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

[DarkAnts]

15 minutes ago, shiverful said:

Jill hat tweeted about the lawsuit: https://mobile.twitter.com/jillmdillard 

I don't know why, but it feels kinda strange having her comment the case on her social media... Perhps because the Duggars rarely do. They are great at acting like all is good when huge shit is going down.

The tweet shows that she has no clue about whats happening with regards to the lawsuit.

[Shadoewolf]

Hey Jill, they didn't release your name! It was redacted. You released it yourself crying on Megyn Kelly!!

[Blue jay]

3 hours ago, lumpentheologie said:

The fact that these girls should not have been outed as victims is not negated by the extreme failures of their parents to protect them. It is not negated by the fact that Jill and Jessa did interviews about it after they were already implicated by the media and police report, interviews in which they talked about the very real pain that being outed as victims had caused them.

I loved this whole post.

A real part of victimization and revictimuzation is stealing agency from survivors - questioning motives, suggesting they should feel differently, or calling them out for misplacing anger/pain. Regardless of my opinion of their religion, personalities, family, or the identity of their perpetrator; I think they deserve some basic privacy. If the law doesn't allow for this privacy of minors then the law should be changed. Perhaps JB is behind the lawsuit, but it is just as possible that this is 4 women claiming a bit of their own story back - a story that was stolen when information they wanted to keep private was shared. And yes, they have the right to a bit of privacy despite their status as reality stars. Surely no one is suggesting that all reality stars are signing up to disclose their sexual assault and abuse histories as soon as they sign their first contract.

Thanks for the excellent post @lumpentheologie.

[Jinder Roles]

Hmmm, I see both sides and it's a complicated situation. One the one hand, if the victims say they have been re-victimized then we should listen to them. Validation of victims is very important. As previously stated, it was probably not very ethical to release the report without their knowledge. However, the city did nothing legally wrong under the FOIA (and their names were redacted). Plus there's the issue of the Kelly interview in which 2 victims outed themselves and made it easier to speculate who the other two were (though without the police report we would not have been able to speculate on the other two) And if their parents handled the case properly/ they weren't paraded around on reality TV, the situation would be very different. And records would be sealed. 

I agree that their is definitely a political and money-grabbing element, but the victims' feelings are valid. Just maybe not for a legal case, especially after the Kelly interview. 

One thing's for sure; the lawyers on both sides of this case can just read FJ for supporting and counter arguments. 

[Curious]

I would have a lot more sympathy and be less suspect of the motives, if they had filed this lawsuit right after it happened.  Say within the first 6 or so months.   Waiting until 2 days before the statute of limitations expires doesn't give me warm fuzzies about the motives for filing are.

I feel bad for the girls.  They have never really had a chance at life and that sucks, but they are all adults now and capable of telling daddy no we will not put more of our lives out there for public consumption just for a chance at another payday.

It's true that it might have been the girls idea, but based on what we have seen over the years I think the odds of that being the case are pretty slim.

[Shadoewolf]

Its hard to tell Daddy no when he holds the deed to Jill and Jessa's houses and their entire household income because he 'employs' Ben. They'd never bite the hand that feeds. Sadly, because even if they got away now, they still have a chance at a "normal" life.

[eveandadam]

Correct me if I'm wrong but were the two people who requested the record from the town of Springdale not a same-sex couple? Is this the reason why Jill and Jessa hinted at people with an agenda in the Megyn interview? Maybe this is also one of the reasons why they are suing?

 

1. The documents were obtained legally and all the names of minors were redacted out (was Josh's name visible?) as far as I know.

BUT

2. I still think they could win this case, wanna know why? I have said from the very beginning that JB may have far more power (and money) than was is public, or visible on the show. He is very well connected in the NWA area. He has friends, probably to the highest ranks on the conservative side. When I think about all the other rumors that swirl around on  the internet about JB and Josh and nobody ever came forward and said anything... Well, let's just put it in a subtle way: This screams of power and money.

 

 

[Fundie Bunny]

19 hours ago, DarkAnts said:

Joy was outed as a victim based on her age at the time of the attack. I think her age was part of the police report.

No ages or names were given at the original report. The only way we could find out who they were was because of the GED question and the awful interview on Megyn Kelly. 

13 hours ago, AnnaRuk09 said:

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. 

The people on that show did what they had to do. Contact authorities and cancel the family apperance on the show. 

[VelociRapture]

Jist want to take a moment to say how sorry I am that you have personal experience with this @lumpentheologie. I'm glad to hear you've been to counseling and that you're doing well.

I'm doing my best to remain respectful of all parties regarding the lawsuit. As I said, I will always have sympathy for these women for what was done to them and for the fact that they've experienced pain over it being revealed.  They have every right to feel distressed and violated over this (and I don't doubt that they do.) 

But I'm not going to pretend I'm not glad that more and more people are starting to see just how damaging these people and their beliefs are. They've gone out of their way to impose their dangerous beliefs on the rest of us. I'm not sorry their parents are facing repercussions for their choice to sell their lives on television. I am truly sorry these women were revictimized because of that and I truly wish it had been any other scandal... but I'm not sorry it made some people look twice at what the Duggars believe. 

I'll be clear here - I am always on the side of the victims, or alleged victims, in their pursuit of justice. If the law was violated then I do believe the lawsuit is warranted. But at the moment, I don't really see it. And I think a lot of pushback on this is due to the fact that they refuse to attribute blame where it's most deserved and they refuse to acknowledge the role their parent's played in why the reports were published at all. There has been no accountability at all - their parents and, to an extent, their brother have been portrayed as victims of the media as well. That simply isn't true and it likely is heavily contributing to how many of us feel about this lawsuit.

Moving on:

Another poster asked about the timing of the lawsuit. I believe it's a combination of factors. The statute of limitations is an obvious one. I also believe they wanted to wait until all the victims were no longer minors and at least on the way to marriage. I think they simply lucked out that the Vuolos and soon-to-be Forsyths courted and married when they did. And to be honest, they may have needed time to try and emotionally cope with the news being published before formally pursuing legal action as well.

And another poster said the reports were released without their knowledge. If I remember right, the Duggars were actually informed ahead of time.

ETA: And could someone take the time to explain to us the motion that Joy had filed while still a minor in regards to the reports? Would it have prevented the release of all the reports or just the ones that specifically mentioned the Duggar victims? If it would have protected the Duggar daughters, then why want this type of motion immediately filed following the investigation?

[Dugg@rTime]

Having just read the lawsuit, one thing that stood out to me is the stark way that what happened to the Duggar daughters is declared as "Sexual Assault". Not "mild, inappropriate touching", not something that is kind of acceptable that it doesn't need proper punishment and occurs in 1 in 3 families ( or whatever Jill's BS % was) and so is a normal part of family life.

i hope the young women take on board just how serious the Law views sexual assault and that what happened to them was and is unnacceptable and should not be belittled as "mild" or that it was more acceptable because it was over clothes, or victims were asleep. I hope they read exactly what they were signing wrt this lawsuit and that it sinks in.

I have no wish to rekindle pain or bring up old wounds for the girls. I only want for them to see  that this assault was a crime and at the first occurence their parents should have stepped in and dealt with the perpetrator, not have let him assault others later on . It would also be nice if they could see that JBand DQ are the ones they should be suing but that'll never happen.

[nastyhobbitses]

My two cents: I feel bad for the girls who were robbed of their agency over and over, and had no choice in whether or not a horrible thing they likely wanted to put behind them (though more likely they were just told to "get over it" and that being sad about getting sexually abused was not a proper display of contentment) was dredged up so publicly. That really sucks. As much as I'm annoyed about Jill and Jessa wanting to have it both ways ("Respect my privacy!...But totally watch me push a baby out of my vagina on national television!"), I get that life's confusing enough for them right now, and they're trying to figure out how to have any agency at all.

I feel no such sympathy for their parents, who were complicit in their children's abuse from the moment it started, tried to cover it up through their connections in the justice system, victim-blamed their own daughters, held themselves up as model parents while doing all of this, and whored their children out to reality television, giving them no choice in keeping their lives private.

I feel no such sympathy for Josh, whose crimes should be public and who never suffered any real legal or personal consequences for his actions until his crimes were made public.

[HarleyQuinn]

22 minutes ago, Dugg@rTime said:

Having just read the lawsuit, one thing that stood out to me is the stark way that what happened to the Duggar daughters is declared as "Sexual Assault". Not "mild, inappropriate touching",

 

Another example of not having it both ways? It can be sexual assault when someone may give them money for it, but on national TV it's "mild, inappropriate touching" and JB throwing out a definition of a pedophile because "Josh wasn't 16 yet so he can't be."

 

[Eternalbluepearl]

Somehow this all smacks of jimbob still trying to protect Josh or lash out at the town for "hurting" Josh and I can't quite say why. I really strongly dislike him and JimBob both. They make me vomit. As does their belief system. The daughters/sisters are pawns to these two men and nothing more. Victims when it suits, not victims when it doesn't. Women are still objects here. It's gross. I hate that the Duggars are famous. 

[Carm_88]

Jill, you hope that your lawsuit sends the message that releasing the names of juveniles is never ok. First of all, you outed yourself. Yes, it may have been easy to figure out from the police report, but you confirmed it by doing that interview. Secondly, your parents are still to blame for this. If your parents hadn't trotted you all out on TV in your matching frumpers, no one would have cared about that report. It would have stayed buried forever. Your parents put you out in the public eye and in doing so failed you again. They did it knowing that this was done to you. That the record wasn't sealed and that it could come out. 

I feel badly for these women, but this lawsuit screams vengeance and JB. 

[gustava]

10 hours ago, Jess said:

Overall the best thing they have going for them is it's a celebrity suit that everyone will likely want to settle no matter the merits of case.

I think the real target is In Touch because they probably have more $$$ than the city's insurance and they're hoping for a settlement.   Remember that a big LA law firm is involved.

[HurricaneBells]

20 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

I'm well aware of that. I've been aware of the truth since the police reports were first published.

I stated that "people" are bound to wonder why Jana isn't included - not that "I" was wondering. Many people didn't take the time to look through the reports and just went off what was reported in early media. At the time, Jill and Jessa were the only victims to step forward - no other possible or actual victims were identified. So, it seems pretty obvious to me that there will be people reading this news who are putting two and two together for the first time and realizing they may not have had the whole story. 

Edited because I just saw the Mod Post. Sorry if that muddies the clarity of my post. I can try again if needed.

I have little doubt you need me to tell you anything. I should have said it differently, I actually meant why would you in general not why would you specifically as an individual. Poor choice of wording.

[VelociRapture]

13 minutes ago, HurricaneBells said:

I have little doubt you need me to tell you anything. I should have said it differently, I actually meant why would you in general not why would you specifically as an individual. Poor choice of wording.

Ah! Gotcha. Sorry for the misunderstanding.  

[Four is Enough]

6 hours ago, eveandadam said:

BUT

2. I still think they could win this case, wanna know why? I have said from the very beginning that JB may have far more power (and money) than was is public, or visible on the show. He is very well connected in the NWA area. He has friends, probably to the highest ranks on the conservative side. When I think about all the other rumors that swirl around on  the internet about JB and Josh and nobody ever came forward and said anything... Well, let's just put it in a subtle way: This screams of power and money.

Or influence; as in maybe just that JB knows where some major skeletons are hidden. As in, "make this go away, or I'll disclose about the time you had that hooker up in your office at the state office building"...  or, "I'll tell your wife's daddy about that hunting trip" (that wasn't hunting animals) 

The man is a hairsprayed sleaze

[HarleyQuinn]

JB strikes me as someone who has a lot more skeletons in his closet than just this. I wonder if provoking the city ends up leaking some of them?

[Cleopatra7]

4 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

Or influence; as in maybe just that JB knows where some major skeletons are hidden. As in, "make this go away, or I'll disclose about the time you had that hooker up in your office at the state office building"...  or, "I'll tell your wife's daddy about that hunting trip" (that wasn't hunting animals) 

The man is a hairsprayed sleaze

JB may be connected, but I wonder if his connections would drop him or throw him under the bus if he becomes too much of a liability. The Duggar brand had become too tarnished, and this lawsuit will probably alienate any supporters in local government that the family had left.

[Jess]

Just skimmed the complaint. My favoright part was the sixth cause of action which touched on 14th amendment right to privacy. Nice how the Duggars can believe in that when it comes to $ and don't see how that conflicts with their abortion protests.

[eveandadam]

6 minutes ago, HarleyQuinn said:

JB strikes me as someone who has a lot more skeletons in his closet than just this. I wonder if provoking the city ends up leaking some of them?

Very good point!

[lumpentheologie]

7 hours ago, Blue jay said:

A real part of victimization and revictimuzation is stealing agency from survivors - questioning motives, suggesting they should feel differently, or calling them out for misplacing anger/pain.

Thank you so much for saying this -- I was trying to get at this but didn't have the words. 

Dealing with the trauma of sexual assault is complicated, and holding victims to a high standard of logic or consistency as they work through what has happened to them is unreasonable and unfair. I think this is especially true of the Duggar women, who have been robbed of agency and taught to suppress their feelings their whole lives.

Yes, they should be more angry at their parents and at Josh, but for many reasons they are unable to either feel or express that anger at this time.  The people who hurt them the most are the people they love. Some of them are still financially or otherwise dependent on their parents. They are still very young.  They do not owe us anything concerning how they deal with their suffering. It's true that they're in the public eye, but I think it's crucial that this was also something that was done to them, when they were children and had no say in the matter. 

If this lawsuit is a way for them to actually be allowed to express their pain instead of being forced to always just work on their contentment, I think that's probably good for them. If this is the only way they can call it sexual assault, for now, then I'm fine with that. 

On the other hand, if they are continuing to be pawns of JB and have no agency in this either, then I feel even more sorry for them. 

[Carm_88]

7 minutes ago, Jess said:

Just skimmed the complaint. My favoright part was the sixth cause of action which touched on 14th amendment right to privacy. Nice how the Duggars can believe in that when it comes to $ and don't see how that conflicts with their abortion protests.

Oh of course, it only matters when their rights are being trampled upon. If they want to take things from us, well who cares? 

[singsingsing]

I don't have an issue with them suing. And I have to agree that the redactions were 'cosmetic'. I mean, come on. It was obvious to whoever read the redacted police reports who the perpetrator was and who the victims were. The only somewhat unclear thing was which of the sisters were victims, and that was pretty easily discovered. In my former job I used to redact police reports every day. I recall someone saying (about the Josh reports) that the reports wouldn't have made much sense if they'd redacted so much that the identities of the victims remained hidden. So what? Your job isn't to satisfy a tabloid, it's to properly redact the report so as not to release information that shouldn't be released. There were times I had to release things that made very little sense, or not release things at all, and people were pissed off. Tough luck. 

^ This is all just a personal, gut reaction from me, though. I'm not speaking with any kind of legal expertise whatsoever. The laws in the U.S./Arkansas are different than they are where I live. I couldn't believe it when the reports were initially released, because if that request had come through my office, those reports never would've seen the light of day, redacted or not. But again, things are different here (not always for the better, either).

I have to admit, I'm conflicted, because I think it's really good that the Duggars' hypocrisy was exposed for the world to see. But outing the sisters as victims of their brother's sexual abuse, without their consent, was just cruel and unnecessary, in my opinion. Maybe a better compromise would've been a short summary of the reports, like: "He was accused of and admitted to inappropriately touching X number of underage girls at the age of XX in the year XXXX. There were X incidents over a period of X months. He was sent to X for treatment by his parents. X years later, these incidents were brought to the attention of authorities, who interviewed him, his parents, and the victims, and were satisfied that he had not reoffended and did not pose a risk to anyone. No charges were brought."

But again... these are just my personal thoughts. Most emphatically not a legal opinion.