The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

[Churchhoney]

The Duggars really really really want privacy, don't they? Yawning pussy on the toilet, anyone? Eagerly calling for the videotape when little kids have seizures or knock themselves out falling into orchestra pits? "Daddy" fake-rear-fucking godly mama on the miniature golf course, with kids and kids' fiances present.

And they care so much about the consequences of sexual abuse for others. Embracing a cult leader who teaches little kids that if someone older molests them they're at fault because they probably let their skirts or shirts ride up one day while they were on the playground. And going on national tv to declare that intra-family multiple child molestations are no big deal and happen in most houses so get over it because we're not only over it, it never bothered us one whit in the first place. And saying now, Oh please please please let our molester and the parents who totally covered for him and didn't help either him or his molestees one iota back on TeeVee! Please!

Any adult who signs onto this shit is loathsome, in my opinion. So Jill, Jessa, Jinge -- you're loathsome fools. ..... Not that I didn't already know that. Get a frigging clue. You mean nothing to your "Daddy" and "Godly Mama' but fame and bucks. And, I suppose, glory in the hereafter. You are just a generic chucklehead to your offensive parents. Stop letting them use you like this. 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Churchhoney

[Natalie68]

16 hours ago, Oldernowiser said:

This has desperate money grab written all over it. If they thought they had a real shot at burying Joshie's Ebil Past and going back to milking TLC full time with a redemption arc, there would be zero reason to dredge this back up. 

All it does is remind everyone that Josh molested his sisters and nothing was done about it and they kept on smugging and proselytizing their magical perfect Godly family the whole time.

Unless the shit's about to hit the fan with some other revelation, this makes no sense, PR-wise. Either JimBlob went rogue and did this solo or TLC needs a new PR firm ASAP.

Discovery will open them up to ALL KINDS of unpleasant discussions.  All In Touch, who has more money than they do, has to do is call for discovery.  So they REALLY want their private issues becoming public?  If I recall had Boob and Meechelle followed through with something related to this case the details would not have been made public via FOIA.  Am I remembering this clearly?  I cannot remember exactly why.  

[Natalie68]

8 hours ago, Mollie said:

These four Duggar sisters have had their 'privacy' violated since their parents first forced them to appear on reality TV in 2004. 

Two weeks after the scandal began in 2015, Jill and Jessa publicly identified themselves as two of Josh's victims, a revelation most people wouldn't have known if the two hadn't voluntarily come forward.

Jill, Jessa, Michelle and Jim Bob agreed to a highly-promoted, televised interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox News.  That's not what people do when they are protecting their 'privacy.'  

In the interview, Megyn asked "Why did you launch a reality television show given your family's past?"  Jim Bob said, "We had nothing to hide. We had taken care of all that years before."  Nothing to hide?  Then why were they so upset when the factual police report was revealed?

Instead of suing the city of Springdale and Washington County, Arkansas – a suit that will be defended with money from taxpayers who are their friends and neighbors – the Duggar sisters should be suing their brother Josh for sexually molesting them and suing their parents under the Arkansas Child Maltreatment Act (§ 12-18-103) for "Failure or refusal to prevent the abuse of the child when the person knows or should know the child is or has been abused" and “Failure to take reasonable action to protect the child from sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, neglect, or parental unfitness when the existence of the condition was known or should have been known.”

The sisters' attorney is trying to make this court case about the privacy rights of minor children, but I think it is all about money.  If the case actually goes to trial, there will be no 'privacy' because the four Duggarites will have to take the stand and publicly recount all of the events, knowing their statements will all become tabloid fodder.

 

This bolded above.

[hathorlive]

I think they are trying to get a cash settlement out of either In Touch or the city.  I don't think they want them on the stand at all because that opens up the possibility that they will be forced to give details, under oath, and answers questions, under oath.   And let's face it, these are not sophisticated witnesses that you can coached on what to say.  They are essentially an attorney's dream because you'll be able to shake them up by talking fast, using words they don't know and generally getting them to give testimony that is spontaneous in nature.  Jim Bob, if he's got an ounce of sense, will not want this in court. 

Their parenting will be officially documented and it will be worse for the adults and Josh.  He's hoping for a quick settlement as a cash grab.

[Tabbygirl521]

3 hours ago, Mollie said:

I have the inside story on this.

According to an interview John-David did with Good Morning America in March, 2016, the real blame for the released and published police files goes to someone other than the defendants named in the law suit. 

“The devil took his best shot. And he tried to take our whole family down, but God has really used this to -- instead of tearing us apart as a family, he's using it to draw us together ... We've forgiven, and we're moving on, and we're looking to the future,” he said.

So there you have it from an inside-the-house eyewitness:  the devil is to blame.  That's the same ol' devil who built a fortress in Josh's heart and caused him to sign up for adultery dating sites.  And, knowing the devil is to blame, John-David reported, "We've forgiven, and we're moving on."

 I hope John-David's testimony is used by the defense in this lawsuit, especially the part about "forgiven."  Really, can you forgive and then un-forgive?

 

 

You can forgive THE DEVIL?? Seems like a slippery slope. 

[Natalie68]

8 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

I think they are trying to get a cash settlement out of either In Touch or the city.  I don't think they want them on the stand at all because that opens up the possibility that they will be forced to give details, under oath, and answers questions, under oath.   And let's face it, these are not sophisticated witnesses that you can coached on what to say.  They are essentially an attorney's dream because you'll be able to shake them up by talking fast, using words they don't know and generally getting them to give testimony that is spontaneous in nature.  Jim Bob, if he's got an ounce of sense, will not want this in court. 

Their parenting will be officially documented and it will be worse for the adults and Josh.  He's hoping for a quick settlement as a cash grab.

Exactly.  The magazine nor did the PD do anything illegal.  It may not have been nice but the names were redacted and it passed muster with the lawyer for the PD.  The fact people could figure it out doesn't make it illegal and the only people responsible for people knowing anything about the Duggar girls are their parents.  Then being on tv with Megyn talking about it how it was no big deal, they have forgiven Josh etc brought more hints (and admissions) about who exactly was molested.  It boils down to a pervy big brother and parents who did NOTHING to help them.  So I doubt the mag or PD will settle.  Not a lawyer but wondering if this will put Josh on the stand?  

[kokapetl]

This isn't Jimbob's lawsuit, it's his daughters. They are essentially unimpeachable, there is no dirt on any of them. 

[GeeGolly]

I'm glad there isn't a hate button on this forum...

I think it's great that Jill, Jessa, Jinger and Joy are filing this lawsuit. Because they are quasi famous, if they win it'll make folks listen. From what I understand ANY juvenile criminal records, whether naming a victim or the criminal are sealed (unless the juvenile is charged as an adult).

And the girls do get to have it both ways - they can feel they've moved beyond the molestations as well as minimize the acts AND be angry that all this was made public. Being on TV does not mean everyone is privy to every detail of your life. 

JB & M are total idiots, but I think the average parent would never think that juvenile police records of any sort would be released and especially ones including the names and ages of 4 young girls who were molested.

Shame on Josh, the department that released the records and In Touch. No shame on the Duggar 4.

[hathorlive]

1 minute ago, Natalie68 said:

Exactly.  The magazine nor did the PD do anything illegal.  It may not have been nice but the names were redacted and it passed muster with the lawyer for the PD.  The fact people could figure it out doesn't make it illegal and the only people responsible for people knowing anything about the Duggar girls are their parents.  Then being on tv with Megyn talking about it how it was no big deal, they have forgiven Josh etc brought more hints (and admissions) about who exactly was molested.  It boils down to a pervy big brother and parents who did NOTHING to help them.  So I doubt the mag or PD will settle.  Not a lawyer but wondering if this will put Josh on the stand?  

If I were a lawyer for the two being sued, I'd definitely subpoena him and get him to commit to a deposition at the least.  It depends on scale and scope but the heart of the matter is molestation and he is the  molester.  I'd add every single family member to the witness list and get them to talk about side hugs, and nike and making little girls wear skirts with layers of leggings underneath and generally make these parents look like irresponsible nutcases.  Adding in Josh the molester is just a bonus.  It's what we've wanted for years (calling for social services to intervene) but in public.  What lawyer (corporate lawyer at that) would pass on that chance? And since all the victims are now adults, there will be no white glove treatment reserved for kids.  Jim Bob is a fool if he doesn't see how getting uneducated, inarticulate girls on the stand is going to tank his life.

[hathorlive]

2 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm glad there isn't a hate button on this forum...

I think it's great that Jill, Jessa, Jinger and Joy are filing this lawsuit. Because they are quasi famous, if they win it'll make folks listen. From what I understand ANY juvenile criminal records, whether naming a victim or the criminal are sealed (unless the juvenile is charged as an adult).

And the girls do get to have it both ways - they can feel they've moved beyond the molestations as well as minimize the acts AND be angry that all this was made public. Being on TV does not mean everyone is privy to every detail of your life. 

JB & M are total idiots, but I think the average parent would never think that juvenile police records of any sort would be released and especially ones including the names and ages of 4 young girls who were molested.

Shame on Josh, the department that released the records and In Touch. No shame on the Duggar 4.

And this is why the Duggars will lose.  They will play the Kelly interview with the parents saying "it was over the clothes, it wasn't serious, it's like kids playing doctor" and then the lawyers will say the parents don't see a crime.  The girls don't see a crime.  No one was charged for a crime, whose privacy was violated?  The names WERE redacted.  The only ones who violated the privacy of the victims were their parents. 

In Touch published a document that was cleared by the Arkansas version of the FOIA.  It's like Trump trying to arrest the press for printing leaks.  Under current laws, the press can print things obtained illegally as long as they didn't do the illegal getting of the item.  In this case, In Touch LEGALLY obtained the documents.  Please understand this.

And I do shame the two Duggar girls for minimizing sexual abuse and telling millions of victims to stay quiet.  I give made props to Jinger for not participating in that shit show.

[GeeGolly]

1 minute ago, hathorlive said:

And this is why the Duggars will lose.  They will play the Kelly interview with the parents saying "it was over the clothes, it wasn't serious, it's like kids playing doctor" and then the lawyers will say the parents don't see a crime.  The girls don't see a crime.  No one was charged for a crime, whose privacy was violated?  The names WERE redacted.  The only ones who violated the privacy of the victims were their parents. 

In Touch published a document that was cleared by the Arkansas version of the FOIA.  It's like Trump trying to arrest the press for printing leaks.  Under current laws, the press can print things obtained illegally as long as they didn't do the illegal getting of the item.  In this case, In Touch LEGALLY obtained the documents.  Please understand this.

And I do shame the two Duggar girls for minimizing sexual abuse and telling millions of victims to stay quiet.  I give made props to Jinger for not participating in that shit show.

I'm still not sure the records were released rightfully. No police department is void of mistakes. The Freedom of Information Act doesn't mean any and all information. And redaction of information means all identifiers and we all know that didn't happen. 

And I never heard any Duggar girl to tell any survivors of abuse to keep quiet. When and where did they say that?

[Churchhoney]

Does anybody actually think that the girls filed this suit? Or have the slightest dimmest least idea of what they might be letting themselves in for by having their names put on it? Or that Jim Bob filed it with the well-being of his daughters -- and all those other child sex abuse victims out there (sounds of harps and angels) -- in mind? 

It's a Jim Bob cash grab to help him pay for the ever-more-gigantic pile of unemployable hangers-on his narcissistic ass insists on accumulating as bouquets for his massive ego. Throw a little quick and easy cash the married-girls' way and it takes a little of the burden off his grifter businesses to fully sustain quite so many people. For a while.

Obviously, being Jim Bob, he assumes he'll easily intimidate the defendants and walk away with a big wad of cash. (Plus great new publicity to goose up the next season of the SHOW!!!!) And maybe he will. But I hope to heck he doesn't. He's using his daughters and putting them at risk once again and he couldn't care less since there's money to gain. That's all I see here. That, and a bunch of now adults who are so brainwashed and, yeah, stupid and arrogant, that they refuse to wake up and smell the damn coffee that's been brewing in the TTH for about a quarter century now. Because "Daddy." Your father is slime, you idiots. Don't let your name be put on any lawsuits he and his greasy lawyers claim they want to file for your sake. 

[Aja]

36 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

This isn't Jimbob's lawsuit, it's his daughters. They are essentially unimpeachable, there is no dirt on any of them. 

Exactly. Useful pets to have.

Roll out the victim cart when it suits the TV show. Then, when the public reacts with sympathy for the victims and questions the current health and well-being of said victims, turn around and spew venom at us idiots who are totally overreacting and being judgmental. 

What the hell ever.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Aja

[Sew Sumi]

Aja said a million posts ago: 

It all smacks of another "clever" Boobesque we-deserve-to-be-on-TV PR move. I have very little sympathy for them either. They aren't standing up for themselves--they're standing up for Daddy's TV show. Anything to get Josh back to TV-levels of public acceptability.

You said what I was trying to articulate when I first read of the lawsuit yesterday. It's all about "Christian forgiveness" and easing Smuggar back on to the show. The only leg I can see that JOY has to stand on is that she was still a minor when the police report was released. The stipulations regarding the offender do not apply to Josh; he was never arrested, charged, etc. They didn't go to the police until after the statutes had run and Josh was legal. 

InTouch's mistake was releasing the report before Joy's 18th birthday. JOY might be the only winner in this suit. Jill and Jessa pretty much negated themselves with the ill-advised Megyn Kelly interview in which they claimed they were NOT victims of anything. But now they are. 

Pick a lane, girls. You demean your other sisters whose abuse was more blatant. 

[kokapetl]

The plaintiffs aren't being represented by LAWYR or Lionel Hutz, they are being represented by a partner of boutique Los Angeles law firm Larson O'Brien, along with two other lawyers from that firm, and two lawyers from a Fayetteville firm. 

"Robert C. O’Brien’s practice focuses on complex litigation and domestic and international arbitration. He has expertise in entertainment, intellectual property, oil and gas, and contract and business tort matters.

Mr. O’Brien has tried numerous cases to verdict in state and federal courts in both jury and bench trials as well as in domestic and international arbitral proceedings.

In addition, he has been appointed chair and wing arbitrator in more than a dozen domestic and international arbitrations. Mr. O’Brien has been a federal court-appointed discovery master in several of the largest recent cases in the Central District of California, including MGA v. Mattel (“Barbie v. Bratz”), United States v. Standard & Poors and In re Allergan Securities Litigation. He was named one of the top 100 lawyers in California by the Daily Journal. In 2016, The Los Angeles Business Journal named him as one of the 500 most influential people in Los Angeles.

Prior to establishing Larson O’Brien LLP with Stephen G. Larson, Mr. O’Brien was the California managing partner of a national AMLAW firm. He grew the California offices from 10 lawyers to more than 110 in seven years.

Mr. O’Brien served as the U.S. Alternate Representative to the 60th session of the United Nations General Assembly, which met in New York from 2005 through 2006. In July 2008, Mr. O’Brien was appointed by the President to serve a three-year term on the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, which advises the U.S. Government on the Convention on the Cultural Property Implementation Act. He was the founding Co-Chairman of the Department of State Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan from 2007 to 2011, serving under Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of State Clinton.

Mr. O’Brien was a Major in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps of the U.S. Army Reserve. He served as a senior legal officer at the UN Security Council (UNCC) in Geneva, Switzerland, from 1996 to 1998, where he handled government claims against Iraq arising out of the first Gulf War.

Mr. O’Brien’s articles on international law, the right of publicity and civil procedure have been published in leading law reviews and journals. His essays and editorials on foreign policy and national security regularly appear in national publications. He is a frequent guest on Fox News, CNN and The Hugh Hewitt Radio Show. His book, While America Slept: Restoring American Leadership to a World in Crisis was published by Encounter in 2016.

Mr. O’Brien served on the Dean’s Advisory Board of the Fowler School of Law at Chapman University. He was a member of the International Republican Institute (IRI) delegations that observed the presidential election in the Republic of Georgia in October 2013 and the parliamentary election in Ukraine in October 2014. Mr. O’Brien served as a Pacific Council on International Policy observer of the 9/11 Military Commission proceedings in Guantanamo Bay.

He has been a senior advisor to Governor Mitt Romney and Governor Scott Walker in their presidential campaigns.

Mr. O’Brien graduated, cum laude, from UCLA, and received his JD degree from the UC Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall)."

This appears to be a legitimate lawsuit. Anyone with extreme partiality against the Duggars should consider that the law aims to be impartial. 

[Churchhoney]

33 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

The plaintiffs aren't being represented by LAWYR or Lionel Hutz, they are being represented by a partner of boutique Los Angeles law firm Larson O'Brien, along with two other lawyers from that firm, and two lawyers from a Fayetteville firm. 

"Robert C. O’Brien’s practice focuses on complex litigation and domestic and international arbitration. He has expertise in entertainment, intellectual property, oil and gas, and contract and business tort matters.

Mr. O’Brien has tried numerous cases to verdict in state and federal courts in both jury and bench trials as well as in domestic and international arbitral proceedings.

In addition, he has been appointed chair and wing arbitrator in more than a dozen domestic and international arbitrations. Mr. O’Brien has been a federal court-appointed discovery master in several of the largest recent cases in the Central District of California, including MGA v. Mattel (“Barbie v. Bratz”), United States v. Standard & Poors and In re Allergan Securities Litigation. He was named one of the top 100 lawyers in California by the Daily Journal. In 2016, The Los Angeles Business Journal named him as one of the 500 most influential people in Los Angeles.

Prior to establishing Larson O’Brien LLP with Stephen G. Larson, Mr. O’Brien was the California managing partner of a national AMLAW firm. He grew the California offices from 10 lawyers to more than 110 in seven years.

Mr. O’Brien served as the U.S. Alternate Representative to the 60th session of the United Nations General Assembly, which met in New York from 2005 through 2006. In July 2008, Mr. O’Brien was appointed by the President to serve a three-year term on the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, which advises the U.S. Government on the Convention on the Cultural Property Implementation Act. He was the founding Co-Chairman of the Department of State Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan from 2007 to 2011, serving under Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of State Clinton.

Mr. O’Brien was a Major in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps of the U.S. Army Reserve. He served as a senior legal officer at the UN Security Council (UNCC) in Geneva, Switzerland, from 1996 to 1998, where he handled government claims against Iraq arising out of the first Gulf War.

Mr. O’Brien’s articles on international law, the right of publicity and civil procedure have been published in leading law reviews and journals. His essays and editorials on foreign policy and national security regularly appear in national publications. He is a frequent guest on Fox News, CNN and The Hugh Hewitt Radio Show. His book, While America Slept: Restoring American Leadership to a World in Crisis was published by Encounter in 2016.

Mr. O’Brien served on the Dean’s Advisory Board of the Fowler School of Law at Chapman University. He was a member of the International Republican Institute (IRI) delegations that observed the presidential election in the Republic of Georgia in October 2013 and the parliamentary election in Ukraine in October 2014. Mr. O’Brien served as a Pacific Council on International Policy observer of the 9/11 Military Commission proceedings in Guantanamo Bay.

He has been a senior advisor to Governor Mitt Romney and Governor Scott Walker in their presidential campaigns.

Mr. O’Brien graduated, cum laude, from UCLA, and received his JD degree from the UC Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall)."

This appears to be a legitimate lawsuit. Anyone with extreme partiality against the Duggars should consider that the law aims to be impartial. 

Interesting.

The main thing this proves is that for some reason JB continues to have significant connections and influence (WTF?! Really?!) in conservative politics. Hugh Hewitt. Scott Walker. Nuff said. 

JB really must know where somebody buried some bodies. Although of course I guess I wouldn't put that past him. He's sleaze and slime to the nth degree, so I'm sure the first thing he did when he got involved with another politico was use his big ugly nose to sniff out the bodies. And then held the knowledge over the person's head. 

So somebody he has some influence over (WHY WHY WHY???) put him onto a big-name lawyer, giving him an actual shot at getting his damn settlement. Shithead.

All the crap in that Jim Bob-initiated lawsuit about doing this for the sake of other sexually abused girls. And then we see him in pictures in another thread fawning over fucking Bill Gothard -- sex abuser, fosterer of sex abusers, evil hypocritical liar and denier of sex abuse crimes and cruel shamer and blamer of victims. The hypocrisy stinks to the heavens. Makes me vomit. However, with this guy on board he'll probably walk away with cash. And his idiot daughters won't be one inch closer to understanding what their father truly is. More's the pity. 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Churchhoney

[GeeGolly]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

Does anybody actually think that the girls filed this suit? Or have the slightest dimmest least idea of what they might be letting themselves in for by having their names put on it? Or that Jim Bob filed it with the well-being of his daughters -- and all those other child sex abuse victims out there (sounds of harps and angels) -- in mind? 

It's a Jim Bob cash grab to help him pay for the ever-more-gigantic pile of unemployable hangers-on his narcissistic ass insists on accumulating as bouquets for his massive ego. Throw a little quick and easy cash the married-girls' way and it takes a little of the burden off his grifter businesses to fully sustain quite so many people. For a while.

Obviously, being Jim Bob, he assumes he'll easily intimidate the defendants and walk away with a big wad of cash. (Plus great new publicity to goose up the next season of the SHOW!!!!) And maybe he will. But I hope to heck he doesn't. He's using his daughters and putting them at risk once again and he couldn't care less since there's money to gain. That's all I see here. That, and a bunch of now adults who are so brainwashed and, yeah, stupid and arrogant, that they refuse to wake up and smell the damn coffee that's been brewing in the TTH for about a quarter century now. Because "Daddy." Your father is slime, you idiots. Don't let your name be put on any lawsuits he and his greasy lawyers claim they want to file for your sake. 

I'm not sure who is behind filing this lawsuit. I believe that JB & Co, or the girls, are doing this, not for the money, but because they feel they've been wronged and the law was broken.

Anyway, if the law was broken by releasing this information, than anyone - anyone at all - has a right to fight this. Laws aren't only for people who are popular and well liked.

[Natalie68]

11 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

The plaintiffs aren't being represented by LAWYR or Lionel Hutz, they are being represented by a partner of boutique Los Angeles law firm Larson O'Brien, along with two other lawyers from that firm, and two lawyers from a Fayetteville firm. 

"Robert C. O’Brien’s practice focuses on complex litigation and domestic and international arbitration. He has expertise in entertainment, intellectual property, oil and gas, and contract and business tort matters.

Mr. O’Brien has tried numerous cases to verdict in state and federal courts in both jury and bench trials as well as in domestic and international arbitral proceedings.

In addition, he has been appointed chair and wing arbitrator in more than a dozen domestic and international arbitrations. Mr. O’Brien has been a federal court-appointed discovery master in several of the largest recent cases in the Central District of California, including MGA v. Mattel (“Barbie v. Bratz”), United States v. Standard & Poors and In re Allergan Securities Litigation. He was named one of the top 100 lawyers in California by the Daily Journal. In 2016, The Los Angeles Business Journal named him as one of the 500 most influential people in Los Angeles.

Prior to establishing Larson O’Brien LLP with Stephen G. Larson, Mr. O’Brien was the California managing partner of a national AMLAW firm. He grew the California offices from 10 lawyers to more than 110 in seven years.

Mr. O’Brien served as the U.S. Alternate Representative to the 60th session of the United Nations General Assembly, which met in New York from 2005 through 2006. In July 2008, Mr. O’Brien was appointed by the President to serve a three-year term on the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, which advises the U.S. Government on the Convention on the Cultural Property Implementation Act. He was the founding Co-Chairman of the Department of State Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan from 2007 to 2011, serving under Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of State Clinton.

Mr. O’Brien was a Major in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps of the U.S. Army Reserve. He served as a senior legal officer at the UN Security Council (UNCC) in Geneva, Switzerland, from 1996 to 1998, where he handled government claims against Iraq arising out of the first Gulf War.

Mr. O’Brien’s articles on international law, the right of publicity and civil procedure have been published in leading law reviews and journals. His essays and editorials on foreign policy and national security regularly appear in national publications. He is a frequent guest on Fox News, CNN and The Hugh Hewitt Radio Show. His book, While America Slept: Restoring American Leadership to a World in Crisis was published by Encounter in 2016.

Mr. O’Brien served on the Dean’s Advisory Board of the Fowler School of Law at Chapman University. He was a member of the International Republican Institute (IRI) delegations that observed the presidential election in the Republic of Georgia in October 2013 and the parliamentary election in Ukraine in October 2014. Mr. O’Brien served as a Pacific Council on International Policy observer of the 9/11 Military Commission proceedings in Guantanamo Bay.

He has been a senior advisor to Governor Mitt Romney and Governor Scott Walker in their presidential campaigns.

Mr. O’Brien graduated, cum laude, from UCLA, and received his JD degree from the UC Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall)."

This appears to be a legitimate lawsuit. Anyone with extreme partiality against the Duggars should consider that the law aims to be impartial. 

I think its a legit lawsuit but if they were afraid of facts coming out a lawsuit isn't the way to go.  Once you are involved in the legal system every detail can be brought up and I doubt that the mag or PD will be concerned about anything but defending themselves.  I also agree with hathorlive that their interviews with Megyn Kelly and that other show about sexual abuse can be used AGAINST them.  They should be more upset with their abuser and their parents because without their actions or lack there of this would not have seen the light of day.  Do I like that these girls were abused and it got out?  Not at all.  This is what happened because their parents didn't do the right thing.  I have long given up on expecting unrelated entities caring about hurting anyone.  One thing just popped into my head.  If the details of Boob and Meechele's reaction and how they handled it come out, will that bring new eyes on them from CPS?

[Sew Sumi]

I hope they still lock the girls' doors. There's only Jana to protect a gaggle of little ones against a hoard of adolescent boys. 

[Natalie68]

7 minutes ago, Sew Sumi said:

I hope they still lock the girls' doors. There's only Jana to protect a gaggle of little ones against a hoard of adolescent boys. 

I agree.  It is also unsettling that Josh still has access to little girls or older girls for that matter.  Curiosity my ass.  Wonder if they would have the same explanation if it were someone guy from church?  

[Mollie]

9 minutes ago, Sew Sumi said:

I hope they still lock the girls' doors. 

I think they must be using locks on chastity belts now, because abuse can happen anywhere in that house or in the tree house.

[DangerousMinds]

Why 3 lawyers? They must be expensive.

[Churchhoney]

44 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm not sure who is behind filing this lawsuit. I believe that JB & Co, or the girls, are doing this, not for the money, but because they feel they've been wronged and the law was broken.

 

Yep, I get that. Quite reasonable and quite possibly correct!

I just have a completely different view of JB, largely because I feel as if I know someone just like him! I obviously could be completely wrong about that! Nevertheless, the strength of the vibes I get keep convincing me. 

So my premise is that JB never ever ever cares about a law being broken -- and he certainly doesn't care about children, women, or anyone being hurt -- unless he can somehow get money out of the lawbreaking. So, for me, that's the point of the lawsuit. I also think the girls are dim bulbs who also would probably rather just forget the entire thing at this point. But who are too in thrall of their hideous father to do anything about that -- like saying, "Please Dad, I don't want this all over the papers again. I don't want to risk having to testify or even talk to our lawyers." It may be just me, but it strikes me that one or more of them may feel that way but can't say it because of the family dynamics. Again -- I could obviously be wrong about that! But ... again ... that would tally with my experience. So I go with it. 

I completely agree that anyone has a right to contest a broken law. I just don't believe that that's JB's concern -- and I definitely don't believe that harm to the girls or -- as the lawsuit hilariously contends -- concern over potential harm to other people has anything at all to do with it. I just don't believe that JB's a person who ever in a million years thinks in those terms. 

And one big reason I think that is his obvious continued connection to Bill Gothard. Who has committed sex abuse, whose education curriculum for children literally and thoroughly blames the people we would consider victims for sex abuse being committed, who strenuously denies committing sex abuse and who  consistently blames and shames victims of sex abuse. .... Since JB obviously knows all this and just as obviously lurves the guy who did all this and has handed all his children over to him willingly, I think JB must be in it only for the money! 

For everybody's sake, I hope your interpretation is the correct one. It obviously would mean that JB isn't as bad as I think and that the girls aren't quite (almost, but not quite) as damagingly brainwashed and warped as I think they are. I don't believe that that is true, mind you. But the whole thing would be a lot less sickening if it were. No doubt about that! 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Churchhoney

[hathorlive]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm still not sure the records were released rightfully. No police department is void of mistakes. The Freedom of Information Act doesn't mean any and all information. And redaction of information means all identifiers and we all know that didn't happen. 

And I never heard any Duggar girl to tell any survivors of abuse to keep quiet. When and where did they say that?

The entire handling of this situation is a lesson to victims around the world.  Their entire response is that the media victimized them.  Not once did they discuss how reporting this is important and that you can trust your clergy (not in Gothardland) or a teacher.  Not once did they discuss their recovery.  Everything they did was in service to their molester.  And if you don't think other survivors picked up on that, you are sadly misguided.  My room mate was abused and she had to leave the room because it made her physically ill.  Jessa and Jill are the poster children for "it's only real because the media said it" versus "we are survivors and you can be a survivor too".  Unless denial is the new therapy.

What's really sick here is that Jim Bob is totally willing to throw these girls to the lions in order to get some money.  He might as well put them on ebay and sell them.  But I guess he did that their entire childhood.  The wonderful thing about a court case and worse, a trial, is that you can't control testimony.  The Duggar lawyers can attempt to limit discussions about topics and can object to lines of questioning, but they can't stop what comes out of the mouths of witnesses and I'm not sure the Duggars want to discuss blanket training, sending their daughters to a known molester or the idea of having a quiverful to over throw the government so a righteous group of men can rule.  I'm not sure that a jury is going to like hearing any of that.

I've testified in federal and state court around twenty times.  Trust me, it's gutwrenching.  You have a set of lawyers who entire job is to pick you apart, question insane details and basically make you look like an incompetent fool.  All four plaintiffs are bad witnesses.  If this gets to court, it takes one lawyer brow beating them to get them to confess this was daddy's idea.   After they explain to the world that the parents downplayed the situation, kept the molester in the home, creating more victims, sent him off to a pray away the sin non-therapy work program, and still thought going on national TV was a good idea.

The lawyer does have good credentials but you will probably see awesome attorneys for In Touch as well.  Not to mention freedom of the press and first amendment rights groups piling on.

Either Jim Bob has been told he's got a good chance at a settlement without committing to pesky discovery and depositions, or he's a bigger fool than we thought.  We have a term for lawyers like this...they are called "bleed 'em and plead 'em". You litigate until there's no money then you advise them to settle.

People concerned for the girls should not be anxious to see them go to court. 

[hathorlive]

42 minutes ago, Sew Sumi said:

I hope they still lock the girls' doors. There's only Jana to protect a gaggle of little ones against a hoard of adolescent boys. 

I think that's why Jana doesn't get married and leave the house.  Who else is going to protect all the little girls?  And that just makes me sad for her. 

[Love2dance]

6 hours ago, MaryAnneSpier said:

I grew up in a very religious household (Assembly of God) and was raped by my boyfriend at 13 years old. Since I had been taught about modesty of clothing so as not to tempt my brothers in Christ and put myself in a situation to be raped, I blamed myself for it. I believed that I had been responsible for his actions because I wasn't covered up enough. Since I had had sex (and apparently was "asking for it" by wearing somewhat form-fitting clothes and sneaking out of the house to meet him) , I was impure and damaged goods. I thought for over a decade that no one would ever want to marry me because I was no longer a virgin. The fact that I did not choose to have sex with him was irrelevant to my mind. So yeah, that's the kind of long-lasting effect these strict Christian sects can have on girls who are victims of sexual assault.

I am so sorry you had this happen to you @MaryAnneSpier. I hope you know now that it was not your fault and that you have been able to find happiness. Hugs.

[Natalie68]

16 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

The entire handling of this situation is a lesson to victims around the world.  Their entire response is that the media victimized them.  Not once did they discuss how reporting this is important and that you can trust your clergy (not in Gothardland) or a teacher.  Not once did they discuss their recovery.  Everything they did was in service to their molester.  And if you don't think other survivors picked up on that, you are sadly misguided.  My room mate was abused and she had to leave the room because it made her physically ill.  Jessa and Jill are the poster children for "it's only real because the media said it" versus "we are survivors and you can be a survivor too".  Unless denial is the new therapy.

What's really sick here is that Jim Bob is totally willing to throw these girls to the lions in order to get some money.  He might as well put them on ebay and sell them.  But I guess he did that their entire childhood.  The wonderful thing about a court case and worse, a trial, is that you can't control testimony.  The Duggar lawyers can attempt to limit discussions about topics and can object to lines of questioning, but they can't stop what comes out of the mouths of witnesses and I'm not sure the Duggars want to discuss blanket training, sending their daughters to a known molester or the idea of having a quiverful to over throw the government so a righteous group of men can rule.  I'm not sure that a jury is going to like hearing any of that.

I've testified in federal and state court around twenty times.  Trust me, it's gutwrenching.  You have a set of lawyers who entire job is to pick you apart, question insane details and basically make you look like an incompetent fool.  All four plaintiffs are bad witnesses.  If this gets to court, it takes one lawyer brow beating them to get them to confess this was daddy's idea.   After they explain to the world that the parents downplayed the situation, kept the molester in the home, creating more victims, sent him off to a pray away the sin non-therapy work program, and still thought going on national TV was a good idea.

The lawyer does have good credentials but you will probably see awesome attorneys for In Touch as well.  Not to mention freedom of the press and first amendment rights groups piling on.

Either Jim Bob has been told he's got a good chance at a settlement without committing to pesky discovery and depositions, or he's a bigger fool than we thought.  We have a term for lawyers like this...they are called "bleed 'em and plead 'em". You litigate until there's no money then you advise them to settle.

People concerned for the girls should not be anxious to see them go to court. 

Since you know quite a bit about trials and the law I had a thought pop into my head.  Would the girls be questioned about how the abuse may have affected their relationships with their husbands (as in long term negative affects) etc?  I have some experience with sleazy lawyers and I can see them asking very personal and possibly inappropriate (to our eyes/ears) questions when trying to discuss affects of the abuse (and the parents bad choices) compounded by the articles.  I expect it to get very ugly should it make it to the courts.  I do NOT believe their are doing this to protect others or bring attn to the plight of the sexually abused.  Nothing in their response after it became public supports that theory.  If they were so concerned about it they would not be following Gothard.  I mean for gods sake their tutor married an anal rapist and they supported it!  They do have a beef that their story was told by someone else but that responsibility falls squarely on their parents and perverted criminal brother.  Sue *them*!

Edited May 19, 2017 by Natalie68

[GeeGolly]

23 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

The entire handling of this situation is a lesson to victims around the world.  Their entire response is that the media victimized them.  Not once did they discuss how reporting this is important and that you can trust your clergy (not in Gothardland) or a teacher.  Not once did they discuss their recovery.  Everything they did was in service to their molester.  And if you don't think other survivors picked up on that, you are sadly misguided.  My room mate was abused and she had to leave the room because it made her physically ill.  Jessa and Jill are the poster children for "it's only real because the media said it" versus "we are survivors and you can be a survivor too".  Unless denial is the new therapy.

What's really sick here is that Jim Bob is totally willing to throw these girls to the lions in order to get some money.  He might as well put them on ebay and sell them.  But I guess he did that their entire childhood.  The wonderful thing about a court case and worse, a trial, is that you can't control testimony.  The Duggar lawyers can attempt to limit discussions about topics and can object to lines of questioning, but they can't stop what comes out of the mouths of witnesses and I'm not sure the Duggars want to discuss blanket training, sending their daughters to a known molester or the idea of having a quiverful to over throw the government so a righteous group of men can rule.  I'm not sure that a jury is going to like hearing any of that.

I've testified in federal and state court around twenty times.  Trust me, it's gutwrenching.  You have a set of lawyers who entire job is to pick you apart, question insane details and basically make you look like an incompetent fool.  All four plaintiffs are bad witnesses.  If this gets to court, it takes one lawyer brow beating them to get them to confess this was daddy's idea.   After they explain to the world that the parents downplayed the situation, kept the molester in the home, creating more victims, sent him off to a pray away the sin non-therapy work program, and still thought going on national TV was a good idea.

The lawyer does have good credentials but you will probably see awesome attorneys for In Touch as well.  Not to mention freedom of the press and first amendment rights groups piling on.

Either Jim Bob has been told he's got a good chance at a settlement without committing to pesky discovery and depositions, or he's a bigger fool than we thought.  We have a term for lawyers like this...they are called "bleed 'em and plead 'em". You litigate until there's no money then you advise them to settle.

People concerned for the girls should not be anxious to see them go to court. 

I'm not going to argue back and forth about the Duggar girls. I worked with and continue to work with survivors of all kinds of abuse and each person walks through the trauma in their own way. I will offer the Duggar girls the same respect in regard to this issue as I do the folks I work with. 

I will say that that what you've said above could be interpreted as telling survivors to stay quiet.

Edited May 19, 2017 by GeeGolly

[JoanArc]

Quote

No shame on the Duggar 4.

"It happens in 3/4 of families...maybe more" and other things they girls have said tell me yes, shame one the girl's public response (but not their victimhood). I know it's vulgar but defending being fingerbanged by your own brother (over the clothes - WTF) as nothing IS shameful. It's like a robbery victim going on TV and saying "So? No big deal, insurance covered it all! So why even lock your doors? It'll probably happen to you, too!"

Quote

Throw a little quick and easy cash the married-girls' way and it takes a little of the burden off his grifter businesses to fully sustain quite so many people. For a while.

Yes, in the long run, winning the suit will just prolong the inevitable crash. It might have been better if the lost everything two years ago. Everyone would've had to grow up.

I'm not seeing a lot of J-O-Y from the plaintiffs for victim 5. Maybe SHE wants this kept quiet or put in the past. There's no indication that she wants this publicity on something horrible that happened to her. She might even think being molested was a big deal! Horror! More public scruitny risk her being outed, one way or the other, and I don't want that.

[hathorlive]

2 minutes ago, Natalie68 said:

Since you know quite a bit about trials and the law I had a thought pop into my head.  Would the girls be questioned about how the abuse may have affected their relationships with their husbands (as in long term negative affects) etc?  I have some experience with sleazy lawyers and I can see them asking very personal and possibly inappropriate (to our eyes/ears) questions when trying to discuss affects of the abuse (and the parents bad choices) compounded by the articles.  I expect it to get very ugly should it make it to the courts.  I do NOT believe their are doing this to protect others or bring attn to the plight of the sexually abused.  Nothing in their response after it became public supports that theory.  If they were so concerned about it they would not be following Gothard.  I mean for gods sake their tutor married an anal rapist and they supported it!  They do have a beef that their story was told by someone else but that responsibility falls squarely on their parents and perverted criminal brother.  Sue *them*!

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but unless the judge makes a ruling about what is and isn't off limits and beyond the scope, it's a strong possibility.  I'm reading the lawsuit now to see what they are claiming.  It's amazing what lawyers slide in.  And don't forget the favorite of attorneys, using what you say on the stand to say you "opened the door on this topic".  That's where the girls would get themselves into a world of trouble.   Even if they don't go into how this information hurt them with marriages and such, the Duggars attorneys can't dictate what topics can be discussed and are off limits.  The judge can. 

It will be interesting to see if this goes to court.  The city probably doesn't have a lot of money but In Touch does.  No one in the printing industry will want to see them settle. It sets a bad precedent.  And the court filing says that they are suing individuals in their official capacity.   That's interesting.  I don't know anything about Arkansas law but many state officials can't be sued for what they do in the course of their job.   I would think the court might see it as a case of bad redacting but to be fair, if you've never had to redact a case before, you might not be an expert in it.  Will the Duggars have to prove that a person maliciously redacted with the intent of causing the girls to be outed?  Or did they think that redaction was just covering up any and all victim names? I mean, that's a fair point to bring up. 

This really might be a Carthaginian revenge, where you win the war but end up destroying yourself in the process.  Look it up, Jim Bob.  I'd try to explain it, but having seen your show, it would probably take a long time.

[kokapetl]

Organizations buy insurance for this stuff. Don't worry about them. 

[ginger90]

Jill tweeted about the law suit

https://mobile.twitter.com/jillmdillard/status/865705887289270272?p=v

There's already a response saying they should sue their parents as well. Jill should have refrained from commenting right now, I feel.

[GeeGolly]

4 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

Organizations buy insurance for this stuff. Don't worry about them. 

Aren't tabloids sued and settle out of court all the time? From way back, when Carol Burnett sued the Enquirer to the recent Melania Trump suing the Daily Mail and all the cases in between.

Edited May 19, 2017 by GeeGolly

[Mollie]

16 minutes ago, JoanArc said:

"It happens in 3/4 of families...maybe more" and other things they girls have said tell me yes, shame one the girl's public response (but not their victimhood). I know it's vulgar but defending being fingerbanged by your own brother (over the clothes - WTF) as nothing IS shameful.

Police interviews with two of the victims reported that the touching was also under their clothes.  There is so much redacted in the report that it is hard to type, but one statement was: "X said that Y touched her on the skin.  X said she was sitting down and had pulled her dress up because it had a hole in it.  She said she had pants on under the dress and Y pulled them down.  She said Y touched her private [this girl's word for 'vagina']. X said it felt weird."  

Also, in the Megyn Kelly interview, Jim Bob admitted that some of the molestations were underneath the clothes: "All of these -- again, this was not rape or anything like that, this was like touching somebody over their clothes. There were a couple incidents where he touched them under their clothes, but it was like a few seconds ..."  (Don't you love how he tries to downplay this by saying it was only for a few seconds!  Like, murder must not be so bad because it only takes a few seconds.)

[Rabbittron]

4 hours ago, Sew Sumi said:

Full lawsuit linked at the bottom of this article. All four platintiffs are named, so no more anonymity. I do agree that the only leg they have to stand on is that Joy was still 17 when InTouch released the police report. Compensate her then. The rest is pretty much rubbish, even reading the statute for which they are basing their suit. 

http://www.nwahomepage.com/news/duggar-sisters-suing-city-for-releasing-molestation-documents/717112740

If you read this article it is a bullshit lawsuit.  It says ARREST and Smuggar was never arrested.  

[hathorlive]

9 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

Jill tweeted about the law suit

https://mobile.twitter.com/jillmdillard/status/865705887289270272?p=v

There's already a response saying they should sue their parents as well. Jill should have refrained from commenting right now, I feel.

Okay these responses are better than watching SNL.  Countdown until Jill deletes the tweet?

Edited May 19, 2017 by hathorlive

[farmgal4]

I've got a stupid question:  If this lawsuit actually makes it to the courtroom, is there a possibility that lawyers might bring up the fact that Smuggar is being allowed to reside with two female children?

3 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

Okay these responses are better than watching SNL.  Countdown until Jessa deletes the tweet?

Those comments are golden!

[BitterApple]

My favorite from a woman named Dawn:

"I hope you win lots and lots of money and are able to quit your jobs and travel and do what you like! Oh wait...."

Dawn, please join this forum. You need to be among your people.

[GeeGolly]

1 minute ago, farmgal4 said:

I've got a stupid question:  If this lawsuit actually makes it to the courtroom, is there a possibility that lawyers might bring up the fact that Smuggar is being allowed to reside with two female children?

I think DCF and the local police already know that Josh has four children, including 2 girls. There's no indication that Josh has inappropriately touched a minor after the last incident.

He seems to have kept his creepy tendencies to consenting adults.

[farmgal4]

9 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I think DCF and the local police already know that Josh has four children, including 2 girls. There's no indication that Josh has inappropriately touched a minor after the last incident.

He seems to have kept his creepy tendencies to consenting adults.

But wasn't one of his victims 5-years-old when he molested her?

[Mollie]

24 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

Jill tweeted about the law suit

https://mobile.twitter.com/jillmdillard/status/865705887289270272?p=v

There's already a response saying they should sue their parents as well. Jill should have refrained from commenting right now, I feel.

 

[GeeGolly]

Just now, farmgal4 said:

But wasn't one of his victims 5-years-old when he molested her?

Yup and he was 15, and the other girls were 10ish or under. The 'friend' may have been older. But as far as anyone knows, nothing has happened since.

[Rabbittron]

3 minutes ago, Mollie said:

 

When the fuck did they give out the names?

[GeeGolly]

Tweets like those is another reason why so many people try and keep traumas like molestation private.

Edited May 19, 2017 by GeeGolly

[Mollie]

25 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Aren't tabloids sued and settle out of court all the time? From way back, when Carol Burnett sued the Enquirer to the recent Melania Trump suing the Daily Mail and all the cases in between.

Those two cases were about media publishing things that were NOT true.  Both of those cases were about libel.  

In Touch published authentic police reports which were obtained legally, and the police censor approved what was released to the publication by deleting portions which should not be released.  I don't think they will get a dime from In Touch.  

[kokapetl]

39 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but unless the judge makes a ruling about what is and isn't off limits and beyond the scope, it's a strong possibility.  I'm reading the lawsuit now to see what they are claiming.  It's amazing what lawyers slide in.  And don't forget the favorite of attorneys, using what you say on the stand to say you "opened the door on this topic".  That's where the girls would get themselves into a world of trouble.   Even if they don't go into how this information hurt them with marriages and such, the Duggars attorneys can't dictate what topics can be discussed and are off limits.  The judge can. 

It will be interesting to see if this goes to court.  The city probably doesn't have a lot of money but In Touch does.  No one in the printing industry will want to see them settle. It sets a bad precedent.  And the court filing says that they are suing individuals in their official capacity.   That's interesting.  I don't know anything about Arkansas law but many state officials can't be sued for what they do in the course of their job.   I would think the court might see it as a case of bad redacting but to be fair, if you've never had to redact a case before, you might not be an expert in it.  Will the Duggars have to prove that a person maliciously redacted with the intent of causing the girls to be outed?  Or did they think that redaction was just covering up any and all victim names? I mean, that's a fair point to bring up. 

It's negligence. The victims were assaulted at the "Jim Bob Duggar residence", and lived with their parents "James" and "Michelle". 

And Bauer/InTouch undoubtedly understood that the lesbian couple who tipped them off were doing so out of malice, and that the harm to the plaintiffs wasn't merely incidental, it was intentional, planned and foreseeable.

[GeeGolly]

Just now, Mollie said:

Those two cases were about media publishing things that were NOT true.  Both of those cases were about libel.  

In Touch published authentic police reports which were obtained legally, and the police censor approved what was released to the publication by deleting portions which should not be released.  I don't think they will get a dime from In Touch.  

That wasn't my point. My point was tabloids are sued all the time. They settle out of court all the time too.

[hathorlive]

9 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

It's negligence. The victims were assaulted at the "Jim Bob Duggar residence", and lived with their parents "James" and "Michelle". 

And Bauer/InTouch undoubtedly understood that the lesbian couple who tipped them off were doing so out of malice, and that the harm to the plaintiffs wasn't merely incidental, it was intentional, planned and foreseeable.

It could be negligence.  It could also be said that the parents weren't the minors and they redacted the minors names.  Proving intent is a hard thing to do.  It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.  For all the victims, you know.

[Mollie]

6 minutes ago, Rabbittron said:

When the fuck did they give out the names?

They didn't.  Jill and Jessa outed themselves, and now Jinger and Joy have, too.  Jill is never going to hold up under cross-examination if this case goes to trial.   

[farmgal4]

1 minute ago, Mollie said:

They didn't.  Jill and Jessa outed themselves, and now Jinger and Joy have, too.  Jill is never going to hold up under cross-examination if this case goes to trial.   

I don't think Jill is playing with a full deck right now anyway.  This could be her mental demise.