Reader comments
FLDS girl's attorney refuses to testify before grand jury in Texas

It's hard to tell whether Natalie Malonis is looking out for the best interests of a brainwashed victim of child abuse who is being coerced to keep the truth from coming out,

Or if Teresa Jeffs really is a clearing thinking young woman who is not a victim of child abuse and is just fighting an attorney who is following her own personal agenda.

It's hard to discern fact from fiction when both sides have been guilty of presenting lies and half-truths as facts.

If Malonis was really looking out for the best interests of her client, then she would withdraw form the case and allow the girl to get a new attorney. She admits that the dispute between here and the girl may result in the judge compelling her to testify which would adversley affect her client. Just withdraw already. There is absolutely no reason for this disfunctional relationship to continue. I suspect Malonis has an agenda that she is putting ahead of representing her client.

As long as the supervising court is is an adjuct to the State of Texas and the Judge is Walthers, the rights of Miss Jeffs will be slanted in favor of the CPS and the efforts they continue to make in damage control. There ought to be no problem with Miss Jeffs obtaining counsel which SHE feels represents her best interest. This continues to smell.

In fact, it is quite obvious. Malonis has been talking to the press (Nancy Grace, of all people!), acting as an agent of the TCPS. She is an enemy of this girl, pure and simple. Lawyers are not supposed to betray their clients, and such behavior (among other things) disgraces her profession. Where is the Texas State Bar when it is needed most? Malonis should be disbarred, and the sooner the better.

Well stated TMAC - If a client asks for a new attorney that should be it, new one granted. I fail to see any argument or reason for Malonis staying on. In fact couldn�t that be considered emotional abuse? A child has made a legal request and Malonis is forcing her legal advice on her. She is forcing her to do it her (Malonis�s) way. Isn�t that considered brainwashing? I fail to see the brainwashing difference between a religion and her attorney.

Miss Jeffs is still a child. Didn't you see her in the tree?
Also, I can't imagine Natalie Malonis picked out Teresa Jeffs as the client she most wanted to represent. Many attorneys offered their services to represent these children. I don't believe there is an agenda other than to represent her client's best interest. Since her client is still a minor (in a society that keeps women suppressed) it would seem Ms. Malonis would try to protect her client from coercion.

"Malonis should be disbarred, and the sooner the better."

Exactly. She needs to move on to her next career in television, where lies are bread and butter.

LlawAbidingCitizen said, "I can't imagine Natalie Malonis picked out Teresa Jeffs as the client she most wanted to represent."

Which is a good question: How did the most visible attorney of all, who seems allied with anti-FLDS activists like Flora Jessop, Carolyn Jessop, and Sam Brower, get appointed to represent Warren Jeff�s daughter? And then, coincidentally, she�s the only attorney to get subpoenaed! Was she a Trojan Horse, who balked at the last minute?

Why have they not appointed a new attorney? Texas is in cover-up mode.

The fact she's a child doesn't change that Malonis should step aside. Miss Jeffs doesn't trust her, and asked for a different lawyer. End of story, or at least it SHOULD be.

I believe the girl is being coerced by the group to say anything and everything that is coming out of her mouth. The attorney is trying very hard to maintain the relationship with the girl and do what it right in the legal system. Give her a break. Evidently the FLDS believes that lying is not a sin if it is to protect those dirty old men.

lordcanning -

Nothing indicates that Malonis is an enemy of the girl, any more than the other children's attorneys were their enemies. None of the children's attorneys wanted the children returned - only the mothers' attorneys wanted the children returned. That is because all the children's attorneys (and many others in the US) feel the children's best interests are not being served within the enclave of YFZ, under the iron fist of religious doctrine that stifles future growth.

The fact that Malonis refused to testify citing attorney/client priviledge shows she is trying to represent her client to the best of her ability. The child, and the influences of the FLDS, is preventing the truth from coming out.

Prosecuting these people is a lost cause. No FLDS will testify against others. They are destined to live under confinement, as are their future generations. It is what it is - can't make a horse drink.

sad for the children though.

This was an interesting piece concerned with when attorney-client privileges can be waived. Jeffs' underage daughter sent some E-mails she had written to her attorney to the press. This was done in response to Malonis filing for a restraining order against the powerful Willie Jessop. People who are involved in criminal matters are best served by being quite and handling upsets privately. Perhaps it was the girl's intention of striking back at her attorney, but in legal matters, actions can boomerang as we saw here. She nearly caused her attorney to have to testify although she had no intention of having her attorney reveal her confidences. Obviously, her new attorney will rein her in and this won't happen again.

This does raise the issue of when attorney-client privileges can be waived. If Malonis is removed as her attorney, can Malonis then testify? I know there are rulings on this but I can remember what they are.

If Malonis had testified without asserting her privileges and the grand jury had proceeded to hand down indictments based in part on her testimony, then affected members of the FLDS could have had to address the same problems as Jeffs in Arizona.

Thanks again Ben!

Good article, no sides taken, only facts reported.

***

As for Malonis, how would anyone at the prosecutor's office know to call the attorney to testify unless that same attorney had informed them she knew of something to testify about?

Malonis only knows what her client and the mother of that client have shared with her.

Answer how the prosecutor found out what Malonis knows and you'll know how BAD of a job she has been doing for her client.

The answer is NOT accusations made in motions, as all of them are attributed to what she'd learned from the CPS.

It's an obvious setup.

Look at Malonis. She's already told you what she and Wathers intend to do right in the DN article.

Create cover today to help cover their butts when Walther later, maybe on July 22nd, orders Malonis to violate attorney-client privacy.

There isn't a part of the Constitution that these bigots won't bend or destroy in this witch hunt.

Malonis: "I asserted my attorney-client privilege"? Since when does the privilege belong to the attorney? This woman is a nut or worse.

I think Malonis refused to testify to protect herself rather than the Jeffs girl, using the attorney-client privilege as a tool.

Justthefactsmaam said, "Look at Malonis. She's already told you what she and Wathers intend to do right in the DN article.

Create cover today to help cover their butts when Walther later, maybe on July 22nd, orders Malonis to violate attorney-client privacy."

------------------

Or more likely it's a threat to Teresa: keep attacking me in the press and I'll testify.

Some people have indicated that Malonis has looked out for the best interest of her client, but so did people who put heretics to death in the middle ages. If your client tells you she was not abused, you have to at least think it is a possibility your client is telling the truth, and it looks like Malonis blindly accepts what CPS says.

BTW, I live in Texas, and I have not seen this in the Texas papers. I wonde why only the Deseret news has reported on it.

� 107.004. ADDITIONAL DUTIES OF ATTORNEY AD LITEM FOR
CHILD. (a) Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, the
attorney ad litem appointed for a child shall, in a developmentally
appropriate manner:
(1) advise the child;
(2) represent the child's expressed objectives of
representation and follow the child's expressed objectives of
representation during the course of litigation if the attorney ad
litem determines that the child is competent to understand the
nature of an attorney-client relationship and has formed that
relationship with the attorney ad litem; and