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

[gustava]

I believe that Josh's six month's stay at RU will end when  he is out of legal difficulty.

[RootBeerFloat]

3 hours ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

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. 

If Smuggar didn't use a condom, she could have physical evidence. 

[Whoosh]

I have a question that I will research if no one knows off the top of their head.  I thought that I read a court doc a while ago from Josh's attorney that said something to the effect of "We know Dillon's attorney has (personal crisis) going on, but we can't comply with the court's order to submit about the 75k limit until they make disclosures".  Does anyone else recall reading that or know where that might be?

 

[JenniferJuniper]

1 hour ago, RootBeerFloat said:

If Smuggar didn't use a condom, she could have physical evidence. 

She supposedly didn't know who he was until 4 - 5 months later and didn't report any crime to the police.  What would she have kept as physical evidence and why would she have kept it?

And even if she kept a "blue dress" of sorts, how would that prove Josh injured her?  (which is the entire basis of her claim -  Josh should be required to pay her for injuring her).

[Chickenbutt]

Whoosh.....is this what you are talking about?

http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/josh-duggar-danica-dillon-lawsuit-signed.pdf

On January 7, 2016, undersigned counsel served, via overnight mail,
Defendant’s initial disclosures to Plaintiff’s counsel as required by Rule 26(a)(1)
and this Court’s order. Plaintiff’s counsel, however, stated that he would not be
able to comply with the initial disclosure obligation due to his secretary’s hospitalization, his trial schedule and the fact that Plaintiff lives in California.2
While Defendant is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s counsel’s difficulties, his decision
makes it impossible for Defendant to file his memorandum regarding damages and
the amount in controversy by this Monday, a date now only one business day
away.

 

Pg 10 of the document

[Whoosh]

7 minutes ago, Chickenbutt said:

Whoosh.....is this what you are talking about?

http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/josh-duggar-danica-dillon-lawsuit-signed.pdf

On January 7, 2016, undersigned counsel served, via overnight mail,
Defendant’s initial disclosures to Plaintiff’s counsel as required by Rule 26(a)(1)
and this Court’s order. Plaintiff’s counsel, however, stated that he would not be
able to comply with the initial disclosure obligation due to his secretary’s hospitalization, his trial schedule and the fact that Plaintiff lives in California.2
While Defendant is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s counsel’s difficulties, his decision
makes it impossible for Defendant to file his memorandum regarding damages and
the amount in controversy by this Monday, a date now only one business day
away.

 

Pg 10 of the document

That is it!  Thanks @Chickenbutt  I love that name btw - brings a smile to my face every time.  

So I wanted to see that as I couldn't recall the timeframe.  Things do come up that delay the process in these types of lawsuits all the time.  However, live is a string of stuff people didn't plan for and the court will not tolerate too many of these types of delays.  Dillon's attorney, in my opinion, really needs to start meeting disclosure deadlines.  In another thread I was joking about how I was going to lose my shit if my attorney didn't have things done by Christmas Harry (which is roughly 8 days after Christmas).  Guess what?  Her shit's not done.  It does happen. However this case is in court and if the attorney is really missing deadlines set by the court for much of the month of January, that isn't good.  

On the other hand, the main sources I am basing that on are all documents filed by Duggar's attorney.  As several of the vocal commentators on this situation who have experience with civil litigation have told us over and over and over - people lie in court documents all the time.  

ETA - tbh I am not even sure if the fact that this is now a claim of repeated delays would have registered with me if not for the situation I have going on in my personal life.  This could well be just my own personal bitch and vent session directed at all the attorneys under the sun.  LOL 

[sndral]

oh my - Ms. Dillon has given an interview to Hustler?

So, by the time trial rolls around there'll be the Radaronline interview, the Hustler interview, her deposition and whatever she says on the stand during direct examination. Talk about impeachment with prior inconsistent statements when she's cross examined at trial. And it seems there's ample differences between the versions given, most trial attorneys would be eager to cross examine her at this point with all the ammo. she's providing. Plus there was already a lot to work with just based on the nature of the case and her profession.

Of course Smugger would be fun to cross examine too, assuming he took the stand, there's lots of material to work with for him. Plus none of the Duggars seem like they'd hold up to cross very well, they just don't think things through so would be easy to trap, and their smug arrogance would offend jurors.  However, at least Josh isn't running around creating more ammo. for Plaintiff's attorney to use against him in cross via interviews for $ to magazines about the incidents.

Note, I'm focusing on trial tactics (or more accurately, the apparent lack of them by Plaintiff's attorney) and not commenting on the relative merits of either side of the case or the veracity of Danica or Smugs.

[HarleyQuinn]

Yikes. - from that interview.

Quote

He grabbed my head and pulled me on to him and was doing a forced blowjob. I couldn’t breathe.'

Danica said after that she pushed him off  few times and he began to calm down, but things turned rough again when they began to have actual intercourse.

'Then he picked me up and threw me down on the bed and bent me over and was pulling my hair, calling me a dirty slut, telling me that I deserved it and that I like it,' said Danica.

'During doggy, he flipped me over and grabbed my legs, just threw me down and tossed me over.

She then said he 'pressed down pretty hard, as if he was trying to push my neck into the bed, almost constricting my airway.'

Danica claims this resulted in red marks on her neck which were visible after that night.

Josh then forced Danica to give him another blowjob she claims, this time while telling her she was 'worthless.'

Danica said when she pushed him away he spit on her, and soon after he finished and stormed out, leaving her money on a dresser.

The entire encounter lasted over an hour and a half according to Danica. She claims Josh did not wear a condom.

 

 

[LurkerOverThePond]

IF Danica is telling the truth about their encounter, then Smugs really has problems he cannot pray away at the fake rehab. After having enjoyed such rough sex, how is he ever going to be faithful to Anna after he's back with her? I can't see him treating Anna the same way, calling her names and pretty much raping her, and I also can't think Anna is willing to have that kind of sex. It has to be only a matter of time when Smuggs is back to cheating. Anna, leave him NOW since neither of you are happy in your marriage.

[Mercer]

Although I still don't feel I have enough information to have a definite opinion of whether Josh did or didn't do this...

...That description really does sound like how a fundie oldest son who was taught to look down on "immoral" sex workers and who makes a living through an appearance of righteousness would treat a paid sexual encounter where he's angry at both the woman and himself for his desires.

[Drala]

19 hours ago, EmmieJ said:

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

RU isn't a medically-based rehab.  It's about reformation of character in a Christian model.  Also known as brainwashing.  More like a boot camp than therapeutic community.   The training program runs for 6 months.  Length of stay has little or nothing to do with behavioral stage of change.  

[2manyKidzzz]

At what point in time did Danica realize this man was Josh Duggar, famous oldest son of the Duggars? Has this been discussed and I don't remember? Did she see his pic after the molestation scandal and then realize it? All very strange. 

[Catey]

2 hours ago, HarleyQuinn said:

The entire encounter lasted over an hour and a half

I am just going to say, the chances of Josh having that level of staying power seem highly unlikely.

[Bad Wolf]

I'm surprised that Danica's attorny let her do the Hustler article, if he even knew. I would have thought that he would have wanted her to keep quiet until after it was over. Of course, there was probably money involved, and maybe she thought it would make her more sympathetic.

[luv2laugh]

I definitely believe something happened between Josh and Danica.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

19 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

I'm surprised that Danica's attorny let her do the Hustler article, if he even knew. I would have thought that he would have wanted her to keep quiet until after it was over. Of course, there was probably money involved, and maybe she thought it would make her more sympathetic.

I can't imagine any atty giving their blessing to this.  And if she didn't get his okay on this, isn't this something over which a lot of attys would drop a client?  She is making conflicting public statements in the media and if she did that against legal advice he cannot be happy.

These aren't the actions of a woman who wants to win a lawsuit, IMO.

[Whoosh]

30 minutes ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

At what point in time did Danica realize this man was Josh Duggar, famous oldest son of the Duggars? Has this been discussed and I don't remember? Did she see his pic after the molestation scandal and then realize it? All very strange. 

When Dillon was interviewed a few months ago, she apparently said that she didn't know who Josh was until after the Ashley Madison leak exposed his accounts there.  I am fairly sure it was in the context of discussing what advice she would have for Anna.  A lot of people doubt pretty much every single thing she said in that interview, but seem to believe this statement.  I, personally, don't know what to believe about the story overall, but I think this statement seemed completely unbelievable.  

25 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

I'm surprised that Danica's attorny let her do the Hustler article, if he even knew. I would have thought that he would have wanted her to keep quiet until after it was over. Of course, there was probably money involved, and maybe she thought it would make her more sympathetic.

Honestly, I don't believe there is a snowball's chance in hell that any attorney authorized or approved of that interview.  Attorneys can advise their clients until they are blue in the face, but many clients simply ignore all that.  

[sawasdee]

1 minute ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I can't imagine any atty giving their blessing to this.  And if she didn't get his okay on this, isn't this something over which a lot of attys would drop a client?  She is making conflicting public statements in the media and if she did that against legal advice he cannot be happy.

These aren't the actions of a woman who wants to win a lawsuit, IMO.

These aren't the actions of someone who still has a lawsuit, in my opinion. She has contradicted herself constantly in her media interviews, destroying her credibility. I think she's taking the money, in preparation for running.

[Whoosh]

12 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I can't imagine any atty giving their blessing to this.  And if she didn't get his okay on this, isn't this something over which a lot of attys would drop a client?  She is making conflicting public statements in the media and if she did that against legal advice he cannot be happy.

These aren't the actions of a woman who wants to win a lawsuit, IMO.

I don't know a lot about the ethics of dropping a client, but I would think this might well be a valid reason.  As with just about everything in this case, I think there are fairly obvious (to me and maybe people who have experience working with this type of client) reasons for why she has done two interviews and also as to why there are some inconsistencies in her story.  In fact, inconsistencies in the story are incredibly common with victims of sexual assault in general.  That said, regardless of the truth of any allegations, sexual assault cases are remarkably difficult to prove even with a "perfect" victim.  A situation like this where just about every single little thing requires a long and complicated detailed explanation as to "why THAT" - it just is going to be a dog of a case to try to win.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, Mercer said:

Although I still don't feel I have enough information to have a definite opinion of whether Josh did or didn't do this...

...That description really does sound like how a fundie oldest son who was taught to look down on "immoral" sex workers and who makes a living through an appearance of righteousness would treat a paid sexual encounter where he's angry at both the woman and himself for his desires.

If true these actions are also compatible with any guy who sought out a porn star who was known for her rough sex videos.  This is not an uncommon kink and it was her speciality.  If someone was into that and wanted her it's not a stretch that it's what they were into - regardless of the psychological reasons.

what she is describing sounds awful to me and if true and not agreed to would leave a lot of women traumatized.  But it's not unheard of for sex workers to consensually provide services in this area - for people willing to pay for types of sex they can't get with their partner.  

She's certainly getting the shock value of being so publicly specific.  If she's a victim she's stupid for giving these interviews and if she's not a victim she's despicable for piggy backing on this scandal.

[luv2laugh]

13 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

She's certainly getting the shock value of being so publicly specific.  If she's a victim she's stupid for giving these interviews and if she's not a victim she's despicable for piggy backing on this scandal.

I highly doubt that, Buffy. Something between her and Josh most likely did happen. Exactly what happened, I'm not sure, I haven't seen the evidence. She IS obviously after attention, of course, but that doesn't mean she wasn't assaulted or never met Josh. And you know what? I say GOOD for Danica for finally milking up the attention on Josh's scandals just how every single one of the Duggars has tried to milk their "fame". If part of this lawsuit is all about a "shakedown" as some may think, then even better. It's about time for the Duggars to go down for good.

[Whoosh]

Whether Dillon and Duggar ever even met or not, there seem to be at least three motivations Dillon could have for coming forward with the story.  It does seem they are all in play and the reality is that you just can't work towards all three goals at the same time without compromising something somewhere.

• Receive compensation for the alleged harm
• Expose Duggar's flaws
• Gain attention and notoriety 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

17 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

These aren't the actions of someone who still has a lawsuit, in my opinion. She has contradicted herself constantly in her media interviews, destroying her credibility. I think she's taking the money, in preparation for running.

I have a question for the legal people.  If he could prove to the courts satisfaction that he wasn't even there - doesn't he have a decent case against her for publicly accusing him of these things?

I'm not talking about if they were together and she couldn't prove lack of consent - I mean if he could conclusively prove he couldn't possibly have been there on the dates in question.  

I'd think he'd have a pretty strong suit against her, no?  Would he have to prove monetary damages or would the fact that she profited from lying* (and the emotional damage for his family) be enough?  

*in this hypothetical where he could prove he wasn't with her.

 

[HarleyQuinn]

Maybe she realized she can't win this case without more proof so she's resorted to media interviews? 

I'm so annoyed with some of the comments in that article though. "She doesn't look like a sexual assault victim." As if we're all supposed to be meek and cower the rest of our lives after an assault. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

10 minutes ago, luv2laugh said:

I highly doubt that, Buffy. Something between her and Josh most likely did happen. Exactly what happened, I'm not sure, I haven't seen the evidence. She IS obviously after attention, of course, but that doesn't mean she wasn't assaulted or never met Josh. And you know what? I say GOOD for Danica for finally milking up the attention on Josh's scandals just how every single one of the Duggars has tried to milk their "fame". If part of this lawsuit is all about a "shakedown" as some may think, then even better. It's about time for the Duggars to go down for good.

I also have no idea if she ever met Josh.  Or if they did have sex whether those acts were consensual or not.

But if an assault did not take place it's not good that she would do this to bring down the Duggars.  

If he assaulted her then yes, he should be held accountable although ideally it would be in criminal court not civil.  

But if he did not assault her to think this is still okay because overall the Duggars are horrible and total famewhores (and I agree they are both) is really awful.  False claims of sexual assault are so damaging to not just the accused but every single real victim of sexual assault.  Falling accusing him so publicly, if it can be proven he wasn't there, makes it harder for future victims to come forward...especially sex workers who have a hard enough time being taken seriously when assaulted.

this is not a matter of bringing down the Duggars by any means necessary - like getting Capone on tax evasion - false rape accusations hurts real victims.