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

[jacduggar]

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.  

Again, I'm no expert, but my very first inclination is: there are no pictures. Or maybe there's pictures, and it turns out Joshley isn't the person in them.

 

[justoneoftwo]

Just now, jacduggar said:

Again, I'm no expert, but my very first inclination is: there are no pictures. Or maybe there's pictures, and it turns out Joshley isn't the person in them.

 

I agree, the behavior just screams shakedown and not legitimate law suit.  Does anyone have his affidavit regarding venue?  Or did he not file one since he thinks he is above email and the required electronic discovery?  Also in the certificate of service is Josh's attorney sending it via mail, or just the required e-service?  

2 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

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.  

I agree with not trusting the Duggars, I just can't imagine an attorney filing lies like this with the court, its too easy to get caught.  . .

[Whoosh]

5 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

 

I agree with not trusting the Duggars, I just can't imagine an attorney filing lies like this with the court, its too easy to get caught.  . .

I can't imagine an attorney filing lies like that either.  Nor can I imagine an attorney doing ALL THE THINGS Duggar's attorney is accusing Dillon's attorney of doing.  It's kind of like someone saying they don't believe a word Dillon says, yet they are absolutely and totally convinced that Dillon didn't know who Duggar was until Ashley Madison broke based solely on the fact that she said that once.  Confirmation bias is a huge thing.  

That said, I totally agree that something very odd is going on at this point with one or both attorneys.

[justoneoftwo]

3 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

I can't imagine an attorney filing lies like that either.  Nor can I imagine an attorney doing ALL THE THINGS Duggar's attorney is accusing Dillon's attorney of doing.  It's kind of like someone saying they don't believe a word Dillon says, yet they are absolutely and totally convinced that Dillon didn't know who Duggar was until Ashley Madison broke based solely on the fact that she said that once.  Confirmation bias is a huge thing.  

That said, I totally agree that something very odd is going on at this point with one or both attorneys.

Very good point.  I have had attorneys claim they were going to go public with things to try to push a settlement, and I do know attorneys who don't use computers (although they always have assistants print it out?).  Is her attorney not usually a litigator?  Or is Duggars?  Maybe someone just doesn't know the rules or something really odd like that?

[Whoosh]

2 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

Very good point.  I have had attorneys claim they were going to go public with things to try to push a settlement, and I do know attorneys who don't use computers (although they always have assistants print it out?).  Is her attorney not usually a litigator?  Or is Duggars?  Maybe someone just doesn't know the rules or something really odd like that?

I don't know the background of either attorney.  However, a few posts up you were remarking on how unbelievable the alleged behavior of Dillon's attorney is and saying if he doesn't respond soon you could see sanctions!  Or a bar complaint!  So, either Dillon's attorney is alleged to be doing things that are fairly typical and are seen with regularity - or not.  I would say that the accusations with regard to this attorney's behavior rise above the level of commonly used tactics to try to push for settlement into the arena of needing to think about sanctions or bar complaints.  I am not sure why it would be totally believable that that is happening, but incomprehensible that Duggar's attorney is grossly exaggerating if not making statements that are not true.

[justoneoftwo]

Just now, Whoosh said:

I don't know the background of either attorney.  However, a few posts up you were remarking on how unbelievable the alleged behavior of Dillon's attorney is and saying if he doesn't respond soon you could see sanctions!  Or a bar complaint!  So, either Dillon's attorney is alleged to be doing things that are fairly typical and are seen with regularity - or not.  I would say that the accusations with regard to this attorney's behavior rise above the level of commonly used tactics to try to push for settlement into the arena of needing to think about sanctions or bar complaints.  I am not sure why it would be totally believable that that is happening, but incomprehensible that Duggar's attorney is grossly exaggerating if not making statements that are not true.

Yes, I was not meaning to say that it was typical, only trying to find something even close that could reasonably be happening (he doesn't check email but his staff does?  someone misinterpreted something?).  I am trying to say I don't find either side to be totally believable, although telling the court lies seems less likely to me personally.  The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, I just wish I knew where.  

[JenniferJuniper]

35 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

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.  

Good point.   I suppose it's possible that with the molestation story so recently in the headlines, her attorney might have been willing to believe her story without much or any checking.  And she's done a little acting in her time.

Which is not to say her case won't end up having some merit.  It just doesn't look that good for her right now. 

[Whoosh]

Here is what is odd to me.  For years, we have seen the Duggar family misrepresent the truth if not flat out lie to just about everyone.  We have seen the Duggar family recruit high powered people to be complicit in this false front they present to the world.  We have remarkably little knowledge about Dillon outside her chosen profession.  Now we have a situation where they have both hired attorneys and it looks like one or both of those attorneys is being less than honest and/or forthcoming.  I can't imagine why anyone would dismiss out of hand the idea that Duggar's attorney may be the problem here.  Of course, it could totally be Dillon's attorney, or maybe both.  The assumptions being made are what I can't follow considering what history teaches us about the Duggar family and their buddies who back their false claims (and some go on to run for president no less).

[Chickenbutt]

All I have to say is someone in this mess is a big ole liarhead

[Letgo]

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but how much is this case going to cost Josh? The attorney fees are going to amount to quite a sum, aren't they? And for someone who is unemployed and pretty much unemployable, with a wife and four children, that is going to hurt. In addition to his attorney fees, Josh has his "rehab" expenses, too. How will Josh and Anna afford all this?

[jacduggar]

21 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

Here is what is odd to me.  For years, we have seen the Duggar family misrepresent the truth if not flat out lie to just about everyone.  We have seen the Duggar family recruit high powered people to be complicit in this false front they present to the world.  We have remarkably little knowledge about Dillon outside her chosen profession.  Now we have a situation where they have both hired attorneys and it looks like one or both of those attorneys is being less than honest and/or forthcoming.  I can't imagine why anyone would dismiss out of hand the idea that Duggar's attorney may be the problem here.  Of course, it could totally be Dillon's attorney, or maybe both.  The assumptions being made are what I can't follow considering what history teaches us about the Duggar family and their buddies who back their false claims (and some go on to run for president no less).

The reason I really think Smuggar may be innocent of THIS particular accusation (and it actually pains me to say that out loud but whatever) is because I feel that, if Dillon's claims were substantiated and she has the proof she speaks of (but hasn't provided), then Joshley wouldn't be pushing back this hard. In his prior (disgusting) scandals he automatically stepped down and  went into hiding. Why would this "scandal" be different? 

16 minutes ago, Letgo said:

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but how much is this case going to cost Josh? The attorney fees are going to amount to quite a sum, aren't they? And for someone who is unemployed and pretty much unemployable, with a wife and four children, that is going to hurt. In addition to his attorney fees, Josh has his "rehab" expenses, too. How will Josh and Anna afford all this?

I don't know why people don't think Josh has any of his TLC money left. I'm also guessing FRC paid him. Although I'm not privy to Josh's particular money management skills, we know very well that the Duggar's hoard money as if it's a commandment from God himself. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Josh had a comfy little money stash. Also, I am sure JB would be more than willing to put up money for the cause. 

[Whoosh]

5 minutes ago, jacduggar said:

The reason I really think Smuggar may be innocent of THIS particular accusation (and it actually pains me to say that out loud but whatever) is because I feel that, if Dillon's claims were substantiated and she has the proof she speaks of (but hasn't provided), then Joshley wouldn't be pushing back this hard. In his prior (disgusting) scandals he automatically stepped down and  went into hiding. Why would this "scandal" be different? 

This is something I keep thinking as well.  I am not at all convinced that he is innocent of this particular accusation, but I really never saw things playing out the way they are and a large part of that was the fact that I assumed that if Dillon's allegations had merit (or even if they didn't but the two had had consensual sex) Duggar would settle quickly - like before she had a chance to file suit even.  Obviously that didn't happen.  There are quirky little details in all this that pull me strongly in both directions.  Your point here is one of them.

[jacduggar]

15 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

This is something I keep thinking as well.  I am not at all convinced that he is innocent of this particular accusation, but I really never saw things playing out the way they are and a large part of that was the fact that I assumed that if Dillon's allegations had merit (or even if they didn't but the two had had consensual sex) Duggar would settle quickly - like before she had a chance to file suit even.  Obviously that didn't happen.  There are quirky little details in all this that pull me strongly in both directions.  Your point here is one of them.

I don't doubt that Josh was out there having freaky sex with people who aren't Anna, but there is something about this and the way the case is unfolding that strikes me as odd. Of course I don't know anything about this girl or her character, but what I know of the Duggar's tells me that he wouldn't dump this kind of time or money into something if he didn't think he was right enough to win it. 

[Whoosh]

28 minutes ago, jacduggar said:

I don't doubt that Josh was out there having freaky sex with people who aren't Anna, but there is something about this and the way the case is unfolding that strikes me as odd. Of course I don't know anything about this girl or her character, but what I know of the Duggar's tells me that he wouldn't dump this kind of time or money into something if he didn't think he was right enough to win it. 

One thing to keep in mind is that many people think that Dillon's case is unwinnable even if she is telling the absolute truth.  We see people on this board saying that all the time.  They may think that for all kinds of reasons.  The reality is that if Dillon is telling the truth, her case IS winnable, but it is a difficult case and she will need pretty solid evidence to prevail here.  This is a total hypothetical and I am in no way claiming this as truth or what I think is happening, but if Josh's attorney doesn't understand that a case such as this IS winnable, he could be telling Josh that it doesn't matter that Josh sexually assaulted Dillon because she can't win in court. They may well be sitting around laughing over the fact that you can indeed assault or rape a hooker with no fear of consequences and she will have no recourse.  If that is what Josh and his attorney believe, they may well decide to press forward with a somewhat strong-arming, bullying type attitude attempting to get Dillon to fold.  Lawyers give bad advice like that all the time.  I am NOT saying I think that is what is happening right now, but it is possible.

[EmmieJ]

21 hours ago, JenniferJuniper said:

<snip>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. 

 

Yeah.  The more time that passes with Josh hidden from sight, away at rehab, the weirder this seems to me.  I know this isn't s typical rehab center.  I had a friend who was alcoholic and went through rehab several times.  Most of those seemed to be about 30 days in length, then she would transfer to a halfway house, living with others in recovery.  She never managed to stay very long before getting kicked out for relapsing, so I don't really have any idea how long a person might normally stay at at that secondary step.  Has Josh really been away for five months so far?  What the hell is actually going on?

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just now, EmmieJ said:

Yeah.  The more time that passes with Josh hidden from sight, away at rehab, the weirder this seems to me.  I know this isn't s typical rehab center.  I had a friend who was alcoholic and went through rehab several times.  Most of those seemed to be about 30 days in length, then she would transfer to a halfway house, living with others in recovery.  She never managed to stay very long before getting kicked out for relapsing, so I don't really have any idea how long a person might normally stay at at that secondary step.  Has Josh really been away for five months so far?  What the hell is actually going on?

And this isn't just any 5 months - it's the first five months of his new daughter's life.

I can't imagine what could have compelled me to go along with any plan which would have had me missing such a large swath of my baby's first year...but then clearly Josh and I are different people.

You can't get those first months back.

[Bad Wolf]

I think RU is a 6 month program, at least, depending how you do. Though since there are no licensed counsellors there, I don't know how they judge you fit to leave.

Maybe those who have done the most manual labor, sang lustily in church, and have memorized x number of bible verses are considered worthy.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just now, Bad Wolf said:

I think RU is a 6 month program, at least, depending how you do. Though since there are no licensed counsellors there, I don't know how they judge you fit to leave.

<snip>

When the checks stop clearing, I'd imagine.

[Catey]

2 minutes ago, EmmieJ said:

Has Josh really been away for five months so far?  What the hell is actually going on?

Prior to release they hook his pickle up to a machine they are then shown a picture of an un-modestly dressed woman if there is any reaction he is sent back to the prayer closet.

The horrible closet with warmed sheets, prepared meals,understanding glances and none of the responsibility that comes with being a father of 4. Safe and secure from the lamestreet media and their intrusive questions. The only outside contact comes with the downcast faces of your family that you have let down but they have forgiven you, because it is the right thing to do.

Safe and shielded from the horrid porn stars trying to malign your character when none of this is your fault, the world is just so worldly after all..

 

On a different note, I have looked over Danica's extensive twitter and she seems to be really into self promoting and a pretty decent manipulator I really don't think that she is all that stupid. She seems pretty for lack of a better term "street smart" and I doubt (but who really knows) that she is just completely lying about this entire encounter.

[nokidsmom]

16 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

And this isn't just any 5 months - it's the first five months of his new daughter's life.

I can't imagine what could have compelled me to go along with any plan which would have had me missing such a large swath of my baby's first year...but then clearly Josh and I are different people.

You can't get those first months back.

A good point.  This adds another layer of mystery to the whole thing.   In addition to there being no reports or sightings of him at RU, not even someone who left the program and announced he was there, but there's also that he's absent from being near his newborn daughter for months.   

I agree that there's more to the whole Joshley saga than we know.  

[jacduggar]

38 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

One thing to keep in mind is that many people think that Dillon's case is unwinnable even if she is telling the absolute truth.  We see people on this board saying that all the time.  They may think that for all kinds of reasons.  The reality is that if Dillon is telling the truth, her case IS winnable, but it is a difficult case and she will need pretty solid evidence to prevail here.  This is a total hypothetical and I am in no way claiming this as truth or what I think is happening, but if Josh's attorney doesn't understand that a case such as this IS winnable, he could be telling Josh that it doesn't matter that Josh sexually assaulted Dillon because she can't win in court. They may well be sitting around laughing over the fact that you can indeed assault or rape a hooker with no fear of consequences and she will have no recourse.  If that is what Josh and his attorney believe, they may well decide to press forward with a somewhat strong-arming, bullying type attitude attempting to get Dillon to fold.  Lawyers give bad advice like that all the time.  I am NOT saying I think that is what is happening right now, but it is possible.

It depends on the evidence that gets presented for the case, and we may never see it to know what's really going on. But we do know that it had to happen on the very specific dates she was in Pennsylvania, and Josh claims to have date and time stamped evidence proving he wasn't there. I think if he has witness testimonies and date/time stamped evidence proving he wasn't there, than her doctors notes would be no good because she could have those for any encounter during that specific time frame. The only other evidence she is claiming is pictures that she (her lawyer) threatened to release to the tabloids but won't (so far) hand over to the court, which looks really shady to me (a non expert spectator who doesn't matter at al in the grand scheme of things).

[EmmieJ]

2 hours ago, Whoosh said:

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.

I worked for a plaintiff's attorney for a number of years.  He had been a criminal defense attorney in the past.  He would usually ask prospective clients to bring in whatever info they had at their first meeting, such as a copy of any traffic collision report (if they had been in a car accident), copies of their medical records for the injury involved, get an idea of their medical bills, whether they have missed time from work.  Smart attorneys get as much info as they can when deciding whether they will take a case on.  Besides, most attorneys have a fairly healthy ego and do not like to be embarrassed before a judge or opposing counsel by having their client's version of events proven to be a pack of lies.  Not a good feeling.

It's possible that Danica Dillon's attorney just wants to get his name out there - but I can't see how being exposed as an attorney who doesn't check his facts carefully before filing a lawsuit would be a good way to attract more clients (in the event that Josh could prove that on the dates in question, he was in a completely different part of the country than Dillon).

[JenniferJuniper]

1 hour ago, Letgo said:

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but how much is this case going to cost Josh? The attorney fees are going to amount to quite a sum, aren't they? And for someone who is unemployed and pretty much unemployable, with a wife and four children, that is going to hurt. In addition to his attorney fees, Josh has his "rehab" expenses, too. How will Josh and Anna afford all this?

Figure an average of $150 an hour for work that cannot be done by a paralegal.  Paralegal bills aren't cheap either.

As of right now, that hasn't added up to an astronomical amount; certainly doable for Jim Bob.  The longer this stays around, the faster the costs will mount though.  This is the reason for Josh's push for the early dismissal, whether voluntary by Dillon or by the court for her failure to respond to discovery demands.  His attorney is making it clear there will be no settlement (now) so the plaintiff's side knows there will be no quick payout.  Should current maneuvers not work out in Josh's favor, I can see him rethinking that posture especially if she presents documentation that supports her case.  

But the tabloid photos thing is just weird.  I know Josh's attorney is paraphrasing so it's probably not a fully accurate quote but still, it's a strange position to take and may smack of desperation for an offer of settlement.  "I have photos, but you won't see them until after they're published by tabloids. So pay me now and I'll sign a confidentiality agreement  before it's too late."    I'm speculating, of course, but I'm not sure what else it could mean. 

[EmmieJ]

24 minutes ago, Catey said:

Prior to release they hook his pickle up to a machine they are then shown a picture of an un-modestly dressed woman if there is any reaction he is sent back to the prayer closet.

The horrible closet with warmed sheets, prepared meals,understanding glances and none of the responsibility that comes with being a father of 4. Safe and secure from the lamestreet media and their intrusive questions. The only outside contact comes with the downcast faces of your family that you have let down but they have forgiven you, because it is the right thing to do.

Safe and shielded from the horrid porn stars trying to malign your character when none of this is your fault, the world is just so worldly after all..

From the description provided by RU of how participants are to behave while in their program, it really doesn't sound like the cushy, comforting place you've just described.  I think participants have to do manual labor much of the day, have to get up early, are closely monitored, and when not involved in actual labor, have every second of their day filled with prayer, prayer meetings, and very little time for introspection, rest, or snuggling under the covers.  Do they even get to watch tv?  Anyway, I just remember thinking that Josh would really hate it there after living it up in D.C.

On the plus side, he would at least be away from his father, who I suspect can be scary when angry.

[Whoosh]

31 minutes ago, jacduggar said:

It depends on the evidence that gets presented for the case, and we may never see it to know what's really going on. But we do know that it had to happen on the very specific dates she was in Pennsylvania, and Josh claims to have date and time stamped evidence proving he wasn't there. I think if he has witness testimonies and date/time stamped evidence proving he wasn't there, than her doctors notes would be no good because she could have those for any encounter during that specific time frame. The only other evidence she is claiming is pictures that she (her lawyer) threatened to release to the tabloids but won't (so far) hand over to the court, which looks really shady to me (a non expert spectator who doesn't matter at al in the grand scheme of things).

It will all depend on what evidence each party has if it makes it to trial.  Josh is claiming a lot of things, I am not believing any of them just because he or his attorney utters them.  I am not sure why you think her only evidence is alleged photos and some notes from a doctor - did she say that somewhere?  

Here is what I am really saying - if you have two people in a room and one known to be remarkably dishonest ALL THE TIME and you are not immediately inclined to believe the other - it's kind of a toss-up and going off the word of the known teller of falsehoods seems weird to me.