Challenging our public school district’s obedience to county ‘health’ ‘orders’: Principal ‘orders’ me home 10 days for ‘possible Covid exposure’ until I demand definitions proving ‘district error,’ superintendent to meet with teachers’ union president+ me

“The rules are simple: they lie to us, we know they’re lying, they know we know they’re lying, but they keep lying to us, and we keep pretending to believe them.” ~ Elena Gorokhova, A Mountain of Crumbs (also attributed to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn)

Perhaps the most helpful communication is a summary of events to the most recent article, the specific updates when they occurred, and preview of coming events (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).

This is 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.

Summary (links = full documentation): The California “lockdown orders” we were all told were 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) that requires “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.”

As a NorCal public school teacher, at the start of our school year in September 2020 I inquired to our district’s leadership and teachers’ union how their negotiated policy to “obey” county “health” “orders” is legal given the above reasonable limits to dictatorial authority. I cited our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions. 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).

After two requests, the district contact person responded by ignoring my questions, and that employees are required to obey “California mandates” “to protect you” under threat of being terminated. I emailed our district superintendent, school board members, my school principal and two interested teachers that we teach all high school students in our US History classes 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 to support 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 to communicate privately that they wouldn’t pursue the grievance to arbitration because the working conditions were negotiated in good faith. The grievance process finished with district and union agreement the complaint didn’t qualify as a grievance.

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 also 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 with a phone call response in December, with their promise to follow-up, and silence since then.

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 is happening with Governor Newsom) or electing other legislators.

School district and CA government “answers” are therefore 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 power until legislators or governor say 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 has yet to respond to my questions regarding their undocumented complaints as the “foundation” to their threats.

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.” We Zoom-met, and our union President met with district Assistant Superintendent of HR on May 25, 2021. The district emailed me claiming my PLC report somehow “harasses or disparages” my colleagues “based on their political beliefs,” yet fails again to provide any documentation or explanation despite the union and my requests.

I filed three employee grievances for apparent contract violations, with our contract requiring my silence of proceedings. On July 8, I spoke by phone with our teachers’ union president, who reported that the district is again considering my Grievances as employee complaints, with 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 2021 – ‘22 school year for staff, students, and families to obey “the most restrictive health measures” “ordered” by state, county or federal government. I asked the first question 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.

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. We will not respond to requests for documentation of what is ordered as “healthy,” nor even acknowledge the question was asked despite our legal obligation to explain how all policies are within the limits of the law.
If teachers ask further questions how our “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. I have a second conversation scheduled to hopefully initiate lawsuit against my school district (and perhaps other parties).

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 will 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 will address the question of mandatory student “vaccines” on Wednesday, September 22. I responded to district and teachers’ union leadership with legal notice of their prima facie-crimes, and initiated another employee Grievance for contract violation guaranteeing policies in conformance to law. My attorneys affiliated with AFLDS are watching district and union responses with professional interest, as they choose which cases are best to vigorously pursue.

On Wednesday September 22, the school board voted 5-0 to “mandate” full student “vaccination” for “Covid” (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, and I’ve initiated our organized work including informing the 3 attorneys paying full attention to these developing cases. I’m also actively engaged in three current employee Grievances, and will give 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 for 20 months.

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”). Parents and employees are organizing. 3 teams of AFLDS attorneys are ready to file suit(s) if this case is considered the next best landmark case to pursue.

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.”

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 dire predictions for the public consequences to HUSD official silence beyond “just follow orders,” and 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 (despite 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). This week also had our teachers’ union request accepted for a December 1 “Level III” Grievance meeting with the superintendent to discuss district censorship of my PLC. HUSD continues 6 weeks of failure to provide me legal definitions of the medical exemption process, but agreed to meet for discussion on Dec. 3. Both of these meetings will be attended by the teachers’ union President and me. Ten students have voiced interest in a “Truth Club,” and have submitted paperwork to our Associated Student Body (ASB) with me as their club sponsor to address student interest for truth regarding “the pandemic” and other game-changing areas of truth (here, here, here).

**

Update 1:

Nov. 15 principal email “health order” for me to segregate and quarantine for 10 days with follow-ups:

URGENT: Please send these students to the Quad

(Principal)

Nov 15, 2021, 8:50 AM (9 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png

to bcc: me

pastedGraphic.png
Period 1 – Coach (name omitted)
Period 2 -(name omitted)
Period 3 – (name omitted)
Period 4 – (name omitted)

All unvaccinated students will be sent home, all vaccinated student will return to class with a pass.

Please stay safe and well,
(name omitted)
Principal

**

Herman, Carl

Nov 15, 2021, 9:36 AM (9 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png

to (Principal, 4 Assistant Principals, teachers’ union President + VP)

pastedGraphic.png
(Principal), this is a policy of prima facie-illegal segregation because Title 21 and CA Health and Safety Code makes EUAs optional without any application of duress. HUSD refuses to answer, so I ask you to help get an answer: How can these state/county “health orders” supercede federal law given Article 6 of the Constitution is explicit that federal law is supreme regardless of what a state claims?

This is basic education for any Social Science teacher, agreed?

This is just one of the three definitive and cited laws I will continue to ask about and engage with in good-faith application of our mutual Oath to support and defend limited government under the US and CA Constitutions. This is what is expected of this required Oath, yes?

Please know that I will share your answer with our community, teachers, staff, and students.

**

Just after I sent that email, the principal came over the all-school in-classroom speaker system to call another group of teachers’ students, including my current 2nd Period class. I escorted my students to the school main quad/open area, and approached an Assistant Principal seated at the metal benches with his laptop open talking with the first student in a line of ~30 students. I estimated ~200 students “health ordered” to determine the status of their “health papers.” Conversation highlights:

AP: Mr. Herman, it’s my understanding you’ll be ordered home.

Carl: Really?! For what purpose?

AP: The goal posts have been moved.

Carl: So what we were told before the school year that we’d have to be within 6 feet of a student for 15 minutes or longer is no longer the agreement? Should I go in and talk to (principal)?

AP: You can wait out here. He’ll be right out.

Carl: You know Los Angeles Unified is being sued over this stuff.

AP: This district needs to be sued.

I then observed the AP ask the lined students for their name so he could check our Infinite Campus grading/attendance program for a “Covid compliant” green check mark. About 2/3rds of the students had one. Those who did received a pass to class with no further remarks. Those who did not were asked, “Are you fully vaccinated?” A “yes” was asked for photographic proof, and if provided received the pass back to class. For those without proof or saying they were not fully vaccinated: “Go to the Attendance Office” to be sent home for the next 10 days.

The principal arrived, set up his laptop at a bench on the opposite side of the quad, and processed students. When he finished, I approached.

Carl: (AP) said you’re sending me home for 10 days?

Principal: Yes. I sent you an email.

Carl: So the rules have changed since our teacher training that I’m only “exposed” with 15 minutes or more within 6 feet of a “positive” student?

Principal: I don’t remember saying that.

Carl: You had a demonstration with (AP) and said it would be kind of creepy if a teacher was spending more than 15 minutes that close to a student in class. May I please have the documentation on this rule?

Principal: Sure. I’ll send it over.

Carl: I’ll look, too.

A total of 14 students enrolled in my classes were “ordered” home for 10 days. My 2nd Period students were “ordered” to the cafeteria, and I went back to my class alone. I found the document, and then checked email:

Mon, Nov 15, 9:45 AM (10 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to me, (Admin team of APs)

pastedGraphic.png
Mr. Herman,

Just called your room. You will need to leave campus now as well.

Please stay safe and well,

**

Herman, Carl

Mon, Nov 15, 10:23 AM (10 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to (principal, Teachers’ union President + VP, 4 APs)
pastedGraphic.png
The flow chart you sent says “if exposed” which is defined as 15 minutes or more of contact 6 feet or less, true?

Because I have never been 6 feet or closer to any student more than 5 minutes maximum, please cite the authority to order me away from work.

**

Mon, Nov 15, 10:28 AM (10 days ago)pastedGraphic.png
pastedGraphic.png
to me, (Teachers’ union President + VP, 4 APs)

Mr. Herman,

If you can verify that at no point on 11/12/21, during your 2nd period class, were you within 6 feet of your students for 15minutes or more, then you can stay. You have been officially notified, and that will be your decision.

**

Herman, Carl

Mon, Nov 15, 10:32 AM (10 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to (principal, Teachers’ union President + VP, 4 APs)
pastedGraphic.png
I do so verify.

Here’s the definition that shows teachers exercising their legal right to decline experimental medical products should not be segregated:

https://covid-19.acgov.org/covid19-assets/docs/isolation-quarantine/cl…

It seems your information was incorrect.
pastedGraphic.png
**

(teachers’ union president)

Mon, Nov 15, 10:58 AM (10 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to me
pastedGraphic.png
Hello Carl

I will ask about the protocol in writing from the district when addressing being sent home – criteria steps etc.
**

Herman, Carl

Nov 15, 2021, 12:15 PM (10 days ago)pastedGraphic.png
pastedGraphic.png
to (teachers’ union president)

Thank you, (name omitted). I think I found it, which is what (principal) told us in teacher training but apparently forgot, or was told something new by the district. (Assistant Principal) said another teacher was already sent home in error.

**
Update 2:

Superintendent and teachers’ union agree to “Level III” Grievance meeting over district attempted censorship of my Professional Learning Committee (PLC): We virtually meet next week. By contract, I cannot provide further details.

**

Update 3:

District continues 6 weeks’ failure to provide definitions and source material for medical exemptions, but agrees to meet with teachers’ union President and me: After a week more of continued silence from my last report, and motivated by my school principal’s “errant” “health” “order” to segregate me from any school property for 10 days, I continued the conversation. Here’s the email chain:

Herman, Carl
Nov 15, 2021, 12:07 PM (10 days ago)pastedGraphic.png
pastedGraphic.png

to (Health Director, Assistant Superintendent of HR, Superintendent, School Board Members, teachers’ union President + VP + Board, school Principal + Admin Team)

Principal (name omitted) just “ordered” me home for “possible exposure to Covid.” Only because I asked, we checked the definition of “close contact”/”exposure” and discovered the “order” was in error. Assistant Principal (name omitted) told me another teacher had already been sent home.

You’re welcome.

I have been denied by HUSD ((names omitted)) the basic definitions for medical exemptions for 5 weeks. Please provide them.

As I extensively documented, I have been denied basic answers to similar questions for EUAs for over a year. Please answer them. For example, how can CA/County “order” EUAs when superior federal law Title 21 prohibits those orders, and by Article 6 of the US Constitution is affirmed as the supreme law regardless of what the state claims? How can (superintendent name omitted)/HUSD’s claim to be required to “just follow orders” ignore superior and required federal law to follow???

**

(Teachers’ Union President)

Nov 16, 2021, 3:47 PM (9 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to me

pastedGraphic.png
Hello Mr Herman

I see that you were requesting a meeting regarding an exemption request. Within that request, you asked for union representation at the meeting. The District appears to believe that your request aligns with an interactive meeting. ( I have never attended an “exemption meeting”) The District can and should respond to your question about the definition of an “interactive” meeting, but my experience has been that an interactive meeting is initiated by a members request to work with accommodations contained within a doctor’s note eg hours , the doctor’s note has included that the person must sit every hour for 20 minutes. The meeting is held and the district determines the accommodations that they are able to meet. Typically, our role within an interactive meeting is one of bearing witness to the meeting since medical accommodations are outside of our scope.

Please let me know if you would like me to attend the meeting and we can go from there. Also, please let me know if you need any assistance in trying to have (Health Director) respond to your requests in a more timely manner.

Thank you

**

Herman, Carl
Nov 17, 2021, 5:37 AM (8 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to (teachers’ union president)

pastedGraphic.png
Hi (name omitted),
First, thank you for hanging in there with this challenging and unprecedented issue of apparent illegal “health” “orders.” I know it may be impossible to accept, but literally each and every CA student is taught the legal chain of authority I’m standing with in my interactions with HUSD and HEA. HUSD avoids direct answers to my questions because the only answers they can provide prove this.

In responses to you:
What communications have you had with who at HUSD to determine what they believe or not for an “interactive meeting”? It seems to me that if they believed this, then (Health Director) would have responded to me. I called her office on Nov. 16, was told she wasn’t in, and left a message requesting she email me back (no response from her). I’ll continue to call daily until I either get a response or am told she refuses to speak with me.
What is the written legal definition of “interactive meeting”?
Until I have the definitions I requested, I cannot make a determination of what to request of HUSD or where to stand in that specific area. Because (Health Director) refused to provide definitions she MUST HAVE BEEN PROVIDED in order to do a medical exemption process, I escalated my request for definitions to (Assistant Superintendent), HEA leadership, and Principal (name omitted) beginning on October 28 in this email chain, then repeated on November 7 and 14. So yes, please help: “Provide me with the legal definition of “medical interactive process” (including authority given to HUSD from such process), legal definition of “personal hardship” on the reasonable accommodation form you provided, and legal definition of “medical condition.” Because HUSD is administering a process using these terms, HUSD is obviously responsible to know and provide those definitions. HUSD’s failure to respond for five weeks and counting while I’m forced with threat of unpaid leave for failure to endure forced experimental weekly “testing” is prima facie-negligence.”
Yes, please, I would like HEA representation at any meeting with HUSD given my experience of their ongoing unprofessionalism by refusing to answer how HUSD/(superintendent name omitted) can cite ordering authority under California Education Code § 49403 to “cooperate with the local health officer in measures necessary for the prevention and control of communicable diseases in schoolage children” by forcing teachers to use experimental “medical” products under threat of employment termination and $1,000 fines per violation with up to a year in jail under Cal. Penal Code §§ 69, 148(a)(1) while refusing to address cited US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) that requires administration of EUAs with “option to refuse” without penalty or discrimination. Title 21 is US Code governing all US food and drug policies, and under Article 6 of the US Constitution is “supreme Law” when state law contradicts federal Law.
Btw, (name omitted): CTA is bullshitting all of us to claim Title 21 only prevents employee kidnapping for forced employer injections at will. Ask anyone knowledgeable and objective outside CTA’s lawyers to discover this. If you allow me to talk with your CTA source for their claim, their “answer” will prove this when I ask how they come to this conclusion given uncontested context (as far as anyone has ever historically argued I know of) of The Nuremberg Code with its explicit language mirrored in California Health and Safety Code § 24176. It is indefensible under the reasonable person standard of law for HEA to support CTA’s literally prima facie-criminal claim. Allow me to just speak with HEA’s attorney, and I will also demonstrate this to that lawyer. We are in agreement I’m accurately reporting CTA’s “argument” to allow forced medical products on teachers as a condition of employment, yes?
I already started an “interactive process” of sorts when I asserted in the Oct. 31 email in this chain, to which HUSD has refused to respond: “I assert my rights under California Health and Safety Code § 24176 that EUAs uphold everyone’s right to “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,” and notify HUSD that I am exempt from EUAs. Please acknowledge my exemption that HUSD will respect with no further influence on my option to refuse experimental medicine. If you refuse to honor my rights under California Health and Safety Code § 24176, then explain how HUSD refusal of this Health and Safety code is lawful. HUSD’s current “answer” that HUSD must “follow orders” does not address how those “orders” can violate standing law(s).”
I have requested to meet since Nov. 7, and am eager to do so. Again: “In response to all of you choosing silence to my reasonable requests for definitions of the key terms for a medical exemption, and silence to my understandable assertion of law to exercise Natural Rights, I request a meeting with (Health Director) and/or (Assistant Superintendent of HR), along with a HEA representative(s) to:
Explain to me how our rights under California Health and Safety Code § 24176 that all potential EUA medical experiment participants “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” are being honored by HUSD/HEA requirements to use EUAs as a condition of employment.
Explain to me how HUSD citation of California Education Code § 49403 to “cooperate with the local health officer in measures necessary for the prevention and control of communicable diseases in schoolage children” justifies blind obedience to prima facie-illegal county/state “orders” that the public must use medical experiments on their bodies or be subject to $1,000 fines per violation with up to a year in jail under Cal. Penal Code §§ 69, 148(a)(1). The prima facie violation is with US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) that requires administration of EUAs with “option to refuse” without penalty or discrimination. Title 21 is US Code governing all US food and drug policies, and under Article 6 of the US Constitution is “supreme Law” when state law contradicts federal Law.
Explain to me how HEA’s interpretation of Title 21 only forbidding employers/government from kidnapping employees at work to forcibly inject them with whatever experimental “medicines” “ordered” by government is a reasonable explanation of the letter and intent of the legal term “option to refuse” given the uncontested historical context of The Nuremberg Code to forever stop any kind of medical experiment except from fully-informed volunteers. This is the same principle of informed consent universally used for any medical experiment.
Provide me with the legal definition of “medical interactive process” (including authority given to HUSD from such process), legal definition of “personal hardship” on the reasonable accommodation form you provided, and legal definition of “medical condition.” Because HUSD is administering a process using these terms, HUSD is obviously responsible to provide definitions. HUSD’s failure to respond for four weeks and counting while I’m forced with threat of unpaid leave for failure to endure forced experimental weekly “testing” is prima facie-negligence.

HUSD cannot both cite one code to “justify” “orders,” and at the same time ignore superior federal code that demonstrates the state’s ordering authority is void.”

Thank you
Carl

**

(Assistant Superintendent)

Nov 18, 2021, 12:45 PM (7 days ago)

pastedGraphic.png
to me, (Principal, Health Director, Superintendent, Teachers’ union main email, teachers’ union VP)

Mr. Herman,

It is my understanding that you affirmed with your administrator that you did not sustain potential contact with the confirmed positive student, and that you remain at work as you are not experiencing symptoms. The COVID Response team will contact you shortly to gather the required information to confirm. At this time, we encourage you to continue to monitor your symptoms, notify the District through the Frontline Daily Health Screener if you are experiencing symptoms, and refer you to available free testing.

As you have submitted a request to meet regarding a medical exemption from weekly testing, I can offer the following dates to meet with (Health Director) and myself:

(Omitted dates) (Teachers’ Union President) is available at that time if you wish her to be present with you as your representative.

Please confirm your attendance.

Kind regards,
Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources

**

Herman, Carl

Nov 22, 2021, 9:35 AM (3 days ago)

pastedGraphic.png
to (Assistant Superintendent, Principal, Health Director, HEA main email, HEA President + VP)
pastedGraphic.png
Ms. (Assistant Sup),
I tentatively accept your invitation to meet with (Health Director), (HEA Pres), and you on (date omitted) dependent upon you confirming that HUSD and HEA are not depriving me of my legal rights to consider a medical exemption by failing to provide the definitions of key terms I began requesting on October 11, six weeks ago.

(Assistant Sup):
In order to administer medical exemptions, you were provided public information from government agencies. If there is a legitimate problem providing me this information to my repeated requests for 6 weeks, explain now. What information have you been provided by government agencies to administer a medical exemption?
Again, is it legal for HUSD to withhold such definitions upon employee request? And again, because I requested similar definitions from HHS Principal (name omitted) on Monday Nov. 15, we discovered his “health orders” to forbid another teacher and my presence from any HUSD property for 10 days was illegal.
Explain how it is lawful for HUSD to segregate students home for “possible exposure” within 6 feet of a “positive case” for 15 minutes or longer when HUSD accepts my testimony I did not “sustain contact” yet does not ask students. I had 14 of my students sent home for 10 days on Nov. 15 in the latest incident of ~30 of my students so far this year being segregated (~300 total student days “ordered” off campus with resultant harm to learning and grades). I witnessed Assistant Principal (name omitted) “health order” ~ 20 students to HHS Attendance Office for their 10 days’ segregation only upon students reporting their families’ legal choice to decline experimental injections.
I have already asserted my medical exemption from any Emergency Use Authorized (EUA) medical product since Oct. 11 under California Health and Safety Code § 24176 that all potential EUA medical experiment participants “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.” Please either affirm my exercised right, or explain how HUSD can violate this right. HUSD has chosen 6 weeks of silence rather than respond.
I also affirm my right to decline EUA medical experiments under threats of employment termination with $1,000 fines per violation and up to a year in jail (Cal. Penal Code §§ 69, 148(a)(1) stated with every county “health order”) because US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) as superior federal law requires administration of EUAs with “option to refuse” consistent with The Nuremberg Code to forever stop any kind of coerced medical experiment. This is the same principle of informed consent universally used for any medical experiment. Explain HUSD’s legal authority to cite “The District continues to follow governing protocols 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” when these violate superior law under federal Title 21 (Article 6 of the US Constitution is clear that Title 21 is the “supreme Law” when state and federal laws differ). HUSD has repeated this citation as the basis of their “lawful” ordering authority in responses to my employee Grievances since 2020, and ignored citation of conflicting laws (including California Government Code 8558 (b) requiring “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders).

(HEA Pres): Please explain how HEA’s acceptance of CTA’s claim is reasonable that Title 21 only prevents employer kidnapping for forced experimental injections and/or forced applications of other medical experiments at the employer’s ongoing will. CTA’s claim for the letter and spirit of Title 21 is absolutely historically refuted by uncontested context of The Nuremberg Code, made explicit in California Health and Safety Code § 24176, is the same principle of informed consent universally used for any medical experiment, and with CTA’s claim “to stop kidnapping” obviously already illegal and therefore without need to state in Title 21. Again, we teach all CA students that CTA’s position is illegal when we consider how the Nuremberg Code has been translated into federal and state laws. The CTA argument in this paragraph is all I’ve received as their “legal explanation” to justify violation of Title 21, with (HEA Pres) characterizing it as “all relevant legal citations.” Please correct me if I’m mistaken in CTA and HEA’s positions.

(Assistant Sup and HEA Pres): please cite the legal authority HUSD has to destroy an employee Grievance into an employee “complaint against the legality of Emergency Use Authorization’s (EUAs)” because “The District does not consider your request a contract violation, and therefore is responding formally to your complaint rather than a grievance.” Given violation of superior federal law in question 5 above, there is prima facie-violation of our contract affirming all HUSD policies be in conformance to law.

Finally, you should both answer to yourselves: what will our community of parents, students, and employees conclude when all is known and justice demanded? The option to join my question for county and/or state to answer, or withdraw HUSD/HEA consent is still open, but not for much longer.

Again: consider what the US military says about confronting apparent illegal “orders.” Two missing details from that summary:
The first step to challenge an apparent illegal order is to receive written explanation how the orders are lawful given apparent contradictions with existing law(s).
If the ordering authority will not provide a rational written explanation, then military personnel are Oath-bound to resist such orders, with officers authorized to arrest those issuing the orders. An arrest is the lawful act to stop an apparent crime in progress, receive a response from the suspect, then for any question/application about the facts and/or law to be resolved with the appropriate and constitutional legal process.
Did you know that ~75 healthy athletes have collapsed after receiving Covid injections (3-minute video)?

And again: our community will recognize that HUSD and HEA fully knew, or at least was legally required to know, that my questions are reasonable and essential, yet chose to avoid those questions while risking our employees’ and students’ health with forced use of EUAs despite:
Over 18,000 dead Americans following experimental Covid injections, and ~1,000,000 serious injuries as reported from official VAERS data.
Over 22,000 total adverse vaccination events from students 12 to 17-years-old, including 1,400 serious injures and 29 deaths.
PCR EUA “tests” designed from generic flu because CDC, WHO, and ~100 other leading health institutes have no isolated samples of Covid-19!
Official US flu data reduced by 99% because the PCR “Covid tests” from generic flu are all counted as Covid-19.
Manipulated death statistics in multiple categories.
Manipulated Covid counting statistics in multiple categories, including counting Covid vaccine-related deaths as “unvaccinated deaths from Covid” if death occurs within 2 weeks of receiving a vaccine.
Ongoing hypocritical maskless “leaders.”
UK public health data that 89% of Covid-19 deaths over the last month are now among the “fully vaccinated” (as that definition changes).
CDC admitting they have no record of anyone spreading Covid after recovery, which demonstrates superior natural immunity.
HUSD Core value: “Collaborative Leadership: We develop leaders at all levels who creatively tackle our challenges and communicate with integrity and transparency.”

Carl

**

Update 4:

Students initiate “Truth Club”: Because I inform my high school students of the facts you read here, some ask a form of, “What can we do as students to get the real facts?” One response I have is for interested students to initiate a student club to help get their questions answered (because those students embrace the questions I asked as among the obvious for anyone paying attention to ask). My students are fully aware of what I’ve asked the district and teachers’ union, and the lack of responses I’ve received. With ~10 students voicing support, an initial Truth Club President with personal motivation emerged to request our Associated Student Body (ASB) recognize a new club for discussions and activities regarding “Truth versus what we’re told. Hearing Mr. Herman’s ideas and facts on history, current events, global issues.”

ASB’s faculty advisor promised a response after the next ASB Executive Board Meeting the first week of December.

**

Up next!

Two important meetings coming up this next week for Level III of a Grievance regarding district censorship of my PLC, and regarding my questions and assertions about EUAs.

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.