Natalie Malonis to be sacked (finally) as Teresa Jeffs attorney?
With Natalie Malonis finally admitting that Teresa Jeffs is “ambivalent” about Malonis, Judge Barbara Walther has at long last agreed to consider — to the extent the Walther really “considers” anything — Jeffs’ request to sack Malonis. To get a sense of Jeffs’ “ambivalence,” have a look at the letter she wrote to Her Honor all the way back on June 18.
Meanwhile, the territorial Malonis has asked Walther to stop two other attorneys from interacting with Jeffs, including Alan Futrell, who represents Jeffs in relation to the grand jury that cranks up again in San Angelo a week from today, on July 22.
Malonis has also lashed out at attorney Elizabeth “Betsy” Branch for “disrupting the relationship” between Malonis and Jeffs. Pardon me while I guffaw. In this atrocity (”case” is too mild a word) in which Malonis and the State of Texas have upended not hundreds but thousands of family relationships, Malonis is in a wad over the disruption her relationship with Jeffs?
Brooke Adams reports:
Branch represents one of Jeffs’ step-siblings as well as several other FLDS children. The Dallas attorney called Malonis’ filing inaccurate, improper and inapplicable.
Branch said she has a right to participate in any hearings involving Jeffs since her client lives in the same household and is “going to be impacted by these rulings that control the family’s movement and what the mother can and can’t do.” . . .
“Really she just needs to be left alone and allowed to have an attorney-client relationship with the attorney who can represent her in this court,” said Malonis, who also said she doesn’t understand why Jeffs needs a defense attorney. . .
Futrell said Jeffs “is entitled to hire any lawyer she wants to to represent her in a pending criminal investigation and she’s done that.”
“It is a little bit presumptuous for a family law lawyer to object to someone hiring a criminal lawyer to represent them,” he said.
“A little bit presumptuous” is a little bit of an understatement.
9 comments
The SURPRISE in this episode I see is that walthers is having any hearing, period. I guess it’s ‘who you know’ that determines if any motion you file will be set for a hearing in walthers’ court.
Brooke points out; “Malonis also has filed two motions asking the judge to stop two other attorneys participating in the child welfare case involving Jeffs. “
These 2 motions are evidently not a part of the Monday hearing that will be handled “PRIVATELY”, unless walthers is getting bolder.
“Malonis… doesn’t understand why Jeffs needs a defense attorney”
Malonis’ mindset:
If someone is innocent, they would not need a criminal defense attorney.
I see that Judge Walthers now understands that there is no good publicity that will ever come out of this case and Malonis is a publicity hound. She knows that it is in her best interest to transfer TJ’s case to Ms E. Branch, esq., who already represents her sibling(s?) and may already have a good relationship with her. Malonis should have had a criminal defense attorney as well.
//Malonis should have had a criminal defense attorney as well.//
Is that a typo or do you think there’s conceivably some thing that she could be charged with?
Since there is now documentary evidence in Teresa’s own handwriting that she lied about not being married, I doubt that the judge will remove Malonis.
It is clear that preventing a still underage girl from returning to an illegal marriage is not in the child’s best interest.
I guess that keeping a diary talking about the marriage is not a good idea if one intends to lie about it later.
No, actually, there is no such evidence until the documents presented to the court ex parte have been authenticated and subjected to proper adversarial cross examination.
I wouldn’t trust the Tom Greene County CASA any further than I can through it.
Even if these photos and diaries are authentic and say what they purport to say, they have nothing to do with anyone but the two people involved in the marriage — Malonis’ client and the man who married her.
The documents don’t have anything to do, either, with whether Malonis continues to represent the girl. That is, in the rational, legal mind they should not.
TBM - Funny thing though…nowhere have I read that Teresa denied being married. Only that she has never been sexually active, which according to the reports I’ve read it has been proven by a gynecologist that she is a virgin. It’s going to be interesting watching Texas persecute a young girl for being a virgin.
Anon,
Since I haven’t seen such a report, and it was provided by the same people (the FLDS) that said they don’t do underage marriages….
I would lay money that she lied about that too.
She hasn’t lied about a thing. She said she wasn’t forced to be married, and there’s no indication that isn’t true.
“They dont do underage marriages”
Under who’s age?
Leave a Comment