Submission: JRM_3_RTK_EWPD-01​

Final Determination from Office of Open Records

​East Whiteland Appeal Submission

​East Whiteland Entry of Appearance

Notice of Record Entry - Preservation of Facts

East Whiteland Entry of Appearance

Certificate of Service Entry of Appearance Again Emails from Fisher​​​​

​For transparency, I am publishing below my original Right-to-Know Law request exactly as submitted, without substantive edits. Limited redactions have been made only to remove personal contact information and unrelated private identifiers. This document is shared​ for accuracy and public understanding of the scope of the request that resulted in the Office of Open Records’ Final Determination.

​

© 2026 Meraki. All rights reserved as to original content, compilation, and presentation.

Government records reproduced herein are public records and retain their original status

Captured on 2/3/2026 @ 1:51PM

Preliminary Statement of Claimed Facts
(Unsworn — Under Review)

This document is offered as a good-faith record of preservation, not as an accusation,
demand, or legal pleading.

Its purpose is to memorialize what was said, what roles were invoked, what actions
occurred, and what reliance was reasonably exercised during a defined sequence of
interactions involving public officials, law enforcement agencies, and related institutional actors.
No conclusions regarding intent, motive, sincerity, legality, or liability are asserted herein.

This record exists because experience has demonstrated that time, silence, and
administrative process can obscure or reframe material facts, particularly where events
unfold across multiple agencies, jurisdictions, and informal channels. Preservation is therefore
necessary to ensure accuracy — not persuasion.

Where statements of faith, moral framing, or professional authority were invoked
contemporaneously, those statements are recorded as facts, without theological judgment or
assessment of belief. Where procedural representations were made, they are preserved without
inference as to their fulfillment or failure.

This document does not purport to resolve disputes, adjudicate wrongdoing, or compel
agreement. It is intentionally restrained. Its function is to provide a stable reference point so that
later discussion — whether legal, administrative, pastoral, or personal — is grounded in a
shared factual substrate rather than memory, interpretation, or narrative reconstruction.
The reader is invited to:
● Review the preserved facts,
● Note the sequence and context in which they arose,
● And draw their own conclusions — or none at all.

This record may be supplemented, revised, or clarified as additional materials are reviewed. It
remains under review by design.

Preliminary Statement of Preserved Facts

(Unsworn — Under Review)

This statement is offered for the limited purpose of preserving factual context and
contemporaneous understanding based on recorded communications, documentary materials,
and direct interactions involving multiple law enforcement agencies and institutional actors. It is
not an accusation, legal pleading, or assertion of liability. No conclusions regarding intent,
motive, legality, or misconduct are made.

The facts below are presented as they were represented, observed, or understood at the time
they occurred.

It is preserved and represented that:

A. Investigative Assignment and Scope
1. Detective Joe Juisti of the East Pikeland Police Department (EPPD) was assigned to
investigate reported harms and supporting evidence provided by John Ryan Miller,
including materials and testimony originating from then-Officer Anthony Falgiatore of the

East Whiteland Police Department (EWPD).
2. The investigation involved alleged harassment, impersonation, electronic misconduct,
and witness intimidation affecting both Mr. Miller and a testifying witness in
Commonwealth v. Miller.

B. Status Uncertainty and Conflicting Representations
3. Mr. Miller repeatedly sought clarification regarding the status of the investigation after
extended periods without communication.
4. During these periods, multiple explanations were provided by EPPD concerning
Detective Juisti’s availability or role, including references to medical leave, administrative
limitations, reassignment, or disciplinary constraints.
5. Detective Juisti later returned to duty in a reduced role, at times described as Officer
Juisti, with stated limitations on investigative authority and oversight.
C. Authorization and Oversight Representations
6. Detective Juisti represented that authorization had been discussed with the Chester
County District Attorney’s Office to pursue investigative steps across jurisdictions.
7. Subsequent clarity regarding the scope, approval, or outcome of those discussions was
not consistently communicated to Mr. Miller or to affected witnesses.

D. Interviews and Investigative Activity

8. Detective Juisti conducted at least one preliminary interview of Brian Fox.
9. Officer Matt Paris conducted limited interviews and did not interview at least one
identified participant referenced in reported harassment communications.

E. Evidence Custody and Corroboration
10. Certain corroborating materials believed to be in the custody of EWPD — including
internal records related to witness concerns — were not obtained, reviewed, or
confirmed as part of the EPPD investigative record.
11. Evidence initially believed to be in the custody of EPPD was later represented as having
been transferred to other entities, including county or state-level agencies.
12. The identity of the agency maintaining custody of specific evidence was not consistently
disclosed to the reporting party.

F. East Whiteland Police Department (EWPD) Actions
13. EWPD issued a no-contact advisory affecting Mr. Miller without obtaining a sworn
affidavit from a reporting party.
14. The advisory was issued without contemporaneous independent investigative verification
of the underlying allegation.
15. The scope and wording of the advisory were later discussed as precautionary rather
than adjudicative in nature.
16. At the time the advisory was issued, EWPD did not review electronic evidence or
conduct investigative steps to substantiate or negate the reported conduct.
17. EWPD was in possession of internal reports and information concerning witness
intimidation involving Officer Falgiatore.
18. It remains unclear whether those internal EWPD materials were transmitted to the
District Attorney’s Office or to any investigating entity.
G. Inter-Agency Communication
19. Officers Corbo, Paris, and Juisti represented that concerns regarding witness
intimidation and related matters had been communicated to the District Attorney’s Office.
20. Subsequent communications revealed uncertainty regarding investigative ownership,
responsibility, and follow-through across agencies.
H. Court-Related Representations
21. Officer Paris stated to Mr. Miller’s legal representative that Mr. Miller had filed a lawsuit
against Chester County detectives.
22. No public record has been identified confirming that representation.
I. Electronic Evidence and Disclosure

23. Officer Juisti acknowledged receipt of electronic and documentary evidence similar in nature to materials later opened and read on the record by Corporal Weaver.

24. A search warrant was obtained to identify the registrant of the domain
www.CulturalContrarian.org.
25. The identity of the registrant was identified but was not subsequently confirmed on the
record to the court, prosecuting authority, defense counsel, or affected parties.
J. Unexecuted Investigative Steps
26. Officer Juisti represented that authorization to pursue additional electronic warrants or
investigative steps was not granted or was deferred.
27. Officer Juisti continued to receive evidence relating to alleged harassment, witness
intimidation, and dissemination of copyrighted materials without license.
K. Termination of Communication and Administrative Outcomes
28. Officer Juisti terminated direct communication with Mr. Miller in or about November 2024.
29. Throughout 2025, EPPD did not provide confirmation of investigative status, interviews
conducted, or case disposition.
30. Lieutenant Heyman of EPPD was reported to have possessed physical evidence similar
to materials read by Corporal Weaver; subsequent custody or preservation of that
evidence was not confirmed.
31. As of January 6, 2026, all Right-to-Know Law requests seeking clarification of
investigative status, evidence custody, or agency assignment had been administratively
denied.

L. Exhibit Structure and Preservation
32. Mr. Miller maintains a structured Summary of Exhibits consisting primarily of audio and
video recordings reflecting contemporaneous communications underlying the preserved
facts above.
33. A separate private archive of email correspondence exists relating to reported
harassment, intimidation, and related conduct.
34. Further reporting was discontinued due to the absence of investigative feedback, clarity,
or remedial action.

Preservation Notice
This statement is maintained to preserve context, sequence, and contemporaneous
representations. It asserts no criminal liability, misconduct, or intent.it exists so that future review — whether legal, administrative, or personal — may proceed from an accurate and stable factual substrate rather than memory, inference, or retrospective reconstruction.

This record remains under review and may be supplemented or clarified as additional materials
are examined