Malonis at center of new firestorm
Well, well. A new mess is brewing in Texas.
Someone leaked a copy of Merril Jessop's deposition, taken by Natalie Malonis last week, to Paul Anthony of the San Angelo Standard.
Malonis also apparently gave an excerpt of the deposition transcript to Kurt Schulzke, who has the iperceive blog. Malonis posted several comments on the blog in which she names some children whose cases have been nonsuited and discusses issues related to the depositions.
I checked with the Tom Green County court clerk who oversees the FLDS filings and was told there is quite a stir over the fact the depositions were released. The judge has the depositions on her desk, I was told, and had not placed them in the case file or authorized their release. She has yet to rule on whether Merril Jessop should be required to answer questions on which he pleaded the Fifth Amendment.
The relevance of many questions (the financing of the ranch, whether or not he drives, etc.) is a real mystery, since the case is about Teresa Jeffs, who turns 18 in July.
Other questions are relevant, such as whether Teresa Jeffs and Raymond Jessop, Merill's son, have a child together.
When asked that question, Amy Hennington, Merril's attorney, said her client would not answer because of pending criminal charges. Both men have been indicted.
I spoke earlier today to Willie Jessop, who told me that Merril's deposition had hit the Internet even before his own deposition took place.
''It did not come from the FLDS,'' he said. ''The court admonished all parties to not release this transcript.''
Someone leaked a copy of Merril Jessop's deposition, taken by Natalie Malonis last week, to Paul Anthony of the San Angelo Standard.
Malonis also apparently gave an excerpt of the deposition transcript to Kurt Schulzke, who has the iperceive blog. Malonis posted several comments on the blog in which she names some children whose cases have been nonsuited and discusses issues related to the depositions.
I checked with the Tom Green County court clerk who oversees the FLDS filings and was told there is quite a stir over the fact the depositions were released. The judge has the depositions on her desk, I was told, and had not placed them in the case file or authorized their release. She has yet to rule on whether Merril Jessop should be required to answer questions on which he pleaded the Fifth Amendment.
The relevance of many questions (the financing of the ranch, whether or not he drives, etc.) is a real mystery, since the case is about Teresa Jeffs, who turns 18 in July.
Other questions are relevant, such as whether Teresa Jeffs and Raymond Jessop, Merill's son, have a child together.
When asked that question, Amy Hennington, Merril's attorney, said her client would not answer because of pending criminal charges. Both men have been indicted.
I spoke earlier today to Willie Jessop, who told me that Merril's deposition had hit the Internet even before his own deposition took place.
''It did not come from the FLDS,'' he said. ''The court admonished all parties to not release this transcript.''
141 Comments:
If Willie's statement is true, i.e. "The court admonished all parties to not release this transcript," then I'd say Malonis could be in trouble.
Well, we don't know the source of the leak, for all we know it could be the court reporter....
Here's an interesting quote from the article:
Jessop refused to answer all questions relating to the sect's finances - including those apparently based on sect documents referring to efforts to create a trust in Texas with funds taken from the Utah-based United Effort Plan trust.
Hmmm, that one may be a Fifth Amendment privilege. Sounds like pure theft to me.
The descent into absurdity:
Jessop refused to say even whether he was a member of the FLDS or a member of YFZ Land LLC, despite the fact that he is listed as the limited liability corporation's registered agent in public records filed with the state.
Actually, here claiming the Fifth could have been an act that could incriminate him. Clearly, a lie which could subject him to perjury charges.
Theft? As in robbing Peter to pay Paul?
Ron, claiming the fifth is not making a perjurious(sp?) statement at all, other than "I refuse to answer since the answer might incriminate me."
Obviously saying you are an FLDS member is an incriminating statement, since presumably the Feds are pursuing RECO charges against FLDS members, exclusively.
You will all find that the feds and the states are robbing themselves, and persuing charges daily against themselves.
The Lord says it best (and ztgstmv also says it priddygood): "A house divided against itself cannot stand".
The depositions are NOT sealed, Anyone can order a copy from the court reporter.
Im assuming Brooke will order one?
By the Brooke, you might check your source Medvecky, he seemed to know all about it even before Malonis talked to Kurt on Ipercieve.
Seems a little ridiculus for Merril to take the 5th since his name is on the ranch LLC corp.
Here's a copy of the transcript supplied by San Angelo newspaper. its a pdf file
http://media.gosanangelo.com/
sast/content/static/
Merril_Jessop_depo.pdf
Ron in Houston said...
"If Willie's statement is true, i.e. "The court admonished all parties to not release this transcript," then I'd say Malonis could be in trouble.
Ron, it's more than likely some more of the good ol' Texas home cookin'! The court says "don't release the transcript" wink wink!
Theft, as in the UEP trust had been subject of a case in either Arizona or Utah, and a special master/trustee appointed by the court to handle the funds.
If in fact, Merril Jessop, either by himself or in concert with others, moved funds from the UEP trust to a trust for the operation of the YFZ ranch, then is is likely that he committed a criminal act.
In that case the 5th Amendment would be appropriate.
Of course, by taking the 5th, this gives investigators a new avenue to explore.
A side issue is if the YFZ ranch was purchased with funds illegally taken from the UEP trust, then the ranch could be seized and sold by the trustee.
Ron said: "Sounds like pure theft to me.
Hmmmmm. Mean while your pie in the sky government that you worship is loading all american's grandchildren and greatgrandchildren with a debt burden created out of thin air that will never be able to be paid off! And you want to cast aspersions about something that you have absolutely no knowledge of just pure speculation.
Ron in Houston said...
Here's an interesting quote from the article:
Jessop refused to answer all questions relating to the sect's finances - including those apparently based on sect documents referring to efforts to create a trust in Texas with funds taken from the Utah-based United Effort Plan trust.
Hmmm, that one may be a Fifth Amendment privilege. Sounds like pure theft to me.
---------
It's only a problem because Bishop Wisan didn't approve it.
Ron in Houston said...
Actually, here claiming the Fifth could have been an act that could incriminate him. Clearly, a lie which could subject him to perjury charges.
---------
Nope, according to the SC you can deny that you broke any laws and in the next breath take the fifth. No problem, and no perjury.
And since Wisan didn't approve it, then there is a definite problem if funds were removed, illegally, from the UEP trust.
If that is shown to have happened, you would have all sorts of criminal charges to play with...
blues said: ".....moved funds from the UEP trust to...."
blues, do you have any credible knowledge of the operations of the UEP Trust from it's inception to the time the state stole it?
TxBluesMan said...
"And since Wisan didn't approve it, then there is a definite problem if funds were removed, illegally, from the UEP trust.
Oh but let's not talk about the trust being removed illegally, from the trustees!!!
yeah, I was about to say...
There are Federal lawsuits pending against Wisan and Lindberg for stealing the UEP Trust from the FLDS. If they survive that scrutiny, then, we'll talk about the FLDS stealing it back.
(BTW, how do you steal land? The UEP was strictly a landholding company, and held no cash reserves, from what I hear)
Who is Joseph Jeffs? He had counsel there during Merril's depo.
Very funny Ziggy.
I was just about to say the same thing about the U.E.P. and supposed stolen funds.
What funds?
U.E.P. is a land holding trust originally formed to hold lands for F.L.D.S. faithful.
Even if there were funds, they were supposed to be used for F.L.D.S.
Why are people outside the F.L.D.S. the ones complaining about how our church leaders use our funds? I haven't heard anyone still a part of us complain. Our complaint is an outsider like Wisan using up our donations and consecrations. Under F.L.D.S. leadership the land was expanding for our use. Under Wisan it has been dissapated and wasted.
Just to clarify, in writing the Contraries story on the Merril Jessop deposition, I had access only to the portion of the deposition posted at Contraries. As I noted in the story, I would have liked to have access to the entire thing but I didn't.
Can a church or community be forced to provide a trust for a minor?
Under what conditions would they be responsible for the financial security of a child?
If not, what is the basis for the deposition and this line of questioning?
Now, if a church/ community wanted to voluntarily set up or contribute to a trust fund, that’s another matter.
Are they attempting to set yet another highly questionable precedent, or is this action common and acceptable?
Come on, leave Merril and Willie alone.
Oh my goodness....If Walthers orders a trust so Teresa has 'choice' I know a dozen attys who are going to have a field day! I just hopes she writes an opinion to go with it.....
ROTFLMAO.....
Actually, in some states, if a child is in alternate care when they turn 18, the state has th option of petitioning the court to continue their care, based on "need" up to they are 21....
Also, every state is supposed to have in place case managment services for those children about to 'age out' to help with the establishment of transition plans...including housing and employment if the child is going to remain independent and not return home...
Still unanswered is how any of this is relevant to the minor's case in question. Willie is not a party to any of the FLDS CPS cases & Merrill is not the minor's father.
Riki, Malonis was able to hold the depositions because Annette's atty had them on her witness list....
How she is justifying going so far afield, and Walther is allowing it, is beyond my simple comprehension....
I think it would set precedent, in that Malonis' roundabout reasoning (or pretext in order to pry information for the prosecution) is that TJ and her mom depended on the ranch for their support, so she needs details on the source of the resources, and thus needs to ask the ostensible "leaders" of the group who knew or dictated their means of living.
It's all very hazy logic to me. It would've been interesting if Hennington objected to the relevance of the questions, but alas, she did not. It would be interesting if there were case law cited that dealt with the bounds of relevance in a deposition, particularly when you're dealing with 2,3,4,5,6 degrees of separation (in which case she could've subpoenaed George Bush!)
This post has been removed by the author.
BROOKE -
When I spoke to you on the phone this afternoon, I told you quite plainly that I did not provide the transcript to either Paul Anthony or Kurt. You said that Kurt told you that I provided him the transcript, but Kurt says he has not spoken to you.
I told you also that I copied a few lines and emailed them to Kurt, and that is the very small portion you see on his blog. That also took place before any agreements about disclosure were ever made. Kurt asked for permission to post it and I told him it was fine and that Merril's deposition had been filed with the court and would probably make its way into the public in any event. That is the extent of it, so I am very curious why your blog states something so entirely different.
As I told Kurt, the attorneys (Montford, Woodruff, and me) agreed among ourselves not to distribute the deposition transcripts to the media. At that point, I told Kurt that I could not provide any further portions of the transcript to him. Willie, whose attorneys also had a copy, was not even in the courtroom when the agreement was made. In fact, the judge pointedly observed that "certain" individuals who had copies had already left the courtroom and could not be bound by whatever agreement the other attorneys made. She observed that a certain spokesman seemed to enjoy his time in front of the cameras, and in my opinion she was more concerned about Willie's media comments than any of the other attorneys or parties who made the agreement.
That is the extent of it -- an agreement among counsel to not distribute the transcripts to the media. It was not the judge's suggestion; it was a request from one of the other attorneys, and we all willingly agreed with her. There were no admonishments other than the judge's observations about Mr. Jessop's prolific media presence.
I request that you correct your statements, as I see that your readers have drawn incorrect inferences, and some have concluded that I have done something unethical or untoward when I have not. Thank you.
nmalonis, I personally think that the fact that you engaged in any discussion with Kurt, or any one not a party to this action, is reprehensible. The fact that you provided him with a small, tantalizing bit of the transcript simply compounds the infraction.
But then I am in a state where juvenile actions, including pendancy, are all sealed. As they should be.
Perhaps the judge's annoyance, and seemingly yours, of Willie Jessop's popularity with the press is actually the fact that he assures at least a modicum of transparency instead of backroom duplicity????
You, of course, are entitled to whatever opinion you have. What I am concerned about it the inaccurate reporting of what are represented as facts.
(Gulp) (Gulp) Gasp
Water's up to the nose Natalie, Extrication might be a tad bit precarious here.
Hold your breath as long as you can hon!!
nmalonis,
Thanks for setting the record straight. I seriously doubt that Brooke intentionally misrepresented anything. A lot of the attacks on you here have more to do with anger and the "System" than you personally, although there are a few of those too. ;)
Brooke's post simply says "apparently provided" and provides a link to Kurt's actual blog post. Where's the problem. Anyone who is actually interested can, and should, go to Kurt's blog and read it, and the comments...
Nothing duplicitous about that...
The duplicity is in an atty ostensibly representing a child in a highly contentious action, talking to bloggers who are, for all intents and purposes, "media". It appears as though there is an attempt to influence the jury pool. And it certainly flies in the face of fair play, not to mention the laws of Texas, which fairly clearly define the rle that the child plays in directing the postion(s) and action(s) of counsel. But then almost every juncture of this entire debacle flies in the face of ethical behavior and the laws of the State of Texas....
Brooke's posting is the least of the things that are problematic...
She at least strives for balance and fairness in presenting all of the information available....across the board....
Oh Rebeckah, do you never tire of sucking up???
There's a rumor Safeway has a new shipment of integrity on the shelf...run...get some!!!!
I also did not name children whose cases are pending.
It is interesting that the inaccuracies all tend to favor one particular "side" while painting the other "side" in a negative light.
Are there different standards for blog articles as opposed to articles appearing in the Trib?
Natalie, this post went up before our telephone conversation.
I did not call Kurt. I drew my information from Kurt's blog, where he states the following:
''A partial transcript of Natalie Malonis' January 23, 2009 examination of Merril Jessop, father of Raymond Jessop, appears below the jump. I expect to have access soon to a full transcript of the deposition, but this piece . . ."
Later, Kurt writes in response to a question on his blog:
''Natalie Malonis is the source. I got the transcript excerpt from her. Sorry if that wasn't clear. By the way, just to allay [any] conspiracy theories before they fester, yesterday Natalie had only an uncertified, ASCII version of the transcript. She was expecting to receive a certified copy today sometime. I expect that she will provide access to the entire thing perhaps later today or tomorrow after today's hearing. My sense is that she is willing to share anything that is not privileged or sealed by the court.''
Regina,
As I have stated before, I believe that the fact you stood up for two convicted rapists (or child abuser, as the case may be) to be reprehensible.
The fact that you are, once again, standing on the side of accused child molesters, leaves you no grounds to preach to Ms. Malonis, who is assigned to protect the best interests of a child in the case. You have shown by your past conduct that you favor the offender over the victim, testifying on their behalf.
There is no bar (absent a judicial gag order) to prevent her from talking to the press. In many cases, talking to the press may be part of an attorney's strategy in a case. It happens all the time.
BTW, how does it look, now that Curtain is facing 3-6 years instead of 18 months, after the ruling by the first appellate court? As a registered sex offender, will he be prohibited from visiting you at your job, where you 'work' on helping victims?
Just curious...
"There's a rumor Safeway has a new shipment of integrity on the shelf...run...get some!!!!"
Wow, that's rich coming from the Queen of "let the rape victim wear a chastity belt".
Which part really upset you, the part where I defended Brooke or the part where I pointed out the bias of the I-hate-CPS/Government-group?
The whole transcript, by the way, is available on the San Angelo Web site, as someone pointed out here earlier.
He said, she said;
blues, do you have any credible knowledge of the operations of the UEP Trust from it's inception to the time the state stole it?
4:03 PM
____________________
Ahhh but I do! I have Rulon Jeffs 1989 Deposition along with Jethro Barlows! The finances are well explained there!
Bluesman, Clearly you are not current on the Curtain case. He has been granted an 'en banc' review and is awaiting a hearing date....
If he is actually resentenced, the sentence itself will not change, just part of the judges statement accompanying the sentence.
Why don't you make your identity public and then we'll review those you have represented. I'd put my pension on you having a few unsavory characters under your belt.
Those persons I have publically stood up for are honorable men, wrongfully convicted...something you should be eminently familiar with. Texas does alot of that...wrongful convictions!
I have over thirty years of representing folks, most often those who are disenfranchised...twenty of those years as an advocate in the children's behavioral health system, representing the family voice....
I am proud of my career and the choices I have made...and I wouldn't change, or redo one thing...and I am not ashamed to put my name on what I have to say.
Also from Kurt's blog, which was the basis of the comment about the children:
Malonis 01.24.09 at 8:06 pm
Annette’s five biological children were not non-suited. Teresa’s case was not non-suited. Her four boys who still had active cases were non-suited. Annette is the caretaker of five of her deceased sister’s children as well, and those cases have not yet been non-suited, but there are other issues that have to be dealt with in those cases.
To Thomas Forguson: I have considered very carefully the harm that can result to a child as a result of being in foster care or just being in the middle of a custody suit.
Re: trust fund : I cannot comment much on this because we are in the middle of discovery and approaching a final trial. I can say that the questions and comments above are approaching this issue from a misunderstanding about what is actually happening and what is being requested and the extent of each party’s involvement. I can also say that I believe all parties are interested in finding solutions and avoiding a trial.
AND:
Malonis 01.24.09 at 9:46 pm
Ammon
Susan
Hannah
Abraham
William
My mistake
The point remains, Teresa’s case was not non-suited; the cases of her sister’s children have not been non-suited and there are other issues on those cases; and the parties would like to find solutions and avoid a trial. That is still a possibility as far as I’m concerned.
There is another parent besides Annette.
Mr. Medvecky, please consider the implications of disclosing the nature of your relationship with Annette and Teresa or any other persons who are still involved in litigation.
Texas Blues or NAT
Do you need or want a copy of the 1989 Rulon Jeffs Deposition from Stubbs vs Jeffs? It gets into the meat of finances of the UEP under Rulon's watch.
Texas I'm not sure I have your email or you mine?
NAT If you need it, you know who I am.
Brooke -
I'm aware your article was posted and you drew your conclusions before you discovered the truth. Now that you have been informed, how about making the correction?
Kurt's comment that you quoted above was made prior to any agreements about disclosure. Once the agreement was made, however, I was very clear with Kurt and with other reporters that I was not at liberty to furnish copies of transcripts.
Is there anything that is still unclear? I am happy to set the record straight if you need additional clarification.
Thank you.
Mr. Medvecky, please consider the implications of disclosing the nature of your relationship with Annette and Teresa or any other persons who are still involved in litigation.
5:54 PM
_______________________
Maybe Medvecky & Kurt need to talk about their sources under oath? They both want to be invited into the frey!
ummm...
Didn't Malonis release the names of minor children on the same blog? Annette's minor children who were non-suited? Aren't attorneys and CPS agents supposed to protect the identities of children involved in abuse cases, not name them on an internet blog?
I think I see the green-eyed monster raising it's head - Malonis seems more upset that Willie had more interaction than she did with the press. Funny - I haven't read any articles about what he said...but she's plastered all over the blogsophere.
BTW - if Kurt received the info BEFORE any agreements were reached about not sharing them - does that mean Malonis was emailing Kurt from the courtroom as the questioning was in process?
I'd sure like an explanation of how Kurt received the info BEFORE the judge and attorneys agreed upon the transcripts not being released. Seems like a sleight of hand sort of thing to me.
I think you have clarified the issue, as has Kurt in his post here. I will update the wording on the original post to reflect the information.
Brooke, I'm not interested in a blog war with you. But I am inspired to comment when I see these types of inaccuracies -- you enjoy a certain amount of legitimacy through your association with the Trib, and I believe that your readers take your words as truth without question. I think that imposes a higher standard on you than on someone like Bill Medvecky.
The names you quoted are names of parties who are no longer involved in custody cases and are matters of public record as well. I take it you are not concerned about their confidentiality since you re-posted all of their names.
I don't know why you would have an interest in maligning me or undercutting my representation, but that is the appearance.
lol....
That is rich.
Malonis is upset about Brooke 'maligning' her - but she had no qualms about going on Nancy Grace and naming her client "Warren Jeffs Daughter" and maligning her.
Excuse me while I chortle.
Malonis says: I take it you are not concerned about their confidentiality since you re-posted all of their names.
ROFL!!! Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.
"I have over thirty years of representing folks, most often those who are disenfranchised...twenty of those years as an advocate in the children's behavioral health system, representing the family voice...."
Would that be the "toothless trash", the "intellectually inferior", or the rape victims who need chastity belts who are disenfranchised?
Rebeckah, How about the mentally ill grandparents with special needs grandchildren who feel at a loss? How about the victims of trauma with misplaced angers who are alienated and voiceless? How about the socially inept who don't know how to reach out for peer support?
Actually, after reading a majority of the transcript - it was Merril's attorney responding more than Merril taking the 5th.
Doggone these attorneys! Protecting their clients' rights and all...
Oh wait...those are the GOOD attorneys - the ones that don't go on Nancy Grace. lol
nmalonis: There were no admonishments other than the judge's observations about Mr. Jessop's prolific media presence.
Interesting how the judge looked over YOUR prolific media presence (From Nancy Grace all the way down to Wake Up America blogger, where you insist the Supreme Court should overturn the appellate court ruling).
An attorney that reads her press clippings, and then publicly comments on them while the case is yet open for her client, is disturbing indeed.
Has anyone else noticed that Brooke writes hard-hitting FLDS pieces (like "Betty Jessop is writing a book!") and leaves articles about in-court proceedings to the Associated Press?
Still misleading in the information it leaves out, but ...
Wwhat's a little spin and misdirection among friends? Makes for a more exciting read. More readers, more advertising. I would think that kind of reporting would scare off sources though. But I'm sure you know what you're doing, Brooke.
TBM: preach to Ms. Malonis, who is assigned to protect the best interests of a child in the case.
Let's get real here folks. This child is
- 17 1/2
- has reached the age of consent (she can screw your grandfather, legally)
- Is at the age where she could be automatically tried as an adult for any crimes, including felony bigamy
Most importantly, saying she can't think for herself defies all of the above.
That's why Malonis here is suspending my belief in the integrity of our judicial system, thanks to these absurdities she continues to fob off on the courts and the public. She may as well just enter the court dressed as a clown, because illogic seems to be the rule whenever she opens her trap.
BTW, how many reasons/pretexts has she come up with by now for deposing the Jessops? 1) "trust fund" -- reason given to the media
2) the teen's safety in a YFZ financial sense -- reason given to the court
3) the Jessop's names appeared as possible witnesses for (or againts?) Annette -- reason given to media
Are there any other reasons, Malonis? How about the real reason. You're working for the state secretly and want to put some jewels in your sword, with some inadvertant admissions of guilt by the YFZ hanchos. Gee if that's it what an egomaniac. But it's probably a hodgepodge of things. So write a book so we all can analyze your complex personality.
I've read the first 50 pages of the transcript, and there are about two questions that MJ answered without taking the fifth. One was his name, I believe, and the other was the charge against him, where he said "And is it conducting a ceremony prohibited by law; is that the charge?"
And yeah, that was it.
Now that's pretty sad, this old guy charged with an illegal religious ceremony. Ludicrous, really. And then Malonis, who admits to the judge (they apparently discussed this ahead of time) that she would ask for the old guy to be thrown in prison if he didn't answer her questions. Jeez! And worse, Malonis mails off a couple of pages of this silly transcript to poor Kurt Schulzke, who seems to be in love with her, telling him that MJ answered a bunch of questions. Well, I'm not going to read all of it, but just going by those first fifty pages, it looks like that was a vast exaggeration.
Obstructionist said...
"Mr. Medvecky, please consider the implications of disclosing the nature of your relationship with Annette and Teresa or any other persons who are still involved in litigation."
You won't shake Bill, Jay! If you're talking about relationships, maybe you should consider the implications of disclosing the nature of your relationship with Flora Mae! Just exactly why do you have a dog in this fight?
Damn, I go cook dinner and a massive amount of ca ca hits the fan....
Malonis said,
"I take it you are not concerned about their confidentiality since you {re-posted] all of their names.
Is that like saying she hit back first?
Grow up Malonis
And by the way, where is your trust fund for your own abused children???????
nmalonis:
I think it's pretty obvious that Brooke focuses on the only sources she is interested in cultivating. Basically, if you're not in head-to-toe pastel polyester, she's not too intersted in what you have to say.
First Amendment:
I take it we're supposed to feel sorry for Merril for being faced with prison at his advanced age? How do you think poor ol' Mr. Jessop felt about making twelve-year-old girls face marriage? You're hilarious!
Blues said
"The fact that you are, once again, standing on the side of (accused) child molesters"
Key word accused not convicted, at least not by a court of law.
Blues maybe you should study the constitution instead of illegal laws
San Angelo Newspaper has a copy of the Whole Transcript of Merril
Jessop Deposition, Anyone can look at it.
Evidendly, the newspaper purchased a copy.
Anyone can purchase a copy from the Court Reporter.
If anyone is interested in Jay Beswick's (Obstructionist) "special" information from Uncle Rulon Jeffs, I put it on my blog a while ago.
And Jethro Barlow? He still isn't taking care of his own "parental responsibilities", so how is he relevant? LOL
Ms (I am Teresa! Only what I say should be public!) Malonis said...
"I believe that your readers take your words as truth without question."
ROFL!
No silly, she isn't "Stolen Intelligence" and we are not you.
See what happens, Ron when you're not here to keep the lid on it!
Geez, these folks are toast. When you invoke the Fifth as many times as Merrill and Barbara have in these proceedings, you might as well just give it up and forget about winning your case.
Hopefully, Annette will take a chance and answer some questions. While it is her right to not answer, not answering and keeping your kids are pretty much incompatible propositions.
Here's a general rule of thumb for you guys, a good parent doesn't need to rely on the fifth amendment when asked questions about raising their children.
Pliggy
While you're casting stones at Jethro Barlow, are you paying any child support?
Remember, let he who is without sin....
Ron, do you have children?
Cheese
Ahem, yeah, whatever you say....
I have my special ca ca stirrer right next to me....
I thought Malonis asked some important questions.
Like, the ones about Merrianne, his supposedly own daughter.
His attorney Hennington, answered for Jessop, saying Merrianne wasn't his problem
Merril Jessop only cares about saving his own ass, to Hell with women and children.
Cheese
Yes. 3 - 2 boys and a girl. The girl is the youngest.
Ron are you accusing me?
Let he who is without sin...
Pliggy
The only reason I'm asking is because you said that Jethro Barlow "isn't taking care of his 'parental responsibilities.'"
Why don't you answer the question? Are you paying or not?
Hmmm, Mr. Glass House?
"Rebeckah, How about the mentally ill grandparents with special needs grandchildren who feel at a loss? How about the victims of trauma with misplaced angers who are alienated and voiceless? How about the socially inept who don't know how to reach out for peer support?"
Somehow I doubt you ever advocated for them. You made it pretty clear on your blog that you feel no empathy or compassion for those people.
harley said...
"Merril Jessop only cares about saving his own ass, to Hell with women and children."
harley, have you ever met U.Merril? Or are you just batting your gums?
Ron, clearly you did not follow the link, those are Jethro's "lost" children who Dan Fischer is helping. Jethro and Dan are real good buddies if you don't remember.
The answer to your question is completely irrelevant.
Mr Glass house indeed.
Regina advocates for her clients:
Ah, screw those intellectually inferior guys. They're nothing but toothless trash. Who cares they had children, damn morons they should have worn chastity belts.
They turn my stomach in the worst of ways...I have nothing but contempt for the type of whores they are.
Pliggy
Apparently you're not sending any money, huh?
Hats off to Natalie.
I think that there has been enough secrets and closed doors that having this out in the open is a very good thing.
It takes away any speculation.
Jessop CHOSE to answer or NOT answer any or all of those questions.
I think the video should be made available.
Cheese
I'm sorry, but marrying off your 12 year old daughter to a 52 year old guy on the run from the law is nothing more than the ultimate brown nosed act to curry favor with the powerful.
If you can give some other explanation, I'll be happy to consider it.
Ron, say nice things.
nmalonis:
"...The names you quoted are names of parties who are no longer involved in custody cases and are matters of public record as well."
The most recent I heard, from Peggy, is the records were not to be released. Maybe the names were in some pleading that was open, but I have not seen or heard about it.
Even if they were public, the children are guilty of nothing, so why punish them by posting their names?
It has progressed from one site to two now, then....
I think they should be redacted at both sites they are on.
I can explain that unless you have some firsthand info then you're just regurgitating the foam that Flora and others have been spitting up for years. I can't believe that you can't see when somebody like her is imbellishing.
Houston, we have a problem, Ron are you bald?
Ron, there are many "glass house" assumptions I could make about you, but I don't. Its a gutter I would rather not share with you. You can roll around without me.
Harley I agree Malonis asked a lot of great questions.
Questions that if met with answers might have helped his "daughter". Instead he CHOSE not to answer.
Ron I know this is from 'my' scripture book and not 'yours', but I have a right to believe and PRACTICE it unfettered by the government. I don't expect you to believe it but I do expect you to be unprejudicial in defending me in my right to believe and practice my religion. Is it so hard to fathom that "My ways are not man's ways" sayeth the Lord?
D&C 121: 16-17
16 Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.
17 But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.
KBP said,
"I think they should be redacted at both sites they are on."
I agree KBP, the names should be redacted Brooke
Safety first.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-best-way-to-clean-up-broken-glass.htm
Cleaning up broken glass is a tedious chore that requires close attention to avoid injury. Certain types of glass create bigger messes than others when shattered, but ultimately, thoroughly cleaning up all broken pieces is necessary.
Walton said...
"Harley I agree Malonis asked a lot of great questions.
Questions that if met with answers might have helped his "daughter". Instead he CHOSE not to answer."
If she REALLY wanted to help his daughter the questions wouldn't have been adversarial.
TBM,
I see you're back to inaccuracies and irrelevant subjects, all to condemn others.
I like it much better when you make predictions, state what will happen as if the outcome is certain.
Give us your wisdom on what will happen with this "trust" Malonis is supposedly seeking, maybe even whether or not they'll find the children of Teresa, Merrianne or Willie's from that ranch or whether the Texas officers will have to testify in that AZ hearing on suppressing the SW evidence.
Cheese do yourself a favor and go read the depositon!!
Merril didn't answer any questions except his name, how old he is, where he was born and has an 8th grade education.
He wouldn't even admit Merrianne is his daughter.
On the other hand, maybe she isn't.
Where do you live?
How long has that address been known as such?
Do you drive?
Are you employed? How long have you been employed?
What states do you, did you live in?
Just some of the questions that answers might have helped his daughter.
I believe these are many of the same questions asked in everyday court. And I would say more times than not they are answered.
And according to the Judge, if this many simple questions asked weren't answered, they all will appear in court Monday at 2:00pm
In Judge Walthers court.
So Merril playing mr dumb, didn't work.
The fact is, Ms Malonis had documents for the questions she was asking.
I believe its called evidence.
Merril is listed as one of the Corporate Guys on the LLC for YFZ. He wouldn't even answer that, or the question that the night of the raid, HE was the one who recieved the search warrant.
Now come on People,, get real here.
He even refused to acknowledge he is a member of Flds.
Geez!
And Merril doesnt drive??? Give me a break. He said he doesn't drive because he can't see.
Yet the night CPS went to serve the search warrant, they were made to wait 4 hrs till Merril got back to the ranch, to let them in.
Rebeckah, YOU fit each of those categories and I advocated for you! Maybe I should add, "grandparents with dementia" to the list?
Regina,
You advocated FOR me? Was that before or after you publicly stated that I was a stupid piece of trash? Was that before or after you said on your blog that I only made excuses and pointed out every "hateful" (in your opinion) aspect of my personality? Was that before or after you did your best to rip me to shreds emotionally? If that's advocacy in your book then I really feel the need to write to your employers because you're quite dangerous.
Well, things got a bit interesting.
I've said this on Kurt's blog and I'll say this here. With indictments and a court battle looming over a clients head, any lawyer worth their salt should advise their client to invoke the fifth no matter how simple or innocent the question may seem. Especially when dealing with the legal system in Texas!
If you all will remember, the State confiscated ALL the documents from the ranch, given that they took everything, there really is no way that Merril or Willie know exactly what they have, the States interpretation of those document or how they intend to try to use them. They don't know if admitting an association or being present in a particular location at any particular time could possibly link them to potential charges of a crime whether they had knowledge of that crime or not on a State or Federal level.
I read the entire deposition and Merril did what would be the most logical thing to do. He relied on the advise of his attorney to judge if the answer to what may seem the most innocuous of questions could in fact be used against them in current or future prosecutions. That is after all what one hires a lawyer to do. So instead of condemning the man for not answering questions, for the record while under indictment, maybe he should be extended a little credit for following the advise of his attorney.
Ron the bigot (who doesn't know it) says: While it is her right to not answer, not answering and keeping your kids are pretty much incompatible propositions.
No, what you mean to say is, keeping your kids and keeping them in the FLDS are pretty much incompatible propositions.
Here's a general rule of thumb for you guys, a good parent doesn't need to rely on the fifth amendment when asked questions about raising their children.
And by "good parent" you mean of course, a non-FLDS parent -- because if it's true, that parents at YFZ depend on Merril Jessop for food rations from a "storehouse," then they are most certainly not "good parents" deserving of their children -- as least so far as Ms. Malonis and Mr. Davis (and you Ron) are concerned.
There is also that there is still the question if the search warrant will hold up to the scrutiny of a higher court. If it doesn't that would make all those documents Malonis was tossing around non admissible. Given that validity of the warrant is sure to be tested at some point, I really don't think that it would be in the best interest of anyone involved to verify or validate any of the document or their contents.
Even if they were public, the children are guilty of nothing, so why punish them by posting their names?
I agree. Dragging children into this by no choice of their own, is uncalled for. Many of us here prefer to remain anonymous, and there's nothing you can do, short of a court order, to expose our identities. It's called privacy rights.
So for someone who's known to be hostile to be publishing names, can harm them simply by virtue of who the poster is, and the fact that they have involuntarily been exposed to the world for better or worse. If their parents or legal guardians have not consented to this publicity, than I'd say we have a problem, Malonis.
Perhaps giving those document validity not dependant on the search warrant was the object of the depositions in the first place?
I believe these are many of the same questions asked in everyday court. And I would say more times than not they are answered.
Nah. As his lawyer wisely counseled him, every government authority is out to get them on some trumped up conspiracy charges; so for him to acknowledge even knowing anyone that is FLDS can get him nailed on RECO, tax evasion, or whatever -- and that includes where he worked, who he worked for, how much money changed hands, whose hands. As well as all the personal questions.
Nowadays people more and more are guilty by association, so it's dangerous to even have friends, especially if you homeschool and try to live separately.
Everyone keeps saying Merril pleaded the fifth, but the man never got a look in - his attorney pleaded - once even before the question was completed.
People hire attorneys to protect them - If the media were honest in the reporting the deposition they would state that "Ms. Hennington invoked the 5th 267 times on behalf of her client."
Good for her!!!
Rebeckah, boo hoo hoo!
Is there anything that is still unclear? I am happy to set the record straight if you need additional clarification.—nmalonis
----------
I really wish you would. Like, who supplied you with this mountain of odd questions? Was it CPS? The AG’s office? Bruce Wisan? And if you’re successful at creating a trust fund, are you planning to administer it yourself? Do you plan to charge the same exorbitant fees that Wisan did?
(Yes, I’m taking your comment out of context, but I’m sure you understand the technique.)
harley said: "So Merril playing mr dumb, didn't work.
The fact is, Ms Malonis had documents for the questions she was asking.
I believe its called evidence.
harley, if you have some evidence of this then the attorneys for Jessop would probably like to know. It's smacks of a concpiracy. In other words who is Malonis working for? It isn't her client!!
Or are you just flapping your lips again?
Wow Brooke, showing your integrity there aren't you? Can't even be "woman" enough to issue a public apology to Ms. Malonia? You have slandered her character and can't even have enough integrity to admit that you made "assumptions" based on something you read on another "blog". Maybe the Trib's legal department should screen your blog entries before you post them in order to not be held libel.
Like, the ones about Merrianne, his supposedly own daughter.- Harley
-----
Maybe you think answering questions regarding Merriane establishing a trust for Teresa pertinent, but I certainly don't.
Ron, s responsible parent does not need to subject themselves to any and all scrutiny and harrassment to validate they are innocent of "sexual abuse".
A responsible parent retains an attorney and heeds to their professional advice.
It is reprehensible the way Molonis continues to betray, lies and exploits her client. Clearly it is a act of desperation and I find it disgusting.
Pleading the fifth on whether or not you drive a car...that's not smart...that's desperate.
Who, exactly is Rebekah sucking up to, rericson?
Brooke said: "Someone leaked a copy of Merril Jessop's deposition, taken by Natalie Malonis last week, to Paul Anthony of the San Angelo Standard.
"So I'm reading through the transcript of Merril Jessop's deposition (thanks Paul!) and come across this exchange.."
Deb, Brooke never said that "all" the information she had came from a blog. Aren't you 'woman' enough to learn how to read?
I am absolutely sure Molonis has DNA from Teresa's baby....
Deb, the question is 'is Natalie "woman" enough to apologize to Teresa for dragging her and her loved ones through the mire?!!
mohojho said:
"Key word accused not convicted, at least not by a court of law."
John Curtain is, in fact, a convicted child molester and a currently registered sex offender. Richard Nyamwange was also convicted of Sexual Assault and sentenced to prison.
Her track record is that of one that supports those who a jury has or will convict.
Regina,
There is a lot of difference between requesting a en banc hearing and actually getting one.
Oh excuse me, I am sure Molonis has DNA evidence from of ALL Teresa's children.
A public appology to Malonis!!!!!?????
FOR WHAT??????
There are five hundred gazillion lawyers involved in these cases. Malonis is the only one who has thrown herself into the public spotlight. Ergo, she has made herself fair game for the press.
Brooke posted what she new at the time. She used language that was not precise and gave us, the readers, the link to go, on our own, to read the posting in its entirety.
When Malonis came here, into this blog and threw her hissy fit, Brooke explained the timing of the post and made the corrections she was asked to make.
That is more than enough. Had I been Brooke, I would have left the original and perhaps, written a second post, citing Malonis' hysteria and delineating the changes Malonis wanted. It would have been accurate and truthful and would have given Malonis what she seems to crave; singular attention.
Clearly Malonis is a pitiful character with an unresolved ego.
I'll tell you one thing, every atty in this country who has handled pendancy cases is going back and looking at them and lining up those that potentially could have trusts established for their ongoing care!!!!!
Every attorney for an abused child should fight in court for any available support for their clients! And the abuser should have to pay for the abused childs ongoing care!
Gee there you go again regina, fighting for the criminal and trying to make the abused suffer more. You are one sick person!
Bluesman,
John was granted an en banc hearing. I do know the difference.
John is currently at home, going to work everyday, and living his life. HIs atty is awaiting notification of a hearing date.
John has, since his conviction, graduated from college cum laude, remained gainfully employed, and has the assurance of both the sentencing judge and the president judge that if resentencing occurs he will recieve the same sentence he was previously given.
Prof. Nyamwange is serving his time. His family has left the area. His appeal is still pending.
Bluesman, again, I challenge you to disclose your identity and allow your entire career to be publically scrutinized.
I know who I am. And who I stand up for. And I know that you are, as is usual for you, throwing these issues out to obfuscate the issues at hand.
The choices I have made in my personal life have zero bearing on these issues. Unless, of course, you think I am so good at what I do that, perhaps, I may have a modicum of influence, even here.
Otherwise, you are behaving as despicably as any of the Malonis ilk.
I have a friend who was told they might get some help by contacting NAMI, as soon as she learned that regina was associated with them she said no way in hell would she ever contact a group that would in anyway associate itself with her.
Deb,
For your edification;
Child Welfare supervision and involvment ends when a client turns 18. This is the age of majority. There is no further obligation to oversee or protect. There are states that allow care to continue for those youngsters who are already in alternate care and have a continuing need, up until their twenty-first birthday.
In addition, at a person's eighteenth birthday, the requirement to provide financial support ends for a parent. It also ends for a child welfare agency that has custodial rights for a child.
Some child welfare agencies have programs in place for some continued assistance for a fixed period of time while the child "transitions" into adult living, however, this is not a requirement. And it is based on the availability of funding and the local government's prioritization for programming.
Every attorney for an abused child should fight in court for any available support for their clients! And the abuser should have to pay for the abused childs ongoing care!
First of all, this statement is entirely in improper, in that it assumes there is indeed an abuser. So, I object to form ;)...it's citing contestable facts not in evidence.
And that is the heart of the issue, my friends. The facts (abuses) have not been established, and yet Malonis goes on as if they have been established.
Frankly, the whole deposition was a sham because it was based on the premise that Merril and Willie are directly responsible for Teresa's welfare. Barbara Walther accepted that premise. However, when pressed on this very idea by Hennington, through objections to those assertions as too vague, Natalie promptly reworded her question every single time -- and in doing so contradicted her own premise for this deposition!
Ziggy said:
And that is the heart of the issue, my friends.
Objection assumes facts not in evidence. The record clearly reflects that Ziggy has no friends.
This post has been removed by the author.
Ron, your assumption is wrong. Over-ruled! And don't make me have to say it again or I'll find you in contempt! (instead of just contemptable)LOL
Ok, Ron, where would I be without you to correct my usage of the legal terminology? Thanks, but my point remains.
Public Defenders Beware.......
Jan 28, 5:04 PM EST
Man smears feces on his lawyer, flings it at jury
SAN DIEGO (AP) -- A San Diego judge has declared a mistrial in a kidnapping and assault case after the DEFENDANT SMEARED EXCREMENT ON HIS LAWYER'S FACE AND THREW IT AT JURORS.
The judge boosted defendant Weusi McGowan's bail from $250,000 to $1 million after the Monday incident.
Prosecutor Christopher Lawson says McGowan was upset because THE JUDGE REFUSED TO REMOVE PUBLIC DEFENDER Jeffrey Martin from the case.
McGowan had smuggled a bag of feces into court and spread it on Martin's hair and face before flinging the excrement at jurors. No jurors were hit.
McGowan has pleaded not guilty to kidnapping for robbery, assault with a deadly weapon and other counts in connection with a 2007 home invasion.
© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Q. (BY MS. MALONIS) Okay. Does your daughter,
21 Merrianne, have a child?
22 MS. HENNINGTON: Objection to form as to
23 leading.
24 Again, my client is also exerting his
25 privilege under self — Fifth Amendment, the basis is
0060
http://iperceive.net/merril-jessop-takes-the-5th-does-teresa-jeffs-have-a-child/
Why would Molonis be asking questions about Marriane when the case is about appropriating funds for Teresa?
Harley, do you truly believe Molonis exposed this part of the deposition to the media because she has DNA evidence of a child Merrianne gave birth too?
Is Merrianne a client of Molonis?
Totally unethical behavior.....
Malonis just likes to foment a public hardon to see of that can boost her chances of unjust enrichment for her cases. Butt it backfires on her, mostly because it's highly unethical, and illegal, by any standard.
She reminds me of a woman I met years ago, who also tried to produce a hardon. That too backfired. Ohh, self control, it is so golden, isn't it:
SELF CONTROL
Oh the possibilities! Years ago, a woman undressed in front of me. That nasty girl! That EVIL woman! Says I:
“Do you think that’s supposed to produce a boner? With flaps like that, I don’t think so. If you want to know how to arouse a man that way, ask Aunt Enema. She might be able to help you. Then when you stoop so low to poop, notice the diameter of that puppy. That’s right, get it all out of ya, and become dead to sin (in Malonis's case, dead to crime and gross violations of ethics).
She stormed out in such a huff and a puff, I thought she’d blow my house down. I didn’t want her to hurt herself going through the door, so I cautioned her: “Make sure the door doesn’t slam you in the ass on the way out”. That woman had a very nice form too. That’s the problem: It was just “a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” (2 Tim.3:5). Sow unto the spirit (the Word), not the body, and ye shall have the power of the Holy Ghost. “The sower soweth the Word” (Mark 4:14). Do not “blaspheme the Holy Ghost” (Mk.3:29).
I saw her later with some concealed goodness, and she just smiled and blushed, and didn’t say a word. That was years ago, and we’re very good friends to this day. To thine own self be true, and ye shall then accrue, many friends and not a few. Then ye may have the faith like the ancients, and proclaim:
“Behold the angels ascending and descending, and the Lord standing above” (Gen.28:12). “As captain of the host of the Lord am I now come” (Joshua 5:14).
Street
Ruby Tuesday, Merril has identified himself to the Sheriff of El Dorado, Texas Ranger Long, and the tax appraiser for the county as Bishop of YFZ ranch.
I don't consider any of the questions asked Merril unetical, or off subject. The man was the leader of the Flds at that ranch.
He was told by his attorney to take the 5th before he ever got to
court, which he did.
Some of the questions, sure take the 5th, but many of the questions wouldn't have incriminated him.
Look, you put your name of legal document such as registering with the Property tax appraisal district, you look stupid not answering the question when the document is put in front of you.
I saw questions such as that, as establishing who was in charge of the ranch for the last 3yrs or so.
Joseph Jeffs was Annette's sister's child. She has been raising him and her dead sisters children since her sister died.
This article states that Amy Hennington said,"Both men have been indicted? I am unaware of Willie R. Jessop being indicted, subpoeaed to deposition but indicted?
Spokesman pleads the Fifth
Nonresponsiveness pervades deposition
As with the transcript of Jan. 23 deposition of Merril Jessop, the Standard-Times received the Willie Jessop transcript anonymously through e-mail.
The interview Monday deteriorated as Jessop repeatedly said he did not understand Malonis' question about how he recognized Annette Jeffs, who was in the room and whose daughter is Malonis' client.
Malonis confirmed the details of that particular exchange.
"He knew exactly what I was asking," Malonis said Thursday. "I asked him (later) if he was in any associations with her, and he refused to answer. That's what he was trying not to say. He didn't want to give any information, incriminating or not."
The proceedings Monday differed somewhat from those in the Merril Jessop deposition Friday, where his attorney, Amy Hennington, pleaded the Fifth on his behalf and Malonis occasionally asked him whether he was following his attorney's advice. On Monday, Malonis, after each Schaffer pleading, asked Willie Jessop whether he was refusing to answer.
In nearly every instance, Jessop replied, "Yes, ma'am."
Excerpt
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.
[ROFLMAO]
[...]
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.
This article states that Amy Hennington said,"Both men have been indicted? I am unaware of Willie R. Jessop being indicted, subpoeaed to deposition but indicted?
Merril and RAYMOND.
Post a Comment
<< Home