Featured Post

See for Yourself: Mike’s Email to the Grace Episcopal Vestry Prior to Renouncing Christianity

Mike sent this email as a result of two events: The deliberate and illegal misuse of the flowers he donated in memory of his mother, which w...

Monday, August 20, 2018

See for Yourself: Jeff Chiow’s Motion for Reconsideration

As part of their continuing effort to drag my mother, dying of COPD, into court, Bob Malm and Jeff Chiow filed a Motion for Reconsideration in the Venango County Court of Common Pleas, which I have included below. In addition to the ethical aspect of going after a woman who is dying, there are a number of issues with this motion:

  1. Jeff’s pleadings fail to comply with the relevant Rules of Civil Procedure. While it is not in my best interest to provide Jeff with a primer on the rules by referencing specifics, there are multiple issues with his pleadings. My belief: Jeff’s pleadings are either done carelessly, and in haste, or with an eye to sidestepping the requirements of the courts. Thus, Jeff’s assertion that his subpoena of Mom is valid is, at best, troubling.
  2. As mentioned before, for various reasons it’s disingenuous to argue that Mom’s attorney didn’t call Jeff to try to work things out, not the least of which is that Jeff does not appear to have made any effort to reach out to Mom’s attorney to discuss scheduling. Having failed to extend even this most basic aspect of professional courtesy, why on this green earth would Jeff feel that he was subsequently entitled to consultation?
  3. The argument that he may soon be deprived of Mom’s testimony falls in the same category. Having waited months to pursue Mom’s testimony, why should the Pennsylvania court accommodate Jeff’s failure to plan?
  4. The entire pleading is, I believe, an effort to deceive the court, as Virginia law requires that a petitioner demonstrate that a protective order is necessary to protect against a reasonably held threat of imminent physical harm. Even if Mom’s postings qualified as a threat — which they certainly don’t — there’s no showing of imminence. Thus, who assisted Mom with her blogging is irrelevant.
  5. Jeff falsely tells the court that I own Mom’s blog. I do not, and he has presented no evidence to the contrary.
  6. Through his associate, Ms. Rodin, Jeff continues with the inflammatory, prejudicial rhetoric, including his allegation that this is a case of “domestic terrorism,” and referring to blogging as “terrorizing and harassing.” Such mischaracterizations have no place in the ethical practice of law and improperly interfere with the administration of justice.
  7. As he’s done before, Jeff takes the word “terrorism” out of a post he allegedly found on Mom’s blog, and does so by taking it out of context, thus changing the meaning. In so doing, Jeff fails in his duty of candor to the tribunal. 
Later this fall, I will publish documentation of additional questionable behavior on Jeff’s part, including his references to a fictitious church shooting in Texas, in an equally fictitious town. That’s problematic, as the law is clear: An attorney who signs a legal document represents to the court that the factual contentions “have evidentiary support,” to use the phrase from the Federal Rules.

The #fakechristians of St. Dysfunction aka Grace Episcopal Church strike again.