Journal editorial misdirection

In the Journal this morning, link, the editors agree with a federal court judge;

"... good open government should involve the public
and  encourage the exercise of free speech rights ..."

The Journal editors aver; efforts to limit the exercise of free speech rights are "offensive".

The editors cited my case; one of two recent federal court rulings supporting the rights of the people to criticize politicians and public servants from the podium of a at public forum.

In a similar case, Chief U.S. District Judge M. Christina Armijo ruled in March against a decision by the Albuquerque Public Schools board to ban Charles “Ched” MacQuigg, who frequently spoke out about a particular program. APS board members said they expelled MacQuigg because he would shout during meetings, hover over administrators, and once wore an elephant mask that made employees and members of the public feel uncomfortable and unsafe.

The paragraph illustrates the influence of the leadership of the APS over the editorial board.  It is more propaganda than fact.

I tire of addressing the relentless defamation, but one can't just ignore it.

The editors, for all practical intents and purposes, report;
that I spoke out about a "particular program".

The "particular program" happens to be APS' student standards of conduct; the Pillars of Character Counts! Good, bad, indifferent; they are APS student standards of conduct, not some "particular program". They are the standards that students are expected to "model and promote".  Why does the Journal need to hide that?

Standards of conduct are "modeled" through, and only through, conspicuous honest and actual accountability to those standards.  If we really want students to grow into adults who embrace character and courage and honor; adults who will hold themselves honestly accountable to higher standards of conduct than the law (the lowest standards of conduct)
someone is going to have to show them what it looks like.

The leadership of the APS is shirking their duty as role models of accountability to the same standards of conduct they establish and enforce upon students, and the Journal refuses to investigate and report it; the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.

The leadership of the APS and their friends in the establishment's media, cannot repeat often enough;

"...  plaintiff’s ad nauseum belaboring … about Character Counts” ..."

Belaboring ad nauseum are not the words I would have chosen to describe my decades long effort to get the leadership of the APS to step up as honest to God role models of student standards of conduct, but that's what we have.

I have trouble still, figuring out how many times to you get to ask;

why are students expected to hold themselves
honestly accountable to higher standards of conduct,
while school board members and senior administrators
are not?

before the question is asked too many times?

It is worth noting, that for all the times the question has been asked, they still have never answered the question.  The Journal, and KRQE, KOAT, and KOB TV have never asked it, are not now asking it, and likely never will ask it.

The Journal editors know the "leadership" of the APS have not answered and, will not answer the question. Journal readers do not know.  Nor do they know about the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.  They just "know" that I

"... would shout during meetings, hover over administrators,
and once wore an elephant mask that made employees and
members of the public feel uncomfortable and unsafe."

"Step up as role models" or
"I'll kill you"?

APS highly paid Executive Director of Communications Monica Armenta testified under oath that she believed my elephant mask was an effort to look like Chuck E Cheese, link, a scary dude if ever there was.

"Step up as role models", or I will
intimidate you until you do.

Defendant Marty Esquivel swore under oath, that my efforts and message as the elephant in the room escaped him entirely.

He thought, he swears,
I was trying to be a mouse (in the room).






The editors have not seen or heard one iota of evidence that corroborates any of the allegations Esquivel, Brooks and the board have made.  They have not seen or heard any, because there isn't any.  None certainly that justified what amounted to a lifetime ban from public fora at APS.

Despite APS' very expensive and literally years long effort
to gather any actual evidence they possibly could,
they could not.  The Journal won't report that, they just keep
reporting the same old slander.

Either, I move very, very fast; disrupting meetings and scaring
people too fast to be seen in the densest concentration of security
cameras in the entire APS,
or
the allegations that I've done these things, allegations they make
in their own self interests,
just aren't true.