Things are coming to a head, Pedes and starting to move again. For the history, and some of the rationale for my approach, check out these posts:
part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4
A QUICK RECAP (If you don't want to bother with the links.)
The Siemens office reopening policy included screening, masking and potentially testing. I responded by electronic and registered mail with a legal Conditional Acceptance letter giving ten days for the HR facilities flunkie to respond. She forwarded it to a HR legal flunkie who told me in a conference call that company lawyers said she didn't need to answer any conditions. So after two weeks I followed up with a Courtesy Notice giving her an additional five days. That pissed her off, "I already told you..." Shortly afterwards, a mandatory vaxx notice from the head of HR popped up in our e-mail boxes. Accordingly I send him his very own new and improved Conditional Acceptance.
Three days later a vaxx policy update came down from on high signed by the CEO, CFO, and HR head. Rather than continue on the other paths, I consolidated everything into yet another Conditional Acceptance that I e-mailed to all, and register mailed to the CEO. Since suits under Common Law are always person-to-person I named the CEO as Principal, and all the others as his Agents. After two weeks I sent him a Courtesy Notice with a five day extension. The CEO never responded -- he pawned that duty off on the HR head who only ever reiterated policy, and would get a little testy when I countered with a sprinkling of facts.
REJOINING OUR STORY IN PROGRESS
This moves us up to early November. Tracking the Biden E.O.s, our vaxx deadline was changed from 8 Dec to 4 Jan with a demand that individuals send in their vaxx status by 26 Nov. Religious and physical exemption applications were also stressed. Exemptions were first put forth as being something that would be rarely granted. At this point I think they are trying to limit the damage -- 100% of the folks I know who applied (3 out of 40 some) received one. I even got an e-mail about my accommodation not yet being received. Could be because I never requested one. Here's my response:
Thanks M,
The only accommodation I need to request is from my Creator. Siemens has nothing to do with that. Besides, I already have an accommodation that should satisfy Siemens, it’s known as the 1st Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America. Something all you Agents of this unlawful action are violating, along with the 4th , 5th , 6th and 14th Amendments.
And let's not forget your violations of all ten points of the Nuremberg Code, which forbids conducting medical experiments of human subjects without their consent. Siemens got away with only paying financial damages for collaborating with the Nazis; many more people are awake to what’s going on this time around, and the evidence is plentiful.
Cordially,
As you can see, I'm not interested in asking for my rights. Instead, as a free man, I am asserting them. But I did get one more Agent to add to my list of enablers. The thing people who apply for these exemptions (and I know many) are missing is that by doing so, they are signing a contract. Whenever you sign a contract you are signing away some liberty, even if you are unaware of it.
This is a classic trap that has been employed by TPTB against We the People since forever. We all do it out of ignorance. By signing this particular contract, the exemption appeasers are agreeing with the premise that their company is entitled to dictate their health care and impose medical interventions whenever it suits them. Can anyone say, "Booster number six?"
I got confirmation that the Courtesy Notice to the CEO was delivered on 12 Nov. A week later I sent out Notices of Default and Estoppel. Here's the cover note:
Dear Mr. H.,
As you have failed to respond to my Conditional Acceptance in affidavit form I am sending you a Notice of Default, and Notice of Estoppel. Going forward I fully expect you to refrain from trying to force unwanted medical interventions upon my person.
Sincerely,
Here's the meat from the Default:
Therefore, this NOTICE is to inform you of the fact that you are in DEFAULT due to your failure to perform a legal duty where you had a legal and moral obligation to speak. This NOTICE serves as prima facie evidence of your "SILENCE" in this matter, pursuant to U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021 (1970) and U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977).
BE IT FURTHER KNOWN, that your lack of timely response and failure to rebut my claims in affidavit form serves as your acquiescence and tacit agreement that the factual declarations I set forth are true, correct, and not misleading, and are binding upon you.
And the Estoppel:
Thus, a fraud has been committed upon me, pursuant to U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977), thereby initiating the DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE, pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906), to wit, "One's 'silence' may invoke doctrine of ESTOPPEL by acquiescence," which is now in full force and effect upon you and Siemens Industry Software Inc.
BE IT FURTHER KNOWN, that you are hereby estopped from any and all future actions, challenges, or counterclaims against me concerning this matter. Any violation(s) of this ESTOPPEL will be construed, at the very least, as a "tortious" act against me for which I will then have a lawful claim against you. Proceeding beyond this point strips you of any "Immunity," real or imagined, making you personally liable to me.
Finally, yesterday I sent out a document entitled Notice of Liability and Fee Schedule and Demand to Cease and Desist. This was fun, especially coming the day before Thanksgiving! I hope my aggressors read it with joy in their hearts. Here's the cover, short and sweet:
Dear Mr. H.,
The last set of legal documents sent you included a Notice of Estoppel. This final document, a Notice of Liability and Fee Schedule and Demand to Cease and Desist informs you of the personal liability you and your agents will bear, and the damages you and your agents will suffer should you choose to violate said Estoppel.
Merry Christmas, bitches,
Okay, that last bit should actually read "Sincerely,"
And here's the bit from the Liability Notice I am most proud of. I was struggling to clearly hook the legal obligations that public officials operate under into the hides of corporate officers. What I hit on was the 'color of law', which I'll explain after the passages:
YOU WERE WARNED through the aforementioned NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL BY SILENCE AND ACQUIESCENCE that you will be held personally liable for any violation. Such will be construed as, at the very least, a "tortious" act against me for which I will have a Lawful claim and cause of action against you pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966), to wit, "To act 'under color' of law does not require that the accused be an officer of the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents."
In depriving me of my constitutionally secured rights, privileges, or immunities through forced, unwanted medical interventions under the guise of Executive Order 14043 and the resulting OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard 29 CFR 1910, Subpart U, you are in fact, acting jointly with the State. Furthermore, since neither proclamation is in actuality, a law, you are doing so under color of law, thus making you subject to suits at Common Law under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 242. The staying of the OSHA ETS by BST Holdings, LLC v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2021) makes your deprivation of my rights even more egregious.
Color of law is typically used against police who hassle, order, or arrest a person based on some law that is not in fact a real law. (Mask mandates come to mind). In U.S. vs Price it was used to prosecute 18 defendants, only three of whom were state officials, for the murder of three young civil rights activists. It is the basis of the movie Mississippi Burning.
A lower court had released the private 15 from any legal action. This ruling by the Supreme Court overturned that when it found that though not public officials, each of the private 15 was "a willful participant in joint activity with the State." The county sheriff and six civilians were convicted on that basis. Corporations doing the bidding of Biden are certainly in joint participation with the State, which is acting on the basis of no law. Such officers can be brought to heel both civilly and criminally. The criminal penalties range up to life in prison and death.
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results, ...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, ...shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
But here is the absolute juiciest part of the Notice of Liability:
YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that any continued action against me shall incur a fee and bill for damages at a rate of $100,000 US Dollars per day, per man or woman involved.
YOU ARE THUS HEREBY DEMANDED TO CEASE AND DESIST IMMEDIATELY. Any violation of this NOTICE AND DEMAND is your activation and acceptance of the above fee schedule. This NOTICE AND DEMAND is enforceable from the date of notice.
Let's see, 7 Agents times $100K is $700K a day. At that rate it will only take a few weeks to set me up good.
As of tomorrow my vaxx status will be late. That will probably kick off a violation or two. I plan to go into the office next week for the first time since reopening; without mask, screening or hand cleaning. That should provoke something as well. Maybe I'll be able to add a few more Agents to my suit? I could live with a cool million a day.
Happy Thanksgiving to all!
Not true, law is all about words.