Mandatory vaccination policies
- Thread starter Nordwand
- Start date
Has he taken responsibility for the global depopulation strategy known as "operation warp speed"?
What about pardoning Jared Kushner's father while letting the J6 people rot in prison? (2 or more have now committed suicide or died in solitary)
The penultimate Shabbos Goy, Donald J Trump.
FOLLOWUP rebuttal posted on Monday 25 JUL by the Plaintiffs against the DAF. Now awaiting final decision from the Judge in this case.
See quoted post above for initial TRO submission for comment and DAF response to it.
Talk about too little too late. If he were truly independent of the deep state apparatus, we would have heard this kind of talk two years ago. All of this could have very easily been squashed or at least resisted.
This is such obvious pandering that I don’t see how anyone can take it seriously. Even if he is able to overcome widespread fraud and what will likely be the most aggressive coordinated propaganda smear campaign in American history to retake the presidency, what will he, or anyone else for that matter, be able to accomplish?
You see, our enemies are feeling down about states’ rights right now because of a certain recent Supreme Court decision, but if someone tries to make a national law preventing public and private entities from violating people’s bodily autonomy with injections then you’ll see a 180 whose speed rivals that of an Olympic figure skater.
We’ll see how genuine and consistent their stance is regarding mandates from the state concerning medical decisions, but I think we can expect that they won’t give up their mandatory injections without the fight of a lifetime as these are the central and most holy sacraments in the modern woke religion, even more venerated than the blood sacrifice of inconvenient and unwanted unborn humans.
Apart from that, they would hate the idea of the untainted being able to walk around freely while they submitted to the ill-advised poison injections which, whether consciously or not, many of them didn’t want to do. They’ll only be happy if everyone else is required to undergo the same misery and uncertainty they did when they allowed untested mystery concoctions to be injected into themselves. Well, nothing can make these people happy – they’ll be less unhappy is what I really mean to say.
In any case, I put no stock in this bluster. It makes for a nice sound bite but has no relation to reality, least of all the hellish reality many have been forced to endure as a result of the evil and illegal injection mandates.
Class wide injunction for the United States Airforce issued (27 JUL). How it will be enforced remains to be seen. Should have more info on this in the coming days but from what I gather so far, the Air Force will have to start following the law. If an airman has a sincere religious belief and can do their job just like anyone else (members with medical waivers or not) then their request must be granted with no difference in treatment (discrimination).
Time will tell…
Clifton Duncan gave a very impressive talk in this video clip.
Finally some good and encouraging news to report.
evanstonnow.com
This sets a good precedent, and we know that hospitals don't care about anything other than the bottom line, so hopefully other institutions, both within the health care business and others, will hesitate next time they're ready to mandate injections and punish resistors with mass firings.
Of course they couldn't stop themselves from reporting irrelevant facts - nowhere is it shown that the plaintiffs were Catholic and what difference does it make if the abortions were elective or not? A religious person wouldn't be concerned by elective abortions? How many abortions are not elective? What nonsense.
Let's hope that others can build on this momentum. A few more 8 figure settlements like this will make a difference. It's important to stay on the offensive and gain as much legal ground as possible before the counter-offensive we all know is around the corner is launched.
NorthShore to pay $10.3M in COVID vaccine settlement - Evanston Now
Class action case covers employees who were denied religious exemptions for shots.
evanstonnow.com
This sets a good precedent, and we know that hospitals don't care about anything other than the bottom line, so hopefully other institutions, both within the health care business and others, will hesitate next time they're ready to mandate injections and punish resistors with mass firings.
Of course they couldn't stop themselves from reporting irrelevant facts - nowhere is it shown that the plaintiffs were Catholic and what difference does it make if the abortions were elective or not? A religious person wouldn't be concerned by elective abortions? How many abortions are not elective? What nonsense.
Let's hope that others can build on this momentum. A few more 8 figure settlements like this will make a difference. It's important to stay on the offensive and gain as much legal ground as possible before the counter-offensive we all know is around the corner is launched.
I think steadily these are coming in. The next big case for a mandate smackdown incidentally is an en banc decision by the 5th circuit, with arguments beginning the week of September 12. The 17 judges are all together there to likely put a death blow to the Biden admin's federal mandate, at least regarding what the real problem is here, denial of nearly all exemptions and specifically religious ones, which is just part of the law. They need only a majority decision, which should happen with that circuit quite easily. Let's hope and pray it's easy, at least.Finally some good and encouraging news to report.
NorthShore to pay $10.3M in COVID vaccine settlement - Evanston Now
Class action case covers employees who were denied religious exemptions for shots.
This sets a good precedent, and we know that hospitals don't care about anything other than the bottom line, so hopefully other institutions, both within the health care business and others, will hesitate next time they're ready to mandate injections and punish resistors with mass firings.
Of course they couldn't stop themselves from reporting irrelevant facts - nowhere is it shown that the plaintiffs were Catholic and what difference does it make if the abortions were elective or not? A religious person wouldn't be concerned by elective abortions? How many abortions are not elective? What nonsense.
Let's hope that others can build on this momentum. A few more 8 figure settlements like this will make a difference. It's important to stay on the offensive and gain as much legal ground as possible before the counter-offensive we all know is around the corner is launched.
Last November my wife (then fiancé) was required to receive the jab to continue her work as a teacher. She had just finished four years of study and was at the end of her first year on the job.
Needless to say, we didn’t cave. She came to work with me instead and had no desire to go back to teaching.
Last month, the Government revealed what desperate fools they are by dropping the mandate and asking the unjabbed to get back to work. God has been so merciful to us, just days after this occured we find out my wife is pregnant. Paid maternity leave here we come!
We received an email last week which simply blew us away. Despite asking for her back and being desperately short staffed (everyone seems to regularly be getting very sick, I wonder why that would be...) they have sent us an email asking us why she shouldn’t face further disciplinary action for not falling in to line with their procedures.
It wasn’t enough to be suspended without pay for 6 months and to lose our house (funded by the Education department). No, apparently she still needs some further discipline because she’s been very naughty.
I’m trying to write up a response on her behalf. Anyone want to throw in some comments, arguments that I can include? I’m unsure if I should go full scale shock and awe about their pathetic policies or just keep it short and sweet.
Needless to say, we didn’t cave. She came to work with me instead and had no desire to go back to teaching.
Last month, the Government revealed what desperate fools they are by dropping the mandate and asking the unjabbed to get back to work. God has been so merciful to us, just days after this occured we find out my wife is pregnant. Paid maternity leave here we come!
We received an email last week which simply blew us away. Despite asking for her back and being desperately short staffed (everyone seems to regularly be getting very sick, I wonder why that would be...) they have sent us an email asking us why she shouldn’t face further disciplinary action for not falling in to line with their procedures.
It wasn’t enough to be suspended without pay for 6 months and to lose our house (funded by the Education department). No, apparently she still needs some further discipline because she’s been very naughty.
I’m trying to write up a response on her behalf. Anyone want to throw in some comments, arguments that I can include? I’m unsure if I should go full scale shock and awe about their pathetic policies or just keep it short and sweet.
If they are asking you this sort of question - my advice is always to stick to minimum and legal etc. i.e. your wife adhered to all relevant legislation at the point in time etc. i.e. she attended work following letter from Department dated xx etc. Just stick to the legal aspects. Never deal with reason or emotion when dealing with a robotic machine. Never explain why etc. Not as if they will agree with you. Certainly do not try to educate them etc. I love the Swift quote - you can not reason a man out of a position he was not reasoned in to.
You were a bit vague on the language of their letter.
Were they asking for an exemption? Soft push for her to get it anyway? Or what?
This may help generate the best strategy of how to respond but I'd say in general keep it short and sweet.
Last edited:
Thanks for the responses guys.
Theyre not pushing the jab anymore (at least for now). They want her to explain why she shouldn’t face disciplinary action for refusing their demands (ie a pay cut).
Basically they released a ‘directive’ to get the jab. She has refused the directive by not getting jabbed. A refusal of a directive means you may face disciplinary action.
its just a pathetic power play from them. A soft little reminder that “hey, we’re still in charge here okay?” It’s really quite sad as they are coming from a position of weakness being so short staffed. I’m in two minds to tell them that if they continue with this process my wife will be going on stress leave.
Theyre not pushing the jab anymore (at least for now). They want her to explain why she shouldn’t face disciplinary action for refusing their demands (ie a pay cut).
Basically they released a ‘directive’ to get the jab. She has refused the directive by not getting jabbed. A refusal of a directive means you may face disciplinary action.
its just a pathetic power play from them. A soft little reminder that “hey, we’re still in charge here okay?” It’s really quite sad as they are coming from a position of weakness being so short staffed. I’m in two minds to tell them that if they continue with this process my wife will be going on stress leave.
That's ridiculous, but also expected. It's like they have the memory of a goldfish.
She was disciplined already and was willing to quit because of the mandate. Do they think anything has changed? I'd just provide a cursory response to satisfy their file perhaps with an additional comment expressing unwillingness to examine this situation beyond your response, since it's already demanded too much time and mental energy from you (and them).
Last edited:
The gall of these people. Petty, weak and insufferable corporate nonsense. Absolutely pathetic.
Speaking as someone who works among bureaucratic worms like these, typically this kind of behavior is legal CYA. They want to save face in the case that they hire her back, because hiring her back implies that they made some kind of mistake that resulted in her leaving. Bureaucrats would rather their organization simply crash and burn than publicly or legally admit to wrongdoing.
I don't think they seriously expect her to come back, but they're doing it just so they can tell their supervisors they asked her, and checkboxes will get checked and they'll move on, even to the point of collapse.
A. Simply ignore the letter or. B. Say you are not qualified to comment as you are not employed in the HR department or company management. If they force you to provide an answer have a letter from your lawyer saying you adhered with all company policy I.e. left work and returned to work when requested.
Can you afford a lawyer?
There are/were a number of firms who specialized in it. Gab also had a form you could download and sign. You can use the language from there.
If you really want to get nuclear, some works places have lost multi-million dollar cases for enforcing the jab, including a hospital near Chicago. Seems like a mighty fine precedent/reference for your letter or more if you decide to pursue it. If not nuclear, like others have said, stick to the facts and point out how OSHA wouldn't enforce it, companies are losing lawsuits for mandating it.
But if you have the resources, you may get your opportunity to get your house back and then compensation for your suffering. Note: some firms will take you on a contingency/free basis and take 1/3 of your awards if you win, nothing if you lose.
That is correct. I think the attorneys will also do it on a case by case basis depending on how much work they have to do. That is, settlement with a few letters to a company who has clearly violated (many) the laws, or litigation. The latter will entitle them to a greater % since it will require more time and work on their part. But it will ultimately render a greater award in both settlement and court, should it go there.