BREAKING: Lawsuit Filing Against Perjuring Priest Bob Malm

MASSACHUSETTS: IN THE WAREHAM DISTRICT COURT ERIC J. BONETTI, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:

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 an action for defamation/libel, abuse of process, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

2.

This action arises from defendant’s contacting the Marion Massachusetts police department, after he observed plaintiff peacefully protesting on public property outside St. Gabriel’s Episcopal church in Marion during December 2020.

3.

According to the Marion police, defendant told them that plaintiff had “stalked,” “harassed,” and “threatened” defendant.

4.

Defendant’s claims are knowingly and recklessly false.

5.

Subsequently, defendant made verbal statements to the congregation of St. Gabriel’s, repeating the fabrications supra.

6.

Defendant’s defamatory statements are recorded in a video on the St. Gabriel’s website and available to the public.

7.

Shortly after defendant’s defamatory remarks were posted to the church website, plaintiff wrote to the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, which has supervisory authority over defendant in his capacity as an Episcopal priest, to demand a retraction and removal of the defendant’s slanderous statements.

8.

No retraction was issued, and the video remains on the St. Gabriel’s website.

1

9.

Defendant also filed a petition for protection from harassment against plaintiff with this court, in which he repeated the various fabrications identified supra.

10. Plaintiff’s has had no contact, direct or indirect, with the petitioner since 2017, nor has plaintiff been in physical proximity to the defendant since that time. The only exception is when defendant approached plaintiff in Marion in December 2020 and began making various threats.

11. The Marion police department expressly noted in its report regarding the December 2020 incident that plaintiff did not engage in any illegal conduct.

12. Plaintiff believes and avers that defendant is improperly using the protection from harassment statute in an attempt to infringe on First Amendment protected rights, including, but not limited to, the right to publicly criticize defendant, a limited purpose public figure, for his abusive conduct as a clergyperson. This includes defendant’s litigation-related fabrications, including committing perjury in a lawsuit in Virginia.

13. In the Virginia lawsuit, defendant committed perjury by falsely stating, under oath, in writing, that defendant’s mother or someone purporting to be her contacted defendant repeatedly, only to cancel. Defendant knows this to be false and has acknowledged that to be the case in his testimony before this court.

14. As a result of defendant’s fabrications and abuse of process, plaintiff has suffered harm and financial loss, including but not limited to emotional distress, loss of consortium, physical symptoms, legal fees, damage to reputation, and more.

15. Throughout this conflict, defendant has repeatedly made knowingly false and misleading statements.

For example, in an email to the Episcopal bishop of Virginia, now the subject of litigation in Virginia, defendant accused plaintiff of embezzling from a previous employer. Moreover, defendant lied to the bishop — an individual with supervisory authority over him — having claimed that plaintiff worked at the employer in question prior to his time as a member of the church previously served by defendant.

Defendant well knows this to be false, for he and plaintiff discussed the latter’ s employment face-toface on multiple occasions.

2

PARTIES 16. Plaintiff Eric J. Bonetti is an individual and a resident of Virginia, with an address of 4129 Fountainside Lane 203, Fairfax VA 22030.

17. Defendant Robert H. Malm is an individual and currently a resident of Massachusetts, with an address of 8 Brierpath Lane, Mattapoisett, MA 02739-2101. Through January 31, 2021, defendant’s workplace is located at 124 Front Street, P.O. Box 545, Marion, Massachusetts 02738

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 18.

This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant because he is a resident of

Massachusetts.

19.

Venue is proper because the actions complained of occurred in Marion Massachusetts.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

20. The facts above are incorporated by reference.

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS Libel/Slander 21. Defendant’s statements that plaintiff engaged in criminal activity, including his assertion that defendant has “stalked,” “threatened,” and “harassed” defendant are knowingly false, and thus constitute slander.

22. Defendant’s statements, as posted in a video on the St. Gabriel’s website, constitute libel.

23. Defendant knows these statements to be false and has previously been informed by church attorney Brad Davenport, Esq. that plaintiff’s criticism of defendant is protected by the First Amendment.

24. Defendant’s perjury and myriad fabrications in this matter speak to defendant’s credibility and his motives. These lies include his statement, made under oath, that defendant’s mother, or someone claiming to be her, contacted him repeatedly. Similarly, defendant’s lie to the Episcopal bishop of

3

Virginia about the timing of plaintiff’s church membership underscores the malicious nature of defendant’s actions.

25. Defendant’s actions have damaged plaintiff’s reputation, caused him profound emotional distress, and are highly inappropriate, coming as they do from an Episcopal priest,.

Abuse of Process 26. Defendant’s fabrications to the Marion police department are nothing more than an attempt to game the system via the harassment protection order system in order to shut down criticism of him. Thus, these actions meet the definition of legal process and were done with an ulterior purpose.

27. Defendant himself has stated repeatedly, and in writing, that he is not in fear of his physical safety.

28. Defendant’s efforts to obtain a harassment protective order were done in order to chill plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, with full knowledge that there has been zero contact between plaintiff and defendant for several years, and with full knowledge that there is nothing threatening about plaintiff’s conduct. Thus, defendant’s actions meet the definition of legal process and were done with an ulterior purpose.

29. Defendant’s perjury and myriad fabrications in this matter speak to defendant’s credibility and his motives. These lies include his statement, made under oath, that defendant’s mother, or someone claiming to be her, contacted him repeatedly. Similarly, defendant’s lie to the Episcopal bishop of Virginia about the timing of plaintiff’s church membership underscores the malicious nature of defendant’s actions.

30. Defendant’s actions have resulted in loss to the defendant in the form of damage to his reputation, loss of consortium, legal fees, acute mental distress, and more.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 31. Defendant’s remarks, both verbal and those posted online, in which he accused defendant of engaging in criminal conduct, were intended to cause maximum damage to defendant’s reputation

4

and to cause embarrassment and emotional distress. Nor were they inadvertent or unintended, for defendant declined to retract his defamatory statements when offered the opportunity to do so.

32. Defendant’s perjury and myriad fabrications in this matter speak to defendant’s credibility and his motives. These lies include his statement, made under oath, that defendant’s mother, or someone claiming to be her, contacted him repeatedly. Similarly, defendant’s lie to the Episcopal bishop of Virginia about the timing of plaintiff’s church membership underscores the malicious nature of defendant’s actions.

33. Defendant’s actions have resulted in loss to the defendant in the form of damage to his reputation, loss of consortium, legal fees, acute mental distress, and more.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 34. Plaintiff requests a criminal referral against defendant in this matter in light of defendant’s myriad fabrications in this statement to the Marion police.

35. Plaintiff requests an injunction against the defendant prohibiting any future contact.

36. Plaintiff requests recovery of actual damages, including but not limited to legal fees, pain and suffering, emotional distress, injury to reputation, and court filing fees.

37. Plaintiff requests punitive damages that fully recognize the egregious nature of defendant’s tortious misconduct, particularly in light of the fact that defendant is an Episcopal priest, and his actions thus far have met with the full approval of St. Gabriel’s Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, and the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia. It should be noted that the defendant is canonically resident in the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, but legally under the authority of both dioceses when working at a church in within the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts.

38. Plaintiff requests any and all further relief as the court shall deem appropriate.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND 39. Plaintiff Eric J. Bonetti requests a jury trial on all issues so triable.

5

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 28th day of January 2021.

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

6