Robert Hiller Malm Again Sued in Federal District Court

ERIC J. BONETTI,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Plaintif, CIVIL Case No.:

vs.

JEFFERY CLIFFORD EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF MASSACHUSETTS EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF VIRGINIA ST. GABRIEL’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH ROBERT HILLER MALM Defendants

CORRECTED PRO SE CIVIL COMPLAINT (Corrects Date of Service and Replaces Missing Paragraphs at End of Original) COMES NOW Plaintif, Eric J. Bonetti, and files this civil complaint against the above-captioned parties, alleging violation of Plaintif’s constitutional rights, including but not limited to his right to due process and the equal protection of the laws; and supplemental claims, including defamation and abuse of procss.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. This dispute arises from a series of events dating from 2015.

2. On or about June 2015, Plaintif contacted the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, asking for its help in mediating a dispute between the Plaintif and Defendant Robert H. Malm.

3. The Diocese declined to do so on the basis that the conflict was “not of weighty and material importance to the ministry of the church.”

4. The day after Plaintif received the Diocese’s written statement that it would not assist, Plaintif and his husband received an email from Defendant Robert H. Malm, directing them to find a new church.

5. Subsequently, Plaintif learned from church office volunteers that Defendant Malm had instructed church staf to exclude Plaintif and his husband from the church.

6. Plaintif complained to the diocese about Defendant Malm’s shunnng.

7. Plaintif avers that defendants have, within the meaning of the Virginia and Massachusetts common law, engaged in the tort of civil conspiracy by: 1

a. Acting in combination. b. To accomplish, by concerted action, and with deliberate malice, illegal and improper objectives, as evinced by Robert Malm’s lies and perjury before the Virginia and Massachusetts courts, during discovery, and elsewhere. c. Acted to achieve illegal and improper purposes through illegal and improper means, including but not limited to, perjury, making false reports to law enforcement, and engaging in spoliation of evidence, with an intent to infringe on Plaintif’s First Amendment and other rights. d. Damaging the reputation of the plaintif by publicly and privately referring to him, without limitation, as “sick,” “twisted,” “dysfunctional, “mentally ill,” “threatening.”

8. Plaintif avers that defendants have, within the meaning of Virginia statutory law set forth at Va. Code § 18.2-499 et seq., engaged in statutory conspiracy by a. Acting in concert, as evinced by their litigation, perjury, and cooperative eforts against the Plaintif. b. Attempting to injure Plaintif’s reputation by accusing him of “domestic terrorism,” of making threats, of embezzling from a previous employer, and more. c. Attempting to prevent and hinder Plaintif from criticizing them and otherwise exercising rights guaranteed under state and federal law, including exercising his right to protest in front of Grace Episcopal Church.

9. Further, Plaintif believes and avers that the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts and St. Gabriel’s Church, located in Marion Massachusetts, have attempted to prevent Plaintif from exercising his First Amendment rights inter alia by contacting the Marion police, falsely claiming that Plaintif had threatened and harassed Malm and his family, and engaging in perjury.

10. Plaintif further alleges that Defendant Malm, acting with the full support of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia (in which Malm is canoncially resident) and St. Gabriel’s Episcopal Church, has filed a civil suit for a harrassment protection order, falsely telling police, parishioners, and others that Plaintif has stalked, harassessed, and threatened Malm for several years. This is a facially false accusation, as Plaintif has had no contact with Defendant Malm or his family since 2017. Moreover, Defendant Malm previously 2

obtained a protective order in Virginia against Plaintif via a series of perjurious statements and frauds upon the court, yet at no point filed a motion to show cause against the Plaintif for contempt, which would have been the next step had Plaintif indeed engaged in such behaviors.

11. Plaintif further avers that many of the defamatory and false remarks decribed above are set forth on a video on the St. Gabriel’s parish website via an entry dated December 20. Plaintif alleges that these statements are defamatory per se, as they accuse Plaintif of criminal conduct, and have caused him deep emotional distress. Moreover, the church was ofered a chance to remove the tortious remarks prior to litigation but ignored the request, so Plaintif allleges that St. Gabriel’s church has acted with knowing, actual malice in continuing to publish the defamatory video.

12. Moreover, Defendant Malm has repeatedly engaged in threatening, stalking behavior against the plaintif, including driving up to him and engaging in battery, contacting his church and employer, and otherwise attempting to cause emotional distress to the Plaintif.

13. Vis-a-via Jefery Cliford, defendant Malm filed a request for a harassment protection order with Defendant Cliford in the latter’s role as judge of the Wareham Massachussetts District Court. As with the Virginia litigation, Malm made a series of perjurious statements to the court, alleging that he had been harassessed and threatened by Plaintif, despite the parties having had no contact in several years, as well as several outlandish claims, including that Plaintif had posted photos of Malm’s wife on various porn websites. Despite an utter lack of evidence of any threat withing the meaning of the relevant Massachusetts statutes, Cliford granted a harassment protection order, thus depriving Plaintif of his rights to due process and the equal protection of the laws, while chilling Plaintif’s First Amendment rights to blog about Mr. Malm’s abusive conduct as an Episcopal priest, as well as Malm’s behavior, which evinces a pattern of lies, perjury, manipulative behavior, and disregard for the rights of others strongly suggestive of antisocial personality disorder.

3

14. Moreover, Defendant Cliford has repeatedly refused to provide a certified record necessary for appeal of the Wareham Court decision. The transcript was signed for by the court on Jaunuary 12, 2021, and Plaintif has sent myriad reminders to the court asking about the status, but has been ignored at every turn. Thus, Cliford’s conduct has deprived the Plaintif of the right to a speedy appeal, and may well result in the appellate court dismissing the case due to perceived delay on the part of the Plaintif. Thus, Plaintif avers that Cliford is violating his oath of office as a state judge, while denying the Plaintif the due process and equal protection of the laws.

15. Plaintif further alleges that Grace Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, Robert Hiller Malm, the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, and St. Gabriel’s Church, referenced above, have engaged in conspiracy to deprive Plaintif of his rights under the First Amendment, as well as his rights to due process and the equal protection of the laws of the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Virginia. This includes: a. engaging in witness tampering by repeatedly attempting to dissuade Darlene Parsons from testifying on Plaintif’s behalf; b. attempting to dissuade the Rev. Bob Perry from testifying on Plaintif’s behalf; c. attempting to dissuade the Rev. Richard Wall from testifying on Plaintif’s behalf; d. attempting as recently as January 2021, during litigation in Massachusetts, to identify Plaintif’s employer with a view towards further infringing on Plaintif’s rights.

16. As to the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, Plaintif avers it has supported Malm’s perjury, defamation, and other tortious and illegal conduct. This includes declining to exercise supervisory authority over Malm during his time serving St. Gabriel’s parish, located within the Diocese of Virginia.

RELIEF SOUGHT 1. Plaintif seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Jefery Cliford, including but not limited to requiring the issuance of a certified copy of the trial record sufficient to permit an appeal.

Alternatively, Plaintif seeks a court order striking down the Wareham Court’s decision as violative of Plaintif’s constitutional rights to the due process and equal protection of the laws.

4

2. Plaintif seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as against the other defendants, inlcuding an injunction against further eforts to “game” the protective order system as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

3. Plaintif seeks compensatory and punitive charges for the defamation/libel/slander claims, as well as for the conspiracy and other claims.

4. Plaintif respectfully seeks at least $1 million in punitive damages against Defendant Robert Hiller Malm, in recognition of his outrageous, appalling, and continuing pattern of perjuring, perpetrating a fraud upon the courts, and abusing the trust inherent in his role as an Episcopal priest.

5. Plaintif respectfully seeks at least $1 million in punitive damages against Defendants Episcopal Diocese of Virginia and Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, for their shocking and outrageous statements that Defendant Malm’s facially obvious perjury and myriad courtroom fabrications are not actionable as an internal church matter, but exclusively in the courts. Indeed, such behavior incentives child molesters and other church abusers, for they now know that church officials will turn a blind eye to even the most egregious clergy misconduct when doing so will protect the organization’s reputation. Moreover, condoning Malm’s retaliation against Plaintif and his husband for good faith complaints to the diocese evinces a standard of behavior not even acceptable among publicly traded companies – a shocking proposition for a house of worship that purports to “respect the dignity of every human being.”

6. All such other relief as the court may deem appropriate.

I hereby certify that I have provided a copy of the above filing to defense counsel via email, this 17 th day of June, 2021 as follows: Craig D. Roswell, Esquire (VSB No.: 33901) Matthew J. Youssef, Esquire (VSB No.: 85339) NILES, BARTON & WILMER, LLP 111 S. Calvert Street, Suite 1400 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (410) 783 –6357 (410) 783 –6452 cdroswell@nilesbarton.com mjyoussef@nilesbarton.com Counsel for Defendant, Grace Episcopal Church, Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts and St. Gabriel’s Episcopal Church 5

Wayne F. Cyron, Esquire (VSB No. 12220) CYRON & MILLER LLP 100 N. Pitt St., Suite 200 Alexandria, VA 22314 703-299-0600 703-299-0603 (fax) wcyron@cyronmiller.com Counsel for Defendant, Robert H. Malm I swear and affirm that the foregoing is accurate and true, to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Respectfully submitted, Eric J. Bonetti Pro se plaintif 4129 Fountainside Lane 203 Fairfax VA 22030 703-973-4984 Eric.bonetti@me.com

6