Thursday, March 26, 2009

Natalie Malonis Owns Up, Tyranny Flexes it's Muscle

Who leaked all those salacious FLDS documents and testimony?
" 'You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube,' Malonis said when contacted by the Deseret News on Wednesday.

She said she did nothing improper, noting that the documents were public."
Interpretation? Now that the furor has died down, I'll admit it an move on. "I did nothing improper" is actually "I did nothing illegal," which when the FLDS says it, the howls begin, but when the prosecution says it, meh. Any honor among lawyers in this case, you can toss out the window. Particularly when one of those lawyers is Ms. Malonis. What's going on here is a form of "Astroturfing," in which a groundswell of public "outrage" is being managed and synthesized by Texas through Walther an Malonis.
"(Kent) Schaffer and (Amy) Hennington claim that during a January hearing, all sides agreed not to release any evidence. But that same day, the documents started appearing on Internet blogs and were leaked to the news media. The filing accuses Teresa Jeffs' court-appointed attorney, Natalie Malonis, of leaking some of them.
There are a number bloggers on the "other side" who apparently have little to no honor either, some of whom would have us believe they are "lawyers." This case has always been about what you can get away with. To an extent, the FLDS are guilty of practicing those things that they could "get away with," occupying the fringes of the law, living in ways that were not the stated intents of the law, but that the law could not prosecute effectively.

Now the law strikes back, using every power of office, every document it can disseminate, to create a reputation that will poison any jury pool available when the trial comes. To make any juror afraid to acquit.

We do expect our government though, to restrain itself. Testing freedom is the province of the individual in our society. Testing power among us by our government, is nascent tyranny.

Sphere: Related Content

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

What I don't get is why it's acceptable for Malonis to file new motions to compel testimony against Mr. Jessop, but not acceptible to challenge the release of evidence? This is plain hypocrisy on Malonis' part. And what possible interest is there in compelling testimony on a case that has been closed, unless it's a continuation of a battle that was being waged by the proxy of a child custody case?