Friday, October 18, 2013

Kate's amended complaint

In response to Jon's attorneys' FRC 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in Kate's ongoing lawsuit against Jon and author Robert Hoffman, Kate's attorneys filed an amended complaint Oct. 2. Amended complaints are a normal and common first response to attorneys who move for a motion to dismiss. The new complaint is significantly different from their first complaint, which largely backfired in the court of public opinion, and drops several of their original allegations. According to the docket, a pre-trial conference is scheduled for Tuesday, October 22.

Here is the full text of the new complaint:


Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 1 of 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KATE GOSSELIN
Plaintiff, v.
JONATHAN K. GOSSELIN, and
ROBERT HOFFMAN and
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20 Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CIVIL ACTION
NO.: 5:13-cv-04989
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Katie I. Gosselin ("Kate" or "Kate Gosselin"), by and through her attorneys, Randazza Legal Group, brings this action against Jonathan K. Gosselin ("Jon" or "Jon Gosselin"), and allege violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1030, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA") and other statutes. In support of her claims, Plaintiff state the following:
PRELIMARY STATEMENT
Kate Gosselin and Jon Gosselin became a household sensation after giving birth to sextuplets in 2004. The couple starred on the popular reality show "Jon and Kate Plus 8." Jon & Kate Plus 8 (renamed Kate Plus 8 for the sixth and seventh seasons) is a television reality series which aired from April 4, 2007 until September 12, 2011. In 2009, Jon and Kate separated in a very high profile and public divorce. Kate is currently a single mother raising eight children.
After the couple was separated, Jon illegally hacked into Kate's email account, and her phone, and bank accounts. Jon also stole a hard drive from Kate's house, which contained private and confidential material. Jon then gave the contents of Kate's email account and the hard drive, all of which were acquired illegally, to his friend and business partner, tabloid reporter Robert Hoffman. Hoffman used the illegally acquired data to publish a defamatory book about Kate called "Kate
page1image19352
page1image19624
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 2 of 10
Gosselin: How She Fooled The World." The book was removed from large distributors like Amazon.com because the information was obtained illegally. Nevertheless, the damage was done with the release of the personal and private information, and the defendants continue to possess this illegally obtained private information.
THE PARTIES
  1. Plaintiff, Kate Gosselin is an adult individual residing in Sinking Spring, Pennsylvania.
  2. Defendant, Jon Gosselin, is an adult individual residing in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania.
  3. Defendant, Robert Hoffman, is an adult individual residing in Reading, Pennsylvania.
  4. Upon information and belief, Defendants John and Jane Does 1 through 20 are individuals whose
    names and addresses of residences are unknown.
    VENUE AND JURISDICTION
  5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, as a federal question is at issue, based upon the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
  6. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, based upon the pendent and ancillary jurisdiction of this Court.
  7. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a), as all of the parties reside within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
    FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
  8. In April 2007, Kate Gosselin and her husband Jon Gosselin became celebrities after giving birth to six children in addition to their previous two children. In total, Jon and Kate Gosselin had eight children.
  9. The couple starred in the reality television series "Jon and Kate Plus 8."
  10. In 2009, the couple separated in a high profile and public divorce.
  11. After the divorce, Jon began accessing Kate's password-protected email account without her
    authorization.
  12. Kate learned of Jon’s unauthorized access only after it had occurred.
page2image17408
page2image17680
page2image17952
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 3 of 10
13. Jon knew he did not have authorization to access this e-mail account.
14.Jon also began accessing Kate's online, password-protected banking accounts without her
authorization.
  1. Jon knew he did not have authorization to access these password-protected online banking accounts as
    well.
  2. Jon also accessed Kate's cellphone without her authorization.
  3. Jon also stole a hard drive from Kate's house, which contained protected, private and confidential
    material.
  4. On information and belief, the contents of this hard drive were provided to Robert Hoffman and the
    John Doe defendants.
  5. The information contained in Kate's password-protected email account, password-protected online
    bank accounts, and cellphone is confidential.
20.The information contained in Kate's email account, online bank accounts, and cellphone has
independent value because of Kate's celebrity status.
  1. At all times relevant to the Complaint, the above accounts were protected by a password.
  2. At no point did Kate Gosselin give her password to Jon Gosselin or anyone else.
  3. At no point was Jon Gosselin or anyone else authorized to access Kate Gosselin's protected email
    account, online bank accounts, or cellphone.
  4. On information and belief, Jon has continued to access Kate's email account, online banking account,
    and cellphone.
  5. On information and belief, Jon's unauthorized access to known password protected accounts through
    the Internet has been continuous and systematic.
  6. At some point in time, Jon Gosselin and tabloid reporter Robert Hoffman became close friends.
27. Hoffman publicly described his ongoing friendship with Jon Goesslin and even bragged he was in
possession of 5,000 family photos, personal documents, tax and business records plus contracts – on
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 4 of 10
information and belief, they were acquired from Jon Goesselin, and were acquired with the knowledge
that Jon obtained them illegally.
  1. At a time currently unknown that will be uncovered in discovery, Jon Gosselin disseminated the
    information he obtained from hacking Kate Gosselin's email account, bank records, computer and
    cellphone to Defendant Robert Hoffman.
  2. The Defendants then published the information that Jon Gosselin illegally obtained in several
    publications.
  3. Hoffman knew his activities were unlawful, and at one point even told Radar Online: "I’ll be sued by one or more parties before this is over1."
  4. Hoffman falsely claimed in certain publications that he recovered the data from Kate’s computer by digging through her trash that he found on the street. This demonstrates his knowledge that the materials were obtained illegally, as it is a sign of an attempt to cover up his unlawful activities. The materials in his possession could not possibly be physically found in paper format to that extent. If Hoffman was picking through trash on the street, he did not find this trove of personal information while engaging in his trash-picking endeavors.
  5. In reality, Hoffman, Jon Gosselin, and Does 1-20, acting in concert and on one another's behalf, hacked into Kate Gosselin's various accounts – and the protected computers that contained the data they accessed – then disseminated the illegally obtained information.
  6. Hoffman and Jon Gosselin supplied various tabloids with stories painting Kate Gosselin in a poor light after they had unlawfully obtained this private information.
  7. Hoffman and Jon Gosselin then used the stolen private information to make stories more salacious for the tabloids and draw further attention to the highly sensitive and private information they had obtained, which equated to higher payouts for their information.
35. Hoffman further used the illegally obtained information obtained from Jon Gosselin to publish a book
1 http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/09/kate-gosselin-book-removed-amazon-jon-gosselin-pal-author-robert- hoffman/
page4image18288
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 5 of 10
about Kate called "Kate Gosselin: How She Fooled The World" in 2012. Hoffman spoke to the media about his publication in order to ensure it was more widely purchased, and that the private information about Plaintiff that it contained in whole or in part received the widest possible public dissemination.
  1. Hoffman's book contained defamatory and untrue information about Kate Gosselin, along with information that painted Kate in a false and negative light.
  2. Amazon.com pulled "How She Fooled The World" just two days after it was published, in part due to the fact it relied in false information, and information Hoffman obtained illegally.
  3. On information and belief, Defendants Hoffman, Jon Gosselin, and Does 1-20 illegally accessed Kate's computer's confidential data, and then conspired among each other to spread false, defamatory, and unflattering information about Kate Goesslin for the purpose of profiting from the book and the tabloid publications.
    COUNT I VIOLATION of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g)
  4. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
  5. Plaintiff asserts this Count against Defendants, jointly and severally pursuant to § 1030 of the
    Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
  6. Section 1030 provides in the relevant part:
    (a) Whoever-
    **** *
    (2) intentionally accesses a computer without
    authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains- (C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;
    **** *
    shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
    (b) Whoever attempts to commit an offense under
    subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
    **** *
    (g) Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason
    of a violation of this section may maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief. . .. No action may be brought under this

page5image19008
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 6 of 10
subsection unless such action is begun within 2 years of the date of the act complained of or the date of the discovery of the damage.
  1. The term "protected computer" includes "a computer ... which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication." 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)(B).
  2. Within this section, the term "exceeds authorized access" means "to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accessor is not entitled so to obtain or alter." 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(6).
  3. Kate Gosselin's email account and bank accounts were operated by computers used in interstate commerce and protected by passwords – thus constituting “protected computer(s)” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)(B).
  4. By accessing these accounts, the Defendants necessarily accessed these protected computers, wherein the data relevant to Plaintiff’s accounts resided.
  5. At no time did Jon Gosselin, nor anyone else, have legal permission or lawful access to Kate Gosselin's password-protected email account, or online bank account, nor the computers or computer services on which those accounts were accessible.
  6. At no time had Jon Gosselin, nor anyone else, been given a password or authority to access Plaintiff’s password-protected email account, or online bank account, nor the computers or computer services on which those accounts were accessible.
  7. Jon Gosselin, and potentially others – whose identities shall be determined during the course of litigation – improperly used Plaintiff’s login information, namely her login user identity and her password, without authorization to access the contents of those accounts and the computers on which her password-protected and highly sensitive personal emails and banking information resided.
  8. By accessing Kate's password-protected email account and online bank records without authorization, each Defendant unlawfully accessed a protected computer without authorization, and/or accessed a protected computer in excess of any authorization as prohibited by 18 U.S.C. §1030.
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 7 of 10
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Since the Defendants were not authorized to access Kate Gosselin's email account, online bank account, and cellphone, they exceeded the scope of their authorized access (which was no authority to access it whatsoever).
  4. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for their violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1030. COUNT II
    INVASION OF PRIVACY – PUBLICITY GIVEN TO PRIVATE LIFE
  5. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every preceding allegation as if fully set forth herein.
  6. At all times material hereto, and pursuant to the common law of Pennsylvania, Plaintiff had a
    reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the contents of her e-mail account, online banking
    account, and cellular phone.
  7. The contents of Plaintiff’s e-mail account, online banking accounts, and cellular phone constitute
    private facts that were not disclosed to the public, even despite Plaintiff’s stature following the
    broadcast of “Jon and Kate Plus 8.”
  8. By using this information in the publication of a book about Plaintiff, Defendants gave publicity to the
    information obtained from Plaintiff’s private and password-protected e-mail account, online banking accounts, and cellular phone, and disclosed private facts obtained from these sources to the general public.
  9. In fact, Defendant Hoffman’s book, which all Defendants contributed in creating in various ways, was
page7image18184
page7image18456
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 8 of 10
widely available for distribution on Amazon.com, one of the top sellers of books and e-commerce
websites in the world.
  1. Defendant Hoffman further engaged the media about the contents of his book, to ensure greater sales of
    it and that more people would be exposed to its contents – including its disclosure of private facts
    obtained from Plaintiff’s password-protected e-mail account and online banking accounts.
  2. The publicity the Defendants generated by using this private, password-protected information to
    publish a book about Plaintiff is highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether or not similarly
    situated to Plaintiff.
  3. The information Defendants drew upon and included, in whole or in part, in Defendant Hoffman’s
    book is not of legitimate concern to the public, as it was password protected for the very sake of
    keeping it private.2
  4. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of this invasion of privacy.
    COUNT III CIVIL CONSPIRACY
  5. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every preceding allegation as if fully set forth herein.
  6. Defendants, both known and unknown, conspired together to engage in actions that violated above-
    cited federal statute and Pennsylvania common-law tort as described in this Complaint.
  7. Defendants shared a common, unlawful goal of invading Plaintiff’s privacy and committing the
    unauthorized access of protected computers possessing data found within Plaintiff’s password-
    protected private e-mail and banking accounts.
  8. Defendants engaged in numerous overt acts in furtherance of this common purpose, including but not
    limited to, actions detailed in paragraphs 8 through 62, ranging from the unlawful use of Plaintiff’s user identities and passwords for her e-mail and online banking accounts, the gathering of that information, and the publication of a book containing this information.
    2 Indeed, financial information of the kind available in Plaintiff’s online banking accounts would have to be heavily redacted if it were to be filed with this Court.
page8image19112
page8image19384
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 9 of 10
  1. While Defendants incidentally benefitted from the conspiracy’s fruits and their own subsequent actions, their sole and common purpose for violating Plaintiff’s rights as set forth within this Complaint was the violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
  2. Only after conspiring to commit the tortious acts detailed within the Complaint, and committing those acts, were Defendants able to use the fruits of their unlawful conduct for their personal benefit.
  3. Plaintiff was damaged by the actions of the Defendants as set forth in paragraphs 8 through 62.
    COUNT IV CONCERTED TORTIOUS ACTION
70. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every preceding allegation as if fully set forth herein.
71.
The Defendants and others did various tortious acts in concert with each other as set forth above in the
Complaint.
72. These Defendants' tortious acts were committed pursuant to a conspiracy and scheme to unlawfully
access Plaintiff’s private records and publicly disclose them Gosselin as set forth above.
73. Jon Gosselin gave substantial assistance and encouragement to the other Defendants and others to
engage in the tortious acts as set forth above in the Complaint.
  1. Robert Hoffman gave substantial assistance and encouragement to the other Defendants and others to engage in the tortious acts as set forth above in the Complaint, as he would ultimately be able to profit from the fruits of his and the other Defendants’ unlawful conduct.
  2. John Does 1-20 gave substantial assistance and encouragement to the other Defendants and others to engage in the tortious acts as set forth above in the Complaint.
  3. The Defendants' actions violate the federal statute and Pennsylvania common-law tort set forth in this complaint, and also constitute an invasion of Kate Gosselin's privacy.
77. The Defendants conduct was malicious and outrageous as set forth above.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kate Gosselin, requests judgment in her favor and against
page9image17992
page9image18264
Case 5:13-cv-04989-JLS Document 10 Filed 10/02/13 Page 10 of 10
Defendants, Jon Gosselin, Robert Hoffman, and John Does 1-20, jointly and severally, as follows:
  1. 1)  for losses in excess of $5,000 under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g);
  2. 2)  for compensatory damages;
  3. 3)  for actual damages;
  4. 4)  for punitive damages based on the Defendants’ willful, reckless, and wanton conduct;
  5. 5)  for attorneys' fees and costs;
  6. 6)  for declaratory and injunctive relief; and
  7. 7)  for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
    DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues for which a right to jury trial exists.
page10image7592
page10image7872
page10image8144
Dated: October 2, 2013
RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP
By: ___________________________ A. Jordan Rushie, Of Counsel
PA I.D. No. 209066
2424 E York Street, Suite 316 Philadelphia, PA 19125

P. (215) 385-5291 F. (215) 525-0909 ajr@randazza.com
Marc J. Randazza (pro hac vice pending)
3625 S. Town Center Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89135 702.420.2001 mjr@randazza.com
Attorneys for Kate Gosselin
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I am an employee of Randazza Legal Group and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 and Local Rule 5.1.2, served the foregoing document on all parties using this Court’s cm/ecf system on October 2, 2013.
page10image15792
Date: October 2, 2012
page10image16640
page10image16912
page10image17184
page10image17456
page10image17728
Employee of Randazza Legal Group 

359 sediments (sic) from readers:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 359 of 359   Newer›   Newest»
Ex Nurse said...

Admin said...
What does it matter whether he has or doesn't have it at home anyway?
______
Right, it doesn't matter--I said that. So why is anyone invested in the idea that he doesn't? I read his statement as saying that since the kids have free access to the internet at school, why should he restrict it at home--he is sitting beside them when they google their names or watch YouTube. That says that the kids have internet access when they are at the cabin. Doesn't matter how it got there, whether the kids bring it, a hotspot etc., there is (or was) internet access at the cabin. I agree that it is a silly argument to be having. And, IF Jon then said he didn't, when he actually does, that would be a silly thing to lie about. I am not arguing--I was defending my position and backing it up with logic and evidence. You are all, of course, free to make your own interpretations. Seriously, do any of you think that the attorneys aren't seeing this too? Jon needs to stick to one story.

Megan said...

On the issue of credit cards, I have various alerts set up on the main credit card I use most (Visa). Online, the bank has various alerts you can set up and change at any time. I have mine set so that I get emails if the card is used out of the country, or if a charge over a certain amount is made, or if a balance transfer is made to the card. As far as my bank debit card, I have my bank email my checking account balance to me every morning so I would see anything unusual right away.

Meagler said...

Hey everyone, midnight troll here. Its actually so late that I think some people will soon be getting up in some times zones!

The fact of the matter remains, and can not be hidden no matter how fancy TFW's lawyers try to make that response ( and let me tell ya it aint fancy) , but not nce, no where in that statement did I hear any claim that......

any of the leaked or illegally obtained information was FALSE!!!!

No where does TFW say that!!!

Kate we are not dumb, and no amount of smoke and mirrors is going to voer that up..well except maybe enough the sheeple can not see it!


I also seem to recall Robert saying he had pictures of the garbage. He brought it home with him. Some upthread say they saw pictures. What was in the pictures?

Anyways, my eyes are tired, so am off to bed. Gnite...or good morning depending on what time zone you are in!

capecodmama said...

let's throw tomatoes...sorry about your Dodgers. Hopefully, it'll be the Red Sox kicking some Cardinal butt.

JoyinVirginia...OT colonoscopy story so feel free to scroll. I got diagnosed with ulcerative colitis six years ago. I very rarely have flareups but as it can lead to colon cancer so I have to have colonoscopies every two years. I've had four so far. During my first one, I "woke" up towards the end of the procedure, glanced at the screen and shouted, "That's what it looks like in there? Cool." My last three I haven't "woken" up until I've been in the recovery room. I'm thinking maybe I startled my doctor during the first one so he's making sure that doesn't happen again.

Don't know who knew what, when, why and how with regard to this lawsuit but it'll play itself out. But TFW shows how delusional she is if she honestly believes the RH's book that was on Amazon for all of three days ruined her reputation. It must be scary living in her little world.

Hoosier Girl said...

Ex Nurse said... 177

I just find it really hard to believe that this would progress this far if the grounds were absolutely trumped up and baseless and the timeline ends in 2009.
_________

I'm out of the loop as usual. Has a judge seen this lawsuit yet? I thought the lawyers were still volleying responses and amendments at one another?

IMO - Baseless or not, Kate is not one to lose face by dropping this. Should the ruling go against her, she can do the 'woe is me' 'no one can help me' 'everyone is jealous' tv/tabloid tour. Looking for sympathy and squeezing out 3 more minutes of 'fame' are right up her alley.

Hoosier Girl said...

As far as hacked bank accounts -

When I log into any account (utilities/credit union/credit card) they all say something like 'last accessed' and give me the date.

I may be a little anal and/or paranoid - but I always check that date to see if it correlates with my last visit. If it didn't, I'd have that company and the police on the line in a hot minute. As (I think Marie) said, I would not be filing a civil suit, I'd be pressing criminal charges.

Hoosier Girl said...

I should stop reading bottom to top. I see that a judge has not seen this suit yet. Sorry.

Tucker's Mom - Jon in the bomb shelter has me laughing so hard I'm crying! That is going to keep me tickled all day! Just the best!

Virginia Pen Mom said...

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 173
My DVR records Seinfeld and they had one where Kramer had a kidney stone. Haha!

=========

LOL, I caught that yesterday too!

I had no idea kidney stones were so prevalent until hearing all the stories here. I do have a kidney stone story, but mine is from the OTHER end....

About 20 years ago, my husband, educated as a geologist, had a job in a big lab. The lab bought a smaller kidney stone lab, and the elderly former owner trained my husband to replace him.

My husband became the kidney stone expert who read the stones and determined what minerals comprised them by studying them under a microscope.

Hubby was the top authority on them in our state for a few years, and I think the stones came from further afield than just here. So if you ever wonder who decided what was in your stone... it may have been Virginia Pen Dad!

Now I'm off to a book signing. Let's see. I have extra books, a sign, signing pens, tablecloth, Rat Claws for protection, hanky in case I need to cry in a closet. Yup! Good to go!

lukebandit said...

In the complaint, it says that kate is a single mother, raising 8 children.

It should say, Katie Irene Kreider, dba Kate Gosselin, is a divorced mother, raising 8 children.

She could at least take the kids to Jons and drop them off during the week or the nanny could, then Jon could bring them home. Jon should be allowed to drive thru the gate and pull up to the house to drop them off.

She is so cruel.

Suzee said...

1.) How much do lawyers cost per hour? TFW must be spending a mint of money on this dumb lawsuit.

2.) What does she does she do for health insurance coverage for her and her 8 kids?

***********

Admin can answer the lawyer fee question better than I, but with the big name firms representing both sides and if their top attorneys are doing the work and not a lower associate, I'd imagine their normal rates would be $400-450/hr minimum.

As for health insurance? I've often wondered if she has insurance for the family. At one time Jon may have qualified for coverage through his work, but that wouldn't be the case with a new job. With Obamacare, it'll be easier for her to get insurance if they're not already covered though.

Tucker's Mom said...

High Sodium Content said... 190
Tucker's Mom - do you love those NH beaches or the State Liquor stores? LOL
*
I believe Marie was referring to NH.
I grew up in PA where there's State Stores or Wine and Spirit Shops as they're called now. What a pain in the arse!
I guess every state has it's arcane systems.

We do have protections on our credit cards, but I'll tell you, modern technology allows them to monitor each account for deviations that throw up flags.
It's comforting to know.

Bitchy Pants said...

IIRC, Jon said recently that he doesn't have internet at home, or TV, because he's not home much and when the kids are there, they actually spend time together. He's working 2 jobs now. He wasn't working 2 jobs when he did the round table interview. Maybe he just dropped his internet? As Admin has said, it's possible to have access and not have formal "internet". I don't have an internet provider, but I have an Iphone with 4G, a Kindle with 3G, and a Kindle FIre with 4G. I also live near a public hotspot, so I can pick up wifi at home most of the time. I'm very untechie and I've managed to set up streaming video and Apple TV (which I dropped after a couple of months. It's not worth the additional charge when I can get most of it on HULU or Netflix or Amazon Instant).

Bitchy Pants said...

Re banks and cards -- I'm a bookaholic and I'm addicted to my Kindle. Last year, one of my favorite author's entire backlist was released and Amazon had nearly all the books on sale one day for $.99 and $1.99. Many of the books had been OOP for years, so I jumped at the chance to get them on my Kindle. He was a VERY prolific writer. After about 15 purchases of $.99 and $1.99, I got a call from my bank telling me that there was suspicious activity going on because there had been numerous charges in a short period of time. I had to assure them that I was the one making the charges and that there would likely be more before I was done. That's the only time there's been questionable activity on my card, AFAIK. Also -- lesson learned. Now I buy Amazon gift cards and download them to my Amazon account!

Paula said...

There are some days that I head to Starbucks after work just to rewind. Not a fan of their coffee, but I just like the ambiance and have met a few interesting people along the way. A few months back I struck up a conversation with a woman that I had, and do, see at Starbucks quite often. She is truly a single Mom (Dad long gone out of the picture). She has to really watch the budget, so she has no internet service at home, nor a land phone line. She checks her personal email from her work computer during the day and hits Starbucks at night to relax and use their wi-fi. I think with this recent economic downturn people have really learned how to "re-work" their spending. It's really amazing.

Anonymous said...

Admin, gotta say, amazing post about the lawsuit and the mug sites. That was one of the best 2 topics you have ever written about, and you explained everything in perfect detail regarding both subjects. Very impressive indeed.

Anonymous said...

My heart breaks for the poor little rich kids. ha! ex N

Anonymous said...

Mil, can I have your phone number? lol You are a good friend to have around! You and admin are 2 smart "woman's!" :) Good posts. You too boo for the hard work. It is much appreciated.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Ohio Buckeye, I've picked your football game to watch today! Should be great.

Anonymous said...

In one of the J&K Shows, TFW said her kids had that state insurance that all kids have. It is federal. Kids will always have cheap or free insurance in MOST states. Adults are the ones who pay and pay and pay,

She has insurance. She can afford it. Self pay or otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Admin, please remind / explain to the posters that a civil trial is only a preponderance of evidence. They have criminal on the brain which is normal.

Hoosier Girl said...

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 18
Ohio Buckeye, I've picked your football game to watch today! Should be great.
_________

I think I'll join you ladies. I thought if I drank enough I could watch my Boilers this season, but there's not enough alcohol in the world ... Egads it's been UGLY!

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Anonymous are you talking about CHIP? I am not familiar with PA's options for insurance for kids other than that. I have noticed that she has never seemed to sweat about insurance. When you look at CHIP's premiums, they are pretty cheap and if she makes less than 130,000 a year it's subsidized because she has so many kids.

She will never acknowledge it but there are MANY things where having a large number of kids is actually a tremendous advantage. Those include college scholarships and loan opportunities and, as here, health insurance, among others.

Molly12 said...

OT: I know there are a lot of animal lovers on this site so thought I would share this video. It is hilarious.

Cats Stealing Dog Beds (sorry, not sure how to make clickable)

http://now.msn.com/cats-steal-dog-beds-over-and-over-in-viral-video#scpshrjmd

Anonymous said...

Bitchy Pants said... 13 Ha!
=-
I purchased gas in a crime area. High crime area at that. It was an emergency due to my forgetfulness, looking down and seeing that dang light on and going into panic mode.

I put the card in the slot at the pump, pulled it out, and fraud services started blowing up my phone. Less than 10 seconds later. It is a hassle if you never received one of those calls. Now, I have gift cards too.

AnnieD said...

O/T - Toka, Thika and Iringa, three aging elephants from the Toronto Zoo, are midway through a 50-hour move to their new home at the PAWS sanctuary in California. No more Canadian winters to endure! Our city council made the right decision. Wishing them safe travel. http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/elephants/

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

The standard of proof depends on what the statute has specified is the standard. Actually for many civil actions the standard is more than preponderance. It can be clear and convincing. I don't know what the standard is for these particular allegations. It may be preponderance, not sure. I don't have good access to Lexis or other good legal search programs other than CA cases.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Anonymous I had a similar experience after I bought some plants at a nursery in a part of town I don't usually go to, except for their great nursery. I got a phone call and email fraud alerts as I was driving home and it was very distracting to be at the wheel and be told such things. Then I had to spend time calling them and explaining no there is no fraud it's me.

I understand the fraud protection and how terrible it can be if someone steals your ID but it's got a lot of perfecting before they get it right and calls like that can be disruptive when there is nothing wrong.

Anonymous said...

Admin it is the one like Peach State for kids, but some of the money used to fund is Fed.

And JG mentioned the kids had insurance already when he was giving his E and other across the board interviews. He was asked something about, are you paying their insurance?

Somehow someone a lifetime ago stated that TLC did not pay any benefits, and in RH book, I don't recall a contract or email for that, unless he is holding back or I missed it.

But on dental, Kate was saying how much she had to pay for braces, and dental, so I dunno about the dental plans.

Kate, if this is wrong, please don't sue me, lol

Only recalling what I heard. IMO.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Actually I was just thinking about CHIP and I wonder how it works if you are divorced. Because strategically speaking, Jon should do all the insurance for the kids through him. Then it would probably be free. The income level is so high when you have 8 kids. It's six figures! I'm sure Kate has probably finagled something like this where it's free. That way the buckets of money she makes doing things like CWS won't hurt her premiums.

Anonymous said...

Arghhhh, I would give anything to be able to access the Judicial or the dockets sites! There are a few active cases I want to read about now.

One is sealed. Only part of it is unsealed, and talk about frustrating. lol

They are like suspense novels, they only give you teasers, and then you are left hanging. LOL

Anonymous said...

Admin 25 ...my bad you are right on. Give someone a CJ degree, they think they know it all. lol

Anonymous said...

The "you need a cast" cable company- because they will break you, and they are not loyal to customers is too high and does not work well.

Don't steal my quote competitors A T & _ lol

Can you imagine how funny a commercial would be using this? A man all broken up in a body cast, pouting on Sunday, because he is broke and can't pay the high bill?

The bundle commercial for Vont age is so real. The couple with the baby is so funny. "Honey we need to get rid of the bundle." lol

They start you off at teaser rates $99, and then you end up paying almost $200, a month for phone, internet and TV. What a ripoff. And that is just for BASIC. Like someone posted above, $300, in the norm now.

I agree, people should cut it off and do what they have to do for cheaper rates. I am looking now. $2400 + a year is ridiculous for things that have been around for years like tv and phone.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Regarding cutting cable and other things people are doing to not be a slave to all our bills, you might really enjoy a blog I love called Mr. Money Mustache.

He takes it to an extreme degree and what he does is not for everyone, but you can cherry pick some of his best ideas. He has posts on how to get much cheaper cell phone plans, and his big thing is downsizing his life and focusing only on relationships. He advocates some pretty radical stuff, like don't watch the news. He says the news is skewed and that it creates unnecessary fear in people, since in a population as huge as ours most tragedies only happen to but a tiny, tiny fraction of that.

Anyway he is a cable cutter and air conditioner cutter and downsizer and vegetarian (it's simply cheaper he says)--I think it's fascinating to watch him go through the journey of this alternative lifestyle. To add to that, he is a fantastic writer, funny, and sounds like a guy you'd like to have a beer with.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

I forgot who is paying 300 bucks a month but I would start by calling your cable company and threatening to leave. You'd be surprised how fast that bill is chopped in half.

Second, consider taking cable down to bare bones or getting rid of it and then buying a roku box or something similar and buying the series you watch on iTunes and getting Hulu. Unless you watch a TON of T.V. this is going to be cheaper. A season pass to an entire series is usually only 30 bucks.

I'm on a free HBO/Showtime deal right now, however when it expires in a few months I'm going to cut it out. All the movies they show I can get from Netflix, and of the few series I watch it is still cheaper to just buy them on iTunes.

Ally said...

OT..
I saw a commercial this morning for a new reality show called "Scrubbing In". It's on MTv. That should be all I need to say. It looked like jersey shore in the nursing world. I was horrified. Being in the profession it felt like it was being cheapened. They claim its a documentary type show about 9 travel nurses set up in orange county California. They are claiming they are experts in their field, yet they are only 20 something's. How much "expertise" could they have at that age? Five of them were friends from Pittsburgh. One of the nurses stated she wanted to show what nursing is really like to eliminate "Greys Anatomy" stereotypes! Is she serious? If I want serious medical reality tv I'll watch discovery health, not MTv! The preview looked just like jersey shore except these girls are filmed in a hospital. There was yelling, nudity and obnoxious behavior. How did a hospital agree to this? How about the patients. It's a hospital where sick people go to get better, not a television studio. How about HIPPA? This isn't a one time deal, it's a series. To me this cheapens and demeans nursing and the sanctity of medicine for reality television. How much more wrong can it get?? Any thoughts?

There was a quote I heard that I'm peddling because it fits how I feel right now. " Social media is breeding the most antisocial generation in history!"

Anonymous said...

Over in TFW Country may know the name of that plan, but it is not the one on the sliding pay scale or through Medicaid or DEFACS. There is another one that is just for kids, but not sure how it works in her area. It could be the one who are speaking of, not sure.

However, if she is claiming all 8, count em 8, that is so funny every time it is said, of she has big deductions, and she has a lot of write offs and shell accounts then...well..you know, the sky is the limit.

With a good accountant and a little finagling, she could be getting state and federal benefits for her kids. Rich people do it all the time. And get by with it. cough cough Octo lady.

Formerly Duped said...

AnnieD said... 25
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OT: Thanks, it's about time! I am a real elephant enthusiast and activist. Circuses and zoos are not the right place for elephants, but getting these ones out of the cold winters in Toronto ( I am from there originally) to CA is the humane thing to do!

Anonymous said...

Seriously, do any of you think that the attorneys aren't seeing this too?
====

Oh they see it! ROFLMAO

Both of them are pee pee n in the wind with tall tales and um's and code talk, and spit'n and sputter'n LOL

Place your bets place your bets on which side (attorney) will become more frustrated first! The um's, and and um, and um side, or the I change my story often side, but this is the real deal now, I promise it is, I have Epiphany's now, you have to believe me.

Ok admin, I will behave now, but YOU know it is true and phunny.

Anonymous said...

AnnieD said... 25
#iheartelephants

Suzy said...

Did she really include a link to a Radar Online article as PROOF about Jon, Robert and the book on Amazon?!? Radar is a rag website! I wouldn't consider Radar to be an authority on people's lives.

Suzy

Anonymous said...

Suzy said... 39
Did she really include a link to a Radar Online article as PROOF about Jon, Robert and the book on Amazon?!? Radar is a rag website! I wouldn't consider Radar to be an authority on people's lives.

Suzy
-------

ROFLMAO Come and get ur popcorn!

Anonymous said...

Hey, do you think we can get TMZ to do a live coverage inside and outside the court room? LOL

Blowing In The Wind said...

And, IF Jon then said he didn't, when he actually does, that would be a silly thing to lie about. I am not arguing--I was defending my position and backing it up with logic and evidence. You are all, of course, free to make your own interpretations. Seriously, do any of you think that the attorneys aren't seeing this too? Jon needs to stick to one story.

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

Maybe he IS sticking to one story, and your timeline and interpretation of internet or no internet is off. Lots of variables there.

Suzy said...

Another comment about the lawsuit, why is she constantly mentioning about how they because famous, had a show on TLC, and a divorce that was played out with the public (think about her announcement on the show which came off fake to me). What does TLC have to do with the lawsuit. Their lawyers having the book pulled due to their trade secrets & contracts published aren't even mentioned in it. I got the feeling she is saying 'look at me, I'm famous! And I had a show!'

Suzy

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

I was defending my position and backing it up with logic and evidence

&&&


So was everyone. There's no need to say things are being said based on logic and evidence. I assume everyone here is being logical and examining the evidence.

It is equally logical to point out the many ways that many, many people these days have figured out EASY ways to have things in their home that used to be you could only get with a DSL connection. We're a phone based, download at Starbucks-based society now and people are cutting their cable and internet. However it's not because people have decided they'd prefer to live like Swiss Family Robinson and have no TV and internet at all. It's because we've found OTHER ways to get the same or similar entertainment without paying an arm and a leg for it through traditional means. Times are a-changing. I think everyone should stick to the same story, but I also think that slight variations are really inconsequential or easily explained. The only reason they are pointed out so much with Kate is because of her long and pervasive history of lying. This woman will lie about the color of the sky. No one else in this saga, whether on Kate's side or not, shares such a history and thus they don't deserve the same treatment. If Kate was a truthful person I wouldn't bat an eyelash if she said she had a kidney stone or anything else she says just like I don't bat an eyelash when a truthful person says I have no internet but we get youtube.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Suzy I forgot to comment on that when you first brought it up but I so agree. There is no point to even saying I have eight kids much less oh by the way I had a TV show look at me I was on TV so much!

Being on T.V. has NOTHING to do with this lawsuit. It really does read like she's trying to use her celebrity status to her advantage or at the very least just loves to make mention of how famous she thinks she is. What's funny is that being famous doesn't help this lawsuit at all. It actually makes it harder to prove when it comes to defamation and privacy! If she were SMART she would DOWNPLAY her fame. She would emphasize how she's retreated to private life more or less now and that that's why this is so very egregious to suddenly have this all dug up and thrown at her. If she's going to cry privacy, I would be emphasizing up and down how private things are now. But it's Kate and she doesn't think more than 1 chess move ahead.

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

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 33
Regarding cutting cable and other things people are doing to not be a slave to all our bills, you might really enjoy a blog I love called Mr. Money Mustache.

He takes it to an extreme degree and what he does is not for everyone, but you can cherry pick some of his best ideas. He has posts on how to get much cheaper cell phone plans, and his big thing is downsizing his life and focusing only on relationships. He advocates some pretty radical stuff, like don't watch the news. He says the news is skewed and that it creates unnecessary fear in people, since in a population as huge as ours most tragedies only happen to but a tiny, tiny fraction of that.

Anyway he is a cable cutter and air conditioner cutter and downsizer and vegetarian (it's simply cheaper he says)--I think it's fascinating to watch him go through the journey of this alternative lifestyle. To add to that, he is a fantastic writer, funny, and sounds like a guy you'd like to have a beer with.
______________________

Thanks for the info on the Mr. Money Mustache blog. I'm going to check it out now. Sounds like my kind of guy.

I agree wholeheartedly about the news skewing their stories. Fear and tragedy get the rating$. I don't need that in my life.

Since I eliminated cable I haven't missed it at all. I love Netflix. When I had cable I didn't have the plan with the "good" channels anyway. I was paying $55 a month for mostly nothing. My next move is to eliminate my land line. My biggest problem is I'm always forgetting to charge the battery so I'll have to get in the habit of doing that.

Anonymous said...

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 42

Ok, you are so right on in that post.

BUT, he has a phone. True? His phone receives wifi and it is free when you are in a free area, or in range or if you pay a small fee to use.

In IT speaking language, yes, JG, you have, ley word, ACCESS, to internet. But maybe not from a cable company or maybe not hard wired in his home.

HE was too quick to make sure in every recent mention of him, tv, radio, or print interview or article, that it was WELL known, he lives in a cabin with NO internet?

Come on, that sounds odd to even the dumbest person on the planet, given his tech field, stah in his head status, and ego.

Nope, not buying it either...................................Dat man got internet. IMHO

Now, with that being said, I personally would never believe that JG, who loves attention, and who HAD alerts (HG & ROL Articles) on his phone, every time someone posted his name or an article about him on one of the rag sites went up, he would know about it immed!

He does have access to some form of internet as of this minute or in days past.
=========
Y'all Ex nurse is doing good, get off her please.

Suzy said...

Admin, it does read that way doesn't it? In one part of the lawsuit under 'factual allegations' the first thing she says is in April 2007, she and her husband became celebrities after giving birth to six children in additional to their previous 2 children. In total they had 8 children. Apparently, that status is VERY important to her. Remember she said she filed it for the sake and safety of the children. Well where is the danger mentioned in the lawsuit then? Also she says the hacking had contiuned, meaning it is still happening To THIS DAY?

We'll I'm sure April 2007 refers to the first show aired on TLC. They actually were on the news back in 2004. But that doesn't matter to her. It's all about the show. I kinda had to laugh when she laid it out that they had 6 children in additional to 2 bringing total to 8. Get over it! I swear I don't know if she ever get tired of playing the 8 kids card. It's gonna get old once they become adults.

Anonymous said...

Many cities and counties are giving everyone free WiFi now. FREE! Phone or computer. There may be a fee for PC or laptop after free trial offer is over, but phone, I-pad ect will always be free!

Anonymous said...

I have been here too long! Got to go! So skeered it is going to be gone when I come back! LOL Too good of stuff to leave.

This will be bigger than the Anna N case, before she left us, if that is possible.

RIP AN DL is beautiful.

AuntieAnn said...

I'm sure Kate has probably finagled something like this where it's free. That way the buckets of money she makes doing things like CWS won't hurt her premiums.

====

I'm sure she has too. The woman is a bloodhound when it comes to sniffing out freebies and grifting and hand-outs (oh my!). If she really wants to be an author she should quit publishing books about things she hasn't got a clue about (like cooking) and write one on something she's proficient at. Grifting for Dummies.

Oh and the amended complaint still sounds like Rainman is her lawyer. "At some point in time, Jon Gosselin and tabloid reporter Robert Hoffman became close friends." What the heck is that supposed to mean? What a waste of the courts. Kate just finished a book tour that made her look ridiculous. She should sue herself.

Let's Get the Facts Straight Please said...

Meagler said... 3

The fact of the matter remains, and can not be hidden no matter how fancy TFW's lawyers try to make that response ( and let me tell ya it aint fancy) , but not nce, no where in that statement did I hear any claim that......

any of the leaked or illegally obtained information was FALSE!!!!

No where does TFW say that!!!

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

Actually, that is not the "fact of the matter." Stating something in capital letters with multiple exclamation points does not make it true.

From the amended complaint:

"36. Hoffman's book contained defamatory and untrue information about Kate Gosselin, along with information that painted Kate in a false and negative light."

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...


I agree wholeheartedly about the news skewing their stories. Fear and tragedy get the rating$. I don't need that in my life.

&&&

Yes exactly. He got attacked for saying that and he responded by saying I'm not saying to be apathetic to what is going on in the world or be selfish. I'm saying that it's better for our mental health to focus on what we can do locally and not worry so much about the many bad things that happen every day. His ideas cannot be taken as an excuse to suddenly say oh well I can "check out" from the world like someone like Kate. THat's not what he's saying.

So instead of watching story after story about poverty or wars, volunteer locally with charities that promote peace and helping the poor.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say his ideas are radical yet very thought provoking. I know I used to be a news junkie but I have been limiting myself to just reading in the morning and getting my CNN news alerts. I don't think I "worry" as much about the news as perhaps I have before.

Over In TFW's County said...

Oh and the amended complaint still sounds like Rainman is her lawyer. "At some point in time, Jon Gosselin and tabloid reporter Robert Hoffman became close friends."

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

How close? Were they friends before, but not close? Were they beer-drinking buddies, hail fellow well met, or just knew each other to casually say hello while pumping gas and getting coffee at Turkey Hill?

I'm surprised they didn't put the number of spilled toothpicks at the bottom of the complaint. Twenty minutes to Wapner, and boxers at Kmart.

Kate is a twit said...

Oh and the amended complaint still sounds like Rainman is her lawyer.
---------------

Auntie Ann-I sure does! I think my favorite line in the whole complaint is #12. "Kate learned of Jon’s unauthorized access only after it had occurred."

Isn't that a given? How would she have learned of somethngbefore it occurred, if it hadn't happened yet? Unless, of course, one of her helpers is a psychic.

Over In TFW's County said...

So was everyone. There's no need to say things are being said based on logic and evidence. I assume everyone here is being logical and examining the evidence.

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

Then, of course, there are the sheeple who wouldn't know if logic and evidence hit them in their faces. I swear, I had never seen a group anywhere that had no critical thinking skills whatsoever, even if on the most rudimentary level. Then they came along...

Chippy said...

Here's the income chart for the PACHIP program. Any PA resident, regardless of income can buy CHIP for their kids. Your income and family size determines what you pay. I would guess that Kate probably qualifies for the full cost option @ $200/mo. per kid. Eligibility is reevaluated every year and it's a fairly detailed process.


http://www.chipcoverspakids.com/assets/media/pdf/chip_income_chart_2013.pdf

Over In TFW's County said...

Did she really include a link to a Radar Online article as PROOF about Jon, Robert and the book on Amazon?!? Radar is a rag website! I wouldn't consider Radar to be an authority on people's lives.

Suzy

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

I know, Suzy! I laughed when I read that in the complaint, thinking of how many times they got things wrong, going way back to not even being able to identify the kids and what they were wearing in photos. I'm surprised they didn't include articles from Dirty Laundry, TMZ, among others, as proof that Robert knew what he was doing was illegal. It's nuts.

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

Admin, I was a news junkie for eons. The TV went first thing in the morning for my daily dose of doom and gloom, I listened to talk radio to and from work, news went on as soon as I got home from work.

When I decided to retire early and be as much in charge of my life as is possible, besides leaving my job and the lunatic in charge of the company I worked for, I stopped listening to all the news and talk shows. Each station has it's agenda. Much of what is reported is incorrect, much is hysteria and hyperbole. Now I read the headlines on the internet, take it with a grain of salt, try and be charitable when people suffer through devastating extremes of nature and then go out and get some air.

Kate's timeline is a disaster, btw. Kate tweeted a couple of times last night and only about three people tweeted in reply. There's a weird bot that has completely taken over. Seems appropriate what with the cookbook fail and her ridiculous lawsuit.

Over In TFW's County said...

Kate Gosselin ‏@Kateplusmy8 52s
YES!XO RT @MiloandJack: @Kateplusmy8 1thing on my2do list..search thru #LoveIsInTheMix &pick whats 4supper here 2day!It will b healthy&good!

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

How about opening up some cans of beans and pouring 10 pounds of melted cheese over them? What about that salty stir-fry? YUM! Delish!

Or, maybe just set a large shaker of Mortons on the table?

Paula said...

My story is similar. I used to be a CNN junkie - until they stopped being about news. Now, I read my local newspaper online for my cal updates and listen to NPR when I'm in the car. I'll still check in to CNN for major news stories, but other than that I have gone news-free.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

I think it's funny they are trying to say Robert and Jon are friends. So what? You can conspire with someone who is your friend and you can conspire with someone who is not your friend. As to the facts in this case their friendship couldn't be more irrelevant. She's friends with Steve. That doesn't prove she and Steve ever did anything illegal.

There is also no crime in and of itself to talk to a reporter or helping someone with a book. People do it all the time. She has it in her head there is this big plot to take her down and yet fails to explain what was illegal about it. She doesn't LIKE what she thinks might have happened, I get that. But that's not "illegal."

Kate is a twit said...

Kate Gosselin ‏@Kateplusmy8 13m
If you're tired of making the same old things for dinner, check out my website->details on how 2 get my NEW cookbook! http://www.kateplusmy8.com

Sales must be pretty bleak, because NOW without provocation she's promoting the cookbook. Only problem is that when you go to the main page, her pre-order post isn't there because she never brought it forward after her last 2 posts. OOPS!!

AuntieAnn said...

What this lawsuit is doing is really showing that she can't do anything without her kids or her ex in some form or another. She's clutching at straws to keep her name out there.

"I'm not going to be ignored, Dan".

Anonymous said...

URL/url said... 197
You seem to really, really want the Does to be RWA posters.
======================================

Whoa, anonymous, take it down a notch. There's no conspiracy going on here. We're just discussing things like adults.

I appreciate Ex Nurse's insights. I've read over the posts from today and people feel pretty strongly about things. I thought Ex Nurse was polite and concise.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Other posters called her "silly" and asked her to "give them a break." No one asked them to take any notches down.

I was simply stating pure fact. I for sure stated it in adult fashion and without chiding her. It has been firmly established that the 20 Jon and Jane Does are reserved for any persons identified during the discovery process who may have collaborated with Robert. This has been explained with.. ahem... "logic and reason" over and over again over the last two months. Each time, Ex-Nurse chimes in with how this could still include the RWAers, going as far as to find PA statutes which could still pull them in. These are her own actions, how am I attacking her by pointing them out? It just irks me that she seems to want to see their 1st Amendement rights to be infringed upon, while having her own rights fully protected to post here about Kate. I don't get it.

Celebrities get very little latitude with the courts when their wittle feelwings get hurt when someone calls them a poopoo head. Not alot of sympathy is there for people who scratch, claw and fight to be a public figure. The only real bar they have for suing for defamation is if the alleged defamation interfered with employment. Note how Kate has mentioned that the book and her bullies "have cost her jobs." She knows the language. And she can say it until the cows come home, but realistically, how can she sue thousands of individuals for her inability to get work? Especially when she just got done telling People and several radio and TV hosts how she knows she was difficult and unappreciative of her own good fortune?

As the Teen Mom in TX found out, you don't get to sign up to be a public figure, then complain and try to punish people when they talk about you. You don't. Which brings me to Ex Nurse's comment that there must be some substance to Kate's suit or Razzy wouldn't have taken it. Some lawyer took the Teen Mom's suit, even though TX has solid SLAPP laws and her suit was a definite SLAPP suit. Razzy himself said he has no problem taking a rich douchebag's money if they really want to sue. A lawyer must honestly tell their client what their chances of success are. It is the decision of the client whether to proceed or not. Some lawyers will choose not to take a case, not wanting their name tied to an embarrassing stinker. I guess Razzy, who is the author of some outlandish and x-rated tweets, really doesn't care.

AuntieAnn said...

Fear and tragedy get the rating$.

====

Even the weather network goes for the catastrophic.

Their new "force of nature" feature makes it appear as if the world is about to spin off it's axis and go whirling off into oblivion.
Just the forecast please, as inaccurate as it usually is. Leave out the editorial.

PatK said...

Kate tweeted earlier about her big "to do" list for today. I guess tweeting like a maniac is #1 on the list.

marie said...

Admin, BV tried to make you a conspirator because Robert attended some function at the college you attended, so I guess they see conspiracy everywhere they look. Soon Shoka will be conspiring against TFW.

Marie

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...


If you're tired of making the same old things for dinner

&&&


LOL that' s so funny because if I had to describe her book it would be "the same old things for dinner." Unoriginal.

jolie Jacquelyn said...

Rule #1

Do not use Anonymous. Pick a name...

Millicent said...

Just for the record, I do not believe any people who posted on any blogs will be pulled in as Doe defendants in TFW's lawsuit. If any are named, it will not be because they posted on any blog, but rather because during discovery, TFW's attorney thinks he has found a connection between some unknown person and either Robert or Jon, who allegedly colluded with either of them to ruin TFW's reputation and thus make her unmarketable and unable to find work. The fact that they might have also been a blog poster would probably be irrelevant. This lawsuit is not about people saying mean things about TFW on blogs.

Bitchy Pants said...

Marie 66, Of course Shoka conspired against TFMJG. He conspired with Nala to growl and bear teeth at her. Unfortunately, only Nala was caught at it.

Anonymous 63 -- Your posts might get more respect and consideration IF YOU WOULD JUST PICK A NAME! I don't know about the other posters here, but I don't give any credence to anyone who can't be bothered to follow the rules of the blog.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Marie, exactly. They completely lost credibility when they pulled that particular conspiracy out of their butts.

It goes without saying I have never met Robert in my life much less at my school. I don't think this show was even going on when I was in school. I remember watching it after the Bar, AFTER school. LOL! So don't expect me to buy the many other conspiracies they have cooked up when they cooked up one about me and since I'm the person actually IN that "conspiracy" I know for a fact it's ridiculous and not true.

Millicent said...

Ex Nurse said... 177

I just find it really hard to believe that this would progress this far if the grounds were absolutely trumped up and baseless and the timeline ends in 2009.
****
While I can see why you think this way (because it's reasonable), that's unfortunately not how lawsuits work. It is up to the defendant(s) to file appropriate motions if they think the lawsuit has no merit. This is quite a procedure, as courts are unwilling to dismiss lawsuits unless they have very clear and convincing proof there is absolutely zero merit or no way to prove up the allegations.

Again, the discovery phase is where a lot of stuff comes to light - either the fact that the plaintiff has a very weak case, or perhaps that the defendant has some liability, etc. We won't see that part - it's not part of the public record.

Lawsuits can drag on for years. We had one in our office that lasted over 3 years from the date of filing. In the end, both defendants got out on motions for summary judgment. But it took 3 years, lots of attorney time and expense, and the best result was that the defendants got to walk away with no recompense for the cost of their attorneys. Just a court dismissal of the action. Ultimately, the lawsuit had no merit, but it was not a quick process to reach that point.

So the fact that TFW's lawsuit has not been summarily dismissed by the court does not mean, in any way, that there is any merit to her lawsuit. It just means that the lawsuit is proceeding in the normal fashion of these types of lawsuits.

Over And Out said...

Sara Harmon ‏@sharmon1999 56m
@Kateplusmy8 would love to get your cookbook but its not available at any stores here unfortunately. Where can I get a copy?

Tweeter is in Kentucky, not overseas in a remote village in the Alps. Good gawd...haven't these people ever heard about Amazon or B&N online? Head banging time...

Remona Blue said...

Blowing In The Wind said... 40
''Jon needs to stick to one story.''
----------------------
''Maybe he IS sticking to one story, and your timeline and interpretation of internet or no internet is off. Lots of variables there.''
~~~~~~~
BITW....I take out the ''maybe'' and agree with the rest of your comment. I think that some people confuse opinion with fact. No matter how firm your opinion is, that still doesn't make it a fact. Logic fails when your thinking begins with a false assumption.

I echo other posters, Anonymous. Do we have one very very chatty anonymous, or some sort of anonymous double/triple-teaming of the blog today? PICK A NAME AND STICK WITH IT!!

Ampersmom said...

I had a thought, - Maybe the accounts WOS is accusing Jon still hacking are the trust funds for the kids. Since each child is suppose to have their own trust fund, that would create the multiple accounts that Jon is accused of hacking. Maybe WOS wants to block Jon from being able to "look" at those accounts so she can do as she pleases. Just a thought.

Anonymous said...

Millicent said... 70
Just for the record, I do not believe any people who posted on any blogs will be pulled in as Doe defendants in TFW's lawsuit. If any are named, it will not be because they posted on any blog, but rather because during discovery, TFW's attorney thinks he has found a connection between some unknown person and either Robert or Jon, who allegedly colluded with either of them to ruin TFW's reputation and thus make her unmarketable and unable to find work. The fact that they might have also been a blog poster would probably be irrelevant. This lawsuit is not about people saying mean things about TFW on blogs.

===============================
A few people were concerned that the does were blog posters who she would try to name in the suit.

76

Over And Out said...

Their new "force of nature" feature makes it appear as if the world is about to spin off it's axis and go whirling off into oblivion.
Just the forecast please, as inaccurate as it usually is. Leave out the editorial.

-----

You got that right. I learned a long time ago not to trust them for a forecast. I do the "before-the-Weather-Channel" thing. Stick my head out the window. If it comes back in with ice crystals, it's cold. If it comes back in wet, it's raining; if it comes back in with sweat, it's hot; if it comes back in with snow on my eyelashes, it's snowing; if it doesn't come back in at all, it's windy.

Anonymous said...

Hey! There is more than 2 or 3 anony posting ladies! It is not the same person! Stop barking at them. woof woof Don't run them off like you run your mouth, you have no idea who you are being bitchy too. Jeeze so what? The rule gets broke ..focus < >

200

handinhand said...

Or, maybe just set a large shaker of Mortons on the table?
-----------------------------------
LOL that' s so funny because if I had to describe her book it would be "the same old things for dinner."
-----------------------------------------------------
Comments today are cracking me up.

Rhymes with Witch said...

Now, with that being said, I personally would never believe that JG,
who loves attention, and who HAD alerts (HG & ROL Articles) on his
phone, every time someone posted his name or an article about him on one of the rag sites went up, he would know about it immed! 47

You know this how?
******************

Or, maybe just set a large shaker of Mortons on the table? 58

I'm a Diamond Crystal gal, myself.
******************

OT for readers and elephant lovers: I highly recommend "Water for Elephants."

Anonymous said...

OT...hope for phone-addicted teens, or tweens

My dd has removed her iphone appendage.

she is !^ now, and is so over it, texts can wait.

So, stay strong, your kids will rejoin us living one day.

ps, she also switched school trip from Madrid to humanitarian trip in Equador.

ps. too proud

franky

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

You got that right. I learned a long time ago not to trust them for a forecast. I do the "before-the-Weather-Channel" thing. Stick my head out the window. If it comes back in with ice crystals, it's cold. If it comes back in wet, it's raining; if it comes back in with sweat, it's hot; if it comes back in with snow on my eyelashes, it's snowing; if it doesn't come back in at all, it's windy.

&&&

That's another thing I've scaled back on checking, the weather. I can get a good idea of what to wear when I take the dog out. If it's going to rain or storm someone will mention it. Unless you've got a wedding to go to outside obsessively checking the weather can be a real time suck.

rainbowsandunicorns said...

Kate's timeline is a disaster, btw. Kate tweeted a couple of times last night and only about three people tweeted in reply. There's a weird bot that has completely taken over. Seems appropriate what with the cookbook fail and her ridiculous lawsuit.

-----
-----

I saw that, Tweet-le De...what a mess. Who or what IS that thing? Then you have the 18-year-old with ADHD begging for a follow (person has tweeted a few hundred celebrities -- everyone from The Donald to Joan Rivers, asking the same thing). There's the author person who has been making a general pest of herself, as well as the ones who can't find the cookbook. It's a disaster. Then there's Milo to put the cherry on the sundae! What a group!

Rhymes with Witch said...

http://now.msn.com/cats-steal-dog-beds-over-and-over-in-viral-video#scpshrjmd
23

Molly12, my cat used to wash his face in the dog's water dish. Poor
dog was so puzzled. The cat also once unwrapped a cooked, foil wrapped chicken that was on top of the fridge, ate his share and gave the rest to the dog. The foil was all that remained.
(Glad neither choked).

p.s. After an unathorized use of my credit card, the company told me
that people often start with small amounts ($ 50 at 'Western Union)
before going on a spree.

rainbowsandunicorns said...

Logic fails when your thinking begins with a false assumption.

-----
-----

True. If you start with the assumption that Jon has is lying about not having internet because he couldn't have Apple TV without it (an example), then no matter how much logic you apply to make subsequent conclusions, your conclusions would be rendered invalid.

AuntieAnn said...

I'm surprised they didn't put the number of spilled toothpicks at the bottom of the complaint. Twenty minutes to Wapner, and boxers at Kmart.
====
lol! K-Mart in Cincinnati.
////
I think my favorite line in the whole complaint is #12. "Kate learned of Jon’s unauthorized access only after it had occurred."

Isn't that a given? How would she have learned of somethng before it occurred, if it hadn't happened yet? Unless, of course, one of her helpers is a psychic.
====

Yeah. WTH? I don't know if I'd want a lawyer who would represent me like that on paper. It sounds so childish. Tattle-tale-ish. So Kate verbatim-ish. Who wants that?

////

"Hoffman falsely claimed in certain publications that he recovered the data from Kate’s computer by digging through her trash that he found on the street. This demonstrates his knowledge that the materials were obtained illegally, as it is a sign of an attempt to cover up his unlawful activities. The materials in his possession could not possibly be physically found in paper format to that extent. If Hoffman was picking through trash on the street, he did not find this trove of personal information while engaging in his trash-picking endeavors. "

Did Robert actually say somewhere that he'd found material in paper format?

AuntieAnn said...

You got that right. I learned a long time ago not to trust them for a forecast. I do the "before-the-Weather-Channel" thing. Stick my head out the window.

====

Ha! I prefer to use the weather rock.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-o9_dRJVIyf0/UAaho78TEeI/AAAAAAAAGKQ/O89R7MTlBcI/s1600/WeatherRock.jpg

Formerly Duped said...

Rhymes with Witch said:
******************

OT for readers and elephant lovers: I highly recommend "Water for Elephants."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's a great book. Also The Nature of Jade by Deb Caletti.

LaLaLandNoMore said...

Does anyone here believe this might be "flat-out" dismissed? Jury Trial? How can this be taken seriously? In TFW's dreams, perhaps?
It is just sad, sad, sad that the woman must blame others for the ruination of her reputation. Any good shrink would tell TFW to "look in the mirror." She has not put in the work it would require to be a true television performer. Reality television might make money like crazy for a little while, but give me a long running series to watch any day over TFW's mess of a show. All the information the courts need are on those tapes. Surely this will all be dismissed without merit.

SCgal said...

OT - Can I ask you smart ladies a question? My cat-loving friend asked me to get her a plant, but asked that it please be non-toxic to cats. Can you give me suggestions on good hardy houseplants that won't harm cats? Thanks

Mel said...

My brother had his credit card cancelled because someone was making charges in the midle of the night to places in Zimbabwe.

Yep, he said. That was him. Planning their vacation. Zimbabwe being in the opposite time zone from us he had to make the charges during our night, their business hours. Pretty funny.

Nice to know they were on it though.

capecodmama said...

Over And Out...77 That was funny.I was drinking tea when I read your post. Fortunately for me, it went back into my mug and not over my computer.

I love when TFW says they became household names when they had the tups. I read my local newspaper, a Boston newspaper, watch different news channels and read online. I, however, had never heard of the Gosselins until March of 2008. My oldest daughter and I were at my youngest daughter's house and she had on TLC. A trailer of J&K+8 came on and my oldest daughter asked me if I watched the show. I said I'd never heard of it. She watched and said I might enjoy it so I started watching. As TLC was running reruns ad naseum, I caught up to speed pretty quick. By March 2009 I was done. My daughter was done sooner than me. Too bad TFW doesn't realize she's overdone.

Remona Blue said...

Ampersmom said... 76
''I had a thought, - Maybe the accounts WOS is accusing Jon still hacking are the trust funds for the kids. Since each child is suppose to have their own trust fund, that would create the multiple accounts that Jon is accused of hacking. Maybe WOS wants to block Jon from being able to "look" at those accounts so she can do as she pleases. Just a thought.''
~~~~~~~~~
I think your thought is a very interesting thought...probably because it meshes with the thought I've expressed for quite some time about TFMJG and her lawsuit.

It has long been my opinion that TFW's goal for the lawsuit was to strip Jon of his parental rights, in order to give her total control of his children AND their money.

fidosmommy said...

Tweeter is in Kentucky, not overseas in a remote village in the Alps. haven't these people ever heard about Amazon or B&N online? Head banging time...


*************
Kentucky's constitution and statutes forbid the purchase of Kate Gosselin books, DVDs, or the viewing of any TV show with Kate on it. It is, however, legal to listen to her on a radio show, but only in a soundproof basement shelter. I'm telling you, we Kentuckians are darn smart.

Bitchy Pants said...

SCgal -- Tell your friend to go to http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/animal-poison-control/ and scroll down the page to the toxic and non-toxic plants. On that page she can narrow the search to ones specific to cats, or plants that are non-toxic in general. I manage to kill about any plant in a week or less, but I do know that African Violets are non-toxic to cats. Also Rubber Plants. I usually just play it completely safe and have fabric plants, LOL.

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

Someone asked Kate if she'd be running the LV marathon this year, to which nosy Milo tweeted:

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 46m
@mchenryed @Kateplusmy8 That's a good question because she's recouping fr a broke foot right now! :( #WishingForMarathonInVegas
_______

Kate's done got a broke foot, eh? I guess dropping the gs doesn't make her sound ignorant enough.

And why is she wishing for a marathon in Vegas? She's not going.

Kate is a twit said...

And why is she wishing for a marathon in Vegas? She's not going.
---------------

Because Milo wants to play sports reporter again like she did for 2 of Kate's half-marathons. That way everyone's attention is on Milo and Kate.

Both McGibney and Randazzo are in Vegas. How come they haven't sponsored Kate to run the marathon?

Rhymes with Witch said...

And why is she wishing for a marathon in Vegas? She's not going 95

Some parents try to live their dreams through their children (think
pageant moms, etc). That's what Milo is reminding me of. Or TFW is
her alter ego. Whatever it is, it's disturbing.

I'm telling you, we Kentuckians are darn smart 93

Fido's, good for Kentucky! :)

Rhymes with Witch said...

Ah, sheeple language: recoup vs. recup. (erating).

Blowing In The Wind said...

Because Milo wants to play sports reporter again like she did for 2 of Kate's half-marathons. That way everyone's attention is on Milo and Kate.

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

Milo and Kate are two peas in a pod. Everything is about them.. Read Milo's tweets. Someone says something happened; Milo knows all about it. She can top it. No matter what the conversation is, Milo brings herself into it. It's a fascinating study in a histrionic personalities. I'd love to watch both of them in the same room at the same time, each outdoing the other with their stories.

Kate is a twit said...

I have a question for Admin and the other legal eagles here. Since Kate filed an amended complaint, do both Jon and Robert have to file an amended motion to dismiss? Since their motions were based on the original complaint, which has now been changed, would their original motions still be valid?

SCgal said...

Thanks Bitchy pants for the plant and site suggestions. : )

Let's throw tomatoes said...

Apparently Kate has only three of the kids with her this weekend. My thoughts are that she keeps the twins ( her best friends ) with her because she doesn't want to be alone. And she has one of the six, which I would bet it's Collin because she punishes him by not letting him go to Jon's with the rest of " the littles ". I would think that she is hesitant about physical abuse because of the book coming out and how she abused those kids!

She has said that the twins and Collin have stayed with her and wasn't there a picture of Collin organizing ( cleaning ) the garage on a weekend that Collin stayed behind.
Not going to Jon's and staying with her is cruel punishment.maybe more then physical pain!

Melissa NV said...

"Some parents try to live their dreams through their children (think
pageant moms, etc). That's what Milo is reminding me of. Or TFW is
her alter ego. Whatever it is, it's disturbing."


&&&&&&

I just wish that, before I depart this earth, we find out if Milo is a catfisher!

Melissa NV said...

Sasha Impun ‏@SashaImpun 7m
@Kateplusmy8 I need help knowing how to tell Cara & Mady apart?!

Egads. Why?

They look nothing alike. Nothing. Just when I think they can't be any more clueless, someone like this comes along.

And then there's Holly...

Holly Upton ‏@daisygirl2650 48s
@Kateplusmy8 I love you

Holly Upton ‏@daisygirl2650 4h
@Kateplusmy8 @dowd24 do you and your kids have chickens around your big home

Okay. Now this really is getting creepy. I know this person has developmental problems (bless her heart) and is most likely harmless, but still, "I will not be ignored, Dan" (thanks Auntie!) comes into mind...

NJGal51 said...

Today is only 19 October so why do Sears and Home Depot have their Christmas stuff out and on display already when it isn't even Haloween yet? What a world!

Melissa NV said...

And she has one of the six, which I would bet it's Collin because she punishes him by not letting him go to Jon's with the rest of " the littles ".

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

How do you know that she punishes Collin this way?

"Not going to Jon's and staying with her is cruel punishment.maybe more then physical pain!:

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

Perhaps the twins didn't want to go to Jon's; they were with friends or had extra-curricular school activities. I doubt that they would say that staying with her is worse than physical punishment if it were their choice not to go.

NJGal51 said...

@OBC_LosAngeles: @Kateplusmy8 We'd like to invite you to take part in Fun Fit LA 2014. Focused on family fitness/nutrition. Expect up to 10K. Interested?
========
Maybe they've read her book and realize that she needs to learn about nutrition. Hope someone tells them that TFW will only attend if all expenses are paid with a rider for her bodyguard. Airline tickets must be first class and don't forget the 5 star accommodations. She will also require a motorized scooter so that Steve can follow along and give her a lift should she tire.

Melissa NV said...

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 11m
U see this @Kateplusmy8 > Operation Boot Camp @OBC_LosAngeles We'd like 2invite U 2take part in Fun Fit LA 2014. Focus on family/fitness

Operation Boot Camp ‏@OBC_LosAngeles 3m
@msgoody2shoes21 @MiloandJack @mchenryed @Kateplusmy8-not run a 10k, want to promote cookbook to up to 10,000 families/kids in Los Angeles

Oops. Milo. You won't be announcin for that one! LOL!

Milo made the chili:

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 12m
@Kateplusmy8 Just finished off late dinner here...decided 2do ur Turkey/corn/white bean chilli fr #LoveIsInTheMix...its a keeper! Loved it!

Fired Up 4 Kate ‏@MiloandJack 11m
@Kateplusmy8 Was going 2take a pic of it..but somehow mine didn't look so exquisitely tasty as yours did in the book! But we gobbled it up!

Gee, I wonder why that was, Milo...possibly because a real cook made it, added ingredients that weren't in the recipe, just to make it look edible!

Organic said...

I took some time off from running. When I began again, the first place I lost weight was my breasts. And honestly because I love running, I was pleased, it makes it easier to run.
I cannot imagine choosing and paying to have my chest laden with silicone or saline bags. There is no way. I don't get it.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...


I have a question for Admin and the other legal eagles here. Since Kate filed an amended complaint, do both Jon and Robert have to file an amended motion to dismiss? Since their motions were based on the original complaint, which has now been changed, would their original motions still be valid?

&&&

I believe their original motion to dismiss would stand. I don't think they changed the allegations significantly enough to warrant a new motion to dismiss be filed. Remember a judge hasn't decided anything yet. The only thing that happened was Kate's side said okay okay we will let those other allegations go but we're still sticking with these ones. This is fights and negotiations among the attorneys themselves before they ever get the judge to make a decision.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

No matter what the conversation is, Milo brings herself into it. It's a fascinating study in a histrionic personalities. I'd love to watch both of them in the same room at the same time, each outdoing the other with their stories.

&&&

You know what the funny thing is? If Milo and Kate really knew each other in real life I'm betting anything they wouldn't like each other. They are way too much alike and way too competitive. They each need to be the star of the show and they would see each other as a threat. But because Milo has her right where she wants her the situation now works for her.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...


I love when TFW says they became household names when they had the tups

&&&

Agree. I think it was the divorce that made them household names.

Even in PA, I distinctly remember when they were born. However it was more like "that local family who has twins and sextuplets." I wouldn't have known the name Gosselin whatsoever unless someone said it, then I might remember it.

fidosmommy said...

Operation Boot Camp? Kate as a nutrition leader? What I wouldn't give to be a fidosmommy on the wall for that. Their exercise program and their food recommendations are very tough, even though not as awful as The Biggest Loser system.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

This demonstrates his knowledge that the materials were obtained illegally,

&&&

Is demonstration you KNEW your behavior was illegal an element for any of the causes of action? Because I sure don't see it, unless I missed it. I think you're liable whether you knew or not.

Because for many, many laws you are liable whether you knew what you were doing was illegal or not. Ignorance of the law is a defense that is RARELY permitted. For instance, you can't murder someone or steal something or many other things and say oh what I did was illegal? I didn't know!

Point being, why even bother to say such a thing when, if I'm correct, it's completely irrelevant? It's just padding.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...



True. If you start with the assumption that Jon has is lying about not having internet because he couldn't have Apple TV without it (an example), then no matter how much logic you apply to make subsequent conclusions, your conclusions would be rendered invalid.

&&&

Yes exactly. In logic games your original premise has to be air tight for the rest of the puzzle to work or the whole thing crumbles.

For example, saying it's always sunny when it doesn't rain and it didn't rain yesterday, therefore if you were out yesterday you got some sun is failed logic, because it's possible that when it's not raining, it's also not sunny.

That's kind of how I felt the "Jon is a liar" conversation was going yesterday. There are also some logical failures in Kate's briefs. One of them being, there were too many documents to throw out all in the trash, therefore Robert's story must be untrue. Well, that's a logical fallacy, since it's possibly to obtain documents in many other forms besides just a large stack of papers, and it's also possible to throw out many papers at once, even thousands.

There are a lot of logic puzzles and games online that are kind of fun to do sometimes that have things like this. Good for long car rides and good brain exercise and I think they even help with real world logical problems too and understanding why people say there are logical problems with what you may be saying.

Melissa NV said...

..."There's the author person who has been making a general pest of herself..."


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

Yes, indeed. Right on cue. Kate tweeted; she's pestering! lol!! She must have the app that alerts her when Kate signs on!

Nicole Gould ‏@nicolergould 3m
@Kateplusmy8 Hi Kate! did you get my email through your site?? Hope so!!! :)

I need a drink. Anyone for a Bloody Mary?

Melissa NV said...

For example, saying it's always sunny when it doesn't rain and it didn't rain yesterday, therefore if you were out yesterday you got some sun is failed logic, because it's possible that when it's not raining, it's also not sunny.

There are a lot of logic puzzles and games online that are kind of fun to do sometimes that have things like this. Good for long car rides and good brain exercise and I think they even help with real world logical problems too and understanding why people say there are logical problems with what you may be saying.

&&&&&&&&

Oh, gosh, admin. You're bringing back memories of contraposition. I hated those things in college, but it was part of a class on logics and there was no escaping it! I remember having dreams about those exercises and not being able to figure them out!

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...


Lawsuits can drag on for years. We had one in our office that lasted over 3 years from the date of filing. In the end, both defendants got out on motions for summary judgment.

&&&

I've had the same experience Millicent. It can be very frustrating. I've seen cases full of lies take, on average, 9 months to three years to finally get dismissed. I would not recommend the legal system to anyone to solve your problems. It is a method of last resort. And I wish you the best if anyone sues you even if their claims are total lies and bogus. You're probably in for a long ride regardless. There are sanctions available for lawsuits filed without merits, but they are rarely granted and that's just something that delays the case even MORE if you push for it. There are people out there who turn to the legal system for every little thing and there are many lawyers out there looking for work. Fortunately there aren't very many of these people, but there are enough where it's fair to say that there are many, many lawsuits filed all the time that have little to no merits. The thing is, in Kate's head, this has all the merits in the world. But that doesn't make it so from an objective standpoint and everyone else suffers for it while these sort of people truck forward so convinced of their cause.

Martha said...

I'm onside with "Let's ...tomatoes" logic, regarding the 3@home. Whereas the twins might choose to do so, if TFW has the power to preempt visits, she will do so: cruel and unusual punishment for your mediocre joe, but not TFW. Colin, as seen on TV, was subjected to her wrath, even as a toddler. She's upping the ante...she doesn't care who she hurts. Just so long as it's not her toe (foot, heck leg) or kidney. Her concerns are purely self-driven. In addition, I hope Milo unceasingly tweets TFW..she deserves her(him).

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

progress this far

&&&

On another note, this lawsuit hasn't progressed far at ALL. They haven't even had a pre trial conference yet. That's next week. That's usually your FIRST real court date and my experience with PTCs is that usually nothing happens. They haven't even gotten past preliminary motions to dismiss. Those will all have to be decided before anything happens.

This lawsuit is nowhere near progressing far whatsoever. It's in the early, infant stages.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Melissa lol. I kinda LIKED some of the logical puzzles for the LSAT.

I liked those ones where there were like 10 people with different colored food stands selling different things and then they give you a few clues like none of the men are selling hotdogs and Sally is selling a hamburger and Tim has a blue stand.

It was amazing how with a little head scratching you could figure out the entire thing with only a few scant clues. Kinda like Sudoko.

Melissa NV said...

Holly Upton ‏@daisygirl2650 1m
@Kateplusmy8 If you had me a birthday gift next month what would it be

&&&&&&&&&&&

Is she hinting for Kate to buy her a birthday gift? I'm not sure I understand what she's asking.

It's usually the other way around -- Kate tweets about birthdays and Christmas, and fans oblige and send her (and the kids) gifts.

Melissa NV said...

I liked those ones where there were like 10 people with different colored food stands selling different things and then they give you a few clues like none of the men are selling hotdogs and Sally is selling a hamburger and Tim has a blue stand.

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

Thanks, Admin...now I'm going to have dreams about not being able to figure out if Tim is selling hamburgers or hotdogs!

I was never able to do those in my head. I had to put everything on paper, and figure them out from there.

Amy2 said...

To any legal eagle, Will information discussed at the pre-trial meeting on Oct. 22 be available to the public? I have no knowledge of legal proceedings. That's for enlightening me.

Melissa NV said...

I'm onside with "Let's ...tomatoes" logic, regarding the 3@home. Whereas the twins might choose to do so, if TFW has the power to preempt visits, she will do so: cruel and unusual punishment for your mediocre joe, but not TFW. Colin, as seen on TV, was subjected to her wrath, even as a toddler.

&&&&&

This is a good example of what admin posted. Kate said THREE kids are home with her, and someone assumed it was the twins and Collin because she's been known to punish him. The premise is that Collin is at home; the conclusion is that he's being punished. However, the conclusion is based on an unverified premise because it is not known which ones are at home.

Moreover, what if one or more of the kids who are at home just isn't feeling well? That blows the whole punishment thing out of the water.

Amy2 said...

Good grief. That should have read "thanks", not "that's". Proof reading is important.

Sleepless In Seattle said...

I liked those ones where there were like 10 people with different colored food stands selling different things and then they give you a few clues like none of the men are selling hotdogs and Sally is selling a hamburger and Tim has a blue stand.

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

Wouldn't it be funny to give the sheeple one of those puzzles? Their answer would be that Tim is selling tacos because he doesn't have a vendor's license to sell burgers or hotdogs...or Tim isn't selling anything because it's raining and he stayed inside that day.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

Or Tim is wiretapping Sally's stand and he'll be the subject of a lawsuit before the day is out.

PatK said...

Yes, Kate, make sure you tweet that tomorrow is the dog's birthday so that your twitter account gets more tweet hits. Smart thinking!

As for the third child at home, I'm guessing it's one of the little girls whom she's already grooming to not want to be with dad. If it were a sick child, I'm sure she'd broadcast that fact to her tweeties for more sympathy tweets.

I think someone from that Operation Boot Camp needs to take a really close look at those recipes in the crookbook. Healthy and nutritious? Pffft.

Sleepless In Seattle said...

Or Tim is wiretapping Sally's stand and he'll be the subject of a lawsuit before the day is out.

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

Good one! Class action? Is anyone else involved? A conspiracy among the John and Jane Does? But wait a minute -- does he have internet access in his hot dog stand?

Remona Blue said...

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 125
''I liked those ones where there were like 10 people with different colored food stands selling different things and then they give you a few clues like none of the men are selling hotdogs and Sally is selling a hamburger and Tim has a blue stand.''
~~~~~~~~~~
I like those sort of things too. I can always figure them out, but have no idea why. I think it is because I am a linear thinker. Maybe. Then again, maybe not, because Sudoko is a total mystery to me. Maybe because Sudoko involves numbers which triggers my total absolute hatred of anything math?

Catching up....
Maybe the tweeter from Kentucky couldn't find the crookbook because all the stores have already sent the unsold ones back!

Robert not only said he found disks, but he said there were a LOT of papers and other things in the trash. He took it home, and took photos of it all, and said that he has not only the photos, but has every single thing he found. He also said that what he put in his book was a tiny portion of what he found in the trash. That is why Robert dared TFMJG to call him a liar, because he can prove every word in his book...plus a LOT more that he hasn't yet revealed.








































lukebandit said...

Does Tim have internet access in his hot dog stand! hahaha

Does kate have to show up at court for the first hearing on the lawsuit?

If Colin is actually there at home with kate, I feel really bad for him. I would think he would rather be with his dad than his mother. Someone said when Colin stayed behind one weekend, he was organizing the garage. I thought kate was the organization super wizard, so why didn't she do it herself?

Is she on purposely leaving him home with her because of the book about to come out and she can legally say, Colin prefers to stay with me instead of going to Jon's.

Cruel. Cruel. Cruel. Those poor kids what they have to go through.

Speaking of Suduko puzzles, I love them. You can get them at Dollar Tree for 1 dollar and why I love them is because they have a spiral binder on them and you can turn the page and do a puzzle on the back page without it being all twisting and having to hold it. The more difficult, the better. I got a book like this one time and it had all Suduko puzzles, but had a few that had a big X in the puzzle. You had to incorporate that X with Suduko and still not let any numbers on the same line. I could do those faster than the other Suduko's.

Then they had a few puzzles in there called "Killer". They were BLANK! with a little number in some of the squares. And that number did not belong in that square!

I call Quantum Physics on that. That's all I got to say about that!

Millicent said...

Amy2 said... 128

To any legal eagle, Will information discussed at the pre-trial meeting on Oct. 22 be available to the public? I have no knowledge of legal proceedings. That's for enlightening me.
****
My legal knowledge, as a non-attorney, is restricted to state courts, California in particular. What I know from that perspective is that usually the only information that is public, would be any documents filed in a particular court case. So for a hearing on a motion, the only thing that would be part of the public record would be the order on the motion.

In civil court, a tentative ruling is usually available online the day before, but those tentative rulings only stay up about a week or perhaps even less. Once a ruling is final, the party who brought the motion is usually tasked with preparing the Order, submitting it to the other side for their review, then submitting it to the judge for signature. Once it's signed, then it's filed, and then it becomes part of the public record.

Any discussions that take place at the time of the actual hearing are not part of the public record. You would have to be physically present in the courtroom if you wanted to know that info. However, discussion is usually quite limited. Both sides have had their opportunity to present their arguments via the documents they filed with the court. Their best arguments should have already been before the judge in writing, not held until the time of the hearing.

As to federal court, I don't know how similar the process is. I do know that all courts are short on budget, which means they are short on the time they can offer each case. The more that can be done without requiring a lengthy court hearing, the better.

Millicent said...

NJGal51 said... 109

Today is only 19 October so why do Sears and Home Depot have their Christmas stuff out and on display already when it isn't even Haloween yet? What a world!
*****
I don't know. I guess they are hoping this will jump start their sales and they'll have lots of sales all the way through Christmas. For me, it just takes away some of the specialness of the season. To see Halloween, Thanksgiving and Christmas items all on sale at the same time, and Christmas flashed in my face for several months before the actual day, takes the luster right off.

There's not a darn thing I can do about stores pushing up the Christmas sales season. Probably in a year or two, they'll start right after 4th of July! But I can change my shopping habits. For the last several years, my family has all agreed to opt out of commercial Christmas, and instead give homemade gifts, or simply donate to charity instead of giving gifts to adult family members. It really cut down on the stress of the holiday season, and is now our new tradition. (That almost sounded like TFW!)

Millicent said...

" saying to be apathetic to what is going on in the world or be selfish. I'm saying that it's better for our mental health to focus on what we can do locally and not worry so much about the many bad things that happen every day."
*********
The "news" shows tend to run with whatever is most sensationalistic and then go completely overboard. The Jodi Arias trial springs to mind. Hours and hours, and wasted days covering that trial -- because it was filled with salacious details. Not because it was truly newsworthy. Casey Anthony, anytime a young blond woman goes missing, etc.

I agree with the advice to turn it off and instead put your time to better use. I recently lost a dear friend. One of her tendencies was to get so caught up in these celebrity stories. When Michael Jackson died, that's all she talked about. Another actress died quite young, and she was so upset by it, almost as if she felt she knew her. She was a wonderful friend, but I would often end a call sooner rather than later as she would want to endlessly discuss some tragedy that I had no connection or interest in.

I am going to check out that website you suggested admin. I've been making little changes here and there to simplify my life, and also to move toward a vegetarian diet. Living simply takes adjustment, but I think it can be key to living a very content type of life.

Starz22 said...

As to when TFW claims they got famous. I'm blurry on the details,but didn't we see TFW pushing the twins around in the stroller with a sign attached to it saying "Gosselin twins"? Or was this something she did after the 6 were born? I think it was at a 4th of July parade?
It's been so long and after many attempts of drawing attention to herself, begging for attention, I forget.

Roberts book,that was on-line for 2 whole days didn't ruin her. The monster has ran it's course. The monster killed herself. When nobody believes in you...you vanish. You have only yourself to blame TFW. You were your own worst enemy. You get what you get and don't complain!

Jeanne said...

It's so hard to say which kids were at home. And the way she words things only three were home at that minute. Maybe Jon had the boys and Kate had 5 girls but the twins were at an activity. Or she had all the kids this weekend but her favorite three were inside and the others were outside weeding and raking.

I have been wondering about how the family gets health insurance. I don't know much about CHIP. Does it pay a normal amount to docs like regular insurance or are the payments low like on Medicaid? I just don't see Kate jumping through all the hoops to stay on a government program and accept that your doctor choices are restricted. Those forms usually want every detail of your financial life. Every detail or you're denied.

Anonymous said...

1st her attorney said

"After the couple was separated, (BUT STILL MARRIED, RIGHT?) Jon illegally hacked into Kate's email account, and her phone, and bank accounts. Jon also stole a hard drive from Kate's house, which contained private and confidential material."

Then he said " the couple separated in a high profile and public divorce. After the divorce, Jon began accessing Kate's password-protected email account without her authorization."

So he is saying what exactly?

The timelines do not match up. Not if you go back to the gossip sites that kept up with them both, at that time, and the all unimportant but very important comments. Before and after the divorce.

She opened the door when she named ROL in the suit. IMHO, big mistake, huge mistake.

IMO, it started when JG and KG had an agreement to let JG stay at the house and she would leave the house when it was his turn with the visitation.

What was she thinking or her attorney thinking? Or TLC or her security detail thinking? He was GIVEN a legal right to be there, and during that time he was accused of going through her things and even accused of taking the kids food from the house at one point. (Footnote: ROL and other Gossip Sites.)

And IMHO, as an observer only, the way her attorney worded the lawsuit came directly from what KG told him.

And IMO, it looks like KG got a lot of her information from the comments below stories and articles written about her, and her ex husband, from internet gossip sites like ROL, TMZ, HB, INF, where her own fans were screaming at her, begging her to be careful and they were telling her JG was doing exactly what she named in the lawsuit to her attorney, with a lot of accusations that he was doing it or planning to do it. If they were insiders, and if she knew it was happening, why not subpoena the IP’s for testimony, and file criminal instead of civil? She couldn’t? Why NOT?

Did the finger pointing fall short?

That is around the time it was reported that she put the lock on her bedroom door, and was taking her laptop with her everywhere like the UPS Store, the hotel where she was staying when she left the kids with him for visitation. The paps had pics of her with her computer and files in hand and in bags, and in her car.

When the situation began spinning out of control with him and the kids staying with him at the home, and her leaving the home, is when the accusations began.

This was before the divorce was final. But reading the amendments on the lawsuit is almost identical to reading the comments on internet sites posted years before RH or his book.

They were still married, and she gave him permission to be on the property at first, or he had permission to be on the property and inside the home, so can there still be merit, and the SOL has to be out?

Unless new proof came to light under recent wrong doings, how is there enough pc to win a lawsuit?

She was warned to change her passwords on the gossip sites by her fans. She did not have twitter back then.

But, if she had implemented the proper security preventions, it could never have been an accusation, or issue, nor occurred at all, if in fact someone did do what she is alleging.

Where was Steve N? It was his job as her Security Consultant and TLC’s, who hired him, to keep her safe and protected. If the barriers were broken, how are they not liable? Something to ponder over…Why are they not named in the suit?

So many questions lol

91919

Anonymous said...

Admin, is this the possible scenario? Kate threw out the computer and hard drive, and it was password protected. Jon then gave Robert the password to open the files? How can Kate prove that it was password protected when it was thrown out?

Admin or someone, can you please please explain why this is not a criminal matter or charge as well as a civil suit?

Has anyone ever checked to see if a PR was filed by her within her local jurisdiction, under the open records act? The police were called to her home on different occasions for different issues.

Won't this suit go on for a long time if it is not dropped or dismissed? How can any of them afford financially for this to go on for maybe 2 or more years?

Rhymes with Witch said...

VA Pen Mom, I hope that your book signing went well.

Rhymes with Witch said...

I know nothing about tweeter Holly, but if you really believe
that she has an intellectual disability (ID), I wish people wouldn't
comment on her tweets. Just my opinion.

Hoosier Girl said...

Operation Boot Camp ‏@OBC_LosAngeles 3m
@msgoody2shoes21 @MiloandJack @mchenryed @Kateplusmy8-not run a 10k, want to promote cookbook to up to 10,000 families/kids in Los Angeles
________

They want to promote Kate's cookbook, or they want Kate to promote their cookbook? I'm confused. Surely they've read Kate's and realize there is nothing Healthy or Fit about it.

Formerly Duped said...

Shoka's birthday? I guess he''s given up his own 'bog' jut as Mady seems to have abandoned begging to post photos. Will TFW and the 3 kids at home celebrate the birthday or wait till the others come home ? I know Jon must miss Shoka; he was the one who spent time with Nala and him, and looked after them.Are we really to believe #weloveshoka? Another red herring IMO.

capecodmama said...

Red Sox are heading to the World Series. WOO HOO!. Thank you Philadelphia Phillies for trading Shane Victorino. He hit a grand slam in the bottom of the seventh to put the Sox up 5-2. Yeah!

Paper Plates Forever! Yay! said...

Starz22 said... 140

Kate was selling her twins before the 6 pack were born. I also saw that clip of her and the "Gosselin twins" attached to the stroller. That was before she had the other kids. The only reason I remember it was before the 6 were born was because I remember thinking at the time, what an idiot. Who writes a sign like that unless you are looking for attention....'hey everyone....look at ME'...... but does anyone really care that this woman at the parade had fraternal twins? Lots of people have them. Why did she think that she was so special? Kate was looking for attention way, way back then, in the early days of her relationship with Jon.

URL said...

My take on TFW's lawsuit is that she doesn't want Robert's book to be republished. It's not about the money or her inability to get jobs because as other posters indicated, she already admitted in the People interview she was a diva and difficult to work with. She still gets offers, but she puts minimal effort into anything that she's involved with. If this lawsuit drags on for several years, can Robert even publish his book? Considering Jon and Robert are not wealthy, I don't know what else she is hoping to accomplish with this lawsuit. This isn't family court and regardless of the outcome, a judge isn't going to relinquish Jon's custody.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...


Kate was selling her twins before the 6 pack were born. I also saw that clip of her and the "Gosselin twins" attached to the stroller. That was before she had the other kids. The only reason I remember it was before the 6 were born was because I remember thinking at the time, what an idiot. Who writes a sign like that unless you are looking for attention....'hey everyone....look at ME'...... but does anyone really care that this woman at the parade had fraternal twins? Lots of people have them. Why did she think that she was so special? Kate was looking for attention way, way back then, in the early days of her relationship with Jon.

&&&

Yes. So maybe her brief should have said Kate, the famous celebrity mother of eight multiples who had a T.V. show, was TRYING to get famous since 2001 when her twins were born. Kate, the famous celebrity mother of eight multiples who had a T.V. show, didn't actually get famous until she separated from Jon and it was splashed on every tabloid cover for a brief moment in time.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

I watched Masterchef Junior online (I love when they put all the episodes online!) and I was so impressed I'm doing a post. Thank you for telling me about it.

Dmasy said...

Admin, I look forward to your post on MCJ. I have lots to say. I was the one who said the children "enchanted" me.

I will save my thoughts for the new post.

Over And Out said...

I'm still trying to figure out what the lawsuit has to do with the "safety of the kids," which is what she stated in her bog explanation of the lawsuit. There is absolutely nothing mentioned in the complaint how Jon's alleged hacking and Robert's alleged thefts has compromised the kids' safety.

PA Dutch Mom said...

I guess Kate's running days are behind her. She missed the half-marathon in Hershey today. Seems like this would have been the one in which she should have been participating since she has EIGHT kids. All net proceeds from the race benefit Children's Miracle Network at Penn State Hershey Children's Hospital.
Wait -- she still has that broken foot. That must be why she didn't run. Poor Milo...another missed opportunity to do the announcing.

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said...

There was nothing a rational person would see as "unsafe" in what she has alleged. However she has alluded MANY times that the children are "unsafe" with Jon.

Wouldn't you know it, one of the CLASSIC signs of an obsessed parental alienator is that they have convinced themselves, no matter how irrational, that they must "protect" their children from the "unsafe" parent. No matter how much unmonitored overnight contact the judge gives they can't be persuaded--that parent is "unsafe" and should have their rights terminated. If the judge only understood and knew what I know. She truly could not be more textbook.

URL said...

Admin, I also like Masterchef Jr. and I generally don't like to see kids in reality shows. I'm really impressed with these kids and how the judges are treating them also. These kids and their talent for cooking is the real deal.

Lalalalala said...

Realitytvkids.com (Administrator) said... 152

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

Love, love, love this show. These kids have so much grace and poise, not to mention incredible talent.

Kate is a twit said...

I haven't watched MasterChef Junior, but reading posts about it piqued my interest. I discovered that Fox has episodes and clips online. You can watch them here:

http://www.fox.com/masterchef-junior/

Those kids are pretty amazing!!

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 359 of 359   Newer› Newest»