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

[Whoosh]

13 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

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.

 

Yes.  Defamation requires four elements 

• There is a false and defamatory statement - in this case there would not be an issue of proving the statement is defamatory, as allegations of serious sexual misconduct are defamation per se (meaning on it's face it is defamation - we all recognize it as defamation)
• Intent of the defamer - for public figures, you must show that the false statement was made knowingly so he would have to prove that she knew or should have know it was false (evil twin scenarios LOL) and that she intended to publish that false statement (seems obvious here)
• The statement is shared or published to a third party
• Damages occurred as a result (can be monetary or emotional harm, etc)

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 minute ago, Whoosh said:

Yes.  Defamation requires four elements 

• There is a false and defamatory statement - in this case there would not be an issue of proving the statement is defamatory, as allegations of serious sexual misconduct are defamation per se (meaning on it's face it is defamation - we all recognize it as defamation)
• Intent of the defamer - for public figures, you must show that the false statement was made knowingly and with the intention to cause harm, so he would have to prove that she knew or should have know it was false (evil twin scenarios LOL) and that she intended to publish that false statement (seems obvious here)
• The statement is shared or published to a third party
• Damages occurred as a result (can be monetary or emotional harm, etc)

It's like having my own legal expert on call - thanks, Whoosh!  Where were you when I used to watch Court TV and needed answers?  

[luv2laugh]

8 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

 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.  

I did not say it would be good for her to file the suit if assault did not happen. I said that I believe they met, what happened after that is something no one here knows. I also said that if assault did happen, good for her for trying to milk it and shake them down. I get the feeling you are struggling to believe Danica could have been a victim of assault. It's hard to picture a sex worker as someone who would be a victim of sexual assault, but they are the ones that have the greatest chances of being assaulted. 

7 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

Yes.  Defamation requires four elements 

• There is a false and defamatory statement - in this case there would not be an issue of proving the statement is defamatory, as allegations of serious sexual misconduct are defamation per se (meaning on it's face it is defamation - we all recognize it as defamation)
• Intent of the defamer - for public figures, you must show that the false statement was made knowingly so he would have to prove that she knew or should have know it was false (evil twin scenarios LOL) and that she intended to publish that false statement (seems obvious here)
• The statement is shared or published to a third party
• Damages occurred as a result (can be monetary or emotional harm, etc)

If Danica does not win this case, then I am almost positive that Jim Bob and Josh are going to sue her for defamation. 

[Whoosh]

I just want to note - when listing the elements of defamation I said that the statement must be made knowingly and with the intention to cause harm and Buffy quoted that.  I edited it in the original post to say it must be made knowingly.  I wasn't happy with either of those, so I looked it up and here is how one source described defamation with regard to public figures:

"If the person defamed was a public figure, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement."

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just now, luv2laugh said:

I did not say it would be good for her to file the suit if assault did not happen. I said that I believe they met, what happened after that is something no one here knows. I also said that if assault did happen, good for her for trying to milk it and shake them down. I get the feeling you are struggling to believe Danica could have been a victim of assault. It's hard to picture a sex worker as someone who would be a victim of sexual assault, but they are the ones that have the greatest chances of being assaulted. 

I absolutely believe a sex worker can be a victim of assault and that they deserve the full protection of the law when that happens.

Based on her public statements I do not, at this time, believe her story.  If other evidence comes out which proves her claims I will feel differently - but in my assessment of the little data we have I think she's lying about the assault.  Whether she's lying about the whole encounter I have no idea.

2 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

I just want to note - when listing the elements of defamation I said that the statement must be made knowingly and with the intention to cause harm and Buffy quoted that.  I edited it in the original post to say it must be made knowingly.  I wasn't happy with either of those, so I looked it up and here is how one source described defamation with regard to public figures:

"If the person defamed was a public figure, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement."

thanks for the clarification.  In this hypothetical scenario where there was no encounter it would still apply.

[Whoosh]

8 minutes ago, luv2laugh said:

If Danica does not win this case, then I am almost positive that Jim Bob and Josh are going to sue her for defamation. 

I am pretty sure that there is a statement or order by the judge in one of the court documents that indicates that Josh does intend to countersue.  If the case does continue forward and is decided at trial, Josh would most likely countersue for defamation.  If the case ends in some other way, Josh could bring a whole new suit for the defamation.  JB can not sue for defamation as no false statements have been published about him.

[sawasdee]

2 minutes ago, luv2laugh said:

I did not say it would be good for her to file the suit if assault did not happen. I said that I believe they met, what happened after that is something no one here knows. I also said that if assault did happen, good for her for trying to milk it and shake them down. I get the feeling you are struggling to believe Danica could have been a victim of assault. It's hard to picture a sex worker as someone who would be a victim of sexual assault, but they are the ones that have the greatest chances of being assaulted. 

I have no difficulty in believing in the assault of sex workers - I am having difficulty in believing the story of THIS sex worker. She has contradicted herself again and again - in interviews - in each case upping the ante with prurient detail in more and more inappropriate publications. If you were fighting a rape case, would you give an interview to Hustler? But do you think that perhaps Hustler pays more than Radar, and is also a good place to advertise a career in adult movies?

Every time she gives an interview, I believe her less. And I AM ANGRY about it, because I WANT to believe her! I think Josh is a little shit, and fully capable of buying sex, and being obnoxious and offensive doing so. But she has produced no evidence, failed to keep court dates to produce any that she has, made veiled threats of selling such evidence (if it exists) to tabloids before letting Josh and his lawyer see it - this does not build credibility. I will be very surprised if this case is not dropped soon - either because the judge rules that there is insufficient evidence to proceed, or she just fades away , having had her 15 minutes of fame. In which case, in an ideal world, Anna would sue for emotional distress - but I don't think that would be possible under the law, even if she would do so!

[luv2laugh]

4 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

I am pretty sure that there is a statement or order by the judge in one of the court documents that indicates that Josh does intend to countersue.  If the case does continue forward and is decided at trial, Josh would most likely countersue for defamation.  If the case ends in some other way, Josh could bring a whole new suit for the defamation.  JB can not sue for defamation as no false statements have been published about him.

Right, I should have clarified my statement. I believe, as with all of the Duggars, that Jim Bob is the mastermind behind most decisions. These scandals are affecting Jim Bob's brand, and he has the most control, financially, within this family. I know he is not the one technically suing but I am positive that he is counseling Josh, along with Josh's attorney on how to proceed. We know JB was involved with "lawyering up" and selling Josh's house. I would not be surprised if Jim Bob is in fundie psychotherapy to deal with all of this stress.

[jacduggar]

29 minutes ago, HarleyQuinn said:

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. 

Media interviews are the opposite of proof. She should have taken her story to the stand first, then she could have done all the media interviews she wanted. Judges don't like anything that could help/harm a trial to become a matter of public scrutiny. It also makes it harder to assemble a jury, if that's necessary. 

[sawasdee]

1 minute ago, jacduggar said:

Media interviews are the opposite of proof. She should have taken her story to the stand first, then she could have done all the media interviews she wanted. Judges don't like anything that could help/harm a trial to become a matter of public scrutiny. It also makes it harder to assemble a jury, if that's necessary. 

Exactly! And any half decent lawyer would have advised her of this. I think she has no intention of following through on this case.

[luv2laugh]

2 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

Exactly! And any half decent lawyer would have advised her of this. I think she has no intention of following through on this case.

I will say, I haven't done much reading up on what she has been saying in the interviews as I've been extremely busy these past couple of weeks so I am just now starting to catch up. I was pretty surprised myself to see her giving an interview to Hustler. I checked the Daily Mail article and they showed the picture of her on the cover of the magazine. I'm also disappointed because I've been wanting for her to win this and I do not think the Hustler interview was a smart move at all.

[JenniferJuniper]

42 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

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.

 

You're talking about a defamation of character lawsuit (slander/libel)  and sure, he could sue her at anytime. 

To prevail, however, the burden of proof shifts to him and he has to show she acted with intentional malice.  A honest case of mistaken identity would likely not be considered intentional or malicious.  Unless she admits she made it all up, he'd need to find witnesses to testify to her plotting. They would need to be credible.

As for damages, if he can prove she acted with intent and malice, he might have a case claiming his reputation within the community was damaged and claim diminished future earnings as a result.  One big problem here for Josh and a mitigating factor would be that he was already an admitted child molester when she made her statements about him, and I believe the show was already cancelled.  He'd already lost his position at the FRC.  So all he can really claim is that she made a bad reputation that much worse.  He didn't lose his job or get banned from any TLC shows because of it.

He'll have to submit to a deposition in which he'll likely be asked in-depth questions about those molestations as the defense will be looking to show he's of poor moral character and already did not have a good reputation in the community.

And of course, even if he were willing to do all this and did prevail in the suit by proving both liability and resulting damages, it would probably only be a moral victory as Danica Dillon isn't likely to have the assets to pay him. 

Long story short, it's probably unlikely that he'll sue her no matter what happens with the current case.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

3 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

I have no difficulty in believing in the assault of sex workers - I am having difficulty in believing the story of THIS sex worker. She has contradicted herself again and again - in interviews - in each case upping the ante with prurient detail in more and more inappropriate publications. If you were fighting a rape case, would you give an interview to Hustler? But do you think that perhaps Hustler pays more than Radar, and is also a good place to advertise a career in adult movies?

Every time she gives an interview, I believe her less. And I AM ANGRY about it, because I WANT to believe her! I think Josh is a little shit, and fully capable of buying sex, and being obnoxious and offensive doing so. But she has produced no evidence, failed to keep court dates to produce any that she has, made veiled threats of selling such evidence (if it exists) to tabloids before letting Josh and his lawyer see it - this does not build credibility. I will be very surprised if this case is not dropped soon - either because the judge rules that there is insufficient evidence to proceed, or she just fades away , having had her 15 minutes of fame. In which case, in an ideal world, Anna would sue for emotional distress - but I don't think that would be possible under the law, even if she would do so!

You're emoticon looks like someone painted Ed Asner's face on a bowling ball!

and to the bolded ...exactly.  Giving that interview (from the Radar excerpt) to that magazine looks a lot more like being paid for fap material than speaking out against an injustice.

[sawasdee]

1 minute ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

You're emoticon looks like someone painted Ed Asner's face on a bowling ball!

 

It's from the FJ selection........ but you are completely right - Ed Asner to a T!

[gustava]

1 hour 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 said from the getgo that she's in it for her 15 minutes of fame.

[Whoosh]

I will say this - a lot of people have been doing a solid job of discussing all this under the assumption or strong suspicion that Dillon's claims are false.  I have been trying to follow along enough to put in my two cents as to why things make sense or are understandable if the allegations are true.  I still believe it is possible that her claims are true and everything that has transpired makes sense if all the details were known to everyone.  However, the Hustler interview basically sapped the last of my interest in trying to provide justifications or explanations as to why a true victim might act in this particular way.  She still may be able to prevail in court if her claims are true and she has the evidence to prove it...

[luv2laugh]

2 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

I will say this - a lot of people have been doing a solid job of discussing all this under the assumption or strong suspicion that Dillon's claims are false.  I have been trying to follow along enough to put in my two cents as to why things make sense or are understandable if the allegations are true.  I still believe it is possible that her claims are true and everything that has transpired makes sense if all the details were known to everyone.  However, the Hustler interview basically sapped the last of my interest in trying to provide justifications or explanations as to why a true victim might act in this particular way.  She still may be able to prevail in court if her claims are true and she has the evidence to prove it...

I agree 100% with your comment. The Hustler interview and cover has disappointed me.

[Bad Wolf]

Well, if she didn't know who Josh was at the time, I wonder if she would have any evidence as to the encounter. Unless, of course, she keeps evidence on all her clients just in case they turn out to be famous.

[HarleyQuinn]

1 hour ago, jacduggar said:

Media interviews are the opposite of proof. She should have taken her story to the stand first, then she could have done all the media interviews she wanted. Judges don't like anything that could help/harm a trial to become a matter of public scrutiny. It also makes it harder to assemble a jury, if that's necessary. 

That's what I mean. Maybe she doesn't have the proof to actually win the trial, so she's turning to the media to make some money. 

[ksgranola1]

Quote

 

Am I going to have to go out, at 73 years old, and buy a Hustler? Oh, Glory!

[quiverofdoubt]

35 minutes ago, ksgranola1 said:

Am I going to have to go out, at 73 years old, and buy a Hustler? Oh, Glory!

Oh do! and take a picture of the clerks face while you do it. 

[LittleSpouseOnThePrairie]

On January 22, 2016 at 3:14 PM, sawasdee said:

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

EXACTLY this is the point I was trying to make on page 12 of this topic. If she is being truthful about assault, I genuinely hope she wins her lawsuit, she just has a lot working against her.

[religiouslyconfused]

I also wish the best for Danica if Josh really did assault her and used bad language. 

[Bad Wolf]

Pickles had a link, trial by jury on May 25.

[OnceUponATime]

17 hours ago, JenniferJuniper said:

You're talking about a defamation of character lawsuit (slander/libel)  and sure, he could sue her at anytime. 

To prevail, however, the burden of proof shifts to him and he has to show she acted with intentional malice.  A honest case of mistaken identity would likely not be considered intentional or malicious.  Unless she admits she made it all up, he'd need to find witnesses to testify to her plotting. They would need to be credible.

When does it cease to become an honest case of mistaken identity?

If she did the Hustler interview after knowing he was claiming mistaken identity (and that he has proof he wasn't in the locations stated, and signed a court document with perjury as a consequence if incorrect) is that still an honest case of mistaken identity?

Could Josh take it to court and say "look, i have proven I wasn't there. She knew I was able to prove that and yet she continued to defame my character" without having to prove more intentional malice?

(I'm asking mostly for interest - I don't know the timeline of interviews/evidence/blah)

On another topic - how often do people get done for perjury after civil cases like this? If Danica wins is Josh likely to get followed for a perjury (felony crime??) for the statement he signed?