Skip to comments.Bigamy (Schiavo)
Posted on 03/22/2005 10:56:21 AM PST by tallhappy
Four counts of bigamy against Thomas Green were as follows:
Count II: BIGAMY, a third degree felony, in violation of 76-7-101, Utah code Annotated, 1953 as amended, in that Thomas Arthur Green, during the time period of May 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999, in Juab County, Utah, knowing that he had a wife, cohabited with another person, Shirley Beagley Green.
Count III: BIGAMY, a third degree felony, in violation of 76-7-101, Utah code Annotated, 1953 as amended, in that Thomas Arthur Green, during the time period of May 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999, in Juab County, Utah, knowing that he had a wife, cohabited with another person, Leeann Beagley Green.
Count IV: BIGAMY, a third degree felony, in violation of 76-7-101, Utah code Annotated, 1953 as amended, in that Thomas Arthur Green, during the time period of May 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999, in Juab County, Utah, knowing that he had a wife, cohabited with another person, Cari Bjorkman Green.
Count V: BIGAMY, a third degree felony, in violation of 76-7-101, Utah code Annotated, 1953 as amended, in that Thomas Arthur Green, during the time period of May 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999, in Juab County, Utah, knowing that he had a wife, cohabited with another person, Hannah Bjorkman Green.
Seems to meet the criteria for criminal bigamy.
UT has stricter bigamy statutes than most states because of the historical situation in that state.
I knew that'd be the comment.
Still, that is not the point.
Hasn't he been with this woman long enough to be considered common law marriage?
Bigamy is defined by state law. You would need to look at the Florida, not the Utah, statute.
You miss the point.
There is no legally recognized common law marriage in Florida.
Schiavo can't be married to two women at once.
Since his marriage to Terri is still valid, he has no marriage with the Centonze trollop, common-law or otherwise.
He has an adulterous relationship with her, but a marriage it ain't.
Because it WON'T HOLD WATER!
Nope, here it is:
826.01 Bigamy; punishment.--Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries another person shall, except in the cases mentioned in s. 826.02, be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Try this one:
798.01 Living in open adultery.--Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Where either of the parties living in an open state of adultery is married, both parties so living shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense provided for in this section.
Or this one:
798.02 Lewd and lascivious behavior.--If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or if any man or woman, married or unmarried, engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
No, you have. You can't use the Utah definition in Florida. They are different states. I've posted the Florida statutes for your reading pleasure.
Pamela A.M. Campbell was the attorney that lost the Terri Schiavo trial.
Although she no longer works as a lobbyist, she remains active in politics. She is a member of the Suncoast Tiger Bay Club and a former board member for the organization. "One of our greatest rights as Americans is our responsibility to speak out and participate," she says."I have two times every year when I make an evaluation of my life and decide what I should do differently," she says. "Those days are July 15, my birthday, and New Year's Eve.http://www.stpetebar.com/index_frame.htm?http://www.stpetebar.com/v3_giv_campbell.htm
Looks like Judge Greer is ignoring this little detail in his continuation of Schiavo's guardianship. Doesn't matter if it seems "quaint", to use a Gonzales-ism. He's gone down the rigid line of using the law whenever it means she dies.
Interesting that he isn't so hardline when it comes to this rather material, criminal behavior on Big Mike's part.
Come to think of it, why couldn't the governor (or anyone else, for that matter) sign a complaint against Mikey right now for? The idea that a guy being walked away in handcuffs is a legitimate "guardian" for the arguable victim of this crime would seem rather strange. Which is, of course, the point.
My point is not that he be charged with bigamy.
It is to put in context the so-called relationship of him as husband.
Given our now lax society, concepts such as bigamy no longer are considered issues of importance. The point, though, is that under the long held traditional understanding of bigamy or aduluery he is acting in such a manner.
He has no moral right to make any decisions for her.
In court he has won but that does not mean he is right.
The Utah case illustrates this. He is doing the same thing another can be jailed for bigamy.
What's your point about Campbell?
In spirit, but not in the letter of the law. The law is a complex and tricky thing and strains common sense all the time. Americans have a distrust of the law and view those who mine the law for personal or political benefit with disdain.
But is Utah's law the national law or the exception? Keep in mind that bigamy/polygamy is a unique problem in Utah due to its Mormon heritage, so they have to be extra vigilant.
If I'm not mistaken that would be that Campbell blew it.
Like the OJ prosecutors. They blew it.
My guess, though, is the deck was stacked against her by the judge.
He is her husband until there is divorce or death. There is no such thing as a "common law divorce".
The point being what he's doing is equivalent to recognized bigamy. It points out his major conflict of interest in acting as her guardian.
Sure looks like bigamy to me, too! Are there varying degrees of bigamy. Like being a little bit pregnant? Either it is bigamy or it isn't. Perhaps the court should rule to let us know.
That's why he is trying so hard to have his wife murdered by the state.
So he IS guilty of a misdemeanor. What do those numbers mean regarding the type of punishment?
How about a citizen's arrest for committing a misdemeanor?
How can Terri Schiavo file for divorce?
Did you read the "husband's" comments about divorce? I find it laughable and appalling. Says he made a committment to Terri so he believes the marriage should be until one partner dies. If he truly had any credibility then he would NOT have begun a relationship with a new woman.
I have no problem with him finding this other woman but for the love of God then, let Terri live and let her parents take care of her.
Probably completely legitimate. Would be big scuffle, lots of fur flying.
The real question is...if the judge knows about his situation, why didn't he immediately do that? Or at least say, "until you get this cleared up, you aren't the guardian". As TallHappy pointed out, the conflict of interest is clear. Even criminal.
Greer yaps about "the law". Okey doke, Judge. So what about it? When you gonna stop selectively applying it?
You'd have to check the threshhold for citizen's arrest in Florida. I know that in Arizona (I researched it regarding illegal immigration matters), you must witness a felony in progress, except for a couple of unrelated misdemeanors (riot). So in Arizona, you would face charges of illegally detaining someone if you tried to perform a citizens arrest for misdemeanor adultery.
I do taxes for a nationwide firm. I'd be interested to see just who Michael claims on his 1040. The "wife" and kiddies, if claimed, might negate his marital responsibilites to/for Terri.
Now there's a good one. Federal tax evasion, maybe..?
(b) For a misdemeanor of the second degree, by a definite term of imprisonment not exceeding 60 days.
(e) $500, when the conviction is of a misdemeanor of the second degree or a noncriminal violation.
Exactly. Once the case has been tried and the judge renders a decision it is practically impossible to win an appeal that the judge erred in judging the credibility of the witnesses. You sound like a person who if I told it was raining out, I wouldn't have to advise you to bring an umbrella.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.