The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

[andromeda331]

9 hours ago, realityfan26 said:

THIS!! Babysitters can make mega-bucks!

Given that the girls "babysat" 24/7 for years that would be a lot of money.

[Meow Mix]

12 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Given that the girls "babysat" 24/7 for years that would be a lot of money.

Between the number of children and the hours worked it would really add up.  And that doesn't even include the other services Jill provided like housekeeping services and meal prep and service.  Not to mention PR services and reputation repair.

[sixlets]

6 hours ago, Meow Mix said:

Between the number of children and the hours worked it would really add up.  And that doesn't even include the other services Jill provided like housekeeping services and meal prep and service.  Not to mention PR services and reputation repair.

Don't forget the current going rate for hiring her as an electrician, plumber, and drywall person.  She might even be able to add mechanic if she checked the oil.

(I'm only joking.  The fact that Boob gave her that itemized list is disgusting and a dick move.  I hope as the months go on, another one of the kids realizes what has been going on and does something about it.  I live by one rule when it comes to being on a pedestal.  It will be a scary fall down and bound to smart when you finally stop.

 

[BetyBee]

The Leaving Eden podcast has a nice, long take on Jill Duggar's book today. Very interesting!

[Jeeves]

10 hours ago, sagittarius sue said:

I would think if JB was involved with possible tax fraud that would invalidate any NDAs.

 

10 hours ago, Notabug said:

Well, it certainly wouldn't prevent any of the kids from being interviewed by the IRS should the government pursue a tax fraud case against JB, An NDA cannot protect anyone from being interviewed about criminal activity and any kid who declined to answer the questions claiming there was an NDA in place would be told to tell the truth or risk going to jail.

Bringing this over from another topic here. 

It's standard practice in the TV biz to have cast and crew sign nondisclosure agreements concerning the show production, to avoid premature disclosure of show contents, and to protect other sensitive or confidential business information they are exposed to in the course of their participation in the show. Sometimes people sign separate NDAs, and in other situations it's handled via "confidentiality clauses" in their overall contract for the shows. Those are just different ways of getting the same result.

It makes sense. It's business. Even when it's a reality TV show about families. But, there are limits. Here's an intriguing article from three weeks ago, about another network - not TLC, but Bravo - taking a public stance on what is, and isn't protected by the NDAs its shows' cast and crew have signed: Reality TV Participants Can Break NDAs To Reveal “Unlawful Acts". Bravo issued this statement:

"Confidentiality clauses are standard practice in reality programming to prevent disclosure of storylines prior to air. They are not intended to prevent disclosure by cast and crew of unlawful acts in the workplace, and they have not been enforced in that manner. To be clear: any current or former cast or crew is free to discuss and disclose any allegedly unlawful acts in the workplace, such as harassment or discrimination, or any other conduct they have reason to believe is inappropriate. We are also working with our third-party production companies to remind all cast and crew that they are encouraged to report any such concerns through the channels made available by the production company so concerns can be promptly addressed."

Obviously that's not TLC and not applicable to any Duggar show. But I think it's significant, it's only common sense, and Bravo is getting out ahead of the issue. The article says lawsuits are "looming" over some Bravo show and clearly the network wants to show clean hands. Courts will not enforce NDAs to prevent disclosure of crimes, and the "MeToo" movement following the Weinstein criminal case, brought some of those issues to the fore. Here's an ACLU article from 2018 on NDAs and survivors of sexual assault or harassment: https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/nondisclosure-agreement-silencing-you-sharing-your-me-too

And about Duggar family in-house NDAs. I have some thoughts. But my thoughts as I tried to explain them were hard to boil down into a concise comment here. Sorry, but this is as short as I could make it:

In Jill's book beginning at page 152, she says that in October 2016, JB offered the "older" kids a payment of $80,000 each. On the condition that they sign a contract with Mad Family Inc.,  and also an NDA that would be effective "for the rest of our lives." We don't know who signed - except we know Jill did not sign -  or what the NDAs say, except that as proposed they had a lifetime term. The kids didn't know in 2016 that over the years JB's CPA had filed tax returns for each of them reporting income from the show, and certainly JB had never paid that income to them.

I AM NOT A PRACTICING LAWYER AND THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. I'm saying that real loud for the people in the back.

Just based on the available facts, it occurs to me that any NDA signed by a Duggar under those circumstances in 2016, if attempted to be enforced, would be vulnerable to a defense that it was procedurally unconscionable, given the unequal bargaining power/position of the parties relative to each other and potential issues of coercion and deception. (The kids had no idea at that time that the IRS was told they had received income from the show.) There could also be challenges to those NDA on other grounds; we just don't know enough about them to have an informed discussion about that. Although the lifetime term raises my legal eyebrows pretty high; just saying.

Also, as mentioned above, NDAs make sense, and are legitimately used, in business. The situation as described in Jill's book about the show and the kids and the money, is an unholy mix of family and [show] business. I can see how incredibly seductive it would be for control freak JB to want to control people in his life with NDAs. I suspect he may have severely overreached in legal terms with any NDAS - but OTOH he has probably been successful in silencing most of his kids. I would be surprised if any Duggarling goes publicly against JB, or if JB files a lawsuit to enforce any of those NDAs. He has the lifetime indoctrination of his children working in his favor, and the NDAs are just a scare tactic to reinforce that and keep them all in line.

[CalicoKitty]

I think this was another way to show that he was in control over his kids.  Since (most) of his kids have had all free will and thought squelched, and were indoctrinated to do whatever Dad said, I can see several of the kids doing as told, especially with a monetary reward being offered.   A "life time" DNA wouldn't have made any difference to many, anyway.  With their insular life, who were they going to tell?  JB thought he had made a pretty safe bet.

 

 

 

 

 

[satrunrose]

I've always thought JB controls the kids/kidults through a mixture of money, appeals to protect the faaaaammmmily and a heaping helping of hellfire. Jill's book is just confirming that. 

[Guest]

On 9/14/2023 at 1:11 PM, ozziemom said:

The CPA has an obligation to provide copies etc to their client, which is Jill since it’s her tax return. No matter if Boob pays the accountant or provides the data to complete the tax return. I don’t think the CPA is innocent in all this, any CPA with a bit of common sense would know Boob was up to something. But clearly most of the blame should go to Boob, he is truly a piece of work.

Jill would have had to sign the tax returns as well - unless she granted her dad power of attorney which she never mentions.  I get that she trusted her dad, but I do put some blame on Jill for continually signing things without reading them.  Tax returns, contracts, etc.  - there is no one innocent in all of this. Jill was treated horribly, but to just blindly sign papers put in front of you as an adult and then try to claim you shouldn't be responsible for it because you didn't read them?

[LilJen]

6 hours ago, deaja said:

Jill would have had to sign the tax returns as well - unless she granted her dad power of attorney which she never mentions.  I get that she trusted her dad, but I do put some blame on Jill for continually signing things without reading them.  Tax returns, contracts, etc.  - there is no one innocent in all of this. Jill was treated horribly, but to just blindly sign papers put in front of you as an adult and then try to claim you shouldn't be responsible for it because you didn't read them?

I dunno, she was brought up to total obedience. “Honor your parents” meant to obey them without question. She had only them for all her education. How would she have any idea what any of that meant, and until a little time with Dreck, she had no idea that she could question any of what her parents had taught her.

[CalicoKitty]

8 minutes ago, LilJen said:

I dunno, she was brought up to total obedience. “Honor your parents” meant to obey them without question. She had only them for all her education. How would she have any idea what any of that meant, and until a little time with Dreck, she had no idea that she could question any of what her parents had taught her.

She was also not given contracts to read.  Just the signature page.  Or her father signed her name.  I am not at all surprised that she signed before she read.  As a child I would have trusted my father and signed where and when he told me to.  As an adult I read all the fine print before I sign anything.  But I was not brought up under an "infallible headship" to whom I owed complete obedience. Jill's reality growing up was something that most of us cannot fathom.  

Edited October 12, 2023 by CalicoKitty
missing letter

[GeeGolly]

I totally get Jill signing contracts and possibly tax returns without question. I am surprised that when all this was going down she didn't put two and two together though. Her first jump (or maybe Derick's) was the documents were forged, rather than oh my goodness I signed a bunch of stuff, I must of signed off on filming.

This is all where it made me sad for Jill. She essentially said this feud was putting stress on her marriage so she had to pick a side. The two men Jill loved most in the world couldn't be mature enough to figure this out with less drama.

[Guest]

I do think JB bears a lot more responsibility than Jill obviously (though I doubt he would forge her name when she was always a willing signer). I just think there is some measure of accountability when you're naïve enough to sign multiple legal documents without even asking to see them.  I think all of the Duggar children are, to some degree, victims but to some degree they are also responsible for their own actions/inactions. It's complicated- I don't know where the line is.

[Meow Mix]

Jill did ask when the signature page on the contract was put in front of her what she was signing for and JB flat out lied to her.  She believed at the time that he loved her and wouldn't do anything like that.  It must have been a hard blow when she realized a few years later what he had done.  I can't hold her responsible for that one because even though she was getting married the next day, she was far from a mature adult.  Now if she is still signing things without fully understanding them, that's a different story.  

[GeeGolly]

6 hours ago, Meow Mix said:

Jill did ask when the signature page on the contract was put in front of her what she was signing for and JB flat out lied to her.  She believed at the time that he loved her and wouldn't do anything like that.  It must have been a hard blow when she realized a few years later what he had done.  I can't hold her responsible for that one because even though she was getting married the next day, she was far from a mature adult.  Now if she is still signing things without fully understanding them, that's a different story.  

What was the lie JB told Jill?

[Stevie Nicks]

On 10/15/2023 at 4:38 PM, GeeGolly said:

What was the lie JB told Jill?

This from Jill's book. 

[GeeGolly]

Wow, well that makes what Derick said even more confusing. Derick said he and Jill thought the show was a ministry and they only received food and perks.

Also, unless I'm missing something, I don't see that as a flat out lie. Jill knew it was a TLC contract, or at least TLC papers, so she knew it was for the show. The terms of how one gets paid includes services rendered, including an end date. So if Jill knew the papers were for TLC and she knew it was about payment for appearing on the show, one could surmise she knew these forms were signed ever few years to renew the terms.

Again, I think Jill would have signed anything JB handed her, but she actually had more information about what she was signing than I originally thought.

[floridamom]

Technically, Jim Bob usually skirts around the truth. Yes, those papers were about how Jill was going to be paid....it stated that she was NOT going to be paid. This is how he rationalizes his shiftiness. Skirts around the "truth". A good point was made up above here; Jill may have thought that the perks the children received was a kind of payment-reimbursement from the show. All underhanded by Jim Bob if you ask me. I think it disgusting of him that he received $100,000? for Jill's wedding and kept the money himself. Any parent who cares about and loves his daughter, just getting married and having nothing really for herself, due to lack of education, job training, years of household duties and childcare should have received all of the money. The cheap wedding reception that Jill had should have been paid for by her multi- millionaire father. This is my opinion from what I have read about Jill's situation so far. I have not read her book but plan to when the frenzy at the library dies down.

[Canadian Girl]

Her reception didn't need to be cheap if she hadn't invited 1000 people and filled a stadium. 

[merylinkid]

This is not legal advice -- but those NDAs and most likely the contracts are probably not enforceable.   Not only the unequal negotiating power, but also because the adults were never told they could have independent legal advice.   If you are not given the opportunity to seek legal advice (if you have the opportunity but do not that is on you), then it can be used to challenge the validity of the contracts.    That's why you don't hand someone a prenup the day of the wedding and say "sign this or the wedding is off."   And if someone does do that -- call off the wedding.   They have just show you exactly who they are.

Not that any of these people will challenge it.   Most enjoy the perks dad gives them to keep them in line.   The rest are terrified of being ostracized like Jill is.   Or both.   But when JB dies, there is gonna be a reckoning and it will not be pretty.

[Salacious Kitty]

Someone like Jessa is perfectly happy to be under control of her father. He fixes her house, her yard, whatever she needs. Ben can barely feed them on what he may make with his itty bitty church salary. 

[BetyBee]

I wonder if Jessa and the kids are able to attend early service when Ben is preaching. They seem more likely to go by Duggar time in their daily/weekly activities!

[floridamom]

Perhaps that 1,000 person guest list of Jill's was because of the show and she was pressured by her father to follow the narrative. Maybe she wanted something smaller and more intimate but was unable to have what she and Derick wanted due to "contracts".

[Salacious Kitty]

4 minutes ago, floridamom said:

Perhaps that 1,000 person guest list of Jill's was because of the show and she was pressured by her father to follow the narrative. Maybe she wanted something smaller and more intimate but was unable to have what she and Derick wanted due to "contracts".

They certainly invited everyone they knew. If Jill talked about this in her book, I've forgotten what she said. 

[GeeGolly]

Weddings are basically speed dating conventions for Fundies. We have the Bates and Duggars on one end and Jill Rod on the other. The number of guests is usually somewhere in the middle.

But basically they show up mingle, sit for the ceremony and then mingle again over 'mints & punch'. And hopefully the adult kids snag a future spouse.

[Salacious Kitty]

16 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Weddings are basically speed dating conventions for Fundies. We have the Bates and Duggars on one end and Jill Rod on the other. The number of guests is usually somewhere in the middle.

But basically they show up mingle, sit for the ceremony and then mingle again over 'mints & punch'. And hopefully the adult kids snag a future spouse.

Don't forget the exclusive "after parties." The Rods even went to a few before getting blackballed. 

[zoomama]

On 11/12/2023 at 6:09 AM, merylinkid said:

   But when JB dies, there is gonna be a reckoning and it will not be pretty.

you know what?  i had never given this a thought!  probably more legal haggling in the future!

[Jeeves]

On 11/12/2023 at 7:09 AM, merylinkid said:

This is not legal advice -- but those NDAs and most likely the contracts are probably not enforceable.   Not only the unequal negotiating power, but also because the adults were never told they could have independent legal advice.   If you are not given the opportunity to seek legal advice (if you have the opportunity but do not that is on you), then it can be used to challenge the validity of the contracts.    That's why you don't hand someone a prenup the day of the wedding and say "sign this or the wedding is off."   And if someone does do that -- call off the wedding.   They have just show you exactly who they are.

Not that any of these people will challenge it.   Most enjoy the perks dad gives them to keep them in line.   The rest are terrified of being ostracized like Jill is.   Or both.   But when JB dies, there is gonna be a reckoning and it will not be pretty.

THANK YOU for this. My thoughts exactly - but you said it much better than I would have.

It makes me itchy when I read posts (not so much here but elsewhere, including reddit) that assume the kidults are legally bound by NDAs they signed in favor of JB and his production company. Nope. Nada. No way. Because as described by Jill in her book (and also from what's generally known to those of us who've been paying attention over the years), the circumstances are hinky as all get-out. IMO it wouldn't take a genius lawyer to blow up such an NDA in the event JB tried to enforce it. 

[lascuba]

1 hour ago, Jeeves said:

THANK YOU for this. My thoughts exactly - but you said it much better than I would have.

It makes me itchy when I read posts (not so much here but elsewhere, including reddit) that assume the kidults are legally bound by NDAs they signed in favor of JB and his production company. Nope. Nada. No way. Because as described by Jill in her book (and also from what's generally known to those of us who've been paying attention over the years), the circumstances are hinky as all get-out. IMO it wouldn't take a genius lawyer to blow up such an NDA in the event JB tried to enforce it. 

I would be shocked if JB tried to enforce it even if all the legalities were airtight. Enforcing an NDA would mean taking the NDA breaker to court, which mean discovery (IANAL so please correct me if I'm wrong) and even more Duggar family secrets being legally released to the public. IMAGINE the emails and text messages that would be submitted.

I don't give money to fundies under any circumstances, but I would be seriously tempted to donate to a  legal defense if a Duggar kid called JB's bluff.

[Ohiopirate02]

15 minutes ago, lascuba said:

I would be shocked if JB tried to enforce it even if all the legalities were airtight. Enforcing an NDA would mean taking the NDA breaker to court, which mean discovery (IANAL so please correct me if I'm wrong) and even more Duggar family secrets being legally released to the public. IMAGINE the emails and text messages that would be submitted.

 

Also not a lawyer, but my understanding of NDAs is that there are clear terms spelled out in them--what you cannot disclose, who you cannot disclose to, how long of a period of time these rules are to be in effect, and what would happen if you broke these terms.  It's not a blanket non-disclosure of every single detail for the rest of your natural life.  I do not doubt that JB has made his adult children believe this to be the case, but if one of them did talk JB may not have any legal grounds to stand on.  And, any competent lawyer would be able to advise one of the Duggar kidaults about this.  

[floridamom]

In my opinion, JB just scares his purposely undereducated children into submission with the threat of losing their inheritance. I also believe that the kids checking into this would be viewed by them as a grave sin in not obeying and believing their father, who walks on water. What a piece of work.

[BetyBee]

3 hours ago, zoomama said:

you know what?  i had never given this a thought!  probably more legal haggling in the future!

And maybe a tell-all book or two!

[Ohiopirate02]

58 minutes ago, BetyBee said:

And maybe a tell-all book or two!

Probably not.  The market will have moved on before any other Duggerling could even think about writing a tell-all.  I can't see any of the other 15 having something to tell after Jill and Jinger.  Maybe if one of the unmarried boys comes out as trans, there could be a book deal there or if Jana publicly comes out as asexual (though this would still be a hard sell with publishing).  Publishers want something different, not a rehash of Jill's memoir.  

[GeeGolly]

JB likely pulled an NDA template off the internet, changed a few words and had all the kids sign the one document, if he actually did anything at all. I doubt any of the kids have any interest in writing a book about their family. If Derick hadn't picked a fight with JB, Jill would have never written one either.

 

[merylinkid]

21 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Probably not.  The market will have moved on before any other Duggerling could even think about writing a tell-all.  I can't see any of the other 15 having something to tell after Jill and Jinger.  Maybe if one of the unmarried boys comes out as trans, there could be a book deal there or if Jana publicly comes out as asexual (though this would still be a hard sell with publishing).  Publishers want something different, not a rehash of Jill's memoir.  

If one of them breaks completely with fundism and denounces it, then that would be big.   But yeah, another "I found out I don't have to listen to my dad now that I am adult" book will not fly.   

Of course, when JB and Michelle, all bets are off.