Challenging our public school district’s obedience to county ‘health’ ‘orders’: District removes my committee’s 2-month censorship after conceding addressing lockdown’s doubled failure rate was ‘aligned with district learning goals,’ ~50 students revolt

“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, 39).

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.

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

**

Update 1:

The Grievance, with 5 supporting documents: My Grievance was to end district censorship of the Professional Learning Committee (PLC) I’ve chaired for years, and filed after HUSD refused to cite anything I wrote, said, or did to violate any policy. The Grievance initiated on September 27, 2021, with abundant supporting documents in chronological order:

Statement of Grievance

Note: Because HUSD unilaterally changed my last addressed Grievance to a “district complaint” without permission nor explanation with citation of HUSD’s power to dictate “Grievance” away from contractual status, I admonish and give legal notice that if HUSD believes they have legal authority to destroy a Grievance, then please fulfill your burden of proof to explain and document how HUSD can legally destroy that contractual right.

HUSD CORE VALUES
Collaborative Leadership: We develop leaders at all levels who creatively tackle our challenges and communicate with integrity and transparency.
Data-Informed Decisions: We use multiple types of data, including stakeholder voice, to inform decisions and monitor progress.
Well-Supported Staff: We enhance the capacity of every employee to promote equity and model service excellence.
Beginning in April 2021, HUSD has accused my Professional Learning Committee (PLC) communications as below professional standards, giving written notice on July 23rd (attached July 23 email) of the first of four steps for employee termination. My multiple requests for citation of what I wrote that HUSD found unprofessional, and obvious questions given unprofessional conduct was alleged and not substantiated with any evidence was met with HUSD silence (attached July 24 email), then Ms. Watts final reply of July 26 that continues HUSD silence to the present of September 27, 2021:

Watts, Kimberleigh
Jul 26, 2021, 12:12 PM
to me, Mercedes, David, Matt, Mary, Carl

Mr. Herman,

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.

Kind regards,
Kim Watts
Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources

On September 19, 2021 I emailed Dr. Wayne, Ms. Watts, all 5 HUSD school board members, HHS Admin, HEA president and VP, and PLC colleagues who requested updates, with legal notice of HUSD policy violations of US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) (Emergency Use Authorization products must only be administered with option to refuse) and US Code Title 18 Section 242: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW (attached September 19 email). Dr. Wayne immediately accused me of further unprofessional behavior, and threatened disciplinary action should I exercise contractually-protected (see contract violations below) and standard PLC practices to communicate important teaching and learning PLC findings to HHS teachers (attached September 20 email). Dr. Wayne continued HUSD practice to claim my work is below professional standards without any quoted passage of what I wrote.

My three follow-ups challenging Dr. Wayne’s accusations, Orwellian misrepresentation of “my ongoing issue,” claimed ignorance of receipt of my 35-page detailed report of the 14 most authoritative CA government agencies’ failure to address limits to claimed government dictatorial powers, and obvious questions of his censorship without citation of what I wrote were again met with silence (attached September 20, 21, 22 emails).

Following is HUSD and Dr. Wayne’s 3-paragraph stated position from October 2, 2020 in response to a previous Grievance:

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

As you are aware, our county public health officer has issued public health orders in accordance with the Governor’s declarations of state of emergency as a result of a local health emergency. The health orders as discussed outline “Shelter in Place” and “Face Coverings” in the prevention of the spread of COVID-19.

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.”

HUSD practices prima facie-illegal “just follow orders” policies while refusing to address obvious CA legal limits to ongoing dictatorial “emergency” “health” “orders,” and apparent Orwellian-violations of US Codes 21 and 18. My subsequent required and obvious questions to exercise our mutual STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE to support and defend US and CA Constitutions, and to protect our HUSD/HEA Collective Bargaining Agreement are not addressed by HUSD devolution to “just follow orders.”

HUSD engagement to terminate my employment, censor my contractually and Constitutionally protected speech, and defame my professionalism is all with refusal to cite any action or quoted communication of mine in violation of contract and/or policy. HUSD’s claim to justify their policies and my personal punishment because HUSD “must follow orders” is illegal, in obvious violations of contract documented next, and in violation of our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions.

Specific contract provisions alleged to have been violated (cite source)

ARTICLE 3 DISTRICT RIGHTS: “It is understood and agreed that the District retains all of its power and authority to direct, manage and control to the full extent of the law.”

ARTICLE 3 DISTRICT RIGHTS: (the District) “shall be limited only by the specific and express terms of this Agreement, and, then only, to the extent such specific and express terms are in conformance with law.”

VIOLATIONS: As documented above, HUSD policies violate US Codes 21 and 18 (also in my September 19 Grievance), with ongoing documentation of HUSD violating California Government Code 8558 (b) that “emergency orders” authority requires “beyond control” local resources (hospitals in this case). Therefore all HUSD discipline, threats of discipline, and censorship of my requesting HUSD to document and explain how their policies are within the “extent of the law” are fully protected speech.

ARTICLE 7 DISCIPLINE LESS THAN DISMISSAL: “A. The District may discipline a unit member only for just cause.”

VIOLATIONS: HUSD refuses to specifically cite anything I’ve written to initiate employee termination, and threats to escalate employee termination. HUSD’s failure to cite began in April 2021. My repeated requests for HUSD to cite what I wrote as evidence for their factual claims of my unprofessional conduct began in April 2021. To date, HUSD has met more of my requests than I care to count with ongoing silence (please compare with HUSD CORE VALUES cited at the start of this Grievance).

ARTICLE 25 ACADEMIC FREEDOM: C. The teacher must be free to think and express ideas, free to select and employ materials, and follow methods and educationally acceptable learning styles of instruction, free from undue pressures of authority, and free to act within his/her professional group.

VIOLATIONS: Censorship and district action for employment termination are Orwellian-opposite of teacher freedom to think and express ideas, and freedom to employ materials. District censorship and employee termination steps are the harshest “pressures of authority,” and totally destructive of freedom to act within our professional groups.

ARTICLE 25 ACADEMIC FREEDOM: C: “Such academic freedom shall be subject to standards of professional responsibility with due regard for the maturity level of the students, laws of the state of California, District policy, and administrative rules and regulations.”

VIOLATIONS: HUSD violates our professional responsibility to ask and receive appropriate answers about “laws of the state of California” and applicable federal laws. HUSD’s claimed legal authority to “just follow orders” dishonors American limited government under California and Federal Laws as cited, and instead authorizes ongoing and unanswerable dictatorial authority. HUSD has rejected my likely dozens of requests since my first communication of September 2020 to cite and explain how their “health” “orders” are within cited laws’ limits to dictatorship. HUSD therefore violates my “professional responsibility” to address “laws of the state of California, District policy, and administrative rules and regulations.”

ARTICLE 25 ACADEMIC FREEDOM: “E. Academic freedom is not an absolute. It must be exercised within the law and the basic ethical responsibilities of the teaching profession. Those responsibilities include: 1. An understanding of our democratic tradition and its method; 2. A concern for the welfare, growth, maturity and development of our students; 3. The method of scholarship.”

VIOLATIONS: I have ethically cited the law and requested HUSD’s explanations and citations how their policies are within the law. HUSD’s October 2, 2020 standing response of “just follow orders” violates the very first US “democratic tradition and its method” to challenge the legal authority of government orders/laws/mandates/etc. My speech to challenge HUSD ordering authority is protected from discipline and censorship. The US would still be unequal subjects ruled under monarchy without representatives in government if Americans did not challenge prima facie-illegal government “orders” that our required mutual Oath supports and defends.

My PLC communications are centered in HHS teaching and learning for the explicit purpose to address HUSD policy directly connected to doubled student failure rates; the likely worst drop of student academic performance in district history! HUSD has refused to answer my multiple requests to explain and cite what I wrote that addressing doubled student fails is somehow not “focused on standards based instruction, and/or school goals, and/or district goals.” Addressing policy that doubled student failures, with subsequent harm to graduation rates, is in obvious “concern for the welfare, growth, maturity and development of our students.”

I have professionally explained and documented all factual claims. HUSD has abandoned professional academic practice to choose silence rather than address anything I wrote to substantiate their prima facie per se defamation of my professionalism, censorship, and active steps to terminate my employment.

HUSD is therefore engaged in gross violations of academic freedom both in spirit and letter of our contract.

ARTICLE 25 ACADEMIC FREEDOM: “F. Collaboration time shall be teacher directed and focused on standards based instruction, and/or school goals, and/or district goals. Teachers shall share decisions related to school and district goals from collaboration time with administration. The form and process for sharing the decisions shall be mutually developed and agreed to by HEA and HUSD.”

VIOLATIONS: HUSD’s censorship of the PLC I chair, discipline for employee termination, and threats to escalate employee termination all without quoting anything I did in violation, is intentional destruction of teacher-directed collaboration.

HUSD’s censorship for teacher consideration of policy correlate to a doubled student failure rate (again: likely the most devastating decline of student learning in district history) violates my right as a teacher to address the school and district goal to minimize student failures.

HUSD’s dictatorial “orders” of censorship, discipline for employee termination, and threats to escalate employee termination violate my right as a teacher to “share decisions related to school and district goals from collaboration time.”

HUSD’s dictatorial “orders” of censorship, discipline for employee termination, and threats to escalate employee termination violate HUSD’s contractual obligation: “The form and process for sharing the decisions (PLC communications) shall be mutually developed and agreed to by HEA and HUSD.” The accepted standard practice has been for PLCs to share important considerations for teaching and learning at will. I explicitly state on our PLC emails that teachers can opt out, which I honor in good faith. HUSD and/or HEA have not provided me with any documentation of “agreement” between them as to “form and process for sharing,” so our PLC has practiced the accepted and historical form of sharing.

Remedy sought

HUSD removes their censorship and destruction of my PLC: HHS Solutions and Beyond!

HUSD removes their previous disciplinary action leading to employment termination. HUSD/Dr. Wayne rescinds any implied threat of discipline from my PLC communications to interested teachers.

**

Attachments in chronological order:

(Assistant Superintendent)

Jul 23, 2021, 4:55 PM
to (teachers’ union President + VP, me, Principal, Superintendent)

Hello (teachers’ union President),

For further clarification, Mr. Herman’s April 25, 2021 email communication (attached) was sent to all HHS staff. Per board policy 4040, work email shall not be utilized by employees to communicate on topics outside of the HUSD employee related scope of work. At this time the district is expressing concern that Mr. Herman’s continued use of work email in this manner may result in further progressive disciplinary action for violation of this policy. The district has directed Mr. Herman to refrain from using work email to share communication with government or political bodies on topics not related to the HUSD employee scope of work.

Additionally, progressive disciplinary steps in general for policy violations are as follows:
Written letter of concern/warning
Written letter of reprimand
Notice of Unprofessional Conduct/Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance
Recommendation to Board for dismissal for failure to improve conduct/performance, or demonstrated egregious acts of misconduct
The district considers the communication to direct Mr. Herman’s appropriate use of work email as an expressed concern and warning to avoid a board policy violation.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Kind regards,

Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources

**

Herman, Carl

Jul 24, 2021, 2:27 PM

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

(Assistant Superintendent),
After 3 months of HEA and my requests, it is now time to either cite and articulate what I wrote that violates policy, or withdraw HUSD’s threats of “disciplinary action” and censorship of our PLC’s work to address the worst decline in student academic productivity in likely district history (as measured by ~doubled failure rates).

Cite and explain the violation HUSD claims, or withdraw the multiple accusations against my professionalism and our HHS teachers’ academic freedom in our HHS Solutions PLC.

HUSD’s failure/refusal to substantiate claims against my professionalism appears to be per se defamation. I would strongly prefer not to engage HUSD in a legal venue to defend my professionalism, but I will do so if necessary.

HUSD’s accusations:
April 26: HUSD claims I used district email to “communicate political views and discontent”: cite the “political views” and “discontent” or withdraw the accusations. Explain the context and content of the email that is a problem, because our committee teachers see we are asking the fundamental question connected to the worst academic decline in district history. Our PLC’s email asks the question which is listed first in HUSD/HEA’s contract Article 25.E.1 (Academic Freedom) to express “An understanding of our democratic tradition and its method” by asking the first American question of how governing policy is within the limits of law cited by Governor Newsom in California Government Code 8558 (b) that requires “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders. Our PLC asks in good-faith honor of our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions of limited government. We are all Oath-sworn to support and defend the political view of limited government under our Constitutions guaranteeing Natural Rights.
April 26: HUSD claims I “communicate as if you are representing the district, your school, or colleagues at your school.” Cite and explain the problem of my PLC work as chair or withdraw the complaint. Explain the content and context of the email that is a problem, because our PLC see this as following-up what Superintendent (omitted) requested: ask CA government agencies the questions that HUSD declined to answer regarding “beyond control” hospitals and 60 days of emergency ordering authority. I promised to report back, and after 6 weeks of work communicating with the 14 most authoritative CA government agencies, I sent my report to HUSD leadership, HEA leadership, and HHS teachers (PLCs share what they find important to the school’s teaching and learning). In my communications I identified myself as a chairperson of a school committee. Our PLC concludes that because all 14 CA government agencies refused to explain how emergency “health” “orders” honor the clear and explicit legal limits that require “beyond control” hospitals, HUSD and HEA should be supporting getting our questions answered. Our PLC notes that Californians never received comprehensive hospital data (a lie in omission), and that problematic “positive cases” were substituted for “beyond control” hospitals (a 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.” HUSD refusal to explain our workplace policy’s legitimate authority other than “just follow orders” is taught to all California high school students as an illegal justification for authority. Moreover, all California middle school students learn to “Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources” (page 81), which HUSD fails/refuses to do. Again, I hope I do not need to present this basic civics lesson in a legal venue against HUSD, and will do so if required.
April 26: regarding that I “communicate as if you are representing the district, your school, or colleagues at your school,” explain in context and content of my report that I promised HUSD and HEA leadership to deliver after Superintendent (omitted’s) direct request, how does this HUSD complaint not violate these HUSD CORE VALUES?
Well-Supported Staff: We enhance the capacity of every employee to promote equity and model service excellence.
Collaborative Leadership: We develop leaders at all levels who creatively tackle our challenges and communicate with integrity and transparency.
Data-Informed Decisions: We use multiple types of data, including stakeholder voice, to inform decisions and monitor progress.
April 27: Principal (omitted) claimed our PLC’s report “appears” to violate “collaboration time should be teacher directed and focused on standards based instruction, and/or school, and/or district goals” (Contract Article 10.D.4). Cite and explain the violation or withdraw the accusation and censorship. Our PLC teachers are shocked and dismayed that (omitted) and HUSD fail to see our work addresses the single most important teaching and learning topic of the school year of doubled student failure rates, upholds HUSD/HEA’s contract Article 25.E.1 as previously stated, that HUSD teachers are expected to accept censorship without citation based on “appearances” to school “leaders,” and that “just follow orders” is the “new HUSD normal.”
May 27: HUSD claims my report is “harmful or inappropriate matter” that “could be construed as harassment or disparagement of others based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, or political beliefs.” Cite and explain the violation or withdraw the accusation and censorship. Our PLC teachers are astonished that our obvious question of policy legality in a PLC report along with official government responses is interpreted by HUSD as somehow harassing or insulting others based on their political belief. What political belief is offended, and how? Please recall: all employees are required by Oath to have the political belief of limited government under the Constitution.
May 27: HUSD complains: “The District does not perceive your communications to be work related with other staff members, and contains your communications shared with governmental officials.” Cite in context and content with explanation how our PLC report to address a doubled student failure rate is not “work related.” Also, explain the problem with reporting the answers from the most authoritative 14 CA government agencies after Superintendent (omitted’s) request, and that I promised to do.
May 27: HUSD claims I communicated “Your personal opinion regarding the health order” rather than asking HUSD to demonstrate legality of policy given “just follow orders” is in prima facie violation of our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions of limited government. Cite this “personal opinion” or withdraw this claim. If you have a “personal opinion” to cite, then explain how it is not in honor of our mutual Oath.
May 27: HUSD claims I “forwarded” a “personal opinion” to other staff and faculty that “was not perceived as professional and appropriate use.” Cite the “personal opinion” in context and content, and explain how this communication is not professional and appropriate, or withdraw the claim. I find zero “personal opinions” in our report other than in light of honoring our mutual Oath.
HUSD gives “direction to cease forwarding messages to your Instructional Leadership Team.” Explain what this means or withdraw the direction. On its face, this is blanket censorship and HUSD harassment to not “forward” any “messages.” Who is the “Instructional Leadership Team” and how did I “forward messages”?
July 21: HUSD claims “Upon review, the District does not consider what was submitted as contractual grievances, rather considers them district complaints.” Cite and explain how each and every of my three Grievances are not protected by our Collective Bargaining Agreement.
July 21: HUSD claims our PLC report to teachers was “personal opinions related to your communication with government bodies was unrelated to the regular school business, and was perceived by other employees as personal opinion in nature.” Again, cite and explain the “personal opinions” or withdraw the complaint. Cite and explain in content and context how our PLC report to address a doubled student failure rate is “unrelated to the regular school business” or withdraw the claim. If you keep this complaint, include an explanation how HUSD is not in violation of Article 25.E.1 (Academic Freedom) for our PLC to express the first American historical question of “An understanding of our democratic tradition and its method” to challenge apparent illegal policy of “just follow orders” without citation of source law. Cite and explain the “perception” that our PLC report is “personal opinion in nature” or withdraw the claim.
July 21: HUSD claims “My email communication did not state you had actually violated the policy.” Cite and explain the policy violation(s), or clearly state my communications did not violate policy, and withdraw all complaints and censorship.
July 23: HUSD claims our PLC report was “on topics outside of the HUSD employee related scope of work.” Cite and explain how our PLC report directly addressing policies connected to the worst decline of student academic success measured by failing classes as outside HUSD’s “scope of work,” or withdraw the complaint.
HUSD claims that my two other grievances as already decided and closed (requesting explanation of policy legality given clear limits to emergency ordering authority, and HUSD’s refusal to provide documentation to their apparent claim that “whatever” face coverings exceed OSHA safety standards). I promise to review these decisions with an attorney.

I have requested from HUSD since April to substantiate their claims, and request a response to each and every claim listed above by 5PM July 30, 2021. Any claim not cited and explained or withdrawn will be subject to review by my attorney.

HUSD gives every teacher our mutual Oath to sign. HUSD has ignored my repeated requests as the issuer of the Oath to inform me how to report violations. I admonish HUSD that failure to address our Oath to the US and CA Constitutions to support and defend limited government rather than dictatorial “orders” outside limits of “beyond control” hospitals will also be a topic I address with an attorney.

**

(Superintendent)

Mon, Sep 20, 5:18 PM (7 days ago)

to me, (HHS 4 Assistant Principals, teachers’ union President, Assistant Superintendent)

Dear Mr. Herman,

I am responding to your email below as well as to your email on 9/4 that was forwarded to me about continuing the HHS Solutions and Beyond! PLC. First, in response to your most current question, click here for the state public health officer order of August 11, 2021 requiring that schools must verify the vaccination status of employees and test employees at least weekly by October 15 who have not shown proof of vaccination. We are also following state and county guidance related to managing COVID-19 cases and exposures among students.

Second, your email below is continuing to raise concerns that the district has addressed. Your ongoing issue is that the district is following state and county issued directives and guidance. The district has followed its processes for addressing complaints and has already determined this matter closed and resolved. Please refrain from communicating further with us and your colleagues your concern that the district is following state and county directives and guidance. If you do not believe that the state or county have the authority to issue such directives as the one cited above, please take this matter up with them on your personal time using your personal email.

Lastly, in reviewing this and previous communications, your PLC does not meet the expectations as to how collaboration time is to be used. Per the HUSD/HEA contract, “Collaboration time shall be teacher directed and focused on standards based instruction, and/or school goals, and/or district goals.” Your PLC is not focused on instruction and is not aligned with school or district goals and may not continue. Please communicate with (Principal) how you intend to use collaboration time or participate in a PLC that is focused on standards based instruction, school, or district goals.

Thanks,

(name omitted)
Superintendent

**

Herman, Carl
Sep 20, 2021, 6:01 PM (7 days ago)

to Carl, (Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, teachers’ union President, 4 school Assistant Principals [principal declined to participate])

Dr. (Superintendent),
Your representation of my messages is a straw-man argument:

“Your ongoing issue is that the district is following state and county issued directives and guidance.”

My ongoing issue is that the district is ignoring 3 definitive and cited laws that demonstrate the state and county lack the legal authority to issue any directives/guidance/mandates/whatever with any power other than public option to accept or reject.

You omit important data that I already took your recommendation and fully documented my communications with the most authoritative 14 CA government agencies, and already sent you that report in April (all refused to address limits to dictatorial power, just as HUSD and you have):

“If you do not believe that the state or county have the authority to issue such directives as the one cited above, please take this matter up with them on your personal time using your personal email.”

And finally, you claim:

“Your PLC is not focused on instruction and is not aligned with school or district goals and may not continue.”

I have repeatedly stated these PLC communications directly address district and school policies that doubled our student failure rate last year; likely the worst decline in district history. Explain how this is not aligned with school and district goals, or withdraw your communication that my PLC work is below professional standards.

And in case you need reminding:

HUSD CORE VALUES
Collaborative Leadership: We develop leaders at all levels who creatively tackle our challenges and communicate with integrity and transparency.
Data-Informed Decisions: We use multiple types of data, including stakeholder voice, to inform decisions and monitor progress.

**

Herman, Carl

Sep 21, 2021, 5:45 AM (6 days ago)

to (teachers’ union President + VP, 5 school board members, Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, 4 school Assistant Principals, two interested school teachers)

Dr. (Superintendent):
On tomorrow’s School Board meeting agenda (9/22/2021), you entered an action item:

“To approve a resolution proactively mandating the COVID-19 full vaccination for eligible students aged 12 years and older by December 17, 2021.”

You also claim in your email to me:

“Second, your email below is continuing to raise concerns that the district has addressed.”

Question: How is “mandating the COVID-19 full vaccination for eligible students aged 12 years and older by December 17, 2021” a concern “that the district has addressed”?

Question: What is the citation and explanation of legal authority for HUSD to “mandate” an EUA vaccination when US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) clearly states in letter and intent that individuals have “the option to accept or refuse” experimental medicine? FDA has only approved the “Comirnaty vaccine” from Pfizer, with all others under EUA.

Question: Given the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) reports nearly 15,000 US deaths as adverse effects of Covid “vaccines” (for the last ~7 weeks = ~70 US deaths per day [and here, here] + over 40,000 deaths from the US, UK, and EU combined), and you’re asking the Board for HUSD “mandating the COVID-19 full vaccination for eligible students aged 12 years and older by December 17, 2021,” how is the Board and you as district Superintendent immune from criminal and civil actions from US Code Article 18 Section 242: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW (see below text) that “makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States”?

In case of student and/or staff death from experimental injection, the reasonable person standard of law may decide that whoever votes or administers forced experimental injections in our community’s children and professional public school employees “may be sentenced to death.”

Here’s 13 minutes of whistleblower testimony by federal doctors and nurses of unreported apparent vaccine adverse effects, including death, and including severe health damage to children that (Superintendent) asks HUSD Board Members to “mandate” for all (HUSD’s) public school children. Here’s another nurse’s testimony with 30 years’ expert experience of apparent criminal consequences to “mandate” experimental injections, especially to children.

(Superintendent), HUSD and HEA leaderships: Time to choose a side.

HUSD and HEA can either join my reasonable and OBVIOUS questions about “health” “order” authority, or continue behind prima facie-illegal “just follow orders under color of law.” HUSD and HEA’s time to honor our mutual Oath for limited government under the US Constitution will end when a critical mass of the public recognize the evidence I have professionally explained and documented as objective and independently-verifiably factual.

Btw: regarding the law cited by Governor Newsom for an “emergency” (California Government Code 8558 (b) that requires “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders), here’s CDC’s latest data that 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 have told me.

Each of you will either stand for limited government or unlimited government “under color of law.”

Choose wisely,
Carl

**

Herman, Carl

Sep 22, 2021, 5:15 AM (5 days ago)

to (teachers’ union President + VP, 5 school board members, Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, 4 school Assistant Principals, two interested school teachers)

Dear Board Members, (Superintendent), HEA Leadership, and HHS colleagues:

I write again because nobody has responded to my obvious and essential questions that soon all our community’s stakeholders will demand answers and accountability.

The Board will vote tonight on (Superintendent’s) action item “To approve a resolution proactively mandating the COVID-19 full vaccination for eligible students aged 12 years and older by December 17, 2021.”

Please consider you are all on is legal notice that the reasonable person standard of law may hold Board Members and (Superintendent) accountable for violating US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) (Title 21 of US Code governs US food and drug policies) because Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) requires all of you “to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”

I admonish that Federal Article 18 Section 242: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW reads: “… and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section … [responsible parties] shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”

I remind all that experimental EUA injections, EUA experimental PCR tests, and masks are all EUA products according to FDA, and therefore all subject to Title 21 restrictions of use for every HUSD family, student, and employee to have “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.” I admonish and remind all that HUSD’s current 3-paragraph stated position quoted in full below of “just follow orders under color of law” is literally taught as illegal to CA public school students in US History, with proponents of that defense executed as War Criminals and complicit propagandists after World War 2.

Nobody at HUSD will be able to argue ignorance of the data I’ve provided for over a year, and most recently: US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) reports nearly 15,000 US deaths as adverse effects of Covid “vaccines” (for the last ~7 weeks = ~70 US deaths per day [and here, here] + over 40,000 deaths from the US, UK, and EU combined). Sworn affidavits from expert witnesses in developing lawsuits argue for much higher numbers, as I hope you considered from 13 minutes of whistleblower testimony by federal doctors and nurses of unreported apparent vaccine adverse effects, including death, and including severe health damage to children (another nurse’s testimony with 30 years’ expert experience of apparent criminal consequences to “mandate” experimental injections, especially to children).

I recommend HUSD renounce and rescind all “mandatory” EUA products, or at least finally accept my Grievance and Board appeal remedy to pass my obvious questions of EUA and “emergency” “health” “order” authority to county and state levels. My 6 weeks of work to get such answers from the 14 most authoritative CA government agencies was compiled into a ~35 page report that you all received in April 2021. These are an excellent case study for 12th Grade US Government students in “official” tragic-comic obfuscation, as all refused to address limits of emergency ordering authority of the very law cited by Governor Newsom to declare an emergency (California Government Code 8558 (b) that requires “beyond control”), Again, here’s CDC’s latest data that 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 have told me.

HUSD and HEA are at their last call to join my reasonable and OBVIOUS questions about “health” “order” authority, instead of ignore them behind prima facie-illegal “just follow orders.” HUSD and HEA’s time to honor our mutual Oath for limited government under the US Constitution will end when a critical mass of the public recognize the evidence I have professionally explained and documented as objective and independently-verifiably factual.

I have been a good-faith messenger using my academic training and professional experience as a trained AP US Government teacher, and with experience briefing Members of Congress on ~300 policy proposals for ending domestic and global poverty that led to two UN Summits for heads of state. My role is ending soon, as more powerful legal voices and hands will soon replace mine.

I hope the Board considers (Superintendent) and HUSD’s ongoing attacks of the messenger and refusal to answer basic questions as important data points to inform your voices and votes.

To address obvious questions HUSD community members will also soon ask that (Superintendent) ignores, and is another area of dangerous liability for HUSD, (Superintendent) claims:

“Second, your email below is continuing to raise concerns that the district has addressed.”

Question: How is “mandating the COVID-19 full vaccination for eligible students aged 12 years and older by December 17, 2021” a concern “that the district has addressed”?

Following is what HUSD wrote to address my Grievance on October 2, 2020. Please cite where you address “mandating the COVID-19 full vaccination for eligible students aged 12 years and older by December 17, 2021.”

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

As you are aware, our county public health officer has issued public health orders in accordance with the Governor’s declarations of state of emergency as a result of a local health emergency. The health orders as discussed outline “Shelter in Place” and “Face Coverings” in the prevention of the spread of COVID-19.

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.”

Question: What is the citation and explanation of legal authority for HUSD to “mandate” an EUA vaccination when US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) clearly states in letter and intent that individuals have “the option to accept or refuse” experimental medicine? FDA has only approved the “Comirnaty vaccine” from Pfizer, with all others under EUA.

(Superintendent): you seem to be proposing an illegal policy to the Board unless you can explain otherwise.

Question: Given the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) reports nearly 15,000 US deaths as adverse effects of Covid “vaccines” (for the last ~7 weeks = ~70 US deaths per day [and here, here] + over 40,000 deaths from the US, UK, and EU combined), and you’re asking the Board for HUSD “mandating the COVID-19 full vaccination for eligible students aged 12 years and older by December 17, 2021,” how is the Board and you as district Superintendent immune from criminal and civil actions from US Code Article 18 Section 242: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW (see below text) that “makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States”?

(Superintendent): please explain how your experimental vaccine proposal is not “deprivation of rights under color of law.”

And finally, (Superintendent): you accuse me of unprofessional behavior to the School Board and my Admin Team without citing what I wrote, and without explanation how addressing a doubled student fail rate is “not focused on instruction and is not aligned with school or district goals.”

You dictated censorship of my contractually guaranteed “teacher directed” collaboration time. You dictated censorship without addressing contractually guaranteed academic freedom: “The teacher must be free to think and express ideas, … free from undue pressures of authority, and free to act within his/her professional group.”

Moreover, the topic of questioning the legality of government orders is specifically the first contractual stated responsibility of a teacher: “an understanding of our democratic tradition and its method.” The US is only a nation from questioning the legality of government orders.

Therefore again: “I have repeatedly stated these PLC communications directly address district and school policies that doubled our student failure rate last year; likely the worst decline in district history. Explain how this is not aligned with school and district goals, or withdraw your communication that my PLC work is below professional standards.”

(Superintendent): your un-cited accusation against my professionalism follows (Assistant Superintendent’s) refusal to cite anything from my similar questions when she initiated the first of four progressive disciplinary actions that lead to employee termination. An independent audience might conclude HUSD guilty of per se defamation among the first of other HUSD liabilities if I’m forced to take HUSD to court to answer my obvious and responsible questions, and to rescind and apologize for all attacks on my professionalism, as well as remove all censorship of my contractually-protected professional freedoms.

Make good choices,
Carl

**
Update 2:

Principal’s Grievance response then district silence, teachers’ union steps up enough to grant me a meeting with the district:

**

(Principal)
Wed, Sep 29, 12:24 PM

to me, Mercedes, Mary, Carl

Hello Mr. Herman,

I received your Level I grievance. I am consulting with the district on a response. In the meantime, I know we have committee meetings this afternoon. In your response to (Superintendent’s) email, I see you ask for additional understanding as to how your PLC/Committee does not comply with district expectations. While the district and I review your grievance and your questions, you may continue with your Committee this afternoon. However, please be mindful of the direction from the district that it is not appropriate to use work time and resources on complaints about district policies.

Please stay safe and well,

**

Carl Herman
Sep 29, 2021, 12:40 PM

to (Principal, teachers’ union President + VP)

Thank you, (Principal):
I have received zero understanding how my PLC violates contract or district policy (not committee, unless HUSD is pre-emptively censoring that also without explanation). HUSD has refused to quote and explain anything I wrote, yet initiates progressive discipline for employment termination.
The committee meets tomorrow.
You state: “However, please be mindful of the direction from the district that it is not appropriate to use work time and resources on complaints about district policies.” What is the appropriate response to district policies when I cite 3 definitive laws apparently proving district policies are illegal, and the district refuses to address my questions other than “just follow orders”? These are questions, not complaints. I’m forced to file Grievances and now consult with attorneys because neither my questions nor Grievances are addressed other than prima facie-illegal “just follow orders” rather than explain how district policies are within the limits of the laws I cite.
Thank you,

**

Herman, Carl
Oct 4, 2021, 5:32 AM

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

(Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent): I initiate a Level II Grievance (attached for failure to respond to Level I time requirement of 7 days).

Please note: Because HUSD unilaterally changed my last Grievance to an employee complaint without my permission, and without any explanation with citation of HUSD’s power to dictate “Grievance” away from its contractual status, I admonish and give legal notice that if HUSD believes they have legal authority to destroy a Grievance, then please fulfill your burden of proof to explain and document how HUSD can legally destroy that contractual right.

**

Herman, Carl
Oct 10, 2021, 6:13 AM

to (Teachers’ union President + VP)

Because HUSD has chosen silence rather than meet with me for the attached Level II Grievance submitted on October 4 to exceed their 5 day timeline to respond, I therefore request:

“If the decision at Level II is not satisfactory or the timelines stated above have been violated, the aggrieved, within ten (10) days after receiving the decision at Level II, may request, in writing, that the Association submit the grievance to arbitration.”

I further request to attend this meeting to be held on or before October 20, 2021:

“Within ten (10) days of the grievant’s request for arbitration, the Association President and/or his/her designees, the Superintendent and the Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources, shall meet to resolve the grievance.”

The question for arbitration is simple: Does the district have the right to censor and initiate termination of employment for a Professional Learning Committee report when the district refuses to quote the teacher after multiple requests?

**

21-22 #6 Academic Freedom Grievance

(Teachers’ union President)

Tue, Nov 2, 4:11 PM

to carl_herman, (HEA policy advisor and California Teachers’ Association rep.)

Hello Carl

In response to your Academic Freedom Grievance and its relevance to Article 25 (which we have assigned the number 21-22 #6 Academic Freedom), we would like to request a Level III grievance meeting with the Superintendent per Article 8 Grievance. ( Please note that we asked and were granted an extension of the timeline for which Level III grievances are to adhere)

To that end, please send days of the week and times of the week that work best for you to meet and we will include it in the email to the Superintendent when requesting a Level III meeting.

If it were the case that there was no satisfactory remedy at Level III, HEA reserves the right to determine if the grievance would go forward and be arbitrated based upon the merits of the case.

**

Grievance #6 Academic Freedom C Herman

(Teachers’ union President)

Nov 15, 2021, 3:45 PM

to carl_herman

In anticipation of the Level III meeting with (Superintendent), I am resubmitting HEA/CTA’s response regarding items outside the scope of the HEA as well as our position going forward in the Level III process (sent to you in October).

I am in hopes to hear from (Superintendent) soon with a date and time for us to meet regarding Grievance #6 relevant to Article 25 Academic Freedom.

Hello Mr Herman

1. With regards to the grievance regarding Covid response practices – masks, vaccinations etc: I believe that HEA and CTA have provided a response from our/their perspective namely; these challenges do not concern violations of the CBA, and fall outside the duty of representation to which members are entitled. CTA has previously issued legal guidance to staff and local unions that such requirements are legal, and that guidance included all relevant legal citations. CTA has taken a public position in support of such requirements, with a supermajority of our members in support. With regards to your requested consultation with CTA counsel about these matters, we have been informed that CTA attorneys are available to staff and local unions for advice, but they do not engage with members outside of specific employment-related matters. They have declined his request for consultation.

I believe that the response addresses next steps within HEA and CTA’s purview and the matter is closed.

2. With regards to the district letter stating not to use district email and your counter grievance on the grounds of academic freedom, the response is twofold.
a. It would appear that the grievance uses the District’s disciplinary action as the basis for the grievance. Our contract agreement with the District only allows grievances against disciplinary measures in instances of suspension without pay. Paid leaves and lesser disciplinary measures are not grievable under your CBA. Therefore, we can not file a grievance on the grounds of a disciplinary action taken.

b.That said, there may be a valid grievance if evidence shows the District violated your rights under the Academic Freedom language of the CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement). (HEA’s CTA representative) is in the process of consulting with CTA legal to get some advice about the merits of this case, based on the messages to colleagues and the District’s subsequent directive to cease such communications. He will advise HEA when he receives a response. We will pursue this grievance through all steps prior to arbitration, with HEA retaining the right to pursue a grievance to arbitration based on the merits of the individual case.

In order to ensure we leave no stone unturned, we have requested that the district extend the grievance timeline (and they have agreed) while this matter is reviewed by CTA. We have also requested that the District forward the original “Academic freedom” grievance and their response so that we are all on a common understanding of the documents.

In hopes that clarifies HEA/CTA’s positions and updates.

**

Update 3:

Dec. 1 Zoom meeting with Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Teachers’ union President, then district decision to end my censorship: The Zoom meeting was the district’s first response to the grievance at its 3rd and final step before arbitration, as the district chose silence as a response to the 1st and 2nd steps. I requested that the district either cite their complaint and my violation(s) of any policy, or withdraw the censorship and threat to terminate my employment. The superintendent claimed he had questions, then proceeded in attempts to characterize my PLC report as having the “wrong emphasis,” and similar wordings for spurious content. I interrupted at each attempt to request he cite what I wrote with the alleged “wrong emphasis,” to which he responded with more attempts that I interrupted until he surrendered further attempts at my 5th request to cite anything I ever ever ever wrote, said, or did. He said he would have an official response by the following week. 2 emails, and the response:

**

(name omitted): HUSD response for LEVEL III Grievance is silence?

Herman, Carl
Mon, Dec 13, 5:44 AM

to (Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, teachers’ union President + VP)

(Superintendent),
You missed the 10-day response window to our LEVEL III meeting to resolve my Grievance that HUSD through your leadership declared censorship and destruction of the PLC I’ve chaired in good standing for years to make several all-staff presentations, and did so without ever citing anything I wrote or said.

The history of HUSD claiming my unprofessional behavior while REPEATEDLY REFUSING to cite any policy and/or contractual violation goes back to the Springtime in April 2021, continued throughout the Summer, with HUSD/you maintaining a position of my unprofessionalism without cited evidence in the first two steps of my Fall-season Grievance, which brings us into the present 8 days before Winter with the most recent 5 times I asked you at our LEVEL III meeting to either cite my work or stop your apparent per se defamation and harassment. At our meeting, you began skimming the first paragraph of a PLC report to find something to cite, but immediately confused a factual claim I made as an opinion.

HUSD through your leadership also took the first step to terminate my employment without cited cause in April 2021, with you/HUSD maintaining that ongoing threat and harassment as I write 19 days before the year 2022.

(Superintendent), may I please have my remedy for HUSD to remove censorship and remove written notice threatening to fire me with HUSD’s apologies?

The other option is my respectful request to HEA to move my Grievance to arbitration, which I will take on Wednesday Dec. 15th unless you convince me otherwise. Without you/HUSD removing the censorship and threat of employment termination, I remain highly motivated to bring this case to other legal venues for justice.

Honoring our mutual Oath,
Carl

**

(Superintendent)
Dec 13, 2021, 8:56 AM

to me, (teachers’ union President + VP, Assistant Superintendent)

Dear Carl,

Thank you for checking in on this issue. The ten day response time refers to ten business days from the Level III meeting. This means a response is due on Wednesday, December 15. However, I did mention at the meeting that I had hoped to respond by last week. I will do my best to share our response as soon as possible.

Thanks,

**

December 14, 2021
To: (name omitted), HEA President
Carl Herman, HEA Member
Fr: Dr. (name omitted), Superintendent
Ms. (name omitted), Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources
Re: Level III Grievance

On September 4, 2021, Mr. Herman sent an email to the HHS Solutions and Beyond PLC! and included the Board of Education, the Superintendent, site administration, and the Hayward Education Association. In the email, Mr. Herman invites PLC participants to “join my voice to renew request to the district of how their ‘health orders’ are lawful, would like further information, or have an explanation to share of how our district and HHS health policies are within legal
limits, please respond to me. I am in conversations with attorneys.”

On September 20, 2021, Dr. Wayne emailed Mr. Herman and communicated that the HHS Solutions and Beyond PLC! does not meet the expectations as to how collaboration time is to be used. Dr. Wayne explained, “Per the HUSD/HEA contract, ‘Collaboration time shall beteacher directed and focused on standards based instruction, and/or school goals, and/or district goals.’” Dr. Wayne went on to state that the since the PLC is not focused on instruction and is not aligned with school or district goal it may not continue as described. Mr. Herman was
directed to communicate with Mr. Seymour how the collaboration time will be focused on standards based instruction, school, or district goals.

In response, Mr. Herman submitted a grievance stating the following:

ARTICLE 25 ACADEMIC FREEDOM: C. The teacher must be free to think and express ideas, free to select and employ materials, and follow methods and educationally acceptable learning styles of instruction, free from undue pressures of authority, and free to act within his/her professional group.

VIOLATIONS: Censorship and district action for employment termination are Orwellian-opposite of teacher freedom to think and express ideas, and freedom to employ materials. District censorship and employee termination steps are the harshest “pressures of authority,” and totally destructive of freedom to act within our professional groups.

On December 1, 2021 Assistant Superintendent Kim Watts and Dr. Wayne held a Level III grievance meeting with Mr. Herman and HEA President Mercedes Faraj to discuss the issue.

The district noted its concern that collaboration time might be used to question the district’s authority to implement its policies when the district has explained the appropriate process for addressing such concerns. While the contract affords teachers academic freedom, per Article 25 Section C., “Such academic freedom should be used judiciously and prudently to the end that it promotes the free exercise of intelligence and student learning. Such academic freedom shall
be subject to standards of professional responsibility with due regard for the maturity level of the students, laws of the state of California, District policy, and administrative rules and regulations.”

During the meeting, Mr. Herman clarified that the purpose of the PLC is to address the significant decline in grades at HHS that may be due to the limited educational experience students have had because of pandemic related restrictions. In light of this clarification, 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.

**

Update 4:

Students’ “Truth Club”: ~40 students have requested to attend a Zoom meeting with a district leader to explain how suspending and expelling students exercising federal Rights somehow means HUSD is giving them “broader rights” as HUSD claims. ~10 staff and parents are also interested in being part of this. Our teachers’ union President has offered some support:

Herman, Carl

Dec 9, 2021, 5:35 AM

to (Teachers’ union President + VP, HEA office)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your persistence and professionalism,
Carl

**

(Teachers’ union President)

Dec 9, 2021, 6:24 PM

to me, Hea, (VP)

Hello Carl

You can request a meeting and if you would like I can be there to bear witness. Our meetings on Friday are HR meetings regarding contractual issues/issues within our scope.

**

Update 5:

New Grievance/Complaint after Assistant Superintendent’s refusal to answer questions: Regarding the district’s “explanation” that employees receive “broader rights” under district policy of unpaid leave for exercising Title 21 Rights to decline experimental medical products, I followed-up to HUSD silence to my follow-up questions:

Herman, Carl

Dec 16, 2021, 6:09 AM (13 days ago)

to (Assistant Superintendent, Superintendent, Health Director, HEA office, 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”)

(Assistant Superintendent),
In light of your choice of silence to questions HUSD will face and answer, please consider the following as either Grievances under ARTICLE 3 that HUSD policies “are in conformance with law,” and/or HUSD Regulation 4144 Complaints.

Either way, let’s arrange a time for us for us to meet for Level I Grievance (as you are the only district administrator “with immediate administrative responsibilities” for what you alone wrote), and/or Step 1 (as you are the sole supervisor for the “alleged acts” of what you alone wrote). If you/HUSD conclude any of the questions are irrelevant, it is your burden of proof to explain in writing. I will persist asking until answered fully, and factually assert as a National Board Certified and experienced AP US Government teacher that each and every question is vital.

I invite (teachers’ union President’s) gracious company
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.
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?
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.”
How does Section R apply? “The District shall make every reasonable effort to accommodate and grant a unit member’s request for an unpaid leave of absence for one (1) year. The District may extend the leave for an additional year.”
How does Section S apply?
Please cite the law that allows HUSD to decline my recording our conversations. Although I’m satisfied with transcribing a summary, I also want to know my rights.
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 (Health Director’s) 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.”
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”: (Assistant Superintendent) 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 (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 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?
You provided 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.
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?
(Assistant Superintendent): please work with me to get these questions fully answered. Avoidance and un-cited anonymous claims in Orwellian-opposition to previously uncontested federal law only generate more questions, and get more people asking.

Please provide responses under Level I Grievance and/or Regulation 4144 timelines (although 4144 has no timeline, so please be reasonable for an initial response by Dec. 17 to offer dates for us to meet or at least respond with what 4144 timelines are to begin). I am willing to meet anytime over the Winter Break. On school days, it is best for Mon/Tue/Fri 1:15 to 2:30, Wed 1:00 to 3:30.

Thank you,
Carl

**

Herman, Carl

Dec 17, 2021, 1:53 PM (12 days ago)

to (Assistant Superintendent, Superintendent, Health Director, HEA office, Teachers’ Union President + VP)

(Assistant Superintendent),
Please answer at least these questions today. It is not reasonable to expect employees to continue testing without clear explanations:

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.
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?
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.”
Now at my 15th 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 (Health Director) 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.”

**

Up next!

The first week of January 2022 will organize ~50 students, staff, and parents to Zoom meet with a district official for them to explain how suspending then expelling students for exercising federal law Title 21 Rights is giving them “broader rights” as the district claims (all details in our last episode #38). We’ll also ask how forcing staff on unpaid leave up to a year before employment termination are our “broader rights” than exercising Title 21 Rights for a free and fair choice without outside influence regarding our personal choice to use or not use experimental medical devices.

The district is already engaged in evasion by failing to provide a Dec. 3rd promised district contact person for students to receive answers to their questions about district Covid policies. Once the students require our school principal to help, and the district is forced to provide answers to reasonable questions about district policies, the district has two basic choices:
Surrender their position by declaring support for Title 21 Rights unless the county and/or state can provide a reasonable explanation how superior federal law can be destroyed by Constitution-defined-inferior local and/or state “mandates”/“orders”/“requirements”/“protocols”/“guidance”/whatevers.
Answer the above question yourselves and/or explain how suspensions/expullsions/unpaid-leave are all “broader rights” that expand our freedoms of choices. I admonished the superintendent on Dec. 12 (update 1) that the only practical solution is surrender.

Stay tuned for our next episode

**

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

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

Source: https://carlbherman.blogspot.com/2021/12/challenging-our-public-school-districts_29.html