Teresa Jeffs mystery: Natalie Malonis files “emergency” motion to seal CASA report
Something fishy is going on in San Angelo, Texas. The San Angelo Standard Times reported Tuesday night that Teresa Jeffs’ increasingly strident attorney, Natalie Malonis, filed earlier in the day a second, “emergency motion” to seal the report on her client filed last Friday by Court Appointed Special Advocates Connie Gauwain and Shirley Davis:
Malonis argued in the motion that, “If the report is not sealed immediately and before a hearing can be had, the child will suffer irreparable harm through further dissemination of information in the report.”
Malonis said portions of the report - which she said include “photographs, journal entries, and documents which contain personal details about the child and her family, which details specifically pertain to allegations of sexual abuse against the child” . . .
A court clerk told the Standard-Times the report in question was not available to the public . . .
Why all the rush, now, to seal the report? And where is Judge Walther when Malonis needs her? What’s taking her so long to rule on a mere motion to seal?
This same Natalie Malonis, last Friday, seemed relieved, approving and perhaps happy with the public dissemination of the report. Wasn’t the risk of “irreparable harm” greater on Friday (before the report was publicized) than Monday and Tuesday, after the nation has already read the salacious excerpts?
Monday, Malonis filed a motion to seal the report, followed up on Tuesday with an “emergency motion,” followed by . . . silence from Judge Walther. What gives? Is there something in the CASA report — buried behind the sensational photos and diary entries — that hurts Malonis, Walther or CPS?
I’d say Malonis knows now, if she didn’t before, that she blew it — at least on ethical grounds, assuming that she was aware of the leak last Friday — by failing to seal the report immediately. Question is, why is she so anxious now, but not last Friday, to put the genie back in the bottle?
[July 29 update: Natalie 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.]
And where are the newsies who apparently saw the CASA report (or excerpts from it)? Why are they not saying more about its contents? My guess: They never saw the report itself.
Someone — possibly Malonis, Walther or someone in Walther’s office — leaked the worst excerpts as a PR maneuver to solidify Malonis as Jeffs’ attorney and to set the stage for yesterday’s FLDS indictments. But now, whoever leaked the stuff doesn’t want the public to see the rest of the report. Whatever’s in the report can’t possibly harm Jeffs any more than she already has been by the leaks.
A bit more (or less) at San Angelo Standard Times.
7 comments
There really should be some kind of fair hearing to determine who released that report, as it appears to have been released in violation of CPS/DPRS regulations, and maybe in violation of the Family Code/Penal Code. The problem is with a fair hearing.
Maybe someone has the time to look through the Texas Administrative Code, and determine if a complaint can be lodged with CPS/DPRS in Austin. If so, that could lead to a hearing there, with appeal to a Travis County District Court.
Has ANYTHING legally gone the ‘way it should’ in this kangaroo court?
I despair for our freedoms and constitutional rights.
Doran,
I’m not from Texas, but it appears to me that it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone in this situation to get a FAIR hearing there.
Following is Texas family code:
§ 1.104. CAPACITY OF SPOUSE. Except as expressly
provided by statute or by the constitution, a person, regardless of
age, who has been married in accordance with the law of this state
has the capacity and power of an adult, including the capacity to
contract.
What is Natalie arguing about Teresa’s being married for. If she is married, she doesn’t need an ad litem, and has the right to hire an attorney of her own choosing. If she isn’t married there is no case right?
//Except as expressly provided by statute//
is the clause Malonis is arguing about.
Shirley Davis
Only thing I’d seen about her, and I had to go back to check on it, is she likes quilts!
Good ole Natalie, just trying to look out for her client!
Why didn’t any lawers or judges follow the family law code as
§ 1.104. CAPACITY OF SPOUSE. Except as expressly
provided by statute or by the constitution, a person, regardless of
age, who has been married in accordance with the law of this state
has the capacity and power of an adult, including the capacity to
contract.
Leave a Comment