This got us thinking, what are some other historical publicity stunts that backfired? Here are five of some of the biggest:
Aqua Teen terrorist attack.
O.J. Simpson,
In 2006, HarperCollins's thought it would be a good idea to publish a book written by O.J. entitled "If I Did It." Following the public's outrage, a big wig at the publishing company was fired and the project was scrapped.
A train wreck, literally.
In 1896, railroad companies decided to stage a controlled crash in Texas for publicity. With thousands of spectators watching, the trains collided head on as planned, but then unexpectedly exploded, killing three people and injuring countless others, including the event's photographer, who lost one of his eyes.
No Fly Zone.
In 2009, the Department of Defense flew Air Force One low over Manhattan to take some photos. The flight terrified many New Yorkers, causing "mayhem" as people who thought we were under attack again scrambled to evacuate. A White House aide resigned, authorities apologized and cancelled a similar photoshoot planned in D.C.
Please stop. Sincerely, Mr. President.
Harry Reichenbach was a big time press agent at the turn of the 20th century who promoted films like Return of Tarzan. He staged several outlandish publicity stunts, including a fake suicide, and a kidnapping to Mexico. His antics finally resulted in President Woodrow Wilson writing him a letter pleading with him to please stop his nonsense.
Where will Kate's blunder rank in history? Will Obama write to her asking her to please stop? Heh, never say never! What other publicity blunders would you add to this list?
1055 sediments (sic) from readers:
«Oldest ‹Older 801 – 1000 of 1055 Newer› Newest»The Eastwood split-up:
"No drama here.
Even though Clint and Dina Eastwood announced that they were separating after 17 years of marriage last week, the brunette beauty is speaking out in support of her husband.
She took to Twitter to vent her frustrations regarding negative feedback on the social media site and tried to put the name calling and rock throwing to rest.
"I don't like reading negative things about Clint," she wrote. "He is a wonderful, good natured, brilliant person. No matter what, I attest to that."
Now that's a powerful message, short and to the point"
Kate, for the sake of your children, why not do the same?
The tragedy is that the producer and TLC mislead the public. We thought those little guys only got time outs. Little did we know how they were subjected to physical punishment and yelling by a parent with no control. I thank Robert for bringing attention to what was going on behind the scenes.
I thank Robert also for bringing attention to the secrets being kept by TLC and TFW.
BUT, while I agree that TLC and the Gosselins TRIED to mislead the public and in many cases succeeded, I didn't buy what they were selling.
I saw the kids flinching, the plastic spoon, hands raised as if to strike and then a camera cut to a crying child, very curt commands from TFW, lots of yelling, and I knew in my heart that the kids and Jon were being physically and emotionally abused and most likely worse than I suspected. I never, for even a minute, believed that they used time-outs as their preferred punishment method. Never.
I think the book told of much worse abuse than many imagined and explained the shadier sides of their "reality", but I had formed my opinion of TFW and had been posting on blogs about it long before I ever heard of Robert or any book.
Mel 191 - I'm not sure that I see a rule 4 violation here.
As for Mickey's comments regarding Al (15? What's 15?), I don't personally see that as tattling. Tattling to me would be someone on Blog A running over to Blog B and commenting "Oh, guess what?! They're talking about this blog over on Blog A!" and then running back to Blog A and saying "Oh guess what?! They're talking about Blog A!" etc. etc.
I think Mickey had mentioned her conversation with Polly regarding Al's post simply as part of the dialogue going on here. It was just additional information, not tattling, at least in my opinion. It sounds like it was something that came up in course of another conversation about Labor Day plans, not that Mickey hopped on the phone and said "Polly! Guess what! They're talking about Al's blog over on 15 minutes!"
I understand why you might see it as tattling, I'm just saying I see it differently. I've blogged with Mickey in the past and that's not the type of person she is. I have a lot of respect for her and just felt a need to speak up on her behalf.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/christopher-knight-peter-brady_n_3824796.html?utm_hp_ref=oprah-where-are-they-now&icid=maing-grid7%7Ccustomfirefox%7Cdl12%7Csec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D366316
This sounds like it would be a great show to watch. I like how Susan Olson says she was relieved not to have to live her adolescence on television, that she wanted to go away and then come back when she was 18. And when she tried that, she soon realized that she didn't like acting enough to put up with the Cindy Brady typecasting.
Anyone know if the TFW have any special Labor Day coupon codes to share on her uber special coupon site?
Hope everyone with kids going back to school today had a good and safe first day back at school. Parents hope you enjoy the peace for the few short hours they are in school. Summer went way too fast.
I hate to see tattling between one blog and another. Any chance of not doing that? Or at least not reporting back here if you must tattle to other people?
I'm interested in others' perspectives on the Gosselin situation. (I'm not interested in what Mickey said that Polly said that Al said about something I wrote.)
----------------------
Yes, and sometimes when one tries to offer explanations about what happened and why it happened and when it happened, he/she opens up more questions and contradictory information and holes get deeper. Why not just let it go and move on?
The cook book sales are picking up a tiny bit. She has already sold
10 in Sept. on Amazon.com.
http://www.kateplusmy8.com/in-reply-to-the-many-requests-to-comment-on-the-recent-lawsuit-filed-on-my-behalf/
******
I'm sorry if this has been posted, but I just came across it trying to figure out how little Kate's been promoting her coupon site (very little).
All I can say is that Kate needs professional help and she is still using her children as an excuse to alienate Jon.
So, the countless thousands of negative comments and hundreds of negative articles, all boil down to the actions of 2 people, neither of which is Kate.
Mmk...
Offense is her only option since she evidently has no defense against her own words.
This sounds like it would be a great show to watch. I like how Susan Olson says she was relieved not to have to live her adolescence on television, that she wanted to go away and then come back when she was 18. And when she tried that, she soon realized that she didn't like acting enough to put up with the Cindy Brady typecasting.
&&&
Is this show upcoming or already aired? I didn't quite find that info when I skimmed. I would like to see it too actually.
SHERRY BABY #1 and Gleegirl #3
Just so you know I'm "old school". I don't tweet because I don't have friends in my real life who tweet -- so what would be the point for me to be on Twitter? Perhaps so I can tweet my friends a photo of what I am having for dinner that night? Again I'm old school - if I want them to know what I am having for dinner I would pick up the telephone and invite them to join me.
So the answer to your question above is no I did not notice that Al is on Twitter.
But I do understand why celebrities in particular are on Twitter because they are pushing their "brand". However I see a lot of problems with social media, especially after watching Kate and thinking that she has all these "friends" when her true motivation was to keep her "brand" alive in the hopes it would get her back on TV. My fear and/or POV is if Kate were to tweet where she and the kids are going to be at XYZ place at a specific time, who knows who might show up. It does not matter where you live because your headline news remind us every day that there are a lot of nut jobs, and because of all the TV exposure of the G kids ... well I think you get my point that being on Twitter with followers that you do not "know" can be dangerous.
Besides just so you know in my real life "branding" has a whole different meaning. See I own livestock and branding is a way to prove ownership because believe it or not, cattle rustling out here in da west still happens and if ranchers are not playing attention as calves hit the ground they wind up discovering that their cattle are being stolen.
Gee now that I think about it .. perhaps I need to get a twitter account so I can tweet if any of my cows are stolen but then in my world no one I know has a twitter account so what would be the point? Old school -- where one still relies on our cell phones to keep in contact with true friends.
SILIMOM - Thank you. Please know that I have tremendous respect for you too.
EX NURSE #178 - I have not forgotten you and fully intend to get back to you but first I want to do a little fact checking and/or refresh my memory before I respond.
TFW (or one of her minions) may have finally realized that in order to look like she's selling books she needs to start purchasing some herself. If they go up in incriments of 5 to 10 per day you'll know that this is what's happening.
Admin 13 -
It looks like the show aired on 8/25. Here's the link to Oprah's site. Maybe they'll repeat it? I don't have cable, so hopefully it will be available online.
http://www.oprah.com/own-where-are-they-now/Oprah-Where-Are-They-Now-The-Brady-Bunch-David-Cassidy-and-More
Admin, BV and Razzmatazz's supposed inner circle people are now saying this is a libel suit against Twitter people. In your reading of the suit, do you see a case for this in the pleading?
Speaking of "old school..." I'm so old school that I don't even have an iPhone, let alone Twitter or FB or alerts set to my phone so that I know when someone posts! I mean -- that's old school!
My phone works. It sends and receives calls. It takes and sends photos. It has an alarm on it. I can text, but rarely do. I know how to read Kate's TL and I know, if I look at blogs or news articles, if I see the little blue Twitter thing that the person has a Twitter account. I also know how to look up Kate's cookbook pre-order sales, and while they are much better than July, she's not going to be rich off those sales.
That's about as far as I want to go!
I have never been sued, so I am not sure how it works. Is there a timeline that Jon and Robert have to answer the suit filed by Kate? How long does it take to get on a court calendar? This will be interesting if it ever sees the light of day. Just wondering.
She doesn't stop, does she? She has to know where Kate is every minute. Can you imagine living with someone like that? I wonder if she has any neighbors that live close by. If so, does she sit there with binoculars and track their comings and goings at all hours of the day?
Fired Up 4 Kate @MiloandJack 1h
@Kateplusmy8 Ha..last official tweet fr U...U were watching #PrettyWoman! Did U leave us & decide 2go live the #FairyTale 4 a few days? :)
Flo 17 - Where are you getting this info? I'm not a lawyer but the lawsuit Kate filed seemed to have nothing to do with a charge of libel. I think that's one of the few things they didn't claim.
No where has anyone in Kate's camp ever claimed that the journals weren't authentic, to the best of my recollection. I think there was a claim by Kate or her fans that Robert altered the information in the journals, but that's all I remember.
Robert had to remove the book from Amazon because Kate's/TLC's attorneys complained that that he used proprietary information, I.e. the TLC contracts, without permission. At no time did these attorneys claim libel or slander.
Flo said... 17
Admin, BV and Razzmatazz's supposed inner circle people are now saying this is a libel suit against Twitter people.
========
Interesting. Where do you draw the line between libel and opinion? That's a serious question becasue I don't really know any more. Couldn't Jon and Robert both turn this around on them? Goody calls Jon a "dead beat dad" and refers to Richard as "trashman". Don't most of the sheeple give as good as the get? Doesn't TFMJG condone all this by letting it continue on her timeline? I just don't get this whole thing.
UGH! Had to post as soon as I could get to my computer. The kids had friends over this weekend and they were watcing j&K+8 on Netflix. I kept my mouth closed, but listened to them squak and screech about her, all negative. Anyways, I had never seen or heard of the "lost footage" episode! As I'm making snacks etc., I'm listening to her rake Jon over the coals the whole time, THE WHOLE TIME. She absolutely makes me ill. ILL. When is Robert's book coming out?! I would love to cross reference dates in there with what she spewed in her talking head session.
OK, so ziggy and banana are still suspended on twitter and here is Milo's latest conspiracy theory...
@MiloandJack: @Truth_Teller201 Hmm...makes me wonder if there is a #Gator sitting at the #Support twitter desk! All the crap we tolerate & get zero help!
Maybe someone needs to start wearing a little tin foil hat.
Flo said... 17
Admin, BV and Razzmatazz's supposed inner circle people are now saying this is a libel suit against Twitter people. In your reading of the suit, do you see a case for this in the pleading?
____________________
The wording in the lawsuit says Jon, RH and Does "distorted" the hacked information to make it more salacious for the tabloids which paid more money for more scandalous stories, and
#37-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 Gosselin for the purpose of profiting from the book and the tabloid publications.
Flo said... 17
Admin, BV and Razzmatazz's supposed inner circle people are now saying this is a libel suit against Twitter people. In your reading of the suit, do you see a case for this in the pleading?
--------
I noticed this also. It sounds as if some of the RWA and Twitter folks are included in this suit and libel's been mentioned. They've been told they're the Jane Does. But there's nothing about libel in the filing so it all makes no sense.
Goody calls Jon a "dead beat dad" and refers to Richard as "trashman".
--------
And Milo has tweeted numerous times that Robert is a liar and that he altered the journals. Weren't a few of them saying that Jon has absolutely nothing to do with the kids?
Flo 17 - Where are you getting this info? I'm not a lawyer but the lawsuit Kate filed seemed to have nothing to do with a charge of libel. I think that's one of the few things they didn't claim.
--------------
Could they be talking about a separate lawsuit, the class action against those on Twitter?
For those who are able, some of Oprah's shows can be accessed via the On Demand feature.
Millicent said...(60)
"Kate using a spoon or a cardboard tube to discipline the children is probably not illegal (unless PA has some more stringent laws in place than CA), nor would be considered child abuse by CPS."
**********************
That's interesting Millicent. Here in Canada it's illegal to "discipline" your child with anything other than an open hand. And you better be sure that you don't spank hard enough to leave marks because that too is illegal.
Personally, I think physical, or corporal if you prefer, punishment is barbaric and completely unnecessary.
You can raise a child with a good example, a consistent and even temperment and positive reinforcement.
Why is it illegal for me to walk up to a stranger and slap them but it's perfectly okay, if I chose, to smack my kid around? I just don't get that kind of logic.
Children are not property, they are gifts to be loved, cherished and respected.
I never stopped believing that even when my own mother was beating the tar out of me. I always knew it was wrong and though I suffered my share of shame as a result, I had no trouble telling people...my father, my aunts, my teachers...sadly, no one did a thing about it.
I truly believe that it did more damage to me to have all these people in my life know what was going on and doing nothing about it. It was no longer just my mother abusing me, it was also about others letting it happen.
In any case, Ex-Nurse, I understand your position and I respect it. I'm just of the camp that thinks whatever needs to be done to make sure the abuse stopped/stops is a higher priority than privacy. Absolutely, if it has stopped, then by all means, leave it out of the media.
And yes, I too would love to see her tarred and feathered.
Hope everyone had a great Labour Day Weekend.
Silimom said... 21
Flo 17 - Where are you getting this info? I'm not a lawyer but the lawsuit Kate filed seemed to have nothing to do with a charge of libel. I think that's one of the few things they didn't claim.
No where has anyone in Kate's camp ever claimed that the journals weren't authentic, to the best of my recollection. I think there was a claim by Kate or her fans that Robert altered the information in the journals, but that's all I remember.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
The lawsuit absolutely is about libel, in part. Read items #33, 35 and 37, all of which relate to distortions of facts, falsehoods and defamatory claims.
Yes they say it's false but I think what folks here are getting at is that defamation is not any of the causes of action they alleged. Seems like if that is such a huge part of the suit you would be clear that you are alleging that. Just talking about libel is different than actually claiming it as a cause of action, which they did *not* do.
Anonymous said... 32
Yes they say it's false but I think what folks here are getting at is that defamation is not any of the causes of action they alleged. Seems like if that is such a huge part of the suit you would be clear that you are alleging that. Just talking about libel is different than actually claiming it as a cause of action, which they did *not* do.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Yes, they *did.* It couldn't be any clearer that they are alleging that. From the lawsuit:
#35: "Hoffman's book contains defamatory and untrue information..."
#37: "...Defendants Hoffman, Jon Gosselin and Does 1-20...conspired among each other to spread false, defamatory and unflattering information about Kate Gosselin..."
No, they didn't.
The causes of action each correspond to a statute or law they cite. These are the causes of action. There is no law or statute they cite for defamation, period. There is no cause of action alleged.
You might as well say they alleged a cause of action for unflattering information because they said that too. What law is that exactly?
Burden of proof for libel claimed by a celebrity is held to a higher standard:
In general, the burden of proof is higher in cases of public figures compared to cases where ordinary people are involved. If the person who claims to be a victim of defamation is a celebrity, then he or she needs to prove that the derogatory statement made by the defendant is false, includes malicious intent, and intended to harm the reputation of the plaintiff. An ordinary person only needs to prove that the defendant committed the offense out of negligence or carelessness under the circumstances.
Silimom said... 21
Flo 17 - Where are you getting this info? I'm not a lawyer but the lawsuit Kate filed seemed to have nothing to do with a charge of libel. I think that's one of the few things they didn't claim.
_____________
An explanation from the point of view of one of BV's followers was tweeted last night (using an app for longer tweets).
PA has a one year statute of limitations on filing of libel. Robert's book came out Sept. 2012 so she had to file before the deadline. I believe her attorneys were most likely threatening Jon and Robert about a lawsuit all year long, hoping to force some settlement. They must have refused her demands.
Anonymous said... 34
No, they didn't.
The causes of action each correspond to a statute or law they cite. These are the causes of action. There is no law or statute they cite for defamation, period. There is no cause of action alleged.
******************************************
Read Count 1. The items I delineated are encompassed in that count. It doesn't seem to be clear to you, but that doesn't mean that it is, in fact, unclear. The contention is that they accessed information, exceeded their authority by altering that information, in so doing defamed Kate Gosselin, and by defaming her caused damages in excess of $5,000. I'm not saying that the claim is or isn't valid, but to deny that defamation is part of this lawsuit is not accurate.
Kind of funny that Kate claims libel of her own journal which Robert based his book. So was her journal a lie?
I'm sorry this is so hard for you anonymous. I can read. Count one is 18 USC 1030g. Computer fraud and abuse. Count two is 18 USC 2511. The Electronic Communications Protection act. Count three is 18 USC 2701. The stored communications act. Count four is a state statute regarding wiretapping. Count five is a state statute for identity theft. Count six is conspiracy. Count seven is a rather vague claim of tortuous acts. Count eight is invasion of privacy.
If they wanted to claim defamation they would have made a Count Nine: Defamation. Period.
Not any of those counts have the slightest thing to do with a count charging defamation.
Defamation is not an element of 18 USC 1030g. It's available online to read what's required under that law.
Anonymous said... 40
I'm sorry this is so hard for you anonymous. I can read. Count one is 18 USC 1030g. Computer fraud and abuse. Count two is 18 USC 2511. The Electronic Communications Protection act. Count three is 18 USC 2701. The stored communications act. Count four is a state statute regarding wiretapping. Count five is a state statute for identity theft. Count six is conspiracy. Count seven is a rather vague claim of tortuous acts. Count eight is invasion of privacy.
If they wanted to claim defamation they would have made a Count Nine: Defamation. Period.
******************************************
It is not hard for me. I DISAGREE with you. Apparently, that is hard for you. Defamation comes into play as part of the damages alleged under Count 1, related to altering the information accessed from the computer. Period.
You have got to be kidding me. For Kate to prove defamation:
The statement must be "injurious." Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement -- for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won't collect much in a defamation suit.
That's different anonymous now isn't it? Now you are saying it's just a component of showing damages to Computer Fraud and Abuse.
That is a whole different thing than what you were crowing earlier, that defamation is a cause of action in the suit. It absolutely is NOT a cause of action, end of story.
It's not, period. If they want to say another cause of action is met in part because damages occurred in this form (I.e. I suffered because I was "defamed") that's different.
Why didn't they allege defamation separately if it's such an important part of this. Hmmm!
Anonymous said... 44
That's different anonymous now isn't it? Now you are saying it's just a component of showing damages to Computer Fraud and Abuse.
*******************************
No, it's not different. It's what I have said repeatedly. I have no idea what your problem is with accepting that defamation is part and parcel of this lawsuit, but believe whatever you want. Neither your opinion nor mine has any bearing whatsoever on how the lawsuit will play out.
Here's the deal:
*If* Jon had those journals he could have used them in court. He could have sold them when she was still a hot item. I think he didn't have them OR he didn't realize he had them.
Remember the famous spanking picture? I'd say that 'defamed' her a heck of a lot more than any blog comment.
It IS different how can you not get this?
In a lawsuit you have to feed everything you are saying into causes of action or you will get it dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. You can whine all day about being defamed but until you actually state that you are seeking to sue *for defamation* the allegation remains nothing more than just that, an allegation.
As I said from the beginning defamation certainly is mentioned in this lawsuit as they did state that the information was untrue. No one disagrees that they wrote this in the complaint.
Where I disagree is your false assertion that they are suing for defamation. They absolutely are not suing for any such thing. Saying it, and making it into a cause of action are two very different things. They have laid out eight causes of action that are very clear and not a single one is a cause of action for defamation. Get it?
Defamation is not a cause of action in this suit and that must make the Kate fans crazy. And you. You so badly want it to be about thaf but it's just not. Sad.
Oh, or pete's sake. Now we have "Anonymouses" arguing. This is hard to follow. Would both of you please pick some kind of actual name? I don't care if it's ABC and XYZ...this is ridiculous.
Stop with all the anonymous posts - please!
Anonymous said... 47
It IS different how can you not get this?
In a lawsuit you have to feed everything you are saying into causes of action or you will get it dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. You can whine all day about being defamed but until you actually state that you are seeking to sue *for defamation* the allegation remains nothing more than just that, an allegation.
As I said from the beginning defamation certainly is mentioned in this lawsuit as they did state that the information was untrue. No one disagrees that they wrote this in the complaint.
Where I disagree is your false assertion that they are suing for defamation. They absolutely are not suing for any such thing. Saying it, and making it into a cause of action are two very different things. They have laid out eight causes of action that are very clear and not a single one is a cause of action for defamation. Get it?
Defamation is not a cause of action in this suit and that must make the Kate fans crazy. And you. You so badly want it to be about thaf but it's just not. Sad.
*****************************
You have repeatedly put words in my mouth. I never stated that she was suing *for* defamation. I said that defamation is part of the whole shebang, which it is. Whether Kate Gosselin is suing her ex-husband for defamation, wiretapping, computer theft or anything else under the sun makes no difference to my life so I don't know why you would ASSUME that I so badly want defamation to be part of this. I couldn't care less, and as I've already stated, what you or I believe has zero bearing on anything.
Anonymous 47 is absolutely correct. No cause of action is stated for defamation. It would require a separate count and a recitation of allegations to support the elements of that cause of action, which is more than just that untrue statements were made. This isn't present in the Complaint filed. They may be able to amend it later to add defamation, but it's unlikely, as the statute of limitations for defamation, libel, and slander in Pennsylvania is one year.
PatK, could not agree more.
Silly me anonymous. I thought when I said they did not plead a cause of action for defamation and you immediately replied "Yes, they *did.* It couldn't be any clearer that they are alleging that" that you were not understanding that they were in fact not suing for any such thing.
Now, you seem to be back pedaling and seem to understand now. Correct, they are not suing for defamation. Yea, you get it!
Anonymous XYZ
Boo said...
This isn't present in the Complaint filed. They may be able to amend it later to add defamation, but it's unlikely, as the statute of limitations for defamation, libel, and slander in Pennsylvania is one year.
--------
If the book was originally published within the last year, wouldn't that be when the clock would start? If no one else ever saw it, there wouldn't be grounds, right?
Wow, is this "anonymous" phenomenon going on today like post-Labor Day Terrible Traffic Tuesday?
Full moon?
I'm getting whiplash!
Who's on first?
In the meantime, while all this gets hashed out, check out Kate's Twitter where you can read once again that her cookbook is coming out soon and do check out her coupon site, where absolutely nothing is new!
Spend money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If it makes no difference in your life why were you so intent on coming here and schooling us all, incorrectly (hilarious), about this lawsuit. People here are not dumb. We can read and see that not one of the 8 causes of action is for defamation.
Hey, 'Anonymous' and 'Anonymous XYZ' ----- knock it off. If this becomes your private battleground, I'm outta here (not that you'd miss me).
Is it too much to ask that the Anonymice please pick a name? Anonymous is arguing with anonymous and I can't figure out who is on first.
Does anyone else believe that Kate would have sued Jodi and Kevin if she had been able to find an attorney to help her with a case? I am hoping that a judge will put this greedy person in her place once and for all. Kate ruined her own chance in the entertainment market. So many chances were ruined with poor attitude. Wouldn't it benefit this woman more to just quietly fade in to her rural life and enjoy the privilege of having her healthy children and a hefty bank account because of them? Missing the gratitude chip, maybe?
Thank you, Anonymous XYZ, for using the XYZ. Much appreciated.
Defamation was not one if the counts in the lawsuit, it was only mentioned that it was the opinion of her attorney she suffered damage from the conspiracy and the book. She cannot sue for defamation because what was released were her OWN words. Robert may have printed the information, but KATE wrote it about herself. Further, Robert interviewed people who collaborated what she wrote. The only thing I can see her winning on is that Robert printed excerpts from her journal without her permission and even if they were thrown into the trash, I believe your personal writings are copyright protected. Remember the Edward's sex tape that was retrieved from the trash? It had to be returned to his mistress.
As far as Twitter and libel, yes you can get sued and you can be tracked down unless you take precautions hiding your identity. Personally, I think there is too much bad behavior on Twitter and people should think before they tweet.
I'm enjoying the anonymice comments. Things were getting a tad boring and this has been educational.
Why are all of these anonymous (anonymouses or anonymice) posts being allowed through? I thought that we were on moderation so that they could be weeded out. Anonymous @56, you'd have a little more credibility if you'd pick a name.
Just had to comment that Milo actually thinks the crookbook will be in stores....SMH.
Why are these anonymous posts going thru to begin with??
Anonymous and Anonymous...You're both in timeout until you pick a name and stick with it.
It makes me tingle in all my tentacles when confusion is spread! I am pleased with the Anonymous Ones! Kate Gosselin is still my minion, but I am not well pleased with her! She did not include any recipes on How To Serve Man in her book of cookery! And she has not grown any tentacles! I will soon look for a new minion if she does not quickly improve!
Am I the only one who finds the warring anonymouses hilarious?
In the meantime, while all this gets hashed out, check out Kate's Twitter where you can read once again that her cookbook is coming out soon
------------------------
...and according to Milo, will be in the stores on the same date.
"and do check out her coupon site, where absolutely nothing is new!
Spend money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
-----------------------
...and Milo's spendin money..."Better chk out http://couponsbykate.com first & addf more value/savings 2my purchases!"
She's such a parrot.
capecodmama said... 66
Anonymous and Anonymous...You're both in timeout until you pick a name and stick with it.
------------------
Wake me when they've left the building. I'm going fishing.
To believe Marc Randazza would risk his reputation for Kate Gosselin by filing the very type of lawsuit he actively fights against is beyond ludicrous.
marcorandazza @marcorandazza 13 Feb
@xxxxxx @xxxxxx I can't see much more fun than sucking on t*ts and sh*tting my pants without consequence! Paul FTW!
____________
What reputation would that be?
Shelby said... 65
''Why are these anonymous posts going thru to begin with?''
~~~~~~~~
That is my question too, Shelby. All I can come up with, is that Admin is an attorney and found the back and forth both interesting and informative. Maybe?
As for me, I found the entire thing confusing because neither anonymous poster would CHOOSE A FREAKING NAME and therefore the information wasn't nearly as interesting or informative as it was frustrating!
Jane said... 62
I'm enjoying the anonymice comments. Things were getting a tad boring and this has been educational.
September 3, 2013 at 2:51 PM
..................
Me, too. It really wasn't that hard to follow - quite easy to distinguish between the mices. :D
For some reason the anonymi amused me too today.
Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 69
For some reason the anonymi amused me too today
***************
Maybe they were socks for the same person arguing with themself like some of the haterz apparently did.
Next time ill get them a room so they can hash it out in private!
I rather enjoyed it. The back and forth caused me to go back and read the lawsuit again and I learned a couple of things.
jbranck1980 said... 64
Just had to comment that Milo actually thinks the crookbook will be in stores....SMH.
============
Won't it be in stores? If you go to the B&N signing, do you have to take the book with you that you bought on their site and show a receipt that you bought it there and not on Amazon? I thought the whole purpose of the signing was to get people into the store to purchase the book.
*looks at the anonymous debate going on and scratches her head*
Ah, well, stranger things have happened.
Actually I thought it was an interesting conversation and both sides presented their reasons in a very articulate manner with little to no name calling.
Nicely done, anonymice ABC & XYZ. :-)
Have they ever explained what was altered? There were whole entries about abuse, were those a complete fabrication? The tone and style of the journal was so Kate and so feminine it's hard to imagine anyone but the most gifted of writers could fake or alter it convincingly. One thing we do know is Robert's no writer.
Thanks for proving the entertainment, Admin. ;)
There have been no discussions that I've seen about what has been altered.
Further, Robert interviewed people who collaborated what she wrote.
=======
There are your "Does".
He said at one point he had interviewed family members regarding whether Kate had ever been diagnosed or sought treatment. I wonder who they are. Will she sue her family?
Just got this news alert: Senate Foreign Relations Committee will take up a revised authorization bill Wednesday for the use of force in Syria, sources say.
When I read that so many other things don't seem to matter. This will work out the way it works out. The children and many others will probably suffer for it, but there's not much we can do about it.
When I read that so many other things don't seem to matter. This will work out the way it works out. The children and many others will probably suffer for it, but there's not much we can do about it.
*******
Kate's a one woman wrecking ball. The collateral damage just doesn't matter.
Ugh, another war, or incursion, or whatever you want to call it.
It's all just such a mess.
Me, too. It really wasn't that hard to follow - quite easy to distinguish between the mices. :D
------------------------
They should have signed in as Jaq and Gus.
Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo.
Admin and all ~ Military involvement in Syria may SEEM like a done deal, and perhaps it is. But in the name of democracy (our children...), we must give voice to our own opinions.
Remember the war in Iraq? How many of us have regrets about how that turned out? Here, now is our chance to have our voices heard by those who matter. Call or email your Senators and Congressional Reps, ASAP. Let them know if you support the resolution.. Conversely, tell them if you want our country to help bring about a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Syria through non-violent measures.
http://www.senate.gov/.../senators_cfm.cfm
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
Just got this news alert: Senate Foreign Relations Committee will take up a revised authorization bill Wednesday for the use of force in Syria, sources say.
When I read that so many other things don't seem to matter.
----------------------------
Admin, I have to think about the scene in The American President, when he gives the order to bomb Libya...
"Leon, somewhere in Libya right now, a janitor's working the night shift at Libyan Intelligence Headquarters. He's going about doing his job... because he has no idea, in about an hour he's going to die in a massive explosion. He's just going about his job, because he has no idea that about an hour ago I gave an order to have him killed. You've just seen me do the least Presidential thing I do. "
Sleepless I'd forgotten that quote. That was such a wonderful movie. Whether you support action there or not we should never put out of our minds what is going to happen there if we do. We must own it.
Further, Robert interviewed people who collaborated what she wrote.
-------------------------------
Who collaborated with whom? Do you mean corroborated?
I understand that we live in a democracy, and are served by a representative government. With that in mind (and/or despite that), I wonder how many of us will have hard time accepting the idea that we personally "own it"--if, that is, we voice loudly our objections & work hard to prevent military involvement, in the best ways that we know how.
Anonymous (one of them) said:
I said that defamation is part of the whole shebang, which it is
*****
The whole shebang. Legalese for "the whole enchilada"? LOL
Defamation is not part of the shebang, the enchilada, the house of cards, or the poorly written complaint. But I appreciate a good tap dance when I see one, so *polite applause*
If by part of the whole shebang that means just one tiny aspect of one allegation (the damages), and completely missing and has nothing to do with the other seven allegations, then yes it's part of the whole "shebang."
Happy day after Labor Day :) I spent much of the day driving here and there, taking my brother to a chemo treatment, visiting my parents, picking up my brother, and then returning home in time to meet the plumber. My kitchen sink now drains easily again - yippee!!
I think work is what tires me out, because although I've been going since 6:00 a.m. this morning, I feel full of energy, no back pain, and rested. Hmmmmmmm, that does not say anything good about my rather sedentary job!
Hope everyone had a good day, despite or because of the anonymous back and forth that went on here.
I spent much of the day driving here and there, taking my brother to a chemo treatment, visiting my parents, picking up my brother, and then returning home in time to meet the plumber
---------------
Was he cute, and did he do a good job unclogging your pipes? :)
Posting her reslopies on the website seems to have helped with the preorders of the cookbook. 13 copies already in Sept, just in the USA.
Millicent said... 92
Anonymous (one of them) said:
I said that defamation is part of the whole shebang, which it is
*****
The whole shebang. Legalese for "the whole enchilada"? LOL
Defamation is not part of the shebang, the enchilada, the house of cards, or the poorly written complaint.
______________________
Ha, Millicent! Nor is it part of the whole kit and caboodle, the whole ball of wax, the whole shooting match, the whole megillah, the whole nine yards, or all the marbles! Those pesky legal terms can get so confusing!! :)
I just heard on the news that Ariel Castro (the man who held the three girls captive in Cleveland for over 10 years) hanged himself in his jail cell this evening.
I say good riddance.
http://gregwhoward.com/wordpress/2010/04/twitter-becomes-safe-haven-for-cyberbullying-pornography/
Excellent article.
Thank you Castro. You just saved the taxpayers of Ohio a lot of money. Now, the 3 girls have closure, hopefully.
They know now he can not come back and physically hurt them ever again.
IF, TFW COULD tweet her few fans her opinion on the Syria situation, here is what it would be.
#SuperFunSyriaSituation
#SuperFunChemicalGas
Patk #98
I agree with you. Thank you skum bag Ariel for taking your life. Saving millions for the tax payers.
But then again...I think he got off too easy. He should have rotted in a jail cell where he would have gotten better treatment than his victims. Sooner or later another inmate would have gotten to him, having him face the fear and the pain he caused those 3 girls.
He got an easy out. Those 3 woman will be dealing with this for the rest of their lives.
It's 'hung'. He 'hung' himself.
However, I agree with the good riddance part. Saves American taxpayers a ton of money.
Have ya'll seen the new headline at Celebrity dirty about kate wanting the fairy tale?
WOWZZA! That article is horrible! Why on earth would TFW let that kind of headline and article be written about her???
That writer said, TFW wants to find her a Sugar Daddy and just be a prostitute like Pretty Woman and get the rich guy and the fairy tale.
Slippery little sucker isn't she?
I feel so bad for those kids, especially the twins. Humiliation times 8 to the 10th exponent.
I cannot wait till Robert's book comes out.
Oh, I forgot.
The trailer for Downton Abby for Season 4 is out. I saw it on television today, so it very well maybe online. I really got into it in the 3rd season, but I want to go and watch from the beginning, but I don't have a way to pay for Netflix.
The new Cedar Cove on the Hallmark Channel had over 10 million viewers when it was on a day or two ago?
Poor TFW.
Also, the picture of her with her head back and her mouth wide open and her arms and hands in a weird position, some one posted that her back teeth looked yellow corn yellow and not as bright as the front veneers. They said get them cleaned!
She is a glutton for negative publicity!
Actually hanged is correct and hung is incorrect. People are hanged. Pictures are hung.
I hope the girls find peace.
Good article about lack of regulation on twitter. I think the value of twitter is overwhelming outweighed by the useless sludge on there. Most if it is just so useless. Just cause you found a beautiful diamond doesn't mean you didn't slave for months in the mud. Not worth it.
Sleepless in Seattle said..
Admin, I have to think about the scene in The American President, when he gives the order to bomb Libya...
---------
I'm pretty sure that was West Wing. Wasn't Leon the Chief of Staff?
Sheri said... 30
That's interesting Millicent. Here in Canada it's illegal to "discipline" your child with anything other than an open hand. And you better be sure that you don't spank hard enough to leave marks because that too is illegal.
Personally, I think physical, or corporal if you prefer, punishment is barbaric and completely unnecessary.
*****
I salute Canada for their progressive stance (and law) regarding discipline and hope that one day the U.S. will do the same. I agree 100% regarding your views on how children should be raised.
I was raised by parents who spanked, sparingly. I don't hold that against them, as they were not abusive parents and my overall childhood was wonderful, loving and happy.
But when I had my child, I will never forget the first time I gave him a spank on his diapered bottom. The look he gave me as he burst into tears tore my heart. I wish I'd never done that.
Anyway, I resolved that I would find other ways to obtain the behaviors I wanted, which required a bit more effort, some creative thinking, lots of positive reinforcement, etc. The result is I have a wonderful teenager. Sure, he's moody, sometimes snappy with me. But overall, he's polite, not mouthy, doesn't swear, and does what I expect of him. So I can attest that you can raise a wonderful child without need for raising your hand to that child.
And I further agree that it makes no sense that it is illegal to strike a stranger, a co-worker, and even your spouse - but as a parent, you could hit your little kid with your hand or another implement and no charges would be filed against you. Why is it okay to hit a child, but not an adult?
Sleepless in Seattle:
Was he cute, and did he do a good job unclogging your pipes? :)
*****
Re my plumber - yes, he is quite good-looking and a very nice guy. Naturally, he is also happily married with three young children - lol!
He did a great job at unclogging my pipes, and even gave me a $25 "coupon" discount even though I didn't have one of their coupons. Like I said, a really nice guy.
Yes, I just saw the news about Ariel Castro. On the one hand, I agree that this will save taxpayers from funding his incarceration for many years to come. On the other, I feel like he got off so easy. He couldn't take being imprisoned for even one year, much less the decade he held those women prisoners in far worse conditions. But underneath the inhumane exterior beat the heart of a coward. It's usually the case.
Twitter? I have never had an account...or went to watch some I like or even hate. I don't do the FB thing either.
I just don't get how people want to share all their most inner thoughts with their closest 300 friends!!
I don't see FB or twitter being any thing other fake. How does anyone have 300 TRUE friends? As for twitter...who cares what you are doing minute by minute? It's all about EGO.
I've got 495 million friends and 3000 following me on twitter. Please.
Are you that needy? Do you really think you are that important?
I do like the social media that relates to real things and issues.
I don't waste my time on TFW...I don't follow her every story...I don't look up anything TFW. I have better things to do.
It all comes back to what really means something to you.
I can find 100 things more important to give my time to.
TFW means nothing to me...other than calling her out for the abuser she is.YES...the world needs to know that.
TFW is a Child and Animal Abuser! Stop the childrens pain and HELP them.
As for me, I found the entire thing confusing because neither anonymous poster would CHOOSE A FREAKING NAME and therefore the information wasn't nearly as interesting or informative as it was frustrating!
**************************************************8
LOL, same here
Ex Nurse, your confusion about the great dialogue is very understandable.
Both American President and West Wing are Aaron Sorkin's writing.
The "least Presidential ..." line is in American President. Michael Douglas is the president.
But, there is also a story line in West Wing where it could have been applied.
I would bet she's been chomping at the bit to get back at Kevin and Jodi, so I think they are included as "Does". Ex-employees have been threatened too, my guess. If they violated their CA by talking to Robert, it's "Off with their heads!" Her goal is to eliminate ALL negative comments and publicity. Everyone else is to blame for her failures.
Just the fact that her lawsuit is confusing proves her attorneys are not themselves sure what will stick with a judge.. It's a shame when the court system is used to intimidate. Also the insistence on a jury trial is interesting. Do you need a unanimous verdict in a civil trial? I know the burden of proof is not as strict as in a criminal trial.
I read the dirty laundry article, but my favorite one was the article just after that said TFMJG had filed a ''bogus'' lawsuit against Robert and Jon. It said that she filed the suit in order to get publicity for her cookbook. lol
I'm pretty sure that was West Wing. Wasn't Leon the Chief of Staff?
----------------------------
No. It was The American President. I've never seen West Wing. A little bit of humor follows when Sidney Ellen Wade is telling her sister that she kissed the President in the China Room and her sister asked her what happened next. She said that he had to go and attack Libya, to which her sister replied, "It's always something."
In addition, Andrew Shepherd (Douglas) gives a moving speech to the media about American citizenship, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It's really a memorable film quote (speech).
maggie said... 104
It's 'hung'. He 'hung' himself.
--------------
Hung is what you do with laundry and clothing. People hang themselves. He hanged himself is correct.
I totally agree with the article that Kate went after a two-fer: stop Robert's book AGAIN and get publicity for the cookbook. Timing is definitely suspect. Maybe even a trifecta: harrass Jon too. Explains the alliance with BV who is all about harrassment.
Shaking my head.
@msgoody2shoes21: I wonder if @BullyVille and @Kateplusmy8's lawyers will subpoena Twitter accounts and their asoociated IPs during discovery process.
It goes both ways Goody.
88888888
@msgoody2shoes21: @nancivs @Kateplusmy8 I don't know whose Twitter accounts they would subpoena right off the bat except Jon, trash man & lawyer running blog.
The defense has the right to subpoena also and you have not been exactly a "little goody two shoes".
88888888
And finally...
@msgoody2shoes21 I'm sure @Kateplusmy8 told kids that she's suing their dad for obtaining her email, ahrd drive & bank accts illegally & giving it to a hater.
Unbelievable!
Both American President and West Wing are Aaron Sorkin's writing
I stand corrected, then. I could completely see Jeb Bartlett saying the same thing. I have also see TAP, also--many times . It was the Leon part that confused me. Can't Sorkin co e up with different name for his key characters?
I am a lurker and have not been reading every detail here, but do I understand that the lawsuit is for 5000$? Or is there more to it. If I were Jon, I would might just say, sure , whatever you say, and just pony up the 5K. It would be cheaper than a lawyer. I know people would think he was admitting guilt, but does he really want to be dragged into court. he could even offer to watch the kids while TFW was in court going after the Does.
I know I will get lashed for this, but it is a thought.
maggie said... 104
It's 'hung'. He 'hung' himself.
---------------------------------
No, "hanged" is correct. A picture or other object is "hung." When someone is put to death by hanging, the correct usage is "hanged."
I don't use Twitter Goody. I haven't for years.
I'm happy to be out of that cesspool.
It was the Leon part that confused me. Can't Sorkin co e up with different name for his key characters?
******
The WW's Chief of Staff was Leo McGarry, played by actor John Spencer, rest his soul.
Bartlet: What is the virtue of a proportional response?
Bartlet: I am suggesting, General, that you, and Admiral Fitzwallace, and Secretary Hutchinson, and the rest of the national security team take the next sixty minutes and put together an American response scenario that doesn't make me think we are just docking somebody's damn allowance!
I've seen American President enough to know for sure that was from American President. :-) Easily in my top 10 favorite movies.
When Reagan passed away and it came time to move his body form D.C. back home to CA, one of the news networks was doing a little montage showing some clips from the procession. They used the American President soundtrack's main theme as the plane took off. It was so perfect.
I know I will get lashed for this, but it is a thought.
******
No lashings!
I don't think this suit is about money at all. Jon has none and Robert probably doesn't have deep pockets.
It's about punishing people for perceived wrongs by Kate. It's about revenge and ruining lives.
5K wouldn't make go away. If it were that easy, I feel pretty certain that Jon and Robert could scrape up the money to make this go away. It's not an astronomical sum.
What I do not get are the spectacular headlines of "Kate suing for multi-millions"
Just where is that money going to come from?
When Reagan passed away and it came time to move his body form D.C. back home to CA, one of the news networks was doing a little montage showing some clips from the procession. They used the American President soundtrack's main theme as the plane took off. It was so perfect.
******
I clearly remember that coast to coast event, winding up in CA at sunset. It was really beautiful.
She doesn't control the headlines and article content on gossip sites.
&&&
Actually she does. Don't sue your children's father and no articles will be written with the headline you're suing your children's father.
Tucker I was in D.C. at the time and was able to walk by the casket. We went in the middle of the night to avoid the crowds so it was only about a 3 hour wait. Everyone in line just stood there so quietly and respectfully. Many people brought their kids, even in the middle of the night. It was a very surreal experience to circle the casket at 4am as the guards stood by. It was the most peaceful, dignified moment I've ever experienced.
The whole way the media handled that event was so respectful. They did well. Politics were completely put aside to make sure that the man was put to rest honorably. The montages and footage they showed with the music they chose was just moving.
"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"."
Ah just another great quote from American President...
It's federal court which means they should be following the federal rules of civil procedure, which calls for a jury made up of 6-12 people, and a unanimous verdict. The plaintiff has the burden of proof, what standard of proof to use is usually specified in the particular statute you are using. It's usually preponderance of the evidence, which although not beyond a reasonable doubt, is still a pretty tough standard to meet. In a he said she said case, without more, preponderance of the evidence is almost impossible to prove.
Do y'll think Goody thinks this is another TV episode? Everything wrapped up neat and tidy in an hour.
Admin, that quote from TAP still gives me chills. Thank you for lifting my day.
No lashings!
I don't think this suit is about money at all. Jon has none and Robert probably doesn't have deep pockets.
It's about punishing people for perceived wrongs by Kate. It's about revenge and ruining lives.
*************8
I believe it's a little of both. Kate thought by bringing this suit, that she would be offered all kinds of talk shows to bad mouth Jon on and get paid to do it. It isn't working out that way. She just looks more and more like a shrew.
Marie
It is so irritating when Anonymous comments go through but when I write a comment and sign my name, it doesn't go through. What gives?
Marie
I think lots of these things are just "episodes" or "games" to some people. I don't find that fun or interesting, but apparently some do. Fortunately, it appears to be a dwindling minority. A lot of her regular group of fans have been pretty quiet since she announced her intentions to make Jon pay. I imagine they have fathers, husbands, or other men in their lives they care about and lots of people have been through divorce or breakup with kids involved, and they never went to such lengths to make these men pay for it. I think they live the kids first thing and don't just say it, and therefore, don't approve of this. I don't think TFW counted on that.
Twitter? I have never had an account...or went to watch some I like or even hate. I don't do the FB thing either.
I just don't get how people want to share all their most inner thoughts with their closest 300 friends!!
&&&
I can't find it again, but did anyone see that Huffington Post ask a therapist thing where a mom said her teen daughter was upset with her dad for posting her photos on FB and he wouldn't stop? All I could think of is, this should be a short answer. He is to STOP, and RIGHT NOW. For heaven sake she is not a baby, she is a teenage girl with feelings, and rights. Why on earth wouldn't you respect her simple request not to plaster her photos on FB? She isn't asking you to not take the photos or not ever show them to family or friends, she simply didn't wanted it plastered on FB. It's no unreasonable!
Instead the psychologist went into a long answer about how they should all sit down as a family and talk and reason with him, all these things they are to do to hedge around it. I found it frustrating.
I never liked Dr. Laura much but I'm guessing her answer to this would have been short too. STOP. PERIOD.
Is BV going to subpoena Twitter for the IP addresses of EVERY person on Twitter who dared speak ill of TFW? Good luck with that.
Marie
I wonder if Allison Arngrim's Twitter will get subpoenaed. She even dared to TESTIFY against TFW. She flew all the way to PA to share her insight into the dark side of child stardom and plead and beg the PA legislature to please not let this happen to the Gosselin children.
Maybe she could take TFW in a mud fight. That would be easier, and quicker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vo3aFvD0fE
Would you have to be desperate to sue your ex for something they did four or five years ago just for a measley $5,000? I really don't understand any of this. This suit does nothing for TFW except to re-hash in the media all of the child abuse charges and the fact that she has a terrible reputation. If she really wanted to move beyond her terrible rep, wouldn't it be smarter to let sleeping dogs lie and actually try to become the person you say you are? She has got to be the dumbest person I know. I often wonder if BV talked her into this just so he could get more notoriety for himself and his website and that TFW went along with it thinking it would help her gain attention and money also. Is she desperate for money or attention?
Marie
***Kate is not suing for $5000.
The wording in the complaint says "in excess of $5000." That could mean anything. I don't know if there's some kind of limit. I didn't see that mentioned anywhere.
I thought she was suing for $5k in damages to the computer, and unspecified damages for the other stuff. But I could be wrong.
Wow! Lots of publicity for other sextuplets!
The McGhee's sextuplets was on GMA this morning, and the Gosselin's weren't even mentioned!
Six little McGhee's take over GMA
On Yahoo home page, the Byler sextuplets was featured.
Sextuplets celebrate 6th Birthday
TLC stinks said... 116
I would bet she's been chomping at the bit to get back at Kevin and Jodi, so I think they are included as "Does". Ex-employees have been threatened too, my guess. If they violated their CA by talking to Robert, it's "Off with their heads!" Her goal is to eliminate ALL negative comments and publicity. Everyone else is to blame for her failures.
_______
I agree. I think Robert said something like he spoke to family or those close to the situation? I believe those are the Does.
I'm just surprised they only allowed for 20! If I were a betting girl, I'd bet RH has heard stories from more than 20 people in that community.
To file in federal court under the CFAA, you must plead at least $5,000 in costs. That's the baseline amount.
The lawsuit is specific in that it's a federal lawsuit involving hacking TFW's phone and email and stealing her hard drive (supposedly). It also includes conspiracy to steal and access, etc. It has nothing to do with confidentiality agreements. Why they're threatening people on Twitter is a mystery, unless they're trying to claim people on Twitter conspired with Jon and Robert, which is a stretch of the imagination.
I think the threats against people on Twitter are just people pretending to be insiders who are blowing smoke. One of them actually threatened a woman's child custody hearing over her opinions of TFW. It's absurd.
The gist of the lawsuit I got after hearing about it was that Kate was looking to be compensated. That means MONEY. I didn't read that she was asking Robert or Jon to admit that the materials in Robert's book were made up or to retract what he published. If someone published my journal, wouldn't it be common sense to sue that person to cease publishing it? Yes? So what is she doing filing that lawsuit? She is not suing for slander, etc. It will not stop him from re-releasing his book. The bottom line here; she is seeking money, in my opinion.
LB
p.s. I am not able to post under name, either. Posts are not going through unless I select anonymous.
Admin said (in part): A lot of her regular group of fans have been pretty quiet since she announced her intentions to make Jon pay. I imagine they have fathers, husbands, or other men in their lives they care about and lots of people have been through divorce or breakup with kids involved, and they never went to such lengths to make these men pay for it.
========
That may be part of it but I also think that some of them may be afraid that the $hit is going to splash back on them while it's rolling down hill. You know that if she's backed in to a corner TFW will throw them under the bus in a NY minute.
Mel said...
I thought she was suing for $5k in damages to the computer, and unspecified damages for the other stuff. But I could be wrong.
*****
You're right, Mel. She's suing for:
$5000 or "actual damages" for the computer,
unspecified compensatory damages,
punitive damages,
liquidated damages (from wiretapping charges),
fees and costs,
+ anything else the court deems appropriate.
= could add up to $ multiple millions.
BUT, neither Jon nor Robert have any money. So, unless the Does are multi-millionaires and it can be proven they caused her so much harm (cough) to be awarded such huge damages (cough, cough), I don't understand where she thinks she's going to get any money.
Which brings us back the same 'ole question - if she knows she probably won't collect much in damages, then why is she doing this? IMO, it's all to seek vengeance against perceived wrongs from YEARS ago. And, of course to try to prove what was said online ruined her reputation, bwaaaahahahaha. IF she were to win, I don't think she'd collect enough to pay for lawyer fees. I think this smells of a SLAPP suit thru and thru.
DWTS cast has been announced. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've never heard of 5 of them.
Lea Remini, Jack Osbourne, Christina Milian, Elizabeth Berkley, Valerie Harper, Amber Riley, Corbin Bleu, Brant Daugherty, Snookie, Bill Engvall, Bill Nye, Keyshawn Johnson.
Admin, what I found telling about Kate's statement (re the lawsuit) on her website was this:
"What started out as a mission to find the source(s) of excessive internet bullying and hate directed towards me..."
This "mission" is years old, and it is obvious that her null hypothesis was "Jon didn't do it", and she set out to prove that wrong because she rejected it from the get-go.
Let's just say her bias is blinding.
I hope that slowly, her adult supporters see the peril she is placing her family in and for what? Some grand revelation that Jon is really the bad guy and Kate, poor, poor Kate, has been viciously maligned?
Really, she and all of her intentions are as pure as the driven snow?
She really, really deserves a life in media?
Oh, thank goodness you brought this lawsuit, Kate! Now, we all see the light!
You really are a wonderful, amazing person, mom and overall humanitarian and also, you're great at everything you do!
This says it all:
"At the beginning of this investigation I made the decision to take legal action against those found to be responsible and see no reason to change this decision now "
So, come hell or high water, someone was going to pay, even if it's the father of her children.
Here's the thing; Kate can fool a very small handful of people who are never going to find fault in her, but everyone else knows she put the crosshairs on Jon's forehead the moment he tried to stop their show and get his kids off TV.
Admin said:
I can't find it again, but did anyone see that Huffington Post ask a therapist thing where a mom said her teen daughter was upset with her dad for posting her photos on FB and he wouldn't stop? All I could think of is, this should be a short answer. He is to STOP, and RIGHT NOW.
*****
I didn't see that particular article, but I agree with your response.
The fact that a parent would not respect their child's wishes in this respect is very sad.
I have a FB page, and I have under 40 friends and family members. Even so, I only occasionally post pictures of my son, because he doesn't like his picture being taken, is going through awkward adolescence, and so I have to respect that. His feelings matter most.
That's why I cringe every time Kate posts a picture of her children on Twitter or on her web page. Just leave them some privacy already! Of course, she will milk them for every last penny. Their only recourse is to keep growing up into adulthood, although I bet she'll still talk about them as "littles" and reminisce about her forced bed rest, and rehash so-called family traditions and taped memories of when they were still young children.
Can you imagine if Kate sues other family members like Kevin and Jodi? She's as much said they make up lies and then get paid to tell said lies.
What a disaster for her family, no matter how you slice it.
***Kate is not suing for $5000.
The wording in the complaint says "in excess of $5000." That could mean anything. I don't know if there's some kind of limit. I didn't see that mentioned anywhere.
***********8
Yeah, I guess she'll take what she can get. As long as its green.
Marie
TLC Stinks said:
. Also the insistence on a jury trial is interesting. Do you need a unanimous verdict in a civil trial?
******
I'm not sure if this is current information, but I did a quick Google search and found this listed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 48. Number of Jurors; Verdict; Polling
(a) Number of Jurors. A jury must begin with at least 6 and no more than 12 members, and each juror must participate in the verdict unless excused under Rule 47(c).
(b) Verdict. Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the verdict must be unanimous and must be returned by a jury of at least 6 members.
So, unlike state civil cases, where the verdict must be agreed upon by 3/4 of the jury, sounds like in Federal Court, it must be a unanimous verdict.
I would think this would mean Kate is even less likely to get a verdict in her favor. First, I believe she'd have an extremely difficult time proving she has any damages, beyond (perhaps) half the value of the computer that was allegedly hacked. Her lawsuit appears to make the claim that she suffered financial losses because of the hacking and dissemination of negative stories about her. It is clear that Kate has damaged her own reputation, repeatedly, via the TLC show and her time on DWTS. A book that was available for sale for two days before being pulled is outweighed by the mountains of evidence that show Kate demonstrated herself to be unlikeable, hard to work with, and subject to mental break down at the slightest provocation.
Another hurdle is to make the jurors want to find you believable and thus render a verdict in your favor. When it comes to Kate vs. Jon, need I say more?
I really cannot see how Kate could get a unanimous verdict from between 6 to 12 people, except a verdict in favor of Jon. She has perhaps 12 rabid fans left, and only one fan that I'm aware of that actually lives in PA (the woman who gave Kate the Ugg boots).
Looks to me like TFW is trying to stifle any and all negative comments/opinions about her. If she had her way, she'd bully every last "hater" until people were afraid of ever uttering a single negative word about her. Then it would all be sunlight and rainbows for her, she could get back on TV, and everyone would claim to adore her (whether they do or not).
If she could, she would bully lawmakers in to making it illegal to dislike her.
The fans seem to think that BV is going to take every last "hater" to task. What has he done so far, exactly? He released information about tweeters--information that was fed to him by TFW and her minions. And he bullied Lisa at RWA into closing her blog. Is that it? Last thing I read, the fans are expecting BV to DOX admin and get her disbarred, then for this blog to be shut down, and all of us will be made to pay for the crime of having negative opinions about their queen.In keeping with TFW's "Pretty Woman" fantasy, BV is expected to ride up on a white horse, vanquish all her foes, and make her dreams come true.
If she were to get a judgement in her favor, she won't see a dime from anyone because they will declare bankruptcy. She must be getting desperate. Maybe it's a gamble she is willing to take to squeeze money from other people.
Valerie Harper on DWTS???? Isn't she battling terminal brain cancer?
I know it's in remission, but has only been for a very short time. Like
a month or so. Wow.
EX NURSE #187 previous page
In 2009 when something did not smell right I found the Gosselin blogs = I spent 4 years of my life blogging before I burned out a year ago.
I read a lot of opinions, theories, assumptions, judgments, attacks, and I was part of the insanity of it all. Again I don't want to rehash the old stuff, I am not going to change any opinions, including my own. I believe we can agree to disagree even if we are on the same side.
I still don't get why some people think Polly is a hypocrite and it was wrong for her to write about the Gosselin family even though they moved into her neighborhood and not the other way around. It is what it is.
FTR when I first found Polly's blog I found it "humble" - after reading her first entries I remember smiling because she was a local who was excited that the Gs moved to her town and was looking forward to welcoming them into her small community. It did not take long before she discovered Kate wanted nothing to do with her [mediocre] neighbors and that she considers Wernersville "Ghettoville".
WernyGal was anonymous back then. When I discovered a link on her web site where one could figure out her true identity I sent her an email, eventually we traded phone numbers, discovered we had things in common, rest is history.
Al and Polly have been friends for years because they have a mutual interest/connection in their community, and there is an issue between Al and RH re $ that is owed over a G photo. Kinda not a surprise if Polly sides with Al, all things considering.
Al was telling her some of the crazy things that were going on which was fun for her to hear and it gave her ideas to post on her blog, but as things got crazier and because of her profession, she was seeing "red flags" (check out her early posts). In fact Polly told me that even Al did not realize that while he was working as a reporter and covering the stupidest story of the universe that it does in fact have a dark side when it comes to what is happening to the 8 children because there were no child labor laws in PA to protect them.
I know that Polly did not start her blog figuring she would write a book and wind up on E!, that it is just what evolved while she was networking. I think the same can be said for Al and RH - the 3 of them just found themselves in the middle of things and wound up writing books. But in Polly's case, perhaps because she is a female?, she was getting slammed by bloggers on both sides of the fence calling her a "stalker", "nosey neighbor", "hypocrite" and how dare she make any money off the G8!
Now is the time for me to share that not only is Polly a volunteer at two child advocacy agencies in her community but that for over 30 years as a masters decreed licensed professional counselor she has testified at several judiciary hearings advocating for the rights of children and victims of crime in Pennsylvania, and of course she was very much involved in the hearings in Harrisburg supporting the "Gosselin bill" - all of which she donates her time and travel expenses in order to do so in the hopes of helping others.
So in her spare time she put in many hours and wrote a book with the hope that it would make a difference in this world and as such why shouldn't she be compensated just like anyone else? At least now years later her book continues to educate people not only about the exploitation of the Gosselin children but also about the harms of reality TV to the entire family.
Also another thing that came up (thanks to BM who I see still has a blog) is that any web site owner who has advertising on their blog is making money. Polly still pays for her blog site even though it is not active, and the monthly costs of her blog were never covered by the small amount she made in advertising.
Re Technorati, Polly was not paid for any of her posts because Technorati does not pay anything. She posted there just to increase the audience in regards to the harmful effects of reality TV.
She has perhaps 12 rabid fans left, and only one fan that I'm aware of that actually lives in PA (the woman who gave Kate the Ugg boots).
+++++++++++++++++++++
There was that crazy Big Fan person who lives in Hershey, and of course, the stale cereal lady. There are quite a few who pop up from time to time and say that they live in her area. I don't want to give the names here, but yes, there are some who would, in a heartbeat, make a short drive to visit her and be her besties.
Milo, on Kate's body again:
Fired Up 4 Kate @MiloandJack 2h
@SchmeckyGirl2 @Kateplusmy8 No I DID NOT! :) Kate's good eating habits, exercise and her Mom's genes created a nice physique!
Milo knows Kate's mother's genes?
Is this an Al and Polly blog, how the two came to meet, and the validation of their "credentials?"
Mickey - should I call the Vatican now to nominate Polly for sainthood?
That's all BV does all is DOX people. I joined this blog unaware some sheeple, I believe from IW, made claims against Admin. Obviously these hateful women have BV's ear because he has been mouthing off recently. If this blog were to shut down, I would miss the comraderie but I would not think about Kate Gosselin for another minute. The negative press will continue even if she managed to have BV harass every blog owner who dislikes her. There is really something wrong with her using BV's vile tactics but I get that she is letting him be the front man for her dirty work. This is typical from her. I tell you, I would not be surprised Jon was set up to get caught by a photographer when he started stepping out.
Fired Up 4 Kate @MiloandJack 2h
@SchmeckyGirl2 @Kateplusmy8 No I DID NOT! :) Kate's good eating habits, exercise and her Mom's genes created a nice physique!
====
I am your number one fan. There is nothing to worry about. You are going to be just fine. I am your number one fan.
Is this an Al and Polly blog, how the two came to meet, and the validation of their "credentials?"
--------------
Apparently.
Nothing we didn't already know.
Why the sudden "sell" of Polly, and peripherally, Al?
I would not be surprised Jon was set up to get caught by a photographer when he started stepping out.
That was always my impression...a set up of some kind. I often wondered if cash wasn't paid to somebody (or somebodies) in exchange for the photo opportunities.
Not that he wasn't doing those things. He was. But it was always interesting that a person with a camera just happened to be there at exactly the right time.
Polly needs to be promoted here because?
NGGal51, why so rude? The OP was simply stating an opinion and did so quite respectfully.
Again I don't want to rehash the old stuff,
******
But it seems that you are doing just that. I find it boring and tedious.
Marie
Millicent said...(110)
"And I further agree that it makes no sense that it is illegal to strike a stranger, a co-worker, and even your spouse - but as a parent, you could hit your little kid with your hand or another implement and no charges would be filed against you. Why is it okay to hit a child, but not an adult?"
************************
Ridiculous, isn't it? Even with our stricter laws, you are still more likely to be charged for striking an animal than your own child.
Why are the most innocent members of our population afforded the least protection?
I've read news stories where parents were being investigated by child services because their kids are overweight.
In the meantime, a 4 year old boy dies of horrific abuse and neglect DESPITE numerous people in positions of authority being aware he was at risk for MONTHS.
THAT makes sense, sure.
We notice that little Johnny comes to school hungry, steals food from the trash, is covered in bruises and is unusually withdrawn. Hmmmm, what should we do?
We notice that little Suzie's BMI is higher than the recommended levels and even though she's happy, healthy and socializes well, we should launch an investigation.
I'm not making this shit up. This is just one example of how totally absurd society's view of child protection is.
We'll drag our heels, we'll hem and haw and we'll hesitate when we think (even have physical evidence of) a child is being abused.
But damn it, if the kid is fat...well, his/her parents need to be called to task.
How f'd up is that?
It breaks my heart.
And while the Bible may say, "Spare the rod, spoil the child."
I present...
Matthew 19:14
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
Abuse destroys faith and hope. It hinders growth and trust. It damages hearts and minds and it encourages fear.
It's just wrong.
Okay, stepping down from my soapbox now.
The negative press will continue even if she managed to have BV harass every blog owner who dislikes her.
*************************
I wonder if he and his followers took a look at Robert's blog and saw the plethora of negative articles written about Kate. Are they going to sue all of them? They'd be up to their eyeballs trying to out every one of them, including all of those who left comments.
NJGal51 said... 166
Mickey - should I call the Vatican now to nominate Polly for sainthood?
********************
I'm just wondering why they don't post their own bios here. Oh, wait, that's right. Al doesn't know about this blog.
"Mickey - should I call the Vatican now to nominate Polly for sainthood?"
Word, a thousand times over. Once the effusive Polly comments started rolling in, I stopped reading. Any respect I once had for Polly I lost once she 1) essentially stopped commenting on her blog to force people to buy her for-profit book (and what are her credentials to write about this situation, anyway? She might be a therapist but she hasn't even met the family); 2) started posting things that made it clear she has no idea what she's talking about (like stating as a fact that Kate's sister and mom's FB page was, in fact, run by fans and not they themselves); 3) made disparaging remarks about Robert just because her friend Al is bitter (Robert knows more about the G's firsthand than Polly could ever hope to--and his book's proceeds were donated to charity--so she really ought to shut up about that and other things).
Not trying to start any arguments, but just my opinion for what it's worth.
I am your number one fan. There is nothing to worry about. You are going to be just fine. I am your number one fan.
*******************
She forgot to include the part about rockin the bikini. Oh well, never fear, I'm sure she'll sneak that in somewhere!
"after reading her first entries I remember smiling because she was a local who was excited that the Gs moved to her town"
To paraphrase Robert: I guess you could say she was a neighbor in the same way that Mars is a neighbor of Earth.
Shelby - I didn't think I was being rude I thought I was being humorous. We have been hearing about Polly and Al since yesterday from Mickey. We get her POV. She is friends with Polly, Polly is not a hypocrite, Polly and Al are friends because.... Polly has her own blog, promote her over there. Respectfully speaking of course.
I find the Al/Polly stuff mildly interesting.
I didn't read either of their books. I know little about them. I choose not to follow them now. This blog is my source of Gosselin info. I visit here because I like the contributors and the conversations.
I don't need an extensive tutorial about other blogs and authors. I would search them out if I wanted to know.
Thanks.
Over In Kate's County said... 164
Milo knows Kate's mother's genes?
___________
I wonder what happened to Kate's dad's genes? Poor things must be out there wandering around with no place to go :-)
I find Al and Polly stuff interesting too but I guess we could go to her blog to read about it.
I don't need an extensive tutorial about other blogs and authors. I would search them out if I wanted to know.
Thanks.
==============
In my opinion, it's time to move on now. We've had the explanations. I know we can always scroll past and doing so is not rocket science, but, well, enough is enough. Not to be rude or disrespectful, but it does tend to wear thin after awhile. I don't know, but somehow it has shades of Milo and her admiration of Kate. It's been said, very well explained...I'm not sure exactly why...but nevertheless, is this really a topic for discussion/debate?
WooHoo! Countdown to new season of Dancin' With Them Thar Stars!
Bill Nye the science guy, ummm okay.
Bill Engvall, the here's your sign guy from blue collar comedy tour and specials, he is funny! Coordinated, not sure about that. Amber from Glee! love her!
Snooki, TFMJG should take lessons from her in how to extend your fifteen minutes into a franchise.
Elizabeth Berkley, will any of the old Saved by the Bell cast mates show up to support her? We can hope!
Corbin Bleu, the High School Musical fan base will tune in for sure! They are now twenty somethings and still love that movie and the cast.
Valerie Harper! Just because you have cancer doesn't mean you have to stop living or stop dancing!
Jack Osborne has multiple sclerosis, just because you have MS doesn't mean you have to stop living or stop dancing!
Leah is feisty and funny!
We also have singer Christina, football player Keyshawn, eye candy Brant (his show Pretty Little Liars is on ABC family).
Its am interesting group. My dh really likes bill Engvall and will watch just to see what he does.
Thank goodness, because Big Brother is almost over and I need some manufactured competition show reality after watching some of the BB antics. I love it but feel slimy after watching mcCranda.
I am disappointed that Jon isn't one of the contestants listed for the upcoming DWTS. I would watched his performance.
BMA said... 149
''.......Why they're threatening people on Twitter is a mystery, unless they're trying to claim people on Twitter conspired with Jon and Robert, which is a stretch of the imagination.''
~~~~~~~~~~
I think that is exactly what they are trying to claim. That is why that ziggy person brought up RICO.
(Behind, but posting anyway!)
Layla said... 159
Last thing I read, the fans are expecting BV to DOX admin and get her disbarred, then for this blog to be shut down, and all of us will be made to pay for the crime of having negative opinions about their queen.
_____
Wasn't his DOX the great Pepperdine conspiracy?! Funniest thing I've ever read in this whole mess. Talk about tin-foil hats.
I am still so confused about what the sheeple are bleating about -- the doxing, the outings, the subpoena for the haters, process servers, their time will come, etc. etc. Are they referring to Kate's lawsuit or the class action suit? Why would haters' comments on Twitter have anything to do with Kate's suit alleging the hacking/wiretapping, and how does BV outing those who don't like Kate enter into Kate's lawsuit?
Mickey--thanks for taking the time to respond. I think that what started out as well-intentioned evolved into something lease. I devote my time to several organizations, but I don't expect or want to profit. I am pretty sure the information about her association with child advocacy is already publicly known.
My issue has always been the privacy of the Gosselin children. I feel that Polly used her position in the community, and her neighborhood connections to get the inside dirt, and that bothers me. I am going through a divorce, and have talked to many of my neighbors. If someone named me in a book they were doing on alcoholism and divorce, I would consider that a betrayal. A counselor has an intensified responsibility to not cross professional ethics. I probably wouldn't feel as strongly if someone who is not linked to the community had written the same book.
There were many professionals in various fields that have weighed in over the years, who were paid for what they do. But none of them presented themselves as doing this out of the goodness of their hearts and then transitioned into turning to self-promotion. I think she hurt her credibility in taking any side publicly. The fact that the argument between Al and RH was over a paparazzi photo for a tabloid, pretty much confirms my opinion.
Anyway, I do appreciate knowing that she wasn't paid for the technocrati articles.
I think that is exactly what they are trying to claim. That is why that ziggy person brought up RICO.
(Behind, but posting anyway!)
===============
So the non-fans on Twitter are white-collar mobsters?
I'm behind on posts, too.
No Jon on DWTS this season, but I'd just like to touch on the fact that Tony is paired with Leah Remini. How amazing is that?
Fleecing The Sheeple said... 189
I am still so confused about what the sheeple are bleating about -- the doxing, the outings, the subpoena for the haters, process servers, their time will come, etc. etc. Are they referring to Kate's lawsuit or the class action suit? Why would haters' comments on Twitter have anything to do with Kate's suit alleging the hacking/wiretapping, and how does BV outing those who don't like Kate enter into Kate's lawsuit?
-------------------
BV miraculously has been able to combine the bullying done by haters with Jon and RH's "stealing" of her private property and made one big lawsuit charging Jon, RH and the haters with conspiring and defaming Kate for profit. And he figured it all out in less than a month!!
Joy (185)...OT
Do you mean that you know all of these people? lol!! I know who Valerie is, and I heard of Snooks and the Science Guy, but the others, not so much.
Wasn't there talk awhile back that DWTS was shooting for a cast of stars, not relatively unknowns? Or am I just the only one who has never heard of these people? I don't exactly live a sheltered life, but geez, I must really be missing something when it comes to who is who in the entertainment industry!
If Polly wants weigh in here, I would welcome her point of view. I appreciate people being suspicious, but the comments were well-written and was in response to my comments.
If Polly doesn't want to post here, then, I agree that it isn't useful to have a spokesperson.
Sheri - concern for children is so compelling. I think if we could educate and encourage gentler and kinder methods of child rearing, the world would be a better place.
MickeyMcKean said... 162
Polly? My first thought is Polly who?
My second thought is, never mind, I don't really need or want to know.
Layla said:
The fans seem to think that BV is going to take every last "hater" to task.
*******
The fans/rabid supporters have never let reality get in the way of their opinions.
Is there another Layla here? I did not post the comment at 183.
I'm just wondering, if two of the John/Jane Does are Kevin and Jodi, is Rep Murt a John Doe, too? After all, he limited her ability to sell her kids' childhoods.
Interesting how someone anonymously posted a link to Al's blog here the other day (but not AL! Oh, no, he doesn't even know this blog exists!) And then today someone posted using my name (183) saying to read on Polly's blog. Seems to me there are two people out there who desperately want to direct traffic from this blog to their own. I have never read Polly's blog (or Al's, for that matter). So, little troll, whoever you are, please don't pretend to be me in order to hype someone else's blog.
If Polly wants weigh in here, I would welcome her point of view. I appreciate people being suspicious,
==================
Who is suspicious, and of whom?
I wonder why the interest in driving people to other blogs.
Wouldn't have anything to do with upping their reader numbers, would it?
Think any of those people are trying to sell something to somebody, based on their huge number of readers, a la TFW?
The cookbook might make it in to "second-hand" stores. Since moving to a new state and a more heavily populated area, we have been seeing all of the different books regarding the Gosselins at the thrift shops. Obviously, people do not want to keep them in their personal libraries. No surprise to me. Once people "woke up and smelled the coffee" KG was done. She did it to herself. Sad she cannot really look at herself in the mirror and realize it.
When I saw that beautiful Jenny M. who is coming to the VIEW, made me wonder if KG was trying to look like her? Isn't working. It's always better to be the best version of oneself rather than trying to mimic another person. Another sad thing, isn't it?
New comments are not allowed.