Parents File First Lawsuit in California Suing the School District for Violating the Law
The District Is Being Sued For Illegally Providing Minors With Inappropriate “Gender Affirming” Surveys, Medically and Age-Inappropriate Curriculum, Without Proper Parent Notification
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE IN THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA, NOVEMBER 7TH, 2022- 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 bi-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?
School Lawsuits filed on behalf of PERK
Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids, a non-profit known as PERK, is an advocacy organization that advocates for children, protecting children’s rights, parental rights, civil rights issues, bodily autonomy, medical freedom, and more. PERK understands the negative impact mandates are having on children and families across the state. PERK must protect the children from the COVID19 shot requirements and any mandates. For this reason, PERK has chosen to engage in this lawsuit.
Los Angeles Unified School District, Culver City Unified School, Piedmont Unified School District, Oakland Unified School District, Hayward Unified School District, San Diego Unified School District and any other districts that implement or vote to implement any COVID-19 injection mandate will be the first targets of these suits. Following this line of attack, we then plan to address the Governor’s plan to implement a statewide mandate. This will be a massive battle that will likely be ongoing for some time. Our intent is to see this fight to the end.
For the last 10 months, we have all been holding the line and pushing back on these illegal mandates together. While AAC and their clients bravely held the line, patiently waiting for their Writ Petition to be heard, we – on behalf of our clients Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids and Children’s Health Defense, California Chapter – have been mounting an aggressive offense, battling LAUSD to stave off as many harms and protect as many children as possible. Immediately. We went to court not once, but three times, to push back the mandates and were successful in not only pushing enforcement back until Fall 2022 and then, again, to July 2022, but to force the District to concede that it must and will align with state law. This announcement was made less than 48 hours after Beckloff granted our request to deny LAUSD’s frivolous, bad-faith attempt to dismiss our lawsuit. In January, we completely struck down Piedmont Unified School District’s illegal mandate on children 5 and up with no independent study option, a final ruling (no appeal) that caused Oakland Unified to withdraw its mandate, and likely inspired hundreds of other school districts to do the same.
Piedmont Unified Lawsuit
In January, we completely struck down Piedmont Unified School District’s illegal mandate on children 5 and up with no independent study option, a finalruling (no appeal) that caused Oakland Unified to withdraw its mandate, and likely inspired hundreds of other school districts to do the same.
Status: Won
PERK Files Lawsuit On Behalf Of Teachers And Educators Of Granada Hills High School
The First Teachers And Educators in The State Of California Fired For Refusing To Take The Shot -
Amended Complaint (July 2022)
Granada Hills, Ca., January 19, 2022
On Friday, Jan. 14, 2022, the Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids (PERK) and five individual educators filed a lawsuit against Brian Bauer, Executive Director of Granada Hills Charter High School (GH Charter) and GH Charter. The plaintiffs filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, damages based on violations of civil rights, and requested a jury trial. Attorney John Howard and Attorney Scott Street from JW Howard Attorneys, LTD represent the plaintiffs.
LAUSD Lawsuit
The petition states all the reasons why LAUSD and its board members have no legal authority to issue a Covid-19 vaccine requirement. It also requests that the court inform LAUSD, emphatically, that the vaccine requirement is null and void and LAUSD cannot enforce their illegal mandate.
Amended Petition filed 2/1/22
Jul 6, 2022
On Tuesday, July 5, the absolute last day for Judge Beckloff to issue his final ruling on the Writ Petition of Aannestad Andelin & Corn, LLP in their lawsuit, G.F. v. Los Angeles Unified School District case, he did. And he did a complete 180. In his 9 page... LAUSD dropped the mandate.
PERK v. LAUSD Post 9/8 Hearing Summary
On September 8th, 2023, the court initially scheduled the hearing of LAUSD’s Motion to Dismiss and Demurrer to our Fourth Amended Petition/Complaint in addition to setting a date for trial. The day before, on September 7th, by way of a minute order, the court decided not to address the merits of either motion and instead asked that LAUSD and PERK further inform the court of whether the timing was “ripe”. The parties must now address whether LAUSD’s practices during Covid-19, which affected in-person education by way of mandate implementation, is a subject that is now too early to be heard when there is no longer a present public health order at issue. The court is not concerned about the “moot” issue as before but is now wanting to make sure the subject is ready to be addressed. The hearing date on the issue of “Ripeness” is scheduled for November 29th, 2023, and the Motion to Dismiss and Demurrer to our Fourth Amended Petition/Complaint in addition to the Trial Setting Conference have all been advanced to the same date. As of November 16, 2023, the parties have been submitting briefings on the “ripeness” issue. The hearing date for all motions and briefings remains the same."
Children Lawsuit Fundraiser
PERK and CHD-CA will be joint plaintiffs in LAUSD lawsuit. We will be paying to retain the lawyers to launch these suits. Our children have their lives ahead of them. We must hold the line for them. We must put first and protect them when they are in harm’s way. They are now faced with losing education or be forced to take the jab. With looming covid vaccine mandates on the children, we must not wait. We will be faced with devastating consequences if we do not protect our children. We are working together with several lawyers to contend with this issue in the state of California. Donations are also tax deductible.
The Petition has been filed on Wednesday, October 13, 2021. The legal team, on behalf of and the Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids (PERK) and Children’s Health Defense, California Chapter (CHD-CA) as institutional petitioners representing the rights and interests of thousands of CHD-CA and PERK members residing within the LAUSD, filed a petition with the Los Angeles division of the California Superior Court.
The LAUSD respondents including; LAUSD School District, LAUSD Superintendent, and LAUSD Board of Education, typically have ten (10) days to respond. The Petition states the following:
“On September 9th 2021, after a month of successful in-person learning throughout Los Angeles Unified School District schools, Respondent Board Members of the Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”) held a special board meeting with less than forty-eight hours’ notice, to adopt a highly controversial district-wide Covid-19 vaccine requirement via resolution for all “eligible” LAUSD students as a condition to students continuing their already commenced in-person education in the district (the “Requirement”).
“Via this Petition, Petitioners seek writs of traditional and administrative mandate from this Court for the benefit of its numerous members residing within LAUSD with children attending schools within the district, declaring that Respondents lacked all authority to enact its Requirement, and immediately enjoining Respondents from enforcing it against any LAUSD students.”
The Petition continues,
“A school board is not the agency charged or endowed with any delegated statutory authority to add a new vaccine to this schedule, but rather is merely the subordinate governing authority charged with collecting documentation of the immunizations required by the Legislature under Section 120335(b)(1)-(10).
“All available Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine products, and all other Covid-19 vaccine products available to the general public in California, including to all students of any age within the LAUSD, are still available only under the federal EUA.”
The petition states all the reasons why LAUSD and its board members have no legal authority to issue a Covid-19 vaccine requirement. It also requests that the court inform LAUSD, emphatically, that the vaccine requirement is null and void and LAUSD cannot enforce their illegal mandate.
The initial suits against school districts will be based on legal and policy arguments that the school districts do not have the legal authority to make these mandates. This is to help parents get through the fall semester, as we know the next action is from the State government via the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), the agency that DOES have the purported authority to add vaccines to the school mandated schedule. However, there are still legal arguments to be made against that, and we intend to make them.
We believe the mandates placed upon school aged children violates bodily autonomy, religious beliefs, the Nuremberg code, Federal and State discrimination laws, and that the mandates completely disregard any natural immunity. These mandates are also illegal under California law and the statutes that govern public school vaccination requirements because they specifically say that the laws are to prevent dangerous childhood diseases, which this is not. Further, the risks to children from these injections far outweigh any benefit they may directly give to children. In addition, these “vaccine mandates” appear to be nothing less than veiled attempts to collect data from our children as most school require families to upload vaccine status and other information into cloud data systems that can never be adequately monitored by parents no matter what the districts say.