how shall i defend myself against the retarded "chief ronald mcdonald" family of busybody-bullies across the street? let me count the ways:
here's my page at lewdness.dylanterreri.com

july 12, 2016

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Wanda Faye DeWALT, Appellant.
----------------------------------------
As here, behavior within a circumscribed area perhaps intended to titillate companions who welcomed the activity, while inadvertently exposing the behavior to adolescents who might, under other circumstances, be charged with being "peeping toms", fails to establish the requisite requirement to intend or cause affront or alarm. For the same reasons, the corruption charge would also fail. See Decker, supra.
july 12, 2016

being on my roof and 200+ feet away from the road, and behind a railing, i did not expose myself to anyone
i was not in clear sight of anyone who wasn't both on my property and carefully studying my house
i can't even get a "stiff peter," whether or not i have my 1989 "2 live crew" record playing
SHOULD I REALLY BE CHARGED WITH "OPEN LEWDNESS"?!?!

let me quote from theweeklyconstitutional.com: "Some overly protected DC yenta got a look at something that she didn't like, and just had to make the bad man go away."

A little old man got called into court by complaint from his elderly female neighbor. The judge says: "Mrs. Johnson says that you parade around your house in the nude and she sees your thing hanging out all day every day." The man says "Well Your Honor, I do like to do housechores in the nude but I don't have any glass doors and Mrs. Johnson's windows are at a very different angle than mine and I am sure that she wouldn't be able to see me at all." Mrs. Johnson replies: "Your Honor, I can see him just fine if I stand on my kitchen chair."
i was on my back or my stomach, suntanning on my roof and behind a railing, when a car comes into the driveway. i could see that it was a normal car, but i couldn't see the policeman inside of it because my driveway is 200+ feet long. i was alarmed that i saw someone turn off of the road and start driving down my driveway, so i crawled through the window and into my room. inside my room, my "central air" system stopped working in may or june, so i had an air-conditioner in my other window...as well as a fan in front of it. i usually am annoyed at the sound of loud car-engines that are being obnoxious on the road that is way down the hill at the end of my property, but i cannot hear any sounds while my room is being cooled by the air-conditioner and the fan. i wouldn't have been able to hear anyone knocking on the door, though i would have heard the doorbell if it was rung (i have an impaired memory, so i don't know if it was rung). i eventually saw a policecar in the driveway, and that's probably when i first called my counselor. i asked him to call the police, and he did. i opened the front door after i got a call back from my counselor.

i was told that the police were called by the vagina who was staying in the house across the street. the "notice of probable cause" that i received in the mail stated that the policeman saw me naked and walking on my roof, but i was lying on my back or my stomach, and i only CRAWLED over to and through the window after i saw his car enter the driveway. even if i was upright and walking, the railing makes it difficult to see anything "below the belt" from the ground...especially from a place on the ground that's considered a public place. gee, for all the policeman knew, i could have just been as shirtless as the young boys who were riding their bicycles on the road for the whole time the police were here.

the "notice of probable cause" also stated that the policeman was "on patrol," and that he simply "noticed" me on the roof above my porch, but my counselor told me on the phone that the people across the street were worried, and that's why the policeman was there. can a policeman lie on a "notice of probable cause," because if he was alerted by my neighbors then he wasn't just "on patrol" and he didn't simply "notice" me on my roof. my memory isn't the best, but it's far from unreliable when i am concerned for my welfare after seeing a car show up unexpectedly in my driveway. another lie in the "notice of probable cause" was the policeman stating that he saw me standing and walking. i was lying on my white roof, because i just had it whitewashed and it's not hot at all, and i was suntanning on my back or stomach in front of the window. that's when i saw the car come into the driveway. i crawled through the window, but the "notice of probable cause" stated that i was standing and that the policeman saw me walk across the roof, but i was lying down when i saw the car turn into my driveway...and i crawled through the window because i thought it suspicious that a car was in my driveway. the policeman is either harassing me (like the neighbors across the street are) or he wants me to pay money.

A PERSON COMMITS A MISDEMEANOR OF THE THIRD DEGREE IF HE DOES ANY LEWD ACT WHICH HE KNOWS IS LIKELY TO BE OBSERVED BY OTHERS WHO WOULD BE OFFENDED OR ALARMED.
(i knew that my sunbathing was not likely to be observed by others, because i was on my roof and behind a railing at a distance of around 200+ feet from the road...unlike the shirtless young boys who were riding their bicycles out in the open and on the road in front of my house. if i wasn't 200+ feet away from them, i would have been alarmed by their nipples and maybe a little ass-crack, but i was too far away to see anything that would alarm me)

(did i mention that i had been walking naked out of the bathroom for 10-12 years beforehand, sometimes during the day with the window open - and sometimes at night with the lights on, walking within five feet in front of the window i use to get onto the roof? and the roof had no railing to block anyone's view for those 10-12 years. nobody has ever complained, not even trick-or-treaters)
HERE ARE RANDOM NEWSPAPER-EXCERPTS I'VE FOUND ONLINE
(followed, in parenthesis, by an explanation of how they relate to my situation)
--------------------------------------
regarding "the naked gardener" in central pennsylvania
"A three-judge panel of the state Superior Court on Wednesday threw out a central Pennsylvania man's indecent exposure conviction stemming from his penchant for doing yard work in the buff or wearing a thong."

(the jury ruled that 65 yards is too far for pam watkins to see anything offensive on charles stitzer, that charles was not bringing attention to himself, and that "indecent exposure" is not applicable since charles' yard is not a public place)
--------------------------------------
regarding william monac's nude sunbathing in midland, pennsylvania
"Monac's defense attorney, Matthew Kovacik, said there's no question that Monac was sunbathing nude on the sunporch on the front of his home at 949 Ohio Avenue in July. That in itself isn't illegal, Kovacik said, but it becomes a crime when a person does it knowing that others can see and are offended by it." - timesonline.com

(even the policeman who wrote the complaint stated on the complaint that i "debated" whether or not anyone could see me from the road. of course nothing but a skin-colored body which lacked any details could be seen - because, days later, another policeman was all ready to charge me for having a sex-doll on my railing...but then i presented the inflatable man to him for him to see. his eyes went up and down and up and down, and he apparently realized that it was nothing but a big and inflatable ken-without-the-barbie. no sex-holes, no sex-organs. so much for the impeccable vision at a distance of 60-65 yards)
--------------------------------------
erick williamson was found not guilty, after being seen naked in an exterior doorway of his house by yvette dean
"A private investigator for the defense measured the distance from the path Dean walked to the carport door, and testified it was 83 feet. Photos taken by both the police and the defense made sightlines to the carport door seem difficult at that distance"

the sightline from the edge of the road to my nakedness, was 200+ feet on an incline and blocked by a railing.
--------------------------------------
from www.davis-stirling.com
2. Balconies. Exclusive use common areas are different. If a balcony or patio cannot be viewed from other units or public areas and the resident wants to sunbathe without clothing, they should be allowed to do so. If the balcony is subject to viewing by other balconies (usually the case where condominiums are stacked) then nude sunbathing would be improper. If, however, the neighbor must stand on a table and peer over a fence to see the sunbather, that is not considered "public viewing" but rather an invasion of privacy.

i call it a matter of "peeping toms," but "invasion of privacy" is the same thing. my extended roof, which is enclosed by a railing, is a balcony, and when i had to explain to contractors exactly what i wanted built, i brought up rapunzel's balcony. the balcony is not eye-level with anyone on the street, and no casual observer who's 200+ feet away from it is going to just happen to realize that i'm naked behind the railings unless they make an effort to.
--------------------------------------
Commw. v. Helms, 79 York 177, 38 Pa.D.&C.2d 496 (C.C.P. 1965).
"To sustain charge of open lewdness, lewdness must be “open,” “notorious” or “public” and the legislative mandate was not satisfied with evidence of lewdness committed during hours of darkness, in a private dwelling, subject to observation only by persons not obligated so to do, looking through windows of their own dwelling into the dwelling of the alleged offender via the latter's windows."

(i was in a private dwelling, at least on its roof and behind a railing, and nobody is obligated to spend a few seconds scoping-out my house from his place on the ground as a means of seeing my ass in the air (not on the lawn or even the porch) and behind a bunch of railing-bars, over 200 feet from the road. if someone saw me suntanning, he wasn't obligated to do so because it wasn't just by glancing over that he saw me)
--------------------------------------
john gragson, attorney-at-law said the following:
"Under this section, offense is made out only when lewd conduct of defendant occurs in place and at time when it is likely to be observed by persons who have not consented to its occurrence, or who have not specially positioned themselves in such a manner as to be able to observe it, and who are likely to be affronted by such conduct or to find such conduct alarming;"

(anyone on the street, 200+ feet away, would have to position their line of sight in a manner to see past the railing, in order to see enough to make a semi-confident assumption that i had no pants on)
--------------------------------------
a 65 year-old hoboken resident was fixing a curtain-rod in front of a window
"The man acknowledged showing "poor judgment" and was not arrested, but he was issued a disorderly persons offense because he had exposed himself in a place that was clearly visible from the street, police said."

(my roof above my porch is NOT clearly visible from the street, because there is a railing on the edge of it and because it's 200+ feet away from the street.
--------------------------------------
state vs. broad (1976)
"What constitutes a public place depends upon the circumstances of the case. Whether or not the place is owned by the State or whether or not the accused believes he is sunbathing in the nude in a remote area does not determine whether the place is "public" or "private". Each case must be decided upon its own facts, and the trier of fact is justified in finding the place public if the exposure is such that it is likely to be seen by a number of casual observers."

(i was on a roof and behind a railing at a distance of 200+ feet from the road, so "open lewdness" could only have possibly been seen after being carefully studied by peeping toms. casual observers don't study their surroundings.)
--------------------------------------
"A Red Lion woman, Connie June Warner, who police said was sunbathing topless in a public area on July 24 — was found not guilty of disorderly conduct after a hearing this morning, according to District Judge John H. Fishel's office."

(she wasn't even on her own property, and she was found not guilty)
--------------------------------------
According Justice Dennis Perluss’ opinion for the Court of Appeal, “Following in part from these credibility determinations, the court found, although the weight of the evidence established [the teacher] had exposed his penis to [the officer] and touched it for about 20 seconds, it did not support the Commission’s findings [the teacher] had masturbated or that his conduct was visible from Park Row Drive, 200 feet away and obscured by bushes, shrubs, and trees.”

(my driveway alone is 200+ feet, the roof is about 15 feet up, and the railing obstructs any view of anything on the roof)
--------------------------------------
Man fined $100 for nude sunbathing.
"The charges were filed June 14 after neighbors repeatedly complained that a blanket draped over a clothesline only partially kept Nemchick from view while he sunbathed."

(i've seen pictures of eisenhower drive in white oak, and the large houses do not have large spaces between them...certainly not 200+ feet)
--------------------------------------
"A Farmington man who police said was sunbathing in the nude, where children could see him, entered guilty pleas to two of the seven counts of lewdness he was charged with."

(from earth.google.com, it looks like myron kipp would have been 4-5 cars' lengths away from the farmington rock chapel where the children saw him - not 60+ yards in the air and behind a railing.
--------------------------------------
"the Iowa Supreme Court agreed with Paye and held that the front porch of a residence cannot be considered a public space unless the homeowner regularly grants access to it to members of the general public."
--------------------------------------
"Naked Man Terrorizing Neighbors from Doorway Is Not Breaking Any Laws, According to Local Police" According to the law, a person can only be charged with the offense if they willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place and in the presence of any other person or persons.
check out my site, www.jaggedlittledyl.com , unless you're there now