National Law Review on "Nuremberg" Vaxx $: Employer "Potential for being Liable if an Employee Develops an Illness Due to the Receipt of the Vaccine you Required the Employee to get"
"There is also a potential for being liable if an employee develops an illness due to the receipt of the vaccine you required the employee to get." - The National Law Review
Premiere lawyer Robert Barnes who deals in civil, criminal and constitutional law reported on Twitter that employers "making affirmative statements about the vaccines that contradict the Fact Sheet the FDA requires for the vaccine" can be sued:
Also, Yours News reported that Barnes shared a letter "that concerned Americans can send to their boss if they are being compelled to take any Covid-19 vaccine":
Compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law.
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. ( … .edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3″ target=”_blank” class=”link” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>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).
Secondly, 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).)
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. ( https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/faqs#vaccine ). 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, The National Law Review revealed that "There is also a potential for being liable if an employee develops an illness due to the receipt of the vaccine you required the employee to get":
"Here’s where many issues and various laws come into play. Even if your state does not prohibit mandatory vaccinations, that doesn’t mean that an employee won’t file a lawsuit against you for requiring one. An employee in a New Mexico county detention center already filed a lawsuit to challenge a county directive requiring first responders to get the vaccine in order to continue their employment. The employee claims that the directive is unlawful because it conflicts with the federal law regarding drugs approved by the FDA only under Emergency Use Authorization — a law which provides that individuals must be given the option to refuse “administration of the product.” There is also a potential for being liable if an employee develops an illness due to the receipt of the vaccine you required the employee to get. And if you require employees to get vaccinated, you might have to pay for: (1) transportation costs and/or mileage associated with your employees getting vaccinated, depending on your state’s laws; (2) the time it takes for an employee to get the vaccine — under the Fair Labor Standards Act and possibly under your state’s laws; and (3) missed work due to any side effects from receipt of the vaccine. Such an illness could be considered a compensable injury under workers’ compensation laws." [https://www.natlawreview.com/article/getting-to-point-issues-related-to-mandatory-vaccine-policies]
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost - Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt
the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church
in such a situation:
"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."
- "If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html
- "Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html
- LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial
weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"
- On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."
- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
- Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden" [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]
- Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times "Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html