Motion Requests Sanctions, Asks for Criminal Referral

By |
Perjuring priest Bob Malm

Moments ago, I filed a motion for Rule 412(d) sanctions against perjuring priest Bob Malm. A copy is in PDF below.

Rule 412(d), which was amended two years ago, represents a fundamental change to the Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. Prior to that time, a non-cooperative or evasive witness (yes, that would be perjuring priest Bob Malm) could engage in a certain amount of gamesmanship during discovery. This resulted from the fact that at least two trips to the courthouse were required in order to obtain sanctions — one to get a motion to compel, a second to actually get the sanctions.

In the instant case, my interrogatories are almost identical to the ones in the previous lawsuit. In that case, the court issued a Discovery Order, which perjuring priest Bob Malm and Sugarland Chiow ignored.

Now, perjuring priest Bob Malm continues to provide evasive answers, pretend he can’t remember stuff, and refuse to admit that he committed perjury when he falsely claimed under oath that Mom contacted him repeatedly. In short, even with the prior discovery order, Bob Malm continues to play games.

Therefore, I have asked the Court to go for the nuclear option, and grant summary judgment for me.

In addition, I have asked the Court to refer Bob Malm’s perjury for possible criminal prosecution.,

The matter is scheduled for motions court at the end of January.

Note that, pursuant to an informal agreement with perjuring priest Bob Malm’s attorney Wayne Cyron, I have omitted Bob’s evasive and dilatory discovery responses. I will, however, publish those at the appropriate time.