Showing posts with label Jeffery Chiow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeffery Chiow. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 7, 2019

See for Yourself: Jeffery Chiow and Bob Malm Lie in Court Pleadings

Here’s another blast from the past. In this excerpt from a motion filed in the Alexandria Circuit Court, Jeff Chiow flat out lies to the court. Specifically, he claims that he would have proven that I was never licensed to practice law, and that I never served as a police officer. Both are untrue,

To be fair, in the practice of law, there are times one argues for an expansion of the law, or one postures. There also are times when one states in pleadings that, “The evidence strongly suggests...” or, “There is no evidence to support defendant’s claim....” In short, one not only leaves room for error as a way to preserve one’s credibility with the court, but also to avoid proffering false evidence to the court. Avoiding offering false information to the court is an obligation under the professional rules, as signing one’s name to a pleading means that the information presented is believed to be true, based on reasonable efforts by the attorney.

This is illustrated by the old law school tale, perhaps apocryphal, in which defense counsel, a heavyset man, loudly exclaims, “It simply is not possible that the plaintiff’s contentions about my client’s ladder are true. My client, XYC corporation, makes the toughest ladders out there, capable of holding many times the plaintiff’s weight. See for yourself!” Whereupon he scales the ladder, only to have the thing disintegrate under him, leaving him in a heap on the floor, and with a verdict against his client to boot.

Similarly, if one were to assert in pleadings that Bob Malm is a pedophile based solely on the fact that Bob is a priest, and many priests are pedophiles, that would be highly inappropriate and likely grounds for sanctions. I can’t simply show up in court with an unsupported assertion like that and expect smooth sailing. (For the record, I do not claim Bob to be a pedophile and have seen no evidence to support that conclusion.)

So, Jeff Chiow cannot assert his claims that I never practiced law, and never served as a police officer willy-nilly. These claims would need to be supported by research, and would properly be proferred to the court as, “There is no evidence to support the defendant’s claim....”

Moreover, having used multiple attorneys within his firm, as well as resources from another law firm in town, and having expended what he claims was more than $100,000 worth of legal fees, Jeff Chiow knew, or had reason to know, that this was the case. Additionally, it is hardly a great leap of logic for Sugarland, who claims to have done extensive research on the case, to surmise that it would have made sense to check bar records in Pennsylvania. After all, I did undergraduate there and was a state resident in 1986–facts readily ascertainable. Additionally, a Google search readily reveals information on having served as a police officer.

In short, Jeff Chiow lied to the courts. And while it does not appear he will face disciplinary charges for his misconduct, his behavior is damaging both to his personal reputation and to that of his client, Grace Church.

When one looks at the situation in the context of Bob Malm’s perjury, one quickly understands how Jesus came to refer to the Scribes and Pharisees as “broods of vipers.”





Thursday, June 6, 2019

An Invite to Dysfunctional Bob, Sugarland Chiow, and Folks at Grace Episcopal Alexandria

In a few weeks, my dispute with Bob Malm will be four years old. Happy birthday, dear dispute.

So, this seems like the perfect time to extend this invitation and challenge. Here goes.

Bob likes to claim that I’m engaging in “online/outdoor defamation/slander.” (Guess that’s better than the indoor variant.) 

While Bob, like most at Grace Episcopal, has no idea what defamation and slander are, this also is part of the standard abusive clergy back of tricks. Engage in smear campaigns, claim your critics are defaming you, and more. You know the drill.

That said, I’m calling folks out on this. Talk’s cheap, and Bob is a master of substance-free communication. Pretty words, lots of smiles and hugs, sounds good, but nothing to it. It’s now time for Dysfunctional Bob, Sugarland Chiow, and the rest of the fake Christian crowd at Grace to put their money where their mouths are and sue me. 

You argue that you’re being defamed. Go to court and prove it. That’s right. Time to man up and file suit. Go for it.

And while you’re trying, see how fast I prove that you repeatedly lied under oath. See how quickly I prove that NO member of my family, or anyone claiming to be them, repeatedly made appointments with you and cancelled. See how fast I show that you committed perjury. See how fast I show you even lied to your own church, telling members that Mike and I left on our own.

Bob Malm has a big mouth, and he likes to yell and bully, especially if he thinks his target won’t fight back. But I predict he doesn’t have the spine to put his money where his mouth is and prove his assertions.

Oh, and by the way: This whole conflict shows just how stupid Bob Malm really is. There’s no fact pattern out there in which he and Grace Church win. None. And every time he has tried to force me to back down, he’s just cemented my resolve.

So, time to put for Dysfunctional Bob and Sugarland Chiow to put on their big girl panties and belly up to the bar.

Game on!






Thursday, August 30, 2018

Jeff Chiow and Disciplinary Rule 3.3’s Duty of Remediation

Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow’s recent motion before the Alexandria Circuit Court, in which he lies by telling the Circuit Court that I have violated the relevant protective order, and by claiming that I was neither a police officer nor a licensed attorney, raises some interesting questions under the attorney disciplinary rules. Most notably, it implicates an attorney’s obligation to take remedial measures when she or he comes to know that false evidence has been proferred.

Pursuant to rule 3.3, an attorney may neither mislead the court through a material statement of law or fact, nor knowingly permit a client to do so. The latter can be tricky, for it may conflict with the attorney’s obligation to maintain client confidences. In such cases, attorneys typically must counsel their client as to the potential implications of the falsehood, and may be required to withdraw from representation if the client does not heed those admonitions.

In the instant case, I already have provided documentation on this blog that Jeff’s claims about my bar admission and service as a police officer are false. He’s also on notice that his claim that I violated the restraining order is false, and that I have filed attorney disciplinary complaints against him. 

Thus, Jeff now has a second obligation, which is to inform the court in writing that his prior representations were false. Given the seriousness of the issue, I would think that a second “emergency” motion would be forthcoming, probably sometime early today. Admitting to this is both a legal obligation on his part, and a practical one, for both the court and the various disciplinary boards are likely to view the matter with more leniency if Jeff takes action to correct the situation. 
Will Jeff take these obligations seriously and retract the lies he has told to the court? I doubt it. 

My take on things, which I have discussed previously, is that Jeff is far too close to the issue to be an effective attorney. Or, to use Jeff’s language, his “rantings and ravings” indicate he has lost all sense of his ethical obligations, as well as the independent judgment required of attorneys. He loudly proclaims his belief that I’m a liar, all the while sandwiching his claims between multiple lies of his own. In other words, the whole thing has become an appalling example of what happens when an attorney gets too caught up in his own case and comes to think that the ends justify the means. Of course, in the process, any notion of Christian conduct has gone out the window.

This sort of desensitization to the ethical component of one’s actions is exactly what you see in war time, when othewise honest members of the military behave badly, whether it’s the Mai Lai Massacre, or throwing helpless puppies over cliffs. In short, it is incumbent on men and women of integrity, when they see themselves moving in this direction, to recognize the dangers ahead of them, and take steps to back away before they do harm. 

I have the suspicion, too, that Jeff’s misconduct goes further. Based on the emails I have obtained that he failed to provide during discovery, and the content that he has chosen to redact in other discovery items, I believe Jeff knows, for example, that it was Lindsey Malm who contacted the police in an effort to shut down a post on Fairfax Underground that she didn’t like. In other words, I think that Jeff knows full well that this is a non-meritorious claim, but he’s been resisting providing discovery materials that would make this clear to the tribunal.

Unfortunately for Jeff and his client, he’s now fallen into his own trap. He’s stuck with the result, and the disciplinary cases are moving forward. And there’s no hope that the underlying conflict will be resolved, since by law Dysfunctional Bob and I cannot communicate, and I certainly will not negotiate through Jeff Chiow, given his myriad instances of inappropriate behavior.

Things sure are a hot mess on Planet Malm.

#fakechristians

Thursday, August 16, 2018

Another Blogger Writes About Shunning in Church, Uses Words that Bob Malm Considers to Be Threats

Well, it looks like Bob Malm and Jeffery Chiow have their work cut for them: Another blogger has written about shunning in the church, and has used the words “psychological murder,” “torture,” and “abuse,” to refer to the effects of the practice of shunning in churches.

So, I don’t know Deborah Brunt, but since Bob Malm has stated under oath that the considers use of these words to be threats and frightening to him, I am guessing Bob and his attorney, Jeff Chiow, will be calling the Alexandria police and filing a request for a restraining order against Ms. Brunt immediately.

Meanwhile, I again ask the question: And Bob Malm felt the need to include Mike in his vendetta why? Recall that the latter had been received into The Episcopal Church 16 months earlier, and had been fully supportive of Bob following his accident. 

My opinion: There is nothing lower, or more morally reprehensible, than a member of the clergy who bullies people like Mike who are not in a positiion to fight back. And nearly as loathsome are parishioners, like Jeff Chiow, who support Bob in his efforts. 


Here are screen caps: