Challenging our public school district’s obedience to county ‘health’ ‘orders’: After inviting district surrender, HUSD announces they ‘won’t enforce’ student ‘vaccine requirements,’ ~50 students + staff + parents request Zoom meeting with district

“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, 37, 38).

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.

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 inversion of legal terms.

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 paragraphs details here.

**
Update 1:

Dec. 14 email to Assistant Superintendent inviting HUSD surrender, OR face ~50 students to answer the questions proving district illegal policies:

title:
Upcoming student/teacher/community questions that expose HUSD’s prima facie-illegal ‘broader rights’: invitation to surrender

Herman, Carl

Dec 14, 2021, 6:33 AM (5 days ago)pastedGraphic.png
pastedGraphic.png
to (Assistant Superintendent, Teachers’ union President + VP)

“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”)

Colleagues:
An honest, helpful heads-up: please read the following quotes of HUSD’s response to see what the students see, and will ask you to explain. Consider HUSD’s options to either attempt answers to defend policy legality, or return to the truth of (Assistant Superintendent’s) “I don’t know” answer (so we’d better escalate the question).

About 30 of my students have now asked to be on a Zoom call to get answers. Their friends are asking if they can join, too. At least 10 staff and parents are also eager to participate one way or another. Everyone will know everything, and relatively quickly at this point.

HUSD is following “legal guidance” that applies “broader rights” to the current rights cited at the top of this email. This “legal guidance” then destroys those rights in Orwellian inversion to broadening them. Don’t believe me, look for yourself. HUSD’s anonymous and un-cited “explanation”:

“In addition, you requested information clarifying the ability of state law superceding federal law. Per our School Insurance Authority legal guidance the following information is provided on this matter:

The federal law only “preempts” conflicting state laws when the federal government controls the entire subject matter across the nation (called “occupying the field”). HOWEVER, there are some areas where states are expressly granted rights to control their own laws, as long as they are at least as protective as the federal government. Public safety, workplace safety, and employment laws. When the state regulates it may provide broader rights to employees and more stringent compliance requirements.

Public health and safety is one of the primary areas where the state can regulate more strictly. As a result: the California executive orders, regulations and forthcoming legislation with COVID restrictions and compliance mandates controls over the federal law across the board.

HUSD argues “California executive orders, regulations and forthcoming legislation with COVID restrictions and compliance mandates controls over the federal law across the board” because relative to Title 21’s rights alone (see above citation), HUSD’s enforced “health orders”:
Gives students “broader rights” to decline experimental medical products under federal law by expelling them if they decline experimental medical products. Literally: expulsion = broader rights.
Gives teachers “broader rights” to opt-out of EUAs because forcing unpaid leave means they now have “broader rights” to opt-out. Teachers’ either won’t argue, or such argument would be false that unpaid leave means “no rights” to opt-out by definition, which is worse than “fewer rights,” and that unpaid leave can’t exist with “broader rights” in any imaginable circumstance.
Expelling students who decline EUAs is “at least as protective as the federal government,” or more protective of students’ right not to be coerced into experimental medicine.
Unpaid leave for teachers who exercise Title 21 rights to be free from EUAs are “at least as protected as the federal government” or more protected to exercise that right by forcibly ending their income for up to a year. Teachers would overwhelmingly agree.
HUSD expelling “no-EUAs” students “more stringently complies” with Title 21 freedom of choice because expulsion is both a broader right for the student and more tightly complies to protect that freedom. Expulsion = legal protection to be free. This is the argument, right?
Students, teachers, staff, and parents will insist that you explain all of this to them. They’ll also ask what laws HUSD broke by “quarantining” a federally-protected (Title 21) minority group for 10 days’ segregation from school, after failure to inform those students of the exposure rule of “within 6 feet for 15 minutes” required to “health” “order” anyone anywhere other than back to class, and after failing to provide (or have) any proof of exposure. They’ll ask if denying federal rights because “it’s not practical” is a crime, because it sure looks like one.

Better read this one again: Ms. Watts admitted on our Dec. 3 meeting that HUSD policy that I personally witness at HHS is:
HUSD segregates a minority group of students who are thoroughly protected by federal law.
HUSD participates in a deliberate smear of prejudice to dishonestly label these otherwise healthy students as “quarantined” (a term for the diseased). Students are now saying in growing popularity forms of “The district told me ‘QU’.”
HUSD has no proof of “exposure” to “health” “order” minority students home.
HUSD does not inform students of their right to remain in school if the exposure rule isn’t violated.
Students have the right to remain at school if they stand for their rights, just as I had exercised my rights to stay at school after Principal Seymour “ordered” me QU segregated from the “safe group” for 10 days.
HUSD knowingly denies public education rights by lying to students they were “exposed” while having no proof “because” “it’s not practical” to uphold student rights.
After lying in omission about students’ rights, having no evidence of exposure, HUSD further claims “ordering” segregated quarantine for 10 days is for the minority’s protective “safety.” As a history teacher, I admonish HUSD that the Nazi government used a similar term: “protective custody” “for public safety” to push a political agenda that had nothing to do with public safety, and was later recognized as evil.
Students see that HUSD and HHS should be telling them the truth to help them with their rights and education, not knowingly lie to take their rights away, then harm their education with proofless “segregation orders” removing them from school for 10 days. Again, you should have seen their faces when I reported Ms. Watts said the reason students’ rights were knowingly denied is because HUSD feels it’s “not practical” to uphold students’ rights.

HUSD can either address these difficult questions, OR get in front of them by upholding students’ Title 21 rights. HUSD can do this by passing the questions HUSD can’t answer to county and/or state level.

Please take as much time as you need to translate what HUSD’s anonymous “School Insurance Authority” claimed, and that I quoted in good-faith accuracy just as I teach what laws mean as a US Government National Board Certified Teacher. Btw, please know that I am absolutely ready, and request to talk with this anonymous source who chose no citations to substantiate his extraordinary legal claims in both your presence. Such a conversation should reveal if answers exist to the points in this brief email, or that I’m right that HUSD’s “legal guidance” is in Orwellian-opposition to the law (at least three definitive laws I’ve redundantly cited).

Please note that the two paragraphs of HUSD’s un-cited “legal guidance” expressly avoids matching Title 21 law onto “broader rights,” “at least as protective,” and “more stringent compliance.” Do you think this was omitted because it’s not important to explain how the law applies to specific circumstances when you’re literally tasked with applying one law to specific circumstances?

Did these legal experts accidentally omit what the law would look like in action, because obviously imagining the laws in action is important, so it must have just been a mistake they would happily clarify? If so, please provide them with these questions that will be easy to explain because they already know from case law, or at least can imagine how applicable law works in these circumstances.

Or would you be more likely to conclude with me that the two paragraphs of “legal guidance” are deliberate disinformation? I’ve provided you the proof in this email for this conclusion to be reasonably considered. You don’t have to stand here to ask questions. And if you don’t get answers, like I didn’t get from each and every of the 14 most authoritative CA government agencies over 6 weeks of work, then you’re welcome to stand over here with me, and tell me what you see from a perspective of deliberate disinformation within a coordinated political agenda.

The purpose of my writing to you is your thoughtful consideration that you’ve received terribly wrong legal advice. How will you answer students when they come to you with questions like:
How does suspending me then expelling me give me “broader rights” under Title 21 protections?
How is HUSD “more stringently in compliance” of my Title 21 freedom to opt-out of EUAs by suspending me if I opt-out of EUAs?
How is HUSD “protecting teachers at least as much as the federal government” by putting them on unpaid leave if they make federally protected choices?
Colleagues: if you’d like to chat about this, then please let’s chat.

If you choose to not collaborate, good luck coming up with answers to the above questions, and more, that will come.

My students fully know and feel these questions, colleagues. No student in any of my classes can come up with a reasonable explanation how HUSD is giving them “broader rights” by suspending then expelling them. Not one student could invent an argument how suspension is tighter protections for their right to make medical choices about experiments going in their bodies. I polled my students: every class was unanimous that they prefer EUA choice rather than be ordered to comply with medical experiments.

How will HUSD answer the first wave of this incoming tide of students?

The students want to stand with Ms. Watts’ answer of “I don’t know” how federal law can be violated, and for HUSD to ask the county and/or state to explain. It’s that, or again, good luck responding to the students with anything better than “I don’t know.”

Just so I know I’m not being too subtle: HUSD has no rational argument to destroy federally-protected rights that I can professionally imagine, and there is no defense of destroying clearly protected rights other than admitting the truth, then correcting to defend those rights.

Change is a slow process, at least until all the spadework has been done. While attention is typically arrested by the swift, sometimes spectacular, final phase of the process, little note is taken of the long, hard preparatory work.

‘Time moved on. Changes came into being slowly-almost imperceptibly. Like the shift of the seasons. Barely noticeable, the changing, till the change was there.’ ~ Dorothy W. Baruch, One Little Boy
~ Kaoru Yamamoto (unsourced)

Carl

–
Carl Herman
(Omitted) 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

**
Update 2:

Dec. 17 district announcement to not enforce student “vaccine requirements”: HUSD buries this admission in the last paragraph after full-force push for injections. I followed with questions if this lack of enforcement applies equally to staff, which the Assistant Superintendent and principal respond with silence.

announcement title:
HUSD COVID-19 Student Vaccine Deadline

December 17 COVID-19 vaccine deadline for students 12 and older

On September 22, 2021, the HUSD Board of Education voted to require that HUSD students five years of age and older receive the COVID-19 vaccine in order to create the safest possible learning environment at schools. For students that are 12 years of age and older, they must be fully vaccinated by December 17, 2021. It is very important that families present the proof of vaccination to their school as soon as possible. Families can find the vaccination card upload link on their school’s website under the COVID-19 tab.

Schedule your child’s vaccine appointment now!

HUSD has been hosting vaccine clinics on school sites over the last few months. Students 5-11 years-old receive pediatric doses of the vaccine. Anyone 12 and older receives adult doses. Please go to www.husd.us/vaccine to find a clinic at one of our schools or to use the statewide tool to find an appointment. Please note that students between the ages of 5-11 don’t yet have a deadline for when they have to be fully vaccinated, but we encourage parents to do so as soon as possible to ensure the safety of our young students and their families.

Families will need to have students tested weekly if they don’t present vaccine proof

When students 12 and older return to school in January, those that have not presented proof of vaccination must submit to COVID-19 testing on a weekly basis. HUSD offers free COVID-19 testing at all school sites and at some additional community sites. To view the schedule and to register your child for testing, please visit www.husd.us/testing. Parents will be responsible for ensuring students are tested weekly if proof of vaccination is not provided to the school.

Students will not be excluded from school if they don’t meet the December 17 deadline or testing requirement

The vaccine requirement was not created as a way to exclude students from school, so students who do not meet the deadline will be allowed to continue with in-person learning. The goal of the vaccine requirement was to help families learn about vaccine safety and to prioritize the district’s work to make vaccines available to our community. We will continue to work with families to help them comply with the school board’s decision to require vaccines for eligible students. Informing our families about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and getting our eligible students vaccinated will take our collective efforts, so I appreciate your partnership in reaching this goal.

Sincerely,

(Omitted), Ed.D., Superintendent

**
my email to our Principal one hour later, then 2 days later after his choice of silence as a response. Silence is still his choice of expressed leadership as principal:

title:
COVID Testing/injection no longer required according to HUSD???

Herman, Carl
Wed, Dec 15, 10:15 AM (4 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png

to (Principal, 4 APs on Admin Team, 20+ HHS staff previously required for weekly Covid “tests” “because” we’re unvaccinated)

(Principal):
Please let us know if the same policy applies to staff from today’s HUSD memo, and if not, how a double-standard is legal. This says that students who decline experimental injections or experimental tests won’t be excluded:

Students will not be excluded from school if they don’t meet the December 17 deadline or testing requirement

The vaccine requirement was not created as a way to exclude students from school, so students who do not meet the deadline will be allowed to continue with in-person learning.

**

Herman, Carl

Dec 17, 2021, 1:44 PM (2 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to to (Principal, 4 APs on Admin Team, 20+ HHS staff previously required for weekly Covid “tests” “because” we’re unvaccinated)pastedGraphic.png

(Principal): Two days have passed since I asked, and this is important. (Assistant Superintendent) is also silent. As Principal, please let us know if HUSD’s position to not exclude students who do not follow the testing “orders” applies to staff.

If staff is excluded from school, but not students, please at least begin asking how it’s legal for HUSD to “pick and choose” enforcements among different groups of people. Are the van tests that come to HUSD among the testing types with EUA approval withdrawn on Dec. 31? This also matters.

Without clarification, it doesn’t seem reasonable for any of us to be testing over the Winter Break.

Please answer today.

**

my email to the same Assistant Superintendent, teachers’ union President + VP:

Herman, Carl

Dec 15, 2021, 10:23 AM (4 days ago)pastedGraphic.png
pastedGraphic.png
to (Teachers’ union President + VP, Assistant Superintendent)
pastedGraphic.png
(Teachers’ union President + VP, Assistant Superintendent),
Does this say what it seems to read that HUSD has no consequences for declining EUA testing, and this applies equally for staff?

If not, how would a double-standard be legal? And if the injections and tests are not required, how can any EUA be required?

Students will not be excluded from school if they don’t meet the December 17 deadline or testing requirement

The vaccine requirement was not created as a way to exclude students from school, so students who do not meet the deadline will be allowed to continue with in-person learning.

**

Teachers’ union President’s reply:

Wed, Dec 15, 11:40 AM (4 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to Carl, (union VP)
pastedGraphic.png
Hello Carl

As a reminder, as confirmed by CTA, this particular question is outside of our purview of advocacy/ fair representation responsibilities. That said, I am in hopes that you find a venue that can address your questions in a meaningful manner.

**

Update 3:

Dec. 18 Professional Learning committee (PLC) email to ~100 teacher colleagues:

title:
HHS Solutions: HUSD says unpaid teacher leave = “broader rights,” admits QU students’ rights are “not practical” to uphold. Do you consent?

Herman, Carl
Sat, Dec 18, 9:00 PM (13 hours ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to Carl, (4 APs but not the principal who requested to not receive these PLC reports, ~100 teacher colleagues minus seven who also requested to be removed)

“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,” and include Covid injections, tests, mask, etc.)

Dear Colleagues,

HHS Solutions and Beyond! PLC examines broad educational issues that have direct impact on HHS teaching and learning. Here are summaries of three important updates, immediately followed by full reports:
HUSD says unpaid teacher leave = “broader rights”: HUSD’s reason to destroy our federal law Title 21 rights (above) is an un-cited, anonymous, and extraordinary two-paragraph legal claim on Dec. 10 that HUSD forcing teachers and staff on unpaid leave is giving them “broader rights,” and “more stringently complies” with Title 21’s right to not be coerced. HUSD says that forced unpaid leave is “at least as protective” as Title 21’s right to not be influenced in our choice to freely accept or reject experimental injections, tests, masks, etc. HEA President Mercedes Faraj witnessed this claim. I provided the written affirmation you just read to Ms Watts on Dec. 12, asking for a meeting to either affirm or correct HUSD’s position. I followed-up yesterday (twice) requesting a meeting. Ms. Watts has not responded. Full details are below.
HUSD admits QU students’ rights are “not practical” to honor: At our Dec. 3 Zoom meeting, Ms. Watts admitted that automatically “quarantining” unvaccinated students for 10 days was a district choice to not uphold students’ rights to receive an equal education because those rights are “not practical” to honor. HUSD claims the “requirement” to “quarantine” students after 15 minutes’ exposure within 6 feet of someone “tested” positive is lawful to ignore because it’s not practical to ask a student who they were within 6 feet of for 15+ minutes in a class, or any other solution for evidence. My classroom students total ~300 total absent days under QU “health” “orders” of otherwise perfectly healthy students, with family given no recourse but forced medical segregation. Colleagues: how many student days have you lost to HUSD’s medical segregation policy forced upon a minority group, despite HUSD having no evidence and deliberately not informing families and students of the definition of “exposure”? Ms. Watts promised to provide me all pertinent source material for that HUSD choice on Dec. 3, and I have received nothing as of Dec. 18, even with 3 follow-up email requests (now enforced as a Grievance and/or HUSD Regulation 4144 Complaint). Full details below.
Do you consent? If you would like to be present in a Zoom meeting with Ms. Watts regarding the above issues, and more I document below, please respond, and we’ll chat I have ~50 students requesting participation on a Zoom call to receive HUSD’s answer how they legally destroy the rights of a federally-protected minority student group by forcing medical segregation on them. You should have seen students’ faces when I told them HUSD’s policy is that their rights are “not practical” to honor, nor any child’s rights in HUSD for this policy. Other issues include denying me the government source material they received to administer medical and religious exemptions despite my 15 written requests since October 11. This apparent HUSD obfuscation and avoidance includes Health Director Sweet’s Oct. 18 written promise to provide, and Ms. Watts Dec. 3 promise. I’ve requested HEA to investigate if it’s legal for HUSD to deny me public policy material I need for informed choices of required medical policy that HUSD administers (and requires compliance for employment). If you’d like to chat or write and prefer private email: [email protected]
1. HUSD says unpaid teacher leave =
“broader rights”

On December 3, Assistant Superintendent Watts truthfully answered, “I don’t know” to my question how HUSD policy to require EUA use is superior to federal law Title 21 rights quoted above. We teach all our students that Article 6 of the US Constitution means in this case that all HUSD staff and students have the federally-protected superior right of medical choice over inferior state and/or county “mandates”/“orders”/“requirements”/“protocols”/“guidance”/whatever. Article 6 is specific that federal law:

“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.”

The US Constitution, to which we all have a mutual Oath to support and defend, is clear that state “health orders” have no standing compared to federal law. There are hundreds of lawsuits, including Los Angeles USD and Piedmont USD as defendants.

Therefore, Ms. Watts’ “I don’t know” answer appears both honest and worthy to escalate the question to county and/or state level for an answer. If county and/or state can’t or won’t provide an answer, then HUSD would have to honor US federal law Title 21 rights over state and/or county “mandates”/“orders”/“requirements”/“protocols”/“guidance”/whatever. This is the remedy I’ve offered HUSD since September, 2020 (15 months ago) that they’ve not only declined, but declined to discuss or even acknowledge.

On December 10, Ms. Watts’ formal written response provided this answer to what she didn’t know on December 3:

Per our School Insurance Authority legal guidance the following information is provided on this matter:

The federal law only “preempts” conflicting state laws when the federal government controls the entire subject matter across the nation (called “occupying the field”). HOWEVER, there are some areas where states are expressly granted rights to control their own laws, as long as they are at least as protective as the federal government. Public safety, workplace safety, and employment laws. When the state regulates it may provide broader rights to employees and more stringent compliance requirements.

Public health and safety is one of the primary areas where the state can regulate more strictly. As a result: the California executive orders, regulations and forthcoming legislation with COVID restrictions and compliance mandates controls over the federal law across the board.

The district claims that teachers and staff receive “broader rights” with forced unpaid leave for exercising Title 21 medical freedom.

That’s what HUSD’s response claims when you read their response, right?

HUSD is telling HHS teachers and staff that forced unpaid leave complies “more stringently to protect” Title 21 choice without duress, force, or influence, and certainly is not fraud!

Again, please read Title 21 rights at the start of this HHS Solutions! PLC report.

As a National Board Certified and experienced AP US Government teacher, I have never witnessed a more Orwellian legal claim than forced unpaid leave for a choice protected by federal law = a “broader right” to make that choice freely. In fact, if we held a contest for the most Orwellian policy, I challenge you to invent one in fiction more inverted from reality than removing a teacher’s income for making a choice protected by federal law under the US Constitution, then claiming that is not “the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision.”

HUSD has denied me a name to contact so I can ask for explanation to this “legal reasoning,” and so far refuses to explain themselves. I wonder why.

HUSD has relied upon this un-cited and anonymous “expert” since my initial Grievance 15 months ago when HUSD ignored my question how the state’s “emergency” dictatorial ordering authority under the very CA law Governor Newsom cited isn’t also limited by its own definition of “emergency” as “beyond control” hospitals (California Government Code 8558 (b)). HUSD made a similar claim as they do now that Californians receive “broader rights” and “more stringent compliance” to protect rights under emergency dictatorial authority. HUSD never once acknowledged the legal definition of “emergency” as “beyond control” hospitals. Important dictatorial policy results must claim:
Forced “lockdowns” destroying thousands of CA businesses are both “broader rights” and stronger compliance to their rights to conduct business.
“Health” “orders” to take experimental vaccinations of increasing dosages that neither prevent acquisition nor transmission of the claimed virus is a “broader right” compared to individual’s own medical choices.
These “health” “orders” for experimental injections stand despite 20,000+ American deaths and ~1,000,000 total adverse effects (156,000 serious injuries such as life-threatening heart damage), and the signed opposition of 16,000+ physicians.
“Broader rights” include forced masking. The “new” “mandate” “ordered” by Governor Newsom’s for everyone to wear masks indoors beginning on Dec. 15 no matter what their vaccination status is simultaneously granting all Californians broader rights. Or so HUSD argues.
“Broader rights” include medical segregation to deny public school services to a minority group exercising protected federal rights.
HUSD’s “broader rights” argument is literally that the above dictates from an “emergency dictatorship” makes us more free than our previous freedoms before the dictatorship. I’m not insulting anyone, but making a professional description as academically accurate as I can. If anyone has a better summary of HUSD’s argument, and/or any corrected summary to offer, I’d like to see it.

If you’ve made it this far reading, and are called to join my questions and demand for reasonable answers, please accept my invitation to contact me.

Again, my requests of Ms. Watts for HUSD explanation are met with silence.

To make HUSD’s apparent position on teachers’ rights most clear, I specifically asked Ms. Watts:
Affirm or refute my summary of HUSD’s written position you provided in those two paragraphs from an anonymous and un-cited source you refuse to name: HUSD’s policy is to do what is explicitly forbidden by federal and state laws (see opening quote). HUSD claims this is legal because “occupy the field” for “broader rights” and “more stringent compliance” of “option to refuse EUAs” means state and/or local “health” “orders” to require EUAs in order to receive pay are both superior to Constitutional, federal, and/or state protected rights, and provide individuals “broader rights” and “more stringent compliance” than US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) and California Health and Safety Code § 24171 to § 24176 on their own. At our upcoming meeting either affirm my good-faith above summary in this paragraph, or correct my understanding of HUSD’s explanation how HUSD’s required EUA policy is in conformance to law.
Affirm or refute my summary of HUSD’s written position you provided in those two paragraphs from an anonymous and un-cited source you refuse to name: State dictatorship under a claimed emergency destroys explicit state and federally-protected rights for as long as dictated. Article 6 of the US Constitution is inferior to state and/or local “emergency” dictatorship. Federal law is inferior to state and/or local “emergency” dictatorship. The above honors our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions of limited government. (note: Dr. Fauci agrees that all Americans must participate in “health” “ordered” experimental research upon the dictate of government, with enforcement of police power. Please recall your history: the US began as a nation upon wide public recognition of government abuse of power. Do the facts presented so far at least inspire you to participate in a Zoom call to have HUSD explain themselves? The option I’ve offered HUSD since September 2020 is not American Revolution 2.0, but only to pass unanswerable questions to county and/or state ordering authority to either defend or downgrade to “advice.”)
I appreciate any and all HUSD teachers or staff who want to be present for HUSD’s explanations to prima facie-illegal “health” “orders.” The legal term prima facie applied here means that all available factual and independently-verifiable relevant facts seem to show the policy in question is illegal, with our evidence sufficient to have the apparent illegal policy withdrawn unless a reasonable counter-explanation is provided. I am therefore making a factual claim of prima facie-illegal policy subject to anyone’s challenge. So far, neither HUSD nor anyone else has attempted such challenge, so I persist in professional confidence that what I’m pointing to is our best comprehensive factual understanding.

2. HUSD admits QU students’ rights “not practical” to honor:

On November 15, one of my classes were “health” “ordered” to the Quad. Students lined up in front of APs to give their names. The AP checked their “digital papers” to see if they were “compliant.” Compliant students were sent back to class with no further question. Students without digital papers were asked if they were vaccinated. Those who said “no” were told, “Please go to the Attendance Office” where they were segregated into “quarantine.” Those who said “yes” were asked if they had their digital papers on their phone to prove they were compliant students. Those with proof were sent back to class. Those without proof of compliance were sent to the Attendance Office for medical segregation.

Principal Seymour emailed and told me in the Quad that I was being “health” “ordered” off all HUSD properties for 10 days’ segregated “quarantine.” I reminded Dave that at our Teacher Training before school began, he defined “exposure” as 15 minutes within 6 feet of a “positive” “tested” individual. Dave and I both checked, and confirmed that another teacher and I were medically-segregated “in error” because HUSD had zero evidence the definition of “exposure” happened. I wonder how many HHS and HUSD employee work days have been lost by this claimed “error.”

On that day, I counted 14 of my students “health ordered/segregated” for 10 days in apparent similar “error” that HUSD had no reasonable evidence of exposure before destroying the students’ rights for their education, and obviously receiving unequal treatment under the law. On November 16, HEA President Mercedes Faraj emailed me to graciously help facilitate a meeting with Health Director Sweet and Assistant Superintendent Watts. On November 22 I emailed Ms. Watts to:

“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.”

Ms. Watts did not answer, but at our December 3 Zoom meeting admitted that HUSD was “health ordering” all unvaccinated students to “quarantine” if they were in any class with someone who tested positive. She said this was “to be on the safe side.” I asked how is it lawful for HUSD to segregate a minority group of children without cause, while lying-in-omission to not inform those children or families of the definition of exposure HUSD was knowingly violating.

Ms. Watts admitted that upholding those students’ rights was “not practical.” I accepted this as tacit admission of HUSD knowingly violating students’ rights. I then calmly asked for the source material HUSD relied upon to make this policy choice. Ms. Watts promised to provide it, yet has not yet to do so going on three weeks later. I wonder why.

On December 3 after our meeting, I emailed Ms. Watts asking her to explain how HUSD’s segregation in this area is legal. I reminded her on December 8. She has yet to answer.

I wonder why.

HUSD/Watts’ official December 10 reply only addressed the federal law issue fully explained in the previous update, and totally ignored this question of how HUSD can destroy students’ rights by segregating a minority group of students fully protected under federal law. She also promised to provide an official HUSD person to field students’ questions, and has yet to provide this. My students are asking almost every class some version of, “Who is the person we’re talking to on the Zoom call? When is it?” and increasingly, “My friends want to come. Can they?”

I requested another meeting with Watts on Dec. 12 to address this issue (among several), to which she has not replied.

On Dec. 16, I upgraded my request to both Grievance and/or HUSD Regulation 4144 Complaint with request to informally meet as the first step to either. I followed-up on Dec. 17.

HUSD/Watts has remained silent to my reasonable and obvious question of “medical segregation” policy legality for four weeks.

The number of students who want to participate in a Zoom call to receive HUSD’s answer has grown from ~20 to now ~50 (including ~10 friends of my students). I imagine several staff and teachers would also like to be on this Zoom call. All are welcome! Please accept my invitation if this calls to you

3. Do you consent?

If you would like to attend a Zoom call with at least HEA President Mercedes Faraj, me, and likely Assistant Superintendent Watts, please let me know.

If you would like more detailed information, or have questions or arguments, please let me know. I’m delighted to write and/or chat with anyone, because for 15 months I’ve been engaged in these questions and have only received HUSD responses consistent with the two I’ve shared in this HHS Solutions and Beyond! PLC report.

Following is the list of my questions pertinent to HHS teaching and learning that I’ve upgraded to both Grievance and/or HUSD Regulation 4144 Complaint, with request to informally meet as the first step to either. If you see additional questions, feel free to ask Ms. Watts, and please let me know what you see.
Regarding HUSD’s December 15 memo on “vaccine deadline” stating that students “will not be excluded from school” if they don’t meet the testing requirement, does that apply to staff? If not, explain how this policy is in conformance to law. Does this policy apply to all EAUs? If not, explain the legal authority HUSD has to “pick and choose” health guidance for employees. (note: LAUSD also retreated from their “vaccine deadline”)
Related, are HUSD’s Covid tests coming to schools in vans among the EAUs withdrawn from EUA authorization on Dec. 31, 2021? If so, what further legal authority does HUSD have for testing after schools close on Dec. 17 for Winter Break?
Given the above two points, what will HUSD do if I decline “testing” within my federal Title 21 protection to opt-out? (note: this applies to 20+ staff, and all currently vaccinated staff if the state “orders” “booster” injections over time to avoid weekly testing, or even “super boosters” every 6 months.)
If HUSD is now “picking and choosing” which “health” policies to enforce, what will HUSD do if I exercise Title 21 protection to decline experimental masks? Your response states “may establish,” so I want to know what HUSD will definitely do, including the full range of responses with timeline so I can make fully-informed choices. This includes “Upon compliance with the health mandate, the employee would be returned to paid status.” (so all teachers know the score on this ambiguous HUSD policy of “may” when they are declaring some “health” policies “require” enforcement, while others do not for unexplained mysterious “public health reasons”)
Students have a right to question HUSD policies. On Dec. 10, you promised to provide the appropriate person for students to ask, and ~50 are now eager and asking who the appropriate person is, and when they can meet. Btw: HUSD’s failure for prompt answers is motivating more and more students to engage.
Now at my 14th written request that I again made in your presence at our Dec. 3 Zoom meeting and that you agreed to provide, what are the written materials HUSD received to administer medical and religious exemptions? Is it legal to withhold these from an employee? If not, how is HUSD not violating the law? This follows Ms. Sweet email on Oct. 18: “I apology (sic) for the delayed response. I am working to get you the information that you requested. I hope to have it for you soon.” (note: If I’m so blatantly denied source material to inform my choices over the CRAZY 14 specific written requests, how does that change your perception about how responsive HUSD is going to be to HHS teachers’ requests for information to optimize teaching and learning? I’m asking you to stand with me to receive an answer, but if and only if, you see this in HHS teachers’ and students’ best interests.)
How HUSD can legally segregate the minority group of unvaccinated students for 10 days in apparent violation of “within 6 feet for 15+ minutes” of a “positive case”: Ms. Watts explained this was a choice of the district to do so without evidence, and that she will provide me with all pertinent source material (I have received none in the two weeks since our meeting). I reminded all that I was illegally “health ordered” home by Principal Seymour until I requested to review the source documentation. I voiced my concern that students were deprived of their rights through this segregation and double-standard that my testimony of not being within 6 feet of any student for 15 minutes or more was accepted, but students were not asked. Ms. Watts claimed this was “not practical” for students.
HUSD expectation of how employees should fulfill our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions of limited government: This is a new question, and perhaps the most important one given all HUSD employees must take this Oath. If HUSD requires the Oath for employment, what is the expectation to fulfill that Oath requirement? The US was founded upon the clear documentation of our own government’s violations of law to uphold public rights. Our mutual Oath has the purpose of public responsibility to keep government within legal limits of power, true?
Receive explanation of HUSD’s un-cited, anonymous, and extraordinary legal claim that superior federally-protected rights can be destroyed by inferior local and/or state government dictatorial “mandates”/“orders”/“requirements”/“protocols”/“guidance”/whatever by reason HUSD gives that occupy the field (and here, here, here, here, here for international law, and here for ABA analysis) for “broader rights” and “more stringent compliance” can be inverted to “near-zero rights” and “near-zero compliance.” I welcome HUSD’s anonymous source to participate in our meeting, and request a name and job position now so I can personally ask for an explanation. Are we in agreement that if in a US Government class, a student submitted just two paragraphs (with an incomplete sentence) to explain how a specific policy is legal under a specific law that was un-cited and anonymous, didn’t mention the law in question, and didn’t attempt to apply the law to the situation in question, then that “explanation” would be returned for further work? Two immediate questions:
HUSD claims their policy of required EAU use for employment provides “broader rights” than US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) and The Nuremberg Code that make required EAU use an illegal violation of one’s rights. How is placing employees on unpaid leave a “broader right” for employees exercising their right in Title 21 to refuse EUAs?
HUSD claims their policy of mandatory EAU use provides “more stringent compliance” of US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) and California Health and Safety Code § 24171 to § 24176. How is forcing employees into unpaid leave “more stringent compliance” of federal and state laws that make any coercion to decline EUAs illegal?
Affirm or refute my summary of HUSD’s written position you provided in those two paragraphs from an anonymous and un-cited source you refuse to name: HUSD’s policy is to do what is explicitly forbidden by federal and state laws (see opening quote). HUSD claims this is legal because “occupy the field” for “broader rights” and “more stringent compliance” of “option to refuse EUAs” means state and/or local “health” “orders” to require EUAs in order to receive pay are both superior to Constitutional, federal, and/or state protected rights, and provide individuals “broader rights” and “more stringent compliance” than US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) and California Health and Safety Code § 24171 to § 24176 on their own. At our upcoming meeting either affirm my good-faith above summary in this paragraph, or correct my understanding of HUSD’s explanation how HUSD’s required EUA policy is in conformance to law.
Affirm or refute my summary of HUSD’s written position you provided in those two paragraphs from an anonymous and un-cited source you refuse to name: State dictatorship under a claimed emergency destroys explicit state and federally-protected rights for as long as dictated. Article 6 of the US Constitution is inferior to state and/or local “emergency” dictatorship. Federal law is inferior to state and/or local “emergency” dictatorship. The above honors our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions of limited government.
Explain how HUSD policy is in conformance of law to make some legal citations, but ignore: Governor Newsom’s emergency ordering authority fails to meet the definition of “emergency” in California Government Code 8558 (b) of “beyond control” hospitals he cited as the source of his authority.
Explain HUSD’s failure to act upon my report of the most authoritative 14 CA government agencies’ all either refusing to address the question of “emergency” ordering authority given cited legal limits, or their tragic-comic evasions and obfuscations should have motivated HUSD to ask county and/or state for an explanation of ordering authority. How is HUSD so sure their “health” “orders” are lawful when these 14 agencies can’t explain it?
As always, dear colleagues, I submit this HHS Solutions and Beyond! PLC report in good-faith professionalism regarding our most important broader topics with the greatest impact on HUSD and HHS teaching and learning. Anyone who wants off this PLC list, please ask. Anyone who wants more info, or has questions, please ask. Anyone who wants in on the Zoom call to discover HUSD answers and/or emphasize the importance of these topics to current and future teaching/learning environments, please ask.

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,

Nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

~ Dr. Seuss, The Lorax

**

Up next!

The Superintendent sent a Dec. 15 email formally closing my Grievance of district censorship of the PLC committee I chair, and deciding “the district will allow Mr. Herman to continue with his PLC focused on addressing student achievement at HHS. The district understands that this focus may include proposing alternatives to district policies to try to improve student outcomes. We appreciate your efforts to support student learning.” I’ll dedicate an update to document that battle.

Stay tuned for our next episode

**