To the NEW Octorara School Superintendent

A request from a proponent of student, living out The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate. (this message was drafted and available 3/17/2022 with the quest to promote transparency, reasonableness and accountability).

I may not be afforded the opportunity to achieve my preferred method of addressing the incoming Octorara School Superintendent personally and privately. I am hopeful that this information is visible prior to their acceptance or appointment to the position of the new Superintendent of Octorara School Board. It is quite probable that during the interview process, that candidates were not provided full or even partial disclosure, of an ongoing federal lawsuit. I am the Plaintiff in that federal complaint (Case #22-3329). This case involves the exiting Superintendent (Michelle Orner), all but one of the acting school board members, and the current school solicitor. I thought my perspective would be worthy of all candidates review, anticipating that the interview process would lack the boards disclosure of facts.

I have never had ill will, nor ill intentions regarding the Octorara School District (OSD) and was attempting to advocate, be an aid and encourager to students and parents (ADA), within the Octorara School district. I currently provide those services privately, within many other Chester County and other Commonwealth of Pennsylvania School Districts.

Regarding my efforts at Octorara, my sincere desire has always been, to be completely open and transparent. Providing interested and concerned public servants and private citizens, complete access to what has transpired related to public servants conspiring to silence and criminalize law abiding citizens attempting to advocate on behalf of OSD constituents.

Of pressing concern, is to desire to share with the new superintendent, the significant risks related to the foundational elements presented as evidence in the federal complaint. It is not reasonable that any individual is familiar with the limits of their authority when viewed under the law. Specifically related to those in authority who have been warned to not violate 42 USC 1983 (depriving citizens their constitutional rights) [ 42 USC 1983 violation].

My goal continues to be respectful and courteous when sharing where things are legally both in State Court and in Federal Court. This post is not intended to publicly disclose those risks, but by me (the plaintiff) extending the possibility to engage in an open dialogue to discuss the critical issues and possible resolution.

Unfortunately, due to the actions perpetrated by the exiting Superintendent, the acting board (except Mr. Anthony Falgiatore) this conversation cannot take place. Michelle Orner conspired with the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) to convert my attempt to speak, into a crime, resulting in an unlawful arrest and criminal trial. As a condition of bond, I (the plaintiff) have been permanently banned from going on Octorara School property and banned from any conversation with any OSD employee. The claims (lacking any documentation) by the Superintendent and the PSP have zero evidence that I committed any crime and no affidavit of a crime exists, this is a clear violation of my constitutional rights, and requires a trial to be resolved. I had attempted to avoid a trial in a document presented in March of 2022 presented to the defendants. This was ignored, with the defendants choosing to personally resolve the issue in Federal court.

Below I have attached what has been shared publicly, so any Superintendent candidate can get a framework to the sequence of events. My Federal Case (22-3329) is quite extensive and is filled with evidence that the judge is still in process of reviewing and will soon be providing a response involving specific OSD defendants. If one were to read some of the judges memorandum’s and orders one could apply their own determination/prediction as to what direction my case is heading.

I created this page here initially privately, and moved to share it publicly for the benefit of the local community. It is important to note, that a private citizen did communicate with the CCIU leadership in early March (sent to Dr. George Fiore) to make this information available to Superintendent candidates during the interview process. This was a message of encouragement to interact with the OSD School Board to encourage disclosure to all candidates the nature of this Federal Complaint. This communication was ignored, and the community has no knowledge if the CCIU or the Board disclosed to any candidate this lawsuit. A reasonable person would assume that neither the CCIU nor the Board shed any light to this particular subject. One would look to previous interactions between the board and the community they serve to determine if any citizen inquiry on this subject would be provided a response.

Michelle Orner acted in her own private capacity, and used the Pennsylvania State Police to leverage a fallacious document, having me forced to submit to an unlawful arrest, merely to advocate for children is reprehensible. For over a year, Michelle Orner and the acting school board have been irresponsible and their actions are directly detrimental to the clients which I was contracted to serve. In one particular case I had to defer advocacy to another individual in attempt to intervene and cease the school districts abuse, against a family. The Superintendent and School Board, of their own volition, chose to ignore me, and criminalize advocacy. Regardless of the direction of their lobbyist solicitor, they were all advised by the plaintiff in advance, to seek private counsel. Collectively, they determined the path for resolution was not to be private, but resolved in Federal Court.

A finer detail which I think is important for your consideration in advance. Dr. Orner provided to me a document which I allege is fraudulent for the following reasons:

• Document failed to identify the criminal acts perpetrated by me to revoke my implied license to public property.
• Document failed to include an affidavit or police affidavit of a crime to revoke my implied license.
• Document was not limited in duration for being banned from property (a lawful ban has a limit and is not in perpetuity).
• Document provided no path to obtain permission to attend OSD property, if I was asked to provide professional services, aid in support or encouragement (ADA) of clients within the school.
• Document provided no direction to appeal or review the charges of “disruption” (which is not a crime).
• What is the ‘process” to remove a law abiding citizen from public property? I assert it is called “due process” (14th amendment)

What sits before you right now is a document that will lose its lawful enforcement (due process) based upon the exiting of Michelle Orner. I personally see a few options and I share them with you.

• This issue can be ignored by the new Superintendent.
• The new Superintendent can draft a new document and send it via certified mail to me. (I would suggest that the new document be verified through a civil rights attorney.)
• The new Superintendent can leave the document alone and deal with me privately.
• The new Superintendent might want to send a different document to me, and defer responsibility to the Board if they choose to make representations. The new Superintendent has the option to follow the direction of the Board in agreement with the Board, or document objection to the Board.

I will assume that no communication will be forth coming and that the incoming superintendent will not be proactive even after notice. (Part of my duties as an informed citizen is to attempt to be reasonable with public servants, and document those attempts, in the event they are unreasonable. One can only attempt to do ones level best to inform, one cannot force anyone to acknowledge, read or respond. No interaction leaves one with a default position to assume they are being ignored.)