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

[NeverAFundie]

30 minutes ago, Chickenbutt said:

Something is swirling in my head after reading Whoosh's posts. Forgive me if it makes no sense, I will try to make it clear.

Could DD want to present the molestations, not for the molestations themselves, but to show that there was no "real" counseling after the fact and that is why the assault happened. Her thoughts may be, JD had issues way back then and those issues were never resolved resulting in escalation of issues and her eventual assault.

 

She may want to try to make that argument, but it would really only be relevant if she had named JB and Michelle as co-defendants.  She could have sued them as well, and argued that they failed in some duty to Josh during and immediately after the molestations, which led directly or indirectly to his behavior as an adult.

 

[justoneoftwo]

36 minutes ago, Chickenbutt said:

Something is swirling in my head after reading Whoosh's posts. Forgive me if it makes no sense, I will try to make it clear.

Could DD want to present the molestations, not for the molestations themselves, but to show that there was no "real" counseling after the fact and that is why the assault happened. Her thoughts may be, JD had issues way back then and those issues were never resolved resulting in escalation of issues and her eventual assault.

 

Why would she want to do this though?  Showing why he did bad things won't help her at all, it may even lower the damages a jury would give her (as they feel bad for him?).  

On another note, in general showing past bad acts is considered irrelevant to the current bad act (there are exceptions).  Its like how people on here are saying Josh is clearly a lying liar who lies but that doesn't mean he is lying this time.  

[Chickenbutt]

I really don't know why or if she would want to bring in past bad acts. That thought was just swirling in my head.

[Whoosh]

26 minutes ago, NeverAFundie said:

She may want to try to make that argument, but it would really only be relevant if she had named JB and Michelle as co-defendants.  She could have sued them as well, and argued that they failed in some duty to Josh during and immediately after the molestations, which led directly or indirectly to his behavior as an adult.

 

This.  However, I don't think any action against JB and M would fly after such a long timespan has passed.  Take something like a fool parent who lets a small child run around unsupervised next to a gun left haphazardly on the ground by a populated fishing area   If that small child happened to pick up that gun and shoot someone, the parents could possibly be charged criminally or sued civilly.  Even if their behavior had not been the cause of the first shooting, if they were under some obligation to get that child treatment of some sort for their penchant for guns and they didn't and the kid somehow got ahold of a gun a year later at a friend's house and shot someone, I could see how the parents might be held responsible yet again.  If 15 or 20 years later the kid is pushing 30 and still has a penchant for guns and is running around amok shooting people - I think the parents won't be dragged into court (even though they are still culpable to some degree).  

I don't see it as all that useful or admissible against Josh in this context., but it is an interesting thought @Chickenbutt

[NeverAFundie]

5 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

I don't see it as all that useful or admissible against Josh in this context.

I agree.  One of the many frustrating things about American jurisprudence is that anyone can basically walk into court and file a lawsuit against someone else for pretty much anything.  It doesn't mean that the plaintiff can PROVE the claim, or even that the claim has a legal basis.  In this context, I think DD risks hurting her stronger claims if she decides to add a bunch of defendants, and/or starts taking an "everything but the kitchen sink" approach to her legal claims.  Doing something like that can damage credibility, particularly in a case where the plaintiff (rightly or wrongly) may have impaired credibility with a jury because of her profession and social media activity since the lawsuit was filed.  That may or may not be fair, but it's a very real possibility.

[gustava]

3 hours ago, Whoosh said:

Yeah that quote isn't me talking - that was fundie bunny.  If people feel comfortable calling her a whore and they are willing to accept the feedback they get on that choice of language in terms of what it says about THEM - go for it.  It speaks volumes and calls into question any opinions they have of the veracity of her claims in MY mind.

ETA - as far as I know, the ONLY evidence we have that Dillon has ever engaged in acts of prostitution is her own statements about sexual relations with Duggar in exchange for money - so if someone disbelieves those, they really have NO GROUNDS for calling her a prostitute AT ALL.  If they want to call all adult film stars whores - hey.  Why not.  I believe the fundies would call all female actors that engage in anything remotely sexual on screen a whore right?

ETA2 - if we call all female actors whores or all female adult film stars whores who spent their whole life whoring - what do we call the men in the scenes with them - STUD?

ETA3 - what do we call the (mostly) men that drive the market for adult films?  Good christians?  Fathers and breadwinners?

 

I think we are saying pretty much the same thing.  I do believe words matter.  There is a good reason Las Vegas wants to be known for gaming and not gambling.  Whore, prostitute, and sex worker have different connotations.  My general concern is when terminology is altered to influence our perceptions.   And yes, in many instances, the notion of political correctness is both simple civility and a reflection of social and cultural changes.   I would hope that not too many executives, Trump being an exception, call for their girl to get coffee, then go pick up my suit from the cleaners."

[Whoosh]

3 minutes ago, gustava said:

I think we are saying pretty much the same thing.  I do believe words matter.  There is a good reason Las Vegas wants to be known for gaming and not gambling.  Whore, prostitute, and sex worker have different connotations.  My general concern is when terminology is altered to influence our perceptions.   And yes, in many instances, the notion of political correctness is both simple civility and a reflection of social and cultural changes.   I would hope that not too many executives, Trump being an exception, call for their girl to get coffee, then go pick up my suit from the cleaners."

Yeah - I really was trying to second or maybe expand on your point.  My first draft used "you" instead of "someone" and totally read like I was taking you seriously and berating you for your post.  LOL   Communication face to face is tough - via typing is HARD sometimes.  

[QuiverDance]

13 hours ago, HarleyQuinn said:

I've always used "sex worker" or "entertainer" as a blanket statement for anyone doing any type of sex work. Prostitute, cam, etc.

Btw, I have a friend that made pretty decent side money on cam. I never realized there was such a huge demand for that.

I can definitely see that there is a market for it.  When I got divorced and re entered the dating scene as a 40 year old, I was pretty amazed at how much men beg and beg for camera action.  I am not comfortable with it, and I imagine most women probably are not, but I can see that someone who is could get paid well for it.  

10 hours ago, InThePrayerCloset said:

 

American Degreed Law Professionals - How would DD's request for historical counselling records be dealt with in PA/USA Fed Court?

Her discovery request will be met with a Motion for a Protective Order, there will be a hearing, and the judge will rule on it.  Possible outcomes:  the discovery request will be denied, and the defendant will not be ordered to produce the records; the judge will ask for the records, look at them in chambers, and then decide whether any information in them is relevant and therefore responsive to the discovery request, at which point the judge will order that all or part of them be produced; the judge will simply order the defendant to fork over the records.  

If the records are the subject of a subpoena, there is no doubt that unless the defendant provided the plaintif with a signed HIPAA or other records release, the provider form whom the records are requested will file a motion to quash, and the same sort of analysis will take place before they are ordered to produce the records.

[Buzzard]

54 minutes ago, QuiverDance said:

I can definitely see that there is a market for it.  When I got divorced and re entered the dating scene as a 40 year old, I was pretty amazed at how much men beg and beg for camera action.  I am not comfortable with it, and I imagine most women probably are not, but I can see that someone who is could get paid well for it.  

Her discovery request will be met with a Motion for a Protective Order, there will be a hearing, and the judge will rule on it.  Possible outcomes:  the discovery request will be denied, and the defendant will not be ordered to produce the records; the judge will ask for the records, look at them in chambers, and then decide whether any information in them is relevant and therefore responsive to the discovery request, at which point the judge will order that all or part of them be produced; the judge will simply order the defendant to fork over the records.  

If the records are the subject of a subpoena, there is no doubt that unless the defendant provided the plaintif with a signed HIPAA or other records release, the provider form whom the records are requested will file a motion to quash, and the same sort of analysis will take place before they are ordered to produce the records.

This.

There is no way a civil judge would just hand those over to opposing counsel, at risk that they would make them public.  They will be inspected by the judge (an in camera review) and only if relevant disclosed, likely with an order prohibiting dissemination. 

[QuiverDance]

In my experience in Civil Litigation, mental health records are very, very difficult to get, and getting a psych professional to deposition is an ordeal.  Every single time.  

[socalrules]

The molestation is not likely to even be allowed into evidence as it is not relevant to Danica's lawsuit. It is not close in time and It doesn't show a pattern because the circumstances of the molestation and what she is alleging are completely different.  

Also, I am not sure why anyone is thinking Danica may, or even could, sue Jim Bob and Michelle. They have no legal responsibility for what occurred in that room. Josh is an adult and completely responsible for his own actions.  We may think he is his parents puppet but he is legally an adult in the eyes of the law. They may have raised an asshole but they are not legally responsible for his actions as a man pushing 30. They didn't hired Danica, weren't in the room, didn't pay her and likely had no idea she even existed. She isn't going to sue them and they would end up rightly being dismissed on demurrer anyway. What possible cause of action could she have against them that would actually stand and she could meet the elements of? What lawyer would be stupid enough to try? 

[NeverAFundie]

5 minutes ago, socalrules said:

The molestation is not likely to even be allowed into evidence as it is not relevant to Danica's lawsuit. It is not close in time and It doesn't show a pattern because the circumstances of the molestation and what she is alleging are completely different.  

Also, I am not sure why anyone is thinking Danica may, or even could, sue Jim Bob and Michelle. They have no legal responsibility for what occurred in that room. Josh is an adult and completely responsible for his own actions.  We may think he is his parents puppet but he is legally an adult in the eyes of the law. They may have raised an asshole but they are not legally responsible for his actions as a man pushing 30. They didn't hired Danica, weren't in the room, didn't pay her and likely had no idea she even existed. She isn't going to sue them and they would end up rightly being dismissed on demurrer anyway. What possible cause of action could she have against them that would actually stand and she could meet the elements of? What lawyer would be stupid enough to try? 

While I agree it would not be a good claim with any reasonable chance of success, she absolutely COULD sue Jim Bob and Michelle.  You are free to file a lawsuit against pretty much any one.  That lawsuit may get thrown out PDQ, but she could certainly sue them.  There are plenty of lawyers who would file that lawsuit, because there is at least a decent chance a defendant (particularly a defendant represented by an insurance company calling the shots in the defense) will just settle a nuisance lawsuit to make it go away.  Settling is often cheaper than paying to defend against a frivolous lawsuit even if the suit has very little chance of success.  There is a sizeable shady-as-hell plaintiffs' bar that would take that case in a heartbeat, on the off chance they would get a settlement (and the lawyer would get a percentage of that if they took the case on a contingency fee--usually 1/3).

[justoneoftwo]

14 minutes ago, QuiverDance said:

In my experience in Civil Litigation, mental health records are very, very difficult to get, and getting a psych professional to deposition is an ordeal.  Every single time.  

Its so weird how different places can be.  In my work its super easy, I've had one person seriously argue against it and then drop the case rather then lose the argument.  Although it could also be that I get a lot of cases where people are claiming to have PTSD or marital issues, which opens the door.  

[Whoosh]

3 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

opens the door.  

Opening the door is the key there I think in terms of whether the molestations could be brought in at all.  If Josh tried to claim that he has never, ever, ever engaged in any questionable or scandalous sexual activity, that would clearly open the door to evidence of prior bad acts related to sexual behavior.  However, just opening the door would not likely get opposing counsel access to therapy records and I don't know how the fact that he was a juvenile would impact things.

[EmmieJ]

On 1/28/2016 at 11:20 PM, Whoosh said:

to add something

Oh crap - I need help with quote boxes (several of them) showing up when all I wanted was to quote one person!

 

20 minutes ago, QuiverDance said:

In my experience in Civil Litigation, mental health records are very, very difficult to get, and getting a psych professional to deposition is an ordeal.  Every single time.  

I work in civil lit too.  In my experience, if a plaintiff is presenting claims for emotional or psychological issues, we have to ask their attorney to have them sign a HIPPA authorization to obtain copies of the relevant records.  Then that signed authorization goes to the mental health provider, along with the standard subpoena for production of records.  The provider is then supposed to produce the records requested, after waiting the required amount of time should their patient's attorney want to file a motion to quash (but since they got their client to sign an authorization, that doesn't happen).  We usually don't get the therapist's actual hand-written notes made during sessions, or if you do, good luck deciphering that chicken scratch.  But if the therapist is supposed to provide copies of chart notes, written reports, testing results, and so forth.

ETA:  But to the question of whether Danica's attorneys could even try to obtain copies of psychological records pertaining to Josh (or any other named defendant) - I agree that it would be unlikely they'd be able to do so.  Seems like they would have to bring a motion to try to convince the judge that the records they were seeking were relevant to the current lawsuit, and that the loss of privacy of the defendant was outweighed by the information they believe the records contain that would help prove their case.

 

[justoneoftwo]

Just now, Whoosh said:

Opening the door is the key there I think.  If Josh tried to claim that he has never, ever, ever engaged in any questionable or scandalous sexual activity, that would clearly open the door to prior bad acts related to sexual behavior.  However, just opening the door would not likely get opposing counsel access to therapy records and I don't know how the fact that he was a juvenile would impact things.

Oh yes, I meant in general.  I have seen nothing in this case (although we have seen very little) that would give her an argument about getting them.  

[NeverAFundie]

And another word about frivolous lawsuits, and frivolous claims within lawsuits.  They happen all. the. time.  Every sizeable corporation routinely settles nuisance lawsuits rather than go to the expense of fighting them.  Part of the problem is that it is pretty difficult to get a civil lawsuit dismissed.  When a defendant files a motion to dismiss (totally standard in every single lawsuit ever), the judge looks at the allegations made in the complaint and assumes that they are all true.  The judge only grants a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff has no cause of action under current law even if every single allegation made was true.  Lawyers who specialize in filing nuisance lawsuits are very good at writing complaints in a way that contain allegations which, if true, DO provide a cause of action.  Those allegations may not be proveable in court based on evidence that would actually be admissible (or evidence that even exists), but that doesn't matter at the "motion to dismiss" stage of the game.  The defendant (or the defendant's insurance company) in a nuisance lawsuit almost always will still have to pay his/her/its legal counsel for representation through months of depositions, interrogatories, and other discovery, at the very least.  Large corporations maintain litigation reserves on their books, in part, to pay to settle these cases.  Better to settle for $25,000 than pay out $75,000 in legal fees.  Especially when the settlement contains no admission of culpability and a confidentiality clause.

[QuiverDance]

9 minutes ago, EmmieJ said:

Oh crap - I need help with quote boxes (several of them) showing up when all I wanted was to quote one person!

 

I work in civil lit too.  In my experience, if a plaintiff is presenting claims for emotional or psychological issues, we have to ask their attorney to have them sign a HIPPA authorization to obtain copies of the relevant records.  Then that signed authorization goes to the mental health provider, along with the standard subpoena for production of records.  The provider is then supposed to produce the records requested, after waiting the required amount of time should their patient's attorney want to file a motion to quash (but since they got their client to sign an authorization, that doesn't happen).  We usually don't get the therapist's actual hand-written notes made during sessions, or if you do, good luck deciphering that chicken scratch.  But if the therapist is supposed to provide copies of chart notes, written reports, testing results, and so forth.

ETA:  But to the question of whether Danica's attorneys could even try to obtain copies of psychological records pertaining to Josh (or any other named defendant) - I agree that it would be unlikely they'd be able to do so.  Seems like they would have to bring a motion to try to convince the judge that the records they were seeking were relevant to the current lawsuit, and that the loss of privacy of the defendant was outweighed by the information they believe the records contain that would help prove their case.

 

Process is same for us, but locally the providers are very resistant and tend to hide the ball on scheduling depos by agreement, so we have to do it all the hard way. One that comes to mind for me was a probate litigation matter where an antenuptial agreement was in question, and I was trying to get a psychiatrist to submit to a deposition, and he was really difficult to pin down.  In another conservatorship proceeding in an unrelated case, I needed psyc testimony to support the  petition for conservatorship, and getting that psych to submit to depositoin was impossible wihtout a full blown hearing.  

[gustava]

This discussion of sex workers and civil litigation is fascinating!  Thanks FJers!!

[NeverAFundie]

Just now, gustava said:

This discussion of sex workers and civil litigation is fascinating!  Thanks FJers!!

I know, right?!?  One of the many reasons I love this place.  Intelligent, well-rounded, well-thought-out discussion of many sides of complicated issues.  Way better than the comments sections on the interwebz...

[OnceUponATime]

3 minutes ago, NeverAFundie said:

 Way better than the comments sections on the interwebz...

So true. Every now and then if I want to torture myself I read comments from online newspapers. I have to constantly remind myself that repairing a wall because I smash my head into it is not worth the trouble.

[socalrules]

1 minute ago, NeverAFundie said:

While I agree it would not be a good claim with any reasonable chance of success, she absolutely COULD sue Jim Bob and Michelle.  You are free to file a lawsuit against pretty much any one.  That lawsuit may get thrown out PDQ, but she could certainly sue them.  There are plenty of lawyers who would file that lawsuit, because there is at least a decent chance a defendant (particularly a defendant represented by an insurance company calling the shots in the defense) will just settle a nuisance lawsuit to make it go away.  Settling is often cheaper than paying to defend against a frivolous lawsuit even if the suit has very little chance of success.

Yes, anyone can sue for anything, but it doesn't mean that the lawsuit would get very far. Instead of filing an answer, they would file a demurrer showing how she has not provided enough facts in her complaint to even go forward with her complaint. Although demurrers are hard to get sustained, it does happen and I believe it would happen here as I cannot think of one cause of action she could allege and plead facts sufficient to meet the elements to withstand a demurrer. Demurrers are generally filed within 30 days of service of complaint. With an early hearing date, they could be out of the case in 60 days. She would have to get by a demurrer before she could do discovery or even think of trying to get a settlement. I do insurance defense and I can guarantee I would demurrer and fight this type of case because it would be ridiculous to sue the parents. Yes, we love to settle but we will fight the crappy cases like this because they are winnable. Hell, if she survived a demurrer, I would drown her on written discovery, take her depo and then file a motion for summary judgment. 

[Whoosh]

Just for the record, I think the conversation about the possibility of suing J and M came up because I mentioned (in a different context) the fact that I believe I read in one of the documents that Duggar's attorney is saying Dillon has failed to join a third party defendant that should be named in her suit based on her claims.  I for the life of me can't remember where I saw that and I have not gone back to try to find the documents.  I think someone wondered how that might apply to J and M and people then started to discuss that theoretically.  I don't think anyone thinks there would be any good reason for Dillon to sue J and M here. Maybe?

[justoneoftwo]

Just now, Whoosh said:

Just for the record, I think the conversation about the possibility of suing J and M came up because I mentioned (in a different context) the fact that I believe I read in one of the documents that Duggar's attorney is saying Dillon has failed to join a third party defendant that should be named in her suit based on her claims.  I for the life of me can't remember where I saw that and I have not gone back to try to find the documents.  I think someone wondered how that might apply to J and M and people then started to discuss that theoretically.  I don't think anyone thinks there would be any good reason for Dillon to sue J and M here. Maybe?

It also might just be something he always includes.  That would be a common one.  

[NeverAFundie]

11 minutes ago, socalrules said:

Yes, anyone can sue for anything, but it doesn't mean that the lawsuit would get very far. Instead of filing an answer, they would file a demurrer showing how she has not provided enough facts in her complaint to even go forward with her complaint. Although demurrers are hard to get sustained, it does happen and I believe it would happen here as I cannot think of one cause of action she could allege and plead facts sufficient to meet the elements to withstand a demurrer. Demurrers are generally filed within 30 days of service of complaint. With an early hearing date, they could be out of the case in 60 days. She would have to get by a demurrer before she could do discovery or even think of trying to get a settlement. I do insurance defense and I can guarantee I would demurrer and fight this type of case because it would be ridiculous to sue the parents. Yes, we love to settle but we will fight the crappy cases like this because they are winnable. Hell, if she survived a demurrer, I would drown her on written discovery, take her depo and then file a motion for summary judgment. 

I completely agree that in a "normal" nuisance case like our imaginary case by DD against JB and Michelle, a demurrer would be very effective, especially considering how much time has passed since the molestations.  I think JB and MIchelle, again in our imaginary case, because DD has not sued them nor do I believe she will, would have a very difficult time agreeing to file a pleading that basically said "yeah, go ahead and assume as truthful everything she says about what shitty parents we were."  I guess I'm torn about how shrewd they would be about that kind of a legal move, versus how the press would portray it (and we all know what fame whores they are).  I can see the InTouch headline now...Jim Bob and Michelle admit to atrocious parenting at every possible juncture!!  Even though the demurrer of course isn't a legal admission, you just know the media would frame it as an admission of some sort.  Who knows how their particular brand of dysfunction would play out in that scenario...but it sure is fun to speculate!

Anyhoo, I agree that this is fascinating!  It's cool to learn more about how something like this might play out, and how the personalities involved could affect that.  @Whoosh, no, I do not think DD is going to sue JB and Michelle.  But I do think that the legal issues involved are fun to dissect.