In the document below, we see two things.
First is perjuring priest Bob Malm’s testimony in the Massachusetts litigation, in which he claims that he didn’t commit perjury. He cites two reasons: A) that his sworn discovery responses are, in fact, something that Sugarland Chiow drafted. B) that he didn’t even know my mother’s name.
Second is reflected in the third image, which shows perjuring priest Bob Malm’s sworn response to my interrogatories in my initial litigation. In it he asserts that his reason for concluding that Mom’s blog actually is mine is that Mom — whom he references by name, Sigrid Yahner — contacted him repeatedly, only to cancel,
Obviously, both statements cannot be true.
Bob Malm, perjuring priest.