Duggars by the Dozen 28 - A Mild Inappropriate Lawsuit

[VelociRapture]

To continue my previous posts, here's a summary of the Washington County report pages that Mods were able to find and save:

Det. Conner (Washington County Sheriff's Office) was informed by Det. Hignite (Springdale Police) that State Police received a letter regarding the Duggars. Letter alleged that REDACTED (Josh) had sexually abused REDACTED (the four known and one unknown victim's). Inv. Taylor (State Police) was looking to schedule interviews with the family, who were then in Chicago (Oprah) and would return Monday. Interviews scheduled for that Tuesday.

December 12, 2006. Duggar interviews. James states Josh, then 14, tearfully confessed to inappropriately touching REDACTED while they were sleeping. Happened 4-5 times. He also touched REDACTED (not Jill or Joy - their names aren't long enough) while they slept on the couch. When informed of the assaults REDACTED (likely Jill due to name length) stated she remembered waking up once when Josh removed her blanket, but that she didn't remember anything else.

July 2002, Josh told his father he had touched REDACTED, a family friend, who was sleeping over on their couch. Josh punished after this.

Nine months later, March 2003, James states Josh was reading to his five year-old sister* as she sat on his lap. He touched her. James states REDACTED (likely Josh) had run from the room and called him and told him what he had done. James also stated that around this time his daughter* was touched in the laundry room.

Same info about the Church elders and treatment program discussion. However, James states Josh was there March 17, 2003 until July 17, 2003. I want to say the other report states he was sent there around March 30th?

The report matches up pretty well with the other one.

*The report flat out states the victim's age and relation to Josh. That's a legit fuck up because it should have been redacted. There was only one sister who was five at the time of the assaults. They also didn't really redact terms like "daughter" or pronouns. Names were redacted though... but this report seems more problematic than the other one.

Put together with the other reports from Springdale, as well as the interviews the Duggars have given... it's pretty obvious whose who.

Jill - Victim One (who remembers blanket being removed; likes Princess and adventure stories.)*

Jessa - Victim Two (back scratch victim; used terms like "moral struggles" in interviews.)

Joy - Victim Three (likes riding bikes; storytime victim)

Jinger - Victim Four (likes kickball and cries during interview; laundry room victim.)**

*Outed herself when she stepped forward as a victim. It was a toss up between her and Jana until then.

**Outted by the Megyn Kelly interviews - we knew she was a victim, but not which one. Jill and Jessa pretty much confirmed she was the laundry room victim because they both stated they were asleep when assaulted and Jinger was too old to be the storytime victim. 

1 minute ago, DarkAnts said:

Can JB and Michelle be held accountable for outing Joy as one of the victims? They did mention the age range for her (single digest).

Her age was not redacted in the Washington County reports (see above.) So they didn't out Joy.

[nokidsmom]

11 minutes ago, Carm_88 said:

Exactly! Shockingly the news comes out just before Joy's Wedding and oh! We have a new season of Counting On in June. The almighty dollar comes way before Jesus or others for JB and Mullet. 

Yep, though I think this could backfire mightily on them.  Sure it keeps them in the news but will the money follow?  Not sure.   They could lose the suit, other stuff could happen (like Josh messes up again) or if there are more skeletons in the closet of the Big, Christian Family, this might have the effect of coaxing them out.  

 

[Jess]

After the defendants are formally served they have 21 days to put in their answer. This timeline is routinely extended as a curtesy though. For example in my area pretty much everyone gets one thirty day extension (this varies by area and judge). Since in touch will likely need to retain local counsel they might ask for a longer extension. 

The answer will basically go paragraph by paragraph and say which parts of the complaint they admit to and which they deny. They will probably deny most of the important stuff, but would admit things like the federal court has jurisdiction and that the city is a city.

After that is done the judge will set a discovery schedule with dates outlinging when things are to be done by. For example all paper discovery completed by January 1st, all depositions by March 1. There will be hearings periodically during the discovery process to make sure all parties are following the timeline and complying with discovery.

They might also make motions which would delay the case. As others have mentioned the defendants might bring Josh, JB, Michele into the case. It would basically be case within the case where the current defendants say we didn't cause the damage these people did so the defendant claiming this becomes "third party plaintiffs" these new defendants are referred to as "third party defendants".

I can't say how long discovery takes in federal court in Arkansas. Here even simple cases take a year to make it through discovery and federal court is known to take much longer on average then state courts. 

[socalrules]

Don't expect to gain much insight from the Court's website. Discovery is not filed with the court, so we won't know if there have been interrogatories or requests for production of documents. The only way we see that is if a motion to compel responses is filed because a party didn't completely respond or failed to respond. Most legal work is not through the courts, so it is never filed. It is unlikely we will ever know what occurs at deposition. They aren't public record. So in other words, we aren't going to eat much information on the case. Plus, Federal Courts do not allow cameras in their courtrooms so  chance of watching trial proceedings, which I don't think will happen anyway. Federal Court is hardcore. You do not want to screw up there. 

[OyToTheVey]

I admit I didn't read a lot of the last thread because I was busy with work. But as I was skimming people comments and stuff I had a thought. 

Did these people sell Joy this early so that she can be married right before the statute of limitations is up? The timing of her marriage and the timing of the lawsuit are too coincidental to be a coincidence to me. I really hope they didn't sell that girl to the first guy that showed interest just so they can have time to file a lawsuit.

[Buzzard]

31 minutes ago, socalrules said:

Don't expect to gain much insight from the Court's website. Discovery is not filed with the court, so we won't know if there have been interrogatories or requests for production of documents. The only way we see that is if a motion to compel responses is filed because a party didn't completely respond or failed to respond. Most legal work is not through the courts, so it is never filed. It is unlikely we will ever know what occurs at deposition. They aren't public record. So in other words, we aren't going to eat much information on the case. Plus, Federal Courts do not allow cameras in their courtrooms so  chance of watching trial proceedings, which I don't think will happen anyway. Federal Court is hardcore. You do not want to screw up there. 

We may not be able to get them while the case is ongoing, but they will be subject to FOIA from the city once its closed.

[Shouldabeenacowboy]

1 hour ago, Georgiana said:

It's not uncommon for child victims to pretend to be asleep.  The story may not be made up, per se, it may be that in the environment they were and are still in, the victims feel unsafe and were and are not comfortable revealing the truth.  The family has really seized on this aspect in order to downplay what happened, so there is extra pressure for the victims to stick to this story.  

I agree, and also, I can very plausibly believe the "they were told later by their parents". It's the Duggars we are talking about: people who most likely tell their kids that sex is evil until you marry your headship or broodmare. Beyond that and the Gothard crap, I doubt they ever even had any kind of real, age-appropriate sex ed discussion with their kids, which, in case of small children, could be as simple as: "this is appropriate, affectionate touching" vs "this is totally inappropriate, and should someone try to touch you like that, it is not your fault, please tell mommy and daddy immediately". That leads me to believe that the victims might as well have had no clue that what was really going on was incredibly wrong, worse, a crime.

[VelociRapture]

26 minutes ago, OyToTheVey said:

I admit I didn't read a lot of the last thread because I was busy with work. But as I was skimming people comments and stuff I had a thought. 

Did these people sell Joy this early so that she can be married right before the statute of limitations is up? The timing of her marriage and the timing of the lawsuit are too coincidental to be a coincidence to me. I really hope they didn't sell that girl to the first guy that showed interest just so they can have time to file a lawsuit.

It was discussed and mentioned a few times. Personally, I think they just got very lucky that two of the victimized daughters were married and the other two were either of marrying age or close to it when the reports first came out. I doubt they forced Joy to court or pressured her outright - I think she and Austin just happened to develop feelings for each other and things progressed from there. JimBob and Michelle may have helped push things along a bit or maybe JoStin decided to move things along more quickly because of the lawsuit, but I doubt anyone was forced into anything. 

That said, I don't doubt her parents are relieved that the victimized daughters will all be married soon. 

[Destiny]

Each named party will "answer" the complaint.  It will likely be "this is bullshit and should be dismissed" but will take 30 pages and say that will bigger words.

You owe me a new sammich. I read this and spit mine out laughing. This is the tl;dr of the whole system. Lol

[Darwinesque]

2 hours ago, karen77 said:

what Answers are we expecting and from whom? (sorry, i suck at this stuff!)

You're not the only one, I feel like I'm starting at zero but it's very interesting to learn from everyone, so thanks to all taking time to explain.

[ShepherdontheRock]

51 minutes ago, Shouldabeenacowboy said:

I agree, and also, I can very plausibly believe the "they were told later by their parents". It's the Duggars we are talking about: people who most likely tell their kids that sex is evil until you marry your headship or broodmare. Beyond that and the Gothard crap, I doubt they ever even had any kind of real, age-appropriate sex ed discussion with their kids, which, in case of small children, could be as simple as: "this is appropriate, affectionate touching" vs "this is totally inappropriate, and should someone try to touch you like that, it is not your fault, please tell mommy and daddy immediately". That leads me to believe that the victims might as well have had no clue that what was really going on was incredibly wrong, worse, a crime.

Yeah, now that this is coming back, there's something really weird and wrong about one of their children referring to genitalia as a "peepee holder."

Don't fucking teach your kids cutesy names for their private parts. It's a penis. It's a vagina. It's a scrotum. They aren't dirty words. They're fucking medical terms. You're doing a disservice to them otherwise. 

ugh

[Georgiana]

2 minutes ago, ShepherdontheRock said:

Yeah, now that this is coming back, there's something really weird and wrong about one of their children referring to genitalia as a "peepee holder."

I'm not against kids using other names than the medical terms for body parts, after all I'm an adult that knows the names of all her body parts and often chooses to use non-medical names for a variety of parts for a variety of reasons.  BUT that one is particularly bad because it is simply wrong unless someone is touching bladders.  

[Hmmm_idolatry]

One of the many things that really disturbs me about this is that based on their cult leader's teachings, I'm sure that JB and Michelle paused to ask the victims if they were sleeping immodestly, and asked them what they could have done differently to prevent this.  I'm almost certain that blame was placed on each of these victims by their parents. 

[TuringMachine]

@VelociRapture I didn't even know about that report. You're right, that one seems much more problematic. The first one I have a hard time reading through with all the redactions, but that one makes it very obvious that Joy was the story time victim.

[Georgiana]

44 minutes ago, Hmmm_idolatry said:

One of the many things that really disturbs me about this is that based on their cult leader's teachings, I'm sure that JB and Michelle paused to ask the victims if they were sleeping immodestly, and asked them what they could have done differently to prevent this.  I'm almost certain that blame was placed on each of these victims by their parents. 

And don't forget, the victims had a RESPONSIBILITY to cry out, or else this is partially their fault.  I also imagine that part of the "sleep" story has to do with children trying not to get blamed for "failing" to do something.

"Why didn't you cry out?!?"

"I was scared." "Josh threatened me." "I was confused." "I didn't know what was happening." "I don't know." "Oh, I wasn't really awake.  I was still mostly asleep."

[Berty K]

3 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

March 2003, James states Josh was reading to his five year-old sister*

Tried to post this once before but I don't think it worked. 

This is why I think they might win. 

A year, an age, and a relationship makes it pretty easy (too easy) to identify the victim. 

[NakedKnees]

1 hour ago, Hmmm_idolatry said:

One of the many things that really disturbs me about this is that based on their cult leader's teachings, I'm sure that JB and Michelle paused to ask the victims if they were sleeping immodestly, and asked them what they could have done differently to prevent this.  I'm almost certain that blame was placed on each of these victims by their parents. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it came out around the time of the Megyn Kelly interviews that precautions the Duggar parents took included not letting Josh babysit (reasonable) and having the girls stop wearing nightclothes (nightgowns, I assume) around the house (unreasonable, if true). 

[socalrules]

2 hours ago, Buzzard said:

We may not be able to get them while the case is ongoing, but they will be subject to FOIA from the city once its closed.

I don't think discovery that is part of a lawsuit is subject to FOIA, nor much of anything done pertaining to that lawsuit. I don't believe this would be considered part of an agency's documents/records. The city may have actually have outside counsel, not even a city counsel defending them. I don't see how you can legally FOIA a private law firm anyway, who would likely maintain all the legal documents and is not a great government agency. You also delve into the issue of whether it violates attorney client privilege or the work product doctrine, which I believe it can depending on what documents are being discussed. The client holds the privilege and I doubt the city will waive their privilege without a fight. I think we are crap out of luck for info. 

[Lyle Lanley]

4 hours ago, Jess said:

I can't say how long discovery takes in federal court in Arkansas. Here even simple cases take a year to make it through discovery and federal court is known to take much longer on average then state courts. 

I wonder if the Duggars are willing to wait out longer than a year for what looks like it could be a gamble. The Duggars aren't exactly on the patience is a virtue train. They're on the instant gratification express most of the time. The law firm is going to have to hire babysitters for them if it goes on for any length of time. I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw them.

There's several lawyers in this thread going back and forth if they'll win or lose. So obviously it's not clear cut.

[Jess]

53 minutes ago, socalrules said:

I don't think discovery that is part of a lawsuit is subject to FOIA, nor much of anything done pertaining to that lawsuit. I don't believe this would be considered part of an agency's documents/records. The city may have actually have outside counsel, not even a city counsel defending them. I don't see how you can legally FOIA a private law firm anyway, who would likely maintain all the legal documents and is not a great government agency. You also delve into the issue of whether it violates attorney client privilege or the work product doctrine, which I believe it can depending on what documents are being discussed. The client holds the privilege and I doubt the city will waive their privilege without a fight. I think we are crap out of luck for info. 

I don't know about Arkansas, however, foia law in my state provides an exemption for FOIA if it would interfere with ongoing legal proceedings. Of course we also have an exemption for information that would violate a persons privacy, which I had never thought about now think it was probably put in there by someone who foresaw the 14th amendment issue and wanted to avoid suits like this one.

[The limit does not exist]

1 hour ago, Berty K said:

Tried to post this once before but I don't think it worked. 

This is why I think they might win. 

A year, an age, and a relationship makes it pretty easy (too easy) to identify the victim. 

Wouldn't that mean only Joy wins? And that would go against the city for not properly reacting the report. I'm not seeing how InTouch is at fault...

[Jess]

5 minutes ago, The limit does not exist said:

Wouldn't that mean only Joy wins? And that would go against the city for not properly reacting the report. I'm not seeing how InTouch is at fault...

Yes that would only count for joy each sister has to make their own case and it's possible that not all will win, however, Jessa and Jinger were also outed it doesn't matter that you couldn't tell which was which. They have an argument that Jill outed herself.

For the causes of action against In Touch it doesn't matter if they legally obtained the information legally obtaining the information is not a defense for invasion or privacy or outrage. 

[DarkAnts]

12 minutes ago, The limit does not exist said:

Wouldn't that mean only Joy wins? And that would go against the city for not properly reacting the report. I'm not seeing how InTouch is at fault...

I am fine with Joy winning. She was underage at the time of the news release. She had no option to protect her information. The other girls could have sealed the records when they became adults. Joy would need her parents help in doing that.

[moriah]

6 hours ago, Georgiana said:

It's not uncommon for child victims to pretend to be asleep.  The story may not be made up, per se, it may be that in the environment they were and are still in, the victims feel unsafe and were and are not comfortable revealing the truth.  The family has really seized on this aspect in order to downplay what happened, so there is extra pressure for the victims to stick to this story.  

And again, in ATI, there would be extra motivation not to admit to remembering.  Dealing with the aftermath of sexual abuse is hard enough without being indoctrinated to believe it actually is possible for a victim to be at fault... and in ATI, it's nearly impossible for a victim to believe anything other than that if it happened.  There's all the blame for "eye traps" and "not crying out", but then even "blameless victims" are essentially told they had a character flaw God decided to correct by allowing it to happen (either they needed a "moral vaccination" against lust, or they needed to "cast out fear" for marital duties (and since that means being available all the time or you're blamed for your husband having affairs... ugh!!!).  So maybe if they didn't remember, they didn't have either flaw in their eyes.

Given Bill Gothard's own conduct and use of the rules he wrote to discourage reporting and undercut victims, it's really unsurprising that they don't seem to hold, for example, Jim Holt responsible for not getting it handled by DHS from the start by doing his job as a mandated reporter.  He broke the law by not doing it.  I remember the process and the training I had prior on my duties.  Russell Moore's article I linked before about how churches should handle child sexual abuse allegations was so on target I was cheering internally as I read it.  (It's rare that I cheer much that comes from the Southern Baptist Convention.)  

Btw, I'm most concerned because in this instance, the now-adults were minors when they were dragged on TV.  Josh could have advanced in politics on coattails without the documentaries or the shows, and if someone had tipped that any member of the FRC was a sex offender...  especially with 18 brothers and sisters it would have been *extremely* difficult to identify victims without the show having made them public figures.  They couldn't sign the contracts to go on TV, only Jim Bob and Michelle.  Even for the daughters who were married at the time of the disclosure, their continued participation in the shows when they really have no other method to support themselves in the lifestyle TLC made them accustomed doesn't mean that they had a real choice in becoming public figures in the first place. 

If anything, the law is insufficient by allowing parents to sign for their children to be on reality television at all.  Exploiting children on air without them being able to give informed consent created the setup for the daughters to have their identities revealed, and this is big but there's implications for other kids too.  How is Honey Boo-Boo going to feel as an adult looking back at having her life televised and the parodies made about her and the show?  She's not being exploited anymore, but there have been a LOT of shows centered around children's real lives.  There's a difference between the later-in-life implications of that and child actors playing fictional roles. 

[moriah]

3 hours ago, Georgiana said:

And don't forget, the victims had a RESPONSIBILITY to cry out, or else this is partially their fault.  I also imagine that part of the "sleep" story has to do with children trying not to get blamed for "failing" to do something.

Yep.

And that's probably also a lot of why the "laundry room victim" couldn't keep to the outward perfect facade and cried, regardless of any speculation about that victim's identity and their chores/domains in the house after contributing to the trauma.  She was in single digits too in March of 2003, just like Jessa was in March of 2002 -- only Jill was in double digits at the time of the assault because she outed herself as one of the sleeping victims.

Nothing's said about Josh disclosing immediately after the laundry room assault.  I really, really hope that they didn't scapegoat her as the one who was awake and of an age where another victim had been old enough/indoctinated enough to potentially feel pressured to say she didn't remember.  WIth this cult you never know, though.

I think that assault in particular demonstrates that while the daughters might have been lectured about sleeping where Smuggar might be tempted by their prepubescent dirtypillows, JB/M didn't make any effort to proactively say "if anyone touches you here they're wrong to do it, you need to come to us" even *after* knowing Josh had done this at least five times by his/their own admission in July of 2002.  I know denial ain't just a river in Egypt, but this goes beyond denial.  

I also have no doubt that all four daughters *did* feel re-victimized by the information being made public.  They were certainly old enough in 2015 to remember the media frenzy.   Again, though...  ATI teaches that it's okay to be angry at a "Godless government" and the "liberal media".  (In fact, their "ALERT" camp graduates sound eerily like who could become the first "Guardians" if Biblical Patriarchy ever tries to go full Atwood.  I'm sure Gilead would seem like a wonderful place to live to many people brainwashed by IBLP and Vision Forum...)  But being angry at their brother who they had to forgive, being angry at their parents as their authorities, and being angry with the church elders also in the line of authority.... that's not okay.