Showing posts with label Lindsey Malm Anders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lindsey Malm Anders. Show all posts

Monday, June 15, 2020

BREAKING NEWS: More Legal Developments

As many already know, some time ago I filed suit for defamation in general district court against Lindsey Malm Anders and Leslie Malm. Today, however, I notified Wayne Cyron, their attorney, that I will be removing the cases to circuit court.

The issue is that general district court is a court of limited jurisdiction, able to hear cases in which the amount in controversy is less than $25,000. Because I believe that several of Leslie and Lindsey’s written statements about me are defamatory per se, I have decided to pursue punitive damages of at least $350,000 against each. As a result, circuit court is the appropriate jurisdiction.

The other advantage of circuit court is that a wider range of discovery is permissible, including depositions, interrogatories, and requests for admission. The downside, though, is that it is a much more protracted process.

As a result of my decision, the first return dates of these cases, which were set for late June, early July, are now cancelled. I hope to have the new cases filed by the end of the week.

Once the new cases are filed, the defendants have 27 days to file a response, so it will likely be mid to late July before the cases start to move forward.

Tuesday, March 31, 2020

BREAKING NEWS: Court Cases Rescheduled Due to COVID-19 Pandemic, Grace Episcopal May Still be in Court in 2021

COVID-19 Crisis Delays Grace Episcopal Court Cases

With multiple lawsuits now under way against Grace Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, Susan Goff, and members of Bob Malm’s family, there is a monkey wrench thrown into things by virtue of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the case of the suit against Grace Church, Susan Goff, and the diocese, the court has continued the motions hearing until June 19. That date does not work for counsel representing the defendants, so opposing counsel and I are trying to work out a new date so that we might submit a praecipe to the court requesting the change.

In the lawsuit against Leslie Malm for defamation, the initial return date has moved to June 26, although that date also may require adjustment. Meantime, I am in discussions with some of the attorneys who represented the dissident groups in the so-called property recovery litigation about possibly expanding the suit. Needless to say, her potential liability in tort is not confined to defamation.

Experts point out that, at its current rate of decline, The Episcopal Church only has about 17 Easters to go. That said, due to scheduling issues arising from the COVID-19 crisis, it increasingly looks Grace Episcopal and the Diocese will still be in court when the 16th-to-last Easter rolls around. Specifically, in response to the pandemic, the motions court hearing date has been postponed until June 19. Unfortunately, defense counsel has a conflict on that date, so it will probably be the end of June or July before we can resolve the various motions pending before the court,

Similarly, dates remain up in the air for the defamation suit against Lindsey Malm Anders, and I may also expand her case with the assistance of legal counsel.

Lastly, while I cannot share details, Bob Malm certainly remains on my radar, as well as the attorneys representing Mom’s estate. Suffice it to say there will be more news on those issues in the coming weeks.

In all of this, the notable thing is that Bob Malm tried to lie his way into misusing the court system to shut down criticism. In so doing, he went down the proverbial rabbit hole, pulling Jeff Sugarland Chiow, the parish, the diocese, and his family into what can only be described as a hot mess. But then, with Bob Malm having consistently placed his own perceived needs ahead of those of anyone else, the outcome comes as no surprise.

Bob et al would also do well to remember that I long ago structured my persona affairs such that I am judgment proof. All assets are either held in irrevocable trust, owned solely by Mike, or in other forms of ownership exempt from judicial process.

Of course, had Bob and Sugarland Chiow had half the common sense God gave a goat, they would have considered such factors long ago. But Bob’s initial hope was to somehow convince law enforcement that writing about him was a crime, But with no lese majeste statutes on the books to cover Episcopal clergy in the US, and the thorny issue of the First Amendment standing in his way, perjuring priest Bob Malm wound up in over his head in record time.

The result is lasting damage to the parish, as well as awareness by literally hundreds of bloggers and more than a million social media users of the church’s actions, initiated by Bob Malm and enjoying the full support of the church vestry and diocesan bishops. Nor is there any possibility that I will go away quietly any time soon. In short, the diocese and parish, as well as Sugarland Chiow and perjuring priest Bob Malm, placed themselves in a catch-22 situation in which no possible scenario exists in which they win. At this point, the only question is how badly they lose, and whether the parish will survive, which is looking less likely by the day.

Moreover, the diocese’s farcical and ugly claim that its clergy will only be held to account if they face criminal charges reveals how illusory church canons are, for they specifically forbid clergy from engaging in conduct involving “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”— no criminal charges required. At the same time, it is clear for all to see that the diocese has no claim to moral authority.

Any denomination in which it is okay for Bob Malm to commit perjury is in sorry shape indeed.

Thursday, January 30, 2020

Anyone Wonder if Lindsey Malm Anders is Going to be Candid With Her Attorney?

With my lawsuit now under way against Lindsey Malm Anders and Leslie Malm, I wonder if they are going to be candid with their attorneys.

I also wonder if members at Grace Episcopal know that, per sources at the Alexandria Police Department, it was Lindsey Malm who called the department to complain about a post on Fairfax Underground that she didn’t like, and which she claimed was written by me. Or if vestry members know that it was only after the police department told Lindsey that they could only act if there was threatening behavior that Bob Malm decided to commit a fraud on the court and lie by claiming he was threatened? 

Doubt it? Just come up with one jot or tittle of evidence that, per Bob Malm’s written claim under oath, Mom or someone claiming to be her contacted him repeatedly to set up appointments. And then you get morons like David Crosby bloviating on, saying, “Bobby Malm, You’re Amazing.”

Well, yes. It is amazing that perjury is okay for Episcopal clergy. And it’s amazing that Alternative Paths Training School thinks it’s okay for Lindsey Malm Anders to work with special needs kids with behavioral issues.

But most amazing of all is the notion that someone like Bob Malm can be considered an exemplary priest, despite being a perjurer, a bully, and feckless in the extreme.

Below, an example of the childish conduct that arises from growing up in the Malm household. Or maybe it’s a result of attending Tabor Academy. Or both.



And below, we have Bob’s written perjury:




Tellingly, elsewhere Bob Malm contradicts himself, claiming that the language of the blogs changed, with Mom’s blog allegedly becoming “threatening and violent.”

So which is it, Bob?

Bob Malm, perjuring priest.

Tuesday, January 7, 2020

Grace Episcopal: More Lawsuits Coming!



As we move into 2020, I am now preparing the forms for several additional lawsuits, including one that is directed to a member of Bob Malm’s immediate family. I anticipate filing in the next 20 to 30 days.

In talking the matter over with colleagues, one asked me how I felt about suing a priest. My answer was twofold: 1) Bob is a priest in title only, and 2) Having resorted to court and committed perjury in an effort to shut down scrutiny of his conduct, Bob Malm was foolish indeed if he thought the litigation would end there. So I have no issues with suing Bob or members of his family.

And yes, I anticipate naming Grace Church as a defendant in at least one further case.