PERSONAL REQUEST: FIND THE REPORTS THAT I SUBMITTED 2026

 

INTRODUCTORY SUMMARY:  PERSONAL HISTORY AND REPORTED INTERFERENCE

 

A one-page introduction to Personal History and Reported Interference

Why this work requires independent, accessible, and documented review

Brian “Happy” Bryanson presents the accompanying work as a disabled adult witness seeking a fair review of childhood recollections concerning suspected violent crimes, possible missing persons, and the handling or disposal of human remains. He does not ask the recipient to accept every recollection as proven. He asks that the information be preserved, received with appropriate disability accommodations, separated into remembered facts and later inference, and tested through independent corroboration.

Central dilemma: The trauma, dissociation, brain injuries, learning disabilities, delayed recall, and communication limitations that help explain why the account developed gradually may also cause recipients to discount it. The proper response is neither automatic acceptance nor automatic dismissal; it is careful interviewing, preservation, conflict screening, and corroboration.

What the Accompanying Work Documents

Prolonged childhood abuse; reported recollections of suspected abductions, violence, and possible human remains; and the effects of CPTSD, dissociation, traumatic brain injuries, and lifelong disabilities.

Reporting efforts beginning around 2000, including narratives, maps, timelines, victim descriptions, social-media posts, books, and binders created to leave a record and “send the dead home.”

Concerns that submissions were not assigned consistent case numbers, independently evaluated, preserved, or accounted for.

Why Independent Review Is Requested

Brian reports that a second cousin associated with the Irving Police Department said through family members that submissions came to his desk, would not be investigated, and were laughed about or discarded.

Because the reports involve Irving, former police personnel, and members or associates of Brian’s family, the relationship creates at least a perceived conflict requiring documented screening, recusal, supervision, or outside referral.

The passage of time increases the risk that witnesses, records, locations, and potentially useful evidence will be lost.

What the Recipient Is Asked to Do

Preserve and account for every submission, internal communication, mailed book, and binder; provide a traceable case or intake number and an independent point of contact.

Conduct a trauma-informed, non-leading interview with reasonable disability accommodation, separating remembered facts, information learned from others, documentation, and inference.

Test specific details against witnesses, historical records and locations, missing-person and unidentified-remains files, and appropriate forensic databases; then provide a written explanation of findings, preservation, and referrals.

Guiding principle: Serious allegations remain allegations unless independently established. Disability and fragmented recall are not proof of truth, but they should not prevent a fair, accessible, documented, and impartial review.

 

 

 

 

A one-page introduction to Personal History and Reported Interference

Why this work requires independent, accessible, and documented review

Brian “Happy” Bryanson presents the accompanying work as a disabled adult witness seeking a fair review of childhood recollections concerning suspected violent crimes, possible missing persons, and the handling or disposal of human remains. He does not ask the recipient to accept every recollection as proven. He asks that the information be preserved, received with appropriate disability accommodations, separated into remembered facts and later inference, and tested through independent corroboration.

Central dilemma: The trauma, dissociation, brain injuries, learning disabilities, delayed recall, and communication limitations that help explain why the account developed gradually may also cause recipients to discount it. The proper response is neither automatic acceptance nor automatic dismissal; it is careful interviewing, preservation, conflict screening, and corroboration.

What the Accompanying Work Documents

Prolonged childhood abuse; reported recollections of suspected abductions, violence, and possible human remains; and the effects of CPTSD, dissociation, traumatic brain injuries, and lifelong disabilities.

Reporting efforts beginning around 2000, including narratives, maps, timelines, victim descriptions, social-media posts, books, and binders created to leave a record and “send the dead home.”

Concerns that submissions were not assigned consistent case numbers, independently evaluated, preserved, or accounted for.

Why Independent Review Is Requested

Brian reports that a second cousin associated with the Irving Police Department said through family members that submissions came to his desk, would not be investigated, and were laughed about or discarded.

Because the reports involve Irving, former police personnel, and members or associates of Brian’s family, the relationship creates at least a perceived conflict requiring documented screening, recusal, supervision, or outside referral.

The passage of time increases the risk that witnesses, records, locations, and potentially useful evidence will be lost.

What the Recipient Is Asked to Do

Preserve and account for every submission, internal communication, mailed book, and binder; provide a traceable case or intake number and an independent point of contact.

Conduct a trauma-informed, non-leading interview with reasonable disability accommodation, separating remembered facts, information learned from others, documentation, and inference.

Test specific details against witnesses, historical records and locations, missing-person and unidentified-remains files, and appropriate forensic databases; then provide a written explanation of findings, preservation, and referrals.

Guiding principle: Serious allegations remain allegations unless independently established. Disability and fragmented recall are not proof of truth, but they should not prevent a fair, accessible, documented, and impartial review.