Showing posts with label perjury. Show all posts
Showing posts with label perjury. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Check it Out: Unless You’re Convicted, Perjury Is Okay for Clergy in The Episcopal Church

Here’s a good one: Another Title IV notice of dismissal from the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia.

Where to start?
  • First, there is no requirement of a criminal conviction for conduct to be prohibited under Title IV. Indeed, Canon IV.4.1(h.6) makes clear that conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation is forbidden, period.
  • Second, it is not the role of the intake officer to assess whether a violation has taken place. It’s simply to ask two questions: If true, would the matter complained of be a violation of the canons and, if so, would it be “of weighty and material importance to the ministry of the church.” Nothing more. Beyond that, the reference panel handles everything.
  • Third, there is no Title IV requirement of confidentiality apropos laity, and I refuse to be silenced by the church.  Requesting silence from those hurt by the church is highly inappropriate, just as is the case with the non-disclosure agreements of the Catholic Church.
  • Fourth, the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia has repeatedly ousted clergy for violations of Title IV, even when the complaint involves criminal conduct but there is no conviction. Out of respect for others, I don’t plan to publicly share specifics, but it is at best disingenuous for the diocese to contend that conviction is a prerequisite for a successful Title IV complaint.
  • Fifth, as of January 1, 2019, the identity of complainants is confidential per the express provisions of Title IV. So why is Bob copied on this and provided with my name? The diocese itself has violated Title IV.
  • Sixth, the diocese has repeatedly refused to provide the pastoral response required under Title IV, which must occur any time a complaint is made to the intake officer. Yes, even in cases of dismissal.
Screwed up, thy name is Episcopal.







Tuesday, May 21, 2019

The Rev. Melissa Hollerith Confirms that Perjury is Okay for Episcopal Clergy Absent Conviction

Check it out: Melissa Hollerith, wife of the Dean of Washington National Cathedral, today confirmed in writing that perjury is acceptable conduct for Episcopal clergy in the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia. Here is her memo:

And here is my response:



It is small wonder that, with so little ethical reference point, the Episcopal Church is collapsing. Indeed, the world will be a better place without it.



Monday, May 20, 2019

Article on Surviving Church

By the way, another story addressing Bob Malm’s perjury has been published. It’s on the Rev. Stephen Parson’s blog, Surviving Church. 

An internationally recognized expert on abusive churches, Stephen previously reviewed Bob Malm’s conduct, terming it “one of the cruelest forms of conduct one human can inflict on another,” and “abusive.” Yet the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia is good with it.

Thursday, May 2, 2019

My Email to Canon Mary Thorpe

Here is my follow-up email to Canon Mary Thorpe. 

Of course, you have to love the logic: Because there’s been no conviction for perjury, Bob Malm cannot have engaged in perjury. If that’s the case, then we can equally infer that Bob’s failure to sue me for defamation suggests that my assertions are accurate. 

The funny thing is that, in the end, The Episcopal Church is simply ensuring that it collapses into irrelevance. The fact that it cannot hold its clergy to basic standards of integrity, and cannot even adhere to the ethical standards of publicly traded companies (hardly a high standard in the scheme of things) makes clear that church no longer has a meaningful role in society. It’s just a clueless bunch of folks locked into a Madmen-era time warp, a good ole’ boys and girls club where folks look out for each other long enough to get to retirement.




Thursday, March 14, 2019

Bob Malm’s Many Lies

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.

Bob Malm’s lies

Friday, January 11, 2019

See for Yourself: Bob Malm Perjury

During discovery, Bob Malm stated under oath that Mom and other family members repeatedly made appointments with him and no-showed. This was part of his purported reason for his claim that I am, in fact, the author of Mom’s blog. There’s just one little wrinkle in all of this: Mom has NEVER made an appointment with Bob, nor has ANYONE done so on her behalf.

In other words, Bob committed perjury.

Here is what Bob wrote, again under oath:


And here is Mom’s response:




And here is my meme summarizing Bob’s perjury:


Oh, and by the way, if Bob tells you that this is defamation, ask him for proof that these meetings were scheduled.

He has none.

Bob Malm, the perjuring priest.