The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

[GeeGolly]

4 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

Parents have all the responsibility to keep their children safe in their own homes, however.

No argument there. And a responsibility the Duggar parents failed at.

[ariel]

24 minutes ago, Obsidian said:

Do you mean the daughters (the plaintiffs) weren't f***ed over and set themselves up for it, or the parents? I can't imagine that anyone would seriously think that the 4 daughters named in the case had a say in how their parents handled the situations where Josh molested 5 girls, in which case it is the parents - not part of the case, and therefore not relevant to it - who set themselves up for this thinking they were above the law, and the four daughters were indeed f***ed over by their parents and maybe also - depending on how the case turns out - by (individuals employed by) the police/city/media. 

What is your point?

[ariel]

8 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

The fourth amendment gives people a right to privacy. 

No, not in this case.  You aren't a US citizen, that's ok. I don't know Australian law or claim to know anything about it.

Edited October 13, 2017 by ariel

[GeeGolly]

I would like to share global, non identifying, often repeated scenarios that myself and many other therapists have experienced working with trauma survivors.

Sharing information in written form because its too difficult to say out loud. Closing one's eyes while sharing because of feelings of shame. Qualifying and excusing the offense because the victim still loves the offender. Not wanting to share at all because mother, father, boyfriend, girlfriend, uncle, cousin, neighbor, etc will find out. Keeping the secret for years and years for a plethora of reasons.

I feel very strongly that the only person who has the right to share information about their sexual abuse is the victim.

[ariel]

1 minute ago, GeeGolly said:

 

I feel very strongly that the only person who has the right to share information about their sexual abuse is the victim.

In the Duggar case, someone told someone that abuse happened or Josh was caught doing the evil deed or all of the above.

[GeeGolly]

1 minute ago, ariel said:

In the Duggar case, someone told someone that abuse happened or Josh was caught doing the evil deed or all of the above.

Rumors, church confessions and local gossip is far different than a tabloid publishing printed documents on the internet.

[ariel]

Just now, GeeGolly said:

Rumors, church confessions and local gossip is far different than a tabloid publishing printed documents on the internet.

Info that was legally obtained 

[Aethera]

Hi guys, you ARE in fact going round and round, and on an issue we've discussed many times already. Stop trying to convince each other of your respective Rightness. You've all stated your opinions several times, so now it's time to move on. Leave the legal nuances to the courts.

[GeeGolly]

4 minutes ago, ariel said:

Info that was legally obtained 

And incorrectly redacted. 

In the end I don't really care if it was legal, illegal, a mistake or whatever. The fact that this involves the Duggars doesn't matter to me either.

4 young girls were molested. This information was made public. And in my opinion that is truly tragic.

Oops was typing as your post popped up Aethera.

Edited October 13, 2017 by GeeGolly

[wilsie]

Quote

Just because I've enjoyed reading this several times over the years, here's a piece in which Billy Graham's grandson bashes the Duggars six ways to Billy Sunday over their hideous handling of these events. http://religionnews.com/2015/06/12/responding-to-sibling-sexual-abuse-what-to-do-and-why/

@Churchhoney  Thank you for sharing that article.  Michelle and Jim Bob failed all their children but especially their daughters.  It's like they saw this list and either neglected or did the complete opposite.  Their leghumpers really have no clue about these people they defend.  

[sr7698]

Not sure this goes here, but Bauer Media (the owner of In Touch) has been dismissed from the lawsuits.  The judge cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent which will be 99.99999% impossible to overturn (if they considered appealing).  Based on the ruling, the only defendants in the girls' case are the Springdale and Washington County defendants and in Josh's case the only defendant is the State of Arkansas - Department of Human Service.  No way they get any where close to $20 million (I think that is the number they had mentioned)?

[Sew Sumi]

Woah, that's huge. I'd love to read the judge's summary.

eta: found this article. It only mentions Smuggar's case against Bauer being thrown out, but wouldn't the grounds the judge applied also be applicable in the girls' case, given they were also suing based on privacy rights? 

I know Smuggar sells, but the article is rather poorly written.

Edited October 13, 2017 by Sew Sumi

[birkenstock]

Wow, here is another link: https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-tosses-tabloid-reality-tv-familys-privacy-suit/.  From the article: “The Bauer defendants cannot be held liable for the city’s and county’s failure to follow the law,” Brooks wrote in a 16-page ruling.  

There's also a link to a pdf of the ruling there. 

[Sew Sumi]

Just coming back to post that. It dismisses both cases against Bauer. 

Off to read the legalese.

[birkenstock]

The linked article states that "Josh’s allegations against the county and city were dismissed in Thursday’s ruling for failure to state a claim." That means Josh's lawsuit is completely tossed, right? 

[sr7698]

7 minutes ago, birkenstock said:

Wow, here is another link: https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-tosses-tabloid-reality-tv-familys-privacy-suit/.  From the article: “The Bauer defendants cannot be held liable for the city’s and county’s failure to follow the law,” Brooks wrote in a 16-page ruling.  

There's also a link to a pdf of the ruling there. 

Looking at the case, it seems that If Joy was smart (which we know she is not), she should have separately filed on her own.  As a minor at the time the documents were released she may have had the stronger case. 

Jinger too since although not a minor she and Joy weren’t on television saying it was no big deal in terms of what happened.  Jinger and Joy would probably play better in a jury instead of Jill and Jesse.

Edited October 13, 2017 by sr7698
Typed too fast

[Rabbittron]

I read the article but I cannot find the link to the judge's summary can someone put it up here so I can read the summary

[birkenstock]

5 minutes ago, Rabbittron said:

I read the article but I cannot find the link to the judge's summary can someone put it up here so I can read the summary

Here: http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/InTouchDuggar.pdf

[sr7698]

9 minutes ago, birkenstock said:

The linked article states that "Josh’s allegations against the county and city were dismissed in Thursday’s ruling for failure to state a claim." That means Josh's lawsuit is completely tossed, right? 

 

 

9 minutes ago, birkenstock said:

The linked article states that "Josh’s allegations against the county and city were dismissed in Thursday’s ruling for failure to state a claim." That means Josh's lawsuit is completely tossed, right? 

Not yet.  He has claims against the State of Arkansas Department of Human Services.  However I think the Judge’s ruling states that the department hasn’t even been served with a Complaint.  Josh won’t see a dime.

[Sew Sumi]

22 minutes ago, Rabbittron said:

I read the article but I cannot find the link to the judge's summary can someone put it up here so I can read the summary

Click on the hotlink "ruled." The case is dismissed without prejudice. All the girls have left is that individuals did not redact the documents according to standing procedures.

[PikaScrewChu]

Well I'll be damned. I thought the lawsuit against InTouch would go further than a simple dismissal. What chance do they have of getting money out of the remaining defendants?

[Rabbittron]

22 minutes ago, birkenstock said:

Here: http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/InTouchDuggar.pdf

Thanks 

[sr7698]

3 minutes ago, PikaScrewChu said:

Well I'll be damned. I thought the lawsuit against InTouch would go further than a simple dismissal. What chance do they have of getting money out of the remaining defendants?

I am sure that the insurance companies for the counties are involved and if they get anything it will be a relatively modest amount and the cases go away through settlement.  

[PikaScrewChu]

26 minutes ago, sr7698 said:

I am sure that the insurance companies for the counties are involved and if they get anything it will be a relatively modest amount and the cases go away through settlement.  

I was wondering if the city and county's insurance companies would cover any judgements against former employees, especially if the city and county as entities were not found liable.

We will find out soon enough. It looks like the cap in Arkansas is relatively low for any sort of civil judgement. I'll defer to the legal experts on that one.

[andromeda331]

On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 5:16 PM, Churchhoney said:

Just because I've enjoyed reading this several times over the years, here's a piece in which Billy Graham's grandson bashes the Duggars six ways to Billy Sunday over their hideous handling of these events. http://religionnews.com/2015/06/12/responding-to-sibling-sexual-abuse-what-to-do-and-why/

I want to thank you for posting this link. Its a very good piece and I really enjoyed reading it. I liked how explained how to handle that situation, how not to handle it, and cutting through the crap of using Scripture as reasons not to turn in a child. I loved him asking the clergy if he was trained to deal with sexual abuse when he explained wanting to talk to the victim first before deciding to call the police. I also really liked point out all of the services that would be available after turning in the child abusing his or her sibling. The programs, therapy, and other resources. Professionals who are trained to deal with sexual abuse who would be able to help the victim, the abuser and the parents. 

[Arwen Evenstar]

A total FU to the Duggar family, and coming from a Liberty University professor at that. Pity the Duggs never read it and the poor girls suffered for it. Feel saddest for vile Josh's youngest victims, who were 5 and 8 at the time, but were likely younger than that when he started. Then seeing Jill break down in a heap on TV while stone faced Jessa internalized it, being coerced to go on TV and claiming they forgave the swine. They may have, but clearly they never got to deal with the hurt it caused them.

[Rabbittron]

I wonder how fast they will appeal the courts decision because of the fact it was dismissed without prejudice ?

[PikaScrewChu]

11 minutes ago, Rabbittron said:

I wonder how fast they will appeal the courts decision because of the fact it was dismissed without prejudice ?

Unlikely. InTouch cited a SCOTUS decision for dismissal of the lawsuit and it was dismissed.

Page 6 and 7 of the judge's summary explain it better.

[Sew Sumi]

2 hours ago, PikaScrewChu said:

I was wondering if the city and county's insurance companies would cover any judgements against former employees, especially if the city and county as entities were not found liable.

We will find out soon enough. It looks like the cap in Arkansas is relatively low for any sort of civil judgement. I'll defer to the legal experts on that one.

Does anyone recall whether it was the counties that were dismissed, or was it the individuals who did the actual redacting? I'm pretty sure that the police chief (or whatever her title was) was cleared in the first wave of rulings last month. 

3 minutes ago, PikaScrewChu said:

Unlikely. InTouch cited a SCOTUS decision for dismissal of the lawsuit and it was dismissed.

Page 6 and 7 of the judge's summary explain it better.

Agreed. Using a citation from the SCOTUS pretty much puts this case to bed. Had the judge cited a case from a lower court, they would have had a better chance at appeal. 

[PikaScrewChu]

The lawsuit was dismissed against the city and county as well as the county's lawyer. O'Kelly (Springdale PD Chief), Cate (Springdale's lawyer), and Hoyt (Washington County) are still on the hook. Those are the ones who are left.

[Absolom]

They have apparently appealed not being dismissed and asked to stay any further action on the suit until the appeal is heard. 

[mynextmistake]

On 10/11/2017 at 10:13 AM, Kokapetl said:

You’re a 100% on the mark. I would prioritise the reporting of sexual abuse victims, in order to identify those who need treatment as juvenile victims, then their juvenile assailants, and lastly, the prosecution of juvenile assailants. Potential prosecution can deter reporting, what’s more important? 

NM, didn't realize I was responding to an old post.

Edited October 14, 2017 by mynextmistake

[Rabbittron]

18 minutes ago, PikaScrewChu said:

Unlikely. InTouch cited a SCOTUS decision for dismissal of the lawsuit and it was dismissed.

Page 6 and 7 of the judge's summary explain it better.

I know that and you know that but we are talking about the Duggars right?

[PikaScrewChu]

1 minute ago, Rabbittron said:

I know that and you know that but we are talking about the Duggars right?

I think the current firm will bow out and they'll have to hire Barry Zuckerkorn. :D

[Sew Sumi]

29 minutes ago, PikaScrewChu said:

The lawsuit was dismissed against the city and county as well as the county's lawyer. O'Kelly (Spr,ingdale PD Chief), Cate (Springdale's lawyer), and Hoyt (Washington County) are still on the hook. Those are the ones who are left.

Okay, that's what I thought I remembered. 

Not surprised they're appealing  ( @Absolom, do you have a link?), but even a higher court can't discount a previous ruling by the SCOTUS. I guess they can, but you'd need some pretty good case law to counter it. 

Edited October 14, 2017 by Sew Sumi

[SMama]

We know Josh molested five girls, I doubt that’s the actual count. The way he was coddled, rewarded for his crime, that swine left many more victims blaming themselves. Luckily for greasy, bloated boy, his victims hide in shame. Because Jesus and patriarchy. I can’t wait until that slime gets the Weinstein backlash.

[Absolom]

12 minutes ago, Sew Sumi said:

O'Kelly (Spr,ingdale PD Chief), Cate (Springdale's lawyer), and Hoyt (Washington County)

Those are the people appealing.  They are saying the remaining suit against them should also be dismissed.

[Sew Sumi]

Oh, I thought you meant that the GIRLS were appealing the decision. 

[Absolom]

I saw that.  Sorry it wasn't absolutely clear.

[Sew Sumi]

No problem. :) I was thinking that was awfully quick, given that the decisions just came down yesterday.  

[sr7698]

30 minutes ago, PikaScrewChu said:

I think the current firm will bow out and they'll have to hire Barry Zuckerkorn. :D

Or Bob Loblaw.  He can write about it on Bob Loblaw’s Law Blog.

Edited October 14, 2017 by sr7698

[SMama]

@SewSumi, what happened to the FJ thread about the lawsuit? I went there and did not see it, unless I'm blind.

[Sew Sumi]

It's been absorbed into the general Duggar thread. There's been plenty of discussion there today. They used to have the one for Joshley, but no one's posted on it in months. His travails seem to have been punted into the Smuganna thread. 

[SMama]

Thank you.

[kokapetl]

Dismissal without prejudice allows the plaintiffs to refile their claim if they choose. And I hope they do. This seems like a crap decision. I cannot accept that the dissemination of child sex abuse victims’ statements given to CPS, by a shitty checkout tabloid magazine, could ever be considered to be in the public interest. 

[Nysha]

5 hours ago, SMama said:

We know Josh molested five girls, I doubt that’s the actual count. The way he was coddled, rewarded for his crime, that swine left many more victims blaming themselves. Luckily for greasy, bloated boy, his victims hide in shame. Because Jesus and patriarchy. I can’t wait until that slime gets the Weinstein backlash.

If the Duggars lived a normal life, I would agree that he probably had more victims, but their lifestyle was so internally focused, that he may not have had easy enough access to other little girls.

[MsJamieDornan]

12 hours ago, sr7698 said:

Looking at the case, it seems that If Joy was smart

That is a big if  !!

What makes me laugh is that all the articles I've seen bring up Josh's whole story again and reminds people what he did.  So, I guess that backfired for him.

[doodlebug]

9 hours ago, Kokapetl said:

Dismissal without prejudice allows the plaintiffs to refile their claim if they choose. And I hope they do. This seems like a crap decision. I cannot accept that the dissemination of child sex abuse victims’ statements given to CPS, by a shitty checkout tabloid magazine, could ever be considered to be in the public interest. 

While it might be a sleazy, crass move, it doesn't mean the tabloid is liable for publishing legally obtained material.  That's the crux of the issue.  Obviously, with the massive publishing conglomerate out of the suit, the odds the Duggar sisters will get a multimillion dollar settlement are substantially diminished.  Unless they've got evidence of legal precedent trumping a Supreme Court decision, they can try to re-file, but it probably won't go anywhere.  

ETA: The tabloid could easily argue that exposing a child molester and the parents who protected him at the expense of their other kids, then got a TV show presenting themselves as paragons of virtuous parenting and Godly family life, was indeed in the public interest. Even if the documents could have been better redacted, it wasn't the tab's fault. For that matter, even if every reference to the parents' names, the address, etc had been removed, the family would still have been identifiable because the parents themselves had made so much of their lives public.

Edited October 14, 2017 by doodlebug
commas and spacing, tenses

[doodlebug]

3 hours ago, Nysha said:

If the Duggars lived a normal life, I would agree that he probably had more victims, but their lifestyle was so internally focused, that he may not have had easy enough access to other little girls.

True, but the Duggars' insistence that the girls were only touched once, most of them while sleeping, is very likely untrue.  I suspect Josh molested his sisters many times in multiple circumstances and JB and Michelle coached the girls on what to say in the police interview to minimize chances of prosecution.

[Churchhoney]

8 hours ago, Kokapetl said:

Dismissal without prejudice allows the plaintiffs to refile their claim if they choose. And I hope they do. This seems like a crap decision. I cannot accept that the dissemination of child sex abuse victims’ statements given to CPS, by a shitty checkout tabloid magazine, could ever be considered to be in the public interest. 

They put themselves on tv and have proclaimed over and over and over and over again that their way of life is the way to ensure that your children are totally safe from every evil of the world, and in particular from the sexual evils.

I realize that the girls didn't do that as children. However, as adults two of the girls proclaimed this on tv themselves, quite angrily and self-righteously, just like their parents. Their brother did nothing wrong, they've told us. They were not hurt by anything he did -- in the least. The family way has been great. It's the outside world and the press that are evil! 

 In my opinion it's absolutely in the public interest to warn people that, indeed, this is not the case with the Duggars' way of life.

The Duggars' way of life not only allowed this evil but fostered it. And punished the damn girls by warping their fucking stupid little minds by making them "forgive their brother." Publicly. In a church -- where they and all their godly friends winked at it and went on to pretend that it never happened and that it could be easily smoothed over and made harmless simply by requiring the girls to forgive. (And don't tell me this isn't the case -- because this is exactly what Gothard teaches and exactly what they did.)

And if it hadn't been reported -- even by a tacky tabloid -- everyone would still think that all Joshley did as a kid was steal a little kissy from a girlfriend.

Because that's what everyone thought for years -- even people who dislike and distrust the Duggars. Because everyone -- even Duggar haters at that point -- unwittingly bought into the idea that the Duggars' way of life is so wholesome and so sheltered that that's what they consider stringent sin. And for the non-Duggar-haters, that meant, "Oh, aren't they holy! Oh, aren't their little girls lucky! Oh, I'd like our family to be  just like theirs!" 

So, yeah, even though I have no love at all for tabloids, I believe that it is in the public interest for the truth about what their life philosophy actually fosters to be known by all. Because otherwise it can still be held up by many as a fucking ideal, without any pushback from people who've finally been alerted to the truth.

The girls were severely harmed by their parents and their brother. (and their brother was severely harmed by his parents, too)  And they were all particularly harmed by being forced to sweep under the  rug any consciousness that harm had actually been done to them. The fact that those same girls still proclaim that no harm was done to them by their family and that the only harm they've suffered is from having these incidents revealed shows clearly that the harm their parents and brother did to them still warps their thinking to this day. And that this warped thinking may well be carried on some day to warp and harm their own children.

There is no shame in being a victim of child abuse and sexual abuse. There is great shame in being parents who perpetrated the pure shit that Jim Bob and Michelle perpetrated and continue to perpetrate -- in the name of Jesus. So -- despite what the idiot Duggar girls think -- the only people who've been shamed by what the tabloids have reported are the perpetrators of a long continuing series of crimes against children. And well might they have been. I can only hope that Jim Bob's and Michelle's (and to a lesser extent Josh's) shaming has kept one or two people from following in their "religious" path. 

So, in the public interest to report this? When people set themselves up not only as public figures but as public-attention-hogging godly role models and "mothers of the year," then it's very much in the public interest for their unrepentant commission of such evil acts to be brought to the public attention, in my opinion.

When they become political figures -- as they have -- and when they act as political leaders, urging others to follow their lead, as they have, such as when Michelle was called upon as a godly leader to make robocalls condemning a class of people as a source of, yes!, sexual sin and danger to young girls! When they travel about in a bus, using their reputation as holy and virtuous people to support policies and candidates. Then is it in the public interest to reveal the harms to children that their thinking has already perpetrated? I don't see how anyone can deny that it is. 

It is too bad about the girls. But their parents -- not the police or the media or anyone else -- brought all the evils on their heads. The blame should go to those to whom it chiefly belongs. And in a case where the parents have made themselves into public figures and actively and persistently sought public power and influence? And been given it? Then, yes. It is in the public interest for everyone to be made aware of who they really are, what they believe and what evils those beliefs have led to.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Churchhoney