OP, I commend your effort. This stuff is not easy to figure out, much less to have the balls to do.

Having said that, I am not so sure that this organization is giving you 100% good info.

An ex parte hearing is very unusual and typically not allowed except for specific situations. Your beef with your company is not likely one of them. An ex parte excludes the other side. What if they did that to you? What if they went to the judge and discussed the situation without you being able to be involved? It would be unfair to you.

When something is unfair to one side, then it is usually a violation of due process. There are some exceptions. A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is one such exception that I know of. But even that brings the other side in, too. The ex parte in that is more of a formality, not anything close to a judicial verdict.

So, sending some letters and then having an ex parte hearing with a judge seems like it should not be allowed, as a matter of law. I have not researched it, but it rubs me the wrong way. Something about it feels like it will not end like they are saying it will.

If they have examples of situations where this has worked, then maybe they are on to something that works. Do they? Do they have real examples that you can verify, or is it just their claims?

Also, the idea of a "conditional acceptance of offer" doesn't really make sense in this situation. If I make a formal offer to buy your house, you can make a "conditional acceptance," but the conditions you impose turn it into a counter-offer.

That's cool when it comes to real estate, because there was a clear, contractual offer.

Your situation is different. You already have a contract with them to work. They are attempting to impose, unilaterally (without your consent), a change in that contract. They are also attempting to violate your right of liberty. They are also attempting to impose medical treatment upon you, without being hired by you to provide medical treatment, most likely doing so without a medical license, and basing it on fraudulent statements by a third party (CDC).

If you really do not want to go to court, and you primarily just want the policy to go away, you might consider adding in some additional things as you go through your process (Notice, Notice to Cure, etc.). These additional items would be things that both let them know what the real science is (articles about studies that show face masks are not helpful, and can be harmful), OSHA regulations (although, they have recently changed for Covid, but have long-standing regulations showing that face masks are generally prohibited in the workplace), etc.

You could also create your own affidavit. As you likely know, certain things must be in an affidavit for it to be legally accepted as an affidavit. Once you check those boxes, you can only include information you have from first hand knowledge. You cannot claim as a fact that somebody else did some research. You can only state what you know. So, you can state that you read research X (copy attached), and that you have concluded from that such and such.

An affidavit that is not rebutted by a counter-affidavit stands as the truth, once it is attested to in court. My understanding is that, if you do it right, then your affidavit(s) would be the only evidence presented in court, since their side will be easy to rebut. If you present evidence and they do not, then 100% of the facts are on your side. You should win.

Ultimately, "winning" could take different forms, depending on what you want to do. You could get an injunction stopping them. You could get a court to order a Writ of Prohibition (an injunction is a subtopic of this). You could sue them for monetary damages. Lots of ways to go with it.

Just a few random thoughts.

Good luck with it, and let us know how it goes.

OP, I commend your effort. This stuff is not easy to figure out, much less to have the balls to do.

Having said that, I am not so sure that this organization is giving you 100% good info.

An ex parte hearing is very unusual and typically not allowed except for specific situations. Your beef with your company is not likely one of them. An ex parte excludes the other side. What if they did that to you? What if they went to the judge and discussed the situation without you being able to be involved? It would be unfair to you.

When something is unfair to one side, then it is usually a violation of due process. There are some exceptions. A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is one such exception that I know of. But even that brings the other side in, too. The ex parte in that is more of a formality, not anything close to a judicial verdict.

So, sending some letters and then having an ex parte hearing with a judge seems like it should not be allowed, as a matter of law. I have not researched it, but it rubs me the wrong way. Something about it feels like it will not end like they are saying it will.

If they have examples of situations where this has worked, then maybe they are on to something that works. Do they? Do they have real examples that you can verify, or is it just their claims?

Also, the idea of a "conditional acceptance of offer" doesn't really make sense in this situation. If I make a formal offer to buy your house, you can make a "conditional acceptance," but the conditions you impose turn it into a counter-offer.

That's cool when it comes to real estate, because there was a clear, contractual offer.

Your situation is different. You already have a contract with them to work. They are attempting to impose, unilaterally (without your consent), a change in that contract. They are also attempting to violate your right of liberty. They are also attempting to impose medical treatment upon you, without being hired by you to provide medical treatment, most likely doing so without a medical license, and basing it on fraudulent statements by a third party (CDC).

If you really do not want to go to court, and you primarily just want the policy to go away, you might consider adding in some additional things as you go through your process (Notice, Notice to Cure, etc.). These additional items would be things that both let them know what the real science is (articles about studies that show face masks are not helpful, and can be harmful), OSHA regulations (although, they have recently changed for Covid, but have long-standing regulations showing that face masks are generally prohibited in the workplace), etc.

You could also create your own affidavit. As you likely know, certain things must be in an affidavit for it to be legally accepted as an affidavit. Once you check those boxes, you can only include information you have from first hand knowledge. You cannot claim as a fact that somebody else did some research. You can only state what you know. So, you can state that you read research X (copy attached), and that you have concluded from that such and such.

An affidavit that is not rebutted by a counter-affidavit stands as the truth, once it is attested to in court. My understanding is that, if you do it right, then your affidavit(s) would be the only evidence presented in court, since their side will be easy to rebut. If you present evidence and they do not, then 100% of the facts are on your side. You should win.

Just a few random thoughts.

Good luck with it, and let us know how it goes.

OP, I commend your effort. This stuff is not easy to figure out, much less to have the balls to do.

Having said that, I am not so sure that this organization is giving you 100% good info.

An ex parte hearing is very unusual and typically not allowed except for specific situations. Your beef with your company is not likely one of them. An ex parte excludes the other side. What if they did that to you? What if they went to the judge and discussed the situation without you being able to be involved? It would be unfair to you.

When something is unfair to one side, then it is usually a violation of due process. There are some exceptions. A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is one such exception that I know of. But even that brings the other side in, too. The ex parte in that is more of a formality, not anything close to a judicial verdict.

So, sending some letters and then having an ex parte hearing with a judge seems like it should not be allowed, as a matter of law. I have not researched it, but it rubs me the wrong way. Something about it feels like it will not end like they are saying it will.

If they have examples of situations where this has worked, then maybe they are on to something that works. Do they? Do they have real examples that you can verify, or is it just their claims?

Also, the idea of a "conditional acceptance of offer" doesn't really make sense in this situation. If I make a formal offer to buy your house, you can make a "conditional acceptance," but the conditions you impose turn it into a counter-offer.

That's cool when it comes to real estate, because there was a clear, contractual offer.

Your situation is different. You already have a contract with them to work. They are attempting to impose, unilaterally (without your consent), a change in that contract. They are also attempting to violate your right of liberty. They are also attempting to impose medical treatment upon you, without being hired by you to provide medical treatment, most likely doing so without a medical license, and basing it on fraudulent statements by a third party (CDC).

If you really do not want to go to court, and you primarily just want the policy to go away, you might consider adding in some additional things as you go through your process (Notice, Notice to Cure, etc.). These additional items would be things that both let them know what the real science is (articles about studies that show face masks are not helpful, and can be harmful), OSHA regulations (although, they have recently changed for Covid, but have long-standing regulations showing that face masks are generally prohibited in the workplace), etc.

You could also create your own affidavit. As you likely know, certain things must be in an affidavit for it to be legally accepted as an affidavit. Once you check those boxes, you can only include information you have from first hand knowledge. You cannot claim as a fact that somebody else did some research. You can only state what you know. So, you can state that you read research X (copy attached), and that you have concluded from that such and such.

An affidavit that is not rebutted by a counter-affidavit stands as the truth, once it is attested to in court. My understanding is that, if you do it right, then your affidavit(s) would be the only evidence presented in court, since their side will be easy to rebut. If you present evidence and they do not, they 100% of the facts aree on your side. You should win.

Just a few random thoughts.

Good luck with it, and let us know how it goes.

OP, I commend your effort. This stuff is not easy to figure out, much less to have the balls to do.

Having said that, I am not so sure that this organization is giving you 100% good info.

An ex parte hearing is very unusual and typically not allowed except for specific situations. Your beef with your company is not likely one of them. An ex parte excludes the other side. What if they did that to you? What if they went to the judge and discussed the situation without you being able to be involved? It would be unfair to you.

When something is unfair to one side, then it is usually a violation of due process. There are some exceptions. A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is one such exception that I know of. But even that brings the other side in, too. The ex parte in that is more of a formality, not anything close to a judicial verdict.

So, sending some letters and then having an ex parte hearing witha judge seems like it should not be allowed, as a matter of law. I have not researched it, but it rubs me the wrong way. Something about it feels like it will not end like they are saying it will.

If they have examples of situations where this has worked, then maybe they are on to something that works. Do they? Do they have real examples that you can verify, or is it just their claims?

Also, the idea of a "conditional acceptance of offer" doesn't really make sense in this situation. If I make a formal offer to buy your house, you can make a "conditional acceptance," but the conditions you impose turn it into a counter-offer.

That's cool when it comes to real estate, because there was a clear, contractual offer.

Your situation is different. You already have a contract with them to work. They are attempting to impose, unilaterally (without your consent), a change in that contract. They are also attempting to violate your right of liberty. They are also attempting to impose medical treatment upon you, without being hired by you to provide medical treatment, most likely doing so without a medical license, and basing it on fraudulent statements by a third party (CDC).

If you really do not want to go to court, and you primarily just want the policy to go away, you might consider adding in some additional things as you go through your process (Notice, Notice to Cure, etc.). These additional items would be things that both let them know what the real science is (articles about studies that show face masks are not helpful, and can be harmful), OSHA regulations (although, they have recently changed for Covid, but have long-standing regulations showing that face masks are generally prohibited in the workplace), etc.

You could also create your own affidavit. As you likely know, certain things must be in an affidavit for it to be legally accepted as an affidavit. Once you check those boxes, you can only include information you have from first hand knowledge. You cannot claim as a fact that somebody else did some research. You can only state what you know. So, you can state that you read research X (copy attached), and that you have concluded from that such and such.

An affidavit that is not rebutted by a counter-affidavit stands as the truth, once it is attested to in court. My understanding is that, if you do it right, then your affidavit(s) would be the only evidence presented in court, since their side will be easy to rebut. If you present evidence and they do not, they 100% of the facts aree on your side. You should win.

Just a few random thoughts.

Good luck with it, and let us know how it goes.

OP, I commend your effort. This stuff is not easy to figure out, much less to have the balls to do.

Having said that, I am not so sure that this organization is giving you 100% good info.

An ex parte hearing is very unusual and typically not allowed except for specific situations. Your beef with your company is not likely one of them. An ex parte excludes the other side. What if they did that to you? What if they went to the judge and discussed the situation without you being able to be involved? It would be unfair to you.

When something is unfair to one side, then it is usually a violation of due process. There are some exceptions. A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is one such exception that I know of.

So, sending some letters and then having an ex parte hearing witha judge seems like it should not be allowed, as a matter of law. I have not researched it, but it rubs me the wrong way. Something about it feels like it will not end like they are saying it will.

If they have examples of situations where this has worked, then maybe they are on to something that works. Do they? Do they have real examples that you can verify, or is it just their claims?

Also, the idea of a "conditional acceptance of offer" doesn't really make sense in this situation. If I make a formal offer to buy your house, you can make a "conditional acceptance," but the conditions you impose turn it into a counter-offer.

That's cool when it comes to real estate, because there was a clear, contractual offer.

Your situation is different. You already have a contract with them to work. They are attempting to impose, unilaterally (without your consent), a change in that contract. They are also attempting to violate your right of liberty. They are also attempting to impose medical treatment upon you, without being hired by you to provide medical treatment, most likely doing so without a medical license, and basing it on fraudulent statements by a third party (CDC).

If you really do not want to go to court, and you primarily just want the policy to go away, you might consider adding in some additional things as you go through your process (Notice, Notice to Cure, etc.). These additional items would be things that both let them know what the real science is (articles about studies that show face masks are not helpful, and can be harmful), OSHA regulations (although, they have recently changed for Covid, but have long-standing regulations showing that face masks are generally prohibited in the workplace), etc.

You could also create your own affidavit. As you likely know, certain things must be in an affidavit for it to be legally accepted as an affidavit. Once you check those boxes, you can only include information you have from first hand knowledge. You cannot claim as a fact that somebody else did some research. You can only state what you know. So, you can state that you read research X (copy attached), and that you have concluded from that such and such.

An affidavit that is not rebutted by a counter-affidavit stands as the truth, once it is attested to in court. My understanding is that, if you do it right, then your affidavit(s) would be the only evidence presented in court, since their side will be easy to rebut. If you present evidence and they do not, they 100% of the facts aree on your side. You should win.

Just a few random thoughts.

Good luck with it, and let us know how it goes.