Right to Refuse - A Memorandum of Law by KrisAnne Hall [against Employers' vaccine mandates]

krisannehall.com ^ | 8/7/2021 | KrisAnne Hall

[ransomnote]

Right To Refuse- Memorandum of Law

Right to Refuse - A Memorandum of Law

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

 

The US Department of Justice is attempting to perpetrate a legal fraude upon the people by issuing an "opinion" that the American people do not possess the right to refuse injections into their body.  Their analysis is not based upon any semblance of logic, reason, or proper legal analysis - in short it is a complete farce.  With the help of Liberty First Legal we are publishing a legal memorandum that informs you of your Right to Refuse and the truly legal liabilities your employer assumes for mandating you take an injection into your body as a term of your employment.  

 

DO NOT EVER SIGN A RELEASE OF LIABILITY FOR YOUR EMPLOYER FOR ANY INJECTION INTO YOUR BODY THEY REQUIRE AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT.

 

If you sign a release of liability for an injection into your body your employer demands as a condition of employment you will lose your right to damages and workman's compensations.

 

If you employer requires an injection into your body as a condition of employment and you have an adverse reaction or the injection is fatal you or your legal representative has the right to:

• Demand workman's compensation for the time off work during your recovery pursuant to EEOC Rules.
• Sue your employer for any damage to you health or to your body, whether temporary or permanent pursuant to EEOC Rules.
• Sue your employer for your death pursuant to EEOC Rules.

YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW HERE.

 

ransomnote: The version at the download link is attractively formatted and ideal for business presentation. I'll put the text version below for those who want it.

Converting the PDF to word left behind headers/footers, text formatting etc.

 

 

---

 

 June 24, 2021

 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

 

SUBJECT:      Right To Refuse EUA COVID Vaccination Prohibition Against Coercion

Requirement for Full Disclosure of Vaccine Risk Pursuant to Federal Law 21 USC sec 360-bbb-3 Title VII Civil Right’s Act

 

RE:                  Use of coercion and mandates for the COVID EUA vaccines SUMMARY:

Employers who intend to encourage or mandate the current COVID Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) vaccines must consider the following federal and state laws before initiating any such encouragement or mandate. Employers who encourage vaccines to the point of coercion could face severe federal and state consequences. Employers who mandate the current COVID EUA may also be subject to civil liabilities and workman’s compensation claims for any adverse reactions suffered by employees.

 

1. The two currently available (Johnson & Johnson being currently suspended) COVID vaccinations have not been approved by the FDA for general use, but only under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) standards, therefore mandating any of these vaccinations is contrary to federal.
2. The applicable law: 21 USC sec 360-bbb-3 Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies subsection (e)(1)(A)(ii) Condition of Authorization states that “individuals to whom the product is administered” must be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product…” (emphasis added).
3. Additionally, in the CDC August 26, 2020 virtual Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting, 2020, Dr. Amanda Cohn, Chief Medical Officer of the National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases for the CDC reminded meeting members that, “under an EUA, vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. Therefore, early in the vaccination phase individuals will have to be consented and cannot be mandated to be vaccinated.” Dr. Cohn would also state in the October 22, 2020 meeting that “the federal government would not be mandating use of these vaccines. Organizations, such as hospitals…in the setting of an EUA, patients and individuals will have the right to refuse the vaccine.” (emphasis added)
4. Under FDA guidelines and federal law, because this vaccination is EUA only employers may encourage employees to take the EUA only if
   1. (1) that encouragement does not rise to the level of coercion,
   2. (2) all service members are noticed of the significant known and potential benefits and risks associated with the emergency use of the product, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and
   3. (3) service members are informed they have the right to accept or refuse the vaccination. (emphasis added)
5. Additionally, an employee who refuses vaccination because of a reasonable belief that he or she has a medical condition that creates a real danger of serious illness or death (such as serious

 

Memorandum of Law COVID-19 EUA

 

reaction to the vaccine) may be protected under Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

6.    Even under current EEOC guidelines (May 28, 2021), an employer may not offer “any incentive (which includes both rewards and penalties)” if that reward is found to be “so substantial as to be coercive.” These current guidelines also make clear that the exemptions available under federal are remain intact and every company will be required to provide reasonable accommodations under the law.

7. Mandated vaccine is considered a part of work. Under most state laws, an adverse reaction would be covered by workers’ compensation.
8. Employers that mandate or encourage employees to get vaccinated even if they partner with a health care provider or other authorized entity to administer the vaccine, may still be subject to potential legal liability if an employee has an allergic reaction.
9. Legal liability for the employer will be heightened by the fact that the FDA has not formally approved these vaccines and are subject only to EAU
10. Legal liability for the employer will be heightened for any employer who does not follow FDA guidelines and federal law to include informing the employees of all risks involved in taking the COVID EAU.

11. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, individuals have the right to be free from discrimination based on religion. Title VII prohibits two categories discrimination. It is unlawful:

1. “(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

b.    (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—2(a). (Emphasis added).

12. By pattern and practice, it has been shown that reasonable accommodations and alternatives to vaccination indeed exist, and these have been required all along: self- screening with temperature checks, wearing personal protective equipment (PPE), social distancing, and complying with other safety protocols until the number of COVID infections work their way down to acceptable levels. Logically, if these measures are and were effective in preventing the spread of COVID, they will continue to be

 

KrisAnne Hall, JD Chief Counsel

Liberty First Legal, Inc. KrisAnneH.LFL@gmail.com

[ransomnote]

But wait there's more! FReepers found a great index of resources to fight vaccine mandates.

THE PATRIOT'S DIRECTORY OF PLANDEMIC RESOURCES [OUTSTANDING Complication of legal, medical and activism resources every patriot should save and share]

8/2/2021, 6:56:31 PM · by ransomnote · 35 replies

8/2/2021 | vanity

 

 

---

Italians are showing the rest of the world how it's done!

Bernie's Tweets

 

@BernieSpofforth

·

1h

 

Italians burning their proof of vaccination passes. They refuse to comply with the creation of a two tier society, one that doesn’t protect anyone, it simply discriminates. #NoVaccinePassports #COVID19

[NWFree]

The vax of the beast will be required.

[Renfrew]

To summarize:

Your employer can fire you unless you get vaccinated, but if you get sick from the vaccine you are entitled to compensation.

[econjack]

What’s going to be interesting is what the companies that are requiring vaccinations, as a condition of continuing employment, do when one of those employees dies from CV-19 complications associated with the shot(s). Seems this is headed for being a full employment law for ambulance chasers.

[cableguymn]

no job is worth dying for.

[Obadiah]

Thank you for your service, ransomnote!

[Empire_of_Liberty]

The 64K$ question is, can the employer fire you for refusing to sign a release of liability?

I would like to think the answer is “no”, but we currently have a Department of Injustice and political prisoners in the US, so, who knows?

[Mygirlsmom]

It will also be interesting to see how the recent admissions of the vaxx companies that boosters will be needed by winter is handled by those mandating vaxx as a condition of work

[Pollard]

Another helpful document here; https://drleemerritt.com/uploads/Fighting%20your%20mandate4.pdf

Includes a questionnaire for your employer.

[eyeamok]

The scumbag shyster’s are NOT Issuing an Opinion, they are LYING TO THE PUBLIC, and they should be Permanently DISBARRED, see Rudy Guiliani

[eyeamok]

Your employer can fire you unless you get vaccinated

I am not so sure they can, but they certainly will try. We used to call things like this EXTORTION and BLACKMAIL, both are Major Felonies and carry significant Prison Time. and the penalty is Greatly Enhanced if someone DIES while you are committing these CRIMINAL ACTS!

[curious7]

IMO: if the employer says they will fire you for refusing to sign a release of liability, well, that smacks of coercion to me, and coercion is illegal.

[Susquehanna Patriot]

That’s my read too.

Depends how badly one needs the job vs the jab, or the worker’s ability / willingness to stand up for one’s rights. I

In other words the cost-benefit analysis has been completely taken away from individual’s right to unimpeded medical self-determination. The employees medical cost-benefit analysis is replaced - now based on his employer’s mandatory vax policy and whether the employee’s benefit of not taking the vax and losing one’s job outweighs the cost of taking the vax. This is hugely significant shift in unconstitutional law and public policy implemented by the unaccountable administrative deep state. The employer is not required to show it is a necessity and the employer rules on whether employees exemption (for example religious) has merit. Where are the anti-corporate leftists.

Nonetheless, not everyone can afford to stand up, fight and lose their job. Therefore the advice is right - do not release the employer from any liability. Demand a signed statement. If a 1000 employees in a 5000 or 20,000 employee company demanded employer indemnification, you bet your a*s and your neighbor’s te employer will now have a major financial risk on their hands, that will require them to see if they are even covered, while facing major employment disruption in a marketplace that does not favor the employer finding replacements, and fast.

[Maris Crane]

The hysteria is mind boggling considering the percentages of fatality.

If you get the darn thing, beat the he!! out of it with orange juice, hot spiked tea, chicken soup and plenty of rest. And whatever your individual auto immune system needs with your own empirical data of what “works.”

I am not making LIGHT of it, but they are carefully and consciously manufacturing the FRIGHT. Is this to SELL the vaccine?

[Renfrew]

“The 64K$ question is, can the employer fire you for refusing to sign a release of liability?”

Much of this would depend on your state. If you live in an at-will employment state the answer is yes.

In other states it would depend on the rules for when someone can be fired.

The only exception would be if you could come up with a religious exemption, but that is unlikely.

[NoLibZone]

Thank you ransomnote.
The VPs assure us the vaccines are safe while doing everything they can to avoid any liability. Strange.

[Leep]

Amazing how in less than the span of a couple generations the g’ment has managed to get all up in our bid’ness.
Goldwater was right about it’s no good giving up our freedoms for a false sense of security.
The price is to high.

[DPMD]

Who among those now demanding vax passports once praised the burning of draft cards?

[ready2brd]

They 100% can fire you, and are. My company had the requirement start back in April

[Flick Lives]

...when one of those employees dies from CV-19 complications associated with the shot(s). Seems this is headed for being a full employment law for ambulance chasers.

—

I can see those late night TV lawyer adverts showing up in about 3 years. “Were you or a loved one harmed by a Covid 19 vaccine injection mandated by your company?”