More on Perjuring Priest Bob Malm’s Answers to Interrogatories

By |
Perjuring priest Bob Malm

As I previously posted, I am for now keeping the contents of perjuring priest Bob Malm’s answers to my interrogatories confidential, pursuant to an informal agreement with opposing counsel. I also have noted that his responses are about what I would expect from a priest who is a perjurer.

But there’s another aspect of Malm’s responses that is troubling, and that is his failure to reply under oath, as required by Va. R. Sup. Ct. 4:8. I have notified opposing counsel of the matter and, as mentioned previously, issued a Notice of Deficiency regarding evasive answers.

So why would perjuring priest Bob Malm not submit a sworn response as required by law? The most likely reason is that opposing counsel forgot. But that’s curious, as opposing counsel re-typed my interrogatories and included the requisite area for perjuring priest Bob Malm to swear to the truth of his statements. Moreover, having practiced law for quite a few years, Wayne Cyron well knows of this requirement.
Another possibility comes to mind as well, which is that perjuring priest Bob Malm wants to avoid potential criminal liability for any perjury. This seems in keeping with his desire to keep his answers confidential. But think about it: If perjuring priest Bob Malm is telling the truth, the best way to shut me down is to go public with that information, not to keep it secret.
If, on the other hand, perjuring priest Bob Malm is playing his usual games (aka “duck, Bob and weave”), then it makes sense that he would want to prevent parishioners and church authorities from seeing documentation of his antics.
At this point, I’m not prepared to reach any conclusions as to the reasons for perjuring priest Bob Malm’s litigation-related conduct, beyond the observation that, of all places, churches and other houses of worship should operate in the light of day.
The fact that perjuring priest Bob Malm consistently wants to suppress First Amendment-protected rights, including the right to discuss his dismal conduct, is both disturbing and telling.
Any church — and any priest — who want to conceal their conduct behind a curtain of confidentiality are Christian in name only, and you can quote me on that.