Contact me, Laz, by Freepmail to get your very own bumper sticker!
Contact me, Laz, by Freepmail to get your very own bumper sticker!
WANT!!!
Thank you.
Be aware that many people, most especially in rural areas, will lack natural immunity.
Be aware that simply having tested “positive” for Covid-19 does not guarantee natural immunity since much of the testing was defective.
I believed I had natural immunity but got vaccinated to be on the “safe side”. I’m 62 years of age.
Interesting info, thanks for posting. I recently has a 45 minute discussion with a lawyer who is the local managing partner for a multi-state law firm specializing in employment law.
Here is a bulleted summary:
- Most experienced successful employment lawyers earn their money representing companies in lawsuits brought by employees. Few lawyers who truly understand employment law and judgeâs tendencies in cases affecting a large group of people ever represent the little guy, unfortunately, so any legal representation for employee complaints is likely to be by those who really arenât that familiar with employment law.
- There is little that can be done to prevent someone from being fired, if a company or the government wants to fire them. Legal firms typically only have legal standing to file court complaints after damages, such as a loss of salary, have already been accrued. There is a remote chance a restraining order could be obtained from a judge to block something like having to reveal whether you are vaccinated or not, claiming HIPPA, but then they could still be fired for not providing that information anyway.
- Once an employee is fired, the lawyers have more standing to bring forward a complaint. At that point, however, it is more difficult for any plaintiff to be able to fund the law firm representing them. Therefore, very large retainers ($25k+) would typically be required for a firm to have faith their time would ultimately be paid for, as cases of this type are typically not winners.
- Another better option would be for a group of fired employees to pool their resources, and this lawyer expects that to happen down the road, with the largest employers having the most likelihood of these pooled cases against them to develop.
- However, even if the plaintiffs win their original case, large employers and the government would likely appeal the decision, not only to prevent having to pay out the growing number of cases, but to prevent future cases from going forward.
- These inevitable appeals are likely to go all the way to the Supreme Court, before any finality will be obtained. For the typical plaintiff, this path would be a long time away at great expense. The lawsuits would likely be combined and take the form of class action lawsuits in the end, increasing legal fees. Best case, even if your side won, you would only get a portion of the class action proceeds, but much of that could be lost to the various costs of the lawsuits.
Not being a lawyer myself, nor having a crystal ball here by my side, I have no idea how correct his predictions might be. But he is very well credentialed, and appeared to be interested in possibly being involved in these cases once damages are incurred, so long as a retainer was provided in advance. I am simply posting the information so it can be analyzed and discussed by others who may know more. Thanks.
Well then, how can a vaccine mandate for employees who work 100% from home stand? Unless theyâre going to stretch to claim that theyâre protecting that employee from illness potentially contracted from non-employment related sources, there seems to be no case to be made there. And if they can legally stretch it that far, then what canât they order the employee to do to protect themselvesâŚ.wear a helmet?âŚ.get certain medical diagnostic tests?âŚ.drive a vehicle with the latest safety technology?
Bump for later. Thanks for posting this!
Thank you for posting this. A couple of points or questions:
I didnât see any mention of the EUA or FDA approval. I would think it would matter, legally.
I would think, or have heard, that employees are being asked to sign away liability. I didnât see any recommendation that employees NOT sign anything and make it clear that they wonât.
I expect that people fired for refusal are going to be fired for misconduct or failure to abide by company policy. Vaccination wonât even be mentioned. I think that filing for any kind of exemption which is not true would help them with this. It seems better to insist on testing. The lawyer you quoted stated that recovered with antibodies is a strong defense.
Thanks again!
bttt
Scroll down a small amount.
Click on the âDefinitely notâ button.
âReps 23%â âDems 4%â
Employer mandates are being seen as politically-related employee purging.
BTTT — Great summary
Placemarker for when I can see better.
I believe that to participate/cooperate with the coercive application of any medical procedure is a grave sin, and that it is my moral duty to stand firm in my convictions and faith on this matter.
My body is God's temple, and I am directed not to intentionally harm this temple. This directive would apply to harm through procedures or products known to cause grave harm, or unproven medical practices. My informed conscience judges with certainty that both the mRNA and viral vector vaccines are unproven medical practices, they are like no other vaccines and have unlimited potential to harm my body that have not been explored or documented, and I believe wholly that to partake of them would be a grave sin.
My faith informs me that there is a general moral duty to refuse the use of medical products, including certain vaccines, that are produced using human cell lines derived from direct abortions or developed or produced with the use of abortion-derived cell lines, since doing so would be akin to directly benefitting from and participating in this grave sin.
"Cya!"
Just posted my religious exemption that I’ve been working by on for two weeks and seems to o fall inline with what you posted.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3999784/posts?page=2171#2171
Ping to self
Why not give the employer a letter to sign making them responsible for any adverse effects of the shot. Watch them hem and haw.
Who cares what the courts say. Has this nation become dark ages England?
Actually, there is a clause there for the individual receiving the shot:
Paragraph (e) (1) (A) (2) (III) of
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3
says:
"Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed ...of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product..."
Per the Exec Order, sec 4b of that says it's to be implemented consistent w/law. The statute above would apply (as long as Cominarty is not available in U.S.) and an OSHA reg does not have supremacy over statute.
Obviously, once Cominarty is available, the above is moot, however, it is likely not to be here before the EO mandate goes into effect, allowing time for other cases to make their way through the system.
Bttt.
5.56mm
Thanks.
BFL