Challenging our public school district’s obedience to county ‘health’ ‘orders’: Two students challenge their ‘separate but equal’ school segregation ‘order’ for ‘isolated-public education’ to DESTROY district Orwellian doublespeak

“But he hasn’t got anything on,” a little child said.

“Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?” said the child’s father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, “He hasn’t anything on. A child says he hasn’t anything on.”

“But he hasn’t got anything on!” the whole town cried out at last.

The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, “This procession has got to go on.” So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn’t there at all.

~ The Emperor’s New Clothes, Hans Christian Anderson, 1837 (how Patriots avoided censorship 200 years ago: place truth in children’s stories)

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, 40).

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 paragraph’s details are 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.

After the Winter break until January 3, 2022, our principal reported another claimed “positive” “case” of “Covid,” and “health” “ordered” 18 of my students into “separate but equal” medical segregation for 10 days of “isolated-public education.” Two students asked for my help to stand for their rights that HUSD has zero evidence they had “close contact” within 6 feet for 15 minutes to the “positive” student, as the district claimed was the rule for unvaxxed students. On Thursday Jan. 6 at 6:30 AM, I emailed the leaderships of HUSD, our teachers’ union, and our high school’s teachers (minus 12 who requested exclusion from such communications) of the facts, then one of the students and I met with the principal and assistant principal before school. The student, an 11th Grade female with spark and courage, further met with the AP after I left to teach classes, with the AP calling an assistant superintendent for help answering a question he couldn’t answer. That assistant superintendent met with that student and a second segregated student (11th Grade male with quiet intelligence and strength), who promised to call the county health department because she also could not answer their question, yet maintained the district’s “health” “order.” The assistant superintendent reneged on her promise to respond no later then Monday Jan. 10, so I emailed the leaderships of HUSD, our teachers’ union, and our high school’s teachers (minus 12 who requested exclusion from such communications) on Jan. 11, and again on Jan. 12 upon no district response. On Friday Jan. 7, the district declared the following week to engage in distance learning via computer.

**

Update 1:

Three students ask me for help to challenge medical segregation + principal’s response: On Tuesday Jan. 4, 2022, our high school principal emailed our community with notification of another “positive” “Covid” “case.” HUSD “health” “orders” all unvaxxed students into “separate but equal” medical segregation for “isolated-public education” of 10 days, in violation of their own documentation. After my emailed response to the principal below, two 11th Graders among the 18 of my students so “ordered” asked for my help to stand for their rights to in-person learning. This was after a third student “escaped,” as the first email documents. The principal’s response was not supportive.

**

Herman, Carl
Jan 4, 2022, 12:01 PM (8 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to (principal + 3 APs [one requested removal from such messages], teachers’ union president + VP, assistant superintendent, Health Director)

(Principal) and Admin Team:
You are “health” “ordering” students home without evidence of “exposure.”

(Student) just returned to class. Her report:
AO “ordered” her home. (Attendance Office)
(Student) asked for proof she was exposed. AO told her, “We don’t have time for that.”
(Student) asked her attendance be checked for proof she was in the class. (AP) checked, informed her she was absent, and allowed her back to class.
(Student) overheard (other AP) tell a parent that their child was being sent home just by being in class with a “positive” “tested” student.

How is it legal to “health” “order” students home without evidence of exposure???

(Student) was only saved because she spoke up for her rights. HUSD is lying-in-admission to not inform parents and students of the definition of “exposure.” (Assistant Superintendent) said it’s “not practical” to inform parents and students of the actual policy, and HHS is following those orders to knowingly deprive students of their rights to attend public school. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Students will be coming with questions who HUSD/HHS is segregating a minority group of students by intentionally ignoring a legal definition of “exposure,” not informing students and parents of that definition, then prima facie-illegally “ordering” students off campus just before finals for their “health.”

We are all under Oath to support and defend limited government under the CA and US Constitutions.

Honor your Oath.

(Principal): I expect an answer how this policy is legal by tomorrow. If HUSD tries again that this is “broader rights” compared to Title 21 rights to opt-out of experimental injections, you’ll need to explain how segregation = “broader rights.”

On Oath,
Carl

**

(Principal)
Jan 5, 2022, 9:25 AM (7 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to Carl, (principal + 3 APs [one requested removal from such messages], teachers’ union president + VP, assistant superintendent, Health Director)
pastedGraphic.png
Mr. Herman,

I have only a couple of things in response, and that will be the end of my communications with you regarding this:

Please do not ever speak about our Attendance Office with a negative connotation again, especially while including other district staff and other union leadership. The Office is working their absolute hardest (50+ hours a week, hundreds of phone calls a day, answering every single person’s questions, etc). They have gone way above-and-beyond their duties this year. With every positive case, we are working to improve the process. We will be ensuring that students who were absent on the day of potential contact will not be asked to quarantine.

Students are not being denied an education when being sent home. The district provided every single student with a Chromebook so that they can communicate with teachers and follow Google Classroom-type activities while on quarantine. I am proud of the efforts our teachers have made, in these regards, during these difficult circumstances.

Please stay safe and well,

Principal

**

Herman, Carl
Jan 5, 2022, 10:17 AM (7 days ago)pastedGraphic.png
pastedGraphic.png
to (principal + 3 APs [one requested removal from such messages], teachers’ union president + VP, assistant superintendent, Health Director)

(Principal) and colleagues,
You’re welcome for the report of a student’s experience being:
Prima facie-illegally “health” “ordered” to segregate without evidence of exposure.
Denied equal education with peers (recall “distance learning” doubled HUSD/HHS failure rate).
Denied Title 21 federal protections for full and free choice to decline medical experiments (injections, “tests,” masks, etc.).
The truth has only the connotations you bring to that party, Brother.

I will continue to graciously and professionally work to bring facts to light in today’s grievance that you still do not see clearly. The day will come when you see, and soon. When that day comes, I will continue to graciously and professionally be your partner in education that delivers:

Focused learners

Analytical thinkers

Responsible and respectful citizens

Mindful collaborators

Effective communicators

Resourceful users of technology

Self-advocating individuals

And just to share:

“But now, after having once and for all put to the test the judgments of men, I here again approach these same questions regarding God and the human mind, and at the same time treat the beginnings of the whole of first philosophy, but in such a way that I have no expectation of approval from the vulgar and no wide audience of readers. Rather, I am an author to none who read these things but those who seriously meditate with me, who have the ability and the desire to withdraw their mind from the senses and at the same time from all prejudices. Such people I know all too well to be few and far between. As to those who do not take care to comprehend the order and series of my reasons but eagerly dispute over single conclusions by themselves, as is the custom for many-those, I say, will derive little benefit from a reading of this treatise; and although perhaps they might find an occasion for quibbling in many spots, still it is not an easy matter for them to raise an objection that is either compelling or worthy of response.”
~ Rene Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, 1641, “Preface to the Reader.” Descartes is a founder of modern philosophy, analytical geometry (which led to calculus), and the Scientific Revolution. His work was condemned by the Roman Catholic Church in 1633, with his publications put on their Index of Prohibited Books in 1663. The University of Utrecht condemned his work in 1643, where he had previously taught.

On Oath,
Carl

**

Herman, Carl
Jan 4, 2022, 1:18 PM (8 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to (principal + 3 APs [one requested removal from such messages], teachers’ union president + VP, assistant superintendent)
pastedGraphic.png
(Principal):
The letter states:

“Per the Alameda County Public Health Department, a positive COVID-19 contact is limited to confirmed contact with household members, intimate partners, home caregivers, and those who have spent prolonged, close face-to-face contact of closer than six feet, for durations longer than 15 minutes with a case during their infectious period.”

You are “ordering” school segregation without “confirmed contact.” You did so with me in November, and continue doing so with students in January.

How is QU not illegal and intentional segregation in violation of federal Title 21 rights?

HUSD’s answer per (Assistant Superintendent) is that it’s “not practical” to uphold those rights, and HUSD gives students “broader rights” with segregation. This is from an anonymous lawyer that HUSD refuses to name or allow contact.

(Principal): you can either face questions from students, staff, and parents by standing with HUSD’s “answer” or join us in the question to demand rational explanation from HUSD and/or county and/or state. Our mutual Oath to uphold limited government under US and CA Constitutions is all the authority you need, and you also have the requirement that HUSD policy be in conformance to law.

“Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision.”
~ California Health and Safety Code § 24171 to § 24176, the principle of informed consent universally used for any medical experiment, and the purpose of US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) to uphold The Nuremberg Code to end unwanted medical experiments forever (all EUAs are legally defined as “medical experiments,” and include Covid injections, tests, mask, etc.)

**

students coming to ask how “YES” is destroyed to “MAY”

Herman, Carl
Wed, Jan 5, 9:56 PM (7 days ago)pastedGraphic.png
to (Principal)
pastedGraphic.png
(Principal),
Heads-up: two students on the QU might be showing up tomorrow morning to stand for their rights that the official quarantine requirements state that quarantine is possible if, and only if, there is a “YES” to the question of 6 feet for 15 minutes. Please look and verify for yourself. If this isn’t the document, please let me know and I’ll help let the students know.

(Principal), there is a HUGE legal difference between the authorities granted under “YES” and “MAY.” Taking away “YES” means destruction of protected rights, which is illegal.

These students might go “Dr. King” on you tomorrow morning.

What will you do if they point to the chart and demand you respect the limit of “YES” and not destroy it with “MAY”?

If you still deny them, what will you do if they tell you they learned from HHS and you to stand for Rights, not surrender them, and will do so here and now that “YES” means “YES” by going to class? Will you send security, or will you respect that “YES” has limits HUSD and you cannot destroy?

(Principal): as an AP US Government teacher I advise you to carefully consider the legal distinction between “YES” and “MAY.” You can’t destroy students’ rights by going to “YES” category actions of quarantine without the burden of proof of “YES.”

I promise that whatever happens, I will inform our teachers in a PLC report (prima facie-illegal QU removal of students has predictive and historic harm to students’ learning and grades given a doubled failure rate in distance learning). What will you tell students who ask, “(Principal), I think we learned the difference between “YES” and “MAY” in pre-school. Are you treating us as if we’re stupid, or just hoping we’re stupid?”

Wow. I’d hate to deserve the above question, (Principal).

If you violate the students’ rights to the limit of “YES,” I promise to contact news agencies to discover if this story is of interest. What will you tell a news reporter who asks, “(Principal), why are you segregating students out of school outside the district’s legal limit of “YES”?

I won’t respond more tonight, but am up early.

I’m trying to help you make your best choice. In this case, I only see one best choice: respect the legal limit of “YES.”

**
The principal did not respond past the one documented. I went into his office before school on Thursday Jan. 6 to ask if he had any questions, and what he planned to do with the students coming to challenge his “orders.” He replied cordially that he would listen, then determine how to respond. His response was he had no documentation how the district can order students home without proof of close contact (within 6 feet for 15 minutes), and sent the one of two students who showed (the other said his mom didn’t want a confrontation) for further help to an assistant principal. The assistant principal didn’t have the documentation, so he called the school nurse. The school nurse didn’t have the documentation, so the assistant principal called an assistant superintendent. The assistant superintendent didn’t have the documentation, and met with the two students the next day (Fri. Jan. 7). The assistant superintendent promised to call the county Public Health Department that day, and report back to the students no later than Mon. Jan. 10. After a student emailed the assistant superintendent on Wed. Jan. 12, the assistant superintendent responded, “I do not have an update on how to prove the distance before quarantining.” The assistant superintendent ignored five of my emails cc’d to the two students asking who she spoke with at the county, what documents were referenced, and what was discussed.

Further updates will document my public emails to leaderships of the district and teachers’ union, board members of the district and teachers’ union, and my school’s teachers (minus~12 requesting removal from updates) to announce that the assistant superintendent has refused to provide any documentation that the district’s “separate but equal” segregation policy for public school students was within any law.

**

Update 2:

Principal ignores question of HUSD’s double-standard for “health” “order” enforcement THREE TIMES:

(Principal):COVID Testing/injection no longer required according to HUSD???

Herman, Carl
Dec 15, 2021, 10:16 AM
pastedGraphic.png
to (Principal, 3 APs, Assistant Superintendent, ~20 HHS employees “ordered” for weekly “tests” since mid-October, teachers’ union president + VP)
pastedGraphic.png
(Principal):
Please let us know if the same policy applies to staff from today’s HUSD memo, and if not, how a double-standard is legal. This says that students who decline experimental injections or experimental tests won’t be excluded:

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

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

**

Herman, Carl
Dec 17, 2021, 1:44 PMpastedGraphic.png
to (Principal, 3 APs, Assistant Superintendent, ~20 HHS employees “ordered” for weekly “tests” since mid-October, teachers’ union president + VP)

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

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

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

Please answer today.

**

Herman, Carl
Jan 3, 2022, 5:22 AM (9 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to (Principal, 3 APs, Assistant Superintendent, ~20 HHS employees “ordered” for weekly “tests” since mid-October, teachers’ union president + VP)
pastedGraphic.png
Happy 2022, (Principal) and 20+ HHS colleagues

Third request: please answer today so 20+ staff know HUSD’s position under threat of our employment termination.

FYI to all: I sent this to (Assistant Superintendent) this morning. If anyone wants the entire list of questions, ask and I’ll forward:

(Assistant Superintendent):
4th request and your 6th business day: please schedule a meeting with me. HUSD appears hypocritical to claim they must follow “health orders” but won’t enforce them with students’ “testing” who chose not to be medical experiments with EUA injections (apparently “boosting” forever). On its face, this means HUSD has no power to enforce any “health order” by admission the enforcement is arbitrary. I assume this is HUSD’s position with EUAs unless explained otherwise how HUSD has legal authority to “pick and choose” what to enforce and who to discipline on prima facie-subjective, opinionated, non-scientific, and “health order”-contradicting policies.

Without HUSD’s responses to answer my questions and to explain HUSD’s “new” arbitrary EUA authority that I asked 18 calendar days ago, I will exercise our mutual Constitutional Oath and Title 21 rights beginning on Wednesday Jan. 6 to resolve the contradiction of HUSD “picking and choosing” what “health orders” to follow. If HUSD is “picking and choosing,” then without legal explanation how HUSD can “pick and choose” for an employee, I will pick and choose for myself. If HUSD has an explanation for apparent random enforcement of EUAs, now’s the time to explain. I will also expect an explanation how any such enforcement is the gift of a “broader right” to our Title 21 freedom of medical choices.

To repeat:

“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.

**

Update 3:

After four requests, teachers’ union President promises to ask district to provide source material for medical/religious exemptions to experimental medical products that HUSD has refused to provide since OCTOBER 11, and promised teachers’ union President on Dec. 3:

On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:24 PM (Teachers’ union President) wrote:
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.

(Teachers’ union President)

On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 5:35 AM Herman, Carl wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your persistence and professionalism,
Carl

**

Herman, Carl

Dec 19, 2021, 10:48 AM
pastedGraphic.png
to (Teachers’ union President + VP)

Hi (Teachers’ union President),
I’m following up on my Dec. 9 question if HUSD’s denial to provide me the source material for health and religious exemptions is legal.

I’ve asked since Oct. 11, with (Health Director and Assistant Superintendent) both promising to provide (Oct. 18 and Dec. 3, respectfully) and delivering nothing. HUSD is willfully preventing a teacher from being educated about this issue with the public documents they’ve received to administer health and religious exemptions. This is no longer a “delay,” but denial.

Can HEA provide any relief to this apparent illegal act by HUSD? And is this an HUSD crime?

Thank you,
Carl

**

Herman, Carl

Jan 3, 2022, 4:47 AM (10 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to (Teachers’ union President + VP)
pastedGraphic.png
Happy 2022, (Teachers’ union President)
3rd request. May I have answers this week please? From Dec. 19:

“I’m following up on my Dec. 9 question if HUSD’s denial to provide me the source material for health and religious exemptions is legal.

I’ve asked since Oct. 11, with (Health Director and Assistant Superintendent) both promising to provide (Oct. 18 and Dec. 3, respectfully) and delivering nothing. HUSD is willfully preventing a teacher from being educated about this issue with the public documents they’ve received to administer health and religious exemptions. This is no longer a “delay,” but denial.

Can HEA provide any relief to this apparent illegal act by HUSD? And is this an HUSD crime?”

**

Herman, Carl
Jan 13, 2022, 6:50 AM (1 minute ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to (Teachers’ union President + VP)
pastedGraphic.png
(Teachers’ union President + VP):
Please answer; this is my 4th request.

HUSD will try to silence me. I need all the tools I can have to demonstrate all I have are reasonable and essential questions that HUSD obfuscates and evades.

Thank you for professionalism in these crazy times. The facts will make everything clear. Let’s have them all,
Carl

**

(Teachers’ union)

Jan 13, 2022, 11:26 AM (4 days ago)
pastedGraphic.png
to me, (union VP)
pastedGraphic.png
Hello Carl

As previously stated, and although the actual argument is outside of our scope, I will follow up on the district providing you with the information as they stated they would.

I will let you know what I learn.

All the best

(union President)

**
Up next!

I’ve been engaged in so much active writing to our district and colleagues, that I’m behind in these reports. Here is what’s active, and to come:
Because of district refusal to document segregation authority, I’ve sent four public emails to leaderships of the district and teachers’ union, board members of the district and teachers’ union, and my school’s teachers (minus~12 requesting removal from updates) to announce that two assistant superintendents have refused to provide any documentation that the district’s “separate but equal” segregation policy for public school students was within any law, and that my requests began on November 22, 2021.
My school principal responded to these announcements with ad hominem-based defamations of my professionalism, which happily opened the door for me to require his answers to my questions of district authority in an employee Grievance meeting.
The last of the four public emails, sent Sat. Jan. 15 was to announce that the district’s mask policy was also outside even the restricted legal limits of the state’s “health guidance.”
I requested of our school’s Social Science department members for anyone to find fault in my facts and reasoning that HUSD QU-segregation policy has no documentation supporting the legality of school segregation. One colleague and I have had an interesting exchange. She was confused what “close contact” meant, and hasn’t responded if we’re now in agreement that nobody has presented or can find any legal authority for school segregation.
The two students will likely file a district complaint to require a response to the students’ unanswered question of how they were segregated to “separate but equal” isolation without any proof of ordering authority.
I challenged the district to meet with interested students and employees this Thursday to address these issues. They will likely ignore the invitation, to which we respond by marching to the school administration office for all interested to file complaints.

I’ll get these reports out as quickly as possible under the circumstances.

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.