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

[Jessalyn]

Can someone maybe explain to me who Rufus is?

[Destiny]

Can someone maybe explain to me who Rufus is?

There's a link in the FAQ answering that question.

[NakedKnees]

I know this isn't the best time for SOTDRT snark... but to be a fly on that courtroom's wall! This seems like the exact sort of "real world" circumstance that their particular education ostensibly prepared them for, but I'll be surprised if they can get through the grilling with solid responses.

Long-term, while I know they'll largely "double down" on their hateful, ridiculous beliefs, I hope this is the sort of experience that may lead the kidults to enlist professional help in their kids' education, or even to send them to brick and mortar school. I mean, in addition to hoping that they aim to be better than their parents on the protecting-their-children-from-patriarchal-abusers front.

[Lurky]

9 hours ago, ihaveanexamintwodays said:

the thought just hit me - between the reports, Megyn Kelly interview, and this current suit, we know Jinger was the "laundry room victim". Wasn't overseeing laundry Jinger's jurisdiction most of the time all the daughters were still in the home? so not only was she molested in the laundry room, to the extent that she cried whenever asked about it, and she just seems to be an emotional person in general....she was made to hang out in the laundry room for the next several years, including doing her molester's laundry, and helping her sisters cater to him? geez....

Yeah, this has upset me about the Duggars ever since.  It just seems especially evil, and I really hope it wasn't some kind of punishment for not forgiving ("If you'd really forgiven him, you wouldn't have a problem).

[VelociRapture]

@Berty KNot just that, but one of the articles I shared pointed out that no juvenile records were released. Josh was already 18 at the time of the interviews, which means they can't be classified as juvenile records.

So not only do the parents sound like they're looking to protect Josh, they're also accidentally or deliberately confusing the actual type of reports that were released legally under FOIA.

[Italiangirl]

5 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

 

So not only do the parents sound like they're looking to protect Josh, they're also accidentally or deliberately confusing the actual type of reports that were released legally under FOIA.

Maybe they think that since all the people involved was minor at the time of the 'accident' the reports should be always consider as juvenile records? They don't realize that the records wasen't seald and so is the are that He gas at time of the request that is metter

[Eternalbluepearl]

I really wonder about the sanity of Josh, JimBob and Michelle. What a clusterfuck these three people are. People and feelings don't seem to matter to these three. Only prayer and money. 

[VelociRapture]

1 hour ago, Italiangirl said:

Maybe they think that since all the people involved was minor at the time of the 'accident' the reports should be always consider as juvenile records? They don't realize that the records wasen't seald and so is the are that He gas at time of the request that is metter

It's certainly possible. 

Jessa claimed in the Megyn Kelly interview that they were juvenile records. Jill may have as well. I find it much easier to believe they were misinformed or misunderstood what the reports actually were because they were scared kids when they were interviewed. God only knows what they've been told since then. 

Michelle and JimBob should absolutely understand the difference though. They aren't stupid people. I get the feeling that they may be purposely mischaracterizing the reports for their own purposes - maybe public sympathy? 

[Carm_88]

4 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

Michelle and JimBob should absolutely understand the difference though. They aren't stupid people. I get the feeling that they may be purposely mischaracterizing the reports for their own purposes - maybe public sympathy? 

It's definitely for public sympathy. Michelle and JB know well enough that at 18, Josh was considered a legal adult. However, it looks better to the public if they are standing up for a much younger Josh and for juvenile offenders who don't deserve to have their reocrds exposed for youthful mistakes. 

[Italiangirl]

2 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

 

Michelle and JimBob should absolutely understand the difference though. They aren't stupid people. I get the feeling that they may be purposely mischaracterizing the reports for their own purposes - maybe public sympathy? 

Yes JB and Michelle sure should understand the difference, maybe the reason was to please the fan base or again the martyr complex they have against the word outside the cult 

[HarleyQuinn]

JB&M probably drilled it into the girls that they were juvenile records even though they knew the difference. The girls aren't smart enough to question their parents, they just parrot what they're told. That's all they've ever been taught.

What is the likelihood this actually makes it past a deposition? A judge could throw it out after that, no? 

[JordynDarby5]

13 minutes ago, Carm_88 said:

It's definitely for public sympathy. Michelle and JB know well enough that at 18, Josh was considered a legal adult. However, it looks better to the public if they are standing up for a much younger Josh and for juvenile offenders who don't deserve to have their reocrds exposed for youthful mistakes. 

Not to mention that the public is more likely to be sympathetic with the 4 daughters who were victims and had their molestation outed. The four girls tearfully answering as their being question by mean lawyers. Surely a jury would side with them. JimBob figures he's got it in the bag the City and InTouch will pay. He of course doesn't see how the interview downplaying the molestations or the girls following his script is going to look to a jury either.  Or stop to question whether the four girls will be able to handle testifying and being cross examined.  

[NotQuiteMotY]

I go off FJ for a couple of days...

I really, really hope this is the girls' idea rather than JB's. Otherwise, forcing them to go through it again, especially  for Jinger and Joy, is just cruel. 

Is it wrong of me to hope that the Duggars win, but only if the settlement is not money but paying for actual, professional counseling? 

[Jess]

42 minutes ago, HarleyQuinn said:

JB&M probably drilled it into the girls that they were juvenile records even though they knew the difference. The girls aren't smart enough to question their parents, they just parrot what they're told. That's all they've ever been taught.

What is the likelihood this actually makes it past a deposition? A judge could throw it out after that, no? 

After all discovery is done the defendants can make a motion for summary judgment, they don't have to, but in this case it would be shocking if they didn't. The judge will decide the motion. In this case a lot of the issue are law based issues more then fact based so it's possible the judge will decide some of the issues on motion. Whoever, losses no matter what stage they will likely appeal unless this case settles I can easily see trials, appeals, motions etc. going on for years.

[moriah]

I'm digging a bit more and there's some interesting stuff.  As you may have noticed, I'm extremely upset that once a mandated reporter learned of the abuse they didn't report.  I'm a mandated reporter in Arkansas and was in 2002.  I had to, sadly, make a mandated report in February of 2002.  I know how the law stood.

First, the Inquisitr did an opinion piece about the conditions at the time of the events. You remember in the documentaries they had a hard time finding the "rent house" that looked so much better but was about to be destroyed so they rented it to them?  They couldn't find a rental unit because of occupancy codes.  The Duggars pretty much HAD to have TLC's money and help to get adequate housing for their children.  It's more than possible Holt didn't do his job as a mandated reporter because he knew the situation in 2003 looked VERY different than 2006.

They also called Holt out for covering up the abuse again adter Josh's infidelities came public, totally shattering the "changed man" image they portrayed during the molestation media coverage.  I think they got details wrong but had already determined nothing implicated that the Holt daughters were exposed to anything more disgusting in the Duggar household than Josh's smug face and ATI brainwashing.  

Here's the article where the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette quotes the "elder" who accompanied Josh and Michelle to "report" the assault to their child porn buddy cop.  Was that, too, Holt?  If so, even a non-pedophile cop might "do a favor" in our rape culture for two prominent politicians who seem to be trying to scare the pants on Josh -- If the "elder" actually think it was meeting his own mandated reporting requirements to be there?  It wasn't... I know that for a fact.

As far as juvenile records go, as sickening as it is to me that the Family repeatedly focuses on covering for offenders, it doesn't surprise me given ATI.  But part of the reason this wasn't flagged as a "juvenile record" for automatic seal was because nothing was on record until Josh was legally an adult.  If they want to protect records of juvenile offenders, great, they should be.  And if Jim Holt had done the right, legal, moral, ethical, responsible thing when he learned about the 2003 abuse, and performed his mandated reporting to the child abuse hotline, there may never have been a police report later.  Certainly if there was a decision to charge Josh it would have properly been marked "Juvenile" for the offender's age instead of "adult" in the computer.

While I firmly believe one of the MANY people to fail this family was Jim Holt, the statute of limitations was only a year then for the criminal charge HE should have faced for not reporting it.  Properly InTouch should have the right to develop facts during discovery to determine if the exercise of their First Amendment rights was of journalistic value enough to merit the unavoidable disclosures that led to indirect victim identification.  The discussion about pastoral duties and responsibilities regarding mandated reporting was so important that the President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention published an article about the Church's proper role.  Not to investigate, to report, and offer spiritual solace, not deny young offenders available and needed treatment.

[moriah]

4 hours ago, Lurky said:

Yeah, this has upset me about the Duggars ever since.  It just seems especially evil, and I really hope it wasn't some kind of punishment for not forgiving ("If you'd really forgiven him, you wouldn't have a problem).

The extent of trauma on the girls who "didn't cry out" from later ATI indoctrination may never be uncovered, and I am praying it wasn't some kind of "moral test".  It's notable that she's apparently the one who said she didn't trust him even in late 2006, and was upset enough to cry.

But given they say to tell rape/molestation victims two contradictory and totally farked up possibilities for why God allowed the "umbrella of protection" to break -- one, that He decided you needed a "moral vaccination" against lust, or the other, that He decided you needed the experience so you wouldn't fear your later marital duties so much.... omg....  I don't know.

 

[Pasta]

I hope that InTouch and the city lawyers read here. I want the Duggars investigated. I want them exposed as being awful. I hate that those two terrible people are raising children with no real education, skills, or emotional development. It makes me crazy. 

[Curious]

@FeministShrew @Vex I'm so sorry you both went through such awful experiences.  Fortunately, my surgeries were all done properly and I had no complications from the actual surgeries.   It was all the horrible aftercare in the various facilities.   I have been in 4 different skilled nursing facilities.   Two I would not recommend to my worst enemy.  The other 2 were pretty decent.  The one I was in just last July was actually the best one I'd been in and my only complaint was that it took aides a very long time to answer the call bell.   My husband was there with me every day from about 10am to 9pm so I really only had to deal with them at night and not very often.  They didn't do anything to kill me, so waiting a little longer for someone to come in was not a big deal.

I was shocked when the lawyers told me that a jury wouldn't give a shit if I had been overdosed (in a medical facility) because I didn't die.  I was like, but I *could* have died....in a medical facility.  I managed my own medication every freaking day for  10 years and never overdosed myself, but people that are supposed to know what they are doing managed it in short order.

If I was on a jury where medical professionals had OD'd someone I would be like yes, give them ALL the money!!!!  I would have done that before I went through all this stuff.

I'm not sure how I would feel about the Duggar case if I didn't know all that I know about the Duggars.  Obviously, because I know so much about them, this just feels like a money grab and I have serious doubts about any money actually going to the 4 girls.  If I was sure money was going to go to the girls and not put in some "family account" I would be more comfortable with the suit as well.  I  don't think it's worth $15 million.

2 minutes ago, Pasta said:

I hope that InTouch and the city lawyers read here. I want the Duggars investigated. I want them exposed as being awful. I hate that those two terrible people are raising children with no real education, skills, or emotional development. It makes me crazy. 

 

I'm pretty sure that Radar Online, In Touch and one other tabloid are all owned by the same company.  We know Radar reads here because they quote us (unattributed) from time to time.

[Buzzard]

1 hour ago, moriah said:

Properly InTouch should have the right to develop facts during discovery to determine if the exercise of their First Amendment rights was of journalistic value enough to merit the unavoidable disclosures that led to indirect victim identification.

Exactly.  There is no rule, only journalistic integrity, that prevents the disclosure of sexual assault victims and Intouch did not identify them.  I also do not believe there is any rule relating to FOIA that requires that the governing agency redact ALL information that would allow a victim to be identified.  In fact, it prohibits heavy handed redaction.

The names were properly redacted. The fact that the girls were indirectly identified because their parents are famewhores does not impute liability on the state or Intouch.

[Lyle Lanley]

5 hours ago, Lurky said:

Yeah, this has upset me about the Duggars ever since.  It just seems especially evil, and I really hope it wasn't some kind of punishment for not forgiving ("If you'd really forgiven him, you wouldn't have a problem).

I re-read the reports. It explains a lot if the laundry room victim was Jinger. The others were coached before being interviewed by the police and generally stuck to the story. Whomever the laundry room victim was deviated from the party line while talking to the police.

[Pasta]

I didn't read the reports but how much did she deviate from the family story?

[Fundie Bunny]

4 minutes ago, Pasta said:

I didn't read the reports but how much did she deviate from the family story?

I can't bring myself to read the report again, but i think i remember that the laundry room victim was much more emotional and shaken up than the other victims were. I do believe that she was the one that was reported to have cried during the interview, along with the non-victim sister

[Lyle Lanley]

She was crying and much more explicit in what happened to her than the others. She immediately started crying as soon as the police asked her if she knew what she was there for. It's heartbreaking.

If that was Jinger no wonder she wanted to get the hell out of Arkansas for so long.

[BoPeep]

It also seems that Jinger was awake and remembered what happened to her....vs the two who were asleep during what happened to them.  It's absolutely more upsetting when you relive what happened in your memories every day, vs being told something happened....and you have no memory of it.  So sad and sickening. 

[Buzzard]

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/duggar-investigation-text-messages-64087

I forgot about this article until google reminded me.  They were asking for a settlement before the ink dried on the paper - no mention of "protecting juveniles" or any of the crap they're slinging now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/06/05/heres-why-releasing-josh-duggars-records-was-probably-not-illegal/?utm_term=.1d2ca504c3e6

This is a really good article regarding why their lawsuit is crap (from 2 years ago), complete with actual Arkansas lawyers.  It pretty much sums up everything we've said here.