Challenging our public school district’s obedience of county ‘health’ ‘orders’: District refuses to answer answer obvious questions of ‘required’ EUA injections/tests/masks, teachers’ union claims ‘option to refuse’ only means no employee kidnapping | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN

Challenging our public school district’s obedience of county ‘health’ ‘orders’: District refuses to answer answer obvious questions of ‘required’ EUA injections/tests/masks, teachers’ union claims ‘option to refuse’ only means no employee kidnapping

Update 1:

Report to district/teachers’ union leaderships and Boards + ~100 teacher colleagues:


HHS Solutions: HUSD ignores federal law’s “option to refuse” EUAs, CTA/HEA claim “option” = no employee kidnapping + forced injections. HHS teachers: Do you consent?


“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

Dear HHS Colleagues (and cc’d HUSD + HEA leaderships and Boards),
HHS Solutions and Beyond! PLC considers broad issues with direct impact on HUSD/HHS teaching and learning.

The 2020-2021 school year doubled student failure rates; a previously unimaginable disaster of teaching and learning performance. Unprecedented state/county/HUSD + HEA “health orders” were central to the worst devolution in district and school history. This school year also includes state/county/district “health orders” that students and employees must use Emergency Use Authorized medical products (EUAs) of masks and either “vaccines” or “tests,” with failure to comply ending in employment/enrollment termination.

Teaching and learning while wearing masks removes a dimension of human expression and connection. I imagine most teachers and students would prefer removing their masks, if given the option.

The broad issue this report covers is that yes, teachers and students have the “option to refuse” EUAs under federal law Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), with Article 6 of the US Constitution explicit that federal law is superior to state law/“mandates”/“orders.” California Health and Safety Code § 24176 upholds 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.”

This PLC report empowers teachers’ voices and choices for “required” EUAs as part of our teaching and learning environment, with express purpose to empower teachers’ unique, powerful, and beautiful creativity for optimal student learning (in both measurable academic performance and quality of learning experience). As always, if this isn’t your style of empowerment, I’ll remove you from future HHS Solutions and Beyond! PLC reports at your request.

On October 6, I emailed the following question to Assistant Superintendent (name omitted), HEA President and VP (names omitted), and our Admin Team (because this concerns a policy they directly administer):

"How is HUSD policy to require Emergency Use Authorization medical products (tests, vaccines, etc.) on employees a lawful policy given the following facts?
Article 6 of the US Constitution makes US federal law supreme over state law (and county law/mandates, and district policies).
US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) states that Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) products must only be administered only and always with option to refuse; that is, full power of choice without coercion or penalties. Title 21 governs FDA and all drug laws in the US.
We all have the STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE to support and defend US and CA Constitutions of limited government under California and Federal Laws as cited."

(HR Assistant Superintendent name omitted) has chosen to ignore this question six times as of this writing (three times each for two topics). This was her only “answer” to my reasonable and OBVIOUS question:

“Thank you for the affirmation to comply with the current District policy. As you are aware the District board policies require us to follow all guidance provided by the state.”

(HR Assistant Superintendent's name omitted) response is consistent with HUSD’s claim for over a year that CA law requiring school districts to obey “health orders” is all anyone needs to know, and ignores California Government Code 8558 (b) cited by Governor Newsom in March 2020 that limits emergency ordering authority by requiring “beyond control” hospitals. That is, unless government demonstrates to We the People with objective and verifiable data that local hospitals are “beyond control,” then they have zero “emergency” ordering authority.

This is Emperor’s New Clothes obvious, right? Please talk me down if you see another way emergency government powers are authorized when the defined “emergency” = “beyond control” hospitals doesn’t exist.

As I’ve reported since last year, all ~20 doctors, nurses, and other experts I’ve asked affirm they know of no local hospital beyond their control. HUSD has refused to explain how state/county/district policy can be legal given that reasonable limit to emergency powers, has refused to ask the county and/or state, and refused to ask even when I presented my ~35 page report last April after I asked the most authoritative 14 CA government agencies how “health orders” are lawful given that limit, and received only tragic-comic deflection, avoidance, obfuscation, and direct refusal to address the question.

HUSD’s refusal to address lawful policy beyond “just follow orders” has been consistent over three employee grievances (two still active). I have specifically placed HUSD and HEA on legal notice.

After more than a year of my asking HEA for me to speak with the legal voices informing HEA’s conclusion of “lawful health orders,” HEA’s (name omitted) kindly responded with at least the attached CTA document, and this October 1, 2021 pro-vaccine CTA press release. HEA has refused to respond to my following October 11 reply, so I’m informing HHS teachers where their union stands on this fundamental policy greatly affecting HHS teaching and learning. My reply to HEA:

“The advice you say HEA trusts is that federal law requiring administration of Experimental Use Authorized medical products with “option to refuse” means (quoted from attached CTA document):

“The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3, provides that patients be given various information about a vaccine approved through an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), including a general right to refuse such a vaccine. But this right to not be forcibly given the COVID vaccine does not prohibit employers from requiring employee vaccinations to protect the workplace.”

This “legal opinion” you trust means the “option to refuse” is solely to be free from kidnapping for forced experimental injections at will of an employer rather than the crystal-clear letter and intent of US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) for full and free choice at the option of the individual.

The legal opinion you trust allows a spectrum of negative consequences that could include any penalties, such as HUSD’s unpaid leave, or apartheid, internment camps, and prosecution as a domestic violent extremist for questioning government authority.

A legitimate option does not include any element of force, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion. For CTA to claim federal law defines “option to refuse” in letter and intent of law to allow negative consequences for refusing experimental medical products is Orwellian: the inverse of reality.”

Those who question “official” Covid narratives and “health” “orders” are now considered by DHS in their National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin as engaged in “the broader sharing of false narratives and conspiracy theories” associated with “Violent Domestic Extremists” (DVEs) that “could serve as a catalyst for acts of targeted violence” through “online forums to influence and spread violent extremist narratives” (and here).

The CDC published in Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings, CDC plans for “Covid-19”-declared house arrests, neighborhood lockdowns, evictions and/or relocations, and internment in concentration camps for “public health risks” who endanger the health of others and themselves. This threat of concentration camp targets those exercising the legal “option to refuse” experimental government injections.

Government narrative and “orders” have gone from March 2020’s emergency “two weeks to flatten the curve to keep hospitals operational,” to today’s requirement of involuntary medical experimentation on one’s body in order to receive the paperwork to earn an income and participate in society. Today’s “official rhetoric” from DHS labels those refusing to obey “orders” as potential Violent Domestic Extremists, who according to CDC can be “ordered” at gunpoint to CDC concentration camps in the name of “public health and safety.” The above documented DHS and CDC policies would last as long as the “emergency” is dictated by those “leaders” who are no longer limited by definitive and obvious laws.

“It couldn’t happen here” is false, and refuted by the above objective and verifiable facts.

Importantly, both HUSD and HEA have ignored my admonishments of our mutual Oath to “support and defend” limits to government authority under the US Constitution. HUSD and HEA have both refused to address our Oath even once, so it does not exist in their languaged-reality since September 2020 for any recognized obligation/honor to stand for the freedoms we teach all California public school students to recognize and defend (pages 14-15, California History-Social Science Framework):

“These democratic values should be taught in the classroom, in the curriculum, and in daily life outside school. Teachers are encouraged to have students use the community to gather information regarding public issues and become familiar with individuals and organizations involved in public affairs. … Whenever possible, opportunities should be available for participation and for reflection on the responsibilities of citizens in a free society.

…Educators want students to perceive the complexity of social, economic, and political problems. They want them to be able to both comprehend and evaluate an argument and develop their own interpretations supported by relevant evidence. Educators want them to have the ability to differentiate between what is important and what is not. Students need to know their rights and responsibilities as American citizens and have both the capacity and willingness to participate in a democratic system of government. Educators want students to understand the meaning of the Constitution as a social contract that defines a democratic government and guarantees individual rights. Educators want them to respect the right of others to have different beliefs and ideas. Students need to take an active role as citizens and know how to work for change in a democratic society. The value, the importance, and the fragility of democratic institutions must be understood by all students. Only a small fraction of the world’s population now or in the past has been fortunate enough to live under a democratic form of government, and students need to understand the conditions that encourage democracy to prosper. By developing a keen sense of ethics and citizenship, students develop respect for all persons as equals regardless of ethnicity, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation, and beliefs. Educators want students to care deeply about the quality of life in their community, the nation, and their world. The desire of educators is to have students recognize their responsibility as members of the global community to participate ethically and with humanity in their interactions with various nations, cultures, and peoples.”

I am modeling the learning we expect from all our students. When will my HHS, HUSD, and HEA colleagues stand with me?

HHS teachers and colleagues: HEA and CTA’s position is that federal law’s “option to refuse” experimental medicine is not the historically-clear legislative intent and language of the Nuremberg Code to prevent forced government medical experiments on people. The motivation for “option to refuse” is the general public’s universal outrage when informed of gruesome “medical experiments” during World War 2. HEA and CTA claim “option to refuse” is some kind of bizarre “legislative reminder” that kidnapping employees for forcible injections at the employer’s will is, duh, illegal. Seriously: if anyone can state HEA and CTA’s position more accurately, please let me know.

Unless otherwise shown from the above reasoning, CTA’s position is a lie of commission because it destroys the meaning of the word “option,” and a lie of omission to exclude definitive history of grotesque and evil human experimentation as primary motivation for passing federal and CA legislation to forever end non-consensual human experiments.

CTA and HEA’s position is similar to:
HHS teachers giving students an “optional” assignment they have every right to refuse, but they will fail the class if they opt to refuse. These teachers define “option to refuse” to mean the teacher will not forcibly lock students into a classroom to remain until they complete the assignment. The teachers claim “option to refuse” is somehow different from “mandatory to pass.”
You go to a restaurant and are asked if you want the optional meal-deal. You will be charged for it either way, and they define your “option to refuse” as the waiters won’t forcibly force-feed you the meal-deal. The restaurant claims their “option to refuse” allows them to advertise a $5 dollar sandwich that can only be purchased with the $14.95 meal-deal, and never purchased alone for $5.
If (Principal's name omitted) told teachers they had an option to cover classes during their prep, but defined “option to refuse” as (two popular campus security officers' names omitted) won’t forcibly drag you to the coverage and lock you in the room. Teachers’ “option to refuse” has consequences of progressive discipline leading to employment termination. Seymour might truthfully disclose that “option to refuse” means the same thing as “required for employment.”
As a National Board Certified Teacher of US History, I factually assert that none of our historic union leaders would be proud to proclaim, “Your union has won the right for workers to not be kidnapped then forcibly injected with experimental vaccines that effected death for over 16,000 Americans! That’s what ‘option to refuse’ means for us! We protect workers’ rights to stop employers and government to tackle and inject us with whatever experiments they want whenever they want, and instead fight for unpaid leave! We fight for our union workers to be fired and forbidden to work ever again unless they obey all government ‘mandates,’ especially those expressly forbidden by federal law! Shout it, Brothers and Sisters: Unpaid leave! Unpaid leave! Unpaid leave!”

CTA and HEA’s position is exactly what California public students learn in history class often precede government tyrannies: “justified” “temporary” dictatorial “orders” that remove Rights until government claims “legitimate” power over what Rights can be exercised and how, sometime in the future when it’s “safe.”

I would debate anyone on the above comprehensive facts, including (Social Science Department Chair's name omitted)-Herman, if challenged ;)

Colleagues, you have a voice and choice, empowered by our mutual Oath to support and defend limited government under the US and CA Constitutions. The historic purpose of such an Oath is for We the People to act as a check on abusive illegal government “orders.” Active patriotism is the foundation of US independence rather than unrepresented colonial subjects, allowed the “rights” and laws granted (dictated) by the Crown and Parliament.

Please honor our Oath that was required of all of us before we were allowed one word with the students given to our professional care.

The above data are, I professionally assert, objective facts offered in good-faith as a former AP US Government teacher with 18 years’ experience helping brief Members of Congress on ~300 policy proposals that led to two UN Summits for heads of state.

HUSD, CTA, and HEA policy to require use of EUA medical products as a condition of employment is in prima facie violation of the following, and require a full explanation how such “health orders” are lawful, or downgraded to “health advice with full option to refuse.” Required use of EUAs:
Violate our HUSD-HEA contract for policies “in conformance to law” (Article 3).
Violate US Code Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) (Emergency Use Authorization products must only be administered only and always with option to refuse; that is, full power of choice without coercion or penalties).
Ongoingly violate California Government Code 8558 (b) that requires “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders (this is the law cited by Governor Newsom “to keep hospitals operational”).
Violate California Health and Safety Code § 24176 that upholds federal law and Nuremberg Code intent with language that cannot be made more clear that each and every individual: “Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision.”
Threaten all HUSD families and employees with student expulsion, employment termination, $1,000 fines per violation, and one year imprisonment under Cal. Penal Code §§ 69, 148(a)(1), as Alameda County Health Orders warn the public after the title of each “order.”
Violate our mutual STATE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE to support and defend US and CA Constitutions of limited government under California and Federal Laws as cited.
The above legal arguments are shared among millions worldwide, and foundational in several US lawsuits (and here) forcing defendants to answer in court the questions they avoid from We the People about prima facie-illegal “health” “orders.” I have volunteered with attorneys networking on these cases to be a plaintiff. If any of you would like to stand with me, please speak up.

I recommend this 5-minute message from Ethics Professor Dr. Julie Ponesse, whose college employment was terminated for refusing to be injected with experimental “vaccines” at government’s will. I also recommend this 63-minute interview with international lawyer Dr. Reiner Füllmich, who explains the most important facts informing these evolving legal cases.

VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) data (click image to enhance and magnify):

What does all this have to do again with my classroom teaching and learning again?

This PLC report documents that CA/county/district EUA policies are in prima facie-violation of the laws cited, in contrast with HUSD’s stated position to follow government health orders without addressing such questions, and HEA’s position that “option to refuse” has no meaning to remain employed. Your choices and voice have direct impact on your ongoing consent for “required” EUAs in your classroom that include masks, student segregation based on vaccine status, and required experimental injections when “ordered.”

I’m sure we’re in agreement that masks and other “health orders” greatly impact teaching success and quality of experience. For examples:
How does (Drama teacher's name omitted) teach successful and enjoyable acting while wearing a mask???
How much do English teachers enjoy out-loud reading of impactful literature with all the readers masked, and how are the communications’ impacts affected?
Are teachers needing to remind more often that our masked students speak-up to be heard clearly? What effects do masks have on student performance and enjoyment?
I welcome and invite HUSD and HEA public responses. If HHS teachers would like to discuss, please respond to just me (not “reply to all”) to facilitate conversations among interested teachers (I am highly interested).

Thank you for your attention to the greatest changes in our teaching and learning,


Up next!

How will district, teachers’ union, school Admin Team, and my high school teachers respond to this report? Will broader political events trump these local actions during Red October?

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

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 (blocked author pages: here, here). This means that some links in essays are inactive. If you’d like to see those articles, go to, 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.