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 and I are not even grandmothers. I am not even close to being one so don’t call me a grannie.
Byron,
Just for the record, I don’t think you are the least bit wacky and I would agree with you completely about the free market system if we actually had one.
Now … if you have a fork with a cork on the prongs … (Buddha’s Ruprecht reference) …
bUDDHA:
yeah, yeah I know I am the eccentric relative you keep locked in the attic. 🙂
Though “Ruprecht” wasn’t as dumb as he made out to be. Keeping with a Steve Martin theme.
“Oh, Lawrence! This is the happiest day of my life! I think my testicles are dropping!”
“Since Mike was interested in fostering the conversation, he watered down the blame before saying to move along.”
Buddha,
You know me too well. My last defense though is to blame it all on James. his reasonable post called for me to affirm it and in doing so engender the enmity of people I’d rather not fight with.
Bad James.
Elaine,
I already feel stupid having brought it up again, when the better part of valor was to let it go (I wish WordPress was more like Gawker where you get 15 minutes to edit your posts before they’re locked forever).
If it’s alright with you, I’ll belatedly shut up.
“- Do you think it’s the plutocracy that has encouraged men who abuse their wives and/or treat them like inferior beings to do these things?
– Do you think members of the KKK lynched black men because of the plutocracy–or just because they were racists?
– Why has the plutocracy–over the years–chosen to oppress some groups more than others?”
My answer is yes to all of these questions. The reasoning is simply that there are so few of them and so many of us. Yet they have the Lion’s Share of the resources. Then need division among us, just as they need xenophobia, because that keeps them in power. The poor white southerner, who was also being oppressed could take comfort that black people were of a lower status and thus objects of abuse. The ability to abuse blacks kept the poor white from realizing how much they were getting screwed.
When it comes to women, who are smarter and more powerful than men (don’t think me patronizing I’ve been writing this for years)
the males who are bigger and stronger physically need to find ways to overcome those strengths and thus maintain power. I’ve also been writing for years that the problem with the world is that we organize our society just like the great apes, with the biggest an toughest ape running the show. In the modern world strength and toughness have been replaced by money and power.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygy7UDADXDg&fs=1&hl=en_US]
Byron,
Don’t underestimate yourself.
We think you’re wacky for other reasons beside free markets.
🙂
I mean that in the nicest way possible.
“This “little old lady” regular has a different perspective on the subject. I won’t, however, speak for my fellow “little old ladies.”
My dear little old lady Turley Regulars,
You realize of course that you’re ascribing to me words and attitudes whose only basis is your own suppositions of who I am. Are your connotations unfair given my body of work here, certainly in my opinion, but then your use of “Little Old Ladies” is a rhetorical device that has no basis in anything I’ve written and a demonstration of ironic sarcasm.
SWM:
I mean violent confrontation not legitimate argumentation.
SWM:
I have had enough of confrontation, I dissed Gertie/30% and regretted it. He/she was actually very interesting and was quite knowledgeable about a good many things. Actually so is Tootie and she took a lot of shit from everyone as well.
Everyone has their own opinions and beliefs, you and many others here think I am wacky as hell with my free market ideas and I cannot understand why people who are for gay marriage and other civil liberties can be against free markets.
We should all calm down and embrace diversity, I don’t like vanilla and can go to a web site where I agree with everyone but what the hell fun would that be? And what would I learn?
“It may be that Mike didn’t want to call out a group of “little old ladies”
Elaine and Blouise this was snarky and I’m probably older and frailer than either of you. I didn’t address your names because you have become fixtures here and I was trying to avoid having to ascribe blame. Now in truth most of the comments made by Turley regulars were quite mild and those from Scarecrow and Isabella more in tune with the flaming you get in other net venues. I believe that in the course of this long discussion they came to realize that and toned it down. That becomes irrelevant though because you all defended yourselves and you positions skillfully and artfully.
This is again what I wrote after quoting and agreeing with James.
“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.”
“Elaine (to Buddha)
“Do you think my “sniping” got out of hand on this thread?”
Now if you want to take umbrage with that it’s your right, but I do think you are reading far more into my words than was there.
As to previous battles with women Jill and I did have a blow-out last year. I see my taking on someone of the opposite sex as a sign of respect, especially since there is no one who could find anything even vaguely approaching sexism, or patronizing of women in my writing.
Byron You pick it up too. I am thinking someone other than tootie. There is something familiar about Scarecrow too. We have had these “biblical scholars” before.
SWM:
Isabella sounds like Tootie although based on Tootie’s posts I don’t think she is into gay marriage and polygamy. But hey you never know. Sex and Libertarianism are not incompatible and certainly a libertarian would be in favor of gay marriage and polygamy or at least not opposed.
Funny how it’s all about the individual with us free market types. Although personally I agree with Buddha on polygamy, it would be a legal and emotional bitch.
Blouise,
CONGRATULATIONS! Have a grand celebration!
Hubby has returned from the White Mountains–and we’re going out for dinner to one of our favorite restaurants.
Isabella,
I wrote in an earlier comment: “But if posters insult my intelligence or attack me personally, I will usually respond—except to certain trolls who aren’t worth the effort.”
I responded to you a number of times. I wouldn’t have if I thought you were a troll.
******
James,
I don’t use a “random screen name.” I post under my own name. You can easily find out who I am by clicking on my name at the top of each of my comments. If someone addresses a comment to me that includes an insult, why is that YOU think that I SHOULDN’T think that the insult was directed at me? Why do YOU think I shouldn’t I take it personally?
Doh!
Never mind.
I see Mike got here while I had to go to the door and answered much as anticipated.
Now . . . you kids don’t make me get out of this chair again! 😉
“Elaine M. 1, October 11, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Buddha,
Back to the theory of diffusion…”
When you don’t want to discourage the conversation but rather steer it, it is best not to lead with “You trolls stow your crap.” Defensiveness is a conversation killer. Since Mike was interested in fostering the conversation, he watered down the blame before saying to move along. That is a tactic, but there are indeed others. He could have ignored blame, assigned it and whitewashed/minimized it, or dilute it (which is what I think he was going for). I’m sure there are others as well. Only he can answer as to his choice in tactics, but I think he was displaying the diffusion strategy nonetheless. Maybe it was a tactical misstep as it has apparently drawn your ire, but I think the strategy was sound. You aren’t going to disparage a tactical quibble, are you? Consider that not only was he not directly addressing your actions, but Mike’s current state. We’re damn lucky to have him posting at all. He’s probably tired much of the time and taking drugs that are most decidedly not of the entertainment persuasion. I’m not trying to be his apologist, but I think you should ask are you really upset with Mike mild by comparison rebuke or with the clown who nastily questioned the Mr.’s marital fidelity in place of substantive rebuttal? At worst Mike may be guilty of not rushing to your defense, but I don’t think he’s attacked you. I don’t know his state of mind, but from what I read of the posts I know who I’d be upset with and it isn’t Mike. But that’s just me. It is not my offense to be taken.
That being said, I am going to withdraw from the slings and arrows part of the program and let Mike address his intent and tactical choices as he has the only actual answers. Further address is speculative and possibly counter-productive. If Mike meant any personal slight, I’m sure he’ll address it when he feels like it with the same directness you have in stating your complaint with his comment.
Now consider the tribulations of this Internet scrape if we were all married and arguing over date night or the kids?
Aye, there’s the rub.
Error in a given system is compounded by the numbers of components/participants.
“You are a voice of reason at the Turley Blawg.”
Elaine,
That has not always been true either and I’ve had my share of flame wars. I would like to be the voice of reason, but I’m just an old guy who sometimes lets wisdom overtake my too combative nature.