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 ...
“Even mentioning the existence of a tape starts to breach the Attorney client privilege.”
The attorney didn’t mention it and neither did the article.
and now this Attorney wants this young lady to testify before a Grand Jury.
Which doesn't seem to be according to the wishes of the young lady. Obviously this is a case of an Attorney placing her own desires over the desires of her client.
I think the primary reason that I am a conservative is that I think that I am responsible for my life. I don't like anyone else imposing their values on me and I try not to impose my values on them. I especially don't like the idea of a liberal lawyer imposing their beliefs on anyone.
“You would love for me to stop posting I know. “
Now why would I want that. My posts are where you get your glee, your giddyness from. I even thought of sending you a bill for services rendered.
I don’t want to be out of a job.
“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. “
If it is against the wishes of the daughter, then I think the attorney would be smart to remove herself.
What are you talking about? What does Scott McClellan have to do with this? Is he FLDS? If you are referring to the braid twisting incident, google it. There are plenty of sources providing the same information. I gave you two: Carolyn Jessop and Jaleena Fischer Jessop.
For three hours, the girl, accompanied by her mother, sat silently as Jessop heatedly told Malonis...
Also might be viewed as the attorney was the one intimidated, not the child.
Actually the fact that you are asking the questions demonstrates that the Attorney is at fault. Can you imagine OJ's lawyers subpoenaing him to testify? LOL
Shouldn’t you wait until we see if any of this is true, and what is true first?
What isn't true? There is a clear conflict between the wishes of the Attorney and client. Did I miss something? Is this Attorney the Lady's guardian?
We don't have positive proof yet, either way.
Obviously this is a case of an Attorney placing her own desires over the desires of her client.
Again, you are making a conclusion based on an assumption that is clearly questionable.
For instance, the exact same evidence exists in a case of an unwilling witness, and an intimidated witness.
Wow we agree : )
Sure.
Embellishment, temporarily.
That could be true.
Is it true that the guardian stated she was also intimidated?
If so, why?
Oh but we do. All the young lady had to say was that she didn't want to go back to the FLDS and she wouldn't have been returned. That is positive proof that the lawyer is working against her wishes when she filed an order against returning the young lady.
For instance, the exact same evidence exists in a case of an unwilling witness, and an intimidated witness.
You are confusing a defense Attorney with a Prosecutor. To a defense attorney it makes absolutely no difference at all. I can see why you are confused though, the ladies Attorney isn't acting like a defense Attorney, she is acting exactly like a Prosecuting Attorney.
No comments on the guardian at all in the article. The issue of guardianship would be moot after the children were returned to the parents.
It is.
The rest is obfuscation over an attempt to remove the lawyer, and get a more FLDS friendly lawyer to take care of this particular witness.
It doesn’t take much to see that if this case is important, and the girl has been given protection from a certain male, then that male is likely the target of the allegation.
Ergo, she was married to him. He is 38, she is sixteen, and the law says that is a no-no.
I think everyone’s suspicions should be considered because it is likely true that :
The witness is, or has turned uncooperative.
The attorney may have been ‘coercing’.
Willie may have been intimidating.
The girl may have written the letter, though I don’t know about it’s legal standing with the Judge.
The girl may show up with a new attorney, and still we won’t know if she wanted to, or was intimidated into doing so.
And we may not hear much except little snippets like this, with unresolved details, because it sells laundry detergent.
“Did I miss something? “
Well, apparently.
I just wait for you to catch up.
“The issue of guardianship would be moot after the children were returned to the parents.”
That’s the whole point. This girl hasn’t been returned to her parents, and specifically there is one man that she cannot be around, in the form of a protection order.
Actually the fact that you are asking the questions demonstrates that the Attorney is at fault. Can you imagine OJ's lawyers subpoenaing him to testify? LOL
Shouldn’t you wait until we see if any of this is true, and what is true first?
What isn't true? There is a clear conflict between the wishes of the Attorney and client. Did I miss something? Is this Attorney the Lady's guardian?
The child’s attorney is Natalie Malonis, and her guardian ad litem is Connie Gauwain.
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 subpoena came from the Texas Attorney Generals office. I don't think the child's attorney has the power to generate a subpoena.
P.S. Two men, with the temporary protection order against Willie.
If true... the boys should have helped her up and then decked him.
Well, apparently.
I just wait for you to catch up.
So you are claiming that the Attorney is the guardian too? Maybe you need to do the catching up. I rarely ask questions on threads like this that I don't already know the answer to : ) It is against the law for the attorney to be the clients legal guardian. I know that you aren't conversant with the law, maybe you should familiarize yourself with it before you spout off : )
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.