At this link you can find a very long interview with the Brown family.
They mentioned a "Risk Assessment" study, performed by activists associated with Utah's state funded program called the Safety Net Committee. This was in preparation for a SCOUTUS challenge to the federal polygamy laws. The Utah Attorney General was a participant in helping to prepare this family for a public challenge to the law.
This assessment was performed, to vet the most "normal" family possible for this television program.
You will notice that they described the TLC camera's presence in their lives as scheduled and arranged. You will also notice that if the children in the family seem disturbed, depressed, emotional or withdrawn, footage of such an episode in a child's life is deliberately excluded.
So, in REALITY, the viewer is never going to see the truth of the results and effects of POLYGAMY.
What exactly is reality about that?
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=12603468&nid=148
And it also seems that the leading law enforcement official in the state of Utah has conspired to assist this group to commit the crime of Bigamy.
Gee, again I smell a RICCO that the feds will just ignore....I can hear the snoring sounds from their direction right now.
"This is the only law we break."
Oh boy! Can I pick one, just one felony I can do, too?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Boots.
ReplyDeleteWell it was a very superficial interview in my opinion. Anyone watching would'nt have a clue what were the beliefs that actually inspire them to adopt this type of lifestyle.
I am not sure that the quarterly husband could have looked the camera in the eye with a straight face and said. -
" Well actually I hope to be a god one day and have my own planet and spend my time having sex with my plural wives so that I will be able to populate my planet. So actually what this is really all about is that I am in training for godhood. "
As you have often rightly pointed out boots , people should have the right to believe what ever they like and also to practise those beliefs , provided that this does not endanger or harm others in any way , particularly the most vulnerable members of our societies , women and children.
But on the other hand when they are trying to hold up their lifestyle to others as somehow wholesome then why should'nt their true motives be held up to public scrutiny.
All this talk about freedom of choice among the family members What freedom of choice ?
Pity that you were'nt doing the interview Boots,I could just imagine you saying , -
" Well any plans to extend the family any further , have any of you gals spotted any cute guys that you think might make a welcome addition to your cosy little arrangement."
The statement made by one of the concubines.
( This is technically the truth unless she was the first legally married wife , yes ? )
Did ,sad to say , have an element of truth in it
" There is no such a thing as normal today "
Based on this statement she feels that their lifestyle should be acceptable. This statement
is a back door that opens the way , for , well, all sorts of not good stuff to enter our societies.
Please everyone lets bring back normal.
Bye for now.
Steve.
Ha ha ha. I really think you're reaching on this. I don't see the vast conspiracy you are seeing. So the family and TLC did a risk assessment for themselves and contacted the AG's office to get their position? Where is the vast conspiracy in this vetting? Are you suggesting the AG's office selected this family and recruited for a test case? It makes sense that TLC would assess its financial risk vs. gain on taking on such a show, and that the family would want to consider their risks too. Shurtleff has stated over and over that the AG's policy of prosecuting polygamy in Utah is that they will not prosecute consenting adults. Clearly this family is comprised of consenting adults so... hence the response to the show from law enforcement has been mixed. It's evident from Shurtleff's comments that he is not pleased about this show so how on earth could he have recruited the family to do it?
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:33,
ReplyDeleteConspiracy is an interesting word, Anon.
In order to legally prove a conspiracy between people to commit a felony, one would need lots of documentation.
That would fall to the feds to get, or not get, depending on which political wind the bureau is leaning this week...
Is the documentation available to show that the top law enforcement official in the state of Utah conspired with other recognized groups and organizations to select the most attractive and articulate group of defendants possible at a conference titled FAMILY OR FELONY: Discussing what it would take to decriminalize polygamy?
Polygamy is a felony, Mr. Anon. The Utah AG conspired with organized group(s) to commit a felony.
Actually, for us to have pegged it so quickly, I wouldn't exactly call it "vast" either.
It's more like open and shut. The Utah AG believes himself above federal law(s) in this case, too.
LOL! It's only vast if the feds are infected and purposely ignore the laws, too...
Hey Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteNo disrespect but I would just like to ask you a little question ?
Why is it that you wear a facebook burqua ?
Obviously you have a name , why cover it with " Anonymous " It gives the impression that you are afraid , that you have something to hide. Please , take responsibility for the things that you say , and come on out from underneath that burqua and speak in your own name. For after all that's who you really are.
Respectfully.
Steve.
Hi Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteHave just been reading your comments on previous blogs and would like to take back everything that I said in my last comment
and also I would like to offer you my heartfelt and sincere apologises for the things that I said.
Having now read how you have suffered abuse in the past I fully understand why you would wish to remain anonymous whilst commenting on this blog.
It was foolish of me to make those type of comments on a blog of this nature to someone of whom I had no knowledge.
If you could find it in your heart to forgive me then this would be deeply appreciated.
Once again Anonymous I'm sorry.
Yours Sincerely.
Steve.