Reader comments
FLDS girl's attorney refuses to testify before grand jury in Texas
31 comments | Read story
TMAC | 10:32 a.m. June 26, 2008
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.
ediddy | 10:40 a.m. June 26, 2008
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.
Comments continue below
lordcanning | 10:45 a.m. June 26, 2008
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.
Agree TMAC | 11:07 a.m. June 26, 2008
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.
LlawAbidingCitizen | 11:14 a.m. June 26, 2008
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.
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.
Help Malonis move on | 11:14 a.m. June 26, 2008
"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.
Exactly. She needs to move on to her next career in television, where lies are bread and butter.
Just a coincidence? | 11:34 a.m. June 26, 2008
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?
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?
Teacher | 11:41 a.m. June 26, 2008
Why have they not appointed a new attorney? Texas is in cover-up mode.
Still doesn't matter | 11:55 a.m. June 26, 2008
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.
SHARON | 11:56 a.m. June 26, 2008
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.
realitycheck | 12:06 p.m. June 26, 2008
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.
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.
Gal50 | 12:28 p.m. June 26, 2008
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.
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.
kbp | 12:31 p.m. June 26, 2008
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.
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.
Justthefactsmaam | 12:36 p.m. June 26, 2008
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.
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.
Jedijd | 1:21 p.m. June 26, 2008
Malonis: "I asserted my attorney-client privilege"? Since when does
the privilege belong to the attorney? This woman is a nut or worse.
Moniker | 1:20 p.m. June 26, 2008
I think Malonis refused to testify to protect herself rather than the Jeffs
girl, using the attorney-client privilege as a tool.
Anonymous | 1:48 p.m. June 26, 2008
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.
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.
PhDAAA | 1:55 p.m. June 26, 2008
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.
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.
sally | 2:02 p.m. June 26, 2008
� 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
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
sally | 2:05 p.m. June 26, 2008
to realitycheck. Where did you get the idea that none of the ad litems wanted
the children returned? That's absured and incorrect. MOST thought the
children should be returned.
realitycheck | 2:24 p.m. June 26, 2008
sally - where did you get that silly idea? Better check your facts. How many
of the children's attorneys filed papers to return the children? None.
Only parents filed such paperwork.
Lilathe | 2:30 p.m. June 26, 2008
An attorney ad litem is supposed to represent the desires of the child even if
they conflict with what the attorney thinks is in the child's best
interests.
Teresa also had a guardian ad litem that is to represent the best interests of the child even if they conflict with what the child wants.
Teresa's attorney is supposed to be TERESA'S ATTORNEY. Malonis is not supposed to do anything but represent TERESA's desires and wishes.
The government has their prosecuter or DA. The state has their caseworker's to testify. The parents have their attorney. The judge has many attorneys to confer with. The state has their guardian ad litem.
Teresa has only the one attorney.
I don't like Teresa's attorney threatening to testify against her if Teresa does not shut up.
Teresa also had a guardian ad litem that is to represent the best interests of the child even if they conflict with what the child wants.
Teresa's attorney is supposed to be TERESA'S ATTORNEY. Malonis is not supposed to do anything but represent TERESA's desires and wishes.
The government has their prosecuter or DA. The state has their caseworker's to testify. The parents have their attorney. The judge has many attorneys to confer with. The state has their guardian ad litem.
Teresa has only the one attorney.
I don't like Teresa's attorney threatening to testify against her if Teresa does not shut up.
Lilathe | 2:49 p.m. June 26, 2008
The better question is, how many of the children's attorneys filed papers
to stop them from being returned home? Any child's attorney could have
asked for the child to remain in foster care as long as there was specific abuse
to that child.
Go read of the testimony at the 60 day status hearings. Do you see any allegations of abuse being made by a single one of the children's guardian ad litems? When the CPS workers were asked under oath if they found abuse in the "particular children" at the 60 day hearing, again and again the answer was no right up until the 60 day hearings were halted.
Go read of the testimony at the 60 day status hearings. Do you see any allegations of abuse being made by a single one of the children's guardian ad litems? When the CPS workers were asked under oath if they found abuse in the "particular children" at the 60 day hearing, again and again the answer was no right up until the 60 day hearings were halted.
realitycheck | 3:03 p.m. June 26, 2008
all the children should just go back so we can stop this nonsense. It's a
waste of taxpayer money. Let the kids do exactly what their parents want -
spend their lives praying and making babies.
If the parents want to raise their children as ignorant and intolerant racists in a confined environment, I guess just let them do it. It's no longer worth the trouble.
If the parents don't care about the childen, why should we?
If the parents want to raise their children as ignorant and intolerant racists in a confined environment, I guess just let them do it. It's no longer worth the trouble.
If the parents don't care about the childen, why should we?
Lilathe | 6:22 p.m. June 26, 2008
According to the American Bar Association Malonis does not have the
"privilidge" of attorney client confidentiality, that is strictly
Teresa's right.
google attorney client priviledge American Bar Association to read more about it.
What is the attorney-client privilege?
Attorney-client privilege is the right of clients to refuse to disclose confidential communications with their lawyers, or to allow their lawyers to disclose them. It is the client's privilege, not the lawyer's, and is the earliest known �privileged communication� in the law. The attorney-client privilege is viewed as fundamental to preserve the constitutionally based right to effective assistance of legal counsel, in that lawyers cannot function effectively on behalf of their clients without the ability to communicate with them in confidence.
google attorney client priviledge American Bar Association to read more about it.
What is the attorney-client privilege?
Attorney-client privilege is the right of clients to refuse to disclose confidential communications with their lawyers, or to allow their lawyers to disclose them. It is the client's privilege, not the lawyer's, and is the earliest known �privileged communication� in the law. The attorney-client privilege is viewed as fundamental to preserve the constitutionally based right to effective assistance of legal counsel, in that lawyers cannot function effectively on behalf of their clients without the ability to communicate with them in confidence.
Brother Chuck Schroeder | 6:45 p.m. June 26, 2008
Here's my 2 cents worth of this garbage feeding frenzy here. A
court-appointed lawyer is the worst kind of a lawyer as well, working for a
16-year-old member of the Fundamentalist LDS Church, that now refused to testify
before a grand jury investigating crimes within the polygamous sect and
"could be fined and held in contempt of Court over it to I bet, because
"IT" asserted "IT's" attorney-client privilege, but
what really set me off was this, that a judge ultimately ruled that there was
not sufficient grounds to compel her to testify, and all was tossed out in court
papers that Texas child welfare workers and law enforcement told her
(that's hear say now) that her client was "spiritually united" to
a man at 15. In interviews and e-mails Jeffs has adamantly denied being a sex
abuse victim. I bet that Lawyer will go on the The Ellen DeGeneres Show and
openly talk about that girl. That lawyer sounds like that type. So you think
this is hot, I hope everyone's finally enjoying some warm weather. It was
so hot today I saw a church sign that said, "We have A.C. and J.C."
Enjoy!.
Where... | 10:11 p.m. June 26, 2008
Where is all the praise many were giving this same attorney for preventing a
mother and child from being separated when the child had his first birthday?
Do all you commenter�s just blow whichever way the wind goes for the moment?
Some may be confused about the possible reasons the attorney refused to testify. If she knows (because her client told her) that Jeff�s was "married" but just doesn't look at it as abuse it would really cause damage to many of the people involved. If the girl removes the privilege by discussing openly things between the attorney/client the girl will allow the courts to FORCE the attorney to testify and tell any/all�
Do all you commenter�s just blow whichever way the wind goes for the moment?
Some may be confused about the possible reasons the attorney refused to testify. If she knows (because her client told her) that Jeff�s was "married" but just doesn't look at it as abuse it would really cause damage to many of the people involved. If the girl removes the privilege by discussing openly things between the attorney/client the girl will allow the courts to FORCE the attorney to testify and tell any/all�
John Lambert | 11:36 p.m. June 26, 2008
I think they should give Jeffs a new attorney. I guess there needs to be some
deliberation in such matters but when attorneys directly contradict the
statements of their clients they need to go.
The problem is that attorney like Malonis, despite claims otherwise, really are supposed to represent their clients "interest" and not their clients. Maybe they should actually give Jeffs two attorneys, one to represent her and the other to represent her percieved, longterm interests. Then have the attorneys go at eachother. This should be interesting.
The problem is that attorney like Malonis, despite claims otherwise, really are supposed to represent their clients "interest" and not their clients. Maybe they should actually give Jeffs two attorneys, one to represent her and the other to represent her percieved, longterm interests. Then have the attorneys go at eachother. This should be interesting.
Shellseeker | 6:54 a.m. June 27, 2008
Malonis does not get paid for this work she has been doing. She is a volunteer
attorney ad litem. She is the ONLY ad litem with her face on all the television
shows and her lips flapping in every paper. Curious about her agenda? It seems
clear to me: Malonis is looking to up her profile and profit from this
child's nightmare. What other explanation could there be for Malonis going
on the Nancy Grace show? No legitimate lawyer with her client's best
interest as her first concern would go on that show. Malonis talks to the press
every single day when she should be zipping her lip. Malonis should be
disbarred.
amberrose | 3:55 p.m. July 24, 2008
None of all the talk matters. Is Malonis Good or Bad? It doesn't matter.
What matters is that her and her client don't get along for what ever
reason. GET Teresa someone new. You should have a right no matter what age you
are to have the person representing you, someone you get along with. Regardless
of how much "Good" that person is doing for you.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies 4:37 p.m.
- Boy shoots mom with arrow 3:48 p.m.
- Haiti bans party from election 3:21 p.m.
- Marines see end of deployment 2:59 p.m.
- Colo. gov's lawn draped in toilet paper 2:42 p.m.
- Packers beat Lions 34-12 2:12 p.m.
- Dad locked kids in trunk 1:46 p.m.
- Korver's return hits snag 12:59 p.m.
- Salt Lake City woman shot 12:53 p.m.
- Woman suffers critical injury 12:50 p.m.
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies
- Cave rescuers committed to free man
- Rivalry has had some 'turkeys'
- Holiday television program listings
- Highland players make special friend
- Temple Square to use LEDs
- Missions teach players perseverance
- Matt Reynolds vs. Koa Misi
- Provo star leads Bulldogs to win
- Jazz part of new holiday tradition?
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
261 - Glenn Beck to enter politics?228
- Protests against Phoenix LDS temple210
- RSL wins MLS Cup on penalty kicks202
- Bronco, Kyle rubber match139
- BYU records with win133
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin131
- Thunder rolls by Jazz129
- Boys basketball rankings116
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin112
Latest comments
BYU is afraid to play in front of the media public every year and that is why...
Will one, just one of you AGW believers prove that the earth is warming!...
Wondered what 1 would do if given and oppurtunity to play a professional...
Like most people I am progressively sicker with the way congresses are...
I have explored Nutty Putty before as well as other caves around the State....
Ywa Zionz has it share of deaths but the difference is that Zions National...
Actually a lot of conservatives did NOT want this war and still don't....
All these Ute fans are setting themselves up to be humiliated. Oh, and by...
this is a senseless death that didn't have to happen. my heart goes out to...
The band was awesome!! Thank you, Caleb, for allowing a member of the Little...
Advertisements
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.