Security Increased for FLDS Hearing Today

SAN ANGELO, Texas — A court-appointed attorney for a 16-year-old FLDS girl caught up in a grand jury investigation will go to court today under armed guard. Natalie Malonis confirmed to the Deseret News she has received death threats since she sought a restraining order against a high-profile member of the Fundamentalist LDS Church to prevent him from contacting her client.

"I've been getting death threats and I am being provided a security detail," she said this morning. "That was not even at my request. Law enforcement recognized the need for it."

Malonis said she did not know who has made the threats. She represents four FLDS members — including Pamela Jeffs, for whom she was praised by FLDS supporters when she managed to secure additional rights in court for the woman once declared by Texas authorities to be a minor.

Malonis' 16-year-old client, meanwhile, has fired off several e-mails asking her to step aside.

In e-mails sent to the Deseret News and posted on pro-FLDS Web sites, Teresa Jeffs accuses her court-appointed lawyer of not acting in her best interest.

"My attorney is going against my wishes. Maybe you need a restraining order that you can absolutely have nothing to do with me and you have to stay 1,000 feet away from me! What do you think of that?" she wrote in an e-mail to Malonis.

Jeffs has been subpoenaed to testify Wednesday before a grand jury investigating crimes involving FLDS members. The Texas Attorney General's Office said it could not find Jeffs to subpoena her, and Malonis went to court seeking a restraining order against FLDS member and spokesman Willie Jessop. In court papers, she accused Jessop of coercing the girl to avoid the subpoena and interfering with her relationship with her client. Judge Barbara Walther signed a temporary restraining order that technically prevents Jeffs' mother from allowing her daughter to have any contact with Jessop. A hearing on a more permanent restraining order will be held this afternoon.

On Monday, Malonis said she spoke with the attorney for Jeffs' mother, but no agreement could be reached.

Malonis said she is prepared to call witnesses and present evidence to suggest that the girl is being intimidated and pressured by FLDS members. The judge is not expected to consider Jeffs' request for a new lawyer.

Rod Parker, a Salt Lake attorney acting as a spokesman for the FLDS, believes Malonis is not following her court-appointed duties. Because Malonis is Teresa Jeffs' attorney ad litem and not her guardian ad litem, her job is to be an advocate for the child, he said.

"I think that she's really out on a limb in doing what she's doing and injuring her own client in a very public way," Parker said. "This is just a very unhealthy and dysfunctional attorney-client relationship. The court ought to grant Teresa's wish and give her another lawyer. This system of justice does not work appropriately when attorneys and their clients are at odds with each other." When the Texas Supreme Court ordered the hundreds of children taken in the April 3 raid to be returned to their parents, Jeffs was exempted.

Malonis said in court papers it was because the girl was an identified sex-abuse victim who had been "spiritually united" to an older man at 15. A special order was put in place for Jeffs, preventing her from contacting her father — FLDS leader Warren Jeffs — and a man named Raymond Jessop, who was not further identified.

The Deseret News normally does not name sex-abuse victims, but the girl has gone public in media interviews and in an e-mail forwarded to the Deseret News. She insists she is not a victim. In her e-mail, the girl said neither Willie Jessop nor Raymond Jessop has ever threatened her.

Jeffs wrote in the communication with Malonis that she did not want the grand jury subpoena, but acknowledged being served.

"Well, they want me to appear before a grand jury. I do not have confidence in you and how can I get you to help me in such a situation that I am in when it feels like to me all you are doing is going against me," she wrote. "So, that is the reason that I am asking you to step aside and let me do what I need to do to and get me a different attorney."

And the factors of due process are the point of the debate.

CPS operations have been up held for decades now as following due process since the adult is not held, only the child is removed from the potential threat while the accused is investigated.

As far as holding adults as well as the question of individual due process, again, been addressed, the secretive nature of the FLDS worked against them, and it was not until well after the action that the individuals in question were fully determined to be adults with verified documentation. In this particular situation, given the realities of what was known that day, and they people they were dealing with, the authorities made the best call, and the proper one. It is easy for us to sit in judgment not having the reponsiabilty to act and the power of hindsight. I would suggest tracking down the account from the Sheriff of that day, for that the point where any judgement will be made from.

Was CPS hasty, perhaps, but it is a large case, and any question of due process with adults is again after the fact. perhaps if the FLDS was a little more trustworthy things could have been different. Of course they are blameless in all of this, I tend to forget that.

Anyways, it is not a disagreement with the Constitution, it is acknowledgment that the definition of what is and isn't “Constitutional” also has to take in account local and state law plus any years of precedent. until something is fully challenged, as long as the activity has survived court challenge, in this case the ability of a CPS agency to remove children from potential danger, it is constitutional.

Wow, that's really inspiring. Here's some operative quotes:

I have come across minimal information to suggest that Lyle would be considered a threat to commit acts of violence or witness intimidation.
I have never received any information that would indicate that he is involved in anything of a violent nature.
I do not have much first hand knowledge of David [S. Allred].;
I do not have any specific information that would label David as a threat,
To the best of my knowledge, he is not involved in any FLDS security and has no known history of violence or intimidation.
William attended the Warren Jeffs criminal trial, but was banned from the premises after the third day of trial. It was determined that he was attempting to intimidate the witnesses, after he was observed numerous staring menacingly at witnesses.
He is not likely at this time to be involved directly in any acts of violence or intimidation
Lindsay seemed to be very aware of the law enforcement staff on location, specifically where they were stationed and role they played.
He does not have an extensive history of documented violence, but is rumored to be capable.
I don't have much information on Rulon Barlow, other than the fact that [he] attended to Warren Jeffs trial.
Rulon seemed to be extremely focused on the routines of our court staff and repeatedly seemed to be staring down the prosecuting attorneys and their witnesses.
There is little information to support this, other than his actions at the Warren Jeffs trial. During the trial, Dee appeared to be less interested in the trial than he was in staring at the prosecution's victim and witnesses.
I was not aware of Samuel prior to the trial and have not been able to obtain information that would define his role in the community.
He also was part of the group that disappeared for a period during the trial and seemed to be taking mental notes of the security staff present.
Guy is a large individual, he stands approximately six feet tall and weighs approximately two hundred and seventy pounds, and seemed to make it a point to be noticed by the prosecution's victim and witnesses whenever possible. He was not blatant and never had to be addressed individually by the court staff, but seemed to be there for the purpose of intimidation.
is no record of any contact with local law enforcement.
Finally, you have to be aware of the wild card. There are many individuals who are willing to give their life for the cause and you can never under estimate what a religious fanatic is capable of.

There you have it. A list of people of "interest", and other than one who was convicted of sex abuse, none were directly cited as having done anything more than "staring" at witnesses, and some "disappeared" for periods of time during the trial. One is guilty of being 6 feet tall, another was taking "mental notes", probably with a magic pencil.

None have ever "given their life" for the cause, even though these are supposedly the "worst of the worst" -- but still they INSIST that there are MANY who would give their life, and therefore anybody who is dressed like a FLDS member should be considered highly dangerous: "During Warren Jeffs' incarceration, his brother Nephi Jeffs visited him on a daily basis. We noticed after a while that approximately fifteen minutes before Nephi arrived, a vehicle would drive slowly through the parking lot, making several brief stops, and then exit. The drivers were always dressed in clothing associated with that community and appeared to be conducting security sweeps."

The police consider all these people DANGEROUS, and willing to give their lives, and therefore expect to have to use lethal force against them -- but that couldn't be a reason why they would do security sweeps before showing up, it must be an evil plot.

If people are staring at the witnesses, throw them out of court. If they do it twice, throw them in jail overnight for contempt. The idea that any real intimidation was allowed in the court for more than 5 minutes, if true, suggests a lack of control by the judge.

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.