Secret Orange Garden

We regard it to be an honorable service, vital to the health of government in the Minnesota, to be preparing this challenge to PELSB & other bureaucrats.

There are many serious problems with the pending PELSB proposal (R-4615) that rightly allow us to force it to be stopped.

The most immediate legal action to make (the first we intend to bring) is a determination of the invalidity of R-4615 via Minnesota Statutes § 14.44 on primarily the following grounds:

  1. The lack of authorization,
  2. The failure of the notice requirements,
  3. The fact that PELSB did not assert a specific affirmative basis for each of its changes.

Much of the content of the current "PELSB WebCenter" on this website, explains the facts and arguments of these matters.

There are a few reasons for this approach, a primary one is that we fear continued derogatory or misinforming press/media collusion with the PELSB and other bureaucrats. We rightly anticipate bogus propaganda being spread to try to cover up our legal action and the facts of its merits, so we are making the evidence and arguments extremely accessible and available. We otherwise wish for the public to understand the situation and be able to engage with the facts and mechanics.

PELSB, themselves, should see how publicly their defeat is laid plain and concede the case (as they should have upon our notice early in the Autumn). When we checkmated them with the facts of their lack of authorization, to which they resorted to a false quotation of the statutes as a defense in their rebuttal; given ALJ Mortenson cited the bogus PELSB evidence--the PELSB offense is rightly called "fraud," but such is just one tip of the iceberg of controlling facts.

Please encourage awareness of this site. Click, here, to request written information by mail.

These three procedural grounds (listed above) each independently control for the stopping of the PELSB attempt, but also, contribute to a combined cause for this rulemaking attempt to be declared invalid. On the other hand, these three gounds would not address the transgressions as deeply as we could and might not permanently forbid the PELSB actions, in some form. But, even such a victory-of-the-battle-but-not-the-war would require PELSB to begin where they should have, which is seeking needed authorization and otherwise starting the process at the beginning, again, which could take PELSB two years facing a much better informed public, this time, and much more detail and specific examination, et cetera.

But these procedural grounds are not the whole of the problems that should be challenged in court, so it would be appropriate to follow up with an additional measure going more directly to the substantive issues. If we can get to litigating these deeper substantive issues, that would be the means to provide the greatest relief, including, potentially, bringing an end to this government's attempts to increasingly divide and segregate the rights of individuals on the basis of skin color and other impermissible attributes.

The best and overall course of legal strategy, and particularly the scope of what we will be able to address, depends on continued public support.

Public donations are needed to fully take on and prosecute the cases of these trangressions and defend the public and individuals who are transgressed by these PELSB actions. Donations are confidential. The willingness of the leaders of our litigation team to donate their time for this case creates a great opportunity for the public to only need to provide the remaining need (underlying briefing and research tasks and burdens that must be supported by additional paid support).

It would be helpful to know whom among the persons trangressed by PELSB might be willing to stand with us and others in court--so, please fill out this form if you would be willing to merely receive information or be contacted by our legal team (signing up is not equivalent to obtaining representation nor incurring any obligations, and this website does not, and is not a, substitute for legal advice given with respect to individual's situation from a licensed attorney).

Prejudice Against Teachers
This PELSB rulemaking would impact current licensed teachers whose employers are public schools or whose employers maintain equivalent human resources policies with public schools, which may include most private school teachers.

PELSB did not give teachers the opportunity to comment on how this would impact them, first of all, as they have outrageously denied there is an impact, from which they have retreated, somewhat.

The fact is that the Minnesota Statutes control there is an impact to current teachers--they can be fired, not renewed, demoted, et cetera on the basis of being measured to these policies PELSB is improperly seeking to impose outside of the lawful process.

Was PELSB ignorant of this when it started this rulemaking? Was it, instead, the idea of the union or Department of Education to use PELSB to implement this rulemaking to go after teachers who refused to preach discriminatory ideology demanded of "cultural" authorities, et cetera?

Regardless of whose idea it was, teachers would be vulnerable to seemingly legal discrimination for not preaching make believe social justice narratives.

Moreover, these standards are vague, and could be used to fire any teacher targeted, regardless of whether or not they are "on the boat."

A final summary point is that PELSB is overtly racially prejudiced, openly declaring that regarding the impact to the supply of teacher candidates of this rulemaking proposal, PELSB is happy if this rulemaking were only to increase nonwhite teachers. Furthermore, PELSB overtly says that a nonwhite teacher is, in its view, a better teacher than a white teacher.
Click to go to the summary of impact and lack of required notice to teachers section.
Safeguarding Children from Woke Experimentation
The PELSB proposal is full of language suggesting requirements of teachers being taught to go too far in various respects of the personal and family privacy and autonomy.

Telling teachers they must base teaching on a child's home life mandates an inclination to pry into home life.

Telling teachers they must affirm any potential queer or trans identities suggests a role for teachers that would exceed the ethical limits of a trained and licensed psychotherapist.

Telling teachers they must affirm and promote skin-color based identities upon students, regardless of whether the child is rightly or wishes to be so categorized according to self-proclaimed culture authorities can easily harm a student.

Grading based on a woke "culture-group" curve, where grades are adjusted according to the teachers' pseudo-scientific theories of equity will not be fair or productive to any students.

The new rules look to teachers to be life coaches. They see academics as incidental--better leave education for national media--what students need is a social-parent to care about the ones who deserve the attention.

The new proposal emphasizes how now individualization of teaching is paramount. Well, that does not really prioritize the most productive teaching, which is focused what works best for all students. But, again, PELSB is concerned about certain students, over others.
Read more
Receive Info Re: Standing Up to PELSB
It would be helpful, and necessary, on certain claims, to have teachers, impacted parents, and concerned citizens sign up to receive information or contact from our legal team about potentially standing up with us and others in court.
Fill out this form to receive information or contact
Cornered, PELSB has Resorted to Fraud
We noticed (i.e. reported) in our primary written comment (around 10 pages of very specific legal briefing) following the 24 August 2022 Hearing that PELSB was clearly without the necessary authorization step, required, for the proposed rulemaking to validly proceed.

In their Rebuttal directly to our argument, PELSB sought to deflect from the all-encompassing analysis we presented by focusing on one point and saying the Statutes contained language different than we represented. The problem is, the PELSB direct quotation was fraudulent. That is not what that Statute says and it is a world of difference.

ALJ Mortenson simply takes PELSB word for it--ignoring all the details we presented and, literally, cites the bogus language PELSB included.

This clearly establishes the judgment of ALJ Mortenson being based on errant material.
Read more.
The Pending Rulemaking R-4615 from PELSB
The rulemaking that is the primary concern of all these pages about PELSB and the public comment is identified by the designation R-4615. R-4615 contains a number of different parts, but the primary issue of concern is the replacement of the current pedagogical training standards (the, "SEP," as they are commonly referenced) with a new set PELSB calls the "CRTP: Culturally Responsive Teaching Principles."
Read more here
Imbalance of the Separated Powers
Fundamentally, this is a situation where the Executive Branch is systemically exceeding its authority and usurping the powers of the other branches of government, which calls for the Courts reining in the Executive and setting it back within its proper bounds, at least with respect to the transgressions involved in this situation.

PELSB is giving itself the Legislature's powers and is ignoring the statutory limitations, specific to it and specific to rulemaking.

OAH has suggested in the written statement of Chief ALJ Starr that OAH views agencies as having authority to set out policies for their own operation and quasi-adjudication based on a concept of "proximate areas" of government--Her Honor's language implies PELSB can make any rules (not explicitly forbidden, presumably) "related" to teacher licensure, at any time.

As OAH demonstrates itself to have lost touch with the Statutes that are the basis of its existence and of which it is supposed to be quasi-adjudicating matters, clearly OAH has ventured well off the permissible course and the Courts must take a firm hand and re-set OAH--if not require a more drastic re-organization of OAH and rulemaking--as would alternatively be appropriate.
See more about the basis of valid rulemaking (Statutes Chapter 14)
The Invalidating Notice Deficiency
By Minnesota Statutes § 14.14, if a rulemaking fails to accurately provide notice to interested parties or persons who should have received accurate notice to enable their fair opportunity to participate in the rulemaking hearing, to the extent of risk of prejudice to the person to whom accurate notice was not given, the rulemaking must begin, again, this time with proper notice.

Here, teachers are obviously interested, as their jobs and licenses depend on evaluations measured by this material and the material is considerably bearing risk of prejudice to certain teachers and all teachers (given the vagueness and potential of any teacher to fail to affirm to an identity, correctly, or fail the correct "cultural response" required to any situation).

But, teachers were not all notified, and those teachers who were able to participate were maliciously told there was no impact to them--in the seeming obviousness of the applicability.

So, there was no valid or sufficient notice to any teachers in the process and all licensed teachers should have been notified.
Read more here
The Invalidating Lack of Authorization
By Minnesota Statutes § 14.[05], an agency (in this case, PELSB) must have specific authorization from the Legislature to engage in the specific rulemaking to the extent and scope authorized.
Read more here
Invalidating Lack of Articulating Basis for Changes

Issues, Causes, & Aspects of the Case