Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
DeFrauder

New Documents published by In Touch

Recommended Posts

DowntownAbbey
In the messages, Crass [the Duggars' lawyer] tells the director of legal services for the Arkansas Municipal League, Mark R. Hayes, “I am a conservative defense lawyer and I don’t see a defense of the chief’s actions.â€

Does Crass mean in the political way, or does it have a different meaning in the legal world? I would take a conservative, not in the political sense, lawyer as one who would want to settle over taking things to court, but that's just my layman's thoughts.

Cate later emailed Hayes, mocking the Duggars and criticizing questions posed by Fox News. “So is this their strategy, that they are the victims of some liberal conspiracy????†he wrote.

:lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jana'sHairScrunchie

I can't say I'm surprised. It is interesting to me to see InTouch continue to use FOIA to their advantage and release the information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeFrauder

Yeah I thought that was weird, too!

"I am a conservative lawyer"--what does that mean? He only works for conservatives? He has a conservative viewpoint on constitutional law? He is a crackpot?

I have never heard this term before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DowntownAbbey
Yeah I thought that was weird, too!

"I am a conservative lawyer"--what does that mean? He only works for conservatives? He has a conservative viewpoint on constitutional law? He is a crackpot?

I have never heard this term before.

Well, he did agree to defend the Duggars in what, IIRC, has largely been determined as a frivolous lawsuit... :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeFrauder

Clearly the lawsuit has failed or we would have heard all about it before now. The Duggars are having a really bad summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cochise

I think that maybe "I am a conservative defense lawyer" means that his politics are conservative, which might mean that he's trying to say "So watch out, you liberal scum!"

I'm kind of confused about him saying he's a "defense" attorney. If he's in a Public Defenders' office he'd get government money for defending people who can't afford their own lawyers. That's an attorney who always does defense, but does so because someone's suing his client. No one is suing the Duggars.

Either way, if the Duggars are trying to rattle their sabres and say "We're going to take you to court!" they don't need a defense attorney, because no one in accusing them of anything or taking them to court; it's the Duggars who are threatening to be aggressive and sue. You don't use an attorney who specializes in defense when you're not defending yourself. You use a good defense attorney when someone else is suing YOU. That's not the case here.

Either I've got this all wrong, or I'm just guessing at what's going on without enough information, or they have got a really, really dumb attorney who is saying "I'm a conservative defense lawyer, even though an attorney's personal politics are irrelevant in a course of law, and I'm going to defend them, even though no one has accused them of doing anything wrong and there's no reason to defend them. Instead, we're accusing the Sheriff of doing something wrong."

If any of that is true, they and/or their lawyer are pretty clueless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cochise

He's Huckabee's lawyer:

fridayfirm.com/friday_attorney/kevin-a-crass/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OodOnTheLoo
He's Huckabee's lawyer:

fridayfirm.com/friday_attorney/kevin-a-crass/

FFS, this weasel doesn't even know enough to take someone with him when pickng out glasses. I hope the Duggars stiff him on his bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OodOnTheLoo
Yeah I thought that was weird, too!

"I am a conservative lawyer"--what does that mean? He only works for conservatives? He has a conservative viewpoint on constitutional law? He is a crackpot?

I have never heard this term before.

It's code for,"I can spot a lesbian agenda a mile away".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeFrauder

FFS, this weasel doesn't even know enough to take someone with him when pickng out glasses. I hope the Duggars stiff him on his bill.

So mean! I like those glasses. And sometimes a person's eyesight is so bad that round frames are best to get the sharpest vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JenniferJuniper

"If there is not a desire to resolve there will be an expensive (and embarrassing) lawsuit.â€

"Desire to resolve" means pony up a lot of cash -right now- to the Duggars. And while a suit would be expensive for the City (and the Duggars) how would it be more embarrassing for the City than it would be for the Duggars, who could potentially open themselves up to all sorts of under-oath testimony about the facts surrounding the child molestation and it's cover up?

The only conclusion that makes any sense to me is that Crass (what a perfect name!) was indeed threatening to expose personal details about the chief's politics and probably sexuality.

Because, you know, being a gay Democrat (assuming she is both or either of these) is way more embarrassing than getting caught fondling your sisters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gilamomster

Pathetic and desperate on the part of JimBob.

I wonder if he's asked his oldest kids what they think? I cannot fathom John David being anything other than relieved that the cameras are gone.

Singing in my best Elsa voice "let it go, let it go....!!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzzard

Two words:

Sovereign Immunity

Have fun writing that complaint, see you at the motion for summary judgment!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nic

FFS, this weasel doesn't even know enough to take someone with him when pickng out glasses. I hope the Duggars stiff him on his bill.

Nah, JB would say it doesn't matter about the glasses when you got a sweet head of hair such as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HarleyQuinn

LOL Jim Boob, ever the bully.

I have so much respect for In Touch for the work they've done on this Duggar story. Keep those FOIA requests coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
socalrules

Being a defense attorney is not always the same as being a public defender. A public defender would be paid by the city or state to represent an indigent defendant in a criminal case. There are other types of defense attorneys. I am an insurance defense attorney which means I defend parties who have been sued civil court, and am paid by the insurance companies based on the policy held by my client. I don't know why this guy says he is a conservative defense attorney when he would be the one bringing the lawsuit and would therefore be the Plaintiff, not the defendant. I also don't understand why he mentioned being conservative when in ten years of doing this I have never heard anyone go Into court and mention political party affiliation. I don't think this guy is an attorney that regularly goes to court. There are many attorneys who have never seen the inside of a court because they don't do litigation.

What I think is amazingly is amazingly stupid is the idea of suing the city over this when it will be crazy expensive for Jim Bob, not the city. The city doesn't have to hire attorneys because they would have their own city attorneys that just deal with city lawsuits, they aren't putting out extra money. Even if Jim Bob can retain an attorney on contingency, he will still have to pay for the costs such as filing fees, mailing, etc., even though he wouldn't have to pay hourly attorney fees. It can add up. The city can just play with him and file motion after motion, delay, delay, delay and basically bankrupt him. The City has the time and money to fuck him over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FundieFarmer

Good find.

So I guess this is still in the works, then? I would wager this is a lost cause and will only cause some serious bad blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Four is Enough

Does anyone besides me think it's hilarious that the Duggars' lawyer is named "Crass"? :lol:

Adjective

without refinement, delicacy, or sensitivity; gross; obtuse; stupid:

crass commercialism; a crass misrepresentation of the facts.

2.

Archaic. thick; coarse.

ETA crass definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nokidsmom
Being a defense attorney is not always the same as being a public defender. A public defender would be paid by the city or state to represent an indigent defendant in a criminal case. There are other types of defense attorneys. I am an insurance defense attorney which means I defend parties who have been sued civil court, and am paid by the insurance companies based on the policy held by my client. I don't know why this guy says he is a conservative defense attorney when he would be the one bringing the lawsuit and would therefore be the Plaintiff, not the defendant. I also don't understand why he mentioned being conservative when in ten years of doing this I have never heard anyone go Into court and mention political party affiliation. I don't think this guy is an attorney that regularly goes to court. There are many attorneys who have never seen the inside of a court because they don't do litigation.

What I think is amazingly is amazingly stupid is the idea of suing the city over this when it will be crazy expensive for Jim Bob, not the city. The city doesn't have to hire attorneys because they would have their own city attorneys that just deal with city lawsuits, they aren't putting out extra money. Even if Jim Bob can retain an attorney on contingency, he will still have to pay for the costs such as filing fees, mailing, etc., even though he wouldn't have to pay hourly attorney fees. It can add up. The city can just play with him and file motion after motion, delay, delay, delay and basically bankrupt him. The City has the time and money to fuck him over.

I wonder how many attorneys JB went to before he found this guy.

JB is a complete idiot because suing over this is only going to keep the molestation scandal alive in people's minds when he would do well to just let it die. It would save the money he's going to need to support his large family and it does no favors to Josh and his future either. Good lord, the idiocy and the hubris. :angry-banghead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JenniferJuniper
Being a defense attorney is not always the same as being a public defender.

Reading his bio, he's mostly a civil tort defense attorney.

So what he seems to be saying is that he's normally used to defending parties in civil actions rather than the other way around.

When we couple this with the fact that he's Fuckabee's personal counsel, it's a safe bet he was just rattling the cage trying to see if he could get the City to pony up some cash and maybe an apology. If the Duggars were truly serious about suing, they'd be better served hiring a quality plaintiff's firm. Assuming they could find one to take the case, which is a big assumption. As Buzzard has pointed out, there are likely some big hurdles for them suing a municipality.

What "conservative defense attorney" means in this context is anyone's guess. It could be a veiled threat referencing the fact that they'll be making this a political issue. Or he could be saying, "I defend cases all the time, so I'm not your typical ambulance chaser". It's weird either way.

Doubt they'd actually ever sue though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nic
LOL Jim Boob, ever the bully.

I have so much respect for In Touch for the work they've done on this Duggar story. Keep those FOIA requests coming.

I don't know if this is related to the Duggar FOIA requests, but per the June Tontitown city council meeting minutes:

"OLD BUSINESS

e. Discuss and Vote on FOIA Policy and Procedures—McCormick Tabled

Will bring back to the C.O.W."

I haven't found any mention of it in the latest Committee of Whole meeting minutes. Nor did I find it in early C.O.W. minutes. I could've missed it, but I check the earlier ones because it said bring BACK to C.O.W., though they are kinda loosey goosey with the language in the minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
justoneoftwo
Being a defense attorney is not always the same as being a public defender. A public defender would be paid by the city or state to represent an indigent defendant in a criminal case. There are other types of defense attorneys. I am an insurance defense attorney which means I defend parties who have been sued civil court, and am paid by the insurance companies based on the policy held by my client. I don't know why this guy says he is a conservative defense attorney when he would be the one bringing the lawsuit and would therefore be the Plaintiff, not the defendant. I also don't understand why he mentioned being conservative when in ten years of doing this I have never heard anyone go Into court and mention political party affiliation. I don't think this guy is an attorney that regularly goes to court. There are many attorneys who have never seen the inside of a court because they don't do litigation.

What I think is amazingly is amazingly stupid is the idea of suing the city over this when it will be crazy expensive for Jim Bob, not the city. The city doesn't have to hire attorneys because they would have their own city attorneys that just deal with city lawsuits, they aren't putting out extra money. Even if Jim Bob can retain an attorney on contingency, he will still have to pay for the costs such as filing fees, mailing, etc., even though he wouldn't have to pay hourly attorney fees. It can add up. The city can just play with him and file motion after motion, delay, delay, delay and basically bankrupt him. The City has the time and money to fuck him over.

I interpreted the conservative as relating to his opinion on cases. A conservative attorney wouldn't assume a case to be worth a tun of money because they make a conservative guess. So he is saying he doesn't take cases he doesn't think are big winners, so by taking this case he is sure there is something there. I also thought he mentioned generally working for the defense for the same reasons experts mention that, if your usually on the other side but switched there must be a reason and it may be that this case is just so good that you wouldn't want to defend it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SassyPants

Huge ass ego thy name is Jim Bob Duggar- his freaking ego has no boundaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EmmieJ
Being a defense attorney is not always the same as being a public defender. A public defender would be paid by the city or state to represent an indigent defendant in a criminal case. There are other types of defense attorneys. I am an insurance defense attorney which means I defend parties who have been sued civil court, and am paid by the insurance companies based on the policy held by my client. I don't know why this guy says he is a conservative defense attorney when he would be the one bringing the lawsuit and would therefore be the Plaintiff, not the defendant. I also don't understand why he mentioned being conservative when in ten years of doing this I have never heard anyone go Into court and mention political party affiliation. I don't think this guy is an attorney that regularly goes to court. There are many attorneys who have never seen the inside of a court because they don't do litigation.

What I think is amazingly is amazingly stupid is the idea of suing the city over this when it will be crazy expensive for Jim Bob, not the city. The city doesn't have to hire attorneys because they would have their own city attorneys that just deal with city lawsuits, they aren't putting out extra money. Even if Jim Bob can retain an attorney on contingency, he will still have to pay for the costs such as filing fees, mailing, etc., even though he wouldn't have to pay hourly attorney fees. It can add up. The city can just play with him and file motion after motion, delay, delay, delay and basically bankrupt him. The City has the time and money to fuck him over.

I think any attorney who would take this case and represent the Duggars on a contingency basis (waiting to take a percentage of whatever settlement amount is agreed upon, or award granted by a jury), would be a fool who will soon need a bankruptcy attorney. I'd also suggest that they make sure their attorney malpractice policy is up to date, because if they lose the case, JimBob might just decide to file a malpractice suit against that attorney.

The costs to pursue such a lawsuit would add up quickly. Like you said, the initial filing fee, then you would have to pay to have the suit served by a process server, then the costs related to the discovery phase (issuing subpoenas for records, court reporter fees for taking depositions, fees to hire any experts, etc.). Not to mention the cost of the attorney's time, and the fact that this is a dog of a case.

There are attorneys who will take on a case, even a sure loser. But usually those attorneys require a large retainer up front, and that the client must replenish the retainer whenever it falls below a certain amount.

I wonder if this Crass lawyer is trying to get the City to cough up some "just make this go away" money without having to actually file a suit. It doesn't cost him much time or money to text or send a sternly worded letter. If the result is he's told by the City to go pound salt, this Crass guy could then decline to represent the Duggars in any actual lawsuit, and give them 3 or 4 names of plaintiff attorneys in the area who might be interested in taking on the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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