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

What we are supposed to believe

Since I have drilled several dry holes on the identity of TxBluesMan. Hear first, this disclaimer. This, is a guess, but it's a good one, and it's one "Blues" brought on....HERSELF?

In the Wiki War controversy going on over at Wikipedia concerning the YFZ Ranch page, one of the immediate "interveners" was "BlueSooner." The little dust up over there served to help me understand several things about how Wikipedia works, including finding and identifying page editors, at least insofar as those editors identify themselves for the record. In other words, they use "handles," not real names in most cases.

Stroll around the identities of "Loquitor," "BlueSooner" and "BlueSooner/Natalie Malonis" and tell me if they don't know each other. One of the things you will see is that "BlueSooner" appears to be a "Storefront" for "BlueSooner/Natalie Malonis. When I discovered this, you could still see edits on the Coram/Wikipedia history page, now they only appear as "BlueSooner." Quite simply, "BlueSooner" is giving us every reason to believe they are "BlueSooner/Natalie Malonis," but now you can't find that ID, unless you look very hard, or already know where it is. That ID links to the "BlueSooner" ID, but "BlueSooner" doesn't link back to "BlueSooner/Natalie Malonis."

Quite simply All seem to come into existence at roughly the same time (March 2010) and create the "Coram Non Judice" self promotional page on Wikipedia (a no no if Blues and Nat are the same) and edit each other. "Loquitor" and "Blue Sooner/Natalie Malonis" hail from "Vassar" College, which though it is now co-educational, was known primarily as a "Girls School" until recently. This seems to suggest Loquitor is BlueSooner/Natalie Malonis, and we already seem to know that Bluesooner is Natalie Malonis.

The other possibilities are that Natalie and "Whoever Blues Really is" at least briefly shared an identity. That's also a "no no" for Wikipedia. It would be as if I tried to get around my current ban by posting as someone else. The bottom line though is that these posters named "BlueSooner" in some way shame or form have deliberately confused themselves and there is now more circumstantial evidence that they are the same poster, than there was to convict Scott Peterson of the murder of Lacey.

There may be exculpatory evidence that emerges, but right now, as it stands, TxBluesMan=BlueSooner=Natalie Malonis by their own deliberate or inadvertent acts of confusion. If they're not, then let them prove it. I've already had Nat mail me and say she represents TxBluesMan. It was speculated then, that she may have a fool for a client. There are some other possibilities emerging, such as past (present?) associates nearby that went to the right law school, but that's how it stands.

Now.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Walther Uses the Power of the Purse

How can you tell who's doing the Master's bidding? How they get paid. If you had any doubt that Natalie Malonis was doing exactly what she was told to do, and probably still is, read this.

From "Free the FLDS Children." Anything in parentheses are items I've substituted for Bill's rather blunt evaluations of certain persons in the story, and their character.

"According to Civil Employee’s in (Judge Walther's) Court who don’t like the way she is handing out pay slips to certain AAL’s and GAL’s, but not those who questioned her authority or rulings for the FLDS, we seem to have a very selective process going on in San Angelo.

While MOST vouchers submitted are nickel and dimed to death by the (Judge), those favored are showered with as much money as they ask for.

Natalie (Malonis) for example received her (payment) from (Barbara Walther) at the end of March, which contained every single dime she asked for; SIX FIGURES WORTH! Not a bad annual haul by the (lawyer) as her fellow counselor’s keep begging for travel reimbursement.

Since last MAY, 2008, Texas has frozen the publicly acknowledged cost of the attack on the Mormons in Eldorado. With (Judge Walther) handing out the State’s money like confetti to her selective friends, I wonder what Department the State is hiding the expenses since last May. If we believe Texas [And Santa Claus], the State hasn’t spent a dime since last year, a very commendable achievement wouldn’t you say Barbie?"

The only time I have trouble taking Bill Medvecky seriously is when he blurs his signals over whether he is posting hyperbolically or satirically and when he is posting angry. In the later case his information is spot on reliable, in the former cases, he is making fun. Bill is a terrific dose of fun. He's also burrowed in tight where he can pick up little tidbits and does a lot of great reporting as a result. Sometimes it's stuff he's on weeks in advance of the press. In some cases we will have to wait for someone's book years latter to confirm that Bill was right all along. I suspect strongly that the is totally right about this.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Do I drive a Car? Merril invokes the fifth, citing the "Mann Act."

Hey, it's his right. Merril Jessop refuses to establish, himself, that he can drive a car. Why?

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Jessop, a top leader of the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that runs the Schleicher County ranch, invoked the Fifth Amendment 267 times on questions as minor as whether he drives a car and as significant as whether his now-14-year-old daughter was involved in a sexual relationship with sect leader Warren Jeffs.

'Upon the advice of counsel, he's exerting his Fifth Amendment (rights),' Jessop's attorney, Amy Hennington, said early in the all-day Friday deposition. 'The basis is that there is potential state investigation still ongoing, as well as criminal investigations under the Mann Act out of the U.S. Attorney's office.'

The Mann Act prohibits the transportation of people across state lines for the purpose of sexual activity."

This sent Barbara Walther scrambling back to her office, to write an order. She will of course, find some justification for "compelling" Merril to testify. Thumbscrews anyone?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Does Malonis give it up to Walther?

I have come to the conclusion that Barbara Walther's rejection of Laura Shockley as an attorney gives us more insight into the relationship of Malonis and Walther.

They talk.

Malonis is ratting out her client to Barbara Walther or some other entity that would be seen as the opposition by the FLDS. That is why Walther won't let Shockley be the attorney. She expects, just as she had done, that Shockley will serve as a conduit between the various parties Walther does not wish to communicate with one another. More →

Sphere: Related Content

The FLDS Conflict of Interest, um, conflict...

What was mud becomes a bit clearer. With attorneys representing attorneys that want to be someone else's attorney, it looks like a tangle that even Alexander could not solve with a sword.

The Deseret News - "(Laura) Shockley, who represented some of the 'disputed minors' that turned out to be adults, also represented some children early on in the FLDS custody battle — including a 5-year-old boy whose mother is one of Annette Jeffs' sister-wives, and CPS alleged, a sister-wife to Barbara Jessop's 14-year-old daughter.

'Every individual, as Americans, are free to choose who they want to represent them,' countered Kirby Roberts, a lawyer hired to represent Shockley, a Dallas-area attorney.

Appearing in court together, Annette Jeffs and Barbara Jessop both said they were willing to waive any conflicts to have Shockley represent them. But under questioning, both women refused to answer questions that underscored the perceived problem.

'As a mother of a child, do you see a problem with an attorney representing you, the mother of an alleged victim, and a parent of an alleged perpetrator?' CPS attorney Jeff Schmidt asked Annette Jeffs.

'I'm going to stand on the Fifth,' she replied.

She invoked her right against self-incrimination to nearly every question about her daughter's alleged marriage at age 15 to Raymond Jessop. In civil court those non-answers can be used against her."

CPS doesn't want an attorney opening up an avenue of communcation between those it has barred from contact. In short, CPS doesn't want Willie Jessop talking to Teresa Jeffs in a closed communication channel that they cannot monitor.

This whole "victim-perpetrator" forumulation is only important to the CPS, the FLDS simply don't see those people in those roles. This also explains a bit the extension of Barbara Walther's restraining order and Natalie Malonis' recent shrill stage protests.

Barbara Jessop also is not calling her daughter, it would seem, despite the colorations of reports made by CPS that she is misbehaving;

"A CPS caseworker testified they put a halt to notes being passed to the girl, but allowed siblings to visit alongside her mother. When CPS had documentation of dozens of phone calls between the two, Jessop explained that it was her daughter who would call her."

It would seem that CPS doesn't want us to know that Merrianne Jessop is as distressed as she really is, in CPS custody.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Shocking Ruling from Walther

Ok, not a surprise;

The San Angelo Standard Times - "District Judge Barbara Walther today extended a restraining order designed to keep FLDS spokesman Willie Jessop from communicating with the now 17-year-old daughter of sect leader Warren Jeffs."

Again, Walther is never wrong, all her rulings are perfect and so much so they need to be renewed. OF COURSE a 17 year old can't have the attorney she wants. Of course she can't talk to the people she wants to talk to. What were we thinking? More →

Sphere: Related Content

Where is Teresa Jeffs?

Clearly she is NOT in Eldorado at the Grand Jury, confirming the Modern Pharisee's speculation to that effect.

The Salt Lake Tribune - ELDORADO, Texas - "A 16-year-old daughter of polygamous sect leader Warren S. Jeffs launched a new effort Tuesday (July 22nd) to replace her court-appointed attorney.

A motion filed by Teresa Jeffs in Schleicher County said the 'personal behavior' of attorney Natalie Malonis, who represents her in an ongoing child welfare investigation, demonstrates 'choices that brought her judgment, lifestyle and her ability to cope with responsibilities and obligations into question.' The filing does not offer further specifics, but said it was referring to events that began in 2000. Court records show Malonis and her husband began a divorce in 2000. Her former husband was eventually granted full custody of their two sons."

Is Natalie Malonis COMPENSATING for something? When will this obsessed, divorced, empty nester going to get the hint?

UPDATE: Teresa Jeffs could have been two places today, or her attorney may have appeared in her stead seeking to remove Natalie Malonis. The Dallas Morning News says she WAS subpoenaed.

"Teresa Jeffs (was subpoenaed), the 16-year-old daughter of incarcerated sect leader Warren Jeffs. A child advocate report filed earlier this month indicated she had been married to a 34-year-old man shortly after her 15th birthday. Ms. Jeffs has been involved in a public and frequently nasty fight with her guardian ad litem."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Teresa Jeffs conspicuously absent from Grand Jury proceedings.

In keeping with my previous speculation that Teresa Jeffs might well be a smokescreen, Teresa seems to be the witness that was "dismissed" earlier from testifying. This was also speculated by your Modern Pharisee. We'll wait for proof on that but she does not appear on the witness list in the Houston Chronicle, nor are there mentions of her in any other paper or news report I have read. (That's Teresa airborne, over the trampoline.)

So, what was all that nonsense about her diary? Was she being punished for being uncooperative? I suspect so. Child abuse indeed. Annette Jeffs, her mother, was called to testify. The first substantive signal that Teresa was not going to appear, was the fact that Willie Jessop was subpoenaed. More →

Sphere: Related Content

Patting my own back, THE PHARISEE NAILS IT, Natalie Malonis CONFESSES.

On THURSDAY I outlined a strategy in which Texas would use the Testimony of various FLDS moms to GET THE KIDS;

"I wouldn't put it past them. The prosecution GRANTS immunity to the FLDS women, who either then TESTIFY or are held in contempt. All the children then whose fathers did not show up to submit DNA evidence and have had their parental rights terminated are out of the picture.

Mom is now in JAIL. CPS comes to get the kids. They could get most of the kids back that way."

Thursday, PLUS THIRTY MINUTES, Natalie Malonis proposes almost EXACTLY the same strategy. The EMAIL that Brooke Adams got came to her at 12:30am Friday Morning. I was so concentrated on one part of the answers, that I missed ENTIRELY the thrust of another part of Natalie's answer.

"Then suppose the girl is subpoenaed to testify about those circumstances, and if she lies to protect her husband it will be viewed as an inability to protect her children. It will be seen as a preference to protect her adult husband over her defenseless children. Suppose also that her husband is nowhere to be seen and although there is DNA and a baby that prove what happened, the alleged perpetrator still will not come forward to take any responsibility.

At the same time, the alleged perpetrator and various other trusted and powerful members of the community keep reinforcing the idea that the girl is a traitor to her community and her faith if she tells the truth. The 14 year old girl has internalized the teaching that to betray the church means being shunned and ostracized. She feels as if her very survival is on the line, so she refuses to testify for fear of the consequences.

She knows that she may be taken into detention and she may lose custody of her children if she does not testify truthfully, and she ignores the small voice in her head that tells her that if her husband would come forward and tell what happened, she and her children would not be in this position. Not a word from her husband. She does not even know where he is, and she knows it is not her place to ask or question."

Is this not in fact that very strategy? Isn't Natalie threatening EXACTLY that? The state will used YOUR TESTIMONY to show you an unfit mother? Why AIR such stuff? The answer is only that Natalie is acting in CONCERT with the state of Texas to threaten the mothers of the FLDS. "Don't testify and you will LOSE your children." The FLDS Mom's and Teresa Jeffs (almost certainly NOT a mom) apparently took the 5th. Let's review what my proposed strategy was again. My clarifying comment on that post from Thursday.

"Theory: Texas is playing rock and hard place.

It has been floated that those fathers that will not come forth will have their parental rights 'terminated.' I have always wondered why the state of Texas viewed that as a threat.

With Fathers TERMINATED, mom is offered IMMUNITY from what ever the crime they are pleading the 5th for. The object of taking the 5th is because they don't wish to incriminate themselves. The purpose of taking the 5th is not to testify at all. With prosecution threats removed from Moms, they are COMPELLED to testify.

Moms still of course DO NOT want to testify because they may endanger friends or husbands. They now MUST do so or face contempt.

Mom Goes to JAIL for Contempt, stays indefinitely. State takes "abandoned" children.

Variations. Children cannot leave the state. Dads come to be with, their parental rights have not been terminated. Dads are arrested and DNA tested. Children are deemed again to be in unsafe environment for whatever reason. Children taken. State gets dads DNA."

Is this not almost exactly that strategy? More →

Sphere: Related Content

Natalie Malonis claims all her public stories about Teresa, are not about Teresa.

Natalie Malonis, who is apparently the poster at Brooke Adams blog has now said her stories to Brooke in answer to her questions are "hypothetical." I rather expected this. She's trying to use a claim of speculation for insulation against telling the contents of her privileged communications with her client. It goes like this, "I only told a story, the story is like yours, the story is not yours."

If she makes it sufficiently wrong, or unlike Teresa's story, she can then go on to claim she's broken no confidence. But then, why is she telling the story? Her star client is Teresa Jeffs. Teresa Jeffs is sure the story is about her, and Teresa Jeffs doesn't appreciate the story being told. The other factor that makes the story to be a substantial representation of Teresa by her attorney is the fact that Natalie has said that if Teresa KEEPS talking about their communications, she (Natalie) will be forced to testify by Barbara Walthers since Teresa will have broken the attorney client privilege herself.

So Natalie is LYING. Pure and simple. About what we cannot be sure but she's lying. I have posted the following to Natalie (assuming it IS her) at the Plural life.

"Actually Malonis, that's a 'NON DENIAL' denial. You said the 'hypothetical is not about Teresa' that the 'hypothetical does not match her circumstances.'

This only means you've woven a speculation or two about your client into the narrative that you know doesn't match her circumstance, thus making the hypothetical, in totality, NOT about Teresa.

Teresa though has written PUBLIC letters to you asking you to SHUT UP. This means you are identifying major portions of the story as matching up to her. Teresa's problem is that she does not agree with that narrative and is in fact calling you a liar.

Yet you CANNOT shut up about it. Why? Why would you go spin yarns in front of the public that match in large part, or seemingly large part, the life story of your client? Why would you wish the PUBLIC to believe that certain aspects of that story are Teresa's story?

How about THIS counselor? You tell us what parts DON'T match. That will go a long way to solving Teresa's problem."

By the way, I went back and counted, in the HYPOTHETICAL that us MORONS are supposed to know is NOT about Teresa, Natalie Malonis uses Teresa's name FIVE TIMES and her mother's name once. More →

Sphere: Related Content

Natalie Malonis answers YOUR questions? Hurry On Over to Brooke Adams BLOG right NOW.

No kidding. A commenter by the name "Malonis" is answering questions and defending themselves over at Brooke Adams blog "The Plural Life." If it's REALLY her, it doesn't GET any better than this.

UPDATE: If the poster is to be believed, and the words are that of Natalie Malonis, I say THIS to Natalie;

"Horse Manure Malonis. A 'reasonable man' would construe it to be about Teresa Jeffs. If you are who you seem to be, you have invited the world up the skirt of your minor client.

I don't know if YOU dropped trow before 16, but perhaps your client has not, and it is NONE of our business frankly, if she has.

Your concern for her honor and privacy as her attorney should be foremost. Clearly you care about other aspects of the case in front of the concerns of your client.

Hypothetical MY HINEY Malonis. We all know who you are talking about."

To which she says;

"The hypothetical is not about Teresa. The hypothetical does not match Teresa's circumstances."

Well GREAT, I'm glad we can all clear that up now. ODD, Teresa Jeffs thought you were talking about HER. I thought you were talking about her. If you're not talking about her WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, and better yet, WHY ARE YOU EVEN TALKING? More →

Sphere: Related Content

Natalie Malonis answers Brooke Adams' questions. Baits Teresa Jeffs. The Pharisee asks HIS questions, gives his answers.

In response to this question: "That Annette will be charged with failure to protect her daughter and be jailed?," Natalie had the following to say. I will take portions of her lengthy answer.

"Can we all assume that it is not in a teenage girl's interest to be married at 14 or 15 to a stranger who is more than twice her age?"

No. Is Natalie saying a 17 year old does not act in her best interest to marry a 35 year old? An 18 year old does not act in her best interest to marry a 37 year old?

"It is illegal after all."

No, it's not. It's illegal for a teenager to be married to a person twice their age when that person is already married (legally) to another. An example. A legally unmarried 50 year old man goes to Mexico and impregnates a 13 year old girl there, also from this country. He returns to his home in North Carolina, and marries the girl. That's LEGAL. It is another discussion entirely as to whether it's morally right or wrong. Law is not morality. The acts I described are legal and will accomplish the marriage legally.

"If Willie were influencing young women to keep quiet so that the church can get away with criminal acts against teenage girls, can we not all agree that Willie's influence is not in the girls' interests?"

Fallacy of complex question. This is; "has Willie stopped beating his wife?" It's almost three months now since the raid, there are no indictments or charges or arrests or crimes found.

"Who has more motivation to improperly influence Teresa, Willie Jessop or me? Willie is protecting the Church, not protecting Teresa."

If theirs is the true faith, aren't these goals 100% compatible? Who decides then Natalie, what true faith is? YOU?

"If he were truly interested in protecting Teresa (and Annette for that matter) don't you suppose he would counsel Teresa to testify truthfully rather than subject her to this enormous strain?"

He HASN'T done that counselor? Are you not divulging the content of your discussions with Teresa? Are you not breaking NOW the attorney client privilege? If this is a question YOU ask, you answer other questions you should not.

"Don't you think he would encourage the alleged perpetrator to come forward and speak to authorities so that the women and children do not have to bear the entire burden?"

Alleged perpetrator? OF WHAT? Who would come forward? You ask them to prove the NEGATIVE if in fact there is no Crime. WHAT CRIME Natalie? ARREST SOMEONE! YOU are an OFFICER OF THE COURT!

"Just suppose that the reports of underage marriages and child-bearing are true, and I'm not speaking about Teresa here, but speaking generally."

Let's suppose the reports of their being pictures of Natalie Malonis having sex with a barnyard animal are true.....Oh wait, there are no such reports. Ok, Rumor time, let's suppose Natalie Malonis (fill in the blank). Let's suppose Barbara Walthers is embezzeling. Let's suppose she is in collusion with Mary Catharine Nelson to send Rozita Swinton to make false reports about the FLDS. There is in fact far more basis for supposing THAT, than the existance of "underage marriages" and "child abuse" at YFZ.

"Suppose a girl is taught her entire life that plural marriage is the only path to salvation, that the word of the prophet is the word of God, and perfect obedience to men is the way to glorify Heavenly Father."

What if it is? I'm a HYPER Calvinist Natalie. That means I believe there are those destined to hell by the planning of God from before the foundations of time, from before they were created, from before they had a chance to ACT. Is what I believe horrid? It doesn't matter, it's what I believe and it is the right of parents to teach children and instruct them in religious belief. Too bad. Every religion has it's spooky side to those on the outside.

"... and suppose the prophet tells that girl at age 13 that she is to be married that night to a stranger who is close to her father's age, and Heavenly Father is honored by the sealing."

Have we found any of these acts at YFZ?

"Suppose the girl, having never had a discussion about sexual relations, becomes pregnant and has a child when she is 14 years old. That 14 year old girl would tell you she chose to marry and she chose to enter a sexual relationship and bear children. That 14 year old girl would tell you that she is happy and doing what she wants to do. She would tell you that she has never been abused and she has never been forced to do anything."

Yah, yah, and suppose that I am the Queen of England. Monkeys flew out of my butt. Suppose I was on the moon. Was a member of the Beatles. That I caught the biggest fish.

"Then suppose the girl is subpoenaed to testify about those circumstances, and if she lies to protect her husband it will be viewed as an inability to protect her children. It will be seen as a preference to protect her adult husband over her defenseless children. Suppose also that her husband is nowhere to be seen and although there is DNA and a baby that prove what happened, the alleged perpetrator still will not come forward to take any responsibility."

That's a lot of "ifs" there sister. Again you propose the contents of your priveleged discussions with Teresa, and in so doing you break the confidence or just flat out LIE about her. In any case you impugn her character.

"At the same time, the alleged perpetrator and various other trusted and powerful members of the community keep reinforcing the idea that the girl is a traitor to her community and her faith if she tells the truth. The 14 year old girl has internalized the teaching that to betray the church means being shunned and ostracized. She feels as if her very survival is on the line, so she refuses to testify for fear of the consequences."

Again, that's either divulging the contents of your discussions with Teresa, and privileged, or a series of lies. You are impugning her character in any case.

"She knows that she may be taken into detention and she may lose custody of her children if she does not testify truthfully, and she ignores the small voice in her head that tells her that if her husband would come forward and tell what happened, she and her children would not be in this position. Not a word from her husband. She does not even know where he is, and she knows it is not her place to ask or question."

Wow, I hope I never have such an attorney. Like I said, either she's lying, or telling the truth. Either way she's telling you what she wants you to believe transpired in conversations between her and Teresa Jeffs. Either way it's NONE of our business. What next? Does she offer NUDE PHOTOS of Teresa to Playboy? She might as well do so. Even if there are no such photos EVERYONE WOULD BELIEVE that there were after the offer. Just as in this case where anyone who now reads her reply believes that Teresa Jeffs has lost her virginity, been pawed over by an older man, has a child and has been abandoned by that man.

Or it could be that Teresa Jeffs is a virgin and is furious for precisely the reasons that Teresa has outlined in her letters. In any case it is no more my business than naked photos of Teresa, or Natalie or Barbara Walthers. Whether those photos exist, or not. You cannot speculate the existence of such photos as a basis for going to look for them. You have to have evidence.

Let me be clear, I believe Teresa, not Natalie. There is no child. Teresa is a virgin. She is a chaste maiden in her father's house. Natalie feels free to say what she wants and the threat to Teresa is, "IF you REPLY to me publicly, I WILL DIVULGE our PRIVELEGED CONVERSATIONS." Personally I think Natalie is BAITING Teresa. There is something Natalie WANTS to tell Barbara, or has already told Barbara that neither of them can act on. It is PROBABLY a "Spiritual Marriage" to someone. We don't know though. That hardly means that Teresa has consummated that relationship. Whatever it is, Natalie thinks it is material to Barbara's ongoing crusade and wants to tell. The more public the exchange, the more they edge closer to Natalie's threat that Barbara will ask her to testify, and that Natalie will testify to what has been said between her and Teresa. More →

Sphere: Related Content

Malonis threatens to blab? Texas levers Teresa Jeffs

Most of us know of course that Natalie Malonis refuses to step aside as Teresa Jeffs attorney. This may move may let Barbara Walthers see privileged Attorney-Client communications. I'll let Natalie explain;

The Deseret News - "Malonis said it was her obligation to refuse to testify.

'The client has to be able to communicate with an attorney and know that those communications are kept confidential,' she said.

She did worry that by making her e-mails public, Jeffs may be waiving attorney-client privilege.

'That's what I'm afraid of,' she said. 'If that keeps happening, at some point the judge will compel me to testify.'"

Natalie thus says to Teresa; "Shut UP, or I'll testify" and perpetuates the situation where Natalie operates in collusion with the State to make it appear that Teresa is "seeking" state protection when she is not.

If Teresa fights Natalie, eventually she will testify and probably what she will testify to is that Teresa is "spiritually married" to someone, probably Raymond Jessop. This line may have in fact already been crossed in Barbara Walters mind and Barbara was just waiting for more evidence to bolster her case that Teresa is talking, thus so can Natalie. Part of what happened in the Grand Jury proceeding seems to have been the effort to document Teresa Jeffs supposed "spiritual marriage" to Raymond. This would then become the salacious detail that would be trumpeted in the press, probably along with the now infamous "kissing" pictures of Warren. The headline would be "Convicted Cult Leader/Rapist Jeffs forces sex on his own daughter with Older Man." They could then propose he is an accomplice to the rape of his own daughter.

Texas has been pretty good at the "rock and hard place" strategy. Sign this service plan or don't see your children. Get on this bus or don't see your children. Go to this battered woman's shelter or don't see your children. I propose they are manuevering now for at least two other rock and hard place choices. That being "testify or go to jail" to the FLDS women who took the 5th Wednesday and then the consequence is not just jail but probably removal of their children while they are there. The other is to Teresa Jeffs which is "serve as our poster child for abused girl needing state protection" OR "Help us build the case that your father is an accomplice to your own rape."

I don't think Teresa has lost her virtue. It's entirely possible that she is "Spiritually Married" to Raymond Jessop. If the former is true, the latter is hardly anyone's business. Anyone can probably get "enagaged" at 50 to a girl of 12 as long as they wait 6 years to touch their prospective bride. As long as Teresa is a virgin, which it would appear from certain statements that she is, there is no basis for presuming she has been molested by the state's definition. Documenting however that she WAS "spiritually married" would start the public distress and hand wringing of the CPS and the restart of their "child abuse" strategy that would almost require a live "on air" gynecological exam with expert commentary. That would be the only way Teresa could prove Texas wrong.

One of the reasons I air these speculations is to prevent their uses as strategies. Texas in the person of Barbara Walthers has been very good at forcing choices, manuevering pieces on the playing board so as to give FLDS members two choices that serve the state, one good, the other better from the perspective of Texas. If the FLDS know what might be coming and if we do, they might avoid it.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Natalie Malonis drives Teresa Jeffs literally up a tree.

(Photo by the Deseret News)

You want stress? Try being Teresa Jeffs. The Deseret News;

"'I don't want to do it,' Jeffs said outside of court. 'It's weird.'

While waiting to testify, Jeffs decided to climb a tree, amusing some spectators.'

I'd say she really wants to get away.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

NEWS FLASH! "Polygamy is ACCEPTABLE UNDER THE LAW" - The San Angelo Standard-Times

If you read every article thoroughly, little tidbits drop out. This one is great because it reveals to the public what the press and law enforcement have always known but would not admit to publicly. The most they will do is let people like Rod Parker or Willie Jessop say it, and quote it, but they will not ACKNOWLEDGE it. Here the press doesn't put the words in someone else's mouth, and the stroke their chin in doubt, they actually admit it;

"The (FLDS), which split decades ago from the mainstream Mormon Church, practices a form of polygamy with spiritual unions that, when conducted between consenting adults, is acceptable under the law. Malonis alleges the girl was spiritually married at age 15 to an older man; the girl in letters, e-mails and interviews has denied being abused."

Well DUH, FINALLY. No, it's NOT illegal.

Furthermore it would seem that a lot of time the "spiritual marriages" of the FLDS amount to betrothal or go unconsummated for a variety of reasons. The law can only concern itself with sexual congress or sexual behavior and the issues of whether or not marriages are legally registered. This all changed when the Supreme Court of the United States struck down cohabitation laws. Essentially those laws say that if you draw your blinds and you are an adult or of "consenting age" you can have at it.

Free speech laws say you can SAY what you will as well. So Teresa Jeffs can go around saying she's "married" to someone else, if in fact she has done that. Bishops of the FLDS faith can declare her "married" if they choose to and unless she drops trow and does the "horizontal mambo" or a little fondling, in the eyes of the law, NOTHING HAS HAPPENED. When she turns 17 in Texas, she can do all of that, and in the eyes of the law, only her consent is required.

So now we're waiting for that "other admission." The admission that in this country, Free Speech is still a right. Yes, Polygamy if practiced with people of consenting age or with adults it is not ILLEGAL in this country. The next admission we need from Ms. Malonis, is that being "spiritually married" in the eyes of the law amounts to nothing as well. Unless the "spiritually married" that are underage are caught "en flagrante" or such a relationship is proved with a person too old in the eyes of the law, they can say what they want.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Predictable Result, Malonis & Walther win.

No Recusal. No change of attorney. Willie Jessop barred from Teresa Jeffs for 90 days.

The Salt Lake Tribune - "Malonis was prepared to present more evidence about why she wants Jeffs's mother to keep the girl away from Jessop, including apparently e-mails they exchanged. But, as urged by Walther, attorneys avoided a hearing by negotiating an agreement that extends a restraining order issued Friday for another 90 days."

Apparently the compromise that resulted involved the following;

"Walther granted Malonis' request that Jeffs be reunited with her mother and siblings under special restrictions, making her the only child governed by such an order.

The order says Jeffs may have no contact with her father or a man named Raymond Jessop. She also is prohibited from living at the YFZ Ranch - and today Walther also turned down the girl's request that she be allowed to spend the night at the ranch before making her grand jury appearance.

Jim Schmidt, an attorney for Texas Child Protective Services, said that doing so would be 'counterproductive for what we are trying to do' and not in Jeffs' best interest. Instead, Jeffs and her mother stayed at a hotel. "

Is it just me or does it seem to you that it's OBVIOUS they don't care about the "child?" It's "COUNTERPRODUCTIVE FOR WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO?" I thought this was about the children.

"Afterward, on the courtroom steps, Malonis said: 'Life goes on. I'm happy. I'm just exhausted.'"

Who cares if YOU'RE happy? Putting this teen through this torture should tear you up, even if you ARE right you IDIOT. (I was temped to use another word, but I restrained myself.)
More →

Sphere: Related Content

No indication the Walther-Malonis Team has adjourned for the evening. It's a full on Smoker?

Fight club is it? Maybe I'm reading it wrong but every news report I can get my hands on says the hearing is still in progress. If that's NOT the case, let me know. All I can say is Annette must have picked a great attorney. Barbara NEVER misses the dinner bell. More →

Sphere: Related Content

Annette Jeffs attempts to have Judge Walther Recused

Predictably it didn't work and I guess their still at it;

The Salt Lake City Tribune - "On Friday, Walther approved and signed a temporary restraining order Malonis sought to block contact between Teresa Jeffs and FLDS spokesman Willie Jessop. The order instructed Annette Jeffs, the girl's mother, to keep her from Jessop and set a court hearing in the matter for Tuesday afternoon.

But the hearing was temporarily halted after Annette Jeffs sought Walther's recusal. Her motion pointed out that security was placed around the judge's home after Texas law enforcement circulated dossiers that alleged Jessop was an enforcer for the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.

The motion questioned whether, given that security, Walther could be impartial in a case involving Jessop. Malonis alleges that the girl's push for a new attorney was due to coercion from Jessop."

This is so wrong. More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Teresa Jeffs Saga - It gets better

She's almost 17, The San Angelo Standard-Times;

"This is an almost 17-year-old girl who has an extremely poor relationship with her lawyer," (Rod) Parker said. "It's the girl reaching out to Willie, and not the other way around."

It would be useful to know what month her birthday falls in and amusing to know if it turned out to be July or August. The hearing is at 2pm this afternoon CDT. More →

Sphere: Related Content