Breaking News: Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s “Emergency” Motion Filed

By | September 21, 2018

Earlier today, through counsel, I filed the attached motion which, inter alia, flagged plaintiff Bob Malm’s various lies in his motion to the Alexandria Circuit Court opposing dismissal of my appeal, including:

  1. His claim that I have violated the protective order.
  2. His claim that I was not admitted to practice law.
  3. His claim that I was not a police officer.

The fact that Bob Malm considers these falsehoods to be acceptable in any context tells you that Bob is not, as one person has stated, a “real priest.” In other words, if this is his idea of appropriate behavior for a Christian, let alone a member of the clergy, Bob can keep his brand of Christianity, his faith, his church, and his denomination. No thanks. And no thanks to any church that thinks this conduct is acceptable. It is not.


In my motion, counsel also evaluated Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow’s questionable claim to have expended almost $100,000 worth of legal fees in his pro bono representation of Dysfunctional Bob, noting several salient facts:

  1. Seven months after the appeal and five months after the cutoff for discovery, and several weeks after being ordered by the court to do so, Bob Malm has still failed to provide the exact blog entries that he claims “frightened” and “alarmed” him. (My take: If Bob really believes he’s been threatened, it should be a small matter to point out the specifics.)
  2. Working with attorneys at Holland and Knight, Jeff claims to have prepared a privilege log during discovery, but failed to produce the log, while improperly redacting and withholding a number of documents. (My take: Something smells very sketch.)
  3. Attorneys at Rogers, Joseph O’Donnell PC “RJO” claim to have spent two hours per page drafting basic legal pleadings. (My take: I hope to the almighty the firm is more efficient with other clients.)
  4. RJO billing is in five-hour block increments (My take: Sure hope it doesn’t bill all its clients this way. And if you are a client and you are agreeing to be billed in this manner, you are a fool of the first order.)
  5. Jeff redacted the identity of various attorneys working on the case, without authority or reason. (My take: Sketch alert!)
  6. The one consistent theme in all of this is Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow’s animosity, described by Mom’s litigation attorney as a “personal vendetta.” (My take: They will know we are Christians by our love.)
  7. At one point, it took an associate with Jeff’s firm an alleged 2.3 hours to fill out a simple, one-page form in PDF and prepare a one-page cover letter. (My take: Wowza. That is beyond unbelievable.)
  8. Plaintiff has gotten the very result he claims he desired. That begs the question: Why would he now argue that the case should continue? (My take: Mega sketch alert. His real reason is he wants to suppress criticism, which isn’t going to happen, even with Jeff’s lies and misrepresentations). It’s called the First Amendment, kids.) So, as things move to a close in the courtroom, I am more than happy to give Bob the protective order he requested, including the blogging, commentary, and media coverage warranted by such a stupid and un-Christian approach to conflict resolution.