I missed you guys too much
I hope it's just the Enquirer being the Enquirer. This is stuff that really has the potential to hurt the kids and Jon's chances of getting a 'real' job.
Yes, I think it is. Here's the quote from the original article:
"Tom told me that Jon was secretly videotaped having sex with a woman in Los Angeles in October, and he's seen the tape!" said Stephanie Santoro, Jon's former flame and family nanny.
"Tom said people close to Jon put a camera in his hotel room, and paid a girl to flirt with Jon and have sex with him.
"He also told me that he saw Jon snort cocaine on more than one occasion, and that the more Jon got into partying, the more cocaine he used!"
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/jon_gosselin_sext_tape_scandal_cocaine_use_alleged_lose_custody/celebrity/67655
I was going to avoid this topic altogether, but it was such an easy call for me. If people want to believe this story, then ceteris parabis they also have to believe that Mady saw Kate kissing Steve (because a former nanny might have said so)
No, that one was of Deanna with her old boyfriend apparently.
Yes, and it was an audio tape. I feel sorry for Deanna, more than anybody excepting the kids -- she lets her former drug dealer brother stay with her while he's on probation and look what he does to her. This wasn't really a J&K issue, but a private family issue which we never needed to know about.
Then he has a duty to sue if it is not. No tabloid has the legal right to publish lies that are damaging to a person.
The Enquirer has covered themselves very well on this one -- the entire article is written as Stephanie says this, Stephanie says that. And that is the truth. The only one hanging out there in the wind is Stephanie (and I've noted before that the cost of going after her is likely not worth the lawsuit -- Jon actually can't stop her from talking about anything, and his legal team likely figures she'll eventually discredit herself)
Is there anyone here with "experience" able to determine if that can explain maybe how Jon has looked or behaved in the past 6-9 months.
To me he appears quite different than when he was with Kate--even when he didn't enjoy being with Kate. And I don't mean different in a good way.
Sadly if any of this is true, this will damage his potential for custody as well.
Sadly, I do -- former jobs. Many prescription medications, especially anti-depressants could cause some of the symptoms you are talking about, including weight gain. This is especially true if a person has to try different medications to get to the right one. Whether his behaviour is really what has been relayed to us by the tabloids is a whole other topic.
As for custody, it may have a bearing on how the custody dispute plays out ie. if Kate's team wants to use that in court. I wouldn't be surprised to find that they have asked for him to be drug-tested, or that his legal team has already begun regular testing at an independent lab to be proactive (if they are any good at all, they should do this)
custody-maybe, maybe not.
sadly, unless a person can prove that a parent's legal or illegal activities (including drug use) creates an abusive, endangering or neglectful environment for their children to be exposed to it can be very difficult to use it regarding some custody issues.
i was horrified at the kind of legal/illegal activities my former social services clients engaged in (drugs/alcohol/prostitution) but because they were proven not to place their children at risk in the course of these activities (or they took place when the children were not present/had no residual effect when the kids were) there was no basis for the courts to deny custody. reams and reams of documentation and court records that proved beyond the shadow of a doubt what mom and or dad was doing but absent proof there was nothing anyone could do (and some cases involved VERY high dollar-seen at least one since on nancy grace as a commentator- lawyers on the side of the parent wanting full custody from the offending other parent).
I see your experience is the same as mine. When I ran programs for new mothers, we were the ones complaining to the social workers about some of the things we observed. Rarely did it have any effect, even though the situations were much more extreme than anything that Jon has been alleged to do.
I think that's all I have to say about that whole subject.
Now, for the Jon vs TLC court battle. Just wanted to note that the reason Jon is not suing on behalf of the kids is because it is a counter-claim. Since the kids are not a party to the original lawsuit, they could not be a party to the counter-claim -- that would have to be a completely different lawsuit, and I'm not sure whether Jon could file such a petition without agreement from Kate.
The other thing is that the counter-claim was a necessary step in order to broaden the scope of the case, otherwise it would only be about whether Jon did/didn't do what TLC alleged, and whether those actions would violate the terms of the contract (or more precisely, the parts of the contract that TLC was willing to open up to the scrutiny of the court). The effect of the counter-claim is to allow Jon's team to prove that either the contract was void given the illegality of specific sections of it, or that any actions which might have been considered breach were reasonable given TLC's behaviour ie. the best defense is a good offense. It also makes it more likely that the case will be settled, if only because TLC does not want everything about the show, the contract, the family, etc to be made public.
. first off, paying a person to have sex with another person is illegal in california. secondly, it is illegal in california to video tape anyone in a private place (such as a hotel room) without both parties expressed prior permission. both of these acts are criminal, and they can and have been prosecuted in the past. 
