Posted on 06/20/2008 3:36:08 PM PDT by Flo Nightengale
Yes. But so far, ‘could not find’ hasn’t involved a statewide search, or anything. It only involved a court rep. going to her ‘home address’, and she wasn’t there.
I wouldn’t read too much into this one person version of events at this stage.
Per the attorney who maybe fixing to lose a client the AG tried to serve her on Thursday at her home in San Antonio but they couldn’t find her. The Attorney says she later found out the girl had gone to San Angelo on Thursday to see the Judge about getting a new attorney. Thus I can understand she wasn’t home thus she wasn’t found there.
All this is easy enough to track if the AG needs to and my guess the subpoena has been served. No reason for us to know one way or the other unless someone chooses to say.
Isn’t this the same attorney who used this girls name in public about her being sexually abused?.... If so I wouldn’t put much into what her opinion is one way or the other at this time.
Nope not an attorney, nor do I pretend to be like some here. If you have been following this thread at all, I am merely remarking on the two facts. One, the title and the article premise in the beginning are false. Two, the lawyer in question is the hysterical lawyer, the only lawyer that seems to have problems so far, from Nancy Grace’s show. Whether Willie is a thug or not, it appears the girl wants no part of the lawyer nor her assertions based on “nothing” it seems.
Doesn't mean a whole lot. Attorneys could not find me in an attempt to serve a subpoena for testimony in an industrial accident years ago. I was listed in the phone book and had lived in the same house, that was listed on the tax roles, for the past five years. Had both children enrolled in public school and had a valid, current commercial Texas drivers license at the time.
You are correct, this is the lawyer that is a regular guest in the Nancy Grace mob. Don’t know is she was one that supported the hoax at Duke too.
As for the lawyer...if she really believes her client is/has been abused then I hope she continues to fight for the girl. That said...why didn't she call for help when trying to speak with the girl? No one should take 3 hours of lecturing from a non-client.
“You are correct, this is the lawyer that is a regular guest in the Nancy Grace mob.”
However, deport said nothing about Nancy Grace. Apparently you wanted to add that to his ‘words’ , and are trying to imply that it is proof of guilt.
Which is why you have repeated it about ten times.
So, if you don’t know, and no one else mentioned it, why even throw that in?
A little sensationalism, a little hyperbole?
Why not add you don’t know if she was the one that supported the witch burning trials?
Rather ‘ironic’ considering many of your posts.
Somethings and some posters you just ignore..... They aren’t worth the effort.
“There is a distinct possibility that the girl got the one lawyer that is more interested in her career than the truth.”
From all that I have read, I think it is a very likely possibility.
But, I don’t think it’s a proven fact, yet.
Let’s see if his daughter shows up, and with a new lawyer, and what the court decides to do with that information.
“If you have been following this thread at all,”
Look at that. You are good a humor too!
“You are good a humor too!”
Sorry.
You are good AT humor too!
I was clear I didn’t know and it was a direct reflection of the transcripts and her behavior with Nancy’s behavior now and in the past. Is Nancy right on this but wrong on that? We will never know since she has never publically apologized for condemning the Duke Lacrosse players. Seems her MO is the jump around, create hysteria, and create ratings combining those Malonis’s trying to reach for a few crumbs of air time. I think they are relational and should be considered when considering the efforts by the lawyer. Had she not been a regular on Nancy’s show contributing the wild assertions and allegations that are likely untrue at this point; perhaps she would be a legitimate source to look at.
Like I said early in the thread, first post of mine perhaps. I was actually excited from the headline and the first paragraph that perhaps someone cracked and was going to spill the beans. As I read on, I found out I was let down again. Still no charges, still no evidence of actual crimes that have been wildly speculated on here and in the media.
Well I know one thing for sure, if the state took my family and kept them for two months, we would have been way south of the river by now.
I trust most lawyers about as much as I do politicians. I know, that’s redundant. ;)
“As I read on, I found out I was let down again.”
Well, quit taking it out on other posters.
: )
I am good at being amused by nonsensical rantings, like being amused by someone sending backstage hysteria to another member here to me by accident. Now THAT is hilarious - and quite amusing to actually get a glimpse of what you and “your side” say behind the scenes.
Still laughing my arse off.
P.S.
Screw Nancy.
The mention that she had appeared on Nancy Grace immediately put a ? mark on Malonis, under motivation, IMHO.
The only proof will be whether or not Jeffs daughter willingly requested a change of representation, and whether she can even legally do that.
And, as stated before, whether she shows up for testimony.
I hear you. If a cause is just and someone isn’t trying to avoid arrest or cover for a crime...you have to do what you have to do. I always though that TS’s family were too trusting and waited too long to try to get her out. If she had been my child she would have been long gone from Florida when it was still possible .
What and where am I taking anything out on other posters. Geez you create some melodrama in your head sometimes. I merely started out on this thread remarking on several facts missed by others. One, that the article title and lead in paragraph are not what the article is about, and two, the lawyer making the motions is the same lawyer that frequents what I think to be a sham show - Nancy Grace. After what she did to the Duke boys as I followed closely on durhaminwonderland.com , and the lady that committed suicide. Forget about that episode in her history?
Nevertheless, if some other lawyers come forward perhaps they might actually crack the silence if there is truly any of that stuff going on. So far - nada, zip, zilch.
I'm not much on Constitutional amendments but they are needed at times. I could be ok with one declaring No Lawyers in Congress.
“No one should take 3 hours of lecturing from a non-client. “
Others have said there is no proof that he was interfering with the girl’s rights, or any FLDS member’s rights, or intimidating witnesses.
So, maybe she put up with it for 3 hours, to ‘prove’ her ‘case’ to the ‘court’.
Which may be why they are granting it.
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.