock which I think is worthy of looking into. We also had fraud on one of our credit cards recently. Fortunately, the CC company was right on it and contacted us right away.
I mention it, because I sort of wonder if it actually has something to do with someone pilfering through trash!
We had our car filled up in a state that mandates gas attendants and paid with our card. They used the arcane swipe/carbons paperwork method for signage, and I truly wonder if when trash day came along, someone KNEW that the gas station's trash was chock-a-block full of pressed-out credit card imprints.
Anyhoo... certainly not spy-thriller material, but I'd thought I'd share.
tomatoes....I have basic cable...ho hbo, showtime, sports packages or anything, but lots of jewelry channels...it's ridiculous.
As someone stated above, one of the areas of Uncle Steve's company is cyper-security. You're telling me he has never done a scan of TFW's computers or phones....WTH is she paying him for then....don't answer that question.
A judge threw out Nicolette Sheridan's unlawful termination lawsuit today, saying she should have exhausted her claims to a labor commissioner before pursuing a trial.
Whoa, $300 for cable - I guess I DO see why people want to cut cable. Yikes! We keep it because we enjoy cable series such as Dexter, Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, Homeland, etc. We watch almost nothing except those types of shows.
FRP
Thank you for the good laugh over the image of Jon, hunched over his small dining room table in his remote cabin, ear buds in his ears, as he avidly listens in on Kate's inane iPhone conversations - probably to her manicurist, her tanning salon, Fed Ex, Steve, and the countless messages she must be leaving for her publicist. Maybe he's got a 40 watt bulb hanging over head, that swings slightly in the breeze that flits through the creaky ceiling slats. Every once in awhile, he rubs his hands together gleefully. His hair stands up on end (what's left of it), and he probably eats Cheetos while taking notes, so the paper is all greasy and orange-stained.
Yep, I see it all.
Admin-I am assuming that it was boo who emailed you the amended document, so I want to thank her for doing so, and also want to thank you for posting it.
I haven't seen ROL or BV talking about the amended claim, yet when the original was filed they were all over it I don't think either of them will be mentioning it again.
Well, Hopefully this lawsuit is over soon and everyone can move on. I'm sure if there was any spyware installed, a forensic computer tech can find out when it was installed and what IP address is accessing it. It will all come out in the wash as they say.
Marie
Over in TFW's County said...
What does "over1" mean? Is that supposed to be an exclamation mark?
That's the # of the footnote. Look just under the #35 in the complaint and you'll see the ROL url for the article where Robert made that statement.
silimom said...
But didn't it come out that the reason Amazon pulled the book was because Discovery/TLC had complained that the book contained proprietary information, such as their contracts, that Robert had to remove? I remember having conversations about that here.
Yes, I remember the same thing. First was the letter from Amazon re: Laverne & Shirley and then there was mention of TLC/Discovery shortly afterwards and with regard to proprietary information which we assumed was the contracts mentioned in the book.
Marie...the spyware nonsense was brought up by Ex-Nurse. It is not alleged in the complaint.
Jon could have installed a program like Webwatcher. It can record every key stroke, instant messaging, emails, screen shots, everything. Seems what it can do has changed a lot in the last 3-4 years. If you have kids - it's a great tool to monitor their activities. I believed as a mother it was my job to know everything going on. Some may call it invasion of privacy - kids don't need privacy, they need parenting. I had pretty drama free teens but never regret having used this tool. It is installed on the "target" computer and you can access the report from any computer. I would think Kate has upgraded her computer a few times since 2008 or 09 when Jon was her IT go to person.
Can someone briefly describe what was omitted in the amended complaint? Thanks
Ha, ha, Tucker's Mom and Millicent. I think you have the start of an entertaining spy thriller series! The Bourne formula fits:
The Gosselin Identity (sextuplets are born!)
The Gosselin Supremacy (TLC's cash cow!)
The Gosselin Ultimatum (Jon, you must keep filming or else!)
The Gosselin Betrayal (Jon pulls the plug!)
The Gosselin Deception (pretty much everything Gosselin!)
The Gosselin Retribution (TFW's lawsuit!)
Boo, thank you for the information.
http://t.radaronline.com/radaronline/#!/entry/exclusive-video-interview-gosselin-nanny-says-jon-hacked-into-kates,5261af48da27f5d9d03b3fe2
This is a radaronline article quoting Stephanie Santora as saying that Jon was sent a copy of every email from Kate's account. That is a description of software that is installed to track someone on the internet. Depending on the sophistication of the software, it can perform a range of activities that can extend as far as allowing someone to track every keystroke, without the knowledge of the person who is being tracked.
Honestly, I have to laugh when the same people who question every word and action of TFW twist themselves into knots to ignore any of the red flags that surround Jon. Using a wireless device as a hotspot (some cels and pads have that feature) means that he has internet. It is wireless internet access, so, no home wiring involved.
I don't have a clue if or why he would still be hacking. What is the purpose of attacking me for quoting what Jon himself said? Seems like a case of shooting the messenger. I am trying to figure out a scenario in which TFW thinks they have a chance of satisfying the statute of limitations requirement. The wording of the complaint implies that the monitoring or hacking has been ongoing. Since the SOL was 2 years, seems like either they have proof or a strong suspicion that it continued up until at least September of 2011, or they didn't know about it until then. Which was around the time RH's book came out.
If they can't satisfy the SOL requirement, wouldn't that part have been dismissed? No one seems to know if the motion to dismiss has been considered yet. Is this part of the upcoming pre-trial hearing that is scheduled?
Twice, not once but TWICE, this amended complaint speaks of Jon "Goesslin". Oh well. I give its author a B- grade on that missed typo alone and a C- for all the other reasons.
High Sodium Content said... 104
*****
Great points. You've got to be a parent first, friend second. The internet is the wild wild west out there, and you've got to appoint yourself Sheriff of Computerville.
Amazon pulled the book due to possible violation of intellectual property rights after they received a letter from Laverne and Shirley.
TLC's lawyers sent Robert a cease and desist due to his use of confidential information. I cannot find the whole letter since it is no longer on Robert's site, but part of it was posted here at the time:
"Discovery is concerned that your self-published book entitled "Kate Gosselin: How She Fooled the World," which we are reviewing now, contains Discovery's trade secret and other confidential information protected by law."
Amazon did not state that they pulled the book because of TLC, they pulled it due to Kate's lawyers saying that Robert infringed on Kate's proprietary rights.
An article on ROL summed it up pretty well:
"We’re told Amazon notified Hoffman that it removed the book – pending further investigation — after receiving notice that it “may not be properly authorized by the appropriate rights holder.” That notice of infringement came from Lavely & Singer.
Williams & Connolly, representing Discovery Communications, Inc. also apparently sent Hoffman a legal letter informing him that his book contained confidential information protected by law and demanding he “cease and desist from dissemination” of that information."
Not that neither said that he obtained information illegally or that it was false, yet Kate's lawyers are alleging that that is the reason why the book was pulled.
Paula said... 103
Marie...the spyware nonsense was brought up by Ex-Nurse. It is not alleged in the complaint.
______
No, any access that exceeds authorization is defined as hacking. So, intalling snooping programs on someone's computer, (a form of spyware), meets the definition of hacking for the purposes of the CFAA.
Et tu Tucker's Mom? ;-D
OOPS--correction:
Since the SOL was 2 years, seems like either they have proof or a strong suspicion that it continued up until at least September of 2011, or they didn't know about it until a later date, that does fall into the SOL period.
That's the # of the footnote. Look just under the #35 in the complaint and you'll see the ROL url for the article where Robert made that statement.
+++++++++++
Thanks! I thought footnotes were used outside quotation marks, in small raised numbers, not included within the quotes like was used here:
"I’ll be sued by one or more parties before this is over1." Shouldn't it have been "...before this is over."1 (small raised 1)?
But what do I know...it's been a long time since I used footnotes. Works Cited, MLA style is what I've always used, with citations within the text, not footnotes!
Twice, not once but TWICE, this amended complaint speaks of Jon "Goesslin". Oh well. I give its author a B- grade on that missed typo alone and a C- for all the other reasons.
+++++++++
That's okay -- they think that Kate lives in Sinking Spring and that Jon lives in Wyomissing! Good luck finding Jon Goesslin in Wyomissing.
Good Grief!! I'm shaking my head over the assumption that just because some attorney alleged in a law suit that something happened that means it is true...or has some basis in fact.
I've heard people say that if a grand jury indicts a person, they must be guilty.
I wonder if that is why TFMJG is demanding a jury trial?
(^^^^^ all the above is severe sarcasm) !! !!!!!!
If her personal stuff was soooo top secret, why didn't she change the passwords the night she kicked him out of the house? Or going back further, why not change them the day she decided she was going forward with the divorce?
If I was married to an IT guy I no longer trusted, I'd change my passwords that day, and pay someone to check everything I owned for spyware, hacking, and whatever else they'd recommend.
Seems to me that TFW was pretty cavalier about not protecting her stuff.
57. "By using this information in the publication of a book about Plaintiff, Defendants gave publicity to the information obtained from Plaintiff’s private and password-protected e-mail account, online banking accounts, and cellular phone, and disclosed private facts obtained from these sources to the general public."
Yup, TFW's confirming the information in the book is TRUE. She just doesn't like that the "FACTS" were disclosed.
I still don't understand how she will be able to prove that the facts in the book defamed her and that the damage to her reputation hadn't already been done by her own words and deeds long before anyone had ever heard of RH and his book though.
tongue in cheek and snarking:
I'm kind of surprised (but not really) that ROL wasn't named in the suit. I mean, they published supposedly damaging information without verifying the accuracy, right? Aren't they as much to blame as the Does whom TFW says conspired to defame her? Aren't they as much a party to this as anyone else? They profited from the articles they ran. They have deeper pockets to collect damages from. (end of snark)
Since the SOL was 2 years, seems like either they have proof or a strong suspicion that it continued up until at least September of 2011, or they didn't know about it until then. Which was around the time RH's book came out.
++++++++++++
The complaint doesn't give an ending date to the alleged hacking. What is alleged is that "On information and belief, Jon has continued to access Kate's email account, online banking account,
and cellphone (24).
On information and belief, Jon's unauthorized access to known password protected accounts through
the Internet has been continuous and systematic. (25)
"had continued," isn't past tense, and neither is "has been continuous." What they are alleging is that Jon is still hacking the computer. What other interpretation could there be?
Millicent said...
I do not think Jon has gone anywhere near Kate's e-mail or bank accounts since they were first separated and fighting over how the assets were to be split. And if he did so at the time they were still legally married, I'm not even sure that's illegal.
__________
The amended complaint specifically says that he accessed her email account after they were divorced, based on information and belief.
The truth is that none of us know what really happened. I get that many of our posters want to believe the best of Jon--I do too. My heart breaks for the poor little rich kids. If anything good will come of this, it will be that this shameful period in their family history will be put to rest.
I don't mind anyone refuting the facts, as long as there is some kind of logic there. But ridiculing anyone who puts forth an honest and thoughtful opinion is only going to discourage other people from posting here.
Et tu Tucker's Mom? ;-D
*******
Mea culpa, Ex-Nurse!
I was channeling Micky Spillane ;-)
No one seems to know if the motion to dismiss has been considered yet. Is this part of the upcoming pre-trial hearing that is scheduled?
The motion to dismiss has not been heard by the judge yet. I haven't heard anything about Jon removing the motion. I'd imagine it will be part of the many other matters presented to the court during upcoming proceedings.
Ex-Nurse, are you channeling Minority Report?
;-D
Marie...the spyware nonsense was brought up by Ex-Nurse. It is not alleged in the complaint.
+++++++++
The suit was filed because of alleged hacking of personal information. Hacking takes many forms, and even though not specifically spelled out in the complaint, spyware is a form of hacking.
I just want to share a story that happened to my brother. It shows how difficult it can be to prove you are an expert witness and how easy it can be to shut your testimony down.
My brother had a small business doing maintenance on semi trucks. He was asked to be an expert witness to prove a semi truck had mechanical issues and caused an accident. He never specialized in one make of semi's but had many years experience with any and all.
When he was called to testify the lawyer drilled him with questions like, have you worked on X truck? Yes. Have you worked on the brakes, etc. on X trucks? The lawyer went through every part of an X truck he could possibly think of. Of course my brother said "well no. Only engines. So you have worked on every part of the engine on X trucks. Well no, many but not all. So then your not an EXPERT of X trucks." My brother said he felt so stupid when the lawyer was done with him and he would never call himself an expert again. At least when it comes to testifying. lol Lesson learned.
I meant to add that IF Jon has installed a program, he would have seen screen shots of her online banking and $$$$ balances. He would have been a fool to not have had forensic accountants during the divorce. I do think he didn't have adequate representation during those years though. So he was given the stick up the butt and she's still got all the hidden $$. If she didn't have hidden assets she would be panicking, pimping that book 24/2, not the owner of 3 cars. She'd be out mowing her own lawn, LOL, and the kids would be in public school.
Over in TFW's Country said...
"had continued," isn't past tense, and neither is "has been continuous." What they are alleging is that Jon is still hacking the computer. What other interpretation could there be?
__________
I agree with that interpretation as it is written. I was giving some latitude that there may be some errors in tense. Doesn't the term "information and belief" mean that there is some kind of documentation to backup the claim?
I'm laughing that people think that they know what Jon has, or has not done. On the one hand, he is an IT genius who runs his Apple TV on magic internet, but, at the same time, he wouldn't be capable of cracking into a home network that he probably set up himself.
I do recall a photo from Robert Hoffman documenting his finding the treasure trove of the TFMFG's trash with a photo. I am sure he has many more. Good luck to the witch in court. He has the goods. RH is confidant and never needed Jon's help. Kate Gosselin is just vengeful and that account for her stupid.
Hacking takes many forms, and even though not specifically spelled out in the complaint
I believe that is what I wrote....that spyware was not specifically listed in the complaint. Shouldn't the complaint have spelled out HOW they believe the alleged hacking took place?
Also, spyware can be loaded onto any computer at any time by certain unscrupulous sites. Kate's computer could have picked up the spyware as she was surfing the web.
I sure hope that Robert really did give the money to charities for abused kids. I hope he can really shoot that one out of the court room and shut her and that lawyer up.
I just can't understand why the sheeple overlook the fact that she has never denied the info. that was stolen. I guess to do so now would make them partaker of her sins for letting it go for so long. How many of them have said they basically abwhore husband and child abuse?
I wonder how Milo and the others feel now. The "ghaters" have started their death role/roll. (either way you read it. lol)
I'm laughing that people think that they know what Jon has, or has not done
But yet, you are the one who brought this whole conversation up with your assertion that because Jon had Apple TV he had to have access to the internet. So, now you're turning it around to be about other people. You're good Ex-Nurse, but I'm on to you.
I don't mind anyone refuting the facts, as long as there is some kind of logic there. But ridiculing anyone who puts forth an honest and thoughtful opinion is only going to discourage other people from posting here.
******
I think having arguments presented on both sides keeps us honest.
Tuker's Mom... thanks. I did/do believe it is a parent's job to be in a kid's business. And I did have easy kids, they had close relationships with my parents. I saved my daughter the heartbreak of a cheating boy friend - of years. Serial cheater. She is now happily married. She doesn't to this day know how, but we have a strong connection. We'll say the same thing or think the same thing about something at the same time. It's almost scary. I could not be prouder of the young wife she is and future mother - they're working on it. Mother's intuition is unexplainable, from the day they are born and you must know they have an ear infection or need a hug.
OT my son's dog is so sad, she's undergoing heart worm treatment - spent 2 nights at the vet this week. Can't have any excitement or even exercise until April. She had two shots in the butt area this week and can't even jump up to her favorite seat - my husband made a step for her that she figured out. Next week when the prednisone kicks in she'll turn into a eating and drinking machine. On another note, my daughter adopted her son at the same time my son adopted her, so she gets to see her son often. :)
It does not take a genius to set up an Apple TV without the Internet. Just looking at those simple steps I understand it and know exactly how to do it. Give me one and I'll do it right now. It's not hard if you have a basic understanding of home networks.
I have no doubt Jon was curious about Kate's spending during the divorce because they were dividing assets and he alluded that Kate was bein dishonest. He had motive. In fact when this first came up was exactly when Kate was accused of taking money from the joint account. Makes perfect sense he was interested then. Obviously. After that I simply cannot believe he has continued this. The motive is gone. The divorce is over. That ship has sailed. Knowing what is going on with her doesn't do anything for him anymore. A good attorney looks for motive and once it goes away, so does the plausibility. I think Kate's ideas are irrational and paranoid. I think she thinks he's obsessed with bringing her down. I simply don't see evidence of such a ludicrous idea. That's my opinion.
Over In TFW's County said
I thought footnotes were used outside quotation marks, in small raised numbers, not included within the quotes like was used here:
"I’ll be sued by one or more parties before this is over1." Shouldn't it have been "...before this is over."1 (small raised 1)?
You're right. But, with misspelled names, wrong addresses, questionable verb tense, and frivolous claims, it's no wonder their footnoting skills aren't up to high school writing standards. lol
Doesn't the term "information and belief" mean that there is some kind of documentation to backup the claim?
"Documentation"? You'd think so, but that's not necessarily the case. They could be going by the statements and beliefs of the truth by their client. In this case it also depends on their definition and the extent of their interpretation/application of the word hacking.
OT my son's dog is so sad, she's undergoing heart worm treatment - spent 2 nights at the vet this week. Can't have any excitement or even exercise until Apri
**********
Wow, I had no idea it takes that long to recover. That's a lucky puppy-- many people wouldn't or couldn't treat a sickly dog. I'm glad he's surrounded by family and kiddo.
On the one hand, he is an IT genius who runs his Apple TV on magic internet, but, at the same time, he wouldn't be capable of cracking into a home network that he probably set up himself.
Heavens, I've set up Apple TV here at home and I'm definitely not anything close to being an IT person, let alone trained as one, but cracking into someone's home network is WELL above my skills. They're nothing remotely similar, imo.
In fact when this first came up was exactly when Kate was accused of taking money from the joint account.
******
I believe she admitted to taking the money, then was told to put it back so she did. She claimed it was sort of preemptive.
Paula said... 131
''I'm laughing that people think that they know what Jon has, or has not done''
*******
''But yet, you are the one who brought this whole conversation up...''
''So, now you're turning it around to be about other people....''
~~~~~~~~
Paula...you are so right. I call that the ''you hit me back'' charge. lol
So, what is the procedure now? Do Jon/Robert's lawyers respond to Kate? Or is the 10/22 hearing to deal with this?
Jon Gosselin, a slightly paunchy, balding and erstwhile down on his luck man, lives in his unassuming cabin, sequestered in the woods of PA, where he spies on his ex-wife from his underground lair (a repurposed, Nikita Khrushchev, grab-your-ankles-and-kiss-your-ass-goodby, paranoia- inducing, tin can-lined 1950's bomb shelter), equipped with Pentagon E-Ring trappings, allowing him to hack, bug and otherwise record every movement of his ex-wife, all the while, eluding the law, but moreover, his ex-wife's crack security- a Kiwi named Steve.
+++++++
Funny stuff! Will the movie be next, a spin-off of "A Beautiful Mind," in which Gosselin goes to the Pentagon to crack encrypted enemy communication and mentally deciphers the code. In the lead role of Gosselin will be Paolo Montalban (Cinderella); Pink as Kate Gosselin; and Steve Neild as himself.
Agree Suzee. I've set up all kinds of stuff like that. Wireless routers, home networks, I bought this HDMI cord so I can watch HULU on my TV without actually paying for a HULU subscription and set that all up even so it came through the TV speakers. But could I hack someboday's BANK ACCOUNT? Um, NO. Technology "life hacks" in which there are abundant youtube and self help sites guiding you step by step through what is often pretty EASY processes, are apples and oranges from criminal "hacking."
If Jon were hacking into Kate's bank accounts, forget Kate - her bank would be all over Jon themselves. This accusation defies logic.
I believe she admitted to taking the money, then was told to put it back so she did. She claimed it was sort of preemptive.
&&&
That's what i recall as well. I recall her saying yes I took the money but you see I "had" to because of a, b, and c.
All the more reason for Jon to be interested in her accounts. Not only did she prove right there and then she was perfectly willing to take money she was told by the COURT OF LAW she is NOT to touch, but she tried to justify what she did. She proved that she was going to play by her own rules not the court's rules.
If you mess with money once you'll do it again. I don't begrudge anyone doing what is necessary so as not to be screwed in a divorce.
her bank would be all over Jon themselves.
&&&
Had the same thought. What bank in their right minds would sit back and allow such a thing to happen and then be trumpeted in a public law suit? It could ruin them. An IT guy from Philly is capable of hacking into Bank of America or M&T or wherever she banks, they've got big problems.
Having duplicate emails sent is SIMPLE, even gmail can do that for you. It's as easy as one two three and requires no "hacking" whatsoever. I could do it right now to someone's account whose open and they'd never know. Simply go to the "forwarding" tab in options and make sure a copy is always kept on the original account. However "hacking" into someone's bank account these days usually requires some impressive skills and experience. Not buying it. The biggest indicator is that the police would be involved. They would be for such a serious allegation. You don't have to wait for a civil lawsuit for HACKING. You call the POLICE.
Doesn't the term "information and belief" mean that there is some kind of documentation to backup the claim?
&&&
No. It's a fancy way for saying it's all conjecture. Lawyer speak.
I just can't understand why the sheeple overlook the fact that she has never denied the info. that was stolen.
---
It's what they do best. They've skirted their way around the boob job...they're good at overlooking facts. I guess the only way they'd believe it is if they had an up close and personal experience with the new girls.
Paula said... 141
If Jon were hacking into Kate's bank accounts, forget Kate - her bank would be all over Jon themselves. This accusation defies logic.
*************
If the bank didn't know that Jon was accessing the bank account, then they wouldn't jump all over him. Playing devil's advocate, if Jon knew Kate's login and password information, the bank would have no reason to believe that anyone was hacking in. It would only be brought to their attention if Kate reported it to the police, which I'm assuming she didn't because they didn't. But now Kate is filing a lawsuit against Jon for doing exactly that. I don't understand it myself . . . I'm would assume that if she knew he was accessing her accounts, she would report it to the federal authorities for identity theft, etc., instead of waiting and filing a civil lawsuit against Jon. Can't find the logic.
Marie
a fancy way for saying it's all conjecture. Lawyer speak
Sort of a CYA?
From an online legal dictionary, the definition of information and belief:
information and belief
n. a phrase often used in legal pleadings (complaints and answers in a lawsuit), declarations under penalty of perjury, and affidavits under oath, in which the person making the statement or allegation qualifies it. In effect, he/she says: "I am only stating what I have been told, and I believe it." This makes clear about which statements he/she does not have sure-fire, personal knowledge (perhaps it is just hearsay or surmise) and protects the maker of the statement from claims of outright falsehood or perjury.
So it's similar to someone telling you something and you believe it to be true even if they have no proof that it is true. Is that correct?
I found the phrase
In the law of evidence, the phrase information and belief identifies a statement that is made, not from firsthand knowledge, but "based on secondhand information that the declarant believes is true."[1]
On the one hand, he is an IT genius who runs his Apple TV on magic internet, but, at the same time, he wouldn't be capable of cracking into a home network that he probably set up himself.
-----
Who posted that he probably wouldn't be able to set it up himself? I haven't read all the posts, but the ones that I have read suggested that since he has experience in IT it should have been easy for him to set it up.
Here's a simpler definition:
Information And Belief
Language used in legal proceedings to qualify a statement and prevent a claim of perjury. A person making a statement based on information and belief often lacks personal knowledge as to the statement but has a belief that the information is correct. In effect, the person is saying, "I am only stating what I have been told, and I believe it."
Sounds about right Kate is a twit. I've never used that phrase but I do often use "on or about March 12" or whatever the date. That's just a basic protection I rely on because if someone is not remembering it exactly right and it was actually March 11th or even 10th or 9th, which does happen, you're not making them look like a liar. You're leaving it open to say hey I'm just remembering this the best that I can, no promises.
To me just saying X person believes is enough to make it clear it's just their recollections. IMO Upon information and belief weakens the statement unnecessarily.
I agree with that interpretation as it is written. I was giving some latitude that there may be some errors in tense.
---------
"Has been continuous" isn't an error in tense. The word "continuous" clearly means without interruption, constant, unending.
if Jon knew Kate's login and password information, the bank would have no reason to believe that anyone was hacking in.
&&&
At that point then that falls on Kate doesn't it? She should change her username and password.
No one should have the same password from four years ago anyway and you should definitely as a rule change them after breaking up with something. COMMON SENSE.
Anyway this is all so silly since I don't see a shred of evidence anyone is hacking anyone's bank accounts or anything else for that matter. At the very LEAST not now. MAYBE, possibly, during the divorce when money was an issue, people may have looked at accounts. But now, it's all made up in Kate's head. Heck after four years of hacking someone's bank account you would think Jon would be richer. Or is this just for fun, like bowling or knitting? I find the whole idea flat out absurd.
Man I *hate* it when I hit send accidentally. What I was going to say was that I found the phrase "on information and belief" interesting.
So it sounds like (and all you legal eagles please correct me) that what that phrase is saying is the Kate is saying that Jon is hacking her and the person who drafted the complaint is saying "I just noted what she said".
If Kate has bipolar, and that is something I am only speculating about as it was mentioned in Robert's book and I have no independent verification, and it is untreated she could be going through a bipolar psychosis. One symptom is paranoia.
I too find it hard to believe that Jon has been hacking into her phone and personal accounts but time will tell, I guess.
I would however go for a reality show about D-list hackers with the skills of a PhD from MIT who look at checking accounts all day muttering over all the Nobu charges bought with their child support and maybe even hide out in farm houses in rural France.
At that point then that falls on Kate doesn't it? She should change her username and password.
No one should have the same password from four years ago anyway and you should definitely as a rule change them after breaking up with something. COMMON SENSE.
Anyway this is all so silly since I don't see a shred of evidence anyone is hacking anyone's bank accounts or anything else for that matter. At the very LEAST not now. MAYBE, possibly, during the divorce when money was an issue, people may have looked at accounts. But now, it's all made up in Kate's head. Heck after four years of hacking someone's bank account you would think Jon would be richer. Or is this just for fun, like bowling or knitting? I find the whole idea flat out absurd.
*************
I feel like you are overreacting. Hacking into someone's bank account doesn't mean they are stealing anything. They might just be hacking in to see what's going on, i.e., how much money is there, what has been paid out, come in, etc. Just to make you aware, if someone installs a webwatcher spyware on your computer, they can see all of your keystrokes and if Kate did change her password and then log into her bank account again, the spyware would pick up her keystrokes and the login information would be attained again. I'm not saying that is what happened, I am saying that is something that is possible to do.
I also said in my previous post that if Kate thought someone was accessing her bank accounts through spyware, she should have reported it to the federal authorities for identity theft and the purpetrating would have been prosecuted under federal law. That is why this civil lawsuit makes no sense to me.
Marie
Can you imagine what it would be like being a family member or neighbor of a real life Gladys Kravitz?
Fired Up 4 Kate @MiloandJack 1h
@Kateplusmy8 Now when U get all "quiet & tweetless" we worry abt U being maybe sick again? #BrokeFoot #KidneyStone Are you ok? :)
Fired Up 4 Kate @MiloandJack 1h
@Kateplusmy8 Well Hi there Kate...how's my #TwitterMate? It's been a " double moon" since we last spoke...:)
I can just see Kate sitting there, reading her tweets, rolling her eyes, pulling out her hair, and screaming, "Milo, for the love of god, back off!!!!!"
So it sounds like (and all you legal eagles please correct me) that what that phrase is saying is the Kate is saying that Jon is hacking her and the person who drafted the complaint is saying "I just noted what she said".
&&&
Agree. The fact of the matter is as an attorney you usually weren't there and that much of the time you are dealing with a he said she said situation. Usually you can only go by what was told to you, and you can only present what you were told. The proper way to discuss things is according to this, or my client has said this. I personally don't think it's proper when attorneys cross that line and start talking about things as if it's a given it's true. You are an advocate and a representative and can do all that and present things like a good advocate, but that does not mean you know what really happened or have any business framing things as if you do. It might seem odd, but good attorneys don't always ask their clients "did you do it?" Because if your client tells you one thing and you present a brief suggesting another thing, that's unethical.
For instance if Kate said look I don't REALLY think this happened I just want to GET Jon, it would be unethical for her attorneys to file such a thing. It's quite possible they never even looked her in the eye and said, you can't be serious about all this hacking nonsense, can you? It's quite possible instead they said you just tell us what you think happened and we'll frame it into a brief and causes of action.
I used to work for a bank, and we had a few customers come in and insist that someone accessed their online account and did unauthorized transactions. The first question we asked them was if they filed a police report.
The bank would not investigate further until a police report was filed because if and when a culprit was found the bank wanted to make sure that the customer would pursue pressing charges. This was standard operating procedure for any forgery, fraud or impersonation whether it was done online or in person.
I also said in my previous post that if Kate thought someone was accessing her bank accounts through spyware, she should have reported it to the federal authorities for identity theft and the purpetrating would have been prosecuted under federal law. That is why this civil lawsuit makes no sense to me.
&&
Me too, and a big reason I find it all so implausible. If anyone truly felt they were being hacked on such a serious level, I would hope they would go to the police or FBI for heaven sake. Not to Razz-a-matazz!
Kate is a twit that's interesting. At Bank of America a few years ago someone bought something in Texas using my card. I was never in Texas. I never filed a police report and the bank never asked me to but I told BofA all about it and they told me they would take care of it. The money was immediately refunded and I never heard anything again. I assume maybe they have some kind of fraud department that might contact law enforcement on their own? Maybe because they had refunded my money it had now become "their" money they were after, therefore they were now the one's with standing to go after the Texas phantom? I never bothered to call back to ask what happened since I got my money back, it was only 40 bucks.
My housemate's investment accounts were accessed by her former housemate several years ago. The HM dug around in personal papers in a locked file drawer (broke into it by sliding a carving knife along the side to slip lock) and tried passwords until she found the right ones.) When my friend discovered this, she called police. POLICE CALLED FEDERAL MARSHAL and THEY set up spyware on the ACCOUNTS. Any time those accounts are accessed now, the feds know all about it. My friend has been told to NOT access her own accounts at all, which is why she needed a place to stay and is now MY housemate.
Kate is a twit that's interesting. At Bank of America a few years ago someone bought something in Texas using my card. I was never in Texas. I never filed a police report and the bank never asked me to but I told BofA all about it and they told me they would take care of it. The money was immediately refunded and I never heard anything again. I assume maybe they have some kind of fraud department that might contact law enforcement on their own? Maybe because they had refunded my money it had now become "their" money they were after, therefore they were now the one's with standing to go after the Texas phantom? I never bothered to call back to ask what happened since I got my money back, it was only 40 bucks.
*8888888888888
Normally, my bank would notify me if someone in another state is trying to charge something on my bank debit card. I have to inform my bank that I am going to be traveling in order to not get my bank card cancelled.
Marie
Admin-I believe credit card transactions are handled differently. I'm talking about personal banking accounts.
I log on every morning and often more so I saw the charge myself.
My bank occasionally will send out an email if I'm out of the country just saying hey there's some transactions from X country let us know if it's an issue. But just for Texas no I don't believe they did. I've been to Texas many times. It would be annoying to get an email for every Starbucks or Walmart purchase there!
This was a debit card.
Jon's remarks in the roundtable included the fact that the kids used google and Youtube "here". Why are so many people having a hard time accepting the fact that it is at least possible that he does have internet at his cabin? There is no crime in that--the later stories that said he didn't have internet didn't have direct quotes. That may have been incorrect.
Paula, believe it or not, I have no agenda when it comes to Jon or TFW. Like everyone else, including you, I read and I comment on my thoughts and observations. It is beyond me why everyone is rehashing the 2009 hacking and money transfer when it is clear that the lawsuit is alleging continued hacking after the divorce. What does one have to do with the other?
Thanks for the clarification on information and belief--I had that wrong. I assumed that "information" meant some kind of proveable basis for the complaint.
So, the conventional wisdom is that this entire thing will just collapse like a house of cards? For the kids' sakes, I hope it does. Wishing doesn't make it so.
Tucker's Mom--I could use a pre-cog right about now. Or an eyeball transplant.
I have no doubt that she tried to get criminal charges against Jon, and failed to make a case for that. However, the CFAA does allow for civil suits, which is what this is.
Jon's remarks in the roundtable included the fact that the kids used google and Youtube "here". Why are so many people having a hard time accepting the fact that it is at least possible that he does have internet at his cabin?
&&&
Because 4G is so ubiquitous and it's silly to lie about not having real internet at home and there's no MOTIVE to lie about such a silly thing. All he was saying was it's a simple country life out here we don't even have internet I'm giving my kids a simple life. That was his point. Why is THAT so hard to believe? *Shrug*
What does it matter whether he has or doesn't have it at home anyway? It doesn't mean he has no access to internet at all. He has emailed me (always during business hours, incidentally), he obviously has internet in his life at some point. Starbucks, work, the library, the free wireless everywhere. He can access the interwebs at some point. It's silly to quibble and quibble and quibble over it.
My DVR records Seinfeld and they had one where Kramer had a kidney stone. Haha!
Among the many funny parts, he decides he's going to get rid of his refrigerator. Jerry asks why. He says because he wants to eat ALL FRESH FOOD everything must be FRESH to prevent more stones. He doesn't even want the temptation of a fridge. If he's not going to use the fridge, he wanted the space. LOL.
Ex nurse are you familiar with iphones, the youtube app, and 4G? Kate herself said the twins have iphones. They can get youtube for free on their phone. Anywhere. Even at Jon's. It is a fair statement to say you have no internet while still saying the kids look at youtube "here." On their phones, clearly. This whole conversation was based on a faulty premise, that someone who doesn't have internet cannot have access to Youtube, Google, and apple TV some other way (THE PHONE) and therefore, must be lying. Sigh.
Frankly I don't even see kids on computers anymore. They look at the internet all on their phones now.
Frankly I don't even see kids on computers anymore. They look at the internet all on their phones now
So true. The only time my child opens her laptop is for a homework assignment. I swear she sleeps with that phone glued to her side. It's crazy.
Admin...
Agree 100%. Paranoia and narcissism together. If you want so see similarities look at the real life story to Ted and Generosa Ammon. She had him murdered because of her paranoia and narcissism. It was a heartbreaking story. A couple years after she had him murdered, she died of breast cancer, karma. I recently rewatched the story on tv and could not stop thinking about Kate.
I know I'm behind but I had to comment on the turning 13 blog. First, at age 13, I would die if my mom was at my sleepover. My best friend and I planned and executed our birthday party together. We had summer birthdays, planned the pool party and our moms were there inside just in case. At 10, I had my big sleepover birthday party. My mom did not join in. In fact, we all watched Dirty Dancing!! I know. Too young. But it was all the rage in 1988. I didn't believe much of it because it lacks common sense. She doesn't realize this because she doesn't do it. It reminds me of in the movie 40 year old virgin when he describes a woman's breast like a bag of sand...13 year olds don't shriek and where birthday hats and hang out with mom with their friends. My gosh, Kate sounded like she was a 13 year old BFF...we...we...we??
No one else mentioned this and it really bothered me. She made mention of at times how her children were "unlovable". I can't believe she could say that. Ever! Sometimes our kids do things we don't like and sometimes we don't like them very much at the moment, but never, ever, for one second is your child ever unlovable. I was shocked! I know her kids read her website. I can't tell you how hurt I would be to read that at 13 or any age.
By the way she is not their friend, she is a parent. She does not act like one. Has she ever parented them? Over structured days, chores...that isn't parenting and neither is beating them. I think that may explain some of the Katie Couric behavior. I have first had DEVASTATING knowledge of what lack of parenting can do to a family. I am living it now. My cousin is very troubled and may go to prison because of these same issues. If you don't change when they are younger, forget it when they are older. I have given up hope on my cousin...antisocial personality disorder, parental denial. Our family has been through hell for the last 15 months. She gets sentenced in December. She's only 20! It could be as bad as 3-5 years. They are hoping less. I don't know anymore. She won't learn. I have offered help, it falls on deaf ears. They are hoping for house arrest. Ugh. I believe she will reoffend. It's so hard. My point...kids needs parents, not friends. I know Kates house is like a military base, but I have never seen real parenting...which is what they need.
I'll step off my soap box. Thanks for listening.
BTW...Red Sox fan here too!!
Jon does not have to hack into the Bank of America or anywhere else. If he has or had software installed on the home network, he could have accessed any computer on the network, and been provided with every web search, image, file, keystore, access code etc.
It doesn't matter that there are multiple ways to achieve the same results, i.e. email forwarding, 3g networks etc. He is accused of specifically hacking into her computer, phone and accounts.
I respect that some of the legal eagles here think that the complaint may be baseless. It might very well be. Or, it could have happened too long ago for the SOL. I accept that there are multiple scenarios that can happen--there almost always is. I just find it really hard to believe that this would progress this far if the grounds were absolutely trumped up and baseless and the timeline ends in 2009. This may be a normal occurence between private parties, but this is being played out in the public arena.
Debit card transactions are handled similar to credit card transactions, and there is usually a dollar amount up to which you would not liable for if your account was used without authorization. BOA most likely paid it without question due to the small amount of the transaction.
You can read more about credit and debit card liability here.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unauthorized-credit-debit-card-charges-29654.html
Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 167
My DVR records Seinfeld and they had one where Kramer had a kidney stone. Haha!
Among the many funny parts, he decides he's going to get rid of his refrigerator. Jerry asks why. He says because he wants to eat ALL FRESH FOOD everything must be FRESH to prevent more stones. He doesn't even want the temptation of a fridge. If he's not going to use the fridge, he wanted the space. LOL
(
LOL didn't he have a mic on or something? Somehow the final passing was broadcast in the whole place?
In the "Commenwealth Of Pennsylvania" the idea of being legally separate after being married and remaining in the same household becomes very gray and murky.
Even after separation...you will find banks, 3rd parties will not become involved.
The woman is a moron.
Enjoyed my guffaws earlier this pm. Does a body good! Just thinking, I'd LOVE to see TFW on TV one last time...before Judge Judy...
It is beyond me why everyone is rehashing the 2009 hacking and money transfer when it is clear that the lawsuit is alleging continued hacking after the divorce.
----------------
Probaby because the complaint clearly refers to the divorce and subsequent alleged theft of passwords, etc., in 2009:
"In 2009, the couple separated in a high profile and public divorce.
After the divorce, Jon began accessing Kate's password-protected email account without her authorization."
Isn't this when the theft of her personal info from the trash occurred? In 2009, when she threw Jon out of the garage apartment? If so, then the lawsuit clearly is about what happened in 2009.
The 20 "Does" are people who may have communicated with Hoffman. Which to me says journal = reality= witnesses. Hoffman was smart enough to find backup to the unthinkable; to what he read from the journals. And now TFW wants to shake those paper contracts in their faces...as if going against a confidentiality agreement is a greater crime than what the journals allege.
October 18, 2013 at 6:16 PM
Kate is a twit said... 165
Admin-I believe credit card transactions are handled differently. I'm talking about personal banking accounts.
October 18, 2013 at 6:17 PM
Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 166
I log on every morning and often more so I saw the charge myself.
My bank occasionally will send out an email if I'm out of the country just saying hey there's some transactions from X country let us know if it's an issue. But just for Texas no I don't believe they did. I've been to Texas many times. It would be annoying to get an email for every Starbucks or Walmart purchase there!
*********8
I go to New Hampshire all of the time but since I don't live there, I need to let my bank know before I go so that they don't shut my card down if I make a charge at a store there. It is kind of inconvenient but it makes me feel good that they are watching my account.
Marie
Tuker's Mom, it is expensive, but not as bad as the estimates he was given. First was antibiotic, then the first round of injection w/ one night stay at vet, then a month later this recent stay. It interrupted my son's continuing with this semester at college, but he made his own choice. Daisy could have not survived the treatment. She can't get her heat rate up because as the worms die they could block her heart and/or lungs. This treatment the estimate was $750 but came in only at $550 or so, so he was happy with that. She's only around 3 and is a good dog, very loving, the vet's office loves her. She's easy enough for me to handle with my bad hip, knee and back.
Buy the way did any one catch Kate saying during the One-on-One interview that SHE did the pick up and drop off when the kids visit Jon? Not according to any of his interviews, he drives 1/2 hour to get them, 1/2 hour back to his house, 1/2 hour back to drop them off and 1/2 hour back home. It is too bad the she can't help at all facilitating the visits, especially during the week nights.
I swear she sleeps with that phone glued to her side. It's crazy.
This isn't healthy. I loved that OP keeping track of her kids' online activity. I did the same thing. Privacy be damned. They'll have their privacy when they turn 18.
I go to New Hampshire all of the time but since I don't live there, I need to let my bank know before I go so that they don't shut my card down if I make a charge at a store there. It is kind of inconvenient but it makes me feel good that they are watching my account.
Marie
******
Is this a credit card or debit card? Wow, I can't imagine having to let my bank card know when I'm crossing state lines.... if I'm understanding this correctly?
My debit card and my credit cards. I'm happy to oblige since it does protect all of my accounts.
Msrie
Tucker's Mom - do you love those NH beaches or the State Liquor stores? LOL
Two questions:
1.) How much do lawyers cost per hour? TFW must be spending a mint of money on this dumb lawsuit.
2.) What does she does she do for health insurance coverage for her and her 8 kids?
Everyone has basically covered all the complaints really well! All I have to say is that if that's all she's got she's done. She is flushing the money the kids made down the toilet. Not to bright!
Baseball: well Dodgers are done. I hope any team Red Sox or Tigers beat those obnoxious Cardinals!!!
Regarding the credit card discussion, I recently received a call from my Visa card company, asking whether I was shopping at Walmart. I said no,and they stated that someone was trying to use my credit card to make a large (several thousand dollars) purchase from that store. I rarely make such large credit card purchases, and odd as it may sound, I have never shopped at Walmart. They refused to approve the charge, and also told me that a small ($50) charge had previously been made at Walmart on my card. I said it wasn't me, and they simply took the charge off my bill. I had had that credit card for 14 years, so they trusted me. A couple weeks later, I received a call from my other Visa card company saying that someone was trying to transfer a credit card balance of more than $14,000 onto my card! They also had made some small purchases using the card. Once again, I told them it wasn't me, and the transfer was denied and the charges taken off my bill. I had had that card for about 17 years. No police report required. My cards were cancelled and new ones issued. I am a creature of habit, I guess, so they seem to know where I shop and what amounts I tend to spend. Now, if something unusual comes up, they call me on my cell and ask if it is me making the purchase. Thankfully, since the cards were re-issued, there have been no problems. And I check my credit report frequently, just in case.
I think that TFW is aware that Jon said in an interview recently that she is sitting on a pile of money, and she just assumes that means he has been hacking into her accounts. She doesn't understand that he can easily draw that conclusion since her reported salary per episode of K+8 was $250K. 20-odd episodes, at 250K per episode equals a lot of money. He doesn't have to access anything illegally to figure that out. And she is still paying for the house, sending 8 kids to private school, buying herself new cars, and pampering herself at salons. It's a no-brainer that she has money, and lots of it. All she is doing is making absurd assumptions and paying a lawyer to ask Jon in court if her assumptions are true.
Rearrranging the Deck Chairs on the Titanic (186),
I was also wondering how much TFW is spending on this lawsuit. I think she believed she could file a complaint and neither Jon nor Robert would have the funds to fight it. Then she would win by default. I bet she's surprised--and enraged--that they both have top-notch legal representation and are fighting back. Now she has to respond to motions and amend complaints, plus pay to battle both of their legal teams. I don't think she ever planned for this, and it is going to end up costing her many, many times what she had planned for. She didn't think she'd have to pay to wage a battle, and definitely not two battles. But she started this, and she is going to have to follow it through to the long, difficult, and incredibly expensive end. Or backing down and dropping the whole thing (which she will never do). But I do wonder how much she's paying per hour, and how many hours are going into this mess.
Waaaaaaaaay off topic and in answer to Joy's colonoscopy story question so scroll on by if you're not interested. I do have a good story Joy! When I had mine they gave me a picture of the squeaky clean poop chute which I took home and placed on the table where I knew my son would find it. Well he found it and picked it up to look at and asked me what it was a picture of. When I told him he dropped it like it had caught fire and he'd been burned. I can still see the look of horror on his face. We still laugh about it.
On a more serious note, don't forget to get your mammys grammed. That's how my cancer was found. Even when I knew where it was I could never feel it if not for the mammogram it might not have been found so early. Thirteen years later I'm still here and going strong.
Ex Nurse said... 171
Paula, believe it or not, I have no agenda when it comes to Jon or TFW. Like everyone else, including you, I read and I comment on my thoughts and observations. It is beyond me why everyone is rehashing the 2009 hacking and money transfer when it is clear that the lawsuit is alleging continued hacking after the divorce. What does one have to do with the other?
.................
Ok, fair enough. But I couldn't help but take note that you also mention the "Does" often, as recently as the last day or two. You seem to really, really want the Does to be RWA posters. It has been explained here ad nauseam and in great detail what the Does in this suit are intended to be. Yet, you don't seem to want to believe this. You've even looked up PA statutes to tie the posters into the language of the suit. Between this and your opinion that Jon could have done all that Kate alleges he did, do you see why eyebrows have been raised?
My eyebrows aren't raised. Also, choose a name. Maybe then you'll be taken seriously.
You seem to really, really want the Does to be RWA posters.
======================================
Whoa, anonymous, take it down a notch. There's no conspiracy going on here. We're just discussing things like adults.
I appreciate Ex Nurse's insights. I've read over the posts from today and people feel pretty strongly about things. I thought Ex Nurse was polite and concise.
OT re credit cards, years ago we got call from our American Express, someone was trying to charge a massage in Madrid Spain to our account! We said no we were not in Spain, charge denied, no problems. The company did replace the card for free, we had no idea how it was compromised. Since then we did put alert on all our credit cards that we could, any charges not made in USA automatically to be denied. We can take off that status any time we might travel out of the country.
I wonder if kate snickered the entire 5 hours that Jon drove from his job to the kids school to pick up a sick child. It would be wonderful to have Jodi as a backup, she could go and get the child until Jon could get there.
kate is such a liar. She said that she picks up the kids at Jons and brings them home and takes them back. I don't think so.
Jon would not have to hack kates precious computer about her money accounts amounts to see she is sitting on a pile of money. He knows what she has pulled in and invested with Steve and she has maintained HER lifestyle for years.
No. Brainer.
OT I was on youtube the other day and came across the CWS shows and saw that Rick Flair and Roddy Piper, wrestlers were on. I saw the trailer and I decided to watch it. I was shocked at Rick Flair. He is a millionaire and spends his money like water. Been married 4 times, lost a son earlier this year, is living with a GF and HER 4 kids. GF is gold digger and entitled. Bad.
OTOH, Roddy and his wife Linda have been married 30 years, live on top of a mountain in Oregon and live a frugal life and he is very very well off. Linda uses coupons and does ALL OF THE WORK around the house with no help. They truly love each other.
Rick buys Linda a present for her. She was balking about it because it was so expensive. Ricks GF makes Roddy take HER and his kids shopping and makes him pay at the register. Of course they go to an expensive boutique and the bill is quite high. I will not spoil that. I just wonder what Linda thought about it when she got home!
One more thing, they were showing Rick and GF in the limo going out on the town and he handed her some money and he said, here's five. And I don't know if that was 500 or 5K. And she said, THAT IS NOT NEAR ENOUGH OR THAT IS NOT ENOUGH!
She and her children are only living with him to sponge, sponge, sponge until there is no more sponging.
It was announced that Kendra Wilkinson is pregnant. Lil Hank is getting a baby brother or baby sister! Congratulations!
Sad to see the post of Morty, Be careful, Babe! and Lee, Are you Listening? Kaufman go! They are so darling! As I write this their ad just came back on.
Can you imagine kate and Jon doing a commercial like that? hahaha
I wonder if Kate thinks that reading her twitter account and documenting it is hacking into her private pink iphone. After all, that is what she uses to tweet. The twit. It wouldn't surprise me. Remember the Carlos Gosselin fiasco?
New comments are not allowed.