The Rest of the Story...

Here it is! The truth - in one paragraph.

"Texas must get a conviction. They are pulling out all stops to do so. Failing to do so produces the scenario of the raid being completely unjustified in the public mind. It was unjustified, but in the end, Texas knows that if they can find one girl who was underage who had sex with one man who was too old for our culture to accept as a sex partner, they're home free. It won't matter that the basis for the raid was unfounded. It won't matter that the instigator of the acts they prosecute was already behind bars. America will forgive Texas if they can place in our minds the credible image of a middle aged man taking the virginity of a 14 or 15 year old girl. It won't matter that this happens more often in their own church, or their own high schools, it will only matter that a Polygynist did it and Texas will be home free."

http://hughmcbryde.blogspot.com/
 
This case is not difficult to prove because it didn't happen. One of the difficulties with the teen mothers is that they can't prove where conception occurred. It isn't a texas crime if they can argue it didn't happen in Texas. Texas is bound by the laws as to what they can charge for and what evidence they need. That is the problem.
 
Another reason the conviction is important is that it will set a precidence that you can't hide behind religion. Freedom of Religion ends when you break the law.
 
This case is not difficult to prove because it didn't happen. One of the difficulties with the teen mothers is that they can't prove where conception occurred. It isn't a texas crime if they can argue it didn't happen in Texas. Texas is bound by the laws as to what they can charge for and what evidence they need. That is the problem.

Excellent point Rainbow!
 
Another reason the conviction is important is that it will set a precidence that you can't hide behind religion. Freedom of Religion ends when you break the law.

Really? So if you kiss your spouse in public on Main St. you should go to jail?

There are antiquated laws still on the books that state things like that you know.

There are MANY laws against sodomy and homosexuality still on the books too. People break those "laws" every day.

Thats silly you might say, and you would be right. Laws change according to who is in power when.

In the purest sense a "god" can be defined as whatever a person worships or reveres as the ultimate authority.

According to your statement above you think that should be a man made entity called "government.

IF that was the precedent it was setting that would carry problems of its own.

For example, if a state decided that circumcision was illegal what would devout Jews do then?

Judaism views circumcision as a religious ceremony, rather than just as surgery.


I think the precedent that will be set here is far more dangerous. I think we are all about to lose some of our Constitutional freedoms (in precedent at least)through this case.

The state raided YFZ on the flimsiest of "reasons". Everything that has resulted since, is now suspect. Proper chain of command was broken. Initial DNA evidence is probably inadmissible and so on.

The state of Texas HAS to produce something. They HAVE to. The razors edge here is, will the Constitution take a direct hit in order for them to do so. And if that happens will the Supreme Court allow it to stand?

I believe this is about the power of the state VS the power of religion. That is a power struggle as old as humanity. Until now, the Supreme Court has done a magnificent job of balancing the principles this particular country was founded on - but will that continue?

Because once the pendulum begins to swing in the other direction we are no longer living in a Republic. Now we are living under a benign Fascist regime. So look back to this case later. When black people can no longer celebrate Kwanzaa or Baptists can no longer home school...the list goes on and on. It only sounds ridiculous now because we have lived with such freedom for so long. This may be the case that changes all of that.
 
The FLDS website says 6 women testified on Tuesday.

Brooke Adams said "a handful" of women.

In reading various articles I have been able to find the identity of 5 of them.


Teresa Jeffs (daughter of Warren Jeffs)

Leann Jeffs, 17 (who has a 1-year-old daughter)

Sarah Barlow Draper, 37 (registered nurse and mother of four)

Veda Keate, 19 (forced to give a third DNA sample to the Texas Attorney General’s Office earlier this month. She has a 2-year-old daughter.)

Annette Jeffs, (Warren Jeffs’ first wife and the mother of Teresa)
(some sources say she did not testify)

Judge Barbara Walther was present in the courthouse during the afternoon as at least four of the women were questioned again.

The grand jury is scheduled to meet again August 21 to consider additional evidence.
 
Wow. If this is true (I have no reason to believe it isn't) this is bigger news than the the Grand Jury Indictments.

Just goes to prove that a person should be very careful about accusing others when their own house is not in order.

This is fast breaking news and the next few days will sort the wheat from the chaff. Until then this is at best - THE FACTS, and at worst - the FLDS playing by the same rules Natalie Malonis and CPS have been playing by all along.


Natalie Malonis: Would You Let This Woman Represent Your Daughter?
By Donald Richter



Court documents that we have recently obtained show that over the past ten years, Natalie Malonis, Teresa Jeffs’ court-appointed attorney ad litem, has exhibited a pattern of drug abuse, child neglect, domestic violence, and mental instability that calls into serious question her ability to provide competent representation for any client.

In April of 1998, Natalie divorced Dr. John Adam Malonis, an orthopedic surgeon, and was awarded custody of the couple’s two young sons and a monthly allotment of $2,000 for child support. Natalie married Douglas William Buchanan in September of 1999, but the marriage was short-lived, and divorce papers were filed on September 6, 2002. On February 11, 2004, John Malonis and Natalie Malonis were appointed Joint Managing Conservators of their children with Dr. John Malonis having primary possession. On April 5, 2007, Dr. Malonis filed a petition asking the court to deny Natalie access to the children.

Affidavits filed in the 324th Judicial District Court, Tarrant County, Texas, on January 15, 2003, clearly show the reasons Natalie lost primary custody of her children. Tiffany Anastasia Sager, a young college student who had worked as a baby sitter for both Natalie (Malonis) Buchanan and Dr. John Malonis, claimed that she had witnessed Natalie and her husband Doug Buchanan fighting at least 15 times and that Doug yelled at Natalie because he had found illegal drugs in the house. Sager had taken the children to her own condo while Natalie and her husband fought. She also said that she had witnessed the boys not having food in the house and not having bathed for three days. When she asked the children to take a bath, Natalie told her that they didn’t have to bathe. Ms. Sager’s description of the condition of Natalie’s home is especially appalling:

“I have witnessed the boys sleeping on the floor in Natalie’s room with dog feces and urine. Natalie will not clean up the dog urine and feces. She leaves it for her maid to clean up and the maid only comes once a week. The boys have complained to me about stepping in the feces and that their mom will not clean up after the dog.

“Doug has told me that Natalie does nothing all day she will not pick up the kids from school and she will not cook. She refuses to grocery shop and she will not clean. I have been at Natalie’s house when they had no toilet paper and she would refuse to go to the store to buy some. Natalie’s house is disgusting. The trash is overflowing and there are dirty clothes lying all over the house.”

The deplorable condition of the home likely was a reflection of Natalie’s drug abuse. Ms. Sager said that Natalie begged her for Hydrocodone, a pain killer which Sager had received after dental work, claiming that she had hurt her back in a 4-wheeler accident. Sager reluctantly gave her 3-5 tablets and later found out that Natalie had refilled the prescription at least four times. She said that she had witnessed Natalie give Benadryl to her boys so that they would “pass out” and she could work on her divorce. She also said that Natalie routinely gave the boys Paxil and Tylenol and that Natalie claimed that the boys were sick all the time.

Sager also said that Natalie had a gun which she left in an unlocked nightstand drawer, that she left her medications out in the open, and that she did not supervise her boys at all. “I am very concerned about the boy’s [sic] safety when they are with their mother,” she said.

A second affidavit from Natalie’s second husband, Douglas William Buchanan, confirms what Ms. Sager asserted about the condition of the home and gives additional details about Natalie’s drug abuse and mental instability:

“I met Natalie while she was divorcing her first husband John Malonis. I went to Natalie’s home and it was not kept well. There was spoiled food in the refrigerator. I noticed baby diapers in the toilet. The entire house was a mess. Natalie uses the illegal substance known as speed. I knew she used it before our marriage and she told me she would stop. I told her I could not stand for illegal drug use and would not marry her if she was using drugs. When we were living in a small apartment in May of 1999 [four months before their marriage] I found drugs and drug paraphernalia in our home. I found small baggies containing the speed, straws, a mirror, metal foil all of which I know are used for drug use. I questioned Natalie about it and she admitted to me that she was using again….

“In 1999 my mother was having surgery and I was in Abilene to care for her. Natalie and I argued about my going because she was upset because I was caring for my mother not her. Natalie followed me there and was very upset because we continued to argue. Natalie left Abilene and went home she called to ask me where my pistol was kept. I called Dr. John Malonis and asked him to watch her that night until I could return the next day. Just after that Natalie was self admitted to Hugley Psychiatric center for 3 months.”

Buchanan claimed that after his knee surgery in 1999, he had to hide his pain medication (Hydrocodone) to keep Natalie from taking it and that she had him get his mother’s pain medication for her. “There is a part of her that just does not connect,” Buchanan said. “I am worried about her mental state.”

An affidavit from Dr. John Malonis on January 16, 2003, confirms the information in the other two affidavits and expresses additional concern regarding Natalie’s mental condition:

“I do not believe my ex-wife is stable and able to take care of the boys at this time. I believe that the boys are in danger of being left alone, accidently [sic] hurt physically, hurt emotionally and/or neglected. A report to CPS has been made, on information and belief.

“On information and belief, I think that Natalie Malonis Buchanan is abusing prescription drugs and administering drugs to my sons to ‘knock them out.’ I believe that my ex-wife is sick mentally and needs help so that she can be a good parent for the boys.”

In his Response to Interrogatories on May 8, 2003, Dr. Malonis repeats much of the same information from the earlier affidavits but adds that his ex-wife had become more dysfunctional. Her personal appearance had deteriorated, evidenced by her weight loss, unbathed condition, and red, swollen eyes. Among the erratic behaviors listed were the following: making unannounced and uninvited visits to John Malonis’ home, making irrational and harassing phone calls to her ex-husbands and others, exhibiting lying/unethical behavior, filing false police reports, and attempting to prevent a witness from testifying at a custody trial. Dr. Malonis also said that Natalie tried to threaten her children by telling them that they were going to lose their house, four-wheelers, dogs, and friends. This behavior is similar to the efforts Natalie used in attempting to intimidate Teresa Jeffs. (See “Who’s Intimidating Whom?”)

The following year Dr. John Malonis’ current wife Jamie Malonis made application for and received a protective order against Natalie Malonis, charging that Natalie had “engaged in conduct that constitutes family violence.” In an affidavit of August 27, 2004, which accompanied the application, Jamie Malonis documented several instances where Natalie failed to return the children at the proper time, forced her way into her ex-husband’s home, used loud and abusive language, and pushed her body against Jamie, causing her to fear for her safety and that of her unborn child.

As recently as April 5, 2007, Dr. John Malonis filed a petition asking the court to deny Natalie access to the children because of her “history or pattern of committing family violence during the two-year period preceding the date of filing of this suit.”

An accompanying affidavit asserts that Natalie had not provided the children with adequate food during their visits with her and that although her live-in boyfriend Ty Cooper had spent several weeks in jail for assaulting her—breaking her ribs and giving her a concussion—the two of them apparently were living together again.

The petition also includes a handwritten letter from Natalie Malonis to John Malonis written just after the assault by Ty Cooper. Natalie begged her ex-husband to assist her because Cooper had cleared out her bank account and she was about to be evicted from her apartment.

Clearly, Natalie Malonis is a troubled and dysfunctional woman. Can any rational judge examine the record of her life as well as her current unethical behavior toward Teresa Jeffs and still deny Teresa the right to a new attorney?

(See “FLDS Girl Deserves New Attorney” and “Who’s Intimidating Whom?”)

All information in the above article is taken from court documents filed in the Tarrant County District Clerk’s Office in the case of Natalie Bush Malonis vs. John Adam Malonis, Cause Number 324-263643-98, and is a matter of public record.

http://www.truthwillprevail.org/index.php?parentid=1&index=109
 
On The Eve of The Hearing


A polygamy advocacy group has denounced Sen. Harry Reid's proposed ''Victims of Polygamy Assistance Act of 2008'' bill. Here is what Principle Voices, based in Salt Lake City, said in a statement released today:


PRINCIPLE VOICES DENOUNCES SEN. REID'S ''Victims of Polygamy Assistance Act of 2008'' bill, because it will not and cannot serve our families in any healthy or meaningful way, but will injure them. While we welcome efforts to raise funds for service providers to provide help and resources to abuse victims (and support the rights of women who desire to leave abusive marriages/situations), we're very concerned about this bill for a number of reasons:

1) Where will the funds come from? Will federal dollars be taken from successful programs already in place, or will it be added to those dollars? If it will add federal dollars to VAWA (Violence Against Women Act), rather than draw from it, for example, we support that.

We do not believe the funds should be specifically targeted to polygamy, since abuse and domestic violence crosses all socio-economic lines. Victims from all parts of society are equally deserving of resources and assistance; many barriers faced by women leaving polygamous marriages or communities are the same barriers women face leaving abusive monogamous marriages or when changing their religious faith .

2) Reid's bill presupposes there are large numbers of women and children waiting to be rescued from polygamy. Not true.

Where there are cases of abuse, or where there are women who may wish to leave a particular family or community, there are already organizations in place to provide assistance and resources. Some victims of abuse do not wish to leave their families, communities, or faith, and services and resources should not be held hostage or made dependent upon a woman's abandonment of her faith or family.

3) There are already organizations in place that have experience working with members of the polygamous culture, and who have striven to build relationships of trust with victims of abuse.

Those organizations, such as the Domestic Violence Hotline, the Family Support Center, the Dove Center (based in St. George), and others, should be supported financially and otherwise; their services are available to all victims throughout society, not specific to polygamy. These organizations have sponsored and organized therapy groups for women involved in polygamy, or women who have left polygamy, and have partnered with Principle Voices to provide culturally-sensitive services and assistance.

4) Reid's bill and his anti-polygamy efforts are not focused on crimes but on a FAMILY ARRANGEMENT. He wants our families/communities treated like organized crime families. Utah and Arizona have both recognized that this type of aggressive prosecution of the practice of polygamy itself is ineffective and creates more harm than it proposes to fix.

Utah and Arizona have pledged to focus their investigative resources on welfare fraud, sex crimes against minors and abuse, NOT on consenting adult relationships and healthy polygamous families where no such crimes exist. Reid is threatening a way of life for all families in the culture, since all families will be targeted regardless of whether or not those families are guilty of anything but a belief in or practice of polygamy. Such aggressive state and federal action in the past served only to send these families underground, which cuts them off from larger society and the benefits of societal interaction, public/private education, social services, etc.

5) If Reid truly cares about women and children in polygamy, then he should HELP them, not hurt them. Driving them underground, casting them out of society and dismantling their families is NOT HELP.

Societal acceptance, openness and interaction is the only way to cultivate healthy families, and reach victims where abuse occurs.

Principle Voices strenuously objects to any effort to characterize our families as anything but what they are: FAMILIES. When Senator Reid, and others, are willing to acknowledge that fact, then and only then, can they truly help anyone from our culture.

http://blogs.sltrib.com/plurallife/
 
Wow. If this is true (I have no reason to believe it isn't) this is bigger news than the the Grand Jury Indictments.

Just goes to prove that a person should be very careful about accusing others when their own house is not in order.

Court documents that we have recently obtained show that over the past ten years, Natalie Malonis, Teresa Jeffs’ court-appointed attorney ad litem, has exhibited a pattern of drug abuse, child neglect, domestic violence, and mental instability that calls into serious question her ability to provide competent representation for any client.

On April 5, 2007, Dr. Malonis filed a petition asking the court to deny Natalie access to the children.

Affidavits filed in the 324th Judicial District Court, Tarrant County, Texas, on January 15, 2003, clearly show the reasons Natalie lost primary custody of her children.
Glow, I think I see the point you are trying to make, but I guess I don't know who Teresa Jeffs is so I don't see why this is such big news. One part of the article says the girl deserves a new attorney. Is this woman attorney prosecuting the case? Or is that a defense attorney?

Regardless, that woman lost custody of her children and is potentially going to be barred from ever seeing them. That is the appropriate action. That standard should apply to everyone, so I have no issue with it being applied in her case. This woman was a court appointed attorney, so I don't think it is fair to say she is pointing fingers when her own house isn't in order. The woman's job is to present the case, not to talk about her personal life. The details of the case do not change based on who the attorney is.
 
Glow, I think I see the point you are trying to make, but I guess I don't know who Teresa Jeffs is so I don't see why this is such big news. One part of the article says the girl deserves a new attorney. Is this woman attorney prosecuting the case? Or is that a defense attorney?


Natalie Malonis is the court appointed guardian ad litem for Teresa Jeffs. Teresa Jeffs is at the center of this case because she is the under aged daughter of Warren Jeffs. Last week information was leaked from sealed documents showing that she was married at the age of 15. That has added to the controversy surrounding her but didn't create it. It was already there because of "who" she is.

Teresa was the girl that we saw a picture of climbing a tree in front of the courthouse back in June. Teresa does not want Natalie Malonis as her court appointed lawyer. This probably has to do with the fact that Natalie very early in this case stated in public that Teresa had a baby and it was being hidden. She also accused her of having had sex. Neither of these things was true - but Teresa Jeffs had to submit to a medical exam to shut up her own lawyer. There have been letters written back and forth between the two and Natalie sounds if anything more immature than her client does.

In spite of her clients wishes, Malonis refuses to step aside and of course Walthers allows that.

Malonis has dismissed all of the inappropriate statements she has made by insisting that it is all based on the brainwashing of her client.

These new facts just being released about Malonis are significant because it speaks to her character as a person. These new facts dont line up with what Malonis says she is but, they do line up with how she conducts herself in general.

When we have arrived at the point where the lawyers have less moral uprightness than the supposed criminals they represent, we have reached a very alarming place.
 
OK, that puts all of the pieces of the puzzle together. Yeah, she needs to step aside as the attorney. Perhaps she is hoping that it will be a big advance in her career, thus the hesitancy to step aside.
 
I think you are right.

At the very least the court could appoint a new (and hopefully neutral) new ad litem.

The fact that the "court" meaning Judge Walthers, consistently will not modify any of her decisions even in light of new information, is very telling also.
 
Here is an example of dialog between Teresa and Malonis-

From: Teresa Jeffs
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 10:39 PM
To: Natalie Malonis
Subject: Re:


Natalie, quit all your lying about everything. You need to realize that I have a mind of my own and I can do things on my own if I choose to. I just want you to realize that I am not putting up with you any longer when you are acting this way and trying to make your name so great, saying to the whole world that you are "protecting Warren Jeffs' daughter". That is nothing great to do because I live in a happy family and I have been happy all my life until you and CPS have been so bothersome and nosy! Let me live a free life...........

Natalie, please don't make this case harder. Shut your mouth up and quit calling me a victim of sexual abuse. I am so sick of being called that when I am absolutely not a victim of sexual abuse and you have no evidence to prove that I have ever had sexual relations. The most help you will be to me now is for you to step aside and let me get a different lawyer that I feel like can help me. Don't feel bad and try to fight so hard to make yourself look like your doing your JOB, so everyone can praise YOU! Thank you.

Now, don't jump to conclusions again, thinking that Willie told me to talk to you like this or told me to stay away from my subpoena. It is my own dear feelings and doings. Right now I am just at home, sitting on my bed. Does it sound like I have dissappeared? To tell you the truth, I havn't tried very hard at all to dodge this subpoena. Of course I am not just going to go running for it! I know how to think for myself, if you can believe it! This is how I feel and I just thought I would let you know.

-Teresa


another -

From: Teresa Jeffs
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 6:11 PM
To: Natalie Malonis


Natalie, I have just gone over this pleading that you filed yesterday. It is very ashaming to me that you as my attorney would do this. I am continually amazed at how you have been acting lately..............

If I feel like I need protection in one way or another, I will tell someone. I feel like I need protection from you right now! If you can believe such a thing! My attorney is going against my wishes. Maybe you need a restraining order that you can absolutely have nothing to do with me and you have to stay 1000 ft away from me! What do you think of that? I think that would be most wonderful.

Please don't feel bad. I just want to get this straight with you. Now don't think that someone else is typing this note to you. I wish you were standing by me to watch me type it so I can show you proof that this is me all the way. Nobody told me to come and type this. In fact, I haven't showed this restraining order to anyone yet. I am the only one that has seen it. I will show it to my mother as soon as I email this letter to you.

Straighten up your back and realize that you cannot keep playing around with me. With the help of the Lord I will stand for the right, no matter what you or anyone else threatens me with. No one around me that loves me has threatened me that if I don't stand for the right then they will do something to me. Never in my life have I been threatened so much until I had to do with you and CPS.

Well, thank you Natalie for stepping aside. I am expecting it of you. Go live a happy, merry life!
-Teresa Jeffs

http://www.truthwillprevail.org/index.php?parentid=1&index=75

another -

In a later e-mail communication to Malonis, Teresa expresses again her concern that Malonis is attempting to intimidate her and to control her decisions:

You are threatening me so much and those that I love. I am through with you. You are doing to me what you are accusing Willie of doing. I will not put up with you any longer and do not want to ask you for advice at all because I know where it will take me if I do. It will take me down the wrong road which I do not want to do. I feel like you are trying to change my mind of what I want in my life. I am stubborn and I won't change my mind.


so this gives us a glimpse into Teresa's character

so now for a little insight into Malonis style - in her own words...



On June 20, after Teresa had written her letter to Judge Walther requesting a new attorney, Malonis sent to Teresa the following in an e-mail message:

Writing that letter to the Judge was about the most foolish thing you could have done. The Judge is now convinced that you are not able to make good decisions for yourself, and she is convinced also that your mother is not able to make proper decisions for you either Teresa, the Judge wants to take you back in custody and what's worse is that these poor choices may end up with your siblings back in custody if the Judge and CPS think your mother is not able to reign you in. The judge would probably not allow me to withdraw right now even if I requested it because the Judge sees me as the only person who is looking out for what is in your legal interests.




One of the major criticisms of the FLDS women and children is that they are brainwashed and unable to think for themselves. Yet when Malonis encounters a young lady who does think for herself and has the determination to stand by her decisions, she threatens her that if she continues in such a course both she and her brothers and sisters will be returned to CPS custody. Obviously Malonis wants Teresa to make her own decisions only when they are the ones that she and Judge Walther want her to make, and she is quite willing to use threats and intimidation to achieve this result.

http://www.truthwillprevail.org/index.php?parentid=1&index=79

What kind of a lawyer does this? If you took the names and particulars out of the above and asked someone to gauge the maturity level of the writer...Teresa sounds more mature in her thinking than Malonis.
 
I think you are right.

At the very least the court could appoint a new (and hopefully neutral) new ad litem.

The fact that the "court" meaning Judge Walthers, consistently will not modify any of her decisions even in light of new information, is very telling also.

When I read these Donald Richter articles which often seem crafted to smear anyone who comes against the FLDS, I begin to see why someone might fear contradicting these FLDS folks--as many ex-members warn is dangerous to do. 'Appostates,' as well as other perceived enemies of the FDLS realm, have been depicted by Richter (and other FLDS defenders) as lying profligates, but I think his own approach gives much truth to their accusations. I have no idea what the facts of Malonis' life are, but it seems to me that she truly was acting in the best interest of her client, the child Teressa, who it does appear was indeed married by her own father one day after her 14th birthday to a 30 something year old man, with her mother apparently present and encouraging the union. Malonis was apparently privy to this information somehow, probably because Teresa, or Annette, conveyed it to her in some 'weak' moment of theirs. Under the circumstances, seeking to keep Teresa away from her father and her 'husband' seems entirely rational to me and very much in the best interests of Teresa, whether she thinks so or not, which is the role of an ad-leitem. Personally, I don't think she went far enough. I think she might have gotten a restraining order against Annette as well if the 'good mother' was present and allowed it to happen.

When I read the Richter question, (paraphrasing) Who would want a woman like Malonis for a lawyer?, the first thought that popped into my head was, "Who would want a law-breaking, justice-dodging, wife-abusing, child-abusing peophile for a prophet?" That would be YOUR PEOPLE, Donald. Perhaps people who live in glass rustic log cabins shouldn't throw so many stones!

For those of you who want to see what Donald thinks of those opposing the FLDS, there are a lot of chances at the link below. Odd though, for some reason, he never seems to go after Jeffs, or the people who would follow such a man like, for example, the celebrants, witnesses and photographers at those weddings to 12 year-olds.

http://www.truthwillprevail.org/

Edited to say-- The actual headline question is "Natalie Malonis-Would You Let This Woman Represent Your Daughter?"

To which I'd personally reply, 'Maybe not, but Warren Jeffs-would you let this man marry your daughter?!
 
I don't care how well an article is "crafted"

If I were that easily swayed I would have been totally roped in by the CPS "crafted"


"they have "Sarah" a young woman being beaten crying out for help on a cell phone"

"while they rape virgins in the temple"


"next to the mass graves of babies"

"the ones that aren't full of broken bones"


or my favorite -

"30 or more pregnant under aged girls!"

But I dont go for "crafted" I look for the facts.

The facts about Natalie Malonis are documented by court records and witnesses.

Unlike the "crafted" CPS stories I mentioned above.

Those fell apart upon examination of the facts.

The facts-

no "sarah"

no rapes in the temple

3 graves - all accounted for as natural causes

less broken bones than the statistical average and lets dont forget the FLDS child who got a broken bone while in CPS custody.

No pregnant girls unless you count backward and as long as you only look back 3 years....go any furthur than that and you see the State of Texas okaying the age of 14 and over.

Facts, gotta love em.
 
When I read these Donald Richter articles which often seem crafted to smear anyone who comes against the FLDS, I begin to see why someone might fear contradicting these FLDS folks--as many ex-members warn is dangerous to do. 'Appostates,' as well as other perceived enemies of the FDLS realm, have been depicted by Richter (and other FLDS defenders) as lying profligates, but I think his own approach gives much truth to their accusations. I have no idea what the facts of Malonis' life are, but it seems to me that she truly was acting in the best interest of her client, the child Teressa, who it does appear was indeed married by her own father one day after her 14th birthday to a 30 something year old man, with her mother apparently present and encouraging the union. Malonis was apparently privy to this information somehow, probably because Teresa, or Annette, conveyed it to her in some 'weak' moment of theirs. Under the circumstances, seeking to keep Teresa away from her father and her 'husband' seems entirely rational to me and very much in the best interests of Teresa, whether she thinks so or not, which is the role of an ad-leitem. Personally, I don't think she went far enough. I think she might have gotten a restraining order against Annette as well if the 'good mother' was present and allowed it to happen.

When I read the Richter question, (paraphrasing) Who would want a woman like Malonis for a lawyer?, the first thought that popped into my head was, "Who would want a law-breaking, justice-dodging, wife-abusing, child-abusing peophile for a prophet?" That would be YOUR PEOPLE, Donald. Perhaps people who live in glass rustic log cabins shouldn't throw so many stones!

For those of you who want to see what Donald thinks of those opposing the FLDS, there are a lot of chances at the link below. Odd though, for some reason, he never seems to go after Jeffs, or the people who would follow such a man like, for example, the celebrants, witnesses and photographers at those weddings to 12 year-olds.

http://www.truthwillprevail.org/

Edited to say-- The actual headline question is "Natalie Malonis-Would You Let This Woman Represent Your Daughter?"

To which I'd personally reply, 'Maybe not, but Warren Jeffs-would you let this man marry your daughter?!

I have to say I totally agree with this post:clap:

Oh and Thanks Glow for all these links you provide. I read them all:)
 
Oh and Thanks Glow for all these links you provide. I read them all:)

Your welcome Ciara. Im glad you read the links. I think at this point reading everything we can is our best resource for finding the facts.
 
INQUISITION ON THE HILL, THE TRUTH ON THE INTERNET
by Bill

Harry Reid’s dog and pony show begins this morning on Capital Hill, and all the scam artists, lairs and paid professional “Victims” will be there to tell the Judiciary only what they want to hear about the FLDS and skip over the rights of the accused to be heard. Nobody from within the FLDS who knows the truth will be allowed to speak. So much for the Due Process myth.

Voices will be heard, and they will be heard at 3:00 EASTERN time on RIGHT TALK, an internet talk show where the Government does not have the power to suppress the truth as well as it would like.

I have been told by many people that they heard me talk before on radio, and some even liked what I had to say. I Thank those people for their kindness, but it simply wasn’t me, I have not been on any radio shows in my life before today.

This afternoon, Headmistress from “The Common Room”, Kurt Schutzke from “I Perceive” and I will be the guests for an hour to discuss the attack on the Ranch, Texas foster care, CPS’s quest for Federal dollars, the abuse of children in their “Care” and the un Constitutional attack on Mormons by people whose only agenda is to complete their genocidal pogrom against their neighbors.

I have promised to behave myself and not rip certain folks to shreds, but I cannot promise to “Keep sweet” because of the haunting images in my mind of the children these jackals were fully ready to destroy. I leave it to the good parents on the Ranch, in almost every State in the Union and in the mountains of Canada to forgive their enemies, but I am not FLDS, and I fight fire with fire.

I strongly believe in “Do unto other’s” and I’ve seen how they want to “Do” the FLDS into extinction. IT AIN”T GONNA HAPPEN HARRY!

The Name of the show is RIGHT TALK, and the call in number is toll free at: 1-866-884-8255

http://www.rightalk.com/rightalk.asx


The petiton to ask the Senate to give the FLDS a voice in todays “Hearings” now has over 1,100 signatures of all those who would be affected by the decisions made at the “Hearing”, and that includes the children. I have been asked why we allow the children to sign the petition. My answer is simple; The petition is about their future. On this 161st Anniversary of their ancestors reaching the Salt Lake Valley, they are no closer to religious freedom than they were when Brother Brigham arrived, but still they keep the Prophets above the apostates in their daily lives. Who better deserves to sign their own destiny?

In so far as the goons quest for the 5 men named in the indictments:
Instead of hiding in bushes and cars, wouldn’t it be so much easier to name the men and have them freely walk into your arms knowing they are innocent, or do you have another agenda in the works?
http://www.flds.ws/
 
To me, if there is FACTUAL evidence, or if one has good reason to believe, that a man married off his barely 15 year old daughter to a 35 year-old man the same night he, himself, married a 11-13 year old child, there should be a court order prohibiting him and the 35 year-old man from contact with that child. Malonis sought that court ordered protection for her client. I see no fault in that.

No Sarah, but there is a Teresa. There's probably a daughter of Wendell Neilson and another wife of Raymond. And there is apparently also one or more 11-13 year-old daughter(s) of Merrill Jessop. TX may have also discovered a few others too. Personally, I'm glad we found them. Maybe we can help them and prevent other abuse by knowing about them. Their existance exposes a problem and gives truth to many of those pesky 'apostates' accustions, those accusations the FLDS have said are the lies of profligates out to get them.

CPS had to go in if they believed the calls by 'Sarah' to be genuine (and there are no facts to prove they did not.)

Rapes in the temple, who knows? That may or may not come up later on in court. It would be icky, but not a major deal. These people were marrying too young teens. THAT is the issue. It seems (although hasn't been yet proven in court) to be a FACT.

Graves? Who cares? As long as everyone had a death certificate, I don't see what the problem is. They did have death associated death certificates, right?

Broken bones, that seems to have been nothing. But that was basically just grist for Nancy Grace anyway.

What facts can be proven in court, who knows? But, I'm betting the FLDS ain't going to love "them facts."
 
Your welcome Ciara. Im glad you read the links. I think at this point reading everything we can is our best resource for finding the facts.

I'll second that Glow. We do need to read everything:)
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
98
Guests online
613
Total visitors
711

Forum statistics

Threads
625,815
Messages
18,510,762
Members
240,849
Latest member
alonhook
Back
Top