VOLUNTEER SERVICES LEAD
HONEYMAN STATE PARK
He elicited trust. He extracted disclosures. He delivered them to people who were already working to remove me.
ROLE
The volunteer services lead was my direct supervisor at Honeyman State Park. He reported to the park supervisor and the park manager. He was the person I saw most. He was the person I trusted first.
THE DISCLOSURES
He spent 90 minutes in the Welcome Center talking about himself — his background, his concerns, his perspectives. The following day, I reciprocated during a walk. That is how trust-building works.
Before that walk, I set a clear boundary: I told him explicitly this was not romantic for me.
During the walk, I shared:
- Why I had moved into an RV and relocated to the coast.
- My analysis of systemic instability and strategic thinking about resilience.
- My concerns as a queer person about authoritarian targeting through institutional actors.
THE WEAPONIZATION
park manager — March 5, 2025
During the recorded coercion meeting, the park manager stated I “thought I had a future with [Volunteer Services Lead]” — weaponizing my sexuality and distorting the boundary I had set. I am certain that insinuation entered the narrative with the volunteer services lead’s consent.
program manager — March 25, 2025
During dismissal proceedings, the program manager:
- Questioned me about “the end of the world” using a mocking tone.
- Weaponized my disclosures to frame me as paranoid and delusional.
- Claimed on the recorded call that I had shared “a staff member would be used to kill you when the end of the world occurs” — a fabrication. I have never believed the world was ending. I have never said anything resembling this to anyone.
- Used these disclosures to construct a psychological profile justifying permanent dismissal.
She did this using information a supervisor had a professional obligation to protect.
THE PATTERN
Intimacy followed by distance. Every time.
When I confided in him about the situation with the park supervisor, he escalated it instead of protecting me. Then he disappeared. When I applied for a job at the park, he distanced himself. The moment I withdrew my application, he reappeared — spending 90 minutes talking about himself. When I finally opened up about why I was there, what I had sacrificed, why it mattered — he responded by trying to manage my perception instead of listening. Then he distanced himself again.
At every critical moment, he failed to act with integrity. At every opportunity to lead, he chose avoidance.
THE RECOIL
What I actually said to the volunteer services lead about authoritarian targeting was that in those contexts, people like him — institutional actors with authority — would be the mechanism through which targeting of queer people would occur.
He visibly recoiled when I said this.
At the time, I interpreted his reaction as discomfort with the subject matter. Later, I understood: he was already doing exactly what I had described — using his institutional position to target my identity.
He weaponized a boundary I set with him in good faith.
WHAT THIS ESTABLISHES
This is Stage 3 of the displacement framework: Trust Recruitment. Someone gets close. Someone listens. What you share in confidence is delivered to people who weaponize it.
The volunteer services lead’s disclosures gave the park manager, the park supervisor, and the program manager the ammunition they needed to justify what they had already decided to do. He enabled it. Actively. With full knowledge of what they were doing.
His choices as volunteer services lead are now part of the permanent public record.