XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: me4guns@vcenturylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Just Wondering"  wrote in message   
   news:5430884c$0$30964$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net...   
   > On 10/4/2014 4:56 PM, Scout wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> "Just Wondering"  wrote in message   
   >> news:54305c56$0$4775$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net...   
   >>> Scout wrote:   
   >>>> Just Wondering wrote:   
   >>>>> Scout wrote:   
   >>>>>> Just Wondering wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>> Under Utah law, Kodi has only one wife, Mari has only one husband,   
   >>>>>>> and   
   >>>>>>> the other three ladies have no marital partner at all.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Then why were they being investigated then?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> Because Utah's bigamy statute, Utah Code Ann. 76-7-101 states:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> (1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or   
   >>>>> wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person   
   >>>>> purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.   
   >>>>> (2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Kodi Brown had a wife, Mari, and also cohabited with three other   
   >>>>> women. Under Utah law, he was committing three felonies.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> And yet it were the Browns that were under investigation. So why were   
   >>>> they investigating all 5 if the issue was only with him?   
   >>>>   
   >>> Because Utah case law construes "cohabits" to mean "lives together as   
   >>> husband and wife." if the state wanted to charge Kodi with "unlawful   
   >>> cohabitation" bigamy, it would have to prove that Kodi lived together   
   >>> as man and wife with one or more of the other women.  Which means that   
   >>> to bring the charge against Kodi, the state would have to prove the   
   >>> other women's living arrangements with Kodi.   
   >>   
   >> Ah, but you've already told me that Utah only sees him as married to one   
   >> of the women. So how can he cohabit with the others?   
   >>   
   > Are you really that obtuse?  By being legally married to Meri, while   
   > living together with Janelle as husband and wife, living together with   
   > Christine as husband and wife, and living together with Robyn as husband   
   > and wife?   
      
   And yet, it would appear the women were equally at risk from the law, and   
   since nothing in the law mentions anything about the sex of those living   
   together I fail to see why that wasn't a reasonable fear.   
      
   >> Oh, and would not that the women also cohabit with the other women.   
   >> Because nothing in the term cohabitation says "lives together as husband   
   >> and wife" only that they cohabitate as married people do.   
   >>   
   > Don't you even read what you're responding to?  Under the Utah bigamy law,   
   > "cohabit" doesn't mean simply living together.  As I already said, Utah   
   > case law construes "cohabit" to mean "LIVE TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE."   
      
   Oh, case law. Well we know how case law works....right up until they change   
   it at the whim of the court.   
      
   I will simply note that how what the courts claim the law is, how the law   
   actually works and what reality is can all be drastically different.   
      
   They were married to each other. That's what a group marriage BY DEFINITION   
   is.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)