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

[Mercer]

6 hours ago, sunshine said:

I wonder would Jessa's lawsuit put her adoption quest in jeopardy since it will question her mental state due to the abuse and the abuser is still nearby?

Unlikely, in my opinion. Jessa was the victim in the abuse and the lawsuit (however legally viable it is or is not) is theoretically about her right to privacy. Josh doesn't live with her, so having a reasonable safety plan in place regarding him should be sufficient.

I think her own tearful interview defending Josh will be a much bigger issue than the lawsuit in terms of how it makes her emotional stability appear and how capable she looks when it comes to protecting a child from abuse. If she was going to hang herself on this topic, she has already done so.

That said, the biggest barrier to adoption for the Seewalds is the fact that they're basically newlyweds with an infant and a toddler, very little parenting experience, and very limited life experience due to their sheltered lifestyle. Even the abuse-related issues aside, they don't appear to be great adoption candidates.

[infooverload]

The whole dichotomy of wanting the abuse to be forgotten yet going forward with this lawsuit is interesting. Their show according to the Duggars was a ministry opportunity. At a certain point they knew it was going to end. The InTouch article didn't sneak up on them if the FOIA rules were followed. They could have very easily walked away from the network before the scandal came out. The adult children could have focused on their brand if you will sooner. They keep saying they don't need the show, put their actions tell a different story. As far as we know the only husband in the family not dependent on Jim Bob in some way is Jeremy. The rest appear not to have truly leaved and cleaved onto their spouse. The remaining adult children at home don't seem to have struck out on their own, if they have included in the show to add some variety. Side note whatever happened to the tattoo place Jana bought?

[Lyle Lanley]

I'm interested to see how this plays out because they aren't being represented by Lionel Hutz. It's someone who is a high up attorney. Hopefully they used the past two years to do some actual research. However it seems the Duggars like to put minimal effort in while expecting maximum gains.

I do think it was unethical that the reports were published by InTouch even with the redacted information, as much as I find the behavior of the Duggars distasteful. However unethical and unlawful aren't necessarily the same thing. Was it a shitty thing to do? Yes. Was it illegal? Well, the past few attempts have said no. We will see how this one pans out.

The sad part is this is probably the last time the Duggars will generate a lot of interest outside of fundie watching circles and probably not the last time the Duggars were hoping to be remembered for.

[MadeItOut]

6 hours ago, FlamingFundie said:

I totally agree that Puppetmaster JB is behind everything. Yes, legally the four Duggar victims are technically adults, but anyone with half a brain can see they're still under his thumb and have likely not been given the skills to choose such things for themselves. "Daddy has our best interests at heart" and all that bull honkey. Hell, they likely weren't even given the professional help to deal with any of this!

The type of control they go in for is REALLY subtle as well, so folks who've never  experienced it, it can be hard to reconcile typical TV portrayal of DV with what goes on. 

This is why I sometimes shudder when pretty much every photo of Anna has someone else holding one of her kids. It *could* be totally innocent, but having lived through my first marriage where the in-laws and their church friends' favourite mechanism was to hold the baby or show up at the house to 'help' when I might otherwise have been alone long enough in a situation where he couldn't leave the apartment locked without someone noticing, that's really worrying to watch.

Sometimes it's when the subtlest and scariest stuff is going on that people appear to be functioning 'normally'.

[MadeItOut]

6 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

I always saw Jill as extremely fragile.  The whole shower rack melt down and all.

 

That's one of the places where 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. She has had a little first response and midwifery training. In both cases, the earliest stuff that's taught is to shift into, they called it 'duck mode' when we were training: apparently calm and steady on the surface while you paddle like mad underneath. They'll coach that from her, and my guess is, if her nerve breaks, they'll use previous examples, such as the Megan Kelly, to show trauma, or to suggest she's being deliberately upset.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd imagine she's too unpredictable to be a desirable witness?

[Lurky]

8 hours ago, Jess said:

Reading the complaint they are not looking so much for lost earning damages as they are mental anguish and punitive so loss of the show isn't going to be that big of an issue. The big amount they are looking for is punitive. 

I didn't understand how the 4 girls could get dames based on loss of earnings, because while 19K&C was cancelled, Counting On is focused on them, rather than their parents - especially the first one being "Jill and Jessa Counting On" - and even if it's a smaller show/fewer episodes, there are fewer people to split the earnings between.

I was wondering if, like the whole Hulk Hogan thing, they're being backed by someone deep-pocketed with a grudge against In Touch - but then they're fighting the town too. (and I do wonder what local opinions on this are)

[foreign fundie]

I cannot see how they have a right to compensation for losing income from the show. 

1. If they feel they have a legal right to an x amount of income, they should sue TLC. They do not do that, so I gather TLC has honored the contract and not illegally deprived them of income. So there must have been something in the contract about the eventuality of moral failure of a cast member. This moral failure which could potentially stop the show they were all aware of. So they should thank their lucky stars it went on as long as it did.

2. They may have lost some income from being a side piece in their parents' show. But look what they've got. 4 seasons of their very own show, with much more focus on them and opportunities for brand building. How that has worked out financially I don't know, but I would speculate that the girls individually got as much or more than before. Only JB missed income.

As for emotional damages, I do believe that it was hard and they did not deserve that spotlight on them. What they wrongly lost was their privacy. Even if they lose the case, that their privacy was hurt still stands.

But on the other hand, they got universal pity for what they went through. No one blamed them for being abused. It did not damage their reputation as individuals. The heat and hate they got was not for being abused or outed as victims. It was for going on TV and downplaying abuse and giving incorrect statistic which would mean molestation was a normal part of life. Although we suspect they were made to go on TV, legally they were adults and they cannot blame others in court for the heat they got for saying stupid things. That was not inevitable. They initiated it.

So they will have to prove whatever emotional damage they sustained was from the uncovering of their identities, and not from the shitstorm they got after going on TV. Because really, people were full of sympathy for them at first and all the heat was directed to Josh and the parents. 

I wonder if they cannot differentiate because they are so enmeshed and feel all the disapproval their parents get as a personal attack too. 

[subsaharanafrica]

The more I read the less I think this is a hopeless suit. It's worth noting that the article everyone is relying on to say that they are going to lose (because the document release probably wasn't unlawful) addresses only one cause of action. The Duggars are filing suit under seven different causes of action [Basically they're suing under seven different areas of law. These claims all exist independently of one another. It's not just about the FOIA statute]. Even if the analysis in the article is correct and they lose the one claim dealing with the FOIA--six claims still remain. This isn't as cut and dry as people seem to think.

I'm morbidly curious to see how this pans out here. After Gawker refused to comply with a court order and went bankrupt rather than admit they were in the wrong I question whether InTouch would settle. Or maybe they they learned something from the Gawker mess. Who knows. 

[melon]

I don't see Jessa and Ben being able to adopt.I won't say never,but I think it is doubtful.

Is it true you can't adopt if you have a baby younger than 9 months?Anyway,I agree,with another poster.Jessa will be having babies every year or year and half,like her mother.

[Vex]

I suffered medical negligence too. I had day surgery on my knee and immediately contracted a staph infection (as in, the next day I could tell something was badly wrong because I'd had that procedure before and hadn't suffered that kind of pain). I called the surgeon because I knew something wasn't right and the receptionist wouldn't let me talk to him, telling me that 'of course you're in pain, dear' since I'd just had surgery.
Within a few days I was unable to walk and my knee was constantly weeping and I had to be admitted to hospital, where they drew fluid from my knee and found it was staph. I suffer from intense side-effects from antibiotics and when I told my surgeon that he said to stop taking the antibiotic if I suffered a bad reaction. I did, and I stopped taking it. He didn't tell me to contact him if it happened, or to go to my GP to get a different antibiotic. My infection got much, much worse, culminating in him having to immediately admit me to the hospital for surgery to clean and repair my knee when he saw me for my two week checkup. During that surgery I suffered permanent nerve damage to my knee, greatly exacerbating the chronic pain I already suffered. There was tissue hanging out of the wound because he did such a sloppy job cleaning it out. The staph infection had almost set into the bone b the time he cleaned it out.

We consulted lawyers, who said that there was definitely negligence but it would be basically impossible to find a doctor to testify on my behalf because doctors here close ranks when they're sued and I wasn't crippled by the damage, only permanently injured, which would mean a jury would probably not sympathise. Because of that we didn't pursue the case, despite the fact he permanently damaged me and contributed to my disability.

It really sucks when you can't pursue a genuine case because jurors are unsympathetic and doctors are too afraid of being sued to testify when another doctor fucks up.

I feel bad for the girls having their dirty laundry aired and don't believe the Megyn Kelly interview was something they wanted. They toed the party line as they've been brainwashed to do their entire lives. I doubt they're all that keen on going to court. I think calling them greedy is pretty harsh.

[VelociRapture]

I've been trying to verify the posts stating InTouch took wo weeks to receive the reports once filing for them. I haven't been able to (and would appreciate being pointed in the right direction.)

I did find this though:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/lifestyle/style/to-get-the-josh-duggar-story-intouch-utilized-solid-investigative-journalism/2015/06/07/f4dabc4a-0bbe-11e5-95fd-d580f1c5d44e_story.html

Its an interesting read that explains the background a bit.

ETA: Just to point out, the article clearly states four sisters were assaulted. This was published back in summer of 2015. So the fact that four sisters were victims, though not which ones, has been out there since the news pretty much broke.

Also of note, the magazine worked closely with an Arkansas law firm to request the reports legally. The Editor also points out that the magazine did not at any point name the five victims - he stated that people correctly speculated based off the redacted reports the city released to them. So, basically, don't shoot the messenger.

He also claims they know who the fifth victim is, but they will not name the person. 

[JordynDarby5]

3 hours ago, Vex said:

It really sucks when you can't pursue a genuine case because jurors are unsympathetic and doctors are too afraid of being sued to testify when another doctor fucks up.

They really do close ranks don't they? My family wanted to sue my mother's eye doctor she kept having trouble in one eye and went to see her doctor several times during a two year period he kept insisting nothing was wrong. She got finally went to a different doctor and yep there was problem and she needed surgery although she'd never get her sight completely back in that eye. But when our lawyer checked into it nope none of the doctors would testify and without that we couldn't win. It really sucks doctors mess up and get away with it.  Who cares about the patients who have to live with their mess ups. I hate doctors.

[subsaharanafrica]

I'm really sorry that happened to you @Vex. That is my experience from my former life a a plaintiff's attorney as well. Med mal is its own kettle of fish and medical negligence is just really hard for the reasons you stated. No one likes second guessing doctors, not other doctors who never saw the patient leading up to the events in question and not laypeople on a jury. 

[moriah]

3 hours ago, subsaharanafrica said:

The more I read the less I think this is a hopeless suit. It's worth noting that the article everyone is relying on to say that they are going to lose (because the document release probably wasn't unlawful) addresses only one cause of action. The Duggars are filing suit under seven different causes of action [Basically they're suing under seven different areas of law. These claims all exist independently of one another. It's not just about the FOIA statute]. Even if the analysis in the article is correct and they lose the one claim dealing with the FOIA--six claims still remain. This isn't as cut and dry as people seem to think.

I'm morbidly curious to see how this pans out here. After Gawker refused to comply with a court order and went bankrupt rather than admit they were in the wrong I question whether InTouch would settle. Or maybe they they learned something from the Gawker mess. Who knows. 

I think it is after reading model jury instructions on torts.  Public disclosure of private fact:

Quote

In determining whether the facts were not of legitimate public concern, the following factors should be considered: (1) the social value of the fact published, (2) the depth of the intrusion into (plaintiff)'s private affairs, (3) the extent to which (plaintiff) voluntarily placed [himself][herself] into a position of public notoriety, [(4) the nature of the state's interest in preventing the disclosure,] (5) whether the fact is a matter of public record [and (6) if the fact publicized concerned events that occurred in the past, whether there is any continued public interest in the fact published].

Their other torts have difficult elements to prove as well.  

But I'm curious about what court order InTouch allegedly violated.  Did the Zimmermann order include a press gag order?  Wouldn't that be unConstitutional?

 

[subsaharanafrica]

@moriah Are you asking about the ignored court order I mentioned? That was Gawker. The judge ordered them to take down Hulk Hogan's sex tape. They refused and left it online. They also published an article thumbing their nose at the judge.  They ended up losing the suit and didn't have the cash to pay the judgment and they went bankrupt. 

[moriah]

10 minutes ago, subsaharanafrica said:

@moriah Are you asking about the ignored court order I mentioned? That was Gawker. The judge ordered them to take down Hulk Hogan's sex tape. They refused and left it online. They also published an article thumbing their nose at the judge.  They ended up losing the suit and didn't have the cash to pay the judgment and they went bankrupt. 

Sorry, was referring to the language in the Duggar lawsuit where they seem to think Zimmerman's order was effective against the media as well as law enforcement. 

Here's a link to model tort jury instructions in Arkansas.  They are alleging outrage, approbation, intrusion on seclusion, and the above "disclose of private fact".  The magazine will argue that their intent was to publish a story about an adult public figure that was in the public interest, and disclosure of identifying information about the victims was not the intent, and use the affirmative defense of freedom of the press because the only way they could have done more in this situation to protect the identities of the victims while authenticating the allegations was not to report on a legitimate news story at all.

[Jess]

28 minutes ago, moriah said:

I think it is after reading model jury instructions on torts.  Public disclosure of private fact:

Their other torts have difficult elements to prove as well.  

 

I think the key is that Joshs actions are a public concern/newsworthy no one can argue against that. However, that has to be seperated from the girls being his victims. I am not so sure that the girls being victims of sexual assault so long ago is newsworthy. 

The other tort against in touch is outrage more commonly known as intentional infliction of emotional distress from what I have read a public figure really doesn't have much chance to win this case. Winning this cause of action would be a huge change of established case law.

Other causes of action are against the city and that will come down to whether or not it was properly redacted. 

 

[Queen]

I'm pretty sure Jill and Jessa didn't want to out themselves as their brother's victims but felt like they had to. And they downplayed the molestation because A. they would have been punished by their parents and community if they had done anything else and B. Since they were blamed for Josh's actions, it's likely they feel a lot of shame, and downplaying it makes it much easier to bear. Then they didn't "sin" so much...  God I hate Quiverfull 

I feel sympathy for them, but at the same time I don't want them to get any money out of this. Because we all know it's going to go to JB/the family/missioncations/spreading their agenda, not towards professional, secular therapy for the girls (and for Josh! He needs to understand how much he has hurt his sisters, his wife and his children). 

[mpheels]

1 hour ago, subsaharanafrica said:

@moriah Are you asking about the ignored court order I mentioned? That was Gawker. The judge ordered them to take down Hulk Hogan's sex tape. They refused and left it online. They also published an article thumbing their nose at the judge.  They ended up losing the suit and didn't have the cash to pay the judgment and they went bankrupt. 

I'm glad you mentioned the Gawker case - it might give InTouch more incentive to settle quickly. Gawker did everything wrong in their own defense, but the outcome was still a bit of a shock in terms of a tabloid's ability to write about public figures. I think the Duggar's case will hinge not on the story itself, but on InTouch's decision to post the reports online. If InTouch had just reported on the case - Josh Duggar accused of molesting five girls, parents responded in halfassed manner - then there would be little grounds for a lawsuit (presuming records request was handled properly). 

[closetcagebaby]

17 minutes ago, mpheels said:

I'm glad you mentioned the Gawker case - it might give InTouch more incentive to settle quickly. Gawker did everything wrong in their own defense, but the outcome was still a bit of a shock in terms of a tabloid's ability to write about public figures. I think the Duggar's case will hinge not on the story itself, but on InTouch's decision to post the reports online. If InTouch had just reported on the case - Josh Duggar accused of molesting five girls, parents responded in halfassed manner - then there would be little grounds for a lawsuit (presuming records request was handled properly). 

I'm not sure if this is the same type of case though. Gawker didn't get the video from law enforcement through correct legal channels. There wasn't any type of procedure followed there. And they, like you said, unfortunately did everything wrong.

5 hours ago, subsaharanafrica said:

The Duggars are filing suit under seven different causes of action [Basically they're suing under seven different areas of law. These claims all exist independently of one another. It's not just about the FOIA statute].

Are you talking about the 7 points mentioned earlier in the thread or something else? I'm curious what their other claims are.

[JenniferJuniper]

1 hour ago, Jess said:

I think the key is that Joshs actions are a public concern/newsworthy no one can argue against that. However, that has to be seperated from the girls being his victims. I am not so sure that the girls being victims of sexual assault so long ago is newsworthy.  

 

If Josh's behavior (and IMO, even more importantly, his parents' terrible behavior) is deemed newsworthy, how can the two things really be separated out?  He molested four of his sisters.  That's a fact. He only had 5 at the time.  Two of them outed themselves for a cash payout from Fox as soon as they could. Arguably, one would really have to study the docs and know enough about the family to guess precisely who the one non-victim was, but still, by talking two questions off the table, the Duggars helped expose who the other two likely were.  And didn't Jill or Jessa make reference on Kelly's show that the other victims were younger than they?  

[The limit does not exist]

I'd like to hear the person from Oprah testify about what they knew and if Josh was every "betrothed" to a Holt but this was the issue.

If this really was the open secret it seems to be based on the reports that were already circulating (Alice, Washington post, Oprah) and how many people were aware (church elders, the child porn cop), that surely hurts the public disclosure of private fact idea, right? I'm not good with legal jargon but it doesn't seem much like a private fact.

[Fundie Bunny]

1 hour ago, Jess said:

I think the key is that Joshs actions are a public concern/newsworthy no one can argue against that. However, that has to be seperated from the girls being his victims. I am not so sure that the girls being victims of sexual assault so long ago is newsworthy. 

I do believe that the fact that those he molested were his sisters is pretty newsworty. The fact that his parents hid what he did not to the expense of some random poor girl (wich would also be terrible anyway), but to the expense of their own daughters is also newsworthy.

And if you are going to be calling transgender people molesters, you better not be one yourself.

[Jess]

3 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

If Josh's behavior (and IMO, even more importantly, his parents' terrible behavior) is deemed newsworthy, how can the two things really be separated out?  He molested four of his sisters.  That's a fact. He only had 5 at the time.  Two of them outed themselves for a cash payout from Fox as soon as they could. Arguably, one would really have to study the docs and know enough about the family to guess precisely who the one non-victim was, but still, by talking two questions off the table, the Duggars helped expose who the other two likely were.  And didn't Jill or Jessa make reference on Kelly's show that the other victims were younger than they?  

They can and must be separated for the legal case. That Josh molested children is newsworthy he would never have a case. The issue is if it was newsworthy that the victims were his sisters. I am not saying it wasn't. What I am saying is that there is a legal argument that they didn't need to post the police reports they could have ran story saying they had obtained documents showing Josh had molested children etc and used excerpts that didn't identify the victims. They choose to release the reports which made it clear it was his sisters who were victims. There is certainly an argument that it was newsworthy who the victims were, but there is also a good argument that it wasn't. Ultimately, either a judge will decide it on motion or more likely a jury will decide and the jury instructions will almost certaintly call on the jury to make that distinction. 

[Carm_88]

This, for me, is a what came first the chicken or the egg situation. They did lose their show because of the scandal but they wouldn't have been on TV if their parents hadn't pimped them out. If they weren't on TV, then it wouldn't be news. I still think they are blaming the wrong people but JB isn't going to sue himself.