The Duggars and Their World: Fashion, Food, Finance, Schoolin’ and Child Rearin'

[Churchhoney]

10 hours ago, Mollie said:

Michelle just posted a picture of the family that she says was taken in 2003.  But, there are 16 kids pictured and #15 was born in 2004 and #16 was born in 2005.  Could it be that Michelle has too many kids to count and just lost track of time?

I fear that that happened around kid four .... Alas, God's message about "It's too many kids when you can no longer count them!" went unheeded. 

[Barb23]

Who took this picture with the poor lighting & shading & clothing color?   I have no photography skills whatsoever but even I know you have to factor these things in.

[Mollie]

4 minutes ago, Barb23 said:

Who took this picture with the poor lighting & shading & clothing color?   I have no photography skills whatsoever but even I know you have to factor these things in.

I totally agree.  I actually put that pic through a program to brighten and sharpen the image.  Here's the original, untouched, version that Michelle posted on Facebook:

 

[Marshmallow Mollie]

Joy is levitating.

JD is just so JD in the corner. Gentle yet unsettling. Don't ever change, JD <3

[Barb23]

Thought this was interesting.  I've been watching Return to Amish & the one twenty-something girl is working on getting her GED since in the Amish world, they stop school at 8th grade.  They tested her & found she was only at a third grade level on some things like math. She couldn't even do most of the basic multiplication tables. The Duggar kids came right to my mind.  I wonder what level they would be at it if they were tested.  I remember Jill helping James with multiplication(?) flash cards at the same age when some of our kids would be doing Algebra. 

[EAG46]

That is interesting, Barb23.   At least she feels the need to go out and improve her education.  [And I hope she keeps going with that]  I don't think the Duggars realize how inadequate they are.  Or care.   Homeschooling MUST be better regulated.  

[Churchhoney]

2 hours ago, EAG46 said:

That is interesting, Barb23.   At least she feels the need to go out and improve her education.  [And I hope she keeps going with that]  I don't think the Duggars realize how inadequate they are.  Or care.   Homeschooling MUST be better regulated.  

This is the thing that horrifies me. Because Jim Bob won't be around to "employ" the next generation. And it's one thing if your family ends up poorly educated for social, economic or other circumstances beyond your control. That's very sad and as a society we need to try to keep that from happening as much as we can, in my opinion.

But to create that situation deliberately!? That's unforgivable, to me. You think that the possibility that they're courting disaster by creating a huge generation of the ignorant must cross somebody's mind in all this crew. And yet there's so far no evidence of that. And I do blame not only them but their Teevee "stardom" to some extent. Of course they're going to think they're hot stuff. Because they have television shows and television fans who tell them so. But how can any of the Duggarlings actually educate a bunch of kids?

Edited May 9, 2017 by Churchhoney

[ariel]

We've heard stories from the past of child actors who's adult lives were a disaster.  I wonder if the Duggars will be in that group.

[awaken]

9 hours ago, ariel said:

We've heard stories from the past of child actors who's adult lives were a disaster.  I wonder if the Duggars will be in that group.

It certainly seems like that's what we're heading for. At least some of the kids.

[GeeGolly]

On 5/9/2017 at 0:01 PM, Churchhoney said:

This is the thing that horrifies me. Because Jim Bob won't be around to "employ" the next generation. And it's one thing if your family ends up poorly educated for social, economic or other circumstances beyond your control. That's very sad and as a society we need to try to keep that from happening as much as we can, in my opinion.

But to create that situation deliberately!? That's unforgivable, to me. You think that the possibility that they're courting disaster by creating a huge generation of the ignorant must cross somebody's mind in all this crew. And yet there's so far no evidence of that. And I do blame not only them but their Teevee "stardom" to some extent. Of course they're going to think they're hot stuff. Because they have television shows and television fans who tell them so. But how can any of the Duggarlings actually educate a bunch of kids?

I agree. And I also think the only way they're realizing how poorly educated they are is because they're on TV and are aware of viewer comments. Either way I doubt any of the Duggar 19 will do anything about it.

[Sew Sumi]

9 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I agree. And I also think the only way they're realizing how poorly educated they are is because they're on TV and are aware of viewer comments. Either way I doubt any of the Duggar 19 will do anything about it.

I don't know how much attention they pay to the criticisms that they get aside from deleting or not even reading their comments. We know Benessa and the Duggars read and delete, but how much do the criticisms affect them? I think they're in denial, thinking they're so much more Godly than the rest of us, that they delete more out of trying to look perfect rather than getting angry and possibly reconsidering their way of life. The Dullards? I think they post and don't read comments. I've told Famy not to read her feed, but she continues to do so. The Vuolos? Too soon to tell, but I imagine they're just posting and leaving them be. However, so far, they haven't posted anything remotely contraversial, so time will tell with them. I suppose if one really wanted to engage Jeremy about a sermon that they could post to his IG and see if he replies. 

You know who could be the biggest problem of all? Joy and Austin. Neither of them strike me as very bright, and it's usually the dumb ones (see Exhibit A: Dullards) who post the most offensive stuff thinking how swell they are. Jill's opening sentence of her last blog is just the latest example of the blindness of the Dullards. The aroma of sweaty kids (screw baths, just DONATE!). 

[GeeGolly]

49 minutes ago, Sew Sumi said:

I don't know how much attention they pay to the criticisms that they get aside from deleting or not even reading their comments. We know Benessa and the Duggars read and delete, but how much do the criticisms affect them? I think they're in denial, thinking they're so much more Godly than the rest of us, that they delete more out of trying to look perfect rather than getting angry and possibly reconsidering their way of life. The Dullards? I think they post and don't read comments. I've told Famy not to read her feed, but she continues to do so. The Vuolos? Too soon to tell, but I imagine they're just posting and leaving them be. However, so far, they haven't posted anything remotely contraversial, so time will tell with them. I suppose if one really wanted to engage Jeremy about a sermon that they could post to his IG and see if he replies. 

You know who could be the biggest problem of all? Joy and Austin. Neither of them strike me as very bright, and it's usually the dumb ones (see Exhibit A: Dullards) who post the most offensive stuff thinking how swell they are. Jill's opening sentence of her last blog is just the latest example of the blindness of the Dullards. The aroma of sweaty kids (screw baths, just DONATE!). 

Jill probably never reads anything, but Derick does and then tries to defend his bigotry. Jessa and TLC do, as they often subtly address questions and snarks in photos, clips and on the show.

And ya, I could see Joy and Austin posting offensive stuff, as well as Joy asking Austin what some of the comments mean. 

[Sew Sumi]

Yeah, I just get the impression that much like Jill and Derick, Joy can't read a room. The jury's out on Austin, but he had the same insular upbringing, so I imagine he's just as blind to what the real world thinks about their cult. I see both of them as completely tone deaf. 

No one's complaining about being #blessablocked these days; I wonder if she's finally learned to just delete what she doesn't like and shut up. Heck, maybe she even stopped deleting. Ben actually answers questions, but as far as I know, hasn't banned anyone. Maybe he's the one who's gotten Jessa to back off the gas a bit. 

As for @duggarfam/DFO, there's an image to maintain, and poor Jana (convinced it's her) works her ass off to make it appear that it's all rainbows and unicorns at Chez Duggar. 

[Annb67]

On 4/7/2017 at 2:19 PM, SMama said:

I'm jaded, I doubt the braid is about baking hygiene, it's the heat. Yep I'm going to hell.

Scoot over...

[momofsquid]

There's something deliciously ironic about a self-proclaimed "ministry" that blocks people who don't agree with their teachings. We get one try and then it's off to hell with us.

[Celia Rubenstein]

Brought over from the Media thread, posted by doodlebug:

Quote

Actually, the judge isn't there during the depositions.  Just the person being deposed, their attorney, the opposing attorney and and the transcriptionist.  If the defense lawyer interviewing the plaintiff asks a question which her attorney deems inappropriate, he/she will object and then the plaintiff will be expected to answer it.  It is only later that the deposition is submitted to the court and a judge rules on each objection and either sustains or rejects it...

... Perhaps some of the questions will be ruled inadmissible and the answers scrubbed from the deposition and not allowed in open court; but that doesn't mean they won't get asked and answered.

Yes, of course the judge won't be in the deposition, just the parties and their attorneys.  But your attorney absolutely is permitted to instruct you to not answer a question ... it happens all the time.  It is limited to certain circumstances (in federal court, which is the case here), reserved for times when privileged or certain protected confidential information would have to be divulged, when a certain area of questioning has already been ruled out of bounds by the judge, and when a question is "plainly improper" and would significantly prejudice someone (like asking someone charged with a crime to answer a question that has an answer that would effect their criminal case).  

When lawyers abuse their right to instruct their clients to refuse to answer a question, they can get in a lot of trouble.  But the right to not answer a question in a deposition absolutely exists.  Opposing counsel is free to seek a ruling from the judge and compel an answer, but you are not automatically in contempt if you have an arguably legitimate reason to not answer a question.  

I would think it might come into play here in terms of counsel seeking a ruling from the court barring certain areas of questioning, to avoid just the kind of improper examination you describe in the this part of your post:

Quote

In the meantime, a clever attorney can skirt all kinds of borderline relevant issues and get the interviewee all flustered in hopes of getting them to contradict their prior statements.  I have no doubt the defense attorney will do exactly that. 

The idea of using the depositions to set up the girls to contradict themselves is something that has been suggested before, and I am not sure how that would actually happen.  I think the actual issue that is going to be litigated is much narrower than some here believe it is.  The Duggar girls are not the "actor" in this case, the police and magazine are. They essentially sat back and this unfolded around them.  I just don't see a lot of opportunity for them to get caught telling some kind of lie and damage their case.  

Is it their denial of being harmed by being molested vs. claiming being harmed by having the world learn about it that is being seen as potentially contradictory? 

Quote

I fully expect that the Duggar parents can and will be called upon to explain what exactly happened and how it was handled and that any counselor the girls saw will be deposed and will be expected to turn over records to the defense.

Well, I don't think the Duggars have even pretended they sent the girls to a counselor so it is probably a moot point. But to the extent there are records to be turned over, I would think that either way - whether they claimed great distress as a result of being molested or claim they didn't care at all, both situations can be explained by the obviously damaging nature of molestation, as well as the well- documented tendency of some victims to deny being in distress.  Essentially, I just don't think them saying one thing then and another thing later and then another thing now would be all that damaging. It is actually quite understandable to me.  Especially given the pressure they were probably under to give that ridiculous interview.  I don't think it's worth the videotape it was shot on. 

Brought over from the Media thread, posted by Mollie:

Quote

I think you might be able to better understand the ramifications mentioned in my comments when the response is filed and if and when the case ever comes to trial. 

I completely understand what you said in your post, Mollie. I just don't agree the ramifications are as bad as you believe they are.  Our mileage simply varies, and that is fine. 

[GeeGolly]

From what I understand the court case is about the reports being released to the public, not how the Duggar 4 reacted/felt at the time of the incidents. If JB & M are deposed the questions most likely would be limited to everything after the In Touch article, with a few comparisons to prior. And actually Jill & Jessa saying they had forgiven Josh and resolved any feelings about the molestations would work for them, not against them, if the topic is allowed to be brought up.

I'm not understanding how this was handled at the time has any relationship to it being made public. It's not like they can say - When your parents sold the story to a tabloid you were fine, but when a tabloid did the same thing years later you now have a problem with it.

How JB & M handled it and the court case are apples & oranges.

[lascuba]

I'm not even going to pretend to have a clue about how this will play out in court because hell if I know, but one (of the many, many) things I want to happen is for one of the defense lawyers to ask Jessa about her statement that they aren't a TV family and will be fine if they lost the show, what with the suit being, in part, about the monetary damages that Springdale and In Touch inflicted on them. I'm enjoying that little fantasy. 

[ginger90]

Here's some info, Rules of Civil Procedure (Arkansas) that some may find interesting

https://courts.arkansas.gov/rules-and-administrative-orders/rules-of-civil-procedure

Edited May 30, 2017 by ginger90

[Mollie]

1 hour ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

Well, I don't think the Duggars have even pretended they sent the girls to a counselor so it is probably a moot point. . . I don't think it's worth the videotape it was shot on. 

Brought over from the Media thread, posted by Mollie:

I completely understand what you said in your post, Mollie. I just don't agree the ramifications are as bad as you believe they are.  Our mileage simply varies, and that is fine. 

This is not right.  Michelle, Jim Bob, Jill and Jessa all stated that the girls were sent to a professional counselor.  This happened after the 2006 police interviews when the matter was turned over to the DHS and the DHS required the counseling.  Even Josh had to go.  Even though you think that the Fox interview is irrelevant, it's exactly about how the girls felt when the information was published by InTouch in May, 2015. 

And, no, you don't have to agree with this or anything else.  But, it is the truth. 

[GeeGolly]

2 minutes ago, Mollie said:

This is not right.  Michelle, Jim Bob, Jill and Jessa all stated that the girls were sent to a professional counselor.  This happened after the 2006 police interviews when the matter was turned over to the DHS and the DHS required the counseling.  Even Josh had to go.  Even though you think that the Fox interview is irrelevant, it's exactly about how the girls felt when the information was published by InTouch in May, 2015. 

And, no, you don't have to agree with this or anything else.  But, it is the truth. 

And the girls stated they felt like they were being revictimized. 

[Mollie]

30 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

Aren't they brining this to collect money they believe they would have made, had the reports not been made public?

Here's some info, Rules of Civil Procedure (Arkansas) that some may find interesting

https://courts.arkansas.gov/rules-and-administrative-orders/rules-of-civil-procedure

Actually, this lawsuit is about so many different things that each case against the defendants should be tried separately.  Maybe the defendants will ask for that. 

Among other things, the girls claim that their privacy was violated, that disclosure of the police reports was unauthorized, and that the information related to the investigation was not known by the general public before the InTouch publication.  (So, how many people knew before is highly relevant to the lawsuit:  people in their church, community, out-of-town lesbians taking pictures in front of their house, international forum posts, etc.)

The girls claim that they still continue to be emotionally upset and humiliated by the disclosures.  (Contrast this, of course, with all the happy wedding and party pictures they have posted over the past two years.)

The girls claim that they "have suffered substantial emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, and economic harm, including reputational and professional harm, in an amount to be proved at trial.

(Oh goody!  We finally get to know all the details of how much money they have made from TLC and from speaking engagements, before and after the scandal broke.)  And, the defendants can ask anything they want to about that income.

In short, the girls are going to have to disclose the real truth about their lives and answer questions about themselves and their family that they have never had to talk about publicly before. 

[Celia Rubenstein]

11 minutes ago, Mollie said:

 Michelle, Jim Bob, Jill and Jessa all stated that the girls were sent to a professional counselor.  This happened after the 2006 police interviews when the matter was turned over to the DHS and the DHS required the counseling.  

Perhaps I should have said "meaningful counseling."  Because if I recall correctly, the short-term counseling they received was some kind of box they had to check off in order to get out from under DHS scrutiny ... a full four years after the molestations occurred.  That to me is not meaningful, as it was only done under duress with an eye toward making the investigation go away.  I can't say I put a lot of stock in it, regardless of whether the girls downplayed the abuse or expressed great pain over it. 

I agree with GeeGolly's point that what matters is what happened since the publication of the reports. I don't really see what they said to a counselor before that happened proves.  If it is that the records will show the girls were already so damaged by the molestations and how their parents handled it and that is what caused them pain and it was not the story coming out that caused them suffering, well.  I can't say I agree with that line of thinking.  Just because a person has already been through hell doesn't mean that a later action by another party can't wrong them.

Quote

Even though you think that the Fox interview is irrelevant, it's exactly about how the girls felt when the information was published by InTouch in May, 2015. 

Yes, Jill and Jessa told FOX they were (a) over what Josh did to them, and (b) more hurt by the story & reports being published.  They felt "re-victimized" as GeeGolly stated. This is from People:

Quote

Indeed, the girls were more upset during their interview by what they felt was a violation of privacy than by Josh’s actions, which they insisted had been forgiven years earlier, before cameras even started rolling on 19 Kids and Counting (then 17 Kids and Counting) in 2008. As a family, “we’ve already moved on,” said both Jessa and Jill on The Kelly File.

I am not sure I understand your point.  Are you saying that on the one hand, they downplayed being hurt by the molestation and that should be taken at face value.  But what they said about being hurt by the publication of what happened to them is not to be believed?   Because that would be very inconsistent. 

It also makes me wonder why the FOX news interview is being mentioned as something that would damage their case.  To me, if anything, it reinforces it.  At least taken at face value.  Their wounds had healed but In Touch tore them back open.  Of course I have already stated that I take that whole interview with a grain of salt, but to the extent it means anything, it seems to bolster their claim.  JMHO.

Quote

Among other things, the girls claim that their privacy was violated, that disclosure of the police reports was unauthorized, and that the information related to the investigation was not known by the general public before the InTouch publication.  (So, how many people knew before is highly relevant to the lawsuit:  people in their church, community, out-of-town lesbians taking pictures in front of their house, international forum posts, etc.)

The rumors about them being touched was floating around, that's true.  But that's a far cry from having their own words about the sexual victimization they suffered being made from page news, complete with identifying information.

Quote

The girls claim that they still continue to be emotionally upset and humiliated by the disclosures.  (Contrast this, of course, with all the happy wedding and party pictures they have posted over the past two years.)

I don't think it's necessary to show that they have been huddled on the floor crying for the last two years in order to substantiate that what the cops and magazine did hurt them. Are they not allowed to try and proceed with their lives and be happy?

Quote

 

(Oh goody!  We finally get to know all the details of how much money they have made from TLC and from speaking engagements, before and after the scandal broke.)  And, the defendants can ask anything they want to about that income.

In short, the girls are going to have to disclose the real truth about their lives and answer questions about themselves and their family that they have never had to talk about publicly before. 

 

I can't take any pleasure in the knowledge that the girls are once again about to have what tiny amount of privacy they have ripped away.  I hope the case settles before this happens. 

[bigskygirl]

Economic including reputational and professional harm sounds more like something JB would have came up with instead of the four girls. They have suffered more at the hands of their parents and Josh via the molestation and poor education and being controlled before and after marriage especially Jill and Jessa. I also cannot see how Jill, Jessa and Jinger can claim economic harm when they have been portrayed on a new TLC show in the last few years. Now if the four girls had real jobs, and the scandal news hit the fan causing them embarrassment, humiliation and possible job loss, then I say they should get something from the two main defendants. Plus the fact Jill and Jessa have claimed it was no big deal and Josh was just a curious young man then how can they claim emotional distress and mental anguish. No, I see dollar signs in JB's small, bigoted and greedy mind working here because he probably has to face the fact he has a big number of people to support because his sons-in-law are lazy and so are a majority of his children. This is what happens when you think more about your godhood instead of looking at the big picture before having numerous children to control and turning into a big time famewhore. Someone did JB wrong, and he is out for blood.

[Celia Rubenstein]

7 minutes ago, bigskygirl said:

Plus the fact Jill and Jessa have claimed it was no big deal and Josh was just a curious young man then how can they claim emotional distress and mental anguish. 

There is being upset about being molested, and then there is being upset about having a story about how you were molested on the front page complete with vivid descriptions of what you endured.

They are two different things.

[Mollie]

5 minutes ago, bigskygirl said:

Economic including reputational and professional harm sounds more like something JB would have came up with instead of the four girls. They have suffered more at the hands of their parents and Josh via the molestation and poor education and being controlled before and after marriage especially Jill and Jessa. I also cannot see how Jill, Jessa and Jinger can claim economic harm when they have been portrayed on a new TLC show in the last few years. Now if the four girls had real jobs, and the scandal news hit the fan causing them embarrassment, humiliation and possible job loss, then I say they should get something from the two main defendants. Plus the fact Jill and Jessa have claimed it was no big deal and Josh was just a curious young man then how can they claim emotional distress and mental anguish. No, I see dollar signs in JB's small, bigoted and greedy mind working here because he probably has to face the fact he has a big number of people to support because his sons-in-law are lazy and so are a majority of his children. This is what happens when you think more about your godhood instead of looking at the big picture before having numerous children to control and turning into a big time famewhore. Someone did JB wrong, and he is out for blood.

Amen to all of that!  

"Reputational and professional harm" is standard legalese and not something from Jimbo's pea brain.

Like you, I can't wait to see the list of their "economic harm" losses.  Like I said above, Oh goody!  We finally get to know all the details of how much money they have made from TLC and from speaking engagements, before and after the scandal broke.  Jessa recently claimed yet again that their reality show was a ministry, an old line the Duggars have always touted.  So, I want a full disclosure on just how much this "ministry" brings in.  And, that goes for your slush-fund, side-line ministry too, Jill and Derick.

I don't think that this suit is about privacy issues, or (as their lawyers' PR deparment says) "solely about protecting children who are victims of abuse. "  I think it's just about the $15 million dollars they want to pocket.

[GeeGolly]

42 minutes ago, Mollie said:

Actually, this lawsuit is about so many different things that each case against the defendants should be tried separately.  Maybe the defendants will ask for that. 

Among other things, the girls claim that their privacy was violated, that disclosure of the police reports was unauthorized, and that the information related to the investigation was not known by the general public before the InTouch publication.  (So, how many people knew before is highly relevant to the lawsuit:  people in their church, community, out-of-town lesbians taking pictures in front of their house, international forum posts, etc.)

The girls claim that they still continue to be emotionally upset and humiliated by the disclosures.  (Contrast this, of course, with all the happy wedding and party pictures they have posted over the past two years.)

The girls claim that they "have suffered substantial emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, and economic harm, including reputational and professional harm, in an amount to be proved at trial.

(Oh goody!  We finally get to know all the details of how much money they have made from TLC and from speaking engagements, before and after the scandal broke.)  And, the defendants can ask anything they want to about that income.

In short, the girls are going to have to disclose the real truth about their lives and answer questions about themselves and their family that they have never had to talk about publicly before. 

To reiterate some of what Miss Celia R said...

Gossip and innuendo are a far cry from confirmation with a report and article from a tabloid.

Anyone who has suffered emotional pain knows life goes on and happiness happens. And how do you measure that anyway? You've had more smiles and giggles than frowns and tears?

Whether or not the girls have suffered economically or professionally is unknown to us. I'm guessing they have. Counting On probably brings in less money than 19 & Counting,  Jessa appears to have had a decrease in speaking gigs and if they took any screen shots of comments and such on their social media accounts many mention the incidents. What was the first big Duggar event after the first scandal? Spurgeon? IIRC, even the birth announcement was met with comments regarding the molestations. 

[kokapetl]

46 minutes ago, bigskygirl said:

Economic including reputational and professional harm sounds more like something JB would have came up with instead of the four girls. They have suffered more at the hands of their parents and Josh via the molestation and poor education and being controlled before and after marriage especially Jill and Jessa. I also cannot see how Jill, Jessa and Jinger can claim economic harm when they have been portrayed on a new TLC show in the last few years. Now if the four girls had real jobs, and the scandal news hit the fan causing them embarrassment, humiliation and possible job loss, then I say they should get something from the two main defendants. Plus the fact Jill and Jessa have claimed it was no big deal and Josh was just a curious young man then how can they claim emotional distress and mental anguish. No, I see dollar signs in JB's small, bigoted and greedy mind working here because he probably has to face the fact he has a big number of people to support because his sons-in-law are lazy and so are a majority of his children. This is what happens when you think more about your godhood instead of looking at the big picture before having numerous children to control and turning into a big time famewhore. Someone did JB wrong, and he is out for blood.

I think the lawyers obviously wrote the complaint.  

[Mollie]

26 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Gossip and innuendo are a far cry from confirmation with a report and article from a tabloid.

The definition of gossip and whether or not a tabloid is gossip just doesn't matter in this case.  The burden of proof is upon the girls to prove that the fact that Josh molested his sisters was not something known by the general public.  The girls have to prove who knew about it and who didn't.

26 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Anyone who has suffered emotional pain knows life goes on and happiness happens. And how do you measure that anyway? You've had more smiles and giggles than frowns and tears?

Again, the girls have to prove that they continue "to be emotionally upset and humiliated by the disclosures."  The burden of proof is upon them.  They have to provide evidence, not just give a statement that they are still upset.

26 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Whether or not the girls have suffered economically or professionally is unknown to us. I'm guessing they have. Counting On probably brings in less money than 19 & Counting,  Jessa appears to have had a decrease in speaking gigs and if they took any screen shots of comments and such on their social media accounts many mention the incidents. What was the first big Duggar event after the first scandal? Spurgeon? IIRC, even the birth announcement was met with comments regarding the molestations. 

The girls have to prove this, too.  They have to disclose the evidence to support their claims.  The girls made these claims and the burden to prove these claims falls upon them, not the defendants.

Only expert witnesses can get away with just giving their opinions.  Everyone else in this case has to produce hard evidence and facts.  

Edited May 30, 2017 by Mollie

[lascuba]

12 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

To reiterate some of what Miss Celia R said...

Gossip and innuendo are a far cry from confirmation with a report and article from a tabloid.

Anyone who has suffered emotional pain knows life goes on and happiness happens. And how do you measure that anyway? You've had more smiles and giggles than frowns and tears?

Whether or not the girls have suffered economically or professionally is unknown to us. I'm guessing they have. Counting On probably brings in less money than 19 & Counting,  Jessa appears to have had a decrease in speaking gigs and if they took any screen shots of comments and such on their social media accounts many mention the incidents. What was the first big Duggar event after the first scandal? Spurgeon? IIRC, even the birth announcement was met with comments regarding the molestations. 

All true, but how many of those comments were due to her and Jill's statements during the interview? They not only defended sibling molestation as common place and not a bid deal, but also defended the way their parents dealt with what happened and said they would put the same "safeguards" in place, implying their sons would molest their sisters if they played hide and seek or whatever. So, yeah, when Jessa gave birth to a boy, shit was going to be said. The internet being what it is, sure, there would have been some comments anyway, maybe a temporary loss of some gigs, but the extent to which Jill and Jessa were effected? That was all on them and that interview. Hell, I often think that TLC wouldn't have cancelled 19k if it weren't for that interview. 

I'm not talking about legalities here and what will be admissible in court--not my lane. I just think that a lot of the fallout from the In Touch article came more from the various Duggars' statements then the actual article. If they had kept their mouths shut all the public disdain would have stayed on Josh, Jim Bob and Michelle. 

[Churchhoney]

41 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

 

Whether or not the girls have suffered economically or professionally is unknown to us. I'm guessing they have. Counting On probably brings in less money than 19 & Counting,  Jessa appears to have had a decrease in speaking gigs and if they took any screen shots of comments and such on their social media accounts many mention the incidents. What was the first big Duggar event after the first scandal? Spurgeon? IIRC, even the birth announcement was met with comments regarding the molestations. 

I'm confused about this, though. Didn't they lose 19 Kids because Josh was a child molester (etc.) and his parents had tried mightily to ignore the fact (probably until they got scared that the non-Duggar molestee and her family were going to raise major hell and get them into more trouble)? So the cancelation had nothing to do with the girls being victims or being outed as victims, right. Nobody minds having the victims of child molestation (or any other crime, probably) on tv, etc. .... The show got canceled because people didn't want to see child-molesting Josh acting like a smug jerk right there on the tv, alongside the parents who had winked at his transgressions.

So I don't really see how the outing of the girls caused them financial loss. Even if we'd never found out who the victims were or even if the victims were somebody other than the sisters, seems to me people would have still wanted Josh the molester and his parental enablers off their tvs (for a while, anyway...lol).   ... Seems to me that in the monetary sense, they were the collateral damage of Josh's and JB's and M's transgressions, not of the police's and the magazine's outing of them.  Whatever emotional or reputational damage they had from the outing seems like a completely different issue than this, to me.

Edited May 30, 2017 by Churchhoney

[kokapetl]

6 minutes ago, Mollie said:

The definition of gossip and whether or not a tabloid is gossip just doesn't matter in this case.  The burden of proof is upon the girls to prove that the fact that Josh molested his sisters was not something known by the general public.  The girls have to prove who knew about it and who didn't.

Again, the girls have to prove that they continue "to be emotionally upset and humiliated by the disclosures."  The burden of proof is upon them.  They have to provide evidence, not just give a statement that they are still upset.

The girls have to prove this, too.  They have to disclose the evidence to support their claims.  The girls made these claims and the burden to prove these claims falls upon them, not the defendants.

Only expert witnesses can get away with just giving their opinions.  Everyone else in this case has to produce hard evidence and facts.  

Yes, the onus of proof is on the plaintiffs. Which is why I find the idea that this lawsuit will collapse at the slightest examination preposterous. The lawyers will have prepared evidence to support the claims, the lawyers will have prepared the plaintiffs to give depositions.  

[Marigold]

When is this whole law suit gonna hit the courts so we can analyze?   I wanna hear the outcome already! 

[lascuba]

9 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

I'm confused about this, though. Didn't they lose 19 Kids because Josh was a child molester (etc.) and his parents had tried mightily to ignore the (probably until they got scared that the non-Duggar molestee and her family were going to raise major hell and get them into more trouble)? So the cancelation had nothing to do with the girls being victims or being outed as victims, right. Nobody minds having the victims of child molestation (or any other crime, probably) on tv, etc. .... The show got canceled because people didn't want to see child-molesting Josh acting like a smug jerk right there on the tv, alongside the parents who had winked at his transgressions.

So I don't really see how the outing of the girls caused them financial loss. Even if we'd never found out who the victims were or even if the victims were somebody other than the sisters, seems to me people would have still wanted Josh the molester and his parental enablers off their tvs (for a while, anyway...lol).   ... Seems to me that in the monetary sense, they were the collateral damage of Josh's and JB's and M's transgressions, not of the police's and the magazine's out of them. 

Considering they got a show with Jill and Jessa's names on it--literally--one could argue the exact opposite. 

And you're absolutely right that they were collateral damage--who the victims were was irrelevant when the issue was getting Josh and his parents off the air.  Or it *was* irrelevant until two of the victims outed themselves and proudly stated that they held the same despicable views as their parents.

7 minutes ago, Marigold said:

When is this whole law suit gonna hit the courts so we can analyze?   I wanna hear the outcome already! 

Gah, probably not for a year or two! I wonder what other scandals will pop up to entertain us. 

Edited May 30, 2017 by lascuba

[GeeGolly]

8 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

I'm confused about this, though. Didn't they lose 19 Kids because Josh was a child molester (etc.) and his parents had tried mightily to ignore the fact (probably until they got scared that the non-Duggar molestee and her family were going to raise major hell and get them into more trouble)? So the cancelation had nothing to do with the girls being victims or being outed as victims, right. Nobody minds having the victims of child molestation (or any other crime, probably) on tv, etc. .... The show got canceled because people didn't want to see child-molesting Josh acting like a smug jerk right there on the tv, alongside the parents who had winked at his transgressions.

So I don't really see how the outing of the girls caused them financial loss. Even if we'd never found out who the victims were or even if the victims were somebody other than the sisters, seems to me people would have still wanted Josh the molester and his parental enablers off their tvs (for a while, anyway...lol).   ... Seems to me that in the monetary sense, they were the collateral damage of Josh's and JB's and M's transgressions, not of the police's and the magazine's outing of them.  Whatever emotional or reputational damage they had from the outing seems like a completely different issue than this, to me.

I suppose you're correct about the show being cancelled. But Jessa has had less speaking gigs and they could argue that Counting On makes less due to public knowledge. Look at the way they get beat up on here. They can also argue that being outed compelled them to do an interview. The interview certainly lost them a few fans. Even if they lost fans due to what they said, they can still argue the interview would have never taken place had the reports not been released.

[Mollie]

16 minutes ago, Marigold said:

When is this whole law suit gonna hit the courts so we can analyze?   I wanna hear the outcome already! 

It will be a long, long time.  The defendants will file responses very soon denying all the claims.  Then the depositions will begin.

[Sew Sumi]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

I suppose you're correct about the show being cancelled. But Jessa has had less speaking gigs and they could argue that Counting On makes less due to public knowledge. Look at the way they get beat up on here. They can also argue that being outed compelled them to do an interview. The interview certainly lost them a few fans. Even if they lost fans due to what they said, they can still argue the interview would have never taken place had the reports not been released.

I don't recall Jessa losing any speaking gigs. She only had the Young Christians thing in Ohio with Jill and Derick, which they attended, and the Southern Women's Shows, the last one she did not attend because it was stupidly scheduled two weeks before she was due with Spurgeon. There were no other announced speaking gigs that she backed out of or were canceled on her. So, I don't see any financial loss along these lines, other than those of Jessa's own doing. 

[ariel]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

 Even if they lost fans due to what they said, they can still argue the interview would have never taken place had the reports not been released.

If you want to look at it that way, there would have been no reports to release if Josh hadn't molested them.

[GeeGolly]

16 minutes ago, ariel said:

If you want to look at it that way, there would have been no reports to release if Josh hadn't molested them.

True, but that's not what the law suit is about.

 

27 minutes ago, Sew Sumi said:

I don't recall Jessa losing any speaking gigs. She only had the Young Christians thing in Ohio with Jill and Derick, which they attended, and the Southern Women's Shows, the last one she did not attend because it was stupidly scheduled two weeks before she was due with Spurgeon. There were no other announced speaking gigs that she backed out of or were canceled on her. So, I don't see any financial loss along these lines, other than those of Jessa's own doing. 

I'm not sure we'd know if she had anything lined up that was cancelled. Dates could have been cancelled before anything was made public.

[lianau]

3 hours ago, bigskygirl said:

 They have suffered more at the hands of their parents and Josh via the molestation and poor education and being controlled before and after marriage especially Jill and Jessa. 

We might see it that way , they don't . For them this was dealt with years ago , everyone had moved on from it and then some tabloid put it on the front page and every Duggar critic jumped on the chance to bash their brother and parents and pitied them for what they had endured . But once it became clear that they wouldn't perform the expected victim roles as demanded/wished  by the public  (speaking out against parents, brother and the cult) they also became targets . 

[Celia Rubenstein]

25 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm not sure we'd know if she had anything lined up that was cancelled. Dates could have been cancelled before anything was made public.

Not to mention what was never scheduled at all because of the revelations.  To an extent, some damages are "speculative" ... but a drop off in earnings/invitation to speak can say a lot.

[Sew Sumi]

26 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm not sure we'd know if she had anything lined up that was cancelled. Dates could have been cancelled before anything was made public.

Possible, but not probable. Jessa self-promoted her gigs via social media to drum up interest. She would have announced any upcoming gigs to bring in bodies. How far in advance have we known about her Modest Girl conference next month? These gigs are announced months ahead of time, and the Southern Women's Shows were Jessa's first and only solo gigs up to that point. 

eta: The staunch Duggar supporters wouldn't have canceled an appearance. That's counterintuitive. 

Edited May 30, 2017 by Sew Sumi

[ginger90]

The defendants have 30 days to respond.  There have been civil cases that have taken 10 years, 10 freaking years! And in a civil case the defendant,  or the plaintiff can appeal.

[Churchhoney]

8 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I suppose you're correct about the show being cancelled. But Jessa has had less speaking gigs and they could argue that Counting On makes less due to public knowledge. 

But, again, that's because of public knowledge of and public disgust with Josh and the parents, not with the daughters, who are claiming damages on the grounds of poor redaction and unfair publication of their personal information.

Are we saying that, if Josh had molested five other girls, and the Duggar parents had behaved about that in just the same way (not going to the police, not getting Josh any actual help, trying madly to sweep everything under the rug), then people would still have wanted all the Duggars on tv? Just because the victims weren't Duggar daughters?  That people would have said, "Oh, Yez. Keep putting that whole Duggar family on tv in 19 Kids because, after all, Josh, JB and M apparently didn't harm the Duggar daughters, so no harm no foul!"?? 

That makes no sense at all. They would have lost the 19 Kids  show even if the daughters had not been the victims -- if some other girls had been the victims, and whether those girls' names had been adequately or inadequately redacted. The cancellation was about the behavior of Josh, JB and M. Not about anything related to knowing or not knowing the victims' names.  I can't see how it could be otherwise. 

I'm not saying that they can't claim any damages here. I'm talking about these particular damages. And if they want to argue that they lost show money because of the 19 Kids cancellation, then I think they have to argue that Josh, JB and M's identities and behavior were wrongly released. They're perfectly free to file a case arguing that. But it seems pretty clear that that's not what they're arguing in this case, seems to me. 

I don't see how the cancellation of the show -- and thus the loss of show money -- had anything to do with whether we found out the victims' names or not or even with who the victims were. The victims were five little girls. Three people behaved very badly with regard to those five little girls, regardless of who the little girls were. Thus, people wanted those three people off a "family friendly" "wholesome' tv sho

 Suppose a neighbor kid had molested the Duggar girls. And that kids' parents had behaved badly. Tried to hide it. Not done anything to get serious help for their son. Now suppose the Duggar girls' names were poorly redacted in that case. And became known. Would anybody have wanted the Duggar fammily off tv? No. They probably would have gained viewers.  

Edited May 30, 2017 by Churchhoney

[lascuba]

So what are the odds that the defendants will subpoena TLC's records from around the time all this went down? Because TLC/Discovery's exact reasons for cancelling the show seem obviously relevant, and communications between tptb at TLC with the Duggar family will come into play.

I. Can. Not. Wait for this to get started. How much of internet speculation will turn out to be true? How much is really not as bad as assumed (I guess that's possible)? How much is even worse? Were people at TLC blowing gaskets over that Fox news interview? Did TLC know about the molestation from the beginning and that's why they were so reluctant to cancel?  Is it as I suspect and the Duggars were promised Counting On when 19KAC was cancelled? Please, gods, let this not be as boring as most civil lawsuits seem to be.

Edited May 30, 2017 by lascuba

[floridamom]

Haven't the Duggars always claimed that they live in a belief system in which they are one functioning family unit? If I remember correctly, they went on record stating that those 'skills' they're allowed to learn benefit the whole family, so it's ok with JB for them to learn how to do things.  Jim Bob went on the air after the "Josh' incident #1, saying , 'why should the whole family suffer for Josh's actions"? Now the daughters are saying that they have suffered for the molestation being made known in a wider circle...(we already knew about it from the "Alice" post). They, now are wanting to distance and separate themselves from those actions? IMO, they can't have it both ways. They either sink or swim together, like they advertised from the get go.

[doodlebug]

11 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I suppose you're correct about the show being cancelled. But Jessa has had less speaking gigs and they could argue that Counting On makes less due to public knowledge. Look at the way they get beat up on here. They can also argue that being outed compelled them to do an interview. The interview certainly lost them a few fans. Even if they lost fans due to what they said, they can still argue the interview would have never taken place had the reports not been released.

And, of course, the defense will argue that, as a reality TV 'star' with no other discernible skills, that Jessa's (and the others) lack of speaking engagements and loss of book deals or whatever was due to cancellation of the show which had nothing to do with her part in the molestation.  Collateral damage due to her other family members' actions which would have occurred even if Josh' victims hadn't been 4 of his sisters is not the fault of the defense.  There are literally hundreds of former 'stars' of reality TV shows who lost ancillary income when their shows got cancelled. The fact they were rather quickly given their own show by the same network that cancelled their parents' show demonstrates that the girls were not the reason the first show was dumped. The Duggar girls have to PROVE to a jury's satisfaction that their loss of income was directly caused by the world finding out they'd been molested by their brother.  Plenty of other victims who've gone public have NOT suffered economic losses (or even were able to write books, give lectures or otherwise use their experiences to help others).  The reason Jessa and Jill aren't being offered book deals or speaking gigs isn't because they were outed as victims, its because they chose to repeat their parents' Gothard based baloney on the topic.  They are no more advocates for victims than their parents are exemplars of parental responsibility which severely limits their ability to capitalize on it.  I don't doubt that JB and his minions have shopped around the idea of the girls doing speaking engagements and writing books about how they overcame their family crisis and were stronger for it.  I suspect it is because nobody was buying the BS they were selling that he and the girls went forward with the lawsuit.  Now, they will have to convince a jury that it was all In Touch' fault.

Edited May 30, 2017 by doodlebug

[Celia Rubenstein]

I think the majority of any financial award they may receive will be based on the emotional distress they experienced, not based upon any monetary losses they may have sustained. And emotional distress is a very subjective thing -they could receive a lot of money for it or not that much. 

I am not sure if they can receive punitive damages in this kind of case. That's where the real money is. 

Edited May 30, 2017 by Celia Rubenstein

[PikaScrewChu]

5 hours ago, ginger90 said:

The defendants have 30 days to respond.  There have been civil cases that have taken 10 years, 10 freaking years! And in a civil case the defendant,  or the plaintiff can appeal.

You mean it could run on... Duggar time? *ba damp bish*

Just to touch upon the speaking gigs. Normally speaking gigs/acts are booked up to a year in advance for most events, if not further depending on the speaker or performer's popularity. They are announced as soon as people start promoting the event. The general public would have known if Jessa had speaking gigs cancelled as the event organizers would have put out a bullshit "Due to unforeseen circumstances, Jessa Seewald is no longer able to make the event. She will be replaced by <insert name here>".

On the other hand Jim Bob and Michelle had major speaking gigs cancelled after In Touch published the story. Jim Bob and Michelle still get gigs, albeit on a minor scale now. They and Josh were the ones to take a huge financial hit from the fallout.

The difference between Jim Bob/Michelle and Jessa is that Jim Bob and Michelle can pontificate to a wider audience about marriage, children, whatever the hell their belief system is, and how it has worked for them all these years. Jessa doesn't have much to speak about to a wide audience. Jessa could have been booked for more speaking gigs had she been an engaging speaker at the Southern Woman Shows. I have a feeling she wasn't.

The contracts for Counting On would be an interesting one. I assume Josh and Anna, the Dillards, and the Seewalds were getting separate pay cheques from 19 K&C even though they were probably going into the Duggar pot. I would hazard a guess that the contracts for Counting On were based on what the Dillards and Seewalds were getting from 19 K&C.

[Celia Rubenstein]

Brought over from the Media thread, posted by MissyVixen:

Quote

 

This case is over the damages the Duggars claim to have endured when the paperwork from Joshley Madison's molestation was published in In Touch. If you don't think the questions involved in the depositions over whether or not InTouch's publishers will have to hand over $15 million in damages will be horrific and highly personal, you've never been through a deposition. Our case was over the purchase of a car, in which three felonies were committed by the salesperson and dealership in question.

My deposition (over a car transaction) was 200 pages and seven hours of questions. My husband's deposition was five hours. We did nothing wrong. We were asked about our financial history, our relationship, were we suing for a big settlement, every possible combination of questions designed to scare and humiliate us while our attorney and the defendant's attorney played "whose dick is bigger". Anyone in a deposition is required to answer the questions and it's not like you can get up and walk out. Again, defense attorneys do not do this to actually get the truth. They are attempting to bully and intimidate the plaintiffs into abandoning their suit because the plaintiffs may have a strong case and a jury will award them money (and seriously damaging testimony will come out in court) if it gets to trial...

 

It's interesting that you would ask about that, because I have in fact been through a deposition.  I was the plaintiff in a pregnancy discrimination suit many years ago.

I was asked a lot of very personal questions, things about birth control and unprotected sex, had I planned my pregnancy, did I really want my baby, did my husband want our baby, how did people in our families feel about our baby, had I been pregnant before and what was the outcome, had I ever had an abortion.  Lots of personal questions about my physical and mental health.  How was I planning to care for my child if I was going to shamefully continue working after my child was born, lol.  All peripherally connected to the case and arguably legitimate questions that I had to answer.  So the intrusive nature of being deposed it not something new to me.  It's all part of being involved in a lawsuit and to be expected.  

Maybe I am just not a person who is easily rattled and I definitely had the benefit of a good lawyer who prepared me well.  And he absolutely had no tolerance for the "whose dick is bigger" thing you unfortunately had to go through. It sounds like your attorney could have done a better job preparing you.  It's the lawyer's job to rehearse their client and make sure they will not find the questions "horrific" and be scared and humiliated the way you were.  Hopefully the Duggar girls will receive better counsel and not be as appalled by certain questions as they might be otherwise and won't be subject to the same kind of shenanigans you experienced.  They do have a rather lauded, high-powered attorney IIRC, so I think they may fair better.  I hope so for their sake.  

Mind you I am not trying to say being deposed will be easy, but it is possible that with a good lawyer and good preparation, it will not be the nightmare for them that some expect. Or seem to be hoping for.

 

Quote

 

The questions in this lawsuit will be the most personal, the most private, the most humiliating possible. Four underage girls were molested. They and their parents have claimed in many forms of media it wasn't that big of a deal, it was over the clothes, they weren't hurt by it, they forgave Josh, on and on and on and on. If the depositions are sealed or there is no availability to the press, there will be leaks to the media, and the leaks will be explosive. There are human beings in the room, many of which already don't think a lot of Jim Boob and his grifting.

All four daughters will be deposed, most likely one at a time. It will be them, maybe their husband, their lawyer and the defendants' lawyer, court reporter and support people in the room. Their husbands will be deposed. The attorneys representing InTouch will ask about their sex lives, any premarital sexual contact, why didn't they tell their parents from the beginning, are they sure they were that affected, on and on and on. They will have to answer and they will have to tell the truth. Do they resent their parents for not doing anything about what happened to them until the statute of limitations ran out and Joshley didn't have to go to jail? Do they blame Joshley? How would their lives be different if their parents had protected them? How do their husbands feel about this? Has it created problems in their sex life or other marital problems? Why did they not seek therapy? Again.

 

Most of the questions you listed are irrelevant to this case in my opinion.  Every one of them pertains to the sexual abuse they suffered and how Jim Bob and Michelle handled it.  But this case is about what they went through as a result of the police reports being released. I don't understand why some here insist that this case will end up being about the Duggars and their lifestyle.  It's a fairly narrow issue, not an inquisition.  Real court doesn't play out like TV shows.  This isn't Law and Order SVU.  The kind of secrets and shocking revelations that are being anticipated are very unlikely in my opinion. 

I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed in how mundane this case turns out to be

 

Quote

Jim Boob and J-Chelle will get their turn in the deposition chair as well; THAT will be worth paying to read the deposition and I can imagine they'll be questioned separately. I'm expecting not only fireworks, I'm expecting questions so brutal it's going to cause significant problems for the entire family when they read exactly what their parents said on a variety of subjects. (I'm guessing they'll be asked if they would have been able to support a family on what Jim Boob was making before TLC came along, did they value TLC's dollars more than their daughters' health and safety, why did they refuse to get them any type of therapy or help -- OMG, it'll be horrific. Jim Boob thinks he's smarter than the other side's attorneys. I'm only sorry none of us will get to watch him brought to his knees, especially if he tries to lie under oath. 

This is the last swing I am going to take at this dead horse, I swear ... but I have to ask how is any of this relevant to the case?  The issue is whether or not the police and the magazine acted wrongfully and to what extent were the girls harmed.  What in the world does Jim Bob valuing TLC's dollars have to do with anything?  He is not on trial.  He is not even a party to the case.  Their lawyer is no amateur and I would expect the majority of what people are hoping to learn about via these depositions will be ruled off limits due to irrelevancy long before the stenographer hits a key.  Or speaks into that little cone thing, lol.  I hear that's how they do it now.