Duggars by the Dozen 29 - A Very Inappropriate Lawsuit

[SilverBeach]

12 hours ago, KelseyAnn said:

emotional neglect is still neglect. 

Oh, and by the way I never said it wasn't.

[purjolok84]

Somebody reads Ask a Manager!

Nope, but I used to watch Friends all the time and the episode where Phoebe changes her name and Mike threatens to change his name is a memorable one. [emoji14]

[KelseyAnn]

11 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

I'm not sure what you mean by emotional neglect. I think of it as lack of love, attention, and guidance that parents are supposed to provide.

 

What you just described is the very definition of emotional abuse. Do you think Anna is loving her children when she is teaching them to live in mortal peril of God? When she is telling Mack that she's inferior because she was born female? 

[SilverBeach]

2 hours ago, KelseyAnn said:

What you just described is the very definition of emotional abuse. Do you think Anna is loving her children when she is teaching them to live in mortal peril of God? When she is telling Mack that she's inferior because she was born female? 

I hate their cult and everything it believes and stands for. It is definitely spiritually abusive. So, I think we are arguing semantics here. Direct abuse/neglect by Anna, vs. indirect abuse/neglect because of the cult upbringing.

Yes, I do think Anna loves her children, although it's not how I loved mine. I don't think Anna would point-blank tell Mack she was inferior, because she doesn't believe that.

The cult teaches women that they have special status as the weaker vessel and all that shit. I don't think Anna, or any of the Duggar women for that matter, have internalized that the cult teachings are really calling them inferior. She might be teaching her kids to live in mortal peril of God, as you put it. I can't say she doesn't love them because she teaches them that crap. 

Among fundy moms, Anna doesn't seem to be the worst, but yeah, staying in the cult will never make her mother of the year in my book. Neither will enabling her shithead of a husband.

[Iamtheway]

Finally cought up and you guys have already said all I want to say about the absurdity of Josh joining in on this lawsuit (that was pretty absurd to begin with). 

This thread is making me sad. All my parents ever gave me was unconditional love and support to do and be whatever I wanted. They still do and I'm closer to middle age then to childhood. I wish all of you could have had that too. I wish all children could have that. All of you that have gotten out and made better choices for yourself and your children, I admire your strenght so much. 

[missegeno]

On 6/8/2017 at 4:14 PM, MadeItOut said:

Every child also has other adults in their world and then there's DCFS and law enforcement too.

Sadly, the Nauglers have shown how little reach CPS/DCFS/whatever actually has. And when you're isolated like these families do, other adults who would otherwise be motivated to help (teachers, doctors, etc.) just can't get close enough to do so.

[Swamptribe]

19 hours ago, purjolok84 said:

Just disgusting - I guess as long as God and his lessers forgive all then all is truly erased with time. After all, the small opinions of unbelievers and heathens don't reeeaaaly matter, do they?

Keep building that fortress against Satan, Smugbag!

Ya know, instead of building a 'fortress against Satan', maybe he should try just being a decent human being.

[Mela99]

But if HE had to be a decent human being of his OWN accord he couldn't blame Satan. #fundielogie

[purjolok84]

Exactly! Plus with the poor education and bad relationship model he's been presented by Got-hard and his parents, how would he know what a decent human being looks/behaves like?

Actually, that sounds more like I'm excusing Smugbag. He's partly a product of his toxic environment but he could make better choices to help his wife and children and show remorse to his victims - which he has clearly yet to do.

[albanuadh_1]

Not certain if the DJ lawsuit should go here .... Pickles has something on her site stating that Josh wants a change of venue. I believe the case will be held in California?  Does Josh want the case in Arkansas because he lives there now or perhaps Daddy has more pull? Josh was living in DC, I think, when the ID fraud took place. 

Also, since it was over the internet, is there really justification for a change in venue, since www. doesn't have borders or boundaries? Someone with much better understanding of the law  would know.

[OyToTheVey]

@albanuadh_1 I think since it's a high profile case, it'll be really hard to find jurors that are impartial. Plus I do believe that JB has a lot of local pull. If the venue changed to Arkansas, I can see how he could have friends in high places fix the jury pool. I don't see how the judge can even change the venue to Arkansas when the event took place in DC. I'm not a degreed law professional, minor in law but that was real estate law, but from what I can tell it's a doozy of a case. It's a big old mess. I can also see how it would set standards in future cases that involve high profile identity fraud. 

[Jess]

42 minutes ago, albanuadh_1 said:

Not certain if the DJ lawsuit should go here .... Pickles has something on her site stating that Josh wants a change of venue. I believe the case will be held in California?  Does Josh want the case in Arkansas because he lives there now or perhaps Daddy has more pull? Josh was living in DC, I think, when the ID fraud took place. 

Also, since it was over the internet, is there really justification for a change in venue, since www. doesn't have borders or boundaries? Someone with much better understanding of the law  would know.

I don't know enough about the case and haven't read that motion and don't have any knowledge of local rules. However, in civil cases in general Plaintiff picks the venue and as long as it's a proper venue, such as plaintiff's place of residence, or defendant's place of residence, or there is some other basis for it in the law for the cause of action being pled the defendant won't win a change of venue motion. Filing one might be a tactic to encourage settlement or maybe there are valid grounds in this case I don't know, but if the original venue was proper Josh shouldn't want the motion.

[Pasta]

Would Josh jumping onto the female lawsuit harm him on his other lawsuit? Or interfere with it? Are they hoping that if they win the female lawsuit it'll help with Josh's lawsuit?

[MadeItOut]

Apart from being a foul rag, why on earth would Iqr be 'reporting' that the court is likely to go against the DJ? - PLEASE tell me they're wrong!

[Jess]

1 hour ago, Pasta said:

Would Josh jumping onto the female lawsuit harm him on his other lawsuit? Or interfere with it? Are they hoping that if they win the female lawsuit it'll help with Josh's lawsuit?

The lawsuits (DJ suing Josh and duggars suing city/county/in touch) are not connected in any way winning or losing one won't effect the other. 

[Jess]

Just read the article. It looks like it's not a motion to change venue it's a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Years when I was still in law school I actually had to write a long research paper on the topic of personal jurisdiction that seems pretty similar to what they are claiming. At that point the various appellate courts were split on the issue and case law was confusing. Which is why they assigned the paper half the class had to argue one way and the other half the other way. So yeah no idea how that motion will go. If he loses on that issue he better sue his lawyer for legal malpractice it is a huge mess up.

[Bad Wolf]

I'd forgotten that Josh was being sued in all the tumult of him jumping on his sisters' suit. Good thing he doesn't have to work, so he can keep all this straight. Four kids and a baby on the way would keep me busy without adding lawsuits.

[MadeItOut]

Thanks for that @Jess.

I noticed the date they had last month is never mentioned online anymore and the one they had a week or so seems to have delayed it to the 22nd.

I know I'm applying logic, but otherwise I have no frame of reference, but it definitely confuses me all this stuff. Would you explain it as best you can please?

Is there ever a time when all this putting off and niggling at the place etc benefits a respondent, or is it a known tactic in any way? - I'm just thinking, as loathful a person as he is, surely any last vestige of humanity would want to get it squared away as soon as possible?

[albanuadh_1]

Well, colour me confused or stupid.... Why did I read that as change in venue?  Let's put it down to age.

[subsaharanafrica]

Personal jurisdiction means that the person being sued has enough contact with the state involved that he can be sued there. You can't be sued sued in a state you have never had any contact with. It wouldn't be fair. If he wins the case gets dismissed and the plaintiff is free to try to bring it in a jurisdiction that does have person jurisdiction over Josh (like Arkansas). 

I have no idea what kind of contact Josh has had with California, but back when I was clerking in law school we we're able to get a case dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction where the defendant's only contact with the forum state was online. 

[Jess]

The statute if limitations is soon to be up so they don't have much time to bring it in another jurisdiction, hopefully the lawyers involved protect their client's rights. 

[VelociRapture]

7 hours ago, subsaharanafrica said:

Personal jurisdiction means that the person being sued has enough contact with the state involved that he can be sued there. You can't be sued sued in a state you have never had any contact with. It wouldn't be fair. If he wins the case gets dismissed and the plaintiff is free to try to bring it in a jurisdiction that does have person jurisdiction over Josh (like Arkansas). 

I have no idea what kind of contact Josh has had with California, but back when I was clerking in law school we we're able to get a case dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction where the defendant's only contact with the forum state was online. 

If I remember right, Josh has visited at least once. I think he and Anna went to California in one episode, right before the SEX reveal for Meredith (the one where Sierra had the Duggars paint those stupid flamingoes.)

[CharlieInCharge]

He was also there with the family during their road trip in one of the early specials. I have no idea what would be required to meet the legal standard though 

[Fjrocks]

   With the cracks in the relationships between the girls already present, I would tell them this lawsuit (especially tainted by Josh) is a very bad idea. 

    There has been musings about who doesn't follow who on Instagram or throwing shade. Some girls defended Josh and tweet about it while others remain quiet.    I can see one or two girls being pressured to allow the suit when they would prefer to move forward, while others want the money. 

   Sisters can be so special, don't take them for granted because you have lots of spare sisters.

 JB, you made a fatal error here.

[Bad Wolf]

Didn't JB and M send J and A to a marriage retreat? Wasn't it before anything came out about the molestation? Maybe they knew what was coming down.  Or maybe that didn't happen and I just dreamt it.