Surety Bonds Explained to an Ohio School Board

LFC Comments: Thanks to a Painesville lobbyist for sending this great article to us.

Surety Bond Success Story: Ohio Father Forces School Board to End Mask Mandate on Children

by daniel_g 4 days ago

Earlier this week, I reported a potential blueprint that is sweeping the nation to defeat tyrannical school boards across the country.

That strategy involves filing complaints on the surety bonds of public officials.

As Bonds For the Win explains:

Surety bonds provide financial guarantees that bondholders such as public officials, companies, contractors, or unions will uphold their contracts according to mutual terms.

Surety bonds protect WE THE PEOPLE from fraud and malpractice. When a bondholder breaks a bond’s terms, the harmed party can make a claim on the bond to recover losses.

I wanted to share a story from Jefferson County, Ohio, where surety bonds helped a resident bring an end to the school district’s mask mandate. 

The Indian Creek Local Board of Education decided not to extend their mask mandate in October after a resident demanded it come to an end. 

Although the man has no children in the school district, he appeared at a Board Meeting on Thursday, October 21, 2021, armed with the knowledge of surety bonds. 

Steve, a father and Jefferson County resident, demanded the school board end their mask mandate that evening, or he would take immediate action.

Healing Law reported:

Armed with this knowledge, Steve stood before the school board and read a document he had drafted. In the document, Steve clarifies that he is not asking questions but is rather “making statements.”

Healing Law

Get this before citing any statutes. Steve reminded the board, “It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.” by citing Luke 17:2.

He then pointed to Ohio’s Revised Statutes Section 3.061, a statute that requires public officials to be adequately bonded so that the public may have recourse.

“Allow me to clarify what this all means. You folks who are bonded, are carrying individual liability insurance. So if in your acting capacity as a public official, if you cause wrong or harm, we the people have a recourse. And can hold you accountable, and do not have to wait for the next election.”

-Steve Stated

Steve then cited Ohio’s Revised Code 3.07, which essentially states that anyone holding office under the Constitution of Ohio shall forfeit office if one “willfully and flagrantly exercises authority or power not authorized by law…”

Then he stated his claim, “I have written claims against your bonds, and I will personally put them in the hands of every parent in this district.” His document reads.

Finally, he demanded the committee take a vote by all members of the board on all Covid guidelines. While at first the board still overlooked his claim, the other maskless parents attending forced the vote. As a result, the board voted not to extend the district’s mandate.

Steve has reported to me that the neighboring district of Stuebville, Ohio has also since dropped their mask mandate for students.

The school board’s minutes that evening read, ““Steve Socha, Wintersville resident, spoke against the District mask policy noting that he will take legal action if the policy continues.”

The Herald-Star also provided coverage:

Resident Steve Socha said he did not have children in the schools but cited state codes to vacate an elected post for criminal law violations such as misconduct or gross neglect in office with another on public bonding to financially insure officials for faithful performance of duties, as well as a federal measure to willfully deprive a person of his or her Constitutional rights and privileges. Socha said action would be taken if the mask mandate continued.

“Either stand down or I personally assure you I’m going to (take action). The wheels of justice will be brought before you. Many of you could be in violation under the laws and statutes,” he said. “This ends tonight.”

Others in the audience questioned the board or wanted to speak even though they were not on the agenda, but they were ultimately permitted. Parents questioned why masks were warranted at afterschool and outdoor activities and opined the impact of the coverings on a child’s development. Chappelear reported that since Sept. 2, positive cases have held steady while the number of quarantines fluctuated between 20 and 50 people. He then proposed an addendum to the meeting agenda to extend the mask mandate until mid-November.

“I certainly understand everyone’s concerns and viewpoints on this, but the question is when would be the endpoint on the recommendations,” said board member Dr. John Figel. “I think this policy was implemented in the best interest of our students. I know there’s a lot of controversy about masks but I felt it was in the best interest of the children. I’m not so sure we’ll be able to continue to function under the mandate.”

He added that people will continue to do as they wish outside of school and officials needed to decide what the endpoint would be. Following more discussion, the board voted 4-0 against extending the mandate with board member Bob Smith abstaining. Chappelear said the original policy will remain in place to only “strongly recommend” the use of masks inside the school buildings.

Read the document Steve presented to the school board here and hear further details of his story on Episode 225 of American Education PM.




Categories: Community Activism