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 ...
I thought the subpoena hasn't been delivered and the Attorney is trying to get a restraining order against Jessops so that the subpoena can get delivered?
What can the other attorneys do if essentially nothing has happened?
What are you yammering about? I know I am right, I am not arguing with anyone on those issues or any issue regarding the article posted. Quit getting your undies in a bundle by getting down to microscopic minutia of every word in every post to give yourself some escape from loneliness.
Not sure.
I heard you the first time. Take a breath and relax.
“I would think that a tape recorder would go a long ways towards disbarment and RICO violations. “
I guess you missed that part of the thread.
Someone mentioned that the lawyer should, or may, have been taping the ‘meeting’.
There has been no mention publicly of it.
If Willie was there, was he doing the same, to prove that the lawyer was attempting to coerce the child into making baseless accusations?
Who is telling the truth?
Willie or Natalie?
Where is Jeffs daughter,and what does she have to say about it?
Where is her guardian ad litem, and what does she say?
Is that something the public will be allowed to hear?
Thanks. I am relaxed. I was just catching up, and those were the most important words I wanted to communicate to you.
When you carry on like that it gets hard to follow.
So I kept it short and sweet.
Pronouncing guilt against an Attorney? Hmm, lets see, this Attorney delayed the return of this girl and now this Attorney wants this young lady to testify before a Grand Jury.
Let me tell you something about testifying before a Grand Jury, you don't have benefit of council and anything you say may be used against you. It is not uncommon for prosecutors to turn on witnesses if the cases blow up. No Attorney worth anything would willingly allow their client to testify. There is no upside to participating in a witch hunt. Testifying under oath is never a good idea, even talking to LEO's is rarely a good idea, they are not your friend.
Is that something the public will be allowed to hear?
No
You just don’t like the words I have to say. I ain’t all painted up and puffed up with the thrill of trashing the constitution and letting the media determine my outlook on things so they can trample individual rights, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. Sorry all those necessary things the founding fathers found important are a nuisance to some.
The girl is living with her mother and siblings in Bexar County.
Both Malonis and Gauwain allege that Willie Jessop has intimidated and improperly influenced the 16-year-old girl, encouraging her to seek a new attorney and to avoid service of a subpoena to appear before a grand jury next week in Schleicher County.
The judge has temporarily barred Willie Jessop, who is accused of intimidation, from contacting the girl. The judge also ordered Annette Jeffs, the girl's mother, to notify law enforcement if Jessop attempts to contact her. The judge has set a hearing on the matter for next week.
Why are they are trying to get the girl to avoid service? Is there something to hide? I hope she hasn't been 'poofed' like Uncle Fred or Ruby Jessop.
If, at next week's hearing, the restraining order becomes permanent, there are other FLDS men to take Willie's place: Lindsay (the muscle) Barlow, Rodney (the intimidator) Holm, Dee (the menace) Jessop, Guy Bauer, Guy Nielson, etc.
I doubt that the mother, Annette Jeffs, will comply with the order to notify law enforcement if Willie Jessop shows up. The women are trained to obey orders, FLDS orders, without question.
Here's a tidbit about mom:
Some followers play the tapes all day long, listening as a droning Jeffs describes a woman's duty to be submissive, "Negro" devilishness and the right of God's anointed leader to "rule in all areas of life." Jeffs drove home the first point during a home economics class taught by his first wife, Annette. Jeffs ordered male students to join female classmates in the meeting hall. Jeffs grabbed his wife's long braid and twisted it, sending her to her knees. A man has a duty, he said, to be a leader. And a wife needs to be submissive, no questions asked. "He left. The boys left. She got up, fixed her hair and went on talking," said Jessop, 31, who witnessed the display. "She was a fun person. I think that is why he did it to her."
source
In her book, Carolyn Jessop relates that Jeffs once grabbed one of his wives' long braids and twisted it, forcing the woman to her knees and ripping out her hair. He told an audience of gaping boys that this was how obedient their wives should be to them.
Since you think ex’s are the point of all light on the truth, I guess we oughta be listening to Scott McClellan for the truth. You are saying that aren’t you?
Do you really want to know.... Do you really want to make me cry?
I know I am right,
Everyone else knows they are right, too.
I am not arguing with anyone on those issues or any issue regarding the article posted.
You mean you are gonna quit posting?
Or that you realize we weren't arguing with you to begin with?
Go ahead and cry. Give me the tears about your persecution. Tell me your life story if that is what it takes in your mind to make me see it your way. I know your way, and I saw it in a PM not meant for me but about me. Go ahead, give me the crocodile tears.
You would love for me to stop posting I know. And others too. The echo chamber is not going to make your life better. You will appreciate those of us that stand up for liberty some day when and if the need comes a knocking. Hopefully, you won’t need us, but if you do, we will be there.
The Attorney could never release the tape. It would be a clear abuse of the Attorney client privilege. This is a very clear case of the Attorney working against the wishes of the client. Even mentioning the existence of a tape starts to breach the Attorney client privilege.
It is clear that the Attorney thinks that she is acting in the best interests of the lady, despite the wishes of the lady. Attorneys in this position should always get out, they are in a no win situation.
this Attorney delayed the return of this 16 year old girl to the man who is the main suspect in her case of child abuse, which would be her husband, who is how old?
and now this Attorney wants this young lady to testify before a Grand Jury.
That is not at all what he said is it? Are you embellishing for effect and if so, can you at least attribute your post as embellishment?
“Those are all good questions that indicate that the attorney is not working in the interest of her client.”
Well, if you can’t answer them, then you don’t have the necessary evidence to make the conclusion that it is the attorney who is at fault.
Shouldn’t you wait until we see if any of this is true, and what is true first?
One would think so, and I guess I don’t know about the tape issues and the legalities of client attorney privileges regarding tapes. This lady has screamed from the mountain tops to begin with on a national show with no peer support so she should probably recuse herself from taking part in the fiasco. The conflict of issues is too hard to overlook imo.
What attorney works against their client wishes? Seems unlikely to me.
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.