Showing posts with label Rogers Joseph O’Donnell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rogers Joseph O’Donnell. Show all posts

Friday, September 21, 2018

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

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. 




































Wednesday, September 12, 2018

More Evidence of Sloppy Work by Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow

A law school professor of mine once said, “I don’t advise acting like an asshole. But if you’re going to go that route, make sure your work is absolutely flawless.” Good advice, and apparently not advice that Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow follows.

Specifically, in reviewing Jeff’s previous filings, he had the time for motions court wrong. This is the sort of thing that’s both easy to check, and worth taking the time to check. And with all the associates Jeff has deployed in this matter, you’d think someone would take the time to fact check and proofread his court filings. Or put in other terms, getting this sort of fact wrong hardly engenders credibility.

But then, given Jeff’s other missteps in this litigation, including his lack of common sense in pursuing a non-meritorious claim, hardly surprising.

Who knows? Maybe Jeff attended Sugarland University School of Law.

Monday, September 3, 2018

Jeff Chiow’s Legal Non-Sequitors

In looking over Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow’s recent “emergency” motion, one of the things that’s amusing is the non-sequitors it contains.

On the one hand, Jeff laments that litigation has caused him, his family, and others stress and anxiety. Yeah, no kidding, Sherlock: Litigation has that effect.

On the other hand, what’s Jeff’s proposed solution? Answer: Continue the litigation. As in asking the court to decline to allow me to drop my appeal.

By now, it should be abundantly clear both to Jeff Chiow and Bob Malm that the latter’s decision to pick up on his daughter’s complaint to the Alexandria police department, and to try to make it appear that somehow Bob has been threatened, has been a debacle. Not only can all the world see for itself that the parish is morally bankrupt, but it sees Bob’s fun and games in action—the innuendo, the playing people against each other, the lack of Christian values. 

And the longer litigation has gone on, the more of a disconnect there is between what Bob claims to be and what we see in reality. Nor is Jeff revealing any meaningful Christian values, given the tone and tenor of his vendetta. Indeed, I get the distinct impression that the only reason Jeff is involved with a church at all is that he had the bright idea that his kids should grow up in a church. If that’s the case, newsflash: If this is the example you set for your kids, they are better off without church.

Whether it’s trying to drag a dying woman into court, lying in their pleadings, or defamatory, non-privileged comments to the diocese, people readily see, right beneath Bob’s Jesus-babble, a complete lack of concern for others. And that extends to the various emails within the parish: Never once do you see anyone express concern for someone who, according to Kemp Williams, Jean Reed, and Bob Malm, suffers from mental illness. 

Even in Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow’s recent settlement proposal, the whole crux of things was, “Just quit blogging about us so we can pick back up and go back to the same ole’, same ole’.”

For the record, that’s not how forgiveness and reconciliation work in the Christian faith, nor is that how things are going to work now.

So, my advice to folks at St. Dysfunction is to save all involved time and trouble: Do not send any more settlement proposals. You don’t get it, and you never will.

Wednesday, August 29, 2018

See for Yourself: Disciplinary Complaint Filed Against Jeff Chiow

As promised, attached is a copy of one of the disciplinary complaints filed against Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow. Similar complaints have been filed in other jurisdictions.

In addition to Jeff’s various inflammatory, misleading and prejudicial remarks, he falsely tells the court that there have been violations of the current protective order. But nowhere does he show that I have had any contact with Bob Malm, or that I have come anywhere close to him, the church, or any member of Bob’s family. Nor have I stated that I intend to do so, or made any effort to do so. See page 7 for the specific language in which Jeff attempts to mislead the court. Moreover, the protective order does not address blogging, nor can it do so under the First Amendment. 

Jeff also conveniently omits the fact that he still has not complied with the court’s order to specify which blog entries he believes to be threatening, despite the fact we’re now seven months into litigation. Thus, Jeff has not only used dilatory tactics throughout the case, but his entire modus operandi has been one based on obstructionist, harassing behavior. Nor has he supplemented discovery by updating emails and other non-privileged items that his client is required to produce. Indeed, the motions court appears to have reminded plaintiff that his failure to cooperate in discovery has hindered my ability to defend the case. Moreover, I have discovered multiple instances where Chiow has failed to produce relevant, non-privileged records during discovery, as well as multiple cases where he has improperly redacted materials.

And, of course, there are Jeff’s lies about my service as a police officer, and having been licensed as an attorney. My guess is that Jeff will contend that he made a misstatement, or didn’t find the information, or some other bogus explanation. The reality is, however, that when an attorney signs his or her name to a pleading, they are stating under oath that they have conducted due diligence and there is a reasonable basis for their pleadings. Thus, one cannot simply shrug and say, “My bad.”

Then, of course, there’s his effort to obtain discovery in Pennsylvania, which does not permit discovery in such cases. Either Jeff stumbled into court there totally clueless, or he knew that discovery wasn’t permitted but tried to pull a fast one on the court. Given Jeff’s track record thus far, I bet I know which of the two it is, and let’s just say I wouldn’t put money down on Jeff’s personal or professional ethics.

I’d be really curious too: Jeff mentions a civil marriage involving me, but I know of no such event at St. Dysfunction, aka Grace Episcopal Church. Perhaps he’d care to enlighten me. Or is this another of his “Sugarland” moments, where Jeff just makes something up because it sounds good? 

Once again, just the sort of thing one should expect from Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow, Dysfunctional Bob and the good Christians of St. Dysfunction Church, aka Grace Episcopal Church. Small wonder people are taking a pass, both on the parish and on the larger Episcopal Church.

Caveat emptor.

#fakechristians



























Coming Soon: Disciplinary Complaint Against Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow

Following Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow’s latest round of unprofessional and ethically questionable conduct I have decided to file an attorney disciplinary complaint against him. My hope it to have that done later today.

Among Jeff’s objectionable behaviors:
  1. His continuing use of inflammatory and prejudicial language in his pleadings 
  2. His dilatory behavior during discovery
  3. His possible use of the legal process to pursue a personal vendetta instead of legitimate ends
  4. His repeated mischaracterization of events
  5. His repeated efforts to deceive the courts by taking statements out of context
  6. His inclusion of fictional events in his pleadings, like a fictional church shooting in the equally fictional town of Sugarland Texas, and his reference to “#clearthepews,” a hashtag no one in this situation has used
  7. His childish and unprofessional behavior, including cursing at opposing counsel
  8. His knowing pursuit of various non-meritorious claims and defenses, including the so-called priest-penitent privilege
  9. His knowing efforts to suppress First Amendment-protected activity, including blogging
  10. His attempting to use the protective order process as a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation)
  11. His withholding non-privileged material during discovery, including two emails between Dysfunctional Bob and City of Alexandria that I have obtained through other means; I believe I am about to obtain several more
While I am not sanguine about the possibilities of success, as disciplinary boards typically leave these matters to the tribunal to resolve, at a minimum filing a complaint puts the bar on notice that there are potential issues with a particular attorney.

Of course, as I have said many times on this blog, the real lesson to be learned from all these behaviors on Jeff’s part is that this is the sort of thing that is okay at St. Dysfunction, aka Grace Episcopal Church. Nor do you see any concern for others — it’s all about protecting an organization that doesn’t deserve protecting. In short, if you have to behave like Jeff Chiow and Dysfunctional Bob have behaved in this matter in order for the church to survive, then the church just needs to go away.

Needless to say, I don’t think Jeff adheres to any meaningful Christian perspective; my guess is that he wants his kids to grow up in a church. Why do I say that? Because Jesus reserved his choicest words for those who, like Jeff and Bob, have become stumbling blocks to the faith of others. And with at least three people having renounced the Christian faith due to their antics, both have a lot to answer for in that regard. (As a close family member once said, “See you in hell, Bob!” Or, to quote another, “With Christians like these asshats, who needs heathens?” LOL)

Grace Episcopal Church has become like the Catholic Church—morally bankrupt and focused solely on its own narcissistic organizational needs.

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.