Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Recommended Posts

Mothership

Through all of this, I keep reminding myself that as much as I despise Joshley and what he and his family stand for, it doesn't make him a liar.   On the other hand, Danica being a sex worker (with perhaps the need for a strong learning curve on using  social media to her advantage) doesn't make her a liar either.

Both of them have used their attorneys and/or the press to present their cases to the public.  What really happened and what can be proven is yet to be seen and the truth may never be completely revealed.

That is all.

  • Upvote 10
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

HerNameIsBuffy
11 hours ago, Redandbluenights said:

 

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

This cracked me up.  No matter what comes up in any discussion we've got someone here as a SME to fill us in!  That's awesome. :)

So as someone who has never seen the movie but knows the term - I thought the premise of the show would be people who hooked up with someone they met online who weren't who they claimed to be.  But reading the show info blurb on the site it seems more like a show about navigating relationships from online to the real world?  Not necessarily someone who was deliberately misrepresenting themselves?

Can you cliff note the premise for me?  Because not understanding MTV these days is making me feel hundreds of years old.  If anyone else, like me, is old enough to have been of target demographic for the Real World Season One and would like to be reminded of how long it's been....Norm turns 50 next year.  

Now tell me all about Catfish and then get off my lawn, damn kids!  

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

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.

 

 

I read in one of those articles that she has over 114k followers on insta.  Unless those are mostly new since the Josh thing there was a big pool of candidates regardless.

Edited by HerNameIsBuffy
riffles
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

This cracked me up.  No matter what comes up in any discussion we've got someone here as a SME to fill us in!  That's awesome. :)

So as someone who has never seen the movie but knows the term - I thought the premise of the show would be people who hooked up with someone they met online who weren't who they claimed to be.  But reading the show info blurb on the site it seems more like a show about navigating relationships from online to the real world?  Not necessarily someone who was deliberately misrepresenting themselves?

Can you cliff note the premise for me?  Because not understanding MTV these days is making me feel hundreds of years old.  If anyone else, like me, is old enough to have been of target demographic for the Real World Season One and would like to be reminded of how long it's been....Norm turns 50 next year.  

Now tell me all about Catfish and then get off my lawn, damn kids!  

I read in one of those articles that she has over 114k followers on insta.  Unless those are mostly new since the Josh thing there was a big pool of candidates regardless.

I've only seen the TV show, not the movie, but it's basically the same concept.

The premise isn't people who hook up with someone they meet online who aren't who they claim to be -- it's about people who have an online relationship with people who aren't who they claim to be -- you know, using somebody else's photos that they stole to set up a fake Facebook page or whatever, having a thousand excuses why they can't video chat, meet, etc. (Basically, see the Sister Wives drama with Meri's catfish. Usually they don't go batshit insane, hold to the story, and try to write an ebook about their torrid love affair, though). 

OCCASIONALLY the "catfish" turns out to be who they said they were, but not usually. In the cases where the "catfish" isn't really a catfish, I guess it does touch on the moving relationships from online to the real world thing.

But no, basically it's blowing the lid off of these fake relationships in a relatively compassionate way by the hosts.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNameIsBuffy
12 hours 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?

Who knows if he has anything more substantial - but as he filed so many pages of alibi stuff as well as photos and videos he's got more than what reporters could pull off public sites.

Those sensationalist articles can be interesting for timelines someone bothered to put together or for links to court docs...but I personally take any editorializing, opinion slant from the author, "anonymous sources", etc. as meaningless.  That stuff is no different than speculation here and it's usually not as well written or interesting.  And I don't mean just with the Smuggar stuff - I discount that stuff to 0 for all tabloid stuff.  I actually put more weight on blind gossip stuff and the bar can't get much lower than that.

Agreed that what was shown in the article proves nothing about where he was on any date...I can create a Twitter account right now and post a pic of me on the beach from when I was 19 but that doesn't mean it's where I was and what I look like right now.  (Because if it did, I'd do it. :) )

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chickenbutt

I have no faith in the tabloids reporting anything close to the truth. But maybe I expect that they would post at least one thing that matches the story, not a picture of a kids head and a headline that says.....See Josh was in XXX, here's a picture to prove it!

But then again, I expect a lot of things from a lot of people and am usually disappointed. :) Maybe I need to lower my expectations.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNameIsBuffy
9 hours ago, diplomat said:

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."

That's what I assumed.  My experience with the court system is very limited, but back when I first filed my divorce papers with the clerk they set a court date in the event we couldn't come to an agreement with the court mediator.  We had already worked out our agreement between ourselves and the mediator just looked over our agreement and agreed it was in keeping with the law, in the best interest of the kids, and fair to both parties signed off on it and we never went to court.

I probably shouldn't admit this will all these lawyers around - but neither of us used an attorney.  I did my research on the local law for child support, custody, and property disposition - filed the right forms and did it myself.  He wasn't in favor of the divorce but it was going to happen anyway so why make it harder than it needed to be?  The mediator said our resolution was one of the most fair and reasonable he'd seen - which i was kind of surprised I got it right without using a lawyer.  (Back in the dark ages the internet didn't have everything to a lot of time in the court house library and actually photocopying of forms.)

The initial court date was just because it was a busy calendar and cases are booked months ahead and it's a place holder if things break bad.  

9 minutes ago, Chickenbutt said:

But then again, I expect a lot of things from a lot of people and am usually disappointed. :) Maybe I need to lower my expectations.

I've found that as generally a good idea in almost all areas of life. :) 

18 minutes ago, withaj said:

I've only seen the TV show, not the movie, but it's basically the same concept.

The premise isn't people who hook up with someone they meet online who aren't who they claim to be -- it's about people who have an online relationship with people who aren't who they claim to be -- you know, using somebody else's photos that they stole to set up a fake Facebook page or whatever, having a thousand excuses why they can't video chat, meet, etc. (Basically, see the Sister Wives drama with Meri's catfish. Usually they don't go batshit insane, hold to the story, and try to write an ebook about their torrid love affair, though). 

OCCASIONALLY the "catfish" turns out to be who they said they were, but not usually. In the cases where the "catfish" isn't really a catfish, I guess it does touch on the moving relationships from online to the real world thing.

But no, basically it's blowing the lid off of these fake relationships in a relatively compassionate way by the hosts.

Ahhh...thanks.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
HarleyQuinn

If anyone should be contacting Catfish it should be that guy whose picture Joshley used on his first AM account. :pb_lol:

  • Upvote 20
Link to post
Share on other sites
silverspoons
3 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Who knows if he has anything more substantial - but as he filed so many pages of alibi stuff as well as photos and videos he's got more than what reporters could pull off public sites.

Agreed that what was shown in the article proves nothing about where he was on any date...I can create a Twitter account right now and post a pic of me on the beach from when I was 19 but that doesn't mean it's where I was and what I look like right now.  (Because if it did, I'd do it. :) )

 

I'm not surprised he could get a lot of documentation that he was in TX but I still don't see except for the sheer volume how it might prove her was there for 7 or more days straight. I'm sure the Duggars had their picture taken with tons of other families and could collect the photos, videos and statements from these people. I'm sure these ATI members remember Josh being there, I bet he could get 50 or more people to say they saw him there but how many can say that he was there the whole time?

I agree about Anna using his credit card. My husband got a target card and I never got one and did not want to be added after that whole hacking problem. I use his credit card at target all the time. No one has ever asked me for an ID. It is in a man's name and I don't look like a man. It does not have a pin. I actually have slightly different legal last name. I just swipe and target is so fast the receipt prints out before you can even say anything.

I had a neighbor that worked in a government job that was classified for several years and I never knew. When he was able to be at home he was at the school helping out, out in his yard and very social. Those few days a month he was home he was out so much you kind of forgot that he was not around all the time. His wife would post pictures of him with his kids that they took during those few days all month long on social media. I only found out because he retired last year and said something about his insurance.

I just hope the judge is not taken in by the sheer amount of pictures and videos and considers the timeframe. The judge is fairly new if I read correctly but has dealt with at least one case I had heard about with an airline.

What about the other date? We have heard a lot about the one date he was in TX but what is he saying about the other date?

Link to post
Share on other sites
jacduggar
54 minutes ago, silverspoons said:

I'm not surprised he could get a lot of documentation that he was in TX but I still don't see except for the sheer volume how it might prove her was there for 7 or more days straight. I'm sure the Duggars had their picture taken with tons of other families and could collect the photos, videos and statements from these people. I'm sure these ATI members remember Josh being there, I bet he could get 50 or more people to say they saw him there but how many can say that he was there the whole time?

I agree about Anna using his credit card. My husband got a target card and I never got one and did not want to be added after that whole hacking problem. I use his credit card at target all the time. No one has ever asked me for an ID. It is in a man's name and I don't look like a man. It does not have a pin. I actually have slightly different legal last name. I just swipe and target is so fast the receipt prints out before you can even say anything.

I had a neighbor that worked in a government job that was classified for several years and I never knew. When he was able to be at home he was at the school helping out, out in his yard and very social. Those few days a month he was home he was out so much you kind of forgot that he was not around all the time. His wife would post pictures of him with his kids that they took during those few days all month long on social media. I only found out because he retired last year and said something about his insurance.

I just hope the judge is not taken in by the sheer amount of pictures and videos and considers the timeframe. The judge is fairly new if I read correctly but has dealt with at least one case I had heard about with an airline.

What about the other date? We have heard a lot about the one date he was in TX but what is he saying about the other date?

Regardless of how often people do this, it's illegal. I used to work in credit card fraud and you would be surprised how many people took statements full of charges they never made (spouse did) to divorce court. 

 

is is not a 7 day date range, it's a 2 day range. She was in PA for 2 days both times. It's very easy to prove you're gone for 2 days.

 

I think they're both liars. But it drives me nuts that some people (not you specifically) think we HAVE to believe Danica because...why again? 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
OnceUponATime
8 minutes ago, jacduggar said:

is is not a 7 day date range, it's a 2 day range. She was in PA for 2 days both times. It's very easy to prove you're gone for 2 days.

Just to add to this: no one has to prove they knew Josh was there for the whole timeframe in question. He just needs enough witnesses who say/can prove he was there at enough different times of the day to prove it was impossible for him to be elsewhere. If for example it would be a 7 hour round trip non-stop from where he was then having someone see him at 0000hrs, 0700hrs, 1400hrs, 2100hrs [...] should be enough... If the gap in between sightings isn't long enough for him to leave, arrive somewhere else, have 1.5hrs 'playtime' and go back then I think most reasonable people would find it impossible without having to have every second of both days accounted for.


I also think that he would only really needs to show he wasn't there for the 1st occasion (for public opinion at least. although it would be wise to prove both), because the second encounter according to DD starts off with an apology for the previous time and a promise it won't be like that this time - which kinda falls apart without the first encounter happening.

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNameIsBuffy
11 minutes ago, OnceUponATime said:

Just to add to this: no one has to prove they knew Josh was there for the whole timeframe in question. He just needs enough witnesses who say/can prove he was there at enough different times of the day to prove it was impossible for him to be elsewhere. If for example it would be a 7 hour round trip non-stop from where he was then having someone see him at 0000hrs, 0700hrs, 1400hrs, 2100hrs [...] should be enough... If the gap in between sightings isn't long enough for him to leave, arrive somewhere else, have 1.5hrs 'playtime' and go back then I think most reasonable people would find it impossible without having to have every second of both days accounted for.


I also think that he would only really needs to show he wasn't there for the 1st occasion (for public opinion at least. although it would be wise to prove both), because the second encounter according to DD starts off with an apology for the previous time and a promise it won't be like that this time - which kinda falls apart without the first encounter happening.

This.  And it's not a short window.  Because I need a distraction at the moment I looked it up.

Big Sandy's closest airport is Tyler Pounds which is 29 miles from Big Sandy.  

I can't find any flight from there to PA non-stop - they all have at least one stop in DFW.  The times for round trip tomorrow (one stop):

TX to PA:  5 hr 26 min - 9 hr 21 min

PA to TX: 4 hr 56 min

Add in time to get to the airport in TX early enough to check in > get to the club > do whatever (which is more than 1.5 hours because having met at the club he was there for a non-zero period of time > get back to the airport with time to check in > get back to the family after landing.  

This isn't jumping on a little commuter flight which run every half hour - even if he had all the luck in the world of short layovers and getting to the airports at the last possible second he's gone for an entire day minimum.  

Different date obviously - but there was only one flight back for my example which left at 6:45 pm or something and still got him in TX at midnight.  As I'm sure stuff wasn't wrapped up by 5:00 pm you're sliding into the next day.

Any way you look at it he's gone for a lot more than just a few hours.  

 

 

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jacduggar said:

Regardless of how often people do this, it's illegal. I used to work in credit card fraud and you would be surprised how many people took statements full of charges they never made (spouse did) to divorce court. 

 

is is not a 7 day date range, it's a 2 day range. She was in PA for 2 days both times. It's very easy to prove you're gone for 2 days.

 

I think they're both liars. But it drives me nuts that some people (not you specifically) think we HAVE to believe Danica because...why again? 

There is a very understandable point of view that you should not question the word of a person who is claiming to be a victim of sexual assault or rape and it exists for a wide variety of reasons that are all quite valid.

However, it is also very understandable that people do realize that a very, very small number of supposed victims are lying liars who lie and false allegations of this type are incredibly damaging.  So I completely understand the point of view that no one needs to take the word of a supposed victim as absolute truth.

What I DO NOT understand is taking the available information, spinning it, misstating it, making bits up and leaving other bits out so that you can state AS FACT with "proof" that the supposed victim is lying and/or doing something wrong.  Don't understand it.  Not even for a fraction of a second.  Even stating things in a way that comes even remotely CLOSE to doing that is just unfathomable to me.

People making false claims that "she has nothing but her word" or that "she only has xxx evidence" or that "Dillon is dragging her feet because she has nothing" or that "Duggar had definitive PROOF he was not in that city at that time" when in fact there is not conclusive information either way is DISGUSTING to me.  People saying, based on the completely incomplete and entirely inconclusive information that we currently have, that "she is totally unbelievable" or that "she has zero credibility" disturbs me to no end.  Refusing to believe that inconsistencies in the retelling of these types of stories is so common as to be almost expected is just NUTTERS.  Making up random explanations for various comments she has made in an interview with highly questionable and sordid media sources and then claiming that that WAS what she meant or was trying to do and PROVES she made the whole thing up UNLESS she gives some explanation that satisfies you personally - that is just some bullshit unless you are a porn star and prostitute who has had the life experiences Dillon has had (and even then it is still some bullshit unless you are Dillon).   Claiming to be an expert in civil litigation and then saying that "you can't recover in a case like this unless you are totally and permanently disabled" is flat out false and BEYOND ignorant and offensive.  Noting that people lie in court documents and then suggesting that, based on very limited and incomplete information "I expect Dillon's attorney might face sanctions! or perhaps a BAR COMPLAINT!" and then turning around and saying "I can't imagine Duggar's attorney being dishonest in a court document" - WTF is that?  Seriously WTF IS THAT.

Did any of those things actually get said word for word?  I doubt it - I didn't go back to check word for word.  Have those sentiments been shared (some of them over and over and over and over and over) in such a way that the meaning is quite clear?  I would say absolutely.  I understand that people are confused and I understand that people are annoyed by the suggestion that everyone must blindly believe Dillon and I get that sometimes things come across in ways people didn't mean them, so I am really not trying to finger point or hand slap specific individuals for specific past statements.  However, I really, sincerely believe people need to take a step back and consider what they are saying since WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS TRUE.

That's right - I said it.  NO ONE READING THIS knows what is true (unless you happen to be Duggar or Dillon).  Deal with it and speak about the situation accordingly.

 

Edited by Whoosh
  • Upvote 17
Link to post
Share on other sites
jacduggar
3 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

There is a very understandable point of view that you should not question the word of a person who is claiming to be a victim of sexual assault or rape and it exists for a wide variety of reasons that are all quite valid.

However, it is also very understandable that people do realize that a very, very small number of supposed victims are lying liars who lie and false allegations of this type are incredibly damaging.  So I completely understand the point of view that no one needs to take the word of a supposed victim as absolute truth.

What I DO NOT understand is taking the available information, spinning it, misstating it, making bits up and leaving other bits out so that you can state AS FACT with "proof" that the supposed victim is lying.  Don't understand it.  Not even for a fraction of a second.  

People making false claims that "she has nothing but her word" or that "she only has xxx evidence" or that "Dillon is dragging her feet because she has nothing" or that "Duggar had definitive PROOF he was not in that city at that time" when in fact there is not conclusive information either way is DISGUSTING to me.  People saying, based on the completely incomplete and entirely inconclusive information that we currently have, that "she is totally unbelievable" or that "she has zero credibility" disturbs me to no end.  Reusing to believe that inconsistencies in the retelling of these types of stories is so common as to be expected is just NUTTERS.  Making up random explanations for various comments she has made in an interview with highly questionable and sordid media sources and then claiming that that WAS what she meant or was trying to do and PROVES she made the whole thing up UNLESS she gives some explanation that satisfies you personally - that is just some bullshit unless you are a porn star and prostitute who has had the life experiences Dillon has had.   Claiming to be an expert in civil litigation and then saying that "you can't recover in a case like this unless you are totally and permanently disabled" is flat out false and BEYOND ignorant and offensive.  Noting that people lie in court documents and then suggesting that, based on very limited and incomplete information "I expect Dillon's attorney to face sanctions! or perhaps a BAR COMPLAINT!" and then turning around and saying "I can't imagine Duggar's attorney being dishonest in a court document" - WTF is that?  Seriously WTF IS THAT.

Did any of those things actually get said word for word?  I doubt it - I didn't go back to check word for word.  Have those sentiments been shared (some of them over and over and over and over and over) in such a way that the meaning is quite clear?  I would say absolutely.  I understand that people are confused and I understand that people are annoyed by the suggestion that everyone must blindly believe Dillon and I get that sometimes things come across in ways people didn't mean them, so I am really not trying to finger point or hand slap.  However, I really, sincerely believe people need to take a step back and consider what they are saying since WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS TRUE.

That's right - I said it.  NO ONE READING THIS knows what is true (unless you happen to be Duggar or Dillon).  Deal with it and speak about the situation accordingly.

 

Well, we won't ever know Duggar's evidence because it's under a lock and key agreement. And I agree Dillon's lack of presented evidence is her attorney's fault, not hers. But she has posted through the entire time frame that she claims she didn't work that she WAS working. Filming, appearances, "camming", and photo shoots. So if you're a BDSM porn star, and you shoot other types of porn, can you claim lost wages because you didn't shoot your specialty? This is why I question her credibility. Her huge argument is that she couldn't work but she was clearly working (according to herself and others) and jet-setting all over the place for appearances. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
hauntedoklahoma
On ‎1‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 0:00 PM, Fundie Bunny said:

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

honestly, if there *is* a jury trial, it will be mentioned. It might be a side-swipe mention that's immediately objected to and sustained but if a jury is there Dillon's attorney would almost certainly mention it just to attack Joshley's character and make him look less flawless to the jurors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jacduggar said:

Well, we won't ever know Duggar's evidence because it's under a lock and key agreement. And I agree Dillon's lack of presented evidence is her attorney's fault, not hers. But she has posted through the entire time frame that she claims she didn't work that she WAS working. Filming, appearances, "camming", and photo shoots. So if you're a BDSM porn star, and you shoot other types of porn, can you claim lost wages because you didn't shoot your specialty? This is why I question her credibility. Her huge argument is that she couldn't work but she was clearly working (according to herself and others) and jet-setting all over the place for appearances. 

When did she say she wasn't working at all?  WHEN?  WHERE?  Why do you think she ever said she wasn't working AT ALL?

ETA - also, wasn't it YOU who said Duggar had definitive proof that he wasn't there?  But now you say we will never see or know his evidence?  REALLY?

Edited by Whoosh
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
justoneoftwo
1 minute ago, jacduggar said:

Well, we won't ever know Duggar's evidence because it's under a lock and key agreement. And I agree Dillon's lack of presented evidence is her attorney's fault, not hers. But she has posted through the entire time frame that she claims she didn't work that she WAS working. Filming, appearances, "camming", and photo shoots. So if you're a BDSM porn star, and you shoot other types of porn, can you claim lost wages because you didn't shoot your specialty? This is why I question her credibility. Her huge argument is that she couldn't work but she was clearly working (according to herself and others) and jet-setting all over the place for appearances. 

Well, do BDSM porn stars make more?  If she could have made more doing her specialty and it was because of this then of course she can claim lost wages.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just going to point out - unless you know EXACTLY what the harm is that Dillon is claiming made her unable to work and EXACTLY what damages she is asking to recover for for the SPECIFIC work she was unable to do - you basically know shit and are making stuff up in you head.

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
jacduggar
Just now, Whoosh said:

When did she say she wasn't working at all?  WHEN?  WHERE?  Why do you think she ever said she wasn't working AT ALL?

So back to my question. Can she claim lost wages because she was doing porn other than BDSM porn? What kind of loss in wages does she have to have? How does someone who is paid per gig determine a wage loss when she's still doing a ton of other stuff? I mean, if she still made as much as she did last year during the same time frame, she just turned down certain gigs, is that technically wage loss? 

 

*I guess I have to add that this is pure speculation and I don't actually know anything (like I've said five other times). 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jacduggar said:

So back to my question. Can she claim lost wages because she was doing porn other than BDSM porn? What kind of loss in wages does she have to have? How does someone who is paid per gig determine a wage loss when she's still doing a ton of other stuff? I mean, if she still made as much as she did last year during the same time frame, she just turned down certain gigs, is that technically wage loss? 

 

*I guess I have to add that this is pure speculation and I don't actually know anything (like I've said five other times). 

How about back to my question - WHERE did she say she was completely and totally disabled?  What is the factual basis from which you then spring off wildly making shit up in your head and claiming it as true?  You show me yours, I'll show you mine, right?

5 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

the entire time frame that she claims she didn't work

THAT is speculative?  Coulda fooled me.  My bad ;)

Edited by Whoosh
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
jacduggar
5 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

How about back to my question - WHERE did she say she was completely and totally disabled?  What is the factual basis from which you then spring off wildly making shit up in your head and claiming it as true?  You show me yours, I'll show you mine, right?

THAT is speculative?  Coulda fooled me.  My bad ;)

Where did I say she was totally disabled? Don't you have to actually LOSE wages to sue for a wage loss? Why the hell are you coming at me like this? Do you know Danica personally? FFS. 

Edited by jacduggar
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jacduggar said:

Well, we won't ever know Duggar's evidence because it's under a lock and key agreement.

Are you sure about this?  I know SOME of it is to be held confidential unless Duggar's attorney agrees otherwise, but I am not sure ALL of it is.  Further, do you really think that confidentiality agreement is eternal?  I guess it could be, but my read was that it applied to discovery.  I think anything entered into evidence at trial is fair game.

5 minutes ago, jacduggar said:

Where did I say she was totally disabled? Don't you have to actually LOSE wages to sue for a wage loss? Why the hell are you coming at me like this? Do you know Danica personally? FFS. 

WHY are you going after Dillon like you are?  YES you have to prove loss of expected foreseeable wages to recover.  WHY do you think she can't?  If you DO NOT have to be totally and permanently disabled in order to recover, WHY would it matter if she did some work of some form here or there? WHY?????  Legal analysis, please.  FFS indeed.

Edited by Whoosh
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNameIsBuffy

Everyone breathe...this isn't personal.  These are two adults who are dealing with a legal matter in the courts and neither of them are coming to FJ for support.

It's easy to get over involved when it's a sensitive topic and feel strongly that other people seem wrong or illogical - but when it becomes personally upsetting it's often a good idea to step away from the topic for a little bit.

No one here is on the jury or involved in the case so there's no moral obligation of anyone here to resolve what can't be resolved at this point.  

I hate to see people getting this upset over a thread...taking a deep breath would do everyone a world of good right now.

  • Upvote 30
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gustava said:

Danica's goal.

In your opinion.  I would have to say I believe she is placing at least a considerable amount of emphasis on that goal, yes.

Just now, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Everyone breathe...this isn't personal.  These are two adults who are dealing with a legal matter in the courts and neither of them are coming to FJ for support.

It's easy to get over involved when it's a sensitive topic and feel strongly that other people seem wrong or illogical - but when it becomes personally upsetting it's often a good idea to step away from the topic for a little bit.

No one here is on the jury or involved in the case so there's no moral obligation of anyone here to resolve what can't be resolved at this point.  

I hate to see people getting this upset over a thread...taking a deep breath would do everyone a world of good right now.

LOL - Just for the record, I am not upset.  I am actually laughing.  I just think people are being absurd and it harms women.  I said I was going to call people out for making strong, definitive statements based on a house of cards and that is what I am doing.

  • Upvote 2
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.



  • Recent Status Updates

    • WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?

      WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?  »  church_of_dog

      I just made a lovely discovery! Type a colon, then a ) without any spaces. Then type a space. 
          
      I am ridiculously happy to discover this! (I also have a nagging feeling that I should have figured this out sooner...)
      · 5 replies
    • louisa05

      louisa05

      I’ve got a pack of rude sixth graders this morning. Ugh. 
      · 3 replies
    • HerNameIsBuffy

      HerNameIsBuffy

      Aren't I too old to forget to eat lunch?  
      So now....do eat a late salad and be cranky before bed because I want dinner and it's too late to eat or....do I tough out the afternoon cranky at my desk and eat dinner?  
      The dilemma is real.  
      · 3 replies
    • feministxtian

      feministxtian

      2nd Pfizer tomorrow!
      · 8 replies
    • Workingmom

      Workingmom

      So excited, happy. Finally I got my vaccination appointment. The first on the 26th of May , the second on my birthday.  Staying at home is no option, because I work in healthcare, with very close patientcontact. (I make mammograms). Hopefully I can relax a bit more after my vaccination and let the anxiety go.
      · 1 reply
    • choralcrusader8613

      choralcrusader8613

      I am going to scream or commit a crime. Why is Driscoll still a thing?!
      CW: misogyny, sexual gross, TMI
       
      · 3 replies
    • Maggie Mae

      Maggie Mae

      Where is the lost and found thread? I want to talk about the Wilkersons (simple living ak) but I'm not sure which thread or where to post. 
      · 5 replies
    • HerNameIsBuffy

      HerNameIsBuffy

      I bet no fundy mom every got such a touching Mother's Day tribute...

      Wishing everyone who celebrates a happy Mother's Day...and some extra love to others out there missing their mom's today, too.
       
      · 2 replies
    • Jasmar

      Jasmar

      My uncle just died from COVID. He wasn’t that much older than I am, so I kind of grew up with him. Just ten days ago my mom had been pleading with him to get vaccinated, but he wanted to wait to make sure the shots were really safe. I’m kind of devastated.
      · 6 replies
    • PumaLover

      PumaLover

      I just found out my little bonus kid is in a treatment center on a suicide watch tonight. He and I share a hobby and a couple weeks back he opened up to me that he's severely depressed and was wanting to hurt himself. I let his parents know and thankfully he had also been talking to them. I'm just heartbroken because him being in this center means that his parents had to call 911 and have him admitted and I know that was so hard for them to do. He's a young kid and has his whole life ahead of him but just wants to end it all and I don't know how to help him. 
      · 7 replies
  • Recent Blog Entries

×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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