Challenging our public school district’s obedience of county ‘health’ ‘orders’: Teachers’ union refuse to ask district central legal questions for required EUAs, refuse to answer same questions from me, then declare my employee grievance void (31 of ?)

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”  ~ George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 7

Perhaps the most helpful format for communication: 

• Summary of events from September 2020 to the most recent article, 
• Specific updates as they occur, and 
• Preview of coming events.
• History: (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, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58). 

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 (received with silence to the facts, with ~20 eventual responses to be removed from such communications). My May 2022 essay to our teachers’ union Board is an excellent overview of the entire history, with emerging data demonstrating tremendous harm from these experimental injections (2-hour overview discussion with Professor Emeritus Jim Fetzer).

Summary (links = full documentation in those specific reports): The California “lockdown orders” 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) requiring “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,” that hospitals have comprehensive area plans for record flu seasons they haven’t needed, and certainly didn’t need the military field hospitals or hospital ships for a real pandemic.

As a NorCal public school teacher, at the start of our school year in September 2020 I questioned our district’s leadership and teachers’ union how their negotiated policy to “obey” county “health” “orders” is legal given the above reasonable limit to dictatorial authority. I cited our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions within their limited governing authorities. 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). 

From September 2020 until May 1, 2022, I chose to mask identities of individuals involved to help shield them from any possible future harm when facts emerge to demonstrate to the public that these school administrators and teachers were either knowing participants, or dupes too weak in intellectual integrity and moral courage to recognize and defend literal Truth, Justice, and the American way of limited government under constitutionally-protected inalienable/Natural rights.  I named names after 20 months of district lies and prima facie crimes.

 

After two Sept. 2020 requests, the district contact person responded by ignoring my questions, and stating HUSD employees are required to obey “California mandates” “to protect you” (disobedient staff are placed on unpaid leave up to a year). I emailed our district superintendent, school board members, my school principal and two interested teachers that we teach all high school students in US History class 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 by issuing 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 communicated privately they wouldn’t pursue the grievance to arbitration because working conditions were negotiated in good faith with high approval of union members. After I probed with a few questions, I retreated with HEA to keep them as allies with me to get answers from our contractual grievance process. That said, this first Grievance finished with district and union agreement that the complaint didn’t qualify as a grievance because all district policies were in conformance to law. Neither the district nor union ever addressed my question or citation about limits of dictatorial ordering authority.

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 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 by a phone call response in December, their promise to follow-up, and silence since.

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 current and historical data for overall county deaths given controversy over causes of deaths? 
• How many staff and students have been injured by vaccines?

The superintendent ignored my emailed 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. The only answer I received referencing limits to dictatorial orders was from CA Senator Glazer’s office, who offered that a stated 60-day limit I questioned 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 happened with Governor Newsom, albeit with Dominion “voting” machines, but that’s another history) or electing other legislators.

Therefore, at this point in our history, school district, teachers’ union, and CA government “answers” are at this point demonstrated as 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 dictatorial power until legislators or governor dictate otherwise, and while lying in commission that “emergency powers” are authorized by unreliable “positive” “cases.” This power is dictated with direct threat of employment termination, $1,000 fines per violation, and one year imprisonment under Cal. Penal Code §§ 69, 148(a)(1) placed at the top of every county “health” “order.”

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 never responded to my repeated requests and Grievance to cite anything I wrote to substantiate their complaints. The district has never rescinded their first of four steps for employment termination. 

Stop and appreciate the irony of public school district leadership refusing to cite factual claims while requiring it of all middle school students. Again: “Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources.” (page 81).

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,” followed by a Zoom meeting. Our union President raised the topic at her regular weekly meeting with the district’s Assistant Superintendent of HR on May 25, 2021. The district then emailed me claiming my PLC report “harasses or disparages” my colleagues “based on their political beliefs,” yet failed again to provide any documentation or explanation despite the union and my requests.

I responded with three employee grievances for apparent contract violations. 

On July 8, I spoke by phone with our teachers’ union president, who reported that the district would again consider my Grievances as employee complaints outside their contractual obligations, and the HR Assistant Superintendent admitted 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 the 2021 - ‘22 school year to obey “the most restrictive health measures” “ordered” by state, county or federal government. I asked the first public question on the call 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. This answer is consistent with my observations that people are conditioned to be told what to do by “experts’” “orders.” 

The purpose of our mutual Oath is to safeguard inalienable/Natural rights against illegal “orders” from our own government. The United States rose as a nation because our own government issued “a long train of abuses and usurpations” in the form of illegal “orders.” Americans’ choices were to either surrender as colonial subjects under dictatorial rule benefiting Empire, or stand for what our mutual Oath “supports and defends.” Thomas Jefferson documented: 

“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”  ~ Declaration of Independence

My school district’s final answer to my three employee grievances came on July 21, 2021: 

1. Teachers, staff, students and families will follow “health” “orders” because they are ordered. 
2. “Health” “orders” are whatever is ordered. The district will not respond to requests for documentation of “ordering” authority, nor even acknowledge the question was asked despite legal obligation to explain how all policies are within the limits of the law.
3. If teachers ask further questions how “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 employment termination for unprofessional conduct by offering the district choice to finally cite their unsubstantiated complaints against me or 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. A second conversation affirmed the strength of this case from its abundant documentation, and that the network of lawyers are filing lawsuits based on their judgment of the best cases to help the most amount of people in greatest need of protection. I promised my willingness to serve as a plaintiff if this case rises in their judgment as the most promising to litigate. I’ve been updating three law firms participating in lawsuits that have included Los Angeles USD, San Diego USD, and nearby Piedmont USD. The attorneys communicate appreciation of my professionalism, that they would enjoy representing this case, and continue to encourage my documented work for truth and justice under the law.

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 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”) is my best academic work as a scholar to publicly share comprehensive and game-changing facts to explain, document, and prove illegal “health” “orders” (and here).

On Friday September 17, our district superintendent announced the school board would address mandatory student “vaccines” on Wednesday, September 22. I responded to district and teachers’ union leadership with legal notice of their prima facie-crimes to “require” experimental medical products, and initiated another employee Grievance for contract violation guaranteeing policies in conformance to law.

On Monday September 20, the district superintendent emailed my school’s Admin Team, teachers’ union president, and me to dictate the Professional Learning Committee I chair was censored because my addressing the previous school year’s doubled failure rate with “distance learning” (the most destructive decline of student learning in district history) “is not aligned with school or district goals and may not continue. Please communicate with (school principal) how you intend to use collaboration time or participate in a PLC that is focused on standards based instruction, school, or district goals.” Consistent with history, the superintendent failed to cite anything I wrote to demonstrate his factual claims.

On Wednesday September 22, the school board voted 5-0 to “mandate” full student “vaccination” for “Covid” (again, please see my essay to ~100 teachers for absolute proofs of deserved quotation marks). The public comment session for 1-minute remarks were ~15 against and ~25 for. Four parents and two employees contacted me from my public comment including invitation to do so, which began our ongoing conversations and actions. My three employee Grievances (at that point) also gave 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 seemed 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 since March 2020.

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”).

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”: as long as the principal isn’t tackling teachers in the hallway to forcibly inject them at will, the policy of staff forced unpaid leave respects Title 21 freedom for full choice over medical experiments. I was glad to force an answer, and didn’t pursue further as I’d still rather keep the union as a partner to force reasonable district answers.

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 predictions of dire consequences to HUSD for their official silence beyond “just follow orders.” I also admonished 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. Both embrace 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 from the principal, and reminding him this ordering authority requires proof I was within 6 feet of a positive case for 15 minutes. After claiming no memory of the policy, the principal and I reviewed and proved “district error” (but 14 of my students were not provided this documentation for discovery of error, nor another teacher). Although my school principal admitted he lacked authority to “order” me into isolated segregation, he still obeyed district “orders” to segregate unvaxxed students. I immediately emailed the Assistant Superintendent of HR to explain and cite district ordering authority to segregate healthy unvaxxed students, which she has failed to provide over ~20 requests up to March 2022. This week also had our teachers’ union request to HUSD accepted for a December 1 “Level III” Grievance meeting with the superintendent to discuss district censorship of my PLC and taking the first step to terminate my employment due to district claims of complaints HUSD refuse to cite. HUSD continued their 6th week of failure to provide me legal definitions of the medical/religious exemption process, but agreed to meet for discussion on Dec. 3. Both of these meetings would be attended by our teachers’ union President and me. 

Ten students voiced interest in a “Truth Club,” and submitted paperwork to our Associated Student Body (ASB) with me as their club sponsor to address “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. 

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 given federal Title 21 requirements for optional experimental medical products without coercion, or to join those of us asking questions about how these “orders” are anything other than Orwellian-illegal. The principal chose silence as his response.

For the week of December 6, I followed-up with our school principal’s silence to our questions, and my briefed classroom students requested a Zoom meeting with the district to receive answers. Students were especially motivated to receive an explanation how the district can violate “required” health “guidance” by “ordering” healthy unvaccinated students to “separate but equal” 10 days’ “medical segregation” without evidence of “exposure” to a “positive” “tested” student by being within 6 feet for 15 minutes or more. They understood I was allowed to stay on campus because HUSD has zero evidence of exposure within 6 feet for 15 minutes, but students are not allowed the same freedom for an equal education.

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 Orwellian-inversion of simple terms to claim “broader rights” include forced student segregation and forced employee unpaid leave.

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.

Also on December 14, the district superintendent officially responded to placing my PLC on two months of censorship under threat of my employment termination if I continued reporting to teachers in “unprofessional conduct” they claimed since April, but repeatedly refused to cite from anything I wrote, said, or did. They withdrew the censorship under claim that the “initial” 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 (btw: 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 on January 4, 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. My question to the principal how this is legal was responded that my question was a “negative connotation” and refused to answer with promise of no further response (Update 1).

On Thursday Jan. 6 at 6:30 AM, I emailed the leaderships of HUSD and our teachers’ union 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 a school nurse then an assistant superintendent for help answering the question he couldn’t answer. Nobody had an answer of the district’s authority to QU-segregate students without proof of close contact. That assistant superintendent met the following morning with that student and a second segregated student (11th Grade male with quiet intelligence and strength). Both students reported that the Assistant Superintendent spent an hour trying to talk them out of their questions, claimed the district was acting “out of abundance of caution” (a talking point our principal also used). When the students insisted on answers, this assistant superintendent promised to call the county health department to ask “what to do about these two students.” Despite having no evidence of ordering authority, she maintained the district’s “health” “order” for their isolated segregation with the prima facie-illegal claim of “separate but equal” public education. 

The assistant superintendent reneged on her promise to respond no later than Monday Jan. 10 (Update 1), and ignored my three emails requesting she state who she spoke with at the county public health department, what documents were referenced, and what was discussed. Because the assistant superintendent chose silence to these reasonable requests to fulfill her promise to two of my students, I emailed the leaderships of HUSD, our teachers’ union, and our high school’s teachers on Jan. 11, and again on Jan. 12 upon no district response (minus ~12 teachers requesting exclusion). My sharing documentation of an Assistant Superintendent’s lies to two students provoked my school principal into ad hominem attack (Update 4); stating my support of two segregated healthy students were “attacks,” “trying to indoctrinate students into his way of thinking,” and “is by far the lowest I have ever seen any "educator" sink in my 16 years in the profession.” The principal defamed my professional questions on school policies as “lengthy diatribes” “I refuse to respond (to),” then gave instructions to all my teacher colleagues how to block all emails from me on any subject. I find it difficult to imagine a more unprofessional response from a school principal to a teacher’s reasonable and cited questions on district policy.

The week of Jan. 10 to 14 was distance learning via computer because the district sent home too many healthy unvaxxed staff to keep the schools open. HUSD would later that month only send home unvaxxed students “in the same indoor space” as a “positive” “test,” but not staff: another prima facie-illegal policy with motive to not close the school and no apparent “health” concern.

On January 12, I emailed to my broadest audience the documentation of the assistant superintendent ignoring my emails requesting a report how school segregation is legal that she promised my two students, given nobody at the district can explain. The only response we received from that assistant superintendent was to our first standing student who emailed the assistant superintendent requesting a report. Her “answer:” “I do not have an update on how to prove the distance before quarantining.” Please note that this non-answer does not fulfill her promise to report on what she discovered by calling the county public health department, and is similar to a student missing a promised and due report on public policy, and when asked about it after two days being late, the student answers, “I do not have an update.” 

This is a good time to mention that the California Teachers’ Association (CTA) ignored my second request for explanation how state and federal laws for optional experimental medical products can be violated by “health” “orders” (Oct. 20 and Dec. 30). I wonder why (Update 2). 

On Jan. 14, I emailed HUSD + HEA leaderships and our school’s willing teachers that two Assistant Superintendents have refused to document and explain how student segregation to isolated “separate but equal” public education is legal. I also withdrew my consent, in what I consider an excellent public essay. 

On Jan. 18, the district emailed to all staff and community members an “updated” policy to segregate unvaxxed students and staff if they were “in the same indoor space” as somebody “testing” “positive.” My response to district and union leaderships + boards included my promise for student and community complaints if I did not receive reasonable evidence authorizing “in the same indoor space.” HUSD chose silence as their response. By Friday I had 26 of my healthy unvaxxed students “health” “ordered” to isolated segregation from this “same indoor space” invented phrase, but HUSD chose not to enforce this on staff. HUSD “picking and choosing” some arbitrary “health orders” to enforce and not other arbitrary “health orders” proves a hidden political agenda (political=policy=“what is done”) to manipulate our school community, and certainly not a commitment to “health.”

On January 17, I reported to my broadest HUSD email audience that the district’s “requirement” for masks outdoors is also apparently a contrived “order” outside their authority (CDPH + CDC state “optional”), and I raise the question of HUSD fraud. On Jan. 19, our school principal emailed all staff our monthly meeting notes from Curriculum Council. Among the notes: “Share with Departments. Was emailed to all parents and students. Wear masks inside and outside at all times.” I responded to all that requiring masks outdoors is outside CDPH and CDC guidance, so therefore the policy is in apparent error. The principal replied to all with choice to ignore the facts, and defame my response as both unprofessional and unworthy of serious reply: “Aren’t you supposed to be teaching right now”? This disrespect opened the door for other staff to attack: I responded to ad hominem replies and demands for my censorship over the next ten hours. The principal never addressed the policy question, nor the unprofessional ad hominem he began in a remarkable email chain from professional educators “dedicated to factual mastery.” I conclude this to be among the most powerful evidence against the district, and for asking obviously important questions if I seek justice in a courtroom. This also validates my ongoing observation that ~98% of people cannot rise above “official” propaganda even when facts are clearly and professionally documented. I received my relative “Socrates verdict” :)

I engaged with our Social Science Department teachers (5 of 9 opted out) regarding these policies apparently outside legal limits. I offered our two hero students instructions how to file an official district complaint. I started calling the HR Assistant Superintendent during class time on speakerphone to get answers to our questions, emailed those questions to the Health Director and her, and promised to call with my classes until we got answers (we got no answers to messages we left). 

On Jan. 22 I emailed leaderships of district, teachers’ union, and school admin (not boards) repeating documentation, questions, and promise to shine brighter light on the questions. Upon no response, on Jan. 23 I filed two more Grievances for apparently illegal policies on masks and student segregation, and promised to share the Grievances with teachers inviting their filing. I also promised to assist my 26 returning students from segregated “separate but equal” education to file complaints. On Jan. 23, the Superintendent promised a “response” the following day. On Jan. 24, I received notice from the HR Assistant Superintendent to not report to work on Jan. 25 (the first of 3 days of all-school final exams for the first semester, forcing me to cancel final exams for all my students) in order to be on a 9AM Zoom call that informed me I was placed on paid administrative leave to “investigate” my January 17 email (Update 1). 

On Jan. 24 (Update 4) I received another notification from my principal that I was: “a potential close contact with a positive case in your class.  Students that are fully vaccinated can stay in school if they are not showing any symptoms. Please let us know if you have any questions, and take care.” I responded with questions how the district can order unvaxxed students home but not staff, and where in any authoritative document HUSD is empowered for their “in the same indoor space” “health” “order.” The principal did not respond, of course.

Paid administrative leave is censorship to remove my capacity to communicate with colleagues, and to stop my participation asking questions and citing apparent inconsistencies of HUSD “health” “orders” to limits of law. This censorship is because any answer HUSD has so far provided is further demonstration their “orders” are outside the law. HUSD will extend their “investigation” about how and why I asked questions (rather than answer obvious and essential questions) until the end of the school year, I predict.

On Monday Feb. 7, I Zoom-met my CTA/HEA-appointed attorney to discuss my case from a perspective to “play defense” against any likely district allegation. I framed the case as district evasion from questions that prove illegal “health” “orders” that anyone can verify by comparing “orders” to limits of definitive laws. I also requested a professional analysis of suing the district for per se defamation and any other related protections/remedies for my professional reputation, freedoms from ongoing harassment, and coercion into retirement to avoid further abuses.

On Feb. 9, 2022, the HR Assistant Superintendent managing my paid administrative leave claimed my 5 active Grievances against the district were “in abeyance” because “contractual issues to be resolved would fall within regular work duties.” She did not respond to my request to cite district authority to destroy due process with Grievances, despite my citations of all applicable contract language I could find and imagine that both gave no such authority, and reminded all of ongoing due process rights. Moreover, in reading that section of our CBA, I discovered HR has one contractual duty to me: an “updated progress report every five work days until resolution” that the district was ignoring. I responded sharply, including my union-appointed attorney, and union President + VP + CTA liaison. HR also continued silence to my repeated requests to schedule a Zoom meeting for the district’s answers to essential questions HUSD promised to answer; some questions going back to early October 2020.

On Feb. 17 after continued district silence, I offered the district’s HR Assistant Superintendent whistle-blower status by joining our side (she did not respond). On Feb. 21, I filed a 6th active employee Grievance for the district violating seven contractual rights regarding my being placed on paid administrative leave to “investigate” how and why I’m asking questions (rather than answer them). My teachers’ union/CTA claimed that despite zero contractual language in support, my rights for Grievance due process are “in abeyance” “because” that “is the practice when folks are on leave.” I appealed to the CTA-appointed attorney, who promised a progress report on what the district is actually “investigating” about me, Grievances, and the possibility of a lawsuit against HUSD for their apparent harassment and defamation.

From Episode 48 on February 24 until March 10’s Episode 49, HUSD reported to me that they have nothing to report after at least 7 weeks of “investigation” (no surprise, as my union-appointed attorney and I are in agreement that the district can, and will, extend their “investigation” until the end of the school year to evade my questions and stop my reports to HHS staff). My attorney made a new and unique claim to district “legitimate” ordering authority on March 9 that Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations section 3205(c)(9)(E) allows employer discretion for “greater protections” and therefore allows an employer to create “health” “orders” outside any guidelines. I retorted in detail such a new “answer” after 18 months of asking HUSD + all 14 of the most authoritative CA government agencies is, on its face, bullshit after-the-fact desperation, and requested answers to pointed questions. On March 3, HEA’s President agreed to take my Grievances “out of abeyance” and join my request that the Superintendent and HR Assistant Superintendent answer all my questions! I accepted, and followed-up on March 10 to check status of this intriguing promise.

On March 25, 2022 I had a Zoom call with HUSD’s Superintendent, HR Assistant Superintendent, our teachers’ union President, and our local CTA representative to address 5 employee Grievances HUSD had ignored, then claimed are “in abeyance” after they forced me on paid administrative leave to “investigate” how and why I asked questions. The superintendent claimed all district “health” “orders” are lawful because they grant “broader rights,” and that is the answer to all my questions. He refused to answer my follow-up “How is forcing me on unpaid leave for declining experimental medical products a ‘broader right’ to my Title 21 right to freely decline experimental medical products” because he claimed that is a question for the employee complaint process. The superintendent did promise to answer all questions through that process. After I read the procedures for complaints, my response back to the district is they’ve already violated that process with their choice to ignore my multiple requests for answers because they are required by law to meet with me to address my concerns. I again offered HUSD the opportunity to surrender by forcing these questions upon county and/or state rather than answer them, then to withdraw obedience if we receive no answers, or Orwellian doublespeak such as forced unpaid leave is a “broader right” for employees. The district is required to respond in writing as to their positions by Friday April 8, 2022, which includes another Grievance that I’m required by contract to not discuss until decided. I followed-up again to include another Assistant Superintendent managing the complaint process to request that the district acknowledge they’ve violated my rights, then meet with me to finally answer all my questions regarding “health” “orders” in apparent violations of multiple and superior laws.

On April 1, HUSD’s HR Assistant Superintendent sent me an email claiming to answer a question I verbally asked at our March 25th Zoom meeting, then claimed, “The District feels it has reasonably and sufficiently responded to this request for information.  Please consider this the final response to this matter.” As you’ve predicted, this public school district allegedly committed to uphold the highest academic professional standards:

• Invented a straw-man question I didn’t ask.
• Ignored my submitted written questions, some going back to September, 2020 with repeated requests for answers ~20+ times.
• “Answered” their own lie-created straw-man question, claimed they responded to my question, and asked me to shut-up: “The District feels it has reasonably and sufficiently responded to this request for information.  Please consider this the final response to this matter.”

After my response to this lying Assistant Superintendent, I asked our teachers’ union president and CTA representative, “I'm curious: is HUSD usually this evil, unprofessional to repeatedly IGNORE written questions they are legally obligated to answer honestly, and soul-suckingly addicted to lying, OR is this unusual behavior for them?”

HUSD reneged on their timeline to respond to my four Grievances (I dropped one Grievance that HUSD began performing by reporting they had no updates to report upon), and responded late on April 18. By contract, I cannot report on those Grievances’ statuses until they are decided (amended on June 14, 2022 with HUSD’s decision to reject them all). I can report that the district claims my Complaints (distinct from Grievances) have all already been addressed because the Superintendent has repeatedly dictated to employees, students, and community that we must follow orders from the state. I used the superintendent’s reply to request the Assistant Superintendent managing due process of complaints, and the Complaint Manager, to join me in my questions receiving ethical answers beyond “just follow orders.” I sent these two further communication reminding that two students have been lied to since January 10 to receive an explanation with documentation how unvaxxed students could be segregated to “separate but equal” isolated “education” without evidence of their exposure to Covid through a “close contact” (within 6 feet for 15 minutes of a “positive” “test”).

Two days later, on Friday April 22, the superintendent emailed me to claim he is “the district.” This appears as an attempt to stop the Assistant Superintendent over Complaints and the Complaint Manager from exercising our mutual Oath to support and defend limited government under Constitutional laws by comparing his non-answers to my actual questions (Update 1) for any violations of Complaint due process and laws. I responded that he speaks for his office only, and that the purpose of our Oath is for anyone and all of us to review “orders” for obvious violations of law. 

On April 25, I explicitly claimed whistleblower status to the Assistant Superintendent over Complaints and the Complaint Manager, and bcc’d the 11 parents and staff who had previously contacted me expressing support (Update 1, with one parent replying that she, too, had her Complaint ignored).  I followed with two more emails and three phone messages that these two minions all refused response, despite these follow-up emails quoting Board policy requiring HUSD to educate students and staff on health policies (not obfuscate and lie to students/staff by refusing to answer direct questions), and that HUSD continues to refuse to provide the information they received from the state for medical and religious exemptions to experimental medical products. On April 29 (Update 2), I emailed HUSD Board members with final legal notice that their employee superintendent and managed administrators refuse to honor due process of Complaints, and are covering-up apparent illegal “health” “orders.” At this point I no longer mask their identities, as they should be fully accountable to the public after 20 months of documented lies. I consider this an excellent essay to explain and document the core of HUSD’s two-part Orwellian “argument” to employees, students, and community: “Just follow orders,” and consequences for disobedience are “broader rights” granted by the district to those receiving the consequences. 

On May 5, 2022 my teachers’ union Board responded they are unlikely to support my Grievances to arbitration. I sent them the summary of indefensible district lies, crimes, and cover-ups, with questions of justice the union must accept (or be exposed as evil collaborators injecting children with poisonous “experiments”). We’ll meet via Zoom on May 17th. Our contract states that I’m to keep “all proceeding private,” but because I’m a whistleblower pointing out OBVIOUS crimes of proven deadly consequences who has been denied due process from the other parties in the contract, I must go to the public for any hope of justice. I assert legality from honoring the mutual Oath among HUSD, HEA, and me to support and defend limited government under our CA and US Constitutions. The USA and California are defined by our Constitutions, so without those limits coming first and foremost, our Oath has no meaning. Therefore, any conflict between our CBA and Oath must place our Constitutions superior to any CBA provision that would subvert them. Because I’ve abundantly demonstrated the prima facie-illegality of “health” “orders,” I am empowered by our Oath to take all reasonable actions to require official written explanations how such prima facie-illegal “health” “orders” are within the limits of law.

On May 22, I had yet to receive a decision from our teachers’ union Board, so I sent another email for clarifying choice that they must either stand for truth against OBVIOUS CTA and district lies, or bond with liars committing prima facie Crimes Against Humanity targeting children.

On May 26, HEA’s President emailed me to decline arbitration for all Grievances. This local teachers’ union, in communication with the state teachers’ union (CTA) therefore: 

• Condone proven INVENTED “health” “orders” from districts that cannot be challenged, 
• Allow school districts to ignore OBVIOUS questions from teachers, families, and students,
• Support district proven lies to “order” student and teacher segregation (if unvaxxed) despite inventing the “orders” to do so,
• Support school districts to refuse providing anyone with information about medical and religious exemptions to forced medical experiments on staff and children.

On June 14, 2022 I filed for retirement with request of settlement from HUSD for $500,000 as compensation for ending my career early, and for an openly hostile and harassing work environment. The email I sent to HUSD is an excellent summary of the two full school years of challenging my public school district’s prima facie-illegal “health” “orders” as an award-winning, and now retired, teacher.

**

Update 1:

Teachers’ union President declares my grievance void that requested district explanation of policy legality beyond “just follow orders” + my three responses: My appeal to the teachers’ union Board, previous two appeals to union President, VP, and Executive Director, then the President’s email to me voiding one grievance, and maintaining another regarding district attempted censorship of my Professional Development Committee for reporting on Covid policies’ effects on our school’s teaching and learning (doubled student failure rate):

HEA’s last chance to stand for literal truth, justice, and the American Way

Carl Herman

Mon, Oct 25, 4:57 AM (2 days ago)

to (teachers’ union President, VP, Executive Director, Board)

Dear HEA Board,

(Union President, VP, Executive Director’s names) have chosen to not respond to these three obvious questions about HEA agreement to require experimental medical products used on teachers and our community’s children:

1. CTA (California Teachers Association) only addressed one of my three cited laws: Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), in argument that “option to refuse” only prevents kidnapping for forced injections at employers’ will, and allows all other consequences including employment termination and inability for future hire, true?
2. How has CTA “included all relevant legal citations” for California Health and Safety Code § 24176 that EUAs (Emergency Use Authorization medical products) uphold everyone’s right to “Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision”?
3. How has CTA “included all relevant legal citations” for California Government Code 8558 (b) that requires “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders (this is the law cited by Governor Newsom “to keep hospitals operational”)?

(Union President) asserts HEA’s position is that my grievance requesting HUSD explain how their “health orders” are “in conformance to law” doesn’t concern our CBA ARTICLE 3 requiring district policies are “in conformance to law.” The reason is the above cited laws demonstrating “health orders” not in conformance to law “do not concern violations of the CBA” requiring policies “in conformance to law.” This apparent doublespeak is HEA’s official response to my grievance. I invite anyone to offer a reasonable alternative summary.

(Union President, VP, Executive Director’s names) conclude the above three questions do not merit any reply other than claim CTA “included all relevant legal citations” by stating “option to refuse” was placed into federal law to affirm employees cannot be kidnapped by employers for forced experimental injections, which was obviously already illegal. 

Seriously, if anyone can explain CTA’s position other than protecting (union VP) from being tackled by Principal (name omitted) in the hall and forcibly injected with medical experiments whenever HUSD “mandates” for our “health,” I repeat: provide an alternative explanation. 

Despite the above obvious and basic concerns, and more I’ve declined to pile-on, (President) declared “the matter is closed.” 

(Union President, VP, Executive Director’s names) now demonstrate full knowledge and agreement for CTA, HEA, and HUSD to change the crystal-clear legal letter and Nuremberg Code intent of “option to refuse” to be destroyed into “requirement for employment/enrollment.” This “New Normal ideal” is pushed further for dictatorial control in other US communities and nations that “option to refuse” means no participation in society without showing your passport of forever “booster shots” and acceptable “social credit score” for being an obedient citizen.

HEA Board Members should consider the power and responsibility for our mutual STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE to “support and defend” US and CA Constitutions of limited government under Constitutional laws. Our Oath also means NOT to “support and defend” dictatorial and escalating “health orders” so outrageously unlimited by three definitive laws that (Union President, VP, Executive Director’s names) must refuse to answer direct and obvious questions.

HEA’s leadership won’t answer the three questions, because they can’t. For example:

“You see, Carl, forced unpaid leave for teachers refusing experimental medicine isn’t force, duress, coercion, or any influence on your decision as protected by California Health and Safety Code § 24176 because…”

Go ahead and complete that sentence if you think these “health” “orders” are lawful. 

HEA Board Members should consider the implications of informed and willful participation in apparent crimes that include over 17,000 US deaths and 100,000 serious injuries as “adverse events” after a Covid vaccine, according to the CDC.

Everyone will see the truth. 

If I had to bet on what the truth is, I’d say this: HEA has chosen to wait for the reasonable person standard of law through a court case to force their move. After the truth is known, HEA will conclude that they had a duty to stand with these questions, and like most of the Emperor’s New Clothes crowd in the beginning, were too afraid and propagandized to look at parading naked power with their own eyes.  

Look in the mirror, colleagues, and choose your personal position wisely. 

If any Board Member would like to contact me privately for a personal briefing, express concerns, ask questions, and/or join me to demand answers to obvious and essential questions that HEA now willfully refuses to answer: Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

When the truth comes, where do you want to be standing? Your basic choices:

1. Stand with me to force HUSD/CTA to answer these obvious questions. If they can’t or won’t provide reasonable written explanation how “health orders” conform to the three laws I cite, then HEA withdraws consent for prima facie-illegal policies until demonstrated as lawful. This has been my proposal since September, 2020.
2. Stand with HUSD/CTA/Governor Newsom and co-conspirators that everyone’s right to “Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision” can be destroyed into “participation in medical experiments is required to work or be enrolled in public school.” Stand for ignoring obvious questions while pretending to answer. Stand against our Oath to the US and CA Constitutions, and stand for 1984 “New Normal” dictatorial government for as long as “leaders” say we “need” “emergency” “mandated” “orders.” 

Below is the full 3-part email chain referenced above with (President) communicating HEA’s position about requiring EUAs as conditions of employment:

On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 7:02 AM Carl Herman wrote:

Dear (Union President, VP, Executive Director’s names),

1. CTA only addressed one of my three cited laws: Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), in argument that “option to refuse” only prevents kidnapping for forced injections at employers’ will, and allows all other consequences including employment termination and inability for future hire, true?
2. How has CTA “included all relevant legal citations” for California Health and Safety Code § 24176 that EUAs uphold everyone’s right to “Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision”?
3. How has CTA “included all relevant legal citations” for California Government Code 8558 (b) that requires “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders (this is the law cited by Governor Newsom “to keep hospitals operational”)?

To help you understand what CTA wrote in “answer” to Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), here are three “option to refuse” analogies:

• “Option to refuse” overtime: CTA assures us this means the district can’t lock teachers into their classrooms and make sure they work while videotaped. Teachers who exercise their “option to refuse” overtime are placed on unpaid leave for up to a year, and then fired. New hires must accept “mandated overtime” at the employer’s will as a condition of employment.
• “Option to refuse” sexual harassment at work: CTA claims this only means the harasser can’t use physical force to restrain the target from escape. Those who exercise their “option to refuse” all other forms of sexual harassment (“anti-jokers”) must submit and pass a weekly “humor” test paid by our taxes. Test failure = “humor quarantine” for 10 days away from work, deducted from paid sick leave. Refusing both “mandated sexual humor” and the weekly “humor” test results in unpaid leave for a year, then employment termination.
• “Option to refuse” district “mandated” pay cuts:  CTA tells us we’re fully protected from the state and district having access to our bank accounts to deduct money directly from our accounts. Those who refuse to agree with pay cuts are placed on unpaid leave for up to a year, then their employment is terminated. New hires must agree to accept all future “emergency” pay cuts at the state, county, and/or district’s will as a condition for employment.

I will persist until I receive reasonable answers to obvious questions, and promise to fully share wherever HEA chooses to stand. I admonish that the reasonable person standard of law will not conclude that CTA “included all relevant legal citations” to address the three definitive laws I cite. 

An independent, informed, and prudent citizenry will find that CTA and HEA avoided these questions, with the one CTA “answer” being in Orwellian-opposition to the letter and legal intent of “option to refuse” legislation to uphold the Nuremberg Code, and made explicit in California Health and Safety Code § 24176. 

(Union President, VP, Executive Director’s names): I have never seen a more Orwellian “legal opinion” than what HEA currently upholds from CTA on the legal meaning of “option to refuse.” As I previously warned: CTA and NEA are apparently captured agencies promoting historically evil government and corporate positions to undermine workers’ unions. 

Please confirm your choice by the end of the weekend that either the “matter is closed” or that we’re in agreement of what CTA actually claimed in their “relevant legal citations” requiring ethical follow-up with CTA. 

Would it be helpful for me to ask the three legal teams overviewing this potential case to speak with you to confirm the crazy-ridiculous criminal CTA “answer” that is being “covered” by “lockdown states”’ governments and the same corporate media that “covers” forever illegal US Wars of Aggression “for freedom”? 

My dear colleagues, this is an Emperor’s New Clothes condition that will be broken and seen for what it is, with my prediction that the false narrative will collapse within a month. While there is still limited time for you to make the right ethical choice to join my questions rather than oppose them behind tragic-comic non-answer obfuscations, your other option is to be slammed by outraged public response when the light of truth shines. I promise you that light will shine fully.

If you would like to chat with me about any of this to help make your choice clear, please ask. 

Please respond by the end of the weekend, or I will include HEA Board Members again with this email, then inform all HHS teachers of HEA’s evolving position on our work conditions for teaching and learning. Btw: a position to join HUSD for my censorship will entwine HEA with further anti-American dictatorial and evil domination over protected speech asking OBVIOUS and essential questions.

Peace and Power of our mutual STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE,

Carl

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 6:46 PM Carl Herman wrote:

Thank you, (Union President, Executive Director’s names).

I respect HEA to come to their own conclusions about what is reasonable to assert in prima facie-violations of law.

Regarding CTA “included all relevant legal citations,” I’m only aware CTA addressed one of my three cited laws: claiming “option to refuse” an EUA medical product under Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) only serves as a reminder that kidnapping for forced experimental injections at the employer’s will is still not legal. 

That’s what CTA claims in the passage I cited from their paper.

If we’re in agreement of what CTA seems to say, then CTA should explain more of their legal reasoning, especially in light of uncontested historical context that “option to refuse” referenced the Nuremberg Code. We should assume honorable intent, until proven otherwise.

If we’re not in agreement of what CTA seems to say, then provide your alternative meaning. Professionally, I can’t see any reasonable counter-explanation different from the one I provided.

(President) and/or (Executive Director): please point out how CTA “included all relevant legal citations” to address how required use of EUAs are within the other two laws I cited:

• California Health and Safety Code § 24176 that each and 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.”
• California Government Code 8558 (b) that requires “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders (this is the law cited by Governor Newsom “to keep hospitals operational”). Without transparent and verifiable hospital data, there is literally zero evidence for a lawfully-declared “emergency.” 
• The purpose of our mutual STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE is for just this occasion: a citizen check on apparent illegal government “orders” to receive full and reasonable written explanations how policies conform to law.

With all respect, HEA could have accepted my remedy proposed 13 months ago to simply have HUSD answer these questions I’m asking you to ask CTA. 

It’s HUSD’s burden of proof. 

If HUSD and CTA cannot provide our union members with reasonable explanations how their policies conform to three definitive laws I cited, then our union members deserve to know. True?

There’s still time for this solution.

Thank you,

Carl

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 2:22 PM (union President) wrote:

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 your request for consultation. If you or any HEA member is facing serious adverse employment actions as a result of these requirements (see below for some limitations), you will be entitled to CTA legal representation in those matters.

 

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

 

2. (Active grievance status I can’t share by contract).

 

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

 

(Union President)

**

Update 2:

Text of my employee grievance requesting district explanation of EUA policies being legal given limits of three definitive laws: Now that the grievance has been concluded, I am contractually free to share:

Statement of Grievance: 

“I just wanted to add that, just wanted to remind everybody, that under an Emergency Use Authorization, an EUA, vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandated.” 

    ~ CDC Executive Secretary Dr. Amanda Cohn, (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices @1:14:40)

*Factual claims are linked with documentation in my 9/19/21 email to district and HEA leaderships*

HUSD and HEA must either cite the legal authority of their accepted policies for: 1) “COVID-19 Vaccine Verification” requiring either EUA experimental PCR tests or experimental EUA injections, 2) unvaccinated student segregation outside school for 10 days for possible exposure to a “positive test,” and 3) considered mandatory student injections of experimental medicine, or renounce and rescind them because FDA requires that PCR “tests” and “vaccines” under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) must inform “the option to accept or refuse” such products.

The US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) reports nearly 15,000 US deaths associated with Covid “vaccines.” In the last ~7 weeks, the current average is ~70 US deaths per day after these experimental injections (and here, here). The limits to EUA specifically protect people from such adverse effects of experimental medicine, AND MUST BE HONORED BY HUSD AND HEA through US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) requirement of all people’s “option to accept or refuse.”

Under US Title 18 Section 242 “DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW,” HUSD and HEA are placed on legal notice that all in leadership positions who violate any member of our community’s legal option to accept or refuse experimental products are subject to legal penalties that include death sentence should any employee and/or student die as an adverse effect of an EUA product.  

HUSD’s position for over a year of my questions and evidence is to tell employees and our community to “just follow orders under color of law.” HUSD policies of “health orders under color of law” violate ARTICLE 3 of HEA and HUSD’s contract: District powers for policy shall be limited “to the extent such specific and express terms are in conformance with law.” HUSD and HEA must respond to the reasonable issues raised in the Grievance to demonstrate conformance to law (not “just follow orders under color of law”), or accept the prima facie evidence documented here to conclude EUA products cannot be required as a condition of employment or student enrollment.

Evidence for ARTICLE 3 violation includes citation from my previous PLC report: When Governor Newsom declared a state of emergency on March 4, 2020, he did so under the limit in California Government Code 8558 (b) of “beyond control” local resources (hospitals in this case), or an imminent likelihood that hospitals’ patient numbers would be beyond their control. When “beyond control” hospitals never materialized, and without argument/evidence of further imminent threat, government emergency ordering authority is no longer authorized. Importantly, problematic “positive cases” (and here, here) do not equal “beyond control” hospitals.”

Superintendent (name omitted) claim 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.”

(Superintendent)/HUSD’s “legal explanation” is not reasonably “in conformance to law” because it is a lie of omission ignoring California Government Code 8558 (b), and US Titles 18 and 21. (Superintendent)/HUSD’s “just follow orders under color of law” also violates all California public school employees’ Oath upon employment because “health” “orders” outside the reasonable limit of “beyond control hospitals” are in prima facie-violations of many Constitutionally guaranteed Rights:

“I, (insert your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.”

Specific contract provision alleged to have been violated (cite source): 

ARTICLE 3: District powers for policy shall be limited “to the extent such specific and express terms are in conformance with law.”

Remedy Sought: 

HUSD and HEA must either cite the legal authority of their accepted policies for “COVID-19 Vaccine Verification” requiring either EUA experimental PCR tests or experimental EUA injections, unvaccinated student segregation outside school for 10 days for possible exposure to a “positive test,” and considered mandatory student injections of experimental medicine, or renounce and rescind them because FDA requires that PCR “tests” and “vaccines” under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) must inform “the option to accept or refuse” such products. This applicable law is US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III). Title 21 of US Code governs all US food and drug policies under FDA. 

HUSD’s previous “explanation” I cite above to “just follow orders under color of law” can certainly be restated and joined by HEA; and I admonish this choice as prima facie-illegal as explained and cited in this Statement of Grievance.

Federal Article 18 Section 242: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW specifically makes HUSD and HEA participation in these policies depriving our community their legal right “the option to accept or refuse” EUA products as prima facie criminal violations, and thereby not reasonably honoring ARTICLE 3 of our contract to be “in conformance with law.” HUSD and HEA must reasonably explain how policies forcing EUA products as a condition of employment and student attendance honor the legal limits I cite, and beyond the prima facie-criminal “just follow orders under color of law,” or renounce and rescind all HUSD EUA-related policies.

California Government Code 8558 (b) of “beyond control” local resources (hospitals in this case) is REQUIRED for emergency ordering authority. “Beyond control” hospitals was never demonstrated, but we did get “official” lies of omission to choose no ongoing reporting of comprehensive and historical hospital data explained by independent experts using verifiable data. As I’ve previously communicated, all ~20 health professionals I’ve asked all report that all NorCal hospitals they know of have always been in full control. The facts include official lies of commission to illegally substitute problematic “positive cases” (and here, here) rather than “beyond control” hospitals as a justification for dictatorial authority. HUSD and HEA must reasonably explain how this legal limit is being honored, including the above facts, or join me in these questions to be forwarded to county and state (with our position they have 5 business days to deliver or HUSD downgrades “orders” to “official advice”). Unless HUSD and HEA demonstrate otherwise, the above is prima facie proof that HUSD “health orders” policies violate ARTICLE 3 for reasonable conformance to law.

Our mutual Oath requires all of us to support and defend limited government within our Constitutions. HUSD and HEA’s current positions of “just follow orders under color of law” is in Orwellian-opposition to our legal and Oath-bound responsibilities cited and proven here, unless HUSD and HEA can demonstrate otherwise (we teach all high school students in every California public high school US History class that “just follow orders under color of law” is an illegal “justification” for ordering authority). HUSD and HEA must defend that EUA “orders” as conditions of employment and student enrollment are within the above cited laws, or honor our Oaths to demand government officials issuing prima facie-illegal orders respond to our questions in writing (5 business days time limit, or we withdraw consent).

**

Update 3:

Principal discloses who is unvaccinated among our school’s employees: This might have been accidental by the principal, and I responded to those 23 employees (none responded back on the topic, except for one teacher unvaccinated but afraid of catching Covid with in-person school):

Dear Colleagues,

(Principal) has disclosed who is required to "test" among us. 

As you may know, I have challenged HUSD and HEA since September 2020 about "health order" policy legality, with HUSD and HEA claiming "just follow orders" is legitimate authority to "order" employee required use of experimental medical products. These "orders" violate three definitive laws. HUSD/HEA/CTA all refuse to explain how "health orders" are lawful givin the limits of those laws. There are hundreds of lawsuits active, and I am in communication with three legal teams watching these developments as a potential case.

If you would like further details and/or would like to join me in challenge to escalating "health" "orders," please reply to my home email: Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

Our mutual STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE to "support and defend" limits to government "orders" has been entirely ignored by HUSD, HEA, and CTA; never addressed once in over a year of my extensive communications and three employee grievances (1 active).

On Oath,

Carl

**

Up next!

I hope the game will be changed with Red October political conclusion, but who knows?

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 Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu 

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.