For transparency, not response I’m sharing two letters I previously sent to the Superintendent and Board of Directors. These are not shared to solicit engagement, debate, or action. No response is expected or required. They are offered simply as part of my own record-keeping and commitment to communicate clearly, respectfully, and in good faith. Read or don’t—either is fine. — Ryan Letter Sent 1/29/2026 to the Superintendent: Superintendent Dr. Colletti, I am writing with care and deliberation. Throughout the past several years, in matters involving law enforcement, school governance, counsel, courts, and administrative agencies, I have sought to conduct myself consistently — with restraint, clarity, and respect for process — even when doing so carried significant personal cost. I have not always succeeded perfectly, but my intent has remained steady: to pursue truth without malice and resolution without unnecessary harm. I understand that Superintendent Dutkiewicz does not maintain a public-facing email address, and I am therefore directing this correspondence through your office consistent with prior communications. As my remaining Right-to-Know requests approach their natural conclusion, I believe it is appropriate to request a meeting to discuss clarification of outstanding issues and to determine whether there is a reasonable path toward resolution before additional institutional or administrative burdens accumulate. I want to acknowledge directly that I understand how difficult it can be for institutions to address matters once they have taken on complexity, risk, and reputational weight. I do not approach this lightly, nor with a desire to impose pressure or extract outcomes. At the same time, the impact of what occurred was real — not only to me and my family, but also to others who objected, spoke, or were affected despite seeking no conflict themselves. Those costs cannot be reduced to abstractions. One practical consideration affecting timing is the need for clear confirmation that I may be present on District property for such a meeting without risk of detention or enforcement action. As you are aware, prior restrictions and related ambiguity have required me to proceed cautiously. Once that issue is resolved and I have confirmation of access, I would be prepared to meet in person.

I’m sharing this to provide context, not to invite speculation or debate. Resulting from a multi-thousand-page Right-to-Know response from a Chester County public school district, the record revealed the dissemination of copyrighted material created by myself and my pen name, Cultural Contrarian. The intellectual property included videos, eBooks, newsletter issues, and archived materials stored on external digital platforms. Upon filing DMCA takedown notices with entities including YouTube, Microsoft OneDrive, Google, and Facebook, the identified materials were removed. These platforms did not accept claims that the dissemination qualified as Fair Use based on the details provided in my DMCA submissions. Direct cease-and-desist notices sent regarding the unauthorized dissemination were not acknowledged. I have no basis to conclude that unlawfully obtained copies of my copyrighted materials were destroyed or otherwise handled in compliance with the law. For those interested in reviewing the record, I have made redacted materials available for public review.

This is a private reader space for those seeking clarity before engaging institutional systems—schools, courts, or public bodies. Access is free, but intentional. The material here is not advocacy training, legal advice, or a call to action. It exists to slow the reader down before irreversible decisions are made in good faith. Members are approved to preserve signal and context. If you’re here to understand how institutions actually work—not to inflame or mobilize—you’re welcome to request access. If you are interested in Membership, this is a great starting point

Reading Note (Context, Not Conclusion) This essay does not ask the reader to assign motive, fault, or virtue to any person or institution. It exists to clarify a category error that often occurs when administrative records are encountered in public discourse: the premature assignment of “good faith” or “bad faith.” The archive referenced here is intentionally not public-facing. It consists of procedural materials that may be evaluated on their own terms. Readers are encouraged to suspend narrative reflex and engage with the essay as a discussion of how we read records—not what we should conclude from Good or Bad Faith Is Not an Objective Standard When a citizen requests public records from an institution, a quiet but powerful process begins long before any document is read. Not inside the agency. Inside the observer. Before evidence is weighed, before timelines are examined, before statutes are consulted, the human mind often assigns meaning. And meaning, in our cultural moment, is frequently collapsed into a moral binary: good faith or bad faith. This essay argues that such assignments—whether negative or positive—are not objective standards at the intake stage of administrative process. They are subconscious overlays. They may feel intuitive, even responsible, but they are premature. And they interfere with discernment. The archive at issue consists of a narrow set of materials: A Right-to-Know requestAgency responsesA final administrative determinationA subsequent appealNothing more. It does not assert motive. It does not accuse wrongdoing. It does not declare corruption or virtue. It asks for documents that either exist or do not, were searched for or were not, were produced or were withheld. These are procedural questions, not moral ones. The archive does not ask the reader to decide who is good or bad. It asks only that the reader consider records as records, and process as process. The Twin Presuppositions We Carry Most readers arrive carrying one of two unspoken belief sets—often without realizing it.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1L37bk5ABb/?mibextid=wwXIfr