Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Jon's attorney's second motion to dismiss filed

A pre-trial conference was held yesterday in Kate's ongoing lawsuit against Jon and Robert Hoffman. On that date Jon's attorney Shawn Tuma also filed his second Federal Rules of Court 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, and Robert Hoffman also filed a joinder to the motion to dismiss.

The full text of the motion from PACER is here:

Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 26
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KATE GOSSELIN, ) ) Plaintiff, )
  • )  CIVIL ACTION v. )
  • )  NO.: 13:4989 JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN, ROBERT )
    HOFFMAN, and JOHN AND JANE DOES ) 1-20 ) ) Defendants. )
    DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
    Defendant Jonathan K. Gosselin (“Jon”, “Jonathan,” or “Defendant”), by and through his attorneys, BrittonTuma and Orwig Law Offices, files Defendant Jonathan K. Gosselin’s Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This is Defendant’s second motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. On September 18, 2013, Defendant filed Defendant Jonathan K. Gosselin’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 3] seeking dismissal of all of Plaintiff’s claims in the Complaint [Dkt. 1]. Rather than respond to the first motion, on October 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint [Dkt. 10] and withdrew four of the eight claims. Of the remaining claims, two are participatory and premised on the two substantive claims: (1) Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and (2) Invasion of Privacy.
In deciding this Motion to Dismiss, the Court faces the following six questions to answer:
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 1 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
page1image14008 page1image14168 page1image14328 page1image14488 page1image14648 page1image14808
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 2 of 26
II. PRIMARY QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Limitations Bars All Claims. The limitations period for all of Plaintiff’s claims is two years or less. On October 15, 2009, Plaintiff issued a public statement addressing the same allegations she makes in this lawsuit. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit nearly four years later, on August 26, 2013.
Question 1: Are Plaintiff’s claims time-barred?
Satisfaction of CFAA Threshold $5,000 Loss. The CFAA requires Plaintiff to plead she sustained a loss aggregating at least $5,000 during any 1-year period. Plaintiff did not allege any specific time period during which she alleges she sustained the loss.
Question 2: Did Plaintiff plead a $5,000 loss during any 1-year?
Under the CFAA, loss means cost of remedial measures taken related to impairment or damage to a computer or data (including online accounts). Plaintiff alleged information was taken from a computer, not that a computer was impaired or damaged.
Question 3: If there was no impairment or damage to a computer, could Plaintiff have sustained a loss?
Plaintiff alleges the loss is (1) the cost of her time spent investigating and assessing harm caused by the access (but not harm to the computers), (2) lost revenue, and (3) consequential damages. Plaintiff’s time was not spent investigating or repairing damage to a computer or data. Lost revenue and consequential damages cannot be a loss unless there was interruption of service. Plaintiff has not alleged interruption of service.
Question 4: Where there is no damage to a computer or data and no interruption of service, can loss be comprised of time spent investigating, lost revenue, and consequential damages?
Satisfaction of CFAA Access. The CFAA prohibits unauthorized access of computer or online information, not misuse or misappropriation. Plaintiff’s access allegations are speculative, naked assertions that do not specify the computer or account accessed, when accessed, or how access was accomplished.
Question 5: Do conclusory allegations of logging into an unspecified “email account” or “bank account” suffice to state a CFAA wrongful access claim?
Publicity Given to Private Life Requires Information Be True. To state a claim for public disclosure of private facts it is essential that the facts disclosed be true. Plaintiff does not allege the facts disclosed are true but claims some are false and defamatory.
Question 6: Unless Plaintiff alleges the facts disclosed are true, can she state a claim for publicity given to private life?
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
PAGE 2
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 3 of 26
III. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
On June 12, 1999, Jonathan K. Gosselin and Katie I. Gosselin (“Kate”) were married. Kate is a registered nurse, last working in the nursing industry in December 2006. Jonathan is a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, last working in the information technology industry in November 2007, as an information technology analyst for the Pennsylvania Governor’s Office.
While married, Jonathan and Kate lived together in the same home. In their home was a Dell desktop computer (the “Dell Computer”) that Jonathan purchased in 2002, which is licensed to Jonathan. The Dell Computer had a Microsoft Windows XP operating system and Microsoft Office software, both of which were licensed to Jonathan. Jonathan was always the Administrator of the Dell Computer; Kate was only a Power User and had no administrative permissions. Jonathan’s Dell Computer eventually became the Gosselin family computer and the children began playing on it using either Jonathan’s account or Kate’s account.
Jonathan regularly backed up the hard drive of the Dell Computer and the backups were saved to CD ROM or DVD discs. The backups included .pst files containing Personal Folders belonging to Jonathan and Kate which were stored in the Microsoft Outlook email program under the following directory: C:/Documents and Settings/outlook.
On June 22, 2009, Kate filed for divorce. After Kate filed for divorce, Jonathan moved out of the family home and into an apartment above the garage of the family home (the “Apartment”); Jonathan left his Dell Computer in the family home for continued use by his children. Jonathan was still permitted access to the family home during this time. On or about April 2010, Jonathan observed the hard drive of his Dell Computer was failing so he performed a backup of it and stored the data on DVD discs. Jonathan created two copies of the DVDs, one for himself and one for Kate. These final backup DVDs included family pictures, business contracts, and other information. The backup DVDs were labeled and dated for archival purposes.
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 3 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 4 of 26
Once the divorce was final, Jonathan was required to move from the Apartment; Kate continued living in the family home. When Jonathan moved from the Apartment, he left Kate’s copy of the backup DVDs in the Apartment in a box along with other items he believed Kate would want. He informed Kate that the DVDs were in the box. The following day Kate contacted Jonathan and asked if he would be returning for any other items left in the Apartment; he responded that he was not and she could keep or discard the items as she saw fit. The children volunteered to Jonathan that Kate (and her friend) threw away in the trash everything left behind in the Apartment (presumably, including Kate’s copy of the DVDs that Jonathan left behind). Jonathan has not wrongfully accessed any computer, online accounts, or telephone belonging to Kate—it is far more plausible that Kate threw out the DVDs in the trash herself.
Shortly thereafter, the hard drive of Jonathan’s Dell Computer failed. Jonathan destroyed the hard drive in a manner consistent with his training by taking it apart, removing the physical disc, physically destroying the physical disc, and then discarding the pieces away separate from the actual hard drive device.
IV. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
A. The First Amended Complaint Fails To Meet The Minimum Legal Standards Required To Survive A Rule 12(b)(6) Motion To Dismiss.
1. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint consists of little more than threadbare recitals of the elements of causes of action and conclusory statements.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that a complaint must be dismissed if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. While a court considering a motion to dismiss is required to review the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there are minimal standards that must be met. Conclusory allegations, legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, or mere recitation of the elements of a cause of action, are not entitled to such presumption.
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 4 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 5 of 26
Even under the liberal notice pleading standards of Rule 8, a plaintiff must provide sufficient factual allegations to demonstrate a plausible claim for relief prior to the court unlocking the doors to expensive discovery. “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant- unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56, (2007)).
In Iqbal, the Supreme Court provided a concise guide with three steps for courts to follow when considering a motion to dismiss. The Court draws a key distinction between what it calls “conclusory allegations” and “factual allegations” and treats them very differently. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680-81. The Court began its analysis with what is often referred to as “the two-pronged approach” set forth in Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, and expounded upon it to further explain the steps for reviewing a motion to dismiss: (1) reject the “bald allegations” because bald allegations are conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true; (2) considering only the “factual allegations,” use common sense and judicial experience to consider the plausibility of the allegations and whether there is an “obvious alternative explanation.” See id. at 679-82.
a) Reject the “bald allegations” because “bald allegations” are conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true.
In Iqbal, the Court explained the principles for why the “bald allegations” must be rejected. “First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Rule 8 does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions. Id. at 678-79.
Reviewing the complaint at issue in Iqbal, the Court stated “[w]e begin our analysis by identifying the allegations in the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 5 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 6 of 26
680. The Court then looked at the following allegations: (1) “petitioners ‘knew of, condoned, and willfully and maliciously agreed to subject [him]’ to harsh conditions of confinement ‘as a matter of policy, solely on account of [his] religion, race, and/or national origin and for no legitimate penological interest.’” (2) “Ashcroft was the ‘principal architect’ of this invidious policy, and [] Mueller was ‘instrumental’ in adopting and executing it.” Id. at 680-81. The Court referred to these as “bare assertions, much like the pleading of conspiracy in Twombly, amount[ing] to nothing more than a ‘formulaic recitation of the elements’ of a constitutional discrimination claim, namely, that petitioners adopted a policy ‘”because of,” not merely “in spite of,” its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.’ As such, the allegations are conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true.” Id. at 681.
The Court made it very clear, however, that it was “not reject[ing] these bald allegations on the ground that they are unrealistic or nonsensical.” Id. Instead, “[i]t is the conclusory nature of [the] allegations rather than their extravagantly fanciful nature, that disentitles them to the presumption of truth.” Id. In other words, the Court declared war on “bald allegations” because of their conclusory nature.
b) Considering only the “factual allegations,” use common sense and judicial experience to consider the plausibility of the allegations and whether there is an “obvious alternative explanation.”
Next consider only the “factual allegations” in the complaint to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief. Id. at 681. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 6 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 7 of 26
The complaint in Iqbal contained “factual allegations” that, taken as true, were consistent with the plaintiff’s claim for relief but that was not the end of analysis. There were more likely explanations which explained those events in a way that made the “factual allegations” not plausible. The plausibility requirement is what made the difference between granting and denying the motion to dismiss. That is, the Court found there were factual allegations that supported the plaintiff’s theory of the case and that there were alternative theories as well. Relying upon its common sense and judicial experience, the Court compared a “’obvious alternative explanation’” to the theory advanced by the plaintiff and inferred that the theory advanced by the plaintiff was not a plausible conclusion. Id. at 682.
The Court went deeper into the analysis. It reasoned that even if the factual allegations supporting the plaintiff’s theory had given rise to a plausible inference in its favor, that inference alone would not entitle it to relief. Id. The Court then went a level deeper into the discrete nuances of the specific claims pleaded by the plaintiff to see if the complaint contained sufficient factual allegations to support not only the claims in general, but the discrete nuances of the claims as well. Id. The Court found that the complaint failed to do so. The complaint failed to “’nudg[e]’” the claim “’across the line from conceivable to plausible.’” Id. at 683 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Where the factual allegations fail to nudge the claim across the line from conceivable to plausible, the pleading is inadequate.
c) 3 Questions: “no” to any of these questions requires dismissal.
In summary, the Court’s Iqbal analysis provides 3 questions to ask when analyzing a complaint to determine if it fails to state a claim:
1. Ignoring all “bald allegations” and “legal conclusions,” do the “factual allegations” support the elements of the claim?
2. If so, does common sense and judicial experience suggest the plaintiff’s theory of the claim is plausible or that there are more likely alternative explanations?
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 7 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 8 of 26
3. If not, are the factual allegations supporting the discrete nuances of the claim strong enough to nudge the claim across the line from conceivable to plausible?
A “no” to any of these questions means the allegations in the complaint do not meet the Supreme Court’s Iqbal standards and must be dismissed. Two exemplary cases demonstrate that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not make it past the first question.
2. Two exemplary cases show why the Amended Complaint is too vague and conclusory to support the claims, suggest her theory is plausible, or nudge the claim across the line from conceivable to plausible.
The factual weakness of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is analogous to the Amended Complaint in JBCHoldings NY, LLC v. Pakter, 931 F. Supp.2d. 514 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), and Complaint in Smith v. Trusted Universal Standards In Elec. Transactions, Inc., 2010 WL 1799456 (D.N.J. May 4, 2010). The JBCHoldings and Smith courts dismissed the complaints because they contained only vague and conclusory allegations and speculation as to actual facts.
In JBCHoldings, the court addressed the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim urged in this case. The court found that some of the CFAA claims were deficient as a matter of law, but that others could have been viable had the Amended Complaint not been too conclusory and speculative to pass muster. JBCHoldings, 931 F. Supp.2d at 525. “These are precisely the sort of speculative, ‘naked assertion[s]’ that do not suffice to survive a motion to dismiss.... [a]lthough the plausibility requirement ‘is not akin to a “probability requirement” ... it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.’ Plaintiff’s pleadings are repeatedly couched in terms of sheer possibility, otherwise known as conjecture.” Id. at 526.
The Smith court rejected similar conclusory allegations where the Plaintiff had not made any factual averments regarding interception of his communications for a Wiretap Act claim, which is as vital to that claim as allegations of access are for the CFAA. The court found Plaintiff’s own allegations demonstrated his claim was a mere fishing expedition for liability: “Plaintiff does not know the exact reason for being blocked. It may be due to eavesdropping or
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 8 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 9 of 26
some other reason. It is also possible that all reports, blocking and blacklisting are erroneous and no eavesdropping took place.Smith, 2010 WL 1799456 at *11. “What Plaintiff has alleged in effect is the mere possibility of liability, but not plausible liability. Absent facts to support his speculation, he is not entitled to discovery to see what he may find.” Id.
Compare the substance of Plaintiff’s allegations to those in JBCHoldings and Smith.
page9image5400 page9image5992
Amended Complaint
“Jon illegally hacked into Kate’s email account, and her phone, and bank accounts.” Am. Compl. p. 1.
“Jon began accessing Kate’s password protected email [and banking] account without her authorization.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 11, 14.
“On information and belief, Jon has continued to access Kate’s email account, online banking account, and cellphone.” Am. Compl. ¶ 24.
“On information and belief, Jon’s unauthorized access to known password protected accounts through the Internet has been continuous and systematic.” Am. Compl. ¶ 25.
“In reality, Hoffman, Jon Gosselin, and Does 1-20 ... hacked into Kate Gosselin’s various accounts– and the protected computers ....” Am. Compl. ¶ 32.
“On information and belief, Defendants Hoffman, Jon Gosselin, and Does 1-20 illegally accessed Kate’s computers confidential data ....” Am. Compl. ¶ 38.
“Jon Gosselin, and potentially others ... improperly used Plaintiff’s login information, namely her login user identity and her password, without authorization to access the contents of those accounts and the computers ....” Am. Compl. ¶ 48.
page9image17040 page9image17200 page9image17680 page9image17840 page9image18000 page9image18760
page9image19528
JBCHoldings NY, LLC v. Pakter
“someone, currently believed to be Janou, or one of her agents, placed a flash memory drive on JBC and JP computer servers ... in an effort to surreptitiously rip information from the drives.” JBCHoldings, 931 F. Supp.2d at 525-26.
“Plaintiffs' technology personnel found spyware and malware on Plaintiffs' servers. They believe the spyware to have been possibly remotely placed. Further, they believe it possible that information was taken remotely by Janou and Puglia. Indeed, according to IT personnel, Janou could have passed along her login-information to Puglia, in excess of her authorized use, which would explain the placement, remotely of spyware or the remote removal of Plaintiffs' data.” Id. at 526.
“upon information and belief, ‘all Defendants’ have been using the two notebooks belonging to plaintiffs that Janou has yet to return.” Id.
Smith v. Trusted Universal Standards
“by monitoring Plaintiff's Internet communications and/or allowing third parties to do so.” Smith, 2010 WL 1799456 at *11.
page9image29968 page9image30288 page9image30448
The allegations in the Amended Complaint are more conclusory and speculative than those in JBCHoldings, Smith, and Iqbal. There are no factual averments that identify any specific computer or online account that was accessed, when they were accessed, or how information needed to accomplish the access was obtained. This is exacerbated by the frequent “information and belief” allegations demonstrating Plaintiff is speculating.
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 9 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 10 of 26
Perhaps most telling is the allegation “Hoffman falsely claimed in certain publications that he recovered the data from Kate’s computer by digging through her trash that he found on the street. . . . The materials in his possession could not possibly be physically found in paper format to that extent. If Hoffman was picking through trash on the street, he did not find this trove of personal information while engaging in his trash-picking endeavors.” Am. Compl. ¶ 31. This is not a factual allegation. This is rationalization. This is conjecture. This is speculation—as to why it had to be hacking—because how else could it have happened, right? Or, is there a more plausible alternative explanation?
The JBCHoldings case involved a similar rationalization that was not lost on the court: “Plaintiffs allege that during Janou’s alleged scheme, she was employed by JBC and had ready access to the proprietary information at issue. She could have ... simply copied the information to her personal laptop and shared it with her co-conspirators. This would have obviated the need for her to resort to the type of elaborate ‘outside hacker’ activities in which plaintiffs alternatively speculate she engaged ....” JBCHoldings, 931 F. Supp.2d at 526. At least in JBCHoldings the plaintiff offered an explanation for how the defendant was alleged to have wrongfully accessed the computers. Not so here. In the case at bar, Plaintiff says her login information was used but does not even offer a speculative guess as to how Defendants gained access to that information. Was it a Trojan horse? DDoS attack? Malware? Social engineering? Clairvoyance? We have no idea—neither does Plaintiff.
Plaintiff recites the gist of Defendant Hoffman’s explanation for how he obtained the information—he found the data discs containing the information in Plaintiff’s trash. See Hoffman Ans. ¶ 30 [Dkt. 4]. Yet, she expects the Court to disregard this plausible explanation based only on her conjecture as to what may have been possible—yet, after two tries, Plaintiff
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 10 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 11 of 26
cannot allege how the access occurred, i.e., how did Defendants have the information to access the computers?
Plaintiff’s allegations are classic “unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s].” See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 662. They are inadequate to provide a reasonable basis for inferring that Defendants are liable for the misconduct alleged. JBCHoldings, 931 F. Supp.2d at 526. Plaintiff has alleged the mere possibility of liability, but not plausible liability strong enough to nudge the claim across the line from conceivable to plausible. Absent facts to support her speculation, she is not entitled to discovery to see what she may find. Smith v. Trusted Universal Standards in Elec. Transactions, Inc., 2010 WL 1799456, at *11 (D.N.J. May 4, 2010); See JBCHoldings, 931 F. Supp.2d at 527. Plaintiff’s claims are pure speculation, a fishing expedition, and should be treated as such.
3. A complaint premised upon information and belief allegations, without real factual support, will not survive a motion to dismiss.
Allegations made upon information and belief, without factual support, do not allow the court “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,” Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1268 (11th Cir. 2009), and thus do not show that the pleader is entitled to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); See Wright v. Lehigh Valley Hosp. & Health Network, Inc., 2011 WL 2550361, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 23, 2011).
In limited situations where the essential facts are uniquely within the control of the defendant and not capable of being pleaded by the plaintiff, courts have made an exception and held pleading upon information and belief to be appropriate under the Twombly/Iqbal regime. Klein v. County of Bucks, 2013 WL 1310877 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 1, 2013). Even then, however, the plaintiff must plead “a proper factual basis asserted to support the beliefs pled.” Wright, 2011 WL 2550361, at *3; see JBCHoldings, 931 F. Supp.2d at 527. But, where the “averments are
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 11 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 12 of 26
merely ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action’ ... [r]eliance by [Plaintiff] on information and belief cannot transform legal conclusions into plausible factual allegations.” Id.
This is not a case where the essential facts are uniquely within the Defendants’ control and not capable of being pleaded by Plaintiff. The exception by which information and belief allegations may survive a motion to dismiss is inapplicable. Whatever information lies behind Plaintiff’s suspicions has been within Plaintiff’s control—most likely in her own trash.
4. Key Allegations Are Not Relevant To The Causes of Action.
Plaintiff’s allegations must be carefully scrutinized. Some key allegations are not relevant to the claims pleaded. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants wrongfully accessed her cellphone, Am. Compl. p. 1, ¶¶ 24, 52, but does not claim access to the cellphone under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim. Id. ¶¶ 44-51. Plaintiff implies that information from the cellphone was wrongfully disclosed, id. ¶¶ 55-57, yet asserts no causes of action premised on such activity being wrongful to make it so. Plaintiff makes similar allegations regarding the stealing of a hard drive, id. p. 1, ¶¶ 17, 18, and likewise asserts no causes of action premised upon the activity. Allegations regarding the cellphone and hard drive are irrelevant to the claims in this lawsuit.
B. All of Plaintiff’s Claims are Time-Barred and Should Be Dismissed.
All of Plaintiff’s claims have either a one or two year limitations period and are time- barred.1 The lawsuit was filed on August 26, 2013. Plaintiff was aware of and publicly commented on the allegations in this lawsuit roughly four years ago—at least as early as 2009.
The essential allegations underlying Plaintiff’s claims in the Amended Complaint are that
1 The law of this Circuit permits a statute of limitations defense to be raised by a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), if it is obvious from the face of the complaint that the cause of action has not been timely asserted. See Kelly v. Eckerd Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4381, *8 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2004); First Am. Mktg. Corp. v. Canella, 2004 WL 25037, *5 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 26, 2004) (quoting Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 135 (3rd Cir. 2002)); Demetrius v. Marsh, 560 F. Supp. 1157, 1159 (E.D. Pa. 1983).
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 12 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
page12image21160
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 13 of 26
Defendant accessed Kate’s (1) “password protected email account,” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 11-12, (2) “online, password-protected banking accounts,” Am. Compl. ¶ 14, and (3) cellphone, Am. Compl. ¶ 16. Those are the same three allegations Plaintiff publicly addressed in 2009.
The public record is replete with Plaintiff’s and Plaintiff’s then-attorneys’ statements regarding the exact allegations claimed in this lawsuit dating back to 2009:
"Kate Gosselin has heard the allegations made by Stephanie Santoro that Jon Gosselin [1] 'hacked' into her e-mails, [2] phone, and [3] online accounts, and she is profoundly disturbed by them," her law firm, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, said in a statement Thursday. "Under the circumstances, Ms. Gosselin is carefully considering all of her legal options regarding this matter, and she will pursue them if and when the time is right." 2
The foregoing statement by Plaintiff’s then-attorney is on a website dated October 15, 2009.3
1. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim is time-barred.
The statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act civil claim is two years. “No action may be brought under this subsection unless such action is begun within 2 years of [1] the date of the act complained of or [2] the date of discovery of the damage.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g). The relevant date for this inquiry is the date of the act complained up because there is no allegation of damage in this case. The limitations period for Plaintiff to assert this claim expired two years after the alleged wrongful access alleged—which necessarily had to occur on or before October 15, 2009 when Plaintiff publicly acknowledged the allegations— nearly four years before she filed this lawsuit.
2 New York Daily News: "Jon Gosselin sued by TLC for breach of contract; Kate may take legal action against 'hacking' claims" http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/10/16/2009-10- 16_jon_gosselin_sued_by_tlc_for_breach_of_contract_kate_may_take_legal_action_again.html
3 Kate Gosselin Considering Legal Options Against Jon After Reading Radar Report,
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/10/kate-gosselin-considering-legal-options-against-jon-after-reading-radar- report/
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 13 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
page13image18976 page13image19136 page13image19296 page13image19456 page13image19616
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 14 of 26
2. The State law claims are time-barred.
Plaintiff asserts state law tort claims against Defendants for Invasion of Privacy (Count II), Civil Conspiracy (Count III), and Concerted Tortious Action (Count IV). Under Pennsylvania law, the invasion of privacy claim has a one-year limitation period: “The following actions and proceedings must be commenced within one year . . . An action for libel, slander or invasion of privacy.” 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5523 (West).
Plaintiff’s claims for conspiracy and concerted tortious activity do not stand alone; each participatory and are dependent upon either the CFAA claim or the Invasion of Privacy claim. If those claims are time-barred, so too are the conspiracy and concerted tortious activity claims, both of which independently have two-year limitation periods as well: “[C]laims of . . . civil conspiracy, and concerted tortious conduct . . . . have a two-year limitations period that begins to run on the date of injury.” Brock v. Thomas, 782 F. Supp. 2d 133, 140-41 (E.D. Pa. 2011).
3. The Court may take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s awareness in 2009 of the allegations underlying this lawsuit—it is publicly available information that is both generally known and capable of accurate and ready determination.
A basic Google search produces numerous results for Plaintiff’s statement by her attorney in 2009 stating her awareness of the allegations now made in this lawsuit and how, at the time, she was “carefully considering all of her legal options regarding this matter, and she [would] pursue them if and when the time is right.”4 This event is common knowledge and undeniable.
Precedent in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania demonstrates that the Court may take judicial notice of information such as these websites where the matter is in the public domain and is both generally known and capable of accurate and ready determination. See Wilson v. City of
4 New York Daily News: "Jon Gosselin sued by TLC for breach of contract; Kate may take legal action against 'hacking' claims" http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/10/16/2009-10- 16_jon_gosselin_sued_by_tlc_for_breach_of_contract_kate_may_take_legal_action_again.html
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 14 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
page14image19144 page14image19304 page14image19464
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 15 of 26
Philadelphia, 2010 WL 1254111 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2010), vacated in part on other grounds, 415 Fed. Appx. 434 (3d Cir. 2011). The Wilson Court was considering a motion to dismiss premised on official immunity issues that required facts concerning the dates and roles of defendant’s prior employment. This information was not available in the complaint or any incorporated documents. In granting the motion to dismiss, the court took judicial notice of information from the defendant’s biography page on a law firm’s website. Id. at n.4.
Similarly, in Inman v. Technicolor USA, Inc., 2011 WL 5829024 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2011), the court was considering a motion to dismiss concerning the interpretation of a website User Agreement that was neither attached to the complaint nor specifically referenced therein but the court determined that it was proper to take judicial notice of the website in granting the motion to dismiss. Id. at 3-4.
4. The information properly before the Court shows that in 2009, Plaintiff was aware of the allegations in this lawsuit and all of her claims are time-barred.
The timeline of the case is straightforward. In 2009, Plaintiff was aware of allegations that “Jon Gosselin 'hacked' into her e-mails, phone, and online accounts,” she was profoundly disturbed by them, and she was “carefully considering all of her legal options regarding this matter, and she [would] pursue them if and when the time is right."5 Now, nearly four years later, Plaintiff has apparently determined that the time is right but it is too late. Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
5 New York Daily News: "Jon Gosselin sued by TLC for breach of contract; Kate may take legal action against 'hacking' claims" http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/10/16/2009-10- 16_jon_gosselin_sued_by_tlc_for_breach_of_contract_kate_may_take_legal_action_again.html
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 15 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
page15image16608 page15image16768 page15image16928
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 16 of 26
C. The Amended Complaint Does Not Adequately Plead “Loss” or “Access”—Two Essential Elements of a CFAA Civil Claim (Count I).
In Count 1 of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to avail itself of the civil remedy of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(c). Am. Compl. ¶ 41. The elements of a civil claim for a violation of section 1030(a)(2) require Plaintiff to plead and prove that Defendants: (1) intentionally accessed a protected computer, (2) without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and that he (3) thereby obtained information (4) from any protected computer, and that (5) there was a loss to one or more persons during any 1- year period aggregating at least $5,000 in value. See Sealord Holdings, Inc. v. Radler, 2012 WL 707075, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2012). The Amended Complaint fails to identify any specific computer or account that was allegedly accessed, how it was accessed, when it was accessed, or that there was a $5,000 loss during any 1-year.
1. The Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the CFAA claim because Plaintiff does not meet the $5,000 loss threshold requirement.
In order to bring a civil claim under the CFAA, Plaintiff must plead that, during any 1- year period, she sustained a loss of at least $5,000 because of the CFAA violation. Grant Mfg. & Alloying, Inc. v. McIlvain, 499 Fed. Appx. 157, 159 (3d Cir. 2012); A.V. ex rel Vanderhyne v. iParadigms, LLC, 562 F.3d 630, 646 (4th Cir. 2009). The loss requirement is a jurisdictional threshold that must be satisfied before the court is vested with jurisdiction to decide the case even if the damages are in the millions. See Quantlab Techs. Ltd. (BVI) v. Godlevsky, 719 F. Supp.2d 766, 776 (S.D. Tex. 2010). The reason for the loss requirement is because the CFAA is primarily a criminal statute that only has a limited civil remedy.
To successfully plead a civil CFAA claim a plaintiff must strictly adhere to the multi-step requirements of the statutory framework. First, section 1030(g) provides that “[a]ny person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section may maintain a civil action against
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 16 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 17 of 26
the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g). Second, section 1030(g) goes on to state that “[a] civil action for a violation of this section may be brought only if the conduct involves 1 of the factors set forth in subclauses (I), (II), (III), (IV), or (V) of subsection (c)(4)(A)(i).” Id. Third, looking at the five subsection (c)(4)(A)(i) factors, the only one applicable to the case at bar is (I): “loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period ... aggregating at least $5,000 in value.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I). A plaintiff must satisfy each of these steps for a civil remedy and the critical inquiry is, was there a loss?
Loss is a specialized term that the CFAA defines as:
[A]ny reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service [.]
18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(11).
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint attempts to invoke sub-clause (I) but the allegation once

again6 misses the mark:
Defendants accessed Kate Gosselin’s computer and computer services without authority to do so and in doing so, caused in excess of $5,000 in economic losses arising from Jon’s unauthorized use of her password-protected online accounts.” Am. Compl. ¶ 50.
Specifically, Plaintiff's losses arose in the form of the cost of her time in investigating and assessing the harm caused by Jon and others' unlawful access of the protected computers where her account information was stored, ensuring the integrity of the information residing on those protected computers, and the lost revenue and consequential damages Plaintiff suffered from conducting this investigation. Am. Compl. ¶ 51.
6 In the Original Complaint Plaintiff alleged "Defendants accessed Kate Gosselin's computer and computer services without authority to do so and in doing so, caused in excess of $5, 000 worth of damage." Compl. ¶ 47.
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 17 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
page17image20168
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 18 of 26
Plaintiff’s second attempt at pleading a loss is inadequate for several reasons.
a) Plaintiff ignores the 1-year time period requirement.
Plaintiff does not allege any loss (or economic losses) was incurred “during any 1-year period ... aggregating at least $5,000 in value.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I). Plaintiff does not address, much less confine her claim to the time period required by the statute.
b) Plaintiff did not allege a loss—loss and economic loss are not the same. Plaintiff alleges $5,000 in economic losses in paragraph 50, and in paragraph 51 adds
specificity to what it previously referred to as economic losses: “Specifically, Plaintiff’s losses arose ....” Am. Comp. ¶¶ 50-51. The CFAA requires a “loss” as defined by the statute. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I). Not damage or damages, each of which also has its own different meaning under the CFAA. They are not interchangeable. Compare 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(8) (“the term ‘damage’ means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information”), with 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g) (“Any person who suffers damage or loss ... may ... obtain compensatory damages .... Damages ... are limited to economic damages.”), and the definition of loss discussed supra, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(11).
Just as loss is a defined term with a specific meaning under the CFAA, economic losses likewise has a specific, although different meaning. Economic loss means general economic damages. See Lucker Mfg. v. Milwaukee Steel Foundry, 777 F. Supp. 413, 415 (E.D. Pa. 1991) (Economic loss has been defined to include loss due to repair costs, decreased value, and lost profits, consequential damages in the nature of cost of repair or replacement or lost profits, and damages resulting from the loss of the use of the product.) (citations omitted); Palco Linings, Inc. v. Pavex, Inc., 755 F. Supp. 1269, 1276 (M.D. Pa. 1990). Plaintiff’s pleading of $5,000 in economic losses is substantively identical to pleading $5,000 in damages and does not meet the statutory requirement.
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 18 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 19 of 26
c) The components of Plaintiff’s economic losses do not meet the Third Circuit’s requirement for loss.
The Third Circuit cases are clear on what constitutes a loss. “’Numerous district court decisions in the Third Circuit have held that to fall within this definition of “loss,” the “alleged ‘loss’ must be related to the impairment or damage to a computer or computer system.”’” Brooks v. AM Resorts, LLC, 2013 WL 3343993 (E.D. Pa. July 3, 2013) (citations omitted).
“’A compensable “loss” under the CFAA ... is the cost of remedial measures taken to investigate or repair the damage to the computer, or the loss is the amount of lost revenue resulting from a plaintiff's inability to utilize the computer while it was inoperable because of a defendant's misfeasance [i.e., interruption of service].’” Brooks, 2013 WL 3343993, at *5 (citation omitted). Plaintiff does not allege there was an interruption of service. In all other cases, a loss generally means a cost that is directly related to the impairment or damage to the computer, Sealord, 2012 WL 707075, at *5, which Plaintiff has not alleged. Because there was no damage to the computer, “investigating,” “assessing,” and “ensuring the integrity of the information” does not count.
Plaintiff alleges three components to her economic losses: (1) “the cost of her time in investigating and assessing the harm caused by Jon and others’ unlawful access of the protected computers where her account information was stored, ensuring the integrity of the information residing on those protected computers; (2) “the lost revenue,” and (3) “consequential damages Plaintiff suffered from conducting this investigation.” Am. Compl. ¶ 51.
(1) Plaintiff’s own time expended is not a loss for two reasons.
The cost of her time cannot be considered a loss for two distinct reasons. First, a loss is a cost, “the cost of remedial measures taken to investigate or repair the damage to the computer” in cases where there is no claim of damage or interruption of service. Sealord, 2012 WL 707075, at *5. Plaintiff does not allege that there has been damage to a computer (including online services)
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 19 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 20 of 26
or that there has been an interruption of service. The only thing Plaintiff has alleged is that Defendant copied data from computers—not caused any damage or harm to them. See discussion supra Section IV.C.1.b. She has not alleged that the online services or data were damaged. Time and effort spent investigating and assessing damage to a computer is outside the scope of the loss provision where there was no need to restore data, a program, a system, or information to its condition prior to the Defendant’s conduct. Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 810 F. Supp.2d 633, 641 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
Second, because there is no allegation of interruption of service, a loss means a cost. Sealord Holdings, Inc., 2012 WL 707075, at *5. Plaintiff’s own time is not a cost. While there are cases in which plaintiff-businesses claim the value of their employees’ time as a cost, in those cases it is a cost to the business because the business must pay the employee for the time expended. Further, because it must pay its employee, it is able to quantify the value of the time by determining how much the employee makes per hour and multiplying that amount by the time the employee expended. See AssociationVoice, Inc. v. AtHomeNet, Inc., 2011 WL 63508, at *8 (D. Colo. Jan. 6, 2011).
(2) Lost revenue and consequential damages do not qualify as a loss.
Plaintiff’s allegation that lost revenue and consequential damages are a loss is incorrect. It is well settled that lost revenue and consequential damages are not a loss when the Plaintiff has not alleged an interruption of service. Eagle v. Morgan, 2012 WL 4739436, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2012) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has not alleged interruption of service.
Even if Plaintiff’s time were considered a loss, two of the three components Plaintiff pleads as economic losses are negated. Because Plaintiff includes these two components in her overall allegation of economic losses without segregating or identifying their value vis-à-vis the third component, the Complaint does not adequately allege a $5,000 loss. See Grant Mfg. &
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 20 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 21 of 26
Alloying, Inc. v. McIlvain, 499 Fed. Appx. 157, 159 (3rd Cir. Oct. 2, 2012); Grant Mfg. & Alloying, Inc. v. McIlvain, 2011 WL 4467767, at *5 n.12 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2011) aff'd, 499 Fed. Appx. 157 (3d Cir. 2012); Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Auto Club Group, 823 F. Supp. 2d 847, 856 (N.D. Ill. 2011).
d) The loss (i.e., costs) must be reasonable—assuming all other allegations regarding loss were adequate, were they reasonable?
Plaintiff alleges her loss was her time “investigating and assessing the harm caused by Jon and others’ unlawful access” of the online email and bank accounts. Am. Compl. ¶ 51. Plaintiff also alleges “Jon has continued to access Kate’s email account, online banking account, and cellphone . . . [and it] has been continuous and systematic.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 23-24. Plaintiff’s only allegation as to how these were accessed was Defendant “improperly used Plaintiff’s login information, namely her login user identity and her password.” Am. Compl. ¶ 48.
Basic common sense demands that if your online accounts are being accessed without your authorization, all you need to do is change your password or, at worst, your password and user name. This takes seconds—maybe minutes. Could $5,000 of time even be reasonable for this simple of a fix? Moreover, if she did not do this, could her investigating and assessing be reasonable? And, if she did take this basic first step, how is it that Defendant continues to access these accounts in a continuous and systematic manner? Plaintiff does not say. Considering the circumstances, is it even possible that $5,000 of Plaintiff’s time to, essentially accomplish nothing, was reasonable?
e) After two chances, the Amended Complaint’s loss allegations are still inadequate—dismissal without leave to re-plead is appropriate.
Plaintiff has now had two chances to plead a loss. This issue was specifically challenged on pages 13-15 of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 3]. Plaintiff revised her loss allegations in the Amended Complaint but still failed to plead the requisite loss. “A continued omission of
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 21 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 22 of 26
this information from Plaintiff's pleadings demonstrates that no such damage existed and that Plaintiff cannot meet its pleading burden under the Act. In that same vein, Plaintiff would have been similarly aware of the existence of any interruption in service as a result of alleged violations under the Act. However, despite the opportunity to amend [her] Complaint, Plaintiff completely failed to plead any such damage or loss. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim under the Act fails.” Advantage Ambulance Group, Inc. v. Lugo, 2009 WL 839085, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2009). Plaintiff’s CFAA claim should be dismissed without leave to amend and re-plead again.
2. The Amended Complaint fails to allege how any access could have occurred. The CFAA is an access violation. “The CFAA expressly prohibits improper ‘access’ of
computer information. It does not prohibit misuse or misappropriation.” United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854, 863 (9th Cir. 2012). “[T]he word ‘access,’ in this context, is an active verb: it means ‘to gain access to,’ or ‘to exercise the freedom or ability to make use of something.’” Role Models Am., Inc. v. Jones, 305 F. Supp.2d 564, 567 (D. Md. 2004) (citation omitted). The receipt of information that has come from a computer is not an access of that computer and not prohibited by the CFAA. Id. at 566-67. Because the CFAA governs activity that involves accessing or damaging computers, the access to and use of the computer is integral to the CFAA and not merely incidental. Dresser-Rand Co. v. Jones, 2013 WL 3810859, at *4 (E.D. Penn. July 23, 2013). "Whatever happens to the data subsequent to being taken from the computer subsequently is not encompassed in the purview of the CFAA." Id. The most important allegation for a CFAA violation is the access of a computer. See id. This allegation must be sufficiently developed by alleging facts suggestive of the proscribed conduct. Sealord, 2012 WL 707075, at *6.
a) Speculative, naked assertions of access do not survive a motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff’s allegations of access “are precisely the sort of speculative, ‘naked assertion[s]’
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 22 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 23 of 26
that do not suffice to survive a motion to dismiss,” JBCHoldings, 931 F. Supp. 2d at 526, as discussed previously in this brief and as demonstrated by the comparison of the allegations found insufficient in JBCHoldings and Smith to those in the Amended Complaint. See discussion supra Section IV.A.2.
b) The Amended Complaint does not allege a specific computer/account that was accessed.
Plaintiff’s CFAA claim alleges Defendant wrongfully accessed two things: “email account” and “bank accounts.”7 Plaintiff does not allege which particular email or bank account Defendant allegedly accessed, which is essential in determining whether they are “protected computers.” Fontana v. Corry, 2011 WL 4473285, at *6 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2011) report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 4461313 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 26, 2011) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff and Defendant were previously married. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 8-11. Given that the lawsuit between them is essentially a family law dispute, it is important to determine whether these accounts existed during their marriage, which may have given Defendant a right to access such accounts (even if the parties did not recognize such right existed). If Defendant had a prior right to access these accounts, Defendant would continue to have a right to access these accounts under the “narrow view” which has generally been adopted by the courts in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See Dresser-Rand Co., 2013 WL 3810859, at *5. Under the narrow view, someone who previously had access to a computer is authorized to continue accessing that computer regardless of his or her intent to misuse information and any subsequent agreements that regulate the use of information. See id. (citations omitted). Accordingly, to determine
7 In the Preliminary Statement and Factual Allegations of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant stole a hard drive and hacked into a telephone. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1-38. The allegations regarding these devices are not included in the CFAA claim in the Amended Complaint, see Am. Compl. ¶¶ 44-51; the telephone is mentioned only once in paragraph 52, in what appears to be legacy language from the Complaint, see Compl. ¶ 48.
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 23 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
page23image19344
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 24 of 26
whether an access to a computer "exceeds authorized access" or is "without authorization", it is imperative to know the identity of the specific computer allegedly accessed, when it occurred, and how it occurred to determine what rights (if any) the person had to access the computer in general. The Complaint does not identify any specific computer associated with the alleged access of e-mail or online banking accounts.
The Amended Complaint only makes a conclusory allegation of accessing an “email account” and “bank account” or “online bank account” without any further information, most of which is made on information and belief, which is of no value for this motion to dismiss. See discussion, supra, Section I.D.2. It is impossible to know whether those accounts of the information therefrom was stored or backed up locally on a computer Defendant was authorized to access. For example, had Defendant previously had the right to access the accounts or had the information from the email or bank accounts been backed up and stored on his own computer, there would be no violation under any theory of the CFAA.
D. Plaintiff Refuses To—But Must—Plead That The Information In Hoffman’s Book Kate Gosselin: How She Fooled The World Is True To State A Claim For Publicity Given to Private Life (Count II).
Pennsylvania recognizes the tort invasion of privacy for publicity given to private life as set forth in the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652D. See Boring v. Google Inc., 362 Fed. Appx. 273, 280 (3d Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). The § 652D Publicity Given to Private Life jurisprudence has developed over decades. One of its essential requirements is that the matter published must be true—and the plaintiff must allege that it is true in the complaint. “[T]o state a claim for public disclosure of private facts because an essential element of that tort is that the facts at issue be true.” Leidholdt v. L.F.P. Inc, 860 F.2d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652D); Culver by Culver v. Port Allegany Reporter Argus, 409 Pa. Super. 401, 404, 598 A.2d 54, 56 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). Plaintiff, however, alleges the
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 24 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
page24image19752
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 11-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 25 of 26
“book contained defamatory and untrue information about Kate Gosselin, along with information that painted Kate in a false and negative light.” Am. Compl. ¶ 36. Plaintiff affirmatively disproves her claim.
E. The Complaint Fails To Adequately Plead Several Requirements Of The Civil Conspiracy Claim (Count VI) and Concerted Tortious Action Claim (Count VII).
Under Pennsylvania law, civil conspiracy and concerted tortious activity are participatory claims. Unless there is a finding that the underlying tort has occurred, there can be no claim for civil conspiracy, Eagle v. Morgan, 2013 WL 943350, at *11 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2013), or concerted tortious action, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ficchi, 2011 WL 2313203, at *13 (E.D. Pa. June 13, 2011). As discussed previously, the Complaint does not adequately plead an independent wrong or tort that will support a claim for conspiracy or concerted tortious action. Counts VI and VII should be dismissed.
Under Pennsylvania law, an essential element of a conspiracy claim is the proof of malice which “[r]equires that the sole purpose of the conspiracy was to injure the plaintiff and that this intent to injure be without justification.” Eagle v. Morgan, 2013 WL 943350, at *11 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2013). This element is conclusively negated where the Amended Complaint shows another purpose for the alleged activities. Id. The Amended Complaint affirmatively alleges that Defendant Robert Hoffman is a reporter, Am. Compl. ¶ 26, that the information allegedly giving rise to these claims was published in several publications, Am. Compl. ¶ 29, that Hoffman and Gosselin were paid for this information by various publications, Am. Compl. ¶ 38, the information was used by Defendant Hoffman to publish and promote the sales of a book, id., and finally and most importantly, alleges that the Defendants did these things “for the purpose of profiting from the book and the tabloid publications,” id. Plaintiff’s own pleading affirmatively disproves her conspiracy claim.
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PAGE 25 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS
Document 11-1
Filed 10/22/13 Page 26 of 26
Dated: October 22, 2013
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Shawn E. Tuma
Shawn E. Tuma BrittonTuma
7161 Bishop Road, Suite 220 Plano, Texas 75024

d. 469.635.1335
f. 972.767.3181
e. stuma@brittontuma.com

Richard L. Orwig (Associate Counsel) Orwig Law Offices
2213 Quarry Dr., Suite B001
West Lawn, PA 19609

p. 610.898.9880
f. 610.898.1323
e. rlorwig@orwiglaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
page26image6952
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served via personal hand delivery upon all counsel of record in the above-styled civil action on October 22, 2013, at the Court’s Status Conference.
/s/ Shawn E. Tuma Shawn E. Tuma
page26image10120
DEFENDANT JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
PAGE 26 


Robert's motion:

Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 12 Filed 10/23/13 Page 1 of 2
                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KATE GOSSELIN :
: CIVIL ACTION

v. : :
page1image3080
JONATHAN GOSSELIN,
: No. 13-4989
: ROBERT HOFFMAN, : : and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20 : :
        ROBERT HOFFMAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
          Defendant Robert Hoffman moves to dismiss the
complaint for all the reasons contained in defendant Jonathan
Gosselin’s motion to dismiss the complaint.  Mr. Hoffman joins
in Mr. Gosselin’s motion, which is fully applicable to Mr.
Hoffman.
page1image8072 page1image8232
Respectfully submitted,
/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
page1image10936
Dated:  October 23, 2013

Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 12 Filed 10/23/13 Page 2 of 2
                     CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
          I, James P. Golden, certify that the foregoing
motion/joinder has been filed electronically and is now
available for viewing and downloading from the Court’s
Electronic Case Filing System and that the motion/joinder has
been served on October 23, 2013, by email and regular mail.
               A. Jordan Rushie, Esquire
               Mulvihill & Rushie LLC
               The Fishtown Lawyer
               2424 E. York Street, Suite 316
               Philadelphia, PA 19125
               Jordan@FishtownLaw.com
               Marc J. Randazza, Esquire
               Randazza Legal Group
               3625 S. Town Center Drive
               Las Vegas, NV  89135
               mjr@randazza.com
               Attorneys for Plaintiff
               Kate Gosselin
               Shawn E. Tuma, Esquire
               BrittonTuma
               7161 Bishop Road, Suite 220
               Plano, Texas 75024
               stuma@brittontuma.com
               Richard L. Orwig, Esquire
               Orwig Law Offices
               2213 Quarry Dr., Suite B001
               West Lawn, PA 19609
               rlorwig@orwiglaw.com
               Attorneys for defendant
               Jonathan K. Gosselin
page2image10608
/s/ James P. Golden
JAMES P. GOLDEN
page2image11560
Dated:  October 23, 2013

1203 sediments (sic) from readers:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 1203   Newer›   Newest»
Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

I put all the documents from the lawsuit in the sidebar at the left so that if you want to refer to anything hopefully that helps you get to them much easier!

Blowing In The Wind said...

Wow. Just wow. If I ever need an attorney whose area of practice is computer fraud and data privacy, I know where to find him. The attorney who allegedly went to the wrong courthouse is going up against this guy? Looks like Kate's team really has their work cut out for them. I bet Kate never expected this.

Love this: "D. Plaintiff Refuses To—But Must—Plead That The Information In Hoffman’s Book Kate Gosselin: How She Fooled The World Is True To State A Claim For Publicity Given to Private Life (Count II)."

Someone has being doing his homework!

OrangeCrusher1 said...

Forgive me for carrying this over, but having typed it out, and then not getting why it would not go through, duh, new post and all ...

Right on schedule, when the going gets tough, the queen of platitudes gets going. I bet there will be a string of RT's today. And while I would love nothing more than this nonsense case to be dismissed, saving taxpayer $$$, I also think this woman needs a sharp life lesson, and if the courts have to give it to her, so be it. Bring it on.

As for Milo's silliness about friends with bennies, and life partners , I do not think TFW really wants either. She does not have the emotional capacity for real relationships, everything else is a fantasy or a smokescreen. If not true, surely by now she would have gone on a date to two IMHO. Nope, she just wants people to adore her from afar, preferably on that small screen dream she is chasing.

AuntieAnn said...

I just love how Tuma has dismantled her complaint piece by piece until it's laying all over the floor. Brutal!

Read it and weep, Kate.

Amanda, Iowa said...

insert "whipnoise"........Whatooooosh! Kate has just been whipped!

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

Oh my gosh and holy moley! I think Shawn means business. lol

This is going to take a while to read and probably forever to understand.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...


D. Plaintiff Refuses To—But Must—Plead That The Information In Hoffman’s Book Kate Gosselin: How She Fooled The World Is True To State A Claim For Publicity Given to Private Life (Count II).

&&&

I just realized this, and this is where the nuances are tripping Kate's attorneys up like regular amateurs.

In this area there are two things going on here, defamation and invasion of privacy. The problem is you really need to pick one or the other or they're going to cancel each other out. Foolishly, they are trying to play both sides of the coin and Shawn is right, their argument therefore fails.

Defamation is about FALSE information that someone says about you. For example, calling someone a child abuser when they have never hurt their children in their life. Kate foolishly put in her brief that Hoffman's information about her was false. Although she never actually made a claim for defamation, she did state that it was false and defamatory. This is why this is a big OOPS: Because she then goes on to claim that he invaded her privacy. But, the invasion of privacy claim requires private FACTS to be disclosed. You cannot claim invasion of privacy for FALSE facts....that's defamation. Two different things. So her claim for privacy fails point blank because she says this is all false. And her claim for defamation fails because she never even officially claimed defamation and even if she did, she's a public figure, so her defamation claim would be next to impossible to prove.

They should have stuck with one or the other, either defamation or privacy. Because they tried to sort of hedge around and go for both, they royally screwed this up. This was a huge, quite frankly probably FATAL screwup, and Shawn caught it. I didn't make this connection myself until just now--Good for him. He's fantastic.

Blowing In The Wind said...

"The materials in his possession could not possibly be physically found in paper format to that extent. If Hoffman was picking through trash on the street, he did not find this trove of personal information while engaging in his trash-picking endeavors.” Am. Compl. ¶ 31. This is not a factual allegation. This is rationalization. This is conjecture. This is speculation—as to why it had to be hacking—because how else could it have happened, right? Or, is there a more plausible alternative explanation?"

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

This is what has been said so many times on here! We've discussed this and came to the same conclusion. If we here, as non-attorneys, could point out that this part of the complaint lacks any kind of proof and is all speculation, why in the world would an experienced attorney even put this into a complaint? It's ridiculous.

PatK said...

Will Kate ever admit the truth of the journals/information to try to save face with that particular allegation in the lawsuit?

Oh, this is glorious. I'm going to buy extra popcorn.

Berks Neighbor said...

Holy Crap. If I were TFW I'd be in a fetal position on the floor right now. Tuma just ripped a new one through their amended complaint.

Rearranging the Deck Chairs on the Titanic said...

Uggh. I hear that lawyers/litigation is expensive.The amount of (the kids') MONEY that is being spent by TFW on this must be huge! Does anyone have any idea what something like this might be costing Her Royal Highness?

Blowing In The Wind said...

colleen campbell ‏@callerbabe 1h
@Kateplusmy8 Ashley's schedule=Mon,wed,& thurs-employmt group,Tues-PDD Worker,Friday-Spooktactuliar outing with her boyfriend,Sat-shopping!

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

Go, Ashley! Kate really needs to know this! Meanwhile, back on Twitter we have these inane tweets from Kate lamenting over her busy life as a mom of EIGHT, trying to shuttle everyone around to activities, with responses from the sheeple telling her that she's a supermom. Why would Kate possibly care that Colleen's daughter Ashley has a full schedule this week? They're all just bopping around, throwing kudos at Kate, who no doubt has her mind elsewhere right now (thanks to Shawn Tuma)!

Jumping In said...

Based on Mr. Tuma's motion to dismiss, is it likely TFW will back off and drop the suit against Jon and just let it fade away? If she does drop the case, would that mean Robert is free to publish his book?

Based on this motion to dismiss, she must realize she doesn't have a case. She could say that she decided to drop the case for the sake of her children to try and save face.....at least until Robert's book comes out.


Kylie said...

Thanks so much Admin for all this info. I am not a lawyer and it's hard for me to understand it all, but thanks to you, Millicent and a few other legal minds I am able to keep up. Kate is dead in the water and her promise to never give up is going to slap her in her hard looking face.

Blowing In The Wind said...



Berks Neighbor said... 10

Holy Crap. If I were TFW I'd be in a fetal position on the floor right now. Tuma just ripped a new one through their amended complaint.

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

How did Kate find Razzie? If I were Kate, I'd be cursing the person who ever recommended this guy (and the zoning attorney).

Lalalalala said...

YEEEE HAWWWW...Kate just got her hair pulled, was smacked hard with a wooden spoon and thrown into a corner!

I'm so impressed with Tuma. He laid everything out so perfectly. I can't believe that Kate's lawyers thought it was a good idea to go ahead with this lawsuit. Did they even go to law school? Such amateurs. Sheesh!

TLC stinks said...

All I can say is Wow. I think her claims against Jon will be dismissed which will help Robert in his battle with her. It sounds like her attorneys grasped at straws to make a case against Jon. It must have been true when it was reported she could not find an attorney to take her case and that's when she made some deal with BV and his attorney to pursue her allegations. It had to be some mutual deal for publicity. Maybe BV's attorney is doing it pro bono and that's why he is using his B team on her case just to fulfill his end if the bargain?

Thanks for explaining the defamation and violation of privacy. Makes sense.

PatK said...

Blowing In The Wind said... 15


Berks Neighbor said... 10

Holy Crap. If I were TFW I'd be in a fetal position on the floor right now. Tuma just ripped a new one through their amended complaint.

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

How did Kate find Razzie? If I were Kate, I'd be cursing the person who ever recommended this guy (and the zoning attorney).


&&&&&&&&

Razzy is BV's attorney. That's how she ended up with him.

Amanda, Iowa said...

Razzie is probably now just another person on her long list of people with a mediocre life/job who just dont not know how to help her.........

JoyinVirginia said...

Wow! We can hope for dismissal with prejudice and I got a crush on Mr Tuma!

localyocul said...

The limitations period for all of Plaintiff’s claims is two years or less. On October 15, 2009, Plaintiff issued a public statement addressing the same allegations she makes in this lawsuit. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit nearly four years later, on August 26, 2013.

Was this in the original MTD? He must have heard about that since then? LOL

Kate is a twit said...

Wow! I just love how Tuma took each complaint and thoroughly dismantled it, and used the actual law and case law to point out the fallacies in the complaints. He definitely did his homework!




Formerly Duped said...

Kylie said... 14

Thanks so much Admin for all this info.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let me add my thanks too, Admin. This puts it all in an nutshell for us to read.
I don't have much to add, not having any legal experience, so I am just reading what others who do have said, but even to me, looks like TFW is being crushed.She is going to have done herself so much more harm than good.

AuntieAnn said...

Kate, who no doubt has her mind elsewhere right now (thanks to Shawn Tuma)!

====

She should be busy scraping off the soles of her shoes right about now because man oh man she really stepped in it this time.

When she's finished with that, she can write Mr. BV man a nice long thank you note. lol!

TLC stinks said...

I do not believe Kate imagined Jon nor Robert putting up a strong fight with her lawsuits. In her mind, it was a win-win because they would either go bankrupt or cave in to her demands and settle. This appears to be one time she did not mastermind the outcome she wanted. She certainly is scared of Robert's book and she should be. No telling who has come forward to him. Authors have been able to write unauthorized biographies, so Robert will always be a threat to her whether she manages to get her journal deleted from his book or not. Robert knows the truth and can come up with other sources. Maybe she is finally done.

Kate is a twit said...

localyocul said... 21
The limitations period for all of Plaintiff’s claims is two years or less. On October 15, 2009, Plaintiff issued a public statement addressing the same allegations she makes in this lawsuit. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit nearly four years later, on August 26, 2013.

Was this in the original MTD? He must have heard about that since then? LOL
-----------------------------

I just looked at the original MTD and yes, that was in there. Did Kate's lawyers even read that part?

I liked how Tuma supplied actual "facts" as opposed to Kate's lawyers stating allegation after allegation.

TLC stinks said...

Admin, if Jon's lawsuit is dismissed, can Robert's attorney refer to it and have her lawsuit against Robert dismissed? Any word as to what is going on with his case?

localyocul said...

In the case at bar, Plaintiff says her login information was used but does not even offer a speculative guess as to how Defendants gained access to that information. Was it a Trojan horse? DDoS attack? Malware? Social engineering? Clairvoyance? We have no idea—neither does Plaintiff.


LMAO

localyocul said...

Sorry, I'm reading along and gems just jump out at me:

Whatever information lies behind Plaintiff’s suspicions has been within Plaintiff’s control—most likely in her own trash.

Dmasy said...

When this is over, we can all claim para-legal degrees from the University of RealityTVKids.

I find all of this equally fascinating and tragic.

localyocul said...

From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Information+and+Belief:

"information and belief n. a phrase often used in legal pleadings (complaints and answers in a lawsuit), declarations under penalty of perjury, and affidavits under oath, in which the person making the statement or allegation qualifies it. In effect, he/she says: "I am only stating what I have been told, and I believe it." This makes clear about which statements he/she does not have sure-fire, personal knowledge (perhaps it is just hearsay or surmise), and protects the maker of the statement from claims of outright falsehood or perjury. The typical phraseology is: "Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges that defendant diverted the funds to his own use." (See: declaration, affidavit, complaint, answer, perjury)

"I am only stating what I have been told, and I believe it."

From the MTD:

The public record is replete with Plaintiff’s and Plaintiff’s then-attorneys’ statements regarding the exact allegations claimed in this lawsuit dating back to 2009:
"Kate Gosselin has heard the allegations made by Stephanie Santoro that Jon Gosselin [1] 'hacked' into her e-mails, [2] phone, and [3] online accounts, and she is profoundly disturbed by them," her law firm, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, said in a statement Thursday. "Under the circumstances, Ms. Gosselin is carefully considering all of her legal options regarding this matter, and she will pursue them if and when the time is right."

So, IOW, she is only stating what Stephanie Santoro said and she believes it, That's her basis. DOH

Sadie said...

TLC Stinks, my understanding is that this whole case seems to be based on Jon's actions. If the lawsuit against Jon is dismissed, she has almost nothing to pin to Robert. Once Jon's gone it should fall like the house of cards that it is.

Anonymous said...

Admin said: "Foolishly, they are trying to play both sides of the coin and Shawn is right, their argument therefore fails."

As the judge in my friend's divorce said to her ex for a similar claim, "You can't suck and blow and the same time."

PJ

Patsy said...

Like everyone else, I am very impressed with Mr. Tuma and so very thankful for him. Maybe we can stop with all the speculation about his personal life? He's a private citizen and doesn't deserve this. Put yourself in his shoes. Thanks.

Millicent said...

I am impressed with attorney Tuma (and his associates and paralegal and support staff) for putting together a quality product. His motion is very well written, very clear, very organized. That means his support staff did their research, someone drafted this motion and the original motion, someone typed it up and cleaned it up, and Tuma reviewed it to make sure it included everything he wanted in there. So I applaud his entire team :)

As to how much this might be costing TFW - who can say for sure. However, I speculate that she is paying them on an hourly basis because I think even Razzmatazz must recognize that it's highly unlikely they would win, and get a large money award against Jon and/or Hoffman. The hourly rates for lead partners in high-powered law firms is usually pretty high. Attorneys will also charge their hourly rate for time spent traveling for the case, not just time spent in court or in deposition. They also charge anytime their client calls and speaks to them. And unlike a certain marriage counselor, most law firms will pursue unpaid fees fairly vigorously. (However, Razzmatazz deserves whatever grief he gets in his dealings with TFW - ha!)

TFW made an extremely bad error in judgment in pursuing this lawsuit. I know she'll never admit it, and she will still blame Jon for all her troubles.

localyocul said...

Basic common sense demands that if your online accounts are being accessed without your authorization, all you need to do is change your password or, at worst, your password and user name. This takes seconds—maybe minutes.

Hoosier Girl said...

In the case at bar, Plaintiff says her login information was used but does not even offer a speculative guess as to how Defendants gained access to that information. Was it a Trojan horse? DDoS attack? Malware? Social engineering? Clairvoyance? We have no idea—neither does Plaintiff.
___________
LMAO! I pick Clairvoyance!! :-)

Love that Tuma!

Layla said...

I love this! Talk about cutting to the chase!

1. Ignoring all “bald allegations” and “legal conclusions,” do the “factual allegations” support the elements of the claim?

One simple question, and the answer would be NO!

I get the feeling that Tuma had a heck of a good time writing this MTD.


Ex Nurse said...

As luck would have it, found some footage of Razzle Dazzle's sidekick's courtroom style:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYCvn7pqEHI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Millicent said...

Was this in the original MTD? He must have heard about that since then? LOL
*****
Probably already answered - but yes, it was in the original motion to dismiss as well :)

Rainbirdie said...

I like this part: "Plaintiff’s claims are pure speculation, a fishing expedition, and should be treated as such."

Hoosier Girl said...

Basic common sense demands that if your online accounts are being accessed without your authorization, all you need to do is change your password or, at worst, your password and user name. This takes seconds—maybe minutes. Could $5,000 of time even be reasonable for this simple of a fix? Moreover, if she did not do this, could her investigating and assessing be reasonable? And, if she did take this basic first step, how is it that Defendant continues to access these accounts in a continuous and systematic manner? Plaintiff does not say. Considering the circumstances, is it even possible that $5,000 of Plaintiff’s time to, essentially accomplish nothing, was reasonable?
___________
LMAO Again! (Okay, I promise I'll quit posting snippets, but this thing is hilarious!)

AuntieAnn said...

Basic common sense demands that if your online accounts are being accessed without your authorization, all you need to do is change your password or, at worst, your password and user name. This takes seconds—maybe minutes. Could $5,000 of time even be reasonable for this simple of a fix?

====

ha! Don't ask her that. She probably believes 3 minutes of her time is worth $5000. She IS Kate Gosselin.

Amy2 said...

I like how Kate's own words were used against her (e.g. 2009 discussion to the media about the hacking). We knew all along that her talking and talking to the press would come back to bite her.

New topic....what happens now? Await judges decision?

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

Attorneys will also charge their hourly rate for time spent traveling for the case,
_____________________

Will Barney charge for going to the wrong courthouse and if so will Kate sue?

AuntieAnn said...

Millicent said... 34

I am impressed with attorney Tuma (and his associates and paralegal and support staff) for putting together a quality product. His motion is very well written, very clear, very organized. That means his support staff did their research, someone drafted this motion and the original motion, someone typed it up and cleaned it up, and Tuma reviewed it to make sure it included everything he wanted in there. So I applaud his entire team :)

====

I wonder how many times they splattered coffee all over their screens when they were writing this up. A fun time was had by all I imagine.

Seriously, I agree Millicent. They have done a thorough job and deserve to be commended for it. I think this is what we've all been waiting for.

OrangeCrusher1 said...

Probably not the best move to go with an attorney who is at a law course in Italy for several months. Doubt she can get him on the phone at whim. Go get 'em Mr. Tuma. And let the platitudes roll.

JR said...

Too busy laughing my ass off. This Tuma guy should be a comedian... I almost can't stand it. "essentially accomplish nothing"....OMG...too funny. It sounds like he knows Kate pretty well. The part about the "clairvoyance" was great too. I hope he takes his show on the road..

localyocul said...

Patsy said... 33
Like everyone else, I am very impressed with Mr. Tuma and so very thankful for him. Maybe we can stop with all the speculation about his personal life? He's a private citizen and doesn't deserve this. Put yourself in his shoes. Thanks

(((

You're right. I feel bad.

Dot said...

Do you wonder if Razzy and Rushie are sort of hoping this gets dismissed? They must know Tuma obliterated her claims even if she doesn't see it through her veil of narcissism.

Kate is a twit said...

When Stephanie Santoro made the allegations back in 2009 that Jon was hacking Kate's computer, emails, etc., Kate thought she was doing the right thing by responding (through her lawyer) and threatened Jon with a possible lawsuit. In her mind, it was just another way to throw Jon under the bus, especially since the divorce hadn't been settled yet. ROL printed the story which included the statement from Kate's lawyers and it was later picked about by tons of media outlets.

Now it's coming back to haunt her. Kate will never learn that there's a time when she should just STFU, especially when speaking about Jon.

Yes, Kate-to use a phrase that you have used often--

Hindsight is 20/20.


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

Ex Nurse said... 38
As luck would have it, found some footage of Razzle Dazzle's sidekick's courtroom style:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYCvn7pqEHI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
_______________

Hahahaha

reader said...

Echoing the comments made earlier, clear, concise, dismantling the allegations made by plaintiff's attorney in their entirety. No vague innuendo here. It is obvious Attorney Shawn Tuma is well versed in his field of law.

Think it is worth pointing out that the motion for application of admission Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Tuma was filed and then granted, thus allowing him to represent Jon in this matter.

Admin, Millicent or other legal eagles :), tell me if this is accurate, Pro Hac Vice ~ an out-of-state lawyer may be admitted to practice in a local jurisdiction for a particular case only.

And that being said I do not see evidence of any such motion for Attorney Randazza.
Pleas correct me if I am wrong.


TLC stinks said...

Backup CD's are dated, so Jon can prove he still had access to the computer since he was still allowed into the home. And as far as the trash goes, I would bet there was dated trash Robert took. The timeline will be there. Also, there would be a money trail if Robert and Jon schemed to make a profit. Who was paying them? Where's the money? There are so many holes in her imaginary scenario.

Barbara M. said...

Administrator, you explained the inherent contradiction between defamation and invasion of privacy beautifully, but with all due respect, I disagree with your statement that ''she's a public figure, so her defamation claim would be next to impossible to prove''.
Just because someone is a public figure doesn't mean they cannot sue for defamation (and win). If I publicly state that a celebrity is a child abuser and the celebrity sues me for libel or slander, the onus shifts to me to prove that this horrible allegation is true. If I can prove that the celebrity wrote about the abuse in her own private journals, she loses the defamation suit. On the other hand, if I cannot prove the truth of my statements, then she wins because I have publicly and false branded her as an abuser.
On the other hand, if the celebrity sues me for invasion of privacy - claiming that I obtained her journals illegally - then she is admitting that, yes, those are her journals and everything in them is true. She is saying, in effect, yes I am a child abuser but that fact was never meant to become public knowledge.

lukebandit said...

Wow. Oh. Wow. Double Wow!

Shawn Tuma is a brilliant legal scholar! Instead of a first year pre-law student writing this legal document, it was the Head Professor of the law school!

It is incredible.

Who has an attorney team that is due to the first hearing in their big lawsuit when the lead attorney is out of the country TAKING A LAW COURSE and the other attorney showing up at the WRONG courthouse in a different city?

Murphy's Law has finally roosted at kates feet.

Congratulations, Shawn Tuma and legal team!

Formerly Duped said...

lol. Someone tweeted to Kate after she 'complained' about her children's busy social lives and losing track of who is where:

@Kateplusmy8 You mean like your attorney! LOL going to the wrong court house

Vanessa said...

Basic common sense demands that if your online accounts are being accessed without your authorization, all you need to do is change your password or, at worst, your password and user name. This takes seconds—maybe minutes.

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

Oh Gosh! I feel so smart! I said exactly the same thing in one of my posts on another thread! LOL

TFW? WILL. YOU. FINALLY. LET. THIS.GO??

SG said...

I just want to say Wow. That... was... AWESOME!

Tuma is both intelligent and witty. Cracked me up a few times. Love him.

Vanessa said...

Backup CD's are dated, so Jon can prove he still had access to the computer since he was still allowed into the home. And as far as the trash goes, I would bet there was dated trash Robert took. The timeline will be there. Also, there would be a money trail if Robert and Jon schemed to make a profit. Who was paying them? Where's the money? There are so many holes in her imaginary scenario.

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

Even the KIDS vouched that tfw threw out the trash.

SG said...

Millicent,

I'd just like to say that I always enjoy your comments. I enjoy everyone's comments here, but Millicent seems to express my feelings. I never have to post comments with her around. ;)

She's also knowledgeable when it comes to the legalities. Good stuff.

Math Girl said...

I love Shawn's analysis of the conspiracy charge. His motion says:
"Under Pennsylvania law, an essential element of a conspiracy claim is the proof of malice which “[r]equires that the sole purpose of the conspiracy was to injure the plaintiff and that this intent to injure be without justification.”"

As I read it, he then goes on the say that Robert Hoffman is a reporter, that gathering information and publishing it for money is what reporters do, and that co-operating with a reporter is not conspiracy. He notes that the claim that R & J worked together in order to earn money contradicts the requirement that their actions be done solely to injure the plaintiff (Kate).

Anyone with legal knowledge, please correct me if my paraphrasing or understanding of this is wrong.



Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Barbara I disagree about the burden of proof. The public figure almost always has the burden of proof to prove what was said about them is a lie AND to prove it was made maliciously. The burden is not on the person making the statement. Hence why it's very hard to prove. (But it's been done. Carol Burnett) Proving a negative is usually hard. Not only would Kate have the burden but it would be by the higher standard of clear and convincing. The burden of proof on the public figure comes from that famous case New York Times v. Sullivan.

Mel said...

I finally had time to sit down and read the motion to dismiss above.....not being a lawyer, I have to read everything about 5 times before it makes sense. And even then, it's hard for me to follow. My head is spinning.

Gotta love that guy's sense of humor!

Kate is a twit said...

Yesterday, Kate retweeted the following tweet adding the XO at the beginning.

Kate Gosselin ‏@Kateplusmy8 18h
XO RT @Bridesmaids7: ..no1 told u how quickly it all goes downhill..except4 ppl like @Kateplusmy8 & @KellyRipa who just look better w/ ea yr

Gotta love this fan's response to that tweet. Not only is this person a fan, but she is one of the few fans that Kate follows.

Patricia Chow ‏@PatriciaChow1 19m
@Kateplusmy8 @Bridesmaids7 @KellyRipa Money can do wonders !

Hmm, wonder if Kate will continue to follow her.

Then there's Milo, who someone had tweeted to saying that calling the tups "littles" was kind of offensive because they are almost 10 years old. Milo is now asking Kate if it's OK if she still uses the term.

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 3h
@Kateplusmy8 Some R offended by calling the 6 "littles"? I've seen U still refer 2them that way..I see it as a term of affection! Ok by U?

Vanessa said...

Given that the lawsuit between them is essentially a family law dispute, it is important to determine whether these accounts existed during their marriage, which may have given Defendant a right to access such accounts (even if the parties did not recognize such right existed). If Defendant had a prior right to access these accounts, Defendant would continue to have a right to access these accounts under the “narrow view” which has generally been adopted by the courts in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See Dresser-Rand Co., 2013 WL 3810859, at *5. Under the narrow view, someone who previously had access to a computer is authorized to continue accessing that computer regardless of his or her intent to misuse information and any subsequent agreements that regulate the use of information. See id. (citations omitted).

************************************************************************
Gosh, we are ALL a bunch of very smart women here!
Or just living in the REAL world?

Vanessa said...

(even if the parties did not recognize such right existed).
****************************************************************************

I think he means just "one" party did not recognize this right.

JoyinVirginia said...

Maybe it was a clairvoyant Trojan horse! I just finished reading the entire response. I didn't know something so detailed and formal and legal could also be so funny! Even with footnotes and references! I sure do hope this is dismissed with no possibility of this being brought against Jon in the future.
Five more years until the twins are eighteen, eight and one half years for the sextuplets. Perhaps they will learn from TFMJG mantra ”can we sue?” And ask TFMJG and tlc for an accounting of their earnings. Some will learn from her example.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Exactly, we've said over and over there's a problem here in that they weren't divorced yet; they never do explain why Jon was not well within his rights to access a computer that belonged to the family. Kate claims he was accessing "her" computer. Applying her logic couldnt Jon just as easily complain she was accessing "his" computer? Lol now that would be hysterical. Until a divorce has decided who the computer belongs to now, according to that case it's fair game for both spouses to access. Divorce law. It's pesky like that.

Vanessa said...

Where's Chefsummer???

Rhymes with Witch said...

The rest of you keep fighting over AC.
Joy (20) and I will be bringing Mr. Tuma to the next party.

Suzee said...

Math Girl said...
He notes that the claim that R & J worked together in order to earn money contradicts the requirement that their actions be done solely to injure the plaintiff (Kate).

Anyone with legal knowledge, please correct me if my paraphrasing or understanding of this is wrong.


Correct. Mr. Tuma states that in TFW's first complaint she claimed one thing and in the amended complaint she claimed something different. As she's been famous for for years - she contradicts herself. "Plaintiff’s own pleading affirmatively disproves her conspiracy claim."

PatK said...

Vanessa said... 60

Even the KIDS vouched that tfw threw out the trash.

&&&&&&&&

And if I recall correctly, when that first came out there was quite a bit of Krow-squawking on Twitter blaming and bashing Jon for getting that information from the kids.

Vanessa said...

Id. The Amended Complaint affirmatively alleges that Defendant Robert Hoffman is a reporter, Am. Compl. ¶ 26, that the information allegedly giving rise to these claims was published in several publications, Am. Compl. ¶ 29, that Hoffman and Gosselin were paid for this information by various publications, Am. Compl. ¶ 38, the information was used by Defendant Hoffman to publish and promote the sales of a book, id., and finally and most importantly, alleges that the Defendants did these things “for the purpose of profiting from the book and the tabloid publications,” id. Plaintiff’s own pleading affirmatively disproves her conspiracy claim.
*************************************************************************

I think this point is what first piqued Tuma's interest in this case-freedom of speech.

from wiki- "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[1][2]

Vanessa said...

And if I recall correctly, when that first came out there was quite a bit of Krow-squawking on Twitter blaming and bashing Jon for getting that information from the kids.
*********************************************************************

Yeah, like maybe he BEAT it out of them or something??

localyocul said...

Yes, always read the footnotes. My favorites are from this Order from the first Casey Anthony judge:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/19/order.on.defendants.motion.to.disqualify.trial.judge.pdf

Suzee said...

D. Plaintiff Refuses To—But Must—Plead That The Information In Hoffman’s Book Kate Gosselin: How She Fooled The World Is True To State A Claim For Publicity Given to Private Life (Count II).

Bwahahahahahahahahaha, yes indeed. I can't wait to read TFW's response to this motion where she states that 'the information RH put in the book is all true!'. Do you think she'll go so far as to admit this? Or, will she drop this count in another amended complaint (and further risk the whole thing being thrown out)? Or, will she drop the suit completely? With her personality disorder, is TFW capable of admitting defeat and walking away from this? Or will no, still mean no, and she'll fight this to the end?

Anonymous said...

@SandieBellz: @MiloandJack Trying to out cute my photo? :-p @Kateplusmy8

@MiloandJack: @SandieBellz @Kateplusmy8 Umm, NO..I always look 4cute photos 4Kate & her kids! I love nature/dogs/cats. YOU get credit 4 #CuteOfTheWeek :)

Uh oh, dissention among the ranks!

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

Then there's Milo, who someone had tweeted to saying that calling the tups "littles" was kind of offensive because they are almost 10 years old. Milo is now asking Kate if it's OK if she still uses the term.

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 3h
@Kateplusmy8 Some R offended by calling the 6 "littles"? I've seen U still refer 2them that way..I see it as a term of affection! Ok by U?
____________________

And Kate shows up to back up Milo. Milo will be thrilled.

Kate Gosselin ‏@Kateplusmy8 5m
@MiloandJack YEP! It's their official title. 1st, 'the babies'--> 'little kids' often shortened to 'littles'...meaning 'my youngest kids' :)

kids first said...

While.Rome is burning, post pictures of puppies. LOL.

Ingrid said...

Bravo Mr Tuma!

I was kind of surprised that Hailey's texts about the harddrive weren't mentioned but stuff about Santoro was. I wonder if Hailey was able to block Kate from using them. Could she be forced to give them up and be a witness for Kate if it goes to trial?

Mel said...

I especially liked how he said that TFW needed to specify which email account, which bank account, etc., on which dates and times.

As in, prove it lady!

Isn't the problem that she can't prove damages? There's no harm/no foul if Jon just looked at the account?

Mel said...

Mr. Tuma is just having himself a lot of fun, isn't he. Like a cat toying with a mouse.

Bitchy Pants said...

Holy Hannah!! So the countdown begins. Self destruct in 5...4...

Are TFMJG's attorneys really as incompetent as this filing makes them sound, or are they just doing a half-assed job because they know the complaint is doomed and they need to placate her?

Bitchy Pants said...

I forgot -- Thanks Admin, for putting this out here for us to read and discuss, and thanks, Reader, for bringing it to everyone's attention.

JR said...

Of course shes answering Milo..theres nobody else on her twitter to talk to. Milo has proven to be the one with the most sanity...OUCH..that was painful to say. Talking about the "littles" again. Theres a feeling of desperation in her last couple of tweets. Like a feeling that that's all she has, are those kids. Shes is totally fixated on them. I think them getting older is really killing her. The older they get, the more invaluable they become financially. She sounds a little scared and trying to hold on to their youth. Can't stop the clock Kate...Shes a mess!

OrangeCrusher1 said...

@MiloandJack YEP! It's their official title. 1st, 'the babies'--> 'little kids' often shortened to 'littles'...meaning 'my youngest kids' :)

Let's see how well the infantilization works for her in a few years; she'll be pushing 40, they will be almost teens. Official title my a@*.

Barbara M. said...

Administrator, I practice law in Canada and our law is based on English defamation law, which puts the burden of proof on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff. In other words, if the plaintiff alleges that the statements were false and defamatory, the defendant has the burden of proving the truth of the allegedly defamatory statements. I did not realize that US defamation law is different in that the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the statements were false. But how do you prove a negative?

Bitchy Pants said...

After reading through the procedural history, and thinking back, TFMJG filed this suit around the time Jon's beloved grandmother, God rest her soul, passed. I'm wondering if TFMJG did that deliberately, thinking that Jon might be getting some kind of inheritance from his grandmother, and wanting to claim it for herself. She's just selfish enough, and evil enough, to do it.

Millicent said...

For those who are curious, under California law, an out-of-state attorney who wants to associate into a case as pro hace vice counsel must file an application before the court. Part of the requirements for approval include:
1. Providing the applicant's residence and office address;
2. List the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission;
3. Confirm that the applicant is a member in good standing in those courts;
4. Confirm that the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court;
5. Provide the title of court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted; and
6. Provide the name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record.

I would think any attorney who has ever prepared a similar petition to any court would have the basic documents already on their computer system, and should be able to modify them to fit the particulars of another case. I don't have access to PACER, so I'm not sure what the status is of RazzyBear's application.

The few times our office has been involved in a case where an out-of-state attorney is pro hace vice, we usually are merely coordinators. Once the out-of-state attorney's motion is granted, that firm usually prepares all pleadings that must be filed, and we just make sure the format meets the State and local court requirements.

SG - thank you for your kind words, but please don't let me stop you from sharing your two cents! :)

TLC stinks said...

Well, Bitchy Pants, she got to enjoy Jon's inheritance from his father, so I would not put anything past her. She wants Jon dead broke. So vengeful.

PatK said...

The Krows are heavily tweeting their hugs and support today. It's all they can do knowing full well it looks like this lawsuit isn't quite going the usual "Kate way".

LeeLee said...

If I have understood (most of) the motion, then it sounds like the one item she has a case for is the invasion of privacy. Yet, this is the one thing she cannot win, even if she is right. Admitting she beat her kids and is far from the supermom she plays on tv is the cost of her own privacy. I can't remember; what was the kids' privacy sold for again? A house? Boobs? Hand-me-down Abercrombie sweats? Sweet, sweet justice.
TMI alert. I nearly peed myself reading through the motion above and all your comments. Had to run for the loo!

Sheri said...

kids first said...(79)

"While.Rome is burning, post pictures of puppies. LOL."

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

This is funny but is also very telling. I can't keep up with all the legal jargon and so I skim through.

However, it does appear to be Kate's MO to deflect and redirect.

As much as I'd love to think all this is a victory, for Jon and Robert, and I really do see it as such, no matter how it plays out, it's the kids on the losing end.

Those kids love their mother and I'm sure they are not oblivious to all the goings on, at least they won't be indefinitely.

After the court hearings, the rulings and the judgements, 8 kids will still have the same two parents and will have to reconcile all that's happened in their names.

Will Kate learn anything from this? My personal experience with my narcissist suggests that she won't. In fact, it may make things harder for the kids as Kate digs her heels further into the ground.

She can use her failing lawsuit as another reason to tout how "people are bullying her" and another excuse for her irrationality.

Yes, Jon and Robert have every right to defend themselves against such a frivolous lawsuit and I'm not suggesting they shouldn't.

I'm just saying that no matter how it plays out in a real courtroom or in the court of public opinion, 8 children have a very long road ahead to make sense out of the whole thing and my heart goes out to them.

Sadie said...

Bitchy Pants, they may be very competent attorneys and Razzy is extremely successful, but lawyers have to stick to the field they are experts in or all hell can break loose, and has in this case.

Kate couldn''t get any other attorneys to take her case so BV dumped this on Razzy, apparently, and Rushie was a PA attorney, which is needed in this case. I feel pretty bad for them. Rushie must be humiliated by now.

Sadie said...

Bitchy Pants, as far as the timing of the lawsuit, Razzy was in Philadelphia this past summer meeting with Rushie and they wanted to get it in before the year was up on the release of the book, you know, for her libel claim *cough cough. I'm sure it's coincidental, but it still makes TFW look cruel.

Clairvoyant trojan horse said...

OUCH! Brilliant, simply brilliant.

Too bad so sad, Khate.
How ridiculous and pathetic this makes her look. She was "concerned" about the hacking allegations in 2009. Concerned? Gee, if someone said my accounts were being hacked I would act IMMEDIATELY. Not do nothing and then sue 4 years later. What a tool.

It's been said before.... Robert got her. He got her, he legally obtained info that contradicts the entire false bill of goods she's been trying to sell for 7 years. All those confidentiality agreements and the wall of silence and isolation she built around herself, in the end she's the one who ended up throwing all her secrets out in the garbage.

God Bless Mr. Tuma for stepping in and expertly handling this bogus pile of crap thrown at Jon and Robert. It's nice to see TFW get put in her place. Hard.

Call Me Crazy said...

Blowing In The Wind said... 2

Wow. Just wow. If I ever need an attorney whose area of practice is computer fraud and data privacy, I know where to find him.
_____________________________________

Blowing, I thought the same exact thing! What a brilliant and thorough dismantling of the complaint, piece by piece, and with relevant citation of case law at every turn. Wow is right! Shawn Tuma brought a missile to a knife fight.

Now, as a public service, I will provide a few interpretive statements to translate the wording in this motion into terms that a certain wooly flock will understand:

What goes around comes around.

Kate has just met Karma, and his name is Tuma.

#KatiePoopedInKatie'sUnnerwears

Anonymous said...

Vanessa said... 74
Id. The Amended Complaint affirmatively alleges that Defendant Robert Hoffman is a reporter, Am. Compl. ¶ 26, that the information allegedly giving rise to these claims was published in several publications, Am. Compl. ¶ 29, that Hoffman and Gosselin were paid for this information by various publications, Am. Compl. ¶ 38, the information was used by Defendant Hoffman to publish and promote the sales of a book, id., and finally and most importantly, alleges that the Defendants did these things “for the purpose of profiting from the book and the tabloid publications,” id. Plaintiff’s own pleading affirmatively disproves her conspiracy claim.
*************************************************************************

I think this point is what first piqued Tuma's interest in this case-freedom of speech.

from wiki- "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[1][2]
October 23, 2013 at 12:07 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, and for years on this blog, I have been preaching to Kate Gosselin, you have no right, and can't, try or change the Constitution of the United States to "suit" you, no pun intended.


91999

Suzee said...

‏@CJWhodunit
@Kateplusmy8 @MY_3BCOLLIES There's a very strong support group between fans/supporters too!Very grateful for all of them! :*) #Gratitude

‏@Kateplusmy8
@CJWhodunit @MY_3BCOLLIES I LOVE reading how you all support ea other 2.. It's just as encouraging 2 read ur convos amongst urselves #love

She also sees all the hate they write, also. Does she #love that, too?!#
In the midst of suing the father of her children and being smacked down yesterday in court, she takes to twitter with platitudes, gratitude and love. SMH

Hoosier Girl said...

kids first said... 80
While.Rome is burning, post pictures of puppies. LOL.
_____
My favorite post of the day! LOL!

Hoosier Girl said...

Suzee said... 77
D. Plaintiff Refuses To—But Must—Plead That The Information In Hoffman’s Book Kate Gosselin: How She Fooled The World Is True To State A Claim For Publicity Given to Private Life (Count II).

Bwahahahahahahahahaha, yes indeed. I can't wait to read TFW's response to this motion where she states that 'the information RH put in the book is all true!'.
__________

Karma has truly come, and Katie's the one who opened the door for her!

Such a conundrum she's put herself in ... admit everything in Robert's book is true vs let Jon and Robert win. Should be interesting.

It will also be interesting to see how her most ardent fans react to whichever response she chooses.

What is it the bullyville people say ... #ticktock #popcorn LOL!

Hoosier Girl said...

Bitchy Pants said... 89
After reading through the procedural history, and thinking back, TFMJG filed this suit around the time Jon's beloved grandmother, God rest her soul, passed.
________

Can you imagine what Jon's whole family has gone through? Watching him be roped in, abused, and then spit out by Kate. Watching Kate and TLC bring him to his knees financially and forever tarnish his reputation. Seeing her attempts to turn those kids against him.

What comes around, goes around ... and Grandma apparently has some clout in Heaven! :-) Go Grandma!

Anonymous said...

Dot said... 50
Do you wonder if Razzy and Rushie are sort of hoping this gets dismissed? They must know Tuma obliterated her claims even if she doesn't see it through her veil of narcissism.
October 23, 2013 at 10:22 AM
-----

yes, absolutely

91999

Ex Nurse said...

I think this point is what first piqued Tuma's interest in this case-freedom of speech.
------------
This is the response of the judge to the motion to dismiss in one of cases Tuma cited:

http://www.tradesecretslaw.com/files/2013/04/JCBHoldings-NY-LLC-v.-Pakter1.pdf

It references the fact that Congress did not sufficiently define many key components of the CFAA law, (ex. "exceeding authorization). Was Tuma the one who said something like, "we might make some law"? The judge said that the CFAA law was intended to to address third party access--not someone who had had access at one time. I think that Tuma does like the underdog aspect of this, but I think he is hoping to make a mark and set precedent with how the CFAA, which was written originally as a criminal law, is applied in a civil setting. 

By the way, parts of the complaint did survive the JBC Holdings lawsuit motion to dismiss, but business laws applied, not the CFAA.  Some of the defendants were dropped from the complaint. There were parts of the complaint that survived, that the judge acknowledged couldn't be proven until it went through discovery. 

I think that Jon really lucked out here, because with poor representation, this may have actually gotten through the courts. That is what scares me about the legal system--it often only works well for those who have the money and resources to throw at it. 

I have to admit that I wouldn't mind the public tar and feathering of TFW that would happen if her Bozo lawyers try to razzle dazzle their way through any of the complaints that may survive the motion to dismiss. She is despicable for dragging her family through this--not to mention the sheer waste of money to prop up her saggy career. I honestly don't know how she sleeps at night. Whatever happens, she has driven the last nail in her own coffin. 

Anonymous said...

Seriously, I agree Millicent. They have done a thorough job and deserve to be commended for it. I think this is what we've all been waiting for.
--------------------------------

EXCELLENT LEGAL TEAM. "Fail to prepare, prepare to fail."

Blowing In The Wind said...

kids first said... 80
While.Rome is burning, post pictures of puppies. LOL.
_____
My favorite post of the day! LOL!

I can hear Nero fiddling in the background, too!

Blowing In The Wind said...

She also sees all the hate they write, also. Does she #love that, too?!#
In the midst of suing the father of her children and being smacked down yesterday in court, she takes to twitter with platitudes, gratitude and love. SMH

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

Goody was also on a hate Jon rant today. Guess she enjoys that, too!

Remona Blue said...

I'm confused. Why are some people assuming that Jon is paying Tuma with money inherited from his late Grandmother? I thought that the conclusion of the blog was that Tuma was representing Jon pro-bono. Did I miss something?

fidosmommy said...

TFW to Barney: Well did you at LEAST tell the judge to send me his copy of my cookbook so I can sign it?

Blowing In The Wind said...

Then there's Milo, who someone had tweeted to saying that calling the tups "littles" was kind of offensive because they are almost 10 years old. Milo is now asking Kate if it's OK if she still uses the term.

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

Why would Gladys need Kate's approval to use the term? Good gawd. She never asks if it's okay before she butts into conversations that are none of her business...when the tweets are directed to Kate.

Blowing In The Wind said...

Vanessa said... 70

Where's Chefsummer???

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

She showed up on Twitter the past few days, so she's still around somewhere!

Over In TFW's County said...

"I'm so impressed with Tuma. He laid everything out so perfectly. I can't believe that Kate's lawyers thought it was a good idea to go ahead with this lawsuit. Did they even go to law school? Such amateurs. Sheesh!"

&&&&&&&&&&&

I know! Even for those with little knowledge about pleadings and reading legalese, this is laid out so perfectly that we can understand it. Not only that, he addresses so many issues that we've talked about here, in a step by step, succinct manner, clear and concise, (backing it up with court decisions), explaining why each allegation in the original complaint is without merit. He's good. I mean, really good!

Do you think we could all take him out for some Rumspringas? I'll buy!

Anonymous said...

Admin, thank you so much. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
You are to be commended for making us all feel like we are there, in the courtroom. and for keeping us up to sped on everything. Great job, thank you!!

<3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
91999

Hoosier Girl said...

Remona Blue said... 109
I'm confused. Why are some people assuming that Jon is paying Tuma with money inherited from his late Grandmother? I thought that the conclusion of the blog was that Tuma was representing Jon pro-bono. Did I miss something?
______

Who's been saying that? I've missed it.

I personally believe Tuma is probably doing this pro bono or greatly discounted ... but if Jon is using Grandma's inheritance to pay him, it's money well spent.

Over In TFW's County said...

Kate Gosselin ‏@Kateplusmy8 2h

@MiloandJack NP I prefer to avoid using numbers (ie 'the six'--altho I do use it occasionally or 'twins' etc- which I don't say)

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

A subtle dig at Jon, who said he calls them "The Six.:"

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

That is a dig at Jon. Why is the littles better than the six? They both have their benefits and drawbacks. She prefers not using numbers lol!!!! She has drilled it in our heads she has eight kids from day one.

fidosmommy said...

I bet if anyone were to actually ask the kids what they might like be called, that question would be answered.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Fido did you notice that? She never says what the kids prefer. They may like being called twins who knows. I know twins who always were saying they were twins. They were proud of it and liked it. It really depends on the child. Heaven forbid their preferences should come into play.

Susie Cincinnati said...

In lieu of anything good on the tube right now, it's funny to read the tweets of the sheeple, running circles around in the pasture as they give each other love pats on their woolly heads, thanking them for their friendship.The one who gives the cyber hugs to her barn-mates on Twitter really creeps me out.

MARIE ‏@MY_3BCOLLIES 4h
@CJWhodunit @Kateplusmy8 My bad CJ you are 100% right! Kate and the children have thousands upon thousands of fans and loyal supporters. XO

Yes, we can see that. Thousands and thousands of them have really boosted her book sales, making it a best seller! lol!

AuntieAnn said...

fidosmommy said... 110

TFW to Barney: Well did you at LEAST tell the judge to send me his copy of my cookbook so I can sign it?

====

That would be taking a chance. Judge might throw the book at her.
(oooo, so sorry fidos, I couldn't resist)

Susie Cincinnati said...

TFW to Barney: Well did you at LEAST tell the judge to send me his copy of my cookbook so I can sign it?

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

lol!! And to make sure he sends return postage!

chefsummer said...

Blowing In The Wind said... 112
Vanessa said... 70

Where's Chefsummer???

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

She showed up on Twitter the past few days, so she's still around somewhere!
_______

I'm still here lol -) just been a little bit busy.

Mel said...

I don't believe any has said that Jon is using an inheritance to pay for Tuma.

What came up, was that TFW's lawsuit was filed around the time of the grandma's death, and the poster was wondering if there was an inheritance that TFW thought she might get her hands upon with this lawsuit.

Although, personally, I think it's all about her being vengeful towards Robert. How dare he criticize the great and wonderful TFW!!!
And Jon. How dare he decline to film when she has declared it must be so!!

chefsummer said...

Good for Jon for standing up for himself and not taking KK"s crap anymore.

Hopefully she'll learn a lesson from this but I highly doubt it.

handinhand said...

kids first said... 80
While.Rome is burning, post pictures of puppies. LOL.
---------------------------------
The first day Robert's book was available on Amazon, I think I remember Kate posting a picture of her and the twins out dining. It was a strange Twitter pic of nothing but hands reaching for sushi.
It's her typical M.O....nothing to see over there, look at this instead. Aren't I a good Mom? Don't my kids say the darndest things?

Anonymous said...

What is the website where you can see all the tweets that Kate sees? Thanks

Paula said...

So will Kate be changing her twitter name from kateplusmy8 to kateplusmylittles?

Dmasy said...

Auntie....oooo, that was a good one!

PatK said...

Anonymous 127, try this:

https://twitter.com/search?q=kateplusmy8&src=typd&f=realtime

njay said...

Would someone with personal experience with narcissists please tell me if they can easily fall into a depression w/tendency to commit suicide? This is one thing that really worries me for Kate.

AuntieAnn said...

Dmasy I've actually wondered if the judge has asked about this cookbook since it's been brought up in the motions. Can you see him pondering the pages in his chambers? Scratching his head, wondering just who this Kate Gosselin broad is? lol!

Bitchy Pants said...

Remona -- I don't think anyone has said Jon is paying Tuma with an inheritance from his grandmother. I am the one that posted about the timing of TFMJG's filing of the suit, but my thinking was that she did it thinking she'd be awarded lots and lots of money, thereby depriving Jon of an inheritance, if indeed he does have one coming from his grandmother.

Remona Blue said...

Hoosier Girl said... 115
Remona Blue said... 109
I'm confused. Why are some people assuming that Jon is paying Tuma with money inherited from his late Grandmother? I thought that the conclusion of the blog was that Tuma was representing Jon pro-bono. Did I miss something?
______
Who's been saying that? I've missed it.
~~~~~~~~
Hoosier Girl, I just went back and re-read the comments, and NO ONE is saying that! When I said I was confused, I was more right than I realized. The comments were that TFW filed the lawsuit around the time of Jon's grandmother's death, and were speculating that TFW thought Jon may have inherited some money, and TFMJG wanted to grab it from him via the lawsuit.

How I came to the conclusion I did, I have no idea. Well...don't forget that I said right up front I was confused! I blame reading the motion to dismiss for clogging up my mind!

handinhand said...

‏@Kateplusmy8
@CJWhodunit @MY_3BCOLLIES I LOVE reading how you all support ea other 2.. It's just as encouraging 2 read ur convos amongst urselves #love

She also sees all the hate they write, also. Does she #love that, too?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, very much.
Her refusal to issue a directive to discourage those that post disparaging remarks about the kid's father on Twitter tacitly makes her a co-signer IMO.

Remona Blue said...

Mel said... 124 I don't believe any has said that Jon is using an inheritance to pay for Tuma.
~~~~~~~
You are right, Mel. It took me so long to figure out what on earth I read that you explained it all before I could post my comment!

silimom said...

How sad that she is spending all this money to try and squash an e-book that would have probably been read by fewer people then bought her cookbook.

I predict she will drop the suit saying it was proving too hard for her kids to handle and she puts their needs ahead of her own. It won't matter to her what anyone writes about her, the book is full of lies and she and her kids know the truth.

It should be good for at least another two week vacation giving interviews.

lukebandit said...

When Rome burns, Steve plays the fiddle. hahaha

Love the original. When Rome burns, post puppy pictures!

kates future holiday dinner year 2038: 8 kids plus 8 spouses = 16 plus 4 kids each = 48. 48 plus kate = 49 and drum roll please.....rimshot....
49 plus 1 = Steve!

Oh, my goodness. I just about lost it on the Rome's puppy pics. There is a lot of funny stuff on here, too many to mention. Just thank you, ladies! Ya'll are so funny! And so is Shawn!
Shawn posted a picture on twitter of a pot of chili that they were eating. He has had some people ask for recipe. It looks so good! It looks like no bean. I love no bean. I asked too. Maybe he will share the recipe.

Hoosier Girl said...

Remona Blue said... 133

I blame reading the motion to dismiss for clogging up my mind!
_____
LOL! I agree. Trying to read these legal documents makes my head hurt. I'm glad he put the snarky parts in plain English :-)

fidosmommy said...

"....and will take legal action when the time is right." When Grandma died may have been the perfect time to file according to TFW. I would never doubt this was the deciding factor on timing.

Grandma's health might not have been very good these last 4 years and TFW may very well have been sitting like a vulture.... you can't make this move too early. If Jon got sued while Grandma was still capable, she could have changed her will to exclude Jon but set up Kate-proof accounts for the kids. Once the estate is open, no such changes are possible. Could have been a very clever plan......except it backfired.

Tiger Lily said...

I'm glad someone else brought up the cookbook because I have a little story about it. We went to see DD in Westchester, NY this past weekend. DD and I stopped in a B&N near the apartment. We were in the cookbook section and a store clerk asked if we needed help. We were looking for recommendations. We talked for a while and then the clerk (without any prompting from me) said the worst cookbook they've stocked in a while was TFW's. She told us no one bought a copy and they were in the back packed waiting to be sent back to the publisher. She also said one day when it was really slow, she and another co-worker were going through the book and both thought "vanity book."

kids first said...

I wonder if Shawn posting the pic of the chili was an indirect slam of Kate's twitter photos of her slop. I bet he has looked at her twitter.

chefsummer said...

lukebandit said... 137

I think it would be more like Kate minus kids + Steve minus Jon + my mansion. & monies

Jon + kids + spouses & grandbabies.

chefsummer said...

So I guess KK's done with couponsbykate right? I mean when was the last time she or milo said something about the site?

Marie said...

Love that the motion to dismiss is based on so much common sense, like CHANGE YOUR PASSWORD! Lol

Marie

lukebandit said...

It's a most unusual day
Feel like throwing my attorneys away
As a want 2 B on teevee stah
In California would say
It's a most unusual day

There's a most unusual sky
Not a sign of good luck passing by
And if I want to scream, throw my book in the sink
It's a most unusual day

Its a most unusual day
My attorney lost his way
The false info I was providing
Bought me a ticket
On the Poseidon
Its a most unusual day!

Marie said...

I can just hear Steve saying, "whateva". I'm sure they weren't expecting things to turn out this way.

Marie

Lalalalala said...

It's my personal opinion, but I don't think anyone should be bothering Shawn. No e-mails, no texts, no Twitter, no anything. Let the man do his job. He doesn't need us.

Anna said...

If I publicly state that a celebrity is a child abuser and the celebrity sues me for libel or slander, the onus shifts to me to prove that this horrible allegation is true. If I can prove that the celebrity wrote about the abuse in her own private journals, she loses the defamation suit. On the other hand, if I cannot prove the truth of my statements, then she wins because I have publicly and false branded her as an abuser.
__________________________________________________

Would this mean that every poster who ever commented about her being an alleged 'child abuser' on this blog, could be sued??

handinhand said...

silimom said... 136
How sad that she is spending all this money to try and squash an e-book that would have probably been read by fewer people then bought her cookbook.
----------------------------------------------
She does not want this book to be accessible to the public ever again.
Once it's legitimately available again it lives on in perpetuity.
There will always be some obscure website selling hard to find old books.
I think she sees future job prospects limited with this information out there for public consumption, her carefully crafted telepersona destroyed by her own journals ink.

Anna said...

blaming and bashing Jon for getting that information from the kids.

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

It *does* put the kids in an awkward position, though. Kate will NOT like that the kids would be testifying for their dad in this law suit. If Jon or his lawyer didn't need to declare this little tidbit of info yet, I wish they wouldn't have. Hell hath no fury like a scorned mother. I hope the kids are ok.

handinhand said...

Here is a piece on Bethenny Frankel's failing talk show and why it's so difficult for reality TV personalities to branch out beyond their original vehicle. It's a bit of a slog to read through, but it makes a couple of valid points.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/23/bethenny_frankel_hits_the_limits_of_reality_stardom/singleton/

VisitorToday said...

What if Jon countersues for:
Emotional Distress
Filing a Case with No Merit
Defaming his Reputation (add TLC to that one) making him unable to get a job in the computer field

So many reasons for a countersuit .....

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

lukebandit said... 145
It's a most unusual day
_____________

Lukebandit, great lyrics!!!

Lalalalala said...

handinhand said... 152

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

Thanks for that link handinhand. I haven't liked Bethenny since she started divorce proceedings on her husband, Jason, and has continually thrown him under the bus every chance she gets. She wants to alienate their child from Jason and Jason's parents. She's a narcissist and fame whore just like Kate Gosselin and couldn't keep her mouth shut if her life depended on it.

Interesting how the article pretty much said that she came from a reality TV network that treated her with kid gloves and that's what she expects from TV from here on out. Sound like someone else we know? Sorry, Bethenny and Kate but I think Jo Public gets the last say on that one. You're fired!

Clairvoyant trojan horse said...

VisitorToday said... 153
What if Jon countersues for:
Emotional Distress
Filing a Case with No Merit
Defaming his Reputation (add TLC to that one) making him unable to get a job in the computer field

So many reasons for a countersuit .....
@@@@@@@@@@@

I have thought about this many times myself. He has a ton of video evidence behind him.

Another thing I have been thinking about is... what rights does/should a celebrity have when they are living a lie? When they are presenting a patently FALSE representation of themselves. When they are the polar opposite of the person they claim to be. Where do the lines blur between fraud and "privacy"?

Sadie said...

Shawn's a gregarious, social media-loving guy. He seems to enjoy the occasional tweets of encouragement and thanks. If he doesn't like it he can always ignore it.

fidosmommy said...

Lukebandit, I loved your song too! Clever.

Ps - I think about you regularly and hope things are going as well as they can be. Medical issues are such a "pain" and it takes a strong person to keep a positive outlook. I get the feeling you are a very strong person.

lukebandit said...

I should of put IT WAS, but I didn't think of it till I had already posted it.

If kate was thinking that when she said she would file at the right time and thinking about Jon's Grandmother dying sometime in the near future, she is a Diabotical Sadistic Twisted Piece of Nothing! or WOS!

Heard something really unusual on TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) the Christian channel last night. Paul Crouch Sr. and his sidekick son Matt Crouch were on and talking and it was about to go off and I didn't catch what they were talking about, but I heard Paul Sr. say:

It makes ME SO MAD, I JUST WANT TO CUSS! His son Matt just covered up his mouth, he was laughing very hard, silently. They finally got the camera off him. My mouth dropped. I couldn't believe it. It must of been live, because if that was taped it would of been edited out.

But the Crouches have their own legal problems. Paul and Jan Crouches granddaughter who is an accountant at TBN was forced to forge documents about money deals under their command and threatened her constantly and finally she said no. Her father, Paul Jr. left and went somewhere else to work, who was on air with Sr. for years. Matt Crouch, her uncle threatened her with a gun that was in his pants pocket and he just kept hitting it and told her he was not afraid to use it.

I read that part in an article and they quoted what Matt and Paul Sr. said on a Behind the Scenes show they do every week. Not long after that, I saw the show and was stunned how hateful Matt was looking into the camera and running his mouth!

She has whistleblower status and is suing them. I would love to see the discovery tapes on that lawsuit! I Praise God I never, ever gave TBN a penny of my money! They are not good stewards. I tithe to my local church, a homeless men, women's and children shelter, a young missionary man to evangelize in a high-risk zone in Africa.

Sleepless In Seattle said...

So I guess KK's done with couponsbykate right? I mean when was the last time she or milo said something about the site?

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

Milo was still hawking the site two days ago, but I think that site pretty much fizzled out.

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 21 Oct

@Kateplusmy8 Whatever the REASON I'm going shopping..there's no good REASON not 2check out http://couponsbyKate.com first! #SaveMoneyGetDeals

Layla said...

It's kind of sad that TFW has nobody to turn to for encouragement but her twitter followers. No real people in her life. She has to have seen the new MTD, and she has to realize that her lawsuit is doomed. She can't drop it or Robert will be free to publish his book and that will destroy her fake facade once and for all. If she doesn't drop, she will end up losing the case and the book will be published anyway. All she can do is try to buy time--and that is what she's doing. She's literally throwing her money at a problem that she can't solve, trying to bury it for as long as possible. She has no proof to back up her allegations, nobody is allowing her to bully Jon and Robert into submission, and she is going to lose this case, lose loads of money, lose her reputation, and lose whatever is left of her dreams of stardom. She turns to her twitter followers because they are all she has left for support and encouragement while her make-believe world crumbles around her. And she deserves every bit of it. What really ticked me off is when she said (was it on Katie Couric?) that this lawsuit is necessary for the kids' safety. Like Jon is some kind of threat to them. That is a lie, that is parental alienation, and that is just a nasty, vicious attempt to publicly destroy Jon. She has run amok for far too long. She has been allowed to attack anyone who doesn't bow down to her, and walk away smelling like a rose. And to claim that it's for the kids? She deserves every bit of scorn and ridicule that comes her way. She did this to herself. Remember, she has said that she does not regret anything she has done, and she'd do it all over again, given the chance.



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

Sadie said... 157
Shawn's a gregarious, social media-loving guy. He seems to enjoy the occasional tweets of encouragement and thanks. If he doesn't like it he can always ignore it.
___________________

I agree. He's been answering some of the tweets and favoring some, too. I think he's ok with it. No one's going overboard.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

No more posts about this Holly person thx

Sleepless In Seattle said...

Paige C ‏@Paige_Kate8fan 59m
@Kateplusmy8 just reminiscing on our meeting! You're exactly the same in person as you are on tv, what u see is what u get! Awesomeness! 😘

That's not exactly a compliment!


Emily Creighton ‏@EmCr68 2h
@Kateplusmy8 missing my mammaG and my favorite kiddos as always. Back in the rehearsal grind, Mady would appreciate it! Xoxo

Do these kids ever outgrow this, or do they turn into "Milos?"

Holly Upton ‏@daisygirl2650 2h
@Kateplusmy8 Do you want a man or are you not interested in men

She has to see his investment portfolio, then she'll let you know. Speaking of men, where has the Irish Creeper been hiding out? Did he give up, or just run out of ridiculous jokes for the kids?

Millicent said...

handinhand said... 152

Here is a piece on Bethenny Frankel's failing talk show and why it's so difficult for reality TV personalities to branch out beyond their original vehicle. It's a bit of a slog to read through, but it makes a couple of valid points.
*****
It seems that it's hard even for well-liked, well-established and talented stars to carry a talk show. So many have come and gone, including Whoopi Goldberg, Bonnie Hunt, etc.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

I think Kate is, to her credit, very good at envisioning the end result and then chasing after that end result

In some respects this can be a helpful thing, like when pursuing something difficult like an advanced degree, or going after a man who is maybe not that interested at first. Sometimes you need to believe and envision the end result to get what you want.

The problem is it really hurt her here. She was only able to envision one result: really getting Jon. Perhaps even terminating his parental rights. She simply did not let herself ever think that Jon could get a great attorney and fight back. That was not in her script. No other option was possible in her head. Now she's panicking farting rainbows and puppies not sure what to do because Jon is finally not willing to be brow-beaten into submission. She pushed it one too many times.

It's nice that the sheeple "support" her but that's not going to help her in the lawsuit. It doesn't matter if she has 1,000 fans and Jon only has one. This lawsuit will succeed or fail based solely on the law. Fans simply don't come into play. Moreover, I think they're gushing and support make her look weak.

Millicent said...

I cannot provide a link, but I have a memory of reading that Tuma was representing Jon pro bono (no charge). He may ask Jon to help with costs associated with the case, like the filing fee, etc. But for some reason, it's in my head that Tuma himself indicated that he heard about the case, found it interesting because it involves an area of law that he does, and he reached out to Jon and/or offered to represent him at no charge. Please correct me if I'm wrong, people who might happen to have a better memory than I :)

Millicent said...

njay said... 131

Would someone with personal experience with narcissists please tell me if they can easily fall into a depression w/tendency to commit suicide? This is one thing that really worries me for Kate.
*****
I'm no expert but have read a number of articles about NPD, and I would say that's fairly unlikely. Narcissists love nothing except themselves. They are their whole world. They might injure someone else or worse, if they believed it would further their desires. But to purposely inflict harm on themselves goes against their entire personality and hard wiring.

They can behave in ways that aren't wise, but not purposely doing so to hurt themselves.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...


You're right, 6 and 10 year old children shouldn't be working, but they have "Special Performance Permits" which allow it and the judge ruled on the law rather than what was best for the kids.

&&&

Agree and when I think about it I'm not sure the judge even had the authority to say those kids couldn't work. As long as they were following applicable labor laws and they weren't kicking and screaming the whole time on the set and he could use that information to find it's in their best interest, I'm not sure he thought he had much choice. The law needed to change first. The judge can't disregard the law or make up some new law. They're supposed to just interpret that law, and there's no way he could interpret out of the law that they couldn't work. That said I've heard some parents have had success with keeping kids off reality shows in CA, most likely by using a best interest catch all, but even that I think is eventually going to be tested whether they have such authority. IT's an interesting time now for child labor. It's evolving and being tested the past several decades in dramatic ways. Who knows where we'll be in a few more years.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

But for some reason, it's in my head that Tuma himself indicated that he heard about the case, found it interesting because it involves an area of law that he does, and he reached out to Jon and/or offered to represent him at no charge

&&&

I've since learned apparently he's not permitted to reach out to Jon under Texas ethical rules. Many states you are not permitted to solicit clients, including CA. As was told to me that's all correct except for the last part. Jon reached out to him. However I would not be surprised if others had seen Tuma talking about the case and encouraged Jon to phone him up. Thank goodness Jon listened. This is, hands down, the best move he ever made. It is Not a Tuma has met and exceeded my wildest expectations.

Millicent said...

Ingrid said... 81

I was kind of surprised that Hailey's texts about the harddrive weren't mentioned but stuff about Santoro was. I wonder if Hailey was able to block Kate from using them. Could she be forced to give them up and be a witness for Kate if it goes to trial?
***
I don't know what was supposedly in Hailey's texts. But I have a feeling that if TFW's legal team tried to subpoena her text records, they would come up empty. Admin has explained the reasons why before. One thing is that cell phone companies do not keep records of texts forever. So after all this time, it's really unlikely the cell phone company has those texts. And to introduce evidence such as business records (the cell texts), the records must be accompanied by an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury by the custodian of records for that company/firm/business entity. Which means even if TFW was able to twist Hailey's arm and make her produce some supposed copies of texts that she printed out at some point in time -- they would probably not be allowed as evidence. It would be too easy to manufacture such things.

Over In TFW's County said...

Many states you are not permitted to solicit clients, including CA.

+++++++++

Ambulance chasers run rampant in Pa. Whether it's ethically legal here, I don't know. But they do it.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

I looked at the ethical rules in PA, they're not permitted to do in person solicitations either. But their rules for advertising are pretty liberal so much so that I think the lines are blurred. For instance I don't see any prohibition against hanging around a hospital and passing out flyers, you know just in case anyone "happens" to need you.

But if someone reaches out to you, like any state, that's almost always just fine.

It does not surprise me Tuma patiently waited for Jon to come to him. He seems very devoted to the rules and laws. I think his articles about the case before Jon retained him suggested Tuma was not just interested, but interested in being a part of it. It's clear from his briefs he's thrilled to be playing a role. Glad it worked out.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

My apologies, anonymous. I meant "their" gushing. I do know the difference. They're gushing about Kate because they love her and their love for her knows no bounds. Therefore, so there! :)

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

By the way anonymous it's you're welcome, not your welcome.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Anne, if the Gosselin kids had only done one eight-week shoot as the Masterchef kids did, I doubt I would have cared a bit. By the time this permit issue came to light, they had worked for years, hundreds of hours. There is a difference to me between a kid spending much of their young lives filming, and kids who pop up on TV to do one project then disappear. Also MC is not about their private lives. It's a gameshow where they cook. That's the major differences for me.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Millicent yes I think they'll have all those problems but their biggest problem is how to prove they are relevant even if they could obtain them and get them into evidence. They just aren't relevant no matter how much Kate wants them to be. They don't prove anything. They are missing something very important, that last text saying, Hailey, I got it, I got the hard drive! Where is that text anyway? Without that text, they're useless. And they still don't prove he didn't have a right to access a family computer even if he THOUGHT he didn't. Plus like I've said a million times, this was all happening when Kate and Jon were in a dispute over the joint account in which they were both withdrawing money. Kate had withdrawn some money improperly and I think this whole big blowup was Jon upset over this monetary dispute. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for his interest in what was going on with her that has absolutely nothing to do with writing a tell all book that came out years later. And what Kate and the fans never admit is there hasn't been a shred of evidence since that Jon had any interest in her finances or computers. Wouldn't he, in four years, have spilled the beans to SOMEONE? Wouldn't SOMEONE wanting their 15 minutes of fame have shown up to say oh my gosh Jon did this and that and this. It simply hasn't happened. There has been not a peep from anyone except two scorned ex girlfriends, both of whom showed up to blurt something then completely disappeared. Where is that other girlfriend in all this and wouldn't she be helpful to Kate's cast? And how credible are those two jokers? Couldn't they at least get someone straight and narrow like Kevin to go on record and throw him under the bus? Apparently not.

Once again Kate's scenario is the most implausible one of the bunch. It's like what someone else was saying, when it doubt you usually can't go wrong with the most reasonable and logical explanation. The chances are that the most convoluted implausible explanation for events is not the true one. Once in awhile it may be, but not usually!

Dot said...

Shawn Tuma tweeted about the case a few times, we talked about him here and a few weeks later we were thrilled when his name was at the bottom of the motion for dismissal as lead attorney. How he became Jon's attorney and any fee agreement is private between Jon and Mr. Tuma. None of that has been disclosed.

Susantoyota said...

silimom said... 137

It should be good for at least another two week vacation giving interviews.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Not to disagree, but I think the talk shows will pursue Shawn, Jon, and Robert. Especially if the lawsuit is successful.

TFMJG is a one-trick pony with arthritic knees and it's time to put her out to pasture.

gotyournumberKate said...

Love this!


MsGoody2Shoes21 ‏@msgoody2shoes21 3h
All is well with my left breast. Cancer free.

Shawn E. Tuma ‏@shawnetuma 1h
@msgoody2shoes21 amen! #whatreallymatters


Anonymous said...

I want to make something clear. I have been reading this blog and posting here for a long time. I don't have any hate or dislike or animosity towards KG at all. As she says, I don't know her personally, and I don't, and have no desire to do so. I do write to her as a 3rd person from time to time, because it has been proven she reads here.

I watched her show, believed for a minute that she was super mom, and then slowly, oh so slowly, she unraveled the seams all by herself. Pizza Gate was just unspeakable. Never ever take up for anyone over your own children bitach. (sorry, but that was your baby Kate! Your best friend who you were screaming at on TV and in public, in front of cast, her (the child's) family and the public. Over a piece of pizza? on.

KG actions, the way she is distant with the truth, her secrets, always a secret, everyday a secret. teasers, the way she treats her family, openly, the way she treated hired help, DWTS Cast, dance teacher, co-workers and vendors, and even a Dr.who only wanted her bill paid, and the way she would not pay her bills, (water bill comes to mind), took money from churches when she was already a millionaire. how she acts when her children are not around and sometimes when they are around, (NY bar foot licking and how she dressed as a TV mom of 8 kids), how she presents herself as 43 different people, are all what I don't like about her IMAGE.

But the book, I read it, and I was mad, cried, and thought, is anything about her being a mom real? Actually, I wondered why she was not in jail a few times. (RH Book-Child Abuse Claims, How She Fooled The World, Book.)

She said people don't like her or won't hire her now because of the book. Kate, that is just not true. Your ex husband was long gone and silent when you were stepping in your own mess time and time again.

You need to get a life coach asap, and an ACCOUNTANT, of your OWN, and look at someone else in your life who may be accessing your accounts and financial info for all the wrong reasons for real. Then you will really have something to cry about if you are left penniless for trusting people you don't REALLY know.

You are on the wrong train track, sugar bee, and time and time again you ignore what good people are telling you, from all walks of life.

91999

AuntieAnn said...

Administrator) said... 163

This is, hands down, the best move he ever made. It is Not a Tuma has met and exceeded my wildest expectations.

====

"It is Not a Tuma". lol!

I fully agree Admin. It had to come down to this. Jon was cajoled, fooled, manipulated and finally shafted by Kate. Whatever prompted him to contact Tuma was a godsend. He may be the guy who finally forces her to pull the stick out.


I want to say "lesson learned?" to TFW but I doubt she thinks it would ever apply to her.

Hey Kate. You're not so tough without your TLC lawyers, are ya?

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

You know what else is so illogical about this? Let's assume for argument's sake someone DID hack her account or is currently hacking her account. Why is she assuming it must be Jon? When they hack do they leave behind a moniker I'm Jon Gosselin have a nice day Beeatch?

As much as I hate to admit it, she's a celebrity. Things like this happen more often to celebrities. Wasn't it Paris Hilton who had her phone hacked and all her contacts stolen? Not to mention her house robbed. IF she was hacked she should be looking at a much broader circle than just Jon. Heck, why isn't it Jodi, Jodi's sister or Beth, or one of the many many other people she's chewed up and spit out? Heck why isn't it a fan or hater? Just because Jon has a computer background doesn't mean anyone else doesn't or can't find someone who does.

Point being, it doesn't add up. If she were really hacked any reasonable person would be calling the police and investigating LOTS of people, not just the ex that they hate. IF she honestly believes this is happening, she has really proved how inept and immature she is about handling such a crisis and how laser focused her hate for Jon is such that she's completely disregarding any other possible scenario.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Oh here's a real world example. I know an ex nanny of Al Pacino, we ended up working together. Some years ago when the kids were little someone was stealing money from him. I'm not sure all the details, perhaps there are some old articles about it out there, but he somehow determined it was a staff member. He fired his entire staff and cleaned house, including my friend even though she had nothing to do with it. She was very understanding though of why he felt he had to start fresh.

If someone is messing around with your accounts, you might try your STAFF first, Kate. They are in a much better position as insiders to be up to no good.

Anonymous said...

Admin 181

Very true, and it is suppose to start with a police REPORT. Anonymous hacked into everybody really famous a few months back including the VP and Pres. Also, some of Hollywood's biggest stars and even octo was on the list. They posted that info all over the world Kate. Everything about everyone of those people.They had a right to cry and scream and kick, you didn't. They were harmed.

I know who I would be looking at, cough cough, and it would not be JG. Bait and switch and get someone to look the other way is the biggest scam there ever was in fraud. If that happens to her, how will she recover? Dunno.. Jon did warn her. Smart man.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Ha there's a clip of it on youtube!

It really does sound like he's saying "tuma."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaTO8_KNcuo

Anonymous said...

If someone is messing around with your accounts, you might try your STAFF first, Kate. They are in a much better position as insiders to be up to no good.
-------------------------

And if WE both feel this strong about it, then we know. We know that we know that we know, something is oh so wrong.

And somewhere in the walls of this now ancient blog of wisdom, she was told this exact same thing years ago, and not too long ago, and again now.

To be careful, watch out, don't be too trusting.

Who was it that said " I don't know what those two got going on?"
How many flags do you need? Seriously.

Yup, a lot of people thought Bernie M was a good guy too. We all know how that turned out.

fidosmommy said...

I would love to see the final result of this lawsuit as Kate getting sanctioned for wasting the court's time on her petty hatred. Not just a verbal lashing but some serious bucks.

chefsummer said...

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 175
By the way anonymous it's you're welcome, not your welcome.
__________

Remember anonymous is probably KK's sheep so they do by her speak.

Starz22 said...

I agree with TLC Stinks #25

TFW still believes that she is untouchable. Back in the day she had TLC making everything better. Now they don't give a shit. TFW is on her own.
This will be a true comeuppance for her. I so want to see her taken down,but not with the kids money.

Can't Jon file a motion saying she is mis-using the kid's money to pay for things such as her crook-book tour and lawyer fee's ect? When the kids want things such as gymnastics and other hobbies she says theres no money for them...but she has all the money in the world for whatever she wants to do?

Canuck said...

What if it did turn out to be Steve? OMG. That'd be true karma!

Canuck said...

When can we expect a reply by Kate/her lawyers?

Anonymous said...

Can anyone access those links where he says Kate publicly acknowledged the allegations four years before filing (Radar and NY Daily News)? All I get is a notice that both pages vanished. Weird.
FRP

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said... 189
Can anyone access those links where he says Kate publicly acknowledged the allegations four years before filing (Radar and NY Daily News)? All I get is a notice that both pages vanished. Weird.
FRP

_____________________

There is a link in the amends suit up there ^^^^. Is it not working?

Yahoo search is better than Google for what you are looking for, and don't use firefox or chrome or you can't access pages that are cache'.

ROL pulled a lot of the J&K stories and comments RECENTLY, after a staff member who was involved with the drama for a long time, was fired.(Not saying it is related!!!! I don't know that.)


AOL had a lot of good info. People forget about them. lol

Hollyb had a few comments, but also condensed down, and IN- site, her pap bff from there, also pulled lots of stories and comments. Weird, huh?

Go over to RH. He has SO many sites already bookmarked for you that could lead everyone to the story they are searching for. It will make your search so much easier. HTH

91999

Anonymous said...

Some celebs — Sean Penn among them — would ask us not to run an item because "my children will read it." Even though their children were sometimes two years old. "My children" was the last refuge of the scoundrel. But we did try to keep in mind that kids didn't have a choice in being born to ridiculous celebs. So we'd give the kids a pass if they got into some trouble that all kids get into. At least until they were 18 and had earned the right to be ridiculous themselves. -- George Rush (who wrote celeb gossip for the famous Page 6 of The New York Daily News

Interesting. I feel for the Gosselins as they grow up. *sigh*

Very interesting. http://gawker.com/chat-with-rush-and-molloy-about-gossip-celebrities-an-1450735507

Math Girl said...

Anonymous said... 189
Can anyone access those links where he says Kate publicly acknowledged the allegations four years before filing (Radar and NY Daily News)? All I get is a notice that both pages vanished. Weird.
FRP

Yes, I can. Copy the link and paste it into the url line on another window or tab. I assume that's what you already tried. Now, before you hit return, remove any spaces in the middle of the URL. I believe there is one in each of them. Hit return, and voila! Also, one of the URLs extends onto a third line. Be sure you get it all!

Kate is a twit said...

Anonymous said... 189
Can anyone access those links where he says Kate publicly acknowledged the allegations four years before filing (Radar and NY Daily News)? All I get is a notice that both pages vanished. Weird.
FRP
----------------------

The articles are still there. The links in the complaint may not work correctly due to a formatting issue. ROL had the story first, and then other media outlets picked up the story. Just google "jon gosselin hacking santoro" and you'll see all the articles that were out there.

Here are the links to the articles mentioned in the MTD:

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/10/kate-gosselin-considering-legal-options-against-jon-after-reading-radar-report/

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/jon-gosselin-sued-tlc-breach-contract-kate-legal-action-hacking-claims-article-1.385442

Meagler said...

well Kate...

You get what you get and you dont get upset!

Making some Monster Munch for this weekend, might have to make some more to keep up with all of this excitement!!!

Where's Waldo // Where's McNiblets (BV) said...

I find the timing of BV departure intriguing. Transparency and accountability doesn't appear to be words in his vocabulary. Kate either for that matter.

Alberta Girl said...

This is so interesting to me, because my narcissist boss did pretty much the same thing TFW did.
Long story short - fired 2 long term employees (20 yrs), because she found out they were "defaming her" ( her words), to someone else at a company wide conference.
She initiated the firing without approval from the corporate office, the rest of our exec team, with the exception of an inexperienced HR manager who was afraid of her.
It cost our company tens of thousand of dollars in legal fees, and a few hundred thousand dollars in payout once we lost the case.
And the narcissist? Still shouting to the rafters that she was right...even as she was shown the door abruptly after we lost.
And as she went to her next job (which only lasted 8 months, again with her being fired), she is STILL bad mouthing everyone she feels has wronged her all around our industry.
Needless to say, she is considered a big joke by all, but she still sticks to her claims.

TFW will ALWAYS think she is right, no matter what happens with this case.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 1203   Newer› Newest»