Pro Se What?

Articles appearing today are reporting that Warren Jeffs has AGAIN fired his attorneys and is insisting on representing himself pro se in his sexual molestation trial.  Judge Warthog has reluctantly acceded to Jeffs' demands, with the proviso that at least one other attorney give him support and counsel.

I really don't know what to say.  Some comments are being made to suggest that not only does Jeffs not want his flock to be exposed to the supposedly inculpatory evidence against him, but he also wants none of his attorneys to see it or to represent him after they have seen it.  I bet some of those attorneys are jubilant that they no longer have to participate.

I think the word "circus" comes to mind.  I can see that Barbie is bending over backwards to make sure she is not creating more appeal fodder.  She must be fuming from both ends.  What Jeffs is trying to accomplish is as clear as mud.  Perhaps he is hoping that the trial will devolve into such a farce that it will result in a mistrial, or that he can be found mentally incompetent, or that the appeals court will hurry up and rule that the YFZ search was a tyrannical and illegal invasion.  We shall see.

On another note, HLN news channel is parading out the hater-nasties as if they were experts on something.  Today Liarie Allen and Flora Cessflopper yapped endlessly about child-brides, lost boys, waterboarding, and God knows what else.  HLN seems to be mounting a campaign to eradicate the FLDS community entirely.  I see some ironies in all this, but I pray sincerely that despite the hysteria the FLDS people will be able to get their lives and stability back, and that those who have deprived them thereof will be consigned to perpetual shame and regret if they don't shut up and back off.

I Have A Problem

I have a problem.  As you might know by now, I am not a fan of agencies or liberal do-gooders who like the whole idea of removing children from the homes of people whose culture they don't like.  I have known a number of CPS case-workers here in Arizona, and it is not unusual for them to be single women (some with alternative lifestyles of their own). I think that in some CPS circles it is a basic given that the average parent is not good enough, and is probably breaking one or more of CPS's gray-area, vague administrative laws.  That is why, in a CPS case battle between a family and the agency, the agency representatives will fight tooth and nail to prevail over you and to prove that you are abusive, negligent and unfit, even if all you did was teach your kids that polygamy is godly and biblical.  They don't have the resources to confiscate EVERY kid in the nation, so they have to be selective.

There is good reason to believe that there is an extra inducement to remove cute Caucasian kids, and that there is federal money to be won when parental rights are terminated.  The watchword of the CPS community is - "the best interests of the children".  This is a particularly clever slogan because it evinces the assertion that the agency desires nothing more than the happiness, welfare, security and peace of mind of the child.  Even this aspiration seems to dismiss any concern for the rights, wishes and welfare of the parents, but that is not the worst part.  The problem is that this pompous jargon suggests that, in a war between what the parents think is in the 'best interests of the child" and what CPS/DCFS thinks, CPS is always wiser and will ALWAYS make the final decision.  To parents under attack it must feel much like having a policeman sit in your house and tell you when it is okay to make love.

My focus today is, however, a different offender - and perhaps a more insidious one.  I took the liberty of watching the online video of the last Utah Attorney General's Safety Net meeting on USTREAM.  From what I saw and from what I heard from other observers, there were individuals (civilians) in attendance who want to create an underground railroad to squirrel away other people's teenagers.  The idea is like this - (and it's already been done a few times) - the lay crusaders learn about a teen who is getting sideways with his or her parents (or who is no longer living with them).  Then the crusader wants to provide food and shelter (and a new religion) to the disaffected teen.  The law holds the parents responsible for the child's care.  If a child runs away, law enforcement is required to return the child to the parents.  The crusaders have a different agenda.

The crusaders' plan goes like this - find collaborators who are willing to hide the teens in their homes (the LDS Church recently donated houses to these lay crusaders).  The goal is to keep the teens in secret hideouts for as long as possible, and for as long as necessary to re-indoctrinate them and sour them against their families and culture (e.g. the "two Fawns").  The parents must be kept in the dark (after all, they are just plygs).  The crusaders have no interest in becoming state-certified as providers of shelter or therapy or anything.  Remember, the mission is ideological - NOT humanitarian. These interfering busy-bodies are bent on massaging their own rescuer egos.

There is a word for these activities - KIDNAPPING !!!  It is a crime.  In this Safety Net meeting, the other (non-lay) attendees seem at least partly oblivious of their complicity in criminal conspiracy.  They seem unaware of their collective exposure to criminal and civil charges. 

You see, polygamists bear an automatic, aggravated disability.  Their religion relegates them to a lower citizenship class, and renders them open to special persecution.  If you are a polygamist or are in a polygamous community, look out.  There are people who want your children as badly as do the CPS agents.  All of those people who associate with the Safety Net and who think that it is okay to entice and conceal and influence other families' children should have an opportunity to experience the dread and anguish associated with government agencies or other perpetrators poaching their own children.

I'm not sure about you but, when it comes to people confiscating my children, I have a problem.

Several Cases Like This

The spokesperson for the Utah Attorney General's office, Paul Murphy, was interviewed today regarding Jonathan Turley's (VERY ENTERTAINING) lawsuit on behalf of the Kody Brown family.  Murphy was heard to say approximately the following:

"There have been several cases like this brought before the courts in Utah, and the courts have consistently ruled that the State has the right to regulate marriage and to ban bigamy.  The only thing different about this case is that the plaintiffs are on TV."

My gosh, Murphy must be almost as confused as his boss, Shurtleff, who opined yesterday that Turley's lawsuit is a mere P.R. "stunt" designed to promote the TLC series.

First - publicity stunt or not, this case profoundly impacts the lives of 38,000 fundamentalist Mormons (many of whose lives have been ruined by decades of cruel anti-polygamy crusades) and of tens of thousands of non-"Mormon" polygamists.  Turley has said that he will pursue this cause for as long as it takes (and pro bono by the way).  There are likely several other attorneys who are equally dedicated and who have devoted their lives to this cause. Snortleff can scoff at this effort, but his scoffing will have to end at some point.

Secondly, the court cases which preceded this one are (list not exhaustive):

     Potter v. Murray City
     State v. Green
     State v. Holm
     Bronson v. Swensen

Potter should have won. The court said that, as long as the people of the state of Utah were content to leave the Irrevocable (anti-polygamy) clause in the state constitution (despite its unconstitutionality), Potter's plural relationships could be criminalized.  If this case had occurred after Lawrence, Roy Potter would still be a police officer.

In State v. Green, Tom Green had the disadvantage of an attorney who briefed the case somewhat insufficiently, and Green had impregnated a 13-year-old.  The subsequent Holm case was stronger, but Holm had a wife who was 16.  The state told the Supreme Court that it should not take the Holm case because Utah categorically does not prosecute consenting adult polygamists (a LIE because Utah prosecuted Mark Easterday in 1999).  If Utah does not prosecute consenting adults, why then does Shurtleff not terminate the criminal bigamy investigation of the Browns ??? - (because that would be an admission that the stupid bigamy statute is unenforceable and needs to be repealed).  Utah charged Holm with ADULT BIGAMY (there was no child bigamy law at the time of his arrest).  Utah's supreme court chief justice, Christine Durham argued vigorously that Holm should be acquitted.

The Bronson v. Swensen case involved no criminal defendants.  It was a federal lawsuit challenging Utah's refusal to grant a polygamous trio a second marriage license. The case filed today has little in common with these other cases aside from the fact that each complained bitterly that Utah must stop persecuting an unpopular minority culture.  If these cases are all just a same-song broken record, then the message to us must be - "This is Utah, don't look for constitutional protections here!"  The case filed today is the culmination of generations of preceding pleadings.  The case today is the natural descendant of Griswold, Eisenstadt, Roe, Yoder, Lukumi, Romer, and Lawrence.  This case has no defects.  The plaintiffs cannot be painted with traditional anti-polygamy generalizations. If it were not to be the Browns, there would be dozens of other suitable, willing families. The only flaw in this case is that Murphy, DuPaix, Shurtleff, Herbert and Monson don't want it to succeed, so they are already spouting the deflecting smoke-screen stuff.

Thirdly, Utah DOES have the authority to "regulate" marriage.  It just does not have the authority to regulate any more of the Brown family's marriage than that contracted by Kody and Meri.  It may not regulate whether Kody may kiss Christine or hug Janelle or make a new baby with Robyn.  That would be an overreaching of authority (one of Snortliff's favorite pastimes).

Fourthly, Utah DOES have the authority to ban bigamy (all states do).  Kody Brown does not commit bigamy.  He only has one wife.  The other three ladies are life-partners.  Kody pretends that they are wives (and so do they).  They even use the term "wife".  To outlaw the family's use of the word, "wife", would be a gross violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment.  A state supreme court ruled last month that governments may not prohibit (even) the (public) utterance of specific words.

The long-awaited day has finally arrived when we can have an intelligent dialogue (in a U.S. court) about this last great civil-rights battle.  I encourage you public officials to get on the right side of it, lest you risk appearing like bigots, desperately defending a pathetic, 19th-century relic of early American barbarism.

Plus, Mr.(short-memory) Murphy, Tom Green was all over the TV.

Think before you spokes-speak next time!

Eat Your Words

Since the days of the Tom Green trial, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has been the nemesis of the polygamists in their quest for emancipation - he and Laura DuPaix.  Shurtleff has done a yeoman's job of parrying the occasional incursion.  He even sallied forth into Texas to whip up the good ol' boys there into storming the YFZ ranch.

When John Geddes Lawrence was watching his gay sex case wending its way to the Supreme Court, Shurtleff was trepidating.  Along with the AG's from two other states, Shurtleff anxiously filed an Amicus brief arguing that the Court ought not to allow the decriminalization of homosexuality - that such a ruling would inevitably doom Utah's continued criminalization of polygamists.  I vote Shurtleff for Prophet.  His prophecy is soon to be fulfilled.  The Supreme Court was careful in its wording in the Lawrence v. Texas decision.  The emphasis was not on homosexuality, gays and lesbians; rather it was on the right of adults to express themselves freely through any private sexual intimacy, without interference from the government, or from other factions who might find their conduct to be morally repugnant.  Nothing could be clearer.  Except for commercial sex activities, all private adult intimacy is protected.  If you want to have an orgy in your basement, the government can do nothing.

No sane person can read the Lawrence language without accepting that it also contemplates the conduct of adult polygamists.  Adulterers and fornicators and sodomites are all shielded.  Hugh Hefner, Arnold Scwarzenegger and Tiger Woods are untouchable.  Have sex with whomever you want - no holds barred.  The only place in the Union with an exception is Utah, and the only exception is that, when you are residing or mating with more than just one bed-partner, you MUST NOT think of him or her as a "spouse".  The very moment you think, "She's my 'wife'", Shurtleff has to come after you - not because he wants to - he doesn't want to.  No - it's because the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve insist that he must.  But even they are conflicted.  They understand that the moment Shurtleff goes after Jim Harmston, or Mark Easterday or Kody Brown, he sets up the very Supreme Court challenge that the mother Church dreads.  It could take four years. The Supremes might not grant certiorari, but the likelihood is that a clean test case (such as this one) will result in slam-dunk reversal of Reynolds.  No longer will the Church be able to tell its members that polygamy is a crime.  It will be left with no excuse.  It will have to admit its lies or get more deeply tangled up in them.  Shurtleff's cool - he's conveniently stepping down at the end of this term.

Now comes Turley.  No arguments about freedom of religion - just a simple reminder that Americans have a right to privacy.  Turley has deep pockets.  He can summon every conceivable expert.  I cannot wait to fly to Salt Lake and watch Turley eat Laura DuPaix for breakfast, lunch and dinner (ickhh !!).

And so, (sorry for starting a main clause with a coordinating conjunction) Shurtleff will witness the fulfillment of his Amicus prophecy.  Lawrence dooms Reynolds.  We have got to stop diddly-ditzing around this issue once and for all.  The emperor is naked.  The continued criminalization of polygamists is born out of a naked malice and bigoted urge to inflict harm.  The Church and the "crossroads of the West" are the products of polygamists.  The Church/State machinery in Utah has insulted its pioneer origins.  I would love to have it give me a sincere explanation of why it wants my family eradicated.  Is it pure politics or just plain bigotry? 

I pray that this matter will be settled appropriately before Bernanke finalizes our national receivership, and hands the keys over to Sir Evelyn.  Either way, to Shurtleff I say, "EAT YOUR WORDS". 

The First Salvo

Kody Brown

Jonathan Turley

Not too many months ago, the Kody Brown polygamous family came out very publicly on the TLC cable channel with the first season of the Sister Wives series.  Before too many suns set, the local Kops started a felony bigamy investigation (DUHH !!).  I always wondered why the Browns (with their top-flight George Washington law school attorney, Jonathan Turley) did not simply fire the first salvo.  The Browns faced a choice - either tremble endlessly while waiting for Lehi police to show up with four or five sets of handcuffs - or file a federal civil rights lawsuit against the pretty, great State of Utah for violating their freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association - not to mention trampling on every 14th Amendment privilege enshrined in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision (decriminalizing all adult consensual sex).

You cannot go before the higher courts with a complaint unless you have suffered harm.  The bozo cops and county attorneys provided the requisite "harm" by threatening the family with potential prosecution.  The Browns were in a perfect position to challenge the Reynolds decision and Utah's stupid Church/State-sponsored polygabigamy statute.

With the Browns' inaction, I guess I assumed that another more enterprising family might step up and brave the limelight and scrutiny, falling on the sword for the rest of us 39,000 criminal plygs.

But NO!  Tonight the news emerged that the Browns are making their case this Wednesday in federal court.  Oh happy day!  Frankly, it matters not who does it.  I am just glad that someone finally has the courage to step forward and say, "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !!!"  I wonder if Dee Benson will win this dice roll.  Turley would be smart to bone up on the vast body of pleadings already filed in the British Columbia reference case.

The Supreme Court punted the State v. Holm case, even though Rodney Holm's prosecution was for ADULT - not CHILD - bigamy.  However, Holm's third "wife" was 16.  The Supremes were most likely loathe to hand him and Christine Durham a victory.  Kody Brown has not married or slept with any minors, and, despite his much criticized hairdo, he has scant little dirty laundry to fuss over.

I can hear it now -

KODY:  "My family and I are afraid because of the constant saber-rattling from law-enforcement and the specter of prosecution."

SHURTLEFF;  "We will definitely prosecute any polygamy case where we have enough evidence . . . . . wait, . . . .  uh, no we won't, I mean yes we will, will we? Oh crap! Forget everything I said."

My gosh, if this court challenge proves successful, li'l ol' Renn will be able to shut this ranting blog down and ride off into the Maricopa sunset.

Perhaps the buzz surrounding this inevitably monumental court case will inject some new life into next season's Sister Wives storyline.

GO KODY !!!!!!!

Irrevocable?

I have for a long time wanted to write about the weakness in Utah's "Irrevocable" clause.  The irrevocable clause was part of the text of Utah's Enabling Act - the document allowing Utah to achieve statehood. It was a craven compromise with the Mormons' enemies. Talk about "selling your birthright for a mess of potage." !!!  Here we go - - -

At the time of Utah’s admission to the Union (1896), there was significant controversy regarding Mormon polygamy.  The Church and its members were extremely reluctant to surrender the practice.  The rest of the country probably had far more heartburn over Mormon power than Mormon polygamy.  Federal officials doubted the sincerity of LDS leaders’ promises that plural marriages had been stopped.  New polygamous unions may well have been ostensibly halted, but how many Latter-day Saint husbands were still living with their plural wives after the 1890 Manifesto?  How could the government prevent polygamous courtships, polygamous ceremonies and ongoing polygamous family relationships?   

Eventually, it became clear that, unless Utah agreed to include an anti-polygamy clause in its new state constitution, it would not be admitted to the Union.  Here is the specific language from Utah’s constitution:

Article 3 Section 1 – The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of this State: [Religious toleration -- Polygamy forbidden.]

First: – Perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed. No inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.

On the surface, it would appear that those who drafted the language of the new state constitution did everything necessary to criminalize and eradicate polygamy from our state.  Upon closer review, however, we find evidence of significant weaknesses.  Here are some key failings:

1.           If it was the intent of this clause in the (civil) constitution to enshrine the polygamy prohibitions in law, then statutes needed to be enacted to fully criminalize the practice.  However, to this day, the words “polygamy” and “plural marriage” are nowhere to be found in Utah’s statutes (perhaps because their inclusion would have revealed the opponents’ naked desire to target a religious minority).

2.               There are interesting ambiguities in the wording of the clause. 

a.       First let us look at the word “marriages”.  If “polygamous” or “plural” marriages were “forever” to be prohibited, did this mean that the state was required to make sure that it would never grant anyone multiple concurrent marriage licenses?  If so, then the objective was achieved.  A sensibly-worded bigamy statute could accomplish this beautifully.  Besides, one could count on one hand the number of polygamists who ever sought two marriage licenses in the last hundred years.  If, however, by “marriages”, the framers really meant to say “weddings”, perhaps the clause should have read “polygamous or plural weddings” instead.  Perhaps this is why additional statutes were written to punish individuals who participated in or “officiated” at purely religious “sealing” or commitment ceremonies (a felony).  This was a particularly slippery fish to catch, so it required extraordinary statutory creativity.

b.      Perhaps the word “marriages” was intended, rather, to apply to the condition of being “married” (like – “We had a wonderful wedding, and now we have a happy marriage).  If this was the case, then the clause now runs afoul of the 2003 Lawrence decision because, once again, it attempts to prohibit couples or trios from acting “married”, even if the state provides no formal licensing of the relationship.  Was there an intent to prohibit the mere relationship, and how could that be achieved in accordance with due process and equal application of laws?

3.         Utah was placed in a rather unusual position.  It could not attain statehood without bowing to federal demands regarding language in its constitution; in fact, the “irrevocable” clause states, “The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of this State.  This meant that, once Utah achieved the status of a State, it still would not have permission to remove this prohibition without federal approval.  Later, Oklahoma was constrained (by the federal government) to agree to never relocate its capital (from Guthrie) as a part of its enabling act.  Once a part of the Union, the capital was moved to Oklahoma City.  When the controversial case (Coyle v. Smith, 1911) reached the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled that, once Oklahoma had achieved statehood, it was no longer bound to honor an agreement imposed upon it by the federal government as a “condition” of statehood.  Such a constraint would have caused Oklahoma to enter the Union on an “unequal”, lesser “footing” than the other states.  Accordingly, Utah’s “irrevocable clause” (along with similar clauses in other states’ constitutions) is unconstitutional and should be voided.

 Utah's feeble attempt to pay lip-service to religious freedom makes me prefer the religious freedom language of New York's 1777 state constitution:

"Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship GOD according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained in his person, liberty or estate for worshiping GOD, in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession, sentiments or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or disturb others, in their religious worship."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reasonable Doubt

The news stations have been glued to the Casey Anthony murder trial today.  I watched some of the closing arguments.  This trial is fascinating.  Casey Anthony is apparently a reprehensible character.  She has made a career of lying.  Sadly, her daughter, Caylee, vanished in 2008 and was later found dead.  Since the infant's decomposed corpse was nothing but bones, there was scant forensic evidence to harvest.

Of interest is the fact that, when the child first disappeared, the mother, Casey, pretended that the child had not disappeared.  She lied to everyone who inquired after her.  For 31 days she successfully concealed the disappearance.  This made most people assume that she had murdered he child.  Even the defense team, in its opening statement, tried to argue that Casey was aware of her daughter's demise, but that it was simply an accidental drowning in the backyard pool.

The trial focused on Google searches, duct tape, chloroform, and insects, and the smell of decomposition allegedly present in Casey's car.  Problem is - so many months passed between the child's disappearance and the discovery of her remains that the prosecution had to go through immense contortions to coax evidence out of the discoveries.  The State of Florida spent millions making its case and enlisted dozens of expert witnesses and scientists in an effort to prove that the lying, partying mother (now 25) is the culprit.

I am reminded of Utah's Mark Hacking and California's Scott Peterson.  Both of these convicted murderers share Casey's flair for fabrication.  Each told family members of careers or college attendance that were actually pure fantasy.  Each seemed to prefer to live in a world of lies and exaggerations - perhaps to impress, but at least to bamboozle others.  There seems to be a pattern of mental pathology that seems to segue smoothly into impulsive and shameless homicide.  I have personally known two people with this psycho/sociopathic personality profile and I try to stay at least a half a planet away from both of them.

I am inclined to believe that Casey killed her child and should be put to death.  Yet, here is the interesting question - would I vote to convict if I were on the jury?

In its closing arguments, the defense team argued convincingly that the prosecution had failed to come up with any tangible evidence of the cause and manner of Caylee's death.  All of the evidence and testimony was "circumstantial".  Casey did not confess.  There were no fingerprints, no decent DNA, no witnesses, no obvious murder weapon - just some inferences and conclusions.

The prosecution was masterful in its preparation and delivery.  Attorney Jeff Ashton's arguments were compelling.  The defense clarified some of the weaknesses in the State's case, while contradicting itself somewhat, in an effort to deflect attention away from the defendant.  Doubtless some jury members will believe Casey is unquestionably guilty, despite anything the attorneys presented.

The standard of guilt required for a conviction is that the jurors must (all) find the defendant guilty of all of the charged elements of the crime (beyond all reasonable doubt), or must acquit her.  There is the rub.  If I were on that jury, I would insist that, despite the brilliance of the prosecution, there really isn't any tangible proof into which I can sink my teeth which convinces me that the exacting "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold was met.

So, now I am fascinated to watch the outcome of the trial after the jury begins deliberations tomorrow.  If the jurors are not fully convinced that Casey committed first degree (capital) murder, they have the option of lesser verdicts like second degree murder or felony manslaughter (or aggravated child abuse).  What bugs me is that she has either been demonstrated to be the culprit or she has not, and it would not seem right for the jury to say, "Well, we haven't been persuaded that the evidence proves she did it  - - enough to justify lethal injection, so let's just meet half way and give her a less severe verdict so that she will at least get some punishment and some years in prison."

I think this is an interesting dilemma of American jurisprudence.  Sometimes the very semantics throw a wrench in the process.  Thankfully, of the four branches of government (under the Constitution) we have the Executive, Legislative, Judicial, and juries - with the jury being the highest and most potent.

In saner times, juries understood the principle of jury nullification - one by which, if the jury found the defendant factually culpable of the alleged crime, it could still rule that the law in question was a stupid law and vote to set him free.

I think it is right for the jury to rule in cases like this one.  I'm not sure I agree with all aspects of the jury "instructions" process.  Unfortunately, I think the Constitution is to most modern Americans as the Bible was to Europeans before the era of the printing press. 

It will be very interesting to see how this jury rules. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE - NEWSFLASH - JULY 5. 

The Casey Anthony jury came back today with a verdict acquitting her of all charges except the four counts of lying to police (the four 1-year sentences for which she will likely be credited with "time-served").

The TV pundits were all mortified and shocked, but it seems the jury was resolute, intelligent and cohesive.  The jurors must have ALL agreed that the proved culpability did not rise to the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold.  I agree with them, but I think she got away with murder.  Polygamists have served longer sentences - and for trying to PRESERVE their families.

IRONIES !!!!!!