Jeffery Chiow: Writ of Mandamus Sought for Disciplinary Action Against Jeffery Chiow

ERIC J. BONETTI,

IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Plaintiff, CIVIL Case No.:

vs.

JAMES C. BODIE, INTAKE COUNSEL

DISCIPLINARY BOARD, VIRGINIA STATE BAR, Defendant

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Eric J. Bonetti, and requests a Writ of Mandamus, to issue against the Disciplinary Board of the Virginia State Bar. 1. Pursuant to Va. Code § 54.1-3900, the Virginia Supreme Court establishes a system for the supervision and discipline of attorneys licensed or practicing pro hac vice within the Commonwealth of Virginia.

2. In 2017, in the matter of Robert H. Malm v. Eric J. Bonetti, Petitioner Eric Bonetti filed several complaints with the Disciplinary Board against Mr. Jeffery Chiow, then representing Mr. Malm.

3. These complaints included actions covered by: a. Rule 3.4 “Fairness to Opposing Counsel” for engaging in vexatious, dilatory and oppressive discovery, including refusing to comply with the trial court’s order to compel, and knowingly disobeying relevant

1

rules of civill procedure. Most notably, Mr. Chiow violated Pennsylvania Rule 1930.5, which provides that there shall be no discovery in protection from abuse cases absent prior leave of court, when he tried to issue a subpoena via the Uniform Interstate Deposition and Discovery Act (UIDDA) to Petitioner’s mother, whom he knew to be late-stage terminally ill, incontinent, reliant 24/7 on oxygen and morphine, and suffering an acute anxiety disorder due to her illlness. The Pennsylvania Courts summarily quashed the subpoena, but Mr. Chiow’s efforts caused Ms. Yahner profound distress in her final days. b. Making false statements of law and fact to the courts, including stating as a fact that Petitioner had never been a police officer, and never served as an attorney, thus violating Rule 4.1. c. Repeatedly engaging in conduct disruptive to the proceedings via inflammatory rhetoric, including referring to the case as one of “domestic terrorism,” in pleadings. Indeed, Mr. Chiow’s conduct was so bad that Petitioner’s mother’s attorney, Robert Varsek of Oil City PA, with little knowledge of the case, stated in writing, “this attorney is coming at you with a personal vendetta.”

2

d. Knowingly offering false evidence to the courts, by permitting his client, the Rev. Robert Hiller Malm, to offer facially false evidence, including that Petitioner’s mother had repeatedly contacted Malm to set up appointments. Exhibit A. e. Redacting documents produced in discovery so as to change their meaning, and to conceal statements of malice made by Mr. Malm that would have been damaging to his case.

4. In every instance, the Virginia Bar summarily brushed off Petitioner’s complaints.

5. In recent, related litigation, Petitioner discovered that Mr. Chiow failed to produce at least 16 emails squarely within the purview of discovery. Two copied Mr. Chiow, thus demonstrating that he had actual knowledge of their existence. One was sent from his client, via his workplace email account and computer, to the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, a hierarchical entity, and contained both a facially obvious lie, and a defamatory claim that Petitioner had committed embezzlement. The latter would have been actionable as defamation but for the concealment of the document and the statute of limitations. One document, sent from Mr. Malm’s church email account, expressly stated that he did not fear for his safety, and thus would

3

have demonstrated the fabricated nature of his claims that he had been threatened. Thus, Petitioner was prejudiced both in the prosecution of the original case, and potentially preempted from pursuing an egregious case of defamation per se.1 6. Petitioner immediately notified the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar, only

to be brushed aside. A copy of the relevant email follows:

1 In the interest of candor to the tribunal, the issue of whether the concealment of the defamatory email served to

toll the statute of limitations has been appealed to this Court, after resulting in dismissal at the Alexandria Circuit.

4

7. Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the Discipinary Board of the Virginia State Bar to conduct a full, fair, and impartial review of Petitioner’s complaints, including but not limited to the preferring of perjurious testimony by Mr. Chiow’s client, the Rev. Robert H. Malm, and Mr. Chiow’s fraudulent concealment of evidence adverse to his client.

8. Petitioner does not believe that it is necessary to conduct an evidentiary hearing in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

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

5

Exhibit A

6