VivaBarnesLaw
Politics • Culture • News
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 you...as 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. (https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/key-questions-about-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/)

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. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3 ) 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. (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/ ). 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. (https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/questions-and-answers-enforcement-guidance-disability-related-inquiries-and-medical). 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.(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html )

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." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/141/250)

With Regards,
Employee of the Year

XXX

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
The whippersnappers are amazing!

I am going back to that CVS and I’m going to buy the entire display!

the snap rate is virtually 100%! And they snap against people’s backs!

00:02:18
Megalodon tooth hunting

It’s finally happening

00:00:28
Comey coverup complete

There it is. Enjoy!

00:10:53
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
Board Poll: Saturday Movie

Pick your favorite, and top-3 will compete in a runoff to watch tonight with open live chat at 9 pm eastern. July 4th themed films.

post photo preview
Independence Day shot of the evening

Don’t know who they were, but the moment was there.

post photo preview
post photo preview
The Barnes Brief: July 4, 2025

I.  Schedule

  • Saturday 9 pm eastern: Movie July 4th Theme
  • Sunday 6 pm eastern: Viva & Barnes Law for the People

II.  Art of the Day

A pickup truck. By the beach. Our flag flowing in the wind. The center of summer. The celebration of American independence. The spirit of the 4th.The simplest joys partake, in backyard barbecues & flowing fireworks into the night sky. All for the liberty, freedom, and individuality unleashed by the American spirit that sentinel 4th of July, birthing a revolution of spirit around the world. America's Independence Day. 

III. Wisdom of the Day

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Declaration of Independence, 1776. 

IV. Book Recommendation

Declaration: The Nine Tumultous Weeks details the inside story of how the American revolution was anything but inevitable, birthed by the struggles of men and women willing to risk it all for a new cry for freedom and self-governance that will replace the royalists forever more. 

V.  News of the Week

  1. Big Beautiful Bill Passes
  2. Medicaid Cut Debate
  3. Socialist Rises
  4. Jobs Jump
  5. Democratic Disarray

*Bonus: Proud to be an American

VI.  Topic of the Week: American Independence

  1. Patrick Henry
  2. Adams
  3. Reagan
  4. MLK
  5. Fredrick Douglass

*Bonus: Webster

VII. Cases of the Week

  1. Judicial Coup Continues
  2. Diddy Verdict
  3. Big Beautiful Bill
  4. SCOTUS: TransSpeech
  5. Wisconsin: Politics & Judges

*Bonus: Coercion defense

VIII. Closing Argument: Our Eternal Oath

  • The American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence. July 4th, 1776.
  • A new doctrine of legitimacy for the exercise of state power. Henceforth, legitimate government depended upon the consent of the governed. This was because each individual held “the separate and equal station” by the logic of natural law — “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” This thus further entitled them “to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth” whenever made necessary by the conditions of their government. 
  • The eternal truths of the ends of government remained the same truths as God ordained, reason entitled, and nature spoke: the “self-evident truths” included that “all men are created equal” and as such endowed by their Creator “with certain unalienable Rights” of the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to the pursuit of happiness. This, and this alone, is the reason for government — “to secure these rights.” Security wasn't for physical safety but rather for liberty -- security measured by respect for the right to liberty, the right to life, and the right to the pursuit of happiness. Thereby, wherever and whenever government “becomes destructive” toward the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to the pursuit of happiness, then the self-evident right endowed by the Creator, and his creations in nature and reason, entitles “the people” to alter such government, abolish such government, and to, in their place, “institute new Government.”
  • The conservative counter to the radicalism inherent in the right of revolution was to temper such revolutionary spirit that “long established” forms of government only be changed for causes neither “light” nor “transient.” It is only upon a “long train of abuses and usurpations” that would reduce them to despotism that it becomes their “duty” to “throw off such Government” and provide better “Guards for their future security.”
  • The founders then laid out the evidentiary pleadings for their right to revolt, noting the dilution of the people’s right to pass laws on its behalf, the corruption of the judiciary from enforcing the laws impartially, and the rogue executive ignoring the invasion from within and without. This breach of forms bred results undesired and insecure to the people, including standing armies invading homes without cause, bureaucratic expansion that “sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance”, subject Americans to “a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws”, with “mock Trials” held by partial jurors away from the community of the judged, taxes without consent, unwarranted drafts into forced military service against their own people, and leaving borders unprotected from merciless dangers, while all petitions for redress of these grievances went unanswered and unaddressed. This left no choice but to declare our independence, rooting our government in both conservative claims and radical revolutionary aims, restoring power to the people our Creator endowed with inalienable rights which appeal to nature and reason — the archives of nature and the rights of man as God’s forensic fingerprint on the nature of man and earth alike. 
  • It is thus we must again renew the oath — “for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” 
Read full Article
post photo preview
Barnes Brief: Friday, June 27, 2025

Schedule

  • Friday at 6 eastern: Betting w/ Barnes
  • Saturday at 9 eastern: Movie Night 
  • Sunday at 6 eastern: Law for the People w/ Viva

Art of the Day: The Water Fountain. To make the simple, elegant; the functional, expressive; the accessible, ideal. Decorative arts charm the mind by turning the ordinary into extraordinary, the everyday into an otherworldly invitation. This form of decorative arts remakes our material world into an ethereal paradise of the mind evoking the God shaped spark of the soul for a task as mundane as getting a sip of water. 

Book Recommendation History rhymes. The last effort of the Deep State to regime change in Iran birthed us the current regime. The Coup: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13586980-the-coup?

Wisdom of the Day: “A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification.” George Washington, Farewell Address. 

 

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: Friday, June 20, 2025

Schedule

Past Appearances

  • Barnes & Baris:
    placeholder
  • Barnes, Viva & Duran on Iran War:
    placeholder
  • Barnes & GoodLawgic:
    placeholder

Planned Appearances

  • Friday at 9: Betting w/ Barnes AMA
  • Saturday Movie at 9 pm eastern: TBD
  • Sunday Law for the People w/ Viva at 6 pm eastern

Art of the Day: Bansky, the infamous anonymous muralist, whose famed art appears overnight in hot spots around the globe, eviscerates war propaganda with the brilliant contrasting images of his Bombs with Babies. Gets the point across with elegant efficacy. The only certainty with war is horror awaits someone, somewhere. A bias toward NO tenders out universal humanitarianism.

Book Recommendation: The Achilles Trap: The Iraq War.  Riddled with incompetency, the decisions at each stage backfired in our Mideastern war politics, summed up as we “failed to grasp critical nuances” of the enemy.

Wisdom of the Day: “But America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy…. America well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign Independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brow would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of Freedom and Independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an Imperial Diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.” John Quincy Adams.

 

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