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 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION COMES NOW Plaintiff Eric J. Bonetti in the above-captioned matter, and motion for reconsideration following the court’s ruling of May 26, 2021, in which the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions/order to compel in discovery, and granted a protective order granting confidentiality for Defendant’s discovery responses. Plaintiff avers that the Circuit Court: 1. Ignored the evasive nature of Defendant’s discovery responses, which pursuant to Rule 4 are treated as a failure to answer. This denial of meaningful discovery will irreparably prejudice Plaintiff at trial and subverts the very basis for discovery, which is to assist the parties in factfinding prior to trial. 2. Disregarded the fact that, in the previous litigation, which is the subject of the present case, this court ordered Defendant to respond to the very same interrogatories — a court order that the Defendant ignored. 3. Ignored the Defendant’s manifest perjury and the fabrications of defense counsel, thus further prejudicing Plaintiff when the case goes to trial. 4. Violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, and those of the public, by imposing confidentiality on the Defendant’s responses, with no showing of any present or future harm to the Defendant.
5. Demonstrated manifest bias towards the Plaintiff by abandoning impartiality and prejudging the merits of the case, even before discovery has been completed. This is evinced by the court’s remonstrations of the Plaintiff, in which the court clearly suggested that Plaintiff’s case is vexatious and without merit, despite Defendant’s clear ulterior motive in bringing litigation against the Plaintiff, and Defendant’s myriad instances of behavior not proper in the ordinary course of litigation, including perjury, false testimony, witness tampering, spoliation of evidence and more. As such, the court’s ruling violates Plaintiff’s rights to due process and the equal protection of the laws. 6. Violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, and those of the public, by granting confidentiality for Defendant’s discovery responses, despite a failure of the Defendant to demonstrate any legitimate privacy interest in his discovery responses. 7. Failed to demonstrate even a rational basis for its ruling. Plaintiff certifies that he has, this 26th day of May, served a copy of this notice of appeal 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
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 MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT OF NEW JUDGE 1. COMES NOW Plaintiff Eric J. Bonetti in the above-captioned matter, and requests that the Alexandria Circuit Court assign the above-referenced case to a new judge, on the basis that Judge Clark, now assigned to the case, has repeatedly demonstrated bias in the case, such that Plaintiff has no hope of a fair, impartial proceeding or trial. This follows the court’s ruling of May 26, 2021, in which the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions/order to compel in discovery, and granted a protective order granting confidentiality for Defendant’s discovery responses. 2. Plaintiff avers that the Circuit Court: •
Ignored the evasive nature of Defendant’s discovery responses, which pursuant to Rule 4 are treated as a failure to answer. This denial of meaningful discovery will irreparably prejudice Plaintiff at trial and subverts the very basis for discovery, which is to assist the parties in fact-finding prior to trial.
•
Disregarded the fact that, in the previous litigation, which is the subject of the present case, this court ordered Defendant to respond to the very same interrogatories — a court order that the Defendant ignored.
•
Ignored the Defendant’s manifest perjury and the fabrications of defense counsel, thus further prejudicing Plaintiff when the case goes to trial.
•
Violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, and those of the public, by imposing confidentiality on the Defendant’s responses, with no showing of any present or future harm to the Defendant.
•
Demonstrated manifest bias towards the Plaintiff by abandoning impartiality and prejudging the merits of the case, even before discovery has been completed. This is evinced by the court’s remonstrations of the Plaintiff, in which the court clearly suggested that Plaintiff’s case is vexatious and without merit, despite Defendant’s clear ulterior motive in bringing litigation against the Plaintiff, and Defendant’s myriad instances of behavior not proper in the ordinary course of litigation, including perjury, false testimony, witness tampering, spoliation of evidence and more. As such, the court’s ruling violates Plaintiff’s rights to due process and the equal protection of the laws.
•
Violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, and those of the public, by granting confidentiality for Defendant’s discovery responses, despite a failure of the Defendant to demonstrate any legitimate privacy interest in his discovery responses.
•
Failed to demonstrate even a rational basis for its ruling.
3. Moreover, in previous rulings, the court refused to enjoin multiple instances of witness tampering by the Defendant and his spouse, which has happened on at least six instances and involved three key witnesses for the Plaintiff, including: Dee Parsons, Dr. Bob Perry, and the Rev. Richard Wall. This has happened despite multiple requests to defense counsel to ensure that this conduct stops. 4. The court also has refused to enjoin the Defendant from threatening and contacting the Plaintiff, which has happened on multiple occasions. In one instance, Defendant’s conduct met
the standard for a protective order, with the Defendant screaming threats that sent onlookers running for safety. This conduct is both prejudicial to a fair trial and a violation of the Commonwealth’s criminal statutues, and deprives the Plaintiff of the due process and equal protection of the laws. Indeed, if the courts can issue a protective order against the Plaintiff, even after the Defendant has expressly stated that he has not been threatened by Plaintiff, then this court can with equal validity issue a protective order when Defendant begins screaming threats of violence at the Plaintiff. 5. The court has ignored Defendant’s spoliation of evidence, including documents that were concealed during initial litigation that were adverse to Defendant, and that gave rise to a potential cause of action for defamation against the Defendant. 6. For the reasons above, and to ensure the due process and equal protection of the laws for all parties, Plaintiff requests that this action be assigned to a judge who does not demonstrate manifest bias. Plaintiff states that he has, this 26th day of May, served a copy of this notice of appeal 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
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 MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL COMES NOW Plaintiff Eric J. Bonetti in the above-captioned matter, and requests leave to file an interlocutory appeal with the Virginia Supreme Court in the above-captioned matter following the court’s ruling of May 26, 2021, in which the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions/order to compel in discovery, and granted a protective order granting confidentiality for Defendant’s discovery responses. Plaintiff avers that the Circuit Court: 1. Ignored the evasive nature of Defendant’s discovery responses, which pursuant to Rule 4 are treated as a failure to answer. This denial of meaningful discovery will irreparably prejudice Plaintiff at trial and subverts the very basis for discovery, which is to assist the parties in factfinding prior to trial. 2. Disregarded the fact that, in the previous litigation, which is the subject of the present case, this court ordered Defendant to respond to the very same interrogatories — a court order that the Defendant ignored. 3. Ignored the Defendant’s manifest perjury and the fabrications of defense counsel, thus further prejudicing Plaintiff when the case goes to trial. 4. Violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, and those of the public, by imposing confidentiality on the Defendant’s responses, with no showing of any present or future harm to the Defendant.
5. Demonstrated manifest bias towards the Plaintiff by abandoning impartiality and prejudging the merits of the case, even before discovery has been completed. This is evinced by the court’s remonstrations of the Plaintiff, in which the court clearly suggested that Plaintiff’s case is vexatious and without merit, despite Defendant’s clear ulterior motive in bringing litigation against the Plaintiff, and Defendant’s myriad instances of behavior not proper in the ordinary course of litigation, including perjury, false testimony, witness tampering, spoliation of evidence and more. As such, the court’s ruling violates Plaintiff’s rights to due process and the equal protection of the laws. 6. Violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, and those of the public, by granting confidentiality for Defendant’s discovery responses, despite a failure of the Defendant to demonstrate any legitimate privacy interest in his discovery responses. 7. Failed to demonstrate even a rational basis for its ruling. Plaintiff certifies that he has, this 26th day of May, served a copy of this notice of appeal 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