Josh & Anna 58: Losing JB's Money All the Way to the Supreme Court

[nelliebelle1197]

Yep. Josh just can't help but waste all the Duggar Dough.

 

 

[FiveAcres]

This image seems more appropriate:

Spoiler

Trust me, there were images a lot more grody than this one.

[Father Son Holy Goat]

Accurate 

[BensAllergies]

Spoiler

“You don’t want your entire identity to be wrapped up in anything. You want a diversified identity,” said Dr. Kelly Campbell, the interim vice provost and co-chief diversity officer at California State University in San Bernardino. “It’s good to have a loving relationship that you derive so much satisfaction from, but you can’t lose your own identity through that relationship.”

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/02/27/health/tradwife-lifestyle-women-mental-health-wellness/index.html

This article about divorced trad wives had a quote in it that reminded me of Anna, with her “Joshy’s Girl” purse and celebration of her engagement to him in lieu of her birthday (which are the same day). I hope that one day she will be able to form her own identity, or, rather, diversified identities as the article says. She might have seen a glimpse of that potential in DC, but now she is so isolated that she might be clinging harder to her Josh’s wife identity than ever before.

[libgirl2]

22 hours ago, BensAllergies said:

  Reveal hidden contents

“You don’t want your entire identity to be wrapped up in anything. You want a diversified identity,” said Dr. Kelly Campbell, the interim vice provost and co-chief diversity officer at California State University in San Bernardino. “It’s good to have a loving relationship that you derive so much satisfaction from, but you can’t lose your own identity through that relationship.”

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/02/27/health/tradwife-lifestyle-women-mental-health-wellness/index.html

This article about divorced trad wives had a quote in it that reminded me of Anna, with her “Joshy’s Girl” purse and celebration of her engagement to him in lieu of her birthday (which are the same day). I hope that one day she will be able to form her own identity, or, rather, diversified identities as the article says. She might have seen a glimpse of that potential in DC, but now she is so isolated that she might be clinging harder to her Josh’s wife identity than ever before.

She won't change. Being his wife is her only identity, at least the only one she has been taught is her reason in life (oh and tons of kids). 

[marmalade]

Smuggar is petitioning his case to the Supreme Court. The Court has until the end of March to reply. 

[Giraffe]

3 minutes ago, marmalade said:

Smuggar is petitioning his case to the Supreme Court. The Court has until the end of March to reply. 

I wonder how much resentment has built up between some of his siblings and JB over how much money JB has thrown at him since his arrest. 

[Cam]

22 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

I wonder how much resentment has built up between some of his siblings and JB over how much money JB has thrown at him since his arrest. 

Oh, I think JB keeps his offspring happy with the contracts he has them sign so they get x amount of money for staying loyal to him. I’m sure JB knows exactly how to present the bankrolling of Josh’s defense to his kids so they feel grateful for what he’s giving them and also grateful that they are not Josh. For example, “Josh is the M kids’ dad, so I’m doing this for them.” Josh’s siblings  no doubt love the kids, so they go along with what JB says. Not too many them Duggars have any gumption to strike out on their own, so they let sleeping dogs lie.

[Giraffe]

1 hour ago, Cam said:

Oh, I think JB keeps his offspring happy with the contracts he has them sign so they get x amount of money for staying loyal to him. I’m sure JB knows exactly how to present the bankrolling of Josh’s defense to his kids so they feel grateful for what he’s giving them and also grateful that they are not Josh. For example, “Josh is the M kids’ dad, so I’m doing this for them.” Josh’s siblings  no doubt love the kids, so they go along with what JB says. Not too many them Duggars have any gumption to strike out on their own, so they let sleeping dogs lie.

Buying off silence is one thing. Money doesn't automatically prevent resentment and anger.

[marmalade]

1 hour ago, Giraffe said:

Buying off silence is one thing. Money doesn't automatically prevent resentment and anger.

That's why JB had his adult children sign NDAs up on receiving the money. That's his security.

[AussieKrissy]

7 hours ago, marmalade said:

Smuggar is petitioning his case to the Supreme Court. The Court has until the end of March to reply. 

go on waste more of Daddy's money....

Please never let him win (for obvious reasons) but the one that will really irk me will be the smugger screaming to the world "see I am innocent god proved it I am free."

When more likely it will be a clerical error or technicality that causes it. 

From what I have read the defence was pretty on the ball with that stuff so things are looking good. 

[Expectopatronus]

I don’t know enough about the American justice system to know if any technicalities could overturn the verdict but even if something was unjust in the trial would it just result in a mistrial being declared and Josh going before the courts again? And much as I hate to state an unpopular opinion, if evidence was suppressed that would have cleared him, Josh has the right to a new trial. 
I would like to see his dad stand trial for income tax evasion/fraud as a result of Jill’s book. 

[marmalade]

I haven't read the plea (it's 39 pages). The last appeal was on three grounds, IIRC. the lower appeals court found no wrongdoing by either the agents who raided the car lot or any actions of the prosecution. I suppose this plea is similar in scope.

[Howl]

Anyone know the name of the lawfirm that is handling Josh's appeal to the Supreme Court (who will almost certainly decline to hear this case)? 

[postscript]

9 hours ago, Expectopatronus said:

I don’t know enough about the American justice system to know if any technicalities could overturn the verdict but even if something was unjust in the trial would it just result in a mistrial being declared and Josh going before the courts again? And much as I hate to state an unpopular opinion, if evidence was suppressed that would have cleared him, Josh has the right to a new trial. 
I would like to see his dad stand trial for income tax evasion/fraud as a result of Jill’s book. 

Not a criminal law expert, but in the highly unlikely event the Supremes take the case (they have many more important demands on their time than a routine criminal case with no new legal questions) and the even more unlikely event they overturn his conviction, he’ll go free. Double jeopardy means he can’t be tried twice for the same offense. 

[Expectopatronus]

 @postscript So does double jeopardy always apply? Are judges not able to declare a mistrial and start over? Sorry if that’s a stupid question; I don’t know the American system at all. 

[Meggo]

I think double jeopardy is for the same crime. ie - if you are convicted for murdering person A and you appeal and get the conviction overturned - you can never be tried for THAT murder again. But if you then murder person B - you can now be tried for THAT murder. 
If these specific charges are overturned but they find 12 more things he did in that time frame that they didn't charge him with? Game on.

This law degree brought to you by google and too many episodes of Law & Order. 

[postscript]

2 minutes ago, Expectopatronus said:

 @postscript So does double jeopardy always apply? Are judges not able to declare a mistrial and start over? Sorry if that’s a stupid question; I don’t know the American system at all. 

If a mistrial had been declared, it would have been right after the original trial. They can’t start over now that they’ve been through the appeal process. 

Once again, I’m not a criminal law expert, so someone else might be able to give a better answer. 

[noseybutt]

1 hour ago, postscript said:

If a mistrial had been declared, it would have been right after the original trial. They can’t start over now that they’ve been through the appeal process. 

Once again, I’m not a criminal law expert, so someone else might be able to give a better answer. 

IANAL but in cases where Supreme Court has invalidated convictions (eg Miranda) the cases are often retried with the procedural issues corrected.

It’s not a mistrial and it’s not double jeopardy if SCOTUS clarifies an issue that was previously not spelled out.

With Miranda, he was retried without the confession that was the crux of the Supreme Court appeal.

[marmalade]

The point of appeal is: 

"Does the exclusion of relevant evidence of an alternative perpetrator based on a trial court’s conclusion it is too speculative violate a criminal
defendant’s constitutional right to present a complete defense?"

But the defense must be reasonable. Sounds like they're going after Caleb Williams again. And the router. 

Edited March 1 by marmalade
Weird spacing

[sndral]

6 hours ago, postscript said:

Not a criminal law expert, but in the highly unlikely event the Supremes take the case (they have many more important demands on their time than a routine criminal case with no new legal questions) and the even more unlikely event they overturn his conviction, he’ll go free. Double jeopardy means he can’t be tried twice for the same offense. 

 

5 hours ago, postscript said:

If a mistrial had been declared, it would have been right after the original trial. They can’t start over now that they’ve been through the appeal process. 

Once again, I’m not a criminal law expert, so someone else might be able to give a better answer. 

Mistrials are declared after jeopardy attaches, which in a jury trial is once the jury is sworn, & before they render their verdict, so mistrial is not the correct term, instead, post verdict & sentencing, the defense seeks a new trial, which is the appropriate remedy in most cases where prejudicial error has occurred at trial.

Here’s the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent opinion on the matter:

“[t]he appropriate remedy for prejudicial trial error, in almost all circumstances, is simply the award of a retrial, not a judgement banning reprosecution [citations omitted]” Smith v. U.S., 599 U.S. ___ (2023).

The rationale of the Court is that the defendant has an interest in a fair readjudication of his guilt (which retrial provides) & society “[has] a valid concern that the guilty are punished.” Burks v. U.S., 437 U.S. 1, 15 (1978).

[noseybutt]

24 minutes ago, sndral said:

 

Mistrials are declared after jeopardy attaches, which in a jury trial is once the jury is sworn, & before they render their verdict, so mistrial is not the correct term, instead, post verdict & sentencing, the defense seeks a new trial, which is the appropriate remedy in most cases where prejudicial error has occurred at trial.

Here’s the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent opinion on the matter:

“[t]he appropriate remedy for prejudicial trial error, in almost all circumstances, is simply the award of a retrial, not a judgement banning reprosecution [citations omitted]” Smith v. U.S., 599 U.S. ___ (2023).

The rationale of the Court is that the defendant has an interest in a fair readjudication of his guilt (which retrial provides) & society “[has] a valid concern that the guilty are punished.” Burks v. U.S., 437 U.S. 1, 15 (1978).

Higher courts can theoretically overturn a guilty verdict—that’s what happened in Bill Cosby’s case. Prosecutors had promised not to charge him when he sat for civil dispositions and then reneged on the promise and charged him anyway. In that situation it was overturned and I think he can’t be retried for those particular victims. The issues in Cosby’s case are very different than Josh Duggers though. At most, Josh has a pretty minor complaint about process. The case is unlikely to be heard and, if heard, unlikely to be resolved in his favor. Like, super unlikely to go his way.

Please, nobody clue in Jim Bob. Let him fritter the money away. 

 

 

[gustava]

17 hours ago, noseybutt said:

Higher courts can theoretically overturn a guilty verdict—that’s what happened in Bill Cosby’s case. Prosecutors had promised not to charge him when he sat for civil dispositions and then reneged on the promise and charged him anyway. In that situation it was overturned and I think he can’t be retried for those particular victims. The issues in Cosby’s case are very different than Josh Duggers though. At most, Josh has a pretty minor complaint about process. The case is unlikely to be heard and, if heard, unlikely to be resolved in his favor. Like, super unlikely to go his way.

Please, nobody clue in Jim Bob. Let him fritter the money away. 

 

 

I agree it's unlikely not to be heard, but his lawyers seem to be pretty slick in framing the appeal; I don't think it's minor complaint the way it is worded....though IANAL

[AussieKrissy]

On 3/2/2024 at 8:40 AM, noseybutt said:

Higher courts can theoretically overturn a guilty verdict—that’s what happened in Bill Cosby’s case. Prosecutors had promised not to charge him when he sat for civil dispositions and then reneged on the promise and charged him anyway. In that situation it was overturned and I think he can’t be retried for those particular victims. The issues in Cosby’s case are very different than Josh Duggers though. At most, Josh has a pretty minor complaint about process. The case is unlikely to be heard and, if heard, unlikely to be resolved in his favor. Like, super unlikely to go his way.

Please, nobody clue in Jim Bob. Let him fritter the money away. 

 

 

Because to give up would be to admit his guilt and admit that god can’t save him (aka set the innocent free) imo

Edited March 6 by AussieKrissy
Sorry I read it as why would Jim Bob fritter his money away.

[marmalade]

According to the Sun, Pecan and Joe Duggar paid the felon a visit. 

Waller IG today notes that they voted then did prison ministry (posted after the Sun article). So, there may be some truth to the story if that's the prison Pecan ministers to.