VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

ELECTION DAY IS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5th.

Therefore, it is crucial to make your voice heard and participate in the democratic process.

EARLY VOTING STARTED OCTOBER 26th.

VOTE EARLY AND SECURELY!!!

For Mail In Ballots, the most secure way to drop off your mail-in-ballot is at your polling location or elections office.  Or Vote in person and early to avoid long waiting times.

FAQ’s

How can you securely vote in person in California?

1. Bring your Vote-by-Mail (VBM) ballot and return envelope when you vote in person to show you are registered and haven’t voted yet.

2. You do not have to give up your VBM ballot or envelope at the polls.

To ensure ballot security at the polling place, follow these steps:

• Request using a paper ballot instead of a machine.

• If paper voting isn’t available, request to cast your completed VBM ballot without the envelope. If the polling center manager says you can't, ask them to call the county hotline for confirmation. You have the right to ask questions and receive clear answers. If poll workers cannot answer your questions, ask them to verify with their hotline. Voters Choice Act

• If no other option is available, you can vote using the machine your county provides, either a voting machine or a ballot marking device that lets you mark your votes on physical ballots.

Voter Registration in California

If you are registering or re-registering less than 15 days before an election you will need to complete the Same-Day Voter Registration process and request your ballot in person at your county elections office or polling location. For more information on voter registration and voting locations, contact your local county elections official.

For more information on voter registration and voting locations, contact your local county elections official.

What You Will Need

To register online you will need

• Your California driver license or California identification card number,

• The last four digits of your social security number and

• Your date of birth.

When is the last day to return my voted vote-by-mail ballot?

Vote-by-mail ballots that are personally delivered must be delivered no later than the close of polls at 8:00 p.m. on Election Day. Vote-by-mail ballots that are mailed must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by your county elections office no later than 7 days after Election Day. If you are not sure your vote-by-mail ballot will arrive in time if mailed, take it to your county elections office on or before Election Day or to any polling place in your county between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Election Day.

How do I turn in my vote-by-mail ballot on Election Day?

You may return it in person to any polling place in your county or to your county elections office on Election Day. If you are unable to return the ballot yourself, you may designate any person to return the ballot to the elections official or the precinct board at any polling place within the jurisdiction. The ballot must be received by the elections official or the precinct board before the close of the polls at 8:00 p.m. on Election Day in order to be counted.

*Or turn in your mail in ballot at the polling place to receive an in person ballot to vote on Nov. 5th.  We recommend voting early.

PERK takes on Willows Community School for Illegal COVID Vaccine Mandate Policy.

Willows Community School Lawsuit

PERK Files Lawsuit On Behalf Of students and Parents

PROTECTION OF THE EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS OF KIDS, a California non-profit corporation; DEE BARSHON, PAUL BARSHON, SHIRA AFLALO and YOTAM SHOCHAT, vs. THE WILLOWS COMMUNITY SCHOOL

In a groundbreaking legal move, families have filed a lawsuit on January 12, 2024 against The Willows School in Culver City for unlawfully mandating the COVID-19 vaccine as a prerequisite for student attendance. At the most recent court hearing, on September 24, 2024, Judge Kerry Bensinger overruled the schools attempt to dismiss the case, and instead ruled in favor of PERK and the plaintiffs as they move forward on the contract claim violation.

The lawsuit, filed by the nonprofit Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids (PERK), on behalf of the families, alleges that The Willows School breached its obligations and contractual agreements by imposing an illegal mandate and subsequently excluding children from education when their families did not comply. The plaintiffs in the case, families directly impacted by The Willows’ vaccine mandate, are standing firm in their claim that the school’s actions were not only harmful but also unlawful.

They state, "We’re all very pleased to see that this decision from the court is a vindication of the years of belief that we had done nothing wrong and only cared for the safety and wellbeing of our children. The Willows caused great damage and anxiety, not just to our families, but to many others with their belief that they had a right to control what medical procedures they could force onto us. I hope this first stage of the proceedings closes the door to any other educational facilities that think they are able to make medical decisions for our kids. This would have never happened if not for the diligence and ethical belief from PERK that we need to protect all children from outside influence."

PERK’s legal team is challenging the school’s policy, asserting that decisions regarding medical procedures should remain with parents and healthcare professionals—not educational institutions. The lawsuit seeks to prevent future incidents of similar policies being enacted without proper legal or ethical grounds. The case highlights a growing concern among parents nationwide regarding the imposition of vaccine mandates by schools.

President of PERK, Amy Bohn stated, “The overreach of schools during the time of Covid can never be forgotten. In this instance, these families and children were harmed by the abrupt and illegal removal from school. The only way to prevent this from happening again is to hold the school accountable and ensure the families harmed have been made whole.”

PERK’s lead attorney, Scott Street of JW Howard Attorneys, agreed. “During the pandemic, too many schools acted without thinking. They didn’t think about the legality of their actions or the potential consequences. They assumed that judges would protect them if families ever went to court to seek a remedy for that. And some judges have done that. But we are grateful that Judge Bensinger saw through that and allowed this case to proceed.”

Factual allegation in the case:

Plaintiffs have children who attended The Willows, a private school in Culver City that costs between $32,525 and $45,000 per year, plus $6,485 in fees. The Barshons’ sons started in kindergarten, while Ms. Aflalo’s and Mr. Shochat’s daughter began in Developmental Kindergarten. In California, children must show proof of certain vaccinations to attend school. The Barshons' son had a legal medical exemption allowing him to attend The Willows without vaccinations, while Ms. Aflalo’s and Mr. Shochat’s daughter was fully vaccinated. Other students also had vaccine exemptions, and before the Covid-19 pandemic, The Willows supported medical freedom. However, during the 2021-2022 school year, The Willows required eligible students aged 5 to 11 to get the Covid-19 vaccine to attend in-person classes, with a deadline of February 1, 2022. This policy was reportedly issued by Willows administrators, including Kitty Cohen, Lisa Rosenstein, and Terry Baird, acting within their job responsibilities.

The Covid vaccine policy was unprecedented. The Willows required its students to receive other vaccines set by the California Department of Public Health (DPH), not by the school itself. State law mandates that any new school vaccination rules must come from the Legislature or the DPH, allowing individuals to obtain exemptions based on personal beliefs. Even as a private school, The Willows must follow this law.

The Willows rejected all exemption requests, including those based on religious beliefs. They forced unvaccinated students into independent study with limited instruction (via Zoom) twice a week. These students were only allowed to take Math, English, and Science, and they were barred from extracurricular activities and school events, including field trips. These actions violated California law, including court rulings made during the COVID-19 pandemic that deemed such practices illegal.

As of February 1, 2022, The Willows required students aged 5 to 11 to have started the COVID-19 vaccine series. The school stopped offering independent study programs for those who didn't receive the vaccine. Consequently, the Barshons' son was effectively expelled from The Willows for not getting the shot, along with other students. Ms. Aflalo’s and Mr. Shochat’s daughter got COVID-19 during winter break in 2021, which made her unable to receive the vaccine. The family provided a doctor's note stating she couldn't take the shot for ninety days. Despite this, school officials did not allow her to attend in-person classes after April 22, 2022. She finished second grade remotely and was later expelled due to the vaccination mandate.

Quote from the Willows Plaintiffs regarding the tentative ruling:

We’re all very pleased to see that this decision from the court is a vindication of the years of belief that we had done nothing wrong and only cared for the safety and wellbeing of our children. The Willows caused great damage and anxiety, not just to our families, but many others in their belief that they had a right to control what medical procedures they could force onto us.  I hope this first stage of the proceedings closes the door to any other educational facilities that think they are able to make medical decisions for our kids.  This would have never happened if not for the diligence and ethical belief from PERK that we need to protect all children from outside influence.  

For more information: https://www.perk-group.com/school-lawsuits

Plandemic: The Musical Worldwide Online Premiere 10.10.24

We’re just 1 DAY away from the worldwide online premiere of Plandemic: The Musical!

 In a world flooded with fear and bad news, Plandemic: The Musical is the uplifting, soul-nourishing experience we all need.

This award winning 25-minute film has already electrified audiences at live premieres across the country, and now it’s your turn to experience it!

There are 2 Ways to Watch:

2 PM CT on London Real Digital Freedom Platform

– Exclusive interview with Mikki & Brian Rose (Date TBA).

– Register now to secure your spot!

7 PM CT on JP Sears’ Rumble Channel

– Featuring a special pre-show with the cast and crew.

– Follow JP on Rumble for updates and details!

Plandemic: The Musical is designed to lift our spirits, ignite our courage, and remind us of the power we have as creators.

Host a Plandemic: The Musical Watch Party! 

Whether it’s gathering friends and family at home or bringing together like-minded freedom fighters in your community, this is your chance to help spread the message of empowerment and truth.

 *For tips on how to host a watch party CLICK HERE

 

Special Perk for Watch Party Hosts

 As a watch party host, you’ll get exclusive access to our Pre-Premiere virtual event on October 10th at 6:00 PM CST, where you’ll have the opportunity to personally connect with me, our musical director DPAK, and some of the cast before the show begins!

This is going to be a global gathering of watch parties happening all around the world—a united community of freedom-lovers coming together to celebrate the premiere of Plandemic: The Musical.

Simply register your watch party below to receive the event details and make sure you’re part of this unforgettable moment!

This is more than just a film—it’s a celebration of freedom, and the infinitely creative human spirit. Let’s rise together and make this premiere unforgettable!

Mikki Willis

Father / Filmmaker

One Town - One Team: Donation Drive for NC Families.

Pavilions Parking LOT: 989 Avenida Pico, San Clemente, CA 92673

Michael and Joyce Speakman are facilitating a donation drive for those in need from the Hurricane Helene emergency. Michael and Joyce are not only our valued PERK friends but also a dedicated supporter and the creative force behind our unique PERK wine line, which he produces through his esteemed company, Westerly Wines.

If you reside in Southern California, we invite you to come out and support Michael as he organizes a collection of donations this Sunday, October 13th, from 12 PM to 5 PM Pavilions in San Clemente, aimed at assisting those affected by the recent devastating impacts of Hurricane Helene. Your contributions will make a meaningful difference in the lives of those in need during this challenging time.

Please view the flyer and please share with friends and family in the area.

CVUSD Lawsuit to be Heard in the California Court of Appeal on Oct. 9th in Ventura County

Join Us in Protecting Parental Rights

Conejo Valley Unified School District Is Being Sued For Illegally Providing Minors With Inappropriate “Gender Affirming” Surveys, Medically and Age-Inappropriate Curriculum, Without Proper Parent Notification

DIVISION SIX Oral Argument, Wednesday, October 9, 2024 
 Wednesday, October 9, 2024 at 1:30 p.m.
Calendar 1:30 p.m.     

On Friday, November 4th, 2022, plaintiffs Steven Schneider and Carrie Burgert, filed a lawsuit against Conejo Valley School District for declaratory and injunctive relief, and petition for writ of mandate against the unconstitutional and illegal actions of the district. The Plaintiffs are represented by Attorney John Howard and Attorney Scott J. Street of JW Howard/ Attorneys, Ltd.  

The complaint states the following

“The District has a clear and present duty to provide health/sex education that complies with California law. Instead, the District decided—in an arbitrary and irrational manner— to provide an education that is not age appropriate, medically accurate and free of bias. In so doing, it violated both its ministerial and discretionary duties.”

“These actions are unlawful. Schools have an obligation to teach health and sex education to kids. They do not have the right to teach kids about woke political issues that are, at best, medically unsettled and certainly not age appropriate. And, regardless of what school boards want to teach, they must respect the fundamental right that parents have to control their kids’ upbringing. Our children may be our future, but it is their parents’ right and responsibility to raise them.”

The Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids (PERK), is a non-partisan, non-profit that advocates for civil rights and freedoms, with particular focus on protecting children.  PERK protects parental rights and represents tens of thousands of parents and children across the state.  PERK is supporting this lawsuit, and many others, and released the following statement:

Transitioning a child’s gender, promoting gender affirming treatment, and sexually explicit curriculum to minors without parent’s knowledge or proper consent is illegal. School Districts are clearly violating the law by providing minors with inappropriate “gender affirming” surveys and “gender affirming treatments” while withholding this from parents.  These, so called, “Support Plans,” remove the most important and vital protection children have, the parent.  This issue is getting national attention as the practice is increasing to give children puberty blockers to alter their gender.

This is not an LGBTQ issue. This is about the children.  Children are minors.  They are not equipped to make decisions of this nature without their parents.  They should not be manipulated to make life altering medical treatments without their parents’ knowledge and consent.  These choices are for adults to make, not minors. This is also about parents being the sole protectors and guardian of their child’s body, development, and mind.

The fundamental questions to ask are this: “Do you believe the government and/or school should be able to transition what gender your child is using puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgeries disguised as “support plans” without parental knowledge or consent?” Do you believe a child is capable of making a body altering, health decision, and treatment that’s irreversible, with consequences beyond their capacity as minors to even comprehend?

“Appellants are not challenging any portions of the Education Code. They agree with the law’s requirement that sex ed curriculum be medically accurate, age appropriate, and free of bias. They just contend that the District’s curriculum does not satisfy those requirements and, thus, that the District is not giving students the sex education the law requires.”