Friday, September 20, 2013

Robert files Answer to Kate's lawsuit

Robert's attorney, Martin Garbus
Author Robert Hoffman has hired legendary First Amendment attorney Martin Garbus to represent him. His Answer was filed yesterday.

Garbus is asserting the defenses of statute of limitations, failure to state a cause of action, and first amendment protections under opinion, factual statements and matters of public concern. Garbus has defended Nelson Mandela, Cesar Chavez, Robert Redford, Michael Moore, and numerous major First Amendment cases including the famous Ashton v. Kentucky case in 1966, now in every Constitutional Law textbook.

Here is his answer, courtesy of Jon's attorney Shawn Tuma:


Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 1 of 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________ )
KATE GOSSELIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) JONATHAN GOSSELIN, ROBERT HOFFMAN, ) and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20 ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)
Case No. 13 Civ. 4989 (JLS)
ROBERT HOFFMAN’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Defendant Robert Hoffman (“Hoffman”), through his undersigned counsel, hereby responds to the allegations of the Complaint, dated August 26, 2013 (the “Complaint”) of plaintiff, Kate Gosselin, with the following Answer:
RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS
1. Denies the allegations of plaintiff’s “Preliminary Statement,” except admits that plaintiff is the mother of eight children, including sextuplets, admits that defendant Jonathan Gosselin (“Jonathan”) had been married to plaintiff, admits that plaintiff and Jonathan are divorced, and admits that plaintiff and Jonathan starred in a popular television reality show called “Jon and Kate Plus 8” or “Kate Plus 8” from in or around 2007 to in or around 2011.
2. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Complaint.
3. Denies the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint, except admits that Hoffman is an adult individual.
page1image14008
page1image14280
{00011257.DOC;1}
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 2 of 13
4. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
5. law to the
6. law to the
7. law to the
8. law to the
9.
  1. Admits the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
  2. Admits the allegations of paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
  3. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth
of the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
13. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
14. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
15. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
16. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 5 of the Complaint, and refers all questions of Court.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Complaint, and refers all questions of Court.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 7 of the Complaint, and refers all questions of Court.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Complaint, and refers all questions of Court.
Admits the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
{00011257.DOC;1} 2
{00011257.DOC;1}
3
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 3 of 13
  1. Denies the allegations of paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
  2. Denies the allegations of paragraph 18 of the Complaint, and refers all questions
of law to the Court.
19. Denies the allegations of paragraph 19 of the Complaint, except admits that plaintiff is a celebrity and that certain information about her may be of value.
20. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
21. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
22. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
23. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
24. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
25. Denies the allegations of paragraph 25 of the Complaint, except admits that Hoffman and Jonathan have a friendship with one another.
  1. Denies the allegations of paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
  2. Denies the allegations of paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
  3. Denies the allegations of paragraph 28 of the Complaint, except denies knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief concerning Jonathan’s publications, if any. 29. Denies the allegations of paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4
Filed 09/19/13 Page 4 of 13
30. Denies the allegations of paragraph 30 legally obtained certain information of public interest disposed of by plaintiff.
  1. Denies the allegations of paragraph 31
  2. Denies the allegations of paragraph 32
  3. Denies the allegations of paragraph 33
  4. Denies the allegations of paragraph 34
of the Complaint, except admits that he about plaintiff, including information
of the Complaint.
of the Complaint.
of the Complaint.
of the Complaint, except admits that he
wrote a book about plaintiff entitled “Kate Gosselin: How She Fooled the World”.
  1. Denies the allegations of paragraph 35 of the Complaint.
  2. Denies the allegations of paragraph 36 of the Complaint.
  3. Denies the allegations of paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
  4. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 38 of the Complaint,
repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 37 of the Complaint.
39. Denies the allegations of paragraph 39 of the Complaint, and refers all questions of law to the Court.
40. Denies the allegations of paragraph 40 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
41. Denies the allegations of paragraph 41 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
{00011257.DOC;1} 4
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 5 of 13
42. Denies the allegations of paragraph 42 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
43. Denies the allegations of paragraph 43 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
44. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 44 of the Complaint.
45. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the truth of the allegations of paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
46. Denies the allegations of paragraph 46 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
  1. Denies the allegations of paragraph 47 of the Complaint.
  2. Denies the allegations of paragraph 48 of the Complaint.
  3. Denies the allegations of paragraph 49 of the Complaint.
  4. Denies the allegations of paragraph 50 of the Complaint.
  5. Denies the allegations of paragraph 51 of the Complaint.
  6. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 52 of the Complaint,
repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 51 of the Complaint.
{00011257.DOC;1} 5
{00011257.DOC;1}
6
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 6 of 13
53. Denies the allegations of paragraph 53 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
54. Denies the allegations of paragraph 54 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
55. Denies the allegations of paragraph 55 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
56. Denies the allegations of paragraph 56 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
57. Denies the allegations of paragraph 57 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
58. Denies the allegations of paragraph 58 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
59. Denies the allegations of paragraph 59 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
60. Denies the allegations of paragraph 60 of the Complaint.
{00011257.DOC;1}
7
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 7 of 13
61. Denies the allegations of paragraph 61 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Electronic Communications Protection Act.
  1. Denies the allegations of paragraph 62 of the Complaint.
  2. Denies the allegations of paragraph 63 of the Complaint.
  3. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 64 of the Complaint,
repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 63 of the Complaint.
65. Denies the allegations of paragraph 65 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Stored Communications Act.
66. Denies the allegations of paragraph 66 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Stored Communications Act.
67. Denies the allegations of paragraph 67 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Stored Communications Act.
68. Denies the allegations of paragraph 68 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Stored Communications Act.
69. Denies the allegations of paragraph 69 of the Complaint.
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 8 of 13
70. Denies the allegations of paragraph 70 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Stored Communications Act.
71. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 71 of the Complaint, repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 70 of the Complaint.
72. Denies the allegations of paragraph 72 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
73. Denies the allegations of paragraph 73 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
74. Denies the allegations of paragraph 74 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
75. Denies the allegations of paragraph 75 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
  1. Denies the allegations of paragraph 76 of the Complaint.
  2. Denies the allegations of paragraph 77 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court
all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
{00011257.DOC;1} 8
{00011257.DOC;1}
9
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 9 of 13
78. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 78 of the Complaint, repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 77 of the Complaint.
79. Denies the allegations of paragraph 79 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
  1. Denies the allegations of paragraph 80 of the Complaint.
  2. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 81 of the Complaint,
repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 80 of the Complaint.
82. Denies the allegations of paragraph 82 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of 18 Pa. C.S. §4120.
83. Denies the allegations of paragraph 83 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the content, meaning and applicability of 18 Pa. C.S. §8315.
  1. Denies the allegations of paragraph 84 of the Complaint.
  2. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 85 of the Complaint,
repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 84 of the Complaint.
  1. Denies the allegations of paragraph 86 of the Complaint.
  2. Denies the allegations of paragraph 87 of the Complaint.
  3. Denies the allegations of paragraph 88 of the Complaint.
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 10 of 13
  1. Denies the allegations of paragraph 89 of the Complaint.
  2. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 90 of the Complaint,
repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 89 of the Complaint.
  1. Denies the allegations of paragraph 91 of the Complaint.
  2. Denies the allegations of paragraph 92 of the Complaint.
  3. Denies the allegations of paragraph 93 of the Complaint.
  4. Denies the allegations of paragraph 94 of the Complaint.
  5. Denies the allegations of paragraph 95 of the Complaint.
  6. Denies the allegations of paragraph 96 of the Complaint.
  7. Denies the allegations of paragraph 97 of the Complaint.
  8. As and for his response to the allegations of paragraph 98 of the Complaint,
repeats and re-alleges his responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 97 of the Complaint.
99. Denies the allegations of paragraph 99 of the Complaint, and refers to the Court all questions of law, including all questions concerning the common law of Pennsylvania with respect to privacy.
  1. Denies the allegations of paragraph 100 of the Complaint.
    First Affirmative Defense
  2. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
    Second Affirmative Defense
  3. The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by governing statutes of limitations.
    Third Affirmative Defense
page10image14920
page10image15192
page10image15464
{00011257.DOC;1}
10
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 11 of 13
103. If and to the extent plaintiff purports to state a claim for defamation, such claim is barred in whole or in part based on the truth of any statements and comments by defendant about plaintiff.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
104. If and to the extent plaintiff purports to state a claim for defamation, such claim is barred in whole or in part based on the grounds that any statements and comments by defendant about plaintiff constitute constitutionally protected statements of opinion.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
105. If and to the extent plaintiff purports to state a claim for defamation, such claim is barred in whole or in part on the basis of the qualified and conditional privilege with respect to reporting, commentary and statements by defendant on matters of public interest.
page11image8416
page11image8688
{00011257.DOC;1} 11
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 12 of 13
WHEREFORE, defendant requests judgment dismissing the Complaint and awarding to defendant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
/s/ James P. Golden______________
James P. Golden
I.D. Nos. 32169
HAMBURG & GOLDEN, P.C. 1601 Market Street, Suite 3310 Philadelphia, PA 19103-1443 (215) 255-8590 goldenjp@hamburg-golden.com

Martin Garbus, Esq. (pro hac vice pending) Brendan R. Marx, Esq. (pro hac vice pending) Eaton & VanWinkle, LLP
3 Park Avenue

16th Floor
New York, NY 10016 bmarx@evw.com MGarbus@evw.com Telephone: (212) 779-9910 Facsimile: (212) 779-9928
page12image7712
Dated: September 19, 2013
{00011257.DOC;1} 12
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 4 Filed 09/19/13 Page 13 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, James P. Golden, certify that the foregoing answer has been filed electronically and is now available for viewing and downloading from the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System and that the answer has been served on September 19, 2013, by email and regular mail.
page13image4040
A. Jordan Rushie, Esquire Mulvihill & Rushie LLC
The Fishtown Lawyer
2424 E. York Street, Suite 316 Philadelphia, PA 19125 Jordan@FishtownLaw.com

Marc J. Randazza, Esquire Randazza Legal Group 3625 S. Town Center Drive Las Vegas, NV 89135 mjr@randazza.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Kate Gosselin
Shawn E. Tuma, Esquire BrittonTuma
7161 Bishop Road, Suite 220 Plano, Texas 75024 stuma@brittontuma.com

Richard L. Orwig, Esquire Orwig Law Offices
2213 Quarry Dr., Suite B001 West Lawn, PA 19609 rlorwig@orwiglaw.com

Attorneys for defendant Jonathan K. Gosselin
Dated: September 19, 2013
/s/ James P. Golden JAMES P. GOLDEN
page13image12048
{00011257.DOC;1} 

593 sediments (sic) from readers:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 593   Newer›   Newest»
Marie said...

#Hellooooo

Marie

jbranck1980 said...

#im done

Courtesy of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbDAo98UykA

About 16 minutes in :)

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

PatK, when I first started to dislike TFW wayyyy back when was when I noticed she was a blamer. Everything was Jon's fault, the kids' fault, low blood sugar's fault, everyone else's fault but her own. She struck me as incredibly immature for frankly not exactly a young mom. She was almost in her 30's. At that point in your life to still be whining like a 19 year old who hasn't learned to suck it up and own your mistakes was not attractive! I think I would have been more sympathetic had she been eight years younger. Terrible role model for women.

chefsummer said...

#HonestlyMrJudgeMan - #It'sallJon'sfault

deepintheheartoftexas said...

#whowouldgiveyougum

JoyinVirginia said...

TMZ has been calling The Black Dog restaurant? I like Harvey ” i'm a lawyer” Levin that runs TMZ. He is someone who could take the legal issues involved and explain them clearly to the average person. Oh please please please I hope that happens!!!!!!!!

Susan said...

Admin, I have not been as exhausted as that woman since i turned 67. She is a phony. And she still hurts those children. I know. Always knew. She is more than abusive. She is a monster. Soon, some will tell. Soon.
The reason that witch has been bulletproof is money. Kate has sold them to highest bidder. And she will never stop. It is so sad that this lawsuit, (thank you JON and ROBERT) at this late date, so late for the kid to have ANY relief. Dear Lord, how has this happened? Ask Jodi,ask her brother, ask Jon? Why were eight lives sacrificed? The almmighty dollar. Pure and simple.

Susan said...

The Gosselin bitch is done. She cannot get away with anything any longer. She is ugly, inside and out. Who will touch her? Only the leper shows that are dying on vine. Lepers.

Meagler said...

I think #superfunlawsuit should be the hashtag we use and my reasoning is:


When the world was struggling with the storm of the century and Kate was enjoying her time with her kids, she tweeted #superfunsandy


Now Kate is struggling with the storm of her life and the world will enjoy watching the lawsuit, it only seems reciprocal we tweet #superfunlawsuit

Tess said...

#IHaveAPurseFullOfBills

Tess said...

Susan 193

Sadly, I believe you are right.

Kirkland said...

Ally said #146...
FYI - if you go to amazon and go down to the discussion boards, under "why?", you will find 2 of my reviews of her book. You can easily match up my names!

---------------------
I checked out Amazon and didn't find any reviews. Am I looking in the wrong place?

Love is in the Mix

chefsummer said...

PatK said... 193

And when the shakedown of the Khaters falls flat, what will she blame THAT on?
______

Probably her fans cause they didn't know how to help her sue Jon & Robert & the haters.

Millicent said...

Tucker's Mom said... 101
Watching this go forward would be *fascinating*, especially our discussing it here. But, what's best for everyone, especially the kids, is to drop the lawsuit and somehow, some way, get Jon and Kate to bury the hatchet.
****
Tucker's Mom, I agree completely with you. Unfortunately, one of the two parties involved is not a normal, rational person. Can you or anyone here remember even one instance where Kate put her children, or even one of her children, before herself? Because I cannot. What comes first and foremost is what Kate wants. The children's wants and needs don't even come second, or third. They seem to fall somewhere near dead last.

So to hold out hope that she and Jon would both behave like rational adults whose first wish is their childrens' best interests is sadly, not based on fact.

I believe Kate does not have the mental or psychological ability to be anything but extremely selfish, self-centered, and totally lacking in any normal maternal emotion of protectiveness toward her children. It's just not hardwired into her, for whatever reason. I doubt there is any amount of counseling, or medication, that could set her on the right track.

I don't fault you or anyone who still holds out hope, but I don't share in that hope. I think the only thing that will happen is Kate will lose or be forced to dismiss this lawsuit, pretend it never happened, and go on to try to demonize Jon and Robert in any way she can. The problem is the further she gets into her unreal world, the scarier it gets.

fidosmommy said...

I completely understand not having the maternal instinct. It is not a crime or a sin to be lacking that - UNLESS YOU CHOSE TO HAVE CHILDREN and worked with doctors to get them. Then it becomes a tragedy, IMO.

NJGal51 said...

#comeandgetyerpopcorn

MickeyMcKean said...

I checked out Amazon and didn't find any reviews. Am I looking in the wrong place?

-----------------

Go to barnesandnoble to see the reviews.

To sum up the reviews: it seems that it is all about dumping canned goods loaded with sodium to the recipes. Hey, I'm all for good, fast and easy recipes but they have to be heart healthy too.

The other issue being mentioned is that it is more of a photo album of the kids versus a cookbook.

Meagler said...

I know that Milo and msgoody2shoes21 read here, so I find it very interesting that not one of them has made a comment about the MTd from Jon, and Rogerts Answers filed.

Wasnt it during TFW's TLC high powered laywer days, that emails would be sent when Kate has been a dweeb and did something stupid, they would tell her to just ignore and fart...errr..tweet or speak unicorns and rainbows?

Well that has got to be what they are doing now....

PatK said...

Yessiree, Kate didn't see THIS train a-comin'. Thought she still had what it takes to steamroll over people.

Those days are long gone, doll. But you and your six delusional fans can reminisce about what #superfunlawsuit "could have been" for years to come. *snicker*

Anonymous said...

#busted

franky

thank you karma

Sleepless In Seattle said...

I checked out Amazon and didn't find any reviews. Am I looking in the wrong place?

Love is in the Mix

-------------

Looking for love in all the wrong places?

NJGal51 said...

@MiloandJack: #NewsFlash The new printing of #LoveIsInTheMix brings copies in print to 50,000.The title will also be available as an e-book. @Kateplusmy8
========
Bwahahahahahahahahaha! Just how many of those 50K books have actually sold and how many will be returned to the publisher?

#notnumberoneonthenytbestsellerlist

kids first said...

Other than the Naughty But Nice article there has been no way that the public at large would know anything about Jon and Robert's requests to dismiss or their super star lawyers. Am I right?

Marie said...

#nooneknowshowtohelpme

Marie

Marie said...

Looking for love in all the wrong places?

&&&&&&&&&

That could be a hashtag

Marie

Tucker's Mom said...

Is there any way to find out how many books have gone to print for The Pioneer Woman's soon to be released cookbook?
50K for Kate's seems very pie in the sky, to me. I can't imagine what would make HCI print that many.
What am I not getting here?
Kate's prior book sold nowhere near that.

Amy2 said...

#itsjonsfault

Jumping In said...

Kate continues on, seemingly immune to any and all detractors because she has the likes of Katie Couric knocking at her at her door. Combined with upcoming appearances on the TODAY show, a few entertainment slots, after her People cover and she's flying high! Jon and Robert lawyer up, so what...she's too busy to notice, and too dumb to care. She truly believes her own lies.

TFW feels bullet-proof because she measures her life in increments of fame, the only measurement that matters in her twisted view of life. As long as the entertainment industry keeps her relevant, she is winning in her mind. Besides, she has 'the single mother of 8' story to hide behind, it's always worked before!

kymom said...

JoyinVirginia (188)
Anyone new reading here might wonder about some of the terms.
TFW = The Former Wife
TFMJG = The Former Mrs. Jon Gosselin
Ms Kreider = Katie Irene Kreider = TFW
______________
Thank you JoyinVirginia. I am not new, been here since I heard about this site on Z on TV. I just haven't been here much this year.

I thought TFW meant The F-ing Witch.(lol)

LeeLee said...

Anyone get this one yet?

#PenaltyOfSevereness

jbranck1980 said...

#ignorethehatersandjoinourfun

Meagler said...

I still vote for #superfunlawsuit

...but....how about this...

#everyoneleavesme

Yes Kate, yes they do...and it aint because of the kids!

Remona Blue said...

Millicent said... 14
''.... I think the only thing that will happen is Kate will lose or be forced to dismiss this lawsuit, pretend it never happened, and go on to try to demonize Jon and Robert in any way she can. The problem is the further she gets into her unreal world, the scarier it gets.''
~~~~~~~~~~~
Is it possible that WHEN her lawsuit is lost or forced to dismiss that there can be a court order of sanctions against her, ordering her to leave Jon and/or Robert alone? I suspect the only thing TFMJG would listen to would be the threat of huge monetary fines if she violated the court order. Someone please tell me that is possible!

chefsummer said...

#TFWsuperfungrifter

Amy2 said...

#mineallmine

Remona Blue said...

kymom at... 29
Jon gave an interview and never once used her name. He called her ''my former wife'' every single time. I had been using KK, because Jon and the children are Gosselins, but she is not. On this blog, we started using TFW, and TFMJG. I don't know about the others, but every time I see TFW or TFMJG, I think of it as supporting Jon.

Meagler said...

Somebody please explain to me....

HCi tweeted on Sept 17 that Lovee is in the mix had been sent out to all resellers and should be received soon. Okay, that makes sense, but then today they tweet they are getting excited FOR the publication of TFW's book???

How can it be published already yet yet to be published???


I am sooo confused 0-o

Sleepless In Seattle said...

In looking at some of the timelines of Kate's fans, I am fascinated that they believe that they have a personal relationship with celebrities. The psychological aspect of it is so interesting. Kate, of course, seems to use these fans when she wants something, They respond, and in doing so they then believe that Kate owes them.

But some of them don't tweet Kate exclusively. What about the other celebrities they tweet? Without the encouragement of the celebrity, how do they get to that point? Do they just keep tweeting away, believing that with each tweet they become closer to the celebrity?

For example, this Kate fan apparently wants to be best buddies with Amy Roloff:

xxxxxxxx
@amyroloffCF I'm also packing up my apt this week!I'm trying to fit everything in-I will let you know later when my move-in date is,soon!

The same applies to the Uggs lady, who tweeted Kate that she is there for her, thanked her for all she did for her, calls her "my buddy Kate," while at the same time wanted to meet up with another celebrity in New Jersey, and called Miss Pennsylvania (Miss America pageant) HER Miss PA....tweeted Sherrod (?) about his penis show, and tweeted Lara Spencer (GMA) and told her to wish Miss PA a happy birthday for her. Kate's fans frequently do the same thing...telling Kate to say hi to the twins, sending them jokes to tell the kids, etc. etc. If you were a celebrity wouldn't this get old fast -- all of these strangers thinking that they know you on a personal and intimate level?

Do these fans ever get over it, or if ignored, does it get to the point where it is beyond creepy, if not downright sinister?

Suzee said...

How did TFW get hooked up with Razzle Dazzle?

The connection is BV. Razzmatazz was/is BV owner's attorney (previous SLAPP suit iirc).

Meagler said...

Does anyone remember/know how TFW got hooked up with BV?

Call Me Crazy said...

#MediocreWaiterServesUpSomeWhoopAssOnAGoldenPlatter


#SomewhereInTheWorldSarahPalin'sDadIsLaughing

Meagler said...

Call me crazy.... ha ha good ones!!

Tweet-le De Tweet-le DUMB said...

Martyr Milo is at it again:

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@
I think this was written 4me >>
pic.twitter.com/tCp73LjrX0

"Not everyone will appreciate what you do for them. You have to figure out who's worth your kindness and who's just taking advantage."
-------------

She gets sooo pouty.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Milo keeps score. If she holds the door open for you she will expect you to hold it open for her tenfold. If she does something for you she wants you to forever show your gratitude beyond even what a reasonable person would show. It would be nice if life worked that way, but it often doesn't.

Fall Flowers said...

This entire time I thought:
TFW= The Fame Whore

AuntieAnn said...

Suzee said... 36

The connection is BV. Razzmatazz was/is BV owner's attorney (previous SLAPP suit iirc).

====

I think McGibney might even be a bigger narcissist than Kate, if that's possible. He snagged her because she's so emotionally immature and such a sucker for sympathy.

'Come into my parlor said the spider to the fly'.

OrangeCrusher1 said...

Oh poor Paige. She doesn't know what you wear to these 'shows'.
Does she have any idea what a book signing is? A line of people, well maybe not in TFW's case, waiting for a brief, very brief, convo with the author while she scratches her name, maybe yours. Slam, bam, that's the show. Again, this does not bode well for young Paige.

Amy said...

If someone had written a book about me that was untrue and that someone claimed I threw my personal papers, hard drive in the trash, I would sue them. Go to court to straighten it out as I would not want my 8 kids to have to live with that. Hoffman shouldn't have written the book, Jon should have left everything alone, just ran off with the women. He never fought for those kids. So why this book. Who does it hurt? The kids, now the lawsuit to straighten things out. About time the kids were #1 priority wise with both parents. But I would certainly sue Hoffman for that book. He didn't even make money from it, like Karma, bad things you do come back to haunt you. When couples can't be married, just walk away and do the best for your kids.

fidosmommy said...

"tweeted Sherrod about his penis show"? I'm afraid to google that to see what that's about. I probably don't really want to know.

I'm hoping that was an autocorrect funny.

Cammie said...

Why does amazon list Love is in the Mix under Parenting & Relationship books when it is a cookbook?
The other "celebrity" cookbooks are listed under cookbooks.

Blue Moon said...

Ex Nurse, I appreciate your digging for the facts. Nothing wrong with asking questions. We aren't sheep here.

Marie said...

#bullyvillelawsuitgenius

Marie

SwingsandRoundabouts said...

#happiedup

URL said...

Admin., do you know how long TFW's lawyer has to respond back to Jon and Robert's motions? I imagine her lawyer will be very busy in the next few weeks.

#Useagoodplungerforthefinalflush

Anonymous said...

wow oh wow oh wow...wow wow wow

^5 to both of them and to the outstanding legal teams they have acquired.

Can the void of all those hundreds of CA agreements bankrupt TFW along with any counter lawsuits that could or may be filed?

See the money wanna stay, for your meal
Get another piece of pie, for your lies
Everybody wanna know, how it feel
Everybody wanna see, what it's like
Baby wanna be a queen, well alright
We all deserve the finer things, in this life

Yeah! I'll step back, while you go dance. . . . . . . . . .

Bitchy Pants said...

Kirkland and others -- Amazon doesn't allow reviews for books while they're on pre-order, and they still have TFMJGs book listed as a pre-order. However, they do allow forum discussions on the book. There are a couple of forum discussions on "Love Is In the Mix", and they include a number of scathing comments and unofficial reviews. You can find them at http://www.amazon.com/Why/forum/Fx3DLLNYLDJOVYG/ and click on the one(s) you're interested in reading. I think the discussion referred to previously was the one entitled "Why?", but they are all interesting. Sorry, I don't know how to make the link clickable. Maybe someone more knowledgeable in the ways of computers than I am can do that.

Bitchy Pants said...

It's Saturday and my brain is on auto pilot, but I came up with these:

#dontyouknowwhoIam?

#Idoitallallallalone

#Irequireabsoluteobedience

#justonemore

#whenyouhelpmeyoubetterberunning

#yourenotwelcome

and has anyone mentioned this one

#canwesue?

SeeSaw said...

I wonder if TFW has a section in her cookbook about alternate uses for kitchen utensils.

#spoonsarenotjustforstirring

JoyinVirginia said...

My very favorite part is paragraph 101 Fourth Affirmative Defense, that any statements about TFMJG are constitutionally protected speech.
My opinion of TFMJG was that she was boring. Now my opinion has progressed to active dislike and TFMJG with her actions is responsible for that. When she stops trying to control Jon and Robert, then I will go back to being merely bored by her. This is my constitutionally protected speech. And my dislike is 100% result of TFMJG antics, not influenced by anyone else.

JoyinVirginia said...

I finally thought of one!

#Tonydoesntknowhowtoteachme

The man teaches dancing for a LIVING you dolt!

White Organza said...

I've been reading on the Amazon "Love is in the Mix" forum. It's hilarious. One of the posters, Susan NH (who also regularly comments here, I think) is systematically posting TFW's twitter photos of her culinary "creations", complete with tongue-in-cheek captions. The reaction of an another posters: " The veggies and pasta dish looks like it was served with a side order of vomit." LOL!

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...


Admin., do you know how long TFW's lawyer has to respond back to Jon and Robert's motions? I imagine her lawyer will be very busy in the next few weeks.

&&&

I can't find whether there is a federal rule for the briefing schedule for 12b6 motions. This seems to be governed by local court rules in other courts but I can't find their local rules.

The average briefing schedule is usually anywhere from 10-30 days. I think it was Millicent who explained and I agree that they will get an opportunity for a written response, then Tuma will get the final reply, then there will be a ruling. I'm not sure if they can request an oral argument as well on it. It's also possible they will be given leave to amend their complaint to fix any defects. Complaints are treated very liberally at 12b6 motions aren't usually granted, but never say never.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

#Useagoodplungerforthefinalflush

&&&

I didn't see this I just choked on my orange juice. Your fault!

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...


Why does amazon list Love is in the Mix under Parenting & Relationship books when it is a cookbook?


***

I like that since apparently it's more about the kids than cooking so.

Kate is a twit said...

Someone in Denmark tweeted that they have received the cookbook and included a picture.

Jannie ‏@Askepot6 2h
And then @Kateplusmy8 arrived in Denmark :-D Can't wait to start cooking :-) pic.twitter.com/yazxk6lw98

Needless to say, her tweeties in the US, especially Sandie are not a happy group.

But I don't understand why they just don't check their nearest BN to see if the book is available, and if so, go get it there. They can cancel their Amazon order if it's not been shipped.



SaraMRN2010 said...

Remona Blue said... 36
kymom at... 29
Jon gave an interview and never once used her name. He called her ''my former wife'' every single time. I had been using KK, because Jon and the children are Gosselins, but she is not. On this blog, we started using TFW, and TFMJG. I don't know about the others, but every time I see TFW or TFMJG, I think of it as supporting Jon.
**********************************
It just occurred to me that there was one episode where Jon called Kate his wife and she got mad and he said something on the lines of "She hates when I call her my wife". It was during one of the interviews segments. I wonder if that is why he referred to her as TFW although I like some of the other posters suggestions.

chefsummer said...

#Don'ttouchmybodyguardspizza

Anonymous said...

My understanding is Razzmatazz will have the opportunity to amend his complaint and then it goes to the judge. Plaintiff gets the last word at this point.

At first I thought Razzmatazz will leave it as it stands hoping it will get tossed, then I thought about his ego and pride so I think he will amend it. Marty Garbus was a game changer. This went from a nuisance lawsuit to a blood sport.

Having trouble signing with the new IOS7

Dot

Anonymous said...

Tried to tell ya last week that he had big guns backing him and ya didn't believe it? pay attention to small details.

Also said that; We (the people) don't believe that anyone has the right to challenge or change, The Laws of The Constitution of The United States of America, or to ignore the laws of the State for use in personal gain.

she didn't just sue the two, she sued the whole country. (metaphoric.) imho

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...


My understanding is Razzmatazz will have the opportunity to amend his complaint and then it goes to the judge. Plaintiff gets the last word at this point.

&&&

Usually the person bringing the motion gets the last word but I don't know for 12b6.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...


Tried to tell ya last week that he had big guns backing him and ya didn't believe it? pay attention to small details.


&&&

We get a lot of anonymous insiders who are wrong. Forgive us. :)

AnnieD said...

#IdontgetitIdontgetit

Her infamous DWTS meltdown. Good captions have been added.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZrivWfKGHo

boo said...

Kate's camp will ask that the motion be denied, or in the alternative, ask to amend the complaint to cure any claimed defects. One thing to keep in mind here - with this type of motion, the judge will not resolve factual disputes. In other words, he won't decide if Kate's timeline/facts is more believable than Jon's. He will look at Kate's allegations, and determine, assuming they are true, do they state a claim under the particular statute or legal theory. Jon may win on some of his claims,but don't expect a complete dismissal. The only way I see that happening is if the federal claims are dismissed and only state claims remain. Then the whole case would likely get tossed and Kate would have to re-file the remaining claims in state court.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Kate's timeline/facts is more believable than Jon's. He will look at Kate's allegations, and determine, assuming they are true, do they state a claim under the particular statute or legal theory

&&&

Exactly. This can be confusing but the judge has to assume the facts as plead are true for purposes of 12b6, no matter how outrageous.

However I think Tuma did a good job of explaining even if true there is no cause of action, mostly due to SOLs. SOLs is a great defense here because it doesn't matter how awful and terrible the allegations are if you blew the SOL you're SOL. hehe. :)

NJGal51 said...

OT - I haven't downloaded IOS7 yet. If you've downloaded what are your experiences?

boo said...

Under this court's local rules, Kate has 14 days to file a responsive brief. Oral argument can be requested, but isn't automatic. If there is oral argument, there would be a hearing in open court. What fun that would be!

Over And Out said...

Needless to say, her tweeties in the US, especially Sandie are not a happy group.

But I don't understand why they just don't check their nearest BN to see if the book is available, and if so, go get it there. They can cancel their Amazon order if it's not been shipped.Needless to say, her tweeties in the US, especially Sandie are not a happy group.

But I don't understand why they just don't check their nearest BN to see if the book is available, and if so, go get it there. They can cancel their Amazon order if it's not been shipped.

----------------------

That would require logical thinking.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

NJ it's going to take some real getting used to. One of their biggest changes in awhile. I like some of the new shortcuts. I don't like how it looks like Leapfrog Learning Center. A couple things have different names and locations so that needs to be relearned. Some apps are buggy with it. When I first downloaded it several of my apps crashed so make sure you update your apps too.

Anonymous said...

Admin it was to her..not you or the group. She thinks she is so clever, and brags on how she "out smarts" everyone, but thinking not this time. Still in plain view for RH and she can't see it. She still is missing it or she would chit in her pants. Dang, when I realized it, I almost chit in my pants lol

JG must be doing the happy happy joy joy wiz dance on her electric fence.

about the anon post patience please.

Jane said...

boo said... 76
Under this court's local rules, Kate has 14 days to file a responsive brief. Oral argument can be requested, but isn't automatic. If there is oral argument, there would be a hearing in open court. What fun that would be!

--------

Would Kate have to appear? The clock's ticking. #ticktock :)

Improbable Dreams Becoming Nightmares said...

Admin, When you said "exactly" in response to an excerpted passage I did a double-take. I assumed at first that you were confirming the truth of Kate's timeline. Yikes!

Maybe I'm the only one who reads these things from the bottom up, and maybe I'm the only one who reacted that way, but my interpretation proved itself wrong, given the larger context of the OP's statement:

Boo at 73 said "...the judge will not resolve factual disputes. In other words, he won't decide if Kate's timeline/facts is more believable than Jon's."

:)

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Oral arguments would usually just be the attorneys required to be there, since this isn't an evidentiary hearing with witnesses, just a hearing on a motion. But they can come if they want.

Anonymous said...

JG waz up with you and TMZ? tmz.com breaking news admin

Blue Moon said...

Blue Moon said... 51

Ex Nurse, I appreciate your digging for the facts. Nothing wrong with asking questions. We aren't sheep here.

--------------------

This is not my post. I didn't say this. I've been using it for some time, but I'll change mine. :)

NJGal51 said...

Thanks Admin. I think I'll hold off on the download for the time being.

Not good said...

Jon shoots his gun.

http://www.tmz.com/2013/09/21/jon-gosselin-gun-photog-threaten-shots/



Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Jon hunted down on his private property by a photograph and pulled out his gun and fired. He looks scared in the photos. How does he know it's just a photographer hunting him down on his private property and not someone after him and the kids?

This whole thing is just such mess. Such a mess. Maybe his children were back at the house, which further scared him. Given that Kate had them last weekend for Katie Couric and the trampoline bribes, it's probably his weekend. With everything that is going on, I can't feel sorry for that photographer for Jon getting upset. There's a lot of people out there who could be dangerous, but Jon seems to be the only one who realizes this of the two. There could very well have been threats toward him over the last few days given how upset him fighting back has made people.

Who knew we would still be here all the time.

Jane said...

Bitchy Pants said... 56
Kirkland and others -- Amazon doesn't allow reviews for books while they're on pre-order, and they still have TFMJGs book listed as a pre-order. However, they do allow forum discussions on the book. There are a couple of forum discussions on "Love Is In the Mix", and they include a number of scathing comments and unofficial reviews. You can find them at http://www.amazon.com/Why/forum/Fx3DLLNYLDJOVYG/ and click on the one(s) you're interested in reading.

--------

I c/p this into my browser but nothing's coming up. Is there another way to get to Amazon forums. I didn't realize they had any! Thanks!

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Under Pennsylvania law you can shoot at trespassers when you fear for your safety. He has been very clear in the past he fears for the safety of his children from these creeps which is why he got the gun in the first place. This photographer must have been very aggressive and was breaking the law trying to come on his property. But I'm sure the sheeple will want to terminate his parental rights.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

NJ you'll have to do it at some point I would just do it on a day when you have time to sit down with it and play with it without feeling stressed or rushed.

Sleepless In Seattle said...

"tweeted Sherrod about his penis show"? I'm afraid to google that to see what that's about. I probably don't really want to know.

I'm hoping that was an autocorrect funny.

------------------------

lol!! I have no idea. I never heard of him. Probably just as well. This was the tweet:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
@Sherrod_Small I can't wait to watch your new penis show lol #ThatSoundsLikeaPorno next career move :) lol

Upstater said...

I honest to God feel sorry for Jon. I am not a gun advocate but the law is the law. He has every right to protect himself, his kids and his property. How come whenever he does the right thing, he still looks bad...... :(

Kate is a twit said...

Jon hunted down on his private property by a photograph and pulled out his gun and fired.
-----------

TMZ says that Jon allegedly fired his gun. But who is the person who told them that Jon fired his gun? The photographer that followed him to his house, who would also be the one who gave TMZ the pictures. There's only her word that Jon ever fired his gun.

The article says that she was going to file a police report. What is she going to tell them? "I stalked Jon and followed him to his house to get pictures of him, and he pulled out a gun?"

Jon has every right to protect his home and his children, especially if a stranger is following him to the place where his children may be.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Jon can't afford fancy security gates and bodyguards. It's just him with the kids and the only thing between them and those who seek to harm them is that firearm. And I really think he has those kids right now based on Kate's tweets.

I cannot imagine how frightening it is to have someone following you onto your secluded property. It could be anyone with any intentions. Yet another reason not to choose the celebrity lifestyle, creeps hunting you down on your private property.

Agree, police report is going nowhere. He has every right to pull his gun on a trespasser. Self-defense laws were made for this very thing.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Yes much like anything else Jon is expected to lay down and die whenever anyone attacks him. Be it a lawsuit, a vicious parental alienator, a trespasser who could very well be endangering the lives of himself and his children. Just lay down and die. He's clearly had enough, and I'm glad. If anything happened to those children, it would be his fault for not protecting them. Lose-lose situation.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

I thought too Jon had said he had been able to keep where he lives a secret from the paps. He must be devastated they've found out now. The one place his kids could have peace is outed.

So who outed his address? Hmmm. Or the pap/stalker followed him home? Creepy.

Actually it gives them too much credit to call him a pap. Most of the paps in this situation always respected private property. So, stalker.

Kate is a twit said...

Dear Milo-If someone followed you home and tried to take pictures of YOU and YOUR children, how would you react? Think about it.

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 7m
OMGosh...@Kateplusmy8 Horrible! http://www.tmz.com/2013/09/21/jon-gosselin-gun-photog-threaten-shots/ … This is exactly what we all worried abt! Really was this use of a gun needed?

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 6m
How many times has @Kateplusmy8 been swarmed by paps rt up in her face? Never a need 2use a gun!! Other more civil ways 2deal w/intrusion!

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 4m
@Kateplusmy8 I don't think rural PA is the #WildWildWest & a female pap is hardly going 2pose a physical danger 4a healthy able bodied male!

Would she prefer that Jon attack the photog physically?

And it may not have even been a pap. It could have been anyone who lives in the area who decided to stalk Jon to his house.

Jon did the right thing to protect himself and his family.

I rest my case.

chefsummer said...

I have a handgun I know if someone was following me I would have flashed it.

I bet if it was KK the sheep would be kissing her butt.

Dwindle said...

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 13

Admin, is this sufficient? It looks like line after line of "I don't know nuttin' about whatever she is sayin'."

&&

LOL.

HIs style appears to be deny deny deny SEE YOU IN COURT. That's definitely a TRIAL LAWYER strategy and what I would expect from him.

Shawn, the "professor" is more cerebral, let's talk this out logically on paper first and you'll see why this is a tad ridiculous, your honor.

I like both their styles, but they're different.

444444444444444444444

Got it. Thanks for the education!

White Organza said...

I don't about this Sherrod guy, but there is a show called Puppetry of the penis: two naked guys pulling and tugging at their penis and balls transforming them in animals, funny faces, edibles, etc. Like clowns twisting balloons at birthday parties. The puppetry show was a regular for years here at Montréal's Just for Laughs Festival. Never been to their show, but I've seen clips on the local news, would you believe?

Over In TFW's County said...

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 7m
@BuzzedBunny @Kateplusmy8 @TMZ LOL..so much 4him trying 2improve his public image..now acting like a "loose cannon"..irresponsible behavior!

Milo, you moron. With the vile, Jon-haters on Twitter who is to say that this person wasn't some deranged hater wishing him to be in a coma or nailing him to a cross upside down? You just don't get it, do you? Better to be perceived as a loose cannon than a dead one.

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 15m
@Kateplusmy8 I don't think rural PA is the #WildWildWest & a female pap is hardly going 2pose a physical danger 4a healthy able bodied male!

You don't know who she was, or what she was! Rural PA or a big city makes no difference when it comes to someone trying to do another one harm. I guess killings and kidnappings only occur in urban areas.

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 19m
OMGosh...@Kateplusmy8 Horrible! http://www.tmz.com/2013/09/21/jon-gosselin-gun-photog-threaten-shots/ … This is exactly what we all worried abt! Really was this use of a gun needed?

You got that right. This is exactly what we were worried about - an unknown person, possibly a Kate fanatic, following him and blowing him away. It happens. Read the tweets from the sheeple who are obsessed with Jon and go off on rants about destroying him.

Ex Nurse said...

NGal51 and Blue Moon--thanks for your support. i am going to take one last shot, because I think it may be important for the defense.

Ally-- Thank you for that timeline. If you have a source for that 4/28 date of his banishment, would appreciate a link. However, that still doesn't resolve the conflict with the timeline in the motion. 

Either RH's dates are inaccurate,  or the motion's timeline is inaccurate. I guess I didn't consider that the attorney filing the motion got the dates confused. But, I just can't see how both can be right. 

The motion said a) that the specific backup was made in mid-April 2010, and 2) that Jon was required to move out when the divorce was finalized--which was in December 2009. 

Therefore, the motion is, in essence, saying that the backups were made within a few days after the divorce was finalized. How can both of those thing be true, since  there is a 4 month gap between those two events? If the disks were, in fact, made earlier, why would the motion go into all of that detail about the April 2010 timeline of the failed hard drive, and the labeling of the disks? 

Even with the line that Jon still had access, the dates don't work as the motion reads right now. That is why I thought that the dark and stormy night was in December 2009.

Here are the direct quotes. The edits do not change the meaning, or take out meaningful information. I added the relevant dates in parentheses.

"On or about April 2010, Jonathan observed the hard drive of the Dell Computer was failing...Jonathan created two copies of the DVDs, one for himself and one for Kate. 

Once the divorce was final (Decemer 2009), Jonathan was required to move from the Apartment... When Jonathan moved from the Apartment, he left Kate’s copy of the backup DVDs (made in April 2010) in the Apartment....The following day Kate called Jonathan and asked if he would be returning for any other items left in the Apartment and he responded that he was not and she could discard the items as she saw fit. 

For all of my non-supporters, there is probably nothing that will change your opinion of me. But, what drives most of my criticisms when the discussion turns to Jon, is because the facts often contradict the underlying assumptions. When the lawsuit was filed, I was the one who brought the link to the Santoro's statements about the hacking. I am very consistent that logic has to support the facts. Argument and debate are in my religious culture, which spends endless hours debating the meaning of a single word in the Torah. My rabbi has said, that Jew never can really "my point is...", because the more truthful thing to say is "my points are...", and then there is "what are your points". If everyone agreed with everything, I wouldn't bother with this blog, because, for me, it would be boring.

If I were a sheeple, I can promise you that I would be driving them crazy, too.

PatK said...

Way to go, Jon! Do whatever is within your legal rights to protect your privacy/family from on-property stalkers!



I know a little bit said...

Jon's current home can't be found by GPS because it's off the beaten track. I am really sad that a Pap followed him. I'd hate to see him in the position of having to move just to keep him and his children safe.

Vanessa said...

So the pap is going to file charges??!! She trespassed, she stalked him, she was on his private property. I don't advocate guns but he is in his legal right to bear arms and defend himself. And I'm sure the death threats didn't start a couple of days ago. Did he not say in the Round Table interview that he owned a gun, to protect his kids?

Free Speech First Amendment #standwithmeorstandagainstme

PatK said...

Methinks Milo's LOM would probably protect HIS family by trying to sweet talk a potentially dangerous intruder out of his intentions.

Or maybe he'd just throw Milo at him. lol

Ally said...

Anyone who wanted to read my reviews, it was mentioned you can't review on amazon yet. Correct. At the bottom of the page for love is in the mix are discussion boards. There are 4 boards. The one titled, "why?", is where I left my comments. When reviews are able to be published, I have mine ready to go. This has nothing to do with how I feel about Kate, it's about the quality of the product published. Sadly, plagiarism, canned casseroles, broccoli, applesauce and TLCs traditions don't make for a good book. Lastly, anyone that names their cookbook with their own name in the title thinks way too much of themselves and clearly had no one editing their work.

Vanessa said...

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 19m
OMGosh...@Kateplusmy8 Horrible! http://www.tmz.com/2013/09/21/jon-gosselin-gun-photog-threaten-shots/ … This is exactly what we all worried abt! Really was this use of a gun needed?
**********************************************

Maybe TFW has an effing gun too!! How do you know she doesn't? Betcha if it was TFW who pulled out a gun to protect her family they'd throw her a ticker tape parade

Vanessa said...

White Organza said... 100
I don't about this Sherrod guy, but there is a show called Puppetry of the penis: two naked guys pulling and tugging at their penis and balls transforming them in animals, funny faces, edibles, etc. Like clowns twisting balloons at birthday parties. The puppetry show was a regular for years here at Montréal's Just for Laughs Festival. Never been to their show, but I've seen clips on the local news, would you believe?

**********************************
Seriously White Organza? LOL, I can't get that image out of my head.

handinhand said...

Jane @88
Try this link:

http://www.amazon.com/Kate-Gosselins-Love-Mix-Family-Friendly/forum/Fx3DLLNYLDJ0VYG/-/1?_encoding=UTF8&asin=0757317642

Otherwise put in a Google search:
amazon forum discussion love is in the mix

Paula said...

Ex-Nurse, what is your obsession here?

SaraMRN2010 said...

Try this link for the comments about Kate's cookbook.


http://www.amazon.com/Why/forum/Fx3DLLNYLDJ0VYG/Tx218D86ZOBCXGL/1/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?_encoding=UTF8&asin=0757317642

NJGal51 said...

@MiloandJack: How many times has @Kateplusmy8 been swarmed by paps rt up in her face? Never a need 2use a gun!! Other more civil ways 2deal w/intrusion!

@MiloandJack: @Kateplusmy8 I don't think rural PA is the #WildWildWest & a female pap is hardly going 2pose a physical danger 4a healthy able bodied male!

@MiloandJack: EX just gave Kate something else 2worry abt now as she heads out of town working 2support his kids! #GunGateNumberTwo!! :(
========
Both Jon and TFW were "swarmed" by paps back in the day. Jon handles himself well and TFW had rat claws to handle things for her. This was a bit different. This pap stalked him by following him off main roads to his home. As someone said on twitter, how would he know whether or not she had a gun and looking through the windshield of a car would make it more difficult.

Being a woman doesn't make her any less dangerous than anyone else Milo. You never know what type of physical threat anyone may cause you. And again, how was Jon to know whether or not she had a gun? TFW should be glad that he's protecting his kids - even if it's only protecting their privacy so they're not photographed.

The pap was in the wrong in this case. Let's see if TFW cancels her "media tour" to remain home with the kids. Face it Milo, TFW isn't going to give this a second thought unless it means publicity for her.

Vanessa said...

"On or about April 2010, Jonathan observed the hard drive of the Dell Computer was failing...Jonathan created two copies of the DVDs, one for himself and one for Kate.
********************************************

Do we know for sure that after he moved out when the divorce was finalized, that he no longer stayed over when it was his turn to have the kids? If he made the copies in April 2010 I don't think he'd be anywhere IN that house or apartment without TFW's consent. Just because he "moved out" doesn't mean, at THAT point in time, he was totally banished from the konpound. He has HIS copies, Hoffman has TFW's copies that SHE tossed out.

Vanessa said...

Vanessa said... 109
White Organza said... 100
I don't about this Sherrod guy, but there is a show called Puppetry of the penis: two naked guys pulling and tugging at their penis and balls transforming them in animals, funny faces, edibles, etc. Like clowns twisting balloons at birthday parties. The puppetry show was a regular for years here at Montréal's Just for Laughs Festival. Never been to their show, but I've seen clips on the local news, would you believe?

**********************************
Seriously White Organza? LOL, I can't get that image out of my head
******************************************

And that sounds so painful too!

Kirkland said...

Ally--
Kate's book on Amazon specifically says there are no discussions about the book. So maybe they deleted all the discussions? Not sure what is going on.

To be clear, click on this link to view the Amazon page I'm referring to: Love is in the Mix

.

Kate is a twit said...

The sheeple are crucifying Jon on twitter. Especially Milo.

TMZ only has this photographer's side of the story. How do we even know that this person was even a photographer, or was even alone? The person told TMZ that they were going to file a police report. Wouldn't you do that first, before calling TMZ and giving them a picture and story?

The only thing we know for sure is that Jon had a gun because of the picture. We don't know if he even fired it, or if Jon followed her back to the main road. As I said, we only have one side of the story.

On another note-I bet ROL is fuming that this person didn't contact them!!

Formerly Duped said...

#Iaminchargeandthat'snevergoingtochange

oh, really?

Dmasy said...

TFW would wear one of her bikinis, shriek, cry, stomp and wildly wave a gun if she thought it would gain her some media coverage.

handinhand said...

And just when the scales may have been starting to tip a bit Jon's favor. The comments on many of the the sites that carried his ET interview were a mixed bagged of pro/anti, but much more positive than the scathing comments left on articles about Kate. She called it just about right when she lamented to Tony D. that 90% (99?) of the public doesn't like her.
And now this TMZ story. For the life of me I don't know why he puts himself out there to be skewered for days (and in this case possibly stalked) for giving interviews like that. Nothing good ever comes of it. I'll say it again, he'll never win in that arena. No amount of money is worth it.

Ally said...

Regarding Admin 74...

If Jon and Robert win on SOL, it will not be good news for them or us, because they will have lost in the court of public opinion. That will allow Kate to claim that she in fact WAS harmed by Jon and Robert but they only got off because of a timeline. That is not good and not what we really want. If that happens, Kate will still be claiming Jon did illegal and wrong things to her, which is not true. We really want the win for Jon and Robert to be based on, they did nothing illegal, Kate has no proof of any wrongdoing and you can't claim illegal activity because you erroneously threw your lies in the trash!

Vanessa said...

We don't know if he even fired it, or if Jon followed her back to the main road. As I said, we only have one side of the story.
**************************************

yeah, in big bold letters the headline says "allegedly" shots were fired

Summer Days And Nights said...

I bet if it was KK the sheep would be kissing her butt.
*********************

Well, of course. She would be a hero...a Momma Grizzly defending her cubs. Jon had no idea what this person wanted. He was being targeted. You'd think that the sheeple would have just a little bit of intelligence in their brains to see that he has every right to defend himself and his children. What if he did have his kids there and something happened? They'd blast him left and right for not protecting them. He can't win for love nor money.

MeLyn ‏@BluMyst 22m
@Allisstair @MiloandJack @Kateplusmy8 A photog is not threatening bodily harm. No need to use a gun on them.

*******************

They are so stupid. I mean, really dumb. How would Jon know what this person was trying to do? It could have been anyone going after him to do him harm, posing as a photographer. Gosh, these fans are idiots. You just have to wonder how they function in life.

"Or maybe he'd just throw Milo at him. lol"

**************************

lol!! That would definitely do it. "Take her, she's yours!" Tell the intruder he/she has to live with Milo for a month. Punishment enough.

Kate is a twit said...

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 22m
@SandieBellz @Truth_Teller201 YES...did U see the pics? He looks wild , angry & out of control! Scary!!

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 17m
@SandieBellz @Truth_Teller201 Same concern here! #GATORS making excuses 4him....imagine if Kate did that!!!!

Wild, angry and out of control? Really, Milo? There is only one picture of Jon and he looks like someone who is upset that someone followed him to his PRIVATE home. How would you look in the same situation?

If Kate did that, you would heap praise upon praise on her, call her a Mommabear, and say how she had to do it to protect her kids.

Again, I wonder how you would react if you had been in that same situation.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

A photog is not threatening bodily harm.

$$$$

How do THEY know that? How does anyone know what their intentions were? if they're willing to trespass who knows what could happen.

Amy2 said...

Someone up thread mentioned this...how did TMZ know where Jon lived? Going out on a limb here..could Kate have told the Paps? After all the RH & Jon have hired high powered attorneys and the media has turned against her. Could this be a way for Kate to "look good" for the media knowing that Jon would use whatever means necessary to protect the children. Who else knew that the kids would be with Jon this weekend?

NJGal51 said...

White Organza - In true Jersey Girl fashion I googled them and watched a video....I'm hanging my head in shame because I laughed out loud. I may just send the link to to the Howard Stern show.

On the topic of Jon, if someone was taking the pictures of Jon, who was driving the car? Seems to me there may have been more than one.

Paula said...

Let me get this straight "Milo"...Kate abuses her kids and that's seems to fine and dandy with you. A total stranger appears on Jon's private property where his children may be and he, Jon, does what he feel he needs to do to PROTECT and that's wrong?

Milo, you are one screwed up person.

Summer Days And Nights said...

TMZ only has this photographer's side of the story. How do we even know that this person was even a photographer, or was even alone?

**************************

Exactly. What did the sheeple expect him to do? Ask for her credentials -- her press pass? Check out her ID first? He had no idea if someone else was in the car. If the person wanted a picture, why not take it when he left the restaurant? If she followed him, she was stalking him. You get what you get and you don't get upset, especially when you're on trespassing on private property. Maybe she was hoping that he'd invite her in for a cup of coffee or a beer. Surprise!

chefsummer said...

Amy2 said... 121

I was thinking of this as well I wouldn't put it past KK to do something like this to set Jon up.

Vanessa said...

@SandieBellz @Truth_Teller201 YES...did U see the pics? He looks wild , angry & out of control! Scary!!
******************************************

Oh yes, so wild & scaaarry-as opposed to the pap pics of TFW?

nofanofKateG said...

I know it's fun for us to see insider info but this is a public blog. The other side sees it too. This a real court case with real consequences for Jon and Hoffman. I think insider info shouldn't be blabbed about here so we can gossip.

That's just my opinion.

Nurse your opinion might not be popular here but it's on the money. Thanks.

Vanessa said...

Someone up thread mentioned this...how did TMZ know where Jon lived? Going out on a limb here..could Kate have told the Paps? After all the RH & Jon have hired high powered attorneys and the media has turned against her. Could this be a way for Kate to "look good" for the media knowing that Jon would use whatever means necessary to protect the children. Who else knew that the kids would be with Jon this weekend?

**************************************
the article said she followed him

It all went down yesterday in Beckersville, PA when a photog (not ours) followed the reality star home from his new waiter's gig ... trying to snap photos of the cabin where Jon lives.

The photog fessed up ... she followed him off the main roads and onto dirt roads ... but assumed it was a public road and not private property.

We're told as soon as she started snapping away ... Jon made an aggressive b-line for her ... then pulled a gun out of the back of his pants.

The photog says Jon started yelling at her for trespassing ... then fired off a warning shot.


Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2013/09/21/jon-gosselin-gun-photog-threaten-shots/#ixzz2fXzHNciJ
Visit Fishwrapper: http://www.fishwrapper.com

LeeLee said...

White Organza- I was just telling a co-worker about those guys last week, but couldn't remember what the show was called. I saw them online (can't recall where, it was years ago) and while it is not for everyone, for sure, I was howling. There's nothing particularly pornographic about it; reminds me more of what little boys might do if left to their own devices. I vividly recall one of them forming (is that the right word?) a hamburger out of his, um, stuff.

Ugh, Jon. Not your fault, but I felt better when Kate was the one hanging herself in the public eye. Like someone said up-thread, even when he does the right thing, he can't win.

jbranck1980 said...

#firedupforjon

#kateispoopinginkatesunnerwears

AuntieAnn said...

Over In TFW's County said... 101

Milo, you moron. With the vile, Jon-haters on Twitter who is to say that this person wasn't some deranged hater wishing him to be in a coma or nailing him to a cross upside down? You just don't get it, do you? Better to be perceived as a loose cannon than a dead one.

====

What!!? I remember somebody wishing he was in a coma, but nailing him to a cross upside down? That is demented. I'd be chasing stalkers off my property too.

Kate will now be saying See this is what I had to put up with, all the time wishing she could have that kind of exposure. If I were her I'd have five guard dogs on my property. That gate at the front only stops cars from coming in. The rest of the place doesn't look that secure.

Smoochie said...

I have been followed once before and it is extremely scary. You have no idea why someone is following you, what their intentions are, if they have a weapon, etc. I tried unsuccessfully to lose them until I drove into a police dept. parking lot!

How is Jon to know that someone stalking & following him in an unknown car, off the main roads, the side roads and all the way home onto his private property, is a photographer and means him no harm? After all the vile stuff Kate's fans have tweeted to him and harm they wished upon him he on public forums, why would he think it's innocent? He finally is standing up & defending himself, annoying the Kate fans and as unhinged as some of her followers are, I would be worried for my and my family's safety too!

When that Polly chick went to the corn maze where TFW was filming the sheeple had a fit that it was stalking, harassment, etc. That was in a public place, with a film crew, the owners permission, plenty of other people around and she didn't make contact with any of them.

This situation is 180 degrees different, yet, instead of praising Jon for protecting himself and family and condemning the stalker, who admitted she did it, they're accusing him of being a wild man and fearing that he would hurt the children... WTF is wrong with them?

NJGal51 said...

@BuzzedBunny: @Kateplusmy8 @TMZ That photog should have taken a pic of Jon working ! Thats the rarely seen phenom money shot!
========
The same could be said of TFW.

LeeLee said...

Ex Nurse (102)
Thank you for spelling out exactly what you were referring to with the discrepancy. I was taking for granted the idea that Jon moved out at the time of the divorce (Dec 09), meaning this was no longer his home, and that he returned in April to move out what was left of his stuff. I did not read the text as literally as you did, but I agree that the way you are seeing it, there are two move out dates with no clear explanation for the difference.
I believe RH spelled out the 4/28/10 date in his book, but I can't look it up because it's on my husband's Ipad, and he's using it to watch cat gifs.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

I would 100% support Kate doing the same thing. Once they've trespassed God knows what they're capable of. There are little children here.

jbranck1980 said...

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 22m
@SandieBellz @Truth_Teller201 YES...did U see the pics? He looks wild , angry & out of control! Scary!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Or how TFMJG looks every day....

Ally said...

Ex Nurse 102...

I will do my best to help you understand what you believe are conflicts in the timeline. Your last post helped me to understand where you were confused. Jon and Kate signed their divorce papers in December 2009, but the divorce was not finalized. They had a custody dispute. Until a custody dispute is resolved, technically the divorce is not finalized. I know because I went through a divorce so I am up on this stuff. Once they settled their custody battle in April, 2010, he "officially" moved out and no longer had his custody time at the house. Remember Kate sobbing all through DWTS? That was the custody crap. Also, I read Roberts book which has a detailed journal during early 2010, when he sat outside her house and detailed the daily life. He noted Jon's custody weeks, when Kate would leave and return (gone for 2 weeks at times). I think you are interpreting December 2009 as complete divorce finalization and it was not. They were legally divorced in December 2009 but because of custody disputes, divorce is not final until all aspects are resolved, in this case the children and it was finalized in April 2010. April 28, 2010 was in Roberts book as the dark and stormy night. Which makes sense. They settled custody in April. I hope this helps you understand that there is no timeline discrepancy. Maybe the wording the attorney used confused you. But there is definitely not a timeline discrepancy.

White Organza said...

Ex-nurse, I really like you and I do think your critical opinions and observations very often bring interesting angles to the discussions on this blog. But in this particular case, you are reading things that are simply not there in the court document.

Specifically when you add the parenthesis "(made in April 2010)" in the following excerpt : "Once the divorce was final (December 2009), Jonathan was required to move from the Apartment... When Jonathan moved from the Apartment, he left Kate’s copy of the backup DVDs (made in April 2010) in the Apartment."

All that Jon says in his court document is that he left copies of the back-ups DVDs. At that specific date, (2009) those back-ups were most probably the ones described in this paragraph: "Jonathan regularly backed up the hard drive of the Dell Computer and the backups were saved to CD ROM or DVD disks." And those are probably also the ones found by RH.

From what I get from document presented by S. Tuma, if the April 2010 final back-ups are mentioned, it's to clarify that "Jonathan has not wrongfully access any computer, online accounts, or telephone belonging to Kate"... since at that date he was still allowed in the house to see his children and that the DELL computer was his.

And that is why I can't find anything fishy about Jon's deposition. Because I, too, I am very consistent that logic has to support the facts. ;)

This being said, I like your feisty spirit, Ex-Nurse. This blog wouldn't be the same without your contribution.

And this is my final post on the subject, I promise!





Hoosier Girl said...

With some of the things TFW's more rabid fans (like that Goody person) have tweeted to and about Jon, and that whole tinfoil hat group TFW inherited from BV, I'd have a gun at the ready too.

Anonymous said...

So the photographer who was trespassing while stalking Jon is going to file a police report today but before doing that, sold the picture to TMZ. I hope the police question the priority here.


bm

LeeLee said...

Smoochie (126)
Very good comparison to bring up: Polly at the corn maize. Shuure, SHE was a major threat, but a complete stranger in a car on a private and secluded dirt road following you home is no problem. If the pap never got out of the car, Jon may not have even realized it was a woman or a photographer.
You also reminded me that I was once followed while out on our local bike trails (6 miles through the woods). I just couldn't shake this guy, either by jogging faster or coming to a complete stop. I was terrified. I had my keys in hand, thinking I was going to have to jab his eyes out. I was just waiting for the moment. Fortunately, the bike path met up with the road and a park ranger came by. He sure took off then! BTW, I filed my report on the spot and was shaking so bad while trying to write it up. I bet Jon called the cops last night and has already filed his own report.

Lalalalala said...

jbranck1980 said... 131

#firedupforjon

#kateispoopinginkatesunnerwears

88888888

Love, love, love these!

Layla said...

I'm catching up here after being a way for a few days, and wow! Two high-powered attorneys for TFW to deal with. She is in way over her head. I truly believe that she thought she'd file her lawsuit, Jon and Robert wouldn't fight back due to lack of funds, and she'd win every point. Just like BV's lawsuit, when the person didn't even show up. Now, TFW has TWO motions to respond to, which means many, many more billable hours spent with her attorney. If she thought she'd never have to spend an extra dime because there wouldn't be a fight...well, wake up and smell the karma, Kate!

There is going to be a huge, expensive battle ahead, and she is going to have to prove every nonsensical claim in her lawsuit. Jon's and Robert's lawyers are fighters, and they know what they are doing. She can't sit in a chair and cry crocodile tears and answer only pre-approved questions like on the talk shows. She has to prove everything. She has to answer questions she doesn't want to answer. If she lies, there will be consequences. Bring it on.

TFW thought this would be a chance for her to A) bully Jon and Robert into submission, and B) go on a fishing expedition to get answers to any and all of her questions. She has got to be seething with rage right now. How dare they fight back! How dare they make HER answer questions! How dare they make HER prove her points! SHE was supposed to be doing all that to THEM. Now the other way around.

TFW will NOT withdraw. Her raging narcissism will not allow her to do that--even if it means destroying herself in the process. Then she will blame her destruction on Jon and Robert.

Regarding the gun picture--didn't the Sheeple just have a tweet-tizzy about how dangerous it could be for Jon to live in the woods? They said he was irresponsible and possibly endangering the kids...make up your minds, Sheeple! If the kids are in danger--then Jon should protect them by any means necessary. If there is no danger, then stop tweeting about the danger to the kids. Sheesh!

OrangeCrusher1 said...

Guns are scary. Paps are scary when intrusive on your property. Nothing I read here indicates the kids were with him.

Milo, Goody, et al are extremist idiots. I wonder why we waste our breath with them. TFW, if she is smart (hah) will keep her mouth shut. God forbid anything interfers with her hot trotting out of town with Skeeve in a few days. But now more 'not about her' media frenzy. What cookbook?

LeeLee said...

Quick note- I keep referencing commenters by the number of the comment, but they keep changing as new comments appear. Sorry for any confusion, but I swear I had it right a few minutes ago.

jbranck1980 said...

If Milo thinks a woman wouldn't be a problem for a man then she clearly hasn't seen any episodes of the show Snapped.

Plus, if Jon was "scary and out of control" when an intruder with unknown intentions comes onto his private property, than what do we call TFMGJ when she was potty training with a wooden spoon? Possessed?

Rhymes with Witch said...

TMZ only has this photographer's side of the story. How do we even know that this person was even a photographer, or was even alone? The
person told TMZ that they were going to file a police report. Wouldn't you do that first, before calling TMZ and giving them a
picture and story?
116

This person's priorities are pretty clear, IMO.

Fired Up 4 Kate @MiloandJack 22m
@SandieBellz @Truth_Teller201 YES...did U see the pics? He looks wild, angry & out of control! Scary!! 123

Actually Milo, I think he looks scared as in frightened.

TLC stinks said...

The pap was trespassing, verbally warned and continued taking pictures. I cannot imagine what could be charged against Jon. He fired a warning shot. So what? Good for him. He ought to file charges against the pap.

Melissa NV said...

cWith some of the things TFW's more rabid fans (like that Goody person) have tweeted to and about Jon, and that whole tinfoil hat group TFW inherited from BV, I'd have a gun at the ready too.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

You got that right. I wouldn't leave home without it. What we don't know is how many actual threats have been made to Jon, and whether those threats were death threats. I bet he's been threatened by Kate's followers, and of course, those threats haven't been made public. There is some reason he feels the need to own a gun and I think that we just don't know the whole story.

"What!!? I remember somebody wishing he was in a coma, but nailing him to a cross upside down? That is demented. I'd be chasing stalkers off my property too."

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

If I'm not mistaken, that was the sheeple who goes off on her daily rants about him and his manhood.

@MiloandJack: @Kateplusmy8 I don't think rural PA is the #WildWildWest & a female pap is hardly going 2pose a physical danger 4a healthy able bodied male!

She's bats##t crazy and getting worse. What better place to attack someone than in a rural area, along a dirt road, no street lights, no neighbors?

I was thinking about something this morning when I was having my coffee and bagel on my deck. Were the sheeple absent when all logical/critical thinking skills were passed out? Have they always been that way, or did that develop over time, as they got into this celebrity worship thing more and more? In particular, in Milo's case, was she "normal" before her addiction to all things Kate, or is this so very similar to cults and brainwashing where one becomes so deeply and completely involved that they simply are incapable of any rational thinking? Which came first -- the chicken or the egg?


TLC stinks said...

This may be way out there, but maybe has Jon has a gun not necessarily to protect the kids but to protect himself from his nut job ex and her demented circle of fans. Kate's hatred is so deep, so overwhelming for Jon that anything is possible. And she has the bucks to make something bad happen. Ok, maybe I watched too much Lifetime Channel aka The Man Hating Channel, but if I were in Jon's shoes I'd carry a gun and I am not a gun advocate.

fidosmommy said...

Didn't TFW freak out at the Andrews Ave. house when she thought people had messed with their tires and had been lurking around? She knows the fear of having unknown people on your property. Has SHE spoken up about this incident, or are her "friends" the only ones?

Melissa NV said...

This situation is 180 degrees different, yet, instead of praising Jon for protecting himself and family and condemning the stalker, who admitted she did it, they're accusing him of being a wild man and fearing that he would hurt the children... WTF is wrong with them?

&&&&&&&&&&&

I don't know. Is there a medical term for their affliction?

You can only bang your head on the wall so many times before you realize that it's not going to do any good and all you're going to end up with is a migraine. I hate the idiom, "it is what it is," but in their case, that's about all you can say about them. Some are more looney than others, but in the whole scheme of things, most of them appear to be missing the switch that turns on the lights in their house.

NJGal51 said...

Goody shouldn't have a problem with Jon having a gun. Her twitter profile states that "My boyfriends are Smith and Wess..."

White Organza said...

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 22m
@SandieBellz @Truth_Teller201 YES...did U see the pics? He looks wild , angry & out of control! Scary!!

Oh? Milo? Have a look on Robert Hoffman's first book cover...

Anonymous said...

I wonder if TFMJG looked "scary and out of control" to those 6 little babies as she came at them to grab them by the hair and throw them in their cribs.

Harvest Moon Formerly Blue Moon said...

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 22m
@SandieBellz @Truth_Teller201 YES...did U see the pics? He looks wild , angry & out of control! Scary!!

So if Milo were alone and a stranger followed her home and onto her private property, would she give the person a bear hug and invite him/her into her house for a piece of pecan pie and a cup of coffee?

Meagler said...



The photog fessed up ... she followed him off the main roads and onto dirt roads ... but assumed it was a public road and not private property.

We're told as soon as she started snapping away ... Jon made an aggressive b-line for her ... then pulled a gun out of the back of his pants.

The photog says Jon started yelling at her for trespassing ... then fired off a warning shot.

The photog says she booked it ... but Jon followed her until she got back on the main road.

******************************************

1. It might have just been a photog with a camera, but she was taking a picture that could posssibly put Jon and his children at GREAT risk.

2. As a photographer in PA, if you are on private property, and a person is yelling at you

( likely to get off of their property and stop taking pictures)

and you keep taking pictures

( which the photographer obviously did because she has the pictures to prove it )

then you deserve to have that person take out his gun and fire a warning shot !

3. Jon did the right thing by following that Pap off of his property to ensure she left and no more were waiting.

4. If anyone files a police report, I hope Jon did/does.

Jon you have every right, and you would have no problem finding the name of that photographer TMZ would know who they bought that photo from!



Virginia Pen Mom said...

Over And Out said... 77
Needless to say, her tweeties in the US, especially Sandie are not a happy group.

But I don't understand why they just don't check their nearest BN to see if the book is available, and if so, go get it there. They can cancel their Amazon order if it's not been shipped.Needless to say, her tweeties in the US, especially Sandie are not a happy group.

But I don't understand why they just don't check their nearest BN to see if the book is available, and if so, go get it there. They can cancel their Amazon order if it's not been shipped.

----------------------

That would require logical thinking.

============

Also, I was in our local B&N a few days ago where they had 5 copies buried on the cookbook aisle. I noticed it's full price there--$22.95,--instead of $13.77 that Amazon is selling it for. The sheeple are saving over $9 just for waiting. They need to stop trying to knock over the paddock.

Rhymes with Witch said...

Jon publicly stated that he had obtained a concealed carry permit in order to protect his over exposed children.

IMO it doesn't matter whether the children were in his home when someone stalked him in order to take pictures of where he lives. Just
learning where he lives and having picture of it puts those children at future risk from God knows who.

Harvest Moon said...

Can't you hear the photographer when she files the police report?

Officer: This happened last night. Why didn't you call us immediately?
Pap: I wanted to, but I was too shaken. He had a wild and scary look in his eyes. I feared for my life. He was angry and out of control.
Officer: I repeat. Why didn't you call us then?
Pap: I had to make sure that TMZ got the photo first and there was no internet service in the area.

Kate is a twit said...

TMZ just updated the story:

update_bar

11:00 AM PT -- Checkmate! The photog just went to the cop shop and she saw the light -- if she filed a complaint the police would have probably ended up charging HER with criminal trespass.

So she simply asked the cops to make a note in their file that Jon fired a shot in the air and went on her merry way ... on public property.

Again, the photog's first priority was going to TMZ and not the police. What's wrong with this picture?

I hope Jon files a report.

Meagler said...

Milo, you, msgoody2shoes, and BV among others are doing nothing different then what others have done, and you have all cried bullying.

BV openly admits he bullies. If someone bullies you, it does not give you the right to BULLY BACK in a manor way more severe then what originally occurred. This type of thinking is what is taking kids into our schools and shooting them up!

Yes, Bullies need to be dealt with, but not this way.

I pray this whole BUllY fiasco is TAKEN DOWN and the likes of Bullyville, cheaterville, etc goes with it!

I agree people shouldnt be threatening people behind the screen of the internet, but if a person is doing that, actual threatening, then yes, get their IP address's and get to your local police department.

The only people here looking like fools is TFW and her co-horts! BV is a bully who has found a forum to bully people under the guide of protecting victims.

And Bullies dont like it when their victims get a back bone and start standing up. Jon has a back bone, is standing up, and it pisses the He** out of TFW, BV, MILO, and MS goody2 shoes. You can tell by the tweets on BV timeline these last few days... BV is upping the intimidation factor!

Summer Days And Nights said...

Ok, maybe I watched too much Lifetime Channel aka The Man Hating Channel, but if I were in Jon's shoes I'd carry a gun and I am not a gun advocate.

***************************

I'm not a gun advocate either, but the BV brigade and followers who show up on Twitter would be enough to scare anyone to death. If I were Jon, I'd constantly be looking over my shoulder.

AuntieAnn said...

Here is the update from TMZ:

Jon Gosselin
Yeah, I Fired My Gun

Jon Gosselin has no apology for firing a warning shot to scare off a trespassing paparazzo, because he tells TMZ it's within his legal right.
Gosselin says the female photog is the one who broke the law by trespassing and repeatedly refusing to leave his private property ... which he says gave him the right to bust a cap.

"I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun, which I withdrew and used to fire a warning shot AWAY from the paparazza" Jon says, adding, "It is well within my rights under Pennsylvania law when someone is trespassing on private property."

Gosselin is calling the photogs bluff -- she says she's filing police report -- because he's certain cops will tell her a thing or two about trespassing and a person's right to protect their property.

Jon says he's mulling over his own legal right ... because he's really pissed at the pap.

Whether it's legal or not for Jon to fire the shot ... it did the trick.



Meagler said...

http://lom-em.weebly.com/

manipulators are a segment of the population that doesn’t share the same world view and doesn’t feel guilt or shame when they make someone unhappy. They are selfish, self centered and always focus on their goals. They have a strong need to feel superior and powerful in their relationships and these folks care about winning. They have difficulty in showing vulnerable emotions because it might suggest they are not in control. When they are not in control of themselves and over other people – they feel threatened.

If you try to over power them, they will retaliate in order to gain back the control they feel they are losing. These manipulative usually don’t consciously plan their tricks. They emerge from the manipulator’s underlying personality disorder. They may use active techniques like becoming angry, lying, intimidating, shouting, name-calling or other bullying tactics.



Intimidator -- Their threats, their harsh words, and their unpredictable, abusive actions all suggest the potential for uncontrollable rage or violence.Often they will convey their threats publicly adding illustrations of how they dealt with—and destroyed—others like us in the past. A specific way Intimidators attempt to knock us "off balance" is by their powerful, merciless attacks and attempts at publicly humiliating the enemy. These attacks are intended to incite all kinds of hurtful emotions in the foe.


Emotional manipulators fight dirty -- They don’t deal with things directly. They will talk around behind your back and eventually put others in the position of telling you what they would not say themselves. They make others do that by playing the victim role.


Sound like any people we know?????

Anonymous said...

Update from TMZ - "Checkmate! The photographer went to the cop shop and she saw the light -- if she filed a complaint the police would have ended up charging HER with criminal trespass."


bm

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...


Update from TMZ - "Checkmate! The photographer went to the cop shop and she saw the light -- if she filed a complaint the police would have ended up charging HER with criminal trespass."


Thank you. I'm moving if we've become a country where we can't protect our private homes and children from intruders. She was not a pap. She was a stalker.

AuntieAnn said...

I pray this whole BUllY fiasco is TAKEN DOWN and the likes of Bullyville, cheaterville, etc goes with it!

====

Meagler I agree. That BV guy is just out of control.

What I don't get is how he got so many "celebrities" to post stories on that site.

How does "I skipped classes cuz I was a theatre nerd and nobody liked me" translate into being bullied?

PatK said...

Meagler said... 165


BV is a bully who has found a forum to bully people under the guide of protecting victims.


&&&&&&&&

AND tries to profit off it through the legal system apparently.

Mel said...

Wouldn't it be in the kids' best interests for TFW to set Jon up in a home in a gated community? Since their safety is her top priority and all.

Summer Days And Nights said...

They're nuts...nuts, I'm telling you!

MsGoody2Shoes21 ‏@msgoody2shoes21 2m
@FireyTopaz1 @Kateplusmy8 Jon has a right to his privacy. However, what did he expect after VH1 call-in, Dad's interview, ET & lawsuit?

It's all Jon's fault that someone stalked him and followed him to his home -- because he did an interview? He deserved it?

Lawsuit? Get a grip, Goody! KATE filed the lawsuit.

chefsummer said...

Bullyville ‏@BullyVille 2h
@BullyVille Question: If the photog was trespassing on his property doesn't he have every right to defend his family’s privacy? Thoughts?
________

Hmmmm.

Summer Days And Nights said...

Diva Princess ‏@PrincessDH 4m
@FireyTopaz1 @Kateplusmy8 UhOH! looks like trouble brewing in Katie-Tweetie-Land: BV & Co R solidly defending Jons right 2 defend self w/gun

Where would one find this? I looked at his timeline, and the only thing I see is that he asked a question if someone has a right to defend himself on his own property.

Bitchy Pants said...

Jane, Kirkland, and everyone -- The link I posted for the LIITM book was working this morning. I tried it several times to be sure I had it correctly before I typed it in. Now it just brings up a blank page for me, and the forums aren't listed at the bottom of the book page any more. Amazon makes it bloody difficult to find their forums. I have the ones I participate regularly on (mostly books and a couple of animal related ones) just so I don't lose the links. The only thing I can suggest is that you keep trying. They were there. I posted on the "WHY" one myself a couple of times. I'm not sure which posts were yours, though, Ally ;>) .

I don't blame Jon at all for firing a warning shot when he was stalked home from work. Presumably this was late at night, since the article says the pap followed him home from work. He has a right to protect himself, and as long as his gun license and registration are in order, I don't see how the law can come after him. I just hope TFMJG doesn't try to use this against him to wrest his parental rights away.

PatK said...

Fired Up 4 Kate‏@MiloandJack5m
@BullyVille I really don't believe he felt threatened by a pap..he has courted them & frolicked w/them 4yrs. He did this 4shock effect. IMO

&&&&&&&&&

Isn't this opinion, according to BV definition, bullying? Can she state that he did it for "shock value"? Isn't that libel, slander, whichever?

Oh, but it's a Kate supporter. Nevermind! Look the other way, please!

Paula said...

Just my opinion, but I really don't think this was a "real" Pap that followed Jon. I don't think they usually follow people onto private property? Sounds a little amateurish to me - would a pap really file a police report when they were the ones trespassing?

Over In TFW's County said...


Jon says he's mulling over his own legal right ... because he's really pissed at the pap.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

She must have done something to really piss him off. There's more to this story than we know. Jon's such a laid-back, easy-going guy who more times than not had made friends with the paps. Something led up to his pulling out the gun and firing the warning shot.

Mel said...

So, if after TFW does multiple interviews, someone follows her home, she doesn't have the right to sic Steve on them?
Because it's her fault because she did interviews??
So what does she need Steve for?
The companionship?

Paula said...

Goody is Exhibit 1 as to why Jon needs a gun. Where does she live?

Kate is a twit said...

BV tweeted the story about Jon and the gun and then asked:

Bullyville ‏@BullyVille 2h
@BullyVille Question: If the photog was trespassing on his property doesn't he have every right to defend his family’s privacy? Thoughts?

And most of his supporters are sticking up for Jon!! Well, except Milo, of course:

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 18m
@BullyVille It was daylight...he rents the place...she was following on a dirt road...perhaps a 911 call would have been more appropriate?

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 17m
@BullyVille I really don't believe he felt threatened by a pap..he has courted them & frolicked w/them 4yrs. He did this 4shock effect. IMO

Shock effect? Protecting yourself and your property is doing something for shock effect?

I give up. #Theyjustdon'tgetit

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Goody? No one "deserves" to be stalked to their personal property.

I don't care if Jon, or Kate, wants to give 1,000 interviews and write 50 cookbooks and file 20 lawsuits. NO ONE has the right to follow them onto their property and what's more to continue to take photos even after being told clearly to STOP.

Stalkers are sometimes a terrible consequence of the celebrity life but it is not DESERVED by ANYONE.

Smoochie said...

"MsGoody2Shoes21 ‏@msgoody2shoes21 2m
@FireyTopaz1 @Kateplusmy8 Jon has a right to his privacy. However, what did he expect after VH1 call-in, Dad's interview, ET & lawsuit?"

By that measure, how then can the sheeple criticize the Paps for following, stalking and taking pictures of Kate and the kids? Kate put their young lives on TV, has 'written' 4 books about her children, DWTS, guest hosted, done countless interviews on both TV and print media and is about to embark on a publicity tour!

So in the world according to Milo, yes privacy matters, but by speaking publicly it gives the Paps permission to violate that, take photos, it gives them permission to stalk, follow, harass and violate their rights as a person on their own property. Open up those gates Kate, you're now fair game too and according to Milo, you asked for it!

Smoochie said...

Whoooooops! My bad, that's the World According to Goody!

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

They need to listen to the testimony of Hailey Berry and Jennifer Garner.

They say look I GET that I am a star and that my life is an open book. But that does NOT give the paps permission to violate my boundaries and those of my children, period. I will have to look up the status of that wonderful legislation they have pushed through.

Tweet-le De Tweet-le DUMB said...

Bullyville ‏@BullyVille 2h
@BullyVille Question: If the photog was trespassing on his property doesn't he have every right to defend his family’s privacy? Thoughts?

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 30m
@BullyVille It was daylight...he rents the place...she was following on a dirt road...perhaps a 911 call would have been more appropriate?

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 29m
@BullyVille I really don't believe he felt threatened by a pap..he has courted them & frolicked w/them 4yrs. He did this 4shock effect. IMO

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Let's think about the logic here.

If this is just what to expect if you do an interview then I guess it's now fine with the sheeple for Robert to go through the trash?

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that's a problem then turn around and say oh well what do you expect when you give interviews! WTF?

Mel said...

Anyone wonder if BV will out that photog who was bullying Jon?

LaLaLandNoMore said...

We all understand that it takes a lifetime to build a wonderful reputation, but only seconds to tear it down. Someone needs to get through to this woman that Jon is not the reason for all of her failings before she spends every cent of the kids' money on this legal mess. The lawyers are the only ones coming out ahead on all of this. It is tragic, really. Difficult to grasp why it is happening, isn't it? Normal people do not behave this way. That book of revelations did not ruin anyone. The woman did it to herself. It is also difficult for me to understand the lack of self-awareness. Sad for the 8 kids. I predict that someday all of this "reality tv" will be a thing of the past.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...


How is Jon to know that someone stalking & following him in an unknown car, off the main roads, the side roads and all the way home onto his private property, is a photographer and means him no harm?

&&&

Anyone could borrow or get a cheap SLR camera that looks like a pap camera and pose as a photographer but have other more dangerous intentions. Not to mention, this person was just in a car. Did it say Paparazzi in big letters on the car or did Jon have ANY idea it was a photographer and not some creep?

In fact, that would be smart I would think. You have an explanation why you are there thats "innocent". Maybe if Kate worked they would follow her home from work too and she would be JUST as freaked out and she knows it.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...


Fired Up 4 Kate @MiloandJack 30m
@BullyVille It was daylight...he rents the place...she was following on a dirt road...perhaps a 911 call would have been more appropriate?

&&&

He lives in the middle of nowhere. For that matter Kate's pretty far out there too. What are the response times there? At least 10 minutes? Perhaps 15 or more?

In ten minutes, your whole family could be dead. In 30 seconds they could be dead. The cops should always be called if at all possible, but sometimes it's just not possible.

I hope he presses charges against this stalker.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

I'm impressed and relieved that BV understands Jon has a right to protect himself against trespassers (as does Kate, as does everyone). To support Jon protecting himself, his property and more than likely his children with Kate, is not a betrayal of Kate. It is a support of KATE and her children too.

Lalalalala said...

Notice that Kate is letting everyone bash Jon because he was trying to protect himself and his children. Kate should be telling these people that she's GLAD Jon did what he did! But, Kate never, ever does what she SHOULD do.

Mel said...

Just what he didn't need. Public opinion finally starting to tip in his favor, and then something dumb happens. Again.

He just can't seem to avoid tripping on his own two feet, can he.

Now there will be problems with the job...who wants TMZ calling them all the time? (Although maybe this will be good for busines...all the paps coming in for dinner and requesting a certain waiter. :-))
And TFW will surely have her attys in court fighting for 100% custody now.
His lawyer hasn't realized yet that Jon just can't stay out of trouble.
A change in strategy is needed.

Not that he isn't withing his rights to defend himself here, but why, why, why.....

Deep sigh.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

It was daylight

&&&

LOL this is too much. What does daylight have to do with it? You can't stalk and hurt a celebrity in broad daylight? Rebecca Schaeffer was shot in broad daylight. Her killer had just eaten breakfast.

I love too how none of the sheeple are asking, omg were the kids home, are the okay? Were they scared? Did they see any of this go down? It is never and has never been about concern about the children. It's always been about what to say to defend Kate no matter what direction the wind is blowing no matter how hypocritical it may be.

Poor Kate even her henchmen is saying ehh seems a reasonable response to me. She doesn't want to chime in with her support too?

Kate is a twit said...

Hmm-are there still problems with Kate's coupon site?


Kate Gosselin ‏@Kateplusmy8 6h
Have you seen the great deals for Old Navy on http://couponsbykate.com/ ? My girls are super excited.... Check it out!

laura ‏@adidasqt6 12m
@Kateplusmy8 I subscribed weeks ago but still haven't received anything?

I guess that "Get Kate’s Best Coupons by Email" thingy doesn't work.

Why are only Kate's girls excited? Doesn't she buy clothes for the boys too?

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 593   Newer› Newest»