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
Blouise,
If you are asking who I thought threw the first punch? I’d be glad to answer that as well, but since you already identified it, I’ll just say that I do think that was that comment that crossed the personal line (drew first blood so to speak). If that had it been directed at me it would have immediately resulted in an incendiary response. Not the nuclear option, but I’d have certainly gotten out the flamethrower.
Blouise I was shocked when the “christian” man said that to her. He seriously took the low road and wanted to inflict damage.
Ultimately he’ll have to answer your question to his mindset in re those comments. I may be good, but those psychic lessons Blouise was giving me aren’t taking. 🙂 (Buddha)
That’s because you haven’t paid for them yet … as soon as the check arrives and clears … viola!
Swarthmore mom
1, October 11, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Elaine You don’t look like a “little old lady” in your picture. You have got it going on. The was a woman called the GWU mom who posted on here. She had a good life and a good husband, and she got attacked by a couple of women. One isn’t here any longer unless she posts under anther name and the other one is here on and off. I think some people resent people who are leading a good life with a wonderful family.
==============================================
You said a mouthful with that one. It was that attitude that, in my opinion, led to the first real swipe at Elaine … the one about a cheating husband. (Buddha, that’s part of what I meant with the term “context”) Before that swipe, the disagreements were simply differences in opinion. That was an intentional move to the personal and away from the theoretical.
Buddha I think she said she had enough of the attacks. Her husband also got a job in Asia.
Swarthmore mom,
Thanks. That picture was taken this past July on my daughter’s wedding day. I have some good family genes. I’m nearly sixty-four and haven’t gone gray yet.
I have an OUTSTANDING husband. He’s the one who helped me to learn how to speak up for myself…helped me build my self confidence. I was not very assertive or outspoken before I married him–I was just a wiseass. My husband admires and respects strong women.
Blouise:
“It would be unwise for anyone to assume I am petting a soft, fluffy kitten.”
What does that mean? Are you saying you aren’t a softy or that you aren’t Ernst Stavro Blofeld?
Smom,
I was just wondering what happened to GWLSMom. She was a really good poster.
Elaine,
I have no problem with you defending yourself and I’m pretty sure neither does Mike. Personally, I get a kick out of it when people stand up. Self-defense is a right that comes with breathing and transcends any law. I don’t think he was trying to quash you as much as he was simply steering the group for the aforementioned reasons: his choice in language, his known area of expertise and the fact I’ve seen Mike call people out before – which he does with great directness and clarity.
Ultimately he’ll have to answer your question to his mindset in re those comments. I may be good, but those psychic lessons Blouise was giving me aren’t taking. 🙂
Buddha,
You are right and I will not belabor the point for it was not your post. Thank you for the insight.
Elaine You don’t look like a “little old lady” in your picture. You have got it going on. The was a woman called the GWU mom who posted on here. She had a good life and a good husband, and she got attacked by a couple of women. One isn’t here any longer unless she posts under anther name and the other one is here on and off. I think some people resent people who are leading a good life with a wonderful family.
Context is very important in this particular instance.
Evidence, please.
I cited why I arrived at the reading of Mike’s post that I did, Blouise.
It’s an area that’s going to fall into the area of inference/implication until Mike himself answers for his state of mind should he choose to do so.
“It was a “play nice and don’t make me get out of this chair, childrens” as opposed to “Bad Elaine! Quit tormenting those trolls/people!” (Buddha)
==========================================================
I left the classroom a long time ago … I still pet kittens, but never on command.
Buddha,
I don’t want you to think I’m suggesting that Mike is a sexist. I DO believe he is one of the voices of reason on this blog. I find his comments insightful and often very persuasive. I understand that Mike wanted to get the discussion back on track. But I felt I had to respond to his first post about the sniping when he agreed with James that we should just ignore insults. There are times when I will not ignore personal insults.
… but, never-the less, he did.
Elaine,
You are free to read Mike’s comment as you will, but my take on the situation was asked and honestly given. Mike to my reading was merely trying to steer the group, not the individuals stemming from his clearly addressing that he “didn’t care who started it” and by not placing blame on any one party. De-focusing blame is a key technique in diffusion of tensions.
It was a “play nice and don’t make me get out of this chair, childrens” as opposed to “Bad Elaine! Quit tormenting those trolls/people!”
If Mike had thought you got out of line with defending yourself, I really do think he’d have called you out on it by name. If he was truly upset with you, he’ll have to answer that himself, but I don’t think he was.
Elaine M.
1, October 11, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Buddha,
I may not be a psychotherapist–but I’m an adult woman who knows how to read between the lines. Which regulars were involved in the so-called sniping on this thread? It may be that Mike didn’t want to call out a group of “little old ladies” in a discussion about polygamy and male domination of women.
============================================================
Well said
One lives to be of service.
Buddha,
I may not be a psychotherapist–but I’m an adult woman who knows how to read between the lines. Which regulars were involved in the so-called sniping on this thread? It may be that Mike didn’t want to call out a group of “little old ladies” in a discussion about polygamy and male domination of women.