Just when we thought life on Planet Malm couldn’t get an weirder, we get news on the legal front that takes weird to a whole new level.
In her plea of the Statute of Limitations, filed in response to my lawsuit against her for defamation, Leslie claims that the settlement proposal proferred by the church and perjuring priest Bob Malm somehow magically became part of the protection from abuse order. It did not, and the proposal has no legally binding effect upon the parties.
The reality is that I rejected the church’s settlement proposal on the spot and did not offer a counter-proposal. My reasons for doing so:
- I did not wish to incentivize or reward perjuring priest Bob Malm’s lies, perjury, and misrepresentations.
- The settlement offer contained a confidentiality provision. Church abuse experts regard such provisions as themselves inherently abusive, for they prohibit victims of abuse from sharing their experiences and warning others. In the past several years, the Catholic church has seen such provisions knocked down in the courts and legislatures repeatedly.
- The settlement offer was the antithesis of Christian conduct and included zero provisions for accountability on the part of perjuring priest Bob Malm or the parish.
- Perjuring priest Bob Malm, as we have seen in his defamatory email to Bishop Shannon (including his outright lie about the timing of my arrival at Grace Church), like many at Grace Church, engages in much of his manipulation behind the scenes. Thus, the settlement proposal’s requirements for the church were illusory, for it would have only addressed public disparagement.
