{"id":939,"date":"2016-12-29T23:10:09","date_gmt":"2016-12-30T03:10:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/?p=939"},"modified":"2016-12-30T02:17:09","modified_gmt":"2016-12-30T06:17:09","slug":"utah-ag-office-opposes-sister-wives-petition-of-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/utah-ag-office-opposes-sister-wives-petition-of-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Utah AG Office opposes &#8220;Sister Wives&#8221; petition of Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Will the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) even hear the arguments of the &#8220;Sister Wives&#8221; polygamy case, <em>Brown v. Buhman<\/em>, in 2017?  If the <a href=\"https:\/\/attorneygeneral.utah.gov\/featured-content\/utah-files-brown-v-buhman-brief-opposition-supreme-court-united-states\" target=\"_blank\">Utah Attorney General&#8217;s Office<\/a> gets its way, the answer would be a resounding, &#8220;NO!&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>On April 11, 2016, the <a href=\"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/breaking-news-10th-circuit-reverses-sister-wives-case\/\" target=\"_blank\">Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver Colorado reversed<\/a> the lower court&#8217;s <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pro-polygamy.com\/articles.php?news=0090\" target=\"_blank\"><em>&#8220;de facto&#8221;<\/em> polygamy de-criminalization decisions of 2013<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pro-polygamy.com\/articles.php?news=0093\" target=\"_blank\">2014<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>On May 13, 2016, the same <a href=\"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/10th-circuit-refuses-to-re-hear-sister-wives-case\/\" target=\"_blank\">Tenth Circuit court denied the &#8220;<em>en banc<\/em>&#8221; request<\/a> to re-hear the case.<\/p>\n<p>As <a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/qwzsSIHcpz8?list=UUSTmQkSVQMbglFcBb1OJGhA\" target=\"_blank\">I (Mark Henkel) had explained to FOX 10<\/a>,<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>&#8220;It was not reversed on the merits of any arguments whatsoever.<br \/>\nThey refused to hear any arguments at all.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" width=\"560\" height=\"315\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/qwzsSIHcpz8?list=UUSTmQkSVQMbglFcBb1OJGhA\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>On August 10, 2016, Supreme Court Justice <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pro-polygamy.com\/articles.php?news=0097\" target=\"_blank\">Sotomayor signed off on permitting the Brown family an additional month to file a petition<\/a> for a <em>Writ of Certiorari<\/em>.  On September 12, 2016, the <a href=\"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/sister-wives-family-petitions-the-supreme-court\/\" target=\"_blank\">Brown family&#8217;s attorneys filed their petition to be heard by the Supreme Court.<\/a>  Making the broader argument that the UAGO&#8217;s &#8220;<em>voluntary cessation<\/em>&#8221; as an after-the-fact &#8220;policy&#8221; to <em>not<\/em> go after the Brown family for polygamy (alone, with no other so-called &#8220;collateral crimes&#8221;) is a tyranny of <a href=\"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/prosecutorial-discretion-emailgate-and-polygamy-part-1\/\" target=\"_blank\">&#8220;prosecutorial discretion,&#8221;<\/a> the petition specifically posited that different Circuits have different standards for addressing the issue of such &#8220;<em>voluntary cessation<\/em>&#8221; doctrine.<\/p>\n<p>In November, 2016, SCOTUS requested that the Utah Attorney General&#8217;s Office file their rationale for why they believe that SCOTUS should deny the petition.  On December 27, 2016, the <a href=\"https:\/\/attorneygeneral.utah.gov\/featured-content\/utah-files-brown-v-buhman-brief-opposition-supreme-court-united-states\" target=\"_blank\">UAGO filed their formal brief in opposition.<\/a>  Therewith, the UAGO posited that there allegedly &#8220;is no split&#8221; between the differing U.S. Circuits around the country on the issue of <em>voluntary cessation doctrine.<\/em> <\/p>\n<p>On Page 25 (i.e., <strong><em>PDF<\/em><\/strong>-pg35) of the brief, the <a href=\"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/2016-12-27-Utah-AG-Office-filed-Brown-v.-Buhman-brief-in-opposition-National-Polygamy-Advocate.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Utah AG Office declared<\/a> the following about the Petitioners (i.e., the Brown family) and &#8220;why&#8221; SCOTUS should &#8220;not&#8221; even hear the case.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>For  all  their  errors  on  the  voluntary  cessation question,  Petitioners  nail  the  most  important  score: They  are,  at  best,  \u201cpersons <em><strong>formerly<\/strong><\/em> threatened  with prosecution  under\u201d  the Statute.  Id. at 21 (emphasis added). They face no <strong><em>current<\/em><\/strong> or <strong><em>continuing<\/em><\/strong> threat that Respondent will  prosecute  them  in  Utah, away  from their new Nevada home. The case is moot for the reasons the Tenth Circuit correctly explained, based on legal rules that do not conflict with other circuits\u2019 precedent. Certiorari should be denied.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The saddest irony of all this may also be found within the very words of the brief itself.  On its Page 4 (i.e., <strong><em>PDF<\/em><\/strong>-pg14), the UAGO admitted the following about how evidently unnecessary the anti-polygamy law actually is.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Given that enforcement policy, just ten defendants were  charged  statewide  under  the  Statute  between 2001  and  2011.  App.  10.  Six  of  those  ten  &#8220;were also prosecuted for crimes other than bigamy, such as criminal non-support, unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, forcible sexual abuse, marriage license fraud, and insurance fraud.&#8221; Id. at 11. The Attorney General\u2019s Office could not confirm whether charges besides bigamy were filed in the last four cases. But in three of those four, county prosecutors dismissed the bigamy charges, and in the fourth case the defendant was convicted of attempted bigamy in a county prosecution. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In the very next paragraph, the UAGO then made the wildly absurd assertion, citing the case of the always-despised <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pro-polygamy.com\/articles.php?news=0053\" target=\"_blank\">Tom Green criminal<\/a> and the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pro-polygamy.com\/articles.php?news=0079\" target=\"_blank\">long-discredited anti-polygamy propaganda given to the British Columbia Supreme Court&#8217;s Chief Justice Robert Bauman<\/a>.  Despite their previous admission disproving its next assertion, the UAGO&#8217;s brief unflinchingly still posited the following self-admittedly disproven propaganda.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\n&#8220;The practice of polygamy, in particular, often coincides with crimes targeting  women  and  children.\u201d<br \/>\n&#8230;<br \/>\n&#8220;Crimes not unusually attendant to the  practice of polygamy include incest, sexual assault, statutory rape, and failure to pay child support.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>If anything, by the Utah AG Office&#8217;s own admission, the evidence disproves that wild absurdity.  Indeed, it demonstrates why still criminalizing unrelated consenting adult polygamy (UCAP) is wholly irrational.<\/p>\n<p>However, SCOTUS could very well choose to <em>deny<\/em> the Brown family&#8217;s petition for a <em>Writ of Certiorari.<\/em>  If that happens, then, alas, such an irrational anti-polygamy law still will remain on the books.  And worse, the actual merits of <em> Brown v. Buhman<\/em> will not have even been heard by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<p>As the year 2016 comes to a close, both sides are waiting to see whether SCOTUS will deny or allow the <em>Brown v. Buhman<\/em> case to go forward in 2017.<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;<\/p>\n<h3>PDFs of the two formal filings<\/h3>\n<ol>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/2016-12-27-Utah-AG-Office-filed-Brown-v.-Buhman-brief-in-opposition-National-Polygamy-Advocate.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>Utah AG Office brief in opposition<\/strong><\/a> &#8211; <em>PDF<\/em>  (Dec. 27, 2016)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/2016-09-12-Sister-Wives-petition-SCOTUS-National-Polygamy-Advocate.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><strong><em>Brown v. Buhman<\/em> petition for a <em>Writ of Certiorari<\/em><\/strong><\/a> &#8211; <em>PDF<\/em>  (Sept. 12, 2016)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>&#8212;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;  &nbsp;<br \/>\nFor background on the case, please see:<br \/>\n&nbsp; &#8211; &nbsp; <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/sister-wives-family-petitions-the-supreme-court\/\" target=\"_blank\">\u201cSister Wives\u201d Family Petitions the Supreme Court<\/a><\/strong><br \/>\n&nbsp; &#8211; &nbsp; <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.pro-polygamy.com\/articles.php?news=0097\" target=\"_blank\">Last Steps for Polygamy Heading to Supreme Court in 2017<\/a><\/strong><br \/>\n&nbsp; &#8211; &nbsp; <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/10th-circuit-refuses-to-re-hear-sister-wives-case\/\" target=\"_blank\">10th Circuit Refuses to Re-hear \u201cSister Wives\u201d case<\/a><\/strong><br \/>\n&nbsp; &#8211; &nbsp; <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/breaking-news-10th-circuit-reverses-sister-wives-case\/\" target=\"_blank\">* BREAKING NEWS * 10th Circuit Reverses \u201cSister Wives\u201d case<\/a><\/strong><br \/>\n&nbsp; &#8211; &nbsp; <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/sister-wives-appeal-at-10th-circuit-set-for-jan-2016\/\" target=\"_blank\">\u201cSister Wives\u201d Appeal at 10th Circuit set for Jan. 2016<\/a><\/strong><br \/>\n&nbsp; &#8211; &nbsp; <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.pro-polygamy.com\/articles.php?news=0093\" target=\"_blank\">Judge Awards Damages to Polygamists for Utah Violating Rights<\/a><\/strong><br \/>\n&nbsp; &#8211; &nbsp; <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.pro-polygamy.com\/articles.php?news=0090\" target=\"_blank\">&#8216;De Facto&#8217; Polygamy De-Criminalized in Utah by Federal Court<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><img decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Utah-AG-Office-files-brief-in-opposition-to-Sister-Wives-Petition-of-Supreme-Court-300x171.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"171\" class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-943\" srcset=\"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Utah-AG-Office-files-brief-in-opposition-to-Sister-Wives-Petition-of-Supreme-Court-300x171.jpg 300w, http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Utah-AG-Office-files-brief-in-opposition-to-Sister-Wives-Petition-of-Supreme-Court-150x86.jpg 150w, http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Utah-AG-Office-files-brief-in-opposition-to-Sister-Wives-Petition-of-Supreme-Court.jpg 700w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Will the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) even hear the arguments of the &#8220;Sister Wives&#8221; polygamy case, Brown<\/p>\n<div id=\"more-button\"><a class=\"btn btn-more excerpt-more\" href=\"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/utah-ag-office-opposes-sister-wives-petition-of-supreme-court\/\">Continue Reading<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":943,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"twitterCardType":"summary_large_image","cardImageID":0,"cardImage":"","cardTitle":"","cardDesc":"","cardImageAlt":"","cardPlayer":"","cardPlayerWidth":0,"cardPlayerHeight":0,"cardPlayerStream":"","cardPlayerCodec":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[60,58,33,8,86,44,87],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/939"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=939"}],"version-history":[{"count":45,"href":"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/939\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":987,"href":"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/939\/revisions\/987"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/943"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=939"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=939"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nationalpolygamyadvocate.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=939"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}