Motion for Sanctions Filed Against Perjuring Priest Bob Malm - Includes Request for Criminal Charges

V I R G I N I A:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALEXANDRIA CITY

ERIC J. BONETTI

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT H. MALM

Defendant

: : : : : CL NO. 2020 06480 : : :

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 4:12(d) COMES NOW Plaintiff, ERIC BONETTI, in the above-entitled action and pursuant to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, and hereby respectfully requests this honorable Court to grant sanctions against Defendant Robert H. Malm for failure to participate in discovery, up to and including summary judgment for the Plaintiff and the award of punitive damages.

In support of his request, Plaintiff states the following: 1. This is a case for abuse of process and defamation that arises from the Defendant’s efforts to use the civil protection order process as a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

2. On or about January 2018, Defendant obtained a protective order in Alexandria on the basis of various fabrications and misrepresentations to the Court. These included: a. Claims that Plaintiff had threatened Defendant and the church at which Defendant then served as a priest; b. Assertions that various words on a blog belonging to the Plaintiff’s late mother, taken out of context, somehow constituted threats against the Defendant.

3. Meanwhile, Defendant made various written statements against interest, including that his wife and daughter took the matter too seriously. (Exhibit A).

4. Defendant also contacted the Alexandria police department, seeking a means to obtain a prior restraint on Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights to blog about his experiences with Defendant and his church, and to peacefully protest in public spaces outside the church.

(Exhibit B).

5. On appeal to this Court, Defendant made multiple false statements of law and fact to this court, including, but not limited to: a. That Plaintiff was never licensed to practice law. b. That Plaintiff never served as a police officer.

6. Defendant’s pleadings were characterized by myriad inflammatory remarks, including suggestions that Plaintiff is mentally ill, and references to fabricated church shootings in locations that do not exist.

7. During discovery, Defendant was uncooperative, dilatory, and evasive.

8. Of particular note was the fact that Defendant refused to specify how he had been threatened. (Exhibit C).

9. The result was that this Court issued a Discovery Order, which was ignored by the Defendant. (Exhibit D).

10. Of even greater concern was Defendant’s perjury during his written responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, made while advised by church legal counsel and notarized by church member Jane Rosman. In this instance, Defendant Malm stated that one of the bases for his claim that Plaintiff’s late mother’s (Sigrid Yahner) blog was actually written

Bonetti v. Malm Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

by Plaintiff was his assertion that Ms. Yahner, or someone purporting to be her, repeatedly scheduled meetings with him, only to cancel. (Exhibit E).

11. Due to an abrupt downturn in Ms. Yahner’s health due to her terminal illness, as well as the exorbitant costs of litigation resulting from Defendant’s dilatory and vexatious conduct, Plaintiff was forced to withdraw his appeal.

12. The instant case was filed days after the expiration of the protective order and initially was a case for abuse of process, alleging that Defendant sought a protective order for an improper purpose, which was to silence Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. The other prong of the two-part requirement to plead abuse of process, Plaintiff submits, is Defendant’s perjury.

13. The complaint later was amended to include defamation per se after it was discovered that Defendant had fraudulently concealed an email, squarely within the ambit of the original discovery, in which he told diocesan officials that Plaintiff had embezzled funds from a previous employer.

14. During discovery, Plaintiff promulgated almost exactly the same interrogatories to Defendant as in the original lawsuit. only to be consistently met with boilerplate objections and evasive answers.

15. Most notably, Defendant still refuses to specify how he has been threatened and to identify the exact threatening language of which he complains. Had Defendant actually been threatened, a reasonable person would conclude that he would not resist providing this information, but indeed would be eager to share it with this Court.. (Exhibit D).

16. Defendant also is attempting to evade Plaintiff’s specific interrogatories relating to Defendant’s perjury. Rather than answering the complete question, Defendant attempts to

Bonetti v. Malm Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

sidestep it, saying merely that he has “not spoken” to Ms. Yahner. This of course leaves open myriad other possibilities, including postal mail, email, contact via third persons, and more. (Exhibit E).

17. Plaintiff sent a lengthy notice of deficiency to Defendant, which resulted in next to no further cooperation in discovery. (Exhibit F).

18. In a related case in Massachusetts, Defendant admitted under oath that he did not have contact with Ms. Yahner. While the transcript is not yet available, Plaintiff believes it will be ready prior to motions court and will provide it to defense counsel and this Court upon receipt.

19. As it stands, more than two years into litigation Defendant continues to engage in dilatory conduct, to provide evasive discovery responses, and to display selective recall of events.

For example, Defendant is able to recall the date of his 2015 vacation, yet states he is unable to recall which parishioners allegedly told him that they believe Plaintiff hacked the church’s emails. Indeed, Defendant even goes so far as to state that he cannot respond to interrogatories about his defamatory email to Bishop Shannon Johnston on the ludicrous grounds that he does not have a copy, despite the fact the email in question first surfaced in Defendant’s own pleadings. (Exhibit G).

20. Plaintiff submits that Defendant’s ongoing bad faith in discovery, his perjury, and his continuing fabrications have wasted more than enough time for all involved, including this Court.

21. Pursuant to the 2018 changes to Rule 4:12(d), multiple trips to the courthouse are no longer required when a party refuses to engage in discovery. Moreover, Plaintiff submits

Bonetti v. Malm Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

that this Court’s previous discovery order is sufficient to put Defendant on notice that his dilatory, vexatious, and evasive conduct during discovery is unacceptable.

Therefore, Plaintiff requests the following sanctions pursuant to Rule 4:12(d): 1) That Defendant be deemed to have admitted that he has no evidence that Plaintiff threatened him or any related party.

2) That Defendant be deemed to have been untruthful during discovery when he claimed that Plaintiff’s late mother contacted him repeatedly.

3) That summary judgment be awarded to the Plaintiff, including all attorney fees in the previous litigation and other actual damages.

4) That punitive damages be imposed against Defendant to the maximum extent permitted by law.

5) That Defendant’s perjury be referred for criminal prosecution.

Respectfully submitted,

ERIC BONETTI Pro Se Plaintiff 4129 Fountainside Lane #203 Fairfax VA 22030

Bonetti v. Malm Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was emailed to Counsel for Defendant on December 8, 2020 to the following:

Wayne Cyron, Esq.

100 North Pitt Street, Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Telephone: 703-299-0600 E-mail: cml@cyronmiller.com Counsel for Robert H. Malm

Diane DiBlasio, Esq. Niles, Barton & Wilmer, LLP 111 South Calvert StreetSuite 1400 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: 410-783-6300 Email: dediblasio@nilesbarton.com Counsel for Grace Episcopal Church

Bonetti v. Malm Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Exhibit A

Bonetti v. Malm Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Exhibit B

Bonetti v. Malm Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Exhibit C

Bonetti v. Malm Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Exhibit D Bonetti v. Malm Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Bonetti v. Malm Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Exhibit E

Bonetti v. Malm Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Exhibit F

Bonetti v. Malm Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Bonetti v. Malm Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Bonetti v. Malm Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Bonetti v. Malm Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Bonetti v. Malm Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)