"I address the following comments to TxBluesMan :No, please, after you.
Tx Blues Man,
After reading the Modern Pharisee’s posts from today, and considering that Hugh continues to attempt to out you, as well as considering Hugh’s continued harassment of your attorney, Natalie Malonis, I suggest that you expose the identity of the Pharisee’s wife, ******, in detail.
Hugh simply cannot respect anyone’s desire for privacy, and he deserves a taste of his own medicine.
You should publish his wife’s full name, as well as the name of her family of origin, and relevant details regarding her employment, so that he can learn exactly what it feels like to be 'exposed' when someone wishes to remain a private citizen."
Anonymous said this on April 13, 2010 at 8:35 PM
I'm not publishing my wife's first name, again. My wife's first name doesn't lead to much useful. You'll have to trust me on that for now.
A while back I did, precisely because you'd have to know more than just my wife's first name, to know anything else. Since it was being said that I had "published" her name, I removed it from my blog. This was not to "cover up" the evidence that I had "published" it, but to make it clear I wasn't inviting investigation. There is nothing about my wife's name that would lead, to her. You have to know far more than that.
When someone publishes copious detail about their "background," assaults the character of others from behind the blind of anonymity, and suggests that they can simply "out" people in some sort of "tit for tat" type of combat, they're wrong. They can try it, they can find out how wrong they are.
Natalie Malonis is an attorney. She works with attorneys. Attorneys are required to make public declarations about themselves as they are licenses to practice law in a state under it's laws. When an attorney practices law and tries a case and the progress of that case reveals a level of judgement (perhaps) and or lack of skill, and when that attorney fails so miserably in the discharge of their duties (for whatever reason) that the object of their legal attacks (which were no the first amendment) illustrates the supremacy of that right by doing a little in your face dance, it's fair game, and it's news.
And it was.
When that attorney later partners with one of the biggest FLDS enemies who in the humble estimation of many did a laughable job, it's worthwhile upon discovering that fact, to point to it. Bad attorney's who argue against their own arguments paired with losers who dared go up against the First Amendment, well, that's interesting.
The fact that J. Scott Reib Jr.'s resume resembles almost exactly what Natalie Malonis' client "TxBluesMan" claims, well, that's interesting too.
To equate that with license to parade about the private details of my anonymous wife's identity when she holds no professional license and eschews the limelight entirely is laughable. The only reason I wouldn't invite them to try, or say, rhetorically, "Bring it on," is that it could be misconstrued as a real invitation to go fishing.
These are evil people. They need to be defeated.
They need to know that I have no history of being intimidated.
Sphere: Related Content
3 comments:
Even if the lawyer had no connection what's so ever to Nat, the case is still very, very relevant to the FLDS situation.
There have been many posters who have attempted to intimidate people who are critical of the raid.
The level of threats ranged from calling employers to threatening legal action.
This case proves when there is a bad decision made the the State, people have a right to be critical without worry about being sued by over-paid lawyers.
Let's face it, judges and DA know other lawyers will take their case for free. If every person had to worry about being sued if they made fun of judges - it would silence many people.
But it does appear this guy does have a connection to Nat. Who ever TXBlues, in my opinion, lost their right to keep their identity private when they posted about the FLDS being investigated for a shooting. You can't claim secret knowledge of a criminal act and expect people not to care who you are.
Nat should read this case and then read some of her public made threats against others. Maybe she would learn something.
Natalie has owned up to her and Scott having a relationship. A business relationship I'm not trying to imply anything improper about the essential nature of their association.
She wrote and said:
"Scott and I did share offices but we do not any longer. Whatever you are looking at that shows me as sharing an office with him is outdated and has been for some time. We worked together, shared clients, shared revenue and expenses. Neither of us was employed by the other. We still work together at times, but we don’t office together and don’t have the same association and shared costs or revenue."
Yes Natalie, I knew that pretty much. Whenever you have an email in your "law partner's" name, you're probably working more fore him, than with him. Quibbling at this point is really just that.
At no point have I said that Reib is Blues but I'd be an idiot not to think so.
Blues has claimed to be a "Sooner Fan." I guess claiming that pretty much means it's true.
TBM has claimed deep interest in Native American legal matters.
Blues has claimed to have retained Natalie as legal representation.
J. Scott Reib Jr. fits all those bills and he defends the legal establishment in cases that would erode our most basic rights.
Armed with that knowledge, I'm interested in Scott because if Nat knows Blues, Scott almost certainly does. They're almost twins.
Is Blues the same person as Scott? The persona "TxBluesMan" says no. I didn't ask.
Nevertheless if I were looking for Blues with a subpoena to serve, I'd be talking to Scott for dang sure.
The whole point of your article was to point out the company Nat keeps. I would say having the lawyer you share clients lose an important case is actually worse than your employer losing a case.
So did her clarification help clear her name or did it just make things look worse for her?
A legal ethics professor once said no one wants to be the
In RE______________ regarding a ethics decision. Law students read these cases and they are discussed during class, so almost the entire legal community knows about you.
My guess, and it's only a guess, is Nat hangs with a group of people who went to the "right schools" and look down upon the little people who aren't as enlightened as her.
It's probably hard for her to realize other educated people can actually disagree with her attitude towards people with unusual beliefs.
She was probably shocked at these appeals decisions. In her mind, she probably really believes it's ok for the State to violate civil right of the "uneducated" because the State knows best. She should consider moving to China.
Post a Comment