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

[Furbabies]

Sweet Raptor Jesus people!  Thank you so much for reminding me why I decided not to become an attorney after finishing law school!  I was actually thinking about applying to take the bar exam.  Whew, dodged that bullet. 

[diplomat]

8 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?

When Josh filed his second motion to compel disclosures (Document 10, filed January 18), he attached, as an exhibit to that motion, all the "initial disclosures" he had received from Danica up to that point, approx. 28 pages, mostly consisting of Danica's contracts to perform in PA on the dates in question and her travel arrangements related to those performances. I don't remember if I ever said it here or not, but I recall thinking at the time that it seemed underhanded for Josh's attorney to have filed those things publicly. The next day is when the judge ordered that Danica's future disclosures would be "for attorneys eyes only." I discussed that order (Document 14, filed January 19) and linked to it here:

 

As far as I know, that's the only thing that Josh has officially "leaked" in the court documents, other than occasional comments about where Danica's social media accounts say she's been and what she's been doing (allegedly instead of collecting medical records and "evidence of lost business opportunities"). But of course Danica's been releasing versions of her story to the tabloids all along. I want to say something like "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" but that might trivialize this case unnecessarily. I take sexual assault and unfounded allegations of sexual assault very seriously, because both have the potential to create significant harm to the individuals involved. (And I'm not expressing any opinion about what may have happened here; I don't think either Josh or Danica are very credible, and I don't yet have enough information to form an truly intelligent opinion.)

5 hours ago, Whoosh said:

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. 

Agreed. And one big problem with a trial by media is that there is no meaningful appeal. Once people decide that you're a victim or perpetrator or gold-digging famewhore or whatever, it's hard to convince anyone otherwise. You only get one chance to make a first impression...

[OodOnTheLoo]

20 hours ago, Kjaerringa said:

I have no legal background whatsoever. But.....if she wanted money, and the lawsuit is looking dicey, perhaps she decided she would get more money by selling the evidence....photos, etc....to the highest bidder, so pulling out seemed the best alternative. Alternatively....she tweeted at least once, recently, about being catfished. What if somebody else was pretending to be Josh....and she actually is not certain herself, now, of dates OR actual id?

Backing slowly out of the room now, and going back to my imaginative world of rainbows, unicorns, and tiny miniature cows. ;-)

Come on Danica, everyone knows the Duggars would never be okay with the suggestion of  "withdrawal" or "pulling out".

[moreorlessnu]

2 hours ago, Furbabies said:

Sweet Raptor Jesus people!  Thank you so much for reminding me why I decided not to become an attorney after finishing law school!  I was actually thinking about applying to take the bar exam.  Whew, dodged that bullet. 

There are many different areas of law and different types of attorneys. Don't let the fact that this area of law might not interest you turn you off from the profession as a whole.

[justoneoftwo]

33 minutes ago, moreorlessnu said:

There are many different areas of law and different types of attorneys. Don't let the fact that this area of law might not interest you turn you off from the profession as a whole.

Similarly, don't do law unless you really want to, it seems most lawyers are unhappy with the profession.  

[EmCatlyn]

11 hours ago, quiversR4hunting said:

 here ya go!

I love it, but how do I get it when I need it?  I only know how to use the emoticons in the forum. 

[diplomat]

3 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I love it, but how do I get it when I need it?

In the drop-down menu for selecting emoticons, just type "horse" into the search box at the bottom (where it says "find emoticons...")

[Hera]

7 hours ago, Bad Wolf said:

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?

You would think. I do about 50/50 plaintiff/defense work. I am constantly amazed by how little attorneys on both sides prepare or know what the they're talking about or even try to find out.  

 

[EmCatlyn]

4 hours 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.

Josh admitted to infidelity and porn addiction. He did not admit to paying for sex with porn stars.  He may have met with Danica, but maybe he didn't.  Maybe she confused him with someone else or maybe she made up their encounters.  We don't know.

I am no fan of Josh, but just because someone admits to X doesn't mean he is guilty of Y.

It is possible that there is some negotiation or deal going on, but it is also possible that what happened is simply that Danica's lawyer has decided that it is unlikely they will win the case and they want to stop with Danica keeping to option open to file with a different lawyer at some later time.

We can't know what is really going on, but it is definitely interesting.

[EmCatlyn]

20 minutes ago, diplomat said:

In the drop-down menu for selecting emoticons, just type "horse" into the search box at the bottom (where it says "find emoticons...")

Thanks.  I looked for "Horse" before (when I posted the original msg) but it kept saying "no result."  I tried "beat horse" and other variants too.

I tried again after I read your message, and I got the same "no result" --- but this time I looked at what I had (unbeknownst to me) actually searched for.  Turns out I was the victim of Automatic Capitalizing by Officious Software. 

 The search program (being case sensitive) doesn't think that "horse" and "Horse" are the same word.  When I typed "horse" all in lowercase I did indeed find three choices of horseys, including the dead being beaten.

 So happy to have a  

[Kjaerringa]

3 hours ago, OodOnTheLoo said:

Come on Danica, everyone knows the Duggars would never be okay with the suggestion of  "withdrawal" or "pulling out".

ON. THE. FLOOR. LAUGHING. Yep, I was tired last night......

[sndral]

3 hours ago, Hera said:

You would think. I do about 50/50 plaintiff/defense work. I am constantly amazed by how little attorneys on both sides prepare or know what the they're talking about or even try to find out.  

 

I haven't read the court filings closely as it's been crazy busy at work, but I was surprised at how sloppy the motion to 'withdraw' was. How hard is it to read Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 and correctly title your motion as a Motion to Dismiss without prejudice?

And whining that the Clerk of the Court wouldn't let him file his dismissal, um, no, if he'd bothered to read the rule at all he'd not have been pestering the clerk to file an untimely ex parte dismissal. 

In my neck of the woods make rookie mistakes like those and the Judge would be handing you your ass on a platter, and if it was scheduled for oral argument you'd be called first on calendar so all the lawyers in the peanut gallery would get to watch as the Judge handed it to you. Ah, the good old days.

BTW, even if Danica does get her dismissal without prejudice, she still has to refile before the statute of limitations has run, which in Pennsylvania appears to be 2 years from the date of the alleged batteries. 

 

[Imagine20]

The dismissal without prejudice may comes from FRCP Rule 41. A notice of dismissal at this point is a motion for summary judgment unless the plaintiff can get a stipulation from the defense. 

[Whoosh]

1 hour ago, sndral said:

I haven't read the court filings closely as it's been crazy busy at work, but I was surprised at how sloppy the motion to 'withdraw' was. How hard is it to read Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 and correctly title your motion as a Motion to Dismiss without prejudice?

And whining that the Clerk of the Court wouldn't let him file his dismissal, um, no, if he'd bothered to read the rule at all he'd not have been pestering the clerk to file an untimely ex parte dismissal. 

In my neck of the woods make rookie mistakes like those and the Judge would be handing you your ass on a platter, and if it was scheduled for oral argument you'd be called first on calendar so all the lawyers in the peanut gallery would get to watch as the Judge handed it to you. Ah, the good old days.

BTW, even if Danica does get her dismissal without prejudice, she still has to refile before the statute of limitations has run, which in Pennsylvania appears to be 2 years from the date of the alleged batteries. 

 

I totally agree that it is pretty sloppy.  I mean, at one point he talks about how he spoke with opposing counsel on "January 29, 2106".  Um, OK.  Call me an intolerant nit-picker, but I really can't see how the eye would fail to notice that typo even if a person only has time for one quick scan of a proofread.  It is only a 3 page and 1 paragraph document. 

I have too much time on my hands, so I was looking to see what kind of test the Judge might use when deciding what to do here.  The phrase "Motion to Withdraw Complaint without Prejudice" actually does show up several times in decisions from this particular court.  I can see how someone might stumble upon a few cases decided in this Court and just run with the language used by the previous attorneys.  Here is what the Court has to say in a 2013 footnote about the use of this phrasing (which makes it even funnier to me that someone would continue the error):

Quote

"1 Although Taggart titles this document a “motion to withdraw” rather than a notice of dismissal, which is technically proper under Rule 41, such a designation is a distinction without a difference."

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_12-cv-01913/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_12-cv-01913-0.pdf

Anyway, I didn't do a detailed or thorough search of things, but here is the four-prong test that this Court set forth for a "Motion to Withdraw Complaint" in a 2006 case.  I haven't seen anything indicating this has been overruled or greatly changed in later decisions, but it may have been.

Quote

 

"Plaintiff has moved to dismiss this case without prejudice. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides that “[a]n action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.” The question of whether dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is with or without prejudice is within the discretion of the Court. Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2367 (2006) (“if the plaintiff . . . moves for dismissal without prejudice . . . the matter is left to the discretion of the court”).

Courts generally consider four factors when considering whether to dismiss an action with or without prejudice: (1) whether a motion for summary judgment has been filed; (2) the extent of a defendant’s efforts and expenses in preparing for trial; (3) the excessive expenses in defending a second action; and (4) insufficient explanation for dismissal by the plaintiff. Id. (citing Horizon Unlimited, Inc. v. Richard Silva & SNA, Inc., No. 97-7430, 1999 WL 675469, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 1999)). "

 

https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06D0899P.pdf

Applying the test to what I think we know so far in this case:

1. There has been no motion for summary judgment which weighs in favor of granting the motion without prejudice  (although the Court does suggest that the Defendant having filed an Answer would weigh against granting the motion without prejudice).
2. In this very motion, Dillon's attorney alleges that "defense counsel has engaged in a strategy to overwhelm Plaintiff and her counsel" which seems to be an admission by the plaintiff that it is likely the defendant has put forth sufficient efforts and expenses in preparing for trial that granting the motion without prejudice would not be appropriate based on prong two of this test alone, although some cases indicate that the efforts and expenses here would not be enough to outweigh other relevant considerations.
3. Just off the top of my head, it seems this prong would weigh against granting the motion without prejudice
4. I think this is the million dollar question - it seems to me that if the Judge believes Dillon's case is totally frivolous, he will deny this motion.  If she has managed to show some reasonable minimal level of evidence AND has some sort of reasonable explanation as to why she is making this request and that evidence and explanation outweighs anything in the other direction from the other prongs, the Judge will likely approve the motion.

JMHO after a bit of insomnia reading of cases from this Court.

 

[Imagine20]

8 hours ago, Furbabies said:

Sweet Raptor Jesus people!  Thank you so much for reminding me why I decided not to become an attorney after finishing law school!  I was actually thinking about applying to take the bar exam.  Whew, dodged that bullet. 

Civil Procedure was one of my least favorite classes in law school. It was just added to the bar last year. 

I'm studying for the bar right now and don't plan to do any trial work. The bar review classes really have helped my confidence,  especially since I graduated a few years ago. I need that bar card to practice in the area of my expertise. I wish that topic was on the exam! 

I will say my nerves are shot, I hope I don't have a melt down, and I can't wait for those two days to be over. 

[OnceUponATime]

13 hours ago, diplomat said:

When Josh filed his second motion to compel disclosures (Document 10, filed January 18), he attached, as an exhibit to that motion, all the "initial disclosures" he had received from Danica up to that point, approx. 28 pages, mostly consisting of Danica's contracts to perform in PA on the dates in question and her travel arrangements related to those performances.

ah yes now I see my error in thinking. I was forgetting that everything a lawyer, on behalf of person X, sends to the court shall be seen as the actions of person X.

And there I was hoping there was a semi-interesting media article out there that I had missed. One that was of way better quality than the crappy tabloid stuff that has been posted.

[karen77]

So... anyone know the official date of that midnight ride (flight) that josh took to check in to RU? 

[DuggarWatch]

10 minutes ago, karen77 said:

So... anyone know the official date of that midnight ride (flight) that josh took to check in to RU? 

in the middle of the night on August 24

[karen77]

2 minutes ago, DuggarWatch said:

in the middle of the night on August 24

Ahh, so we might still be waiting for a bit for his appearance.

[DuggarWatch]

1 minute ago, karen77 said:

Ahh, so we might still be waiting for a bit for his appearance.

end of February, at the earliest

[Furbabies]

18 hours ago, moreorlessnu said:

There are many different areas of law and different types of attorneys. Don't let the fact that this area of law might not interest you turn you off from the profession as a whole.

It isn't the area of law that's the problem.

[justoneoftwo]

2 minutes ago, Furbabies said:

It isn't the area of law that's the problem.

If other lawyers are the problem, you wouldn't be the first to say it :).  

[Whoosh]

I hear ya @Furbabies - you are overwhelmed by the ability of self-proclaimed "legal experts" (myself included obviously) to keep on the relevant topic, discuss things collegially, play nice, work toward mutual understanding for the greater good, and generally "keep sweet" - or something of that nature.   It's like adding a slow-moving train wreck to the already ongoing Dillon v. Duggar train wreck.

 

Speaking of the Dillon v. Duggar train wreck, here is a story I just ran across that, while likely about as relevant and admissible as other "information" team Plaintiff has released in the trial by media - has Fashion & Style supporting the possible-political-motives-of-plaintiff-molestation-comes-in-JB&M-as-potential-"unnamed"-but-critical-third-parties theory of the case - complete with named "eyewitness" who places Duggar in the club with Dillon.  

Like I said - In an actual court of law rather than the court of public opinion driven by the tabloid media circus, this is only about as relevant and/or admissible as something like earlier tabloid reports of interviews with Dillon.  Or even less so - but here it is nonetheless.  

I can't imagine the Judge will look favorably on the plaintiff if she or her team had any hand in this hitting the interwebs (particularly at this time).  Talk about fighting dirty - hitting a guy's family members below the belt for all the world to see.

 

http://www.fashionnstyle.com/articles/79934/20160204/19-kids-and-counting-josh-duggar-victim-danica-dillon-faults-duggar-family-for-sons-sex-problem.htm

[NotAnIncubator]

16 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Josh admitted to infidelity and porn addiction. He did not admit to paying for sex with porn stars.  He may have met with Danica, but maybe he didn't.  Maybe she confused him with someone else or maybe she made up their encounters.  We don't know.

I am no fan of Josh, but just because someone admits to X doesn't mean he is guilty of Y.

It is possible that there is some negotiation or deal going on, but it is also possible that what happened is simply that Danica's lawyer has decided that it is unlikely they will win the case and they want to stop with Danica keeping to option open to file with a different lawyer at some later time.

We can't know what is really going on, but it is definitely interesting.

My line of thinking is he got addicted to porn, saw Danica's, and saw a chance to 'riteously fulfill' the lust. Therefore he had to have sex with her. 

 

As far as the lawsuit, I've already said I think he did it. His prior bad acts make it look more and more likely. Its not a guaranteed thing but that's my thoughts on it.

[Bad Wolf]

I liked the vote at the end of the article:

Yes

No

Don't care

Who?

Would love to know how many Who? they get.