On March 22nd, Steven Crowder was live at SMU. After the show, a young man who identified as a protest sign asked if he should have kids in a time when you are accosted for your believes. Crowder at one point states that “Fear is not bad, how you handle it is.”
I know all of you are afraid. I have been too. You think then when I took the petition to appeal at the Court of Queens Bench, the first challenge of it’s kind in Canada, that I wasn’t afraid? Do you think the School District didn’t WANT me to be afraid? Why do you think they said they were going to come after me for ‘hours of time’ spent on evaluating the petition? Why do you think they threatened a teacher who witnessed the petition? How about the ridiculous accusation that somehow I was defaming an institution and a policy? They did this because, like every corrupt and dictatorial governing body in human history, they know that fear is the most likely tool to keep the populace in line.
So how do you know if you are handling the fear correctly? The way I measure it, is are you brave enough to risk your own health and reputation to protect and serve another, or are you taking the cowards route of saving your own skin?
John 15:13 – Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
If you are able to overcome your fear, to help another, than I say you are handling the fear correctly. Who is more deserving of selfless bravery than your children? Who better to stand up to than those too cowardly to protect your children from those who wish to harm or use them?
Don’t forget, most times, they are more afraid of you, (or their superiors) than you are of them. Paranoia is fear on steroids, and who is more paranoid than a dictator afraid of losing their power. When you stand up to a bully, he realizes that fear can no longer be used against you, and he is the one who becomes afraid. There is no greater evidence of this, than to see how vilely they came after the Include Parents campaign, and the level of fear that was expressed at the thought of myself getting elected to the School Board. (They were really sweating that one.)
Take courage fellow parent, and don’t take garbage from anyone. Your children are quite literally your birthright. Literally yours, by birth, and no sycophantic bureaucrat has any right to tell you how to raise them, especially when they want to subject them to abusive ideology like prepubescent transgenderism.
Take courage, or you just might find you have no children or grand children; whether by fear, by abusive sterilization, by suicide, or by tyrannical kidnapping.
I thought I would
highlight some things that have happened in the past few weeks around the world. Maybe you should as well.
So last week, the Communist Party of China (CPC) . . . the only party in China, moved to make President Xi, president for life. Then, in a not unheard of move, the CPC banned Animal Farm and oddly the letter ‘N’ from the Inter
net. This ridiculous ness led to a reporter, disgusted with a staged news event in Chi na being stripped of her news crede ntials. This is n‘t all that surprising after all, this is Chi na, a Commu nist dystopia.
Ya, that is
n‘t a good example. Let’s move a little further west. How about the UK? Ya, tea a nd crumpets a nd all that. God save the Queen etc. After all, Ca nada was fou nded o n British pri nciples. Well, just a few days ago Laure n Souther n was o n her way to Engla nd, after wrapping up a docume ntary o n the oppressive racism agai nst the Boer i n South Africa, that by all accou nts is likely to become a ge nocide or civil war. She was e nteri ng from the Calais Fra nce border. She was detai ned u nder the Schedule 7 a nti-terrorism act of the UK. The Brits wa nted to ba n her from their British utopia, but did n‘t have a nything to charge her with. So they held her a nd i nterrogated her u ntil they fou nd out she called Allah gay as part of a social experime nt. It’s OK to call God a gay trans woma n i n the UK, but not Allah. They the n u nceremo niously ba n ned her from the UK a_d they dropped her alo ne outside the wall at 6am, i n a city notorious for rapi ng you ng white female jour nalists a nd aid workers. Her crime? Racism of course, a nd being a threat to the stability of the UK!
Ya, I k
now what you are thi nking. The UK has the right to ba n whoever they wa nt. Eve n if it is based on xe nophobic a nti religious se ntime nt. Its not like their was a massive cover-up of Islamic rape ga ngs i n the UK. Not like 1000s of girls in Rotherham and Telford were abused for decades by Muslim sex rings. It isn’t like the police were more afraid of being called racist than protecting the children. Not like they called 11 year olds prostitutes and threated the families of the victims. No not like any of that happened.
Lauren Southern may be Ca nadia n, but that does n‘t protect her from the UK’s rules, so let’s move eve n further west, a nd a bit south. After all, the U.S. is the la nd of the free, a nd the home of the brave! Just yesterday hu ndreds of childre n marched out of class, to protest gu ns with a list of dema nds that were clearly not writte n by them. This would n‘t be all that bad i n a nd of it self, but there are reports now of stude nts bei ng threate ned by pri ncipals with arrest, a nd i nsta nces of assault agai nst stude nts for disagreei ng with the protests. Be n Shapiro stated i n yesterday’s (March 14th) podcast that he was getti ng 100s of letters by stude nts that are bei ng bullied a nd threate ned for not participati ng i n the protests. E-mails comi ng i n live as he was speaki ng. The Day fi nished with a teacher being suspe nded for suggesting that walkouts could be orga nized for a nything. Eve n pro-life eve nts.
You may be ratio
nalizi ng it by sayi ng those kids were i nse nsitive by bei ng pro gun at a ‘rally’ for victims of gun violence. Hate speech does n‘t protect you from the co nseque nces of your actio ns. I’m not going to concede that point, but let’s move on. So speaking about gun’s isn’t OK, but what about Tra ns-ge nder. Surely someo ne’s ide ntity is protected, a nd they can freely express it. That would n‘t get them censored or oppressed, would it?
Last week Steve
n Crowder was told he was n‘t welcome at South by South West (SXSW is a nerdy eve nt similar to the Calgary Comic & E ntertai nme nt Expo, which i ncide ntally I was ba n ned from havi ng a table at because of my affiliation with Christians, but that is a nother story,) because of a stu nt he pulled last year where crashed a pa nel by “The You ng Turks,” by imperso nati ng Ce nk Uygur. This “OF COUUURSE” was fu n ny, but it got him a nd Not gay Jared ba n ned for life. So this year, Crowder had o ne of his employees, Sve n Computer, go to SXSW a nd crash a Tra ns meet up, as Sve n Computer ide ntifies as a computer, a nd he has ide ntified as such for well over a year. Sve n computer mistake nly thought self-ide ntity was sacrosa nct.
n Computer was n‘t violent, a nd did nothi ng criminal he was throw n out of the eve nt, a nd the mi nute Crowder tried to upload the video to twitter, him a nd everyo ne i nvolved was immediately ba n ned from Twitter. The video was ba n ned from Youtube a nd Facebook, a nd people circulated a petitio n ‘dema ndi ng’ that Crowder take dow n the video from his ow n platform … for some reaso n.
So what they came to k
now is what I came to k now last year. Self ide ntity is o nly acceptable if you also alig n with the politics of those that wa nt self ide ntity to be accepted, a nd it has to be the the right ki nd of self ide ntity. Identifying as a Sire appare ntly isn’t ‘the right kind’. As Jordan Peterson would say, they, like Hamas, surrou nd themselves with ‘victims’ (of their ow n defi ned sta ndard,) so that if you ‘attack’ their believes, you have collateral damage to prop up a nd beat the ‘aggressors’ with.
Ok, but that is social media, a
nd ‘private’ eve nts. They ca n set their own rules. Ba n or kick whoever they wa nt for whatever they wa nt. Just ig nore the wedding cakes for gay people exception. Surely Ca nada is n‘t i nvolved i n a ny of this tyranny. We are the tha nk you people. The frie ndly lumber jacks with maple ca ndies. You could n‘t possibly thi nk that is happe ni ng here!
I’ll bet you are getti
ng pretty a n noyed with how hard it is getti ng to read this. Well, I hope you are a patie nt human, as we just e ntered Ca nada, a nd what you ca n a nd ca n‘t say u nder the new Liberal/ NDP tyra n ny is o nly goi ng to make this worse. Ca nada is the place where you ca n have your kids take n from you for not e ncouragi ng them to cut their pe nis off. The cou ntry where you must swear before the Dear Leader a nd his Cabi net that you are not pro-life, a nd would not try to fix your tra ns-child. The cou ntry that has premiers that will throw you i n priso n o n charges literally made up by the police because you are pro-life, a nd it does n‘t matter if you are 17 or 70. A n i njustice that they wa nt to bring to other provi nces.
n I was a child, I was proud of my cou ntry. I was proud of the freedom we had. I was proud of the sacrifice my gra nd pare nts made to protect our freedom. The n we started slaughtering children, with no restrictio ns. A claim o nly 3 cou ntries i n the world ca n pi n o n their chest. The n came gay u nio ns. Well, love is love, except whe n it is n‘t. The n ‘sex ed’ a nd tolera nce. The n euthanasia, legalized drugs, you nger euthanasia, forci ng doctors to recomme nd abortio n, forci ng pare nts to teach kids thi ngs contrary to their believes, hate speech, ‘islamophobia’, a nd eve n acceptable a ntisemitism Now if I were to pull out a book I read i n school o n the horrors of East Germany, the USSR, or Mao’s China, I would almost thi nk they were describi ng Ca nada without the mass starvation. Ca nada’s political positio n a nd policies are hardly disti nguishable from pre-war Nazi Germany. Those same books I read as a child would probably be ba n ned now, or at the very least ‘problematic’. I nstead they are replaced with wholesome stories of cross-dressi ng 5 year olds. Freedom is dying in Canada, a nd it is because not e nough good men are sta ndi ng up to the evil that is succeeding i n this cou ntry. History will spit o n our memory as they look back at how so many wasted their time on bread and circuses, while the evil one took our childre n and put them through the meat grinder of tolerance. While screami ng at the top of their lu ngs that words are hurtful a nd viole nt, that they have meaning, and should n‘t be said rashly, they are hypocritically telling us that policies like 622 a nd laws like Bill-24 are just words. You can trust them to use ‘common sense’ when applyi ng them, as they toss another 5 year old i nto a GSA to be told that their body is a mistake, and they need to change it. All in secret, so that pare nts do n‘t know the abuse the ir child is being subjected to by ‘professio nal’ identifiers of being born in the wrong body. The ideology of the left is demo nstrably evil. Repeated countless times throughout huma n history. Begetti ng o nly misery, despair, and death. Yet, just as we had to fight and die to stop nazi/fasc/social/communismm’s ‘utopia’ in the 30s, so to I’m afraid we will have to be fighting and dying to stop nazi/fasc/social/communism in the 30s. Unless of course we get a few 1000 more good courageous men to take their ‘methods’ and stick them back in the hellhole they came from.
Just a quick reminder that the monthly Medicine Hat PUBLIC School Board Meeting is tonight at 6 PM, in the Central Board Office.
I have again gone over the agenda for this meeting, and there are no policy updates or changes in it. There will be a presentation from “Thrive” about how they are going to end poverty in Medicine Hat by 2030 through a kind of socialism. Though I can’t find a copy of the presentation, an abridged version of their plan can be found here and is likely what the presentation will be based on.
They are lofty goals to be sure, and I am curious as to how a group from Medicine Hat came up with a fool proof plan to end poverty, when no one else in all of world history has ever been able to achieve that. They did come close in Venezula, or so I’m told. Well, I could go into detail about all the red flags(ha, there is a pun in there somewhere,) in the plan, but I’ll leave that up to our esteemed Trustees to make those astute observations themselves.
As for the board meeting, I may make it to this one. The past few months I have been dealing family and health issues, that required my attention. Rest assured I have been observing from the outside, and going over minutes and agendas. Things are at play to make sure the board stays accountable. It is always good to make the meetings if you can, as many things are said that are not ‘minute’ worthy.
Hey everyone, sorry for the lack of updates over the last couple of weeks. I’ve been working with some parents regarding some concerns within the district. I’ll have another post up soon, but while you wait you can check out the parent watch forum for latest articles of concern to education and parental authority.
I’d also like to remind everyone of the Board meeting on Tuesday at 6:00PM in the Central Office. I have had a quick look at the agenda, and there are no policy changes. Highlights include info on all of the Christmas activities being put on in the district’s schools, and a budget report for 2017/2018.
I hope that given all that has been happening in our province, from the passing of Bill-24, the ridiculous implementation of ‘gender neutral’ bathrooms in SCHS north of Edmonton, and the lack of concern Eggen has shown for the life of a child in Calgary spurs you on to see the importance of attending Board meetings. The family is under attack, and it is coming from our elected officials.
39% In Favor of returning to court.
61% Wish to focus on elections.
I respect the will of the people, and I too believe that the most important thing to focus on right now, is getting people on the school board who respect the authority and rights of parents to be involved with their children’s education. As one parent put it, “the lines of communication are down.” Just like I told the Secretary last September, my role is and always has been to restoring communication with parents. From my attempts to record proceedings, to my speaking up to the board, and to my taking the petition to appeal.
Given that the Secretary and Board had clear instructions to accept a copy of amended signatures from the Justice, and they have chosen not do so, it is evident to me and a majority of voters who signed the petition, that returning to court will not repair the lines of communication. I do understand the reasons why so many voted to go back to court. The Board, through allies in the media, have essentially maligned the electorate on the petition. They have portrayed the signatories as if they could not get the support for their position, and that they were unable to file a correct petition, when that is clearly not the case.
Should any of those signatories who voted in favor of returning to court wish to pick up the banner, and pursue an appeal to the Court of Queen’s Bench again, I will provide all necessary documents and evidence needed to do so. I support their right to do so, and I understand why they may want to. I will however point my focus on rebuilding the lines of communication, through the election of candidates that support parental authority, educational choice, and quality curriculum.
(For consistency and ease of understanding in this post I will be using the numbers that the Secretary used when discussing the number of signatures on the petition. There is some disparity between the numbers that I hold to and what the Secretary holds to, but in the grand scheme of things, those small differences would have no affect on the final outcome.)
On August 14, 2017, Secretary Jerry Lebossiere of SD#76 rejected an amendment to the petition I submitted in September, 2016. His excuse for rejecting it was that he could not accept any of the 121 signatures that had had their addresses corrected. In his rejection letter the secretary stated that “These addresses are not set out opposite to an original signature but are simply written in over the photocopied signatures,” and that “as Secretary Treasurer I have no discretion to permit the inclusion of names on a petition that do not comply with the requirements.” Additionally when the Secretary rejected the initial amendment of the petition on July 7th, he set out a an expiry for the petition of July 21, 2017.
When I took the petition to appeal on March 10, 2017, I did so seeking clarification on the act, as well as I contested the rejection of 259 signatures that had listed only a Postal Code, and did not include the street address. Through the proceedings on March 10th, Justice Tilleman made it clear that a copy was sufficient for the amendment. From The Court Transcript: “Okay, so her[secretary’s legal council] last words were the secretary is absolutely willing to evaluate fairly any petition that is re-filed or resubmitted, so, I mean, I take that to mean for example if you used a photocopy of the previous that someone, in an affidavit, certifies is the true copy, and the secretary says no, I’m not going to accept that, you’ll be back in court and I wouldn’t be very happy. It’s going to be accepted.” The Justice earlier in the conversation stating “…then you would need addresses on the 259 so you’re 100 [this is rounded] short, sounds to me like you’ve collected other names, assuming you want to go the (b) route,…” To top it all off, the Secretary’s legal council said, in her own words, “There’s no time limit on the petition names, there’s nothing that says that their name is on the petition for only a set period of time”
Taking the rest of the transcript into context, it is clear to me that the Justice gave the Secretary clear latitude to accept amended address on a copy, and also expected him to accept it, and the district freely told the Justice that we had no deadline/expiry on signatures. I will admit that I did not give a sworn copy of the petition sheets. I did however use the copy that was given to me by his legal council during the appeal proceedings, and red ink was used to indicate clearly which lines had been amended. The secretary did not contest that the pages were not a true copy, he contested that he had no way of knowing if the addressed were true. In affect insinuating that I or others had committed fraud, and made up the addresses. I might add, he provided no proof for his accusation.
In an effort to calm the Secretary’s concerns, on the 21 of August, 2017, I e-mailed the secretary outlining my objection to his rejection of the 121 corrected address. I offered to provide him with sworn affidavits from the individuals who had collected the address information on the 121 addresses. I requested that he inform me by the 23rd of August whether he would accept that, and there by accept the petition. As of the 25 he has not. And so, just like in October of 2016, he refused to provide clarifications in a timely fashion.
That brings me to the point of this post. I am ready to go back to court. I am ready to swear under oath, and before the God of heaven and earth that my statements are true to the best of my knowledge. I stand by the petition, and I stand by the amendment and that it fulfilled all the requirements necessary to be accepted by the Secretary. I am ready to defend that position before a Justice once again. I however will do what the people would prefer. The accusations against me mean nothing, as I and those who know me, know they have no truth to them, so I don’t need to clear my name in court. (Although I would be ok if it were officially cleared. I’m good either way.)
I’m posting to put it to a vote. To you the people. On Monday, if the vote is in favour, I will file at the Court of Queens Bench once again. If I file, a ‘speak to’ date will be set by the Clerk. At which a justice will weigh the merrits of the appeal, and will determine if I have sufficient grounds to appeal. So, by filing on Monday, it does not confirm that it will go to appeal. It may get thrown out. (Looking through the transcript, I find that highly unlikely.) If it isn’t thrown out, I believe we have a very strong case.
Given that the election is mere weeks away, and we might have a different Board after October 16, I want to give everyone the opportunity to state if they think court would be a worth while endeavor. As I’ve done from the beginning, I will do what the people wish for me to do.
Votes will be closed 8pm Sunday August 27th, 2017.
The voting is closed. Results will be posted tomorrow.
I want to just remind parents of children in SD76, that what is happening at the Rocklin Academy School is exactly how currently written procedures in SD76 would handle a similar incident in SD76. There is no age appropriateness set in SD76, and therefor there is no clemency for young children who may find themselves afoul of the ludicrous assertion that they have bullied a fellow 6 year old if they ‘misgender’ them.
The Secretary and the Board have made it very clear through the petition process that the letter of the law is the standard by which they judge, not the intent or the purpose.
This article shows EXACTLY what David Eggen has asked all school districts to allow. SD76 has written in black and white both policy and procedure to permit this to go on in Medicine Hat. This is the essence of what the CPoSD76 are fighting. What this teacher did in California is the very definition of Sexual Interference and Abuse. As policy is written right now in SD76, it would be allowed, even encouraged, and there is nothing that you as a parent would be allowed to do about it. Not even if 2500 of you signed a petition wishing to express your concern. THAT is why the CPoSD76 are considering taking SD76 back to court. If your elected representative doesn’t care to hear from 1/3 to 1/2 of those who would vote in an election, you have a SERIOUS democratic and human rights issue on your hands.
When a block of voters the size of those that signed the petition circulated by the CPoSD76 are being ignored, it evidentially shows that “Children First” does not mean what you think it means. “Children First” means ripping children out from under parental oversight and authority, and either placing them under the ‘care’ of unqualified admin who think it is their right to traumatize children with deeply disturbing adult cultural trends, or asking these immature, undeveloped children how they think they should be educated. “Children First” means the children are in charge.
Your authority as a parent is under attack. Not just in Alberta, at a provincial level, but at a district level. For all the talk of ‘meeting’ with concerned parents;
SD76 has had 18 months to clarify these issues, and we have seen none. Sure I might have been told one or two answers personally, but according to CHAT and SD76’s Chairman, I’ve defamed them, so why would they make it my job to inform parents of what their position is. Again, according to them, I can’t accurately convey their position. Besides, aren’t public statements the Chairman’s job?
Way back in March 2016 I referred to the study undertaken in Sweden that is mentioned in the above link. I even told Trustees in SD76 about it. The response? Crickets. When I say Policy 622 endorses abuse, I mean it. Pushing Transgenderism on children, and forcing School Staff to accept it unquestionably, is without a doubt, child abuse. Death is a real probable outcome to lying to a child that they can change their gender. To promote such a policy, and to refuse to acknowledge the risks, or hear counter arguments is, like I said, the very definition of bigotry. Anti-bullying policies are laudable, but they must prevent bullying of all types, and can not dictate a forced acceptance of reckless and dangerous behaviours or believes. In such a case, the bullied become the bully and adherence is out of fear, not acceptance or understanding. Is that what we want our children to learn? To fear those that are different to them? Policies like 622 are not combating ‘transphobia,’ they are creating it. Except it isn’t an irrational fear, it is a justified fear that any wrong pronoun used, or out of context comment can ruin your life, as the LGBT™ inquisition will come down on you without mercy, compassion, logic, or reason. They will come and beat you into submission through school district endorsed courts of ‘social justice’. They will label you for the rest of your life as an LGBT™ ‘hater,’ make you take ‘sensitivity’ training at re-education centers, and exclude you from any prestigious higher education. These are not exaggerations, these are actions that have actually been taken against people who question the LGBT™. You have to look no further than the ridiculous accusations against me by the media. Any and all resistance must be silenced with extreme prejudice. Let’s get back to the table, and discuss a policy that provides real direction and protection for ALL children from ALL kinds of bullying.
Planned Parenthood recommends parents send their gender confused 3 & 4 year olds to an LGBTQ 'positive' counselor.
Someone who will not question the child. Why does that sound familiar? (PP not wanting to be outdone in the depth of depravity by Canadian Sex Ed, also thinks you should have talks about masturbation with your 3-4 year old, but that is a different disgusting pedophilic teaching, which thankfully I have not seen pushed in SD76.)
SD76 – “Policy 622 Procedure: j. work collaboratively with school staff and build capacity to identify and implement evidence-based supports for students;”
SD76 – “Policy 622 Procedure: k. ensure staff will not refer students to programs or services that attempt to change or repair a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity; and”
Who cares if it is harmful to the child. We will push it on them, and not let ANYONE with a different opinion speak to them. We will lie to them, and lead them to believe they are something they are not. We will ignore science, and push dogma. THAT IS the policy in SD76. This is based on the proof written in the procedure, not the words said in secret. Proof that the policy is endorsing lying, delusion, and abuse. (Make no mistake, it is abuse to push a child into a life of drug use and body mutilation, to achieve something that can never be achieved, all to potentially avoid the possibility of a fleeting moment of hurt feelings.)
Prove to parents that a child can be born in the wrong body. Prove that there are more than 2 genders in the human species. Prove that encouraging the child to take hormone blockers ‘saves’ them from suicide. Prove that keeping this a secret from the child’s parents would help them.
If SD76 stands for the protection of these children. They will PROVE it by WRITTEN policy and procedure. They will PROVE it by allowing parents to be heard. They will PROVE it by publicly writing the education minister on Medicine Hat Parents behalf declaring that they do no agree with the minister.
“So let it be written, so let it be done” – Yul Brynner
If it is not in the districts written policy, it is not the districts position, and it would be madness to think otherwise. Just as one can not write a law, and then not obey it, so to one can not write a policy, and not enforce it. That would be a laughable assertion. But I suppose, 2 years ago, it would have been laughable to suggest a 5 year old was transgender.
On June 20th, the CPoSD76 amended their petition. I received notice that a decision of the sufficiency of the petition had been made on or about 3:30pm Thursday July 6th. It was requested that I come and meet with the superintendent at 8:30AM July 7th. Despite the short notice, I informed the superintendent’s office that I would make the meeting.
I was informed that they had decided that the amendment was insufficient because they had rejected all 111 amended postal code signatures on the grounds that they we not re-signed each in their entirety, even though that was not a requirement discussed during the March 10, 2017 appeal. Even though the Justice said that even a photocopy would have been good enough, as the point of their rejection was that the secretary would have had to have exerted extra effort to ascertain the electoral status of the signature.
In addition to the 111 corrected postal signatures, I submitted 286 new signatures with the amendment. The secretary claims that 3 of those signatures have addresses outside the boundaries, and 1 was missing a character on the postal code. He further claims that 19 of the signatures are duplicates of signatures on the original petition. A claim that is currently being verified. Put simply,
The Secretary claims to have done not the first, or the second, but the THIRD review of the Original petition, AFTER it was stated to the Justice that 1629 signatures on the original were not contested. In his third exemplary review of the original petition he claims to have found 30 duplicated signatures that had previously not been noticed by himself, his staff, or his legal council. 374 – 30 = 344. 344 < 371.
I will not go into details on all of the errors in the two articles at this time, however I will state that neither of the news agencies attempted contact myself or the CPoSD76 prior to publishing their articles. An e-mail from MHN was sent to my personal account at 1:19PM, AFTER they published their article, and stating that they were “looking for a short, written comment to use”, to have it to them “before 4 p.m,” and criteria given by which the CPoSD76 comment must be framed. I did not know of the e-mail until 8pm. Both articles portrayed the numbers of the amendment inaccurately, and in a negative light.
Questions for your consideration:
Why didn’t they want to get a comment before publishing?
Why didn’t they ask the board why they needed to review the petition so many times if they had already done a thorough evaluation in Oct, 2016?
Why didn’t they ask the board why they would lead parents and the Justice to believe that all they needed to do to correct the postal code signatures was get the addresses, if that is not what they wanted/required?
Why didn’t they ask ANY questions of the CPoSD76, but simply want a statement?
Why didn’t they report that board and admin question the legality of Justice Tilleman’s decision to allow an amendment, but choose not to pursue a challenge of it?
A reporter wanting to get the truth, and facts would have asked questions. None were asked.