This afternoon, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued its decision in Brown v. Buhman, No. 14-4117, reversing the decision striking down the cohabitation provision of the Utah polygamy law. The opinion of the panel is attached below. The panel ruled entirely on standing grounds and did not address the merits of the constitutional violations committed in the case. As lead counsel in the case, I have been going over the opinion with our team including our local counsel, Adam Alba, as well as the Brown family. We respectfully disagree with the panel on its interpretation of the governing law and we will appeal the decision.
In 2014, United States District Court Judge Clark Waddoups handed down his final ruling in favor of my clients in the Sister Wives case. Previously, Judge Waddoups handed down an historic ruling striking down key portions of the Utah polygamy law as unconstitutional. Only one count remained: the Section 1983 claim that state officials (notably prosecutor Jeffrey R. Buhman) violated the constitutional rights of the Brown family in years of criminal investigation and public accusations.
The panel did not reach any of the constitutional violations. Instead, it ruled that the district court should have dismissed the case after Buhman changed his policy and said that he had no further intention to prosecute the Browns.
Notably, in his appeal, Buhman did not challenge the facts or holdings in the prior standing and mootness decisions. Buhman did not contest that the appellate panel should reach the merits of the decision below and did not claim that the case was moot. He also did not challenge the factual findings below. He did not challenge prosecutors targeted the Brown family after their public discussions of their cohabitation, including television interviews and university presentations. Defense counsel admitted to “endless” condemnations by the Attorney General of polygamists and express public condemnations of plural family members as “criminals.” Buhman admitted that the law is a “means” to make it easier to investigate and perform searches or seizures on plural families (while other families do not face the same risk). It was also uncontested that the Brown family “fled from Utah to Nevada for fear that they would be criminally prosecuted for practicing bigamy.” The lower court found that past prosecutions discredited assertions that no “credible threat of prosecution exists.” Judge Waddoups also found that “Utah County expressly declined to disavow that Plaintiffs may be prosecuted for bigamy” during most of the pendency of the trial proceedings. The court found that Buhman’s belated issuance of a new “policy” only was made after losing key motions in court and facing a final decision. The trial court refused to yield to such a tactical move and questioned both the existence of a real policy and the guarantee that the Browns would not be prosecuted.
The panel said that it would not consider the motivation of Buhman in issuing his “policy” change and said that the trial must effectively take it on face value. It also said that it was not convinced that the Browns wanted or intended to return to Utah despite various uncontested and sworn declarations to that fact. Indeed, the Browns have never sold their home in Utah (over the course of this litigation) in the hope of returning to the state without the fear of prosecution or harassment.
The panel also rejected the factors used in prior cases that were relied upon by both the lower court and the Brown family. Specifically, the Browns argued that the so-called “Winsness factors” had been applied by the Tenth Circuit to reject the same type of mootness claims in prior cases. While acknowledging that it had cited and relied on these factors in rejecting past mootness claims, the panel ruled that it would not consider those factors as controlling in this case.
The Brown family is obviously disappointed in the ruling but remains committed to this fight for the protections of religion, speech, and privacy in Utah. They respect the panel’s consideration of the appeal and the review process afforded their case.
We respectfully disagree with the decision, which in our view departs from prior rulings on standing and mootness. We have the option of seeking the review of the entire Tenth Circuit or filing directly with the Supreme Court. We also have the ability to seek a rehearing from the panel. We will be exploring those options in the coming days. However, it is our intention to appeal the decision of the panel. While we respect the panel and its lengthy analysis, we believe that the opinion rests on a flawed understanding of both the facts and governing law in this case, including controlling Supreme Court cases.
This case will now go forward as both sides anticipated. The underlying rights of religious freedom and free speech are certainly too great to abandon after prevailing below in this case. Equally important is the right for plural families to be heard in federal court, a right sharply curtailed by this decision. Utah is a state that was founded by courageous citizens seeking these very protections from government abuse and religious inequality. This lawsuit is true to the original dream of those seeking freedom in Utah. As Judge Waddoups noted, the lower court decision put Utah in the same position of other states. It allowed the state to prosecute those claiming multiple marriage licenses and did not diminish the state’s ability to prosecute cases of abuse. What the decision prevented was the targeting of plural families simply because of their consensual religious practices or relationships.
This has been a long struggle for the Brown family but they have never wavered in their commitment to defending the important principles of religious freedom in this case. The decision today only deepens their resolve to fight for those same rights. It will be an honor to continue this fight with the Brown family in seeking the recognition of equal religious and speech rights for all families in Utah.
Jonathan Turley
Lead Counsel for the Brown Family
Documents of the panel’s decision: Brown Judgment and Brown Opinion
This is a basic right they should be afforded just the same as catholics don’t believe in birth control and johovahs don’t allow their children to have blood transfusions where ones child could die the are asking for the freedom to practice their religon without out fear of prosecution sounds pretty fair and the court should of ruled in favor of the browns
Also, there are other side benefits that can offer a family in case of:
1) Spousal death. If one spouse dies, the others already have a college degree to back themselves up. With me and my three women, I can end up dead someday first before them. Or one of them will die first before me. Hypothetically, if I die first having a college degree and none of them have it, how are they going to cover the costs of all the children, the home, the electricity, the insurance, the phone bills, etc. and so on? So if I died first and my wives had college degrees, they have enough economic power to be able to push forward, take care of their family, and still be afloat without having to declare bankruptcy.
2) Bankruptcy. Remember the families who were “traditional”? The father had to make a lot of $$$, provide for his family. In today’s reality, you can’t hack it this way. There are some notable polygamist families who had declared bankruptcy and had to pay a portion while the rest were given to taxpayers who had to pay off the rest of the debts. Are you familiar with the Williams family? None of the wives had a college degree, made six figures a year. Rhonda, one of the wives, was studying nursing so she could make enough $$$ to help her husband out. The husband had an economic fallout with his construction company and ended up so deep into the red. Over $300k and that was not the end of the story. He filed for bankruptcy. The courts shaved off 200K, more or less, and gave him only the rest to pay it off.
Let’s do the math. Let’s assume a “traditional” polygamous family has the same starting figures as the “college graduate” polygamous family at 125,000 a year; the male patriarch of the family has three wives in both families. They both have wives who have three children each.
——- TRADITIONAL FAMILY ——-
The father gets paid at least 125,000 a year for a job that he works at. His monthly payments comes out to 10,416.66 per month. Not bad, right? That’s probably enough to cover the bills for the house, the electricity, the water, phone bill, internet, cable, etc.
The cost per child in 2013 is $245,340 (adjusted for inflation: $304,480. The male patriarch had 9 children. The total costs for the children is: $2,208,060. $2,208,060 / $125,000 = 17.66 years. It takes the male patriarch at least 17.66 years to pay it all off for all 9 children.
The consumption for food probably is pretty high so the costs for the grocery bill is very high too as well. The Dargers Family had to pay out at least $500 dollars in grocery bills per week to take care of their own family. Let’s slash that in half for the male patriarch, three wives, and 9 children. That’s $1,000 per month in grocery bills. For the Dargers, that’s $2,000 in grocery bills!
Add on the pile of health insurance, the costs for the children in education, and sooo much more. Do you think the male patriarch can hack it? He might get by a few years using tax breaks, etc. and so on. It won’t be too long though until he reaches himself into bankruptcy.
——- COLLEGE GRADS FAMILY ——-
The father and spouses all get paid at least $125,000 per year. The total for the entire adults is $500,000. The monthly payments for all the spouses combining their resources is at $41,666.66. That’s more than enough to pay for the entire family with the basic necessities, added utilities, the insurance bill(s), car repairs, etc. and so on. The grocery bill would not put a dent into the family at all.
So, with the costs of the children: $2,208,060 / $500,000 = 4.4 years. It takes at least 4.4 years to pay off the costs of 9 children. Now you realize the economic power of a college-graduate family that actually pays off 4.4 years for each and every one of their children!
Let’s say that the family pays out at least $750 in groceries. That’s $3,000 in groceries though it would not put a dent in the $$$ the family has per month. The family has a higher chance of surviving bankruptcy and actually seeing their children grow to be 18 graduating from high school without worry! They can go on to college. With the payments toward the costs of the children paid off in 4.4 years and at least $1,000 invested in each child for college per month for at least 10 years would yield $120,000 per child. Every child in the family would have $120,000 on hand to use for college, tuition, books, materials to finally graduate!
——————————————————
Do not underestimate the power of a college graduate family where the spouses at least earn six figures a year as opposed to a male patriarch who earns more than his wives (who have zero college prospects or degrees).
Of course, I’m tinkering with this, assuming that there are no taxes on the $$$ the spouses are earning but given how economically powerful the second family as opposed to the first, that’s why polygamy can be a serious advantage to those who are seriously interested not only investing into a family for the long-term but to reap economic benefits as well.
@joshzzzz
The reason for a “college degree” is multifold. Here are the benefits of having a college degree:
1) More economic power, which means that for every spouse that makes at least five or six digits a year would in fact have enough economic clout to provide a good sizeable family, additions of rooms to the home, and have far more leeway in what they can do with their family.
2) Spouses who have college degrees are much more likely to face a far more stable marriage lasting a longer term, as opposed to those who are high school drop-outs or a graduate. Those who passed high school but did not start/finish college usually fail a lot in their marriages.
3) Did I just say economic power? The more $$$ they have, the more capable a family can become. In fact, the family can become very largely influential in politics, in the business world, and can produce future tax paying citizens, reducing the debts that we have.
So when you want a job that pays at least six figures a year, you need a college degree to be able to enter that type of world. That’s the way the world works. For some, they did not need a college degree but went ahead with their innovations, pursued their dreams, and found it.
Not very many people can do things like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and many other types of people who were millionaires/billionaires.
I don’t see why everyone in a polygamous would “need” a college degree.
I’ll bet those who support the slippery slope argument and call for a limited view of marriage would encourage a religious police like the Saudi Mutawaa.
If the Constitution expressly grants people freedom and their rights per 14th Amendment, what the heck, peeps?
@ningren, you’re in for a treat.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/01/25/3205541/oklahoma-lawmaker-ban-marriages-revival-jim-crow-tactic/
That was two years ago. A lawmaker wanted to ban marriage in OK and make sure that marriage isn’t on the books for the State, because of reasons that same-sex marriage ban by OK was declared unconstitutional by the FG.
@Jon Turley
That’s a disappointing decision by the 10th Appeals Court. I hope you file the appeal and help the Browns succeed in finding victory. Polygamy shouldn’t be marginalized, treating all polygamists as criminals. When they are responsible, caring for their children, and are willing to live their own lives without government interference, then they’ll have their own freedom.
It’s a shame the 10th Appeals wants to drag this on again. One day, i really hope that cases were combined to meet a day in the Supreme Court in D.C. where polygamous marriages can be recognized in the country.
@prairepoly
I love your statement about modern society that’s so quick to love homosexuality but condemn polygamy… That’s so true.
———————————-
For those of you who were using the slipper slope argument, you need to consider holes in your argument. For starters, with the slippery slope argument, you can argue that consent between a woman and her donkey might fly. You might argue that kids can consent to adults because what the heck? It’s just a slippery slope that we’re “all damned” to follow.
In German, let me speak this: FALSCH!
The reason why is because your slippery slope argument falls apart when I mention the criminal codes. There is a reason why the criminal codes exist. We have laws on the books that expressly forbids child-adult sex, sexual abuse, bestiality (despite the fact some States do approve of it), incest (in some States were approved; in many others, it is not). Just because polygamy is recognized doesn’t automatically mean *every* single American male is going to say, “Great! Now, I’ll be a polygamist.” Let me explain to you what polygamy seriously requires:
1) The male to be responsible, level-headed, and capable with a college degree or more.
2) The females to be responsible, level-headed, and capable of having a college degree or more.
3) Family planning usually entails deciding how many children are to be had, when they’ll be had, and how to expressly keep within the limit of having a number of children. (Some polygamists are guilty of overflowing their family with so many children they face bankruptcy).
4) Finances need to be in order. If a polygamist family is going deeper and deeper into debt, they might want to revise their financial habits and improve toward a debt-free life. This can be possible but only among polygamists who recognize that being frugal, sharing the resources, and building the family together will bring new happiness. This only works if #1, #2, and #3 were kept in mind.
How many males in this country can actually practice said above? Not very many. Monogamy may not be “considered natural” to many men because of casual sex, prostitution, etc. and so on. Most men can handle monogamy but some men can handle polygamy because of their responsibilities that they recognize and follow through with it.
What polygamists or monogamists do behind their doors does not require our nosey parker noses stuck in their doors, wagging our fingers, and going, “Nuh-uh-uh!” Get over it. The government doesn’t need to interfere, except in cases where child abuse, sexual abuse, sexual trafficking, and other serious crimes are warranted. Other than that, adult-adult relationships even in polygamy are acceptable so why should the rest of the nosey parkers in the world be so heavy and hotly bothered by it? Hmm?
Here is the Utah County official policy, which was designed to allow polygamy for religious reasons:
The Utah County Attorney’s Office will prosecute the crime of bigamy
under [the Statute] in two circumstances: (1) When a victim is induced to
marry through their partner’s fraud, misrepresentation or omissions; or (2)
When a person purports to marry or cohabits with another person in
violation of [the Statute] and is also engaged in some type of abuse,
violence or fraud. This office will prosecute the crime of child bigamy
under Section 76-7-101.5 regardless of whether one of the parties is also
engaged in some type of abuse, violence or fraud.
Roughing It – Chapter 14, pages 97-98
Our stay in Salt Lake City amounted to only two days, and therefore we had no time to make the customary inquisition into the workings of polygamy and get up the usual statistics and deductions preparatory to calling the attention of the nation at large once more to the matter.
I had the will to do it. With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here—until I saw the Mormon women. Then I was touched. My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly and pathetically “homely” creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, “No–the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure–and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence.”
–Mark Twain.
Considering the fact that the prosecutors and others having discretionary ability to initiate prosecutions made it well known, if not at least implied, that the state were going after the Spouses Brown, I believe it is even more credible the plaintiffs can articulate standing as being subjected to injury by means of unconstitutional statutes and prosecutions.
Having the threat of prosecution over one’s head is akin to a person having an outstanding arrest warrant where they have to constantly worry about being incarcerated at any given time. But in the case of the Browns, they are not criminals–they have just been treated that way by their state’s government.
Darren Smith wrote: “But in the case of the Browns, they are not criminals–they have just been treated that way by their state’s government.”
According to the Statute, they ARE criminals. That is the problem. The Statute treats cohabitation the same as marriage. It is probably a leftover from common law marriage thinking.
However, the policy of the prosecutor’s office now is not to prosecute them. The 10th Circuit believes the prosecutor, which is why they say there is not standing.
My problem is that policy is very easy to change, especially when policy is shown not to be aligned with enforcing the Statute. Because policy is so easy to change, the threat of prosecution looms over the heads of the Browns no matter what the current policy is. The Statute needs to change if the policy is not to enforce the cohabitation part of the Statute.
Also, the policy allows for prosecution if fraud is involved. What if food stamp fraud were alleged? That opens the door for prosecution of bigamy.
The right way to fix this is to fix the law to be clear and have policy aligned with the law. If cohabitation is going to be considered the same as marriage, then leave it as it is. However, if the cohabitation clause violates Constitutional freedoms of association, then the Statute needs to change regardless of a policy not to enforce it.
I visit North Carolina. I am not bent. But I do not want my wife in a public restroom and have perps coming in to watch her. By “perps” I mean males dressed as females. But I do not think that I have standing to sue.
Here is a quote from the Opinion. The standing issue is clear and convincing.
To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must show (1) an ‘injury in fact,’
(2) a sufficient ‘causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of,’
and (3) a ‘likelihood’ that the injury ‘will be redressed by a favorable decision.’” Susan
B. Anthony List, 134 S. Ct. at 2341 (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-
61 (1992)) (brackets omitted). These three elements—“injury in fact,” “causation,” and
“redressability”—“together constitute the irreducible constitutional minimum of
standing.” Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 771
(2000) (quotation omitted).
This case centers on the injury-in-fact requirement. “An injury sufficient to satisfy
Article III must be concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical. An allegation of future injury may suffice if the threatened injury is
certainly impending, or there is a substantial risk that the harm will occur.” Susan B.
Anthony List, 134 S. Ct. at 2341 (quotations omitted).
When a plaintiff alleges injury arising from the potential future enforcement of a
criminal statute, “an actual arrest, prosecution, or other enforcement action is not a
– -21
Appellate Case: 14-4117
Document: 01019600259
Date Filed: 04/11/2016
Page: 22
prerequisite to challenging the law.” Id. at 2342. Instead, “a plaintiff satisfies the injury-
in-fact requirement where he alleges an intention to engage in a course of conduct
arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there
exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.” Id. (quotation omitted); see also Mink
v. Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244, 1253 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he mere presence on the statute
books of an unconstitutional statute, in the absence of enforcement or credible threat of
enforcement, does not entitle anyone to sue, even if they allege an inhibiting effect on
constitutionally protected conduct prohibited by the statute.” (quotation omitted)). A
credible threat is one that is “well-founded” and “not ‘imaginary or wholly speculative.’”
Susan B. Anthony List, 134 S. Ct. at 2343 (quoting Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass’n,
Inc., 484 U.S. 383, 393 (1988), and Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 302 (1979)).
“In other words, to satisfy Article III, the plaintiff’s expressive activities must be
inhibited by an objectively justified fear of real consequences.” Winsness v. Yocom, 433
F.3d 727, 732 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted).
2. Mootness
—-
Elmer, thanks for quoting the opinion, which I hadn’t fully read: “‘When a plaintiff alleges injury arising from the potential future enforcement of a criminal statute, ‘an actual arrest, prosecution, or other enforcement action is not a prerequisite to challenging the law.’ Instead, ‘a plaintiff satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement where he alleges an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.’” [Citations omitted.]
Albrecht, what were you thinking when you commented, “It boggles the mind standing was given. . . .” I’m having a WTF moment. Help me here.
It boggles the mind standing was given. Furthermore the imagined similarities between polygamy and marriage equality poor disguise for bigotry. Polygamy was rejected by SCOTUS on free exercise grounds (see 1st Amendment COTUS)130+ years ago! We have a long tradition in the United States of limiting the free exercise of religion, albeit with great reluctance. Please visit Bill of Rights Institute for more examples. Many here should review Reynolds 1878. SCOTUS will not revisit Reynolds. Turley great COTUS legal scholar, to be involved in such nonsense and casuistry concerning.
What is disturbing about the Tenth Circuit’s decision is that their reasoning is such that it leaves a Statute on the books that clearly allows for prosecution based upon cohabitation. What happens when Mr. Buhman leaves his job and the UCAO changes its policy to more closely match the legal requirements of the Statute? If the cohabitation clause violates Constitutional rights of association, then the court needs to make that clear, not kick the can down the road.
It amazes me that this case is even being litigated. It’s a testament to moral conservatism in Utah.
As the appellate opinion states, “[t]his case concerns a constitutional challenge to Utah’s bigamy statute, Utah Code Annotated § 76-7-101 (“the Statute”), which provides:
(1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person. . . .”
The last clause above is so facially, unconstitutionally invalidated by the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause that it puts Utah right up there with Georgia (Bowers v. Hardwick (anti-sodomy statute)) and Virginia (Loving v. Virginia (anti-miscegenation statute) as a bedroom-controlled state,
Harry Blackmun once wrote in his dissent from the majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick: “That certain, but by no means all, religious groups condemn the behavior at issue gives the State no license to impose their judgments on the entire citizenry. The legitimacy of secular legislation depends, instead, on whether the State can advance some justification for its law beyond its conformity to religious doctrine.”
Anthony Kennedy wrote in Lawrence v. Texas (and it’s the law) that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process clause protects “personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, [and] child rearing.” . . . “[T]he Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.” . . .
Sound familiar? What legitimate state interest could Utah have in preventing consenting adults from living together? The only reason is religious persecution and that ain’t legitimate.
I’ve not reviewed other opinions that address the issue of standing in similar fact patterns, nor have I reviewed the record in this particular case. My comments are based solely on the Tenth Circuit’s opinion, and a quick reading at that.
First, it seems that the Tenth Circuit dodges the issue of whether it is required to defer to the factual findings of the trial court, insofar as those findings are relevant to the issue of standing. They in effects conclude that the trial court erred because prosecutors never lie. Which is what some judges believe.
Second, I wonder whether the record supports the conclusion that the plaintiffs decided to permanently settle in Nevada. If the record supports that conclusion, then the Tenth Circuit may have ruled correctly based on the fact that no prosecution by Utah was possible. If that is the situation, the court did not need to reverse the finding that the new “policy” to not prosecute that the prosecutor pulled out of his posterior in the middle of the litigation was illusory.
My sense is that the panel looked for a reason to avoid handling a hot potato. I don’t have enough information to conclude with certainty whether there is a sound basis for their holding, but I’m skeptical.
Finally, I disagree with the notion that the motive for coming up with (inventing?) a new prosecutorial policy is irrelevant to the question of whether that policy is a bona fide policy. There is something very unfair about coming up with a new “policy” when it looks like you are going to lose the case.
I find this decision by the Tenth Circuit Court extremely dishonest.
As far as I can remember, this very same court struck down the definition of marriage as one man + one woman in Kitchen v. Herbert.
Not once did any of these same judges question whether same-sex marriage applicants had standing DESPITE the fact that same-sex marriage plaintiffs faced no threat of credible prosecution.
This, of course, leaves any rational, thinking person with two questions:
1) Where did this reading of standing come from?
2) Why wasn’t it applied during Kitchen v. Herbert?
This ruling brings the Federal judiciary straight into kangaroo court territory.
The right to marry any adult you like, or to engage in intimate relations with whoever consents, is distinct and separable from a right to have that relationship acknowledged by the government as a marriage. The participants in a same sex marriage were not asking government to grant them any benefits government did not grant to heterosexual marriages. Marriage conveys many benefits that are supported by government payments and supported by law (inheritance). For example if a person was in a polygamous marriage and they were in the military would all of their wives/husbands be entitled to equal financial support, housing, medical care? There is nothing that bars almost any adults from living with as many people of either or both genders as they like (except possible zoning on the number of residents in a home) but there are good reasons for government not to be required to support them. When Dr. Turley teaches law at G.W. he acknowledges that there are social and governmental policies underlying the law. His arguments for polygamy would find a stronger argument under the First Amendment if the plaintiffs were Muslim.
Pop culture hates polygyny for the same reasons they like same-sex marriage. Anti-family, anti-progeny, live in the now values rule supreme. Polygynists stand against everything the modern US values, hedonism, short term gains without caring about long-term losses, egalitarianism, ect…
But pulling against polygyny makes the mask slip a little, in that to promote things like same sex marriage they use libertarian arguments (the state has no buisness in the bedrooms of the people ect). To allow one and deny the other is irrational on those grounds.
Worse than cheap politics. Defending him was her job. If everyone who lawyered for a crook had to exit themself – the right to counsel might be meaningless. And therein lies the rub. The right to “counsel” was only federal not state. Moreover “rape” unless its about foreign or interstate is not a federal crime. The supreme court “incorporated” right to counsel. And the nonsense if you cant afford one one will be appointed. So as a rapist would you rather every paycheck you have until your death be 100 percent garnished or would you rather face a firing squad? Because the sixth amend only attaches per the court if you are doing time. Not fine but time. I don’t know what hillary “defended” but apple stood up for more. But this wouldn’t be an issue if no one had ordered pizza and cigars. The issue should be….how far does the right to an attorney go? What if no attorney will take you? Will the government “make” the lawyer defend him? Worse will the govt make a doctor perform an abortion cuz of rape? Cant the govt hire an isreali company to do all of this taxpayer and china lender be damned?
I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.