Jump to content
IGNORED

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


keen23

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, JenniferJuniper said:

YJust because she doesn't prevail in this lawsuit won't automatically mean Josh has a slam dunk slander/ libel case.  She may not prevail because she doesn't have sufficient proof it was Josh or because she can't support her damages allegations.  This doesn't necessarily prove she was lying.

Josh could certainly sue her, but the burden of proof would shift to him. He'd have to prove she made it up.  And he'd have to show she made a deliberate attempt to harm him, not just that she made an identification mistake.

My guess is that if her case ends up dismissed, Josh will happily take that and leave it there.  The Duggar fan base will take a dismissal as proof that she made it all up,and I doubt Josh would want to open himself up to any further legal questioning on the matter.

Absolutely.  He would not  have a slam dunk case simply because she fails to prevail in her lawsuit.  That said IF he has rock solid proof that he could not have even met her at the time the alleged incident(s) took place, that is proof that her original statements to the media were false.  If he can prove that the statements were false and made with actual malice, which would be fairly easy to impute in this sort of scenario with good lawyering and solid questioning at depositions, she could have a huge problem.  Would the Duggars want to continue to drag this out in court after having been somewhat vindicated is another question.  The evaluation of the case would shift to economics.  Josh probably can't count on recovering much from Danica.  I doubt she is a deep pocket (heh), and it's not like he can garnish her future prostitution earnings.  Since they're presumably illicit/illegal and all.  

10 hours ago, pumpkie0 said:

Why would he and his family not fight it then?  I find it hard to believe if all he did was look at porn online, sign up for an account with Am but did not act on it that they wouldn't fight it.  Not to mention the humiliation, destroying their show it seems like a lot to risk if someone is innocent

thank you its been a rough couple of weeks

Sorry about the illness in your family.  

My thought:  I think they might not fight her because the attention is just too damning.  Besides, the show was cancelled for reasons other than DD's allegations, so they'd have a hard time proving that she was the cause of their losses.  The molestation charges and the AM revelations were the cause of the cancellation and subsequent losses.  It also would be difficult for the Duggars as a whole to state a cause of action against DD.  Only Josh could sue her.  She didn't say anything about the family, only about Josh, AFAIK.  Would be an interesting case to work up, in my nerdy opinion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 574
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Drala said:

And all this time I was thinking Josh wouldn't pursue a defamation case because it's Christian to forgive and turn the other cheek!  :562479514c500_32(1):

Well of course it's considered Christian to pray and forgive, however I don't see either Josh or his family praying and forgiving the ebil media and the ebil porn star for putting them all through their grief in recent months.    Because Satan you know.  :562479514c500_32(1):

Seriously, they are much more concerned with damage to the family brand and their source of income than any Christian values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 1:38 PM, DarkAnts said:

If you have an iPhone, the Apple Store will teach you for free.

or you can watch videos on YouTube. No wonder 1Ton Ramp is dead.

No, no, no! Visiting an Apple store might put the individual in contact with a member of the opposite gender! There could even be physical contact when handing over the iPhone! The Apple personnel may not, dare I say, almost certainly not, hold like beliefs. Not to mention all the Nike! one might see on the way to the store, out in public like that. So visiting an Apple store is not a wise and safe choice.

And YouTube! Who knows what might be found there! I am sure the filters on the family computer will have that site blocked, and rightly so.

Now you know that 1TonOnRamp served a valuable purpose. Tragic to see its demise. Now where will the Maxwell faithful go to speak on the phone with a member of the same gender in order to receive help with iPhones, computers, Excel spreadsheets, and so on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

As for who is telling the truth, I don't know if we will ever know.  I am glad I don't have to be in that Jury.

I agree that we will probably never know the whole story or maybe even ever know if he and Danica met and/or had sex.  If Josh has some definitive proof that he was elsewhere on the dates she is claiming they were together - that ought to put an end to the lawsuit.  I wonder what proof Danica could offer that he was with her on the dates claimed.  For example, could she have a credit card receipt in his name?  I doubt she has photographic evidence of the two of them sitting together, tv with a particular sports game on in the background. 

If she is making a false claim - surely she and/or her attorneys would know that the truth would come out and make them look like idiots, right?  Why go this far unless she and/her attorneys think they can at the very least prove that she and Josh were together on the dates listed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2016 at 4:25 PM, JenniferJuniper said:

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

So I checked the court docket myself, and here's the timeline of recent events, along with some info I thought interesting:

  • December 30: Josh moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Danica only offered a "formulaic recitation of elements" for her claims without alleging sufficient facts upon which she could win. (It's a standard motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.)
  • January 6: The judge denied Josh's motion, finding that Danica "sufficiently but barely" had pleaded her claims. At this stage of the proceedings, everyone has to presume that all of the facts alleged by the plaintiff (Danica) are true.
  • January 7: Josh filed his answer to Danica's claims. In it, he admitted that he "has stayed at Reformers' Unanimous in Rockford, Illinois." He insisted, however, that he "has never met" Danica, that he "was not in Pennsylvania" on March 12-14 or April 17-18, 2015, that he "has never approached [Danica] anywhere," that he "has never propositioned" her, that he has "never been in a hotel room" with her, and that he has "never had any direct contact whatsoever" with her. Josh also repeated his earlier argument that Danica failed to state a claim and he alleged several other affirmative defenses. (Among other things, he says Danica can't win because she was engaged in illegal activity at the time, because she didn't make sufficient efforts to mitigate damages, and because she failed to "name an indispensable party," although I'm not sure what that last one is about.)
  • January 8: Josh filed a motion asking the court to force Danica to comply with the scheduling order for turning over her discovery. As part of that motion, Josh said he'd already given over 100 pages of alibi documents, plus video footage, to Danica's attorney. But the court had already granted Danica's extension for more time to turn over her stuff to Josh--she has until January 15, and Josh has a few days after that to respond--so Josh's motion to compel was denied as moot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, EmmieJ said:

I agree that we will probably never know the whole story or maybe even ever know if he and Danica met and/or had sex.  If Josh has some definitive proof that he was elsewhere on the dates she is claiming they were together - that ought to put an end to the lawsuit.  I wonder what proof Danica could offer that he was with her on the dates claimed.  For example, could she have a credit card receipt in his name?  I doubt she has photographic evidence of the two of them sitting together, tv with a particular sports game on in the background. 

If she is making a false claim - surely she and/or her attorneys would know that the truth would come out and make them look like idiots, right?  Why go this far unless she and/her attorneys think they can at the very least prove that she and Josh were together on the dates listed? 

I'm not going either way on this law suit, but its worth remembering that Lance Armstrong won countless law suits against people who claimed that he was doping during the 10-15yrs he was on top of cycling. He sued people (including his team mates) for defamation and won many times... But later admitted that he had doped for decades. I'm using this example to illustrate that, as an attorney, just because you win a law suit doesn't mean that the "truth has come out"... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, InThePrayerCloset said:

I'm not going either way on this law suit, but its worth remembering that Lance Armstrong won countless law suits against people who claimed that he was doping during the 10-15yrs he was on top of cycling. He sued people (including his team mates) for defamation and won many times... But later admitted that he had doped for decades. I'm using this example to illustrate that, as an attorney, just because you win a law suit doesn't mean that the "truth has come out"... 

So it sounds like you are saying people lie?  Say it ain't so!

 

People lie.  Like rugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

So it sounds like you are saying people lie?  Say it ain't so!

 

People lie.  Like rugs.

Exactly. But i think lay people are surprised that people lie under oath all the time despite the penalty of perjury. and often very brazenly...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, InThePrayerCloset said:

Exactly. But i think lay people are surprised that people lie under oath all the time despite the penalty of perjury. and often very brazenly...

"The heart is deceitful above all things ,and it is exceedingly corrupt, who can know it?"  

Sounds like lawyers have a clue...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if he claims he doesn't know her, met her, slept with her then what the hell did he do? Seeing that he made a public statement and all that bs obviously he did something with someone somewhere. I would think that the statement would definitely help her case or he needs to give the court some type of explanation of what he was alluding to. Not that I believe him, I'm just wondering how he's going to get out of that one. He maybe should of considered seeking out legal advice before he opened his mouth up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, roxy7 said:

So, if he claims he doesn't know her, met her, slept with her then what the hell did he do? Seeing that he made a public statement and all that bs obviously he did something with someone somewhere. I would think that the statement would definitely help her case or he needs to give the court some type of explanation of what he was alluding to. Not that I believe him, I'm just wondering how he's going to get out of that one. He maybe should of considered seeking out legal advice before he opened his mouth up

Josh's statement doesn't help Danica's case in any way because he never admitted to having sex with her, only that he cheated on his wife. And she didn't even come forward until after he made the statement.  Dillon has to prove she was one of those he cheated with, and that's just the first thing she needs to prove to prevail against Josh.  

As far as what he actually did, who knows?  He admitted to porn, unfaithfulness, and hypocrisy.  All very bad, especially in the context of his smug, superior- dance life.  But for all we know maybe he had a DC girlfriend and never actually paid for sex.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am waiting for the pictures and sexting between the two of them. Shoe drops

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, InThePrayerCloset said:

I'm not going either way on this law suit, but its worth remembering that Lance Armstrong won countless law suits against people who claimed that he was doping during the 10-15yrs he was on top of cycling. He sued people (including his team mates) for defamation and won many times... But later admitted that he had doped for decades. I'm using this example to illustrate that, as an attorney, just because you win a law suit doesn't mean that the "truth has come out"... 

Ha!  Good point.  I would be humiliated to be caught in a lie, and ten times worse if it were a huge, very public sort of lie.  But I forget that some people don't think that far ahead, or else are sure they won't get caught in a lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, EmmieJ said:

Ha!  Good point.  I would be humiliated to be caught in a lie, and ten times worse if it were a huge, very public sort of lie.  But I forget that some people don't think that far ahead, or else are sure they won't get caught in a lie.

I agree. But, at times I am not sure the Duggars are still aware of what is fact and what is not. They have spouted their garbage for so long with no repercussions that they themselves now believe it all to be true. They now believe that what Josh did as a teenager was just 'being a teenager" but at the time they found it serious enough to lie about and to take Josh to talk to a police officer. The story has become very washed out through the years.

I am not sure what is true in this situation. I know I would like to see them squirm but I am heartless in that area. I would like to see JB and Josh take a public tumble. They are all about trying to save their brand at this point so I feel they will say what is necessary to do that.  If it weren't for the evil media, they would still be pristine and raking in the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My own gut sense is that this lawsuit is going nowhere. I could be wrong, I'd like to be wrong, but even if she's telling the truth 100% (which I doubt she is) she has a lot of hurdles ahead of her.

But should the case be dismissed or even confidentially settled, there's a good chance there are other skeletons in both Josh's and his parents' closets.  And with 18 other kids who were raised in a fundie zoo/orphanage and had many childhood moments that should have been private broadcast to the world, there is bound to be more craziness to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How funny would it be if he's making this case and getting JB to believe in him again and he really did meet up wth her etc. you'd think they would have disown him at that point!

but I'm thinking at this point that there prob isn't a case. Just a gut feel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Valerie3kids said:

I agree. But, at times I am not sure the Duggars are still aware of what is fact and what is not. They have spouted their garbage for so long with no repercussions that they themselves now believe it all to be true. They now believe that what Josh did as a teenager was just 'being a teenager" but at the time they found it serious enough to lie about and to take Josh to talk to a police officer. The story has become very washed out through the years.

 

This x1000.

In my profession, the common saying is "everyone lies all the time, and the worst lies are the ones we tell ourselves". Some of this is just due to the elastic nature of human memory - different people are always going to have different memories of the same event, because of relative difference in assigning an event importance, perspective, age etc. (benign example; my ex and I were together when we found out Princess Diana had died, but have very different memories of how the news was delivered and the reactions of the people around us), but so many times it goes beyond this, to something almost willful. I have seen people tell themselves stories that are unsubstantiated in fact in such a way that they become absolutely convinced that those stories are the truth, so they keep on telling and embellishing the stories, and the false truth becomes increasingly entrenched in their minds. Even when presented with significant evidence that their truth is objectively wrong/factually incorrect, they cling to their truth and make up all sorts of baseless theories or try to twist or omit portions of the factual information to justify their belief in their very wrong truth.

In my experience, people who tend to put themselves somehow outside of mainstream society, and/or are affiliated with tighter, more homogeneous social circles are more likely to go this route, possibly because of some natural disconnect from a large chunk of the world, or with the groupthinkers, a similarity in thought process within the group and/or an increased opportunity this presents to focus/discuss/obsess on the imagined truth while excluding any evidence that does not line up with their truth from the equation. People in this scenario aren't considering that their lies may be found out, they are so invested in their truth that they do not comprehend that they are lying. In the minds of this type of liar/believer, usually, the rest of the world is wrong, and if the world insists on pointing out objective truth or the flaws in the believer's story, they are usually perceived of persecuting the poor liar/believer. I can truly imagine the Duggars doing this kind of mental gymnastics over the events related to the Joshly sagas.

That said, I do think that if it's a truth that matters to the larger world, something closer to objective reality eventually does come out (or maybe that's a lie I'm telling myself ;), and the false belief can be exposed as just that - I've seen it happen, and the illumination can sometimes be quite traumatic to the liar/believer in question.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, roxy7 said:

So, if he claims he doesn't know her, met her, slept with her then what the hell did he do?

At this point in the case, it's unsurprising to see emphasis on things Josh claims not to have done. Josh's answer wasn't expected to tell his side of things, but just to admit or deny every factual allegation in Danica's complaint so that the judge can see what's actually in dispute. As I understand it, that's part of the reason that lawyers like numbered paragraphs so much; they can just write "8. Denied," to tell the judge that they disagree with everything in paragraph 8 of the other side's complaint. I think Josh could have filed an answer like that, but he (or maybe his attorney) decided to say more about the paragraphs they disputed, "by way of further response." I quoted a few parts I found interesting, but I'll try to upload the whole thing later for you all.

edit: apparently Radar already posted both the complaint and the answer, so I don't have to redact and upload the court documents myself. Danica's complaint is http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Josh-Duggar-docs.pdf and Josh's answer is http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/josh-duggar-danica-dillon-lawsuit-signed.pdf  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, roxy7 said:

So, if he claims he doesn't know her, met her, slept with her then what the hell did he do? Seeing that he made a public statement and all that bs obviously he did something with someone somewhere. I would think that the statement would definitely help her case or he needs to give the court some type of explanation of what he was alluding to. Not that I believe him, I'm just wondering how he's going to get out of that one. He maybe should of considered seeking out legal advice before he opened his mouth up

Just because he is saying he didn't do anything with Danica doesn't mean that he didn't do something with someone else. He confessed to  infidelity which most of us take to mean physical sexual contact outside marriage.  But that doesn't mean that he was unfaithful with Danica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the exact point I'm trying to make. If not Danica then who? I understand his responses to her attorney. That's standard practice. But he is volunteering that he wasn't even in that area. So if he is telling the truth (doubtful) then who else is still out there that hasn't come forward? And he clearly didn't have any kind of legal advice before his statement (which was edited how many times?) because no attorney in the world would advise him to admit to anything. He should of simply said its a private matter. But apparently they never dreamed an alleged stripper/prostitute would come forward (if it's true). I actually wonder what all he told Anna and family. Hell for all we know he admitted to an affair of his heart. I don't remember the actual wording used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe he watched a porn movie starring Danica and that's the "cheating" he was referring to. I don't believe that, but just wanted to throw it out there. Wasn't there something mentioned about "eye cheating" or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, roxy7 said:

That's the exact point I'm trying to make. If not Danica then who? I understand his responses to her attorney. That's standard practice. But he is volunteering that he wasn't even in that area. So if he is telling the truth (doubtful) then who else is still out there that hasn't come forward? And he clearly didn't have any kind of legal advice before his statement (which was edited how many times?) because no attorney in the world would advise him to admit to anything. He should of simply said its a private matter. But apparently they never dreamed an alleged stripper/prostitute would come forward (if it's true). I actually wonder what all he told Anna and family. Hell for all we know he admitted to an affair of his heart. I don't remember the actual wording used.

 

Just because no one else has come forward doesn't mean that he didn't have an affair (or just an encounter) with someone other than Danica.

If he had an affair/encounter with a married woman who wishes to hide that she was unfaithful to her spouse, this woman is not going to come forward.

If he had an encounter or arrangement with a prostitute who doesn't want to be identified in the media as a prostitute (or who doesn't want her other johns to worry that she might blab about them), it is unlikely this prostitute will come forward.

If he had an encounter or whatever with someone who is now ashamed to have gone with him, she is not going to come forward either.

Lastly, it is possible that whoever he "was" with may not have recognized him after the scandal broke.  How many plump balding men with southern accents does a Washington DC call girl spend time with in a year?  If he was never a repeat, would a call-girl remember him?

That no one other than Danica has come forward doesn't mean that if she is lying he is innocent.  She doesn't have to be telling the truth for his "confession" to be true.

IMHO, he confessed to infidelity because having been outed as an Ashley Madison client, it would be obvious to everyone that he was at least intending to get laid outside marriage. He threw in pornography because he probably believes he was led to other sexual sin through porn.  He may have had second thoughts about confessing that much, edited it out, then been advised to put it back in when it was decided he should go to RU.  Who knows.  But I don't think he meant, and I doubt he is going to suggest, that his only infidelity was that he watched porn. 

We will see, but the important point is that proving Danica wrong (assuming he can) would only prove that he didn't do what she claims he did to her.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/01/2016 at 6:20 AM, Letgo said:

And YouTube! Who knows what might be found there! I am sure the filters on the family computer will have that site blocked, and rightly so.

Indeed, imagine if the Maxwells were exposed to something like this: (!eleventy!)

Tho' they might like the lyrics ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2016 at 4:39 AM, ChickenettiLuvr said:

Hi, St.Clara --

When I gave the list above, I wasn't sharing my own personal opinion.  I was merely sharing the "levels of sexual sins" as viewed by Fundies.  Not saying they make sense.  :confused2:

ohmygawd -- 

I used "sharing" twice.  I need to go to the prayer closet.

At least you weren't "purposing" twice.  That would be a sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Coconut Flan locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.