What Are They Teaching In Kansas Schools?

A couple of years ago, I confronted Dean Dalinghaus, principal of Frankfort School, in Frankfort Kansas, about his practice of allowing anyone at all, friend or foe, or unknown person, for that matter; to enter the school and wander the hallways and classrooms at will, no questions asked. Most schools do not allow this for obvious reasons, connected to safety of students and faculty. Dalinghaus rudely asked me if I wanted him to install a metal detector, like "inner city" schools.

Funny, Deanie-Boy should mention metal detectors. While metal detectors will not help him as much as a simple sign-in list with his strangers and the boogyman entering the building at will, a metal detector can be very useful when strangers, teachers, the boogyman, or students, particularly those already on probation, bring guns to school. A couple of months ago, the secretary in the superintendent's office at USD 380, Frankfort's district, telephoned the county prosecutor in hopes of having your faithful blogger arrested (!!!!) for complaining about the inordinate number of children with criminal records in Frankfort High School and requesting that USD 380 do more to protect the children who are not interested in crime. How is that for pressure and fear-mongering when someone steps forward with the truth? Mrs. Secretary was disappointed when she was told that it is not a crime to complain about crime in public schools. (where's the eye-rolley when I need it?)

As it turns out, the question was well placed. Not only is Frankfort High School a place where children feel free to drink underage and use recreational drugs, Frankfort High School is also a place where children feel quite free to express infantile rage (possibly escalated by inept and unqualified staff?) to the point of police presence in the school itself, and.....resulting in an arrest of yet another child, boosting the percentage of Frankfort students with resumes at the courthouse. I refer to an incident that happened about a month ago, involving a sophomore. Somehow, it seems that Deanie-Boy Dalinghaus could have managed the incident differently, if he really cared about any of the students; this child did not have a weapon. But back to metal detectors: last week, a senior, who is already on probation for other crimes, was arrested for taking a gun to Frankfort School. Two arrests on the campus in a month's time, one involving a weapon. Wow. In a school that only has about one hundred and fifty children from kindergarten to twelfth grade.

I forgot to mention that the senior was also arrested for drugs. Could the creation of a distraction be the real reason the superintendent's secretary wanted to fan as many flames as possible against yours truly, when yours truly wanted Frankfort High School to straighten up and fly right, for a change?

Frivolous Threats

"Hello? Clerk of the Circuit Court? I got away with a serious crime against a child several years ago. I did it at the school, where I work. All my friends covered for me, and I still have my job, but the child's mother still hates my guts and won't stop advocating for student safety in Kansas public schools and calling me names! Can I sure her?"

Does that sound totally ridicules to the reader? It seems, kinda, sorta ridicules to the writer, too. It relates to a threat that was sent anonymously to yours truly concerning the initial police reports, complaints to the school board and superintendent of the Vermillion school district of USD 380, all of the letters and correspondence to and from various organizations specializing in child safety in schools, and letters to and from the NCMEC that were drafted after a guidance counselor/cross country coach at Frankfort High School in Kansas "lost" a female freshman student during cross country practice and went home and forgot about her. Most people who read the story understand why it was very, very unsafe for a teacher to remove students from the school and transport them to a rural location with no supervision and leave them to their own devices. Most people who read about the incident are also completely shocked that a teacher would fail to alert a child's parents and law enforcement after losing a child this way. But not Frankfort, Kansas. The good, Christian frankfurters of the teeming metropolis of Frankfort think that the young girl who was abandoned by the teacher was actually at fault for the abuse she suffered, and have rallied around the abuser! Now, in the wake of the revelation that Hailey Owens was kidnapped, ironically by an athletic coach in her Missouri school district, the frankfurters are out in force to try to discourage any discussion of their own dangerously blundering guidance counselor/cross country coach. Here's a recent dumbass comment made by someone desperately in need of a cranial/rectal realignment:

"Let's be clear here, if anyone is in a position to be sued, it is you. For slander. Most of this post is a lie. Your daughter wasn't running alone. The cross country kids have always been dropped off in a group. She at least started with the other kids. She wasn't on some desolate road. Tom has always dropped the kids off in the same area, and there are TONS of houses along the way."

Slander has a very specific legal definition, and making a police report and subsequent complaint to the appropriate organizations upon finding one's self or one's child the victim of a crime does not fall within it's definition. When I first opened my mouth, I was looking for a missing child. The reason my child was missing happened to be the terrible conduct of a teacher I had falsely been led to trust. After she was found, I complained to the superintendent. Then I did research on the subject of missing children, wrote to some very educated experts, and brought the information to a school board meeting. While all this makes the frankfurter guidance counselor/cross country coach look very bad indeed, it is not slander. Somewhere during this course of events, our bumbling coach admitted default. This was related to yours truly by the superintendent, who also related that the coach was "disciplined" for his actions. This admission of default makes a case of slander very difficult for an irresponsible coach to prove. Especially when I still have every letter, document, and piece of correspondence in my possession. Since the "discipline" received by the coach did not include the loss of his job, he incurred no damages over his negligence or my discussion of the same, which brings me to the other part of slander; losses. Unless the creep in question loses something tangible as a result of my reaction to this incident, he has no case against me. I also never signed any agreement guaranteeing my silence, so it is my right to discuss this matter anywhere I choose.

What do you suppose would happen if Coach Dumbass actually tried to take me to court? Do you think I would simply say, "Yes, your honor! I talked about the good coach! I know it's wrong to warn students to be careful, but I love children, so I did it anyways! I know my daughter shouldn't matter more to me than Frankfort's silly-assed little game of politics, but I can't get over loving her as much I loved her when I lived in other places, and when she was born! I concede! I concede!" If you really think I am not going to put on a defense if someone attacks me that way, think again. Seriously. The jury would probably want to know why I am so very pissed off at the school. The court would very likely skip the formality of asking Coach Dumbass if he really did as I've alleged, because he already admitted that he has, and there are witnesses, including, but not limited to my daughter. The fact that everything happened pretty much as I have stated, except that when I initially attempted to map out where my child was abandoned and where the people she and I didn't know found her, I was fuzzy on the details because I was unfamiliar with the area. That's acceptable, and I explained it to everyone involved at the time. Everything I have stated here is true.

How would a jury, and everyone involved in court proceedings feel about hearing that a child had been lost, and Frankfort High School had no personnel willing to make appropriate efforts to find her? (Driving around in one's personal vehicle does NOT constitute appropriate efforts, either, frankfurter!) There may be people within earshot who are mandated reporters of child abuse, and this was certainly abuse. Frankfort School may be sent scrambling, once again, to hide all documents related to this incident while social workers question Coach Dumbass's fitness to be responsible for children. Yippee.

People who have never heard about the whole thing would also hear about it. We all know how important it is for frankfurters to appear wonderful in the eyes of other frankfurters. The coach would have to admit that while he hates the fact that I am pissed off at him and call him names, he has given me ample reason. And this brings me to the last point I am going to make in this post: Tom's only complaint about me is that I am pissed off at him and I call him names. He hasn't lost a damn thing because of anything I have said or done, and therefore; has no case against me. No judge is going to want to listen to a whine from someone like Coach Dumbass that boils down to a desire to make a pissed off parent stop being pissed off at him and calling him names. This would be a classic example of a...........drum roll...........frivolous lawsuit. And if you take a frivolous lawsuit to court in Kansas, you end up responsible for court costs and everyone's legal fees. Just ask Laura McNish.

I'll go ahead and post in the future about some things that should have happened after I made my initial complaints that are not, and never were, slander. I will also delve into some discussion about the claim that there are "tons of houses" in rural Northeast Kansas. Keep in mind that parents who love their children generally do not like schools that employ guidance counselors who "lose" children in unspecified places. It's considered dangerous and uncool. Definitely not the avant-garde among educational professionals.

Not Only A Troll, But A Liar

Here's what nonthinking frankfurter moron said I said:  I don't think its fair to bring her daughter into this matter. You are wrong about her daughter not being sick, she has seizures and needs someone to take care of her.

And here's what I actually said: Her mother tried to buy home confinement and an ankle bracelet by paying $50,000 toward restitution, and there were some greatly exaggerated claims about an illness on the part of a family member who supposedly needs Monica's care, (ha! that's simply not true) but the judge gave her prison time, anyway.

The post about which frankfurters are having psychotic attacks is this one, about Monica Smart and her theft of half a million dollars. Anyone wishing to see what I actually said can read the above copied sentence, in which I mentioned a relative of Monica Smart, and discussion in court about the relative's need for ongoing care from Monica because of a medical problem. Did I say daughter? No! Did I say seizures? No! While the Marysville Advocate and the Topeka Capital Journal did say daughter and seizures, I did not, because it's not anyone else's personal business, and it's not part of the story or the situation at hand. The reason I mentioned it is because it sounded to me as if Monica Smart was using her child as a bargaining chip in court, in order to avoid the problem she faces of having the laws apply to her, just like the laws apply to people from other parts of the country.  And I think that's really low. If Monica was really terribly concerned about caring for anyone with medical problems, it seems to me that a life of crime was contraindicated. As in: "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." But Monica, after the manner of other under-socialized, Midwestern Americans of Anglo-Saxon and Germanic descent, thought she was too white to go to jail. Or that the prosecution couldn't really be serious about consequences. Or that mommy could buy her way out of prison. Or that Jesus would save her......or something like that. When none of those things turned out to be true in her case, she used one of her kids as a pawn. But; disgruntled frankfurter troll: I did not reveal the adult child's identity. THAT WAS YOU!

Then, my troll went on to say this: I have not personally attacked you and I would be willing to bet that Monica's daughter has not done so either.

It would not surprise me in the slightest if this non-thinking, sappy, unbalanced, emotional little troll was out gossiping about me, and my family, right now. The troll actually had a contorted notion that I made a statement I didn't make, and even in the presence of the printed words that I actually DID write, reacted as if I wrote what she thought I wrote, instead of what I wrote! Can anyone see why the inbred population of long term, under-socialized, silly-assed residents in this community annoy me so much? Not all of them; but definitely the ones connected to the school, and the ones who maintain friendships that surround the school. I didn't even mention the specific relationship of the family member whom Monica Smart was using as a "Get Out Of Jail Free Card".

I should probably remind my troll, whose signal did reach me from somewhere very local to the teeming metropolis of Frankfort, that inbreeding is against the law, too. You won't go to prison for it, like Monica Smart, but dagnab.......if everyone could comprehend and think critically, instead of interpreting data the way you do, the world would be a much better place.