(Possible Child Sexual Abuse Content) Josh and Anna 34: Plea Deal in the Making?

[EmmieJ]

On 8/9/2021 at 9:15 AM, DalmatianCat said:

How do lawyers bill in a situation like this? Is there a retainer that must be paid up front and after that it’s weekly/monthly/quarterly based on hours worked? Do they accept minimum monthly payments or does it need to be paid in full each month (or quarter)? How quickly do they drop clients when they fall behind on payments?

I can't speak to the attorneys hired by JB to represent Josh - but someone I knew (a son of a friend) got arrested for DUI some years ago.  Parents hired a criminal defense attorney (considered the best in their local area) and had to pay him a multi-thousand dollar retainer, to be replenished by the same amount if and when that retainer was used up.  Fortunately they had the money to do so.  What I mostly remember was being astounded at how expensive it was to get a DUI.  Josh's charges are extremely serious and in Federal court - I'd guess that his attorneys might have required a $10K retainer (or more) to start.  (All of this is speculation on my part, but most attorneys who have been practicing for years and have built up a good reputation have learned it's better to get a large retainer up front than trying to chase down clients to get paid after the work is done.)

[Antipatriarch]

51 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

Also, it made clear he didn't just possess the CSA material, he was sharing the material on bittorrent. Which I don't know enough about BitTorrent to speak about but that seems like more than just possession to me, to host the images where others can get them.

This gets very technical, but BitTorrent's design is for bidirectional sharing. One person with a large file "seeds" (provides) it to others. The file is divided up into chunks, and as each person finishes downloading a chunk, that in turn becomes available for others to download from the new person. What this means is that as more and more people have the file, the load of subsequent downloads gets shared among a greater and greater number of people, so the original seeder isn't paying for all that download activity. It's an amazing technical design; it lets really big, popular files get out there quickly.

Now, all of that is the original design. It relied on people hanging around after they got what they wanted, so others could get it from them in turn. The reality today is that most people download the file and move on, just like they were grabbing it from a web site. As far as intent goes, I suspect 99% of people who use BitTorrent don't even know the above is a possibility, and had no intent to share it with others.

But as far as legal liability goes, prosecutors can charge you with distributing. This happens a lot with RIAA cases related to "pirating" of copyrighted music, movies, etc. People should be aware of this dangerous aspect of using BitTorrent; you can be sharing that illegal material without even realizing you're doing so.

[FiveAcres]

2 minutes ago, Antipatriarch said:

This gets very technical, but BitTorrent's design is for bidirectional sharing. One person with a large file "seeds" (provides) it to others. The file is divided up into chunks, and as each person finishes downloading a chunk, that in turn becomes available for others to download from the new person. What this means is that as more and more people have the file, the load of subsequent downloads gets shared among a greater and greater number of people, so the original seeder isn't paying for all that download activity. It's an amazing technical design; it lets really big, popular files get out there quickly.

Now, all of that is the original design. It relied on people hanging around after they got what they wanted, so others could get it from them in turn. The reality today is that most people download the file and move on, just like they were grabbing it from a web site. As far as intent goes, I suspect 99% of people who use BitTorrent don't even know the above is a possibility, and had no intent to share it with others.

But as far as legal liability goes, prosecutors can charge you with distributing. This happens a lot with RIAA cases related to "pirating" of copyrighted music, movies, etc. People should be aware of this dangerous aspect of using BitTorrent; you can be sharing that illegal material without even realizing you're doing so.

I used to use Bittorrent to download images of Ubuntu Linux install disks. I always tried to leave my torrent up for a while so I could "repay" the download. I moved away from using bittorrent when I decided it was easier to just upgrade in place rather than reinstall. I was always afraid I might click on something that looked interesting that would get me into trouble. 

[sndral]

1 hour ago, bal maiden said:

Does anyone know why it may be that the other two officers didn't contact HSI about the abuse material he downloaded? Is this likely to be something weird, or is this just a normal thing that happens in law enforcement? 

The important fact is that the 2 other investigators are local/state Arkansas law enforcement and typically wouldn’t report to the Feds. There are 3 possible scenarios, none of them weird.

The first, and the least likely based on the Fed’s response to the defense discovery motion, is a joint state/local & Fed investigation, in which case the locals are part of the prosecution team & their reports/logs, if any, may need to be discovered along with the Federal logs/reports.

The second possibility is that the locals conducted a parallel investigation. In which case the local investigators report to their superiors and their local prosecutors and are under no obligation to report anything to the Feds. Josh was likely breaking both Arkansas state law as well as Federal law, and it’s not unusual for a state/local entity to investigate the same conduct that catches the Feds attention. IME once the Feds decide to prosecute a case the locals drop their investigation because the Feds usually have a lot more resources and they have longer sentences. Whether the Feds have a duty to try and obtain and then to discover any logs/reports from local agency parallel investigations isn’t clear under the law, it depends on a number of factors.

The third possibility is that the local investigators spotted Josh’s download but opted not to investigate, so there’s nothing to discover and the only record they likely have is their log from that 5/14/19 download. Note that most likely there are protocols in place for using the system to access CSA materials & whenever a law enforcement agency views/downloads sensitive material from the system they likely need to log it on their local log book - I assume it’s like the criminal records search system where you have to be authorized to use it & you must log all of your activity when you do so.

[Marshmallow World]

I suspect that Pest's attorneys use what we call in the legal industry an "evergreen retainer" so that Pest always has enough in trust to cover whatever the immediate next steps require. Example: JB gives a $25,000 retainer with a $10,000 evergreen amount. Attorneys and paralegals bill their time against the $25,000, and as soon as it goes below $10,000, JB must give the required amount every month to keep it at $10,000. I have little idea how high profile federal defense attorneys require for the initial retainer and the evergreen amount, but the amounts I listed wouldn't be out of this world in my state, given the circumstances. 

I'm still reading through the Response to the Motion to Compel, but it appears that the two police officers downloaded the material to show that it was still active from Pest's IP address. However, the first detective (the pants-wearing woman!!!) started the reasonable suspicion/warrant process that led to Pest being charged, so HER investigation is discoverable, but the other officers were not part of that particular chain of events, hence the prosecution's argument that their investigation is not discoverable. I think there is a a legal argument against that (why present the results of that investigation as evidence if the investigation isn't discoverable? And how would the defense know that there wasn't an investigation? ) but I don't believe that the motion to compel (whether granted or not) should affect the initial investigation and pending charges. Also, it does appear that the 2021 date is a typo, which is surprising to me. I would think that multiple people would have caught that, but no one is perfect. 

As stated previously, I work 99.99% in state-level civil litigation, so I may be off base and I'm open to being corrected! 

[bal maiden]

So grateful for all the knowledgable users we have on this thread, and the time they are all taking to answer legal questions. We're #soblessed  

[EmCatlyn]

4 hours ago, bal maiden said:

Does anyone know why it may be that the other two officers didn't contact HSI about the abuse material he downloaded? Is this likely to be something weird, or is this just a normal thing that happens in law enforcement? 

I think it may have been because the other officers were looking for other things in connection with other cases and the Josh stuff just came across their screens after the Josh case was in other hands.  (If it had come across their screens first, presumably, they would have been the ones to pass it on.)

If I understood correctly, one of the arguments against giving Josh’s defense everything that could possibly be related to the searches by the other two officers is that it would reveal  tactics used for searching for/identifying downloads and/or information about other investigations/targets.

IIRC: the story seems to be that one officer identified that CSA had been downloaded, linked the ip to Josh’s place of business and passed it on to the Feds.   Meanwhile, the other two didn’t need to go further because Josh was already under investigation and they were investigating other things.

4 hours ago, Alisamer said:

(Also be warned - that document is not well-redacted so it's possible to read gross descriptions of some of the exact stuff he was looking at. It's scribbled out, so you won't accidentally read it, but it's still there.)

😆🤣  I think anyone who is looking under the “redacted” crossed-out stuff is   well-served for nosiness if they are upset by what they read that they weren’t supposed to read.

I do wonder why they don’t use “white out” or a dark thick marker instead of a  scribbly pen for “redacting.”  Could it be they are only going through the motions?  

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, Marshmallow World said:

…

I'm still reading through the Response to the Motion to Compel, but it appears that the two police officers downloaded the material to show that it was still active from Pest's IP address. However, the first detective (the pants-wearing woman!!!) started the reasonable suspicion/warrant process that led to Pest being charged, so HER investigation is discoverable, but the other officers were not part of that particular chain of events, hence the prosecution's argument that their investigation is not discoverable. I think there is a a legal argument against that (why present the results of that investigation as evidence if the investigation isn't discoverable? And how would the defense know that there wasn't an investigation? ) but I don't believe that the motion to compel (whether granted or not) should affect the initial investigation and pending charges.  …

I don’t read “legalese” as well as many of you do, but my reading was that  they revealed that two others had found the CSA ostensibly to “be open” but in fact to suggest that the CSA had definitely been there.  Further, they repeatedly state that they did not intend to base the case on the other two reports, so all the information the defense needed about the reports was that the CSA was found by those other two officers.  Lastly, I understood the document to be implying that the other two officers might be connected to different investigations and to give more information might hurt other cases without helping Josh’s defense.   Did I get this wrong?

[hauntedoklahoma]

6 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

 

😆🤣  I think anyone who is looking under the “redacted” crossed-out stuff is   well-served for nosiness if they are upset by what they read that they weren’t supposed to read.

I do wonder why they don’t use “white out” or a dark thick marker instead of a  scribbly pen for “redacting.”  Could it be they are only going through the motions?  

The ‘redactions’ were done by whoever uploaded the document to dropbox, likely so people could read it and not be too triggered, not the attorney. The full, un-redacted document is available as federal cases are public record. Redactions in court docs are either done electronically or with a sharpie.

Edited August 12, 2021 by hauntedoklahoma

[EmCatlyn]

48 minutes ago, hauntedoklahoma said:

The ‘redactions’ were done by whoever uploaded the document to dropbox, likely so people could read it and not be too triggered, not the attorney. The full, un-redacted document is available as federal cases are public record. Redactions in court docs are either done electronically or with a sharpie.

Yeah, I didn’t think it was the lawyers, but whoever was crossing things out was either careless or deliberately didn’t cross out too well.  

[Four is Enough]

In the Mid Atlantic area, we hired a criminal attorney for our one son.

We paid a retainer, which was put in escrow.

We got a monthly accounting of how the money was spent. Phone calls (made by the attorney), responses to phone calls made to the attorney, emails back and forth, were all line items, not to mention the work done by the paralegals. Court appearances, visits to the incarcerated one, all were billed.

When the escrow got low, we were hit for another refill..

 

For us, the moral of the story became, "if you have a question that can wait, put it on a tablet until you can see the attorney in person.. don't call or email!'

 

[oldleaf]

From what I read of the government response it read to me as though when they searched his devices, there was more CSAM on other of his devices, not just the files they originally "caught" him downloading. Did anyone else read it this way, and, if so, is there a reason why they wouldn't charge him with that possession as well (maybe because they couldn't prove provenance)?  Above all, if this is true, it puts the lie to whatever BS story he told Anna, "I am addicted to porn and I thought I was downloading something porn-y and this is what came up!" Other material on other devices, as well as the continued presence of the files on his computer well after the initial download, and even the fact that he had back-to-back days of downloading this; what explanation could he possibly give Anna? At this point she's willingly ignorant (if she isn't googling this to know everything we know, she doesn't want to know). 

[theotherelise]

The way I read it was that the bittorrent tracking identified a zip file with images in it and another separate image file outside the zip. They used that discovery to justify the search warrant. When executed, the computer at the car lot was investigated and they found many more CSAMs on that computer. 

I think the other devices are being used to prove that Josh was the one at the car lot and on that computer when the bittorrent was done (i.e. the text messages from his phone). It is probably harder to prove possession if the computer is accessible by others. But it seems like if they're on the other side of the partitioned hard drive then they could prove Josh was the only one with access. 

I suppose it's still possible for more charges to be added? Is that a tactic the feds use to encourage a plea deal? 

[Dandruff]

I'm starting to wonder whether Anna will stick around to support Josh if he goes to prison.  When he was outed from Ashley Madison, he ended up spending 6+ months in Jesus jail several states away.  Whose idea was that?  If Anna wasn't livid and wanting him out of her sight then why wasn't he someplace closer?  Was it JB's idea; e.g., to get Josh far away from the family in order to help salvage the show?  Who is making the important decisions? 

I suppose Anna might (understandably) feel dependent on JB and the family, but what would happen if she filed for divorce?  Are any of the family properties under her name/control?  How much might be paid to keep her story private?  If the answer turns out to be "a lot", then perhaps it would make sense for her to stay married, at least until it's determined whether he's going to prison and for how long.

[IReallyAmHopewell]

Please tell me Joshy didn't bank sperm for Anna while waiting for the feds to come get him?

[AussieKrissy]

21 minutes ago, IReallyAmHopewell said:

Please tell me Joshy didn't bank sperm for Anna while waiting for the feds to come get him?

maybe but i doubt their will be much money left for fertility treatment after his court costs 

[justmy2cents]

1 hour ago, IReallyAmHopewell said:

Please tell me Joshy didn't bank sperm for Anna while waiting for the feds to come get him?

Probably against their beliefs. People have wild imaginations. 

[EmCatlyn]

6 hours ago, Dandruff said:

….  When he was outed from Ashley Madison, [Josh] ended up spending 6+ months in Jesus jail several states away.  Whose idea was that?  If Anna wasn't livid and wanting him out of her sight then why wasn't he someplace closer?  Was it JB's idea; e.g., to get Josh far away from the family in order to help salvage the show?  Who is making the important decisions? 

…

I don’t think the location had anything to do with Anna, who probably had no say on anything.  (By most accounts, she spent a lot of the first month weeping and praying.)  The decision was almost certainly made by JB.

I don’t think the place was picked to distance Josh’s rehab from the family.  My memory is it was picked so the media (and people like FJ members) would not know where Josh was.  I think this worked for about a week.  Before we found out where Josh was,  everyone was looking at Fundie rehab places in Arkansas and nearby.

We cannot know what Anna will do, but the pattern so far has been that she remains “loyal” to Josh and relies on JB to decide her future (and that of her kids).  We will have to see what she does if Josh has to do significant time.

[Flossie]

17 hours ago, IReallyAmHopewell said:

Please tell me Joshy didn't bank sperm for Anna while waiting for the feds to come get him?

Even if Anna were aware of such things and suggested it, I'm not sure Josh would want to do it.  He seemed pretty unenthused about another pregnancy after the second or third kid.

Not to mention the logistics of harvesting sperm to be frozen for future use.  It used to be that the prospective donor had to go to a doctors office or lab to give his sample, but I just found out there are some companies that will send the equipment needed to collect the samples at home.  It's still expensive, the sperm still has to be quickly shipped to a lab for inspection (counting the number of sperm, shape, and movement) and then there are monthly storage fees.  Who is going to pay for that?  It appears that Josh only went to the car lot so he could have private time with his computer, JB paid all the bills.  Is JB willing to pay for the collection, inspection, and storage fees so he can have even more kids to support now that the family is in disgrace and their TLC money is gone?

I think 99.9 percent of people will agree that having more kids at this time and in this situation is a colossally bad idea.  But if push comes to shove, if Anna wants more kids and JB thinks that it would be good for optics, Josh has an out.  He could go into a bathroom and put a few drops of water into the collection devise, add a drop of milk or some Milk of Magnesia in there and he's got no worries.  The lab would say the sample had no viable sperm.  Probably Satan taking his final revenge.

[NancyDrewFan1989]

On 8/12/2021 at 5:42 PM, Dandruff said:

I'm starting to wonder whether Anna will stick around to support Josh if he goes to prison.  When he was outed from Ashley Madison, he ended up spending 6+ months in Jesus jail several states away.  Whose idea was that?  If Anna wasn't livid and wanting him out of her sight then why wasn't he someplace closer?  Was it JB's idea; e.g., to get Josh far away from the family in order to help salvage the show?  Who is making the important decisions? 

I suppose Anna might (understandably) feel dependent on JB and the family, but what would happen if she filed for divorce?  Are any of the family properties under her name/control?  How much might be paid to keep her story private?  If the answer turns out to be "a lot", then perhaps it would make sense for her to stay married, at least until it's determined whether he's going to prison and for how long.

Right now I think Anna is going to stay with Josh. Time will tell whether or not she chooses to file for divorce from him. When he was ousted for Ashley Madison, Anna was able to move right into the Duggars house, have, probably, a reasonably priced appearance on TLC, and believed the Josh would be "cured" in the end. But, I do believe you are right about JB doing what he could to salvage the show. The only difference is this time TLC seems to be done with the Duggars completely. I really don't see how they can bring them back this time.

[Bluebirdbluebell]

I think the family is going along with the trial. They're waiting for him to either take a plea deal or be found guilty. They're hoping against hope that maybe he's innocent, but I think the family will turn on him when he's found guilty or pleads guilty. I could see many members of the family including Michelle and particularly JB encouraging Anna to leave him. I think maybe a few people will turn on Anna if she leaves him, but the crimes are so bad I think most people will understand.

[FiveAcres]

According to youtuber lawyer Emily D Baker, court documents state that Josh has until October 18 to change his plea, if he is going to do so. 

[Smee]

I think we’ve well and truly moved into Duggar fanfiction territory when we’re talking about Josh concocting fake semen to send to a lab because Anna has ignored her headship and pressured him into trying for an eighth child before M7 is born.

If we are making up rumours, I shall posit that the reason they’re not changing pleas is that JB is negotiating a “The Staircase” style Netflix documentary to keep them all on screen. 

[fundiewatch]

Fundie fanfic so often involves reproductive technology and it’s pretty far-fetched IMO. For the plot of the show, Michelle had her egg reserve tested but other than that they wouldn’t touch most of what goes on in those offices. Even regular insemination (versus IVF) is VERY expensive, it’s not just freezing sperm. It’s medication and ultrasounds, none of which is covered by insurance. And often cycles and cycles of it. 

[nokidsmom]

On 8/12/2021 at 11:00 PM, EmCatlyn said:

We cannot know what Anna will do, but the pattern so far has been that she remains “loyal” to Josh and relies on JB to decide her future (and that of her kids).  We will have to see what she does if Josh has to do significant time.

Agreed, right now Anna is doing exactly what she did after the last 2 Joshgates: relying on JB and his decisions.  Just as she was in denial before, she's still in denial over what Josh is really facing this time around.   Should Josh get do serious time, I expect it will come as a big shock and she will have to evaluate waiting around for years for Josh's return instead of months like last time.