Showing posts with label Jeff Sugarland Chiow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeff Sugarland Chiow. Show all posts

Saturday, May 23, 2020

Perjuring Priest Bob Malm: The Legal Client From Hell



Having been served Requests for Admission last Thursday (Ascension Day), perjuring priest Bob Malm may well be trying to hire defense counsel in one or more jurisdictions. That said, my advice to potential defense counsel is simple: Look before you leap.

Having practiced law for a number of years, and having represented a range of clients, including a couple real humdingers who were both violent and profoundly mentally ill, the one thing I learned was the perils of taking on bad clients. Some issues in the lawyer/client relationship could be managed; others could not. And in cases where problems could not be managed successfully, some really unpalatable options arose.

I’m thinking particularly of the perils of representing a client who lies. While this is not an uncommon thing, it is vital that the client be willing and able to tell his or her defense counsel the truth. Otherwise, the attorney runs the risk of being blindsided in court. 

Even worse is the sinking feeling that hits when one realizes that one has been defending a fraud. When that happens, defense counsel winds up having to refuse to proffer evidence, having to correct past testimony, or having to seek the court’s permission to withdraw from representation,

Worst of all is the situation some attorneys find themselves in, which is when they wind up in the situation previously occupied by Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow. Too close to the situation to be objective, Sugarland wound up damaging his own reputation by proffering unprofessional pleadings laden with inflammatory rhetoric, false statements of law and fact, utterly inept legal research, atrocious legal writing, a total lack of proofreading, and ethically questionable conduct by both attorney and client. Indeed, at one point Sugarland phoned defense counsel and allegedly unleashed a string of childish profanity straight out of junior high school. 

Of course, these shortcomings on Sugarland’s part also caused lasting damage to his client and related parties. And should Sugarland ever decide to repeat his ill-advised venture into civil litigation within Virginia, it’s likely that judicatories and members of the local bar alike will regard Sugarland with skepticism. And in the meantime, it’s a safe bet that Sugarland’s conduct is doing nothing to help Grace Church maintain its increasingly tenuous toehold in the local faith community.

So, my advice to potential defense counsel is this: Be sure not only that perjuring priest Bob Malm is telling you the truth, but also the whole truth and nothing but the truth. My belief is that perjuring priest Bob Malm is a master of manipulation, deceit, and duplicity, and very willing to mislead even those closest to him. Indeed, the glib manner in which he lied in front of Bishop Shannon Johnston by telling me during a meeting with the bishop, “Having resigned from the vestry, you were no longer eligible to serve as a trustee,” is profoundly troubling, especially since Bob’s own written chronology of events contradicts him. For Bob the motto seems to be, “Different audience, different story,” with no recognition that inventing reality on the spur of the moment is bound to cause problems for him.

The alternative is for prospective defense counsel to run the risk of assisting perjuring priest Bob Malm in his efforts to perpetrate a fraud on the courts. This does no one, including perjuring priest Bob Malm himself, any favors.

One final suggestion: Given Bob’s propensity for fiction, defense counsel would be well advised to see firsthand evidence to support perjuring priest Bob Malm’s claims. A good starting point would be to ask Bob about his assertion that my Mom or someone purporting to be her repeatedly set up appointments with him and cancelled. How did she set them up? Where are the calendars, emails, phone billing records, and other evidence that this happened? Can I see them? How many times did Ms. Yahner or someone claiming to be her set up appointments with you? Who else can substantiate your claim?

Such a line of questioning will make very clear exactly what sort of prospective client the attorney  has on her hands.

Guaranteed.


Wednesday, March 11, 2020

What Would Have Happened if Perjuring Priest Bob Malm and Sugarland Chiow Had Gotten Me to Sign an NDA?

With Grace’s transition from 30 years of perjuring priest Bob Malm now entering its sixth month, it seems that very little progress has been made. Yes, a well-qualified group has been chosen for the search committee. Yes, the search committee is going through all the right steps. But they are not meeting the congregation’s needs.

Specifically, one of the requirements of a successful transition is coming to terms with the church’s past. By definition, that would include Bob Malm’s perjury, his lies to the congregation, his efforts to drag a dying woman into court, and more. Yet the parish’s response is typical: It’s trying to defend the case in court, which only erodes confidence in the church, further alienates members and former members, and diverts much-needed funds from — you guessed it — healing and outreach.



Part and parcel of this is Sugarland Chiow’s spectacularly stupid role in this debacle, as well as that of the ever clueless Diocese of Virginia. This included efforts by Sugarland to get me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA, in exchange for dropping Bob’s fraudulent protective order obtained via perjury and false statements. The fact that Sugarland even tried to go this route reveals he has scant understanding of Christianity, conflict transformation, or even the simple matter of that makes me tick.

So what would have happened had I signed that NDA?

The answer is the church would have wound up with its problems shoved under the rug and papered over with Sugarland Chiow’s badly written pablum about moving forward in peace and love. The problem, of course, is that nothing about Sugarland’s conduct, Bob Malm’s conduct, the vestry’s conduct, or that of various key church members in any way involves love. Nor does it involve Christian conduct.

As Robin Hammeal-Urban, expert on church misconduct, writes, disclosure of misconduct is essential if we are to be in right relationship with ourselves, each other, and God. Folks like Kemp Williams may decry the harm that comes from disclosure, but concealing misconduct only makes things worse. Indeed, churches that do so may suffer harm decades letter.

Consider the example from Robin’s book below, involving an assistant rector and a non-disclosure agreement:



And below are more excerpts from Robin’s book, covering the importance of disclosure.











And no discussion of the effects of hiding misconduct would be complete without noting that doing so prevents a congregation from understanding, recognizing healthy systems of checks and balances and boundaries.



My observation is that, like all narcissists, Bob Malm established no boundaries for his own conduct. Lying to his vestry, to his congregation, to his bishops, and even to the police and courts, all were okay. Yet the boundary he sought to establish for parishioners was no criticism of his conduct, ever. Indeed, he told me more than once that he would not address my concerns about his behavior. The diocese was even worse, showing zero understanding of its own role in the debacle. And to this day, the diocese and the parish vestry continue to try to defend their conduct in court — which, if they succeed, will only impose another impediment to the church becoming healthy and taking ownership of its issues.

Truly, Grace Church and its leadership appear determined to wreck the future of the parish. As things stand, they are doing an excellent job of doing exactly that.

Friday, March 6, 2020

Still More Deceptive Information from Perjuring Priest Bob Malm and Sugarland Chiow

Perjuring priest Bob Malm tries to slide one by

Here’s another example of deceptive and misleading communication from perjuring priest Bob Malm and Jeff Sugarland Chiow.

In this chronology, which Bob supplied to the Alexandria courts when he sought a protective order, there’s a subtle but telling bit of deception. Specifically, although Bob removed me from all formal roles at Grace Church, he did so AFTER my first complaint to the diocese had concluded, but not before my complaint about retaliation had been processed.

Yet in this document, Bob reverses the order of line items 2 and 3, making the chronology appear as though what was actually retaliatory conduct on his part occurred first, as if he had some hidden reason other than retaliation.

Of course, the parallel issue is that none of this is relevant to Bob’s claims that he was at imminent risk of harm and thus needed a protective order.

It’s also worth noting that Bob falsely claims that Grace Church responded to our Office of Consumer Affairs complaint by removing us from the church’s email distribution lists. That actually happened a year earlier; instead, in 2016, the church blocked Mike and me from sending email to anyone with a Gracealex.org email address. (Subsequently, Bob lied yet again, and tried to say that it was a problem with the email server. It was not.)

In the meantime, we once again see that Bob’s conduct covers a range of behavior, from sneakily deceptive, as here; to outright perjury, as in his statements made under oath.

Bob Malm, perjuring priest,

Grace Episcopal Alexandria, the clergy perjury parish. 

And remember, “God’s Grace for All.” 





Thursday, March 5, 2020

Another Fabrication by Bob Malm, Sugarland Chiow, and the Grace Church Vestry


As I move forward with the court case against Grace Episcopal Church — and likely soon against Bob Malm — it’s important to know that Bob’s talking points, developed with the help of Sugarland Chiow and distributed via Amy Medrick to the vestry and beyond, contain a bold-faced lie. It is a lie in which Bob’s own emails disprove his claim.

Here are his talking points, replete with the usual Bob Malm quotation marks to “beg meaning.” In it, look at the line where he states that the church is aware that I have been protesting ever since Bob and the church filed for a protective order.



Now, look at Bob Malm’s email to my former employer. In it, Bob states that he’s moving forward with a protective order because I have been protesting. In other words, he cites my protests as the reason for seeking a protective order.

Bob then throws in the non sequitor about how some, including his wife, see this “protesting” as “making good on threats.” (quotation marks supplied) Of course, in true Bob Malm fashion, he both fails to mention what threats he believes have occurred, while trying to shove the onus onto his wife, Leslie.

So why the fabrication to the vestry? If Bob is going to go around trashing other people, wouldn’t he or Sugarland Chiow want to make sure that their information is accurate?

Once again, Bob Malm’s own writings prove he is a liar. And that begs the question: Why are people who purport to be Christian still supporting this sort of conduct by a so-called priest?

Ironically, Bob Malm’s conduct in this matter proves that my underlying concerns about him and his behavior were warranted. Any priest who thinks it’s okay to lie under oath, to go after Mike, to try to drag the dying into court, and who sends emails and other messages that talk about someone else in the manner he does is someone who should not be a priest. And Bob’s actions make clear that folks close to him were telling the truth when they said that, for Bob, being a priest is “just a job.”

There’s nothing even remotely Christian about Bob Malm. Indeed, he is the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” about which Jesus warned you.




Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Attending Ash Wednesday Services at Grace Episcopal Church?

If so, be sure to ask Dysfunctional Bob Malm and Sugarland Chiow what Jesus thinks about bullying the dying by trying to drag them into court.

And if you’re not seeing repentance from both, have the courage to admit you’ve been played, that it’s just a job for Dysfunctional Bob, take a pass, and move on. Either find a real church, versus a religious club, or take a pass on organized religion altogether.