Hypocrite

BRUCE WISAN

So, last year Brute Wisass got caught by Taylorsville police in a motel with a prostitute.  He at first said they did not have sex.  She said they did.  He said he was just giving her financial help until she "got on her feet" - (read: "till she got up from the bed"). He admitted that he had been showering with her.

This is a former Mormon Stake President - a paragon of religious virtue and integrity.  The one hand-picked by Shurtleff to bring salvation to the FLDS.

VOMIT !!!       Here is a chunk of the police report:
 

See also this article from the Salt Lake Tribune:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home3/58242242-200/wisan-woman-officer-court.html.csp

How do you argue with it?

I noticed yesterday that Joe Darger and his three glamorous wives appeared on Good Morning America to announce the publication of their new book, LOVE TIMES THREE (written with reporter, Brooke Adams).

I wish to make merely one observation.  There are apparently several unmentionable hater-harpies who cannot contain their tooth-gnashing over this.  From what I understand, the Dargers are decent people with normal kids and a moderately successful lifestyle.  The hate crusaders will rant on ad nauseam about child brides, lost boys, baby cemeteries, incest, maleducation, welfare fraud, and God knows what else, but none of that applies to the Dargers.

Truth is, there is no such thing as a "typical" polygamist family, so you cannot make sweeping generalizations about people from this culture.  I know the Mother Church is cringing over this new, happy band of polygs stepping into the cosmopolitan limelight.  Shurtleff is at a loss as to what to do.  The Browns want to show they have been threatened by a felony bigamy statute, and Shurtleff insists that the statute is there, not to prosecute polygamists, but rather to teach the people of Utah the wisdom of their elders.

I would never try to tell a gay man he is evil not to be attracted to women.  Likewise, the haters can whine on endlessly about the wrongness of plural marriage, but they cannot argue with reality, and now reality is staring us all in the face.  I understand that one of the approaches recently taken by the haters is to say that the Dargers' book is poorly written.  I just read the book, and I can tell you that the content and linguistic delivery are both impressive, so I can only assume that the haters cannot read, or that they did not in fact read the book.  Truth is - the message of the book is entirely autobiographical.  It is hard to argue with facts, and it is not easy to argue that another person's feelings are not really his or her feelings.  The Darger family explodes the prevailing stereotypes.  The Dargers' television appearances have silenced many critics.  Their very existence neutralizes all of the tabloidy, sensationalistic squawking about polygamy in general.  I cannot wait to see Dr. Drew do a '180' on his own show.

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". 

Same Song, Second Verse

ERIC NICHOLS

I just read some newspaper articles about Michael Emack's appeal.  Emack is serving a seven-year sentence for having a teenage plural wife.  He pleaded no contest (perhaps in order to avoid a bad trial).  His appeal appears to have made its way to the Texas district appeals court (this week) faster than the other convicts' appeals because in his case there was no trial record to review.

The appeal centers on the assertion that the April 2008 YFZ Ranch raid was improperly conducted - that the search warrant must be suppressed because it was improperly executed.  In a Salt Lake Tribune article, prosecutor Eric Nichols said the raid was - 

 . . . .  'reasonable in the approximately 1,600-acre ranch, which has no street names or house numbers. 

“You have a situation in which there are no street names, no house numbers,” he said. “It was reasonable under those circumstances for those officers to ... look for her wherever she might be found.”' 

I'm no lawyer, but I wonder how powerful that argument would be for the Supreme Court.  Nichols seems to want to impale himself on the same old sword.  I read the pleadings prepared in the suppression hearing before Barbarous Warthog, and it is evident to me that the State of Texas botched several key steps in the raid - they violated several key Constitutional principles.  Their conduct was so cavalier - they didn't really care.  There was simply no excuse for not using the readily available technology to find the location of the phone that Rosacea Swinetown was using to make her hoax calls.  I don't care whether the Sheriff was "convinced" that something weird was going on in the ranch.  Why do we even bother to have a Fourth Amendment?  Why have rules about proper searches and seizures? 

I wonder if this district court is the same one that returned the confiscated children back in 2008.  That was the court that scoffed at the whole "single household" argument.  When the state frantically scrambled to prevent the return of the children by complaining to the Texas Supreme Court, the court roundly upheld the lower court's insistence that the state had acted improperly.  

I guess I have a hard time thinking that a court which ruled so adamantly that the communal, "single-household" rationalization was spurious would suddenly contradict itself and condone such an argument in connection with the search.

I think, however, that when the situation involves polygamists, fairness sometimes goes out the window.  A successful suppression of the search would be a monumental embarrassment (all over again) for Texas.  Surely MANY public officials don't want the convictions overturned, when they would rather see all polygamists imprisoned for life (AND keep their precious JOBS !!!).

I prefer to remain optimistic that the district court will soberly agree that the whole raid was long orchestrated and was in extreme bad faith.  What is more fascinating is the possibility that Warren Jeffs could have his charges dropped as a result of the suppression.  Is that why Utah is clinging so desperately to the hope of a re-trial in the Elissa Wall phantasy rape case?  Does Utah secretly believe that the search is doomed to be overturned?

Somebody (probably Snortlick) must have riled Texas up to going after the Frankenstein polygs.  Maybe Texas got too caught up in the drunken, torches-and-pitchforks hunt for the peculiar, and lost command of its senses.

We shall see.
 - - - - - - - - - 

Lab Rats

Aren't these little darlings cute?  Don't they just make you want to grab a stick and poke them to see if they snarl or bite.  Or maybe you are the type who desperately wants to save them from their confused and beleaguered condition - to take them home and assimilate them into your own sweet family - to set them on the path to safety, salvation and happiness.

I have finally figured it out.  In the Romer v. Evans decision, Justice Antonin Scalia alluded to the fact that Fundamentalist Mormons were being singled out for "disfavorable treatment".  Why is that?

Fundamentalist Mormons are second-class citizens because they are automatically assumed to be felons, even though they are not really prosecuted.  It's as if they have an ugly "P" stitched to their chests, so that normal, regular, ordinary folk can know that the polyg's are outcasts or unclean.

In the recent news frenzy over ecclesiastical leadership changes in the FLDS church, the private and public social service entities are rushing out of the woodwork to step in and rescue.  Rescue whom?  They are forming strategic collaborations, even with entities that have victimized Fundamentalist Mormons in the past.

There are reports that, in Nazi (Socialist) Germany and concentration camps, experiments were conducted on helpless minorities.  There were acts of cruelty that would make Abu Ghraib look like a luxury spa.  I don't doubt that the perpetrators were utterly convinced of the goodness and wisdom of their activities.  They knew best.  They were smarter than the camp detainees.  They had lofty, long-term goals to which the subject victims were arguably oblivious and subordinate.  The ends clearly justified the means (and the secret meetings and deliberations).  Sometimes the goal is just to justify the controlling entity's continued existence (individual needs be damned).

That is the very quintessence of socialism.  The goal of making everyone "equal" (of assuring social "justice" for all) is a lie - a "bait and switch".  Think about it - in socialism, the government is utterly in charge of the distribution of resources.  The guys in power dictate to the folks who are not in power.  They decide what's best for you, and you had better not complain or you will disappear or be imprisoned or shot. I always wonder why so many people are enticed by that kind of tyranny.  I guess the liberals privately believe they will get to be the ones in the driver's seat - telling you where to work and what to eat.

Some local universities face considerable controversy for their medical experiments conducted with laboratory animals.  Some of the animals can experience frustration and resentment when their comfort and privacy are compromised.  New efforts are underway to interfere and intervene in the lives of Fundamentalist Mormons.  After all, the Mother Church and law enforcement entities all across the land have over-arching, imperative needs to investigate us, examine us, probe us, and intervene when the ulterior motives get strong enough.  Then throw "equality" out the window.

I think that, once you can look upon peculiar, different people with a supercilious, condescending attitude; and you decide that, by virtue of their class disability they are like lab rats, you can really do whatever you want to them with impunity and a clear conscience.

Throw Away The Key!

I have been watching the results of my poll (to the left of the recent post) on this blog.  I am grateful to all of you who have expressed your opinion.  I will maintain the poll to see if the yes/no balance remains constant.

It appears that a sizeable portion of the respondents are convinced that polygamous men and women need to be incarcerated.  No one knows exactly how many polygamists live in the U.S. but it could be hundreds of thousands.  What is a polygamist?  We know that there are several thousand Fundamentalist Mormon polygamists.  Then there are many Protestant Christian polygamists.  There are numerous Muslim polygamists.  Finally, there are probably hundreds of thousands of polygamous, recreational copulators - people who shack up serially or who are having affairs with the secretary or the neighbor's wife.  We shouldn't forget all the married men who are frequenting the Las Vegas whores who work in Harry Reid's state.  I guess we should also ask if the many gays and lesbians in Northern California are polygamous by nature or conduct.

If we borrow the bizarre reasoning of British Columbia's Attorney General, Craig Jones, all of the above classes of people are polygamists.  I want to ask the affirmative responders to my poll if they are willing to pay for the doubling of America's prison cells to house these offending polygamists.  I also would ask them if they themselves have been morally pure throughout their lives.

Before the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), some states required gays to register themselves as sex offenders.  Merely the orientation or inclination to homosexuality (generally a permanent condition) was sufficient to establish criminality.  You must all agree that this is SO disingenuous, that it is not a surprise that Texas and Oklahoma did not enforce this draconian rule.

Tom Green and Rodney Holm both recently served prison sentences in Utah for polyga-bigamy.  They are now back home with their wonderful wives.  I have asked this question before, but how long should a polygamous person's prison sentence last?  Most polygamists I know are polygamous for life.  They CANNOT limit themselves to the monogamous lifestyle.  Once released from prison, they go back and re-offend.  I cannot remember the last person who was returned to prison for repeat polygamy after parole.  It seems that the state lacks the lust for a sincere, widespread polygamy prosecution campaign.  During the Brown family's recent videotaped confessions, the State appeared to be watching a different channel - probably HBO (and Big Love).  The Browns fled to Nevada, and, as of this writing, I have not been made aware of any extradition proceedings.

Here's the bottom line.  You simply cannot have it both ways or have your cake and eat it too (or other cliches).  If you believe that polygamists belong in prison, you must also believe that they are unrehabilitatable (is that a word?) and that they must therefore remain behind bars until death.  Just throw away the key!

I have to think that not too many years back a large number of Americans and Canadians felt that gay people needed to be incarcerated for life or executed.  Fashion trends changed all that.

I am tempted to run a poll asking if anti-polygamy hate groups should be incarcerated for bigotry.

Strange Bedfellows

Some ironies can reach historic proportions.  I would argue that it was the religious Christian folks of the 1870's who clamored the loudest for the eradication of the Mormons (or at least the "barbaric" Mormon practice of polygamy).  Whether unintended or not, the eventual consequence was that the Supreme Court weighed in and authorized the states to limit First Amendment "free exercise" when associated with certain claims of religious protection. This amounted to a legislative "blank check".  You could "believe" what you wanted to, but the "exercise" of those beliefs had to now be supervised by government moods.  It was understood that the government would thenceforth control the sacrament of holy matrimony.  Marriage contracts went from common-law ecclesiastical to civil-law legal.

Now that marriage is a government institution (where the state is a party to your marriage), it might be easy to limit the number of the spouses, but much more difficult to dictate the gender of the parties to the contract.  Several states (and Canada) now marry same-sex couples - mostly because there is no intelligent argument for why our government should favor one religious theology or sacrament over another (not to mention family arrangements post-Griswold and Roe).  Our nation may have been founded as a Christian republic, yet, with the fraudulent "ratification" of the Fourteenth Amendment, we are now a secular corporation in which religion should hold no influence.

The irony of this situation now is that those same religious Christian folks (who yearned to curtail the rights of the Mormons) are upset with the (unintended) outcome.  They are not sure of whom to be most afraid - the gays or the polygs.  Even more ironic still, is the mass migration of the Mormons themselves into this petulant crusade (evident in the Proposition 8 madness).  Last Friday (2/5/11) LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks gave an impassioned speech arguing for the protection of Americans' rights to "exercise" their religious beliefs.  Before you get fooled into thinking that he is arguing for a full-scale reversal of the Reynolds decision, let's see what his primary focus is:

Said Elder Oaks: "Along with many others, I see a serious threat to the freedom of religion in the current assertion of a 'civil right' of homosexuals to be free from religious preaching against their relationships."

Problem is - Dallin - you cannot have your cake and eat it too, so, while you are busy championing your right to exercise your belief that government must not allow gays to marry, I am grateful that you are simultaneously championing my right to call my three girl-friends "plural wives" without having to go to prison for felony bigamy. Oaks also said:

"If that [constraining the freedom of religious speech] happens, we will have criminal prosecution of those whose religious doctrines or speech offend those whose public influence and political power establish them as an officially protected class." 

Am I the only one who sees the irony and hypocrisy of these statements when they are analyzed against the backdrop of political/ecclesiastical policies in Utah?  Judge Desleaze Lintbag said that she cannot give the UEP Trust back to the FLDS people because their practice of plural marriage makes them criminals!  Remarkably, she is re-enacting the conduct of earlier government officials who would not return the property of the LDS Church in the 1890's unless it repudiated one of its core doctrines. I think Lintbag, Snortlaff and Oaks need to get their stories straight before they talk or try to shape public policy.  Let's read more of what Oaks said - -

Religious individuals should insist on their constitutional right and duty to exercise their religion, to vote their consciences on public issues and to participate in elections and debates." Elder Oaks said.  He called for a unified, broad coalition defending religious freedoms — a proposal that doesn't require common doctrinal ground between faiths, but a shared belief that the rights and wrongs of human behavior have been established by a Supreme Being. "All who believe in that fundamental should unite more effectively to preserve and strengthen the freedom to advocate and practice our religious beliefs, whatever they are." he said. "We must walk together for a ways on the same path in order to secure our freedom to pursue our separate ways when that is necessary according to our own beliefs." 

YEAH  - NO KIDDING !!!

Also - did Dallin Oaks write (or collaborate on) this recently proposed Utah bill? - -(HB 109)

Section 3. Section 63G-12-103 is enacted to read:
Prohibitions on state and local governments.
Except in the most limited instances when strictly necessary to avoid the gravest abuse of a constitutional right and more paramount public interest and subject to the provisions of Section 63G-12-104, the state or a political subdivision of the state may not:
(1)  infringe or substantially burden a person's religious liberty, including compel, restrain, or burden a person in their goods and civil capacities; or
(2)  restrict or deny freedom of religious speech and the free expression of religious and moral beliefs in public.

Section 4. Section 63G-12-104 is enacted to read:
Compelling state interest.
(1)  Religious liberty is substantially burdened when a person is coerced or required to act or significantly modify behavior contrary to sincerely held religious beliefs and principles and freedom of conscience.
(2)  The state or a political subdivision of the state may not substantially burden a person's religious liberty unless the state or political subdivision can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence:
......(a) that the application of the burden to the person is:
............(i) in furtherance of a compelling state interest required to protect the peace, health, and safety of the state; and
............(ii) strictly necessary to avoid the gravest abuses endangering a constitutionally recognized and more paramount interest; and
......(b) that there are no other means reasonably available to achieve such ends.

If you're not confused, I am.  COME ON, GUYS.  MAKE UP YOUR SCHIZOPHRENIC MINDS !!!

Epidemic !!!

I have been reading Utah news reports over the last few years.  Utah is famous for its polygamy.  People from other states laugh at Utah because of the rampant polygamy and the Mormons and their many wives.  Heck, word has it that there are 39,004 Mormon polygamists (or maybe "fundamentalists"), so polygamy and child abuse must be widespread.

To hear the anti-polygamy activists, something needs to be done about the proliferation of child brides.  Organizations are formed in their name.  In fact, the repute of this vast, immeasurable problem rang so loud in legislators' ears, that (at the urging of Mark Shurtleff) they felt compelled to get the situation under control.  The powerful solution came in the form of a new law - a law with some teeth. 

Frustrated at the seven month sentence given to Rodney Holm for his third marriage, polygamy-haters now had a strong weapon and deterrent - the Child Bigamy statute.

76-7-101.5. Child bigamy -- Penalty.
(1) An actor 18 years of age or older is guilty of child bigamy when, knowing he or she has a wife or husband, or knowing that a person under 18 years of age has a wife or husband, the actor carries out the following with the person who is under 18 years of age:
(a) purports to marry the person who is under 18 years of age; or
(b) cohabits with the person who is under 18 years of age.
(2) A violation of Subsection (1) is a second degree felony.
Enacted by Chapter 6, 2003 General Session

Unfazed by the gross unconstitutionality of the statute's language (what does "purport" mean? - - what does "cohabit" mean? [I co-habit in my house every day with my wives and my teen daughters]), proponents cheered the opportunity to put thousands of offender sickos behind bars.  For example, let's say you have a 19-year-old boy who is married to an 18-year-old wife.  Let's say he then has sex with a 17-year-old girl from work.  If he is not religious, this is NOT a crime at all.  However, if he can be proved to be from a Fundamentalist Mormon family, well  . . . . . .then . . . . . . he'll do 15 years in prison.  Seems fair, doesn't it?  See, it's not your actions that people hate, it's your damned religious beliefs they'll imprison you for.

So, this potent new law gave Shurtleff what he needed - finally a chance to put all those child-marrying polygs in prison.  I think it has been HUGELY successful - my gosh, since the law was enacted eight years ago, law enforcement has triumphed over this molestation epidemic and proudly convicted the following men:
-
-
-
-

 . . . . . . . . . . . So now we can all sleep peacefully knowing that Utah is clean and pure again.

Homework assignment for Monday:  Will Kody Brown get the same sentence in Nevada for having four wives, as Tom Green will in Utah?

Two Chicks From Utah

So, apparently, yesterday and today, two independent Fundamentalist Mormon women surfaced in Canada and testified at the British Columbia polygamy reference trial.  What is the relevance of these two chicks from Utah (Alina Batchelor and Mary Darger)?

Over the last few weeks, the Court has had to listen to a litany of misery stories about the FLDS people.  If the FLDS people were truly as evil as the disaffected ex-members claim, then all FLDS would need to be banished to the North Pole to freeze and die.  Maybe Canada should make a new law that it is a first-degree-felony, capital offense to join the FLDS church.  It is almost as if this (stupid) trial is less about polygamy and more about FLDS leaders.  Heck, it's so simple - if the simple fact of being an FLDS member is so evil, then it should be a capital crime to be FLDS.  That way, Canada could rid itself of these devout religious people and let other polygamists, polyamorists and recreational copulators go free.

So what is the relevance of these latest two witnesses? - Well, it is that the AGs have spent so much energy demonizing the criminal FLDS, that they forgot that the FLDS are a small fraction of the world's (and Canada's) polygamous population.  So what can the judge do?  The allegations he has heard sound like this:

"If a person is FLDS or a polygamist, he or she is automatically triggered to commit felonies - rape, incest, murder, child-abuse, and domestic violence (even though we don't have any evidence to prove it)."

Problem is - if this logic is sound, then it can be said that there is (are ??) far more empirical, historical data to support the argument that being a monogamist triggers domestic violence and rape.  I would bet that at least 99.99% of the spouse abuse in the world is perpetrated by monogamists - NOT polygamists.  So where does the evidence point?

So these two Utah chicks courageously risked their own well-being, and their family privacy and peace-of-mind to stand up for a simple true principle - that there are dozens of different types of polygamists, and at least one is happy.  I imagine that the words they spoke were far less potent than just their mere presence.  The angry opposing witnesses and inquisitors have either intentionally or unintentionally trumpeted the following spoken and unspoken message:

"I had a bad personal experience in an FLDS community, so -
 All FLDS people are evil, so - 
 All FLDS people should be eradicated, and - 
 All FLDS people are polygamists, and -
 All polygamists are FLDS, so -
 All polygamists must be eradicated."

Problem is, these two Utah chicks are not FLDS, so what will the judge do?  Here's what I believe the judge will do.  He will acknowledge that harms and imperfections exist in all walks of society.  He will remember that Canada has legalized same-sex marriage and prostitution. He will remember that the stupid polygamy law is so overbroad, that defendants are guilty if merely accused (no evidence or witnesses are even needed for a conviction).  He will realize that the statute's language is so flawed, that his only option (and the best way to get the monkey off his own back) is to punt it all back to Parliament to re-write the law.

So, I can see it now - a crack Parliamentary legislative team will sit behind closed doors and start to write a new masterpiece of anti-polygamy code:

"IF A MAN OR WOMAN IS MARRIED TO A SPOUSE, AND HE OR SHE ENGAGES IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A SECOND PERSON, THEN HE OR SHE SHALL BE GUILTY OF POLYGABIGAMY . . . . . 

 . . . . . . . WAIT, NO, . . . . .  CRAP! - THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF THE ADULTERY WE ALL COMMIT. - - - LET'S TRY THIS  - - -

IF A MAN OR WOMAN IS MARRIED TO A SPOUSE, AND HE OR SHE STARTS TO THINK ABOUT OTHER MEN OR WOMEN AS BEING PLURAL SPOUSES, THEN HE OR SHE SHALL BE GUILTY OF POLYGABIGAMY.

........  AW SHUCKS, HOW ARE WE GOING TO PROVE THAT CRIME?  THIS ISN'T WORKING.  LET'S REFER THIS BACK TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR ANOTHER REFERENCE CASE.  MAYBE THE JUDGE CAN DECIDE HOW TO PURSUE THESE HORRIBLE, PATRIARCHAL OFFENDERS."

As I have said at least once before, if the judge has the temerity to uphold Canada's polygamy law, it will be because he will have ignored the s#!tstorm of unintended consequences that will afflict Canada for years to come.  This is a tar baby.  What will they do? - play the Shurtleffian game of picking off the outspoken ones like Tom Green, then hope that the rest of the polygamists will disappear quietly back into their holes, to save the expense of protracted circus polygamy trials?  The very first prosecution will turn into yet another test case.  You'd have an easier time prosecuting blasphemy or bad thoughts.

Canada should go back to following Utah's latest example - ignore even a public, taped confession of guilt (like Kody Brown's to 10,000,000 squirming and cheering viewers) and live and let live.

A thank-you to you two chicks from Utah.  I envy the guy you to whom you are both married.  Maybe, when all polygamists are arrested, you'll be spared.

Polygamectomy

Word has it that the Brown family of 'TLC - Sister Wives' fame is moving to Nevada. Surely TLC is not promoting the family for a nightly Vegas-style show on the strip - - - ???

There will be the inevitable questions:

1. Are they fleeing Utah to escape imminent prosecution by Lehi's Keystone Kops?
2. Will the Utah County prosecutor seek to extradite the guy and four gals back to Provo for another Tom-Green-style trial circus?
3. Does Utah have the public funds for a protracted $10 million dollar war in three courts?
4. Will our compassionate, half-LDS society have the stomach for wrenching 16 kids from their loving parents (like it did with Heidi Mattingly)?
5. Is Utah's A.G. (and his Church-handlers) sighing an immense sigh of relief because this embarrassing, non-starter of an investigation can now be swept back under the carpet?
6. Has anyone read Nevada's bigamy statute, which can be used to prosecute bigamous cohabiters much like Utah's?
7. Are the Lehi Kops still scratching their heads over whether they have enough evidence of crimes in the Browns' home - or is all the evidence gone now?
8. Did someone call Jonathan Turley and offer to drop the prosecution in exchange for the Browns getting "out of Dodge"?

Methinks there will be more interesting developments as this story unfolds. Utah has simply become allergic to polygamists, but Claritin and Benadryl aren't helpful. One zit popped, 38,000 more to go.
 -------------------------------------------
Just one more thing -  if the Utah County prosecutor thinks he's going to dawdle and drag his feet forever,  hand-wringing ad infinitum whether to prosecute or not, won't the pretty, great people of this pretty, great State start to wonder if polyga-bigamy prosecutions are all about politics?

If polygamy is so HEINOUS, REPREHENSIBLE, DESPICABLE, HORRIFIC, INTOLERABLE, ODIOUS, WRETCHED and VILE, then why the HELL is it okay for a public servant to putz around interminably, and to sit on his thumbs puzzling over whether to prosecute in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence?  If it were a murder or child-kidnapping case, would you sit around for months, punting the ball back and forth with the Attorney General, making public statements that reveal that you are completely incapable of making up your mind?

Utah law enforcement has three options:

1.  Arrest the Browns and start a polygamy test case.
2.  Announce that Utah permanently refuses to enforce a law that Lawrence v. Texas clearly overturned.
3.  Waffle around endlessly and hope that the suspects and the news all go away.

You tell me which option you think they picked!  Tell me if you think that religion and politics are involved.

Just a Comment

This is just a comment - an observation. Yesterday, in the Canada polygamy reference case. Carolyn Jessop spent the day testifying about her experiences in plural marriage and in the Short Creek community. I have made remarks in the past about Carolyn's tendency to bend the truth, to embellish her horror stories, to fabricate events. That would be truly tempting when your very livelihood hinges on regularly generating narratives for the hungry public audience and the voracious tabloid media. To the detriment of the A.G.s, it appears that, yesterday, Carolyn went off script and called for the decriminalization of polygamy.  Carolyn was not alone.  A few weeks back, another disaffected "ex", Ruth Lane, also testified that polygamy should be decriminalized.

An intelligent observer commented a while back that polygamy is today's "civil rights" battle. I think back to Jimmy the "Greek" and Fuzzy Zoeller. Both made comments that were widely criticized as racist. Don Imus and Dr. Laura Schlessinger have both fallen into that same pit. It just is not acceptable any more to denigrate colored people. Before Ellen Degeneres, it was politically correct to disparage homosexuals. Do it today, and you will find yourself in a world of hurt.

In each of these last two scenarios, the delay in according "equality" to the respective minority was that an overwhelming majority of the populace wanted to keep that minority class in a disfavorable condition. Eventually, when the momentum crested, the public dialogue shifted, and you became the bad guy if you didn't get in "PC" step with the masses and call for emancipation. Often, the tenor of media messages is the element that adds to the impetus for change.

I am as far to the right end of the conservative political spectrum as a person could be. I champion orthodoxy and the preservation of true principles. If you think about it, polygamy has been around and approved by God at least as long as colored skin and homosexuality have been around.

Thank you, Carolyn, for saying what almost shouldn't need to be said - prosecuting polygamy is as non-viable as prosecuting flatulence. You can corral it into tight places; you can complain about it; you can despise it; you can try to stifle it; you can be embarrassed by it; but you can never eradicate it, short of death. When people from all sides of the dialogue are calling for reason and conciliation, the finish line cannot be far off.

Just a comment.

A Predictor

It has often been said that a powerful predictor of FUTURE conduct or outcomes is the conduct evidenced in the PAST.

In the Canada Polygamy Reference case, much has been said about the ills and harms of polygamy. For example:

Polygamy deprives many single men of a chance to mate
Polygamy makes men marry 13-year-old girls
Polygamy oppresses women
Polygamy causes incest
Polygamy drains welfare program funds
Polygamy is patriarchal and religious
Polygamy harms children
Polygamy is secretive
Polygamy hurts the government
Polygamy deprives its practitioners of education
Polygamy is inherently abusive
Polygamy is sinful
Polygamy threatens promiscuous people
Polygamy causes over-population
Polygamy causes wars
Polygamy makes men rape women
Polygamy makes men commit domestic violence and murder
Polygamy causes earthquakes . . . . - - ????

WAIT !! NO, I think that last one was added in error - sorry!

I think Canada is petrified. If Canada were to allow polygamy (like it has already done for the last 100 years), then it can surely expect the above harms to immediately erupt on a catastrophic scale. Not to mention the fact that hundreds of thousands of aspiring polygamists will storm across our northern border and practice polygamy brazenly. Life (as we know it) in Canada will grind to a halt, eh?

I just want to ask one question, though. If all these dreadful harms can be expected to occur imminently, wouldn't we base that assumption - that prediction - on previous crime statistics in the U.S., where some 38,000 believers still embrace biblical polygamy, and an estimated 50 million Americans openly practice recreational polygamy (thanks to the Lawrence v. Texas decision)?

If the most horrible kind of polygamy is the FUNDAMENTALIST MORMON kind, then let's look honestly at the statistics. Let's ask and tabulate the following (over the last 100 years):

How many polygamous men have been incarcerated for domestic violence?
How many polygamous men have been incarcerated for rape?
How many polygamous men have been incarcerated for incest?
How many polygamous men have been incarcerated for murder?
How many polygamous men have been incarcerated for sexual abuse of a child (and I'm not talking about "marriages" with 15-year-olds - which were acceptable in the Americas [for centuries] until the Shurtleffozoic era)?

I'm actually scratching my (very bald) head to think of more than even one or two such incarcerations in the last hundred years. Maybe you can think of one or two more . . .

I'm sincerely hoping that poor judge Robert Bauman won't pass out from all the fumes in the courtroom from all the glue that the anti-polygamy experts have been sniffing. I want him to be alert enough to see through the snow-job being foisted upon him.

SHURTLEFF'S WAR

If I hyper-reacted every time somebody on the Internet was wrong about something, - - well, you know. . . .

I can't resist this one, though. Today I read a preview of a new book on the following website. The author is Debra Weyermann. I haven't seen the book yet, so I don't know whether to be glad that somebody finally exposed Shurtleff's blatant, self-serving agenda, or to laugh at the hysterical assertions purportedly made in the book. My two-bit comments are inserted in ALL CAPS and [ . . . . ] brackets.

"The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has been notorious for more than a century. [NOT SURE HOW, SINCE IT WAS ONLY FOUNDED IN THE LATE 1980's.] Though its core tenant [IT'S "TENET", MY DEAR] of embracing multiple wives is illegal in every state [NO, IT'S NOT, YOU DIMWIT!], the sect flourished undeterred throughout the American west, Canada and Mexico [WHERE IN MEXICO?!], amassing enormous wealth even as its membership subsisted on tens of millions of welfare dollars [WHAT PROOF DOES SHE HAVE OF THIS?]. The public saw FLDS victims only sporadically when they escaped the sect with terrible stories of incest, rape, young girls battered bloody [NAME TWO BLOODY, BATTERED FLDS GIRLS, YOU IDIOT!!] for refusing to marry old men and even murder. Yet authorities intimidated by FLDS's substantial block[SIC] vote and fearful of becoming the target of religious bigotry accusations refused to act. It seemed FLDS was invincible, until Mark Shurtleff was elected Utah's attorney general in 2000. A Mormon himself, Shurtleff engaged in no hand wringing over the religious rights [NO, HE'S NOT A FAN OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT] of a sect he considered a criminal cult. Using dazzling [I'M NOT DAZZLED] legal maneuvers, audacious persuasion and plain brute force [NO KIDDING !!!], Shurtleff faced down FLDS "blood oath" death threats and the powers of the status quo as he took the group apart piece by piece [I MUST HAVE MISSED THE TAKING APART STUFF]. His victories convinced the authorities in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico [NEW MEXICO !!!???], Colorado, Nevada and even Canada that tackling FLDS did not have to be a pipe dream as they joined Shurtleff's innovative and mostly [YEAH, NOT-COMPLETELY-]legal crusade. Today FLDS's $120 million trust has been seized and liquidated [WHEN WAS IT LIQUIDATED?], its businesses auctioned off, its school districts and police forces dismantled, its property dispersed and its leaders jailed. In SHURTLEFF'S WAR, award-winning journalist and author Debra Weyermann reveals the powerful, unknown [YEP, I KNEW NOTHING BEFORE THIS BOOK!] story of a man who risked everything [EXCEPT HIS POLITICAL CAREER] to do what was right [HOW WAS IT RIGHT ???]. A legal thriller, a detective story and an action-laced gambit, SHURTLEFF'S WAR is also the portrait of a complicated [NOW, THAT'S A EUPHEMISM !!!] man who defied [DEFIED !!!! - YOU MEAN "OBEYED"] his own church and state government to put an end to a sect (WHERE DID IT END ???] that has dotted American history with murder [WHO MURDERED WHOM IN SHORT CREEK?] and scandal for 100 years."

I think Debra Weyermann's middle name must be Krakauer.

Finally, I am including this LINK to a video made by Mark Shurtleff, where he makes an impassioned plea for the release of Warren Jeffs, arguing that Warren is just as much a man, just as worthy of full citizenship as he, Shurtleff is. He urges the disadvantaged to come together and use "the system" to fight for justice. Maybe you'll see the irony, too.

I wish that when I get to the pearly gates I could bring with me a book detailing my war on the Saints and on the everlasting doctrines restored by Joseph Smith . . . . .

The Gauntlet

Well, the gauntlet has been thrown down. You may have noticed the press coverage over the last two days regarding Kody Brown and his family. Kody and his three (soon-to-be four) wives have a TLC channel reality TV series premiering in late September. They seem like a nice, well-balanced family, so some of the negative comments to news articles seem particularly mean-spirited. There appears to be a contingent of nay-saying parade-rainers who are so desperate to disparage polygamists, that they have been able to compile an immense list of complaints and criticisms about the show months before it even airs. Negative energy or not, these whiners will have to face the likelihood that this show, "SISTER WIVES" -- see 'BIG LOVE' FOR REAL IN LEHI will be an immediate ratings success, and will likely draw an audience hungry for successive seasons.

Face it - negative reactions to and media coverage of the show will inevitably add to, rather than subtract from, the show's popularity and success.

If there is one BIG FAT IRONY in this matter, it is the fact that, were Kody and his family to go to West Texas, they would, presumably, end up in Barbarous Wartthug's circus/court facing a possible 10-year Bigamy sentence (for purporting to marry, or living under "the appearance of being married") just like Wendell Nielsen will next month. BUT NO - - - - - - -

No, I can see Shurtleff on TV, reasserting the AG's policy of pursuing only crimes against children and the LDS Church, but not CONSENTING ADULTS. He craftily left it to Texas to charge people with fantasy crimes - crimes like pretending to marry and performing pretend weddings in one's living room.

Am I the only one who sees the exquisite absurdity in this farce? While Schwarzenegger calls out for the resumption of legal gay marriages, Texas is busy prosecuting a guy for having ladies in his life who are not his legal wife, and a Utah man will invite cameras into his home to film his many wives/bed-partners, while millions of drooling voyeurs look on. The Mormon Church must be writhing in its fast-approaching grave. Might anti-polygamy sentiment soon be going the way of anti-gay passions?

Oh, Mark, what will you do?
----------------------------------------------------------

Hand In Cookie Jar

I am adding a follow-up comment to the previous Jeffs conviction reversal blogpost.

A closer read of the Utah Supreme Court opinion reveals that the Court adamantly disagreed with the prosecution's theory arguing that Jeffs was guilty of being an accomplice to rape.

From the start of this case, it was evident that Shurtleff, DuPaix, Fischer, Hoole and company were NOT sincerely interested in nailing Allen Steed. They were so driven to target Warren Jeffs, that nothing else mattered. If anyone seriously believed that Allen Steed was a "rapist" for marrying his young cousin, then no one really followed through. To this day, nothing has happened in the Steed rape case (and it probably won't). This was all about twisting, bending, tweaking, torquing, contorting, plying, manipulating and contriving the accomplice liability standard, in order to ensnare Warren Jeffs.

Problem is - they messed up! The Court articulately reprimands the State for contriving a theory of guilt which misinterprets the Utah statute. The State complains that Jeffs held a position of "special" trust in Wall's life. True - no one disagrees. The problem with this reasoning is that, if Steed was the real rapist - the real "actor", then we must ask if Steed was the one who held a position of special trust (and he didn't). The other problem is that, in order for accomplice liability to be met, Jeffs would have had to satisfy ALL of the following three elements:

1. He would have had to have a (mens rea) desire that a "rape" occur.
2. He would have had to exercise that "desire" by acting, coaxing, fomenting, assisting the rape to occur.
3. The actual crime of rape has to have been shown to have been committed (which it wasn't).

The Court observed that the State failed to show that element #1, INTENT, truly occurred. The Court also points out that the State completely BUNGLED its identification of the DEFENDANT (Jeffs) and the [alleged] ACTOR (Steed). The State was so blinded by its thirst to target Jeffs, that it forgot to cleanly distinguish between the two parties - Actor and Defendant, oftentimes treating Jeffs as the Actor, when he plainly was not the Actor (rapist), thus conflating the two.

This is the simplest explanation I can give of some of the legal logic behind the reversal. What is also fascinating is that Shurtleff announced today that he likely will not seek a re-trial, partly because, if the previous contortion of the jury instructions was ineffective (unconstitutional!), then no amount of legal acrobatics will get those jury instructions to work at a new trial. Furthermore, if this witch hunt had not been disingenuous in the first place, wouldn't Shurtleff be racing to the U.S. Supreme Court to get it to overrule this Utah decision which so "disappointed" him?

What I find truly pathetic is Shurtleff's remark that he will perhaps go "back to the legislature" and try to get some legislation that will more successfully focus on this type of crime. Maybe he wants to get the Utah legislature to modify the Constitution so that it can better attack Warren Jeffs. Wasn't Shurtleff satisfied when he rammed through his pet (hugely unConstitutional and NEVER-USED) "Child Bigamy" statute? Wasn't he satisfied when he wooed Texas's legislature into adjusting its laws to directly attack the FLDS? The Court made it perfectly clear that you cannot be classed as an accomplice to crime merely because you did a certain thing - just as a homeowner cannot be charged as an accomplice to burglary simply for forgetting to lock his doors. DUUUUUUHHHHH !!!!!!

Plus, Texas is itching to get its hands on Jeffs. Utah has to hurry up and decide if it wants to waste years and $$$millions on a pointless re-trial, or let Jeffs go home a free man. If justice doesn't always work, karma and poetic irony sure do help out sometimes.

In a further irony, a Texas man was recently convicted of molesting a 13-year-old girl whom he also impregnated (when she was 15). The man got a sentence of two years of probation! I have to ask myself if he should not have been subject to Hildy Harferbrain's (79-year) sentencing enhancement by virtue of the fact that the pair were "legally not able to marry".

Perhaps Texas will soon have the "Yellow Egg Of Texas" all over its face, just as Utah got its little red hands caught in the proverbial cookie jar.

Go Christine !!!!! Go Wally !!!!!

Would You Lie?

Every one of us has lied at some point in our lives. It's unavoidable. We want to avoid getting in trouble. "I'm sorry, officer, I didn't see the 35 mph sign." "Sorry, sir, my dog ate my homework."

Would you lie to your wife about where you were till 1 a.m.? Would you lie to the IRS about how much cash income you received last year?

Would you lie in a court of law?
Would you give false testimony to get a lighter sentence for yourself?
Would you lie about a defendant out of mere spite?
Would you falsify medical records to mislead a jury (see the movie, "The Verdict", [with Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling and James Mason])?

I get the feeling that a decent sized group of people really despises Warren Jeffs - maybe for his religion or maybe for his leadership or personality. Either way, I think certain individuals hate him so much that they have staked their careers and reputations and self-worth on destroying him. They wish him harm. They would dance on his grave. They would relish hurting or annihilating him. They would conspire to cook up an elaborate scheme of lies and deceit if it could bring sorrow and torment upon him. This can perhaps be attributed to their lust for revenge for things they (or their friends) allege he has done to them, or is it simply because they have an uncontrollable hatred for POLYGAMY (the marriage model that gave them life)?

If enough time goes by, even the most stalwart haters will realize they have gone too far. Hopefully, the pangs of conscience have stricken midwife, Jane Blackmore, and, after years of not being able to sleep, she will fess up that she and her posse, the Hooligans and their puppet plaintiffs, cooked up phony miscarriages and a miscarriage of justice.

The A.G.'s Office said it learned of the development from the Arizona county attorney prosecuting Jeffs, noting that according to his report "it is possible that Elissa -- either wittingly or unwittingly -- helped the midwife in re-creating the records." (from a SL Tribune article by Brooke Adams)
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14891690

Now, as I have said before, I am not perfect, and, presumably, neither is Warren Jeffs. However, nobody should lie in a trial to get any person imprisoned for life just to further a campaign of spite or revenge.

I am gratified that Utah A.G., Mark Shurtleff has had the (C.Y.A.) fortitude to come forward and face up to the new developments:

" . . . . given the potential exculpatory—impeachment—nature of the information, if Jeffs requests it, the State would not oppose a stay of the appeal and a remand to the trial court for the purpose of developing a factual record on these allegations, and thereafter to further briefing and argument as warranted."
(from a notice filed by deputy A.G., Laura DuPaix)
http://166.70.44.68/blogs/plurallife/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/JeffsNotice-1.pdf

Oh boy! This house of cards smells like it is about to tumble down spectacularly. Can you say "N-E-W T-R-I-A-L"? I can see it now - ELIESsa Wall on the witness stand - - - -

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Elissa, did you have sex with other boys before your wedding with Allen?

ELISSA: Uh, Um, Uh, I don't remember, I was too innocent to understand what was happening to me.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Did you claim (to Jane Blackmore) that you had had miscarriages during your marriage to Allen that really did not happen?

ELISSA: Uh, Um, Uh, I don't remember, I'm too innocent to know what a miscarriage is.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Did you fabricate your story so that you and the Hooles could extort a large amount of money from the FLDS people?

ELISSA: Uh, Um, Uh, I don't remember, I'm too innocent to know what money is.

So here is Renn's prayer:

I pray that all the legal officials, A.G.s, lawyers, attorneys, judges, jurors, witnesses, accusers, clerks, sheriffs, police officers, and everyone who had or has anything to do with Warren Jeffs' court cases will realize that, even though our President and the Congress have in their bag "diverse weights and measures", we should all tell the truth and not distort it, especially when these charges involve lengthy prison terms. I pray that Warren Jeffs will have the opportunity to be vindicated - especially since he had NOTHING WHATSOEVER with arranging Allen Steed's marriage to Elissa Wall.

Pick me, Renn, to be on the jury for the new trial, because I will acquit him faster than you can say "Brute Wisass".

Would you lie?

Barbie Gets Her Way

Today the trial began for Raymond Jessop. He is charged with bigamy and sexual assault of a 16-year old (his wife of now five years). I want to go out on a philosophical limb, so I'll understand if some of you more vehement detractors want to excoriate me, but hear me out, and see if I make any sense.

I personally have not married any minors, and I think that most American girls are poorly equipped for the rigors of marriage - let alone plural marriage - at the tender age of 18. I shall invite my teenage daughters to choose carefully and seek inspiration when it comes to choosing a spouse. I have a friend who lives in the Czech Republic - a western European country of mostly Caucasian Christians. He laughs at American hypocrisy. In the Czech Republic, if a man has sex with a girl under 15, he will go to prison. After 15, there are no constraints.

I Googled the U.S. state ages of consent and found the following:

	Alabama	16
	Alaska	16
	Arizona	18
	Arkansas	16
	California	18
	Colorado	17
	Connecticut	16
	D.C.	16
	Delaware	18
	Florida	18
	Georgia	16
	Hawaii	16
	Idaho	18
	Illinois	17
	Indiana	16
	Iowa	16
	Kansas	16
	Kentucky	16
	Louisiana	17
	Maine	16
	Maryland	16
	Massachusetts	16
	Michigan	16
	Minnesota	16
	Mississippi	16
	Missouri	17
	Montana	16
	Nebraska	17
	Nevada	16
	New Hampshire	16
	New Jersey	16
	New Mexico	17
	New York	17
	North Carolina	16
	North Dakota	18
	Ohio	16
	Oklahoma	16
	Oregon	18
	Pennsylvania	16
	Rhode Island	16
	South Carolina	16
	South Dakota	16
	Tennessee	18
	Texas	17
	Utah	18
	Vermont	16
	Virginia	18
	Washington	16
	West Virginia	16
	Wisconsin	18
	Wyoming	18

In 2005, Texas' legal marriage consent age was 14. Mark Shurtleff went to Texas and, with Harvey Hilderbran's help, he persuaded the Texas legislature to raise the age of consent (for sex) to 17. What else could Shurtleff have been doing other than trying to ensnare the FLDS people, since he knew that they had a tradition of sometimes marrying earlier than the rest of society?

Could someone help me to understand why today's promiscuous society feels that it has somehow sanitized itself by viewing young marriages as rape, sexual assault and pedophilia, and raising the age of a licensed marriage? The U.S. has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world, and Texas has the highest teen birthrate in the nation (with 24% of those births being a second pregnancy).

My point is this - a significant number of U.S. states are happy to allow not only marriages for 16-year-olds, but also unmarried sex at 16. Since Raymond Jessop is not legally married to the girl in question, his alleged crime is sexual assault. But what if the marriage (and conception) occurred in a venue other than Texas? And what if it occurred when Texas' age of consent was 14?

Again, I am no fan of "arranged" marriages, and I don't encourage marriages with minors, but most Bible scholars will assert that Jesus was born to Mary when she was 15 or younger. Would that make our Heavenly Father a child-molester? Most of this marriage-age stuff is based on time-honored, cultural and religious traditions, and state interference in marriage age patterns is a relatively modern innovation, fraught with political implications and posturing.

I think that this series of scheduled bigamy/sexual assault trials is a naked and inexcusable attack on the people of the FLDS Church. I would not be surprised if it were driven by a need for retaliation for the horrible embarrassment suffered by Texas CPS as a result of the shameless raid and kidnappings of April, 2008.

It was not long ago that attorney Rodney Parker argued in behalf of Rodney Holm that his informal marriage to (16-year-old) Ruth Stubbs should have been considered just as legally permissible and binding as if it had been legally licensed. The court disagreed. Later, however, in the Utah Supreme court hearing of Holm's appeal, deputy attorney general Laura DuPaix argued passionately to Chief Justice Durham that the union between Holm and Stubbs absolutely WAS A MARRIAGE !!! (in order to preserve the "bigamy" conviction).

Here's the paradoxical hypocrisy of this situation - the State adamantly argues that the relationship is not a bona fide marriage, so that it can advance the assertion that the crime of "unlawful sex with a minor" was committed. Then, a few minutes or days later, the State fervently argues that the relationship absolutely IS A MARRIAGE, so that it can charge the defendant with having committed the crime of bigamy (getting two or more marriages). Try using that kind of twisted, contradictory logic in an argument with a teenager and see how far you get !!! The State (Utah AND Texas) wants to have its cake and eat it, too.

If you are not convinced that this is a usurpation of the justice system, then you are as wicked and inebriated with your own hubris as is Barbie.

My sincerest prayers go with Raymond and his family(ies).

Renn

If the shoe fits . . . .

Yes, I know you are all going to accuse me of being an inveterate cynic. A good friend pointed out an exquisite irony to me yesterday.

Harry Reid, a Mormon U.S. Senator, is pushing for a Federal Task Force to crack down on polygamist "organizations", partly because of allegations of sexual conduct with underage girls, and allegations of church interference with local law enforcement activities. Well, read this [from the Provo Daily Herald] (then read my previous post):

A Utah County LDS seminary principal was arrested Thursday [July 9, 2009] for having an alleged sexual relationship with a student.

Police say Michael Pratt, 37, engaged in a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl for the last several months. Until his arrest, Pratt was principal of the Lone Peak High School LDS seminary, where the girl was a student.

Sgt. Matt Higley, with the Utah County Sheriff's Office, said the alleged sexual abuse came to light after an individual contacted the state Division of Child and Family Services, who contacted the police. Officers then interviewed the girl, who Higley said was apprehensive about talking to police, but divulged significant details about the relationship.

"The sexual relationship, we know, started sometime around the beginning of May of this year," he said.

How the relationship began is still being investigated. According to a police affidavit, Pratt took the girl to various locations around Utah County to engage in sexual acts. The couple allegedly met in a ravine and an unoccupied home near the girl's house, at a boxcar in Provo Canyon, Rock Canyon, Pleasant Grove, American Fork, Goshen and in a mine near Eureka. According to the report, Pratt was brazen in his public meeting with the girl at the warm springs near Goshen.

"Also at this location, they were skinny dipping and someone was watching him from their car," the officer stated in the report. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Maybe it's time for Harry Reid to focus his "Federal Task Force" microscope on the venerable corporate church organization he represents in his dual, political/ecclesiastical role as High Priest Senator. After all, at least as much sexual molestation and law enforcement meddling per capita likely occurs in his church as in the Fundamentalist Mormon world.

On a related note, in February of 2003, Utah AG, Mark Shurtleff, shepherded the passage of a "child-bigamy" amendment (to Utah's existing bigamy statute). The bill (HB 307) was lauded as a powerful answer to the rampant (?) "child-bride" problem in the sinister world of polygamy. Three guesses as to how many prosecutions have ensued in the last six years . . . .

1. None

2. Zero

3. All of the above

Will the Child-Bigamy law not be applied to Michael Pratt's crime because he is not a FUNDAMENTALIST Mormon, and the law was crafted to target only FUNDAMENTALIST Mormons?

Harry Reid is a Jerk

Did I ever mention that Harry Reid is a jerk? Last July, Harry Reid held a Senate hearing about polygamists. A number of polygamists flew to DC to participate, but Reid wouldn't let any of them speak. So much for "DO NOTHING ABOUT US WITHOUT US" !!!

Reid has announced that he will be reviving his efforts to create a national federal task force to crack down on the crimes associated with polygamy. What are the "crimes associated with polygamy"?

Bigamy?
Child Bigamy?
Welfare Fraud?
Money Laundering?
Tax Fraud?

I know this post isn't especially scholarly, but it seems to me that we already have laws addressing those crimes, and Shurtleff and crew have been vigorously cracking down for some eight years, haven't they?

I was watching the Safety Net meeting online last week, and some guy asked the Workforce Services representatives if they are able to accurately determine if the people in Colorado City and Hildale are abusing welfare programs? The officials stated that they monitor every application for accuracy, and are aware of no special problems with abuse or over-use of assistance programs in that area.

In Reid's proposed bill, he talks about polygamous communities being "criminal" organizations. What is a criminal organization? Is that like Al-Qaeda or something? I know that corporations are, in a sense, fictitious persons, and can have standing in a court of law, but an "organization" is an abstract concept, so how can it commit a crime? Reid is an idiot. People commit crimes - not organizations! That would be like saying, "That awful church shot me in the leg!" ABSURD !!! Reid must be trying to say that polygamists are criminals, so, if they organize in some way, then their organizations are criminal. What an idiot! He wants to go after anyone who is "associated" with polygamists, or who is "related" to a polygamist. Heck, it's a good thing he's not going after every Utahn who is descended from a polygamist!

I don't know why more people aren't protesting this ridiculous, bigoted bill. There are supposedly 37,000 fundapolygamentalists in the U.S., but I bet there are 11 million illegal Hispanic aliens in this country. I'll give you three guesses as to which group commits more crimes, collects more welfare dollars, and impregnates more teenagers. Some Hispanics are criminals. Some Hispanics form organizations like LA RAZA. According to Reid's contorted logic, LA RAZA would be a "criminal" organization (subject to RICO statutes like the MAFIA). Why is Reid not forming a task force to crack down on crimes in Latino communities? Latinos are in far more U.S. cities than polygamists are. Last I heard, the Latino population of Idaho is approaching 25%, and they seem to be reproducing faster than polygamists.

Lastly, what is all this CRAP about providing assistance for women and children "FLEEING" polygamist communities? By my last count, we have:

Hope for the Child Brides
Help the Child Brides
Child Protection Project
The Diversity Foundation
Tapestry Against Polygamy
Travesty of Bigamy
Rescuing the Reluctant
Americans Against Religious Freedom (AARF)
Conniving Canadians
Busybodies International
Reid's Rescue Rangers
- and too many others to mention . . . . .

My guess is that there are so few people "FLEEING" polygamous relationships, that these support organizations don't have enough fleeing escapees to go around. After the military assault on the YFZ ranch in Eldorado, I count ZERO women and children who are trying to "FLEE" that community.

If Reid thinks that crimes in "polygamy" are a drain on our precious economy, why do we want to appropriate millions more dollars to fund more wasteful, un-Constitutional government programs to tackle polygamy?

In 2019, we will be paying $865 billion per year just to cover the interest on the federal debts we are currently running up. Doctrine and Covenants (section 87) has the words - "....until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations." Maybe Warren Jeffs isn't so wrong about stuff, after all.

Renn sings the Blues

I was pleased to find a well-reasoned counterpoint to the assertions I have made in some of my posts. The author is a certain TXBluesMan. I can tell he is a smart guy. He is vigorous in his defense of the Reynolds decision. I wonder if he would be equally defensive of Davis v. Beason. He makes some intelligent points about Utah's conviction of Warren Jeffs, insisting that the legal reasoning behind the prosecution's "rape-as-an-accomplice" strategy was based in sound statutory language. If he is right, then Jeffs' appeal will not succeed. I still think that the vigorously anti-FLDS prosecution team had to get very creative in concocting an unprecedented, contorted line of reasoning to achieve a conviction, in concert with a globally-tainted jury pool (not unlike the bizarre statute-of-limitations logic used in the Tom Green conviction).

I believe TXBluesMan has done his homework. I believe he genuinely dislikes the practice of polygamy and the Fundamentalist Mormon communities. I honor every American's right to find that lifestyle repugnant, just as I cherish my right to practice it. TXBluesMan insists that we "change the law" and then reassures us that we stand no chance of getting the SCOTUS to overturn Reynolds. I believe that Lawrence v. Texas (June 26, 2003) DID effectively overturn Reynolds. Reynolds says that you can believe what you want, but that the State can step in if what you are doing under the guise of religion (like drinking hallucinogenic tea in a religious ceremony) goes against the State's wishes. TXBluesMan is therefore utterly content that the State of Utah condones promiscuous polygamous copulation among tens of thousands of Utah citizens, but criminalizes such conduct when - a) it is not promiscuous, and b) the actors believe in the theologies of Mormonism.

TXBluesMan, Mark Shurtleff, Thomas S. Monson, many Utahns and probably millions of Latter-day Saints ostensibly DREAD the prospect of a test case making its way to the Supreme Court to invoke Lawrence v. Texas (and Lukumi), to overturn Reynolds and to decriminalize consensual adult, non-legal, cohabitational polyga-bigamy - which is exactly why Utah law-enforcement officials INDIGNANTLY refrain from prosecuting the tens of thousands of polygamists openly walking the streets.

In some ways, I think this whole situation is a bit silly. Utah has laws against public profanity, but Lord Jerry Sloan (UTAH JAZZ coach) gets a waiver.

Alabama has a law against shooting an animal from a moving vehicle (unless it is a whale). STUPID LAWS ARE STUPID LAWS. I know it, and TXBluesMan knows it. He just wants to take an extremely contrary position, because he harbors a deep dislike of our culture and lifestyle. I will fight to the death to defend his right to believe that way, and I am copying his review of my blog below. (Renn)
-------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, February 28, 2009
The Fall of Reynolds? Not Hardly...

There is a new blogger out there using the name Renn Oldsbuster and the blog is named The Fall of Reynolds, an apparent reference to Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). Many of the pro-FLDS types are going ga-ga over his posts, primarily because he agrees with them. It is certainly not because he has a good grasp of the law...

Lets take a look at some of his posts. We'll start with Warren Jeffs - Innocent? In this post, he is under the mistaken impression that accomplice means something other than what the legal definition is. He states:

However, you and I both know that an "accomplice to rape" has to be proximally involved in the rape act - either by physically holding the victim down, or by barring the door so as to prevent his or her escape.

Uh, Renn? That is not exactly the case. Utah Code Ann. Sec. 76-2-202 states:

Every person, acting with the mental state required for the commission of an offense who directly commits the offense, who solicits, requests, commands, encourages, or intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct which constitutes an offense shall be criminally liable as a party for such conduct.

That's what constitutes an accomplice. In State v. Biggs, 197 P.3d 628 (Utah 2008), the Utah Supreme Court stated (at pp. 631-632):

"To show that a defendant is guilty under accomplice liability, the State must show that an individual acted with both the intent that the underlying offense be committed and the intent to aid the principal actor in the offense."

So then we must look at the Utah Rape statute (Utah Code Ann. Sec. 76-5-402). It states that "A person commits rape when the actor has sexual intercourse with another person without the victim's consent." OK, let's look at consent, defined under Utah Code Ann. Sec. 76-5-406, remembering that the victim was 14 years old at the time of the so-called marriage.

An act of ... rape ... is without consent of the victim under any of the following circumstances: ... the actor knows that the victim submits or participates because the victim erroneously believes that the actor is the victim's spouse...

OK, in Nevada, where Jeffs performed the sealing, there is no common-law marriage, you must have a license (which they did not have). To obtain a license for someone under the age of 16, you must have a court order (which they did not have). Since they were not legally married, but the victim "erroneously" believed that they were, that is enough to prove the crime of rape in Utah. In addition, Jeffs actively encouraged that belief, both in performing the sealing and that she was to give herself to her so-called husband "mind, body and soul."

There is clearly sufficient evidence for the 12 jurors to find Jeffs guilty. In addition, despite some people's contrary views, if Steed is acquitted as the principle in the rape charge, that doesn't do anything for Jeffs on appeal - see Standifer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980) which stated (at p. 20) that "all participants in conduct violating a federal criminal statute are "principals." As such, they are punishable for their criminal conduct; the fate of other participants is irrelevant." Utah law is no different.

Obviously Oldsbuster doesn't see it that way, but as a long term associate of convicted polygamist Tom Green ("I know Tom Green pretty well...") I would tend to think that he might be a little biased...

As to his main thrust, the Fall of Reynolds, he seeks to explain his position on why Reynolds is not good case law. First, he misstates the background of the SCOTUS decision by Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite as being "summarily" decided. This is clearly a position that is out of touch with reality and the history of the case.

For one thing, polygamy laws were merely one of the weapons that the Federal Government was going to use to bring a treasonable population under Federal authority. One must remember that Brigham Young and 65 other prominent Mormons were indicted for Treason in 1857-58, and only the Mormon capitulation prevented their later arrest and trial, with President Buchanan pardoning the indicted Mormons. This had been a consistent thorn in the side of the Federal government, with the treason case in 1838 failing due to the defendants fleeing the jurisdiction, the 1844 case failing with the death of Joseph Smith prior to prosecution, and the 1858 case ending in a settlement. In 1870, eight "Nauvoo Legion" officers were arrested for treason. Up to the trial of George Reynolds for bigamy/polygamy, the Mormons had opposed the role of the Federal government in almost every aspect. One of the Mormon bishops had gone as far to tell a San Francisco newspaper that "Utah will be admitted as a polygamous State, and the other Territories that we have peacefully subjugated will be admitted also. We will then hold the balance of power, and will dictate to the country." (see Sarah B. Gordon, The Mormon Question, 2002). The Feds didn't much care for this for obvious reasons, especially the fact that both Smith and Young had stated that they were "a king." (Smith in 1844, Young in 1870)

Much like the way the Federal government later used the RICO statute against the Mafia, they used the polygamy laws against the semi-rebellious Mormons. What came of this as far as Constitutional law came from another source.

Justice Waite was well known for his scholarly research, and it was this that turned the initial vote from 5-4 to a 9-0 per curiam decision. Waite had contacted the most prominent historian of the day, Dr. George Bancroft (and author of History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States of America). One of the key points that Waite noted was that within one year of Virginia passing their religious freedom bill on which the Free Exercise Clause is based is that the Legislature passed the Anti-Polygamy Statute of King James I, and in which polygamy was defined as a capital offense.

Justice Waite, taking to heart the writings of the Founding Fathers and the key issue of the Free Exercise Clause, put it perfectly in his opinion, when he stated (Reynolds, at p. 165):

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."

Remember, when he began writing the opinion, he only had 5 of the 9 justices voting to affirm. Once they saw the outstanding job that he did, it became a unanimous decision.

Next, Oldsbuster states that there was "really no juridical [sic] briefing" which is flat out false. George W. Biddle (Reynolds attorney) submitted a 63 page brief, outlining a strong argument for overturning the conviction on First Amendment grounds. The government brief was 8 pages.

Finally, the court has shown no indication that it will back down from this position. In every single case attacking bigamy or polygamy statutes on Free Exercise grounds, exactly zero have succeeded...
 
Posted by TxBluesMan at 8:01 AM