Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Recommended Posts

nickelodeon

Gadzooks, this just keeps getting wilder and wackier.

Incidentally, Catfish is prime clean-the-house-with-the-TV-on material.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 580
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Whoosh

    115

  • justoneoftwo

    31

  • JenniferJuniper

    26

  • HerNameIsBuffy

    23

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Worst.  Bucketlist item. Ever.

Hi Kids! I'm just driving by to remind people that the ignore feature can make your FJ participation more pleasant if you find someone is really getting under your skin

Posted Images

JenniferJuniper
14 minutes ago, Chickenbutt said:

Yes there is a show called Catfish on MTV. Never watched it but have seen it advertised.

Thanks.  Maybe it's just wishful thinking on her part.

For someone who claims to have been disabled by Duggar's actions in March and April, she's been might busy since then, traveling the world, giving all sorts of interviews, and the very week she sued Josh she did six shows at a club in Houston.  I can't understand why she wouldn't shut down her social media accounts once she decided to sue.  Josh's attorney is already using the details against her at this early stage.  Maybe she feels it's essential to her livelihood.   But wait, isn't she claiming she doesn't have a livelihood now?

This is interesting.  Her sister talking about Josh?   Or is it about her ex-husband who she frequently accuses of having beaten her and trying to get custody of her kid?

Miss Danica Dillon ‏@danicadillon  9 Nov 2015

So I was just accused of stalking a man who assaulted me. This seriously is mental.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree she is trying to capitalize on the situation she is in.  I don't see that as incompatible with her version of events that occurred in the past, but I can easily understand why people feel it undermines her credibility - even to the point of totally disbelieving her.  I get that.

I am not sure why anyone would make a statement saying that her behavior is inconsistent with her claim that she is unable to work in her former profession. If I were a singer and someone acted in an unlawful manner that resulted in some type of damage to my vocal cords resulting in my inability to sing - I could sue them for that and I could take up a new career as a dancer, secretary, olympic swimmer, etc and none of that would call into question anything about the fact that the defendant had caused damage to my vocal cords which resulted in my inability to sing and therefor the loss of any income I had reasonably expected as the result of my album sales.

Could Duggar's attorney try to use this against Dillon in some way?  Sure.  Will that work?  That would totally depend on what exactly Dillon is claiming in her suit - what is the SPECIFIC injury and what is the SPECIFIC inability to work that has led to the loss of SPECIFIC future expected earnings.  You don't have to claim total and permanent disability in order to sue, prevail, and recover for damages in a case like this.  

  • Upvote 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Opinions in here aren't interesting, but has some stuff about time lines regarding social media for both of them.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2732432/after-court-date-with-josh-duggar-danica-dillon-goes-invisible/

There is some interesting stuff in there - thanks for sharing the whole thing.  If all Duggar has to "prove" he was not in PA at the time are a few photos that don't cover one of the timeframes and some type of receipts (that could be a result of someone else such as Anna using his credit card), that doesn't seem like a real winner in terms of proving that claim.  Of course, he could have something more.

Another part of that article seems a bit off to me.  According to the court documents I read, Dillon's attorney requested an extension due to his own scheduling conflicts and also the fact that his assistant was hospitalized and therefore (presumably) not able to complete tasks assigned to her in a timely fashion.  I did not see one single thing in the court documents that stated or implied that Dillon herself was in any way responsible for the delay (outside of the fact that her physical location made it hard for her attorney to get things done - again, nothing about Dillon really).  That article seems to imply that people should see Dillon's various activities as proof that she has time on her hands and therefore the request for a delay was somehow bullshit.  I, personally, think that is a flat out absurd conclusion to draw based on what I saw in the court documents.  

 

Edited by Whoosh
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
JenniferJuniper

The 4 ways to prove lost earnings in a personal injury case - Pennsylvania

1. Your W-2(s) from the last tax year(s); or

2. Your Paystubs (you should have them from before and after the accident to show the difference); or

3. A Wage Verification from your Employer 

4. If you are a business owner or self-employed, you will need to provide other documentation- this could include your tax returns; or, your accounts receiveable or checks you received for services rendered; or, your business' banking records. It would be a good idea to black line account numbers for your privacy. 

In addition to any of the above 4 ways to show the lost wages, you will also need a disability note or slip from your treating doctor. This will be needed to show that you have or are missing work due to an actual disability diagnosed by a doctor. You want want to discuss this with your doctor. Typically, they will understand. You should also discuss with your doctor the type of work you do and its physical demands. That will assist the doctor in determining whether you are able to perform your job. Also, there may become a time where you could return to work with restrictions or modified duty, depending on the type of job you have.   
http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=23608

Dillon hasn't yet produced her tax records as required.   From the pleadings thus far, she seems only to claim she can't or couldn't dance.  As prostitution is not legal in PA, she isn't going to be successful in supporting a claim for lost illegal earnings anymore than a drug dealer could claim lost sales as a result of being shot on the job.

As for being unable to dance, it's no wonder.  She was way too busy having tons of fun.  

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chickenbutt

Wait...are they saying that a picture of a kids head and a tweet proves Josh was actually there? And roses, my hubby has sent me stuff from all over the country. How is that proof of his whereabouts? Am I being particularly dense?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNameIsBuffy
17 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

There is some interesting stuff in there - thanks for sharing the whole thing.  If all Duggar has to "prove" he was not in PA at the time are a few photos that don't cover one of the timeframes and some type of receipts (that could be a result of someone else such as Anna using his credit card), that doesn't seem like a real winner in terms of proving that claim.  Of course, he could have something more.

Another part of that article seems a bit off to me.  According to the court documents I read, Dillon's attorney requested an extension due to his own scheduling conflicts and also the fact that his assistant was hospitalized and therefore (presumably) not able to complete tasks assigned to her in a timely fashion.  I did not see one single thing in the court documents that stated or implied that Dillon herself was in any way responsible for the delay (outside of the fact that her physical location made it hard for her attorney to get things done - again, nothing about Dillon really).  That article seems to imply that people should see Dillon's various activities as proof that she has time on her hands and therefore the request for a delay was somehow bullshit.  I, personally, think that is a flat out absurd conclusion to draw based on what I saw in the court documents.  

 

Per the court documents Smuggar has submitted over 100 pages of alibi documents to her counsel along with photos and videos.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

The 4 ways to prove lost earnings in a personal injury case - Pennsylvania

1. Your W-2(s) from the last tax year(s); or

2. Your Paystubs (you should have them from before and after the accident to show the difference); or

3. A Wage Verification from your Employer 

4. If you are a business owner or self-employed, you will need to provide other documentation- this could include your tax returns; or, your accounts receiveable or checks you received for services rendered; or, your business' banking records. It would be a good idea to black line account numbers for your privacy. 

In addition to any of the above 4 ways to show the lost wages, you will also need a disability note or slip from your treating doctor. This will be needed to show that you have or are missing work due to an actual disability diagnosed by a doctor. You want want to discuss this with your doctor. Typically, they will understand. You should also discuss with your doctor the type of work you do and its physical demands. That will assist the doctor in determining whether you are able to perform your job. Also, there may become a time where you could return to work with restrictions or modified duty, depending on the type of job you have.   
http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=23608

Dillon hasn't yet produced her tax records as required.   From the pleadings thus far, she seems only to claim she can't or couldn't dance.  As prostitution is not legal in PA, she isn't going to be successful in supporting a claim for lost illegal earnings anymore than a drug dealer could claim lost sales as a result of being shot on the job.

As for being unable to dance, it's no wonder.  She was way too busy having tons of fun.  

Dillon was earning money by doing something that requires a very specific skill.  I am pretty sure if I tried to preform in a porn film that depicted rough and violent sexual relations, I would not be able to do that.  I don't think I would be able to suppress feelings of panic - I don't think the film crew would be able to capture any decent, usable footage.  

Dillon was able to act in that role - apparently fairly successfully at least.  I can easily see where being the victim of one or two violent sexual assaults could result in the loss of that ability.  I don't know what the basis is for her lawsuit, but it could be this or any number of other things possibly.  You can ASSUME whatever you want, but it doesn't make it true.

If someone acted in a manner that lead to direct harm to Jennifer Lopez's vocal cords resulting in her ability to sing, she could continue acting and doing all manner of other activities.  She could STILL sue, prevail, and recover for loss of expected earnings from her singing career if she could prove that an unlawful act occurred which resulted in a harm for which she can prove specific lost earnings.  You can ASSUME whatever you want and draw conclusions based on those assumptions, but that won't impact the outcome of the case unless your assumptions happen to be true.

Since when is a plaintiff unable to recover if they are seen appearing to be busy or having fun?  That is a new one.  Do you have any case law to cite on that?  

4 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Per the court documents Smuggar has submitted over 100 pages of alibi documents to her counsel along with photos and videos.

As several people have said when explaining away everything Dillon says or submits to court, people can submit all kinds of stuff - relevant, irrelevant, true, false, time-wasters...

15 minutes ago, Chickenbutt said:

Wait...are they saying that a picture of a kids head and a tweet proves Josh was actually there? And roses, my hubby has sent me stuff from all over the country. How is that proof of his whereabouts? Am I being particularly dense?

LOL you are not dense at all.  I wouldn't run with any claims made in that inquisitor article as being true, relevant, or important - but maybe something in there actually is.  Who knows.

 

ETA - with regard to the delay in document production on the part of the plaintiff, Dillon's attorney has said that is due to HIS issues.  You can assume that it is because they have nothing all you want.  You can ignore the hospitalized assistant, the cases he currently has in trial, etc.  That won't change the truth.  Is he telling the truth or is your assumption true?  I have no idea, but I don't see reason to doubt the integrity of this attorney at this point in time.

Edited by Whoosh
  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
EmCatlyn
17 hours ago, luv2laugh said:

Well, it sure looks like Josh isn't getting what he wants. A 3 day trial is scheduled for May 25th. Jury will be selected.

I thought this was what his lawyer requested.

9 hours ago, Fundie Bunny said:

I bet he throws his parents under the bus if the molestation issues are mentioned during the trial

In the other thread we pretty much concluded that the molestation stuff will be excluded.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Redandbluenights
6 hours ago, choralcrusader8613 said:

Um...wtsf. This is bizzare. Plus the tweet makes only some sense. Was she previously catfished, or is it currently happening, or what?

 

I've seen every episode, if anyone has Catfish questions.

  • Upvote 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
JenniferJuniper
Just now, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Per the court documents Smuggar has submitted over 100 pages of alibi documents to her counsel along with photos and videos.

Wonder if the Pecan Thief has filed an affidavit on Josley's behalf?  Oh, Smugs would never be able to pay that one off.

As for the extension, one was granted just before Josh filed a motion to dismiss (which was denied as being moot as the court had just granted the extra time, so it really wasn't the "victory against Josh" that the tabloids claimed).

The judge granted the time as a courtesy to staffing problems claimed by Dillon's counsel but went on to say, "Having elected to seek recovery in this District, Plaintiff cannot credibly claim she is unable to move forward on her case in accordance with our Orders because she lives in California". 

Josh's attorney then filed this certificate last week.  (this appears to be the second one filed; Court must have found fault with the first).

http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/duggar-docs.pdf

She did hand over some material to Josh's attorney who claimed the material was inadequate.

The judge agreed her disclosures were incomplete and the Court ordered last week that Dillon needs to comply immediately and provide her medical records and proof of lost earnings. 

See page 9 here (the other pages are worth reading as well.  Paging slowly for me for some reason.)

*Note also that Josh's attorney has requested the trial date be moved up to April.

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

I think that's the last word we have so far.  Judge seems like a no-nonsense fellow.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

Wonder if the Pecan Thief has filed an affidavit on Josley's behalf?

That could be 99 pages of his submitted documentation right there.  

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Whoosh said:

According to the court documents I read, Dillon's attorney requested an extension due to his own scheduling conflicts and also the fact that his assistant was hospitalized and therefore (presumably) not able to complete tasks assigned to her in a timely fashion. I did not see one single thing in the court documents that stated or implied that Dillon herself was in any way responsible for the delay (outside of the fact that her physical location made it hard for her attorney to get things done - again, nothing about Dillon really).  That article seems to imply that people should see Dillon's various activities as proof that she has time on her hands and therefore the request for a delay was somehow bullshit.  I, personally, think that is a flat out absurd conclusion to draw based on what I saw in the court documents.  

I agree that Danica's attorney has taken personal responsibility for his extension requests and has not blamed Danica or her other activities. But Josh's attorney, on the other hand, used his first motion to compel disclosures as a chance to strongly imply, if not outright state, that Danica's failure to comply with initial discovery deadlines was due to her busy lifestyle. For example, this is footnote 1 of Document 10-1, filed Jan. 18:

  • It appears that in the days since her Complaint was filed, Plaintiff has found the time to bowl at Admiral Robinson Recreation Center in San Diego, California, ride a helicopter in Kauai, Hawaii, attend a San Diego Chargers game and to publicize photographs of herself undertaking those activities on Instagram using the handle “@danicadillonxxx,” but she has not even been able to provide to Defendant the alleged text exchanges and emails between them which she claims to possess, not to mention her tax returns, lost wage information or medical records.

It's posted at http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/josh-duggar-docs.pdf

I'm not saying it's reasonable or appropriate for folks to fault Danica personally for her attorney's delay in producing documents (especially since, as you pointed out, medical or tax records may not be exclusively under Danica's control), but I don't find it surprising that various media sources parroted the narrative provided by Josh's attorney.

ETA - "the last word we have so far," @JenniferJuniper, is that the magistrate judge scheduled a settlement conference for March 31. (That's Document 20, filed Friday, which I haven't yet seen reported in any other media outlet.) Of course, the mere scheduling of a settlement conference doesn't mean settlement negotiations are underway or that settlement is likely. One of the first lines in the order is that the parties are expected to notify the court "if settlement is not a real possibility."

Edited by diplomat
a bit more info
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, diplomat said:

I agree that Danica's attorney has taken personal responsibility for his extension requests and has not blamed Danica or her other activities. But Josh's attorney, on the other hand, used his first motion to compel disclosures as a chance to strongly imply, if not outright state, that Danica's failure to comply with initial discovery deadlines was due to her busy lifestyle. For example, this is footnote 1 of Document 10-1, filed Jan. 18:

  • It appears that in the days since her Complaint was filed, Plaintiff has found the time to bowl at Admiral Robinson Recreation Center in San Diego, California, ride a helicopter in Kauai, Hawaii, attend a San Diego Chargers game and to publicize photographs of herself undertaking those activities on Instagram using the handle “@danicadillonxxx,” but she has not even been able to provide to Defendant the alleged text exchanges and emails between them which she claims to possess, not to mention her tax returns, lost wage information or medical records.

It's posted at http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/josh-duggar-docs.pdf

I'm not saying it's reasonable or appropriate for folks to fault Danica personally for her attorney's delay in producing documents (especially since, as you pointed out, medical or tax records may not be exclusively under Danica's control), but I don't find it surprising that various media sources parroted the narrative provided by Josh's attorney.

I totally agree with you.  Duggar and his attorney have a JOB and that is to trash anything and everything Dillon and her attorney say or do that might lead people to conclude there is an ounce of validity to her claims.  That is what defendants do if they are unwilling to settle or stipulate to facts and that is what Duggar's attorney is being paid to do.  Extending that to bashing the integrity or work ethic or whatever of Dillon's attorney - that is a line typically not crossed.  If Dillon's attorney IS doing shady things, it should be mentioned.  If he ISN'T, spewing wild accusation about the behavior of a fellow member of the bar is not a standard practice in order to discount the story of your opponent.  It happens of course, but to a limited extent.

I doubt the documents submitted on this issue are entirely false and spun from whole cloth by Duggar's attorney, but I sincerely doubt it is entirely true either.  The truth is likely somewhere in the middle and we just don't know which attorney is verging on if not crossing over into inappropriate territory.  We just don't know.

The media can and will run with whatever they think will bring in the largest audience and make them the most money.  I expect something different from the comments on FJ.  Perhaps I expect too much.

Edited by Whoosh
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

Duggar and his attorney have a JOB and that is to trash anything and everything Dillon and her attorney say or do that might lead people to conclude there is an ounce of validity to her claims.  That is what defendants do if they are unwilling to settle or stipulate to facts and that is what Duggar's attorney is being paid to do.  Extending that to bashing the integrity or work ethic or whatever of Dillon's attorney - that is a line typically not crossed.  If Dillon's attorney IS doing shady things, it should be mentioned.  If he ISN'T, spewing wild accusation about the behavior of a fellow member of the bar is not a standard practice in order to discount the story of your opponent.  It happens of course, but to a limited extent.

I doubt the documents submitted on this issue are entirely false and spun from whole cloth by Duggar's attorney, but I sincerely doubt it is entirely true either.  The truth is likely somewhere in the middle and we just don't know which attorney is verging on if not crossing over into inappropriate territory.  We just don't know.

I couldn't have said any of this better. As in most lawsuits, the truth is likely somewhere in the middle, and we would do well to reserve judgment until more information is available.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
JenniferJuniper
1 minute ago, diplomat said:

I agree that Danica's attorney has taken personal responsibility for his extension requests and has not blamed Danica or her other activities. But Josh's attorney, on the other hand, used his first motion to compel disclosures as a chance to strongly imply, if not outright state, that Danica's failure to comply with initial discovery deadlines was due to her busy lifestyle. For example, this is footnote 1 of Document 10-1, filed Jan. 18:

  • It appears that in the days since her Complaint was filed, Plaintiff has found the time to bowl at Admiral Robinson Recreation Center in San Diego, California, ride a helicopter in Kauai, Hawaii, attend a San Diego Chargers game and to publicize photographs of herself undertaking those activities on Instagram using the handle “@danicadillonxxx,” but she has not even been able to provide to Defendant the alleged text exchanges and emails between them which she claims to possess, not to mention her tax returns, lost wage information or medical records.

It's posted at http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/josh-duggar-docs.pdf

I'm not saying it's reasonable or appropriate for folks to fault Danica personally for her attorney's delay in producing documents (especially since, as you pointed out, medical or tax records may not be exclusively under Danica's control), but I don't find it surprising that various media sources parroted the narrative provided by Josh's attorney.

Given the judge's comment about living in California not being an excuse I  don't think we have seen the explanation he was reacting to.  If she isn't fully cooperating with her counsel,  it's possible he threw her under the bus. Very subtly, of course. Pure speculation as we're missing something here.  In any event, it doesn't appear he is working too hard on this.

I think the list of activities is posturing more than anything. We have all of your social media material and we will use it against you every chance we get. Any sane attorney would have told her to shut all  of that down before filing. Any client serious about her case would have taken a sane attorney's advice.  So I think there is probably some sort of disconnect here. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

No person involved in a contentious legal battle, guilty or innocent, wrong or right, should be prancing around posting anything even remotely questionable on the internet.  In fact, any attorney will tell their client to get OFF social media.  Is that fair if you are an accident victim waiting for a decision on an insurance claim?  I don't think so.  Is it fair if you are an alleged victim of a sexual assault who is attempting to gain media attention as a result of the alleged assault?  May or may not be fair - I don't really know and I don't really care - she is incredibly stupid to be doing what she is doing unless her main goal is something other than winning this case at trial.  As I said earlier, she likely has three competing goals here whether she was actually assaulted or not.  How she prioritizes them isn't my business, but if I were her attorney I would be either placing her on an ankle monitor and cutting her internet access, drinking heavily, or both.  Again, the three possible and somewhat competing outcomes I see Dillon as possibly working towards here:

  • Recovering in court for damages that resulted from the alleged assault
  • Exposing Josh's alleged behavior to all the world
  • Gaining fame and notoriety

*I mentioned this long, long ago - but the early comments from Dillon's attorney lead me to believe that the second goal may be something he has a special interest in.  I can't be sure at all of course.  He is most likely being PAID to help her accomplish the first goal I would think.

Edited by Whoosh
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
halcionne
4 hours ago, JenniferJuniper said:

As for being unable to dance, it's no wonder.  She was way too busy having tons of fun.  

You're disgusting. I've had you on ignore ever since your racist fuckery against lascuba, and I only saw this comment because somebody quoted it, so don't bother replying--I won't see it. Racist, sexist, victim blamer.

  • Upvote 10
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Iokaste

I saw the original documentary "Catfish", which was ok. The show though, from what I hear, is transfobic, misogynistics and staged. 

Now of to figure out what all of this has to do with Josh Duggar....

Edited by Iokaste
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
JenniferJuniper
5 hours ago, halcionne said:

You're disgusting. I've had you on ignore ever since your racist fuckery against lascuba, and I only saw this comment because somebody quoted it, so don't bother replying--I won't see it. Racist, sexist, victim blamer.

Read the twitter feed before you spew idiotic nonsense, why don't you?  

Ah, yes, you aren't reading my posts, so it's just hit and run, as usual, with you.

You probably aren't reading any salient posts out here, so I'll forgive your cluelessness regarding the  Stamm-Northup vs. Duggar case.  But your lies about me?  Maybe I should sue your for libel?   Clean up your social media quick!    :my_biggrin:

  • Downvote 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
ShepherdontheRock
2 hours ago, Iokaste said:

I saw the original documentary "Catfish", which was ok. The show though, from what I hear, is transfobic, misogynistics and staged. 

Now of to figure out what all of this has to do with Josh Duggar....

Maybe he was going by "Joe Smithson." And he was using fake pictures on his fake fb, okcupid, etc etc.

But I'm just speculating here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AmazonGrace
47 minutes ago, ShepherdontheRock said:

Maybe he was going by "Joe Smithson." And he was using fake pictures on his fake fb, okcupid, etc etc.

But I'm just speculating here.

JMO if Danica Dillon was being catfished by Josh back when he was still Joe Smithson, her lawyer would make her put the info in the lawsuit and not on MTV.

More likely the publicity around the Josh issue gained her some other perv's attention.

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Coconut Flan locked this topic
  • Coconut Flan unlocked and locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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