Josh Duggar: Part 10- Will "Rehab" Ever End?

[Whoosh]

A few lines from the order that seem particularly interesting to me:

• Plaintiff sufficiently but barely pleads her battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims subject to later review at summary judgment and a possible trial 
• At this stage, unlike later in the case, we assume the properly plead facts are true. 

• Several months later, Stamm-Northup sued Duggar for over $500,000 claiming her paid sex encounters went beyond the scope of her expectations for paid sex resulting in battery and emotional distress under Pennsylvania law

• "A battery is defined as a 'harmful or offensive contact' with the person of another." 

• Duggar argues Stamm-Northup's allegations are conflicting because she alleges she consented to sexual contact, but not to the sexual contact she received.

• Stamm-Northup alleges Duggar's conduct fell outside the bounds of her paid consent.  

• While Duggar argues Stamm-Northup consented to sexual contact, he ignores she may not have consented to his preferred sexual conduct and may not have consented to the "particular conduct, or to substantially the same conduct" necessary for consent. Duggar's fact-specific consent argument is more properly raised after discovery 

• Stamm-Northup alleges facts sufficient to show lack of consent to the plead level of physical contact, and the harmful or offensive nature of this level of contact subject to review after discovery 

• "[A] person who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe or emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress"

• Stamm-Northup's allegations  are fairly sparse, but she alleges Duggar... (enough basically)

• Stamm-Northup alleges intentional conduct by Duggar resultant physical and emotional harm, and she is pursuing psychiatric care resulting from Duggar's actions.

• Duggar argues emotional distress claims require allegations of physical injury 

• Pennsylvania courts are split on whether physical injury must be pled for emotional distress 

• The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held "[g]iven the advanced state of medical science, it is unwise and unnecessary to permit recovery to be predicated on an inference based on the defendant's 'outrageousness' without expert medical confirmation that the plaintiff actually suffered the claimed distress."

• Given the split in authority under Pennsylvania law and Stamm-Northup's allegations which address physical contact including battery and post-incident harm subject to expert evidence, we decline to grant Duggar's motion to dismiss at this early stage of litigation where Stamm-Northup alleges Duggar treated her roughly, caused physical injuries, and she felt "as if she was being raped"

15 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

And if he met her and had consensual sex with her and did not go beyond

 

Josh's attorney is just doing what he should - making sure the court requires her to prove her case against his client.

She is the one who has to prove they were together.  She is the one who has to proof his actions constituted an assault/battery.  She is the one who has to prove the assault resulted in injuries. She needs medical records to support this claim.  She may or may not need to prove she was physically injured in order to sustain a claim for emotional distress because, as the court explains, PA courts are split on the issue.

Tall order for her, even if she isn't exaggerating.

 

Exactly this.  Since she IS IN FACT trying to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress, PA law REQUIRES medical records to win a claim of that nature.  If her claim had been based on something else, this requirement would not apply - but it isn't.  She will need medical records and the PA courts are split as to whether physical injury must also be proved to prevail in such a case.

[CorruptionInc.]

It just makes me sick that after all this he may walk away..  Why would you admit to cheating tear apart your marriage and then take it back?  Sorry if this has been explained before chemo is making it hard to keep up and read.  My heart sunk with the tmz update today

Aww Pumpkie, get better soon!

Maybe Josh will get away with it. Even so, mud sticks and the Duggars are being found out.

[RootBeerFloat]

It's possible his lawyer has logged in to Facebook to provide records requested in discovery or investigate the claim.

[EmCatlyn]

4 hours ago, CorruptionInc. said:

 

Maybe Josh will get away with it. Even so, mud sticks and the Duggars are being found out.

 I hope that, if he did what Danica alleges he did, he will not "get away with it."  There is a possibility that he did not hurt Danica in which case I hope she doesn't "get away with it."

Just as we should not assume that Danica is lying because she is a sex worker, neither should we assume that Josh is lying because he is a sleeze who molested his sisters and cheated on his wife.

According to at least one news item, Josh is claiming not only that he didn't know Danica personally and didn't pay her for sex, but that he was provably elsewhere when the encounters allegedly happened.   Maybe he is lying.   (It wouldn't be the first time.) . But we don't know.  If he can prove he was elsewhere, then whatever else he has done he didn't do this.

Danica may also be lying or at least exaggerating.  And it is just possible that she was mistaken when she identified Josh.  (It is not terribly likely, but suppose the Jessa lookalike on another thread has a balding chubby brother and he is the one who paid Danica?)

My point is that we don't know.  Whatever the truth is, let's hope that justice prevails.

[isarhenne]

17 hours ago, SledCat said:

I didn't see this posted yet. Apologies if it has been. Josh posted a response to the lawsuit. He claims he has never even met Danica:

Duggar claims in new legal docs he has an air-tight alibi ... he was not even in Pennsylvania, the state where the alleged encounter went down. He also says he has never in his life been to the strip club or hotel in question.

Link to TMZ article

He is pulling a Bill Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that women!" muahahaha

[Whoosh]

15 hours ago, Mothership said:

someone help me with the time line, but I think he was in Jesus jail before Dillon's legal complaint was filed. (I think his link to her site was known).

I did a bit of searching to try to put together a timeline of when things hit FJ.  Hope this is correct.

• August 19 - Ashley Madison hackers results in Duggar's accounts becoming public knowledge
• August 20 - Duggar's apology for being "unfaithful" and "porn"
• August 22 - Web starts talking about the Duggan-Dillon FB link
• August 24 - FJ talk of flight to Rockford
• August 26 - Dillon interviews hit the web
• Mid November - Dillon files complaint against Duggar
• January 5 - Duggar files motion to dismiss
• January 8 - Judge denies Duggar's motion and we see some of what was in Duggar's motion in the order

 

 

[Mrsaztx]

19 hours ago, CreationMuseumSeasonPass said:

This is off the topic of the lawsuit, but I was just watching the Jill wedding episode, and there's a scene at the rehearsal dinner where family members are invited to speak about Jill and Derick. It went something like this. "This is the time where we invite people to share stories of the couple so there won't be any surprises later on." (Crowd laughter). "Look, here comes big brother Josh." The scandals of Joshley Madison are the gifts that keep on giving.

Josh completely aside, it's so very disturbing that the statement was made in such a "haha! But no, really, these kids don't know each other" manner. Isn't playing roulette with you life partner fun?!

[HarleyQuinn]

So he went from "I didn't hit her" to "I've never met her and SHE is doing illegal stuff anyways."

Figures...

Spoiler

 

[2manyKidzzz]

I do not undersand how Danica can prove it was Joshley and not another client who hurt/abused/traumatized her. Why not the client right before or after Josh? How can this possibly be proved without pictures and proof she saw ONLY Josh at the time listed. 

[Flyinthesoup]

OK, I am going off memory here, so I could have some of this wrong, BUT, didn't some great FJers figure out Josh's schedule via social media where he was around the time the alleged incidences took place?  Wasn't there someone on here who even found the location of Danica's dancing, during this time, too?  Those threads moved so fast and furious I was unable to keep up with all of it, but I really, really tried.  So basically what I am asking is:  Was Danica's schedule such that she was in the location in question, and that Josh's schedule was such that it was *possible*, but no confirmation?  

I am now wondering if information from FJ is being collected to help Josh's legal team!

[JenniferJuniper]

20 minutes ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

I do not undersand how Danica can prove it was Joshley and not another client who hurt/abused/traumatized her. Why not the client right before or after Josh? How can this possibly be proved without pictures and proof she saw ONLY Josh at the time listed. 

A witness who saw him in the club or with her around the times alleged would help. But if she had no idea who he was until the AM story broke, witnesses may be hard to find now, unless someone came forth and said, "yeah, I remember I saw you with Josh Duggar that night...."  Surveillance video maybe, but my experience has been that most businesses don't keep video past 30 days.

And none of this would necessarily help her with her assault claims.

Josh could very well have had sex with her exactly when she says he did, but if she doesn't appear to have any proof beyond her own identification of him,  Josh's attorney is going to deny he ever met her.  He is not going to unnecessarily assist her in her suit against his client.  Josh doesn't have to prove he wasn't there.  She has to prove he was.

[2manyKidzzz]

17 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

A witness who saw him in the club or with her around the times alleged would help. But if she had no idea who he was until the AM story broke, witnesses may be hard to find now, unless someone came forth and said, "yeah, I remember I saw you with Josh Duggar that night...."  Surveillance video maybe, but my experience has been that most businesses don't keep video past 30 days.

And none of this would necessarily help her with her assault claims.

Josh could very well have had sex with her exactly when she says he did, but if she doesn't appear to have any proof beyond her own identification of him,  Josh's attorney is going to deny he ever met her.  He is not going to unnecessarily assist her in her suit against his client.  Josh doesn't have to prove he wasn't there.  She has to prove he was.

Thanks so much. I just couldn't understand how she could prove it. It will be interesting to say the least. 

Just now, 2manyKidzzz said:

Thanks so much. I just couldn't understand how she could prove it. It will be interesting to say the least. 

Messed this up, but I wanted to say that maybe she DOES have some sort of dated photo or something. Otherwise, .......

[nastyhobbitses]

1 hour ago, HarleyQuinn said:

So he went from "I didn't hit her" to "I've never met her and SHE is doing illegal stuff anyways."

Figures...

  Hide contents

 

....Oh hi, Jim Bob.

I wouldn't be surprised if Josh's next argument is just the lyrics to It Wasn't Me.

[JenniferJuniper]

1 hour ago, HarleyQuinn said:

So he went from "I didn't hit her" to "I've never met her and SHE is doing illegal stuff anyways."

Figures...

His attorney is outlining legal defenses, and he's going to outline everything.  He needs to.

• He wasn't there.
• He's never even met her.
• Even if they did meet and have sex, she was engaged in illegal activity at the time.
• Even if they did meet, he didn't hurt her.
• Even if they did meet and have sex and she suffered post-traumatic stress, she can't prevail unless she can prove with medical records that he physically injured her, and if she can't, recovery is barred

This isn't Josh's actual story.  They are just the legal defenses made in response to her claim for damages.

[Drala]

13 hours ago, JenniferJuniper said:

<snip>

She is the one who has to prove they were together.  She is the one who has to proof his actions constituted an assault/battery.  She is the one who has to prove the assault resulted in injuries. She needs medical records to support this claim.  She may or may not need to prove she was physically injured in order to sustain a claim for emotional distress because, as the court explains, PA courts are split on the issue.

Tall order for her, even if she isn't exaggerating.

Which makes me wonder about her legal representation.  When I looked them up, there seemed to be a connection to entertainment law, if that's a thing.  It wasn't so much the lawyer filing her briefs, but someone identified as her legal spokesperson. I've long had a niggling feeling about this case being cooked up for it's anti-right wing publicity value.  I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, and I'm not going there with this comment.  It's just an observation that Danica's tabloid story entered a more high profile level of public discourse with the filing of her suit.  In the arena of culture war, the enemy counted coup against team godly.  That might be what this is about.

[Whoosh]

1 hour ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

I do not undersand how Danica can prove it was Joshley and not another client who hurt/abused/traumatized her. Why not the client right before or after Josh? How can this possibly be proved without pictures and proof she saw ONLY Josh at the time listed. 

First, Dillon is claiming that two unlawful acts occurred.  She is alleging a battery AND intentional infliction of emotional distress.  If she can somehow prove both those things happened, she still needs to prove that she did not consent to whatever occurred or her case will fail.  She will also need to prove that it was actually Josh that committed those unlawful acts.  Really, many types of evidence could come in to try to prove that, including witness testimony from people who saw something at the club, witness testimony from people who saw something at the hotel, witness testimony from an outcry witness, any possible physical evidence, photographic or recorded evidence, records of communications on fb, email, phone, etc.  That is just off the top of my head, but there are likely more types of evidence that could come into play that would support the claim that it was Duggar that committed the illegal acts.

So, while this is entirely unlikely, say Dillon can present the following evidence - a club worker testifies that he saw both Dillon and Duggar at the club on a night in the appropriate timeframe.  That witness saw Duggar follow Dillon out of the club when she got off work.  The doorman at Dillon's hotel saw Dillon and Duggar arrive at the hotel later that night.  He overheard a conversation between the two in which a deal was struck that Duggar would pay Dillon $1,500 for her company that night.  The bellboy saw the two enter the hotel and get on the elevator together.  She has an admissible recording of what happened in the hotel room or the people in the next room overheard things and will testify to what they heard.  The bellboy later saw Duggar leave the hotel and then soon after saw Dillon bruised and upset.  An outcry witness was contacted around this timeframe and Dillon told that person that Duggar had just committed the acts in question.  During the course of events, Dillon happened to scratch and claw at Duggar drawing blood and tearing his pants.  She saved a piece of those torn and bloodstained pants in a ziplock baggie.  FB or other communications after the events shows Duggar, Dillon, or both discussing the events in question.  She saw various medical experts who documented her story and her injuries.

Of course I don't think Dillon has all of that evidence to present by any stretch of the imagination.  But she COULD have all of that or she could have none of that.  She could have some of those things but not others and she could have additional evidence that I have not listed.  

To prevail, she needs to prove each of the following:

• An unlawful act occurred (in this case she is alleging battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress)
• She did not consent to the unlawful acts that occurred
• It was Duggar that committed those unlawful acts
• Dillon was the victim of those unlawful acts 
• Those unlawful acts caused Dillon actual harm (in this case, she seeks to recover for emotional distress which requires as medical records be presented as proof) (note in PA the courts are split as to whether she will need to prove physical harm to prevail on a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress)
• The harm Dillon has experienced is recoverable under PA law
• The harm that resulted from the unlawful acts merits recovery for damages

I may be leaving things out as I just woke up, but she will need to prove at least each of those things true by a preponderance of the evidence for the case to even stay in court.  She needs to present evidence of each of those things that will outweigh whatever type of defense Duggar might present (if he even has to) if she hopes to actually prevail here.  She could have a truckload of evidence for each piece of this, but that is unlikely.  She may just have her word, a smile, and a questionable medical expert.  She likely has something in between.

 

[JenniferJuniper]

7 minutes ago, Drala said:

Which makes me wonder about her legal representation.  When I looked them up, there seemed to be a connection to entertainment law, if that's a thing.  It wasn't so much the lawyer filing her briefs, but someone identified as her legal spokesperson. I've long had a niggling feeling about this case being cooked up for it's anti-right wing publicity value.  I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, and I'm not going there with this comment.  It's just an observation that Danica's tabloid story entered a more high profile level of public discourse with the filing of her suit.  In the arena of culture war, the enemy counted coup against team godly.  That might be what this is about.

If they are connected to entertainment, she may have used the firm before or knows of someone who used them.

If, IF, she's making this up or exaggerating a true story, I tend to doubt it's a left wing conspiracy.  Josh has done enough harm to the FRC and people like Fuckabee all on his own.   It's probably has more to do with exposure and getting publicity. 

[Drala]

13 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

<snip> Josh has done enough harm to the FRC and people like Fuckabee all on his own.   It's probably has more to do with exposure and getting publicity. 

Good point.  I hadn't thought about it that way.  So, if her legal team isn't politically invested in pushing her claims, then she's footing costs out of pocket? Isn't there a gamble on the part of her legal team that her suit will pay off?  Wouldn't they have to believe she has a reasonable chance of winning if this is only about a paycheck for them?   Would her lawyers also factor in the benefits of publicity and exposure to themselves?  Just trying to understand possible motivations of her lawyers.

[MoonFace]

1 hour ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

I do not undersand how Danica can prove it was Joshley and not another client who hurt/abused/traumatized her. Why not the client right before or after Josh? How can this possibly be proved without pictures and proof she saw ONLY Josh at the time listed. 

So, anyone know why Danica didn't press charges at the time it happened?   Wouldn't that be the first thing you'd do? 

 

[Cleopatra7]

40 minutes ago, Drala said:

Which makes me wonder about her legal representation.  When I looked them up, there seemed to be a connection to entertainment law, if that's a thing.  It wasn't so much the lawyer filing her briefs, but someone identified as her legal spokesperson. I've long had a niggling feeling about this case being cooked up for it's anti-right wing publicity value.  I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, and I'm not going there with this comment.  It's just an observation that Danica's tabloid story entered a more high profile level of public discourse with the filing of her suit.  In the arena of culture war, the enemy counted coup against team godly.  That might be what this is about.

Since Danica herself is involved in a form of entertainment, entertainment lawyers may be the only type she knows of. In fact, it may be better for her to have a lawyer that is familiar with her lifestyle and manner of work, since I'm sure that will be an issue if this case goes to trial.

[JenniferJuniper]

Just now, Drala said:

So, if her legal team isn't politically invested in pushing her claims, then she's footing costs out of pocket? Isn't there a gamble on the part of her legal team that her suit will pay off?  Wouldn't they have to believe she has a reasonable chance of winning if this is only about a paycheck for them?   Would her lawyers also factor in the benefits of publicity and exposure to themselves?  Just trying to understand possible motivations of her lawyers.

Very good question and I don't know the answer. I see less benefit for the firm in this situation, again assuming the case has no merit which remains an assumption.  I can only guess that her attorney possibly thought the Duggars might want to settle out quickly, before any serious work on the case got underway.

Most plaintiff firms don't take crap cases if they don't see a decent pay day at some point.  But it happens, especially if the client is willing to foot the bill.  This just doesn't seem like a contingency fee type of case to me.   So if she's willing and able to pay - for now - her counsel may be happy to push forward on her behalf.   Soon, however, it's going to start getting really expensive.  Wouldn't shock me if she voluntarily dismisses the case before the court does.   It sounds like this is probably going to be unwinnable for her, regardless of what the truth is.

[Whoosh]

Assuming the case has merit, it seems we would not need to question why an attorney would take the case.  When people assume the case does not have merit, they assume that Dillon is an opportunistic money grabbing fame whore who is hoping that she will both gain notoriety and attention for herself and her business and also a settlement payout.  I am not sure why people who assume this case has no merit and those are Dillon's motivations would struggle to extend those same motivations to Dillon's attorney.  The attorney will be mentioned and gain attention and notoriety each time the case is mentioned.  The attorney also will receive a percentage of any payout.

I am not assuming the case does or doesn't have merit, so I have no idea why the attorney took the case.  Reading some of the statements from the attorney, however, it sounded like the attorney believes the events happened as Dillon said and that he feels Duggar and his family need to be exposed for everything, not just the recent events.  That sounds a bit politically motivated to me.  Of course, he is paid to present a certain face or spin on things rather than to tell the truth in terms of what he believes about the case or why he took it.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

On January 7, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Emme said:

I presume 1TON ramp doesn't have a class to teach wives to babysit their husbands' internet activity... 

I believe 1Ton Ramp has closed it's virtual doors.  Too bad, now who am I going to pay to teach me how to use my phone?

[punkiepie]

6 hours ago, nastyhobbitses said:

....Oh hi, Jim Bob.

I wouldn't be surprised if Josh's next argument is just the lyrics to It Wasn't Me.

Omg, I loved that shaggy song back in the day!!  I mean, it's the most disgusting song, but damn if it's not super catchy! 

As the lovely lyricist, Shaggy, sings:

"But she caught me on the counter (It wasn't me)
Saw me bangin' on the sofa (It wasn't me)]
I even had her in the shower (It wasn't me)
She even caught me on camera (It wasn't me)

She saw the marks on my shoulder (It wasn't me)
Heard the words that I told her (It wasn't me)
Heard the scream get louder (It wasn't me)
She stayed until it was over"

I find this kind of argument to be the most infuriating of all- when someone just flat out denies something that the both of you know is 100% true- it makes me ragey.  You can't win that fight because winning requires two rational players with two, albeit opposing, rational arguments. 

[Artemesia]

Danica may be hoping that Josh settles out of court. Less legal expenses for the Duggars and the Danica legal team will still make money. I would expect her attorneys are working on contingency and will get a percentage of any settlement. Each side may be hoping that the other side caves first to avoid court.