Navigating the Legal Process

Navigating the Legal Process

As the entity Cultural Contrarian is designed for education, equipping and empowering citizens to lawfully stand on their constitutionally protected rights, the individual behind Cultural Contrarian chose to authentically and transparently model this conduct. The documentation trail is extensive in attempting to be reasonable with public servants, unfortunately resulting in the private individual ensnared in two significant legal challenges, with more predicted to occur.

The documented evidence is clear that the design was never to enter into a legal entanglement, but be prepared in the event of becoming a victim of actions under “color of law”. I want to share this piece of communication for those that have been following Cultural Contrarian, along as a resource related to the attempts to engage with legal professionals.

The private individual associated with Cultural Contrarian has (2) lawsuits.

Federal Complaint Case # 22-3329 To see this case you would need to register with PACER.

Criminal Charges of defiant trespass Docket # CP-15-CR-0003501-2022 (

The evidence presented in the Federal Complaint is voluminous and actually predicted the actions resulting in the private individual “submitting” to an unlawful arrest. It is my intention to lay out a public facing sequence of events of bullet points in the manner of “argument” that has been happening with the defendant (private individual – Cultural Contrarian), and the Public Defenders Office. It is important to note here, that procedurally, it has been stated that the Public Defenders office is prohibited from clicking on any links which may be sent via email in reference to defendants evidence. As video, audio (podcasts), Federal Complaint documents, all are published online. My understanding is that the Public Defender requires raw video, audio files and documents in a pdf format. Imagine the burden that places on the defendant to capture all of those digital files, download, organize, let alone the hours of content to review. If you have followed this process you know the hours is quite significant.

The events leading up to my submission to an unlawful arrest were predicted, memorialized, and even respectfully warned to approach cautiously. I use the word cautiously in that it was never my desire for a public servant to be in a position where they would be willingly choosing to surrender their qualified immunity. It is the Cultural Contrarian’s view that qualified immunity has an important role to protect public servants from frivolous litigation. However, the limits of qualified immunity are defined by the Supreme Court, and the private individual made every attempt to caution all involved parties to not do things in violation of their sworn oath and lawful duties.

On March 14th, Cultural Contrarian attempted to attend a public school board meeting (video 1) [] in an attempt to advocate on the behalf of clients in the Octorara School District. In advance of that meeting, CC had attempted to communicate with Chester County Detectives which were engaged under the direction of District Attorney, Deb Ryan. This communication was an attempt to circumvent the possibility of the attempt to lawfully speak before a school board, becoming converted into a crime. Allegedly, the District Attorney’s office contacted the superintendent (Dr. Michelle Orner) to cancel the public meeting in anticipation of Cultural Contrarian attempting to attend the meeting and speak. The reasoning by this alert is well documented in the Federal Complaint and the Plaintiff in that case (Cultural Contrarian) has provided evidence to the court of the actions which have the appearance of a conspiracy. The conspiracy involves the District Attorney’s office, the Chester County Detectives, Octorara School Board actors, and countless Chief of Police in Chester County. But here is what was communicated by Deb Ryan to Chester County Detectives which allegedly was the cause for the Chester County Detectives to alert Dr. Michelle Orner. Maybe Deb Ryan can testify as to the THREAT that she engaged the Chester County Detectives to treat Cultural Contrarian as a potential criminal. Cultural Contrarian had provided to the DA, CC Detectives and School Board Members and eBook to clearly describe the actions of a Citizen Journalist (which can also include and advocate).

After Cultural Contrarian was informed of the school board meeting cancellation, he returned to a vehicle and left the school property. Upon exiting the property, Pennsylvania State Trooper, Trooper Kevin Kochka, activated his emergency lights and arrested the movement Cultural Contrarian. Cultural Contrarian had a lawfully functioning, licensed, inspected, and insured vehicle and had not committed any moving infraction or violation. This encounter will not be shared publicly here at this time.

Law enforcement frequently initiate traffic stops, but Cultural Contrarian was pulling over to allow the officer to attend to the emergency which required the activation of his emergency lights. The details of that interaction is also significantly documented in the Federal Complaint.

Cultural Contrarian (CC) inquired if he was free to leave and Trooper Kochka stated no, and that CC was detained for a “suspicious vehicle”. CC indicated that a suspicious vehicle is that a misdemeanor or a felony and that CC was not obligated to assist Trooper Kochka in his investigation of this unlawful encounter. Again, the details of this encounter is in the Federal Complaint.

Trooper Kochka attempted to obtain CC’s identity and at no time did CC present any documents (drivers license, registration, insurance) to Trooper Kochka. It is evident that Trooper Kochka ran the license plate in an attempt to identify CC’s identity, address and Drivers License #. Trooper Kochka violated CC’s privacy and disclosed that information to Dr. Michelle Orner. Dr. Michelle Orner, informed by Trooper Kochka took personal liberty to disclose the identity of CC to Octorara School Board members on a “public record”.

CC had a series of email communications with Trooper Kochka resulting from the unlawful traffic arrest. Many more details are involved in the Federal Complaint, but here is a series of email between CC and Trooper Kochka. [] 1 pdf

Generally a police report is generated as a record of an encounter, which in turn would be provided to the reporting party. This would also include documentation relative to law enforcement investigation which would be included in any communication between a reporting party (The School Superintendent) and the alleged violator (Me in this case). Through a RTKL request I was able to confirm a portion of this type of communication related to other School Districts making calls for services for alleged citizen based concerns.

(Great Valley High School,

Unionville Chads Ford School:

Review for Due Process information:

Did the communication provide instructions for appeal, limited duration, a process to gain access to obtain public services?

On March 21, 2022, CC returned to Octorara School District in an attempt to advocate on behalf of his clients and speak before the public and the school board. CC had drafted a respectful, professional document to advocate for moving forward to enhance communication between private citizens, their children, the school board and school officials. CC desired to hope that the Board would honor their oath, and utter threats to compel CC to surrender his privacy as a condition to speak before the public and the board. While the board may desire to enforce policies, other individuals have obligations to their clients and their profession where public disclosure is completely inappropriate. Public disclosure not only invites the possibility of revealing client relationships it also opens the door for future discrimination and possible retaliation.

The traditional response from Public officials conducting meetings is to reference guidelines created through the Sunshine Act, which are the basis to promulgate policy, and to maintain decorum of a meeting. Private citizens are not engaged in any contractural obligation to follow policies as they are for employees, or those who have signed consent to those policies. Further, compelling someone to follow a policy as a condition to exercise a constitutionally protected right is repugnant. School Boards would be wise to be informed that it is unlawful to threaten citizens with violence for non-adherance, to a request, to a policy. If an individual chooses to remain private (as they are lawfully permitted to do), decorum would suggest allow residents to speak first and allow others speak if time is available. If a non-resident can’t speak due to time constraints, then the non-resident might attempt other ways to communicate. As long at Free Speech still exists with Time, Place, Manner, other restrictions must not be viewpoint discriminatory.

CC encountered Trooper Kochka when attempting to speak publicly at the public meeting.

Video 2
  • at Time Stamp 42:54 you can see the document CC was prepared to read to the public and the school board.
  • at 43:20 CC attempts to speak and inform the board about his ability to stand on his rights in contrast to be compelled to identify and surrender to a policy.
  • at 44:59 CC informed the board that he would leave and call law enforcement to arrest for deprivation of rights under color of law. (It is not reasonable to expect law enforcement to arrest the school board, but they should warn the school board of a few things)
  • – 1 A citizen cannot be removed from public property unless they have perpetrated a crime.
  • -2 A citizen doesn’t have an obligation to surrender their name, unless they have been “lawfully arrested”
  • at 45:05 CC stands up to leave to call the police.
  • at 45:20 CC reiterates that the school board had been provided notice back in January. [ pdf 2
  • 45:30 Trooper Kochka enters and I inform Trooper Kochka to arrest the board for Deprivation of rights under color of law.
  • 45:50 CC asks Trooper Kochka what would happen if he doesn’t leave and Trooper Kochka stated “defiant Trespass”. (CC understood that “defiant trespass” is a crime but attempted to find out what “crime” CC had committed to be trespassed and threatened with “defiant trespass”.
  • 45:57 CC complied with leaving the public meeting area and feared being entrapped by Trooper Kochka with him moving forward on an unlawful “defiant trespass” arrest
  • 46:01 “What crime had I committed” TK: “You have no reason to be here.” (So a private citizen advocate, according to Trooper Kochka has no reason to advocate and speak publicly.
  • 46:04 TK states that Speech requires “residency”.
  • 46:07 CC informs Trooper Kochka that CC is an agent for citizens in the community.
  • 46:44 Trooper Kochka states that CC was asked to leave (no evidence exists of being asked to leave other than the threat of defiant trespass by Trooper Kochka.)
  • 46:47 Trooper Kochka claims CC doesn’t have a “right” in a public setting..
  • 46:55 Trooper Kochka, “you are not committing a crime YET.”
  • 47:24 Trooper Kochka stated “am I arresting you?” He actually threatened defiant trespass, and CC would be arrested according to Trooper Kochka if CC did not leave.

At time stamp 47:30 Trooper Kochka is holding up Title 18 § 3503 and highlighted specifically the law which he was claiming to be enforcing:

(v) an actual communication to the actor to leave school grounds as communicated by a school, center or program official.

Trooper Kochka is implying that just because someone says so, that they can be removed from public property and Pennsylvania State Troopers will act on that request with zero investigation if to the request to leave was based upon an allegation of a crime in progress, a crime about to occur, or a crime actually occured. A reasonable officer would not be derelict in their duty, investigate the allegations, obtain a sworn affidavit from a reporting party and prepare a criminal trespass report. CC had anticipated law enforcement to be reasonable, conduct their investigation. The expectation is that Trooper would either present CC with the criminal trespass warning document, or at a minimum provide a copy at a later date.

On March 23, 2022, Dr. Michelle Orner sent via certified mail a banning from public property document [ ] which failed countless obligations denying CC due process. This document was a threat of violence (an arrest is violence to deprive a citizen of liberty). The following elements of due process which were missing:

  • Clearly stated criminal action to substantiation of a lawful revocation of a license to access public property.
  • No affidavit by a reporting party of criminal activity.
  • No police report of a crime on public property.
  • No limited duration for the ban from public property.
  • No accommodations provided to gain access to public property.
  • No process to appeal the representations stated in the letter.

Defense Requested Evidence From AFFIANT

CC had subsequent communication with other individuals regarding this document [] which are captured in the Federal Complaint. CC had chosen not to return to the Octorara School District property the remainder of the 2021-2022 school year.

CC had presented to the private individuals acting in their private capacity, representing public officials (superintendent, school board members) a letter of intent to sue, [] along with a conditional settlement proposal. CC had no desire to litigate the private individuals and has substantially documented, and broadcast his desire for the private individuals to be reasonable, honor their oath, and engage in a reasonable exchange. However, this was not the path these individuals chose.

CC returned to the area near Octorara School District, standing on Public Property, on the date of a public school board meeting and narrated a video.

This broadcast was uneventful and was not interrupted. At no time did CC step on public school property.

A reasonable person, upon researching and studying the Commonwealth Statute of Trespassing, would expect that if a citizen was accused of receiving a “criminal trespass warning” that one would be on the record. So, CC attempted to confirm, through the enforcing agency (Pennsylvania State Police) if they were in possession of a Criminal Trespass warning against the Private Individual. This request was facilitated through the RTKL process. This is particular process is also provided in detail in the Federal Complaint. The response received by the Office of Open Records [] was quite illuminating.

  • The respondent claims that no record of the traffic stop exists due to the stop being a “non-criminal investigation”
  • The respondent claims that no record exists in its possession or custody regarding a criminal trespass warning.

The Pennsylvania State Police in their response are indicating that they have the authority to arrest a citizens movement for “non-criminal investigations”. CC disputes this being a proper representation of the traffic stop, along with the threats issued against CC by Trooper Kochka during the traffic arrest. CC stands by the representation of the Supreme Court, a traffic stop is a seizure. Absent of reasonable articulable suspicion, supported by articulable facts (evidence) that a crime was in progress, a crime was about to occur, or a crime had occurred. Trooper Kochka performed an unlawful seizure of CC through the use of his emergency lights and stated that CC was not free to leave.

CC received no communication from the letter of intent to sue by the named individuals in the Letter of intent to sue. CC did receive communication from the Octorara School Solicitor, interloping in a private, non-school board, private legal matter. CC would not acknowledge the communications of an interloper.

CC prepared his Federal Complaint and filed the complaint with the Federal District Court in Philadelphia, establishing the Federal Complaint # 22-3329. CC (private individual) was named as the Plaintiff and listed over 80+ named defendants in their private person capacity and was provided a summons by the court to provide service to all named defendants. Plaintiff prepared all of the appropriate documents and was awaiting the beginning of the 2022-2023 school year to provide official service to the School Board Actors.

CC needed to be prepared when attempting service, that Pennsylvania State Troopers would attempt to arrest CC if CC were to attempt service. So, CC needed to ensure that PSP would honor their oath to protect the rights of CC as the Pennsylvania State Police confirmed that no record existed of a Criminal Trespass Warning.

  • No criminal trespass warning is on record by the Pennsylvania State Police, the only authority capable of affecting an “arrest”.
  • The letter produced by Dr. Michelle Orner was a completely fraudulent document and was completely discriminatory against CC. Other individuals who created a disturbance at school board meetings, never had the police called, a school resource officer intervene, and not threatening banning letter sent.

The wife of an acting school board member is either more or less disruptive than CC?

  • CC in advanced preparation, communicated with Pennsylvania State Police,
  • informing them no record exists of a criminal trespass warning from 3/21/2022 up to the date of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records response on 6/7/2022. A reasonable person would assume that 3 months is sufficient time to produce a criminal trespass document by the lawful authority capable of issuing an arrest based upon the allegation of “defiant trespass” after criminal trespass warning.
  • The communication to Trooper Kochka on 9/15/2022 was ignored. But was later to have been confirmed to having been read and reviewed by Trooper Crnkovik and Trooper Long.
  • CC met with a Pennsylvania Constable to coordinate providing official, in person service of the Federal Complaint to the Octorara School Board actors.
  • CC had arranged to have service completed in the event Pennsylvania State Police were encountered again and chose to violate CC’s constitutional rights.

CC had several documents prepared in advance for when attempting to peacefully provide service.

  • A document which would be read publicly to the community expressing the attempts to reason with the board, the ignoring of the letter of intent to sue, and the boards choice to have the citizens and CC’s allegations reviewed by the Federal Court.
  • A document which would be presented to an officer, if an an encounter were to happen. CC understood that anything you say, can and will be used against you, and attempting to reason with unreasonable people is better left to writing instead of attempting to reason.
QR Code has been disabled it would link to (
  • 0:50 School Board enters the meeting room
  • The meeting begins at 5:07 with the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
  • 5:30 it is announced that the Board is going to take a 5 minute recess.
  • 8:50 Trooper Crnkovik approaches CC from the side, and CC presented Trooper Crnkovik with his document (which was ignored)
  • 9:05 Trooper Crnkovik states that CC is being trespassed from the property, presenting CC with the fraudulent document from Dr. Orner.
  • 9:11 another threat if CC refuses to leave, will be arrested for trespassing, but no criminal trespass warning document is on record.
  • 9:25 is requesting the “criminal trespass document” with another encounter with Pennsylvania State Police. CC believes that if no document is produced, that the officers are attempting to “threaten, intimidate, coerce” and put CC in duress to leave on his on accord, with no documentation of the event. A repeat of the encounter with Trooper Kochka with no documentation.
  • 9:27 attempting to ensure that the Federal Summons remains in the dias and that official service can be completed.
  • 9:44 Trooper Crnkovik stated “You are free to go” Is it not true, if CC is “free” to go, that CC would be “free” to stay if no crime had been committed?
  • 10:11 it was confirmed that CC was NOT free to stay.
  • 10:16 CC is attempting to identify the crime
  • 11:07 Officers are asserting that the fraudulent document, sent via certified mail, by Dr. Orner was a “Criminal Trespass Warning”

Please refer above to the countless due process violations in the document produced by Dr. Orner.

One must attempt to find humor when dealing with unreasonable people. CC drafted this as a parody to present to a jury for entertainment.
  • 11:12 CC reiterates that the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) were intending to enforce Dr. Orner’s letter as a Criminal Trespass Warning.
  • 11:15 Trooper Crnkovic would only repeat statements in an effort to be non-responsive, and use his authority to have CC voluntarily exit the property.
  • 11:21 if CC doesn’t leave, “you will be arrested”
  • 11:40 CC informs Crnkovik and Long of 42 USC 1983 deprivation of rights under color of law.
  • 11:50 CC asks for evidence, affidavit of the “crime” to be removed from public property.
  • 11:56 repeated requests for the affidavit and Trooper Crnkovik repeatedly states “OK”.
  • 12:14 CC requests a business card from both Trooper Crnkovik and Trooper Long.
  • 12:16 Trooper Crnokovik directs CC to return to a car.
  • 12:20 neither trooper produce cards and attempt to direct CC to a vehicle.
  • 12:22 CC states he doesn’t require a vehicle and requests a card.
  • 12:30 a stand-off that CC wants a card, and the PSP want CC off the property with no card or PC affidavit.
  • 12:43 requests badge numbers.
  • 12:51 Corporal Long 11173
  • 12:59 Trooper Crnkovik 14249
  • 13:12 CC looked towards Pennsylvania Constable observing. It was previously determined that the Constable would not intervene if it would risk spoiling his testimony. The Constable chose to remain as an observer.
  • 13:27 Trooper long alleges that CC is causing a scene (what does the supreme court say about the Belligerent Claimant?) United States v Willis. If a citizen isn’t belligerent, they are consenting to an authority, even if the authority is unlawful.
  • 13:19 CC stated he merely wanted to speak before the school board.
  • 13:30 CC makes additional requests for the Criminal Trespass Document.
  • 13:38 CC stated “you are going to put me in handcuffs and charge me with criminal trespass”
  • 13:42 CC states “arrest me”
  • 13:49 CC (speaking as the individual) knew that the arrest would be unlawful, for I did not commit a crime and was attempting to give the officers the ability to choose to violate, or attempt to check with the DA on what they were about to do.
  • 13:54 Trooper Cnkovik claims that they were going to arrest CC for “defiant Trespass” CC stated that they were going to “unlawfully” arrest CC for defiant trespass.
  • 14:03 CC confirms that they “asked” and reminds the Troopers they are acting under Color of Law.
  • 14:09 CC reminds the Troopers they have no crime.
  • 14:12 CC requested to be taken before the magistrate.
  • 14:31 CC presented the PSP OOR response which confirmed that no “Criminal trespass warning” exists, and Trooper Long confirms having read that document.
  • Conversation stating that the PSP do not have the criminal trespass documents and are acting as the unlawful enforcers of a fraudulent document. CC attempted to ensure that the officers follow the law and honored their oath.
  • 15:30 Trooper long states that the Probable Cause Affidavit isn’t given to you right away. That is correct, it was never produced from 3/21/2022 up until 6/7/2022 and it still wasn’t prepared even when requested in anticipation of this encounter.
  • 15:30 you can clearly see the Constable witness.
  • 15:44 the Chance offered by Trooper Long to leave Freely would be acknowledging that CC had committed a crime to validate CC was conceding that the troopers could lawfully remove a private citizen from public property with no evidence, investigation, reporting, documenting a criminal act.
  • 15:44 Trooper long claims that CC is making a scene and CC has placed his hands behind his back stating he was submitting.
  • 15:54 CC states that he is submitting that the troopers were going to unlawfull arrest CC.
  • The remainder of the video is the conversation CC had on the record informing Trooper Crnkovik of his multiple color of law violations. This exchange should be used for Law Enforcement training and private citizens as well.

This video was picked up by another channel on youtube and shared.

CC had anticipated that he would be taken to the car and that the Troopers would create the Criminal Trespass Affidavit, obtain an affidavit from a reporting party, hand over the paperwork and release CC with the documents. A reasonable duration for that transaction is 25 minutes according to the Supreme Court, but, CC expected that it might take longer. When the Troopers kidnapped CC, he began figuring that the officers would slow roll the entire process to maximize (you might beat the charge, but you will never beat the ride).

CC, at no time was given his Miranda Warning. When taken in through the Sally Port, and searched, Trooper Long will be given an opportunity to share with the Jury the conversation we had specific to the volume of bracelets on CC’s wrist.

CC was placed into a holding cell, then retrieved for processing. An unidentified officer (UO) allowed CC to use the restroom prior to what CC would refer to a booking procedure. The UO asked for CC’s name, address and social security number. CC stated that he was never mirandized and declined to provide any personal information. UO asked CC to stand to be photographed. CC did not consent to be photographed and would not offer resistance but would not comply. The UO physically moved CC to be photographed. The UO stated that CC needs to have his hands scanned. Again, CC did not consent but would not resist. UO physically manipulated the arms and hands of CC to capture the hand scan. UO inquired if CC had any Tattoos. CC stated he would not respond to that question. UO stated that they would need to conduct a strip search to confirm Tattoo’s. CC stated he does not consent to being stripped will not comply but will not resist being disrobed unlawfully. The Troopers did not disrobe CC and no record was established regarding physical markings on CC.

CC was returned to the holding cell and had requested to speak to the supervisor. While in the holding cell, CC opened up his button downed shirt to reveal a Tee Shirt underneath.

This was on the front

Trooper Long entered and stated he was the supervisor. I presented my shirt, and asked him to read it out loud. Then I had suggested that he contact the district attorney. I patiently awaited the opportunity to be brought before the Magistrate to be heard, at which point CC would present the documents to the Magistrate. However, it appeared as though the arresting officers wanted to make sure they didn’t complete their documents in time for CC to have an evening hearing.

While CC was sitting in holding, CC could hear incredibly familiar music playing in the back ground, followed by some idle chatter.

  • CC heard the theme music from one of his social media accounts.
  • CC over-heard a Trooper say, “what is this, whose channel is this, wait, THAT’s KOCHKA.”
  • CC also overheard someone say, “it’s that guy we have in there”, meaning the holding tank.

Cultural Contrarian has a social media, educational channel on Tik Tok. This is the video I believe the Troopers may have watched.

Many more educational videos on this channel

CC was transported to Chester County detention and awaited arraignment with Judge Gill. Judge Gill is the Magistrate for the municipality where the alleged crime took place. CC was not able to present the Magistrate with the document presented to Trooper Crnkovik, nor would Judge Gill review the document prepared in advance in anticipation of being brought before a magistrate. Judge Gill held the case over for preliminary hearing, demanded no trespassing on Octorara School District Property, and no communication with any Octorara school employees and was “released” on a no cash bond. CC was not able to achieve an official “release” or afforded a phone-call, until CC signed a series of papers. CC provided a scribble, followed by the letters UD. This was a written indication that my ability to be free, was conditioned upon a scribble on a piece of paper. Absent of a scribble CC could remain in prison for 13 or more days with having committed no crime.

I could share more details of the treatment inside of prison, and that is better reviewed in the addendum to the initial Federal Complaint. Upon returning home and retelling the experience to my wife, daughter and friends, I needed to reach out to legal representatives to discuss my case. I made countless outbound calls and had a few very brief discussions. It was evident that the legal allegiance has the client in a pretty far distance in priority.

When things settled down a bit, I took to the microphone and provided a date stamp memorial of the experience, and share CC’s authentic words, in contrast to false, fabricated, venom which continues to be puked in public meetings, defamation through public emails and outright lies. But, depraved humans will live in consistency to their depraved nature.

Unable to find an attorney willing to evaluate my case, I chose to seek the support of the Chester County Public Defenders office. My attempts to connect directly in advance of the preliminary hearing were unsuccessful. I was warned that the Public Defenders are significantly overwhelmed, and it is not uncommon for a case to land in their lap at the last minute with a rush to prepare.

After navigating the jurisdictional shift from Parkesburg (the municipality where the alleged crime took place), moved to Honeybrook, I received an unannounced, continuance by the Affiant. To the casual observer this appeared to be a strategical inconvenience to not only me, but my witnesses. Logically, why would’t the affiant use the system to cause inconvenience to citizens and their witnesses as public servants are getting paid no matter what. Sure, can’t prove any of it, but sounds reasonable. When the actual hearing date arrived, CC’s witnesses were present and sat in wait. The public defender called CC’s name, and we both stepped outside for a moment. CC inquired of the Public Defender (PD), if CC has the ability to participate in the questioning of the case. The public defender stated that it’s an either the PD represents CC and asks the questions and makes the arguments or CC does it on his own Pro Se. Prior to making a decision CC asked a few questions on the depth of investigation on CC’s case, and the emails I had sent to the public defender. It was learned that the PD didn’t review any of CC’s communication and was going to argue for dismissal of the weapon charge (pepper spray is a defensive item, not a weapon). The PD was not prepared to argue the Defiant Trespass with an affirmative defense. Due to the lack of understanding from the PD, CC opted to speak directly Pro Se.

The PD went into the chambers and announced, in the presence of CC’s witnesses, to the judge, that CC was going to represent himself. The Magistrate made some disparaging comments regarding CC’s decision to take that particular direction. Upon seeing some previous exchanges between the magistrate, clerk staff, and the magistrates demeanor when looking at me, combined with being notified of the judges disparaging remarks CC felt that this was going to be a difficult exchange.

The magistrate observed that CC’s smartphone was placed on the desk, along with a folder with a bunch of papers. The magistrate directed CC to “power down” his phone. CC has an ADA accommodation to utilize audio and video recording assistive devices. CC discerned that the Judge would probably not be familiar with ADA accommodation’s, and make some declarative order that the court records the hearing. Thus CC declined to assert his rights under ADA as to not be perceived to challenge the magistrates authority and simply powered off his phone.

CC attempted to speak in reference to the appropriate venue, jurisdiction to hear this case in accordance with rule 302 in that the allege crime did not happen within the municipal jurisdiction of Honeybrook but under Parkesburg. The judge stated that he had jurisdiction and declined my challenge. CC inquired if the proceedings were going to be recorded since CC was unable to record, and the judge stated that the DA’s office will provide the recording. The DA, placed a small pocket mp3 recorder on the bench, near the witness box, and started recording. CC obtained the recording after the preliminary hearing.

CC alleges that the Magistrate made several oversights regarding due process.

  • Judge appeared more concerned with time, then he did with a fair hearing.
  • Judge denied CC from asking exculpatory questions of the Affiant and States Witness (Dr Michelle Orner).
  • Judge stated that witnesses were to be removed from the hearing. Octorara School District Solicitor, Benjamin Pratt was a witness, remained and was not removed from the hearing.
  • Judge precluded CC from presenting an affirmitive defense, could not present evidence that a criminal trespass affidavit was never produced, and that the letter presented from Dr. Orner lacked due process.
  • CC pointed out to the Magistrate the violations of Murdock v Pennsylvania and that a public servant cannot establish a “permanent ban” to preclude access to public buildings with no vehicle to appeal, limited duration and specificity of the crime, or accommodation to gain access to public facilities.
  • Judge had a mis-understanding on the differences between public property, private property open to public accommodation and private property and chose not to consult statutes on those differences when asked.


The magistrate decided to hold the case over for the court of common please with all charges moving forward. Upon conclusion of the Preliminary Hearing, CC submitted a RTKL request to obtain a copy of the “public record” of the audio of the preliminary hearing. CC was informed when the recording was ready, picked it up and loaded it onto CC’s Youtube Channel. The hearing audio was shared under Fair Use for educational purposes to disseminate information of interest, to interested parties for new purposes.

Dr. Michelle Orner became aware of CC’s posting of this transcript and reached out to the DA’s office and the School Solicitor, in an attempt to have CC punished for sharing a public record, in public. It is CC’s understanding that both the DA and eventually the solicitor informed Dr. Orner that, CC is lawfully permitted to share public information. This is only an anecdotal reference to the efforts extended to avoid personal responsibility, and attempt to criminalize law abiding citizens.

Representation Part 2

Now being more deeply involved in the predicted conspiracy that:

  • Documented in an eBook in 2018
  • Presented to public servants months before attempting to lawfully stand on a constitutional right.
  • Documented, archived, presented on social media.
  • Provided public teaching on the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate.
  • Modeled respectful, professional, reasonable behavior, actions and communication in the face of unreasonable, unprofessional, disrespectful public servants misrepresenting the law.
  • Submitted a substantive presentation along with evidence of unlawful and conspiratorial acts after repeated warnings.
  • Now forced to seek the support of considering legal “representation” which would only represent their interpretation, presentation of the situation, merits, and the law.

CC scoured his network of resources, friends and any referral that could be gathered in an attempt to acquire representation. This effort was produced worse results than seeking representation for the Preliminary Hearing. The lack of respect, professionalism and common courtesy which appears to run through the core of civil-rights related issues presents an opportunity for enrichment. As a result of this failed attempt, CC re-engaged with the Public Defenders office. It was evident through this engagement that CC would have many hurdles to navigate based upon the magnitude, level of detail and documentation, related to what a Public Defender would generally not expect in such a case. For citizens, ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and citizens who spend time attempting to replace their ignorance with expanding knowledge does not comport well when engaging individuals who are members of the BAR.

CC was initially assigned to Public Defender PJ Redmond who was professional and respectful. He was transparent in that nothing would actually begin to move forward on the case until he was in receipt of the prosecutors evidence. Due to some, what was expressed as a routine practice, PJ was removed from the case and Stephen Dodd was now handling my case. Since engaging Mr. Dodd, he has been cordial, engaging and been willing to engage in discussion on CC’s presentation on the merits of the case. Mr. Dodd has been supporting the position that the document presented from Dr. Orner (regardless of it’s due process violations) represents a lawfully, contracted notice to substantiate a permanent ban from public property with no evidence or documentation of a crime.

CC as a private individual will acknowledge that Mr. Dodd has been respectful, tolerant and accommodating to the the disabilities and neuro-atypical communication demonstrated by CC. Mr Dodd, either through procedural hurdles, time constraints tied to client load, court procedural demands, and CC has a different interpretation of the law based upon the sequence of events and details, which have not been available to Mr. Dodd.

CC is intentionally drafting this document as demonstration of the evidence in the custody of CC, the time and technical limitations procedurally within our legal system to transfer CC data, to the Public Defenders Office. Individuals in similar positions to CC must be their own advocate and gather the materials for the Public Defender based upon these procedural obstacles.

Issues requiring action from CC to aid in CC’s defense, which CC should not “rely” upon the Public Defenders Office.

  • Provide Public Defender (PD) with names and brief overview of CC witnesses.
  • Provide PD with proposed questions to be asked of witnesses. Questions for Dr. Orner. Questions for Trooper Kochka.
  • Provide PD with Supreme Court Precedent and Case Law to support the positive, affirmative defense of CC.
  • Obtain documents through RTKL on typical procedures of law enforcement being utilized to remove individuals from Public School Board meetings or issuing a ban from public school property which comports lawfully, with “due process”.
  • Provide access to as much exculpatory evidence as possible. Documentation of attempting to be reasonable in respect of the Supreme Court ruling Graham v Connor, where a private citizen should know that the Supreme Court states, that it is not “reasonable” that public servants (including law enforcement) are required to know the laws, statutes, policy which they are to follow and enforce. A duty or obligation is placed upon the private citizen to know the laws, and statutes and attempt to correct misrepresentations, mischaracterizations of the law to those representing the law.
  • Clearly demonstrate to PD that Plaintiff attempted to reason with public officials to ensure they honored and followed their oath and caution that when violating their oath, a public servant could be determined by a court, to be acting in their “private person” capacity. 42 USC 1983


§ 3503.  Criminal trespass.

(a)  Buildings and occupied structures.–

(1)  A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he:

(i)  enters, gains entry by subterfuge or surreptitiously remains in any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof; or

(ii)  breaks into any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof.

(2)  An offense under paragraph (1)(i) is a felony of the third degree, and an offense under paragraph (1)(ii) is a felony of the second degree.

(3)  As used in this subsection:

“Breaks into.”  To gain entry by force, breaking, intimidation, unauthorized opening of locks, or through an opening not designed for human access.

(i) Defendant did not gain entry via subterfuge or surreptitiously remain in a building. Defendant was at all times in public areas, with no visible indication of entering a private, secure, or restricted area.

(i) Defendant did not gain entry via subterfuge or surreptitiously remain in a building. Defendant was at all times in public areas, with no visible indication of entering a private, secure, or restricted area.

 (ii) Defendant did not break into any building or occupied structure and merely was present in common areas known to be open to the public for the purpose of a “public meeting”.

(b)  Defiant trespasser.–

(1)  A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:

(i)  actual communication to the actor;

(ii)  posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders;

(iii)  fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders;

(iv)  notices posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the person’s attention at each entrance of school grounds that visitors are prohibited without authorization from a designated school, center or program official;

(v)  an actual (LAWFUL) communication to the actor to leave school grounds as communicated by a school, center or program official, employee or agent or a law enforcement officer; or

(vi)  subject to paragraph (3), the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property which are:

(A)  vertical lines of not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width;

(B)  placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground nor more than five feet from the ground; and

(C)  placed at locations that are readily visible to a person approaching the property and no more than 100 feet apart.

(2)  Except as provided in paragraph (1)(v), an offense under this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third degree if the offender defies an order to leave personally communicated to him by the owner of the premises or other authorized person. An offense under paragraph (1)(v) constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree. Otherwise it is a summary offense.

(3)  Paragraph (1)(vi) shall not apply in a county of the first class or a county of the second class.

  1. It is not reasonable that any individual could claim the knowledge of another person. The affiant is alleging that a document sent via certified mail, is sufficient notice, without regard to the lawfulness of a document sent via certified mail.  

(v) Defendant asserts that access to public property is a right for all private citizens to lawfully gain access to services, to obtain information or documents from public entities and to lawfully speak at the right time, place and manner.  These rights cannot be deprived, conditioned, restricted or require granting of individual (discriminatory) permissions to gain access to public entity property and services. Defendant asserts that the only “lawful”, “non-discriminatory” basis that an implied license to public property can be revoked must be supported by the following:

Evidence that an actor had committed a crime, that an actor was in the act of committing a crime, or that the actor was about to commit a crime.  This evidence would be supported by a sworn affidavit by a reporting party, The actor would be presented with a “Criminal Trespass Warning” which would consist of a affidavit of probable cause no record of (incident report),(parkesburg away game no documents)  along with the affidavit of the reporting party.  The “Criminal Trespass Warning” would define the areas of trespass, the manner in which to obtain the services provided to the public entity, the duration of the trespass, and specificity on how to appeal the criminal trespass warning.

Defendant asserts that the documentation produced by Dr. Michelle Orner, met no elements of documenting the criminal elements to “lawfully” revoke the license to gain access to public property. Dr. Michelle Orner, fabricated the term “disruption” which even if the defendant did (which he did not), caused a disruption, a disruption is not a criminal act. Combined with the fact that the school had never engaged a private citizen who truly created a disruption.

Defendant asserts that Dr. Michelle Orner, and the School Board Actors demonstrated threats, intimidation, coercion and utilized law enforcement to place defendant under duress.  The defendant asserts that these unlawful acts were in an attempt to compel the defendant to follow policy by compelling the defendant to speak the defendant’s name and municipality.

In the case West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, it is unlawful to compel an individual to an action when they have no legal or lawful obligation to comply. The defendant has the ability to assert his privacy for himself and to protect the interests and privacy of his clients. The school board’s premeditated efforts, (after being repeatedly warned) purposely violated the defendant’s constitutional rights through an unlawful enforcement of a policy and conspiring with Chester County Detectives, Pennsylvania State Police to convert the attempt to stand on a constitutional right into a crime in violation of Murdock v Pennsylvania.

Affiant may make representations that it is a “reasonable” request to ask a citizen to identify themselves prior to speaking. However, it is not reasonable to establish a condition, or permission which prohibits a citizen from expressing a constitutional right absent of their granting permission. It is reasonable that a citizen must not be compelled to comply with a policy under threat of violence, when that policy is a deprivation of a constitutionally protected right

Deprivation of rights by Pennsylvania State Police.

At no time did any Trooper associated with Pennsylvania State Police present the defendant with a written Criminal Trespass Warning. On 3/21, Trooper Kochka threatened Defendant with arrest if Defendant did not leave public property (Time Stamp 42:47).

Trooper Kochka did not document the traffic arrest on 3/14, or provide any documentation of its existence. In addition, no documentation was produced by Trooper Kochka memorializing the events which took place on 3/21.  This is confirmed  via no production of police report, nor criminal trespass warning to the defendant when requested in the RTKL request and the OOR response confirmed “no record exists”. Any potential narrative by Trooper Kochka regarding the events which transpired on 3/14, 3/21 would be suspect at best, negligent, derelict of duty, or possibly irresponsible. The actions demonstrated by Trooper Kochka were consistent to enforcing a policy, and not honoring his oath to uphold the constitutional rights he swore to uphold.

Trooper Kochka stated on CC video that CC was “told to leave” and Trooper Kochka has no evidence to support that representation. CC provides another video which CC will ask PD to determine when the verbal statement by anyone in authority states CC has been asked to leave.

  • 51:07 CC attempts to lawfully speak before the board, attempting to read CC’s prepared statement. Make note of CC’s head position, reading document in the folder.
  • 53:22 Trooper Kochka enters to engage CC.
  • Prosecution: Please show evidence that supports Trooper Kochka’s claim that CC was told to Leave.
  • Prosecution: Please provide evidence that Trooper Kochka conducted an investigation.
  • CC asserts that the School Board utilized Law Enforcement to convert the lawful exercise of a constitutionally protect right under free speech, and have Trooper Kochka replace his Trooper’s uniform to a brown uniform of a policy enforcer. CC attempted to caution Trooper Kochka to not act outside of his authority.

PSP responded to a RTKL request confirming that no record exists of a Criminal Trespass Warning.

Affiant, stated to defendant that both the affiant and the supervising officer had reviewed information sent to Troopers prior to defendant attempting to speak 

Arraignment with Judge Gill, defendant was denied documentation or presentation of exculpatory evidence.

Preliminary Hearing was shifted out of jurisdiction and plaintiff’s objections to challenge jurisdiction were denied and not part of the record.  

The alleged reporting party (Dr. Michelle Orner), is leaving Octorara School District.  Who will have the lawful authority to enforce a permanent ban from public property?

  • When will the defendant be presented with a process to appeal the document?
  • What conditions were presented to regain access to public meetings?
  • When will the defendant be able to attend public events at Octorara School District?
  • Will the replacement Superintendent have to honor the document presented by Dr. Orner to Defendant?
  • Will the incoming Superintendents be notified of the Trespass procedures, due process and informed of the active Federal Complaint against Octorara School representatives acting in their private capacity?

Desired Outcome

Narrative, speculation, conjecture, gas-lighting are tools all utilized to project an ideology which is intended to disparage, defame and publicly shame an individual. The narrative in the public domain set forth by CC is memorialized in a Podcast.

CC would desire a few things to be considered by those who swore an oath to uphold, defend and protect the constitutional rights of the citizens which they have the mere pleasure to serve.

  • Dr. Orner – Had either followed improper advice, was given poor counsel and made several errors when utilizing PSP to act as her policy enforcers to criminalize the actions of CC. At her option she can:
    • -Maintain her position as the authority to enforce the document which was drafted and claim she has the authority to utilize the USPS to send any private citizen a certified letter banning any private citizen from public property for any reason, permanently, absent of any due process.
    • – Contact the District Attorney’s office and provide what ever reasoning she sees fit, to extricate her as the charging party from the criminal charges against CC.
  • Brian Fox – who is not a witness for the state, has culpability, which will be addressed Federally through the Federal Complaint.
  • Trooper Kochka – It is not expected that Trooper Kochka will be reasonable in accordance with the law, and pending resolution of the criminal matter with CC can be addressed via alternate legal and lawful channels.
  • Troopers Crnkovik and Trooper Long are expected to perform similar to Kochka in honor of their Blue Line fraternity. This characterization is not intended to be divisive nor disparaging, but an understanding of the protections afforded to their profession and public service. They have no lawful duty to protect, and expecting that as a foundational responsibility is flawed.

CC Defendant Witnesses:

Anthony Falgiatore – Mr Falgiatore is a Sergeant of the East Whiteland Police Department and is an elected, active Board Member of the Octorara School District. Mr. Falgiatore provides both a professional perspective and a resource for limits of law enforcement, as a certified, credentialed and sworn officer of over 25 years. He has been on the record advising, and objecting to Board actions which conflict with his Oath as a Law Enforcement Officer and as a sworn board member.

Kurt Thompson – Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Constable serving in the Municipality of Parkesburg, Pennsylvania. Constable Thompson was an objective witness to CC surrendering to an unlawful arrest by Trooper Crnkovick and Trooper Long.

Chief Yeager – East Whiteland Chief of Police. The Chief will be CC witness providing testimony of School Board actors attempting to interfere with CC’s case, exert influence against CC witness, and attempt to negatively impact the career of CC witness.

Additional witness which should be provided by the State.

Dr. Michelle Orner – Current Octorara School Board Superintendent (the charging party). Dr. Orner’s contract with Octorara School District ends April 30, 2023. (It is uncertain to CC, if the trespassing document generated by Dr. Orner is survivable after her departure, and who would become the new enforcer of a document that has no ending period).

Trooper Kevin Kochka – PSP state trooper who performed the undocumented emergency arrest on 3/14/2022, affected the alleged undocumented criminal trespass warning on 3/21/2022, provided CC’s identity to Dr. Orner and potentially other possible public records.

Trooper Crnkovik and Trooper Long – PSP state troopers who affected the alleged false arrest, kidnapping, false imprisonment, against CC when unlawfully enforcing policy and acting on a fraudulent document delivered through USPS.

Benjamin Pratt – Octorara School District Solicitor who allegedly instructed Dr. Michelle Orner to produce a fraudulent document and issue threats of violence through USPS.

Potentially named Chester County Detectives or District Attorney’s office individuals who alerted Dr. Michelle Orner to cancel 3/14 school board meeting prompting the emergency engagement of Trooper Kochka to arrest CC.

Education on Tik Tok



Ancillary issues related to the actions of public officials resulting from being unreasonable with CC.

  • Octorara School District is using taxpayer funds to finance private citizen defense of the Federal Complaint. Repeated warnings, on the record objections, have been ignored having expensed already over $20,000 and continues to grow.
  • Octorara School District is currently interviewing for a new Superintendent with the Chester County Intermediate Unit. It is probable that the prospective candidates have not been informed of the active federal lawsuit against the majority of school board members, the acting solicitor, in their private person capacity. (Is disclosure reasonable?)
  • New Superintendent will need to determine if they will enforce the document produced by Dr. Orner, to maintain the permanent ban against CC from public property after new Superintendent is notified of this document, and their legal risk.

Oh hi there 👋 It’s nice to meet you.

Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter, in your inbox, every month.

We don’t spam! Read our [link]privacy policy[/link] for more info.