Challenging our public school district’s obedience to county ‘health’ ‘orders’: District admits they don’t know how superior federal law for public ‘option to refuse’ experimental medicine can be violated by state, now face question of district response w

“The rules are simple: they lie to us, we know they’re lying, they know we know they’re lying, but they keep lying to us, and we keep pretending to believe them.” ~ Elena Gorokhova, A Mountain of Crumbs (also attributed to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn)

Perhaps the most helpful communication is a summary of events to the most recent article, the specific updates when they occurred, and preview of coming events (articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35).

This is my best “shot” to explain, document, and prove the “Covid” + “vaccine” narrative are Crimes Against Humanity: a 4,700-word essay I sent to ~100 teacher colleagues in September, 2021.

Summary (links = full documentation): The California “lockdown orders” we were all told were necessary to “flatten the curve and keep hospitals running” have lasted since March 3, 2020. The California Emergency Services Act (ESA) is derived from California Government Code 8558 (b) that requires “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders. Because Californians never received comprehensive hospital data, our government and corporate media “leaders” are lying in omission. Because problematic “positive cases” (and here, here) were substituted for “beyond control” hospitals, our leaders lie in commission. All testimony I’ve received from ~20 medical professionals here in NorCal report all hospitals they know of have been fully within their control throughout the “pandemic.”

As a NorCal public school teacher, at the start of our school year in September 2020 I inquired to our district’s leadership and teachers’ union how their negotiated policy to “obey” county “health” “orders” is legal given the above reasonable limits to dictatorial authority. I cited our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions. I reminded the district I merely ask them as educated professional adults to perform what we expect from all our Californian Middle School students in our State teaching standards: “Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources.” (page 81).

After two requests, the district contact person responded by ignoring my questions, and that employees are required to obey “California mandates” “to protect you” under threat of being terminated. I emailed our district superintendent, school board members, my school principal and two interested teachers that we teach all high school students in our US History classes that the district’s position of “just following orders” is an illegal defense, and asked again how ESA limits are being honored.

After continued district silence, I filed three legal complaints: federal, state, and a grievance for district violation of worker safety to support apparent dictatorial and illegal policy under direct threat of employment termination, $1,000 fines per violation, and one year imprisonment under Cal. Penal Code §§ 69, 148(a)(1).

Our union (HEA) responded with support to ask the district, and to communicate privately that they wouldn’t pursue the grievance to arbitration because the working conditions were negotiated in good faith. The grievance process finished with district and union agreement the complaint didn’t qualify as a grievance.

I appealed the district’s answer to our community school board for what the district redefined as a “written complaint.” From October 2 to December 18 2020 the district was silent, despite policy promising a response within 30 days of the board’s receipt. After this December 13 reminder they were out of compliance for a response, the superintendent answered that the school board upheld the district response without comment.

I also received a “non-response” after nearly 5 months from my complaint to the US Department of Justice regarding unlimited government. My complaint to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing complaint was fielded with a phone call response in December, with their promise to follow-up, and silence since then.

In March 2021, our NorCal public school superintendent sent all staff an email citing county deaths from COVID nearing 1,300 with 80,000 “cases.” He also asked for our professional responses to an upcoming survey. I responded with three basic questions: how many of our staff and students have died of (not with) Covid, what is the data for overall county deaths given controversy over causes of deaths, and how many staff and students have been injured by vaccines. He ignored my questions twice, which I then shared with our school’s ~100 teachers as Chair of a school Professional Learning Community (PLC) on broad educational topics directly affecting our school’s teaching and learning. A few teachers have communicated support, but our Social Science Department found no interest in this topic when I emailed them in inquiry.

Our district superintendent then answered my questions, and concluded with: “If you do not agree with the state and county guidelines or if you believe we are not following them, please pursue your questions and concerns with the appropriate agency.” I responded I would do so, and report my findings.

I followed up with 14 CA government agencies over 6 weeks, with all ignoring the question of how the limit of “beyond control” hospitals was being honored for “emergency” dictatorial authority, and CA Senator Glazer’s office stating the 60-day limit applied only to “non-safety” related orders. I hadn’t considered an American legislature would surrender forever dictatorial powers to a governor or elected officials without a time limit, as public recourse would be limited to recall (as is happening with Governor Newsom) or electing other legislators.

School district and CA government “answers” are therefore intentional lies of omission to claim they answered a question about ESA to “justify” dictatorial government while leaving out any consideration of crystal-clear letter and intent requiring that our hospitals are “beyond control.” The 14 CA government agencies claim dictatorial power to close businesses, stop social gatherings, force masking, force humans to forever remain no closer than six feet from each other, and with forever power until legislators or governor say otherwise, and while lying in commission that “emergency powers” are authorized by unreliable “positive” “cases.”

At the end of April 2021, I wrote a lengthy and fully documented report of those 14 CA government agencies’ responses, and emailed it with a cover letter to district leadership, school board members, teachers’ union leadership, our PLC members, and school teachers. The district’s Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources immediately responded with threats of disciplinary action for unspecified violations of district policies, as did my school principal. The district has yet to respond to my questions regarding their undocumented complaints as the “foundation” to their threats.

I appealed to our teachers’ union for relief (and here, here). After 4 emails and 15 days of silence from our union President and VP, I sent this email to 14 of the Board of Directors of our teachers’ union. Our President and VP then responded for a next step “to gain clarification regarding matters within our scope and discuss next steps, if any.” We Zoom-met, and our union President met with district Assistant Superintendent of HR on May 25, 2021. The district emailed me claiming my PLC report somehow “harasses or disparages” my colleagues “based on their political beliefs,” yet fails again to provide any documentation or explanation despite the union and my requests.

I filed three employee grievances for apparent contract violations, with our contract requiring my silence of proceedings. On July 8, I spoke by phone with our teachers’ union president, who reported that the district is again considering my Grievances as employee complaints, with HR Assistant Superintendent admitting failure to address my requests for the district to document and explain their complaints.

On July 9, 2021 our teachers’ union held a Zoom conference with ~100 teachers to explain the tentative agreement for work conditions for 2021 – ‘22 school year for staff, students, and families to obey “the most restrictive health measures” “ordered” by state, county or federal government. I asked the first question for our union to explain how the state has ordering authority given the strict limits of “beyond control” hospitals, with union president, VP, and another union board member responding they are still representing my question, but all legal information they’ve received is that there is no requirement to oppose ordering authority until proven in court.

My school district’s final answer to my three employee grievances came on July 21, 2021:
Teachers, staff, students and families will follow “health” “orders” because they are ordered.
“Health” “orders” are whatever is ordered. We will not respond to requests for documentation of what is ordered as “healthy,” nor even acknowledge the question was asked despite our legal obligation to explain how all policies are within the limits of the law.
If teachers ask further questions how our “health” “orders” are lawful or healthy, they will be disciplined up to termination under the “reason” that such questions “harass and/or disparage other’ political beliefs.”
On July 24 I responded to the district’s formal initiation of “disciplinary action steps” that lead to termination for unprofessional conduct by offering the district choice to finally cite their unsubstantiated complaints against me, withdraw the complaints and censorship, or face my attorney. On July 26, the district’s Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources responded in refusal to substantiate their claims of my unprofessional work; claiming “The District has provided you with the appropriate documentation that has sufficiently responded to your requests. At this time, there is no additional information that can be provided to you that has not already been provided.” Our teachers union President called me with analysis from her conversations with district leadership that the district is unwilling to look beyond their legal orders, and must be forced by court or legislative orders.

I had a productive first conversation with an America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) connected attorney, who promised to converse with her team to evaluate my case for possible lawsuit support. I have a second conversation scheduled to hopefully initiate lawsuit against my school district (and perhaps other parties).

On September 4, 2021, I reported to my ~100 teacher colleagues my best “shot” to “red pill” them about dozens of game-changing facts corporate media will never report (my published research on corporate media “reporting” lies known to be false as they were told for the many variants of the Wars on Terror). This report to teachers (at “Update 3”) makes a great essay to share with comprehensive facts of our big picture condition (and here).

On Friday September 17, our district superintendent announced the school board will address the question of mandatory student “vaccines” on Wednesday, September 22. I responded to district and teachers’ union leadership with legal notice of their prima facie-crimes, and initiated another employee Grievance for contract violation guaranteeing policies in conformance to law. My attorneys affiliated with AFLDS are watching district and union responses with professional interest, as they choose which cases are best to vigorously pursue.

On Wednesday September 22, the school board voted 5-0 to “mandate” full student “vaccination” for “Covid” (see my essay to ~100 teachers for absolute proofs for quotation marks). The public comment session for 1-minute remarks were ~15 against and ~25 for. Four parents and two employees contacted me, and I’ve initiated our organized work including informing the 3 attorneys paying full attention to these developing cases. I’m also actively engaged in three current employee Grievances, and will give our teachers’ union an ultimatum to honor our contract that all district policies be “in conformance with law” by standing with me against the district’s illegal “mandates” that violate US Codes 21 and 18, and California Government Code 8558 (b) that “emergency orders” authority requires “beyond control” local resources (hospitals in this case). CDC’s latest data seem definitive proof that California and national hospitals are well within control, just as each and every one of the ~20 local doctors, nurses, and other professionals I’ve asked have told me for 20 months.

On October 2, I sent a second email to our teachers’ union President, VP, and district Board Members arguing for their legal and Oath-sworn obligation to stand with me to force the district to explain the legality of their “health” “orders” given the above crystal-clear in letter and intent legal limits (the district’s stated position is “we just follow orders, and so will you”). Parents and employees are organizing. 3 teams of AFLDS attorneys are ready to file suit(s) if this case is considered the next best landmark case to pursue.

On October 17, 2021 I sent another Professional Learning Committee (PLC) report to district and union leaderships + Boards, and ~100 teacher colleagues with two central topics. First: HUSD refuses to address limits to state/county/district “health orders” regarding required student and teacher use of Emergency Use Authorized medical products (EUAs), despite :
Federal law Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) requiring EUAs be administered only and always with “option to refuse” experimental medicine.
Article 6 of the US Constitution is explicit that federal law is superior to state law/“mandates”/“orders.”
California Health and Safety Codes § 24171 to § 24176 uphold federal law that every individual: “Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision.”
The second topic of the October 17 PLC report is that our teachers’ union shared their position why “health orders” to “require” EUAs is lawful: the government is not kidnapping and forcibly injecting teachers. Yes, seriously; that’s their “legal” “justification.”

On October 21, 2021, our teachers’ union president emailed me to declare my employee grievance void that requested the district to either cite their legal authority for EUA work requirements given the limits of three definitive laws, or to downgrade “requirements for employment” to “advice.” The “reason” given was the union claims that the district doesn’t have to cite legal authority for policy because any proofs of illegal policies “do not concern violations of the CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement)” despite the CBA stating all district policies must be “in conformance with law.” Both HEA and HUSD claim that state dictatorial “orders” are sufficient legal authority to compel obedience, and both have never addressed our mutual STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE for We the People to serve as a check on exactly this problem of illegal dictatorial government orders. My three subsequent communications to union President, VP, and Board were unanswered.

On October 28, 2021, HUSD responded to my last employee Grievance of policy violating California Health and Safety Codes § 24171 to § 24176 by unilaterally declaring it “an email request” of an “employee complaint” “against the legality of EUAs” that they then dismissed because we all must “follow orders.” I challenged that stand, as well as challenging district refusal to answer basic questions about “official” exemptions to EUAs.

On November 14, after a week of “official silence” from district and teachers’ union, I poked them again with questions, request to meet, and dire predictions for the public consequences to HUSD official silence beyond “just follow orders,” and HEA’s tragic-comic consent to CTA’s position that “option to refuse” experimental medical treatments allows employee termination without future ability of re-hire in public education (despite Orwellian-violations of definitive CA and federal laws that “option to refuse” means the individual is free to accept or decline experimental medical products “without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision.”

On November 15, our school principal sent an “URGENT” email “ordering” ~200 students to the quad: “All unvaccinated students will be sent home, all vaccinated student (sic) will return to class with a pass.” I discovered I was also “health ordered” home for 10 days, until I demanded documentation of definitions that proved “district error” (but 14 of my students were not provided this documentation for discovery of error, nor another teacher). This week also had our teachers’ union request accepted for a December 1 “Level III” Grievance meeting with the superintendent to discuss district censorship of my PLC and their taking the first step to terminate my employment because of several complaints they refuse to cite. HUSD continues 6 weeks of failure to provide me legal definitions of the medical exemption process, but agreed to meet for discussion on Dec. 3. Both of these meetings will be attended by the teachers’ union President and me. Ten students have voiced interest in a “Truth Club,” and have submitted paperwork to our Associated Student Body (ASB) with me as their club sponsor to address student interest for truth regarding “the pandemic” and other game-changing areas of truth (here, here, here).

On December 1 and 3 I had Zoom meetings with district leadership and our teachers’ union President regarding the previous paragraph topics. The first regarding my employee Grievance will have the superintendent officially respond by December 11, and by contract I cannot give details until the Grievance is completed. The December 3 meeting had the district Assistant Superintendent for HR admit she doesn’t know how district policy has the authority to be superior to federal law prohibiting forced experimental medicines to hold a job. I gave her the ultimatum of answering by December 10, or facing my next question of what the district will do if I stand under the protections of federal law to exercise my right to decline experimental medical products, that include injections, “testing,” and masks.

On December 3rd, my principal sent another “friendly reminder” for weekly Covid testing required for my continued employment. For the second time, he mistakenly revealed all email recipients who are not vaccinated. I responded with another “reply to all” to challenge my principal to explain how the “health orders” he signs are legal, or to join those of us asking questions about how these “orders” are anything other than Orwellian-illegal.

**

Update 1:

Dec. 1 Grievance meeting with Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, teachers’ union President: By contract I cannot give details until settlement regarding this meeting to resolve my Grievance about the district censoring the Professional Learning Committee (PLC) I chair, and taking the first step to terminate my employment after I sent this PLC report (at “Update 1”) to our school’s teachers.

**
Update 2:

Dec. 3 EUA meeting with district Health Director, Assistant Superintendent, teachers’ union President: Our union President graciously helped schedule a meeting to address questions the district ignored by email. Here is the email summary I provided that also affirms district promises. An important disclosure is the Assistant Superintendent had to admit that she didn’t know how district policy to require EUA use as a condition of employment is a lawful policy when it violates superior federal law:

Herman, Carl

Dec 3, 2021, 5:43 PM (2 days ago)

to (Assistant Superintendent, Health Director, teachers union President + VP)

“There is increasing evidence that vaccinated individuals continue to have a relevant role in transmission. In Massachusetts, USA, a total of 469 new COVID-19 cases were detected during various events in July, 2021, and 346 (74%) of these cases were in people who were fully or partly vaccinated, 274 (79%) of whom were symptomatic. Cycle threshold values were similarly low between people who were fully vaccinated (median 22·8) and people who were unvaccinated, not fully vaccinated, or whose vaccination status was unknown (median 21·5), indicating a high viral load even among people who were fully vaccinated.” ~ COVID-19: stigmatizing the unvaccinated is not justified. Kampf, Gunter. The Lancet. Nov. 20, 2021 (The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine are considered the top two global medical journals)

Dear (Assistant Superintendent, Health Director, teachers’ union President),
Thank you all for our meeting today. These are the answers I received to my questions. If anything is in substantial error to anyone’s judgment, please speak up.

My request to record our meeting: (Assistant Superintendent) claimed that I do not have the legal right to record the meeting, but must receive consent that she denied. She claimed that HUSD only records meetings with all participants’ consent, to which I responded that we HHS teachers do not receive that option for staff and training meetings.

My 13 (yes, 13) requests for source information regarding medical exemptions: Since October 11, nearly two months ago, I’ve made a total of 13 emailed requests in this very email chain for source material so I can be educated about my rights. None of my requests have been fulfilled. Recipients, in order:
(Health Director) (2 times),
then (Health Director) and (Assistant Superintendent) (3 times),
then (Health Director), (Assistant Superintendent), Principal (omitted), HEA President, and HEA VP (3 times),
then (Health Director), (Assistant Superintendent), Mr. (principal) and HHS Admin Team, (teachers’ union President), (teachers’ union Vice President)h, HEA Board Members, Superintendent, and HUSD Board Members (2 times),
then (Health Director), (Assistant Superintendent), (teachers’ union President), (teachers’ union Vice President), (principal) (2 times)
This is my 13th written request. I stated on the call I now ask for all pertinent information HUSD has received regarding being exempt from experimental medical products. (Assistant Superintendent) promised at our meeting to fulfill my request.

Btw, (Health Director) responded on October 18: “I apology for the delayed response. I am working to get you the information that you requested. I hope to have it for you soon.”

The answers I received from (Assistant Superintendent) and (Health Director) at today’s December 3 Zoom meeting are that they didn’t receive the requests, didn’t understand the requests, and didn’t respond because HUSD already put information on their website. Again, if I am mistaken representing what (Assistant Superintendent) and (Health Director) said, please correct me.

How HUSD can legally segregate unvaccinated students away from school for 10 days in apparent violation of “within 6 feet for 15+ minutes” of a “positive case”: (Assistant Superintendent) explained this was a choice of the district, and that she will provide me with all pertinent source material. I reminded all that I was illegally “health ordered” home by Principal (omitted) until I requested to review the source documentation. I voiced my concern that students were deprived of their rights through this segregation and double-standard that my testimony of not being within 6 feet of any student for 15 minutes or more was accepted, but students were not asked. (Assistant Superintendent) claimed this was not practical for students.

My assertion of exemption for any EUA under California Health and Safety Code § 24171 to § 24176 to “Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision.” (Assistant Superintendent) said she didn’t know how HUSD can violate this CA Health and Safety Code. I asked for an explanation by Friday December 10, with the heads-up that without reasonable explanation my next question will be some form of what HUSD will do if I stand under the protection of CA Health and Safety Code until HUSD can provide a reasonable explanation how those rights are destroyed by HUSD policy.

My assertion of exemption for any EUA under federal law: (Assistant Superintendent) also does not know how federal law protection can be destroyed by HUSD policy, with my repeated request and heads-up in the above point. US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) as superior federal law requires administration of EUAs with “option to refuse” consistent with The Nuremberg Code to forever stop any kind of coerced medical experiment (repeated in CA Health and Safety Code language above). This is the same principle of informed consent universally used for any medical experiment. HUSD previously claimed legal authority of “The District continues to follow governing protocols referenced in our Board Policy 5141.22 and Education Code 32282 and 49403, which direct the District to cooperate with local health officer measures necessary for the prevention and control of communicable diseases,” but required EUAs for employment violate superior law under federal Title 21 (Article 6 of the US Constitution is clear that Title 21 is the “supreme Law” when state and federal laws differ). HUSD has repeated this citation as the basis of their “lawful” ordering authority in responses to my employee Grievances since 2020, and ignored citation of conflicting laws (including California Government Code 8558 (b) requiring “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders).

HUSD destruction of my Grievances to “employee complaints”: (Assistant Superintendent) claimed HUSD “did not see” any violation of law in their policies, despite my documentations, including of superior federal law that under the US Constitution in Article 6 makes any CA and/or local policy in contradiction legally void.

HUSD expectation of how employees should fulfill our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions of limited government: This is a new question, and perhaps the most important one given all HUSD employees must take this Oath.

With all respect for all good-faith professionalism,
Carl

**

My follow-up email on Dec. 5 to give a heads-up of their next round of choices:

Herman, Carl

3:12 PM (0 minutes ago)

to (Assistant Superintendent, Health Director, teachers union President + VP)

And Dear Colleagues,
To allow everyone maximum time to consider, here’s a preview of upcoming events and questions as I exercise in good faith my inner Dr. King and Mr. Gandhi.

If this is too much to read, feel free to respond as events unfold. I offer this preview with invitation for HUSD to surrender their position that “health orders” have legitimate authority beyond “advice”:
If, and only if, HUSD fails to provide a reasonable explanation how required use of EUAs can violate superior federal law of US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) and/or California Health and Safety Code § 24171 to § 24176, what would HUSD do if on Monday December 13 I begin my federally protected right to “Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision” until HUSD can explain?
What will HUSD do if students stand under the US Constitution stated “supreme law” in Article 6 just as we teach them in our Social Science standards, and exercise their option to refuse experimental medicine if HUSD cannot explain how local policy can destroy superior federal law? Please either affirm or refute that we teach our students that federal law is supreme to state and/or local law.
What will HUSD do if parents do the same?
If HUSD repeats their previous answer of “The District continues to follow governing protocols referenced in our Board Policy 5141.22 and Education Code 32282 and 49403, which direct the District to cooperate with local health officer measures necessary for the prevention and control of communicable diseases,” that answer literally states HUSD willfully chooses to ignore superior federal law, and therefore stands in prima facie-violation of our contract requiring all policies be in conformance to law. HUSD expects me to honor and fulfill our mutual Oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic” when HUSD ignores what the US Constitution explicitly directs in Article 6 that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… 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.” My position is literally what Article 6 requires: to be bound by superior federal law even if my state says otherwise. How does HUSD expect me to uphold our mutual Oath in this specific application?
How is HUSD honoring our mutual Oath by ignoring superior federal law? Again, Article 6 is clear and taught in every HUSD US Government class: if a state or local government claim legal authority in violation of federal law, the state or local “order”/“mandate”/whatever is void. I admonish for the nth time: when the confusion clears, the public will hold HUSD fully accountable for ignoring federal law unless HUSD makes a holiday “Scrooge Conversion” to join my questions rather than oppose them (unless HUSD can explain how they can violate federal law, of course).
If on December 13 I exercise US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) and/or California Health and Safety Code § 24171 to § 24176, I would seem to be honoring our contract that all district policies be in conformance to law, unless HUSD can explain otherwise.

I also seem to be honoring our CBA Article 9.A.4 on “Employee Safety:” “The District and sites, in consultation with the staff, shall regularly review and update their emergency plans.” Superior federal law requires HUSD to immediately and easily update their emergency health policies from “health orders” to “health advice,” unless HUSD can explain otherwise in consultation with county and state ordering authorities (again, this is the remedy I’ve requested since September 2020).

HUSD’s position/answer to date is “just follow health orders” (as always, please correct any misrepresentation) even when explicitly reminded of the content of the US Constitution we’re all Oath-bound to support and defend. The purpose of our mutual Oath is to supersede the current district position/answer, require a written explanation how the apparent illegal orders are in conformance to law, and to have a broad discussion to void those “orders” if they cannot be demonstrated to be within limited government.

I am the only person, to date, who has said anything about our Oath, btw.

And I am the only person, to date, who has addressed that my positions are exactly what we teach every HUSD and CA high school student in our Social Science curricula for knowledge and responsibility about the US Constitution. It would seem I’m modeling what we teach all our students to know and do:
Challenge apparent illegal/unconstitutional orders/laws with comprehensive citation.
Require a verifiable explanation from the ordering authority how the challenged orders are within the cited law.
Declare as “void” such “orders” that cannot be demonstrated to be within the limits of law or contemptuously refused to be addressed. This would seem to be exceptionally clear when the considered “orders” are explicitly and obviously inferior to federal law, and the ordering authority refuses to address superior federal law. This is what we teach each and every of our students to recognize and be responsible for, right everyone? Right???
I am particularly interested in the district’s response how I’m expected to honor and fulfill our mutual Oath given the explicit superior standing of federal law over claimed state “health” “order” “authority.”

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

Join my question by requiring county and/or state to answer because it is their burden of proof as the issuer of the “orders.” If they can’t/won’t, then HUSD and HEA are legally required to downgrade “health orders” to “health advice.”

(Teachers’ union President): I would love to be surprised, but I predict HUSD’s answer to all the above questions will be something like, “We already answered all this. This issue is resolved. Mr. Herman will receive (x, y, z) progressive discipline leading to employment termination for his proposed December 13 policy violations.” If so, HUSD’s position is in apparent violation of Article 7.A.: “The District may discipline a unit member only for just cause.” If I uphold superior federal law that HUSD illegally ignores, how can an HUSD policy that ignores then willfully violates federal law be a “just cause” for employee discipline?

It would seem that HUSD has no “just cause” to ignore then knowingly violate superior federal law, and therefore no “just cause” to discipline an employee exercising clear and explicit federally-protected rights.

In closing, I provided this preview in good-faith scholarship for HUSD and HEA consideration, and with invitation for HUSD’s surrender of their prima facie-illegal position that state or local ordering authority is superior to federal law. Prima facie includes the meaning that I am Oath-bound to responsibly communicate evidence for full and public consideration regarding an apparently illegal public policy. As both an expert witness and patient professional educator, I have explained, documented, and proven to HUSD that “health orders” requiring EUA use are voided by three definitive laws I’ve cited (the 3rd not mentioned in this communication is California Government Code 8558 (b) requiring “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders).

I’m representing HUSD’s position as “just following orders” that HUSD cites as “The District continues to follow governing protocols referenced in our Board Policy 5141.22 and Education Code 32282 and 49403, which direct the District to cooperate with local health officer measures necessary for the prevention and control of communicable diseases.” Because HUSD simultaneously ignores cited and superior laws apparently voiding those “orders,” this means HUSD’s legal position to “justify” forced EUA use for employment is “just following” inferior and therefore invalid/voided non-orders. At least that’s the prima facie evidence I ongoingly respectfully present for HUSD to refute or affirm. And by “ignores cited laws” I mean HUSD has failed to respond to each and every question I’ve asked since September 2020 that included a cited law apparently voiding HUSD policy. If I had to quantify a guess of how many times HUSD has ignored questions to explain their ordering authority given cited law, I estimate ~100 over the last 15 months.

HUSD has chosen a policy position of required EUA use that’s prima facie-unconstitutional because it violates federal law protections. We teach US Government students scenarios to recognize the difference between limited government and dictatorship. Beginning scenarios for students show either “limited government” policies clearly within the law, or “dictatorship” either clearly outside the limits of law or without legal limit. I see the scenario of HUSD’s policy to require EUAs as a condition of employment/enrollment as a beginner-level example for students to recognize dictatorship because federal law’s superior standing for “option to refuse” proves HUSD’s claimed “required use” is clearly outside the law, and only supported by attempted dictatorship (dictate: whatever one says for however long the dictator says). Importantly, this paragraph is a factual claim, so please check it, and respond with any inaccuracies. I’m not insulting HUSD’s position of “just follow orders” but professionally describing it as prima facie-illegal because it dictates EUA policy apparently voided by federal law. HUSD has every opportunity to correct me if my representations are inaccurate, and every opportunity to explain how their EUA policies are within federal law.

With all respect and support for your best choices,
Carl

**

Update 3:

Principal sends weekly “friendly reminder” for the unvaccinated to be tested or be placed on unpaid leave; makes mistake to not “BCC” recipients, so I “reply to all:” Our Dec. 3 memo to 22 school staff:

To: HHS Staff Member
From: (Principal’s name omitted)

In accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Order, you are required to
provide proof of vaccination or submit to weekly COVID-19 testing.

This is a friendly reminder that testing will be available on site each week on
Monday and Wednesday, from 1:45pm to 3:40pm. If you are unable to test
during that time, the testing site at the HUSD Office is open from Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 3:00 pm.

Human Resources will monitor testing completion and inform me once
completed. If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Human
Resources.

**

My “reply to all” later that day:

Herman, Carl

Fri, Dec 3, 6:12 PM (2 days ago)

to (22 staff and cc’d 4 Admin Team)

“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.”
~ Article 6, US Constitution

(Principal):
You’ve made important factual claims of how the law applies to us.
Please cite the Executive Order.
Please explain how any CA policy can destroy our rights under US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), that as superior federal law requires administration of EUAs with “option to refuse.”
As a Social Science teacher, you likely have taught students that The Nuremberg Code ended any kind of coerced medical experiment (all EUAs are legally defined as “experimental medical products”). This language is repeated in California Health and Safety Code § 24171 to § 24176), and is the same principle of informed consent universally used for any medical experiment that all people: “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.”

HUSD previously claimed legal authority of “The District continues to follow governing protocols referenced in our Board Policy 5141.22 and Education Code 32282 and 49403, which direct the District to cooperate with local health officer measures necessary for the prevention and control of communicable diseases.”

HUSD has refused to answer how state and local policy can destroy a federal law, so with all respect, if you’re putting your name to an order required for our continued employment, then please provide the leadership as Principal to be able to personally provide an explanation. If you can’t explain how the Constitution can be violated by claimed “state supremacy,” then perhaps you’d like to join us in this question (especially for integrity as a Social Science teacher).

If any of the other recipients of this email would like further information about how dozens of employees, parents, and students are organizing around such questions, please feel free to contact me: Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

Happy Friday,
Carl

**
Up next!

The Superintendent has a contractually-required response to the Grievance from “Update 1” by December 11. The Assistant Superintendent knows she has until December 10 to either explain how district policy can destroy federal law, or face my next question of what the district will do if I stand under those federal law rights (today’s “Update 2”). I’ll follow-up with the principal with “Update 3” to encourage him to know the law he’s ordering with sufficient ability to explain it.

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.

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