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

[subsaharanafrica]

2 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

The lawsuit should also include JB/Boobchelle as defendants if the logic was consistent. This whole thing is just more mess. 

The city and InTouch are free to seek to bring them in as third party plaintiffs.

That's the nice thing about the 14th amendment claim--it puts this in federal court with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and makes the procedural elements much easier for us to armchair quarterback from accros state lines. 

[Lyle Lanley]

7 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

Man, Jackson is already thirteen? That makes me feel old. It also makes me feel weird knowing that Jackson was literally born and grew up on camera, though for different reasons. A real life Truman Show.

It makes you wonder how those kids are going to cope once the camera crews aren't around for good. Jackson on down probably received much more lenient treatment than their older siblings. Can't chase the genie back into the bottle at this point.

[mydoggoskeeper]

2 minutes ago, subsaharanafrica said:

The city and InTouch are free to seek to bring them in as third party plaintiffs.

That's the nice thing about the 14th amendment claim--it puts this in federal court with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and makes the procedural elements much easier for us to armchair quarterback from accros state lines. 

I read this and involuntarily shuddered.  I haven't seen the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure since 1L year.  

[unicorncastle]

48 minutes ago, subsaharanafrica said:

The city and InTouch are free to seek to bring them in as third party plaintiffs.

That's the nice thing about the 14th amendment claim--it puts this in federal court with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and makes the procedural elements much easier for us to armchair quarterback from accros state lines. 

What does that mean for someone who doesn't understand much of legal speak? How could they bring them in as a plaintiff? 

[subsaharanafrica]

1 hour ago, unicorncastle said:

What does that mean for someone who doesn't understand much of legal speak? How could they bring them in as a plaintiff? 

It means that they have the ability to bring someone into the suit that they think should be liable for paying some or all of the damages in the event that they end up losing the suit. It's basically arguing that if they are liable then this other party is too and should therefore be part of the suit. 

[Curious]

A few questions/thoughts as I read this thread and ponder it.

1. Is there a different standard for privacy rights for public figures like there is for slander/libel?

2. Using us as an example of people being able to figure out who the victims are despite the redactions is a little disingenuous.  We have much more knowledge here than the general public.  Most people don't know anything about the Duggars other than they have a fuckton of kids.  They would be hard pressed to even know the kid's names (other than possibly Josh now)

To my knowledge, we have never figured out the 5th victim so that redaction was sufficient.

Is there a "common man" type standard for redaction sufficiency?

3. This is a bit moral/ethical: IF several of the girls really had no idea what happened, why would JB/M tell them?   I don't think information should be withheld from abuse victims, obviously, but the way these people live, it seems like it is just cruel to tell them information like this if they have no memory of it. 

Essentially, they are going to be blamed for being a temptation to Josh when they are sleeping.  They have enough rules about not being a stumbling block when they are in control of their behavior.  It seems like an awfully high standard to also be careful not to create a problem when you are asleep.

[gustava]

19 hours ago, NeverBeenKissed said:

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. 

Does anyone know if Springdale, etc, are self-insured?  If so, they might not have the $$$$ that the Duggerlings things they do.

[SilverBeach]

The thought that these greedy, work-averse folks would make millions from this money grab makes me sick. Perhaps In Touch will not settle to protect it's reputation. 

[gustava]

9 hours ago, Shadoewolf said:

@VelociRapture here's some baby kitten snuggles. You're a champ for doing all that!

These are my current rescues (there are 4),  almost 2 weeks old and milk-drunk asleep

Two weeks!  How often do you feed them?

[SilverBeach]

9 hours ago, Cleopatra7 said:

Man, Jackson is already thirteen? That makes me feel old. It also makes me feel weird knowing that Jackson was literally born and grew up on camera, though for different reasons. A real life Truman Show.

Jackson and Hannie talking heads were my favorite back in the day when I actually watched the show. Just a couple of cute kids from an exceptionally large family, right? What a huge misconception, Josh's dirt was done before the first episode aired. 

[Jess]

14 minutes ago, Curious said:

A few questions/thoughts as I read this thread and ponder it.

1. Is there a different standard for privacy rights for public figures like there is for...

1. When it comes to the invasion or privacy causes of action and the outrage cause of action yes there is a lower expectation for public figures like in defamation. I don't believe there is one for the 14th amendment claim. 

2. There will be a reasonable person/common man standard in this but not the way you are thinking. For the four intentional tort claims what the court will look at is if in touch knew or should have known the identities could be figured out. So the reasonable person/common man in this is in touch not the people figuring it out. There is also a counter argument to that which the girls attoeney could make which is basically in touch had special skills so the standard should be would a reasonable gossip newspaper have known the identies could be revealed. The standard will likely be something they decide on motion.

 

[Coconut Flan]

Carry on here: