My response to Leslie Malm’s Pleadings

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA ERIC J. BONETTI, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 2020-20001941

vs.

LESLIE E. MALM Defendant

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM REGARDING HER PLEA OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, Eric Bonetti, and submits this memorandum in opposition to Defendant’s Memorandum, received August 11, regarding her plea of the stature of limitations.

1.

Defendant’s brief/memorandum contains myriad inaccuracies. As such, this memo attempts to clarify key issues.

2.

Specifically, the document Defendant attaches to her brief memorandum and which Defendant cites as Exhibit A, is not in any way part of the relevant protective order. Moreover, it has no legally binding effect on the parties. Instead, it was part of a settlement proposal proffered by Defendant’s husband, Robert H. Malm, and his employer, Grace Episcopal Church, in an effort to extricate himself from the legal and practical quagmire created by his fraudulently obtained protective order. The latter was obtained via various misrepresentations proferred to the courts, including multiple instances of outright perjury.1 Plaintiff is fully aware of the gravity of this statement and stands ready to prove it in court.

3.

As to Mr. Malm’s settlement offer, which was nothing more than an attempt to use the protective order process as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), Plaintiff rejected it upon receipt and did not respond with a counter-offer. Thus, the provisions it contains, while illustrating the true motives of Mr. Malm and Grace Episcopal Church, are not legally binding.

1

In one instance, Mr. Malm falsely asserted in writing, under oath, while advised by legal counsel, that Plaintiff’s mother, or someone claiming to be her, contacted him repeatedly to set up appointments, only to no-show. This simply did not happen. In another instance, Mr. Malm, under the same circumstances, claimed that only his wife, the instant defendant, had blogged about this conflict. He did so knowing full well that his daughter Lindsey had done so as well. Again, Plaintiff does not make these assertions lightly.

1

4.

Defendant mischaracterizes to the courts the nature of the protective order, which was granted not, as she contends, due to online blog postings, but rather due to her husband’s fabricated claims that he had been threatened within the meaning of the Va. Code § 19.2-152.9 et seq., which requires a showing that Petitioner has faced conduct involving violence, force, or threat that results in bodily injury or places him/her in reasonable fear of death, sexual assault, or bodily injury.

5.

Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, absent a true threat, blogging, even unpleasant blogging, is protected under the First Amendment. Thus, Plaintiff finds Defendant’s assertions as to the grounds for the protective order to be questionable. This is particularly the case since, in the prior litigation, Mr. Malm and Grace Church refused to specify the precise language they claimed was threatening, even after this Court granted a motion compelling them to do so. Plaintiff therefore would be surprised were the instant Defendant to suddenly prove willing to speak to these matters.

6.

In her response, Defendant ignores the black letter law of Va. Code § 8.01-229(6), which Plaintiff has previously cited in his legal memoranda in this case, which expressly provides for tolling the statute of limitations for the period time during which an injunction prevents the action. In the present case, the Court’s protective order (Exhibit 1) prohibited all contact with Mr. Malm, the defendant, and their family members. This order expired on or about January 24, 2020.

7.

While Defendant is quick to dismiss the effects of the injunction/protective order, no contact means just that — no contact. For a pro se plaintiff, as in the present case, it is inconceivable that the Court would carve out an exception to the protective order adequate to permit Plaintiff to engage in discovery, including in-person depositions, interrogatories, requests for the production of documents, and more.

2

8.

In her pleadings, defendant also ignores the fact that the Plaintiff’s case does not rise and fall exclusively on the issue of the statute of limitations. As Plaintiff stated in his prior brief, there is evidence that Defendant posted defamatory statements under various online aliases. This can be inferred from the inclusion of details that would only be known by defendant and her close associates, as well as her unusual habit when posting of consistently using “your” instead of the possessive “you’re.” Thus, these statements are within the ambit of Va. Code § 8.01-247.1, which provides that the statute of limitations for anonymous online statements does not run until the identity of the poster is discovered, or might reasonably be expected to be discovered.

Respectfully submitted this 11th day of August 2020.

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

3

Exhibit A

4

5