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

[sunshine]

26 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

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.

Let's say this information is true. I thought the Duggar's have said that their show is a ministry. This articles makes them sound like they are television celebrities and their fortune was messed with; if anything, it revealed that they were not completely honest in sharing their information.

If Counting On survives this, I would honestly be amazed by that. I get it though, they have become accustom to a certain lifestyle...I don't argue you that. I just think they are not clearly thinking straight in this.

[NeverBeenKissed]

Speaking as an insurance professional, this case will not go to court. This is totally something that will be settled for about half of what they are asking. 

[Jess]

28 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

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.

That analysis only applies to one of their seven causes of action. For example they also claiming their 14th amendment rights to due process were violated. They are basically saying the city and county violated their right to privacy. If they win this argument it doesn't matter if the foia law was violated or not. I personally can't stomach the idea they try to deny other people a constitutional right to privacy, but as soon as it works for them they sue. However, my feelings on the hypocrisy of that isn't a legal argument. This case is by no means as clear cut as that article makes it out to be.

 

[Buzzard]

Just now, Jess said:

That analysis only applies to one of their seven causes of action. For example they also claiming their 14th amendment rights to due process were violated. They are basically saying the city and county violated their right to privacy. If they win this argument it doesn't matter if the foia law was violated or not. I personally can't stomach the idea they try to deny other people a constitutional right to privacy, but as soon as it works for them they sue. However, my feelings on the hypocrisy of that isn't a legal argument. This case is by no means as clear cut as that article makes it out to be.

FOIA will be all controlling. I'm actually wondering if federal court is the appropriate venue for this because the case will hinge on the interpretation of Arkansas law, which is a state issue.  The privacy issue will fall behind FOIA because it mandates the disclosure, the question will be whether that disclosure was required under Arkansas law, which only an Arkansas court should rule on initially.

[saywhat7]

Late the party (finally read the whole report since it is back in the news.) Couple of things that make me wonder.

1. How is this a curious boy if he does this so many times? Seems fishy.

2. Why did he skip over Jana? Is there more to her then meets the eye, or at least back then? 

3. I must live under a rock but after reading the report, they really are full on Pearl people, they had a rod! What the heck is wrong with these people who claim to love children. 

[VelociRapture]

I'm going to be looking through the 2006 reports (as Velocibaby allows) to refresh our memories. 

Interview One - JimBob and Michelle):

1. JimBob states that Josh tearfully confessed to touching victims on the breasts and genitals while they slept. Happened 4-5 times (once on the couch) by March 2002. JimBob stated that they informed the victims later and one of the victims said she remembered waking up once when Josh removed the blanket. Victim didn't remember anything else. (P. 14)

2. July 2002. JimBob states Josh confessed to touching another victim's breasts as she slept on the couch. This is likely Victim Five, as JimBob had to identify this person. He states they disciplined Josh after this incident. (P. 14-15)

3. Nine months later - around February/March 2003. JimBob states a victim was assaulted while sitting on someone's lap (likely Josh's) during storytime. Someone (With a shorter name - possibly Jill) ran from the room and phoned the parents. He also states another victim was assaulted around this time while she was standing in the laundry room. (P. 15)

4. After these assaults, JB met with the Elders and they agreed Josh needed treatment. One elder was associated with the Piney Ridge program at Vista Hospital - program ruled out because of potential exposure Josh would have to sexual predators. Another elder, a former prison guard, claimed those programs were just finishing schools for sexual predators. They settled on a Christian "program" in Little Rock run by a Harold Walker. Program held in old Veterans Hospital. Josh performed physical labor and underwent counseling while there between March 2003 and July 2003. (P. 15)

5. Both parents state they're confident nothing happened after Josh returned and that several Church members knew what happened and were supportive of the family. They state a MALE family friend wrote down what had happened and placed it in a book. Letter was forgotten about , the book was borrowed, and the person borrowing the book contacted Police. They wouldn't state who wrote the letter. (P. 15)

6. JB states he spoke with a friend, State Police Cpl. Hutchins, about what Josh had done. He knew him from his car salesman days - Hutchins inspected car dealers. After Josh returned home JB, a church elder, and Josh spoke with Hutchins at his office at State Police HQ. Josh confessed and received a stern lecture and warning. Hutchins said nothing else could be done since Josh had already completed a treatment program. (P. 15-16)

7. Duggars state they lived in Springdale when this all occurred. They were informed someone (likely the minor children) would need to be interviewed and that Josh would need to be interviewed after that. Duggars state they believe Josh would cooperate. End interview. (P. 16)

(I'll try and cover the next interview when baby naps later.)

[Carm_88]

Ugh all of this makes me shiver. Those poor girls.  

[Jess]

6 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

FOIA will be all controlling. I'm actually wondering if federal court is the appropriate venue for this because the case will hinge on the interpretation of Arkansas law, which is a state issue.  The privacy issue will fall behind FOIA because it mandates the disclosure, the question will be whether that disclosure was required under Arkansas law, which only an Arkansas court should rule on initially.

The 14th amendment trumps FOAI not saying they win that cause of action but if they win winning the FOAI argument will not matter.

It's in federal court based on the fact it contains a federal question. It's called federal question jurisdiction they are allowed to have all their claims against the city and county in federal court even those that are not federal question cases based on the suit containing even one cause of action that is federal question its called joinder of claims. The argument for having in touch as part of the same suit in federal court is based on joinder of parties which is everything arose from the same set of facts/circumstances and is best heard at one time.

In touch could try to have their part of the case sent to Arkansas court since the federal question cause of action is only against the city and county but they most likely wouldn't win since the two issues are so connected. 

[sunshine]

The problem I have with this is when one of the girls told Michelle her response was to tell the sister in-charge. Later, I believe in an interview or maybe I read it somewhere, she felt that something was off about Josh but kept it to herself. So, why did she believe her daughter about Josh if she already suspected him of something? 

This is weird.

[Lyle Lanley]

45 minutes ago, Jess said:

 I personally can't stomach the idea they try to deny other people a constitutional right to privacy, but as soon as it works for them they sue. However, my feelings on the hypocrisy of that isn't a legal argument. This case is by no means as clear cut as that article makes it out to be.

 

The truth always lies somewhere in the middle. We're going to see how it plays out.

Did anyone catch in one of the articles that Fox News had requested a copy of the report before the report was expunged? Good job having an interview trying to protect victims while underhandedly trying to get the report as well.

[Hmmm_idolatry]

24 minutes ago, sunshine said:

The problem I have with this is when one of the girls told Michelle her response was to tell the sister in-charge.

And this is why Michelle is nothing but ignorant trash who had no business bringing children into the world.  IMO, that act alone should have triggered CPS removing the girls.  How utterly vile and unacceptable her response was.  

[HarleyQuinn]

2 hours ago, Pasta said:

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

I just went through them myself. All of them sound nearly identical (they all like broom ball, spelling, and hate math) but the other three all forgave Josh while the laundry room victim was the only one to say that "she didn't fully trust" Josh even though she felt safe in the home. She's the only one that said something like that.

 

[subsaharanafrica]

3 hours ago, Buzzard said:

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.  

Actually, there does appear to be an Arkansas statute making it illegal for law enforcement to release information either directly or indirectly identify the victim of a sexual assault. 

I linked it above but in relation to the section stating that it appears you can't sue a government entity under that statute  

https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/4918-arkansas

 

 

 

[Buzzard]

5 minutes ago, subsaharanafrica said:

Actually, there does appear to be an Arkansas statute making it illegal for law enforcement to release information either directly or indirectly identify the victim of a sexual assault. 

I linked it above but in relation to the section stating that it appears you can't sue a government entity under that statute  

https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/4918-arkansas

Quote

§ 16-90-1104 – Nondisclosure of information about victim (a) A court may not compel a victim or a member of the victim's family testifying in a criminal justice proceeding to disclose a residential address or place of employment on the record in open court unless the court finds that disclosure of the information is necessary. (b) A law enforcement agency shall not disclose to the public information directly or indirectly identifying the victim of a sex crime except to the extent that disclosure is of the site of the crime, is required by law, is necessary for law enforcement purposes, or is permitted by the court for good cause. 

FOIA would be the "required by law," I believe.

I also wonder if the FOIA disclosure was made by a "law enforcement agency" or by the city. But, as you pointed out, this does not create a cause of action against the government.  That may be why they're trying in federal court.

Quote

§ 16-90-1102 -- Compliance with act Failure to comply with this subchapter does not create a claim for damages against a government employee, official, or entity.

 

[subsaharanafrica]

1 hour ago, Buzzard said:

FOIA will be all controlling. 

I have to disagree. They're making pretty broad claims that have nothing to do with the FOIA, including a Due Process claim under the 14th Amendment. That particular claim seems weak (to put it nicely) but the FOIA analysis has nothing to do with it. 

The same should be true for the outrage cause of action. Possibly problematic by the nature of the tort, yes, but again FOIA has nothing to do with it. If all of the elements are present it generally doesn't matter if the information someone acted on in the commission of the tort was obtained legally or not. 

@Buzzard That (the required by law but) sounds like the makings of a three inch thick appellate brief. 

[VelociRapture]

1 hour ago, Carm_88 said:

Ugh all of this makes me shiver. Those poor girls.  

I'm not even going into specific detail on some of them. If people want to know the full details out there, they can find it by looking through the reports on their own. Makes the momma bear in me too angry to type the full details without adding commentary in paranthesis, like: 

"Josh (that fucking prick) touched a victim on X and Y. JB and Michelle (the biggest assholes in Arkansas) stated they found out when Josh (the aforementioned prick) tearfully confessed (because he's a douche who was probably hedging his bets and figured they wouldn't punish him as much if he confessed.)"

[subsaharanafrica]

I think I might be sick. That is not the reaction of a normal person. Not that I expected them to be normal people.

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

30 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

I'm not even going into specific detail on some of them. If people want to know the full details out there, they can find it by looking through the reports on their own. Makes the momma bear in me too angry to type the full details without adding commentary in paranthesis, like: 

"Josh (that fucking prick) touched a victim on X and Y. JB and Michelle (the biggest assholes in Arkansas) stated they found out when Josh (the aforementioned prick) tearfully confessed (because he's a douche who was probably hedging his bets and figured they wouldn't punish him as much if he confessed.)"

I'm a big ole momma bear and I will cut you if you hurt a kid, mine or not, no one fucks with kids when I'm around, I will go psycho on you. 

What really pisses me off is not only was it their own DAUGHTERS that were hurt by this but they blamed the victims and one of those victims was FIVE FUCKING YEARS OLD!  FIVE, I remember when my little girl was five, my nieces are 5, and they are silly innocent goofy little girls who love everyone and everything and find joy in sidewalk chalk, bubbles, being chased by the tickle monster (me) and bad alligators (my husband). They don't understand that people will hurt you just because, and then to have you brother and your parents be the aggressors makes it just that much worse. I honestly don't know how Austin, Jeremy, Ben & Derrick can't NOT want to punch them in the face, well I think Jeremy does. 

[Pasta]

1 hour ago, VelociRapture said:

"Josh (that fucking prick) touched a victim on X and Y. JB and Michelle (the biggest assholes in Arkansas) stated they found out when Josh (the aforementioned prick) tearfully confessed"

This is a better version, just saying. Can the court documents read like this instead of legalese?

[VelociRapture]

All of the interviews with the Duggar children start the same - they list their parents by name, the names of siblings are redacted, and their likes/dislikes.

They each also end with being asked what areas of the body are inappropriate for touching and if they feel safe.

Interview Two - Victim One (P. 17-18)

This victim states they like adventure and princess stories. They've been told what the interview is about. They state someone was asleep in the living room and "half-way" woke up when Josh removed the blanket - they thought he needed a blanket. He dropped the blanket when victim woke up. No one else was in the room and both were clothed. 

They did not know what Josh did until later. States Josh told their parents, then confessed to Church elders on March 30, 2003. He was sent to Little Rock for Christian counseling and performed physical labor. Josh apologized and asked for forgiveness. Victim states he did not go into detail about what he did - also states three victims were assaulted around the same time and a fourth was assaulted after. Says Josh was more "tame" since returning home.

Recounts hearing about the unidentified fifth victim's assault from their father. End of interview.

Interview Three - Victim Two (P. 19-20)

They enjoy family activities. They state that Josh did something inappropriate and had "moral struggles." Josh told their parents and went away for three months. States that Josh had, "sought after God and had turned back to God."

They state they don't remember much, but that Josh had asked for forgiveness. Describes an assault where Josh scratched the victim's back and then touched them inappropriately under their clothing. Not clear if the victim was awake or not. Josh confessed to their parents and told them where he had touched the victim.

States nothing else has happened since he came home. He is "trying to follow God" and tells their parents if he even views an immoral photo. End of interview.

Interview Three - Victim Three (P. 21-22)

This one is clearly a statement by a female - they missed a pronoun early on. States they like riding bikes with the family. States she likes when dad rubs her back, but doesn't like tickles. Says she's hugged by mom, dad, and friends and that's ok.

Recounts storytime assault - they were reading King Aaron (raccoon book.) Someone was sitting on the arm of Michelle's chair and someone was on the couch. Other people, likely children, were there. I'm not going into detail here, but the victim was touched under their clothes. Person reading drops the book and runs out of the room to call their parents - possible that Josh ratted himself out. Says no one in the room saw it happen. Josh was sent to Little Rock the next day.

States Josh was away four months and things have been good since he returned. End of interview.

Interview Four - Victim Four (P. 23-24)

States they have Math and English in the morning and that they like playing kickball.

Victim begins crying when asked if they know why they're being interviewed. States that Josh did something four years before, but they don't remember what exactly. States they were on the washing machine, Josh picked them up and did something.

They were later told that Josh touched someone while they were sleeping. States Josh confessed and states where victim was touched. They state they are certain he assaulted someone else (name redacted obviously) and he had touched others too (also redacted.) States they forgave Josh and nothing happened after he came home.

They state that, at the time of the interview, they didn't totally trust Josh - but they still love him. They feel safe at home. End interview.

[JenniferJuniper]

4 hours ago, BoPeep said:

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. 

I'm watching The Keepers on Netflix and even though I know how common it is for the victims of sexual assault  by authority figures, especially religious ones, to feel shame over the abuse, I'm still shocked at the stories of women who were raped by priests in their school at 16, 17 years old and completely blamed themselves at the time and for many years later.  

Given the Duggars' devotion to patriarchy and belief that females are always responsible for male sexual behavior, I can only imagine how horrible this was for the little laundry girl, then and every day since.  Shame on Jeremy for not convincing her this lawsuit was a terrible idea for the sake of her mental health.    

 

[Chickenbutt]

I wonder if the girls are confusing the term "juvenile records" as meaning that they were juveniles at the time so those records shouldn't be released. Maybe they aren't educated enough to know that the "juvenile records" refer to the perpetrator, not the victims.

[Lurky]

What I really don't understand is if Jill and Jessa said it wasn't a big deal, they didn't know it had happened, AND that it is really common in their circle, AND that they believe it happens in 1 in 3 families, AND we know it *was* common knowledge in their circles....  how would even exposing their names cause them $15 million worth of harm?  Genuinely don't understand the leap here. 
 

(I am not downplaying the effects of abuse, but the fact THEY downplayed it so much - esp as one could argue that the aftermath of the revelations increased their earnings, which is pretty horrific, but undeniable - they weren't going to get a Megyn Kelly interview special off the back of just being Quiverfull)

I do think the Michelle robocall is going to be a big deal in the court - genuinely think without her defaming that a whole group of people are sex offenders, there'd be no public interest in revealing what seems to have been well know about her own family.

[nokidsmom]

1 hour ago, allthegoodnamesrgone said:

I honestly don't know how Austin, Jeremy, Ben & Derrick can't NOT want to punch them in the face

I am just waiting for one or two of these young men to do exactly that.  It would certainly be deserved. Derick and Ben were around when this was first disclosed two years ago and who knows how they reacted in private, but they are still hanging around fully involved with their messed up in laws so I am guessing neither has fully processed the full extent of what their wives went through or they have stuffed it all down in the name of $$$.   Jeremy and Austin are new on the scene though no doubt they both know.  But neither have been around during when it was first disclosed and therefore not involved in the family turmoil at the time.  But they may get to see it later.

This lawsuit seems to be opening the door for their wives to be reliving their trauma, so all of the husbands may get to witness their wives' reactions which might wake them up to how seriously messed up this is.    

 

[Bad Wolf]

@JenniferJuniper I just finished watching The Keepers. I thought I would throw up. It made me so angry. I can't even fathom this latest Duggar debacle. I'm reading here, and will wait and see.

I do wonder about Anna and M5. I'm sure this isn't the happy reconciliation pregnancy she was hoping for.