PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
This is a pro se appeal of the dismissal of a federal civil rights case, docket No. 1:21cv0190 (CMHJFA), by the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In summary, this is a case in which the lower courts have repeatedly refused to provide due process and the equal protection of the laws, and turned a blind eye myriad efforts on the part of the Defendants, acting in concert, to infringe Appellant’s First Amendment rights. Background In 2018, Robert Hiller Malm, an Episcopal priest then serving as rector of Grace Episcopal Church filed for a protective order against Plaintiff with the courts of the city of Alexandria VA. He did so based on allegations that: 1. Plaintiff had protested outside his church. 2. Plaintiff had repeatedly blogged about him. 3. There had been shootings at churches elsewhere in the country, including a fictional event at a church in the imaginary locality of “Sugarland Texas.” 4. Plaintiff had not “followed the guidance of the bishop.” 5. A blog published by Plaintiff’s late mother, Sigrid Yahner, was threatening, due to her use of the collective pseudonym, “The Killer B’s,” in honor of her favorite classic rock band, the Richmond Virginia-based “Killer Bees,” and a group of Pittsburgh baseball players, known as “The Killer B’s.” (When previously married, Yahner’s last name began with a “B,” as was the case with several friends.) In open court, Malm stated under oath: 1. He had not been threatened by Plaintiff. 2. He had not had contact with Plaintiff in more than a year. 3. That he had not seen Plaintiff in any public or private location in the past year. 4. That the City of Alexandria police department had not pursued any form of criminal charges against the appellant. It should also be noted that Malm made various representations to the Alexandria police and to the courts that Appellant was “dysunctional” and mentally ill in an effort to support his claims, even as he included imaginary requests for meetings with Appellant’s mother in his pleadings, references to imaginary locations and church shootings in the United States, and inflammatory claims of “domestic terrorism.” Those claims ignored the fact that, as a former police officer, Appellant is fully polygraphed, successfully passed a comprehensive background check and
Appeal — Bonetti v. City of Alexandria et al
1