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

[EmCatlyn]

Re the resolution of Danica Dillon's case against Josh:

Am I correct that Josh's side did not get the public retraction they originally asked for, or is that still to come?

[Whoosh]

Just now, diplomat said:

me, too, especially since he appears to be a relatively new attorney. He should know better.

The guy who said he saw Duggar at the club is a new attorney?  Ryan McCarty?

[diplomat]

Paragraph 4 is not a model of clarity. Based on the grammar, however, I think this is the best interpretation: 

• In consideration of the above [fact that Danica is dropping the lawsuit without getting any money for it, even though she isn't issuing a public retraction], Duggar agrees to sign... a Rule 41 Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, [1] foregoing his right to move for summary judgment in this matter and [2] attaching exhibits which the parties agree would conclusively prove that Northup’s claims are fabricated.

If they meant that he was foregoing his right(s) to [1] move for summary judgment and [2] attach exhibits, they should have said that instead.

But @Whoosh's interpretation seems plausible, too.

[Bad Wolf]

Now we need something new to speculate and snark on.

[fraurosena]

Thanks for your insights, @Whooshand @diplomat! I'm glad I'm not the only one finding that particular sentence ambiguous...

[diplomat]

5 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

The guy who said he saw Duggar at the club is a new attorney?  Ryan McCarty?

I think this is him: http://www.broderlawgroup.com/south-jersey-attorney/ryan-d-mccarty-esquire/ and https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-mccarty-30423779

(and I consider anyone who passed the bar less than 5 years ago to be a new attorney)

[Whoosh]

1 minute ago, diplomat said:

I think this is him: http://www.broderlawgroup.com/south-jersey-attorney/ryan-d-mccarty-esquire/ and https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-mccarty-30423779

(and I consider anyone who passed the bar less than 5 years ago to be a new attorney)

[Fascinated]

Well, these last few pages have been informative and entertaining in the extreme. Sometimes it felt like being at a tennis match but the players were Degreed Law Professionals.  And other...interesting things happened too! We can now await the newly vindicated and, presumably, reformed Josh to resurface. Exciting times ahead, everyone!

I find myself being pleased with this turn of events for Anna and their kids' sake. But only if Dillon actually did fabricate her story. I agree though that, regardless of the veracity or lack thereof of her claims, this case did squat to help sexual abuse victims.

[Sweet Fellowship]

Does anyone have an idea of when Smugs is due out of rehab? It's almost been six months, surely.

I wonder where the first appearance of him will be. Front page of People or a potato quality snapshot of him at the airport by some random person?

[Fascinated]

Just now, Sweet Fellowship said:

Does anyone have an idea of when Smugs is due out of rehab? It's almost been six months, surely.

I wonder where the first appearance of him will be. Front page of People or a potato quality snapshot of him at the airport by some random person?

I think the last week of February?  

And please don't call me Shirley. 

[ksgranola1]

Quote

 

http://www.lawyerherald.com/articles/31680/20160204/josh-duggar-rough-sex-accuser-danica-dillon-withdraw-case.htm

Apologies if this has been posted.

[Artemesia]

So the Hustler piece was fiction and not fact checked. I wonder if Smugs can sue them? I'm sure they have more money than DD.

[diplomat]

Maybe Danica thinks that Josh promised never to release the exhibits or evidence that proves she was lying? That's not what their agreement actually says, but I suspect that may be what they had intended to say in Paragraph 4 (in which case @Whoosh's interpretation of Paragraph 4 would be correct). That's how TMZ is interpreting the agreement, too:

http://www.tmz.com/2016/02/05/josh-duggar-danica-dillon-case-dismissed/ 

I think my original interpretation is the most faithful reading of what the stipulation actually says, but, upon further reflection, I doubt it's what they actually meant. In light of the flawed grammar elsewhere in the stipulation, it would be foolish for me to attach too much significance to the grammatical parallelism of certain clauses. If only it weren't too late for me to edit my earlier post... 

 

 

[Whoosh]

So, I went to Dillon's twitter to see if there was anything - and, well...

https://twitter.com/danicadillon?lang=en

[choralcrusader8613]

7 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

So, I went to Dillon's twitter to see if there was anything - and, well...

https://twitter.com/danicadillon?lang=en

That picture of Things that Make You Go Hmmm you posted a few posts up would also be appropriate for this.

[Whoosh]

47 minutes ago, diplomat said:

Maybe Danica thinks that Josh promised never to release the exhibits or evidence that proves she was lying? That's not what their agreement actually says, but I suspect that may be what they had intended to say in Paragraph 4 (in which case @Whoosh's interpretation of Paragraph 4 would be correct). That's how TMZ is interpreting the agreement, too:

http://www.tmz.com/2016/02/05/josh-duggar-danica-dillon-case-dismissed/ 

I think my original interpretation is the most faithful reading of what the stipulation actually says, but, upon further reflection, I doubt it's what they actually meant. In light of the flawed grammar elsewhere in the stipulation, it would be foolish for me to attach too much significance to the grammatical parallelism of certain clauses. If only it weren't too late for me to edit my earlier post... 

 

 

Whatever these parties and their attorneys thought the agreement might mean, I don't see anything that limits the behavior of either party except in relation to specific actions involving the court.

[singsingsing]

"I admitted to lying, but fuck you to everyone calling me a liar." Okay, lady.

[jacduggar]

11 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

So, I went to Dillon's twitter to see if there was anything - and, well...

https://twitter.com/danicadillon?lang=en

Of course people are hating. You lied about sexual assault. Scumbag. 

[gustava]

I called it way back.....just sayin'

[Dandruff]

A bit OT, but in the Agreement, #6, what is the reason for the requirement that each party has never been declared incompetent, etc?  I can definitely see why a person would need to be considered legally competent when signing an agreement, but what if (for example) one had been declared incompetent five or ten years ago then recovered?

[EmCatlyn]

Here is what the Huffington Post  has to say about the dismissal of the case, and also what People Magazine  has to say.

We will never know the full details, but it does sound as though it is over.  I wonder why Josh's side didn't insist on the public retraction. 

[Chickenbutt]

Okay....if I get this right.....DD drops her case and apparently has been shown to be a big old liarhead. But......in his confession, Josh admitted to be unfaithful to Anna. (Maybe not his exact words). If not with DD, then with who?

 

ETA: Let the sleuthing begin!

[DuggarWatch]

2 minutes ago, Chickenbutt said:

Okay....if I get this right.....DD drops her case and apparently has been shown to be a big old liarhead. But......in his confession, Josh admitted to be unfaithful to Anna. (Maybe not his exact words). If not with DD, then with who?

Danica Dillon posted this on her Twitter account:

"Just because something was dropped doesn't mean it was a lie."

[Trynn]

Knee jerk reaction: just because she said she lied doesn't mean she actually did.

It sounds like a fustercluck. I'm kinda pissed joshy boy didn't go down. No one deserves to be falsely accused, but at the same time..... That scumbag needs his ass handed to him.

[punkiepie]

2 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

It seems like such a stupid plan if Josh's documents include proof that he was somewhere else altogether on those dates.

Wouldn't that be the first thing you research before making a false allegation, make sure the person wasn't a thousand miles away on the date in question.

 

 

I think the real reason he agreed to this deal, and not release the documents proving she lied, is that it would be highly embarrassing/r evealing to him to admit where he actually was.   So while he may not have been roughing up Danica, his proven "alibi" would be something like he was actually having very vanilla sex with a pants wearing woman, and her name was not Anna Duggar.  Josh had no reason to not release these face-saving documents that would conclusively show he was innocent, this one time, unless that proof would be equally or more embarrassing than the original claim.  I would bet a lot of money that he wasn't at an FRC event with Anna on those dates, but rather, at a hotel with someone else- maybe a Democrat!!

What really sucks about this is that she just sent a large blow to the women's sexual rights movement regarding abuse and rape.  One of the main reasons women don't report being raped or sexually battered is that they fear being blamed for it;  that it's either their fault it happened, if it happened at all.  Seeing Josh Duggar being shamed even more, great as that sounds, is still not worth giving legitimacy to the notion that it's more likely a woman is lying about being abused/raped than actually being abused/raped.  It's just a really shitty thing to lie about- even if she initially had good intentions, which I now doubt- it makes a mockery of those who have actually experienced that kind of abuse and then had to struggle with whether to report it or just live with it.