Let Freedom Ring
Every American should fear Tyranny far more than C-V!!!
You should fear Hell far more than C-V or death! Death is temporary: Life is eternal!
Where will you spend it?
You will live forever! Where you live is up to you! No one can choose for you!
Unlike forced mask and vx mandates, you alone will choose!
I was happy to Address the school board and other concerned parents tonight about the agenda: ?
It felt good to Praise the board for their updated C-V protocols. They followed Gov Abbott’s law.
I started my speech with, “We have a 2015 and 2016 graduate of Tivy and now our 15 yr old son is proud to follow in his sisters footsteps.
I applaud you for the protocol you put out”
I stand 100% for medical freedom!
The govt and public schools have no business making any kind of medical decisions for my Child.
Including
We are no longer in a pandemic!!! It’s an endemic!
I stand for medical freedom and I
Say no to medical tyranny and all forms of bullying, Including any adult or teacher to a student.
A true hero standing up to Big Bad Bullies in the school System!
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CSgDRUYj4LV/?utm_medium=copy_link
This makes me so happy that someone still has common sense!!
Thank you, KISD, for not being communistic and infringing on our constitutional God given rights!
Dear Team, Patriots, and Allies,
America’s Frontline Doctors has filed a TRO to immediately halt the extension of the EUA that is permitting experimental biological agents to be given to America’s 12-15 year olds.
TRO Papers have been submitted to the Court.
https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.org/frontline-news/americas-frontline-doctors-files-motion-for-temporary-restraining-order-against-use-of-covid-vaccine-in-children
This was a massive effort by dozens of incredibly talented, hardworking patriotic people.
I ask all journalists and influencers to please post widely and repeatedly. For the first time in our nation’s history, America’s children are being treated like guinea pigs with an experimental agent, claiming it is to protect them from a virus which has, by Defendant’s own admission, a zero percent chance of death for this age group.
“Kids are one third of our population and all of our future.
Kids are never the experiment. Protect the Children.”
America’s Frontline Doctors
#Protect the Children
May G-d Bless America,
Simone Gold, MD, JD, FABEM
CEO / Founder
America’s Frontline Doctors
The Trusted Name for Independent Information
@DrSimoneGold
DrGold@AFLDS.org
AmericasFrontlineDoctors.org
Shortages 2021
Hot dogs bacon
Rental cars
Gas
Shopping containers
Oxygen
Blood
Aluminum cans
Lumber $35,000 higher homes single family. Home builder assoc
Homes
Pet food
New cars
Bikes
Vaccines
Pickle jars
Watch life or death video here:
February 19, 2021323,634 views333 COMMENTSCINEMA MODE
REQUIRED VIEWING! Dr. Sherri Tenpenny gives VERY important information!
She talks about instances of hyper-immune response in test animals during previous attempts at coronavirus vaccines, like SARS and MERS, which has been a persistent problem.
All seems well for awhile, until the animals are exposed to the wild mutated virus. To her, it’s clear that the same will happen with humans.
Dr. Tenpenny and other scientists predict that millions may die from the vaccine but it will be blamed on a new strain of COVID – to make an argument for even MORE deadly vaccines.
“We’re at a critical juncture in time for all of humanity on a lot of different levels. And we are past the time of hand-holding, pussy-footing around, being careful to not offend anybody and being so gentle with the snowflakes – we just can’t do it anymore…
“We’ve been doing these vaccinations in America for a month. And in 30 days, we have over 40,000 adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event database…we have over 3,100 cases of anaphylactic shock, we have over 5,000 neurological reactions, which can range from headaches, to numbness and parasthesias, to headaches, to dizziness to vertigo, to feeling like you can’t feel your hands and your feet – in 30 days!
“And it’s been estimated that less than 10% of adverse reactions that occur are reported to theirs…
“Can you think of one single product, in any industry – ANY industry – for as long as products have been made on the planet, that within 30 days, we have 40,000 people complaining of side effects – that not only is still on the market but is full-court-press and we’ve got paid actors telling us how great they are for getting their vaccine.
“And we’re offering people $500 if they will just get their vaccine. And we’ve got nurses and doctors going, ‘I got the vaccine! I got the vaccine!’ Well, they’re not going to be so happy when they start to get their Bell’s Palsy, when they start to get their neuropathies, when they get their cardiac arrhythmias, when they get their ITP, their autoimmune reaction that causes them to die of a blood disorder, they’re not going to be so happy then.
“But we’re never going to see pictures of those people.”
From the legal eagle dream team on www.america’sfrontlinedoctors.com
Date: April 12, 2021
To: Whom It May Concern:
Re: Covid-19 Experimental Vaccine Candidates
Any compulsory Covid-19 vaccination requirement is a violation of federal law. I urge you to advise all students that they have the right to refuse or to take any COVID-19 vaccine. Any other action is contrary to federal law.
Covid-19 Vaccines are Experimental.
Covid-19 vaccines are not approved by the FDA. The Covid-19 vaccines are only approved under an Emergency Use Authorization, for investigational use only. Covid-19 vaccines lack requisite studies and are notapproved medical treatment. The FDA’s guidance on emergency use authorization of medical products requires the FDA to “ensure that recipients are informed to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances … That they have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product …”
Title 21, Section 360bbb-3 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FD&C Act”) vests the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the permissive authority to grant Emergency Use Authorizations (“EUAs”) providing that appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed: 1. that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product; 2. of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and 3. of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks. 1
The right to avoid the imposition of human experimentation is fundamental, rooted in the Nuremberg Code of 1947, has been ratified by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, and further codified in the United States Code of Federal Regulations. In addition to the United States regarding itself as bound by these provisions, these principles were adopted by the FDA in its regulations requiring the informed consent of human subjects for medical research. It is unlawful to conduct medical research, even in the case of an emergency, unless steps are taken to secure informed consent of all participants.
The following Emergency Use Authorizations have been issued for Covid-19 vaccinations:
12/11/20 Moderna – FDA issued an EUA for emergency use of the Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for recipients 16 years of age or older.
12/18/20 Pfizer/BioNTech – FDA issued an EUA for emergency use of the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine for recipients 18 years of age or older.
2/27/21 Johnson & Johnson – FDA issued an EUA for emergency use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine (aka Janssen vaccine) for recipients 18 years of age or older.
Each of the above EUAs was issued in conjunction with a similar Fact Sheet from the FDA. For example, the Janssen fact sheet contains the following notice:
“INFORMATION TO PROVIDE TO VACCINE RECIPIENTS/CAREGIVERS”
As the vaccination provider, you must communicate to the recipient or their caregiver, information consistent with the “Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers” (and provide a copy or direct the individual to the website to obtain the Fact Sheet) prior to the individual receiving the Janssen Covid-19 Vaccine, including: • FDA has authorized the emergency use of the Janssen Covid-19 Vaccine, which is not an FDA approved vaccine. • The recipient or their caregiver has the option to accept or refuse the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. • The significant known and potential risks and benefits of the Janssen Covid-19 Vaccine, and the extent to which such risks and benefits are unknown.
Clearly, any attempt to force anyone to take a Covid-19 vaccine is a violation of federal law and the conditions under which the Covid-19 vaccine has been authorized for use. The law is clear, experimental medical treatment cannot be mandated.
Businesses are not shielded from liability with experimental agents.
Under the 2005 PREP Act enacted by Congress, pharmaceutical companies that manufacture EUA vaccines are shielded from liability related to injuries and damages caused by their experimental agents. However, any employer, public school, or any other entity or personwho mandates experimental vaccines on any human being is not protected from liability for any resulting harm. While vaccine manufacturers may be shielded from liability, your institution is not protected, and neither are you.
You are hereby on notice that if you illegally or irresponsibly mandate EUA medical therapies on students, such as the experimental Covid-19 vaccine candidates, Imay have no choice but to take legal action, and you may be personally liable for resulting harm.
I urge your institution to comply with the FD&C Act and the terms of the EUA and its accompanying Fact Sheet, and to advise all employees of their right to accept or refuse any Covid-19 vaccine. Any other course of action is contrary to federal law.
Thank you for your time and for protecting the best interest of your students.
Sincerely,
Sign Name Here
Bacon from the website www.america’sfrontlinedoctors.com and their legal eagle dream team
Date: April, 12, 2021
To Whom It May Concern:
I am sending you this notice, related to Organization’smask policy. My findings raise significant concerns, both medically and legally, of the current mask policy in place. Masks are ineffective for the purpose claimed by the mandate, potentially harmful, and only authorized for use by an EUA.
Masks are ineffective and in many ways they harm.
It’s a myth that masks prevent viruses from spreading. The overall evidence is clear: Standard cloth and surgical masks offer next to no protection against virus-sized particles or small aerosols. The size of a virus particle is much too small to be stopped by a surgical mask, cloth or bandana. A single virion of SARS-CoV-2 is about 60-140 nanometers or 0.1 microns. The pore size in a surgical mask is 200-1000x that size. Consider that the CDC website states, “surgical masks do not catch all harmful particles in smoke.” And that the size of smoke particles in a wildfire are ~0.5 microns which is 5x the size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus! Wearing a mask to prevent catching SARS-CoV-2, or similarly sized influenza, is like throwing sand at a chain-link fence: it doesn’t work. There has been one large randomized controlled trial that specifically examined whether masks protect their wearers from the coronavirus. This study found mask wearing “did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of Sars-Cov-2-infection.”
Consider also, that the existence of more particles does not mean more virus. Research shows less virus does not mean less illness. Dr. Kevin Fennelly, a pulmonologist at the National Heart, Lung and Blood institute debunked the view that larger droplets are responsible for viral transmission. Fennelly wrote:
“current infection control policies are based on the premise that most respiratory infections are transmitted by large respiratory droplets- i.e., larger than 5 [microns] – produced by coughing and sneezing, …Unfortunately, that premise is wrong.”
Fennelly referenced a 1953 paper on anthrax that showed a single bacterial spore of about one micron was significantly more lethal than larger clumps of spores. Exposure to one virus particle is theoretically enough to cause infection and subsequent disease. This is not an alarming thought – it simply means what it has always meant, that our immune system protects us continually all our life.
There have been hundreds of mask studies related to influenza transmission done over several decades. It is a well-established fact that masks do not stop viruses. “Part of that evidence shows that cloth facemasks actually increase influenza-linked illness.”Bacteria are 50x larger than virus particles. As such, virus particles can enter through the mask pores, yet bacteria remain trapped inside of the mask, resulting in the mask-wearer continually exposed to the bacteria.
Related to the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic, there was almost universal agreement among experts, that deaths were virtually never caused by the influenza virus itself but resulted directly from severe secondary pneumonia caused by well-known bacterial “pneumopathogens” that colonized the upper respiratory tract. Dr. Fauci and his National Institute of Health studied pandemics and epidemics and concluded, “the vast majority of influenza deaths resulted from secondary bacterial pneumonia.”
All parties mandating the use of facemasks are not only willfully ignoring established science but are engaging in what amounts to a clinical experimental trial. This conclusion is reached by the fact that facemask use and Covid-19 incidence are being reported in scientific opinion pieces promoted by the CDC and others. The fact is after reviewing ALL of the studies worldwide, the CDC found “no reduction in viral transmission with the use of face masks.”
Any intervention, especially one that is prophylactic, must cause fewer harms to the recipient than the infection. The cost-benefit of mandating an investigational face-covering with emerging safety issues is especially difficult to justify. Anthony Fauci was very clear that asymptomatic transmission was not a threat. He stated, “in all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person.”
Wearing respirators come(s) with a host of physiological and psychological burdens. These can interfere with task performances and reduce work efficiency. These burdens can even be severe enough to cause life-threatening conditions if not ameliorated. Fifteen years ago, National Taiwan University Hospital concluded that the use of N-95 masks in healthcare workers caused them to experience hypoxemia, a low level of oxygen in the blood, and hypercapnia, an elevation in the blood’s carbon dioxide levels. Studies of simple surgical masks found significant reductions in blood oxygen as well. In one particular study, researchers measured blood oxygenation before and after surgeries in 53 surgeons. Researchers found the mask reduced the blood oxygen levels significantly, and the longer the duration of wearing the mask, the greater the drop in blood oxygen levels.
Moreover, people with cancer will be at a further risk from hypoxia, as cancer cells grow best in a bodily environment that is low in oxygen. Low oxygen also promotes systemic inflammation which, in turn, promotes “the growth, invasion and spread of cancers.” Repeated episodes of low oxygen, known as intermittent hypoxia, also “causes atherosclerosis” and hence increases “all cardiovascular events” such as heart attacks, as well as adverse cerebral events like stroke.
Informed consent is required for investigational medical therapies.
Regardless of the lack of safety and efficacy behind the decision to require employees to wear a mask, it is illegal to mandate EUA approved investigational medical therapies without informed consent. Mask use for viral transmission prevention is authorized for Emergency Use only. Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA, means “the products are investigational and experimental” only. The statute granting the FDA the power to authorize a medical product of emergency use requires that the person being administered the unapproved product be advised of his or her right to refuse administration of the product. This statute further recognizes the well-settled doctrine that medical experiments, or “clinical research,” may not be performed on human subjects without the express, informed consent of the individual receiving treatment.
The right to avoid the imposition of human experimentation is fundamental, rooted in the Nuremberg Code of 1947, has been ratified by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, and further codified in the United States Code of Federal Regulations. In addition to the Unites States regarding itself as bound by these provisions, these principles were adopted by the FDA in its regulations requiring the informed consent of human subjects for medical research. Add State info here if possible. The law is very clear; It is unlawful to conduct medical research (even in the case of emergency), unless steps taken to … secure informed consent of all participants.
Furthermore, by requiring employees to wear a mask, you are promoting the idea that the mask can prevent or treat a disease, which is an illegal deceptive practice. It is unlawful to advertise that a product or service can prevent…disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence… substantiating that the claims are true.
The FDA EUA for surgical and/or cloth masks explicitly states, “the labeling must not state or imply… that the [mask] is intended for antimicrobial or antiviral protection or related, or for use such as infection prevention or reduction.” As you can see from the image below, masks do not claim to keep out viruses.
Illegally mandating an investigational medical therapy generates liability.
There are proven microbial challenges as well as breathing difficulties that are created and exacerbated by extended mask-wearing.
Requiring employees to wear a mask sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19, and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, a mask may very well put us at an increased risk of infection, and if so, having a far worse outcome.
The fact that mask wearing presents a severe risk of harm to the wearer should – standing alone – not be required for employees, particularly given that we are not ill and have done nothing wrong that would warrant an infringement of our constitutional rights and bodily autonomy. Promoting use of a non-FDA approved, Emergency Use Authorized mask, is unwarranted and illegal. This mandate is in direct conflict with Section 360bbb-3€(1)(A)(ii)(I-III), which requires the wearer to be informed of the option to refuse the wearing of such “device.” Misrepresenting the use of a mask as being intended for antimicrobial or antiviral protection, and/or misrepresenting masks for use as infection prevention or reduction is a deceptive practice under the FTC. It is clear, there is no waiver of liability under deceptive practices, even under a state of emergency. As such, forcing employees to wear masks, or similarly forcing use any other non-FDA approved medical product without the wearer’s consent, is illegal and immoral.
This letter serves as official notice that I do not consent to being forced to wear a mask. I will not fail to take the maximum action permissible under the law against your organization, and against you personally. Accordingly, I urge you to comply with Federal and State law, and advise employees they have a right to refuse or wear a mask as a measure to prevent or reduce infection from Covid-19. Any other course of action is contrary to the law. I am willing to testify as to the veracity of the contents in this document. Please confirm no further pressure will be exerted upon me to follow this illegal mask mandate, and that I will not face any retaliatory disciplinary action.
Sincerely,
Name
From the website www.America’sfront linedoctors.com and their legal eagle Team
Date: April 12, 2021
To Whom It May Concern:
I am sending you this notice, on behalf of Family or Child Name. My findings raise significant concerns, both medically and legally, of the current mask policy in place. Masks are ineffective for the purpose claimed by the mandate, potentially harmful, and only authorized for use by an EUA.
Masks are ineffective and in many ways they harm.
It’s a myth that masks prevent viruses from spreading. The overall evidence is clear: Standard cloth and surgical masks offer next to no protection against virus-sized particles or small aerosols. The size of a virus particle is much too small to be stopped by a surgical mask, cloth or bandana. A single virion of SARS-CoV-2 is about 60-140 nanometers or 0.1 microns. The pore size in a surgical mask is 200-1000x that size. Consider that the CDC website states, “surgical masks do not catch all harmful particles in smoke.” And that the size of smoke particles in a wildfire are ~0.5 microns which is 5x the size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus! Wearing a mask to prevent catching SARS-CoV-2, or similarly sized influenza, is like throwing sand at a chain-link fence: it doesn’t work. There has been one large randomized controlled trial that specifically examined whether masks protect their wearers from the coronavirus. This study found mask wearing “did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of Sars-Cov-2-infection.”
Consider also, that the existence of more particles does not mean more virus. Research shows less virus does not mean less illness. Dr. Kevin Fennelly, a pulmonologist at the National Heart, Lung and Blood institute debunked the view that larger droplets are responsible for viral transmission. Fennelly wrote:
“current infection control policies are based on the premise that most respiratory infections are transmitted by large respiratory droplets- i.e., larger than 5 [microns] – produced by coughing and sneezing, …Unfortunately, that premise is wrong.”
Fennelly referenced a 1953 paper on anthrax that showed a single bacterial spore of about one micron was significantly more lethal than larger clumps of spores. Exposure to one virus particle is theoretically enough to cause infection and subsequent disease. This is not an alarming thought – it simply means what it has always meant, that our immune system protects us continually all our life.
There have been hundreds of mask studies related to influenza transmission done over several decades. It is a well-established fact that masks do not stop viruses. “Part of that evidence shows that cloth facemasks actually increase influenza-linked illness.”Bacteria are 50x larger than virus particles. As such, virus particles can enter through the mask pores, yet bacteria remain trapped inside of the mask, resulting in the mask-wearer continually exposed to the bacteria.
Related to the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic, there was almost universal agreement among experts, that deaths were virtually never caused by the influenza virus itself but resulted directly from severe secondary pneumonia caused by well-known bacterial “pneumopathogens” that colonized the upper respiratory tract. Dr. Fauci and his National Institute of Health studied pandemics and epidemics and concluded, “the vast majority of influenza deaths resulted from secondary bacterial pneumonia.”
All parties mandating the use of facemasks are not only willfully ignoring established science but are engaging in what amounts to a whole school clinical experimental trial. This conclusion is reached by the fact that facemask use and COVID-19 incidence are being reported in scientific opinion pieces promoted by the CDC and others. The fact is after reviewing ALL of the studies worldwide, the CDC found “no reduction in viral transmission with the use of face masks.”
Additionally, Children have been repeatedly shown not to be drivers of this contagion. It is well-accepted that children have a statistically zero chance of dying from COVID. The CDC shows the K-12 mortality rate from or with COVID is .00003. Any intervention, especially one that is prophylactic, must cause fewer harms to the recipient than the infection. Since children have the lowest death rate from COVID infection, the cost-benefit of requiring children to wear an investigational face-covering with emerging safety issues is especially difficult to justify. Anthony Fauci was very clear that asymptomatic transmission was not a threat. He stated, “in all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person.”
Wearing respirators come(s) with a host of physiological and psychological burdens. These can interfere with task performances and reduce work efficiency. These burdens can even be severe enough to cause life-threatening conditions if not ameliorated. Fifteen years ago, National Taiwan University Hospital concluded that the use of N-95 masks in healthcare workers caused them to experience hypoxemia, a low level of oxygen in the blood, and hypercapnia, an elevation in the blood’s carbon dioxide levels. Studies of simple surgical masks found significant reductions in blood oxygen as well. In one particular study, researchers measured blood oxygenation before and after surgeries in 53 surgeons. Researchers found the mask reduced the blood oxygen levels significantly, and the longer the duration of wearing the mask, the greater the drop in blood oxygen levels.
Moreover, people with cancer, will be at a further risk from hypoxia, as cancer cells grow best in a bodily environment that is low in oxygen. Low oxygen also promotes systemic inflammation which, in turn, promotes “the growth, invasion and spread of cancers.” Repeated episodes of low oxygen, known as intermittent hypoxia, also “causes atherosclerosis” and hence increases “all cardiovascular events” such as heart attacks, as well as adverse cerebral events like stroke.
Furthermore, the mandatory mouth mask in schools is a major threat to a child’s development. It ignores the essential needs of a growing child. The well-being of children and young people is highly dependent on the emotional connection with others. Masks create a threatening and unsafe environment, where emotional connection becomes difficult.
Informed consent is required for investigational medical therapies.
Regardless of the lack of safety and efficacy behind the decision to require a child to wear a mask, it is illegal to mandate EUA approved investigational medical therapies without informed consent. Mask use for viral transmission prevention is authorized for Emergency Use only. Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA, means “the products are investigational and experimental” only. The statute granting the FDA the power to authorize a medical product of emergency use requires that the person being administered the unapproved product be advised of his or her right to refuse administration of the product. This statute further recognizes the well-settled doctrine that medical experiments, or “clinical research,” may not be performed on human subjects without the express, informed consent of the individual receiving treatment.
The right to avoid the imposition of human experimentation is fundamental, rooted in the Nuremberg Code of 1947, has been ratified by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, and further codified in the United States Code of Federal Regulations. In addition to the Unites States regarding itself as bound by these provisions, these principles were adopted by the FDA in its regulations requiring the informed consent of human subjects for medical research. Add State info here if possible. The law is very clear; It is unlawful to conduct medical research (even in the case of emergency), unless steps taken to … secure informed consent of all participants.
Furthermore, by requiring children to wear a mask, you are promoting the idea that the mask can prevent or treat a disease, which is an illegal deceptive practice. It is unlawful to advertise that a product or service can prevent…disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence… substantiating that the claims are true.
The FDA EUA for surgical and/or cloth masks explicitly states, “the labeling must not state or imply… that the [mask] is intended for antimicrobial or antiviral protection or related, or for use such as infection prevention or reduction.” As you can see from the image below, masks do not claim to keep out viruses.
Illegally mandating an investigational medical therapy generates liability.
There are no efficacy standards on child-sized masks and respirators under OSHA, but there are proven microbial challenges as well as breathing difficulties that are created and exacerbated by masking children.
Requiring children to wear a mask sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19, and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, a mask may very well put children at an increased risk of infection, and if so, having a far worse outcome.
The fact that mask wearing presents a severe risk of harm to the wearer should – standing alone – not be required for children, particularly given that these children are not ill and have done nothing wrong that would warrant an infringement of their constitutional rights and bodily autonomy. Promoting use of a non-FDA approved, Emergency Use Authorized mask, is unwarranted and illegal. This mandate is in direct conflict with Section 360bbb-3€(1)(A)(ii)(I-III), which requires the wearer to be informed of the option to refuse the wearing of such “device.” Misrepresenting the use of a mask as being intended for antimicrobial or antiviral protection, and/or misrepresenting masks for use as infection prevention or reduction is a deceptive practice under the FTC. It is clear, there is no waiver of liability under deceptive practices, even under a state of emergency. As such, forcing children to wear masks, or similarly forcing use any other non-FDA approved medical product without the child’s (or the child’s parental) consent, is illegal and immoral.
This letter serves as official notice that Child’s Name does not consent to being forced to wear a mask. Child’s Name advocates will not fail to take the maximum action permissible under the law against your organization, and against you personally. Accordingly, I urge you to comply with Federal and State law, and advise children they have a right to refuse or wear a mask as a measure to prevent or reduce infection from COVID-19. Any other course of action is contrary to the law. I am willing to testify as to the veracity of the contents in this document. Please confirm no further pressure will be exerted upon Child’s Name to follow this illegal mask mandate, and that Child’s Name will not face any retaliatory disciplinary action.
Sincerely,
Name