Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[MaryAnneSpier]

Oh dear. Michelle, please use your head that God gave you. Did you really think the image of a little sister on Diddle Duggar's lap would actually help his image? 

And I see that even from a young age, Jessa was working on her snooty RBF.

[Sew Sumi]

They really are trying to sell him, aren't they?

[Annb67]

41 minutes ago, Mollie said:

Michelle just posted a picture of Jinger as a child sitting on Josh's lap. Michelle just doesn't seem to understand that nobody but nobody wants to see a picture of Josh holding one of his little sisters.  Seriously, what was she thinking?

 

Jesus michelle!!!! WTF is wrong with you?? Morons...

[Mollie]

19 minutes ago, Annb67 said:

Jesus michelle!!!! WTF is wrong with you?? Morons...

I have to erase that photo from my mind.  

Recognize these kids?

 

[JoanArc]

1 hour ago, Sew Sumi said:

They really are trying to sell him, aren't they?

Like fresh produce that's about to go over. No one wants to see Josh around little kids. EVER.

[Sew Sumi]

STOP TRYING TO MAKE SMUGGAR HAPPEN! 

[MunichNark]

On 14.5.2017 at 5:51 PM, Churchhoney said:

This is A'murka, so we can't tell you that. People leave guns casually all over the place. And buy and sell them just as casually. 

I was under the impresson that there is some sort of registration process, no? There mere thought is sooo unbelievable absurd to me....shudder.

How do you ever feel safe when you cannot know if the person next to you is carrying a fecking gun?

Meeeechelle doesn't have a clue about anything. At all. How I wish I could tell her that to her face.

[Churchhoney]

4 hours ago, MunichNark said:

I was under the impresson that there is some sort of registration process, no? There mere thought is sooo unbelievable absurd to me....shudder.

How do you ever feel safe when you cannot know if the person next to you is carrying a fecking gun?

Meeeechelle doesn't have a clue about anything. At all. How I wish I could tell her that to her face.

Re: the guns. Depends on the state. In some, private individuals can sell and buy and trade guns around like bubblegum cards, pretty much. Virtually no regulation of that at all. Other states are a lot stricter. But states are close together, of course. 

And idiot Meeeeechelle -- worst thing to me is the mythology, apparently believed by her brainwashed and largely brainless chidlren, that she's some kind of holy superwoman. Makes me ill. 

[doodlebug]

5 hours ago, MunichNark said:

I was under the impresson that there is some sort of registration process, no? There mere thought is sooo unbelievable absurd to me....shudder.

How do you ever feel safe when you cannot know if the person next to you is carrying a fecking gun?

Meeeechelle doesn't have a clue about anything. At all. How I wish I could tell her that to her face.

Laws differ from state to state.  In general, in more rural states, down south and out west especially, there is very little oversight of gun sales, particularly between individuals.  Businesses that sell guns are more tightly regulated, but, in many places, it is possible to plunk down your money and walk out of the store with a gun of your own in less time than it takes to get a Big Mac and fries at Mc Donald's.  Arkansas is a very conservative, rural state where many people hunt for recreation and have been exposed to guns since the cradle and believe that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution (the right to bear arms) was handed to Moses on the mount and is the most important commandment of all.  Transactions like the one described above take place many times a day. And, many of the people living in those areas will tell you that they are safer because they have guns (ignoring all statistics to the contrary).

[crazycatlady58]

She was thinking...see look, just a little boy who loves his sisters. Totally tone deaf to the fact most people do not see the little boy, they see the 14 year old who abused the same sisters.

[bigskygirl]

Lets keep the conversation on Josh, Anna and the kids and not firearms and firearm laws. Thank you.

[Rabbittron]

Don't quote me but what I have been seeing on tv and reading Smuggar will be om the first episode of Counting on. I  think TLC wants to see how low Smuggar and the ratings will fall.

[Churchhoney]

2 hours ago, Rabbittron said:

Don't quote me but what I have been seeing on tv and reading Smuggar will be om the first episode of Counting on. I  think TLC wants to see how low Smuggar and the ratings will fall.

I'm betting the ratings would soar. 

The lower the show the higher the ratings, as far as I can tell. 

[JoanArc]

It's a webiside, not an aired episode, but that may change. I hope they use the lens flair - and expand it do you can't see a single Duggar on screen.

Edited May 19, 2017 by JoanArc

[Rabbittron]

6 hours ago, JoanArc said:

It's a webiside, not an aired episode, but that may change. I hope they use the lens flair - and expand it do you can't see a single Duggar on screen.

I heard it is now going to be a part of the show. 

[JoanArc]

1 hour ago, Rabbittron said:

I heard it is now going to be a part of the show. 

[RazzleberryPie]

Well that photo proves they didn't shell out any money for an image consultant or PR team. Idiots.

[Churchhoney]

7 hours ago, RazzleberryPie said:

Well that photo proves they didn't shell out any money for an image consultant or PR team. Idiots.

Well, remember the last time they tried to hire a PR person. The guy walked after about 20 minutes when he found out that they refused to listen to him, didn't he? Something like that anyway. And I seem to remember that he was kind of a fundie specialist, too. But they were beyond the pale. 

I think I may remember a dispute about pay, as well. 

Edited May 21, 2017 by Churchhoney

[Mollie]

9 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Well, remember the last time they tried to hire a PR person. The guy walked after about 20 minutes when he found out that they refused to listen to him, didn't he? Something like that anyway. And I seem to remember that he was kind of a fundie specialist, too. But they were beyond the pale. 

I think I may remember a dispute about pay, as well. 

I think you might be talking about cousin Amy, her mother Deanna Jordan, and grandma Mary.

http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/amy-duggar-fires-producer-jamie-slocum-reality-star-gets-new-show/

Money-grubbing seems to run all through this family.

[Churchhoney]

1 minute ago, Mollie said:

I think you might be talking about cousin Amy, her mother Deanna Jordan, and grandma Mary.

http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/amy-duggar-fires-producer-jamie-slocum-reality-star-gets-new-show/

Money-grubbing seems to run all through this family.

No. I remember that one, too.

But back around the time of the Josh scandals (don't remember just when), the Duggars hired or feinted at hiring a guy.... from maybe the Kentucky area? .... who was a PR consultant who specialized in Christians. He was young, didn't have a long resume but he did have a resume -- maybe had some country singer on it, for example?  I can't remember whether they went up to visit him or he came down to Arkansas. But very shortly after the meeting he published a post on his website (I think) explaining that, no, he was not their PR consultant because of creative differences or something.

And then I have a vague memory of his being interviewed by somebody -- because it was all much in the news at the time; the interview was in some minor pub or blog or something, though, not anything prominent -- and he spilled some stuff suggesting how impossible JB was to work with. .... He was clearly anxious to make sure that people knew he wasn't the author of their ensuing behavior. Because his professional reputation -- and future work, obviously -- were at stake, and they're part of the world he serves. 

We posted some about it on the forum. I think maybe with links to his website and such, even. So the info is around here someplace. But of course it happened in the middle of the biggest crush of Duggar news ever, so it's buried in the avalanche of posts from back then. It did happen, though, because I remember looking at his website and such.  

[Mollie]

6 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

No. I remember that one, too.

But back around the time of the Josh scandals (don't remember just when), the Duggars hired or feinted at hiring a guy.... from maybe the Kentucky area? .... who was a PR consultant who specialized in Christians. He was young, didn't have a long resume but he did have a resume -- maybe had some country singer on it, for example?  I can't remember whether they went up to visit him or he came down to Arkansas. But very shortly after the meeting he published a post on his website (I think) explaining that, no, he was not their PR consultant because of creative differences or something.

And then I have a vague memory of his being interviewed by somebody -- because it was all much in the news at the time; the interview was in some minor pub or blog or something, though, not anything prominent -- and he spilled some stuff suggesting how impossible JB was to work with. .... He was clearly anxious to make sure that people knew he wasn't the author of their ensuing behavior. Because his professional reputation -- and future work, obviously -- were at stake, and they're part of the world he serves. 

We posted some about it on the forum. I think maybe with links to his website and such, even. So the info is around here someplace. But of course it happened in the middle of the biggest crush of Duggar news ever, so it's buried in the avalanche of posts from back then. It did happen, though, because I remember looking at his website and such.  

Well, please let us know if you find a post or a website.

[Churchhoney]

27 minutes ago, Mollie said:

Well, please let us know if you find a post or a website.

Here's a bit about it. The guy's name was Hunter Frederick. There was more stuff out there at the time. Dunno if its still around though. I remember this, though, where he said he ended up not working with them ... for reasons he couldn't reveal. ha. 

They did work with a Huckabee-connected firm a bit, though. 

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2015/05/prominent-christians-have-their-own.html

[Tabbygirl521]

On 4/26/2017 at 0:28 PM, SMama said:

They already blamed Anna, Mullet reposted the be joyfully available even when big pregnan posts.  It wasn't long after Joshley went to Jesus jail that she had the audacity to post such garbage.

Just the thought of everyone knowing whether Anna was joyfully available or not is absolutely disgusting. 

[Churchhoney]

4 minutes ago, Tabbygirl521 said:

Just the thought of everyone knowing whether Anna was joyfully available or not is absolutely disgusting. 

Anna should sue Michelle for not protecting her privacy.

That's a lawsuit I could get behind. If somebody managed to break down their insane brainwashed family unity some of them could start getting a clue. Honestly, they're like a mini-North Korea in a big tin box.

[Mollie]

3 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

Here's a bit about it. The guy's name was Hunter Frederick. There was more stuff out there at the time. Dunno if its still around though. I remember this, though, where he said he ended up not working with them ... for reasons he couldn't reveal. ha. 

They did work with a Huckabee-connected firm a bit, though. 

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2015/05/prominent-christians-have-their-own.html

WOW!  I loved reading that.  

"Frederick explained that his clients go through an intense vetting process to determine whether they are capable of being helped and whether it's worth the company's investment. Despite rumors that he was hired to help the Duggars get through the scandal, Frederick said things did not work out with the Duggar family for reasons he could not reveal. 

"He said that his firm looks for clients who have: '"a willingness to admit fault, transparency, willingness to want to change. … Especially with our Christian clients, repentance is critical. This isn't our first time doing this, we know when something's going to work out and when it's not.'"

 

[Churchhoney]

17 minutes ago, Mollie said:

WOW!  I loved reading that.  

"Frederick explained that his clients go through an intense vetting process to determine whether they are capable of being helped and whether it's worth the company's investment. Despite rumors that he was hired to help the Duggars get through the scandal, Frederick said things did not work out with the Duggar family for reasons he could not reveal. 

"He said that his firm looks for clients who have: '"a willingness to admit fault, transparency, willingness to want to change. … Especially with our Christian clients, repentance is critical. This isn't our first time doing this, we know when something's going to work out and when it's not.'"

 

Oh, yeah. I remember having the same feeling at the time. Thinking -- Yay, it's not just that I'm a hateful heathen Internet poster. Professional people who work with other conservative Christians have the exact same opinion of JB that I do -- after vetting him according to their protocols. 

Nice to know

[queenanne]

1 hour ago, Mollie said:

WOW!  I loved reading that.  

"Frederick explained that his clients go through an intense vetting process to determine whether they are capable of being helped and whether it's worth the company's investment. Despite rumors that he was hired to help the Duggars get through the scandal, Frederick said things did not work out with the Duggar family for reasons he could not reveal. 

"He said that his firm looks for clients who have: '"a willingness to admit fault, transparency, willingness to want to change. … Especially with our Christian clients, repentance is critical. This isn't our first time doing this, we know when something's going to work out and when it's not.'"

 

"The first step is admitting that you have a problem..."  I think that's basically what the guy is saying.  JB and Mrs. Boob were probably queried, and said "Nope, no, not doing that... not giving up our weird cultish church rules; not saying "we were wrong."

[MargeGunderson]

3 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

Anna should sue Michelle for not protecting her privacy.

That's a lawsuit I could get behind. If somebody managed to break down their insane brainwashed family unity some of them could start getting a clue. Honestly, they're like a mini-North Korea in a big tin box.

If you agree to give birth on a toilet and have it filmed for TV, I think you have a tenuous claim on privacy rights.

[zoomama]

1 minute ago, MargeGunderson said:

If you agree to give birth on a toilet and have it filmed for TV, I think you have a tenuous claim on privacy rights.

i dont believe she agreed specifically to do that, i think she was told she would give birth on camera and the birth went that direction. 

[Missy Vixen]

On 5/21/2017 at 7:32 AM, Churchhoney said:

Anna should sue Michelle for not protecting her privacy.

That's a lawsuit I could get behind. If somebody managed to break down their insane brainwashed family unity some of them could start getting a clue. Honestly, they're like a mini-North Korea in a big tin box.

It's going to happen if the girls' lawsuit makes it to the deposition stage. We won't get to see it, but I only wish I could hear audio of the defendant's attorney(s) questioning J-Chelle. She's going to get the $15 million questions and she will need some type of medical assistance during or after.

[Natalie68]

On 5/21/2017 at 6:00 AM, Churchhoney said:

No. I remember that one, too.

But back around the time of the Josh scandals (don't remember just when), the Duggars hired or feinted at hiring a guy.... from maybe the Kentucky area? .... who was a PR consultant who specialized in Christians. He was young, didn't have a long resume but he did have a resume -- maybe had some country singer on it, for example?  I can't remember whether they went up to visit him or he came down to Arkansas. But very shortly after the meeting he published a post on his website (I think) explaining that, no, he was not their PR consultant because of creative differences or something.

And then I have a vague memory of his being interviewed by somebody -- because it was all much in the news at the time; the interview was in some minor pub or blog or something, though, not anything prominent -- and he spilled some stuff suggesting how impossible JB was to work with. .... He was clearly anxious to make sure that people knew he wasn't the author of their ensuing behavior. Because his professional reputation -- and future work, obviously -- were at stake, and they're part of the world he serves. 

We posted some about it on the forum. I think maybe with links to his website and such, even. So the info is around here someplace. But of course it happened in the middle of the biggest crush of Duggar news ever, so it's buried in the avalanche of posts from back then. It did happen, though, because I remember looking at his website and such.  

I remember that as well.  

[Sew Sumi]

Yeah, I remember linking that guy's website. He was still in his 20's, IIRC. 

[Mollie]

3 hours ago, Missy Vixen said:

It's going to happen if the girls' lawsuit makes it to the deposition stage. We won't get to see it, but I only wish I could hear audio of the defendant's attorney(s) questioning J-Chelle. She's going to get the $15 million questions and she will need some type of medical assistance during or after.

But, depositions can be made public.  The Duggars cannot be certain at this point if they will be secret.  If some or all of the deposition transcripts are attached as exhibits to documents which are filed with the court, whatever gets filed with the court would be public record.  Also, certain other people are allowed to be in the room when the depositions are given.  In short, since they filed this lawsuit, they can't demand privacy on anything.

[kokapetl]

17 hours ago, Mollie said:

But, depositions can be made public.  The Duggars cannot be certain at this point if they will be secret.  If some or all of the deposition transcripts are attached as exhibits to documents which are filed with the court, whatever gets filed with the court would be public record.  Also, certain other people are allowed to be in the room when the depositions are given.  In short, since they filed this lawsuit, they can't demand privacy on anything.

How could people sue for violations of their privacy if that was remotely true? How could all the case law exist?

[Missy Vixen]

19 hours ago, Mollie said:

But, depositions can be made public.  The Duggars cannot be certain at this point if they will be secret.  If some or all of the deposition transcripts are attached as exhibits to documents which are filed with the court, whatever gets filed with the court would be public record.  Also, certain other people are allowed to be in the room when the depositions are given.  In short, since they filed this lawsuit, they can't demand privacy on anything.

I worded my response badly. I'm sorry we'll never see video of J-Chelle answering those questions, especially since depositions are used to force plaintiffs into settlement. If the Duggars think they have problems now, wait until they are facing a) a defense attorney that wants to make sure this case never goes to trial and b) wants to extract the maximum in humiliation for their clients so the plaintiff will agree to drop it for a pittance or for nothing.

My deposition went on for 7 hours. Our attorney had  a bug up his ass because he was determined to prove he was just as good at lawyerin' as the Harvard Law grad across the table from us. I am not a crier and I'm pretty tough by nature, but I was traumatized by that seven hours. It took weeks to feel better and I had done nothing wrong. If the Duggars think InTouch's handing over a huge sum of money because Jilly Muffin cried on TV, this will be the most expensive $15 million they were stupid enough to go for. If she thinks a falling shower curtain was traumatic, again -- she and her sisters will be living with the fact their deepest secrets will be on file at the courthouse, available to anyone who'd like to read them. This will have (IMHO) catastrophic effects on this family.

Example: If I worked for InTouch's firm, I'd ask Michelle why she wasn't ashamed her daughters were molested and if that made her a bad parent.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Missy Vixen

[Natalie68]

1 hour ago, Missy Vixen said:

I worded my response badly. I'm sorry we'll never see video of J-Chelle answering those questions, especially since depositions are used to force plaintiffs into settlement. If the Duggars think they have problems now, wait until they are facing a) a defense attorney that wants to make sure this case never goes to trial and b) wants to extract the maximum in humiliation for their clients so the plaintiff will agree to drop it for a pittance or for nothing.

My deposition went on for 7 hours. Our attorney had  a bug up his ass because he was determined to prove he was just as good at lawyerin' as the Harvard Law grad across the table from us. I am not a crier and I'm pretty tough by nature, but I was traumatized by that seven hours. It took weeks to feel better and I had done nothing wrong. If the Duggars think InTouch's handing over a huge sum of money because Jilly Muffin cried on TV, this will be the most expensive $15 million they were stupid enough to go for. If she thinks a falling shower curtain was traumatic, again -- she and her sisters will be living with the fact their deepest secrets will be on file at the courthouse, available to anyone who'd like to read them. This will have (IMHO) catastrophic effects on this family.

Example: If I worked for InTouch's firm, I'd ask Michelle why she wasn't ashamed her daughters were molested and if that made her a bad parent.

Since your lawsuit issue went further than mine maybe you know this answer.  Isn't the one that filed the suit on the hook for all deposition costs?  I know that we (who filed) were threatened with discovery which was going to cost thousands but we never got to being deposed.  Their case will have a lot of depositions!  Many players.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Natalie68

[Mollie]

3 hours ago, Kokapetl said:

How could people sue for violations of their privacy if that was remotely true? How could all the case law exist?

In America, once you file a civil lawsuit it becomes a matter of public record and anyone can read a transcript of the trial.  

1 hour ago, Natalie68 said:

Since your lawsuit issue went further than mine maybe you know this answer.  Isn't the one that filed the suit on the hook for all deposition costs?  I know that we (who filed) were threatened with discovery which was going to cost thousands but we never got to being deposed.  Their case will have a lot of depositions!  Many players.

It can cost tens of thousands of dollars and is paid for by the party who requested the deposition, either the plaintiff or the defendant.

http://www.mylawcoach.com/my_weblog/2008/03/cost-of-witness.html

"To be safe, at the end of the day, you should be prepared to spend $25,000 - $50,000 for all the depositions in this case, depending upon whether we need an expert or not.  It’ll be the lower dollar amount if we don’t, the higher amount if we do.  Hopefully we wouldn't need more than one expert."

[Natalie68]

8 minutes ago, Mollie said:

In America, once you file a civil lawsuit it becomes a matter of public record and anyone can read a transcript of the trial.  

It can cost tens of thousands of dollars and is paid for by the party who requested the deposition, either the plaintiff or the defendant.

http://www.mylawcoach.com/my_weblog/2008/03/cost-of-witness.html

"To be safe, at the end of the day, you should be prepared to spend $25,000 - $50,000 for all the depositions in this case, depending upon whether we need an expert or not.  It’ll be the lower dollar amount if we don’t, the higher amount if we do.  Hopefully we wouldn't need more than one expert."

THANK  YOU!

[Mollie]

1 hour ago, Natalie68 said:

THANK  YOU!

Thank Google, too!

 

[Mojitogirl]

Not to mention the irreparable damage to their family relations. Bringing this to the forefront will inevitably drive a wedge between them and their brother and his family. I find it more than a little odd that they are doing this now just when the negative publicity spotlight has begun to wane.  

[Rabbittron]

Hey Smuggar aren't you proud of the fact that you ruined your family's life and also the life of the guy that you stole his identity from.

[Mollie]

There's one thing about the released police interviews that puzzles me.  According to Jim Bob and Michelle, after the first few sexual molestations, nobody but Josh knew that they were happening.  The victims didn't know and the parents didn't know.

Then, one day in March, 2002, Josh went to Jim Bob and was "very upset and crying."  He told Jim Bob that "he had been sneaking into [redacted] room at night while [redacted] had been touching [redacted] on the breasts and vaginal areas while [redacted] were sleeping."

Then in July of 2002, Josh fondles again and again goes running to confess to Jim Bob.

Does that really sound like something Josh would do, just suddenly start feeling remorseful and confess to something that nobody else knew about?  I just have trouble believing that. 

[SMama]

Hell no, that greasy, bloated, child molester coward would not confess. Not until forced, like with AM.

[Mollie]

11 minutes ago, SMama said:

Hell no, that greasy, bloated, child molester coward would not confess. Not until forced, like with AM.

That's what I'm thinking, too.  No teenager would do that, especially this one.

I wonder what really happened.

[Churchhoney]

32 minutes ago, Mollie said:

There's one thing about the released police interviews that puzzles me.  According to Jim Bob and Michelle, after the first few sexual molestations, nobody but Josh knew that they were happening.  The victims didn't know and the parents didn't know.

Then, one day in March, 2002, Josh went to Jim Bob and was "very upset and crying."  He told Jim Bob that "he had been sneaking into [redacted] room at night while [redacted] had been touching [redacted] on the breasts and vaginal areas while [redacted] were sleeping."

Then in July of 2002, Josh fondles again and again goes running to confess to Jim Bob.

Does that really sound like something Josh would do, just suddenly start feeling remorseful and confess to something that nobody else knew about?  I just have trouble believing that. 

I'm skeptical of it, too. Seems like exactly the kind of tale JB would tell to get him, Meeechelle and even Joshie off the hook.

But I also wonder whether that might have been Josh's potentially-Gothard-approvable way of getting a pass for it. And maybe even a ploy a kid who didn't actually want to stop might hope would let him keep on doing it. If you run immediately to your big umbrella and "confess" every time, then you're on the right path? Then ... ooops! I did it again! ......But then you go confess again. And it seemed to work for a git, anyway.

[Sew Sumi]

I think that we know. The girls were suppressed from telling the truth, even into their 20's, apparently, save Joy. 

[Churchhoney]

48 minutes ago, Sew Sumi said:

I think that we know. The girls were suppressed from telling the truth, even into their 20's, apparently, save Joy. 

And to this day, I'm betting, they've pretty effectively suppressed any anger at their parents and certainly at Gothardism (and maybe even to some degree Josh) stemming from this.

Anger at any of your umbrellas -- or at any sex abuser, either, when you really look at the IBLP/ATI documents -- is uniquely corrosive to your soul, in the Gothard system. It's standing up and calling Satan over with his fortress-construction equipment and asking him to start digging a big basement cavity in your heart. .......I expect that the Duggarlings have been quite thoroughly indoctrinated to never ever risk that. ...

I can't listen to anybody talking Newspeak as constantly and fluently as they do and believe that they haven't essentially had their minds and souls shut down by somebody in charge. And the ability to feel, express and accurately identify your emotions is among the first casualties of that kind of shutdown. (Although most people retain a fairly robust ability to misdirect those emotions, of course. Because, hey, you're just totally fucked up and internally sabotaged, you're not dead.)

Edited May 25, 2017 by Churchhoney

[Celia Rubenstein]

3 hours ago, SMama said:

Hell no, that greasy, bloated, child molester coward would not confess. Not until forced, like with AM.'

I thought Jim Bob caught him coming out of the girls's's room in the middle of the night and that is when he "confessed."

It's been a long time, not sure I am remembering correctly. 

[GeeGolly]

53 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

I thought Jim Bob caught him coming out of the girls's's room in the middle of the night and that is when he "confessed."

It's been a long time, not sure I am remembering correctly. 

I thought he frantically called his parents to come home from dinner out and confessed.

[Missy Vixen]

On 5/24/2017 at 1:46 PM, Natalie68 said:

Since your lawsuit issue went further than mine maybe you know this answer.  Isn't the one that filed the suit on the hook for all deposition costs?  I know that we (who filed) were threatened with discovery which was going to cost thousands but we never got to being deposed.  Their case will have a lot of depositions!  Many players.

I'm glad someone downthread posted the info before I could get back here. ;-) We signed a contingency agreement when we hired our lawyer -- he would be paid out of the proceeds of the lawsuit. I can't imagine that KJB is forking out a huge retainer, so one can only imagine how that firm's getting paid.

Quote