Showing posts with label protective order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label protective order. Show all posts

Monday, November 18, 2019

Bob Malm’s Statement Against Interest Underscores His Questionable Veracity

Here is a good reminder of Bob Malm’s manipulative, dishonest conduct.

At a time when Bob was claiming he needed a protective order to deal with threats from me — threats that he refused to specify, even when ordered by the court to do so — Bob was making statements against interest, including this email to the Episcopal bishop of Virginia, in which he says that his wife and one of his daughters “give this [conflict] so much more attention than it deserves.”

Later, more evidence of questionable veracity on Bob Malm’s part.

Tuesday, December 25, 2018

Sunday, September 9, 2018

See For Yourself: Twitizen Responds to Bob Malm’s Announcement That He Has the Right to “Discipline” Former Members

In response to Bob Malm’s announcement in an email to @wartwatch editor Dee Parsons that he has the right to use the legal system to “discipline” former church members, here’s what one person said:

Friday, August 24, 2018

See for Yourself: Bob Malm’s Requests for Admission

Want to see Grace church at its un-Christian worst? Check out Bob Malm’s Requests for Admission in the current civil litigation, included below.

In most civil cases, there is a phase of litigation referred to as discovery. In discovery, litigants exchange information in order to better understand the case, so that trial may proceed in the most expeditious manner possible.

Under the rules of professional conduct, attornies must take a cooperative, good-faith approach to discovery. It is a violation of the disciplinary rules to conduct discovery in a manner designed to intimidate or harass the other side. This includes the use of vexatious or inflammatory language. Additionally, attorneys may file motions and pleadings only when supported both in law and fact.

With those parameters in mind, check out Bob Malm’s requests for admission. Not only is it obvious that his attorney, Jeff Chiow, didn’t take the time to check even basic facts, they are replete with language and assertions that I believe are inflammatory and intended to intimidate. They’ll know we are Christians by our love...NOT!

Other observations:
  • Heavy stuff, that criticizing Bob Malm.
  • Check out the reference to a church shooting in Sugarland Texas. Have you heard of such a thing? No, I haven’t either. Chiow is either very sloppy, makes stuff up as he goes, or some combination of the two. For example, even a cursory review of survivorsawakenthechurch or the restrainingorderblog would make clear that I am not the author. 
  • Clearly neither Jeff Chiow nor Bob Malm follows the #metoo movement. “#clearthepews”? The matter speaks for itself.
  • The bit about protesting is interesting as well. First Amendment, anyone?  
  • One of the Requests for Admission isn’t even a Request for Admission. It’s an interrogatory.
Check it out.