News • Politics • Culture
This is the VivaBarnesLaw Community.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
Employer Letter Example: Vaccine Mandate Objection

No authorship claim or copyright asserted...A letter that also came to me via a route like a letter in a bottle.

Dear Boss,
First, I request a religious exemption. "Each of the manufactures of the Covid vaccines currently available developed and confirmed their vaccines using fetal cell lines, which originated from aborted fetuses. ( ) For example, each of the currently available Covid vaccines confirmed their vaccine by protein testing using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. ( ) Partaking in a vaccine made from aborted fetuses makes me complicit in an action that offends my religious faith. As such, I cannot, in good conscience and in accord with my religious faith, take any such Covid vaccine at this time. In addition, any coerced medical treatment goes against my religious faith and the right of conscience to control one’s own medical treatment, free of coercion or force. As fellow governments recognize: "Religion includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief. Religious beliefs are not only those beliefs held by traditional, organized religions, but also include moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right or wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views." ( Please provide a reasonable accommodation to my belief, as I wish to continue to be a good employee, helpful to the team.

Equally, compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine. Many employers have reconsidered issuing such a mandate after more fruitful review with legal counsel, insurance providers, and public opinion advisors of the desires of employees and the consuming public. Even the Kaiser Foundation warned of the legal risk in this respect. (
Three key concerns: first, informed consent is the guiding light of all medicine, in accord with the Nuremberg Code of 1947; second, the Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees' medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their perceived medical status, as the many AIDS related cases of decades ago fully attest; and third, international law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment, education or public accommodations upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possible suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment. As one federal court just recently held, the availability of reasonable accommodations like accounting for prior infection, antibody testing, temperature checks, remote work, other forms of testing, and the like suffice to meet any institution’s needs in lieu of masks, public shaming, and forced injections of foreign substances into the body that the FDA admits we do not know the long -term effects of.
For instance, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting. Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and "very rare." Indeed, initial data suggests the vaccinated are just as, or even much more, likely to transmit the virus as the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. Hence, the vaccine solves nothing. This evidentiary limitation on any employer's decision making, aside from the legal and insurance risks of forcing vaccinations as a term of employment without any accommodation or even exception for the previously infected (and thus better protected), is the reason most employers wisely refuse to mandate the vaccine. This doesn't even address the arbitrary self-limitation of the pool of talent for the employer: why reduce your own talent pool, when many who refuse invasive inquiries or risky treatment may be amongst your most effective, efficient and profitable employees?
This right to refuse forced injections, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. ( ). As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must "be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision" for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is.

Second, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines. As the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only ask medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business. ( An employer that treats an individual employee differently based on that employer’s belief the employee’s medical condition impairs the employee is discriminating against that employee based on perceived medical status disability, in contravention of the ADA. The employer must have proof that the employer cannot keep the employee, even with reasonable accommodations, before any adverse action can be taken against the employee. If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with a reasonable accommodation. The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate. This requires the employee's medical status cause a substantial risk of serious harm, a risk that cannot be reduced by any another means. This is a high, and difficult burden, for employers to meet. Just look at the all prior cases concerning HIV and AIDS, when employers discriminated against employees based on their perceived dangerousness, and ended up paying millions in legal fees, damages and fines.

Third, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.( )

Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long made clear "no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others." (

With Regards,

Employee of the Year,
Thomas Paine"

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Live from longboat

Just arrived. Some preshow thought as I have a breakfast picnic in God’s playground.

Cinematic vlawg

What do you think? I don't think I'm doing it again. Too much waster processing time.

Breaking down the 9th circuit ruling

It doesn't quite say what the headlines say it says...

February 17, 2024
Appearance on Richard Syrette

I did a quick hit on Richard Syrette yesterday. Gotta keep Canadians apprised of the U.S. madness.

Appearance on Richard Syrette
The Barnes Brief, Podcast Format: Monday, July 17, 2023

Closing Argument: Birthright citizenship is deeply American, and wholly Constitutional.

The Barnes Brief, Podcast Format: Monday, July 17, 2023
Declaration of Independence

Audio podcast style.

Declaration of Independence
Questions for Bourbon with Barnes: Tuesday, June 11, 2024

Ask in replies below and answering live at 9ish eastern tonight...

post photo preview
post photo preview
post photo preview
The Barnes Brief: Friday, May 31, 2024


What Are The Odds:

Sunday at 6 pm eastern: Law for the People w/ Viva


Book Recommendation: Attorney For The Damned.


Closing Argument: Food Freedom & Medical Freedom Poll Details


Introduction: Top 10 Headlines of the Week

  1. Trump verdict.
  2. Public rallies to Trump.
  3. Market mostly ignores Trump verdict.
  4. MDMA to be legal?
  5. Bureaucracy killing economy.
  6. More vaccine injuries.
  7. NATO flirts with war with Russia.
  8. CRE disaster.
  9. Zoomer revolt.
  10. FOIA Fauci fraud. 

*Bonus: Rangers to the rescue.

Wisdom of the Day: “I was shocked how much people support Food Freedom.” Richard Baris.


The Evidence: Top Ten Articles Curated from The Barnes Library

  1. Inside China’s problems.
  2. The Technocratic State.
  3. Left fears demographic shift.
  4. De-banking spreads.
  5. The Anxious generation.
  6. Dems stuck with Biden.
  7. The crack baby debate.
  8. Child welfare agencies investigation.
  9. Punishment backfires for cases of addiction.
  10. The state is not the solution.

*Bonus: No “kids” exception to 4th Amendment.  


Homework: Cases TBD on Sunday Show

  1. Selective prosecution.
  2. Due process.
  3. Impeachment immunity.
  4. Right to confront and present witnesses.
  5. Discovery rights.
  6. Jury issues.
  7. Texas approves abortion law.
  8. Insanity defense.
  9. Stopping voter fraud.
  10. Drug searches.
  11. Search warrants in kids’ cases.
  12. SCOTUS: New York’s selective prosecution problem.


Closing Argument: 1776 Law Center Survey Details

  • As requested, a deep dive into the survey by Big Data of the American people on issues of Food Freedom and Medical Freedom.
  • If a candidate supports a right to buy food directly from farmers without government permission, are you less likely to vote for them, more likely to vote for them or no impact on your vote?

More Likely: 58%

Less Likely 12%

No Impact: 30%

More Likely by Demographic

Men: 60%

Women: 56%

18-29: 60%

30-44: 60%

45-64: 55%

65+: 56%

White: 59%

Black: 55%

Hispanic: 53%

Asian: 52%

Other: 55%

GOP: 66%

Democrat: 54%

“America First” Republican: 71%

Liberal: 55%

Moderate: 54%

Conservative: 65%

No College Degree: 61%

College Degree: 55%

Under $100K: 58%

Over $100K: 58%

Employed: 61%

Disabled: 60%

Student: 53%

Retired: 56%

Private Union: 71%

Married: 60%

Widowed: 66%

Single: 53%

Kids under 18: 63%

Veteran: 65%

Evangelical: 64%

Mormon: 71%

Urban: 58%

Suburban: 54%

Rural: 65%

Northeast: 54%

Midwest: 56%

South 62%

West: 53%

Certain to vote in 2024: 60%

Trump Voters: 66%

Biden Voters: 53%

Libertarian: 69%

Voters Considering both Trump & Kennedy: 63%


  • Why do they feel this strongly? Here’s why.


“Americans should be allowed to buy food directly from farmers without getting government permission”

Strongly Agree: 50%

Agree: 28%

Disagree: 8%

Strongly Disagree: 2%


% Strongly Agree:

Over 45: 55%

GOP: 61%

Conservative: 61%

America First: 69%

Independents who “share little in common with either party”: 51%

No College: 53%

Evangelicals: 56%

Muslim: 63%

Mormon: 67%

Rural: 58%

West North Central: 59%

Certain to vote in 2024: 54%

Considering both Trump & Kennedy: 62%


  • What is the problem they are identifying? Here ‘tis.

“More food should be available directly from the farmer than from big corporations”

Strongly Agree: 51%

Agree: 30%

Disagree: 7%

Strongly Disagree: 2%


  • Equally, Americans overwhelmingly support medical freedom.


Candidate Supports Making Drug Companies Financially Responsible for Vaccine Injuries

More likely: 68%

Less likely: 13%


Drug Companies Should Not Be Immune From Suit If Their Vaccines Cause Injuries

Strongly Agree: 49%

Agree: 25%

Disagree: 10%

Strongly Disagree: 7%


% Strongly Agree

GOP: 56%

Conservative 58%

America First: 62%

Independents Who Share Little in Common w/ Either Party: 52%

Non-College: 56%

Unemployed, Looking: 53%

Disabled: 56%

Veteran: 50%

Evangelical: 57%

Midwest: 53%

Certain to vote in 2024: 53%

Trump 2024: 56%

3rd Party/Independent: 55%

Considering Trump & Kennedy: 65%


  • Why such strong, broad support? Here, again, we find the answer.


Suffered serious adverse consequences from the Covid-19 vaccine in terms of discrimination?

Yes/Unsure: 31%


% Yes/Unsure

Under 30: 49%

Over 50: 25%

Black: 42%

Hispanic: 43%

Other: 43%

Independent: 31%

America First Republican: 45%

Independent Share Little in Common w/ Either Party: 36%

Non-White No College: 45%

Unemployed: 43%

Student: 37%

Private Union: 54%

Separated: 45%

Kids Under 18: 51%

Active Military: 53%

“Another religion”: 39%

Evangelical: 40%

Urban: 39%

Unsure about voting in 2024: 42%

New voters: 49%

Third Party/Independent: 48%

Considering Kennedy or Trump: 53%


Someone close to you suffered serious injury or death from Covid19 vaccine?

YES: 22%

Unsure: 8%

NO: 70%


% Yes/Unsure

Under 30: 43%

Over 65: 20%

Black: 36%

Hispanic: 38%

America First: 43%

Independent Share Little in Common w/ Either Party: 36%

High School: 36%

Non-White Non-College: 39%

Student: 31%

Unemployed: 36%

Private Union: 45%

Separated: 40%

Kids Under 18: 43%

Active Military: 51%

Another Religion: 37%

Evangelical: 40%

Urban: 34%

Unsure about voting in 2024: 42%

New Voters: 47%

Independent/3rd Party: 50%

Trump or Kennedy: 65%


  • Food Freedom and Medical Freedom are the tickets to success in 2024.  
Read full Article
post photo preview
Barnes Brief: Friday, May 24, 2024


LIVE w/ Duran


LIVE on Sky News:

Friday Night Live:

Saturday Movie Night: TBD by Board Poll

Sunday at 6 pm eastern: Law for the People w/ Viva

Memorial Day Special What Are the Odds: 2 pm eastern

Closing Argument: Inside the 1776 Law Center Survey

Book Recommendation: The Wild Jackasses.


Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
The Barnes Brief: May 17, 2024


Book Recommendation: Amish & the State.  

Closing Argument: Open the Courts


Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals