No, it was Jessa who took charge and tried to brush it off as "a quick feel" he did because "he was a little too curious about girls." Jill said very little.
Pretty sure she was pregnant at the time too.
Ugh, proof Boob is selfish and doesn't really care about kids unless they are good little soldiers in his fifedom, for jeezus
Lots of people confused about why the judge (same one as Josh's pizza conviction, interestingly) admits that the records should not have been released but then also saying the authorities are immune from prosecution, and they weren't hurt enough under the law to get money.
The judge agreed that emotional distress certainly occurred, but “not to the severe degree necessary to satisfy the tort.”
KNWA FOX24
A closer look: Duggar sisters lawsuit dismissal details
C.C. McCandless
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. (KNWA/KFTA) — The abrupt dismissal of the Duggar sisters’ invasion of privacy lawsuit just two days before a scheduled settlement conference brought up several questions, but the court’s 20 page ruling shed some light on many specifics of the decision and provided insight into background details related to the case.
Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the Western District of Arkansas Federal Court in Fayetteville issued the ruling, as he has presided over this case. He was also the judge for the trial of the plaintiffs’ brother, Joshua Duggar, who was convicted on a pair of child pornography charges in December 2021.
Northwest Arkansas’ Trial of the Century – a look back at Josh Duggar’s case and conviction
The February 9 Court Memorandum Opinion and Order began with the judge noting that the defendants filed two separate motions seeking Summary Judgment, which a law dictionary defines as “a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party without a full trial.”
The two motions covered all of the defendants remaining in the lawsuit: Washington County and Rick Hoyt in the first, and the City of Springdale, Kathy O’Kelley and Ernest Cate in the second.
On the first page of the document, the judge noted that both motions were granted. The court would go on to explain the reasoning behind granting the motions, but first, it provided nearly ten pages of background information about the case.
That background began with an explanation of the “material facts relevant to the issues” regarding the summary judgment. The Court noted that most of these facts were “undisputed by the parties,” but a footnote clarifies this statement by explaining that back-and-forth statements about the nuances of the facts were made by both parties, an endeavor that the judge deemed “exceedingly tiresome and of little assistance to the Court.”
Judge dismisses Duggar sisters lawsuit
The background information in the ruling went all the way back to when the plaintiffs were children and noted that now “they are adult sisters who hail from a very large, religious family.”
It also detailed the sexual abuse the plaintiffs were subjected to by their brother, Joshua. The filing stated that their parents “discovered the abuse but did not report it to the police or any state agency,” and that “instead, they decided to keep it a secret.”
The ruling goes on, explaining that Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, the parents of Joshua and the plaintiffs, went on to consult with “their closest friends,” Jim and Bobye Holt, regarding the sexual assaults. It goes on to explain that, in 2003, the Holt’s daughter, Kaeleigh “wrote a summary of what she had heard from her parents about the abuse in a letter.” The letter was never mailed, but was placed in a book and left on a bookshelf.
The filing states that “there the secret remained until 2006 when Kaeleigh loaned the book to a friend and fellow church member.” This friend found the letter and shared it with her parents. The court ruling then states “from that point on, the Duggars’ family secret spread by word of mouth to the other members of their close-knit church community.”
On December 7, 2006, the Arkansas Department of Human Services Hotline “received two tips that Joshua had molested his sisters.” One was from an anonymous caller, and the other came from Oprah Winfrey’s studio, where the Duggars were set to appear on her TV show.
The deep dive into the background of the case went on to describe the police investigations and interviews that resulted from those tips, as well as specifics about the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that led to In Touch Weekly magazine receiving information about the plaintiffs.
An artist’s rendering of Judge Timothy L. Brooks
The document noted that both the city of Springdale and Washington County “lost track” of the FOIA requests. “Under the Arkansas FOIA, governmental agencies typically have three business days to respond to a request,” the court explained.
Defendant Ernest Cate, Springdale’s City Attorney, “agreed the police report should be released, provided that the names of the juvenile victims were redacted.” He also “proceeded that afternoon to obtain as much legal advice…as was possible on the FOIA Request.” That included consulting the juvenile prosecutor, whose opinion was that the report should be released.
Cate and Chief O’Kelley ultimately “reviewed and redacted the report to make sure the names and ages of all the minors and Joshua had been removed.” The court quoted the men as saying that they “discuss[ed] that we would prefer to over-redact, rather than under-redact” the police report.
The Court noted that “the Springdale Police Report was redacted more heavily and more carefully than the Washington County Incident Report.” The latter left one victim’s age unredacted, as well as disclosing Josh Duggar’s name once. The plaintiffs were also referred to as Joshua’s sisters and “the girls in the family.”
The Springdale Police report did not include those details, but the court’s ruling found that a reader could “have discerned the following information” about the victims:
they were sexually abused on multiple different occasions over the course of a year
the abuse took place in the Duggar home
the perpetrator of the abuse was Mr. and Mrs. Duggar’s child, who lived in the home; and
the victims of the abuse were Mr. and Mrs. Duggar’s children, who also lived in the home
After the explanation of the case’s background and the comparison of the two redacted reports that were released, the court’s ruling went on to explain the Legal Standard at play in granting a summary judgment. The judge cited a specific rule of Civil Procedure, noting that such a judgment happens when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact,” which is something he previously noted was the case here.
The plaintiffs’ case rested on three specific aspects:
Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion)
Invasion of Privacy (Public Disclosure of Private Fact)
Outrage
The remainder of the ruling addressed these points and explained exactly what the plaintiffs were required to prove and establish for each one.
The first Invasion of Privacy item had five requirements, and the ruling stated that “the record presents questions of fact for the jury as to four of the five elements.” Additionally, the document stated that “plaintiffs have not presented any direct proof or reasonable interference that would place the second element of the tort in dispute, and for this reason, the entire claim must be dismissed.”
That element requires proof that the defendants lacked the legal authority to commit “the intrusive act” at the heart of the lawsuit. The judge stated that he did not believe that the defendants engaged in conduct beyond the boundaries of their authority, and, in fact, that “all reasonable inferences point to the opposite conclusion.”
Although profoundly wrong about the law, Defendants were motivated by a belief that they were legally obligated to release these reports, and to do so quickly…In other words, they worried exclusively about compliance with one part of the FOIA and failed to investigate the other parts (and other relevant state law).
Judge Timothy L. Brooks, in his ruling dismissing the Duggar sisters’ lawsuit
The judge acknowledged that the plaintiffs had “met their evidentiary burden to survive summary judgment,” but that the case was still subject to dismissal because the defendants had statutory immunity.
He cited a State Supreme Court ruling that provides state actors “with immunity from civil liability for negligent acts, but not for intentional torts.” He noted that all relevant facts pointed toward “Defendants’ negligence—or perhaps recklessness,” but not intent.
It is unclear why this immunity was not addressed by the court sooner in relation to this part of the lawsuit.
For the final point of the lawsuit, Outrage, the court outlined four elements that needed to be met. In the first, the judge ruled that there was no evidence that the defendants “intended to inflict emotional distress.” He added that the defendants were attempting to conceal the plaintiffs’ identities, not reveal them, by redacting their names from the police reports.
The second element required proof that the defendants’ conduct was “extreme and outrageous,” and the court found that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence of this as well.
The final element required proof of emotional distress caused by the defendants that “was so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.” The judge agreed that emotional distress certainly occurred, but “not to the severe degree necessary to satisfy the tort.”
Due to those decisions by the court on each specific aspect, the two motions for summary judgment in the case were granted and the lawsuit was “dismissed with prejudice.”
A case dismissed with prejudice is generally closed and cannot be brought back to court.
One of the plaintiffs issued a statement expressing her disappointment with the ruling.
www.nwahomepage.com/news/a-closer-look-duggar-sisters-lawsuit-dismissal-details/
Fun fact: apparently there was less crime and shootings and less shootings on civilians by police when W was in office because that's when police unions got the most money in taxes to be able to train their officers more, so I'm always personalyreally curious how conservative groups align or not align with LE .