The Tail Wags The Dog Slowly…

So many people ask me how things are progressing in the litigation against Shandi and myself that I figured I should post an update, though I have written about it on the Ministry website.

In January 2008 Lt. Falslev, the head of the American Fork Police Detectives Division decided to chase our ministry out of town and engineered the raid of January 3rd, followed by a zoning order to vacate our residence and criminal charges against Shandi, a body piercer at the studio and myself on two unrelated (false) charges.

Zoning, Licensing Issues -

There are one zoning and one licensing issue.

The first was a demand by Lt. Falselv  pretending to be the zoning enforcement officer (who by the way - the zoning enforcement officer - refuses to have anything to do with these charges) demanded that Kita and I quit living in the apartment attached to the ministry studio.  First we were given 14 days to vacate, then the demand was changed to us needing a zoning variance and then later changed again to us needing a caretakers permit and finally changing again to us simply needing a letter from the zoning office acknowledging our right to use the apartment as a residence.  When I applied to Rod Despain, the zoning officer for such a letter, he like everyone else in American Fork, refused to have anything to do with Lt. Falslev’s demands and forwarded my request to Kasey Wright, the City’s legal counsel.

The licensing issue was where the city claimed that our church was required to have a business license because we tattoo.  I responded that tattooing and piercing were spiritual services that we offer and were essentially no different than other spiritual services offered by us or other churches and that the donations we received were no different than donations made to other churches - including recommended amounts for donations such as for dinners, dances, blessings, weddings, funerals, building and missionary funds, tithing, etc..

This matter was also referred to Kasey Wright who demanded proof that we were a legitimate church, which I provided.

It has been nearly seven months since these two matters ended up with Kasey and in spite of the urgency that Lt. Falselv and the City Clerk (respectively) attached to their resolution, I have not heard anything back in all this time and the documents I provided have not been returned.

I can only assume that Kasey has recommended to the city that they just forget about it.

I am willing to let things sit while we are finishing up with the criminal charges at which time I expect to demand a final accounting and settling of these demands.

Criminal Charges -

Vs Shandi  - Dealing In Materials Harmful To A Minor

The United States Congress, concerned over the prospect of minors being exposed to pornographic web sites on the internet at public libraries, established a non-criminal violation of “material harmful to minors” to be applied to persons who intentionally left such web pages active on library computers when they were done using them, considering that by leaving the page up, it was possible that minors might be the next users and thus be unintentionally exposed to such materials, also printed material intentionally left at library photocopiers.

The penalty for a first offence was to be a verbal warning.  The penalty for a second offence was allowed at the discretion of the head librarian, the revocation of the holders library card/privilages for up to one month.

As soon as the new term was coined, several states rushed to use it in new laws aimed at restricting minor access to hardcore pornography and in some cases to limit business opportunities for those dealing in such hardcore sex materials.  Utah is one of these states.

Even though this law by Congress is a library/internet only application with no criminal charges attached, the states quickly applied the designation “material harmful to minors” to enjoin criminal charges and one reading the law will quickly notice lots of exemptions regarding internet offenses as these were strictly defined by Congress.

For the intended meaning of the phrase, the interpretation of what is “harmful” is open to interpretation by the head librarian though restricted to “hardcore pornography”, but in the hands of Lawyers, the lack of a strict interpretation means that almost anything that any particular cop or prosecutor personally feels that children should not be exposed to can be made to fit the charge.

This is what happened to our piercer, Shandi.

While a group of six minors aged 13 to 16 (three boys and three girls) were visiting the studio, two of the girls approached Shandi about performing a piercing for the older of the two (13 & 14).  Shandi explained that the girl would need her parent to be present for the piercing and while the girls tried to offer alternatives, each being rejected as against studio policy and Utah law, the other 4 minors occupied themselves otherwise.

One of the three boys sat on the couch in the reception area looking at a tattoo magazine while the other girl and two boys stood at a counter containing art books and artist portfolios which put them in a position where the two girls asking for piercings effectively blocked Shandi’s view of the kids at the library counter.

The art in the books and the artist portfolios is rather tame and do not contain pornography.  One book, clearly marked “ADULTS ONLY” was an exotic piercing portfolio.  This book contains clinical photographs of nipple and genital piercings that are not erotic or sexual in any manner.  In Michigan these photos were freely displayed in poster frames and mixed portfolios, but when we moved to Utah we sensed that it would likely be appreciated by a sufficient portion of neighborhood parents if we would place such photos in a single album and restrict it to adults only, which is what we did, not by compulsion but as a freely performed act of consideration for our neighbors.

Since this book is the cause of the current complaint I want to dwell a bit more on it.

The Utah Attorney General has published on the official Attorney General Website the official AG position regarding pornography and material harmful to minors.  In this position the portfolio in question fits the Attorney General’s description of material that is akin to a sociology text or National Geographic Magazine and would be thus considered not only not “material harmful to minors”, but further to be materials “instructive to minors” which could legally be viewed by any one of any age without the need for parental consent.

But, Lt. Falselv thinks that kids should not be looking at such pictures, and that is fine.  It’s just that he cannot give his personal opinion the force of law which is what he has attempted to do.

He also feels that minors should be prohibited from seeing (the outside) of a tattoo studio and that they should be prosecuted if they enter.  He and Chief Call virtually demanded that I post a sign on the door in addition to the sign prohibiting minors without their parents adding that policy violators would be prosecuted.

Of course, there is no law prohibiting minors from the studio.  That is simply our own policy and it is not because we think any of our materials are harmful to minors, but for other more practical considerations and out of respect for some of the more insecure parents in the neighborhood.

We are a ministry after all and provide many services besides tattooing and piercing.  There are many reasons why a minor may access our location and we generally take a non-brutal approach to those who choose to ignore our self-imposed policies.

We do not and have never allowed loitering and generally share with minors seeking tattoo/piercing service  the law prohibiting tattoos for minors and the need for them to return with their parents for piercings - at which point they leave.

A while back, it was declared by some Mormon from the steps of the State Capitol Building that Michelangelo’s statue of David was pornography.  I have no doubt that Chief Call and Lt. Falslev fall into the category of people who would support that opinion and that they would support arresting anyone who allowed anyone under 18 to see such “art”.

So while Shandi was distracted by the two girls, the oldest boy (16 yrs.) , disregarding the “ADULTS ONLY” label, was looking at the Adult Piercing portfolio and was teasing the other (15 yr old) boy by telling him that the clients pictured in the were “his boyfriend” etc..  After teasing the boy, he attempted to likewise tease the other (15 yr old) girl.  She refused to look at the pictures so her “friend” tried to push the book into her face.  She says that she did not really get a real look at the picture he was trying to force on her.

This behavior went unnoticed by Shandi and other staff members and after the two girls trying to get piercings had exhusted their attempts to get Shandi to provide illegal services, the whole group was asked to leave the studio.

For the two (and maybe three) minors looking at the piercing portfolio, Shandi has been charged with four 2nd degree felony counts of dealing in materials harmful to minors.

Shandi has gone to court about every month since the charge was served in February for one continuance after another, as the prosecutor can’t ever seem to get her end of business completed.

Finally we were told that the prosecutor wants to drop the case and withdraw the charges completely, but a new County Attorney policy requires the investigating (police) officer to agree before any radical changes to a charge are made.

In this case the investigating officer, Lt. Darrin Falselv - is adamant that the prosecution continue, though he apparently is willing to let the prosecutor attempt to get Shandi to plead guilty to a lesser charge of some sort.

We are hoping that Shandi will stick to her guns and not plead guilty to any offense as she has not committed any.

We were told that the prosecutor asked in the County Attorney’s staff meeting to be allowed to simply drop the charge, but that she was told that Lt. Falslev is determined to punish me by finding Shandi guilty of something and that he has been very aggressively lobbying the County Attorney Jeff Buhman to refuse to drop the case.  The prosecutor was told apparently in front of the entire staff that only because of Lt. Falselv’s demands would permission be denied to drop the charges.

It is amazing to me that our own little Lt. Falslev can have such power over the County Attorney, but I guess I shouldn’t be too surprized as he bragged to me last January about how the City and County Attornies do what ever he tells them to.  I thought at the time it was a pretty big brag from a petty little blowhard, but it seems the Lt. does run the government.  He sure seems to run every department of the City of American Fork!

We have been advised that (barring a plea agreement) the Judge is most likely to dismiss the case as being without merit, when it comes up for the preliminary hearing on August 26th.

Since the prosecutors office is too weak to stand up  to Lt. Falsev, that is what we have to hope for and expect.

I wouldn’t be surprized though if the Lt. tries to intimidate the Judge also, and this is, after all, Utah - where any bizarre thing can and often does happen.

Shandi’s attorney was told by the prosecutor that Lt. Falslev hates me so much that he is demanding Shandi’s prosecution as a method to hurt me.  I think it is disgusting especially for someone in a position of public trust to attempt to destroy a wonderful young woman and her family in an attempt to put me in my place for the crime of not letting him push me around when I had done nothing wrong.  He felt I should fire a valued staff member (Shandi) just so he could look good.  Maybe he should try earning rather than theiving his brownie points.

He has at least succeeded in his crappy little plan enough that Shandi is so intimidated by him that she is afraid to come to work and because she expects the cops to harass her more at work she quit a couple months ago.

Vs. Dr. Lowrey - Unlawful Tattooing of A Minor

This is the charge that was made against me in retaliation for me refusing to fire Shandi.

I have evaluated the charges against the law in detail - here.

At my last court hearing a date for a preliminary trial was set and notice was given and accepted for a motion to dismiss to be filed.

I am expecting for this charge to be dismissed without another court appearance.

Anyone who thinks this is a waste of taxpayer money and the time of judges, etc. and not a legitimate use or activity of our police and prosecutorial staff are welcome and invited to call Mayor Thompson, Chief Call, Lt. Falslev, the Utah County Attorney Jeff Buhman, the Utah County Commissioners and your legislators, Governor, Attorney General etc. and complain.

We are not the only people being victimized by the local government in this manner.  American Fork City has taken up the harassment and victimization of it’s citizens as a regular course of business and fund-raising.

I think it is treasonous and a violation of the 14th ammendment - rebellion against the Constitution.

We need to kick the bums out!

So, register to vote.

I have.

The Charges (against Dr. Lowrey) Unlawful Tattooing of a Minor Examined

In May 2007, two 17 year old boys came in to the studio and by fraud and deceit obtained one tattoo each.

One boy was only three weeks away from his 18^th birthday (legal age) and the other (his cousin) was only 6 weeks from turning 18.

But they couldn’t wait, so they decided to lie about their age.

We had a new receptionist and they were successful in tricking her into thinking they were adults.

American Fork Detective Lt. Darrin Falslev decided that in spite of his acknowledgement that the boys had committed fraud against the studio that the receptionist, the artists and the owner/operator/manager (me) should be charged with unlawful tattooing of a minor.

The receptionist was charged in June 2007 and though her attorney advised her that he could have the charges dropped, she was so intimidated by Lt. Falselv that she pled guilty to a lesser charge.

Of the artists, both were initially charged, but the charges against one were dropped internally by the city for some reason without even contacting the artist.

The other artist was charged but not served and in May 2008 during a traffic stop was advised of a warrant and is currently involved in the court process on the charge.

In my case, charges were filed in June 07 but not pursued.

Charges were filed again in October 07 and again not pursued.

When I refused to fire a staff member in January 08, I was told by Lt. Falslev that the case was still “open” and threatened with a “resurrection” of the charges against me, which is what happened.

I was charged and finally served in January 2008 and have been in court every month since.

This is the Utah Criminal Code that American Fork is attempting to prosecute me under.

After each section, I have stated why that section is or is not relevant.

76-10-2201. Unlawful body piercing and tattooing of a minor — Penalties.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) “Body piercing” means the creation of an opening in the body, excluding the ear, for the purpose of inserting jewelry or other decoration.
(b) “Consent of a minor’s parent or legal guardian” means the presence of a parent or legal guardian during the performance of body piercing or tattooing upon the minor after the parent or legal guardian has provided reasonable proof of personal identity and familial relationship.
(c) “Minor” means a person younger than 18 years of age who:
(i) is not married; and
(ii) has not been declared emancipated by a court of law.
(d) “Personal identification number” means the number of an apparently valid driver’s license or other picture identification card that expressly states that the person is 18 years of age or older.
(e) “Tattoo” means to fix an indelible mark or figure upon the body by inserting a pigment under the skin or by producing scars.

Section 1 of this code does not apply as it describes (subsection E) tattooing to be the “fix[ing] an indelible mark.

It is uncontested since I was in Detroit, Michigan at the time of the supposed offence that I did not fix an indelible mark under the skin or produce scars on either of these minors.

Lt. Falsev knew that I was in Michigan at the time of the incident and placed phone calls to me there at the time as well as mailing to Michigan the police report.

Utah code does not define operation of a tattoo studio to be identical to the actual act of tattooing as described in this section.

Thus I am exempt from prosecution for Tattooing a Minor under the very definition of the offense in section 1.

(2) A person is guilty of unlawful body piercing of a minor if he performs or offers to perform a body piercing:
(a) upon a minor;
(b) without receiving the consent of the minor’s parent or legal guardian; and
(c) for remuneration or in the course of a business or profession.

Body Piercing is not claimed in the complaint.

(3) A person is guilty of unlawful tattooing of a minor if he performs or offers to perform a tattooing:
(a) upon a minor;
(b) without receiving the consent of the minor’s parent or legal guardian; and
(c) for remuneration or in the course of a business or profession.

While section 3 does open the opportunity for the prosecution to claim that simply operating a business that offers those services suffices to the charge of “offering to perform” this is stretching the interpretation and would if accepted also require all tattoo supply companies, newspapers and phone book companies, cable television companies, etc. who carry tattoo advertising or sell tattoo supplies, the local utility companies who provide the power, water, etc., the landlord who makes the space for tattooing available and the City Management and Zoning Officers who provided a Zoning Category for tattooing (essentially inviting tattooists to offer services in their town and by extension offering such services themselves) all equally liable for “offering” tattoo services as the absent manager of the studio.

I maintain that the common understanding of section 3 would be that the person who “performs or offers to perform” the service is actually doing so in person by an overt act of offering or performing and not through an agent or simply by association with the establishment or person who actually performs the tattoo.

It has not been alleged that I had any contact with these minors before, during or after the service was performed.

I could not have performed or offered to perform a tattoo except in the most general sense, such as in placing a cable television or newspaper or yellow pages ad which ads are directed at legitimate clients and do not constitute offering to a minor and cannot be construed to be performing a tattoo.

All three elements of section 3 require “direct” and “intentional” offering or actual performance of a service also requiring the person “offering”or “performing” to know they are performing an illegal service on a minor.

So, according to the three elements of this section I cannot be guilty of violating this code.

(4) A person is not guilty of Subsection (2) or (3) if the person:
(a) had no actual knowledge of the minor’s age; and
(b) reviewed, recorded, and has maintained a personal identification number for the minor prior to performing an unlawful body piercing or unlawful tattooing.

This section, usually known as the affirmative defense, states that I cannot be guilty (nor can my staff be guilty) of tattooing a minor if subsections a) and b) are true.

Section 4 overwhelmingly excludes me and my staff from prosecution as both elements a & b are satisfied.

a) I had no contact with the minors before, during or after the incident and had no knowledge of the minors age.

Since the minors represented themselves as adults, and attested in writing in three places on the client release that they were adults and manipulated the receptionist in some manner so that she only checked the year and not the month of their birth on their ID’s, no one in the studio knew that the two boys were not adults.

I asked Lt. Falslev if there was any way that the receptionist (who I had never met or spoken with as she was hired and fired while I was out of town) could have been partners with the boys in this action, and he assured me that after his interview with her he was convinced the boys had scammed her and she had no idea they were minors.

I should point out also that the receptionist was brand new. She had finished two days of training and was on her 2^nd day working alone. It takes awhile to get attuned to all the different ways that people try to worm around studio policies.

I pointed out to Lt. Falselv in May 2007 that this is what con artists do, manipulate people into seeing or not seeing contrary what should be self evident.

The police report shows that the boys were charged with communications fraud in this incident and Lt. Falselv reported that both boys pled guilty to that charge.

I respond to this that the victims of the fraud was the studio and staff and that the victim cannot be charged with a crime that they were defrauded (conned) into performing.

And

(b) The studio receptionist had reviewed, recorded and maintained the personal identification number prior to the alleged performance of the tattoo procedure.

Utah code further defines a personal identification number to be a state issued ID or Drivers License Number.

The tattooists were not involved in the filling out of the client release and had no involvement with the producing or verification of ID as that was the job of the receptionist entirely.

Immediately since this incident studio policy was changed to require two staff members (one being the person providing the actual service) to verify in writing (on the release) the legal status of each client.

Thus, section 4 completely exempts me and my staff from prosecution under this code.

(5) (a) A person who violates Subsection (2) or (3) is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.
(b) The owner or operator of a business in which a violation of Subsection (2) or (3) occurs is subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation.

Section 5 presumes that a violation of subsection 2 or 3 has been proved in court, which in this case it has not.

The court not proved in any case that unlawful tattooing (by definition) did in fact take place.

Since the performance of an unlawful procedure by any member of the studio staff has not been proved in court, it is premature for American Fork to attempt to exact a penalty over an unproven charge.

Additionally, section 4 of this code exempts me and my staff from prosecution even if it had been established in court that such a procedure did take place since it is not “unlawful” if you did not know your client was a minor and had recorded their ID number.

Also, section 5, allows for a “civil penalty” for the operator of a business where an unlawful procedure has been proved.

It does not allow for the operator to be charged criminally in any manner.

Yet in spite of the clear wording “civil penalty”, American Fork has elected to prefer criminal charges.

It also does not suggest in any way that operating an establishment is the same as performing the service.

Yet, American Fork has charged me with tattooing a minor, which charge is strictly defined in the code itself as personally performing a tattoo where pigment is inserted under the skin, which Lt. Falslev admits I did not do.

It would seem to me that the meaning of “civil penalty” would indicate that the victim, once the charge was proved would be required to initiate a civil suit for which they may ask $1000 penalty.

Nowhere does it indicate that the civil penalty allows for criminal charges.

Yet, American Fork has decided in spite of the law being clearly and otherwise stated, that this law advises such criminal charges.

So under section 5 of the code, I cannot be charged with Unlawful Tattooing of a Minor.

No portion of this Utah Law sanctions any of the charges made against me or my staff.

I have pointed this out to Lt. Falselv from the beginning.

I made it a point to be familiar already with the laws in Utah that affect my services, so I already knew when I spoke to him last May (07) that this law did not sanction this complaint.

The entirety of this law directs that the perpetrators must intentionally promote an act that they know to be unlawful. The fact that the minors employed fraud and deception to receive services prohibited by the studio, which is exhibited by their repeated claims in writing that they were 18 years of age or older (on the official release form) and the claim by the investigating officer that the receptionist who was the person who the boys were manipulating was not complicit, was not a participant in the fraud, but was honestly deceived by the boys only proves that the staff and management were not aware that they were violating any law and that they were victims and not perpetrators.

Additionally, written studio policy and ample signage stipulate that services are not performed for minors. The position of the studio is clear.

The charges (and conviction) against the boys proves that the police believed that the boys had violated studio policy by deceiving the receptionist and they knew that the studio was a victim of fraud.

This was all explained to Lt. Falsev (the investigating Detective) in May 2007 before charges were even filed and again in more detail (as above) after charges were filed (1^st of 3 filings) in June 2007.

The current 3^rd filing of charges was retaliatory (I have the threat by Lt. Falselv clearly made on tape recording) in January 2008 when I refused to fire a staff member at his request. At that time the Detective threatened to “resurrect” the charges from the previous May if I did not cooperate, and of course a week later I was charged.

Interestingly, the receptionist who also did not tattoo anyone and did not offer to tattoo anyone was charged and though her public defender told her that she had not committed a crime was so intimidated by Lt. Falsev – who is very loose with his threats – pled guilty to a lesser charge which she also did not commit. (June 2007)

Meanwhile the tattooists have been charged but never served, even though the police have been given their addresses (also on tape recording) and advised of their work schedule on more than three occasions so that they could be served.

Our studio is only two blocks away from the police station and located on the main street in town. Patrol officers drive past at least 20 – 50 times per day. It would not be too hard for them to stop and drop off papers. According to the court, the person being served does not even have to be there. The summons can be left for them. At one point Lt. Falselv insisted that one of our artists walk over to the police station to be served there, the Lt. offering to meet him at the front door of the police station to make it more convenient for him.

One tattooist who no longer is on staff was finally, very recently served during a traffic stop but has yet to go to trial. (his arraignment was June 3, 2008) So the supposed crime has yet to be proved meaning that I cannot be charged (as the owner/operator) for something that has yet to be legally established.

Also, it is anticipated, especially since the prosecutor won’t want to try to prove the charge in court, that if the case is not dismissed, which I expect to be most likely, especially since the same prosecutor (City Attorney Tucker Hansen) is on both his case and my case, but that if it is not dismissed, that it certainly will be reduced to a different charge, meaning again that the charge of Unlawful Tattooing of a Minor will not be established, meaning that I cannot be charged as the Owner/Operator of an establishment where such crime took place.

Basically, there is just no way that the City of American Fork can establish that my staff or myself were in violation of any law or responsible in any manner for the bad behavior of these two boys.

It has been contended from the beginning that these false charges are nothing more than an attempt by local government to intimidate and harass a religious practice that leading members of the local government personally do not agree with.

This is based on their perspective of the Mormon Church’s bias against tattoos and piercing. Since American Fork is claimed to be about 97% Mormon the Mayor and others feel entitled to demand that all persons who live, work, visit, shop or pass through American Fork align their every action and thought with that supposed majority perspective.

Those members admitting to this so far have been Mayor Thompson, Police Chief Call and Lt. Falselv (though Lt. Falsev claims that he has wanted to get a tattoo from us – I guess he is confused and conflicted – but he is certainly determined to harass us while claiming to be our pal) (How can you tell when a cop is lying?)

I suppose that I should also point out that in over 20 years of offering tattoo and piercing services this is the first time that we have ever had a complaint (criminal or civil) made against us.

The police have gone overboard to make what should have been a family matter into a criminal one and have misdirected the offense entirely toward the victims.

And since the defendant is only an agent of Whole Life Ministries (A Utah Non-Profit Religious Corporation) (Happy Valley Tattoo being an registered assumed name) which performs tattoos and piercing as a spiritual practice and as it is obvious to the common man that no laws were violated, and since the government makes no effort to hide their disdain based on their own religious perspective, that this is nothing less than religion on religion discrimination practiced by certain members of local government in an effort to drive out of town a minority religion that those government leaders do not approve of.

They would be hard put to claim that it is tattoos in general and not religion that drives their disapproval since they paved the way for tattooing by creating a zoning classification specifically aimed at inviting tattoo establishments to locate here.

Additionally, Mayor Thompson has stated that his religion does not believe in what we do and that he does not think we belong in his town.

No Court This Week

Read Details Here.

Blog Postings Regarding American Fork City Harassment

Find all blog postings (opinion and editorial pages, ongoing news and media reports, fundraising, etc. - rather than document pages) here http://docloco.com/category/happy-valley-tattoo-massacre/

Utah Code and Miller Decision - Applicable Exerpts with Commentary

Click the link to view the documents - check back for additional commentary and Supreme Court and Congressional applicable decisions.

applicable-code-shandi.doc

Books Containing Photos in Question

These books were always kept in a neat and orderly condition as a matter of strict studio policy. In other words, they always looked just like this. Tattoo Artist portfolios on top, Flash books and Piercing Portfolios underneath. Books were moved to behind the counter before the raid due to planned remodeling, not because of any perception of inappropriate content.

same wall later

Note the placement of the counter by the as yet unpainted window (painted in late Dec 07, Jan 0 would allow anyone outside to see the labels on the piercing books which were permanently located on the far right under the counter, closest to the window.

Here are the windows after painting

Signage from prior to January Raid

Here are signs posted on the doors to the studio from the day we moved in, just as they were at our previous location regarding minors being prohibited without parent.

and also inside   the sign over her right shoulder says “you must be born on or before today in 89 to get a tattoo.

I would suggest that our intention regarding minors was quite clear.

Utah State vs. Shandi Child - Porn Charges From Jan 3rd 2008 raid

Here is the summons our staff member Shandi received today stemming from the raid on our ministry Jan. 3rd, 2008 claiming minors looked at genital body piercing photographs which the police and apparently now the attorneys representing Utah County consider Materials Harmful to Minors.

and here is page two

If you want to look up the relevant Utah Law yourself (I will be preparing and posting a summary in the next few days) you can go here and type in the law code # 76-10-1206 and follow the links or go to http://www.utah.gov and search there.

Utah County vs Shandi Child - Utah Code

Here is the law that Shandi is being charged under and other parts of Utah Code that are particularly relevant or are substantially similar in ways that make them relevant to these unfounded charges.

utah-code-76-10-1206-material-harmful-to-a-minor.doc this is the actual law that the charges claim were violated.

Here are other Utah Criminal Codes that are referenced in 76-10-1206 and in codes that are referenced in the references, parts of which directly and others similarly and substantially relate to the charges under 76-10-1206. A full dissection of these relationships will be posted here shortly, until then you are free to read the laws and make your own attributions.

utah-code-76-10-1204-distributing-pornographic-material.doc

utah-code-76-10-1208-affirmative-defenses.doc

utah-code-76-10-1227-indecent-public-displays-definitions.doc

utah-code-76-10-1203-expert-testimony-not-required.doc

utah-code-76-10-1226-exemptions-from-application-of-film-distribution-act.doc

utah-code-distribution-display-76-10-1201-definitions.doc

utah-code-ref-76-10-1230-internet-access-rules-defenitions.doc

utah-code-ref-77-18-1-code-that-was-superceded-by-76-10-1206.doc

utah-code-ref-data-service-providers-76-10-1231.doc

utah-code-remedies-to-injured-parties-76-10-1605.doc

Utah State Constitution and United States - Bill of Rights - pertinant citations

citations-from-the-utah-state-constitution-and-the-bill-of-rights.doc