I have confirmed that a federal grand jury has indicted John Paul “JP” Miller, a Myrtle Beach pastor, on charges of cyberstalking and making false statements. The indictment ties his alleged conduct to the broader investigation involving Mica Miller. These are allegations, and he is presumed innocent. Still, the legal and civic stakes are high. The case tests how federal law handles online abuse, how churches respond to crisis, and how citizens are protected when harassment crosses state lines.
What the indictment alleges
According to the charging document, Miller faces two core counts. First, cyberstalking, which under federal law covers repeated online conduct that causes fear, emotional distress, or substantial harm. Second, making false statements to federal investigators. That charge applies when a person lies to agents about material facts during an inquiry.
Both charges can carry serious penalties if proven. Cyberstalking is often charged under 18 U.S.C. 2261A. False statements are charged under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Each statute allows prison time, fines, and supervised release. The details will matter, including the nature of the messages, the pattern of conduct, and whether interstate communications tools were used. Federal cases like this turn on intent and impact, not just harsh words posted online. ⚖️
Miller is presumed innocent. The government must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.
How federal cyberstalking law works
Cyberstalking is not about one rude comment. It is about a pattern. Prosecutors must show a course of conduct using electronic tools, like phones, email, or social media, that caused fear or significant emotional distress. They also must show intent to harass, intimidate, or surveil. Jurisdiction is federal when the internet or phones cross state lines, or when the conduct targets someone in another state.
False statements are different. It is a crime to knowingly lie to federal agents about something important to the investigation. There is no need for the lie to be under oath. If it could influence the investigation, it can be charged.
Deleting messages after learning about an investigation can trigger separate crimes, like obstruction or evidence tampering.
The link to the Mica Miller probe
The indictment states the alleged conduct is connected to the ongoing investigation involving Mica Miller. That connection makes the case more sensitive. It adds a layer of public concern about safety, accountability, and transparency. It also raises the stakes for investigators. They must protect witnesses, preserve evidence, and avoid tainting any related proceedings. I am tracking how the court handles protective orders, discovery, and any limits on public statements by parties.
For the community, this is painful. A pastor holds a position of trust. An indictment does not prove guilt, but it puts church governance in the spotlight. Boards should review policies on reporting misconduct, handling digital communications, and cooperating with law enforcement. Congregants deserve clear communication and care that does not interfere with the case.
Citizen rights and safety in an online world
For citizens, this case is a reminder. Federal law is catching up to online abuse. If you are targeted, you have rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Those rights include the right to be heard at key hearings, to be notified of developments, and to be treated with fairness and respect.
Digital evidence is the heart of these cases. Save screenshots, call logs, and messages. Do not reply if it escalates risk. Report to local police first, then to federal authorities if the conduct crosses state lines or platforms.
Back up texts, voicemails, and social media messages to a secure drive. Do it before blocking anyone.
What happens next in court
Miller’s first steps will move fast. Expect an initial appearance, an arraignment, and a decision on release conditions. Judges often order no contact with alleged victims and limits on devices.
- Initial appearance, the judge explains rights and reviews counsel.
- Arraignment, Miller enters a plea.
- Detention or release hearing, the court weighs flight risk and safety.
- Discovery, both sides exchange evidence under court rules.
Prosecutors must meet deadlines under the Speedy Trial Act. Defense counsel can challenge the charges, the evidence, or the scope of any statements to agents. The court can set a protective order to shield sensitive digital records.
Policy and trust, what this means for all of us
This indictment shows the federal government is willing to use strong tools against online harassment. It also shows how false statements can complicate any probe. For faith communities, this is a test of internal oversight. Good policy is not optional. It is a shield for members and leaders alike. Churches should train staff on reporting duties, document retention, and pastoral communications on social media. 📱
For the public, the lesson is clear. Online conduct can be criminal when it becomes targeted, repeated, and harmful. Lawful speech is protected. Harassment is not. The line is defined by impact and intent, not fame or role.
Conclusion
I broke this story because it matters. A federal grand jury has charged John Paul “JP” Miller with cyberstalking and making false statements, in a case linked to the Mica Miller investigation. The courtroom will decide the facts. Meanwhile, our community must uphold victim rights, civil liberties, and institutional transparency. The law is clear, and the standard is high. Justice requires both.
