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.
@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.
Ah, I see. I thought you had filed the affidavit.
Obviously they can fire you because your first name starts with "F" or because they've decided to fire all 47 year olds for some superstitious reason, or they don't like people with red hair any more, etc.
Thornton sure has a unique angle on all of this --- kind of playing coy, always being highly honorable, and sort of sneaking in under the auspices of being "one of them". His approach is unique and clearly effective and should work well for anybody who takes the time to educate themselves on these matters. I have his entire set of DVDs (I think you can get them all for $100+shipping), which are really helpful if/when you plan to RE-PRESENT yourself as plaintiff.
Were I going to make a suggestion to a largely uneducated normie however, the Karl Lentz approach seems the safest - that of being an imbecile and totally ignorant to all things "legal". Thus, you basically default lose offering no defense in any case as defendant with a "complaint" operating, only to turn around and file your own "CLAIM" in a Common Law jurisdiction to recoup any said damages and collect above and beyond. As a "claim" is superior to a "complaint" (which is what attorneys always file, having no first hand knowledge), typically your case will be heard first however, thus vacating any complaints after you prevail. But you really have to "learn the lifestyle" as Lentz phrases it.
But it seems you've educated yourself to a degree where you could tip-toe in and out of their jurisdiction with Thornton's method, when and where it was advantageous for you, in order to prevail. The unfortunate reality is that the attorneys and judges work together to ensure that Pro Se Litigants rarely succeed in order to keep the money spigot flowing to their benefit (and not letting the word get out that it's relatively easy to defend oneself with a little bit of self-education). The amount of dirty little tricks and legal gotchas and technicalities they can trip you up with is just about endless if you aren't an expert in the legal field. If you wanted to go this route, Thornton's recommendation to take the ~$250 "Jurisdictionary" course is advised. I've heard a lot of good things about it (but haven't taken it myself), should you want to tussle in the legal maritime jurisdiction.
This is why both Thornton and Lentz do and say the things they do, so as to get you operating in the land and soil "common law" jurisdiction where no LEGAL things apply - e.g. statutes, acts, codes, mandates, decrees, ordinances, etc. You can simply throw all of that out the window as "irrelevant" and not have to find legal methods to defend yourself around these, let alone look for "case law" in your favor. Instead, you can stick to good old fashioned basic fairness and common sense strategies, as determined by a jury of your peers, rather than a singular judge who may have other "interests" in mind.
Ultimately, you're in a pretty unique, precedent-setting period with all this ConVid mandate nonsense. I'm sure you could easily find a jury of peers that would understand your situation, and likely find in your favor within a common law jurisdiction. But hopefully you've got yourself in such a good legal position now, that it is likely never comes to that.
So basically you just got yourself a good foundational education on the law and how you can work it in your favor when you know you're in the right. Thus, giving yourself an excellent opportunity to prevail with any future matters that are clearly unlawful going forward.
BTW, how are you liking Bill thus far? The more you listen to him, the more you hear him repeat his guidance, but come to realize it isn't nearly as complicated as it seems the first few times you were introduced to the material. It really isn't that complicated in the least, but it does take time and repetition to recognize the basics and how to not get yourself caught up in a problematic situation.
Yes, fired because my name starts with 'F'. Damn my parents!
Thornton is a hoot, advising you to tell jokes to the clerks; asserting sovereignty with his knees knocking, and so on. Great advise if you have the knack. I'll check out Karl Lentz, just for the contrast if nothing else.
I see the switching jurisdiction gambit as very useful, but don't know how to pull it off. I haven't heard about the course. Must be tucked away somewhere I haven't ventured yet.
A startling realization, to be sure. So releasing and powerful. I believe it, but do I really believe it? As Fritz Van Manstright says, "Common Law is not for the weak or faint of heart. It is for a strong, morally upright and virtuous people."
The above is from his course. Here's an under 2 minute clip that will give you a feel for his approach.
The other basis of real power is knowing, as you say, you are in the right.