You've rejected them at every turn and invented "facts" out of thin air.
I have not rejected the objective facts at all. What I reject is your view that the state did no wrong.
Which facts-genuine facts and not "facts"- have I invented out of thin air?
What you are attempting to portray as a factual dispute is a dispute over the legal interpretation of the propriety of the state's actions. That is what we are disagreeing about and stop trying to turn it into a disagreement over fact.
The state did what the facts state that they did. The question is was the actions of the state proper, or should these jackbooted thugs be sued for all their property and sacred honor. You think the former. We think the latter. When this gets sent back for trial, a jury of the peers of the school will get to determine the propriety of the actions and the damages they will have to pay.
And that will the the judgment of the people based on their collective view of the norms of our society.