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

[CreationMuseumSeasonPass]

This is off the topic of the lawsuit, but I was just watching the Jill wedding episode, and there's a scene at the rehearsal dinner where family members are invited to speak about Jill and Derick. It went something like this. "This is the time where we invite people to share stories of the couple so there won't be any surprises later on." (Crowd laughter). "Look, here comes big brother Josh." The scandals of Joshley Madison are the gifts that keep on giving.

[justoneoftwo]

Apparently the motion to dismiss has already been denied.  

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/judge-denies-josh-duggars-motion-154000466.html

She didn't even respond last I saw, so thats interesting. . . 

[Mothership]

I thought the time/location issue had been raised earlier.  Isn't it one of the issues with Dillon's initial statement.  IIRC, she's altered the dates of the encouters because there was proof that Josh wasn't around during what was suggested as the initial date.

In legal time, this is all happening relatively quickly.  Time for her to file suit, for him to receive the complaint, for his lawyers to consider the complaint and finally to respond--this is moving along.  It is possible, that his lawyers do have the necessary documents to question her dates and make this go away.

It does make it very foggy.  Just because we dispise Josh, doesn't mean he really did what she's claiming.  She just because she's got the dates wrong, doesn't make hera liar--she may just have the dates worng.  There's another possibility: there really is a JD doppleganger out there and she really believes it was him when it wasn't.

As to Josh's cheating. He admitted to cheating because of the AM accounts-unclear whether he cheated physically or "lusted in his heart"--in Fundieland where all sin is created equal--would there be a distinction?   someone help me with the time line, but I think he was in Jesus jail before Dillon's legal complaint was filed. (I think his link to her site was known).

[SledCat]

3 minutes ago, Mothership said:

As to Josh's cheating. He admitted to cheating because of the AM accounts-unclear whether he cheated physically or "lusted in his heart"--in Fundieland where all sin is created equal--would there be a distinction?   someone help me with the time line, but I think he was in Jesus jail before Dillon's legal complaint was filed. (I think his link to her site was known).

I wonder about this, too. I've seen people torn up because they (or their husband) looked at pornography, and developed an "addiction". To some people, this constitutes cheating, and is seen as just as bad as physically cheating on a spouse.

I definitely wouldn't put it past Josh to have gone out and had physical encounters with women. On the other hand, I would find it believable that looking at pornography; chatting online to Ashley Madison accounts (whether real or fake); etc, would be more than enough to deliver a devastating blow to Anna and the family, and constitute "cheating"/breaking the marriage vows.

[EmCatlyn]

41 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

Apparently the motion to dismiss has already been denied.  

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/judge-denies-josh-duggars-motion-154000466.html

She didn't even respond last I saw, so thats interesting. . . 

I am confused.  The link above reports 

Quote

In his motion, the former 19 Kids and Counting star stated that he did in fact have sex with Dillon for money on two occasions. She is now asking for $500,000, alleging that he caused her "physical and emotional injuries" during these meet-ups

But the TMZ report earlier said that he denied even knowing Danica and that he was in Philadelphia on those dates. Both reports can't be right.  

4 hours ago, SledCat said:

I didn't see this posted yet. Apologies if it has been. Josh posted a response to the lawsuit. He claims he has never even met Danica:

Duggar claims in new legal docs he has an air-tight alibi ... he was not even in Pennsylvania, the state where the alleged encounter went down. He also says he has never in his life been to the strip club or hotel in question.

Link to TMZ article

So which is it?

[justoneoftwo]

Just now, EmCatlyn said:

I am confused.  The link above reports 

But the TMZ report earlier said that he denied even knowing Danica and that he was in Philadelphia on those dates. Both reports can't be right.  

Generally a motion to dismiss requires the Defendant to act as though all allegations in the complaint are true.  I am guessing (without having read any of the documents) that he filed one saying basically "for the purpose of this motion the court must act as if all her allegations are true . . . " and it is being reported as he responded admitting it.  

[EmCatlyn]

1 minute ago, justoneoftwo said:

Generally a motion to dismiss requires the Defendant to act as though all allegations in the complaint are true.  I am guessing (without having read any of the documents) that he filed one saying basically "for the purpose of this motion the court must act as if all her allegations are true . . . " and it is being reported as he responded admitting it.  

Then the report that he "admitted" it is a mistake from the media. But does that mean there is a second motion where he states that he doesn't even know the woman?    Or is it the same motion?

[justoneoftwo]

6 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Then the report that he "admitted" it is a mistake from the media. But does that mean there is a second motion where he states that he doesn't even know the woman?    Or is it the same motion?

It does seem to imply there is a second motion.  I don't know what motion that would be in the docket but clearly the link I saw is now outdated if the order has come down.   It is also possible he says in the motion that he never met her but that we must assume her facts are correct.  

[SilverBeach]

15 hours ago, OldFadedStar said:

Any log in to Facebook will cause your deactivated account to be reactivated...

Including If you set your account to delete, FB requires a 14 day waiting period during which you are really just deactivated.

[JenniferJuniper]

We don't appear to have all of the motions and filings, which is why this is confusing.

The boiler-plate motion to dismiss Josh filed has apparently been denied, but if TMZ is correct and Josh has proof he was elsewhere, he may well have filed a separate motion that we haven't seen yet.  

Even if his "proof" appears solid to us, there still will be some back and forth between the parties before the court decides whether the case should be dismissed.  Let's say there's a Youtube video of Josh singing the Blood Song in South Dakota with his family on the first night in question.  It won't be sufficient for Josh to simply provide that with the uploader's claim it was filmed that night in that state.  He'll need a lot more than that.  Same for the second night.

But if he does really have airtight alibis, this will probably be dismissed sooner rather than later.

[Sweet Fellowship]

18 hours ago, Mela99 said:

I really wonder if Papa Keller's demands to TFDW were drawn from what he already knew about Smuggar. I have a feeling he was caught with porn or something on the computer a long time ago...

Ah, so he did ask that of Pecan? Thought so.

Maybe that does stem from Josh being caught looking at porn.

[Buzzard]

I would pay to be a fly on the wall the first time TFDW sees his arch nemesis, Joshly.  Remember the mud wrestling episode?  Those two are so competitive its crazy.  I can only imaging the "words of encouragement" that davie would offer Josh to help him through these hard times. 

[Whoosh]

My understanding is that the motion to dismiss won't tell Josh's whole story, it would simply show that, standing alone without Josh producing any evidence, Dillon has not told a story that indicates a crime has been committed.  So, say I submit a complaint to the court that alleges my someone is guilty of sexual assault and then I describe the series of events I am basing this on, if the judge assumes the facts in my series of events to be true and there IS a basis for viewing that series of events as sexual assault, a motion to dismiss from Josh will fail.  If on the other hand there IS NOT basis for viewing that series of events as sexual assault, a motion to dismiss will be granted.

So, say I submit a complaint to the court that accuses the guy who works the ticket counter at the movies of sexual assault and I explain how I arrived at the movies and while purchasing a ticket this guy looked into my eyes, smiled at me, and his hand grazed my hand as he handed me my change.  That guy can file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and that motion will be granted and the case will be dismissed - it doesn't matter whether I ever even went to the movies, whether the guy has ever been to that theater, etc.

That second article states that Judge Kearney said or more likely wrote "We decline to grant Duggar's motion to dismiss at this early stage of litigation where Stamm-Northup alleges Duggar treated her roughly, caused physical injuries, and she felt 'as if she was being raped".  They present that as a quote and attribute it to Judge Kearney.  

That second article also states that the motion to dismiss contained the following quotes which said Dillon's complaint "did not provide anything more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of assault and/or battery" and that "Her labels and conclusions are not adequate, particularly because she states that she consented to physical and sexual contact in exchange for payment".  They attribute these quotes to Josh's attorney and say they were in the motion to dismiss.

The second article says THE MOTION says that Josh is claiming he did have sex for money with Dillon on two occasions, but they don't base that on any quote from the motion.  The basis for this conclusion is attributed to things Josh said in the motion.

The first article says THE MOTION says that Josh is claiming he never had sex with her, never met her, was never at that club, was never at that hotel, etc., but they don't base that on any quote from the motion.  The basis for this conclusion is attributed to things Josh said in the motion.

Clearly, one of those two statements of what it says in the motion is not true.  I personally think it is likely the following is about what the motion looks like - though as others have said this could be leaving out a lot.

• Motion to dismiss says Dillon laid out a series of activities that would qualify as the elements required for an assault and/or battery to occur (unlike my movie theatre example above).
• Motion to dismiss says that this isn't enough to state a claim because "Her labels and conclusions are not adequate, particularly because she states that she consented to physical and sexual contact in exchange for payment".  There is likely a lot more to this, but that sounds a lot like saying "ya can't commit sexual assault and/or battery on someone who consented to sexual contact in exchange for payment - EVER - as a matter of law".  Again, it is important to realize that there was likely far more to the motion that is not being reported here.  I am just trying to understand what has been reported.
• Motion to dismiss seems to argue that EVEN IF Josh did all those things Dillon stated in her complaint, it isn't sexual assault because paid hooker.  I think something like that is what the second article is going off of when they say that he is claiming he did have sex for money on two occasions.  I would say it is possible that they misunderstood the fact that it was hypothetical and not an admission. 
• Motion to dismiss further argues that Josh can prove it is all false because he has proof he never met her, etc.  This would be the basis for the claim in the first article.  I had though that if there was conclusive proof of this, the case would be dismissed at this point, but I could be wrong on how that works as evidence has not yet been presented so it would just be a claim?  I don't know on that part.  At any rate, they could make this statement in the motion to dismiss, but it would not matter much if he isn't allowed to present his evidence at this time.

Anyway, not trying to say that this is exactly what is in the motions.  Just saying this is my thinking after reading the two articles.  Sorry if this has all been said multiple times since I started typing.

I always give a lot more credit to media statements when there is a direct quote.  They may present things out of context, etc, but if they say that a quote came from a motion, I tend to believe it probably did (though not always of course).  The rest of it... harder to know.  It is the line of plausible deniability between making an error in reporting due to lack of understanding or something similar vs flat out lying about what others said or wrote.

[justoneoftwo]

6 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

My understanding is that the motion to dismiss won't tell Josh's whole story, it would simply show that, standing alone without Josh producing any evidence, Dillon has not told a story that indicates a crime has been committed.  So, say I submit a complaint to the court that alleges my someone is guilty of sexual assault and then I describe the series of events I am basing this on, if the judge assumes the facts in my series of events to be true and there IS a basis for viewing that series of events as sexual assault, a motion to dismiss from Josh will fail.  If on the other hand there IS NOT basis for viewing that series of events as sexual assault, a motion to dismiss will be granted.

So, say I submit a complaint to the court that accuses the guy who works the ticket counter at the movies of sexual assault and I explain how I arrived at the movies and while purchasing a ticket this guy looked into my eyes, smiled at me, and his hand grazed my hand as he handed me my change.  That guy can file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and that motion will be granted and the case will be dismissed - it doesn't matter whether I ever even went to the movies, whether the guy has ever been to that theater, etc.

That second article states that Judge Kearney said or more likely wrote "We decline to grant Duggar's motion to dismiss at this early stage of litigation where Stamm-Northup alleges Duggar treated her roughly, caused physical injuries, and she felt 'as if she was being raped".  They present that as a quote and attribute it to Judge Kearney.  

That second article also states that the motion to dismiss contained the following quotes which said Dillon's complaint "did not provide anything more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of assault and/or battery" and that "Her labels and conclusions are not adequate, particularly because she states that she consented to physical and sexual contact in exchange for payment".  They attribute these quotes to Josh's attorney and say they were in the motion to dismiss.

The second article says THE MOTION says that Josh is claiming he did have sex for money with Dillon on two occasions, but they don't base that on any quote from the motion.  The basis for this conclusion is attributed to things Josh said in the motion.

The first article says THE MOTION says that Josh is claiming he never had sex with her, never met her, was never at that club, was never at that hotel, etc., but they don't base that on any quote from the motion.  The basis for this conclusion is attributed to things Josh said in the motion.

Clearly, one of those two statements of what it says in the motion is not true.  I personally think it is likely the following is about what the motion looks like - though as others have said this could be leaving out a lot.

• Motion to dismiss says Dillon laid out a series of activities that would qualify as the elements required for an assault and/or battery to occur (unlike my movie theatre example above).
• Motion to dismiss says that this isn't enough to state a claim because "Her labels and conclusions are not adequate, particularly because she states that she consented to physical and sexual contact in exchange for payment".  There is likely a lot more to this, but that sounds a lot like saying "ya can't commit sexual assault and/or battery on someone who consented to sexual contact in exchange for payment - EVER - as a matter of law".  Again, it is important to realize that there was likely far more to the motion that is not being reported here.  I am just trying to understand what has been reported.
• Motion to dismiss seems to argue that EVEN IF Josh did all those things Dillon stated in her complaint, it isn't sexual assault because paid hooker.  I think something like that is what the second article is going off of when they say that he is claiming he did have sex for money on two occasions.  I would say it is possible that they misunderstood the fact that it was hypothetical and not an admission. 
• Motion to dismiss further argues that Josh can prove it is all false because he has proof he never met her, etc.  This would be the basis for the claim in the first article.  I had though that if there was conclusive proof of this, the case would be dismissed at this point, but I could be wrong on how that works as evidence has not yet been presented so it would just be a claim?  I don't know on that part.  At any rate, they could make this statement in the motion to dismiss, but it would not matter much if he isn't allowed to present his evidence at this time.

Anyway, not trying to say that this is exactly what is in the motions.  Just saying this is my thinking after reading the two articles.  Sorry if this has all been said multiple times since I started typing.

I always give a lot more credit to media statements when there is a direct quote.  They may present things out of context, etc, but if they say that a quote came from a motion, I tend to believe it probably did (though not always of course).  The rest of it... harder to know.  It is the line of plausible deniability between making an error in reporting due to lack of understanding or something similar vs flat out lying about what others said or wrote.

I just wanted to point out that in a civil action there is no need to claim a crime has been committed.  Many civil actions are for actions which are not criminal.  

I would also bet that the motion to dismiss said her statements were not enough, its a common motion, particularly since the standards for pleadings have been changing recently, making it harder to get into court.  It is still easy, but the rules changed so many plaintiffs are having to do it twice, as their attorneys did enough under the old standards but it is not sufficient under the new.  I would be surprised if he actually went so far as to say you can't ever assault someone you paid to have sex with.  Its possible, but I would be surprised.  

[Whoosh]

5 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

I just wanted to point out that in a civil action there is no need to claim a crime has been committed.  Many civil actions are for actions which are not criminal.  

I would also bet that the motion to dismiss said her statements were not enough, its a common motion, particularly since the standards for pleadings have been changing recently, making it harder to get into court.  It is still easy, but the rules changed so many plaintiffs are having to do it twice, as their attorneys did enough under the old standards but it is not sufficient under the new.  I would be surprised if he actually went so far as to say you can't ever assault someone you paid to have sex with.  Its possible, but I would be surprised.  

I agree that a civil action doesn't need to be based on a crime, but Dillon's claim is based on sexual assault. In other words, sexual assault can be a crime and it can also be an unlawful action that causes harm to a plaintiff.  Whether criminal charges are filed or a civil complaint is filed for any instance of sexual assault depends on many things.

I am basing what I said on what the second article quotes the attorney as having stated in the motion to dismiss.  Maybe those quotes are false, but it appears that the motion says all the elements of sexual assault are there, but the conclusion of sexual assault is wrong - mainly because paid hooker who consented to sexual contact.  Like I said, there may well be a lot more written and a lot of context, etc, but it does seem to me that those two quotes are probably IN THE MOTION.

[Whoosh]

I just reread things and I agree with justoneoftwo - I should have said "unlawful act" rather than "crime".  Thanks for noting that justoneoftwo.

[socalrules]

Also take into account that the elements of a civil cause of action are different than the elements required of criminal statute. The standard of proof also differs in civil and criminal actions. The standard is much lower in a civil action so you could be found liable in civil court and there not be enough evidence to even prosecute in a criminal action. What is alleged in a civil action may not be deemed to rise to the level of criminal activity. 

[Georgiana]

Just for some clarification:

Civil Suit: alleges that the actions of one party caused damages in some capacity to the other party that the second party seeks to recoup.  CANNOT determine a crime.  Can be filed by anyone.

Criminal Suit:  alleges that one party committed a crime against the laws of a certain jurisdiction.  Can only be filed by specific people (e.g. the DA's office).

Dillon's suit cannot determine whether or not Josh committed a crime because it is not a criminal suit.  In the case of a civil suit like Dillon's, it is irrelevant anyway (see OJ Simpson criminal vs civil).  She can only allege that Josh's actions, whether criminal or not, caused damages to her that she asks the court to hold him responsible for.  Dillon cannot file a criminal suit against Josh either.  Only those offices responsible for maintaining the law in a certain jurisdiction can, after an investigation, determine that there is enough evidence against Josh to press criminal charges against him.   Dillon may choose not to cooperate with this criminal proceeding, but she cannot choose to "press charges" herself for a criminal case. 

Example: Neighbor is negligent with the maintenance of a large, above ground pool, and the pool collapses, flooding my yard and causing damage.  Even though there is no crime (criminal pool neglect!), I can still sue him/her in civil court because their actions (or lack thereof), while perfectly "legal", still resulted in thousands of dollars of damage to my estate.  

 

[Whoosh]

Thanks everyone for clarifying all that - I didn't mean to use the word crime.  In my mind when I see "elements of assault and/or battery" I automatically think in terms of crime, but that is entirely incorrect on my part.

In a case like the OJ case, it would be hard to say that he lost the civil suit even though there was no crime, but it is wrong to say he was found guilty of a crime also or that anyone even tried to talk about crime in the civil suit.  

[pumpkie0]

It just makes me sick that after all this he may walk away..  Why would you admit to cheating tear apart your marriage and then take it back?  Sorry if this has been explained before chemo is making it hard to keep up and read.  My heart sunk with the tmz update today

[JenniferJuniper]

Danica's suit just barely survived being dismissed by the federal court.  The court is allowing to discovery to move forward for now.

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

 

[singsingsing]

1 hour ago, pumpkie0 said:

It just makes me sick that after all this he may walk away..  Why would you admit to cheating tear apart your marriage and then take it back?  Sorry if this has been explained before chemo is making it hard to keep up and read.  My heart sunk with the tmz update today

But if he actually never met Danica Dillon, he should walk away from this lawsuit. That would be the only just result. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, pumpkie0 said:

It just makes me sick that after all this he may walk away..  Why would you admit to cheating tear apart your marriage and then take it back?  Sorry if this has been explained before chemo is making it hard to keep up and read.  My heart sunk with the tmz update today

Sorry about the chemo-haze (and that you need chemo).  

I think what is confusing is that Josh is saying he didn't even know Danica in person.

 If he is telling the truth, that doesn't mean that he is going back on his confession from before he went to Prayer Prison.  He confessed that he indulged in porn and was unfaithful to his wife.  He did not say anything about Danica.  

He may have been unfaithful but not with Danica.  Or he may have been unfaithful with Danica but she is exaggerating the abuse.

We certainly don't want him to get off if he is guilty, but we also don't want him to be found responsible when he is innocent.

 

[CreationMuseumSeasonPass]

I think the court of public opinion has come down on Josh. And it has been harsh... and just.

[JenniferJuniper]

15 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

But if he actually never met Danica Dillon, he should walk away from this lawsuit. That would be the only just result. 

And if he met her and had consensual sex with her and did not go beyond

 

1 minute ago, EmCatlyn said:

Sorry about the chemo-haze (and that you need chemo).  

I think what is confusing is that Josh is saying he didn't even know Danica in person.

 If he is telling the truth, that doesn't mean that he is going back on his confession from before he went to Prayer Prison.  He confessed that he indulged in porn and was unfaithful to his wife.  He did not say anything about Danica.  

He may have been unfaithful but not with Danica.  Or he may have been unfaithful with Danica but she is exaggerating the abuse.

We certainly don't want him to get off if he is guilty, but we also don't want him to be found responsible when he is innocent.

 

Josh's attorney is just doing what he should - making sure the court requires her to prove her case against his client.

She is the one who has to prove they were together.  She is the one who has to proof his actions constituted an assault/battery.  She is the one who has to prove the assault resulted in injuries. She needs medical records to support this claim.  She may or may not need to prove she was physically injured in order to sustain a claim for emotional distress because, as the court explains, PA courts are split on the issue.

Tall order for her, even if she isn't exaggerating.