Digital Retaliation and Evidence Tampering

Allegations of Coordinated Cyber Interference Following Civil-Rights Complaints

By LeRoy Nellis II
Austin, Texas
January 2026

---

Executive Summary

I am publicly reporting what I believe to be ongoing, coordinated cyber interference and digital evidence tampering
affecting my website, legal communications, and online records—occurring after and in connection with
formal civil-rights complaints I submitted regarding jail technology practices involving the
Williamson County Sheriff’s Office and its vendors NCIC and Securus Technologies.

The activity includes:

• Deletion of published investigative articles
• Disappearance of attorney correspondence referenced in filings
• Removal or corruption of legal documents and exhibits
• Interference with online records tied to state and federal complaints

If substantiated, these actions raise serious concerns of retaliation, obstruction, computer crimes, and civil-rights violations.

---

What Is Happening

Since publishing investigative articles and submitting formal complaints documenting AI surveillance abuses, coerced consent,
and biometric violations in Williamson County jail operations, I have experienced repeated, unexplained disruptions
to my online presence, including:

• Selective removal of WordPress articles
• Missing uploaded documents and linked exhibits
• Vanishing email records cited in agency submissions
• Corrupted or altered drafts connected to ongoing complaints

These incidents are not consistent with routine hosting issues, user error, or platform moderation.

---

Why This Is Not Normal Website Behavior

Several indicators point to deliberate interference rather than accident:

1. Targeted deletions — only specific legal or investigative content disappears
2. Timing correlation — incidents follow complaint filings or public disclosures
3. No platform notices — no WordPress policy flags or takedown explanations
4. Credential integrity — passwords, 2FA, and admin access remain intact
5. Pattern repetition — multiple incidents over time, not a one-off

Accidental data loss does not behave this way.

---

Context: Active Legal Exposure

These incidents arise amid active and escalating legal pressure stemming from complaints alleging:

• Forced use of AI-monitored jail communication systems
• Invalid “consent” obtained through service monopolization
• Biometric data collection without lawful authorization
• Consumer deception toward inmates’ families
• ADA and civil-rights violations

Those complaints were submitted to:

• U.S. Department of Justice
• U.S. Attorney’s Office (Western District of Texas)
• Texas Attorney General’s Office

Following these submissions, digital records tied to the complaints began disappearing.

---

Why This Raises Serious Legal Issues

If any government entity—or private contractor acting under color of law—participated in or encouraged this conduct,
it may implicate:

• Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. §1030)
• Obstruction of justice and evidence spoliation
• Retaliation against a complainant or whistleblower
• Civil-rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §1983

Notably, retaliation and evidence tampering are often easier to prove than the underlying misconduct—and they significantly
increase liability.

---

Vendors, Data, and Capability

Correctional technology vendors operate sophisticated technical infrastructures, including:

• Networked communications systems
• Authentication and identity services
• Cloud-hosted storage and analytics
• AI-assisted monitoring and transcription

These are complex environments. If interference occurred, it would likely be traceable through logs, IP correlations,
and forensic review.

---

Notice to All Parties

This article serves as public notice that:

• All incidents are being documented and preserved
• Server, CMS, and access logs are under review
• Evidence destruction or alteration in anticipation of litigation is independently actionable
• Any further interference will be treated as ongoing retaliation

Attempts to silence or erase records do not reduce exposure. They compound it.

---

Call for Independent Investigation

I am calling for:

• An independent digital forensics review
• Preservation orders for relevant logs and records
• Examination of any coordination between county officials and private vendors
• Oversight by appropriate state and federal authorities

Transparency resolves this. Secrecy escalates it.

---

Closing Statement

If the response to lawful complaints is to erase records, interfere with publications, or tamper with evidence,
that response exposes the system more than any article ever could.

Truth survives deletion attempts.
Evidence has a way of reappearing.
Retaliation always leaves a trail.

LeRoy Nellis II
Austin, Texas