Neener, Neener, Neener Updated with commentary from Natalie Malonis (& Blackmail!)

Consider the Stellar Company Natalie Malonis keeps: "big doodyheads who need to grow up, get a sense of humor and act like they've got a pair." No, seriously, that's a quote. From the News! BONUS MATERIAL TO FOLLOW!

To be fair, she only works with or did work with (Nat says no), one of the Big DoodyHeads' attorneys.

The Dallas Observer - "(Denton County District Attorney Bruce) Isaacks and (County Court at Law Judge Darlene A.) Whitten didn't see the humor in the satire and demanded an apology and retraction. We replied with a suggestion involving them 'and the horse they rode in on,' and off to the courthouse we went."

Bwahahahahaha... If I had dentures, I'd have shattered them on the opposite wall.

"Isaacks and Whitten contended that many readers believed we were reporting actual facts in the parody. In the Supreme Court's opinion, Justice Wallace Jefferson wrote, 'While a reader may initially approach the article as providing straight news, 'Stop the madness' contains such a procession of improbable quotes and unlikely events that a reasonable reader could only conclude that the article was satirical.'

And as for Christopher Beamon, whose woes started all this--we couldn't locate him for comment, but his former lawyer, Bill Short, says he stopped attending Ponder schools and about three years ago reached a confidential settlement with the school district without a lawsuit being filed."

Why do I care? Because one of the Barristers in the 8-0 blanking before the Texas Supreme Court was none other than Nat's employer (up until a year ago)(Nat says no), with whom she still bunks. It's the company you keep, or the company that keeps you, who you fly with. I get confused.

UPDATE - Natalie has something to say:Natalie Malonis has something to say:

"I was informed you have a post about Scott Reib, presumably to annoy or embarrass me. I see no legitimate communication purpose to your post. It appears your intent is solely to harass me by way of publishing information about Scott Reib.

Please note that your information about my association with him is incorrect. He was never my employer. Other information is inaccurate also.

You have made a commotion at the mere mention of 'your wife,' demanding privacy, threatening legal action, etc. You mentioned that your wife is collateral to any of your public activities and should not be mentioned. For the same reasons, I ask that you remove you references to Scott Reib and refrain from mentioning him in the future.

Thank you.

Natalie Malonis"

I have noted that you say he was not your employer. It's a reasonable assumption Natalie, that with an email address on record as being at the Reib Law firm, that you might have some sort of employee/employer relationship.

Everything I have linked to has been out there for a while. "Incorrect" does not suffice. Which parts are incorrect? "Scott" worked on the case that was blasted before the Texas Supreme Court, eight to zip. On page one it says:

"BRUCE ISAACKS and DARLENE A. WHITTEN, Respondents."

On page two it says:

Plaintiffs/ Respondents Counsel for Plaintiffs/Respondents
Bruce Isaacks Michael J. Whitten
Darlene A. Whitten Mike Griffin
Michelle Jones
J. Scott Reib, Jr
Griffin, Whitten, Jones & Reib
218 N. Elm Street
Denton, Texas 76201

It says on YOUR site, that your address is 1173 Bent Oaks Court, Suite 200, Denton, TX 76210. It says at the Texas Bar Association, that his address is 1173 Bent Oaks Court, Denton, TX 76210.

His website also mentions he partners with Gerad Rosso. Gerad Rosso and you are both Attorney/Guardian Ad Litem's for Denton County. You folks all know each other, apparently very well from what other relationship indicators I have uncovered, such as your social networking pages.

Please tell me why you have a very close (at least in terms of distance) relationship with an attorney who has a Juris Doctor from Oklahoma (Class of '96) and is interested in Native American matters? (Deans Honor Roll Fall 1994 and 1995, American Indian Law Review.)

Nat also blackmails me:

"I have no interest or intent to do anything to you or to continue this exchange further. I was simply asking a favor based on the privacy interests of collaterals, something which you have stated is important to you. If you have changed your mind or didn't mean it sincerely in the first place, that's your business."

I can only take this to mean that Natalie Malonis intends to turn loose some sort of personal investigation into my life.

That's fine Natalie, but you'd better get permission from entirely private persons with no public walk, no publications and no interest in the limelight, before you say anything that identifies them. Stick to the public record, and you'll do well. So will those I know.

Sphere: Related Content