Josh Duggar Part 9: Adult Film Star Lawsuits are so Godly

[notfundy]

I have a question (in bold, italics) for our resident legal eagles:

At what point in this process is there an opportunity for Josh to settle out of court?  It seems like these initial stages could go on for a while:  for example, filing the response with the request for moving the case to federal court, and then perhaps getting it moved to Arkansas after that.   With regard to the court date on (I think) January 16th it doesn't sound like much of anything is going to happen there, but ti will get reported in the media again.

Each time there is movement in this case there will be publicity and discussion in the tabloids.  I would think (if the Duggars have competent legal or P/R advice) there would be a strong motivation to just settle and get this out of the public eye.

 

[Bad Wolf]

Since the story has been picked up by USA Today, the Daily Mail and others, I don't think it's going to go away in a hurry.

[Whoosh]

I am remarkably weak on knowledge of all aspects of this area of law.  I follow the diversity in residency part and if that plus passing a 75k mark means it gets removed to federal court, that would make sense to me.  What makes me nearly breathe fire it to think that somehow a valid request for removal to federal court might lead to a markedly different jury pool when that isn't at all tied to the reason the request for removal is valid.  A valid change of venue in this case might be to say that one party is so well known in Arkansas that the case should not be tried there as the jury pool would inevitably be tainted by publicity or other various other aspects of the case being local.  It seems fine to me to drag Dillon to federal court whether she likes that or not.  It seems fine to me to drag Josh to PA whether he likes it or not providing Dillon can prove he did indeed have minimal contacts there (which seems likely, or I would think Josh's attorney would be filing some type of motion about that - I have never been to South Dakota and therefore I don't think I can be sued there unless something in my behavior established some type of minimal contact with that jurisdiction).  It doesn't seem fair to me to drag Dillon to Arkansas which is his home turf when nothing at all that she has done with respect to this case establishes contacts there.

Again, my thinking on this may well be a classic example of "a little knowledge can be dangerous", but that is my gut reaction to what JJ, Buzzard, and the article say.  If nothing else, perhaps my flawed thinking might spark someone to recall something more relevant LOL.  

[justoneoftwo]

8 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

I am remarkably weak on knowledge of all aspects of this area of law.  I follow the diversity in residency part and if that plus passing a 75k mark means it gets removed to federal court, that would make sense to me.  What makes me nearly breathe fire it to think that somehow a valid request for removal to federal court might lead to a markedly different jury pool when that isn't at all tied to the reason the request for removal is valid.  A valid change of venue in this case might be to say that one party is so well known in Arkansas that the case should not be tried there as the jury pool would inevitably be tainted by publicity or other various other aspects of the case being local.  It seems fine to me to drag Dillon to federal court whether she likes that or not.  It seems fine to me to drag Josh to PA whether he likes it or not providing Dillon can prove he did indeed have minimal contacts there (which seems likely, or I would think Josh's attorney would be filing some type of motion about that - I have never been to South Dakota and therefore I don't think I can be sued there unless something in my behavior established some type of minimal contact with that jurisdiction).  It doesn't seem fair to me to drag Dillon to Arkansas which is his home turf when nothing at all that she has done with respect to this case establishes contacts there.

Again, my thinking on this may well be a classic example of "a little knowledge can be dangerous", but that is my gut reaction to what JJ, Buzzard, and the article say.  If nothing else, perhaps my flawed thinking might spark someone to recall something more relevant LOL.  

Are they asking for a change of venue?  It didn't look like it to me (in a very brief skimming of the pleading).  Further they are not challenging jurisdiction.  It appears that they want to have the case in the federal court in PA, which seems reasonable to me.  I will say that in my state just going to federal court vastly changes the jury pool, and I imagine that is not all that uncommon.  

[EmmieJ]

On 12/11/2015 at 5:54 AM, SilverBeach said:

2 hours ago, notfundy said:

I have a question (in bold, italics) for our resident legal eagles:

At what point in this process is there an opportunity for Josh to settle out of court?  It seems like these initial stages could go on for a while:  for example, filing the response with the request for moving the case to federal court, and then perhaps getting it moved to Arkansas after that.   With regard to the court date on (I think) January 16th it doesn't sound like much of anything is going to happen there, but ti will get reported in the media again.

Each time there is movement in this case there will be publicity and discussion in the tabloids.  I would think (if the Duggars have competent legal or P/R advice) there would be a strong motivation to just settle and get this out of the public eye.

 

To answer briefly - there is no time period that the parties must wait to conclude before trying to settle out of court.  What usually occurs in most civil cases however, is that because each side has quite a different view of the case and the value of the case, the chances of arriving at a quick settlement are not great.

I assume that Danica's attorneys would not be interested in settling until they can discover what kind and amount of assets Josh has.  They have to be aware of the home he and Anna bought in Arkansas and also aware that it was quickly transferred out of their name and into the name of a some LLC shortly before the news of this lawsuit broke.  A good attorney will be like a bull dog, and go digging for signs of a defendant hiding assets. 

I see the court order includes a directive that parties serve discovery on each other immediately.  I know very little about how federal courts handle cases, but from the wording on this order, it sure sounds like they prefer to move them right along.

 

[Whoosh]

14 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

Are they asking for a change of venue?  It didn't look like it to me (in a very brief skimming of the pleading).  Further they are not challenging jurisdiction.  It appears that they want to have the case in the federal court in PA, which seems reasonable to me.  I will say that in my state just going to federal court vastly changes the jury pool, and I imagine that is not all that uncommon.  

I agree with you.  I didn't mention "challenging jurisdiction" - they are asking for the case to be removed to federal court.  Buzzard had mentioned that maybe it might somehow wind up in Arkansas.  I was assuming she meant that it would be in federal court in Arkansas.  I brought up change of venue to discuss when I think that type of regional move might seem "fair".  To me, it doesn't seem that it would be "fair" in this case.  The way I know to get a case from PA to Arkansas is to request a change of venue.  I know that hasn't been done here.  I don't know how it would end up in Arkansas if it were successfully removed to federal court.

I agree that removing the case to the LOCAL federal would likely have an impact on the jury pool, but I am pretty solid in my belief that it would not have nearly the impact that a removal to Arkansas federal court would have.  As we just saw quite clearly with the marriage issue, various federal jurisdictions have remarkable differences in how they view some issues.  Similarly, the population that would make up the jury pool in the Arkansas area federal courts or 11th circuit region tends to have markedly different views (as a whole) than the population that would make up the jury pool in the PA area federal courts or the 3rd circuit region.

Sorry I was unclear as to my meaning.

[justoneoftwo]

1 minute ago, Whoosh said:

I agree with you.  I didn't mention challenging jurisdiction - they are asking for the case to be removed to federal court.  Buzzard had mentioned that maybe it might somehow wind up in Arkansas.  I was assuming she meant that it would be in federal court in Arkansas.  I brought up change of venue to discuss when I think that type of move mights seem "fair".  To me, it doesn't seem that it would be "fair" in this case.  

I agree that removing the case to the LOCAL federal would likely have an impact on the jury pool, but I am pretty solid in my belief that it would not have nearly the impact that a removal to Arkansas federal court would have.  As we just saw quite clearly with the marriage issue, various federal jurisdictions have remarkable differences in how they view some issues.  Similarly, the population that would make up the jury pool in the Arkansas area federal courts or 11th circuit region tends to have markedly different views (as a whole) than the population that would make up the jury pool in the PA area federal courts or the 3rd circuit region.

Sorry I was unclear as to my meaning.

Not at all unclear, I just read the pleading and your comment without seeing Buzzards and was confused as to how it was ending up in Arkansas.  I completely agree with everything else your saying, just got lost when trying to read too quickly.  

[Whoosh]

Just now, justoneoftwo said:

Not at all unclear, I just read the pleading and your comment without seeing Buzzards and was confused as to how it was ending up in Arkansas.  I completely agree with everything else your saying, just got lost when trying to read too quickly.  

I am sure that is largely due to my having a very tenuous grasp on what it is I am trying to say.  Haha!

[socalrules]

2 hours ago, Buzzard said:

Removing to federal court is probably the correct thing.  There absolutely is diversity in residency of the parties and it exceeds 75k.  The question will be whether, once its in federal court, if it gets moved to arkansas.  Its been more than 10 years since I've read anything in a civil procedure book so maybe one of our other lawyers can chime in on that.

Most importantly, there is no photography permitted in federal court... 

I agree with you. It is proper to move to federal court. I figured this would happen. My guess is that it will likely stay in a federal court located the state the lawsuit was originally filed. Pennsylvania? I always forget. The one thing I know about federal court is that it, and it's juries, tend to be very conservative. Not politically but very conservative when it comes to awarding damages. Federal court judges are sticklers for every little detail. State court is a cake walk compared to federal court. Federal court is actually probably better for Josh with the lower amount of damages the court tends to award. It also tends to appeared harder in federal court to prove your case. Less drama is allowed.

[Flyinthesoup]

I can't be the only one wondering about Josh's lawyer.  Perhaps this was already mentioned and I missed it....you can read more about Josh's Lawyer, Mr. Conrad.  He appears to be a Christian and he likes to see sex predators behind bars.....this should be interesting!

[Whoosh]

3 hours ago, notfundy said:

I have a question (in bold, italics) for our resident legal eagles:

At what point in this process is there an opportunity for Josh to settle out of court?  It seems like these initial stages could go on for a while:  for example, filing the response with the request for moving the case to federal court, and then perhaps getting it moved to Arkansas after that.   With regard to the court date on (I think) January 16th it doesn't sound like much of anything is going to happen there, but ti will get reported in the media again.

Each time there is movement in this case there will be publicity and discussion in the tabloids.  I would think (if the Duggars have competent legal or P/R advice) there would be a strong motivation to just settle and get this out of the public eye.

 

I was thinking about this stuff too.  I am pretty sure that the parties can reach a settlement at any point right up to just before the official court decision.  You are absolutely correct that filing of various motions, etc. can drag things out for quite some time and it does seem that it will be brought back before the public eye each time something happens.  For me, it is hard to tell why various legal moves are made with limited access to information.  The removal to federal court may well be all about wanting the case to be heard in federal court.  Or maybe they are trying to get the case out of the PA area and federal court is the way to do that.  Or maybe it is primarily a delay tactic.  Or maybe they are trying to say to Dillon "Hey, look - we are NOT worried about these reports in the press and we are NOT in a hurry here and we are NOT going to cave.  Your legal fees WILL BE HIGH which will royally suck for you and/or your lawyer when you lose this case.  Take the damn offer on the table."  If they are trying to convey that message to Dillon, there may or may not be much truth to the message.  

Exciting times in Duggarland.  I need to buy a case of wine for the January developments.  

[justoneoftwo]

3 minutes ago, socalrules said:

I agree with you. It is proper to move to federal court. I figured this would happen. My guess is that it will likely stay in a federal court located the state the lawsuit was originally filed. Pennsylvania? I always forget. The one thing I know about federal court is that it, and it's juries, tend to be very conservative. Not politically but very conservative when it comes to awarding damages. Federal court judges are sticklers for every little detail. State court is a cake walk compared to federal court. Federal court is actually probably better for Josh with the lower amount of damages the court tends to award. It also tends to appeared harder in federal court to prove your case. Less drama is allowed.

The juries at least change drastically from state to state.  Our juries in federal court often award more damages than the state level, but still they are nothing compared to one state over (its crazy how little you get for the wrongful death of a kid here compared to other states).  

[silverspoons]

11 minutes ago, Flyinthesoup said:

I can't be the only one wondering about Josh's lawyer.  Perhaps this was already mentioned and I missed it....you can read more about Josh's Lawyer, Mr. Conrad.  He appears to be a Christian and he likes to see sex predators behind bars.....this should be interesting!

I wondered why he took the case as well. Does he believe in Josh and his rehab? got offered a lot of money? TLC helping with the lawyer (like they did with Kate Gosselin in PA).  I hope this lawyer knows what he is getting himself into with the Duggar family.

[halcionne]

26 minutes ago, Flyinthesoup said:

I can't be the only one wondering about Josh's lawyer.  Perhaps this was already mentioned and I missed it....you can read more about Josh's Lawyer, Mr. Conrad.  He appears to be a Christian and he likes to see sex predators behind bars.....this should be interesting!

How do we know this is his lawyer? I haven't seen this information anywhere. But to be fair, I haven't been looking for it; I'm just wondering where the info came from.

[Whoosh]

9 minutes ago, halcionne said:

How do we know this is his lawyer? I haven't seen this information anywhere. But to be fair, I haven't been looking for it; I'm just wondering where the info came from.

JenniferJupiter posted two documents (both in one link) about 15 hours ago in this thread (one page back). The second document is signed byJosh's attorney 

[halcionne]

Thanks, @Whoosh. I must have missed it.

ETA: I had opened that document and read the first half, twice. I don't know what kind of brain fart I had, to have missed the second part of the pdf. TWICE. 

[Flyinthesoup]

2 hours ago, halcionne said:

Thanks, @Whoosh. I must have missed it.

ETA: I had opened that document and read the first half, twice. I don't know what kind of brain fart I had, to have missed the second part of the pdf. TWICE. 

Glad you found it!    

halcionne, do you have the ability to access these wonderful documents?  I would love to read them!

I am scratching my head over the fact that Jeffrey Conrad has taken Josh's case.  I cannot for the life of me understand why a lawyer with his record, would take such a case, knowing Josh's history with molesting his own sisters.  

Perhaps we should take a bet on how long Jeffrey Conrad stays on as his lawyer.  I am betting he doesn't stay to the end.

[halcionne]

45 minutes ago, Flyinthesoup said:

Glad you found it!    

halcionne, do you have the ability to access these wonderful documents?  I would love to read them!

I am scratching my head over the fact that Jeffrey Conrad has taken Josh's case.  I cannot for the life of me understand why a lawyer with his record, would take such a case, knowing Josh's history with molesting his own sisters.  

Perhaps we should take a bet on how long Jeffrey Conrad stays on as his lawyer.  I am betting he doesn't stay to the end.

Those court docs are behind a paywall for me. I wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of them, anyway. 

[JenniferJuniper]

21 hours ago, socalrules said:

I agree with you. It is proper to move to federal court. I figured this would happen. My guess is that it will likely stay in a federal court located the state the lawsuit was originally filed. Pennsylvania? I always forget. The one thing I know about federal court is that it, and it's juries, tend to be very conservative. Not politically but very conservative when it comes to awarding damages. Federal court judges are sticklers for every little detail. State court is a cake walk compared to federal court. Federal court is actually probably better for Josh with the lower amount of damages the court tends to award. It also tends to appeared harder in federal court to prove your case. Less drama is allowed.

This depends sometimes on where the federal court is located.  For instance, if the federal court is in Philly, the pool will be broader but you may still be drawing a large number from Philly, which is known to be produce generous jurors.  But I agree it would be a better deal for Josh.

It's not in federal court yet and Josh's lawyers may not succeed in getting it moved. But if it is moved, I can't see it leaving Pennsylvania. 

This is going to be expensive for both sides.  I think it's more likely to settle soon rather than later.

[2manyKidzzz]

And after all Anna has put up with now a public lawsuit of a very nasty nature. I wonder how much she can pray away for her own sanity. 

[Sweet Fellowship]

6 hours ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

And after all Anna has put up with now a public lawsuit of a very nasty nature. I wonder how much she can pray away for her own sanity. 

I think she would believe Smugs to be innocent. She seems like she's in denial about his cheating, she'd likely be just as much in denial about her husband being abusive to Danica Dillon.

[2manyKidzzz]

1 hour ago, Sweet Fellowship said:

I think she would believe Smugs to be innocent. She seems like she's in denial about his cheating, she'd likely be just as much in denial about her husband being abusive to Danica Dillon.

But the very fact that it is public, and  true, that Joshley hired a sex worker is just  about as bad as it can get for a spouse. Whether or not she believes he was abusive .....who knows. 

I'm sure she is praying a lot. 

[sndral]

I was curious about Josh's lawyer, Jeffrey Conrad, as well, so I did a little googling. Although he was an assistant district attorney from 2000 - 2007, he left the office when he wasn't backed by law enforcement for a run at being the elected DA. Since then he has been primarily a criminal defense attorney. Although the cases a lawyer handles may not reflect his personal beliefs, a few of the cases he's handled caught my attention:

2010 - defended a guy charged w/ multiple counts of animal cruelty (& lost at trial.)

2011 - one of the defense attorneys for a Nicaraguan missionary. The case started when one parent in a same sex couple fled w/ the couple's child. The missionary & others helped hide the converted to Christianity mom because they opposed returning the child to the lifestyle of the left behind lesbian mother.

2012 - represented a man charged with beating his 3 yr. old foster child causing severe brain damage.

2013 - defended a woman charged with killing her 6 week old baby, she pled. Her husband was a co-defendant represented by some one else.

2014 - represented a 73 yr. old male accused of possessing child pornography. Defendant was convicted by Court trial and because defendant had 2 prior convictions he was sentenced to life.

Additionally Conrad belongs to the Pennsylvania Family Institute. Among this "pro-life/pro-family" organization's goals for 2016, are cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, regulating strip clubs (ironic, much?) and stopping anti discrimination laws that would protect same sex couples. He's also a member of the Alliance Defending Freedom which advocates religious displays on public lands and opposes choice, same sex marriage and adoption by same sex couples, among other things.

[sophie10130]

4 hours ago, sndral said:

I was curious about Josh's lawyer, Jeffrey Conrad, as well, so I did a little googling. Although he was an assistant district attorney from 2000 - 2007, he left the office when he wasn't backed by law enforcement for a run at being the elected DA. Since then he has been primarily a criminal defense attorney. Although the cases a lawyer handles may not reflect his personal beliefs, a few of the cases he's handled caught my attention:

2010 - defended a guy charged w/ multiple counts of animal cruelty (& lost at trial.)

2011 - one of the defense attorneys for a Nicaraguan missionary. The case started when one parent in a same sex couple fled w/ the couple's child. The missionary & others helped hide the converted to Christianity mom because they opposed returning the child to the lifestyle of the left behind lesbian mother.

2012 - represented a man charged with beating his 3 yr. old foster child causing severe brain damage.

2013 - defended a woman charged with killing her 6 week old baby, she pled. Her husband was a co-defendant represented by some one else.

2014 - represented a 73 yr. old male accused of possessing child pornography. Defendant was convicted by Court trial and because defendant had 2 prior convictions he was sentenced to life.

Additionally Conrad belongs to the Pennsylvania Family Institute. Among this "pro-life/pro-family" organization's goals for 2016, are cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, regulating strip clubs (ironic, much?) and stopping anti discrimination laws that would protect same sex couples. He's also a member of the Alliance Defending Freedom which advocates religious displays on public lands and opposes choice, same sex marriage and adoption by same sex couples, among other things.

So nothing less than what we expected from a lawyer the Duggars picked.

[Whoosh]

I was going to do this whole long thing about how when I had a choice of cases that were unlikely to be resolved quickly (which isn't often for public defenders), I was far more interested in the points of law involved rather than the type of offense or how good a person I thought the defendant was.  My point was to maybe try to defend this lawyer a little bit by saying that maybe there is some particular thing about the case that caught his interest.  After reading that list of cases, I lost my motivation.  I know that list is just a selection of cases that stood out and isn't necessarily representative of his work or his beliefs, but that combined with his group memberships kind of drained my motivation to take time to go to bat for this guy in even a small way.  Maybe tomorrow, but I am doubting that LOL.