Josh Duggar Part 11 - The End of Rehab Is in Sight

[JenniferJuniper]

17 minutes ago, QuiverDance said:

There could be any number of reasons they moved to dismiss without prejudice.  I've seen it done in the middle of a trial in state court because the plaintiff's lawyer couldn't get his shit together.  Here we call it a "non-suit," and a plaintiff can take that option once, at any time, with the option to refile within a year.  The only exception is if there is a dispositive motion pending at the time the motion to dismiss is filed.  At any rate, there could be a dozen procedural explanations for why plaintiff's counsel is requesting to dismiss without prejudice, and I think there is little chance that the judge will not grant the request, even over the objection of defense counsel.  

In this specific situation, its likely that Dillon (or her attorney) can't or won't produce the initial paper discovery as required by the court and this is why they want the case set aside for now.  We know she's already missed deadlines.

It is a little odd that her attorney specifically mentioned her not paying his bills regardless of the context.  Don't see that too often.  

I'm not sure that she can non-suit here, although the judge may well dismiss without prejudice. We'll know soon enough.

ETA - And please note I was responding to the question that Dillon might have filed for the dismissal because she is working out a settlement deal with Duggar.  The poster asked if that was standard procedure, and no, it isn't.  There would be no reason in this situation to file for a dismissal before settlement was reached if terms were being worked out.

[Fascinated]

So, we don't know the (many possible) reasons for their request to dismiss without prejudice, and we don't know what evidence, or lack thereof, Danica Dillon has.  But, in this particular case, what kind of changes in her situation could occur that would result in her refiling in the future? I see what you are saying about a lawyer without together shit - that would be a good reason.  I'm trying to think of others.  I'm sure this is a naive question, but, for example, @Whooshhas repeatedly explained that it is normal and even expected that a victim not seek medical or psychiatric treatment for a period of time after the act in question.  So, let's assume for a moment that it is her medical records that are lacking, could she now seek medical attention and then, in some months, refile, armed with a healthy medical file?

 

[Whoosh]

10 minutes ago, Fascinated said:

So, we don't know the (many possible) reasons for their request to dismiss without prejudice, and we don't know what evidence, or lack thereof, Danica Dillon has.  But, in this particular case, what kind of changes in her situation could occur that would result in her refiling in the future? I see what you are saying about a lawyer without together shit - that would be a good reason.  I'm trying to think of others.  I'm sure this is a naive question, but, for example, @Whooshhas repeatedly explained that it is normal and even expected that a victim not seek medical or psychiatric treatment for a period of time after the act in question.  So, let's assume for a moment that it is her medical records that are lacking, could she now seek medical attention and then, in some months, refile, armed with a healthy medical file?

 

I would say that she could do that, but to me that would indicate that her present case is so remarkably weak that the judge would not allow her to actually withdraw her complaint without prejudice at this point.  It is reasonable and expected to delay treatment until your symptoms manifest and you have had time to seek medical treatment.  I don't see it as reasonable or expected to file a lawsuit before you have seen those medical experts.  In other words, hypothetically it may be the case that she currently doesn't have the necessary medical records to move forward but in 6 months from now she will actually HAVE all the medical documents she would need to win this case, but she will be barred from filing because she filed the case before it was clear to herself and confirmed by medical professionals that she had suffered the harm claimed in this suit.  I think I am understanding what you are getting at and if I am, that is my best guess there.

I am thinking of it like this - if I have weak evidence to support the accusation that someone robbed a bank, I can take them to trial with that evidence.  If I lose that case or it gets tossed from court for some reason and then later I find definitive proof that they did indeed rob the bank, I will be unable to refile charges and retry the case.  That is in criminal law.  I think under the type of circumstances you are talking about in this case, the judge would rule on this motion to withdraw the complaint WITHOUT prejudice in a manner that would bar Dillon from doing such a thing.  I could be totally wrong on that though.

[Fascinated]

1 minute ago, Whoosh said:

I would say that she could do that, but to me that would indicate that her present case is so remarkably weak that the judge would not allow her to actually withdraw her complaint without prejudice at this point.  It is reasonable and expected to delay treatment until your symptoms manifest and you have had time to seek medical treatment.  I don't see it as reasonable or expected to file a lawsuit before you have seen those medical experts.  In other words, hypothetically it may be the case that she currently doesn't have the necessary medical records to move forward but in 6 months from now she will actually HAVE all the medical documents she would need to win this case, but she will be barred from filing because she filed the case before it was clear to herself and confirmed by medical professionals that she had suffered the harm claimed in this suit.  I think I am understanding what you are getting at and if I am, that is my best guess there.

I am thinking of it like this - if I have weak evidence to support the accusation that someone robbed a bank, I can take them to trial with that evidence.  If I lose that case and then later find definitive proof that they did indeed rob the bank, I will be unable to refile charges and retry the case.  That is in criminal law.  I think the judge would rule on this motion to withdraw the complaint WITHOUT prejudice in a manner that would bar Dillon from doing such a thing.  I could be totally wrong on that though.

Makes perfect sense!  Thanks, @Whoosh.  (I find your explanations very clear and understandable.  And, yes, you managed to grasp my meaning perfectly.)

[OnceUponATime]

I'm a bit confused about point #9 in document 23 (the one about Duggar leaking stuff to the media). What did *he* leak exactly? Where? Are they implying all the tabloid stuff was actually based on stuff Josh was leaking?

[JenniferJuniper]

7 hours ago, Whoosh said:

@JenniferJuniper

I really don't want to deal with you any more as you are just remarkably offensive and obnoxious.  YOU ARE WRONG.  Intentional torts have a VERY different range of types of damages that might result from the harms that you prove in court.  Ever heard of punitive damages?  Even know what they are?  Seriously, just about everything you say about this case screams INSURANCE DEFENSE WORKER - not intentional tort defense attorney.  You don't get it and likely never will - I get that

Enjoy playing bash-a-hooker daily for months on end if that is what you need to do for some reason.  I know you won't give a SHIT that you might actually be playing bash-a-victim.  Why would you, right?  

Anyway, that is as far as I read in your post.  You and your various hatreds and -isms enjoy yourselves.

 

I don't know what you are talking about. Suggest you go back and read the Complaint.

Punitive damages were not pled in this case.

Strict liability has not been pled in this case.

Dillon has asked the court to award monetary damages to her from Duggar, not that he get psychological help.

I have never heard of "an intentional tort defense attorney".  

I have expressed no hatred towards anyone.  You however, continue to scream and rail at me and insist that you have expertise in an area where you clearly do not.   You don't like the fact that I've known this about you from the beginning and it makes you very angry, I get that.  But you are misleading FJ members under the guise of being an expert, and I think that is wrong. 

I don't know why you feel the need to write this sort of legalese fantasy fan-fiction about this case, but your posts just lead to confusion.  While it's your right to do this, it's my right to call you out as a poser.

 

[Whoosh]

1 hour ago, JenniferJuniper said:

I don't know what you are talking about. Suggest you go back and read the Complaint.

Punitive damages were not pled in this case.

Strict liability has not been pled in this case.

Dillon has asked the court to award monetary damages to her from Duggar, not that he get psychological help.

I have never heard of "an intentional tort defense attorney".  

I have expressed no hatred towards anyone.  You however, continue to scream and rail at me and insist that you have expertise in an area where you clearly do not.   You don't like the fact that I've known this about you from the beginning and it makes you very angry, I get that.  But you are misleading FJ members under the guise of being an expert, and I think that is wrong. 

I don't know why you feel the need to write this sort of legalese fantasy fan-fiction about this case, but your posts just lead to confusion.  While it's your right to do this, it's my right to call you out as a poser.

 

What on earth are you talking about?  Where did she plead the basis for her requested damages in the complaint at all?  She listed the alleged wrongs (for which punitive damages ARE available), her alleged harms, and asked for more than $500,000 in damages.  She didn't list exactly why those damages should be awarded, but she did show she is entitled to relief including punitive types of relief (if you assume her claims are true).  Do you think she was supposed to list the basis for each dollar requested?  Clearly, she did not do that.  Perhaps that is why the judge said her case was "barely pled"...

No shit strict liability has not been pled in this case.  Nor has any type of negligent tort.  THAT IS WHAT I SAID.  Someone who knows only about strict liability law or negligence law may not understand this case.

Dillon asked for certain things in the lawsuit.  The parties can arrive at any type of settlement they so choose so long as they both agree to the terms and the court approves it (if needed).

I have never heard of an intentional tort defense attorney either - but you are clearly NOT anything of the sort.

Your disbelief in, lack of understanding of, and/or hatred for individuals with mental illness is CRYSTAL CLEAR from about day one of this lawsuit in this thread and elsewhere.  This is kind of like when racists don't realize they are racist.  If you continue to spew hateful baseless nonsense that harms victims of sexual assault, sex workers, people with mental illnesses, people with disabilities, people whose names you don't like, people who you suspect may have had parents with some form of mental illness 20 or 30 years ago, etc - you will get the responses you get.  If LOTS of the legal theories you present suggests that you have no understanding of the issues actually involved, but rather you are just spewing random nonsense based on your biases and prejudices, you will get the responses you get.

Your projecting your insecure feelings about being WRONG from the get go here actually makes me laugh.  Thanks for making me laugh.  We all need more laughter in our lives.

What is your job title, anyway?  What did you go to school for?  Just curious.

[2manyKidzzz]

@diplomat

Thanks for answering my question. And she can't pay her attorney. All a big mess for sure. 

[QuiverDance]

2 hours ago, JenniferJuniper said:

In this specific situation, its likely that Dillon (or her attorney) can't or won't produce the initial paper discovery as required by the court and this is why they want the case set aside for now.  We know she's already missed deadlines.

It is a little odd that her attorney specifically mentioned her not paying his bills regardless of the context.  Don't see that too often.  

I'm not sure that she can non-suit here, although the judge may well dismiss without prejudice. We'll know soon enough.

ETA - And please note I was responding to the question that Dillon might have filed for the dismissal because she is working out a settlement deal with Duggar.  The poster asked if that was standard procedure, and no, it isn't.  There would be no reason in this situation to file for a dismissal before settlement was reached if terms were being worked out.

I completely agree.  My first reaction when I heard she'd filed a Motion to dismiss her complaint was "Oh!  They settled!"  Until I heard it was a dismissal w/o prejudice.  As much as I WANT to believe that she is telling the truth, I think it's pretty clear at this point that she has a problematic case, her attorney has client control problems, and everyone on the plaintiff side, lawyer and client, is looking to get out of this as painlessly as possible.  

[sawasdee]

I SO wanted to believe her - but she has hit the wall with my suspension of disbelief. I will always want to believe those who claim to be victims of sexual assault - I do know how hard it can be to prove.  But she has undermined her own credibility by changing her story(multiple times), threatening to sell evidence to the tabloids, admitting the case has boosted her career, and then failing to provide any evidence AT ALL  by the court deadline. Sorry, my credulity is exhausted.

[justoneoftwo]

7 minutes ago, QuiverDance said:

I completely agree.  My first reaction when I heard she'd filed a Motion to dismiss her complaint was "Oh!  They settled!"  Until I heard it was a dismissal w/o prejudice.  As much as I WANT to believe that she is telling the truth, I think it's pretty clear at this point that she has a problematic case, her attorney has client control problems, and everyone on the plaintiff side, lawyer and client, is looking to get out of this as painlessly as possible.  

It is also possible she didn't realize what goes into being a Plaintiff.  Many lawyers don't seem to adequately warn plaintiffs about how much digging into their lives the defense gets to do, or how long it can take, or similar things.  I do know people who chose not to sue for things when they could, and win, because it sucks to be in a lawsuit, even if you are the one who filed it.  

[EmmieJ]

9 hours ago, Whoosh said:

@JenniferJuniper

I really don't want to deal with you any more as you are just remarkably offensive and obnoxious.  YOU ARE WRONG.  Intentional torts have a VERY different range of types of damages that might result from the harms that you prove in court.  Ever heard of punitive damages?  Even know what they are?  Seriously, just about everything you say about this case screams INSURANCE DEFENSE WORKER - not intentional tort defense attorney.  You don't get it and likely never will - I get that

Enjoy playing bash-a-hooker daily for months on end if that is what you need to do for some reason.  I know you won't give a SHIT that you might actually be playing bash-a-victim.  Why would you, right?  

Anyway, that is as far as I read in your post.  You and your various hatreds and -isms enjoy yourselves.

 

I think you are the one being remarkably offensive and obnoxious, with your shouting (capitalizing numerous words in your responses), condescending responses, and overall "how dare you question me!?" attitude. 

[Whoosh]

29 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

I SO wanted to believe her - but she has hit the wall with my suspension of disbelief. I will always want to believe those who claim to be victims of sexual assault - I do know how hard it can be to prove.  But she has undermined her own credibility by changing her story(multiple times), threatening to sell evidence to the tabloids, admitting the case has boosted her career, and then failing to provide any evidence AT ALL  by the court deadline. Sorry, my credulity is exhausted.

I hear ya.  I know I have some thoughts that seem wacky to some people, but for me there are two things here that I find completely unbelievable.  I have thoughts on a lot of it, but there are two things I am just stuck on - 

The first is that someone totally fabricating either the whole story or the non-consent part of the story would tell the versions of events that Dillon has told in her few brief interviews and in court filings.  For me, it is just not a believable lie.

Second, that a client-attorney duo who KNEW from the get-go that this case was going to be high profile and difficult to prove to either the public or a court would have proceeded in the manner this duo has proceeded and wound up in the position they are in today.

Clearly, these two thoughts can't both be consistent with reality.  Obviously, there is something going on that I don't know or am not considering.

15 minutes ago, EmmieJ said:

I think you are the one being remarkably offensive and obnoxious, with your shouting (capitalizing numerous words in your responses), condescending responses, and overall "how dare you question me!?" attitude. 

I apologize for the capitalization, that is my default method for emphasizing something - not meant to be shouting at all.

I tend to try to treat people with the courtesy and respect they afford myself and others.  I am sure I get it wrong sometimes, but I will say again that I have been treated horridly and slapped down for having different takes on things involved in this case since August and I have seen it repeatedly happen to others as well.  I agree with you - I am DONE with it and it isn't attractive.  I guess I don't much care about trying to appear friendly and attractive to people who are treating myself and others poorly.

I don't mind being questioned at all and I am more than willing to agree to disagree on matters of opinion.  Sorry you have that impression.  I mind when people seem to be completely closed minded as to a different way to see something (particularly when their view serves to further oppress the oppressed and/or denies what is factually true).  I mind when people rudely slap down ideas because they are unfamiliar ways of thinking.

But I hear ya.

[sawasdee]

3 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

I hear ya.  I know I have some thoughts that seem wacky to some people, but for me there are two things here that I find completely unbelievable.  I have thoughts on a lot of it, but there are two things I am just stuck on - 

The first is that someone totally fabricating either the whole story or the non-consent part of the story would tell the versions of events that Dillon has told in her few brief interviews and in court filings.  For me, it is just not a believable lie.

Second, that a client-attorney duo who KNEW from the get-go that this case was going to be high profile and difficult to prove to either the public or a court would have proceeded in the manner this duo has proceeded and wound up in the position they are in today.

Clearly, these two thoughts can't both be consistent with reality.  Obviously, there is something going on that I don't know or am not considering.

They both got a great deal of free publicity?

[justoneoftwo]

Just now, sawasdee said:

They both got a great deal of free publicity?

Totally making it up and going this far for publicity seems like a strange plan.  People are strange though.  I am most disappointed that we will never know the truth, or even more facts which could help us to find the truth.  I generally believe the truth is somewhere in the middle, but with the claims he had proof he wasn't even there I just wish we got to see it.  

[sawasdee]

Just now, justoneoftwo said:

Totally making it up and going this far for publicity seems like a strange plan.  People are strange though.  I am most disappointed that we will never know the truth, or even more facts which could help us to find the truth.  I generally believe the truth is somewhere in the middle, but with the claims he had proof he wasn't even there I just wish we got to see it.  

Me too.

[Hera]

53 minutes ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

@diplomat

Thanks for answering my question. And she can't pay her attorney. All a big mess for sure. 

It was probably a contingency fee case, anyway, meaning she never was going to pay him unless she won.  

[MarblesMom]

3 hours ago, OnceUponATime said:

I'm a bit confused about point #9 in document 23 (the one about Duggar leaking stuff to the media). What did *he* leak exactly? Where? Are they implying all the tabloid stuff was actually based on stuff Josh was leaking?

Thinking about Josh leaking anything made me go

[Bad Wolf]

If it was a contingency case, I would have thought the lawyer would have had his ducks in a row, and counseled his client on not letting out information. Also, I think he would have made sure that there was enough evidence to prove her case. Then again, what do I know?

[Whoosh]

18 minutes ago, MarblesMom said:

Thinking about Josh leaking anything made me go

I have had this vague sense that this is happening but I can't put my finger on why so that is pretty irrelevant haha.  I don't know if this is what they mean by leaking things and it is obviously just my opinion, but it has been my opinion that some of the documents the Defendant has submitted to the court read as though they were written for the benefit of the media and/or to intimidate the Plaintiff rather than to effectively communicate with the court.  In that way, he is getting information out there that would not be out there otherwise.  That totally happens in high profile cases.  Dillon's motion to withdraw her complaint reads that way to me as well.  Not only that, she isn't "leaking" anything - she is giving televised interviews (which I see as more aimed at advancing her career, but they serve both purposes no doubt).  I am glad I am not that judge LOL.  

[sawasdee]

5 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

I have had this vague sense that this is happening but I can't put my finger on why so that is pretty irrelevant haha.  I don't know if this is what they mean by leaking things and it is obviously just my opinion, but it has been my opinion that some of the documents the Defendant has submitted to the court read as though they were written for the benefit of the media and/or to intimidate the Plaintiff rather than to effectively communicate with the court.  In that way, he is getting information out there that would not be out there otherwise.  That totally happens in high profile cases.  Dillon's motion to withdraw her complaint reads that way to me as well.  Not only that, she isn't "leaking" anything - she is giving televised interviews (which I see as more aimed at advancing her career, but they serve both purposes no doubt).  I am glad I am not that judge LOL.  

If she isn't leaking anything in this scenario, neither is Josh via the courts. Via other media, she is the greatest sieve ever!

Josh has not given numerous interviews to the tabloids - we all know he has been incommunicado for months.

@Whoosh  I really like almost all of your posts, and we agree on most things, but I feel you are almost using Josh's guilt and Danica's victimhood as your hill to die on. I personally don't think either of them are worth it. And I think both of them are capable of being big fat liars who lie.

[Whoosh]

15 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

If she isn't leaking anything in this scenario, neither is Josh via the courts. Via other media, she is the greatest sieve ever!

Josh has not given numerous interviews to the tabloids - we all know he has been incommunicado for months.

@Whoosh  I really like almost all of your posts, and we agree on most things, but I feel you are almost using Josh's guilt and Danica's victimhood as your hill to die on. I personally don't think either of them are worth it. And I think both of them are capable of being big fat liars who lie.

I don't think Dillon is worth it and I really am not and have not said I think she is telling the truth.  I have said it is a possibility.  If I have a hill to die on here, it is that unless there is proof that someone claiming to be a victim of sexual assault is lying, I think it is damaging to go after them aggressively and to twist and likely misinterpret things they say and do.  I also think it is damaging to automatically twist and interpret every single thing that happens as proof that they are lying and the accused is innocent when we don't know what has really gone on or why things are happening the way we see them.  That harms all real victims.

If my last post was unclear I want to clear it up.  I DO think that Duggar may be doing some things along those lines.  Dillon CLEARLY is and has been.  That is what I was trying to say.  I don't think that paints Duggar as guilty or Dillon as a victim, but if it reads that way it reads that way.

[MsSourPickle]

2 hours ago, Whoosh said:

I don't think Dillon is worth it and I really am not and have not said I think she is telling the truth.  I have said it is a possibility.  If I have a hill to die on here, it is that unless there is proof that someone claiming to be a victim of sexual assault is lying, I think it is damaging to go after them aggressively and to twist and likely misinterpret things they say and do.  I also think it is damaging to automatically twist and interpret every single thing that happens as proof that they are lying and the accused is innocent when we don't know what has really gone on or why things are happening the way we see them.  That harms all real victims.

If my last post was unclear I want to clear it up.  I DO think that Duggar may be doing some things along those lines.  Dillon CLEARLY is and has been.  That is what I was trying to say.  I don't think that paints Duggar as guilty or Dillon as a victim, but if it reads that way it reads that way.

Josh under his own admission told the world he was unfaithful to his wife and addicted to pornography. He also went into therapy for his addiction.That's an admission of guilt. I think at one time Dillon hooked up with him and in light of Dillons wanting to drop the case for now leads me to believe she has been offered a nice sum of money as a settlement. The only problem is there must be a lack of trust concerning the settlement. She has stated if she could she would take the case back to court at a different time.  I read that as she does not trust Josh or Jimbob for payment in full , they might try and stiff her so resurrection of the case for nonpayment.   We will have to wait and see what transpires with the case.

[justoneoftwo]

3 minutes ago, MsSourPickle said:

Josh under his own admission told the world he was unfaithful to his wife and addicted to pornography. He also went into therapy for his addiction.That's an admission of guilt. I think at one time Dillon hooked up with him and in light of Dillons wanting to drop the case for now leads me to believe she has been offered a nice sum of money as a settlement. The only problem is there must be a lack of trust concerning the settlement. She has stated if she could she would take the case back to court at a different time.  I read that as she does not trust Josh or Jimbob for payment in full , they might try and stiff her so resurrection of the case for nonpayment.   We will have to wait and see what transpires with the case.

Many people don't trust the people they settle with, generally you get the check before dismissal.  Further, if the terms of the settlement are broken you can sue for that.  Why would Josh or JB agree to settle with it hanging over them?  Settlement talks could be going on, I have no idea, but I don't agree with your logic.  

[karen77]

Maybe they only agreed to pay half, before she dismisses, then gets the rest afterward, or something of that nature..