Natalie Writes a Hot Check for Gregory J. Prickett

NSF for GJP?

Supposedly, there is a Temporary Restraining Order on yours truly with regard to negative comments made about Sgt. Gregory Jack Prickett (rhymes with Briquette). I have what amounts to knowledge of this business only through rumor and third hand information. For instance, someone with a gmail email account that has the same name as Sgt. Prickett has emailed me a file I tried to open three times, but could not. Good sense prevailed eventually, and I ceased to open a file from a person I did not know, or had no prior knowledge of, because that's how you get a virus on your computer. To this day an email lies in my inbox with an attachment that I have given up trying to open, because it could be dangerous.

But I digress.

Liar Stowers

When I called Renaldo Stowers, "Senior Assistant General Counsel" for the University of North Texas (that's a mouthful, isn't it?) a few days ago, he said he "couldn't talk to me" because of this "temporary restraining order" that I don't have (and still don't have).

Renaldo is a stinking liar. Many attorneys trade in stinking lies, and Renaldo is one of them. If such a "restraining order" exists (I wager), it is written with regard to MY behavior, not with regard to the University's behavior or any of it's agents.

It works like this:

A "TRO" (Temporary Restraining Order) is asked for and issued by the court. Whatever court that is. Remember, I have no official knowledge of any kind of a case against me. I only go by what "Kent" at "Save the FLDS Children" has written. This is second or third hand information. I still know nothing officially. Official notice is for a purpose, it serves to let everyone know I actually know or know of something. It is legalistic and strict for a reason.

The Big PRICKett

If we believe that Sgt. Gregory Jack Prickett did file a lawsuit naming me, and did get a restraining order against me, he then needs to serve it, so I know. An officer of the court, or a duly authorized representative showing up in some legal capacity at my door or mailbox serves to let me know I'm not being lied to, but that some official function of some Government is being applied to my person.

If I don't have said document in hand, for the purposes of the law, I don't know anything and it doesn't apply to me. In short, until someone says "stop," I can keep going. No one has said "stop," what I have is anonymous twaddle offered to me over the internet by unknown persons. We all know we can always believe in what's found on the internet, right?

So back to that lying sack Renaldo Stowers. He told me that HE couldn't talk to me because of a restraining order. That's a lie. I can't talk to him if I want to avoid contempt of court charges if I have been ordered by the court not to talk to him, and I have received such notice. The fact is I can go right on flapping my jaw in the case of getting the TRO and in the case of not getting it. In the former case though, I will probably end up paying dearly. So the pompous self important Renaldo (don't call me Renaldo, call me Mr. Stowers) lied, and knows he lied.

I assume this court that I am supposedly going to answer to is in Texas. I wonder what law enforcement crazy "don't mess with Texas" does with attorneys who write hot checks on behalf of plaintiffs who represent themselves pro se does to those plaintiffs and their lawsuits?

I know in some venues, in the past, you were in trouble with the court for the NSF check itself, and whatever you filed was deemed never to have been filed at all.

Kent and I agree that this supposed lawsuit (if it has been filed indeed) was only filed to make it so people like Renaldo could have an excuse for not talking to me, so that when the disciplinary action came up regarding Sgt. Gregory Jack PRICKett (rhymes with "briquette"), they would have enough cover (of the "I did not KNOW that variety) to let him off.

Lt. West Gilbreath told me, if you recall, that they had not opened a criminal investigation, only an internal one. This served two useful purposes.

The University was free to act solely in it's own intersts (and possibly those of Sgt. Prickett) with regard to my complaint.

The University would not have to talk to me because it was an internal matter involving the "privacy" of Sgt. Prickett, who is on paid Administrative Leave.

So far the only damage I appear to have done to Sgt. PRICKett (rhymes with "briquette") appears to have been giving him a long paid vacation during Sooner Season.

He/She's "The Hot Check."

Oh, and why is Natalie Malonis writing "Hot Checks?" Inquiring minds want to know.  (I'm using the "Wikipedia" definition of "Hot Checks" which links directly to the NSF/Non Sufficient Funds article.  You have to assume Nat and PRICKett have had the opportunity to edit the article.)

Is that limb your out on a little short and thin there Nat? Is there anyone with a saw behind you? Have you LOOKED? Same thing goes for you too Sgt.

Still unanswered are questions like why the University doesn't care about the apparent threatening of my daughter by a person that is almost certainly Sgt. Gregory Jack Prickett of UNT.

What they countenance what amounts to extortion, apparently by the same person.

Why is it OK for OLD men to follow around YOUNG GIRLS that they don't know in other states, and then prowl the corridors of a state University, which is filled with young women?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Pharisee Stops by to Visit Texas (FLDS News Explodes!)

Extra! Extra! Read all about it, the Pharisee is in Texas on this Big Day.

I continue to have limited blogging ability. It's because in my new job I am rarely in a place where I can blog. There is no restriction on my doing so from my new employer but it's always one thing or the other, I have the time, but not the access, the access but not the time, both time and access but literally no power. Computers love power.

Toes has uncovered the strong possibility that Blues is either someone else (making me WRONG again!)(well, not really) that is related to Greg J. Prickett. Read all about it.

Blues has closed his/her/their blog, which you all probably know by now.

Bill Medvecky reveals that when the Rock of Sacred Identification was cast into the Dark Anti FLDS Bat Cave, the winged rats started flying in all directions.

Ain't life grand?

To me, "TxBluesMan's" identity has always been a way to get behind the curtain. The Blogger(s) were either important power players, or being fed by them as fronts. It appears now that the latter is true with Bill's claim (believe me it's well founded) that the Texas AG's office is materially involved:

"Who would have thought that an Assistant Attorney General of the State of Texas would have not only jeopardized her Bar License, but will result in the overturning of all of the convictions made so far for giving opposing council (At the time), illegal access to States Evidence.

Personally, I DO NOT believe Ms. Goodman worked alone. I would not be surprised in the least if barbie knew what she was doing at the time. The likelyhood that she took it upon herself to supply Natalie with the States evidence without Nichol’s knowledge and/or approval is also slim. Did good old Ironsides know? Probably."

If provable (I have no doubt that someone in the Texas AG's office was helping, along with others), this news should implode the states cases and blow up at least some if not all of their convictions. I honestly don't know how it affects the plea bargained cases since they preserved their right of appeal, and I in my humble opinion don't see how this news affects appeals, directly.

Here's how it might work: Now that the State's surrogate Ms. Malonis and one of the AG's office have put themselves in jeopardy, the highly politicized judiciary of Texas will suddenly decide to "hear" the evidence appeal, and find (shock) that the Evidence was collected illegally. There will be some conference (all verbal and off the record) in which the State of Texas suggests to FLDS attorneys that they drop the chase of their Cavalcade of Criminal Civil Servants and back of the prosecution of private parties, that the appeal will be expedited and upheld. The FLDS will probably take it. For the rest of our sakes I would hope they would role the dice and tear down the criminal house of Texas LE, but they probably will not. My guess is they will settle for damages and go home. Warren will shortly be a free man if this is the case.

In analyzing Ms. Malonis' sudden departure as attorney for Bruce Wisan and for Carolyn Jessop, all I can say is you don't stop when you're winning, unless really, you just lost big behind the scenes. An attorney jumping off the horse in midstream is either unethical, or the result of unethical behavior. We can assume the latter is the most likely explanation.

How did this all start? I can't say that I did it. Such connections have been suspected for a long time, but the strategy is indeed mine (though probably not exclusively so). Find someone in the "Blues" camp. Paint the target. Get target lock and tone. Watch 'em scatter and start taking names.

My "Unnamed Source" (who may be named anytime he/she wishes) was researching "GregJackP" (Prickett) and his connection with another Wikipedia user/editor identified as Natalie Malonis. As you may know, I take the position that "Climate Change" as "anthropogenic" is a myth. From what I can tell, my unnamed source doesn't see it that way. The fact though that I was involved in a "WikiWar" and got banned (here comes the silver lining) and the fact that I blogroll anti anthropogenic climate change blogs made my blog the result of a Google search. And my source read all about it.

And started putting two and two together.

And emailed me Friday, September 10th and asked if he/she could call me. I emailed the source my phone number, and it went from there. So on Sunday the 12th, I blogged a picture of Greg Prickett and asked "WhoDat?" I wasn't going to do that but the unnamed source (who was not doing what they were doing at my bidding or knowing who I was) had already called Greg. He had been alerted.

The source and I have since become friends and we talk often.

Shortly before that I had given all the information to a variety of real "operatives" having also immediately disclosed the information to people who could communicate it to the FLDS. The strategy switched from "sneak up behind them" to "shock and awe" and watch the rats scatter while taking inventory of their identities and their incriminating behavior.

It now appears that people on the "other side" are talking to save their skins and the 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle suddenly began to take shape and the rest of the pieces of course, started to fall in place. Believe me, a selfish part of me would have been tempted to keep the story close to the chest until more parts of the puzzle fell in place and published a big piece on my blog (the seagull mentality, mine mine mine) but this has never been about me so as I said, I distributed the information and those various cooperative independent "operatives" went to work with their God Given unique and similar talents.

Naming Toes,Bill Medvecky, Da Vulture and Scott Ledbetter doesn't paint the whole picture, they were just the ones who have been public about their involvement, but the list is longer.

In the end what I hope and pray for is a total discrediting of the various local, state and national law enforcement agencies involved. I would hope that a legalization of polygyny grows out of this. I would like for those that proposed the fate of the FLDS, to go to jail.

Jail you say Hugh? I thought you did not approve of jails.

I don't, but Biblically the most apt punishment for false witnesses and conspirators of that sort, was to receive the punishment they intended for their intended victims. So, jail it is. I don't think that will happen, but that's the not quite fully banished idealist in me.

I encourage you to go and visit the Jury Bulletin Board Blog (FLDS Texas)* and see the monster in it's death throes. It's ugly.

I have a lot of thoughts on the matter, some will no doubt go stale while I am forced to wait for my new assignment. If they are still apropos when I change duties in a week, I'll share them with you. Otherwise I continue to pray for my FLDS friends, Warren Jeffs included, that their complete release come soon and as part of the bargain, that their lands be restored to them, and a damage settlement be offered and given to them by all who persecuted them in LE.

* Work down the page from where this takes you. The first post might be about me, or someone else, or several people. After a while it's about me. Again. Why would they be so furious with someone who incorrectly identified Blues and is setting himself up to be the fool again?

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

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?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Natalie Malonis Responds to Brooke Adams, via your Modern Pharisee

I'd say the best thing to do now Natalie, is get a lawyer, and shut up. It's too late to shut up and get a lawyer.

From an email from Ms. Malonis, to yours truly:

"Oh, by the way, in that article, it says Brooke contacted me by phone and email for an interview. That is not true. I did not receive a phone call or email from her, not that it would have mattered because I wouldn’t have spoken to her."

Swear on a stack of law books, it's genuine. I emailed a hyperlink to my previous post today, and she shot back. I'll skip the love patter that preceded the above quote. The relevant portion is quoted.

Brooke says Natalie Malonis was contacted and did not respond. Malonis says Brooke didn't email her, so she didn't respond. Except she wouldn't have responded anyway.

The Salt Lake Tribune - "(Bruce) Wisan's Texas attorney is Natalie Malonis, who was appointed to represent one of Jeffs' daughters during the child welfare proceedings. Malonis used some of Jeffs' dictations as exhibits a year ago in that case, but the dictations briefly published online this week were not introduced then.

Malonis did not return a telephone call or an e-mail request for an interview."

It's a case of she said, she said.

Rather than getting into who I believe, a reporter (yes I know to sometimes claim I am one) or a lawyer, I'm really torn.

But lets look at Nat's claim and treat it as true. That means Brooke is panicking a little, or is angry with Blues/Malonis or perhaps both. Brooke would be using her bully pulpit as a Salt Lake Tribune reporter to gain the upper hand.

Let's look at Brooke's claim, and treat it as true. Natalie is in a tough spot as she has claimed to be "TxBluesMan's" lawyer, and she's Bruce Wisan's lawyer. I dunno, could this be a growing conflict of interest as they may be spitting at each other in court very soon? Natalie can't really respond until she resolves that problem

In any case it looks like Brooke drew her gun very quickly. We all have busy days. In fairness to Ms. Malonis she could have gotten in late and found out that Brooke wrote her a nasty gram via the Tribune. But in fairness to Brooke, it didn't take long for Nat, to respond to me. Only one hour, and at 2am in the morning. Natalie was burning the late night oil.

Natalie is no stranger to conflicts of interest, having argued against herself before, in court. Perhaps she can again perform this magic, juggling the diverging interests of Wisan and Texas Lamb Chop.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Carolyn Jessop clearly has something to hide, and it's in her Tax Returns

Carolyn Jessop won't cooperate.

In a new motion posted today (and filed Wednesday) on the Mohave county site:

"The parties then agreed that the completion of Ms. Jessop's interview would occur on November 6, 2009, over the telephone. On November 4, 2009, the completion of Ms. Jessop's telephonic interview was re-scheduled for November 24, 2009, at the State's request. Ms. Jessop promised to disclose her tax returns showing the financial benefits she received from the publication of her book in advance of the completion of her interview. However, on November 20, 2009, the State advised defense counsel that Carolyn had called off the completion of her interview."

The summation of all of this is that Carolyn opened the door to her tax returns, pleading she could not explain herself without them. Since she has testified previously that they are an integral part of her explanations, she cannot now refuse to discuss or show them.

The bottom line? Carolyn can indeed stonewall forever as has been pointed out by anti FLDS pundits, but what hasn't been said? The state will have to strike her from the witness list, if she doesn't pony up. Natalie Malonis' letter? Balderdash.

The Thanksgiving Day weekend? Very busy indeed.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Plot Thickens in Arizona

Matt Smith has made two (a) motions that he may actually win in the Arizona case against Warren Jeffs*:

This is one of those points about which I know so little of what has already transpired combined with my less than amateur ability with the law, that I can't really call the outcome. Calling it like a ball game though I'd say that all Matt Smith has won so far is a "wait until Texas rules" play with Judge Conn, something he now no longer claims. That's good. Make it look like your idea Matt since you wouldn't win a protest of the evidentiary hearing anyway. This also now makes it look like Matt's earlier disclaimers regarding use of YFZ evidence, were smoke. Only Judge Conn can stop the evidentiary hearing in Arizona as both the defense and now the prosecution have no objections.

What Matt might win is twin motions denying Jeffs further access to Ms. Elissa "Redacted" Wall and her income from her book and movie deals and Carolyn Jessop and her tax returns. You have to figure that if Michael Piccarreta is on a winning streak, getting what he wants, that at some point he will knowingly overreach what is rightfully the province of the defense, and ask for something he'd like to have, but really shouldn't have. He wouldn't be doing his job, if he didn't.

There is a bit of absurd comedy in all of this. Elissa's name continues to be "redacted" from motions as she is a "victim," yet the names of her published works (of fiction?) continue to be used in conjunction with her "whited out" name, making it completely transparent. Arizona might as well paste over her name with clear Scotch Tape.

Then there is this crowing and self aggrandizing "elbowing" her way into the spotlight of Natalie Malonis as the representative of Carolyn Jessop. I'm linking to it only to document her grandstanding. I by no means encourage you to click on the link, unless of course you don't believe me. I in fact debated with myself for quite a while before I resolved post the link, not wanting to contribute any site traffic numbers or publicity to the blog where this letter appears:

"November 16, 2009


Mr. Matthew J. Smith
Mohave County Attorney
315 N. 4th Street
PO Box 7000
Kingman, Arizona 86402

Via Facsimile 928-753-2669

RE: Arizona v. Warren Jeffs, CR-2007-743

Dear Mr. Smith:

In connection with the above-referenced case, I am writing on behalf of Carolyn Jessop as a designated witness for the State of Arizona. As you’re aware, I represented Carolyn in her Texas child support case against Merril Jessop. On behalf of my clients in whose cases Sam Brower was engaged, I also participated with Lee Novak and Roger and Greg Hoole in preparing a response to the Defense’s motion to depose Mr. Brower. I will soon be submitting my pro hac vice application in Arizona so that I may appear in December for oral argument on the issue on behalf of clients, such as Carolyn, whose confidentiality could be compromised if Mr. Brower’s deposition is allowed to proceed.

Carolyn has requested that I contact you and communicate her intent to withdraw from voluntarily participating as a witness for the State in its case against Warren Jeffs. Although Carolyn was initially willing to provide testimony for the State, such willingness and cooperation with the State has been transformed into an unreasonable and unnecessary burden. As lead attorney for the prosecution, it appears that you are doing little or nothing to shield your witnesses from harassment and unreasonable exposure by Mr. Jeffs’ attorneys. Per your request, Carolyn has voluntarily made herself available on two occasions for more than four hours of interviews by Mr. Piccarretta; she has produced sensitive and private documents relating to her financial dealings; and she is now being asked to submit to a third interview for Mr. Piccarretta’s continued fishing expedition. Mr. Piccarretta’s right to interview witnesses is not unlimited, but there has been no apparent gesture on your part to place any outer limits on Mr. Piccarretta’s continued access to witnesses. Additionally, as far as Carolyn is aware, you did not request or secure any type of protective order or non-disclosure agreement in connection with her financial data disclosed to Mr. Piccarretta. She feels that you have failed to take reasonable actions to protect her privacy interests and to shield her from unreasonable exposure by the defense.

Carolyn is also testifying for the State in criminal proceedings in Texas. Based on your conduct and apparent open-door policy with Mr. Piccarretta, Carolyn is concerned that her Texas grand jury testimony may be requested by you and supplied to Mr. Piccarretta or other FLDS attorneys or supporters, thus exposing her to even greater harassment, ridicule and scorn (If you’re not aware, Carolyn endures a constant barrage of public invective from those who wish to hide the FLDS practices). It seems as though even Judge Conn has taken note of your passivity in the face of an onslaught from the defense – noting in a recent order that the State had not filed any type of response to Mr. Piccarretta’s motions for depositions of non-party, non-witnesses, although several responses were filed by various other attorneys on behalf of those whose depositions were unreasonably sought. This type of habitual lack of response and seeming acquiescence and exaggerated courtesy extended to defense attorneys portrays you as unwilling to protect and defend Ms. Jessop, and perhaps other witnesses as well.

Having carefully evaluated the circumstances and potential for negative exposure and unwelcome consequences to Ms. Jessop, she has made the decision that she no longer wishes to participate as the State’s witness in this proceeding, although she remains supportive of the State’s efforts to bring justice to Warren Jeffs. Naturally, Ms. Jessop is aware that the State could subpoena her and order her to appear and give testimony, contrary to her expressed desire and intent, and she hopes that the State would not place her in that position.

Carolyn has requested that any further communications on this or related issues be made through me; she does not care to be coaxed into changing her decision and is concerned that would be the result if she were to communicate with you directly. In view of Carolyn’s decision to withdraw her voluntary participation, she also withdraws her agreement to give any further interviews to Mr. Piccarretta or make any further voluntary disclosures or production of documents. Please communicate this information to Mr. Piccarretta, as necessary.

Please know that Carolyn remains very appreciative of the stance you have taken in bringing the first indictments against Warren Jeffs and being the frontrunner in bringing justice to this group. Unfortunately, as circumstances have evolved, it has become too onerous for Carolyn to remain involved to the same extent on a voluntary basis. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need for further discussion.

Kind regards,

Natalie E. Malonis"

I continue to maintain that Natalie has nothing but idiots for clients, the clearest evidence of which is, Natalie is their lawyer. I have been the target of one of Nat's self important missives. It was only worrisome because Ms. Malonis has the ability to file motions, and has access to the court and has proved to be a loose cannon in the past.

* (see post immediately above)

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Malonis Mails Me! (How do you "represent" a "Sock Puppet?")

Seriously, now Malonis acknowledges an attorney client relationship with TxBluesMan.

September 30, 2009

Mr. Hugh McBryde
Via email: hughmcbryde@gmail.com

RE: Txbluesman

Dear Mr. McBryde,



I have been engaged by "txbluesman" (txbluesman@live.com/coramnonjudice.blogspot.com) to represent his legal interests in connection with potential criminal and/or civil actions which you anticipate may be taken against you as a result of your presence and activities on the World Wide Web. "Txbluesman" has informed me that, for purposes unknown to him, you have indicated that you may attempt to serve papers upon him. In that regard, please direct all communications to me at the address listed below, save and except those papers to which "txbluesman" is entitled to personal service or service by process.

If you have any questions, please contact me at this email address or the mailing address listed below.

Sincerely,

Natalie E. Malonis

The Malonis Law Firn
Attorneys and Counselors
1173 Bent Oaks Court, Suite 200
Denton, Texas 76210

The header:

Delivered-To: hughmcbryde@gmail.com
Received: by 10.151.111.20 with SMTP id o20cs310695ybm;
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.79.140 with SMTP id p12mr905487vck.57.1254357854935;
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path:
Received: from imr-ma05.mx.aol.com (imr-ma05.mx.aol.com [64.12.100.31])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 6si14069198vws.141.2009.09.30.17.44.14;
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 64.12.100.31 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of nmalonis@nmalonis.com) client-ip=64.12.100.31;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 64.12.100.31 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of nmalonis@nmalonis.com) smtp.mail=nmalonis@nmalonis.com
Received: from imo-ma01.mx.aol.com (imo-ma01.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.136])
by imr-ma05.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n910iAtx010991;
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:44:10 -0400
Received: from nmalonis@nmalonis.com
by imo-ma01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id o.d0a.593bd151 (37093);
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:44:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.76.198.22] (166-205-007-002.mobile.mymmode.com [166.205.7.2]) by cia-db07.mx.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIADB073-90e54ac3fb5213; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:44:06 -0400
References: <592e90970909301133l6e8397e0wca6bbe56b324760a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <73925C61-D6EC-49DE-8E24-93421767B92F@nmalonis.com>
From: Natalie Malonis
To: "hughmcbryde@gmail.com"
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii;
format=flowed;
delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7A400)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7A400)
Subject: Txbluesman
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:43:51 -0500
Cc: "txbluesman@live.com"
X-AOL-IP: 166.205.7.2
X-Spam-Flag:NO
X-AOL-SENDER: nmalonis@nmalonis.com

Hmmm, be careful for what you beg? You just might get it?

Thanks Blues. Christmas early this year.

Thanks to Nat.

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo

(Hugs)

Oh, I replied after careful consideration:

You don't represent Jack you daffy twit.

"Txbluesman" (txbluesman@live.com/coramnonjudice.blogspot.com) is not an entity. Unless you can demonstrate to me that you represent an actual person or fictitious person (such as a partnership, LLC, or Corporation), your contention is ludicrous on the face.

I apologize and retract the above if it turns out you do have a client in association with this matter, whose name is "Jack."

Hugh McBryde
PO Box ***
Montpelier VT, 05601-****

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wacky Natalie Malonis is testifying right now.

Follow the link provided below in the Willie Jessop story.

She doesn't see how anything could have been done differently. How could she say that evidence was clear, when it has been acknowledged by the Judge testifying two witnesses before her that Willie was right? Texas can allow a girl to marry as young as three.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Natalie Malonis Owns Up, Tyranny Flexes it's Muscle

Who leaked all those salacious FLDS documents and testimony?

" 'You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube,' Malonis said when contacted by the Deseret News on Wednesday.

She said she did nothing improper, noting that the documents were public."

Interpretation? Now that the furor has died down, I'll admit it an move on. "I did nothing improper" is actually "I did nothing illegal," which when the FLDS says it, the howls begin, but when the prosecution says it, meh. Any honor among lawyers in this case, you can toss out the window. Particularly when one of those lawyers is Ms. Malonis. What's going on here is a form of "Astroturfing," in which a groundswell of public "outrage" is being managed and synthesized by Texas through Walther an Malonis.

"(Kent) Schaffer and (Amy) Hennington claim that during a January hearing, all sides agreed not to release any evidence. But that same day, the documents started appearing on Internet blogs and were leaked to the news media. The filing accuses Teresa Jeffs' court-appointed attorney, Natalie Malonis, of leaking some of them.

There are a number bloggers on the "other side" who apparently have little to no honor either, some of whom would have us believe they are "lawyers." This case has always been about what you can get away with. To an extent, the FLDS are guilty of practicing those things that they could "get away with," occupying the fringes of the law, living in ways that were not the stated intents of the law, but that the law could not prosecute effectively.

Now the law strikes back, using every power of office, every document it can disseminate, to create a reputation that will poison any jury pool available when the trial comes. To make any juror afraid to acquit.

We do expect our government though, to restrain itself. Testing freedom is the province of the individual in our society. Testing power among us by our government, is nascent tyranny.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Walther starts to give in, Malonis & Dusek out. If the "Environment" wasn't abusive for Teresa Jeffs, it wasn't for ANYONE.

The Judge starts caving to reality. Malonis gone.

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "51st District Judge Barbara Walther dismissed all petitions and attorneys involved with the case of the now-17-year-old girl alleged to have been married to a 34-year-old man just after her 15th birthday - closing for good one of the highest profile and most contentious aspects of the long-running litigation surrounding the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."

This is key.

"Malonis had argued that a series of prospective witness statements from CPS in December stating that the girl had been in a 'harmful, abusive environment' should be considered before Walther dismissed the case."

This is the STATE's case, not Natalie Malonis' case. If they say that Teresa Jeffs was not in a 'harmful abusive environment' and that she should be released from any suit or case, then who ever was? When will they release Merrianne?

" 'The court can take notice of many things,' Walther replied, 'but the court must follow the law. The court cannot make the law. ... This is an unusual case, but I don't see any authority for you to continue.'

With that, Walther dismissed a raft of motions filed in the moments leading up to the hearing - including a motion filed by the Standard-Times to quash a subpoena filed against one of its reporters, as well as an ongoing fight over whether to seal the deposition transcript from YFZ Ranch leader Merril Jessop.

'I was prepared to continue doing what I thought I needed to do,' Malonis said, 'but I'm relieved to have relief.'

Walther also accepted the withdrawal of Carmen Symes Dusek as the attorney for a 14-year-old girl alleged to have been married to Warren Jeffs, the sect's leader, and signed an agreed order to seal a guardian's report filed in the case."

Walther now positioning herself as a Judge that doesn't make law? This is full scale headlong armor shedding weapon dropping retreat. If Walther doesn't see any authority for Natalie to continue, how did she ever see any authority at all?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Jessop - CASA war

As I expected, the leaked report is at least partly true.

In the San Angelo Standard-Times story today it says;

"Jessop's attorneys have reviewed the CASA report and compared it to complete transcriptions of the text messages prepared by the Department," Malara and Pritchard said in a joint statement released Wednesday. "Jessop's attorneys do not believe the statements contained in the CASA report accurately reflect the actual text messages and were taken out of context."

So roughly, yeah, Barbara said that. I repeat, I don't blame them one whit. Some think it's shocking that a mother would tell her child to act up against authorities, but I don't. It's the time honored principle of a prisoner of war doing all they can to escape.

Again, I do not for a moment propose there is a gang out there in hoods and black face with ropes waiting to sneak over the wall and rescue her. She's not digging a tunnel but people, they are trying to "deprogram" her to turn her to state's evidence.

Texas tried to do that with Teresa Jeffs, it didn't work, and they discarded her. They're trying to do it again with Merrianne Jessop. I see this as the torture of a 14 year old. If she ever convinces Texas she won't give in, they'll give her up overnight. I still have the strong impression from the politics of this business, that Carmen Dusek said she couldn't be part of this.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Other side effects of Teresa Jeffs' release. She WAS a HOSTAGE.

There probably won't be any challenge to the use of the 5th amendment or forced testimony on the part of Merril or Willie Jessop.

In addition, it shows clearly that she WAS a hostage. Once her useful value was used up, she was released, and her "captor" or "kidnapper" (Malonis)as it were, was left standing high and dry without so much as even a "thank you."

Walther knows she's gotten all she will get is the way I read it. She was never concerned for Teresa Jeffs safety or well being, Teresa Jeffs was currency, a bargaining chip.

Looked at that way, all the other remaining suits involve bargaining power as well. They will be released when their value goes to zero, not because of any threat to them. Texas never cared about the children, they only saw the children as a means to an end. They really did kidnap the children.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Blindsided Malonis emerges Dazed into Media Spotlight

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "I can't figure out what they're doing or where they're coming from," said the girl's attorney, Natalie Malonis, referring to CPS and noting documents the agency filed in December describing what it alleged was an abusive home environment. "I'm not really sure what happened between December and Feb. 1 or 2." Malonis, it seems, cannot even buy a clue.

"The nonsuit does not end litigation involving her case, however.

Malonis months ago filed a counterpetition asking the court to determine custody between her parents - Jeffs and his wife, Annette, and to grant appropriate relief, likely meaning child support payments and the like, given that Jeffs is in prison, convicted in Utah of forcing a 14-year-old girl to marry her 19-year-old cousin.

He is also awaiting trial on felony charges in Arizona and has been indicted on felony sexual abuse charges in Schleicher County.

The move also does not affect a hearing scheduled for Friday that will determine whether to seal transcripts of a deposition of ranch leader Merril Jessop, the father of the girl's alleged husband, taken by Malonis in the case and a hearing held afterward to compel Jessop's testimony.

Malonis said she plans to continue to seek support for her client as the girl approaches adulthood, adding she believes the girl is an intended beneficiary of the sect's United Effort Plan trust.

'I think she is' a beneficiary, Malonis said, adding that she plans to petition the trust for distribution of funds for the girl once she turns 18. 'The way it's designed, which is kind of loosely and nebulously, I think she is.' "

I'm afraid the "loose" or "nebulous" thing here is, what Malonis thinks is her involvement. It's as if they told her the plank, was a diving board, and they'd come back for her.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Another Visual Impression of what the Nonsuiting of Teresa Jeffs indicates...

My new "Phave" Word is "Defenestration." Historically, the first such case I know of was Jezebel's. When the jig was up, Jehu said "Throw her down" and Jezebel's buddies did.

I'll apologize now for my overuse of the term, and in advance for any other such excesses. The Saint Bartholomew's day Massacre is depicted here as a wonderful example of my favorite new word.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Not quite done yet Natalie? Let me give you a little push...

Throughout the day, I will give you the visual images of what the "Non Suiting" of Teresa Jeffs means.

In this case, the HMS "Ark Royal," Just imagine the little ship to be Barbara Walther.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

"But evidence showed (Teresa Jeffs) married an older man at 15.." (No more Seppuka, Texas resorts to "killing" the embarrassing.)

"But she married an older man!" sputters an apparently (and genuinely) shocked Terri Langford over at the Houston Chronicle. Just like that, it's everyone for themselves. Let the Defenestrations begin!

The Houston Chronicle - "In December, CPS found that there was a 'reason to believe' (Warren Jeffs' daughter Teresa) had been abused.

That finding and the agency’s decision to have the case dropped seem contradictory, the girl’s attorney, Natalie Malonis, said.

Jeffs’ daughter noted in her diary that she married Raymond Jessop, son of Jeffs’ chief deputy, Merril Jessop, at 15.

'The Lord blessed me to go forward in marriage July 27, 2006, the day after I turned 15 years old,' the girl wrote in a journal recovered by law enforcement after the April raid. Jeffs' own records showed he officiated at his teenage daughter’s wedding to Jessop."

Terri just can't seem to believe it. Surely this case was a lock, and it's dropped? Particularly after all of that 5th amendment pleading under oath by creepy old men? Dropped?

Unless something quickly comes to light showing this to be part of a grand strategy with another shoe to fall, Natalie Malonis just got cut loose. The boat is swamping and Barbara Walther just lightened the load. Only none of these clowns know who's going to be the next lump of dead weight to be thrown overboard and anyone with half a brain should be worried that it's them next.

This is the first execution. Previously disgraced members of the Texas side of this mess have been allowed to commit Seppuka (resigning) but now we find Natalie Malonis shoved overboard or tossed out of the castle like Jezebel, for the dogs to eat.

Don't think that's not lost on everyone else still alive on the Texas side. I'd look around for the drop cloth if I got called into the office.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

And then there were three.....and one of them is not Teresa Jeffs

Trying to see a plan in what Texas does (other than the making of splashy headlines) would drive anyone mad. After all that posturing and pleading the 5th in a deposition over Teresa Jeffs, Texas "nonsuits" Teresa Jeffs. My brain is breaking.

The Deseret News - "One of the most hotly fought custody cases is closer to ending. In a filing in a San Angelo, Texas, court on Monday, Texas Child Protective Services asked a judge to 'nonsuit' 17-year-old Teresa Jeffs, the daughter of FLDS leader Warren Jeffs."

To be honest, I don't honestly know what is going on. Did Malonis mess up that bad? Was this the plan all along? Is this an attempt to divert attention from something else we should be paying attention to? Does your chewing gum lose it's flavor on the bed post every night? Is there actually a method to the madness? Because wait, there's more.

"A CPS spokesman declined to speak about the dismissal, saying the agency does not talk about specific cases. Jeffs' court-appointed attorney, Natalie Malonis, said the case was not over, however."

Has some sort of strange curse been placed on our Wacky Natalie, where all she can say is "it's not over?"

"Malonis said she was served Monday with a new filing by Jeffs' mother, Annette, seeking to replace Malonis and accusing her of not doing what is in Teresa Jeffs' best interest."

Dare I say it? It looks as if Barbara Walther is hanging Natalie out to dry because this action looks coordinated. Perhaps someone with considerable legal acumen cleared their throats in Barbara's chambers Friday. Maybe the case is collapsing. I truly do not know but there are few formulations that make this look good for Texas. There are few formulations that make Ms. Malonis look sane. If I didn't think I knew them better, I'd say I heard the Ship of Fools that is Texas breaking up below decks. I feel a final plunge coming on.

Who's left now? Merrianne Jessop? Teresa Steed? Teresa Steed's Child? This shouldn't be that hard to find out. Maybe they'll nonsuit two more and we'll know it's just Merrianne Jessop.

It really looks like Barbara Walther had no idea that Natalie was that "out there" and is cutting her losses.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Natalie Malonis as Circus Clown, the Truth IS stranger than fiction.

Satire can never live up to real life. Willie Jessop, under oath: "Ma'am, if anybody needs meds, it's you."

When asked by Natalie Malonis if he was on meds (which she wasted an incredible amount of time on), Willie says no, but can you blame him if he wants to know if she is? I'm just going to post the transcript found at the San Angelo Standard-Times. I seriously had to verify this before posting it. I thought it was a joke when I first read it. Satire.

An excerpt from the Monday deposition of FLDS spokesman Willie Jessop by attorney Natalie Malonis.

Jessop is represented by Houston attorney Kent Schaffer. Malonis confirmed the details of this conversation, taken from a rough draft of the transcript obtained by the Standard-Times.

Natalie Malonis: OK. Do you recognize the woman in the blue dress at this table?

Kent Schaffer: I will confer with my client regarding (whether) he should exercise his privilege in regard to that question.

(Discussion off the record.)

[...]

Willie Jessop: Yes, I do.

NM: OK. And how do you recognize her?

WJ: By her blue dress.

NM: How is it that your recognize her? Where do you know her from? Or is it your testimony that you recognize the blue dress?

WJ: What was your question, ma'am?

NM: How do you recognize the woman in the blue dress?

WJ: Same way I would recognize anyone.

[...]

NM: Can you answer the question, please?

WJ: I recognize the individual.

NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Are you refusing to answer the question?

WJ: I answered your question.

NM: OK. How do you know the woman in the blue dress?

WJ: The question is vague. I don't know what individual you're looking at. I recognize you in a black dress. I recognize -

[...]

NM: The woman in the blue dress - there is only one woman in a blue dress at this table - how do you know her?

WJ: Are you asking if I know her name or what?

NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Can you answer the question, please?

WJ: I asked for clarification.

NM: Mr. Jessop, how do you know the woman in the blue dress? There is no way to clarify that question. It's clear.

WJ: You asking if I know her name?

NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Are you refusing to answer the question?

WJ: No.

NM: Then?

WJ: I've answered your question. You won't give me clarification.

[...]

NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Mr. Jessop, do you have a problem understanding conversant English?

WJ: Well, maybe you could give me some clarification. How do you know Mr. Schaffer?

NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Mr. Jessop, are you impaired mentally in any way today?

KS: I'm going to object to harassment of the witness.

NM: Can you answer the question? I can clarify that further. Have you taken any medications today?

WJ. No, I haven't taken medications.

NM: Okay. Is there a reason there was such a long pause to answer that question?

WJ: Just because of the harassment fact from yourself.

NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Did you have trouble recalling whether or not you took medication today?

WJ. Ma'am, if anybody needs meds, it's you.

[...]

NM: OK. Have you had any other mind-altering substances either ingested or imbibed in any way that would affect your cognitive abilities?

WJ: This is harassment.

KS: Answer the question.

WJ: No, I'm not on any meds.

NM: OK. Do you have a problem with your memory?

WJ: Just harassment.

KS: Just answer the question.

WJ: No, I don't.

NM: OK. I'm going to ask you again: How do you know the woman in the blue dress?

WJ: Are you asking her name? What are you wanting to know about her? I recognize her because of the person, (the) same way I would recognize you.

NM: Objection: nonresponsive. OK. I'm going to take the nonresponsiveness as a refusal to answer and ask another question.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

So, How do you compel Merril Jessop to testify against himself? I thought Obama had ended torture.

I wouldn't say I'm a great legal mind, but this is not a tough concept

. For eight hours, Merril Jessop apparently DIDN'T testify leaving the Future Supreme Court of the United States Justice Natalie Malonis no choice but to "COMPEL TESTIMONY."

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Attorneys for the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints elder and his alleged teenage daughter-in-law will argue in court Monday over whether Jessop should be able to plead Fifth Amendment protection to a series of questions regarding the polygamous sect's financial structure.

'There are quite a few (answers) that are in controversy,' said Natalie Malonis, the Denton attorney representing a 17-year-old daughter of FLDS leader Warren Jeffs. 'He answered some of it. I hope that on Monday when we have our hearing, (the judge) will compel answers.'

51st District Judge Barbara Walther set the hearing, Malonis said, after compelling testimony in a 30-minute telephone proceeding on some efforts by Jessop to plead the Fifth, which protects witnesses from being forced to give answers under oath that could incriminate them."

Frankly, only Merril Jessop and his attorneys, bound by attorney-client privilege are the judges of what it is that might incriminate him. Only a truly special set of circumstances along with expansive knowledge missing a few minor details could possibly render another the judge of what might incriminate. Merril Jessop is NOT on trial, and as a result has every right to avoid saying things that might put him on trial.

Beyond threatening him with blackmail, such as the imprisonment of his children through child custody, there's not much they can do. Would Barbara Walther order him to testify or face contempt charges? How would Merril respond? I hardly think he is afraid of spending time in jail. Perhaps there are grounds for compelling testimony, but there are no racks, no iron maidens available to persuade him and Obama is closing Guantanamo.

If anything proves the puppet status of Natalie Malonis as the courtroom agent of Judge Walther, this episode is all the circumstantial evidence that we need. In 6 months Ms. Malonis' client is an adult. Teresa Jeffs need for Ms. Malonis' services is academic. Frankly the only reason that she can't apply for emancipation right now is that she has a guardian supplying a voice for her and a judge that would never listen to her own.

More →

Sphere: Related Content