CLEARFIELD, PA- Clearfield County District Attorney, Ryan P. Sayers issued a statement today regarding allegations made during Clearfield Borough’s rescheduled public meeting on Wednesday.
Read the full statement here.
“Dear Clearfield Borough Council & Attorney Dennison,
I listened to your statements made at the Borough Council Meeting on May 27, 2026, and reviewed the written statement published on the Borough Council’s Facebook Page this morning. As has become abundantly clear over the last six months, the ability to distort the facts and misstate the law is very concerning, and it should be to the people of Clearfield Borough. In order to correct the record and point out the actual legal basis for criminal investigations and charges, I am writing this letter to you.
During the morning of May 21, 2026, Borough Council posted on its Facebook Page that, “The Council meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 21, 2026, at 5:00 PM has been canceled due to multiple ongoing threats directed at elected officials, Borough staff, and their families. The safety and well-being of everyone involved remains our top priority.” (emphasis added). That same day, I was contacted by Clearfield Regional Police Department to inform me of the situation, and contrary to the accusations of the Solicitor, I did not have contact with the sender of the message. As someone who has received death threats, including one a few months ago where I was threatened to be shot multiple times, I take these types of accusations very seriously.
The investigating officer provided to me the screenshot of a single message to the Council Member, and, as I do in every case, I reviewed the evidence and applied it to the law. Your own Facebook post stated that this message contained a threat sufficient to cause concern for your safety. In looking at Title 18, Section 2706, and as your Solicitor should have known as a licensed attorney, a Terroristic Threat is when a, person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to: (1) commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another; (2) causes evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation; or (3) otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.
In comparing the singular message that caused the cancellation of the Borough Council Meeting on May 21, 2026, to the law for Terroristic Threat, nothing in that message rose to the legal definition for that criminal offense. For concern of public safety and due to inquiries from the media, I put out the statement that the message contained “accusations and vulgar references, but no such threat exist[ed] in that message.” See my public comment on May 21, 2026. That statement also stated that, “[i]f other actual threatening messages are brought to the attention of law enforcement, then they will be reviewed and charged appropriately.”
Now, one week later, Members of Council and the Solicitor are pivoting to using the term ‘Harassment’ in regard to the message, and apparently other messages over a number of months and/or years. These allegations, on the other hand, have not been addressed and would still remain a viable option depending on the context of the other messages sent over the period of time. However, those Members of Council and/or the Mayor need to report all of the messages to the Clearfield Regional Police Department, as the law enforcement agency with primary jurisdiction. If Clearfield Regional Police will not handle the matter, then it can be referred to the State Police or a private criminal complaint can be filed.
With that said and as I discussed with the Mayor via telephone call on May 21, 2026, I explained that the law recognizes a greater amount of latitude for citizens when addressing a public / elected figure because of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Even though there is a line can be crossed, people have the right to criticize the government and seek redress, and we, as elected officials, do have to have “thick skin”. As the District Attorney, I am regularly criticized in online forums, via letters to the office, and in person because people do not approve of my decisions or handling of cases, which is usually due to a lack of understanding of the law.
Next, a Member of Council and the Solicitor made a very serious allegation that I used a slur to describe said Member of Council. That is 100% fabricated and untrue. I have known this Member of Council for a number of years. This Member of Council and I have worked together on projects over the years, know each other’s families, and have always been cordial to each other even though we have different political beliefs and perspectives. Thus, such a term would not be used by me to describe this Member of Council and is an absolute lie, and would expect a recantation and/or apology for claiming that I would say that about that Member of Council.
Finally, as should be abundantly clear at this point in time, I, as the District Attorney, am opposed to the dissolution of the Clearfield Regional Police Department, but I am also a realist and understand that the collective minds of Council will not change at this point, which was recently conveyed to the Mayor. However, even though I disagree with the decision of Council, that does not cloud my judgment at the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of Clearfield County, and I will continue to review cases based on the facts and the law.”
Sincerely,
Ryan P. Sayers,
District Attorney
