Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[Westiepeach]

1 hour ago, LilyD said:

A catatonic state seems more likely than a melt-down in my opinion. The shock will be so big that she’ll completely shut down.

See, I don't want to ever say I feel sorry for her, because I will not, but my cold heart will feel bad for her children when she completely shuts down. And she will on May 25, 2022.

[iwantcookies]

15 days until sentencing! 

[Rabbittron]

9 minutes ago, iwantcookies said:

15 days until sentencing! 

And 19 days to my  birthday.  If they don't change the date again what a nice birthday gift I will get. 

[DXD526]

My birthday falls right before sentencing. I'll consider anything over the five-year min to be a belated gift! 

[emmawoodhouse]

He'll, my birthday isn't until Father's Day, but I will consider an 8-10 year sentence a nice early present. 👍

Edited May 10, 2022 by emmawoodhouse

[beckie]

30 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

He'll, my birthday isn't until Father's Day, but I will consider an 8-10 year sentence a nice early present. 👍

Can they request to delay sentencing again? Or is this it?

(Not sure why it quoted this one as I was trying to quote someone else.)

Edited May 10, 2022 by beckie

[emmawoodhouse]

1 minute ago, beckie said:

Can they request to delay sentencing again? Or is this it? 

I think this is it. Final documents from both sides are due to the Court tomorrow.

[Ljohnson1987]

Jessa helped J'Boob and J'Chelle avoid a subpoena. Anyone who knew what Josh was doing, and enabled him, should be charged. 

[SMama]

27 minutes ago, Ljohnson1987 said:

Jessa helped J'Boob and J'Chelle avoid a subpoena. Anyone who knew what Josh was doing, and enabled him, should be charged. 

How did Jessa help?

[emmawoodhouse]

19 minutes ago, SMama said:

How did Jessa help?

She denied the process server entrance at the gate of the TTH. 

[Nysha]

11 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

She denied the process server entrance at the gate of the TTH. 

That's legal. It's also why most process servers approach their subjects? victims? in public. 

[emmawoodhouse]

1 hour ago, Nysha said:

That's legal. It's also why most process servers approach their subjects? victims? in public. 

They attempted that (one attempt was at Jed's car lot), but were rebuffed at every turn. 

Edited May 10, 2022 by emmawoodhouse

[Cinnabon]

1 hour ago, Nysha said:

That's legal. It's also why most process servers approach their subjects? victims? in public. 

Legal but childish and cowardly. 

[ginger90]

Assuming Jessa was there, and neither of her parents were, I can’t really blame her for not letting the person on the property. 🤷🏼‍♀️ On the other hand, if one or both were there, and aware they were being served, it was, in my opinion pointless to try to avoid it.

How was this information made known?

[emmawoodhouse]

9 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

Assuming Jessa was there, and neither of her parents were, I can’t really blame her for not letting the person on the property. 🤷🏼‍♀️ On the other hand, if one or both were there, and aware they were being served, it was, in my opinion pointless to try to avoid it.

How was this information made known?

I saw the affidavit from the court from the process server. This all happened last August/September just before the Duggars "fled the state" (per the court records). This was the family trip they all of a sudden took last September to see Yellowstone, etc., concluding with a visit to Jinger. 

Drones are also mentioned.

Edited May 10, 2022 by emmawoodhouse

[ginger90]

7 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

I saw the affidavit from the court from the process server. This all happened last August/September just before the Duggars "fled the state" (per the court records). This was the family trip they all of a sudden took last September to see Yellowstone, etc., concluding with a visit to Jinger. 

Drones are also mentioned.

Was it stated if Michelle and Jim Bob were or were not on the property?

[emmawoodhouse]

6 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

Was it stated if Michelle and Jim Bob were or were not on the property?

The process server wasn't able to make contact, so that's unknown. But the process server tried different locations with no luck. 

WOACB went through the papers in more detail. This video explains it in more detail  Ignore her clickbait titles. She does get into details aside from Jessa's not letting her proceed.

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by emmawoodhouse

[GeeGolly]

So Jessa - one time - said JB wasn't home and she automatically lying? I get that Jessa lies, but she could have been telling the truth this time.

 

[emmawoodhouse]

4 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

So Jessa - one time - said JB wasn't home and she automatically lying? I get that Jessa lies, but she could have been telling the truth this time.

 

Yeah, I wish KJ would stick to the facts. And the fact is, we don't know if he was home or not.

[merylinkid]

Doesn't matter whether Jessa was telling the truth or not.   Jessa doesn't live in the TTH anymore I believe.    Not sure of Arkansas law but where I am, you can leave the papers with someone of suitable age and discretion who also resides in the home.   So if it were Jana, wouldn't have matter, they could have left the papers with her and service would have been accomplished.   Jessa, nope doesn't live there, can't leave them with her, didn't see JB, nothing the process server could do.

[Heathen]

14 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Yeah, I wish KJ would stick to the facts. And the fact is, we don't know if he was home or not.

We also have no way of knowing whether Jessa knew what Smuggar was doing; therefore, we have no way of knowing whether she was enabling him. 

[GeeGolly]

This deposition thing feels wildly crazy to me. The sisters were suing the city for emotional distress because their story was made public. I don't see how how private Duggar/Duggar family relationships pertain to this.

I can see wanting to know how the sisters' distress impacted their marriages and their ability to parent. I can see wanting to know how the publicity impacted their ability to work. I can see wanting to know if they needed treatment for mental health issues due to the facts of the case. Anything beyond that seems beyond the scope of the court case.

[GeeGolly]

54 minutes ago, Heathen said:

We also have no way of knowing whether Jessa knew what Smuggar was doing; therefore, we have no way of knowing whether she was enabling him. 

Wait, what, I'm totally confused. Was Miss Balls talking about both cases? Both the sisters' lawsuit and the FF's court case?

Anyway, how on earth would Jessa know Josh was downloading CSA? Or am I talking about something totally different?

[Zella]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

This deposition thing feels wildly crazy to me. The sisters were suing the city for emotional distress because their story was made public. I don't see how how private Duggar/Duggar family relationships pertain to this.

I can see wanting to know how the sisters' distress impacted their marriages and their ability to parent. I can see wanting to know how the publicity impacted their ability to work. I can see wanting to know if they needed treatment for mental health issues due to the facts of the case. Anything beyond that seems beyond the scope of the court case.

I think some of this may have been from the defendants' depositions of the plaintiffs. I saw there was actually a request from the Duggar daughter's lawyer to exclude a lot of the material because of how bad it made Jim Bob look specifically. 

[GeeGolly]

6 minutes ago, Zella said:

I think some of this may have been from the defendants' depositions of the plaintiffs. I saw there was actually a request from the Duggar daughter's lawyer to exclude a lot of the material because of how bad it made Jim Bob look specifically. 

Why would these questions be allowed to be asked? I would think the deposition would be limited to the case at hand. These questions feel more like tabloid questions than a fact finding mission for the case.

[Zella]

2 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Why would these questions be allowed to be asked? I would think the deposition would be limited to the case at hand. These questions feel more like tabloid questions than a fact finding mission for the case.

That I don't know! I was actually wondering the same thing. I've not been able to see the actual document, but I saw that Jeremy apparently even got asked questions about Josh being a predator and his answers . . . did not make him look good. I'm assuming that it somehow tied in with their intended defense, but I don't really know enough about the rules to know what that would have been or how far afield they can go in these. 

[merylinkid]

One of the defenses in such a case is "this was all generally known already so how were you harmed by THIS particular release?"    Another is "were you really upset?"   Those at home would know how they behaved, etc.    Also JB as the holder of the monies is the ONLY one who would know if the girls were materially harmed by the release or not.    So they needed his financial information.

Discovery -- which includes depositions -- is to find anything that could reasonably lead to the discovery of relevant evidence.   So the question does not have to be directly relevant but only reasonably lead to relevant information.   

So for instance if the girls had just as many speaking engagements before as after the revelation  - the question could be how many speaking engagements did you have 6 months prior to the revelation.   Which doesn't SEEM to be about the City making the story public but it does lead to information about the claim for damages.   Some questions are less obvious than this.  

[Zella]

11 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

One of the defenses in such a case is "this was all generally known already so how were you harmed by THIS particular release?"    Another is "were you really upset?"   Those at home would know how they behaved, etc.    Also JB as the holder of the monies is the ONLY one who would know if the girls were materially harmed by the release or not.    So they needed his financial information.

Discovery -- which includes depositions -- is to find anything that could reasonably lead to the discovery of relevant evidence.   So the question does not have to be directly relevant but only reasonably lead to relevant information.   

So for instance if the girls had just as many speaking engagements before as after the revelation  - the question could be how many speaking engagements did you have 6 months prior to the revelation.   Which doesn't SEEM to be about the City making the story public but it does lead to information about the claim for damages.   Some questions are less obvious than this.  

That makes sense--thank you! 

[Gemma Violet]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

Wait, what, I'm totally confused. Was Miss Balls talking about both cases? Both the sisters' lawsuit and the FF's court case?

 

No, the transcript released yesterday is for the sisters' lawsuit.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Gemma Violet

[MamaMax]

On 5/8/2022 at 2:40 PM, beckie said:

Josh has been "away" for a while now. I wonder what they are telling his kids? I hope they aren't telling them that he'll be back soon.

"He's working a prison ministry"

 

On 5/8/2022 at 7:21 PM, emmawoodhouse said:

But I imagine he didn't interact with his younger sisters who were likely doing household chores like laundry, cleaning, and cooking. He probably hung with whatever howlers were hanging around, pretty much ignoring the girls. 

Let's hope!

[Minivanessa]

Thanks, @merylinkid. You explained it well. A competent lawyer will advise a client that if they sue for damages for emotional distress, they are putting their private life out there for exploration by the defense. To collect bucks for imposition of emotional distress, the plaintiff has to prove a causal connection between the defendant's bad behavior and their emotional distress, as well as the effect of that emotional distress on the plaintiff's life (job, family, social life, etc.). 

The defense is entitled to probe to find information relevant to the claim. For example - and this is not based on the Duggars here - a person may sue for damages for emotional distress, but during discovery the defense uncovers a lot of the plaintiff's history that indicates the emotional distress was caused by something unconnected to the case, and/or that contrary to their claim, the plaintiff's life went on as before, with no loss of income, no dropping off of social activities or hobbies, etc. Sometimes the defense might even uncover some things the plaintiff had been keeping secret that would impact either the issue of cause or of effect. 

It cracks me up that JB went to such extremes to avoid being served. OTOH, IMO it's typical tinpot domestic tyrant behavior. Just like his obnoxious behavior in court, under oath, during that pretrial hearing in Josh's case. He's lord of all he surveys, and in charge of everybody, and there's hell to pay when he's out his his zone of control, up against something or somebody bigger than he is. What a tool.

[Zella]

7 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

during discovery the defense uncovers a lot of the plaintiff's history that indicates the emotional distress was caused by something unconnected to the case, and/or that contrary to their claim, the plaintiff's life went on as before, with no loss of income, no dropping off of social activities or hobbies, etc. Sometimes the defense might even uncover some things the plaintiff had been keeping secret that would impact either the issue of cause or of effect. 

Thanks, Jeeves! Is it not unreasonable to then conclude that the defense was probably going to work along the lines of "Well, actually, your father was causing you considerable emotional distress"? 

[SMama]

1 hour ago, Zella said:

That I don't know! I was actually wondering the same thing. I've not been able to see the actual document, but I saw that Jeremy apparently even got asked questions about Josh being a predator and his answers . . . did not make him look good. I'm assuming that it somehow tied in with their intended defense, but I don't really know enough about the rules to know what that would have been or how far afield they can go in these. 

Jeremy’s answers did not make him or the FF look good? What did Jeremy say? TIA. 

[emmawoodhouse]

Major docs from both sides are due to the court today!  Those of you who have figured out Reddit will probably be the first to see them. Be sure to report here. 😀

Edited May 11, 2022 by emmawoodhouse

[Zella]

12 minutes ago, SMama said:

Jeremy’s answers did not make him or the FF look good? What did Jeremy say? TIA. 

To me, I thought they made Jeremy look like a cowardly shit. So take with grain of salt because being reported thirdhand and I never could see many of the documents people were referencing. But what I saw quoted him as saying he did not think Josh was a predator, and if predators were in his neighborhood, he wouldn't want to know. 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Zella

[SMama]

Jeremy is a cowardly shit so it checks. 

[Zella]

7 minutes ago, SMama said:

Jeremy is a cowardly shit so it checks. 

For sure! I've always thought he was a weaselly shitstain. 

[emmawoodhouse]

48 minutes ago, Zella said:

To me, I thought they made Jeremy look like a cowardly shit. So take with grain of salt because being reported thirdhand and I never could see many of the documents people were referencing. But what I saw quoted him as saying he did not think Josh was a predator, and if predators were in his neighborhood, he wouldn't want to know. 

Wow. He has two little girls and doesn't want to know if a predator lives amongst them? 

As far as his thoughts about Smuggar, well, he's an idiot in denial. 

[GeeGolly]

I wonder how they would answer questions about Josh now, after his conviction. Do they look back and see any red flags? I would think probably so, although IMO, even though the FF is pretty much the worst that society has to offer, I don't just to peg him as a pedophile, so he likely wasn't praying on, or grooming, his nieces and nephews.

 

[Ijustwantsomechips]

1 hour ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Major docs from both sides are due to the court today!  Those of you who have figured out Reddit will probably be the first to see them. Be sure to report here. 😀

Some resourceful Redditor has access to docs through their PACER account. I’ll BOLO

[quarks]

At the risk of making unwarranted assumptions based on a few pictures/videos, most of them don't seem particularly upset/depressed by Josh's absence. 

 

[emmawoodhouse]

9 minutes ago, quarks said:

At the risk of making unwarranted assumptions based on a few pictures/videos, most of them don't seem particularly upset/depressed by Josh's absence. 

 

Agreed. It's seemed like business as usual.

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, Zella said:

For sure! I've always thought he was a weaselly shitstain. 

Pastor Weaselly Shitstain, Master of Divinity, that is. 

[Cinnabon]

3 hours ago, Zella said:

To me, I thought they made Jeremy look like a cowardly shit. So take with grain of salt because being reported thirdhand and I never could see many of the documents people were referencing. But what I saw quoted him as saying he did not think Josh was a predator, and if predators were in his neighborhood, he wouldn't want to know. 

Never mind that he has 2 very young daughters and it would be very easy to find their address if someone wanted to. And they’re all over SM, whether their faces are visible or not.

[Zella]

2 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

Never mind that he has 2 very young daughters and it would be very easy to find their address if someone wanted to. And they’re all over SM, whether their faces are visible or not.

Yeah I could see how answering the Josh question could be awkward given he's in the family, but I really don't know how any parent could say that about the general neighborhood. I mean, shit, I don't even have kids, but when I've had to look for places, I've totally checked out sex offender registries in relation to the address. 

[Cinnabon]

7 minutes ago, Zella said:

Yeah I could see how answering the Josh question could be awkward given he's in the family, but I really don't know how any parent could say that about the general neighborhood. I mean, shit, I don't even have kids, but when I've had to look for places, I've totally checked out sex offender registries in relation to the address. 

I’ve never done that, but I don’t have kids. If I did, that would be one of the first things I’d check. But beggars can’t be choosers while they’re grifting for free housing! Young daughters be dammed.

[Zella]

15 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

I’ve never done that,

I've watched emotionally unhealthy amounts of Law and Order: SVU episodes. LOL

I've had conversations with quite a few people who were surprised to learn they were living in clusters of rather violent and dangerous sex offenders, though. :( 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Zella

[GeeGolly]

I check the sex offender list every once and a while. Its not just pedophiles who are registered - its creeps who prey on adults too.

I hope Josh has to register when he's out. If he does, I wonder what they'll rate him.

[Cinnabon]

5 minutes ago, Zella said:

I've watched emotionally unhealthy amounts of Law and Order: SVU episodes. LOL

I've had conversations with quite a few people who were surprised to learn they were living in clusters of rather violent and dangerous sex offenders, though. :( 

I bet I’ve watched just as many SVU episodes, lol. I just can’t quit it!

[emmawoodhouse]

1 minute ago, GeeGolly said:

I check the sex offender list every once and a while. Its not just pedophiles who are registered - its creeps who prey on adults too.

I hope Josh has to register when he's out. If he does, I wonder what they'll rate him.

I'm almost positive that he has to register. I can't speak to the ratings, but given his molestation history, it can't be good.