Read the Beforeitsnews.com story here. Advertise at Before It's News here.

By Anonymous
Contributor profile | More stories

Story Views
Now:
Last hour:
Last 24 hours:
Total:

Challenging our public school district’s obedience to county ‘health’ ‘orders’: I challenge Social Science teachers to explain legality for ‘same indoor space’ + required outdoor masks, invite 2 hero students to file district complaints

Monday, February 7, 2022 7:17

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

“But he hasn’t got anything on,” a little child said.

“Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?” said the child’s father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, “He hasn’t anything on. A child says he hasn’t anything on.”

“But he hasn’t got anything on!” the whole town cried out at last.

The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, “This procession has got to go on.” So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn’t there at all.

~ The Emperor’s New Clothes, Hans Christian Anderson, 1837 (how Patriots avoided censorship 200 years ago: place truth in children’s stories)

Perhaps the most helpful format for communication:
Summary of events from September 2020 to the most recent article,
Specific updates as they occur, and
Preview of coming events.
History: (articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45).
My best “shot” to explain, document, and prove the “Covid” + “vaccine” narrative are Crimes Against Humanity: a 4,700-word essay I sent to ~100 teacher colleagues in September, 2021 (received with silence to the facts, with ~20 eventual responses to be removed from such communications).

Summary (links = full documentation): The California “lockdown orders” necessary to “flatten the curve and keep hospitals running” have lasted since March 3, 2020. The California Emergency Services Act (ESA) is derived from California Government Code 8558 (b) requiring “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders. Because Californians never received comprehensive hospital data, our government and corporate media “leaders” are lying in omission. Because problematic “positive cases” (and here, here) were substituted for “beyond control” hospitals, our leaders lie in commission. All testimony I’ve received from ~20 medical professionals here in NorCal report all hospitals they know of have been fully within their control throughout the “pandemic,” that hospitals have comprehensive area plans for record flu seasons they haven’t needed, and certainly didn’t need the military field hospitals or hospital ships for a real pandemic.

As a NorCal public school teacher, at the start of our school year in September 2020 I questioned our district’s leadership and teachers’ union how their negotiated policy to “obey” county “health” “orders” is legal given the above reasonable limit to dictatorial authority. I cited our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions within their limited governing authorities. I reminded the district I merely ask them as educated professional adults to perform what we expect from all our Californian Middle School students in our State teaching standards: “Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources.” (page 81).

I’ve chosen to mask identities of individuals involved to help shield them from any possible future harm when facts emerge to demonstrate to the public that these school administrators and teachers were either knowing participants or dupes too weak in intellectual integrity and moral courage to recognize and defend literal Truth, Justice, and the American way of limited government under constitutionally-protected inalienable rights.

After two requests, the district contact person responded by ignoring my questions, and stating HUSD employees are required to obey “California mandates” “to protect you” (disobedient staff are placed on unpaid leave up to a year). I emailed our district superintendent, school board members, my school principal and two interested teachers that we teach all high school students in US History class that the district’s position of “just following orders” is an illegal defense, and asked again how ESA limits are being honored.

After continued district silence, I filed three legal complaints: federal, state, and a grievance for district violation of worker safety by issuing apparent dictatorial and illegal policy under direct threat of employment termination, $1,000 fines per violation, and one year imprisonment under Cal. Penal Code §§ 69, 148(a)(1).

Our union (HEA) responded with support to ask the district, and communicated privately they wouldn’t pursue the grievance to arbitration because working conditions were negotiated in good faith with high approval of union members. After I probed with a few questions, I retreated with HEA to keep them as allies with me to get answers from The grievance process finished with district and union agreement that the complaint didn’t qualify as a grievance because all district policies were in conformance to law.

I appealed the district’s answer to our community school board for what the district redefined as a “written complaint.” From October 2 to December 18 2020 the district was silent, despite policy promising a response within 30 days of the board’s receipt. After this December 13 reminder they were out of compliance for a response, the superintendent answered that the school board upheld the district response without comment.

I received a “non-response” after nearly 5 months from my complaint to the US Department of Justice regarding unlimited government. My complaint to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing complaint was fielded by a phone call response in December, their promise to follow-up, and silence since.

In March 2021, our NorCal public school superintendent sent all staff an email citing county deaths from COVID nearing 1,300 with 80,000 “cases.” He also asked for our professional responses to an upcoming survey. I responded with three basic questions: how many of our staff and students have died of (not with) Covid, what is the data for overall county deaths given controversy over causes of deaths, and how many staff and students have been injured by vaccines. He ignored my questions twice, which I then shared with our school’s ~100 teachers as Chair of a school Professional Learning Community (PLC) on broad educational topics directly affecting our school’s teaching and learning. A few teachers have communicated support, but our Social Science Department found no interest in this topic when I emailed them in inquiry.

Our district superintendent then answered my questions, and concluded with: “If you do not agree with the state and county guidelines or if you believe we are not following them, please pursue your questions and concerns with the appropriate agency.” I responded I would do so, and report my findings.

I followed up with 14 CA government agencies over 6 weeks, with all ignoring the question of how the limit of “beyond control” hospitals was being honored for “emergency” dictatorial authority, and CA Senator Glazer’s office stating the 60-day limit applied only to “non-safety” related orders. I hadn’t considered an American legislature would surrender forever dictatorial powers to a governor or elected officials without a time limit, as public recourse would be limited to recall (as happened with Governor Newsom, albeit with Dominion “voting” machines, but that’s another history) or electing other legislators.

Therefore, at this point in our history, school district, teachers’ union, and CA government “answers” are at this point demonstrated as intentional lies of omission to claim they answered a question about ESA to “justify” dictatorial government while leaving out any consideration of crystal-clear letter and intent requiring that our hospitals are “beyond control.” The 14 CA government agencies claim dictatorial power to close businesses, stop social gatherings, force masking, force humans to forever remain no closer than six feet from each other, and with forever dictatorial power until legislators or governor dictate otherwise, and while lying in commission that “emergency powers” are authorized by unreliable “positive” “cases.”

At the end of April 2021, I wrote a lengthy and fully documented report of those 14 CA government agencies’ responses, and emailed it with a cover letter to district leadership, school board members, teachers’ union leadership, our PLC members, and school teachers. The district’s Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources immediately responded with threats of disciplinary action for unspecified violations of district policies, as did my school principal. The district never responded to my repeated requests and Grievance to cite anything I wrote to substantiate their complaints. The district has never rescinded their first of four steps for employment termination.

Stop and appreciate the irony of public school district leadership refusing to cite factual claims while requiring it of all middle school students. Again: “Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources.” (page 81).

I appealed to our teachers’ union for relief (and here, here). After 4 emails and 15 days of silence from our union President and VP, I sent this email to 14 of the Board of Directors of our teachers’ union. Our President and VP then responded for a next step “to gain clarification regarding matters within our scope and discuss next steps, if any,” followed by a Zoom meeting. Our union President raised the topic at her regular weekly meeting with the district’s Assistant Superintendent of HR on May 25, 2021. The district then emailed me claiming my PLC report “harasses or disparages” my colleagues “based on their political beliefs,” yet failed again to provide any documentation or explanation despite the union and my requests.

I responded with three employee grievances for apparent contract violations.

On July 8, I spoke by phone with our teachers’ union president, who reported that the district would again consider my Grievances as employee complaints outside their contractual obligations, with the HR Assistant Superintendent admitting failure to address my requests for the district to document and explain their complaints.

On July 9, 2021 our teachers’ union held a Zoom conference with ~100 teachers to explain the tentative agreement for work conditions for the 2021 – ‘22 school year to obey “the most restrictive health measures” “ordered” by state, county or federal government. I asked the first public question on the call for our union to explain how the state has ordering authority given the strict limits of “beyond control” hospitals, with union president, VP, and another union board member responding they are still representing my question, but all legal information they’ve received is that there is no requirement to oppose ordering authority until proven in court. This answer is consistent with my observations that people are conditioned to be told what to do by “experts.”

My school district’s final answer to my three employee grievances came on July 21, 2021:
Teachers, staff, students and families will follow “health” “orders” because they are ordered.
“Health” “orders” are whatever is ordered. The district will not respond to requests for documentation of “ordering” authority, nor even acknowledge the question was asked despite legal obligation to explain how all policies are within the limits of the law.
If teachers ask further questions how “health” “orders” are lawful or healthy, they will be disciplined up to termination under the “reason” that such questions “harass and/or disparage other’ political beliefs.”
On July 24 I responded to the district’s formal initiation of “disciplinary action steps” that lead to termination for unprofessional conduct by offering the district choice to finally cite their unsubstantiated complaints against me, withdraw the complaints and censorship, or face my attorney. On July 26, the district’s Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources responded in refusal to substantiate their claims of my unprofessional work; claiming “The District has provided you with the appropriate documentation that has sufficiently responded to your requests. At this time, there is no additional information that can be provided to you that has not already been provided.” Our teachers union President called me with analysis from her conversations with district leadership that the district is unwilling to look beyond their legal orders, and must be forced by court or legislative orders.

I had a productive first conversation with an America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) connected attorney, who promised to converse with her team to evaluate my case for possible lawsuit support. A second conversation affirmed the strength of this case from its abundant documentation, and that the network of lawyers are filing lawsuits based on their judgment of the best cases to help the most amount of people. I promised my willingness to serve as a plaintiff if this case rises in their judgment as the most promising to litigate. I’ve been updating three law firms participating in lawsuits that have included Los Angeles USD, San Diego USD, and nearby Piedmont USD. The attorneys communicate appreciation of my professional documentation, that they would enjoy representing this case, and encourage my work for truth and justice under the law.

On September 4, 2021, I reported to my ~100 teacher colleagues my best “shot” to “red pill” them about dozens of game-changing facts corporate media never report (my published research on corporate media “reporting” lies known to be false as they were told for the many variants of the Wars on Terror). This report to teachers (at “Update 3”) makes a great essay to share with comprehensive facts of our big picture condition (and here).

On Friday September 17, our district superintendent announced the school board would address mandatory student “vaccines” on Wednesday, September 22. I responded to district and teachers’ union leadership with legal notice of their prima facie-crimes to require experimental medical products, and initiated another employee Grievance for contract violation guaranteeing policies in conformance to law.

On Wednesday September 22, the school board voted 5-0 to “mandate” full student “vaccination” for “Covid” (again, please see my essay to ~100 teachers for absolute proofs for quotation marks). The public comment session for 1-minute remarks were ~15 against and ~25 for. Four parents and two employees contacted me to begin ongoing conversations. My three employee Grievances (at that point) also gave our teachers’ union an ultimatum to honor our contract that all district policies be “in conformance with law” by standing with me against the district’s illegal “mandates” that violate US Codes 21 and 18, and California Government Code 8558 (b) that “emergency orders” authority requires “beyond control” local resources (hospitals in this case). CDC’s latest data seem definitive proof that California and national hospitals are well within control, just as each and every one of the ~20 local doctors, nurses, and other professionals I’ve asked have told me since March 2020.

On October 2, I sent a second email to our teachers’ union President, VP, and district Board Members arguing for their legal and Oath-sworn obligation to stand with me to force the district to explain the legality of their “health” “orders” given the above crystal-clear in letter and intent legal limits (the district’s stated position is “we just follow orders, and so will you”).

On October 17, 2021 I sent another Professional Learning Committee (PLC) report to district and union leaderships + Boards, and ~100 teacher colleagues with two central topics. First: HUSD refuses to address limits to state/county/district “health orders” regarding required student and teacher use of Emergency Use Authorized medical products (EUAs), despite :
Federal law Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) requiring EUAs be administered only and always with “option to refuse” experimental medicine.
Article 6 of the US Constitution is explicit that federal law is superior to state law/“mandates”/“orders.”
California Health and Safety Codes § 24171 to § 24176 uphold federal law that every individual: “Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision.”
The second topic of the October 17 PLC report is that our teachers’ union shared their position why “health orders” to “require” EUAs is lawful: the government is not kidnapping and forcibly injecting teachers. Yes, seriously; that’s their “legal” “justification.” I was glad to force an answer, and didn’t pursue further as I’d still rather keep the union as a partner to force reasonable district answers.

On October 21, 2021, our teachers’ union president emailed me to declare my employee grievance void that requested the district to either cite their legal authority for EUA work requirements given the limits of three definitive laws, or to downgrade “requirements for employment” to “advice.” The “reason” given was the union claims that the district doesn’t have to cite legal authority for policy because any proofs of illegal policies “do not concern violations of the CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement)” despite the CBA stating all district policies must be “in conformance with law.” Both HEA and HUSD claim that state dictatorial “orders” are sufficient legal authority to compel obedience, and both have never addressed our mutual STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE for We the People to serve as a check on exactly this problem of illegal dictatorial government orders. My three subsequent communications to union President, VP, and Board were unanswered.

On October 28, 2021, HUSD responded to my last employee Grievance of policy violating California Health and Safety Codes § 24171 to § 24176 by unilaterally declaring it “an email request” of an “employee complaint” “against the legality of EUAs” that they then dismissed because we all must “follow orders.” I challenged that stand, as well as challenging district refusal to answer basic questions about “official” exemptions to EUAs.

On November 14, after a week of “official silence” from district and teachers’ union, I poked them again with questions, request to meet, and predictions of dire consequences to HUSD for their official silence beyond “just follow orders.” I also admonished HEA’s tragic-comic consent to CTA’s position that “option to refuse” experimental medical treatments allows employee termination without future ability of re-hire in public education. Both embrace Orwellian-violations of definitive CA and federal laws that “option to refuse” means the individual is free to accept or decline experimental medical products “without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision.”

On November 15, our school principal sent an “URGENT” email “ordering” ~200 students to the quad: “All unvaccinated students will be sent home, all vaccinated student (sic) will return to class with a pass.” I discovered I was also “health ordered” home for 10 days, until I demanded documentation of definitions that proved “district error” (but 14 of my students were not provided this documentation for discovery of error, nor another teacher). My school principal admitted he lacked authority to “order” me into isolated segregation, but was following district “orders” to segregate unvaxxed students. This week also had our teachers’ union request to HUSD accepted for a December 1 “Level III” Grievance meeting with the superintendent to discuss district censorship of my PLC and taking the first step to terminate my employment due to district claims of complaints HUSD refuse to cite. HUSD continued their 6th week of failure to provide me legal definitions of the medical/religious exemption process, but agreed to meet for discussion on Dec. 3. Both of these meetings would be attended by our teachers’ union President and me.

Ten students voiced interest in a “Truth Club,” and submitted paperwork to our Associated Student Body (ASB) with me as their club sponsor to address “the pandemic” and other game-changing areas of truth (here, here, here).

On December 1 and 3 I had Zoom meetings with district leadership and our teachers’ union President regarding the previous paragraph topics.

On December 3rd, my principal sent another “friendly reminder” for weekly Covid testing required for my continued employment. For the second time, he mistakenly revealed all email recipients who are not vaccinated. I responded with another “reply to all” to challenge my principal to explain how the “health orders” he signs are legal given federal Title 21 requirements for optional experimental medical products without coercion, or to join those of us asking questions about how these “orders” are anything other than Orwellian-illegal.

For the week of December 6, I followed-up with our school principal’s silence to our questions, and my briefed classroom students requested a Zoom meeting with the district to receive answers. Students were especially motivated to receive an explanation how the district can violate their own health “protocols” by “health ordering” unvaccinated students to “medical segregation” for 10 days without evidence of “exposure” to a “positive” “tested” student by being within 6 feet for 15 minutes or more.

On Friday December 10, I received the district’s reply to our Dec. 3 meeting: the district claimed that their policy requiring employee use of EUAs or being put on unpaid leave was a “broader right” of Title 21’s right of full and fail choice to accept or decline EUAs without coercion. I responded in detail with request for another meeting for HUSD to explain their Orwellian-inversion of simple terms to claim “broader rights” include forced student segregation and forced employee unpaid leave.

On December 14, I invited the district to surrender if they wanted to avoid an upcoming meeting with ~50 students with pointed questions. HUSD announced the following day they wouldn’t enforce student “vaccine requirements.” Because of the district’s refusal to address my questions in their December 10 response, I escalated those questions into Employee Grievances and/or District Complaints. On Dec. 18, I updated ~100 teacher colleagues on breaking events. This paragraph’s details are here.

Also on December 14, the district superintendent officially responded to placing my PLC on two months of censorship under threat of my employment termination if I continued reporting to teachers about concern(s) they claimed since April, but repeatedly refused to cite from anything I wrote, said, or did. They withdrew the censorship under claim that the “initial” censorship was valid due to district confusion that my addressing a doubled student failure rate was not “focused on standards based instruction, and/or school goals, and/or
district goals.” HUSD made this claim despite the PLC report in question stating in the first paragraph that the purpose of the report is to address our doubled student failure rate (btw: the reading level in the paragraph averaged at the 10th Grade level among 5 tests). HUSD claimed they needed “clarification,” and chose censorship rather than asking clarifying questions citing any concern. HUSD also chose silence over my two months of questioning to cite their concerns and alleged policy violations, including silence to two levels of my employee Grievance. My “clarification” was sufficient to remove district censorship, but not sufficient to remove district threat of my employment termination.

After the Winter break until January 3, 2022, our principal reported another claimed “positive” “case” of “Covid,” and “health” “ordered” 18 of my students into “separate but equal” medical segregation for 10 days of “isolated-public education.” Two students asked for my help to stand for their rights that HUSD has zero evidence they had “close contact” within 6 feet for 15 minutes to the “positive” student, as the district claimed was the rule for unvaxxed students. On Thursday Jan. 6 at 6:30 AM, I emailed the leaderships of HUSD, our teachers’ union, and our high school’s teachers (minus 12 who requested exclusion from such communications) of the facts, then one of the students and I met with the principal and assistant principal before school. The student, an 11th Grade female with spark and courage, further met with the AP after I left to teach classes, with the AP calling a school nurse then an assistant superintendent for help answering the question he couldn’t answer. Nobody had an answer of the district’s authority to QU-segregate students without proof of close contact. That assistant superintendent met the following morning with that student and a second segregated student (11th Grade male with quiet intelligence and strength), who promised to call the county health department because she also could not answer their question, yet maintained the district’s “health” “order” for their isolated segregation with the prima facie-illegal claim of “separate but equal” public education.

The assistant superintendent reneged on her promise to respond no later than Monday Jan. 10, and ignored my three emails requesting she state who she spoke with at the county public health department, what documents were referenced, and what was discussed. Because the assistant superintendent chose silence to these reasonable requests to fulfill her promise to two of my students, I emailed the leaderships of HUSD, our teachers’ union, and our high school’s teachers on Jan. 11, and again on Jan. 12 upon no district response. My sharing documentation of an Assistant Superintendent’s lies to two students provoked my school principal into ad hominem attack; stating my support of two segregated healthy students were “attacks,” “trying to indoctrinate students into his way of thinking,” and “is by far the lowest I have ever seen any “educator” sink in my 16 years in the profession.” The principal defamed my professional questions on school policies as “lengthy diatribes” “I refuse to respond,” then gave instructions to my teacher colleagues how to block all emails from me on any subject.

The week of Jan. 10 to 14 was distance learning via computer because the district sent home too many healthy unvaxxed staff to keep the schools open.

On January 12, I emailed to my broadest audience the documentation of the assistant superintendent ignoring my emails requesting a report how school segregation is legal that she promised my two students, given nobody at the district can explain. The only response we received from that assistant superintendent was to our first standing student: “I do not have an update on how to prove the distance before quarantining.” Please note that this non-answer does not fulfill her promise to report on what she discovered by calling the county public health department, and is similar to a student missing a promised and due report on public policy, and when asked about after two days being late, the student answers, “I do not have an update.”

This is a good time to mention that the California Teachers’ Association (CTA) ignored my second request for explanation how state and federal laws for optional experimental medical products can be violated by “health” “orders” (Oct. 20 and Dec. 30). I wonder why.

On Jan. 14, I emailed HUSD + HEA leaderships and our school’s willing teachers that two Assistant Superintendents have refused to document and explain how student segregation to isolated “separate but equal” public education is legal. I also withdrew my consent, in what I consider an excellent public essay.

On Jan. 18, the district emailed to all staff and community members an “updated” policy to segregate unvaxxed students and staff if they were “in the same indoor space” as somebody “testing” “positive.” My response to district and union leaderships + boards included my promise for student and community complaints if I did not receive reasonable evidence authorizing “in the same indoor space.” HUSD chose silence as their response. By Friday I had 26 of my healthy unvaxxed students “health” “ordered” to isolated segregation from this “same indoor space” invented phrase, but HUSD chose not to enforce this on staff. HUSD “picking and choosing” some arbitrary “health orders” to enforce and not other arbitrary “health orders” proves a hidden political agenda (political=policy=“what is done”) to manipulate our school community, and certainly not a commitment to “health.”

On January 17, I reported to my broadest HUSD email audience that the district’s “requirement” for masks outdoors is also apparently a contrived “order” outside their authority (CDPH + CDC state “optional”), and I raise the question of HUSD fraud. On Jan. 19, our school principal emailed all staff our monthly meeting notes from Curriculum Council. Among the notes: “Share with Departments. Was emailed to all parents and students. Wear masks inside and outside at all times.” I responded to all that requiring masks outdoors is outside CDPH and CDC guidance, so therefore the policy is in apparent error. The principal replied to all with choice to ignore the facts, and defame my response as both unprofessional and unworthy of serious response: “Aren’t you supposed to be teaching right now”? The principal’s defamation opened the door for other staff to join his unprofessionalism. I responded for the next ten hours. The principal never addressed the policy question nor the unprofessional ad hominem he began in a remarkable email chain from professional educators dedicated to factual mastery. I conclude this to be among the most powerful evidence against the district and for asking obviously important questions should I seek justice in a courtroom. This also validates my ongoing observation that ~98% of people cannot rise above “official” propaganda even when facts are clearly and professionally documented. I received my relative “Socrates verdict”

I engaged with our Social Science Department teachers (5 of 9 opted out) regarding these policies apparently outside legal limits. I offered our two hero students instructions how to file an official district complaint. I started calling the HR Assistant Superintendent during class time on speakerphone to get answers to our questions, emailed those questions to the Health Director and her, and promised to call with my classes until we got answers (we got no answers to messages we left).

One remaining report to catch up: On Jan. 22 I emailed leaderships of district, teachers’ union, and school admin (not boards) repeating documentation, questions, and promise to shine brighter light on the questions. Upon no response, on Jan. 23 I filed two more Grievances for apparently illegal policies on masks and student segregation, and promised to share the Grievances with teachers inviting their filing. I also promised to assist my 26 returning students from segregated “separate but equal” education to file complaints. On Jan. 23, the Superintendent promised a “response” the following day. On Jan. 24, I received notice from the HR Assistant Superintendent to not report to work on Jan. 25 (the first of 3 days of all-school final exams for the first semester, forcing me to cancel final exams for all my students) in order to be on a 9AM Zoom call that informed me I was placed on paid administrative leave to “investigate” my January 17 email (Update 1).

Paid administrative leave is censorship to remove my capacity to communicate with colleagues, and to stop my participation asking questions and citing apparent inconsistencies of HUSD “health” “orders” to limits of law. This censorship is because any answer HUSD has so far provided is further demonstration their “orders” are outside the law. HUSD will extend their “investigation” about how and why I asked questions (rather than answer obvious and essential questions) until the end of the school year, I predict

**
Update 1:

I engaged with our Social Science Department teachers (5 of 9 opted out) regarding these policies apparently outside legal limits: On Friday Jan. 14, I invited our Social Science teachers to have their 5th Period classes attend a planned Jan. 20th meeting with a district representative to answer our questions, and for these teachers of US Government, US History, and World History to answer the basic questions of limited government the district refuses to address. I also invited any interested teacher to invite me to address their classes on Tuesday Jan. 18 during my 5th Period preparation time (the day after the US federal holiday celebrating Dr. King’s anti-segregation work). First is my email, then interspersed are the replies of one US History teacher, and my answers.

On Monday Jan. 17 I asked them again if anyone could defend HUSD policy requiring masks outdoors. Nobody responded.

HHS Social Science teachers: invitation regarding “separate but equal” school segregation and destruction of Title 21 rights

Herman, Carl
Jan 14, 2022, 6:10 AM
pastedGraphic.png
pastedGraphic.png
to (5 of 9 Social Science teachers, with one requesting exclusion shortly later. The 4 already off had previously requested not to engage in this real-world history/law/civil rights condition directly connected to the school’s doubled failure rate the last school year with “distant learning.”)

Dear HHS Social Science colleagues,
I invite your 5th Period classes to attend a meeting with an HUSD representative to address these questions on Jan. 20 during 5th Period in either M-17 or the cafeteria if needed for space. I can accept individual students from any of your classes, and am willing to come to any 5th Period class on Tuesday Jan. 18 to inform students of the questions regarding their rights, and make the invitation. You are welcome to share the below documentation.

I invite any of you to answer the questions HUSD has refused, and/or to explain their “broader rights” argument. Conversely, you can attack such questions as Principal (name omitted) modeled, but I admonish against defamatory statements. You are also welcome to declare such questions outside your professional interests, as have (names of those 4 declining teachers).

Welcome back after honoring Dr. King for standing against school segregation,
Carl

Assistant Superintendents (omitted) and (omitted) both refuse to document legality of “separate but equal” school segregation and destruction of Title 21 rights. QU/segregation as an option exists NOWHERE I can find: if authority can’t be documented, it doesn’t exist

“But he hasn’t got anything on,” a little child said.

“But he hasn’t got anything on!” the whole town cried out at last.

~ The Emperor’s New Clothes, Hans Christian Anderson, 1837 (how people like me avoided censorship 200 years ago: place truth in children’s books)

Dear: Principal (omitted), Superintendent (omitted), Assistant Superintendent (omitted), Assistant Superintendent (omitted), Health Director (omitted), HUSD Board of Education Members, HEA President (omitted) and VP (omitted), HEA Board Members, and HHS colleagues:

I invite an HUSD representative to address this topic to interested HHS students and employees on Thursday Jan. 20 at 11:30 at HHS in my classroom (M-17) during my prep period. If more students and employees request to attend (or show up) than M-17 can safely hold, we can move the meeting to the cafeteria. As documented below, it is no longer reasonable to expect an HUSD response if this invitation is ignored or declined (I do have two active Grievances also attempting to get answers from Dec. 16 and Jan. 12, that so far have no responses from HUSD).

Because:
I have asked HUSD since November 22, 2021 (53 days ago, documented in Update 3) for evidence that HUSD has ordering authority to QU/segregate unvaxxed students without proof of “close contact” (within 6 feet for 15 minutes), and HUSD has failed to deliver any document nor explanation, despite Assistant Superintendent (omitted)’s direct promise to HEA President (omitted) and me to provide all source documents on a Dec. 3, 2021 Zoom call (42 days ago, documented in Update 2).
I find no such authority in any part of the most authoritative governing document, COVID-19 Public Health Guidance for K-12 Schools in California, 2021-22 School Year from the State of California Health Officer & Director, the Chief Executive of The California Department of Public Health (I checked all appropriate links).
Assistant Superintendent (omitted) promised two HHS students on Friday, January 7, 2022 to contact the (omitted) County Health Department that day, and report back to them no later than Monday, January 10. Despite an email from one student and 5 emails from me, (Asst. Supt.) has not answered who she contacted, what source documents they referenced, and what was said. (Asst. Supt.) did not respond to any email I sent, even the very public last one. (Asst. Supt.)’s only response was to a student with the non-answer to explain legal authority to “order” her to school segregation: “I do not have an update on how to prove the distance before quarantining.” (Asst. Supt.) did not remove the “order” despite having no evidence it is lawful.
Assistant Superintendent (HR) has refused to explain HUSD’s “legal” position that Title 21 Rights (below) to freely decline experimental medical products is given “broader rights” by suspending then expelling students who decline, and forcing employees on unpaid leave (Update 1). I have repeatedly requested an explanation to this prima facie-illegal “documentation” of law since December 12, 2021, over a month ago (Update 2). (Asst. Supt.) has not responded to 5 email requests for explanation since Jan. 7 (this is the 6th request).
HUSD is required to follow Board and health policies from local and state governments. However, if there’s a conflict between policies of federal law and state/local “mandates”/“orders”/“requirements”/“guidelines”/etc., then federal law is superior (see Article 6 of the US Constitution below). This is what we teach all California public high school students, which all of us are professionally obligated to uphold and model behavior from.

Therefore:
There is no evidence QU/segregation of students in school is an option.
There is no reasonable evidence Title 21 rights can be destroyed.
After 53 days of my direct and repeated requests, even in the most public professional forum available to me, it is no longer reasonable to conclude evidence for lawful QU school segregation exists. It is reasonable to conclude that Assistant Superintendent (HR), and now Assistant Superintendent (omitted), both refuse to provide evidence that QU school segregation is legal. Without such evidence, a reasonable person must reject “separate but equal” student segregation in public schools.
After 33 days of my direct and repeated requests, even in the most public professional forum available to me, it is no longer reasonable to conclude evidence to destroy federal law exists because their “broader rights” “documentation” is prima facie-illegal. It is reasonable to conclude that Assistant Superintendent (HR), and now Assistant Superintendent (omitted), both refuse a required professional explanation to expect consent from a reasonable person.
I am bound by our mutual Oath to withdraw consent from the prima facie-illegal policy of “separate but equal” school segregation of a minority group.
I am bound by our mutual Oath to uphold Title 21 rights, and withdraw consent from the prima facie-illegal “explanation” that HHS students and employees receive “broader rights” of our medical choices by forcing the harshest possible deprivations if we make a federally-protected choice.
I am bound by our mutual Oath to demonstrate superiority of US Constitution Article 6 that places Title 21 rights above state/local “mandates”/“orders”/“requirements”/“guidelines”/etc. Unless HUSD can correct my understanding, it is HUSD that must conform to what we teach all HHS, HUSD, and CA public high school students, and not me who must violate Article 6 that we are Oath-bound to uphold.
I invite my HUSD and HHS colleagues to consider authority administered by HUSD from our mutual Oath and CBA Article 3 (policies must be “in conformance to law)” to also withdraw consent.
These challenges already exist (among others) in two active Grievances under CBA Articles 3 and 25. The remedy is for HUSD to uphold existing Title 21 Rights (below) absent any reasonable HUSD counter-argument.
Regarding Title 21, HUSD’s “legal guidance” is from an anonymous attorney HUSD refuses to name, allow contact, or facilitate questions from. The two paragraphs expressly avoid matching Title 21 law onto “broader rights,” which is literally the one task the lawyer was supposed to explain (Update 1). The “explanation” cites no case law for legal precedent, which is required for an extraordinary claim to equate “broader rights” with “destruction of rights.” Because HUSD refuses to defend this anonymous claim, a reasonable person must conclude no defense exists or is possible. Again, as an AP US Government teacher with 18 years’ experience briefing Members of Congress, I have never witnessed a more Orwellian legal claim.

HUSD’s unanswered questions (on these issues alone):

How can HUSD exercise “separate but equal” QU-segregation without required evidence of close contact (within 6 feet for 15 minutes)?

Because “in-person instruction can occur safely without minimum physical distancing,” what legal authority does HUSD have to “health” “order” medical segregation?

Why doesn’t HUSD offer “in-person instruction” as authorized by COVID-19 Public Health Guidance for K-12 Schools in California, 2021-22 School Year?

Where does QU-segregation exist in any authoritative document for HUSD to have this as a legal option?

How is it at all reasonable to claim “broader Title 21 rights” is school segregation, student suspensions then expulsions, and employee unpaid leave?

Who is the anonymous lawyer making the “broader Title 21 rights” argument? Why is HUSD forbidding contact or questions about this bizarre “legal” claim without citation of case law or referencing how it applies to Title 21? Is the lawyer anonymous because such an “answer” is ridiculous, and no lawyer would put his/her name to it???

Principal (omitted), do you have any answers to this real-world social science test? The only answers I have from you so far is asking these questions, in your words, “attacks” HUSD personnel, is “disgusting,” these questions “indoctrinate students,” are “unnecessary attacks” so disgusting that you inform teachers how to block all emails from me for any work communication, and overall I am the lowest “educator” you have ever seen in your 16 years in the profession. I look forward to our Grievance meeting to personally discover if you have any answers, and if not to join our questions.

How about Assistant Superintendent (omitted)? Can you answer? Even one? You’ve had since November 22, 2021 to do your homework.

And Assistant Superintendent (omitted): how about you, Doctor? Did you at least call the Alameda County Health Department as you promised two HHS students a week ago, but haven’t responded to who you spoke with, what documents you referenced, and what was said? You did call, right?

Superintendent (omitted), surely you can answer these! May we have at least one person at HUSD leadership respond? (Supt.), the only answer I have is HUSD supports the “broader rights” to force employees on unpaid leave, and segregate students to “separate but equal” isolated-public education. I must return that answer as non-sensible doublespeak, unless you can explain otherwise. (Supt.)?

Any answer from HHS colleagues? I’ll send a separate email to my HHS Social Science colleagues for their expert analysis.

To inform everyone with relevant history, HUSD has refused at least 15 written requests to provide me the source materials they received to understand religious and medical exemptions for EUAs. I first asked on October 11, 2021, 95 days ago. Assistant Superintendent (HR) promised HEA President (omitted) and me on our December 3 Zoom call to deliver this (Update 2). If HUSD refuses to provide that information, how likely are they to ever answer our students, employees, and community with the above questions?

HUSD refuses answers to OBVIOUS and ESSENTIAL questions from a Professional Learning Committee (PLC), a teacher, and now two students, with the one “answer” HUSD provided as Orwellian on its face that destroying federal choices are our “broader rights.” The three areas of BASIC questions I’ve documented here have lasted 95 days, 53 days, and 33 days without answers from HUSD.

All of us seem to have a basic choice of either:
Obey dictatorial policy (dictated and without existence under the law) for segregated schools claiming destruction power over federal rights, despite our mutual Oath to support and defend limited government under Constitutional law. This position would fail a test for legality applied by all our 12th Grade US Government students, correct?
Honor our mutual Oath required by HUSD to support and defend limited government under Constitutional law by requiring reasonable answers to the above questions as a condition of consent. This position is consistent with what we teach all our students: federal rights are superior to state/local “mandates”/“orders”/“requirements”/“guidelines”/etc.
Choose wisely.

Because nobody has talked me down from what I document, I will continue to speak up, just as HUSD required of me as a condition of employment with our mutual Oath (although they refuse to explain our Oath, too).

Carl

Definitions + source documents:

HUSD CORE VALUES
Collaborative Leadership: We develop leaders at all levels who creatively tackle our challenges and communicate with integrity and transparency.
Data-Informed Decisions: We use multiple types of data, including stakeholder voice, to inform decisions and monitor progress.
Well-Supported Staff: We enhance the capacity of every employee to promote equity and model service excellence.
**

“Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision.”
~ California Health and Safety Code § 24171 to § 24176, the principle of informed consent universally used for any medical experiment, and the purpose of US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) to uphold The Nuremberg Code to end unwanted medical experiments forever (all EUAs are legally defined as “medical experiments”)

Article VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE (our mutual Oath)

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

Federal Article 18 Section 242: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW:

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

–
Carl Herman
(omitted) High School Mathematics Department
National Board Certified Teacher
National Board Certified Teacher Coach

May everything add up for you

Social Justice: save millions of lives, help billions of people, redirect trillions of dollars to help build a future brighter than we can imagine

Herman, Carl

Jan 14, 2022, 3:59 PM

pastedGraphic.png
pastedGraphic.png
to (5 of 9 Social Science teachers still open to at least receive this professional consideration)
pastedGraphic.png
Thanks for your interest, (omitted US History teacher)!

This document will get another color for my responses to your responses: I like this one

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 2:26 PM (omitted) wrote:

Hi Carl,
You’ve been sending a lot of lengthy emails lately, so I thought I would respond to this one so that you know why I am in disagreement with your position. I don’t expect you to change your mind, of course, people rarely do even in the face of mounting evidence. But understanding other perspectives is always valuable, and I have tried to understand yours, although I may be mistaken about what exactly you mean to say. My thoughts to your many inquiries below in blue.

In health,
(omitted)

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 6:10 AM Herman, Carl wrote:

I invite any of you to answer the questions HUSD has refused, and/or to explain their “broader rights” argument. Conversely, you can attack such questions as Principal (omitted) modeled, but I admonish against defamatory statements. You are also welcome to declare such questions outside your professional interests, as have (omitted 4 Social Science teachers).

Welcome back after honoring Dr. King for standing against school segregation,
Carl

“But he hasn’t got anything on,” a little child said.

“But he hasn’t got anything on!” the whole town cried out at last.

~ The Emperor’s New Clothes, Hans Christian Anderson, 1837 (how people like me avoided censorship 200 years ago: place truth in children’s books)

Do you mean “Group-Tracing”? I see no “Group-testing. I did look at all applicable links with my closest reading. All the info is in there, and I find notifications of students who may have been exposed, but no authority for QU-segregation. Can you find any? Your understanding is not what’s on the documents. This is the complaint, (omitted): HUSD “orders” QU-segregation without citing any authority when asked for 53 days (even in the loudest voice I have), even in discourse with two Assistant Superintendents, and even when (omitted Asst. Sup.) promises two students to provide documentation. So what I see is HUSD inventing “orders” outside their authorization; in this case school segregation of a minority group (~1/3rd unvaxxed, I estimate).
I find no such authority in any part of the most authoritative governing document, COVID-19 Public Health Guidance for K-12 Schools in California, 2021-22 School Year from the State of California Health Officer & Director, the Chief Executive of The California Department of Public Health (I checked all appropriate links).
Assistant Superintendent (omitted) promised two HHS students on Friday, January 7, 2022 to contact the (omitted) County Health Department that day, and report back to them no later than Monday, January 10. Despite an email from one student and 5 emails from me, (Asst. Supt.) has not answered who she contacted, what source documents they referenced, and what was said. (Asst. Supt.) did not respond to any email I sent, even the very public last one. (Asst. Supt.)’s only response was to a student with the non-answer to explain legal authority to “order” her to school segregation: “I do not have an update on how to prove the distance before quarantining.” (Asst. Supt.) did not remove the “order” despite having no evidence it is lawful.
Assistant Superintendent (HR) has refused to explain HUSD’s “legal” position that Title 21 Rights (below) to freely decline experimental medical products is given “broader rights” by suspending then expelling students who decline, and forcing employees on unpaid leave (Update 1). I have repeatedly requested an explanation to this prima facie-illegal “documentation” of law since December 12, 2021, over a month ago (Update 2). (Asst. Supt.) has not responded to 5 email requests for explanation since Jan. 7 (this is the 6th request).
As far as I know, there has been absolutely zero discussion of suspending or expelling students who don’t get vaccinated or forcing it on employees on threat of firing. In fact, both the Board and the District were careful to set up several alternatives, the primary one being weekly testing, which is not experimental and does not trigger Title 21. Unless I’m misunderstanding you?

Oh, yeah, I confirmed with HEA President and Asst. Sup. (HR): if students or employees decline experimental products (masks and tests are EUAs), then they are directed down paths terminating in suspensions, expulsions, and forced unpaid leave. Piedmont USD just lost a lawsuit for requiring vaccinations, but HUSD has not taken that final step. Title 21 protects everyone in the US from any EUA, with that language repeated in CA Health and Safety Code, and motivated by the Nuremberg Code.
HUSD is required to follow Board and health policies from local and state governments. However, if there’s a conflict between policies of federal law and state/local “mandates”/“orders”/“requirements”/“guidelines”/etc., then federal law is superior (see Article 6 of the US Constitution below). This is what we teach all California public high school students, which all of us are professionally obligated to uphold and model behavior from.
What right protected by the United States is being infringed? As I said, I don’t know of any students being suspended or expelled from school (and anyway, education is not a right protected by the Constitution, sadly). And the SCOTUS has long ruled in favor of public safety over individual freedoms, particularly in public institutions like public school. Students in fact tend to have far fewer rights than other citizens. While I often disagree with SCOTUS, and I tend to believe that students should have more rights than they do, I don’t see a clear disregard for federal law in the way HUSD has handled Covid and don’t know of any federally protected freedom that a quarantine from school breaks.

Title 21 is federal law, and superior to state and local. This is a simple Article 6 application. Therefore, Title 21 rights can’t be infringed by the state. Read Article 6 for its cool original use of the word “notwithstanding” meaning federal law is supreme, with anything a state saying “not with legal standing” and all judges bound to uphold federal law.

Therefore:
There is no evidence QU/segregation of students in school is an option.
Why do you use the term “segregation” for a temporary health quarantine? Being required to stay home when ill is not the same as segregation, and students have multiple ways of proving they are not ill when they’ve come in contact with someone with a confirmed case of Covid.

Oh! I think I understand the confusion now. HUSD is QU-segregating all asymptomatic unvaxxed students if they were in a classroom with someone who “tested” “positive.” They are not asked anything; just “ordered” home with no documented authority to demonstrate the authority exists and no evidence of close contact! HUSD made it up outside the limits of COVID-19 Public Health Guidance for K-12 Schools in California, 2021-22 School Year, and now can’t respond to my questions because they made it up. That’s the best explanation I have that matches the facts. Anyone have another explanation? If QU-segregation was legal, (omitted Sup. and 2 Asst. Sups.), or SOMEONE would point to the document, right? That’s what anyone honest would do. That’s what you would do, (omitted US History teacher). Even (omitted Dept. Chair in humor) would do that.
There is no reasonable evidence Title 21 rights can be destroyed.
As no one is required to vaccinate, Title 21 is not being destroyed. I do agree that HUSD is butchering the meaning of “mandate” which they did discuss during their initial meeting about the mandate, and unfortunately decided to continue with the language. As the resolution stands, vaccines are not actually mandated by the “mandate,” therefore Title 21 remains intact.

Title 21 protects against all EUAs, so any force to use any EUA is a violation. Right?
After 53 days of my direct and repeated requests, even in the most public professional forum available to me, it is no longer reasonable to conclude evidence for lawful QU school segregation exists. It is reasonable to conclude that Assistant Superintendent (HR), and now Assistant Superintendent (omitted), both refuse to provide evidence that QU school segregation is legal. Without such evidence, a reasonable person must reject “separate but equal” student segregation in public schools.
After 33 days of my direct and repeated requests, even in the most public professional forum available to me, it is no longer reasonable to conclude evidence to destroy federal law exists because their “broader rights” “documentation” is prima facie-illegal. It is reasonable to conclude that Assistant Superintendent (HR), and now Assistant Superintendent (omitted), both refuse a required professional explanation to expect consent from a reasonable person.
That’s a LOT of emails (maybe they answered one and ignored the rest because they had stated their position the first time?), and linking to common dictionary definitions is weird and condescending. And you’re using them wrong. “Prima facie-illegal” isn’t a real term, and you aren’t a judge of a court trying to decide whether a case has merit. Just say “it seems illegal.”

You assume what you don’t know. IF they answered, I would know and HUSD would point it out. (Asst. Supt.) promised two of my students and couldn’t deliver. “Refuse” is the proper term to use because it’s no longer reasonable to use something like “delayed.” Prima facie is the perfect term to use to describe this situation because prima facie is the exact legal term to demonstrate sufficient evidence to support a legal conclusion. All I’m saying here is that if you asked as many times as I did, (US History teacher), and for as long as I did, you would come to the same conclusion: they ain’t answering, and the policy is illegal on its face without an explanation to clarify.
I am bound by our mutual Oath to withdraw consent from the prima facie-illegal policy of “separate but equal” school segregation of a minority group.
Again, super unclear what part of the Constitution you think applies here or what you consider a valid “minority group.” Are people who have tested positive for Covid your “minority group?” Or unvaccinated people? These are not protected classes according to the federal or state governments. Do you really believe that the Constitution doesn’t make allowances for public health and safety?

Article 6, for one. The unvaxxed are a minority group who are being treated unequally. If you want to argue about protected classes applied to these circumstances, I’d be curious to receive it. But you can’t make a hypothetical case. On its face (prima facie) Title 21 rights can’t be violated. Right?
I am bound by our mutual Oath to uphold Title 21 rights, and withdraw consent from the prima facie-illegal “explanation” that HHS students and employees receive “broader rights” of our medical choices by forcing the harshest possible deprivations if we make a federally-protected choice.
Staying home for a few days until you’ve tested negative is “harshest possible deprivations?” A little dramatic…

This is for declining EUAs of masks, tests, “social distancing,” etc.
I am bound by our mutual Oath to demonstrate superiority of US Constitution Article 6 that places Title 21 rights above state/local “mandates”/“orders”/“requirements”/“guidelines”/etc. Unless HUSD can correct my understanding, it is HUSD that must conform to what we teach all HHS, HUSD, and CA public high school students, and not me who must violate Article 6 that we are Oath-bound to uphold.
As I explain above, I don’t think HUSD is in violation of Title 21.

Did you know masks and tests are EUAs?
I invite my HUSD and HHS colleagues to consider authority administered by HUSD from our mutual Oath and CBA Article 3 (policies must be “in conformance to law)” to also withdraw consent.
These challenges already exist (among others) in two active Grievances under CBA Articles 3 and 25. The remedy is for HUSD to uphold existing Title 21 Rights (below) absent any reasonable HUSD counter-argument.
Regarding Title 21, HUSD’s “legal guidance” is from an anonymous attorney HUSD refuses to name, allow contact, or facilitate questions from. The two paragraphs expressly avoid matching Title 21 law onto “broader rights,” which is literally the one task the lawyer was supposed to explain (Update 1). The “explanation” cites no case law for legal precedent, which is required for an extraordinary claim to equate “broader rights” with “destruction of rights.” Because HUSD refuses to defend this anonymous claim, a reasonable person must conclude no defense exists or is possible. Again, as an AP US Government teacher with 18 years’ experience briefing Members of Congress, I have never witnessed a more Orwellian legal claim.

There’s actually just SO MUCH legal precedent regarding public safety trumping individual rights in public schools. I’m surprised that they couldn’t offer you any examples. To use a famous one, students have less right to privacy on campus (locker searches, etc. without a warrant) because the safety of other students is considered paramount. (New Jersey v. TLO) There’s also numerous examples of state-imposed quarantines throughout USA history. I don’t always AGREE with the SCOTUS on these cases, but there certainly IS precedent.

Yeah, so the lawyer just “forgot,” or is it that there is no case law and the lawyer bullshitted? It’s gotta be the second. Title 21 rights for free and fair choice over EUAs has never been challenged that I’m aware of. Pretty much the whole world of non-psychopaths was for the Nuremberg Code for none, zero, nada forced medical products.

HUSD’s unanswered questions (on these issues alone):

How can HUSD exercise “separate but equal” QU-segregation without required evidence of close contact (within 6 feet for 15 minutes)?

You have linked to the very document that outlines procedures of contact tracing that does not require evidence of close contact. Once they are contacted, students can offer several different proofs of lack of Covid, including that they were not in close contact with the infected individual.

Read 7, 8, and 9 again: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Schools-FAQ.aspx If you think you found something other than the following summary, please cite it: the “guidelines” state that close contact is within 6 feet for 15 minutes (even posted on HUSD’s info as a definition). Even with close contact, all asymptomatic students may remain at school if masked. Nowhere do I find anything about QU-segregation for unvaxxed. Do you?

Because “in-person instruction can occur safely without minimum physical distancing,” what legal authority does HUSD have to “health” “order” medical segregation?

What is with all the weird quotation marks? Quarantine is not the same as segregation, and one of the safety measures is contact tracing and quarantining sick individuals. It’s right there in the documentation you provided.

the first is quoting the guidelines that unvaxxed students who are asymptomatic stay at school. Read the rules closley, if you’re interested. Unless you’re the first person to find documentation for QU-segregation, then it is a “health” “order” made up by HUSD, right? And as I said, if they can’t document the authority after months, and are now lying to my students to provide it but refuse, then it looks like HUSD invented this authority to deny students equal education under the law. Talk me down if you can

Why doesn’t HUSD offer “in-person instruction” as authorized by COVID-19 Public Health Guidance for K-12 Schools in California, 2021-22 School Year?

Not sure what you mean. I’ve been in the classroom teaching until this week, when we closed campus due to staffing shortages. Are you referring to this week’s closure? They made it very clear that that was not a strictly public health issue, probably to avoid this very accusation.

It’s the rules HUSD violates. HUSD “orders” unvaxxed students in a class with a positive case to QU-segregate for 10 days. The guidance says to give them “in-person instruction” without anything anyone can find for QU-segregation. This week’s emails (you think they take long to read, try writing them) were from two students asking for my help to get the proof they were in 6 feet of a positive case for 15 minutes. I was “health” “ordered” home by (omitted Principal) in November, until I asked him to check the rules to see he was wrong. I then asked if they were automatically sending all unvaxxed students into QU without proof of close contact. And they are. That’s when I asked to see their authority because it’s nowhere I can see. And that’s when HUSD started ignoring the question. (omitted union Pres.) had to force (omitted HR Asst. Sup.) to respond. At our Dec. 3 Zoom meeting with (union Pres.), (HR Asst. Sup.) promised to send all source materials to show me how QU-segregation was lawful. She has refused to do so. (omitted US History teacher), this is strong evidence. Can you think of any other reason HUSD fails to provide the documentation, even when called out to literally everyone of importance I can email?

Where does QU-segregation exist in any authoritative document for HUSD to have this as a legal option?

“QU-segregation” is a term you made up that doesn’t actually correspond to the situation. Quarantines are legal and, I’d argue, necessary during a serious pandemic. Even if you disagree, it’s well-documented in the links you’ve already provided.

Uh, no. Show me where in the documents there is anything to “order” unvaxxed students into QU-segregation (and I’m keeping that term I made up ‘cuz it has bite). See, (omitted US History teacher), that’s the WHOLE THING: until someone can show where in the guidelines HUSD has the authority, I will speak up. Can you find it?

How is it at all reasonable to claim “broader Title 21 rights” is school segregation, student suspensions then expulsions, and employee unpaid leave?

As far as I know, none of these things have happened, unless you define segregation as a temporary quarantine of less than 2 weeks, which neither I nor any of this documentation do. There are allowances spelled out for people who don’t want to get vaccinated, which many people don’t and haven’t.

Again, HUSD makes the claim that their local “orders” that remove Title 21 rights for full and free choice over any EUA are made “broader in choices” by penalizing choices to decline EUA masks, tests, etc. Even within the limited state guidance, HUSD further encroaches to dictatorial power by apparently making up 10 days of QU-segregation when students/families exercise the protected choice to decline EUA injections. If this isn’t clear, let’s chat about it next week. This should be super-simple: Title 21 as federal law is supreme over local law. Title 21 says full and free choice. CA, etc., says their “mandates”/whatever are superior over federal law, which is the opposite of what Article 6 says.

My guess is that it’s not their job to answer emails from staff, but to advise the district on their legal standing, and they don’t want to pay them extra. Since most school districts have similar policies, it seems strange to blame the one lawyer HUSD employs.

You don’t appreciate the Orwellian claim that penalizing federally-protected choices is “broader rights.” Again, we can discuss if you want. If you want, invite me to your 5th period class on Tuesday. I made a final invite to HUSD to answer on Thursday 5th Period, otherwise “refuse” is their final answer.

How about Assistant Superintendent (omitted)? Can you answer? Even one? You’ve had since November 22, 2021 to do your homework.

And Assistant Superintendent (omitted): how about you, Doctor? Did you at least call the (omitted) County Health Department as you promised two HHS students a week ago, but haven’t responded to who you spoke with, what documents you referenced, and what was said? You did call, right?

Any answer from HHS colleagues? I’ll send a separate email to my HHS Social Science colleagues for their expert analysis.

My “expert analysis” is that when you repeatedly call people out in extremely lengthy emails that accuse them of unconstitutional behavior, they may well feel attacked and also might reasonably conclude that you’re trying to bait them into a response that you can sue them over, what with all the faux legal terms and links to definitions and oaths. In their place, I would absolutely not respond and instead forward it to my lawyer, but since I don’t have any skin in this game, I thought I’d try to figure out what your argument is.

(omitted US History teacher): (HR Asst. Supt.) promised two HHS students the source material and refuses to deliver. (HR Asst. Supt.) promised (teachers’ union President) and me to deliver since Dec. 3 and refuses. That’s why I’m calling them out. And yeah, Article 6 seems to be violated, so this is sufficient evidence to call people out when they refuse to answer, especially to our children.

To inform everyone with relevant history, HUSD has refused at least 15 written requests to provide me the source materials they received to understand religious and medical exemptions for EUAs. I first asked on October 11, 2021, 95 days ago. Assistant Superintendent (omitted) promised HEA President (omitted) and me on our December 3 Zoom call to deliver this (Update 2). If HUSD refuses to provide that information, how likely are they to ever answer our students, employees, and community with the above questions?

This part makes you sound a little yelly. Also it sounds like they have responded, you just didn’t think their answers were sufficient, so you sent them a bunch more emails. They may be ignoring you because you already have all the answers they’re willing to provide.

I am yelly at this point, Sister, so I’m glad that communicates What they’re “willing to provide” is what they provided my students: nada. Unless you can explain and defend their “broader rights” argument for Title 21 full choice over EUAs. Title 21 is simple: HUSD shouldn’t care what families and students choose for experimental medical products, right? All the penalties to not participate in EUAs are the opposite of free choice.

Choose wisely.

As I’ve said, all this seems pretty above-board to me. Just because I don’t like it, doesn’t make it illegal. Your entire argument seems based on an inaccurate reading of the district procedures as they relate to Title 21 (admittedly the district has also misused language here, notably “mandate”) and the extremely questionable use of the term “segregation” when in fact you mean “temporary quarantine.”

Find the authority for 10 days of QU “whatever” for unvaxxed students and show me. Without that, then there is no evidence for that authority, and it must be rescinded upon notice, right?

You seem to be somewhat fanatical about this topic, so I doubt you’re in a place where you could really change your mind, but I look forward to your further communications with the district, as it’s always healthy for them to be challenged in their assumptions.

I think that your position is not defensible in the face of a pandemic, as one of the purposes of government is to organize a response against such threats, and the only way you could stand behind it is if you believe that Covid is not real or not dangerous – a deeply privileged position ignorant of quite a lot of data, both expert and first-hand.

On another note, you may want to consider sending shorter emails with just one or two questions. These long missives are pretty difficult to get through, and the different bolding/italics/quotation marks make them sound more than a little unhinged. Less is more!

My position is for HUSD to have policies within the law, plain and simple. I’m doing the best I can to stay at “yelly” rather than “unhinged” and so far feel good about the balance

Hey (omitted US History teacher), thanks for your interest. All of us wish the best for family and you on your adventure to join us parents! I think you’ll find many inventive ways to juggle the many adventures here and now, and more to “grow on.”

And if anyone could cite an official document about the QU-segregation, I’ll thank them and shut up about that. I don’t think anyone can defend HUSD’s “broader rights,” and would love to engage in such an argument.

(A second email to the Social Science Department on Jan. 17):

Social Science colleagues: HUSD documented authority also doesn’t exist to “require” masks outdoors, or do you see any authority?

Herman, Carl

Mon, Jan 17, 8:51 PM
pastedGraphic.png
pastedGraphic.png
to (5 of 9 Social Science teachers still open to at least receive this professional consideration)

Anybody have a defense of HUSD policy with masks?

If not, is anybody motivated to join us in these questions?

This Thursday during 5th Period, HUSD will decline our invitation to meet with interested students and community members to address these questions. When they do, our group will “march” to the Admin building for those interested to file official complaints with the district.

The remedy is simple: HUSD either proves ordering authority, or respects freedom of choice. That remedy applies to QU-segregation, Title 21, masks, and wherever else.

Real-world history teaching,
Carl

HUSD documented authority also doesn’t exist to “require” masks outdoors. Where else is HUSD dictating non-existent “orders”? Is this fraud?

“There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. There is also no question that many rights originally founded in fraud become—by lapse of time, by the difficulty of proving the fraud, and by the protection which the law throws around rights once established by formal judicial proceedings in tribunals established by law, according to the methods of the law—no longer open to inquiry in the usual and ordinary methods.” ~ US Supreme Court, 98 U.S. 61, 25 L.Ed. 93, UNITED STATES v. THROCKMORTON (upheld since 1878)

“[CA public school students] will learn that all citizens deserve equal treatment under the law, safeguarded from arbitrary or discriminatory treatment by the government. …Students will examine both the constitutional basis for and current examples of the fact that members of the government are themselves subject to the law… Students learn that democracies depend on an actively engaged citizenry—individuals who fully participate in the responsibilities of citizenship (such as voting, serving in the military, or regular public service)— for their long-term survival. … Students may also define and identify illegitimate power and explore how dictators have gained and held onto office. The fundamental components that typically distinguish democracies from dictatorships include control of the media, lack of political and personal freedoms, corruption of public officials, lack of governmental transparency, and the lack of citizens’ access to changing the government. Case studies should be included in this unit in order to consider the economic, social, and political conditions that often give rise to tyranny. Does such a government rest on the consent of the governed? Do citizens have rights that the state must respect; if so, what are they? What is the role of civil dissent, and when is it necessary?” ~ California History-Social Science Framework, Chapter 17: Principles of American Democracy (pages 434, 435, 437, 451, with bold added)

*****************

HUSD Leadership: Please confirm:
Everyone outdoors on HUSD properties are free to remove face coverings/masks.
HUSD documented information that face coverings are “required” “at all times” at school is false.
Immediately and publicly make corrections to all false HUSD “health” “orders.”
Report where else HUSD is dictating contrived and non-existent “health” “orders,” or any other policies outside of legal limits.
All: See for yourselves that HUSD “requirements” seem false: Reconnect with HUSD: 2021-22 School Year District Safety Plan:

“Students in levels PreK-12 are required to wear face coverings at all times, while at school, unless exempted under California Department of Public Health (CDPH) guidelines.” (pg. 5)

“All staff, regardless of vaccination status, must wear face coverings at all times in PreK-12 settings.” (pg. 6)

The most authoritative governing document, COVID-19 Public Health Guidance for K-12 Schools in California, 2021-22 School Year from the State of California Health Officer & Director, the Chief Executive of The California Department of Public Health:

1. Masks

a. Masks are optional outdoors for all in K-12 school settings.

California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Face Coverings Q&A:

Does anyone need to continue to wear masks outdoors?

In general, people do not need to wear masks when outdoors.

Will unvaccinated children and youth be required or recommended to wear a mask during recess outdoors if they cannot maintain physical distancing?

In general, unvaccinated children and youth do not need to wear a mask outdoors, even if they cannot maintain physical distancing.

HUSD has REFUSED to document authority in three previous areas of “health” “orders”:
HUSD refuses to document authority to QU-segregate healthy unvaxxed students to “separate but equal” isolation, despite my 56 days of requesting (documented in Update 3).
HUSD refuses to explain or document their claim of HUSD power to destroy Title 21 federal rights that are US supreme law under Article 6 of the US Constitution, except for prima facie-illegally claiming that the destruction of protected choices gives us “broader rights of choice.” HUSD has refused to explain this Orwellian claim for 36 days (documented in Update 2).
HUSD refuses to provide documentation they received to administer medical and religious exemptions for Emergency Use Authorized medical products (EUAs), actively preventing employees to make informed choices (98 days refusing to respond, documented in Update 2).
Therefore:
I will exercise our mutual Oath administered by HUSD as a requirement for employment, uphold CDPH Guidance for optional outdoor masks, and uphold Title 21 rights for free and fair choice of EUAs, exactly as HUSD requires from all employees. HUSD has ignored all of my requests to discuss our Oath (~20 times and counting), administration expectations to honor our Oath, and how to report apparent violations.
I will assist all employees to honor our HUSD-administered Oath, and assist all students and community members to uphold applicable laws (especially superior Title 21 federal rights).
HUSD will refuse my invitation emailed on Friday Jan. 14 to address interested HHS students and employees on Thursday Jan. 20 at 11:30 at HHS in my classroom (M-17) during my 5th Period prep (if more students and employees request to attend or show up than M-17 can safely hold, we can move the meeting to the cafeteria). This will confirm complete HUSD refusal to respond to not only me, but to our students and other interested employees. Prove me wrong to address our questions, HUSD.

After our Thursday Jan. 20 5th Period meeting, with or without HUSD present, those interested will march to the Administration Building, and file district complaints with Principal (omitted) for HUSD to uphold COVID-19 Public Health Guidance for K-12 Schools in California, 2021-22 School Year and Title 21 rights, and provide the following remedies:
If HUSD cannot immediately provide documented proof to QU-segregate students, HUSD must immediately remove the policy.
If the documentation authorizing QU-segregation exists, HUSD already is familiar with it because they designed QU-segregation policy from valid written authorization. If the documentation doesn’t exist, then HUSD must tell all of us why they invented an illegal policy, and apologize for taking away students’ rights for an equal education. Equal rights is not “separate but equal” school segregation. We all celebrate a federal holiday for Dr. King opposing school segregation, for God’s sake.
HUSD must explain how their “health orders” to students can violate Title 21 protected rights to freely accept or decline EUAs. If HUSD refuses to explain, then HUSD must uphold Title 21 rights for everyone’s choice about experimental medical products on or in one’s body. If HUSD repeats their answer to Mr. Herman that forcing EUA use is a “broader Title 21 right,” they’ll have to explain how forced QU-segregation for “separate but equal” public education is a “broader right” to free choice without force. HUSD will also have to explain how forced student removal from school upon declining experimental masks for 7+ hours a day, or refusing experimental tests penetrating students’ nostrils are “broader rights” to make free medical choices.
Are other (omitted) County school districts also QU-segregating students? If HUSD has no documentation of QU-authority, then HUSD must not only remove the policy here, but take reasonable actions that all other (omitted) County School Districts stop QU-segregation. If it’s wrong for HUSD students, then it’s wrong for everyone.
HUSD must also take reasonable actions that all (omitted) County school districts uphold Title 21 rights. We are (city omitted) leaders, and we speak up!

Exercising our mutual Oath to consider fraud:

As an AP US Government teacher with National Board Certification for 10 years, and exercising our mutual Oath with honor, I must point to the evidence for HUSD fraud. Fraud is a serious accusation, and the most accurate I have as a professional scholar because HUSD refuses to provide any documentation to support “health” “orders” outside applicable laws cited here. In addition, this behavior is consistent since I began asking questions about “health” “orders” 16 months ago beginning in September, 2020. As always, and perhaps cumulatively for literally ~100 times, if HUSD would like to correct my good-faith representation of the facts, let’s talk

Let’s consider what I have to work on, given HUSD’s refusal to document or explain how their “health” “orders” are within the law, and given the documentation I’ve found and cited seem to show HUSD’s policies are outside the law:

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant’s actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.”
Matching HUSD’s actions onto the five elements of fraud:
1. False statement of material fact:
HUSD made and makes false statements of QU-segregation ordering authority. If nobody can document the authority, it does not exist.
HUSD made and makes false statements that “broader Title 21 rights” are honored by “separate but equal” school segregation, and forced use of EUAs to attend school, and for employees to be paid. These are false on their face.
2. Knowledge the statement is untrue:
HUSD should have the documentation authorizing QU-segregation because they referenced valid written authorization to create the policy. Because HUSD cannot produce the documentation under all reasonable and repeated requests, then we must conclude the documentation doesn’t exist. If the documentation doesn’t exist, then HUSD invented the policy from some undisclosed political agenda to manipulate the public. Therefore, HUSD knew they were issuing a false policy outside their authorization because they invented it in either isolated or coordinated political planning.
HUSD’s statement that forced “separate but equal” school segregation, and forced use of EUAs to attend school (and for employees to be paid) are our “broader Title 21 rights to freely choose” is untrue on its face. No reasonable person can argue it is true that segregation because of a protected Title 21 choice (declining experimental injections) are “broader rights” to the segregated. None but psychopaths argue that permanent segregation of students from campus who exercise a Title 21 option to decline experimental medical products is any student’s “broader right.” It is untrue that HUSD employees would agree we have “broader rights” if HUSD declared that contractual and lawful rights can be destroyed by HUSD dictatorial order, with forced unpaid leave if we stand for our previous lawful rights.
3. Intent to deceive
HUSD could only invent QU-segregation policy (with “separate but equal” “justification”) with intent because they intentionally invented a policy outside the guidance they received.
Because nobody can believe HUSD’s anonymous attorney’s two paragraph tragic-comic “explanation” how federally protected rights are DESTROYED by Orwellian “broader rights,” this means the statement is intentional, not accidental. Because HUSD has continued to deceive after my questionings months ago, HUSD is acting with intent to ongoingly deceive.
4. Justifiable reliance by Hayward community and employees on HUSD official statements
HUSD has a legal duty of care to our students, families, and employees to only and always respect legal limits of their governing authority, and are Oath-bound to do so.
5. Resultant injuries
QU-segregated students received injuries, and are receiving injuries (including fear of future “segregation orders”) from forced school segregation by HUSD’s choice to illegally remove unvaxxed students from in-person instruction. I’ve had ~500 total student class days lost to QU-segregation among my HHS students this year, and estimate ~6,000 total student days at HHS. HUSD also lies that students receive an “equal education” based upon last year’s data of a doubled student failure rate throughout the district (I’m sure the worst decline in HUSD history). HUSD would be more accurate to warn the segregated students they begin the “most unequal education” known in HUSD history.
Removing rights is an injury on its face. In addition, forcing medical experiments on people is most closely associated in history with Crimes Against Humanity. Again: “Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision.” ~ California Health and Safety Code § 24171 to § 24176, the principle of informed consent universally used for any medical experiment, and the purpose of US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) to uphold The Nuremberg Code to end unwanted medical experiments forever (all EUAs are legally defined as “medical experiments”)

In closing, regarding HUSD’s apparently-illegal wording about masks, from Children’s Health Defense:

JANUARY 13, 2022
LAUSD Attempts to Enact Illegal Mask Mandate that Exceeds CDPH Guidelines

On January 3, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) imposed an illegal, illogical and counter-productive mask requirement update on its student body, strongly requiring that all masks are, “well-fitting, non-cloth masks of multiple layers of non-woven material with a nose wire,” and that students mask outdoors, except when for when eating and drinking. In issuing this new requirement, LAUSD has not only failed to rely on legal or scientific authority, but is surpassing the requirements of the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), which explicitly states that masks are optional outdoors for all school students.

CDPH states that masking outdoors is optional for ALL school students

This new directive is not only unscientific, but also quite confusing to parents and will further erode public trust in any health authority. Kids have been forced to wear face masks for almost 2 years, even though Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) admit that face masks are useless protection against a virus. After two years of leading the public astray, does LAUSD expect parents to react with trust when faced with the sudden directive to double mask and wear a surgical mask and/or an N-95? Trust in yet another directive when public health authorities specifically advise against surgical and N-95 masks for kids because “they do not fit properly and can impede breathing”? Furthermore, masks are Emergency Use Authorized (EUA) products and therefore, can’t be mandated.

Trust in yet another directive when public health authorities have in the past specifically advised against surgical and N-95 masks for kids

We ask, is there an evidence-based solution that allows kids to both breathe for 6-8 hours and “avoid” a virus whose current Omicron variant is so highly contagious (and mild), that it is escaping vaccine and booster immunity and infecting the population at unheard-of levels? According to the latest bevy of expert opinions, including CNBC, The Atlantic, and Fauci, himself, Omicron may actually present the end of this pandemic due to its mild nature. Omicron may finally induce “herd immunity,”something which no Covid-19 vaccine has been able to provide because none of the Covid-19 vaccines prevent infection or transmission.

In response, attorneys for Children’s Health Defense – California (CHD-CA) and Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids (PERK) issued a cease and desist through the Facts Law Truth Justice (FLTJ) Law Firm, placing LAUSD on notice of illegally expanding an already-onerous mask mandate. “There is no legal, scientific, or medical basis for this requirement, which actually conflicts with current medical and scientific findings and guidance,” the letter states, “It is impossible to understand the reason behind LAUSD’s need to ignore data showing the enormous harms masks have on the children in its abusive ‘care’ or its need to go beyond global, national, and local recommendations.”

With this Cease and Desist letter, our attorneys gave LAUSD an opportunity to rescind their new unlawful masking requirements – or face further legal action.

Currently, our litigation against LAUSD is specifically about the unlawful school vaccine mandates, but given LAUSD’s continuing abuse of all of our children, CHD-CA is contemplating broadening the scope to include additional claims for LAUSD’s unlawful masking, testing, and other abusive and discriminatory policies that have long ceased to make any scientific sense.

*****************

Definitions + source documents:

Article VI

STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE (our mutual Oath)

Federal Article 18 Section 242: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW:

“Fraud: A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant’s actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.”

“But he hasn’t got anything on,” a little child said.

“But he hasn’t got anything on!” the whole town cried out at last.

~ The Emperor’s New Clothes, Hans Christian Anderson, 1837 (how people like me avoided censorship 200 years ago: place truth in children’s books)

Update 2:

I offered our two hero students instructions how to file an official district complaint:

next step is easier: district complaint to require their answer

Carl Herman

Sat, Jan 15, 7:41 PM
pastedGraphic.pngpastedGraphic.png
to (Student 1 + 2)
pastedGraphic.png
My Sister and Brother!
First, thank you again for standing. Teachers are talking about this

Because (Asst. Supt.) lied to you, and now refuses to provide documentation to QU-segregate, a complaint is an easy next step. I wrote what I feel is a good one that I’ll share with you. If you like it, we can use it just as it is. If you want to write your own and only use parts or none, that will work!

This is my suggestion:
You two file a complaint. It just needs the problem and solution you want, that’s it. You email it to (Supt.), Assistant Superintendent (omitted) and (omitted), Principal (omitted), (omitted to receive official complaints), and me. I can get you all the email addresses. It doesn’t have to be on any form, it can just be an email with both your names on it.
If you want to put it on blast, we can email everyone I did: HUSD leadership, our teachers’ union leadership, and all HHS teachers (except ~12 who are mad we keep asking questions and standing for our rights). That’s what I would do, but it’s up to you. This would get the most attention, and likely end the problem fastest.
After we send the email of the complaint, we wait. The rules say they have 10 work days to respond to both of you.
You won’t get in trouble for using my ideas because I’m just stating the facts, and we share the same question for HUSD to prove they have “health” “order” authority. Besides, you totally have my permission, and in the real world, people hire lawyers for this kind of work and let them write it

We might get a lot of students interested in meeting with (Asst. Supt.) on Thursday Jan. 20 during 5th period. Would you like to attend? If so, I can ask your 5th Period teachers if you want. If she doesn’t show up, you can share the complaint with the students and employees who do show up (or I can share for you, or help you share), then we can march to the Admin. Building for all other interested students and employees to file a complaint! You can complain if a group of students is discriminated against, and that’s exactly what’s happening.

What I have so far for a complaint:

We file a complaint regarding (Asst. Supt.) because of the following events.

First, please read the quarantine recommendations from the most authoritative governing document, COVID-19 Public Health Guidance for K-12 Schools in California, 2021-22 School Year from the State of California Health Officer & Director, the Chief Executive of The California Department of Public Health:

8. Quarantine recommendations for student close contacts who have NOT completed the primary series of COVID-19 vaccines NOR were previously infected with (laboratory confirmed) SARS-CoV-2 within the last 90 days for exposures when both parties were wearing a mask, as required in K-12 indoor settings. These are adapted from the CDC K-12 guidance and CDC definition of a close contact. See the K-12 Schools Guidance 2021-2022 Questions & Answers for additional recommendations to focus on high-value contact tracing to protect students and staff.

a. When both parties were wearing a mask in any school setting in which students are supervised by school staff (including indoor or outdoor school settings and school buses, including on buses operated by public and private school systems), students close contacts (more than 15 minutes over a 24-hour period within 0-6 feet) may undergo a modified quarantine as follows. They may continue to attend school for in-person instruction if they:

i. Are asymptomatic;
ii. Continue to appropriately mask, as required;
iii. Undergo at least twice weekly testing during quarantine; and
iv. Continue to quarantine for all extracurricular activities at school, including sports, and activities within the community setting; OR

b. Schools may follow the recommendations provided in the Group-Tracing Approach to Students Exposed to COVID-19 in a K-12 setting

And second, please read our rights under state and federal law Title 21:

Last one as a reminder:

HUSD CORE VALUES
Equity: We develop systems, policies, and practices that promote opportunity and success regardless of race, language, zip code, or any other factor.
Well-Supported Staff: We enhance the capacity of every employee to promote equity and model service excellence.
Integrated Partnerships: We form partnerships that align with our priorities and strengthen student support.
Collaborative Leadership: We develop leaders at all levels who creatively tackle our challenges and communicate with integrity and transparency.
Data-Informed Decisions: We use multiple types of data, including stakeholder voice, to inform decisions and monitor progress.

The events:
HHS student (1) received an HUSD letter dated January 5, 2022 stating “because we have determined that your child may have had in-person contact of closer than six feet, for durations of 15 minutes or longer…” that (student 1) is “to quarantine for 10 days due to the possible exposure.”
(Student 1), in the company of Mr. Herman, met with HHS Principal (omitted) before school on Thursday Jan. 6 to request documented proof that HUSD can “health” “order” a healthy student to “separate but equal” segregated public education without evidence she was “within 6 feet for 15 minutes.”
According to the state’s quarantine recommendations cited above, even with proof of close contact the only recommendation is to continue in-person instruction.
The CDC states quarantine is only for students within 6 feet for 15 minutes of a positive case, or within 3 feet for 15 minutes if both people were masked (chart version).
Principal (omitted) stated he had no documentation that HUSD could QU a student without proof of close contact, and sent (student 1) to Assistant Principal (omitted) for further assistance.
Assistant Principal (omitted) said he had no documentation, and called Nurse (omitted).
Nurse (omitted) said she had no documentation, so Assistant Principal (omitted) called Assistant Superintendent (omitted).
(Asst. Supt.) said she had no documentation, and met with (student 1) and HHS student (omitted) (also QU-segregated) the following day, Friday January 7.
(Asst. Supt.) promised to call the (omitted) County Public Health Department, and report back no later than Monday, January 10.
(Asst. Supt.) did not respond until after an email from (student 1) on Wednesday, Jan. 12. (Asst. Supt.) did not report who she contacted, what documents they looked at, and what was said. (Asst. Supt.)’s only response was the non-answer: “I do not have an update on how to prove the distance before quarantining.”
(Asst. Supt.) ignored Mr. Herman’s repeated emails cc’d to the students requesting who was contacted, what was said, and what documents were referenced.
(Asst. Supt.) did not remove the “health” “order” for healthy (Student 1 + 2), but instead continued their “separate but equal” segregated public education, despite having no documentation it is lawful, and the state’s official document cited above not having QU-segregation as an option.
We don’t know what HUSD can cite because (Asst. Supt.) refuses to show us. Mr. Herman informs us that he has requested HUSD documentation to legally “QU-segregate” students without proof of close contact since November, 2021. After this amount of time has passed, it seems reasonable to conclude HUSD has no documentation. If they had it, they would show it. We complain about this.
We learn from the US Constitution under Article 6 that federal law is “supreme” when there is a conflict with state or local law. Title 21 forbids any force to families and students who decline experimental injections, so HUSD cannot treat unvaccinated students any differently from vaccinated students.
Title 21 applies to all experimental medical products, including all Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) tests, masks, etc.

Remedy requested:
If HUSD cannot immediately provide documented proof to QU-segregate students like (Student 1 + 2), HUSD must immediately remove the policy.
If the documentation authorizing QU-segregation exists, HUSD already is familiar with it because they designed QU-segregation policy from valid written authorization. If the documentation doesn’t exist, then HUSD must tell all of us why they invented an illegal policy, and apologize for taking away students’ rights for an equal education. Equal rights is not “separate but equal” school segregation. We all celebrate a federal holiday for Dr. King opposing school segregation, for God’s sake.
HUSD must explain how their “health orders” to students can violate Title 21 protected rights to freely accept or decline EUAs. If HUSD refuses to explain, then HUSD must uphold Title 21 rights for everyone’s choice about experimental medical products on or in one’s body. If HUSD repeats their answer to Mr. Herman that forcing EUA use is a “broader Title 21 right,” they’ll have to explain how forced QU-segregation for “separate but equal” public education is a “broader right” to free choice without force. HUSD will also have to explain how forced student removal from school upon declining experimental masks for 7+ hours a day, or refusing experimental tests penetrating students’ nostrils are “broader rights” to make free medical choices.
If students had an assignment to research a law, but turned it in two days late only after being reminded, and only wrote back to the teacher “I do not have an update,” then that would be a deserved “F.” Nobody should accept that for a passing grade for high school, middle school, or even elementary school, and especially not from an HUSD Assistant Superintendent. (omitted) must immediately report who she spoke with at the (omitted) County Public Health Department, what documents were discussed, and what was said.
Are other (omitted) County school districts also QU-segregating students? If HUSD has no documentation of QU-authority, then (Asst. Supt.) must not only remove the policy from HUSD, but take reasonable actions that all other (omitted) County School Districts stop QU-segregation. If it’s wrong for HUSD students, then it’s wrong for everyone.
(Asst. Supt.) must also take reasonable actions that all (omitted) County school districts uphold Title 21 rights. We are (omitted city) leaders, and we speak up!
(Asst. Supt.) should return to HHS to speak to interested students and employees on Thursday Jan. 20 in room M-17 at 11:30 (Mr. Herman’s room). This meeting will either affirm the policies were outside guidelines and are removed, or to defend QU-segregation and/or Title 21 violations.

Respectfully,

Carl Herman

Sat, Jan 15, 8:18 PMpastedGraphic.png
pastedGraphic.png
to (Student 1 + 2)
pastedGraphic.png
… and you know what else would be cool: if you each wrote a few sentences to HHS Admin and teachers asking them to stand with you.

If I share your complaint “on blast” in an email to everyone, then everyone will know that students are calling them out.

I’m telling you, they think they can ignore me when I’m all alone, but they for sure can’t run from students. When they see two, they know more will come.

**
Update 3:

I started calling the HR Assistant Superintendent during class time on speakerphone to get answers to our questions, emailed those questions to the Health Director and her, and promised to call with my classes until we got answers (we got no answers to messages we left):

Questions on masks outdoors + “in the same indoor space” quarantines

Herman, Carl
Jan 21, 2022, 9:53 AMpastedGraphic.png
pastedGraphic.png
to (HR Asst. Supt., Heath Director, teachers’ union President + VP)

Happy Friday, Colleagues!
My HHS class and I called this morning, and left a phone message for (HR Asst. Supt.), and a written message was taken for (Heath Director).

26 of my 120 total students are quarantined (22%). Here are our questions, the information our classes have discussed and our entire HHS staff have considered with 43 replies (and counting) to HUSD’s mask policy:
HUSD has a policy of masks “at all times,” including outdoors. CDPH, CDC both state masks are optional outdoors. What is the documented authority HUSD has to “order” masks “at all times”?
HUSD sent emails that stated “quarantine” if “Exposed: In the same indoor space with a person who has COVID-19.” CDPH and CDC both define exposed the same as close contact (within 6 feet for 15 minutes). What is the documented authority HUSD has to “order” “in the same indoor space”?
How is HUSD not in violation of Ed Code 49403 to “cooperate with the local health officer in measures” with masks outdoors and “in the same indoor space”?
HUSD claims compliance with federal law Title 21 rights because HUSD policy provides “broader rights.” How are HUSD consequences of removal from schools for students and employees, and unpaid leave for employees “broader rights” to Title 21 freedoms to decline EUAs?
Masks

Reconnect with HUSD: 2021-22 School Year District Safety Plan:

“Students in levels PreK-12 are required to wear face coverings at all times, while at school, unless exempted under California Department of Public Health (CDPH) guidelines.” (pg. 5)

“All staff, regardless of vaccination status, must wear face coverings at all times in PreK-12 settings.” (pg. 6)

COVID-19 Public Health Guidance for K-12 Schools in California, 2021-22 School Year from the State of California Health Officer & Director, the Chief Executive of The California Department of Public Health:

1. Masks

a. Masks are optional outdoors for all in K-12 school settings.

California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Face Coverings Q&A:

Does anyone need to continue to wear masks outdoors?

In general, people do not need to wear masks when outdoors.

Will unvaccinated children and youth be required or recommended to wear a mask during recess outdoors if they cannot maintain physical distancing?

In general, unvaccinated children and youth do not need to wear a mask outdoors, even if they cannot maintain physical distancing.

CDC: Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 schools

Outdoors: In general, people do not need to wear masks when outdoors. CDC recommends that people who are not fully vaccinated wear a mask in crowded outdoor settings or during activities that involve sustained close contact with other people. Fully vaccinated people might choose to wear a mask in crowded outdoor settings, especially if they or someone in their household is immunocompromised.
**

From Assistant Superintendent (HR omitted), and consistent as I’ve asked:

At this time, the District is following governing protocols as referenced in our Board Policy 5141.22 and Education Code 32282 and 49403, which direct the District to cooperate with local health officer measures necessary for the prevention and control of communicable diseases in school age children specific to influenza pandemic episodes.

From Ed Code 49403:

(a)?Notwithstanding any other law, the governing board of a school district shall cooperate with the local health officer in measures necessary for the prevention and control of communicable diseases in schoolage children.

“In the same indoor space”

Guidance for Local Health Jurisdictions on Isolation and Quarantine of the General Public, and please confirm) the term “exposed” is synonymous with “close contact.” That same guidance proves “exposed” is the same as “close contact” just after “Table 3″:

Exposed persons, whether quarantined or not:

Should consider testing as soon as possible to determine infection status and follow all isolation recommendations above if tested positive. Knowing one is infected early during quarantine enables (a) earlier access to treatment options, if indicated (especially for those that may be at risk for severe illness), and (b) notification of exposed persons (“close contacts”) who may also benefit by knowing if they are infected.
**

The CDC states quarantine is only for students within 6 feet for 15 minutes of a positive case, or within 3 feet for 15 minutes if both people were masked (chart version).

HUSD policy to quarantine unvaxxed students on page 5 of HUSD’s Jan. 16 chart is beyond what’s authorized by what I assume is the most authoritative governing document, COVID-19 Public Health Guidance for K-12 Schools in California, 2021-22 School Year from the State of California Health Officer & Director, the Chief Executive of The California Department of Public Health:

i. Are asymptomatic;

ii. Continue to appropriately mask, as required;

iii. Undergo at least twice weekly testing during quarantine; and

iv. Continue to quarantine for all extracurricular activities at school, including sports, and activities within the community setting; OR

b. Schools may follow the recommendations provided in the Group-Tracing Approach to Students Exposed to COVID-19 in a K-12 setting

On the last page of Reconnect with HUSD: 2021-22 School Year District Safety Plan:

Our Trusted Sources of Information
Information regarding the pandemic and safety protocols can change regularly. We rely on the following trusted sources of information, among others, to make important decisions and keep you informed:
Alameda County Public Health Department School Guidance During COVID-19
Alameda County Office of Education School Reopening Information & Resources
Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Guidance and Resources
I looked at HUSD’s three trusted sources:

HUSD’s first trusted source provides a link to the very first document I cited that demonstrates “exposed” = “close contact,” and to the state guidance I cited above that does not list quarantine as an option for “in the same indoor space.” In fact, where did HUSD find the term “in the same indoor space” I could not find anywhere? From that first source:

TK-12 Schools

California Department of Public Health (CDPH) released Guidance for Local Health Jurisdictions on Isolation and Quarantine of the General Public.
School staff can follow this updated isolation and quarantine guidance (see tables 1-3 in the guidance)
Students can follow this updated isolation guidance (see table 1 in the guidance)
**

HUSD’s second trusted source confirms the definition of close contact as “having multiple brief exposures adding up to 15 minutes” if, and only if, that exposure was within 6 feet. This HUSD trusted source provides three template letters about quarantine to send home (1, 2, 3) that all begin with, “Your child has been identified as having close contact exposure” which confirms HUSD’s burden of proof to demonstrate close contact for a quarantine option. The bottom of page 11 refers to CDPH’s K-12 Schools Guidance 2021-2022 Questions & Answers for more information on quarantine, which states again the requirement for close contact:

Asymptomatic student close contacts who have NOT completed the primary series of COVID-19 vaccines NOR were previously infected with (laboratory confirmed) SARS-CoV-2 within the last 90 days exposed to COVID-19 may qualify for a modified quarantine, provided they meet criteria listed in the K-12 Guidance.

HUSD’s third trusted source of Cal/OSHA had this information from the FAQs that is linked in their first paragraph, again confirming that HUSD must be able to prove close contact, and not “in the same indoor space”:

Addressing COVID-19 Cases in the Workplace
Q: What is a “close contact”?
A: An employee has had a close contact if they were within six feet of a COVID-19 case for a cumulative total of 15 minutes or greater in any 24-hour period within or overlapping with the “high risk exposure period.”
**
Title 21

Up next!

On Jan. 22 I emailed leaderships of district, teachers’ union, and school admin (not boards) repeating documentation, questions, and promise to shine brighter light on the questions. Upon no response, on Jan. 23 I filed two more Grievances for apparently illegal policies on masks and student segregation, and promised to share the Grievances with teachers inviting their filing. I also promised to assist my 26 returning students from segregated “separate but equal” education to file complaints. On Jan. 23, the Superintendent promised a “response” the following day. On Jan. 24, I received notice from the HR Assistant Superintendent to not report to work on Jan. 25 (the first of 3 days of all-school final exams for the first semester, forcing me to cancel final exams for all my students) in order to be on a 9AM Zoom call that informed me I was placed on paid administrative leave.

I’ll get these reports out as quickly as possible under the circumstances.

Stay tuned for our next episode

**
I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History (also credentialed in Mathematics), with all economic factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences (and here). I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.
**
Carl Herman worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at [email protected]

Note: My work from 2011 to October 2017 is on Washington’s Blog, which the owner closed from Internet censorship in 2019, and here since. Work back to 2009 is censored by Examiner.com (blocked author pages: here, here). This means that some links in essays are inactive. If you’d like to see those articles, go to http://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the search box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive.

Source: https://carlbherman.blogspot.com/2022/02/challenging-our-public-school-districts_6.html

Before It’s News® is a community of individuals who report on what’s going on around them, from all around the world.

Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.

"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.

Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!

Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!

HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.

Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.

MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)

Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!

Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.

Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).

Comments

Online:
Visits:	1,604,586,501
Stories:	8,153,679