Here, in a concise visual format, is a summary of some of Bob Malm’s lies. Some were lies he told to me. Others are lies he has told about me. Several were made under oath, and thus constitute perjury.
Of course, if Bob Malm wishes to produce documentation that my Mom has made appointments with him, for example, I am happy to publish that here. That said, unless he is prepared to fabricate that as well, he has no such proof.
Bob’s lies told under oath include:
- That my Mom made appointments with him.
- That his wife Leslie is the only family member that he knew to have blogged about our conflict. (He knew at the time he made the statement that his daughter Lindsey had as well.)
- That I was never licensed as an attorney.
- That I never served as police officer.
- That I violated the existing court order.
Bob’s lie about trustees was told in front of Bishop Shannon Johnston and Canon Pat Wingo in Fredericksburg, and confirmed by his failure to produce documents, which my lawyer requested, to support his claim.
Bob’s lie about the church office staff was told to me in the church offices. I later found out that Bob allegedly told the same lie to Phil Smith several years prior, when the latter served as junior warden.
Keep in mind, too, that per the Episcopal canons, clergy are held to a higher standard. So if Bob tells you, “Well, we were pretty sure Eric never practiced law, so that came as a surprise,” ask when it became okay to present speculation as facts when offering pleadings in court. Then ask where the higher standard is for clergy. Keep in mind, too, that at no point did Bob add an sort of disclaimer, such as “based on our research, we believe that Mr. Bonetti did not practice law.” Instead, these were presented as facts, with no disclaimers or qualification.
Of course, the big granddaddy of all Bob’s lies is that he was threatened. Examining his own filing shows that he took words out of context in facially ludicrous fashion. For example, the presence of the word “suicide” on a blog does not constitute a threat, either as practical matter nor as a point of law. Similarly, Mom’s longstanding handle, “the Killer B’s,” is also used by members of pro sports teams, as well as a band in Richmond. Are those threats?
So, Bob is either a liar, or he’s a complete and total whack-a-doodle. They’re not mutually exclusive, however; my opinion is that Bob is both.
That also raises an interesting issue: Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow has said he represents the church, Bob, and Bob’s wife, Leslie. With ample evidence available to Jeff that his client has lied, is he obligated to act in Bob’s best interest? The church’s? If it’s the former, Sugarland is obligated to maintain a confidence. If it’s the latter, he may have obligations to disclose to the parish. Certainly, Sugarland’s aiding and abetting Bob’s perjury has not done much to help the church’s standing in the community, and it makes a mockery of the whole notion of Lent as a season of repentance and introspection. But then, given Sugarland’s inclusion of various fabrications as well as inflammatory rhetoric in his pleadings, I wouldn’t look to Jeff as a source of ethical conduct.