Natalie Malonis will continue as attorney ad litem for Teresa Jeffs following a raucous hearing that extended over two days. Deseret News’ Ben Winslow filed a comprehensive report early this morning. I remain confused by this Malonis-Jeffs part of the FLDS case on two fronts.
First, I don’t understand why the FLDS hierarchy are so intent on having Malonis replaced. What is the strategic imperative that merits such an expenditure of time, gold and emotion?
Second, in the other direction, I don’t understand why it is so essential for the good of Teresa Jeffs that Malonis NOT be replaced. Surely — now that CPS is rapidly non-suiting practically everyone else — there are scores if not hundreds of perfectly capable Texas AALs (many trained and indoctrinated by CPS lead counsel Charles Childress) looking for clients.
{ 90 comments… read them below or add one }
They’re not planning to “non-suit” Teresa Jeffs.
She and Merrianne are their “trophies”.
Ooops….she and Merrianne are CPS/Judge Walther’s “trophies”.
“What is the strategic imperative that merits such an expenditure of time, gold and emotion?”
First, with Teresa being Warren’s daughter, I am sure all involved will overlook the “gold” involved.
The strategy may center more on a civil complaint than the specific question of WHO is Teresa’a AAL. With Teresa being 17 YO, there is little in the way of restrictions or time of control Texas can hope to use.
The records show Malonis was spoon fed DISCOVERY that no others could get their hands on until Malonis or the CPS presented it at hearings or something filed with the court (when not ex parte, which I believe some there is still missing!).
Recall back to the custody hearing for Merrianne:
“Rios again objected to the documents, saying he has the right to review all the documents from which the individual pieces were excerpted, under a rule designed to protect defendants from cherry-picked evidence.
Walther responded by noting the rule allows for the admission of other documents, not just the review, and asked Rios whether he wanted all the documents seized during the weeklong raid of the ranch introduced into the public record.”
It looks like the state was challenging the defense to be the party responsible for introducing that evidence in which the supression of such is in question.
Could that somehow relate to various rules violated in this process, adding to a civil complaint?
…and therefore, also be a reason for the state to proceed as if they have created no harm?
Add to that the fact Ken Isenberg is representing the “church”. Factor in how that reflects what the “strategy” could be.
Maybe you should read the San Angelo newspaper, it gives more details.
The attorneys fighting Malonis are representing the FLDS corp, as well as the people who are members. I myself see a conflict of interest,and since they are in contact with Willie Jessop continually, it wouldnt make good sense for them to represent Theresa Jeffs. There is a court order against Theresa having any contact with willie Jessop, even through attorneys.
more random thoughts on “strategy”;
The burden for state time addressing the issue is shouldered walther, malonis, co-counsel Susan Hays, Angie Voss… and I’m sure Childress in the background.
I’m sure they wasted more time on CYA for the problems than Isenberg & Futrell did forcing them to prepare and rule on it.
It seems testimony on either side was futile, since every time a question was asked, an attorney objected. To many chiefs, not enough Indians!
Wasn’t this Malonis’ own motion to remove herself? Sounds like she set up her own straw man, and forced the FLDS to fight it. I call that dishonest and underhanded.
Abby,
I suppose walther will have to ask Childress if that “conflict” is of value in any future ruling on the matter, as she evidently was not aware of any way to force Isenberg out at this hearing.
Malonis’ motion was the result of Teresa / Annette’s letter to the judge. Malonis, as Teresa’s AAL had a hot potato on her hands if she did nothing.
I think the answer to your first question is the visibility and particular way Malonis handled the media in the case. The FLDS are intent on making this a case of the oppressive state versus a persecuted religion.
On your second question, there are reasons pro and con to remove Malonis. You’re right there are loads of other attorneys who could have stepped up and taken over the case. I think the full court press put on by the FLDS is probably one reason Walther didn’t remove Malonis.
“The FLDS are intent on making this a case of the oppressive state versus a persecuted religion.”
And the records show…
…that the FLDS appeared to willingly and knowingly violate the penal statutes of Texas…
Judge Walthers spent over an hours in her chambers yesterday alone with Theresa Jeffs without attorneys, Just her and Theresa.
The judge didnt make her ruling until after that.
Natalie Malonis also made the point in court, that Isenburg had made malicous comments about her past and her divorce, which werent true.
Ive read the so called divorce case and custody case, but I also know, divorce and custody can get very malicous between parents. Each Parent will the accuse the other of abuse, drugs, alcholism, adultry, you name it, adults will use it against the other.
…penal statutes of Texas that are enforced in a VERY selective manner…
…screw their rights…
I dont think anyone, not even Malonis, was arguing that there werent other attorneys who could adequately rep TJ. The issue is: can a parent or entity with adverse interests be permitted to control the legal representation of a child alleged abuse victim?
And, by the way, Walther could have removed Isenberg and Futrell once the conflict was established. By allowing them to remain for the hearing and be subject to examination under oath, she created a more complete record of the improper influence. Walther did,in effect, disqualify both Futrell and Isenberg by her ruling.
TxBluesMan { 09.05.08 at 11:44 am } …that the FLDS appeared to willingly and knowingly violate the penal statutes of Texas…
<<<<<<<<<<
More generalizations coming out of TBM’s fingers. What a communist. Shouldn’t even be practicing law with that kind of stereotyping going on in your head.
You demean every FLDS member by calling them criminals as a group. It’s simply unAmerican.
Abby, are you saying Malonis didn’t let her sons sleep on the floor littered with dog feces? Are you saying Malonis didn’t physically assault her exhuband’s wife? Are you calling those people liars?
Thank you SDK, you said that very well:)
youre welcome Abby
Jeny – are you that gullible or do you have something personal against Malonis?
SKK,
If the question is about a parent or others that wish “to CONTROL the legal representation of a child”, it’s odd they wanted the STATE to pick the AAL to replace the SUPERSTAR.
The only change I see in Futrell’s influence is that Malonis is to be involved in their work. The gain there is that walther would know from Malonis what Futrell told Teresa, if and when anything of value is ever communicated directly.
Malonis does not have that authority over what Annette would comminicate to Teresa.
With no criminal charges pending that involves Teresa, it is of little importance at this point and it’s fairly clear that Teresa will not testify.
I’m not seeing how any “influence” Annette wants for Teresa from any attorney is “improper” unless it violates some law. Telling her to take the fifth is not “improper”.
Did they show how any attorney involved violated some law or order by saying something to Teresa, Annette or the press?
I’m actually open to hearing about that if you know of something not in the news.
I will give my opinion for its worth of Natalie Malonis representing Teresa Jeffs. Natalie Malonis is representing CPS and not Teresa Jeffs. FLDS is a religious orginization that cares deeply for its members. Therefore , its wants an attorney that Teresa Jeffs can trust.
SKK Annette Jeffs was not asking to control her daughter’s legal representation. Teresa was asking the Judge to appoint a new lawyer for her. How can you bring up the issue of improper influence when Judge Walther conspired with CPS to suspend the right of discovery.
I don’t understand why you, Kurt, have a hard time understanding why Teresa wants Malonis replaced. You’ve had a complete turn around since your little tete a tete with Malonis -
If Teresa were your daughter and Malonis was saying that she was sexually abused by someone, had a child from that abuse, and was lying through her teeth about the whole thing, and she said this on Nancy Grace and to any reporter that would give her the time of day, would YOU be thrilled to have Malonis representing your daughter? She did NOT respect Teresa or Teresa’s right to privacy about very personal matters….
And you don’t get it????
What did Malonis threaten you with, Kurt? A lawsuit or something about defamation of character?
I don’t get it.
Chai,
It could be that Kurt, being a lawyer, actually understands what Malonis is supposed to do. While he, like I, don’t agree with everything that she’s done, we understand her role.
It could also be, TBM, that Kurt has been threatened with some legal action unless he backs down. He used to be as indignant as the rest of us about Malonis’ treatment of Teresa, but now he appears to be ‘on her side’ and wondering why the FLDS have a problem with her….?!?!?!? Good grief.
If a parent/grandparent can’t figure out that Malonis is no one they would want representing their child/grandchild based upon Malonis very unprofessional behavior in the press and toward her client, then I guess there’s no hope for that person.
kbp -
The mother and her gaggle of attorneys wanted to pick the ad litem. They already had one lined up who had been giving legal advise behind the scenes. Read the pleadings.
Even if they couldnt pick the ad litem, they would prefer to roll the dice and get anyone other than Malonis — hoping for an attorney they could control.
The thing about Kurt changing his opinion is he has talked to Malonis and there’s no way any of us can know what was said or why he finds it credible
Chai,
What does a parent or grandparent have to do with it? They have no standing to challenge her position as an AAL.
Somehow I don’t see Kurt backing down – first, nothing he published was out of line (his position on the FLDS issue is dead wrong, but not libelous), second, Malonis is a public figure.
I think that he talked to her, and since he understands the law, he is aware of what she is doing.
While he may disagree with her methods, that is strategy, and each lawyer has to determine what works for them and their client.
kbp -
The change is that the judge ruled that Futrell (and Isenberg) do not have authority to represent TJ. They cannot appear in the case or file pleadings or make arguments. I don’t think there’s any issue about limiting the mother’s communications with TJ.
Chai Tea { 09.05.08 at 5:37 pm } I don’t understand why you, Kurt, have a hard time understanding why Teresa wants Malonis replaced. You’ve had a complete turn around since your little tete a tete with Malonis -
If Teresa were your daughter and Malonis was saying that she was sexually abused by someone, had a child from that abuse, and was lying through her teeth about the whole thing, and she said this on Nancy Grace and to any reporter that would give her the time of day, would YOU be thrilled to have Malonis representing your daughter? She did NOT respect Teresa or Teresa’s right to privacy about very personal matters….
And you don’t get it????
What did Malonis threaten you with, Kurt? A lawsuit or something about defamation of character?
I don’t get it.
===============================
Well said! *clap, clap, clap*
Some of the commentators here dont think Teresa Jeffs has a mind of her own. Teresa Jeffs wanted to replace her attorney. Natalie Malonis is working too hard for CPS for Judge Walther to allow that.
Tom,
It doesn’t matter – the AAL is appointed by the Court, and in the best interest of the child.
LOL, but I know it is driving y’all crazy…
Ain’t life grand…
Jeny -
I think you’ve answered my question. You must have something personal against Malonis since you continue to “stray” from the truth in your Malonis bashing.
Malonis was saying that she was sexually abused by someone, had a child from that abuse
Malonis did not say that.
lying through her teeth about the whole thing
Where are the lies?
she said this on Nancy Grace and to any reporter that would give her the time of day
That did not happen. However, TJ did make those allegations, probably based on false information provided by the church lawyers.
SKK… If you will google those ‘lies’ you will find them. The papers and Nancy Grace were full of Malonis broadcasting that her client (unnamed at that point, but the ‘daughter of Warren Jeffs’) was a victim of sexual abuse, had a child that was supposed to be hidden/claimed with/by another FLDS family.
There are many things about Natalie Malonis that I dislike, however, what takes the cake was her media blitz before the Supreme Court ruling, where she argued loudly to the media (San Angelo times, Wake Up America blog) that the Supreme Court should overturn the appellate court ruling. I found that purely to be a stab in the back to the kids she purports to represent. She wanted them to stay in foster care and managed by the inept CPS schmucks rather than their loving parents. That made me totally and utterly disgusted with her.
TBM, you yourself have said that Teresa, being 17, is an adult in the eyes of the criminal courts, but yet you stick to the technical, pedantic notion that at the same time she’s a child in family court.
Do you not see the contradiction? How do you explain this discrepancy in views of a persons age being the single indicator of sufficient maturity to make decisions?
Texas is as inconsistent in their ‘age’ levels as they are in their ability to honor and follow constitutional law. They swap things around to best suit which ever judge they are appearing before to meet whatever standard applies at the moment.
33 SKK { 09.05.08 at 9:52 pm } Jeny -
I think you’ve answered my question. You must have something personal against Malonis since you continue to “stray” from the truth in your Malonis bashing.
Malonis was saying that she was sexually abused by someone, had a child from that abuse
Malonis did not say that.
lying through her teeth about the whole thing
Where are the lies?
she said this on Nancy Grace and to any reporter that would give her the time of day
That did not happen. However, TJ did make those allegations, probably based on false information provided by the church lawyers.
======================
Please stop attributing ChaiTea’s words to me. You are quoting ME as if I said any of those things, I did not.
I simply agreed with Chai’s posting. Big difference.
As for Ms. Malone, I live in Georgia. I have never met her–not in person, over the telephone, over the internet, or over e-mail. I have NEVER made her acquaintance, so I don’t understand why you make that long leap from a tall building and assume that I do know her. I have said here repeatedly on this blog that I DO NOT KNOW NATALIE MALONIS.
I have nothing against her on a personal level.
My animus (look up the word, sweets) towards Ms. Malone is based PURELY on HER BEHAVIOR towards Teresa Jeffs and her unethical behavior throughout this case.
If you can’t handle this or don’t believe this, then that is YOUR problem. Not mine.
24 Chai Tea { 09.05.08 at 5:37 pm } I don’t understand why you, Kurt, have a hard time understanding why Teresa wants Malonis replaced. You’ve had a complete turn around since your little tete a tete with Malonis -
If Teresa were your daughter and Malonis was saying that she was sexually abused by someone, had a child from that abuse, and was lying through her teeth about the whole thing, and she said this on Nancy Grace and to any reporter that would give her the time of day, would YOU be thrilled to have Malonis representing your daughter? She did NOT respect Teresa or Teresa’s right to privacy about very personal matters….
And you don’t get it????
What did Malonis threaten you with, Kurt? A lawsuit or something about defamation of character?
I don’t get it.
======================
SKK—note the words above the big dotty line are the words of ChaiTea. NOT ME.
If you’re having trouble reading posts here, I would suggest you slow down and read them thoroughly before you start attacking and assaulting people with accusations based on your own personal animus (again, look it up).
You took apart the words above the big dotty line—line by line in fact, and attributed those words to ME. And then used that as an opportunity to make false accusations against me (ie, that I have “something personal to cause me to stray from “the truth” in my Malonis bashing”).
Knock it off. You destroy your credibility (as if you had any) when you do this kind of nonsense.
Much thanks.
Jeny
I don’t apppreciate it
I second what Jeny said. I don’t know Malonis, but I don’t know a rattlesnake either. I would turn my back on neither. All the information I have about them is from what I’ve gleaned and is also based on their own reputation and behavior.
One does not have to be personally attacked to recognize deceit and intent to harm in someone else.
***Chai Tea { 09.05.08 at 5:37 pm }*** I don’t understand why you, Kurt, have a hard time understanding why Teresa wants Malonis replaced. You’ve had a complete turn around since your little tete a tete with Malonis -
If Teresa were your daughter and Malonis was saying that she was sexually abused by someone, had a child from that abuse, and was lying through her teeth about the whole thing, and she said this on Nancy Grace and to any reporter that would give her the time of day, would YOU be thrilled to have Malonis representing your daughter? She did NOT respect Teresa or Teresa’s right to privacy about very personal matters….
And you don’t get it????
What did Malonis threaten you with, Kurt? A lawsuit or something about defamation of character?
I don’t get it.
==============
Chai Tea’s posting above the big dotty line, not mine.
I googled — I read Nancy Grace transcripts. No mention of “daughter of Warren Jeffs” or sex abuse or mention of anything that sounds like it’s related to TJ. I think you folks are confusing what the media said and what Malonis said.
Sorry for attributing the post to the wrong person. My goodness that’s a strong reaction.
Chai & Jeny –
I’m not sure that you read my post. If you did, you didn’t understand what I was saying. I said nothing about Teresa Jeffs’ choice of AALs.
My question was directed at the FLDS leadership’s strategic choice to expend so much capital on this issue. They invested heavily in what just about anyone could see, in advance, would be a failed effort to unseat Malonis. They must have known they were going to lose on the motion and thereby solidify Judge Walther’s already established tendency to say “no” to their requests. Why did they pursue Malonis with such vigor? That is my question. I have some theories, but I’m interested in hearing what others have to say.
Teresa’s preference is a completely different issue. None of us on the outside have the facts necessary to read Teresa’s mind. There’s a dense fog of war that surrounds the issue. Only Teresa knows, ultimately, what she wants. And don’t go telling me that that letter conclusively proves what she wanted when it was written or what she wants today.
And let’s keep the personal insults out of it. Stick to the issues or expect to be booted into outer internet darkness.
K
SKK and blue prove:
Q:What is the difference between God and a lawyer?
A: God doesn’t think He’s a lawyer
SKK, you forgot to mention THE POINT of “Nancy” Malonis appearance on Disgrace. For anyone who needs me to point out the obvious, she in essence said: “I AGREE WITH CPS”
Kurt:
“None of us on the outside have the facts necessary to read Teresa’s mind”
No, but we sure can read what she SAID!
By the way, it was Natalie Malonis and the judge that created this nightmare, not the FLDS leadership. Who was present at this last hearing? No FLDS leadership was present, only lawyers. It is a very simple matter, and would cost the state nothing additional to give Teresa another ad-litem, but Malonis fits right in with CPS and Walthers agenda! It is in the State’s best interest to keep Malonis which is why they would spend $1000′s more dollars to keep her there.
Now Malonis can act for Teresa as if she’s secretly confiding in her, unknown to the public because it’s attorney-client privileged. Teresa has chosen to not talk to Natalie, but who will know the difference since the “child” can’t speak for herself.
There is no mystery here, just further persecution of the State.
SKK, Natalie Malonis did indeed state that her client was sexually abused & had a baby, so stop trying to re-write history. I know this because she served everyone signed up for e-filing with all her motions. I think I still have them & will print them out if needed. I got to read each & every one of her filings, and it wasn’t until the very end that she filed a motion to seal the records, which IMO, she should have filed first.
Apart from finding this conduct to be unprofessional (at best), I find it to be unethical, because she was telling the Court & the entire world that her client was a liar. By doing so, she breached the attorney-client privilege, & hopefully she’ll be disciplined for that soon enough.
Her insistence that Teresa had a baby held up the release of DNA results in cases involving any child under the age of 2, so her antics caused problems not only for Teresa but for all the parents of those children.
What personal insults, Kurt? Just because I said I don’t know where you are coming from? I don’t.
Chai –
My comment was directed at different aspects of comments by you and Jeny. One of yours goes:
“I don’t know M—–, but I don’t know a rattlesnake either. I would turn my back on neither [sic].”
You’re equating M to a rattlesnake. It’s gratuitous name-calling, not necessary to make your point.
As to the “tete a tete,” no, Malonis did not threaten anything. She provided evidence — in the form of an affidavit — that completely undercut other affidavits published at TWP. I opted to give Malonis the same evidentiary courtesy that I have offered to the FLDS.
K
What continues to bother me is that the way Walther rules on matters, the FLDS never has a point. Ever.
Later, other courts say that the FLDS DID have a point, but Walther never sees it.
I confess that I could easily not see the best course for Teresa Jeffs and that Natalie is the best Attorney in this matter for her but it’s just one more ruling by Walther that shows her absolutely totalitarian bent. Her rulings are the kind you expect in cases where the “fix” is called in from above, such as in cases involving US citizens in unfriendly and totalitarian venues.