Challenging our public school district’s obedience to county ‘health’ ‘orders’: After district admits ‘We don’t know how state orders can violate federal law,’ I challenge my Social Science-credentialed school principal to either answer or join us

“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, 35, 36).

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 in September, 2021.

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 and their taking the first step to terminate my employment because of several complaints they refuse to cite. 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).

On December 1 and 3 I had Zoom meetings with district leadership and our teachers’ union President regarding the previous paragraph topics. The first regarding my employee Grievance will have the superintendent officially respond by December 11, and by contract I cannot give details until the Grievance is completed. The December 3 meeting had the district Assistant Superintendent for HR admit she doesn’t know how district policy has the authority to be superior to federal law prohibiting forced experimental medicines to hold a job. I gave her the ultimatum of answering by December 10, or facing my next question of what the district will do if I stand under the protections of federal law to exercise my right to decline experimental medical products, that include injections, “testing,” and masks.

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, 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 attendance in 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 “quarantine” for 10 days without evidence of “exposure” to a “positive” “tested” student by being within 6 feet for 15 minutes or more.

**

Update 1:

Dec. 7 email to principal + 22 staff members revealed in error by principal:

Herman, Carl

Tue, Dec 7, 5:58 AM (2 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to (principal + 22 school staff members)

pastedGraphic.png
(Principal first name),
Please cite the executive order you reference, reflect as an expert Social Science teacher on the ordering authority of a state’s governor sworn to uphold the law, then answer us:

How can a governor’s executive order violate superior federal law?

On Friday December 3 I asked that question to Assistant Superintendent (name omitted) and HUSD Health Director (name omitted) in a Zoom meeting that HEA President (name omitted) expressed appreciated leadership to arrange because (names omitted) ignored this question a total of 12 times since October 11.

(Assistant Superintendent’s) answer: “I don’t know.”

20+ HHS staff threatened with unpaid leave from “I don’t know” “health” “orders” and currently segregated in our right to work: I allowed HUSD until this Friday Dec. 10 to answer how HUSD policy can violate superior federal law. US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) is federal law written to uphold The Nuremberg Code to end any kind of coerced medical experiment (all EUAs are legally defined as “experimental medical products”). California Health and Safety Code § 24171 to § 24176 is explicit in this language, and repeats the principle of informed consent universally used for any medical experiment that people:

“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.”

If HUSD can’t provide a reasonable explanation of legal ordering authority that (principal) and I as credentialed teachers can affirm doesn’t exist (unless (principal) can answer otherwise), I’ve formally asked (Assistant Superintendent):
If, and only if, HUSD fails to provide a reasonable explanation how required use of EUAs can violate superior federal law of US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) and/or California Health and Safety Code § 24171 to § 24176, what would HUSD do if on Monday December 13 I begin my federally protected 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” until HUSD can explain?
What will HUSD do if students stand under the US Constitution stated “supreme law” in Article 6 just as we teach them in our Social Science standards, and exercise their option to refuse experimental medicine if HUSD cannot explain how local policy can destroy superior federal law? Please either affirm or refute that we teach our students that federal law is supreme to state and/or local law.
What will HUSD do if parents do the same?
If HUSD repeats their previous answer of “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,” that answer literally states HUSD willfully chooses to ignore superior federal law, and therefore stands in prima facie-violation of our contract requiring all policies be in conformance to law. HUSD expects me to honor and fulfill our mutual Oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic” when HUSD ignores what the US Constitution explicitly directs in Article 6 that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… 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.” My position is literally what Article 6 requires: to be bound by superior federal law even if my state says otherwise. How does HUSD expect me to uphold our mutual Oath in this specific application?
How is HUSD honoring our mutual Oath by ignoring superior federal law? Again, Article 6 is clear and taught in every HUSD US Government class: if a state or local government claim legal authority in violation of federal law, the state or local “order”/“mandate”/whatever is void. I admonish for the nth time: when the confusion clears, the public will hold HUSD fully accountable for ignoring federal law unless HUSD makes a holiday “Scrooge Conversion” to join my questions rather than oppose them (unless HUSD can explain how they can violate federal law, of course).

(Principal first name): with all respect, I will press you for an answer to this reasonable question that appears to reveal you as principal are administering an illegal district policy that under current HUSD practice will terminate the income of employees who do not comply. As our school principal and chief executive officer, please either explain the ordering authority forcing your staff to become unwilling medical experiments, or stand with us in the question.

(Principal first name): Our mutual Oath requires a professional answer from you, so I will keep asking until I receive one (unless you can explain how our Oath requires other actions). The emerging data plus Americans’ virtue for our Natural Rights promised to be upheld by government will increase the frequency of this question. My personal advice as a fellow Social Science teacher is to join us in asking the question rather than uphold prima facie-unconstitutional “health orders” that apparently violate federal law protections guaranteed under the US Constitution for all of us in the HHS community. You are under Oath to do so. The remedy I’ve requested since September 2020 to solve this problem is for HUSD to acknowledge “I don’t know” as their official answer (because you don’t know either, right?), and escalate the question to county and/or state. If HUSD fails to receive a reasonable explanation, then HUSD downgrades “health orders” to “health advice.”

(Principal first name): unless you have a better response, then please join us in this question.

(Principal first name), when students are required to test weekly, they, too, will be inspired to press you for an answer. What will you say to our students when they recite their protected freedom under federal law, protected by Article 6 of the US Constitution, and stand for their right to not be state medical experiments? Be proud of your response, for all students, staff, and families will know where you stood with this reasonable and essential question.

20+ HHS Colleagues: I will inform you of HUSD’s answers to explain how HUSD can violate superior federal law, and what they will do if I (or any of us) stand under federal law protections to use EUAs (shots, tests, masks, etc.) at our discretion. I predict HUSD will repeat their previous prima facie-unconstitutional answer that HUSD is required to “just follow orders” because they have some undisclosed political prejudice for segregation (otherwise they would have answered how HUSD can violate federal law to pre-judge us on our health without experimental medicine, then separate us into a category with fewer rights, such as unvaccinated students in apparent good health “health” “ordered” home for 10 days without question, appeal, or rights while vaccinated students are free).

Emerging data:

“There is increasing evidence that vaccinated individuals continue to have a relevant role in transmission. In Massachusetts, USA, a total of 469 new COVID-19 cases were detected during various events in July, 2021, and 346 (74%) of these cases were in people who were fully or partly vaccinated, 274 (79%) of whom were symptomatic. Cycle threshold values were similarly low between people who were fully vaccinated (median 22·8) and people who were unvaccinated, not fully vaccinated, or whose vaccination status was unknown (median 21·5), indicating a high viral load even among people who were fully vaccinated.” ~ COVID-19: stigmatizing the unvaccinated is not justified. Kampf, Gunter. The Lancet. Nov. 20, 2021 (The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine are considered the top two global medical journals)

Did you know that ~100 healthy athletes have collapsed after receiving Covid injections (3-minute video)? This is five times the previous amount of FIFA soccer players.
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.”

A Farmer under Oath,
Carl

**
Update 2:

Dec. 8 email follow-up to district’s Dec. 10 deadline for answers:

Herman, Carl
Dec 8, 2021, 10:11 PM (7 hours ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to (Assistant Superintendent, Health Director, teachers’ union president + VP, principal)Kimberleigh, Aurora, Mercedes, David, Mary, Carl, HEA

“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”)

(Assistant Superintendent, Health Director, Teachers’ Union President, and school Principal (because students have questions for you, too, below)
Three business days have passed since our meeting where (Assistant Superintendent) promised to provide me with all the medical exemption information HUSD received so I can be educated about my rights. If I don’t receive this by 5PM Friday Dec. 10, or a reasonable status, I will declare HUSD as refusing to provide information about medical exemptions. Is this legal for HUSD to do?

If HUSD fails to provide a reasonable explanation how superior federal law of US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) and California Health and Safety Code § 24171 to § 24176 can be violated by HUSD policy to require use of experimental medical products by employees as a condition of employment by 5PM Friday Dec. 10, here again are my questions I provided you 3 days ago to consider, and request answers by 5PM Friday Dec. 10:
If, and only if, HUSD fails to provide a reasonable explanation how required use of EUAs can violate superior federal law of US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) and/or California Health and Safety Code § 24171 to § 24176, what would HUSD do if on Monday December 13 I begin my federally protected 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” until HUSD can explain?
What will HUSD do if students stand under the US Constitution stated “supreme law” in Article 6 just as we teach them in our Social Science standards, and exercise their option to refuse experimental medicine if HUSD cannot explain how local policy can destroy superior federal law? Please either affirm or refute that we teach our students that federal law is supreme to state and/or local law.
What will HUSD do if parents do the same?
If HUSD repeats their previous answer of “The District continues to follow governing protocols referenced in our Board Policy 5141.22 and Education Code 32282and 49403, which direct the District to cooperate with local health officer measures necessary for the prevention and control of communicable diseases,” that answer literally states HUSD willfully chooses to ignore superior federal law, and therefore stands in prima facie-violation of our contract requiring all policies be in conformance to law. HUSD expects me to honor and fulfill our mutual Oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic” when HUSD ignores what the US Constitution explicitly directs in Article 6 that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… 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.” My position is literally what Article 6 requires: to be bound by superior federal law even if my state says otherwise. How does HUSD expect me to uphold our mutual Oath in this specific application?
How is HUSD honoring our mutual Oath by ignoring superior federal law? Again, Article 6 is clear and taught in every HUSD US Government class: if a state or local government claim legal authority in violation of federal law, the state or local “order”/“mandate”/whatever is void. I admonish for the nth time: when the confusion clears, the public will hold HUSD fully accountable for ignoring federal law unless HUSD makes a holiday “Scrooge Conversion” to join my questions rather than oppose them (unless HUSD can explain how they can violate federal law, of course).
Plus, if HUSD fails to deliver all information received to administer medical exemptions for employee education, is it legal for HUSD to deny this information?
Because this public policy greatly affects our students, those in my HHS classrooms are all briefed on HUSD’s responses to my questions. If HUSD fails to answer any of the above, ~20 students have requested to be on a Zoom call with (Assistant Superintendent and Health Director) to discover why the questions they now own as personal to them are not being answered, and to get answers. They all see the current district “answer” to “just follow orders because it’s the law” ignores superior federal law making HUSD “not following superior orders while pretending to follow the law.” They’re very interested in these conversations, including a Junior girl I had to inform was being “health ordered” home to “quarantine” because some anonymous student in a class of hers “tested” “positive.” She knew from friends that HUSD will not provide proof of exposure, she will not have the same rights as me (they all know that Seymour “health ordered” me home for 10 days, then corrected when I stood for my rights), and left the room with tears brimming in her eyes. She asked if she could at least stay for the quiz review, which I informed her was not a request I could legally grant under HUSD policy.

Students also have questions of their own, that includes why HUSD denies equal access to education to segregate unvaccinated students because “it’s not practical” to respect students’ rights to prove they’ve been within 6 feet of a “positive” “case” for 15+ minutes. The students know the rule, know it’s being violated, and want to know how is it legal for HUSD to practice segregation upon a minority group after denying them equal protection under the law?

Another student question is why (Assistant Superintendent, Health Dirctor, and Principal) are ignoring their Oath to uphold students’ rights. They read Article 6 of the US Constitution, know Title 21 is the law to follow when state law is in conflict (or “mandate”/”order”/whatever), and wonder why their rights under US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) are ignored. The students discussed that HUSD seems to not be serious about the Covid rules of 6 feet for 15 minutes, HUSD doesn’t care about applicable laws because they violate superior federal law while ignoring the obvious question how they can do that, and don’t care enough about students to even inform them of the “6 foot 15 minute” rule. They said several times, “This is political. It’s not about health.” They broadly said that HUSD and (Principal) should be telling them the truth to help them with their rights and education, not knowingly lie to take their rights away, then harming their education with proofless “orders” removing them from school for 10 days. You should have seen their faces when I reported that (Assistant Superintendent) said their rights were denied because HUSD feels it’s “not practical” to uphold students’ rights.

Students are also interested what HUSD will do if students assert they are upholding the appropriate and superior federal law, and claim their right to refuse experimental medical products. They made a nice connection with Dr. King and the Civil Rights Movement making a similar assertion of Natural Rights under the 14th Amendment for equal treatment under the law. Students saw in both cases that the applicable laws seem clear, and are being obviously violated by politically-motivated governments refusing to uphold basic rights for the people. The students all agreed with (Assistant Superintendent) that they, too, “don’t know” how it’s possible for HUSD to violate superior federal law.

Better read those questions again, because students are coming for answers.

In closing: HUSD still has the option to exercise my initial Grievance remedy from 2020:

Join my question by requiring county and/or state to answer because it is their burden of proof as the issuer of the “orders.” If they can’t/won’t, then HUSD and HEA are legally required to downgrade “health orders” to “health advice.”

If HUSD acted upon my remedy now, HUSD could still appear as a “leader” for integrity and truth. The Covid lies I documented in my report to HHS teachers that HUSD censored, then took the first step to terminate my employment, are being quickly exposed.

The truth shall set everyone free, and all else will be revealed for all to see,

**

Update 3:

Dec. 9 email to teachers’ union president requesting students and I attend a Zoom meeting with district and her for answers:

May interested HHS students and I attend Friday Zoom with (Assistant Superintendent) and you for HUSD’s answers?

Herman, Carl
5:35 AM (29 minutes ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to (teachers’ union president + VP)

Happy Friday-eve, (teachers’ union president)
In anticipation that (Assistant Superintendent) will not provide me with health info (please check if that’s legal; I assume it isn’t), and/or fail to reasonably explain how HUSD can violate superior federal law we’re all Oath-bound to uphold, may interested HHS students and I attend your Friday Zoom with (Assistant Superintendent) to receive answers, or to accept HUSD affirmation of all our federal law protections?

HUSD is legally required to pass the “reasonable person” standard of law with their explanations. So far, HUSD is at “game over definitive fail” because another round of (Assistant Superintendent) refusing to explain how HUSD policy can violate superior federal law will be the 13th time of ignored written requests in just this one email chain to upgrade (Assistant Superintendent’s) admitted “I don’t know.”

If HUSD attempts their previous “answer” that they are required by law to follow district and state health policies, then HUSD would admit they knowingly and willfully ignore superior federal law. This obviously fails to explain to any reasonable person how HUSD can ignore superior law because HUSD is somehow “required” to uphold inferior “mandates”/”orders”/”requirements”/”protocols”/”guidance”/whatever.

Again, each and every HUSD student, CA student, and USA student engage in teaching and learning standards that Article 6 of the US Constitution makes federal law superior if there’s a conflict, “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Article 6 of the US Constitution literally says the state has no standing to destroy federal law, in spite of any argument they make.

We are all required by Oath administered by HUSD to stand where these students and I are standing, unless HUSD or anyone else can explain otherwise.

God knows what trouble HUSD is in for admitting HUSD knowingly and willfully deprives students of their education rights by illegally “health ordering” them home for 10 days’ “quarantine” without evidence they were “exposed” “because” it is “not practical” to uphold student rights, or even inform students of the “protocol.” Students and I are very interested in HUSD’s explanation of how they’re upholding our mutual Oath to support and defend constitutional rights for our HUSD community. And we can likely add that HUSD is in violation of law to deprive a teacher of basic medical exemption information.

Thank you for your persistence and professionalism,
Carl

–
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

**

Up next!

The Superintendent has a contractually-required response to the Grievance from “Update 1” by December 11. The Assistant Superintendent knows she has until December 10 to either explain how district policy can destroy federal law, or face students and my request to meet. Our school principal now knows students will be coming to him, too, for answers.

Stay tuned for our next episode