November 24, 2020 Clerk of Court Wareham District Court 2200 Cranberry Hwy West Wareham, MA 02576 MALM v. BONETTI NOTICE OF APPEAL
Dear Madam/Sir: 1. This is a notice of appeal from the November 23, 2020 ruling of the Wareham District Court in the matter of Malm v. Bonetti. 2. Defendant intends to appeal a variety of issues of law including, but not limited to: a. May the trial court issue a harassment protection order (258E Order) when, as in the instant case, there has been no communication or contact whatsoever between Plaintiff and Defendant in more than a year? b. May the trial court issue a harassment protection order when, as in the instant case, both Plaintiff and Defendant have stated in sworn courtroom testimony that Defendant has made no threats to Plaintiff’s person or property? c. May the trial court issue a harassment protection order when, as in the instant case, Plaintiff states both in court and elsewhere that he does “not consider defendant to be much of a threat.”? d. May the trial court issue a harassment protection order when, as in the instant case, the Plaintiff explicitly states in court that at no point did he actually fear for his life, his personal safety, or potential harm to his property? e. May the trial court issue a harassment protection order when, as in the instant case, the judge refuses to identify the three separate instances, required by Massachusetts law, in which the Plaintiff allegedly was in objectively reasonable fear of imminent harm to his person or property, thus preventing the Defendant from rebutting or otherwise speaking to those allegations? f. May the trial court issue a harassment protection order when, as in the instant case, all of the Plaintiff’s allegations, while they may be annoying, irritating, or unpopular, including leafletting, blogging, and protesting, all of which are protected by the First Amendment and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? g. May the trial court may issue a harassment protection order when, as in the instant case, the order effectively creates a 60-mile wide First Amendment-free zone by forbidding Defendant from approaching the Plaintiff’s residence, yet impounds information as to the even the general location of that residence? Thus, the Court’s order chills free speech by failing to provide adequate information to permit voluntary compliance without risk of unintentional violation. h. May the trial court may issue a harassment protection order when, as in the instant case, the court refuses to specify whether Defendant, now representing himself pro se in various litigation in Virginia and Pennsylvania against the Plaintiff, may meet Plaintiff in person in order to conduct depositions and conduct other discovery essential to the litigation? i. May trial court issue a harassment protection order when, as in the instant case, the local police have expressly stated that no contact, harassment, or illegal conduct has occurred?