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

[Whoosh]

Just to clarify, I don't think it was a mistake at all.  Not at all.  I believe that the Judge, both attorneys, and possibly both clients were well aware that it was a vague statement about what was fabricated.  I believe they all knew that there were many ways to clear that up.  It seems for some reason they didn't do that and we don't know why that is.  I think if I had posted that document on Thursday saying I heard it was the agreement reached by the parties, the legal eagles of FJ would have had MANY questions and likely torn that thing to shreds.  

That said, I respect your opinion and we can certainly agree to disagree.  

And just for the record, I think the above post is quite true of some people, but it is not at all the case for myself.  I, personally, would not be surprised if these things did happen, nor would I be surprised if they didn't.  Further, if anything I am one to blame Gothardism and the parents rather than Josh.  I am one of those who gets bashed for giving the kids too much of a break and excusing their behavior.  A lawsuit such as this would not in any way effect the type of justice I think needs to happen in a family like this.  If it were all true and Josh had gone down in flames, I would have thought it grossly unfair that he was paying for the sins of his father.  I hope that makes sense.  Again, I think that you are spot on in terms of the motivations for some, just not for myself and at least several others.

[sockiemom]

IMHO they didn't clear it up her "fabrication" because the judge wants this excrement off his dang schedule. They need to reach some common ground, and the court grinding either or both of them into the dirt won't accomplish that. 

But even so, he called her a liar, liar pants on fire. With just enough ambiguity that the world can wonder if maybe she's just a tiny liar. That is no victory.

[Whoosh]

2 minutes ago, sockiemom said:

IMHO they didn't clear it up her "fabrication" because the judge wants this excrement off his dang schedule. They need to reach some common ground, and the court grinding either or both of them into the dirt won't accomplish that. 

But even so, he called her a liar, liar pants on fire. With just enough ambiguity that the world can wonder if maybe she's just a tiny liar. That is no victory.

This I agree with FWIW (and I love your avatar).

[jacduggar]

28 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

Just to clarify, I don't think it was a mistake at all.  Not at all.  I believe that the Judge, both attorneys, and possibly both clients were well aware that it was a vague statement about what was fabricated.  I believe they all knew that there were many ways to clear that up.  It seems for some reason they didn't do that and we don't know why that is.  I think if I had posted that document on Thursday saying I heard it was the agreement reached by the parties, the legal eagles of FJ would have had MANY questions and likely torn that thing to shreds.  

That said, I respect your opinion and we can certainly agree to disagree.  

And just for the record, I think the above post is quite true of some people, but it is not at all the case for myself.  I, personally, would not be surprised if these things did happen, nor would I be surprised if they didn't.  Further, if anything I am one to blame Gothardism and the parents rather than Josh.  I am one of those who gets bashed for giving the kids too much of a break and excusing their behavior.  A lawsuit such as this would not in any way effect the type of justice I think needs to happen in a family like this.  If it were all true and Josh had gone down in flames, I would have thought it grossly unfair that he was paying for the sins of his father.  I hope that makes sense.  Again, I think that you are spot on in terms of the motivations for some, just not for myself and at least several others.

I hope I wasn't coming off as accusatory. I think it's just fine most of the time to snark based on opinion about the family. I also tend to be be really sympathetic towards the kids because I really believe they are a product of their environment and Joshley is the only one who has been in the "real world" long enough to know better. I tend to think of the their "adult" children like they are pre-teens who are just discovering that they aren't an extension of their parents. 

[Whoosh]

9 minutes ago, jacduggar said:

I hope I wasn't coming off as accusatory. I think it's just fine most of the time to snark based on opinion about the family. I also tend to be be really sympathetic towards the kids because I really believe they are a product of their environment and Joshley is the only one who has been in the "real world" long enough to know better. I tend to think of the their "adult" children like they are pre-teens who are just discovering that they aren't an extension of their parents. 

Not at all.  I just wanted to explain.  I think some people are formulating their thoughts on all this based on hate or distaste for one of the two parties for sure.  If Josh had received any type of real treatment any of the numerous times he cried out for help, I would have a far easier time holding him accountable.  I know he is almost 30 or something, but it is just hard for me to do.

ETA - holding him accountable for things like AM or whatever "being unfaithful" means that is.

[halcionne]

45 minutes ago, sockiemom said:

I've spent some time in federal court, dealing with federal judges. This is between DC and NY. The judges around these parts are quite precise. I guess a judge could get into the specifics of the case, and fact-finding in their dismissal, and maybe even namecall the parties. But, really, they don't write things that way 'round here.

This is a dismissal, not a judgement.

I'm not saying must be 'cause the court said so. I know that when they "find facts" that doesn't mean they can change the fabric of reality.

I'm saying that language means something. To think it was a mistake, or the judge really meant he hates rape victims (?), or meant she is a tiny liar, is naive. 

This is a victory for the defendent, as much as is possible in our "justice" system. So, Duggar didn't want to drag out surveilance tapes of his getting down at the tittie bar or whatever. So, she didn't have to pay his attorney fees. That would take more money, more filing, more fighting, for what? 

Everyone already thinks he's a jackass. Neither of them are a shining example of morality. What would he be gaining? 

I'm not seeing the connection to rape culture, which does exist, I believe.

I've seen courts do a lot more than this as far as revictimizing victims, and promoting rape culture. <cough~Cosby~cough> 

 

Just for the record, I wasn't accusing this particular judge of misogyny; I was suggesting that rape culture could be a factor here, since this is the United States and we as a society are constantly marinating in it. I believe it informs many, actions of many Americans, whether they know it or not. You were asking why a judge might dismiss a case in this way, or use such vague verbiage, or something along those lines, and I absolutely feel like rape culture could be at play. It's always at play. 

I admit that I lost interest in this topic a while ago, and I haven't been able to follow the legal discussion. I have some frequent posters on ignore, which means I sometimes miss significant bits of the thread. So I've pretty much stopped posting here, but I did want to mention that there are some deeply ingrained patterns of thinking that might have influenced the way this turned out.

I think it's a bit naive not to acknowledge that people, including judges, may be flawed or biased; it's human nature. Also misogyny in the US is pervasive and frequently unconscious. I realize the court has a duty to set aside its prejudices and remain unbiased, and I hope this court has done that. Again, I'm not accusing this judge of anything; I just think it's worth remembering that we live in a world where rape victims are dismissed, ignored, blamed, etc more often than not. This still happens even in the most cut and dried, nice-girl-gets-attacked-by-violent-stranger-in-broad-daylight cases. When the accuser is a sex worker, it's only more likely that her case may not be fairly and properly adjudicated.

I feel like the more words I type, the less coherent I am.  I'm with the new member (sorry I don't remember their username) who said Stamm-Northrup may have had to admit to lying about one aspect, but she could still be telling the truth about the rest of it. I guess we'll never know, and I can accept the statement the judge issued, but I'm not going to shit all over this woman for being a lying liar who lies. That's just me. 

[diplomat]

3 hours ago, Whoosh said:

I believe that the Judge, both attorneys, and possibly both clients were well aware that it was a vague statement about what was fabricated.  I believe they all knew that there were many ways to clear that up.  It seems for some reason they didn't do that and we don't know why that is.

By now, I think everyone agrees that the stipulation of dismissal was vaguely worded. But I don't think it's fair to pin any of that on the judge. (Not that I think you're necessarily doing so, @Whoosh, but I've seen a few comments here from various folks who seem to think the judge should have done more.) The parties negotiated and signed an agreement to dismiss the case with prejudice, so the judge agreed to dismiss the case based on that agreement. Why didn't the judge make them write something less ambiguous? @sockiemom called it:  

2 hours ago, sockiemom said:

they didn't clear it up her "fabrication" because the judge wants this excrement off his dang schedule. They need to reach some common ground, and the court grinding either or both of them into the dirt won't accomplish that. 

A judge has no independent obligation to eliminate ambiguity or discover "truth." His job is to resolve disputes and fairly adjudicate the cases presented to him based on the law; once both parties decided they wanted the case to go away, there was no ongoing dispute about how the case should be resolved. In other words, dismissal was inevitable.

[gustava]

4 hours ago, Bad Wolf said:

@JenniferJuniper every time I see your name, that song runs through my head for the rest of the day. 

Which is why I sometimes hate her...   

10 hours ago, Whoosh said:

Dillon clearly didn't win here, but Duggar didn't get an agreement that requires Dillon to pay his attorney's fees and make a public retraction on twitter either.  Those were the demands he made if he was going to agree to a dismissal.  Didn't happen.  Not at all.  That leaves doubt as to what actually did happen.  Dillon didn't prevail, but Duggar was not found to be "innocent" or not liable.  The case was simply dropped and a very vague agreement was made public.  

I'm not an attorney so I don't understand the point you're making.  Could you give me an example?

 

 

 

 

 

[gustava]

3 hours ago, Whoosh said:

 Further, if anything I am one to blame Gothardism and the parents rather than Josh.

I'm iffy on this.  At what point does someone have to stand on his/her own two feet?  I have a cousin who blames her family for everything: she's 60, for god's sake.  My general position is that after 30, you deal with things and stop blaming others.  Perhaps with fundies, I'd raise the age, although I note that several Westboro Phelps' were younger.

[Whoosh]

1 hour ago, gustava said:

Which is why I sometimes hate her...   

I'm not an attorney so I don't understand the point you're making.  Could you give me an example? 

 

 

 

 

 

I will give it my best shot and hopefully some of the others will correct the errors I am sure I will make on this one.  A clear win for Dillon in my mind would be something like Duggar admitting to the alleged wrongs and agreeing to offer relief in the form of damages for the harms she suffered (i.e. cash money) OR actually prevailing in court.  In his Answer, Duggar had denied everything and asked for attorney's fees, court costs and whatever else the judge thought might be fair.  A clear win in my mind would be if the case had been dismissed on summary judgment (meaning there was some inherent flaw in the case or her ability to provide evidence to prove her claims) or in a win after the finder of fact had considered all of the evidence or a clear and well stated retraction of each and every claim made by Dillon in her complaint.

What actually happened is that Dillon tried to get Duggar to agree to dismiss the case without prejudice (meaning that she would be able to refile the charges at a later date and no one is deciding or admitting anything).  Duggar said "NO WAY!  The only way I will allow you to dismiss is if you pay my attorney's fees, agree to never file this in court ever again, and go on social media and admit it was all a pack of lies!"  So, Dillon submitted a document asking the Judge to allow her to dismiss the case with prejudice despite Duggar's clear objection to any such action.  She clearly stated in that document that she would NOT dismiss unless it was without prejudice (allowing her to refile in the future).

In the end, they both caved on those blustery demands (which is frequently expected).  Dillon did indeed wind up agreeing to dismiss with prejudice and to never file again.  She further agreed to pay her own fees and to attach the Agreement when she submitted the Stipulation for Dismissal to the court.  While this part is not in the Stipulation, it is clear that Duggar did indeed agree to dismiss without any type of public apology or demand for attorney's fees (and interestingly to me, nothing that restricts Dillon's future behavior outside of actions involving the court).  

Further, there is that completely bizarre and vague fourth paragraph.  I will do my best to break it down and give my own thoughts:

"In consideration of the above, Duggar agrees to sign, on or before February 5, 2016, a Rule 41 Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, foregoing his right to move for summary judgment in this matter and attaching exhibits which the parties agree would conclusively prove that Northup’s claims are fabricated;"

• In consideration of the above - so, what is above is that Dillon agrees to dismiss without prejudice, attach the agreement to that dismissal, and pay her own stuff.  What those first five words mean is basically "since Dillon made those 3 concessions or agreed to do those 3 things she didn't necessarily want to do, in consideration of that or in exchange for that Duggar agrees to do the following"
• Duggar agrees to sign, on or before February 5, 2016, a Rule 41 Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice - pretty straight forward.  Since Dillon is doing 1, 2 and 3, Duggar will sign the Stipulation on the 5th.
• foregoing his right to move for summary judgment in this matter and attaching exhibits - so, also since Dillon is doing 1, 2, and 3, Duggar is saying explicitly that no matter what happens, if Dillon does indeed do 1, 2 and 3, he will not move for summary judgment and that he had planned to attach some exhibits to that motion which he therefore won't be attaching since there won't be any motion.  Assuming that the parties figured the judge would approve the Rule 41 dismissal they were both agreeing to, this phrase seems somewhat irrelevant (you can't move for summary judgment on a case that has been dismissed).  Nonetheless, in my opinion Duggar wanted it to be clear to all the world that he had planned to move for summary judgment and that he had planned to attach some exhibit to that motion and he was agreeing he would not do those things.
• which the parties agree would conclusively prove that Northup’s claims are fabricated - This is saying that Dillon and Duggar both agree that "the exhibit" conclusively or clearly and definitively proves that... something was fabricated by Dillon.  This is where it is just absurdly vague.  In Duggar's ideal world, the "something" would be "every single thing Dillon said about Duggar other than his name, age and address".  Or it would clearly say "they never met and everything that would require some type of meeting is fabricated".  Or something.  Clearly it doesn't say that.  It says "her claims" were fabricated - but what does that mean?  What was the intent of the parties who agreed to this?

Dillon's initial Complaint contained 15 paragraphs.  One could read that last part of paragraph 4 to mean that Dillon is agreeing that Duggar's exhibit would prove each and every thing Dillon said in those 15 paragraphs was fabricated.  However, some of the information is things like their names, ages, addresses, where Dillon works and when she danced at particular clubs, etc.  I can't imagine anyone would say that either Dillon or Duggar is saying the exhibit would prove that type of information was fabricated by Dillon.  So it seems pretty clear that it doesn't refer to everything in the complaint.  This was clearly not the intent of the statement.

So, what does it apply to?  One could say "everything but the obvious", but in my opinion, that doesn't really make a lot of sense since what might be obvious to one person might not be obvious to another person.  So maybe someone would think it applied to Dillon's address, but not Duggar's, but that really doesn't make sense.  So what are "claims"?  It is clear as mud.  It could be interpreted by some to mean that Dillon fabricated everything from Duggar's presence at the club on.  Alternatively, it could be interpreted to mean that all of the events before the unlawful behavior are simply background factual information and the "claims" are 1) the alleged unlawful acts, 2) the alleged harms that resulted, etc.  I am trying to give examples of what it might mean, but don't hold me to them!  My point is simply that it is not at all clear exactly what the parties agreed is conclusively proven to have been fabricated by this exhibit.  They agreed something is, but they did not explicitly and clearly detail what and it isn't at all clear that the intent of both parties can be known given the overall context.

While that sounds like a lot of mumbo-jumbo, attorneys know well the importance of being sufficiently detailed and specific such that the opposing party can not spin or misinterpret their words to be used against them.  Both attorneys knew or should have know that paragraph 4 of that agreement was a bunch of hooey and needed to be clarified.  So why is it written that way?  

It seems clear to me that Dillon might have refused to sign anything more specific, but why did Duggar agree to this vague wording?  I think the majority opinion is that Duggar has proof he was not in PA at the alleged times and he just wanted done with the nonsense or maybe he has something fairly inconsequential or unrelated to the case that he didn't want made public or maybe he didn't want to spend any more money etc.  That seems likely.  Alternatively, it could be that Duggar's proof clearly demonstrates that he was there in PA with Dillon and that they did enjoy some sweet fellowship but it was consensual.  That does seem less likely, but unless Duggar ever discloses the proof the parties have agreed he has, we won't know exactly what claims they agreed were fabricated by Dillon.  We can think we know and we can even be pretty dang sure we know, but the way the parties agreed to write that paragraph, there is no actual way of knowing for sure.  I gave what I believe are two of the more seemingly likely reasons for the vagueness, but we really just have no idea (though many people will insist it is clearly the first of my hypotheticals and that does seem likely).

Why I think this matters is this - Dillon should not be said to have agreed to or admitted something she didn't actually explicitly agree to or admit.  I don't say that really to stick up for Dillon necessarily.  Any future alleged victim (or really anyone at all) should feel comfortable and secure in signing a legal document with the understanding that she will be held to what is actually stated in the document she signed, not to what people might possibly make up in their heads or hypothesize the document she signed might possibly mean but doesn't actually say.

Seriously, a class of kindergarteners could write a paragraph that was more clear and specific.  My CAT could write something better.  And I don't have a cat.

1 hour ago, gustava said:

I'm iffy on this.  At what point does someone have to stand on his/her own two feet?  I have a cousin who blames her family for everything: she's 60, for god's sake.  My general position is that after 30, you deal with things and stop blaming others.  Perhaps with fundies, I'd raise the age, although I note that several Westboro Phelps' were younger.

I will never defend my stance on this and I actually fight with myself about it LOL.  In my mind it is a very tough issue.  

[sockiemom]

Wouldn't the "claims" be legal claims, as opposed to just any old claim? The claim being the facts that create a judicially enforceable action. Not she claimed she was the best dancer in the place, she claimed she lived on West St.

The "claim" is what she thought might entitle her to $$$ under the law. 

Duggar has evidence which proves her claim (that something happened that legally entitled her to money) was fabricated.

Fabricated is sorta a legal thing, too.

It doesn't just mean "pants on fire." It means something done with the intention to mislead the court.

Why am I the only one who sees no ambiguity here whatsoever? 

 

 

 

 

[Whoosh]

8 minutes ago, sockiemom said:

Wouldn't the "claims" be legal claims, as opposed to just any old claim? The claim being the facts that create a judicially enforceable action. Not she claimed she was the best dancer in the place, she claimed she lived on West St.

The "claim" is what she thought might entitle her to $$$ under the law. 

Duggar has evidence which proves her claim (that something happened that legally entitled her to money) was fabricated.

Fabricated is sorta a legal thing, too.

It doesn't just mean "pants on fire." It means something done with the intention to mislead the court.

Why am I the only one who sees no ambiguity here whatsoever? 

 

 

 

 

That is my best understanding - so then the "claims" would be about battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress and any harms that resulted and requests for relief, not about whether or not Duggar was at the club, whether or not they had rough sex, etc.  To me it does seem clear that that is what "claims" means - so then this isn't proof at all that they didn't have consensual rough sex on the days in question.  That is my best thinking on that anyway.  Some people clearly take it to mean something else, so I hedged my bets there.

ETA - I also do think that while that is the best interpretation, Dillon could try to argue that the "claims" that were fabricated were loss of work or medical expenses and not the unlawful acts themselves.  I don't think she would get far with that, though.

[Whoosh]

I should have added - anyone who actually has a chance to see the exhibits that conclusively prove the "claims" are fabricated should know right away exactly what that was intended to mean.  So, if the exhibit is something like evidence that he was not in PA at those times, it would be all of it.  If the exhibit is something like evidence that she never went to a doctor and/or never lost any business opportunities, it would seem to possibly mean something else if one were interpreting it within the framework and context in which the statement was made.

[sockiemom]

Claims are the collection of facts that create a legal action. 

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a harm caused. Even if you are colloquially "claiming" that.

The claim is he beat her. The harm is emotional distress. The legally enforcable action is intentionally causing emotional distress - the statute says you can't do that.

The remedy is how much $$ the judge gives you, if he believes your claim, and you can demonstrate or prove the harm caused, and the remedy should be what specific monetary amounts you can prove you lost (actual damages), and what the judge might think you deserve for your pain, or marred reputation, or egegious behavior by the defendent that judge feels you should be punished for (punitive).

This is the thread of boring people arguing boring points into the ground until everyone wants to die. Haha

[Whoosh]

51 minutes ago, sockiemom said:

Claims are the collection of facts that create a legal action. 

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a harm caused. Even if you are colloquially "claiming" that.

The claim is he beat her. The harm is emotional distress. The legally enforcable action is intentionally causing emotional distress - the statute says you can't do that.

The remedy is how much $$ the judge gives you, if he believes your claim, and you can demonstrate or prove the harm caused, and the remedy should be what specific monetary amounts you can prove you lost (actual damages), and what the judge might think you deserve for your pain, or marred reputation, or egegious behavior by the defendent that judge feels you should be punished for (punitive).

This is the thread of boring people arguing boring points into the ground until everyone wants to die. Haha

That all makes sense to me and I agree with that last statement more than you know.  Many people here and elsewhere are arguing that the paragraph means that they never met, never had sex, etc.  I really am trying to give the broadest possible interpretations for what is said in the paragraph, but I agree with you that what you are saying does seem to me to be the best possible interpretation.  You also make a "claim" for damages, based on the harm caused by an unlawful act, etc.

ETA - @sockiemom, I also think that intentional infliction of emotional distress is actually a separate claim.  It is an unlawful act, not a harm.  A person does not need to actually touch you to inflict intentional infliction of emotional distress.  In my understanding it is more similar to assault (apprehension etc).

[MarblesMom]

On 2/6/2016 at 0:11 AM, Chelio93 said:

If I haven't mentioned, I really love following along with this topic. The way the law works and changes with each state and speciality, is fascinating to me.  I really enjoy this topic. Please don't let disagreements and arguments ,get in the way.  I want to learn.  I have had some questions that i am frankly scared to ask. 

I want you to feel safe to ask questions here.... we might have the answers, or we might wander down a rabbit hole.   But all posts are welcome, and we all have questions.   Proceed  

[Whoosh]

So if we can all agree that the "claims" discussed in the Agreement are legal claims and not anything else, I think I can make my point clearly.  As we have discussed, the Plaintiff needs to allege and then later prove all the elements of a given tort in order to successfully state/prove a claim.  In this particular lawsuit, Dillon has made allegations that two intentional torts were committed for which she was seeking to recover damages - 1) Battery and 2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.  

As an example of why the agreement is unclear, take battery.  In legal lingo, in order to state/prove a "claim" upon which relief can be granted for Battery, Dillon would need to provide enough facts/evidence to show that 1) the Defendant (Duggar) 2) acting with intent 3) made nonconsensual contact with Dillon 4) which caused harm (actual injuries, not limited to physical harm).  If she is unable to do so for any one of the elements, her claim of Battery fails.  This is the meaning of the word "claims" that seems most appropriate to me when trying to understand this Agreement.

The Agreement states that Duggar was going to submit "exhibits which the parties agree would conclusively prove that [Dillon’s] claims are fabricated".  It seems that a lot of people are assuming that that means Dillon fabricated the entire thing.  Another way of looking at it is that Duggar's exhibits might only show that one element is fabricated, thus proving the entire basis for the claim of Battery is fabricated.

If the exhibits in question show that Duggar was not in that place at that time, it would be clear that all the elements of the Battery claim would have been fabricated by Dillon (in terms of a claim against Duggar at least).  On the other hand, the exhibits in question might show something else entirely.  So, if the exhibits in question show that Dillon fabricated her alleged harms, that also seems to prove that Dillon's claim of Battery was fabricated even if Duggar was there and, acting with intent, made nonconsensual contact with Dillon.  Similarly, if the exhibits in question show that the contact happened and caused harm but was consensual, that would seem to prove that the claim of Battery was fabricated by Dillon.  So, it is my opinion that we don't really know what that fourth paragraph is saying at all.  Dillon did admit that she lied, but we don't know what it is she admitted to lying about.

Some people are assuming that the exhibits in question show that Duggar was not in that place at that time, but it doesn't say that in the actual signed court document at all.  So while it seems likely that that may be the basis for the statements in the Agreement, I don't think we can say for certain that Dillon admitted anything but what it actually says in the document she signed.  If the document was supposed to prove exactly what Dillon fabricated, they should have included language that explicitly stated exactly what that was.

All that said, intention is important when interpreting the meaning of any legal document.  Dillon and Duggar both know exactly what those exhibits are and therefore would know exactly what that paragraph means and exactly what she has admitted to lying about.  For some reason, they both signed and agreed to make public a document that doesn't share that information with the rest of us.

I am sure others will have different opinions on some of this.  That is my read of the document given what I know of the law.

[vienna]

After posing that her dropping the case doesn't mean that it was all a lie, Danica is now posting a picture of her new car. To me and tabloid articles it is a strong indication that she got money either from Josh or TLC.

[usedtobenice]

Liar liar g-string on fire. She is a piece of shit to lie about sexual assault. I find Josh disgusting because of the molestations. What he he did is indefensible. Ashley Madison, meh. People cheat everyday. The only notable issue with Josh is that he is such a hypocrite in this situation.

She has added to rape culture. She is a bad person. No, that has nothing to do with her being a sex worker. It has everything to do with her being a lying, opportunist!

[ksgranola1]

Quote

 

So if DD admitted to lying about the whole thing, isn't that fraud? She took up all the courts' time  & brought false claims.

[gustava]

WHOOSH and others (I can't do the @ thingy).

I finally got the gist of the argument and very much appreciate the time and effort you all took to explain things.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

People can believe what they want and post what they want.

Personally I just do not understand the extreme amount of hand wringing and bending over backwards to make sure everyone is clear that we don't know every detail.  That's a given.  Everyone here has access to the exact same amount of detail and no one participating in this thread is an expert on this case - because no one here was involved.  

If people want to leave open the possibility that she was actually a victim and that her stipulating that she fabricated the claims is totally open to interpretation regarding which claims, instead of the logical conclusion that it's a reference to the claims in this lawsuit that she brought against him then that is is certainly one's right to do so.

I find the narrative that reads as if there is a ridiculously strong desire to want her to have been the victim of an assault really disconcerting.  And IMO the mental gymnastics to leave open the possibility that this horrific thing happened to her, despite her own agreement that the claims were fabricated, is baffling to me.

I also think this mindset, which seems well intentioned, is a huge slap in the face to the millions of legitimate victims of sexual assault.  Somewhere there is a sexual assault happening as I type this.  There is another one happening as you read this - every one of you, no matter when you read it.   To extend the benefit of the doubt to people who admit their accusations are false is to put them under the same umbrella of protection and support we (as a society) should be extending to victims.  As someone who knows and loves someone who was once a rape victim I personally think it's unconscionable.

I also think it's everyone's right to feel that way however they feel.  I'm not the moral arbitrator; I'm an individual with an opinion like everyone else.

This isn't about Smuggar for me.  Smuggar molested children.  If there were some way he could be held accountable in the courts for that I wouldn't bat an eye if he were sentenced to have his dick slammed repeatedly in a car door.  

And the inference a few pages back about what this thread and some of our responses say about FJ as a whole pisses me off.  Of course it does - every thread someone reads tells you what the people posting felt about that topic.  But the implication that we're going to be off-putting for people with feminist sensibilities reads as if we've got some knee jerk 'anti-women/rape is nbd' responses and that is a complete mischaracterization.  

Not choosing to apply blind acceptance to an accusation in light of fact to the contrary does not make one anti-woman or pro-rape.  

I love women - I happen to be one.  And as absurd as it is to have to say I'll go on the record as being adamantly, passionately anti-rape.  

I'm just pissed at myself for coming back to this thread.  

 

 

[Artemesia]

6 hours ago, vienna said:

After posing that her dropping the case doesn't mean that it was all a lie, Danica is now posting a picture of her new car. To me and tabloid articles it is a strong indication that she got money either from Josh or TLC.

Or that she's trying to imply that some under the table deal was made, which would allow her to save face.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just now, Artemesia said:

Or that she's trying to imply that some under the table deal was made, which would allow her to save face.

Or she cashed her Hustler check before they could pull the article, or made another movie and the payment cleared, or her grandmother died and left her some blue chip which she cashed in, or like most people she bought a new car because she wanted/needed one and none of the above applied.

I just googled (don't ask why) and her link shows a gofundme address so who knows.  

This is kind of speculation is above my pay grade since all I know these days about getting new cars is about down payments and financing.  

 

[Whoosh]

I am just going to explain again that my concern is really about all victims and not about this particular case.  Victims get revictimized by the system all the time.  Is that happening here?  I have no idea, but I know what that document actually says and more important I know what it DOESN'T say. I am not doing even a little bit of hand-wringing outside of what I do over the state of our world and country on a general and ongoing basis 

People certainly can think and post whatever they want and some people will always find different lines of thinking disconcerting.  As I have said, I find certain lines of thinking disconcerting myself.  Aggressively attacking someone as guilty without fairly solid proof is one of them.  Accusing her of doing things she didn't do or saying things she didn't say or signing things she didn't sign harms all victims in MY opinion.  If people don't want to understand how the law actually works and what that Agreement and other documents submitted to the court actually mean, they probably shouldn't read my posts.  If they are upset by the case, perhaps a break would might help.  

It isn't personal.  I am explaining things in both directions - if someone thinks that Duggar's Answer is proof he admitted to sleeping with Dillon, I explain why it doesn't actually work that way.  People shouldn't be held accountable for things they didn't say or do in MY opinion and I am not going to stop speaking MY opinion.  I am not going to let hostility towards different views silence voices and turn the thread into an anti-victim/anti-Dillon echo chamber that misrepresents what is being said and done and turns everything that happens against a potential victim.  I have, however, abandoned my announced plan to respond to aggressive and baseless statements with aggressive replies.  I am back to my standard and usual response style.

That said, I am giving it my best shot at explaining, but it is just my best shot and everyone is wrong at times including myself.