Earlier today, we held motions court in the Wareham District Court over perjuring priest Bob Malm’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and under the state’s anti-SLAPP statute. The original lawsuit is for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, and defamation.
The judge asked some tough but insightful questions. I held the line, drawing a distinction between perjuring priest Bob Malm’s right to petition the police — a right he clearly has — and Bob Malm’s perjury and false police reports, which are neither protected by the First Amendment nor the state’s anti-SLAPP statute.
It is of course ironic that perjuring priest Bob Malm invokes the state’s anti-SLAPP statute when he filed a petition for a harassment protection order as a way to try to suppress my right to protest outside St. Gabriel’s. In other words, as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).
Or, as I told the judge, “It is hard to conclude that I have harassed Bob Malm when we have had no contact, direct or indirect, in more than a year.”
I also reminded the judge that, had perjuring priest Bob Malm not lied to the Wareham court, but instead admitted that he committed perjury in the Virginia proceedings, a very different outcome would have pertained. Further, as a practical matter, I am fully polygraphed, have undergone a comprehensive background check, have passed a psych evaluation, and have a spotless record — not even so much as a moving violation. Thus, it is improbable that I would choose to begin a life of crime with the likes of perjuring priest Bob Malm.
The judge has taken the matter under advisement and will mail a decision. If the ruling is adverse, I will appeal.
Of course, it’s also possible that the court will take a different tack, including referring the matter for criminal investigation.
We’ll see what happens.
