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.
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.