Eagle Forum of Sacramento

April 30, 2008 by Phyllis Schlafly
It’s a good thing that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s U.S. visit was upstaged by the dramatic reception Americans gave Pope Benedict XVI. Brown might have been booed if he hadn’t delivered what aides called his “signature” speech within the cloistered walls of Harvard’s Kennedy Center. Brown’s tedious, hour-long speech impudently demanded that we issue a “Declaration of Interdependence” in order to submit to global governance. That’s another way of calling on us to repeal our Declaration of Independence. No thanks for the advice, Mr. Brown. Brave Americans rose up and rejected Britain’s royalist rule in 1776, and we’ve gotten along mighty well without transatlantic interference in our government for more than two centuries. We certainly don’t want to reinstate any foreign supervision today. The redundancy of Brown’s outrageous semantics was
oppressive. His speech used the word global 69 times, globalization 7 times, and interdependence 13 times. He referred to Kennedy 19 times, lavishing fulsome praise on John F. (”his influence abides everywhere”), Robert (he sent forth “ripples of hope”), and Ted (”one of the greatest Senators in more than two centuries”). Brown rejected the traditional concept of national sovereignty, which means an independent nation not subservient to any outside control, telling us to replace it with “responsible sovereignty,” which he defined as accepting what he calls our global “obligations.” Hold on to your pocketbook. Brown admitted that his “main argument” is that we must accept “new global rules,” “new global institutions,” and “global networks.” Brown’s global rules include massive U.S. cash handouts and opening U.S. borders to the world. Brown’s use of well-known American political phrases was tacky. He tried to morph FDR’s New Deal into a “New Global Deal,” and JFK’s New
Frontier into “the New Frontier is that there is no frontier.” Brown even slipped in an attempt at thought control: “Americans must learn to think inter-continentally.” He declaimed, “We are all internationalists now.” Using the rhetorical device of inevitability, Brown warned us that his vision of the globalist future is “irreversible transformation.” He wants to “transcend states” and “transcend borders” as he builds the “architecture of a global society.” Brown peddled the nonsense that the peoples of the world “subscribe to similar ideals.” He tried to tell us that all religions (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists) have “common values” and “similar ideals.” No, they certainly do not. Brown wants to increase the power of the United Nations to become the source of “an international stand-by capacity of trained civilian experts, ready to go anywhere at any time,” and even be able to exercise “military force.” Americans do not intend to cede
such authority to the corrupt UN. The silliest part of Brown’s ponderous speech was his claim that “a global society” is “advancing democracy widely across the world.” In fact, he doesn’t even practice democracy in his own country. Brown refused to allow the British people to vote on whether or not they want to accept the European Union (EU) constitution. He acquiesced in the plot of the constitution’s author, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, to put the EU constitution into effect by calling it a treaty so it did not have to be voted on by the people. Brown was chicken about the treaty subterfuge and did not permit a photographic record of his participation. He sent his Foreign Secretary to perform the official treaty signing in front of cameras. The EU constitution, now called the Treaty of Lisbon, requires all signers to surrender their sovereignty and democracy to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and judges in Strasbourg. The EU constitution takes away England’s right
to pass its own laws, forces England to surrender more than 60 UK vetoes of EU decisions, and gives the EU bureaucracy and tribunals total control over England’s immigration policy. Instead of a self-governing nation whose democratic system was developed over centuries, England is now ruled by what Margaret Thatcher called “the paper pushers in Brussels.” Brown made his globalism speech emphatic by repeatedly invoking the words “New World Order.” The New World Order Brown tries to con the United States into accepting would mean taxing Americans for foreign handouts so immense they would make the Marshall Plan look puny, global warming rules to drastically reduce our standard of living, and putting American workers in a common labor pool with the world’s billions who subsist on less than $2 a day. Gordon Brown invited us to march forward to globalism “where there is no path.” He’s correct that there is no path on which we can expect globalism to lead us to a better
world; in fact every path toward global government is a surrender of our liberty and our prosperity. Gordon Brown should go back home and study up on how Americans refused to accept orders from King George III.

by Patrick J. Buchanan (more by this author)
Posted 03/21/2008 ET

How would he pull it off? I wondered.

How would Barack explain to his press groupies why he sat silent in a pew for 20 years as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered racist rants against white America for our maligning of Fidel and Gadhafi, and inventing AIDS to infect and kill black people?

How would he justify not walking out as Wright spewed his venom about “the U.S. of K.K.K. America,” and howled, “God damn America!”

My hunch was right. Barack would turn the tables.

Yes, Barack agreed, Wright’s statements were “controversial,” and “divisive,” and “racially charged,” reflecting a “distorted view of America.”

But we must understand the man in full and the black experience out of which the Rev. Wright came: 350 years of slavery and segregation.

Barack then listed black grievances and informed us what white America must do to close the racial divide and heal the country.

The “white community,” said Barack, must start “acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds … .”

And what deeds must we perform to heal ourselves and our country?

The “white community” must invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and provide this generation of blacks with “ladders of opportunity” that were “unavailable” to Barack’s and the Rev. Wright’s generations.

What is wrong with Barack’s prognosis and Barack’s cure?

Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, “everybody but the rioters themselves.”

Was “white racism” really responsible for those black men looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their own communities, as Otto Kerner said — that liberal icon until the feds put him away for bribery.

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Barack talks about new “ladders of opportunity” for blacks.

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for “deserving” white kids.

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America’s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.

By Frank Stephens

Doug Ose is spending huge advertising dollars to establish himself as the
conservative candidate of ethics. Yes, the carpetbagger from Woodland doesn’t
like Sen. Tom McClintock, the carpetbagger from L.A., so Doug is running
advertisements attacking McClintock as a carpetbagger.

Ose was the U.S. congressman for the 3rd District from 1999 to 2005 and
stepped down to fulfill a promise to serve only three terms (I guess Doug’s
promise applied only to District 3 because he briefly announced his intent to
run for U.S. Senate before announcing for the 4th Congressional).

Now, Ose a self-proclaimed conservative (who claimed to be a moderate
while in the 3rd District), has an ethical problem he cannot make disappear. Mr.
Ose is a John McCain delegate from District 3! That’s because Doug lives in
District 3.

Yes, Doug is renting a pool house in District 4 from a supporter who is
registered Decline-to-state, along with another resident registered with the
Green Party. So now what does Doug do ethically? If he now lives in District
4 he can’t be a delegate for McCain from District 3 – that would be
unethical! And we all know from Ose’s campaign of ethics that he wouldn’t do
anything unethical.

If you want to see Doug Ose’s vision for the El Dorado County Republican
Central Committee, look no further than Sacramento and Placer counties. In
2002, he was one of the biggest boosters of the liberal Placer County
Republican Congress. Ose works hand-in-hand with the Log Cabin Republicans, whose
primary mission it is to change the GOP Platform to reflect a liberal vision.

By looking at the Ose-backed GOP central committee in Sacramento County we
see Ose’s vision of the Republican Party. We are rightfully concerned,
because the first thing the liberal-controlled central committee did was show
the conservatives on the Committee the door, thus alienated their volunteer
base.

Ose, who has never met a Democrat he didn’t like, has a history of
supporting Democrats for election to local office (he also supported Democrat Vic
Fazio for congress). Dan Lungren, a fellow liberal reform-minded Republican,
has seen his district hemorrhage Republican registration as he supports
liberal policies. Together, they are members of MainStreet Partnership — whose
mission it is to attack conservative Republicans. Ose continues to prove his
strong ethical underpinning as he claims for himself a mantle of
conservativism (Just don’t look at his horrid voting record to prove that absurd lie).

Dan Lungren and Lew Uhler (both have endorsed Ose) are certainly not the
definition of Conservative Republicanism – both are proud of their
progressive positions. The California Republican Assembly is the recognized
conservative Republican organization. The CRA has endorsed Tom McClintock, and for
good reason.

Ose’s voting record speaks volumes about his vision for the GOP, like
sponsoring 37 bills to raise taxes $46.7 billion in just one session of
congress. Look at his voting record and weep for a future devoid of Conservative
values and morals.

Former Congressman Doug Ose, has a lackluster record that includes voting
for increased spending, increased regulation, and limiting economic freedom:

Voted for McCain-Feingold and against protecting political free speech (RC
#34, 02/14/02)
Ose rated D+ by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec
2003)
Ose rated “F” from Gun Owners of America (2000, 2002, 2004)
Ose said he is in agreement with many Democrats on gun control issues (San
Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 2002)
Voted against school choice (RC #135, 05/23/01)
Voted against eliminating money for pork projects, like wood utilization
research (RC #160, 05/26/99) and peanut competitiveness (RC#161, 05/26/99)
Voted against the Republican Study Committee budget that would cut wasteful
spending (RC #73, 03/23/00) (RC #79, 03/20/03) and for a Democratic budget
(RC #75, 03/25/99)
Voted to spend taxpayer money on mohair subsidies (RC #383, 07/11/00)
Voted for the fiscally irresponsible Medicare Prescription Drug Bill (RC
#669, 11/22/03)
Sponsored 37 bills to increase spending by $46.7 billion in the 107th
Congress
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004
Ose rated 61% by the Christian Coalition: mixed voting record on families.
(Dec 2003)
Ose rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration.
(Dec 2003) FAIR is an Immigration watchdog group – according to their
information Ose opposed the border fence as well.
Ose rated 59% by National Taxpayer’s Union, indicating barely “Satisfactory
” on tax votes. (Dec 2003) When I was in school, 59% was an “F”. (Frank
Stephens is Government Affairs Director for the Air Conditioning Trade
Association, 1st Vice Chairman EDC Republican Assembly, former 1st Vice Chairman of
the El Dorado County Republican Central Committee, a political consultant,
and nationally published author and writer – www.frankstephens.com)

Eagle Forum of Sacramento
Georgiana Preskar-Director

People say “If we don’t fix America soon, we will lose our freedoms.” We already have lost our freedoms!

Tonight we went to see Ben Stein’s new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Many people do not know about it; why should they, for the media is not going to advertise it. The churches certainly will not talk about it. Many movie theaters would not show it. Some people just do not want to see it.

Fortunately The Century in Elk Grove did show it. It is a powerful movie about Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Clearly academic freedoms to present Intelligent Design, and/or Creationism, as possibilities, are gone, but this applies to all areas of truth in America today. Freedom to speak out is unacceptable and you will pay a price if you cross the line!

Five years ago I began my adventure into the discovery of why America had changed. I honestly believed that if people heard the truth of nationwide deception in schools and workplaces, through my writings and speaking engagements, they would be concerned and take action. Certainly presenting the Day of Silence, and outrageous programs like SEED, with documented evidence, would outrage parents and citizens. I was convinced that they would take their children out of schools on that day; and that churches would ask members to speak out against programs that not only abuse adults, but also our most vulnerable citizens, children and teens.

Yet no one spoke out. In fact Christians were silent. We sent over 100 letters to pastors, ministers, and priests in regards to Day of Silence and the SEED program; only one pastor responded. Even people in some conservative organizations did nothing to support our effort to stop the Day of Silence or diversity programs such as SEED. It was a rude awakening to apathy reality.

The last week I have tried to write updates about legislation, issues surrounding the next election, and other topics. I was not able to write. The reality of our loss of freedoms made me sick to my stomach.

No one can speak out anymore without receiving hate mail and even life threatening notes. A Catholic orphanage had to close its doors after 100 years because the homosexuals have become so powerful that they demanded children be given to them in adoption. God bless the orphanage for closing their doors in Massachusetts, rather than handing over children to homosexual couples.

Brigitte Bardot, in France, was arrested and could be fined $23,000 for saying that the Muslims intruded in her country, destroyed it, and that they need to leave. An Oklahoma Assemblywoman, Sally Kern, received thousands of hate mails because she said the homosexuals cause a greater threat to America than the terrorists. She has to have security guards because of many life-threatening emails. Capitol Resource Institute’s website was shut down by hackers because of the work they are doing to fight legislation that is homosexual oriented.

Now this courageous man, Ben Stein, has called the scientific community on their politically correct agenda when dealing with Darwinism and Intelligent Design. It is an outstanding movie; creative, truthful, and profound. Do not miss it and tell others about it.

God bless this man for his work and effort. After writing two books, I understand the frustration connected with trying to deliver the truth to closed minds that are addicted to diversity thinking.

However, our job is not to know the outcome of our efforts, or to avoid frustration, but to be the best we can be in delivering His word. Ben Stein accomplished this and that is the truth!

March 31, 2008
Dr. Ignatius Piazza
Founder and Director
http://www.frontsight.com/free-gun.asp

Get Civilized! Get a Gun and Training…

As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the
Washington DC Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example
of a letter (written by a Marine) that places the proper
perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close
attention to the last paragraph of the letter…

If you want be a true, civilized individual, then get your
gun and training at: http://www.frontsight.com/free-gun.asp

The Gun is Civilization by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another:
reason and force. If you want me to do something for you,
you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or
force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every
human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively
interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid
method of social interaction, and the only thing that
removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as
paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You
have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have
a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound
woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year
old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang
banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a
carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes
the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers
between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the
source of bad force equations. These are the people who
think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed
from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a
[armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only
true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed
either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no
validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are
armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic
rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s
the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even
an armed one, can only make a successful living in a
society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes
confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in
injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways.
Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury
on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t
constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people
take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at
worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier
works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the
stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands
of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight
lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force
equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for
a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun
at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded.
I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it
enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of
those who would interact with me through reason, only the
actions of those who would do so by force. It removes
force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is
a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

GEORGIANA PRESKAR, In Pro Se
9064 Shetland Court
Elk Grove, California 95624
(916) 685-5167

TERI LAWRENCE, In Pro Se
11318 Franklin Blvd.
Elk Grove, California 95757
(916) 599-8836

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGIANA PRESKAR, TERI LAWRENCE, ) Civil Action No.
AND DOES 1 TO 50,000, ) 2:07-CV-00874-GEB-EFB
)
) FIRST AMENDED
) COMPLAINT
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) )
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE )
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF )
AMERICA, THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF )
EDUCATION, MARGARET SPELLINGS )
Secretary of Education, THE STATE OF )
CALIFORNIA, THE CONGRESS OF THE )
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THE CALIFORNIA )
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, )
JACK O’CONNELL Superintendent of Public )
Instruction, the CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD )
OF EDUCATION AS DOE NO. 1, and DOES 2 )
TO 100, inclusive, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________________________________________________

/ / /
/ / /
Plaintiffs hereby amend their original Complaint, and allege as follows:
1. Plaintiffs sue the CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION as Defendant DOE NO. 1.
2. Plaintiffs amend their Complaint wherein The California State Senate and The California State Assembly were erroneously sued as The California Congress.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. Short and Plain Statement. This Civil Rights case is based on civil rights of law, common law, and equity. The purpose is to restore the rights of the Plaintiffs that are secured under federal law in order to restore numerous unalienable rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution and various Amendments to the Constitution.
4. This is a civil action that claims violations of the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America. As such, this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.
5. This action is founded upon the Constitution of the United States of America. As such, this Court has jurisdiction over Defendant United States of America under 28 U.S.C. Section 1346(a)(2).
6. This action is in the nature of mandamus, and seeks to compel the United States of America, the Congress of the United States of America, the U. S. Department of Education, Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education, and the above agents and officers to perform their duties owed Plaintiff under the terms of the First, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. As such, this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1361.
7. This action alleges that Defendants the State of California, the California Department of Education, Jack O’Connell, Superintendent of Public Instruction, the California State Board of Education, the California State Senate, and the California State Assembly, and all of the above agents and officers have deprived Plaintiff of rights secured by the First, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. As such, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1343 (3).
8. Defendants the Congress of the United States of America; the United States of America; and Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education; is each an officer or employee of the United States or an agency thereof acting in his or her official capacity or under color of legal authority, or an agency of the United States, or the United States. Plaintiff resides in this judicial district. Venue is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(e)
9. A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred, occur or will occur in the Eastern District of California. Venue is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2).
10. Defendants the State of California; California State Board of Education; California State Senate; California State Assembly; California Department of Education; and Jack O’Connell, Superintendent of Public Instruction, reside in Sacramento County, California. Venue is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(3).
11. The Plaintiffs seek jurisdiction under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 12 (b) (1), subject matter jurisdiction.
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
12. Plaintiffs claim subject matter jurisdiction through the authority and supplemental jurisdiction vested in this Court, 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. This enabling statute for federal question jurisdiction, endows the district courts with subject-matter jurisdiction in all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
13. Plaintiffs claim subject matter jurisdiction based on the Constitution, in Article III, section 2, which empowers federal courts to adjudicate “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made … under their Authority.” The “arising under” language in Article III has been historically interpreted in an expansive manner. In Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824), Chief Justice John Marshall held that a case satisfies Article III’s “arising under” requirement whenever federal law “forms an ingredient of the original cause.” In applying this rule, the Court held that Congress may constitutionally create federal court jurisdiction whenever a federal law is a potential ingredient of a case.
14. Plaintiffs claim jurisdiction based on 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…” with force of law, even if that custom is not applied statewide. Plaintiffs may bring an action under Section 1983 if their rights privileges or immunities secured by federal statutory law were violated. In Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 100 S.Ct. 2502 (1980), The Supreme Court held that the Section 1983 broadly included violations of federal statutory law as well as federal constitutional law.
15. The Plaintiffs have the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as a constitutional reason for bringing this case to Federal Court. “The right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is a First Amendment guarantee. The right to petition is a guarantee of this Amendment and offers us freedom of expression. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), the Court stated that the right to petition is contained in “the very idea of government, republican in form. Id., at 552. James Madison debated about the proposed Amendment and stated that people “may communicate their will” through direct petitions to the legislature and government officials. Annals of Cong. 738 (1789).
16. The First Amendment is applied to state action under the umbrella of the Fourteenth Amendment.
PARTIES
17. Plaintiffs Georgiana Preskar and Teri Lawrence are citizens of the United States, and residents of the State of California. All other Plaintiffs previously listed in this action have filed Requests for Dismissal Without Prejudice.
18. Defendant the Congress of the United States of America is the branch of government in which all legislative Powers are granted under Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
19. Defendant the United States of America is the constitutionally established government of the United States of America.
20. Defendant U. S. Department of Education is the governing body responsible for supervising all free public schools in the United States of America.
21. Defendant Margaret Spellings is the Secretary of Education for the U. S. Department of Education. She is responsible for the administration and management of the U. S. Department of Education.
22. Defendant the State of California is one of the fifty sovereign United States. It has its own established government, subject to its own State Constitution. Both its government and its State Constitution are subject to the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.
23. Defendant the California State Senate is the branch of government in which the California Constitution grants all legislative powers, shared with the California State Assembly.
24. Defendant the California State Assembly is the branch of government in which the California Constitution grants all legislative powers, shared with the California State Senate.
25. Defendant California Department of Public Education is the governing body responsible for supervising all free public schools within the State of California.
26. Defendant Jack O’Connell is the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the California Department of Education. He is responsible for the administration and management of the California Department of Education.
27. The State Board of Education is the governing and policy-making body for public elementary and secondary education of the California Department of Education (CDE). The board has responsibility for studying the educational needs of California and for adopting plans for the improvement of the school system from kindergarten through grade 12. Statute also assigns the State Board a variety of other responsibilities, including that of regulations for its own government, the government of its appointees, and the government of the state’s public schools.The State Board is authorized to study education conditions and needs of the state and make plans for the improvement of the administration and efficiency of the public schools. The State Board, when authorized by statute, approves certain program plans for CDE. The Plaintiffs find the Board of Education neglectful of their duties to protect all people from discrimination under diversity programs. If the Board was performing their duties, they would understand and know about diversity status that is excluding others through classification.
ALLEGATIONS
28. Plaintiffs herein allege that the United States of America, the U. S. Department of Education, Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education, the State of California, the California Department of Education, Jack O’Connell, Superintendent of Public Instruction, the California State Board of Education, the California State Senate, and the California State Assembly, all of the above agents and officers, under certain Federal and State Laws, Title IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000 c et seq., and California Penal Code Sections 422.6, 628, 628.1, 628.2, 628.5 and specific California Education Code Sections 220, 221.5, 221.7, 233, 233.5, 233.8, 250-253, 260, 261, 262.3, 32228, 49422e, 51500, 51501, 51513, 51530, 51240, 60044, 66252, 66272, 66292-66292.2, 72011, 72011, requires that schools shall create and/or provide environments free of discriminatory attitudes and practices. One method that is utilized in schools throughout this nation is enforced diversity education for Kindergarten and grades 1-12, postsecondary education and community colleges, and in-service diversity education for teachers, staff, and administration. Though the programs are different in name, the diversity principles used in the programs are the same. Many of the principles discriminate against people of European descent, Judeo-Christian faith, American heritage, and people who hold viewpoints, or closely held personal beliefs that are contrary to a particular type of diversity thinking. The classifications above are excluded from diversity status and discriminated against.
29. Plaintiffs herein allege that the defendants so named have a responsibility to the Plaintiffs to grant them equal protection of the Constitution, statutes, and education codes and apply these to the diversity education programs that have denied the Plaintiffs their Constitutional rights.
30. Plaintiffs herein allege that Diversity education promotes all ideas, values, morals, ethics, lifestyles and religions as holding equal value, yet diversity programs do not tolerate Judeo-Christian beliefs, overt American patriotism, pride in European descent accomplishments, and Plaintiffs viewpoints that are contrary to a set of diversity principles that is considered “diversity status.”
31. Plaintiffs herein allege that methodology used in diversity programs is offensive and discriminatory toward European descent, Judeo-Christian faith, American heritage, and people with contrary viewpoints of diversity status. Some of the methodology and curriculum used in the classroom and school environment is the following: Wheel of Oppression, anti-American and anti-Judeo-Christian propaganda, Classism, White Privilege and Victimization Theories, and The Day of Silence. Many of these indoctrination theories are taught in the classrooms and in-service education.
32. Plaintiffs herein allege that students are held captive in classrooms that incorporate diversity principles into everyday subject matter and teachers are expected to teach diversity principles. If individuals speak contrary principles, then they are intimidated, harassed, ostracized, called names such as homophobic, zenophobe, or even hateful, and may face accusations from the administration with possible job loss.
33. Plaintiffs herein allege that safe environments are not afforded people of European descent, Christian and Jewish religions, and American heritage, due to diversity methodology and curriculum that enforces a rigid diversity, and classification of students, teachers, and administration into categories based on race, religion, heritage, and viewpoint. This causes hostility and separation of people, which fosters further discrimination and unrest within school environments.
34. Plaintiffs herein allege that the word “Tolerance” is used in diversity education to mean that a person “must” respect and accept as normal and equal the ideas, values, morals, ethics, lifestyles, and religions of others. This is representative of a state enforced belief system promoted within the confinement of a classroom, or school, and is discriminatory toward those who hold contrary beliefs.
35. Plaintiffs herein allege that discriminatory diversity education promotes a fearful and coercive atmosphere within schools and classrooms that sets up transformation of students’ and adults’ closely held personal beliefs into ideas, values, morals, ethics, lifestyles and religions that affect negatively our citizen and family rights, school and community environments, and National security and American patriotism.
36. Plaintiffs herein further allege that the requirements of enforced diversity education and in-service training infringed upon their United States Constitutional rights to free speech under the First Amendment, their liberties under the Ninth Amendment, which are denied and disparaged, and liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Law.
STANDING
37. Plaintiffs Georgiana Preskar and Teri Lawrence hold standing as citizens of the United States and residents of California. Plaintiff Georgiana Preskar is a California substitute schoolteacher, and Plaintiff Teri Lawrence is a parent of a child who attended government school, and is now a high school senior in a private school. Plaintiffs have, and continue to experience, financial loss, physical duress, and psychological trauma from denial of the following: liberty of mind, liberty of equality, liberty of pursuit of happiness, liberty of parenting, liberty to freely express closely held personal beliefs (viewpoint) as well as the following: negligence of their civil rights under Constitutional and statute law by being classified according to race, religion and heritage and discriminated against because of the classification The Plaintiffs seek recovery on the grounds that defendants violated the civil rights of the Plaintiffs under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

BACKGROUND OF CASE
38. In 2002, Plaintiff Georgiana Preskar (mother, homemaker, registered nurse, sociologist, substitute school teacher, real estate agent, and Director of Eagle Forum of Sacramento) applied to the Elk Grove Unified School District for a substitute school teacher position. Both of her children had attended public schools and the Plaintiff looked forward to teaching in the district. Her application was accepted and Plaintiff Georgiana Preskar began attending some of the educational seminars. She noticed a strange school attitude toward any person that thought differently than what she came to know as “diversity thinking.” This concept holds that all ideas, values, morals, ethics, lifestyles, religion, and closely held personal beliefs (viewpoints) are equal, and people who think contrary, are not equal.
39. Common sense told the Plaintiff that diversity speaks for itself; within its very definition it means varied, assorted, and different. Because someone enters school grounds, they are not deprived of their right to free speech. Students have a constitutional right to freedom of speech. The Elk Grove Unified School District environment was clear on “diversity thinking;” people within the schools could express diversity concepts, but not individual thought that differed from it. The Plaintiff heard derogatory words used to describe people who were expressing their closely held personal beliefs if they differed from “diversity thinking”. People were judged and if they did not meet the diversity criteria; they were labeled with words such as “hateful,” “politically incorrect,” “homophobic,” and “xenophobic” and then categorized unfit for “diversity status.”
40. It became apparent that diversity education was working to set up a “change” of mind, but not a tolerance of all people. If one’s mind could not be infringed upon for national unity or patriotism, how could it be infringed upon for diversity? Yet, there was an undeclared rule that to be “included,” teachers, administrators, and students had to adhere to a diversity way of thinking and expressing themselves in order to be accepted.
41. The Plaintiff realized that she was not an asset to diversity and did not fit in because she held some contrary beliefs to diversity thinking. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal. It does not state that all ideas, values, morals, ethics, lifestyles, religions, and personal beliefs are equal. In fact, America prides itself on the individual, and his or her uniqueness, all the while securing the equality of the individual to have liberty of mind and be able to express it through our Constitutional protections.
42. Plaintiff Preskar’s children had attended the schools. Never was classification of race, religion, or national heritage an issue. All races were treated with respect. When incidents of dispute occurred in the schools, it was handled according to common sense laws, as well as those set in school and state law. When attending school functions the atmosphere was good, violence was rare. Plaintiff Preskar began to realize that frequently she was reading of violence within the Elk Grove Unified School District. Diversity was instituted to rid schools of violence. The district had never had excess problems in this area. Though the school district had no compelling racial issues, they chose to introduce diversity education into the district for the students, teachers, staff, and administrators.
43. Plaintiff Preskar felt during school functions that she had to continually apologize for being “white.” Yet, the Plaintiff had done nothing wrong. Plaintiff Preskar had a knot in her stomach every time “white privilege” topics arose. Her father had worked in the Steel Mills in Chicago. He never had a college education. Working long and hard hours with people of all color, he taught his children the value of hard work. He also taught Plaintiff Preskar to respect all people, no matter the race.
44. It made the Plaintiff sick to hear “white privilege” thrown around with no respect for the people who have sacrificed long hours at jobs, trainings, or education to have success. Yet, “white privilege” believers accuse people of European descent of unfairly gaining success because of their skin color. Many diversity programs shun the principle of “hard work” as being only a “white” notion and not of significance. Plaintiff Preskar found it difficult to focus when the school environment was permeated with discrimination toward the color of her skin. A new discrimination had arisen and it was white discrimination. No longer was the Plaintiff supposed to be proud of her race. There was “shame, blame, and guilt” put upon the white race for past mistakes of our ancestors that were of European descent. The “bad” things were magnified, while the “good” things were ignored.
45. It was not only race that Plaintiff Preskar noticed was at issue, but also her country. Plaintiff Preskar believes firmly in the Judeo-Christian principles that formed this nation. These principles, embedded in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, are the principles that give men equality in their rights to freedom. Because she holds strong patriotic beliefs about the formation of this nation, she is not of diversity status, which gives little credence to American patriotism. Because of her patriotism and Judeo-Christian beliefs, the Plaintiff would not and does not give equal value to all ideas, values, morals, ethics, lifestyles, and religions.
46. As a result, she was not treated equally because she was not adhering to diversity thinking. Plaintiff Preskar is an individual and various factors contributed to the formation of her belief system. Her uniqueness in thought and belief, however, was not accepted, for it was not “diversity thinking.” If she stated her viewpoint that was contrary to the “diversity one,” which excluded hers, she immediately knew from reactions that she was out of line with diversity thinking. She began to notice that this was happening to others within the school environment. Even if the statement of opinion is said in respect, the contrary person is looked upon in a hostile manner. Teachers, administrators, and students who do not believe diversity principles are silenced by verbal assault, harassment, intimidation of job loss, and stereotyping.
47. Plaintiff Preskar found that people of Judeo-Christian faith, European descent, American heritage, and those with “closely held personal beliefs” that were contrary to diversity thinking, were being silenced. Plaintiff Preskar had to remind herself that this is not Hitler Germany, or a Middle Eastern Madrasas, but the United States of America. Other teachers and community members were very upset and endured physical, mental, and financial chaos because of loss of their freedoms to a “diversity thinking” that was forced on everyone. What had happened to their government that was supposed to secure their freedoms? At the heart of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection lies the simple command that the Government must treat citizens “as individuals, not `as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual or national class.’”
48. In 2002, Plaintiff Georgiana Preskar met Plaintiff Teri Lawrence (mother, homemaker, microbiologist, real estate agent, and Education Director of Eagle Forum of Sacramento). Plaintiff Lawrence had similar diversity concerns as Plaintiff Preskar; the concerns were over the education of her son who was in a government school. Plaintiff Lawrence knew there was an enforced agenda to teach the children beliefs that were contrary to many parents’ values and morals and “closely held personal beliefs.” She also knew this was against the Constitutional protection of parents’ liberty to raise their children according to their own standards. Parents and guardians do have the right to direct the upbringing and education of children.
49. Plaintiff Teri Lawrence’s son, Bryce Crump, attended up to 7th grade in California public schools (he is currently entering 12th grade). While he was attending 7th grade at Toby Johnson Middle School in Elk Grove, Plaintiff Lawrence became concerned at some of the things her son discussed that he had been taught at school.
50. Becoming very concerned, Plaintiff Lawrence contacted the school and gave them a list of “closely held personal beliefs” and informed the school that her child must be excluded from any program or education class that was attempting to indoctrinate her child in a contrary opinion. At this point, on an almost weekly basis, Bryce was sent to the library during a diversity class called Advocacy. The librarian sometimes harassed him because he did not always have the correct library pass from his teacher, and sometimes he was left to wander the halls until the next class began. On one occasion he was actually made to attend on-campus-suspension, which is where students are sent for punishment.
51. Plaintiff Lawrence and her son were discriminated against because the diversity of his viewpoint was never shared in the classroom. It was found that the Advocacy program had never gone through the curriculum review board in the school district. The curriculum did not include traditional beliefs, some of them being Judeo-Christian beliefs.
52. Plaintiff Teri Lawrence became concerned that this lack of content meant that other content was replacing traditional education in all of his classrooms. She did investigate the material and found the program to be unacceptable for her child. If this philosophy had permeated other classes, how could she take her son out of all of his classes? But to allow him into it was a big concern and this became the priority of her thinking.
53. She noticed that it was not just religion, but American heritage that was eliminated in favor of others. The Plaintiffs son had a required reading book that encouraged and sympathized with illegal immigration, with the immigration border patrol being the “bad guys”, and the illegal aliens being “forced” to purchase illegal social security cards and driver’s licenses. This goes against Plaintiff Lawrence’s “closely held personal beliefs” of American heritage being respected, which includes following the laws of the land.
54. Most of the classes infiltrated a particular “diversity thinking” that did not include the Lawrence family’s closely held beliefs or viewpoints. Her son was not treated equally, because he was classified into a group that was unacceptable for diversity status. But his ideas must be a part of diversity or else it is not true to its intent. Instead the school was trying to change the teachings his parents gave him. In 1923, the Supreme Court emphasized that the state cannot interfere with the right of a parent to control his child’s education. The Court states that the right to educate one’s child as one chooses is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and applicable to the States by the First Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process law. The right to privacy is held as a fundamental right under the Ninth Amendment.
55. It was a hardship for the family to see their son deprived of the liberty of being an equal human being with others. The laws of civil rights were not working for him; discrimination against national heritage and religion soon brought the reality that his liberties as an equal human being were denied him due to being classified as unfit for “diversity status.” Plaintiff Lawrence’s liberty of parenthood was deprived her, even though it is protected by law and tradition
56. Plaintiff Lawrence began to review the “diversity thinking” that would be taught her son at Franklin High School, the high school her son would soon be attending. She discovered that the white privilege doctrine was being taught. Plaintiff Lawrence’s ancestors came to America as white Norwegian slaves in the 1600’s, and worked on plantations along with black slaves for many, many years. Plaintiff suffered great distress in learning that her son would be taught that he only has the things his parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents worked very hard for, because his skin was white. Plaintiff Lawrence knows the value of hard work.
57. Plaintiff Lawrence’s son’s diverse viewpoints were never shared in classrooms that were supposed to be diverse. This had an effect on Plaintiff Lawrence and she was not able to concentrate at work. Physical stress began to affect her body. The discrimination toward her son was affecting the family balance. Her religious and patriotic beliefs that she instilled in her son were not only being neglected and excluded, but also mocked and denigrated without equal protection of law afforded others in the school. The school environment was hostile toward students who dared to express ideas, values, morals, ethics, religions and “closely held personal beliefs” that were not in line with diversity thinking. Yet, Plaintiff Lawrence’s son was supposed to accept other “closely held personal beliefs” that were deemed an asset to diversity.
58. Plaintiff Lawrence became more and more upset about schooling dictating a form of belief, diversity thinking, that was not in line with her teachings of her son. She was losing control over her parental rights according to the Supreme Court.
59. In 2004, Plaintiff Teri Lawrence knew she could not send her son to a government school. After Bryce completed junior high in government schools, Plaintiff Lawrence chose to place him in private school. She was experiencing psychological and physical trauma on a daily basis. Withdrawing her son from the government school was at great expense and inconvenience. The school is 15 miles from Plaintiff’s home and, in traffic, takes almost an hour round trip in the morning and almost an hour round trip in the afternoon. Plaintiff Teri Lawrence ended up quitting her job as a Public Health Microbiologist, and one of the deciding factors was the transportation factor. Her son is still in a private school.
60. In the same year as Plaintiff Lawrence withdrew her son, Plaintiff Georgiana Preskar decided that she could not teach in the Elk Grove Unified School District. The intimidating atmosphere did not allow the Plaintiff freedom of expression. Plaintiff Preskar began to realize that her pursuit of happiness was being suppressed. There was a politically correct atmosphere that had taken over the school environment. The Plaintiff’s physical and mental anguish was increasing, and though she looked forward to financial success through teaching (she had been a full time homemaker), she knew she could not work in the Elk Grove Unified School District, or any district that required diversity education, or encourages discrimination toward particular classes of people.
61. Both Plaintiffs experienced injury and are still experiencing injury. At the initial onset, neither understood why this was happening in the government schools. By chance, a diversity education program called Seeking Educational Equity and Diversity (SEED) surfaced. It took four years to discover its intent and content. In those four years, people continued to express similar injuries. Citizens everywhere were upset by the public education system that no longer benefited the many who trusted it for generations. Concerns grew as to the effect diversity was having upon the children in the classrooms.
62. In 2003, the Day of Silence took place in the Elk Grove Unified School District, as well as nationwide, in some junior and high schools. The day gives honor to homosexuals who are perpetrated as victims in our society because of their lifestyle. Homosexual students, and those who support them, hand out information at booths before, during, and after school. The students, who sign up as participants, are allowed to remain silent in the classroom. They do not have to contribute in class and they wear badges telling why they are silent. Thus, students who may not agree with the lifestyle are submitted to this philosophy in the confines of a classroom
63. Because of community concerns over diversity issues, especially in the classroom, four women, including Plaintiff Preskar, passed out flyers concerning a meeting about the Day of Silence, 2003. The flyers were passed out on public sidewalks at two Elk Grove high schools. While peacefully walking, 20-30 of Laguna Creek High School’s homosexual students aggressively confronted the women by mocking, shouting, ripping literature from their hands, and replacing it with a yellow sheet that they gave to those around the Plaintiffs. The students said things like, “We’re going to go home tonight and sodomize all night long,” or “I can understand why people kill other people,” while they walked within inches of the women’s back. They laughed at the women and continued to pursue them no matter where they walked. Their behavior became more aggressive as time passed. The level of energy increased. The women saw and experienced actions and expressions of aggression that included ripping material from their hands, pushing other students out of reach of receiving the information, and jumping in front of students so they could not direct them to the school office.
64. It was apparent that the diversity education of students and even teachers was not working. The students said and made it clear to the women that they felt the women had “no right to distribute their information to anyone because it disagreed with their lifestyle and was hateful.
65. No teachers came to the women’s aid though they were standing along the building. The incident lasted approximately half an hour. Eventually their numbers dwindled. What remained were four bewildered women with their shredded flyers lying next to the yellow homosexual bill of rights. Obviously time and effort went into the production of their flyers, as did the incredible way these teens used intimidating techniques. This was not diversity, but a direct assault on equality of man to express their personally held beliefs even if contrary to “diversity status.” The incident left an indelible mark on the women.
66. There was no justice carried out for this awful injustice. The perpetrators denied it happened, and so did the school officials. No wonder the school environment felt unsafe. It was unsafe. Plaintiff Preskar was now assured that something deeper was involved in diversity education and decided to investigate the SEED diversity program that was meeting the federal and state requirements in the district for diversity education. She also found out that it was not only in Elk Grove, but also in Sacramento and San Juan school districts, and across America in 33 states. In talking with people nationwide and in California, Plaintiffs Preskar and Lawrence found that many of the nationwide programs classified people into different groups. The classifications, sorted as to European descent, Judeo-Christian faith, American heritage, and people who hold contrary viewpoints to diversity, were excluded from “diversity status.”
FURTHER ALLEGATIOINS
67. Plaintiffs further allege schools that actually encourage students to sign tolerance pledges that are inconsistent with parental teachings. Tolerance is not well defined, but in most diversity classes it means a total acceptance and respect of others’ ideas, values, morals, ethics, lifestyles and religions as equal. People are trained in this philosophy.
68. Plaintiffs further allege that the very training that teaches tolerance is in itself discriminatory, for the programs do not follow tolerance toward certain groups. Many programs use “White Privilege” classes, “Homophobia 101” classes, “The Wheel of Oppression” charts, and “anti-American” hand-outs. The Wheel of Oppression singles out the White, Male, Heterosexual, Rich, Able-Bodied as being in the oppressor group; this automatically classifies all others as the oppressed group.
69. Plaintiffs herein further allege that many diversity programs promote victim status for minority groups. They divide Americans into only two classifications of people: the oppressors and the oppressed. Those in a minority group are the oppressed. The oppressors are those who, by virtue of their numbers alone, find themselves in the majority. This division creates a growing category of isms: racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism, etc. Females are deemed oppressed, by the oppressor who is male. The homosexuals are encouraged to view themselves as a sexual minority that is oppressed by a heterosexist society. People of color become automatic victims because of their skin color. People with white skin are stereotyped as oppressors. By creating ever-growing categories of oppressors and oppressed, diversity programs nurture unhealthy, cynical attitudes, cultivating more and more categories of victims looking for someone to blame.
70. Plaintiffs further allege that some seminars include the following: White Privilege, Wheel of Oppression, The Vagina Monologue, Immigration and Language, Sexuality, Tools to Teach Tolerance, Heteronormality, Religion, Teens for Tolerance, Color Fear Workshop, It’s Elementary, Classism Cross-Over, Cycle of Oppression, Policy and Law, and many others.
71. Plaintiffs allege that “White privilege” is a philosophy growing fast in America. Through White Privilege conferences held regularly in nationwide university classes, White Privilege diversity education, or by inviting speakers to an educational facility or place of business, the orthodoxy is spreading shame, blame, and guilt for being white skin color. The attendees have a right to attend these seminars. However, if the intent is to return to the classroom and carry these principles into the curriculum, than this is out of line with our Constitutional rights.
One teacher, who attended the program, states the following:
“There is no recognition that some issues are controversial
and therefore should have both sides of the issue presented.
Not only are dissenting viewpoints regarding homosexuality
not included in SEED materials, they are actively suppressed. Although SEED’s rules of conduct say “respect all voices,” speaking up with a conservative, traditional voice is often met
with intimidation, interruption, correction and reprimand and methods of harassment and discrimination are used to silence opposition.”

72. Plaintiffs allege that once teachers have undergone “personal transformations” of their views of America, other cultures, and homosexuality, they are encouraged by the SEED leaders to transform their own curriculum with the carefully selected, SEED-approved material. As the curriculum gradually shapes the views of K-12 students, SEED trainers move closer to the goal of what the founder calls “social change.”
73. Plaintiffs show but a small sampling of their allegations: Here are but a few of the quotes that are included in handouts teachers are encouraged to use in the classroom.
“U.S. people, especially White people, have trouble seeing systemically. Consider White individualist ideology.
Consider U.S. education. Consider capitalist values.”

“We know the litany of dominants: white people, males,
Christians, heterosexuals, able-bodied people, those in their
middle years, and those who are middle or upper class.”

“Becoming a boy or a girl for most people required a lot of
training and repetition and warning. One was not automatically, easily, or naturally a boy or girl, but needed to have one’s
gender socially constructed, artificially channeled.”

74. An interview with the Founder of SEED, Peggy McIntosh, shows clearly that SEED does not uphold the American ideals of individuality, goal setting, and the work ethic. Plus, it is apparent that global citizenship is a priority over sovereignty. The Court upholds the individuality of man. At the heart of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection lies the simple command that the Government must treat citizens “as individuals, not ‘as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual or national class.’” Peggy McIntosh, founder of SEED, states the following:
“SEED seminars from the beginning countered the U.S. ideology that the only unit of society is the individual, and that whatever one ends up with is what one wanted, worked for, earned, and deserved. From the beginning SEED seminars acknowledged the existence of systems of power working both within our psyches and in the U.S. society outside of us. But at the beginning, 18 years ago, we were not thinking in terms of helping students or teachers to be global citizens.”

75. Plaintiffs further allege that this type of coercive education has a long-term effect on community relationships, and an effect on every white person and/or person of color who knows about this chart. Many times children will not talk about this with their parents and the family is jeopardized by education that is subversive to the well being of one of their members. Many people of color have worked hard to bring their families into the American dream, yet their children are being told that they are oppressed and the white person is oppressing them. White Privilege is archaic and not good for our country.
76. Plaintiffs allege that individual thoughts are not welcome that differ from the group. Some parents experienced rebellious teenagers because of diversity education that taught their children concepts far different than the ones taught at home. Traditional beliefs are thrown out of diversity education and not seen as an asset to diversity. Some teens stray from religious beliefs because of education days such as Day of Silence. Some people had to quit their teaching positions because they were discriminated against within the school system. Many had to remove their children and grandchildren from government schools due to being classified as unfit for diversity status.
77. Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiffs faced an actual injury and a discrete injury and continue to face it. The laws in place to secure the Plaintiffs’ civil rights are appropriate. America’s law is based on the Constitution and statutes. However, these laws will do nothing if they are not enforced, or if there is negligence, or if the law is interpreted differently than its intent.
78. Plaintiffs further allege that clarification sometimes is needed, in a form of regulatory and/or declaratory relief, so that we do not return to the days when classification of people was based on the color of their skin, religion, and heritage. Federal courts have the power for a nationwide injunction to stop diversity discrimination in schools that use classification status to separate students and teachers by race, religion, heritage, and viewpoint that denies persons of European descent, Judeo-Christian faith, and American heritage from equal protection of the law by excluding them from diversity inclusion.
79. Plaintiffs allege that classifications automatically impose inequalities on particular classes by claiming some are not an asset to diversity, thus not “diversity status.
80. Plaintiffs further allege that it is within constitutional traditions of our country that laws are enacted that are central to the rule of law and to the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection and due process. As citizens and legal residents of the United States of America we hold the government to the principle that it will remain open to those who seek assistance when denied their freedoms.
81. Plaintiffs further allege that Plaintiffs faced, and still are facing, financial loss, physical duress, and psychological trauma. The three elements to satisfy this case are present: (1) The exclusion of Plaintiffs from diversity status, due to discrimination by classification and negligence of the law, (2) Denial of equal protection of law is the cause of the Plaintiffs injuries, and (3) A favorable simple court decision to give Plaintiffs relief by inclusion of specified classifications into “diversity status” would alleviate financial loss and physical duress and psychological trauma, thus restoring the Plaintiffs’ rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The Plaintiffs pray for one basic relief and that is to be included in diversity status in good standing through the defendants’ compliance with federal and state Constitutions and statutes. The relief sought can meet the relief necessary for the Plaintiffs claims of denial of rights, with subsequent injuries. This one relief would meet all the claims below.
2. Plaintiffs pray for diversity education to be stopped in school districts using it, until equal status is given to those classifications deemed not “diversity status,” thereby, giving the Plaintiffs the civil rights to be a part of diversity, and ending discrimination. Plaintiffs ask that diversity programs stop until classifications are eliminated within the programs and people of European descent, Judeo-Christian faith, American heritage and people with contrary viewpoints are included in diversity.
3. Plaintiffs pray for relief through elimination of White Privilege classes in diversity education programs and classrooms.
4. Plaintiffs pray for relief through elimination of such programs that promote classifications that discriminate, injure, oppress, and threaten the security of liberty of mind, parenting, equality, pursuit of happiness and expression of personally held beliefs and viewpoints under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
5. Plaintiffs seek relief by the cessation of all methodology and curriculum of required diversity education used for classification, such as White Privilege, the Wheel of Oppression, Classicism, anti-American and anti-Judeo-Christian religion, and Victimization theories; citizen and family Constitutional rights, school and community environments, national security, American patriotism, and mental states of individuals are being affected negatively, causing psychological trauma, denial of citizens rights, and financial hardships.
6. Plaintiffs seek relief by removing “transformation education” that robs citizens and Plaintiff of the liberty of mind and viewpoint.
Respectfully Submitted:
Dated: August 20, 2007 _______________________________ GEORGIANA PRESKAR

Dated: August 20, 2007 _______________________________ TERI LAWRENCE

GEORGIANA PRESKAR, In Pro Se
9064 Shetland Court
Elk Grove, California 95624
(916) 685-5167

TERI LAWRENCE, In Pro Se
11318 Franklin Blvd.
Elk Grove, California 95757
(916) 599-8836

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGIANA PRESKAR, et al, ) Civil Action No.
) 2:07-CV-00874-GEB-EFB
Plaintiffs, )
) PLAINTIFFS’ GEORGIANA PRESKAR
vs. ) AND TERI LAWRENCE OPPOSITION
) TO DEFENDANTS’ CA DEPT. OF
THE UNITED STATES OF ) EDUCATION, CALIFORNIA STATE
AMERICA, et al, ) BOARD OF EDUCATION, JACK
) O’CONNELL, AND STATE OF CA
Defendants. ) MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST
) AMENDED COMPLAINT
)
) Date: October 17, 2007
) Time: 10:00 a.m.
) Courtroom: 25
________________________________________________________________________

/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
GENERAL RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiffs Georgiana Preskar and Teri Lawrence (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) respond to the State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint as follows:
1. Plaintiffs did, in their First Amended Complaint, very plainly state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendants fail or refuse to acknowledge this. The entire First Amended Complaint addresses discrimination that is currently taking place in diversity, tolerance and multicultural education required by Defendants (the “claim”), and the relief that can be granted is very simple: inclusion in diversity, tolerance and multicultural education which would end the discrimination [First Amended Complaint, pages 28 and 29].
2. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint states jurisdiction and venue, in a short and plain statement, on pages 4, 5 and 6.
3. Plaintiffs’ service of process was sufficient and was not deficient.
4. At the time these Defendants filed this Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs had not yet served the California State Board of Education. They were waiting on a Summons to be issued by the Court. The California State Board of Education has now been served according to their procedure, and a Return of Service is on file with this Court.
GENERAL RESPONSE TO SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENT

Plaintiff Lawrence did remove her child from public school, but he is still in high school and of high school age. Plaintiff Lawrence must at all times maintain her child’s best interests, and keeping him enrolled in public school just to make certain she had standing is impossible. This does not eliminate standing, as he is and has been eligible for public school attendance, and would be attending public school if this discrimination were not occurring.
Plaintiff Preskar is not currently working within the public school district, but she is still eligible to do so. She could not endure the stress and emotional trauma just to maintain a certain standing, and the fact that she would be teaching if this discrimination were not occurring does give her standing.
Plaintiffs allege in their First Amended Complaint that these State Defendants have failed and continue to fail to enforce the laws that their offices are designed to do [First Amended Complaint, page 5, line 7, and other allegations beginning on page 10]. How much greater a connection can one get?
If these State Defendants choose to call blatant discrimination “pedagogical and philosophical orientation”, that is a matter for the Court to decide. If pedagogical and philosophical orientations that are being taught in the public school illegally discriminates on the basis of sex, race, religion, or closely held personal beliefs, then it must be stopped.
Plaintiffs have proved in their responses to the first set of motions to dismiss their first Complaint that these Defendants are not immune based on the 11th Amendment. Plaintiffs have not asked for an award of monetary damages, despite these Defendants attempt to claim that they did.
As mentioned in item 1. on page 1 above, Plaintiffs have set out a short and concise statement of their claim.
Plaintiffs Preskar and Lawrence are very respectful of the Court’s order that this not become a class action, and have in no way attempted to “represent” the other Plaintiffs. Each other Plaintiff has signed their own Request for Dismissal Without Prejudice. Plaintiff Lawrence did mail each one to the Court for filing, and the respective parties for service, and that is allowable under the law. Plaintiff Lawrence did also, as a courtesy, type each form and send it to each individual Plaintiff for his or her own separate signature. If the Court objects to Plaintiff Lawrence helping the other Plaintiffs in this way, Plaintiff Lawrence apologizes to the Court for the inappropriateness of her actions. Plaintiffs Lawrence and Preskar have fully explained the impact of the Court’s Order to the other Plaintiffs. Because the Court has not yet dismissed the other Plaintiffs, it was and is appropriate to have the entire title of the case on the First Amended Complaint. If State Defendants read the First Amended Complaint fully, they will see that it is only filed on behalf of Plaintiffs Preskar and Lawrence.
GENERAL RESPONSE TO LEGAL STANDARD
Plaintiffs did, in their First Amended Complaint, very plainly state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendants fail or refuse to acknowledge this. The entire First Amended Complaint addresses discrimination that is currently taking place in diversity, tolerance and multicultural education required by Defendants (the “claim”), and the relief that can be granted is very simple: inclusion in diversity, tolerance and multicultural education which would end the discrimination [First Amended Complaint, pages 28 and 29].
Plaintiffs did amend their first Complaint, and Plaintiffs pray that the Court finds their First Amended Complaint easily understandable. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint should not be dismissed.
/ / /
GENERAL RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT
I. Plaintiffs Do Not Fail To Allege Facts Sufficient To
Support A Claim Based on Violation of the United States
Constitution

Plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to support a claim based on violation of the United States Constitution. See First Amended Complaint, page 5, item 7; 6, items 14, 15 and 16; page 8, items 22 and 25; page 9, items 26, 27 and 28; page 10, items 29 and 30; page 11, items 31, 32, 33 and 34; page 12, items 35 and 36; page 23, item 67; page 24, items 68, 69 and 70; page 25, items 71, 72 and 73; page 26, items 74 and 75; page 27, items 76, 77, 78 and 79; and page 28, items 80 and 81.
II. Plaintiffs Do Not Lack Standing to Bring a Claim for Relief
A. Injury in Fact. The term “diversity education” is a term that the public school system has been unwilling to define themselves. It is deliberately used very broadly to promote a liberal political dogma and viewpoint. The very laws that State Defendants cite in their footnote 1 on page 3 are the laws that the public schools are using to discriminate as stated in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs’ allege and have continued to allege injuries by these State Defendants’ unwillingness to mandate and enforce that these laws not be erroneously used for unlawful discrimination.
In Katter vs. Ohio Employment Relations Board, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Case No. 2:07-CV-43, Judge Gregory L. Frost found that a discrete injury, violating the Plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, created a standing. The discrete injury occurred when Plaintiff’s closely held personal beliefs were infringed upon.
B. Causal Connection. Plaintiffs, Defendants, and millions of other Americans will suffer as a result of State Defendants’ conduct or failure to act. Our students are being taught that capitalism is bad, that white people, particularly white heterosexual males, are oppressors automatically because they are white, heterosexual and/or male, and they are being taught that their parents’ and their own closely held personal beliefs are not “politically correct”. These attitudes affect the entire nation, and are unlawful. How can State Defendants’ claim no connection? The connection is complete!
C. Likelihood of Redressibility. The Plaintiffs seek one basic relief and that is to be included in diversity status in good standing through the defendants’ compliance with federal and state Constitutions and statutes. The relief sought can meet the relief necessary for the Plaintiffs claims of denial of rights. Classification should not make a difference in Plaintiffs admission to “diversity status.” In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court required school districts “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294 Pp. 28–41.
At the heart of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection lies the simple command that the Government must treat citizens “as individuals, not ‘as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual or national class.’” Arizona Governing Committee v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073, 1083 (1983).
Numerous lawsuits are filed all over California and other states frequently. These lawsuits are dozens and dozens of suits against school districts for specific discriminatory activities and actions created by laws enacted by legislative bodies. If this Court grants us the very simple relief requested, these lawsuits could stop, saving tons of money and time. Defendants’ attorneys are being paid by taxpayers’ dollars, and it is in Defendants’, and even their attorneys’, best interests to end discrimination as simply as a court order from this Federal Court.
III. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint Is Not Barred
By the Political Question Doctrine

Unlawful discrimination does not present a non-justiciable, political question. It is not barred by the political question doctrine. The Constitution of the United States trumps a doctrine, and should be used for this prayer for relief. If educational policies, pedagogical philosophies, and specific curricular materials are unlawfully discriminating, it is a matter of justice with this Court.
If these State Defendants choose to call blatant discrimination “pedagogical and philosophical orientation”, that is a matter for the Court to decide. If pedagogical and philosophical orientations that are being taught in the public school illegally discriminates on the basis of sex, race, religion, or closely held personal beliefs, then it must be stopped.
If the “other levels and branches of our government” fail to perform their legal duties, the Court must step in. Ours is a system of checks and balances, and if one branch gets out of control, another branch must intervene.
Plaintiffs are not asking this Court to step in and oversee educational policy and philosophy. Plaintiffs are asking this Court to intervene and end the unlawful discrimination, which the Court does frequently.

IV. Plaintiffs Complaint Should Not Be Dismissed;
Defendants Are Not Immune

Defendants state that the 11th Amendment bars them from being a proper party to a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a statute; this is untrue. If a legislative body chooses to enact legislation that is unconstitutional, what option is there but to challenge it, and such is frequently challenged in court.
California has waived its sovereign immunity in this case because it accepts funds from the federal government for education in the public school system.
Plaintiffs are seeking relief against Jack O’Connell in his official capacity, and Plaintiffs are not seeking an award of monetary damages. Plaintiffs stated the financial hardship in their background of the case, but in their prayer for relief have not asked for relief in any monetary form.
V. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint Is
Not Procedurally Defective

A. Plaintiffs Did Not Serve the State Board of Education By Mail. At the time these Defendants filed this Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs had not yet served the California State Board of Education. The California State Board of Education has now been served according to their procedure, and a Return of Service is on file with this Court.
B. Plaintiffs Preskar and Lawrence Are Not Representing Other Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Preskar and Lawrence are very respectful of the Court’s order that this not become a class action, and have in no way attempted to “represent” the other Plaintiffs. Each other Plaintiff has signed their own Request for Dismissal Without Prejudice. Plaintiff Lawrence did mail each one to the Court and the respective parties, and that is allowable under the law. Plaintiff Lawrence did also, as a courtesy, type each form and send it to each individual Plaintiff for their own separate signature. If the Court objects to Plaintiff Lawrence helping the other Plaintiffs in this way, Plaintiff Lawrence apologizes to the Court for the inappropriateness of her actions. Plaintiffs Lawrence and Preskar have fully explained the impact of the Court’s Order to the other Plaintiffs. Because the Court has not yet dismissed the other Plaintiffs, it was and is appropriate to have the entire title of the case on the First Amended Complaint. If State Defendants read the First Amended Complaint fully, they will see that it is only filed on behalf of Plaintiffs Preskar and Lawrence.
Plaintiffs Preskar and Lawrence are unsure what makes State Defendants’ believe them to be representing the other Plaintiffs.
C. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint Does Contain A Short And Plain Statement. Plaintiffs did, in their First Amended Complaint, very plainly state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendants fail or refuse to acknowledge this. The entire First Amended Complaint addresses discrimination that is currently taking place in diversity, tolerance and multicultural education required by Defendants (the “claim”), and the relief that can be granted is very simple: inclusion in diversity, tolerance and multicultural education which would end the discrimination [First Amended Complaint, pages 28 and 29].
/ / /
/ / /
VI. Plaintiffs Have Not Asked For Further
Leave to Amend Their First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs have not yet asked the Court for further leave to amend their First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs have written the First Amended Complaint in common, everyday English, and do believe it to be understandable and sufficient. Plaintiffs have shown standing, and the allegations are not barred by the political question doctrine, the 11th Amendment, nor federal qualified immunity.
Plaintiffs are the very opposite of “frivolous or malicious”. Numerous lawsuits are filed all over California and other states frequently. These lawsuits are dozens and dozens of suits against school districts for specific discriminatory activities and actions created by laws enacted by legislative bodies. If this Court grants us the very simple relief requested, these lawsuits could stop, saving tons of money and time. Defendants’ attorneys are being paid by taxpayers’ dollars, and it is in Defendants’, and even their attorneys’, best interests to end discrimination as simply as a court order from this Federal Court.
It is more frivolous to keep up the numerous lawsuits that pop up all over the state and country, instead of ending them once and for all with declaratory and injunctive relief. A line has been crossed when diversity education issues, which are political in nature, become unlawful discrimination.
FURTHER RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION
Plaintiffs further respond as follows:
Confirmed Complaints for Established Patterns of: Denials and Violations of Constitutional and Civil Rights, Negligence and Mismanagement to Stop the Same, and Willful Discrimination; and Petition for Injunctive and Regulatory Reliefs.
Plaintiffs Georgiana Preskar and Teri Lawrence, individually, and in direct support of all such complaints and petitions now and hereby made before this Court, allege, state, and submit the following:
I. INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE CASE
This Civil Rights case is based on civil rights of law, common law, and equity. The purpose is to restore the rights of the Plaintiffs that are secured under federal law in order to restore numerous unalienable rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution and various Amendments to the Constitution.
1. The material Plaintiffs have to support this case is abundant, and too numerous to include all of them in this Memorandum as exhibits. Many diversity programs, such as Seeking Educational Equity and Diversity (SEED), are nationwide, which widens the territory for even more cases that will be burdensome for the courts. Because so many people are affected across the nation, multiple lawsuits could result in different judgments for the same cause.
2. Plaintiffs share the common questions of law and fact. They are denied their civil rights secured by the Constitution and statute laws of the United States.
3. Plaintiffs’ claims are: People of European descent, Judeo-Christian faith, American heritage, or those who speak “closely held personal beliefs,” that are contrary to “diversity thinking” are excluded from “diversity status” and denied civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution and law.
4. Plaintiffs Georgiana Preskar and Teri Lawrence share with care and concern the principles that made this nation great. This includes the basic concept from the Declaration that “All men are created equal.” Plaintiffs are injured because of the denial of their civil rights, and seek relief under the Constitution. Both Plaintiffs have used appropriate means, from years 2002-2006, to seek relief from the proper federal, state, and school authorities before seeking this lawsuit. The interest in seeking regulatory and/or injunctive relief is appropriate.
Plaintiffs will exercise their right to develop this case in more specifics. United States v. Sity of Redwood City, 640 F.2d. 963,966 (9th Cir. 1981).
II. BACKGROUND OF CASE
In 2002, Plaintiff Georgiana Preskar (mother, homemaker, registered nurse, sociologist, substitute school teacher, real estate agent, and Director of Eagle Forum of Sacramento) applied to the Elk Grove Unified School District for a substitute school teacher position. Both of her children had attended public schools and the Plaintiff looked forward to teaching in the district. Her application was accepted and Plaintiff Georgiana Preskar began attending some of the educational seminars. She noticed a strange school attitude toward any person that thought differently than what she came to know as “diversity thinking.” This concept holds that all ideas, values, morals, ethics, lifestyles, religion, and closely held personal beliefs (viewpoints) are equal, and people who think contrary, are not equal.
Common sense told the Plaintiff that diversity speaks for itself; within its very definition it means varied, assorted, and different. Because someone enters school grounds, they are not deprived of their right to free speech. Students have a constitutional right to freedom of speech. Tinker v. Des Moines Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). The Elk Grove Unified School District environment was clear on “diversity thinking;” people within the schools could express diversity concepts, but not individual thought that differed from it. The Plaintiff heard derogatory words used to describe people who were expressing their closely held personal beliefs. People were judged and if they did not meet the diversity criteria, they were labeled with words such as “hateful,” “politically incorrect,” “homophobic,” and “xenophobic” and then categorized unfit for “diversity status.”
It became apparent that diversity education was working to set up a “change” of mind, but not a tolerance of all people. In West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. at 640-641, the Court held that students’ liberty of conscience could not be infringed in the name of “national unity” or “patriotism.” If one’s mind could not be infringed upon for national unity or patriotism, how could it be infringed upon for diversity? Yet, there was an undeclared rule that to be “included,” teachers, administrators, and students had to adhere to a diversity way of thinking and expressing themselves in order to be accepted.
The Plaintiff realized that she was not an asset to diversity and did not fit in because she held some contrary beliefs to diversity thinking. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal. It does not state that all ideas, values, morals, ethics, lifestyles, religions, and personal beliefs are equal. In fact, America prides itself on the individual, and his or her uniqueness, all the while securing the equality of the individual to have liberty of mind and be able to express it through our Constitutional rights.
“Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority’s opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk. Terminielolo v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949).”
Plaintiff Preskar’s children had attended the schools. Never was classification of race, religion, or national heritage an issue. All races were treated with respect. When incidents of dispute occurred in the schools, it was handled according to common sense laws, as well as those set in school and state law. When attending school functions the atmosphere was good, violence was rare. Plaintiff Preskar began to realize that frequently she was reading of violence within the Elk Grove Unified School District. Diversity was instituted to rid schools of violence. The district had never had excess problems in this area. Though the school district had no compelling racial issues, they chose to introduce diversity education into the district for the students, teachers, staff, and administrators.
Plaintiff Preskar felt during school functions as if she had to continually apologize for being “white.” Yet, the Plaintiff had done nothing wrong. The Plaintiff had a knot in her stomach every time “white privilege” topics arose. Her father had worked in the Steel Mills in Chicago. He never had a college education. Working long and hard hours with people of all color, he taught his children the value of hard work. It also taught Plaintiff Preskar to respect all people, no matter the race.
It made the Plaintiff sick to hear “white privilege” thrown around with no respect for the people who have sacrificed long hours at jobs, trainings, or education to have success. Yet, “white privilege” believers accuse people of European descent of unfairly gaining success because of their skin color. Many diversity programs shun the principle of “hard work” as being only a “white” notion and not of significance. The Plaintiff found it difficult to focus when the school environment was permeated with discrimination toward the color of her skin. A new discrimination had arisen and it was white discrimination. No longer was the Plaintiff supposed to be proud of her race. There was shame, blame, and guilt put upon the white race for past mistakes of our ancestors that were of European descent. The “bad” things were magnified, while the “good” things were ignored.
It was not only race that Plaintiff Preskar noticed was at issue, but also her country. Plaintiff Preskar believes firmly in the Judeo-Christian principles that formed this nation. These principles, embedded in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, are the principles that give men equality in their rights to freedom. Because she held strong patriotic beliefs about the formation of this nation, she was not of diversity status. Because of her patriotism and Judeo-Christian beliefs, the Plaintiff would not give equal value to all ideas, values, morals, ethics, lifestyles, and religions.
As a result, she was not treated equally because she was not adhering to diversity thinking. Plaintiff Preskar is an individual and various factors contributed to the formation of her belief system. Her uniqueness in thought and belief, however, was not accepted, for it was not “diversity thinking.” If she stated her viewpoint that was contrary to the “diversity one,” which excluded hers, she immediately knew from reactions that she was out of line with diversity thinking. She began to notice that this was happening to others within the school environment. Even if the statement of opinion is said in respect, the contrary person is looked upon in a hostile manner. Teachers, administrators, and students who do not believe diversity principles are silenced by verbal assault, harassment, intimidation of job loss, and stereotyping.
Plaintiff found that people of Judeo-Christian faith, European descent, American heritage, and those with “closely held personal beliefs” that were contrary to diversity thinking were being silenced. The Plaintiff had to remind herself that this is not Hitler Germany, or a Middle Eastern Madrasas, but the United States of America. Other teachers and community members were very upset and endured physical, mental, and financial chaos because of loss of their freedoms to a “diversity thinking” that was forced on everyone. What had happened to their government that was supposed to secure their freedoms? At the heart of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection lies the simple command that the Government must treat citizens “as individuals, not `as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual or national class.’” Arizona Governing Committee v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073, 1083 (1983).
In 2002, Plaintiff Georgiana Preskar met Plaintiff Teri Lawrence (mother, homemaker, licensed Public Health Microbiologist, real estate agent, and Education Director of Eagle Forum of Sacramento). Plaintiff Lawrence had similar concerns over the education of her son and was experiencing the same losses of liberty. Plaintiff Lawrence knew there was an enforced agenda to teach the children beliefs that were contrary to many parents’ values and morals and “closely held personal beliefs.” She also knew this was against the Constitutional protection of parents’ liberty to raise their children according to their own standards. Parents and guardians do have the right to direct the upbringing and education of children. Meyer v. Nebraska 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
When Plaintiff Teri Lawrence’s son, Bryce Crump, was in 7th grade at Toby Johnson Middle School in Elk Grove, California, (he is currently entering 12th grade), he came home one day after school and began talking about an assembly they had earlier that week at school. He talked how there was this “gay black dude” (Michael Fowlin) who was doing all these funny skits about rape, ethnicity, and about being gay. Upon further questioning, it was revealed that Michael Fowlin had told the assembly that if the guys preferred to play basketball and hang out with the boys instead of the girls, it was ok. It could mean they were gay. This is actually in direct contrast to most homosexual males, who usually have mostly girls as friends during high school. The Plaintiff’s son wondered if he was gay because he liked to play basketball with his friends after school. Michael Fowlin told these young students that it was ok to be gay, if they are they were born that way. He also asked for a show of hands for “all the straight guys” in the audience. Most children at this age will not raise their hand, and by default, tells them they are not “straight”.
Plaintiff Lawrence’s son was asking if he was gay because he liked to play basketball with his friends after school, a concept placed into his young, innocent mind by his school. This simple question began turmoil in this family unit. Homosexuality goes against Plaintiff Lawrence’s closely held personal beliefs and her religious beliefs, and gives her son contradicting messages between home teaching and government teaching. There is no doubt that the “born-that-way” theory is simply that, an unconfirmed theory, and it is wrong to teach such a fact, as truth, that is not scientifically sound. Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental rights of parents and the liberty to own one’s own thoughts without intrusion into the privacy of thought. The speaker asked questions that denied the students their liberty of thought and privacy enacted through the Ninth Amendment. Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
Becoming very concerned, Plaintiff Lawrence contacted the school and gave them a list of “closely held personal beliefs” and informed the school that her child must be excluded from any program or education class that was attempting to indoctrinate her child in a contrary opinion. At this point, on an almost weekly basis, Bryce was sent to the library during a diversity class called Advocacy. He was sometimes harassed by the librarian because he did not always have the correct library pass from his teacher, and sometimes he was left to wander the halls until the next class began. On one occasion he was even sent to on-campus-suspension, where students are placed for punishment.
Plaintiff Lawrence and her son were discriminated against because the diversity of his viewpoint was never shared in the classroom. It was found that the Advocacy program had never gone through the curriculum review board in the school district. The curriculum did not include in its diversity traditional beliefs, some of them being Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Plaintiff Teri Lawrence became concerned that this lack of content meant that other content was replacing traditional education in all of his classrooms. She did investigate the material and found the program to be unacceptable for her child. If this philosophy had permeated other classes, how could she take her son out of all of his classes? But to allow him into it was a big concern and this became the priority of her thinking. In Lynch V. Donnelly, 456 U.S. 668,669 (1984), the Supreme Court said the following:
“Our history is pervaded by official acknowledgment of the role of religion in American life, and equally pervasive is evidence of accommodation of all faiths and all forms of religious expression and hostility toward none.”
Plaintiff Lawrence noticed that it was not just religion, but American heritage that was eliminated in favor of others. The Plaintiffs’ son had a required reading book that encouraged and sympathized with illegal immigration, with the immigration border patrol being the “bad guys”, and the illegal aliens being “forced” to purchase illegal social security cards and driver’s licenses. This goes against Plaintiff Lawrence’s “closely held personal beliefs” of American heritage being respected, which includes following the laws of the land.
Most of the classes infiltrated a particular “diversity thinking” that did not include the Lawrence family’s closely held beliefs. Her son was not treated equally, because he was classified into a group that was unacceptable for diversity status. But his ideas must be a part of diversity or else it is not true to its intent. Instead the school was trying to change the teachings his parents gave him. In Meyer v. Nebraska 1923, the Supreme Court emphasized that the state cannot interfere with the right of a parent to control his child’s education. The Court states that the right to educate one’s child as one chooses is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and applicable to the States by the First Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process law. The right to privacy was held as a fundamental right under Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, (1965) at 486, and the Ninth Amendment.
It was a hardship for the family to see their son deprived of the liberty of being an equal human being with others. The laws of civil rights were not working for him; discrimination against national heritage and religion soon brought the reality that his liberties as an equal human being were denied him due to being classified as unfit for “diversity status.” The Plaintiff’s liberty of parenthood was deprived her, even though it is protected by law and tradition.
“The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition”; Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 54 L. Ed. 2d 511, 98 S. Ct. 549 (1978)
Plaintiff Lawrence’s son’s diverse viewpoints were never shared in classrooms that were supposed to be diverse. This had an effect on Plaintiff Lawrence and she was not able to concentrate at work. Physical stress began to affect her body. The discrimination toward her son was affecting the family balance. Her religious and patriotic beliefs that she instilled on her son were not only being neglected and excluded, but also mocked and denigrated without equal protection of law afforded others in the school. The school environment was hostile toward students who dared to express ideas, values, morals, ethics, religions and “closely held personal beliefs” that were not in line with diversity thinking. Yet Plaintiff’s son was supposed to accept other “closely held personal beliefs” that were deemed an asset to diversity.
Plaintiff Lawrence became more and more upset about schooling dictating a form of belief, diversity thinking, that was not in line with her teachings to her son. She was losing control over her parental rights according to the Supreme Court. “In subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children…”Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972)
Plaintiff Lawrence began to review the “diversity thinking” that would be taught her son at Franklin High School, the high school her son would soon be attending. She discovered that the white privilege doctrine was being taught. Plaintiff Lawrence’s ancestors came to America as white Norwegian slaves in the 1600’s, and worked on plantations along with black slaves for many, many years. Plaintiff suffered great distress in learning that her son would be taught that he only has the things his parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents worked very hard for, because his skin was white. Plaintiff Lawrence knows the value of hard work.
In 2004, Plaintiff Teri Lawrence knew she could not send her son to a government school. After Bryce completed junior high in government schools, Plaintiff Lawrence chose to place him in private school. She was experiencing psychological and physical trauma on a daily basis. Withdrawing her son from the government school was at great expense and inconvenience. The school is 15 miles from Plaintiff’s home, and in traffic, takes almost an hour round trip in the morning and almost an hour round trip in the afternoon. Plaintiff Teri Lawrence ended up quitting her job as a Public Health Microbiologist, and one of the deciding factors was the transportation factor. Her son is still in a private school.
In the same year as Plaintiff Lawrence withdrew her son, Plaintiff Georgiana Preskar decided that she could not teach in the Elk Grove Unified School District. The intimidating atmosphere did not allow the Plaintiff freedom of expression. Plaintiff began to realize that her pursuit of happiness was being suppressed. There was a politically correct atmosphere that had taken over the school environment. The Plaintiff’s physical and mental anguish was increasing, and though she looked forward to financial success through teaching (she had been a full time homemaker), she knew she could not work in the Elk Grove Unified School District, or any district that required diversity education, or encourages discrimination toward particular classes of people.
Both Plaintiffs’ experienced injury and are still experiencing injury. At the initial o