Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[Lemur]

I think you're still reaching. She twitter stalked him to The Gold Club, and worked a shift there so they'd meet?

Exactly.

 

Granted, my personal knowledge of Philadelphia's finer gentleman's clubs is a bit on the second-hand side (and I always preferred Delilah's anyway), but you can't just show up at a strip club and say "Hey, I wanna work the pole."  Nope, doesn't happen that way.  I mean, maybe if they're having Open Mic night (yes, a club by me has Open Mic night ... it's locally referred to as Scratch-n-Dent night), but you generally don't see that at the higher end clubs.  

[LilyoftheValley]

ITA.  Josh exploited five females already.  I am fine with one exploiting him for a change.  

[MargeGunderson]

It doesn't matter if she wanted to meet/have sex with him. It still doesn't give him the right to do things to her that she didn't like or want in the course of having sex. Sex workers still have that choice over what happens to their own bodies.

 

Having said that, I do think she has mixed motives for the lawsuit but frankly, no one has pure motives.

[kokapetl]

I think you're still reaching. She twitter stalked him to The Gold Club, and worked a shift there so they'd meet?

This part of her interview struck me as real:

I have no problem with Josh being exploited by a gold digging whore. It's so symmetrical.

She didn't need to travel to where he worked, his work had him traveling for PR purposes, his whereabouts were publicized.

Keep in mind Josh's money is Anna's money. Fucking Josh over is fucking Anna over. Does Anna deserve to suffer from extortion by an obvious gold digger? Is that symmetrical?

I went onto the district court of Philadelphia web site and Smuggar is requesting a jury trial. What a fucking asshole.

Isn't this a constitutional right? Why shouldn't a jury trial happen? Edited January 20, 2016 by Kokapetl

[JoanArc]

 

She didn't need to travel to where he worked, his work had him traveling for PR purposes, his whereabouts were publicized.

This doesn't make any sense. She was a porn star. She stripped at club in Philly too. Josh went there because he was in town and wanted some pussy and she was on stage - the logistics of her twitter staking him and setting up some kind of 'random' meeting just don't wash. I'm she she banged him, and realized after Joshgate I broke that she could get a payday. Did they have rough sex? Maybe. I'll need to see the evidence.

 

 

Keep in mind Josh's money is Anna's money. Fucking Josh over is fucking Anna over. Does Anna deserve to suffer from extortion by an obvious gold digger? Is that symmetrical?

Anna was 100% on the famewhore money train too, for years, and hasn't done anything to distance herself from Josh, so yeah, I have no problem with that, either. She made her bed when she married. I have sympathy for her situation, but she's also brought a lot of it on herself. Josh will never change. Every.Single.Adult.Duggar (except maybe, maybe Jana) is a huge user of people. It's their turn to get used.

[kokapetl]

Josh's job had him very publicly traveling all around and through adjacent states.

As for "Josh will never change", we aren't psychiatrists. Expert witnesses at a potential trial could include psychiatrists. I'm fairly certain Ms Dillon is going to need one to establish her injury.

Josh seems he'd rather this whole thing go to trial, rather than pay to have it go away.

[JoanArc]

 

Josh's job had him very publicly traveling all around and through adjacent states.

Occam's razor your theory, it just doesn't hold up to reality.

 

 

As for "Josh will never change", we aren't psychiatrists.

Josh hasn't changed in in years. But yeah, after receiving no meaningful help this time I'm sure he'll shape right up. I would love to hear a psychiatrist try to defend Josh, btw.

 

 

Josh seems he'd rather this whole thing go to trial, rather than pay to have it go away.

It's a civil trial, so the jury has to be 51% certain instead of 100% certain. We'll see who's best on the stand.

[Fuzzysox]

Josh's job had him very publicly traveling all around and through adjacent states.

As for "Josh will never change", we aren't psychiatrists. Expert witnesses at a potential trial could include psychiatrists. I'm fairly certain Ms Dillon is going to need one to establish her injury.

Josh seems he'd rather this whole thing go to trial, rather than pay to have it go away.

Why, so he can have a bunch of leghumpers with signs screaming "Christian Persecution?"

[Marigold]

I went onto the district court of Philadelphia web site and Smuggar is requesting a jury trial. What a fucking asshole.

WHAT???????

How would that work to his advantage?

Gosh, I would just pay Danica off and slink away

[JoanArc]

 

Exactly. Ms. Dillon's exploitation of the situation for publicity will largely serve to erode the public perception of her credibility,

Her lawyer better blurt out the child molestation charges...

[kokapetl]

Sadly, all that other shit Ms Dillon has suffered in her life is probably going to be scrutinized in a trial, and Josh's lawyers are gonna try to pin any injury on that.

[Churchhoney]

I went onto the district court of Philadelphia web site and Smuggar is requesting a jury trial. What a fucking asshole.

 

I don't know. To me, this seems idiotic on his part. (or the part of his handlers or Jim Bob or whichever strategic genius made this decision)

 

If it actually goes to trial it's going to get even more media attention, because jury trials, even in civil cases, just naturally attract that.

 

And how can press about sex really hurt a person in the sex business, especially somebody who -- in my opinion, anyway -- has been pretty masterfully playing this whole thing for media attention for marketing purposes all along?

 

On the other hand, seems to me increased media attention to Josh Duggar's sex-cum-violence trial can only hurt him and the "Duggar brand." (Is this just wishful thinking on my part? Am I missing something?) I can't see how even a bunch of fundienutters outside the courthouse waving signs about Christian Persecution can save Joshie from being pretty much mashed into the muck by the media and the public commentary on media sites, for the most part.

 

Given the way this went down and the things he did and said back in the beginning, I don't see how Josh's lawyer can credibly make the case that this event actually never happened at all -- which it seems to me is the case he'll have to make to keep Mr. Super-Jesus-y Hypocrite from falling even further in the public's estimation. No matter what anybody thinks of sex workers or of how Danica's handled all this, it's Josh who was repeatedly on teevee and twitter judging the rest of the country for having sex in any other situation than married-hoping-to-produce-a-conservative-Christian-infant.

 

I would think that most people would either judge Danica harshly just because of the work she does and has done or feel that, no matter what work you do, nobody should knock you around in a nonconsensual way. And in the case of those who judge either way, I don't see that she has any further to fall in anyone's estimation.

 

For Josh, on the other hand, no matter what happens in this trial -- unless he has ironclad proof that he's never seen her before and was nowhere near Philadelphia -- it's just going to provide further proof of what an offensive hypocrite he is. And I don't see how that can be good for him (or for the Duggars, really), whether he prevails in the trial or doesn't prevail.

 

Sometimes the quality of your outcome in a crisis depends on the expectations you've asked people to have of you. Simply by virtue of being in the sex industry, Danica's basically given the world no expectations. So she can't fall. But Josh deliberately, vociferously and over and over (along with his whole family) has done nothing all his life but insist that we should have the very highest expectations of his behavior. So he's got miles to fall off that self-constructed pedestal even now, it seems to me.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Churchhoney

[NikSac]

Wow. While he of course has the right to a jury trial, I too have a hard time understanding how he can possibly benefit from one.

[leighdear]

Hopefully it's the collective Duggar ego once again exerting itself and overestimating the support they will get from the fundie community, and society at large.  Every piece of dirty laundry the lawyers can air will be added to the knowledge base.  If it keeps one leg-humper from donating to their "causes" or gives a single person pause about supporting their agendas, it will be worth it in my opinion.  

 

Creating doubt about the family's piety can be as powerful as proving Josh innocent of the charges.  

Edited January 20, 2016 by leighdear

[Aja]

A jury makes sense if you look at it from a Duggar/LAWYR perspective:

1) God is on Josh's side. It's the heathens and librul media that are crucifying him. Therefore, what better way to get back at them then to shame the whore as publicly as possible, which I'm sure they feel will be a piece of piss. I mean, hard is it to discredit the whoriest whore who ever whored? There is no way a jury wouldn't rule in Josh's favor, because Christian!

2) God only knows (ha!) how many other pooches Joshie has screwed. I'm guessing there's probably at least a few. Paying Ms. Dillon off to make her quietly go away would set an extremely tempting precedent. However, if they know they are going to get SHAMED like that FIRST WHORE who tried to litigate, it will discourage similar suits.

3) This is more of a guess, but won't LAWYR'S payday, both in money and publicity, be way bigger with a jury trial? If that's the case, I could see it being pretty easy for LAWYR to talk a simpleton like Josh into one.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Aja

[leighdear]

3) This is more of a guess, but won't LAWYR'S payday, both in money and publicity, be way bigger with a jury trial? If that's the case, I could see it being pretty easy for LAWYR to talk a simpleton like Josh into one.

Bingo. 

[farmgal4]

Christmas has come early this year and it's only January. I hope someone frames this and sends it to Mom and Pops Duggar.

Your profile pic is the best one EVER. Lmao!

[JoanArc]

Josh is on trial to defeat Danica, but what the Duggars really want is to score a big victory against their critics. If they win the court case somehow it'll undo every bad thing that happened since last may. Magical thinking.

[Churchhoney]

Churchie, as always, you make excellent points. However, let's not underestimate the power of self righteousness, victim, and, above all, DENIAL in the Duggarlike Christian mindset. To that one segment of the population, a sex worker will almost surely be the evil temptress, while Joshley will represent a good Christian who temporarily fell to the machinations of a (gasp!) sex worker, but now he has made himself humble with sincere remorse, and has rededicated his life and marriage to Jesus. To the Duggarlike Christians, Joshley will always be the victim, while Ms. Dillon will never be seen as anything but a harlot who will surely burn in hell for tempting the poor little now-repentant sinner, Joshley.

 

Yeah, I suppose a lot of fundienutters won't like him any less. I still have a hard time seeing many of them liking him more after a trial goes forward, so long as the trial doesn't present really pretty strong evidence that he didn't do anything. After all, he was only repentant after the fact, and since he participated in the first place, there's a lot less room to see it as Christian persecution from the outset. I'm sure some will yell, Christian persecution! but I don't see how anything's going to come out that could make many be very enthusiastic when they yell it. And, honestly, that's what I think he would need to get any actual concrete redemption out of this.

 

Because most of us non-fundienutters (and we're the largest group, and some of us are even fundies, I'm pretty sure) certainly will like him less after a jury  trial and the accompanying media. And, to me, that just amounts to a bunch of people liking him just as much as they did before and a whole bunch more liking him even less. So -- still a net loss on my calculation.

[Churchhoney]

I hope you are right. But think you may be giving undue credit to that faction of fundies, whose whole narrative is about temptation, sin, repentance, and salvation due to Jesus, which will be basically the way the whole Joshley thing will be spun as his defense.

 

Well, you're certainly right about that being their schtick!

 

I'm still thinking that "once bitten, twice shy" will also be a lurking influence that may make at least some of them less enthusiastic in embracing old Joshley again, despite their schtick.

 

And, you know, they can't tell that sin and redemption narrative in court. That can only be put out there through the Duggars' own communications channels and to whatever degree they can convince the media to parrot it -- and I think their chances of getting the media to parrot it much, if at all, are slim. So only the leghumpers who really closely follow the Duggars' own utterances, expressed through their own web presence and those of their close friends and most trusted fans, are likely to get a good dose of that narrative. I'd lay money on its not getting expressed very much from pulpits, for example.

 

After all, while some still stand by Gothard, for example, he's lost a lot of influence and followers over the years. Not everyone who has that schtick follows it to its ultimate conclusions, clearly.

 

I'm not saying that Josh will lose all the leghumpers. But even losing a mere handful -- while failing to produce a strong wave of increased support from the others (which you expect and I, being an optimist?!, don't!) -- would produce a net loss for him in reputation and viability. Since the jury-trial spectacle will certainly sink him further with everybody else.

[duggarshow]

It doesn't matter if she wanted to meet/have sex with him. It still doesn't give him the right to do things to her that she didn't like or want in the course of having sex. Sex workers still have that choice over what happens to their own bodies.

 

Having said that, I do think she has mixed motives for the lawsuit but frankly, no one has pure motives.

 

I agree with this statement in theory. She did have a choice about what happened to her body, as do we all. She exercised her choice, however, when she went back the second time and accepted more cash. If the first time was as unpleasant as she claimed it was, why would she return? Said cash, maybe?

[farmgal4]

It doesn't matter if she wanted to meet/have sex with him. It still doesn't give him the right to do things to her that she didn't like or want in the course of having sex. Sex workers still have that choice over what happens to their own bodies.

 

Having said that, I do think she has mixed motives for the lawsuit but frankly, no one has pure motives.

I just watched a 1-minute clip of a "gangbang take-down challenge" starring Danica Dillon. If that clip is used by the defense during the trial, she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of receiving one dime IMO. It's more than obvious that this woman doesn't mind being treated like dirt as long as she's getting paid for it.

[kalamac]

I just watched a 1-minute clip of a "gangbang take-down challenge" starring Danica Dillon. If that clip is used by the defense during the trial, she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of receiving one dime IMO. It's more than obvious that this woman doesn't mind being treated like dirt as long as she's getting paid for it.

On camera work is very different from real life. Using a video she made while surrounded by camera people and directors probably wouldn't be allowed as evidence, when the trial is about something that happened in private without a support system to provide during and aftercare (which does happen on porn shoots - reputable ones at least - because they want their stars to be fit to continue working).

[MargeGunderson]

I agree with this statement in theory. She did have a choice about what happened to her body, as do we all. She exercised her choice, however, when she went back the second time and accepted more cash. If the first time was as unpleasant as she claimed it was, why would she return? Said cash, maybe?

We're in agreement. Her story has some issues, and the second visit in particular suggest that there's more to it. I was reacting specifically to a few previous posts that seemed to suggest that since she was paid to have sex she didn't have any room to complain.

[MichaelaRae]

But it doesn't - or shouldn't - matter why/if Danica "went back" a second time. For money. For the delusion that it would be different. For fear of retribution. For shits and giggles. Regardless of her reasons for meeting with Josh again, she retains autonomy over her body and how she chooses to use it. Period. Full stop. It's like, if I walk through a bad neighborhood and get mugged, that crime against me is wrong and punishable. If I walk through that same neighborhood a week later and I'm mugged again, it's still a crime, it's still wrong and it's still punishable. Because my right to NOT be mugged remains in force. I didn't ask for it or negate my rights by going back into the neighborhood. Whether I chose to walk through that neighborhood because it's the only way to get to my job, or because I'm a lazy bitch taking a shortcut - my reasons don't MATTER. What I do for a living (let's say I let people beat up on me for a living) doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that something I did not want to happen, something that is criminal, was done to me.

 

I have absolutely no idea whether Danica is full of shit, lying about the whole thing or not. I suppose that's what courts of law ultimately are for. But I do have an issue with the idea that because of choices she made or what she does for a living, it negates even the idea that she could be telling the truth or that something wrong happened to her.

Edited January 20, 2016 by MichaelaRae

[Ljohnson1987]

Hey Smugs.

 

Good luck with your jury trial. They're educated people. You're not.

[Fuzzysox]

Exactly. Ms. Dillon's exploitation of the situation for publicity will largely serve to erode the public perception of her credibility, which the Duggars will, as always, exploit to claim anti-Christian conspiracy and persecution, and ultimately Joshley's innocence being wantonly led astray by a defrauding nonbeliever. After all, 'he was just a good Christian man who was a little too interested in girls.' That played well in Peoria once, so we can expect to see The Sequel. The Duggarlike Christians LOVE to play the victim/martyr card.

It's ALL disgusting.

I'm shocked that they didn't give a call to good ole Doug Phillips (he's a lawyer)  he knows all the ins and outs of being a good ole boy being "tainted" by an evil whoreish woman who tempted him into cheating on his wife. *I'm sickened by typing that*

[kaleidoscope]

Does anyone know what is officially on the agenda for tomorrow in court?  Does Josh have to be there?  Will it be open to the public?

[Sew Sumi]

I just watched a 1-minute clip of a "gangbang take-down challenge" starring Danica Dillon. If that clip is used by the defense during the trial, she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of receiving one dime IMO. It's more than obvious that this woman doesn't mind being treated like dirt as long as she's getting paid for it.

Ah, the good old "slut shame" defense. I can't believe people still fall for that mysogonystic tactic. 

Edited January 21, 2016 by Sew Sumi

[LilyoftheValley]

She still has to consent every single time she gets paid to be treated like dirt.  

[NikSac]

In cases like this (and many cases really) I can't help but wonder, how do they really find a jury of his "peers."  And would anyone want them to?

[Defrauder]

I want all of the apology versions read in court.  Especially the first one where he says he has the heart of Satan. All three apology versions, with their various revisions, should be entered an evidence.  Heart of Satan Josh.  Liar.  Hypocrite.  In fact - The Biggest Hypocrite Ever.  Who's going to believe a lying hypocrite with the heart of satan?

[Churchhoney]

In cases like this (and many cases really) I can't help but wonder, how do they really find a jury of his "peers."  And would anyone want them to?

 

Just picture that panel of uneducated, not-too-bright, unemployed, briefly six-figure-making, arrogant, flabby, entitled, misogynistic, hypocritical, sister-molesting, lazy, wimpy, former political-wannabeish, super-Christian, head-of-household mama's boys and former reality-tv stars.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Churchhoney

[Tabbygirl521]

She still has to consent every single time she gets paid to be treated like dirt.

If she went back to Josh a second time, after one rough sex session, could a jury take this as implied consent? Am thinking not, but I wonder. I absolutely believe that Josh has no right to rough her up against her will, no matter what. But I think it might be hard for some to understand how this would have traumatized someone who willingly goes through plenty of sexual events that would be at least that bad - paid or not. Maybe it does make a difference to be surrounded by professionals on a shoot. I have no idea. But I can see how these issues would complicate a jury finding of trauma from Josh.

And that's assuming Josh DID get rough. It's possible he wants a jury trial rather than a settlement because he did not get rough with her.

[Lemur]

Does anyone know what is officially on the agenda for tomorrow in court?  Does Josh have to be there?  Will it be open to the public?

 

I think I read earlier that he doesn't have to be present for the early proceedings.  It's mainly maneuvering.  These cases can take a long, long time to wind through the courts.  This isn't a criminal trial where he has a Constitutional right to a speedy trial.

 

As for introducing Dillon's profession and what she's done on screen, it most likely has no bearing on the case.  For one, her career, to some degree, is acting. We may not appreciate her particular brand of acting. Also, it doesn't matter that she went back twice for cash.  In the eyes of the law, she wasn't being paid to perform a sex act.  She was being paid for her companionship and/or dramatic.  If a sex act happened, she wasn't being paid for it.   

[RazzleberryPie]

So in lay and terms what exactly is she suing him for?

[Fuzzysox]

So in lay and terms what exactly is she suing him for?

It's her attempt at her 15 minutes of fame. I bet if Josh wasn't a Duggar she would have just passed it off as another John and moved on. Dillion has plans, this will propel her to stardom! It will get her much needed attention! Maybe Hef will call too!!!!

[barbedwire]

She could be trying to get more money out of him too.  Maybe deep pockets in some respect:  hoping JimBoob would pay her to make her go away. Then again, she must not know how tight ole JimBoob is with money.  But then again she has been used and buy used and save the difference....

 

(I'll show myself to the prayer closet.)

[kokapetl]

As far as I can tell, she's suing for damages for her mental injuries caused by the shock of being allegedly choked and manhandled by Josh during otherwise consensual sex. She claims she can't continue with her careers in porn or stripping as a result of the injuries.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Kokapetl

[leighdear]

I hope there are some media in attendance that will report on what happens.  I know in the grand scheme of things it's not terribly important to the world at large, but I'd really like to see their reputation start sliding downward into the great abyss..... ;-)

[kokapetl]

Radaronline seem pretty invested in following the case to it's conclusion. They've very recently thrown out some dirt on Ms Dillon, they've suddenly hedged their bets.

[barbedwire]

As far as I can tell, she's suing for damages for her mental injuries caused by the shock of being allegedly choked and manhandled by Josh during otherwise consensual sex. She claims she can't continue with her careers in porn or stripping as a result of the injuries.

Well she is a woman and not suppose to work!  Therefore...

 

(going back to the prayer closet)

[leighdear]

TMZ is usually my media drug of choice, so I'll make sure to watch them tonight.  They usually get the skinny pretty damn quick in these cases.  

[kokapetl]

Radar's latest shocking court documents

"Josh Duggar insisted he never even met the woman accusing him of sexual assault, porn star Danica Dillon. And now, he’s finally revealing his ironclad alibi, RadarOnline.com can exclusively reveal.

In U.S. District Court documents obtained by Radar, the Christian activist, 27, claimed he has Uber and car rental receipts and flight reservations in addition to photographs and videos proving he wasn’t in Pennsylvania during the time of the alleged sex trysts.

“Specifically, on March 12-14, 2015 or April 17-18, 2015, I was either in Texas, Maryland Washington, D.C, or flying to Texas from Maryland and provided evidence of that to my attorney,” Duggar wrote in his sworn certification, filed on January 19. “…I was not in the District on those dates and never caused Plaintiff any injury anywhere.”

In addition, the married father of four is so confident in his innocence, his lawyer said he plans to subpoena the strip club and hotels where Dillon, 29, alleged they met up for surveillance footage and witness testimony.

Duggar even called on his friends for help in the $500,000 lawsuit.

“Affidavits from eyewitnesses present with Defendant in other states on the dates in question will be obtained,” Pennsylvania attorney Jeffrey A. Conrad wrote.

The judge ordered Dillon, otherwise known as Ashley Stamm-Northup, to provide medical records and “evidence of lost business opportunities” to prove she suffered a half-million in damages following the two nights of rough sex.

The parties will meet in a Philadelphia courtroom for a pretrial conference this afternoon.

As Radar reported, Dillon came forward with her claims that Duggar choked her and called her demeaning names during paid sex sessions following the former 19 Kids And Counting star’s confession he cheated on his wife Anna, 28, and was addicted to pornography.

He has been residing in a Bible-based rehab facility since August."

[JoanArc]

Wow, Josh may be innocent after all. If that's the case, good for him, but I can care less that porn stars are trying to bleed him dry. So...who was he unfaithful with then?

[Wellfleet]

Wow, Josh may be innocent after all. If that's the case, good for him, but I can care less that porn stars are trying to bleed him dry. So...who was he unfaithful with then?

 

Could literally be anyone. Probably some non-descript barfly, I'm guessing. But who really knows?

[Fuzzysox]

Isn't the burden of proof on Dillion's head not Josh's? How can she truly prove he did it unless she has a video? Could have been any other John that hurt her. 

[Vaysh]

My knowledge of the US justice system is limited to what I watch on TV so I have to ask, if these incidents didn't happen, why would she risk suing Josh? Isn't there a risk she'll end up having to pay for Josh's legal costs if they can prove that she is lying about the whole thing?

[kellylovessnark]

Isn't the burden of proof on Dillion's head not Josh's? How can she truly prove he did it unless she has a video? Could have been any other John that hurt her.

I can't blame him for providing proof her claims are false. Assuming he has the proof, that is. I would certainly do the same.

[BitterApple]

My knowledge of the US justice system is limited to what I watch on TV so I have to ask, if these incidents didn't happen, why would she risk suing Josh? Isn't there a risk she'll end up having to pay for Josh's legal costs if they can prove that she is lying about the whole thing?

She probably figured Boob would pay her off before it went to court.