27 Dresses - I Mean Duggar Threads (Now, with Duggar women lawsuit discussion!)

[VelociRapture]

Thank you for taking the time to clarify @Destiny. I know this can't have been an easy conversation to have and I doubt you made this decision lightly, but I appreciate that you took the time to do so. 

As for everyone else, I just want to remind you that we saved the documents on this site. If you have questions about what was/wasn't redacted then I suggest you check there. 

(I'd do it myself, but it would take forever. Velocibaby just woke up.)

 

[HarleyQuinn]

2 minutes ago, Lurky said:

 

I also wonder if doing this now adds credence to the idea Joy's wedding is this weekend/very soon, as they'll all be safely married by the time the court case comes?

Oh gross I didn't even think of that. She can be outed now that she's someone else's property. 

[Flossie]

There is now a Lawsuit thread.  Is everything pertaining to such lawsuit going to be moved over there?

[SassyPants]

Too bad they didn't:

Sue their parents for neglect

Sue Josh for physical abuse

I also wonder if the money is getting scare?

[DarkAnts]

2 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

Too bad they didn't:

Sue their parents for neglect

Sue Josh for physical abuse

I also wonder if the money is getting scare?

Well JB now has 3 soon to be 4 growing families to support.

[SassyPants]

Dollars to doughnuts the lawsuit was JB's idea.

He wants all these kids, but doesn't want to support them.

[HarleyQuinn]

Now every article that comes out about Joy's wedding will be like "Joy, who is currently suing the City of Springdale for a sexual abuse case.." 

 

[Lurky]

8 minutes ago, HarleyQuinn said:

Now every article that comes out about Joy's wedding will be like "Joy, who is currently suing the City of Springdale for a sexual abuse case.." 

Exactly this.  Mind you, given the Quiverfull mentality, if they did it anywhere else, it would be eg "Jessa Duggar Seewald gives birth to her second child.  Jessa, who is currently suing the City of Springdale for a sexual abuse case..." and so on, because their aim in life is to overlap the pregnancies.

[gustava]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/duggar-sisters-are-suing-everyone-except-for-their-brother-and-parents_us_591ee20be4b094cdba535002?no&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

[Kittikatz]

In my real life I'm an FOI coordinator, albeit in a very different legal environment than Arkansas.

When this broke, my team looked at the release package published by in touch and reviewed the legislation it was disclosed under.

While I can understand, and even share the discomfort about how much information was released, it is my professional opinion that there was nothing unlawful in the disclosure of the information. The crux of the issue is that Arkansas FOI is designed to mandate maximum transparency on the part of public bodies. It simply doesn't have very many exemptions or exceptions to disclosure. I'm that legislative environment, it becomes difficult to withhold information. In my jurisdiction we would have been able to redact more and differently. That said, given the circumstances of abuse at home by a family member, I don't know that even a more stringent redaction would have stopped people from guessing - there were just too many details of this family's home life in the public sphere for this not to happen.

I suspect the timing of this law suit has something to do with the Governor of Arkansas trying to repeal certain sections of the FOI (the ones that require open meetings and transparency in business dealings). If they frame this through the lens of "FOI victimised these poor girls, let's repeal chunks of it" it may be more palatable to voters, who will get sucked into the human interest angle and not realise what else is going out the window. And let's face it, Boob would love sucking up to any republican politician (he must be going into withdrawal since this all broke) and the increased press attention is a huge bonus, so for Boob, it's a win win. The victims in this are just along for the drag, and are too uneducated to grasp that they are being used for publicity and, possibly, political gain.

[marmalade]

4 hours ago, samurai_sarah said:

For now, please remember the FJ rules. No matter who sued whom, we don't know anything for certain. So, please don't assume, just because someone sued someone else. Unless a victim has self-identified, even almighty me is not at liberty to speculate on FJ.

 

Victims are self-identified in the lawsuit, hotlinked at the end of this article. 

http://www.nwahomepage.com/news/duggar-sisters-suing-city-for-releasing-molestation-documents/717112740

eta: Joshgate I hit the airwaves two years ago today. I think there was a statute in play here, although InTouch didn't release the actual documents until two days later (5/21/15). 

Also note that in the article, Josh did not fit into any category relevant to the defendant. 

 

[HarleyQuinn]

Jezebel picked it up too, as always the comments are golden.

http://jezebel.com/duggar-sisters-file-suit-against-police-in-touch-for-r-1795368167

[TuringMachine]

Ugh I'm sad this is being brought up again. I feel bad for the girls, I really do. We shouldn't know about what happened to them. Though as I said 2 years ago (and as many people here already have) they're blaming the wrong people. Josh is the one that assaulted them. JB and Michelle are the ones who chose to protect him over them, and they're the ones that sold them to a television network. 

[lizzybee]

Reading through the lawsuit now. Their version of events is painful to read. 

[Destiny]

http://static.lakana.com/nxsglobal/nwahomepage/document_dev/2017/05/19/Duggar%20Lawsuit_1495207426181_21719920_ver1.0.pdf

Here's the full suit. I have not read it cos busy.

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

1 hour ago, HarleyQuinn said:

Oh gross I didn't even think of that. She can be outed now that she's someone else's property. 

I've been wondering for a while now if JB didn't want the "damaged goods" married off as soon as possible. but never said anything because we weren't allowed to speculate on Jinger & Joy.  I still don't like saying it out loud because these two, especially Joy, were SO YOUNG. Joy probably doesn't even remember it and that is what makes what her parents did that much more disgusting, she was a baby, a sweet angel faced, bucked toothed little cutie pie that didn't do shit to deserve the shitty life she was handed.  Because we all know in that twisted fucking ring of hell those girls were blamed for what was done to them.  Anna is being punished for Josh cheating, the girls are married off quickly to whom ever will take them because they aren't really "pure".  It is all so sick and perverted. 

[bekkah]

Free Jinger is mentioned in the lawsuit...A user was able to identify the identities of the victims. 

I feel bad for the girls, Those details about their lives deserved privacy but their parents decided to sell them at a young age. They weren't given the option of living in the public life. 

I do believe that part of the reason Jill comes back now so often is to maintain her residency in Arkansas for the lawsuit. Have to live a minimum number of months to be considered a resident I believe. 

[HarleyQuinn]

2 minutes ago, bekkah said:

Free Jinger is mentioned in the lawsuit..

 

Link?

I see a Springdale representative responded:

A spokesperson for the city of Springdale tells us, "The claims and allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and are false, and we are confident that the Federal Court will take the time to carefully hear the facts and arguments in this matter ... It is unfortunate that now, at this late date, the Plaintiffs have chosen to file a misguided lawsuit against dedicated public servants and seeking damages from public tax dollars."

http://www.tmz.com/2017/05/18/duggar-sisters-sue-city-police-josh-molestation-report/

[Destiny]

I mean, anyone who knew the duggars were able to figure out who the victims were but we redacted their identities pretty quickly. I'd like to think that we did a decent job of allowing discussion while still trying to protect the identities of the women who did not choose to go public.

[gustava]

Local lawfirm partnered with big time LA firm.  I'm guessing there are big bucks behind this.

LARSON O'BRIEN LLP

[front hugs > duggs]

I'm halfway through the lawsuit and came back to report on FJ being mentioned, but I see @bekkah already said that.

This lawsuit is kind of infuriating. They are accusing InTouch of re-victimizing the girls to make money. Ummmm....isn't that EXACTLY what JB&M are doing now?

The hypocrisy is so strong with this bunch.

Lawsuit: http://static.lakana.com/nxsglobal/nwahomepage/document_dev/2017/05/19/Duggar Lawsuit_1495207426181_21719920_ver1.0.pdf

[Hmmm_idolatry]

3 hours ago, bekkah said:

Free Jinger is mentioned in the lawsuit...A user was able to identify the identities of the victims.

Page 19 of the lawsuit document mentions FJ. 

[zygote373]

1 hour ago, Kittikatz said:

I suspect the timing of this law suit has something to do with the Governor of Arkansas trying to repeal certain sections of the FOI (the ones that require open meetings and transparency in business dealings). If they frame this through the lens of "FOI victimised these poor girls, let's repeal chunks of it" it may be more palatable to voters, who will get sucked into the human interest angle and not realise what else is going out the window. And let's face it, Boob would love sucking up to any republican politician (he must be going into withdrawal since this all broke) and the increased press attention is a huge bonus, so for Boob, it's a win win. The victims in this are just along for the drag, and are too uneducated to grasp that they are being used for publicity and, possibly, political gain.

IANAL, etc, but my general feeling based on what you and others have said about the Arkansas FOIA is that the city didn't do anything wrong. However, I do think the FOIA could have stronger protections for victims of sexual and other serious/stigmatized crimes like this. Especially minors. I don't think those two ideas have to be mutually exclusive.

GROSS if they are also using this to piggyback onto the other, politically motivated sections of the FOIA.

[HarleyQuinn]

Wow. I can't believe they actually brought up FJ.

ETA: As a victim of abuse myself, I'm going to be really bothered if the Duggers win this lawsuit and try to paint themselves as being all for victim's rights when that only applies to themselves or other white, fundamentalist Christians. 

Petty? Probably, but I had to say it. Any changes made to the FOI should not be brought forth because of something the Duggars will make money off of. 

[Hmmm_idolatry]

4 minutes ago, HarleyQuinn said:

Wow. I can't believe they actually brought up FJ.

Nor can I.  I also am surprised by the language in that document.  It's awfully passionate for a legal document.  Maybe I just haven't read enough legal docs, but the incendiary language toward the end seems odd.  On page 15, it says this (I hope I'm formatting this correctly according to FJ rules):  

Quote

The increase in media requests caused Defendant O'KELLEY to contemplate whether the Police Department would soon end up in the tabloids, creating the prospect o f worldwide media attention for what was otherwise a sleepy, small-town police department. 

From page 15 of the lawsuit.  Duggar lawsuit 2017