Former Utah Attorneys General Swallow and Shurtleff Arrested

220px-John_Swallow220px-Mark_ShurtleffWe have been following the investigation of former Utah Attorneys General John Swallow and Mark Shurtleff. When I first met Mark Shurtleff, he was Utah Attorney General leading the case against my clients, the Brown family in the Sister Wives case. After years of abusive investigations and public statements, we challenged the state criminalization of polygamy and Shurtleff fought to defend the law. He was then replaced in the case by Swallow. Now both have been arrested and taken into custody. For the Browns who were threatened with arrest and the loss of their children, it must be a truly ironic moment.

Both men were booked into the Salt Lake County Jail. Swallow was charged with receiving or soliciting bribe or bribery by public servant, false or inconsistant material statements, evidence tampering and misusing public monies.

Shurtleff previously denounced the police for their tactics in a search of his home

Swallow’s and Shurtleff’s relationship with Jeremy Johnson, a St. George businessman, is the subject of an 86-count federal indictment alleging fraud in connection with his online business, iWorks. Shurtleff alleged used Johnson’s private jet to fly to a fundraiser in California and later to fly to New York to pick up actor Vincent D’Onofrio from the TV show “Law & Order.” Now their relationship could be an episode on “Law & Order.”

Johnson and Shurtleff were then shown in a picture sitting together in Johnson’s yellow Lamborghini. Swallow also used Johnson’s luxury houseboat and Ferrari on several occasions. Other business relationships have also been the subject of the investigation as discussed by Deseret News

61 thoughts on “Former Utah Attorneys General Swallow and Shurtleff Arrested”

  1. @TheSaucyMugwump

    You may see it as a false comparison but I see it the way it is. While it is a constant with partners sleeping with others, it’s affected people in ways, for instance the pair-bonding instinct. If women pair up with six partners or more, they are more likely to have casual sex, divorce more likely, and are unlikely to stay committed in relationships.

    Plus, the risks for sexual transmitted diseases go higher the more casual partners one goes through. It isn’t just NAMBLA you’re going to have to go after. You’ll have to go after the promiscious, the adulterous, and the sexually liberated. They are affected by STD’s because of changing partners every so often.

    I agree with you that with polygamy, women are forever removed from the dating pool. That’s what marriage does to a woman: she’s removed. The same way monogamy is done. While it is mathematically different, like I said, while monogamy may be the law of the land, polygamy needs to be a part of the marriage system. It’s something that people should decide for themselves!

    Not everyone will become one just as much as one would want to become one.

  2. And another thing. Comparing polygamy to sleeping around is a false comparison. With sleeping around, the number of available partners remains fairly constant. But with polygamy, those women are forever removed from the dating pool.

  3. Texan Polygynist wrote “The government is not willing to conduct an official study to figure out what makes polygamy tick”

    How disingenuous of you. On the contrary, no one can research the polygamous communities because they close ranks and simply repeat what the leaders instruct them to say. That is why Canada has been largely unable to prosecute men who trafficked 12+ year old girls to Warren Jeffs and others. That’s also why the U.S. government had a difficult time prosecuting the communities in Texas, Arizona, and Utah.

    “In 2013, 14% found [polygamy] morally acceptable.”

    That’s due to two factors:
    1) Americans have gone down a path where everything is acceptable. Pretty soon we will have NAMBLA reemerging. Did you know that HIV/AIDS is exploding once again because it is politically incorrect to criticize the LGBT lifestyle?
    2) Americans are some of the worst-educated people on the planet and are incapable of using critical analysis.

    “Polygamy is starting to be morally acceptable by a double digit within five years. If this keeps up, it’ll be another double digit in five years, making it 28%.”

    That’s one heck of an assumption. I will believe that when I see it.

    “if you really believe that men are being left in the dust unable to find partners”

    It is hardly a belief; it is simple mathematics. Assuming polygamy becomes legal in a population of 100 men and 100 women to make the math easier (25% of men equals 25 men):
    – If 25 men take two wives, there will be 25 men who not be able to find a wife.
    – If 25 men take three wives, there will be 50 men who not be able to find a wife.
    – if 25 men take four wives, there will be 75 men who not be able to find a wife, in other words, the chosen few will take all available women.

    Do all polygamists have a problem with basic math? It should be obvious that it is physically impossible to have a population where every man has multiple wives.

    “Do you think polygamy is disgusting?”

    No, unlike most people, I can separate my personal life from my calculations. Having a bunch of wives sounds wonderful. Having a truckload of children sounds like the ultimate life insurance plan. But it is unsustainable as I noted above.

    “if statistics on marriage/divorce trends …”

    No, because polygamy is unsustainable.

  4. Golden Country write “please go away you only clutter this site with google search links”

    All of my posts in this thread included one URL at most and many had none. None of them involved Google at all.

    But you just keep that mind of yours closed. It would be really terrible if some new information entered your head.

  5. Saucymugwump please go away you only clutter this site with google search links.

  6. @TheSaucyMugwump

    Polygamy may be illegal per federal laws, but Utah has set a precedent with the Brown decision. If one more State starts losing a court battle after the said precedent, it will become even harder to protect the laws in reference to monogamy.

    Your stance on polygamy is that it leads to underage girls. Let me ask you a question. You refer to Blackmore in British Columbia. What about the other polygamists, other than Warren Jeffs, and one other nuttier person? What of Isaiah and his wives who were visited by Laura Ling? How about the other polygamists living in Utah and Arizona? What of Joe Darger and Kody Brown? Your statement saying that polygamy leads to underage girls is faulty at best since you’ve just misrepresented an entire population for a mere fraction of polygamous marriages in reference to underaged girls.

    I have a few more questions, if you will.

    Why attack polygamy when we know that monogamy can include underaged girls as well? Monogamy can lead to underaged girls as well. Also, monogamy has a higher divorce rate, per the CDC stats that have omitted data for seven years, unreliably producing certain statistics. Check here for what I’m talking about (Provisional number of divorces and annulments and rate: United States, 2000-2011, Why is it that the CDC actually recorded divorce trends between 2005 to 2011 as specifying that data from California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, and Minnesota were completely omitted? Now, take a look at the preceding years that included less data being omitted. Erroneous? No. Coincidence? No. Something is fishy with that data and more states are being omitted in reliably recording divorce trends.

    Secondly, we do not have reliable marriage/divorce data on the polygamous community. Also, we do not have a reliable set of data referring to polygamous families in regards to specific types of crimes such as sexual abuse of minors, sexual trafficking, etc. Do you know why? The government is not willing to conduct an official study to figure out what makes polygamy tick. They also are not willing to find out the difference between monogamous trends and polygamy marriages/divorces trends. I would not be surprised if polygamous families are a lot less likely to divorce and marry more.

    Thirdly, you do realize that the Gallup polls can provide information on where polygamy stands, right? According to the Gallup poll around 2008, only 8% found polygamy to be morally acceptable. In 2013, 14% found it morally acceptable.

    2008 Polls –

    2013 Polls –

    Polygamy is starting to be morally acceptable by a double digit within five years. If this keeps up, it’ll be another double digit in five years, making it 28%. By the time it reaches 50%, it will become more than acceptable. Due to democracy and due process of legislation, those who do advocate polygamy, are for polygamy, or are participants of polygamous marriages, will vote for legislation to pass pro-polygamy laws.

    Even though polygamy is illegal according to federal and state statutes, there are workarounds. The way I see it, polygamy is not evil. It is only seen as evil because of all the news stories surrounding all the underaged girls being taken. What about the stories of successful polygamous families that have made a home for their children?

    Oh, and if you really believe that men are being left in the dust unable to find partners, try this:

    If women are selectively picking attractive partners sexually, physically, and financially, they are performing a type of polygamy, surrounding themselves with other men, even if it’s just one partner they’re with. This reminds me of the history I’ve read into the Athenian practices of democracy. Before the Athenians decided to promote democracy for both the betas and the alpha males, the alpha males have married many wives. They also produced higher quality offsprings that brought about many things to society. The betas got angry and demanded they had one wife so the Athenians allowed the aging alpha males to keep their wives while the new laws passed worked in favor of those who were betas. It still never stopped women from seeking out financially-endowed men to support them and their need for a better lifestyle, even today.

    Do you think polygamy is disgusting? If so, then is it equally disgusting as a man sleeping with many partners? How is it then any different? It’s still a type of polygamy, whether you like it or not.

    One last question. if statistics on marriage/divorce trends in regards to polygamy fares with higher standards in keeping marriages alive, would it change your mind?

    1. Texan Polygynist,

      Your comment at 2:50 was trapped because it had more than two links. The system only permits two links per comment. If you have more than two links you would like others to read you can do so by using additional comments. I edited your comment to take out two of the links and restored it for you.

  7. Will wrote “Turley would probably argue that the AG’s went too far in prosecuting the Brown family for this very reason.”

    Polygamy is illegal as per federal law as I noted above. There is no ambiguity. By the way, did you look at the links I referenced? They are from lds DOT org, i.e. they are official Church doctrine. The link you provided is for the media. Big difference.

    RTC wrote “Cue the sad trombone for these two: Wah-wahhh.”

    Are you referring to my girlfriend comment? Actually, I unintentionally mixed two girlfriends together. There was a homecoming queen and there was a lawyer, both of whom attended the same school. I found someone better to marry.

    RTC wrote “your own limitations which, if your comments here are any indication, are considerable”

    That’s from your narrow point of view: ignorant of history, devoid of common sense, average writer, poor reading comprehension skills, and incapable of understanding research. I can imagine how I seem different to you. It’s okay, don’t cry.

    RTC wrote “Unfortunately Gary, there are many services you benefit from which you are neither aware of or refuse to acknowledge. This is why Saucymug derides you.”

    And then a ray of intelligence appears. It’s a miracle!

    Gary T wrote “I would like your take on why they select boys. It does not seem fair.”

    What ever are you talking about? If you are referring to selective abortion, it is because a number of cultures in the world value boys much more than girls. It was not technically possible before the advent of ultrasound machines. Here is just one link:

    P.S. You do know that saucymugwump is only a nom de guerre, right?

  8. RTC:
    If I benefit from and have voluntarily used those services, then I have no problem with paying for them.

  9. Unfortunately Gary, there are many services you benefit from which you are neither aware of or refuse to acknowledge. This is why Saucymug derides you.

  10. Saucymug: You and gGary are made for each other. Pointing out his deficiencies is like pointing out that rainwater is wet, but you should really be concerned with your own limitations which, if your comments here are any indication, are considerable.

  11. Saucy – just to be clear here is the current position. This is particularly relevant to Turley’s post because most members of the LDS church go to great lengths to distance themselves from polygamist fundamentalists. Turley would probably argue that the AG’s went too far in prosecuting the Brown family for this very reason.

  12. samantha wrote “obsequious, primal urge to protect women at any cost … You’re not an alpha male”

    Thanks for confirming my opinion that glibertarians are intellectually lazy, refusing to read anything contrary to their preconceived notions.

    P.S. One of my girlfriends was the homecoming queen of a large Midwestern university, but I met her shortly after she graduated from law school. But, as “Bob, Esq.” recently wrote, you have a nice day.

  13. saucy, you must be one embarrassed dude, wondering what it is about you that betrays your gender. It’s your moniker and that obsequious, primal urge to protect women at any cost. Now I know why you’re such an opponent of polygamy. You’re not an alpha male and you fear those who are, dilute the field. Check out some cultural evolution. In hunter gathering societies, the guy who brought home the most meat is the guy most women wanted to hang with, and did. The poor guy who couldn’t find even a squirrel, found himself alongside women buttering up to the hunter with a deer slung over his back. But when agriculture came along, any village idiot could handle a hoe and weed the garden, providing enough food to attract even a pretty girl. That was the beginning of devolution, which has worsened with each new invention. Today, we have 50 million people doing nothing, on welfare of some sort, dependents churning out more independents. Why? Because technology begets productivity, and productivity begets unemployment. We are probably past the stage of self correction, but a nuke might make us all better off if it resets us back a hundred or so years. Just amusing myself out loud here.

Comments are closed.