Author |
Message |
Kittyab
Member
07-15-2005
| Friday, October 16, 2009 - 11:25 am
Julie, why should the kids loose thier house and made to live in something smaller because their father messed up the means to support the family? Jon was not laid off, he stopped the show. Its the kids that suffer in stunts like this. Jon is only thinking of himself not those kids. He justs wants to hurt Kate as much as he can and get his own shows.
|
Ophiliasgrandma
Member
09-04-2001
| Friday, October 16, 2009 - 11:56 am
Surely Jon realized there would come a day of reckoning.
|
Kittyab
Member
07-15-2005
| Friday, October 16, 2009 - 11:59 am
Ophiliasgrandma, I doubt it. I think he was pulling these stunts to get out of his contract with TLC. Good for TLC not for giving in to him. He wanted to be paid by TLC and do his own thing. That aint gonna happen Jon. You cant have your cake and eat it too. All he is doing is hurting those kids. The older kids have to know whats going on. How sad for a child to worry if they will loose thier home.
|
Kittyab
Member
07-15-2005
| Friday, October 16, 2009 - 12:00 pm
Hey, maybe this is why he is trying to delay the divorce proceedings... If Kate takes him back he can stay in the show LOL!
|
Happymom
Member
01-20-2003
| Friday, October 16, 2009 - 12:38 pm
He wanted to halt divorce proceedings, but he doesn't want to get back together with Kate.
|
Tishala
Member
08-01-2000
| Friday, October 16, 2009 - 12:58 pm
I guess TLC didn't really mean it when they said, according to Mrs Gosselin, that the show could stop anytime one of the participants decided it was time.
|
Keldogg
Member
08-12-2005
| Friday, October 16, 2009 - 1:17 pm
People need to remember that the last thing these kids need right now is another major change in their lives. They need as much consistency as possible right now. The parents need to provide that for them. Jon's actions have not shown that he realizes that. It seems to be all about what he wants/needs, not the children. He needs to figure this out, and then figure out a way to provide that for them.
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Friday, October 16, 2009 - 1:40 pm
That is because Jon is acting and reacting AS A CHILD, unfortunately.
|
Grooch
Member
06-16-2006
| Friday, October 16, 2009 - 2:25 pm
If TLC is suing Jon and he is still married to Kate, whatever money she would end up with after the divorce, she is still liable for his nonsense. The only ones that are going to make out on this is TLC and the lawyers. It's the kids that will suffer. I hope it's true that Kate did put money away for the kids for the future and no one can touch it.
|
Grooch
Member
06-16-2006
| Friday, October 16, 2009 - 2:26 pm
And I don't even watch this show.
|
Ophiliasgrandma
Member
09-04-2001
| Friday, October 16, 2009 - 2:27 pm
I'm thinking that TLC will protact Kate.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-31-2000
| Friday, October 16, 2009 - 2:41 pm
I think TLC is just calling Jon's bluff. He said let me out of my contract, or I'll make you stop filming and claim it's for the best of the children. They said no. He did deals in violation of his contract anyway. He makes them stop filming the kids. They file suit for breeching his contract. I do think TLC has taken sides and is trying to protect Kate, and the children (from their point of view).
|
Julieboo
Member
02-05-2002
| Friday, October 16, 2009 - 3:05 pm
I don't see the kids living in a smaller (possibly their old) house as detrimental. They have barely even lived in that mansion. If that would get them out of the spotlight, I think it is a tiny and liveable price to pay!
|
Mindeegap
Member
07-20-2009
| Friday, October 16, 2009 - 3:07 pm
Gooch That may be why Jon wanted to hold off on the divorce....if he is still part of Jon and Kate, she still takes the fall with him. Hopefully since she is the one that filed for divorce, and their financial disputes have been so exposed, no TLC and the courts would not hold her accountable for his actions.
|
Kathyb
Member
05-17-2006
| Friday, October 16, 2009 - 3:27 pm
Good point. Kate will not legally be responsible for any of his bills. However, since he is not working and she is, he may be awarded alimony. I read that Hailey is living in Jon's NY ap't. If I were Kate, I'd hate to be paying alimony to cover Hailey's rent!
|
Kittyab
Member
07-15-2005
| Friday, October 16, 2009 - 4:43 pm
I think the divorce will over with before the law suit is settled. TLC maybe doing this to scare Jon.
|
Happymom
Member
01-20-2003
| Friday, October 16, 2009 - 11:29 pm
Probably once they hit the date of separation, they are each liable for their own expenses. If so, money Jon may have to pay for breach of contract will not have to come out of Kate's money.
|
Babyjaxmom
Member
10-20-2002
| Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 10:27 am
I don't know about PA, but in California divorce can be a very long, drawn-out process when children are involved. I know people whose divorces have taken years to finalize. Depends on how quick they are to come to agreement on what each of them wants. I would not qualify that house as a "mansion." It's a nice house, but not a mansion. The kids are going thru enough changes without asking them to give up their home. We've only been in our home 2 1/2 years, but I know my 9 year old would be devastated if we had to move. He's very attached to our home. I think Kate should do everything she can to keep them where they are. They've lost enough already.
|
Ophiliasgrandma
Member
09-04-2001
| Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 10:55 am
I noticed last night on ET that the only shots of Jon were pap ones. He was ET's darling 'exclusive' until TLC took him to task.
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 12:16 pm
I agree about doing whatever she can to keep them in the current home. Seems like the old home would have a better chance of selling at some point and one reason they moved was because people would just wander right up to the front door and of course now, the paps would be hassling them AND the neighbors. At least where they are they CAN stay more out of sight and I'd be planting very fast growing trees between the house and the paps. Jon is always likely to crave the attention (I mean sensitive Jon says that the paps have families to feed, too, so I guess he's willing to sacrifice himself and the kids so those kids can eat.. ) and likely would continue to wander down to the gate to sign autographs and be in pictures and mumble words to be quoted. I don't think the issue is so much the size but being able to close a gate and not be right on the street, when you are being hounded. I've been boycotting ET since they hired Jon, but that's sort of good news.. when I saw him being asked to opine on some other "news" I knew sharks were jumping everywhere for ET.
|
Cricket
Member
08-05-2002
| Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 2:28 pm
ET hired Jon? If TLC goes after him for going on other channels, wouldn't they have to go after Kate as well? Also, what channel is it that Kate is supposed to do the show with Paula Deen? I see Jon's lawyers having a lot of recourse here. If anything delays the divorce, this lawsuit might just do that. Were they holding up their side of the contract when the removed his name and appearnce time? It will be interesting to follow this through to see where they get with their lawsuit.
|
Onlyhuman
Member
08-04-2001
| Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 4:24 pm
If you have an exclusive contract with a company, it's up to you to clear other opportunities to sign contracts/make money with the company that holds your exclusive rights. As we know, TLC tried to stop Kate from appearing at a charity appearance where Bravo was filming an episode of Real Housewives. Kate had to be sure that she was not filmed by Bravo during her appearance in order to satisfy her TLC contract. An exclusive contract does not mean that you can never pursue other opportunities or that you can't appear on other shows. It simply means that you must get PERMISSION. You can't do as Jon has done and is encouraging Kate to do with his talk of being an "independent contractor", which is sign contracts for rights without regard to your exclusive contract.
|
Kittyab
Member
07-15-2005
| Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 5:51 pm
Onlyhuman, and that is why Jon is being sued... Not $5 says he is got his lawyer trying to smooth things over with TLC. If Jon was smart he would allow the show to continue for now, try to get TLC's permission to do other stuff. When the contract is up for renewal then he can pull his stunts.
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 7:07 pm
Cricket, I'm guessing it is that TLC has contractual control, in that they approve other appearances on other channels. Same thing happens for a stipulated time period after a person is on Survivor or Big Brother.. and I'm sure that applies to TAR and other reality shows.. so they cannot just choose to go for certain interviews or be on certain shows or networks. So, I'm guessing that Kate's interviews were approved by TLC and early on Jon also had appearances with her that were approved ahead of time. And Kate may not have been paid to be on those shows or signed on as a regular, as apparently Jon had with ET. As for the Paula Deen show, or the show with a variety of women who may or may not end up including Kate and/or Paula, Kate would get approval from TLC. It is sort of about how a person represents them and wearing Liar T-shirts or having your girlfriend wear TLC Lies shirts hardly would please TLC and he was under contract with them and being paid by them. A contract can stipulate just about anything and people can choose to sign or not to sign. They could agree to wear only green shirts, or to cover up tattoos, not wear earrings, etc. If you work at Disneyland you have fairly interesting rules restricting piercings or even dangly earrings. And from what has been posted online by TLC, yep, they were upholding their part of the contract.. Jon's name would come off the title, and he wouldn't have to film nearly as much, but he would continue to get the SAME SALARY, per the contract. So they were allowing him to work less for the same remuneration.
|
Texannie
Member
07-16-2001
| Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 8:50 pm
he would still get the same salary, not have to work as hard and he is complaining???
|