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

[Howl]

How many people are left living in the Duggar house dormitory and exactly how big is it? Is it just JB, Michelle and a few left over kids rattling around?  I'd guess it's still pretty busy, though. You could marry off 8 or 9 kids and still have a baseball team left over.  Sometimes I just can't grok the sheer number of clones popped out by the Duggar human baby factory. 

[Pecansforeveryone]

I think every child from Hannie on down at least is still living there. So what at least 6???kids plus I am sure Jason and Jeremiah being umarried still live at home so maybe 8 or so kuds still living at home. Only in Duggarland is at least half a dozen children living at home considered "a few kids."

[Coconut Flan]

Jana, Jeremiah, Jason, James, Jackson, Johannah, Jennifer, Tyler, Jordyn, and Josie make 10 still at home or at least there part or most of the time. 

[JDuggs]

A woman who appeared on 16 and Pregnant was recently sentenced to 6.5 years after pleading guilty to child pornography charges. Can anyone compare the charges against her to the charges against Josh to see if they are comparable? I couldn’t find the information I was looking for.

[church_of_dog]

https://www.nwahomepage.com/northwest-arkansas-news/prosecutors-in-josh-duggars-child-porn-case-say-his-attorneys-are-on-a-fishing-expedition-for-additional-info/

Someone on another forum is speculating the actions referred to in this article might represent a legal strategy to challenge the jurisdiction and get the case moved to a State Court rather than Federal Court.  According to the poster, doing so would remove the mandatory minimum sentence issue.

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, church_of_dog said:

https://www.nwahomepage.com/northwest-arkansas-news/prosecutors-in-josh-duggars-child-porn-case-say-his-attorneys-are-on-a-fishing-expedition-for-additional-info/

Someone on another forum is speculating the actions referred to in this article might represent a legal strategy to challenge the jurisdiction and get the case moved to a State Court rather than Federal Court.  According to the poster, doing so would remove the mandatory minimum sentence issue.

I don’t see how a case that involves transmitting/exchanging porn across different states could be a “State Court rather than Federal Court” case.  Can someone more familiar with these things explain?

[BadMurphy]

4 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

Jana, Jeremiah, Jason, James, Jackson, Johannah, Jennifer, Tyler, Jordyn, and Josie make 10 still at home or at least there part or most of the time. 

Jeremiah had to move back in after Jed! got married? Man he shoulda dragged Jason in as a new accountability partner.  Oh well, just give the keys back to Dad, the twin bed back to Jennifer and throw those plastic chair back on the side of the road. 

[church_of_dog]

3 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I don’t see how a case that involves transmitting/exchanging porn across different states could be a “State Court rather than Federal Court” case.  Can someone more familiar with these things explain?

 

I myself don't understand beyond "Josh's defense is trying to challenge the jurisdictional aspect of the charges."

The poster on the other forum has been asked to elaborate -- once she replies I'll see if I can add anything useful here.

[patsymae]

10 minutes ago, church_of_dog said:

 

I myself don't understand beyond "Josh's defense is trying to challenge the jurisdictional aspect of the charges."

The poster on the other forum has been asked to elaborate -- once she replies I'll see if I can add anything useful here.

According to the Google school of sleazebag lawyers, possession of child porn is always a federal offense. 

And there are defenses (read beyond first graphs only if you don't mind being sickened)

https://www.pagepate.com/experience/criminal-defense/federal-crimes/federal-child-pornography/

[DalmatianCat]

10 hours ago, nokidsmom said:

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.

 

Actually…she has done one thing different this time…she has not released any public statements. She did after the first scandal (can’t remember about the second), but so far everything reported that she is thinking and feeling this time is just heresay and tabloid junk. There’s a lot she probably still processing and sorting through mentally and emotionally right now, but the fact that she didn’t quickly make a statement is definitely different for her.

[EmCatlyn]

57 minutes ago, DalmatianCat said:

Actually…she has done one thing different this time…she has not released any public statements. She did after the first scandal (can’t remember about the second), but so far everything reported that she is thinking and feeling this time is just heresay and tabloid junk. There’s a lot she probably still processing and sorting through mentally and emotionally right now, but the fact that she didn’t quickly make a statement is definitely different for her.

I don’t think she made a statement right after Ashley Madison either.  She made a statement the first time to say that she had known about the molestation sin before they got married, and it was no big deal.    Then I don’t remember that she said anything after Ashley Madison until she appeared on Counting On.  (In the episode she talked about not turning a mess into a disaster and all that.)

Last time there were a lot of reports about her feelings and so forth (same as now).  But no statement from her.

[Dandruff]

2 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Last time there were a lot of reports about her feelings and so forth (same as now).  But no statement from her.

What does she have to gain by making a statement now?  There's no show to protect and if she starts talking people will only have more questions and concerns.

I believe she knows that this situation is different.  She can trust in Jesus all she wants, but the Feds are in the mix this time and are unlikely to gaf about Josh's salvation or the contents of Wisdom booklets.  Limited spinning can be done.  She'll have her chance to speak up, and potentially profit by doing so, once the outcome of the case becomes clear.

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, Dandruff said:

What does she have to gain by making a statement now?  There's no show to protect and if she starts talking people will only have more questions and concerns.

I believe she knows that this situation is different.  She can trust in Jesus all she wants, but the Feds are in the mix this time and are unlikely to gaf about Josh's salvation or the contents of Wisdom booklets.  Limited spinning can be done.  She'll have her chance to speak up, and potentially profit by doing so, once the outcome of the case becomes clear.

I can’t imagine why she would want to make a statement now.  Indeed, what I was saying was that I don’t remember her making a statement after Ashley Madison until she spoke on “Counting On.”

You are probably right that she may speak after Josh has been sentenced/acquitted.  Even then, she may choose to say nothing publicly until/unless she (or JB) is offered a good deal for her words.

[church_of_dog]

21 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I don’t see how a case that involves transmitting/exchanging porn across different states could be a “State Court rather than Federal Court” case.  Can someone more familiar with these things explain?

OK, the person on the other forum explained more.

Quoting from this site: https://www.brill-legal.com/our-services/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-faq/are-child-pornography-charges-state-or-federal/

"Whether child pornography charges come from the state or the federal government may depend on whether it was state or federal law enforcement officers who carried out the arrest. However, a person arrested by state or local police can still be charged in federal court, and federal child pornography sentences are often more severe than New York State sentences."

So while the actual facts of the case indicate that the charges SHOULD be federal, it seems possible that Josh's defense is nevertheless TRYING to use this argument about which LE did the arrest to get it dropped to state level.  

It probably won't work (nor should it) but that may be the only avenue left for the defense to attempt.

[FiveAcres]

33 minutes ago, church_of_dog said:

OK, the person on the other forum explained more.

Quoting from this site: https://www.brill-legal.com/our-services/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-faq/are-child-pornography-charges-state-or-federal/

"Whether child pornography charges come from the state or the federal government may depend on whether it was state or federal law enforcement officers who carried out the arrest. However, a person arrested by state or local police can still be charged in federal court, and federal child pornography sentences are often more severe than New York State sentences."

So while the actual facts of the case indicate that the charges SHOULD be federal, it seems possible that Josh's defense is nevertheless TRYING to use this argument about which LE did the arrest to get it dropped to state level.  

It probably won't work (nor should it) but that may be the only avenue left for the defense to attempt.

Which may mean that the defense counsel does not like the looks of going to trial, if they can't get any of the evidence thrown out due to LE errors or misconduct. 

[ifosterkittens]

@FiveAcresI was introduced to Emily D Baker on this forum, and I love her. Thanks for sharing her! I am now incredibly invested in the Erika Jane legal proceedings even though I don't watch Housewives. Emily's insights are informative and fascinating to me (person with no legal knowledge). 

What I found interesting was none of the family came out and said Josh is innocent, and we look forward to the day his name is cleared. That to me was surprising, and made me wonder if the family (well at least Jim Bob) knew the seriousness of the charges. Emily D Baker said when the feds brought her a case she loved it because even though they were choosing not to prosecute it because it wasn't totally buttoned up she felt she could easily argue whatever point wasn't totally buttoned up with all the other evidence. Emily also said if the feds move forward with a case they are confident they have the evidence to get a guilty verdict.

[FiveAcres]

23 minutes ago, ifosterkittens said:

@FiveAcresI was introduced to Emily D Baker on this forum, and I love her. Thanks for sharing her! I am now incredibly invested in the Erika Jane legal proceedings even though I don't watch Housewives. Emily's insights are informative and fascinating to me (person with no legal knowledge). 

What I found interesting was none of the family came out and said Josh is innocent, and we look forward to the day his name is cleared. That to me was surprising, and made me wonder if the family (well at least Jim Bob) knew the seriousness of the charges. Emily D Baker said when the feds brought her a case she loved it because even though they were choosing not to prosecute it because it wasn't totally buttoned up she felt she could easily argue whatever point wasn't totally buttoned up with all the other evidence. Emily also said if the feds move forward with a case they are confident they have the evidence to get a guilty verdict.

I remember when she said that about the feds referring cases to state prosecutors when discussing Josh's arraignment. And although Baker avoids politics as much as she can on her podcasts, I myself wonder if the feds didn't try to find an ambitious Arkansas state prosecutor because they were afraid that Daddy Duggar would be able to fix it at the state level. If it is true that what Josh downloaded was the worst of the worst, the CP task force members might have been extremely irritated at the possibility that, once more, he skates due to his influential connections. 

[Howl]

Curious if Josh's past history as a sexual abuser will be evidence in the trial or at sentencing or as part of a plea deal. 

[Jrodseyeliner]

Regarding who is living at home. I think that Jason may be living in Texas with Justin and the spivey’s. He was there a lot during their wedding and afterwards. Maybe James was as well, but he has been home recently and in Jill’s IG . 

[Bluebirdbluebell]

2 hours ago, ifosterkittens said:

What I found interesting was none of the family came out and said Josh is innocent, and we look forward to the day his name is cleared. That to me was surprising, and made me wonder if the family (well at least Jim Bob) knew the seriousness of the charges. Emily D Baker said when the feds brought her a case she loved it because even though they were choosing not to prosecute it because it wasn't totally buttoned up she felt she could easily argue whatever point wasn't totally buttoned up with all the other evidence. Emily also said if the feds move forward with a case they are confident they have the evidence to get a guilty verdict.

I think the family knows how serious it is and probably thinks there's little chance he's innocent. They may hope against hope he's innocent, but I think they know it's probably true. I really think once he pleads guilty or is found guilty they will probably give up on him. 

53 minutes ago, Howl said:

Curious if Josh's past history as a sexual abuser will be evidence in the trial or at sentencing or as part of a plea deal. 

 Since he was never formally charged or found guilty, it probably won't come up. 

[DalmatianCat]

2 hours ago, FiveAcres said:

I myself wonder if the feds didn't try to find an ambitious Arkansas state prosecutor because they were afraid that Daddy Duggar would be able to fix it at the state level. If it is true that what Josh downloaded was the worst of the worst, the CP task force members might have been extremely irritated at the possibility that, once more, he skates due to his influential connections. 

I don’t think JB is actually that influential at the state level…he held office once 20 years ago and the other two times he ran he couldn’t even get his own party’s nomination. That doesn’t exactly sound like someone who has a lot of influence at the state level. He was able to work out some type of local deal back in 2006, but I don’t think he has the influence at the state level for anyone to be interested in helping this time around.

[Howl]

Might be likely that Josh's lawyers told the fam to STFU about Josh, make absolutely no statements and give zero interviews.

They have likely been advised to do the same by their agent/agent's lawyer. 

[sndral]

6 hours ago, church_of_dog said:

OK, the person on the other forum explained more.

Quoting from this site: https://www.brill-legal.com/our-services/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-faq/are-child-pornography-charges-state-or-federal/

"Whether child pornography charges come from the state or the federal government may depend on whether it was state or federal law enforcement officers who carried out the arrest. However, a person arrested by state or local police can still be charged in federal court, and federal child pornography sentences are often more severe than New York State sentences."

So while the actual facts of the case indicate that the charges SHOULD be federal, it seems possible that Josh's defense is nevertheless TRYING to use this argument about which LE did the arrest to get it dropped to state level.  

It probably won't work (nor should it) but that may be the only avenue left for the defense to attempt.

The person on the other site is very confused & has obviously never practiced criminal law.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that United States Congress shall have the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states.” Pretty much anything to do w/ the internet is considered interstate commerce, and the US Congress has enacted Federal Criminal laws forbidding CSA, thus the Feds have jurisdiction to prosecute Josh for downloading CSA materials. There’s absolutely nothing the defense can do to ‘move’ the case from Fed court to state court. In law there’s rarely instances where things are this clearcut, but if the Feds have jurisdiction (& they do) this prosecution will stay in Federal court.

Indeed because the Feds and Arkansas are separate sovereigns, Josh could be prosecuted for those downloads by both the Feds and Arkansas because Double Jeopardy would not apply, see, eg: Rodney King dual prosecutions https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-federal-prosecution.html.

Who investigated the case or arrested the suspect has diddly squat to do with whether or not a court has jurisdiction. Generally local officers are involved in local/state prosecutions and Federal officers w/ Federal prosecutions, but that’s more to do w/ the fact that law enforcement investigates crimes that violate their laws, some crimes violate both Fed and state law, so either or both Fed & state may investigate in those cases.

The defense motion to compel is a discovery motion, I suspect they are searching for anything that could muddy the waters & confuse the jury, perhaps Officer A did his log this way & Officer B did his log a bit differently, isn’t that suspicious the defense will argue, even though it’s NBD. Typical defense tactic, find teeny tiny discrepancies and argue the case isn’t perfect thus there’s reasonable doubt. 
 

Edited August 16, 2021 by sndral

[livinginthelight]

Has this been posted elsewhere? Explains how agents found Josh's abuse material. Though it seems a recap of information already out there. It has a link to the Homeland Security affidavit, filed by agent Gerald Faulkner.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/josh-duggar-news-document-reveals-fbi-agents-found-alleged-abuse-material.html/

Edited August 16, 2021 by livinginthelight

[EmCatlyn]

49 minutes ago, livinginthelight said:

Has this been posted elsewhere? Explains how agents found Josh's abuse material. Though it seems a recap of information already out there. It has a link to the Homeland Security affidavit, filed by agent Gerald Faulkner.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/josh-duggar-news-document-reveals-fbi-agents-found-alleged-abuse-material.html/

I hadn’t seen the affidavit before.  What I found most interesting was the description of how the ip address was tracked to the dealership.  Apparently there was some confusion caused by the internet provider assigning the ip address to the dealership’s next-door-neighbors’ physical address.  (The neighbors did not have internet from that internet provider.) The federal agents seem to have been meticulous in identifying Josh as the owner of the computer.

 Very interesting.