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 ...
She wanted the release delayed until there were certain conditions were in place, including the girl staying away from the YFZ ranch and having no contact Richard Jessop who is a 38 year old man and might be her “spiritual” husband. I wonder what Richard’s relationship to Willie is . . .
So was she released as an adult or to her mother? Doesn’t she have a child too? Who had to sign the agreement?
LOL. One can be quite happy if someone is punished for wrong doing but that is not the case with some of the posters. ala the religion forum folks that spend countless hours debunking the virtues or lack thereof when it comes to Mormons for instance which in all fairness has nothing to do with FLDS. They are assembled using this group’s plight as a foothold to further their accusations in a broader context. Two different things, and certainly two different aspects of the posters here that engage these debates in round table echo chambers.
I will lay it out logically for you, but feel free to view it through your prism, whatever that might be:
I have been steady and firm that if wrongdoing has occurred that they should be punished, and that would make one happy. Unfortunately as this thing rolls on, they appear to be the victims of an overzealous government agency.
I have been clear that the unconstitutional attempt to deny due process will possibly create issues with actually indicting people if there was any truth in the allegations.
I have been poignant on putting to bed the wild assertions by overblown imaginations of some people that view this through one of two prisms. Religious bigotry and all things are great with Government.
I have been solid on constitution rights to individual liberty.
I have noticed a peculiar happiness when bad reports come out that are easily debunked. Unfortunately the prism some are blinded by doesn’t allow for standard logic to take place.
I have been unwilling to argue or debate in circles with people that make unnecessary allegations to other posters like calling them molester defenders when there is no proof of molestation in this particular case... yet, perhaps.
I take the hyperbole and reverse it to illustrate the absurdities of some people’s way of thinking or hyperbole itself.
I am far from crying and far from screaming. You are projecting again.
This article is confusing.
The girl wants to fire her lawyer but the court says no.
The lawyer wants a restraining order keeping William Jessop away from her client, and the court says...?
Can the girl’s parents wade in and choose or fire her lawyer? Both sides are accusing the other of trying to coerce the girl to say what they want her to day at the grand jury.
Muddy muddy muddy. One wishes for facts to corroborate things. I suspect this will still be clear as mud after she testifies.
So this is the lawyer who is acting against the wishes and interests of the client? Can anyone say disbarment?
I am wondering if her testimony would even help the prosecution. It is mud.
She won’t get offered air time on Nancy Grace if she doesn’t do it. She might get disbarred, unlikely of course, but that is a risk she might take to further her career so to speak. That is why I think the effort is quite tainted.
“I suspect this will still be clear as mud after she testifies.”
From all indications, you will likely be right.
“So this is the lawyer who is acting against the wishes and interests of the client?”
As Alice said, there didn’t seem to be any problem until Willie Jessop started sitting in on a privileged meeting between client and attorney.
I think the only one that could make that call would be her mother.
Can the guardian ad litem do that?
In the mother’s place, since she is apparently not ‘with’ the child?
If this is the same lawyer and it seems to be, I don't think a lawyer can subpoena their own client. It seems to be an attorney/client conflict.
I think the AG did the subpoena and the order with the surrogate and court appointed lawyer did the rest. If there are true concerns, beyond a Nancy Grace regular, wouldn’t the other lawyers representing join in?
Aren't you being a little premature in pronouncing guilt?
So the attorney that can't be fired, that is working against their clients wishes, who wants the client to testify against her wishes wants a restraining order?
I would think that a tape recorder would go a long ways towards disbarment and RICO violations.
They always do
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.
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.
It does seem awfully odd that a lawyer would go to these lengths to get her name in the news. I would love to hear the recording. If the guy is a bully let’s hear the evidence.
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.