Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

maraleia

By maraleia
in Counting On

  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 39.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • GeeGolly

    1526

  • Churchhoney

    1075

  • JoanArc

    1061

  • Sew Sumi

    1049

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

hoosier80
hoosier80

New show title: 10 to 20 Years and Counting 

MargeGunderson
MargeGunderson

Someone on Reddit just described Josh’s face as a glistening glazed ham. I am considering divorcing my husband and marrying that poster. 

doodlebug
doodlebug

Well, for many of us, it's the difference between 'imperfect' and 'non-PC' and being a criminal.  Josh is a child molester and his parents actively intervened in his situation to avoid him being punis

Posted Images

Absolom

Absolom

8 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

Has anyone heard if Anna has been able to visit the jail in person yet?

The Washington County jail website still only shows remote visiting. 

  • Useful 5
  • Love 2
Link to comment
  • Popular Post
SMama

SMama

  • Popular Post
1 hour ago, Ljohnson1987 said:

Smugs was able to delay his sentencing. Don't know how. Ugh! Just throw the creep away for life already. 

At least he’s in jail with no access to children or internet. 

  • Love 27
Link to comment
SusanM

SusanM

(edited)
21 minutes ago, SMama said:

At least he’s in jail with no access to children or internet. 

That's how I feel.  I want the sentencing over with but at least he's not staying at that poor woman's house getting waiting on (no doubt) hand and foot until then.  He's in jail - and even if the best case scenario for him happens he'll likely be behind bars at least another 5 yrs.  And in the meantime he has two months to worry that it might be a lot longer than 5 years.   Unless he's still living deep in the Valley of Denial of course and figures he's getting out soon.

Edited by SusannahM
  • Love 16
Link to comment
Absolom

Absolom

Maybe the team of lawyers is either trying to find some crumb of an excuse to shorten his sentence or they're delaying his entry into the federal system in hopes of halfway preparing him for it.  

  • Useful 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
SMama

SMama

11 minutes ago, Absolom said:

Maybe the team of lawyers is either trying to find some crumb of an excuse to shorten his sentence or they're delaying his entry into the federal system in hopes of halfway preparing him for it.  

The FF is soft, ignorant, arrogant, entitled, has no work ethic, has never functioned in the real world, and lacks self awareness. How can anyone prepare such a waste of skin to transition to prison? Good job, JB and Michelle!

  • Useful 2
  • Love 14
Link to comment
Ijustwantsomechips

Ijustwantsomechips

5 minutes ago, jcbrown said:

When I see "FF" I can never remember if we decided it stands for "Family Felon" or "Fat F*&k." I think both work.

I always assumed it was “fat fuck” since it’s more fitting. I refuse to besmirch felons by associating them with Josh. 

  • LOL 15
Link to comment
Gemma Violet

Gemma Violet

Let him have his delay of sentencing.  I don't want there to be any reason for his lawyers to say he wasn't treated fairly by the courts.  If he wasn't granted the delay, his lawyers would say the judge was biased, blah, blah, blah.  As long as he's staying in jail, I can wait until May.

  • Love 23
Link to comment
Scarlett45

Scarlett45

12 hours ago, SusannahM said:

That's how I feel.  I want the sentencing over with but at least he's not staying at that poor woman's house getting waiting on (no doubt) hand and foot until then.  He's in jail - and even if the best case scenario for him happens he'll likely be behind bars at least another 5 yrs.  And in the meantime he has two months to worry that it might be a lot longer than 5 years.   Unless he's still living deep in the Valley of Denial of course and figures he's getting out soon.

 

7 hours ago, Gemma Violet said:

Let him have his delay of sentencing.  I don't want there to be any reason for his lawyers to say he wasn't treated fairly by the courts.  If he wasn't granted the delay, his lawyers would say the judge was biased, blah, blah, blah.  As long as he's staying in jail, I can wait until May.

I agree. Josh is in jail, he’s not being an inconvenience to the Reber family. Another 6 week wait is what it is. 

  • Love 12
Link to comment
ozziemom

ozziemom

10 hours ago, jcbrown said:

When I see "FF" I can never remember if we decided it stands for "Family Felon" or "Fat F*&k." I think both work.

Just like “TTH” there are many funny things “FF” could stand for that apply.

  • Love 6
Link to comment
Nysha

Nysha

7 hours ago, ozziemom said:

Just like “TTH” there are many funny things “FF” could stand for that apply.

I always mentally translate TTH into The Trailer House. 🤪🤪

  • LOL 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Rootbeer

Rootbeer

3 minutes ago, beckie said:

Is there a length of time sentencing can be delayed, or can it be delayed indefinitely? Just wondering if they can do it, again...and again....

I think that, as long as the judge agrees that the reason for the postponement is valid; it can be postponed indefinitely.  After all, things happen, people get sick or need surgeries or lawyers quit and new ones need to become familiar with the case.  The judge is not going to agree to a delay without good reason, however, and Josh' attorneys know that and also know better than to risk ticking him off by repeatedly asking for delays.  Since Josh is going to be in jail until he's sentenced, no matter when that is, there is no advantage to him in dragging this out.

  • Useful 6
Link to comment
SusanM

SusanM

22 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

Since Josh is going to be in jail until he's sentenced, no matter when that is, there is no advantage to him in dragging this out.

And judges are only human.  I think this judge is already unimpressed with the Golden Boy and if lawyers get too cute and keep trying to delay things for frivilous reasons I wouldn't be surprised if he threw a few extra months, or years onto the sentence.  I mean who's to know?  I would think it would come under the same heading as "don't mess with the people who prepare your food".   

  • Love 7
Link to comment
SMama

SMama

21 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

One plus here is that JB has to fork out more and more money to the lawyers each time they file anything.

The downside is that it is to the detriment of the siblings. They all worked for that money but FF has taken the lion’s share by becoming unemployable, and now this. JB had Jana plea guilty to that misdemeanor charge. When it comes to spending is yes for the FF, and no for the rest. Say what you want about Derick, but I’m happy he got Jill’s payout.

  • Love 17
Link to comment
Cinnabon

Cinnabon

(edited)
55 minutes ago, SMama said:

The downside is that it is to the detriment of the siblings. They all worked for that money but FF has taken the lion’s share by becoming unemployable, and now this. JB had Jana plea guilty to that misdemeanor charge. When it comes to spending is yes for the FF, and no for the rest. Say what you want about Derick, but I’m happy he got Jill’s payout.

At this point, any adult Duggars can and should be working on careers and/or education of their own. They can’t fall back on money JB may or may not give them. They earned it as kids, but that’s no excuse for not forging ahead with their own lives now. Especially since many have families of their own. You figure out how to support that family without daddy’s help. And I fully agree about Derick and Jill - I applaud them for going after the money she earned. Nothing is stopping her siblings from doing the same.

Edited by Cinnabon
  • Love 21
Link to comment
SMama

SMama

9 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

At this point, any adult Duggars can and should be working on careers and/or education of their own. They can’t fall back on money JB may or may not give them. They earned it as kids, but that’s no excuse for not forging their own lives now. Especially since many have families of their own. You figure out how to support that family . And I fully agree about Derick and Jill - I applaud them for going after the money she earned. Nothing is stopping her siblings from doing the same.

Look how well that worked out for the FF. I agree they should be self sufficient. One thing JB and Michelle did spectacularly was hinder their kids educationally, emotionally, and rendered them useless in the real world. Duggar time, lack of a work ethic, and a sense of entitlement. 

  • Love 6
Link to comment
Quilt Fairy

Quilt Fairy

It's my understanding that the date change of the sentencing hearing is predominately a scheduling issue rather than an attempt by the defense to throw a Hail Mary.  The government did not object and the defense got far more than the 30 days they were asking for, so for sure it's on everyone's calendar now.   And on the bright side, it's another 8 weeks for the FF to live in limbo wondering how much time he's going to get. 

  • Love 11
Link to comment
Westiepeach

Westiepeach

1 hour ago, SMama said:

Look how well that worked out for the FF. I agree they should be self sufficient. One thing JB and Michelle did spectacularly was hinder their kids educationally, emotionally, and rendered them useless in the real world. Duggar time, lack of a work ethic, and a sense of entitlement. 

Great job, JB and Michelle. Great job. *slow clap*

  • Love 4
Link to comment
lookeyloo

lookeyloo

1 hour ago, Quilt Fairy said:

It's my understanding that the date change of the sentencing hearing is predominately a scheduling issue rather than an attempt by the defense to throw a Hail Mary.  The government did not object and the defense got far more than the 30 days they were asking for, so for sure it's on everyone's calendar now.   And on the bright side, it's another 8 weeks for the FF to live in limbo wondering how much time he's going to get. 

All of this pre sentence incarceration counts towards "time served" doesn't it?

  • Love 1
Link to comment
mynextmistake

mynextmistake

On 3/25/2022 at 12:17 PM, SusannahM said:

And judges are only human.  I think this judge is already unimpressed with the Golden Boy and if lawyers get too cute and keep trying to delay things for frivilous reasons I wouldn't be surprised if he threw a few extra months, or years onto the sentence.  I mean who's to know?  I would think it would come under the same heading as "don't mess with the people who prepare your food".   

1) Asking for a sentencing continuance is a standard move in criminal cases. It’s not “get(ting) cute.” Josh has a constitutional right to vigorous representation at all stages of his trial, including the sentencing. If his lawyers need more time to prepare, they’re allowed to ask for it. 

2) It would be really unethical for a judge to give a defendant extra jail time because their lawyer is annoying. The remedy for inappropriate conduct by a lawyer is sanctions against the lawyer, not harsher punishment for the client.

3) As for “who’s to know,” judges have sentencing guidelines they have to follow and deviations from the guidelines usually have to be explained. Josh has the right to appellate review of his sentence, and an appellate court would frown upon an unusually harsh sentence with no reasoning provided to support it. 

  • Love 22
Link to comment
GeeGolly

GeeGolly

I'm confused - how many continuances have there been? One from the prosecutors and two from the defense? Certainly a judge wouldn't let this go on indefinitely.

As for federal sentencing guidelines the way I understand it is a few decades ago, lawyers and defendants were tired of the discrepancies across the board in sentencing so the mandatory guideline came about. But both firm leaning and lenient leaning judges did not like the guidelines. After a court case the guideline became suggestions. However even as suggestions the guidelines have made sentencing more uniform with judges mostly staying loosely within the guidelines. Occasionally it becomes almost a mini court case to get to the sentence when one side or the other disagrees. At times, too lenient and extremely harsh sentences still do happen and are almost never overturned.

  • Useful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
merylinkid

merylinkid

(edited)
6 hours ago, mynextmistake said:

2) It would be really unethical for a judge to give a defendant extra jail time because their lawyer is annoying. The remedy for inappropriate conduct by a lawyer is sanctions against the lawyer, not harsher punishment for the client.

But they do have discretion on which enhancers and mitigators they consider.   If they find the DEFENDANT really annoying, they can lean harder on the enhancers and less on the mitigators.   As long as they explain on the record why they did what they did, the Judges are usually fine.   

Wanna bet the judge finds Josh an arrogant prick?

How you can tell a continuance is no big deal is if the other side opposes it or not.   If it is unopposed, its either 1) par for the course or something REALLY big happened that everyone says yeah  you need to deal with that right now rather than law.   

Edited by merylinkid
  • Useful 5
  • Love 5
Link to comment
Minivanessa

Minivanessa

(edited)
2 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm confused - how many continuances have there been? One from the prosecutors and two from the defense? Certainly a judge wouldn't let this go on indefinitely.

There has been only one motion for continuance of the sentencing hearing. On February 15, the court issued an order setting the sentencing hearing for April 5. On March 18, the defense filed a motion for continuance which was granted, as we know, and the new date for that hearing is May 25. The docket is available for free at CourtListener.com. 

There have been various motions filed for extensions of time to file post-trial pleadings, many of them related to the defendant's motion for new trial, which is a separate matter from the sentencing hearing. I believe the defense got additional time to file objections to the pre-sentencing report, which as has been noted, is not a big deal or some kind of sleazy shenanigans per se. 

Edited by Jeeves
Added info
  • Useful 7
  • Love 2
Link to comment
irisheyes

irisheyes

2 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm confused - how many continuances have there been? One from the prosecutors and two from the defense? Certainly a judge wouldn't let this go on indefinitely.

As for federal sentencing guidelines the way I understand it is a few decades ago, lawyers and defendants were tired of the discrepancies across the board in sentencing so the mandatory guideline came about. But both firm leaning and lenient leaning judges did not like the guidelines. After a court case the guideline became suggestions. However even as suggestions the guidelines have made sentencing more uniform with judges mostly staying loosely within the guidelines. Occasionally it becomes almost a mini court case to get to the sentence when one side or the other disagrees. At times, too lenient and extremely harsh sentences still do happen and are almost never overturned.

Lately, it seems the federal sentencing guideline for CSA have become A BIG DEAL. From what I’ve been hearing, it sounds like judges have a lot of leeway, especially to go below the guidelines if the defendant is remorseful. Which we know Josh is not. 

Link to comment
SusanM

SusanM

7 hours ago, mynextmistake said:

Asking for a sentencing continuance is a standard move in criminal cases. It’s not “get(ting) cute.” Josh has a constitutional right to vigorous representation at all stages of his trial, including the sentencing. If his lawyers need more time to prepare, they’re allowed to ask for it. 

I did specify for "frivolous" reasons.  I expect judges and lawyers are well aware of what constitutes legitimate reasons to delay sentencing and, frankly, what does not.

7 hours ago, mynextmistake said:

As for “who’s to know,” judges have sentencing guidelines they have to follow and deviations from the guidelines usually have to be explained.

Sure but the bottom line is in Josh's case there is a range of sentencing options and an extra few months, or even few years added to the minimum is hardly going to come as any great surprise to anyone.  If a 5 year sentence was a slam dunk why go through this whole process?

Link to comment
Heathen

Heathen

On 3/24/2022 at 9:22 PM, jcbrown said:

When I see "FF" I can never remember if we decided it stands for "Family Felon" or "Fat F*&k." I think both work.

I always read it as Fat Felon. 

  • LOL 4
  • Love 4
Link to comment
cmr2014

cmr2014

It's my understanding that the judge receives a sentencing report that is based on a number of things -- including a statement from a mental health professional about Josh's mental health an likelihood of recidivism. 

Does the defense counsel receive a copy of that report? If so, I could see them wanting to prepare some sort of rebuttal to any conclusion that implies that Josh is a hopeless pervert and will re-offend.

  • Useful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
greenturtle36

greenturtle36

On 3/28/2022 at 2:43 PM, emmawoodhouse said:

Boob proclaimed that it was Tinker Toys. So Tinker Toy House it will be. 🤡

And all these years I thought it was "Tonti Town House."  oh well.

I'm not a big fan of fat shaming, but in the case of this particular individual, I'm actually fine with "Fat F**k", although "F**k Face" is fitting.

  • LOL 10
  • Love 3
Link to comment
Jeanne222

Jeanne222

On 3/27/2022 at 1:46 AM, mynextmistake said:

1) Asking for a sentencing continuance is a standard move in criminal cases. It’s not “get(ting) cute.” Josh has a constitutional right to vigorous representation at all stages of his trial, including the sentencing. If his lawyers need more time to prepare, they’re allowed to ask for it. 

2) It would be really unethical for a judge to give a defendant extra jail time because their lawyer is annoying. The remedy for inappropriate conduct by a lawyer is sanctions against the lawyer, not harsher punishment for the client.

3) As for “who’s to know,” judges have sentencing guidelines they have to follow and deviations from the guidelines usually have to be explained. Josh has the right to appellate review of his sentence, and an appellate court would frown upon an unusually harsh sentence with no reasoning provided to support it. 

Do you happen to know what is the least and most time Josh can get?

I did a bit of googling and found 5 years in a lot of child porn cases.

thank you.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...