Full disclosure, I’m not a fan of A.I. I am well aware of the long term plan and its over-reliance in recreation, business, HR departments, hiring practice, medical fields, classroom instruction etc.; and ultimately, it all depends on who’s behind the design and who pulls the trigger.
With that aside for now, with the beginning of this article, I want to tackle a major hurdle that parents and concerned family member had over the last five years, specifically when it came to learning the law and going after the illegal and unethical behavior imposed by those working within American K12 school districts and universities.
During the COVID lie, endless parents either removed their children from school permanently, fought to safeguard their child’s freedom within such environments, or they went along with every illegal mandate that schools implemented; whether they believed COVID was real or it wasn’t.
The issues for parents and citizens existed within these lies and attempting to figure out which laws were being broken, as children were being abused within school environments throughout this process. The next problem came with; “what do we do with the school district in question and how do we do it?”
This led to a nationwide effort to self educate, both individually (and among the masses), regarding school law, medical law, and our overall rights as American citizens. Unfortunately, many Americans allowed government to violate their God-given rights, because they don’t know their rights and never questioned a single move that government and schools ever made. The tool that was lacking at the time, however, was an online aggregate of legal facts, state codes, state and federal laws and school policy; based on specified questions from a concerned citizen, without needing to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to look into these matters themselves. That online legal information aggregate that was missing was the presence of artificial intelligence (A.I.) as a search engine.
Search engines in the past have produced articles based on questions. Artificial intelligence is now the most advanced search engine that exists because it takes the content of those articles (specifically legal articles, dictionaries and websites about the law), and it provides you an aggregated, summarized, and at times—a very thorough response. You can still receive articles, links and references from a basic search, but now you can ask very detailed scenarios based on people, places, events and other facts or hypotheticals, and receive this information back from an artificial intelligence platform in the blink or an eye. This is the speed and accuracy that parents and concerned citizens wanted back in 2020, but were lacking.
With that said, parents still joined together at the time and did their best. They filed lawsuits, attacked school-district insurance companies (BondsForTheWin) and became legal researches for their own knowledge in an effort to help others. I, too, was one of these people.
Now, let me provide some very simple examples as to the specificity that A.I. has provided anyone attempting to hold school districts and universities accountable for their illegal or unethical behavior.
First, these questions were asked to X’s A.I. platform Grok.
Back in 2021, I researched the definition of the legal word “mandate.” After looking this up in Blacks Law Dictionary at the time, and within the website The Law Dictionary, I quickly came to find that not only does the word “mandate” not mean “mandatory,” but mandate means the following:
“A mandate is a contract by which a lawful business is committed to the management of another, and by him undertaken to be performed gratuitously. The mandatary is bound to the exercise of slight diligence, and is responsible for gross neglect. The fact that the mandator derives no benefit from the acts of the mandatary is not of itself evidence of gross negligence. Richardson v. Futrell, 42 Miss. 525; Williams v. Conger, 125 U. S. 397, 8 Sup. Ct. 933, 31 L Ed. 778.”
Point being, based on the use of the words “performed gratuitously,” school districts could not impose a “mandate” on anything if they were being monetarily compensated for doing so. As it turns out, schools were receiving ESSER money from The CARES Act if they “mandated” mask-wearing and other abuses that were 100% unnecessary, as the entire “COVID” story was all based on a lie. If schools did not impose these abuses on staff and students, then they would not receive such federal funding. Therefore, every “mandate” was illegal from the start.
At the time, people had a hard time with this, but this, too, is where A.I. today can even fall short. For example, when asking the same question of what is the definition of a “Mandate,” legally speaking, Grok states the following:
Q: What is Blacks Law Dictionary's definition of the word "Mandate?"
A: Black's Law Dictionary defines "mandate" as follows:
An order or command issued by a court, government, or official, directing a person or entity to perform a specific act or duty.
A judicial command or precept issued by a superior court to a lower court, public officer, or corporation, directing them to take a certain course of action.
In a broader sense, an authoritative command or instruction, often from a government or electorate, empowering an official or representative to act on behalf of others.
This definition reflects its legal usage, emphasizing authority and directive action. Let me know if you'd like further clarification!
Hopefully you can see the difference. The words “performed gratuitously,” are absent for the A.I.’s answer, and that’s kind of a big oversight and a flaw with this A.I. system.
However, there was another specified issue that arose, specifically with mask-wearing, and it had to do with whether or not masks can be forced on people for using public transportation. Grok A.I. stated when asked; “Is forced mask wearing illegal?”
Answer: “Whether forced mask-wearing is illegal depends on the context—specifically, the jurisdiction, the authority imposing the requirement, and the legal basis for it. There’s no universal answer, as laws vary widely by country, state, or even locality, and the situation can differ depending on whether it’s a government mandate or a private entity’s rule.
In the United States, for example, the legality of government-imposed mask mandates has been debated, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Courts have generally upheld such mandates under the state’s "police power," which allows governments to enact measures to protect public health, safety, and welfare. A key precedent is Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state could mandate smallpox vaccinations during an outbreak, reasoning that individual liberties can be restricted in the interest of public health during emergencies. Applying this logic, many courts have found mask mandates to be a lawful exercise of authority, provided they’re reasonable, based on evidence, and not overly broad or arbitrary.
However, challenges to mask mandates have succeeded in specific cases where the government overstepped its authority or failed to follow proper legal processes. For instance, in April 2022, a federal judge in Florida struck down a CDC mask mandate for public transportation, ruling that the agency exceeded its statutory authority and didn’t follow adequate rulemaking procedures. This shows that while mandates can be legal, they’re not immune to scrutiny—details matter, like who issues them and how.
On the flip side, private businesses and employers often have broader leeway to enforce mask-wearing. In the U.S., private property rights and at-will employment mean a business can require masks as a condition of entry or employment, barring certain exceptions (e.g., disability accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or religious exemptions under Title VII). Refusal can lead to being denied service or fired, and courts have typically upheld this unless the policy clearly violates protected rights.
Globally, it’s a mixed bag. Some countries have constitutional protections that might limit forced mask-wearing if it’s deemed disproportionate or lacks scientific backing. Others have enforced strict mandates with penalties, like fines or jail time, and faced little legal pushback. In places with anti-mask laws (originally aimed at groups like the Ku Klux Klan), exceptions were often carved out during pandemics to allow health-related mask use.
So, is it illegal? Not inherently. It hinges on who’s forcing it, why, and where. A government mandate tied to a public health crisis, if properly enacted, is usually legal. A private entity’s rule is even harder to challenge unless it crosses specific legal lines. But if the mandate lacks authority, evidence, or due process, it can be struck down. Context is everything—there’s no blanket "yes" or "no."
Then, more specifically, the issue of mask-wearing on school busses came up back in 2020 and 2021, so, I asked Grok this question:
Q: Is forced mask wearing illegal or legal on public transportation under federal law?
A: As of April 5, 2025, there is no active federal mandate requiring mask-wearing on public transportation under U.S. federal law. The legality of "forced mask-wearing" depends on the context of the requirement and the legal authority enforcing it, but currently, no such federal requirement exists.
Historically, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a mask mandate for public transportation on January 29, 2021, under the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. § 264), effective February 1, 2021. This order required masks on conveyances like airplanes, trains, buses, and at transportation hubs to curb the spread of COVID-19. It was enforced by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and other federal, state, and local authorities, with potential civil penalties for noncompliance. The mandate framed mask-wearing as a public health measure, not an optional choice, effectively making it a federal requirement.
However, this mandate was struck down on April 18, 2022, by U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle in Florida. She ruled it "unlawful," arguing that the CDC exceeded its statutory authority under the Public Health Service Act, specifically questioning the interpretation of "sanitation" and the mandate’s procedural validity under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Biden administration appealed, but the mandate was not reinstated during the appeal process, and the TSA ceased enforcement immediately following the ruling. The CDC later indicated it would not pursue further enforcement unless public health conditions warranted it, and no new federal mandate has been issued since.
Today, absent a federal mandate, mask-wearing on public transportation is not "forced" under federal law, meaning it is neither explicitly illegal nor required. Federal authority to impose such measures exists under the Public Health Service Act and Commerce Clause, but it’s not currently exercised. State or local governments, as well as private transit operators, could impose their own rules, as they have broader police powers or contractual discretion, but that’s outside federal jurisdiction. For example, during the pandemic, some states and transit agencies maintained stricter rules even after the federal mandate ended.
In short, forced mask-wearing on public transportation is currently legal in the sense that the federal government has the authority to impose it under specific conditions (e.g., a public health emergency), but it is not in effect, so no one is being compelled by federal law to wear a mask on public transit as of now.
The problem was this is that school busses are NOT deemed public transportation. Therefore, any mask-wearing that took place on school busses at any time, was illegal from the start. Fortunately, I looked this up without using an A.I. system back in 2021, and in January of 2022, I sent a legal warning to the Westerville City School district in Westerville, Ohio, after they lifted their mask-wearing in schools, but they still sought to keep mask-wearing in place on school busses, and illegally so. Two days after receiving my legal warning to remove mask-wearing on all transportation (school busses) they posted a message on their district website that they were removing all mask mandates, including for those who rode the bus.
I use these examples above to prove that A.I. is not the be-all end-all of legal answers, as there can be clear inconsistencies depending on the circumstances and the questions at hand.
However, this now leads me to how A.I. can be used against a school district, or other school employees within the American education system when illegality is occurring on all other matters.
Given the typical tyrannical nature of school boards as a whole, and how they’ve shown their true colors over the years, along with the personalities of those who willfully seek such a position; I want to provide some specified examples at to how A.I. can be used for good, against evil.
In the town where I live (Oxford, Ohio), the local school district here is the Talawanda City School District. If you’ve listened to my show, you’re familiar with this place. On December 19th, 2024 it was brought to the attention of the public, by me and endless concerned citizens (i.e., parents and a singular school board member) that the school district’s Google Workspace suite was wide open for anyone to see and share throughout the entire district, so long as you had access with a district email, as all students, staff and school board members have. This includes IEP, 504’s, and marked calendar events of specificity. The Google Workspace platform had been adopted under the current superintendent Dr. Edward Theroux since approximately 2018. Therefore, what should have been marked private from the moment of implementation, was not. Approximately seven years passed before anyone took notice of the fact that Google Workspace was open to anyone within the district, including all students and all parents.
Once this was brought to the attention of the school board, by even a concerned board member herself (Dawn King), the district did the only thing they know how to do; blame those who found the flaw for their own mistake and avoid taking personal responsibility at all cost.
The district not only blamed board member Dawn King for alleged wrong-doing (of which there was no wrong doing on her part as all board members are legally bound to looking into any matter having to do with technology, as it’s their legal obligation as a board member per state law and the district’s own policy regarding technology;
Talawanda School District (Oxford, Ohio) Staff Technology Acceptable Use Policy; -"The Southwest Ohio Computer Association and Board (school board) has a right to all material stored on the network which are accessible to others. -Section K.: The Board and SWOCA reserve the right to monitor any system or network information and activity to assure compliance with applicable policies, procedures, and rules.”
8320.01 - Personal Information Systems; "The Superintendent is directly responsible for the operation of the PI System, including preparing and implementing rules that provide for the operation of the information system."
8351 - Security Breach of Confidential Databases; "Unauthorized access of information will not be considered a security breach if: A. the employee or agent acted in good faith in accessing the data; B. the access was related to the activities of the District or the employee's or agent's job-related duties; and C. the employee or agent did not use the personal information for an unlawful purpose or subject the information to further unauthorized disclosure."
Then, the other board members and the Superintendent, in collaboration with building principals, began to target students who had also viewed the Google Workspace once it was made known to the public, as students and families were simply verifying if the claim was true and their information was public.
Every line of text above (given this specified situation), can be formulated into a singular question (or multiple questions) to ask an A.I. system, to generate a response; in particular from a legal standpoint as to who is right and who is wrong in this situation. So, I did just that. No lawyer required, no money lost, and hardly no time expended.
Question:
If an Ohio school district is responsible for keeping student's IEP and 504 information private and they fail to do so with the technology tools (like Google) that they have adopted as a district, who is legally responsible for making sure that information stays private?
Answer:
In Ohio, the legal responsibility for ensuring the privacy of a student's Individualized Education Program (IEP) and Section 504 plan information primarily falls on the school district, as they are the entity directly responsible for managing and safeguarding student records. This obligation stems from federal laws, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which protects the confidentiality of student education records, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which imposes specific privacy requirements for students with IEPs. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 also aligns with these privacy expectations by prohibiting discrimination and requiring reasonable safeguards for student information.
When a school district adopts technology tools like Google Workspace for Education to manage IEP and 504 data, it remains the district's responsibility to ensure these tools are used in a way that complies with privacy laws. This includes configuring the tools correctly, training staff on their use, and establishing policies to prevent unauthorized access or disclosure. The district must also enter into agreements with third-party providers (like Google) to ensure they meet FERPA and IDEA standards, such as not using student data for purposes beyond what the district authorizes.
If the district fails to protect this information—say, due to a misconfiguration in Google’s systems, inadequate staff training, or a lack of oversight—the school district itself is typically held accountable. Federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) or the Family Policy Compliance Office (now the Student Privacy Policy Office) can investigate breaches and impose consequences, such as requiring corrective action or, in extreme cases, withholding federal funds. Parents could also pursue legal action against the district for damages if a breach causes harm, though liability often depends on proving negligence or willful disregard.
Google or other tech providers are generally not directly liable under FERPA or IDEA unless they act outside the scope of their contract with the district (e.g., misusing data for advertising). Their role is usually limited to following the district’s instructions as a "school official" under FERPA, provided the district has a proper agreement in place. However, if the provider’s tool has inherent security flaws that the district couldn’t reasonably mitigate, responsibility might be contested in court—but the district still bears the initial burden of choosing a compliant vendor.
Ultimately, the school district’s administration—superintendents, special education directors, and IT staff—holds the legal and practical duty to ensure privacy. They can’t just point fingers at Google; they’re the ones answerable to parents, students, and federal regulators if something goes wrong.
BOOM!
Now what about school board members making false claims about who is ultimately responsible, while also attempting to pass the blame onto a singular board member, who just happens to be one of many to bring this to the publics attention and to the attention of the entire district?
Gee. Let’s ask Grok.
Question: “Is retaliation against the law in the state of Ohio in particular if school board members and school employees are retaliating against students and parents in the district for uncovering inappropriate technology use among district officials?”
Answer: “Yes, retaliation can be against the law in Ohio, depending on the context, and specific protections apply when school board members and employees retaliate against students and parents for uncovering inappropriate technology use by district officials. Ohio and federal laws provide frameworks to address such retaliation, particularly when it involves whistleblowing, free speech, or student/parent rights.
Below, I’ll break this down based on the scenario you described—retaliation by school board members and employees against students and parents for exposing misuse of technology.
Retaliation Under Ohio Law:
Ohio Whistleblower Protection (ORC § 4113.52)
Applicability: This statute protects employees who report violations of law, including misconduct by public officials like school board members or district employees. While it primarily applies to employees, parents or students acting as whistleblowers could argue broader protections if their actions align with public policy (e.g., reporting illegal or unethical technology use like misuse of public funds or data breaches).
Violation: If school officials retaliate (e.g., by punishing students with discipline or denying parents access to records) for reporting inappropriate technology use that violates state or federal law (e.g., ORC § 2921.43 - misuse of public resources), this could breach whistleblower principles.
Conditions: The report must involve a felony or significant public harm, and retaliation must be provable (e.g., a clear link between the report and adverse actions).
Ohio Public Records and Open Meetings Laws (ORC § 149.43 and ORC § 121.22):
Applicability: If parents or students requested records or attended meetings to uncover technology misuse (e.g., inappropriate software spending or surveillance), retaliation for exercising these rights could violate Ohio’s Sunshine Laws.
Violation: Punishing someone for requesting public records (e.g., suspending a student or harassing a parent) could lead to civil action against the district for obstructing transparency.
Ohio Anti-Bullying and Harassment Laws (ORC § 3313.666):
Applicability: If retaliation takes the form of bullying or harassment by school employees against students (e.g., intimidation for speaking out), it could violate Ohio’s anti-bullying statute, which requires districts to prohibit harassment by staff or students.
Violation: Retaliatory actions like targeting a student with unfair discipline or verbal abuse could breach this law, especially if tied to their exposure of misconduct.
Federal Protections Against Retaliation:
First Amendment (U.S. Constitution)
Applicability: Students and parents have free speech rights to criticize school officials or expose misconduct, including inappropriate technology use (e.g., illegal surveillance, misuse of student data). Retaliation for exercising these rights is unconstitutional in public schools.
Violation: Courts have ruled that public schools cannot punish students or parents for protected speech unless it substantially disrupts education (e.g., Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503). Examples of illegal retaliation might include suspending a student for posting about the issue online or barring a parent from meetings for raising concerns.
Evidence: You’d need to show the speech was protected (e.g., factual reporting of misuse) and the retaliation was direct (e.g., punishment shortly after).
FERPA (20 U.S.C. § 1232g):
Applicability: If retaliation involves denying parents access to student records or altering records after they question technology use (e.g., data collected via ed-tech tools), it could violate FERPA.
Violation: Schools must provide access to education records within 45 days; retaliatory denial or manipulation would breach federal law.
Title IX (20 U.S.C. § 1681):
Applicability: If retaliation targets students or parents based on sex (e.g., singling out a female student or mother for speaking out), it could violate Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education.
Violation: Retaliation like unequal discipline or exclusion tied to gender could trigger federal investigation.
Specific Scenario: Retaliation for Uncovering Inappropriate Technology Use:
If students and parents uncovered inappropriate technology use (e.g., misuse of district funds for software, illegal student surveillance, or data breaches), retaliation could take forms like:
Disciplining students (e.g., suspension, detention).
Harassing parents (e.g., threats, exclusion from meetings).
Denying rights (e.g., blocking record access).
Legal Analysis:
Ohio Law: Retaliation could violate ORC § 4113.52 if the technology use was illegal (e.g., felony misuse of public resources), ORC § 3313.666 if it’s harassment, or ORC § 121.22 if tied to public meeting participation.
Federal Law: It could breach the First Amendment (speech retaliation), FERPA (record access denial), or Title IX (sex-based targeting).
Public Official Misconduct: School board members retaliating might also face scrutiny under ORC § 2921.44 (dereliction of duty) or ORC § 102.03 (ethics violations) if their actions protect personal interests or cover up wrongdoing.
Examples of Illegal Retaliation:
A student is suspended for posting on social media about a principal’s misuse of tracking software—likely a First Amendment violation.
A parent is banned from board meetings after questioning tech spending—potential ORC § 121.22 and First Amendment issues.
A student’s grades are altered after reporting data breaches—possible FERPA and harassment violations.
Filing a Complaint:
School District Level:
File a written complaint with the superintendent or board president, citing specific retaliatory acts and laws violated (e.g., “Retaliation for reporting tech misuse violates ORC § 4113.52 and the First Amendment”). Check district policy for grievance procedures.
Ohio Department of Education (ODE):
Submit to the Office of Professional Conduct (professional.conduct@education.ohio.gov) if staff misconduct is involved, or the general ODE complaint process (25 South Front St., Columbus, OH 43215) for broader district issues.
Federal Level:
FERPA: File with the Student Privacy Policy Office (FERPA.Complaints@ed.gov) if records are involved.
Civil Rights (First Amendment/Title IX): File with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) online at ocrdata.ed.gov or mail to 400 Maryland Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20202.
Legal Action:
If unresolved, consult an attorney for a civil lawsuit (e.g., § 1983 claim for constitutional violations) or to petition for official removal under ORC § 3.07.
Conclusion:
Retaliation by Ohio school board members and employees, against students and parents for uncovering inappropriate technology use, could violate Ohio laws (e.g., whistleblower protections, anti-bullying statutes) and federal laws (e.g., First Amendment, FERPA).
It’s illegal if it punishes protected activities like reporting misconduct or exercising speech rights. Start with the district, escalate to state or federal agencies as needed, and consider legal counsel for serious cases.”
As you can see, today’s American citizens have more legal tools at their disposal than they can possibly imagine. If these tools are used for good, then they can be used to defend you from unlawful retaliation from an unprofessional entity. If they are used for bad reasons (eg. instruction on the telling of some historic events), then they can make you believe something that is demonstrably false.
As this current unprofessional situation is ongoing in the the local school district where I live, in Part II of this series (later this week), I will show you exchanges between concerned citizens and the Talawanda School District in Oxford, Ohio, and the lengths to which the guilty school-board members and their Superintendent are going to in order to cover their tracks and pass the blame onto the innocent, which included targeting students themselves while releasing private information. These acts alone are also illegal within the State of Ohio.
After all, as the saying goes; the cover-up is always worse than the crime itself.
