ATTENTION BUSINESS OWNERS AND CORPORATE HQ'S
THIS IS A LEGAL NOTICE

ALL PRIVATELY OWNED STORES AND BUSINESSES INCLUDING MEMBERSHIP CLUBS LIKE COSTCO HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO REFUSE ACCOMMODATION, ENTRANCE OR SERVICE FOR NOT WEARING A MASK OR FOR REFUSING TO WEAR A MASK PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW AS CODIFIED AT 28 CFR § 36.202, AND CAN BE SUED FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION FOR VIOLATING THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 AND THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990

To whom it may concern, no business public or private, including any membership clubs, has the Right to Refuse Accommodation, Entrance or Service to anyone for NOT wearing a Mask on the False Premise that they are a privately owned business or membership only. Every Privately Owned Business signed an Application for a Master Business License Contract and Agreement with the State promising to abide by all State and Federal Laws, which includes the United States Const

Every Privately Owned Business signed an Application for a Master Business License Contract and Agreement with the State promising to abide by all State and Federal Laws, which includes the United States Constitution, and all Fifty (50) State Constitutions, and their Equal Protection of the Law Clauses and their Religious Clauses. THE LICENSE IS A PRIVILEGE!
It is undisputed that all State Licensed Businesses, whether Public or Private are deemed to be . . . “PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS” . . . under Federal Law at (CFR) Code of Federal Regulations, at Title 28 - Judicial Administration > CHAPTER 1 - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE > PART 36 > NON DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY BY PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND IN COMMERCIAL FACILITIES > Subpart B - General Requirements > § 36.202 Activities.
28 CFR § 36.202, reads:
Ҥ 36.202 Activities.
(a) Denial of participation. A public accommodation shall not subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disabi

Ҥ 36.202 Activities.
(a) Denial of participation. A public accommodation shall not subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial of the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.

(b) Participation in unequal benefit. A public accommodation shall not afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals.

(c) Separate benefit. A public accommodation shall not provide an individual or

(c) Separate benefit. A public accommodation shall not provide an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is different or separate from that provided to other individuals, unless such action is necessary to provide the individual or class of individuals with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation, or other opportunity that is as effective as that provided to others.

(d) Individual or class of individuals. For purposes of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, the term “individual or class of individuals” refers to the clients or customers of the public accommodation that enters into the contractual, licensing, or other arrangement.” And;

The United States Supreme Court has held that when a state law that conflicts with fede

The United States Supreme Court has held that when a state law that conflicts with federal law, that state law is “without effect.” Cipollone v. Ligget Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516 (1992); M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 427 (1819); In cases where federal preemption is found, the federal law will supercede the state statute to the extent necessary to protect the achievement of the aims of the [federal enactment]. Merrill Lynch, Nevada, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Ware, 414 U.S. 117, 127, 38 L. Ed. 2d 348, 94 S. Ct. 383 (1973). Federal regulations (28 CFR § 36.202), have the same preemptive effect as federal statutes. Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 152-54, 73 L.Ed. 2d 664, 102 S. Ct. 3014, 3022 (1982), and lastly Marbury V Madison 1803
YOU CAN , AND WILL BE PRIVATELY SUED IN CIVIL FOR MANY TIMES MORE THAN ANY ILLEGALLY MANDATED FINE IMPOSED UPON YOU !! THE STATE CANNOT REQUIRE YOU TO DEPRIVE RIGHTS.

FEEL FREE TO VERIFY THIS INFORMATION WITH Y