Octorara School Superintendent along with the majority of Octorara School Board members continue to act in bad faith. In spite of repeated warnings through various forms of communication both privately and on the public record, the Board continues to authorize Tax Payer funds to pay for a private legal matter. The board and superintendent are being sued in Federal Court for Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. The school board members were acting in their private person capacity, failed to seek appropriate, private legal counsel and continue to intentionally ignore the law and use tax payer funds.
In January of 2022, the board was warned to not violate any citizens according to 42 USC 1983 through an unlawful enforcement of policy 903. In March of 2022, after additional warnings, they were notified via certified mail with a Letter of Intent to sue, along with a conditional settlement offer. The named individuals ignored that warning and continued to violate both the Plaintiff and other citizens constitutional rights, further violating 42 USC 1983.
It is not reasonable that private citizens, nor public servants understand the limits of their authority, and it is the duty of private citizens (if they desire accountability), to inform public servants of those limits. Many individuals have taken liberty to vocalize certain narratives regarding the Plaintiff’s lawsuit, ascribing motive to the plaintiff, and fabricating intentions which are devoid of facts or evidence. These individuals have most likely not purchased and downloaded the Plaintiff’s case, have not done any investigation and prefer to tell tales based upon limited to no knowledge.
I would totally encourage reading some powerful legislative language produced by the 9th Circuit Court (California). The Eastern District Court has very similar instructions but one would have to spend over $400.00 to get this volume and consume.
MANUAL OF MODEL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT – This document is only 599 pages long.
If you want an easier way to navigate the specifics, this is a great resource.
9. Civil Rights Action—42 U.S.C. § 1983
I welcome people to visit my Facebook Page, and provide a counter position which supports the actions of the Superintendent and the School Board which demonstrates they did not violate the Plaintiff’s Rights based upon what is reported as Claims in the Lawsuit, Evidence Presented in the lawsuit, and videos available in the public domain. The Counter Position would benefit from being applied from data, not hyperbole related to 42 USC § 1983
Is it reasonable that an incoming superintendent be advised of federal complaint prior to accepting a position? Or, is it more likely that the board and CCIU would lack transparency? Assume if the board is willing to make misrepresentations about qualified immunity, they certainly wouldn’t want to expose that to a broader audience.
This is a very interesting quote:
§ 1983 creates a right of action against anyone who violates the constitutional or federal statutory rights of another while acting under “color of state law.”
The Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA) requires local agencies to indemnify their employees for the payment of any judgement in a suit, which arose out of injuries caused by an act of the employee made within the scope of his office or duties. (Violating constitutional rights, under demands of policy, are not within the scope of office or duties. Might want to review Amuso v Pennsybury)
PSTCA v. § 1983 (McGuire)
Being reasonable is providing information in advance to inform state actors when they are violating their oath. Is it “reasonable” that they will honor their oath when informed? That’s up to a court to determine, not you or I.
If you want to do your own research on what the Plaintiff has shared in public visit his FACEBOOK, TikTok, and YouTube.