Friday, February 12, 2010

Natalie says she wouldn't talk to Brooke, (and then does)

Brooke Adams has a new post up at her blog involving documents and the UEP trust, and people getting subpoenas in Texas.
It's essentially a teaser, advertising as many of her recent posts have, the possibility, or the near certainty that Brooke knows more than she's saying, now.

This little drama may play out before I have the chance to throw in my "swag" (Scientific Wild Ass Guess), but there was this interesting little tidbit:
The Plural Life - "(Natalie) Malonis told me on Thursday she had to check with Wisan to see what she was 'at liberty' to say. No answer yet."
My guess here is that if Wisan hasn't fired her yet, it's because it's the only way to keep her mouth shut, or hope to. It is more likely that whoever Texas Blues Man is, she has terminated that "attorney-client" relationship, unless of course Wisan is the Blues.

That's not a guess, that's rhetorical by the way, and somewhat amusing to speculate.

So much for Nat's claim that she wouldn't talk to Brooke.

So did Blues get a subpoena?
"(Patrick) Crimmins told me Friday no one in his department received a subpoena.

Earlier in the week, Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the Texas Office of the Attorney General, gave me this statement when I asked about the dictations:

'Neither OAG nor law enforcement has made these documents available to the parties to the UEP Trust litigation.'

So who in Texas got the subpoenas?"
I wouldn't believe Patrick necessarily. He is a convincing liar, based on direct experience, and making the mistake of believing him. That's once Patrick.

But assuming it is true, as it is possible that no one got such a subpoena in Texas Government. Apparently from what Brooke is saying, someone did.

Jerry Strickland makes Patrick Crimmins more believable.

So is one of those someone's the Blues?


Sphere: Related Content

11 comments:

Ron in Houston said...

So is one of those someone's the Blues?

Nah, I still believe that Blues is exactly who he says he is:

A private practice attorney in Dallas who (*holds nose*) is also an Oklahoma Sooners fan.

The Pharisee said...

Let me clarify. "So is one of those someone's the Blues," means, is one of the people who got a subpoena, the Blues.

It may be that Blues is precisely what Blues says, like you say, a private practice attorney and a "Sooners" fan.

Blues would be then, a very bad attorney, or a composite of persons posting under that name, since some of the things Blues has said, would make that one person, a bad attorney.

I don't know, and I don't care. I have always cared about what seems to be the access Blues has. Knowing who Blues was, would probably reveal Blues access. Frankly I had stopped caring about that too, until this latest rhubarb.

When Blues said Malonis was Blues attorney, I ceased to believe in the possibility that Blues was anything better than an ambulance chaser and a skillful liar.

Ron in Houston said...

Damn Hugh

Is today "throw gratuitous insults" day?

He's likely no more a "bad lawyer," and "ambulance chaser" or "skillful liar" than you are "evil" or "misogynist" or whatever other label folks say about you.

The Pharisee said...

You see Ron,

Neither of us know who "Blues" is. It is not possible to legally libel/slander a sock puppet.

I_hate_bigots said...

Did Natalie send you a message stating she can no longer take service for Blues?

If not, I would think she is still his/her lawyer.

The Pharisee said...

IHB, no, but I think if Malonis, Blues and Wisan are separate entities, then she won't be able to represent Blues and Wisan very long. If that's the case, Lamb Chop is the one on the block.

Wisan has to keep Nat, so that he maintains as much of Attorney/Client privilege as he can. That's my humble call.

My last official notice regarding Blues is that Nat is Blues attorney. We know Nat is Wisan's attorney, or one of them to be more exact. I just don't see Wisan firing Nat in this brouhahaha, whether he wants to or not.

I_hate_bigots said...

I was reading the Texas Code of ethics (maybe other people should read it too).

Anyway, there is a code which states that lawyers can not make public statements about inadmissible evidence. I wonder how this would apply to the State issuing confidential information to people who are known to talk to the media?

Rule 3.07 Trial Publicity
(a) In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to make such a statement.


Rule 3.09 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:


(e) exercise reasonable care to prevent persons employed or controlled by the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.07.

Ron in Houston said...

Anyway, there is a code which states that lawyers can not make public statements about inadmissible evidence.

Totally wrong.

Dissecting what you posted...

a lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement

A statement made outside of court...

that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication

That might be be picked up by the media...

will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding

That would negatively impact the court proceeding.

So, it has nothing to do with whether the evidence is inadmissible or not.

That rule say don't make out of court statements that might negatively impact a court proceeding.

That rule says absolutely nothing about whether the evidence is admissible or not.

I_hate_bigots said...

Well Ron you are right, it doesn't exactly say inadmissible but it does say "materially prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding".

Perhaps I'm reading it incorrectly but probably the most common thing could be inadmissible evidence.

But you are the Texas lawyer....

How could a statement saying your client was a sexual abuse victim not fall under this section?

karateka said...

Something I just realized - TxBluesMan is a felon! That may not sound much, but he made such a big deal about "not being able to trust a felon." Well, he shouldn't trust himself, or anything he has written.

Secondly, all those people posting FLDS transcripts do not have permission from the LDS to post them. Thus, unless they take them down they are subject to draconian copyright laws, which carry six figure penalties per instance, especially when the violation is willful. Seems there is a mint to be made if the FLDS have the guts for the fight. At the bare minimum, they can have the offending material removed.

The Pharisee said...

I'm not uncomfortable with the idea that TxBluesMan is a felon, except that I'm not sure of which felony you propose Blues is guilty. I'm not saying Blues is a felon either, I just don't have trouble with the idea that in the myriad of laws in this country, Blues has violated one of the more serious ones in this process.

I have stopped trusting Blues and stopped a long time ago, on any level. There are a variety of reasons but they all together, close the door on trust. I don't think you can rely on any one representation Blues has made regarding him/herself. I'm not even sure we can rely on the idea that Blues is one person.

I'm not a good skip tracer, I'm a VERY good one and every time I was able to zero in on a "blues" candidate, the information would fit, but the information did not lead to blues.

All I can tell you is that blues uses affected language that I most often see associated with homosexual rights groups. I don't have any idea what to make of that, and would not have believed that certain narrow idiosyncratic phrasings would be used primarily by one sexual psychographic. I would in fact have told anyone who claimed that was true, that they were nuts.

Blues also makes no grammatical errors in posting, as if blues had all Blues' postings proof read, professionally.

No one in my experience that has this large an ego, and this much time on their hands, shows up on the scene like Athena springing fully formed from the mind of Zeus. They leave trails, traceable trails. I haven't found one. I don't believe whoever is behind the TxBlues persona for that reason.

They're a hired gun, a committee, or an accomplished liar. Perhaps all of the above.