Challenging our public school district’s obedience of county ‘health’ ‘orders’: Superintendent announces school board topic of mandatory student injections in 3 business days, my responses with legal notice, attorneys update (27 of ?) | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED X-Frame-Options: DENY X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN

Challenging our public school district’s obedience of county ‘health’ ‘orders’: Superintendent announces school board topic of mandatory student injections in 3 business days, my responses with legal notice, attorneys update (27 of ?)

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).

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 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 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 will attend and have something to say). 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 America’s Frontline Doctors are watching district and union responses with professional interest, as they choose which cases are best to vigorously pursue.


Update 1: Superintendent announces school board will discuss mandatory student “vaccines”: The district’s Superintendent announced on Friday September 17, 2021:

HUSD Board to Consider Student Vaccine Mandate
At the September 22 board meeting, the HUSD Board of Education will take up the question of whether to mandate student vaccines for those 12 and older. We’ve seen larger school districts in the state already move to approve similar mandates. The board will discuss the benefits and challenges of requiring such a mandate.

I will attend with something to say.


Update 2: My responses with legal notice and new employee Grievance. Below is my email to appropriate parties. I cannot share the specific content of my Grievance statement until the Grievance is complete, and it covers the content of the email with challenge that those documented district “health” “orders” are not in conformance to law.


Subject: FDA: EUA products (vaccines, tests, +) must be voluntary, NOT mandatory

“I just wanted to add that, just wanted to remind everybody, that under an Emergency Use Authorization, an EUA, vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandated.”
~ CDC Executive Secretary Dr. Amanda Cohn, (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices @1:14:40)

Dear (superintendent name omitted), (Assistant Superintendent of HR name omitted), HUSD Board Members, HEA President and VP, HHS Admin, and colleagues requesting updates with HHS Solutions and Beyond! PLC,

I apologize for any unnecessary abruptness in this communication:

HUSD and HEA must either cite the legal authority of their accepted policies for “COVID-19 Vaccine Verification” requiring either EUA experimental PCR tests or experimental EUA injections, and considered mandatory student injections of experimental medicine, or renounce and rescind them because FDA requires that PCR “tests” and “vaccines” under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) must inform “the option to accept or refuse” such products.

The applicable law is US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), below. Title 21 of US Code governs all US food and drug policies under FDA.

FDA has only approved the “Comirnaty vaccine” from Pfizer, with all others under EUA. If HUSD can explain how the following clear limit doesn’t apply to their current “COVID-19 Vaccine Verification” and considered mandatory student vaccines, now is the time to explain:

(ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed—
(I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;
(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and
(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.

The option to "accept or refuse" was previously clearly stated by President Biden, Vice President Harris, House Speaker Pelosi, Dr. Fauci, and Press Secretary Psaki as unenforceable.

Moreover, “the option to accept or refuse” would seem to similarly apply to HUSD’s current segregation policy that “unvaccinated” students cannot attend school for 10 days because of “possible exposure” to a problematic “positive case” (and here, here), while “vaccinated” are welcome at school. I have 21 HHS students so far who were “ordered” segregated for 10 days.

The US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) reports nearly 15,000 US deaths associated with Covid “vaccines.” In the last ~7 weeks, the current average is ~70 US deaths per day after these experimental injections (and here, here). A Detroit TV station asked the public for stories of non-injected deaths of Covid, received zero, but but did get over 180,000 reports of vax deaths and injuries.

I remind all parties that US Code Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) specifically makes HUSD and HEA participation in these policies depriving our community their legal right “the option to accept or refuse” EUA products that include vaccinations and PCR testing as prima facie criminal violations under Federal Article 18 Section 242: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials.
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.

The above passage is legal notice that if any HUSD employee or student is harmed by an HUSD “under color of law” “order/mandate/policy,” then any person voting for or administering that policy is subject to criminal and civil consequences.

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

HUSD must either demonstrate their legal authority for all EUA products, or renounce and rescind all policies for EUA products.

Please do so immediately, and before HUSD Board consideration of forced experimental injections already reported as an adverse effect of these injections in ~15,000 US deaths.

HUSD’s current position through their Grievances and Board responses is to ignore citation of the definitive laws limiting dictatorial “health” “orders,” and instead repeat the prima facie-illegal, “we just follow orders.”

HUSD leadership and Board have maintained “just follow orders” for over a year through 3 levels of my employee Grievances, Board appeal, and repeated Grievance with district “answer” their “just follow orders” position remains. This is despite my 6 weeks of work to document the most authoritative 14 CA government agencies all failing to address the crystal-clear limit to dictatorial emergency orders requiring “beyond control” hospitals in the very law cited by Governor Newsom in his declaration of emergency, that I’ve cited and explained to all of you as a trained and experienced AP US Government teacher for over a year.

I admonish again that all of our high school students learn “just follow orders” is an illegal and prosecutable “justification” of otherwise prima facie crimes. Our military are all trained to recognize and refuse prima facie-illegal orders, and to demand a written explanation of questionable orders’ legality. Military officers are required to arrest those who issue a prima facie-illegal order in order to stop an apparent crime in progress.

HUSD and HEA still have time to join my reasonable and OBVIOUS questions about “health” “order” authority, instead of ignore them behind prima facie-illegal “just follow orders.” HUSD and HEA’s time to honor our mutual Oath for limited government under the US Constitution will end when a critical mass of the public recognize the evidence I have professionally explained and documented as objective and independently-verifiably factual. The evidence I share is within thousands of current lawsuits; I am merely a messenger with academic training and professional experience sufficient to understand and share applicable law and evidence.

Leading attorneys working with several of these lawsuits are now fully briefed on the history of our communications, and following HUSD and HEA’s choices with professional interest.

After the public’s Great Awakening to recognize BASIC limits to government power we all learned in high school, the good people of Hayward will demand justice for those responsible to force illegal and dangerous EUA products on innocent and defenseless children. This will include everyone in leadership at HUSD responsible for those policies, and especially if harm or death results among Hayward’s children.

Finally, because HUSD through (Assistant Superintend for HR) began formal progressive disciplinary action against my direct communication to HHS teachers regarding broad issues with direct impact on HHS teaching and learning (such as a doubled student failure rate under these “health orders” and forced experimental injection despite ~15,000 deaths), by 5 PM Monday 9/20 please inform me of any violations in contract and/or policy if I cc this email to our HHS teachers as important data in their consideration to support or oppose further “health orders” with significant effects on HHS teaching and learning.

HUSD could also choose to inform our entire community of their legal right to refuse experimental medicine on Monday 9/20, thereby rescinding any testing or vaccination requirements.

If HUSD claims my proposed PLC report is in violation, cite and explain the problem(s). If HUSD refuses to cite alleged “violations” of what I wrote (as HUSD did with their first progressive disciplinary act to terminate my employment), I will assume ongoing employee harassment and take appropriate legal action. If HUSD claims my PLC report is in violation, but refuses citation for a second time, tell me what the consequences are if I send it anyway.

Your choices today create your tomorrows.

Be on the right side of history.

You were born for this,

This is the email I sent our teacher union President and VP:

Subject: Will HEA defend EUA requirement to "accept or refuse" tests and vaccines?

Dear (teacher union President) and (teacher union Vice President),
Unless HEA can cite and explain the legality of “COVID-19 Vaccine Verification” with either experimental tests or experimental injections, and considered mandatory student injections of experimental medicine, then it’s time for HEA to join me to force HUSD to answer to their claimed legal authority beyond the illegal “just follow orders.”

Please have an appropriate lawyer review the cited federal law operational over FDA, which includes all experimental products, tests, vaccines, etc.

If those two policies are within legal limits, please explain how given that federal law requires these exact EUA products used by HUSD to be only and always voluntary.

This is my legal right to know as an employee.

The far easier option is to place the burden of proof on HUSD to answer that question.

If they can’t, or won’t, within 5 business days, it’s time for HEA to join my factual assertion that there is no evidence of legal authority for these “health orders” outside of declared dictatorship unlimited by law.

I hope you both recognize this call to leadership,


Update 3: Attorneys: I’m still in contact with two attorneys networked and central to these legal challenges. They’re considering how to invest limited legal resources for the greatest benefits to free the most people from prima facie-illegal dictatorial “health” “orders.”


Up next: Will current attorney(s) commit valuable and rare legal resources to take this case? Will the district heed legal notice to join my questions, or continue to support and defend “just follow orders under color of law.”