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 ...
Beg to differ. You are free to twist it however you wish, it won't make it so.
So, how does it feel being hoisted by your own petard?
You were as wrong as could be, and you will never admit it, even though it appears in print.
“You don’t know the legal system very well.”
You are the only one, so far, that has made statements about the legal system, and been proven wrong.
You might want to , in your own words .... “familiarize yourself with it before you spout off : )”
“She supposedly became a ‘spiritual wife’ shortly after her 15th birthday to a man more then twice her age. I think someone is very worried about what she’d say.”
Yeah, like about twice plus 8.
And the reason is the Bishop’s log.
And his name is on it.
And he’s the one under order to stay away from her.
Are these things not true?
Or perhaps, they are just coincidence?
“Is it in a child’s best interest to testify before a Grand Jury with the proviso that any mistake could put the child away for years?”
That’s another one of those questions where you know the answer, because you stipulate a situation that has nothing to do with this case.
or, as Alice said, “HUH?”
“Yes, everyone lies, especially to themselves and to those closest to them.”
My condolences to you, your family, and friends, and neighbors. I am so sorry to hear you have to live under those conditions. It must be terrible.
As you have said, you are the only truthful one, and for sure that I am a liar, as well as anyone who disagrees with you.
That would make you the most truthful, and therefore, according to what you said, that would make you the biggest...?
(I don’t think you are a liar to anyone but yourself. I wish you would quit because we are only trying to find the truth here, and just because we differ on view of this case, doesn’t mean I don’t care what you have to say or think or discuss about it. I just resent that you start off calling others names, and trying to demand everyone acknowledge your superior knowledge of the current subject. Especially after you are proven wrong.)
Yes it is, my FRiend. Yes, it is. And it’s what I’m trying to share with you.
You notice that other posters that take ‘counter’ positions on this case, like PATTON, and SOUTHTEXAS behave like adults, and make their points without calling people ‘bigots’????
They ‘give’ and ‘get’ respect. Because of their ‘behavior’ and courtesy, and not because of their viewpoint.
“Ok, so we have a liberal lawyer claiming the child was abused,”
Yeah, that was LeGrande.
“Not that she might have some motive, to claim a child of a conservative sect was abused - was the the child homeschooled, hmmm?”
Odd preface that has nothing to do with the actual question.
From what I have read, the children are given homeschooling, at or above (more likely above) the equivalent public school education, for their age. But only up to a certain age. Then they are put to work.
“That is prima facia evidence of abuse, nicht wahr?”
Good homeschooling is not prima facie evidence of anything but responding to a difficult situation with the best solution.
“The kid says the lawyer is putting words in her mouth. The Lawyer says the kid is intimidated, by the church elders et al. I have no idea where the truth lies.
That seems to be most people’s opinion, after digesting the article, and any supporting links, and the comments on here.
It’s a he said/she said/(and she said)/and she was gone situation, and it’s kind of a tossup as to who is telling the truth.
I think that those posters who said the lawyer might be letting thoughts of her career ‘cloud her judgment’, may have a good point.
She has an illustrious (successful) past, and plenty of experience. But this particular case, and the other two girls she is ‘attorney ad litem’ for, might be the ‘cream of the crop’.
Maybe she wants to be the ‘attorney’ who is involved in this.
BTW, you may have been posing those questions to LeGrande, instead of me, and if so, then surely you will (or this will) let him know.
“That is not at all what he said is it?”
Note that the words I wrote were not in italics, bold, or in qoutes.
Therefore they were my words. I took his words, embellished them, and then used them in a comment to him.
You did the same thing yesterday, and you claimed it was OK when you did it.
Idle musings - thinking out loud.
The point was, there are two completely different ways to interpret the lawyer/client/flds spat, either of which may be entirely true.
I have no idea which is.
Come to think of it, it is possible that BOTH are true.
My condolences to you, your family, and friends, and neighbors. I am so sorry to hear you have to live under those conditions. It must be terrible.
Actually, lies make life more pleasant, that is their purpose. I would hate to live in a family that was brutally honest. For example: I am balding. My wife lies and tells me that she likes balding men. In return I lie and tell her that she is more beautiful than the day she married me (or some variation of that lie).
I kept track once, and about half of what I said in a day was a lie. Most of the lies come so easily to my lips that I hardly even realize that I am lying. My biggest lies though, come when I just smile and say nothing. Dissembling seems to be my forte.
So don't take it so hard when I call you a liar, just learn to recognize the truth : )
We got an hour and a half of thunder and lightning, multiples strong enough to rattle the house, and fifteen minutes of rain. But we’ll take it. :)
Thank you for explaining your ‘point of view’.
And as reasonable as your explanation is, the point is that I was not lying.
And, I don’t think you were. You were just insistent that when I qouted “Have I missed something” and responded with “Well, apparently”, that it referred to whatever words you said AFTER the phrase “have I missed something”.
It didn’t. When I read “Have I missed something”, I started to post, copied that piece of text, and responded.
I didn’t even read the words after the phrase “have I missed something”. It is where I stopped and decided to respond, based on everything you had said BEFORE the phrase.
You could have responded with something like “Exactly what do you think I missed” and we could have had a rational discussion.
However, (according to your comments on here) you never miss anything, you are never wrong, and you only ask questions because you ‘know’ the answer beforehand.
You have been proven wrong, time and time again. Nothing wrong with being ‘wrong’. It happens to everyone.
It is not important. What is important is the ‘truth’.
If you insist on being ‘right’, when you are ‘wrong’, you will never find the ‘truth’.
Or, is that not what you are looking for?
Lightning and 5 minutes of rain today....but hey....rain is rain:’)
How sad.
That’s great! Really didn’t think it would make it that far south.
“Idle musings - thinking out loud.”
Where would we be without it?
That’s what makes up many of my posts.
ME: “You tried to do the same thing to me and failed. You actually put the words in BOLD,and QUOTES, implying they were my words.”
YOU: “You really are confused or lying aren’t you?”
It should have ended: “implying they were in my post”.
I apologize for being half of the problem.
I will accept your apology and apologize for being the other half of the problem.
Truth is often the first casualty in these discussions, generally even before they begin : )
Thank you.
I assume then, we can quit the game of dodgeball, and get back to the issues of the case. Which are much more interesting.
Looking at the subject of this article, which is Willie, I think the mere fact that Willie was allowed at the table while the attorney talked with her, was sufficient to ‘intimidate’ the girl.
He did not need to do anything, at all, to put the fear into a young female of the FLDS, except be present.
So, he may have ‘intimidated’ her, but he didn’t actually ‘do’ anything that the law defines as unacceptable (illegal).
Now, with Willie to help her get a better lawyer, she is making her move.
And, of course, the attorney ad litem could have had ‘stars’ in her head, dreaming of being the ‘prime’ lawyer representing three girls of the FLDS, which topple the whole affair, and prove the case.
So, she could have been led into ‘thinking’ the girl wanted to testify, and using Willie as an excuse for why her client has gone ‘sour’.
Should it fail, then the other two girls cases may follow the trend. Any other trials or charges will seem diminished in scope by the failure of the first three cases.
So, it is very, very, very, very, very important, for both sides.
I think that is the central reason for what we are reading in the media.
AND especially for the ‘way’ it is written.
Well let us look at the facts. Both the attorney and the guardian were appointed by Judge Walthers. Who has now granted a restraining order against Jessops. Does it strike you as odd that Walthers is still presiding over this case? I am amazed.
So, she could have been led into ‘thinking’ the girl wanted to testify, and using Willie as an excuse for why her client has gone ‘sour’.
Or could the more plausible explanation be that when the Lady was being 'detained' that she said whatever she thought would help get her released. Now that she is free she no longer wishes to cooperate with her former captors.
This particular case (Warren’s daughter) may also be pivotal because it will set the precedent, and it involves a lawsuit against Warren and Crew for looting the UEP. Success for those FLDS members against Warren means they will get the money and property back that Warren stole from them.
Huh? Appearing before a Grand Jury is strictly criminal not civil.
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.