No Mandatory Fear Masking at Sam's!

[BADecker]

I thought Walmart was forcing everybody in their employ to wear masks! Now it seems that Sam's Club is going a different route.

Any other stores waking up?


No Mandatory Fear Masking at Sam's!

I encourage everyone who is appalled by Sickness Psychosis to stop doing business with any business so afflicted – and tell them so. And to make a point of thanking businesses not afflicted with Sickness Psychosis and not requiring Fear Masking and other forms of Sickness Kabuki by giving them your business – as well as letting them know why they are getting it.

If we don't want to have to spend the rest of our lives in a loony bin, where the pathological has been normalized and refusing to pretend the pathological is reasonable, then take a stand now – while you still can!

No Fear Masks at Sam's!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkHG4KjUivc

[KonstantinosM]

Yeah, that's the thing, at my local Sam's club they're all wearing masks.

I work at a grocery store and masks are mandatory when we're dealing with customers in the sales floor or even just doing production in adjacent counters. But in the backroom we can take 'em off.

I really hate having to wear a mask. I personally don't think that it will really make a difference outside of a hospital, but if there are is credible research that they can slow down covid then the government has a responsibility to make people wear them.

[BADecker]

^^^ So, is it up to each local store? What does Sam's officially say?

[suchmoon]

^^^ So, is it up to each local store? What does Sam's officially say?

They comply with local laws. Yay states' rights, remember?

[franky1]

badecker and the cult he is influenced by want people to get sick. they want people to mingle get sick and suffer and die.
the reason
so they can stay in their basements for a few more months and hope to be totally free to do as they please in a few months.

yep they dont care if it overruns hospitals and once past that critical point milions die not able to get treatment. they just care that they can get everyone as sick as possible so that after wards they dont have to get it because they think it has all passed.

the stupidity is that although those then immune wont be incubating it(multiplying the virus) the virus will still be passed around
yes the then immune will just get the sniffles(runny nose) and handle it better before it has a chance to incubate. but badecker and his cultists think the virus just disapears and make them safe from ever getting it.
how wrong they are.

so the whole ploy of trying to coerce masses into getting sick. wont get the result they want. so i see no point in trying to get the masses sick when the few idiots will still get sick anyway

why even try to convince people to get sick on masse. it wont save you

its far easier to just not try dry humping strangers and breathing all over them. stay at a distance and stop touching random things and wash yourself and things you touch regularly

it is funny how badecker was  'save the fiat economy, everyone get sick but go back to work so we can buy things'
and now 'i wont shop at a store unless you start doing a get sick fast policy'

[BADecker]

^^^ So, is it up to each local store? What does Sam's officially say?

They comply with local laws. Yay states' rights, remember?

There aren't any local laws regarding Covid-19. The orders that appear to be local laws, aren't written as laws most of the time. And they certainly aren't laws, considering that they defy the Constitutions that give them the appearance of life.

So, what really are the Sam's Club official statements regarding this whole thing? If it is to obey local orders by government people, that's great. Is that what you mean when you say that, "They comply with local laws?"

[suchmoon]

There aren't any local laws regarding Covid-19. The orders that appear to be local laws, aren't written as laws most of the time. And they certainly aren't laws, considering that they defy the Constitutions that give them the appearance of life.

Well, take it up with the Supreme Court. Oh wait, someone tried that:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-pennsylvania-stay-at-home-order-businesses/

[BADecker]

There aren't any local laws regarding Covid-19. The orders that appear to be local laws, aren't written as laws most of the time. And they certainly aren't laws, considering that they defy the Constitutions that give them the appearance of life.

Well, take it up with the Supreme Court. Oh wait, someone tried that:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-pennsylvania-stay-at-home-order-businesses/

Is that your idea, the Supreme Court? Anybody can take it up with the SC in many different ways. The SC won't necessarily act differently, but depending on the wording of the case, they might.

Here's the point. If people take it up with any State court and require a jury, and ask the right questions in the right way, they can win, depending on how convinced the jury is.

This whole case might have been a decoy, to get people to think that the jury doesn't have the authority it has... so that people are too depressed to try.

[suchmoon]

Is that your idea, the Supreme Court?

You're the one babbling something about the constitution. Shouldn't the Supreme Court decide that? Or some random schmuck on an intertubes forum? This is a tough one, take some time before you answer.

[BADecker]

Is that your idea, the Supreme Court?

You're the one babbling something about the constitution. Shouldn't the Supreme Court decide that? Or some random schmuck on an intertubes forum? This is a tough one, take some time before you answer.

What? You never heard of jury nullification? Google it, and check the Wiki article, right in the first paragraph or two:

Jury nullification (US), jury equity (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK) generally occurs when members of a criminal trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway because the jurors also believe that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favour of the defendant.

Nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure, but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists:

    Jurors cannot be punished for reaching a "wrong" decision (such as acquitting a defendant despite their guilt being proven beyond a reasonable doubt).
    A defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried again for the same alleged crime in front of another jury.[

The Supreme Court is out of the picture if the people take it to trial by jury -

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The point is, if it was taken to the Supreme Court as something against the Constitution:
1. They are a bit ignorant for doing so;
2. They did it on purpose, knowing the SC would rule this way, thereby discouraging anybody else who might take it to trial by jury.

And it seems that all you want to do is promote the loss of our rights simply by approaching it and commenting as you are doing.

[franky1]

Is that your idea, the Supreme Court? Anybody can take it up with the SC in many different ways. The SC won't necessarily act differently, but depending on the wording of the case, they might.

Here's the point. If people take it up with any State court and require a jury, and ask the right questions in the right way, they can win, depending on how convinced the jury is.

This whole case might have been a decoy, to get people to think that the jury doesn't have the authority it has... so that people are too depressed to try.

problem with you is. you dont even know how courts work
you read some garbage scripts from your freeman cult influencers. but you have not actually realised that they are playing you for a fool

i corrected you months ago of one prime example of the 'la la la' misdirect of your favourite influencer. and instead of learning the truth you played ignorant and continued to kiss influencer ass.. because yodont want to know the truth you just want to be a sheep to cultish influencers

if you went into court. the only thing the jury would be convinced of is that you need a psychological assessment. especially if you followed the 'im standing as a man, i wish to face my accusers, i dont recognise my accuser' scripts

[BADecker]

Is that your idea, the Supreme Court? Anybody can take it up with the SC in many different ways. The SC won't necessarily act differently, but depending on the wording of the case, they might.

Here's the point. If people take it up with any State court and require a jury, and ask the right questions in the right way, they can win, depending on how convinced the jury is.

This whole case might have been a decoy, to get people to think that the jury doesn't have the authority it has... so that people are too depressed to try.

problem with you is. you dont even know how courts work
you read some garbage scripts from your freeman cult influencers. but you have not actually realised that they are playing you for a fool

i corrected you months ago of one prime example of the 'la la la' misdirect of your favourite influencer. and instead of learning the truth you played ignorant and continued to kiss influencer ass.. because yodont want to know the truth you just want to be a sheep to cultish influencers

if you went into court. the only thing the jury would be convinced of is that you need a psychological assessment. especially if you followed the 'im standing as a man, i wish to face my accusers, i dont recognise my accuser' scripts

Lol! You can barely write a comment that anybody can understand. And you think that you know how courts work.

But don't let me slow you down. Rather, keep it up. We need your kind of entertainment.

Take a look here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5247960.msg54432674#msg54432674.

 

[franky1]

The point is, if it was taken to the Supreme Court as something against the Constitution:
1. They are a bit ignorant for doing so;
2. They did it on purpose, knowing the SC would rule this way, thereby discouraging anybody else who might take it to trial by jury.

And it seems that all you want to do is promote the loss of our rights simply by approaching it and commenting as you are doing.

loss of rights?
you can still walk, eat use the bathroom. talk. shutup. listen to people ignore people
you still have your freedom of movement and freedom of speach
you can still go out buy a burger and play golf.
no one has tied you up and put a gag in your mouth.

wait i think i got it.. maybe your angry that no one is able to tie you up and put a ball gag in your mouth.. is that it. 2 months with no male masseuse tying you up?

what you dont realise is constitutionally you dont go to prison for breaching lockdown.
you get fined by the court. fines are civil. and a whole different category than law.
however breaching the court order by disobeying a court is a separate offence which is against the LAW. and its that which can get you in prison

what you are not realising is your cultish influencers are telling you to get in trouble. to get yourself fined and sent to a court. to then disobey a court .. while they are happily staying at home..
what your not realising is they la la la over critical things and they misinform their idiot sheep of things. t provoke conflict.
what your not realising is that you have the right to run a business but that does not mean you can run one without contractual consequences/charges/fines/costs.

but that realisation moment you are yet to have is the flaw of capitalism. and we all know you love capitalism and too afraid to open that box and realise the faults.

civil court fines are not unconstitutional. but they are not free of cost/consequences.
your freedom of movement doesnt not mean you dont have to pay a gym membership if you choose to move around on gym equipment in a gym business
your right to work does not mean you can run a business without the costs of leases/licences and staff
infact governments are paying people not to work.
so by taking the compensation not to work. but then working against those rules. means you are breaking the civil contract you have with your government/state.

and you dont even need to sign a document to form a contract. by being in an area that has rules and you willfull staying there means you agree to those rules.
hense car park tickets. gym memberships. citizenships.road traffic rules

one day you will realise rights also come with responsibilities/consequences
EG right to own a gun but be responsible with it or suffer the consequenses of murder charge if you kill someone with it..
right to ber arms is not freedom to kill

[BADecker]

The point is, if it was taken to the Supreme Court as something against the Constitution:
1. They are a bit ignorant for doing so;
2. They did it on purpose, knowing the SC would rule this way, thereby discouraging anybody else who might take it to trial by jury.

And it seems that all you want to do is promote the loss of our rights simply by approaching it and commenting as you are doing.

loss of rights?
you can still walk, eat use the bathroom. talk. shutup. listen to people ignore people
you still have your freedom of movement and freedom of speach
you can still go out buy a burger and play golf.
no one has tied you up and put a gag in your mouth.

wait i think i got it.. maybe your angry that no one is able to tie you up and put a ball gag in your mouth.. is that it. 2 months with no male masseuse tying you up?

what you dont realise is constitutionally you dont go to prison for breaching lockdown.
you get fined by the court. fines are civil. and a whole different category than law.
however breaching the court order by disobeying a court is a separate offence which is against the LAW. and its that which can get you in prison

what you are not realising is your cultish influencers are telling you to get in trouble. to get yourself fined and sent to a court. to then disobey a court .. while they are happily staying at home..
what your not realising is they la la la over critical things and they misinform their idiot sheep of things. t provoke conflict.
what your not realising is that you have the right to run a business but that does not mean you can run one without contractual consequences/charges/fines/costs.

but that realisation moment you are yet to have is the flaw of capitalism. and we all know you love capitalism and too afraid to open that box and realise the faults.

civil court fines are not unconstitutional. but they are not free of cost.

That just goes to show how ignorant you are. You don't take anybody to court when they haven't harmed you. Also, you don't take government to court for the rights you haven't lost, or aren't in the process of losing.

You are really out of it today. Take a break and have a cup of coffee or something.

[franky1]

That just goes to show how ignorant you are. You don't take anybody to court when they haven't harmed you. Also, you don't take government to court for the rights you haven't lost, or aren't in the process of losing.

your the idiot trying to say 'take them to court'. not me
unless you did not give consent to being tied up and have a ball gag in your mouth.. all your blabbermouth nonsense about going to court becomes meaningless

by the way
you quoted something that you still dont understand.
ill give you a hint 'in all criminal prosecututions' 'in criminal jury trial'

civil is not criminal.

[BADecker]

That just goes to show how ignorant you are. You don't take anybody to court when they haven't harmed you. Also, you don't take government to court for the rights you haven't lost, or aren't in the process of losing.

your the idiot trying to say 'take them to court'. not me
unless you did not give consent to being tied up and have a ball gag in your mouth.. all your blabbermouth nonsense about going to court becomes meaningless

Lol! Before I took anyone to court, I would identify them. You can't even identify the "them" you are talking about.

[franky1]

Lol! Before I took anyone to court, I would identify them. You can't even identify the "them" you are talking about.

i debunked you about that already. you pretend to not recognise 'the accuser' by pretending they are not the human victim
however i debunked you by correcting you that an accuser does not have to be a human victim. but a interested party, and agent, a employee, a relative.
this is why people can still get prison time for murder. even if the victim cant take the stand(coz they are dead) because other people can accuse you on their behalf
this very well known fact is why people can employ a lawyer to work on their behalf.
its why a police officer/victims family/lawyer can accuse you
heck its even why your cultish influencer goes into court with people as their 'lay adviser/friend'

but anyway i am still laughing that you quote stuff about criminal law. when lockdown is a civil offense.
have a nice day trying to work that one out

[BADecker]

Lol! Before I took anyone to court, I would identify them. You can't even identify the "them" you are talking about.

i debunked you about that already. you pretend to not recognise 'the accuser' by pretending they are not the human victim
however i debunked you by correcting you that an accuser does not have to be a human victim. but a interested party, and agent, a employee, a relative.
this is why people can still get prison time for murder. even if the victim cant take the stand(coz they are dead) because other people can accuse you on their behalf
this very well known fact is why people can employ a lawyer to work on their behalf.
its why a police officer/victims family/lawyer can accuse you
heck its even why your cultish influencer goes into court with people as their 'lay adviser/friend'

but anyway i am still laughing that you quote stuff about criminal law. when lockdown is a civil offense.
have a nice day trying to work that one out

But I debunked you with the legal term ACCEPTANCE.

You don't have to accept anybody that brings a suit against you without them showing harm or damage that you did. There isn't any harm or damage applying to you, the man, in a civil offense. Civil shows that it only applies to persons who are part of the civil society in question. Other than that, it better be a criminal offense, or it won't stand.

[franky1]

But I debunked you with the legal term ACCEPTANCE.

You don't have to accept anybody that brings a suit against you without them showing harm or damage that you did. There isn't any harm or damage applying to you, the man, in a civil offense. Civil shows that it only applies to persons who are part of the civil society in question. Other than that, it better be a criminal offense, or it won't stand.

civil also includes contracts.. yep thats the great part that created capitalism.
its getting funny now how you keep avoiding mentioning that part
contracts are things like tresspass and many other things that are part of citizens responsibilities
such as maintaining a vehicle to ensure it doesnt cause harm
maintaining a safe speed and safe distance
maintaining food service standards to not cause harm
paying a lease on a business facility. paying the admin to give you the licence and regular checks that your operating the business without breaking any civil rules.

if you register to live in a state. you then become a civilian of that state. otherwise your an 'illegal alien' which you then suffer the consequences of if caught.
heck you dont even have to register to live in a state. for most civil rules just being within the state borders is enough to make you responsible for your actions of civil rules

[BADecker]

But I debunked you with the legal term ACCEPTANCE.

You don't have to accept anybody that brings a suit against you without them showing harm or damage that you did. There isn't any harm or damage applying to you, the man, in a civil offense. Civil shows that it only applies to persons who are part of the civil society in question. Other than that, it better be a criminal offense, or it won't stand.

civil also includes contracts.. yep thats the great part that created capitalism.
its getting funny now how you keep avoiding mentioning that part
contracts are things like tresspass and many other things that are part of citizens responsibilities
such as maintaining a vehicle to ensure it doesnt cause harm
maintaining a safe speed and safe distance
maintaining food service standards to not cause harm
paying a lease on a business facility. paying the admin to give you the licence and regular checks that your operating the business without breaking any civil rules.

if you register to live in a state. you then become a civilian of that state. otherwise your an 'illegal alien' which you then suffer the consequences of if caught

I'm not sure why you don't simply get some legal book, and simply post some stuff that you copied and pasted. If you did it this way:
1. People might get an idea what you are talking about;
2. They could see what the law really says;
3. And all you would have to do is point at the things you thought were important.

The BIGGEST part of doing it this way would be to show if any of the facts you brought up even applied to any situation you were talking about.