The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

[yankee1151]

From the In Touch article:

 

The Duggars plan to go down swinging, a family insider tells In Touch, after the cancellation of 19 Kids and Counting. “The family fortune has taken a massive hit — and they’re fighting back against everyone. It smacks of desperation.”

 

I SO hope the "family insider" (also from the People article) is Sierra.  That would be hilarious.  One of the kids would be even better, but I don't think they'd be allowed to talk to a reporter without Boob present.  

[kokapetl]

I'm not a lawyer (though my husband has played one for 40 years), but suing someone just to annoy them is what the law calls "spurious." Judges, if they smell this happening, can extinguish such suits without trials via the respondant's motions to dismiss. Even if a suit makes into a courtroom, it can still be sent to the dung heap early on for various reasons. And even if it does get heard, the lawsuit damn well better have merit; otherwise the complaining party (i.e., Boob) can end up paying both his and his target's legal fees, should the judge deem that fair. I think in some states it's even possible to award civil punitive damages to an unfairly sued party (even if those haven't been specifically asked for by the respondant) - and there's also the stalking horse of libel and other counter-suits that often phoenix to life post-trial and could possibly could burn Boob's butt and his wallet.

That said, lawsuits are always a costly hassle. That's why most respondants choose to settle pre-trial; guilt or innocence aside, a settlement, in most cases, is the path of least resistance. And yet ... people who've done nothing wrong (especially if they think they're being sued out of sheer malice) also have a strong bent to stand their ground. Especially when their defense is being funded by a municipality, county or state that already has legal staff in place and wants to avoid setting an "easy target" precedent.

A shrewd person can harass their enemies with lawsuits - and sometimes even make some money doing it. But Boob and shrewd? Not a match. Another saying comes to mind: If you're going to shoot for the king, you better kill him. I'd advise Boob to pick his target wisely and practice aiming that gun. Because a miss can land him in more trouble that his little brain ever dreamed of.

I'm hoping their lawyer is decent enough to let JimBob know this. Unsurprisingly, he's a Huckabee lawyer.

Kevin A. Crass is a partner at Friday, Eldredge & Clark where he serves as head of the firm's Class Action and Business Litigation practice group. His practice primarily focuses on business litigation in federal and state courts including the defense of claims involving, among others, class actions, securities fraud, ERISA, business torts, trade secrets, patent/tradmeark, products liability, toxic torts and breach of contract.

...

From 1997-2007, he served as personal counsel to the then Governor of Arkansas

Edited July 25, 2015 by Kokapetl

[andromeda331]

Until the police report, I don't think anyone thought the "sin in the camp" pertained to allegations against the daughters.

 

No most people assumed he kissed a girl or something along those lines of normal

teenage behavior. No one guessed that Josh would have molested his four sisters

and a fifth girl or that their parents would cover it up. Every once it in awhile the rumors

come up and someone would guess that but  everyone assumed they had to be wrong.

Surely not even Josh or his parents would do something so horrible.

Edited July 25, 2015 by andromeda331

[Oldernowiser]

God, I hate it when I fall into the famewhore trap, but who is @kingdillpickle?

[kokapetl]

God, I hate it when I fall into the famewhore trap, but who is @kingdillpickle?

Amy's fiancé

[Oldernowiser]

And she would know the royal status of his pickle how, exactly?

[kokapetl]

And she would know the royal status of his pickle how, exactly?

His name is Dillon King. I guess everything else was taken. It's way better than @Derick4Him

[SpottedCoachDog]

InTouch made sure they had an Arkansas law firm review the FOIA request and the released report was redacted in accordance to state law. No one was bribed. No one was paid off. InTouch worked long and hard to get that police report legally. If Boob thinks he can try to claim that this hurt his livelihood, he and his simpering wife shouldn't have gone on a national news show admitting to essentially skirting the law. And they damn sure shouldn't have pimped out two victims to claim "It was nothing! We're over it! We love and forgive our molester!!"

Someone should tattoo "Better to have people think you're a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it" on Meechelle so he will see it, learn it and stfu already!

[SoSueMe]

Apologies if this has been mentioned already, but rumor has it that Megyn Kelly will be doing something on the Duggars tonight. I'm NOT a Fox news watcher but I saw a little snip on another board.

https://amp.twimg.com/v/238715ab-f391-4c31-bb74-d41fd4550647

Edited July 25, 2015 by SoSueMe

[dargosmydaddy]

It's on right now.

[Marigny]

From the In Touch article:

 

 

 

 

I SO hope the "family insider" (also from the People article) is Sierra.  That would be hilarious.  One of the kids would be even better, but I don't think they'd be allowed to talk to a reporter without Boob present.  

 

My guess is that it's the guy who's been posting Instagram pictures every other day of himself hanging out with the family.

[Sew Sumi]

It's on right now.

So, what was it?

[SoSueMe]

So, what was it?

Mostly rehash, accusing the media of victimizing the girls, (but not Megyn, of course).

[kokapetl]

My guess is that it's the guy who's been posting Instagram pictures every other day of himself hanging out with the family.

Tabloid sources are either publicists when the info is positive, or whoever is writing the story if it's negative.  

Mostly rehash, accusing the media of victimizing the girls, (but not Megyn, of course).

Thanks for watching. I certainly wasn't gonna go to all the trouble of unblocking that channel and watch it myself. The InTouch story states that the City Attorney was critical of Fox News in an email. Murdoch media does not tolerate criticism, that criticism might have prompted Megyn's recent show.

[Sew Sumi]

The Megyn Kelly thing is on again if anyone around has access to [snip] "News." 

 

Boob saying that they'll be fine whether "they film us or not" and it's "just a window of opportunity" and "life goes on." We've seen that's bull to the shit. 

 

Megyn is trying to spin it as a "evil liberal media" thing. 

Edited July 25, 2015 by bigskygirl
No using Fox News nicknames

[SpottedCoachDog]

Uh huh. "Evil libreral media"....unless, of course, the crying victims of childhood sexual abuse claiming they're being revictimized are padding your ratings. Right, Megyn? Sanctimonious hypocritical cow.

[kokapetl]

Megyn should focus on the real villains: shitty plastic surgeons.

[Sew Sumi]

Watching them spew their coached bullshit in retrospect, with Megyn's addtional spin doctoring, really ticked me off.

 

Jessa. That girl is COLD. And how can we forget Jill citing an unsourced "statistic" that said 2/3 of families endure molestations...and that's only the ones reporting it! Da fuq, Jill? Got some ice to sell to the eskimos, too???

[kokapetl]

What does the Kelly File usually cover? Is it the standard Fox News split screen talking heads?

[HundFan]

Do Kevin Crass's legal skills fit Boob's lawsuit dreams? Well, Crass is a litigator, so we know he has a nice suit and understands how to game the metal detector at court. And he does do class actions. (Doesn't homeschool still count as a class?) Plus he's a "security fraud" guy - which has something to do with buying used and saving the difference, right?  Wait, wait, I know - it's that "toxic injury" specialty of his. That's got hairspray and brain shrinkage written all over it.

 

Yet I still can't quite make the link to Crass's skill set and Boob's thirst for justice re the alleged defamation, loss of income, PR failure and bad lighting he has been forced to suffer of late. So Kevin Crass is the perfect person to represent Boob. Please Jimbo, sue everyone you know as fast as your little lawyer can. This is going to be delicious. 

[kokapetl]

Do Kevin Crass's legal skills fit Boob's lawsuit dreams? Well, Crass is a litigator, so we know he has a nice suit and understands how to game the metal detector at court. And he does do class actions. (Doesn't homeschool still count as a class?) Plus he's a "security fraud" guy - which has something to do with buying used and saving the difference, right? Wait, wait, I know - it's that "toxic injury" specialty of his. That's got hairspray and brain shrinkage written all over it.

Yet I still can't quite make the link to Crass's skill set and Boob's thirst for justice re the alleged defamation, loss of income, PR failure and bad lighting he has been forced to suffer of late. So Kevin Crass is the perfect person to represent Boob. Please Jimbo, sue everyone you know as fast as your little lawyer can. This is going to be delicious.

He's a Huckabee friend, his services are probably cheap or free to JimBob.

The law school he went to is ranked =121 (Megyn's is 118) , but he graduated 30 years ago, so he's obviously got some experience, and he's a partner.

He's seems very attached to Little Rock, he was educated there and practises there.

[GEML]

Here's the thing - some legal person who went to law school ranked x (my husband went to #7 by the way and turned down #4) said it was legal. That's great. Because of a statute. That's great.

But now we have an aggrieved party. They are challenging THE STATUTE. That's how law works. Marriage for a man and woman only were legal, and you could name fifty thousand people who said they were following the law. Then you had someone who challenged the law - the statute.

That's how law gets changed.

The Duggars have every right to do this.

[Churchhoney]

No question that that's the way the legal system moves forward. But the annoyance (and confusion) for me about what the Dugs are trying comes from what the lawyer says about it.

 

When he says "I don't see a defense of the chief's actions" and says that the lawsuit will be "embarrassing," it doesn't suggest to me that they see the lawsuit as a challenge to what they consider a faulty statute. That language, to me, suggests that they're arguing that the police chief was not acting in accord with the law and, further, that they know something about the chief's behavior or the city's behavior that show them to have flouted law, acted from criminal motivations, or whatever.

 

If they're really challenging the law as it stands, then why would they say that the chief, personally, has no defense for what she did? If she was obeying a flawed law, then that law is her defense. (And didn't city officials say early on that they were kind of horrified that the law required them to release those documents, and that their lawyers went over it and over it trying to figure out if that could really be the case, then finally concluded that it was, somewhat to their regret? ... maybe I'm hallucinating this?)  It's not her fault that a statute is flawed. She has to obey it. So her obeying it would not embarrass her or the city. The way I read the lawyer's notes is that, instead, they plan to argue that the chief and the city went against the statute for some nefarious or stupid reason.

 

I don't see how their language suggests that they're actually challenging the law, even though that's what you'd think someone would do here.. The lawyer's language surprises me, and I don't understand it. But it ends up sounding just like Jim Bob pettiness and an attempt to accuse a specific person of being out to get him and his family, not like the right way to go about changing things if you think the statute makes it too easy to reveal damaging personal information in general and you hope to change that.

 

So I'm guessing the actual suit would have to take a quite different tack than Crass is taking in these communications. But that, again, confuses me. Why make these statements if you aren't personally going after the chief rather than after the law? (There may well be some lawyer reason for doing this, but somebody needs to explain it to me because I really really don't get it.)

Edited July 25, 2015 by Churchhoney

[Oldernowiser]

To me, it sounded like an attempt to extort a settlement or a public apology they could then yell to the world as proving they did nothing wrong. Or they're trying to make enough threatening noises that any other Duggar stuff buried in the town will stay that way. Do real lawyers actually make threats like this?

[Churchhoney]

 

In his communications (at least what we've seen), Crass says nothing that suggests the law is unfair. Instead, he directly accuses the chief and city of indefensible and personally-to-them embarrassing actions. I don't understand that language because it points to the chief as a wrongdoer, not to the city's (state's) regime of law as being harmful and unfair, to me, anyway. But if it's the system of laws, and this particular law, that you're ultimately concerned with, then why would you use such language aimed at one person, why wouldn't you be railing against the system, against "the man," and so on? Why a purely personal statement about the chief?

 

The only reason I can see is if they know something about the chief that they figure she won't want revealed, and so that will drive a monetary settlement. That, however, will take the whole suit out of the judicial system. If they scare them into settling, the suit won't go on through appeals courts to the point that it would finally require or motivate the state legislature to revisit and change the law. So if what they want is to change the law, this doesn't seem like the right way to go about it, because I can't see any reason for their particular language except to force a settlement, and foster fear in other local Arkansas officials who might be called upon to release other Duggar documents. And if that happens, then the actual legal process of challenging, revisiting, and potentially forcing change in a flawed law will never happen.

 

That's what I need to have explained. How do you go from saying an individual's actions are indefensible and embarrassing to a legal process that effectively challenges the law that that individual seems to have been obeying.  (It may well be a standard legal tactic to focus your initial attack on one person and then have that lead to something bigger. I don't know! IANAL. But I'd love to know how that works, because it just seems very odd to me. Here's my question: If your target is a bad law, why do you accuse a person who executed the law of indefensible and embarrassing behavior? What's the line of argument that goes on from there? Because it kind of seems like a dead end to me, in terms of forcing actual change in the legal system, but I don't know the ins and outs of litigation, so I'm probably missing something major.)

Edited July 25, 2015 by Bella
reviewing a quote

[GEML]

I'm sure they are trying to scare other officials into not releasing documents. But she will be sued as a public official, not as an individual citizen. It WAS her office's job to do the redactions.

Anyone who knows anything about Arkansas knows that politics is a blood sport. Literally. Most people probably have their government jobs because they knew someone. (I say this coming from WV, where life is very similar.) It doesn't mean anyone per se is corrupt, it just means that you can't assume that just because you think one side is (and I'm sure any side associated with Huckabee is) that the other side ISN'T.

But there is black letter civil procedure here, with lots of shouting and blustery accusation. That's how the American system does work. And you'd want it to work for you if you were in a predicament. That's all I'm saying.

[GeeGolly]

Some parties to the legal stuff going on say the documents legally should not have been released. Others say is was following the law to release them. Does anyone know who is correct? Could the way the law is read be so ambiguous?

[Churchhoney]

I'm sure they are trying to scare other officials into not releasing documents. But she will be sued as a public official, not as an individual citizen. It WAS her office's job to do the redactions.

Anyone who knows anything about Arkansas knows that politics is a blood sport. Literally. Most people probably have their government jobs because they knew someone. (I say this coming from WV, where life is very similar.) It doesn't mean anyone per se is corrupt, it just means that you can't assume that just because you think one side is (and I'm sure any side associated with Huckabee is) that the other side ISN'T.

But there is black letter civil procedure here, with lots of shouting and blustery accusation. That's how the American system does work. And you'd want it to work for you if you were in a predicament. That's all I'm saying.

 

Fair enough. Don't look at how the sausage is made. Will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I still think Crass is kind of a tone-deaf idiot. (of course, he's a buddy of Huckabee and Jim Bob, so ...)

Some parties to the legal stuff going on say the documents legally should not have been released. Others say is was following the law to release them. Does anyone know who is correct? Could the way the law is read be so ambiguous?

Well, IANAL, but I've read the statute in question and had some experience with the federal FOIA law over the years. And, yeah, some of it is pretty ambiguous. And in both the crafting and the execution of these laws generally, it's always been notoriously difficult to figure out how exactly you should balance the interests of public disclosure and the personal interest of people whose personal information appears in documents. These particular documents also fall into kind of a weird, unusual category, too, seeming like one thing but being another, which makes it more confusing. Not sure you could write a law that adequately lays it all out. There will always be a devil in the details.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Churchhoney

[Barb23]

There's an article about how the Duggars are coping "after the scandal" in People magazine this week. The article has quotes from a source "that has worked closely with the family." The insider said that Boob & MEchelle honestly expected people to move on from this since they did. The source says that Boob wasn't fond of the possibility of a spin-off series with Jill & Jessa. "He absolutely wanted to be back on TV and was never thrilled about the show suddenly shifting focus."

This doesn't sound like the Jim Bob who never liked talking to crowds & being in the public eye giving their testimonies that was mentioned in the beginning of the series. Back then it seemed like MEchelle was more into the public speaking engagements & Boob stayed more in the shadows. Look at them now, what a role reversal.

[SoSueMe]

Megyn should focus on the real villains: shitty plastic surgeons.

What an angry looking woman.

[andromeda331]

But if it's the system of laws, and this particular law, that you're ultimately concerned with, then why would you use such language aimed at one person, why wouldn't you be railing against the system, against "the man," and so on? Why a purely personal statement about the chief?

 

Because the law has always worked so well for them. The police investigation managed

to start after the statute of limitations had run out. They can yell, shout and be hateful but

no one can do anything about it. But for once its working against them. It has to be a

vendetta. Despite the fact Intouch magazine followed the legal guidelines to get the police

report. Despite the fact the person who turned them over followed the law. They checked

with either the city attorney or their office to make sure it was legal to turn them over. It was.

They could go after the law and try to get it changed but people are going to be unlikely to

listen to them. They are the parents who covered up their son's molestion. If anything, they

just handed people in their state a very good reason to change the statute of limitations and

make it longer then just three years.

Edited July 25, 2015 by andromeda331

[SpottedCoachDog]

Any lawsuit that could be filed has nothing to do with the law or how to better the law. It has to do with Boob being massively butthurt that people did not bow at the altar of his self perceived amazingness and dared to challenge him. He built a TV empire off the simple fact that he was able to impregnate his dim witted wife an unGodly number of times. He believes he is above the laws of man and God. People have looked behind the curtain and don't like him and are no longer willing to believe in his scam of being worthy of praise and idolatry. And now he is faced with the unthinkable; he might have get a real job to support the result of his being a horny little bastard. Sucks to be you, Boob.

[Missy Vixen]

If anything, they just handed people in their state a very good reason to change the statute of limitations and

make it longer then just three years.

Jim Boob's saber rattling impresses nobody but himself and his family. I'm wondering how Arkansas law is different than WA state law, which shelters elected officials and city/state employees from being sued for doing their jobs. No matter how many lawyers he throws at it, the fact remains that law enforcement and city and county officials did nothing illegal by complying with FOIA laws. One also has to wonder if he realizes (through the miasma of hubris and arrogance that surrounds him and his thought process) he just dared In Touch and their investigative journalists to double down re: their investigation(s).

 

The Duggars are uninterested in doing anything that would actually aid anyone else, especially those who are dealing with the aftermath of molestation. It's so common in the Duggars' world (evidently) it's nothing to concern oneself with. To actually work to lengthen the statute of limitations in AR would be admitting there was residual effects from it. One wonders if Jim Boob and family got a special version of the Bible -- the one that has every commandment, parable or example of aiding the less fortunate, comforting the afflicted, and treating others as you'd like to be treated stripped right out of it, for example. And again, one wonders what kind of twisted, warped version of Christianity they practice. They don't comprehend what they read. Their continuing disregard for anyone but themselves is stunning, IMHO.

[Julia]

This doesn't sound like the Jim Bob who never liked talking to crowds & being in the public eye giving their testimonies that was mentioned in the beginning of the series. Back then it seemed like MEchelle was more into the public speaking engagements & Boob stayed more in the shadows. Look at them now, what a role reversal.

 

It doesn't sound a lot like the man on the show. It does sound a lot like the Jim Bob who torpedoed his own political career and most of his family finances trying to unseat a political mentor as US Senator after being in state office for two years.

 

I think that Jim Bob may be a little closer to the bone than the Jim Bob who has somehow pimped the privacy of his marital bed into having a camera pointed at every waking minute of his life for a decade despite wanting to stay in the shadows. It feels like he's protesting a bit too much.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Julia

[kokapetl]

The Police/City released sufficient information for me to know which child burst into tears at the beginning of their police interview before recounting their sexual assault in the laundry. Someone advised that the redaction of her identity was required, but the Police/City botched it. We're seemingly not supposed to know the victims identities, but on the info released, we do know 4 out of 5 and which interview belongs to who. The girls have a reasonable claim that the release of the insufficiently redacted interviews has injured them.

[Oldernowiser]

I guess it would hinge on how redacted is defined by whatever law applies here. If it just states that names of minors are to be removed, that's an entirely different standard than, "all possible identification indicators, up to and including birth marks, favorite foods, and any portion of an interview transcript that involves words or phrases characteristically used by anyone involved," is quite another.

[Ljohnson1987]

It's disgusting that TLC continues to support the Duggars, by paying them to be part of a special about abuse. Boob and J'Chelle feel that Josh did nothing wrong. Let Jill and Jessa heal in peace. Stop exploiting them. You cancelled 19 Kids And Counting. Be rid of the Duggars' completely.

[kokapetl]

It's disgusting that TLC continues to support the Duggars, by paying them to be part of a special about abuse. Boob and J'Chelle feel that Josh did nothing wrong. Let Jill and Jessa heal in peace. Stop exploiting them. You cancelled 19 Kids And Counting. Be rid of the Duggars' completely.

I'm more disgusted by InTouch ongoing capitalisation of the Duggar children's sexual abuse. TLC wont be airing commercials during the show.

InTouch:

For more details on the Duggars’ scandal, pickup the latest issue of In Touch magazine, on newsstands now!

[GEML]

The redactions were pretty poorly handled, in my opinion. And I think the Duggar daughter have lost status and income because of it. Again, it isn't only the show, but also speaking engagements and things like that. Keep in mind, in their world, they may be considered "damaged goods." It may have damaged their marriage prospects for those who aren't married.

Those are real claims. Difficult to prove, but worth bringing? Eh, maybe.

And there's an enormous difference between speaking on camera with the ability to edit and the ability to speak in front of a group of people without a script. Jim Bob can barely do the former. Michelle is pretty good at both, when she's not worrying about looking too good in comparison to Jim Bob.

Edited July 25, 2015 by GEML

[NextIteration]

What an angry looking woman.

 

Always, even when she's trying to be pleasant from what I've seen.

 

A few things, first, from what I've read the reason that InTouch hired a law firm in Arkansas was that it is a requirement for a FOIA request in Arkansas, it has to come from a Arkansan attorney.

 

Next, IANAL but it seems to me that the way to go about changing a statute if that is your intent, would be to work with your state legislators, not file a lawsuit for damages.  Seems to me that a lawsuit is to seek restitution for perceived damages, not to fix an imperfect law.

 

Finally, it's pretty clear that Huckabee knows he'll never get out of Iowa since he's keeping so connected to this horrible family.  No broad appeal to the middle.  And I agree, this attorney's specialties don't match the situation at hand at all.

[NextIteration]

I think the request had to come from an Arkansas citizen.

 

That was it.  I knew it was something about being Arkansas based.

[kokapetl]

IANAL, but Donoghue v Stevenson, the snail in the ginger beer, was based on case law, not statutes, and that practically created the modern concept of negligence and duty of care.

[Churchhoney]

I doubt the dozen plus Republican candidates are honestly running for President, their incentive is probably superPAC funds and resources.

 

Noticed this headline the other day:   http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/story.aspx?id=1233452

 

"16 Candidates and Counting"

 

Look, JIm Bob, you're still relevant!

[Ljohnson1987]

So many people want to defend the Duggars. Do they realize how poorly this situation was handled? Boob, J'Chelle and Smugs don't deserve to be on TV for their bad behavior. Jill and Jessa deserve to heal in peace. Get some real therapy, and realize being forced to forgive the brother that forcibly touched them, is not the way to go. Jill and Jessa need to realize what happened to them, on a real level,  and not the cult level they live in.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Ljohnson1987

[bigskygirl]

Knock, Knock...Who's there? The Duggars Media thread has ask for everyone to get back to the main topic at hand. And you may ask yourself what is the main topic of hand, and the answer is the Duggars in the Media and TLC. It is not the evil liberals vs. the poor picked on right wingers, your own political views, Fox News agenda, Fox News trying make money off the Duggars, a new job for Josh with Fox News, and the other conspiracy theories lurking on the forum. We are not the CIA folks. One of my fellow mods has already hidden at last half a dozen off topic posts. The mods will keep hiding or editing non Duggar topics at our discretion. So lets give the poor brought back to life beaten horse some peace and quiet in his final resting place by getting back to the Duggars in the Media and TLC world. Thank you.

[ZoloftBlob]

TLC wont be airing commercials during the show.

 

I genuinely  would question the judgment of any company that would want to advertise during the show. The show about the ignored family sex abuse. I mean really, what kind of merchandise wants to be associated with that?

[Fuzzysox]

I genuinely  would question the judgment of any company that would want to advertise during the show. The show about the ignored family sex abuse. I mean really, what kind of merchandise wants to be associated with that?

Watch it will be "commercial free" once they can't sell ads in that time slot.

[GEML]

I certainly don't think they deserve to back on TV. But that doesn't mean that I think what happened to the daughters is remotely just.

[Sew Sumi]

Watch it will be "commercial free" once they can't sell ads in that time slot.

No, it's already been announced that it will be commercial-free. With that said, what money pool is there to pay the Duggar girls? If Boob negotiated a check out of this, while other victims are doing it gratis, that just makes him even more pond scummy. The media haven't said whether the Duggars were paid, so it's all just speculation at this point. 

[Flowers]

IANAL is the most unfortunate acronym ever.