So, what we have currently in this exchange:

A: I have asserted that usable energy can be obtained from slowing
down the wind relative to the ground (this isn't exactly a ground
breaking assertion).

So far, no one has even attempted to present any argument against
"A" (other than perhaps something to the effect of 'Oh, no you can't')

B: I have illustrated that regardless of it's speed relative to the
wind, given an input torque a propeller can be used to slow down the
wind relative to the ground (this isn't exactly a ground breaking
assertion).

So far, no one has even attempted to present any argument against
"B" (other than perhaps something to the effect of 'Oh, no you can't')

C: I have provide the simple force and energy calculations to show
that the power available from slowing the wind relative to the ground
is more than enough to power the mechanism (prop) which is slowing the
wind down. (this isn't exactly a ground breaking assertion).

So far, no one has even attempted to present any argument against
"C" (other than perhaps something to the effect of 'Oh, no you can't')

So if:

"A" is true (there is usable power in slowing the wind)
and
"B" is true (a prop can be used to slow the wind)
and
"C" is true (slowing the wind provides enough energy to turn the prop)

where is the violation of natural law?

Rather than some version of "Oh, no you can't", would one of the
critics actually step up and document an actual flaw in "A", "B" or
"C"