BT

[Dale Eastman]

I present this good faith apprisal, without malice, by the Natural Rights to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle myself and others; as shown in the Declaration of Independence, which as the founding document of this nation; preexisting the U.S. Constitution; justifying separation from England because of violations of humans' Natural Rights which had Natural Law repercussions.

Your continued violations of your fellow humans' Natural Rights will have Natural Law repercussions regardless of ANY inferior so-called "legal qualified immunities".

This document is presented to you to APPRISE you of the International Law, Nuremberg Code & Principles.

This document is presented to you to APPRISE you of Natural Law.

1. Coercing a potentially injurious medical procedure on me is an attempt to injure me.
2. Withholding of information of side-effects of the injection, including death, is injury to me.
3. Actually injecting me is injury to me.
4. Denying me gainful property exchange (employment) to support my life and family on refusal of a potentially injurious medical procedure is an injury to me.

The right to avoid the imposition of human experimentation is fundamentally rooted in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. It has been ratified by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and further codified in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations.

In addition to the U.S. regarding itself as bound by these provisions, these principles were adopted by the FDA in its regulations requiring the informed consent of human subjects of 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.

Article 6, section 3 of the Nuremberg code states: “In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.”

Clearly, mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations fail the Nuremberg Code on multiple fronts.

In Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld 297 F. Supp. 2d 119 (2003) a federal court held that the United States military could not mandate Emergency Use vaccines for soldiers:
“The United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs”

Furthermore, on November 21, 1947, one year after the end of the first Nuremberg trial (International Military Tribunal), the United Nations passed General Assembly Resolution 177 in order to codify the “Nuremberg Principles.”

You are hereby APPRISED of Nuremberg Principle; number 4.

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

Orders of a superior includes orders of a non-government superior. For example, your workplace boss, his boss, all the way up the chain to the top officer controlling the company. Incorporation or licensure by Government makes your employer a party to the Nuremberg Code by proxy. This means you are not immune from violating the higher Moral Natural Law or its repercussions.

This Nuremberg Principle is quite clear. You have a duty to disobey orders, commands, and laws you know are morally wrong. Remember, many at the Nuremberg trials who claimed they were “just following orders,” were executed as well as the order givers.

You have a moral choice available. You can choose to refuse to inject/injure people against their will.

I am being coerced, I do not volunteer, I do not agree to this procedure!

I invoke my Natural Law RIGHTS to remedy, repair, & rectification for ANY injury to life, liberty, & property of mine, and of those of my kith & kin. This means IF repair, remedy, & rectification is NOT presented upon request for remedy, repair, & rectification to obtain satisfaction; then, I or my assigns, by ANY means of Nature's Law will be used to redeem satisfaction directly, and personally from you the injurer(s) - REGARDLESS of ANY man-made usurpation of  Nature's Law!

You are hereby APPRISED of the Natural Law repercussions for violating My Natural Rights.

You have hereby been APPRISED of Natural Law.

Dale: If you believe your Natural Rights have been violated, then you better take it up with the Natural Rights Tribunal, and maybe haul the rest of us in front of a Natural Judge in their Natural Court!

It's people like you who are the reason I even spend time on fecal book. It's people like you who I publicly archive my discussions with on my website. You are apprised of what I do when I can get people like you to actually engage in substantive discussion.

You are invited to have just such a discussion. You wanna play?

I'll start the transcribing (copy/pasting) your post denying natural rights. I anonymize those I archive unless they're public figures or done want anonymity.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: You're on the cusp of being self-aware...

Dale: And then, of course, the projection.

➽ If you believe your Natural Rights have been violated, then you better take it up with the Natural Rights Tribunal, and maybe haul the rest of us in front of a Natural Judge in their Natural Court!

How about you prove to me that you even know what Natural Rights are.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: Nope, the burden of proof is on you.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Ever read those words before now?

Still waiting on you. Second request: How about you prove to me that you even know what Natural Law is.

Dale: Waiting on me for what? The burden of proof does not magically shift from you to me. You're still the only one making any claims regarding "Natural Law". All you did so far is quote from the Declaration of Independence. From that, I'm assuming you're a subscriber to Lockesian philosophy. Or are you more the old-school type, and a scholar of Aquinas? In either case, you're confusing philosophy with law. You should be looking at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not the DoI. And even then, you're only relying on "Natural Law" because every other avenue you tried has proved fruitless. You can't even argue based on morality or human rights, which would be the closest adjunct to your "Natural Law", because you've not been successful with those approaches either.

Now you know why I originally said you need to take this up with a Natural Law judge or the Natural Rights tribunal... assuming you can find one. 😉

Congratulations. You've partially responded to my request for you to prove you even know what Natural Law is. You've addressed where it has been previously addressed in history.

➽ You should be looking at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not the DoI.

Thank you for your opinion. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

➽ All you did so far is quote from the Declaration of Independence.

There would be NO CONstitution (sic) and NO Bill of Rights without the Declaration of Independence. The D of I is THE first organic document of the United States. Prior to that there was the Magna Carta from 1215.

So back to you. Prove you know what Natural Law is; prove you know what Natural Rights are.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: Again, the onus is on _you_ to prove your point, not for others to prove they know anything about what you're vomiting out. So far, all you've provided is a disjointed, nonsensical word salad without any authoritative sources. You've jumped from the Nuremberg Code to "Natural Law" to the Declaration of Independence. You have yet to prove any relevance or supply evidence that any legitimate authority supports your position, or that you have a legitimate claim to such authority.

My guess is that you're simply deflecting at this point, daring anyone to disprove your incoherent ravings, with the assumption if nobody can, then it must be true. I'm afraid that's not how it works out here in the real world.

Dale: BTW, how is this going so far? I hear they actually started "proceedings" now? I can't wait for this to fizzle out too.

➽ Dale: Again, the onus is on _you_ to prove your point.

I have reviewed this entire conversation. What, specifically, do YOU think is my point?

You must have had some thought in your mind when you chose to make a brainless comment about my Natural Rights being violated.

I will note that your smarmy comment indicated, and still indicates to me, that you have no fucking clue as to what you actually read... That's if you even read anything other than the two words "Natural Rights".

Rather than guess, I'm going to ask you, what, specifically, was your intent; what, specifically, was your point, in making your smarmy comment? What did you mean to communicate?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: “What, specifically, do YOU think is my point”

Again, why are you asking me what your point is? Had you been able to clearly elucidate your point without dancing around it, you would not need to ask such a thing.🤔 After all, I'm not the one who said your "Natural Rights" are being violated. _You_ brought it up. In case you need a reminder, here is your tedious screed on the subject. Note that your name is attached at the top, not mine.

You are clearly unable to maintain even a semblance of coherent, consistent argumentation in this thread. Sadly, this is exactly what I (and I suspect others still reading this) expected from the start.🤷‍♂️

➽ Again, why are you asking me what your point is?

Since MY point has changed because of your comments, I'll come back to your question.

➽ Had you been able to clearly elucidate your point without dancing around it

Comment about reading comprehension withheld.

➽ After all, I'm not the one who said your "Natural Rights" are being violated.

On second thought, because you just admitted to not having any reading comprehension, "Mr. Illiterate."

I never said "MY" "Natural Rights" were being violated.

➽ here is your tedious screed on the subject.

Well yes... reading is tedious for the illiterate.

➽ You are clearly unable to maintain even a semblance of coherent, consistent argumentation in this thread.

That's your claim. So, back to "Natural Law" & "Natural Rights".

If you are clueless regarding either concept, as I even more strongly suspect after attempting to have a discussion with you, then of course you would argue my words are incoherent.

Unlike you, if a Spanish speaking persons jabber at this Gringo, I'm not going to claim they're being incoherent just because I don't understand their words.

So again, I am going to challenge you on your understanding of "Natural Law". If you don't know, just admit that fact and you and I can then discuss what it is and what it means.

To answer your question about "my point": My point is now that you don't understand "Natural Law" or "Natural Rights".

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: I don't expect you to understand this, but I'll leave it for everyone else in the thread.

Smarmy animation GIF of a soccer goal being moved not saved.

What goal post, specifically, are you claiming I have moved?

Second inquiry: What goal post, specifically, are you claiming I have moved?

Third inquiry: What goal post, specifically, are you claiming I have moved?

Until you give an actual reply, your claim is a vacuous as your skull appears to be.

[Dale Eastman]

Your "friend" chose to comment on something I posted. When challenged to support his comments, you "friend" chose to shit post. I've not stopped just yet because I don't suffer indoctrinated idiots gently.

Since it's your account wall that this interaction between myself and an idjit happened, I will stop... Provided idjit doesn't reply...
Oh... and with the attached last parting shot.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale, you’re a good pal- my Handyman was an antivaxer and he died 2 weeks ago from Covid. That makes 9 friend’s and family I’ve lost to it. I just got my booster before flying to California. I respect your opinion but I’m on the other side on this one.

We just lost a close friend within the two weeks. Sorry for your loss, and definitely can relate. This friend was, ironically, a handyman also. doing maintenance for an apartment complex. He caught it from a tenant who did not identify himself as having it.

This friend also had a history of getting pnuemonia for whatever reason. He had just finished his course of antibiotics the week before. So his immunity and resistance was down. In other words: a comorbidity.

Wife and I had contact. Wife was at his place several times to help with his chores. I was there, making physical contact, to get him on his feet so we could take him to the hospital for the third time. I was stubbornly unmasked. I have an immune system that works. No symptoms and it's now past any incubation period.

This brings the total of dead I personally know to two (2). That's 2 of of maybe 6. I'm not sure if the 2 had it or not.

It is my opinion at this point that it's bad for those it's bad for. Everybody else, Meh. Just like the real flu.

Your choice on taking the shot. You do you, I do me.

I do most strenuously object to that injection being called a vaxcination (sic) because it doesn't and it's not. I confers NO immunity. It creates NO memory "T" cells.

That is the segue to the heart of the matter. You've seen my posts in that private group of statists arguing over which pile of shit they want to elect to be their owners while ignorantly believing they are voting for a "leader".

In my lexicon, nescient is not knowing. Ignorant is choosing to not know. The comment made about the apprisal of natural law and the Nuremberg Code shows a fucking slave demanding to stay enslaved.

Respect for your on topic, on point, discussion of our differences.

Anybody else wanting more to hate on me for can go to my Fb account wall and find my website. I am:
http://facebook.com/dale.eastman.75/

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: It is always amusing when people like you can so effectively incriminate yourselves, even when I literally stay silent to see how much of a frenzy you'll whip yourself into.

Here's the deal: you continue to insist that others "prove their worth" because you seek to discredit them, rather than bolster your own arguments. I suspect this is because you know deep down that your stance is indefensible, and since you cannot increase your own credibility, you must therefore attempt to destroy everyone else's. Your "Natural Law" is the homeopathy of medicine. It's the Flat Earth of geology. It is the Sovereign Citizen movement of politics. I have sufficient understanding of all four to know that they have no credibility nor relevance. You reciting many of the common conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer tropes only proves my point.

If you were presenting this in good faith, you would not be challenging others to prove their knowledge, or to disprove your unsubstantiated claims. You would simply state your claims, and provide sound, reasonable source for discussion. Instead, you immediately pounce on anyone who disputes your narrative. Your method is essentially to squawk the loudest and longest, equating that with merit. You do not seek to advance the discussion, only to mire it in bad-faith questions. You attack the person without justification or evidence, rather than attacking the argument. It is one of the lowest forms of debate.

For example, you ask "what goal post, specifically, are you claiming I have moved?" Seeing as how you stated it in an earlier comment, either you are extremely forgetful, or you are deliberately trying to derail the discussion. That means you're either stupid, or malicious. And, no, before you even think it, this is not an ad hominem. If you don't understand why, please ask.

Did you not say "MY point has changed" and then "My point is now that you don't understand Natural Law or Natural Rights". There's your goalpost move. You've already abandoned your original point, and confirms my above point: you're only interested in attacking the person, not the argument.
Your analogy with a Spanish speaker also falls short. There's a difference between not understanding a language, and not understanding gibberish. You represent the latter. With all the words you've expended in this thread, you still have not made any coherent or convincing argument, nor presented any evidence that corroborate the claims you made.

Meanwhile, you summarily dismiss all evidence contrary to your beliefs, while chastising others for doing the same to your claims, even though it is reasonable to do so. Then in return, you supply vague or meaningless reference of questionable value. For example, what relevance is your "parting shot" with the Wisconsin numbers? You posted them with no comment. Usually when this happens, it's because you're not entirely sure what point you're trying to make. You want to see how others interpret the numbers so you can adjust your attack accordingly. You should be more transparent and forthcoming with whatever information you have... assuming, again, that you intend to discuss this in good faith.

BF here has graciously offered you an exit to salvage what little credibility and dignity you have left. I encourage you take this opportunity to retreat into your conspiracy cave, because it is clear you choose not to listen to reason. But, having dealt with many others like you, I know you will not be able to resist getting in the last word. You're the proverbial pigeon, after all.

[Dale Eastman]

My apologies for missing this one key clue to your thinking:

➽ You're still the only one making any claims regarding "Natural Law".

What then were these claims about Natural Law you allege I made?

❶➽ "I present this good faith apprisal..."

I suppose my posting of the good faith apprisal "MIGHT" be considered a Natural Law claim. I'll return to this apprisal.

You then wrote:
➽ If you believe your Natural Rights have been violated ...

⓿➽ I'll start the transcribing (copy/pasting) your post denying natural rights.
Not counted because not the actual discussion.

❷➽ How about you prove to me that you even know what Natural Rights are.
❸➽ Second request: How about you prove to me that you even know what Natural Law is.

That's when you wrote this:
➽ You're still the only one making any claims regarding "Natural Law".

Now returning to your latest post that I am replying to wherein you wrote:

➽ If you were presenting this in good faith, [...] You would simply state your claims, and provide sound, reasonable source for discussion.

Since it appears to me from what is just above, according to your own posted words, I posted a 679 word "claim". A "claim" that you dismissed with this 38 word reply:

➽ Dale: If you believe your Natural Rights have been violated, then you better take it up with the Natural Rights Tribunal, and maybe haul the rest of us in front of a Natural Judge in their Natural Court!

Your "dismissal" showed me, and your subsequent words still show me, you did NOT even bother to read that apprisal.

I present this good faith apprisal, without malice, by the Natural Rights to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle myself and others; as shown in the Declaration of Independence, which as the founding document of this nation; preexisting the U.S. Constitution; justifying separation from England because of violations of humans' Natural Rights which had Natural Law repercussions.

Tell me what, specifically, is incorrect about this first paragraph.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: Haha, again you insist that the other person guess the point you're trying to make. It doesn't work that way. And then you prove you're not asking the question in good faith because you immediately undermine your own position. What Natural Law claims do you make? You answered it yourself. Did you imply your Natural Rights are being violated? Yes, unless you don't include yourself as part of the term "human". You still haven't explained how these "violations" of Natural Law are relevant in a society that isn't governed by them. Maybe you are taking the words too literally. As far mentioned far above, this is a Lockesian philosophy, and not a matter of judicial law. You may believe otherwise, but mere belief does not make reality. No different from the SovCits who insist that their version of civics prevail over reality. The entire foundation of your premise is flawed. I don't need to knock down your house... it falls on its own.

What you really require is an authority in a jurisdiction that recognizes Natural Law over, say, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights (which you mistakenly believe are overridden by the DoI in matters of actual law). And now we are back for the second time to my opening comment about the imaginary "Natural Rights Tribunal", etc. I was right along, and you never even realized it. You still don't. 🤷‍♂️

You wrote:
➽ You're still the only one making any claims regarding "Natural Law".

You could ONLY be referring to my 679 word post.

All your latest comment has communicated to me is you don't understand what you (allegedly) read.
Time for you to prove you actually read what I posted.

I present this good faith apprisal, without malice, by the Natural Rights to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle myself and others; as shown in the Declaration of Independence, which as the founding document of this nation; preexisting the U.S. Constitution; justifying separation from England because of violations of humans' Natural Rights which had Natural Law repercussions.

Tell me in your own words what this paragraph conveys to you.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: Once again, you rant and rave about nonsense, and you insist that everyone else try to conjure up sense from it. As I said, that's not how this works. But if you want to know what this "conveys" to me: it conveys the sense that the person writing it is a conspiracy theorist who is also a paragon of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. He is so misinformed and lacking in knowledge, that he does not realize the predicament he is in, instead believing that he is an expert on the topic. Specifically, this person conflates the philosophy of "Natural Law" with actual law, and thus has no standing in the real world of actual law.

After a bit of meaningless blather you wrote:

➽ Specifically, this person conflates the philosophy of "Natural Law" with actual law, and thus has no standing in the real world of actual law.

In spite of your meaningless blather, you wrote something to advance the discussion. Thank you.

What do YOU mean when you write "actual law"? I want to make sure I understand, EXACTLY, what YOU mean.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: Look, you're not fooling anyone here. You're still not offering anything meaningful, all while projecting your own shortcomings onto others. If you have a point to make, you should simply state it. Nothing you've said so far is relevant here in the real world, and you are only attempting to deflect and obfuscate. It is obvious what I mean by "actual law": the actual laws that govern our society, arbitrated by the established judicial system. The same system that does not support your fringe views. If it did,, you'd be able to cite decisions that support your stance that our "natural rights" are being infringed. You can't, and you keep dancing around that point. 🤷‍♂️

➽ It is obvious what I mean by "actual law": the actual laws that govern our society, arbitrated by the established judicial system.

Thank you. Answering my clarification question wasn't too hard, was it. ⇐ Rhetorical. No question mark.

How do "the actual laws that govern our society" come into existence?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale: See? You're just stalling further, and admitting you're just being rhetorical. You continue to disguise your nonsensical arguments with false pretenses. Shit, or get off the pot. Next, you'll say "if you cannot answer my simple questions, then it is clear you do not wish to have a discussion". 👌

[Dale Eastman]

How do "the actual laws that govern our society" come into existence?

Dale: Irrelevant.

From your very first post you have been attempting to present your narrative that Natural Law doesn't exist. In your attempt to dismiss Natural Law as a mere meaningless concept you have made multiple references to "actual law": Therefore your claim of "Irrelevant" is itself irrelevant. Two of your references are:

➽ conflates the philosophy of "Natural Law" with actual law, and thus has no standing in the real world of actual law.

➽ It is obvious what I mean by "actual law": the actual laws that govern our society, arbitrated by the established judicial system.

Thus: How do "the actual laws that govern our society" come into existence? is very relevant to YOUR claims about the alleged superiority of "actual law".

So I ask a second time: How do "the actual laws that govern our society" come into existence?