Inquiring Minds, want to know (slightly updated)

Almost certainly not Da Blues.

"A" TxBluesMan

Hmmmmmmm.
















Natalie Malonis:

"Scott Reib is NOT Txbluesman. Unequivocally.

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 Whatever you are looking at that shows me as sharing an office with him is outdated and has been for some time.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. Scott is one of the kindest, most sincere, upstanding people I have had the fortune of knowing. He is an outstanding lawyer and an even better human being. That is who you are trying to harm."

That is from her email to me, yesterday.

"Wrong again, pinhead.

I am not Scott Reib and have never been afiliated (sic) with OU's American Indian Law Journal, other than to read it.

Nice try though. Better than your last efforts.

TBM"

Remember, you can't spell Pharisee, without "Phare." Sorta. And Scott Reib only claims to appear on a list in the American Indian Law Journal.

LATEST UPDATE: I have found about three "clearer" pictures of "TxBluesMan" as pictured above. Those pictures are not J. Scott Reib Jr. At this time, if I were to say Scott=TxBluesMan of "Coram Non Judice," then I'd have to say the blogger in question is certainly a committee, or the man pictured in the fuzzy picture above, is just ANOTHER man on the internet who thinks of himself as the "TxBluesMan." The man in the "Silverton" Colorado Sweatshirt though (in the clearer pictures), IS NOT attorney J. Scott Reib Jr.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Oh, look at this:

And of course, it is by an "anonymous" poster. Not that someone with a fake name is much better than "anonymous."

"I address the following comments to TxBluesMan :

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

No, please, after you.

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.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

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.

More →

Sphere: Related Content