Breaking: Plaintiff’s Response to Perjuring Priest Bob Malm’s Memo Re: Sanctions

V I R G I N I A:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALEXANDRIA CITY

ERIC J. BONETTI

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT H. MALM

Defendant

: : : : : CL NO. 2020 06480 : : :

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE RE RULE 4:12(d) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS COMES NOW Plaintiff, ERIC BONETTI, and files this response to Defendant’s memorandum filed in response to Plaintiff’s motion for Rule 4:12(d) sanctions.

1. Pursuant to Va. R. Sup. Ct. § 4:12 (a)(3), incomplete or evasive discovery responses are treated as failures to respond.

2. As stated in Plaintiff’s original motion, Defendant’s responses contain myriad evasive responses. While a full list is beyond the ambit of this brief, tellingly Defendant has failed to respond to the very same discovery responses that this court ordered Defendant to answer in the initial litigation. And in the original case, Mr. Malm ignored the court’s order.

3. Moreover, Defendant’s response to the interrogatory asking him for details of his perjury is evasive. Specifically, in his discovery responses in the initial litigation, he claimed that “time after time” Plaintiff’s late mother contacted him to set up appointments, only to cancel. Exhibit A. However, in his most recent responses to discovery, Defendant now claims that he does “not recall ever speaking to her,” thus

attempting to avoid admitting to perjury, even as he hedges his bets apropos other forms of communication. Exhibit B. 4. Tellingly, Defendant takes yet another tack in the current Massachusetts litigation, claiming that he had no contact with decedent, that he didn’t know her name, and that his interrogatory responses, submitted under oath, were “some little response that a lawyer representing me and Grace Church had given….I didn’t even know his mother’s name.” Exhibit C. That begs the question: If Defendant did not know decedent’s name, how could he have claimed in his initial litigation that she contacted him repeatedly? Nor is this fabrication inconsequential, for Defendant cites it as the basis for his claim that decedent’s blog was actually Plaintiff’s.

5. The recent adoption of Rule 4:12(d) was intended to discourage litigants from engaging in exactly the sort of conduct evinced by Defendant, with his dilatory and evasive discovery responses.

6. Moreover, Va. Code § 8.01-271.1 confers upon this court broad powers to sanction conduct that is made for the purpose of delay, increasing costs, or without an adequate basis in fact. Defendant’s conduct is the epitome of such behavior, including perjury, refusal to respond to interrogatories about documents produced by his attorney on the basis that he allegedly doesn’t have a copy, and defense counsel’s claim that somehow courts are empowered to use the protection from abuse statutes to abrogate First Amendment rights on the basis of “relentless blogging.”

7. Nor is Defendant’s misconduct confined to his perjury. Inter alia, Defendant and his wife have repeatedly engaged in witness tampering, with Plaintiff having reason to believe that such improper contact occurred as recently as December 20, 2020.

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

8. As to Defendant’s assertions relating to the statute of limitations, Plaintiff would not seek the tolling of the statute of limitations had Defendant and his prior legal counsel not willfully concealed emails and evidence damaging to their case in the initial lawsuit. Indeed, to date, Plaintiff has uncovered approximately 16 emails expressly within the ambit of discovery. One, the defamatory email sent by a member of the Grace Church vestry, actually came to light in current defense counsel’s pleadings.

Others came to light in related litigation, including several that were copied to defendant’s original legal counsel, Mr. Jeffery Chiow. Thus, Mr. Chiow had actual knowledge of the evidence in question. Samples provided in Exhibit D. 9. Particularly appalling is Defendant’s evasive refusal to respond to interrogatories pertaining to the church’s defamation of Plaintiff on the basis that he does not have a copy of the email, when in fact the email in question first came to light via his own defense counsel. Exhibit D, supra.

10. In at least one other instance, Mr. Chiow redacted evidence so as to change its meaning. That misconduct came to light when, through his own carelessness, Mr. Chiow produced redacted and unredacted copies of the same document. Exhibit E. 11. As a result of Defendant’s willful concealment of evidence during the initial lawsuit, Mr. Chiow is now the subject of an attorney disciplinary complaint in the District of Columbia.

12. For the record, in an attempt to informally resolve issues relating to discovery, Plaintiff asked current defense counsel if he had any explanation for the concealment of evidence during the initial litigation. None has been offered, nor did defense counsel respond.

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

13. Moreover, current defense counsel violates disciplinary rule 3.3(a)(1) (“Candor to the Tribunal”) by falsely telling the court in his pleadings that the courts have attempted to prevent Plaintiff from blogging and otherwise sharing information about this conflict. He also states that the original protective order was issued in part due to Plaintiff’s “relentless blogging.” Not only are those statements fabrications, but as defense counsel no doubt is aware, blogging is protected by the First Amendment, which provides the same protections to bloggers as it does to other media outlets.

Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 812 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (D. Or. 2011). Indeed, were defense counsel’s fabrication accurate, Time Magazine would, for example, be subject to a protective order for its “relentless” coverage of abuse in the Catholic church, or of allegations of misconduct by former president Donald Trump. Defense counsel’s assertions do, however, underscore the improper purpose and intent of his client in attempting to use the protective order process as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

Indeed, as defense counsel well knows, the only issue relevant to a request for a protective order is a legitimate, reasonable threat of imminent bodily harm — a showing that Defendant has not made to this day.

14. Moreover, Defendant’s contention that somehow the initial protective order addressed blogging is a non sequitur, for were that the case Defendant would no doubt have contacted the court to request a finding of contempt due to Plaintiff’s ongoing blogging. Yet no such request was ever made.

15. Defendant also continues to violate Plaintiff’s written request to have no further contact with Plaintiff, despite the fact that Plaintiff has expressly cited the anti-

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

stalking provisions of Va. Code § 18.2-60.3 by requesting, in writing, on multiple occasions, that Defendant cease all contact with Plaintiff. This includes approaching Plaintiff and threatening him along Russell Road in Alexandria, and engaging in identical behavior in Massachusetts in December 2020. Yet to date Defendant fails to explain why he repeatedly engages in such behavior when he purportedly is afraid of an imminent threat of bodily harm. And true to form, when convenient, Defendant contradicts himself, including expressly stating in a video posted to his last church’s website that he does not fear physical harm from Plaintiff. The video is hosted on Vimeo at https://vimeo.com/492819313, with the relevant part beginning at or about 30:02.

16. Apropos Defendant’s assertions regarding the myriad actions resulting from his conduct, in every instance these are the natural outcome of Defendant’s decision to bring legal action and the efforts of his family members to improperly influence the outcome. Indeed, the Massachusetts litigation was initiated by the Defendant. Thus, he has no legitimate basis to bemoan the result, which is that he now faces counterclaims.

17. As to Defendant’s request for a protective order in discovery, he raises no privacy or other interests to warrant such an order. Details of his personal life have not been requested, or received, in discovery. Details of his marriage, his finances, his home address, his email address or phone number are not implicated. Trade secrets are not implicated. His health and medical records are not implicated. His social security number is not at risk of disclosure. The only risk facing Defendant is that the public will become aware of his perjury, his various courtroom fabrications (including his

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

taking various words out of context in order to claim that he has been threatened, even as he states in other circumstances that he does not feel threatened), his decision to attempt to subpoena Plaintiff’s late mother in direct violation of Pennsylvania state law, and his other misconduct. It is this very misconduct that forms the basis of Plaintiff’s claim of abuse of process, and indeed Defendant should have carefully considered that his conduct, shocking and appalling for a member of the clergy, would become public knowledge by virtue of his resort to the courts.

18. Moreover, the public has a First Amendment right to know of Defendant’s misconduct, to evaluate supporting information and decide for themselves its relevance, and to make decisions about the relevance of this information to the organizational integrity of Defendant’s employer, the Episcopal Church.

19. Indeed, were Defendant’s discovery responses truthful and non-evasive, one would conclude that he would wish them to become public, for they would presumably prove his oft-stated claims, including in correspondence to diocesan officials, that Plaintiff is “unbalanced,” “dysfunctional,” “sick,” “twisted,” a “domestic terrorist,” and that Plaintiff has “threatened and stalked” him and his family. However, lacking such evidence, Defendant now seeks an order imposing confidentiality to shield his fabrications and other misconduct from public view, even as he engages in discourse unbecoming for a member of the clergy.

20. Tellingly, when Plaintiff first contacted Defendant on January 29, 2016 in an effort to settle the matter out of court, Defendant both rejected Plaintiff’s reasonable offer, and his request for confidentiality on the basis that Defendant did not intend to settle the matter. Exhibit F.

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

21. Similarly, it is disingenuous for Defendant to make the claims above, while refusing to specify, for example, the specific language that he contends is threatening. Yet that is precisely what he attempts to do, even as he asserts curiously spotty gaps in his memory. Exhibit G. 22. In light of Defendant’s repeated witness tampering, his ongoing refusal to comply with this court’s original order to compel, his perjury, his evasive and dilatory conduct, and his concealment of evidence during discovery, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant, up to and including summary judgment. Alternatively, Plaintiff requests that the Defendant be ordered to provide complete, non-evasive responses to his interrogatories, while asking for non-monetary sanctions against Defendant sufficient to deter further misconduct.

23. Plaintiff further requests that defense counsel face appropriate disciplinary consequences for his violation of his duty of candor to this court pursuant to Rule 3.3, due to his fabrications relating to the prior rulings in this litigation.

24. Plaintiff asks that Defendant’s perjury be referred to the Commonwealth’s Attorney for potential prosecution.

25. Plaintiff further asks the court to grant an injunction preventing defendant or his family from engaging in further witness tampering, including threatening Plaintiff or contacting Plaintiff except via legal counsel. Specifically, neither Defendant nor his wife, nor his adult children, nor anyone acting on his behalf, should contact any person whom he knows, or has reason to know, will be called as a witness at trial.

26. Plaintiff asks that the Defendant’s motion for a protective order in discovery be denied.

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

27. Plaintiff asks for all such other relief as the court may deem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Eric J. Bonetti Pro Se Plaintiff 4129 Fountainside Lane 203 Fairfax VA 22030 703-973-4984 Eric.bonetti@protonmail.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was emailed on December 25, 2020 to counsel for the defendant per the following:

Wayne Cyron, Esq. Bankers Square Office Building 100 North Pitt Street, Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Cml@cyronmiller.com

Matthew J. Youssef, Esq. 111 South Calvert Street Suite 1400 Baltimore, MD 21202 mjyoussef@nilesbarton.com

I certify that I have attempted to resolve these matters in good faith with defense counsel prior to filing this motion/pleading.

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Exhibit A — Defendant’s Sworn Response to Initial Interrogatories. Sigrid Yahner is Plaintiff’s late mother

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Exhibit B — Defendant’s Discovery Response in Current Litigation

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Exhibit C — Defendant’s Massachusetts Testimony Regarding his Perjury

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Exhibit C — Defendant’s Massachusetts Testimony Regarding his Perjury, cont’d

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Exhibit D — Documents Improperly Withheld By Plaintiff During Original Discovery — Request for Production

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Exhibit D — Documents Improperly Withheld By Plaintiff During Original Discovery, examples

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Exhibit D — Documents Improperly Withheld By Plaintiff During Original Discovery, examples

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Exhibit E — Documents Redacted to Change Meaning — Redacted Version

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Exhibit E — Documents Redacted to Change Meaning — Un-Redacted Version

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Exhibit F — Initial Settlement Offer and Request for Confidentiality — Plaintiff Offer

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Exhibit F — Initial Settlement Offer and Request for Confidentiality. Cont’d — Plaintiff Offer

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Exhibit F — Initial Settlement Offer and Request for Confidentiality, cont’d — Defendant Response

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Exhibit G — Defendant Evades Answering Interrogatories About His Allegations of Being Threatened

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)

Bonetti v. Malm Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Brief — Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 4.12(d)