Initial Post for Michael Bonetto

Initial Post for Michael Bonetto

This is a snapshot of a previous public posting. Note: The text varied slightly over time.

This is a note to Mr. Bonetto, who may be involved in multiple actions connected to this case. To be clear, this is the Michael T. Bonetto who works for Hoge, Fenton, Jones, and Appel in San Jose, phone number (408) 287-9501.

1. If you wish to harass me with additional actions of this type, see to it that you actually serve the papers next time. For your information, I have not been lawfully served in the current case.

Details are provided later in the document. The short version is that your people have broken the Law. As it happens, the Law is significant and not a matter of convenience. No matter how important your convenience as a busy attorney may be. You are most likely aware of this fact. As is the Bar Association. I don't mean to sound unduly annoyed. But I've been told that what your people did *was* illegal. I trust that you will consider the implications of this fact.

2. If it's all right to point out something else, you should try not to let your clients come across as foolish.

In this case, your clients have described me in terms that suggest a combination of Superspy and Satan. Apparently an insane Satan at that. Would he be called Insatan? It is a remarkable portrait.

Here's a thought. James Kiraly believes that I magically broke into his computer and read his email from hundreds of miles away. So he must think that I know all of his many secrets. Ask him why, in this odd scenario that he and you propose, I wouldn't use all of this undoubtedly interesting material immediately. If I stumbled across a way to obtain so much information (legally, of course) don't you think I'd use every scrap to destroy the case and hopefully James' credibility to the maximum extent possible?

3. I wonder if the explanation for all of this is related to the fact I didn't learn about your actions until just days before the first hearing. I don't know if I can locate an attorney in time. Mr. Bonetto, if this matter cannot be resolved amicably before the deadline, this will not reflect well on your respect for the Law. Or on your integrity.

4. The Kiralys have no integrity. Based on the material in the court papers, you are aware of this. Why did you take this case? Did you use no discretion at all?

James Kiraly is a former wife beater and child abuser. Please note that this was decades ago. I don't precisely hold ill will about the things he did. However, I am exercised about the fact that the man still seeks to control me and even to harm me. And that he lies to do this. Under oath, no less.

Lies that you are encouraging, I'll add. It is your job to win cases for clients. But you are supposed to discourage clients from lying. For you not to end up in situations that may embarrass you in front of your peers, allegations must have at least a small kernel of truth. Am I mistaken about this?

James Kiraly's determination to lie is understandable to some extent. Shall I tell you where it comes from? James' father Frank was raised in a way that left him (Frank) determined never to be dictated to. So when he (Frank) married a strong-willed woman (Ann), the marriage was doomed to failure. Frank injured his wife and left. James somehow inherited the same determination never to be dictated to.

This is more important to James Kiraly than anything else. Facts melt in the blaze of this sun. They are vapor and less than vapor; wandering molecules that are unwelcome in a space where conclusions are predetermined. We will come back to this issue, the question of working backwards, at a later point.

The thing is, after 50 years, I'm sort of tired of being dictated to myself. And the Kiralys will never do this to me again, James Kiraly in particular needs to know it is over. He doesn't control me now and he isn't allowed to hurt me any longer. There should be time limits to everything. Especially this.

5. Grace Kiraly does have integrity. If only at times. But she is a Kmeta and not really a Kiraly. She had potential as a painter once. And as an intellectual. She was third most intelligent in the family. But she has aged into an inconsequential lightweight who does not remember much of what she says from one minute to the next. If you spoke to her, you must have realized this fairly quickly.

By the way, I assume you've noticed how the intelligence in the family is laid out. Kenneth at the top, then Grace, then Thomas, then James, then Scott. If you wish to know where I stand, you may ask Kenneth.

I mention this issue because Thomas Kiraly has claimed I believe I am smarter than the Law. This is nonsense. But I am certainly far more intelligent than Thomas.

6. James is dangerous. After all, he hired you. But if this matter is not resolved, James will spend the rest of his life dealing with legal issues. Do you expect I will be pleased to have James, a former child abuser, slap me with the CLETS sticker? Or that you can twist what I'm saying here without effort?

James is old. Older even than me and I am very old these days. James has had three strokes as I understand it. He does not have much time before he is consigned to a bed or a rocking chair. He is not going to like that much.

I dislike the man for his lies. I wish that I'd had a father and not a bully. There was something to fear and nothing to love. Do you imagine that not having a father to love didn't hurt me badly?

For all of this, I don't begrudge James the pleasure he has left. But if he continues to commit perjury and to try to harm me, my feelings will quite naturally change. Don't bother trying to misrepresent this statement.

Take my measure, Michael. Then advise your clients.

By the way, if another step is necessary, it might be to bring in state or national groups. I lean towards Electronic Frontier Foundation and organizations similar to Adult Survivors of Child Abuse. It might take months to identify the appropriate groups and they might not be interested. But we'll see. If this approach to justice does not work out there will be others.

7. Thomas Kiraly is simply a fool. I refer you to the bizarre remarks about Ivan Kmeta's books. Which I tried to give to him in my will in the event of my death. You have presented the will as evidence of extortion. Explain this point or I'll see to it that this piece of idiocy is associated with you for all Time. Bonetto's Books. Would this be unfair?

This issue will not concern you greatly. But, to be clear, I am not joking at all. I am going to expect at least some of the nonsense to be addressed as part of any settlement. Addressed unambiguously and without a single weasel word, by the way.

8. Oh, and while we're at it, did it even occur to you that there might be more to the Riane Kiraly story? That I might simply have assumed Thomas Kiraly would remember what he told Riane? It wasn't a small issue.

I told Thomas that if he attacked me he'd be embracing the tarbaby and I'd post the full story. He's embraced the tarbaby but I haven't followed through. Ask him to indicate whether the explanation of the Riane incident provided in this document is sufficiently embarrassing or if I must say more.

9. Regarding Kenneth Kiraly, I invite you to read the little biography of him that I've included in this document. How much of the truth did Kenneth tell you?

As a side note, the perjury you have encouraged has forced me to "come out" as Kenneth's brother. Until this happened I only discussed him in private. This helped to ensure my own privacy. But now my life is wide open for anybody to read. I am not pleased by this. I owe Kenneth nothing and have started to answer questions in public. I trust you have no objections.

10. This is simply curiosity. There is no need to answer. But I see that you apparently worked in Walnut Creek, a city that my family is connected to. Did they find you through some sort of mutual acquaintance?

11. Say, Mr. Bonetto, one more thing. Your response might be sort of important.

Are you aware that not one of these people asked me, even once, not to communicate with them in 2012? Not one?

The perjury that you have facilitated, possibly with intent, is full of qualifiers. Plenty of weasel words. What does it boil down? Nothing, actually. This raises questions that may be worth exploring in the future.

As I understand it, I may have difficulties collecting damages from my family in this matter. But, whether or not it's feasible for me to collect damages from you as opposed to my family, or to think about barratry, perhaps it is a reasonable suggestion for the sake of your own reputation that you might look more closely at the matter.

In December 2011, my parents asked me not to communicate with them. After that, I communicated at length with Pismo Beach police. We talked about arresting my father, by the way. I also talked to Elder Abuse. And to a number of social agencies in the area about the best way to deal with people like this. Whether the State could declare them incompetent and so on.

But, unless you can remind me of specific incidents, I honored their request in 2012 until my mother made an unannounced and unwelcome visit to me and resumed phone calls to me that were so unpleasant as to constitute harassment on her part of me. Her actions certainly abrogated my parents' December 2011 request. Do you contest this fact? If so, what is the basis for your contention?

And neither Thomas nor Kenneth *ever* asked me not to communicate with them. Thomas asked me once, out of the blue, not to "harass" his family. This was apparently in response to a lie that Kenneth told. But Thomas agreed to speak with me further. When he ended contact, he didn't say a word about the issue.

I was left wondering what had happened. Typical of these people. Cold and unpleasant. For a bit more about where this comes from, see the family history included in this document.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License