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

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just now, EmmieJ said:

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

Not nearly as scary as I imagine his mother.  I'd put money on that.

[IreneIssh]

3 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Not nearly as scary as I imagine his mother.  I'd put money on that.

Me too. I know Michelle has actually said before that she struggled with her temper. I have a feeling that her going from her baby voice to yelling would be absolutely terrifying. 

[EmCatlyn]

24 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

When the checks stop clearing, I'd imagine.

Actually I think RU charges the same whether the person stays one month or one year.  

I don't find it odd that he is still at RU.  I find it odd that no one has seen him.  You would think he would be seen working or something.  But it seems he has been concealed or disguised well.  Even so, don't think he went to RU to hide.  I think he went to RU because the long program will make it more plausible (to ATI people) when he returns reformed.

 

[JenniferJuniper]

Sounds like only the pokey "students" take all six months to finish.....

Quote

The RU School of Discipleship operates using a four-phase program. Each phase can be completed within 45 days. Almost everyone will finish all four phases within 6 months. Your completion of your phases plus the timing of the next scheduled graduation ceremony will determine your graduation date. Your application should include a graduation schedule for the year. Your graduation will not be dependent on the completion of some self-imposed timetable. Phase progression will be checked during your mentoring sessions with your Dean of Homes. If you are not progressing through all areas of your phase every week, then you cannot remain in the home. 

but Josh is "progressing" enough to stay.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

4 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

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.

I think part of her problem is going to be her own credibility and how she presents.

I watched the interview where she first spoke of this and her dismay that he had a pregnant wife at home and she didn't know was absolutely eye rollingly laughable.  

Both the words she was saying and her demeanor read extremely insincere to me and I'm no Smuggar fan.  And it has zero to do with her profession...it has to do with the clumsy way she tried to take the moral high ground with her faux concern for Anna's betrayal.  

If she had a ethics rule that she didn't sleep with married men who had pregnant wives that's fine...but since it didn't come up until long after the fact it seems more than a little disingenuous.  She didn't say she tried to vet that and he lied - she said he didn't tell her.  If married expectant dads are on her no-go list she should be screening for that and not expecting them to chat about their wives and kids before paying a stranger for sex.

I absolutely had an open mind when I watched that interview but by the end her credibility to me was about zero.

None of us know what, if anything, happened between these two people.  But if it's true and he did cause her harm she's going to have an uphill climb convincing a judge or jury on that if her demeanor remains the same.  

[diplomat]

2 hours ago, justoneoftwo said:

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?  

According to the certificates of service, Josh's attorney has been filing his documents electronically and sending hard copies via U.S. mail to Danica's attorney. As you requested, @justoneoftwo, here's the affidavit Danica's attorney filed as to venue. It's Document 13.

As for Danica releasing photos to the tabloids, RadarOnline is saying Danica "opened up to Hustler magazine's April 2016 issue about the nights that allegedly left her physically and emotionally damaged." http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/josh-duggar-porn-star-battery-lawsuit-danica-dillon-reveals-graphic-disturbing-new-details-sex-assault/ 

(I don't usually read or trust RadarOnline, but I think they've released more actual court documents for this case than any other media outlet, so I wanted to check if they'd posted anything following yesterday's initial pretrial conference. I didn't see anything there, but I already have the documents, so I'll redact them myself and post them here later today.)

[Whoosh]

1 minute ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I think part of her problem is going to be her own credibility and how she presents.

I watched the interview where she first spoke of this and her dismay that he had a pregnant wife at home and she didn't know was absolutely eye rollingly laughable.  

Both the words she was saying and her demeanor read extremely insincere to me and I'm no Smuggar fan.  And it has zero to do with her profession...it has to do with the clumsy way she tried to take the moral high ground with her faux concern for Anna's betrayal.  

If she had a ethics rule that she didn't sleep with married men who had pregnant wives that's fine...but since it didn't come up until long after the fact it seems more than a little disingenuous.  She didn't say she tried to vet that and he lied - she said he didn't tell her.  If married expectant dads are on her no-go list she should be screening for that and not expecting them to chat about their wives and kids before paying a stranger for sex.

I absolutely had an open mind when I watched that interview but by the end her credibility to me was about zero.

None of us know what, if anything, happened between these two people.  But if it's true and he did cause her harm she's going to have an uphill climb convincing a judge or jury on that if her demeanor remains the same.  

I agree the part of that interview about who Josh is and her concern for Anna seemed like utter crap to me.  In fact, I would put that on the top of my list of things Dillon said that are likely untrue.  My take on that is that it could well be a result of the interviewers for a less than reputable organization pressuring her or coercing her to talk about poor Anna and the kids.  Maybe, maybe not.

Credibility will be huge in this case.  Josh has none in my book.  I have seen so little of Dillon outside that interview with a shady, shady gossip generating machine that I won't make a call at this time on her.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just now, diplomat said:

As for Danica releasing photos to the tabloids, RadarOnline is saying Danica "opened up to Hustler magazine's April 2016 issue about the nights that allegedly left her physically and emotionally damaged."

I know I'm going to hell for this but knowing that those in the Duggar camp are going to have to discuss the contents of Hustler ...and either they or the atty they are paying will have to purchase same...it's not unfunny.

[jacduggar]

40 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

It will all depend on what evidence each party has.  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 pictures - 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.

Her lawyer said he'd provide pictures. 

 

My my opinion is based on the fact that I saw pictures of him not being in Pennsylvania during the time this occurred. Could he have flown back for half a day to assault her? Sure. Which is why I said his claim of time and date stamped receipts would be a big piece of this. Either she has the pictures or not, they are also looking for people to "back her story". Quotes because I'm not sure exactly what that means, I'd assume witnesses.

 

He's a pathological liar but, at this point, I have seen more physical proof that he was not there than I have seen that he was. If she provides something to counter that, than I hope she gets the money and he gets all the jail time they can throw at him. 

[Whoosh]

13 minutes ago, jacduggar said:

Her lawyer said he'd provide pictures. 

 

My my opinion is based on the fact that I saw pictures of him not being in Pennsylvania during the time this occurred. Could he have flown back for half a day to assault her? Sure. Which is why I said his claim of time and date stamped receipts would be a big piece of this. Either she has the pictures or not, they are also looking for people to "back her story". Quotes because I'm not sure exactly what that means, I'd assume witnesses.

 

He's a pathological liar but, at this point, I have seen more physical proof that he was not there than I have seen that he was. If she provides something to counter that, than I hope she gets the money and he gets all the jail time they can throw at him. 

Her lawyer saying she has photos doesn't mean that is all she has.  As I said, I have not heard that the only evidence she claims to have is the photos and some notes from her doctor.  I would say the most damaging thing to her case that I have seen to this point is in the document just posted by diplomat which was submitted by her attorney and states that she is "seeking additional witnesses".  That doesn't mean that she has none at this point, but I find it surprising that they are just now "seeking additional witnesses".

ETA - the photos that Duggar's attorney mentioned are not mentioned in the document posted above from Dillon's attorney.  I may have missed something, but I thought that the photo thing mentioned by Duggar's attorney meant she could prove injuries.  IDK.

[sawasdee]

Just read the radaronline article re Danica's interview with Hustler for their April issue. The quotes were somehow a bit 'off' - she claims he was so violent that she wondered if he had murdered anybody, and said she took an hour long shower after he left. I could believe her IF she hadn't, by her own claim, repeated the encounter a month later. She has also once again changed her account of this second encounter. Previously, she said he was apologetic, and that was why she consented; now, she says he was verbally abusive, calling her a slut and skank.

I want to believe her. But , between this interview and the antics of her lawyer, she is making it very difficult

[2manyKidzzz]

Unless she has a picture of Smuggles, credit card receipt, or eye witness of someone who knows who he is. ...... I do not understand how she can prove this. She would see a number of clients over a period of a few days, and I don't get it. 

And I feel so bad for Anna after reading this Hustler interview. How humiiating for her, and how bad it must make her feel. Unless she doesn't see it. 

[socalrules]

I want to know where her lawyer was when she was giving this interview? You don't go on a speaking tour, especially to Hustler Magazine, when you are trying to win a case where you state you were abused. Hustler of all magazines? It looks like she is more interested in upping her porn star pay than getting justice. This doesn't take into account that her story has significantly changed, which is a big deal and not in a good way for her. 

All of this will come back to bite her when she is at deposition and on the stand at trial. Your own words can be used to impeach you, although a good attorney would try to get the statements suppressed and argue that she was not under oath at the time. You are your own best and worst witness. She isn't doing herself any favors. I don't think she necessarily wants to win the lawsuit so much as generate publicity for her own career.

[diplomat]

This is part one of a multi-part post about court documents filed since the initial pretrial conference on 1/21. (The documents are too large for me to post them all at once, and I also cut off the attorney signatures on the last page of this one to conserve total file size.)

Apparently, back on 1/7, the attorneys for both sides signed a confidentiality agreement (which, in my view, was likely drafted by Josh's attorney). Someone (again, likely Josh's attorney) then asked the court to "approve" their agreement, and the judge declined to do so, although he promised to "review any claim" that either side breached their private agreement. As an attachment to the order, the court supplied us with a copy of the confidentiality agreement, and that's where the plot thickens. For example, it says that "any text exchange, email, financial record or photograph and the contents thereof" provided by Josh or his attorney is to be considered confidential, unless it's already publicly available on a social media site, and that it can only be viewed by Danica's attorney and his employees or experts (who have signed confidentiality agreements and who promise that the materials will only be used for purposes of the litigation and thereafter returned or destroyed), unless Josh's attorney agrees to waive confidentiality. It explicitly says that "such documents are never to be furnished to the Plaintiff," meaning Danica, or to her "agents, friends, family members, employers or associates." But no reciprocal provision bars Josh from viewing materials provided by Danica. (See for yourself in Document 18, below.)

Perhaps, to fully defend against Danica's allegations, Josh may have to disclose evidence of other unsavory actions or evidence that could otherwise harm the Duggar family brand? Or perhaps Josh's attorney fears that Danica filed this lawsuit just to gain notoriety and get information about the Duggars to humiliate them in some way? I'm just thinking aloud...

Anyway, without further ado, here's Document 18, the confidentiality agreement, preceded by the court's order about it.

[jacduggar]

@diplomat are confidentiality agreements typically a two way street? Is this a unique situation? I'm curious why her attorney would ok it that Danica can't see his documents, but he can see hers. What would he care if it was more incriminating to Josh or the Duggar brand? 

[diplomat]

1 minute ago, jacduggar said:

@diplomat are confidentiality agreements typically a two way street? Is this a unique situation? I'm curious why her attorney would ok it that Danica can't see his documents, but he can see hers. What would he care if it was more incriminating to Josh or the Duggar brand? 

honestly, I have no idea. I doubt I've even read any confidentiality agreement for a lawsuit (other than this one), but that part seemed really weird to me. I'm hoping that someone else here can tell us both whether this is ordinary or atypical. 

[Eternalbluepearl]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I know I'm going to hell for this but knowing that those in the Duggar camp are going to have to discuss the contents of Hustler ...and either they or the atty they are paying will have to purchase same...it's not unfunny.

 No it's not. 

[diplomat]

[part two of two]

As expected, the judge also issued a scheduling order, i.e., a list of dates when things should happen. (It's Document 19.) Here are the highlights, in chronological order:

• By 1/26, Danica's attorney has to file a statement of undisputed facts, i.e., what, if anything, the parties can agree upon.
• By 2/11, Danica's attorney has to file a memo explaining why the case involves at least $75,000.
• By 3/28, discovery should be complete (although the parties may agree to change this date).
• Any motions for summary judgment are to be filed by 4/8.
• The final pretrial conference is scheduled for 5/20.
• The trial itself (which is not expected to take more than 3 days) is to begin on 5/25.

I've also included a link with a bit of background info about the judge and his good reputation in the legal community: http://home.innsofcourt.org/for-members/current-members/the-bencher/ethics-columns/professionalism-and-judges.aspx

[Whoosh]

Thanks so much for all that information, @diplomat!  I am heading out but will surely be reading it all when I return.

With regard to the confidentiality agreement, I have never heard of such a thing.  In my experience, a judge either places a gag order on some or all information or they don't.  I have never, ever seen a separate confidentiality agreement when there is an ongoing court case.  That said, I really have very limited civil experience outside some appeals work, so I would probably not have had reason to see something like this unless it was fairly routine?  IDK.  If I have any thoughts I think are worthy of sharing after I read it, I will do so, but I think I am just going to find it unfamiliar, unexpected territory and therefore I will probably think it is totally weird LOL.

[CTRLZero]

4 hours ago, Chickenbutt said:

big ole liarhead

A term of art if I ever saw one.  Love it!

[Chickenbutt]

Thank you. That's what my boys used to call each other when they were trying to explain who did what. Been a family saying ever since.

In fact, we apply it to everything, for example: Josh is a big ole cheaterhead.

[jacduggar]

I googled it and it looks like confidentiality agreements like this have been used before to keep from exposing "industry or trade secrets". Is it possible that Joshley was doing something shady for FRC? 

[Whoosh]

4 minutes ago, jacduggar said:

I googled it and it looks like confidentiality agreements like this have been used before to keep from exposing "industry or trade secrets". Is it possible that Joshley was doing something shady for FRC? 

That is interesting.  He could have been doing something shady or legit.  That sounds like maybe something along the lines of an employee confidentiality agreement to protect industry or trade secrets - you are protecting your proprietary information, not necessarily anything shady.  I wonder if there could be reason to protect industry or trade secrets with respect to the whole reality TV star status.  Again, IDK.

[calimojo]

hmm,  I would think that any attorney worth his or her salt, would not take such a big case on concerning a semi celeb without being pretty f'ing sure of the evidence.  I know that frivolous lawsuits are filed all the time, but something like this one that is going to garner a shitload of attention is not one that you want to walk into the courtroom with your pants around your ankles.

 

 

If Dannica has gotten caught up by a shyster who just wanted some quick notoriety, I feel sorry for her as I do believe the bulk of her claims

 

[socalrules]

Here, we would call it a motion for protective order. Basically the information can only be reviewed and used by the parties in the case. The court can also limit the information given. Those parties cannot disclose it to anyone else. So no going to the tabloids with it. It's considered highly confidential or sensitive information.  I have signed several but they were all for cases where the argument was successfully made that the information was a kind of trade secret or could have financial reprecussions. To me it's a common thing, so I don't see it as a big deal.