The Critical Race Theory (CRT) Allies have not only taken the law into their own hands, they have remade the criminal justice system in their own image. Nowhere is it more obviously displayed than in modern workplace trials. After using carefully planned group exercises and peer pressure to induce cognitive dissonance in training subjects, the employees are incrementally guided towards forced public confessions of being “White supremacists” actively participating in an “oppressive matrix.”
If the accusation of being both a racist and a member in a raciest organization actively involved in suppressing the legal and civil rights of others of different races based solely on their race sounds like a prosecutable offense, that is because it is exactly that.
The reason for using less than definitive, and less than legal, terms (i.e. ‘matrix’), is precisely an attempt to obfuscate the full-frontal charge being leveled, and so to obscure the protections of the accused guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
-Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The penalties resulting from this sham trail, the employees are consoled, are sufferable; and include, public humiliation, exclusion from certain work place activities and benefits, imposition of additional and mandatory activities for remediation of their racial prejudices, or “anti-racism” training. In some instances, however, restitutions may also be required.
The penalty for non-compliance with these demands? The training is mandatory. Often, mandatory training falls under compliance training, like diversity and non-discrimination training, and failure to comply with such training is cause for disciplinary action, including dismissal.
The teachers, two of which happen to be our real-life examples here, protested these rights violations, and requirements by the training facilitators at Springfield Public Schools (SPS), Missouri, that they also were required to provide papers divulging their personal and private information. This SPS demand was probably on the line of, although not limited to, financial information that may be sought to both establish and rectify social resource disparities, or what the district would identify as racial inequities that exist in what has been euphemistically referred to as ‘under-served’ communities (leaving one to wonder if perhaps fixing the call button for the government-bellhop would suffice).
This incredible demand for information beyond the purview of the employment contract and employment law violates their right to privacy. The Fourth Amendment protects against such unreasonable searches, and seizures, and establishes the probable cause test be applied for violating the privacy of persons, houses, papers, and effects. The employees were right to refuse all these violations of their rights, and to seek legal redress. If any of these rights can be proved to have been denied the defendant, or infringed on, their convictions may be overturned.
The school district may artfully argue they are not entertaining court proceedings in their prosecutions, and so are not bound by any such jurisprudence. But in doing so, they admit to operating a kangaroo court specifically to deprive American citizens of their Constitutional rights, which is, itself, illegal.
Even in the simplest of terms, such confrontational behavior and workplace harassment by employers based on an employee’s race, among other things, are civil rights violations. (Here, we repeat ourselves, upholding right of due process for all Americans.) Certainly, no real court of law could uphold the district’s illegal proceedings, but that is exactly what Federal district judge Douglas Harpool did, when he presided over the suit brought by the teachers over the mandatory “diversity training.” The judge ruled in favor of SPS, and against the teachers. Then, adding insult to injury, Judge Harpool fined the teachers $313,000 in SPS’s legal fees to compensate SPS.
Here is where one would expect an appeal for clarification. It would be found in a compilation of public laws currently in force: The United States Code. There, Title 18, U.S.C, Section 241, makes it illegal for officials to engage in the deprivation of rights under color of law, setting forth fines and jail time for officials that do so. Officials acting in a professional capacity to deprive citizens of their rights protected by the Constitution are subject to fines and jail time. These officials include police officers, prison gauds, as well as judges.
Unfortunately, there is often a battle to be waged against contemptuous, crooked judges. As is with the judge that ruled against the victimized teachers in the SPS, Missouri case, where the teachers were deprived of their Constitutional rights, thousands of judges have broken several types of laws over the last few years, with many remaining on the bench after soiling their robes. The CRT Allies have been actively installing these judges since 2009 over two terms of President Barack Obama.