Over the weekend, I had an extended phone conversation with Natalie Malonis about the Texas CPS case. In keeping with the motto of this blog — “by proving contraries truth is made manifest” — I’d like to quickly share a few insights from that conversation.
First, I no longer believe, as I suggested on July 26, that Malonis began her involvement in this case with a “grandiose agenda” or that in taking up the case she was in over her “intellectual” head any more than other attorneys who, on the spur of the moment, were dragged into a case with 500+ parties on three sides — parents, children and CPS. Imagine playing Kriegspiel chess in three dimensions. It’s not an easy game for anyone.
Second, I believe that Malonis believes, like most other American parents, that statutes and constitutions set a very high standard of proof for a State that seeks to separate parents from their children. More specifically, she is emphatic that parents are entitled to full due process — which I took to mean at least a full-dress adversarial hearing — before the State can terminate their parental rights. Without prodding, she said she views termination of parental rights as equivalent to a death penalty and agreed that foster care is a risky proposition to be avoided except in extreme situations.
Third, I have read an 11-page Amended Affidavit signed on November 12, 2003 by Malonis’ second husband, Douglas W. Buchanan. In light of this affidavit — assuming its authenticity as provided to me by Malonis — I can say with a high degree of assurance that the prejudicial affidavits originally posted on Truth Will Prevail do not fairly reflect who Malonis was or is. I have every reason to believe that this affidavit is what Buchanan really meant to say and that the previously published affidavit was largely false.
The picture that emerges from the affidavit is that of an extraordinarly dedicated mother who worked hard to keep her kids healthy and happy, serving as their Cub Scout Den Mother, photographer for their chess club (bet that was exciting!), led their Pokemon league, head-coached a T-ball team, taught them how to hit and catch a baseball, and rode motorcyles with them — all in the shadow of some circumstances entirely out of her control. According to Buchanan, Malonis dedicated considerable time to researching dyslexia and securing the related treatment for one of the boys.
Buchanan’s list of Malonis’ positive parental activities is far too long to regurgitate here. Malonis sent the affidavit to me on the condition that I not publish the parts of it that would cast an unfavorable light on others mentioned in it. Until I am able to redact those parts, you’ll just have to trust me on this one.
Malonis, like many other Texas AALs, was more or less drafted after Judge Walther bit off way more than she and her court were capable of disgesting in a year. Malonis got into the case by responding, after consultation with her “boss,” to an e-mail blast by Tom Vick. Her only agenda, as far as I can tell, was to try to help resolve a case made impossibly huge and complex by Judge Walther, Texas CPS and Sheriff David Doran. The typical CPS case, she said, is a very low-intensity affair for the child’s AAL. This case, because of its size and intensely controversial nature, has been quite a culture shock.
Malonis says that she had never heard of the FLDS and was unaware of their presence in Texas until after the raid occurred. She was engaged to represent Teresa Jeffs and other FLDS children shortly before the 14-day hearing that took place on April 17-18. Early on, she wondered how the district court would handle the logistics of the case in which 450+ children and their parents would all be entitled to a “full adversary hearing” within 14 days. The math just did not add up. She speculated that many family law judges might be temporarily assigned to the 51st District and was quite surprised to learn that Judge Walther was planning to handle the whole thing on her own.
She also said that while she has handled many custody cases (usually “private” ones not involving CPS) she has never seen a CPS case in which the State has kept such a tight lid on its evidence against the parents. Further, she expressed surprise that — apparently — not a single AAL or parent attorney has yet filed a motion to compel the State to produce evidence.
On the subject of her Nancy Grace appearances, she pleads naivete and says she wouldn’t do it again if given a do-over. I can relate. I once appeared on the Sean Hannity radio show in relation to a huge local controversy — back in the early 1990s — and feel the same way. You go into it thinking you’re going to do some good for your client and come out feeling used.
When asked to speculate how many FLDS children may have been legally abused (either physically or emotionally) sufficient to justify their removal, she initially said approximately 30. But she clarified that these (admittedly speculative) 30 kids would be direct cases of abuse justifying emergency removal. However, through a strict reading of the law, more could be removed on a non-emergency basis because leaving other children in physical proximity to an alleged sex abuser is itself abuse.
Malonis was not advocating removal of “indirect” cases because she views the FLDS “sex abuse” case as a variety of “abuse” not contemplated by Texas law. In the typical sex abuse case, the other children in the home are truly at immediate risk of sex abuse. I took Malonis to say that she does not believe this is true in the FLDS case. In this case, the indirect risk, if any, is one that applies to teenage girls who either have already been “spiritually married” or who may soon be married illegally.
Malonis agreed that if the State were to have an unlimited search warrant against any group of 450 children in Texas, they would probably be able to substantiate 30 cases of “removable” abuse. If fact, she went even further to say that the State — if given an unlimited warrant like that in the FLDS case against any single family — could probably substantiate some form of abuse or neglect against the parents. Yet, she believes, despite this fact, that Texas CPS does not remove enough children from dangerous situations in her jurisdiction. She says that her view is that CPS operates at the extremes in all-or-none mode, abandoning the middle ground. I’d call it too many false positives and false negatives.
On balance, my current thinking on the Malonis-Teresa Jeffs relationship is that (a) the search warrant that led Malonis and Jeffs into an attorney-client relationship was a vastly over-broad fraud, but (b) Malonis is the now the only person in the entire U.S.A. who can know what Teresa Jeffs has told her in confidence about Teresa’s objectives in the case, and (c) Malonis must follow her own conscience in weighing what Jeffs’ is telling her. No one else besides an impartial judge can open a window on that relationship. For now, given that Judge Walther is clearly not impartial, only Malonis can know whether she is doing the right thing by Teresa. I sense that she really believes that she is doing just that.
Finally, after reading the Buchanan affidavit and speaking with her on the phone, I don’t see any justification for removing her from the case on the basis of the previously publicized affidavits which, by the way, were filed under circumstances that, in my mind, cast significant doubt on their accuracy and reliability.
That’s the reality of the situation. Those of us who believe in due process are, I think, bound to work within it despite what some of us see as pretty obvious violations so far by Judge Walther. I hasten to add that I have not parsed in detail the transcript of the 14-day hearing. Some observers have taken exception to things that Malonis said at the hearing. I’m not prepared to comment on that but am happy to provide a forum for others to do so in a civil way. For you FLDS partisans, it’s entirely possible that Malonis — to pinch a Star Wars phrase — is not the droid you think she is.
Some of you may think I’m not the droid you thought I was. I haven’t changed a bit. I just have a better command of the facts, I think, than I did before.
Some might enjoy the YouTube clip below of Natalie Malonis’ son, Jack, playing the guitar. He’s got talent, no question about it.
Out for now.
{ 113 comments… read them below or add one }
anon 08.04.08 at 4:53 pm
All I can say is…Actions Speak Louder Than Words!
So far Natalie Malonis’s actions haven’t shown us the wonderful person she thinks she is.
After enough people started griping about what I was saying and/or doing, I certainly wouldn’t defend myself by agreeing with their accusations. I’d get it published on Kurt’s blog how wonderful I really was!
DeputyHeadmistress 08.04.08 at 5:03 pm
So, Kurt, did you appear on the Sean Hannity show three times, or was once enough?
Kurt Schulzke 08.04.08 at 5:30 pm
DH –
It’s a fair question. I think twice is more difficult than once to write off as mere “naivete,” but it’s still possible.
I think it’s just as fair to ask, though, whether you are comfortable with the idea of one man — prophet, judge, whatever — unilaterally making and breaking families as apparently happens within the FLDS community. How is it better for Warren Jeffs to do it than Barbara Walther?
Malonis had nothing to do with the Eldorado raid. Hadn’t heard the term “FLDS” until the raid was plastered all over the news.
I am as dedicated to small government and the Bill of Rights as anyone. I just don’t see how taking down Malonis, especially when the facts don’t seem to support doing so, helps promote either one.
K
Cali 08.04.08 at 6:01 pm
Given:
The public comments to the press about the “hidden child” that never existed.
Three Nancy Grace appearances.
The objections over an independent of FLDS ties criminal attorney who could best represent Teresa’s interests in Grand Jury matters,
The court documents leaked to the press and not sealed until days later after the damage was done with the “I wish it hadn’t come to this.” comment.
The not wanting to fight Teresa in the press and then doing just that.
And last but not least, Teresa’s own letters,
I am disinclined to believe what Malonis has to say at this late point in regards to her representation of Teresa Jeffs.
My own thoughts on her responses are that perhaps that those who felt as many of us did, that her actions are not those of an attorney who is representing the interests of her client, but those interests of the State of Texas and CPS and went on to put our thoughts in writing to the Texas Bar and other officials of authority might have hit the desk of someone who felt the same when presented with her actions and this is the results.
I agree that Judge Walther is clearly not impartial. I also am not convinced that Malonis should continue to represent Teresa Jeffs given her performance thus far.
DeputyHeadmistress 08.04.08 at 6:17 pm
Kurt, I have explained why I think the difference between Jeffs separating families and Judge Walthers doing it is pretty substantial in your other post and on my blog.
Looking at Cali’s list, I would agree with most of it, except I’d drop the last item, as right now whether or not Teresa’s letters are sincere or she has some secret communication with her attorney saying ‘please ignore whatever I say about getting you off the case’ is something we cannot know.
But I would add those two interviews with a blogger at a time when she was representing another client she knew to be an adult and yet she spoke as though every disputed minor CPS claimed was actually a minor child.
I do appreciate you clearing up the affidavit issues, and that those guilty of airing them at FLDS View without vetting them more carefully displayed a serious lapse in judgment (unless it was something worse). I am sorry her family laundry was aired indiscriminately.
Thomas Forguson 08.04.08 at 6:29 pm
You are still living natlaie Maonis too much credit. She still falsely claimed that Teresa Jeffs had had a baby. Teresa Jeffs cannot trust her. She need a new attorney.
Thomas Forguson 08.04.08 at 6:50 pm
If there is a case for protecting Teresa Jeffs, it is up to the CPS to make it. Natalie Malonis is representing CPS and not her client. The CASA representive is entitled to ignore Teresa Jeffs. Natalie Malonis is not representing her client. Teresa Jeffs needs a attorney she can trust.
Cali 08.04.08 at 7:00 pm
DeputyHeadmistress,
Given the rest of the list and your addition of the adult status of another client being represented as a minor, I feel Teresa’s letters should stand as we have only her lawyers word on the ‘please ignore whatever I say about getting you off the case’ statement.
Even that statement is not something that I am comfortable seeing Malonis “share” with anyone. Just for a moment, hypothetically, let’s say that Teresa did make such a statement in confidence to Malonis with the thought that Teresa would at some future date make a public statement against her will to have her lawyer removed from the case. That she wanted Malonis to fight that removal and stay because such a statement would not be a true representation of Teresa’s wishes, but something she was being pressured into saying. Ethically, where does her lawyer stand throwing such confidences out in a blog or in the press in her own defense of her actions?
There are several interpretations we can give this.
The kindest is that Malonis is a bit dim and doesn’t understand the consequences of her actions.
That Malonis doesn’t care what repercussions her client could possibly face within her own family and community from the release of a confidential client/attorney confidence that would put her client in an awkward position.
Or that it was never said.
I have no great insights into their private conversations, what Teresa’s position really is or what possible family conflicts there might be or might result from such a statement if it were true, but if Malonis were my attorney and she treated my confidences with such casual regard, she would not be my attorney for long at all.
TxBluesMan 08.04.08 at 7:15 pm
An attorney ad litem is supposed to represent her client’s best interests, which may not be what she says she wants.
If the AAL disagrees with what the minor tells her to do, she has to get the agreement of the GAL before she can act on it.
It’s a check and balance, to ensure that the action taken is in the best interest of the child.
Another thing to remember is that Teresa does not have the authority to fire her AAL - if she did, it would defeat the purpose of the AAL to begin with.
Y’all need to listen to Kurt - he is looking at this from a legal standpoint, not an emotional one.
Chai Tea 08.04.08 at 7:20 pm
I’m disappointed.
Chai Tea 08.04.08 at 7:22 pm
Why haven’t any of the lawyers, including Malonis, filed complaints against the court? What are they waiting for? Until 30 children are once again stripped from their mother’s arms?
I’m so sick about this.
Chai Tea 08.04.08 at 7:25 pm
TBM - you’re encouraging us to agree with Kurt because now he’s agreeing with you.
TxBluesMan 08.04.08 at 7:28 pm
Chai,
Duh, of course that’s why I’m encouraging you… lol.
BTW, if you file a complaint on a judge that you have a pending case in front of - you better have a smoking gun, photos, eyewitnesses, and video. If you lose - you and your client are toast…
Cali 08.04.08 at 7:49 pm
Tex,
I have no argument that “an attorney ad litem is supposed to represent her client’s best interests, which may not be what she says she wants”. But how do her statements in the press and those to the blogs represent those best interests of her client?
Teresa may not have the authority to fire her AAL, but where were those checks and balances to ensure that the action taken is in the best interest of the child when Teresa’s diary entries were released to the press because the documents weren’t sealed? Given the nature of the case, would it not have been a prudent action to see they were sealed the day they were filled regardless of whether Malonis knew the contents or not? Exactly how has Malonis acted in Teresa’s best interests when she makes public a private communication that could, if true, have a negative consequence on Teresa’s relationship with her family? Would it not have been more in her clients best interests to just go about her business of taking care of her client and just not say anything that would put the client in a compromised position with her family?
pc 08.04.08 at 8:20 pm
Kurt: I have to disagree with your above article about the original affidavits being prejudicial at all! The original affidavits were proven to be nothing but the truth. They were later proven to hold much truth and backed up by many other affidavits ,depositions , and court testimonials taken from Natalie’s treating psychiatrist, family members, the boys teachers, court appointed psychiatrist, school officials, John and Jamie Malonis, hospital medical records where Natalie received treatment, the boys therapist and psychiatrist, and amicus attorney involved in the case. I will not give you any further detail in order to protect the privacy of all the individuals involved in the custody case. It is all public record and you may investigate it further for the unbiased facts. I will tell you that the mother that you described above lost overnight visitation with her children for an entire year. This happened much later after Natalie filed Mr. Buchanan’s second affidavit. Please research the facts before making opinions based on the word of Natalie Bush Malonis. I am sorry her past caught up to her especially when she is so much in the public spotlight. It would be nice if everyone would respect John, Jamie, and the Malonis children and leave the Malonis Custody Case out of the conversations on this blog and separate from the interest and opinions of Natalie.
Vic 08.04.08 at 8:56 pm
16 ztgstmv { 08.04.08 at 8:35 pm } Don’t you see? Natalie Malonis is [redacted]. I can’t believe you bought her story. [redacted] And I believe the original affidavits by the way. I think she coerced her ex to rewrite the affidavits, just like’s she’s coerced you to rewrite your assessment of her. [redacted]
Were you there? At 1am ? Saw and heard everything?
ztgstmv 08.04.08 at 9:30 pm
Malonis WANTED the Supreme Court to overrule the Appellate Decision. Take your blinders off. The woman has stated very clearly who’s side she’s on.
“Natalie Malonis: From a purely legal perspective, taking politics, emotion, and public perception out of the mix, I think the Supreme Court is on solid ground for setting aside the appellate decision. ”
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/05/exclusive-attorney-for-some-flds.html
Here’s another interview she gave to the San Angelo paper:
Just looking at the ruling from the Court of Appeals, there are a lot of gaps,” she said. “The Court of Appeals had some very strong language. I could see a (higher) court taking issue with it.”
For example, she said, the three justices who issued the opinion - W. Kenneth Law, Bob Pemberton and Alan Waldrop - said the state presented “no evidence” of physical harm. In fact, a CPS witness testified at length during the April 17-18 hearing that children were at risk of hampered brain development under the authoritarian sect lifestyle.
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/may/26/court-ruling-puts-everyone-on-hold/
HOW could any FLDS trust this woman [redacted] . . .!!
DeputyHeadmistress 08.04.08 at 9:36 pm
Cali, she did stop short of claiming that Teresa told her that she really wanted Natalie to stay on as her lawyer no matter what she felt forced to say in public. She only said, “Hypothetically.. ”
That said, I do agree with you that if Teresa really did say those things to Natalie, for Natalie to reveal tha t even under the cover of ‘hypothetically,’ is very disturbing.
Kurt, shame, shame 08.04.08 at 9:37 pm
Kurt,
So many lies by Natalie. Their have been over 7oo motions entered by the lawyers of the parents IGNORED by the judge. They have been locked up in her court for more than 5 weeks of which the public is not aware. There have been so many motions for CPS to produce evidence that the judge ruled that CPS DIDN’T HAVE TO PRODUCE DISCOVERY!
You also said in your article : Yet, she believes, despite this fact, that Texas CPS DOES NOT REMOVE ENOUGH CHILDREN from dangerous situations in her jurisdiction.
She is a slave of CPS and thinks more children should be removed. You wouldn’t like it if she was representing your daughter in a CPS case. Now how can you defend her?
Vic 08.04.08 at 9:56 pm
I was pretty impressed by the skills of NM’s son playing the guitar
Thanks Kurt for posting that
cheese 08.04.08 at 10:04 pm
“(b) Malonis is the now the only person in the entire U.S.A. who can know what Teresa Jeffs has told her in confidence about Teresa’s objectives in the case,”
WHAT ABOUT TERESA? Doesn’t she know about what they have talked about?
LB 08.04.08 at 10:19 pm
KURT , With respect and admiration to you . I think its safe to say i know far more about ALL this than you and I admire you for trying to be fare . Just don’t lose your grip of the real truth that you had.
TxBluesMan 08.04.08 at 11:40 pm
Somehow, as strong as Kurt has been in his defense of the FLDS, I don’t think that he’ll roll over and play dead now, simply because y’all don’t agree with his position.
He spoke to Natalie, y’all haven’t.
His judgment is good enough in the other areas, but not in this?
What is it about the FLDS supporters that as soon as someone disagrees with y’all, the attacks commence?
Y’all are as bad as hard-shell Baptists….
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:39 am
I’ll leave out name calling for any that believe Natalie!
“More specifically, she is emphatic that parents are entitled to full due process — which I took to mean at least a full-dress adversarial hearing — before the State can terminate their parental rights.”
Should we gain from this insight the inference she has filed the motions necessary to see that the rights to all due process this mindset revealed or only those in whach we are aware of at this time?
“…an 11-page Amended Affidavit signed on November 12, 2003 by Malonis’ second husband, Douglas W. Buchanan”
This does what to the balance of the affidavits?
“Malonis says that she had never heard of the FLDS and was unaware of their presence in Texas until after the raid occurred”
So what you’re telling us is that when we read where she wrote; “…I look forward [to] terrific opportunities for… engagement… in a court of law… into the FLDS”, we can rest assured it was not written when she first started the case?
“… apparently — not a single AAL or parent attorney has yet filed a motion to compel the State to produce evidence.”
Knowing other attorneys have sought discovery, can we assume she has not when she tells us “not a single.. attorney”, and if accurate, where should we assume she has obtained the evidence in which her pleadings have been based upon?
“Nancy Grace appearances… she wouldn’t do it again if given a do-over”
It became obvious she had mastered the show with the numerous appearances (see quotes in post here, if it’s still up), and by the time all those newspapers called her July 18th, I’d bet she was typing the Motion to Seal while at the same time confirming the GAL filing.
FYI
I did not find “emotional abuse” in 262, nor did the Appeals Court or SCOT, nor did they agree to what Malonis expressed is an “immediate risk”..
“Yet, she believes, despite this fact, that Texas CPS does not remove enough children from dangerous situations in her jurisdiction.” But, “that Malonis began her involvement in this case with a “grandiose agenda” “
“(b) Malonis is the now the only person in the entire U.S.A. who can know what Teresa Jeffs has told her in confidence about Teresa’s objectives…” so ignore what the PRIVATE email response from Natalie to Tresea revealed. It was neither a lie to pressure Teresa, nor evidence of private communications with Judge walther, BUT instead a secret plan to fool the FLDS because Natlie and Teresa planned to leak it before it was sent.
For the record, they say most convicted of murder “…she wouldn’t do it again if given a do-over”!!
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:39 am
For any that forgot what all Natalie has done, read this: Then the tide starts turning, a bit more information is evidently being shared.
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:40 am
…and this: SUPERSTAR!!
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:40 am
…and this: The Appeals Court puts a damper on the plans, so HER true colors come into focus!
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:41 am
…and this: The experienced SUPERSTAR, she feels open to freely convicting suspects on the disGrace program. A kiss is “sexual abuse”? She’s just getting started in her effort HELP all children see that they are VICTIMS.
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:41 am
…and this: Lets just quote a few of her lines at disGrace discussing the SCOT ruling.
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:41 am
…and this: Now it’s time to take prisoners!
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:42 am
…and this: OH MY!, A clue WHO Malonis has accused Teresa of having sexual relations with and giving birth to his child.
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:42 am
…and this: Why has the story changed?
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:42 am
…and this: On the record for added protection?
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:43 am
…and this: Here’s a quiz: Who is that “source”?
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:43 am
…and this: Convenient assumptions here, from the Victim Whisperer.
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:43 am
…and this: We get more media exposure, and a clue or two.
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:44 am
…and this: More secrets the Attorney General can’t tell us!
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:44 am
…and this: She could convince Teresa she’s a VICTIM, if Willie wasn’t so nice to her!
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:44 am
…and this: More evidence of a victim that doesn’t know it, yet.
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:45 am
…and this: I was set back for a moment after reading this. “I’m trying to help her,” Malonis said. “It’s really not in any child’s interest to waive their attorney-client privilege. I’m not going to fight with her in the media.”
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:46 am
…and this: Sometimes she must feel like CPS, child advocates agencies and judge walthers are the only ones that will agree with her.
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:46 am
…and this: Clarification? “It’s not that I hate the FLDS,” said Malonis”
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:46 am
…and this: To “confirm” something, somebody has to tell about it first. The question is WHO told about it first? Who appears to be in contact with ALL of the media?
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:47 am
…and this: She has shown us she can trade hats, though she has been stuck wearing only CaPS since her first Nancy disGrace appearance, back on May 19th.
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:47 am
…and this: Cream on top!! An email response from Natalie to Teresa: “…the Judge wants to take you back in custody…”
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:48 am
…and then
…read all we know of that she has filed.
Kleiglights 08.05.08 at 12:48 am
I am wondering if Natalie Malonis — based on the statements in the affadavits, and now on her obvious powers of persuasion, is not what we might call, for lack of a better word, a sociopath. They are extremely persuasive people, capable of lying with complete cool and grace, but also capable of the things of which she was accused in the affadavits that were alleged to have been withdrawn. They can really sell a bill of goods. They are always victims of others.
Maybe she really is what she claims to be, but putting it all together, I see a pattern I am familiar with and know enough about to make me skeptical. Talking to sociopaths, if she is one, is a tricky wicket. It’s like Eve talking to the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
You are bending over to be fair, Kurt, and that may be the wisest thing to do at this point. But I don’t think the other shoe has dropped yet on Natalie Malonis.
Kurt Schulzke 08.05.08 at 5:08 am
I appreciate the responses from all. I’m not claiming to have a monopoly on the truth — whatever it is — about Natalie Malonis.
I have offered a few insights from my informal conversation with her, some e-mails and the Buchanan affidavit. Could Malonis be a sociopath? I suppose. Could I be fooled over the phone? Of course.
Yet my sense — and I could be wrong — is that the energy that has been expended by readers on trying to drive Malonis out of the case would be better directed elsewhere. I just think there are better ways for people on the outside to defend the FLDS (and through them freedom of religion, association, and due process) than by flailing around trying to personally tear down this one individual player on a very wide, heavily populated stage.
Those who, like pc, have asserted that additional evidence supports the affidavits originally published at Truth Will Prevail might help by producing that evidence. Otherwise, we’ll just have to wait and see what, if anything, comes out in court.
I don’t have access to the 700 motions that Walther has allegedly “ignored”. Is any of them a motion to compel? Has any attorney filed a mandamus in a higher court — except the one that led to the SCOT decision — to force Walther to do her job? If not, why not?
Yes, I agree that Teresa Jeffs also knows what she told her attorneys — both Malonis and Alan Futrell. But I don’t. And no one else does besides each attorney. Are there checks on the process? Yes, but they only work if the people manning them are sincerely motivated.
Chai Tea 08.05.08 at 5:19 am
I suggest, in the name of fairness, that you have a phone interview with Teresa Jeffs on this issue, then we’ll ALL know who is telling the truth publicly - Teresa or Malonis.
ztgstmv 08.05.08 at 6:21 am
Because all it takes is one ‘Wall’ in the hands of the prosecution to completely bring down the whole FLDS community. Malonis is working her damndest to turn Teresa against her family, and that is unfortunate.
TxBluesMan 08.05.08 at 8:15 am
Ziggy,
If Teresa was abused, or, as the evidence appears, subjected to an underage bigamous marriage, and decides to tell the truth in open court, why would that be unfortunate?
Hugh McBryde 08.05.08 at 8:45 am
Kurt, the difficulty I have with Natalie Malonis still centers around her “useful idiot” role in this whole affair. Some regard Barbara Walther as a poor judge, and she may be, but she is skilled tactical player. She knows local politics, she knows when she can get away with something, and she pushes things, rarely past the limit of what she can get away with.
Malonis has figured somehow into Barbara’s moves, getting the images into the public mind that Teresa Jeffs has had sex, has produced a child, and of course, did it all underage.
Furthermore she has encouraged us to think Teresa has a public persona meant to save her from retribution in her FLDS community, and a private one in which she pleads with Natalie to essentially “hang in there” because she “has to say” certain things about Natalie in the press to maintain her bona fides with her FLDS family and friends.
None of what Natalie says though, helps Teresa. Only Natalie’s silence, utter and complete silence would help Teresa. If the hypotheticals that Natalie keeps offering are representative of the truth, does she think the FLDS “Enforcers” we are asked to believe exist BUY Teresa’s story 100% after Natalie’s public speculations that Teresa says ONE thing behind closed doors and pleads with Natalie to be patient while she says another opposite thing in public?
At best Natalie is politically inept and no strategic thinker at all. She does not even see the most elementary secondary consequences of her words and plows ahead with her “hypothetical” scenarios as if she was trying to communicate on the sly in a classroom law discussion.
What I believe is this. Natalie spouts all of her amazing stories with the at least passive and grateful approval of Barbara Walther. Natalie is at least BLIND to anything but the primary consquences of her words and actions, at worst she is entirely aware of the trouble she causes and intended fully to cause that trouble.
While you’re at it, if you haven’t talked to her about it already, ask her if she posted as “malonis” on “the Plural Life.” You might go there yourself and see if the poster is like the speaker that you have been interviewing.
You are far closer to this than I am Kurt and have insights I cannot. I am sure Natalie is not a monster, few of us if any, really are. The divisions between a “good” person and a “bad” person are thin indeed and surely there but for the grace of God go I. Natalie though, deserves all the negative interpretation of any avalailble affadavits regarding her skills as a mother and as a wife or as a person challenged by sustance abuse. She opened the door. She could just shut up and wait for it to close again, but she cannot. It seems she must keep talking. And digging. My thought is when you hit bottom you really ought to STOP digging.
Joey 08.05.08 at 8:48 am
Teresa has already made it clear that she wasn’t abused. What’s the point in pressing the issue? Maybe you can answer me that in a clear and honest way.
TxBluesMan 08.05.08 at 9:34 am
What about the other part of my question?
If she was, as the evidence suggests, part of an illegal, bigamous, underage marriage, why shouldn’t she tell the truth in open court?
That makes it simple - and if that is the case, why would it be unfortunate for the truth to come out?
This is a relatively simple matter, with other back issues that are complex.
She was either spiritually married or not. Is there a legitimate reason why she should not tell the truth?
R 08.05.08 at 9:36 am
Because she might not *want* to see Raymond Jessop go to jail, or her siblings end up in foster care?
Kurt Schulzke 08.05.08 at 9:42 am
Hugh –
I don’t see how Malonis “opened the door” on her private life. That door was opened by TWP, wasn’t it?
I think that too much conspiracy theory has been read into Malonis’ appearances on Nancy Grace. National TV is a highly unpredictable, unforgiving medium. It’s too easy for those not under the bright lights to look back and say, with the benefit of hindsight, “Look how that appearance hurt her client or her client’s religion. She was really stupid or malicious to do that.”
But we can’t know — from a minute or two of TV commentary — what strategy Malonis’ had in mind. Turn the tables and every one of us would hope that bloggers and their readers would cast those TV appearances in the most favorable possible light. And I bet — if some readers really tried hard — they could find a benign interpretation for Malonis outwardly observed behavior.
It’s back to the angels and devils thing. What we see in a set of facts is determined in large part by who we are and what we assume about motives. I think Judge Walther has used lots of people. But being used isn’t a crime.
KS
Thomas Forguson 08.05.08 at 9:44 am
The following are the facts as I understand them. It appears Teresa Jeffs was spiritually sealed which was a binding committment to be married. But not actual marriage. If the reports are true that she is a virgin, then she is not married.
kbp 08.05.08 at 9:54 am
“Teresa Jeffs also knows what she told her attorneys — both Malonis and Alan Futrell. But I don’t.”
We all know exactly what Teresa wrote to Malonis in some emails.
We know Malonis has made efforts to have the relationship Teresa has with Alan Futrell severed.
If I’m keeping track correctly, we know that the claims presented in 2 of the 4 affidavits filed in that divorce case were not refuted with re-writes in new affidavits.
We know that the courts MUST have reason for the custody in the Malonis divorce case, and that a case such as this, which has gone on for TEN+ YEARS, starting from 2/4/98 to present, certainly indicates one or both sides is a bit unstable… and I feel certain that we know of at least one party involved which fits that description.
We know Malonis stated in open court that Teresa had a baby she was hiding (April 29).
We know that Malonis has stated in open court and pleadings that Teresa is a victim of sexual abuse without any evidence that intimate acts supporting such claims being produced.
I sense that between the seed of bullchit her “suppose this” lines planted and a personal conversation fertilized, we’re witnessing a blossom full of fantasy starting to open up here on that Natalie topic.
To believe what Natalie has evidently said in her recent emails and conversation[s] here, one has to overlook all else we know of, OR believe that Teresa and Natalie has a brilliant SECRET plan together that NOBODY else can know of until it’s completed (including what Natalie emailed to Teresa).
Tossing in the hypotheticals in that SECRET plan, which read like something which exists in a paralel universe of it’s own, looks to me to be the ONLY way to excuse the lies we know of and the conduct we’ve witnessed of this attorney.
Now, as for the “energy that has been expended” on this topic, I feel ALL news is of value in a case like this. If it keeps the public focused on the subject, they will read more of the truth as it LEAKS out.
Doran Williams 08.05.08 at 10:12 am
tx, there is no “evidence” that TJ was part of a bigamous, underage, illegal marriage. There is speculation, gossip, spin and police state mentality BS.
Be careful about using your own name when you make sladerous comments against TJ. Remember, the statute of limitations does start to run until TJ becomes an adult. Someone could, on TJ’s behalf do a bill of discovery proceeding to disclose your real name. That could take place in Travis County. A suit against you could be started in Travis County, since your slanderous remarks are being published there via the internet.
Doran Williams 08.05.08 at 10:18 am
To All Interested Persons.
Anyone and everyone who wants a complete record of the Malonis SAPCR can get it from the Tarrant County Courthouse. You don’t even have to go there. You can hire a service in Fort Worth to get it for you.
It will probably cost a moderately large number of dollars to get it; any case that has been going on for 10 years will have a couple of hundred (or more) pages of pleadings, orders, etc., plus exhibits. If depositions were taken, but not filed with the Clerk, they will not be in the file. Transcripts of court hearings may or may not be in the file; it not, they will have to be purchased from the court reporter. The deposition transcripts will be with the parties or with attorneys, past and/or present, for the parties.
Speculate for the next year or so about this if you want. Or, get the record and review it.
kbp 08.05.08 at 10:47 am
Is Doran open for private communication?
TxBluesMan 08.05.08 at 12:26 pm
Actually, Doran, there is evidence (attached as an exhibit) to the CASA motion that shows that Teresa was married. The transcript of Warren Jeffs’ dictation states: “…and Raymond Merril Jessop received my daughter Teresa Jeffs. I allowed the family to see Teresa with her husband after she was married….”
The date of the marriage would put Teresa at 15 years, 0 months, and 1 day old. The marriage took place in Schleicher County. There is no court record in said county of a judge (which, btw, would have been Judge Walther) ordering the marriage, and Teresa was too young under Texas law to be married with parental consent.
It has been widely reported that Raymond Merril Jessop has at least two other wives, and his indictment for sexual assault clearly shows another bigamous wife in 2004 whom he is accused of sexually assaulting.
Absent malice, and with the truth as a defense, there is no way that she could win. Besides, everything that I have posted is already in the public arena, and she is a public figure (now).
I would encourage Teresa to file suit - does she really want to go through the effort and expense, just to lose? Can you imagine the legal fees that would be racked up? Think about discovery - which could subsequently be used in a criminal case…
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:31 pm
TBM,
We’ll get that discovery when Natalie Malonis files suit against Teresa and the FLDS.
“My reaction will not be in email or in the press or on a blog. My reaction will be measured and appropriate in a court of law. Interestingly, this will open up terrific opportunities for discovery which will certainly lead to even greater engagement and transparency into the FLDS. I look forward to that, and if I take some knocks in the process, so be it”
kbp 08.05.08 at 12:36 pm
That would be a suit filed by the “It’s not that I hate the FLDS” Malonis we’ve all learned about.
Hugh McBryde 08.05.08 at 12:52 pm
Kurt, she opened the door by hinting at the state of Teresa’s chastity. That may not qualify in a court of law, but it’s certainly the way the court of public opinion, however uncivil, is conducted.
Hugh McBryde 08.05.08 at 12:55 pm
By the way, I keep wondering why Blues get’s his shorts all in a wad about Bigamy. Is it just that Texas says it’s illegal? What’s IMMORAL about it?
It does not seem that Blues founds his objection to bigamy in a moral context, but only a legal one and he is rabidly anti bigamy. I gotta ask why.
txmom77 08.05.08 at 1:09 pm
It isn’t Ray Jessop who is accused of Bigamy that would be Leroy Jessop. Got the brothers wrong.
TxBluesMan 08.05.08 at 1:17 pm
Hugh,
It’s against the law.
That’s my sole objection to the manner in which the FLDS live.
If you get the law changed, I could care less about it, but it is currently a felony.
Txmom,
I realize that Leroy is the one indicted for Bigamy. I am stating that it has been widely published that Ray has more than one wife, and in his indictment for Sexual Assault of a Child, the alleged offense occurred in 2004, prior to his marriage to Teresa.
There are two possible explanations for this - first, he raped a young girl who he was not spiritually married to, or second, his marriage to Teresa was bigamous.
Kurt Schulzke 08.05.08 at 1:28 pm
What if Malonis motive in “hinting at TJ’s chastity” was to ensure that TJ was able to get custody of a child that Malonis thought belonged to TJ? At that stage of the proceedings, there was a real “fog of war” environment. Isn’t it possible that Malonis motives were, in fact, honorable? And, if they were, wouldn’t it be wisest for us to leave Malonis personal life — whatever has been said about it — a respectful margin?
My point is that we just don’t know what strategy Malonis was pursuing. And she can’t share it with us unless she believes that sharing it will now advance her client’s best interests.
I repeat, representing TJ is like playing Kriegspiel chess in three dimensions. It’s a very rough, demanding game that you play in the dark to a large extent, not knowing what moves the other side has made.
A completely innocent misstep early on (like the admittedly naive Nancy Grace thing) can set in motion a destructive domino effect that gets out of control. I’m not going to compare Malonis to George Washinton but anyone who has read the real history of the Revolutionary War will know how lucky Washington was to (a) retain his command of the Continental Army and (b) win the war. He was criticized, brutally, in the early going for a variety of really stupid missteps. The same happened to Winston Churchill. Today, the world calls them both heroes.
I think some on this list are just barking up the wrong tree with Malonis. I’m not convinced that she deserves to be taken out of the case and I don’t know that it would help the cause. It might just mean that the opposition gives up less in some other area of the chess board. And it could backfire horribly on those that are pushing it. It can easily come across as just mean and nasty.
Finally, I am very sensitive to the impact of this discussion on Malonis’ children. Two wrongs do not make a right. I have no reason to believe that her children are not completely happy today with their mother. Quite the opposite.
And no matter what has gone on in the past, they don’t need to be fed a negative impression about her or their father no matter how strongly some disagree with her handling of TJ’s case.
Joey 08.05.08 at 1:38 pm
TxBluesMan, name me one person who has been convicted of felony common law bigamy in Texas.
Joey 08.05.08 at 1:49 pm
The way I see, as I’ve stated already, Malonis clearly was in favor of the Appellate court ruling being overturned. That means she wanted the kids to stay in foster care. That makes her the enemy, since she wished more heart ache on the mothers and children.
If you are to believe Malonis, and that her restraining orders were justified, and her mean letter to Teresa was really for Teresa’s good, then you must assume the converse: that Teresa, Annette, Futrell, Willie Jessop, Parker, and the FLDS are all liars and conspirators.
I don’t know, but I think I’ll side with Teresa, Willie, and Futrell on this one. Malonis needs to get out of the way.
Jeny 08.05.08 at 2:32 pm
Ms. Bush-Malonis is nothing, if not quite persusasive in her manipulative behavior.
She’s brought you over to her side, Kurt. Simply amazing to read your slanted diatribe and apologia for Ms Bush-Malonis–from YOU of all people. I am beyond disappointed.
THREE Nancy Grace performances wherein she [redacted].
You may have been taken in by all of Ms. Bush-Malonis’ grandiose explanations, but I don’t buy her bovine excrement for one nanno-second, and I never will.
I’m sorry you’ve bought her story hook, line and sinker.
Jeny
*shaking her head in complete disgust*
Hugh McBryde 08.05.08 at 2:45 pm
Blues, people don’t get this exercised about a point of law. Not generally. You have striven mightily to show that what the FLDS do is against the law, while even Polygyny OPPONENTS like Flora Jessop say that Polygyny is NOT against the law, BIGAMY is.
I’m afraid I don’t accept your explanation that you inveigh against them because they are immoral merely because an otherwise acceptable activity is against the law. Malum prohibitum. A crime only by virtue of statute alone? Work to make it legal then Blues, this has been a supreme waste of time money and effort.
Jeny 08.05.08 at 2:45 pm
“Chai Tea { 08.05.08 at 5:19 am } I suggest, in the name of fairness, that you have a phone interview with Teresa Jeffs on this issue, then we’ll ALL know who is telling the truth publicly - Teresa or Malonis.”
Agreed.
I would certainly be more inclined to hear what Kurt has to say if he provided a “Fair and Balanced” report here on his blog. So far, he has only offered Natalie Bush-Malonis’ verision of events–and apparently he has decided her version is now the correct version.
Provide an interview with Teresa Jeffs, and I think we will be closer to discovering more of the truth Kurt claims to be seeking.
Thus far, I am thoroughly unimpressed with the one-sided view he presents here.
Jeny
Kurt Schulzke 08.05.08 at 2:47 pm
Jeny –
I’m happy to take the shots at this point right alongside John Adams. Yeah, I know, “Delusions of grandeur.”
In the long run, I am confident that my approach will be seen as the wisest. By the way, the last two Nancy Graces were back-to-back and could fairly be counted as one. There’s nothing that we can accomplish on this blog by tearing down Malonis. If she isn’t the right attorney for TJ, there’s a process in place for raising those issues in court or before the Texas Bar.
Continuing to attack Malonis here is equivalent to a mob action, just as lawless as the original raid. I don’t think it reflects favorably on any of the attackers. If you want to go after Malonis, please do it in court.
KS
p.s. My elucidation of Malonis’ side of this argument counterbalances voluminous commentary here and on other blogs on the other side of the question. “Through contraries, truth is made manifest.” And remember Karl Llewellyn: The more the facts frustrate us, the more we need to study them. I sense your frustration. You might want to take some time to read Bramble Bush.
Jeny 08.05.08 at 2:54 pm
THREE performances on Nancy Grace to bad mouth ANYONE is *no accident*. Nor is it anyone’s self-claimed “naievte”, Kurt.
You know that. I know that. Hells bells, WE ALL KNOW THAT. Nobody is fooled by the “I was naieve” claim after THREE performances on National TV.
One time–I buy the “naievete” claim. THREE times, NO WAY.
Go ahead and censor this post too. I don’t conform to your way of thinking anymore, so ::::::pooof:::::: you make my opinions and my thoughts disappear. How almighty and powerful you are, Kurt. Amazing. Lawyers really *do* think they’re G-d.
Jeny
*who is completely disgusted*
Kurt Schulzke 08.05.08 at 3:03 pm
Jeny –
If I really wanted to play deity, I could just block you from the blog. But I want to hear what you have to say, as long as you don’t descend into the personal name-calling stuff.
KS
Jeny 08.05.08 at 3:08 pm
Kurt: “I’m happy to take the shots at this point right alongside John Adams. Yeah, I know, “Delusions of grandeur.”
You and Ms. Bush-Malonis apparently share a lot more in common than I once contempleted you did even in my wildest imagination.
Just wow….
I took some time off the blogs the last couple of days to deal with a busy real life and came back to find you are in Natalie’s hip pocket….and further, you are DEFENDING her on your blog.
Beyond that–you are refusing to counter-balance your defense of Bush-Malonis by providing Teresa Jeffs an equal opportunity to tell her side of the story. To you Ms. Bush-Malonis’ side of the story is quite enough and all you need. This….just guts me.
I once thought of you as fair-minded and important legal scholar and constitutionalist. I thought of you as one who believed in the absolute right to due process and fairness for all under the law.
Now I’m not so sure aliens haven’t swooped down and grabbed the real KS and replaced him with a cheap imitation version, who spouts tape recorded messages approved by Natalie Bush-Malonis.
To say that I am stunned at these developments is just quite the understatement.
No need to reply….I’ve said my piece (that is, if you don’t censor it too).
Jeny
Jeny 08.05.08 at 3:11 pm
Kurt,
I have NOT called names on this blog. Not once. I don’t appreciate your insinuation to the contrary.
You’re welcome to go back and look at my posting history. You’ll find no name calling.
Best,
Jeny
Kurt Schulzke 08.05.08 at 3:19 pm
I would like to emphasize the importance of strategic behavior and thinking, for readers who support the FLDS side of this case. While you may win a battle by unseating Malonis, it could cost you the war.
The worse Malonis is for TJ, the greater the concession implict in Judge Walther removing her from the case and the less Walther — or an appellate court — might be inclined to concede on other issues. This is especially true if the anti-Malonis crowd comes across as a vendetta-driven mob pursuing a scorched earth or eye-for-an-eye policy. I personally do not believe that Malonis set out to hurt TJ by categorizing her as an unwed mother. I think her motive for that disclosure (to the extent it was a disclosure) was benign. Regardless of her motives . . .
. . . as I’ve said before, there are legal processes for addressing deficiencies, if any, in Malonis’ representation of TJ. Those who see deficiencies may, if they wish, pursue those avenues.
Doran Williams 08.05.08 at 3:21 pm
To kbp. Sure, I think you have my email address; somehow, I have lost yours.
Tx. The exhibit you flaunt as “evidence” is not Evidence at all. It is an unauthenticated, hearsay exhibit. It is no more evidence than would be a piece of paper picked up out of the gutter naming you as a bigamist and attached as an exhibit to a pleading. You know such exhibits are not evidence. Do you assume that you can make such statements because most of the people on this thread are not lawyers?
You next “exhibit” is similarly flawed and absured: “It is widely reported that……txbluesman is having sex with the Sheriff.” Or it is widely reported that Elvis lives in Eldorado. This is the kind of crap that bitter old men pass around in the local coffee shop in the morning because they have nothing better to do and just love to flop around in lies and innuendo, like dogs in a new pile of cow flop.
How did TJ get to be a public figure? By being slandered on a blog somewhere? Or by her attorney in court filings? And so what if she is, she can seek damages against those who slander her even if she is a public figure.
And of course, back to the really touchy matter with you. She can’t take you up on your invitation to sue because she doesn’t know who you are. Hiding out there behind that cute nom de plume, you rascal.
Hugh McBryde 08.05.08 at 4:26 pm
Kurt, I think your analogy to three dimensional chess is apt. Better yet the realization that Barbara Walther is manipulating everything at this point.
I’m not sure it matters whether Teresa keeps Natalie as attorney or not, the planned outcome is poor for her, regardless of Natalie’s intentions. The same would apply if Teresa got her own attorney.
One of the things I think Judge Walther is successfully doing is keeping everyone busy. It hardly matters with what, she just keeps everyone busy. Then she rules whichever way she pleases.
Texas will not stop Walther because if she violates principle and law but gets a conviction out of the whole mess, they expect the world to go along with her.
If she doesn’t, they’ll blame her. The buck does not stop at Rick Perry as we have already learned. If there was just some way to tone down the politics of this whole business and attend more to the law aspect of it, that would be great but I don’t even see the FLDS availing themselves of all opportunities to do that.
Why for instance, have they not sued Rozita Swinton? Suing her would at least get some testimony on record that might help the FLDS, but they don’t do it.
There are many other angles I’m sure that could be taken, but they are not.
Kurt Schulzke 08.05.08 at 4:50 pm
Hugh –
Excellent points. I hope that someone is taking a strategic view in the FLDS camp, but it’s hard to distinguish for now what the strategy is.
KS
TxBluesMan 08.05.08 at 5:00 pm
Joey,
Billy Wayne Stephens was convicted of common-law bigamy.
Oscar H. Ahlberg was convicted of common-law bigamy.
John Burks was convicted of common-law bigamy.
Do you want additional examples? All of these are from appellate cases where the conviction was affirmed.
Hugh,
In Texas, polygamy is charged as Bigamy. What matters are the elements of the offense, not the specific title of the crime. Utah charges polygamy as Bigamy also.
Also, SCOTUS has held that polygamy and bigamy are malum per se offenses, not merely due to statute.
Doran,
You and I both know that the Bishop records and the record of the marriage of Teresa are admissible under Rule 803 (Exceptions to Hearsay), (11) Records of Religious Organizations, (12) Marriage, Baptismal, and Similar Certificates, and (24) Statement against Interest. It can be authenticated under Rule 901. In any event, it will get in.
She’s a public figure because she released to the press the e-mails and letters that she had sent and has had interviews, etc.
You and I both know that if she wants to sue me, there are ways to find me.
Doran Williams 08.05.08 at 5:25 pm
We were not talking about the Bishops Records. Stop trying to change the subject, which is what you regularly do when you haven’t a leg to stand on.
Do you consider yourself a public figure because you most emails on this and other threads?
I don’t know if there are ways to find you. You could be three different people of three different genders, for all we know.
Chai Tea 08.05.08 at 5:45 pm
TBM…how come you know what exhibit A is? I thought it had been removed…now YOU know?
Jeny… I cannot tell you how deeply I am saddened, too.
Hugh McBryde 08.05.08 at 5:53 pm
Why are is Polygyny malum per se Blues? You just said you DIDN’T think it was. Arguing now that SCOTUS sees them that way is not what I’m asking, clearly YOU disagree with SCOTUS.
Why the obsessive interest in Polygyny Blues? YOU think it’s malum prohibitum.
TxBluesMan 08.05.08 at 6:00 pm
Doran,
They could always contact you to reach me…
Chai,
Different exhibits - it’s not the Exhibit A (Discovery Control Plan) of the other motion, its the exhibits attached to the motion by the GAL in Teresa’s case.
Hugh,
I don’t know why SCOTUS feels that it is malum per se, but I guess you could always drive to DC and ask them…
I have already stated that I don’t have a problem with whatever the law is on it, but when a state has a law that has been in effect for over 35 years, people should obey it. The FLDS don’t want to do so, so they are being held accountable. It’s real simple.
please ban TEXASBLUESMAN 08.05.08 at 6:55 pm
I repeat!
Vic 08.05.08 at 6:57 pm
73 Jeny { 08.05.08 at 2:32 pm } Ms. Bush-Malonis is nothing, if not quite persusasive in her manipulative behavior.
She’s brought you over to her side, Kurt. Simply amazing to read your slanted diatribe and apologia for Ms Bush-Malonis–from YOU of all people. I am beyond disappointed.
THREE Nancy Grace performances wherein she [redacted].
You may have been taken in by all of Ms. Bush-Malonis’ grandiose explanations, but I don’t buy her bovine excrement for one nanno-second, and I never will.
I’m sorry you’ve bought her story hook, line and sinker.
Jeny
*shaking her head in complete disgust*
who are you trying to kid lol
TxBluesMan 08.05.08 at 7:05 pm
Kurt doesn’t have to ban me - if he asks me not to post, I won’t.
So far I am the only one offering a counterpoint to the lynch mob here (that doesn’t include you Kurt - you have shown over and over that you are willing to discuss the issues).
If he wants me gone, I’m gone - otherwise, deal with it.
Vic 08.05.08 at 7:28 pm
91 TxBluesMan { 08.05.08 at 7:05 pm } Kurt doesn’t have to ban me - if he asks me not to post, I won’t.
So far I am the only one offering a counterpoint to the lynch mob here (that doesn’t include you Kurt - you have shown over and over that you are willing to discuss the issues).
If he wants me gone, I’m gone - otherwise, deal with it.
You aren’t the only one…I just like to let mob run their course first. Let it all out. When the steam runs out then some people finally get down to the facts
coco 08.05.08 at 7:40 pm
Jeny,
Just because someone says, “Hmm…someone might have another side of the story that MIGHT be worth looking at” doesn’t put one in any hip pocket. If you can get off the emotional/hormonal high for ten seconds, maybe you can see that Kurt repeatedly says the overall cause is just, but this tangent–however irksome and controversial–may serve to just distract from the greater good. It’s a matter of focus. Didn’t that catholic school upbringing ever cover “be nice”?
“I have offered a few insights from my informal conversation with her, some e-mails and the Buchanan affidavit. Could Malonis be a sociopath? I suppose. Could I be fooled over the phone? Of course.” That’s a far cry from “This is the only truth” which seems to be your favorite refrain.
Vic 08.05.08 at 7:45 pm
Question…is this whole thing about Malonis or is it about the FLDS. With Jenny it seems to be only about Malonis. Wonder what her agenda is
coco 08.05.08 at 8:01 pm
to: please ban TEXASBLUESMAN
If TXBluesman’s posts give you a headache, don’t read them!!!
ztgstmv 08.05.08 at 8:16 pm
TXBluesMan, Can you at least provide a link to just one instance of a common law bigamy that was successfully prosecuted in TEXAS? In the last oh, 50 years? I looked for those names on the internet and couldn’t find them. I’m sorry, I have to double check your citations, since in the past, I’ve consistently found your case law examples to be irrelevant to the matter at hand.
TxBluesMan 08.05.08 at 8:18 pm
If you think it is irrelevant when I provide it, then I would suggest you look it up yourself.
Try Lexis or Westlaw. They take credit cards.
commenter 08.05.08 at 8:19 pm
Vic { 08.05.08 at 7:45 pm } Question…is this whole thing about Malonis or is it about the FLDS. With Jenny it seems to be only about Malonis. Wonder what her agenda is?
Vic–
Malonis seems to be your sole agenda too.
commenter2 08.05.08 at 8:38 pm
* Interview with Malonis *
But it’s not about Malonis?
ztgstmv 08.05.08 at 8:42 pm
Won’t bother with paying for that but thanks anyways. I’ll just go on believing your full of it, like you have been in every other case we’ve debated.
As for religious documents being valid evidence…are they valid legal documents as well? Seems the state is taking those FLDS religious documents, and girl’s diaries to boot, as pretty strong evidence. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? Is that not a valid legal concept in Texas? Doesn’t seem like it.
But don’t mind me, I’m just pissed that apparently it’s not every thing you say to a police officer that can be used against you, but every thing you have written in your scap book as well! So much for Fifth Amendment rights. Bah!
Vic 08.05.08 at 9:00 pm
Vic–
Malonis seems to be your sole agenda too.
I’m only interested in the Flds case. It’s others who go off in different directions to divert
TxBluesMan 08.06.08 at 8:40 am
Ziggy,
Writings are not testimony, but records. The Fifth Amendment doesn’t allow you to refuse to provide records.
Separation of church and state has nothing to do with prosecuting violations of general laws.
Jeny 08.06.08 at 9:55 am
“Vic { 08.05.08 at 9:00 pm } Vic–
Malonis seems to be your sole agenda too.
I’m only interested in the Flds case. It’s others who go off in different directions to divert”
=============
LOL at Vic! What a load of bovine . . .
Jeny 08.06.08 at 9:59 am
“Vic { 08.05.08 at 7:45 pm } Question…is this whole thing about Malonis or is it about the FLDS. With Jenny it seems to be only about Malonis. Wonder what her agenda is”
No agenda. I simply despise those who behave (in my opinion purely) a hyopcritical manner while doing their damned level best to destroy other (innocent and undeserving) people’s lives.
The old parable about those living in glass houses not tossing rocks comes to mind when the name Natalie Malonis is brought up.
I’m sure this post will be censored too….que cera cera.
Jeny
Vic 08.06.08 at 12:50 pm
Maybe you should concentrate on Gloria first and foremost..lol
Jeny 08.06.08 at 3:53 pm
Who is Gloria?
alice 08.06.08 at 7:20 pm
Vic - you are Knot *just* interested in the FDLS!
alice 08.06.08 at 7:24 pm
Jeny - you know good and well who “Gloria” is…. I wish you’d grow up!! This is a serious discussion and it is about real lives - not just some old message board war and new blog war!
Vic 08.06.08 at 7:43 pm
107 alice { 08.06.08 at 7:20 pm } Vic - you are Knot *just* interested in the FDLS!
I’m Knot interested in some things but I am interested in the FLDS. I find them fascinating
Vic 08.06.08 at 7:53 pm
Alice
Don’t worry bout J she’s to busy making up nics. Keeps getting kicked off of every board and blog she post on lol. Doesn’t take anyone very long to figure her out
Jeny 08.06.08 at 8:32 pm
Hey Vic….you might want to stop posting BS. I don’t think Kurt appreciates when people LIE on his blog like you are.
My IP address is visible to him. He has never seen me post under any other name here. Because I only post under the name Jeny. He knows this to be fact. He has my personal and private e-mail address, as well as my phone number.
Your behavior is quite trollish and immature. I would suggest you knock it off.
Best,
Jeny
I asked an honest question, I meant it. Who is Gloria? I truly don’t know.
Vic 08.06.08 at 11:14 pm
Did you write all of that for him or just to try and convince yourself. You are just to cute lol
Did you give him your sisters number? The weather girl at the tv station
You’re a hoot lol
Pliggy 08.10.08 at 7:15 pm
To think that Natalie was saying in open court that she believed that her client was a mother and that her child was being hidden by another FLDS mother, getting this “information” from law enforcement and not her client. And THEN pushing that her client be “protected” from her supposed spiritual husband by pushing her clients mother to accept restrictions that NO ONE else had?
PULEEEEZZZ Kurt!!
If you are justifying Natalie “Nancy” Malonis because of her good heart you are completely b-l-i-n-d
I can see that she got you on her side with the “If the FLDS leaders can do it, why can’t CPS” Garbage. But she is wrong, and you are wrong.
AND I SPEAK FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
SO she went through a divorce, I never, not once, thought that bringing up her bad experiences as a legitimate defense for Teresa to remove her, except THAT IS HOW MALONIS IS DOING IT.
But being from the FLDS, I KNOW that Teresa was only being nice to Natalie because that is the kind of person SHE is. Teresa, when she found out that she WAS NOT FORCED to keep Malonis, and that she could ASK for another attorney, that is the FIRST THING she did. And when she did it? Good heavens boy, can’t you remember? The headline “Child wants to sue Big Bad FLDS man” come to mind?
SO to PROVE HER (TERESA’S) own desires and actions, she was forced by MALONIS to publish her email conversations.
Natalie has absolutely no clue except by her “hypothetical” Stolen Intelligence how to represent the best interests of her “child”.
Please come to your senses, sir.