Whats really going to cause butthurt is when the daughters get their own new shows. I never watched the show, but apparently it was huge, as were the daughters wedding shows.

Does anyone know who exactly requested the release of the police report? I mean if you are going to call him or her all these names you should at least know who you are talking about.

(06-07-2015 01:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Does anyone know who exactly requested the release of the police report? I mean if you are going to call him or her all these names you should at least know who you are talking about.

Legally, it means little of who requested it, but who authorized the release. Yes, we know who did it. Some of us are informed, and can perform our own research without requiring to be spoon-fed talking points.

(06-07-2015 01:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 01:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Does anyone know who exactly requested the release of the police report? I mean if you are going to call him or her all these names you should at least know who you are talking about.

Legally, it means little of who requested it, but who authorized the release. Yes, we know who did it. Some of us are informed, and can perform our own research without requiring to be spoon-fed talking points.

So for those of us to lazy to look it up, who requested it?

(06-07-2015 01:54 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 01:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 01:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Does anyone know who exactly requested the release of the police report? I mean if you are going to call him or her all these names you should at least know who you are talking about.

Legally, it means little of who requested it, but who authorized the release. Yes, we know who did it. Some of us are informed, and can perform our own research without requiring to be spoon-fed talking points.

So for those of us to lazy to look it up, who requested it?

The requestor was InTouch magazine.

The release was by the SpringDale Police Chief, who is stepping down at the end of this month.

She consulted with the Springdale attorney, who said it was legal because the person is no longer a minor. (Which is not right, a juvenile case does not cease to be a juvenile case when someone reaches adulthood.)

Washington county attorneys, the county where Springdale is located, says the report should not have been released and have started an investigation.

The police chief is stepping down.

The judge ordered the complete destruction of all documents to prevent further illegal release in the case.

Wow did UofM really just say that a report releasing names of rape victims was a worse offense than their actual rape and an internal family coverup???

All were wrong but wow.

(06-07-2015 02:08 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Wow did UofM really just say that a report releasing names of rape victims was a worse offense than their actual rape and an internal family coverup???

All were wrong but wow.

They were not rape victims until the media released their names. Try getting your information from a reputable source.

(06-07-2015 01:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 01:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Does anyone know who exactly requested the release of the police report? I mean if you are going to call him or her all these names you should at least know who you are talking about.

Legally, it means little of who requested it, but who authorized the release. Yes, we know who did it. Some of us are informed, and can perform our own research without requiring to be spoon-fed talking points.

Can you just give me a source? One source to back up all of the things you have been saying? I don't need it spoon fed to me, but I'm admittedly not a legal expert. When I read interpretations from lawyers in Arkansas, and legal experts on the Arkansas FOI laws, I'm more inclined to believe them over a ranting partisan message board poster from Memohis. Maybe I'm just simple like that.

(06-07-2015 02:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:08 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Wow did UofM really just say that a report releasing names of rape victims was a worse offense than their actual rape and an internal family coverup???

All were wrong but wow.

They were not rape victims until the media released their names. Try getting your information from a reputable source.

So a molestation isnt a molestation until the news says so...? Okay.

Nice....

Quote:InTouch reported that his father took Duggar to an Arkansas state trooper who was a personal friend, who took no action other than a "very stern talk." That officer is now serving a 56-year term in prison for child pornography, the magazine reported, and no case was ever brought against Duggar.

Creepy as ****.

(06-07-2015 02:06 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 01:54 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 01:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 01:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Does anyone know who exactly requested the release of the police report? I mean if you are going to call him or her all these names you should at least know who you are talking about.

Legally, it means little of who requested it, but who authorized the release. Yes, we know who did it. Some of us are informed, and can perform our own research without requiring to be spoon-fed talking points.

So for those of us to lazy to look it up, who requested it?

The requestor was InTouch magazine.

The release was by the SpringDale Police Chief, who is stepping down at the end of this month.

She consulted with the Springdale attorney, who said it was legal because the person is no longer a minor. (Which is not right, a juvenile case does not cease to be a juvenile case when someone reaches adulthood.)

Washington county attorneys, the county where Springdale is located, says the report should not have been released and have started an investigation.

The police chief is stepping down.

The judge ordered the complete destruction of all documents to prevent further illegal release in the case.

It wouldn't seem to me like the police chief did anything wrong. She checked with the city attorney and possibly got some bad legal advise, but the Freedom of information Act is the law, so based on legal advise she got, she would have been in violation of the law had she not released it, would she not?

(06-07-2015 02:16 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:08 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Wow did UofM really just say that a report releasing names of rape victims was a worse offense than their actual rape and an internal family coverup???

All were wrong but wow.

They were not rape victims until the media released their names. Try getting your information from a reputable source.

So a molestation isnt a molestation until the news says so...? Okay.

Please link your credible source that says any of the kids were raped. Please look up the terms credible and rape before responding.

(06-07-2015 02:23 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:06 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 01:54 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 01:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 01:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Does anyone know who exactly requested the release of the police report? I mean if you are going to call him or her all these names you should at least know who you are talking about.

Legally, it means little of who requested it, but who authorized the release. Yes, we know who did it. Some of us are informed, and can perform our own research without requiring to be spoon-fed talking points.

So for those of us to lazy to look it up, who requested it?

The requestor was InTouch magazine.

The release was by the SpringDale Police Chief, who is stepping down at the end of this month.

She consulted with the Springdale attorney, who said it was legal because the person is no longer a minor. (Which is not right, a juvenile case does not cease to be a juvenile case when someone reaches adulthood.)

Washington county attorneys, the county where Springdale is located, says the report should not have been released and have started an investigation.

The police chief is stepping down.

The judge ordered the complete destruction of all documents to prevent further illegal release in the case.

It wouldn't seem to me like the police chief did anything wrong. She checked with the city attorney and possibly got some bad legal advise, but the Freedom of information Act is the law, so based on legal advise she got, she would have been in violation of the law had she not released it, would she not?

The law clearly states that juvenile records are not to be released. If you have a flakey city lawyer to tell you that its ok to do something the law clearly says not to do, I would run that past someone such as the state's attorney general. You are not shielded from prosecution just because you got bad advice from your lawyer.

In the case of children and children victims, you err on the side of the child. Not your ideology.

(06-07-2015 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:23 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:06 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 01:54 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 01:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Legally, it means little of who requested it, but who authorized the release. Yes, we know who did it. Some of us are informed, and can perform our own research without requiring to be spoon-fed talking points.

So for those of us to lazy to look it up, who requested it?

The requestor was InTouch magazine.

The release was by the SpringDale Police Chief, who is stepping down at the end of this month.

She consulted with the Springdale attorney, who said it was legal because the person is no longer a minor. (Which is not right, a juvenile case does not cease to be a juvenile case when someone reaches adulthood.)

Washington county attorneys, the county where Springdale is located, says the report should not have been released and have started an investigation.

The police chief is stepping down.

The judge ordered the complete destruction of all documents to prevent further illegal release in the case.

It wouldn't seem to me like the police chief did anything wrong. She checked with the city attorney and possibly got some bad legal advise, but the Freedom of information Act is the law, so based on legal advise she got, she would have been in violation of the law had she not released it, would she not?

The law clearly states that juvenile records are not to be released. If you have a flakey city lawyer to tell you that its ok to do something the law clearly says not to do, I would run that past someone such as the state's attorney general. You are not shielded from prosecution just because you got bad advice from your lawyer.

In the case of children and children victims, you err on the side of the child. Not your ideology.

So what is the police chief's ideology? What makes the city attorney "flakey"? Do you mean incompetent? Also, it was a police report, not a court record so that may have something to do with it. Is the police chief facing legal action? Were any victims names included in the report?

(06-07-2015 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:23 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:06 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 01:54 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 01:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Legally, it means little of who requested it, but who authorized the release. Yes, we know who did it. Some of us are informed, and can perform our own research without requiring to be spoon-fed talking points.

So for those of us to lazy to look it up, who requested it?

The requestor was InTouch magazine.

The release was by the SpringDale Police Chief, who is stepping down at the end of this month.

She consulted with the Springdale attorney, who said it was legal because the person is no longer a minor. (Which is not right, a juvenile case does not cease to be a juvenile case when someone reaches adulthood.)

Washington county attorneys, the county where Springdale is located, says the report should not have been released and have started an investigation.

The police chief is stepping down.

The judge ordered the complete destruction of all documents to prevent further illegal release in the case.

It wouldn't seem to me like the police chief did anything wrong. She checked with the city attorney and possibly got some bad legal advise, but the Freedom of information Act is the law, so based on legal advise she got, she would have been in violation of the law had she not released it, would she not?

The law clearly states that juvenile records are not to be released. If you have a flakey city lawyer to tell you that its ok to do something the law clearly says not to do, I would run that past someone such as the state's attorney general. You are not shielded from prosecution just because you got bad advice from your lawyer.

In the case of children and children victims, you err on the side of the child. Not your ideology.

Duggar was a legal adult when the police report was filed. The names and even pronouns that could identify any of the victims were redacted from the police report.

For someone who likes to insult others for being "spoon fed talking points", you sure don't seem to know what the **** you are talking about.

(06-07-2015 02:33 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:23 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:06 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 01:54 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  So for those of us to lazy to look it up, who requested it?

The requestor was InTouch magazine.

The release was by the SpringDale Police Chief, who is stepping down at the end of this month.

She consulted with the Springdale attorney, who said it was legal because the person is no longer a minor. (Which is not right, a juvenile case does not cease to be a juvenile case when someone reaches adulthood.)

Washington county attorneys, the county where Springdale is located, says the report should not have been released and have started an investigation.

The police chief is stepping down.

The judge ordered the complete destruction of all documents to prevent further illegal release in the case.

It wouldn't seem to me like the police chief did anything wrong. She checked with the city attorney and possibly got some bad legal advise, but the Freedom of information Act is the law, so based on legal advise she got, she would have been in violation of the law had she not released it, would she not?

The law clearly states that juvenile records are not to be released. If you have a flakey city lawyer to tell you that its ok to do something the law clearly says not to do, I would run that past someone such as the state's attorney general. You are not shielded from prosecution just because you got bad advice from your lawyer.

In the case of children and children victims, you err on the side of the child. Not your ideology.

So what is the police chief's ideology? What makes the city attorney "flakey"? Do you mean incompetent? Also, it was a police report, not a court record so that may have something to do with it. Is the police chief facing legal action? Were any victims names included in the report?

The lawyer is flakey because he didn't interpret the law in the same way as esteemed legal experts Jim Bob Duggar and UofMStateU. The police chief is retiring at the end of the month, not facing any kind of legal action (that point was thrown in by the UofMStateU to make it seem like she was stepping down because of some sort of scandal). No victims names were included.

(06-07-2015 02:41 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:33 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:23 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:06 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The requestor was InTouch magazine.

The release was by the SpringDale Police Chief, who is stepping down at the end of this month.

She consulted with the Springdale attorney, who said it was legal because the person is no longer a minor. (Which is not right, a juvenile case does not cease to be a juvenile case when someone reaches adulthood.)

Washington county attorneys, the county where Springdale is located, says the report should not have been released and have started an investigation.

The police chief is stepping down.

The judge ordered the complete destruction of all documents to prevent further illegal release in the case.

It wouldn't seem to me like the police chief did anything wrong. She checked with the city attorney and possibly got some bad legal advise, but the Freedom of information Act is the law, so based on legal advise she got, she would have been in violation of the law had she not released it, would she not?

The law clearly states that juvenile records are not to be released. If you have a flakey city lawyer to tell you that its ok to do something the law clearly says not to do, I would run that past someone such as the state's attorney general. You are not shielded from prosecution just because you got bad advice from your lawyer.

In the case of children and children victims, you err on the side of the child. Not your ideology.

So what is the police chief's ideology? What makes the city attorney "flakey"? Do you mean incompetent? Also, it was a police report, not a court record so that may have something to do with it. Is the police chief facing legal action? Were any victims names included in the report?

The lawyer is flakey because he didn't interpret the law in the same way as esteemed legal experts Jim Bob Duggar and UofMStateU. The police chief is retiring at the end of the month, not facing any kind of legal action (that point was thrown in by the UofMStateU to make it seem like she was stepping down because of some sort of scandal). No victims names were included.

True or false, the police chief announced her retirement prior to releasing the documents.

For the challenged, true or false means yes or no.

(06-07-2015 02:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:41 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:33 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:23 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  It wouldn't seem to me like the police chief did anything wrong. She checked with the city attorney and possibly got some bad legal advise, but the Freedom of information Act is the law, so based on legal advise she got, she would have been in violation of the law had she not released it, would she not?

The law clearly states that juvenile records are not to be released. If you have a flakey city lawyer to tell you that its ok to do something the law clearly says not to do, I would run that past someone such as the state's attorney general. You are not shielded from prosecution just because you got bad advice from your lawyer.

In the case of children and children victims, you err on the side of the child. Not your ideology.

So what is the police chief's ideology? What makes the city attorney "flakey"? Do you mean incompetent? Also, it was a police report, not a court record so that may have something to do with it. Is the police chief facing legal action? Were any victims names included in the report?

The lawyer is flakey because he didn't interpret the law in the same way as esteemed legal experts Jim Bob Duggar and UofMStateU. The police chief is retiring at the end of the month, not facing any kind of legal action (that point was thrown in by the UofMStateU to make it seem like she was stepping down because of some sort of scandal). No victims names were included.

True or false, the police chief announced her retirement prior to releasing the documents.

For the challenged, true or false means yes or no.

True. As in she announced her retirement before the FOI request was received. Your point?

(06-07-2015 03:07 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:41 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:33 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The law clearly states that juvenile records are not to be released. If you have a flakey city lawyer to tell you that its ok to do something the law clearly says not to do, I would run that past someone such as the state's attorney general. You are not shielded from prosecution just because you got bad advice from your lawyer.

In the case of children and children victims, you err on the side of the child. Not your ideology.

So what is the police chief's ideology? What makes the city attorney "flakey"? Do you mean incompetent? Also, it was a police report, not a court record so that may have something to do with it. Is the police chief facing legal action? Were any victims names included in the report?

The lawyer is flakey because he didn't interpret the law in the same way as esteemed legal experts Jim Bob Duggar and UofMStateU. The police chief is retiring at the end of the month, not facing any kind of legal action (that point was thrown in by the UofMStateU to make it seem like she was stepping down because of some sort of scandal). No victims names were included.

True or false, the police chief announced her retirement prior to releasing the documents.

For the challenged, true or false means yes or no.

True. As in she announced her retirement before the FOI request was received. Your point?

What day was the FOIA request received?

(06-07-2015 02:33 PM)HappyAppy Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:23 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 02:06 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-07-2015 01:54 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  So for those of us to lazy to look it up, who requested it?

The requestor was InTouch magazine.

The release was by the SpringDale Police Chief, who is stepping down at the end of this month.

She consulted with the Springdale attorney, who said it was legal because the person is no longer a minor. (Which is not right, a juvenile case does not cease to be a juvenile case when someone reaches adulthood.)

Washington county attorneys, the county where Springdale is located, says the report should not have been released and have started an investigation.

The police chief is stepping down.

The judge ordered the complete destruction of all documents to prevent further illegal release in the case.

It wouldn't seem to me like the police chief did anything wrong. She checked with the city attorney and possibly got some bad legal advise, but the Freedom of information Act is the law, so based on legal advise she got, she would have been in violation of the law had she not released it, would she not?

The law clearly states that juvenile records are not to be released. If you have a flakey city lawyer to tell you that its ok to do something the law clearly says not to do, I would run that past someone such as the state's attorney general. You are not shielded from prosecution just because you got bad advice from your lawyer.

In the case of children and children victims, you err on the side of the child. Not your ideology.

Duggar was a legal adult when the police report was filed. The names and even pronouns that could identify any of the victims were redacted from the police report.

For someone who likes to insult others for being "spoon fed talking points", you sure don't seem to know what the **** you are talking about.

Even with the redactions, a third grader could figure out who the victims were. Redacting the report was meaningless.