LeRoy Nellis

Contact

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Persistent Digital Interference With My Online Posts: A Call for Independent Review

For months, I have observed repeated, unexplained interference with my online posts, documents,
and published materials—particularly those addressing jail conditions, regulatory oversight,
and civil-rights concerns involving the

WILLIAMSONCOUNTYSHERIFF’SOFFICE.

This article is written to document observable patterns, preserve the public record,
and request independent review. It is not written to assert conclusions without evidence.

What I Am Experiencing

Across multiple platforms and over an extended period of time, the following issues have occurred
with unusual frequency:

  • Posts failing to publish after successful submission
  • Published content being altered, truncated, or disappearing without notice
  • Images and attachments intermittently failing to load or being replaced
  • Posts becoming inaccessible shortly after publication
  • Administrative actions occurring without corresponding user-initiated changes

These incidents disproportionately affect posts addressing government conduct, jail operations,
regulatory oversight, and civil-rights issues.

Why This Raises Concern

Technical glitches occur. Platforms fail. Accounts misbehave.

What raises concern is pattern, timing, and subject-matter correlation.
When interference repeatedly coincides with:

  • Content critical of a specific local law-enforcement agency,
  • Documentation of regulatory failures, or
  • Publication of formal complaints and public records,

it becomes reasonable—not speculative—to request
independent technical review, particularly where the content involves
matters of public concern protected by the First Amendment.

What This Article Is Not Claiming

To be precise and responsible:

  • I am not asserting proven attribution
  • I am not alleging specific individuals
  • I am not claiming access to internal systems
  • I am not asserting criminal conclusions

I am documenting observable interference and preserving a record.
That distinction matters.

Why Independent Review Is Necessary

Digital interference—whether intentional, negligent, or incidental—can only be credibly assessed
by parties independent of the subject matter.

That includes:

  • Platform providers
  • Cybersecurity professionals
  • Journalists with technical expertise
  • Civil-rights investigators
  • Oversight authorities

Sunlight resolves uncertainty. Silence does not.

Record Preservation

All affected posts, timestamps, screenshots, and platform notifications are being preserved.
Where available, metadata and version histories are retained.

This documentation exists to:

  • Establish timelines
  • Compare published versus altered versions
  • Correlate interference with subject matter
  • Enable third-party technical evaluation

Why This Matters Beyond One Person

If digital interference is occurring—by anyone, for any reason—against speech critical of government
conduct, this is not a private issue.

It is a public trust issue.

The right to document, criticize, and publish information about government activity is foundational.
Any pattern that chills that speech warrants careful scrutiny.

Request for Transparency

I am calling for:

  • Independent technical review
  • Platform transparency
  • Journalistic inquiry
  • Oversight attention where appropriate

This is how uncertainty is resolved—with evidence, not assumptions.

Closing

This article exists to place facts on the record and invite lawful, independent review.

If the interference is benign, independent analysis will demonstrate that.
If it is not, the public deserves to know.

Either way, documentation—not silence—is the correct response.