Showing posts with label Venango County Court of Common Pleas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Venango County Court of Common Pleas. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 15, 2020

BREAKING NEWS: Civil Complaint Filed Against Perjuring Priest Bob Malm in Venango County Court of Common Pleas

Earlier today, I filed a civil complaint in the Venango County Court of Common Pleas against perjuring priest Bob Malm. The suit seeks to recover my late mother’s legal fees, incurred when she had to hire an attorney to quash the ultra vires subpoena perjuring priest Bob Malm filed against her as she was dying.

Malm did so in violation of state law, which expressly requires leave of court before seeking discovery in such cases. Yet even when informed of this requirement, perjuring priest Bob Malm and Sugarland Chiow ignored the law, trying to jam the subpoena past a court that had already said no via a Motion for Reconsideration, replete with inflammatory rhetoric, claims of “domestic terrorism,” and more.

Moreover, Malm did so with full knowledge that Mom was terminally ill. Later, through Sugarland Chiow, Malm tried to claim that he was unaware that she was dying.

That tells you all you need to know about perjuring priest Bob Malm, Sugarland Chiow, Grace Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, and the Episcopal Church.

Caveat emptor!

Next up: Perjuring priest Bob Malm served with interrogatories.

Tuesday, August 25, 2020

Grace Episcopal Alexandria: Legal Update

Grace Episcopal Alexandria


It’s never a dull day when it comes to my lawsuits against Grace Church, perjuring priest Bob Malm, and members of Bob’s family.

Earlier today, the Alexandria Circuit court notified the parties that it has rescheduled motions court to September 9 in my lawsuit against Leslie Malm for defamation.

Meanwhile, as I await a response to my motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit in the Pennsylvania courts, which seeks to recover Mom’s legal fees, I have filed an appeal to the Venango County Court of Common Pleas. My notice of appeal is below. Once it has been served on the magistrate and perjuring priest Bob Malm, Pennsylvania rules require the filing of a complaint within 20 days.

Grace Episcopal Alexandria


Saturday, August 25, 2018

See for Yourself: Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow May Have Tried to Pull a Fast One on the Venango County Court of Common Pleas

At one point in the recent proceedings, attorney Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow was tossing around the use of the word defamation, suggesting that I had defamed him by stating that his Pennsylvania subpoena was invalid on its face. As with his use of inflammatory language and his “alternative facts,” (including his reference to a fictional church shooting in the equally fictional city of “Sugarland Texas”), this claim is seriously sketch.

As Jeff fully knows, under the UIDDA, which is the statute that provides for enforcement of  out of state subpoenas in states that have implemented the UIDDA, the deponent’s state is the one that, not surprisingly, controls access to the deponent (the person whose testimony is sought. See, for instance:


That’s a problem for Jeff, as Pennsylvania requires leave of court for discovery in protection from abuse cases. See:


Having failed to motion the court for leave, his “subpoena” of my mother was invalid from day one. In other words, it was a piece of paper with the word subpoena on it, nothing more. And having argued to the court that he had a valid subpoena indicates that Jeff either was clueless, or deliberately deceptive. My guess is the latter, as he even saw this issue referenced in the motion filed by Mom’s attorney.

In cases where this is such a motion, the courts will typically ask if there is a less burdensome way to obtain this information. In a case such as this, the answer is yes—you just subpoena the company that hosts the blog and find out who’s been posting what, when.

But Jeff’s ineptitude went further. Local rules require, inter alia, that counsel attach a proposed final order to all motions. Having not attached any such thing to either his motion for reconsideration or his motion to hold his prior motion in abeyance, the clerk is unlikely to have even “noticed” the motions, meaning to do anything with them.

My advice, worth exactly what you paid for it: Jeff should stick to contracts work. He made a complete and total ass out of himself in this case, even managing to make Grace Church look bad. Moreover, his ethics are, at best, questionable, with his use of inflammatory and prejudicial rhetoric serving only to illustrate just how toxic Grace Church and Bob Malm really are.

Or, as Mike said last time we attended services at Grace, referring to the parish: “See ya, wouldn’t wanna be ya.”