Friday, December 11, 2009

Jon missed court to stay with the kids

Jon Gosselin missed his court hearing yesterday (his appearance was not required), and the Kate camp was quick to jump all over him for not showing up.

Jon however, reports a variety of sources today, stayed home with the children. Perhaps Kate was still out making her new show and couldn't watch them?

We're just happy the kids weren't left with the nanny again.

9 sediments (sic) from readers:

steph said...

If Jon had been subpoened to testify for TLC he would have appeared and the same thing for testifying for his own defense. I've got a good feeling that he wasn't needed and his attorneys told him to stay home. It makes no sense otherwise that he simply wouldn't show.

steph said...

Can you explain why TLC would have to post bond? What is it guaranteeing and why? I don't get it. Thanks!

This is a copied from the MD case info:
Docket Date: 12/11/2009 Docket Number: 79
Docket Description: ORDER, PROTECTIVE (NON-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE)
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Ruling Judge: MASON, MICHAEL D
Docket Text: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER OF COURT (MASON, J.) THAT THIS 10TH DAY OF DEC. 2009, 5:45 P.M. E.S.T. THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS GRANTED; THAT PLAINTIFF SHALL POST BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 NO LATER THAN 4:00 P.M. ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2009 WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT PENDING THE TRIAL ON THE MERITS OF THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT, ENTERED.

Laura said...

Jon can never win can he? He does the right thing by staying with the kids and he's slammed for it. But Kate is never around for the kids, the tabloids never point out that she should be at home with them. It's all controlled by TLC and their money machine. It's just disgusting.

Administrator said...

Laura, I too have noticed as have many others the success TLC/Kate has had in spinning this in Kate's favor. If Kate had missed a court date everyone would wonder if she was okay and what was wrong, and when they found out she stayed at home with the kids, she would be held in esteem as a mother who cares more about her children then a silly lawsuit and puts them first.

But Jon staying home with the kids on his court date, which by the way he was never required to attend, is buried on the back of Page 8 as just a passing mention. He gets zero credit at all for putting them first. Well, this blog gives him credit at least. They are BOTH horrible, but Jon never gets any credit for any good decisions.

I work in litigation, and it is common practice to waive my clients' appearances at hearings that are not crucial. I do it all the time. If a client is sick, would miss work, NEEDS TO STAY HOME WITH THE KIDS, or if the hearing is unimportant, I don't drag them out here to pay $4 for parking and wait in a crowded hallway all day for the case to be called. Moreover, maybe Jon didn't want to deal with all the media and be asked to comment. Maybe everyone felt it would be better for him to remain secluded. Instead it's looked at like he doesn't care, etc.

Administrator said...

To answer the question about the bond, I am not very familiar with this type of procedure, but I think I have a basic understanding of why TLC was required to post bond. This is not a criminal case, so this is not the same as getting out of jail. It's a "civil bond" or a "surety bond."

It can be used for a wide variety of purposes, but in this case it may be required to ensure TLC will be cooperative in the lawsuit, attending all courtdates prepared, etc. It also assumes that most lawsuits are a drain on a court's resources and time, and thus a drain on the taxpayer. So if TLC loses, they may be required to compensate taxpayers for waste of time, and money can be taken from the bond. If they win, they get the bond back.

I think this is the reason for the bond. Jon's lawyers could have requested it or the judge could have just ordered it on his own motion.

Administrator said...

Let me add, that I think requiring TLC to post bond is very significant. It is a strong message the Court is sending to TLC that this lawsuit better be worth it. If they lose, TLC could be on the line for a lot of money. I also think it's a strong incentive for TLC to settle so they don't have to face losing in court, and thus losing $50,000.

Of course this information, that TLC is walking a fine line here, is not reported by the mainstream, pro-Kate media.

Lauren said...

Interesting information about the surety bond. I've been a legal secretary for a few years and I've never heard of the plaintiff paying a surety bond. It sounds like the Pennsylvania court has some common sense by not having the tax payer foot the bill for court costs, etc.

Administrator said...

What you hear about a lot more often is the plaintiff forced to pay the other side's attorneys fees if their lawsuit doesn't prevail.

Administrator said...

Laura, I too have noticed as have many others the success TLC/Kate has had in spinning this in Kate's favor. If Kate had missed a court date everyone would wonder if she was okay and what was wrong, and when they found out she stayed at home with the kids, she would be held in esteem as a mother who cares more about her children then a silly lawsuit and puts them first.

But Jon staying home with the kids on his court date, which by the way he was never required to attend, is buried on the back of Page 8 as just a passing mention. He gets zero credit at all for putting them first. Well, this blog gives him credit at least. They are BOTH horrible, but Jon never gets any credit for any good decisions.

I work in litigation, and it is common practice to waive my clients' appearances at hearings that are not crucial. I do it all the time. If a client is sick, would miss work, NEEDS TO STAY HOME WITH THE KIDS, or if the hearing is unimportant, I don't drag them out here to pay $4 for parking and wait in a crowded hallway all day for the case to be called. Moreover, maybe Jon didn't want to deal with all the media and be asked to comment. Maybe everyone felt it would be better for him to remain secluded. Instead it's looked at like he doesn't care, etc.

Post a Comment

Want to see your comment published? Follow a few simple rules:

1. Do not use Anonymous. Pick a name (click Name/URL to type in a name) and stick to the same name.
2. Anonymous insider stories should be emailed to us directly (in confidence). They will not be posted here unless we can verify the validity, such as with photos. This is not to discourage legitimate insiders from speaking out, but to guard against all the fake stories out there.
3. No insulting other posters or picking fights, refusing to let things go and move on. Stop with the snotty comments--they will be rejected. Treat people here like how you would talk to the person you most respect in your life, it's just pleasant that way.
4. No trash talking other blogs/bloggers here.