Legal Terminology within Petition
We want to point out a bit about how to read such a document. Not being a lawyer, Horwitz had to do extensive research to remain in THE GAME. After spending over $300,000 on legal fees, her choice was giving up or doing it herself. Obviously, she chose the latter, which is what "pro se" means.
To make this easier to follow for those who haven't researched law, we will explain the italicized references. These are case law or court decisions that serve as precedent for future courts; courts are obligated to follow established law. (You will see they didn't do that with Horwitz, illustrating just how underprivileged teachers are.)
The cases decided by the US Supreme Court serve as precedent for all states whereas individual states need only follow precedent decided within their state or their federal district. Supreme Court cases, which are the ultimate authority in law and allegedly apply to all of us, have a name v. another name, a number then "U.S." then a number followed by the date it was decided.
These Supreme Court rulings that all courts are bound to follow are easy to distinguish. A good example is Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). Then, to show what rulings or decision evolved from a particular case, it is often just noted in parentheses such as this phrase that applies to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): (holding that African American citizens were unworthy of rights afforded white citizens). This case says, or holds that the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1857 that courts may deny African Americans the rights afforded white citizens. That means that if a court were to decide to give equal rights to African Americans after that decision came down, the other party could appeal what would violate the U.S. Supreme Court's decision and win on appeal. Of course, this precedent was overturned; our country obviously did not agree with this decision and not long after 1857 war ensued. It has served as a disgrace, if not the biggest disgrace, of our nation. Yet, until it was overturned, courts had to abide by it.
The other U.S. Supreme Court cases Horwitz cited, or used to support her arguments were not overturned, and thus they are all to be followed. But you will see that they have not been followed in her case or in the cases of the teachers who are being silenced by districts all over this country. Although this should concern the U.S. Supreme Court, it might not. If that occurs, the public needs to know this since this means our children are not protected from ruthless EducRAT$ and somehow we need to protect our children.
About K. Horwitz