My experience is that one of the ways Bob Malm gets away with his various antics is by saying one thing to one person, and something else to others. With that in mind, below is a copy of his request for a protective order.

Check out his intimations of mental illness and multiple personality disorder. Would you want this guy for your priest? Keep in mind, too, that he has never discussed any of these issues with me, which underscores Bob’s true motives.

Also amusing is Bob’s lack of understanding of the First Amendment and free speech. No matter how many times someone writes about a topic of public interest, the law is clear that that does not constitute harassment. Harassment occurs when someone repeatedly contacts another person—which, you can be assured, I have zero interest in talking with Bob Malm, and have not spoken with him in person since May 25, 2017. I last sent him email in December 2017, and have not had phone contact with him since 2014.

Indeed, in December 2017 I asked Bob to have no further contact with me, either directly or through others. He promptly responded by contacting an employer of mine and my current church, which may constitute violations of Virginia’s anti-stalking law. In relevant part, it states:

If the person contacts or follows or attempts to contact or follow the person at whom the conduct is directed after being given actual notice that the person does not want to be contacted or followed, such actions shall be prima facie evidence that the person intended to place that other person, or reasonably should have known that the other person was placed, in reasonable fear of death, criminal sexual assault, or bodily injury to himself or a family or household member.

Source: Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-60.3. Stalking; penalty (2016)

A couple other interesting things of note:

Check out Bob’s use of the honorific “Fr.”, something he almost never uses otherwise. Playing on disparity of power, anyone?

Look at how Bob takes words out of context and somehow suggests they are threats. First Amendment, anyone?

Bob’s statement about “tried legal action” is, at best, misleading. I have never instituted legal action against a current or former employer. In the case he references, I was represented by counsel while negotiating an exit package, a very different issue.

Check out Bob’s admission on page six about contacting an employer of mine.
Bob’s attempt, I believe deliberate, to conflate issues is really obvious in this document. Whether one likes a blog or not, or whether the bishop likes a blog or not, is irrelevant to the question of whether one has been threatened or not.

Bob falsely states that I am a parishioner. That is not the case, as I transferred out of the parish in July 2017, meaning that any comments he makes to other church members following that time are not privileged as a matter of law.

For a priest, Bob sure has a curious idea as to what constitutes “reconciliation.” (His decorative quotes, not mine.) Having your priest agree to stop bullying behavior is not the same as reconciliation.
Attachments:

So what happened at the Jan. 29 hearing?