My Brief in Opposition

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

ERIC J. BONETTI,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: CL 20002206

vs.

ROBERT H. MALM Defendant

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE

COMES NOW Plaintiff Eric J. Bonetti in the above-captioned matter, and files this response to Defendant’s brief in opposition to Plaintiff’s request for sanctions pursuant to Rule 4:12(d), and Defendant’s request for a protective order in discovery pursuant to Rule 4:19 (c).

Sanctions 1. Plaintiff believes that the appropriateness of sanctions already has bee thoroughly briefed in pleadings before this Court.

2. Apropos Defendant’s assertions regarding the various lawsuits now pending against him, it should be noted that in every instance these are counter-claims that arose due to his decision to file for a protective order based on false and misleading statements, including his facially obvious perjury before this court and the courts of Massachusetts (Exhibit A). It is disingenuous in the extreme to lament the existence of counterclaims when Defendant has initiated litigation, and in that context repeatedly engaged in perjury and provided myriad false statements of law and fact to law enforcement, the courts, and even his own parishioners.

3. Relatedly, Plaintiff notes that defense counsel has yet to fulfill his ethical obligation as an officer of the court and pursuant to the disciplinary rules to correct perjury and other false statements of law and fact before the court. This includes his client’s perjury before this court, and before

the Wareham District Court in Massachusetts. Thus, he is in violation of Disciplinary Rule 3.3, pertaining to candor to the tribunal and fairness to opposing parties.

4. Defendant’s dilatory and evasive responses, several of which violate this Court’s previous Discovery Order (Exhibit B) — which covered the exact same discovery requests — and include outrageous claims, such as Defendant’s assertion that he cannot respond to the email in question because it is in the possession of his attorney (Exhibit C) — are the very definition of the sort of conduct that warrants discovery sanctions. Moreover, the email in question came to light via defendant’s own pleadings.

5. The fact that Defendant cannot provide concise, specific, non-evasive honors to basic discovery questions speaks volumes to his underlying claim, which involves his allegations that he has been threatened within the meaning of the Virginia protective order statute. It is simply inconceivable that any individual who was actually threatened would not be ready, willing and indeed eager to share specifics.

6. While Defendant attempts to play the victim in this matter, neither he nor defense counsel have yet provided any explanation as to why he failed to produce statements against interest during discovery in the litigation that forms the basis of this lawsuit, including his statement in an email to family members in which Defendant expressly states that he was not threatened. (Exhibit D).

Plaintiff yet again invites Defendant to proffer any reasonable explanation as to why these documents were withheld in previous litigation.

7. Defendant’s fabrications and other misconduct are not limited to this Court. While defense counsel makes much of the Defendant’s status as an Episcopal priest, lately referring to him (albeit grammatically improperly) as “The Reverend,” he has yet to explain Defendant’s fabrication to Bishop Shannon Johnston, former bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, in which he claimed that Plaintiff left his employment as executive director of RPJ Housing prior to

arriving at Grace Episcopal Church. (Exhibit E). Thus, Plaintiff looks forward to obtaining the testimony of multiple parishioners and Episcopal clergy who can and will attest to Defendant Robert Hiller Malm’s fabrication regarding this issue, and myriad others.

Rule 4:1(C) Order 1. Defendant’s request for a protective order in discovery is similarly fraught with fabrications and misrepresentations.

2. As previously briefed, Defendant makes no showing or claim that his confidential information has, or will be, disclosed. Specifically, he does not allege that his social security number, his home address, his phone number, his personal financial information, his personal email address, or any other non-public information has been, or is likely to be, disclosed.

3. True to form, defense counsel proffers false statements of law and fact to this Court within the meaning of Disciplinary Rule 3.3. Specifically, he asserts that Plaintiff has used his siblings’ names in blogging about this matter. That is a facially obvious fabrication, for Plaintiff had one sibling, Brian Jon Bonetti, who died in an accident at age 27 in Birmingham Alabama. This happened on May 17th 1994, (Exhibit F), meaning that the the anniversary of Plaintiff’s brother’s death was just two days ago. Thus, Plaintiff finds this fabrication outrageous, appalling, disrespectful, and profoundly hurtful and offensive. Moreover, Plaintiff respectfully requests that defense counsel provide an example — any example — of a blog post that references Brian Bonetti as an author, or any of the other imaginary siblings that defense counsel now claims that Plaintiff has or had. Moreover, Plaintiff asks defense counsel to apologize in writing for this fabrication.

4. As to the meeting in Fredericksburg, Defendant displays a similarly inaccurate recollection of events. To the extent that the meeting has any relevance to the instant matter, all parties expressly agreed that the agreement extended only to those in the room, and that it could not

— and did not — extend to anyone else. Moreover, it was specifically acknowledged that third parties can and would continue to blog about the matter. Thus, if the meeting has any significance at all, it supports the proposition that members of the public have a First Amendment right to discuss matters of public interest, including Defendant’s perjury, his lies, his fraudulent concealment of evidence, and his fabrications before this Court. This is particularly the case when, as defense counsel repeatedly reminds us through his references to the Defendant as “The Reverend,” the defendant is an Episcopal priest, occupying a role of trust and respect in the community that is not warranted by his personal conduct.

8. Indeed, at this point public scrutiny appears to be one of the few incentives the Defendant has to act with integrity in this matter. This is evinced by the fact that members of the public are well aware of the Defendant’s mendacious conduct in this matter; even before the pandemic, members of Grace Episcopal Church, the Virginia parish most recently served by the Defendant, were voting with their feet and their wallets in response to Defendant’s conduct, resulting in a catastrophic and continuing decline in participation and giving at the church. Defendant’s continuing fabrications and his refusal to accept responsibility for his actions, and the Episcopal Church’s refusal to impose even minimal standards of ethical conduct or accountability for the Defendant, will almost certainly continue to adversely affect the parish. Defendant knows this, and it is for this reason that he seeks avoid public scrutiny of his litigation-related misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance.

9. Similarly, Defendant’s ill-advised and unethical inflammatory rhetoric before the courts, including his references before the Pennsylvania courts to blogging as a form of “domestic terrorism,” (Exhibit G) should not be shielded from public scrutiny. If Defendant is comfortable making these sorts of outrageous claims in an effort to influence the courts, then he should be

equally comfortable with the public having access to these claims and forming their own opinions.

10. As Defendant well knows, it is a fundamental notion of American jurisprudence that proceedings are done in the full light of day, versus in secret. If Defendant does not want members of the public to evaluate for themselves his litigation-related misconduct, or to react to his perjury and myriad false statements of law and fact, then the solution is simple, and involves telling the truth, avoiding dilatory and evasive conduct, and refraining from inflammatory rhetoric.

11. Plaintiff further notes that defense counsel continues to misrepresent the prior protective order in an effort to trample First Amendment protected rights. The protective order touched solely on Defendant’s fabricated claims that he faced a reasonable threat of imminent harm, and did not, nor could consistent with the First Amendment, impose a prior restraint on Plaintiff’s free speech rights. Moreover, it is Defendant’s efforts to infringe Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, as well as his rights to due process and the equal protection of the laws, which include Defendant’s fabrications before law enforcement and this court, and his perjury, that form the basis of the federal lawsuit against Defendant.

12. Plaintiff also notes that Defendant, acting in conjunction with the vestry of Grace Episcopal Church Alexandria and diocesan officials, has issued talking points to parishioners in which he, inter alia, falsely tells parishioners that there is no truth to Plaintiff’s assertions. (Exhibit H).

Defendant fails to explain why, having gone public with his conflict, both in this manner and by virtue of filing a lawsuit, which is by definition a matter of public record, he suddenly now feels the need to keep his discovery responses confidential. Indeed, were Defendant’s responses not riddled with fabrications, misrepresentations and evasions, one might safely assume that Defendant would be eager to make public his claims that he has been threatened. Moreover, as the subject of Defendant’s original lawsuit, were Defendant’s claims truthful, it should be the

Plaintiff, not the Defendant, who fears publicity and the light of day. The fact that it is the Defendant who seeks confidentiality is a telling sign that speaks compellingly to the Defendant’s lack of veracity in this matter.

13. The conclusion supra is supported by Plaintiff’s 2016 settlement offer, in which he offered to drop the matter entirely in exchange for Defendant’s written agreement to stop disparaging Plaintiff and interfering in his right to worship according to his conscience. This offer, which was accompanied by a request to discuss the matter on a confidential basis, was rejected by Defendant via his then legal counsel, Jeffery Chiow (Exhibit I).

14. Plaintiff certifies that he has, this 19th day of May, served a copy of this motion upon defense counsel via email per the following:

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 and Episcopal Diocese of Virginia

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

Alexandria City Attorney 301 King Street, Suite 1300 P. O. Box 178 Alexandria, Virginia 22313 George.mcandrews@alexandriava.gov

Respectfully submitted,

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

Exhibit A — Defendant’s Perjury in Virginia

Exhibit A, cont’d — Defendant’s Perjury in Massachusetts

Exhibit B — This Court’s Prior Discovery Order, Which Covers Almost All the Current Discovery Questions, Was Ignored by Defendant in Initial Litigation, and is Being Ignored Now

Exhibit C — Defendant’s Dilatory and Evasive Claim he Cannot Respond to an Interrogatory About an Email in His Attorney’s Possession

Exhibit D — Statement Against Interest Specifically Within the Ambit of Discovery, Not Produced During Prior Litigation

Exhibit E — Defendant Lies to Episcopal Bishop of Virginia and Defames Plaintiff

Exhibit F — Information on Plaintiff’s Only Sibling, Brian Jon Bonetti, Deceased May 17, 1994, Whom Defendant Falsely Claims Authored Blog Posts About the Defendant

Exhibit G — Inflammatory, Unethical, and False Language In Defendant’s Pleadings

Exhibit H — Defendant’s Talking Points

Exhibit I — Defendant’s Rejection of Plaintiff’s Settlement Offer and Request for Confidentiality

Exhibit I, cont’d — Defendant’s Rejection of Plaintiff’s Settlement Offer and Request for Confidentiality

Exhibit I, cont’d — Defendant’s Rejection of Plaintiff’s Settlement Offer and Request for Confidentiality