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

[Whoosh]

4 minutes ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

I guess it would only apply to private clients, but it would apply. 

 

It would, totally.  I think we are all confused because a lot of this is confusing even when you have all the information and we have such limited information.  I am interested to see what comes of the proceedings on the venue issue.

[jacduggar]

7 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

I totally agree that all this would be very damaging to a typical prostitute as one of the qualifications people desire in a prostitute is discretion.  Most people who frequent prostitutes are not likely to hire a someone who has gone public in a very big way about one of her clients.

However, all that isn't necessarily true of the adult film industry.  I don't know where Dillon has historically made most of her money or what she would have considered her primary career before all of this.

If anything, all the fake fame and noteriety may benefit her porn career. I'm assuming adult film stars are just like other entertainment stars in that they want to be viewed frequently and "well known" so they can get higher paying gigs? Ick. 

[Chickenbutt]

Could Josh have flown from Texas to DC and had a layover...lol...in PA? I know sometimes flights take some crazy paths.

[JenniferJuniper]

2 hours ago, MatthewDuggar said:

Just after Josh got married and he became a major tool and the "Smuggar" name was coined, I had a gut feeling that guy was up to no good.  I was shocked not only at the "inappropriate touching" revelation, but even more so by the "unfaithful" admission.  I had just figured he was dabbling in porn and maybe testing the waters in other "forbidden" areas while still claiming to be the perfect model Christian father.  At this point, nothing would surprise me.  Even some of these wild and carried away theories regarding the Danica allegation could certainly be possible.  Maybe he has an alibi, maybe not, but I wonder if something did actually happen, there are far more damning details they are trying to cover up.

I suspect there is much more to Josh's quick confession and instant whisking away to Jesus rehab, even if the Danica Dillon story turns out to be unsubstantiated or exaggerated.

If he has solid alibis or did have sex but knows that she can't prove she was injured (and she must prove this in order to recover damages from him), why such a swift reaction once the AM story broke?  Why the house sale?  Why did his siblings (and let's face it, Anna too, even if she was in part coerced) sell him out to TLC? Why is he still kept away from his family, now 5 months and counting?   I think we're missing large parts of Josh's story.  

As to the Dillon case, simply showing youtube videos or fan photos from the time period probably won't be enough to get him out of the case on summary judgement, which is his current goal.  His attorney first needs to pin her down on specific days or nights.  And then he needs very clear evidence that Josh was physically elsewhere and could not have possibly been in PA.  I know the Philly club is a short cab ride from the airport and about a mile from the Amtrak station.  I didn't look up where the other one is.

 

[justoneoftwo]

2 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

I suspect there is much more to Josh's quick confession and instant whisking away to Jesus rehab, even if the Danica Dillon story turns out to be unsubstantiated or exaggerated.

If he has solid alibis or did have sex but knows that she can't prove she was injured (and she must prove this in order to recover damages from him), why such a swift reaction once the AM story broke?  Why the house sale?  Why did his siblings (and let's face it, Anna too, even if she was in part coerced) sell him out to TLC? Why is he still kept away from his family, now 5 months and counting?   I think we're missing large parts of Josh's story.  

As to the Dillon case, simply showing youtube videos or fan photos from the time period probably won't be enough to get him out of the case on summary judgement, which is his current goal.  His attorney first needs to pin her down on specific days or nights.  And then he needs very clear evidence that Josh was physically elsewhere and could not have possibly been in PA.  I know the Philly club is a short cab ride from the airport and about a mile from the Amtrak station.  I didn't look up where the other one is.

 

The quick confession seems unrelated to Dillon in my opinion.  She was not an issue at that moment.   I believe he cheated, but it doesn't mean it was with her.  

[HarleyQuinn]

1 hour ago, Chickenbutt said:

Could Josh have flown from Texas to DC and had a layover...lol...in PA? I know sometimes flights take some crazy paths.

He probably could if he flew U.S Airways. They have a big presence in PA.

[JenniferJuniper]

3 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

The quick confession seems unrelated to Dillon in my opinion.  She was not an issue at that moment.   I believe he cheated, but it doesn't mean it was with her.  

Agree.  And an earlier letter from her attorney threatening to sue seems unlikely as she supposedly only recognized him after the AM story broke.  (sister's story aside) 

So why did he sell his house so quickly?  Why is he still gone?  Rhetorical questions only. I have no interest in speculating.  

[garciarodrigez]

I would swear I read an article today that said Dillons attorney told Joshs attorneys that Danica had photos she planned to release to the tabloids before she released them to the court.  It also referenced Josh not settling despite this info.   I went through every link in my history and couldn't find it again.  It's driving me nuts.  Radar has a link with a headline mentioning incriminating photos but it doesn't work.  It says info doesn't exist or some such.  I know i didn't dream it so wondered if anyone else caught and read that too.    I'll keep searching but I'm losing hope of finding that again.

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

3 minutes ago, garciarodrigez said:

I would swear I read an article today that said Dillons attorney told Joshs attorneys that Danica had photos she planned to release to the tabloids before she released them to the court.  It also referenced Josh not settling despite this info.   I went through every link in my history and couldn't find it again.  It's driving me nuts.  Radar has a link with a headline mentioning incriminating photos but it doesn't work.  It says info doesn't exist or some such.  I know i didn't dream it so wondered if anyone else caught and read that too.    I'll keep searching but I'm losing hope of finding that again.

 

 

You didn't dream it...here you go.

[garciarodrigez]

31 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

 

You didn't dream it...here you go.

Thank you so much.  I knew I should have asked sooner.  Would have saved me so much time.  Lol.  Can't believe I looked everywhere but here for that.  

Is the judge going to appreciate these pics released to the tabloids over the court?  Doesn't seem like a smart move to me.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

7 minutes ago, garciarodrigez said:

Thank you so much.  I knew I should have asked sooner.  Would have saved me so much time.  Lol.  Can't believe I looked everywhere but here for that.  

Is the judge going to appreciate these pics released to the tabloids over the court?  Doesn't seem like a smart move to me.

Seems really strange to me, too.  Hoping one of the resident lawyers chimes in on the tabloid stuff 

Oh, and a little hint for searching.  If you type site:freejinger.org and key words into google it will give you the results from here (or any site.)

[garciarodrigez]

That is very good to know about the search tip.  I didn't know that at all.  Lol.  Thanks again.

And, like you I'm curious for some law type people to shed light on the tabloid talk.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 hours ago, JenniferJuniper said:

I suspect there is much more to Josh's quick confession and instant whisking away to Jesus rehab, even if the Danica Dillon story turns out to be unsubstantiated or exaggerated.

If he has solid alibis or did have sex but knows that she can't prove she was injured (and she must prove this in order to recover damages from him), why such a swift reaction once the AM story broke?  Why the house sale?  Why did his siblings (and let's face it, Anna too, even if she was in part coerced) sell him out to TLC? Why is he still kept away from his family, now 5 months and counting?   I think we're missing large parts of Josh's story.  

As to the Dillon case, simply showing youtube videos or fan photos from the time period probably won't be enough to get him out of the case on summary judgement, which is his current goal.  His attorney first needs to pin her down on specific days or nights.  And then he needs very clear evidence that Josh was physically elsewhere and could not have possibly been in PA.  I know the Philly club is a short cab ride from the airport and about a mile from the Amtrak station.  I didn't look up where the other one is.

 

The swift reaction of getting him out of sight fast?  Containment.  Part of my job involves corrective action in a quality system and job one once something goes wrong it to contain and isolate the non conforming product so it doesn't become s bigger problem.

once you've got the current problem contained then you figure out what the hell happened (root cause analysis), how to fix it and prevent it from happening again (corrective action.)

I would bet anything that when this broke everyone was freaking out and especially Anna, JB, and J'Chelle couldn't even look at him without losing their shit.  I don't know that of course but in the immediate aftermath anything else would be a superhuman reaction.  Getting him out of everyone's sight was the best move for everyone before someone said or did things that would make things a lot worse (from their pov.)

Also getting him muzzled - fast - while they tried to figure out what else they didn't yet know.

The house sale could have been preemptive assuming their could be w lawsuit coming (the news of his paying for the guarantee and how many women on AM were escorts broke fast - JB would have been smart enough to know someone was going to sue or need hush money. And/or just taking probably the only real asset Smuggar had so he's 100% financially dependent on his folks when they don't want him making a move without permission.  protection of assets and total control.  Now I could be wrong  - but those that reasoning makes sense to me.

 

 

[JenniferJuniper]

2 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

 

The house sale could have been preemptive assuming their could be w lawsuit coming (the news of his paying for the guarantee and how many women on AM were escorts broke fast - JB would have been smart enough to know someone was going to sue or need hush money. And/or just taking probably the only real asset Smuggar had so he's 100% financially dependent on his folks when they don't want him making a move without permission.  protection of assets and total control.  Now I could be wrong  - but those that reasoning makes sense to me.

 

 

I suppose the house "sale" may have been in the works as a result of the rumors about Victim 5 from Joshgate 1 suing him.  Even though someone did sue him, it's not something I would have automatically anticipated happening as a result of the AM hacking. Hush money makes far more sense to me.  Which raises more questions, of course...

[diplomat]

6 hours ago, Whoosh said:

Apparently venue is being challenged.  If Josh can show the judge that the venue is improper, the judge could rule that the PA court doesn't have jurisdiction and there needs to be a change of venue in order for things to proceed.  In many lawsuits, they would simply move the venue to one that would be appropriate.  However, since Dillon's entire claim rests on her claim of Duggar having actually been in PA at the time in question, a change of venue isn't likely to happen.

Whoosh is right that venue is a question about whether the plaintiff filed the complaint in the right court (and, if the case was filed in the wrong place, transferring it is a common solution). Here, however, venue is not being challenged; both sides agree that Danica's complaint involved events that allegedly happened within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I've attached the certification Josh's attorney filed earlier this week about venue, since RadarOnline doesn't seem to have uploaded this one. (You might notice that the header says it's a 3-page document, but I've only attached the first 2 pages; that's because the third page is the certificate of service, i.e., a promise that the attorney sent a copy to the other side, and it contains addresses and phone numbers that I don't think I should post here, yet I can't redact individual lines of text on the device I'm currently using, so I took off the whole page.) 

And I think the determination whether a particular defendant can be sued in a particular court, i.e., whether that person has enough contacts with that judicial district to justify forcing them to come back for court proceedings, is called personal jurisdiction, not venue. But I could be wrong.

[Chickenbutt]

Maybe I am being extra dense here, but I am totally confused.

Danica says Josh was there, Josh says he wasn't. If Danica doesn't have proof, why would her lawyer even take, much less file, this case? If she does have proof, and Josh has been made aware of her proof, why is he denying it? Maybe it is so ingrained in me to tell the truth, I have a hard time understanding that one of these two is a bald (or is it bold) faced liar. And whoever that liar is, is going to be exposed in court. Whatta mess!

[diplomat]

I hate to repeat myself, but I just realized it would have been useful if I had included the court document numbers in the summary of "latest developments" I posted on Wednesday, so you could match my descriptions with the court documents themselves, should you wish to do so. See if this helps:

• On Tuesday, the court agreed with Josh that Danica's disclosures were not yet complete; it also ordered that, from now on, any evidence provided by Danica regarding her medical records or lost wages must be "strictly held... for attorney eyes only" unless the court orders otherwise. That's Document 14, which is the last page posted at http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/josh-duggar-court-docs-signed.pdf.
• In another pleading filed on Tuesday, Josh's attorney says that Josh "does not anticipate a settlement at this stage, other than one in which [Danica] agrees to voluntarily dismiss her claims and publicize a statement on her Instagram and Twitter accounts that [Josh] is not the individual who injured her." He also says it's "highly unlikely that any compensation would be offered" to Danica. That's Document 15, included in the same set of documents at the RadarOnline link posted above.
• Josh's attorney also claims that his phone calls to Danica's attorney go to voicemail and are not promptly returned, and that, in response to his demands for the rest of the discovery materials Danica was supposed to have provided already, Danica's attorney has "offered only to provide photographs that his client plans to release to the tabloids after they are released to the tabloids." That's Document 16, which I don't think any media source has yet posted, so I'll upload it for you myself when I can.  (You're welcome, @garciarodrigez.)
• Finally, both parties had to submit affidavits on Tuesday regarding venue, i.e., whether the lawsuit properly belongs in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Josh says he wasn't in Pennsylvania on the dates of the alleged assaults (because he was in Texas, Maryland, DC, or flying from Texas to Maryland), but that he has no reason to doubt that someone assaulted Danica when and where she claims; he says Danica is "mistaken, not about where she sustained her injuries, but about who caused them." That's Document 12, which I attached to my most recent post; Document 11 also says similar things, and it's available at http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/josh-duggar-court-docs-signed.pdf. Danica says "she was accosted and assaulted" by Josh in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, so it's the right place for her lawsuit. That's Document 14, but it says little more than that, so I see no need to upload it.

[2manyKidzzz]

Well, I guess I just can't wait to see how this turns out. If he did it, he did, but I cannot imagine the proof.

[Dandruff]

If it turns out that Danica can't support her accusations against Josh, could Anna have a case against Danica?  Would Anna have to establish that Danica's accusations were intentionally false and that she (Anna) was harmed beyond the effects of the previous Josh scandals?

[Whoosh]

1 hour ago, diplomat said:

Whoosh is right that venue is a question about whether the plaintiff filed the complaint in the right court (and, if the case was filed in the wrong place, transferring it is a common solution). Here, however, venue is not being challenged; both sides agree that Danica's complaint involved events that allegedly happened within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I've attached the certification Josh's attorney filed earlier this week about venue, since RadarOnline doesn't seem to have uploaded this one. (You might notice that the header says it's a 3-page document, but I've only attached the first 2 pages; that's because the third page is the certificate of service, i.e., a promise that the attorney sent a copy to the other side, and it contains addresses and phone numbers that I don't think I should post here, yet I can't redact individual lines of text on the device I'm currently using, so I took off the whole page.) 

And I think the determination whether a particular defendant can be sued in a particular court, i.e., whether that person has enough contacts with that judicial district to justify forcing them to come back for court proceedings, is called personal jurisdiction, not venue. But I could be wrong.

Thank you!  This specific issue has been nagging at me for a long time, but I can't articulate it well at all.  This helps a lot with that. 

[garciarodrigez]

5 hours ago, diplomat said:

 That's Document 16, which I don't think any media source has yet posted, so I'll upload it for you myself when I can.  (You're welcome, @garciarodrigez.)

 

Thank you.  And I'm pretty sure no media had this info as of yesterday.  Lol.

[justoneoftwo]

I just have to ask about Dillan's attorney.  He doesn't check his email?  He doesn't electronically file?  He threatens with tabloids instead of answering discovery?  He refuses to answer discovery without publishing photos in the tabloids?  This is looking more and more like a shake down (or just insane).  If he doesn't respond soon I would expect a motion for sanctions!  Maybe even a bar complaint!  If half of what Josh's lawyer says to the court is true about the other lawyers behavior (and I would guess it is, as that is not something lawyers usually make up) this case is even more crazy.  

I will also say I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find that he had not investigated his client's claim, I find many plaintiffs attorneys don't.  I also will say many attorneys wouldn't check something as basic as could he have been in the state, because people have a tendency to believe their clients.  

[JenniferJuniper]

2 hours ago, justoneoftwo said:

I just have to ask about Dillan's attorney.  He doesn't check his email?  He doesn't electronically file?  He threatens with tabloids instead of answering discovery?  He refuses to answer discovery without publishing photos in the tabloids?  This is looking more and more like a shake down (or just insane).  If he doesn't respond soon I would expect a motion for sanctions!  Maybe even a bar complaint!  If half of what Josh's lawyer says to the court is true about the other lawyers behavior (and I would guess it is, as that is not something lawyers usually make up) this case is even more crazy.  

I will also say I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find that he had not investigated his client's claim, I find many plaintiffs attorneys don't.  I also will say many attorneys wouldn't check something as basic as could he have been in the state, because people have a tendency to believe their clients.  

Yes, it's surprising how many take potential clients' stories at face value and then get burned later down the road on some or all aspects of a case.   I've never been on that side, but my guess is that some people are very convincing and some attorneys are lazy or still clueless about the information that's out there.

These days paralegals and claims adjusters (if liability insurance is involved) are very adept at doing "deep social media checks" on all claimants and plaintiffs at the outset of a case and on an ongoing basis.  Attorneys, not so much it seems.

 

 

[justoneoftwo]

3 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

Yes, it's surprising how many take potential clients' stories at face value and then get burned later down the road on some or all aspects of a case.   I've never been on that side, but my guess is that some people are very convincing and some attorneys are lazy or still clueless about the information that's out there.

These days paralegals and claims adjusters (if liability insurance is involved) are very adept at doing "deep social media checks" on all claimants and plaintiffs at the outset of a case and on an ongoing basis.  Attorneys, not so much it seems.

 

 

In my experience it seems they don't want to take the time to check it out.  They seem to know the defense will do so and so don't care much and don't put much time into the case.  People are also good at finding lawyers who want to believe x about y person or company.  I worked in plaintiff side employee discrimination cases for a while, and my boss just wanted to believe that companies were behaving horribly.  It fit her world view so she didn't question as much as she should have.  

[Whoosh]

I agree with a lot of what people are saying here.  I would add this, though - I don't trust the adult Duggars as far as I can throw one as far as telling the truth goes and I feel the same about Josh's attorney.  We have no idea what is really going on - we are seeing how Duggar's attorney chose to spin it.  I suspect that if what is being said is true, there may well be sanctions in store for Dillon's attorney.  If what Duggar's attorney is saying is all plausible but exaggerated, not much can be done about that.  If what Duggar's attorney is saying is grossly exaggerated or flat out false, at some point that could lead to sanctions for Duggar's attorney.

Something odd seems to be afoot, but I don't know if it is Dillon's attorney, Duggar's attorney or both.  It almost feels like a very public high stakes game of chicken at this point in a lot of ways.  

ETA - working in criminal defense, I have never encountered this thing people are talking of - "taking a client's version at face value".  Sounds interesting.