Court Victory Against Biden Cover-Up!

Delaware Court Orders State to Provide More Detail on Deal to Keep Secret Senate Biden Docs
Public School Charges Boys For “Mispronouning” Trans Classmate
Feds Get Settlement for Assistant Principal Who Refused to Enforce Dress Code

Delaware Court Orders State to Provide More Detail on Deal to Keep Secret Senate Biden Docs

The University of Delaware is sitting on more than 1,850 boxes of records from Joe Biden’s years as a senator – and doesn’t want the public to see them.

So, two years ago we went to court. This month our lawsuit advanced another step when the Delaware Superior Court ordered the university to provide under oath additional information justifying its decision to keep secret its agreement to house and restrict access to Biden’s records.

Here are the events leading up to this decision.

Judicial Watch and the Daily Caller News Foundation filed a July 2020 Delaware Freedom of Information Act lawsuit after the University of Delaware denied our requests on April 30, 2020, for all of Biden’s Senate records and for records about the preservation and any proposed release of the records, including communications with Biden or his representatives (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. University of Delaware (No. N20A-07-001 MMJ (Del. Super.)).

We appealed an adverse lower court ruling and the Delaware Supreme Court returned to the case to the lower court.

The university then filed an affidavit, citing no documents or other specifics, stating that no state funds were used on the university’s “matters or undertakings” regarding Biden and that the Biden Senate papers were never discussed at any meetings of the university full Board of Trustees.

We challenged the sufficiency of the affidavit, and Superior Court Judge Mary M. Johnson ordered the University to provide more information:

[T]he remand mandates that the inquiry does not end with the University’s filing of an Affidavit swearing to information previously provided. The Supreme Court directed reconsideration of whether the University satisfied its burden of proof.

***

The Court finds that the generalized statements in the Affidavit do not meet “the burden to create a record from which the Superior Court can determine whether the University performed an adequate search for responsive documents.” The University of Delaware must articulate who (identified at least by position within the University) provided the information: that no State funds were spent by the University; that no salaries of any University personnel involved in the custody and curation of the papers were paid with State funds; that no State funds were spent on the University’s email system for communications between University personnel and Biden representatives; when such inquiries were made; and what, if any, documents (other than the gift agreement) were reviewed.

“It’s absurd we’re having to sue the University of Delaware just to learn how they’re using taxpayer dollars,” said Daily Caller News Foundation Managing Editor Michael Bastasch. “Rest assured, with Judicial Watch’s help, we are optimistic we will uncover the truth about why they are seemingly keeping President Biden’s records a secret.”

Joe Biden is being protected by the University of Delaware, and the courts are growing impatient with the shell games. Of course, President Biden could end the dispute by simply releasing the details about his Senate records. What is Biden hiding?

Public School Charges Boys For ‘Mispronouning’ Trans Classmate

The transgender extremist agenda has come to small town America. Kiel, Wisconsin, which describes itself as “The little city that does BIG things,” has turned typical eighth grader behavior in a music classroom into a federal case, elevating along the way a non-word, “mispronouning,” into a civil rights offense. Here’s a look from our Corruption Chroniclesblog at what might be coming to your town.

In a case that illustrates the madness surrounding the governmentwide push for transgender rights, a public school district in Wisconsin charged three boys with sexual harassment for failing to use a female classmate’s chosen pronouns (they/them). The Kiel Area School District, situated in a town of about 4,000, accused the three eighth graders of “mispronouning” in a music classroom. Then the school launched a complaint under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal funds. In a Notice of a Formal Complaint of Sexual Harassment to each boy, the district writes the following: “After being informed that a student’s preferred pronouns were ‘they/them’ [name redacted] engaged in conduct based on gender identity toward the student including using incorrect pronouns and conduct that was harassing in nature.”

Fortunately, a conservative group, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), got involved and the school district recently dropped its federal investigation under immense pressure from the community and attorneys at the legal nonprofit. Since the “mispronouning” and subsequent investigation occurred weeks ago, local news outlets have reported that the school received bomb threats. “After the story became local and national news, the district received numerous threats referencing the Title IX investigation,” according to one local story. The article continues: “Due to bomb threats, the school district went virtual through the end of the school year. The threats then expanded to city hall, businesses, facilities and homes of school officials. The messages were emailed to police, news media and school district members. The district was forced to delay its graduation ceremony out of concern for the community’s safety.” In another report a local LGBTQ advocate said that “homophobia, transphobia and anti-LGBTQ violence exists in all communities.”

The reality is that Title IX usually covers serious crimes such as sexual assault, rape, stalking and inappropriate touching. “None of that—or anything even close to it—was alleged in the complaint,” WILL, the charity representing the boys pro bono, points out in a statement. “While there is a catchall for “unwelcome conduct” that is “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to education,” the mere use of a biologically correct pronoun, without significantly more, does not count, and if it did, it would violate the First Amendment.” The legal group proceeds to write that schools can and should deal with teasing and bullying but the use of incorrect pronouns alone is not punishable. The school district also failed to follow its own policy and Title IX procedures by not providing a detailed notice of the allegations before questioning the minors. “The District initiated its investigation and conducted interviews without first providing additional details or giving the boys and their families time to prepare,” according to WILL.

Further illustrating the absurdity of the case, the attorneys representing the boys reveal in a May letter to the district superintendent that “mispronouning” doesn’t constitute sexual harassment under Title IX because gender identity is not even included within the definition of sex in the decades-old measure. Not surprisingly, the Department of Education is currently working to amend Title IX to add it. None of the other conduct described in the statement from the music teacher comes remotely close to sexual harassment, the boys’ lawyers write, adding that the statement acknowledges the whole class expressed frustration with remembering pronouns. “At most, the statement describes a few isolated incidents of teasing and arguments between the 8th grade students in question,” WILL attorneys write. The letter also discloses that the student in question has also teased the boys by calling them numerous names and yelling at them for not using they/them pronouns even when the boys were not talking about her.

This month the school district finally dropped the case against the boys, writing in a letter to the school community that it “considers this matter closed.” The letter mentions the media attention and threats related to the case and reiterates that the Kiel Area School District prohibits all forms of bullying and harassment in accordance with all laws and “will continue to support ALL students regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, creed, pregnancy, marital status, parental status, sexual orientation, sex (including transgender status, change of sex or gender identity), or physical, mental, emotional or learning disability (“Protected Classes”) in any of its student programs and activities, consistent with Board policy and the law.”

Feds Get Settlement for Assistant Principal Who Refused to Enforce Dress Code

With nothing else to do, your federal government is stepping in to regulate school dress codes, as our Corruption Chronicles blog reports.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has helped a public-school administrator get a hefty settlement after being reprimanded then dismissed for refusing to enforce the student dress code because he felt it discriminated against African Americans. Additionally, the taxpayer-funded school district in a Columbus, Ohio, suburb will pay to conduct a variety of annual anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation trainings with materials pre-approved by the feds. The DOJ claims the school district violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it “discriminated and retaliated” against the administrator, who is African American, for opposing discriminatory employment practices. Under the consent decree announced this week, the district will pay the administrator, Amon-Ra Dobbins, $200,000 and clean his employment record. “No employee should face discipline or reprisals for filing a complaint regarding a dress code policy that may be causing harm to Black students,” the federal prosecutor who handled the case for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division said in a statement.

Dobbins was an assistant principal in the Groveport Madison Local School District’s only high school. He began his career in the district with an enrollment of about 5,600 as a teacher in 2001 and was promoted to assistant principal in 2017. His duties as assistant principal included addressing discipline-related issues, resolving student conduct violations, creating a discipline strategy with other administrators, ensuring other administrators and teachers consistently enforced school and district student conduct rules, supervising the high school’s security staff and interpreting district policies regulating student behavior such as the dress code. The complaint, filed by the federal government on Dobbins’s behalf, centers around the district dress code, which states the following: “No hoods, hats, coats, bandannas, and sunglasses may be worn in [the] school building or class[.]”

The code also prohibits head coverings known as du-rags and bonnets, which are scarves worn on the head with the ends tied together at the back. “They are typically worn by African-American males to preserve their hair’s pattern after brushing it,” according to the DOJ complaint. “Similarly, bonnets are typically worn by African-American females to preserve their hairstyle, especially during sleep.” In his role as the high school administrator in charge of discipline, Dobbins grew concerned that the dress code was discriminatory towards black students, the complaint states. The assistant principal “noticed a pattern of teachers disproportionately referring African-American students for discipline because of the District’s interpretation of the Dress Code to prohibit du-rags,” the court document says, adding that Dobbins was also concerned the dur-rag prohibition resulted in teachers and administrators disproportionately enforcing the dress code against African American students wearing the prohibited head scarfs. “As a result, Dobbins believed the District’s interpretation of the Dress Code was a targeted, discriminatory practice that violated the rights of African-American students and required him to enforce, as part of his job duties, discrimination towards them,” according to the complaint.

District officials gave Dobbins a written reprimand after visiting the campus and seeing students wearing du-rags. The notice reminded the administrator that permitting du-rags and bonnets was an example of failing to follow the Board of Education’s policies and procedures. Dobbins blew off the notice, instead advocating for a change to the dress code so that African American student would no longer be subjected to discipline for wearing du-rags and he would not be required to disproportionately discipline them based on their race. He continued to allow the head scarfs, the district put him on administrative leave and did not renew his contract. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces the nation’s workplace discrimination laws, investigated Dobbins’s discrimination claims and referred the case to the DOJ. The agency points out in its complaint that the vast majority of administrators, teachers and staff in the Groveport Madison Local School District are white and that Dobbins was only one of two “non-white administrators” and the only African American.

Dobbins is currently teaching a course called “multicultural mastery” at a private college in Ashland, Ohio. Here is the course description: “During this course the participants will examine the urban experience and multicultural views to help establish anti-racism mindsets. As we dive deeper into the context of how trauma is a universal human experience that demands care and attention and how it can be managed through specific practices and approaches.”

Until next week …