You have to hand it to perjuring priest Bob Malm, Grace Episcopal Alexandria, and the relevant attorneys: Truth was never an obstacle to them.
In a filing today, Wayne Cyron, perjuring priest Bob Malm’s attorney, responds to my motion for sanctions with a series of logical fallacies, fabrications, and more.
By way of background, Rule 4:12(d) provides for sanctions in cases in which a party fails to cooperate in discovery. This is a recent development under the Virginia rules of court, which used to require multiple trips to court when one encountered an uncooperative party in discovery.
In this case, perjuring priest Bob Malm’s attorney, Wayne Cyron, lies to the court, telling it that the previous court ruling addressed “vexatious and relentless blogging.” It did not, and lying to the court is an ethics violation. Moreover, Cyron’s argument is a non-sequitor, for had that been the case, why then did perjuring priest Bob not approach the court to seek enforcement?
Additionally, Cyron claims that his client did not commit perjury. That’s an interesting claim, since I have a written court transcript from Massachusetts in which perjuring priest Bob Malm admits that he did NOT have contact with my mother, and instead tries to throw Sugarland Chiow under the bus, claiming that he drafted that fabrication.
Finally, Cyron tries to get the court to order that perjuring priest Bob Malm’s discovery responses be kept secret. Leaving aside the fact that there is nothing that qualifies as unduly burdensome or oppressive — the standard for a protective order during discovery — one has to ask why perjuring priest Bob Malm would want to keep his discovery responses secret. Specifically, if he indeed is telling the truth, why would he not want that information shared?
All of this of course reflects badly on Grace Episcopal Alexandria, which now has to deal with the fact that it named part of the building after a perjurer.
I will soon post my responsive filing.