Possible Lawsuit for Josh

[December]

I'll eagerly be waiting for Tuesday, give some time for any filing to have a chance to become news.

If all their assets can be frozen, that might mean the court's concerned about them funneling money into different organizations to try getting off.

No matter what happens or doesn't going forward, I think there's still a concern about them shifting money around :lol:

[vienna]

After reading throu all former post and the billions of "pm me" Posts, I feel that all we have got so far is:

- An Article by in Touch stating that the victim is PREPARING to fill a law suit and

- Some unknown "Harry" posting at an unknown place.

So I will not get my hope for justice up (yet).

My dream would be that ALL victims would realize that they have been victims not only of molestation but also of emotional, spiritual abuse. Jinger and Joy Anna should find the courage to allow their true feelings to be felt. I believe those two have been hurt the most, and I have no more hopes for Jill and Jesse. Their brainwash has been completed and I really think that it is not unlikely that IN THEIR case the molestation was "mild". In the loundry room, hand under the dress situation this was definitly not the case. But I fear also in the Event of a lawsuit, also if all those investigations really take place, the brainwahs will protect all Duggers fro facing the truth. Ist so much better to stick with the "Agenda" solution.

[snarkykitty]

I guess I'd love to know as well

[16strong]

If all of this is true, I wonder which government agency/person they pissed off for all of this to be happening? I get the feeling that they tried to stuff the wrong person's balls in a box. They really do think they're invincible, and everyone else exists to serve them, don't they?

Well, with any luck, they'll be finding out how much of a bunch of nobodies they are very soon.

[ShebrewDefrauder]

This is what I get both for being a newb (just signed up a couple weeks ago and have been lurking for years) and signing in at the end of the day. Can I get in on the PM train too?

[ILoveJellybeans]

Could you please PM the info to me. I'm very curious.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeease can I have a PM too?

[FlorenceHamilton]

OK. I can't stand it. Could I be included?

[hennypenny]

Can I have a pm.

jkjkjkjk :lol:

I can actually see them filing the papers to freeze assets. I thought that was possible so I did some lawyer googling and found this:

http://www.btlaw.com/files/Uploads/Docu ... tToDo.ashx[1].pdf

So yes, it does look like that is a possible thing.

[hennypenny]

I keep forgetting that you break links here

Initial Imposition of Ex Parte Asset Freeze Order in Civil Cases

"A District Court has the authority in a civil securities fraud case to impose a temporary asset freeze; one of the primary reasons for this requirement is to ensure that the defendant has not secreted assets while insuring that there will be assets available to “compensate defrauded investors.â€

[imjustasteph]

I'm a n00b, but would love a PM/link, if someone would be so kind. I don't have enough posts to see the secret section and don't think it would be cool to make a bunch of inane posts so I can see it.

Ditto.

[hennypenny]

sorry to serial post but here is another lawyer google

"Usually an application for a freezing injunction is made before proceedings – including arbitration proceedings – are issued, when the applicant fears that the other party will dispose of its assets"

and wikipedia...I know, I know.... :lol:

"Asset freezing is a legal process which prevents a defendant (usually an apparent fraudster)[1] to an action from dissipating their assets from beyond the jurisdiction of a court so as to frustrate a potential judgment. It is widely recognised in other common law jurisdictions[2] and such orders can be made to have world-wide effect. It is variously construed as part of a court's inherent jurisdiction to restrain breaches of its process.

The jurisdiction arises in part from the Judicature Act 1873, which provided that "A mandamus or an injunction may be granted or a receiver appointed by an interlocutory Order of the Court in all cases in which it shall appear to the Court to be just or convenient..." Relying on this, Jessel MR in 1878 declared, "I have unlimited power to grant an injunction in any case where it would be right or just to do so..."[3]

[hennypenny]

PLEASE STOP ASKING FOR PM

You are killing this thread. :angry-banghead:

[JenniferJuniper]

I keep forgetting that you break links here

Initial Imposition of Ex Parte Asset Freeze Order in Civil Cases

"A District Court has the authority in a civil securities fraud case to impose a temporary asset freeze; one of the primary reasons for this requirement is to ensure that the defendant has not secreted assets while insuring that there will be assets available to “compensate defrauded investors.â€

This is not a civil securities fraud case and would have nothing to do with defrauded investors.

If it's really true, this would be a civil lawsuit by one individual against other individuals for damages sustained as a result of one or more sexual assaults. A very ambitious attorney trying to make a name for himself might also sue the state police and/or TLC, depending on when she was victimized, but no court is going to freeze assets in what is really a routine civil suit. One that hasn't even been filed yet, never mind adjudicated!

[imjustasteph]

I tried to edit my previous post to say "Sorry, should've read through the end of the thread before replying, I see there are no PMs." but the board wouldn't let me edit for some reason. So, sorry.

To actually give some value to my couble post, I'll add this. RE discussion upthread about whether the Duggars knew ahead of time, the Mayor released a statement that said they were contacted when the FOIA request was recieved, updated as material was gathered, and notified when it was mailed out.

[hennypenny]

This is not a civil securities fraud case and would have nothing to do with defrauded investors.

If it's really true, this would be a civil lawsuit by one individual against other individuals for damages sustained as a result of one or more sexual assaults. A very ambitious attorney trying to make a name for himself might also sue the state police and/or TLC, depending on when she was victimized, but no court is going to freeze assets in what is really a routine civil suit. One that hasn't even been filed yet, never mind adjudicated!

Ok, I keep searching and everything I'm reading says yes-ish. But I'll admit my half a paralegal degree in 1997 doesn't really give me solid understanding. :lol:

Anyone a civil attorney round these parts? :think:

[gustava]

PLEASE STOP ASKING FOR PM

You are killing this thread. :angry-banghead:

:agree:

[JenniferJuniper]

Ok, I keep searching and everything I'm reading says yes-ish. But I'll admit my half a paralegal degree in 1997 doesn't really give me solid understanding. :lol:

Anyone a civil attorney round these parts? :think:

I have been involved in the defense of many such civil suits, although I am not familiar with Arkansas. However, I assure you, judges don't go around freezing assets on routine civil cases between individual parties just because a lawsuit is filed. That would be insane.

The person who is claiming the Duggars' assets have been or will shortly be frozen is lying or very confused.

[hennypenny]

I have been involved in the defense of many such civil suits, although I am not familiar with Arkansas. However, I assure you, judges don't go around freezing assets on routine civil cases between individual parties just because a lawsuit is filed. That would be insane.

The person who is claiming the Duggars' assets have been or will shortly be frozen is lying or very confused.

"on routine civil cases..."

when you are talking routine then I would agree, yes. But this isn't routine. This is a big lawsuit against celebrities and probably against TLC. <-----ok so that's pie in the sky hoping

[JenniferJuniper]

"on routine civil cases..."

when you are talking routine then I would agree, yes. But this isn't routine. This is a big lawsuit against celebrities and probably against TLC. <-----ok so that's pie in the sky hoping

No. Due process works the same for everyone.

I say this would be a routine case because such allegations, sadly, are not unusual and civil suits often follow, especially if a party has insurance or money that will cover some or all of the plaintiff's damages. Some of these suits have merit; others do not. That's why there is legal protocol to follow and jury trials.

The fact that the Duggars are involved does not change the nature of what this is.

[hennypenny]

No. Due process works the same for everyone.

I say this would be a routine case because such allegations, sadly, are not unusual and civil suits often follow, especially if a party has insurance or money that will cover some or all of the plaintiff's damages. Some of these suits have merit; others do not. That's why there is legal protocol to follow and jury trials.

The fact that the Duggars are involved does not change the nature of what this is.

Ok, so is there a different term maybe they are using? I ran across this explanation. So maybe they are dumbing it down for the NFV et all.

"The complaint explains why the plaintiff is suing the defendant and what remedy (for example, money damages, the return of certain property, or an injunction to stop the defendant from taking certain actions) the plaintiff wants."

[SpoonfulOSugar]

I, personally, don't believe the NFV has any cause of action against TLC. The television fame came well after the molestation, so TLC has no responsibility to that individual unless they knowingly aired something that was somehow harmful.

If the Duggar sisters wanted to claim that the show exacerbated the effects of the abuse (which clearly Jessa and Jill have not, to this point, publicly), they would have to show that TLC knew about the molestation and proceeded with something so egregiously harmful or willfully neglectful . . . .

I do, still, believe however that Jim Holt, as an ordained Baptist pastor, was a mandated reporter and the delay in reporting leaves him culpable along with JB, M and Joshua.

[Flyinthesoup]

FOUND IT!!!! :cracking-up: That took much longer than I thought it would.

OK, what I referenced earlier regarding #of victims and outside the home. It was "concernedmom" that made the comments. You can find the the full quote here: http://www.freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=87&t=713&hilit=josh+molest#p13658

Below is part of the quote, it states that it's "concernedmom's" friend's daughter that was the victim that was sleeping while Josh molested her. She is not the Holt daughter!!!

The "sin in the camp" was while " on the campaign trail" which is why I was thinking the other 'molestation' must have taken place while they were traveling, meaning Josh with Mr. Holt and whomever else was there. Again, that may not have been Mr. Holt's daughter, but someone else. Josh was 16 at this time!

If Josh was 'betrothed' to Mr. Holt's daughter at this time, it's not out of the possibility that Josh and Miss Holt may have been playing a little hanky panky, but then again, not......but this might be why the sister Holt was told 'not to say anything' about what happened, as reported in an earlier magazine quote.

Anyway, if 'concernedmom' is to believed, I think it's her friend's daughter that is the 5th victim.

[JenniferJuniper]

Ok, so is there a different term maybe they are using? I ran across this explanation. So maybe they are dumbing it down for the NFV et all.

"The complaint explains why the plaintiff is suing the defendant and what remedy (for example, money damages, the return of certain property, or an injunction to stop the defendant from taking certain actions) the plaintiff wants."

You have to put this in context. What complaint? What plaintiff? What defendant? What are the facts?

Let me give you a very basic example of a routine civil lawsuit that might involve an "injunction to stop the defendant from taking certain actions".

Mabel Jones owns a strip mall. Joe Jackson owns a trucking company behind the strip mall and his trucks routinely cut through the parking lot of the strip mall. These truck are destroying Mabel's parking lot, patrons are tripping over the potholes so she is forever patching and repairing.

Joe's Trucking claims he has an easement from the prior owner of the strip mall.

She sues Joe Jackson Trucking for ongoing damage to her property and also files for injunctive relief, asking the court to force Joe's Trucking to cease and desist using her lot while the matter is sorted out.

I'm afraid we can't take random cases, parse out what we want to use and apply it to the story this Harry person is telling. I understand wanting the Duggars to pay for what they did. I hope someday they do. But until we actually see a filed lawsuit, we need to be skeptical about stuff people say on the internet.

[hennypenny]

You have to put this in context. What complaint? What plaintiff? What defendant? What are the facts?

Let me give you a very basic example of a routine civil lawsuit that might involve an "injunction to stop the defendant from taking certain actions".

Mabel Jones owns a strip mall. Joe Jackson owns a trucking company behind the strip mall and his trucks routinely cut through the parking lot of the strip mall. These truck are destroying Mabel's parking lot, patrons are tripping over the potholes so she is forever patching and repairing.

Joe's Trucking claims he has an easement from the prior owner of the strip mall.

She sues Joe Jackson Trucking for ongoing damage to her property and also files for injunctive relief, asking the court to force Joe's Trucking to cease and desist using her lot while the matter is sorted out.

I'm afraid we can't take random cases, parse out what we want to use and apply it to the story this Harry person is telling. I understand wanting the Duggars to pay for what they did. I hope someday they do. But until we actually see a filed lawsuit, we need to be skeptical about stuff people say on the internet.

You are such a dreamkiller. :sigh2:

I WANT Harry to be right though. So in my made-up fantasy lawsuit against the duggars...the lawyers freeze assets, snatch children, and put people in prison.

All the children get shoes and educations!

JB and mullet goes to jail for not protecting the NFV!

Live feed of them crying over their spilled jesus money-pot!

Jim Holt is ruined and won't run for office anymore! Thank you baby J for keeping him out of our hometown politics.

Hucklberry gets tossed off the politics train!

Judge and lawyers who tried to cover up and sweep under rug, fired!

NO more TLC and NO more tater-tot casserole

[JenniferJuniper]

You are such a dreamkiller. :sigh2:

I WANT Harry to be right though. So in my made-up fantasy lawsuit against the duggars...the lawyers freeze assets, snatch children, and put people in prison.

All the children get shoes and educations!

JB and mullet goes to jail for not protecting the NFV!

Live feed of them crying over their spilled jesus money-pot!

Jim Holt is ruined and won't run for office anymore! Thank you baby J for keeping him out of our hometown politics.

Hucklberry gets tossed off the politics train!

Judge and lawyers who tried to cover up and sweep under rug, fired!

NO more TLC and NO more tater-tot casserole

You say dream killer; I say realist.

Just trying to save you from a let down.

I will say this; the truth is the truth and it usually comes out. Not as quickly as we might like and the guilty often go unpunished. But I do think there is much more to this story and someday we'll have a more complete picture of what all of these whack jobs have been up to. And it isn't going to have a thing to do with Jesus.