Jill, Derick & the Kids: Moving On!!

[GeeGolly]

Our court case? No Derick it was Jill's court case.

I think comparing the parents' responsibility to the sisters, to this court case, is like apples and oranges. Two different things. JB & M screwed up. It doesn't mean all bets are off after that. Just like screwing up and getting arrested doesn't mean cops have a right to harm you.

[emmawoodhouse]

Derelict was writing as Jill. I read "our" to mean Jill and her sisters. 

I might have commented on his IG. He made a big blunder 

[Ohiopirate02]

7 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Derelict was writing as Jill. I read "our" to mean Jill and her sisters. 

I might have commented on his IG. He made a big blunder 

I just took a gander at the comments.  Way to many leghumpers for my taste, but a few made me chuckle.  Someone asked if he's a lawyer yet, and someone else questioned what Derick meant by "sealed" records of Josh's misdeeds.  

[ginger90]

Interesting comment on Derick’s Instagram:

[Valerie]

It's sick to think that maybe, if all of this Josh mess hadn't been exposed, the CSAM trial may have gone very differently.

But people were still hurt in the process (like Jill) which is wholly Josh's fault because he's the one who did it in the first place.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Valerie

[Ohiopirate02]

1 minute ago, Valerie said:

It's sick to think that maybe, if all of this Josh mess hadn't been exposed, the CSAM trial may have gone very differently.

Not necessarily.  The molestations seem to be the worst kept secret in the Duggar's circle. A thorough investigation would have turned up the Holts.  Bobbye was ready to testify against Josh.  Not to mention the feds had Josh dead to rights on the CSAM charges.  They knew he was the one who did it before arresting him.  

[floridamom]

I still think that Jill should have sued her negligent/uncaring/memory-impaired parents instead of local government employees. Her parents didn't care one iota about what was happening to them back then and proved it to me when questioned on the witness stand at Josh's trial about the events between 2002-2003 involving some of his daughters. 

What did Jill (or Derick) mean when stated that she was bullied, shamed, etc? Did her parents blame her for Josh's actions? Thank you for the clarification.

[Ohiopirate02]

4 minutes ago, floridamom said:

I still think that Jill should have sued her negligent/uncaring/memory-impaired parents instead of local government employees. Her parents didn't care one iota about what was happening to them back then and proved it to me when questioned on the witness stand at Josh's trial about the events between 2002-2003 involving some of his daughters. 

What did Jill (or Derick) mean when stated that she was bullied, shamed, etc? Did her parents blame her for Josh's actions? Thank you for the clarification.

It's very possible that Jill has received nasty DMs on Instagram.   

[madpsych78]

Let's remember that we still don't know the fifth victim's identity after all this time.

We didn't need it in order to prove that Josh has a history of child molestation. The only thing that would likely be needed was the age (i.e., prove they are under the age of consent) but that's it.

It wasn't Derick's case, but it also wasn't just Jill's case. Jill was just the only one who posted about it (well, Derick, but you get the idea - unlikely that Ben, Jeremy, or Austin would post anything).

1 hour ago, ginger90 said:

Interesting comment on Derick’s Instagram:

What was God's intent with Josh then? Did God intend for Josh to be a criminal?

[GeeGolly]

12 minutes ago, madpsych78 said:

Let's remember that we still don't know the fifth victim's identity after all this time.

We didn't need it in order to prove that Josh has a history of child molestation. The only thing that would likely be needed was the age (i.e., prove they are under the age of consent) but that's it.

It wasn't Derick's case, but it also wasn't just Jill's case. Jill was just the only one who posted about it (well, Derick, but you get the idea - unlikely that Ben, Jeremy, or Austin would post anything).

What was God's intent with Josh then? Did God intend for Josh to be a criminal?

So true. They could have discussed Josh's criminal past in a closed courtroom had the sisters' names had never previously been revealed.

And that comment from that rando. It bothers me to no end when folks say God does this or that awful thing for a reason.

[BitterApple]

3 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Thank you.  I will say that I am heartbroken that Jill and her sisters were outed back in 2015.  I have always felt that way.  I also see why they are upset about the improperly redacted documents. In Touch could have broken this story without letting that information out.  The story should have been Josh is a predator and JB and Michelle covered it up full stop.  There is a way to balance the public's right to know about JB and Michelle and the girls' privacy.  

I am as well. I'm of the unpopular opinion that the police report should've never been released. Even if it had been redacted properly, any idiot could've connected the dots. 

[Cinnabon]

5 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I was under the impression that the FOIA request was legal.  I can't imagine a judge would say it was not when the lawsuit against In Touch was dismissed.  The civil servants were negligent in their redacting of the report, but it's a stretch to say they acted with intent to harm.  Is there any proof of this?  

AFAIK, they followed the rules in place and weren’t negligent.

[CalicoKitty]

At least "Jill" acknowledges that Josh committed assault rather than "it happens in all families".

Referring to the part of the post that says Derick went to law school to help victims, do we even know for certain that he even took the bar after graduation?  Maybe he is not planning on becoming a lawyer.  With degrees in law and accounting, I'm sure he could find some good jobs.  Maybe forensic accounting?  I will not be surprised, however, if we hear soon of his next degree path.  I think he has smarts, and maybe is is a perpetual student.

[Zella]

8 minutes ago, CalicoKitty said:

do we even know for certain that he even took the bar after graduation?  

They've been slippery about it, but they were showing him studying for it last summer before they suddenly stopped talking about it and his name didn't appear on the pass list. It is possible he opted not to take it, but I think it is more likely he took it and failed since he was actively studying for it. It will be interesting to see if he appears on the next list. 

I noticed that he was very deferential about the judge in the post (even though he was unprofessionally ridiculous about the other people being out to get them) and talking about being inspired to go to law school and interest in victim rights seems pretty "interested in being a lawyer" to me, so that makes me think he indeed still has some interest in pursuing it professionally. 

[CalicoKitty]

1 minute ago, Zella said:

They've been slippery about it, but they were showing him studying for it last summer before they suddenly stopped talking about it and his name didn't appear on the pass list. It is possible he opted not to take it, but I think it is more likely he took it and failed since he was actively studying for it. It will be interesting to see if he appears on the next list. 

I noticed that he was very deferential about the judge in the post (even though he was unprofessionally ridiculous about the other people being out to get them) and talking about being inspired to go to law school and interest in victim rights seems pretty "interested in being a lawyer" to me, so that makes me think he indeed still has some interest in pursuing it professionally. 

I agree, he probably took the Bar and did not pass.  In the back of my mind I wonder if he realized that Jill was not letting him get quality study time and he opted out at the last minute.  They have not been forthright about it.  I am looking forward to his next venture, be it taking the Bar again, or a new path.  I think with a different type of upbringing he might have turned out to be an interesting person.

[Zella]

19 minutes ago, CalicoKitty said:

In the back of my mind I wonder if he realized that Jill was not letting him get quality study time and he opted out at the last minute.  They have not been forthright about it. 

Weirdly enough, the fact he's been so radio silent about it and doesn't seem to have secured another job is what makes me think more than anything he is studying for it this time around. Maybe he learned a lesson last summer. 

[emmawoodhouse]

Well, he wasted a lot of time drafting "Jill's" response to the ruling and fending off haters on IG today. 

Is that post from this morning still on the blog? 

[SunnyBeBe]

I hope he’s realized how important it is to get at least 8 hrs, preferably 12 a day studying in quiet, for at least 6 weeks(7 days a week), prior to the taking the Bar exam.  Oh, this includes daily review prep classes.   I looked at the site for the prep class I took and omg, it’s really changed.  Back in the day you had to attend it in class.  Nothing was remote.  Now, you can even order a private tutor through their service who teaches you remotely.  That’s about $6000.  Worth it though.  
 

https://www.barbri.com/bar-review-course/

I wish him lots of luck, if he’s taking it again this month.  

[GeeGolly]

I believe Derick shilled some bar prep course a while back...

Yup, I just checked. He #partnered with BARBRI, back in October 2020, so I'm guessing he got it for free.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CGp67svpXwQ/

[ginger90]

7 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Is that post from this morning still on the blog? 

It is still there.

[GeeGolly]

8 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Well, he wasted a lot of time drafting "Jill's" response to the ruling and fending off haters on IG today. 

Is that post from this morning still on the blog? 

38 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

It is still there.

I have a feeling Derick will leave up any comment that depicts JB in a negative light.

 

[Ohiopirate02]

14 hours ago, BitterApple said:

I am as well. I'm of the unpopular opinion that the police report should've never been released. Even if it had been redacted properly, any idiot could've connected the dots. 

I disagree.  Michelle wanted to have her cake and eat it too with those robocalls and someone took action.  Her arrogance and laziness made this happen.  The option was there to make the police report go away, and the Duggars never did that.  Then Michelle decides to harness her celebrity to take on a vulnerable community.  It is unfortunate that the Duggar girls were collateral damage, but the blame will always land on the shoulders of JB and Michelle.  

[GeeGolly]

2 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I disagree.  Michelle wanted to have her cake and eat it too with those robocalls and someone took action.  Her arrogance and laziness made this happen.  The option was there to make the police report go away, and the Duggars never did that.  Then Michelle decides to harness her celebrity to take on a vulnerable community.  It is unfortunate that the Duggar girls were collateral damage, but the blame will always land on the shoulders of JB and Michelle.  

I see it very differently. It will never make sense to me that its okay to hurt a child (adult child or not) to get revenge and/or punish a parent. Never.

Came back to explain my point a little more.

Derick has been an outspoken asshole against folks from the LGBTQ+ community. I hope Sammy and Izzy never have to experience the consequences of Derick's action, now, or later in life.

And might I add, Michelle's hate of the LGBTQ+ community is what outed the molestations of Jill and her sisters.

Edited February 11, 2022 by GeeGolly

[Lady Whistleup]

It's unfortunately very common for victims of sexual abuse to be bullied on SM. I've seen it happen many times. I'm saddened if any of Josh's victims were bullied.

[Trillium]

To their credit, J&D are less aggressive about deleting less than flattering comments than some of the others. 
 

I do feel bad that the girls trauma was made public against their will. But the blame doesn’t lie with the people who were just doing their jobs, so the decision is correct. 

[GeeGolly]

56 minutes ago, Trillium said:

To their credit, J&D are less aggressive about deleting less than flattering comments than some of the others. 
 

I do feel bad that the girls trauma was made public against their will. But the blame doesn’t lie with the people who were just doing their jobs, so the decision is correct. 

The court decision was correct. InTouch's wasn't.

[lascuba]

2 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

The court decision was correct. InTouch's wasn't.

InTouch is an immoral sleazebag of a publication, but what did they do wrong, legally? They filed an FOIA request and published the records they received. Are publications responsible for ensuring that government officials redacted correctly?

[Ohiopirate02]

Just now, lascuba said:

InTouch is an immoral sleazebag of a publication, but what did they do wrong, legally? They filed an FOIA request and published the records they received. Are publications responsible for ensuring that government officials redacted correctly?

What In Touch did was unethical and unnecessary, but legal.  They could have reported the story without including images of the police report.  They also had a choice of cropping the image to protect the girls or redacting the identifying info of the victims.  A less sleazy publication would have found a way to report the story without outing the sisters.   

[lascuba]

4 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

What In Touch did was unethical and unnecessary, but legal.  They could have reported the story without including images of the police report.  They also had a choice of cropping the image to protect the girls or redacting the identifying info of the victims.  A less sleazy publication would have found a way to report the story without outing the sisters.   

If they had chosen to include the police report, do you think they should have not disclosed that 4 of the victims were his sisters at all, or is it the fact that it was easy to identify the specific sisters that's the problem? I'm not arguing against your points, as I agree with you in the broader sense, though I have no moral issues with the release of the police reports, myself. I see it in the same light as it's wrong to out LGTBQ+ people, but I don't care if prominent anti-gay people get outed, if that makes sense.

 

[Ohiopirate02]

3 minutes ago, lascuba said:

If they had chosen to include the police report, do you think they should have not disclosed that 4 of the victims were his sisters at all, or is it the fact that it was easy to identify the specific sisters that's the problem? I'm not arguing against your points, as I agree with you in the broader sense, though I have no moral issues with the release of the police reports, myself. I see it in the same light as it's wrong to out LGTBQ+ people, but I don't care if prominent anti-gay people get outed, if that makes sense.

 

If memory serves, the actual article did not identify the victims.  People were able to figure out who they were based on the image of the police report.  Without the accompanying image, no one would have figured out which of his sisters Josh molested.  We could have put two and two together and know at least one of Josh's victims was related to him, but not which.

[Rootbeer]

11 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

If memory serves, the actual article did not identify the victims.  People were able to figure out who they were based on the image of the police report.  Without the accompanying image, no one would have figured out which of his sisters Josh molested.  We could have put two and two together and know at least one of Josh's victims was related to him, but not which.

Knowing the dates of the molestations and the number of sisters molested, it would be possible to figure out with a fair degree of certainty which sisters were involved, even if we didn't have the ages.  The details surrounding the various incidents were also pretty specific.  When we're told one girl was molested while doing laundry, we can do the math and figure out who would or wouldn't be old enough.  As for the incident when Josh had one of his sisters on his lap and was reading her a story; there was really no other sister it could have been.

I agree, In Touch could have and should have not shown the actual documents without masking more details.  Just because it was legal, doesn't make it fair to the victims.  Personally, I wish I didn't know the details including the specifics of what happened or which sisters were hurt in which incident.

[GeeGolly]

1 hour ago, lascuba said:

InTouch is an immoral sleazebag of a publication, but what did they do wrong, legally? They filed an FOIA request and published the records they received. Are publications responsible for ensuring that government officials redacted correctly?

InTouch didn't do anything illegal. The authorities who handled the documents didn't do anything illegal either.

I agree with the above posters... and InTouch's beef was with Michelle's robocall. Its not cool to to cause all kinds of harm to her children because she made an asshole move.

I'm guessing if this wasn't the Duggars, some might see it differently. If say, Michelle Kwan's brother sexually abused kids including her, would it be okay if a tabloid outed her molestation because her mom made anti-LGBTQ+ statements?

[lascuba]

33 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

InTouch didn't do anything illegal. The authorities who handled the documents didn't do anything illegal either.

I agree with the above posters... and InTouch's beef was with Michelle's robocall. Its not cool to to cause all kinds of harm to her children because she made an asshole move.

I'm guessing if this wasn't the Duggars, some might see it differently. If say, Michelle Kwan's brother sexually abused kids including her, would it be okay if a tabloid outed her molestation because her mom made anti-LGBTQ+ statements?

Got it. I initially read your comment as being about the court's earlier decision to dismiss the suit against InTouch.

I don't think InTouch cares about Michelle's robocall, but the person who tipped off InTouch certainly did. That was her sole motivation for contacting the tabloids, and I have zero issues with her doing that. A famous family is using their clout to harm me and my community? I'm not going to think about the collateral damage when I contact the media about whatever dirt I know. I don't think anyone should. The "high" road isn't always the ethical one.

I'll absolutely admit that if it weren't the Duggars, I might see it differently. Every adult in that family is vile, and even if I were willing to concede that any one of them has changed in any way that matters, at the time they were all, publicly at least, 100% aligned with their parents. It just happened to be Michelle's voice in that robocall, but the sentiment is shared by all of them. They'd used their platform for ill for years. I agree that legally the standards should be the same for everyone. But morally? I'm not losing any sleep over them.

[Rootbeer]

2 minutes ago, lascuba said:

 

I don't think InTouch cares about Michelle's robocall, but the person who tipped off InTouch certainly did. That was her sole motivation for contacting the tabloids, and I have zero issues with her doing that. A famous family is using their clout to harm me and my community? I'm not going to think about the collateral damage when I contact the media about whatever dirt I know. I don't think anyone should. The "high" road isn't always the ethical one.

 

In fairness to the person who tipped off the tabloids, we don't know that she ever read the actual police report and we definitely know that she isn't the one who did the redactions and submitted it to In Touch.  She may well not have expected that the FOI release would make it clear which of Josh' sisters were involved.  She may not have even known that his sisters were involved, but, if she did, it is because JB and Michelle allowed Josh to stand up in front of the congregation at their church and announce it; not because of a poorly redacted police report.

To me, this is part of why the daughters' lawsuit and complaints seem just a bit disingenuous.  Granted, they were all underage at the time, but most, if not all, of them surely remember the confession in front of the congregation that also involved them having to publicly forgive their brother if I am not mistaken.  Many of us remember back to the days of Alice who told us all this stuff back when we found it hard to believe.  So, there were literally dozens of other people who knew what Josh had done and to whom he had done it; any one of them could've spilled the beans to the press, too.  And, yet, their parents had no problems at all with giving that information to a bunch of people at church.  Good lord, it wasn't the gay whistleblower who told Oprah!  That was presumably someone from church who wrote the letter.

Although we keep hearing that it was a member of the LGBTQ community that told In Touch, I'm kinda hoping that maybe we eventually discover that that same person was sitting in the church that day and that is how she knew the truth,  And maybe part of why she left the church.

[Cinnabon]

30 minutes ago, lascuba said:

Got it. I initially read your comment as being about the court's earlier decision to dismiss the suit against InTouch.

I don't think InTouch cares about Michelle's robocall, but the person who tipped off InTouch certainly did. That was her sole motivation for contacting the tabloids, and I have zero issues with her doing that. A famous family is using their clout to harm me and my community? I'm not going to think about the collateral damage when I contact the media about whatever dirt I know. I don't think anyone should. The "high" road isn't always the ethical one.

I'll absolutely admit that if it weren't the Duggars, I might see it differently. Every adult in that family is vile, and even if I were willing to concede that any one of them has changed in any way that matters, at the time they were all, publicly at least, 100% aligned with their parents. It just happened to be Michelle's voice in that robocall, but the sentiment is shared by all of them. They'd used their platform for ill for years. I agree that legally the standards should be the same for everyone. But morally? I'm not losing any sleep over them.

Well said. 

[Lady Whistleup]

38 minutes ago, lascuba said:

I'll absolutely admit that if it weren't the Duggars, I might see it differently. Every adult in that family is vile, and even if I were willing to concede that any one of them has changed in any way that matters, at the time they were all, publicly at least, 100% aligned with their parents. It just happened to be Michelle's voice in that robocall, but the sentiment is shared by all of them. They'd used their platform for ill for years. I agree that legally the standards should be the same for everyone. But morally? I'm not losing any sleep over them.

 But bad people don't deserve illegal things done to them. I think many people think the Duggars suck, so it was justified. But it's about whether something is legal, not whether something is justified.

[Cinnabon]

3 minutes ago, Lady Whistleup said:

 But bad people don't deserve illegal things done to them. I think many people think the Duggars suck, so it was justified. But it's about whether something is legal, not whether something is justified.

They do/did more than just suck. They had a decade + long tv and media platform to spread their hateful, harmful beliefs. There are plenty of others out there with those beliefs, but most don’t have a huge platform on which to spread them to others. 

Edited February 11, 2022 by Cinnabon

[GeeGolly]

As I've said before, I can tell anyone I want I have anxiety, but it would suck to see it broadcast on the news. Also, I'd much rather have my anxiety revealed as gossip, rather than with paperwork to prove it. 

As far as InTouch revealing all, with paperwork to prove it, I'm more than willing to agree to disagree. I get where others are coming from, but I believe if its going to be an eye for an eye, the eyes shouldn't be collateral eyes.

[lascuba]

56 minutes ago, Lady Whistleup said:

 But bad people don't deserve illegal things done to them. I think many people think the Duggars suck, so it was justified. But it's about whether something is legal, not whether something is justified.

The law is the law and should be applied equally. In that sense. I don't think anyone deserves that, either. If there were proof that the county officials deliberately broke the law, then I would absolutely agree that they should have been found liable. But ethically/morally? Yeah, I do think people using their platform to harm deserve it. The Duggars aren't random fundies just living their lives. They keep doing everything possible to hold on to fame so they can use it to spread their bile and influence society.

Going back to my outing example. "It's wrong to out people" is a good, general rule. But the powerful guy who uses his platform to persecute gay people getting outed as a closeted gay man? All to the good.  Let's punch up as much as possible.

[quarks]

I put 90% of the blame for this on Josh. Not his parents, not In Touch, not these government employees, but Josh. He's the one who committed the crimes.

Maybe 8% of this on JB and Michelle, not so much because of how they handled/didn't handle the situation, but because they chose to go on TV and model themselves as a perfect Christian family despite knowing damn well that their "family secret" was not much of a family secret.  In Touch is pretty much only interested in celebrity scandal; had JB and Michelle chosen to stay off television, I doubt that In Touch would have published any of this. 

Which, if my math is correct, leaves about 2% for In Touch, and it's only that much because I don't like In Touch. It probably should be 10% JB and Michelle.

The government employees? They weren't the ones to commit the crimes; they didn't decide to go on TV and gain the interest of the media; and they weren't the ones trying to make a buck out of exposing a reality TV family. 

[Lady Whistleup]

8 minutes ago, lascuba said:

Going back to my outing example. "It's wrong to out people" is a good, general rule. But the powerful guy who uses his platform to persecute gay people getting outed as a closeted gay man? All to the good.  Let's punch up as much as possible.

Outing people is not illegal. It's generally shitty because people should be allowed to choose when they come out, but it's not illegal.

But sexual abuse details of minors with no redaction? That actually IS illegal.

As I said, the Duggars suck. They're awful. But sexual abuse details of minors without any redaction should not have been published, IMO.

[Cinnabon]

4 minutes ago, Lady Whistleup said:

Outing people is not illegal. It's generally shitty because people should be allowed to choose when they come out, but it's not illegal.

But sexual abuse details of minors with no redaction? That actually IS illegal.

As I said, the Duggars suck. They're awful. But sexual abuse details of minors without any redaction should not have been published, IMO.

There WAS redaction. If the Duggars hadn’t been on tv and putting themselves out there as holier than thou “role models,” no one would have been able to figure out who the victims were. They, including all of the adult kids to this day, IMO, still try to use their celebrity to influence and ultimately want to try and force their beliefs on others, which means hoping  to take away LGBT and women’s rights, amongst others. 

Edited February 11, 2022 by Cinnabon

[lascuba]

11 minutes ago, Lady Whistleup said:

Outing people is not illegal. It's generally shitty because people should be allowed to choose when they come out, but it's not illegal.

But sexual abuse details of minors with no redaction? That actually IS illegal.

As I said, the Duggars suck. They're awful. But sexual abuse details of minors without any redaction should not have been published, IMO.

Illegal and unethical are two different things. I'm not all that interested in the legalities with regards to this discussion. Like I said, the law is the law and if officials had knowingly broken the law, then I would side with the Duggars in this lawsuit. That wouldn't change what I think about the morality/ethics of what happened--in the specific context of the Duggar world and legality aside, I'm fine with the release of the police report.

[GeeGolly]

The scary thing to me is this discussion is in Derick's thread. The man who is trying to pass the bar and is openly anti-LGBTQ+ rights. He worries me much more than say Jill, who will picket outside clinic. But Derick being Derick it trying to make it seem he's going to be some type of child advocate.

Jazz was a child when he attacked her. Some minor females end up pregnant after an assault. Matthew Shepard was barely an adult when his was viciously attacked and murdered. Is Derick going to fight for the rights of all kids? Or is he just going advocate for those who live by his standards?

[Zella]

2 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

Is Derick going to fight for the rights of all kids? Or is he just going advocate for those who live by his standards?

I've wondered about this ever since he started saying vague things about an interest in public law and/or victims rights. I have a feeling we'd collectively be pretty put off by his answer (if he'd give one) when asked to clarify whom he considers a victim worthy of his representation and whom he doesn't. And that is probably just as well for the people he doesn't consider worthy because I doubt they'd want him to represent them, but it also makes me question how effective he would be as a lawyer. 

I guess one of the things that really stands out to me about this latest post is how . . . unlawyerly it comes across. Their statement about Josh's trial, IMO, was quite well written and effective. It struck a nice balance between outrage and professionalism. It made me go "Hmm maybe Derick did learn some things in law school."

This latest one--I get that he and Jill are mad about the way the lawsuit turned out, and this isn't a comment on the fairness of that suit or the judgment--but I think his claim about the people who did the redactions doing it out of evil malice is pretty unhinged. And the more I think about it, the more batshit crazy it seems as an accusation. 

I remember people saying the girls should use Derick as their lawyer against Jim Bob or whatever. That post is a pretty good example to me why he should be nowhere near any of this in a professional capacity, and though I get why it is personal for him, it makes me wonder how much he's really able to disengage from something and analyze it coolly. 

The lawyers I know are pretty good at standing back from something and being able to give a fairly well-reasoned, cool-headed explanation/reasoning, regardless of their own personal thoughts. It's not to say they don't have the personal biases and preferences or can't get angry or be passionate about something, but to me, that blog post doesn't seem to come from someone who finished 3 years of law school and developed as a critical thinker because of it. 

I cannot imagine Derick being able to represent someone he disagrees with, which seems to really limit your prospects as an attorney. 

Edited February 12, 2022 by Zella

[Absolom]

35 minutes ago, Zella said:

but I think his claim about the people who did the redactions doing it out of evil malice is pretty unhinged. And the more I think about it, the more batshit crazy it seems as an accusation. 

I agree.  That part shows he hasn't grown nearly as much we'd hope or as he should have learned to be objective in law school.  

 

37 minutes ago, Zella said:

The lawyers I know are pretty good at standing back from something and being able to give a fairly well-reasoned, cool-headed explanation/reasoning, regardless of their own personal thoughts. It's not to say they don't have the personal biases and preferences or can't get angry or be passionate about something, but to me, that blog post doesn't seem to come from someone who finished 3 years of law school and developed as a critical thinker because of it. 

Exactly.  We have lawyers in the family and they are all fully capable of doing that.  They don't make the BSC comments of the police chief having it in for them.  

[Zella]

45 minutes ago, Absolom said:

Exactly.  We have lawyers in the family and they are all fully capable of doing that.  They don't make the BSC comments of the police chief having it in for them.  

Yeah I've witnessed a lawyer in action like this exactly once and I was really impressed--basically I was present at a meeting when an unexpected and ridiculous but potentially serious lawsuit threat was announced. Even people who are usually calm and collected were really rattled, but our resident lawyer just very calmly asked questions.

I'm sure he was as upset internally as the rest of us because he volunteers his legal expertise to us pro bono and I know the organization is a cause dear to his heart, but he never once indicated that he was angry or nervous. He also just mildly noted he wasn't sure what the grounds would be for a lawsuit. it was all pretty quickly dropped, just as suddenly as it was raised, so I suspect the threat was made in the heat of the moment and the other side's lawyer told them the same thing about it being stupid.

He's always telling us to rein him in if he's being too much of a lawyer for the occasion, but we all greatly appreciated him being a lawyer in that moment. 

I can't imagine Derick keeping it together that well on the spot. Usually someone's writing is calmer than their initial outburst, so his crazed post is also the result of him actually having time to think. I shudder to think what his first draft of that looked like. 

Edited February 12, 2022 by Zella

[hathorlive]

21 hours ago, CalicoKitty said:

I agree, he probably took the Bar and did not pass.  In the back of my mind I wonder if he realized that Jill was not letting him get quality study time and he opted out at the last minute.  They have not been forthright about it.  I am looking forward to his next venture, be it taking the Bar again, or a new path.  I think with a different type of upbringing he might have turned out to be an interesting person.

I'm of the opinion that with every thing going on with Josh, Derrick probably spent more time hand holding and supporting his wife than studying.  And that's totally okay in my eyes. While Jilly is very needy, these circumstances warrant more attention.  It can't be easy to realize your brother is a predator, that he looks at CP with kids the same age as his daughters, and that her parents never did anything to help her or her brother.  It's a lot to digest.  

I think Derrick will pass the bar just to annoy all of us.  Most people on here said he'd never make it through three years of law school. I think he'll want an encore for us.

Edited February 12, 2022 by hathorlive

[BigBingerBro]

Dumb question - does he have to take and pass the bar?  Are there not jobs he could get with simply a law degree?  And with that said, if he does want or need to take the bar exam - is there a time element that he must adhere to?

[Absolom]

There are jobs he can get and do without passing the bar.  Although if he wants to be a practicing attorney, he'll need to pass the bar.  He can take the bar exam as many times as he wants to.  It's offered twice a year.