Showing posts with label Robert H. Malm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert H. Malm. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

Reflections: Ethics, Legal Practice and Representing Lindsey Anders and Leslie Malm

Comment from Twitter About Bob Malm’s Conduct

Earlier today, I received a copy of a document indicating that Lindsey Anders and Leslie Malm are now represented by legal counsel in Alexandria. Out of respect for the attorney involved, I am not yet prepared to disclose the document, nor the identity of legal counsel. I do, however, want to reflect on the challenges facing legal counsel in such situations.

First, let’s look at the ethical issues confronting attorneys. Per the professional rules, these include the duty of candor to the tribunal. That means being truthful with the court, including not permitting deception by silence. Further, the ABA contemplates that attorneys must correct false material evidence, including that offered during discovery. This may take the form of private remonstration, supplemental answers to interrogatories, and more. But if the client fails to correct the deception, the lawyer may be forced to take matters into her own hands, even possibly having to withdraw from representation and disclose the false testimony to the tribunal. And while the rules talk about “actual knowledge,” and “reasonable steps,” neither can an attorney turn a willingly blind eye to client fabrications.

In the case of Bob Malm, I submit that Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow’s conduct failed to comport with these requirements. He knew, or had cause to know, that Bob committed perjury by claiming that Mom, or someone purporting to be her, contacted him repeatedly to set up appointments, then canceled. This simply didn’t happen, yet Bob and his attorney took no steps to correct his perjury. Moreover, the issue is material, as he cites this as one of the reasons for his assertion that Mom’s blog was really mine. Moreover, Bob separately asserted under oath that all of the answers to his interrogatories were true, so he lied a second time. Yet I have seen no evidence to suggest that Sugarland corrected his client’s lies. And then there is Bob’s fabrication that, to his knowledge, only his wife had blogged about our conflict...the list goes on. (Those new to the matter may wish to discover elsewhere in this blog the reasons behind Sugarland’s moniker.) 

Into this ethical morass we have a second issue, which is how members of the Malm family handle conflict. My conclusion is that Bob often gaslights others, or engages in revisionist history. Both Leslie and Lindsey appear to have picked up this habit, although to a lesser extent. Some examples:
  • Leslie Malm’s alleged claim to third parties that I admitted in court that Mom’s blog was really mine, both facially ludicrous and false. 
  • False assertions as to the genesis of our conflict.
  • Leslie Malm’s claim that I have stated that my mother was in her 90’s.
  • Fabrications in which they allege that I have misused church funds, engaged in criminal activity, and am mentally ill.
Woven as a thread throughout is juvenile behavior and ad hominem attacks by the Malms, ranging from comments about my sexual orientation, to remarks about the size of various body parts, to remarks about my mother. None of these are pretty, yet Bob and his family seemingly are all about outward appearance. 

Thus, the perennial issue facing all attorneys seemingly is at play here, which is whether Lindsey and Leslie will be candid and truthful with their legal counsel. Will they admit to their behavior, or will they try to pull a fast one on legal counsel? Past conduct suggests that the answer could well be the latter.

That of course raises other questions, including whether counsel for the diocese will ignore prior courtroom fabrications on the part of Bob and the parish. While both client and counsel may well find this to be a tempting route, the long-term interests of the diocese, the parish, and The Episcopal Church suggest disclosure is the wiser course. Nor is it wise to defend a series of fabrications, misleading statements of law and fact to the courts, ad hominem attacks, and other questionable conduct on the part of Bob Malm, Sugarland Chiow, and the parish.

There’s also the reality that, in litigation, the biggest issues often are non-legal in nature, ill-suited to resolution in the courts. Bob Malm’s strategy of decreeing critics “domestic terrorists,” his ugly and false comments to the parish vestry, to church members, and to others about me (non-privileged, since I was no longer a member of the parish, and I believe made with malice), have caused lasting damage to the church, the diocese, and the bishopric, regardless of the outcome of these cases. Indeed, some of Bob’s ugliest comments were made within the church, and having met with no objection, may illustrate larger issues within the organization. Nor is it easy to defend efforts to subpoena a dying woman in violation of Pennsylvania law.

In short, no matter how long this and the related cases are in litigation, and they could well go on for years, the harm caused by Bob Malm’s misconduct and that of parish legal counsel is largely irreparable. 

Next up: The ethical perils of representing multiple parties.

Wednesday, February 5, 2020

Petition Seeking Investigation of Perjuring Priest Bob Malm Passes 3,000 Signatures

Even as Bishop Susan Goff and the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia continue to try to ignore Episcopal priest Bob Malm’s perjury, lies, bullying, misuse of funds and more, signatures on my petition keep pouring in.

This morning, we passed 3,000 signatures, and 4,000 won’t be far off.

If you believe that clergy should be held accountable, that clergy should not be able to get away with perjury, and that churches should not be trying to drag dying people into court, please sign my petition today. Even better, chip in a few dollars and help spread word, or share my petition on your social networks.

Let’s tell the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, and perjuring priest Bob Malm’s new digs, the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, that we expect better.

Thanks for your kind support.

Petition about perjuring priest Bob Malm passes 3,000 signatures



Sunday, January 19, 2020

Check it Out: BlakeWrites Covers My Story

More media coverage of perjuring priest Bob Malm, Grace Episcopal Church, and St. Gabriel’s in Marion Massachusetts today as online publication BlakeWrites covers my story at https://www.blakewrites.com/articles/abuses-of-power-by-clergy

Bob Malm, perjuring priest

Grace Episcopal, the clergy perjury parish


Friday, October 11, 2019

Bob Malm’s Top-Ten Lists: A Seriously Bad Idea



One of Dysfunctional Bob’s final acts as rector was publishing a series of top-ten lists in the church newsletter, Grace Notes. While most of the content is unremarkable at best, there is one aspect that is really troubling.

Before we go to the heart of the matter, let me say this: Someone should have edited these lists. Between irregular punctuation and Bob’s famous Decorative Caps for Important Words That Are Not Proper Nouns, there are issues that don’t reflect well.

More importantly, Bob should not be listing the diocese as one of the top ten challenges ahead for the church. I say that as someone who is unimpressed with the diocese and its leadership. But at the time the article was published, Bob’s role should have been to be supportive of the parish, the diocese, and the people involved. As things stand, the addition of this challenge is far from helpful.

As an aside, the irony is that the diocese may well prove to be a pain in the church’s backside, but not for the reasons Bob may imagine. Left to wade through the dysfunctional, clueless mess that Bob leaves behind, no doubt the diocese will have to tread carefully. Even so, there is little doubt that some parishioners will be offended, for one cannot buy into Planet Malm, only later to discover the illusory nature of one’s investment, without at least some angst.

Still worse, the reality is that many who are offended by Bob Malm’s narcissistic behavior already have pulled the plug on Grace. Yes, some will come back, but those who remain are by and large those who have either turned a blind eye to the toxic nature of the church, or who just don’t get it. Either way, many are in for a rude shock when they realize the depth and breadth of problems at the church.

I surely do not envy whoever is unfortunate enough to become interim.