Covid and the Law Part 1

Part 1: Employment, Lawsuits, Animal Testing, Nuremberg, Canadian Law

EMPLOYMENT
Some say employees who don’t get the jab will be shown the door. Others are listing vaccination as a mandatory requirement for new hires.

The forced and coerced, mandatory and required vaccination of citizens is no doubt against their rights... or is it?
We're seeing changes taking place on the legal horizon, already in Germany they have legalese prepared for violently forced vaccination
Germany Says Goodbye To Basic Rights


Will it be any different in the US or Canada? Evidence so far says NOPE

In the US, employers can legally require proof before hiring, or later require it Washington Post
Can employers require a COVID-19 vaccine? Federal agency says yes, and they can offer incentives, too USAToday< br />
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued updated guidance stating that federal laws don’t prevent an employer from requiring workers to be vaccinated EEOC

The key updates to the technical assistance are summarized below:
-Federal EEO laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19...
-Federal EEO laws do not prevent or limit employers from offering incentives to employees to voluntarily provide documentation or other confirmation of vaccination...
-Employers that are administering vaccines to their employees may offer incentives for employees to be vaccinated, as long as the incentives are not coercive.
... a very large incentive could make employees feel pressured to disclose protected medical information.
...EEOC

and if you work in medicine there is no question, you will be required to submit:

"Out of the 26,000 Houston Methodist system employees, 99% of workers have complied with the vaccine policy" he says.

If an employee doesn’t want to take the vaccine, Boom says that’s their right — but by June 7, unvaccinated workers will be suspended without pay for two weeks.

After that, Boom says “they will have to seek employment elsewhere.”

WBUR.org

We're now hearing a lot about lawsuits lately, and doubtlessly will hear of many more to come.

LAWSUITS
Some involve resistance to the vaccination itself
117 Employees Sue Hospital Over Vaccine Mandate
Some involve the methods of testing
1,000 Lawyers and 10,000 Doctors File Lawsuit for Violation of Nuremberg Code
And others involve the misapplication of care
Class-action lawsuit filed over COVID-19 deaths at Maples Personal Care Home in Winnipeg
Some are talking class-action over NOT getting their dose!
ASTRAZENECA NIGHTMARE: Class-action lawsuits heading Trudeau's way!

Nightmare, indeed.

Nurmeberg Code
The Nuremberg Code came out of a trial in post-war Germany in December of 1946, the second of the Nuremberg trials.
It doesn't cover vaccines, it was intended for non-consentual experimentation. Factcheck.org
Neither the Nuremberg Code nor the Declaration of Helsinki is legally binding or legally enforceable in its own right.

No, Covid Vaccine Mandates Don’t Violate the Nuremberg Code Bloomberg

BMC Medical Ethics

(However, see[21]). They are ethical guidelines. Both documents and the principles enshrined in them will be persuasive authority to any domestic court,
and indeed an argument can be made that many if not most of the principles are customary law
(i.e. international law, binding on all states, that is derived from the customary behaviour of states, indicating a consensus that the behaviour is obligatory).

Requiring consent in experiments, for example, may be considered a principle of customary international law,
and states may have recourse at the International Court of Justice if this principle is violated.
However, international codes and declarations gain tangible lawful force for individuals when they are adopted into domestic laws.

ANIMAL TESTING
The FDA does not require proof of efficacy in animal models while they do in practice mandate toxicity testing in animals.
This should be interpreted in light of the fact that what the FDA requires differs from what the FDA accepts and in some cases this is a distinction without a difference.
Similarly, the US Food and Drug regulations stipulate that results from animal-based research should be included in applications if it has been conducted
(e.g. s. 314.50), but the plain meaning of the text is that it is not mandated.

CANADA
Food and Drugs Regulations[23] reference animal-based research in at least three separate provisions.
Provision C.08.002.01 provides that a manufacturer of a new drug may file an extraordinary use new drug submission if the new drug is intended for:

(i)emergency use (ii)preventative use

However, s. C.08.002.01(2)(iv) requires that the submission for extraordinary use new drugs contains:

(iv)
detailed reports of studies, in an animal species that is expected to react with a response that is predictive for humans, establishing the safety of the new drug,
and providing substantial evidence of its effect...
(v)
information confirming that the end point of animal studies is clearly related to the desired benefit in humans,
(vi)
information demonstrating that there is a sufficient understanding of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the new drug in animals and in humans to enable... effective dose in humans . . .

Other provisions in the Regulations suggest an assumption that animal-based research has predictive value for humans,
although interestingly, none—other than the foregoing—require the results of animal-based research.
Rather, it is indicated that when animal-based research exists its results should be included in applications for drug authorization.
In other words, with the exception of extraordinary use drugs, animal-based research does not appear to be mandated under the Regulations.

Only when animal species have been tested should that information be included in the application.
If the pharmacological aspects, pharmacokinetics, toxicological aspects, and carcinogenicity of the drug can be demonstrated using non-animal models, this is sufficient.

Part 1 Summary:
They have an airtight seal on liability
Right now the 'vaccines' are under EUA, and if they gain full approval...
There is no question that they will become mandatory to the point of forced
At least in places like Germany where the law plainly states they'll erase your rights


There are only 2 provisions of hope left to my knowledge:

1) You can prove it poses you an unreasonable health risk
2) You can argue well enough that these are NOT vaccines

Both of which they've repeatedly demonstrated to fall on their deaf ears
That's stuff for Part 2, another day.
So good luck, everyone! We appear to be screwed
Cheers!

Part one sure sounds hopeful, I bet part two is even better. I can't wait.

The American Congress will pass a law which you just stated " we are screwed ". I remember posting early on in March of last year in the D and P thread about the loss of many things and I actually was attacked with " where you getting all this sh$t " . MIM's Street Talk , is starting to actually have some backbone to it. Sadly, I never copied and pasted my threads on Libre.
We are all fkd now.
It's all about people control and NOTHING to do with our health. This crap is about gene therapy and after 90 jabs the therapy will be completed and then a new humanoid will exist, PERIOD.

Like I say before I will no take the crap and nobody is going to force me to do it.

Plain and simple.

The legal definition of a mandate is that of an order. This does require consent and is not the same as compulsory where one can use force to compel an action.

In the military, it is ones duty to not obey unlawful orders. A directive is a direction, it has not been passed by the legislator and is not law.

For those facing the Nuremberg trials, the excuse 'I was just following orders' did not negate their responsibilities.

The suppression of covid treatments is a criminal matter as the push for medical experimentation and other socially destructive measures continue.