Bonetti v. Malm — New Lawsuit

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA ERIC J. BONETTI, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:

vs.

ROBERT H. MALM Defendant

COMPLAINT Eric J. Bonetti, in support of his Complaint against defendant Robert H. Malm hereby states the following: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1.

This is an action pursuant to Va. Code § 8.01-42.3, which provides a civil cause of action for conduct prohibited under § 18.2-60.3, whether or not the individual has been charged or convicted for the alleged violation, for the compensatory damages incurred by the victim as a result of that conduct, in addition to the costs for bringing the action.

2.

In relevant part (§ 18.2-60.3.A), the above-referenced statute provides: “If the person contacts or follows or attempts to contact or follow the person at whom the conduct is directed after being given actual notice that the person does not want to be contacted or followed, such actions shall be prima facie evidence that the person intended to place that other person, or reasonably should have known that the other person was placed, in reasonable fear of death, criminal sexual assault, or bodily injury to himself or a family or household member.” (Emphasis added)

3.

On December 31, 2017, Defendant received actual notice to have no further contact with Plaintiff, either directly through others, after making various fabricated claims to the Alexandria police department alleging that Plaintiff threatened him. Exhibit A.

4.

In subsequent litigation, Defendant made various perjurious statements under oath, including alleging that Plaintiff’s mother or someone purporting to be her contacted him repeatedly. Defendant has yet to produce any evidence to support this claim, yet insists the statement is truth. Plaintiff therefore believes Defendant may be mentally ill and unable to differentiate between fact and fiction.

1

5.

On Tuesday, May 14, Defendant drove up to Plaintiff on Russell Road in Alexandria. Defendant carefully sized up the situation, climbed out of his SUV, and began screaming and making various threats, including to drag Plaintiff away. Defendant’s screaming and hostile body language led Plaintiff to fear for his physical safety, lock himself in his vehicle for safety, and to file a police report.

6.

As Defendant is an Episcopal priest subject to the canons and discipline of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, Plaintiff emailed diocesan officials Bishop Susan Goff and Canon to the Ordinary the Rev. Dr. Mary Thorpe, alerting them to Defendant’s threatening behavior, demanding no further contact from Defendant, and expressly citing the provisions of Va. Code § 18.2-60.3. Exhibit B

7.

Defendant has acknowledged in writing during discovery that he knowingly violated the no-contact request by driving up to Plaintiff on Russell Road.

8.

In June 4, 2020, Defendant again violated Plaintiff’s no-contact request by emailing him. Plaintiff replied by email, expressly stating that the contact was a violation of Va. Code § 18.2-60.3, pointing out that further violations would be prima facie violations of the statute, and again copying diocesan officials The Rt. Rev. Susan Goff and Rev. Dr. Mary Thorpe. Exhibit C

9.

No response was received from diocesan officials.

10. Plaintiff also contacted Defendant’s attorney, Wayne Cyron, Esq., to ask that Defendant honor Plaintiff’s request for no further contact.

11. Mr. Cyron acknowledged Plaintiff’s concerns and stated that there should be no contact from defendant.

12. On November 1, 2020, Defendant approached Plaintiff in Marion Massachusetts, as Plaintiff was protesting in a public forum (sidewalk) near the defendant’s church.

13. At no point did Plaintiff enter church property, or speak to Defendant.

14. Defendant again violated Va. Code § 18.2-60.3 by speaking to Plaintiff, threatening him, and more. And while Defendant pretended not to know Plaintiff due to the fact that the latter was wearing an anti-COVID face mask, his comments to others made clear he knew that he was speaking to Plaintiff. This encounter was documented by the Marion Massachusetts police department, whom Defendant contacted.

15. Evidence occurring in Massachusetts is admissible pursuant to the express provisions of § 18.2-60.3.(C), which provides in relevant part: “A person may be convicted under this section irrespective of the

2

jurisdiction or jurisdictions within the Commonwealth wherein the conduct described in subsection A occurred, if the person engaged in that conduct on at least one occasion in the jurisdiction where the person is tried. Evidence of any such conduct that occurred outside the Commonwealth may be admissible, if relevant, in any prosecution under this section provided that the prosecution is based upon conduct occurring within the Commonwealth.”

16. Additionally, Defendant has contacted Plaintiff’s then-employer, the First Christian Church of Falls Church, and his then house of worship, St. Paul’s K Street, and church, attempting to interfere with Plaintiff’s employment and making various irrational claims potentially consistent with mental illness.

17. Thus, Defendant has directly violated Plaintiff’s no-contact request on three occasions, and at least twice by contacting persons closely associated with Plaintiff.

PARTIES 18. Plaintiff Eric J. Bonetti is an individual and a resident of Virginia.

19. Defendant Robert H. Malm is an individual. Previously a resident of Alexandria, he now lives in Massachusetts.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20. This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendant under Virginia’s long-arm statute, Va. Code § 8.01-328.1, as well as the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution because, among other things, Plaintiff was a resident of Virginia at all times relevant to this action.

21. Venue is proper in this circuit under Va. Code § 8.01-328 because the incidents complained of have a nexus to related litigation involving the parties.

FACTS 22. The facts referenced above are hereby incorporated by reference.

23. In light of the other litigation involving the parties, both in this court and elsewhere, it is not in the Defendant’s interest to have any direct contact with the Plaintiff, and Plaintiff wishes to have no such contact.

3

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to enter an award for Plaintiff, and against Defendant, as follows:

1) Awarding Mr. Bonetti filing fees in this case.

2) Issuing an injunction prohibiting Defendant from further contact with the Plaintiff.

3) Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

I, Eric J. Bonetti, do affirm and attest that the statements set forth in this complaint are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Dated this 3rd day of November, 2020.

ERIC J. BONETTI Pro Se Plaintiff 4129 Fountainside Lane 203 Fairfax VA 22030 eric.bonetti@me.com

4

Exhibit A

5

Exhibit B

6

Exhibit C

7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this ___ day of November 2020, a true and correct copy of the above complaint was served upon the Defendant via service on the Secretary of the Commonwealth. A copy also was emailed to attorneys of record, as follows: Wayne Cyron, Esq. Bankers Square Office Building 100 North Pitt Street, Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Cml@cyronmiller.com Diane DiBlasio, Esq. 111 South Calvert Street Suite 1400 Baltimore, MD 21202 Dediblasio@nilesbarton.com

By:

Eric J. Bonetti Pro Se Plaintiff 4129 Fountainside Lane #203 Fairfax VA 22030 Eric.bonetti@me.com 703-973-4984

8