It Is Unlawful for an Employer to Mandate Vaccine or Wearing a Face Mask

1.2K

•

The Covid-19 injection is classified as 'experimental'. Under Federal law:

21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3(e)(1) - Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies, there is a clear provision for the option to accept or refuse administration of the experimental product.

This means no business, including airlines can mandate vaccination for employees (new or otherwise) or require Vaccine Passports.

This means college/university/CUNY and SUNI requirements for Covid vaccination is unlawful.

This means no government can require Vaccine Passports due to its unlawfulness.

Government rules, guidelines, and recommendations do not exceed or meet statutory law. It is always inferior even under executive order. Only the legislature can create law. Hospitals also fall under this law. Nurses, medical doctors, and staff that have refused the Covid injection and lost their job as a result have a very valid case for lawsuits. Here is the law for Emergency Authorization Use (EAU). Remember that ALL these Covid injections are categorized as Not Approved by the FDA.

16 Am Jur 2D Section 98. “An emergency can not create power and no emergency justifies the violation of ANY OF THE PROVISIONS of the United States Constitution or States Constitutions.”

Furthermore,

16 Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97: “Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property.” Bary v. United States - 273 US 128 “Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.”

Federal law prohibits the ”denial of participation” from this business establishment as found under 28 CFR §36.202. Colleges and universities are businesses.

Under 28 CFR §36.202(c) further states that unless I have been individually assessed as a “direct threat” you may not exclude me from the same and equal services as others.

Denying service is a violation of Title II, III, and VII of the U.S. Civil Right Act of 1964.

Title III Sections 28 CFR §36.202(a)(b)(c) and 28 CFR §36.203(a)(b)(c) state that I shall not be denied the same participation and equal access as everyone else. The law prohibits Alaska Airlines or Delta Airlines and others from treating anyone differently or from serving anyone separately.

21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3(e)(1) - Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies

(A) Required conditions: (ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed— (I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product; (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.

OSHA released its new guidance on April 20 under a “Frequently Asked Questions” section of its website having to do with COVID-19 safety compliance. NOTE the word 'guidance' is not law by any means, but rather a recommendation or a suggestion.

Q: If I require my employees to take the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of their employment, are adverse reactions to the vaccine recordable?

A: If you require your employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment (i.e., for work-related reasons), then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under 29 CFR 1904.6 and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7.

Furthermore, demanding an individual to be vaccinated or to wear a face mask as a precondition for employment or entering a business may be liable for any resulting injuries.

Face masks are designated by the FDA as a medical device and regulated under 21 CFR 878.4040. Herewith, demanding an employee or store patron to wear a mask is the unlicensed practice of medicine.

Ordering employees, vendors and patrons to accept medical advice from business personnel or store attendants (wearing a face mask or other) is not only a crime (unlicensed practice of medicine), but violates the 42 US Code §2000(a); Public Accommodations, which prohibits discrimination of people with a disability and certain religious convictions. Simply stated, the employer and employees have no idea of my medical condition and are not licensed or insured medical practitioners. The Employer or Store Manager and other employees are prohibited by law from giving medical advice, such as advising employees or patrons to wear face masks or to be vaccinated. In general, the unlawful practice of medicine is regarded as the advice given specific to a particular person's illness or injury, and has the weight of authority and the possibility of doing harm. A typical State Code or Statute states:

“It is unlawful for any person to practice medicine by offering or undertaking to prevent or to diagnose, correct, or treat in any manner or by any means, methods, devices, or instrumentalities, any disease, illness, pain, wound, fracture, infirmity, deformity or defect of any person;”

A condition of employment or public accommodation to anyone who conscientiously objects against being vaccinated or to wear a face mask, whether it is for religious or medical reasons, most certainly falls under the legal definition of experiencing 'duress' as a result of the unlawful practice of medicine. Black’s Law Dictionary defines duress as:

“Any unlawful threat or coercion used by a person, to induce another to act (or to refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would).” Subjecting person to improper pressure which overcomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent. Head v. Gadaden Civil Service BD., Ala.Civ., 389 So.2d 516, 519. Coersion is also defined as -- "a threat to expose a secret or deformity, publish a defamatory statement, or otherwise to expose any person to disgrace or ridicule." An employer forcing a person to wear a mask because they are not vaccinated fits the unlawful act of coersion.

Furthermore, experiencing duress as a result of an employer, or business or store attendant who “follows, monitors, or pursues another, whether in person or through any available technological or other means” is unlawful harassment. The key factor is when: “mental distress, mental suffering, or mental anguish as demonstrated by a victim's response to an act” occurs as a result of being wrongly denied their right due to their medical condition or religious belief and under the duress of the employee being discriminated against or fired or the store manager calling the police.

Employers and stores are dicta prius, not an insured medical practitioner, nor is it equipped to respond to medical emergencies created by its own rules (that violate the law and its own policies). If an employee or patron was forced to act on the employer’s or store’s medical advice and then experienced a medical emergency, the person and entity is liable henceforth to any injuries that may occur and may also be criminally negligent.

For the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declared pursuant to section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d), this Act makes it unlawful under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act for any person, partnership, or corporation to engage in a deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID–19 or a government benefit related to COVID–19. The Act provides that such a violation shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under Sec. 18(a)(1)(B) of the FTC Act.

Section 242 of Title 18, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "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, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 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 from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

The Covid-19 injection is classified as 'experimental'. Under Federal law: **21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3(e)(1)** - Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies, there is a clear provision for **the option to accept or refuse administration of the experimental product**. This means no business, **including airlines** can mandate vaccination for employees (new or otherwise) or require Vaccine Passports. This means college/university/CUNY and SUNI requirements for Covid vaccination is unlawful. This means no government can require Vaccine Passports due to its unlawfulness. Government rules, guidelines, and recommendations do **not** exceed or meet statutory law. It is **always** inferior even under executive order. Only the legislature can create law. Hospitals also fall under this law. Nurses, medical doctors, and staff that have refused the Covid injection and lost their job as a result have a very valid case for lawsuits. Here is the law for Emergency Authorization Use (EAU). Remember that ALL these Covid injections are categorized as **Not Approved** by the FDA. **16 Am Jur 2D Section 98**. *“An emergency can not create power and no emergency justifies the violation of ANY OF THE PROVISIONS of the United States Constitution or States Constitutions.”* Furthermore, **16 Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97**: *“Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property.”* **Bary v. United States - 273 US 128** *“Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.”* Federal law prohibits the ***”denial of participation”*** from this business establishment as found under **28 CFR §36.202**. Colleges and universities are businesses. Under **28 CFR §36.202(c)** further states that unless I have been individually assessed as a ***“direct threat”*** you may not exclude me from the same and equal services as others. Denying service is a violation of **Title II, III, and VII of the U.S. Civil Right Act of 1964**. Title III Sections **28 CFR §36.202(a)(b)(c)** and **28 CFR §36.203(a)(b)(c)** state that I shall not be denied the same participation and equal access as everyone else. The law prohibits Alaska Airlines or Delta Airlines and others from treating anyone differently or from serving anyone separately. **21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3(e)(1)** - **Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies** (A) Required conditions: (ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed— (I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product; (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.** OSHA released its new ***guidance*** on April 20 under a “Frequently Asked Questions” section of its website having to do with COVID-19 safety compliance. NOTE the word 'guidance' is **not** law by any means, but rather a recommendation or a suggestion. Q: If I require my employees to take the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of their employment, are adverse reactions to the vaccine recordable? A: If you require your employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment (i.e., for work-related reasons), then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under **29 CFR 1904.6** and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in **29 CFR 1904.7**. Furthermore, demanding an individual to be vaccinated or to wear a face mask as a precondition for employment or entering a business may be liable for any resulting injuries. Face masks are designated by the FDA as a medical device and regulated under 21 CFR 878.4040. Herewith, demanding an employee or store patron to wear a mask is the unlicensed practice of medicine. Ordering employees, vendors and patrons to accept medical advice from business personnel or store attendants (wearing a face mask or other) is not only a crime (unlicensed practice of medicine), but violates the 42 US Code §2000(a); Public Accommodations, which prohibits discrimination of people with a disability and certain religious convictions. Simply stated, the employer and employees have no idea of my medical condition and are not licensed or insured medical practitioners. The Employer or Store Manager and other employees are prohibited by law from giving medical advice, such as advising employees or patrons to wear face masks or to be vaccinated. In general, the unlawful practice of medicine is regarded as the advice given specific to a particular person's illness or injury, and has the weight of authority and the possibility of doing harm. A typical State Code or Statute states: > “It is unlawful for any person to practice medicine by offering or undertaking to prevent or to diagnose, correct, or treat in any manner or by any means, methods, devices, or instrumentalities, any disease, illness, pain, wound, fracture, infirmity, deformity or defect of any person;” A condition of employment or public accommodation to anyone who conscientiously objects against being vaccinated or to wear a face mask, whether it is for religious or medical reasons, most certainly falls under the legal definition of experiencing **'duress'** as a result of the unlawful practice of medicine. Black’s Law Dictionary defines duress as: > “Any unlawful threat or coercion used by a person, to induce another to act (or to refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would).” Subjecting person to improper pressure which overcomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent. Head v. Gadaden Civil Service BD., Ala.Civ., 389 So.2d 516, 519. Coersion is also defined as -- "a threat to expose a secret or deformity, publish a defamatory statement, or otherwise to expose any person to disgrace or ridicule." An employer forcing a person to wear a mask because they are not vaccinated fits the unlawful act of coersion. Furthermore, experiencing duress as a result of an employer, or business or store attendant who “follows, monitors, or pursues another, whether in person or through any available technological or other means” is unlawful harassment. The key factor is when: “mental distress, mental suffering, or mental anguish as demonstrated by a victim's response to an act” occurs as a result of being wrongly denied their right due to their medical condition or religious belief and under the duress of the employee being discriminated against or fired or the store manager calling the police. Employers and stores are dicta prius, not an insured medical practitioner, nor is it equipped to respond to medical emergencies created by its own rules (that violate the law and its own policies). If an employee or patron was forced to act on the employer’s or store’s medical advice and then experienced a medical emergency, the person and entity is liable henceforth to any injuries that may occur and may also be criminally negligent. For the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declared pursuant to section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d), this Act makes it **unlawful** under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act for any person, partnership, or corporation to engage in a deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID–19 or a government benefit related to COVID–19. The Act provides that such a violation shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under Sec. 18(a)(1)(B) of the FTC Act. **Section 242 of Title 18**, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose of **Section 242**, acts under "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, if any. **TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242** 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 from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[–] • 0 pt

There two things that kill the soul: despair and false hope. – St. Augustine.

We are at war. The rule of law is predominant throughout the course of history. Whenever lawlessness breaks out, as it is now, it never lasts. It can take a vicious turn. It is for this reason why we need to fight lawlessness to return to a civil society. I know this is obvious, but it bears repeating. Sitting on one's donk complaining about how bad it is, is preaching the same sermon to the choir over and over again.

Sitting on one's donk complaining about how bad it is, is preaching the same sermon to the choir over and over again.

That sums up the whole Q movement in a nutshell. Sitting and waiting to be saved and then when that doesn't happen sitting and waiting some more and posting stories in an echo chamber so you feel better about doing pretty much nothing. We are WAY past that. Fighting for one's rights or Country or to even survive is just that, a FIGHT. The other side is NOT going to play by any made up rules or high road the way the right does. I'm not even sure anymore if the right ever really believed that or if it was just an excuse for not fighting. But posting stories, "waking people up", pointing out the obvious, Voting etc have all PROVEN to be absolutely useless against the enemy. Whether or not you and I agree on it is irrelevant but I think we both KNOW there's only one course of action left IF you ever want to see that civil society again. It starts with the removal of the uncivilized.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

civil society

Civil Society has been commandeered by Omidyar - now is the same as Soros Open Society - same goals. Check it out: https://poal.co/s/QPatriots/366052

I know you were using "cs" as a phrase but I'm just pointing out that it's been infiltrated (like everything else)

Of course it has. This is LITERALLY Invasion of the Body Snatchers at this point. you don't know WHO's real and who's a replicant at this point.

Load more (1 reply)

"That sums up the whole Q movement in a nutshell."

And how are you different? Will you explain to us what your plans are to change the current situation? What has been doing is an excellent model to follow. Her work and getting the word out about Pierre Omidyar and the election racket is the type of action that one can duplicate. Getting on your street and protesting might be another. It depends on who you are and your preference toward the call of action. This is a Sub for research and news. Sitting on one's donk complaining about how bad things are, is laundering the same message over again. If you have something else in mind, tell us.

So really and ONCE again your real issue is with what I have to say. You aren't the least bit interested in anything that doesn't reinforce your confirmation bias. You have absolutely NO idea what MY past is, what I've done, for how many years I've done it, what my knowledge of the situation may be but you are totally convinced that you KNOW me and my motives. I'm calling out bullshit plain and simple and because you don't have the stomach for it and cant defend it you get pissed. You haven't changed a single bit this has been and always will be your M.O. You behave exactly like a drone Bee that protects the Queen and the hive. its you're only function here. Deflect, obfuscate, cast aspersion . Thats all you have as you and I have been down this road BEFORE and when things got too hot for you you jumped around like a banshee touting about getting me banned and IT WAS COMING etc. You are obviously too juvenile to handle things you don't like. So you go on and keep trying to make ME the bad guy instead of the people that duped you, lied to you, promised you justice and delivered bullshit instead. Keep defending the "justice tomorrow" narrative and by all means KEEP defending that hive mind like a good little drone. it wont help. 6 months 6 years from now you'll still be waiting for people to "wake up" and for "justice for the ds" AND you'll still be defending the hive. IF there's any hive left to defend. Like I told you before, don't like what I have to say? TFB get me banned AGAIN. it seems to be your only weapon to silence someone calling out bullshit. Either THAT OR you could try a new and novel approach which would be IGNORE me. I'm not talking to YOU anyway when I post. You are obviously unreachable.

Load more (2 replies)

" I'm not even sure anymore if the right ever really believed that or if it was just an excuse for not fighting."

That's because the infiltration and brainwashing is far more pervasive in 'conservative' circles than most people yet understand. The following is a very good example of it. If you are familiar with Nick Fuentes, listen to why he is . Also, this is what Gab's Andrew Torba says .

So we all know the 'system' is corrupt as hell, but do we really? How about looking at Bill Gill and what he exposed. He has put not only his career and business on the line, but his life. They tried to kill him 3 times, but they failed thanks to the grace of God. I love this guy. Thanks for sending me this information. Sharing this type of information, connects with people who view it. Depending on the individual, one or more people really inspired by him may decide to become another Bill Gill. I say there is power in that. That's what we want. I'd like to see a million more Bill Gills or even 10 million of them.

Dude You seem to think I put NO value on these people. You are wrong. Yes there are SOME a VERY small group TRYING to do the right thing. But thats true in ALL circles. The ISSUE isn't the expose. The issue is in WHO its being exposed TO. The VERY criminals running the show. So when THEY are the HOUSE I'd love to know how exactly all this EXPOSURE helps other than to put a target on these people. If exposure WORKED Assange wouldnt be where HE is

CPAC's a Globalist scam, I don't care what anyone says or who goes to their rah-rah rallies.

NONE of these people give a crap what any regular citizen thinks. It's shameful! And this is why I love Mike Gill - and why I'm supporting what he's trying to do.

Depending on the individual, one or more people really inspired by him may decide to become another (Mike) Gill. I say there is power in that. That's what we want. I'd like to see a million more (Mike) Gills or even 10 million of them.

Absolutely! That's we need - we need to go balls to the wall on this. Very easy to censor a few individual voices - nearly impossible to shut down millions - and we HAVE the millions - we just need to use our millions effectively.

(post is archived)