Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[MsJamieDornan]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

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

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

[quarks]

2 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

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

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

[Churchhoney]

2 hours ago, quarks said:

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

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

Edited August 22, 2021 by Churchhoney

[hathorlive]

8 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

I'd say it's not bad at all. 😁 

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

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

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

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

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

Edited August 22, 2021 by hathorlive

[lookeyloo]

1 hour ago, hathorlive said:

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

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

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

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

[BigBingerBro]

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

[JoanArc]

2 hours ago, hathorlive said:

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

 

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

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

[sagittarius sue]

3 hours ago, hathorlive said:

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

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

[hathorlive]

1 minute ago, sagittarius sue said:

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

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

[JoanArc]

1 hour ago, hathorlive said:

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

PRISON LAUNDRY

[Westiepeach]

28 minutes ago, JoanArc said:

PRISON LAUNDRY

Oof!

[Absolom]

On 8/22/2021 at 5:09 AM, zenme said:

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

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

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

Edited August 23, 2021 by Absolom

[Scarlett45]

15 hours ago, sagittarius sue said:

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

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

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

[Tikichick]

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

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

[Jeeves]

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

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

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

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

Edited August 23, 2021 by Jeeves

[Absolom]

25 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

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

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

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

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

[Jeeves]

1 minute ago, Absolom said:

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

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

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

[Absolom]

5 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

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

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

[Churchhoney]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by Churchhoney

[JoanArc]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

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

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

 

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

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

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

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

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

[Albanyguy]

2 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

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

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

[BigBingerBro]

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

[JoanArc]

19 minutes ago, BigBingerBro said:

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

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

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

[GeeGolly]

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

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

Edited August 23, 2021 by GeeGolly

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, BigBingerBro said:

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

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

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

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

Convenient, I'd say! 😁

[JoanArc]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

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

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

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

Convenient, I'd say! 😁

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

[BigBingerBro]

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

[quarks]

39 minutes ago, BigBingerBro said:

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

Sigh.

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

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

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

[Lady Jane]

On 8/23/2021 at 12:41 PM, Albanyguy said:

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

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

[GeeGolly]

1 minute ago, Lady Jane said:

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

Even if Josh gives them permission?

[ginger90]

12 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Even if Josh gives them permission?

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

 

*Not an attorney, never a defendant. 😁

[Lady Jane]

37 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Even if Josh gives them permission?

 

22 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

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

 

*Not an attorney, never a defendant. 😁

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

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

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

[Chicklet]

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

Whoops lost the link somewhere, darn.

Edited August 24, 2021 by Chicklet

[BigBingerBro]

Josh Duggar attorneys file motion to dismiss his child pornography case

[GeeGolly]

1 hour ago, Lady Jane said:

 

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

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

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

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

[Churchhoney]

12 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by Churchhoney

[quarks]

 

1 hour ago, Chicklet said:

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

Whoops lost the link somewhere, darn.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SMama]

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

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

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

[Absolom]

34 minutes ago, SMama said:

I’m amused by how people perceive JB as influential to the highest degree. JB is a country bumpkin who stumbled upon an established real estate business, and lucked out to win a seat at the state House of Representatives.

I don't think JB is influential.  I think he's a control freak who has finally gotten in over his head with a son and a situation he can't wrangle back under his control.  That's why he and Derick will probably stay on the outs.  Derick was another person/situation he couldn't control.  It was probably shocking to him.

[emmawoodhouse]

1 hour ago, quarks said:

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just listened to Uncivil Law's take on this. He basically said that if a judge went for this, every HSI case in that time period had the potential to be thrown out. He went straight to the Constitution and showed that this motion won't fly. 

But nice try! That's why Boob is paying this guy the big bucks. 

[3 is enough]

If there is any justice in this world Josh will rot in prison and Jim Bob will go broke trying to prevent it from happening.

[Jeeves]

A few thoughts from a retired lawyer, as to JB "paying the bills and calling the shots" in Josh's defense. I wouldn't assume the latter part of that statement to be true even if the first part is. As has been discussed above, Josh's lawyers represent *Josh* no matter where the money comes from to pay their fees.

The issue of third parties paying legal fees in criminal and other types of cases, is specifically addressed in the codes and rules of ethics governing lawyers - rules which can result in disbarment if violated. Generally, third party payment is allowed if these conditions are met: : (1) the client gives informed consent; (2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independent judgment or the client-lawyer relationship; and (3) information relating to the representation is protected from disclosure. Remember, in this situation Josh is the client. That third condition means that unless Josh gives informed consent, the lawyers can't brief JB (or whoever's paying the fee) on the details of the case. A Colorado ethics opinion discusses this in depth; I believe the details may vary from state to state since each state has its own set of rules, but I think this is generally the way it would work in most US jurisdictions and it's addressed in these terms in some ABA publications.

BTW, when I took an excellent criminal defense practice course in law school 40+ (!!) years ago (yep), that third party payer scenario was one of the first lessons the instructor presented.

I'm 101% sure Josh's lawyers have covered this in their fee agreement, as they appear to have been successfully engaged in a criminal defense practice for awhile now. 

I've seen enough of Josh's behavior as reported over the years, to think that he'd be inclined to passively allow JB a lot of input into his case. But - we do not know if his lawyers (not Travis Story - the REAL defense lawyers) would agree to operate that way. 

Of course anything can happen, but I'm inclined to think this isn't the lawyers' first rodeo and they aren't going to be taking orders from or discussing confidential case matters with JB. It's pleasant to think of JB being thwarted when trying to throw his weight around in that scenario. Heh.

OTOH as @Lady Jane has mentioned, you can work your butt off to advise your clients on how to behave, and explain confidentiality to them, but it can be an uphill battle that you don't always win. I'd like to think Josh's lawyers have made it clear that he needs to STFU even with JB, but who knows what he'll do?

I'm still on the side of thinking that JB and Josh have met their match with these St. Louis [I think it's St. Louis?] lawyers, who don't give a sh*t about TLC or Bill Gothard or Duggarworld, and can probably chew up tinpot "patriarchs" like JB and spit them out without breaking a sweat. Hey, it's a fun thing to imagine anyway.

Edited August 25, 2021 by Jeeves

[merylinkid]

14 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

A few thoughts from a retired lawyer, as to JB "paying the bills and calling the shots" in Josh's defense. I wouldn't assume the latter part of that statement to be true even if the first part is. As has been discussed above, Josh's lawyers represent *Josh* no matter where the money comes from to pay their fees.

The issue of third parties paying legal fees in criminal and other types of cases, is specifically addressed in the codes and rules of ethics governing lawyers - rules which can result in disbarment if violated. Generally, third party payment is allowed if these conditions are met: : (1) the client gives informed consent; (2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independent judgment or the client-lawyer relationship; and (3) information relating to the representation is protected from disclosure. Remember, in this situation Josh is the client. That third condition means that unless Josh gives informed consent, the lawyers can't brief JB (or whoever's paying the fee) on the details of the case. A Colorado ethics opinion discusses this in depth; I believe the details may vary from state to state since each state has its own set of rules, but I think this is generally the way it would work in most US jurisdictions and it's addressed in these terms in some ABA publications.

BTW, when I took an excellent criminal defense practice course in law school 40+ (!!) years ago (yep), that third party payer scenario was one of the first lessons the instructor presented.

I'm 101% sure Josh's lawyers have covered this in their fee agreement, as they appear to have been successfully engaged in a criminal defense practice for awhile now. 

I've seen enough of Josh's behavior as reported over the years, to think that he'd be inclined to passively allow JB a lot of input into his case. But - we do not know if his lawyers (not Travis Story - the REAL defense lawyers) would agree to operate that way. 

Of course anything can happen, but I'm inclined to think this isn't the lawyers' first rodeo and they aren't going to be taking orders from or discussing confidential case matters with JB. It's pleasant to think of JB being thwarted when trying to throw his weight around in that scenario. Heh.

OTOH as @Lady Jane has mentioned, you can work your butt off to advise your clients on how to behave, and explain confidentiality to them, but it can be an uphill battle that you don't always win. I'd like to think Josh's lawyers have made it clear that he needs to STFU even with JB, but who knows what he'll do?

I'm still on the side of thinking that JB and Josh have met their match with these St. Louis [I think it's St. Louis?] lawyers, who don't give a sh*t about TLC or Bill Gothard or Duggarworld, and can probably chew up tinpot "patriarchs" like JB and spit them out without breaking a sweat. Hey, it's a fun thing to imagine anyway.

Pretty much all of this.   These lawyers are NOT risking their law licenses just to keep Head Idiot happy.   They could give two farts how happy he is.   They have a job to do and they will do it EXTREMELY WELL.  But they are not going to file stuff crackpot stuff just because JB asked them to.   They aren't even going to do it if JOSH askes them to.   They will explain to Josh WHY they aren't filing.   Josh can insist, but if he does, then they can withdraw.   

This case is NOT work their law licenses.    Any publicity they get out of it is so they can get hired in the future -- not because they are helping Head Idiot promote himself.   Head Idiot probably THINKS he can impress them with how "important" he is.   But to them, he's just the guy signing the (large) checks.    Josh is just another case file to them.    

[MsJamieDornan]

6 hours ago, SMama said:

I’m amused by how people perceive JB as influential to the highest degree. JB is a country bumpkin

Perfectly said. Thank you.

[hathorlive]

6 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Pretty much all of this.   These lawyers are NOT risking their law licenses just to keep Head Idiot happy.   They could give two farts how happy he is.   They have a job to do and they will do it EXTREMELY WELL.  But they are not going to file stuff crackpot stuff just because JB asked them to.   They aren't even going to do it if JOSH askes them to.   They will explain to Josh WHY they aren't filing.   Josh can insist, but if he does, then they can withdraw.   

This case is NOT work their law licenses.    Any publicity they get out of it is so they can get hired in the future -- not because they are helping Head Idiot promote himself.   Head Idiot probably THINKS he can impress them with how "important" he is.   But to them, he's just the guy signing the (large) checks.    Josh is just another case file to them.    

The St. Louis lawyers' website says it all.  They'll attack anything to win a not guilty conviction.  They state emphatically that they will attack witnesses without mercy.  The logic is that you attack the initial search, the evidence, the search warrant.  Then you attack the people who conducted it (re: see OJ Simpson trial).  If that fails, you go into court and attack the witnesses.  You don't wait until the trial to start your attack.  You paper the court with  motions and hope that something sticks.  They are doing what they've been paid to do.  I don't think it's going to work, but it's better than walking into court and starting your defense the day of the trial.

[Jeeves]

1 hour ago, hathorlive said:

The St. Louis lawyers' website says it all.  They'll attack anything to win a not guilty conviction.  They state emphatically that they will attack witnesses without mercy.  The logic is that you attack the initial search, the evidence, the search warrant.  Then you attack the people who conducted it (re: see OJ Simpson trial).  If that fails, you go into court and attack the witnesses.  You don't wait until the trial to start your attack.  You paper the court with  motions and hope that something sticks.  They are doing what they've been paid to do.  I don't think it's going to work, but it's better than walking into court and starting your defense the day of the trial.

Good to know that the lawyers' aggressive representation job in Josh's case is their usual type of representation. That tells me that JB and Josh hired them in full knowledge that would be their case strategy - and what it would cost. I think they were hired well before Josh's arrest warrant was issued (I know, he wasn't arrested but turned himself in). So, the aggressive motions the defense has filed aren't because the lawyers are dancing to JB's tune while he pulls the strings. It's more like, JB hired a heavy metal band for this party and that's the music he's getting. Unless the lawyers are fools (which I doubt), JB's not getting to specify the playlist. The details of case strategy are between the lawyers and their client, Josh.

It doesn't surprise me that JB and Meech would hire such aggressive lawyers to save their most precious child from the evil government's charges. I wonder how those two are dealing with the grim reality of a federal felony case now that it's happening. I suppose they will keep their happy faces on in public. I also wonder if JB or Meech were surprised by TLC's cancelling their show. So far they've lost their TV platform and thousands of dollars in attorneys' fees because of Josh. I suppose they'll just keep on doubling down on their faith that their correct Jesus will somehow save Josh from Satan's clutches.

I don't think JD's any kind of hero, but I respect him for distancing himself from Josh years ago.  I hope some of his siblings have followed his lead. Now that the show is history, JB and Meech may have less power to force the sibs and spouses to do the "one hyooge happy family" public photo poses and made-for-TV-and-social-media gatherings. Now that there's no show to promote, it's everybody for themselves (and generally the married kids each have big numbers on social media to exploit although they don't seem to know how to do it well). I suppose the M kids are loved and I hope they aren't being mistreated. But for sure, if I were one of the Duggar married sons, I would be OVER Josh big time, and I hope most or all of them actually are. Given that JB still controls those kidults via Duggar Enterprises, they may not openly rebel - but I bet it's not all sweetness and Jesus-y singsongs inside the extended family either.

[Tikichick]

16 hours ago, Lady Jane said:

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

 

16 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

Even if Josh gives them permission?

 

16 hours ago, ginger90 said:

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

 

*Not an attorney, never a defendant. 😁

 

16 hours ago, Lady Jane said:

 

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

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

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

An attorney worth their salt isn't going to be dumb enough to ignore this.  To do so would open up not only ineffective assistance of counsel appellate issues, but grounds to pursue malpractice claims.   

From what I've heard about lead counsel on Josh's case and what I've seen watching criminal defense attorneys practice over the years is that, particularly among high profile/top dollar attorneys, they compose the tune the client dances to -- particularly when dealing with personalities with tendencies to control and manipulate, such as addicts and/or sexual predators.  These attorneys are successful precisely because of their specific skillset and they don't suffer fools gladly and aren't even a little bit shy about bringing their own propensity to control the situation in service of their ultimate goal -- winning the case outright, or at the very least achieving the optimal outcome possible in the circumstances for their client.  

JB is limited to whatever crumbs he is able to bully out of Josh -- while Josh has no doubt received very no nonsense and intense instructions about keeping his mouth shut, period.  Wouldn't be one bit surprised to find out that JB has been told in no uncertain terms to stay out of it and keep his mouth shut or risk the attorney walking away and washing his hands.  

[Jeeves]

1 hour ago, Tikichick said:

From what I've heard about lead counsel on Josh's case and what I've seen watching criminal defense attorneys practice over the years is that, particularly among high profile/top dollar attorneys, they compose the tune the client dances to -- particularly when dealing with personalities with tendencies to control and manipulate, such as addicts and/or sexual predators.  These attorneys are successful precisely because of their specific skillset and they don't suffer fools gladly and aren't even a little bit shy about bringing their own propensity to control the situation in service of their ultimate goal -- winning the case outright, or at the very least achieving the optimal outcome possible in the circumstances for their client.  

JB is limited to whatever crumbs he is able to bully out of Josh -- while Josh has no doubt received very no nonsense and intense instructions about keeping his mouth shut, period.  Wouldn't be one bit surprised to find out that JB has been told in no uncertain terms to stay out of it and keep his mouth shut or risk the attorney walking away and washing his hands.  

Thanks for this. It's about what I thought (and hoped) the situation would be as to JB's role in Josh's defense. Essentially he's writing the checks. And, as you said, no doubt still pushing Josh around and bullying him for information.  

[JoanArc]

Josh's Rehab Church in trouble

Quote

Plautz says there’s a large number of survivors to support, “At this point we’ve talked to 21 females who say they were sexually abused at North Love or one of the related ministries.”

“There’s no vindictiveness in what we are doing. There’s heartache. Such heartache,” said Kyra DeBerry, who attended North Love for the first 26 years of her life - graduating from both the high school and Bible College.

“I would love to be able to return to North Love some day and have it be a church that I feel safe at and feel safe bringing my children to. I don’t let my children go there,” she said.

DeBerry told 23 News that she co-founded the support group to help survivors.

“Three of my friends told me that they had abuse that was covered up at North Love,” she said. “We sat at home later and said, ‘How do we know this information and not do anything about it?’”

Group leaders say all of the alleged abuses have taken place under the watch of Reformers Unanimous co-founder Paul Kingsbury. Kingsbury was a pastor at North Love Church from 1982 until last week.

“The Deacons have unanimously accepted Pastor Kingsbury’s resignation effective immediately,” said North Love Head Deacon Doug Stodola.

 

[Tikichick]

9 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

Thanks for this. It's about what I thought (and hoped) the situation would be as to JB's role in Josh's defense. Essentially he's writing the checks. And, as you said, no doubt still pushing Josh around and bullying him for information.  

JB has to be well aware that, despite his very best efforts for many, many years now, Josh has not and is not someone his tactics have been capable to bring to heel.  He knows darn well that Josh is entirely capable of deceiving him, no matter how many measures JB puts in place.   Even threatening to pull the financial support for the legal defense would pretty clearly be an empty threat, because Josh isn't unaware that JB's image and legacy are on the line right along with Josh's freedom.  

The sole person IMO who has any hold over Josh currently is his lead defense attorney, who has no doubt spelled things out for him in chilling detail -- and who is the only one with any ability to improve Josh's odds at all.

If Josh is sharing anything with JB it's either what his lawyer has spoonfed him as free to share, or whatever nonsense Josh dreams up to pacify JB the emperor with no clothes.   The great danger being that JB can be compelled to testify.  It would be hella entertaining to watch JB get grilled on the stand and very confidently share some info that Josh confided in him because he's sure it exonerates him -- only to have it shredded as patently false under blistering cross examination by the prosecution.  

It will be interesting to see if this goes to trial, or if the brakes come on at the very last chance and they attempt to cut a deal.   If they don't make any ground excluding evidence a plea becomes more and more likely to stem the bleeding.