There has been more action in the Brown case with a new document, an updated hearing date and a response to the argument against the motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
You can see all the action on the docket link.
The hearing has been moved to 9:00 in the morning of 12/16 (the same date) and the Judge has asked for evidence to be presented as to the nature of the investigation against the Browns since that is the factual basis for their standing argument. No one in the community has thus far said they will be able to attend and a hearing like this with fact finding could be the only courtroom action in the case.
Please! If you can attend or know someone who might be able to attend it would be really awesome to have someone there to take notes! You don’t have to be an expert, it would just be really good to know what went on.
In other news the Judge wants to know why the US Government shouldn’t be joined to the defense in this case because of its interest in having the states uphold their laws. I will let you know if we see any motion argument in this, but it might all go down in the hearing. This might be an attempt by the Judge to get better representation for the defense by bringing in a US attorney to make the defense case.
In other news there is a response to arguments the Browns attorneys made against the motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The argument basically boils down to
There were two separate investigations and you don’t know what the second one was about, and we an not telling you. We are not going to say it wasn’t about polygamy, but you are just assuming that and why would we investigate you for that anyway when you went and admitted to it?
Feel free to read it yourself, but honestly that is the argument. I personally don’t think it overcomes the point made by the Brown’s argument that if they want to destroy standing all the governmental defendants have to do is say on the record that they won’t file charges, but that will be up to the judge.
If the whole thing seems a little playground to you (Suzie was Talking to Johnny about me behind my back, You don’t know what I was talking to Johnny about, Well tell the teacher it wasn’t me, Nah Uh you prove to teacher we were talking bout you) you are not the only one.
I seriously doubt anyone suspects the investigations were about anything else, but that is the argument the governmental defendants are making and they are not reveling the actual nature of the investigation, which is normal in criminal investigations. They also claim the statue is moribund and not enforced absent other criminal charges. This is a better and more difficult argument to overcome.