Jump to content
IGNORED

Duggars by the Dozen 28 - A Mild Inappropriate Lawsuit


Coconut Flan

Recommended Posts

I can only find that they planned to sue back in 2015 and retained a lawyer named Kevin Crass who used to work for Mike Huckabee

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/duggar-investigation-text-messages-64087

My best guess is that Kevin Crass decided to no longer represent them since he's a proclaimed "conservative" lawyer once he realized being associated with the Duggars could taint his brand.

Pure conjecture though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 614
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 minutes ago, Lyle Lanley said:

I can only find that they planned to sue back in 2015 and retained a lawyer named Kevin Crass who used to work for Mike Huckabee

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/duggar-investigation-text-messages-64087

My best guess is that Kevin Crass decided to no longer represent them since he's a proclaimed "conservative" lawyer once he realized being associated with the Duggars could taint his brand.

Pure conjecture though.

It's going to be an expensive suit so he might have referred it to a bigger firm who can financially back it this is common in expensive cases. Arkansas seems to allow to referral fees between lawyers. It's possible Crass is getting 1/3 of the 1/3 attorney fee. Of course he also could have drug his feet on putting the case into suit trying to settle it and the Duggars could have fired him and hired the new firm. We will likely never know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything is possible really. I looked up some stuff on Crass and his specialty is business litigation. It might be such a thing the Duggars retained him for other lawsuits but decided to use him as a way to test the waters against Springdale. Of course it doesn't mean anything if you go outside of your specialty but it seems odd.

If I remember correctly the current lawyer that are representing the Duggar daughters specializes in a completely different area of law as well? I'm off to check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hilee said:

The very last episode before the news broke they aired a special and I think they were discussing the sex of the M baby and Josh said something about keeping secrets. Jessa face and pure look of hatred has stayed with me. I don't know if the episode is still available but very telling she's not forgiven him, which she shouldn't have to. 

I went searching for this clip. I found something else instead. I can't get the link to copy on my tablet but it's from season 11 episode 12 of 19KAC clip 4/4.  Josh makes breakfast in bed for JB as pay out of the weight loss challenge and then they announce their move to DC.

1) He raids their fridge for ingredients.  Total Smuggar move. Michelle tries to hide her surprise when the camera crew tells her that he did that. Josh makes him " one of my famous smoothies". It's ice cream or froyo and fruit. JB has to eat it with a spoon. Guess that's where the weight gain comes in. We find out that he can cook quite a bit. I guess the J slaves weren't the only ones cooking. 

2) We get treated to JB being woken up with a homemade "grandpa " tee shirt on. Josie force feeds him turkey bacon.

3) When Josh calls the family announcement for the move Joseph shows up in a Fort Rock shirt. Michelle's apprehension over the move and Josh's excitement take on all new meanings. 

4) We see an awkward side hug with Joy. But Josie is shown happily and freely playing on his lap. Brings home both what their different experiences with their brother were as well as how sibling relationships are expected to radically change at puberty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, JMO said:

4) We see an awkward side hug with Joy. But Josie is shown happily and freely playing on his lap. Brings home both what their different experiences with their brother were as well as how sibling relationships are expected to radically change at puberty. 

Josie is on his lap?  You mean the Duggars lied about little kids not sitting on "big boy's" laps?  Say it aint so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lyle Lanley said:

I can only find that they planned to sue back in 2015 and retained a lawyer named Kevin Crass who used to work for Mike Huckabee

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/duggar-investigation-text-messages-64087

My best guess is that Kevin Crass decided to no longer represent them since he's a proclaimed "conservative" lawyer once he realized being associated with the Duggars could taint his brand.

Pure conjecture though.

His name is Crass?  Oy the irony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, hilee said:

 

 I don't know if the episode is still available but very telling she's not forgiven him, which she shouldn't have to. 

I'm pretty certain this was a follow-up after the season. This was when everyone was in the same room talking in a circle, right? Right before the scandal came out?

 

edit* just found it. It's called "digging in with the duggars" May 19, 2015

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/27/2017 at 8:11 AM, moriah said:

Everyone knows everyone there at least within 3 degrees if you play "Seven Degrees to Kevin Bacon".  There are lots of other families like the family I knew there who may or may not have been exposed to ATI through knowing of the Duggars, so the idea of someone's husband not buying it but another homeschooling mom in the area staying friends with the mom she knew, and talking about concerns, is entirely plausible to me.

Incidentally...

Joy and Jessa appeared in the Kendrick bros film Courageous (2011) (as 'girl at funeral').  A gang member in that film was played by T.C. Stallings (he was also a lead in War Room (2015). T.C. Stallings is cast in not-yet-released film In Stranger Company  (2017), as is Jesse Metcalfe. And Jesse Metcalfe is credited in Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade (1999), as is Kevin Bacon.  (Okay that's a bit of a stretch)

Thanks, oracleofbacon.org

I found a better one!

Alex Kendrick (director, writer, and actor in Courageous) was in The Lost Medallion: The Adventures of Billy Stone (2013) , as was Sahajak Boonthanakit. Sahajak Boonthanakit was in Elephant White (2011) as was Kevin Bacon.

Anyhow, Joy and Jessa have a Bacon Number of 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CyborgKin said:

Anyhow, Joy and Jessa have a Bacon Number of 3.

Same as me. Who'da thunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MadeItOut said:

Same as me. Who'da thunk.

My friend's mom, a teacher at my high school, met Mr. Bacon.  I count that as 3 because I wouldn't have gone to that high school if my friend hadn't recommended choosing it (was a magnet high school) over the one blocks from my house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the change in the law could be argued by both sides as being in their favor, fwiw.

At least on the tort counts, the fact the Legislature itself felt the law was too ambiguous would work for city and county defendants.  By passing the change it meant that the Legislature agreed it could be read to say a misdemeanor charge would have resulted had the city and county defendants refused to release a report where the offender came to law enforcement attention only as an adult.  The defense of "illegality" in a civil tort usually refers to an illegal contract, but there might be another defense that in Latin means "we followed the law, and that law demanded we release the redacted reports".

On the Constitutional claims, it could work in the Plaintiff's favor by saying obviously the Legislature's intent was to protect juvenile records, by their clarification, and therefore even though the city and county followed the law it was an unConstitutional law.

But like, for example, Arkansas recently arrested a 14-year-old victim of sexual assault by an older man.... for killing that older man.  So far it doesn't seem like they are actually charging her as an adult for murder if they have continued to pursue charges against her, but original articles said that's what the state was attempting -- murder, and as an adult.  She's not a public figure, but enough was released in the media that people close to the dead guy or to her family would have known exactly who she was.  The police released enough about her sexual assault history and the media interviewed her mother on TV to reveal her as the victim of sexual assault.

So far it seems like enough people put pressure on the county to not pursue the case in adult court because there's been nothing else reported   I think the dead perv nearly three times her age got what he deserved, and everything that did come out in the media showed she found a piece of glass on the ground when she rejected his advance that night and tried to force her.  I think she should be getting counseling, and shouldn't have been arrested.

Was it newsworthy to include that she was fighting off a grown-ass man who was trying to sexually assault her?  I think absolutely yes.  Did police, when releasing that detail, directly or indirectly identify the victim of a sexual assault?  Because of the circumstances surrounding the death (adults nearby), her age, and her school... yes, they did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On May 24, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Jess said:

Yes that would only count for joy each sister has to make their own case and it's possible that not all will win, however, Jessa and Jinger were also outed it doesn't matter that you couldn't tell which was which. They have an argument that Jill outed herself.

For the causes of action against In Touch it doesn't matter if they legally obtained the information legally obtaining the information is not a defense for invasion or privacy or outrage. 

I don't understand this. Under what statute are media outlets obligated to protect the privacy of crime victims? I can't say much about my experience in this area in order to protect my own privacy, but I have never heard of such a thing in my state. Or am I misunderstanding you? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I just genuinely don't understand how In Touch could be liable. What they published is true, in the public record, and about public figures, all of which seem like airtight defenses to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Evangeline said:

I don't understand this. Under what statute are media outlets obligated to protect the privacy of crime victims? I can't say much about my experience in this area in order to protect my own privacy, but I have never heard of such a thing in my state. Or am I misunderstanding you? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I just genuinely don't understand how In Touch could be liable. What they published is true, in the public record, and about public figures, all of which seem like airtight defenses to me.

In touch is being sued for invasion of privacy (3 causes of action) and outrage (same thing as intentional infliction of emotional distress) these are common law torts that have existed since before the English court system and the United States system selerated. They have been codified into statutes in probably every state (I haven't looked up all 50 but it's certainty the vast majority.) Media sources can like everyone else be sued for these. 

Truth is not a defense to invasion of privacy or outrage like it is for defamation. 

Public record is a defense for in touch on the invasion of privacy claims. As it's has to be a private fact. There is debate about whether it was a proper public record since the city and county has to weigh the constitutional right to privacy of the girls properly before releasing. However moriah has convinced me since that post that there is case law that says in touch was able to legally rely on the city and county so even it's not a proper public recird in touch should win. This leaves them with the claim for outrage. 

Being a public figure doesn't mean you have no right to privacy it means you have a lower right. Which makes it harder to win but is not a defense that guarantees you lose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody please tell me more about legal outrage. I'm sure it's not the same as the outrage I feel at the Duggars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

Somebody please tell me more about legal outrage. I'm sure it's not the same as the outrage I feel at the Duggars.

I love this post so much. I feel like it really embodies how I feel. :pb_lol:

@JessThanks to you and the other lawyers for taking the time to try and explain things to us legal newbies - and for doing so in a way that I think a lot of people can probably understand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Evangeline said:

I don't understand this. Under what statute are media outlets obligated to protect the privacy of crime victims? I can't say much about my experience in this area in order to protect my own privacy, but I have never heard of such a thing in my state. Or am I misunderstanding you? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I just genuinely don't understand how In Touch could be liable. What they published is true, in the public record, and about public figures, all of which seem like airtight defenses to me.

There are several higher court rulings, while old, that haven't been overturned saying that information that is "public record" is never a "private fact" for the media.  They have been relied on by other high court decisions that exculpated the media when the government made mistakes in releasing information.  All have shifted the burden to the municipality that released the information instead of the media agencies that published it because of concerns about chilling effects against the First Amendment and freedom of the press. 

That tort, public disclosure of private fact, is going to fail against InTouch at the appellate level if a motion for summary judgment doesn't keep it out of the charges for a jury to evaluate.  If the trial judge properly agrees with InTouch that enough precedents exist that once the municipalities released the records and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Demozette) was able to obtain the same reports, the reasoning used in those Supreme Court decisions is applicable, there would be no issue of fact for a jury to decide on that tort against InTouch.

Intrusion into seclusion almost always involves somehow photographing or eavesdropping on private areas, and Arkansas model jury instructions say that they must have no legal basis for the intrusion.  InTouch, for their part, used legal means to obtain the information they published -- they went through channels, see defense for first tort, etc.  Approbation, the third tort, is about using someone's image or likeness against their will and solely for commercial gain.  The media has a defense here, even for the release of the reports, because the discussion about church elders not reporting abuse made the Southern Baptist Convention's Russell Moore write an *excellent* guidance article for churches.  They can argue First Amendment here easily.  Outrage... again, that's essentially intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Their intent was to inform the public, who was very interested in their public figure brother and their public figure parents.  

I think all three will fail at the appellate level, and the state has a two-year SOL against people working for the government.  To sue the retired municipal defendant they had to file then or never.  If nothing else maybe the silver lining is that Jill and her baby will be safer from Zika by making her come back now to file if it was going to be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

Somebody please tell me more about legal outrage. I'm sure it's not the same as the outrage I feel at the Duggars.

Outrage is an old fashioned (but still in fashion in Arkansas I guess) way of saying intentional infliction of emotional distress. Here is the Arkansas model jury instructions. https://govt.westlaw.com/armji/Document/Ib7a8998a053f11db9346b0b8bf67faf0?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)

While I can't speak for Arkansas typically you would need to show real medical records with extensive treatment to prove your mental suffering was severe enough to win. 

It's extremely unlikely for a public figure to win, but not impossible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regard to your first paragraph, how is this instance different than the instances that occur every day of media outlets publishing identifying details about crime victims? That is the part I'm unclear about. What legal line is supposed to have been crossed here? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, moriah said:

 Outrage... again, that's essentially intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Their intent was to inform the public, who was very interested in their public figure brother and their public figure parents.  

Who were, at the time, working for an anti-LGBT hate group known for baselessly accusing LGBT adults of molesting children (source) and campaigning against an anti-discrimination ordinance by releasing a robocall that insinuated that sex offenders and transwomen would sexually assault women and children if the ordinance passed (source), respectively. I don't think calling attention to themselves by running around saying that all LGBT people are child molesters with that particular skeleton residing in the prayer closet was the best idea. 

18 minutes ago, Jess said:

Outrage is an old fashioned (but still in fashion in Arkansas I guess) way of saying intentional infliction of emotional distress. Here is the Arkansas model jury instructions. https://govt.westlaw.com/armji/Document/Ib7a8998a053f11db9346b0b8bf67faf0?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)

While I can't speak for Arkansas typically you would need to show real medical records with extensive treatment to prove your mental suffering was severe enough to win. 

It's extremely unlikely for a public figure to win, but not impossible. 

I would honestly be very surprised if the Duggars were able to produce medical records that proved mental suffering. We know they didn't get help for the girls after the attacks happened, both the parents and the married-at-the-time daughters minimized the shit out of the abuse during the media circus following Joshgate 1.0, and ever since then, the four daughters in the lawsuit have been all over social media and on TV selling their lifestyle, looking happy and healthy as they ever did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JesusCampSongs said:

Who were, at the time, working for an anti-LGBT hate group known for baselessly accusing LGBT adults of molesting children (source) and campaigning against an anti-discrimination ordinance by releasing a robocall that insinuated that sex offenders and transwomen would sexually assault women and children if the ordinance passed (source), respectively. I don't think calling attention to themselves by running around saying that all LGBT people are child molesters with that particular skeleton residing in the prayer closet was the best idea. 

You'd think their Bible would have warned them.  But I'm sure Gothard left that part of the Sermon on the Mount out of his ATI Wisdom Booklets supposedly based around them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Evangeline said:

In regard to your first paragraph, how is this instance different than the instances that occur every day of media outlets publishing identifying details about crime victims? That is the part I'm unclear about. What legal line is supposed to have been crossed here? 

Most of the time there is no argument about it being in the public record. Also, news agency's generally have a newsworthiness defense. It also has to private information which lots of things reported on are not. It also has to be highly offensive. If someone robbed your house, picked your pocket etc. revealing that isn't highly offensive. Childhood sexual abuse is. News agencies also have the defense if until being newsworthy. However, newsworthiness as a legal doctrine decreases with time, this information was very old which helps the girls in this, most news reported is current. 

It is also important to remember there is a difference between releasing Josh's names and actions, (he would never win a case which is why he didn't sue) and releasing the girls names as victims. Well they are connected they are different. Was it newsworthy that Josh committed these acts? Yes. Was it newsworthy that the duggar girls were victims of childhood sexual assault more then a decade before the release? That's the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jess said:

 Was it newsworthy that the duggar girls were victims of childhood sexual assault more then a decade before the release?

It was definetly newsworthy the fact that their parents chose to protect their daughter's moelster over them. Nevermind he was their son. If there's a situation in wich you should express a preference over your children, this was one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, JesusCampSongs said:

anti-LGBT hate group known for baselessly accusing LGBT adults of molesting children (source) and campaigning against an anti-discrimination ordinance by releasing a robocall that insinuated that sex offenders and transwomen would sexually assault women and children if the ordinance passed

I just listened to that robocall and it is mind blowing. She thinks that a guy can legitimately shake off a conviction for molestation by changing his gender, and away goes his criminal record.

It is almost like thinking you can shake off an investigation by firing the investigator. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems for the Duggars' case would be that their family brand is all about their public anti gay stance, equating homosexuality with pedophilia, , proposing the death penalty for incest, etc.

I think the Duggars, since they are on the record being against pedophiles and incest can't claim that their sons multiple forays into pedophile incest is not news and is definitely of public interest.

It is only because they pimped out their kids for cash that anyone would know about their internal family deviancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Coconut Flan locked this topic
  • hoipolloi unpinned this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.