Our story so far:
- My office received a corporate reopening plan at the end of August.
- The plan mandated masks and testing, but no vaxx "at this time."
- In early September I let the named HR contact know that I would comply if she could satisfy my conditions.
- They were laid out in a Conditional Acceptance (CA) that identified her as the principal in a Common Law action (see Part 2 for details).
- The CA gave her ten days in which to respond, and was sent by both electronic and registered mail.
- Being named in the policy (making them agents), I copied my group's president and head of development.
Let's pick things up on the Saturday after the positing of my CA:
I checked my company email and found a note from my immediate manager who was dismayed by the surprising lack of trust and openness my action displayed. Management was also mystified as to why I was objecting, since returning to the office was voluntary.
I laid any communication breakdown at corporate's feet. By parroting the government’s 24/7 “be afraid, be very afraid” mantra, and imposing top-down controls instead of treating us as adults who can make decisions for ourselves, they have done their level best to make us fearful of the world and of each other. Officially closing offices and sending us off to hide in our basements a year after the various state lockdowns, had illegitimacy written all over it. Why then? What were they not telling me? Was I being manipulated? Why should I trust anything they say?
Laying these mandates on us with two days notice with no discussion, and without seeking comments certainly didn't inspire trust. Does corporate think masking us will somehow restore esprit de corps? How do muffled voices emitting from obscured faces not hamper communication, stir mistrust, feed fear, and continue to isolate?
The policy itself is unlawful, and excludes those not willing to undergo medical interventions. I added, that if JD has been paying attention to the pandemic rollout, he knows that “two weeks to flatten the curve” has no end. I can't say what supposed variant we’re on, but I can guarantee the last variant is totalitarianism. I made clear that I was standing on principle, and expected the policy to be dropped. That this is the hill to die on. We left it at that.
I returned after a week of vacation to see a Teams meeting scheduled for that Monday morning between myself, JD, and HR legal (HR facilities had forwarded them my email). In the meeting, CC at HR acknowledged having received my CA, and having had it reviewed by their lawyers. She said that they had gotten many inquires, complaints, and challenges with regard to their policy. The lawyers had informed her that company policy was perfectly legal, and there was no reason to address my conditions.
Of course I objected. Besides being unlawful toward bodily autonomy, skirting anti-discrimination laws by claiming to follow CDC guidelines, and making office attendance voluntary (for now) is deceitful. The existence of such mandates excludes me from participating in day-to-day office activity in the same way that removing wheelchair ramps keep the physically handicapped out.
I added that there is no real science behind the CDC's rules, only scientism. I started to bring up the dozens of news pieces, journal articles, and technical papers I had collect on just this one aspect of the so-called pandemic when JD chimed in that CC wasn't in a position to judge the merit of these. Basically admitting that the company doesn't care about the facts.
And so it rolled. CC spent most of the remaining time restating company policy, and making it clear that if I was not going to wear a mask, I could not be in the office. Contradicting that stance, she proceeded to offer information about requesting a medical or religious exemption. I couldn't help but answer, "I'm not interested in asking anybody for my rights. As a free man, I am asserting them." It bounced right off her. She gushed on, bizarrely to my mind, about how great it was to live in a society where we can have such differences of opinion, and still work together.
That's were it ended, at least in the minds of CC & JD. Well, yesterday was the expiration of the extended deadline for the CA. So on Friday afternoon I sent CC a Courtesy Notice (CN) informing her that because she had not yet answered my CA in proper “affidavit” form, nor rebutted its items on a point-by-point basis, her reply up to now is insufficient and has no lawful merit or value.
But hey, maybe this was a simple oversight or misunderstanding on your part. So I am magnanimously giving you another five days in which to respond.
Well, I got an email back in less than an hour. CC was clearly befuddled. She stressed that I had already been told how it was going to be during our meeting, that there is no room for negotiation, and HR doesn't have to answer any stinkin' conditions. I just chuckled, because she has set herself up for default, a notice for which I will be sending out at the end of next week.
Stay tuned for part 4, Pedes.
I just picked up on your series of postings and I am very impressed with your handling this. In fact, this is the 'gold standard' for proceeding.
If I may, you are providing the evidence you are doing everything in your ability to come to a resolution with your employer. This is essential for any course of legal action in civil suits. The big mistake people make, and we are set up to think this way, is filing a lawsuit before attempting to fully arbitrate with the respondent for an acceptable resolution. Judge's look at this and if they don't find any attempts for resolution before coming to court, the judge will rule every time against the pursuant.
My only suggestion is to request arbitration with the individual(s) really in charge. Human resources is chaff and another layer protecting upper management and ultimately the CEO. HR works directly for the CEO. Eliminate your negotiation through them (throw them out of the room, per se) by requesting to meet directly with the source of authority. HR is a layer that is preventing you from successfully arbitrating from that very individual who makes the final decision. The CEO relies on lawyers to argue and represent his points. They are really more 'yes' men to the CEO than those legal experts balancing justice between employee and management. They will advise the CEO to the CEO wants of the CEO for preserving the sake of their own jobs. I've been through this scenario before.
Assure you have covered your ass (CYA) with providing the CEO with every attempt to come to a satisfactory resolution. Know that there is ALWAYS a resolution to be found through negotiation. If you are dealing with protecting layers of players, it stymies an acceptable resolution.
Once this is done, you have all the tools to win a lawsuit.
Thanks for the encouragement @Tewdryg. As stated in the first part, I picked up this approach from the The Commoner Law group.
You are exactly right. I am trying to resolve this in an honorable way, dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's. By the time I reach court there should be no question of law for the judge to decide -- by defaulting, they will have admitted that they are wronging me.
After default, any court hearing would be local and Ex Parte. The intent is to request an Estoppal at this one-side hearing between me and a Judge. If granted, any one who hassles me is in violation, and will be served another notice levying damages if they persist.
It's hard to find the principal for an unlawful action in a international corporation. This HR woman is two down from of our division's North American CEO. None of the lawyers are taking me seriously, because they deal in statute law, and don't see the strategy as it is unfolding.
Also, all my documents contain the footer: NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS, NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS!
My understanding is that in the Common Law this is sufficient to rope in all the bad actors. But Common Law actions are between two people. Once it is understood that this makes things personal, and that there is a real legal threat behind my silly notices I expect it will be kicked upstairs to whoever can decide to either reverse the policy, or to go all in on something they probably don't even care about.
I think your advice becomes very applicable if I do end up in a lawsuit. Then I would need to pinpoint the other party. And arbitration would become a component. Right now, they are not inclined to even consider negotiating.
This is to be expected. Don't get me going on lawyers. In theory, especially according to common law, to which our Constitution is based on, you are equal to a lawyer. However, in the real world, it's much more complicated. Don't forget lawyers Do NOT have License to Practice Law. Look this up yourself. You'll be surprised to learn the lawyer's "Bar" card is nothing more than a gild or union card. It is not a license. In fact, a lawyer cannot be licensed to practice law. This however amounts to Occam's Razor, in that it's all a club. As George Carlin once said -- "And you ain't in it." The judge is part of the club. Will he allow you a pass?
Accordingly, if you can get a lawyer to be either an* 'amicus curiae'* and sit next to you (that is, if and when that time comes), that would serve to be perceived as not a threat to the Bar. I have seen many people in propia persona get torn apart by a judge who simply believed only lawyers being worthy representing clients in the court room. Albeit, I've seen it the other way as well with some good judges. Otherwise, if that day arrives (God forbid it), it might behoove you to hire a lawyer you can trust. But, recognize the following:
According to Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client: The attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter. Clients are also called "wards" of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys. After you have read the foregoing, ask your attorney to see a copy of "regarding Lawyer Discipline & other rules" Also Canons 1 through 9.
This is why you want a lawyer you can trust, preferably a family member or close friend, The client is at the bottom of a lawyer's responsibility. Isn't that nice to know? It's all a giant scam.
My condolences for exposing this. However, you don't want to be in court any way. 95 percent of all civil suits are settled out of court. The court room is the last resort when all other avenues have been expended. I call the court room the -- "the lion's den'. So, you are right on target with your approach and am very impressed with your efforts.
I did not know your company was international however, and I agree with you it makes your efforts more difficult. However, the basic premise holds true in cases like this. Keep up the good work and I'm praying for you.
In some states, they do. This might be a recent thing, but it IS a thing, at least in some states.
Sit next to you in a courtroom? I doubt you will ever get an attorney-at-law to do that, unless they are in an official capacity of representing you (IOW: acting FOR you and IN YOUR PLACE, legally).
A non-attorney-at-law who sits next to someone in court is referred to "assistance of counsel," which is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment in a criminal case, but not in a civil case. Even then, judges will try to stop it, but I have heard stories where it has been done.
Regarding "amicus curiae," that is not sitting next to someone in the courtroom. It means "friend of the court." That is a written document (amicus brief) filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case. Institute for Justice does this frequently, as do many other attorneys. But you don't have to be an attorney to file one. You just have to be someone who has a relevant interest in the case, and usually it is to present what the law is (in the opinion of the person submitting the amicus brief).
Do please entertain me and show me which States this is true. The reason I'm curious is that a license is a privilege granted by the State. The ramification of this is readily apparent. A 'licensed' attorney would mean the profession is controlled by the State and the politics thereof. Before the American Bar Association was established in 1878 Abraham Lincoln practiced law. There was no license then. There was no license when the ABA union was formed and there has never been a "license" for attorneys since.
I have sat in court with individuals accused of practicing law without a license. When the defendants pointed out that the lawyer was practicing law without a license, the judge ruled in favor of the defendant.
Yes, that's the literal legal definition. To newbie's though this gets the point across to them. I have had what I like to call "friends of the court (i.e. friends of mine) sit next to me and provide advice and counsel. I've had an attorney friend of mine do this as well. It depends on the Judge and his/her belief of what constitutes a ward of the court and I imagine most don't agree to wards in their court.
Minnesota has a "law license," and they pay annual fees to the state.
https://www.lro.mn.gov/
I agree with everything you said, regarding this practice to be outrageous. I have seen court cases that say that the practice of law is a common law right, and that no state can turn a right into a privileged (Shuttleworth v. Alabama?).
I agree with you on all of it. Nevertheless, they seem to be trying to "close the loophole" as they probably see it.
Also, interesting that you have had people sit with you at your table, in court. Were these situations where you were a defendant in a criminal case? Or were you defendant in civil case, or plaintiff?
Minnesota does not have a license to practice law. Lawyers may call it a license, but it is not one. It's a sham. It's similar to the now mRNA vaxxine not being a vaccine.
One person in the following sums up what a lawyer is. I tend to agree.
No attorney or lawyer in the U.S. has ever been "LICENSED" to practice law (they've exempted themselves, and no such crime exist) as they are abstract, bogus, bullshit, counterfeit, dead, fraudulent, imaginary, non-existent, statutory "FICTION OF LAW" "person" and only "ADMITTED MEMBER" to practice law in the private franchise member "club" called the "BAR" (British or BARister Aristocratic Regency, or British Accreditation Registry -- B.A.R. as in put in Jail Behind BARs, to BAR =stop = arrest = kidnap = abduct, or also attorneys are absolutely "BAR" red from challenging the jurisdiction of the court), and as such they are unlawful "un-registered foreign agents". Attorneys and lawyers only have "BAR Cards" which are clearly not "licenses". The lawyers, who are members of one ore more of the 50 State Bar Associations (private membership clubs) , which are franchised by the American Bar Association (A.B.A.), are all under and controlled by the Lawyer's Guild of Great Britain which created, formed, and implemented the U.S. financial BANKRUPTCY Law filed 3/9/33, which bankruptcy is still in full force and effect today, for and on behalf of the International Banksters as "Creditors" thereof. Therefore, said attorneys/lawyers are Traitors, Esquires (noblemen training of knighthood, Un-Constitutional title of honor and nobility = Esquires), alien and foreign "non-citizens" and are specially prohibited by the USA Constitution from ever voting in any election (Election Fraud) or from ever holding any elected public office or trust whatsoever! Even "jailhouse lawyer" prisoner inmates are Constitutionally protected and access to the court. Attorneys are not really lawyers as attorneys practice "attorn-ment" (turn over goods, services, etc. to another, ie, robbers and thieves) and lawyers practice "law". Lawyers are supposedly learned in the law and advice in the court while an attorn-eys transfer or assign someone's rights or property, etc to another and act on behalf of the ruling crown (government). In 1878 the American legal system came under the control of a Labor Union known as the worldwide (BRITISH) BAR ASSOCIATION. Consequently, "their" courts have become "Closed Union Shops". The judges have become the union bosses of those "private" for-profit courts. These judges are overseen by a principal union boss or union superintendent, a Supreme Court Justice of the State. The criminal attorneys, barristers and counselors at law, and lawyers, together with the international banksters, control everything of importance in government (they unlawfully, own and have usurped (by force of law) all 3 branches of government), the Bar Association controls the Attorneys, et al, and the aristocratic elite monied power control the worldwide franchised "private" British Bar Associations (the American Bar Association is but one private franchise among hundreds worldwide). The Bar Association Labor Union only allows union lawyers called attorneys to use the publicly tax-financed "private" courts (Union Hall or Local Union) with local Rules called "Rules of the Court". The ultimate goal of the BAR Associations is the overthrow the GOVERNMENT of the United States and its Constitutions, the compete and total enslavement and subjugation of its people, and to re-establish an absolute incontestable form of ancient Babylonian and Masonic Medieval British Feudalism in America and the rest of the world which will become the New World Order, One World Government, under Mob Rule "Democracy" (the merging of capitalism an communism, and a "military Dictatorship run by the "Commander -in-Chief" called the "President"). Attorneys first came into existence because GOVERNMENT-created and invented abstract, artificial, bogus, counterfeit, dead, fraudulent, non-existent statutory "FICTIONS OF LAW" "persons", "citizens", "individuals", "people", the "public", "res-idents" (the thing, identified), "taxpayers", "registered voters", etc. could not (re)present themselves in court since they did not really exist and so could not speak for themselves and thus need a "spokesperson". Therefore, they had to have a mouthpiece [someone to speak for and on their behalf and to "DE-fend" (NOT fend, NOT ward off, not fight for NOR offer defense) them] to speak for and "RE-present" (RE-create, RE-fashion, RE-form. RE-make, RE-mold, RE-place, RE-produce, change, convert, exchange, substitute and TRANSform) these non-existent brainless, deaf and dump fictions. Back then as now, living and breathing souls, real and natural, flesh and blood "men or Women" as defendants in court could not be re-presented by a third party since they could and were required to speak for themselves. A "human being" does not have a right to re-presentation, he has a right to "assistance of counsel". These are two very different concepts.
This last part is at the point we are in agreement.
Are you for hire?
I knew about the "bar" card, but only learned about being at the bottom of the lawyer's priorities last week.
No, but I'm available to you to help.
@Tewdryg take a look at Part 5 to see if you have anything to add. Thanks.
Yeah, most people will fix shit if you show them where they are the person responsible. Of theybdont then the argument t in court is the same. Except these thi go most often default.
Attack the fiction though, truth really holds power.
All laws in this country have been taken into admiralty law. Every soul in this country has the RIGHT to appeal to common law. Look into it. The Barr Association is a British Law Organization and they do it by prosecuting via the Law of the Sea. We are subject as Americans to the law of the land. Deep rabbit hole but very true.
In fact admirably and maritime law is codified in the u.s. constitution. Prior to US corporate code Admiralty was practiced. but all educated people performed their own letter writing to challenge as non belligerents any liability levied unjustly on them. It is an honorable system. With common sense. U.s. code is ridiculous Nd full of fictional corporste policy. We should all have been taught how as a matter of course in 12 years of public fucking indoctrination.
We need to be operating under American Constitutional law, not British Common Law with all representatives being "licensed" under the British Accredited Regency/Registry.
I fully believe that "judges" are lower nobility. I want someone to change my mind.
Awesome
I think you are brilliant. Carry on! Let us know how it goes.
Can't stop now with all the wonderful patriots in the gallery. Too bad I can't take all the credit. The non-lawyers at The Commoner Law group came up with the strategy.
Great work OP, first I've noticed it here. I like the strategy in full thus far.
Be wary of advice below however. You do NOT want to involve a BAR attorney if you plan on filing a "Court of Record" (Common Law) case. Gosh, there are so many WORDS that are so important to comprehend (not "under-stand" ----> to "Stand Under". That's one right there, should you end up filing a law suit, you do not wish to "Stand Under" the judge and should thus, never agree that you "understand" him/her.
Lastly for now, you also do not want, nor NEED to "REPRESENT" (Re-Present) your "self". The notion of "Pro Se" is pure British admiralty jurisdiction deception. You ARE "YOUR SELF", you have no need to "Re-Present" that which you already are. Do you see this?
In the admiralty courts, which are basically all of them today, when you appear (make a "general appearance"), you are appearing as a "Trustee" for a corporation (corpse) vehicle. Said "corporation" is a "dead entity", which is all that can "interact" within admiralty court jurisdiction. You may have heard of the birth certificate swindle so I won't elaborate. But this is essentially it. Nowadays there are also "Special Purpose Vehicles" that may be operating behind the scenes (in your name) that you haven't received full disclosure on either. But net-net, when (generally) appearing in an admiralty court, should you be "Pro Se", you are "acting as" a trustee of a hidden Cestui Que Trust, when you should be the BENEFICIARY if you fully understood the deception involved.
In any case, should the need arise for a lawsuit, I'm hopeful the group you're using can properly instruct you on how to file the suit AS as "court of record" Common Law filing. Just including these words (court of record) gets you there, technically speaking. You could use the assistance of a "Counselor At Law", but your filing will be spoiled if a BAR attorney is involved and you'll automatically be drawn into the maritime/admiralty jurisdiction.
To manage your own case, you must realize a few essential things:
In short - You, as the "king", which you always are and will be in a Common Law proceeding. You are the BOSS and IN CHARGE of your entire case. It's your "LAW", as you determine is fair and just. It's entirely up to you. All you need to do is convince a "jury of your peers" or your case merits in order to prevail - no singular "Judge" can intercede.
Anyway, hopefully you understand most of this. I could go on and on. You're not at this stage yet, but thought I'd give you a little food for thought in advance.
Glad to answer any questions you may have and help along the way if needed.
Good luck and keep up the great fight!
^^^This guy gets it!
Much appreciate your summary of The Common Law. I have only stuck my toe in, but am impressed with the tremendous power it gives me. But then, as you say, I am KING.
I was on to UNDERSTAND, but not REPRESENT. And have never heard corporation = corpse. Ah, the power of words.
Indeed, you are talking much further along in the process than I ever want to go. So far I have only been contemplating an Ex Parte hearing. But who knows? Once I get a successful taste for this, I may end up relishing the notion.
Thanks for all the thoughts and encouragement, Patriot. Since you could quite easily "go on and on," as this unfolds, hope you don't mind if I come back at a later time seeking some input on a sticking point or two.
Please do fellow patriot - please do. I consider myself an expert on the topic having studied it endlessly these past 2 years. A very good start for you would be to listen to a man by the name of Bill Thornton who extensively documents a case in which he filed a "Court of Record" case many years ago, and essentially tip-toed his way through it, ultimately getting a judge REMOVED who could not comprehend what was going on. A judge who did UNDER-STAND that a Common Law Case was proceeding stepped in, and managed it EXACTLY as he was required to do - as a "justice of the peace", an arbiter only. It's a fascinating case study and proves "how it is done".
Bill handled this case in a most clever and elegant way, making dozens upon dozens of "objections" as the proceeding got underway. His guidance is to simply say "I object" to anything and everything that did not honor the "Common Law" proceeding he had filed (for instance, when a "statutory law" was invoked by the defense attorney. When the initial judge asked WHY he was objecting, Bill stated "Because it is not my wish" ---- Absolutely BRILLIANT!!! As Bill was the KING of HIS COURT and remained "honorable".
Perhaps there is nothing more important than acting HONORABLY any time you appear in court. This is an unspoken "rule" and is held to the highest of esteem by judges (aka "Your Honors"). Far too many people who try this strategy behave belligerently, walking in with a chip on their shoulder, snarling and snapping away. While they may actually be "right" when it comes to "the law and the facts", their approach dooms them --- Every. Single. Time!!! Why? Because they aren't acting HONORABLY, and the judge simply declares "contempt of court" or finds another admiralty/statutory "rule" to impose to shut them down.
There is an unspoken idiom in certain realms - "no law or fact shall be tried in court". Think that through just a bit and you'll get the gist. The supreme MEASURE is ALWAYS in acting HONORABLY. If you can pull it off, you will be respected and treated thusly. You don't need to beg/plead/supplicate or bend-the-knee to the judge. Neither do you need to berate, correct, nor ARGUE with the judge. Openly arguing with a judge (or attorney) while in oral hearings is a dishonorable activity - in every sense of the word. All arguments can and SHOULD be handled in writing anyway.
Perhaps the biggest secret is to never "make a claim" during any oral proceeding or hearing. Instead, you ask questions. For example, "Does such-and-such statute apply in MY CASE judge"? That as opposed to "I object, that statute doesn't hold jurisdiction in my case".
See the difference? You allow the judge to APPEAR as being "in charge" as often as possible, so as not to embarrass him/her while "holding court". This is "acting honorably". You provide your corrections IN WRITING (where you can "make a claim", after the hearing, for the judge's consideration, to every aspect of the case you object to (because it is "Not your wish").
If you think about it carefully, back in the day when Kings/Queens actually "held court", you'll recall they never said to their subjects "Do This, Do that" "I want this done now", etc. They would exclaim; "It is my wish that ________". After which, one of their subjects would then jump to attention to carry out the wish of the king/queen.
The King/Queen are the "Sovereigns", just as the "landed gentry" (Lords, Dukes, Princes, Earls, etc.) back where Common Law was established. All the others were serfs/peons that had no "lawful rights". We find ourselves in the same position as these serfs/peons when we agree we can be addressed as or referred to as any of the following:
You are either the sovereign man or woman (The king or the Queen) - minus the "subjects" of course. Nothing else in the above lists.
Nor are you your ALL CAPS NAME - which is referring to your Cestui Que Trust or some different variation IN ALL CAPS which may be referencing a "Special Purposes Vehicle" - e.g. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS vs. JOHN Q. ADAMS or J Q ADAMS, ETC.
Anyway, if you want to learn Bill Thornton's elegant method, which has worked for him many times in the past, you can start watching some of his videos here. If nothing else, I hope you'll find them both informative and entertaining for such otherwise less-than-exciting materials:
Bill Thornton (YT - Eldonthian McAllister channel & The Rule of Law channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IuYWR9naPM&t=6366s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkdp1XcLBBw&t https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSHj9dE3I5w&t https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsEQfDs82Os&t
There is another guy who covers this subject in much more depth, always attempting to simplify. Unfortunately, he's quite rough around the edges, does not suffer fools, and is hard to take for many. However, he is the ultimate expert on this subject IMHO. You can learn a great deal from listening to him. That being said, most of his guidance is for people in positions of defending themselves, rather than plaintiff actions.
Nevertheless, you can learn to be "The king" by understanding what Karl Lentz calls a "lifestyle" adaptation. As he repeats, you either get it or you don't - and carry yourself accordingly (Honorably as the Sovereign {King/Queen}). The Craig Lynch YT channel has saved many hundreds of hours of taped phone calls Karl did 5-8 years ago. It's absolute gold if you can adjust to his demeanor. I recommend listening from the beginning and also the combined sessions when you have time. Here's the channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/CraigLynch/videos
At the end of the day, this "lifestyle" alteration comes down to you recognizing first that we live in an inverted society, in almost every sense. The "Pyramid" has been flipped completely. Man/Woman only falls below God/Creator. All "worldly" activities fall under the simple Maxim of Law: "He Who Creates, Controls"
Hopefully as you can see, all the "WORDS" - which were created by legislatures and the legal society place you UNDER THEIR CONTROL - as they "created" these words/ideas. That's why you can't allow/agree/accept any references to such in a lawsuit/case.
Take your rightful position as Man/Woman, and allow no other "titles" (many listed above), and you will proceed accordingly in a Common Law court as the sovereign that you truly are.
Good luck!
Got the videos queued for a down day. Thanks.
Great. There's just no way to read this stuff once or twice and really "get it". Like practicing something to get good at it, you need frequent exposure to absorb it all before you can embody the material (muscle-memory in a sense). Hope you enjoy!
@Morphesus11 any words of wisdom on Part 5?
I'll be brief, between family events today. In short, your LEGAL strategy appears to be airtight and thorough. You've got them in a bind now without question as the cards have been played. Perhaps all I would have changed would have been to submit the affidavit as a "Statement of facts/truth ACTING as an affidavit". This would have kept it purely in the "Common Law" domain. As affidavits are LEGAL documents, you're playing in THEIR domain and jurisdiction (British maritime).
The amount of LEGAL tricks and deceptions, both legitimate and illegitimate that they can pull out of the bag are endless.
But how could you, or virtually anybody else know all this? The potential trouble down the road is that you've tacitly admitted to agreeing to their JURISDICTION and also demonstrated you're competent in speaking LEGALESE. As such, future action taking place in their "courts of law", should things progress to this level, could become very difficult to navigate the "high seas" of the fraudulent maritime jurisdiction.
I admire all you're doing greatly and I think you're in a very good LEGAL position -- at the moment. Your cards have been played and they'll have to find some obscure "precedents" to have any chance against you it appears.
One question I have for you is, are you in a "right to work" state? I've had 2 friends (nurses) in these states and there is really nothing they could do as the corporations they worked for "have the right" to fire anybody, for any reason, at any time. As such, I couldn't offer much help other than a personal suit against the CEO/VP/Director/Manager involved. And only then, it would require a trial by jury to prevail, which the existing legal powers (judges) would never allow unless you can properly stand your ground as the sovereign man/woman.
Anyway, I'm now curious about whether you're in a "right to work" state or not?
I'll look more closely at your prior 4 posts this weekend and see if I can glean any further information that might be useful to your ongoing efforts. Glad to help if I can, but I'm not a LEGAL guru. I can handle most of the "legal process", but I'm of little use if you were to get fully sucked into maritime jurisdiction.
I'm in Michigan, which I think is "right to work/fire."
I don't think I've submitted an affidavit yet. That happens when I petition the court for a hearing, listing all the violations. My aggressor, however, was asked to respond in affidavit form, which they can't really do without admitting that they are violating my rights, and federal and state law.
BTW, have spent a lot of time on Bill Thornton clips and 1215.org.
This communism bullshit has to end.
For sure 45. Either it ends, or we end.
Make sure you file the court case in Federal Court. Have federal Marshall's deliver the paper. Theybdonit by the hour about 60 bucks I think. But the impact of having a federal civil lawsuit they have to answer is pretty good. You have truth on your side. ATTACK EVERY FICTON THEY TOUT.
Also, they have no excuse for the civil rights violations and they admit not doing due diligence.
And there is US Code that prohibits non agents, civilians from enforcing laws. That is why cops are certified, why cannabis emoyees are agents, to enforce code. But a mandate is not a code no matter the excuse. The fines are 1 million per person and 100 million per entity. You can prove they've broken that law.
OP, I commend your effort. This stuff is not easy to figure out, much less to have the balls to do.
Having said that, I am not so sure that this organization is giving you 100% good info.
An ex parte hearing is very unusual and typically not allowed except for specific situations. Your beef with your company is not likely one of them. An ex parte excludes the other side. What if they did that to you? What if they went to the judge and discussed the situation without you being able to be involved? It would be unfair to you.
When something is unfair to one side, then it is usually a violation of due process. There are some exceptions. A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is one such exception that I know of. But even that brings the other side in, too. The ex parte in that is more of a formality, not anything close to a judicial verdict.
So, sending some letters and then having an ex parte hearing with a judge seems like it should not be allowed, as a matter of law. I have not researched it, but it rubs me the wrong way. Something about it feels like it will not end like they are saying it will.
If they have examples of situations where this has worked, then maybe they are on to something that works. Do they? Do they have real examples that you can verify, or is it just their claims?
Also, the idea of a "conditional acceptance of offer" doesn't really make sense in this situation. If I make a formal offer to buy your house, you can make a "conditional acceptance," but the conditions you impose turn it into a counter-offer.
That's cool when it comes to real estate, because there was a clear, contractual offer.
Your situation is different. You already have a contract with them to work. They are attempting to impose, unilaterally (without your consent), a change in that contract. They are also attempting to violate your right of liberty. They are also attempting to impose medical treatment upon you, without being hired by you to provide medical treatment, most likely doing so without a medical license, and basing it on fraudulent statements by a third party (CDC).
If you really do not want to go to court, and you primarily just want the policy to go away, you might consider adding in some additional things as you go through your process (Notice, Notice to Cure, etc.). These additional items would be things that both let them know what the real science is (articles about studies that show face masks are not helpful, and can be harmful), OSHA regulations (although, they have recently changed for Covid, but have long-standing regulations showing that face masks are generally prohibited in the workplace), etc.
You could also create your own affidavit. As you likely know, certain things must be in an affidavit for it to be legally accepted as an affidavit. Once you check those boxes, you can only include information you have from first hand knowledge. You cannot claim as a fact that somebody else did some research. You can only state what you know. So, you can state that you read research X (copy attached), and that you have concluded from that such and such.
An affidavit that is not rebutted by a counter-affidavit stands as the truth, once it is attested to in court. My understanding is that, if you do it right, then your affidavit(s) would be the only evidence presented in court, since their side will be easy to rebut. If you present evidence and they do not, then 100% of the facts are on your side. You should win.
Ultimately, "winning" could take different forms, depending on what you want to do. You could get an injunction stopping them. You could get a court to order a Writ of Prohibition (an injunction is a subtopic of this). You could sue them for monetary damages. Lots of ways to go with it.
Just a few random thoughts.
Good luck with it, and let us know how it goes.
Thanks for the encouragement!
Commoner Law has held sessions with verbal live reporting from hearings. I have only managed to make one of these, and it did not go as expected. I don't know about the others.
My understanding is that bill collectors use notices of obligations/debts followed, after a stated period, by a notice of default to get ex parte judgements against a debtor. It supposedly works, because the other party didn't bother to challenge the claim when given a chance.
The conditions of a conditional acceptance are mostly worded in the negative, and cannot be accommodated by the aggressor without basically admitting to unlawful behavior. Here's an example from mine:
This is not something they can actually argue against, and points the way to showing that what is being demanded is not lawful.
Of course I don't know how it's all going to play out. And I hope my nerve doesn't fail me. I plan on posting an update tomorrow reflecting a change in the planned flow of events due to the vaxx now being mandated.
I don't know if you are still reading this. In case you are --
That's kind of what I suspected.
But that is NOT an ex parte hearing. That is the debt collector filing a lawsuit, serving notice on the defendant (if they did), the defendant does not show up, so the plaintiff gets a default judgement. That is not ex parte, even though one side did not show up. Ex parte is outside of the court room, with only the judge and one party invited. Here both parties were invited but one chose not to show up.
Think of ex parte as: "exclude the party." Here, nobody was excluded from discussions with the judge, in open court.
This default judgement could get vacated, but very few people know that, much less do something about it (if they knew anything, it would not have happened in the first place).
So, if they are saying this is an ex parte hearing, they are full of shit.
Sure, they can. They can just make up some bullshit and say it is not a violation, and if the judge agrees, that's it (unless appealed). There has to be MUCH more than just this, IMO, if the goal is to WIN.
Yes, keep us posted!
A lot of us are trying to figure out the legal tricks used so we can get back to the rule of law. I just don't think these guys are on the right track. I hope I'm wrong and you win.
I'll be sure to take this all under consideration, pede. But I hope you're wrong :-)
Anyway, part four is coming out tomorrow if I can get to it. Stay tuned.
Looking forward to it. BTW, I know how to make bill collectors go away, if you are looking for that info (maybe not -- maybe it was just an example).
LOL, just an example.
It's important for me to hear such words! Thanks for the boost.
BOYO, I have a lot to LEARN from your ABSOLUTE high TEST gigaGORILLAmale BEHAVIOR I am MIRIN'
Still learnin' myself.
As I comprehend it, their letter outlining their vax policy is an offer to contract. They want to accomplish some silly goal of making joe biden like them, so they invite you to participate. As long as you reply to their offer, you remain "in honor". Providing a conditional acceptance is the way to go. Once you do, the ball is in their court and you have set the terms. If they don't reply, they are "in dishonor" and a judge should see that as tacit acceptance of your offer.
Exactly. Honor is a big part of common law. Once they default on the numerous chances to resolve this, I request an Estoppal at a one-side hearing (Ex Parte) between me and a Judge. If granted, any one who hassles me is in violation, and will be served another notice levying damages if they persist.
You are a dreamboat. 😍
More of this, please, patriots!
Like I said above, if I had known about law groupies when I were young, my whole life would have unfolded differently. Thanks for the support, and the brief fantasy!
Looking forward to the next update.
Same thing happened to me
Which part? What did you do? How did it turn out?
Your idea is great but my “healthcare” company labeled me a “voluntary separation” bc I could not return to the office within 2 days in a state I moved from. We shut down back in March so had been remote for 15 months. Although they hired me as a disabled veteran, I was on fmla receiving medical care bc of the lockdowns, they announced the mask mandate, testing, tracking by the “us task force,” and questionnaires; they let me go. I still haven’t gotten unemployment and that was in June. Basically the lady said it was up to her and I was not entitled to unemployment (maybe I’ll get it still who knows). That it was the states “insurance” money and she’d have to talk to the company. If you had any warning, you’re done. She claimed that the company stated that eventually we’d have to go back like I was not allowed to move. Anyways, it’s a dumpster fire but our family has found other resources. The healthcare company was evil, repackaging Ppe from China and lying. I wish you blessings and good luck. God is good and things will work out. Sometimes we have to separate so we are not complicit in evil. (Excuse my sentence structure and punctuation, very busy right now).
The scams never stop with these people. Hang in there with us, pede.
Thank you fren. Keep fighting back as we are too! Keep helping those advocate for their rights. God bless!
Did you IN FACT volunteer? Did you quit? Or was it one-sided and they were the ones demanding and labeling what you did or didn't do?
If you did not quit, or even if you did under duress, then they have engaged in coercion and fraud.
You can sue them for that. Your damages are lost income, lost unemployment compensation, and emotional distress. If fraud is involved (likely), then you can triple (x3) the actual damages.
It was completely one sided and extortive. I had no rights and they even delayed sending me my cobra knowing I was on fmla. Sick and evil.
You can probably sue.
Do you have an update? I’ve been lurking. Company mandated the jab and I’m curious how things went.
In case you missed it, part 5. And my first sticky!
Amazing work!!! Keep it up. You’re an example for all of us, even lurkers like me. Lol.
I will keep it up, but there's always the worry that there are at least two kinds of examples: good and bad. Praying for the former.
I do. Things have been coming fast, and changing the situation as they land. However, I hope to get part 4 out tomorrow. Thanks for asking!