Challenging our public school district’s obedience to county ‘health’ ‘orders’: Catching up on flood of January communications: Assistant Superintendent lies to 2 segregated students and refuses my 3 requests for truth, so I email documentation to district/union leaderships/boards + my school’s teachers. Principal explodes into ad hominem! (42 of ?)

"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)

“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: 

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, as is my June 14, 2022 retirement letter; both 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 faciecrimes.

 

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 meclaiming 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 :

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 APafter 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.


On June 15, one of our involved HUSD parents “replied to all” with my April “Final legal notice” email to HUSD leadership to show everyone my 36-minute interview with The Healthy American leader, Peggy Hall (below). HR Assistant Superintendent Watts refused to answer my three requests to retrieve my personal belongings in my classroom after 38 years’ teaching, and after I reported this to our teachers’ union President and HHS Principal Seymour, she dictated “permission” for me to return to campus for one 99 degree late morning and afternoon (the hottest day in Hayward for the last two years). 


After a month of reflection, my observations:

  • HUSD, CA, and CTA “leaders” are script-readers following orders of a covert power source because their scripts are aligned, all refuse to answer the most BASIC and REQUIRED questions, obfuscate in tragic-comedy, and engage in Orwellian lies when they “answer” instead of evade questions (my conclusions about this “covert power structure”).
  • My teacher colleagues lack the intellectual integrity and/or moral courage to stand for BASIC and REQUIRED facts when they are:
    • “Ordered” to accept most of our students’ families are “non-essential” workers. 
    • “Required” to be shot with unlimited “medical experiments” or be segregated off campus despite their Title 21 freedom to freely decline.
    • “Mandated” to wear masks indoors and outdoors (masks = another “medical experiment” with zero “official” data for outdoor use).
    • Dictated to embrace school segregation for unvaxxed students and staff (despite zero “official” authority or “orders” to do so).
  • My teacher colleagues’ “taking a knee” to “Covid” “orders” is continued demonstration of their inability to respond to:
  • Government (so-called “public”) schools are necessary public propaganda for ongoing US rogue state empire. I wrote a 2016 12-part article series titled US Public Education: Bullshit to train stupefied work animals to explain, document, and prove this extraordinary factual assertion (and here, here). 
  • ~98% of the general population are defeated by “official” propaganda, so my teacher colleague responses are typical.
  • Because our “leaders” are propagandists pushing for dictatorial control, and professional educators are incapable of resistance, humanity needs “friends in high places” for an option beyond work animals for psychopaths. My 9-part article series on American Revolution 2.0 at the end of this current events report is my overview that we have such assistance if we work to earn it.

36-minute interview with The Healthy American, Peggy Hall:




**

Update 1:


Demonstrating an Assistant Superintendent lied to two students + refused to respond to 3 of my requests to answer the students: To review: two healthy but medically-segregated unvaxxed students asked for my help to receive an equal education at school rather than “ordered” into isolation for “separated but equal” public education. The students’ question was/is “What legal authority does the school have for medical segregation without proof of close contact (within 6 feet for 15 minutes of a “positive” “case”)? After nobody could answer (Attendance Office staff, Principal, Asst. Principal, school nurse, Asst. Superintendent), an Assistant Superintendent came to school the next day to meet with the two students. She spend an hour attempting to get the students to agree to their segregation, and when they persisted with their question, the Asst. Superintendent promised to get an answer from the county board of public health. She then failed to report back to the students, despite my three requests and promise to share this documentation broadly to district and union leaderships, and the teachers at my school. 


Here’s the email chain beginning with my follow-up to the Assistant Superintendent’s meeting with our two hero students:


(Assistant Superintendent): documentation request for "6 feet + 15 minutes" to QU students


Herman, Carl

Jan 7, 2022, 10:33 AM


to (Asst. Superintendent, Asst. Principal who met with two students, Student 1 + 2) 


Dear (Asst. Superintendent, Asst. Principal, Student 1 + 2),

(Asst. Superintendent): Thank you for helping us understand HUSD's position and get our questions answered.


All: Here is the CA Dept. of Public Health's Nov. 24, 2021 COVID-19 Public Health Guidance for K-12 Schools in California, 2021-22 School Year:


8. Quarantine recommendations for unvaccinated students for exposures when both parties were wearing a mask, as required in K-12 indoor settings. These are adapted from the CDC K-12 guidance and CDC definition of a close contact.  

a. When both parties were wearing a mask in any school setting in which students are supervised by school staff, unvaccinated students who are close contacts (more than 15 minutes over a 24-hour period within 0-6 feet) may undergo a modified quarantine as follows. They may continue to attend school for in-person instruction if they:

i. Are asymptomatic; 

ii. Continue to appropriately mask, as required;

iii. Undergo at least twice weekly testing during quarantine; and

iv. Continue to quarantine for all extracurricular activities at school, including sports, and activities within the community setting. 

(Asst. Superintendent): 

  • Please provide explanation and documentation of HUSD's legal authority to segregate unvaxxed students without objective evidence of "close contact." (Student 1) showed me her letter: "MAY" have had close contact is a totally different legal category than "YES" had close contact because "MAY" is discretionary authority and "YES" is strictly and expressly limited by evidence one can demonstrate. On its face, HUSD has no legal authority to destroy the limit of provable evidence.
  • Given the guidelines above, please explain why HUSD is not offering our students the option of "may continue to attend."
  • Please be advised of HUSD's current public position that US Title 21 federal rights to opt-out of any experimental medical product (see below) is given "broader rights" by HUSD. Those "broader rights" for students is to suspend then expel those who opt-out of experimental masks, tests, injections, etc. The "broader rights" for you, (Asst. Principal), and me is forced unpaid leave if we opt-out. Please read the updates in my public documentation to see this Orwellian "official" position for yourself.

(Asst. Superintendent): please provide documentation today how HUSD can segregate unvaxxed students without objective evidence of "close contact," or I will conclude HUSD has none. Because HUSD created this policy to segregate unvaxxed students, HUSD must already have the source documents authorizing it, or must admit the current policy is outside state and county guidelines. (Student 1) was here yesterday and so far received no such explanation nor documentation from:

  • HHS Attendance Office.
  • Principal (Omitted).
  • Assistant Principal (Omitted) (who showed (Student 1) a CDC document for undefined "contact" that could mean permanent exclusion of unvaxxed students because they "may" have had "contact" anywhere. Mr. Miller acknowledged this is unreasonably vague).
  • Nurse Rachel (Omitted).
  • Assistant Superintendent (Omitted).

(Asst. Superintendent) and (Asst. Principal): I hope we have your support to join our questions if HUSD's official position is something like "segregation = broader rights" or "HUSD has dictatorial power outside law if we say the magic words 'it's for your safety.'" 


Our mutual Oath to support and defend limited government under the law, and our right to have lawful HUSD policies is all the authority we need to resist prima facie-illegal policies. Dr. King's holiday to celebrate civil disobedience is in 10 days. What would Martin do about medical segregation given OBVIOUS violations of federally-protected rights:


“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.)



-- 

Carl Herman

(Omitted) High School Mathematics Department

National Board Certified Teacher

National Board Certified Teacher Coach


May everything add up for you


Social Justice: save millions of lives, help billions of people, redirect trillions of dollars to help build a future brighter than we can imagine


**


Herman, Carl

Jan 10, 2022, 6:50 PM


to (Asst. Superintendent, Asst. Principal, Student 1 + 2)



Dear (Asst. Superintendent), (and (Asst. Principal), (Student 1) and (Student 2)),

(Student 1) and (Student 2) reported that you promised to call Alameda Public Health Department, and have an answer no later than today of what to do with students standing with the state's K-12 official Guidelines, published on Alameda Public Health Department's website:


8. Quarantine recommendations for unvaccinated students for exposures when both parties were wearing a mask, as required in K-12 indoor settings. These are adapted from the CDC K-12 guidance and CDC definition of a close contact.   

a. When both parties were wearing a mask in any school setting in which students are supervised by school staff (including indoor or outdoor school settings and school buses, including on buses operated by public and private school systems), unvaccinated students who are close contacts (more than 15 minutes over a 24-hour period within 0-6 feet) may undergo a modified quarantine as follows. They may continue to attend school for in-person instruction if they:

i. Are asymptomatic; 

ii. Continue to appropriately mask, as required;

iii. Undergo at least twice weekly testing during quarantine; and

iv. Continue to quarantine for all extracurricular activities at school, including sports, and activities within the community setting. 


What did you find out from the county, (Asst. Superintendent)? I can't imagine you received any other answer than (Student 1) and (Student 2) are correct in their understanding of the Guidelines above from the county's own website that HUSD has a burden of proof to demonstrate close contact to QU/segregate students. (Student 1) and (Student 2) are also correct to argue for in-person instruction because the Guidelines also state they "may continue to attend school for in-person instruction."  


May we consider this question resolved that the students were/are correct with their reading of the flowchart (and as their mathematics teacher, I'm proud of (Student 1) and (Student 2) for demonstrating flowcharts' importance)? 


As you may know, Title 21 rights are federally-protected choice to opt-out of EUAs. Our next question is how HUSD's policies can destroy Title 21 rights. Again, 

  • Please be advised of HUSD's current public position that US Title 21 federal rights to opt-out of any experimental medical product (see below) is given "broader rights" by HUSD. Those "broader rights" for students is to suspend then expel those who opt-out of experimental masks, tests, injections, etc. The "broader rights" for you, (Asst. Principal), and me is forced unpaid leave if we opt-out. Please read the updates in my public documentation to see this Orwellian "official" position for yourself.

Will you also please answer how HUSD's "broader rights" argument is sensible? If you can't, then may we also resolve the question that HUSD now supports and defends our Title 21 rights? 


I will cc you on an update I'll write to our teachers and other district leaders on this evolving topic, (Asst. Superintendent). 


Praying for Truth,


**


Herman, Carl

Jan 11, 2022, 6:44 PM


to (Asst. Superintendent, Asst. Principal, Student 1 + 2)



(Asst. Superintendent),

You promised (Student 1) and (Student 2) a response no later than yesterday. These two bright students asked for my help, which I provide by promising if we don't hear from you tonight, I'll publicly ask you again tomorrow morning, and continue to ask daily:  


What did you find out from the county, (Asst. Superintendent)? I can't imagine you received any other answer than (Student 1) and (Student 2) are correct in their understanding of the Guidelines above from the county's own website that HUSD has a burden of proof to demonstrate close contact to QU/segregate students. (Student 1) and (Student 2) are also correct to argue for in-person instruction because the Guidelines also state they "may continue to attend school for in-person instruction."  


May we consider this question resolved that the students were/are correct with their reading of the flowchart (and as their mathematics teacher, I'm proud of (Student 1) and (Student 2) for demonstrating flowcharts' importance)? 


As you may know, Title 21 rights are federally-protected choice to opt-out of EUAs. Our next question is how HUSD's policies can destroy Title 21 rights. Again, 

      • Please be advised of HUSD's current public position that US Title 21 federal rights to opt-out of any experimental medical product (see below) is given "broader rights" by HUSD. Those "broader rights" for students is to suspend then expel those who opt-out of experimental masks, tests, injections, etc. The "broader rights" for you, (Asst. Principal), and me is forced unpaid leave if we opt-out. Please read the updates in my public documentation to see this Orwellian "official" position for yourself.

Will you also please answer how HUSD's "broader rights" argument is sensible? If you can't, then may we also resolve the question that HUSD now supports and defends our Title 21 rights? 


Only the Truth will serve,


**


Update 2:


I broadly share documentation of district refusal to address two students’ question on “health” “order” legality + invite withdrawal of consent: I also gave a heads-up to the teachers’ union President that the district will now look for a reason to enact “disciplinary measures” against me (I was right). I also began sharing specific emails with other public leaders working for similar freedoms against “official” silence and lies, as well as leaders in alternative media to alert them of potential significant events, and with the ~10 HUSD community members/parents and two HHS staff members.


**


DEFEND OUR CHILDREN: HUSD fails to document authority for “separate but equal” medical-segregation since November 22, 2021! Challenge to HUSD for public discussion here and now, or invitation for HHS to withdraw consent


Herman, Carl

Jan 11, 2022, 7:52 AM



to (Principal, Health Director, 2 Asst. Superintendents, Superintendent, teachers’ union President + VP + Board, HUSD School Board, HHS interested teachers + staff + Admin, and 6 HHS students who requested to follow “the news”) 



DEFEND OUR CHILDREN: HUSD fails to document authority for “separate but equal” medical-segregation since November 22, 2021! Challenge to HUSD for public discussion here and now, or invitation for HHS to withdraw consent


“I don’t know if you were within 6 feet for 15 minutes, but you can’t prove you weren’t. We have the right to not allow you to be with students based on ‘may’ have been exposed because you were in the classroom space. HUSD can do this because of ‘an abundance of caution.’ You have a right to an education, but a quarantined education. We’re following the chart of the guidelines of the county and state.”   ~ Summary of HUSD Assistant Superintendent (omitted) on Jan. 7 in an hour meeting according to HHS 11th Grade students (omitted) and (omitted) (both want you to know and support them). Both students reported that (Asst. Superintendent) repeated versions of the above claims ~20 times, and avoided the central question of what legal authority HUSD has to segregate unvaxxed students when QU/segregation is an option if, and only if, there is demonstrable proof of close contact (please see the most recent November 24, 2021 California Department of Public Health official COVID-19 Public Health Guidance for K-12 Schools in California, 2021-22 School Year, published on Alameda Public Health Department’s website, with the key passage below in my email to (Asst. Superintendent)). HUSD fails to mention that the CA Dept. of Public Health allows asymptomatic unvaxxed students the option to remain on campus after proven to be a close contact with a “positive” “case,” and provides this chart omitting that fact. I wonder why. After an hour of our two HHS students refusing to surrender to HUSD’s failure to fulfill their burden of proof and (Asst. Superintendent’s) repeated claims HUSD is following the policy, (Asst. Superintendent) finally agreed to ask Alameda County Department of Health “what to do” about these two students. (Asst. Superintendent) promised a response no later than Monday Jan. 10, and did not deliver (see my email response below). Perfectly healthy-feeling (Student 1 + 2) challenge being “health” “ordered” to prima facie-illegal “separate but equal” school segregation violating their federally-protected Title 21 and 14th Amendment rights (among likely dozens). They request documentation as legal proof how HUSD can arbitrarily and dictatorially substitute “may have been exposed” to violate the state and county limit of provable close contact. Btw: students are denied facts to prove they weren’t in close contact, and (Asst. Superintendent) appears ignorant of (Asst. Superintendent)/HUSD’s “official answer” of “broader rights” that ironically applies in this case that the state and county’s “broader rights” go to the students rather than HUSD’s destructions of rights. I wonder why HUSD is not proud to clarify and announce to everyone we now have “broader rights,” with (Asst. Superintendent) telling (Student 1 + 2), “Segregating you to separate-but-equal isolated-public education against your will by HUSD dictatorial force means you have broader rights of Title 21 medical choices. Segregation is broader rights!” Colleagues: can you now hear and see the problem our students and I point to?


“It’s not practical.” ~ HUSD Assistant Superintendent (omitted) explaining why “it was a choice the district made” to segregate unvaxxed students without demonstrable evidence they had close contact (and here for the 6 feet/15 minute rule) on our Dec. 3, 2021 Zoom meeting HEA President (omitted) graciously arranged after HUSD’s continuing refusals to answer such basic questions since September 19, 2021 (Update 2). (HEA President) witnessed this admission, and (Asst. Superintendent’s) promise on Dec. 3 to provide all source material defending legality of this practice. Of course, she has failed to deliver, and of course, this is a prima facie crime. HUSD has refused to answer if this is a crime since my Dec. 14. question (Update 1).


“I don’t know.”  ~ After ignoring my Nov. 22nd emailed question (Update 3), HUSD Assistant Superintendent (omitted) answer on Dec. 3 how superior federal Title 21 rights to freely opt-out of EUAs can be destroyed by district/county/state “mandates”/“orders”/“whatever” given Article 6 of the US Constitution (see concluding definitions). On December 10 (Update 1), HUSD provided two obfuscating paragraphs from an anonymous attorney HUSD refuses to name or allow to be questioned (see definitions). HUSD claims policy legality of medical segregation to “separate but equal” school, suspensions, expulsions, and employee forced unpaid leave are all “broader rights” to Title 21’s freedom to decline experimental medical products (see below definitions). Suspension, segregation, and unpaid leave = our “broader Title 21 rights” is Orwellian doublespeak that evokes our mutual Oath to oppose. I reported this to HHS teachers on Dec. 18 (Update 1). (Asst. Superintendent) has ignored repeated requests to explain and defend HUSD’s position, as well as ignoring another formal district complaint and Grievance on this and increasingly more issues listed in this communication.


“A time comes when silence is betrayal. That time has come for us… Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.”  ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Beyond Vietnam, April 4, 1967


*****************


Dear: Principal (omitted), Superintendent (omitted), Assistant Superintendent (omitted), Assistant Superintendent (omitted), Health Director (omitted), HUSD Board of Education Members, HEA President (omitted) and VP (omitted), HEA Board Members, and HHS colleagues:


This communication documents HUSD prima facie-illegal “health” “orders” “justified” by “official” explanations of “separate but equal” segregated education without evidence of legality, and “broader rights from segregation, suspension, expulsion, and unpaid leave.” 


I request HUSD schedule with me an open Zoom meeting for employees, students (promised by (Asst. Superintendent) since Dec. 3; now 5 weeks ago), family and community meetings to respond to the OBVIOUS and unanswered questions listed below. 


Since September of 2020 I’ve asked HUSD to explain and document the legal authority for “health” “orders,” and offered the reasonable option to escalate these questions to county and/or state. For 16 months, I’ve experienced and shared HUSD’s responses that I’ve found of similar quality to the above quotations from two Assistant Superintendents.

 

HUSD has never once addressed our mutual Oath to support and defend limited government under the US and CA Constitutions. HUSD has also refused to address my repeated questions of district expectations as administers of this required Oath for employment, and how I should honor this Oath to support and defend limited government under constitutional law. I wonder why.


In desperation to get rational explanation to the curious “broader rights” argument, I’ve asked HUSD for over a month what HUSD will do if I exercise Title 21 Rights to decline experimental medical products (Update 3). HUSD has already demonstrated they won’t enforce “health” “orders” of weekly student testing, which proves HUSD’s arbitrary position of picking and choosing what to enforce outside of policy. This demonstrates HUSD’s “health” “orders” are solely illegal political dictates, unless someone can talk me down from that observation.


Therefore, if HUSD refuses questions, refuses to address our mutual Oath and how to exercise it, and refuses to answer what happens if anyone upholds their Title 21 rights, then the only professional option I see is to exercise our mutual Oath is my demonstration of Title 21 rights for non-compliance of EUAs at my discretion. If necessary, I will do so following Dr. King’s Holiday on January 17, 2022, and after I am satisfied with consultations with HEA and networked attorneys at the forefront of suing school districts (recently Los Angeles, San Diego, and Piedmont). 


I make these conclusions as an AP US Government teacher with National Board Certification. I also have 18 years’ experience briefing Members of Congress on policy proposals to end domestic and foreign policy that led to two UN Summits for heads of state. 


I currently have 18 students “ordered” to 10 days of QU-segregation, with all who contacted me saying they feel perfectly healthy. Several report negative tests. Odds are that all 18 of my QU/segregated students are non-symptomatic. I’ve lost ~500 total student days to QU-segregation so far this school year. 


Again, HUSD fails to mention that the CA Dept. of Public Health allows asymptomatic unvaxxed students the option to remain on campus after proven to be a close contact with a “positive” “case” (more on that below), and provides this chart omitting that fact. I wonder why. One would think that an honest district would be transparent with the guidelines for open public consideration that asymptomatic students may remain in classes given zero demonstrable district proof of close contact of 6 feet for 15 minutes. Btw: each teacher could verify the physical location of a “positive” student in class, and identify the students provable to have been within 6 feet for 15 minutes (if any).


I’m going to list the long train of HUSD abuses to ignore OBVIOUS and REQUIRED questions of lawful policies, obfuscations, and usurpations for the last 16 months that make it our right and duty under our mutual Oath to throw off unexplained, undocumented, and prima facie-illegal policies. I assert that we are acting within our contract and Oath for lawful district policies when what we receive from HUSD is silence or dismissive, “your obedience is your broader rights.”


To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world in questions asked and ignored by HUSD:

  • HUSD/(Asst. Superintendent) admit violating the requirement to demonstrate close contact of 6 feet for 15 minutes before segregating students for a claimed “separate but equal” education of historic doubled failure rate in isolation from their peers because “it’s not practical” to uphold those rights (Update 1). How is this legal? I’ve asked since November 22, 2021 (Update 3). (Asst. Superintendent) promised on Dec. 3 to email all source materials to support the legality of this district policy, and has not delivered after 5 weeks, despite my reminders. I wonder why. I remind all that I was illegally “health ordered” to QU/segregate for 10 days by Principal (omitted) until I requested to review the source documentation.
  • HUSD/(Asst. Superintendent) admitted they “don’t know” how superior federally-protected rights can be destroyed, and given the option to ask county and/or state to answer that question, HUSD chose on Dec. 10 to claim destruction of Title 21 “provides broader rights” for free and fair choice (Update 1). These “broader rights” include students’ suspensions, expulsions, and employees’ forced unpaid leave for exercising Title 21 options. Again, I have never personally witnessed in my professional life as an AP US Government and National Board Certified History Teacher a more Orwellian claim. This rivals the propaganda of historic authoritarian regimes we teach in World History and US History classes; and unless anyone can talk me down as a professional, then I must go with this conclusion as best evidence after offer for peer review. How are the negative forced consequences “ordered” by HUSD “broader rights”? HUSD has refused to answer basic questions about federal Tital 21 Rights since September 19, 2021 (Update 2).
  • HUSD/(Asst. Superintendent) claim violating a 6 feet and 15 minute requirement to QU/segregate magically becomes legal if the district dictates “an abundance of caution” to “order” “separate but equal” Orwellian “isolated public education.” As a history teacher, I admonish HUSD that the Nazi government used a similar term: “protective custody” “for public safety” to push a political agenda that had nothing to do with public safety, and later recognized as evil. (Student 1 + 2) report (Asst. Superintendent) repeated this phrase about 10 times. How does some “magic phrase” make an illegal “health” “order” of “separate but equal segregation” legal?
  • HUSD admitted they are not bound to follow “health” “orders” by stating HUSD rejects enforcement of student “vaccine requirement” (Update 2)! HUSD simultaneously claims they are “required” to obey “health orders” while refusing to obey? This arbitrary “picking and choosing” of governing “orders” “for public good” based upon what is said when it is said rather than within clear limits of rules everyone plays under has an academic name: dictatorship (literally what is dictated/said whenever a dict is decreed). Again, with no intention to offend, I am demonstrating academic professionalism in good faith. If anyone can demonstrate a different conclusion, it’s time to speak up. How is it legal to “pick and choose” what health policies to enforce?
  • Affirm or refute my summary of HUSD’s written position you provided in those two paragraphs from an anonymous and un-cited legal source HUSD refuses to name: HUSD’s policy is to do what is explicitly forbidden by federal and state laws (see Title 21 below). HUSD claims this is legal because “occupy the field” for “broader rights” and “more stringent compliance” of “option to refuse EUAs” means state and/or local “health” “orders” to require EUAs in order to receive pay are both superior to Constitutional, federal, and/or state protected rights, and provide individuals “broader rights” and “more stringent compliance” than US Code of Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) and California Health and Safety Code § 24171 to § 24176 on their own. At our upcoming meeting either affirm my good-faith above summary in this paragraph, or correct my understanding of HUSD’s explanation how HUSD’s required EUA policy is in conformance to law.
  • Affirm or refute my summary of HUSD’s written position in those two paragraphs from an anonymous and un-cited source you refuse to name: State dictatorship under a claimed “emergency” destroys explicit state and federally-protected rights for as long as dictated. Article 6 of the US Constitution is inferior to state and/or local “emergency” dictatorship. Federal law is inferior to state and/or local “emergency” dictatorship. The above honors our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions of limited government. (Please note: Dr. Fauci agrees that all Americans must participate in “health” “ordered” experimental research upon the dictate of government, with enforcement of police power. Please recall your history: the US began as a nation upon wide public recognition of government abuse of power. The option I’ve offered HUSD since September 2020 is not American Revolution 2.0, but only to pass unanswerable questions to county and/or state ordering authority to either defend or downgrade to “advice.”)
  • Regarding HUSD’s December 15 memo (Update 2) on “vaccine deadline” stating that students “will not be excluded from school” if they don’t meet the testing requirement, does that apply to staff? If not, explain how this policy is in conformance to law. Does this policy apply to all EAUs? If not, explain the legal authority HUSD has to “pick and choose” health guidance for employees. (note: LAUSD also retreated from their “vaccine deadline”)
  • Related, are HUSD’s Covid tests coming to schools in vans among the EAUs withdrawn from EUA authorization on Dec. 31, 2021? If so, what further legal authority does HUSD have for testing after schools close on Dec. 17 for Winter Break?
  • Given the above two points, what will HUSD do if I decline “testing” within my federal Title 21 protection to opt-out? (note: this applies to 20+ staff, and all currently vaccinated staff if the state “orders” “booster” injections over time to avoid weekly testing, or even “super boosters” every 6 months, or “super-duper extra strength boosters” every month.)
  • If HUSD is now “picking and choosing” which “health” policies to enforce, what will HUSD do if I exercise Title 21 protection to decline experimental masks? HUSD’s response states “may establish” discipline policies, so I want to know what HUSD will definitely do, including the full range of responses with timeline so I can make fully-informed choices. This includes “Upon compliance with the health mandate, the employee would be returned to paid status” (we all should know this ambiguous HUSD policy of “may” when they are declaring some “health” policies “require” enforcement, while others do not for unexplained mysterious “public health reasons”).
  • Students have a right to question HUSD policies. On Dec. 3, HUSD promised to provide the appropriate person for students to ask, and ~50 are now eager and asking who the appropriate person is, and when they can meet. Btw: HUSD’s failure for prompt answers is motivating more and more students to engage.
  • Now at my 15th written request that I again made in (Asst. Superintendent’s) presence at our Dec. 3 Zoom meeting and that (Asst. Superintendent) promised then reneged to provide, what are the written materials HUSD received to administer medical and religious exemptions? Is it legal to withhold these from an employee? If not, how is HUSD not violating the law? This follows Health Director (omitted’s) email on Oct. 18: “I apology (sic) for the delayed response. I am working to get you the information that you requested. I hope to have it for you soon.”  (note: If I’m so blatantly denied source material to inform my choices over the CRAZY 14 specific written requests, how does that change your perception about how responsive HUSD is going to be to HHS teachers’ requests for information to optimize teaching and learning?) 
  • What is HUSD’s expectation of how employees should fulfill our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions of limited government? If HUSD requires the Oath for employment, and administers the Oath, then an answer is required. The US was founded upon the clear documentation of our own government’s violations of law to uphold public rights. Our mutual Oath has the purpose of public responsibility to keep government within legal limits of power, true?
  • Receive explanation of HUSD’s un-cited, anonymous, and extraordinary legal claim that superior federally-protected rights can be destroyed by inferior local and/or state government dictatorial “mandates”/“orders”/“requirements”/“protocols”/“guidance”/whatever by reason HUSD gives that occupy the field (and here, here, here, here, here for international law, and here for ABA analysis) for “broader rights” and “more stringent compliance” can be inverted to “near-zero rights” and “near-zero compliance.” I welcome HUSD’s anonymous source to participate in our meeting, and request a name and job position now so I can personally ask for an explanation. Are we in agreement that if in a US Government class, a student submitted just two paragraphs (with an incomplete sentence) to explain how a specific policy is legal under a specific law that was un-cited and anonymous, didn’t mention the law in question, and didn’t attempt to apply the law to the situation in question, then that “explanation” would be returned for further work? Two immediate questions: 
  • Explain how HUSD policy is in conformance of law to make some legal citations, but ignore Governor Newsom’s emergency ordering authority fails to meet the definition of “emergency” in California Government Code 8558 (b) of “beyond control” hospitals he cited as the source of his authority.
  • Explain HUSD’s failure to act upon my report of the most authoritative 14 CA government agencies’ all either refusing to address the question of “emergency” ordering authority given cited legal limits, or their tragic-comic evasions and obfuscations should have motivated HUSD to ask county and/or state for an explanation of ordering authority. How is HUSD so sure their “health” “orders” are lawful when these 14 agencies can’t explain it?


Definitions + source documents:


HUSD CORE VALUES

  • Collaborative Leadership: We develop leaders at all levels who creatively tackle our challenges and communicate with integrity and transparency.
  • Data-Informed Decisions: We use multiple types of data, including stakeholder voice, to inform decisions and monitor progress.
  • Well-Supported Staff: We enhance the capacity of every employee to promote equity and model service excellence.

**


Herman, Carl <>

Jan 10, 2022, 6:50 PM (10 hours ago)


to (Asst. Superintendent, Asst. Principal, (Student 1 + 2)


Dear (Asst. Superintendent), (and (Asst. Principal), (Student 1 + 2)),

(Students 1 + 2) reported that you promised to call Alameda Public Health Department, and have an answer no later than today of what to do with students standing with the state's K-12 official Guidelines, published on Alameda Public Health Department's website:


8. Quarantine recommendations for unvaccinated students for exposures when both parties were wearing a mask, as required in K-12 indoor settings. These are adapted from the CDC K-12 guidance and CDC definition of a close contact.   

a. When both parties were wearing a mask in any school setting in which students are supervised by school staff (including indoor or outdoor school settings and school buses, including on buses operated by public and private school systems), unvaccinated students who are close contacts (more than 15 minutes over a 24-hour period within 0-6 feet) may undergo a modified quarantine as follows. They may continue to attend school for in-person instruction if they:

i. Are asymptomatic; 

ii. Continue to appropriately mask, as required;

iii. Undergo at least twice weekly testing during quarantine; and

iv. Continue to quarantine for all extracurricular activities at school, including sports, and activities within the community setting. 


What did you find out from the county, (Asst. Superintendent)? I can't imagine you received any other answer than (Student 1 + 2) are correct in their understanding of the Guidelines above from the county's own website that HUSD has a burden of proof to demonstrate close contact to QU/segregate students. (Student 1 + 2) are also correct to argue for in-person instruction because the Guidelines also state they "may continue to attend school for in-person instruction."  


May we consider this question resolved that the students were/are correct with their reading of the flowchart (and as their mathematics teacher, I'm proud of (Student 1 + 2) for demonstrating flowcharts' importance)? 


As you may know, Title 21 rights are federally-protected choice to opt-out of EUAs. Our next question is how HUSD's policies can destroy Title 21 rights. Again, 

  • Please be advised of HUSD's current public position that US Title 21 federal rights to opt-out of any experimental medical product (see below) is given "broader rights" by HUSD. Those "broader rights" for students is to suspend then expel those who opt-out of experimental masks, tests, injections, etc. The "broader rights" for you, (Asst. Principal), and me is forced unpaid leave if we opt-out. Please read the updates in my public documentation to see this Orwellian "official" position for yourself.

Will you also please answer how HUSD's "broader rights" argument is sensible? If you can't, then may we also resolve the question that HUSD now supports and defends our Title 21 rights? 


I will cc you on an update I'll write to our teachers and other district leaders on this evolving topic, (Asst. Superintendent). 


Praying for Truth,

-- 

Carl Herman

(Omitted) High School Mathematics Department

National Board Certified Teacher

National Board Certified Teacher Coach


**


On December 10 (Update 3), (Asst. Superintendent’s) formal written response provided this two paragraphs from an anonymous attorney that HUSD has refused to name or allow to be questioned. This is HUSD’s official position to destroy federal rights because such destructions are students and employees’ “broader rights.” This is why all of us must honor our mutual Oath to support limited government, or we have surrendered to unlimited government whenever authority dictates obedience is “for our own good:” 


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


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


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



**


My “best shot” to document the big picture of apparent “official” lies in my Sept. 4, 2021 PLC report, that I challenge anyone to find factual flaw within, that includes these topics:

  • CDC admits PCR test can’t distinguish between Covid and ordinary flu: PCR test was made with generic flu stock because CDC have not isolated any Covid sample (neither have WHO + 90 other leading health/science institutions)
  • Our mutual Oath to limited government under our Constitutions
  • PCR ‘tests’ for ‘Covid’ reduced US flu cases by 99%???
  • ‘Covid’ ‘certified’ deaths = anyone ‘tested’ with ‘Covid’ regardless of co-morbidities or primary causes???
  • Surge of ‘breakthrough’ cases + vaccine-related deaths NOT COUNTED unless after 14 days still = ~14,000 US deaths + ~84,000 serious injuries (~20,000 dead Europeans) note: current published research estimates ~150,000 US vaccine-associated deaths between February and August, 2021.
  • Vaccine safety studies never submitted since 1986 requirement; $4 billion paid for American vaccine injuries by our taxes
  • Masks for students refuted by NIH + at least 31 studies
  • Hypocritical maskless ‘leaders’ + unprecedented global public protests
  • DHS National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin equates challenging Covid policies to domestic terrorism
  • CDC releases plans of ‘isolation camps’ for the healthy to ‘shield’ the vaccinated, while Australia is building them???
  • Why do corporate media report none of these data?
  • Ok, again: what does any of this have to do with teaching and learning at HHS???

**


“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”)


**


Article VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

**


STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE (our mutual Oath)


  I 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.


**


Federal Article 18 Section 242: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW:


TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.



** 

 

Published research: ~150,000 US vaccine-associated deaths between February and August, 2021.

 

The death rate of working-age Americans (18 to 64) in the third quarter of 2021 was 40% higher than pre-pandemic levels, with the trend continuing. This death rate in this time frame corresponds with vaccines, not Covid. 

Joe Rogan interviews Dr. Robert Malone, a developer of mRNA vaccine technology. The most important interview of our time?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. book summary on Dr. Fauci.

2-minute video of corporate media reporting vaccine efficiency going from 100% to zero and requiring “boosters.”

Martin King’s 2 minutes to you that silence is betrayal.


“One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this… But we tend to take the situation for granted… (the bullshitter) does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up… (Bullshitters) continue making assertions that purport to describe the way things are but that cannot be anything except bullshit.”  ~ Princeton professor emeritus, Harry Frankfurt, 2005 Bestseller, On Bullshit

News and data you didn’t know: Btw: HUSD hired me as a relative expert in mathematical analysis from data to address real-world problems. This demonstration to quantify essential data-points, then qualify that data as sufficient refutation of a “surge in Covid hospitalizations” is one among dozens I’ve provided in good-faith professional duty. All of us are educated and talented with diverse professional gifts; I offer mine to make factual claims directly impacting broader policy issues strongly shaping HHS teaching and learning.  


The Lancet Medical Journal: 89.8% UK cases fully vaccinated 3.4% not


80% of UK Covid deaths are vaxxed


Cornell Openly States That "Virtually Every Case" of "Omicron" Found In "Full Vaccinated”


Study — Covid spikes are unrelated to Vaccination levels across 68 countries

 

Columbia study: ~400,000 Covax US deaths from VAERS underreporting by 20x 


CDC Admits that the Covid Pandemic Was the Product of an Inappropriate Test 

Explosive Video from Group Representing 500 Doctors and Scientists Exposes Pfizer Vaccines


Pandemic of the Vaccinated: Two Studies Show New Evidence that Covid-19 Vaccines “Cause More Illness than They Prevent” 

Germany: Govt Reports 96% of Omicron Cases Are Among Fully Vaccinated, 4% Are Unvaccinated


367 Athlete Cardiac Arrests, Serious Issues, 209 Dead, After COVID Shot

Did Pilot’s Union Magazine (ALPA) Reveal That Pilot Deaths Increased 1700% Post Vaccine Mandate?

 

100% of Covid-19 Vaccine Deaths Were Caused by Just 5% of the Batches Produced According to Official Government Data


70 Per Cent of London’s COVID Hospitalisations Diagnosed After Being Admitted For Other Ailments


2-minute video: of historic political lies about Covid.


Attorney with law licenses in California and Germany gives an update on lawsuits regarding Covid.


RFK, Jr.’s Bestselling Book Is ‘Mind-Blowing and Jaw-Dropping’

Pfizer, FDA Dodge Media Questions About Pfizer Comirnaty Vaccine 

  

“How is it possible that an entire society is going along with a narrative that shows so many absurd characteristics?” 5 minutes of Dr. Mattias Desmet, Ph.D Professor in Clinical Psychology at Ghent University, with Masters in Statistics with similar observations as me with social science and math credentials (article)


28 minutes of attorney Thomas Renz presenting raw Medicare data of 50,000 dead Americans within 14 days of vaccination


After Thousands Of Parents Refused to Comply, California School District Reverses Child Jab Mandate

57 Top Scientists and Doctors Release Shocking Study on COVID Vaccines and Demand Immediate Stop to All Vaccinations

Biden Predicts ‘Winter of Severe Illness’ for Unvaccinated, Ignores Science on COVID Vaccines, Treatments


MRNA Vaccine Inventor Issues Warning To Parents: Do Not Give Children ‘Unproven Vaccines’ That May Permanently Damage Organs, Reproductive System, Immunity

On Oath,

Carl

-- 

Carl Herman

(omitted) High School Mathematics Department

National Board Certified Teacher

National Board Certified Teacher Coach


May everything add up for you


Social Justice: save millions of lives, help billions of people, redirect trillions of dollars to help build a future brighter than we can imagine



Attachments area


YouTube video Martin Luther King from WAR MADE EASY





Martin Luther King from WAR MADE EASY


**


Herman, Carl

Jan 11, 2022, 8:04 AM


to (Teachers’ Union President)



Buenos Dias, (Teachers’ Union President)!

If HUSD refuses to address these questions beyond "broader rights" and silence (including to our Oath to do exactly what I'm doing), I'll need to know my options under HEA protection for exercising my Oath to legally resist apparent illegal "health" "orders" by standing under superior Title 21 rights to decline experimental medical products. 


May we talk about this?


I'm also escalating talks with the networked attorneys who sued LAUSD, SDUSD, and Piedmont USD. If the district attempts disciplinary actions after this final opportunity for rational explanation, I will request maximum punitive damages.


Never a boring day,

Carl


**


Update 3:


The next day, I broadly email that an Assistant Superintendent reneged her promise to two students to explain how their segregation is legal, invite again for withdrawal of consent.


**


(Assistant Superintendent) reneges on promise to HHS students to explain how forced medical segregation is legal. Challenge to HUSD for public discussion here and now, or invitation for HHS to withdraw consent


Herman, Carl

Wed, Jan 12, 5:54 AM



to me, (Superintendent, 2 Assistant Superintendents, Health Director, School Board, HHS Admin Team, teachers’ union President + VP + Board, ~80 HHS teachers)



(Assistant Superintendent) reneges on promise to HHS students to explain how forced medical segregation is legal. Challenge to HUSD for public discussion here and now, or invitation for HHS to withdraw consent


COVID-19 Public Health Guidance for K-12 Schools in California, 2021-22 School Year:

2. Physical distancing 

a. Recent evidence indicates that in-person instruction can occur safely without minimum physical distancing requirements when other mitigation strategies (e.g., masking) are implemented.  This is consistent with CDC K-12 School Guidance.


**

1. Masks 

  • Masks are optional outdoors for all in K-12 school settings.

** (my now third repeated question to (Assistant Superintendent); see email in below documents section):

May we consider this question resolved that the students were/are correct with their reading of the flowchart (and as their mathematics teacher, I'm proud of (Student 1 + 2) for demonstrating flowcharts' importance)? 


*****************


Dear: Principal (omitted), Superintendent (omitted), Assistant Superintendent (omitted), Assistant Superintendent (omitted), Health Director (omitted), HUSD Board of Education Members, HEA President (omitted) and VP (omitted), HEA Board Members, and HHS colleagues:


Two HHS students, (Student 1 + 2), invested an hour of their time on Friday Jan. 7 with HUSD Assistant Superintendent (omitted) for the answer to obvious, essential, and now augmented questions: 


How can HUSD exercise “separate but equal” QU-segregation  without required evidence of close contact? 


Because “in-person instruction can occur safely without minimum physical distancing,” what legal authority does HUSD have to “health” “order” medical segregation?


(Assistant Superintendent) had no answers, and promised to call Alameda County’s Public Health Department that day. (Assistant Superintendent) promised a response to students by the end of either Friday or no later than Monday. Today is Wednesday; (Assistant Superintendent) has not responded despite my written reminders on Friday, Monday, and Tuesday, with this morning (Wednesday) being my 4th follow-up. I wonder why she reneged on her promise to our HHS students.


(Student 1 + 2) has now received no answer from:

  • HHS Attendance Office.
  • Principal (omitted).
  • Assistant Principal (omitted).
  • Nurse (omitted).
  • Assistant Superintendent (omitted).

Again: I request HUSD schedule with me an open Zoom meeting for employees, students (promised by (Assistant Superintendent) since Dec. 3; now 5 weeks ago), family and community meetings to respond to the OBVIOUS and unanswered questions listed below. 


And again: In desperation to get rational explanation to the curious “broader rights” argument, I’ve asked HUSD for over a month what HUSD will do if I exercise Title 21 Rights to decline experimental medical products (Update 3). HUSD has already demonstrated they won’t enforce “health” “orders” of weekly student testing, which proves HUSD’s arbitrary position of picking and choosing what to enforce outside of policy. This demonstrates HUSD’s “health” “orders” are solely illegal political dictates, unless someone can talk me down from that observation.


Therefore, if, and only if, HUSD refuses questions, refuses to address our mutual Oath and how to exercise it, and refuses to rationally answer what happens if anyone upholds their Title 21 rights (HUSD forcing unpaid leave on employees as a “broader Title 21 right” is irrational on its face, and must be explained), then the only professional option I see is to exercise our mutual Oath in demonstration of Title 21 rights for non-compliance of EUAs at my discretion. If necessary, I will do so following Dr. King’s Holiday on January 17, 2022, and after I am satisfied with consultations with HEA and networked attorneys at the forefront of suing school districts (recently Los Angeles, San Diego, and Piedmont). 


I begin by informing all that I exercise my relative “broader rights” from the CDPH publication quoted above, and will inform students beginning today that “masks are optional outdoors for all in K-12 school settings” until HUSD can explain and document otherwise. HUSD’s “Face Covering Requirements” stating “Students in levels PreK-12 are required to wear face coverings at all times, while at school” and “All staff, regardless of vaccination status, must wear face coverings at all times in PreK-12 settings” are contradicted within HUSD’s own “safety plan” on page 6: “See the Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings from CDPH for more information” that I quote from to open this email. 


What other contradictions and errors are in HUSD’s information? Because we’ve found some, we should consider all of HUSD’s information open to scrutiny.


Again, (Assistant Superintendent’s) current representation of HUSD’s authority to “health” “order” “separate but equal” QU-segregation for 10 days of “public” education for perfectly healthy students standing under a federally-protected Title 21 option:


“I don’t know if you were within 6 feet for 15 minutes, but you can’t prove you weren’t. We have the right to not allow you to be with students based on ‘may’ have been exposed because you were in the classroom space. HUSD can do this because of ‘an abundance of caution.’ You have a right to an education, but a quarantined education. We’re following the chart of the guidelines of the county and state.”   ~ Summary of HUSD Assistant Superintendent (omitted) on Jan. 7 in an hour meeting according to HHS 11th Grade students (Student 1 + 2) (both want you to know and support them). Both students reported that (Assistant Superintendent) repeated versions of the above claims ~20 times, and avoided the central question of what legal authority HUSD has to segregate unvaxxed students when QU/segregation is an option if, and only if, there is demonstrable proof of close contact (please see the most recent November 24, 2021 California Department of Public Health official COVID-19 Public Health Guidance for K-12 Schools in California, 2021-22 School Year, published on Alameda Public Health Department’s website, with the key passage below in my email to (Assistant Superintendent)). HUSD fails to mention that the CA Dept. of Public Health allows asymptomatic unvaxxed students the option to remain on campus after proven to be a close contact with a “positive” “case,” and provides this chart omitting that fact. I wonder why. After an hour of our two HHS students refusing to surrender to HUSD’s failure to fulfill their burden of proof and (Assistant Superintendent’s) repeated claims HUSD is following the policy, (Assistant Superintendent) finally agreed to ask Alameda County Department of Health “what to do” about these two students. (Assistant Superintendent) promised a response no later than Monday Jan. 10, and did not deliver (see my email response below). Perfectly healthy-feeling (Students 1 + 2) challenge being “health” “ordered” to prima facie-illegal “separate but equal” school segregation violating their federally-protected Title 21 and 14th Amendment rights (among likely dozens). They request documentation as legal proof how HUSD can arbitrarily and dictatorially substitute “may have been exposed” to violate the state and county limit of provable close contact. Btw: students are denied facts to prove they weren’t in close contact, and (Assistant Superintendent) appears ignorant of (other Assistant Superintendent)/HUSD’s “official answer” of “broader rights” that ironically applies in this case that the state and county’s “broader rights” go to the students rather than HUSD’s destructions of rights. I wonder why HUSD is not proud to clarify and announce to everyone we now have “broader rights,” with (Assistant Superintendent) telling (Student 1 + 2), “Segregating you to separate-but-equal isolated-public education against your will by HUSD dictatorial force means you have broader rights of Title 21 medical choices. Segregation is broader rights!” Colleagues: can you now hear and see the problem our students and I point to?


My third email to (Assistant Superintendent) requesting she honor her promise to HHS students is below.


Again: let Facts be submitted to a candid world in questions asked and ignored by HUSD to be addressed in our upcoming Zoom meeting:

  • HUSD/(Assistant Superintendent) admit violating the requirement to demonstrate close contact of 6 feet for 15 minutes before segregating students for a claimed “separate but equal” education of historic doubled failure rate in isolation from their peers because “it’s not practical” to uphold those rights (Update 1). How is this legal? I’ve asked since November 22, 2021 (Update 3). (Assistant Superintendent) promised on Dec. 3 to email all source materials to support the legality of this district policy, and has not delivered after 5 weeks, despite my reminders. I wonder why. I remind all that I was illegally “health ordered” to QU/segregate for 10 days by Principal (omitted) until I requested to review the source documentation.
  • HUSD/(Assistant Superintendent) admitted they “don’t know” how superior federally-protected rights can be destroyed, and given the option to ask county and/or state to answer that question, HUSD chose on Dec. 10 to claim destruction of Title 21 “provides broader rights” for free and fair choice (Update 1). These “broader rights” include students’ suspensions, expulsions, and employees’ forced unpaid leave for exercising Title 21 options. Again, I have never personally witnessed in my professional life as an AP US Government and National Board Certified History Teacher a more Orwellian claim. This rivals the propaganda of historic authoritarian regimes we teach in World History and US History classes; and unless anyone can talk me down as a professional, then I must go with this conclusion as best evidence after offer for peer review. How are the negative forced consequences “ordered” by HUSD “broader rights”? HUSD has refused to answer basic questions about federal Tital 21 Rights since September 19, 2021 (Update 2).
  • HUSD/(Assistant Superintendent) claim violating a 6 feet and 15 minute requirement to QU/segregate magically becomes legal if the district dictates “an abundance of caution” to “order” “separate but equal” Orwellian “isolated public education.” As a history teacher, I admonish HUSD that the Nazi government used a similar term: “protective custody” “for public safety” to push a political agenda that had nothing to do with public safety, and later recognized as evil. (Student 1 + 2) report (Assistant Superintendent) repeated this phrase about 10 times. How does some “magic phrase” make an illegal “health” “order” of “separate but equal segregation” legal?
  • HUSD admitted they are not bound to follow “health” “orders” by stating HUSD rejects enforcement of student “vaccine requirement” (Update 2)! HUSD simultaneously claims they are “required” to obey “health orders” while refusing to obey? This arbitrary “picking and choosing” of governing “orders” “for public good” based upon what is said when it is said rather than within clear limits of rules everyone plays under has an academic name: dictatorship (literally what is dictated/said whenever a dict is decreed). Again, with no intention to offend, I am demonstrating academic professionalism in good faith. If anyone can demonstrate a different conclusion, it’s time to speak up. How is it legal to “pick and choose” what health policies to enforce?
  • Affirm or refute my summary of HUSD’s written position you provided in those two paragraphs from an anonymous and un-cited legal source HUSD refuses to name: HUSD’s policy is to do what is explicitly forbidden by federal and state laws (see Title 21 below). HUSD claims this is legal because “occupy the field” for “broader rights” and “more stringent compliance” of “option to refuse EUAs” means state and/or local “health” “orders” to require EUAs in order to receive pay are both superior to Constitutional, federal, and/or state protected rights, and provide individuals “broader rights” and “more stringent compliance” than US Code of Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) and California Health and Safety Code § 24171 to § 24176 on their own. At our upcoming meeting either affirm my good-faith above summary in this paragraph, or correct my understanding of HUSD’s explanation how HUSD’s required EUA policy is in conformance to law.
  • Affirm or refute my summary of HUSD’s written position in those two paragraphs from an anonymous and un-cited source you refuse to name: State dictatorship under a claimed “emergency” destroys explicit state and federally-protected rights for as long as dictated. Article 6 of the US Constitution is inferior to state and/or local “emergency” dictatorship. Federal law is inferior to state and/or local “emergency” dictatorship. The above honors our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions of limited government. (Please note: Dr. Fauci agrees that all Americans must participate in “health” “ordered” experimental research upon the dictate of government, with enforcement of police power. Please recall your history: the US began as a nation upon wide public recognition of government abuse of power. The option I’ve offered HUSD since September 2020 is not American Revolution 2.0, but only to pass unanswerable questions to county and/or state ordering authority to either defend or downgrade to “advice.”)
  • Regarding HUSD’s December 15 memo (Update 2) on “vaccine deadline” stating that students “will not be excluded from school” if they don’t meet the testing requirement, does that apply to staff? If not, explain how this policy is in conformance to law. Does this policy apply to all EAUs? If not, explain the legal authority HUSD has to “pick and choose” health guidance for employees. (note: LAUSD also retreated from their “vaccine deadline”)
  • Related, are HUSD’s Covid tests coming to schools in vans among the EAUs withdrawn from EUA authorization on Dec. 31, 2021? If so, what further legal authority does HUSD have for testing after schools close on Dec. 17 for Winter Break?
  • Given the above two points, what will HUSD do if I decline “testing” within my federal Title 21 protection to opt-out? (note: this applies to 20+ staff, and all currently vaccinated staff if the state “orders” “booster” injections over time to avoid weekly testing, or even “super boosters” every 6 months, or “super-duper extra strength boosters” every month.)
  • If HUSD is now “picking and choosing” which “health” policies to enforce, what will HUSD do if I exercise Title 21 protection to decline experimental masks? HUSD’s response states “may establish” discipline policies, so I want to know what HUSD will definitely do, including the full range of responses with timeline so I can make fully-informed choices. This includes “Upon compliance with the health mandate, the employee would be returned to paid status” (we all should know this ambiguous HUSD policy of “may” when they are declaring some “health” policies “require” enforcement, while others do not for unexplained mysterious “public health reasons”).
  • Students have a right to question HUSD policies. On Dec. 3, HUSD promised to provide the appropriate person for students to ask, and ~50 are now eager and asking who the appropriate person is, and when they can meet. Btw: HUSD’s failure for prompt answers is motivating more and more students to engage.
  • Now at my 15th written request that I again made in (Assistant Superintendent’s) presence at our Dec. 3 Zoom meeting and that (Assistant Superintendent) promised then reneged to provide, what are the written materials HUSD received to administer medical and religious exemptions? Is it legal to withhold these from an employee? If not, how is HUSD not violating the law? This follows Health Director (omitted’s) email on Oct. 18: “I apology (sic) for the delayed response. I am working to get you the information that you requested. I hope to have it for you soon.”  (note: If I’m so blatantly denied source material to inform my choices over the CRAZY 14 specific written requests, how does that change your perception about how responsive HUSD is going to be to HHS teachers’ requests for information to optimize teaching and learning?) 
  • What is HUSD’s expectation of how employees should fulfill our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions of limited government? If HUSD requires the Oath for employment, and administers the Oath, then an answer is required. The US was founded upon the clear documentation of our own government’s violations of law to uphold public rights. Our mutual Oath has the purpose of public responsibility to keep government within legal limits of power, true?
  • Receive explanation of HUSD’s un-cited, anonymous, and extraordinary legal claim that superior federally-protected rights can be destroyed by inferior local and/or state government dictatorial “mandates”/“orders”/“requirements”/“protocols”/“guidance”/whatever by reason HUSD gives that occupy the field (and here, here, here, here, here for international law, and here for ABA analysis) for “broader rights” and “more stringent compliance” can be inverted to “near-zero rights” and “near-zero compliance.” I welcome HUSD’s anonymous source to participate in our meeting, and request a name and job position now so I can personally ask for an explanation. Are we in agreement that if in a US Government class, a student submitted just two paragraphs (with an incomplete sentence) to explain how a specific policy is legal under a specific law that was un-cited and anonymous, didn’t mention the law in question, and didn’t attempt to apply the law to the situation in question, then that “explanation” would be returned for further work? Two immediate questions: 
  • Explain how HUSD policy is in conformance of law to make some legal citations, but ignore Governor Newsom’s emergency ordering authority fails to meet the definition of “emergency” in California Government Code 8558 (b) of “beyond control” hospitals he cited as the source of his authority.
  • Explain HUSD’s failure to act upon my report of the most authoritative 14 CA government agencies’ all either refusing to address the question of “emergency” ordering authority given cited legal limits, or their tragic-comic evasions and obfuscations should have motivated HUSD to ask county and/or state for an explanation of ordering authority. How is HUSD so sure their “health” “orders” are lawful when these 14 agencies can’t explain it?

Definitions + source documents:


HUSD CORE VALUES

  • Collaborative Leadership: We develop leaders at all levels who creatively tackle our challenges and communicate with integrity and transparency.
  • Data-Informed Decisions: We use multiple types of data, including stakeholder voice, to inform decisions and monitor progress.
  • Well-Supported Staff: We enhance the capacity of every employee to promote equity and model service excellence.

**

Herman, Carl <>


Jan 11, 2022, 6:44 PM


to (Asst. Superintendent, Asst. Principal, Student 1 + 2)


(Assistant Superintendent),

You promised (Student 1 + 2) a response no later than yesterday. These two bright students asked for my help, which I provide by promising if we don't hear from you tonight, I'll publicly ask you again tomorrow morning, and continue to ask daily:  


What did you find out from the county, (Assistant Superintendent)? I can't imagine you received any other answer than (Student 1 + 2) are correct in their understanding of the Guidelines above from the county's own website that HUSD has a burden of proof to demonstrate close contact to QU/segregate students. (Student 1 + 2) are also correct to argue for in-person instruction because the Guidelines also state they "may continue to attend school for in-person instruction."  


May we consider this question resolved that the students were/are correct with their reading of the flowchart (and as their mathematics teacher, I'm proud of (Student 1 + 2) for demonstrating flowcharts' importance)? 


As you may know, Title 21 rights are federally-protected choice to opt-out of EUAs. Our next question is how HUSD's policies can destroy Title 21 rights. 


Again, 

Please be advised of HUSD's current public position that US Title 21 federal rights to opt-out of any experimental medical product (see below) is given "broader rights" by HUSD. Those "broader rights" for students is to suspend then expel those who opt-out of experimental masks, tests, injections, etc. The "broader rights" for you, (Asst. Principal), and me is forced unpaid leave if we opt-out. Please read the updates in my public documentation to see this Orwellian "official" position for yourself.


Will you also please answer how HUSD's "broader rights" argument is sensible? If you can't, then may we also resolve the question that HUSD now supports and defends our Title 21 rights? 


Only the Truth will serve,

-- 

Carl Herman

(Omitted) High School Mathematics Department

National Board Certified Teacher

National Board Certified Teacher Coach


**


COVID-19 Public Health Guidance for K-12 Schools in California, 2021-22 School Year:

2. Physical distancing 

a. Recent evidence indicates that in-person instruction can occur safely without minimum physical distancing requirements when other mitigation strategies (e.g., masking) are implemented.  This is consistent with CDC K-12 School Guidance.

…

1. Masks 

Masks are optional outdoors for all in K-12 school settings.

**

On December 10 (Update 3), (Assistant Superintendent’s) formal written response provided this two paragraphs from an anonymous attorney that HUSD has refused to name or allow to be questioned. This is HUSD’s official position to destroy federal rights because such destructions are students and employees’ “broader rights.” This is why all of us must honor our mutual Oath to support limited government, or we have surrendered to unlimited government whenever authority dictates obedience is “for our own good:” 


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


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


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


**


My “best shot” to document the big picture of apparent “official” lies in my Sept. 4, 2021 PLC report, that I challenge anyone to find factual flaw within, that includes these topics:

  • CDC admits PCR test can’t distinguish between Covid and ordinary flu: PCR test was made with generic flu stock because CDC have not isolated any Covid sample (neither have WHO + 90 other leading health/science institutions)
  • Our mutual Oath to limited government under our Constitutions
  • PCR ‘tests’ for ‘Covid’ reduced US flu cases by 99%???
  • ‘Covid’ ‘certified’ deaths = anyone ‘tested’ with ‘Covid’ regardless of co-morbidities or primary causes???
  • Surge of ‘breakthrough’ cases + vaccine-related deaths NOT COUNTED unless after 14 days still = ~14,000 US deaths + ~84,000 serious injuries (~20,000 dead Europeans) note: current published research estimates ~150,000 US vaccine-associated deaths between February and August, 2021.
  • Vaccine safety studies never submitted since 1986 requirement; $4 billion paid for American vaccine injuries by our taxes
  • Masks for students refuted by NIH + at least 31 studies
  • Hypocritical maskless ‘leaders’ + unprecedented global public protests
  • DHS National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin equates challenging Covid policies to domestic terrorism
  • CDC releases plans of ‘isolation camps’ for the healthy to ‘shield’ the vaccinated, while Australia is building them???
  • Why do corporate media report none of these data?
  • Ok, again: what does any of this have to do with teaching and learning at HHS???

**


“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”)


**


Article VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

**


STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE (our mutual Oath)


  I 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.


**


Federal Article 18 Section 242: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW:


TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.



** 


Truth sets us free,

Carl


**


(Teacher) <>


Wed, Jan 12, 8:50 AM


to me, (Superintendent, 2 Assistant Superintendents, Health Director, School Board, HHS Admin Team, teachers’ union President + VP + Board, ~80 HHS teachers)


Can I be removed from this list?  Thank you.



**


Update 4:


Principal explodes into ad hominem. I give him one opportunity to document his claims or withdraw them with apology. Principal’s response earns an ‘F’ so I forward the ‘one opportunity’ email to everyone and file another Grievance:


**


(Principal)

Jan 12, 2022, 8:54 AM (2 hours ago)



to me, (Superintendent, 2 Assistant Superintendents, Health Director, School Board, HHS Admin Team, teachers’ union President + VP + Board, ~80 HHS teachers)



Dr. (Assistant Superintendent),


I want to begrudgingly welcome you to the latest episode of the "Carl Herman versus the World" saga.  His previous attacks have included HUSD Cabinet members, HHS Administration, the HHS Attendance Office, and our HHS School Nurse, to name a few.  What is particularly disgusting about the latest endeavors by Mr. Herman is that he is now (and unfortunately has been for some time) trying to indoctrinate his students into his way of thinking, literally "coaching them up" before they meet with Administrators about the quarantine procedures that HUSD has been following.  I sat in my office and watched him explain to one of his female students that this is what those that participated in the Civil Rights movement had to go through, and that she could be like Dr. King, and that if she went to class while on quarantine, we may send the police after her, but to hold her ground and stay firm.  It is by far the lowest I have ever seen any "educator" sink in my 16 years in the profession.  I refuse to respond to Mr. Herman and his lengthy diatribes, and will only do so if/when he continues to attack HHS staff members unnecessarily, or anyone else that is doing what they are in the interest of student safety.  Everytime Mr. Herman sends one of his essays, I get numerous staff asking how to block them so that they do not receive them.  So, to save everyone some time, here is how you can block someone's emails in Gmail:


Block an email address

  1. On your computer, go to Gmail.
  2. Open the message.
  3. In the top right, click More .
  4. Click Block [sender].


Please stay safe and well,


Principal


**


(Counselor) <>


Wed, Jan 12, 10:36 AM


to me, (Superintendent, 2 Assistant Superintendents, Health Director, School Board, HHS Admin Team, teachers’ union President + VP + Board, ~80 HHS teachers)


Please remove me from your email list.  I don't wish to receive these emails or (Principal) please show me how to Block the emails.  Thanks.



**


1:41 PM (0 minutes ago)


to (Superintendent, 2 Assistant Superintendents, Health Director, School Board, HHS Admin Team, teachers’ union President + VP + Board, but NOT the teachers to give the Principal opportunity to consider his options after per se defamation)


**


Dear (Principal) and colleagues,

According to the student involved, I said the opposite of what (Principal) claimed:


1:41 PM (0 minutes ago)

to me


Hello (Principal) it’s (Student 1), I have been told there was a misunderstanding on your part thinking Mr. Herman told me to resist police. Never did he once tell me to resist police IF they got involved or to do anything to make me get arrested. He also advised me to listen to security if they did try to escort me out of class on Thursday (January 6th) when we spoke because he said he did not see a reason for police to even get involved. I’m sorry you might have misunderstood him. Although, i’m here to reassure you that Mr. Herman NEVER told me to resist police, and he actually told me I shouldn’t do anything for police to even get involved.


Sincerely, 

(Student 1).


Please send this entire message to everyone you emailed, including bcc, today. 


(Principal), you addressed no part of the factual issue of my support of two HHS students at their request to challenge a school segregation policy that by all evidence is outside the law. If you can demonstrate policy legality, you would be the very first among those of us paying attention to hundreds of lawsuits, including Los Angeles USD, San Diego USD, and Piedmont USD.


Instead, you devolved to ad hominem attack on one of your teachers:

  • “Carl Herman versus the World” communicates nobody would share the questions I ask. In fact, I documented thousands of expert witnesses standing with me and asking similar questions. You should read some of those, Dave.
  • “His previous attacks” is a factual claim that I “to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with.” You have the choice to either document with citation each “attack” you allege on “HUSD Cabinet members, HHS Administration, the HHS Attendance Office, and our HHS School Nurse, to name a few,” or withdraw that claim with apology. Ironically, it appears you have done the attacking requiring my immediate professional defense. If I didn’t do so, you could leverage your attacking accusation as “evidence” for disciplinary actions against me.
  • If you want to call my professional actions disgusting, then I’ll have to follow with a Grievance. I’m ok if you make a statement that you, personally, experienced disgust. I’m not ok with anyone’s per se defamation with how I earn a living. This is a legal warning.
  • You claim I indoctrinate, which is among the most damaging claims for professional scholars: I “imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view” rather than empower with objective and independently-verifiable facts with freedom to have whatever analysis about such facts one chooses. You have the same two choices: document with citation, including “for some time,” or withdraw the defamation with apology. 
  • You claim, “It is by far the lowest I have ever seen any "educator" sink in my 16 years in the profession.” If (Student’s) statement resolves this, then rescind the claim. Personally, (Principal), I think you freaked out when I used the legal term police power when I reminded (Student 1) of her options. I can excuse your reaction of fear, and even attack against me in response, because I believe you’re responding to defend (Student 1) (although your listening skills failed you, as (Student 1) confirms).
  • You also have a choice over the term diatribe for my professional communications. Either cite what you find “sharply abusive, attack” or rescind the claim. If you take neither action, we will discuss this point in a Grievance meeting.
  • You gave HHS teachers instructions to block another teacher, that would thereby stop any work we can do via email. You already know that I remove people from my emails at their request (currently 12). You asked to be excluded from PLC reports, which I have honored. In this instance of school policy where you are the chief administrator, I had to include you in these, but omit (another Asst. Principal) at her request. Please instruct your teachers that they block another teacher at their own risk to stop important work to serve our students and community. I would believe that it is prudent as a school principal to not encourage teachers to block each other from receiving professional emails, but that’s up to you.

(Principal), if you are so certain about the legality of “quarantine procedures that HUSD has been following,” then step up to the plate and volunteer to be the person to address the questions I’ve sent. Assistant Superintendent (omitted) has promised since December 3, 2021 to provide such a person, and I have ~50 students owning the questions that (Students 1 + 2) are the first to formally ask.


I did tell you, (Principal), in our brief meeting in your office before (Student 1) arrived that in my 38 years of teaching, with this likely the last, that you have the best heart of any principal I’ve worked with. I just hope you can properly adjust the aim to your skills, Brother, to avoid further friendly fire.


In empathy of misdirection passion for our students,

Carl


**


(Principal)


Jan 12, 2022, 3:25 PM



to me, (Superintendent, 2 Assistant Superintendents, Health Director, School Board, HHS Admin Team, teachers’ union President + VP + Board, ~80 HHS teachers)



Mr. Herman,


This we can agree on.  


To be clear, I was not trying to imply that Mr. Herman asked the student to resist the police.  I apologize if that is how people read it.  By staying firm, he meant for her to stay true to what she was doing this for, and then he mentioned that the police may get involved. 


I have included everyone in this email.



Please stay safe and well,


Principal


**



Herman, Carl

Wed, Jan 12, 3:49 PM



to me, (Superintendent, 2 Assistant Superintendents, Health Director, School Board, HHS Admin Team, teachers’ union President + VP + Board, ~80 HHS teachers)



Thank you for the partial response, (Principal).


I include my full response that I requested (Principal) share:


(I cut and pasted my above message to all to demonstrate the Principal had an opportunity to either cite his accusations or withdraw them, and instead chose the response you read above)


**



(teachers’ union board member)


Wed, Jan 12, 6:16 PM


to me, (Superintendent, 2 Assistant Superintendents, Health Director, School Board, HHS Admin Team, teachers’ union President + VP + Board, ~80 HHS teachers)



Hello,


Please remove me from this thread and all threads related to this discussion. Union issues should be done through personal email and not work email addresses. Please refer all messages related to this to the (omitted) email address which will then forward them to me from there


Sincerely,


**


(teachers’ union board members)


Jan 12, 2022, 7:27 PM


to me, (Superintendent, 2 Assistant Superintendents, Health Director, School Board, HHS Admin Team, teachers’ union President + VP + Board, ~80 HHS teachers)


Mr Herman,


Please remove my email address from any and all discussions.



**


(Teacher 2) <s>


Jan 13, 2022, 9:52 AM


to me, (Superintendent, 2 Assistant Superintendents, Health Director, School Board, HHS Admin Team, teachers’ union President + VP + Board, ~80 HHS teachers)


Please remove me from this chain mail exchanges.  Thank you.


**


Level 1 Grievance


Herman, Carl

Wed, Jan 12, 5:38 PM


to (Principal, teachers’ union President + VP)


(Principal), I initiate a Level I Grievance today, January 12, 2022.


Statement of Grievance and alleged contract violations:  

All emails copied below, beginning with the most recent:

  • I have sent emails to leaderships of HUSD, HEA, and our HHS interested colleagues in defense of two HHS students at their requests, and in expression of my professional responsibilities. The theme of the emails is the question for HUSD to demonstrate legal authority for "health orders," with appropriate questions informed by my status as an AP US Government and National Board Certified Teacher of History, Government, and Economics for 10 years. I am also informed by briefing Members of Congress ~300 times on domestic and foreign policies for ending poverty over 18 years that led to two UN Summits for heads of state. I include only the most recent email that provides sufficient context (“(Asst. Superintendent) reneges"), with all others available.
  • Principal (omitted) sent an email ("I want to begrudgingly welcome you to the latest episode of the "Carl Herman versus the World" saga") including to unknown bcc recipients. 
  • I responded without bcc recipients ("According to the student involved, I said the opposite of what (Principal) claimed:"). 
  • (Principal) responded to all (with unknown bcc: "This we can agree on."). 
  • I responded once more including the bcc'd colleagues I included in this morning's email regarding (Asst. Superintendent’s) reneged promise to respond to HHS students' "separate but equal" segregation "orders" for "isolated-public education" of 10 days ("Thank you for the partial response, (Principal)."). 

The Grievance is (Principal’s) violations of our CBA Article 25 regarding Academic Freedom that teachers "must be free to think and express ideas, free to select and employ materials, ... free from undue pressures of authority, and free to act within his/her professional group." Article 25 also addresses we all must have "due regard" to the "laws of the state of California, District policy, and administrative rules and regulations" that I address directly, with so far unanswered questions that should be recognized as OBVIOUS and REQUIRED for lawful HUSD policies. Article 3 of our CBA states the obvious that HUSD policies must be "in conformance to law." 


Specifically, my principal must address what he chose to ignore in his partial response:


(Principal), you addressed no part of the factual issue of my support of two HHS students at their request to challenge a school segregation policy that by all evidence is outside the law. If you can demonstrate policy legality, you would be the very first among those of us paying attention to hundreds of lawsuits, including Los Angeles USD, San Diego USD, and Piedmont USD.


Instead, you devolved to ad hominem attack on one of your teachers:

  1. “His previous attacks” is a factual claim that I “to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with.” You have the choice to either document with citation each “attack” you allege on “HUSD Cabinet members, HHS Administration, the HHS Attendance Office, and our HHS School Nurse, to name a few,” or withdraw that claim with apology. Ironically, it appears you have done the attacking requiring my immediate professional defense. If I didn’t do so, you could leverage your attacking accusation as “evidence” for disciplinary actions against me.
  2. If you want to call my professional actions disgusting, then I’ll have to follow with a Grievance. I’m ok if you make a statement that you, personally, experienced disgust. I’m not ok with anyone’s per se defamation with how I earn a living. This is a legal warning. If you can cite what you say exists as disgusting of anything I've written, then I will consider that claim.
  3. You claim I indoctrinate, which is among the most damaging claims for professional scholars: I “imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view” rather than empower with objective and independently-verifiable facts with freedom to have whatever analysis about such facts one chooses. You have the same two choices: document with citation, including “for some time,” or withdraw the defamation with apology. 
  4. You also have a choice over the term diatribe for my professional communications. Either cite what you find “sharply abusive, attack” or rescind the claim. If you take neither action, we will discuss this point in a Grievance meeting.

(Principal), if you are so certain about the legality of “quarantine procedures that HUSD has been following,” then step up to the plate and volunteer to be the person to address the questions I’ve sent. Assistant Superintendent (omitted) has promised since December 3, 2021 to provide such a person, and I have ~50 students owning the questions that (Students 1 + 2) are the first to formally ask.


Remedy Sought: 

  • (Principal) must share the bcc list he used for these emails. I removed a total of ~12 HHS colleagues at their request, and want them informed of my full response to his email. 
  • (Principal) has options to choose in the 4 numbered points of the Grievance. I recommend the easy ones to assume good intent unless my principal can cite and prove otherwise :)  If he chooses to withdraw his claims with apologies, he must inform all he communicated with. If he chooses citation, then I will hold him to professional academic standards to quote what I wrote, explain any problem(s) he sees, and provide appropriate documentation if needed. If (Principal) would like to ask any questions to inform his choices, I am eager to engage any and all on this factual topic. I have thoroughly explained and documented my factual claims (with abundant requests for any counterarguments to talk me down, and receiving none). If (Principal) cannot find any factual errors in my professional communications, he must state that he has no such knowledge to all he communicated with in his emails cited in this Grievance. In addition, he must address his professional responsibility of our mutual Oath to support and defend limited government under the US and CA Constitutions, and those duties to all HHS employees. This Oath is required for HUSD employment.
  • My real preferred remedy is for (Principal) to actually address the OBVIOUS legal questions about policy that has so far cost my personal classroom students ~500 days of instruction, and extrapolating ~6,000 student days of instruction at HHS (distance learning = historic doubled failure rate). ~6,000 days is equal to ~60 HHS students losing an entire semester of ~100 days, right? So far, everyone informed of the law and the question, and I mean everyone, has come to the conclusion that QU-segregation has zero legal authorization under any law we can find or imagine (among several such policies, especially under federal Title 21 protections). All of us informed conclude the policies are prima facie-illegal, and absent any explanation and citation of legality, must be withdrawn immediately upon notice. HUSD's current "explanations" are non-existent with "separate but equal" segregation "orders" for "isolated-public education" of 10 days, as I've communicated daily to leaderships of HUSD, HEA, and interested HHS teachers. The HUSD explanation to violate federal Title 21 is Orwellian: student suspensions, expulsions, segregation, and employee forced unpaid leave are all "broader rights" than Title 21 rights alone. For all employees reading this, HUSD claims with a straight face, "forced unpaid leave for an allowed choice = broader rights of choice." HUSD has ignored my ~10 requests now to explain (Asst. Superintendent’s) Dec. 3 claim of "broader rights" copied below. If Dave has no answers, then he is both professionally and Oath-bound to join me in the questions of policy legality of school segregation and forced medical experiments. If he finds no answers, then he is professionally and Oath-bound to withdraw consent.
  • Answer what (Asst. Superintendent) has refused so far through 3 direct requests: please explain why HUSD is not offering our students the option of "may continue to attend" as allowed in the most authoritative document in the state of CA? Why is this not a point of public consideration, especially among your teachers, (Principal)???

Definitions and source documents:


(I followed with documentation you read in this section)



**


Up next!


My next move the following day was to share with my broadest HUSD email audience my 4 previous email requests to the Assistant Superintendent requesting who she contacted at the county board of public health, what documents were referenced, and what was discussed, which is the promise she made and reneged to our two hero students. This is all in the context that any “health” “order” that can’t be demonstrated as lawful, must be downgraded to “advice.” I followed-up with the teachers’ union president how HUSD refusal to provide medical/religious exemptions is legal. I request our HHS Social Science teachers to answer my questions, or join me in asking.


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 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.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

‘Financial’/‘monetary’/‘derivative’ house-of-cards collapse? Remember: Superior mechanics already proven by Ben Franklin with monetary reform and public banking, backed by Thomas Edison, 86% of Economics professors

Image
In 2002, mega-investor  Warren Buffett wrote  that derivatives were “financial weapons of mass destruction.” At that time, their total “notional” value (the value of the underlying assets from which the “derivatives” were “derived”) was  estimated at $56 trillion .  Investopedia reported in May 2022  that the derivatives bubble had reached an estimated $600 trillion according to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and that the total is often estimated at over $1 quadrillion.  No one knows for sure, because  most of the trades are done privately .    ~ Ellen Brown, The Looming Quadrillion Dollar Derivatives Tsunami , 3/12/23 I’m inspired by my friend and colleague Ellen’s article, along with this excellent discussion among leading economic rebels, to comment that any “paper collapse” of gambling/fraud is good , and solutions are ready to implement now . What the derivative bubble Ellen explains and documents means relative to t...
Read more

The one article you need to prove current US wars are lie-started Wars of Aggression not even close to lawful self-defense, war-murder millions, loot trillions, and require YOUR voice for .01% arrests

Image
“It is no use trying to escape their arrogance by submission or good behavior. Robbers of the world, having by universal plunder exhausted the land, their drive is greed. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if poor, they lust for domination. Neither rule of the East nor West can satisfy them. Alone among men, they crave with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To plunder, slaughter, seize with false pretenses, they give the lying name ‘empire.’ And where nothing remains but a desert, they call that ‘peace.’ ”  ~  Tacitus,  The Agricola and the Germania , on Roman Empire foreign wars in "self-defense" (analyses   here ,  here ) Overview The United States is the most dangerous illegal  rogue state empire  in human history.  The  escalating military armed attacks  under President Trump we witness in the present is a continuation of illegal  Wars of Aggression   (and here ) , the worst action a nation can tak...
Read more

Essay to ~100 teacher colleagues for “red-pill scholarship” to explain, document, & prove Evil totalitarian global scamdemic

In my ongoing challenge  (final episode here ) to my NorCal public school district to force them to either explain how their “health” “orders” are within legal limits (the district refuses; only dictating “just follow orders”), OR to downgrade “orders” to “advice,” I sent the following email to ~100 teaching colleagues on September 4.   The title’s promise is that I will explain, document, and prove an evil totalitarian global “scamdemic.” As a professional scholar, I chose each word for precision and concision. I challenge you, the reader, to invent a more accurate title after you’ve carefully read for any factual errors, both in commission and omission. And should you find the factual claims are substantiated, then please have a chat with yourself about withdrawing your consent from associated “Covid” “leaders.” This ~4,700 word essay is my best “shot” to “red-pill” colleagues with a documented paper that explains and proves the Covid-19 policies are both prima facie- illeg...
Read more