Showing posts with label motions court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label motions court. Show all posts

Friday, July 24, 2020

No News To Report

Grace Episcopal Alexandria


Still no ruling from the Fairfax Circuit Court. Not a huge surprise there, as the judge had warned us a decision could come as late as Monday due to a full docket. I’m cautiously optimistic that I will prevail on Kelly Gable’s plea of the statute of limitations, for she seeks to benefit from the misconduct of the very church for which she served on the vestry. Specifically, Grace Church, the clergy perjury parish, had a legal obligation to produce the document in question. Given that a quick email to the diocese or to vestry members would have elicited the email in question, it’s difficult to conclude that the church acted in good faith. That said, like most lawyers I am risk averse, so I’m preparing my motion for reconsideration and my appeal, even as we speak. That way, if Kelly does prevail on the motion, I’ll be able to quickly respond.

Still Waiting....

We’re still waiting for a decision from the Fairfax Circuit Court on today’s motion, which touched on venue in the Malm case and the statute of limitations in the Gable case.

In the meantime, here is my filing in opposition to Kelly’s plea of the statute of limitations.

Thursday, July 23, 2020

See for Yourself: Items for Tomorrow’s Motions Court Hearing

Tomorrow is motions court in Fairfax, which will be held via WebEx. At issue will be venue for two of the cases involving Grace Church.

In the case of Kelly Gable’s defamation, I have told defense counsel that I don’t have an objection to venue in Alexandria.

Of course, defense counsel also has filed a plea in bar raising the stature of limitations.  On that score, I have told the courts that the issue is a matter of black letter law. Specifically, when a defendant has concealed a cause of evidence, the statute of limitations is tolled by the express provisions of the relevant statute. In the instant case, Sugarland Chiow, perjuring priest Bob Malm, and the church had an obligation to produce the email in question, as it was squarely within the purview of discovery, Given that they clearly attempted to conceal other evidence potentially damaging to their case (including Jeff Aaron’s email in which he discussed potential retaliation against me for complaining to the diocese about Bob’s conduct), I have no doubt that they intentionally did so in this case.

Equally significant is the fact that Kelly stood in privity to the defendants. She was not an innocent bystander, but instead a vestry member who benefitted from Sugarland’s misconduct. It therefore is inappropriate that Kelly be permitted to benefit from this misconduct.

On the matter of venue in the case against perjuring priest Bob Malm, I am opposing transfer. Bob is no longer a resident of Alexandria, so he cannot be said to be inconvenienced. Moreover, multiple aspects of the case arose in Fairfax, including Bob’s efforts to engage in tortious interference with my contract of employment at a church in Fairfax County. Similarly, Fairfax County intervened in my favor after perjuring priest Bob Malm tortiously interfered with our memorial donations to the church. At best, this constituted breach of contract. At worst, it was fraud. And I can produce evidence at trial that this was done at the express direction of perjuring priest Bob Malm.

Below is my email to the law clerk working on the case, as well as my exhibits.

I’ll post as soon as possible after the hearing.