Complaint Filed Against Perjuring Priest Bob Malm in Venango County Court of Common Pleas

PENNSYLVANIA: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR VENANGO COUNTY ERIC J. BONETTI, Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 806-2020

vs.

ROBERT H. MALM, Defendant

COMPLAINT Eric J. Bonetti, in support of his Complaint against defendant Robert H. Malm hereby states the following: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1.

This is a suit for the recovery of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 8351, which provides for the

recovery of attorney fees when the adverse party has begun civil proceedings and the plaintiff shows that the defendant did so: a.

In a grossly negligent manner or without probable cause and primarily for a purpose other than

that of securing the proper discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication of the claim in which the proceedings are based; b.

2.

The proceedings were resolved in favor of the plaintiff.

In the instant case, defendant sought to domesticate a Virginia subpoena pursuant to the UIDDA in a

protection from abuse case again the plaintiff.

3.

As the basis for his claim, Mr. Malm stated that plaintiff’s late mother, Sigrid Yahner, a resident of

Venango County, or someone claiming to be her, had repeatedly set up meetings with him, only to cancel.

4.

At all times prior to her death, Ms. Yahner adamantly denied ever setting up an appointment with

defendant.

5.

Defendant has never proferred any evidence to support this claim.

1

6.

In attempting to subpoena Ms. Yahner, whom defendant knew to be terminally ill and suffering from

severe COPD, defendant failed to seek leave of this court as required in protection from abuse cases pursuant to Rule 1930.

7.

As a result, acting on motion of Sigrid Yahner’s attorney Robert Varsek, this court s quashed defendant’s

ultra vires subpoena and granted a protective order preventing any in-person testimony by Ms. Yahner. (Exhibit A).

8.

Even after being informed via attorney Varsek’s pleadings that Rule 1930.5 requires leave of court for

discovery in protection from abuse cases, defendant failed to ask this court for leave, instead filing a motion for reconsideration replete with inflammatory, inappropriate references to “domestic terrorism” and other improper and unprofessional assertions.

9.

Shortly before her death, Ms. Yahner executed a written assignment of rights to the Plaintiff to any and all

legal claims against defendant.

10.

The assignment of rights was introduced as evidence in the previous litigation in front of the Hon.

Matthew Kirtland.

11.

The latter dismissed the case without prejudice and did not act on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

12.

While no reason was given for the dismissal, the court’s line of question during the relevant hearing leads

plaintiff to believe that it did so based on the erroneous notion that the assignment of rights was excludable as hearsay.

13.

Per well-established precedent, assignments of right and other contractual-type matters are independent

acts, not subject to the hearsay exception. Instead, they must be evaluated on the basis of all relevant circumstances.

14.

In Ms. Yahner’s case, she knew death was imminent at the time she executed her assignment of rights to

plaintiff. Moreover, she knew that her estate would have no other use for the bundle of rights she assigned to plaintiff, whom she knew would soon be in litigation against Mr. Malm.

15.

Plaintiff therefore believes and avers that: a.

The prior litigation before this court concluded in his late mother’s favor.

b.

That Mr. Malm fabricated his claim that Ms. Yahner had contacted him repeatedly.

c.

That Mr. Malm initiated his claim against plaintiff’s mother maliciously, recklessly, without legal justification, and with the intent to oppress, intimidate, and humiliate Ms. Yahner, and thereby pressure

2

Plaintiff into settlement of the original legal action. Moreover, defendant confirmed this conclusion when he failed to promptly seek leave of court once he had actual knowledge of the need to seek prior leave of court. d.

That pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 8351 and this Court’s equitable powers, Plaintiff is entitled to recover his late mother’s legal fees and related costs.

PARTIES

16.

Plaintiff Eric J. Bonetti is an individual and a resident of Virginia.

17.

Defendant Robert H. Malm is an individual and currently a resident of Massachusetts. At all relevant

times, Mr. Malm was a resident of Virginia.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 18.

This Court has specific personal jurisdiction based on defendant’s decision to commence legal action

against plaintiff’s mother in this jurisdiction. Thus, the tortious action complained of arose in this jurisdiction and venue is proper.

FACTS 19. The facts above are hereby incorporated by reference.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to enter an award for Plaintiff, and against Defendant, as follows: 1) Awarding Mr. Bonetti compensatory damages in the amount of Ms. Yahner’s attorney fees, or $875.

2) Awarding Mr. Bonetti punitive damages.

3) Awarding Mr. Bonetti all expenses and fees, including attorneys’ fees; and 4) Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

I, Eric J. Bonetti, do affirm and attest that the statements set forth in this complaint are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Dated this 15th day of September, 2020.

ERIC J. BONETTI Pro Se Plaintiff 4129 Fountainside Lane 203 Fairfax VA 22030 eric.bonetti@me.com

3

Attachment A

4

5