Natalie Malonis did her best today to get on the phone with me. I was otherwise occupied, in between responses to readers, some of whom are apparently in a “no quarter” frame of mind.
I started out the day channeling John Adams and now I’m finishing that way. I’m trying to model behavior that was lacking among certain individuals — all around the country — at the sorry beginning of this mess. I’m willing to hear her out and hope some of you are, as well.
Natalie apparently will be in court — not sure in what cases — on Tuesday and Wednesday. Hence, she is most likely deeply in preparation mode. Her efforts to get in touch are, therefore, significant.
Here’s one message Natalie sent at 10:40 a.m.:
I would be glad to talk to you if you are truly interested in the truth about me and about my role in this case. If you are sincere in your concern for the children I can correct the misstatements that you have subscribed to and show you the genesis of what has been perverted and twisted into falsehoods that actually accomplish the opposite of what is intended. If you do care at all about Teresa’s interest, you owe it to her to discover the truth and you have a responsibility not to disseminate lies that will do obstruct and jeopardize her goals.
Having read some of your commentary, I suspect that our global views are not nearly as different as you believe. I am a fierce proponent of the principle that a person’s home is sacred and should be free from intrusion except in the most limited and well defined circumstances. I am also a die1hard defender of the rule of law. You undercut the force of your position when you build your case on flasehoods and misinformation …as you have done, perhaps unwittingly.
If you are interested in the truth and if the children’s welfare is your priority …if it is true that your blog is something more than entertainment and amusement for lazy minds.
I responded, at 11:01:
I will be happy to talk with you if you have time later today or tomorrow. At the moment, I’m in the middle of negotiating a major transaction for a client.
I want the truth — wherever it is to be found and however unpleasant it may be. And I am completely willing to accept the possibility that your words and actions have come through the media haze in distorted fashion.
At 2:23 p.m., I received this:
I have just returned to my office from a meeting. I am available to talk this afternoon or this evening.
It is a gross understatement to say my words and actions have come through the media haze in distorted fashion.
Finally, at 9:27 p.m., Natalie sent this message:
Post the rest of the emails. All of them or none of the and I’m anxious to talk with you because my lack of detail is being construed as some sort of deception or misdirection. Let me state unequivocally the affidavits ..all of them ..are false. John did not retract his affidavit, but they were disproved through the judicial process. Both Tiffany and Doug subsequently swore out affidavits admitting that their prior affidavits were not true. That was many years ago (and totally irrelevant to the FLDS case in any event) I may be able to dig up copies of the subsequent affidavits. People lie in custody cases ..and some folks put their own financial or other interests above the children. Neither Tiffany nor Doug was ever called as a witness ..wouldn’t they be compelling in a custody case if their statements were true? I will provide details when I speak to you.
The only other e-mails during the day were a couple of “phone tag” messages. I’ve also encouraged Natalie to respond directly through comments on the blog.
It is what it is, folks. I urge restraint. I’m not taking a position on the facts, yet.
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
cheese 07.28.08 at 11:38 pm
So was (is) she a doper or not? We don’t seem to be getting the benefit of the doubt from her!
Doran Williams 07.28.08 at 11:53 pm
Without some documentary evidence — file-marked docs from a court proceeding are my favorites — all you have is the self-serving claims of a person notorious for talking a lot when she should not, and making public statements about her client. Still, you are doing the prudent thing to take down the affidavits she claims are “retracted,” whatever that may mean. Giver her a decent interval to provide something other than her own discourse.
As I ask my clients when there is a difficult situation: What are your goals?, and What are your motives?
Hugh McBryde 07.29.08 at 12:37 am
What I don’t understand is why Natalie Malonis says ANYTHING. She has no need to try the case she describes in public, yet she does. She does so with endless hypotheticals that sound more like a criminal trying to create other suspects than things that resemble real life.
All Teresa has to do is go in chambers with Natalie and Barbara and say the hypothetical things Natalie say she does. Natalie will never stop being her lawyer in that case.
The problem is I believe Teresa’s public statements and Barbara can’t be trusted to put the client’s best interest at heart, on the interests of Barbara Walther and her agenda.
Thus it could be true that Teresa is telling Natalie she has to slag Natalie publicly, and privately begging her to stay one. It could also be true that Teresa tells us the truth publicly, and begs Barbara Walther to let her get her own council. Barbara would do the same thing in either case, she would keep Ms. Malonis on.
Thomas Forguson 07.29.08 at 3:58 am
Common sense says that Teresa Jeffs is not supporting Ms. Molanis privately while attacking her publicly.
Ho 07.29.08 at 7:40 am
I know that Teresa is not supporting Malonis privately. I personally know that she is done with her, and wants a new attorney who will represent what SHE wants, not what Malonis wants. Read Teresa’s letters to Malonis in Truth Will Prevail. Teresa would never put on a show like that just to please someone she has no confidence in.
Frimble 07.29.08 at 7:59 am
KS: You are on the verge of being badly played. Insist that Natalie provide proof that ANY of the affidavits were EVER retracted within 48 hours or re-post these file-stamped court documents.
Hugh has it right.
Kurt Schulzke 07.29.08 at 8:06 am
Frimble:
Thanks for the advice. But . . . in our society, the burden is on the accuser to prove the accusation true, not on the accused to prove it false.
As I’ve said before I’m no longer confident that the affidavits in question are representative of reality. If the tables were turned, I would hope that an accuser would accord me this same courtesy.
K
Frimble 07.29.08 at 8:35 am
K:
You were provided the file-stamped affidavits. Evidence.
You were told by the subject of the affidavits that they had been redacted. You took them down and are “concerned” that the affidavits are “not representative of reality”?
The accusation was supported by the evidence. Is it not Natalie’s burden to now come forward with something more than her naked assertion of retraction?
Kurt Schulzke 07.29.08 at 9:03 am
Frimble —
Putting myself in Malonis position at this moment in time — having notified a blog that “these affidavits are false and were disproven in the courtroom” — I think I should be able to expect the burden to shift to the blog to show that the facts presented in the affidavits are true.
About the only way to verify it would be for someone to access the transcript (or subsequent affidavits). I don’t have the time or interest to do that. I think there are bigger things going on in the case right now that people should focus on.
For example: CPS will likely make a play to re-remove all of the children of the men who have been indicted OR to force them not to be in contact with their kids.
TxBluesMan 07.29.08 at 11:05 am
Kurt,
Although we disagree on many of the issues, you have done the responsible thing until things can be sorted out.
The subject of the affidavits, although a public figure, states that the information in the affidavits is not true and that, given time, she can prove it (or that’s how I read it).
The honorable thing to do is to allow her to do so - if it proves not to be the case, then you can re-post the affidavits, along with information about the subsequent events.
My compliments, sir.
able eddy 07.29.08 at 11:56 am
Someone, somewhere, has access to information that shows why those affadavits were retracted. Either the accusations they made were false or they were true and they were withdrawn in exchange for concessions from Natalie.
Until that information is forthcoming from a reliable source, Kurt has no choice but to move on to other aspects of this case. It is a pleasure to see anyone behave with honor in this era, and that he has done.
karateka 07.29.08 at 1:08 pm
Why does Bluesman want to give Malonis the benefit of the doubt when he has not given the FLDS the benefit of the doubt? Was it wrong to post the original arrest warrant for the raid when it has now been shown to have been based on false information - either through Swinton or the eyeball tests that were done in bad faith?
Now, I can certainly see not referring to “Escape” or other such lit that contains obvious falsehoods. But it seems to me that legal documents, whether it is an arrest warrant based on bigotry or what could have been a very contentious custody case, should be posted, and are relevant sources to the ongoing debate.
On a final note, I find it extremely strange that the husband was granted custody according to various sources. It seems to me that in such proceedings there is a huge bias to give the woman the benefit of the doubt, and keep the children with the mother. It would seem to give the story a real “man bites dog” flavor.
Kurt Schulzke 07.29.08 at 1:18 pm
I don’t know the source of the “Natalie doesn’t have custody” story. At one point, maybe she didn’t. I don’t know one way or another on that. But now she says she says both are living with her in her home.
TxBluesMan 07.29.08 at 2:17 pm
Karateka,
I tend to believe in the integrity of police officers - while there are some that are bad, the vast majority are honorable men and women who try their best to act honestly and honorably.
There has been no evidence presented on the FLDS side that shows that any of the allegations of police misconduct are sustainable. The initial comments on the phone call with Dale Barlow indicated it came prior to the warrant being issued - we now know that it was as the warrant was being executed, and that the sheriff had no way of knowing who was on the other end of the phone call. It was stated that Judge Green refused to sign the warrant before it was presented to Judge Walther - which Judge Green denied, stating that he was never presented the affidavit and would have sent it to Judge Walther if he had been given it. The FLDS denied that Teresa Jeffs had ever been spiritually married to an adult member of the FLDS - and then documentation was provided, including a ‘dictation’ (presumably an audio recording) by Warren Jeffs showing that she was so married. They denied that there was ever a problem with Willie Jessop being an ‘intimidator,’ but the judge in Utah had him removed from the courtroom for exactly that. From what I have seen, the FLDS have made no allegations supported by sworn affidavits denying wrong doing - just statements by Willie Jessop and Ron Parker, a number of which have proved to be false.
These are just a few of the areas, not including the allegations of ‘Lying for the Lord,’ ‘Bleeding the Beast,’ or the recorded sermons denigrating blacks.
I base my general opinion of both sides on the history of both sides. The Texas Rangers have an outstanding reputation, being requested by the U.S. Attorney in Waco to investigate the Branch Davidian operation, although he had numerous Federal agencies he could call on.
On the other hand, the FLDS has a long history of child sexual abuse, not limited to Warren Jeffs. Numerous members have been convicted, from Holm for sexual abuse in 2003 all the way back to Cleveland, Jeffs, et al in the 1940s for violation of the Federal Mann Act prohibiting the interstate transportation of women for illicit sexual reasons.
As for Kurt’s actions in re the affidavits? He and I disagree on the raid and the actions by LE towards the FLDS - but he acted correctly in this case. The fact that I disagree with someone’s position does not mean I will ignore things that they do that are commendable, nor does it mean I think they are a bad person.
In this case, Kurt is taking a measured, responsible approach. I am sure that if what Malonis has told him is proven untrue, he’ll let us know. I can also assure you that if she has not been truthful in this, I’ll join those of you that want her removed - but I won’t join a lynch mob.
Kurt Schulzke 07.29.08 at 2:51 pm
Tx —
I have an offer of proof that says Ranger Long would testify that Judge Griffin refused to sign the warrant before Long took the same package to Walther. What’s your source for Judge Green?
K
TxBluesMan 07.29.08 at 4:36 pm
Green was an error on my part - it’s Griffin (I was trying to do three things at once, including talking to a person named Green on the phone, and well, substituted the name…), and was from Deseret News. Judge Griffin was quoted by the paper as saying:
“I did not sign it because it was never presented to me. It went directly to the district.”
“I wouldn’t have signed it anyway. Because anything of that magnitude goes to district court.”
Where’s the offer of proof from? If it’s from Werlein and Brown it’s immaterial as to Ranger Long, unless he stated that he had presented it in front of the witnesses.
If Long and Griffin both state that it was never presented to Griffin, they could be used to impeach Griffin’s credibility, but I don’t see that this would be something that is a slam dunk.
If, in fact Ranger Long did take the warrant to Griffin, there could be a problem, but not necessarily in the way that you think.
Does the offer of proof indicate why Griffin wouldn’t sign it?
If Long thought that Judge Griffin was authorized to sign the warrant (he wasn’t, a County Court Judge can’t issue that type of warrant under CCP Art. 18.02(10) unless they are an attorney and Griffin is not a member of the bar), found out he wasn’t, and then took it to Walther, there is still no problem.
The second part of that issue is that since Griffin is not an attorney and not familiar with the law, how reliable is his alleged refusal.
The third is that had Griffin signed the warrant it wouldn’t be an issue - the evidence would have be tossed, again, because of his lack of authority.
Anyway, I’d be interested in learning more - but Griffin signing, refusing, or just shooting his mouth off is not much of an issue, in an of itself.
Frimble 07.29.08 at 5:19 pm
KS:
Upon reflection, you are right. Give Ms. malonis the benefit of the doubt and return to the important things in this case. Malonis will be irrelevent soon enough. Teresa turns 18 in less than a year now and CPS will no longer be a part of her life. She has no children that they can take from her.
CPS should realize how unwise it would be to re-remove the children of the indicted without firat complying with the statutory requirement that they try lesser measures to protect the children first. This was one problem the Court of Appeals had with the initial removal.
TxBluesMan 07.30.08 at 9:31 am
Frimble,
Good point on another removal.
I could see it happening, but only if both parents are in jail. Otherwise, separate the abuser, issue the appropriate orders (as outlined in the SCOT decision), and work on re-uniting the family if there is no danger of further abuse.
Doran Williams 08.01.08 at 8:49 am
tx said: “I base my general opinion of both sides on the history of both sides. The Texas Rangers have an outstanding reputation….”
tx either does not know Texas History or he is deliberately spinning it to burnish the reps of Texas Rangers.
Early on in this State’s history, the Rangers were employed primarily to kill Native Americans. Seems tx, who claims some relationship to Native Americans from another area of the Nation, might have the honesty or integrity or inclination to at least acknowledge this aspect of the Ranger myth. On the other hand, his job as flack for law enforcement may require him to ignore history and/or re-write it to some extent.
The extermination of Cherokees and Comanches — that is, genocide — was the official policy of Texas Presiden Mirabeau B. Lamar’s administration. Anglo settlers in Texas were encountering stiff resistence from those tribes to their efforts to steal the ancestral and treaty lands of those tribes. The response of Lamar, replicated right down to current times in most cultural conflicts in Texas, was a resort to violent force of arms. Not against the thieves, but against the victims of the thievery. Texas Rangers played a significant role in Lamar’s plan, and in the efforts of subsequent Presidents and Governors to rid the land of Native Americans.
Following the defeat of Native Americans after the Civil War, the next big thing for the Rangers was their employment as strike breakers. Their motto — “one riot, one Ranger” — arose out of their strike breaking activities. The “riots” were generally picket lines set up by strikers.
The most recent Texas Ranger strike breaking took place in the Texas Rio Grand Valley in the late 60s and early 70s, when the Rangers were deployed to break the Farm Workers strike launched by Ceasar Chavez. Ranger Captain Allee and at least two other Rangers were stationed in Rio Grand City in Starr County, and regularly harrassed, roughed up and otherwise intimidated strikers and their supporters. I was there, and had some conversations with the Rangers, who expressed great frustration and disappoint to me that they could not just beat up people like they used to be able to do .
I also talked with some of the Rangers’ victims. One of those victims was a Catholic priest: The Preist and some other strike supporters were picketing along a rail line going into a packing shed, and were on a public road while doing so. One of the Rangers grabbed the priest, twisted his arm up behind him, and held him within inches of the locomotive and freight cars as they crossed the road into the packing shed. The priest was, as you might expect, shaken by the experience.
I visited with some young students from UT who were living in Rio Grande City while they did strike support work. The Rangers broke into their house one evening and threatened and roughed them up. One young man had a photo of the brusies on his back where a Ranger had jabbed him with the business end of a double-barrelled shotgun. That young man eventually became a respected member of the Texas Legislature: He may have been a Legislator upon whom DPS could rely for a sympathetic ear, tho I doubt that he was.
The Texas Ranger’s presence and behavior in Rio Grande City tarnished their reputation. Their motto also suffered a dimunition, going from One Riot, One Ranger, to One Mexican Farm Workers Strike, Three Rangers.
In more recent times, the Rangers have little to do but raid meth labs and assist in the investigations of local government and law enforcement people who beat up prisoners, shoot people under peculiar circumstances, or steal money from public coffers. The chance to participate in a real, honest to goodness, military style raid on the YFZ Ranch must have seemed like a kind of ironic God-send to the Rangers.
Now, having successfully gotten through the damned gate, the Rangers can flaunt their new motto: “One church, one Ranger.”
TxBluesMan 08.01.08 at 12:13 pm
LOL at Doran.
No, I don’t ignore the history of the Rangers under the guidance of Lamar and Rusk - nor do I ignore the fact that even back in the 1830s, Native Americans were serving as Rangers…
The Army slaughtered thousands of us - but it wasn’t the Army as an institution that did it, it was the whites that wanted them to do so.
Doran Williams 08.01.08 at 12:29 pm
We were speaking of the Reputation of the Rangers, which you indicated was “outstanding.” You seem to be backing off of that in these remarks.
As for your last sentence, what racist garbage. Not all whites supported the genocide of the Indians. You have done the same thing here that you did with your generalized, biased, bigoted remarks lumping all FLDS people together as child abusers. That characteristic of your personality really shines, or glowers, through in that sentence.
And as for the logic of that last sentence, if we apply it to five of the recent indictees at Eldorado, they should walk because “the prophet wanted them to do it and/or made them do it.”
Jeny 08.01.08 at 10:25 pm
Just curious if anyone has turned up *any* proof whatsoever that these affidavits were ever retracted by the origial Affiants?
In my search of available public record, thus far, I have found not one scintilla of evidence that what Ms. Bush-Malonis says about their being retracted actually is the case.
Anyone else?
Jeny
Jeny 08.02.08 at 8:30 pm
Bueller, bueller? Anyone found evidence the affidavits were ever retracted as Ms. Bush-Malonis claims?
Just wondering. I don’t think this is something that a) we should take her word on, given her propensity for eh….stretching and bending the truth and b) the serious nature of the claims contained in the affidavits, and the chilling effect the have on her ability to safely and properly represent children as an AAL.
My opinion purely.
Vic 08.10.08 at 7:23 pm
Jeny { 08.01.08 at 10:25 pm } Just curious if anyone has turned up *any* proof whatsoever that these affidavits were ever retracted by the origial Affiants?
In my search of available public record, thus far, I have found not one scintilla of evidence that what Ms. Bush-Malonis says about their being retracted actually is the case.
Anyone else?
Jeny
______________________
Of course you can’t because you don’t won’t to Gloria. If only the folks here knew you
btw where’s RD these days? lol
tickledpink 09.09.08 at 4:19 pm
Waiting for MRTB to show up.
Jeny 09.09.08 at 6:54 pm
Vic — Gloria who? And RD? Don’t know RD.
If you don’t believe me, check with Kurt Schulske. He has my real name/e-mail and personal phone number. He can confirm that I am not who you are looking for.
I live in Georgia. I’m nobody of any great importance and I am definitely not named Gloria and don’t know *who* RD is.
Seriously. You’ve got me mixed up with someone else.
Sorry bud.