What Happens When A Wall Street Insider At Major Bank Refuses To Comply With Employer's COVID-19 Protocols?

Please note that this article is too long for email.

Until just the other day, B was a successful Wall Street analyst working at a major BANK. The following account chronicles what B had to endure and his stoic noncompliance.

---

By the end of 2019/early 2020, due to Dr. Francis Boyle’s testimony and the work of Dr. David Martin and Dr. Judy Mikovitz I knew a bioweapon had likely been released, but that the healthy and wise would survive.  I also instinctively knew forced injections were on the horizon.    

I informed my bosses and coworkers way before they even knew injections were coming that I would not take any.   Everyone agreed in my group at least that no one would be forced to take any shots.  Laughable.  

Spring 2020 we were told to work from home until further notice.  I said if needed I would continue to come into the office, but it was soon apparent that no one I interact with for my job would be there, so I worked from home like everyone else.  My point here is I never ran scared and hid in my home.  In fact, I enjoyed how empty Central Park was, I did not enjoy however that I was basically the only one on the streets not wearing a mask.

For almost the next year we all worked from home.  Traders loved it and were able to cover the market during times they usually were commuting, so it worked out very well. Not one trader I know thought it was a bad situation for performance; in fact, they all preferred it.

Talk of injections grew steadily as did the radical left agenda and its ever present propaganda.  At one point in a meeting of 20+ people I stated, “that the bank constantly talks about diversity, but does not tolerate diversity of thought.”    

Spring of 2021 they set up a “Vaccine Portal” where employees needed to submit proof of injection and other “information”.   It was stated on their portal in Spring of 2021 that employees needed to take one of “3 FDA approved vaccines”; as you know none of these are approved.  I do not have written communication on this but I argued verbally with HR #1 that none of these are approved and they need to remove this from their portal immediately and inform people of their error.  They did not care or change the portal.  It was like talking to a robot zombie.

Late 2020 and early 2021 they hired the head hospital administrator of a large NYC based hospital group to advise the bank on policy.  He made numerous errors, lies, etc., whatever he needed in order to convince everyone to take these shots.  I recall he claimed these shots were safer since one only got the spike and that it stayed in the arm.   He shot down Hydroxychloroquine (not by name, but referenced certain off labels that “nut jobs” were promoting) just after Lancet published their article on that highly flawed study.   He of course never retracted that claim after it was shown the study was flawed.  He even once was flying to Iceland the evening after a talk with us and commented on the paradox that Iceland was having a large outbreak of Covid despite high levels of injections. Cogitative Dissidence at its finest.

Somewhere around that time the CEO said shots are mandatory to return to the office.

June 9th  2021  Email to HR Lawyer # 1 and HR # 1  — My attempt at reason:

To whom it may concern,

Compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 MRNA injection violates federal and state law.

First, federal law prohibits any mandate of the Covid-19 injection as unlicensed, emergency-use-authorization-only injection.  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 injection. ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3 ) This right to refuse emergency, experimental injections, such as the Covid-19 injection, 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 injection 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 injection 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 injection. ( https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html )

Regards,

B     

December 7, 2021 Letter Written for religious accommodation after my scientific and legal arguments were ignored and my sincere statements of religious beliefs were not in themselves sufficient. 

RE: Religious Exemption, COVID-19 Policy

To Whom It May Concern,

I am devout in my religious beliefs and seeking an exemption from BANK’s re-cent policy announcement requiring its employees to take one of three gene therapy technologies marketed to reduce symptoms of COVID-19 on or before the date of January 4th, 2022.

I hold the sanctity, health and integrity of my body sacred and by no means are my choices reckless nor do they endanger others. In fact I argue the approach that I have used to maintain my health during the past two years has provided me with natural long lasting and highly adaptable immunity.

Some may find the spiritual aspects of my nature contrary to the modern scientific world. I maintain however, that the two are inseparable. Science can be viewed as a tool for attaining consciousness and consciousness can be viewed as a goal of spirituality. I ask you to kindly accept this letter explaining in further detail my sincerely held religious beliefs and how adherence to those beliefs morally prevents me from allowing these technologies into my body.

This letter is by no means all inclusive. It is rather an overview of facts pertaining to these injections and how my religious beliefs and moral conscience prevent me from their use. I hope this letter will provide the administrative documentation requested by BANK’s in order to grant me a religious exemption.

Fundamental to my beliefs is that God through nature provides the means necessary for health. Only when the integrity of the body is desecrated, does the body open itself to disease.

There are countless vectors in our modern society that allow this desecration to occur. For the purposes of this letter, I have chosen three such vectors that are particularly relevant to the exemption I am seeking. The first is the use of electively aborted fetal tissue; cell line HEK-293 in the case of the technologies in question. The second is the chimeric and recombinant nature of the MRNA being delivered to the body’s replication system by these injections. The third is the growing dependence on those using these technologies for continuous and perhaps indefinite booster injections in order to maintain the intended antibody defenses.

Much has been written about the morality of using embryonic stem cells for research, manufacture and ongoing quality control within the pharmaceutical and medical industry. Alvin Wong’s seminal work “The Ethics of HEK 293”, published in 2006 is often referenced and outlines a much darker picture than most people realize. The acronym HEK refers to the Human Embryonic Kidney cells harvested from babies. While the final product was harvested from a single embryo, the number 293 refers to the number of experiments it took to stabilize the cells in a culture. The actual number of abortions required to stabilize these cells is not certain, but it is generally accepted that hundreds were required to achieve the final cell line and the number 293.

Dr. Gonzalo Herranz, Professor of Histology and General Embryology at the University of Navarra, Spain, quoted in Pietro Croce’s book Vivisection or Science described how abortions must be done to obtain uncontaminated fetal material. Dr. Herranz said, “The correct way consists in having recourse to Caesarian section or to the removal of the uterus. Only in this way can bacteriological sterility be guaranteed. In either case, then, to obtain embryo cells for culture, a programmed abortion must be adopted, choosing the age of the embryo and dissecting it while still alive to remove tissues to be placed in culture media”. Implied here and mentioned in other literature is that anesthesia cannot be used because it would render the tissue nonviable. Further literature on the subjects states some cell lines have been derived by freezing the live embryo for later harvesting. In either case, only healthy viable embryos can be used. Harvested cells are then genetically modified, in the case of HEK 293, with sheared fragments of adenovirus to promote longevity, making the DNA of HEK 293 recombinant.

Both Pfizer and Moderna used HEK-293 to develop the MRNA technology being offered to the public now as “COVID-19 vaccines.” The HEK 293 cells were used to test if their product could replicate the intended MRNA within living tissue before they tested on live people. Following common industry practices, HEK 293 is almost certainly being used to run quality control as their manufacturing process continues. Janson, or Johnson and Johnson actually has HEK 293 protein fragments in their injections. Although not commonly known, this use of HEK 293 in all three is public knowledge and not debated.

It is incumbent on me to further note that HEK 293 is not the only cell line being used by the pharmaceutical and medical industry. An exhaustive list may be hard to come by but the number of cell lines is numerous. Each new cell line requires the process mentioned previously. Not only do my religious beliefs prevent me from using technologies developed and manufactured in the ways described above, they also prevent me from supporting the larger industry that continues to develop, dependent on what my beliefs consider immoral practices.

My second line of objection centers on the chimeric and recombinant nature of the MRNA code being delivered by these technologies to the body for replication. Chimeric in that it is cross species and recombinant in that the code was spliced together from various viruses.

Over 5,000 Patents and Patent applications refer to SARS COV. In 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that the Court had “long held” that nature was not patentable. Merely isolating DNA does not constitute patentable subject matter.

Reputable scientists and legal scholars are stating this as fact, however politically unpopular this fact may be. For the sake of brevity, I refer to US Patent, US-7279327-B2, Methods for Producing Recombinant Coronavirus by Baric, Yount and Curtis 1 from the University of North Carolina and to the work of Nobel Prize Laureate and Virologist Luc Montagneir who co-published a paper in the International Journal of Research titled “COVID-19, SARS and Bats Coronaviruses Genomes Pecular Homologous RNA Sequences” in which the authors clearly implicate we are dealing with a genetically modified virus, particularly in the spike sequence. From the abstract, “everything converges towards possible laboratory manipulations which contributed to modifications of the genome of COVID-19, but also, very probably much older SARS, with perhaps this double objective of vaccine design and of "gain of function" in terms of penetration of this virus into the cell.” By deduction the MRNA being delivered by these technologies is also not of natural origins. Viruses are a natural part of our world and bodies. They play a natural and functional role in the development of our genetic code, however the genetically modified code being delivered by these technologies is an abomination that violates the laws of nature and God, a violation that may permanently be with the human species.

The third objection I will outline for the purposes of this letter is the growing dependence on these MRNA technologies as replacements for our natural immune systems. These artificial systems steer humanity away from our God given natural immunity and may cause irreparable damage to the health of the human species. From the beginning of the pandemic, if one listened closely to key stakeholders of this new technology, the public was being told this technology would be permanently integrated with multiple injections required each year. Any promises made by officials to the contrary were either coming from a place of ignorance or were out right disingenuous. We find ourselves in a situation where the limited immunity that was achieved in individuals where the technology was successful is now waning. Furthermore, the immunity the body may have developed to the original variant’s spike protein after injection is more and more being shown to be insufficient to the ever evolving virus. Natural immunity in stark contrast is far more dynamic and protects across a much broader spectrum of variants 2.

Numerous studies have also shown that the global population is already generally immune by way of natural exposure to the larger family of Corona viruses. A recent study out of Israel cited below is a prime example 3.

The fact that the vast majority of people are unaffected or show mild symptoms is further evidence of our natural God given immunity. To state simply, my religious beliefs prevent me from participating in actions that would degrade the integrity of my body, they prevent me from abdicating the responsibility of my health to the pharmaceutical industry and prevent me from supporting an industry that relies on past abhorrent methods and one that will continue to rely on those methods going forward.

In conclusion my religious beliefs implore me to obey the judgment of my informed conscience.

Quoting James Black, D. D.’s modern translation of John 8:9, “Like every other mental and moral power, conscience has its own distinct function. It is that faculty of our moral nature which perceives the right and wrong in our actions, accuses or excuses, and anticipates their consequences under the righteous government of God.”

During the past two years I have taken it upon myself to be informed on issues relevant to COVID-19. I hope my brief comments in this letter shed some light as to the depth and sincerity of my efforts.

Foreign interventions in my body require my informed consent. I am informed and after consulting my conscience guided by higher and more divine forces, it is my religious and moral obligation not to consent.

I appreciate your understanding and trust that this letter suffices in satisfying any inquiry you may have as to my religious beliefs. While my previous verbal statement is sufficient as a matter of law, I wanted to extend a thoughtful and articulate letter as a courtesy to help with any administrative hurdles you may encounter.

Yours,

B

March 18th, 2022

I was told in order to get religious exemption from shots I needed to attest that I do not take any of the following medications they claim also use aborted fetal cell lines.  And that they could fire me if they found out I did take any of these:

Acetaminophen, albuterol, Aspirin ( I had to fight for Aspirin even though I do not take it, but it was developed ages ago), Lipitor, Robitussin, Ex lax, Benadryl, Hydroxychloroquin, Ibuprofin, Lisinopril, Maalox, Metaphormin, Naproxen, Prilosec, Remdesivir.

March 22nd 2022 Religious accommodation acknowledged but with heavy conditions.

Dear B,

After careful consideration, the purpose of this letter is to inform you that BANK has determined that it is appropriate to grant you an accommodation to our COVID-19 vaccination policy, subject to the following requirements:

Beginning on April 4th, you should report to work in-person during your regularly scheduled work hours;

At all times while at work, except when actively eating or drinking, please wear either a KN95 or N95 mask that fully covers your nose and mouth;

You may remove your mask to eat or drink onsite in the office as long as you are at least six feet away from others;

Please maintain at least six feet of distance from other employees whenever feasible;

You will be required to submit proof of a negative PCR test result to your Human Resources Business Partner and HR Lawyer #2 each week prior to Monday morning at 9:00 am (if your PCR test result is delayed, please inform your Human Resources Business Partner as soon as possible), with the PCR test taken no earlier than the immediately preceding Thursday at 9:00 a.m.;

You will be required to take a COVID-19 rapid test two times during the workweek in the morning prior to reporting to work (with the rapid testing kits to be provided by BANK at no charge to you) and submit a photo of that day’s negative test result to your Human Resources Business Partner and HR Lawyer #2 prior to 9:00 am;

If you test positive for COVID-19 through either a rapid or PCR test, you must inform your Human Resources Business Partner and HR Lawyer #2  as soon as possible, refrain from coming into the office, and follow further instructions from BANK and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance;

You must also follow all of BANK’s COVID-19 protocols (as published on the BANK intranet), other than the requirement of a vaccine to enter BANK’s premises;

Please note that you may only enter the BANK physical address, New York location. Should you need to enter any other BANK location, please obtain prior written consent from your Human Resources Business Partner or Lawyer # 2 (which consent may be via email);

If you wish to attend a Bank-sponsored event, please inform your Human Resources Business Partner as soon as possible so that, if it is determined that it is feasible for you to attend such event, your Human Resources Business Partner can inform you of any required protocols; and

Prior to attending any client-sponsored event, please coordinate with the client on their COVID protocols. BANK has determined that these accommodations are reasonable because of the nature of your work and because continued remote work is no longer a reasonable accommodation.

Please note that if you fail to comply with the requirements set forth above, you will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment.

BANK’s provision of this accommodation does not create a promise of employment or otherwise alter the at-will nature of your employment. You will continue to be expected to fulfill your job duties in a professional manner, and will be held to the same performance standards as if you were not receiving this accommodation.

BANK reserves the right to re-evaluate these accommodations at any time, in accordance with applicable law.

Please sign below to indicate you have reviewed this letter, understand your obligations under it, and agree to abide by the terms and conditions of the accommodation that BANK is providing to you.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, and we thank you in advance for your cooperation.

From: HR Lawyer #2
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 6:50 PM
To: B
Cc: HR # 1
Subject: Accommodation Protocol Letter

Hi,

We understand that you received an email from our outside counsel, ZZZ, on April 1, 2022, explaining the requirements that you are required to follow in order to return to the office without being vaccinated against COVID-19. 

Please confirm by Friday, May 13, 2022 whether you accept the reasonable accommodation of returning to the office with your team and complying with BANK’s on-site protocols for unvaccinated employees; or choose to continue working remotely, acknowledging that working remotely may negatively impact your ability to perform your job. 

Best,

HR Lawyer #2

From: B
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 12:00 PM
To: HR Lawyer # 2
Cc: HR # 1, guys I report to
Subject: RE: Accommodation Protocol Letter

Hello,

Thanks for reaching out to me on this.  I have cc’d xxx and yyy who I report to.  I have been keeping them informed on this topic as much as possible.

Have you read the communications between me and BANK’s representatives on this matter?

Regards,

B

From: B
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 9:04 AM
To: HR Lawyer # 2
Cc: HR # 1, Two guys I report to

Subject: RE: Accommodation Protocol Letter

Hello

Attached was the last and perhaps most relevant communication to your question. 

I am more than happy to return to the office when I may do so without trespass.  

Regarding how working from home impacts my performance, please direct those questions to boss # 1 and boss # 2 

Please let me know if you have further questions.  

Thanks,

B

From: HR Lawyer #2
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 8:23 PM
To: B
Cc: HR # 1
Subject: Accommodation Protocol Letter

Dear B,

On March 22, your request for a religious accommodation regarding the vaccination requirement was granted. You were informed that you were expected to return to in-office work starting the week of April 4, and asked to acknowledge the requirements set forth in BANK’s standard letter outlining in-office protocols for unvaccinated employees (e.g. masking, testing). You expressed concern about doing so and therefore on April 1 were given the option to accept the reasonable accommodation offered by returning to the office and complying with BANK’s on-site protocols for unvaccinated employees or, alternatively, to not accept this accommodation in which event BANK would allow you to continue to work remotely while acknowledging that doing so may impact your ability to perform your job as detailed in that email.  Not having heard from you in this regard, on May 11, you were asked to confirm by May 13 which option you were choosing. In light of your continued refusal to accept the reasonable accommodation offered by returning to the office and complying with BANK’s in-office protocols, BANK will nonetheless continue to permit you to work remotely at this time. As previously indicated, please note that doing so may negatively impact your ability to perform your role, with a corresponding impact on your performance rating and compensation. 

Thank you.

HR Lawyer # 2

From: HR Lawyer #2
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 1:08 PM
To: B
Cc: HR #1
Subject: RE: Accommodation Protocol Letter

Hi B,

I hope that you are well.  I am writing to share that in accordance with BANK’s revised policies, you are expected to return to work in-person effective August 15th, and to comply with generally-applicable protocols for employees who are not vaccinated against COVID-19 (whether as an accommodation or based on a personal choice).

As you’ll recall, in March 2022, you requested a religious accommodation to BANK’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement.  BANK concluded that you had a sincerely held religious belief inconsistent with COVID-19 vaccination, and told you that you could return to work in-person, subject to our protocols for unvaccinated employees, including masking and testing.  You responded, expressing concerns with complying with the protocols for unvaccinated employees, including masking, frequency of testing, and the method of testing.  However, you did not assert that such protocols conflicted with a sincerely held religious belief (or otherwise request an accommodation to them on a legally-protected ground).  Subsequently, through our outside counsel, we stated that if you were unwilling to accept BANK’s accommodation of in-person work (without vaccination) subject to BANK’s on-site protocols for unvaccinated employees, you could continue working from home, acknowledging that working remotely may negatively impact your ability to perform your job satisfactorily.  Our outside counsel also shared that BANK would continually re-evaluate its in-office policies.  You accepted the latter option, and have not reported to work. 

Consistent with what our outside counsel shared, BANK has been continually re-evaluating its in-office policies.  As of the May 2022 reopening date, BANK now requires all employees, including unvaccinated employees (outside of New York City) to return to the office, and is no longer permitting employees to regularly work remotely (other than upon receipt of an accommodation to its in-person work requirements or its unvaccinated employee safety protocols), as full-time remote work is no longer consistent with BANK’s business needs. 

Accordingly, you are expected to return to the office by August 15th or request and receive an accommodation to our return-to-office protocols.    In order to potentially obtain such an accommodation, you would need to provide a rationale for not complying with our required protocols AND that rationale would need to entitle you to an accommodation as a matter of law.

You have 30 days to:  (1) complete the attached attestation regarding in-person work protocols for unvaccinated employees and begin complying with your in-person work expectations; or (2) request an accommodation to such protocols that meets the criteria summarized above.  Specifically, if you choose to request an accommodation, the request must: (a) identify the specific requirement or requirements within the protocols to which you object; and (b) the basis for your objection (e.g., why a requirement, such as masking, conflicts with a particular religious belief or other legally protected basis).

If you do not meet this deadline (and have not made a request for a reasonable extension), BANK reserves the right to terminate your employment for your failure to comply with its in-person work requirement.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Best,

HR Lawyer # 2

From:HR Lawyer # 2
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 2:56 PM
To: B
Cc: HR # 1
Subject: RE: Accommodation Protocol Letter

B,

“Bank” is not required to justify its COVID-19 related rules to its employees, just as it is not required to justify its attendance policy or any other policy.  Nevertheless, I will share that our COVID-19 protocols have been developed and updated in consultation with an independent medical expert, and are designed to safeguard everyone’s health and safety.  We have accommodated your religious belief by not requiring you to get vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of continued employment.  Now you, like all “BANK” employees nationwide who are not vaccinated against COVID-19—whether for religious, medical, or personal reasons (in the latter case, outside of NYC)—must report to work and follow our protocols for unvaccinated employees. 

Our COVID-19 protocols—like all generally applicable rules—may be modified on an individualized basis, if it is reasonable to do so to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs, disabilities, or other legally protected characteristics.  If there is a legally protected reason that you cannot comply with our COVID-19 protocols for unvaccinated employees--masking, testing and other protocols—you may submit a request for an accommodation.  If there is not, you must comply with the policy.  Please note that because you have received a religious accommodation, our protocols do not require you to get vaccinated.  To assist you in calibrating the appropriate scope of your response, the cooperative dialogue process is a back-and-forth regarding whether, and (if applicable) how, we can accommodate a disability, religious belief, etc.  It does not extend to a discussion or debate about the prudence or reasons of a particular policy.  We look forward to receiving your response.

Best,

[Note: Below they CC’d me by accident and I think they were trying to document that I was non responsive.  They sent two identical emails and tried to claim I did not respond to one of them.]

From HR Lawyer #2
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 5:28 PM
To: B
Cc: HR #1
Subject: RE: Accommodation Protocol Letter

No response, last email we sent him – on the 15th (there were two emails that day)  in one of the emails we requested him to return to the office by the 15th of August.

Best,

HR Lawyer # 2

From: B
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 5:32 PM
To:  HR Lawyer #2, HR #1
Subject: RE: Accommodation Protocol Letter

Hello,

I believed the two emails were identical and I responded after the second one.  I am working on month end and will respond to your emails after month end and before the 15th as agreed. 

Regards,

B

Good Morning,

The two emails I received on July 15th do indeed appear to be identical, please let me know if I missed further unique communications.  In those emails you requested that I respond within 30 days, which I intend to do.

Regards,

B

From: B
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 1:40 PM
To: HR Lawyer #2, HR #1
Subject: RE: Accommodation Protocol Letter

Hello,

I appreciate the time both of you have spent working on solutions to our disagreement and I would like to offer my thanks.  I continue to enjoy the work that I do for “BANK” and look forward to a long prosperous partnership.  I trust this letter will be a means to that end.   

In a recent communication you informed me that I am required to return to the office by August 15th and I am more than happy to do so.  However it was stated that in order to return I need to “comply with generally-applicable protocols for employees who are not vaccinated against COVID-19.”  I would like to correct the statement that I am not vaccinated against COVID-19.  I am in fact by any historical definition of the word and in spirit of the act vaccinated by means of exposure and prior infection. My exposure spans the entire NYC epidemic and my infection was most likely by what has been labeled Omicron.  Data and observations show immunity was not inferred by the Pfizer, Moderna or Janson injections, in other words nearly everyone got sick and was capable of transmitting the virus regardless of their chosen path.  Admissions of this have been made across the board by the CDC, NIH, WHO, politicians etc., so there is no vaccination available from pharma differentiating me from my colleagues.  My vaccination occurred via natural exposure to the entire virus and by my god given immune system's proper reaction to that infection.  This path is the ideal and most desired for future robust immunity; data clearly shows this as well.  Therefore once allowed back into the office, I would not be violating the spirit of corporate policy, only the current color of that policy.  I have no interest in engaging other employees regarding these topics and consider this matter a private one, but if necessary I would refer to myself as inoculated or vaccinated which indeed I am.

Regarding the statement that I did not specifically request accommodation to masking and testing protocols, I can say that at the time we were discussing my religious and spiritual beliefs and how they conflict with the proposed MRNA technology there was no mention by “BANK” of additional masking and testing protocols.  The entire corpus of my communications on this matter however has demonstrated a fundamental religious, spiritual, legal and scientific objection to the COVID narrative: from lockdowns, a term previously used only in reference to prisoners, to arbitrary and potentially toxic invasive testing by questionable methods, to stigmatizing, humiliating and inhumane restrictions on of the right to properly breathe via masking and to the use of experimental medical technologies.  I will again state that I am at the core of my being spiritually, religiously and scientifically opposed to all of it.  Specifically on the additional accommodations being requested, I will not damage my body and soul by restricting The Breath of Life and I will not submit my body and soul to be exposed to toxic chemicals and other technologies that occur during test sampling.  These measures in sum are unnatural, ungodly and detrimental to the future of humanity.  I believe we are indeed in dire times and the depth of my beliefs cannot be expressed in words.       

In addition to my spiritual beliefs, I object to the proposed masking and testing on legal grounds.  I refer to the 10th Amendment stating that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  Clearly no such authority over how people care for their own physical and spiritual beings was granted to state or federal governments and no such law has been passed by legislatures and deemed constitutional by our judiciary.  Due process was ignored and any mandates are therefore invalid.  Corporations operating within the United States must follow the law and while they have certain rights to create corporate policy to govern their own affairs, those policies cannot supersede the law of the land and the cannot violate the inalienable human rights of employees.  In other words corporations via their corporate policies simply do not have the authority or jurisdiction to impose upon employees when those impositions violate their human rights and religious freedoms; especially when these policies are arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory.  Furthermore, the evidentiary standard showing clear and convincing evidence any of these measure are necessary to prevent imminent severe harm has not been met.     

I recognize that powerful global forces are applying immense pressure on corporations to comply with mandates regardless of the true law.  I appreciate the challenging situation “BANK” is in, caught between these powerful forces and the rights of its employees, however in legal defense of my human rights I must stand firm.  

Therefore I am writing to kindly request to be allowed to return to the office with no restrictions other than the expectation that I conduct myself with decency and respect for others.  For my part I will pledge to stay home if I am ill or have knowingly been exposed to someone with Covid.  I am requesting that my status as not vaccinated be reconsidered making the additional accommodations moot or accommodations to the additional corporate policy protocols be made allowing me to return to work unmasked and without being subjected to testing.  

Regards,

B

From: HR Lawyer #2
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 6:43 PM
To: HR LAWYER #2, HR # 1
Subject: RE: Accommodation Protocol Letter

B,

It is clear from your response that you object to any and all COVID-19-related safety measures—including masking and testing—and that such objections are fundamentally personal in nature, as opposed to religious.  Accordingly, to the extent that you raised a request for a religious accommodation to our protocols for unvaccinated employees—including masking and testing—it is denied.  As a result, you must report to work in-person on August 15, and be in compliance with such protocols, including by submitting an attestation of compliance, in advance of reporting to work.   Should you fail to do so, you will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment.

Regards,

HR Lawyer #2

From: B
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 2:38 PM
To: HR Lawyer #2, HR #1
Subject: RE: Accommodation Protocol Letter

Hello,

It is my belief that the measures put in place to counter COVID-19 were designed by evil forces and they are implemented cleverly under the guise of helping humanity through a pandemic.  This is challenging to articulate since you are in fact pushing for such measures on behalf of “BANK”.  I want to think you believe what you are doing is to help humanity, that you are doing the right and just thing.  I hope that is the case, that we have the same morality, but are operating under different beliefs.  That being said, I am struggling to comprehend how HR and Legal acting on behalf of “BANK” think they are in a position to judge, dissect and label my beliefs; mislabeling and tossing out that which stands in the way of my total compliance and submission.  I do not think my freedom of religion has an asterisk which allows you to do this. 

Regarding my other legal claims, would you mind commenting on those specifically?  I did not see them mentioned in your earlier letter.    

Feel free to give me a call to discuss. 

Regards,

B

From: HR Lawyer #2
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 11:04 AM
To: B; HR #1
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Accommodation Protocol Letter

B,

As I shared before, “BANK”  is not required to justify its policies as part of the cooperative dialogue process, and is comfortable that its policies are lawful (courts have consistently upheld private employer vaccine mandates).  For the avoidance of doubt, you are expected to report to work in-person on August 15 and comply with the protocols for unvaccinated employees.

Best

HR Lawyer #2

From: B
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2022 12:12 PM
To: HR Lawyer #2,  HR #1
Cc:
Subject: RE: Accommodation Protocol Letter

Hello HR Lawyer #2,

CDC Guidelines have changed and wanted to point that out in case you did not hear.

Regards,

B

From: HR Lawyer #2
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2022 4:01 PM
To: B; HR #1
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Accommodation Protocol Letter

Hi B,

We are aware of changes to CDC guidelines.  At this time “BANK” has not modified its protocols for unvaccinated personnel, and you will be required to follow those protocols upon your return to the office next week.

Best,

HR Lawyer

From: B
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2022 4:58 PM
To: HR Lawyer #2,  HR #1
Cc:
Subject: RE: Accommodation Protocol Letter

Hello HR Lawyer # 2,

I am more than happy to return to the office, but I will not go against my spiritual beliefs to do so.  Threats of termination and termination itself are not worth the damage to my soul that submitting to these policies would do.  I will continue to log in and do my job until either my rights to the office are fully restored and I can enter with my human rights intact or you choose to terminate my employment. 

Regards,

B

---

The following day B’s employment with BANK was terminated.

The below are from the Departure Packet that he was emailed shortly after his termination:

---

The below are the first 3 pages from the Separation Agreement:

---

The above represents a classic David versus Goliath, Good versus Evil battle.

I opined to B on numerous occasions that life, health and your self respect can’t ever compare to conjured out of thin air fiat dollars that are backed by perpetually increasing profligate debt and State violence.

And now B is for all intents and purposes blacklisted by Wall Street. The odds of him landing another high paying Wall Street position are exceedingly low, which in the longer run in my not so humble opinion may actually be for the best.

Most importantly, B remains genetically unmodified and as such is in perfect health. And that is the greatest wealth of all.

---

Our noncomplying Wall Street insider has provided us with a much anticipated update:

From the moment I heard Dr. Francis Boyle say a bioweapon had been released I knew that I would be terminated for not taking some sort of injection.  I doubt even the CEO knew at that time what he would be told to implement, but it was clear injections would be the solution so to speak to solve the orchestrated manufactured problem.   

I was happy to have lasted a year and a half, even though that time was a constant battle against lies and fools. In the end, I had become a symbol of resistance and had to be removed at all costs.  The vacuum I left in my wake, the severance they paid me, the risk of regulatory fines for not having someone at the helm of my little ship were all pounds they were willing to cut to have me removed.  So desperate to have that symbol of resistance gone, they tore at their own flesh.  

For my troubles I received three months pay and took a three months sabbatical.  In that time I received three job offers, settling on a similar role for more money.

During all three of the interview processes I made it very clear that I would not be subjected to masks or testing and certainly not injections.  All three potential employers agreed.  Perhaps it was a combination of common sense on their part; citing my natural immunity, the dropping of illegal mandates on the private sector by the fool puppet Mayor Adams and sheer desperation due to a very shallow talent pool left by years of skull dumbery that I was so quickly welcomed back.  

The atmosphere at my new spot does seem more traditional and by that I mean free spirited.  I receive no emails telling me what to think or how to behave and no one is promoting fear.  Perhaps they are intelligent enough to know that most people are decent and will behave properly without subjecting them to dystopian pre-shame.  I do not mean to say they are fully aware, but most people are starting to realize something was very wrong with the Covid era and they are less certain about imposing such junk science tyranny on others.

Fun fact: My old role was eventually replaced by a friend who also refused these shots.     

B.

Do NOT comply.