Bravo !I have seen a lot of talk around the boards recently about workplaces mandating COVID tests just for the unvaccinated. I am about to face this issue at my workplace, and have prepared the following document which I will present once I am tested. Bottom line, it is illegal and a violation of civil rights. Feel free to use and modify as necessary.
Good morning. This email is to serve as a letter of concern in regards to the upcoming policy concerning the weekly testing of only unvaccinated employees. It is imperative that you understand up front that:
· This directive is in direct violation of federal law concerning specific requirements associated with the use of EUA products.
· This directive is both inconsistent and contradictory to the current scientific data and studies proving that the COVID-19 virus infects and is transmissible by both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals alike while only requiring testing of unvaccinated personnel.
· This directive is in direct violation of the Constitutional rights of the employees who are tested, specifically the First Amendment to the Constitution which guarantees the protection of their religious rights from government overreach and impact to those employees seeking religious exemptions from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
All COVID-19 tests, whether polymerase chain reaction (PCR), antigen tests, or others, are authorized, not approved or licensed, by the federal government; but have been approved for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) only. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued Emergency Use Authorizations for over 200 different test kits manufactured by various organizations. Each of FDA’s EUA letters relies on 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb- 3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I- III). EUA products are by definition experimental and thus require the right to refuse, which puts the mandatory testing directive in contradiction to federal law. Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I-III) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act states: 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.
The use of any EUA product must be optional, and come with the right to refuse the product under federal law. By issuing a directive ordering subordinate units to submit their unvaccinated members to twice weekly EUA COVID-19 tests in order to access their work centers, the company's new testing directive is in direct violation of federal law concerning the use of EUA products and is thereby illegal. By extension, all supervisors who carry out the directive are also in violation of federal law. In regard to this, what is the company’s legal authority for violation of Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I-III) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act?
Second, the deliberate targeting of only unvaccinated individuals with this directive is counter to the current science and available data concerning the COVID-19 virus and the COVID-19 vaccines. Each of the current COVID-19 vaccine producers explicitly state that their products to do not fully prevent or completely protect individuals from catching or spreading COVID-19. In addition, according to the CDC, as well as peer reviewed medical journals and scientific studies, individuals that are unvaccinated, and individuals that are fully vaccinated or fully vaccinated and have received the COVID-19 booster dose have not only been proven to be susceptible to infection by the virus but are also capable of transmission of the virus to others. If the current regimen of vaccines does not prevent infection or transmission of the COVID-19 virus, then what is the company’s strategic objective of requiring these twice weekly tests for only unvaccinated employees?
Since all COVID-19 vaccines currently in use will not prevent the infection or transmission of the COVID-19 virus within a unit, the company’s directive will constitute an overt form of discrimination against those employees seeking exemptions from the COVID-19 vaccination mandate. This policy not only damages workplace cohesion but puts these individuals seeking vaccine exemptions at risk of reprisal from their peers and superiors alike. Further, the policy’s weekly testing and reporting requirements (such as the requirement that a supervisor must twice weekly observe the individual’s test administration and wait with the individual to verify the test’s results) impacts the section’s ability to perform their assigned tasks by placing additional administrative burdens on them.
Third, the company directive mandating the twice weekly testing of only unvaccinated individuals violates the Constitutional rights and federal laws enacted to protect those rights concerning the religious rights and freedoms of employees. Submitting a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate is part of, and constitutes, the exercise of one’s religion. The company’s directive unduly and disproportionally burdens those who submitted religious exemptions to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. This violates these employee’s rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, and the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. In regard to the RFRA specifically, the Supreme Court wrote, “That statute prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless it demonstrates that doing so both furthers a compelling governmental interest and represents the least restrictive means of furthering that interest”.
In light of the fact that both unvaccinated and vaccinated can both be infected by and transmit COVID-19, requiring the twice weekly testing of only unvaccinated individuals does not represent a ‘compelling interest’ as mandated in the RFRA. Further, the current testing directive is also not the ‘least restrictive means of furthering that interest’ as also required by the RFRA. Before the COVID-19 vaccines were available to the public, the company did not institute a twice weekly testing policy for all employees. Instead, during this time the company satisfied their aforementioned ‘compelling interest’ through a 100% mask wear mandate and COVID-19 testing when individuals either began to show symptoms consistent with a COVID-19 infection, or as a prerequisite before certain types of travel. This set the precedent of what the company considered adequate when it came to the ‘least restrictive’ measures in regard to COVID-19 risk mitigation within its structure. Consequently, in addition to the illegality of mandating employees use an EUA product, company’s testing directive to twice weekly test only unvaccinated individuals is also in violation of the legal requirements of the RFRA and the other laws and regulations described above.
To conclude, I respectfully ask that the company delay implementing testing of only unvaccinated individuals and submit a legal review of their testing policy in light of the aforementioned violations of federal law and Civil Rights that such a policy entails. Every single time anyone is tested against their will, or any time an unvaccinated person is targeted for testing, it is a violation of law. Again, I submit this to you as a caution to ensure that the company is protected and that no violations of law occur.
CORONA The Illegality of Mandatory COVID testing/Testing of only the Unvaxxed
- Thread starter TFergeson
- Start date
Bravo !
@TFergeson , you are correct. It’s a global communist issue, and is being used by those who “rule” to usher in servitude in all alleged free nations of the world. The problem is, today’s youth WANT communism. They won’t fight it. We’re on the event horizon of a worldwide dark age.
Read the book “The Fourth Turning” if you haven’t already.
Read the book “The Fourth Turning” if you haven’t already.
Marie
Veteran Member
Not only will my livelihood be diminished. But also lose my livestock and way of life. What I have worked for my entire life. So yes it is my everything I am putting on that line I draw in the sand. Some people will fold, many in fact. But I absolutely will not.
The Rights given to me my Creator and by the Constitution, even though it seems null and void at this time, are worth fighting for. And like so many before me I say F them.
If you choose to buckle that's good on you.
Some of us have more to lose than an income or way of life. I have way more salt than that.
The Rights given to me my Creator and by the Constitution, even though it seems null and void at this time, are worth fighting for. And like so many before me I say F them.
If you choose to buckle that's good on you.
Some of us have more to lose than an income or way of life. I have way more salt than that.
Heliobas Disciple
TB Fanatic
As others have pointed out, they can't make you do things that are illegal or which impinge on certain rights granted by the Consititution. Emphasis on 'certain', it's not absolute and often gets litigated. (ex: can you wear a hijab at work, etc).
Bottom line here though is if the Supreme Court says vaccine mandates are legal you won't be able to sue if your employer enforces it. No matter how good your letter is or what you believe. They have the final say in legal matters. It will have been decided. If they rule the OSHA mandate is not enforceable, it doesn't stop your employer from making its own mandate, but if they do, you will have a better case should you decide to sue them if they fire you.
HD
You all realize the immediate next step is taking up arms and shooting the “authorities” that come to your door. I’m not just saying that. They’ll be coming to your door to force you to take the jab within another year. YOU WILL THEN HAVE TO KILL THEM. Are you ready for that? This is not a “maybe.” This is a “WILL HAPPEN.”
Last edited by a moderator:
Marie
Veteran Member
Dennis you silly silly man. What is life without liberty? There's been a few men in history that have proceeded to do just that. Besides I know where I'm going. Death is a reward to be cherished not an event to be feared.
Last edited by a moderator:
See Hognutz Post #3
We must learn from history:
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem with the new vax mandates enforced by private companies seems to be the discriminatory way they are implemented ...... since the vax does not offer protection or little to none even to the fully jabbed its masks or tests for all or none ...... just how is the corporation going to spin the harassment of a black female un jabbed employee when the white jabbers get a pass. just an example...
Walrus Whisperer
Hope in chains...
I got lots of nice sandy soil.
Last edited by a moderator:
Walrus Whisperer
Hope in chains...
I got lots of easily diggable sand.
Crusty Echo 7
Veteran Member
Agreed on the discrimination perspective but the other issue is the companies don’t have the authority to require them either!
Don’t let the companies get away with it because they think the government is behind them or they’re also intentionally taking away your rights. This is simply being revealed to be a power grab.
Warm Wisconsin
Easy as 3.141592653589..
No it’s not. LOL. I will simply work for a company with less than 100 people, start my own consulting company or move to a state that blocks the mandate from being enforced. If I see indicators that they are rounding up people and going to kill them…we’ll that will be different
L.A.B.
Goodness before greatness.
Sun Tzu would tell us “attack the enemies plan’s first.”
This ain’t theory. I’ve done well using his strategy in legal conflict.
It’s not having all the answers, it’s knowing the loaded questions your going to set them up with upon the path to outcome you design.
No two conflicts are the same. So every legal skirmish unique.
L.A.B.
Goodness before greatness.
Not when you sign specific contracts with specific language within specified time frames.
No. Ignoring the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment principles are not within the employers quiver of exemption.
You work at a company of 100 or more over a several acre facility. Then the new guy to the corporate office does the subway with thousands of people, or takes a bus with 40 people, after he strolled the mall at lunch hour…
Your not going to stop a virus incoming. Give corporate sick days, full pay, and make those guys feeling sick test positive with doctors diagnosis and antibody test, or they forfeit the sick pay.
Where does the constitution list your ability for private contract? It certainly isn't the 1st.. You can be fired for talking crap about your boss. The 4th... Not so if you work in high security areas. You don't think a bank can check you pockets? 5th How could that possibly apply? Is your employer going to put you in jail or fine you? Odd at best.
No the only place is the 13th. So unless your employer is making you a slave. You have zero constitutional rights. I will admit it can seem like slavery to work for a shitty boss.
P.S. the constitution only applies to GOVERNMENTS. Not private individuals. 1st... I most certainly don't have to allow you write your opinions in my paper. 2nd I don't have to allow you to have a gun on my property. Well the 3rd... The 4th? Ever leave a Walmart? lol The 5th thru the 9th see above. The 10th?
This is exactly what I am doing. Presenting them with what appear to be binary choices where either answer is an avenue that benefits me, and even if they do not take one of my choices I still benefit.
I love doing this, and in truth, if I could go back and redo my education and career, I would have gone to Law School.
L.A.B.
Goodness before greatness.
Short response.
The 1st would cover religion / religious practices to include not only the sovereign political stature of the non 501-C3 church, but the faithful follower.
The 4th is written well, and flexible enough for the purpose of serving ‘the people’ well past our need for combustion engines and gravity.
Doctrine, doctrine of law, doctrine of independent individual belief, will only last as long as the willing backbone of ‘the people.’
Based upon your assumptions or policy of the bank going through your pockets, as soon as you step outside that bank, the properly fitted Alpha person might be of the same belief and relieve you of those possessions.
Lateral thinking can go way off the grid of original intent. It’s a slow walk around any ‘curve’ off the objective of remaining free, or sovereign from illegal search and seizure. But hey. Some perceived authority will mandate it. So comply.
The 5th amendment was written in black ink for individuals into the future that would take their grey matter into the grey areas that only time and technology would reveal.
Most have no friggen clue as to what the logic of the 5th amendment was challenging:
Let’s start with the most precious part:
“nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
Like WTH is implied there?
Forced confessions under duress?
Torture?
Duress of exclusion from a system?
What if stopping you illegally for no known crime committed or in progress…
Simply to do an illegal search of your physical person, 4th amendment, for the purpose of drawing blood to ascertain your vaXX status, a definitive violation of “be / bear a witness against himself…”
The short version of not “the right of” but The Will “of the people.”
You can’t dictate or require the level of mindset upon individuals by man’s law. It is a birthright of character, scribed by the hand of our creator.
Two more years to flatten the curve of freedom. Then the complicit can rest with giddy smiles in coffee shops as compliance drones fly overhead playing Mozart.
Last edited:
L.A.B.
Goodness before greatness.
TFergeson,
Over 3-decades ago I spent 3-months on a Brother Word Processor more ‘typewriter with a 7-line script visible LCD screen’ and provided 50-pages of ‘contract law’ and facts and statements to present my case.
My presentation was read by a lawyer out of Newport Beach CA. and his first question as his jaw actually dropped was “My God, what lawyer wrote this.”
When his pause let up, I told him ‘The lawyer in my head, standing right beside the fighter, standing right beside you.”
My 50-page legal appeal included a 10-page contractual table of contents.
Within months a legal F2F hearing before a stenographer and a dozen or more being challenged.
‘The art of war’ is an art. Especially when your working with personality types.
To say I set up and played individuals like a musical instrument was an understatement. I owned their next predictable response.
I qualified top one-tenth percent. Actually numerically 10x that in a competition over fours years long.
Today…. Another script fight.
Gotta word up!
TTYL
L.A.B.
Bumblepuff
Veteran Member
Short response.
The 1st would cover religion / religious practices to include not only the sovereign political stature of the non 501-C3 church, but the faithful follower.
The 4th is written well, and flexible enough for the purpose of serving ‘the people’ well past our need for combustion engines and gravity.
Doctrine, doctrine of law, doctrine of independent individual belief, will only last as long as the willing backbone of ‘the people.’
Based upon your assumptions or policy of the bank going through your pockets, as soon as you step outside that bank, the properly fitted Alpha person might be of the same belief and relieve you of those possessions.
Lateral thinking can go way off the grid of original intent. It’s a slow walk around any ‘curve’ off the objective of remaining free, or sovereign from illegal search and seizure. But hey. Some perceived authority will mandate it. So comply.
The 5th amendment was written in black ink for individuals into the future that would take their grey matter into the grey areas that only time and technology would reveal.
Most have no friggen clue as to what the logic of the 5th amendment was challenging:
Let’s start with the most precious part:
“nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
Like WTH is implied there?
Forced confessions under duress?
Torture?
Duress of exclusion from a system?
What if stopping you illegally for no known crime committed or in progress…
Simply to do an illegal search of your physical person, 4th amendment, for the purpose of drawing blood to ascertain your vaXX status, a definitive violation of “be / bear a witness against himself…”
The short version of not “the right of” but The Will “of the people.”
You can’t dictate or require the level of mindset upon individuals by man’s law. It is a birthright of character, scribed by the hand of our creator.
Two more years to flatten the curve of freedom. Then the complicit can rest with giddy smiles in coffee shops as compliance drones fly overhead playing Mozart.
Once again which of those amendments effect private contracts? I can most certainly curtail your religious expression on my private property.
Testing you to see if you have the vax? Here is a simple fix. Don't volunteer to work or shop where this is instituted. Then it won't be "forced" on you.
You can be searched when leaving a store. By going in you give consent. If you strike the employee. You will be jailed. Don't want to be searched go somewhere else. No one forced you to go.
The constitution restricts government not private citizens. A company is a private institution.
Marie
Veteran Member
Dude give it up the ROL is dead in this country. You can burn down a city and be released if even arrested to begin with
Crusty Echo 7
Veteran Member
Lack of law, loss of law, last of law….