Josh Duggar Again

[HomeAgain]

2 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

I was never a person who said, stay with your abusers but was confused on where my line was as to whether divorce was acceptable.  Many years ago, I read a piece- I think in Christianity Today- that said that the three A's are all ways God tells you that it is not a marriage or you can leave= Abuse, Adultery and Abandonment.  And those three words really helped sum up to me what I had already believed but didn't have the right expression.

So yes, at this point, the abuse perpetuated by Josh means that Anna should get away from him and certainly not be under his lordship (which is not an idea I believe but she seems to believe).  The onus is on her. 

She should leave.

The materials handed to her tell her to stay.  Between ATI and publications like the Pearls' Created To Be His Helpmeet, which I'm pretty sure the Duggar circles use because of hints in their past.  When you're faced with "biblical" teachings like this:

You must commit yourself to the one who placed you under your husband’s command. Your husband will answer to God, and you must answer to God for how you respond to your husband, even when he causes you to suffer.Just as we are to obey government in every ordinance, and servants are to obey their masters, even the ones who are abusive and surly, ‘likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands’…You can freely call your husband ‘lord’ when you know that you are addressing the one who put him in charge and asked you to suffer at your husband’s hands just as our Lord suffered at the hands of unjust authorities…When you endure evil and railing without returning it, you receive a blessing, not just as a martyr, but as one who worships God.”  

It it hard to see a different perspective without consigning yourself to a possibility of hell for not fulfilling the relationship you think God wants.

 

[Katy]

28 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

I was never a person who said, stay with your abusers but was confused on where my line was as to whether divorce was acceptable.  Many years ago, I read a piece- I think in Christianity Today- that said that the three A's are all ways God tells you that it is not a marriage or you can leave= Abuse, Adultery and Abandonment.  And those three words really helped sum up to me what I had already believed but didn't have the right expression.

So yes, at this point, the abuse perpetuated by Josh means that Anna should get away from him and certainly not be under his lordship (which is not an idea I believe but she seems to believe).  The onus is on her. 

I would add addiction to that list.  Though some pastors couple addiction into abandonment.

[Faith-manor]

40 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

She should leave.

The materials handed to her tell her to stay.  Between ATI and publications like the Pearls' Created To Be His Helpmeet, which I'm pretty sure the Duggar circles use because of hints in their past.  When you're faced with "biblical" teachings like this:

You must commit yourself to the one who placed you under your husband’s command. Your husband will answer to God, and you must answer to God for how you respond to your husband, even when he causes you to suffer.Just as we are to obey government in every ordinance, and servants are to obey their masters, even the ones who are abusive and surly, ‘likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands’…You can freely call your husband ‘lord’ when you know that you are addressing the one who put him in charge and asked you to suffer at your husband’s hands just as our Lord suffered at the hands of unjust authorities…When you endure evil and railing without returning it, you receive a blessing, not just as a martyr, but as one who worships God.”  

It it hard to see a different perspective without consigning yourself to a possibility of hell for not fulfilling the relationship you think God wants.

 

Yes the teaching is really implying that women have no actual relationship with god directly, but only through their husbands, and takes literally Paul's teaching that women achieve salvation not by accepting a relationship with Christ but through childbirth. So she is condemned to hell if she attempts to exercise agency from her father first, then her husband once married. It is a nice theological parlor trick for creating a subservient class by virtue of gender. Same old same old misogyny just dressed up in a sex cult. If Anna really believes it, she will never leave the Duggar compound much less Josh. The potential upside for her is that if he is convicted and sentenced to a good long term, this will be the last pregnancy for her which might be appealing so long as daddy Duggar keeps paying the bills. She doesn't have to get a job to support her family or lose the childcare benefits of all those little sisters in law. In some ways, she could consider this having her bread buttered on both sides. And she has a double win of being the long suffering ATI wife whom the devil delivered a horrible blow, but she prevailed and stayed the course. They could end up being the hero of the cult because that is how bizarre this group really is!

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, TravelingChris said:

I was never a person who said, stay with your abusers but was confused on where my line was as to whether divorce was acceptable.  Many years ago, I read a piece- I think in Christianity Today- that said that the three A's are all ways God tells you that it is not a marriage or you can leave= Abuse, Adultery and Abandonment.  And those three words really helped sum up to me what I had already believed but didn't have the right expression.

So yes, at this point, the abuse perpetuated by Josh means that Anna should get away from him and certainly not be under his lordship (which is not an idea I believe but she seems to believe).  The onus is on her. 

sadly - there are some cultish sects that don't agree with that..   and ATI seems to be one.   But she's a mother, and needs to protect her children.  (and if that means from her husband, - then she needs to do so.  and if that means from her in-laws - then she needs to do so.)

[MercyA]

On 8/19/2021 at 8:16 PM, Katy said:

And if she’s letting him use her phone to access the internet while she’s living with him and letting his family raise her children. At least that’s the gossip these days. 

Isn't Josh living with a family friend right now?

[Katy]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

Isn't Josh living with a family friend right now?

Yes, but rumor is the kids are at the big house and Anna is staying with him.

[ktgrok]

3 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

sadly - there are some cultish sects that don't agree with that..   and ATI seems to be one.   But she's a mother, and needs to protect her children.  (and if that means from her husband, - then she needs to do so.  and if that means from her in-laws - then she needs to do so.)

Right, Protecting your kids comes before theology. Or it should. It's why I'm looking at attending a different church - if you won't take steps to protect my kid from a pandemic, I'm out. If the only church in town that will isn't quite my theological ideal, at least they won't make us ill or kill us. Priorities. 

Edited August 22, 2021 by ktgrok

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

Right, Protecting your kids comes before theology. Or it should. It's why I'm looking at attending a different church - if you won't take steps to protect my kid from a pandemic, I'm out. If the only church in town that will isn't quite my theological ideal, at least they won't make us ill or kill us. Priorities. 

I believe that *true* theology cherishes children and when properly adhered to,   lifts and protects children, never endangers them.

 

eta: I don't know if this applies to your church or not,. .  Our leadership supports masks, and vaccines.  we're back to masking at church - but there are some very loud members who are opposed.

(and I'm not talking about those who have legit medical reasons for why a vaccine might be dangerous. - we've a friend who had covid, and his dr told him a minimum of 90 day after being free of symptoms before even thinking about the vaccine. - and he has had long covid, and was still having breathing trouble when we spoke to him last weekend.  .  .)

Edited August 22, 2021 by gardenmom5

[ktgrok]

30 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

I believe that *true* theology cherishes children and when properly adhered to,   lifts and protects children, never endangers them.

 

eta: I don't know if this applies to your church or not,. .  Our leadership supports masks, and vaccines.  we're back to masking at church - but there are some very loud members who are opposed.

(and I'm not talking about those who have legit medical reasons for why a vaccine might be dangerous. - we've a friend who had covid, and his dr told him a minimum of 90 day after being free of symptoms before even thinking about the vaccine. - and he has had long covid, and was still having breathing trouble when we spoke to him last weekend.  .  .)

In Florida almost no churches are back to masking. The best you can hope for in most places is masking required of unvaccinated, but they don't count kids in that. kids are mask optional. Full choirs, etc. Even ones that were masking early on are no longer doing it, depsite full hospitals, our city about to run out of freaking clean water due to oxygen being diverted to hospitals, etc. 

I seriously and literally found ONE church that reverted to masks for all indoors. ONE. Now, granted, I didn't look at every single church but I looked at a lot. (I am less concerned about outdoors, as in our heat/humidity it truly can be dangerous to mask for some, and is miserable for anyone - it rains daily but temps are mid 90s so it is like walking into a steam bath when you go outside - sweat does not evaporate, so masks end up damp and gross and heat stroke is a real issue)

[Tanaqui]

Most non-Christians in the USA were still raised in a Christian or nominally Christian household, and unless you live in a weird little enclave like Kiryas Joel you certainly know a lot of Christians. (And if you do live in Kiryas Joel you probably don't watch much TV.) We don't think the Duggars are representative of all Christians or even all fundamentalists.

However, I would not be surprised to find out that rates of certain types of abuse are higher among the ATI/Gothard crowd than in other denominations. There's some particular types of toxicity that seem, in combination, absolutely designed to attract predators.

[ktgrok]

8 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

However, I would not be surprised to find out that rates of certain types of abuse are higher among the ATI/Gothard crowd than in other denominations. There's some particular types of toxicity that seem, in combination, absolutely designed to attract predators.

Or create them. 

There is some research on how the old seminary system in the Catholic church, which took boys as young as 14, and then as they were in the height of hormonal urges indoctrinated them against sex with women, potentially creating boys who grew into men attracted to boys the age they were in the seminary. (I'm paraphrasing VERY badly). That system is no longer in place, for many reasons. 

The ATI cult seems similar to me in some ways. 

[Tanaqui]

Mmm, and don't forget the huge emphasis on obedience to authority among them. Purity culture + authoritarian, patriarchal emphasis + cheap grace for the folks on top = bad, bad, bad things.

[Katy]

Emily D Baker (an attorney and YouTube legal commentator) started a live stream a few hours ago to discuss, among other things, Josh's case.  I missed the beginning because she swears more than my parents.  But I'll watch & come back with her opinions.  If you want to watch yourself, here's the link:

 

[Katy]

From Emily's Commentary on the first two motions:

• Saying you want to call your attorney is not the same as asking to speak to your attorney in terms of invoking rights, also he said that apart from being interviewed so this will probably not matter. Also Josh was read miranda rights before the interview as well as being told he was free to end the interview at any time, he was not in custody.  He was in a car but was free to leave.
• Apparently you must say "I'm invoking my right to remain silent. I won't speak to you any more. I want to speak to an attorney." In those words.
• He will probably be granted an evidence hearing to determine if he waived his miranda rights and asked to speak to an attorney or just asked to call one.
• Josh's attorneys said the initial mix up regarding the location of the IP address means they should dismiss all the evidence seized.  Meaning- they don't dispute Josh had CP.  They dispute that the government had the right to seize it.  And they think bitTorrent creates a reasonable expectation of privacy EVEN if they contain things that are illegal.  So it doesn't matter if Josh possesses and distributes CP, he has an expectation of privacy. Emily argues that there should be no expectation of privacy on the internet, but gives the argument an A for effort.
• Josh's attorney makes an argument that internet tracking is the same as putting a tracker on someone's vehicle and that a warrant was not properly obtained in the correct jurisdiction.  Emily says she suspects this argument will fail but understands the government can't track everything just because they want to.

[Katy]

On Motion 38:

• Josh's attorneys want the photos of his hands and feet to be suppressed.  Emily states these are typical booking photos to show he was not injured during arrest.  She goes off on a tangent about tattoos as evidence and if they needed a warrant for photographing a neck photo that admitted guilt in another case.  Maybe don't tattoo a confession onto your body.
• The government will say these are typical booking photos.

[DawnM]

On 8/22/2021 at 4:03 PM, Tanaqui said:

Most non-Christians in the USA were still raised in a Christian or nominally Christian household, and unless you live in a weird little enclave like Kiryas Joel you certainly know a lot of Christians. (And if you do live in Kiryas Joel you probably don't watch much TV.) We don't think the Duggars are representative of all Christians or even all fundamentalists.

However, I would not be surprised to find out that rates of certain types of abuse are higher among the ATI/Gothard crowd than in other denominations. There's some particular types of toxicity that seem, in combination, absolutely designed to attract predators.

The things I learn on this board!   I had never heard of them before.

[Katy]

On Motion 39:

• Emily's initial reaction is to want to email this to everyone in LawTube to see if anyone else has ever seen a motion to dismiss based on the appointments clause of the constitution. This isn't shade, she respects Josh's defense.  When the evidence is bad you work to get rid of it.
• They are arguing that the men in charge of Homeland Security (the acting secretaries) were not properly appointed, therefore the people under them do not have the authority to do their job.
• Emily doesn't know how to wrap her brain around the idea that they have statutary authority even if the heads do not have authority, and the motion does not address this.  Essentially Josh's attorneys state no one investigated from 2019-part of 2021 can ever be prosecuted.
• They say it's constitutional and ignore the part where Josh actually violated the criminal code that can still be prosecuted under statutory authority.
• She admires the defense attorneys for working so hard.  In a civil case it would drive her nuts because wasting time, but in a criminal case she admires the creativity and hard work.
• She suspects this will be tossed but generally constitutional authority trumps statutory authority.  She will be looking into the cited case law.
• The constitutional question is fascinating to Emily but she thinks it will not mean throwing out all cases investigated in the period in question.

[Tanaqui]

Quote

Saying you want to call your attorney is not the same as asking to speak to your attorney in terms of invoking rights

 

Which is garbage through and through. If an average person would consider it a request for an attorney, the cops darn well know it is one too, and so should the courts.

[Katy]

Motion 40:

Note: Emily didn't identify the brothers as the witnesses here, but I am.  It was in the initial hearing, the other people interviewed there were his brothers that were working at the car lot with him that day.

• Josh's attorneys moved to dismiss based on the idea that they government didn't preserve evidence that showed the defendant was innocent.
• The defense labeled witnesses Witness 1, Witness 2, and Witness 3 (from the hearing, this was Josh's brothers). The public generally doesn't need to know who these witnesses were and that they were also interviewed and their phones were very briefly and visually looked at.  They didn't have a warrant for these phones but the witnesses volunteered to let the agents look at them.
• The government made a report that there was no evidence but didn't seize and preserve the phones.  IE: Josh is arguing that one of his brothers was the guilty party, despite the fact that the IP address was traced to the specific laptop and phone JOSH owned, and the case should be dismissed because the government did not seize their phones too.
• She thinks there may be a hearing regarding whether this is a violation of his 4th amendment.
• Despite this motion there was no probable cause to get a warrant for the brothers' phones.
• As a result the defense wants to throw out all evidence seized that day.  IE: we're not disputing that Josh has CP, only that proof that someone else may have had it too may have been destroyed, so the whole case should be thrown out.
• She thinks if none of these arguments work they may have Josh plea out.

[Katy]

5 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

Which is garbage through and through. If an average person would consider it a request for an attorney, the cops darn well know it is one too, and so should the courts.

Apparently notifying your attorney a search is happening and asking for advice are separate legal ideas.

Also, him asking to call his attorney and his interview were separated by some time, and he was advised of his right to an attorney and his right to silence AGAIN.

But I agree if this is the standard ALL of the public needs to be educated to the fact.

[Katy]

Katie from Without a Crystal Ball says one of the Witnesses wasn't a sibling of Josh, but an employee who the family has described to church friends as "a shady ex-con." 

[AbcdeDooDah]

20 minutes ago, Katy said:

Katie from Without a Crystal Ball says one of the Witnesses wasn't a sibling of Josh, but an employee who the family has described to church friends as "a shady ex-con." 

So what Josh will be when he gets out(hopefully in a very long time).

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

Katie from Without a Crystal Ball says one of the Witnesses wasn't a sibling of Josh, but an employee who the family has described to church friends as "a shady ex-con." 

How do they plan on describing Josh?

[katilac]

On 8/22/2021 at 11:41 PM, Tanaqui said:

Purity culture + authoritarian, patriarchal emphasis + cheap grace for the folks on top = bad, bad, bad things.

What a good way of expressing it. 

[AnotherNewName]

4 hours ago, Katy said:

From Emily's Commentary on the first two motions:

• Saying you want to call your attorney is not the same as asking to speak to your attorney in terms of invoking rights, also he said that apart from being interviewed so this will probably not matter. Also Josh was read miranda rights before the interview as well as being told he was free to end the interview at any time, he was not in custody.  He was in a car but was free to leave.
• Apparently you must say "I'm invoking my right to remain silent. I won't speak to you any more. I want to speak to an attorney." In those words.
• He will probably be granted an evidence hearing to determine if he waived his miranda rights and asked to speak to an attorney or just asked to call one.
• Josh's attorneys said the initial mix up regarding the location of the IP address means they should dismiss all the evidence seized.  Meaning- they don't dispute Josh had CP.  They dispute that the government had the right to seize it.  And they think bitTorrent creates a reasonable expectation of privacy EVEN if they contain things that are illegal.  So it doesn't matter if Josh possesses and distributes CP, he has an expectation of privacy. Emily argues that there should be no expectation of privacy on the internet, but gives the argument an A for effort.
• Josh's attorney makes an argument that internet tracking is the same as putting a tracker on someone's vehicle and that a warrant was not properly obtained in the correct jurisdiction.  Emily says she suspects this argument will fail but understands the government can't track everything just because they want to.

Just a clarification, when attorneys ask to suppress evidence based on an illegal search they are not stipulating anything about the evidence itself and can still argue against the evidence on other grounds (i.e. it was planted, it is fake, or whatever else makes a valid defense).

The part about bitTorrent was very interesting, and depending on exactly how that software works/is encrypted there may be a valid defense to be had. Some cases involving Tor in the past few years evaporated or plead out about very favorable terms due to some questions about how law enforcement was able to crack the encryption.

[AnotherNewName]

3 hours ago, AnotherNewName said:

Just a clarification, when attorneys ask to suppress evidence based on an illegal search they are not stipulating anything about the evidence itself and can still argue against the evidence on other grounds (i.e. it was planted, it is fake, or whatever else makes a valid defense).

The part about bitTorrent was very interesting, and depending on exactly how that software works/is encrypted there may be a valid defense to be had. Some cases involving Tor in the past few years evaporated or plead out on very favorable terms due to some questions about how law enforcement was able to crack the encryption.

 

[Katy]

12 hours ago, AnotherNewName said:

Just a clarification, when attorneys ask to suppress evidence based on an illegal search they are not stipulating anything about the evidence itself and can still argue against the evidence on other grounds (i.e. it was planted, it is fake, or whatever else makes a valid defense).

The part about bitTorrent was very interesting, and depending on exactly how that software works/is encrypted there may be a valid defense to be had. Some cases involving Tor in the past few years evaporated or plead out about very favorable terms due to some questions about how law enforcement was able to crack the encryption.

So the torrent software he used doesn’t hide your IP at all.  You have to couple it with a VPN for that, and Josh didn’t. He was hiding what he was doing from Anna, not from anyone else on the network. 

[historically accurate]

As aside to the current Josh Duggar news: the Reformers Unanimous place in Rockford IL that he went to following the Ashley Madison thing is being sued for multiple counts of sexual abuse of their female children in the school and the church associated with it.

 

https://www.wifr.com/2021/08/25/bringing-secrets-into-light-allegations-abuse-cover-up-north-love-baptist-church/?fbclid=IwAR0MjGNMxj0XQ0utob8Q_7glnKh24hInVDGvjBdRQzr9I_47nHjqEOB6kTg

[Faith-manor]

3 hours ago, historically accurate said:

As aside to the current Josh Duggar news: the Reformers Unanimous place in Rockford IL that he went to following the Ashley Madison thing is being sued for multiple counts of sexual abuse of their female children in the school and the church associated with it.

 

https://www.wifr.com/2021/08/25/bringing-secrets-into-light-allegations-abuse-cover-up-north-love-baptist-church/?fbclid=IwAR0MjGNMxj0XQ0utob8Q_7glnKh24hInVDGvjBdRQzr9I_47nHjqEOB6kTg

Why am I not surprised!

[gardenmom5]

3 hours ago, Katy said:

So the torrent software he used doesn’t hide your IP at all.  You have to couple it with a VPN for that, and Josh didn’t. He was hiding what he was doing from Anna, not from anyone else on the network. 

No one has ever said he was smart.

3 hours ago, historically accurate said:

As aside to the current Josh Duggar news: the Reformers Unanimous place in Rockford IL that he went to following the Ashley Madison thing is being sued for multiple counts of sexual abuse of their female children in the school and the church associated with it.

 

https://www.wifr.com/2021/08/25/bringing-secrets-into-light-allegations-abuse-cover-up-north-love-baptist-church/?fbclid=IwAR0MjGNMxj0XQ0utob8Q_7glnKh24hInVDGvjBdRQzr9I_47nHjqEOB6kTg

I'm sorry to hear this - but I'm not surprised either.

[Annie G]

Not the first time an employee of the  North Love church has been accused of sexual abuse. In 2018 Charles Tucker was found guilty of sexual abuse of a child under age 13, and some of the abuse happened at the church. He’s serving a life sentence and by IL law has to serve 85% of the sentence. 
We lived in a nearby area then and even before Josh went to their program there were plenty of rumors about the church and their ministries.  It makes me so mad that this is who the Duggars chose to ‘fix’ Josh after his Ashley Madison shenanigans. 

[AnotherNewName]

5 hours ago, Katy said:

So the torrent software he used doesn’t hide your IP at all.  You have to couple it with a VPN for that, and Josh didn’t. He was hiding what he was doing from Anna, not from anyone else on the network. 

That doesn't sound like what his attorneys are claiming.  I know nothing about bitTorrent other than it exists, but based on the filing it sounds like he was using something in addition to it. The response from the prosecution will clarify this much more.

[AnotherNewName]

1 hour ago, gardenmom5 said:

No one has ever said he was smart.

 

The thing is he knew enough to also use Tor and to use partitions to hide his activity.  I find it puzzling he didn't also know to hide his IP address as someone with that level of tech savvy should know that is a concern.  The response from the prosecution will shed some light on the investigative side.  

[Excelsior! Academy]

43 minutes ago, AnotherNewName said:

The thing is he knew enough to also use Tor and to use partitions to hide his activity.  I find it puzzling he didn't also know to hide his IP address as someone with that level of tech savvy should know that is a concern.  The response from the prosecution will shed some light on the investigative side.  

I agree.  Criminals aren't usually very smart.  Reptiles like Josh Duggar are especially foolish.

[Katy]

52 minutes ago, AnotherNewName said:

That doesn't sound like what his attorneys are claiming.  I know nothing about bitTorrent other than it exists, but based on the filing it sounds like he was using something in addition to it. The response from the prosecution will clarify this much more.

According to a few different people who covered the initial bond hearing he didn't use a VPN, and unless it's changed dramatically since I took an internet privacy class years ago bitTorrent doesn't automatically include it.  If I remember correctly it even warns you when you download it that if you want to hide who you are you must use a VPN.  So basically he was trying to hide it from his family, not anyone else.  BitTorrent is almost exactly like LimeWire or any other peer-to-peer file sharing network that was out when I was in college 20 years ago.

[AbcdeDooDah]

Isn’t it ironic 🎶

[gardenmom5]

8 hours ago, AnotherNewName said:

The thing is he knew enough to also use Tor and to use partitions to hide his activity. b

That he got into kiddie P at all, demonstrates he's really stupid.

27 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Isn’t it ironic 🎶

someone should send them a dictionary with the word "Irony" marked.

[AnotherNewName]

8 hours ago, Excelsior! Academy said:

I agree.  Criminals aren't usually very smart.  Reptiles like Josh Duggar are especially foolish.

The smart ones frequently are never caught.

[AnotherNewName]

8 hours ago, Katy said:

According to a few different people who covered the initial bond hearing he didn't use a VPN, and unless it's changed dramatically since I took an internet privacy class years ago bitTorrent doesn't automatically include it.  If I remember correctly it even warns you when you download it that if you want to hide who you are you must use a VPN.  So basically he was trying to hide it from his family, not anyone else.  BitTorrent is almost exactly like LimeWire or any other peer-to-peer file sharing network that was out when I was in college 20 years ago.

Based on what was said in the podcast they described him using something in addition to BitTorrent.  No idea what and it could be attorney fluff but that is the claim being made. 

[TravelingChris]

On 8/24/2021 at 1:59 PM, DawnM said:

The things I learn on this board!   I had never heard of them before.

Yes, Yes, yes, 

 

This board is where I have learned so many things and also led to so many inquiries from what is posted or what is asked that it is the main source of my intellectual good challenges to build my mind.  

I have praised the wisdom of the HIVE to people many, many times.

[TravelingChris]

On 8/24/2021 at 2:11 PM, Tanaqui said:

 

Which is garbage through and through. If an average person would consider it a request for an attorney, the cops darn well know it is one too, and so should the courts.

The way to do it is to ask to call an attorney and shut up.  Courts have ruled many times that stuff like maybe I should call an attorney is not the same thing as invoking your right to remain silent. 

 

And as former law enforcement, (though I was immigration at the airport and tasked with finding not only illegal entrants, but also any custom violations, smuggling, agriculture violations, and also checking if anyone, including US citizens had warrants out for their arrest) I never thought I would get to the point where I would be invoking my right to remain silent but if the FBI, etc come here and ask me anything pretty much, I am invoking my rights.  No, I am not violating laws- but the amount of trickery the FBI has been doing-  the whole Michigan kidnap the governor was the FBI urging these nincompoops to do this-they were beer drinking idiots who had no plans and couldn't plan anything- to the fake insurrection (that came out last weekend)- to the trickery with people like Michael Flynn- means I think they are doing a lot of misdeeds,  Since they like to trick people into so-called lying and then charge them, and I have bad brain fog issues, I am not taking any chances at all.  

[TravelingChris]

On 8/24/2021 at 2:06 PM, Katy said:

On Motion 39:

• Emily's initial reaction is to want to email this to everyone in LawTube to see if anyone else has ever seen a motion to dismiss based on the appointments clause of the constitution. This isn't shade, she respects Josh's defense.  When the evidence is bad you work to get rid of it.
• They are arguing that the men in charge of Homeland Security (the acting secretaries) were not properly appointed, therefore the people under them do not have the authority to do their job.
• Emily doesn't know how to wrap her brain around the idea that they have statutary authority even if the heads do not have authority, and the motion does not address this.  Essentially Josh's attorneys state no one investigated from 2019-part of 2021 can ever be prosecuted.
• They say it's constitutional and ignore the part where Josh actually violated the criminal code that can still be prosecuted under statutory authority.
• She admires the defense attorneys for working so hard.  In a civil case it would drive her nuts because wasting time, but in a criminal case she admires the creativity and hard work.
• She suspects this will be tossed but generally constitutional authority trumps statutory authority.  She will be looking into the cited case law.
• The constitutional question is fascinating to Emily but she thinks it will not mean throwing out all cases investigated in the period in question.

That is an entirely specious argument and I believe it has been decided by the Supreme Court within the last decade (what can acting, not confirmed officials do) that yes, they do have authority though in one case, the way the acting was appointed (I think this was in the Obama presidency) was deemed to be improper.

[TravelingChris]

On 8/25/2021 at 12:23 PM, AnotherNewName said:

The thing is he knew enough to also use Tor and to use partitions to hide his activity.  I find it puzzling he didn't also know to hide his IP address as someone with that level of tech savvy should know that is a concern.  The response from the prosecution will shed some light on the investigative side.  

He is probably someone like me with regards to computer knowledge (or not really, since I know I am much more intelligent than he is but my knowledge of how to do technical tasks on the computer are probably the same.)  He used a manual, a website, or something like that and followed the directions for the Tor and there probably was a hint that you should use partitions.  But whatever site he was getting his info from probably assumed that he already had a VPN.  I am someone who fixes a lot of issues w/ my computer, phone, printer, etc,. by looking online.  Most of the time it works.  But am I doing the most efficient, best way?  I have no idea.  For complicated tasks, we hire my son who is now mostly doing IT and has built my computer and did set up our home network and its security.  (we need the network set up again but he has little time right now so we suffer- that is because we got an upgrade in our Google Fiber).

[AnotherNewName]

1 hour ago, TravelingChris said:

He is probably someone like me with regards to computer knowledge (or not really, since I know I am much more intelligent than he is but my knowledge of how to do technical tasks on the computer are probably the same.)  He used a manual, a website, or something like that and followed the directions for the Tor and there probably was a hint that you should use partitions.  But whatever site he was getting his info from probably assumed that he already had a VPN.  I am someone who fixes a lot of issues w/ my computer, phone, printer, etc,. by looking online.  Most of the time it works.  But am I doing the most efficient, best way?  I have no idea.  For complicated tasks, we hire my son who is now mostly doing IT and has built my computer and did set up our home network and its security.  (we need the network set up again but he has little time right now so we suffer- that is because we got an upgrade in our Google Fiber).

That is what I thought initially, but when this story broke there was background information from someone who knew him as a teen which leads me to believe Josh was more tech savvy than I would have thought.  

Tor does provide its own protection so it is possible he thought he had more protection under BitTorrent than he did, but I am curious to learn the details about what his attorneys seem to be claiming.

[TravelingChris]

On 8/25/2021 at 9:21 PM, AnotherNewName said:

The smart ones frequently are never caught.

Yes, unfortunately.  Because a lot of psychopathic killers, for example, are quite intelligent in the way we normally consider intelligence.  

And one big aspect of our current legal system, is that funding and interest in pursuing major fraud, etc. has just about dried out.  Like the IRS targets people who cheat by claiming non existent or non eligible child tax credits and earned income credits, not people like certain people I know who are most likely doing illegal or at least shady business exemptions but it is a over million dollar business with accountants and lawyers to help stop inquiries..

 

[AbcdeDooDah]

Coming out on Reddit: The government’s response to the motions previously filed. The ex-con was in jail during the month the CSAM was downloaded.

Edited September 10, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah

[AbcdeDooDah]

re the photographs of his hands. Josh claimed it was a fifth amendment violation against self-incrimination. The government response: “Such an argument would be confusing in light of the defendant’s simultaneous claim that these photographs have no evidentiary value.” 

https://www.reddit.com/r/DuggarsSnark/comments/plvbgh/government_responses_to_defense_motions_91021/

 

Edited September 11, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah

[busymama7]

I think I'm missing some details. What do the photographs of his hands mean? Why were they taken? Is that standard at booking?

[AbcdeDooDah]

19 minutes ago, busymama7 said:

I think I'm missing some details. What do the photographs of his hands mean? Why were they taken? Is that standard at booking?

Hands, yes. I’ve not heard of feet but maybe different agencies do.

[Annie G]

It’s not looking good for Joshie.  Evidently the three witnesses he was trying to throw under the bus were definitely not the ones who downloaded, viewed, and (newly mentioned today) distributed the CSA. I think his best hope was the guy who had a criminal record…but sadly for Josh, the guy was in jail when the CSA was downloaded.  
I can’t wait for the trial to be over.  Although a plea deal saves trial expenses, and I generally want to save money, I worry a plea deal will include a light sentence.