Forgery? Fraud? Something else? What say you?

Last year during all of this Covid nonsense, our school started sending children home with a "quarantine order".

This is on the health department's letterhead, and states:

quote:

This letter is to inform you that as a result, your child is in quarantine per the Warren County Health Department.

I had a conversation (which I recorded) with the Superintendent who explained that the health department was really busy, so that the school would get a list from the health department every morning, fill out these letters at the school, and send students home.

When I contacted the health department (via e-mail) they responded with:

quote:

The letter from school is not a quarantine “order” it is a CDC recommendation based on the information provided by the positive case when telling the health department their contact list.

The Health Department makes decisions on quarantine recommendations based on the information provided to the health department from the positive person’s interview. The Health Department uses CDC guidelines to recommend quarantine for those names that are given based on the description of the event from the interview with the positive case and potential for exposure and subsequent spread. Many things are taken into consideration beyond the less than 6 feet and 15 cumulative minutes.

It is up to you; if you wish to abide by CDC guidelines, State DHSS & DESE, LPHA recommendations -which are in place to slow the spread and protect those at risk.

And even more recently:

quote:

the schools track that number for their own district as they do the contact tracing and send the students home if they determine they met the criteria........ The schools have the accurate number of students they have quarantined and sent home.

So according to the health department they were not quarantining anybody, yet the school is sending out letters, on the health department's letterhead saying that these kids were quarantined "per the health department".

In return, our school district of roughly 1,500 students received ESSR funds totally approximately $2,500,000 for "following the guidance" of the state agencies which included all of these "quarantine" rules in their published mitigation strategies.

Certainly seems questionable to me, but does it rise to any sort of criminality?

I’m not very familiar with the (possibly) relevant statutes, but maybe falsification of public records—?

i don't know. But your post about only testing unvaxxed kids has me thinking there is a crime or at the very least a discrimination suit.

Depending on the jurisdiction in which this occurred, impersonating a govt official comes to mind, however, you would have to read the statute to see if what you are describing meets the elements of the crime.

The other thing that came to mind is, are these "quarantine orders" being used to show a false need for infrastructure and other improvements to get additional government funding. If that is a yes, then that takes it into the realm of possible fraud, and depending on how the funding was requested, could be fraud against the US Govt, in that case US Dept of Education would have jurisdiction. See the bottom of the link for more info:

https://oese.ed.gov/offices/ed...ergency-relief-fund/

quote:

only testing unvaxxed kids has me thinking there is a crime or at the very least a discrimination suit.

We are not the only ones who are thinking it's discrimination:

https://okcfox.com/news/local/...hool-quarantine-rule

quote:

Edmond, Okla — Some Edmond parents celebrated a victory Tuesday after a judge ruled in their favor.

The parents sued Edmond Public Schools, saying the district was treating their unvaccinated children unfairly.

It focused on the district's quarantine policy, which has since changed.

The problem some parents had was that unvaccinated students were being forced to quarantine after exposure when vaccinated students were not.

In some states recording an individual absent consent is a felony.

quote:

In some states recording an individual absent consent is a felony

100% true. He even asked if I was recording the conversation, and I told him no.

Missouri is a single party consent state, so only one party of the conversation has to be aware of, and approve the recording of a conversation.

If any of what the school did is even leaning towards a criminal act, I would like to put together the evidence and forward that to the appropriate parties.

quote:

received ESSR funds totally approximately $2,500,000 for "following the guidance" of the state agencies

It may be worth your investigating what the guidance actually requires.

If what the school district did was what was recommended, then they would have qualified for the grants, and your beef would be with the state agencies, rather than the district.

quote:

It may be worth your investigating what the guidance actually requires.

If what the school district did was what was recommended, then they would have qualified for the grants

The certainly followed the guidance, although I disagree with it. Seems that courts are starting to disagree with it too.

My broader point was that seem to have misrepresented, to the public, the authority to punish these children for profit.

Let's assume I did something similar. What if I sent a competing business "quarantine orders" on the health department letterhead? Their employees can't work and I get the extra business. Surely somebody would take issue with that. And what if a friend of mine at the health department provided me with their letterhead and told me it was OK to do so long as it was me writing it up and not them?

If I were the investigator of the complaint the two issues I would be looking at are the school’s misrepresentation of where the letter originated and the false claim about what the health department mandated. That’s two separate misstatements of fact and because both the school (I assume it’s not a private institution) and the health department are public governmental entities is the reason for my original opinion.

But although many people evidently believe that any sort of “discrimination” is against some law or another, that’s simply not true. What the laws I’m familiar with target are certain specific types of discrimination and discrimination on the basis of specific reasons such as “race” or religious preference. Unless there is a specific statute outlawing discrimination on the basis of apparel, for example, a business could refuse to serve anyone wearing a “MAGA” hat—and some do. And even though there are laws pertaining to discrimination on the basis of religious belief, that applies only to certain specific situations. A person may legally refuse to vote for an atheist or Catholic or Muslim for public office on that basis alone—and countless do. That’s discrimination pure and simple that would generally be prohibited if it were the basis for refusing restaurant service.

Sometimes the courts will expand the “unfairness” idea to issues that aren’t specifically covered by statute or prior case law, and often times people decry that “judicial activism,” but there’s no guarantee of that or that a local court’s ruling won’t be overturned on appeal.