Clarification and Request for Action Regarding Pamela Stanley’s Misstatements

Jul 3, 2024

The following is an email from Edmund Tom Maciejewski to the Berkeley Heights Board of Education. Mr. Maciejewski is a resident of Berkeley Heights NJ. To date, Mr. Maciejewski reports he has not received confirmation that Ms. Stanley WAS acting in her official board capacity during the Starbucks Incident.

The attachments linked afterwards are a response to emails Mr. Maciejewski received due to an OPRA request in which Ms. Stanley defends her actions of taking pictures of Mr. Maciejewski at Starbucks and then posting them on a Facebook Group.

Dear Members of the Berkeley Heights Board of Education,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to address several misstatements made by Pamela Stanley in her recent email dated June 11, 2024, concerning an incident at Starbucks, which she later posted about on social media. The purpose of this email is to clarify the facts and request appropriate action be taken against Ms. Stanley for her behavior.

Pamela Stanley stated in her email: “He is calling me a board member, he is not upset with me, he is upset with a board member that he approached knowing she was a board member. And knowing he has an open legal case against me.” This statement is false. I did not approach Pamela Stanley; she approached me by filming me through the glass. Only when I saw her pointing a camera in my face and making hand gestures did I approach her to ask why she was filming me. She responded by saying she was sending it to the attorney. Ms. Stanley has a video of this interaction, which I urge you to request and review to see what truly happened.

Additionally, Pamela Stanley wrote: “I was there. He approached. I stay away from him and others purposely. So it matters.” Again, this is incorrect. I did not approach her until after she started filming me randomly. She approached me.

Pamela also mentioned: “You would know this if anyone had ever put you in this position. Or put a legal case against you. But luckily they never have.” If Pamela had not started recording me and making gestures from outside the window, I would not have approached her. I did not interact with her in any way until she began her aggressive actions.

Further, she wrote: “Has anyone ever come up to you in public to harass you? Followed you? Yelled at you? Screamed ‘call the cops’? All because you dared to go out in public or to a community event or they create issues to distract from what they did or because they want something against you before an election?” Pamela is portraying herself as a victim. In reality, she was the aggressor. I did not harass her; I asked the Starbucks staff to call the police so I could file a report on her harassment of me. This had nothing to do with her going out in public, but rather her threatening actions against me.

She also claimed: “Has anyone else who is upset with you gone up to you and your children? Have they ever tried to use the police against you? Have your kids had to interact with the same people who yell at you?” Her children were not present during this incident. I have never met, seen, or interacted with her children.

Pamela continued with: “My entire family knows by face who their mom’s haters are because they have not left me alone in public. Unfortunately, my sixth grader is wise enough to have figured out some of their names. She has even pointed out people giving me nasty looks at events, sometimes even elementary PTO events. This should not be the case. My family should never have to worry about going somewhere in their town.” Pamela needs to reflect on why people in town might act this way. In this case, I did not instigate anything. Pamela’s behavior warrants reprimand or censure to prevent future incidents and to address her misconception that people are simply “haters.”

Finally, she stated: “But as you can see, we do worry for a reason. And I pray that you and your children never have to deal with that in public.” Pamela is twisting the narrative to make it seem like she was innocently harassed. In reality, she initiated the harassment. I urge you to review the video Pamela has of the incident for a clear understanding.

She also states in another email: “I have taken it down but it was done to try to protect us from a person that came and sat behind me when I was out. A person who has used their lawyer against me.”

Again, I did NOT sit behind her. This is an absolute lie. Secondly I have NEVER used my lawyer against her.

In light of these misstatements, I respectfully request that the Board consider issuing an official warning or censure to Ms. Pamela Stanley. This action will underscore the seriousness of her behavior and reaffirm our commitment to maintaining ethical conduct within our educational community.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I am available for any further clarification if needed.

Sincerely,
Edmund Tom Maciejewski