Challenging our public school district’s obedience to county ‘health’ ‘orders’: District claims unpaid leave for refusing EUAs is a ‘broader right’ of choice than currently choosing paid work

“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).

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.

**

Update 1:

Dec. 10 email from Assistant Superintendent as official response to our Dec. 3 meeting I requested for HUSD to explain how local health orders destroy federally-protected rights: 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.

HUSD Written Response to Request for Information (12.10.21)

(Assistant Superintendent)
pastedGraphic.png
Dec 10, 2021, 6:34 PM (2 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to me,(Health Director, Teachers’ Union President + VP, Superintendent)
pastedGraphic.png
Mr. Herman,

Thank you and your Representative, (union president) for meeting with (Health Director), and myself on December 3, 2021 to discuss concerns regarding vaccination and testing requirements for employees. At that meeting you requested a written response to requested information discussed at that meeting. Please find attached the District’s written response to this request, and next steps should this information not address the concerns shared.

Kind regards,
Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources

Date: December 10, 2021
To: Carl Herman, Teacher, (Omitted) High School
From: (Omitted), Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources Department
Re: Written Response to Vaccination Requirement
cc: (Omitted), Principal, (Omitted) High School
(Omitted), Superintendent
HEA

This serves as the HUSD written response to the concerns brought forward in an initial email request for information on October 19, 2021. An initial written response to your email was provided to you on October 28, 2021. Upon request through your HEA representative to meet on this matter, myself and Director of Certificated Personnel, (name omitted) met with you and your HEA Representative, (name omitted) on December 3, 2021 to further discuss your concerns and the request for a formal written response within 5 working days of that meeting.

The District maintains the position to adhere to Board Policy 5141.22 and Education Code 32282 and 49403 to remain compliant to federal and local health requirements. These policies require our school district to comply with federal, state, county and local requirements to ensure the safest working conditions for all employees. The California Public Health Department order issued on August 11, 2021 requires employees working in schools to submit COVID-19 vaccine verification, or submission of weekly testing results in lieu of vaccination to their employment agency by October 15, 2021.

Exemptions from the COVID-19 vaccine are not relative, as weekly testing is the option for those unable to verify vaccination status. There is no exemption allowable for proof of weekly testing. Should an employee not be compliant with the state governing requirements, HUSD has elected to send multiple notifications to employees to comply. Upon continued employee non-compliance, the District may establish that an employee’s non-compliance to the mandate poses a threat to the health and safety of the employee or others in the workplace per American Disabilities Act(ADA), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and Occupational Safety and Health Standards (OSHA) Guidance.

Upon determination of the threat to workplace safety, the District may elect to place an employee on general unpaid leave. Per the HEA CBA provisions for HEA members, general unpaid leave is outlined in Article 11 section R, and other general provisions governing leaves are also outlined in Article 11 section S. Upon compliance of the health mandate, the employee would be returned to paid status.

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.

The District’s compliance with local and state heath requirements is contractually compliant per HEA CBA Article 9, and does not qualify as grievable. The District believes it is properly following education code provisions to ensure health and safety for students and staff, as directed by local governance bodies appropriately.

If you feel that this response does not adequately address the concerns shared, you may file a District Level Appeal through the District complaint process as outlined in Administrative Regulation 4144.

**
Update 2:

My Dec. 12 follow-up to the district’s above response: I found much in the response worthy of question.

Herman, Carl
5:49 PM (1 hour ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to Carl, (Assistant Superintendent, Teachers’ Union President + VP, Health Director, Superintendent)

“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),
Thank you for your/HUSD’s response.

I request a meeting this week to:
Correct apparent errors in your response: HUSD’s response claims “initial email request for information on October 19, 2021. An initial written response to your email was provided to you on October 28, 2021.” My requests are in the email chain titled “employment options” for teachers refusing “mandated” testing?, and show no such dated request and response. Please demonstrate otherwise, or correct your apparent errors in reporting.
Make a 14th request to receive all source material HUSD has in possession regarding medical exemptions. This is likely a manual(s) provided by county and/or state of how to administer medical and religious exemptions. Your response provided no source material. Please also now provide religious exemption source material. Is it legal for HUSD to refuse an employee source material for EUA exemptions? HUSD’s action currently demonstrates refusal to provide me required information for informed consent.
Receive an answer to my question from our Dec. 3 meeting, and repeated in email that afternoon to (today’s email recipients). To repeat: “How HUSD can legally segregate unvaccinated students away from school for 10 days in apparent violation of “within 6 feet for 15+ minutes” of a “positive case”: (Assistant Superintendent) explained this was a choice of the district, and that she will provide me with all pertinent source material. I reminded all that I was illegally “health ordered” home by Principal (omitted) 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. (Assistant Superintendent) claimed this was not practical for students.” HUSD must explain how this policy is “in conformance to law” or withdraw it with public acknowledgment and correction.
Receive an answer to my question from our Dec. 3 meeting, and repeated in email that afternoon to (today’s email recipients). To repeat: 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.
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. 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?
The purpose of “occupy the field” in federal and state law is that the broadest rights with the most stringent compliance to uphold them are applied, not destroyed. As an AP US Government teacher, I professionally and factually assert that HUSD’s response is the Orwellian-opposite of what we teach students, and has no support I know of in case law (or can imagine exists).

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.

To be clear, the following is also HUSD’s explanation how required use of EUAs for employment is legal:

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.

At our upcoming meeting either affirm the above four sentences, or correct my understanding of HUSD’s response to my question of EUA policy being in conformance to law.

HUSD’s anonymous and un-cited explanation of “occupy the field” was also given in October 2020 in Level II response to my grievance question to explain how the then claimed “health” “orders” requiring “whatever face coverings” were in compliance with OSHA and Cal/OSHA tested standards of respiratory protection for the claimed “pandemic”-level virus. That is, last year HUSD claimed a lesser-level of “whatever” protection was justified by “occupy the field,” with HUSD never responding to my requests to cite OSHA and Cal/OSHA safety standards for respiratory protection for “pandemic virus” that HUSD must have professionally evaluated to make this claim. I also requested the studies demonstrating “whatever face coverings” exceeded OSHA and Cal/OSHA safety standards, because that would be the required evidence for HUSD to stand by the safety of “whatever face coverings” in October 2020. I asked because I suspected that no evidence could be provided to uphold a “health” “order” for “whatever” quality “coverings.” Please revisit that history to explain what HUSD meant by “occupy the field” at that time, so I can best understand what HUSD now means using this repeated, un-cited, and apparently changing-in-meaning term.

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

Join my questions 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.”

Our community of parents, students, employees, and tax payers will compare HUSD’s explanation of legality and refusal of my remedy to these facts:
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.
HUSD cites Board and state Code to follow “health orders,” but ignores cited CA Code requiring a “health emergency” to exist if, and only if, there are actual “beyond control” hospitals. HUSD has refused any response to my questions regarding this reasonable limit to dictatorial authority for 15 months.
State government failure to report on comprehensive and politically-independent data of hospital capacity (“two weeks to flatten the curve to keep our hospitals operational”) is a lie of omission.
Substituting problematic “positive cases” for “beyond control hospitals” is a lie of commission.
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.
Federal law of US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) that allows everyone the full and free option to refuse EUAs is superior to state and local law under Article 6 of the US Constitution. Article 6 is clear that any claimed state law in violation of federal law is without standing.
Our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions of limited government requires this complete conversation, with all questions answered, or refuted as unreasonable.
Occupy the field (and here, here, here, here, here for international law, and here for ABA analysis) grants individuals and groups more rights (not less), and more stringent protection of those rights (not less). When applied to laws specifically empowering individual choices over experimental medicine, this means those choices are broader, and that the power of choice is more stringently protected.
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.
When the public’s confusion clears, our (omitted) community will judge HUSD based upon the facts.

I would hope, (Assistant Superintendent), that you will receive the above as reasonable and requiring a meeting to address entirely.

If the above is not inherently reasonable to address, then I invite consideration that the above documented facts prove the response you provided was not a sufficient response because it:
Is factually inaccurate upon its first sentence.
Failed to provide requested and I assume legally required information about employee rights for medical and/or religious exemptions.
Failed to answer the question how current HUSD policy to deny a minority group of our students their rights before segregating (“quarantine”) them for 10 days is lawful. (Assistant Superintendent) promised on our Dec. 3 meeting to provide all source material, and has provided nothing. HUSD did not remind students of the definition of exposure = within 6 feet for 15+ minutes, and had no proof to “order” students home because of provable exposure the student was within 6 feet for at least 15 minutes of the student “testing positive.” HUSD’s current response that students’ rights were ignored and violated because upholding rights is “not practical” must be addressed for school policy to be in conformance to law, as redundantly required in our CBA.
Ignored my question about how our required Oath for employment to support and defend CA and US Constitutions apply to these questions. If an employee wrote to say that they renege on that Oath, you fire that person, right? I’m asking how to honor that Oath, given it’s so important.
Claims to “respond” to my question how superior federal law is destroyed by inferior state law by having an anonymous source give an un-cited claim that “occupy the field” has somehow inverted its meaning for “broader rights” and “more stringent compliance” to now mean “narrower rights” and “non-compliance” of previously uncontested letter and intent of laws forever making coerced medical experiments illegal. This clearly needs explanation and documentation to prove, or HUSD must withdraw the claim. Seriously, we teach our high school students that responding to a question with an anonymous source using un-cited factual claims to make a unique argument allegedly based in law is an automatic failed beginning, right?
HUSD’s response is literally an anonymous source inverting superior federal law to become inferior to state “mandates”/“orders”/“requirements”/“protocols”/“guidance”/whatever. HUSD then fails to address anything about Federal law US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) content to uphold The Nuremberg Code and end unwanted medical experiments forever. This language is repeated in California Health and Safety Code § 24171 to § 24176, which is the meaning of informed consent universally used for any medical experiment. HUSD must explain their “occupy the field” argument that ends previously unchallenged federal law protection from coerced medical experiments. If a student submitted a US Government class assignment that inverted the uncontested meaning of a law protecting rights into its opposite of destroying those rights, claimed an un-cited source that also inverted the meaning of “occupy the field” from “broader rights of choice in Title 21” into the opposite of “narrower rights under Title 21,” and that one source provided was anonymous, clearly that student’s “response” must be returned for further work, right?
Please let me know if all the above reasons are not inherently worthy to grant a meeting.

Carl

**

Up next!

The Superintendent had a contractually-required response to the Grievance from “Update 1” by December 11 that was ignored, so I’ll follow-up with request for arbitration. The district promised an answer to whom students can direct their questions.

Stay tuned for our next episode