“I Will Come to You”: The Facebook Exchange I’m Putting on the Record

Public-record and non-harassment notice: This article documents a public Facebook exchange. It is not a request for anyone to contact, threaten, harass, dox, mass-report, or confront Mike Jones, Marion County Judge Leward J. LaFleur, or any member of their families.

Public Evidence Wall

Four screenshots. One chronology.

The original Facebook screenshots are reproduced below in the order the exchange unfolded. The words are shown as written, while allegations, denials, and proven findings remain clearly separated.

Original screenshots

Exact quotations

No legal conclusions

Why I am publishing this exchange

People are free to disagree with me. They can criticize what I write, challenge my evidence, defend Judge LaFleur, or question my judgment. That is part of public debate.

But disagreement should not turn into language about physically coming to someone.

I am publishing this because the full sequence matters. Mike Jones entered my Facebook post, requested a judgment of conviction or court disposition, and called the discussion slander. During that same discussion, Mike raised a separate allegation against me without presenting a conviction. Later, after I challenged him on his own Facebook post, he insulted me and wrote, “I will come to you!!! You better do your homework before you take this test!!!!”

My original post used the sentence shown in Exhibit 1: “If a child molestor can be a judge in East Texas, so can you!” That was inflammatory wording in my Facebook post. It was not a quotation from a court, a judicial finding, or a statement that LaFleur had been convicted. I am reproducing it because a documentary account should not hide my part of the exchange.

What the LaFleur controversy actually is

The public record requires precision.

Marion County’s official website identifies Leward J. LaFleur as the county judge. A complaint filed by the parents of a 14-year-old alleged that LaFleur groped the teenager at a November 1, 2025 Halloween party, according to CBS19’s February 2026 report. LaFleur denied that allegation.

In April, KLTV reported, based on a statement from LaFleur’s lawyer, that an adult had also alleged unwanted sexual touching at the same event; the statement said LaFleur denied both allegations. Additional local reporting said that, as of April 21, LaFleur had not been charged and that the additional complaint had been sent to the Marion County District Attorney’s Office for review.

Those are allegations and denials, not convictions. This article does not classify LaFleur as a convicted offender, does not decide whether either allegation is true, and does not claim a later charging or adjudicative outcome that I have not verified.

The responsible standard is straightforward: public allegations involving a public official may be reported and scrutinized, but they must be labeled as allegations, sourced accurately, and presented with the subject’s denial. “Not convicted” does not mean “never publicly discussed.” The latest case-status reporting cited here is dated April 21, 2026. No one should report a conviction unless a court record establishes one.

Mike requested a conviction or court disposition

Mike wrote:

“I want to see the Judgement of Conviction or a Certificate Court Disposition. If you can’t provide proof, why are y’all slandering? That’s like a bunch of high school BS”

My response did not say there had been a conviction. I wrote that there were multiple witness statements, including statements involving children, and posted a City of Jefferson press statement in the thread. Mike answered that it was not a conviction and called it a press release of accusations.

Then he added:

“Didn’t you pull a gun on a guy at church?”

I replied:

“did I say it was a conviction? I said multiple witness statements.”

That exchange is visible in Exhibit 2. Mike requested a judgment of conviction or court disposition and called the discussion slander. He then raised an accusation against me without presenting the judgment or court disposition he had just requested from me.

The double standard at the center of the argument

I did not introduce the May 10 Oak Grove Baptist Church matter into that discussion. Mike did.

In the thread, I disputed the characterization he repeated and said that I had not been indicted in connection with that allegation. That is what I stated publicly at the time of the exchange, and it is the historical statement the screenshot documents. This article does not claim a current grand-jury disposition that I have not verified through a dated official record.

I also escalated the exchange. In comments visible in Exhibit 3, I attacked Mike’s character and called him a “chomo protector.” That was inflammatory language, not a factual finding about Mike, and it should not be read as one.

Mike eventually wrote:

“so you wasn’t indicted, neither was he. So why are you slandering?”

That sentence makes the dispute explicit. Mike argued that the absence of an indictment or conviction should end discussion of reported allegations involving LaFleur, while using an unresolved allegation against me as part of his own argument.

I apply the same standard to myself that I apply to anyone else: accurately describe the allegation, identify what is documented, include the response, and do not invent a conviction or an official outcome.

Then I challenged him on his own post

The next part needs the same honesty. On one of Mike’s posts, I wrote a pointed question that itself alleged over-serving and responsibility for two deaths. I have not independently verified that premise, and this article does not present it as fact. I reproduce the exact question only because it is necessary context for Mike’s reply:

That comment captures the disagreement.

Mike first replied:

“nope do your homework fucking idiot”

He then posted the response shown in Exhibit 4.

“I will come to you!!!”

I am not making the legal determination that Mike Jones committed a criminal offense. I am preserving exactly what he wrote. In the context of an already hostile exchange, I interpreted “I will come to you!!!” and “before you take this test!!!!” as threatening and intimidating language.

That is my interpretation, not a criminal judgment. The original screenshot is available above so readers can evaluate the language and context themselves.

If Mike intended a harmless meaning, he is free to explain it. I do not need to embellish his words, and I will not threaten him back.

I will document them.

Why this matters to me

I served in the United States Marine Corps. I was a January 6 defendant, and the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney lists “NICHOLS, RYAN TAYLOR” among the certificate recipients under President Donald Trump’s January 20, 2025 pardon proclamation.

My background does not make me immune from criticism. It proves the opposite point.

I know what it is like to have allegations, legal proceedings, public records, political arguments, and hostile commentary attached to my name. People are free to scrutinize me. They are free to examine what I say and compare it with the record. Public officials may be scrutinized too.

The standard should remain consistent regardless of who is favored or disfavored: distinguish allegations from convictions, include denials, link the source, and preserve the evidence.

I have decided that the answer to this kind of conduct is not to threaten anyone back. It is to preserve the receipts, publish the chronology, report what happened accurately, and let the public see it.

Election-season public accountability

This discussion concerns a sitting local official during an election year, when voters are paying close attention to local government and the conduct surrounding it.

I am not claiming that this Facebook exchange was coordinated by a campaign, political organization, or public office. The screenshots do not establish that.

The legitimate public-interest point is narrower and stronger: allegations involving public officials do not become immune from accurate reporting merely because they remain unresolved. Nobody should receive one evidentiary standard because they are politically favored and another because they are politically opposed.

Public scrutiny should be evidence-based. Public disagreement should remain disagreement. It should not become intimidation.

What the screenshots prove, and what they do not

The four screenshots document that:

• Mike requested a judgment of conviction or court disposition.
• Mike then referenced an accusation against me in the same thread.
• Mike later wrote, “I will come to you!!!”
• Mike also wrote, “You better do your homework before you take this test!!!!”

The screenshots do not, by themselves, prove that:

• LaFleur committed either act alleged against him.
• Mike committed a criminal offense.
• Mike, any business associated with him, or anyone else was responsible for over-serving a person or for either death referenced in my question.
• Any political campaign or organization coordinated the exchange.

Those limits matter. A credible public record explains both what the evidence supports and where the evidence stops.

My standard is simple

If there is an allegation, call it an allegation.

If there is a denial, include the denial.

If there is a conviction, call it a conviction.

If there is no conviction, do not invent one.

If someone makes an intimidating public statement, preserve the statement.

I will not threaten him back. I will document it.

People can read the screenshots and decide for themselves.

Do not contact, harass, threaten, dox, mass-report, or confront Mike Jones, Judge LaFleur, or their families on my behalf. If you possess relevant public records or original evidence, submit it through the website so it can be reviewed and preserved responsibly.

---

Evidence note: The four Facebook screenshots are reproduced from the original files Ryan Nichols supplied for publication. The screenshots display relative Facebook timestamps; this article does not assign exact dates or times to individual comments. Quotations retain the spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and profanity visible in the images. External reporting is linked to distinguish publicly reported allegations from proven findings.