• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Lehi police investigate 'Sister Wives' stars for bigamy

DocInFL said:
Lehi police investigate 'Sister Wives' stars for bigamy

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50366 ... e.html.csp

....and so it begins.....


Doc
Click to expand...

Well I figure the Browns anticipated that and more than likely got legal advice before they started the show. You have to balance the positives against the negatives though, there will be a huge upsurge in interest in Polygamy from this show and even people who don't want/can't live this life, MIGHT be more sympathetic.
 
For those who believe that polygamy is right, this is what happens when you don't challenge laws that our discriminatory. You get pushed around and luckily these are just the local law enforcement. We really need to get polygamy legalized or at least decriminalized, quick! Ironically, the potential cry out for any prosecution that may fall on this family may be a positive for them. Similar to the same screw up that law enforcement were faced when taking 400 kids out from poly group in Texas.
 
PolyPride said:
For those who believe that polygamy is right, this is what happens when you don't challenge laws that our discriminatory. You get pushed around and luckily these are just the local law enforcement. We really need to get polygamy legalized or at least decriminalized, quick! Ironically, the potential cry out for any prosecution that may fall on this family may be a positive for them. Similar to the same screw up that law enforcement were faced when taking 400 kids out from poly group in Texas.
Click to expand...

Thing is, it is quite clear that the Cops felt they had to investiage because it is illegal, they did not necessarily want to.

I don't think they are so concerned with a family who are not committing fraud or similar, I have read lots of comments on newsites accusing these women of welfare fruad even before the show had aired. It is now an easy stick to accuse all polygamists with, regardless of the situation. I am so fed up with the general public and their knee jerk intolerant reactions.

*sigh*
 
The Attorney General in Utah has publicly stated that there will be NO prosecution on bigamy charges alone; he is not about to go back on his word. If there were under age marriage or welfare or other public assistance fraud then he would file charges. Most certainly they made sure they had a "clean slate" before agreeing to this TV deal, I guess we'll find out. But as things sit now nothing is going to happen. In the event that charges are filed the defense will not be difficult, and will be another opportunity to have the bigamy laws repealed just as is being done in Texas. In fact a favorable ruling in Texas would likely cause any Attorney General to think twice about prosecuting bigamy. I don't see any way this can work against our mutual cause. We get more exposure and look like a persecuted minority to the public. While there remains a segment of religious individuals that oppose polygamy, overall polygamy is becoming more accepted rather rapidly by the public. I'm glad that I'm not a radical right wing Christian - I'd be losing a lot of sleep... : )
 
Scarecrow said:
The Attorney General in Utah has publicly stated that there will be NO prosecution on bigamy charges alone; he is not about to go back on his word.
Click to expand...

A lawyer that does not go back on their word. Now that is a first. Sorry, but that pill is too hard to swallow. Lawyers lie, and thus will go back on their word if it helps their case or their client. But I shall proceed to make the argument why Shurtleff will make sure that this case goes no where. It is not because I think he is truthful, for I actually have found doing investigations on his office and their practices that he is anything but.

Utah has two laws to which they do not want thrown out by the courts: bigamy/polygamy and co-habitation. I shall start with the latter one first. In the State of Utah, it does not matter if you are not married and do not even call yourselves married, if two people (or more) co-habit in the same place and have sex, then the State of Utah declares you to be married. They could go after homosexual marriages this way if they chose. But they will not because they are using this law solely to prosecute polygamists. And if it was thrown out, then their bigamy/polygamy laws would be useless. Which brings me to the first law, to which they know that they have a more activist federal judicial system, and if a polygamous marriage was all consenting adults - such as the Browns - then the courts might actually find their law unConstintutional, meaning that polygamy would no longer be illegal. For those two reasons, AG Shurtleff will quash any attempt to prosecute the Browns.

I have said this before and I will say it again, the Mainstream media is not your friend and they only bring trouble. Do not do your alms before men.

Scott
 
In my document entitled "THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY IN AN HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT (CALIFORNIA, FOR EXAMPLE)"
I researched the federal and California state laws, and after presenting them in summary form I came up with the following to practice polygyny safely without fear of prosecution in California:

I understand these provisions to mean that anyone who wants to practice polygyny in the WEST/OCCIDENT must not publicly, or in writing,
a) SIGNIFY that he/she is contracting another marriage while still married to another.
b) IMPLY that he/she is contracting another marriage while still married
c) CLAIM/PROFESS to be contracting another marriage while still married
d) engage in a "wedding/marriage" given in other than the exact words (see the alternatives to the use of loaded words like "wedding/marriage" in union celebrations or union ceremonies)
e) SIGNIFY that he/she is exercising "the right of plural marriage."
f) IMPLY that he/she is exercising "the right of plural marriage."
g) CLAIM/PROFESS to be exercising "the right of plural marriage."
h) engage in the exercise of "the right of plural marriage" using other than the exact words of "marriage" or of a "wedding". (There must be no claim to the right of plural marriage in the union celebration, no claim to the right to exercise plural marriage in the union celebration, no use of synonyms for "marriage" [matrimony, wedlock, etc.] or for "wedding" [marriage, nuptials etc.]).
i) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time, SIGNIFYING that he/she is exercising the right of plural marriage.
j) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time, IMPLYING that he is
exercising the right of plural marriage.
k) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time, CLAIMING/PROFESSING to be exercising the right of plural marriage.
l) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time, engaging in the exercise of the right of plural marriage using other than the exact words of marriage or of wedding for the relationship or event. (There must be no claim to the right of plural marriage in the cohabitation, no claim to the right to exercise plural marriage in the cohabitation, no use of synonyms for "marriage" [matrimony, wedlock, etc.] or for "wedding" [marriage, nuptials etc.] in the cohabitation.)

But California is a mess and it all depends on the local District Attorney because as far back as the 1970s there was a polyandrist family in middle class Hollywood where one wife openly and publicly was the head of a family including 8 men professing to be her own men/husbands. No prosecution.

Where the DAs do get aggressive is when the polygamist's wives get welfare, Medi-Cal or food stamps without including in their enrollment forms that they have a "man assuming the role of spouse" (MARS relationship). In California if there is a man assuming the role of spouse it is fraud to receive welfare, Medi-Cal or food stamps without notifying the agency in writing that such a MARS is involved with the recipient on an ongoing basis. Such recipients can have boyfriends but if he is a steady boyfriend, the recipient needs to notify the agencies and jeopardizes her benefits and could be harassed by the local DA. My file on this is available at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OrthodoxB ... gePolygamy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PolyPolygamyPolygnyNJesus
http://groups.google.com/group/Biblical ... myPolygyny
http://biblicalmarriagepolygyny.yuku.com/forums/66
 
"Some are worried about a 'constitutional challenge' to the bigamy laws."

I wonder why they might be "worried" about such a thing?
 
I'll post some excerpts from the article...


"Utah County prosecutor Tim Taylor said his office has not received anything from the Lehi police department yet. "

"Taylor said the elements of the broad statute are pretty easy to prove, but prosecutors will have to consider other aspects in the case, such as what would happen in the courts and whether a conviction could withstand a constitutional challenge."

"It is not the job of the county attorney's officer to say whether a law is wrong or right, Taylor said, but to prosecute crimes. Still, prosecutors need to consider whether the case will be successful."


Source:
http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/a ... ad48f.html
 
I think it is likely that they will delay as long as possible if they even attempt to prosecute them.

The case that is already in process in Texas will likely lead to the repeal of the bigamy laws. It may even happen in the first round as laws of this nature are now seen as antiquated and bigoted by the courts, not to mention that they are actually unconstitutional.
 
If there is a repeal of the bigamy laws in Texas, it will either happen at the Texas Supreme Court or in the Federal Courts. That being said, Texas does not care because they will drag this out as long as they can and make everyone suffer while doing so. Being a Texan, I can tell you first hand how corrupt our judicial system is here. I have someone trying to tell me that in Texas, I can be sued for libeling a screen name and not even a real person. This is how crazy they are down here.

Scott
 
PolyPride said:
http://www.cbs.com/daytime/the_early_show/video/?pid=DlpnoDeGlv4m0MgVH2dH68RnOVkysUu8&nrd=1

CBS news reports on the investigation into the family. It's a video about 4 minutes long.
Click to expand...

PolyPride, you beat me to it. I actually have it set to run at 9pm CDT because all of my time slots were used up. (If I schedule posts to be posted less than 1 hour apart, it messes up my distribution service and then no one knows about it unless you subscribe to the RSS feed). As I point out, though, they are factually incorrect in claiming that Warren Jeffs is convicted, because the Utah Supreme Court overturned the conviction. Now Utah is trying to decide if they a) retry him, b) send him to Texas, c) send him to Texas and then retry him or d) just drop the charge.

Scott
 
The police cannot hide(truthfully) behind the "we don't want to we have to" argument because there are laws in that state that criminalize fornication, sexual relations outside of marriage, even when the two people cohabitate. They are not prosecuting THOSE people and investigating them regarding forn just because they see them living together.

This is selective enforcement due to political pressure.
 
Paul not the apostle said:
The police cannot hide(truthfully) behind the "we don't want to we have to" argument because there are laws in that state that criminalize fornication, sexual relations outside of marriage, even when the two people cohabitate. They are not prosecuting THOSE people and investigating them regarding forn just because they see them living together.

This is selective enforcement due to political pressure.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, the point is, most people don't have their own local fornication show....it is the publicity, if you are going to be public about doing something illegal the police WILL investigate (whether it goes any further remains to be seen) the fact is, I have read countless comment boards about this programme and there are so many posts asking how can these criminals be allowed to tout their illegal lifestyle on TV and why aren't the cops doing something??? *insert lots of other ranty comments about how low, base and insecure these women must be/what a smug controlling *!Q!&!! Kody Brown is*. If it was a programme about any other illegal thing they would investage as well, but they might not bother with the person they know is stealing pens out of the office just because no one has brought THAT particular person to their attention. I have read some pretty ranty threads in my time but the ones about the Browns have been some of the most uncomfortable to read because of the assumptions the public are putting on these people, totally disregarding all evidence to the contrary.

Bels
 
Paul,

Yes kinda of sort of. The reason for the relative language here is because it depends upon how the complaint came in. There are laws, some set forth in state constitutions, that deal with victims.

Technically then if a member of a jurisdiction says he or she feels, believes, or considers himself/herself as a victim or that society as whole are a victim then it can make it obligatory on the law enforcement officials to do or conduct some type of investigation.

Is that the case here? Without first hand knowledge inside it would be hard to know. The difference may be that no person from their jurisdiction has ever came down to the police station to file a complaint on two consenting adults joining together sexually and thus no investigations have been done in that area.

Yet, as you correctly stated, politics could be involved. For example, suppose the City has 5 council members. If 3 of the 5 make a big deal about it then they might be able to coax the Police Chief into opening an investigation. If the Chief did not then the Council could fire him or file a complaint to the State Police that he is neglecting to enforce certain laws when citizens file a legal complaint. Or it could be a the Mayor of the City who is being pushed by those who voted him into office or supported his or her campaign. Several different ways that could be coming forth. But then again even in those cases the Officers undeneath the authority of the Chief would "have to" because of their submission to a higher authority in the chain of command, unless of course the officer or officers yielded to a higher law somewhere in the constitution or higher police superior in another sphere which at that point would be a lawful disobedience to a superior based upon a higher authority over the immediate superior.

In any case, if they were to prosecute this family for illegal cohabitation then they would indeed have to do so with others to be just in their application of the law. I doubt very seriously that such a thing as that would ever get far in the checks and balances systems. If it did get through one court then circuit courts and appeals courts would almost invariably see it for what it is and overturn any type of conviction. The Supreme Court rulings that have made null and void the sodomy laws would also come into play in this as that case law has established a strong principle now for the private nature of adult consensual sex.

Thus, I doubt very seriously this family will suffer anything long term and it will probably be used by the sovereign hand of the Lord for the good as was with the evil men who killed Christ yet in turn the event was ordained of the Lord to be the greatest event in the history of redemption. I have a feeling the Lord is doing something of the like behind the scenes in this.
 
In the article I read they stated that the investigation had been initiated due to the publicity. Essentially they could not turn a blind eye to something that is "illegal" and is being blatantly displayed on national TV.

To me it is a win either way they go.

If they decide not to prosecute then we can use that decision to show that bigamy is a law that even small county governments recognize is not worth prosecuting. The prosecutor will have to make a public statement of some sort indicating why they chose not to pursue prosecution - likely that it is not a good use of taxpayer money when they have real criminals to chase after. This statement can then be used to argue against the validity and necessity of the law and thereby decriminalize it.

If they do prosecute it will be an opportunity to have the bigamy laws declared unconstitutional and thereby repealed. How can they justify taking a productive tax paying citizen and making him a ward of the state? Even individuals that hate polygamy would likely be sympathetic to a father of that many children being taken away from the children and put in jail. They will have great difficulty in addressing this concern in a country that has the highest rate of incarceration in the developed World.

I am sure that Kody had numerous meetings with individuals in the FLDS about the legal ramifications of this TV situation. I think it was calculated and deliberate...and a good thing since it forces the hand of the Government to once again put up or shut up.

Considering Federal Court rulings that have been made recently I am confident that the days of the bigamy laws are numbered and are few at that.
 
Actually this seems like a bad case to go after. You are dealing with media celebs. The people involved are not committing fraud against the government (welfare, et el). The kids are not in danger. There seems to be no neglect. There does not appear to be any child in any way. The actions of the kids seem to show there does not seem to be problems. The sister wives are likable people. The husband seems a little over the top since he is in sales, he just might rub a few people the wrong way.

Overall this would seem like a loser of a case for the DA/state attny.

For the most time, they do not go after cases they cannot win on a slam dunk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top