Forwarded from MajFreddy’s Channel
1:52 mark. PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS 🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞
Forwarded from BrookeFederline (Brooke Federline)
IF YOUR BOSS THREATENS YOU WITH FIRING IF NOT VACCINATED DON'T REFUSE:
The secret is NOT to refuse the jab and do not sign anything!
From a lawyer:
If you are being forced to Vax in order to keep your job, here’s a great way to handle it. (Conditional acceptance)
The secret is NOT to refuse it.
“I write with regard to the matter of potential covid vaccine and my desire to be fully informed and appraised of ALL facts before going ahead. I’d be most grateful if you could please provide the following information, in accordance with statutory legal requirements.”:
1. Can you please advise the approved legal status of any vaccine and if it is experimental?
2. Can you please provide details and assurances that the vaccine has been fully, independently and rigorously tested against control groups and the subsequent outcomes of those tests?
3. Can you please advise the entire list of contents of the vaccine I am to receive and if any are toxic to the body?
4. Can you please fully advise of all the adverse reactions associated with this vaccine since it’s introduction?
5. Can you please confirm that the vaccine you are advocating is NOT experimental mRNA gene altering therapy?
6. Can you please confirm that I will not be under any duress from yourselves as my employers, in compliance with the Nuremberg Code?
7. Can you please advise me of the likely risk of fatality, should I be unfortunate to contract Covid 19 and the likelihood of recovery?
8. Can you please advise me if I were to experience any adverse reactions is the manufacturer of the vaccine liable? If the manufacturer isn’t liable will the company I’m currently employed with with be responsible & liable as it is their request that I have the vaccine in order to carry on my employment?
Once I have received the above information in full and I am satisfied that there is NO threat to my health, I will be happy to accept your offer to receive the treatment, but with certain conditions – namely that:
1. You confirm in writing that I will suffer no harm.
2. Following acceptance of this, the offer must be signed by a fully qualified doctor who will take full legal and financial responsibility for any injuries occurring to myself, and/or from any interactions by authorized personnel regarding these procedures.
3. In the event that I should have to decline the offer of vaccination, please confirm that it will not compromise my position and that I will not suffer prejudice and discrimination as a result?
I would also advise that my inalienable rights are reserved.
The point is that if they CANNOT provide that information you’ve NOT refused.
The secret is NOT to refuse the jab and do not sign anything!
From a lawyer:
If you are being forced to Vax in order to keep your job, here’s a great way to handle it. (Conditional acceptance)
The secret is NOT to refuse it.
“I write with regard to the matter of potential covid vaccine and my desire to be fully informed and appraised of ALL facts before going ahead. I’d be most grateful if you could please provide the following information, in accordance with statutory legal requirements.”:
1. Can you please advise the approved legal status of any vaccine and if it is experimental?
2. Can you please provide details and assurances that the vaccine has been fully, independently and rigorously tested against control groups and the subsequent outcomes of those tests?
3. Can you please advise the entire list of contents of the vaccine I am to receive and if any are toxic to the body?
4. Can you please fully advise of all the adverse reactions associated with this vaccine since it’s introduction?
5. Can you please confirm that the vaccine you are advocating is NOT experimental mRNA gene altering therapy?
6. Can you please confirm that I will not be under any duress from yourselves as my employers, in compliance with the Nuremberg Code?
7. Can you please advise me of the likely risk of fatality, should I be unfortunate to contract Covid 19 and the likelihood of recovery?
8. Can you please advise me if I were to experience any adverse reactions is the manufacturer of the vaccine liable? If the manufacturer isn’t liable will the company I’m currently employed with with be responsible & liable as it is their request that I have the vaccine in order to carry on my employment?
Once I have received the above information in full and I am satisfied that there is NO threat to my health, I will be happy to accept your offer to receive the treatment, but with certain conditions – namely that:
1. You confirm in writing that I will suffer no harm.
2. Following acceptance of this, the offer must be signed by a fully qualified doctor who will take full legal and financial responsibility for any injuries occurring to myself, and/or from any interactions by authorized personnel regarding these procedures.
3. In the event that I should have to decline the offer of vaccination, please confirm that it will not compromise my position and that I will not suffer prejudice and discrimination as a result?
I would also advise that my inalienable rights are reserved.
The point is that if they CANNOT provide that information you’ve NOT refused.
Forwarded from DoGood Agent 355
Amen. Found out today my husband will lose his job at MAYO in Rochester, MN because he refuses to comply with the poison needle jab. He’s worked in the healthcare industry for over 35 years, been an exemplary employee, has several degrees and an MBA and was in administration for years. Started out as a RN. Mayo’s CEO, Gianrico Farrugia, is in bed with the commies and New World Order. He’s the Governor of Healthcare for the World Economic Forum…the evil is so far reaching and so deep it’s hard to believe…almost. And Greg Poland, MD who is head of the Mayo Vaccine Research Group is a PAID CONSULTANT for every single big pharma company. And Farrugia & cronies have recently publicly stated this is NOT a conflict of interest. WTAF! It gets better/worse. Matt Horace, Head of IT Security at Mayo is also head of IT security for DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS…again, WTF??? These people should all be hung alongside the rest of the traitors. I. Was trained by the nuns at Mayo years ago. It was a wonderful place to work. It’s deplorable now and the workers hate it, the people who live here hate it, there is no trust for Mayo and it’s a dirty word in this entire upper Midwest region. They should be ashamed of themselves. The Mayo brothers and the nuns who founded this together are rolling in their graves. So by Christmas, thousands of nurses who have put their own health in jeopardy, who were revered last year as heroes, are now vilified and will lose their jobs. We are 4 years from retirement. We have saves and worked very hard to build what we have. We have a small farm but we will have to sell it in the next few weeks and find some place to live that’s smaller because my RN salary won’t cover our mortgage and expenses with one kid still in HS and my husband losing his job, pension, benefits, 403b matching, and salary. That’s quite a bit of $ over 4 years and he did nothing wrong. Oh, I should also mention he had Covid, and is now suffering with ‘long’ Covid syndrome. We are Catholic but they will be allowing only ‘very few’ religious exemptions (although the main Mayo hospital is Catholic, the irony is lost on them) which is unconstitutional..for an unapproved poisonous jab with no longitudinal studies. BUT the good news is, Mayo WILL allow a medical exemption if you are afraid of needles. But it has to be previously documented of course. We are meeting with the lawyer tomorrow who is heading the MN healthcare worker class action lawsuit…over 200 people involved now. And we will likely sue separately as well. I imagine this will be a legal bloodbath nationwide for years to come and we may be dead before anything comes of it but we won’t go down without fighting. This is unacceptable in many ways, as we all know. It’s a slap in the face after working so hard in this industry for years. And again, he’s done nothing wrong. Shame on you Mayo, you rat bastards. It would be a pity if this were to get out and find its way to Fox etc. Stew Peters (who happens to live in my tiny hometown) spoke about all of this recently, partial credit to him for the IT guy info…I didn’t know about that until Stew covered it.
PLEASE GO TO THE JUSTICE.GOV WEBSITE AND PRINT THIS PAGE...TAKE IT TO YOUR LOCAL OFFICIALS IF THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO INFORCE COLOR OF LAW MANDATES THAT ARE IN VIOLATION OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS👆DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
SUMMARY:
Section 242 of Title 18 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 noscript 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 noscript 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 noscript, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
SUMMARY:
Section 242 of Title 18 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 noscript 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 noscript 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 noscript, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Color of Law Law and Legal Definition
Color of law refers to an act done under the appearance of legal authorization, when in fact, no such right existed. It applies when a person is acting under real or apparent government authority. The term is used in the federal Civil Rights Act, which gives citizens the right to sue government officials and their agents who use their authority to violate rights guaranteed by federal law.
The following is from the Civil Rights Act:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
Acting under color of [state] law is misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law Thompson v. Zirkle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77654 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 17, 2007)
Color of law refers to an act done under the appearance of legal authorization, when in fact, no such right existed. It applies when a person is acting under real or apparent government authority. The term is used in the federal Civil Rights Act, which gives citizens the right to sue government officials and their agents who use their authority to violate rights guaranteed by federal law.
The following is from the Civil Rights Act:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
Acting under color of [state] law is misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law Thompson v. Zirkle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77654 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 17, 2007)
42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights = Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. (R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, noscript III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)
The following statutory language warns public officials of the consequences of denying constitutional rights to others:
Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Forwarded from Patriot Works Announcements, Schedules, Media
Tonight: Special report on the shipping and supply chain crisis.
https://news.1rj.ru/str/patriotworkschat
https://news.1rj.ru/str/patriotworkschat