You may find the complete document here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60242003/Kody-Brown-Sister-Wives-Polygamy-Lawsuit-Jonathan-Turley
It is a must read. It is far to long to put on here. If you'd like to download it, please subscribe to the Scribd Account for free.
** A reminder that 3 of the Brown Bankruptcies are also on this site.
Happy Reading!
Tweet
Did you see turleys response on the bin laden thing?
ReplyDeletehttp://jonathanturley.org/
Yes, Jonathan Turley, the pre-eminent advocate for free speech is going to sue another lawyer for exercising her right to free speech.
ReplyDeleteHypocrite much ?
The Browns are so lucky to have him represent them. they are doing tis so their children may live a free life as a polygamist. It's been putting them through hell, but Kody will do anything for his children. Meri and Janelle are particulary upset.
ReplyDeleteThis way, his girls won't have to live in fear. His boys won't have to fear not supporting thier children and being in jail. I say, go for it! It's not hurting us.
Excuse me, but they can't seem to decide in the press WHAT they are suing for. To have the ability to go in and out of state without arrest? Or for Religious Freedom of Polygamy? they change their mind everytime they talk. What does everyone else think? This will get nowhere, but it's just the beginning of their planned fight. Sadly, I can see Logan carrying the torch.
ReplyDeleteWhere is that commenter that was an attorney? WHAT EXACTLY are they going for?
ReplyDeleteWhy can't the courts prove that this was a premeditated course of action by the Browns and others involved; they talked of a test case, being charged, they looked for a netwrok to pick them up; then ran, but released statements to the contrary? This was not thought out well.
ReplyDeleteTurley writes on his personal blog about how he intends to argue the case before the court:
“We believe that this case represents the strongest factual and legal basis for a challenge to the criminalization of polygamy ever filed in the federal courts. We are not demanding the recognition of polygamous marriage. We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs. This action seeks to protect one of the defining principles of this country, what Justice Louis Brandeis called ‘the right to be left alone.’ In that sense, it is a challenge designed to benefit not just polygamists but all citizens who wish to live their lives according to their own values – even if those values run counter to those of the majority in the state.
Lana226 -
ReplyDeleteYou have pointed out exactly why the case will not be heard in Utah or in the Supreme Court. The Browns are not being prosecuted for polygamy, so they have no right to bring a case before the courts, they know it and Jonathan Turley knows it. This is a publicity stunt. Unless Kody takes an underage girl as his new wife he will not be prosecuted.
The Browns know that that polygamists will not be prosecuted using the bigamy / cohabitation laws in Utah unless someone is coerced into a polygamous marriage, or someone allows their child to enter underage polygamous marriage, or someone enters an incestuous polygamous marriage. Glad that the owner of this blog is attentive and willing to spend the time to expose what is really going on with this family.
Janelle Kody said : "Kody will do anything for his children."
ReplyDeleteReally Janelle ? Why did he force them to make a temporary move to Las Vegas for a publicity stunt to flee an imaginary prosecution ? Kids don't like being dragged out of school and away from their friends to accommodate a publicity stunt.
Agree with you Friend of Flora, for this to work the Browns have to prove fear of prosecution, but Christine has already undercut that argument with her appearance in a YouTube video saying she is unafraid, because Utah's AG has clearly stated he won't prosecute polygamy per se, only other crimes in polygamous families, such as underage marriages or child abuse. Additionally, the document filed also claims that the Browns "fled" Utah because of fear of prosecution - another lie, because the Browns are again shown on camera stating that they had already planned a move to Las Vegas, so there was no 'flight' involved- just concocted for the Sister Wives show, for added drama. (Pity it upset their children so much in the process.) Does any one have evidence of why Meri lost her job? Turley claims it was because of the legal proceedings against the Browns, but I have read somewhere that her company was afraid of the loss of client confidentiality, on account of all the publicity linked to the TV show.
ReplyDeleteMeri Brown lost her job after appearing on the show. (Hollywood life)
ReplyDeletefirst wife Meri lost her job in the mental health field after the reality show exposed her as a polygamist. (Celeb Bitchy)
The fallout continues for the Brown family of TLC’s “Sister Wives.”
After the cable television series debuted Sept. 26, Meri Brown, of Lehi, lost her job.
“They felt that they needed to protect the company, I think,” Meri said in an episode of “The Oprah Winfrey Show” that aired Thursday. “It actually makes me really sad because I loved my job. It breaks my heart, definitely. ... But I understand where they’re coming from.”
(Salt Lake Tribune)
A polygamist family has to go to the trouble of having makeshift apts., which means 3 of everything, stoves, fridges, etc., to get welfare benefits and save their hides from living together, yet they live together. But on Christine's Bankruptcy papers, and other papers, she has stated she lives at X address, and her companion lives at X address, The exact same address. On the Bankruptcy papers, she says she is a single mom of 5, living alone, states she is on welfare. THEN it states that Kody Brown, a companion, lives at the SAME address, and pays the house pmt., (she calls it rent) utilites, etc.
ReplyDeleteI see a problem with this. Obviously they are living together. If anyone checked, this is not rent, it's a mortgage payment. If they clearly state they are living together, then his income should be attached to any welfare papers (which obviously they weren't or she wouldn't get the welfare). If they looked at who lived in the home, then all incomes should be added.
So why do no officials simply read the documents and put 2 and 2 together? Isn't that fraud? I may be wrong, that's just how I see it.
It is fraud and the state of Utah could pursue the Browns if they want to do so but they will not. Many polygamist families in Utah engage in the same type of shenanigans it is called "bleeding the beast"
ReplyDeleteSISTER WIVES SUING
ReplyDeleteKody Brown and his four wives, stars of "Sister Wives" on TLC, are challenging the Utah law that makes their lifestyle illegal. (Illegal, but downright riveting TV.)
The state can't prosecute people for private relationships, the family's attorney, Jonathan Turley, plans to argue.
Kody and his clan, including wives Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn and all of their 16 children, fled Utah in the middle of the night earlier this year after police and prosecutors launched a polygamy investigation.
Read more: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/07/19/2107877/stargazing-new-star-for-csi-comic.html#ixzz1SclZpdIK
FLED in the middle of the night? They only got 6 miles!!!!
I had already read them, but thank you for putting them on here.
ReplyDeleteThis case has many legal problems as many commentators have pointed out. How do they have standing when they have not been prosecuted? The legal answer: they don't. It is also a legal problem that they are not residents of Utah. It is still another problem for their suit that they have made their lifestyle public while suing over their so-called "right to privacy". (And there is no such thing as a private marriage. Even polygamists who insulate themselves still make it known to outsiders that they have "wives", not mistresses.) And it is a problem that they have stated that they don't want to be legally married, but at the same time they want to strike down the law that makes their relationship illegal. Also, they argue that they are being unfairly discriminated against because other sexual relationships are allowed. This is untrue because in Utah adultery and fornication are both Class B misdemeanors. Like polygamy, those crimes are not pursued unless there are other issues involved such as an adulterer who fails to support the child born of the relationship or a fornicator who spreads AIDS. If you are confused by the whole suit, it is not because you are ignorant of the laws, it is because the attorney does not have a case. I believe that there are ulterior motives, but I am not sure what they are. Maybe it is all just a publicity stunt.
ReplyDeleteActually, adultery and fornication are not prosecuted nowadays, but the laws remain on the books as a statement of our morality. A majority of states have such laws, and those states that do not have such laws simply don't need them. It is not because those states think that adultery and fornication are Ok.
ReplyDeleteI have read the dissent in the case that Turley relies on and I am even more amazed that he thinks he has a case. Here is an excerpt from Justice Scalia's opinion:
"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts--or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them--than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that "later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress," ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best."
POWER TO THE PEOPLE, NOT THE COURTS.
What would we do without people like Female Attorney keeping everything lined out for us? Thank you!
ReplyDeleteYou go Mr. Turley! Let's make Polygamy legal. And make them support their own, in the same house or not.!!!!!! Just like the rest of us married folks!
ReplyDeleteGet rid of all their welfare. Anyone think he might be doing that?
How long until a son or daughter takes advantage of this NY law and marries their father or mother thus avoiding probate...
ReplyDeletePrinciple Voices Statement re Brown Court Case
ReplyDeleteJuly 12, 2011
Principle Voices is pleased to learn of Kody Brown’s decision to file a challenge to Utah’s bigamy statute.
We applaud the Browns’ for their courage in making their lifestyle public, and for standing up in behalf of the thousands of plural families who have endured disfavorable treatment. The Browns are consenting adults and have created a wonderful family. Sadly, they have already suffered harm as a result of their openness. They have faced the threat of felony prosecution. They have experienced the loss of jobs. We admire their willingness to seek the decriminalization of their family arrangement, despite the risk of greater scrutiny.
We are ready to offer them our full support. We are grateful to Professor Jonathan Turley for his commitment to the Brown family and to all those whose civil rights have been compromised. No Utahns should be relegated to second-class citizenship because of their private relationships. We anxiously await a ruling in this case which will confirm the right of all adult Americans to organize their families as they choose.
Anne Wilde, Mary Batchelor
PRINCIPLE VOICES
principlevoices.org
Principle Voices blog
http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/?p=5036
ReplyDeleteToo much to post it looks but here is a clip from the article.
Speculation Upon The Kody Brown Polygamy Case
By Bored in Vernal
"Taken from remarks made by a panel at the 2011 Sunstone Symposium. Participants were Kaimi Wenger, asst. professor at Thomas Jefferson Law School; Ben Winslow, multi-media journalist for Fox 13 News; DeWayne Hafen, practicing polygamist from Baja California; Cheryl Bruno, permablogger at FPR. Also remarks made at a meeting of the Apostolic United Brethren in Rocky Ridge, Utah, 8/7/11.
It doesn’t take a law degree to understand the ins and outs of the Kody Brown Polygamy case currently being filed in Utah. But it does take an understanding of a few key points. For example, to how many people do you have to be married to be prosecuted for bigamy in Utah? Did you answer two or more? Nope. It’s zero. Because of cohabitation laws which originated to facilitate conviction of nineteenth-century Mormons, all you have to do is be sleeping with someone who is currently married. You’d better watch out if your girlfriend’s divorce hasn’t gone through yet! Kody Brown, well-known star of the TLC show “Sister Wives” and husband of four seeks decriminalization of polygamy, an action which is being followed with great excitement or trepidation by interested parties throughout the state.
Decriminalization is not the same as legalization of polygamy. Many people are asking how this will affect insurance, health care, and even immigration in the state, but these policies will scarcely be touched. Decriminalization will not make polygamy legal. But in situations such as child custody disagreements, plural families are unable to present a case in court because they are felons. Plural wives don’t report abuse in many cases, because they can themselves be convicted of a crime...."
Good Article, I'll put it up!
ReplyDelete