Perjuring priest Bob Malm Sued in Massachusetts

MASSACHUSETTS:

IN THE WAREHAM DISTRICT COURT

ERIC J. BONETTI,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ROBERT H. MALM,

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:

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 and made in bad faith. Thus, Plaintiff believes and avers that they are not privileged.

5.

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

6.

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

1

7.

Defendant’s defamatory statements are recorded in a video on the St. Gabriel’s website and available to the public. It is still online at https://vimeo.com/492819313.

8.

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.

9.

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

10.

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

11.

In the course of the prior proceedings with this court, Defendant perjured himself. Specifically, he stated that he did not commit perjury in the Virginia proceedings on an issue that went to the very heart of his claims, which was that he believed Plaintiff’s late mother’s blog was actually Plaintiff’s on the basis that Plaintiff’s mother, Sigrid Yahner, or someone purporting to be her, contacted him repeatedly. Not only did this not happen, but Defendant lied to this court, claiming he “didn’t even know [Ms. Yahner’s] name. Exhibit A. Yet Defendant’s perjury in the Virginia legislation expressly references Ms. Yahner by name. Exhibit B.

12.

Plaintiff believes and avers that this is the conduct improper in the ordinary course of proceedings needed to show abuse of process.

13.

Plaintiff 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

2

began making various threats. Defendant did not in any manner respond to Plaintiff’s threats. A request for an injunction prohibiting further contact and threats by the Defendant is pending with the Virginia courts.

14.

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 is evinced by Defendant’s two settlement offers both of which were conditioned on not criticizing Defendant’s conduct. Simply put, persons who genuinely fear for their safety do not offer settlement proposals. Thus, Plaintiff believes and avers that this is the other element of abuse of process.

15.

As to Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff’s blog was somehow an “imposter,” it expressly stated that it was not in any way an official publication of St. Gabriel’s Episcopal Church. Thus, no rational actor would conclude that it was an imposter.

16.

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, anxiety, loss of consortium, physical symptoms, legal fees, damage to reputation, and more.

17.

Moreover, Plaintiff notes that Defendant and his wife have contacted witnesses in this matter with the intent to influence them. Most recently, Leslie Malm, Defendant’s wife, telephoned Darlene Parsons on December 20, 2020, whom she knows is a witness for Plaintiff in the Virginia litigation, in a possible effort to influence her testimony. A request for an injunction to prevent further witness tampering is pending before the Virginia courts.

3

18.

Plaintiff further notes that while Defendant claims he is being “harassed” by virtue of the Plaintiff’s blog, which recounts Defendant’s misconduct and perjury, access to said blog is expressly prohibited in the terms and conditions, and there are security measures in place to prevent Defendant and his wife from accessing said blog. Yet, despite numerous complaints to Defendant’s attorney, Wayne Cyron, Esq., Defendant and his family have repeatedly attempted to circumvent the security measures on Plaintiff’s blog. Plaintiff believes and avers that this calls into question the veracity of Defendant’s claim that he is somehow being “stalked,” “harassed,” and “threatened.

PARTIES

19.

Plaintiff Eric J. Bonetti is an individual and a resident of Virginia, with an address of 4129 Fountainside Lane 203, Fairfax VA 22030, phone number 703.973.4984, and an email address

20.

Defendant Robert H. Malm is an individual and was a currently a resident of Massachusetts at all relevant times. He is now living on Jekyll Island GA, with a mailing address of 3 Clark Street, Jekyll Island GA 31527.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 21.

This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant because the acts complained of occurred in Marion Massachusetts.

22.

Venue is proper because the actions complained of occurred in Marion Massachusetts, with Defendant’s perjury occurring before this court.

4

STATEMENT OF FACTS 23.

The facts above are incorporated by reference.

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS Libel/Slander 24.

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.

25.

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

26.

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

27.

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. Exhibit C.

28.

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.

5

Abuse of Process 29.

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.

30.

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

31.

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.

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.

6

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

34.

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 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.

35.

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.

36.

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

37.

Plaintiff requests a criminal referral against defendant in this matter in light of defendant’s myriad fabrications in this statement to the Marion police. This matter already has been discussed with Chief of Police Richard Nighelli. Exhibit E.

38.

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

7

39.

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.

40.

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 thus occupies a position of trust in the community.

41.

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

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

42.

Plaintiff Eric J. Bonetti requests a jury trial on all issues so triable.

I, Eric J. Bonetti, do affirm and attest under penalty of perjury that the statements set forth in this complaint are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Dated this 12th day of April 2021.

4129 Fountainside Lane 203 Fairfax VA 22030 Eric.bonetti@protonmail.com 703-973-4984

8

Exhibit A — Virginia Perjury

9

Exhibit B — Wareham Perjury

10

Exhibit C — Defendant Lies to Episcopal Bishop of Virginia about Timing of Plaintiff’s Departure from Previous Job, Falsely States Plaintiff Has Embezzled

11

Exhibit D — Although Defendant Told Virginia Courts He Had Been Threatened, Evidence He Concealed During Litigation, Later Recovered in a Separate Lawsuit, Revealed Defendant Lied

12

Exhibit E — Discussion with Marion Police Chief About Bob Malm’s Perjury

13