THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA ERIC J. BONETTI Plaintiff v. ROBERT HILLER MALM Defendant.
} } } } } } } } }
Case No. CL 20002206
REQUEST PURSUANT TO RULE 3.3 (CANDOR TO THE TRIBUNAL) Dear Mr. Cyron, As you are aware, your client, Robert H. Malm, has repeatedly offered perjurious testimony before the Alexandria General District and Circuit Courts, the Wareham MA District Court, and various police departments. By copy of this letter, I am asking you to fulfill your obligation of candor to the tribunal and the provisions of Formal Opinion 87-353, “Lawyer’s Responsibility with Relation to Client Perjury” by disclosing your client’s perjury and withdrawing from representation. As you are aware, your client’s perjurious statements include, but are not limited to: 1. Mr. Malm’s sworn response to interrogatories in which he stated that Plaintiff’s late mother, Sigrid Yahner, contacted him repeatedly to set up appointments, only to cancel. 2. Mr. Malm’s sworn claim in interrogatories from 2020 in which Mr. Malm stated, “I don’t recall ever speaking to [Sigrid Yahner].” 3. Mr. Malm’s sworn courtroom testimony before the Wareham District Court in which Mr. Malm denied committing perjury, stating, “No. I didn’t even know his mother’s name,” despite the fact that the original perjurious statement referenced her by name. Moreover, Ms. Yahner had filed a 2016 clergy disciplinary complaint against Mr. Malm, as evinced by the attached email. Thus, it is indisputable that Mr. Malm knew Ms. Yahner’s name. 4. Mr. Malm’s repeated statements under oath that his statements in discovery are truthful and accurate. 5. Mr. Malm’s repeated statements under oath that he has not committed perjury. 6. Mr. Malm’s repeated filing of false police reports, including telling the Marion MA police that I have engaged in criminal conduct and “stalked,” “threatened,” and “harassed” him and his family, despite the fact we have had no contact, direct or indirect. Moreover, in subsequent arguments before the Alexandria Circuit Court, you aided and abetted your client’s perjury, telling the judge, “This was a case where at first you don’t know the person’s name, but later learn the name.” Yet as clearly documented, Mr. Malm not only knew Ms. Yahner’s name at least a year prior to his perjurious statement, he expressly referenced her by name in his perjury.