Duggars by the Dozen 28 - A Mild Inappropriate Lawsuit

[VeganCupcake]

30 minutes ago, Chewing Gum said:

Yeah like he did with Josiah's 16 birthday "and he's never kissed a girl!" Eh...that's what YOU WANT for your kids, how cruel to tease them with that. And confusing. 

He said that?! Omg ick. 

[motelmum]

6 hours ago, Mercer said:

 

I'm unable to comprehend Michelle and Jim Bob's thought process in deciding that with a dark family secret of abuse, it would be a good idea to strive to become reality television/media personalities

 

I think that they honestly thought that it was a non issue. Josh had asked the lords forgiveness and it was over. They can't comprehend why people are making a big deal about it.

I wonder if the reason for the law suite now is because the girls have come to comprehend that in fact it is a big deal from the reactions they have noticed. They must have read the comments on their social media and just the general talk about it. I kink of hope this is the first step to them understanding that what happened was actually something that needs to be addressed. I just think they are getting bad advise as to who is to blame. 

[Karma]

15 hours ago, Londish said:

People outside of the US, what is your experience with teaching kids the proper names?

I'm Australian.  I honestly have no recollection of what I was taught as a child, but I taught my own kids (now 20 &17) correct anatomical names.  My experience with friends and family is pretty mixed.  

[HarleyQuinn]

9 hours ago, luv2laugh said:

STOP whatever you're doing and watch this video ASAP. It details HOW the Duggars were able to file this lawsuit. It's not good news... They're so slimy. 
http://www.nwahomepage.com/news/duggar-sisters-suing-city-for-releasing-molestation-documents/717112740

Video isn't playing for me, can someone summarize?

Also, I'm surprised parents teach their kids to say "hoohah." Most people around here say that and "vajayjay" in a joking manner.

[Swamptribe]

Am I correct, the 'correction' to the law protects the minor perpetrator of the crime, not the victims?  Wow, just wow. 

[Jess]

They were able to sue under existing law. Their causes of action existed before the new law. A new law can't be used to win a lawsuit about facts that occurred before the law was written. Even if it did effect their cause of action for FOIA (and it won't) that is one of seven causes of action. This is just made up stuff by people that don't understand the legal system.

As to the malicious prosecution. No one ever wins things like that in the US system. Serious, to in a case like that a suit would need to be entirely baseless (like completely made up the facts), this one isn't, or if the Plaintiffs had a history of suing the same defendants over and over for mariginal lawsuits.

[gustava]

15 hours ago, VeganCupcake said:

I highly doubt he saw anything inappropriate in that strict environment,

As noted above, he saw his parents behaving inappropriately, if their later, televised humping is any indication.

[GeoBQn]

I think I picked up a lot of terms for body parts from my brother and (all male) cousins--specifically, from when they would play Mad Libs and use genitalia for all of the noun spaces.

[moriah]

8 hours ago, luv2laugh said:

STOP whatever you're doing and watch this video ASAP. It details HOW the Duggars were able to file this lawsuit. It's not good news... They're so slimy. 
http://www.nwahomepage.com/news/duggar-sisters-suing-city-for-releasing-molestation-documents/717112740

Then if the loophole has been closed, there is no reason to sue.  People like their precious brother Josh can't have their criminal misdeeds released.  Does absolutely nothing to protect victims of molestation, but we know that's not why they're suing.

Now all torts are essentially void against city and county defendants.  The state legislature made it clear that the law was NOT written that way at the time of the City's compliance with said law.  InTouch was only a tort defendant and already had heavy case law in their favor putting the burden on the government to not make things public record, and not the media to print public records.  So the only claims left are the Constitutional questions and that funny final count they tagged on.

If the City of Springdale did already prevail in some court action I'm unaware of like they've been claiming, they may assert res judicica (sp?) -- essentially, matter already settled in prior case, can't sue again.  So that seems to leave Washington County holding the bag.

[SassyPants]

27 minutes ago, gustava said:

As noted above, he saw his parents behaving inappropriately, if their later, televised humping is any indication.

And living in a tiny home with people sleeping on couches, chairs and what not, there's also the auditory angle. He might not have seen, but he could have heard.

 

[Jess]

11 minutes ago, moriah said:

Then if the loophole has been closed, there is no reason to sue.  People like their precious brother Josh can't have their criminal misdeeds released.  Does absolutely nothing to protect victims of molestation, but we know that's not why they're suing.

Now all torts are essentially void against city and county defendants.  The state legislature made it clear that the law was NOT written that way at the time of the City's compliance with said law.  InTouch was only a tort defendant and already had heavy case law in their favor putting the burden on the government to not make things public record, and not the media to print public records.  So the only claims left are the Constitutional questions and that funny final count they tagged on.

If the City of Springdale did already prevail in some court action I'm unaware of like they've been claiming, they may assert res judicica (sp?) -- essentially, matter already settled in prior case, can't sue again.  So that seems to leave Washington County holding the bag.

It does not void the tort causes of action against the city and county. The torts still existed and it may have been improperly released based on case law saying the you have to weigh privacy concerns before release. Based on what you found about in touch being able to legally relay in the city/county the the causes of action for invasion of privacy against in touch should be lost. That leaves in touch with a cause of action for outrage against them and I don't think a public figure can win one of those without a serious legal shift.

I have no idea what the city won but if it dealt with the same causes of action/ legal issues and parties res judicata applies to those causes of action issues. This may defeat some or all of their causes of action. I would love to read about what the case was. Maybe the duggars did try to prevent the release in court before they were released? It's possible it was different parties like maybe it was Josh not the girls trying to stop the release? In the cases where the parties are different  res judicata becomes a complicated legal argument with both sides in this case having arguments about whether it should or should not apply.

[2manyKidzzz]

10 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

And living in a tiny home with people sleeping on couches, chairs and what not, there's also the auditory angle. He might not have seen, but he could have heard.

 

This is so true. In a house that size with that many people all of those children heard the Sweet Fellowship. I am suddenly more grossed out by these people than usual. 

[SilverBeach]

On 5/27/2017 at 1:10 AM, allthegoodnamesrgone said:

They will support any and all other Christians because they see any negative comments about another Christian as persecution. 

Not any and all other Christians, just the hateful fundigelical kind like them. They would probably not even consider me Christian (I am), because I am not a Bible literalist and I believe the essence of the Christ-like life is to love.

[VelociRapture]

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV (despite the amount of SVU I watch.) So I have no clue what @Jessand @moriahare talking about, but I'm enjoying it immensely. 

[moriah]

31 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

And living in a tiny home with people sleeping on couches, chairs and what not, there's also the auditory angle. He might not have seen, but he could have heard.

 

There's no doubt that Josh, like all the other children in that house, suffered emotional and spiritual abuse along with what DHS, had they been contacted in 2003, may have determined about overcrowding and whether it met their standards for neglect.

It doesn't look like people from homeschooler recovery/ATI alumni have said that the pressure on a pubescent boy who is told every sexual thought is a sin turns them into child molesters, though... more that the structure Gothard created to have his flock of nubile young innocents to sexually harass at headquarters was used to cover these things up, and people attracted so being able to abuse authority were attracted to the same hierarchy that makes all abuse somehow the fault of the victims.

[moriah]

I really don't know what "prevailing" they did, so trying to find research.  If they sued in Joy's name at the time it might have been filed under seal as she was a juvenile and they were working with the juvenile court.  Whatever it is, if they raise that defense it'll be interesting.

[Hmmm_idolatry]

22 hours ago, Londish said:

Not to derail your statement, but this made me wonder about something. People outside of the US, what is your experience with teaching kids the proper names? This statement made me wonder because I feel like this is a pretty US-centric idea, of keeping children in the dark about bodily functions and proper names, in a similar vain to how common abstinence only education is.

I do think it is more harmful than helpful, to have this mindset. I think this state of mind encourages shame in their bodies and I can definitely see how an environment that breeds shame would (indirectly) make kids less likely to come forward when they have been abused.

My mother taught me the actual names.  She, along with her mother (my grandmother) is pretty progressive.  I grew up in California, a fairly liberal state, and even there, I was one of few children at my public school ( I would imagine that there were even fewer children taught the actual names at any of the local religious schools) who was taught the true names. My cousins on my father's side of the family were taught the slang names for genitalia in Italian, which is even weirder since those terms were literally the only words they knew in a foreign language. 

My mother also (to my embarrassment) raised a big stink at my elementary school because we were not offered sex ed classes, even at the 5th and 6th grade levels (5th and 6th graders are typically 11-12 years old in the US).  She thought that was incredibly backwards, and told the school that it was crucial at those pre-teen ages that they teach this.  The school told her, "Thank you, but no.  They'll learn this in junior high."  She was really pissed off by that. 

Long story short-my mother's attitude toward comprehensive sex ed is not the norm for many Americans, and I think that's pretty sad.  Traditionally we do have weird hangups about sex in the US compared with other countries, and this is always reflected in how high our teenaged pregnancy and STD rates are in this country.  

[ShepherdontheRock]

Quote

The lawsuit quotes Arkansas Juvenile Code section 9-27-309(j), which states: "Records of the arrest of a juvenile, the detention of a juvenile, and the proceedings under this subchapter shall be confidential and shall not be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act of 1967, § 25-19-101 et seq. unless: (1) Authorized by a written order of the juvenile division of circuit court; or (2) The arrest of the proceedings under this subchapter result in the juvenile's being formally charged in the criminal division of circuit court for a felony."

Now I'm not a lawyer, but since Joshley wasn't adjucated deliquent, detained, or arrested I think maybe this is a bit of a stretch? Is that what the defense is going to rely on? 

[Hmmm_idolatry]

5 hours ago, HarleyQuinn said:

Video isn't playing for me, can someone summarize?

Also, I'm surprised parents teach their kids to say "hoohah." Most people around here say that and "vajayjay" in a joking manner.

I personally don't see how they can sue.  Unless the language of the law states that it's retroactive (and I'll be surprised if it does), the Duggars still have no case.  Those records were released within accordance of the law as it stood at the time of release.  In addition to that, I sincerely hope the judge/jury is fully aware of the fact that Jill and Jessa outed themselves.  I might be a bit more sympathetic if they hadn't run to the media and made their declaration.  

[hilee]

I had to come back to the forum after a brief absence because I'm so madfor the victims. I think no matter what happened they pretended to be sleeping and not know because if they did it would be their fault. That's how they were raised. 

Also really messed up how RIGHT as Joy is married they want to do something against the tabloids like they had to wait until they were married. 

I'm interested to see when Jessa has a daughter if she'll break. The very last episode before the news broke they aired a special and I think they were discussing the sex of the M baby and Josh said something about keeping secrets. Jessa face and pure look of hatred has stayed with me. I don't know if the episode is still available but very telling she's not forgiven him, which she shouldn't have to. 

[2manyKidzzz]

She could "forgive" him but she shouldn't have had to live with him afterwards. JMO

[singsingsing]

I've always felt that Jessa's "smugness" was more of a defence thing. Whereas Jill went the route of trying to be the Perfect Christian Daughter and people-pleaser, Jessa adopted this 'I don't give a damn' attitude.

[2manyKidzzz]

Just now, singsingsing said:

I've always felt that Jessa's "smugness" was more of a defence thing. Whereas Jill went the route of trying to be the Perfect Christian Daughter and people-pleaser, Jessa adopted this 'I don't give a damn' attitude.

WEll, said and I do think Jessa's smugness was in part a defense mechanism. Somehow. Or other. 

[Jess]

13 minutes ago, Hmmm_idolatry said:

I personally don't see how they can sue.  Unless the language of the law states that it's retroactive (and I'll be surprised if it does), the Duggars still have no case.  Those records were released within accordance of the law as it stood at the time of release.  In addition to that, I sincerely hope the judge/jury is fully aware of the fact that Jill and Jessa outed themselves.  I might be a bit more sympathetic if they hadn't run to the media and made their declaration.  

Their argument is that the release violated the girls right to privacy. That is what the majority of the causes of action deal with. Again this his lawsuit is not based on the change in law. The reporter from that news broadcast is either an idiot who didn't talk to a lawyer who had read the suit before reporting that or intentionally misleading people. 

@shepherdontherock we don't know for sure what the defense is relaying on until we see their answer, but there are lots of possible defenses. 

[Hmmm_idolatry]

1 minute ago, Jess said:

Their argument is that the release violated the girls right to privacy. That is what the majority of the causes of action deal with. Again this his lawsuit is not based on the change in law. The reporter from that news broadcast is either an idiot who didn't talk to a lawyer who had read the suit before reporting that or intentionally misleading people. 

 

That's why it will be interesting to see how the court responds.  Their records were released in accordance with the laws. Names were redacted.  The victims went on tv and outed themselves.  If anything, Jill and Jessa violated Jinger and Joy's right to privacy.  I think the defense attorneys will have many valid reasons to challenge this suit.