The Lonely Js Club: Jana, Jason, James, Jackson & Johannah

[Portia]

I think people are surprised/outraged that the police chose to enforce the law against an affluent white woman. 

[SusanM]

7 minutes ago, Portia said:

I think people are surprised/outraged that the police chose to enforce the law against an affluent white woman. 

I guess that's possible but until and unless more information comes out I think what's surprising many of us is that she was charged at all over what seems (at this point) to be something many parents/caregivers have had happen to them.  I think it's a "there but for the grace of god, go I" kind of thing.

[madpsych78]

13 minutes ago, Portia said:

I think people are surprised/outraged that the police chose to enforce the law against an affluent white woman. 

Perhaps for some. But in my case, I wouldn't be as surprised if the police nabbed Jessa or Michelle for the same crime, and they are also affluent white women. Sometimes other factors besides demographics come into play.

[Tikichick]

20 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Or she is just fine and believe as her parents' do of her own free will.   She might be exactly as she says she is -- just fine staying with her parents and caring for the other kids.   

Sure we WANT someone to break away.   But they may not want to.   They may have genuine belief in this system and not want to change.    

She very well may be, we have no idea.   I didn't advocate for her to break away, I merely said she's a fool or brainwashed if she thinks she can't.   I think both of those ideas are highly unlikely.

[Portia]

3 minutes ago, SusannahM said:

I guess that's possible but until and unless more information comes out I think what's surprising many of us is that she was charged at all over what seems (at this point) to be something many parents/caregivers have had happen to them.  I think it's a "there but for the grace of god, go I" kind of thing.

Oh absolutely, I have that sort of response too. But it's been my observation that "the grace of god" doesn't get applied equally.

Decades ago, I lost my 3-year-old at the zoo. It was absolutely terrifying, but zoo security staff were able to locate her and reunite us quite quickly. A few days later, my local news reported a similarly-aged child had disappeared from her yard in a rural area. After a few hours, rescue workers located the child unharmed, and the news reported a tearful reunion between child and mother. The next day, it was reported that the mother had been charged with child endangerment. Obviously the authorities may have discovered something truly alarming in that home, but I couldn't help but wonder why no one had questioned my parenting competence when I lost track of my kid. Like the mom on the news, I I had three three closely-spaced small children. I was also certifiably poor at the time. (It was Free Day at the zoo.) But I was a well-spoken white woman, and I think that was enough for me to be given the benefit of the doubt.

I was as surprised as anyone by news of Jana's arrest because we're I'm just not used to seeing women like her facing a charge like that.

[cmr2014]

21 minutes ago, Portia said:

I was as surprised as anyone by news of Jana's arrest because we're I'm just not used to seeing women like her facing a charge like that.

I agree with you, and think there's likely more behind this than just "local authorities suddenly decide to enforce the law equally."

Others have mentioned, and I think it's very possible, that there have been other incidents at the TTH where they have simply returned the child and said "be careful! Love your show!" before driving away. I think it's possible that the local authorities are concerned that this history will be exposed and they'll look bad. 

I personally think that CPS wants to get inside the compound and interview ALL of the children. Local law enforcement may have been told to keep an eye on the house and to not let anything go unreported.

[crazy8s]

but this seems it wasn't local law enforcement keeping an eye out. It sounds like random stranger driving down the road saw a child wandering alone and called local police. For the persecution theory to work here, it would mean random neighbors/town folks are driving around watching for things to happen so they can call authorities on the duggar clan.

 

[Zella]

8 minutes ago, crazy8s said:

For the persecution theory to work here, it would mean random neighbors/town folks are driving around watching for things to happen so they can call authorities on the duggar clan.

Yeah I don't think the Duggars live rent-free in the locals' heads like this. 

[TrixieTrue]

I was just on instagram and saw this in Jana's stories.  

[Valerie]

Good on Jana for clearing things up herself. TBH I think she could have done this a lot sooner and saved a lot of speculation and rumours.

[SJC]

2 hours ago, quarks said:

My personal theory is that meeting the men her sisters married put her off marriage for life.

I can somewhat relate to this ! 😄

[Zella]

"I know my last name means that everything we do is open to public criticism and interest." Bitch, please. The media wouldn't give two fucks about your last name if your parents hadn't muscled their way into a reality TV show despite having a whole skull orchard as skeletons in their closet. 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Zella

[crazy8s]

because nothing says I prefer a more private life than having 775,000 followers on instagram....

[Guest]

She can spare me the victim act.

You want a private life? Move out, get a private job, instead of living with your parents who never met a camera they didn't like. You didn't have a choice when you were a minor but you have had a choice now for THIRTEEN YEARS. 

[ElsieEm]

I dunno, all this "kid slipped outside unnoticed, could happen to anyone" narrative is still suspect to me. As many have said, yeah kids sometimes DO pull a runner in a few seconds, and it's scary but not uncommon. 

But if it's true that the child (less than 2 years old) was significantly far from home for a significant amount of time, that's different, ESPECIALLY if it was unnoticed by her caregiver. Like, if the police showed up to the TTH with baby in tow and found everyone frantically looking for her, that's one thing. But if they knocked on the door asking if someone was missing a kid and the answer was "uh, hmm, lemme check", that rises to the level of true negligence to me, not an understandable accident. And more likely to receive charges I would guess. 

I do hope we get a fuller picture of the incident at some point. 

 

[Scarlett45]

5 minutes ago, deaja said:

She can spare me the victim act.

You want a private life? Move out, get a private job, instead of living with your parents who never met a camera they didn't like. You didn't have a choice when you were a minor but you have had a choice now for THIRTEEN YEARS. 

Yes- I think Jana likes the benefits of a public life (instagram followers for example) but not the draw backs. Not that public figures owe the media a camera in their bathroom while they are bathing (as an extreme example), but come on now Jana. 

Josiah and Lauren's decision to leave public social media is looking better and better these days.

[SJC]

6 minutes ago, deaja said:

She can spare me the victim act.

You want a private life? Move out, get a private job, instead of living with your parents who never met a camera they didn't like. You didn't have a choice when you were a minor but you have had a choice now for THIRTEEN YEARS.

Tell her ! 

(And i don't mean that to be catty, ITA with your post)

Just now, Scarlett45 said:

Josiah and Lauren's decision to leave public social media is looking better and better these days.

I agree with this. They're clearly sincere.

[SusanM]

If what Jana says is what actually happened then what is all the stuff about her having to appear in court in January?  Was that faked by someone?

[Westiepeach]

But was it wise for her to say anything at all, like basically admitting guilt, if she has a court date in January?

And didn't she supposedly plead "not guilty?"

Edited December 14, 2021 by Westiepeach
Wanted to add another thought.

[Zella]

2 minutes ago, SusannahM said:

If what Jana says is what actually happened then what is all the stuff about her having to appear in court in January?  Was that faked by someone?

I think she is obfuscating. Child services may indeed have concluded it was an accident and didn't merit further intervention on their end, but I don't think that would negate the fact she still has to appear for the citation. I think she just wants that part to go away, so she's behaving like a cat who thinks if it can't see you then you can't see it. If she doesn't mention the citation, then it doesn't exist!

Edited December 14, 2021 by Zella

[lascuba]

26 minutes ago, Zella said:

"I know my last name means that everything we do is open to public criticism and interest." Bitch, please. The media wouldn't give two fucks about your last name if your parents hadn't muscled their way into a reality TV show despite having a whole skull orchard as skeletons in their closet. 

She seems pissed that people jumped to perfectly reasonable conclusions when they heard "child endangerment." Again, all speculation that could have been avoided if she had immediately said what happened when the news broke. Bitch, I know the "poor CinderJana" narrative has likely made you really comfortable in your place in the hierarchy among snarkers, but most of us are well aware that you're as shitty as the rest of that mess you call family. 

4 minutes ago, SusannahM said:

If what Jana says is what actually happened then what is all the stuff about her having to appear in court in January?  Was that faked by someone?

I don't know about this specific citation, but there are certain charges that require you to appear in court no matter how you plead and what the consequences are. This could be one of them. 

[iwantcookies]

How many kids was she watching? 10. Jeez. 

[GeeGolly]

I would like to revoke my previously offered empathy, back from Jana.

Edited December 14, 2021 by GeeGolly

[SusanM]

11 minutes ago, lascuba said:

Again, all speculation that could have been avoided if she had immediately said what happened when the news broke.

Not to defend her but this is hardly news and the only reason anyone is talking about it is because someone went digging for Duggar dirt.  Granted they were probably looking for stuff related to Josh but even so.  That said it's really not the news media she should have a beef with - it's social media.  Major news players don't give a rat's ass about this story, it's a line or two at best before they move on to Josh.  

[cmr2014]

1 hour ago, TrixieTrue said:

I was just on instagram and saw this in Jana's stories.  

This comes off as a lie to me -- like a lie of omission where the facts have been cherry picked to present be best possible narrative.

It also comes off like Jessa's defense of diaper mountain and her housekeeping in general and Jill's defense of her early childcare practices. "It's no big deal. This happens to everyone." They literally do not know ANYONE outside the cult, so they have no way of knowing that no, this doesn't happen to everyone.

All of the neglect and filth of the TTH is normal to them, and people who call them on it are "haters" who are pouncing on them for not being "perfect."

IMO, there's a world of difference between losing sight of a child in a crowded store or zoo (and then frantically seeking help to locate the child), and having a child leave the house and wander 250+ feet to the road. If she was going to take a nap, why didn't she ask an older child to keep an eye on the younger ones? Why wasn't the door locked?

Edited December 14, 2021 by cmr2014
site and sight are different words.

[merylinkid]

Let me break down the legal process as I think it relates to Jana:

 

1.  Kid slips out (cops are told if you HEAR of anything about this family and kids, let us know ASAP by CPS).  

2.   Jana is cited.   It's like a traffic ticket (and yes some speeding tickets you still have to go to court).   She has X number of days to either plead guilty or request a trial date.

3.  She enters a not guilty plea and gets a trial date.   AS SHE SHOULD.   You never plead guilty without 1) a lawyer standing RIGHT THERE WITH YOU and a SIGNED plea deal.   Which doesn't usually happen by the first date.

4.   Court sets a trial date on the initial plea.

5.   IN THE MEANTIME, Jana gets with her lawyer.   Lawyer then gets with the DA who discuss a plea agreement.   I'm thinking probation, some classes and then after a time of no more trouble the slate is wiped clean.   

6.   Plea agreement signed.   

7.   trial date in January remains because you still have to have a hearing on the plea.   it has to be on the record that the defendant understands the terms of the agreement and what can happen if they do not follow the terms.

So there is still a trial date, even though it looks like she took a plea.  

[madpsych78]

29 minutes ago, cmr2014 said:

This comes off as a lie to me -- like a lie of omission where the facts have been cherry picked to present be best possible narrative.

It also comes off like Jessa's defense of diaper mountain and her housekeeping in general and Jill's defense of her early childcare practices. "It's no big deal. This happens to everyone." They literally do not know ANYONE outside the cult, so they have no way of knowing that no, this doesn't happen to everyone.

All of the neglect and filth of the TTH is normal to them, and people who call them on it are "haters" who are pouncing on them for not being "perfect."

IMO, there's a world of difference between losing sight of a child in a crowded store or zoo (and then frantically seeking help to locate the child), and having a child leave the house and wander 250+ feet to the road. If she was going to take a nap, why didn't she ask an older child to keep an eye on the younger ones? Why wasn't the door locked?

I'm hoping that with those who attended Josh's trial, they had exposure to non-cult members and could see how they would react to such situations. 

[crazy8s]

we have one grand who is a wandering child. At age 2 he was found wandering down the road by his home. street had only 3 houses close together, neighbor returned him. At 3 1/2 he walked across the street to the neighbors, entered their house and went to the basement to play with their kids' toys. Neighbor returned him. In either case a citation most likely would have been issued had a stranger found him first and alerted police.

i highly doubt there is any alert to the local police to be on the look out for duggar infractions so they can alert CPS. both entities are probably way too busy with other cases for that type of thing

[absnow54]

1 hour ago, lascuba said:

I don't know about this specific citation, but there are certain charges that require you to appear in court no matter how you plead and what the consequences are. This could be one of them.

Even if you want to get a speeding ticket wiped off your record, you get a court date. I agree this is getting blown way out of proportion because the name Duggar is getting a lot of clicks right now in the tabloids. I don't blame Jana's attitude in the first part of her statement, and it was a much better statement than Jessa's because she acknowledged that the event was scary and not normal, admitted she was upset with herself, and was happy that the child was safe. Instead of Jessa's "it's no big deal, happens to everyone, get over it!" remarks. 

[Tuxcat]

I don't really have a problem with her statement. She has been splashed in the headlines  - followed by several paragraphs about Josh. I wouldn't want to be lumped into that either. The two offenses are far from equivalent.

The Duggars chose a public life and yes Jana has continued in that public role. I try to think about what I would have done. Here is this chance to continue on with a TV show and book deals and opportunities at age 20. I would have also continued especially if things were on the upswing. Jana has been a very popular, unproblematic Duggar for a long time and I don't blame her one single bit for taking the opportunities she's been given to make some money. Her biggest problem was all the wild speculation about who she was courting.  Being on a reality show like the Duggars is not reality - it's a highly orchestrated fake version of "life." So in her mind she could be both public and private I suppose. One with 750,000 followers can still careful curate the life you see.  As we've learned the public - knows very little about what goes on.

The only reason this particular story came to light is because her brother was the center of attention and someone didn't want to stop the gravy train. Katie Joy. Seriously look at the way we all reacted. The "OMG Jana" story was like feeding the sharks. So I get why she's irritated. I would be too. And her explanation makes sense to me. I remember the panic and horror of losing track of my own child. Those things haunt a person. I'm sure she was terrified. I don't fault her for this either.

What I do fault them all for is the lack of a pivot. At some point they probably do need to acknowledge that the empire Duggar - built on  "we live life correctly" ideology - was/is false and flawed. That is why people are reacting to them.  It's the hypocrisy first and foremost. Until Jana and the others understand this, they are going to continue to get picked apart. People will continue to dig. And the snarking will live on.

[Guest]

It seems to me that these days a lot of people want to be influencers where they make money based on people following their lives but then when the attention is at all negative they complain about not wanting to be in the spotlight. Jana is far from unique in that regard. But I think it is something that comes with making it your money maker.

And also, tell your idiot brothers not to post things like "I support Jana Duggar" if you're trying to downplay the story.

[BitterApple]

1 hour ago, ElsieEm said:

I dunno, all this "kid slipped outside unnoticed, could happen to anyone" narrative is still suspect to me. As many have said, yeah kids sometimes DO pull a runner in a few seconds, and it's scary but not uncommon. 

But if it's true that the child (less than 2 years old) was significantly far from home for a significant amount of time, that's different, ESPECIALLY if it was unnoticed by her caregiver. 

 

Agree 100%. The Duggar prison is set far back from the road. For a child that young to get off the property and walk down the street, it took some time. It also took some time for the cops to arrive on scene, speak to the driver and figure out where the child belonged. Like you said, the fact that the cops had to inform Jana a kid wandered off, and she had no clue, indicates this wasn't a situation where she turned her back for a second but quickly realized her mistake. 

I was initially sympathetic towards Jana, but that is quickly souring. It's one thing to admit you fucked up and you're sorry, but it's another to lie, tell a bullshit story and then play the persecution card. She's not so different from her useless parents after all 

[cmr2014]

1 hour ago, Zella said:

"I know my last name means that everything we do is open to public criticism and interest." Bitch, please. The media wouldn't give two fucks about your last name if your parents hadn't muscled their way into a reality TV show despite having a whole skull orchard as skeletons in their closet. 

There's no question that major news sources only published this story because of Josh and his trial. There has been, however, no "criticism" from major news sources. This is a story worth discussing only on this board -- and perhaps a tabloid or Reddit blog.

Conflating the "media" with a snark board is a problem of Jana's limited education and exposure to the world. The New York Times isn't interested in this story, The Sun is. These are not equivalent news outlets.

This isn't a news story because of her "last name." It's a news story because of her brother. We'd be discussing it on this forum even if Josh had never been arrested, but major news outlets wouldn't have published if not for her brother.

[lascuba]

1 hour ago, SusannahM said:

Not to defend her but this is hardly news and the only reason anyone is talking about it is because someone went digging for Duggar dirt.  Granted they were probably looking for stuff related to Josh but even so.  That said it's really not the news media she should have a beef with - it's social media.  Major news players don't give a rat's ass about this story, it's a line or two at best before they move on to Josh.  

She's on social media and uses her name for the followers. And anyone who's the slightest bit famous is going to ping the media's radar when that name shows up in reference to anything even slightly illegal. There is not a single person on earth that, if news about a child endangerment citation came out wouldn't start wondering what was up. And the vast majority of the speculation about Jana has been very kind. Feeling annoyed by it all is perfectly valid, acting like a victim of social media is bullshit.

[Tikichick]

A Children's Protective Services case and investigation and a law enforcement investigation are two different matters -- even though they may arise out of the same set of circumstances and the evidence and conclusions of each may be referenced in the other.  Even when PS substantiates a case and files a petition before family court for removal of children from a home most of the time there is no corresponding criminal proceeding against the parents related to abuse or neglect allegations.      

Given the insular nature and history the family has with privately and inadequately addressing matters pertaining to the wellbeing of minors it's likely CPS will be watching like a hawk and not hesitate to come in and assess the environment regarding the children whenever they have an opportunity.  It appears they found nothing to substantiate in regards to this incident and closed their investigation.   Evidently the district attorney or prosecutor in the area felt there was reason to file charges and that is what Jana is likely going to address in court next month.      

[Churchhoney]

27 minutes ago, cmr2014 said:

There's no question that major news sources only published this story because of Josh and his trial. There has been, however, no "criticism" from major news sources. This is a story worth discussing only on this board -- and perhaps a tabloid or Reddit blog.

Conflating the "media" with a snark board is a problem of Jana's limited education and exposure to the world. The New York Times isn't interested in this story, The Sun is. These are not equivalent news outlets.

This isn't a news story because of her "last name." It's a news story because of her brother. We'd be discussing it on this forum even if Josh had never been arrested, but major news outlets wouldn't have published if not for her brother.

I think all of these equivocations and misapprehensions by the Duggarlings are just part of the dense fog of denial and delusion they all walk around in. And have been walking around in their whole lives. 

As @Tuxcat mentioned, they desperately need to pivot out of that fog. But right now they may have a world record for size of denial fog, length of fog's persistence and number of people who seem to have no motivation to see an inch beyond it.

I'd think that this Josh situation (again) was the time when multiple people might start looking for the light. But watching Jim Bob appear to double down lately makes me wonder whether anybody actually will, as the trial fades into the past.

For one thing, despite what some have said about Josh, I don't see any sign that any of them has actually moved off the slightest bit from their vast collection of hideous beliefs. And those beliefs are a huge factor driving their isolation, deliberate ignorance, and many delusions, it seems to me. Even now, I wonder if any of them has any real motivation to try the no-doubt terrifying-to-them prospect of really questioning their indoctrination, their "faith" the cult, the family cult and the apparent groupthink inside those. Their bubble is pretty big, as bubbles go, and obviously strong. So their delusions get plenty of reinforcement, and it's still true that all they "know" about what's outside the bubble is that it's all satanic and deadly dangerous and your highway straight to hell.   

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Churchhoney

[MargeGunderson]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

I would to revoke my previously offered empathy back from Jana.

I’ll allow it, but JB will not.

Edited December 14, 2021 by MargeGunderson

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, MargeGunderson said:

I’ll allow it, but JB will not.

[laurakaye]

If Jana does have to take a babysitting class as part of her probation, perhaps she'll take a good look around the class and realize that she's the only 30-year old amongst a bunch of 12 and 13 year old girls and start to get a clue.

[SMama]

3 minutes ago, deaja said:

We really need these guys 🤢🤮.

[SusanM]

1 hour ago, cmr2014 said:

Conflating the "media" with a snark board is a problem of Jana's limited education and exposure to the world. The New York Times isn't interested in this story, The Sun is. These are not equivalent news outlets.

This is it exactly!  The Sun is a very tiny cut above the National Enquirer.  

[Tuxcat]

1 hour ago, Tikichick said:

Evidently the district attorney or prosecutor in the area felt there was reason to file charges and that is what Jana is likely going to address in court next month.   

Correct me as I don't know. The officer charged Jana. As with a speeding ticket if you want the charge dropped or reduced, you plead not guilty and go to court. At court, the prosecutor/DA can actually meet with the defendants lawyers and dismiss or file for deferral before it even gets to a judge. My case was like that. I went to court but my lawyer did a little whispering to the DA who did a little whispering back and my case was dismissed. The judge never even heard the case - but I was in court that day. Or of course the judge could dismiss, defer or affirm the charge if it gets that far.

1 hour ago, cmr2014 said:

Conflating the "media" with a snark board is a problem of Jana's limited education and exposure to the world. The New York Times isn't interested in this story, The Sun is. These are not equivalent news outlets.

Google Jana Duggar. Her headline has been on US Weekly, People but also Fox, NBC and many affiliates. 

How far is this "parallel road" from the Duggar house and/or the warehouse? How close is the warehouse from the main house? We don't know the age of the child but I do still wonder if Anna is involved somehow. Perhaps she told Jana "hey M down for her nap"  - go check in an hour? Which would be irresponsible of course but a plausible theory. Maybe the child ran down the road looking for mama.

[emmawoodhouse]

It's not a parallel road. I misspoke. It's an adjacent road. I believe it's the street the Pool House is on.

[Ljohnson1987]

I support Jana, but where were all of  the Duggar boys when Jill needed their support? 

[Minivanessa]

2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Let me break down the legal process as I think it relates to Jana:

1.  Kid slips out (cops are told if you HEAR of anything about this family and kids, let us know ASAP by CPS).  

2.   Jana is cited.   It's like a traffic ticket (and yes some speeding tickets you still have to go to court).   She has X number of days to either plead guilty or request a trial date.

3.  She enters a not guilty plea and gets a trial date.   AS SHE SHOULD.   You never plead guilty without 1) a lawyer standing RIGHT THERE WITH YOU and a SIGNED plea deal.   Which doesn't usually happen by the first date.

4.   Court sets a trial date on the initial plea.

5.   IN THE MEANTIME, Jana gets with her lawyer.   Lawyer then gets with the DA who discuss a plea agreement.   I'm thinking probation, some classes and then after a time of no more trouble the slate is wiped clean.   

6.   Plea agreement signed.   

7.   trial date in January remains because you still have to have a hearing on the plea.   it has to be on the record that the defendant understands the terms of the agreement and what can happen if they do not follow the terms.

So there is still a trial date, even though it looks like she took a plea.  

Thanks so much for this. I believe this is a good description of how the case started and how it will proceed.  She wasn't arrested; she was given a citation (ticket) by a cop. No prosecutor decided if the ticket should be issued; an officer did it. Now the case is making its way through the court. I saw documents online that indicate that Travis Story or one of his associates has entered an appearance as Jana's lawyer, and there's a court date (trial) set for I think next month.

It's quite likely that a plea deal will be, or has been, worked out that will be put on the record in court on the date now set for trial. Given her clean record she'll probably be given some deal that will, if she complies with the conditions and stays out of legal trouble, result in the case being dismissed with no conviction on her record at all after X months. The local DA's office may require some special sorts of conditions when it's a child endangerment case but still I don't think she'll come out of this with a conviction when it's all said and done.

[Boston]

5 hours ago, madpsych78 said:

Perhaps for some. But in my case, I wouldn't be as surprised if the police nabbed Jessa or Michelle for the same crime, and they are also affluent white women. Sometimes other factors besides demographics come into play.

America looks no longer what it did; however, i'm gonna say demograpichs  may be in play OR NOT.  jmo

[Boston]

When I was 31 I certainly wasn't BABYSITTING.. Even my nieces and nephews.  OK maybe for a few hours, but HUNNY GET A LIFE.  and as I have recently found out .. LIFE IS SHORT.  

Edited December 14, 2021 by Boston
wrong word

[Cinnabon]

15 hours ago, mynextmistake said:

I guess I don’t understand what you don’t get? A police officer felt like Jana’s conduct fell within the conduct prohibited by a criminal statute so she was charged with violating that statute. The fact that someone from Teen Mom might not have been charged for similar conduct is irrelevant. A lot of people who break the law never get charged, but that doesn’t mean we can’t charge anyone.

I was pulled over on my way to work one very early morning when it was still dark. The cop said he thought I was driving a bit erratically (it was dark and rainy) and spoke to me through my window. I gave him my drivers license and registration, and he asked what was in the driver door pocket. I said I didn’t know, as it was my dad’s car (true). I think it was candy, lol. Anyway, the cop was very sweet to me and let me go with no warning, no ticket, no consequences whatsoever.  When I got to work, a couple guys said they saw me pulled over and wondered what had happened. When I told them, they were pissed because they had also been pulled over in the area , but treated quite differently, spoken to with hostility, and ticketed. I am a middle aged white woman, so I have a feeling that explains the difference . Anyway, just because one person gets away with something doesn’t mean another will. Unfair? Yes, but this is the world we live in. It all depends on the cop - they all make their own judgments about situations they encounter. Another cop may have let Jana go with only a warning. This one didn’t.

6 hours ago, Portia said:

I think people are surprised/outraged that the police chose to enforce the law against an affluent white woman. 

For sure! Imagine if the cop had brought the child home, and he found a poor, somewhat grungy young man in charge who said he had fallen asleep. Odds are that he would be charged for putting that child at risk. 

[Cinnabon]

4 hours ago, Zella said:

"I know my last name means that everything we do is open to public criticism and interest." Bitch, please. The media wouldn't give two fucks about your last name if your parents hadn't muscled their way into a reality TV show despite having a whole skull orchard as skeletons in their closet. 

Exactly! And there is no way Jana actually wrote this. And Jana, if you truly preferred a private life, you wouldn’t be hawking random products on SM, nor would you have public SM accounts sharing details of your life with millions of strangers. Private people share with family and friends only. Just like Jinger claiming she prefers a “private life” are complete BS, so are Jana’s claims. 

[Cinnabon]

4 hours ago, deaja said:

She can spare me the victim act.

You want a private life? Move out, get a private job, instead of living with your parents who never met a camera they didn't like. You didn't have a choice when you were a minor but you have had a choice now for THIRTEEN YEARS. 

I don’t know if anyone else remembers the reality show about the Osbourne family (Ozzy!), but their oldest daughter completely noped out of it, so the show featured the 2 younger kids only. Jana could have done the same after she hit adulthood, but as you said, she hasn’t done so in 13 years, and has in fact become MORE public in recent years than she was as a minor.