I have a question that has not been addressed as far as I can see. My employer is requiring you to show a vaccination card to have the "Privilege" of not wearing a mask. I dont believe I should have to show them anything to not wear a mask, if they are letting others do so, I should have the same right. Here's the kicker, they have no database of who showed their vaccine record, so how can they enforce this without being discriminatory towards a person who does not get vaccinated for religious reasons. How can they prove they audited employees in a fair manor.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (21)
sorted by:
The Covid-19 injection is classified as 'experimental'. Under Federal law:
21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3(e)(1) - Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies, there is a clear provision for the option to accept or refuse administration of the experimental product.
The FDA classifies face masks as a medical product.
This means no business, including airlines can mandate face masks or vaccination for employees (new or otherwise) or require Vaccine Passports.
This means college/university/CUNY and SUNI requirements for Covid vaccination is unlawful.
This means no government can require Vaccine Passports due to its unlawfulness.
Government rules, guidelines, and recommendations do not exceed or meet statutory law. It is always inferior even under executive order. Only the legislature can create law. Hospitals also fall under this law. Nurses, medical doctors, and staff that have refused the Covid injection and lost their job as a result have a very valid case for lawsuits. Here is the law for Emergency Authorization Use (EAU). Remember that ALL these Covid injections are categorized as Not Approved by the FDA.
16 Am Jur 2D Section 98. “An emergency can not create power and no emergency justifies the violation of ANY OF THE PROVISIONS of the United States Constitution or States Constitutions.”
Furthermore,
16 Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97: “Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property.” Bary v. United States - 273 US 128 “Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.”
Federal law prohibits the ”denial of participation” from this business establishment as found under 28 CFR §36.202. Colleges and universities are businesses.
Under 28 CFR §36.202(c) further states that unless I have been individually assessed as a “direct threat” you may not exclude me from the same and equal services as others.
Denying service is a violation of Title II, III, and VII of the U.S. Civil Right Act of 1964.
Title III Sections 28 CFR §36.202(a)(b)(c) and 28 CFR §36.203(a)(b)(c) state that I shall not be denied the same participation and equal access as everyone else. The law prohibits Alaska Airlines or Delta Airlines from treating anyone differently or from serving anyone separately.
21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3(e)(1) - Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies
(A) Required conditions: (ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed— (I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product; (II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and (III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.
OSHA released its new guidance on April 20 under a “Frequently Asked Questions” section of its website having to do with COVID-19 safety compliance. NOTE the word 'guidance' is not law by any means, but rather a recommendation or a suggestion.
Q: If I require my employees to take the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of their employment, are adverse reactions to the vaccine recordable?
A: If you require your employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment (i.e., for work-related reasons), then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under 29 CFR 1904.6 and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7.
Folks, a store can not require you to wear a face mask or require you to provide proof of vaccination. This is a clear violation of the law.
For the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declared pursuant to section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d), this Act makes it unlawful under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act for any person, partnership, or corporation to engage in a deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID–19 or a government benefit related to COVID–19. The Act provides that such a violation shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under Sec. 18(a)(1)(B) of the FTC Act.
Section 242 of Title 18, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
a few questions on context:
Omitted Text "or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens," seems to only apply to non citizens, or if punishment is based on race. How does it apply in this instance to everyone?
This seems to apply only to unvaccinated individuals with a disability, not the general population. How does this apply to everyone?
Do you have more information that shows this is a medical device and what prevents said medical device from being required by a business, ie must be prescribed by a doctor?
Thanks, thats some damn good info.
Here's some more 'expanded' information hot off just posting it.
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jd4me5ho/under-federal-law-it-is-unlawful/
Thanks. This should be its own post.