On October 1, 2026, federal prosecutors in Massachusetts announced the indictment of a man accused of repeatedly contacting podcaster and former political adviser Katie Miller. According to prosecutors, the alleged conduct involved at least 40 communications over several weeks, multiple telephone numbers and disturbing messages sent to telephone numbers associated with the alleged victim’s parents.

The case illustrates an important consideration for executive protection: concerning behavior directed toward a public figure may extend beyond that individual to members of their family.

For high-net-worth families, executives and public figures, stalking-related security concerns cannot always be addressed through residential security or physical protection alone. Repeated unwanted communications, digital exposure and contact with relatives may require coordinated protective intelligence, systematic documentation and professional threat assessment.

The allegations in this case have not been proven. Nevertheless, the reported circumstances provide an opportunity to examine how a professional protection program should approach persistent harassment without automatically assuming that unwanted communication will escalate into physical violence.

Key takeaways

• Protective intelligence requires attention to behavior. Repeated unwanted contact and changes in communication patterns deserve assessment, regardless of whether every message contains an explicit threat.
• Protection extends beyond the principal. Contact involving relatives can introduce additional security considerations for the entire family.
• Documentation is essential. Preserving communications and maintaining consistent incident records allows concerning patterns to be evaluated over time.
• Digital anonymity complicates investigations. Changing telephone numbers and communication platforms can make it more difficult for recipients to recognize repeated contact.
• Executive protection requires coordination. Protective intelligence, residential security, family communications and appropriate law-enforcement involvement should operate within a unified framework.

What happened

On October 1, 2026, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that John Anthony Proia III, 41, of Waltham, Massachusetts, had been indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of cyberstalking.

According to the Department of Justice announcement, prosecutors allege that the defendant repeatedly contacted a former political adviser living near Washington, D.C., who is married to a senior federal government official.

The indictment alleges that the defendant contacted the individual at least 40 times between August 3 and September 23, 2026.

Prosecutors describe repeated telephone calls, text messages and voicemails originating from changing telephone numbers. According to the charging documents, some numbers were obtained through Voice over Internet Protocol applications that permit users to generate new numbers and obscure their identities.

The allegations also include disturbing messages sent to telephone numbers associated with the individual’s parents.

Although the Justice Department did not publicly identify the alleged victim by name, both the Associated Press and Reuters identified her as Katie Miller.

Reuters subsequently reported that the defendant pleaded not guilty during his initial appearance in federal court in Boston.

As of October 2, the allegations remain unproven. Publicly available reporting does not establish that the defendant physically approached Miller or her family, and details of any protective arrangements have not been disclosed.

Those limitations matter. Repeated unwanted communication can justify professional assessment without establishing that physical violence was planned or imminent.

What it means for UHNW and high-net-worth protection

The security implications of persistent harassment extend beyond the immediate recipient of unwanted communications.

A publicly recognizable executive, entertainer or entrepreneur may have professional staff managing communications, household employees coordinating daily activities and relatives maintaining their own digital presence.

These relationships create additional channels through which unwanted contact might occur. They also introduce important questions concerning information sharing, documentation and responsibility for evaluating concerning behavior.

The allegations in the Miller case illustrate why professional protection programs should consider the wider family environment rather than evaluating the principal’s exposure in isolation.

Research conducted by Fein and Vossekuil for the U.S. Secret Service emphasizes examining behavior, circumstances and potential progression toward targeted violence. Their approach considers more than the presence or absence of an explicit threat.

This distinction is important because threatening language alone cannot reliably establish whether someone intends to act. Conversely, concerning behavior should not automatically be dismissed simply because communications do not contain explicit threats.

Protective intelligence should examine patterns, context and corroborating information rather than relying exclusively on the wording of individual messages.

For family offices coordinating executive protection services, that means establishing procedures to recognize potentially concerning developments and ensuring that relevant information reaches the people responsible for protective decisions.

The objective is prevention through informed assessment, not assuming that every instance of harassment represents an impending attack.

How a professional protection program handles this

1. Establish a single reporting process

A protection team cannot adequately evaluate information it never receives.

When a principal experiences persistent unwanted contact, relevant family members and authorized staff should understand how to report additional communications or concerning incidents.

One designated reporting process reduces the likelihood that observations remain scattered across individual devices, email accounts and informal conversations.

For a family office, responsibility may be assigned to the security director or another designated professional who coordinates with the existing executive protection team.

Information should be accessible to authorized personnel without unnecessarily circulating sensitive communications throughout the household.

2. Preserve communications and document patterns

In The Gift of Fear, persistence following an established boundary is examined as behavior that may warrant closer attention. The book emphasizes interpreting communications within their broader context rather than assessing individual statements in isolation.

A professional protection program should maintain a consistent record of concerning communications, including dates, times, communication channels and relevant content.

Original messages, voicemails and other available evidence should be preserved rather than casually deleted.

This approach is also consistent with the general documentation and information-protection principles described in guidance from Germany’s Rhineland-Palatinate State Criminal Police Office.

Documentation supports subsequent assessment and can provide useful information to law enforcement when reporting becomes necessary.

It also allows the protection team to distinguish an isolated communication from a developing pattern.

3. Assess behavioral changes without assuming intent

A central function of protective intelligence is identifying meaningful changes in behavior.

The protection team should review documented incidents for developments such as increasing communication frequency, attempts to establish contact through additional channels or the involvement of other family members.

The alleged use of multiple telephone numbers and reported contact with parents in the Miller case illustrate why these categories deserve attention.

However, the existence of repeated communications does not independently establish an intention to commit violence.

Assessment should consider the circumstances surrounding each incident, available corroboration and relevant information from appropriate authorities.

The objective is to identify meaningful changes in the threat picture, not to assign motives based on assumptions.

4. Establish communication boundaries

Repeated unwanted contact can create uncertainty about whether recipients should respond, block communications or attempt to explain that contact is unwelcome.

The Gift of Fear examines how continued interaction can sometimes reinforce unwanted attention and why established boundaries matter.

For an active security concern, communication decisions should be coordinated with appropriate legal advisers and, where involved, law enforcement.

Family members and staff should not independently initiate confrontations or attempt to investigate someone whose behavior is causing concern.

Instead, the protection program should establish clear reporting instructions, evidence-preservation procedures and an appropriate strategy for handling further contact.

5. Review family privacy and residential exposure

Digital harassment and physical security should not be treated as entirely separate disciplines.

A professional security assessment can examine how publicly accessible information, household communications and existing protective procedures interact.

For example, a family may wish to review whether personal contact information, household schedules or other sensitive details are unnecessarily accessible.

Existing residential security arrangements should also be considered when a credible assessment identifies circumstances requiring additional precautions.

These measures should reflect the actual threat assessment. A report of unwanted digital communication does not automatically justify extensive physical-security restrictions.

6. Coordinate with appropriate authorities

When circumstances warrant law-enforcement involvement, the protection team should establish a designated point of contact and an organized process for sharing relevant information.

Consistent documentation and preserved communications can support that process.

Protective personnel should understand the distinction between conducting a private security assessment and performing activities reserved for law enforcement.

Any additional protective measures should be periodically reviewed as new information becomes available.

What families and family offices can do now

The Miller case provides a useful opportunity for families, estate managers and chiefs of staff to evaluate their existing procedures for handling unwanted contact.

That evaluation should begin with several practical questions:

• Does everyone who needs it have a clear method for reporting suspicious or unwanted communications?
• Are incidents documented consistently across security shifts and relevant household personnel?
• Can the protection team identify changes in communication patterns without relying on individual recollections?
• Are sensitive family details and contact information shared only when necessary?
• Is there an established process for involving legal advisers and law enforcement when appropriate?

For families in Beverly Hills, Malibu, Montecito and the greater Los Angeles area, these considerations should form part of an integrated protective strategy rather than an isolated response to online harassment.

Our discussion of the security needs of ultra-high-net-worth individuals addresses the broader importance of adapting security arrangements to the circumstances of each individual and household.

Professional protection involves more than responding to an immediate physical confrontation. It includes collecting relevant information, recognizing concerning developments and coordinating measured responses.

When persistent harassment occurs, a structured approach can help protect both the principal and the wider family while avoiding unnecessary assumptions about the person responsible.

Frequently asked questions

Does executive protection address cyberstalking?

Executive protection can incorporate protective intelligence, documentation and coordination with appropriate authorities when cyberstalking or persistent harassment creates security concerns. The appropriate response depends on the available evidence, assessed circumstances and the individual’s existing protection arrangements.

Should family members report unwanted communications involving a protected individual?

Relevant communications should be reported through an established security process when they may have implications for the family’s safety. Documentation helps the protection team evaluate whether separate incidents are connected. Sensitive information should be shared only with personnel who have an appropriate reason to receive it.

Does repeated unwanted contact mean physical violence is likely?

Not necessarily. Repeated unwanted communication warrants contextual assessment, but frequency alone does not establish an intention to commit physical violence. Professional protective intelligence considers behavioral patterns, corroborating information and the wider circumstances before recommending proportionate security measures.

---

About Michael Braun

Michael Braun is a former Special Unit Operator, former Manager at Gavin de Becker & Associates, and Founder & CEO of MSB Protection, an executive protection and residential security firm serving high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth clients.

Braun has built his career at the intersection of specialized protective operations, executive protection, residential security, protective intelligence, and security risk management. His experience spans special-unit operations, leadership within Gavin de Becker & Associates, and the development and oversight of private protection programs within demanding UHNW environments.

He has been recognized by The Top 100 Magazine as a leading CEO in the private security field and is the subject of an upcoming Marquis Who’s Who feature highlighting his leadership and contributions to the profession.

Today, Braun is recognized for his work in executive protection, UHNW estate security, residential protection, protective intelligence, adversarial security assessments, and security auditing throughout Beverly Hills and Southern California.

His work focuses on moving private security beyond simply “providing a body” and toward intelligence-led, risk-based protection programs designed to identify vulnerabilities before an adversary can exploit them.

---

Looking for Executive Protection or Residential Security Services?

If you are a high-net-worth or ultra-high-net-worth individual, family office, estate manager, chief of staff, or executive in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, Malibu or Southern California, MSB Protection provides executive protection, residential security, 24/7 protection, protective intelligence, medical-readiness planning, and security risk management.

We evaluate the complete security environment, from threat exposure and residential vulnerabilities to personnel, technology, procedures, protective intelligence, and emergency response, and build a program around the risks that actually exist.

Contact us for a confidential consultation or message us at +1 (805) 285-2807.