Natalie Malonis on CASA report leak: “I hate that it’s come to this!”

It seems that Natalie Malonis may have been behind last Friday’s leak of the CASA report (actually filed by the Jeffs’ guardian ad litem) that allegedly discloses Jeffs’ personal diary entries and photos reporting on her “marriage” to Ray Jessop. Malonis, after (apparently) approving of the leak to serve her own political objectives, suddenly moved Monday to “seal” the leaked CASA report. Deseret News reports this morning (July 22):

On Monday [July 21], Malonis filed papers seeking to have the report prepared by the Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) sealed, saying, “The report and attachments contain sensitive information pertaining to allegations of sex abuse of a minor.”

Malonis acknowledged that the timing was a little late but said she was trying to protect her client. “It would prevent any further dissemination, at least from the court,” she [said] Monday night.

July 29 update: Natalie Malonis responded to this story by saying, “The CASA report did not come from me, and I am not the one who sent it around to the media.  I do not even have a complete copy of it with attachments myself. If I had filed it, I would have filed it under seal.   I did what I could do as quickly as I could.”

“Trying to protect her client”? A “little late”? “Further dissemination at least from the court?” What’s really going on here?

The report leak appears to be part of a plan coordinated by the State of Texas, aided and abetted by a nationwide crime syndicate that Georgia State Senator Nancy Schaefer calls an Empire Built on Taking Children. Their immediate objectives? Salvage the power of Texas CPS, defend the child-snatching industry, get rid of pesky Jeffs’ defense attorney Alan Futrell, and run the FLDS out of the State by inflaming the public with sensationalistic slices of data no matter how unreliable. This has been the CPS pattern from the beginning.

But why, if you want the public to see all this stuff, would you move to seal it after first revealing it? Because, arguably, the leak was illegal and violated Malonis’ duties to represent the best interests of Teresa Jeffs. By moving belatedly to seal it, Malonis gives the CPS-collaborator Texas courts an excuse to let Malonis off the hook. More on the hook, below.

On Saturday, July 19, the Houston Chronicle reported:

Vicki Vines, a clerk with the Tom Green County District Court clerk’s office said she did not know if the CASA report had been filed by mid afternoon Friday.

But Natalie Malonis, the girl’s court-appointed attorney, confirmed the report had been filed with the court in San Angelo.

“I hate that it’s come to this but hopefully now my client and I can get our relationship away from public scrutiny and back on track and start going forward.”

So, apparently on Friday, she confirmed the filing but failed to have it sealed at that time?  “I hate that it’s come this”? Relationship? Is that what Jeffs’ referred to in her June 18 letter to Judge Walther? This is what Malonis calls a “relationship”? [July 29 Clarification: It is possible that Malonis learned of the leak too late on Friday to file a motion to seal that day.]

This is the same Malonis who asked Judge Walther, as reported by the Salt Lake Tribune on July 15, to hold a hearing originally scheduled for Monday, July 21, to determine whether Malonis should be sacked as Teresa’s attorney. That hearing was inexplicably cancelled last Thursday, July 17.

But Saturday’s Hou Chron reportage, together with today’s report in the Deseret News, suggests that Malonis not only knew of the CASA report leak in advance but had a clear motive to encourage it. From today’s Des News:

The evidence cited in the CASA report came from law enforcement and Texas CPS, the group said. The report urged the judge not to remove Malonis from representing Jeffs.

“The circumstances of this case certainly necessitate the attorney ad litem’s substituted judgment for her client,” it said.

Based on photographs, marriage records, letters and cards, CASA said it concluded that Teresa Jeffs was involved in an “intimate relationship” with her purported husband, 34-year-old Raymond Jessop.

The blue text, above, is the key to the whole business. Malonis appears to have had the CASA file the report to support Malonis bid for the legal power to literally speak not for Teresa Jeffs but in place of Teresa even when doing so goes against Teresa’s expressed desires. Teresa now becomes, in essence, Malonis’ ventriloquist doll.

Texas law only allows an attorney ad litem (Malonis) this power — called “substituted judgment” — in special circumstances outlined in the slides below. These were presented to some of the FLDS kids’ AALs during their anti-FLDS training on April 11-12, 2008, in San Angelo:

Keeping Malonis on the case is vital to Malonis, Judge Walther, and the entire Texas CPS establishment. So far, they have made complete horse’s a– of themselves. Teresa is the key to their rehabilitation. She can put FLDS people in jail, but only if she cooperates as a witness. Teresa is a linch-pin in the anti-FLDS grand jury proceedings in San Angelo. If Judge Walther had been forced to sack Malonis in favor of a less-CPS-compliant ad litem, Walther would have lost a big ally in browbeating Teresa.

But Malonis and Walther could have tag-teamed behind closed doors without leaking the CASA report. Why the leak? One possible motive: Malonis and Walther both needed political cover to keep Malonis on the case. In addition, the leak serves the broader purpose of generally inflaming the public against the FLDS. I mean, who wants to stick up for “people who” (notice the stereotyping here) marry off their teens to each other?

CPS, Malonis and Walther all appear to have an anti-FLDS agenda. Without the leak, their PR hole sinks deeper. This leak gives a thin film of legitimacy to what comes across as a religiously-motivated vendetta against 500+ men, women and children by persuading the public that “abuse” must have occurred somewhere at the YFZ Ranch and, therefore, everyone on the Ranch is fair game for CPS.

Malonis’ next move will likely be to sack Teresa’s criminal defense counsel, Alan Futrell, with whom Malonis was sparring last week, claiming Futrell was acting “without authority” in representing Jeffs before the grand jury. All Malonis has to say — assuming that she can justify “substituted judgment” — is, “I speak for Teresa, now, and I say Teresa no longer wants Futrell to represent her.” Done. Well, it may not be quite that easy. But that’s the theory.

How might such a leak violate ethical or legal guidelines? The standards appear below. You be the judge. First, as to CPS, this from pages 12-13 of a training manual* used by Charles G. Childress at the April 11-12 training:

As to AALs, here is what Prof. Childress says AALs should do with information about past physical or sexual abuse (assuming for the moment that the material in the CASA report contains such information):

Generally speaking, an AAL cannot tell even the court about past abuse unless the child “continues to express objectives that would be seriously injurious” to her. In that case, the AAL would be empowered to “take minimum steps necessary to ensure” the child’s safety while supporting her own “direction” as much as possible. But it in this case Malonis, it appears, may have coordinated with Teresa’s guardian ad litem to disclose what Malonis could not both to the court and to the public.

Clever, too, that Malonis — who could theoretically be sanctioned by the Texas Bar if she violated the rules — enjoys broad immunity from lawsuits brought by Jeffs herself unless Jeffs can prove that Malonis acted with bad faith, reckless disregard, or gross negligence:

Malonis apparently did not disclose the CASA report herself. But she has admitted that the disclosure is prejudicial or otherwise harmful to her client. And Malonis has admitted that her motion to seal it was “a little late.” I think a case can be made that Malonis’ delay was willful, reckless, or grossly negligent. Malonis apparently had a motive to aid and abet the leak.

For the record, yes, I do draw the line somewhere on “child brides”. However, I’m not sure that I’m ready to say that no 15 year-old girl should be permitted to marry if she so desires and her parents are OK with it. No, I wouldn’t encourage my daughters to marry — or engage in intercourse at all — at such a young age.

But let’s not forget that in Texas, 14-year-olds were “legal” until 2005 when Harvey Hilderbran rewrote the law specifically to drive out the FLDS. In other words, Texans believed then — and probably believe now — that a 14-year-old girl is old enough to marry, as long as she doesn’t marry anyone of the FLDS faith. This being the case, they have no business hounding Ray Jessop or Teresa Jeffs over their alleged “marriage” (whatever that really means).

But regardless of where we draw the marriage line, Natalie Malonis appears to have crossed the line.  And whatever the authenticity of the information leaked in the CASA report, it applies only to those individuals it specifically implicates, not to the entire FLDS community.

* * *

*Representing Abused or Neglected Children in Texas: Child Protection Litigation in Texas and the Role of the Child’s Attorney, by Charles G. Childress, April 2008, for Attorney ad Litem Training.