Posted on Leave a comment

Comply due to safety.

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 a Federal 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *