As has been the practice on this blog, I wanted to disclose my representation of the Brown family, who are the subjects of the new series “Sister Wives” on TLC. As in the past, any comments on the case by me will be limited. However, various people have suggested the reported criminal investigation as a subject for this blog and I wanted to explain why I have not posted anything on the controversy.
Bigamy is a third-degree felony under Utah law punishable with up to five years in jail. Prior prosecutions for polygamy have involved allegations of child abuse or child brides, which are clearly not present in this case. The use of this statute to prosecute the Browns would be in my view unconstitutional. It would also end a long-standing policy to confine prosecutions to those who abuse children or commit such crimes as fraud. We are confident that the authorities will find no such criminal conduct in this case and we intend to cooperate to the fullest in resolving any such questions from the State. I hope that the prosecutors will recognize that this would be bad criminal case making bad criminal law. It is, after all, a television show and there is no need to move the matter from the television guide to the criminal docket.
My representation as lead counsel for Kody, Meri, Janelle, Christine, and Robyn Brown will obviously curtail my discussion of the case on this blog but, as in earlier cases, I will not interfere with the discussion of others on this blog.
Jonathan Turley
Elaine,
This little ol’ lady thinks Buddha is being an excellent wingman and I commend him for it.
I agree with the rest of his post.
Elaine,
I point to this section of Mike’s post:
“However, having re-read every post on this thread I’ve got to admit that I’m not at all certain whether it was them, or some of our regulars who started firing first. Much more I don’t care. Let’s tone down the sniping and tune up the discussion.”
Re-read that while keeping in mind psychotherapists are trained at diffusion techniques.
I won’t speak for Mike’s thoughts without caveat, but I will say this about him based solely upon my considerable past interaction with him: had he meant to address you specifically, he’d have done so with greater specificity.
Buddha,
I thought Mike was targeting me, Blouise, and Swarthmore mom–as well as a few of the posters who aren’t regulars.
Buddha,
Buddha Is Laughing
1, October 11, 2010 at 2:34 pm
I’ve read the entire set of posts again and although Mike can speak for himself? I got the impression he wasn’t targeting anyone specific, but rather everyone.
===========================================================
Really? Interesting take on it.
Buddha,
“I got the impression he wasn’t targeting anyone specific, but rather everyone.”
This “little old lady” regular has a different perspective on the subject. I won’t, however, speak for my fellow “little old ladies.”
*****
Blouise,
I’ll supply the bourbon!
Elaine,
Not a bit. Compared to how I maul my attackers before I skin them alive, your “sniping” was quite ladylike and proper. But again, I don’t think Mike was targeting you with his comment, but rather the whole thread.
I’ve read the entire set of posts again and although Mike can speak for himself? I got the impression he wasn’t targeting anyone specific, but rather everyone.
As far as the topic goes, I don’t think poly marriages are a bad idea from a contractual standpoint and can be as rewarding or damning as any mono marriage. The problem with poly marriages is simply complexity. More parts with differing agendas and functions leads to more problems as a mathematical proposition. For that alone, it’s a bad idea – and read this carefully – for most people. I know a very few people with the right psychological makeup for a poly situation, but I do know some. When a poly marriage goes bad, take the worst divorce case you can think of and multiply. Instead of the potential a single family car wreck, you have the potential for a highway style pileup. And yes, this is one time where saying “think of the children” IS a valid point. They run the risk of losing not just immediate family (mom and dad, direct siblings), but the risk of losing an extended family. While an extended family can offer benefits, those benefits also come a extended (read higher) cost upon loss or dissolution.
Even if poly marriages were a legal option, they are not a universally good idea based on both a C/B analysis upon dissolution (always hope for the best, but plan for the worst) or the difficulties of coordinating compatible psychological states from all participants.
Just like you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet in some states, it’s still a good idea to wear one.
But no one has ever said being stupid is against the law.
As long as what you want to do doesn’t interfere with the lives and/or rights of others, feel free to make as many dumb decisions as you like. Poly marriage – while some small minority may be able to make it work in a healthy fashion – are simply a bad decision for most people.
Bad or good, decisions are a consequence of free will.
Elaine,
And I will bring the scotch!
Buddha … I like you … a lot … get out now … save yourself
🙂
Blouise,
Mespo did indeed. I’d be happy to cook him up a fine Italian dinner. You bring the wine!
😉
Bingo!
Elaine Buddah gets very strong with people that attack him and that’s perfectly okay, and it’s okay for you too. Those posters took a whack at your family and your beliefs.
SwM,
In his own way I like to think mespo defended us too.
I do not have either Elaine’s or SwM’s email and am only communicating with them on the this blog.
Since reading Mike’s “call-out” I have been practicing a great deal of restraint … attempting to follow Elaine’s example …
It would be unwise for anyone to assume I am petting a soft, fluffy kitten.
There are some misogynists that visit this blog from time to time. I was attacked by one once and Mespo defended me. You have had a lot thrown at you on here, Elaine, but you are amazingly strong.
Buddha,
Thanks for your answer.
Now here’s a question for you–which you can choose to answer or not:
Do you think my “sniping” got out of hand on this thread?
Buddha Is Laughing
1, October 11, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Elaine,
Mike S. has taken issue with male regulars when the sniping has gotten out of hand. He is quite even handed, but his motive (IMO) usually seems to be to keep the conversation moving and not just idle chastising. Consequently he’s more likely to say something when he’s actively involved in the topic.
=========================================================
Ah … but was the sniping out of hand on Elaine’s part?
Judgement call perhaps?
Tricky when the subject matter is polygamy, criminal charges based on “allegations of child abuse or child brides, which are clearly not present in this case. The use of this statute to prosecute the Browns would be in my view unconstitutional.”(JO), religion, and men/women.
Elaine’s remarks have been mild but the various attacks on her have not been.
Mike S. & Byron,
It may be that women didn’t feel more empowered in the thirties. It may be that many men in the thirties–during the Great Depression–could have felt as “un-empowered” as women because the men had lost their jobs and couldn’t find work anywhere. Such men couldn’t support their families–or themselves. I think a lot of men who were out of work felt powerless–as many women always have–about the condition of their lives.
@James
If I were worried about being credible I would be using spell check as I know and have accepted my grammer and spelling, to put it bluntly sucks. :), however I’m not posting here because I need or want to feel that u all think I’m intelligent! I just truely am just interested in different lifestyles and am taking advantage of the opportunity to ask 2 people that live that lifestyle how it works and what there opinions are. I don’t think it’s wise to take a stance on an issue without looking at it from both sides.
I am a bottom line person, and while I understand that some people need to speak of religion and morals to make an argument or make a decision, and some people just like to discuss the issues on and on…. I learned that those are issues that your not likely to change someones opinion on no matter how hard u try. So I like to cut through that crap and get to what I consider to be the bottom line. What is the true cost to society finacially….. Is the finacial cost fair to society as a whole? The other stuff nobody will ever agree about, and god or the higher power will judge us individually for the choices we make in the afterlife, but we have free will now to decide if we follow the law of man, if we don’t then we should expect to pay the consequences right of wrong in the eyes of god. And we as citizens of the USA shouldn’t make laws based on our own opinions morals or religon if there is no personal injury consiquences or finacial unfairness to everyone as a whole
thank u 😉