The British Columbia Supreme Court will be some hearing testimony on the criminalization of plural unions — an extremely important case with global ramifications. As has been my practice in past cases, I wanted to confirm my involvement in the case as a court-appointed expert on the legality of such criminal laws. Weeks ago, I was retained to submit written testimony on the right of consenting adults to plural unions under United States and international law.
My roughly 90 page affidavit has been filed with the court and I am awaiting word on whether I will be called as a live witness by B.C. Attorney-General Mike de Jong. I have been tentatively included in the list of such witnesses, but it is common to have witnesses dropped before such proceedings. A large number of polygamists and polyamorists are expected to testify.
A total of 12 groups has been granted intervenor status in the case.
Here is the caption of the case for anyone who wants to track the case:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE MATTER OF:
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION ACT, R.S.B.C. 1986, c. 68
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
A REFERENCE BY THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL SET OUT IN ORDER IN COUNCIL NO. 533 DATED OCTOBER 22, 2009 CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF S. 293 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46
Jonathan Turley
Also, I want to win on 5 USC section 552a instead of Bivens and 5 USC authorizes separate award of attorney bills which don’t have to be related to what I get.
If my case is decided on the basis of e(7) then it will mean that there can’t be any civil contempt records in the prisoner tracking system records unless DOJ publishes in the Federal Register that it is an authorized law enforcement functions.
That would keep the courts from throwing lawyers in jail without a criminal prosecution.
@Kay: It seems to me Dr. Turley picks cases that are easy to make a distinction. Nobody is going to be concerned about the violation of your civil rights due to an “exemption under subsection K but procedurally in violation of subsection e(11).”
I think you might be exaggerating the allure of “making legal history.”
Polygamy is an interesting case to the general public. A judge being persecuted for his entirely legal degeneracy is an interesting case to the general public. They are on the boundary of what civil liberties mean; similar to how our freedom of speech includes the right to advocate for violence against the US Government.
Your case sounds like a lot of work that nobody except you and your lawyer will understand no matter how it is decided. There’s no story in it that anybody cares about. There’s no clear question of what is a civil right and what is not. There’s really nothing to talk about once it is settled one way or another.
That is the type of job that people get paid for, not something they get fired up to do for free.
So what does Professor Turley think and why does he pick the cases that he does? If he can handle polygamists and degenerate judges he should be able to handle pro se litigants who talk too much. He should represent me, I am honest and he could make legal history defending the constitution with my e(7) Prisoner Tracking System claim which is tolled under 5 USC 552a g 1 (5) because DOJ filed that the Prisoner Tracking System is exempt from claims under e(7) — records of First Amendment Acts. USMS input the “5005” wild card, “contempt” and “civil contempt” into the PTS system even though DOJ published in the Federal Register what the files would consist of. DOJ argued that PTS could be exempted under subsection K which may be true, but that has to be done publicly and in advance per subsection e (11).
Tootie,
“Polygamy is a bell-weather cultural indicator of a corrupt and declining civilization. Naturally, leftists would be in support of it.”
Oh, Tootie… Skip on over to the Dredd thread — JT’s article about repression in Iran (Dredd added some great links). It’s such a slippery slope that, eventually, no one comes out alive.
@Tootie: No inequality is intended, polyandry (one woman, multiple husbands) is fine with me too. If both are legal, there is no inequality; I believe men or women have the inherent right (if not legal right) to equally choose to have multiple sexual partners of any gender they like as long as all are adults and the partnership is consensual, and if they want those to be recognized as marriage then they can do that.
Besides that, what evidence do you have that leftists WANT corruption and declining civilizations? We don’t, we just regard your narrow minded morality views as wrong and ridiculous, and your demand that government enforce your narrow views as wrong and oppressive.
I do not believe YOU have any inherent right to be “comfortable” with the choices of others; it is *you* advocating for inequality and less freedom by demanding the law force others to abide by **your** definition of morality.
Tootie,
Matthew 7:6
woof, woof … oink, oink
Polygamy is a bell-weather cultural indicator of a corrupt and declining civilization. Naturally, leftists would be in support of it.
Governments do have the right to forbid or outlaw anything proven to infringe on the rights of others even when that infringement starts out in private but expresses itself in the public square: else there is no other purpose for government.
Else-wise it wouldn’t matter if a mother kills her offspring after birthing it at home, because if she had sex with her mate in private, and never left the house during her pregnancy, and then gave birth in her bedroom, all done in private, not harming herself or her husband whose coupling is none of the state’s business (according to leftists and indeed libertarians), then what business would it be of the state? Said coupling was never their business in the first place according to the leftist and so what business would it be of the state when another life results from a purely private mating and sexual act if the woman decided to kill that which she created in private because leftists said the state isn’t involved with couples having sex? How can they NOW claim that the state has some rights to apply the law when they just said it had none?
How is it now that the state COULD be involved with protecting the offspring which along with the mother have not left the privacy of the home? The only reason one can say the state should protect the offspring created in private is because that which IS done in private DOES affects the whole community. Contrary to what the eggheads on the left pretend is not true.
And that is the only reason why the child created in privacy is now publicly protected, or else infanticide is legal. No doubt this IS where the left is going if it wishes to take its logic to the end.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too, though I know how tempting such sweets are. But they cause your blood sugar to spike and crash. They cause tooth decay. They clog your arteries.
Polygamy is a proven infringer. All of history proves it. It is in the historical record. No great civilization advanced in the law, the arts, the sciences, technologies, music or literature are EVER polygamous. They arose in monogamy. They would only fall otherwise. Polygamous civilizations are the ones in which women live like animals in the most primitive of environments.
Naturally, this appeals to the savages on the left who are thoroughly disgusted with not only women, but THEIR women. If you had to have a leftist woman, wouldn’t you be sick of her?
All polygamous civilizations are backwards, low, and barbaric. Which also explains why it is appealing to leftists here in America.
These backwards civilizations are made that way because Polygamy makes it so. It follows. Men are too busy pleasuring themselves to get any work done. There is no time for any productive work (like taking care of children or the elderly). One is too busy making children (or if you are a leftist, making them them and then getting your boy-toy to snuff out their little lives in the womb).
The scientific law of cause and effect is not suspended in the social realm just because leftists refuse to recognize it and wish to dabble in corrupt morals. They cannot wave off the law of cause and effect with their sparkly intellectual (cough) fairy-wands.
Tamper with culture, customs, traditions, and civilization for the heck of it and a price will be paid. If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.
The left’s flippant and cavalier attitude about American customs, or the laws which resulted from them, is not an indication of their superior and studied quest for pure and unbiased justice. It is an indication of arrogance, iconoclasm, and an ignorance of culture and development in history. And it is a major case of straining at gnats while swallowing camels.
We are being descending upon by a NAZI like totalitarian police state and talking about turning civilization on it head with things like polygamy. Notice the connection, by the way. I’m repeating myself by noting that barbaric civilizations approve of polygamy.
Polygamy or the right to do it, declares that women and men are not equal. It declares that a woman is not fit to fulfill all that a man can fulfill within a marriage. She is less than adequate.
Of course, this would led to polyandry. A situation in which a man is too incomplete as a human being to meet the needs of one women.
Any man recommending polygamy is thus qualified.