In early 2026, I shared a factual account of a landlord entering my apartment while I was naked. An event documented in court records and not disputed by any party.

The purpose of these posts was to raise awareness of a gap in Wyoming law: the absence of a statutory notice requirement before landlord entry, even in non-emergency situations.

What followed reflects a recurring pattern in how discussion of this issue was constrained.

1. Visibility Followed by Removal

• The post received thousands of views and active public engagement.
   
• The content was removed by moderators without a cited rule violation.
   
• The post was removed multiple times despite revisions made to comply with community guidelines.
   

2. Procedural Enforcement Without Substantive Explanation

• A permanent ban was issued after reposting removed content.
   
• No prior warning, temporary ban, or specific rule citation was provided.
   
• No explanation was given as to how the content violated subreddit rules.
   

3. Reframing Away From the Underlying Conduct

• Discussion frequently shifted from the act itself (entry into a private residence while the occupant was naked) to:
   
  • Judicial outcomes
     
  • Character judgments
     
  • Whether the event “mattered” given the court’s ruling
     
• The underlying conduct was repeatedly minimized or dismissed.
   

4. Coordinated Reframing via Derivative Account

• A separate account using the name “wyunaccountable”— a derivative of my own account name— posted repeated, lengthy legal summaries emphasizing:
   
  • Summary judgment dismissals
     
  • Final trial outcomes
     
  • Judicial findings in favor of the defendants
     
• These posts appeared consistently across related threads and framed continued discussion as illegitimate unless aligned with the court’s conclusion.
   

5. Transparency Treated as Impropriety

• Public documentation and screenshots were characterized as “sensationalized” or “spam.”
   
• Sharing primary materials was framed as a credibility issue rather than as public record preservation.
   
• Calls for accountability were reframed as personal grievance.
   

This sequence reflects the same dynamics observed throughout the broader process:

• Reliance on procedure over explanation
   
• Reframing of boundary violations as inconvenience
   
• Shifting focus from actions to reactions
   
• Suppression of discussion once legality becomes the only permitted lens
   

The issue is not whether the conduct was ruled lawful.

The issue is how consistently systems respond when harm is discussed but not legally redressable.

r/Casper Silencing 

On January 12, 2026, my post in r/Casper (a large Wyoming community subreddit) was removed and labeled as “spam,” despite being my only post in that community and consisting of a single factual summary with links to public court records. When I asked which specific rule was violated and whether the flagging was automated or report-driven, moderators stopped responding and provided no rule-based explanation. 

While r/Wyoming is a privately moderated forum, it functions in practice as a primary public-facing discussion space for state-related issues. Established media outlets are routinely permitted to post reporting and commentary within this forum. In contrast, firsthand, well-documented accounts raising public-interest concerns may be removed without explanation, even when presented neutrally and supported by primary records.

This asymmetry reinforces a broader pattern in which institutional voices are presumed legitimate by default, while individuals documenting harm are subjected to higher procedural scrutiny.

 Following the conclusion of my court case, I continued publicly sharing verified records and documentation related to the incident via WyomingAccountability.org. The purpose of this work is public awareness, transparency, and policy discussion. Not harassment, retaliation, or personal attacks.

On Friday, January 2nd, a series of coordinated responses occurred across multiple local online spaces that resulted in removal of posts, calls for bans, and direct demands that I “stop” discussing what happened despite the content being factual, documented, and related to a matter of public interest.

In multiple local forums and Facebook groups, posts referencing my case or website were met with:

• Immediate hostile replies dismissing the documentation as “trash,” “bullshit,” or “self-promotion”
   
• Assertions that the court ruling alone invalidates any public discussion of the underlying conduct
   
• Calls for moderators to remove posts and permanently ban me from local community spaces
   
• Personal attacks unrelated to the facts of the case
   

These responses did not engage with the documentation itself, but instead focused on ending discussion entirely.

In at least one instance, individuals directly associated with the landlord publicly demanded that I “stop it” and “leave us alone,” despite the fact that:

• I am documenting my own experience
   
• The information shared is factual and supported by records
   
• No private information was disclosed
   
• No direct contact or harassment was initiated by me
   

These demands mirror a recurring theme throughout this case:

That public discussion itself is framed as wrongdoing, rather than the conduct being discussed.

During this same period:

• Posts were removed without explanation
   
• Permanent bans were issued without prior warning or opportunity to adjust content
   
• Reposting after silent removals — intended to comply with unclear moderation rules — was characterized as “spamming”
   
• Requests for clarification were met with dismissive or accusatory responses rather than procedural explanations
   

Notably, these actions occurred even when posts complied with stated rules and were not repetitive, abusive, or commercial in nature.

Across platforms, a clear imbalance emerged:

• Third parties were permitted to characterize me, the case, and the outcome freely and often inaccurately
   
• Institutional or affiliated voices framed the narrative without restriction
   
• Firsthand documentation by the affected individual was removed or suppressed
   

This asymmetry is significant not because of disagreement, but because access to public discourse itself was selectively constrained.

The events documented above are consistent with patterns present since the original incident:

• Boundary violations reframed as inconvenience
   
• Retaliatory or dismissive responses to objection
   
• Institutional reluctance to intervene
   
• Narrative control favoring those with authority
   
• Efforts to silence rather than address the underlying issue
   

What occurred on January 2nd represents a continuation of these dynamics in a public, digital context.

In small communities like Laramie, personal relationships, business interests, and institutional roles naturally overlap. But when a single household sits at the intersection of multiple influential positions, their public engagement, especially in the context of a tenant raising concerns, carries weight far beyond that of an ordinary commenter.

Trinity Thatcher, who publicly interacted with online discussions surrounding my experience, holds several interconnected roles that make her responses highly significant:

• Employee of Laramie Plains Properties (LPP) — the company responsible for my lease and central to the events in question.
   
• A testifying witness whose statements directly shaped the legal understanding of the incident.
   
• A real estate professional who regularly participates in Laramie’s real estate community, trainings, and events.
   
• A visible community figure whose work intersects with landlords, tenants, local officials, business owners, and informal decision-making networks.
   
• Spouse of the defendant, making her online engagement function as an extension of the household’s position, especially given his public silence.
   
• Part of a family that owns The Cowboy Saloon & Dance Hall, a major bar and event space serving university students and local residents, giving the household additional community reach and cultural influence.
   

The ownership of The Cowboy Saloon & Dance Hall is especially important in understanding the scope of influence. Bars in college towns are more than nightlife venues—they are social nodes, places where large segments of the student population, local young adults, and long-time residents circulate. Owning such a prominent establishment places the Thatcher family at the center of yet another public-facing ecosystem tied to Laramie’s culture.

This creates a uniquely dense overlap:

• Housing authority (LPP)
   
• Real estate and leasing expertise
   
• Courtroom involvement and testimonial role
   
• Marriage to the defendant
   
• Business ownership with strong links to university life and local community culture
   

When all of these roles converge, the public responses of a single person within that network carry institutional implications. Her online participation (whether through comments, likes, or engagement with others) cannot be interpreted as the detached opinion of a random individual. It reflects, intentionally or not:

• The cultural norms of the business she works for
   
• The household stance surrounding the defendant
   
• The networks that shape housing, real estate, and community influence in Laramie
   
• The kind of atmosphere tenants might expect when challenging a landlord or local business figure
   

Meanwhile, the defendant’s own silence means her words, reactions, and interactions become the de facto public voice of their side.

For tenants and community members observing from the outside, the message can feel distinctly structural:

“This is not just one person. This is an interconnected system responding.”
 

This is exactly why the role convergence matters. It demonstrates how personal, professional, and community power can merge in ways that deeply shape the experience of anyone attempting to raise concerns or seek accountability in environments where influence is tightly concentrated.

Further compounding this issue is the fact that individuals and entities connected to the landlord and property management group appear to have administrative or affiliated presence within at least one of the community spaces where my content was removed.

Specifically:

• The Facebook group Laramie Rants and Raves lists Laramie Plains Properties and Thatcher Home Services among its associated or managed pages.
   
• Individuals connected to these entities have administrative or moderation visibility within that space.
   
• My post was removed, and calls for my banning were entertained or supported, following engagement by those same individuals.
   

This does not require speculation to be concerning. When parties connected to a documented dispute are positioned to influence moderation outcomes, the appearance of impartial community governance is compromised.

As of January 2nd, I have been:

• Permanently banned from r/Laramie
   
• Permanently banned from r/Wyoming
   
• Removed from or silenced within the Laramie Rants and Raves Facebook group
   

Most recently, I have also observed targeted attention and monitoring within r/JacksonHole, my hometown community.

These forums represent some of the largest and most influential local discussion spaces for Wyoming residents and stakeholders. Removal from all three significantly restricts the ability to:

• Share firsthand, factual accounts of what occurred
   
• Respond to misinformation presented by others
   
• Participate in good-faith public discussion about local laws and tenant rights
   

Importantly, my posts did not call for harassment, donations, or retaliation. They consisted of verifiable facts, court records, timelines, and public-interest discussion.

This cumulative exclusion across multiple platforms reflects a broader pattern of structural silencing, not isolated moderation decisions.

Another relevant contextual factor is public social media activity by individuals connected to the landlord and property management entities on November 3, 2025, the final day of trial.

On that date, posts appeared showing:

• Public celebration at local bars and social gatherings
   
• Statements expressing relief that the matter was “over”
   
• Comments emphasizing gratitude for extensive community support during the trial
   
• Messaging framing the outcome as vindication rather than addressing the underlying conduct
   

These posts were made while the trial was still concluding and before broader public access to records, transcripts, or detailed rulings was available.

This documentation is not intended to challenge anyone’s right to seek community support or express relief at the end of a legal proceeding. Rather, it provides transparent context for how public narrative formation occurred in real time and how community alignment was actively reinforced at a moment when the affected party had limited ability to speak publicly or respond.

The contrast between:

• public celebration and affirmation on one side, and
   
• subsequent demands that I “stop,” “leave them alone,” or refrain from discussing the matter at all
   

 further illustrates the asymmetry present throughout this process.

 *This context is included solely to document timing and public messaging, not to assign motive or intent. 

Beginning in January 2026, multiple posts appeared from an account titled WyUnaccountable.
The posts followed a consistent structure:

• They opened with repeated emphasis that “the judge ruled against you”
   
• They framed the plaintiff’s public documentation as “sensationalized”
   
• They selectively quoted portions of the court record
   
• They asserted knowledge of the litigation while posting anonymously
   
• They attempted to reframe the incident as resolved and closed
   

Screenshots of these posts are archived below.

Notably:

• The account appeared shortly after broader public attention increased
   
• Posts were made in Wyoming-related subreddits where the plaintiff had previously been restricted or removed
   
• All responses were framed as definitive statements of fact despite the anonymous nature of the account
   
• Comments under these posts were locked or immediately removed
   
• The account did not participate elsewhere on Reddit, suggesting it was created for this purpose
   

This behavior fits into a broader pattern already documented on this page:

attempts to minimize, dismiss, or discredit the experience when presented publicly, often using anonymous or newly created accounts, and appearing primarily in Wyoming-centric online spaces. 

No conclusions are drawn about authorship or coordination.

The screenshots are presented solely to document consistent patterns of response when the incident is disclosed publicly.

The following materials are preserved in original form and available for review:

• Screenshots of comments calling for bans and removal
   
• Screenshots of direct demands to stop discussing the case
   
• Moderation messages and removal notices
   
• Timestamps showing the sequence of events
   
• Group and page affiliations relevant to moderation decisions
   

This documentation is presented without speculation and is intended solely to maintain an accurate public record.

 On December 10, 2025, a detailed written inquiry was sent to multiple Wyoming state legislators.

The message included:

• Public records
   
• Documentation of the incident
   
• A summary of the statutory gap allowing landlord entry without notice  and the public safety implications of that gap
   
• A request for consideration of basic tenant-privacy protections
   

As of January 9, 2026, no response has been received.

A respectful follow-up email was sent on that date to request an update or timeline for review.

During this same period, public concern about Wyoming’s lack of notice laws has been significant.
An explanatory video describing the issue was viewed by over 1.1 million people, many of whom expressed that they were unaware such conditions existed in the state.

This section does not draw conclusions.

It documents:

• Formal attempts to raise the safety issue through appropriate channels
   
• The absence of response from state officials over a one-month period
   
• The contrast between public concern and institutional engagement
   

These facts are presented to illustrate a broader pattern already described on this page:
difficulty obtaining acknowledgment, clarity, or action from local or state institutions when the incident and its implications are disclosed.

On January 11, 2026, one legislator responded to the December 10 outreach.

Her message acknowledged:

• That Wyoming’s rental-entry laws pose a real safety problem, one she has also heard from many constituents
   
• That current House leadership is unlikely to introduce or advance tenant-safety legislation
   
• That several colleagues believe rental protections should be left to the free market
   
• That this philosophy has not solved the problem faced by residents
   

The response also noted that the upcoming session is a budget-only session, limiting the ability to introduce new protective measures at this time.

This reply is important for documentation because it provides:

• An official acknowledgment that the safety issue is real and recurring for Wyoming residents
   
• A stated barrier within current legislative leadership to pursuing tenant-safety reform
   
• A contrast between recognition of the problem and the lack of a practical path toward immediate legislative action
   

This response does not represent a commitment to policy reform, but it does demonstrate that the concern has been received, recognized, and is understood within the context of ongoing constituent complaints.

*This section will continue to be updated as additional responses or developments occur.

 Follow-Up Legislative Response (Rep. Ken Chestek – January 12, 2026)

A subsequent response from Representative Ken Chestek further illustrates the  structural and procedural barriers to statewide tenant-safety reform. .

Representative Chestek acknowledged that statutory tenant-entry protections would be “very helpful,” but stated that passage is unlikely due to the current composition of the Wyoming Legislature and the fact that the 2026 session is a budget-only session in which non-budget bills are rarely considered. He suggested that, rather than pursuing statewide reform, the issue might be addressed through a City of Laramie ordinance.

This response is significant for documentation purposes because it shows:

• Legislative recognition that the absence of entry-notice requirements is a genuine safety problem.
   
• An explicit admission that political feasibility, rather than the merits of the policy, is the primary barrier to reform.
   
• A deflection of responsibility from the state to local municipalities, resulting in uneven protections and leaving most Wyoming tenants without baseline safeguards based solely on where they live .
   
• Confirmation that, even when harm is acknowledged, institutional process and political constraints function to delay or prevent statewide accountability.
   

Together, these responses demonstrate a recurring pattern:

The problem is recognized, the risk is not disputed, but structural and procedural limitations are invoked to avoid substantive corrective action.

 Many leases used in Albany County—including the one I signed—contain a clause stating that any legal disputes must be filed exclusively in Albany County.

While this may seem administrative on the surface, it has major implications for tenant safety and accountability:

• It prevents tenants from seeking a neutral court outside the local power structure
   
• It forces victims into the same county system that may be connected to landlords, property managers, or long-term community networks
   
• It increases risk of bias, particularly when all institutions involved operate within the same small geographic and social ecosystem
   
• It discourages tenants from pursuing claims at all, knowing they cannot take their case to a venue with more balanced landlord-tenant laws
   

In larger or more protective states, tenants can often seek remedies in jurisdictions where impartiality is more feasible. In Albany County, the lease itself locks tenants into a system where:

• police did not take a report
   
• bodycam footage went missing
   
• 911 records were withheld for nine months
   
• the judge penalized the tenant financially despite documented misconduct
   

The venue restriction effectively ensures that the same tight local network—property owners, courts, and law enforcement—retains full control over the outcome.

This clause functions as yet another example of how the structure itself minimizes tenant rights and shields those in positions of power from outside review.