Joshley Madison Pt 8: Are We Still Talking About This?

[apandaaries]

I think the time to try to extort money from Jim Bob would have been before she went to In Touch the first time, or even before the Ashley Madison story broke. There'd be no point in anyone paying her off now that everything is out in the open. 

I guess that's the question -- is everything out in the open yet? What could a deposition reveal?  No doubt she's found herself an opportunistic lawyer, so this does open the family up to all kinds of questions, at least potentially.  She found a big paycheck.

[2manyKidzzz]

Yes, I agree. The fact that she went back makes it all seem crazy. Why did she go back if it was that awful. 

Makes no sense to me at all. 

[Amanda7980]

I don't doubt he was rough....but why did she go back for a second time?  I can't wrap my mind around that.  Surely she's not so hard up for money.

[Sundaymorning]

I think the time to try to extort money from Jim Bob would have been before she went to In Touch the first time, or even before the Ashley Madison story broke. There'd be no point in anyone paying her off now that everything is out in the open. 

I agree. If she went to Boob right after the first encounter when the Duggar gravy train was still in full swing and the molestation scandal wasn't public, she would probably be a very rich woman. I wonder why she didn't do that back then? If she is out for money, that would have been the perfect opportunity. 

[actuallyjessica]

I can't wait for Amy to shade the fuck out of Josh... her shade gives me life

maybe they knew it was coming and that's what her tweet was about visualizing the devastation before you cheat.

[nelliebelle1197]

Can you pay for lap dances via credit card? I mean he used his cc for Ashley Madison so he might have used it to pay the $600 fees to the club. Seems like it might not be too hard to at least place him with her during the time frame mentioned. 

Of course, that doesn't prove that he battered her during the consensual sex.

Yes, you can. And I won't tell you how I know.

[Themiscyran]

..... Yes, Danica works in the sex industry, but that doesn't mean she can't be injured or have her rights violated while on the job. I would hope that we don't live in the Middle Ages where a prostitute isn't allowed to say no, simply because she is a prostitute. I don't claim to know all the facts in this case, but I don't like it how the immediate concern that comes to many peoples' minds is that Danica shouldn't sue because of the M'kids. Josh should have thought about the M'kids before he began cheating, lying, sneaking around, and using money that should have been spend on his children maintaining Ashley Madison accounts.

A -fucking-men! To both points.

If her account is accurate, he pulled a Jian Ghomeshi, and yes, it's criminal, but good luck getting charges laid.  Makes sense to me that she would pursue  a civil case, especially if (as she originally claimed) part of her concern is basically exposing him as a slimebag. And it would make perfect sense for her to be traumatized as she is claiming. Not of that says it's all true or that she will win the case, but it's all pretty logical, to me at least.

 

 

[ADoyle90815]

It's hard for me to imagine that a jury would be willing to award her money since she willingly went back for seconds.  If I remember correctly, she said the second time he was not as rough.  I do feel sorry for Anna.  She never expected this.

Same here. I feel sorry for Anna and the children, as they never deserved any of this. I wish she would get the courage to divorce this asshole, but she's probably drunk so much Kool-aid that divorce will never be an option even if she ended up testing positive for HIV or some other STD.

[sawasdee]

Didn't Danica in the first article claim that she kept her cellphone under the pillow during the second encounter set to dial 911 if she needed to? And didn't she say that she didn't need to? Yet now she is claiming that the second encounter was also abusive. This contradiction between her first and second interviews,seeming to be an attempt to strengthen her case, makes me a little wary of giving her credence. She has already made money from In Touch, and this smells to me  like an effort to get a little more.

[amster]

Oh this is just awesome. It's going to be so great to see what comes out of this. Josh, JB and Michelle are screwed. 

On the other hand, I imagine Jessa and Jill will be subpeonaed to discuss the abuse. Maybe even the other girls involved. I don't like the idea of them having to go through the ringer again, but I doubt they will just be left alone. 

Why would Jill and Jessa have to discuss the abuse? 

[Amanda7980]

I think Anna is brainwashed, for lack of a better term.  I doubt she has any idea how to make it on her own and she probably doesn't think she can.  I have only one child and it's damn hard to be a single mom.  I never expected my ex to cheat and leave me with a 15 month old child.  I can't imagine having four.

[IreneIssh]

Didn't Danica in the first article claim that she kept her cellphone under the pillow during the second encounter set to dial 911 if she needed to? And didn't she say that she didn't need to? Yet now she is claiming that the second encounter was also abusive. This contradiction between her first and second interviews,seeming to be an attempt to strengthen her case, makes me a little wary of giving her credence. She has already made money from In Touch, and this smells to make like an effort to get a little more.

Did she make money off of the in touch interview? I thought I remembered them specifically saying that they didn't pay her for the interview

[sawasdee]

Did she make money off of the in touch interview? I thought I remembered them specifically saying that they didn't pay her for the interview

Sorry, just assumed she did. Usually tell all stories are paid for.

[Ms Lucy Fur]

Didn't Danica in the first article claim that she kept her cellphone under the pillow during the second encounter set to dial 911 if she needed to? And didn't she say that she didn't need to? Yet now she is claiming that the second encounter was also abusive. This contradiction between her first and second interviews,seeming to be an attempt to strengthen her case, makes me a little wary of giving her credence. She has already made money from In Touch, and this smells to me  like an effort to get a little more.

yes, she said he apologized and he was night and day different the second time. She also said the first "love offering " they agreed on was $1500, but he only left her $1000. The complaint says she got $1500. It's only going to take a few inconsistencies to discredit her story and unfortunately his lawyer will paint her as the biggest jezebel ever. 

[Hisey]

That simply isn't true.  Here's the law for Pennsylvania:

The statutory authority for awarding attorney’s fees in § 1983 cases is set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (b). The pertinent portion of § 1988 provides (b) Attorney's fees In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title . . . the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (b). In order to recover an award of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988, a party must demonstrate that: (1) it prevailed, (2) the hourly rate upon which the request is based is reasonable, and (3) the hours expended were reasonable. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S. Ct. 1933 (1983).

The attorney Danica is using once got an award of $20,000 for attorney fees for a case where the judgment against the respondent was for $20,000.  In other words, the respondent had to pay $40,000 all together.

The key word here is "may." It's important, in the law, to note whether the word "may" or "shall" is used. "Shall" means the judge has to.

Awards of attorneys fees are pretty rare, not impossible, but rare.

Why would Jill and Jessa have to discuss the abuse? 

That's ridiculous. What do Jill and Jess have to do with this case? 

[Bad Wolf]

Mr. Wolf just told me that something's going on with the Duggars.  Really?

He reads USA Today, I'm hooked on FJ.

[lawlifelgbt]

I'm against prostitution. Still want Danica to win this though...no one deserves to be degraded like in their first encounter.

[JenniferJuniper]

I'm pretty sure she could get attorney fees because battery is an intentional tort. You don't batter someone accidentally, it's a choice you make and thus, are responsible for the outcome.

While an intentional tort is alleged, this is still a civil suit.  No attorneys fees will be awarded, just special and general monetary damages if a jury were to ever find Josh responsible for the injuries and subsequent damages she alleges. 

Depending on her arrangement with her attorney, he might be compensated by taking a percentage of any settlement or judgement.  But Josh will not be ordered to pay any attorneys fees.  And, unlike in some countries and US jurisdictions, she will not have to reimburse Josh for his attorneys fees should she lose the case. 

[Themiscyran]

I did a little googling on Marc Frumer, Danica's lawyer. He's been in the Philadelphia news now and again. He has a background as an assistant DA and a criminal defense attorney. he definitely has had unsympathetic clients before.

1994 as ADA in armed robbery case:http://articles.philly.com/1994-04-18/news/25861422_1_police-collection-victims-mini-crime-wave

1995 represents family suing police over holding 10 year old w/o needed meds http://articles.philly.com/1995-07-14/news/25679405_1_jail-cell-police-officers-nightmares

2000 defense in murder case: http://articles.philly.com/2000-06-15/news/25602176_1_murder-trial-disabled-man-defense-lawyer

2002 defense in murder case: http://articles.philly.com/2002-01-16/news/25345520_1_gun-tragic-accident-gladys-soto

2003 defense in gun charges:http://articles.philly.com/2003-02-20/news/25450531_1_prison-term-state-sentence-marriage

2009: defense attorney in drug case: http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/westmoreland/s_615857.html

[Whoosh]

While an intentional tort is alleged, this is still a civil suit.  No attorneys fees will be awarded, just special and general monetary damages if a jury were to ever find Josh responsible for the injuries and subsequent damages she alleges. 

Depending on her arrangement with her attorney, he might be compensated by taking a percentage of any settlement or judgement.  But Josh will not be ordered to pay any attorneys fees.  And, unlike in some countries and US jurisdictions, she will not have to reimburse Josh for his attorneys fees should she lose the case. 

It sounds like you are saying local law prohibits award of attorney's fees "in the interest of justice and fairness".  Despite the American Rule, it is often possible for the judge to award attorney's fees for this reason, but that would be unlikely and would only occur in extreme cases.  That said, I can easily see fact patterns in both directions that could lead a judge to decide that "in the interest of justice" attorney's fees should be awarded in a case like this.  Likely, I don't think so, but I don't know either the reality or the available evidence for this case.

ETA - I make this point because it actually makes the law make a lot more sense.  If I decided to sue a celebrity because I claimed they gave me HIV, for example, and that celebrity could prove that was false, the judge may decide that I was an opportunistic nit wit and award attorney's fees "in the interest of justice and fairness".  That serves to cut down on grossly frivolous law suits.  The same type of thing can happen in the other direction, as well.  And for good reason.  For example, if I can prove that a defendant with deep pockets acted in a particularly horrific manner, I might be awarded attorney's fees "in the interest of justice and fairness" to prevent people with deep pockets from creating mounds and mounds of unnecessary legal work for the opposing party when I am clearly guilty or some other unacceptable tactic in an attempt to effectively prohibiting lawsuits against them.  Unless local law prohibits this, I think this is possible and should be possible in my opinion.  I am not explaining it all that well - it is late.  

 

[Mela99]

I kinda have a different perspective. First, I think there's still a chance this will be dismissed. Secondly, I honestly don't see Dim Wit bending over and handing hard earned money over to a porn star. I just don't see it. 

[quiverofdoubt]

Someone brought up blackmail at some point. Mobile and don't want to look for the quote. Can we be sure josh isn't being black mailed by various parties? People who have yet to go public maybe. Maybe he's already paying people off that we don't know about. By he I mean jb of course. 

[Snarkylark]

Question, because law isn't my thing- but does she have a case if she was participating in an illegal activity at the time of the incident?

[JenniferJuniper]

I kinda have a different perspective. First, I think there's still a chance this will be dismissed. Secondly, I honestly don't see Dim Wit bending over and handing hard earned money over to a porn star. I just don't see it. 

If it stays in Philly, (and it seems nearly every civil case filed there stays there) I don't think it will be dismissed unless Josh has proof he wasn't in the club when she claims he was.  By accepting a gift of cash from him after sex, she may have been breaking the law (as was he) but that in and of itself will not result in the case being dismissed by the court.  The court will let a jury decide if he really injured her.

As for Boob handing over a lot of money, I'm of two minds.  If it were just for Josh, I don't think he would.  If he feels making this go away saves him money and helps the brand in the long run, he'll try to settle out.  I think he at least tries to settle out.    

[bubblekitty]

If she kept her phone under the pillow maybe she made a recording!