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 ...
Not in the FLDS world . . .
The girl is living with her mother and siblings in Bexar County.
From the article:
attempted to serve the girl with a subpoena at her home in San Antonio
FYI, San Antonio is in Bexar Co.
Here is the post:
To: LeGrande
“Did I miss something? “
Well, apparently.
I just wait for you to catch up.
175 posted on Saturday, June 21, 2008 5:56:55 PM by UCANSEE2 (I reserve the right to misinterpret the comments of any and all pesters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
You added the “Is this Attorney the Lady’s guardian?”
and then pretended that is what my comment “Well, apparently”, referred to.
Either you went too fast, or you are too angry, or think everyone but you is stupid.
Is Connie Gauwain still her guardian now that she has been returned to the FLDS?
The subpoena came from the Texas Attorney Generals office. I don't think the child's attorney has the power to generate a subpoena.
No, but how many times have you seen a defense Attorney try to get a subpoena to a client that doesn't want it? LOL This Attorney did try to stop the Young Lady from going back, obviously against her wishes. I think that if my Attorneys worked against my wishes, they would be lucky to get away with only losing their license.
You are correct.
I said she was not returned to her parents, and I was wrong.
But she is being protected from a certain male, well, two males.
So why wasn’t the mother involved in this meeting? Why Willie?
“The issue of guardianship would be moot after the children were returned to the parents.”
I had to go back and get your original point, since you corrected me on the fact that she had been returned to at least one parent.
If the issue is moot, then why does she have a guardian ad litem, and what legal options does that guardian have as concerns the welfare of the girl?
To: LeGrande
“Did I miss something? “
Well, apparently.
I just wait for you to catch up.
You added the “Is this Attorney the Lady’s guardian?”
and then pretended that is what my comment “Well, apparently”, referred to.
Either you went too fast, or you are too angry, or think everyone but you is stupid.
If you were just trying to ‘embellish’ my post, good try, but no one is fooled.
You snip MY Post and then act offended?
Here is MY post.
"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?"
You snipped the question out of the original posting (mine) and I merely inserted it back.
Taking a quote out of context is a form of lying. Are you a liar?
“Are you a liar?”
No. I snipped the question, “did I miss something?” out of your comment, and then I answered it with “Well, apparently”.
I wasn’t answering the next phrase, ““Is this Attorney the Lady’s guardian?”, which is why it wasn’t included.
But you replied to my post, inserting it yourself, and implying that I was trying to answer that question, when it is plain as day, and on permanent record, that I wasn’t.
So, that makes you someone who is attempting to lie, and the only person you are fooling is yourself.
Got side tracked, Scott Kalitta was killed today in qualifying.
She was there. I posted that upthread, to you I think. :)
LOL, I doubt it!
No wait...ROFLMAO
So, did her mother ask for Willie to be present?
Has the court allowed for Willie to be at all client-attorney meetings, or just the ones the witness requests (even if through an accompanying parent)???
Again, more questions.
The child's attorney did not try to stop the girl from being returned to her mother. She only wanted certain restrictions, which were granted.
The child's attorney is not a defense attorney. Are you suggesting that the attorney try to prevent service of the subpeona, which is an order for a person to appear in court. If the person given a subpoena does not appear, the court has the discretion to find the person in contempt of court and either order the person’s arrest or issue fines.
And, before you jump to conclusions, no, I do not want the girl to be arrested or fined. But I do want to know why the men of the flds are so dead set against the girl appearing in court. I'm sure they'd love to replace the present attorney with one more to their liking, maybe Rod Parker.
I don't think she would. A guardian ad litem is appointed by the courts to look after the child. After a child is returned to the parents/mother/father, there would be no need.
An attorney, maybe, but I don't see how they can honestly trump a parent. But that's what a lot of this is about now isn't it?
Almost to the point of why does she need a court appointed attorney? Is she being charged with a crime?
Wasn’t Scott Kalitta , Connie Kallita’s son.
(did I spell Connie right?) And it was a he.
Post 193
No clue, as I said, her mother seems to be the only one that could, other than the girl herself.
Yes and yes.
I wasn’t answering the next phrase, ““Is this Attorney the Lady’s guardian?”, which is why it wasn’t included.
That was the question, that "Did I miss something?" was referring to. “Is this Attorney the Lady’s guardian?”
You purposely avoided answering the question to foolishly try and put me down and then you have the audacity to object when I pointed out your deceitful method?
But you replied to my post, inserting it yourself, and implying that I was trying to answer that question, when it is plain as day, and on permanent record, that I wasn’t.
You mean reinserting the question to illustrate your deceit.
You clearly attempted to take a quote out of context. Purposely misquoting someone is lying. I merely caught and exposed you. Quite simply, you are a liar. Live with it.
I don’t think the girl can, I think it has to be the mother or the guardian.
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.