MASSACHUSETTS: ERIC J. BONETTI,
Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT H. MALM,
IN THE WAREHAM DISTRICT COURT 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 abuse of process, defamation, 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.
While protesting, Plaintiff did not speak with or in any way communicate with Defendant.
4.
According to the Marion police, Defendant made the following defamatory statements: that Plaintiff had engaged in criminal conduct and “stalked,” “harassed,” and “threatened” defendant. Defendant made this claim despite the fact that he and Plaintiff had no contact, in any form whatsoever, in several years.
5.
Moreover, by perpetrating a fraud on the Alexandria courts, Defendant had obtained a protective order against the Plaintiff, based on a similar series of lies.
1
That order expired in January 2020, yet Defendant fails to explain how Plaintiff allegedly engaged in criminal conduct towards Defendant, yet Defendant failed to file a motion to show cause with the Alexandria courts. 6.
Defendant’s claims are knowingly and recklessly false and made in bad faith. Thus, Plaintiff believes and avers that they are not privileged.
7.
The Marion police department expressly noted in its report regarding the December 2020 incident that plaintiff did not engage in any illegal conduct.
8.
Subsequently, defendant made verbal statements to the congregation of St. Gabriel’s, repeating the fabrications supra.
9.
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.
10.
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.
11.
No retraction was issued, and the video remains on the St. Gabriel’s website.
12.
Defendant also filed a petition for protection from harassment against plaintiff with this court, in which he repeated the various fabrications identified supra.
13.
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,
2
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. 14.
Despite Defendant’s perjury and myriad fabrications, which constituted a fraud upon the court, this honorable court granted an HPO.
15.
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 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. 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, phone number 703.973.4984, and an email address
17.
Defendant Robert H. Malm is an individual and a resident of Massachusetts at all relevant times. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18.
This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant because the acts complained of occurred in Marion Massachusetts.
19.
Venue is proper because the actions complained of occurred in Marion Massachusetts, with Defendant’s perjury occurring before this court.
3
STATEMENT OF FACTS 20.
The facts above are incorporated by reference. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
Abuse of Process 21.
Plaintiff alleges that the Harassment Protection Order obtained by the Defendant is a form of “process” for purposes of an abuse of process claim as articulated under PsyEd Corp. v. Klein, 459 Mass. 697 (Mass. 2011). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used the HPO system for an ulterior purpose, which was as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. This is evinced by: •
The fact that the parties have had no contact in two years, except for terroristic threats directed by the Defendant at Plaintiff.
•
The Defendant’s web of lies, including his ludicrous claim that Plaintiff has posted photos of Defendant’s wife on various porn websites.
•
Defendant’s perjury before this court, in which his claimed he did not commit perjury in the Virginia courts on the basis that he didn’t even know Plaintiff’s late mother’s name — yet his original perjury expressly referenced Ms. Yahner by name.
•
Defendant’s actions caused harm for purposes of an abuse of process, including costing plaintiff thousands of dollars of legal fees and causing
4
Libel/Slander 22.
Defendant’s statements to the police, and to the congregation of St. Gabriel’s, that plaintiff engaged in criminal activity, including his assertion that defendant has “stalked,” “threatened,” and “harassed”1 defendant and his family are made with actual malice and thus constitute slander. Specifically, having had no contact whatsoever in several years, Defendant’s comments are fabrications and thus outside the scope of any limited privilege. Reilly v. the Associated Press, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 764 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003). “As we previously have noted, one private citizen's accusations against another are not privileged simply because they appear in a police record,” Butcher v. Univ. of Mass., 483 Mass. 742 (Mass. 2019). Similarly: “The most obvious way to make a “false report of a crime” would be to report a crime that the speaker knew had never occurred.” Commonwealth v. Fortuna, 951 N.E.2d 687 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011). It is indisputable that Defendant knows that no crime occurred, and that he has told myriad lies to the police and the courts to make it appear otherwise.
23.
Nor are Defendant’s tortious statements protected by the state anti-SLAPP statute. “The right to petition is not, however, an absolute right. For example, "baseless" or "sham" litigation is not protected by the First Amendment.” Sahli v. Bull HN Information Systems, Inc., 437 Mass. 696 (Mass. 2002)
24.
Defendant’s statements, as posted in a video on the St. Gabriel’s website and made to parishioners, are actionable per se due to their allegations of criminal conduct.
1 These are the exact words of defamation as republished by the Marion police officer.
5
Finger v. Pollack, 188 Mass. 208 (1905); Sousa v. Davenport, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 715 (1975). Nor is the failure to mention Plaintiff expressly by name dispositive, for Plaintiff’s friend Heather Hardy, a Virginia resident, spotted Defendant’s defamatory comments and immediately knew they referenced Plaintiff. Indeed, it was Ms. Hardy who notified Plaintiff of Defendant’s defamation. 25.
Based on discussions with Marion police officers, Plaintiff believes and avers that discovery will reveal that Defendant repeatedly told church members that Plaintiff is mentally ill and thus likely to be violent.2
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 himself has stated repeatedly, and in writing, that he is not in fear of his physical safety. Exhibit D.
29.
Defendant’s actions have damaged plaintiff’s reputation, caused him profound emotional distress, and are highly inappropriate, coming as they do from an
2 Such statements are profoundly offensive coming from a clergy person, for modern science consistently rejects the
notion that mental illness correlates with a propensity for violence. Moreover, it is personally offensive to Plaintiff and others who have family members who struggle, often with limited access to help, with mental illness. 6
Episcopal priest. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 30.
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.
31.
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. (Contrary to Malm’s representations, Plaintiff hired Ms. Gable while a member of Grace Church. Elizabeth Legere, current senior warden of the parish, and myriad other members, can testify that Malm’s statement to the bishop is a fabrication.
32.
Defendant’s actions are particularly egregious in light of the pastoral relationship and position of trust he previously held with the Plaintiff. And while this court cannot hold Defendant to a fiduciary standard consistent with the First Amendment, Maffei v. Roman Catholic, 449 Mass. 235 (Mass. 2007), neither can it disregard the particular harm caused by abusive clergy such as Bob Malm. Nor is the court estopped from considering Malm’s conduct due to First Amendment issues of separation of church and state, for the Episcopal Diocese of
7
Massachusetts has refused to address Malm’s perjury and other misconduct. That contrasts markedly with the facts of In Hiles v. Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, 437 Mass. 505, 773 N.E.2d 929 (2002), in which the court held that the plaintiff's defamation claim "touches the core of the church-minister relationship" because the church "has a singular interest in protecting its faithful from clergy who will take advantage of them." For that reason, the courts refused to consider a claim of defamation. By contrast, the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts not only refuses to examine issues involving Malm’s veracity — it even assigned him as interim rector to St. Peter’s on-the-Canal, in Bourne, thus entirely washing its hands of any responsibility for ensuring Malm’s personal or pastoral integrity. This is a shocking and appalling proposition, for all the diocese need do to confirm Malm’s perjury is to ask him for evidence — any evidence — that Ms. Yahner contacted him repeatedly to set up appointments. And this is highly material, for Malm cites this claim as the basis for his assertion that Ms. Yahner’s blog — which was not actually threatening — was actually written by the Plaintiff. Thus, if Defendant’s perjurious assertion undercuts his entire claim that he has been threatened and harassed. 33.
Nor is this the first time that Defendant has lied. For example, he has repeatedly told church vestry (board) members, who stand in a fiduciary relationship to the parish, not to worry about HR issues in the church office on the basis that “they [the church staff] will be retiring this year.” This lie he told to Plaintiff, and the Phil Smith. And when Plaintiff confronted Defendant about this lie, he tried walking it back, volunteering that he “didn’t know when they will be retiring.”
8
34.
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.
35.
Moreover, Defendant’s actions are not an isolated abuse of power. For example, the Rev. Fanny Belanger, former assistant rector at Grace Church, resigned after experiencing emotional abuse by the Defendant. She complained directly to Malm, the vestry, and the diocese, but to no avail. Plaintiff believes that the Rev. Belanger is prepared to testify under oath as to the circumstances of Malm’s abusive conduct.
36.
As Plaintiff told the trial court, if Defendant truly believes he has not committed perjury, he should sue Plaintiff for defamation. The fact he has not done so is perhaps the clearest indicator that Defendant indeed is a perjurer. And should Defendant file such a claim, Plaintiff is prepared to decisively show that Defendant indeed has lied to the police, to this court, and to the Virginia courts. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
37.
Plaintiff requests a criminal referral against defendant in this matter in light of defendant’s myriad fabrications in his 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, either with him or his spouse.
39.
Plaintiff requests an injunction against Defendant accessing his blog. Not only do security measures on the blog seek to prevent Defendant from accessing the blog, but in light of Defendant’s fabricated claims that the blog is threatening, this request should be non-controversial. Moreover, the terms and conditions set forth on the blog, which prohibit access by Defendant and his family, are enforceable pursuant to
9
18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq. 40.
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.
41.
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.
42.
Plaintiff requests any and all further relief as the court shall deem appropriate. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
43.
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 8th day of August 2021.
4129 Fountainside Lane 203 Fairfax VA 22030 Eric.bonetti@protonmail.com 703-973-4984
10
Exhibit A — Virginia Perjury
11
Exhibit B — Wareham Perjury
12
Exhibit C — Defendant Lies to Episcopal Bishop of Virginia about Timing of Plaintiff’s Departure from Previous Job, Falsely States Plaintiff Has Embezzled
13
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
14
Exhibit E — Discussion with Marion Police Chief About Bob Malm’s Perjury
15