A leading gnome in my labors to help people fight back is Hal Anthony, who runs the Jefferson Mining District in Oregon and three other states. He does the legal research with a lot of reading in legal history as touches property rights, land patents and due process.
He runs every Sunday afternoon at 3 a quirky webcast on Real Liberty Media. I am a regular listener.
This post tries to convince the reader how EASY AND SIMPLE it is to start the ball rolling on the admin record, one of Hal’s main action points.
Once you start the process of resistance, it becomes easier, and you come to realize the importance of a well-kept record of the interaction and battle, in the realm of admin law. In Cleveland, Tenn., homeschool mom Jessica Hedgcock has all docs in a business notebook, sheet protected, as she is continually having to assert her rights in protection of her million-dollar baby, Charlton, a medically needy 15 month old.
You can find stories about her on my website.
If it were me, I would send a certified letter (return receipt requested) to the HamCo health department asking if I am identified as an agent of contagion, a contagious person, a man (or woman) carrying a contagious principle, or sick, or in any way a threat to the public or any one member of the public.
Next, I would send a similar, if not identical letter, to the CEO of CHI Memorial. I would do it certified (F$7 cost at USPS).
If no evidence exists that you are a threat, or contagious, or sick, which establishes reason and reasonableness as the basis for the claim and threat against you, then you put CHI in a tough spot, and effectively eliminate the basis of the extortionate threat against you. Your being fired, if it happens, is arbitrary and capricious, as no reason exists that can be made to appear a cause for firing you, except a wrong and unreasonable reason.
As Hal has suggested, the key concept is as follows:
Key words in rebuffing false authority illicitly imposed: “No employee has been determined to be an infectious principle through lawful due process, nor has been determined, pursuant to law, to be a risk to the public, to give either the government jurisdiction or the employer lawful authority to force any mitigation measure on innocent people, or to extort or coerce them of their property or rights under color of a lawful public health authority.” ‡
This language is blessed by Franklin, Tenn., attorney Connie Reguli, who uses similar wording in a letter to a hospital in one of her cases.
CHI’s unreasonableness becomes even starker when you bring forward the good-faith reasons for refusing the jab, reasons that are personal, sincerely held and deeply believed, and perhaps attaching to religious convictions that are protected under the first amendment.
Your reasonings include empty warning sheets and ingredients list in the jab vial boxes, dangerous ingredients, scientific testimony readily available by scientists and doctors online against them (Yeadon, McCullough), and the unwillingness of CHI to indemnify you for harm, and to agree to accept all liability for your injury if you are hurt. (You are giving CHI forms put out by Children’s Health Defense, Solari Report, Rutherford Institute and others).
Your position is perhaps damaged by the OK on Monday of the Pfizer jab. But the FDA approval is highly controversial, and is given despite deaths in clinical trials, VAERSs and global deathcount piling on, and other indications that the administrative statements are political and not based on science and research.
The submission of these indemnity forms is a third interchange with CHI Memorial. The staff person who submits the form to a supervisor should make record of the meeting by an email followup, describing the meeting and quoting the other person, restating what they said and demanding correction if the report of the conversation is inaccurate. I recommend keeping strict notes of any such encounter, for use in an affidavit, which might be necessary at some point. Or send the form with a demand cover letter by certified mail, to give record.
I always think in terms of having a record suitable for presentation to a jury. I am always thinking in terms of how the jury would look at what I am doing by way of questioning authority and asserting rights.
Generally, a person should make affidavit routinely in such encounters, done immediately afterward for contemporaneity and detail. Affidavits contain only facts, and are a report of an incident or encounter.
In addition, your position is based on certain knowledge of admissions of fraud by Gov. Lee and Becky Barnes in the court record, and put into notice of my affidavit. Such references could be a fourth letter or correspondence with CHI Memorial.
You know that this approach is personal advice based on my reading and research, and is not legal advice, as I don’t run a law firm, am not in law practice, not in the law business, am not in any way qualified to give legal advice. If you want legal advice, find an attorney downtown, or on another planet, where the law might actually matter.
Time to fight