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

[QuiverDance]

On 2/6/2016 at 7:46 PM, Chickenbutt said:

My bad....she is right....dropping the case does not mean she is a big ole liarhead.

But, if Josh had proof he was not there, then who was he unfaithful with? Inquiring minds want to know...lol.

I really have no opinion on who is the liarhead, my mind is just wandering about who the other person could be IF  DD is lying.

IMO, if Josh had conclusive and irrefutable proof he was not in PA and had never crossed DD's path, the proof would have been presented.  If money has changed hands, and I strongly suspect it has, a confidentiality agreement could be drafted to skirt the issue of the non-inducement stipulations in the dismissal, stating that payment was for an agreement not to discuss or disclose xxx and not for the dismissal of the lawsuit yyy.  These documents were drafted for a public audience, and the fact that they are even remotely open to interpretation telegraphs to me that they cannot be taken as "proof" that there was no merit to the underlying lawsuit.  The fact is, the public will never know the truth, and the parties can now refuse to comment on it further.  Maybe her pants are on fire, maybe his pants are on fire.  We will never know, and all anyone can do is speculate.  

[JenniferJuniper]

32 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

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 anyone'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.   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 all victims and 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 - 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.  

 

 

This is a seriously awesome, on-point post.  There is nothing more to say, and I shall personally endeavor to never give Miss Danica Dillon another moment's thought. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

21 minutes ago, QuiverDance said:

IMO, if Josh had conclusive and irrefutable proof he was not in PA and had never crossed DD's path, the proof would have been presented.  If money has changed hands, and I strongly suspect it has, a confidentiality agreement could be drafted to skirt the issue of the non-inducement stipulations in the dismissal, stating that payment was for an agreement not to discuss or disclose xxx and not for the dismissal of the lawsuit yyy.  These documents were drafted for a public audience, and the fact that they are even remotely open to interpretation telegraphs to me that they cannot be taken as "proof" that there was no merit to the underlying lawsuit.  The fact is, the public will never know the truth, and the parties can now refuse to comment on it further.  Maybe her pants are on fire, maybe his pants are on fire.  We will never know, and all anyone can do is speculate.  

What are you basing this on?  ITA all any outside observer can do is speculate, but I think a fairly plausible reason to not go public with the specifics is if he were indeed at Big Sandy.  IBLP/ATI might not appreciate being his public alibi when they are dealing with their own sexual scandal.  

I'm thinking those people know a thing or two about putting pressure on their members.

That's just one reason that sprang to mind.  I'm sure there are others.

There is nothing wrong IMO with speculating, even strongly suspecting as you do in your next sentence - but I just wanted to respond to what looked like a statement of fact when it's just speculation as well.  

[gustava]

I want to clarify that my request to Whoosh was not so that I can ride the ISB.  Rather, I have an intellectual curiosity about the legal issues, and Whoosh and others explained those issues to me.

As for who did what and when:  I said from the get go that this case was going nowhere.  I didn't need to drive the ISB to reach that conclusion early on.

Might we please stop berating those who are explaining the legal issues?

[Whoosh]

Just to restate what is obvious to ME, Duggar didn't have to actually show his evidence in order to avoid the present situation.  They could have worded the Agreement to say that he had conclusive proof "that the two never met and Dillon fabricated all her claims about Duggar".  They DIDN'T write that and the wording in the document isn't a "mistake" or an "oversight" unless these are the two worst and stupidest attorneys ever in the history of mankind.  The document says what it says and THAT is what Dillon has admitted to.  Nothing more.  That doesn't mean she didn't make the whole thing up, but that document is not AT ALL proof that she did.  Not at all.

[QuiverDance]

4 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

What are you basing this on?  ITA all any outside observer can do is speculate, but I think a fairly plausible reason to not go public with the specifics is if he were indeed at Big Sandy.  IBLP/ATI might not appreciate being his public alibi when they are dealing with their own sexual scandal.  

I'm thinking those people know a thing or two about putting pressure on their members.

That's just one reason that sprang to mind.  I'm sure there are others.

There is nothing wrong IMO with speculating, even strongly suspecting as you do in your next sentence - but I just wanted to respond to what looked like a statement of fact when it's just speculation as well.  

I'm not basing it on anything other than opinion.  I thought that was clear.  You can take my (and anyone else's comments) with a grain of salt because none of us know anything.  All I know is how settlement documents work, and I have been involved in some cases with media interest and know that court filings never tell the whole story.  

[singsingsing]

For fucks sake. If some awful individual accused me of a crime and took me to court and I had absolute proof that I had not committed said crime, and then the case was concluded with my accuser admitting in the public record that I did in fact have absolute proof that he/she had fabricated his/her claims against me, why would I feel the need to go public with my proof? I wouldn't. Especially if I were a public figure hoping to one day rehabilitate my reputation. I would want to give as little attention to my accuser and his/her claims as possible. I would not want to provide him/her any validation whatsoever by making it seem like I felt that I had to defend myself in the court of public opinion.

[Whoosh]

2 minutes ago, QuiverDance said:

I'm not basing it on anything other than opinion.  I thought that was clear.  You can take my (and anyone else's comments) with a grain of salt because none of us know anything.  All I know is how settlement documents work, and I have been involved in some cases with media interest and know that court filings never tell the whole story.  

QuiverDance, FWIW I thought your post was clear on that.  I am not sure I think there was a behind the scenes settlement, but plenty of people do think that is what has gone down here.

I would entirely agree with you that what is released to the media in difficult cases is quite often extremely misleading and/or doesn't tell the whole story.

[QuiverDance]

5 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

For fucks sake. If some awful individual accused me of a crime and took me to court and I had absolute proof that I had not committed said crime, and then the case was concluded with my accuser admitting in the public record that I did in fact have absolute proof that he/she had fabricated his/her claims against me, why would I feel the need to go public with my proof? I wouldn't. Especially if I were a public figure hoping to one day rehabilitate my reputation. I would want to give as little attention to my accuser and his/her claims as possible. I would not want to provide him/her any validation whatsoever by making it seem like I felt that I had to defend myself in the court of public opinion.

No need to get all FFS about it.  That is certainly one plausible interpretation.  

[Lizzybet]

On January 26, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Chickenbutt said:

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

On January 26, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Chickenbutt said:

 

It was actually a pretty good movie/documentary. I've never seen the show. I'm old, and my daughter isn't. She had no idea what the term meant, until I told her............ FWIW.

[Charliemae]

With posters nit picking Joshly's confession, seemingly giving him the benefit of the doubt on what "unfaithful " meant. ..

It wasn't just porn. He got the nn, Joshly because of the Ashley Madison credit info release.  He paid for the cheat on your wife or your money back package. We've spent a lot of time talking about what he didn't do or might have done. When the facts of the earlier molestation and more current cheating are pretty awful all on their own. 

[Whoosh]

13 minutes ago, QuiverDance said:

No need to get all FFS about it.  That is certainly one plausible interpretation.   

Just FYI, people who have certain views on all of this have been shouted down aggressively since August.  A few people who were new and tried to talk about rape culture back in August eventually stopped posting.  That could be coincidence for many of them, but at least one left due to exactly that.  I hope people will continue to voice their opinions on all this as it really is NOT cut and dried.

Horrible people get raped and assaulted.  Lying liars who lie get raped and assaulted.  The question is what if anything ACTUALLY happened between these two less-than perfect people and the answer is we don't know.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

8 minutes ago, QuiverDance said:

I'm not basing it on anything other than opinion.  I thought that was clear.  You can take my (and anyone else's comments) with a grain of salt because none of us know anything.  All I know is how settlement documents work, and I have been involved in some cases with media interest and know that court filings never tell the whole story.  

You're right - I missed the IMO right there at the beginning even though I bolded it in my reply.  Sorry for the oversight.

[QuiverDance]

@HerNameIsBuffy  No apology necessary; was just a response.  I don't offend easily.

[jacduggar]

@HerNameIsBuffy I agree with you 100%. I don't understand why people seem to want DD to be a victim here. People are arguing down to how the T's are crossed, or assuming that our justice system failed her and this is not making any sense to me. 

 

Also,

[HerNameIsBuffy]

4 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

Just FYI, people who have certain views on all of this have been shouted down aggressively since August.

To be fair this has been happening on both sides, if by shouted down you mean points of argument refuted every time they are raised.  

It's clear reading through the threads if anyone was attempting to silence people with opposing viewpoints they failed miserably, as is obvious by the fact that divergent points of view are still being debated right now.  

This is a topic which understandably elicits passionate argument from a lot of people.  The fact that people have been able to express their opinions, no matter who does or doesn't agree, shows that we can have even contentious discussions without being censored and I think that's a great thing.  

The point of these types of discussions shouldn't be, IMO, universal agreement.  And unlike court there will be no final ruling where a judge rules on which point of view was correct (or less incorrect.)  I've learned quite a bit on this thread - even (maybe especially) from those with whom I don't agree because I did read those posts with an open mind.  Thinking about other points of view and weighing them against your own is a valuable thing - even when it doesn't result in an opinion change.  It does result in more carefully evaluated opinions which are the antithesis to knee jerk responses.  

[Whoosh]

Just now, jacduggar said:

@HerNameIsBuffy I agree with you 100%. I don't understand why people seem to want DD to be a victim here. People are arguing down to how the T's are crossed, or assuming that our justice system failed her and this is not making any sense to me. 

 

Also,

It isn't about how the t's are crossed.  It is about what the document she signed actually says.  Also, I am not that concerned about Dillon, but about all real victims.  Just clarifying MY point of view so it is not misstated and misconstrued and I am not ostracized for things I NEVER SAID and NEVER DID.  

That said, I agree with you on the rest of it.

 

[Curious]

A couple things now that I'm caught up with this thread.

First, I don't understand the assertion that we have less "feminist topics" now.  I'm not sure I even know what a "feminist topic" is.  It sounds vaguely like the "gay agenda" to me.   If there are topics that involve feminism that folks want to discuss, start a topic on it.  If you post it, they will come

I think we might have had more discussions on feminism (is that the same as having feminist topics?  I don't know) because we had deeleam and several others that were rad fems and they tended to, sometimes aggressively, bring up feminism.   No one is stopping people from doing that now.

Second, my knowledge comes from the criminal side of things, not civil, but I think that agreement is vague, as well.   If we were doing an agreement of some kind, it was laid out specifically exactly which paragraphs we were addressing.

I think it's within the realm of possibility that SOME of DD's claims (meaning stuff other than name/rank/serial number) could be true.  Let's face it, if Josh had such great proof why did the judge not rule in his favor when he filed for a dismissal?   Also, if you can get a summary judgement which would include DD paying all your expenses why not do that if it's such a slam dunk.

I think it's safe to say that neither of these people come to this suit with "clean hands."  I think it's possible that the Duggar/TLC machine gave some kind of consideration for her agreeing to dismiss with prejudice.

It's also entirely possible that both lawyers didn't give much of a fuck, wanted this mess off their calendars and were just sloppy when drafting the agreement and that's why it's vague.  It's not like either of them were going to be getting rich off dealing with either of these clients. 

[Whoosh]

1 minute ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

if by shouted down you mean points of argument refuted every time they are raised.  

I think it is a GOOD IDEA to refute random and baseless points of argument that are based on falsehoods or personal bias.  I think shouting down well-reasoned, valid points of view is problematic.

I totally agree with you that valid, well-reasoned points of view should not be shouted down.  I have never advocated for universal agreement and I certainly don't think that will happen here.  BASELESS arguments or saying someone said something they didn't say is problematic.  Not trying to be "right", just trying to be clear.  I am tired of having everything I say turned into something it never was.

[2manyKidzzz]

I will repeat my earlier statement that I never understood how DD could prove ANY individual was a client months earlier, without a credit card receipt or pictures. It is an anonymous business, or how would she ever have clients? So I found it unbelievable from the start. I don't like Josh, never have. Just his smarmy, superior attitude from the first time I saw him did it. The molestations are so very sad for his victims. And he has made "victims" of Anna and the Mkids by disrespecting them so completely and potentially exposing Anna to STDs and even while she was pregnant.

What is to like about Joshley? I just don't care for him. If DD had him as a client, I can't see how she could ever prove it, ever. 

[Whoosh]

8 minutes ago, Curious said:

First, I don't understand the assertion that we have less "feminist topics" now

Just to clarify this - I said "feminist perspective" and it was not me that brought it up.  A few other people were saying they missed the "feminist perspective" here at FJ (in another thread).  If people disagree with that, they disagree with those posters. Just trying to be clear here.  

@Curious I was wrong.  The phrase used by others was "feminist dialogue".

[Curious]

1 minute ago, Whoosh said:

Just to clarify this - I said "feminist perspective" and it was not me that brought it up.  A few other people were saying they missed the "feminist perspective" here at FJ (in another thread).  If people disagree with that, they disagree with those posters. Just trying to be clear here.  

I wasn't specifically talking about you.  I saw it in some other thread, as well.  I just didn't bother posting when I saw it.  I still don't really understand the claim we are somehow "less feminist" now than in the past.  

We had posters in the past that were aggressively feminist, by their own admission.  Most of those discussions seemed fraught with drama to me, so I rarely read them.

If people mean we no longer have rad fems, they are probably correct (or they are keeping their opinions to themselves).  I don't think FJ is really designed to discus radical feminism, but if people wanted to do that they can still do it now.

The majority of us here are women, though we do seem to have an increasing number of male members, and I think most of us feel like feminism means women have a choice in what they do with their lives and in what opinions they express.   I don't see anyone here advocating we go back to the "good old days" or suggesting women should not vote or working women are horrible, etc.  If that were happening, I could see the assertion that we had less feminist perspective.   Since that's not happening, I still don't understand the claims (made in the other thread).

[Whoosh]

4 minutes ago, Curious said:

I wasn't specifically talking about you.  I saw it in some other thread, as well.  I just didn't bother posting when I saw it.  I still don't really understand the claim we are somehow "less feminist" now than in the past.  

We had posters in the past that were aggressively feminist, by their own admission.  Most of those discussions seemed fraught with drama to me, so I rarely read them.

If people mean we no longer have rad fems, they are probably correct (or they are keeping their opinions to themselves).  I don't think FJ is really designed to discus radical feminism, but if people wanted to do that they can still do it now.

The majority of us here are women, though we do seem to have an increasing number of male members, and I think most of us feel like feminism means women have a choice in what they do with their lives and in what opinions they express.   I don't see anyone here advocating we go back to the "good old days" or suggesting women should not vote or working women are horrible, etc.  If that were happening, I could see the assertion that we had less feminist perspective.   Since that's not happening, I still don't understand the claims (made in the other thread).

That all totally makes sense.  I was contacted in August or September by someone who was frustrated over being shouted down on this specific topic.  She and a few others were trying to discuss the general rape culture in our society and the fact that how we discuss this case impacts all women and all victims and all oppressed groups and really everyone.  They stopped posting.  As I said, I can't know exactly why that is.

[Curious]

14 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

@Curious I was wrong.  The phrase used by others was "feminist dialogue".

My response stays the same no matter what terminology we are using.  I still don't understand what this means, specifically

Do you recall which other thread this was discussed in.  I can't recall and would like to read it again.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 minute ago, Whoosh said:

I think it is a GOOD IDEA to refute random and baseless points of argument that are based on falsehoods or personal bias.  I think shouting down well-reasoned, valid points of view is problematic.

I totally agree with you that valid, well-reasoned points of view should not be shouted down.  I have never advocated for universal agreement and I certainly don't think that will happen here.  BASELESS arguments or saying someone said something they didn't say is problematic.  Not trying to be "right", just trying to be clear.  I am tired of having everything I say turned into something it never was.

I didn't mean to imply you said anything about universal agreement - I was just opining. 

ITA that it's a good idea to refute that which we see as wrong and baseless.  To make an innocuous analogy if someone were posting about how Safari was a Microsoft browser, or that Chicago was in Michigan, I'd have to correct them every. single. time because my fingers wouldn't allow me to let it stand.  

I think where that gets muddier is when reasonable people look at the same set of facts and come to markedly different conclusions.  It's understandable for people with one POV to think that people who feel differently either just don't understand the facts, or have a bias, or whatever.  And I'm using the universal 'you', not you personally.  Because I think absolutely everyone is susceptible to that at times.  

One person's well reasoned, valid argument is another's baseless personal bias.  A good thing for all of us to keep in mind when this happens, to quote Jon Stewart, "while I may disagree with you I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler." wouldn't be a bad mindset to adopt.  (again - universal you)

There have been a lot of generalities tossed around this thread by a lot of people...it happens.  Something is read a certain way and replied to without quoting because it's a pita to find the exact comment.  Everyone who has been on a forum for more than 5 minutes ever knows that it's both annoying when people make broad brush statements, but it's a lot of work to go back and pull the post and commenting =/= writing a dissertation.   And I get the impulse to be all #NotAllPosters but of course it's not all posters.  If it were allposters anything we'd be in lockstep and there's be no need for debate.  

To the bolded - of course everyone should refute it if someone is mischaracterizing what they said.  Sometimes it's misinterpreted and needs clarification, sometimes calling out the wrong poster, sometimes it's making general statements, or a million other things.  

And sometimes it's not at one person, just a general statement about how they read the overall tone and are commenting on that.  I've done it, you've done it, most people have done it.  Communication is imperfect and if it's unclear or seems wrong absolutely we should bring it up if it bothers us.