DOCUMENT 2

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/1/2021 3:04 PM
01-CV-2021-902513.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
JACQUELINE ANDERSON SMITH, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
BIRMINGHAM DIVISION

ADAM WALDROP, )
Plaintiff )
)CASE NO. CV-2021___________
v. )
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION )
Defendant )

COMPLAINT
COUNT ONE

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Plaintiff, ADAM WALDROP, by and through his attorney of record, William H.

McGowen III, submits this application demanding this Honorable Court grant (a) an immediate
Temporary Restraining Order terminating any and all policies related to any asserted requirement
that students wear masks, (b) a Preliminary Injunction denying the right of any Board of
Education to implement a policy including any asserted requirement that students wear masks,
and Permanent Injunction denying the right of any Board of Education to implement a policy
including any asserted requirement that students wear masks.
The Plaintiff recognizes that this Honorable Court is guided by the provisions of Rule 65
of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel reminds the Court that the limits of Rule 65
are procedural, protective of the rights of the Defendant to assure balanced and complete
adjudication. In so balancing and applying the protection of the Defendant, the Court must first
determine whether there is a right to protect. If not, the procedure should be a confirmation of the
Court’s protection of the rights of the Plaintiff.
The JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, claims a right to control the
behavior of parents, the responsible party for their children. The expected behavior is abuse of
the child, physically, emotionally, and psychologically. The expected behavior could destroy the
personal relationship of the child with his or her most devoted, loving, human connections.
The expectation is communicated explicitly claiming right undefined. No right to control
behavior of parents regarding their relationship with their children exists.
 DOCUMENT 2

The assertion of power is arrogant. And it is worthy of immediate response. Response to

protect the parent child relationship certainly does not require legal process. Legal process
protecting assertions of power to control behavior of parents must not continue. The process is to
protect the children, not the controllers. Not the arrogant.
Many reasons are evident confirming the responsibility of parents to protect their
children. No reasons are evident confirming the right of a board of education, a collective
governmental body empowered by statute, to control the behavior of parents in matters related to
the health and well-being of their children.
Argument need not continue to justify immediate action by this Court. However, Counsel
offers the following considerations if the Court is hesitant to act
1. This Court must enjoin the Defendant, JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, from continuing its communicated mandatory policies regarding medical
countermeasures in violation of CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATION

TITLE 21, FOOD AND DRUGS, PART 50—PROTECTION OF

HUMAN SUBJECTS. The medical countermeasure being illegally and criminally
required for students in Jefferson County is wearing a mask at school. The requirement
is involuntary consent through acquiescence to the administration of the board’s policy
by administrators and teachers.
2. The policy articulated by the Board requires parents to abuse their children by violating
the Alabama Child Abuse Act, AL Code 26-15-1 through 26-15-4.
a. AL Code 26-15-2 (4) defines a “RESPONSIBLE PERSON” as “a child's natural
parent, stepparent, adoptive parent, legal guardian, custodian, or any other person
who has the permanent or temporary care or custody or responsibility for the
supervision of a child.” Note, administrators and teachers join parents as
“RESPONSIBLE PERSONS”.

If parents (a) instruct their child to wear a mask or (b) demand their child wear a mask, to
comply with the Board of Education’s policy and thereby access public school, the parent
commits the act of child abuse. If administrators or teachers force a student to put on a mask,
they commit the act of child abuse.
 DOCUMENT 2

b. AL Code 26-15-2 (14) defines a “SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY” (as defined in

AL Code 13A-1-2) as physical injury which creates a substantial risk of
death, or which causes serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted
impairment of health, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of
any bodily organ.
Oxygen deprivation and continuing exposure to excess carbon dioxide
impair the proper function of the lungs.
c. It is important to note that AL Code 26-15-2 defines a “PERSON” as a human
being, and where appropriate, a public or private corporation, an
unincorporated association, a partnership, a government, or a governmental
instrumentality.
d. AL Code 26-15-2 (12) defines “PHYSICAL INJURY” as impairment of
physical condition or substantial pain.
e. AL Code 26-15-3 Torture, willful abuse, etc., of child under 18 years

of age by responsible person. A responsible person, as defined in Section

26-15-2, who shall torture, willfully abuse, cruelly beat, or otherwise
willfully maltreat any child under the age of 18 years shall, on conviction,
be guilty of a Class C felony.
f. AL Code 26-15-3.1 Aggravated child abuse.
(a)(1) A responsible person, as defined in Section 26-15-2, commits the
crime of aggravated child abuse if he or she does any of the following:
He or she violates the provisions of Section 26-15-3 by acts taking place on
more than one occasion.
He or she violates Section 26-15-3 and in so doing also violates a court
order concerning the parties or injunction.
He or she violates the provisions of Section 26-15-3 which causes serious
physical injury, as defined in Section 13A-1-2, to the child.
(2) The crime of aggravated child abuse is a Class B felony.
 DOCUMENT 2

(b)(1) A responsible person, as defined in Section 26-15-2, commits the

crime of aggravated child abuse of a child under the age of six if he or she
does any of the following to a child under the age of six years:
He or she violates the provisions of Section 26-15-3 by acts taking place on
more than two occasions.
He or she violates Section 26-15-3 and in so doing also violates a court
order concerning the parties or injunction.
He or she violates the provisions of Section 26-15-3 which causes serious
physical injury, as defined in Section 13A-1-2, to the child.
(2) The crime of aggravated child abuse of a child under the age of six is a
Class A felony.
3. CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATION TITLE 21, FOOD AND DRUGS,

PART 50—PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS, contains the

provisions and requirements applicable to the JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION’s illegal conduct of a clinical trial relative to a medical countermeasure,
masks. The violations of the statute are immediately evident. The applicable provisions
confirming JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION’s failure to comply are
in “bold” for emphasis.
Section 50.1, Scope: “This part applies to all clinical investigations .… that support
applications for research or marketing permits for products regulated by the Food
and Drug Administration, including …… drugs for human use, medical devices for
human use, biological products for human use.
Compliance with these parts is intended to protect the rights and safety of subjects involved
in investigations filed with the Food and Drug Administration.
Section 50.3 Definitions
(g) Human subject means an individual who is or becomes a participant in research,
either as a recipient of the test article or as a control. A subject may be either a healthy
human or a patient.
 DOCUMENT 2

(h) Institution means any public or private entity or agency (including Federal, State,
and other agencies). The word facility as used in section 520(g) of the act is deemed to be
synonymous with the term institution for purposes of this part.
(i) Institutional review board (IRB) means any board, committee, or other group
formally designated by an institution to review biomedical research involving humans as
subjects, to approve the initiation of and conduct periodic review of such research. The
term has the same meaning as the phrase institutional review committee as used in section
520(g) of the act.
(j) Test article means any drug (including a biological product for human use), medical
device for human use, human food additive, color additive, electronic product, or any other
article subject to regulation under the act.
The human subjects are the Plaintiff’s child and the other students in Jefferson County
Schools.
The institution is the JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION and “public
education”. The facility is the school where the student attends and all of the other schools in
Jefferson County.
No institutional review board (IRB) has been commissioned as required by the statute.
The test articles are masks.
Subpart B----Informed Consent of Human Subjects
Section 50.20 General requirements for informed consent
Except as provided in Sections 50.23 and 50.24, no investigator may involve a human being
as a subject in research covered by these regulations unless the investigator has obtained the
legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized
representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide
the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not
to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The
information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language
understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or
written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the
representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights, or releases
 DOCUMENT 2

or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability
for negligence.
Section 50.25 Elements of Informed Consent
(a) Basic elements of informed consent. In seeking informed consent, the following
information shall be provided to each subject:
(1) A statement that the study involves research, an explanation of the purposes of the
research and the expected duration of the subject's participation, a description of the
procedures to be followed, and identification of any procedures which are experimental.
(2) A description of any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts to the subject.
(3) A description of any benefits to the subject or to others which may reasonably be
expected from the research.
(4) A disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures or courses of treatment, if any,
that might be advantageous to the subject.
(5) A statement describing the extent, if any, to which confidentiality of records
identifying the subject will be maintained and that notes the possibility that the Food and
Drug Administration may inspect the records.
(6) For research involving more than minimal risk, an explanation as to whether any
compensation and an explanation as to whether any medical treatments are available if
injury occurs and, if so, what they consist of, or where further information may be
obtained.
(7) An explanation of whom to contact for answers to pertinent questions about the
research and research subjects' rights, and whom to contact in the event of a research-
related injury to the subject.
(8) A statement that participation is voluntary, that refusal to participate will involve
no penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled, and that the subject
may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which the
subject is otherwise entitled.
(b) Additional elements of informed consent. When appropriate, one or more of the
following elements of information shall also be provided to each subject:
 DOCUMENT 2

(1) A statement that the particular treatment or procedure may involve risks to the
subject (or to the embryo or fetus, if the subject is or may become pregnant) which are
currently unforeseeable.
(2) Anticipated circumstances under which the subject's participation may be
terminated by the investigator without regard to the subject's consent.
(3) Any additional costs to the subject that may result from participation in the
research.
(4) The consequences of a subject's decision to withdraw from the research and
procedures for orderly termination of participation by the subject.
(5) A statement that significant new findings developed during the course of the
research which may relate to the subject's willingness to continue participation will be
provided to the subject.
(6) The approximate number of subjects involved in the study.
(c) When seeking informed consent for applicable clinical trials, as defined in 42
U.S.C. 282(j)(1)(A), the following statement shall be provided to each clinical trial subject
in informed consent documents and processes. This will notify the clinical trial subject that
clinical trial information has been or will be submitted for inclusion in the clinical trial
registry databank under paragraph (j) of section 402 of the Public Health Service Act. The
statement is: “A description of this clinical trial will be available
on http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov, as required by U.S. Law. This Web site will not include
information that can identify you. At most, the Web site will include a summary of the
results. You can search this Web site at any time.”
(d) The informed consent requirements in these regulations are not intended to
preempt any applicable Federal, State, or local laws which require additional information
to be disclosed for informed consent to be legally effective.
(e) Nothing in these regulations is intended to limit the authority of a physician to
provide emergency medical care to the extent the physician is permitted to do so under
applicable Federal, State, or local law.
Section 50.27 Documentation of Informed Consent
(a) Except as provided in §56.109(c), informed consent shall be documented by the use
of a written consent form approved by the IRB and signed and dated by the subject or the
 DOCUMENT 2

subject's legally authorized representative at the time of consent. A copy shall be given to
the person signing the form.
(b) Except as provided in §56.109(c), the consent form may be either of the following:
(1) A written consent document that embodies the elements of informed consent
required by §50.25. This form may be read to the subject or the subject's legally authorized
representative, but, in any event, the investigator shall give either the subject or the
representative adequate opportunity to read it before it is signed.
(2) A short form written consent document stating that the elements of informed
consent required by §50.25 have been presented orally to the subject or the subject's legally
authorized representative. When this method is used, there shall be a witness to the oral
presentation. Also, the IRB shall approve a written summary of what is to be said to the
subject or the representative. Only the short form itself is to be signed by the subject or the
representative. However, the witness shall sign both the short form and a copy of the
summary, and the person actually obtaining the consent shall sign a copy of the summary.
A copy of the summary shall be given to the subject or the representative in addition to a
copy of the short form.
4. The powers of a City Board of Education are specifically addressed in “Code of
Alabama Section 16-11-9, Powers generally: “The city board of education is hereby vested
with all the powers necessary or proper for the administration and management of the free
public schools within such city and adjacent territory to the city which has been annexed as a part
of the school district which includes a city having a city board of education.
Certainly, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the
individual rights of citizens from Boards of Education acting claiming implied power to abridge
fundamental human rights, implementing mandatory medical countermeasures and coercing
parents to commit aggravated child abuse on their own children.”
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PREMISE CONSIDERED, Applicant request this Honorable Court enter a

Temporary Restraining Order. Federal, State and local action across the country is being predicated
on data that is both (a) incorrect and (b) promulgated and presented in an illegal manner. As such, we
are requesting emergency injunctive relief in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order.
Specifically, we request that the Court issue the following relief on an emergency and then
 DOCUMENT 2

permanent basis and include an exemption of posting Bond as the proposed acts of the Board are
completely discretionary, psychologically abusive and illegal.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court enter an ORDER stating the
following:
“This Court, upon careful review of the evidence presented and the analysis of the law,
finds that injunctive relief is due to be granted.
The reasons for the immediate issuance of this ORDER under Rule 65 of the Alabama
Rules of Civil Procedure are as follows:
Acts of abuse by parents, in acquiescent response to mandates from school boards claimed
only through implied power, that are physically and psychologically detrimental to their
children’s health and contrary to their natural right to make health decisions for the children,
must not be mandated or expected by boards of education. Exertions of power abridging personal
rights cannot be derived through implication. Exertions of implied power by mandate, abridging
a parent’s natural right to make health decisions for their child, are not lawful. Exertions of
implied power mandating parental consent to medical countermeasures such as their child being
required to wear a mask to access public school, are in direct violation of Title 21, Food and
Drug, Part 50 PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS, of the United States Code of
Federal Regulations.
More importantly, the expectation by school officials that a parent must violate the specific
provisions of the Alabama Child Abuse Act to comply with requirements is insane. The
Defendant herein has apparently assumed power believed by the Board to be granted to them by
recommendations from the Alabama Department of Health, a statutory agent of the State of
Alabama granted specific authority by statute. Recommendations do not create power or
authority for non health related governmental agencies and certainly do not grant the power to
mandate health decisions regarding children inconsistent with the parents’ independent and
unabridged decision.
Regarding the requirements of Rule 65 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, this
ORDER is entered following a complete review of each party’s communication of their legal
authority to act. In addition, this Court has considered the protection of individual, natural rights
in the United States Constitution.
 DOCUMENT 2

This Court finds that the assertions of power by the Defendant are justified only by
implication and that no “due process” as required by Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment
of the US Constitution has occurred in protection of the Plaintiff or the other employees.
This Court finds that 21 C.F.R. 50, Protection of Human Subjects applies herein and the
Defendant is barred from any violating act prior to approval of any medical countermeasure by
the Food and Drug Administration and obtaining properly communicated “informed consent”
from the parent of any child after all required approval protocols.
All requirements of proof by the Petitioner are deemed sufficient. Given the importance of
the decision of this Court, any limitation of power through technicality should be and is hereby
waived.
It is further ADJUDGED, ORDERED AND DECREED that the Defendant, JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, is enjoined from any and all policies, communications,
contractual contingencies, etc. which abridge the Plaintiff’s and other parents’ right to make their
children’s health decisions.”

COUNT TWO

PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Petitioner, ADAM WALDROP, adopts all of the preceding in support of this
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT and request this Honorable Court to enter an
ORDER stating:

“Policies requiring parents to violate the provisions of the Alabama Child Abuse Act in order to
comply with communicated mandates are void. The notion that parents have to abuse their own
children to gain access to public school is insane and illegal. Further, any acts of enforcement by
school officials violating constitutionally protected rights of parents and their children must only
be derived from judicial due process.”
and
“School Boards are required to comply with Title 21, Food and Drug, Part 50,
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS, to obtain prior approval before implementing any
medical policy as it relates to its students. The provisions of the Act provide the “due process”
 DOCUMENT 2

guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. More
specifically, the Constitution and its Amendments require governmental agencies and boards to
secure specific power to act through either judicial or legislative law if fundamental, protected
rights are affected and could be potentially abridged.”
and
“ASSERTIONS OF POWER IN VIOLATION OF CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATION
TITLE 21, FOOD AND DRUGS, PART 50—PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, WILL
NOT BE TOLERATED AND ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RESTRAINT TO PROTECT
HUMAN SUBJECTS.”

In support of this Petition, the Plaintiff Petitioner submits to this Honorable Court the
following reasons for the requested ORDER:
4. The JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION is violating CODE OF
FEDERAL REGULATION TITLE 21, FOOD AND DRUGS, PART 50—
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS.
5. The Board is administering illegal policies regarding masks and data gathering.
6. School officials at McAdory High School have informed the Plaintiff’s son that he is
dismissed from school and cannot return until complying with the mask mandate.
7. The Plaintiff and his son are protected by due process pursuant to the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
8. Process includes balancing of rights. Power to act comes with parameters, extent and
limitation. Both must be assessed in deriving clarity. Clarity is confirmed as specificity.
9. Responsibility falls upon the actors. Actors guided by responsible analysis of extent and
limitation only then can receive confirmation. Authoritative action lacking confirmation
is irresponsible. Authoritative action in violation of contract through intimidation is not
legal. Authoritative action in violation of the “Protection of Human Subjects” statutes
can be criminal.
10. Actions inconsistent with ethics must be responsibly analyzed within written law.
Analysis provides clarity to the illegality of acts not confirmed by specificity through the
judicial or legislative process.
11. Actors here are individuals at multiple levels. Board members have conspired with
administrators and teachers to intimidate and abuse.
 DOCUMENT 2

12. Principals herein are actors. Their authority comes with extent and limitation. Specificity
protects principals from illegal acts if they consider statutes.
13. Principals need specificity from their instructions. Instructions requiring acts claimed by
implication of power must be judged carefully. Decisions requiring conditional
acquiescence must be judged harshly.
14. Acts of power manifest personally. The actor must prevent individual subjects from
becoming individual victims.
15. Principals must protect students from abuse. No law empowers principals or teachers to
abuse.
16. Abuse can be recognized and is specifically protected by law.
17. Actors are guided by law and must understand ramifications completely.
18. Acts based in implied authority are not authorized and must be judged singularly. With
responsibility comes accountability.
19. Board members guide administrators from a position of perceived authority. Authority is
guided by contract, defined extent, and defined limitation.
20. Definition of the source of authority must be specific. Powers not confirmed by
specificity lack protection.
21. Acts not authorized bring responsibility. There can be no victims.
22. Parents need not seek confirmation of their authority as it pertains to their chldren’s
health.
23. Prevention of abuse requires no process. Protection should be immediate. Limits of
assertion may be judged through process.
24. Actors are not protected following notice of reality from a parent. Where consent is
withheld, there is no expectation.
25. Parents consider exemptions, religious and medical, only as a result of assumed
authority.
26. Parents need not claim exemption. They need only assert and exert personal authority.
27. Principals and teachers must recognize they are being instructed to psychologically
abuse students.
28. Protection is not limited by process. Matters of abuse should be resolved at the time of
imposition.
 DOCUMENT 2

29. To reiterate, authority is limited by specificity. Specificity is determined by process.

30. No authority interrupting basic rights can be gained by implication.
31. Authority asserted by implication is illegal.
32. Individual actors must be guided by reason. Acts of authority with no basis only arise
from failure of analysis.
33. Analysis of the power of the collective is distracting and needless.
34. The assertion of implied power by a school board is void if its administration requires
individuals to abridge any fundamental right of a parent or child.
35. The collective body, the JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, has not
sufficiently articulated the potential consequences of the administrative acts of the
administrators and teachers.
36. The result of the collective governmental body, the JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION, not clearly articulating the potential consequences of the
administrative acts to the administrators and teachers, subjects those individuals to the
individual and personal responsibility for their acts of abuse.
37. The policies communicated by the JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
being currently administered have resulted in the acts of abuse.
a. Requiring students to wear masks constitutes abuse. More than sufficient data
has been derived from studies confirming that humans wearing masks is
detrimental to their health.
b. Failure to acknowledge completely an individual’s right to withhold consent
to wearing a mask is abuse of the student. The right of individuals to make
health decisions to protect their health and well-being is not altered by the
policy of the board.
c. The implementation and administration of a medical countermeasure policy
by individuals not licensed as doctors, evaluating the health benefits and
potential negative results, is not authorized by law.
d. Any administrative response to a parent’s claim of right on behalf of their
child not to consent to a medical countermeasure is not authorized by law and
thereby constitutes not only breach of contract but also abuse.
e. Forcing a student to wear a mask is a criminal act.
 DOCUMENT 2

f. The United States Government provides guidance in 21 C.F.R. Part 50, to

States, municipalities, and businesses relative to the legal requirements for the
promulgation of medical countermeasures during a public health emergency
based upon an inaccurate “belief” that face masks limit the spread of SARS
CoV2. To date, not a single study has confirmed that a mask prevented the
transmission of, or the infection by SARS CoV-2.
i. The JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION has forced upon
the healthy population of its students an unlawful clinical trial in which the
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION is extrapolating
epidemiologic data. No informed consent has been sought or secured for
any of the “medical countermeasures” forced upon students and no
independent review board – as defined by the statute – has been
empaneled.
j. Through April 2020, the official recommendation by the Journal of the
American Medical Association was unambiguous.

“Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect

themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no
evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are
effective in preventing people from becoming ill.”
(https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762694)

Part of that lack of evidence in fact showed that cloth facemasks actually
increased influenza-linked illness.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/)
k. In contravention to established science, the JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION has violated the legal requirements for the
promulgation of medical counter measures with reckless disregard of the
fact that no confirmed evidence exists that a mask prevents the
transmission of, or the infection by SARS CoV-2.
l. The JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION policy
mandating wearing masks in order for students to remain in school is a
product of willfully ignoring established science and is engaging in what
 DOCUMENT 2

amounts to a student population clinical trial. This conclusion is reached

by the fact that facemask use and COVID-19 incidence are being reported
in scientific opinion pieces promoted by the United States Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, the Alabama Department of Public
Health and others. (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-
sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html)
m. All relevant authorities in the United States including the JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION must cease and desist the use of
face masks by mandate until the matters above are rectified.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF requests that this Honorable Court:

(a) enter a Declaratory Judgement ORDER stating:

(b) “Policies requiring parents to violate the provisions of the Alabama Child Abuse
Act in order to comply with communicated mandates are void. The notion that
parents have to abuse their own children to gain access to public school is insane and
illegal. Further, any acts of enforcement by school officials violating constitutionally
protected rights of parents and their children must only be derived from judicial due
process.”
(c) and
(d) “School Boards are required to comply with Title 21, Food and Drug, Part 50,
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS, to obtain prior approval before
implementing any medical policy as it relates to its students. The provisions of the
Act provide the “due process” guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States. More specifically, the Constitution and its
Amendments require governmental agencies and boards to secure specific power to
act through either judicial or legislative law if fundamental, protected rights are
affected and could be potentially abridged.”
(e) and
(f) “ASSERTIONS OF POWER IN VIOLATION OF CODE OF FEDERAL
REGULATION TITLE 21, FOOD AND DRUGS, PART 50—PROTECTION
 DOCUMENT 2

OF HUMAN RIGHTS, WILL NOT BE TOLERATED AND ARE SUBJECT TO

IMMEDIATE RESTRAINT TO PROTECT HUMAN SUBJECTS.”
(g) award all costs of court incurred in this cause to the Plaintiff to be paid by the
Defendant,
(h) grant such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

William H. McGowen III(MCG031)

William H. McGowen III(MCG031)
Attorney for Plaintiff
3415 Independence Drive, Suite 220
Birmingham, AL 35209
(205) 422-4296
Email: [email protected]