I am perplexed by your representation of the circumstances. I can speak affirmatively that you had awareness of a portion of the process and my particular position on standing on my constitutional rights to reserve my 4th amendment right to protect from retaliation (which is what had and continues to happen) as a condition (prior restraint) to stand on my first.
I understand that most citizens will unknowingly submit to the requests of authority, as they believe they have some command to obey authority, regardless if the authority is lawful or an evil doer. I also recognize that someone standing on their rights looks incredibly bizarre to a culture who lives in fear of the authority.
I also believe that your perception indicates that you have not read through the volume of communication between me, defense counsel, nor reviewed evidence before the federal court. I conceded that would be an unreasonable expectation, and attempting to navigate those documents to discern what transpired is too burdensome and it would be easier to draft a narrative in the manner you did.
I am going to pull out statements in your public post and provide clarity from the Plaintiff’s perspective, and the position of the court.
One, I think the lawsuit is a complete waste of taxpayer of money. As someone who is running for school board, a volunteer position, I couldn’t imagine being asked to bear the cost on my own or to expect district employees to pay the cost. I’m definitely interested in how the court will rule.
The use of taxpayer money to fund a private legal matter is the root of the issue.
Do you agree with taxpayer money being used to fund private legal matters?
Did you ever investigate if using taxpayer money for private legal matters was lawful? Or did you just accept the presentation from the board?
Did you submit any questions, documents through RTKL to obtain an answer?
Did you ever research 42 USC 1983?
Did you ever research qualified immunity and what the judged stated regarding qualified immunity?
Will you continue to remain silent and not ask a question of the board like “The memorandum stated that defendants didn’t have qualified immunity, and have been denied qualified immunity. On what legal authority has the board stood to continue to approve taxpayer funds in a private legal matter?”
I understand that taking that position would not be politically popular but it certainly would be constitutionally appropriate if it exposes fraud within Octorara School District.
Two, the lawsuit is a complete waste of the district’s/boards time and energy. Time that should be spent on making Octorara a school of choice and furthering the education of our students. It is a cloud that hangs over many of the meetings I have attended.
You would have complete agreement with me on this perspective. In my Federal Complaint I demonstrated repeatedly beginning in October of 2021, to reasonably inform the Board the lawful limits of their authority. I prefer to not go over and over again how many times they were warned as that is all in the Federal Complaint. When I presented the Letter of Intent to Sue, in March of 2022, resulting from the fraudulent trespass warning from Dr. Orner, the board mocked me. Who in the community researched that document? Who understood that I expressed I did not want to resolve the issue in Federal Court? Who chose to stand on their authority under “color of law” and refuse to seek civil rights counsel?
Did I want to take this to the Federal Court? Absolutely NO! But, If I don’t stand on my rights, who will stand in Octorara? Nobody. The issues are complex, the parents are afraid and public schools are chaotic. Show me a parent that knows that they have given over their child to the state, and surrendered their constitutional rights to a policy and I will show you a leprechaun riding on a unicorn.
THREE MINUTES
Three…three minutes. This whole thing could have been avoided if the board allowed the plaintiff 3 minutes to speak. According to court documents, he was hired by parents to speak on their behalf. Policy 903 which the plaintiff is arguing against and the board was enforcing, actually allows for exceptions. (An exception, permission is not a lawful condition to express a constitutional right. While citizens may have consented through contract to school “policies” as Ben Pratt stated the Constitution is the superior to policy. Me specifically, as an advocate did not sign a contract to policies, which obligate me to acknowledge unconstitutional exceptions, permissions or conditions)
The Board President could have asked the remaining members if they would allow an exception for him to speak. Had they granted that, this would all have been avoided. This is frustrating especially considering how many parents, including myself, have spoken for three minutes just to have the board continue as if nothing was said. Was giving this person three minutes for them to ignore the end of the world and worth all the time, aggravation and money that has been spent? (Is it possible that my actions were in a movement to demonstrate to the citizens why the board is ignoring you?)
I imagine there are parts of my thoughts that the current board members will disagree with. I also imagine there are parts of my thoughts that some of the new individuals running will disagree with. I think that’s ok. It’s healthy to have disagreements. I don’t 100% agree with any of the current board members on everything nor do I agree 100% with others who are running against them. Since when did diversity of opinions become a bad thing? I think having differing viewpoints adds strength to our district and not weakness. (Disagreements are fine. Are you willing to stand up and say no, in defiance of the majority if you learn that the Octorara School Board is using taxpayer funds for a private legal matter? Or, will you remain silent and sit back and allow a non-citizen fight for lawfulness within Octorara School District and have the judge determine right and wrong. Please define the two paths for the public and for myself. I will state my perspective openly.
If Plaintiff’s lawsuit is dismissed.
As the plaintiff I will research the basis the judge dismisses the case and come forward publicly and speak for 3 minutes offering a sincere apology.
If Plaintiff’s case is found in favor of Plaintiff.
The terms of settlement, as the single plaintiff, I could ask the judge to have the defendants repay the taxpayers, or the Judge may order that.
What would you suggest happen in the event the defendants are found guilty of the charges in the original complaint, and the additional charges coming in the amended complaint which will detail the fraudulent use of taxpayer funds?
I think that the majority of folks have no interest in seeking truth on this issue, researching the details of the complaint, and look at evidence. It is easier to attack the Lesser Magistrate in narrative than to ask questions.
Unfortunately, an alternate perspective with limited context is circulating on social media. For whatever reason, the opinions are not being expressed in the comments of the Comply due to safety Blog Post. I took an opportunity to pull off the source material of the commenters sharing with broader context. Allow me to post directly from their page.
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right of everyone “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” This means that if the government (and government institutions like public schools) wants to search your belongings, or take them away from you, they must have a good reason to do so and they must follow the proper procedure.
As with other Constitutional rights, NYRA believes this right applies to everyone equally regardless of age. However, many court cases have allowed schools to conduct searches that would be illegal if students were not involved. And because there is very little protection of students’ rights, school authorities have conducted egregious violations of the privacy, dignity and rights of young people, such as searching an entire class when an item goes missing, conducting a strip-search for insignificant amounts of money, threatening students with suspension if they didn’t turn over the passwords to their phones, and groping students. We believe that all students retain their Fourth Amendment rights in and out of school.
Like searches, the seizure, or confiscation, of personal property is limited by the Fourth Amendment. Despite this, nearly every school has a policy of taking certain items belonging to students. Most commonly, this includes cell phones, but school have confiscated anything from stuffed animals to permanent markers. Unfortunately, this practice is rarely challenged even though taking someone’s property without their permission or without reasonable cause violates their property rights. In some cases, schools will even charge a fee for returning the item, and collect thousands of dollars each year. Schools may also not return items to the student at all, yet students do not have any legal recourse if the school loses students’ property after it is confiscated. Unless students are breaking the law or infringing on another’s right to education, students should be allowed to retain all personal items.
Are School Searches Legal?
When courts try to determine whether a school search violates the Fourth Amendment they consider a variety of factors:
The evidence for the search: In most cases, the school must be able to state specifically what they are looking for and have a good reason for believing they will find it in the place they are looking. Unfortunately, what determines a “good” reason is not always clear.
The item being looked for: In general, the more dangerous an item is, the more invasive courts will allow a search to be.
What is being searched: Depending on whether the school is searching your locker, your backpack, or under your clothes, it needs to comply with different requirements.
The person doing the search: Different rules apply to the search depending on whether it is conducted by a teacher or principal, a school resource officer, or a police officer.
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE SEARCH
Courts have determined the legality of searches using three different criteria:
Probable cause: This is the highest standard required for a search and requires the police to have sufficient evidence that you committed a crime and that there is a substantial chance that they will find evidence of that crime by searching you or your belongings. However, school officials do not need probable cause in order to search you or your belongings at school. In fact, even police officers are rarely required to have probable cause if they are working on behalf of the school. They can use the much weaker standard of reasonable suspicion.
Reasonable suspicion: This is the usual standard used for any kind of search conducted against students at school. Reasonable suspicion does not require a search warrant and only requires that a police officer show that it was reasonable to believe that a search could turn up evidence of a crime, based on facts. Normally, this standard can only be used in a few circumstances, such as during arrest or if you are being frisked for weapons.
Suspicionless or random searches: In a few situations, neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause is required for a search. Outside of schools, the courts have only allowed random searches in specific circumstances such as at airports and international borders, in circumstances where there are elevated risks or national security interests at stake. However, the US Supreme Court has ruled that many types of random searches are constitutional when performed against students on school campuses, even though there are no elevated risks or national security interests at stake.
The context school officials and officers frequently verbalize to citizens is to state that they have reasonable suspicion. The law states that law enforcement may detain (no use of handcuffs that would be an arrest) for a limited duration (SCOTUS states 25 minutes) to conduct an “investigation” to obtain articulable facts, and evidence that meets the Probable Cause standard. Citizens are unaware that Reasonable Suspicion alone is not a misdemeanor, a felony nor an offense to arrest a citizen. It limits the power (of public servants and private citizens) to only detention.
Unfortunately, public servants through their tactics and training have been known to demonstrate threats of arrest, intimidation, coercion and duress under color of law. During an “investigative detention” a reasonable public servant, or law enforcement officer would begin collecting affidavits, and question individuals to determine if they could identify the elements which have evidence that support probable cause. Law enforcement and public servants are expecting that citizens will be obedient to their authority, without regard to the lawfulness or limits to their authority. As the source states, the violations are often not challenged. Why? Well, that is part of the volume of education provided by Cultural Contrarian.
Let’s review some more details:
Personal belongings
School officials only need reasonable suspicion that there is a crime before searching a student’s belongings. In the landmark case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. (US Supreme Court, 1985), the Court ruled that school administrators do not need to have a search warrant or probable cause before conducting a search because students have a reduced expectation of privacy when in school.
Nevertheless, there are limitations on schools searching students’ belongings. For example, in the case of Burnham v. West (Eastern District Court of Virginia, 1987), the court concluded that the odor of marijuana in the hall does not provide sufficient reason to search all students’ book bags, purses, and pockets. It should be noted, however, if an object or item is in plain view, a teacher can take it or search it without reasonable suspicion. Because of this, some schools have required students to only use clear backpacks so that their possessions can be seen.
Schools have also severely violated students’ right to privacy by video recording students without their knowledge while changing in a locker room. Because students have a reasonable expectation of privacy in changing rooms, such searches are considered illegal, such as in Brannum v. Overton County School Board (Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2008).
Students using their phones on public property, videography is entirely permissible based upon the same laws which the school uses to record children. This is why, none of us have an expectation of privacy when in PUBLIC, ie PUBLIC SCHOOLS. However, the same restrictions apply to areas that are secure, blocked or an expectation of privacy does exist (bathroom, locker room, inside a tent or camper at a campground, etc.)
Cellphone searches
In recent years, NYRA and other civil rights groups have fought for student rights by challenging cell phone searches that were not justified, as in the case of Boca Raton Community High School. For many years the high school had a policy of searching through the text messages, photos, emails, and voicemails of student cell phones that were confiscated during class. Thanks to the efforts of NYRA’s Southeast Florida chapter, the school changed its cell phone policy; cell phone searches can now be conducted only when there is reasonable suspicion.
Never surrender your cellphone absent of a warrant!!!!
Social media accounts
Schools often try to force students to give school administrators the passwords to their social media accounts. One student successfully sued her school after she was forced to log in to her Facebook account in the principal’s office. In that case, S.S. v. Minnewaska Area School District (District Court of Minnesota, 2012), the school had to pay damages and revise its social media privacy policy.
Just because someone alleges they heard or saw something is not enough. The allegations must be affirmed/attested to under grounds of perjury in a sworn affidavit. If not, no record, it never happened and falls under Hearsay.
Recently, a small rural town had a horrifying experience with their children. The response to this alarming experience is providing quite a shocking revelation. The citizen response is clear. Citizens prefer to trust those in authority, without regard to right, wrong, lawfulness or constitutionally, when they can be convinced that the actions were for the safety of the children, school staff, parents and the overall community.
What I am about to share will bring to light and expose the truth, in contrast to what public servants will most definitely not share truthfully, transparently and be cloaked in the shadows with multiple layers of avoidance, obfuscation, hurdles, barriers, obstacles, and double speak. Most certainly the go to response will reflect: “we cannot comment due to an ongoing investigation”.
On September 7th, students were dismissed early from a public school. One particular bus of students, while boarding were bantering back and forth. Just imagine the vocal expressiveness that must occur on a bus. It is alleged that the bus driver over heard a statement which made reference to a fire arm.
In this day and age, that is a very alarming thing to hear and sends a shiver down any reasonable persons spine. The hope would be that those in acting in loco parentis, are trained for such an event, or have an emotional intelligence to act appropriately to demonstrate authentic safety.
Note:If you haven’t learned yet from the media, or other research, the Supreme Court has ruled that public servants have no “duty to defend” the life of another person. That’s not to say that an individual might act in that way to protect a child, but their position and the law does not require them to, nor does it have a punishment for not getting involve.
The driver of the bus, was already in motion and began the process of dropping off children. At some point, off of school property, traveling the route, the bus driver, allegedly made a call to 911, his dispatch, or possibly the school. Instead of stopping the bus, awaiting for law enforcement, the bus driver either acted on his own accord, or was directed to return to the school. A reasonable person would say that if the bus is deviating from its plan for some “emergency”, parents should be immediately notified of the change, and where the students would be if not arriving at their scheduled stop.
In normal circumstances, if someone is a passenger of a vehicle, and its destination changes, the passenger is either consenting to the change, or is permitted to leave the vehicle. Absent of consent to a new destination, any passenger has been falsely imprisoned and in the process of being kidnapped.
Note: This is where many will argue this point, but the argument is with the law as written and interpreted by the Supreme Court.
This particular bus driver, returned the bus to the school. It was observed that the School Principal, boarded the bus, and began a search of the children’s personal belongings to investigate or verify if the allegation was true.
The predominant narrative by school board administration, school board officials and the community at large, was that a search of private belongings was a reasonable act under the guise of “safety”. Sure, everyone wants their child to be safe, that is a logical fallacy argument to appeal to an emotion. I absolutely will concur, safety is critical for children. But that narrative is exactly designed to distract you, from the actions which were not safe.
Note:People often thinking of the possible consequences of giving up freedom until they personally feel violated or pain. What would be the parental response, that during this search, the Principal found “contraband” or other materials in a personal bag? Regardless of the reasoning, what would be the consequence. Well, the Law and the Constitution have an answer which is quite contrary to the punishments the School Board has created. Warning, Detention, Suspension, Expulsion. Ever remember hearing the words, this will wind up on your “permanent record?” Again, it’s not reasonable to enter into discussions with individuals who are unfamiliar with the law or claim so many things which are not truthful.
Why did the bus not just stop and wait for law enforcement? Would not a driver have an ethical conundrum to be confronted with keeping the kids safe, instead of driving the bus where he was not capable of doing just that? Well, I attempted to obtain the policy or training for school bus drivers.
I reached out to the contracted carrier for the school district and politely asked, does your company have policies or training you provide to your drivers, when transporting children on behalf of the school. Has loco parentis shifted from the school to the transportation company? Who has lawful jurisdiction during transit? These are questions that John Q. Citizen doesn’t consider, and rely upon School Boards to know, form policies and protect children.
The carrier inquired who I was, and I simply stated a “concerned citizen” after a brief hold, the individual stated he is going to “decline from commenting”. I stated, that’s fine, let me just confirm, you are declining to acknowledge that your organization has policies, guidelines or training for when transporting school children.” I was met with “I decline to comment”. I agreed, that is fine allow me one clarification “If a citizen desires an answer to that question, whom would he contact to get a response.” I was directed to the School Administration.
Let’s explore what the School Policy states. Well, I will just provide links for those wanting to peel the layers back. (click image to view entire policy)
But it is actually much deeper than that. Every citizen (yes students) have a 4th amendment right to be secure in their person, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable search and seizure absent of a warrant based upon probable cause supported by an oath or affirmation. For those that question this statement, I will encourage you to research your school board policies, and pull up the foot note to Pennsylvania criminal code Security from searches and seizures.
Let’s take a look at this school policy.
Let’s look specifically at footnote [1]
The above image is directly from Pennsylvania Criminal Code
Again, the safety narrative will creep in, and claims will circulate about exigent circumstances. This is another crafty, linguistic tactic to reinforce the emotional response, to avoid following the law. It was “alleged” that the school bus driver “overheard” something. Is it possible he/she misheard or misrepresented what they heard? Sure it is. But this is where the law helps everyone out. Based upon the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would immediately interact with the reporting party. Verify the claims, obtain information about who could have possibly made the statement. The law states that the reporting party, when making a statement to police regarding a possible criminal act, that an investigation would require an officer (according to law and law enforcement policy) to obtain a sworn affidavit, which would be subject to perjury stating the lawful elements of Probable Cause (A crime had been committed, a crime was in progress, or a crime was about to occur). Note: Violation of a policy is not a misdemeanor nor a felony and is not a criminal act. Unless, School Board has been assigned via law, or self appointed themselves authority above the Law, Law Enforcement, the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
Email that was sent to the Pennsylvania Department of Education.
Sure, exigency means that policies, affidavits, may not be memorialize “in the moment”, but procedurally, must be accomplished. However, in this situation, the jurisdictional authority was the school principal. Right, wrong, indifferent, that is what happened. Police were not on the bus, conducting an investigation and were a mere presence to show authority or some other impression. Did they have a duty, obligation to insert themselves? That is a legal, jurisdiction, training question that is outside of my desire to hypothesize. The point person was the School Principal took action and searched absent of a warrant.
Did the Principal use Intimidation, Threats, Duress, Coercion, authority under color of law (42 USC 1983)? Were the police complicit in not stopping a criminal deprivation of rights (18 USC 241, 242)? Better yet, has the school ever been notified and warned of their limits of authority? Yes, they have, back in January and it is part of aFederal Complaint.
Next, the School Principal, some would say acted heroically, to go on the bus and rummage through kids belongings. In a pragmatic position I would tend to agree. Those actions would show a degree of compassion and concern for the safety of children. Couple that with, the kids already have been trained to obey authority, or they will go to detention or worse, if they don’t obey. Folks, the law calls that, intimidation, threat, duress, coercion. In this case, the kids felt they were obligated to let the principal search their students belongings, because the principal will punish them if they don’t obey.
Again, we are back to exigency. The actions were based upon an allegation of “hearsay” about something could be in the possession of a student, that they shouldn’t have (regardless if the item violates a law or a policy).School officials aren’t trained in the law, or the enforcement of law, and have zero authority to enforce law. This was a law enforcement duty, IF the allegation was a criminal offense. But guess what, no crime had been committed.
Unfortunately the narrative of citizens reverts to emotional, tv episodic responses which have nothing to do with law and gravitate towards emotional, albeit pragmatic, diatribes to justify unlawful actions, in favor of safety. I often say when encountering these individuals attempting to convince me, I step back and say, ignorance of the law is not a defense against the law, in a court of law. Most are ignorant of the law and create a narrative on what they think the law is or should be.
School officials function under “policy” and have a pattern and practice of recklessly elevating their authority to a degree of enforcement they are not legally afforded nor entitled. The Principal does not have the lawful authority to enforce a policy in direct contradiction to Pennsylvania State Law, Pennsylvania Criminal Codes and the US Constitution. While I am quite certain, this assertion is best upon my best understanding of how our government is structured, I am completely open to the possibility of reviewing evidence which states that School Board Policy is a higher law than State, Federal laws and the constitution and that School Officials have a higher enforcement authority than law enforcement. Please, provide me that document for that is a question that will not be answered by School Board or even the state. For me personally as a victim to unlawful, constitutional violations by school board members, I will resolve this question in Federal Court. (Please see above further attempts to clarify the authority question, which has repeatedly been ignored.)
Note:Many Pennsylvania State School Board members themselves have been on the record publicly, asking a very similar question and never obtaining a response.
Continuing with the events from 9/7, the Principal did indeed search students bags. Municipal police and State Troopers were on the scene and did not stop or interfere with the unlawful actions of the principal. It is alleged that possibly (2) individuals were removed from the bus. The rest of the story, affected parties, details will certainly remain hidden for months.
So all of those who favor the narrative to ignore the lawfulness, the preservation of constitutional rights, violation of State Criminal law and codes, I want to present you an option. First ask yourself. Are you willing to be logically consistent or do you prefer to be a moral/ethical/rights relativist?
Embrace safety as your leading concern and you relinquish your rights to any action by those in authority to ensure safety. Remove the process to verify or obtain evidence that danger exists, and permit actions solely on narrative, allegation.
Let me make it simple for you. Your next door neighbor hears you arguing and claims to hear a loud bang or crash. They fear for the safety for everyone in the house, call the police, and the police arrive, bash in the door. and well, I’ll let you create your own scenario of what happens next. Your neighbor legitimately feared for your safety and made a call for help. No harm no foul.
Unfortunately, your mind knows that you want your rights secure if the police came to your door based upon whatever allegation they receive from police dispatcher received phone call. But, that is not logically consistent to the narrative you are supporting in supporting safety in this situation. There was NO CRIME. Only words. Slow the heck down. Allow the police to lawfully determine if a CRIME had been committed.
Well, for me, I wanted to shed some light on this issue. For those that follow me, they know it is a topic that is pretty important and well researched. However, the masses don’t exactly want to hear, listen or research and often make slanderous, defamatory, and libelous statements to avoid considering their own logical contradictions. Particularly when the points or reasoning are in complete contradiction to their role, authority and their oath.
Fortunately, this event provides some incredible validation/evidence to the existing Federal Complaint inside the Pennsylvania District Court.
Just imagine, if the School Principal, searched your child’s bag, and found some contraband (legal definition), or an item expressed in some policy. It isn’t a problem, until it is a problem, then you demand your rights. Or, are you going to be consistent and waive those rights?
To further destroy the false narratives and slander, based upon trolling conduct on my publicly visible pages, and available on the public record, I offer the following:
Cultural Contrarian desires honesty, integrity and truth in the relationship between public servants and the citizens they are to serve. The government assigns the role of public servants at the “mere pleasure” of the citizens. Evidence of public servants being honest, having integrity and demonstrating truthfulness are only available through transparency and accountability, to validate compliance and honoring of their oath. Humans are sin stained and lie, cheat, steal and worse. When confronted with sin, one can repent, seek forgiveness and restore and move in a direction of positive improvement of self and all relationships. Alternatively, one can stand in righteousness and rebel against truth or opportunity to correct.
Cultural Contrarian has ZERO power over any human, and doesn’t seek justice, but merely to say, honor ones oath or don’t. As a fellow sin stained human, I am often wrong, and frequently need to correct. And yes, that correction can be embarrassing, humiliating and wound my ego. However, absent of correction, I believe that I am not able to sharpen my own sword in seeking truth.
My hearts desire is to accept humans with all of us having the same condition. Bring the transgression to light, afford one to hear the harm, and decide, do they want to correct, or rebuke.
In this situation, I would hope and pray, that the school board would not see this as a critical analysis of transgressions. But, more of an illumination of the limits to their authority, accept they have gone too far and work with the community to make things Lawful. Honor their oath to the Constitution, and act as true servants to the citizens and the young minds in their temporary custody.
When a public official violates their oath, we can aggress on social media, we can craft well documented 3 minute speeches, we can protest or petition. Or, we can use the tools the Constitution has designed for We The People. The Supreme Court has told us how this works and how we need to lawfully and legally achieve accountability. However, nobody has been taught this, has spent time to learn, and few have trodden that path.
It is easier to complain, than to do the things that affect the meaningful change. Cultural Contrarian can’t do anything for anyone, other than provide you an opportunity to learn. Cultural Contrarian can’t make another human do anything. However, when Cultural Contrarian or his friends are unlawfully harmed, he will allow a judge to determine if he can be free based upon the Laws and our Constitution or, Freedom has been eviscerated.
Cultural Contrarian personally, is in a win-win situation. Either court affirms the Constitution and Bill of Rights are alive (regardless of financial decision), or it is no longer alive.
Do you want to know?
Response from Department of Education? No read or return receipt, sent follow up email, ignored. Is it reasonable that we could interact with the Department Education on a foundational limit’s of authority question? I don’t have an answer, maybe during trial this might be addressed.
Oh, on a side note, don’t expect any public servant to interact and address the merits of the points made in this post. If a conversation does start, plug in you Socratean Logical Fallacy detector for you will get peppered with Ad Hominem, Straw man, Red Herring, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Authority, One True Scottsman and so many more.
It is with a very heavy heart that I feel prompted to communicate to all of the individuals receiving this email. I have invested tremendous amount of time, energy and yes passion to advocate on the behalf of private citizens whose children are experiencing incredible harm within our public education system. I have been transparent, authentic and beyond reasonable to be a free citizen, just desiring to remain secure in my constitutional rights to publicly address the school board. These attempts have been met with a contemptuous, defiant and even behavior of mockery of my mere presence. This attitude has permeated all communications with those in public service who have sworn an oath to uphold, defend and protect my rights.
On March 14th Trooper Kochka, (allegedly under the direction of Octorara School Superintendent Dr. Orner, or Octorara School Board President, Brian Fox) stated that I had not committed a crime, was asked to leave and if I didn’t leave I would be arrested and charged with defiant criminal trespass after warning.
I attempted to correct Trooper Kochka that criminalizing a constitutional right is not protected through qualified immunity and he would be at risk of personal litigation under 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242 and 42 USC 1983. I had suggested that he clarify his authority with a supervisor and the District Attorney to clarify the limits of his authority on public property, which were met with contempt and ignored.
I have attempted repeatedly to obtain records of an official criminal trespass document, sworn affidavit, probable cause affidavit and to date the response is two fold. One, is that no record exists through the Pennsylvania State Police right to know law official. Secondly, Trooper Kochka is relying upon a written email communication to me, referencing a letter sent to me from Dr. Orner. Dr. Orner’s letter state’s that I was being denied access to the school for causing a “disturbance”. No sworn affidavit of the criminal elements of the disturbance was gathered and none produced through Right to Know law requests.
It is my desire to return to Octorara School Board to speak at the appropriate time, place manner with my 1st and 4th amendment rights restored. However, it is not reasonable that any law enforcement will protect my rights and further attempt to criminalize my attempt to be free and advocate for my clients.
If I return, it is inevitable that the School Board will summon the State Police. State Police will respond to the call for service, and act unlawfully at the direction of the reporting party. If I return, I will request to see evidence of the documented Criminal Trespass Warning document. My research has revealed that none exists. State Police will arrest me for Defiant Trespass after warning, kidnap me, potentially confiscate or steal personal property and place me in a dungeon. I would then be held in captivity for a duration until I would be arraigned before a magistrate with the charge of Defiant Trespass after warning and be assigned a bond.
If I am unlawfully arrested, I will not pay the bond as the crimes are being perpetrated by others, with no regard to the rights of a citizen, with the intentional malice to cause harm. I will remain in the dungeon, unable to gain access to the scheduled medical procedures for my heath. I am under no obligation to disclose my private, personal medical history to a non HIPPA covered entity.
Upon completion of arraignment, not posting bond, I will remain in the dungeon until I am afforded a preliminary hearing. At such time, I will be requesting the arresting officer to produce all documents, probable cause affidavit, sworn affidavit, that validates a lawful criminal trespass from public property. As all of my evidence supports that the PSP have confirmed no record exists.
It has never been my desire to be in this situation. However, I have provided sufficient documentation, advanced notice of my intentions, along with my preparedness in how I will conduct myself, I have significantly documented a systemic problem under Color of Law.
I have attempted to be reasonable, and don’t desire to make this a federal case. In the event that my predictions are true, my evidence is valid, the public records responses are truthful, the impact to all involved individuals will be based upon acting in their private person capacity in violation of their oath and loss of qualified immunity.
I am not seeking justice at all. I merely want to be a law abiding citizen capable of exercising their concerns on behalf of affected children at a public meeting. If I am met with unlawful actors, justice will be determined in a court of law, with a jury of ones peers.
It is completely not lost on me that this is not usual and customary of a citizen willing to go to these lengths. But our justice system tells citizens, ignorance of the law is not a defense, and we have a duty and obligation to know the law, and correct those who misrepresent the law. However, we have no power or authority to ensure public servants comply with the law nor honor their oath. Accepting this as a limitation, I chose to be informed, prepared, respectful, professional and strived to be reasonable. This is my hope that this communication is received in the spirit it is being delivered and those representing authority, honor their oath. But, the reality is, a citizen must be prepared for that not to happen and resolve their issues, not on the public square, but in the courtroom.
I haven’t committed to creating a blog, but reserve the right to randomly post provocative thoughts for consideration. Feel free to drop your response in comments but I want to avoid the culture of social media, impulsive, emotionally laden, comments based upon what people think things are in contrast to sharing the basis or foundation of your reasoning.
I know this may sound confusing, but if one is going to disagree with something I post, I respectfully request you provide the basis, source, or reference to the claim. No, not an appeal to authority, just a request to name your authority. My communication centers around rights, the law, the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent.
Remember, this is my channel, and we all are responsible for the words we use, and the intentionality behind our word selection. Some times its wise to pause when writing, then post when something will have digital footprints forever.
