Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[emmawoodhouse]

  On 8/22/2021 at 1:11 AM, GeeGolly said:

This is all so bizarre. I'm guessing a lot of folks watch porn, and watch it on their phone too. I wouldn't think this is something friends would talk about, or do together. It seems to me Josh asked some 'friend' to allow him to watch porn on the friend's phone to avoid getting caught. And then Josh throws the friend under the bus because he knows porn was accessed on that phone.

And... since when is watching porn anything like what Josh watched? So what if there's porn on the friend's phone. That is not illegal. 

Expand  

Also of note, the "friend's" phone wasn't tied to the investigation the day Smuggar downloaded the materials. It was Smuggar taking pictures and texting from his own phone while simultaneously downloading that garbage. 

[lascuba]

  On 8/22/2021 at 1:11 AM, GeeGolly said:

This is all so bizarre. I'm guessing a lot of folks watch porn, and watch it on their phone too. I wouldn't think this is something friends would talk about, or do together. It seems to me Josh asked some 'friend' to allow him to watch porn on the friend's phone to avoid getting caught. And then Josh throws the friend under the bus because he knows porn was accessed on that phone.

And... since when is watching porn anything like what Josh watched? So what if there's porn on the friend's phone. That is not illegal. 

Expand  

Does Josh think that the rest of the world has his family's beliefs about sex and porn? I want to say he HAS to know that if investigators find adult porn on the friend's phone it will do absolutely nothing for him, but does he really know that?

Bizarre, indeed. 

[hathorlive]

  On 8/22/2021 at 1:11 AM, GeeGolly said:

And... since when is watching porn anything like what Josh watched? So what if there's porn on the friend's phone. That is not illegal. 

Expand  

I think it's Duggar speak for "if it looks like a duck it is a duck" when in reality, when you have a son who abuses your daughters, the CP is a duck.  They are trying to distract and muddy the water by saying that another person who had access was a known porn watcher and of course that translates into CP.  Remember, Duggars view all of it as "bad" with no differentiation of legal porn and illegal porn.  The sad thing is, they are just casting a bigger shadow on Josh.

[emmawoodhouse]

It's a great big straw man. Or a shiny object being waved way over there....look here! Nothing to see over there. 

[quarks]

  On 8/22/2021 at 1:11 AM, GeeGolly said:

This is all so bizarre. I'm guessing a lot of folks watch porn, and watch it on their phone too. I wouldn't think this is something friends would talk about, or do together. It seems to me Josh asked some 'friend' to allow him to watch porn on the friend's phone to avoid getting caught. And then Josh throws the friend under the bus because he knows porn was accessed on that phone.

And... since when is watching porn anything like what Josh watched? So what if there's porn on the friend's phone. That is not illegal. 

Expand  

I don't know if Josh and Witness One did talk about this prior to Josh's arrest, though Josh signed off on making this information public now. 

To clarify:

According to the motion, federal investigators spoke to three other people who had some sort of access to the internet at the car lot - Witnesses One, Two and Three. Witness One was apparently a "person of interest." 

During the conversation, Witness One admitted to watching adult porn on his phone. 

The feds said they didn't find any CSA or other illegal activity on the phones of Witnesses One, Two and Three. These witness statements were not made public earlier. As part of discovery, however, they were provided to the defense, which quoted information from the statements in this motion, and decided to include the "look, look, Witness One watched adult porn!" bit.

Something not, strictly speaking relevant to the motion, which is specifically about what the feds did with the phones in question, not what the witnesses were doing with the phones before that.

[mythoughtis]

Witness number 1 isn’t on trial.  The jury can decide to ignore his testimony, but whatever witness 1 had on his phone doesn’t  have anything to with Josh’s guilt.  The defense can try to say that witness 1 used Josh’s computer .. but we all know the prosecution will prove Josh committed this crime. . 

i’m fairly certain I could determine a persons’ guilt on merit regardless of whether I liked their employees’  behavior.  In fact. If I didn’t like their employee,  i would wonder why the defendant hired them. 

Edited August 22, 2021 by mythoughtis

[MsJamieDornan]

  On 8/21/2021 at 7:44 PM, Absolom said:

Jim Bob has apparently hired the kind of attorney my daughter abhors.  Rather than being "gentlemanly," he's in it to wring every dime out of his clients wasting their money and opposing counsel's time on frivolous and meaningless motions that go nowhere and lack serious foundation, but make him look like he's zealously representing his clients to a certain type of client who doesn't recognize what is going on.  I could be wrong, but superficially that's how it appears. 

Expand  

Totally understand what you're saying, but is it bad of me to hope they take JB to the cleaners and charge him for everything they can think of?

[Churchhoney]

  On 8/22/2021 at 8:37 AM, MsJamieDornan said:

Totally understand what you're saying, but is it bad of me to hope they take JB to the cleaners and charge him for everything they can think of?

Expand  

I'd say it's not bad at all. 😁 

And given the nature of the Duggars, I wouldn't be surprised if they're begging the guy to try everything he can possibly think of because this is totally unfair!!!!!  Josh is being framed by Satan and somebody!!!

Plus, JB got this lawyer through his regular lawyers, to whom he seems basically joined at the hip. So in a way he did choose the lawyer.  I'm sure he wants that kind of lawyer when it comes to his tax dealings, for example. And I'm sure he thinks doing that makes him s-m-m-a-a-a-a-r-t. So it probably fits quite well with his typical approach to the law insofar as the law pertains to him. 

Edited August 22, 2021 by Churchhoney

[floridamom]

The level of Josh's defense that's needed for his charges are not cheap. Most regular people could not afford this. These lawyers would be out of most people's budget. They would need a Federal Public Defender. Josh is lucky to have Daddy Warbucks-Duggar for a dad. It has to grate on his siblings that a part of their inheritance is being used for Josh.

[zenme]

I think this would be the kind of attorney I’d want to fight for me. He must see Josh’s case as tough to win, so he’s using every kind of Bill Cosby technicality to get Josh off. 

[GeeGolly]

I'm so curious what the siblings think, especially after some time has passed. Have they heard a plausible explanation and are hoping 'innocent' Josh is found not guilty? Or do they worry about their own kids if he is found not guilty? Are they totally over all his bullshit and want him put away for a few years? Do they realize that what Josh is accused of is the lowest of low and most of the (non-Fundy) public think he's guilty?

No one wants to believe their sibling is capable of such horrific crimes, so part of me thinks they're leaning toward innocent. Also Josh will tarnish the siblings brand, at least temporarily, if he's found guilty. 

And Josh - does he realize how his bullshit affects the entire family, and does he care? I'm guessing that answer is a hard no.

[Tabbygirl521]

  On 8/22/2021 at 1:33 AM, Quilt Fairy said:

It is interesting to speculate what would happen if JB and M do give up on Josh.  How they would ret-con his entire life, beginning from the moment of conception.  (And yes, I feel icky talking about Josh's moment of conception.) 

Expand  

I think that no matter what they learn about the truth of Josh’s transgressions, they’ll continue to believe it was the work of the devil and so not really Josh’s fault. In the meantime, I’m sure they’re convinced this is all a lies and also the work of Satan via their godless enemies to bring Josh down. Honestly, I would think Satan has bigger fish to fry but whatever. They’ll pray and pray, and at some point convince themselves that Josh is cured again. 

Edited August 22, 2021 by Tabbygirl521

[MsJamieDornan]

  On 8/22/2021 at 1:17 PM, GeeGolly said:

I'm so curious what the siblings think, especially after some time has passed. Have they heard a plausible explanation and are hoping 'innocent' Josh is found not guilty?

Expand  

I think several think he is innocent. If JB thinks so, they think so.  JMO

[quarks]

  On 8/22/2021 at 1:17 PM, GeeGolly said:

And Josh - does he realize how his bullshit affects the entire family, and does he care? I'm guessing that answer is a hard no.

Expand  

As far as I can tell, Josh only cares about Josh.

[Churchhoney]

  On 8/22/2021 at 4:12 PM, quarks said:

As far as I can tell, Josh only cares about Josh.

Expand  

I didn't see the early Duggar specials until a few years ago. But since I have, I've thought that Josh was the most scarily arrogant teenage boy I've ever seen. And I taught high school for a long time. And seeing that in anybody has just never been a good sign, as far as my experience goes. Bad stuff of one kind or another tends to come along with it. 

Edited August 22, 2021 by Churchhoney

[hathorlive]

  On 8/22/2021 at 11:29 AM, Churchhoney said:

I'd say it's not bad at all. 😁 

And given the nature of the Duggars, I wouldn't be surprised if they're begging the guy to try everything he can possibly think of because this is totally unfair!!!!!  Josh is being framed by Satan and somebody!!!

Plus, JB got this lawyer through his regular lawyers, to whom he seems basically joined at the hip. So in a way he did choose the lawyer.  I'm sure he wants that kind of lawyer when it comes to his tax dealings, for example. And I'm sure he thinks doing that makes him s-m-m-a-a-a-a-r-t. So it probably fits quite well with his typical approach to the law insofar as the law pertains to him. 

Expand  

If they hire the forensic expert I think they'll hire, he's going to lose a ton of money.  The lawyers are god awful expensive but every person they hire to work on the case is costing JB thousands of dollars a day.  

I don't care how much money JB made from TLC or how much real estate he's bought over the years.   His outgoing money expenditures are super high, real estate means taxes and insurance bills, and he will probably end up paying more than 500,000 on Josh's defense team.  More if there is an appeal.  

On the bright side, Josh has always been a lazy sloth.  In prison he can sleep all day and get free room and board.  And some places have a real GED program, so he just might get a better education than the SOTDRT.  Then he can have David what's his name ghost write a book called "Incarcerated for Jesus".

Edited August 22, 2021 by hathorlive

[lookeyloo]

  On 8/22/2021 at 7:45 PM, hathorlive said:

If they hire the forensic expert I think they'll hire, he's going to lose a ton of money.  The lawyers are god awful expensive but every person they hire to work on the case is costing JB thousands of dollars a day.  

I don't care how much money JB made from TLC or how much real estate he's bought over the years.   His outgoing money expenditures are super high, real estate means taxes and insurance bills, and he will probably end up paying more than 500,000 on Josh's defense team.  More if there is an appeal.  

On the bright side, Josh has always been a lazy sloth.  In prison he can sleep all day and get free room and board.  And some places have a real GED program, so he just might get a better education than the SOTDRT.  Then he can have David what's his name ghost write a book called "Incarcerated for Jesus".

Expand  

Ha! too funny.  I don't think the prisons let folks sleep all day though.  It might be a relief to Joshie to be relatively responsibility free.

[BigBingerBro]

Even though Sex Pest was very into the real world (and dark world) by the means of the internet, can you imagine what he's going to learn in prison.  If anything, that's what Boob is most frightened of.

[JoanArc]

  On 8/22/2021 at 7:45 PM, hathorlive said:

On the bright side, Josh has always been a lazy sloth.  In prison he can sleep all day and get free room and board.  And some places have a real GED program, so he just might get a better education than the SOTDRT.  Then he can have David what's his name ghost write a book called "Incarcerated for Jesus".

 

Expand  

He has a GED. I'm here for forcing him to the mandatory therapy sessions. THAT would be a good (terrible) reality show.

I guess the lawyers didn't tell Jim Bob that adults can watch porn 24/7, and it's not illegal.

[sagittarius sue]

  On 8/22/2021 at 7:45 PM, hathorlive said:

On the bright side, Josh has always been a lazy sloth.  In prison he can sleep all day and get free room and board. 

Expand  

Don't prisoners often have some menial job they have to perform.  Imagine Josh having to clean toilets!  The thought gladdens my heart.  

[hathorlive]

  On 8/22/2021 at 11:44 PM, sagittarius sue said:

Don't prisoners often have some menial job they have to perform.  Imagine Josh having to clean toilets!  The thought gladdens my heart.  

Expand  

But that's not his jurisdiction.  That's women's work.  I would LOVE to see this.

[JoanArc]

  On 8/22/2021 at 11:46 PM, hathorlive said:

But that's not his jurisdiction.  That's women's work.  I would LOVE to see this.

Expand  

PRISON LAUNDRY

[Westiepeach]

  On 8/23/2021 at 12:59 AM, JoanArc said:

PRISON LAUNDRY

Expand  

Oof!

[Absolom]

  On 8/22/2021 at 12:09 PM, zenme said:

I think this would be the kind of attorney I’d want to fight for me. He must see Josh’s case as tough to win, so he’s using every kind of Bill Cosby technicality to get Josh off. 

Expand  

It's more the legal equivalent of buying a used car from Josh.  That doesn't surprise me since that's the kind of person Jim Bob would be comfortable hiring.  Using a technicality is one thing.  Using motions that he knows have a less than .01% chance of working is bilking the client.   Bill Cosby had a "1/1000" type case.  Josh is a garden variety case. 

ETA:  I could have phrased this much better at the time.  I still believe the lawyer is more of the JB mindset than I am and probably not who I would be comfortable hiring.  But he is a fit with JB and based on that I shouldn't have used the word bilking.  He's cooperative with JB in chasing the teeniest chance of helping Josh try to get an acquitted.  That is his job if that's what the client wants just as it's also his job to explain the likelihood of success and the cost.  He could be telling JB they are throwing money down the drain for all I know.  I doubt it, but he could.

Edited August 23, 2021 by Absolom

[Scarlett45]

  On 8/22/2021 at 11:44 PM, sagittarius sue said:

Don't prisoners often have some menial job they have to perform.  Imagine Josh having to clean toilets!  The thought gladdens my heart.  

Expand  

Often those positions in prisons are HIGHLY sought after. Having a job gives inmates a sense of purpose and a way to occupy their mind. Prisoners with work detail are usually the ones with the best behavior. Jobs only open up when someone is released or passes away because it's a privilege to be able to work.

If Josh is convicted and goes to prison, he will be a prisoner that wants to sleep and watch tv all day. I doubt he would do what he needed to do to be able to get work detail.

[Tikichick]

Process and procedure are quite often the primary focus of legal skirmishes, NOT facts and evidence.  This is even more true in the appellate phases.   That's precisely how Cosby was freed.   

When a defense attorney cannot overcome factual evidence the only option is to pull out all stops to either attack the process in the hopes of precluding the evidence from coming in altogether, or find another means to attack the technicalities of the entire procedure of a case as a whole, either pretrial, during trial -- or in worst case scenario post conviction.  A defense attorney has a lot of road to cover before coming anywhere close to violating any rules or laws by zealously advocating on behalf of their client by the filing of a stream of motions, no matter how frivolous or nonsensical they seem from the perspective of common sense logic.   Judges may even get ticked off, grumble, complain and threaten, but generally they put up with it in order not to open any space for appeal or reversal on some kind of technicality from a reviewing court simply on the basis of some type of ruling regarding an attorney's actions in the attempt to mount a strong defense.    Appeals can be granted on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel if a showing is made that a defense attorney did not thoroughly present all options to the client or did not elect to take various potential actions in an effort to advocate for their client.

[Minivanessa]

Thanks for that, @Tikichick.  It's been interesting to see people reacting to this unusual public tracking of what appears to be a fairly routine federal criminal case. I don't think Josh's lawyers are buffoons or incompetent. They are advocating aggressively for their client by filing those motions, and your post does a good job of explaining why. (IMO it's a long reach to argue that because certain federal agency officials weren't properly appointed, the charges in this case are invalid. But OTOH if the facts they cite about those officials' status are facts and not made-up fantasies, I don't see that the lawyers would be sanctioned for making arguments based on the facts in their motions.)

Ages ago I was a public defender in state court and have seen how especially in serious felony cases, defense lawyers throw everything they can at the case. As you said, the courts are careful not to create grounds for reversal on appeal. It's better in the long run to give legal counsel plenty of room to make arguments, no matter how weak, than to shut them down. The wiser course for the court is usually to just deny the motions if they aren't well-founded, and keep the case moving. 

And, as an aside, I'm. not saying that unless a criminal defense lawyer files every imaginable kind of motion in a case s/he is incompetent. In many many cases, the evidence against the defendant is solid and after the lawyer and client have reviewed it, the case is resolved by a plea agreement of some kind. There's nothing wrong with that. But it's also the defendant's right to contest the charges, and at this time that's what Josh's lawyers are doing. This could still end up with a plea deal, we just don't know.

BTW, the aggressive motions by the defense lawyers in his case do demonstrate to Josh and JB (we assume - I think rightly - that JB's paying the bills) that they are working hard to defend Josh. And also can help create a case record that if Josh goes to trial and is convicted, and appeals, might as noted contain a few rulings that can be argued as a basis for reversal of the conviction. (BTW,  a reversal of a conviction on appeal is rarely an outright acquittal. It just means the case goes back for a new trial. Just saying.)

Edited August 23, 2021 by Jeeves

[Absolom]

  On 8/23/2021 at 3:32 PM, Jeeves said:

And, as an aside, I'm. not saying that unless a criminal defense lawyer files every imaginable kind of motion in a case s/he is incompetent. In many many cases, the evidence against the defendant is solid and after the lawyer and client have reviewed it, the case is resolved by a plea agreement of some kind. There's nothing wrong with that. But it's also the defendant's right to contest the charges, and at this time that's what Josh's lawyers are doing. This could still end up with a plea deal, we just don't know.

Expand  

I need to be clear that I wasn't suggesting that Josh's lawyer should be sanctioned for what they are doing.  They are trying everything they can find to try.  That's what Jim Bob is so far willing to pay them to do.   As long as the lawyer explains the odds of success vs the cost to the client and it's the client's informed decision to go for it, it is their legal right.  

To the quote, yes, it should be a cooperative venture of what to push on and how long and also whether a plea is the best option.  I agree it looks like JB is paying the bills and so far isn't willing to publicly admit Josh is guilty.  Whether that will change, who knows?

On a personal note, I find it rather sad for Jim Bob to be throwing so much money on Josh's defense when 1) it seems very likely he's guilty and 2) there are 18 other children who are likely watching a great waste of money and wondering if they would ever be that valuable to JB.  Even if JB and the lawyer can keep Josh out of prison, it isn't a real win because Josh would still be a very messed up puppy and JB isn't going to do anything useful about it or try to coerce Josh into doing something useful about it, IMO.

[Minivanessa]

  On 8/23/2021 at 4:08 PM, Absolom said:

I need to be clear that I wasn't suggesting that Josh's lawyer should be sanctioned for what they are doing.  They are trying everything they can find to try.  That's what Jim Bob is so far willing to pay them to do.   As long as the lawyer explains the odds of success vs the cost to the client and it's the client's informed decision to go for it, it is their legal right.  

Expand  

Oh gosh, I didn't think you were suggesting that. I apologize if what I wrote seemed like that. 

And, good points about case management being so dependent on the client and lawyer working together. Each case has its own issues, even if it's not a particularly unusual one. I can see how given the nature of these charges, if a defendant has the resources to challenge the evidence, they would do that. 

[Absolom]

  On 8/23/2021 at 4:13 PM, Jeeves said:

Oh gosh, I didn't think you were suggesting that. I apologize if what I wrote seemed like that. 

Expand  

No, I didn't take it that way.  It was more I was concerned that some readers might think I thought that.  Sometimes things get misconstrued.  

[Churchhoney]

I'm sure JB's kinda-messed-up-to-begin-with-ego-probably is heavily involved in all his thinking and decision-making about Josh and his case. 

Josh was the golden beginning of the heavenly ride JB thought he was getting as the big Arkansas patriarch whom Jesus loves better than anybody. 

It'd be nice to think that in the intervening 30-plus years he's absorbed some facts and matured and isn't still delusional about all that. But based on the way he's always presented himself in the venues I can observe -- and based on the presentations of the most-devoted-to-Daddy-Duggarlings -- I doubt it.

I'd be surprised if JB has many rational thoughts at all when it comes to this situation. I expect he's just flailing in horror as he sees the flames consume his precious persona. And Meechelle, in a probably more drugged up than usual state, is right there with him. 

And I'd bet there's no one in the world that's ever been allowed to speak truthfully to either JB or M about anything of real consequence. Not anybody in the family or out of it. They've got Jesus's blessing and that's the end of it. My bet is they accept nothing but sycophancy from mere humans. So rational thought coming from somebody else isn't there to save them. 

(For the sake of all their many dependents and semi-dependents, I hope I'm wrong about this.)

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by Churchhoney

[JoanArc]

  On 8/23/2021 at 4:41 PM, Churchhoney said:

I'd be surprised if JB has many rational thoughts at all when it comes to this situation. I expect he's just flailing in horror as he sees the flames consume his precious persona. And Meechelle, in a probably more drugged up than usual state, is right there with him. 

Expand  

 I’m sure the laws of fame and public exposure of the rotten people we always knew they were was a real kick in the teeth.  Much more so than they let on. 

 

  On 8/23/2021 at 4:41 PM, Churchhoney said:

And I'd bet there's no one in the world that's ever been allowed to speak truthfully to either JB or M about anything of real consequence.

Expand  

 I will totally agree with this. I think they learned long ago to reject anyone and anything that does not kiss their mutual asses. I really love the tragedy of them coming from nothing, doubling down on their religious beliefs and breeding, self promotion, and stilted presentation. It got them so far. Fame, money, prestige in their little circle, freedom from crappy jobs. 

Imagine if they were moral, ethical people who actually believed an honest hard work, trying to advance kindness, charity, And just being all around good force in the world.  But no, they had to reach the zenith and now they will be in freefall for the rest of their lives. 

I do wish there was a camera on Michelle’s face the first time someone told her as an adult ‘no,you can’t do that’.   I doubt she can really process what that means. 

[Albanyguy]

  On 8/23/2021 at 4:41 PM, Churchhoney said:

I'm sure JB's kinda-messed-up-to-begin-with-ego-probably is heavily involved in all his thinking and decision-making about Josh and his case. 

Expand  

Jim Bob is footing the bills and calling the shots, while the lawyers are advising him about all the angles they can pursue and taking their directions from him. Meanwhile, Josh, the one whose fate is on the line, is probably being ignored and treated like a wayward child.

[BigBingerBro]

Josh Duggar Denied Having Addiction Issues To Probation Officer Despite Previously Admitting Problem With Porn In 2015

[JoanArc]

  On 8/23/2021 at 8:47 PM, BigBingerBro said:

Josh Duggar Denied Having Addiction Issues To Probation Officer Despite Previously Admitting Problem With Porn In 2015

Expand  

Porn addiction is not a recognized mental illness. It is one of those areas where an illness gets made up and then everybody pretends it is legit. Pretty hard to qualify too. Plus, addiction is not an acceptable defense. Alcoholics still go to jail when they drive drunk, etc. Plus, in their World, anyone who has ever looked at pornography is an addict. 

That said, didn’t he admit it, and then immediately delete it from the Internet. It was the one time I think he was being honest and Jim Bob quickly covered it up for PR sake.

[GeeGolly]

I caught the tail end of a crime story. It was a confession by a 19 year old. He had raped and murdered 12(?) year old. The FBI had raided his devices for suspected CSA a few days before he committed this crime. In his non-emotional confession, he stated that his dad told him his life was basically over because of the raid. The scum told the cops he had nothing to lose and figured he fill his urge to have sex with a virgin.

Folks like Josh are dangerous, even after they're caught. He should not be out on bail.

Edited August 23, 2021 by GeeGolly

[Churchhoney]

  On 8/23/2021 at 8:47 PM, BigBingerBro said:

Josh Duggar Denied Having Addiction Issues To Probation Officer Despite Previously Admitting Problem With Porn In 2015

Expand  

In my opinion, "porn addiction" is a piece of fundie mythology invented to get the patriarchs and the patriarchs-in-training off the hook....while slyly blaming those bad bad women who participate in or inspire it...

And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who suspects this!  That SBC??? guy who committed the mass murder at the massage business last year (??) was a fundie claiming "porn addiction made me do it"!

I mean, once you've admitted you're a poor addict, your wife has to totes forgive you, right? And admit that nothing you do because of it is ever ever your fault? 

Convenient, I'd say! 😁

[JoanArc]

  On 8/23/2021 at 10:09 PM, Churchhoney said:

In my opinion, "porn addiction" is a piece of fundie mythology invented to get the patriarchs and the patriarchs-in-training off the hook....while slyly blaming those bad bad women who participate in or inspire it...

And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who suspects this!  That SBC??? guy who committed the mass murder at the massage business last year (??) was a fundie claiming "porn addiction made me do it"!

I mean, once you've admitted you're a poor addict, your wife has to totes forgive you, right? And admit that nothing you do because of it is ever ever your fault? 

Convenient, I'd say! 😁

Expand  

 Exactly. They say drug use and alcoholism is a moral failing. But when it’s sex, can you blame the guy?  She’s dressed like a slut! 

[BigBingerBro]

Josh Duggar Points the Finger at a New Suspect in Child Pornography Case

[quarks]

  On 8/24/2021 at 12:14 AM, BigBingerBro said:

Josh Duggar Points the Finger at a New Suspect in Child Pornography Case

Expand  

Sigh.

On the one hand, thank you for proving my point for me, CafeMom - that Josh's attorneys are trying to throw suspicion on Witness One, and Jim Bob is going along with it.

On the other hand, that article leaves out one key fact that Josh's attorneys included in the motion: the feds said that they did look at Witness 1's phone and did not find any CSA on it. That, in fact, was the entire legal reason for the motion - what the feds did with the phones during the investigation, which is relevant to the motion, not what any of the witnesses did with the phones, which is not relevant to the motion. 

But by slipping in that "see, Witness 1 watched adult porn," and emphasizing that Witness 1 was a "person of interest," Josh's attorneys have successfully managed to get the word out there that hey, someone else could have downloaded the CSA. I guess we'll see if other media outlets run with this greatly edited version of events. 

[Lady Jane]

  On 8/23/2021 at 7:41 PM, Albanyguy said:

Jim Bob is footing the bills and calling the shots, while the lawyers are advising him about all the angles they can pursue and taking their directions from him. Meanwhile, Josh, the one whose fate is on the line, is probably being ignored and treated like a wayward child.

Expand  

I just want to note that even if JB is paying the bills, that does not change attorney-client confidentiality. He may tell the lawyers what he wants them to do, but their only ethical obligations are to the court and to Josh. They cannot discuss THEIR impressions or strategy with JB. 

[GeeGolly]

  On 8/24/2021 at 9:35 PM, Lady Jane said:

I just want to note that even if JB is paying the bills, that does not change attorney-client confidentiality. He may tell the lawyers what he wants them to do, but their only ethical obligations are to the court and to Josh. They cannot discuss THEIR impressions or strategy with JB. 

Expand  

Even if Josh gives them permission?

[ginger90]

  On 8/24/2021 at 9:37 PM, GeeGolly said:

Even if Josh gives them permission?

Expand  

I’m thinking it’s not a good idea. Discussions covered under confidentiality would go out the window if someone else was included, I would think. Then, that person could be called as a witness, and questioned about a meeting.

 

*Not an attorney, never a defendant. 😁

[Lady Jane]

  On 8/24/2021 at 9:37 PM, GeeGolly said:

Even if Josh gives them permission?

Expand  

 

  On 8/24/2021 at 9:52 PM, ginger90 said:

I’m thinking it’s not a good idea. Discussions covered under confidentiality would go out the window if someone else was included, I would think. Then, that person could be called as a witness, and questioned about a meeting.

 

*Not an attorney, never a defendant. 😁

Expand  

Well, Josh could give them "permission" but that would remove the attorney-client protection. If you disclose confidential information covered by attorney-client privilege, the disclosure to ANY third party (including your parents, spouse, children, ANYONE) invalidates the privilege for that information. 

I have beat the rules of confidentiality into innumerable clients, only to have them go home and tell their dad/mom/spouse/dog-walker about the confidential information in their case. That makes whatever they told these third parties no longer covered by the attorney-client privilege, and fully discoverable by the other side.

So yes, Josh and JB are dumb enough to ignore this.

[Chicklet]

Josh Duggar's lawyers demand the charges be dropped for...reasons. Ok sure. 

Whoops lost the link somewhere, darn.

Edited August 24, 2021 by Chicklet

[BigBingerBro]

Josh Duggar attorneys file motion to dismiss his child pornography case

[GeeGolly]

  On 8/24/2021 at 10:21 PM, Lady Jane said:

 

Well, Josh could give them "permission" but that would remove the attorney-client protection. If you disclose confidential information covered by attorney-client privilege, the disclosure to ANY third party (including your parents, spouse, children, ANYONE) invalidates the privilege for that information. 

I have beat the rules of confidentiality into innumerable clients, only to have them go home and tell their dad/mom/spouse/dog-walker about the confidential information in their case. That makes whatever they told these third parties no longer covered by the attorney-client privilege, and fully discoverable by the other side.

So yes, Josh and JB are dumb enough to ignore this.

Expand  

I always thought attorney-client privilege meant attorneys were bound by law not to reveal anything their client said to them. So if Josh said something to his attorney with JB in the room, they would still be bound to keep what Josh says confidential. However if JB said something they would not be bound to keep that private. 

[Churchhoney]

  On 8/24/2021 at 11:37 PM, GeeGolly said:

I always thought attorney-client privilege meant attorneys were bound by law not to reveal anything their client said to them. So if Josh said something to his attorney with JB in the room, they would still be bound to keep what Josh says confidential. However if JB said something they would not be bound to keep that private. 

Expand  

I think how it works is that if JB (or anybody else) is in the room, then Josh can no longer expect what he says to the lawyer to be a private communication. And if it's not a private communication between Josh and the lawyer then the privilege doesn't exist for it. 

If you, the client, say the thing with the expectation that the lawyer will and will be able to keep the thing private, then it falls under the privilege. But if you communicate the thing in any circumstance where you can't really expect that )because other parties overheard it)....then, no. It's open to discovery because you, the client, didn't treat it like something privileged.

It doesn't matter that the person is Josh's bestest Daddy whom he totally trusts. The lawyer only has to keep things private that are communicated to them by the client (and only the client) privately. 

Something like that, anyway. ... I mean, the client is supposed to be the person working with the attorney on their own case. .... Here, of course, you've got a Mama's and Daddy's boy who doesn't have any idea what it means to take responsibility for his own life...So....he's likely not to get that "you talk to your lawyer yourself" thing. 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by Churchhoney

[quarks]

 

  On 8/24/2021 at 10:44 PM, Chicklet said:

Josh Duggar's lawyers demand the charges be dropped for...reasons. Ok sure. 

Whoops lost the link somewhere, darn.

Expand  

 

Basically just the news catching up to the two motions to dismiss filed last week. The first one seems like a pretty standard defense for me - they are claiming that the prosecution screwed up handling the evidence from the cell phones of other employees at the car lot - and then using that claim to slide in AND BY THE WAY, DID YOU KNOW THAT ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES WATCHED ADULT PORN? YES! I KNOW! HOW SHOCKING! AND TWO OTHER EMPLOYEES WERE QUESTIONED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND READ THEIR MIRANDA RIGHTS, in an attempt to strongly imply that one or all of these three employees, not Josh, downloaded the CSA. Which may not help Josh in federal court, but is already getting used to try to help him in the court of public opinion.

I don't know if this motion is going to hold up in federal court, largely because the prosecution is claiming that there wasn't any evidence on those cell phones to screw up handling, but the Duggars already appear to be using it in public opinion court.

The second motion is the interesting concept that the entire case has to be thrown out because the people in charge of Homeland Security, the department responsible for handling the investigation, were not exactly legally in charge of Homeland Security at the time. 

They are correct about the legal status of the HSA officials involved. But. I'm not sure a judge is going to go for this. Not just because it could probably lead to throwing out a number of convictions/investigations, with all the attendant problems there, but also because it would open up one huge loophole for the executive branch. Don't like a particular law that Congress passed? Fine! Then just make sure that all of the Cabinet secretaries charged with enforcing that law are appointed illegally and without filling out the proper paperwork!

And I'm also fairly sure that the investigators in question were and are required to enforce existing law - that is, carrying out the will of Congress - regardless of the exact legal status of any of the Cabinet secretaries.  And - perhaps most importantly - yes, the investigation was started under the past administration, BUT, the indictments were made by the current administration. 

But I'm not an attorney. I could very well be misunderstanding the specific law here, or missing some important nuance.

[SMama]

I’m amused by how people perceive JB as influential to the highest degree. JB is a country bumpkin who stumbled upon an established real estate business, and lucked out to win a seat at the state House of Representatives. There he made an ass out of himself by bringing future pedophile, golden, first born, waste of oxygen son to all meetings.

While his children survived on donated food and clothing, plus Walmart $1 flip flops for the girls, and his wife was begging for a new washer, he spent $250,000 on an impossible bid to win a US senate seat.

JB’s only claim to fame is siring 19 children. He has a massive ego but is a simpleton who can’t grasp complicated concepts. JB only calls the shots when it becomes to the 18 children he has kept under his thumb, and some of their spouses.  As much as we snark on him Derick was able to outsmart the so called savvy businessman and mover and shaker. I’m glad Jill got some compensation for the years of slave labor that put money in her parents’ pockets. The 18 are beyond screwed because of all the money that will be spent on pedophile’s criminal defense, then supporting his wife and kids when pedo goes to prison.