Showing posts with label Motion for Reconsideration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Motion for Reconsideration. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 12, 2020

Legal Update: Motion for Reconsideration in Pennsylvania Case


Grace Episcopal Alexandria

A few days ago, I received notice that the Pennsylvania court dismissed the case against perjuring priest Bob Malm without prejudice, meaning that the decision has no preclusive effect. While the court’s decision does not explain its reasoning, based on the oral arguments and the nature of the decision itself, I believe the court concluded that Mom’s written assignment of rights, made shortly before her death, was excludable as hearsay.

Assuming that is an accurate conclusion, the court’s decision was in error, for it is well-settled that written contracts, verbal contracts, contractual language and assignments of rights are not hearsay. Instead, they are independent acts that do not go to the truth or falsity of another matter. As such, they are evaluated on their own, and in the context of surrounding circumstances.

In the instant case, it is undisputed that Mom assigned all her legal rights as against perjuring priest Bob Malm, Grace Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia to me in writing prior to her death. She knew death was imminent, and she knew that litigation against perjuring priest Bob Malm and related parties was only weeks away. Thus, there should be no doubt that she effectuated a transfer of these rights to me—the only person for whom they would have value—prior to her death.

A copy of my motion for reconsideration is posted below. If this is unsuccessful, my plan is to bring suit in the Court of Common Pleas.

Monday, August 6, 2018

See for Yourself: Disgraceful, Inflammatory Rhetoric from Jeff Chiow

That’s the thing about this case: Just when I think Bob Malm and Jeff Chiow have truly outdone themselves in their efforts to hit a new low when it comes to lack of professionalism and ethics, they come along and do something that surpasses their previous efforts.

For example, in his Motion for Reconsideration, Jeff Chiow refers to my mom’s blog as a case of “domestic terrorism.” No matter how you parse it, that sort of rhetoric is inflammatory and unprofessional and unsuited to an officer of the court, which is what Jeff Chiow legally is as an attorney.

Not to be outdone, however, Jeff then attempts to mislead the court by taking a quote from mom’s blog that uses the word “terrorism” out of context. By omitting the language before and after, Jeff fails in his duty of candor to the tribunal. Not good.

Of course, the whole situation with Jeff representing St. Dysfunction Grace Episcopal Church and Dysfunctional Bob is a variation on the old adage about the attorney who represents herself has a fool for a client and an incompetent for an attorney. By being too close to the issues, Jeff Chiow has lost sight of his larger obligations, and I believe lacks the objective perspective needed to be an effective attorney.