TVCH FORUMS HOME . JOIN . FAN CLUBS . DONATE . CONTACT . CHAT  
                  Quick Links   TOPICS . TREE-VIEW . SEARCH . HELP! . NEWS . PROFILE
Archive through March 21, 2010

Reality TVClubHouse Discussions: Other Reality Shows ARCHIVES: Archives for 2010 - 1: Nadya Suleman blog/potential reality show discussion: Archive through March 21, 2010 users admin

Author Message
Seamonkey
Moderator

09-07-2000

Thursday, February 25, 2010 - 5:27 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Seamonkey a private message Print Post    
Well, they do seem to be from a different world ..

Alib
Member

07-15-2000

Friday, February 26, 2010 - 7:45 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Alib a private message Print Post    
Mars!!

Grooch
Member

06-16-2006

Friday, March 19, 2010 - 10:56 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Grooch a private message Print Post    
From TMZ:

Octomom -- Pay By Tuesday or Else
Posted Mar 19th 2010 12:50PM by TMZ Staff

TMZ has learned Octomom Nadya Suleman has until the end of business on Tuesday to either pay more than $450,000 for her house ... or she'll be on the receiving end of a foreclosure lawsuit.



As we first reported, Octo didn't make a balloon payment of $450,000 on March 10. She's also behind $4,139 on monthly payments.

The person who sold the house to Octo and holds the note, Amer Haddadin, tells TMZ he will give her until Tuesday to pay the two amounts, plus interest and attorney's fees, or his lawyer will file to foreclose on the house.

Amer says he owes the bank the same amount that Octo owes him, and he's about to go under.

As for why Octo isn't paying ... it's a mystery to Amer -- he says it's been radio silence.





Read more: http://www.tmz.com/#ixzz0ie8Pk1AI

Tishala
Member

08-01-2000

Friday, March 19, 2010 - 1:45 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Tishala a private message Print Post    
That's very sad news. I hope those lovely children and their mother aren't thrown out on the streets.

Bombaycat
Member

07-21-2007

Friday, March 19, 2010 - 1:54 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Bombaycat a private message Print Post    
According to an article I just read the home was signed over to Suleman's father who in turn leased it to his daughter. They have failed to make the $4000 monthly payments in addition to the $450,000 balloon payment due in March.

Twinkie
Member

09-24-2002

Friday, March 19, 2010 - 6:56 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Twinkie a private message Print Post    
Where did her father or her think they were going to come up with a $450,000 lump sum? They probably thought they were going to get rich off all those kids.

Pamy
Member

01-02-2002

Friday, March 19, 2010 - 7:36 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Pamy a private message Print Post    
Tish, no they won't be on the streets, me and the rest of the CA taxpayers will be footing her freakin bill!

I think they thought she would make millions on that reality show and press stuff...rude awakening to find out most of us cant stand her and resent the fact we have to pay for her crazy desire to have so many kids

Seamonkey
Moderator

09-07-2000

Friday, March 19, 2010 - 9:19 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Seamonkey a private message Print Post    
Places for rent are going begging, so maybe they can find a place for less.. but of course that home was renovated with help from people who sent in money and others through Dr Phil.. lots of changes made to make it baby safe and that stuff won't transfer to another place.. I'd assume that Child Protective Services might come and check out any place that she moved. I'm also betting the place has been trashed during their tenure there.

Sort of surprising (or, perhaps not) that anyone would take on a huge loan with a balloon payment.. $4000 monthly payments too.. I mean it is a fairly large house but still.. strange.

So I have to agree that they had been convinced by the attorney who attached himself like a pilot fish that they had a huge payday coming.

But my suspicion is that even had there been a huge payday, she would have frittered away whatever she could get her mitts on and they would still be at this place of instability.

And what Pamy said.. taxpayers in California will continue to subsidize this woman.

Sunshyne4u
Member

06-17-2003

Friday, March 19, 2010 - 9:31 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Sunshyne4u a private message Print Post    
who knows? look what happened to the Dionne Quints. Ya that was during my mom's time, but I guess its always possible the same kind of thing could occur in present days.

if the woman (and her possible psych? counsellor?) could come up with a mental disorder, Is it not possible to sue the Crap out of the doctor who did the invitro?

it did show extreme poor judgement to think this woman could handle all those children as single mom who, at the time, was living with her parents

Vsmart
Member

02-10-2003

Friday, March 19, 2010 - 11:52 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Vsmart a private message Print Post    
Her Dr. should be forced to take care of all the kids instead of the taxpayers.

Hukdonreality
Member

09-29-2003

Saturday, March 20, 2010 - 2:42 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Hukdonreality a private message Print Post    
Lots of people don't like Kate Gosselin, but that woman sure finds ways to take care of her kids, doesn't she? Kate will do whatever it takes, and people bad mouth her for her efforts.

Ladytex
Member

09-27-2001

Saturday, March 20, 2010 - 11:06 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Ladytex a private message Print Post    
IMO, Nadya is not doing anything other than trying to do what Kate is doing. Kate has just been more successful and just has more defenders. Wonder why that is ...

Seamonkey
Moderator

09-07-2000

Saturday, March 20, 2010 - 1:11 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Seamonkey a private message Print Post    
I don't think Kate financed her pregnancies (and she had two procedures, not well over a dozen) with public assistance, money gotten that was to go to support her existing children with disabilities and suing an employer.. oh and student loans, yeah.. and nope, Nadya didn't return to school and finish that degree as she claimed she would, though I cannot imagine anyone wanting to hire Nadya as their therapist!

I don't see much to compare.

As for the defenders, I'm not being asked to support Kate with my taxes. I have been supporting Nadya with my taxes here in California. She has been overusing resources in my county. She didn't just take a chance with a second pregnancy after two kids.. no she just kept getting pregnant even after having several kids who are very high maintenance and really need lots of attention, all the while tricking the sperm donor by creating many embryos, each time..

And her doctor is under investigation. I suppose she could sue him but she has already joked that she doesn't want him to lose his license because she might want to have even more kids. I'm thinking she wants to compete with the Duggars and go for two dozen :-(

Ladytex
Member

09-27-2001

Saturday, March 20, 2010 - 3:02 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Ladytex a private message Print Post    
Like I said Kate has just been more successful in the prostitution of her children than Nadya has. If Nadya was as successful in it as Kate was, she wouldn't be on the public dole.

Hukdonreality
Member

09-29-2003

Saturday, March 20, 2010 - 3:10 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Hukdonreality a private message Print Post    
Kate AND JON put their kids on TV.

Pamy
Member

01-02-2002

Saturday, March 20, 2010 - 4:42 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Pamy a private message Print Post    
cuz Kate was married and wasnt living at home with her parents with kids that CA taxpayers were already paying for.

Twinkie
Member

09-24-2002

Saturday, March 20, 2010 - 6:34 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Twinkie a private message Print Post    
prostitution of her children

That was so funny I spit my tea! That must mean that anyone who has their kids on TV are all pimps. The Roloffs, the Duggars, the Hayes, I know I'm leaving out a bunch of kids who have been on TV over the years. Oh my, so much prostituting going on! LOL}

Tntitanfan
Member

08-03-2001

Saturday, March 20, 2010 - 11:19 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Tntitanfan a private message Print Post    
I am fine with people having as many children as THEY can support. My stock broker has TEN! However, they are home schooled until they get into more advanced science classes, and then attend private school. He provides their medical/dental care, clothing, food, and housing.

My objection to the production of many kids is when the parent(s) are NOT supporting the child(ren) and expect others to do that for them. I think that is what the CA people on the board here are feeling and saying -

AS I understand it, Nadya was on public support BEFORE she had additional children. Kate was not.

Let me hasten to add that I an NOT a Kate fan, and I think she might have a problem letting her partner lead on Dancing with the Stars!

Seamonkey
Moderator

09-07-2000

Sunday, March 21, 2010 - 12:17 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Seamonkey a private message Print Post    
Wow, that's a capital crime! A woman who dares to take control. Especially while dancing.

As for the stockbroker.. it isn't JUST one generation that puts a burden on resources but good for him for taking care of that generation, at least.

Nadya had every single child under a cloud of lies.. lies about how she would use the donated sperm, lies that she was merely using up already exsisting embryos, when in fact she was having more of them produced with each procedure and that's just the start of it all.

Our paper repeated the article about them probably losing the house. Apparently her father paid a down payment of $110,000, the purchase price was $565,000, Nadya claimed to Dr Phil that she was making payments with money she made selling pictures of the octuplets, and that she, not her parents was paying for the new house, but she also claimed to have a lease option. The loan was private, not with a bank. The missed balloon payment is $450,000

KABC (LA ABC affiliate) reports that Suleman's attorney says that the dispute is between the previous owner (Amer Haddadin) and Suleman's father, the actual owner.

Tishala
Member

08-01-2000

Sunday, March 21, 2010 - 12:49 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Tishala a private message Print Post    
I'd hate to think that during my un-years, when I was homeless and needing the assistance of the CA taxpayers, I did anything that might have made them resent me like they do Ms Suleman. Did I wait too long to go to mental health professionals when I had major depression? Did I spend too much time in a homeless shelter? Did I ask for too much from the GR fund Los Angeles County provides (try living on $221 in cash and $133 in food stamps for a month and then tell me how much I'm sucking off the teat of the taxpayer)?

Yes, Ms Suleman is a wicked, wicked woman who made the grievous error of having disabled children. What a horror. Throw them to the lions. Just don't let the CA taxpayers support them. She's the modern day Hester Prynne.

Holly
Member

07-22-2001

Sunday, March 21, 2010 - 7:20 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Holly a private message Print Post    
<She's the modern day Hester Prynne>

To Kate's modern day Madonna, LOL.

Ophiliasgrandma
Member

09-04-2001

Sunday, March 21, 2010 - 7:53 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Ophiliasgrandma a private message Print Post    
I aspire to never be any kind of a celeb. The target on the back is way too large.

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Sunday, March 21, 2010 - 8:25 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
I'm a little surprised to hear some of the people here who seem to be saying that a woman shouldn't have the right to choose if she wants or doesn't want to have children.

Nyheat
Member

08-09-2006

Sunday, March 21, 2010 - 9:13 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Nyheat a private message Print Post    
I haven't been following the whole thing closely, but it seems to me that Nadya S. is more interested in profiting from having multiple children than nurturing them, and has crossed the line from personal freedom into a lack of personal responsibility. She sets off my "bullshit, what a scammer" radar just by looking at her.

Puzzled
Member

08-27-2001

Sunday, March 21, 2010 - 10:22 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Puzzled a private message Print Post    
Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that you should do it.