I discussed sending out a conditional acceptance concerning our company's reopening policy to HR in part 1 of this series of reports. Some folks (@Passthatwrench, @redhawk @WillowMinxy) were interested in seeing the document, which I will present in this post.

For starters, this is based off the work of The Commoner Law Group out of California. I have no connection with the group other than watching their videos, participating in some live sessions, and having downloaded two of their Medical Freedom Packets that sell for $15 each, and which I promised not to share. You will need to do the same if you decide to take this approach. Accordingly, I will only be able to give generalities here along with the parts I wrote myself.

The policy I am objecting to contains the usual "new non-normal" mandates, but not the jab. At least not yet. Because of that I omitted the vaxx specific conditions from my final document. Below is its form with my [comments]:

CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

With regard to the [company] Mask and Vaccination Guidance sent to [location] employees on August 25, 2021, wherein you stipulate I must undergo the medical intervention of wearing a face covering, and may further need to submit to the interventions of COVID screening and COVID testing in order to resume my duties as a [company] employee at the [location] office, I conditionally accept your offer to do so upon proof of claim of the following points:

[The idea is that you will do what they want, once your conditions are met. The conditions first and foremost, let them know how their actions are immoral and/or unlawful and/or nonsensical. You're educating them, and giving them a chance to back out.]

[The conditions are usually phrased in the negative, and really can't be answered without admitting to violating your rights and/or acting unconstitutionally and/or breaking the law.]

#. Upon proof of claim that these mandatory requirements are not made under threat, duress and/or coercion of potential discipline and/or termination, and further;

[If they agree, then they are saying that their mandates are completely optional. If they disagree than they admit to stomping on your person as a free human.]

...

#. Upon proof of claim that mandating different office masking rules for vaccinated and non-vaccinated is not a violation of my rights under the 4th Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America, and further;

[The lead up to this established my right to privacy in the Bill of Rights and state law (you have to do the research for your state).]

...

#. Upon proof of claim that by mandating me to undertake these medical interventions, whether they are under an EUA designation or full FDA approval, that you are not practicing medicine without a license and in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws § 333.16294, and further;

[Screening, testing, Masking & injecting are all medical interventions, and in most (all?) states can only be done by a physician.]

...

[Commoner Law came up with 41 conditions, after omissions and additions, I ended up with 27.]

Your timely response within 10 days of receipt of this CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE, must be in affidavit form, under your full commercial liability, rebutting each of the points of the undersigned, on a point-by-point basis, that the facts contained therein are true,correct, complete, and not misleading. Declarations are insufficient as declarations permit lying by omission, which no honorable draft may contain.

[In closing, you give them time to respond, but specify the form of the response, and tell them why. Otherwise they could just respond with the policy. Not being used to dealing with free men reclaiming their birthright, that's probably the way they will respond anyway, if they respond at all.]

[If they don't respond in time, or not in the proper form, or not at all, then they are in default. We follow up with a Courtesy Notice to give them a few more days, then a Notice of Default, and finally a Notice of Estoppel, which warns them that continuing on this path will result in them committing "tortious" acts against me, in their personal capacity.]

[If they don't back down, then at some point in the process it will become necessary to appear in your county court for an ex parte hearing. That means that only one side (you) will be making an appearance. This of course is the most frightening part, but once you become conscious that you are doing the right and honorable thing the fear abates.]

More to come...