27 Dresses - I Mean Duggar Threads (Now, with Duggar women lawsuit discussion!)

[TuringMachine]

The lawsuit mentions that someone here was able to identify each victim. While I'm sure at least someone was able to do this, IRC what made most people figure which girls were victims was one statement from a girl saying she was getting her GED and was not a victim. This could have been either Jill or Jana due to their ages. Of course this did mean that the younger three had to be victims. Then the Duggar's confirmed it by Joy request the records destroyed. Jill then confirmed herself to be a victim (and in doing so, Jana not a victim).

I am really intrigued that FJ is mentioned though. I wonder who put it in there. I guess I had always assumed none of the Duggar children read here.

[Imagine20]

From what I recall, a city attorney was consulted and helped with the redacting of the reports released pursuant to the FOIA request. I would hope that attorney knows AR law better than we do. 

I agree the suit was probably filed this week because the statute of limitations was about to expire.

I really hope they didn't push this wedding up just so they could bring this lawsuit thinking it wouldn't be discovered by the public until after Joy was married. As someone said before, then all 4 of the victims would be married. 

[flycat]

2 minutes ago, TuringMachine said:

 

I am really intrigued that FJ is mentioned though. I wonder who put it in there. I guess I had always assumed none of the Duggar children read here

The Duggar children may not read here but it sounds like their lawyers do.

[zygote373]

2 minutes ago, TuringMachine said:

I am really intrigued that FJ is mentioned though. I wonder who put it in there. I guess I had always assumed none of the Duggar children read here.

I'm guessing some associate at the firm that drew up the lawsuit was tasked with scouring social media for evidence that people identified the victims.

[Carm_88]

4 minutes ago, zygote373 said:

I'm guessing some associate at the firm that drew up the lawsuit was tasked with scouring social media for evidence that people identified the victims.

I hope that poor associate enjoyed some thread drift.  

[AnnaRuk09]

6 minutes ago, TuringMachine said:

The lawsuit mentions that someone This could have been either Jill or Jana due to their ages. Of course this did mean that the younger three had to be victims. Then the Duggar's confirmed it by Joy request the records destroyed. Jill then confirmed herself to be a victim (and in doing so, Jana not a victim).

Don't know if this has been discussed but many many years ago, I believe in 06' or in 07', waaay before 2015 when this bomb dropped, someone in an online forum unveiled a lot of the key points of what had happened with Josh and his victims. The person clearly stated that Jana was not involved. And it also hinted that Jill was the one that told her parents of josh's Shavuot. This was during the time the Duggar's appearance was canceled on oprah because someone tipped her off to what Josh had done. However, no questions were raised to authorities and it didn't come up until May 2015. 

[zygote373]

Just skimmed through the lawsuit, and I see at the end there is a final "prayer for relief" section where they summarize the request. Is that normal lawyer speak? Arkansas speak? Or just Godly Duggar speak??

[Shadoewolf]

Arkansas 'speak. It was the same in the divorce papers when hubby and I almost split a few years back.

[SassyPants]

If the girls get a pay out, I hope they each run away and get themselves educated, so that they can support their own families without the need for further child exploitation. 

Selling yourself is never good.

Selling your kids, far worse.

This shit needs to end.

[mpheels]

Not just Arkansas - prayer for relief is normal law language. 

[anjulibai]

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but I didn't see it. Mods, please move if it has been posted/discussed.

Anyways, it looks like the Duggars are suing InTouch and Springdale, Arizona for breach of privacy. I'm just going to post the link:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/duggar-sisters-file-privacy-suit-against-city-magazine/ar-BBBhZ6i?li=BBnb7Kz&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

Oops, just saw it was posted in the 27 dresses thread. Nevermind!

[Shadoewolf]

My thoughts on the lawsuit? My armchair opinion is that it will be thrown out. Right or wrong the info was obtained legally and redacted as deemed necessary. It was ALL mere speculation on who the victims were until Jill and Jessa outed themselves. Jinger and Joy, by putting their names to the lawsuit just turned speculation into fact through their own actions. Then to say (on national tv) that they've forgiven Josh and just want to move on with their lives?  If I'm Springdale PD or InTouch I'd be playing that part of the interview for the court, as how is filing this now, 2 years after the fact and when talk of the scandal has died down quite a bit,  moving on with their lives? I think the whole Kelly interview is going to be the snag in their case.And what has it really done  except that it cost JB his precious show? Josh can't be seen or get hired anywhere cuz they outed him as a child molester so they need the money to support him and his family?  And lets introduce Jill and Derick begging for donations to help cover Dill #2's birth. It reads money grab all around. And why now? To prove the girls are no longer damaged goods according to their crazy beliefs? I....just...grrr

[Hmmm_idolatry]

@AnnaRuk09-what is Josh's Shavuot?  

[Shadoewolf]

Oh, and when the info came out, did they duck and say no comment, please respect our privacy during this time? Nope.  You want to sue for breach of privacy or whatever, don't go on Megyn Kelly and do a tearful, nationally televised interview.

[VelociRapture]

40 minutes ago, TuringMachine said:

The lawsuit mentions that someone here was able to identify each victim. While I'm sure at least someone was able to do this, IRC what made most people figure which girls were victims was one statement from a girl saying she was getting her GED and was not a victim. This could have been either Jill or Jana due to their ages. Of course this did mean that the younger three had to be victims. Then the Duggar's confirmed it by Joy request the records destroyed. Jill then confirmed herself to be a victim (and in doing so, Jana not a victim).

I remember stating that about Jana. But I remember first that I pointed out that either Jana OR Jill were not a victim due to the GED interview. They were the only two daughters old enough to pursue a GED at the time. I had a feeling that Jill was the victim, but wasn't sure until Jill confirmed it.

As for the others, there were certain aspects of their interviews that pointed me (and others in certain directions.) Jessa and Jill pretty much confirmed that they weren't the laundry room or story time victims when they stated they were both asleep during the Megyn Kelly interview. It also let us know that Joy was the story time victim because she was the only one young enough to be sitting on someone's lap. By process of elimination, you end up with Jinger as the laundry room victim.

We wouldn't have known any of this for sure if it weren't for the interview they gave Megyn Kelly though. We could have tried to guess, but we wouldn't have been sure. 

Pretty sure a lot of us noticed those things though. But I'm going to be super pissed if they were referring to me and it somehow helps them win.

(And I still feel really icky typing Jinger and Joy's names as victims. I know they outed themselves, but it feels weird after avoiding it so long.)

[klabourdeth]

4 hours ago, Kittikatz said:

I suspect the timing of this law suit has something to do with the Governor of Arkansas trying to repeal certain sections of the FOI (the ones that require open meetings and transparency in business dealings). If they frame this through the lens of "FOI victimised these poor girls, let's repeal chunks of it" it may be more palatable to voters, who will get sucked into the human interest angle and not realise what else is going out the window.

This is exactly what I was thinking when I saw the headline. I don't if they will win the legal battle or things will be settle out of court. But I can see them keeping this suite going through appeals if they lose early. It's the keeping it in the news bit I think is their real angle.

Anyone with a bit of knowledge of the family knows they want to be politically involved. This lawsuit, in my eyes, gets them a bit back in that field. The family , has what appears to be, a cloud of influence in the state so I can see some behind closed doors thinking of if we get it through the court system & the right amount of coverage then some local politician* will propose a bill on the subject. The victim angle aspect is, what I think, will keep the scariness of propose change from seeing to much light.

* I believe that they already arranged for at least one politician to take it upon their kind heartedness to bring such a bill up next session if the news coverage stays in a favorable light for the family.
 

 

[OyToTheVey]

21 minutes ago, Hmmm_idolatry said:

@AnnaRuk09-what is Josh's Shavuot?  

I'm not her but Shavuot is Hebrew. Means acceptance of gd's gift. 

[foreign fundie]

5 hours ago, SamiKatz said:

I have to disagree with you.  They were minor children and the law should absolutely have a responsibility to protect their privacy. (snip)

I do agree however, that if the documents are written in such a way that it would be easy to identify the minor victims of a crime, then that document should not be released to the public at all, regardless of the FOIA.

Jim Bob and Michelle may have responsibility for what happened initially, and certainly do for how they handled the situation,(snip)

We are on the same page. As I stated, I consider it a flaw in the law that too much information could be legally obtained. What I meant was that the law should be a last resort. It was first of all the parents who should have protected them. They should have taken their responsibility to make sure their daughters did not have to go through a public revictimization. They failed. The laws that were meant to be there in case the parents failed, were not strong enough to prevent this, however. So essentially they were at the mercy of the bad judgement of JB and the tabloids. 

It is like a group of siblings being put into foster care because the parents are abusive and regularly beat the children into hospital. If a child breaks his leg accidentally in foster care, that is really sad. But do the parents have a right to complain? And if the children, once they are adults, blame CPS, while claiming their parents are the best in the world, would that make them believable?

I know, no analogy is perfect, but this is the feeling I get with these now grown women, who believe the parents who got them in this mess are fantastic, and banding together with the parents in suing the people that tried to help them (and who may have made mistakes).

Again, if they are essentially forced by the parents to sue (which would not surprise me) then it is worse then silly. That would make it evil. Nobody deserves to have this forced on them.

[singsingsing]

I actually do agree that these young women were re-victimized by this. But I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of their parents, who not only failed to protect their daughters (time and time again), but chose to thrust them into the public spotlight and make them into reality TV stars even knowing that this was lurking in their background. They knew that this had happened, knew that many people in their circle in Arkansas were privy to many of the details, knew that the police reports existed, and still chose to put their daughters on public display and open up their lives for public consumption and judgment. The media is just doing what the media does. Jim Bob and Michelle, meanwhile, failed to do what parents are supposed to do: protect their children.

[Hmmm_idolatry]

17 minutes ago, OyToTheVey said:

I'm not her but Shavuot is Hebrew. Means acceptance of gd's gift. 

Thank you.  I know the term itself (and the holiday), but did Josh celebrate it?  I'm just curious as to how it relates to Josh.  

And now I want cheesecake. 

[OyToTheVey]

Just now, Hmmm_idolatry said:

Thank you.  I know the term itself (and the holiday), but did Josh celebrate it?  I'm just curious as to how it relates to Josh.  

And now I want cheesecake. 

I doubt it but they always mess up Jewish customs and traditions so I wouldn't doubt they try making it Christian. 

 

PS: Cheesecake sounds amazing right now.

[justmy2cents]

I'm pretty sure shavuot was an auto correct gone wrong.

[faraway]

I can just picture JB sitting with some fundie financial planner discussing finances. Things are looking worse than in the past years since the show was cancelled and they discuss potential alternative incomes. Then they decide there's still a chance to sue for damages and JB tells the girls to please sign here, here and here.

[Hmmm_idolatry]

9 minutes ago, justmy2cents said:

I'm pretty sure shavuot was an auto correct gone wrong.

Thanks!

Although, I could see Smuggar believing God had handed some commandments directly to him.

"Thou shall catfish someone in the event of creating an Ashley Madison profile."  "Thou shall do construction work as penance for sins." "Thou shall use a child to hide from cameras during a wedding." 

[Lurky]

Got to admit, while it's weird to think their lawyers have been scouring threads for evidence they need big bags of cash, I am hoping the defending lawyers are also reading here for ideas....