Judge Slams Josh Duggar’s ‘Frivolous’ Argument

Josh Duggar is seen in a Washington County, Arkansas jail mugshot.

Josh Duggar’s protection crew as soon as argued that the previous “19 Youngsters and Counting” star couldn’t be prosecuted for alleged youngster pornography offenses as a result of former President Donald Trump’s Division of Homeland Safety was led by illegal appointees. Explaining why he rejected that principle, a federal judged issued a written ruling on Wednesday calling that protection nothing in need of “frivolous.”

“This movement is frivolous,” U.S. District Choose Timothy Brooks wrote flatly in a 15-page opinion and order. “There isn’t a authorized assist for Mr. Duggar’s declare that an indictment handed down by a correctly impaneled grand jury could be topic to dismissal as a result of an alleged Appointments Clause violation. Division of Homeland Safety brokers are sworn to implement federal felony statutes, and the Court docket will not be conscious of any purpose why their authority to analyze crimes would by some means be undermined if the appearing secretary of their company have been improperly appointed.”

When federal brokers began wanting into Duggar in 2019, Homeland Safety Investigations (HSI) was beneath the management of Appearing Secretary Kevin McAleenan, and the probe continued into the tenure of Appearing Secretary Chad Wolf. The Authorities Accountability Workplace later found that Trump appointed each males unlawfully, circumventing the conventional technique of congressional approval. Federal judges later dominated equally, invalidating a number of the company’s actions beneath their management.

Duggar’s lawyer Justin Gelfand cited rulings in advancing their arguments, however the choose famous an important distinction: These have been “civil immigration circumstances involving the direct policymaking or rulemaking authority of the appearing secretary of Homeland Safety.”

“These circumstances are inapposite to Mr. Duggar’s,” Choose Brooks wrote.

The choose articulated a separate purpose felony circumstances are completely different. A grand jury was concerned.

“An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury . . . is sufficient to name for trial of the cost on the deserves,” the choose wrote, quoting from the 1956 Supreme Court docket determination in Costello v. United States.

The ruling additionally explains why the choose rejected Duggar’s bid to suppress statements he made to Homeland Safety Brokers Gerald Faulkner and Howard Aycock on Nov. 8, 2019, when authorities arrived at his used automotive dealership and obtained his cellular phone.

“In accordance with Agent Faulkner’s testimony on the listening to, Mr. Duggar instantly requested, ‘What is that this about? Has someone been downloading youngster pornography?”” the ruling states. “And in response, Agent Aycock instructed Mr. Duggar to cease asking questions till he may begin the recording system.”

A 51-minute interview adopted, which started with Aycock studying Duggar his Miranda warnings. Duggar signed a written waiver of his rights. His lawyer claimed the doc was signed after his iPhone was seized.

Choose Brooks dominated that this interview was voluntary.

“At the moment, Mr. Duggar was free to depart the premises, however he selected not to take action,” the ruling states. “Though he factors out that he didn’t have a car at his disposal and couldn’t drive away, he was completely able to leaving on foot.”

In a footnote, the choose identified that Duggar theoretically may have used any of the automobiles on his lot to depart.

“[T]right here isn’t any compelling proof that the brokers used ‘strong-arm’ techniques throughout questioning, nor does the Court docket discover that the interview was unnecessarily extended,” the opinion continues. “Mr. Duggar factors out that at instances throughout the interview, the brokers interrupted him. The Court docket reviewed the transcript with the audio recording performed throughout the listening to and concludes that the members have been speaking over (or into) one another. The Court docket doesn’t imagine the brokers have been making an attempt to silence or intimidate Mr. Duggar.”

Slated for a trial on Nov. 30, Duggar stands accused of receiving and possessing a horrendous assortment of dozens of images and movies depicting the sexual abuse of youngsters “as young as toddlers.” Throughout Duggar’s bond listening to in Could, HSI Agent Faulkner testified {that a} video discovered on an HP laptop in Duggar’s automotive lot, titled “Daisy’s Destruction,” was one of many “Top Five Worst of the Worst” that he ever needed to look at as a result of it depicted the assault of an 18-month-old woman.

An episode of Regulation&Crime’s podcast “Objections” explored the story of Australian human trafficker who made that horrific video: Peter Scully, who has been dubbed the “world’s worst pedophile.”

Learn the ruling under:

(Picture by way of mugshot)

Have a tip we must always know? [email protected] star/federal-judge-dings-josh-duggars-defense-for-frivolous-bid-to-dodge-child-porn-charges-on-basis-of-unlawful-trump-appointments/ | Choose Slams Josh Duggar’s ‘Frivolous’ Argument


Fry Electronics is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

1 × 4 =

Back to top button