Josh Duggar, Admitted Child Molester - Part 9

[Naga Viper]

If JB's lawyer is working for him rather than helping Josh he probably is doing something similar: either arguing that JB and Michelle haven't broken a morals clause, or arguing that Josh was immoral, yes, but that the rest of them are pure and moral as peach cobbler. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that a lawyer might have trouble making that case. The molestation happened before they started filming, right? If TLC was looking for an uplifting show about a religious family they may have asked if anyone in the family was guilty of a felony. Why, heavens no! In fact they're all paragons of virtue! No naughtiness or hanky-panky hokey pokey here!

FTFY.

[halcionne]

Well I'm not from AR, but where I am family law is different from administrative law, and when I worked with parents dealing with DCFS (in a different state) most family law attorneys were not used to the rules of the administrative hearings, so thats why I asked.

You already know more about it than I do, lol.

[RosyDaisy]

These people are more preoccupied with sex than the freaking heathens.

That, and they are quiverfull.

[Rescinded and Mended]

JB may be lawyering up in hopes of saving the show if TLC wants to cancel because the Duggars broke a morals clause. I believe that's how TLC ditched the Honey Boo Boo show: Honey Boo Boo's mom started hanging out with a man who had been convicted of molesting another of the mom's daughters, HBB spent time with them, HBB was the same age as the other daughter was when she was molested, you'd think a mother would have the sense enough to keep the ex-con from Boo Boo, but she didn't, and lied about it . . . you could cut the immorality with a knife. End of show.

I don't know if the family got any money for episodes that weren't aired, but I believe that a lawyer couldn't really say "Immorality? What immorality?" He or she may have been hired when the Boo Boos realized their ship had sailed and were just trying to recoup as much money as possible.

If JB's lawyer is working for him rather than helping Josh he probably is doing something similar: either arguing that JB and Michelle haven't broken a morals clause, or arguing that Josh was immoral, yes, but that the rest of them are pure and moral as peach cobbler. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that a lawyer might have trouble making that case. The molestation happened before they started filming, right? If TLC was looking for an uplifting show about a religious family they may have asked if anyone in the family was guilty of a felony. Why, heavens no! In fact they're all paragons of virtue! No naughtiness or hanky-panky here!

If TLC argues that JB misrepresented the family because JB knew that Josh had committed repeated instances of incest and that JB covered it up till the statute had run out, the lawyer might have trouble making a case. At this point the lawyer may just be trying to find out exactly what happened when and whether JB and Josh and Michelle and the victims are reliable and don't contradict the police records. A lawyer might do that before deciding whether he has a hope in hell of winning the case. If he feels he doesn't and he's a good lawyer, he'll say so. If his client loses the client will have to pay all the costs. We've seen before that the Duggars tried to hire lawyers and couldn't find ones to represent them. Who knows what will happen next? The lawyer may decline because he doesn't think he can make a case or because he can't see how his client will pay him if he loses. "We covered up the incestuous molestation of children, one as young as five, because we handled it in-house till it was clear that didn't work, then he did construction and got his head shaved, problem solved!" isn't going to sound like "No immorality here, folks!" to a lawyer or judge, I'd guess.

That's certainly possible. But wouldn't TLC be on the hook to pay the Duggars whatever they were owed for each unfilmed episode anyway, if the network chose to cancel the show? I don't know much about such legal matters, but I have always heard that if a company chooses to break a contract for however many shows, albums, scripts, or whatever it was that was agreed upon and in a certain amount, then the company is on the hook for paying the the balance of the fee to the contracted party who agreed to do the work.

Now I'm wondering if Jim Bob got the lawyer because the cancellation is a done deal (even if not yet announced) and he wants to try and squeeze the network for more money. :think:

[ShepherdontheRock]

That's certainly possible. But wouldn't TLC be on the hook to pay the Duggars whatever they were owed for each unfilmed episode anyway, if the network chose to cancel the show? I don't know much about such legal matters, but I have always heard that if a company chooses to break a contract for however many shows, albums, scripts, or whatever it was that was agreed upon and in a certain amount, then the company is on the hook for paying the the balance of the fee to the contracted party who agreed to do the work.

Now I'm wondering if Jim Bob got the lawyer because the cancellation is a done deal (even if not yet announced) and he wants to try and squeeze the network for more money. :think:

Or maybe he's trying to appeal the cancellation...

[Cochise]

But wouldn't TLC be on the hook to pay the Duggars whatever they were owed for each unfilmed episode anyway, if the network chose to cancel the show? I don't know much about such legal matters, but I have always heard that if a company chooses to break a contract for however many shows, albums, scripts, or whatever it was that was agreed upon and in a certain amount, then the company is on the hook for paying the the balance of the fee to the contracted party who agreed to do the work.

Now I'm wondering if Jim Bob got the lawyer because the cancellation is a done deal (even if not yet announced) and he wants to try and squeeze the network for more money. :think:

As for whether TLC would be on the hook to pay the Duggars--I don't have any idea! If the scandal broke after the series but before the next began filming, I don't see how, but then again I'm no lawyer.

On the other hand, from what I can gather about Jim Bob, he seems REALLY likely to be trying to squeeze the network for more money. Maybe that's possible. Or maybe because he's pretty much delusional, he imagines everyone in America loves and admires him, can't really believe that TLC would cancel on him, and figures that if he just explains that yes, not everything was 1000% perfect, Josh was a bad boy but God has forgiven him, TLC will understand that the show must go on.

I get the feeling that at some point as the kids popped out and the Duggars became more and more secluded, Jim Bob may have lost touch with reality in ways that might verge on the nutty (nice technical term, huh?) He doesn't seem to understand what "This interview will be a disaster" means, but it seems like one PR guy they wanted to work with withdrew before Megyn allowed them to make total fools of themselves withdrew, saying something like "To recover from this sort of thing people have to accept that things went wrong and they have some part of the fault." As if JB could do that!

Just to take another whack at the big pinata named The Duggars, were there EVER very many people who felt that photo of Jim Bob and Michelle sharing a single Starbucks drink with two straws a la Archie comics in the 50's was adorable? Especially granted that they were eyeballing the camera instead of each other? I always though the point of this odd and unsatisfying means of drinking something had a higher chance of seeming cute or sappily romantic if the two people were gazing dreamily into each others' eyes. Not JB and Valvoline. It's all "Look at us! Look at us! We're pretending that we're teenaged sweethearts! Aren't we ADORABLE??" No, if people turned in for romance it wasn't to see a dopey-looking middle-aged man and his dopey wife performing a little "We're so in love!" act. I suspect that this only happened because the cameras were rolling.

And (whack, whack) when their pretty daughter and nice-looking husband posted a sweet picture of the two of them kissing, why did Jim Bob and Michelle post a picture in exactly the same pose? Could they PASS THE FLIPPIN' BATON and let some other couple be the center of attention just for a little? Couldn't they understand that the fresh kisses of a new, attractive couple were a lot more appealing than their pictures, for more reasons than I can list? When a daughter and her new husband ran off so they could be ALONE for their first kiss, why did that threaten Jim Bob so much? Why did he want the scene re-edited to omit that? Why did he and Michelle kiss in the younger, cuter couple's place? A man with a kind of collapsing face and teeny eyes and his wife, held together by seven pairs of Spanx for the occasion, aren't really what ANYBODY IN THE WORLD wants to see unless they're much more glamorous and attractive; Helen Mirren and George Clooney, they aren't. They always have to be the center of attention. I don't think they actually have much affection for their children at all--they're just narcissists.

[mebeforee]

If JimBob is trying to appeal the cancellation or claim breach of contract (which does seem likely knowing what we know about his famewhore nature), I assume he's going to claim there was no violation of morality clause because it was 'dealt with'. They did go to a police officer before the statute ran out - it ran out when the case was reopened in 2006, but that wasn't the first time he approached law enforcement. Whether or not he knew the pedophile cop would go easy on Josh because of their close relationship (although it's dubious whether the cop's telling the truth about them claiming Josh 'only' offended once since neither party seems like a paragon of honesty, he did also say he and JB were close friends and had even done some talks together to people wanting to open car lots or something like that, which would probably be fairly easy for a lawyer to find documentation or evidence of) may be irrelevant. They do have evidence in the police report itself that says JB spoke to Hutchens back when the offenses happened but no further investigation was done. So the Duggars may try to claim that as evidence that they did right by everyone, and the children's assurance that Josh's rehabilitation was 100% successful will also probably support that claim.

If they are trying to dispute the cancellation of the show, I'm sure that's the angle they'll take. Not 'we're the purest pure who ever pured' but they'll try to make it seem that they went through the appropriate channels and it was someone else's fault that the case didn't gain traction until after the statute expired.

[SassyPants]

In order for the Duggar family to have any kind of TV show, they'd have to change the angle of the show and their target audience. These folks do not have any skills or appeal other than what they have already, dubiously sold and revealed.

Maybe JB is looking for some sort of lump payout based on a contractual loophole, but any chance for JB to have a family show on TLC are g-o-n-e, gone.

[Cochise]

If he is in fact trying to argue that everything that may have looked (and been) morally horrific got taken care of, so everything's just dandy, the fact that Child Protective Services has been knockin' on the Duggar door, that the Sheriff's office and the local police had to come, that they were there for half an hour, and that the investigation is ongoing may just possibly suggest that there continue to be moral problems in Duggarland.

[mebeforee]

That's true, but who knows how they would try to spin it. 'We were dealing with the intrusion of the world and thought this was probably from a faulty claim / didn't feel they had sufficient identification / had no legal obligation to allow them in / were protecting our family from further media trauma' etc.

It may suggest there is more wrong but if they are trying to get their show back by using the contract, they're going to aim for concrete legal liability to try and force TLC to continue with the show on technical grounds, rather than context or the bad implications of their collective actions. The fact that the interview with Megyn Kelly had JB almost immediately saying 'parents aren't mandatory reporters' shows that he was trying to equate legal requirements of parents with moral righteousness. Their actions were not illegal therefore they aren't at fault and shouldn't be held accountable.

Funny how everyone else is expected to be held accountable for moral failings caused by an immoral government that allows premarital sex and homosexual relationships and bikinis and shit like that, but their own actions are immediately locked under 'we acted within the law'. Like Steven Anderson going through border patrol stations and provoking them until they tased him. Obviously not doing anything illegal makes his actions okay, and refusing to comply with their requests until they felt threatened and broke his window and tased him... was met with him taking them to court. It was clearly deliberate on his part to get border patrol to do this, he was habitually driving through those traffic stops and purposely provoking them every single time. They're just working the system to make themselves look sympathetic when they discuss being 'persecuted' when they aren't even breaking the law. :roll:

(edited to break wall-of-text into digestible chunks.)

[mebeforee]

And obviously Josh's initial actions were not a deliberate attempt to pull the persecution wagon up to the Duggar's door. But their entire handling of the situation has been 'poor us! you guys are so mean! we didn't do anything wrong! Josh got healed by Jesus! we even told a cop you guys! why don't you belieeeeeeve us?'

[CorruptionInc.]

He focuses his practice on significant, complex business litigation in federal and state courts including the defense of claims involving class actions, securities fraud, ERISA, business torts, trade secrets, patent and trademark infringement, products liability, environmental and toxic torts, and breach of contract, among others. Kevin also provides clients with representation before governmental bodies and counsels them in regulatory matters.

It would be lovely if it meant they need a laywer because TLC is trying to pull them off the air.

In a perfect world! 8-)

[imjustasteph]

So I wasn't sure where to put this, but I got the latest issue of InTouch magazine this week. There's really nothing new in it that hasn't already been covered here on Free Jinger (mostly it talks about how the Duggar parents could have gone to jail for protecting Josh as long as they did without getting help from the police and other licensed therapists).

But the article does say that the Duggar family is now being represented by lawyer Kevin A. Crass of Little Rock, Arkansas-based firm Eldredge & Clarke.

Apologies if that was posted elsewhere.

Have I got the wrong issue or something? Because mine is dated June 29, and I have gone over it with a fine-toothed comb and can't find a mention of the lawyer. Also, Friday, Eldredge, and Clark is the firm that notified the city atty to destroy the records.

[Rescinded and Mended]

Have I got the wrong issue or something? Because mine is dated June 29, and I have gone over it with a fine-toothed comb and can't find a mention of the lawyer. Also, Friday, Eldredge, and Clark is the firm that notified the city atty to destroy the records.

The one I have is dated June 15th. The way I even found this issue was strange - couldn't find it anywhere in stores until yesterday, and it was literally the only one on the shelf. I'm not sure how I missed it since I also have the June 29th issue.

I must have confused my dates when I posted previously, sorry!

[NotALoserLikeYou]

This is random and I admit I'm not caught up with the Josh threads so I apologize if this was talked about, but I notice on Instagram that there are no more "tagged" pics of Josh, meaning he goes to every pic that has tagged him (and there were probably thousands, most of the recent ones being anti Josh memes or pics) and manually removes the tag. Do you know how much time he must devote to this?

[imjustasteph]

The one I have is dated June 15th. The way I even found this issue was strange - couldn't find it anywhere in stores until yesterday, and it was literally the only one on the shelf. I'm not sure how I missed it since I also have the June 29th issue.

I must have confused my dates when I posted previously, sorry!

No thing, just wondering if I was losing my mind because I couldn't find it!

[mamallama]

I'm not a lawyer either (was married to one though) but I did produce TV commercials. My thoughts are that TLC had much better lawyers than Boob going into this and even in boilerplate contracts there are contingencies for subjecting the producer/sponsors to ridicule. They are very open ended and probably specifically include information that was not revealed so it shouldn't matter if they took care of it. Even if they disclosed it TLC could say they didn't disclose just how badly they handled it. It could even be that TLC suing the Duggars for making the past episodes worth less.

[socalrules]

Jim Bob isn't going to sue. It would be the dumbest idea ever. TLC will deposed every, single Duggar, including the children, and there is nothing Jim Bon could do about it. Suing someone is going to war and TLC has the money and, likely, the law on its side. Networks can cancel a show anytime they want. They don't need a reason. I am sure the Duggars were paid for the season that has been filmed but not aired. I do not see what grounds he would have to bring a lawsuit.

As for the attorney, practically everyone that does civil law will say they do breach of contract because it's a common cause of action.

[Terrier99]

This is random and I admit I'm not caught up with the Josh threads so I apologize if this was talked about, but I notice on Instagram that there are no more "tagged" pics of Josh, meaning he goes to every pic that has tagged him (and there were probably thousands, most of the recent ones being anti Josh memes or pics) and manually removes the tag. Do you know how much time he must devote to this?

It's really sad, in a way

[Nic]

It's really sad, in a way

Well, he does have a lot of free time now. It's good that he's keeping busy.

[RosyDaisy]

Don't know, don't care. Josh is a child molester, predator, and pedophile. It's his kids that I care about.

[calimojo]

Jim Bob isn't going to sue. It would be the dumbest idea ever. TLC will deposed every, single Duggar, including the children, and there is nothing Jim Bon could do about it. Suing someone is going to war and TLC has the money and, likely, the law on its side. Networks can cancel a show anytime they want. They don't need a reason. I am sure the Duggars were paid for the season that has been filmed but not aired. I do not see what grounds he would have to bring a lawsuit.

As for the attorney, practically everyone that does civil law will say they do breach of contract because it's a common cause of action.

JB and M have had a lot of time here as of late to brainwash the kids into how to answer deposition questions. They will all paint their parents as perfect parents and claim no harm no foul of Josh. There is no way that any of those kids would tell the truth at this point, likely because their memories have been so screwed up that they don't even know what the truth is anymore. To really get at the most accurate memories would take a lot of therapy, I mean, a lot of therapy and even then who knows, because our brains are wired to fill in the blanks and a false memory feels extremely real to the person who has it.

We all have false memories, and it usually just happens because of details being lost to us over time, and we hear stories of something or our brains just fill in those blanks in the memory with something that seems logical to us.

But in the Duggar case, it is likely that not only have the youngest victims had details turn mushy after so many years, but then they also have had at least 2 or more powerful adults in their lives be very prescriptive with what they should remember and how they should feel about it. And if they ever show any discomfort or awkwardness around Josh, they were probably told that was evidence they hadn't forgiven him enough, so they had guilt added to whatever else they were told to feel and remember.

I had some hopes for Joy, who seemed to have some 'spunkiness', to reject some of how she was raised, but in the past year, I see she is becoming just like the older girls. The younger kids might break free only because they get such substandard parenting and lack of education, that it might not even be noticed by their parents for awhile if they started dabbling in evil secular culture.

[Cleopatra7]

JB and M have had a lot of time here as of late to brainwash the kids into how to answer deposition questions. They will all paint their parents as perfect parents and claim no harm no foul of Josh. There is no way that any of those kids would tell the truth at this point, likely because their memories have been so screwed up that they don't even know what the truth is anymore. To really get at the most accurate memories would take a lot of therapy, I mean, a lot of therapy and even then who knows, because our brains are wired to fill in the blanks and a false memory feels extremely real to the person who has it.

We all have false memories, and it usually just happens because of details being lost to us over time, and we hear stories of something or our brains just fill in those blanks in the memory with something that seems logical to us.

But in the Duggar case, it is likely that not only have the youngest victims had details turn mushy after so many years, but then they also have had at least 2 or more powerful adults in their lives be very prescriptive with what they should remember and how they should feel about it. And if they ever show any discomfort or awkwardness around Josh, they were probably told that was evidence they hadn't forgiven him enough, so they had guilt added to whatever else they were told to feel and remember.

I had some hopes for Joy, who seemed to have some 'spunkiness', to reject some of how she was raised, but in the past year, I see she is becoming just like the older girls. The younger kids might break free only because they get such substandard parenting and lack of education, that it might not even be noticed by their parents for awhile if they started dabbling in evil secular culture.

Given that JB and Michelle are busy extracting confessions from the howlers and issuing them "flip phones of shame," I doubt either one of them will be easing up on the legalism any time soon.

[justbecause]

These people are more preoccupied with sex than the freaking heathens.

Doesn't GOthard preach some 'Even if you don't feel like it, it's your duty ...' type of b.s. to men too. I think that they're cult like put's it on men that they 'should' be doin it and if they are not, they are selfish.

Many men have low sex drives.

[justbecause]

JB may be lawyering up in hopes of saving the show if TLC wants to cancel because the Duggars broke a morals clause. I believe that's how TLC ditched the Honey Boo Boo show: Honey Boo Boo's mom started hanging out with a man who had been convicted of molesting another of the mom's daughters, HBB spent time with them, HBB was the same age as the other daughter was when she was molested, you'd think a mother would have the sense enough to keep the ex-con from Boo Boo, but she didn't, and lied about it . . . you could cut the immorality with a knife. End of show.

I don't know if the family got any money for episodes that weren't aired, but I believe that a lawyer couldn't really say "Immorality? What immorality?" He or she may have been hired when the Boo Boos realized their ship had sailed and were just trying to recoup as much money as possible.

If JB's lawyer is working for him rather than helping Josh he probably is doing something similar: either arguing that JB and Michelle haven't broken a morals clause, or arguing that Josh was immoral, yes, but that the rest of them are pure and moral as peach cobbler. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that a lawyer might have trouble making that case. The molestation happened before they started filming, right? If TLC was looking for an uplifting show about a religious family they may have asked if anyone in the family was guilty of a felony. Why, heavens no! In fact they're all paragons of virtue! No naughtiness or hanky-panky here!

If TLC argues that JB misrepresented the family because JB knew that Josh had committed repeated instances of incest and that JB covered it up till the statute had run out, the lawyer might have trouble making a case. At this point the lawyer may just be trying to find out exactly what happened when and whether JB and Josh and Michelle and the victims are reliable and don't contradict the police records. A lawyer might do that before deciding whether he has a hope in hell of winning the case. If he feels he doesn't and he's a good lawyer, he'll say so. If his client loses the client will have to pay all the costs. We've seen before that the Duggars tried to hire lawyers and couldn't find ones to represent them. Who knows what will happen next? The lawyer may decline because he doesn't think he can make a case or because he can't see how his client will pay him if he loses. "We covered up the incestuous molestation of children, one as young as five, because we handled it in-house till it was clear that didn't work, then he did construction and got his head shaved, problem solved!" isn't going to sound like "No immorality here, folks!" to a lawyer or judge, I'd guess.

It will be in both parties best interest to settle and not drag it out.

Wouldn't be surprised if a lawsuit started to get it all official so they can hammer it out and settle.