First Amended Complaint

9064 Shetland Court
Elk Grove, California 95624
(916) 685-5167

11318 Franklin Blvd.
Elk Grove, California 95757
(916) 599-8836



AND DOES 1 TO 50,000, ) 2:07-CV-00874-GEB-EFB
Plaintiffs, )
vs. ) )
Secretary of Education, THE STATE OF )
JACK O’CONNELL Superintendent of Public )
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

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.”
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.
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