Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[hathorlive]

22 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Saw the court docs from the Feds. They're asking for proof of alibis: names, addresses, phone numbers of anyone Smuggar wants to bring forward. He has 14 days to produce this evidence, which goes past his date to cop a plea.

The Sun must have had access to the court docs. They got that part right 

Right.  The prosecutors are either sending him a message or feel he is totally going with a fake alibi.  I know JB and Anna would lie for him, but a prosecutor would turn Anna around so fast, she'd likely implicate him.  She would be a gift for the prosecution.  As for any sibling stupid enough to lie for them, they are going to get Josh's bank records and the alibi's records and put together a timeline of who was where when..  then they are going to disect  their social media and overlay that on the time lines.  They will catch you in a lie. None of you are clever enough to out think them.

As for supervised released, it's not going to happen.  It rarely happens for a CP case and it sure as heck won't happen in a CP case where the suspect publicly admitted to molesting 5 victims.

Edited October 7, 2021 by hathorlive

[Quilt Fairy]

I have to admit, I found this motion interesting.  I always thought that Discovery went one way, from Prosecution to the Defense, and that the Defense was allowed to throw in any old Hail Mary they could without advance notice. 

[awaken]

2 hours ago, SMama said:

Even more egregious, he knew it would be on TV. Volderjosh is a reprehensible creature. 

And, TLC included it in the edit and showed it! Just as bad IMO. 

[Quilt Fairy]

A poster on the DuggarsSnark subreddit has listed a dropbox link for the official court transcript from Josh's May 5 bond hearing.  It was quite a revelation after previously only being able to read summaries from others of what they thought was being testified to at the hearing.  

Josh is toast. 

[ozziemom]

As much as the Duggars sometimes called the TLC film crew family, there was a lot in the episodes that seemed like TLC was poking fun at the Duggars. And not in a cute, naive way, but aren’t the Duggars ridiculous.

[3 is enough]

12 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

A poster on the DuggarsSnark subreddit has listed a dropbox link for the official court transcript from Josh's May 5 bond hearing.  It was quite a revelation after previously only being able to read summaries from others of what they thought was being testified to at the hearing.  

Josh is toast. 

Can you give us a brief summary please, if that is possible?

[Nysha]

19 hours ago, hathorlive said:

Right.  The prosecutors are either sending him a message or feel he is totally going with a fake alibi.  I know JB and Anna would lie for him, but a prosecutor would turn Anna around so fast, she'd likely implicate him.  She would be a gift for the prosecution.  As for any sibling stupid enough to lie for them, they are going to get Josh's bank records and the alibi's records and put together a timeline of who was where when..  then they are going to disect  their social media and overlay that on the time lines.  They will catch you in a lie. None of you are clever enough to out think them.

Not only are they too stupid to lie in court, none of them can act their way out of a wet paper bag. 

16 hours ago, awaken said:

And, TLC included it in the edit and showed it! Just as bad IMO. 

I think TLC despise JB, Michelle, and Sex Pest. All of them were constantly shown as a$$holes on the show. And while showing the OB/GYN clip wasn't very nice to Anna, it definitely showed Pest's true character.

[CandyCaneTree]

I think that we should change the name of the fourm to Smuggar counting on a long jail sentence. 

[Quilt Fairy]

3 hours ago, 3 is enough said:

Can you give us a brief summary please, if that is possible?

I don't want to reinvent the wheel, or plagiarize other people's work.  If you look at the reddit post with the link (the reddit mods have pinned it to the top of the DuggarsSnark subreddit) and read the comments, there is a post by a redditor named hell_yaw.   It is a summary that aligns times and info from all of Josh's devices (HP desktop, iPhone, macBook) as well as the original ICAC police officer who intercepted the downloads.

Very briefly, they can show that on May 13, 2019, he created the Linux partition on the HP and downloaded the TOR browser (allowing him to access the dark web).  Then on each of the following 3 days they list a mix of texts and computer activity that show that Josh was alternately (sometimes from one minute to the next) actively placing himself at the car lot while downloading/viewing CSAM. 

@hathorlive, I think you're on top of this, did I get any of that wrong? 

 

[3 is enough]

50 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Very briefly, they can show that on May 13, 2019, he created the Linux partition on the HP and downloaded the TOR browser (allowing him to access the dark web).  Then on each of the following 3 days they list a mix of texts and computer activity that show that Josh was alternately (sometimes from one minute to the next) actively placing himself at the car lot while downloading/viewing CSAM. 

 

Thank you!  I just wanted a brief summary without all of the awful details.

[hathorlive]

1 hour ago, Quilt Fairy said:

@hathorlive, I think you're on top of this, did I get any of that wrong? 

I've been reading it around work spurts all day.  I'm only on page 22.  But so far, this is text book digital investigations 101.  I see nothing, including the Internet provider giving them the wrong address, wrong with anything they've done.   I'll reply after I read more.

[On the Bias]

22 hours ago, hathorlive said:

As for supervised released, it's not going to happen.  It rarely happens for a CP case and it sure as heck won't happen in a CP case where the suspect publicly admitted to molesting 5 victims.

Perhaps you’re drawing on your experience in state court?  In federal court, supervised release is a mandatory part of sentencing and has been since the Sentencing Reform Act (1987).   It’s the portion of a person’s sentence that begins after he’s released from custody.   It’s imposed in CP cases just as it is in other felony cases; in fact, in the district in which I practiced, judges tended to impose unusually long supervised release terms in CP cases.  

Edited October 7, 2021 by On the Bias
had another thought

[Quilt Fairy]

40 minutes ago, 3 is enough said:

Thank you!  I just wanted a brief summary without all of the awful details.

No problem.   For some reason, even though I find the details horrific (as would most people with a soul), they don't trigger me.  But be assured, you can read the comments without reading the transcript (it's a link), and there are no descriptions in the comments at all.

 

20 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

But so far, this is text book digital investigations 101.

That's my amateur impression as well.  I can't believe Josh hasn't taken a plea.  

[JoanArc]

Quote

especially the one who was viewing adult pornography.

Whichever one Jim Bob ordered to say that.

[hathorlive]

28 minutes ago, On the Bias said:

Perhaps you’re drawing on your experience in state court?  In federal court, supervised release is a mandatory part of sentencing and has been since the Sentencing Reform Act (1987).   It’s the portion of a person’s sentence that begins after he’s released from custody.   It’s imposed in CP cases just as it is in other felony cases; in fact, in the district in which I practiced, judges tended to impose unusually long supervised release terms in CP cases.  

Sorry, I was thinking about early release, not after a sentence is up.  My  mistake!  This is what happens when you sleep deprivation type.

[Zella]

15 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

But be assured, you can read the comments without reading the transcript (it's a link), and there are no descriptions in the comments at all.

Yeah I've not read that specific thread, but that particular subreddit has cracked down pretty hard on the graphic details in the comments, so I've found it a pretty safe place in general to seek info when people are posting updates on the case. 

[On the Bias]

1 minute ago, hathorlive said:

Sorry, I was thinking about early release, not after a sentence is up.  My  mistake!  This is what happens when you sleep deprivation type.

No sweat!  We’re good. 

[quarks]

40 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

That's my amateur impression as well.  I can't believe Josh hasn't taken a plea.  

I can. He seems the sort that doesn't just take major risks, but enjoys taking major risks, no matter what the effect on others. And the sort who craves excitement, which - well, I don't think this particular trial will be anything like a movie/TV trial, but it should be at least slightly more interesting than his usual existence/life, especially these last few months with the Rebers. And the sort who craves and needs vindication. 

So yeah, given the safe option of a plea and the extremely risky option of a trial, I can absolutely see him going to trial.  

I still think he should take a plea. 

[hathorlive]

1 hour ago, quarks said:

I can. He seems the sort that doesn't just take major risks, but enjoys taking major risks, no matter what the effect on others. And the sort who craves excitement, which - well, I don't think this particular trial will be anything like a movie/TV trial, but it should be at least slightly more interesting than his usual existence/life, especially these last few months with the Rebers. And the sort who craves and needs vindication. 

So yeah, given the safe option of a plea and the extremely risky option of a trial, I can absolutely see him going to trial.  

I still think he should take a plea. 

The thing that fries my fritters is that  (in my court cases) not a single person who has turned down a plea deal and gone to court and was found guilty got substantial more time.  In state court, they got pretty much the same sentence.  In federal court they maybe a few years added to the plea deal.  I really hope all the vloggers who know he's going to get 30 years are right and they throw the book at him.  I've just never walked out of court and thought "book thrown".  More like "I put on pantyhose for this?"

 

[emmawoodhouse]

Katie Joy (Without a Crystal Ball) is still saying he could get 40 years. She's going to be really disappointed when he gets closer to 10. 

[MsJamieDornan]

40 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Katie Joy (Without a Crystal Ball) is still saying he could get 40 years. She's going to be really disappointed when he gets closer to 10. 

She seems to exagerate a lot of info. She doesnt base her videos on real facts.

[Quilt Fairy]

I got pulled down a rabbit hole with this today.  I've been reading a government report about sentencing guidelines in CSAM cases.  According to it, a lot of the enhancements that add to the severity of the sentence (use of computer, number of images, age of victims, etc.) were written to get the very worst offenders but are currently so common that it's....  unfair, I guess?  Doesn't separate the disgusting from the really disgusting?  Truly, I don't know where they're going with that line of reasoning.  The fact that a vile thing is common doesn't make it less vile.  I just hope Josh's judge agrees with me. 

Edited October 8, 2021 by Quilt Fairy

[Churchhoney]

8 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

I got pulled down a rabbit hole with this today.  I've been reading a government report about sentencing guidelines in CSAM cases.  According to it, a lot of the enhancements that add to the severity of the sentence (use of computer, number of images, age of victims, etc.) were written to get the very worst offenders but are currently so common that it's....  unfair, I guess?  Doesn't separate the disgusting from the really disgusting?  Truly, I don't know where they're going with that line of reasoning.  The fact that a vile thing is common doesn't make it less vile.  I just hope Josh's judge agrees with me. 

In the district they're in, all the sentences I've seen for the charges Josh faces have run from about 5 and a half years to about 11, with most being between about 6 and 8. ....

One thing that suggests Josh will go nearer the low end is that he has zero convictions of any kind for anything. Your prior record of convictions for any and all kinds of illegal activity, not just sex crimes, seems to matter a lot in the sentencing. And Josh has no prior convictions for any behavior. 

Edited October 8, 2021 by Churchhoney

[hathorlive]

9 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Katie Joy (Without a Crystal Ball) is still saying he could get 40 years. She's going to be really disappointed when he gets closer to 10. 

I don't mind WACB but jez...try to understand what the sentence will be.  She keeps saying that the heinous nature of the videos will get extra time.  I've NEVER seen this.  I've had videos just as bad as DD.  I've had younger kids.  I have had EVERY enhancer known to the justice system, I've had 25X more images and videos than JD.  And I've never gotten more than 13 years, except for my sexual abuse, production and distribution case.  25 years is more than most people get for abusing and producing CP.  It's NOT going to happen. I would love for him to be buried under the prison but it's not going to happen.  The ONLY mitigating factor I can't resolve in this case is the abuse of his sisters.  I'm not sure if you can take that into consideration without charges, but he admitted to the abuse.  That MIGHT get him a few more years, especially in light of the age of the youngest victim. 

[hathorlive]

8 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

I got pulled down a rabbit hole with this today.  I've been reading a government report about sentencing guidelines in CSAM cases.  According to it, a lot of the enhancements that add to the severity of the sentence (use of computer, number of images, age of victims, etc.) were written to get the very worst offenders but are currently so common that it's....  unfair, I guess?  Doesn't separate the disgusting from the really disgusting?  Truly, I don't know where they're going with that line of reasoning.  The fact that a vile thing is common doesn't make it less vile.  I just hope Josh's judge agrees with me. 

The last sentencing hearing I testified at, the Federal judge said that he wasn't considering enhancements because "they were deciding the fate of those and let's not muddy the water".  Literally.  The same judge refused to watch the videos I put in a folder called "the worst" because he "has seen them all before".  I'm glad he's seen them all because I've been doing this over 17 years and I'd never seen half of these. 

[quarks]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

In the district they're in, all the sentences I've seen for the charges Josh faces have run from about 5 and a half years to about 11, with most being between about 6 and 8. ....

One thing that suggests Josh will go nearer the low end is that he has zero convictions of any kind for anything. Your prior record of convictions for any and all kinds of illegal activity, not just sex crimes, seems to matter a lot in the sentencing. And Josh has no prior convictions for any behavior. 

And his attorneys presumably know this.

And it's exactly why not taking a plea - and saving the next hefty lump of attorney's fees - is such a bad idea. Josh is 33. In 5 to 11 years, he'll be 38 to 45, with several minor children. He has a limited education, no job skills, and will have a felony record - a felony record that may restrict where he can live and work.  He should be hanging on to as many assets/cash as he can.

But he's always seemed more focused on immediate gratification.

[GeeGolly]

When is Josh's plea deadline? Maybe this will all be over in a matter of days.

[Ohiopirate02]

6 minutes ago, quarks said:

And his attorneys presumably know this.

And it's exactly why not taking a plea - and saving the next hefty lump of attorney's fees - is such a bad idea. Josh is 33. In 5 to 11 years, he'll be 38 to 45, with several minor children. He has a limited education, no job skills, and will have a felony record - a felony record that may restrict where he can live and work.  He should be hanging on to as many assets/cash as he can.

But he's always seemed more focused on immediate gratification.

One of the many areas where JB and Michelle have utterly failed their offspring is financial planning.  None of them have ever had to work to support themselves.  Josh is not thinking about how he will support his family in the future because Daddy has always done it.  

[Churchhoney]

8 minutes ago, quarks said:

 

But he's always seemed more focused on immediate gratification.

Unfortunately so.

And if he holds out for trial it'll also show another even worse characteristic, I think -- no concern at all for consequences that affect other people, even his own children.

Even some super self-indulgent, impulsive people who don't give a fig about strangers will think twice about a decision that could have serious negative effects on their own DNA carriers  --And I'm pretty sure having this go to trial could hurt his family in multiple ways, including through the media attention it'll get.  

3 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

When is Josh's plea deadline? Maybe this will all be over in a matter of days.

I think I heard it was Oct. 18th. Here's hoping that ends it. 

[GeeGolly]

Okay, Anna's gonna need to bite the bullet and deliver in a hospital. She needs to get induced in the next couple of days. Spend some 'quality' time with Josh and Magnolia and then prepare to say goodbye to Josh when they give him his date to start his prison sentence, as agreed upon in the plea.

Lets get the dude in jail. Enjoy all the hoopla that follows and then forget he exists for the next 5+ years.

[hathorlive]

40 minutes ago, quarks said:

And his attorneys presumably know this.

And it's exactly why not taking a plea - and saving the next hefty lump of attorney's fees - is such a bad idea. Josh is 33. In 5 to 11 years, he'll be 38 to 45, with several minor children. He has a limited education, no job skills, and will have a felony record - a felony record that may restrict where he can live and work.  He should be hanging on to as many assets/cash as he can.

But he's always seemed more focused on immediate gratification.

The attorneys are good enough to know they have to be honest, even if they want to fatten their pay day.  I think what is working here is that Josh literally believes he is god's chosen one.  That all these issues (molesting his sisters, his porn addiction, these charges) are god's way of testing him.  And he just has to stand firm in the face of evil because God will reward him. I think he's that delusional.  He's never once faced consequences for his actions and you can be damn sure he's not going to admit to something as heinous as CP.  I think he would rather risk being found guilty than take a plea.  A plea deal is an admission of guilt.  A guilty verdict by a jury is him being crucified for loving Jesus.

[farmgal4]

13 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Katie Joy (Without a Crystal Ball) is still saying he could get 40 years. She's going to be really disappointed when he gets closer to 10. 

Katie Joy needs to worry about her own lawsuits.

[CandyCaneTree]

He's never going to pled. He never got in trouble for what he did in the past so his way of thinking is he won't get in trouble with this bump in the road and will come out a free man.

[Westiepeach]

8 minutes ago, CandyCaneTree said:

He's never going to pled. He never got in trouble for what he did in the past so his way of thinking is he won't get in trouble with this bump in the road and will come out a free man.

Then he shall be extremely disappointed. When those big strong bars slam shut behind him, reality is going to hit him in the ass.

[GeeGolly]

9 minutes ago, CandyCaneTree said:

He's never going to pled. He never got in trouble for what he did in the past so his way of thinking is he won't get in trouble with this bump in the road and will come out a free man.

I'm curious. What does "getting in trouble" look like? How different would Josh's punishment been if they contacted the authorities from the get go?

[libgirl2]

20 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm curious. What does "getting in trouble" look like? How different would Josh's punishment been if they contacted the authorities from the get go?

He might have gotten some actual and legit help. 

[GeeGolly]

4 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

He might have gotten some actual and legit help. 

True, but that is different from a punishment, or getting in trouble.

[libgirl2]

19 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

True, but that is different from a punishment, or getting in trouble.

Maybe not so much punishment but he might have realized what he did was wrong. Also, if I remember correctly, I know someone who's nephew molested younger siblings and he did go to some kind of juvenile detention center. When he re-offended he went to jail. 

 

[SusanM]

1 hour ago, CandyCaneTree said:

He's never going to pled. He never got in trouble for what he did in the past so his way of thinking is he won't get in trouble with this bump in the road and will come out a free man.

Even if that were to happen how long will it be before he does something else and ends up in trouble again?  I wonder if his parents have ever for one second thought back and thought if they had only taken his original offense seriously and made sure HE knew that he needed to take responsibility for what he did and not blame Satan that maybe, just maybe he'd have gone straight.  Probably not.

[quarks]

34 minutes ago, CandyCaneTree said:

He's never going to pled. He never got in trouble for what he did in the past so his way of thinking is he won't get in trouble with this bump in the road and will come out a free man.

I keep seeing this argument, and I kinda disagree? He did get into some trouble back in the past - his head was shaved, he had to make a public confession of some sort, and he had to dig holes.

And during/after his first scandal, he lost a cushy, decent paying job in DC, lost his role on a TV show, and had to spend time at a "rehab" place of sorts.

Did he end up in jail? No. But trouble? Yes. 

And he's in trouble this time around, too - he's under house arrest, and although I have no doubt that his father is covering at least some of the attorney's fees, I have equally no doubt that some of those fees will be covered by his assets.  It's not jail - yet - but it's also not exactly not getting into trouble.

No, I really think that:

a) he's figuring that since he's probably going to serve a sentence either way, he might as well risk a trial - especially since the trial will allow him to appeal the sentence later. And that he might very well find certain legal groups willing to support the appeal on Fourth Amendment or other grounds.  

If he were considerably older, with no minor kids to support, and if the evidence was just a touch less overwhelming, I'd even say this might be a reasonable gamble, given the potential rewards. Under the circumstances, I think it's an incredibly risky and very bad move, and I have to assume a number of people are explaining this to him or have explained it to him. But -

b) As I said upthread, he's a risk taker. A huge risk taker. Who gets a high from it. I mean, look, he could have downloaded that CSA stuff any time, any place - but specifically chose to download it in a tiny building during business hours, at a place that - as his own attorneys point out - was fully open to the public. 

And on a computer that had a picture of his family as a background image.

He likes this. 

c) In a similar vein, he appears to crave excitement. Jail, not exciting. A trial? Well, I think it's also going to be pretty boring, but I'll grant that it's more exciting than house arrest or jail.  

d) The trial keeps him, and not whatever sibling is getting married/having yet another kid, at the center of attention.

e) He wants to be vindicated. 

[GeeGolly]

15 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

Maybe not so much punishment but he might have realized what he did was wrong. Also, if I remember correctly, I know someone who's nephew molested younger siblings and he did go to some kind of juvenile detention center. When he re-offended he went to jail. 

 

I think Josh 100% knew what he did was wrong.

Punishments for what Josh did are all over the place. He could have been put in a detention center for a few months. But that would be as a minor and wouldn't count against a later offense as an adult.

His case also could have stayed within DCF and charges never filed.

As a therapist I'm obviously a believer in therapy, but anyone who has ever been in therapy knows most of the work comes from the client. Therapy can work wonders, sometimes it even feels miraculous, and sometimes it doesn't help, especially when its ordered by someone else.

[SMama]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm curious. What does "getting in trouble" look like? How different would Josh's punishment been if they contacted the authorities from the get go?

I have only practiced in California and do not know Arkansas CPS. Here we cross report, if CPS received the information a report would be made to LE and vice versa. 

In CA sending Josh to do manual labor would not do. JB and Michelle would have been ordered to take parenting classes with a professional,  no compliance would result in juvenile court involvement. The victims would have participated in forensic interviews. If the parents did not cooperate LE would temporarily place the victims in protective custody until the interviews and subsequent analysis was completed.

In my experience Josh would have been ordered to complete a program, refusal would result in juvenile hall confinement. JB & Michelle would be told in no uncertain terms the victims’ safety was their priority. Josh would not be allowed to return home given the youngest victim’s age. The family would have been under the court’s supervision for a minimum of 24 months. 
 

The norm for LE was to press charges. Josh and his parents would have had many consequences to their reckless, neglectful actions. 

[libgirl2]

I think the one thing we can agree on is that he wouldn't have gone home, be treated as if it were all over and he was yet again the "golden" one. Meanwhile, the victims were not given the help they needed. 

[quarks]

7 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

I think the one thing we can agree on is that he wouldn't have gone home, be treated as if it were all over and he was yet again the "golden" one. Meanwhile, the victims were not given the help they needed. 

And instead dragged onto a television show and then forced to give a nationally televised interview about it. 

[Quilt Fairy]

7 hours ago, hathorlive said:

I'm glad he's seen them all because I've been doing this over 17 years and I'd never seen half of these. 

Poor @hathorlive, you spend a full day at work and then come home to this.  How are you doing after the loss of your dog?  I always forgot to ask, was he the beauty that's in your icon picture? 

[GeeGolly]

50 minutes ago, SMama said:

I have only practiced in California and do not know Arkansas CPS. Here we cross report, if CPS received the information a report would be made to LE and vice versa. 

In CA sending Josh to do manual labor would not do. JB and Michelle would have been ordered to take parenting classes with a professional,  no compliance would result in juvenile court involvement. The victims would have participated in forensic interviews. If the parents did not cooperate LE would temporarily place the victims in protective custody until the interviews and subsequent analysis was completed.

In my experience Josh would have been ordered to complete a program, refusal would result in juvenile hall confinement. JB & Michelle would be told in no uncertain terms the victims’ safety was their priority. Josh would not be allowed to return home given the youngest victim’s age. The family would have been under the court’s supervision for a minimum of 24 months. 
 

The norm for LE was to press charges. Josh and his parents would have had many consequences to their reckless, neglectful actions. 

Sounds very similar to what would happen in my area. I'm not sure if you mean a 24 hour program though. In my area Josh could have ended up being placed with an adult family family member and attended classes/therapy. Because Josh was a child, he likely would have been able to return home after all the requirements were met by him and his parents.

Regardless of might have happened, Josh was punished for the molestations. He was also punished for Ashley Madison. And Ashley Madison was not a criminal offense.

Also regardless of what might of happened, I believe Josh would still be where he is today - under house arrest, with an ankle bracelet, awaiting trial.

[Quilt Fairy]

Does anyone else wonder how Josh has been getting his kicks in the last 2 1/2 years?   Did he get a new phone, a new laptop, and dive right back in?  Or has he been holding back all this time? 

[Hpmec]

58 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Does anyone else wonder how Josh has been getting his kicks in the last 2 1/2 years?   Did he get a new phone, a new laptop, and dive right back in?  Or has he been holding back all this time? 

One thing we know for certain about Josh. He's sneaky. There's no way he's been living the life of a choirboy since 2019. He got his fix somehow, even if it's just watching more conventional porn on his phone. When Anna's not around, he has a lot of time on his hands, and, no doubt, has found a way to satisfy the itch. 

[ozziemom]

Is part of Josh’s release to the Rebers that he could only have phone with no internet? So maybe now his internet is limited but I would guess before that he was not. 

[merylinkid]

2 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

Regardless of might have happened, Josh was punished for the molestations. He was also punished for Ashley Madison. And Ashley Madison was not a criminal offense.

He was not punished.   He was made uncomfortable by the information coming out.   Having your head shaved and having to dig holes but you get to join your family for filming a tv special is NOT punishment.   It barely registers as disciplining your kid.   

Josh his entire fucking life has gotten away with a lot.   While still somehow claiming he is a victim of persecution.   Which is why he will not plead.   He literally does not expect to get anything more than having his head shaved again.   Maybe an uncomfortable interview or two.  

 

11 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

One thing that suggests Josh will go nearer the low end is that he has zero convictions of any kind for anything. Your prior record of convictions for any and all kinds of illegal activity, not just sex crimes, seems to matter a lot in the sentencing. And Josh has no prior convictions for any behavior.

Because no one wanted to get the golden boy in trouble.   Or do the right thing morally AND legally and report him to the authorities.   So he gets LESS time only because no one could be bothered to bust him before.   Greeeaaatttt.

His attorneys are not trying to run up the bill.   With their experience and reputations, they have their pick of clients.   They are probably turning away business.   Josh is just one more client to them.   They don't need his fees.   VERY VERY VERY few lawyers just run up fees in a case.   You don't have to usually, because its expensive any way.   You tell the client the options and the client decides if they want to take it trial or not.   Client opts for trial, then the lawyers have to set things up for trial, which is all the work that REALLY goes into a case.   Every single motion filed right now is about setting things up for trial.   And possibly a later appeal.   They might seem frivolous but that's how it works.   Your trial strategy starts day 1 of being retained, not day 1 of the trial.