Thank you, I read that piece you wrote and will use it. Despite this being very good information, corporations are not following this or even the two EOs that are for federal employees and the other federal contractors. You would think the lawyers at these corporations know this. And I think they do. Their first priority is to defend corporate interests. So why are they acting like the mandate is for everyone one?
I believe it is coming directly from the banking interests and the Biden EO is just a cover. And Biden Administration is covering their asses with not exceeding their authority into the privates sector, but instead lying about it.
Why do I say banking interests? Remember when several gun manufacturing companies had their banking pulled? And this is just one example of several entities running into this problem. I think the big banks are doing the same with these corporations who depend so much on loans to fuel operations.
So to answer your questions above.
Is it an employer making a mandate for vaxx?
Yes.
What is the basis they claim that a mandate is justified?
Following the EO.
Are they a government agency?
It's an international company. Some aspect of it is government, but not mine.
Are they government contractors that are covered by the OSHA so-called mandate?
Their big accounts contract with the Big Pharma, but again this is not my area that involve my clients.
Personally, I would maintain a communication between them and me. That might be my boss, HR, CEO, or whomever. Email is likely best, because it can later be verfied if needed (otherwise, it would have to be certified mail, which leaves a bad impression from their perspective).
I would want to make sure I put them into a box, and when they eventually refuse to respond to something, that shows bad faith. All of this, of course, for future lawsuit, if needed.
If they are relying on EO, which one(s)? EO's are ONLY directives to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. They have no other authority. So, an international company has NO legal ability to rely on an EO as any sort of justification.
If they rely on OSHA, and they are not involved in shipping or the other few areas of federal government contracts, then that is also NOT any legal authority for them.
Even if they were, they would be acting as an agent of government, and then need to be following the law.
If they were issuing a medical procedure mandate, against my will, as a condition of employment, I would want to set them up for later lawsuit of fraud, if it came to that (keeping the job with no mandate would of course be ideal).
So, my email(s) would include such things as:
What is the basis for this mandate? -- legal basis
What does the company expect to accomplish? -- they will say they want to protect employees, but that is not possible with these drugs, since there is no evidence they protect anyone from anything
Which drugs do they recommend? -- if they give medical advice without a license, that is a violation of law
Why those drugs? -- get them to say the ones they think are acceptable, knowing that they are all under EUA, which makes them experimental and not approved
If they did NOT have this mandate, they would NOT have any legal liability if anyone at their company got Covid -- has anyone got Covid? Did they sue the company? No. Could they sue the company? No, because nobody could prove they got it at work.
I would want to make sure I owned at least one share of stock in the company, which means I could file suit as a stockholder, too, since they are jeopardizing the financial well-being of the company by issuing a mandate when not issuing it would not expose them to liability but issuing it does
Is any government agency or any other party paying them to issue this mandate? -- are they being paid off to do it?
On what scientific, medical basis do they claim that this mandate will benefit the company? -- there is NO research that shows either efficacy or safety
Since I have a right under federal law to be fully informed of any experimental drug, I would demand to know all the negative health issues that others have suffered after taking these drugs, including death -- point to VAERS
If they require a PCR test, ask to get a copy of the insert, which has been reported to state "Not for use in diagnosis" -- and then ask them why they are demanding this be used for a purpose for which the manufacturer says it must not be used
IOW, I would get these sorts of things in emails to establish a record of the communication. Asking questions, while not refusing, puts you in the best legal position you can. If you can circulate these to executives and directors, too, you might get someone to put the brakes on.
Being an international company, probably run by woke graduates of universities that have indoctrinated them, it is a tough road. But I think it is best to establish a record that shows that you were honestly trying to get information to clarify what they wanted you to do so you could make an informed decision, and they were obfuscating and acting in bad faith.
It is coercion to use threats and intimidation to do something they do not want to do, and are not legally obligated to do.
The EO's and OSHA documents show that they do NOT have legal authority, and it is therefore coercion and also based on fraud, since there is NO science behind any of this.
Also, get a book on how to handle a lawsuit. Even if you don't do it, at least you will have some idea of what an attorney should do.
Good luck.
P.S.
You would think the lawyers at these corporations know this. And I think they do. Their first priority is to defend corporate interests.
That's why I would throw out there that the company has NO liability if they do NOT implement this mandate (unless they are getting paid off and reimbursed if they do it anyway, which is possible). I would also through out that coercion is a felony and a tort, which means their corporate veil will not protect them from personal liability or criminal action. Of course, now we are getting down and dirty, so that would be the last straw type of language to use, not the friendly start of communication. But this type of thing might be the only thing that will get them to back off -- if they think they are facing personal liability and make them question if they really know they are opening up major legal problems.
All of this is really good information. When I said it was an international corporation, it is HQed in the U.S. The email sent out by the company comes from Human Resources, who I know take direction from the top executives of the corporation. The lawyers there are always in the background and they're paid to defend generally whatever the executive staff dictate. This gets translated through to HR department and they are tasked with getting the directive out. So, all of this is through the gatekeepers and not getting to the people who are in charge. HR has already received their marching orders. Requesting the Religious exemption is just a formality. They are not going to acknowledge it unless there is a lawyer who can cause some waves.
I've been done a similar road like this before in a personal injury case. I quickly learned I was getting the runaround by my insurance company. They treated me like I was a dog. So I had to lawyer-up and I'm glad I did because I didn't know the process. It's all pretty much boilerplate too including the arbitration. It's not even a question of the amount, which is by custom a boilerplate amount. It is all about the lawyers in control of the wheel house making deals and assuring that they have continued employment.
I need an attorney because I will be kicked to the curb like a dog if I try doing this myself. In general, I don't understand why I haven't heard of Cease and Desist letters being sent out by lawyers regarding these mandates, especially when there is no EO for the private sector and the same for OSHA. They are NOT acknowledging Religious Exemptions too.
I don't understand why I haven't heard of Cease and Desist letters being sent out by lawyers
Attorneys today are just like medical doctors today. They are taught a narrow slice of law, and all of it benefits the "machine," not the People.
I quickly learned I was getting the runaround by my insurance company.
I understand insurance companies. Without going into detail, I used to fight them on "legal grounds" but without literally legal grounds, since that was not my job. Bottom line: they are bullies who try to cheat everyone, but if you understand the law, they can be made to bend the knee and do what they are supposed to do -- usually, not always.
The situation we are all in now is similar. I know most people don't have a belief they can fight this on their own, which is what these companies are counting on.
But the attorneys are not that damn great, most of them. There are a few exceptions, of course, but it is the same small percentage as in the medical industry. By definition, most people are average, no matter what their chosen profession. And half of the rest are below average, by definition (basic bell curve).
it is HQed in the U.S.
They are operating in the USA, so that is what matters most, but probably helps that they are HQ in USA.
The email sent out by the company comes from Human Resources, who I know take direction from the top executives of the corporation.
Of course, they have their organizational chart, and the people making the decisions don't want to get their hands dirty.
I was at a restaurant the other day, and it is a franchise setup. I know the owner of the franchise (not friends, but have had casual conversations before). I took him aside and asked him why he has his employees wearing face masks. He said it is "corporate." I asked if he would do it if it were up to him. He said no. Maybe he was lying, but he seemed genuine. These corporations make it tough to deal with by going through layers -- just like government.
The lawyers there are always in the background and they're paid to defend generally whatever the executive staff dictate.
Exactly correct. But don't assume they are brilliant. Some might be, but most are followers, just like everyone else.
So, all of this is through the gatekeepers and not getting to the people who are in charge.
Right. I have responded to some other anons here about similar situations. I don't know how those situations turned out. But here are a couple of threads, that might be of help in formulating your strategy:
In a big company like yours, I would start with an email chain to the HR. They might or might not pass it along up the chain, but doesn't really matter.
I would be asking a series of questions "for clarification" (i.e. not being confrontational) -- at first.
At some point, I would forward that chain to the CEO, legal department, and the individual members of the Board of Directors, if and when I thought it was time to throw the Hail Mary. (Do something they are NOT expecting -- the members of the Board are NOT expecting to get a legal notice, for example.)
No matter what, getting a WRITTEN record of communication cannot hurt and can likely help later, if you pursue legal action.
The reality is we are in unchartered territory. Most attorneys are afraid to make waves. Any lawsuit will have to rely partly on common law principles (right to not be injected with an unknown substance which has no scientific basis to believe is safe or effective, coercion, violation of rights, fraud, etc.).
Today's attorneys are simply not taught to think like this. They are taught to "paint by numbers" and plug the round peg in the round hole, and the square peg in the square hole. They are not taught to think for themselves when it comes to FIGHTING AGAINST THE SYSTEM, which is what this is.
Takes balls and brains. Most of them are lacking.
BOTTOM LINE: They have NO legal authority to force an experimental drug on you. It is coercion. It is also fraud, since there is NO scientific basis to believe any of the claims they might make. Plus, at some point they will stop communication with you to protect their legal position, and that will show bad faith. All of these things are actionable in court. If the main priority is to get the vaxx mandate to go away and avoid firing/court, then probably getting them documentation that shows they are WRONG as a matter of fact, science, and law, might be the way to go.
Your "BOTTOM LINE" is indeed correct. It is coercion and being coerced to take it is a form of rape.
All your is stuff presented here is very good. No question about it. I take it you are not an attorney.
There's a dead line of December 27th. The corporate mandate is stated as follows:
You are receiving this message because you are a colleague now subject to this requirement. If you are not yet fully vaccinated, you must do so by December 27, 2021 except in limited circumstances where you may be legally entitled to an accommodation for a medical condition or sincerely held religious belief. Additionally, effective November 22, 2021, colleagues hired into these job classifications or at these locations will be required to be fully vaccinated prior to their start date or have an approved accommodation.
The deadline is based on the Jan.06, 2022. I believe this relates to OSHA.
[Company] has been taking steps to comply with the U.S. government’s COVID-19 vaccine requirements for federal contractors as well as policies implemented by more than 150 of our customers in the U.S. (Note: this is separate from the OSHA vaccine and testing mandate, which applies to companies with 100 or more employees and is currently being reviewed by the federal courts.)
On Nov. 05, ND, SD, IA, MO, and some other states filed a lawsuit in the 8th Circuit Court. I don't know when this conservative Court is going to hear the case, but it includes my State of MN.
If you have info you can share with any research regarding Cease and Desist info regarding religious exemptions protecting job status I'll be happy to review it.
My family has always been unvaxxed. My children have never taken these jabs that pollute the temple of the Holy Spirit. We deeply believe this and have a long history of applying State laws regarding Religious exemptions at my children's Baptist private school. Furthermore, we not only believe human aborted fetuses in the development of vaccines is an abomination to the Holy Spirit, but we deeply believe a toxin that rewrites the code of life (DNA) and alters natural immunity is evil. My wife and I have "COVID" last December and our immune systems are now immune to it.
Finally, I will say that you need to map out your strategy.
Start nicey-nice, and increase the intensity as needed.
HR and immediate boss have zero authority to do anything other than pass it up the chain of command, and they might not even do that. So, I would be nice to them (but firm), and follow up every 24-48 hours to ask for their response or what they did with the last email (if no response back).
I would not give anyone more than 3 days to respond before sending another email. Of course, print out all emails and responses, and keep copies (take pics if needed).
Time is of the essence, at this point. Allowing them to drag it out is what they likely want.
Start nice, but if no substantive response comes quickly, ramp it up on the next email. If 2 emails go by with no real response, then I would unload the whole shebang and send copies up the chain of command, and especially the Board of Directors. Those guys are the ones really calling the shots, and likely taking orders or advise from others who are the real culprits in all of this.
Key points --
Everything surrounding Covid is a LIE, and is therefor fraudulent
99% of people involved in this are "just following orders" but that is no excuse. They need to be awakened with (i.e. confronted with) the truth of the lies
Coercion, fraud, deprivation of rights, etc. are all CRIMES, as well as actionable in a civil lawsuit
If you have a communication trail (email), then you have something to work with later if needed; otherwise, it is he said/she said, and that is not going to fly
They will make assumptions that you MUST refute
The law and caselaw I cited are likley to be NEW to the attorneys who read your emails, not because they are not law, but because they are not trained to think about how to fight against the machine -- they ARE the machine (but there are a few good ones in there, but only a few at the present time)
They are ALL gutless cowards and/or ignorant of the truth. That is why they are doing what they are. Think: David vs. Goliath.
You MIGHT be able to wake enough of them up to stop/delay by providing evidence that they would recognize, such as NIH papers.
The fact that the NIH says there is NO CORRELATION between vaxx rates and Covid cases means they have no basis for their claims
Good luck!
I will keep this thread bookmarked and am open to more discussion over time.
You are receiving this message because you are a colleague now subject to this requirement.
What makes me subject to this requirement? I have not signed any agreement that would make me subject to such a requirement, and I have not agreed to any such requirement. On what basis do you make this claim?
(A general principle in American law is "silence is acquiescence" which means if you do not object to something that someone claims, then you are agreeing with the claim. Here, they have made an ASSUMPTION about what YOU are required to do, so it is important to REFUTE that assumption, so that you are not unwittingly agreeing to their assumption. You can refute it in a nice way or a not so nice way, but refute you must.)
This appears to be a change in my employment contract with you, which renders the contract a unilateral contract of adhesion. Such contracts are to be interpreted in favor of the party who did not write the contract (that would be me), and specific performance (such as firing) is not available as a legal remedy for such contracts.
(Might be a good idea to cc the email to HR to include CEO, Legal Department, and Chairman of the Board -- of course, that is a big chess move, but if you think it is going in a particular direction anyway, might be the thing to do.)
If you are not yet fully vaccinated, you must do so by December 27, 2021
I do not understand what you mean by "fully vaccinated." Please clarify what that means. Is there a particular vaccine you recommend or require? Against what illness? Do you have any evidence that I have an illness that would be some sort of health problem? Also, why do you want me to do this? What benefit do you expect will result in me doing this, either to the company or to me?
(Here, there is no challenge to what they are saying. That comes after they play their next card. First, clarify what THEY mean by "fully vaccinated." What if you went out and got a flu vaccine? What that be good enough? Of course, they are likely to come back and say Covid vaccine. In that case, the next move is to ask which one(s). They might list, or not. They might say FDA-approved or not. If they list, they are offering medical advice, and you could ask to see their medical license, or just use that info against them later, if needed. If they say FDA- approved, you could show them the Comirnaty approval, and state that all other Covid vaccines are not approved, but are for emergency use testing only. In order to be a guinea pig for testing unknown drugs, you must be fully informed of ALL adverse events.)
If you want me to be subjected to an experimental drug, you will need to follow the law, which requires you to FULLY inform me about the drug. So far, you have not provided me with any information about the drug, or even which drug you want me to experiment with. I will also need to see any scientific evidence that this drug is both safe and effective, and your legal authority to make such demand.
I have heard of numerous significant complications with certain experimental drugs, including death. So, I will need to be fully informed by you.
I refer you to federal law on this issue --
See: 21 USC 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii) and (iii):
(ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed —
(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and
(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.
[NOTE: There is weasel language in that statute, but it is worth pushing to the legal department, CEO, and Chairman so they know that you know, and will make them wonder if they have a lawsuit coming their way, but without you threatening anything.]
(I would also want them to give me a REASON WHY they think taking this drug will have some sort of benefit to someone -- company, me, other employees, etc. Without that, they really have no grounds at all. Of course, whatever reason they come up with will be based on fraud. If they refuse to give a reason, then they are demanding a medical treatment without providing a reason, which even doctors cannot do. If they give a reason about "protection" or "health benefit" or similar, then I would come back with this paper from the NIH, which shows there is NO correlation between vaccination rates and Covid cases [and there never will be, unless they rig the numbers, because it is all fraud]:)
except in limited circumstances where you may be legally entitled to an accommodation for a medical condition or sincerely held religious belief.
I've thought of a couple of things on this issue.
First, you could have someone you know become an ordained minister, and then write you a letter on your behalf. This can be done quickly and cheaply by anyone (18 or older) and online at the Universal Life Church:
Second, I might tell them that it is against my religious belief to bear false witness, and to participate in anything that bears false witness. This is basic Bible 101, 10 Commandments. They can't argue that it is not a valid religious belief. Congress has recognized the Bible as an important foundation upon which the laws of the United States of America are derived:
By using "false witness," you are necessarily bringing into the discussion that what they are doing is fraud. It is ALL based on lies. So, you are not just using a religious reason, but also forcing the issue of fraud into it.
One thing to keep in mind (or at least, this would be my position) is that if the company is acting due to government regulation, then the company is acting as an agent of government. (This is a legal issue that they would challenge, and would have to be decided in court, possibly taken up on appeal.)
At the very least, it is likely to get them to think long and hard about whether they have PERSONAL liability -- the CEO, all executives involved in this decision, legal department individuals, and members of the Board of Directors.
They likely think they have immunity from personal lawsuit or criminal charges. Make them question that assumption, but WITHOUT making those claims.
I would not do this in a first email. I would also not ONLY give it to my boss or HR. Those people are insignificant, and will not have the resources to investigate and find out what is what. I would send it to those people, but ALSO copy it to the higher ups, including legal department individuals (claim they are acting in their individual capacities, and not as attorneys for the company). Such as --
It is my understanding [Note: not saying it is law, just my personal understanding, right or wrong] that the company is acting on behalf of a government entity. As such, the company is an agent of government, and is therefore subject to all limitations imposed on government.
The law is quite clear on this issue. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission puts the burden of proof on YOU, not on me:
"Because the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, observances, and practices with which the employer may be unfamiliar, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief. If, however, an employee requests religious accommodation, and an employer has an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, observance, or practice, the employer would be justified in seeking additional supporting information."
I would like to make it clear that I deny that the commission has ANY authority to issue edicts regarding religion, for reasons stated below. However, I am pointing out that even they state that the burden of proof is on YOU, not me. You cannot question my religious beliefs unless you have an objective basis that is specific to me. If you do attempt to question my beliefs, I will need proof of your objective basis, which I do not believe you could possibly have.
Furthermore, you are violating my First Amendment rights, secured by the Constitution. The law of the land, as decided by the United States Supreme Court, is clear on this issue:
"Religious speech is at the apex of protected speech under the First Amendment." Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938)
“Man’s relation to his God was made no concern of the state. He was granted the right to worship as he pleased and to answer to no man for the verity of his religious views. The religious reviews espoused by [the sect that followed the religious leader] might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain.”
United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944)
What the United States Supreme Court is saying is that you have NO AUTHORITY to question my religious beliefs, regardless of what any government commission or agency might say to the contrary. No authority means NO AUTHORITY. Doing so is a clear violation of my First Amendment Rights.
Violating my constitutional rights is a felony, for ALL individuals involved in such activity, including officers, directors, and attorneys for corporations.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation, which would abrogate them”
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 (1966)
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners 353 U.S. 238.
Under federal law, 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242, it is a FELONY to deprive, or to conspire with others to deprive, any individual of their constitutional rights.
"Color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.
Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury.
“When a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The state has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States”
Scheuer v. Rhodes 416 US 232 (1974)
"Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury."
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976)
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one, because of his exercise of constitutional rights."
Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 2d. 486 (5th Cir., 1956)
" ... the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22 (1923)
("Local practice" would include company policies, though the court here was talking about state laws. This is why you want to ASSERT your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, namely the First Amendment rights of religion and free speech. This assertion preserves them, according to the courts -- or at least, that is how it is supposed to work.)
Anyone who deprives another person of his constitutional rights is subject to personal liability in a civil lawsuit. The limited liability protection of a state corporation does not protect anyone against personal liability for violations of constitutional rights secured under federal and fundamental law.
[Company] has been taking steps to comply with the U.S. government’s COVID-19 vaccine requirements for federal contractors as well as policies implemented by more than 150 of our customers in the U.S.
Please provide me with the government requirement(s) to which you refer here. I am not aware of any government requirement that is applicable to this company, and especially to me.
(Make them show you what they are relying on. Most likely, you will be able to take it apart the way I did the OSHA thing, and it will not actually apply to this company. That is how MOST "unconstitutional" law is done. They make it seem like it applies to everyone, but it really does not. You have to dig through it, though, and most attorneys won't because they get paid by the People being ignorant.)
Regarding the "policies implemented by more than 150 of our customers in the U.S." please provide me with those policies. If you are basing your policy on the policy of another company that does not have any authority to issue such policies, then no authority exists for you or them.
No policy, whether by a private company or by any government agency, is enforceable if it violates law.
Thanks. I've never questioned whether you are right or not, it is the 'image' that an attorney projects that I am looking for. It gives teeth to all of it. This company vaxx mandate is a legal issue. Even attorneys know its not a good idea to represent themselves in court. Think of a chess game. Why is it the observer can see the moves better than the player?
I've written up the religious exemption letter and it was based on Liberty Counsel's example. I added pertinent parts and expanded it. I am providing affidavits to it from a Bible Study friend, a pastor friend, Baptist school principle, my manager, my wife, and may even provide ones from my teen children who have never been subject to any injectiods. It would be very good to have law firm name on the header before submitting it.
Let me just say this about that. There is reality, and then there is perception. They are often two very different things.
There is no such thing as "your reality is yours and my reality is mine." There is only ONE reality, and we all have various perceptions of it. But it is also incorrect to say "Perception is reality," as is so often said. It is said often, but it is wrong. There is only ONE reality. The quesition is: Do we perceive it correctly, or not?
Attorneys, as a whole, have a losing record in court. Most attorneys are not litigators, so they have no record in court at all. Some are civil litigators, and they overall win half and lose half.
Some are criminal attorneys, and since prosecutors have the deck stacked in their favor and win 98% of the time, that necessarily means that the defense attorneys lose most of the time.
Hence, attorneys as a whole lose far more often than they win.
The legal industry is very similar to the medical industry and the poltical industry. Most of them are really not worthy of the praise they often receive.
Having said all that ...
It would be very good to have law firm name on the header before submitting it.
Considering your personal objective here, which is to get the mandate reversed without losing your job and making too much stink, then you are probably right to go for the religious exemption and have a "lawyer" signing off on it. Not because it is the truth, but because the people you are dealing with are likely people who falsely give reverence to attorneys. They are mistaken, but you might as well take advantage of their ignorance, since they are trying to take advantage of your rights.
If you want to go down the road of challenging their authority to do what they are claiming they have authority to do (which is the ultimate fight in all of this), this article could be of some help:
The 5th Circuit's recent stay on the mandates also is a help to you, because that is the law of the land unless and until your circuit or SCOTUS says otherwise. That would especially be true if your company happens to be headquartered (USA operations) in Texas, which a lot of them are.
I think there is a phrase that says -- "Thou thinkest too much". You have a good head on your shoulders and presented some very good postings, but sometimes preaching to the choir tends to be rotundly words echoed in a chamber.
Believe me I know about the profession of lawyers.... I helped someone pass the Bar. I have been involved in legal cases and a class action lawsuit. I'm not a lawyer though and could go in to detail about why the profession is in itself a conflict of interest, but that is not germane to my immediate need.
I think I resolved my finding an attorney though. Through a friend we have obtained a pro bono arrangement with a lawyer who works at a very large law firm. Some other things need to be worked out though.
Yes, the 5th Circuit of Appeals is helpful. It acts as a bright light to other Circuit Courts. I am in the 8th Circuit Court and on Nov. 5th several States filed a lawsuit. In addition, another lawsuit was filed on the Nov. 9th by a private concern. Both courts are conservative courts. The 6th and 7th Circuit of Appeals also have cases that have been filed. All of the above Circuit Courts are Conservative. In addition, I believe the Cease and Desist Order the Canadian Labor Board issued is also a shot-across-the-bow that justices will circumstantially take notice of here in the United States. Finally, State legislatures across the nation in all 50 States have introduced pending legislation pertaining in various degrees against employer-mandated vaccinations.
Of course this is all too slow motion for my senses, but never the less, public policy appears to be slowly changing.
Yes, I have seen this..... Exosome (terrain) theory is in line with God's realm of the Divine Order. Germ Theory is quite simply the devil's work. Need I say more?
I don't know of any attorneys who are fighters. Most have no balls.
What are the specifics?
Depending on circumstances, maybe this post that I wrote about the OSHA document could be of help:
https://greatawakening.win/p/13zzxu77tQ/
Thank you, I read that piece you wrote and will use it. Despite this being very good information, corporations are not following this or even the two EOs that are for federal employees and the other federal contractors. You would think the lawyers at these corporations know this. And I think they do. Their first priority is to defend corporate interests. So why are they acting like the mandate is for everyone one?
I believe it is coming directly from the banking interests and the Biden EO is just a cover. And Biden Administration is covering their asses with not exceeding their authority into the privates sector, but instead lying about it.
Why do I say banking interests? Remember when several gun manufacturing companies had their banking pulled? And this is just one example of several entities running into this problem. I think the big banks are doing the same with these corporations who depend so much on loans to fuel operations.
So to answer your questions above.
Yes.
Following the EO.
It's an international company. Some aspect of it is government, but not mine.
Their big accounts contract with the Big Pharma, but again this is not my area that involve my clients.
Personally, I would maintain a communication between them and me. That might be my boss, HR, CEO, or whomever. Email is likely best, because it can later be verfied if needed (otherwise, it would have to be certified mail, which leaves a bad impression from their perspective).
I would want to make sure I put them into a box, and when they eventually refuse to respond to something, that shows bad faith. All of this, of course, for future lawsuit, if needed.
If they are relying on EO, which one(s)? EO's are ONLY directives to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. They have no other authority. So, an international company has NO legal ability to rely on an EO as any sort of justification.
If they rely on OSHA, and they are not involved in shipping or the other few areas of federal government contracts, then that is also NOT any legal authority for them.
Even if they were, they would be acting as an agent of government, and then need to be following the law.
If they were issuing a medical procedure mandate, against my will, as a condition of employment, I would want to set them up for later lawsuit of fraud, if it came to that (keeping the job with no mandate would of course be ideal).
So, my email(s) would include such things as:
IOW, I would get these sorts of things in emails to establish a record of the communication. Asking questions, while not refusing, puts you in the best legal position you can. If you can circulate these to executives and directors, too, you might get someone to put the brakes on.
Being an international company, probably run by woke graduates of universities that have indoctrinated them, it is a tough road. But I think it is best to establish a record that shows that you were honestly trying to get information to clarify what they wanted you to do so you could make an informed decision, and they were obfuscating and acting in bad faith.
It is coercion to use threats and intimidation to do something they do not want to do, and are not legally obligated to do.
The EO's and OSHA documents show that they do NOT have legal authority, and it is therefore coercion and also based on fraud, since there is NO science behind any of this.
Also, get a book on how to handle a lawsuit. Even if you don't do it, at least you will have some idea of what an attorney should do.
Good luck.
P.S.
That's why I would throw out there that the company has NO liability if they do NOT implement this mandate (unless they are getting paid off and reimbursed if they do it anyway, which is possible). I would also through out that coercion is a felony and a tort, which means their corporate veil will not protect them from personal liability or criminal action. Of course, now we are getting down and dirty, so that would be the last straw type of language to use, not the friendly start of communication. But this type of thing might be the only thing that will get them to back off -- if they think they are facing personal liability and make them question if they really know they are opening up major legal problems.
All of this is really good information. When I said it was an international corporation, it is HQed in the U.S. The email sent out by the company comes from Human Resources, who I know take direction from the top executives of the corporation. The lawyers there are always in the background and they're paid to defend generally whatever the executive staff dictate. This gets translated through to HR department and they are tasked with getting the directive out. So, all of this is through the gatekeepers and not getting to the people who are in charge. HR has already received their marching orders. Requesting the Religious exemption is just a formality. They are not going to acknowledge it unless there is a lawyer who can cause some waves.
I've been done a similar road like this before in a personal injury case. I quickly learned I was getting the runaround by my insurance company. They treated me like I was a dog. So I had to lawyer-up and I'm glad I did because I didn't know the process. It's all pretty much boilerplate too including the arbitration. It's not even a question of the amount, which is by custom a boilerplate amount. It is all about the lawyers in control of the wheel house making deals and assuring that they have continued employment.
I need an attorney because I will be kicked to the curb like a dog if I try doing this myself. In general, I don't understand why I haven't heard of Cease and Desist letters being sent out by lawyers regarding these mandates, especially when there is no EO for the private sector and the same for OSHA. They are NOT acknowledging Religious Exemptions too.
If you know of any lawyer, let me know.
Attorneys today are just like medical doctors today. They are taught a narrow slice of law, and all of it benefits the "machine," not the People.
I understand insurance companies. Without going into detail, I used to fight them on "legal grounds" but without literally legal grounds, since that was not my job. Bottom line: they are bullies who try to cheat everyone, but if you understand the law, they can be made to bend the knee and do what they are supposed to do -- usually, not always.
The situation we are all in now is similar. I know most people don't have a belief they can fight this on their own, which is what these companies are counting on.
But the attorneys are not that damn great, most of them. There are a few exceptions, of course, but it is the same small percentage as in the medical industry. By definition, most people are average, no matter what their chosen profession. And half of the rest are below average, by definition (basic bell curve).
They are operating in the USA, so that is what matters most, but probably helps that they are HQ in USA.
Of course, they have their organizational chart, and the people making the decisions don't want to get their hands dirty.
I was at a restaurant the other day, and it is a franchise setup. I know the owner of the franchise (not friends, but have had casual conversations before). I took him aside and asked him why he has his employees wearing face masks. He said it is "corporate." I asked if he would do it if it were up to him. He said no. Maybe he was lying, but he seemed genuine. These corporations make it tough to deal with by going through layers -- just like government.
Exactly correct. But don't assume they are brilliant. Some might be, but most are followers, just like everyone else.
Right. I have responded to some other anons here about similar situations. I don't know how those situations turned out. But here are a couple of threads, that might be of help in formulating your strategy:
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jcvRZIAA/i-work-for-a-corporate-giant-and/c/
https://greatawakening.win/p/13zzjnoP4s/need-a-little-help-husband-is-lo/c/
In a big company like yours, I would start with an email chain to the HR. They might or might not pass it along up the chain, but doesn't really matter.
I would be asking a series of questions "for clarification" (i.e. not being confrontational) -- at first.
At some point, I would forward that chain to the CEO, legal department, and the individual members of the Board of Directors, if and when I thought it was time to throw the Hail Mary. (Do something they are NOT expecting -- the members of the Board are NOT expecting to get a legal notice, for example.)
No matter what, getting a WRITTEN record of communication cannot hurt and can likely help later, if you pursue legal action.
The reality is we are in unchartered territory. Most attorneys are afraid to make waves. Any lawsuit will have to rely partly on common law principles (right to not be injected with an unknown substance which has no scientific basis to believe is safe or effective, coercion, violation of rights, fraud, etc.).
Today's attorneys are simply not taught to think like this. They are taught to "paint by numbers" and plug the round peg in the round hole, and the square peg in the square hole. They are not taught to think for themselves when it comes to FIGHTING AGAINST THE SYSTEM, which is what this is.
Takes balls and brains. Most of them are lacking.
BOTTOM LINE: They have NO legal authority to force an experimental drug on you. It is coercion. It is also fraud, since there is NO scientific basis to believe any of the claims they might make. Plus, at some point they will stop communication with you to protect their legal position, and that will show bad faith. All of these things are actionable in court. If the main priority is to get the vaxx mandate to go away and avoid firing/court, then probably getting them documentation that shows they are WRONG as a matter of fact, science, and law, might be the way to go.
Your "BOTTOM LINE" is indeed correct. It is coercion and being coerced to take it is a form of rape.
All your is stuff presented here is very good. No question about it. I take it you are not an attorney.
There's a dead line of December 27th. The corporate mandate is stated as follows:
The deadline is based on the Jan.06, 2022. I believe this relates to OSHA.
On Nov. 05, ND, SD, IA, MO, and some other states filed a lawsuit in the 8th Circuit Court. I don't know when this conservative Court is going to hear the case, but it includes my State of MN.
If you have info you can share with any research regarding Cease and Desist info regarding religious exemptions protecting job status I'll be happy to review it.
My family has always been unvaxxed. My children have never taken these jabs that pollute the temple of the Holy Spirit. We deeply believe this and have a long history of applying State laws regarding Religious exemptions at my children's Baptist private school. Furthermore, we not only believe human aborted fetuses in the development of vaccines is an abomination to the Holy Spirit, but we deeply believe a toxin that rewrites the code of life (DNA) and alters natural immunity is evil. My wife and I have "COVID" last December and our immune systems are now immune to it.
[3 of 3]
Finally, I will say that you need to map out your strategy.
Start nicey-nice, and increase the intensity as needed.
HR and immediate boss have zero authority to do anything other than pass it up the chain of command, and they might not even do that. So, I would be nice to them (but firm), and follow up every 24-48 hours to ask for their response or what they did with the last email (if no response back).
I would not give anyone more than 3 days to respond before sending another email. Of course, print out all emails and responses, and keep copies (take pics if needed).
Time is of the essence, at this point. Allowing them to drag it out is what they likely want.
Start nice, but if no substantive response comes quickly, ramp it up on the next email. If 2 emails go by with no real response, then I would unload the whole shebang and send copies up the chain of command, and especially the Board of Directors. Those guys are the ones really calling the shots, and likely taking orders or advise from others who are the real culprits in all of this.
Key points --
Good luck!
I will keep this thread bookmarked and am open to more discussion over time.
[1 of 3]
Correct. My layman's thoughts --
What makes me subject to this requirement? I have not signed any agreement that would make me subject to such a requirement, and I have not agreed to any such requirement. On what basis do you make this claim?
(A general principle in American law is "silence is acquiescence" which means if you do not object to something that someone claims, then you are agreeing with the claim. Here, they have made an ASSUMPTION about what YOU are required to do, so it is important to REFUTE that assumption, so that you are not unwittingly agreeing to their assumption. You can refute it in a nice way or a not so nice way, but refute you must.)
This appears to be a change in my employment contract with you, which renders the contract a unilateral contract of adhesion. Such contracts are to be interpreted in favor of the party who did not write the contract (that would be me), and specific performance (such as firing) is not available as a legal remedy for such contracts.
(Might be a good idea to cc the email to HR to include CEO, Legal Department, and Chairman of the Board -- of course, that is a big chess move, but if you think it is going in a particular direction anyway, might be the thing to do.)
I do not understand what you mean by "fully vaccinated." Please clarify what that means. Is there a particular vaccine you recommend or require? Against what illness? Do you have any evidence that I have an illness that would be some sort of health problem? Also, why do you want me to do this? What benefit do you expect will result in me doing this, either to the company or to me?
(Here, there is no challenge to what they are saying. That comes after they play their next card. First, clarify what THEY mean by "fully vaccinated." What if you went out and got a flu vaccine? What that be good enough? Of course, they are likely to come back and say Covid vaccine. In that case, the next move is to ask which one(s). They might list, or not. They might say FDA-approved or not. If they list, they are offering medical advice, and you could ask to see their medical license, or just use that info against them later, if needed. If they say FDA- approved, you could show them the Comirnaty approval, and state that all other Covid vaccines are not approved, but are for emergency use testing only. In order to be a guinea pig for testing unknown drugs, you must be fully informed of ALL adverse events.)
If you want me to be subjected to an experimental drug, you will need to follow the law, which requires you to FULLY inform me about the drug. So far, you have not provided me with any information about the drug, or even which drug you want me to experiment with. I will also need to see any scientific evidence that this drug is both safe and effective, and your legal authority to make such demand.
I have heard of numerous significant complications with certain experimental drugs, including death. So, I will need to be fully informed by you.
I refer you to federal law on this issue --
See: 21 USC 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii) and (iii):
(ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed — (II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and (III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.
[NOTE: There is weasel language in that statute, but it is worth pushing to the legal department, CEO, and Chairman so they know that you know, and will make them wonder if they have a lawsuit coming their way, but without you threatening anything.]
(I would also want them to give me a REASON WHY they think taking this drug will have some sort of benefit to someone -- company, me, other employees, etc. Without that, they really have no grounds at all. Of course, whatever reason they come up with will be based on fraud. If they refuse to give a reason, then they are demanding a medical treatment without providing a reason, which even doctors cannot do. If they give a reason about "protection" or "health benefit" or similar, then I would come back with this paper from the NIH, which shows there is NO correlation between vaccination rates and Covid cases [and there never will be, unless they rig the numbers, because it is all fraud]:)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/
(Provide that paper to them, and then ask: On what basis do you claim there is any benefit, when the NIH says there is none?)
[To be continued ...]
[2 of 3]
I've thought of a couple of things on this issue.
First, you could have someone you know become an ordained minister, and then write you a letter on your behalf. This can be done quickly and cheaply by anyone (18 or older) and online at the Universal Life Church:
https://www.ulc.org/
Second, I might tell them that it is against my religious belief to bear false witness, and to participate in anything that bears false witness. This is basic Bible 101, 10 Commandments. They can't argue that it is not a valid religious belief. Congress has recognized the Bible as an important foundation upon which the laws of the United States of America are derived:
https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/public_law_97-280_oct._4_1982_0.pdf
By using "false witness," you are necessarily bringing into the discussion that what they are doing is fraud. It is ALL based on lies. So, you are not just using a religious reason, but also forcing the issue of fraud into it.
One thing to keep in mind (or at least, this would be my position) is that if the company is acting due to government regulation, then the company is acting as an agent of government. (This is a legal issue that they would challenge, and would have to be decided in court, possibly taken up on appeal.)
At the very least, it is likely to get them to think long and hard about whether they have PERSONAL liability -- the CEO, all executives involved in this decision, legal department individuals, and members of the Board of Directors.
They likely think they have immunity from personal lawsuit or criminal charges. Make them question that assumption, but WITHOUT making those claims.
I would not do this in a first email. I would also not ONLY give it to my boss or HR. Those people are insignificant, and will not have the resources to investigate and find out what is what. I would send it to those people, but ALSO copy it to the higher ups, including legal department individuals (claim they are acting in their individual capacities, and not as attorneys for the company). Such as --
It is my understanding [Note: not saying it is law, just my personal understanding, right or wrong] that the company is acting on behalf of a government entity. As such, the company is an agent of government, and is therefore subject to all limitations imposed on government.
The law is quite clear on this issue. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission puts the burden of proof on YOU, not on me:
"Because the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, observances, and practices with which the employer may be unfamiliar, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief. If, however, an employee requests religious accommodation, and an employer has an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, observance, or practice, the employer would be justified in seeking additional supporting information."
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination#h_984461328691610748665504
I would like to make it clear that I deny that the commission has ANY authority to issue edicts regarding religion, for reasons stated below. However, I am pointing out that even they state that the burden of proof is on YOU, not me. You cannot question my religious beliefs unless you have an objective basis that is specific to me. If you do attempt to question my beliefs, I will need proof of your objective basis, which I do not believe you could possibly have.
Furthermore, you are violating my First Amendment rights, secured by the Constitution. The law of the land, as decided by the United States Supreme Court, is clear on this issue:
"Religious speech is at the apex of protected speech under the First Amendment." Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938)
“Man’s relation to his God was made no concern of the state. He was granted the right to worship as he pleased and to answer to no man for the verity of his religious views. The religious reviews espoused by [the sect that followed the religious leader] might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain.” United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944)
What the United States Supreme Court is saying is that you have NO AUTHORITY to question my religious beliefs, regardless of what any government commission or agency might say to the contrary. No authority means NO AUTHORITY. Doing so is a clear violation of my First Amendment Rights.
Violating my constitutional rights is a felony, for ALL individuals involved in such activity, including officers, directors, and attorneys for corporations.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation, which would abrogate them”
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 (1966)
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights." Schware v. Board of Examiners 353 U.S. 238.
Under federal law, 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242, it is a FELONY to deprive, or to conspire with others to deprive, any individual of their constitutional rights.
"Color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.
Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury.
“When a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The state has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States” Scheuer v. Rhodes 416 US 232 (1974)
"Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury."
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976)
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one, because of his exercise of constitutional rights."
Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 2d. 486 (5th Cir., 1956)
" ... the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22 (1923)
("Local practice" would include company policies, though the court here was talking about state laws. This is why you want to ASSERT your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, namely the First Amendment rights of religion and free speech. This assertion preserves them, according to the courts -- or at least, that is how it is supposed to work.)
Anyone who deprives another person of his constitutional rights is subject to personal liability in a civil lawsuit. The limited liability protection of a state corporation does not protect anyone against personal liability for violations of constitutional rights secured under federal and fundamental law.
Please provide me with the government requirement(s) to which you refer here. I am not aware of any government requirement that is applicable to this company, and especially to me.
(Make them show you what they are relying on. Most likely, you will be able to take it apart the way I did the OSHA thing, and it will not actually apply to this company. That is how MOST "unconstitutional" law is done. They make it seem like it applies to everyone, but it really does not. You have to dig through it, though, and most attorneys won't because they get paid by the People being ignorant.)
Regarding the "policies implemented by more than 150 of our customers in the U.S." please provide me with those policies. If you are basing your policy on the policy of another company that does not have any authority to issue such policies, then no authority exists for you or them.
No policy, whether by a private company or by any government agency, is enforceable if it violates law.
[To be continued]
Very few attorneys have a set of balls...... are mostly greedy bastards just interested in padding their f****** ass pockets
I came across this video from an attorney who is talking about this specific issue.
He is basically saying the same things I am.
Definitely worth a watch.
https://odysee.com/@sgtreport:7/Mitch-copy:f
Thanks. I've never questioned whether you are right or not, it is the 'image' that an attorney projects that I am looking for. It gives teeth to all of it. This company vaxx mandate is a legal issue. Even attorneys know its not a good idea to represent themselves in court. Think of a chess game. Why is it the observer can see the moves better than the player?
I've written up the religious exemption letter and it was based on Liberty Counsel's example. I added pertinent parts and expanded it. I am providing affidavits to it from a Bible Study friend, a pastor friend, Baptist school principle, my manager, my wife, and may even provide ones from my teen children who have never been subject to any injectiods. It would be very good to have law firm name on the header before submitting it.
Let me just say this about that. There is reality, and then there is perception. They are often two very different things.
There is no such thing as "your reality is yours and my reality is mine." There is only ONE reality, and we all have various perceptions of it. But it is also incorrect to say "Perception is reality," as is so often said. It is said often, but it is wrong. There is only ONE reality. The quesition is: Do we perceive it correctly, or not?
Attorneys, as a whole, have a losing record in court. Most attorneys are not litigators, so they have no record in court at all. Some are civil litigators, and they overall win half and lose half.
Some are criminal attorneys, and since prosecutors have the deck stacked in their favor and win 98% of the time, that necessarily means that the defense attorneys lose most of the time.
Hence, attorneys as a whole lose far more often than they win.
The legal industry is very similar to the medical industry and the poltical industry. Most of them are really not worthy of the praise they often receive.
Having said all that ...
Considering your personal objective here, which is to get the mandate reversed without losing your job and making too much stink, then you are probably right to go for the religious exemption and have a "lawyer" signing off on it. Not because it is the truth, but because the people you are dealing with are likely people who falsely give reverence to attorneys. They are mistaken, but you might as well take advantage of their ignorance, since they are trying to take advantage of your rights.
If you want to go down the road of challenging their authority to do what they are claiming they have authority to do (which is the ultimate fight in all of this), this article could be of some help:
https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/cdc-admits-crushing-rights-of-naturally
The 5th Circuit's recent stay on the mandates also is a help to you, because that is the law of the land unless and until your circuit or SCOTUS says otherwise. That would especially be true if your company happens to be headquartered (USA operations) in Texas, which a lot of them are.
Good luck, and let us all know how it turns out.
I think there is a phrase that says -- "Thou thinkest too much". You have a good head on your shoulders and presented some very good postings, but sometimes preaching to the choir tends to be rotundly words echoed in a chamber.
Believe me I know about the profession of lawyers.... I helped someone pass the Bar. I have been involved in legal cases and a class action lawsuit. I'm not a lawyer though and could go in to detail about why the profession is in itself a conflict of interest, but that is not germane to my immediate need.
I think I resolved my finding an attorney though. Through a friend we have obtained a pro bono arrangement with a lawyer who works at a very large law firm. Some other things need to be worked out though.
Yes, the 5th Circuit of Appeals is helpful. It acts as a bright light to other Circuit Courts. I am in the 8th Circuit Court and on Nov. 5th several States filed a lawsuit. In addition, another lawsuit was filed on the Nov. 9th by a private concern. Both courts are conservative courts. The 6th and 7th Circuit of Appeals also have cases that have been filed. All of the above Circuit Courts are Conservative. In addition, I believe the Cease and Desist Order the Canadian Labor Board issued is also a shot-across-the-bow that justices will circumstantially take notice of here in the United States. Finally, State legislatures across the nation in all 50 States have introduced pending legislation pertaining in various degrees against employer-mandated vaccinations.
Of course this is all too slow motion for my senses, but never the less, public policy appears to be slowly changing.
I also think you should watch this video.
Let the info sink in, if you don't already know this.
https://odysee.com/@lancewdetrick:b/IA---Germ-Theory-is-nonsense---no-virus-has-ever-caused-disease---Dr-Tom-Cowan---Jerm-Warfare:9
Yes, I have seen this..... Exosome (terrain) theory is in line with God's realm of the Divine Order. Germ Theory is quite simply the devil's work. Need I say more?
Agreed. And the more that I learn about Terrain Theory, the more it makes sense and Germ Theory does not.
Thanks.