Oct 25 • Accountability
APPELLANT’S STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND ARGUMENT
© Cultural Contrarian 2026 All Rights Reserved Has not been submitted to Superior Court Yet.
APPELLANT’S STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND ARGUMENT
Date: October 24, 2025
Commonwealth v. Appellant — Court of Common Pleas of Chester[County], No. 3501-2022; On Appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, No. 1048 ADA 2025
ISSUES PRESENTED
1. ADA / Due Process: Whether the court denied meaningful access by refusing equally-effective communication, removing Appellant’s ADA support person and repeated warrantless confiscation of ADA aids by court security. Threats, intimidation, coercion, duress by public servants within the Courthouse. (RR236, RR260)
2. Right to Counsel / Grazier: Whether any purported waiver is invalid where no Rule 121 colloquy occurred and counsel withdrew without proper continuity under Rule 120. (RR248–RR250; RR287)
3. Compulsory Process / Witness Intimidation: Whether the court’s refusal to secure a material witness, despite intimidation reports, violated the Sixth Amendment. The state to state as a states witness an individual who was under investigation for witness intimidation and Copyright theft of Appellants intellectual property.(RR224–RR228; RR233–RR241; RR261)
4. Probable Cause / Trespass Letter: Whether a unilateral, permanent, appeal‑less district “trespass” letter can lawfully supply probable cause for defiant trespass on public property. (RR013–RR020; RR005–RR010)
5. Record Integrity / Unruled Motions: Whether omissions and unruled filings require correction and in‑camera transmittal under Pa.R.A.P. 1923/1926. (RR017–RR022; RR023–RR026; RR246)
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
After a non‑jury trial on May 30, 2025, the court entered a bench verdict. (RR001–RR004).
That same day, the court entered the Order imposing sentence (the judgment under review). (RR005–RR010).
Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal on June 3, 2025. (RR011–RR016).
On that date, Appellant submitted a transcript request with a fee‑waiver motion and a submission cover listing items delivered to the Clerk. (RR017–RR022).
Any additional record‑handling materials included by the Prothonotary (e.g., Pa.R.A.P. 1921/1931 guidance) may appear in the certified record and can be cited only if present. (RR023–RR026, if included).
The predicate probable‑cause dispute turns on a district ‘trespass’ letter. Before trial, Appellant counsel sought habeas/quash relief; the court denied relief on September 26, 2024, without deciding the threshold lawfulness of the letter. (RR013–RR020).
Sealed filing IC‑9 was presented, opened in open court, handed to defense counsel and then to the Court, but no ruling issued; Appellant seeks in‑camera transmittal under Pa.R.A.P. 1923/1926. (RR023–RR026).
This Statement confines itself to the certified record and uses RR pagination consistently.
Preservation. Appellant preserved each issue by contemporaneous objection or motion and by timely appeal. See, e.g., RR236, RR260 (ADA objections and accommodation requests/removal of support person); RR248–RR250; RR287 (counsel withdrawal/absence of Rule 121 colloquy); RR224–RR228; RR233–RR241; RR261 (compulsory‑process request, intimidation, and refusal); RR013–RR020 (probable‑cause/trespass‑letter challenge); RR017–RR022; RR023–RR026; RR246 (transcript request, record transmittal items, and unruled motions). Any omissions are identified infra § V with a request for correction under Pa.R.A.P. 1926 (or acceptance of a Rule 1923 statement).
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Reversal is warranted because: (1) the court denied ADA‑mandated equally‑effective communication and removed Appellant’s hired ADA support during trial, impairing participation and the record (RR236, RR260); (2) counsel’s withdrawal and the lack of any valid Grazier colloquy render any waiver invalid and constitute structural error (RR248–RR250; RR287); (3) the court refused to secure a key defense witness and did not address intimidation reported to the court (RR224–RR228; RR233–RR241; RR261); (4) probable cause fails because the district’s permanent, appeal‑less letter is not a lawful predicate for criminal trespass on public property (RR013–RR020; RR005–RR010); and (5) multiple filings went unruled and the docket is incomplete, requiring a targeted remand for record correction and sealed‑materials transmittal (RR017–RR022; RR023–RR026; RR246).
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Questions of constitutional law and statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. Discretionary rulings (e.g., witness management) are reviewed for abuse of discretion; however, where a defendant is denied meaningful participation (Title II/due process) or the right to counsel/valid waiver, prejudice is presumed or the error is structural. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
ARGUMENT
I. TITLE II OF THE ADA AND DUE PROCESS: THE COURT DENIED MEANINGFUL ACCESS BY REFUSING REASONABLE MODIFICATIONS, INCLUDING A SUPPORT PERSON. (RR236; RR260)
Rule. Title II requires courts to provide reasonable modifications and equally‑effective communication so qualified individuals with disabilities can achieve meaningful access to court services and programs. See Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004); Pa. Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998).
Application. The record shows requests for CART/real‑time text and removal/exclusion of Appellant’s ADA support person, impairing participation and accuracy. (RR236; RR260). The court did not engage in an interactive, on‑the‑record analysis or make findings addressing why the requested modifications were unreasonable or unduly burdensome.
Remedy. Vacate and remand for proceedings compliant with Title II and due process, with explicit accommodation directives (including support‑person access), or grant a new hearing. See also infra § V (record correction).
II. RIGHT TO COUNSEL / GRAZIER: NO VALID RULE 121 COLLOQUY; WITHDRAWAL/CONTINUITY ERRORS UNDER RULE 120. (RR248–RR250; RR287)
Rule. A defendant may proceed without counsel only after a searching, on‑the‑record colloquy establishing a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver. Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81, 82 (Pa. 1998); Pa.R.Crim.P. 121. Withdrawal requires leave and continuity of representation. Pa.R.Crim.P. 120.
Application. Counsel withdrew on the morning of trial; the record contains no valid Rule 121 colloquy, and Appellant was never sworn. (RR248–RR250). Any purported waiver is therefore invalid; proceeding without counsel or without a valid waiver is structural error. See Order reference. (RR287).
Remedy. Vacate and remand for a new proceeding with counsel properly in place or, if Appellant elects self‑representation, only after a full Rule 121 colloquy.
III. COMPULSORY PROCESS / WITNESS INTIMIDATION: THE COURT’S REFUSAL TO SECURE A MATERIAL WITNESS VIOLATED THE SIXTH AMENDMENT. (RR224–RR228; RR233–RR241; RR261)
Rule. The Sixth Amendment guarantees compulsory process. See Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967). Pennsylvania recognizes that a court’s refusal to secure material testimony—especially in the face of intimidation—can violate this guarantee.
Application. The court refused to secure a material witness after intimidation/pressure was reported and did not address retaliation concerns, undermining the defense. (RR224–RR228; RR233–RR241; RR261). The witness would have supported Appellant’s theory on material points central to guilt/innocence.
Remedy. Vacate and remand for a new hearing where the witness is produced or the Commonwealth’s interference is remedied on the record.
IV. PROBABLE CAUSE / “TRESPASS” LETTER: A UNILATERAL, ULTRA VIRES NOTICE CANNOT SUBSTITUTE FOR LAWFUL PROCESS. (RR013–RR020; RR005–RR010)
Rule. Defiant‑trespass theories on public property presuppose a lawful restriction and lawful notice from an authorized official; long‑term bans implicate due‑process safeguards (authority, scope, duration, review).
Application. The District’s letter purported to permanently exclude Appellant from all district property without appeal, duration, or standards for re‑admission. The court never entered threshold findings on the letter’s lawfulness despite Appellant’s pre‑trial challenge and the court’s habeas/quash denial. (RR013–RR020). Because the predicate restriction is facially deficient and unsupported in the record by enabling policy or limited duration, police reliance could not establish probable cause for defiant trespass on public property. (RR013–RR020; RR005–RR010).
Remedy. Vacate and remand with a targeted mandate: (1) threshold ruling on the letter’s lawfulness; (2) if the letter fails, a suppression/probable‑cause hearing addressing any fruits.
V. RECORD INTEGRITY / UNRULED MOTIONS: CORRECTION IS REQUIRED UNDER Pa.R.A.P. 1926 (OR ACCEPTANCE OF A RULE 1923 STATEMENT). (RR017–RR022; RR023–RR026; RR246)
Rule. Pa.R.A.P. 1926(b) provides: “If anything material is omitted from the record by error or accident, the omission shall be corrected by the trial court or the appellate court.”
Application. Judicial Notice and a Motion to Stay Sentencing were file‑stamped but never ruled; the docket is incomplete/contradictory; sealed IC‑9 was opened but never ruled. (RR246). Transcript and transmittal materials are documented. (RR017–RR022; RR023–RR026). These omissions frustrate appellate review.
Remedy. Direct corrections under Pa.R.A.P. 1923/1926, rulings on outstanding motions, and in‑camera transmittal of sealed items; the Court may consider reassignment to preserve the appearance of justice.
CONCLUSION
Appellant does not seek a windfall but the lawful administration of justice. Because the proceedings denied ADA‑guaranteed meaningful access, lacked a valid Grazier colloquy, impaired compulsory process, and rested on an ultra vires trespass letter—with material omissions in the record—this Court should vacate and remand with instructions (as set out above) or grant such further relief as is just.
RELIEF REQUESTED
A. Vacate the judgment and remand with directives ensuring ADA‑compliant accommodations, including support‑person access;
B. Alternatively (or additionally), vacate and remand for a new proceeding with counsel properly in place or, if elected, only after a full Rule 121 colloquy;
C. Vacate and remand to remedy the denial of compulsory process, including production of the material witness or equivalent relief;
D. Suppress evidence and vacate any judgment predicated on the ultra vires “trespass” letter;
E. Order correction of the record under Pa.R.A.P. 1926 and/or accept Appellant’s Rule 1923 statement, with any limited remand as needed.
John Ryan Miller (Victim of Lawfare, Administrative Process, ExParte Collusion, Obstruction, ignoring of Federal Law ADA Title II 28 CFR Part 35)
Appellant: __John Ryan Miller____________________________ Date: ___10/24/2025_________
1
3 comments
APPELLANT’S STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND ARGUMENT
