What is this site?

This is michaelbonetto.com, a site that explores, for le­gi­ti­mate and reason­able purposes that are pro­tect­ed under U.S. laws, prosecutable crimes that a par­tic­u­lar Michael Bonetto has com­mit­ted or is in­volved in and that pursues posi­tive societal goals in con­nec­tion with the pro­tect­ed pur­poses in ques­tion.

The prosecutable crimes refer­red to here include, but are not necessarily lim­it­ed to, the beating of women by men, sexual misconduct with children, abuse of pro­cess, extortion, threats of physi­cal violence intended to terrorize (this crime can carry prison sentences of over a decade in length), DDoS (a highly prosecutable violation of CFAA), and stalking.

The Michael Bonetto whose prosecutable crimes are, or will be, dis­cus­sed here is the one whose SSN, disclosed for le­gi­ti­mate and reason­able pur­poses that are pro­tect­ed under U.S. laws, is be­lieved to be 142-76-2496.

This site is under construction. Links to rele­vant material will be added in due course.

Sub­se­quent to the add­i­tion of further context, parties as­soc­i­a­ted with Michael Bonetto will be asked, as part of a pro­cess of “gathering information” for le­gi­ti­mate and reason­able purposes that are pro­tect­ed under U.S. laws, to com­ment on Michael Bonetto's back­ground, bringing, moral sense or lack thereof, and other factors that may explain her en­thus­i­asm for and dedication to crimes such as wife-beating and sexual misconduct with children.

The term “gathering information” comes dir­ect­ly from a pair of gag-order legal cases that ran from 2012 to 2013 in which Michael Bonetto com­mit­ted at least one prosecutable crime in an effort to conceal crimes of other types.

200322. Questions for Michael Bonetto.

This sec­tion lists some ques­tions for Michael Bonetto.

Technical note: A few years ago, Michael told me that he planned to ignore email from me. But if he ignores ques­tions #2 and #3 be­low and then attempts to make an issue of the fact that I haven't ceased communications with him, I'm pretty sure that that will go poorly for him in a State Bar review.

Michael Bonetto said two things to me a few years ago that I don't recall responding to. The current ques­tions are re­la­ted to those two things. .p One point was sim­ply that Michael used a phrase similar to “your claim that you weren't asked not to communicate”.

Another point was, as part of that, a request that I cease communications. I don't recall if Michael made that request on behalf of him­self or on behalf of his wife-beater client.

My 1st ques­tion is, “Michael, isn't it true that you never claimed I was asked not to communicate? Are you making that assertion now?”

My 2nd ques­tion is, “Michael, regarding the request not to communicate, are you formally asserting that there is no le­gi­ti­mate and unfinish­ed business re­la­ted to you, me, and your clients?”

My 3rd ques­tion is, “Are you willing to put the preceding assertions in a writ­ten statement?”

My 4th ques­tion is, “Do you under­stand that your state­ment will be treated as a threat to commit abuse of pro­cess, that an annotated copy of your state­ment will go to the State Bar as well as to legislators, the police, such ethics committees as I'm able to identify, and to parties who you may be ac­quaint­ed with and who may be willing and able to com­ment on your history, conduct, and patterns of behavior?”

BTW I don't acknowledge or agree that the deadline for filing the story of the gag-order cases with the State Bar has passed. The nature and pur­pose of the filing are sim­ply going to be dif­fer­ent than the usual thing.

If I was going to seek to have Michael disbarred, I'd have filed years ago. But that would have led to the State Bar shaking his hand and praising him as a Rising Star. I'd rather come up with some­thing that peo­ple will find use­ful and interesting and that might lead to changes.

My 5th ques­tion for Michael is, “Is it true or false that you and John Perrott reached an agree­ment which was centered on a plan to defraud your clients, my abuser and my brother, and that I was asked to help you with the plan in question?”

My 6th ques­tion is, “You know that sexual misconduct was part of it, don't you? No, I'm not alleging that Jim penetrated me. But when you learn the details and reflect on your own interactions with the man, you'll know, regard­less of what you'll acknowledge, that it was exactly like him. If you guessed at how he'd behave, the rea­son that a man who shook with rage more often than he smiled would grin broadly, you might get it right.”

My 7th and final ques­tion for today is, “We all know that you'll never be formally disciplined. That embarrassment of a minor nature is the worst consequence an attorney usually needs to face. But, in all seriousness, didn't you and Maggie commit a prosecutable crime that was more sig­ni­fi­cant than rape? Don't you belong in prison?”

Congratulations to Michael Bonetto, of course, on the Rising Star thing. It's surely a posi­tive reflection on Hoge Fenton's standards. A reflection that will shine for years to come.

Haggis Hell asserts the right to use the photo be­low of Michael Bonetto here and elsewhere. The photo is hereby relicensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Third parties are invited to use and dis­tri­bute the photo under that license.

Any DMCA action at­tempt­ed by any party will be contested. Photos hosted overseas aren't subject to DMCA, regard­less. Attorneys and others are expect­ed to go through the procedures that the host country has agreed to use.