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

No authorship claim or copyright asserted...this letter just came to me in a bottle, and I have no idea who might have penned it, nor can I possibly vouch for it, and what you fine folks do with it is entirely in your own hands, as the Gentlemen of the Bar remind me I can proffer no general legal advice in the matter, and must officially disclaim proffering any such advice here...edit and excise as you see fit, amend and append as you desire, and claim authorship or anonymity as may best befit always, as you wish...

Dear Boss,

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, while the vaccine remains unapproved by the FDA and authorized only for emergency use, federal law forbids mandating it, in accordance 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 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 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.

At the outset, consider the "problem" being "solved" by vaccination mandates. The previously infected are better protected than the vaccinated, so why aren't they exempted? Equally, 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?

First, federal law prohibits any mandate of the Covid-19 vaccines as unlicensed, emergency-use-authorization-only vaccines. Subsection bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demands that everyone give employees the "option to accept or refuse administration" of the Covid-19 vaccine. ( ) This right to refuse emergency, experimental vaccines, 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. The Nuremberg Code prohibited even the military from requiring such experimental vaccines. (Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003).

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


Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
November 30, 2023
On the Lighter side of things…

I came across this on my morning jog.

November 27, 2023
Need the knowledge of our community!

Marion found this at the beach. It’s clearly a bone. We just have no idea what kind. Anyone got a good guess?

November 26, 2023
I keep telling my kids that if you just leave the house, good things happen

This happened today. Just an alligator eating a snapping turtle!

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
Barnes Law School: 2nd Amendment Victory!

Enjoy this podcast deep dive into the case, much like a single session of a law school class.

Barnes Law School: 2nd Amendment Victory!
November 30, 2023
Actually unfriended by a former actual friend

Today I had a 2+ decade-old best friend formally cut ties with me. We hadn't really been in touch since Covid. Whenever I came back to Canada I would DM, to grab a coffee / lunch, and would get a run-around which I chalked up to busy lives. I suspected other issues were at play, but I thought I was being over cynical - even for myself.

In anticipation of coming back for the holidays, I reached out yesterday with a humorous "Are you still alive" (the thought that my friend has actually died did occur to me). The response was a terse and formal "I have no interest in catching up" (paraphrasing).

It was weird. An emotional gut-punch that I could actually feel physically.

We hadn't been in touch for years, so there is no actual day-to-day loss. It's not even the formal death of the potential "we're friends and will catch up when we catch up" type thing that hurts so much either.

It's trying to understand what happened in the mind and soul of a 25+ year friend who knew and knows me in a way few people do....

@WalmartInc @Elon #X @Twitter @Disney

I have been a shareholder in @Walmart since the Mid 90's, I just sold a lot but not all for the first time. I am still a #shareholder.

I am willing to be a stockholder of record who has standing in there is a lawyer who wants to sue the Ceo and the board personally.

#Walmart just announced they are no longer going to advertise on #Twitter / #X .

I do not understand how this does not effect the Walmart Boards #FiduciaryResponsibility to shareholders. This was a personal political decision.

The CEO of Walmart is very active in the #WorldEconomicForum and has been a major headline speaker. @wef

Great sunset tonight. Turned from yellow to orange. I love seeing hundreds of Grackles and European Starlings roosting on the wires...

post photo preview
The Barnes Brief: Substack-Style, Weekend of December 1, 2023


  • Sunday: Law For the People at 6 pm eastern
  • Closing Argument: The Utility of Resistance Against Futility

Introduction: Top 10 Headlines of the Week

  • Santos expelled
  • J6 committee destroyed evidence
  • Kissinger died
  • Charlie Munger passed
  • Kochs back War Karen Nikki
  • Venezuela seeks to annex Guyana
  • The Tax Man cometh
  • China-Biden ties grow as corruption evidence builds against Biden
  • tells blackmailing advertisers where they can go.
  • Trump trial shows

*Bonus: Alex Jones’ video game.

Wisdom of the Day: "the effort you put forth to anything transcends yourself, for there is no futility even in death." Monty Oum. 

The Evidence: Top Ten Curated Articles from The Barnes Library

  1. Hunter Biden testimony controversy.
  2. Mail-in voting problems.
  3. Left populist: Democrats crime position is irrational.
  4. Hamas history.
  5. Market educates Disney.
  6. Texas sues Pfizer.
  7. Hitchens’ book on Kissinger.
  8. Kissinger’s multiple sides.
  9. The many legends of Kissinger.
  10. Charlie Munger’s truths.

*Bonus: Babies love ice cream.


Closing Argument: The Utility of Resisting Futility 

  • Dylan Thomas, the Welsh poet, said it best: Do not go gentle in that good night, rage, rage against the dying of the light. Be more like the wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist, and in the same vein, the greatest trick the system ever pulled was convincing people you cannot resist. The argument is simple, short, and, in this vein, sweet: never forget our own ability to change the world, no matter how long the odds may seem. Do indeed never go gentle in that good night.
Read full Article
post photo preview
The Barnes Brief: Substack-Style, Weekend of October 27, 2023


  • Friday Book Club at 9ish est: American Political Scripture Series: Chapter 8, part 2, Unconstitutionality of Slavery, by Lysander Spooner
  • Saturday Box Office at 9 est: TBD by Board poll
  • Sunday: Law For the People at 6 pm eastern
  • Closing Argument: Constitutional Rights Against the Courts

Introduction: Top 10 Headlines of the Week

  • Gaza escalation; IDF targeting Hamas.  
  • New Speaker.
  • Major fashion brands accused of running sex-trafficking operations.
  • SBF takes stand in FTX trial.
  • Biden coverup expands.
  • New maps in Georgia demanded by Obama judge.
  • Lies spread about Meadows exposed.
  • Trump moves to
  • South Park satirizes Disney.
  • Elon wants X to be your bank, but can’t restore George Gammon’s hacked

Wisdom of the Day: By “ingenious sophisms” the history of courts show how they “extended the sphere of their jurisdiction” much beyond their original limits. Centinel.

The Evidence: Top Ten Curated Articles from The Barnes Library


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: Substack-Style, Weekend of October 20, 2023


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