We 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
Believer wrote “Saucy, as much as I hate to, I agree with your stance on this.”
“Thanks,” I say as I rub my cheek to lessen the sting of your slap. 🙂
Will wrote “you are wrong when you say the main LDS church hasn’t banned polygamy”
Yes and no. It is true President Wilford Woodruff issued a Manifesto in 1890 (www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng) renouncing polygamy. But the original Doctrine and Covenants (at the link I previously provided) still stands.
So let’s assume you and I are fundamentalist Mormons, in other words, we believe that Joseph Smith, the founder of LDS and the one who found the golden plates, is a prophet comparable to Moses and Elijah. Do we really accept that Woodruff had the authority to invalidate something Smith not only heard directly from God, but practiced in his life?
And that’s why we have the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Apostolic United Brethren Church, and other Mormon fundamentalist groups which practice polygamy.
Saucy – you are wrong when you say the main LDS church hasn’t banned polygamy. It clearly has and it excommunicates any who practice it. I didn’t think this was actually in dispute. What you could say is that the pages you cite are the justification for the practice in the 1800s and a possible justification for re-instituting polygamy in the future, which is extremely unlikely.
samantha wrote “if you want to go after both polygamists and single women who are working the welfare system”
I am in favor of the latter, but I disagree with the way conservatives and glibertarians want to do it. C&L want to just terminate their benefits, but I believe we should create a scheme where, for example, we put four welfare mothers into a group, designate one to be daycare provider for the rest, and require the other three to work.
But you are starting from a false premise, that jobs are plentiful. The U6 unemployment rate, which includes all categories of unemployment and underemployment, is 12.1% right now. 90% of all jobs created in the past few years have been low-paid retail, restaurant, and service ones. To quote Tom Waits, life’s so different than it is in your dreams.
P.S. And I’m male.
samantha wrote “She won’t say it out loud, but her actions have already spoken.”
samantha, darling, I do believe that’s the first time I have been accused of being a woman.
samantha wrote “I could lookup your past comments and probably find where you have handed out free passes, exposing yourself as a hypocrite”
Actually, I am very consistent, but you do not like what I have to say. Nick called me a contrarian, but that’s only true with respect to glibertarianism.
By the way, you asked about polygamy for woman, but the proper term is polyandry. Then there is pollyanna, a blindly optimistic person. And parrots are reputed to say, “Polly wants a cracker.”
samantha wrote “polygamist are merely cohabiting no differently than single women cohabitate with several different men”
I actually do not care if someone lives with multiple women or the reverse, but you refuse to read any of the National Post stories because you believe you possess a monopoly on the truth. Polygamy usually leads to under-age girls being married to adult men and that’s why I oppose it.
And one more reason is that it is mathematically impractical. We allow Muslims, Indians, and Asians to selectively terminate female fetuses and this has naturally led to some countries having a wildly unequal male-female ratio, i.e. too many males. If we then allow polygamy, we will end up with lots of men who cannot find partners. And that will lead to sorts of things, violent and otherwise.
Sauce:
I would like your take on why they select boys. It does not seem fair.
Squeeky, I’m in stitches, your comment reminding me of a good short story, Helen Simpson’s “Diary of an Interesting Year,” The New Yorker, December 21, 2009, available online in its entirety at: http://www.newyorker.com/fiction/features/2009/12/21/091221fi_fiction_simpson
Now, if you want to go after both polygamists and single women who are working the welfare system, I’m all for endicting and convicting. But saucy would never go along with that. saucy wants to preserve all the free passes for women.
@samantha
My father says the same thing. He says that the commies and lefty elites also try to undermine male confidence by making strong men unsure that their actions are either correct or moral. He says all that crap will change about 2 seconds after a nuclear war or huge global crisis like a big meteor impact.
As for me, if that kind of stuff happens I am chunking my celibate man – hating ways and latching on to the biggest meanest mofo I can find and becoming his ideal mate. I am not proud. I want to live.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
maxcat, polygamist are merely cohabiting no differently than single women cohabitate with several different men. The hypocrit saucy wants to convict men while giving women a free pass. She won’t say it out loud, but her actions have already spoken.
saucy, if I wanted to be bothered, I could find laws against sodomy, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, etc., and if I wanted to be bothered even more, I could lookup your past comments and probably find where you have handed out free passes, exposing yourself as a hypocrite and a sexist. The persecution of men is a big issue with me because I have a lot of respect for my father. I simply will not let anyone characterize all men with one broad stroke. It is simply disgusting how men are treated in this country, especially after seeing men in perspective they are deserving of:
Masculinity is “the most creative cultural force in history.” Indeed, the “force” that for millennia has tamed the wilderness, constructed civilizations, revolutionized life through dazzling inventions and sacrificed its own life to protect women and children has been masculinity. — Camille Paglia
Saucy, as much as I hate to, I agree with your stance on this.
samantha wrote “what business is it of yours to go between consenting individuals?”
From English Common Law, Hyde v. Hyde in 1866: “the law of [England was] … adapted to the Christian marriage, and it is wholly inapplicable to polygamy.” English Common Law was inherited by the U.S., including Louisiana which has French and Spanish influence.
Reynolds v. United States was a unanimous 1878 SCOTUS decision which found that religious duty was not a defense to polygamy.
Congress passed the 1882 Edmunds Act making polygamy a felony.
Davis v. Beason was a unanimous 1890 SCOTUS decision which found that federal laws against polygamy did not conflict with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
Cleveland v. United States was a 1946 SCOTUS decision which found that the Mann Act prohibits the transportation of women across state lines to participate in polygamy.
In other words, polygamy violates the established law of the land.
And you continue to ignore the reality that polygamy based on religion — and it always is — leads to excesses with girls too young to marry. You believe Warren Jeffs is an aberration with respect to having sex with 12-year-old girls, but history does not agree with you. Whether Mormon or Muslim, religious communities freely offer their girls to the leaders to gain religious salvation.
samantha wrote “Go ahead, show us how impetuous you are.”
I just demonstrated how ignorant you are of the law. Will that do?
It just kills me how everyone whines about judicial activism when other people do it, but when they do it — and in this case, Turley is absolutely gunning for it — it’s somehow the right thing to do.
If they’re all consenting adults, so be it. Let’s legalize the marriages so that they’re not just married in the eyes of the church (or rather, their branch of it) and single by the government’s belief, allowing them to all file for assistance, claiming single parenthood. I’m as liberal as they come, but this is just working the system, as Warren Jeffs and his father before him planned it. I don’t like religious exemptions on taxes either (totally different topic, I realize), unless it’s for the actual church/synagogue/mosque. All of these exempt buildings that are tax free and are generally political headquarters, whether right or left, are truly skirting the system. Can someone tell me if Buddhist temples are tax exempt?
Rastafarian shrines, for lack of the proper terminology? I’m on a rant here, but I actually believe IN paying taxes, as long as we all are doing so.
Well I guess that’s what makes me libertarian, I only want to pay taxes for services I have used, and I want all people to live with whom they want.
core word in libertarian -> liberty, for both fiscal and physical freedoms.
btw, first full blown libertarian elected to australian senate!:
http://libertycrier.com/australias-first-elected-libertarian-politician-makes-first-speech-senate/
Professor Turley, can someone please explain the bigger issue in this case: why did Eric Holder’s DOJ take a pass on a case the FBI thought was solid enough to pursue in a deeply red state with state and local prosecutors?
I have to agree with Mark and Gary. The nouveau riche organized criminals have no sense of class.
I hope these two get what they deserve.
samantha wrote “I find your broad brush strokes frightening”
I find your pathetic attempt to challenge me on the age of consent to be amusing.
You refuse to read any of the National Post articles, so I will refrain from reading any of your posts in the future. Your mind is closed.
The Mormon Church’s Doctrine and Covenants still allows plural marriage. To say that polygamy was banned by the Church is a bald-faced lie.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng
saucy, so what, if the mormon church still allows polygamy? The larger issue is, which you can’t or won’t grasp, what business is it of yours to go between consenting individuals? Go ahead, show us how impetuous you are. Isn’t that what people do when their bullying fails? No wonder no one can second guess a jury, with every imaginable agenda lurking behind skin.
saucy, I never said Jeff’s was innocent. That was your leap. Just because your ancestors might have had slaves, doesn’t make you accountable today. And just because Susan Smith drowned her kids does not mean that all women are evil. None of what you are saying has anything to do with jt’s case. I find your broad brush strokes frightening.
samantha wrote “Has your research ever included single women who prefer multiple partners?”
It’s not common simply because men won’t tolerate it, for better or worse. Prove me wrong.
“did you consider the age of consent in canada before commenting?”
Yes, I did. Too bad you didn’t.
Canada’s age was raised from 14 to 16 in 2008. But the action in Bountiful did not stop in 2008.
But wait, there’s more! The age of consent has conditions. It is one thing for a 16-year-old boy to have sex with a 14-year-old girl, but it is quite another for a 40-something man to play the part of the boy. There is a range, e.g. 3-5 years, where a boy within it will not be charged with statutory rape, but an older guy will. Jeffs is 58 now, which means he has been having sex with 12-16 year old girls in his 30s, 40s, and 50s.
But wait, there’s even more! Some girls were trafficked from Canada to the USA (we can argue about whether they were actually in Utah, Arizona, or Texas, but that changes nothing), making it an international crime. The lowest of the consent laws is the one which can be prosecuted and I’ll bet there are other restrictions as well.
And if Jeffs is as innocent as you claim, why is he in prison? Why did Texas, Arizona, and Utah all prosecute him?
The Mormon Church’s founders had wives as young as 12-14. As in that other polygamous cult, Islam, whose founder married his favorite wife, Aisha, at age 6-7, true believers follow in their founders’ footsteps. The Mormon Church has a dilemma because of this, with many fundamentalists believing that marriage to girls is a divine right.
The 1878 SCOTUS case Reynolds v. United States found that religious duty was not a valid defense for polygamy. Clearly the current justices are in the process of reversing this decision, with Turley cheerleading on the sidelines.
Here’s a good link for those with an open mind:
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon216.htm
P.S. The child molester who kidnapped and raped (daily) Elizabeth Smart, Brian David Mitchell, is a Mormon fundamentalist, a slightly nuttier version of Warren Jeffs.
saucy, I’m curious about the motivation behind your research for fun. Has your research ever included single women who prefer multiple partners? Finally, did you consider the age of consent in canada before commenting?