Lawsuit Against Perjuring Priest Bob Malm

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY ERIC J. BONETTI, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 2020 06480

vs.

ROBERT H. MALM, Defendant

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

This abuse of process action, claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, and for

defamation per se arises out of a Petition for Protective order that Defendant Robert H. Malm (Mr. Malm) filed in the Alexandria General District Court against Plaintiff Eric J. Bonetti in December 2018. In his Petition Mr. Malm claimed that various words, taken out of context from a blog published by the late Sigrid Yahner, who was the Plaintiff’s mother, constituted threats against him.

2.

Specifically, Mr. Malm claimed that the use of a collective online pseudonym, “The Killer B’s,”

used by Ms. Yahner and her friends for many years and derived from an identical collective pseudonym used by members of the Pittsburgh Steelers football team; use of the word “suicide;” use of the phrases “psychological torture,” and “murder,” inter alia quoted from an online publication written by a mental health professional discussing the psychological effects on victims of behavior similar to Mr. Malm’s; and a factually satirical passage about “terrorism” involving the conduct of the authors’ children constituted threats.

3.

Mr. Malm’s claims are categorically and demonstrably false, as no rational actor would conclude

that use of the words above constituted an “immediate and present danger of any act of violence, force, or threat or evidence sufficient to establish probable cause that an act of violence, force, or threat has recently occurred,” within the meaning of the Virginia Protective Order Statute, set forth at Va. Code § 19.2-152.7 et seq.

1

4.

At the time Mr. Malm filed his Petition for a Protective Order, Plaintiff and Mr. Malm had not

spoken in any manner since 2014. Nor had Plaintiff and Mr. Malm encountered each other in person in over a year. Their only correspondence since May 2015 had been an email in which Plaintiff directed Mr. Malm to have no contact with him, either directly or through third parties, sent in December 2017. The latter was sent after Mr. Malm contacted the Alexandria VA police department with his fabrications. Not surprisingly, the Alexandria police department declined to get involved, offering only to provide mediation services if the parties requested. Fully aware of Mr. Malm’s duplicitous actions, ulterior motives, dishonesty, and inappropriate conduct, Plaintiff declined this offer.

5.

Mr. Malm’s actions arose in his role as rector of Grace Episcopal Church. Until spring 2015,

Plaintiff was a member of said church, serving on the church’s board of directors, or vestry. Plaintiff resigned from the board due to ongoing questionable governance practices resulting from Mr. Malm’s actions, including ongoing discrepancies in the church’s bank deposits, missing cash, violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, allegations of possible gender-based harassment by church staff, and Defendant’s refusal to provide minutes and financials from the church school, as required under relevant governance documents. Further, Mr. Malm repeatedly and falsely informed vestry members that the church’s financial reports were audited, when in fact they were only reviewed by outside accountants. Mr. Malm also refused to provide a copy of the relevant engagement letter, or the reports allegedly prepared by outside auditors. This situation was exacerbated by thousands of dollars in cash and checks belonging to the church that went missing, only to be discovered latter amidst heaps of trash in the church administrator’s office.

Moreover, Mr. Malm’s response to these issues was far from reassuring, for he repeatedly refused to even discuss these matters, and indeed appeared alarmed when Plaintiff suggested using a forensic accounting firm to obtain accurate financial reports for the church. Indeed, Mr. Malm repeatedly lied to vestry members, who under church canons serve in a fiduciary role to the parish, falsely saying of staff members, “Don’t worry about it. They’ll be retiring this year.” 1

1

After plaintiff confronted Mr. Malm about his lies, the latter de facto withdrew his fabrications, telling church members, “I don’t know when they [church staff] will be retiring.”

2

6.

Following his resignation from the church vestry, Plaintiff contacted the Episcopal Diocese of

Virginia repeatedly asking that the diocese mediate or otherwise address the dispute. In every instance, diocesan officials declined to get involved, stating that these allegations were not “of weighty and material importance to the ministry of the church.”

7.

In response to Plaintiff’s request to the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, Mr. Malm initiated a

campaign of shunning and harassment, in which he instructed church staff to exclude Plaintiff and his spouse from the church, to deny them access to the church building, and to misuse donations made to the church by Plaintiff and his family.

8.

To the surprise of even casual observers, the Alexandria General District Court upheld Plaintiff’s

Petition for a Protective Order, despite the lack of evidence to support the petition.

9.

Plaintiff immediately appealed to the Alexandria Circuit Court.

10.

During the course of the appeal, Mr. Malm repeatedly demonstrated his improper ulterior

motive for filing a Petition for Protective Order, which was to silence online and other criticism of his conduct.

This included twice offering to withdraw the Protective Order if Plaintiff would quit blogging about Mr. Malm’s behavior. Additionally, he repeatedly tried to convince the courts that Plaintiff’s blogging, and that of his mother and other family members, was a form of “domestic terrorism,” as evinced by his arguments in various court filings. Tellingly, at one point Mr. Malm proferred a settlement proposal (Exhibit A) offering to withdraw the protective order. While the settlement proposal contained a token nod to Mr. Malm’s claim that he had been threatened in the form of a single provision that would have prevented the parties from coming within 1,000 feet of each other, the majority of the offer (12 specific provisions) dealt with public criticism of the church and Mr. Malm.

11.

During the course of the appeal, Mr. Malm knowingly engaged in various actions not proper in

the regular prosecution of proceedings. These included making false statements under oath. Among Mr. Malm’s fabrications were his claim, made in writing, under oath, and while advised by church legal counsel, that Plaintiff’s terminally ill mother or someone claiming to be her contacted him repeatedly to set up appointments, only to cancel. (Exhibit B) This he cited as the very foundation and basis for his assertion that Plaintiff’s mother’s blog really was authored by the Plaintiff. Mr. Malm also falsely claimed that only his wife

3

had blogged about the dispute, despite knowing that his daughter, Lindsey Malm Anders, had also done so and was, in fact, the person who first contacted the Alexandria police in an effort to shut down criticism of Mr. Malm. (Exhibit C). Mr. Malm also specifically asserted in writing that all of his discovery responses were truthful, even when offered the opportunity to modify or retract his fabrications.

12.

Mr. Malm repeatedly proferred false statements of fact and law and inappropriate, inflammatory

rhetoric during the course of the appeal, resulting in unnecessary costs to the Plaintiff. For example, he falsely told the courts that Plaintiff had never been a licensed attorney, and that Plaintiff had never served as a police officer. Moreover, Mr. Malm repeatedly referenced Plaintiff’s sexual orientation, both in pleadings and in oral arguments, in an effort to embarrass Plaintiff.

13.

Mr. Malm repeatedly contacted Darlene “Dee” Parsons, publisher of The Wartburg Watch and

someone he knew would testify on behalf of Plaintiff at trial, and engaged in witness tampering by attempting to convince her not to testify on behalf of the plaintiff. (Exhibit D) 14.

Mr. Malm repeatedly refused to comply with the Alexandria Circuit Court’s Order compelling him

to specify precisely the language in Ms. Yahner’s blog that he contended was threatening. This is telling, as it should not require a court order for Mr. Malm to state clearly how he claims he was threatened. Indeed, one would reasonably expect that Mr. Malm would be eager to state with specificity how he was allegedly threatened.

15.

The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, not a party to the present action, but having disciplinary

authority over Mr. Malm as an ordained clergyperson, was promptly notified of Mr. Malm’s misconduct, including his perjury during the course of the prior proceedings. It refused in writing to address the matter, on the basis that Mr. Malm’s perjury had not resulted in criminal charges. Moreover, the Diocese declined multiple requests to mediate the dispute, saying that they are “not of weighty and material importance to the ministry of the church.”

16.

Plaintiff withdrew his appeal in September 2018 due to Mr. Malm’s repeated fabrications, his

perjury, and his refusal to comply with relevant court orders.

17.

Subsequently, on June 9, 2020, Plaintiff received a copy of an email, sent by Mr. Malm,

republishing and endorsing a false statement by Grace Episcopal Church parishioner Kelly Gable, in which Mr.

4

Malm told diocesan officials that Plaintiff had embezzled from a previous employer. While this republication would ordinarily be time-barred by the Virginia statute of limitations, Va. Code § 8.01-229 D tolls the statute of limitations when, as here, the prospective Defendant has obstructed the filing of a civil complaint via a filing in bankruptcy or other means. In the instant case, the relevant protective order prevented filing a claim in tort until January 28, 2020. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim is timely, and Plaintiff believes and avers that Mr. Malm’s statement constitutes defamation per se. A copy of Mr. Malm’s statement is attached as Exhibit K.

PARTIES 18.

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

19.

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 20.

This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendant under Virginia’s long-arm statute,

Va. Code § 8.01-328.1, as well as the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution because, among other things, Defendant was a resident of Virginia at all times relevant to this action. Moreover, his tortious actions occurred in Virginia.

21.

Venue is proper in this circuit under Va. Code § 8.01-328 because the causes of action asserted

herein arose within this Circuit. Additionally, there are several key nexuses with this Circuit, including Defendant’s contact of Plaintiff’s then-employer, which is located in Fairfax County, and a prior administrative proceeding with the Fairfax County Office of Consumer Protection, which successfully intervened to obtain the return of funds donated to the church that were intentionally misused at Defendant’s direction.

FACTS Mr. Malm has repeatedly demonstrated an ulterior motive for his actions and engaged in perjury and other conduct not appropriate in the ordinary course of proceedings 22.

Mr. Malm filed the relevant protective order in the Alexandria General District Court In January

2018.

5

23.

At all relevant times, Mr. Malm served as rector of Grace Episcopal Church in Alexandria. Plaintiff

previously was a member of the church and served on the church’s board of directors, also referred to as a vestry.

24.

This action had its genesis in a conflict between Plaintiff and Mr. Malm. Plaintiff, during his time

as a member of the church vestry, became aware of various forms of misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance on Mr. Malm’s part in conjunction with his role as rector of the parish. These included egregious violations of fiduciary standards of care involving the church’s funds, questionable HR, governance, cash management and financial reporting, late-night destruction of business records, facially obvious errors in accounting, and non-compliance with written organizational policies. Under Mr. Malm’s watch, vestry members were not permitted to see church school financial or board meeting minutes, as required by written parish policy. These funds accounted for more than 2/3 of church revenue. Moreover, Plaintiff was informed by the church’s bank that church deposits were repeatedly showing up at the bank with major errors and money missing, and staff alleged various violations of the Fair Employment laws, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Apropos the latter, Petition personally was told on two occasions by Mr. Malm that church employees were too old to do their jobs and that no one wanted to see “a couple of old ladies working in the office.” Other employees raised concerns about possible gender-based harassment and bullying by church staff, and Plaintiff on more than one occasion observed highly inappropriate conduct by church employees, laced with profanity, threats and bullying behavior.

25.

Plaintiff repeatedly brought these issues to Mr. Malm’s attention, only to be ignored or rebuffed.

Indeed, one vestry member who complained of lax governance at a vestry meeting was greeted with screaming and bullying by Mr. Malm, who angrily derided the vestry member’s concerns.

26.

Plaintiff’s fears were confirmed when, following the departure of one church employee, a

hoarder, when thousands of dollars in stale checks and loose cash were found scattered through the trash in her office. Yet Mr. Malm steadfastly maintained that he was doing his job, to the dismay of Plaintiff and others. Indeed, to this day, Plaintiff has yet to hear a plausible explanation as to how funds thousands of dollars in funds went missing and yet were never noticed.

6

27.

Frustrated, the Plaintiff eventually contacted the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, making a formal

request for mediation. The Diocese responded in writing, saying that it did not consider the matter to involve issues of “weighty and material importance to the ministry of the church.”

28.

Shortly afterwards, Mr, Malm launched a campaign of shunning, harassment and retaliation

against Plaintiff and his spouse. This included instructing church staff to exclude Plaintiff from the building, to remove Plaintiff’s name from all church publications, and even to misuse memorial donations given to the church in memory of loved ones.

29.

Plaintiff promptly informed the diocese of Mr. Malm’s conduct. The diocese refused to even

respond.

30.

Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Fairfax County Office of Consumer Protection,

which succeeded in obtaining the return of donations to the church that were misused at Mr. Malm’s direction. As a result, Mr. Malm’s then-employer, Grace Episcopal Church, appears to be the only church listed on the Office of Consumer Protection’s website as the subject of a successful complaint.

31.

The conflict ground along for several months, until a leading online publication covering abusive

churches, The Wartburg Watch, ran an expose of Mr. Malm’s misconduct. Shortly after, the Diocese offered to mediate the dispute. This resulted in a lengthy meeting at a church in Fredericksburg, in which all parties agreed to cease further hostilities. As part of the discussions, all involved specifically agreed that only parties in the room were covered by the agreement, and that it could not, and would not, stop others, including family members, from blogging about the situation. Tellingly, Mr. Malm lied repeatedly during the meeting, including telling plaintiff that, “having resigned from the vestry, you were no longer eligible to serve as a [church] trustee,” despite the fact that no such requirement exists. He also acknowledged that his actions were in retaliation for Plaintiff’s contacting the diocese saying, “I don’t know what planet you’re from, but when someone does something to me, I do something to them.” Plaintiff responded by asking, “How is asking the diocese to mediate ‘doing something” to you?” Mr. Malm refused to answer.

32.

In the fall of 2018, Mr. Malm discovered one of several blogs published by Plaintiff’s mother,

Sigrid Yahner. He contacted the bishop, who in turn contacted Plaintiff, seeking help in pulling down the blog.

7

33.

Plaintiff, aware of Ms. Yahner’s strong feelings about Mr. Malm’s conduct, declined to engage in

triangulation over the matter, instead offering to put the diocese in touch with his mother. The diocese ignored the offer, and Plaintiff later discovered that diocesan bishop Shannon Johnston had already drafted a letter supporting Mr. Malm’s actions, and falsely claiming that the conflict had been “investigated and resolved” long ago. (Exhibit E) 34.

Plaintiff, who had stopped blogging about his negative experiences with the church and Mr.

Malm following the Fredericksburg meeting, resumed blogging after learning that Mr. Malm had broken the agreement by trying to expand it to cover family members not present at the Fredericksburg meeting.

35.

Mr. Malm responded with a series of irrational, untruthful, and invective-filled emails to the

diocese, referring to the Plaintiff as “sick,” “twisted,” and “dysfunctional.”

36.

Subsequently, Mr. Malm contacted the FBI and the Alexandria police department, claiming that

Ms. Yahner’s blog, hosted at www.gracealex.net — a URL similar to the church’s — was threatening. Both the FBI and the Alexandria police department declined to get involved, with the latter offering mediation services.

37.

Plaintiff, well aware of Mr. Malm’s duplicity, his lack of integrity, his propensity for manipulative

behavior, and his repeated misconduct, as well as his failure to honor the terms of the previous agreement, declined the offer of mediation.

38.

As a result, and with the full knowledge of diocesan officials, Mr. Malm filed a Petition for

Protective Order in the Alexandria General District Court. Throughout the relevant litigation, Mr. Malm repeatedly tried to get Plaintiff to stop blogging about the former’s conduct. This included asking the Alexandria police department via email whether it was possible to get a court to impose a prior restraint on Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to discuss his experiences with Mr. Malm. (Exhibit F) 39.

Prior to Mr. Malm’s filing of his Petition for a Protective Order, Plaintiff sent Mr. Malm an email

demanding that he have no further contact, directly or via third parties, with Plaintiff.

40.

As stated previously, Plaintiff had no contact, direct or otherwise, with Mr. Malm or any member

of his family, from spring 2015 until the above-referenced email in December 2017.

41.

Plaintiff did not see or encounter Mr. Malm or any member of his family at any public or private

location during the time in question.

8

42.

Throughout the previous court case, Mr. Malm repeatedly demonstrated his ulterior motives in

this matter by attempting to claim in court filing that Plaintiff’s blog is a form of “domestic terrorism” and “harassment,” and urging the court to impose a prior restraint on plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. Yet for purposes of discussing his conduct as an Episcopal priest, Mr. Malm clearly is a limited purpose public figure.

Thus, discussion of these topics enjoys a high level of First Amendment protection, and Mr. Malm refuses to specify the language he claims is threatening, even after being ordered by the Alexandria Circuit Court to do so. Moreover, an examination of Mr. Malm’s attorneys’ billing records obtained during discovery reveals he repeatedly considered bringing an action for defamation, he tellingly declined to do so. He did so with full knowledge that Plaintiff openly refers to Mr. Malm’s false statements made in the course of the prior legal proceedings as “perjury,” and continues to do so to this day.

43.

Mr. Malm has repeatedly engaged in conduct not appropriate in the ordinary normal course of

proceedings, including multiple instances of perjury, refusing to obey court orders, violating Plaintiff’s rights by contacting Plaintiff’s employer and church to complain that he is a “domestic terrorist,” and engaging in smear campaigns in which he referred to Plaintiff as “sick,” “twisted,” and “dysfunctional.” These discussions occurred in person and via email, including in correspondence with diocesan officials. In his court pleadings, Mr. Malm also referred in his pleadings to a fictional church shooting in the imaginary town of “Sugarland Texas” and claimed without justification that Plaintiff’s blogging was influenced by the Northern Virginia shooting at a Congressional baseball game. Mr. Malm also repeatedly made false statements of law and fact to the courts, including claiming that Plaintiff had somehow violated the protective order by blogging about his experiences, that Plaintiff had never been licensed as an attorney, and more.

44.

Tellingly, Mr. Malm at one point wrote to then-bishop Shannon Johnston, saying “than (sic) you

Bishop…the hardest part is dealing with my wife and one of my daughters….they give this so much more attention than it deserves….fortunately, all at Grace who know about it, understand Bonetti’s dysfunction….and I’m glad the APD are (sic) monitoring his blog.” (Exhibit G) 45.

Mr. Malm also attempted to subpoena Plaintiff’s then terminally ill mother, Sigrid Yahner, in

violation of relevant state law. (Ms. Yahner died January 28, 2020.) Specifically, Pa. Code § 1930.5(a) prohibits third-party witnesses in protection from abuse cases absent prior leave of court. At no time did Mr. Malm,

9

who was represented by a prominent area attorney, even attempt to obtain such leave. Yet even when informed by Ms. Yahner’s litigation counsel that said subpoena, ostensibly obtained via the UIDDA, was ultra vires, through legal counsel Mr. Malm continued to harangue the relevant local courts, claiming he had been denied due process when, without further discussion, the court quashed the ultra vires subpoena.2 46.

In the course of litigation, Mr. Malm claimed at various points, without any evidence to support

his claim, that Plaintiff’s mother and other family members either didn’t exist, or that Plaintiff had somehow invented these individuals. In making his claim, Mr. Malm overlooked the fact that his alleged contact with these individuals, which he says happened in 2015, is simply irrelevant to his allegations of an imminent threat to his physical safety two years later, in 2017.

47.

In June 2019, Mr. Malm illustrated the fictitious nature of his claims when, a few minutes after

his wife observed Plaintiff on a street in Alexandria, Mr. Malm pulled up in his SUV, carefully eyed the situation, climbed out of the vehicle and began screaming at Plaintiff and threatening him. Such actions are inconsistent with Mr. Malm’s claims that he feared for his physical safety. A photo of his vehicle during the incident is attached (Exhibit H). Plaintiff prudently avoided any contact or discussion with Mr. Malm, instead retreating to the relative safety of his vehicle and contacting the police.

48.

Mr. Malm has provided no evidence to support his claim that Ms. Yahner’s blog, which he falsely

claims is threatening, is in any way written by Plaintiff. Indeed, at one point Mr. Malm claimed that the language is consistent with other materials written by plaintiff, yet at another point he contradicted himself, claiming that the language was different and had become “threatening, scary.”

49.

Prior to her death, and with full knowledge that she was terminally ill, Ms. Yahner repeatedly

affirmed both in writing and verbally that her blog was, in fact, hers and hers alone. Indeed, she did so even when Mr. Malm’s attorney threatened her by claiming that her blog was defamatory, thus making repeated statements against interest.

2

Mr. Malm’s abuse of process in Pennsylvania presently is the subject of a separate action in the Venango PA courts.

10

50.

Mr. Malm contradicted himself repeatedly during the litigation. For example, at one point he

claimed to have read all of Ms. Yahner’s blog. Yet later, he told the court that he had been unaware that she was dying. These are facially inconsistent claims, as the topic of her imminent death and her physical and mental suffering as she was dying were major topics of her blog, as well as her unhappiness with Mr. Malm and his conduct.

51.

Plaintiff repeatedly sought assistance from the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia to resolve these

matters. In response, the Diocese repeatedly refused to get involved, stating that Mr. Malm’s actions are not “of weighty and material importance to the ministry of the church.” Further, the Diocese declined to address Mr. Malm’s perjury on the grounds that he had not been charged with the criminal offense of perjury.

Mr. Malm’s Actions Were Willful and Deliberate and Done With Actual Malice 52.

Mr. Malm’s references in emails to diocesan officials and elsewhere referring to Plaintiff as “sick”

“twisted,” and “dysfunctional,” were not incidental, but rather part of a coordinated smear campaign directed at Plaintiff’s employer, his church, his friends and acquaintances. As such, this conduct is highly inappropriate for a member of the clergy who once stood in a pastoral relationship to the Plaintiff. Indeed, while Mr. Malm and church counsel repeatedly proferred inflammatory and potential prejudicial pleadings in the previous proceedings, during discovery church’s counsel repeatedly redacted profanity and other ugly commentary from Mr. Malm, including attempting to conceal the fact that Mr. Malm had violated pastoral confidentiality.

53.

Among other assertions, Mr. Malm engaged in various innuendo, including telling his family and

other clergy that Plaintiff had engaged in “suspicious activities” while serving on the church vestry, including allegedly steering contracts to friends. Yet nothing could be further from the truth, and in fact Plaintiff resigned from the vestry due to Mr. Malm’s refusal to adhere to even basic standards of good non-profit governance as referenced above.

54.

While Mr. Malm later told church members via a series of talking points that Plaintiff and his

spouse had left the parish voluntarily, as previously discussed he admitted in front of diocesan bishop Shannon Johnston that this was not the case, saying to plaintiff, “I don’t know what planet you live on, but when someone does something to me, I do something to them.” Plaintiff responded by asking, “How is asking

11

the diocese to mediate our dispute ‘doing something’ to you?” Mr. Malm declined to answer. The talking points are included as Exhibit I. 55.

Mr. Malm also provided false information to the Episcopal bishop of Virginia. This includes his

defamatory per se claim, made in his email of November 22, 2017 (Exhibit K) in which he tells Bishop Shannon Johnston that Plaintiff embezzled funds from a previous employer. As Mr. Malm well knows, Plaintiff hired Ms. Gable while a member of Grace Episcopal Church, and did so in order to assist Ms. Gable, who was unemployed and facing serious financial challenges as a result. Indeed, Plaintiff was serving on the church’s vestry when he did so and had been a member of the church for several years.

Mr. Malm’s Actions Caused Plaintiff Profound Emotional Distress 56.

Mr. Malm’s smear campaigns, fabrications, defamatory comments, and other actions targeted

Plaintiff at his then-employer, First Christian Church of Falls Church; his new church, St. Paul’s K Street in Washington DC; as well as numerous friends and family. In so doing, Mr. Malm deliberately traded on his perceived authority as clergy, including styling himself in court filings as “Fr. Robert Malm,” an honorific he almost never otherwise uses.

57.

Mr. Malm’s perjury, his inflammatory language in his previous legal pleadings, his knowing

disclosure of matters explicitly confidential under written church policy (including multiple internal disciplinary charges filed against him), his suggestions in his pleadings that Plaintiff suffers from mental illness and multiple personality disorder, his references to the dispute as one involving “domestic terrorism,” and his efforts to drag Plaintiff’s mother Ms. Yahner into court— an elderly woman dying of COPD and suffering from a profound anxiety disorder during her final months of life — were deeply distressing, embarrassing and humiliating to Plaintiff and his family. Indeed, Plaintiff was forced to watch a dying parent suffer from waves of nausea and vomiting caused by the anxiety engendered by Mr. Malm’s actions. Yet Mr. Malm, knowing that Ms. Yahner was in palliative care, attempted to drag her into court as a third-party witness in violation of state law and persisted in his attempts, even after opposing counsel informed Mr. Malm’s attorney of the specific statutory provisions prohibiting him from doing so without prior leave of court. Mr. Malm then compounded his actions by falsely claiming that he was unaware that Ms. Yahner was dying.

12

58.

Mr. Malm’s conduct was sufficiently noteworthy to engender a second article in The Wartburg

Watch (Exhibit J) and coverage in other prominent online publications covering abusive churches. Indeed, international expert on abusive churches and retired Church of England priest Stephen Parsons, publisher of the Surviving Church blog, described Mr. Malm’s actions as shunning, adding: “Shunning is one of the cruellest forms of treatment that a human being can inflict on another. The key 1995 Baumeister article on the importance of belonging is available online. I make the point that to ignore another person in this way is to attack their soul. It is soul-murder. It is the total opposite of love. It is also an abusive use of the power given to the Rector. It serves no useful purpose except as an exercise in power by a person more strong over another less strong. There is no possible way it can considered pastoral or helpful to the persons so shunned.”

59.

Mr. Malm’s actions were malicious, willful, and wanton, and evidence a conscious regard for

Plaintiff’s rights. Accordingly, punitive damages are appropriate.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to enter an award for Plaintiff, and against Defendant, as follows: 1) Awarding Mr. Bonetti compensatory damages of not less than $25,000, or in such additional amount as may be proven at trial; 2) Awarding Mr. Bonetti punitive damages to the maximum extent permitted by the laws of this Commonwealth, but not less $350,000; 3) Awarding Mr. Bonetti all expenses and fees, including attorneys’ fees; and 4) Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

13

JURY TRIAL DEMAND 60. Plaintiff Eric J. Bonetti requests a jury trial on all issues so triable.

I, Eric J. Bonetti, do affirm and attest that the statements set forth in this amended complaint are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Dated this 11th day of June, 2020.

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

14

Exhibit A

15

16

17

18

Exhibit B

19

Exhibit C

20

Exhibit D

21

Exhibit E

22

Exhibit F

23

Exhibit G

24

Exhibit H

25

Exhibit I

26

Exhibit J

27

28

29

Exhibit K

30