I kept this pretty dim, then I went to about 100lux. Still haven’t plugged this in quite yet. https://open.substack.com/pub/jryanmiller/p/when-the-village-of-10000-goes-silent?r=6s4egv&utm_medium=ios

https://open.substack.com/pub/jryanmiller/p/paper-not-pitchforks-a-lesser-magistrate?r=6s4egv&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

I understand that a tactic to avoid responsibility and accountability is to do the Ostrich. I get it, avoidance means I might just go away. Except, I'm like a dog with a bone not willing to bite anyone. Today, I created another public record at Octorara School District. I have ZERO problem of this this document being downloaded and shared anywhere on the internet. I personally will not post it on social media, facebook for I think it might really trigger the Falgiatores. I did not mention their name in any of this document. But it will be evident with documents I will be filing next week.

Jim loves to send me things and watch for my reaction or we have a conversation. Well, this one struck a big nerve. It is one of those "triggering" videos for me for multiple reasons (which you guys certainly know). But, when the Gospel is at my root, I think hey this is dog poop, how can I make it smell pretty. Well, it's simple, don't think it, say it, just do it. I am going to share the attached file I made with the creator of this video and see if they engage. Feel Free to share as I think this is pretty good if I say so myself.

© 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).