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
Mike,
Thank you for your response.
We are in complete agreement regarding polygamy. We have differences on the matter of sniping which will work themselves out over time.
I wish you well.
James,
Hope the pie thing went well. I love pie but my least favorite is pumpkin and I have never made one without using a doctored can filling.
Buddha,
I laughed out-loud at the grannies skit … 2 of my friends have purchased motorcycles because they “always wanted” one … their daughters think it’s cool, their sons are going nuts about it. I wouldn’t ride with either one of them.
But I might go on an afternoon purse swinging walk with them … the high school track team is out running the streets almost every afternoon.
Elaine,
I’ll turn 65 next month so no “taking umbrage” from me.
Will you visit me if I’m sentenced to double secret probation?
lol
Elaine,
I’m sure it comes as no surprise that I love that movie. But what may be surprising is that with my comedy bent that one of my favorite performances is that of the late John Vernon as Dean Wormer. I had seen him is sooooo many other films and TV of my youth playing outlaws and heavies (like bad guys on “Mission Impossible” and Fletcher in “The Outlaw Josey Wales”), when I saw “Animal House” (first run, at the drive-in, way under age) it just blew me away and opened my mind to the possibility that dramatic acting and comedic acting is a line that can be crossed if you’re good enough. “The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.” But his funniest scenes were all facial reaction – when Straton hits the golf ball into Wormer’s office and when the guy fires up the chainsaw to get the dead horse out. If you look at his career he was clearly a journeyman actor who worked steadily from the early 60’s until his death. Never a leading man, but the man had some chops.
Buddha,
P.S. All those found guilty of sniping and making insults on this thread will be put on double secret probation!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hostgKc7qV4&fs=1&hl=en_US]
Buddha,
“You aren’t going to disparage a tactical quibble, are you?”
I wasn’t attempting to disparage anything. You’re the one who said that you didn’t think Mike was targeting any regulars. You said you thought he was talking to everyone. I disagreed with your view and was trying to show you why I did. That’s all. I wasn’t angry or upset. I was just trying to explain things from my perspective.
*********
BTW, I’m getting dizzy from scrolling back and forth on my computer so I can read previous comments addressed to me and then respond to them. I’m done for now. I hope this will be the end of the “who-said-what-that-got-someone-else-pissed-off-first-and-who-wrote-nastier-comments-and-whether-certain-posters-responded-to-other-poster-in-the-appropriate-manner” discussion.
As far as I’m concerned–the case is closed!
@scarecrow
1. For social security I believe the $1,000 benifit in my question should be based upon the amount of contribution the employee made not the amount of people it is supporting. So no I wouldn’t agree to the 1200. I think it should be 1000 total if u had 1 spouse or 20.
2. As for children benefits, I have a problem with the system as a whole. This is probably not going to be a popular opinion but I believe that if someone is going to bring a child(s) into this world then the need to be finacially and emotionally able to support them for the childs whole life not the parents. I believe that a parent should have life insurance to provide after death and a good family and friend community to provide after death emotionaly. Although I understand that this isn’t the attitude of all parents and the children shouldn’t suffer for that so really there isn’t a acceptable and fair finacial outcome for those unlucky children. Unfortunetly, I realize that whether or not multiple marriages are legalized people can still have as many children as they want (and even in the case of a person who is just having children with multiple children with multiple women not in a poly relationship). My problem with this legalization of multiple spouses stems from my personal opionion that having too many children can be irresponsible. To legalize it could condone that activity. It only makes sense that if you have 6 wives at a minimum you would probably have 6 to 12 kids on the low side. A great number of our country have enough trouble supporting a family of four. Emotionally with 12 children and 6 wives that is 18 people so with working to support everyone if you were lucky you might get one on one time with every person once a month. Again this is just my opinion but I don’t see how you could have a first hand one on one relationship with each person. I also believe this about the duggars though and they aren’t poly.
2. We agree on the health insurance and I’m sure you are correct about the number of children. I still don’t like it 🙂
3. As far as the divorce situation we totally disagree but I doubt either of us will change our minds. But my opinion, first of all a women not earning outside income who spends 20 taking care of the home or homeschooling the children has contributed greatly financially speaking to the family. Had she been working how much would you have paid someone to do these things (btw I do have a college education and would go crazy being a stay at home wife). Also u stated that the children should not be removed from the “family” and the mom should be able to visit? That’s a huge diffence in poly. Is your opinion that in any marriage the person leaving the relationship should loose the right to be the primary care giver? That would be an absolute no go for me for legalizing poly.
Also if the mom left the family are u saying that she would get visitation with all the children or just her biological ones? You can’t have it both ways. Either all moms ate legal mothers of all children or they are not. This brings up a whole can of worms for mothers rights?
In making you case would there be anything else that u would like me to understand before I would make my decision that would apply to all people wanting to legalize multiple marriages regardless of there religion?
I keep a wary eye, Mrs. M. 😉
Buddha,
My husband and I enjoyed the Hell’s Grannies video. You best be on the lookout for us “little old ladies.” When we don’t have our morning prune juice, we can get nasty!
🙂
Scarecrow:
Your “encounter” with the divine:
I had a king sized water bed and was sleeping on the left side of the bed on my stomach, facing to the left toward my dresser. My right arm was by my side and my left arm was bent so my hand was under my pillow just under my face. I was sleeping soundly when a pressure came upon me. It was a dream to me at first , a very real very vivid dream. The pressure continued to build and I became semi-conscious not knowing if I was dreaming or if I was awake. The pressure continued to increase and finally caused me to awaken. I opened my eyes and saw my dresser. It was a very strange sensation because I felt something pushing me down but couldn’t move my arms to push back, as if I was paralyzed. I was fully awake now without a clue what was happening and the pressure continued to build to the point that I thought that my chest was going to touch the base of the bed through the mattress. By this time the pressure was so great that I could breath out but could not breath in and I began to pass out. I thought “so this is it, this is what it feels like to die.” At that moment the pressure disappeared and I came up like a bobber that a fish had been playing with…it was an older style water bed mattress that didn’t have any baffles in it so it acted like a puddle that someone had thrown a rock in, and the waves of motion were considerable for a water bed. Then I heard a very distinct voice say “This is the weight of your sin that I carry for you”. I knew instantly that it was Jesus, and remembered that “the wages of sin is death”. I had had a near death experience and met Jesus simultaneously.
The likely cause is sleep paralysis (summarized in Wiki):
“Physiologically, sleep paralysis is closely related to REM atonia, the paralysis that occurs as a natural part of REM (rapid eye movement) sleep. Sleep paralysis occurs either when falling asleep, or when awakening. When it occurs upon falling asleep, the person remains aware while the body shuts down for REM sleep, and it is called hypnagogic or predormital sleep paralysis. When it occurs upon awakening, the person becomes aware before the REM cycle is complete, and it is called hypnopompic or postdormital.[5] The paralysis can last from several seconds to several minutes “by which the individual may experience panic symptoms”.[6] (described below) As the correlation with REM sleep suggests, the paralysis is not entirely complete; use of EOG traces shows that eye movement is still possible during such episodes.[7] When there is an absence of narcolepsy, sleep paralysis is referred to as isolated sleep paralysis (ISP).[8]
In addition, the paralysis may be accompanied by terrifying hallucinations (hypnopompic or hypnagogic) and an acute sense of danger.[9] Sleep paralysis is particularly frightening to the individual because of the vividness of such hallucinations.[8] The hallucinatory element to sleep paralysis makes it even more likely that someone will interpret the experience as a dream, since completely fanciful or dream-like objects may appear in the room alongside one’s normal vision. Some scientists have proposed this condition as an explanation for alien abductions and ghostly encounters.[10] A study by Susan Blackmore and Marcus Cox (the Blackmore-Cox study) of the University of the West of England supports the suggestion that reports of alien abductions are related to sleep paralysis rather than to temporal lobe lability.[11]
(…)
Many perceptions associated with sleep paralysis (visceral buzzing, loud sounds, adrenal mental state, presences, and the paralysis itself) also constitute a common phase in the early progression of episodes referred to as out of body experiences.[16][17] Mental focus varies between the two conditions; paralysis sufferers tend to fixate on reestablishing operation of the body, whereas subjects of out-of-body episodes are more occupied by perceived non-equivalence with the body.”
Science, it seems, has a more likely and rational, if not as provacative, explanation for your experience.
Byron,
To be fair, the door isn’t actually locked.
“Oklahoma! Oklahoma! Oklahoma!”
That is one funny movie.
Blouise & Swarthmore mom,
When I wrote “elder female blog friends”–I wasn’t implying that you’re older than I am! Just wanted to clear that up.
🙂
Mike S.,
Buddha brought up the subject of your calling out male regulars when their sniping/insults have gotten out of hand. I was, therefore, asking Buddha if HE thought my sniping had gotten out of hand. I didn’t say you had said or implied that. I’m sorry if it seemed that way to you.
I also wasn’t ascribing to you “the little old ladies” tag I used to refer to Blouise, Swarthmore mom, and me. Read what Blouise wrote on the “little old ladies” topic. I was actually poking fun at myself… and my elder female blog friends.
James M:
you make pumpkin pie from scratch? You are my hero. 🙂 My grandmother always told me the canned stuff was just as good and much easier. She swore by Libby’s brand.
Blouise,
Pumpkin shopping sounds fun. I was debating making a pumpkin pie tonight, but was going to make due with canned stuff.
SwM,
Being a mother is wonderful but being a grandmother is even better.
Mike,
The “little ol’ lady” reference is ours and has nothing to do with your posts … it is a poke at ourselves by ourselves … we’ve each achieved beyond our dreams, we’re smart, we’re comfortable, we’re happy with our lives, our children are successful adults and our grandchildren (in my case ’cause I don’t know if the others have any)are headed in the right direction … we are the new little ol’ ladies because we are no longer “spring chickens” and it doesn’t hurt to remind ourselves of that for it is time to move over and give the next crop of accomplished females room. We all have daughters and we know exactly what we mean … age gracefully with a sense of humor. Ironic … perhaps, but also true.
Now … my daughter and granddaughter have returned and we are going pumpkin shopping so I will address the rest later. Thank you for responding.
I haven’t been on here before, so no, I am not someone called Tootie. As Scarecrow mentioned before, I only came on here purely because Scarecrow posted the link, I really, seriously have very little interest in legal things otherwise.
So weird……
@ Elaine
I know you did not refer to me as a troll, I was responding to Buddha’s line, I just don’t want anyone to think that just because I am new, that I am only here to wind people up, to me, that is the definition of a troll. I am just here to answer any questions and respond to things from a poly side.