{"id":881,"date":"2016-09-14T13:40:56","date_gmt":"2016-09-14T17:40:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/?p=881"},"modified":"2016-09-14T17:28:17","modified_gmt":"2016-09-14T21:28:17","slug":"sister-wives-family-petitions-the-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/sister-wives-family-petitions-the-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"“Sister Wives” Family Petitions the Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

On September 12, 2016, attorneys for the polygamous family of reality-TV series, “Sister Wives<\/em>,” filed the formal Petition for a Writ of Certiorari<\/em><\/a> (PDF)<\/strong>, asking the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to hear the Brown v. Buhman<\/em> case, as announced by the family’s renowned attorney, Jonathan Turley<\/a>.<\/p>\n

As FOX 13 reported<\/a>, “The petition, filed Monday, basically focuses on whether the Browns really faced a threat of prosecution from Utah County Attorney Jeff Buhman.”<\/em><\/p>\n

In the Fall of 2010, the TLC network began airing a new reality-TV show, “Sister Wives<\/em>.”<\/a> As later re-explained by the newly filed Petition for a Writ of Certiorari<\/em><\/a>,<\/p>\n

“The day after the first episode aired, Utah state officials publicly denounced the Brown family as criminals and opened an investigation under the state\u2019s anti-bigamy statute, which \u2013 unlike that of other states \u2013 prohibits not only the practice of polygamy, but also the mere practice of cohabitation by married persons. …Prosecutors later gave public interviews discussing the Brown family and their alleged crime of polygamy. …The Respondent, through his subordinate, publicly accused the Brown family of committing felonies every night on television and stated that ‘The Sister Wives’ television program would make their prosecution ‘easier.'”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As a formal “investigation” was initiated against them, the Browns fled Utah and moved to Nevada. Attorney Jonathan Turley filed the case, now identified as Brown v. Buhman<\/em>, on July 13, 2011, asserting that Utah’s anti-bigamy law was unconstitutional. Prosecutors said the family’s emigration to another State would not stop their investigation to prosecute the Browns for polygamy in Utah, even as the Prosecutors filed a motion to get the case dismissed in early 2012.<\/p>\n

After that motion was denied, the Prosecutors “conveniently” invented\/declared a new “UCAO policy.” This new and deliberately non-binding policy proclaimed that the Utah County Attorney’s Office would no longer prosecute the Browns or other unrelated consenting adult polygamous families formed only on religious beliefs. With that new “UCAO policy,” the prosecutors filed yet another motion to dismiss the Brown v. Buhman<\/em> case on May 31, 2012. As the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari<\/em><\/a> explains to the Supreme Court,<\/p>\n

“The district court again denied the motion, citing this Court\u2019s instruction that ‘a defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice,’ …and that any assertion to the contrary faces the ‘heavy burden of persuading the court that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to start up again.’ …In this case, the district court noted that the government had not abandoned its constitutional defense of the [anti-bigamy] statute, …and that its new prosecution policy was ‘at most, an exercise of prosecutorial discretion that could be reversed at any time.'”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Indeed, the permissiveness of allowing this tyranny of prosecutorial discretion<\/strong><\/a> is the central basis by which the Tenth Circuit Appeals Court reversed<\/a> all parts of the lower District Court decision. Namely, while the lower court had de-criminalized “de facto”<\/em> polygamy<\/a> (12\/13\/2013) and awarded damages to the Brown family for Utah violating their rights<\/a> (8\/27\/2014), all of that was wiped out by the Tenth Circuit Court’s reversal.<\/p>\n

As I (Mark Henkel) had explained to FOX 10<\/a>,<\/p>\n

“It was not reversed on the merits of any arguments whatsoever.
\nThey refused to hear any arguments at all.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n