Friday, November 27, 2009

The Plot Thickens in Arizona

Matt Smith has made two (a) motions that he may actually win in the Arizona case against Warren Jeffs*:
This is one of those points about which I know so little of what has already transpired combined with my less than amateur ability with the law, that I can't really call the outcome. Calling it like a ball game though I'd say that all Matt Smith has won so far is a "wait until Texas rules" play with Judge Conn, something he now no longer claims. That's good. Make it look like your idea Matt since you wouldn't win a protest of the evidentiary hearing anyway. This also now makes it look like Matt's earlier disclaimers regarding use of YFZ evidence, were smoke. Only Judge Conn can stop the evidentiary hearing in Arizona as both the defense and now the prosecution have no objections.

What Matt might win is twin motions denying Jeffs further access to Ms. Elissa "Redacted" Wall and her income from her book and movie deals and Carolyn Jessop and her tax returns. You have to figure that if Michael Piccarreta is on a winning streak, getting what he wants, that at some point he will knowingly overreach what is rightfully the province of the defense, and ask for something he'd like to have, but really shouldn't have. He wouldn't be doing his job, if he didn't.

There is a bit of absurd comedy in all of this. Elissa's name continues to be "redacted" from motions as she is a "victim," yet the names of her published works (of fiction?) continue to be used in conjunction with her "whited out" name, making it completely transparent. Arizona might as well paste over her name with clear Scotch Tape.

Then there is this crowing and self aggrandizing "elbowing" her way into the spotlight of Natalie Malonis as the representative of Carolyn Jessop. I'm linking to it only to document her grandstanding. I by no means encourage you to click on the link, unless of course you don't believe me. I in fact debated with myself for quite a while before I resolved post the link, not wanting to contribute any site traffic numbers or publicity to the blog where this letter appears:
"November 16, 2009

Mr. Matthew J. Smith
Mohave County Attorney
315 N. 4th Street
PO Box 7000
Kingman, Arizona 86402

Via Facsimile 928-753-2669

RE: Arizona v. Warren Jeffs, CR-2007-743

Dear Mr. Smith:

In connection with the above-referenced case, I am writing on behalf of Carolyn Jessop as a designated witness for the State of Arizona. As you’re aware, I represented Carolyn in her Texas child support case against Merril Jessop. On behalf of my clients in whose cases Sam Brower was engaged, I also participated with Lee Novak and Roger and Greg Hoole in preparing a response to the Defense’s motion to depose Mr. Brower. I will soon be submitting my pro hac vice application in Arizona so that I may appear in December for oral argument on the issue on behalf of clients, such as Carolyn, whose confidentiality could be compromised if Mr. Brower’s deposition is allowed to proceed.

Carolyn has requested that I contact you and communicate her intent to withdraw from voluntarily participating as a witness for the State in its case against Warren Jeffs. Although Carolyn was initially willing to provide testimony for the State, such willingness and cooperation with the State has been transformed into an unreasonable and unnecessary burden. As lead attorney for the prosecution, it appears that you are doing little or nothing to shield your witnesses from harassment and unreasonable exposure by Mr. Jeffs’ attorneys. Per your request, Carolyn has voluntarily made herself available on two occasions for more than four hours of interviews by Mr. Piccarretta; she has produced sensitive and private documents relating to her financial dealings; and she is now being asked to submit to a third interview for Mr. Piccarretta’s continued fishing expedition. Mr. Piccarretta’s right to interview witnesses is not unlimited, but there has been no apparent gesture on your part to place any outer limits on Mr. Piccarretta’s continued access to witnesses. Additionally, as far as Carolyn is aware, you did not request or secure any type of protective order or non-disclosure agreement in connection with her financial data disclosed to Mr. Piccarretta. She feels that you have failed to take reasonable actions to protect her privacy interests and to shield her from unreasonable exposure by the defense.

Carolyn is also testifying for the State in criminal proceedings in Texas. Based on your conduct and apparent open-door policy with Mr. Piccarretta, Carolyn is concerned that her Texas grand jury testimony may be requested by you and supplied to Mr. Piccarretta or other FLDS attorneys or supporters, thus exposing her to even greater harassment, ridicule and scorn (If you’re not aware, Carolyn endures a constant barrage of public invective from those who wish to hide the FLDS practices). It seems as though even Judge Conn has taken note of your passivity in the face of an onslaught from the defense – noting in a recent order that the State had not filed any type of response to Mr. Piccarretta’s motions for depositions of non-party, non-witnesses, although several responses were filed by various other attorneys on behalf of those whose depositions were unreasonably sought. This type of habitual lack of response and seeming acquiescence and exaggerated courtesy extended to defense attorneys portrays you as unwilling to protect and defend Ms. Jessop, and perhaps other witnesses as well.

Having carefully evaluated the circumstances and potential for negative exposure and unwelcome consequences to Ms. Jessop, she has made the decision that she no longer wishes to participate as the State’s witness in this proceeding, although she remains supportive of the State’s efforts to bring justice to Warren Jeffs. Naturally, Ms. Jessop is aware that the State could subpoena her and order her to appear and give testimony, contrary to her expressed desire and intent, and she hopes that the State would not place her in that position.

Carolyn has requested that any further communications on this or related issues be made through me; she does not care to be coaxed into changing her decision and is concerned that would be the result if she were to communicate with you directly. In view of Carolyn’s decision to withdraw her voluntary participation, she also withdraws her agreement to give any further interviews to Mr. Piccarretta or make any further voluntary disclosures or production of documents. Please communicate this information to Mr. Piccarretta, as necessary.

Please know that Carolyn remains very appreciative of the stance you have taken in bringing the first indictments against Warren Jeffs and being the frontrunner in bringing justice to this group. Unfortunately, as circumstances have evolved, it has become too onerous for Carolyn to remain involved to the same extent on a voluntary basis. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need for further discussion.

Kind regards,

Natalie E. Malonis"
I continue to maintain that Natalie has nothing but idiots for clients, the clearest evidence of which is, Natalie is their lawyer. I have been the target of one of Nat's self important missives. It was only worrisome because Ms. Malonis has the ability to file motions, and has access to the court and has proved to be a loose cannon in the past.

* (see post immediately above)

Sphere: Related Content


yutthehay said...

("thus exposing her to even greater harassment, ridicule and scorn (If you’re not aware, Carolyn endures a constant barrage of public invective from those who wish to hide the FLDS practices).")

This statment is a pure lie. And is in fact doing to the FLDS exactly what she claims they are doing to her and Carolyn.

This is in fact a cannon ball thrown out there loosley to get reactions or to taint anyone who has doubts about the FLDS.

I_hate_bigots said...

"Additionally, as far as Carolyn is aware, you did not request or secure any type of protective order or non-disclosure agreement in connection with her financial data disclosed to Mr. Piccarretta. She feels that you have failed to take reasonable actions to protect her privacy interests and to shield her from unreasonable exposure by the defense."


I can't believe Natalie wrote this - what a joke. Look how she treated TJ - Natalie let a private diary get published on the internet but yet she's protected Carolyn's tax return!

I_hate_bigots said...

Constant barrage of public invective?

Hardly, I have NEVER seen a mainstream media interview which asked Carolyn any difficult questions or even brought up slightly negative comments.

There have been a few people who expressed the opinion that Carolyn's story was just one side and there's probably another side too.

Besides I don't think anything was released by the defense which related to Carolyn's personal life.

kbp said...

In other words;
"Hi Mr. Smith,

I'm a Texas attorney who represented a Utah resident in a child support case against a Texas resident so I wish to inform you, an Arizona prosecutor, that we don't want to play by your rules now. Should my client's income be made public, it might screw up what I've worked so hard to accomplish in the media.


Superstar Malonis

The Pharisee said...

According to Brooke Adams, the "grand jury" testimony business in the letter is something she (Brooke) did not know. I guess I didn't find that detail terribly surprising since various members of the FLDS hunting caste have been pleading they can't talk about this or that because of ongoing investigations and grand jury testimony.

That could become more interesting because of the whole "Juror 12" issue and the possibility of less rigorously scrutinized testimony bleeding from grand jury via "Juror 12" and the fact that "Juror 12" is the wife, of the foreman, of that grand jury.

I'm really not sure what to make of this yet. I know what my initial reaction is, but I think I'm going to sleep on it.

Riki said...

Makes me wonder now if Natalie was representing Carolyn that far back.