By |

As promised, attached is a copy of one of the disciplinary complaints filed against Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow. Similar complaints have been filed in other jurisdictions.

In addition to Jeff’s various inflammatory, misleading and prejudicial remarks, he falsely tells the court that there have been violations of the current protective order. But nowhere does he show that I have had any contact with Bob Malm, or that I have come anywhere close to him, the church, or any member of Bob’s family. Nor have I stated that I intend to do so, or made any effort to do so. See page 7 for the specific language in which Jeff attempts to mislead the court. Moreover, the protective order does not address blogging, nor can it do so under the First Amendment. 
Jeff also conveniently omits the fact that he still has not complied with the court’s order to specify which blog entries he believes to be threatening, despite the fact we’re now seven months into litigation. Thus, Jeff has not only used dilatory tactics throughout the case, but his entire modus operandi has been one based on obstructionist, harassing behavior. Nor has he supplemented discovery by updating emails and other non-privileged items that his client is required to produce. Indeed, the motions court appears to have reminded plaintiff that his failure to cooperate in discovery has hindered my ability to defend the case. Moreover, I have discovered multiple instances where Chiow has failed to produce relevant, non-privileged records during discovery, as well as multiple cases where he has improperly redacted materials.

And, of course, there are Jeff’s lies about my service as a police officer, and having been licensed as an attorney. My guess is that Jeff will contend that he made a misstatement, or didn’t find the information, or some other bogus explanation. The reality is, however, that when an attorney signs his or her name to a pleading, they are stating under oath that they have conducted due diligence and there is a reasonable basis for their pleadings. Thus, one cannot simply shrug and say, “My bad.”

Then, of course, there’s his effort to obtain discovery in Pennsylvania, which does not permit discovery in such cases. Either Jeff stumbled into court there totally clueless, or he knew that discovery wasn’t permitted but tried to pull a fast one on the court. Given Jeff’s track record thus far, I bet I know which of the two it is, and let’s just say I wouldn’t put money down on Jeff’s personal or professional ethics.

I’d be really curious too: Jeff mentions a civil marriage involving me, but I know of no such event at St. Dysfunction, aka Grace Episcopal Church. Perhaps he’d care to enlighten me. Or is this another of his “Sugarland” moments, where Jeff just makes something up because it sounds good? 
Once again, just the sort of thing one should expect from Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow, Dysfunctional Bob and the good Christians of St. Dysfunction Church, aka Grace Episcopal Church. Small wonder people are taking a pass, both on the parish and on the larger Episcopal Church.
Caveat emptor.