Despite the best efforts of an attorney representing accused child molester David Barboza, District Court Magistrate J. Patrick O’Neill upheld a temporary restraining order against Mr. Barboza by a 45-year old Bristol man. Mr. Barboza is now required to stay away from Stephen P. Parella, a fellow Bristol resident, for three years.

Mr. Parella, who has an autistic spectrum disorder, represented himself. Mr. Barboza was represented by attorney Fausto Anguilla.

In his Oct. 1 affidavit, Mr. Parella said he has known Mr. Barboza for nearly 30 years, and that he first exhibited inappropriate behavior as far back as 1992, a timeline the alleged victim recounted under oath in court on Monday.

He told the court that in November of 1992, when he was 18, an intoxicated Mr. Barboza rubbed his erection on him at an election party. Mr. Parella testified that the two men would run into each other over the ensuing years, often because the alleged victim was going to St. Mary’s Church, where Mr Barboza worked, to pick up donated clothes.

When they met, Mr. Parella claimed, the dialogue often turned sexual. The alleged victim recounted one conversation where he, Mr. Barboza, and a third party talked about watching porn and “jerking off.” Asked by the judge where this happened, the alleged victim replied, “The rectory. Always at the rectory.”

Mr. Parella also accused Mr. Barboza of repeatedly looking down the front of his pants, between the years 2013 and 2017, when Mr. Parella, who lives with his mother on public assistance, went to St. Mary’s to obtain clothes. He said Mr. Barboza claimed he needed to do that to determine his pants size. Mr. Parella estimated this happened as many as five times over the years.

When these incidents happened, Mr. Parella kept the information to himself. “I held it quiet because there was just rubbing and looking down pants. My mom teased me and said, ‘Dave has the hots for you,’ he said. “Then she told me to stay away from him, if I can.”

Asked by the judge how he felt when Mr. Barboza looked down his pants, Mr. Parella said, “Oh my God, why did he do that? I wasn’t there to expose myself, just take clothes home.”

“I was embarrassed and uncomfortable, but I didn’t make a big deal about it because he was a friend.”

Accusation of threats

That all changed this past August, after the Boston Globe broke a story of Mr. Barboza’s alleged history of child molestation, and a civil suit being filed against him by alleged victim Robert Powers. Mr. Parella went to Walter Smith, a friend he knows through his association with the Knights of Columbus, and told him that he, too, was a victim of David Barboza. The next day, Mr. Smith drove him to the police station to file a report.

A few days later, on Aug. 5, Mr. Parella joined a small crowd of demonstrators outside of Mr. Barboza’s Constitution Street home. Not long after that, he claims, the harassment started. He claims that Mr. Barboza confronted him on State Street one day in early Septemeber.

“He (Mr. Barboza) said, ‘what’s this I hear about you throwing me under the bus?’ ” Mr. Parella said. “He kept throwing it in my face, how good he was to me.”

According the to Oct. 1 affidavit, Mr. Parella claimed that on Monday, Sept. 16, Mr. Barboza came to his home on High Street and “told me I’m going to burn in hell for ‘throwing him under the bus,’ because he thought I went to the state police.”

He also alleged that Mr. Barboza told him to go f*** himself, and he told the man’s mother that, “if he sees me he will run me over.”

“All this changed with his attitude,” Mr. Parella said. “We weren’t friends anymore.”

“I just want to be left alone.”

Attempt to dismiss the case fails

Mr. Anguilla attempted and failed to have the case dismissed by asserting the District Court was not the proper jurisdiction and statutory predicates had not been met to hear the case in this court. Magistrate O’Neill disagreed. “We are in the right venue,” he said. “This is blatant intimidation of someone who has made an allegation. It’s straight intimidation, coming to his door and saying ‘F you’ and ‘we’re no longer friends’.”

Mr. Anguilla was given the opportunity to cross-examine the alleged victim, and he opened by questioning Mr. Parella’s claim that he feared he was in “imminent danger,” given the amount of time, about two weeks, between the alleged intimidation and the restraining order.

“You waited 15 days,” said Mr. Anguilla. “It could not have been very imminent.” When Mr. Parella noted he needed both a ride and someone to help him navigate the judicial complex, Mr. Anguilla asked him if he had ever heard of RIPTA (The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority.)

Mr. Anguilla also questioned Mr. Parella’s assertion that he was fearful of Mr. Barboza. “You go to church,” Mr. Anguilla said. “You know Mr. Barboza doesn’t get to decide who burns in hell.”

“I thought it was a joke,” admitted the alleged victim. “I know he’s not Jesus. But I know I was confronted.”

Mr. Anguilla attempted to suggest that Mr. Barboza’s motives for looking down the victim’s pants were misconstrued, pointing out that the alleged victim could not tell, just by looking at Mr. Anguilla’s pants, what his size was.

“No,” agreed Mr. Parella. “But I wouldn’t look down the front. The waist size is in the back of the pants, not the front.”

In closing, Mr. Anguilla asserted that there is no reasonable belief that Mr. Parella would fear “imminent serious physical harm,” a key predicate for a restraining order. He also restated that Mr. Parella could have gotten himself to Providence sooner.

“My client has no problem staying away from this petitioner,” said Mr. Anguilla. “But I don’t want to expose my client to being in contempt. He has to drive on High Street.”

However, Magistrate O’Neill rejected Mr. Anguilla’s arguments, holding up the order barring Mr. Barboza from “contacting, assaulting, molesting or otherwise interfering with the Plaintiff at home, on the street, or elsewhere.”

“Anything’s imminent in a small town like Bristol.”