Our Response to State Legislature’s Motion to Dismiss

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

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



GEORGIANA PRESKAR, et al, ) Civil Action No.
) 2:07-CV-00874-GEB-EFB
Plaintiffs, )
Defendants. ) Date: October 17, 2007
) Time: 10:00 a.m.
) Courtroom: 25
) Judge: Hon. Edmund F. Brennan

/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Plaintiffs Georgiana Preskar and Teri Lawrence (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) first state the following:
Defendants California State Assembly and California State Senate (hereinafter “Defendants”) allege that Plaintiffs Georgiana Preskar and Teri Lawrence (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
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].


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.
Defendants state that there is no connection between them other than the existence of certain Education and Penal Codes; however, it is these very Defendants that have authored the Codes. How greater a connection can one get?
Defendants state that the Doctrine of Legislative Immunity precludes 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. The Constitution of the United States trumps doctrines in establishing claims, preclusions and immunities.
Defendants state again that they are the improper party for litigation challenging the constitutionality of a statute, yet they fail to state who they feel is the proper party. If the legislative party has enacted legislation that is unconstitutional, and refuse to remedy, then it must be challenged in court. Yes, the legislative body’s conduct falls within the parameters of conduct entrusted by the State Constitution, and this legislative body has failed miserably to uphold this trust; the trust of the people.
Plaintiffs are not seeking leave to amend their First Amended Complaint unless the Court finds it insufficient. 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.
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.
The principal Plaintiffs and Petitioners, 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:
1. 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.
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 the care and concern of 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.
The 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).
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 onset, neither understood why. 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 that trusted it for generations. Concerns grew as to the effect diversity was having upon the children in the classrooms. Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967) noted that “the First Amendment does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.”
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 participate 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. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. (1992) states that “even subtle pressure diminishes the right of each individual to choose voluntarily what to believe.”
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.
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.” “The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers, and no buyers.” Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 308 (1965).
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.
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. The Plaintiff was now assured that something deeper was involved in diversity education and decided to investigate the SEED diversity program that was meeting the 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.”
SEED began 20 years ago. It is a multi-cultural pedagogic curriculum and institutional change program. The SEED Seminars have been used in 33 US States, some being New Jersey, Minnesota, Illinois, Florida, California, and Massachusetts over the past 20 years, as well as Buenos Aires, Hong Kong, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Singapore, Taipei, Tokyo, Toronto, Vancouver, and Dar Es Salaam. Many of these seminars continue for years.
Teachers, parents, and students attend training seminars to become facilitators. The cost to train is $3000.00 per facilitator. The school must pay another $1000.00 per seminar for tools used in the school district SEED education program.
Once a teacher, parent, or student signs up for the class and begins the sessions, they find out it is far different than anticipated. Many thought they were going to learn about other cultures. Instead, secrecy prevails behind closed doors. The subject matter is quite different than they anticipated. The exchange of ideas is private and personal, never to leave the confines of the room. No one outside the group can attend in order to observe the classes. Over 20 methodologies are used in trainings, as well as over 75 video tapes, abundant books and literature, and over 1500 hand-out sheets that teachers are encouraged to use in the classroom.
SEED merges information pertaining to other cultures with a harmful political and social agenda to change the minds of those attending. Using various methods, the Wheel of Oppression a predominate one; attendees eventually are worn down and won over to new thought patterns by the power of group acceptance.
Once a teachers’ new mentality is established, they are encouraged to include SEED information in their classroom curriculum. In Elk Grove, California there is a class called Making SEED Principles the Foundation of Standard Based Curriculum. The intent of the class is to transform the thinking of the people attending to a form of thinking that is of “diversity status” quality. Then the teachers bring “diversity thinking” into the classroom. The purpose is evident from viewing the educational materials as to the intent to change the minds of the students.
In Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court is clear that neither government nor schools can require students to recite prayers, for it is against the First Amendment Establishment Clause. One point made is that when children are reciting prayer, it is difficult for some children to not take part because the group pressure outweighs the parental influence while in school. The Plaintiffs found 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 of others ideas, values, morals, ethics, lifestyles and religions as equal. People are trained in this philosophy.
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 others, as the oppressed group.
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.
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.
“White privilege” is a philosophy growing fast in America. Through White Privilege conferences held regularly at 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, then this is out of line with our Constitutional rights; “…comprehensive authority…of school officials, must be exercised consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards.” Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. at 507.
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.”

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.”
According to SEED, social change will occur after “SEEDed educators” (as they are described) have fully transformed their curriculum in all K-12 subjects to reflect all areas of diversity including sexual diversity.
Another man fighting this program in New Jersey stated the following:
“The very type of stereotyping we fought against on the Civil-rights lines is now the basis of SEED’s educational policy. What we fought against was the assumption that race or ethnicity or sex determined character, cognition and ability. And now we find something like the SEED program arguing that they do. SEED believes that excellence is a dangerous concept, and competition in classrooms can be hurtful.”

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.”

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.’” Arizona Governing Committee v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073, 1083 (1983). Peggy McIntosh 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.”
She also stated the following in reference to how fast the SEED program is growing:
“Where does The SEED Project sit in the map of national school reform? Though it never advertises, it has also become the nation’s largest K-12 faculty development project and the one most directed toward teacher renewal in new scholarship and teaching methods.”
How do children understand how to sort out this type of education? How does a young child sort out the fact that he or she is not oppressed because of the color of their skin, when they are taught that they are oppressed? How confusing for children at young ages to hear about homosexuality (slipped into the curriculum) from someone other than his or her parents. The Court in Bellotti v. Baird 443 U.S. 622, 635 (1979) noted “during the formative years of childhood and adolescence, minors often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them.”
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. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in a recent landmark Supreme Court case stated, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. I (Nos. 05-908 and 05-915) No. 05-908, 426 F. 3d 1162; No. 05-915, 416 F. 3d 513 (2007) White Privilege is archaic and not good for our country.
In the years 2002 through 2006, Plaintiffs Georgiana Preskar and Teri Lawrence listened attentively as people related their stories of stress that went above the normal levels of daily stress. They related that it had to do with diversity education and diversity thinking that was forced upon them in the schools and the workplace; some were denied liberty of mind and thought for if they did speak their “closely held personal beliefs,” their viewpoint was discriminated against and they were ostracized from diversity acceptance.
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.
The more the Plaintiffs researched, the more they connected with people at meetings, conferences, or just in conversing with others that made them realize there were huge numbers of people and families that had been seriously injured psychologically and financially by enforced diversity education. People across America are affected by classifications that are putting them in an unfavorable position.
In the past four years, 2002-2006, the Plaintiffs did the following to remedy injuries:
1. The Plaintiffs notified the two Elk Grove school district superintendents of their concerns about this diversity program. We did this by meetings, letters, and faxes. We had ample evidence to show support of our concerns. No action was taken. In fact, the present Superintendent informed the Plaintiffs that SEED would remain in the district because it is a diversity program and all things do hold equal value.
2. The Plaintiffs gathered information, through appropriate channels, to support the truth of diversity education that is classifying people into groups, dependent on their race, faith, heritage, and closely held personal beliefs.
3. Plaintiffs went to the principals of the schools to tell them about the program and its dangers. Few knew about the program or its details. When they found out they were not interested in it or knowing about it. They ignored the Plaintiffs also. They made it clear that they had to “watch their position or lose it.” Diversity has become a new culture in the schools.
4. The Plaintiffs attended school board meetings and revealed the diversity program subject matter and our concerns. They laughed at the Plaintiffs and told them that it was a loving program and met the criteria for diversity. In fact they humiliated them at one meeting and said, “You do not know what you are talking about.” “We will explain it all to you later.”
At another school board meeting, the school board showed great concern that the district was experiencing a large amount of violence. Diversity programs were instituted to make the schools more peaceful. SEED had thousands of teachers attend and incorporate the principles into the classroom, but school violence was worse than when diversity education was not a part of the district. These facts did not matter to the school board. They never took the discrimination in SEED seriously. The Plaintiffs continued to be ignored. Now the recent school board president and another board member say that they “…wished SEED never came to Elk Grove because it caused damage to the educational system. However, it is too late to do anything about it for so many teachers have gone through it, approximately 2000-3000, and it is a part of the district thinking.”
5. Plaintiffs talked with school board members one on one. Though they always agreed with the Plaintiffs, they would do nothing to rid the school of SEED because its force was too great and they did not want to make “waves.”
6. Plaintiffs did notify the Lodi School District about SEED when the board was considering it as a diversity program in their district. Many people also wrote letters to the school board. As a result they did not initiate it in the district. The district however is initiating other diversity programs that include many of the same principles of the SEED program.
7. Plaintiffs were able to remove the silence in the classrooms on The Day of Silence. With the aid of two lawyers, who wrote letters as to the legality of this action in the classroom, the silence was not allowed, for it was coercive of other students who could not leave the classroom. The silence was removed in 2003, however, it is reported that some teachers continue to allow it.
1. The SEED diversity program is extensive throughout America. It is in over 33 states. Plaintiffs knew that it was crucial to give this information to the Federal Department of Education. After Plaintiffs Preskar and Lawrence wrote a letter to Margaret Spellings and put out an alert to many citizens to fax or write her letters, Plaintiffs eventually received notice that Plaintiffs were to meet her Eastern representative, Mary Pearson. The Plaintiffs met with Mary Pearson in San Francisco. The Plaintiffs were very clear on the SEED diversity curriculum, how it was being introduced, its clear intent to alter children’s and adults’ thinking, the extensiveness of it nationwide, and how it had affected not only the Plaintiffs, but also the entire school district. There was a neutral attitude toward what we presented.
Mary Pearson told the Plaintiffs that she would forward the packet of information to Margaret Spellings. The Plaintiffs were told that their concerns would be forwarded to the Civil Rights Section of the government to be examined. It took a fair amount of time, but eventually the Plaintiffs received a phone call from the Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The gentleman asked Plaintiff Preskar her concerns. It appeared that he had no information and that was why he questioned the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff clearly explained the situation. The representative told the Plaintiff that there was nothing that could be done to give relief. His explanation was that an incident had to be racially specific and particular to a child before the department could become involved. He in no way indicated that the Plaintiff could pursue it any further. He said that the Civil Rights Department had nothing to do with any state curriculum. The Plaintiff wanted to set up a meeting, so she could present some factual evidence. The representative said that would not be necessary; there was nothing they could do for the Plaintiffs. Whenever the “White Privilege” issue was brought up, the representative brushed quickly past it and did not want to talk about it. The Plaintiffs never heard from the Eastern District office in San Francisco, or Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education.
2. Plaintiffs continued to fax Margaret Spelling’s office and congressmen about discriminatory diversity programs in states that were accepting federal money for educational programs. Many people faxed and wrote them letters with their concerns. The Plaintiffs continued to remind them that federal funding must stop if the states are not complying with the ruling of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Plaintiffs heard from no one at the federal level about discrimination against their civil rights and the harm it is causing individuals nationwide that is ultimately affecting family, community, and the United States of America. The Plaintiffs concerns were neglected. Plaintiffs knew that they could not find relief for job loss, nor return a child to the government schools until diversity classification ended, and they were included in diversity.
1. Plaintiffs went to legislators and told them about the program. Many responded with the fact that there was little they could do to make any change, stop enforcement of it, or include the ignored classification in diversity programs through legislation. The legislators chose to ignore the Plaintiffs’ pleas of injustice and the episodes of negligence in interpretations of the law. Diversity programs continued to abuse the rights of adults and children in the school with public officials made aware of the discrimination taking place daily in the public schools.
2. Plaintiffs addressed the issue of The Day of Silence that allowed coercion of students in the classroom. The legislators were not interested and ignored Plaintiff Teri Lawrence, and the content of diversity programs that denied her the liberty of parenting to choose to educate her son in moral values that are contrary to a particular form of diversity thinking.
3. Plaintiffs continued to work in legislation to amend Education Code 51530, as follows, to include socialism and humanism. The Plaintiffs visited many offices seeking a legislator to present this Amendment. Each time the Amendment was presented to a legislator, the Plaintiffs clearly brought the fact that diversity education encouraged humanism and socialism, as well as communism. Plaintiff Preskar is not able to work in the California school system due to the state enforcement of diversity education that does not grant her security of the protections of the Constitution and Education codes.
Our recommended Amendment to Education Code 51530: (Italics are amended sections):
51530. No teacher giving instruction in any school, or on any property belonging to any agencies included in the public school system, shall advocate or teach communism, socialism or humanism, with the intent to indoctrinate, (or to) inculcate, or transform in the mind of any pupil or teacher a preference for communism, socialism or humanism.

In prohibiting the advocacy or teaching of communism, socialism or humanism with the intent of indoctrinating, (or) inculcating, or transforming a preference in the mind of any pupil or teacher for such doctrines, the Legislature does not intend to prevent the teaching of the facts about communism, socialism or humanism. Rather, the Legislature intends to prevent the advocacy of, or inculcation and indoctrination into, communism, socialism or humanism as is hereinafter defined, for the purpose of undermining patriotism for, and the belief in, the government and the Constitution of the United States and of this state.

For the purposes of this section, communism is a political theory that the presently existing form of government in the United States or of this state should be changed, by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means, to a totalitarian dictatorship which is based on the principles of communism as expounded by Marx, Lenin, and Stalin.
For the purposes of this section, socialism is a political theory that the presently existing form of government in the United States or of this state should be changed, by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means, to a global system of society that will replace capitalism, and is based upon the common ownership expounded by Marx, and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest, or common good, of the whole community.
For purposes of this section, humanism is a political theory that the presently existing form of government in the United States or of this state should be changed, by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means, to a humanist society, that shares the same worldview in regards to oppression, expounded by Marx, world order, government, and moral values that are based on a set of ideals, the Humanist Manifesto, and set up to meet particular personal and social needs for the common good.
State and federal funding will be denied and withdrawn from local school districts that disregard this Education Code.
The legislators would not amend this bill to add our specific concerns. Eventually, Assemblyman Mountjoy asked the Plaintiffs to add socialism and humanism to his amendment that included homosexuality to amend Education Code 51530. Though we had the evidence regarding indoctrination programs, including the abuses of Code 51530, the Education Committee ignored the Amendment and the Plaintiffs. SEED’s curriculum is indicative of communism, driven by Marxist principles. The intent to transform students is stated in the mission statement. To make this change, the program uses the oppressor and the oppressed to make the common good of the group more important than the individual. Shared wealth becomes a priority.
Not only did the Education Committee vote out the Amendment, but they also silenced the hearing by refusing to allow the hearing to be open to the public over televised screening, which is protocol. This is against the California State Constitution that states in Article I (b) (1) that the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.
Plaintiffs met with many legislators with concerns that something was either deficient in the laws, or there was negligence in making or interpreting them. Plaintiffs attempted to meet with Superintendent of Public Schools, Jack O’Connell, but he never responded to us. His agent signed for the letter, so he did receive our information.
Plaintiffs made every attempt to inform people in the state department about denied rights of the Plaintiffs and other citizens. The Plaintiffs were ignored repeatedly. Diversity was enforced, but it was not upheld according to the State Constitution, statutes, and codes of education.
The Plaintiffs knew that after four years diversity education, with discriminatory educational materials and methodologies, was spreading fast; without people knowing or understanding it, little could be done to stop it. The numbers of people affected were growing and they were seeking relief from this injustice. Thus the Plaintiffs decided to file a class action lawsuit for regulatory and injunctive relief.
/ / /
/ / /
Plaintiffs Georgiana Preskar and Teri Lawrence hold standing as citizens of the United States and residents of California. Plaintiff Preskar is a California substitute schoolteacher, and Plaintiff Teri Lawrence is a parent of a child who attended Government schools. Plaintiffs have, and continue to experience, financial loss, physical duress, and psychological trauma from denial and negligence of their civil rights under Constitutional and statute law. The Plaintiffs seek to redress their deprivation through (28 U.S.C. 1343 (3) under color of rights and privileges secured under the Constitution of the United States, providing equal rights of all people within the jurisdiction of the United States. 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. The Plaintiffs seek not to dismiss this case, via the Motion to Dismiss, requested by the defendants. 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. The Plaintiffs in this case seek not to dismiss this case, via the Motion to Dismiss, requested by the defendants.
The California State Assembly defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ complaint on several grounds.
/ / /
/ / /

1. Plaintiffs allege that the federal laws, state statutes, California state education codes regarding civil rights and diversity that are required for Kindergarten through grade 12 and postsecondary education needs regulatory relief. Plaintiffs have not asked for diversity education to be discontinued, but only 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. In a recent Supreme Court decision in June, 2007 in Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 (Nos. 05-908 and 05-915) No. 05–908, 426 F. 3d 1162; No. 05–915, 416 F. 3d 513., Justice Anthony M. Kennedy states that “diversity is, in itself, a legitimate goal for school systems.” Plaintiffs never asked for federal or state rewriting of education curriculum, or for diversity education to stop. Plaintiffs ask only to be included in “diversity status.”
2. Classifications in school environments cause animosity between students, teachers, and administers. This hostile environment makes it unsafe for a person to express a viewpoint that is not deemed appropriate for diversity classification. Gov
Government action dividing people by race is inherently suspect because such classifications promote “notions of racial inferiority and lead to a politics of racial hostility,” Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989).
3. The lack of regulatory attention to diversity education gives approval of “diversity status” and classifications that 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. Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., stated: “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.” Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 (Nos. 05-908 and 05-915) No. 05–908, 426 F. 3d 1162; No. 05–915, 416 F. 3d 513.
4. Because of required diversity education and its methodology and curriculum 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. The Court states: “We have also acknowledged that public schools are vitally important “in the preparation of individuals for participation as citizens”, and as vehicles for “inculcating democratic political system.” Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76-77 (1979).
5. Diversity principles give permission to “transform” another’s “closely held personal beliefs” into beliefs deemed of “diversity status.” This violates Constitution rights, as well as the federal and state statutes and education codes. West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. at 642 stated: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion. …If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.”
6. Officials notified of denial of our rights, through civil rights violations, neglected the Plaintiffs claims and denied them security of Constitutional rights. One may surmise that the “silence in action” is every bit as incriminating of discrimination, as to write the law to do so.
7. Because federal and state departments of education, as well as officials representing them, and congressman and legislators have denied Plaintiffs protections offered by statutes and codes, Plaintiffs seek relief from financial loss as well as physical duress and psychological trauma under our First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
In good faith, Plaintiffs have used all means to achieve relief before seeking relief through the courts for the equal protection and due process that our society has always accorded in the past. By classification of people into particular groups that are not of “diversity status,” Plaintiffs are automatically attributed characteristics, based on their classification, and then denied access into diversity status. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writes that schools could use “mechanisms” that take race into account, but not one that “tells each student he or she is to be defined by race.” Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 (Nos. 05-908 and 05-915) No. 05–908, 426 F. 3d 1162; No. 05–915, 416 F. 3d 513. Classifications, which are defined with certain attributes, denies the long time societal principle of equality of men as stated in the Declaration of Independence, which has always been accepted as American tradition.
“The court is bound to give the plaintiffs the benefit of reasonable inferences from the simply pleaded allegations of the original complaints.” Retail Clerks Int’l Ass’n v. Schermerhorn, 373 U.S. 746, 753 n.6 (1963). The Plaintiffs’ simply pleaded allegations were based on the liberal pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The Plaintiffs used a legal construction called notice pleading that allows a simple notice of grievances and leaves the details until later in the case. It is less technical, but does require a short, plain statement, one of which shows that the pleader or pleaders are entitle to relief. (FRCP 8(a) (2)). The plaintiffs, in notice pleading, do not face dismissal for lack of exact legal terms if the claim itself is legally actionable. “…we do not apply any “heightened” pleading standard, nor do we seek to broaden the scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9, which can only be accomplished “‘by the process of amending the Federal Rules, and not by judicial interpretation.’ ” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U. S. 506, 515 (2002).
Plaintiffs chose to use notice pleading, but did mention federal and state codes and statutes whose common subject matter is civil rights. These codes and statutes indicate schools shall create and/or provide environments free of discriminatory attitudes and practices. Plaintiffs planned to plead the “ultimate” facts and/or specifics of allegations in the future of the case. The Plaintiffs did mention all the laws, statutes, and codes, thus acting in the interest of equity.
Not only are the defendants to accept all the allegations in the complaint as true, but also they must convince the Court that “it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Swierkiewicz, supra, 2002 U.S. Lexis 1374 at *14 (quoting Hishon v. King & Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)). The Plaintiffs find that the defendants have no grounds to dismiss this case based on factual evidence or claims on which relief can be granted stated in our complaint.
Justice William O. Douglas, and Justice Goldberg, in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, (1965) at 486, found a penumbra for “privacy” in the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The two Justices assert that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras formed by the emanations from those guarantees that give them life and substance.” A right to liberty is guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment.
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, with subsequent injuries. This one relief would meet all the claims below. 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.
The Plaintiffs relief, to be included in “diversity status,” is a simple one. 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).
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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).
5. The First Amendment is applied to state action under the umbrella of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs Georgiana Preskar and Teri Lawrence respectfully present our grievances for redress.
6. Officials notified of denial of our rights, through civil rights violations, neglected the Plaintiffs’ claims and denied them security of Constitutional rights. One may surmise that the “silence in action” is every bit as incriminating of discrimination, as to write the law to do so.
7. Because federal and state departments of education, as well as officials representing them, and congressman and legislators have denied Plaintiffs protections offered by statutes and codes, Plaintiffs seek relief from ongoing financial loss as well as physical duress and psychological trauma under our First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
8. Plaintiffs claim this court jurisdiction due to denial of our protected rights under the Civil Rights Act Title VI by the state who continues to accept federal funding even though they violate this Act by promoting inadequate teaching in government schools through diversity education that discriminates against certain classifications of people.
9. The state has waived its Eleventh Amendment right to Sovereign immunity when they accepted federal funds for schools. Section 2000d-7 of Title 42 provides that a “State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution to the United States from suit in Federal court for a violation of section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.C.C. 794), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Section 2000d-7 may be upheld as a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Spending Clause, Art.1, section 8, Cl. 1, to prescribe conditions for state agencies that voluntarily accept federal financial assistance. Both Title VI and Title IX have been upheld as valid Spending Clause legislation. In Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). Congress may, in the exercise of its spending power, condition its grant of funds to the States upon their taking certain actions that Congress could not require them to take and … acceptance of the funds entails a receipt of federal funds on defendant’s waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity to Section 504 claims. Section 2000d-7 is a clear statement that accepting Federal financial assistance would constitute a waiver to private suits brought under section 504. Sandoval, 197 F.3d 484 at 493-94. “The powers of the State are not invaded, since the statute imposes no obligation to accept the funds, but simply extends an option which the State is free to accept or reject.” Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 480 (1923). In 1983 an Official capacity defendant, such as Jack O’Connell, is not a “person” in his official capacity because he takes on the form of the government that employs him. However, the government waives the Eleventh Sovereign immunity when they accept financial assistance, and Mr. O’Connell has taken on the form of government.
Though Plaintiffs cannot and do not seek monetary damages from an individual in his official state position, it is permissible for an aggrieved individual to seek an injunction against a state official in his or her official capacity pursuant to Section 1983. In Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 Sup.Ct. 2018 (1978), the court applied Section 1983 to the local school board by labeling it a municipality. The Court found that the employees’ constitutional rights had been violated as a direct result of the department’s official policy. Official policies of the State and State officials have violated the Plaintiffs federal and state Constitutional rights.
10. In Harlow v. Fitzgerald 457 U.S. 800, 102 S. Ct. 2727 (1982) the Court noted that state and local officials are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. The Plaintiffs are looking to enact their cause of action on denial and neglect of Civil Rights, federal and state statues, and federal and state Constitutions. The legal rules were “clearly established” at the time of the defendants’ actions. The Plaintiffs are aware that the defendants are intelligent bodies, who have reasonable awareness of the law and of the atmosphere of government schools. It is apparent and obvious that people of Judeo-Christian faith, European descent, National heritage, and/or contrary viewpoints to diversity are not given equal protection of law or due process of law. This is an obvious issue and is in the news daily throughout California, as well as nationwide. The intent is clear in diversity education to alter the minds of teachers, administrators, staff, and students.
Plaintiffs faced an actual 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. Clarification sometimes is needed, in a form of regulatory 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 European descent, Judeo-Christian faith, and American heritage from equal protection of the law by excluding them from diversity inclusion.
Classifications automatically impose inequalities on particular classes by claiming some are not an asset to diversity, thus not “diversity status.” “Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.” Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 635 (1950) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 22 (1948)).
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 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.
The Court has specified in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife three elements must be satisfied for a case. (1) a party must be facing an actual or imminent injury rather than a hypothetical injury (“injury in fact”); (2) the complaint of conduct must have caused the alleged injury (“causal connection”); and (3) it must still be possible to provide some remedy to that injury by a favorable court decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992).
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. (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.
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 is an actual injury, and a discrete injury occurred when Plaintiff’s closely held personal beliefs were infringed upon. Katter also states that “Plaintiff need not show that a favorable decision will relieve her every injury.” (P.6).
Plaintiffs based their cause of action on state and federal law that guarantees them due process and equal protection of law. Neglect of these laws by named defendants has caused denial of Plaintiffs civil rights by inadequately providing instruction in California education programs, due to discriminatory diversity training and education. The Court held that a city’s policy of inadequate training was so deficient so as to constitute a “deliberate indifference” to its citizens’ rights and thus a “deprivation” of constitutional rights. City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989).
Plaintiffs’ injuries are caused by actions that are based on neglect and denial of federal and state constitutional and statute law. The following are claims against the defendants:
Plaintiffs come to federal court because they exhausted avenues to find relief through other means. 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 creates a private right of action for the Plaintiffs to redress deprivations under color of state law of any federal rights, privileges or immunities. The Supreme Court stated the purpose of Section 1983 was “to interpose the federal courts between the States and the people, as guardians of the people’s federal rights–to protect the people from unconstitutional action under color of state law, ‘whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial.’” (Mitchum v. Foster (1972) 407 U.S. 225, 242.).
Section 1983 does not create the substantive legal rights. The statute is the legal instrument used to justify rights protected by the federal constitution. Thus, the major purpose of Section 1983 is to provide a tangible legal remedy, in the form of an injunction, which is enforceable in the federal courts, for the violation of constitutional rights by government, government officials, administrators, and employees.
The discriminatory methodology used in classification for “diversity status” is in violation of Constitutional and statute law. The violations are ongoing across America and not only affect people now, but it affects every citizen in the future of his or her civil rights.
The Plaintiffs know the material and have evidence of the “intent” to change the minds of students through curriculum being taught in the classrooms. This is a serious threat to our freedoms and that of our nation’s history and its future. The “intent” to transform the minds of children in the classroom, and adults through diversity education, is a serious threat to the security of America’s future. In Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), Justice Holmes, in the opinion’s most famous passage, states the “clear and present danger” standard:
“The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

The Supreme Court frowns upon the use of “classification” status to separate people into race, heritage, and religion. Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., in the most recent Supreme Court case involving classifications, the following: stated, “Other means besides race considerations should be used to achieve diversity in schools.” Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 (Nos. 05-908 and 05-915) No. 05–908, 426 F. 3d 1162; No. 05–915, 416 F. 3d 513. The Court also frowns upon infringing on the freedom of mind by incorporating a set orthodoxy such as “diversity status.” “To permit such intentions to control official actions would be to encourage the precise sort of officially prescribed orthodoxy unequivocally condemned in Barnette.” West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. at 642.
The coercion of children in the classroom is a concern of people nationwide. The orthodoxy is spreading throughout every classroom in America. There is no compelling reason to use “diversity status,” for it only separates more that which our nation is seeking to restore.
Plaintiffs did not frivolously treat the subject matter by coming to the federal court without justified cause. They understand when a wrong or evil is committed; it usually rests on a reason, such as upon a federal or state law, or federal or state authority, for its justification and use.
The Plaintiffs named The State of California, The Congress of the State of California (California State Assembly and California State Senate), The California Department of Education, the California State Board of Education, and Jack O’Connell, Superintendent of Public Instruction as defendants due to negligence and denial of the California State Constitution and the Constitution of the United States of America, and statutes of law.
The Plaintiffs contend that the California State Assembly and Senate violated Plaintiffs’ rights to freely practice and speak their religious beliefs by not protecting the Plaintiffs’ United States Constitutional rights under the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the California Constitution. The California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 (Assembly Bill 537) was the precursor to diversity education in the schools.
Following this Act, bills and educational codes were initiated and/or enforced for sexual orientation groups that were and are still favored, thus discriminating against those of faith or viewpoint, who do not believe in this lifestyle. Within a short time after the passage of AB 537 and other bills, diversity education took on its own meaning quite different than the original meaning of diversity. When Plaintiffs Preskar and Lawrence stated respectfully that homosexual education done with the intent to change minds is inappropriate and against teachers’ and students’ constitutional rights, they were excluded immediately from diversity status. Some people in the school district deemed them hateful and labeled as homophobic. Individuals are expected to compromise their religious belief or closely held viewpoint, to be a part of diversity. This viewpoint discrimination is against the very principle of diversity, which is to include all people and ideas, and treat the people equally.
Instead, the legislative department has consistently passed greater numbers of legislative bills favoring sexual orientation that has consistently placed people of Judeo-Christian faith and people with contrary viewpoints of homosexuality in these compromising positions both in schools and the workplace. In order to teach in the government schools, or have one’s children attend public school classes, individuals “must” compromise their religious beliefs and their parental roles in education of their children, or else suffer exclusion.
However, it is clear that our Constitution protects individuals’ free speech and the right to stand for their religious beliefs. “The idea, as I understand it, was to limit the power of government to act in religious matters, not to limit the freedom of religious men to act religiously…” McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 563-564 (1961). “When the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.” Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 52-53 (1985).
The legislative department has consistently focused on sexual orientation to the exclusion of other groups. All the while, White Privilege classes and the Wheel of Oppression are discriminating against groups that are being ignored by the legislature and the protections owed Plaintiffs.
When Plaintiffs attempted to reach out to the legislative department on numerous occasions as to their concerns, they were ignored. Legislators are knowledgeable people in authority positions and they understand the consequences of the bills they sign. It is apparent that by passing legislation that must include overt homosexual content in the classroom and curriculum that it will be offensive to many people of faith, as well as those who hold contrary viewpoints. Yet, they continue to not act in the interest of the people they are supposed to serve. The Plaintiffs rights to equal protection of law in order to work as a schoolteacher and parent a child in public school is denied Preskar and Lawrence. The legislative department is negligent in their duties to provide the Plaintiffs their Constitutional protections.
Private parties can sue federal agencies to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” Slip Op. 1, quoting 5 U.S.C. Section 706(1). In an opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, a unanimous Court held that “mandamus” actions – actions seeking to compel a federal agency to act, are narrowly limited. The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) permits suits by individuals “suffering legal wrong because of agency action or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute.” Id., quoting 5 U.S.C. Section 702.
1. The California Constitution begins with Article I, which is a declaration of rights. The first section states, “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” These words are not old for the section was adopted in 1974.
2. Section 24 of Article I states, “This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.” This section was amended by initiative in 1990, and represents the current sentiments of the people of California. This declaration is similar to the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which likewise states that the enumeration of particular rights does not deny or disparage other rights retained by the people. The State of California has a responsibility to protect people within its State from unequal protection of the law. The Plaintiffs find that the government is neglectful of the protections guaranteed to them by the Federal and State Constitution and statutes.
3. In Section 3, the State Constitution states that “The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.” The Superintendent of Public Education did not respond to our request by certified mail to meet with him to discuss the concerns that were mentioned in the letter. The Superintendent (or representative) signed for the letter, but never responded with the reply requested. The Plaintiffs were denied their right to instruct their government official of grievances. When the Plaintiffs testified at the Education Committee meeting in the State Capitol, the Plaintiffs were allowed a very short time to present evidence of what was happening in the schools. The committee yawned and excused themselves and did not address the grievances of its constituents. This section is clear that the people have a right to instruct their representatives, but the legislators ignored the Plaintiffs.
4. The California State Constitution also states that “The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.” When Plaintiffs spoke at the Education Committee in order to amend Education Code Section 51530, the committee closed their hearing to the public by closing off the public viewing on the televised circuits. This action is not protocol and did not allow public access to the meeting.
In the same section, the Constitution states that “Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7.” The Plaintiffs have suffered injuries because they are denied equal protection of the law.
5. Section 7 is clear on the citizen rights to equal protection of the law. “ A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; …” The State and government have a responsibility to adhere to both Federal and State fundamental rights of liberty that is pertinent in both Constitutions.
6. Section 28 states that “All students and staff of public primary, elementary, junior high and senior high schools have the inalienable right to attend campuses, which are safe, secure and peaceful.” Plaintiff Preskar was not afforded a safe environment in the government system. Plaintiff Lawrence’s son was not afforded a safe environment to express his First Amendment rights of “free speech” to reveal his closely held personal beliefs and or viewpoint.
7. The California Constitution guarantees each student the right to a free public education. The state sets a basic outline for public school education through the Education Code and through administrative frameworks. The state sets down the outline for students to learn through the codes, which must be enforced for children to learn appropriately. A safe environment means one in which a state enforced belief system is not incorporated into all subject matter.
8. The California Department of Education oversees funding, testing, and holds local educational agencies accountable for student achievement. Its stated mission is to provide leadership, assistance, oversight, and resources so that every Californian has access to an education that meets world-class standards. The Department of Education is neglectful of its goal and objective for accountability, which is to hold local education agencies accountable for student achievement in all programs and for all groups of students. Student achievement can only be met with school classrooms that are adequately taught without discrimination toward certain classifications. This discrimination only suppresses the First Amendment rights and deprives students and teachers of certain classifications of their Constitution rights. This perpetuates an atmosphere that does not offer the best learning environment.
9. The California Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O’Connell, serves as the head of the department. The Superintendent serves as the state’s chief spokesperson for public schools, and provides education policy and direction to local school districts. He also serves as an ex-officio member of governing boards of the state’s higher education system. The Plaintiffs hold Jack O’Connell responsible for the direction of the education policies to the local school districts. The Plaintiffs find him to be neglectful in his duties in giving direction as to non-discriminatory policies that are to be included in diversity education.
10. It is the duty of the State Board of Education to adopt policies, guidelines and curricula toward creating a school environment free from discriminatory attitudes, practices, and acts of hate violence. The Plaintiffs’ closely held personal beliefs are not allowed into diversity status and the Plaintiffs are classified as not of diversity status, which is intolerant and discriminatory. The State Board of Education has not provided policies or guidelines to protect Judeo-Christians, European descent, or American heritage. They have not fostered diversity appreciation or tolerance of others, which is one of their responsibilities. Nor do they follow the California Education Codes. The Board has allowed education material into the California schools that reflect adversely on race, religion, and heritage. Because of this the Plaintiffs were and are affected and discrimination against.
/ / /
/ / /
The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces five federal statutes that prohibit discrimination in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance from the Department of Education. Discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion and national origin is prohibited by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c et seq; discrimination on the basis of disability is prohibited by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
The civil rights laws enforced by OCR extend to all state education agencies, elementary and secondary school systems, colleges and universities, vocational schools, proprietary schools, state vocational rehabilitation agencies, libraries, and museumS that receive federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education.
California State laws, in Chapter 6-Education, are clear on the laws enacted by the legislators that comply with the Civil Rights Act under Title IV, Title VI, and Title IX, and the Constitution, which the state is obligated to follow.
The State of California has continued to discriminate against the specified classifications while receiving federal assistance under the Civil Rights Act Title VI, and Title IX.
The Defendants have neglected the Chapter 6-California State Education Laws.
“The right to a public education in California is a fundamental right fully guaranteed and protected by the California Constitution. Recognizing the central role that education plays in our society, the California Legislature has enacted numerous laws designed to promote equality in educational opportunities and to safeguard students against discriminatory practices in public schools providing educational services.
The legislative prohibitions against discrimination in education cover all aspects of the educational process, including teaching, course materials, financing, extracurricular activities and other matters. Violations of any of these laws should be brought to the attention of the governing body of the school, college, or university.”
The following miscellaneous California statutory provisions prohibit unlawful discrimination in education. The Plaintiffs allegations follow each code.
1. Education Code Section 200 et seq. is a comprehensive statutory scheme which prohibits sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, and mental or physical disability discrimination in education. Section 200 et seq. also bars discrimination of any basis that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes under Penal Code section 422.6, subdivision (a). The provisions of this law are applicable to all educational institutions located in California, which receive or benefit from state financial assistance…Pursuant to this legislation, any form of sexual harassment or other sex discrimination in any academic, athletic, extracurricular, research or financial aid program or activity is prohibited.
2. Education Code section 221.5 prohibits class enrollment in public schools based on sex. In addition, career guidance and counseling based upon sexual stereotypes are also forbidden. Thus classifying males as the oppressor and females as the oppressed is stereotyping.
3. Education Code section 221.7 provides that no public funds shall be used in connection with any athletic program conducted under the auspices of a school district governing board or any student organization within the district, which does not provide equal opportunity to both sexes for participation and for use of facilities. Plaintiffs’ public funds are supporting athletic programs; whereby, bathroom and shower facilities are necessary. These funds are used toward programs that give girls, who must shower in the presence of homosexuals, no privacy. This discriminates against those of Judeo-Christian faith or contrary viewpoints that are uncomfortable being naked in the presence of students and teachers of known homosexual orientation.
4. Education Code section 220 prohibits discrimination based on sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, color, mental or physical disability in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid. Schools across California are receiving financial benefits, but are not adhering to the law. This section prohibits classifying students and adults by White Privilege and the Wheel of Oppression, and named parties have not stopped funding of these schools. The programs continue and the Plaintiffs liberties are denied.
5. Education Code section 224.5 establishes a gender equity train-the-trainer grant program for the award of grants to school districts and county offices of education of up to $130,000 per year for the purpose of training K-12 teachers to enhance the self-image of female pupils in subjects such as math, science and technology. If there is not to be stereotyping in schools, how do females have the privilege of having money allocated for furtherance of their education above the males? Many males have problems with these classes also. This is discrimination against the males based on stereotyping. The state has denied equal protection of the law to males.
6. Education Code section 231.5 requires each educational institution to have a written policy on sexual harassment and provides that such policy be disseminated to students, faculty and staff. Sexual harassment is evident for the schools insist that there is no unique difference between boys and girls, and they are to be treated equally. This is discrimination in itself. The Judeo-Christian beliefs, and other viewpoints, hold there are unique differences between men and women. Yet, the State has a program in place to pay for girls advancement in math, science, and technology to try and match them to the males ability, and make the girls the same as boys, by “enhancing their self-esteem” in these subject matters.
7. Education Code section 233 provides that the State Board of Education shall adopt policies, guidelines and curricula toward creating a school environment free from discriminatory attitudes, practices, and acts of hate violence. It further requires the State Board of Education to revise the school curriculum to include human relations education, with an aim to fostering an appreciation of the diversity of California’s population and discouraging the development of discriminatory attitudes and practices. The State Board of Education is an authority in the adoption of policies that are to be discrimination free, and yet the curriculum used is diversity programs which speak against the very principle it upholds, which is tolerance of others. The Plaintiffs closely held personal beliefs are not allowed into diversity status and the Plaintiffs are classified as not of diversity status, which is intolerant and discriminatory.
8. Education Code section 233.5 provides moral justice free from discriminatory attitudes, practices, events or activities in order to prevent acts of hate violence. Moral justice encompasses a vast array of material. The code states “teachers shall impress upon the minds of pupils” moral justice. The word “shall” means that it must be done. But this is dangerous territory for teachers to have to teach children moral justice. This has different meanings to each person and certainly gives leeway to many philosophies that are contrary to traditional ideas, values, morals, ethics, lifestyles, and closely held personal beliefs. Plaintiff Lawrence had to take her son out of government school because the education being “impressed” on her son was not that of her family.
9. Education Code section 233.8 requires the State Department of Education, subject to available funding, to provide training to school district personnel in identifying and determining hate violence on school campuses. Pupils and teachers may participate in a grant program focused on fostering ethnic sensitivity, overcoming racism and prejudice, and countering hatred and intolerance, subject to available funding. If Elk Grove diversity education is in compliance with State Department of Education laws, then what type of training will be provided to the school personnel through this program? A particular diversity program, such as SEED, is indicative of a state enforced belief system, promoting transformation of students’ beliefs within the confines of a classroom, in order to change their belief system, to the acceptable state one.
10. Education Code sections 250-253 require educational institutions to submit assurances of compliance reports and to conduct compliance reviews pursuant to receipt of state financial assistance or state student financial aid. The compliance reviews have been deficient in protecting the Plaintiffs, and others, security of liberties under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
11. Education Code section 32228.1 requires school districts that receive funds under the School Safety and Violence Prevention Act to certify that funds will be used for one or more of a variety of purposes, including, but not limited to, preventing and responding to acts of hate violence and bias-related incidents. It is a bias-related incident every time the Wheel of Oppression or White Privilege is assimilated into curriculum that is brought into a classroom. It further degrades the purpose of diversity and puts people of white color at risk, and people of color as victims. This only makes for poor race relations, not harmony. Money is spent, but it is the neglect of enforcement of agency compliance rules that allow hidden bias in the very curriculum and programs that are to stop it. The Plaintiffs claim neglect in applying funding toward a purpose that eliminates certain classifications from bias related incidents.
12. Education code 51530 states that “No teacher giving instruction in any school, or on any property belonging to any agencies included in the public school system, shall advocate or teach communism with the intent to indoctrinate or to inculcate in the mind of any pupil a preference for communism. In prohibiting the advocacy or teaching of communism with the intent of indoctrinating or inculcating a preference in the mind of any pupil for such doctrine, the Legislature does not intend to prevent the teaching of the facts about communism. Rather, the Legislature intends to prevent the advocacy of, or inculcation and purpose of undermining patriotism for, and the belief in, the government of the United States and of this state.” The state enforced diversity programs do introduce subject matter that undermines the United States in favor of other forms of government that are communist and socialist.
13. Education code 51500 states that education or activities, which reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, heredity, national origin, or ancestry are prohibited. Diversity classes that encourage teachers to include controversial subject matter with the intent to change the mind of students in the classroom is not allowed under section 51500. Many books, however, are encouraged through diversity education and they reflect adversely upon Europeans. The Day of Silence is allowed in classrooms throughout California. The methods and educational materials used are indicative of coercion within the confines of classrooms to change the minds of the students. This discrimination in the confines of the classroom reflects adversely on people of Judeo-Christian faith and people who are of closely held personal beliefs or viewpoint that do not believe in the lifestyle. This has nothing to do with the equality of those who want to live the lifestyle, but simply an opinion by people who are free, under our Constitution, to say so. The state gives approval of this day by its silence on it, which robs the Plaintiffs of their liberties under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments).
14. Education Code sections 51501 and 60044 prohibit the State Board of Education and local school boards from adopting any instructional material for use in schools, which contains any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, handicap, or occupation. If the state is in compliance of its own education codes, diversity education would be scrutinized and held accountable for instructional material that is discriminatory toward all groups. The Plaintiffs allege that the named defendants are neglectful of the content in diversity education, and have allowed it to continue without close scrutiny of its instructional methods, which has caused the injuries of the Plaintiffs.
15. Under California Education Code 51101, parents and guardians have the right to:
• Examine the curriculum materials of the class.
• Work with the schools to adopt policies that outline how parents, staff and students may share in the responsibility for development and well-being of the students.
• Observe classrooms and meet with teachers.
• Have a school environment for their child that is safe and supportive of learning.
• Be informed about the above rights to participate in the education of their children.
The diversity curriculum is not shared with parents because it is not a standardized form of education that has been identified as official curriculum. It is hidden from view, but the state gives its okay by its silence. SEED trainings cannot be viewed by parents for outsiders cannot attend them. These policies of diversity education are against the law of 51101.
16. Education Code 66252. California’s postsecondary educational institutions have an affirmative obligation to combat racism, sexism, harassment and other forms of bias, and a responsibility to provide equal educational opportunity. The same criteria in educational standards are applied to higher institutes of learning.
17. Education Code section 72011 states that community colleges must provide their services and classes without regard to race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or sex.
The Plaintiffs do not seek for diversity to be eliminated or for the statutes to be rewritten as defendants have inferred. The Plaintiffs do seek a compelling interest in regulatory relief, for denial of our original claims, with the agencies in control of Civil Rights complaints.
Private parties can sue federal agencies to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” Slip Op. 1, quoting 5 U.S.C. Section 706(1). In an opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, a unanimous Court held that “mandamus” actions – actions seeking to compel a federal agency to act, are narrowly limited. The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) permits suits by individuals “suffering legal wrong because of agency action or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute.” Id., quoting 5 U.S.C. Section 702.
Plaintiffs’ grievances were with agencies that withheld actions. The Plaintiffs have experienced financial loss, physical duress, and psychological trauma. In Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Supreme Court Case No. 03-101 (June 14, 2004) “agency action” was defined as to mean “the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act.” The Plaintiffs believe that they were denied the agency actions applicable to the relief sought for denial of their civil rights.
The Plaintiffs have gone through injury to come to the stage of the court. Failure to act is determined by the courts. Section 706(1) empowers a court only to compel an agency ‘to perform a ministerial or non-discretionary act,’ or ‘to take action upon a matter, without directing how it shall act.’” The Plaintiffs ask the court to look favorably upon our request in its simplicity, for the plaintiffs do not request, what defendants claim, and that is to rewrite education curriculum or the laws in place to protect our rights. The Plaintiffs ask for equal treatment by teaching diversity education that includes everyone.
The Plaintiffs are aware that many of the legal issues are complex. The compelling interest of equality of man is at stake. When diversity education does not serve the interests of every man by treating them equally, then it voids its purpose, which is to suppress discrimination. Thus, when diversity programs cease to serve what they purport to serve, the equality of man, then they lose the honesty of their supposed intent, by using means to achieve another interest. “…the Court holds that when a means used does not actually address all the harm it purports to address, it cannot be a compelling interest.” Church of the Lukumi v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 546-47 (1993).
Allowing free exchange of ideas within classrooms across America is a compelling interest in order to secure the equality of man for freedom to exchange ideas in a safe environment, and provide education that assures the fundamental freedoms of man in a future America. “We have also acknowledged that public schools are vitally important “in the preparation of individuals for participation as citizens,” and as vehicles for “inculcating fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system.” Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76-77(1979).
Plaintiffs Georgiana Preskar and Teri Lawrence come to the court because they seek a simple remedy that will relieve the injuries facing Americans everyday. A simple regulatory adjustment can act in the interests of equality and save nationwide problems, cases in court, and preserve the freedoms that are at risk. The Plaintiffs know the court could return them to another court to seek relief from the school district. However, the better interest of this case is served not from going district to district, for the sheer numbers would be burdensome on the courts. Various opinions of different courts would confuse the simple issues at hand that can be easily remedied, for all citizens to have benefit of their civil rights.
The Plaintiffs have supplied information that explains in more detail the specifics of this case. The Plaintiffs request that the Court looks favorably upon the complaint and give regulatory relief based on the facts of the enclosed information. If the court chooses to continue with the hearings, the Plaintiffs will acknowledge its wisdom and be prepared with abundant evidence. We ask not to be dismissed, for Plaintiffs have adequate evidence to support the complaint and request for relief, as submitted to the court.
Plaintiffs Preskar and Lawrence do ask the Court to view their First Amended Complaint as a whole, and not take each paragraph separately to stand on its own. By this Plaintiffs mean that, as they are “lay persons” and not attorneys at law, they may have unknowingly left out a “legalese” term that Defendants’ attorneys seem to keep pressing for.
Plaintiffs therefore respectfully request that this Court allow the merits of their Complaint to be heard, and not dismiss Defendants from their First Amended Complaint.
Respectfully Submitted:

Dated: September 28, 2007 _______________________________

Dated: September 28, 2007 _______________________________