Here’s another example of Bob Malm’s efforts to discredit me, provided to me by a person not party to the present litigation. This email was sent by Bob to Dee Parsons, my friend and publisher of The Wartburg Watch. The latter has been in national headlines recently, following Dee’s expose of Jules Woodson’s alleged abuse at the hands of youth pastor Andy Savage, aka Savage Andy.

In another example of the sloppy thinking typical of Bob, we see him talking about the fact that he has not met my Mom, nor most of my family. Thus, he contends, Mom cannot be the author of her blog.

That begs the question: Since when was it necessary to visit a place to write intelligently about it? If being physically present is a necessary predicate for truth, then all Bob’s sermons are lies, for he was not there when the Bible was written.

Moreover, Mom has five relatives here in NVA other than me. I do not know their names and have never met them, but they no doubt are in touch with her, and I am prepared to bet this issue has come up more than once.

There’s another, larger problem with Bob’s email. Specifically, Dee’s letter tells the truth. Again, Dee tells the truth. That’s a biggie, because Bob’s email sidesteps that fact.

Dee and I were discussing Mom’s blog and other, related issues long ago—long before Bob filed his police report, indeed long before Bob even realized that Mom had a blog. And Dee is well familiar with my views on the current situation with Bob—perhaps more so than any other person—as well as my attitudes toward Bob and his family. Bob and I have never discussed Mom’s blog, yet, true to form, he now purports to be an expert on the subject, even though he can’t get the name of the relevant court right.

Then there’s the issue of Bob’s claim that people at Grace consider me to be violent and threatening. Funny—that didn’t come into play when a parishioner came over and tried to intimidate me a couple of weeks ago while I was out protesting. Nor does Bob cite a single instance of “violent” behavior. Nor can he truthfully cite such an example. Defamation, anyone? No doubt Bob will be happy to provide names and dates relevant to this claim as we move forward.

It’s also pretty rich for Bob to talk about Jesus being truth given that, during our meeting in Fredericksburg, he looked me right in the eye, in front of Episcopal Bishop Shannon Johnston, and falsely stated, “Having resigned from the vestry, you were no longer eligible to serve as a trustee.” Too bad no such policy exists, and most parish trustees are not, in fact, vestry members. Or, in other words, Bob lied.

Bob’s argument about the police department also is a non sequitor. Police officers often investigate matters only to find that no criminal conduct has occurred. In the present instance, the Alexandria police department told Bob Malm that, in fact, there was nothing it could do. Why? Because no law has been broken. Yet Bob conveniently omits that.

Also curious is Bob’s claims that the parish “leadership” has decided that filing a bogus claim for a protective order is a means of “discipline.” The only discipline available under Episcopal polity apropos laity is to be repelled from communion, and that certainly is not available to Bob when, as here, I am not now even a member of his parish. So what next? Bob claims the right to “discipline” Roman Catholics? Jews? Too bad Bob didn’t take that tack when a married couple in the parish allegedly had a very public affair. In that case, Bob declined to take action, saying that he wasn’t into that sort of punitive action. Telling.

Nor was I aware that the Alexandria police department is now providing advice and counsel in church discipline cases. Something about separation of church and state. (Lemon v. Kurtzman for those of you who are lawyers)

Lastly, is Bob’s comment about holding me accountable in “whatever way is necessary” a threat? If we use Bob’s illogic, which is that anything that could possibly be construed as a threat is exactly that — a threat — then it definitely is.