From an email from Ms. Malonis, to yours truly:
Brooke says Natalie Malonis was contacted and did not respond. Malonis says Brooke didn't email her, so she didn't respond. Except she wouldn't have responded anyway.
Rather than getting into who I believe, a reporter (yes I know to sometimes claim I am one) or a lawyer, I'm really torn.
But lets look at Nat's claim and treat it as true. That means Brooke is panicking a little, or is angry with Blues/Malonis or perhaps both. Brooke would be using her bully pulpit as a Salt Lake Tribune reporter to gain the upper hand.
Let's look at Brooke's claim, and treat it as true. Natalie is in a tough spot as she has claimed to be "TxBluesMan's" lawyer, and she's Bruce Wisan's lawyer. I dunno, could this be a growing conflict of interest as they may be spitting at each other in court very soon? Natalie can't really respond until she resolves that problem
In any case it looks like Brooke drew her gun very quickly. We all have busy days. In fairness to Ms. Malonis she could have gotten in late and found out that Brooke wrote her a nasty gram via the Tribune. But in fairness to Brooke, it didn't take long for Nat, to respond to me. Only one hour, and at 2am in the morning. Natalie was burning the late night oil.
Natalie is no stranger to conflicts of interest, having argued against herself before, in court. Perhaps she can again perform this magic, juggling the diverging interests of Wisan and Texas Lamb Chop.
"Oh, by the way, in that article, it says Brooke contacted me by phone and email for an interview. That is not true. I did not receive a phone call or email from her, not that it would have mattered because I wouldn’t have spoken to her."Swear on a stack of law books, it's genuine. I emailed a hyperlink to my previous post today, and she shot back. I'll skip the love patter that preceded the above quote. The relevant portion is quoted.
Brooke says Natalie Malonis was contacted and did not respond. Malonis says Brooke didn't email her, so she didn't respond. Except she wouldn't have responded anyway.
The Salt Lake Tribune - "(Bruce) Wisan's Texas attorney is Natalie Malonis, who was appointed to represent one of Jeffs' daughters during the child welfare proceedings. Malonis used some of Jeffs' dictations as exhibits a year ago in that case, but the dictations briefly published online this week were not introduced then.It's a case of she said, she said.
Malonis did not return a telephone call or an e-mail request for an interview."
Rather than getting into who I believe, a reporter (yes I know to sometimes claim I am one) or a lawyer, I'm really torn.
But lets look at Nat's claim and treat it as true. That means Brooke is panicking a little, or is angry with Blues/Malonis or perhaps both. Brooke would be using her bully pulpit as a Salt Lake Tribune reporter to gain the upper hand.
Let's look at Brooke's claim, and treat it as true. Natalie is in a tough spot as she has claimed to be "TxBluesMan's" lawyer, and she's Bruce Wisan's lawyer. I dunno, could this be a growing conflict of interest as they may be spitting at each other in court very soon? Natalie can't really respond until she resolves that problem
In any case it looks like Brooke drew her gun very quickly. We all have busy days. In fairness to Ms. Malonis she could have gotten in late and found out that Brooke wrote her a nasty gram via the Tribune. But in fairness to Brooke, it didn't take long for Nat, to respond to me. Only one hour, and at 2am in the morning. Natalie was burning the late night oil.
Natalie is no stranger to conflicts of interest, having argued against herself before, in court. Perhaps she can again perform this magic, juggling the diverging interests of Wisan and Texas Lamb Chop.
Sphere: Related Content
18 comments:
$10 says that Natalie Malonis is TxBluesMan.
Then she has a fool for a client, doesn't she? LOL.
I suppose that's possible. It would then be very interesting that Blues started blogging right before the Swinton Story broke, wouldn't it? Even before she became an FLDS attorney ad litem.
Nah, Blues and Malonis are not the same person. They have two totally different practices and two totally different styles.
Besides Blues likes the Sooners and Malonis is a Longhorn.
And both are liars Ron. The problem with all of you being anonymous as you are, is that we can't really tell who we are talking to.
The more money, time and willingness to deceive there is on your side of the ball, the more possibilities exist.
We on the other hand, are who we are. Of those who inveigh on behalf of the FLDS that are hidden, few are hidden well. Of those of us who are not hiding, well, we're not hiding.
The fact that NO one blogging on the ANTI FLDS side is publicly identified is INSTRUCTIVE. Of those that are commenting, I only know of two that I can identify. One I would consider "friendly" in the sense that they are reasonable, the other is wildly unfriendly and twists everything said about her claiming I have stalked her.
The fact that I have never published anything about the latter should also be instructive, other than to say I know who she is, really, and have no intention whatsoever of identifying her publicly. Even though she is vile.
Oh, "K. Dee Ignatin" or "Boots" I think it is, is public. She too is vile, but she's public, and if you notice, I haven't had much to say about her at all.
She is identifiable, she is who she is, she has a right to say and believe what she says and believes. Funny, no one is reading her crap though.
Well, Hugh, we have had this discussion before. I think in some ways you've been hurt by not being anonymous enough. I actually have a level of concern for you since you are so vocal and so easily identifiable.
I'm not going to comment on the "lying" part because it's too vague and I don't have a dog in the fight of defending anyone's veracity.
The problem, as I see it, is the issue attracts a lot of zealots. Zealots of whatever stripe tend to be dangerous folks.
I at various times have angered people on both sides of the issue. So, I'm quite comfortable remaining "Ron in Houston."
Well Ron, then you are simply a dangerous Zealot of a different stripe.
You said this at another blog:
"Geez, Hugh are you giving your foil hat a workout on Blues or what?"
Retract that, or you are no longer welcome here. As always, I view that sort of remark to be on the par with calling someone a "Nigger." Worse actually.
"Tin Foil Hats" became a pejorative because people with thought disorders (schizophrenia) often wrap their heads in tin foil because they think the voices in their heads come from radio waves being beamed in from outer space.
I understand how schizophrenia works, and schizophrenics are not at fault for their disorder. They are helpless in that regard. Knowing that this is then a very rational approach to solving a problem worse than tinnitus, they are sympathetic figures to me, deserving our respect. You see it as an insult and I see you as an unrepentant bigot.
Stop it or stay away from my blog. I don't countenance bigots.
Tin foil hat is a term associated with conspiracy theories or mind control. Claiming it has anything to do with schizophrenia is just typical of how you exaggerate someone's meaning and force your own interpretation into them. Sci-Fi movies in the 1950s gave rise to the belief that aluminum had all types of new and unexplained properties, not unlike beliefs about copper in the 1800s.
Jam, in present company, I'm the expert. I have a name, I can produce my bona fides. You don't.
I have had extensive involvement, in the past in mental health patient advocacy. I would be considered what is known as a "secondary consumer of mental health services."
Do you know what PAIMI means? Without looking it up?
Hugh
I retract.
You and I clearly have a different perspective on the "foil hat" phrase.
For me, it's more of the Tea Party types who have this always conspiratorial view of government.
For you, you see it as a slam at mental health issues.
In many ways I wish you'd try to understand where I'm coming from when I say that. However, I do understand your perspective and am more than willing to retract that phrase.
I honestly don't care whether you ban me or not. However, I would like us to reach some form of understanding.
Retract that, or you are no longer welcome here. As always, I view that sort of remark to be on the par with calling someone a "Nigger." Worse actually.
Lighten up Pharisee, Ron isn't posting anything outrageous or inflammatory.
Could you add details about why in the world would Natalie write you?
I'm a little lost?
Also, when was the motion which had the diary attached filed? How much time passed between the filing and the publishing of the diary?
As long as we maintain this sort of tone Ron, you're welcome here. I would greatly prefer that everyone in this business talk in the fashion we are right now.
I realize you don't see the phrase the same way, but I don't think you'd use the word "niggardly" in certain bars in certain company.
PAIMI is not got anything to do with what is more commonly meant by the term 'tin foil hat'. Your claim that there is some schizophrenic connection is your twist and not generally held by most people.
Do you want to get into an Etymological discussion Jam? The point is that I have gone through sensitivity training classes put on by mental health professionals designed to describe the difficulties schizophrenics put up with. I have a background in advocacy for persons with mental illnesses.
If you want to discuss the etymology for instance, of the word "suck" as a derogatory reference, though most people refuse to acknowledge it, it comes from a sexual act, and that is why saying "it sucks" or "this sucks" has a negative connotation. The fact that few people are willing to acknowledge the foul origin of the phrase, makes no difference. That is where it comes from.
The fact that schizophrenics are the largest class of "tin foil hat wearers" and they do it for the reason that they are at their wits end when it comes to stopping the voices is also something that many people are not aware of. They are also (when aware of this fact), NOT sympathetic to the plight of the schizophrenic, who did nothing to cause their illness.
Schizophrenia is intrusive, debilitating and a constant unwelcome companion. Few people can learn to function with a semblance of normalcy when afflicted with it, "A Beautiful Mind," notwithstanding.
You're a pathetic bigot if you refer to me, or anyone else as a "tin foil" hat wearer. I could care less myself, the term simply doesn't apply to me, but it is infuriating because what you are doing is calling me a "nigger."
I'm not.
There's nothing wrong with being a "nigger," in the sense that there is nothing wrong with being a black person, but the person who calls another a "nigger" is a bigoted hater.
So you go right ahead and do it Jam, and when I catch you doing it again, I won't publish another remark of yours, here.
I have too deep a level of respect for the sufferers of schizophrenia to put up with your bigoted small mindedness.
See, in my mind I see lots of people wearing foil hats who have no discernible mental health issues.
In my mind a bunch of the tea party, birthers, and others are big time foil hat wearers who really don't appear to have mental health issues.
Etymology Ron. What's in your mind is in your mind, but first use is governing in most cases.
IHB,
Natalie wrote me at about 2 in the morning after I sent her a URL about my previous post, regarding "TxBluesMan."
Post a Comment