Posted on 06/20/2008 3:36:08 PM PDT by Flo Nightengale
A lawyer for the 16-year-old daughter of polygamist group leader Warren Jeffs is requesting a restraining order to prevent a spokesman for the group from intimidating and harassing the girl.
The request for a restraining order against Willie Jessop was filed in San Angelo today by Natalie Malonis.
The teenager was one of the hundreds of children taken from the Yearning For Zion Ranch by Texas Child Protective Services in April because investigators believed they were exposed to abuse by members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Her name is not being disclosed because Malonis has said that she is a victim of sexual abuse.
Malonis, of Dallas, maintains in her request that Jessop has ''engaged in conduct designed to intimidate and harrass'' Malonis and her client.
Several sources close to the case have indicated that the girl is expected to be asked to testify before a Schleicher County grand jury, which next week will begin hearing the state of Texas' criminal case against FLDS members.
Malonis' request comes one day after investigators from the Texas Attorney General's Office attempted to serve the girl with a subpoena, but were unable to locate her.
''I believe that (the girl) was avoiding service because of coercion and improper influence from Willie Jessop,'' the request states.
Jessop called the petition "outrageous."
"She's trying to blame me for her client not liking her," he said today. "It shows her pathetic mindset. The only thing I ever did was try to get them together."
Jessop disputed the notion that he has attempted to intimidate Malonis or her client
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Well either she was for the lawyer doing this or she was against the lawyer doing it. One could not make out she was against the lawyer’s efforts until much later in the article. Did you start out reading it the way I did, that she was getting protection from harassment and intimidation? But really she was unavailable because she was trying to change lawyers. I think you are parsing for debate sake now.
That should only come from their lawyer or the state! :)
“Just so you know, I didn’t sign the petition on her. “
The thought never even occurred to me.
Yep. As far as we can tell, based on what the papers and websites say.
Some may be closer to the situation than others, so they may ‘know’ more.
“I just feel that there might be huge issues with any legitimate wrongdoing because of the way things were handled. That is if, there was any truth to the allegations of course. Tainted.”
The worst thing in the world is that all the allegations are true, and yet Warren Jeffs and his loyal inner circle will get away with it.
I still think it will boil down to a few provable cases, and that’s it.
If the FLDS can get out from under the ‘rules’ of Warren and Willie, then it will all be worth it.
The FLDS members did build a beautiful town, to escape the end of the world in. Let them live there, free of oppression from a megalomaniac who declares his ‘wants’ are the word of God.
I believe you are correct since CASA is volunteer based. An "attorney ad litem" implies a lawyer though.
“I think you are parsing for debate sake now.”
As you said to Alice, “do you read the posts”?
Everything you just said I already stated on several of the posts prior to this, and anyone can go back and see for themselves.
I even countered a poster who you ‘think’ is on ‘my side’, with the exact same thing you said in that last sentence.
I can go back and list all those posts for you, if it will help.
If you were meeting with your attorney, and the legal case might put me in jail, do I have a right to interfere with client-attorney privilege, and insert myself into that meeting?
The absolute minutia of conversational debate that you get wrapped up in sometimes... lol. I give up on this one.
One provable case would suffice. Not polygamy, not interference, not intimidation, not harassment, but one provable case that coincides with the worst of the allegations - child abuse. Heck, even one indictment of that order would be interesting to watch play out. So far all both sides do is bristle feathers and puff up.
Yeah. Can’t say I blame ya.
If I was exhibiting dual personalities like you have, one a logical, courteous person discussing the legality of the issues, the other a Drama Queen who screams “Nancy Grace” over, and over, I wouldn’t want to be held accountable to the words I write in a public Forum.
At least not all of them.
or
‘keyboard pixel jockies with prisms creating from cognitive dissonance,’
?
Duel personalities? Projecting again? Give it up. I am always the same. Always have a smile on my face, and never get mad. I get a kick out of you personally. You are about as funny as they come and have the knack of projecting yourself quite well like you just did. I accused you once before of being duel personalities and your little backstage PM to someone else was exactly what I knew. You exposed yourself. One side is logical and courteous and one side is wild eyed and way out there in space.
As far as I go, this boring old constitutional conservative, is pretty much the same all the time. I can’t argue in circles with people viewing a situation through a religious bigotry prism or a government is God prism logically. Suffice to say, at least I know from your PM to another poster that you mistakenly sent to me, that I get to you a bit. Yep, I repeat myself often because I am dead right on the little issue here. You want to give Nancy Graces’ star liar, oopps, I mean star lawyer credit for doing what none of the 100’s of other lawyers are doing - so be it. I am going to set the record straight on who she is. Period. I might have to do it again even. When I see someone giddy on the prospect that malfeasance towards young girls took place, I am going to call people on that giddiness. Like it or not. I call a foot a foot, a shoe a shoe, and if the shoe fits I say that person oughta wear it.
Anyway nice try, do it again in the mirror.
“You exposed yourself. One side is logical and courteous and one side is wild eyed and way out there in space.”
To prove it, here is the PRIVATE MAIL, for all to see for themselves.
Isn’t he fun?
God is government, blah, blah, blah. I care about the children. blah, blah, blah.
The only thing he cares about is that he is RIGHT, and everyone else is wrong.
When the 18 indictments issue came up everyone thought it was related to FLDS. Even him. He went dead silent.
Then when it was spotted by one poster who is on (I hate this term) our side, he went on his rants again.
GLEE, GIDDY, that’s all he keeps repeating, and the only one that is full of GLEE and GIDDYNESS is him, because he was able to prove someone was wrong.
OH well, pride goeth before a fall, and should it turn out the CPS and LE aren’t lying, and the evidence is there, I wonder how he will truly act.
The real ‘clue’ is his insistence that those who think there is a likelihood of some abuse going on, must want the children to be harmed.
As you said, I can’t think of anyone who has ever indicated anything like that.
You don’t, so I wonder who requested his presence? Don’t think you can just waltz into someone’s office and make yourself at home.
LOL, you are cracking me up. Thanks for posting it. I bet spittle is coming out you mouth as you get all riled up.
Sorry, you figured wrong.
By the way, I was disappointed if you can recollect and follow.
Huh?
Don’t you think it would be good news if there were things going on that were bad.
Actually, it would be great news if all things were going well but the history of this cult show that they completely disregard the laws of our country. A leopard can't change it's spots.
So far, just like the article the other day and alluded to again today, some of you have to hope the grand jury actually gets a case or two to ponder.
Well, I sure hope Texas has more guts than either Utah and Arizona, both of whom seem to be afraid to confront these low-life skells.
Because, so far, the ifs, the mights, the coulds, the possibles, the maybes are just that and can be looked at another way like perhaps - maybe not, possibly not, possibly won’t, etc. etc.
As my sainted grandmother would say, "If ifs and ands were pots and pans, there'd be no need for tinkers.
Maybe all this smoke everyone is creating in their collective heads is from a stink bomb rather than a fire.
And maybe, just maybe, where there's smoke, there's fire.
Is this the same 16 year old girl whose attorney tried and failed (at least for more than a day) to stop her return to the FLDS?
“When I see someone giddy on the prospect that malfeasance towards young girls took place, I am going to call people on that giddiness. Like it or not. I call a foot a foot, a shoe a shoe, and if the shoe fits I say that person oughta wear it.”
Don’t you think it would be good news if there were things going on that were bad. It would be good that someone came forward willing to testify and put an end to harassment and intimidation if it were going on?
I would be happy if someone came forward and spilled the beans if there are beans to spill.
I was actually excited from the headline and the first paragraph that perhaps someone cracked and was going to spill the beans.
I thought wow, this is great because someone has finally cracked and asked for protection to spill the beans on wrongdoing.
I was actually quite happy that perhaps someone in the circle cracked who could allow legal indictments and constitutional correct charges brought forward if wrongdoing exists.
Now I call that obsession sick. I can’t see the want any other way. Either you hope young ones were abused or you hope they were not. If you do hope they were abused for your self gratifying bigotry then you are hoping and praying for indictments.
One cannot hope indictments come down if one doesn’t want and believe that young girls were abused in Texas.
You must understand what is most important to these folks. Not the war, not the election, not gas prices, not the economy, not our manufacturing infrastructure, not illegal immigration, not the possibility of a Obama presidency, etc, etc. No, the most important thing to human existence is to rid the world and convert people from the evils of Mormonism. The constitution is a mere rag infringing upon those religious purity goals.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies
#
Watchdog Web Site Goes After the Mormon and Scientology Churches
Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:27:18 PM · 411 of 432
commonguymd to Rameumptom
Yeah, but they bash Mormons so none of that matters. And that makes a small minority of self congratulatory people here happy. The same folks that like the constitution spit upon by big government all in the name of religious purity as they see fit. You must understand what is most important to these folks. Not the war, not the election, not gas prices, not the economy, not our manufacturing infrastructure, not illegal immigration, not not the possibility of a Obama presidency, etc, etc. No, the most important thing to human existence is to rid the world and convert people from the evils of Mormonism. Get your priorities in line man.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies
Two sides to the coin. I wouldn’t even have paid attention to this issue had it not been for the unconstitutional grab to be honest. Speaking of those two other states, the charges seem to be dropping like flies. Not that I get into hypotheticals all that much, would it be a possibility that the State of Texas was set up by these folks? Just a wild eyed theory as I have watched every one of the allegations fall by the wayside. Like the reports of 50 underage pregnant girls, no boys at the ranch, no old people at the ranch, mass graveyards for boys, etc. etc. etc.
I believe the child’s attorney is Natalie Malonis, and her guardian ad litem is Connie Gauwain.
That is what I want to know, before coming to any conclusion.
What allowed him to be present?
“Did you start out reading it the way I did, that she was getting protection from harassment and intimidation? “
Then I started reading the article. I read it all the way through, after clicking on the link, and then I came to some preliminary conclusions.
Then I went and searched for other media sources carrying the same article. I found a wide variance in the ‘telling of the story’.
THEN, I posted a comment, and mentioned that there were other articles that contained much more detail for consideration.
But, you insist on focusing on this one article, and act like a Drama Queen crying because the author of the article ‘misled’ you, and then screaming ‘Nancy Grace’ over and over, even though that has nothing to do with the issues that should be under consideration.
And you can’t even acknowledge the fact that myself, as well as many other posters agree with you that the article was misleading, and the title, and that it is too early to form any conclusions.
You seem to be so obsessed with proving you are right that you wouldn’t even listen to me and others who said you were right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.