See for Yourself: Bob Malm’s Multiple Lies and Evasions Under Oath

That begs the question: If Bob really felt threatened, why not lay his cards on the table? Why the fun and games? And why, if he fears I wouldn’t honor an agreement in resolution of this conflict, did he just send over a settlement proposal? “I was threatened. Now just quit blogging and we’re cool.”

Doesn’t work that way.

Moreover, Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow, by endorsing and supporting Bob’s evasions and untruths, has undercut the church’s moral authority in this matter. Readers can quickly see that the church is morally bankrupt. And it’s not just one minor issue—throughout this matter the church’s conduct has been outrageous and appalling, including trying to subpoena a dying woman. All I can say is I hope Bob’s mom didn’t have to deal with asshats like this as she was dying.

First, Bob’s lies:

1. Meetings were NOT repeatedly cancelled between him and various family members. Mom never asked to meet Bob, nor would she. (To use the phrase from “A Home of My Own,” she’d rather swallow cat um, urine.) One meeting was canceled between Bob and my friend and relative, Liz, after Bob informed her at the last minute that he couldn’t keep the appointment as he’d planned for several weeks to be out of town. Given that she was already on the road, the meeting simply wasn’t doable, and Bob’s lack of prior notice was, at a minimum, rude. But what else would you expect?
2. As he well knows, his daughter Lindsey has repeatedly blogged about the matter. Yet he claims it’s only his wife.
3. Dysfunctional Bob claims he didn’t lie when we met with the bishop. This is flagrantly false. The exact words of his lie: “Having resigned from the vestry, you were no longer eligible to serve as a trustee.” To which I replied, “Why, then, are none of your current trustees vestry members?” The fact that Bob can look his own bishop in the eye and lie is appalling.

1. Where’s the penitent in all of this? Just because a priest is in the room doesn’t mean something is confidential. Sorry to spring it on you, Chiow.
2. Bob says that the voice of my blog and Mom’s blog is similar, yet he claims in hers that it’s shifted to being angry. So which is it?
3. Bob says he doesn’t think I’d abide by any agreement, yet he just offered to settle. Huh?
4. Bob uses the word “terror” repeatedly on the church blog, as well as the phrase “white supremacist.” If mere use of a word is a threat, Bob is seriously threatening, as is the church, and is a white supremacist to boot. But then, given his efforts to shut down First Amendment rights, I wouldn’t be surprised. Heil Malm!
5. Bob claims that clergy disciplinary proceedings are confidential, yet he disclosed earlier proceedings against him to Jeff Aaron and Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow, as well as church staff. How does that work?