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.
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 and others from treating anyone differently or from serving anyone separately.
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.
Furthermore, demanding an individual to wear a face mask as a precondition for employment or entering a business may be liable for any resulting injuries.
Face masks are designated by the FDA as a medical device and regulated under 21 CFR 878.4040. Herewith, demanding an employee or store patron to wear a mask is the unlicensed practice of medicine.
Ordering employees, vendors and patrons to accept medical advice from business personnel or store attendants (wearing a face mask or other) is not only a crime (unlicensed practice of medicine), but violates the 42 US Code §2000(a); Public Accommodations, which prohibits discrimination of people with a disability and certain religious convictions.
Simply stated, the employer and employees have no idea of my medical condition and are not licensed or insured medical practitioners. The Employer or Store Manager and other employees are prohibited by law from giving medical advice, such as advising employees or patrons to wear face masks or to be vaccinated. In general, the unlawful practice of medicine is regarded as the advice given specific to a particular person's illness or injury, and has the weight of authority and the possibility of doing harm. A typical State Code or Statute states:
“It is unlawful for any person to practice medicine by offering or undertaking to prevent or to diagnose, correct, or treat in any manner or by any means, methods, devices, or instrumentalities, any disease, illness, pain, wound, fracture, infirmity, deformity or defect of any person;”
A condition of employment or public accommodation to anyone who conscientiously objects against being vaccinated or to wear a face mask, whether it is for religious or medical reasons, most certainly falls under the legal definition of experiencing 'duress' as a result of the unlawful practice of medicine. Black’s Law Dictionary defines duress as:
“Any unlawful threat or coercion used by a person, to induce another to act (or to refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would).”
Subjecting person to improper pressure which overcomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent. Head v. Gadaden Civil Service BD., Ala.Civ., 389 So.2d 516, 519. Coersion is also defined as -- "a threat to expose a secret or deformity, publish a defamatory statement, or otherwise to expose any person to disgrace or ridicule." An employer forcing a person to wear a mask because they are not vaccinated fits the unlawful act of coersion.
Furthermore, experiencing duress as a result of an employer, or business or store attendant who “follows, monitors, or pursues another, whether in person or through any available technological or other means” is unlawful harassment. The key factor is when: “mental distress, mental suffering, or mental anguish as demonstrated by a victim's response to an act” occurs as a result of being wrongly denied their right due to their medical condition or religious belief and under the duress of the employee being discriminated against or fired or the store manager calling the police.
Employers and stores are dicta prius, not an insured medical practitioner, nor is it equipped to respond to medical emergencies created by its own rules (that violate the law and its own policies). If an employee or patron was forced to act on the employer’s or store’s medical advice and then experienced a medical emergency, the person and entity is liable henceforth to any injuries that may occur and may also be criminally negligent.
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.
Also, Go to Peggy Hall's TheHealthyAmerican.org. She has some really good information for CA on masking.
Sooooo they gave you only ONE option then! And that option gets your money taken away. Good advice below to keep showing up anyways. HR sucks wang! How can they, with a straight face, say u habe 3 options when u have 1. Do not take their option......MAKE them tit up and actually fire u! Then sue.
Reply back asking for the contact information for their general counsel. They are supposed to make "reasonable" accommodations. Given your position, those accommodations offered fail to meet the criteria for "reasonable". There was some information floating around about masks being considered a "medical device" and whether it's legal to force the usage of a medical device, but I can't find the article.
In most of the US, unpaid leave is called constructive dismissal --- i.e., same as firing. People's advice will be better if you list country, state and city. No doxxing, just jurisdiction.
I was thinking the same thing. It doesn't 'fight the fight' which is a big issue for many here, but if you are 'in the trenches' and your job is on the line, then wtf - wear a silly non-functional mask! My local gym started requiring masks recently. I have acquired dozens of different types of masks over the months, and I went through and tried each one to see which was the least impactive when breathing hard. I found one that just happened to be a typical 'hospital' or 'surgical' mask, but had some kind of an insert that held the 'form' better, and I had no problem wearing it for 90 minutes while breathing hard and sweating like a pig! I got a pack of 100 on Amazon for next-to-nothing (masks are dirt-cheap these days).
But he loves his job, and perhaps has bills to pay - it's all very well theorizing about these things but bills, mortgages, are real issues and most of us need a job. If he can easily get another job, then great - but what are the chances that new job won't impose similar restrictions?
Yes. I agree.
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.
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 and others from treating anyone differently or from serving anyone separately.
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.
Furthermore, demanding an individual to wear a face mask as a precondition for employment or entering a business may be liable for any resulting injuries.
Face masks are designated by the FDA as a medical device and regulated under 21 CFR 878.4040. Herewith, demanding an employee or store patron to wear a mask is the unlicensed practice of medicine.
Ordering employees, vendors and patrons to accept medical advice from business personnel or store attendants (wearing a face mask or other) is not only a crime (unlicensed practice of medicine), but violates the 42 US Code §2000(a); Public Accommodations, which prohibits discrimination of people with a disability and certain religious convictions.
Simply stated, the employer and employees have no idea of my medical condition and are not licensed or insured medical practitioners. The Employer or Store Manager and other employees are prohibited by law from giving medical advice, such as advising employees or patrons to wear face masks or to be vaccinated. In general, the unlawful practice of medicine is regarded as the advice given specific to a particular person's illness or injury, and has the weight of authority and the possibility of doing harm. A typical State Code or Statute states:
A condition of employment or public accommodation to anyone who conscientiously objects against being vaccinated or to wear a face mask, whether it is for religious or medical reasons, most certainly falls under the legal definition of experiencing 'duress' as a result of the unlawful practice of medicine. Black’s Law Dictionary defines duress as:
Subjecting person to improper pressure which overcomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent. Head v. Gadaden Civil Service BD., Ala.Civ., 389 So.2d 516, 519. Coersion is also defined as -- "a threat to expose a secret or deformity, publish a defamatory statement, or otherwise to expose any person to disgrace or ridicule." An employer forcing a person to wear a mask because they are not vaccinated fits the unlawful act of coersion.
Furthermore, experiencing duress as a result of an employer, or business or store attendant who “follows, monitors, or pursues another, whether in person or through any available technological or other means” is unlawful harassment. The key factor is when: “mental distress, mental suffering, or mental anguish as demonstrated by a victim's response to an act” occurs as a result of being wrongly denied their right due to their medical condition or religious belief and under the duress of the employee being discriminated against or fired or the store manager calling the police.
Employers and stores are dicta prius, not an insured medical practitioner, nor is it equipped to respond to medical emergencies created by its own rules (that violate the law and its own policies). If an employee or patron was forced to act on the employer’s or store’s medical advice and then experienced a medical emergency, the person and entity is liable henceforth to any injuries that may occur and may also be criminally negligent.
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.
Also, Go to Peggy Hall's TheHealthyAmerican.org. She has some really good information for CA on masking.
Sooooo they gave you only ONE option then! And that option gets your money taken away. Good advice below to keep showing up anyways. HR sucks wang! How can they, with a straight face, say u habe 3 options when u have 1. Do not take their option......MAKE them tit up and actually fire u! Then sue.
Reply back asking for the contact information for their general counsel. They are supposed to make "reasonable" accommodations. Given your position, those accommodations offered fail to meet the criteria for "reasonable". There was some information floating around about masks being considered a "medical device" and whether it's legal to force the usage of a medical device, but I can't find the article.
In most of the US, unpaid leave is called constructive dismissal --- i.e., same as firing. People's advice will be better if you list country, state and city. No doxxing, just jurisdiction.
This is playing by their unlawful rules. I don't understand why anyone would want to play their game at all.
The burden of proof is on them. When does a healthy person spread disease. They don't. Even Fauci has said this.
I was thinking the same thing. It doesn't 'fight the fight' which is a big issue for many here, but if you are 'in the trenches' and your job is on the line, then wtf - wear a silly non-functional mask! My local gym started requiring masks recently. I have acquired dozens of different types of masks over the months, and I went through and tried each one to see which was the least impactive when breathing hard. I found one that just happened to be a typical 'hospital' or 'surgical' mask, but had some kind of an insert that held the 'form' better, and I had no problem wearing it for 90 minutes while breathing hard and sweating like a pig! I got a pack of 100 on Amazon for next-to-nothing (masks are dirt-cheap these days).
You really put wearing a mask on the same perch as injecting an experimental substance?
Why don’t you show up in a burka?
And the FDA defines the vaccine as what? Lol. Not a great argument fren.
So....wear a burka....done.
I think he said he was using the 'mask' as a trial balloon before challenging a likely vax mandate.
But that logic doesn’t really follow....a mask should be more difficult to use a religious exemption for than an experimental vaccine.
Especially I would guess there is evidence he has worn a mask before.
Move to Nebraska and be a utility worker here. Our state is lovely.
https://www.nppd.com/careers
https://careers.blackhillsenergy.com/search/utility-operations/jobs
http://www.nebraska.gov/services/
But he loves his job, and perhaps has bills to pay - it's all very well theorizing about these things but bills, mortgages, are real issues and most of us need a job. If he can easily get another job, then great - but what are the chances that new job won't impose similar restrictions?