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.
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.