The speaker discusses the Health Act 1956 and its relevance to the COVID-19 pandemic. They highlight section 92i, which prohibits the state or public bodies from coercing individuals into medical treatments. They argue that this section shows that the COVID vaccination order is illegal. They also emphasize the importance of individual rights and the limitations on government power. The speaker plans to pursue a judicial review and urges others to challenge the government's actions. They mention potential future lockdowns and the vaccination of school children. The speaker encourages others to spread this information and seek legal advice.
Welcome along, everybody. I hope you're having a good day so far. Exciting news from Liz, another one of her fantastic discoveries. Hi Liz. Hi Anna. Hi Jeff. How are you doing? Good, good. Good. I'll just get the live on Facebook going and then I'll actually remember to do it. Okay. Right, here we go. Yep. Here we go. Welcome along, Facebook people. I hope you're all having a good day. Exciting times with Liz and another one of her fantastic discoveries.
Squeezing every last little thing out of that legislation, that's what we love. Yeah, well, that's where the treasures lie, that's for sure. Yep. Yeah, I kind of woke up at about half past five this morning and I thought, I think section 92i needs having a bit of celebration. So we'd better have a special Zoom tonight to talk about it and what it all means. I'm going to be pretty, let's say, once over lightly with it. Just to explain the real, I'll go over it and I'll describe it and then I'd love some questions from you because then I can understand, if you understand, how it applies to you and what, well, it applies to us all, actually, because it's actually the, everybody talks about section 10 of the Bill of Rights Act, which gives us our right to refuse medical intervention.
Section 92i of subsection 5 of the Health Act 1956 prohibits the state or public bodies from coercing us, from insisting upon treatment, okay, medical treatments. So we didn't know, excuse me, mosquitoes, we didn't know it was there. But when I think of it and I think about the last two years and the puzzles that we've been through about, why are they using, well, we know why they were using the Health and Safety at Work Act. That was to capture the workers and to force them into it.
But why weren't they using, was the other question, why weren't they using the Health Act 1956, which has actually got everything in there that you need to deal with, all the legislation that you need to deal with a so-called pandemic or a situation. Well, it also deals with emergency situations. And actually, when you look back on the 2020 Act, you can see that it did kick off. There's a part called background, and it did kick off.
I'm not sure if I can find some of these things for you to have a look at. But no, I won't at the moment. I'll just see how far we can get with just talking about it. So it did kick off with the fact that about, I think it was about 24th of March of 2020, the 2002 Emergency Response Act, I think it was called, was kicked off. But it was linked to Section 70, under Section 70 of the Health Act 1956.
Now, you've heard me talk before about everything that's under Section 70. It's the one that gives special powers to the chief medical officer of health. And that included all of the things about burning down houses if they were infected, stopping ships from going from port to port, inspecting everything. All the planes that come in should have been checked. They shouldn't have been gone anywhere. But the only bit they used out of it was anything that applied to people, which was making people go to certain places and keeping them in certain places.
However, what you do find out as you read that Act a bit more closely is they're talking about individual people, not about groups. Nothing to do with groups, right? Because when I tell you why that is, you'll understand it. The individual is always named. For example, the Yardley case. Yardley was the name of one of the people who were in that group. So you have kind of a representative group, but it always has to be the examination of the individual circumstances.
So you can see why the government wanted to invent another Act that they could then hive off and make it look like, oh, you know, this is to deal with the COVID-19 health response, right? This is it, whereas we already had the Health Act. Now, under the Health Act, under Section 92, under Principles, actually, I will bring up that part of the Act because I'm pretty sure I've got it here. Yes, I have. I'll open that and I'll come back over.
I'm back over. I'm getting quite good at this. And then I'm going to, I'm going to, where's the bit where I should not show captions, is it? Who has enabled closed captioning? Who can see this? Please, record along. What's that mean? Oh, you can ignore that. Share screen, that's what I want. That's the one. That's what I want. OK. The Health Act 1956. This is it. OK. Right. Now, to make it bigger, I have to do it on my screen, don't I? Come on, share that screen.
Share that screen. Come on. It can be a little glitchy sometimes. There it comes. I'll tell it to wait. I'll just tell you a little bit more about it. Here we go. Now, what I'm looking for, once I got the, I started to think about the idea, and I might have shared it with you a couple of times. It's called a legal maxim. That everything is allowed. Except that which is forbidden. Except that which is forbidden.
But that's got to, that applies to you and I as the living person. In terms of the state or corporations, etc., public bodies, everything is forbidden except that which is allowed. Everything is forbidden. So you need to have a piece that they would have needed to make the, what would you call it, the vaccination order legal. They would have had to have a piece of legislation that said, here we go, I think. Have I got, is that coming up on our screen? Yes.
Okay. To make it legal, you would have had to have a positive piece of legislation that says, in the case of an outbreak of a disease, then you can vaccinate people. That is not the case. In fact, we go down, 71 is, Section 70, why is it doing that? Section 70 was the one that they used to impose the state of emergency. But the state of emergency only lasted from the 24th of March until the 8th of June of 2020.
So long before the vacs came along, there was no state of emergency in place. It had finished on the 8th of June 2020. To keep it going, there's a little bit in here that I'll show you. I'm just going to click over here. And can you see this okay, guys? Yep. Okay, the special powers of the Medical Officer of Health. For the purpose of preventing the outbreak or spread of any infectious disease, the Medical Officer may, from time to time, if authorised to do so by the Minister, or if a state of emergency has been declared under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, or while an epidemic notice is in force, by notice, and then they can do all of these things.
So you have to have a sort of what's called an enabling act, and then you work under that act. They didn't work under this act except to kick-start the process. And you'll be able to see why they didn't use it. I've talked about Section 70 before, about the special powers. They can declare any land building or anything to be unsanitary and prohibit its use for any specified purpose. All the stuff about destroying, they can cause infected animals to be destroyed, for example, require persons to report themselves or submit themselves to medical examination at specified times and places.
Now you would think, well, that will cover it, except when you get down into the 90s, which is a funny sort of place to have the principles of all of this, you find a very different picture. So when you get down to 92 Capital A, now Capital A just means that this is 1956 this act was put together, but of course these sections were not there in 1958. In fact, Section 92 was replaced in the same thing by Section 11 of the Health Protection Amendment Act.
So it's the same one. It's still there, but it's in a different act, if you like. So it's still there, but it's, you know, because if it doesn't say repealed, it's still in action, right? So the principles, paramount consideration is the protection of public health. Okay, it's all right. Respect for individuals. Now, we didn't have much of that, did we? Now, this is the interesting one. Section 92D, voluntary compliance. If an individual, not a group, an individual, poses a public health risk, and that risk can be prevented or minimized by the individual's voluntary compliance with certain measures, the individual must be given the opportunity to voluntarily comply with those measures before measures under this part are applied to the individual.
Right, okay. So, you know, they kept on talking about voluntary. You know, it's voluntary. You don't have to do it. But you find out what the measures are when you go down a little bit further. And, of course, measures applied to an individual under this part must not be applied longer than is necessary to prevent or minimize the public health risk that that individual poses. So they were supposed to have these individual people with COVID-19 that they took certain measures against.
Now, what sort of measures are these? They may give these directions. So we're into subpart 2. So we give directions about measures. So the medical officer of health can give the individual any direction or directions listed in subsection 4. So what are in subsection 4? They can direct you to participate in counselling. We've heard that one before, haven't we? Education, other activities related to the infectious disease, refrain from carrying out specified activities. For example, undertaking employment, using public transport or travelling within or outside New Zealand unless absolutely stated conditions are observed.
But this is all to do with the individual who's been diagnosed with a disease. This is not holus bolus, a group of workers who happen to work for a particular boss because, of course, everything was handed over to the boss. Refrain from going to a specified place, either absolutely or unless stated conditions are observed. Refrain from associating with specified persons or specified classes of persons. Take specified actions to prevent or minimize the public health risk posed by the individual.
Stay at all times or at specified times at a specified place of residence subject to specified conditions. Okay, this is all individuals. Accept information by a named person. Attend meetings. This is, I don't know what sort of meetings to get education, I suppose. Providing that person with information on any action, occurrence or plan that is relevant to the public health risk posed by the individual. Comply with instructions to prevent the spread of the infectious disease. Now, they're all in four, aren't they? So listed in subsection four, that's them.
Now we get to subsection five. In no case may a direction require an individual to submit to compulsory treatment. Let that sink in, guys. They can do all of these other things, but it has to be done individually. And it has to be done when it's proven that you're a risk. It's not to be done to people who haven't got anything wrong with them. It's to be done with the people who have actually been tested and got probably a, you know, some sort of respiratory disease that they're saying it can spread to somebody else.
And they've got to stay in one place until they get better. Right? So subsection five is, it's only in no case may a direction require an individual to submit to compulsory treatment. So far from looking for a piece of law that the state can use to put you into all of these positions, you could probably say that if it applied to groups, if it had said groups may be provided with information or groups of workers have to attend meetings or groups of workers have to do da-da-da.
No, it says the individual. So they can't get by on that. So also, not just the, not just the actual vaccination order itself is illegal on the face of it, or ultra-vires is the usual way of saying it. But all those other things about locking people down, groups of people down, had nothing wrong with them. Okay? It's not because, remember, everything is forbidden, the state and the government especially, except what is expressly allowed. Expressly allowed, which means it has to be written down in a piece of legislation.
Right? So you can say absolutely with no question whatsoever that that COVID vaccination order was ultra-vires, illegal, wrong from the beginning. In every case, no way out. Slam dunk. Government, you're about to face the music and all of your minions are about to face the music because they acted as sort of government agents. Now, if they were, so you've got sort of two blocks of wrongdoers. You've got the people in the public service, like all of those, all of the schools, all of the hospitals, et cetera, et cetera.
Coerced people, groups of people, no positive piece of legislation to say they could do such a thing. Pushed it on to the CEOs, right? And then the people who put them in as private mandates, they don't actually come under five because they're not public bodies, if you like, they're private individual companies. But they fall over on breach of contract and the coercion. You know, all of those, all of those good things, the Health and Safety at Work Act, if people are injured, of course, they can be sued.
In the first place, I think that WorkSafe is going to have to do a lot of the suing for people to actually pull some of their chestnuts out of the fire, if you like. Yeah, this is huge. Absolutely huge. Starting to let the courts know that we're moving on this in subtle ways. But yeah, that subsection 5 is going to be the big one. It's bigger, if you like, than the section 10 of the Bill of Rights Act because, you know, New Zealanders have got a very weak conception of their rights, I believe.
But they have a very strong belief in if the government says, oh, yeah, we can do this, you know, we're allowed to do this, we're allowed to put this sort of order out. And then you find out that actually this piece of legislation specifically says they're not allowed to do it because, of course, the group itself is not a legal entity. You know what I mean? It's not addressed in terms of rights and in public law there.
Nobody is addressed as a group, you know. No, it's all about persons, isn't it? It's all about persons, yeah. OK. So I'll leave it there for a bit and let you guys have a think and ask me some questions because that'll help me a lot. I'll stop the sharing. That'll help me a lot to figure out, you know, how much you understand of that and where you see it going. So if you would like to open up the chat for people.
Anyone who perhaps raised your hand or unmute, you won't need me to unmute you. You can go for it. Are they all stunned at the moment? Yep, they are. What do you think some of the likely reactions is going to be to this news, Liz? They're going to discount it and say, no, you've got it wrong. I'll speak to you in a minute, Aifa. I believe once the judicial review application goes in, we can keep hammering at them.
So what I can get is their reaction back to the application, like the court's reaction. And then I can start making the arguments and then, you know, responding to them. And then I'll develop it, but I'll be giving you every week, I'll be giving you an update on where we're at with the arguments back and forth. Because, you know, all that happened was with the judicial reviews that went forward before, that were just sort of addressing that one side of it, you know, asserting the right of the individual.
It's kind of almost like a defensive stance that you take. This is more of an attack. Not to say we're not going to use Section 10, but we'll just, you know, put it against and say, look, Section 10 is the right and Section 92i is the duty. Liz, can I ask you a question? Hi Debbie. Hi. Sorry, I haven't got my video on because I'm cooking dinner. I'm sure you don't really want to see me doing that.
So I got a heads up the other day from international media that apparently we're going into lockdown on the 2nd of January. So, and I also got a heads up that she might try segregating now. So, in other words, if you've been vaccinated, you can go out and if you haven't, you have to say, good luck with that. OK, we'll make sure we get this started before Christmas then. Yeah, yeah, definitely. I also got a heads up that there's going to be another one in July.
It's going to be a rollout of the vaccination in schools on the 24th of January, which would explain the lockdown. Actually, they've got to write the whole thing up to go into schools and vaccinate. And I saw the questionnaire the other day that they've been showing teachers, which was horrifying, because they're going to say to the kids, you're a hero if you've had a vaccination. And if they're anti-vaxxers, they're going to be questioning them as to who's the anti-vaxxer in the family.
Good luck with that. You see, this is the absolute desperation. Yeah, yeah. They didn't get enough of us. They didn't get enough of us. And when you're a survivor, you know that you're supposed to do something. You, survivors guys, have a duty to all of the rest now. So my concern over this, though, is when, if it does go ahead, and because this actually came from international media, I mean, obviously our media, apart from me, never speak the truth.
Mainstream doesn't speak the truth, but international media haven't got the same constraints on them. I think they have. Oh, yeah, yeah. But not as far as New Zealand's little corner of the world. We're particularly bad. Well, she's come out anyway and said it. So, like, I definitely know that I'd never get that information from my mainstream mates. Can you tell us who you are? Oh, sorry. Oh, sorry, Annabelle. I'm an independent journalist. Thank you. But I write about social justice.
So I've been writing about social justice for 30 years. So I'm a freedom fighter. I'm definitely. Great. Just wanted to know who you were and what qualifies your information. But that's very interesting. Thank you. I've never worked for mainstream because we all know that they're bought, sold and controlled. And now, you know, I've actually got video recordings of my mates actually saying to me that we can mainstream. We know we're lying to the public. Here's something for you, Debbie.
I'd like to task you with this, right? It's a two-way conversation, right? Yeah. You know, the idea of lockstep didn't just apply to actions, it applied to legislation. If you start to look at the legislation that was going on in the UK and the US, not so much in the US, but Australia, etc., etc., they were doing exactly the same thing. Now, they had a piece of legislation like our 2020 Act, right? Yeah. That means, Debbie, that they have a piece of legislation like our Health Act 1956, and they will have in there the same duty on their governments, right? Yeah.
So my advice to you, Debbie, is to get this out. Get this out to them and say, start looking, not so much the journalists, see if you can get some lawyers, right? Yeah. Or just, you know, people like yourselves. Yeah? Yeah. The problem is that because people feel that it couldn't be that the government would break the law. It couldn't be. Yeah. We trust them. But if they've got it in black and white in front of them, this is not allowed under our law.
Yeah. So my concern, and this is what I want, because I'll write some media about it and get it out there before Christmas so that people can read it, but my concern is if the government divides the country and says people that aren't vaccinated have to stay home and vaccinated can go out, that even if the unvaccinated go out, they won't be served. Yeah, look. This all came about, Debbie, this all came about, the searching for a very puzzling heading in the COVID-19 public response, what do they call it? A transmission framework.
What's it called? Framework transmission? Framework transmission. Yeah. Transmission framework, right? Yeah. Also called the traffic light system, right? The CDC, which is the COVID vaccination certificate, was out there, and you can find it in various pieces of paper that they put out there. It's not a legislation. It's just a comment that's on a lot of stuff that came out from the government. It's not legally, it's not, you don't have to have one. You don't have to have one.
And under that same piece of legislation, which was put out on the 2nd of December 2021, it actually has two sets of rules, one for CVC compliant and one for non-CVC compliant, right? Yeah. That means that there are a set of rules that you can comply with the order that involve you not requiring a vaccination certificate, because vaccination certificates have got no legal standing. And vaccination certificates have got no legal standing, Debbie, because to have a certificate that you actually put into law, that would breach Section 5.
Yeah. That would say to people, you have to have a vaccination, because the only way you could get a certificate was to have a vaccination. Do you kind of realise we've got to sort of go from the end and backwards? I've been citing the law to people for donkeys, and then I'm in Pukekohe. But you're saying people won't get certificates. Do you think that people are now going to, once they know this and understand it was never a legal requirement, right? Yeah.
And it was never a legal requirement for all of those employers to force those people under Group 10 to get vaccinated. All of the people in the restaurants who are going to get sued by their workers. Yeah. Do you seriously think that the country is going to go along with that? They can say whatever they want, Debbie, but once the country wakes up to they were breaking the law the whole blasted time, they're not going to comply with it.
I've been. If I go back to the mask mandate, the Pukekohe police announced, because actually I do advocacy around labels as well, because we were bashing them over the head with the law. So we were saying the Human Rights Act says you cannot stop access to places and services, you know, section blah blah blah of whatever it is, that you cannot hinder someone's breathing. So we were citing all the law and I'm citing that to retailers and I'm saying, but I'm going to lose my job.
No one has ever said to them, this is a piece of law that says the government is not even allowed to have that sort of mandate. Well, I was over the mask and this is my concern. So I think I'm just trying to get my head around how to put it out in the media. And I think the way to do it might be if you do this, we've just acknowledged that you're breaking the law because I did it around the mask mandate.
And they were like, but I'm going to lose my job. And I'm like, but you're going to lose your job when I sue the arse off you because you're breaking the law. Like this is Pukekohe. We had the calibre. You know, you should know about discrimination. So I was giving them all the facts and they were just going, but I'm going to lose my job. So I think it needs to come from a space of, if you do this, this is going to be the penalty.
And then on the backside of it, we talk about because they're breaking the law. No, it's not so much that they're breaking the law, Debbie. It's the government that's breaking the law. They think that they are protected by the fact that the government is doing something that they're allowed to do. Now, these things about the Bill of Rights Act having Section 10 and the fact that you've got in the Health Act that when you've got pandemics, you're not allowed to treat people without their say so.
They come out of the Nuremberg experience. They both come out of there. But it's always us who's on the upper there because the state itself is actually supposed to only protect us, not actually do stuff that we don't want them to do. Protect our property, actually. Now, do you think, too, that all of the people's businesses who were wrecked by this, all of these lockdowns, etc., because it's not just going to be a judicial review of the COVID Act, I'm also now decided I will challenge the whole damn lot of the orders.
Because there is so much evidence that they should have been. We only had a state of emergency until the 8th of June 2020. Everything else after that, we were running on, they kept it in play with the Emergency Preparedness Act, preparing for an emergency. Now, under that Act, there is nothing. I know, but I mean, I don't know what happened in the rest of the country, but I know, for example, I went down to Tuakau, I mean, I was handing out, here's the Human Rights Act, here's the Bill of Rights, and they were going, but we've been told, and the Puketoe Police, bearing in mind this is after Alan Thomas territory, had gone down to Tuakau, and I had a run in with a guy down there saying, if you don't wear a mask, I'm not serving you.
And I said to him, what have the Puketoe Police said to you? And he said, they've told me they're going to shut me down if I serve anyone without a mask. And I went, don't be ridiculous, I'm going to shut you down. And I had an Indian guy, and I had a conversation with him about the calabar and discrimination. But I mean, our cops are just rogues. So I don't know what was going on. The problem is, it's not the government, it's not the police, it's the mindset of the New Zealander.
I can tell you right now. For example, today I went to a breast clinic. I'm sorry, I'm really angry, and that's why I'm yelling. They said, where's your mask? I said, I have a mask exemption. And I said, why are you forcing people to wear a mask? Oh, well, you just can't be too safe. So I sat down in the waiting room and questioned three people why they were wearing a mask. Oh, we don't like to think.
We like people to think for us. And I just thought, oh, you know. So look, it's all very well, but it's the people that we have the problem with. If people rose up and said, I am not doing this again, it wouldn't happen. Yeah. Well, this is what they will do. Now, I believe that the thing is, they feel safe as long as they know the government is not in trouble. When they know the government is in trouble, they're suddenly told.
So the government can be pulled up on that. Oh, look, I've had this conversation with people, my friends. They've shut me down. Intelligent, articulate people, they don't want to know. They think you're a nutter. Yeah. I mean, I'm not telling you. Anyway, I've explained the thing in full, OK, about how all of the parts of the Act and how you can study it extra. In two YouTube videos that Grant Edwards has done. He did them yesterday.
What's today, Monday? He did them yesterday afternoon. OK, so there is something there for people to look at so you don't have to explain it all yourself. But I'm saying to you, this is a breakthrough and take it and use it. And I will be reporting on how we're going on with what's happening in the courts. Because nothing was ever told anybody about what sort of evidence, etc., they were taking against the government in those judicial reviews.
So the public weren't involved. They didn't understand why except that the government won. They didn't understand why the government won. Now they need to understand why the government's going to lose. OK, and we're going to get a lot of information about it. Grant Edwards, can you see? Yeah, he's on. He has his own channel on YouTube. And also in the chat posted the Podbean episodes. That is the same thing with the audios if you want to listen to that with Liz and Grant.
So what will justify these lockdowns? How will they do this? What are they going off on? They said that there's a big... Oh, sorry, that was a question for Debbie, I suppose. How will they suddenly say, right, we're locking you down on the... You know, we're all breathing the fresh air. It's a lovely, sunny, you know, 2nd of January. And they'll say, sorry, we're going to lock you down. Because there's new variants coming in from Australia.
So they've already started closing some of the schools in Brisbane. I understand because most of the teachers are off. And I think that's actually happening certainly around our area. A lot of kids are doing online schooling again. But they've bastardised the alphabet and now we've got variants C257 and B23. So all that stuff coming in from Australia. But if they want to roll out these vaccines into the schools starting the 24th of January, they're going to have to cause some drama.
So I think... So it did actually seem to me that this international media that I was speaking to was talking about Jacinda's going to let us have Christmas and then she's going to let us have New Year. See that sort of talk, Debbie, that sort of talk about some stupid, ill-educated twerp from Te Awamutu. From Morrinsville. Morrinsville. I'll take all of the towns. We won't say Huntly. That's my hometown. Went to the University of Waikato. Sorry.
Sorry. University of Waikato. Communication degree. Communication spin doctor degree. And all other sorts of crap. The first dean of the law school there was a big mate of Helen Clark's. As soon as I saw she was the first dean of the law school there, I thought, uh-oh. Uh-oh. So, you know, Waikato, they've got problems there, right? Don't take any notice of what this silly little girl says. Oh, no, I'm not. When the international people say Jacinda's going to do that, tell them what she is.
Tell them what she is. Oh, yeah, I do. I do. Ill-educated, okay? So that's your job. Now, Robyn's got her hand up, so let's have Robyn have a question. Oh, sorry, did we have Anna first, I think it was? No, Robyn was first. Robyn first. Hi, Robyn. Thanks very much, Liz. That's really great. So, just a few questions. One is, where it relates to, like, I was actually in that legislation, too, and I got quite down because I didn't quite get to where you got to, and I didn't spot that bit, but I kind of felt so horrible after the lockdown and Bernie House stuff, I just quit on it.
But with the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 and 13 effective COVID-19 orders, where it says under that, number two, however, subsection 1A does not limit or affect the application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990. Potentially, that's the same thing, isn't it? Because they've put in this legislation, then they say you still have your rights. Yes, but what happened with the Bill of Rights arguments was they brought in Section 5 of the Bill of Rights.
Now, Section 5 is the one where they have it out all of the time. OK? So, they were saying Section 5 says you've got to balance the rights of the other. OK? The other group. OK? But here we go again. The rights of the individual are what's addressed in both the Bill of Rights and the Health Act. OK? So, everybody was so busy looking at the group. It's not a group right that you're arguing about. It's an individual right.
You can see it more clearly when you're talking about the rights of people to keep their jobs, for example, under Section 28. I think it comes under there. Or the right not to be coerced under Section 92 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. Because both of those are obviously within the employment contract itself. Right? In that space. It's not a public space. All employment law is basically private law, but it's impacted by the statutes, for example.
So, you can still argue the Bill of Rights, of course, and especially if you work for a government department, you can still argue the Bill of Rights because that's a public body. You've got special rights to argue it there. But, yeah. So, it's all a sleight of hand. It's like smoke and mirrors all of the time. People think you talk because they don't really understand the kind of nitty-gritty of the law. You know, the sort of like the bounding principles.
This thing, you know, if you can do nothing else, try and put into your search engines, put in everything is allowed except that which is forbidden. Okay? And you'll get a lot of interesting commentary by judges, etc. There was a judge in the UK who was bringing this up, a retired judge in the UK, was bringing this up in 2020 and saying he couldn't believe how people had given away their rights. And was talking about the fact that the state must not do anything except what it's authorised to do.
So, everything is forbidden from them, but what is authorised expressly. So, Liz, with everything is allowed except that which is forbidden, is that actually in the Health Act? No, no, that's a print, that's a maxim of the law. That's what you call jurisprudence. That's the sort of ideas that judges and lawyers should know. That you're looking, that when you're looking at the actions of the state, you're basically only looking for, you really should be looking for, well, where's their authority to do it? Okay? Where's their authority to do it? And when you look at the 2020 Act, you can see straight away there's no authority to, under Section 11, there's no authority to do any vaccine certificate stuff or vaccinations.
Right? And then you can actually go over to the Health Act and say, well, actually, there's a positive duty on them not to do that. And that's the Section 5. Subsection 5 of Section 92i. So, sometimes when it's written, it looks like 921, but it's letter i. Right, because I'll probably put that one in my civil case as well. Yeah, of course, of course. This is all civil. Yeah. Civil law. Awesome. Thanks, Liz. That's amazing. Thank you.
Great. Great. Well, you know, get it out there, Robin. Watch the videos, share the videos, because I go into a lot of the more that sort of the technical stuff in the videos. But I just wanted to talk to you guys and get your reaction and get you guys moving on spreading it out there and teaching people. Where are the videos, sorry, Liz? They're on YouTube. And I think they're called something like Government Trickery 1 and Government Trickery 2 or something.
Because he only had 40 minutes before he had to pay $200 for more Zoom or something. I don't know. But anyway, we got, it was kind of, I didn't realise he was going to do a Zoom. I thought he was just going to do a podcast. But you see, the thing was, I wanted Grant to do it. Because do you remember, I don't know if any people remember, but back when the vaccination order first came out and I started looking at the exceptions under there, the exemptions and the exceptions or whatever they were called, exemptions.
And I looked at Group 9 and Group 10 and my analysis of it was straight away, you employers don't have to do this, especially the ones who had, you know, they were one man band, you know, they were like a hairdresser with a couple of, their little business, you know, they might have employed a couple of people. But, you know, it was always up to, this was trying to say to businesses, this is not a communist country.
The state doesn't own your business like China. You make the decisions. That's why you've got those exemptions in there. You just say, no, I need all my workers. And especially somebody who's self-employed. I mean, it was self-explanatory, wasn't it? You know, if you were somebody who was in one of those, what do you call it, businesses, what you had to do, and this is what I explain in the videos, what you had to do when you looked at, when you read the order properly, and this was under the traffic light system, was that you had to, you had to display the fact that you weren't requiring a COVID vaccination certificate.
That was really all of the difference. It was a little more, there was a little more to it. There was like, you had to limit the number of people who could come in, et cetera, et cetera. And I actually found a radio RNZ interview with a lawyer in Auckland who was saying, well, they won't be compulsory because that would breach the Human Rights Act. That would be discriminatory. Okay. So he was saying, well, but he thought that employers would do it because they, you know, they wanted to keep their other, they thought, he thought that it would be more popular, you know, places that actually said we, you know, only people with COVID vaccine certificates are allowed in.
He thought it would be more popular. And so that they would do it for marketing, it would be a marketing ploy, basically. But, of course, but nobody ever thought about the workers who were, meanwhile, they were getting vaxxed, right, who had to get vaxxed to keep their jobs. So that was sort of fell out of the reckoning of people. Disgusting when you think of it. But, you know, you've got to bring it back again to what was the historical reason for our Bill of Rights? What was the historical reason? And that particular, those, both Section 10 and 11 come directly out of what happened in the Holocaust.
Why has no one else brought this to the fore? Why is no one else like yourself challenging this or appearing to challenge the law? You seem to be the only person that I've heard of that's actually bringing this to notice. Yeah. What can I say? What can I say? The failure of our judicial system, of the legal system, it's just, well, I mean, I guess I focus more on the medical side because of my background. But, no, yeah, it's just extraordinary.
Well, there's sort of this thing called, and I invited Karlene on tonight, and I was thinking before, gosh, I hope Karlene comes on, I'll get her to say her usual prayer. But I should say it. I should humble myself and say it because I've got to admit, it's not me, Annabelle. It's not me. Well, yes, but you're the dry, you're the, what is it? Yeah, but we've got to thank God for the inspiration, Annabelle. Well, you're taking the direction, Liz.
Yeah, I'm taking direction. What I'm saying is the rest of them are feeble. They're just worried about their own business. We don't want to be seen as anti-vaxxers. We don't want anything to do with it. As long as their money's coming in, they don't, it's just that. Yeah, but Annabelle, you know, look, somebody just sent me before, just sent me before that a young guy called Felix, I can't remember, had died out of King's, another young one, 16 year old or something, dead.
People, do you know the story of the, was it 10 plagues of Egypt? The last one, when he let the people go, there was some pretty horrible stuff going on, right? People put up with some pretty horrible stuff. But it was when the family of the Pharaoh died in the night, when the angel passed over. And that's what Passover is about. That's when they, that was the 10th plague. And it was only when the elite felt it themselves that the people were let go.
And even then, Annabelle, they got out into the desert and they were moaning and wanted to go back. Right? So always remember, people will put up with any crap, will go back to slavery, unless something really bad hits them. And unfortunately, you know, a lot of the innocents are being, well, I mean, the children are innocent, it's terrible. But they don't care. They just want to kill. This is kind of a psychological problem that they get too.
It's kind of like, and there's a book called Crowds and Power, fantastic book. And it's actually survivors of something like an epidemic or a war or something like that. They get a kind of a, well, a war, let's say. And, you know, I mean, there's a story of Genghis Khan in this book. And he was asked, you know, what made you decide, you know, that you were it and you were, you know, invincible? Right? And he said he'd been driving along the road, he'd been driving, he'd been driving his horse, riding his horse along the road.
There was these six robbers who were waiting by the bridge to set upon him. And he jumped off his horse and went in and slayed them, right, the six of them, and left their bodies and went on his way to where he was going. And on his way back, he saw the bodies and he saw their horses were running around. So he drove the horses back to his place and took them as well. And that's where he believed, because he kind of survived against six, that he was, you know, he was it and that sort of thing.
But it's kind of like the more that they do it, the more bloodthirsty they get. And so I think, you know, dear little Jacinda has got a bloodlust now, because there's an immense feeling of power to be able to kill a whole lot of people and maim a whole lot of people and you are risen above it. Nobody can do anything to you. You're invincible. She thinks she is, and the people around her think they are.
She's got a very bad psychological problem. She's receiving instructions from Klaus Schwab. That's what's happened there. Yeah, well, he thinks he is. They really, really do think that, you know, we are the dust beneath their feet. They are chosen to, you know, to have the world with 500,000, 500 million people in it. And the other, what is it now? Eight hundred and eight and a half billion people have to go under the sword or have to go under the needle.
Four billion useless eaters. Yeah, but the longer you repeat that, the better. So yeah, yeah. So anyway, Anna had a question. Sorry, Anna. You've been very patient. I'll just go back to the section 1956. In no case may a direction require an individual to submit to compulsory treatment. So I guess in terms of people's PGs, being locked out of work and that sort of thing because you wouldn't take it must put a better case forward, would it not? Oh, very much so.
Very, very much so. And, you know, while we go along with this, I've already written off to the court once today and said the writer is taking a judicial review of the COVID-19 response or vaccination order. And, you know, that it's outraised the act. But also, you know, there is the section to consider and quoted it to them and said, you know, it's completely, you know, anybody who was involved in coercing people. You know, they've been part of a huge crime basically.
Yeah. But I think it was the 1860s in Leicester that people were put in prison for not taking a smallpox in England and they protested too in their carts and things and they'd go up to the prison. So that's what happened then. And then what they did was quarantine, took the people to hospital eventually and just quarantined the ill, you know, cleaned the houses. But it's kind of happened before. According to Google, though, you know, and do we trust Google or our history anymore? Pretty much.
They could they could pretty much fabricate. How did we get on? Anyway, thanks. OK, thanks, Anna. Yeah. Yeah. And, you know, as you go along and you put we put your your PGs together and everything will will show you how it could be incorporated in. Yeah. Hi, Jeff. Go for it, Jeff. So lots of tonight. I am very sorry about that. I'm hoping somebody will send me a link to the recording. But it seems a real dynamite program this tonight, Liz, with that section, whatever it was you were talking about.
Does that mean then that we can file criminal charges against the likes of the cops and the rest of them under that section? Yeah, because they're part of the state. OK. Yeah. What about New World? That has to that's a civil that will be a civil matter. OK. Yeah. I'd like to share one or two things with you all tonight. If I made this, I found out over the past few days. First of all, I don't know whether you know or not, but New World is using facial recognition in 29 of its stores in the North Island, which is interesting to me.
I want to find out if they were using it in the Keri Keri store when they went up to me. So I'm waiting to hear about that. Also, the cops have said in one breath that they do not have public liability insurance. And in the next breath, they're saying that they do. So that's interesting. But what is more interesting, they are paid out over six million in compensation to 158 people over the last 11 years. And that works out to half a million a year and an average payout of thirty four thousand per claimant.
But where it gets interesting, who's paid it? Because the one guy says it all comes out of the police funds. But yet they've got a 20 million dollar public liability insurance. That's right. Yeah. Well, this is it. That's very interesting, Jeff, because we want the money to come out of insurances. We don't want it out of our treasury. Thank you very much. Yeah. What you were saying about this section 92. To me, it really enhances the potential for these liability claims.
Yes. Well, you can sort of say, you know, this is and I think always if you if you're going to use it, it's always point out that it's coming from the experience of Nuremberg. That's why that's why it's there. Also, I have found a very interesting Facebook page called ACC exposed. Well worth joining. Well worth having a look. I have joined and I posted something up there. And we got a very intelligent reply from a guy who agrees that we could file personal injury claims.
But he's got a little bit of cross purposes as to who we file it against. But I tell you, we're going to have so much stuff to go after these people with. We're going to be spoiled. That's right. That's the thing, Jeff. Yeah, you're right. We use first. Exactly. Anyway, that's all I can think of at the moment. Yeah, I saw you. I saw your email to them with the questions about who's who's been paying. Very good.
Very good. And yeah, and it's great that we get all of this feed into Zooms, etc. So anybody who's new on the Zoom tonight hasn't been here before. Keep coming and inviting your friends because you're at the pointy end, guys. That's how we get the word out there. You're at the tip of the spear. Yep, tip of the spear. Okay, Robin, she's got another question there. Thanks, Jeff. Sorry, I clicked the wrong button and got to crying.
That's okay. Now, I found some really cool legislation. It's not your one, but I don't know whether it will help people with PDs. It certainly is good for me as a contractor. And it was the Contract and Commercial Laws Act 2017. And I just have to go get that. Yeah, that is more your contractors, Robin. But yeah, yeah. Because the contract, the specialist contract that we talk about in employment is the employment contract or the employment agreement.
Right, right. Okay, I did wonder about that. And so it's good for me. And the other one I found that is super, super good for me. So if anyone else out there is a contractor, my guys said they would reinstate that. Obviously, things would change. They'd reinstate essentially when, and I've got it on video. And so I found in the Contract and Commercial Laws Act where it says that a promise, if it's made orally, essentially I can enforce that.
Oh, very good. Good on you. The other thing, too, is those commercial contract, because they're omnibus. It's an omnibus act now. So it's got all the things, all the contract, you know, various, used to be, what was it, contractual promises, privity of contract, consumer guarantees, all those things. They're all in one act now. So it's kind of easier in a way but more difficult than the other because you don't know. Sometimes you can find things easily if they're named properly, right.
So now it's called, yeah, it's 2019, isn't it? But it's got them all in there. And the other thing, too, guys, I know you're all, most of you are not self-employed or have got businesses or anything. But pass this information on to the businesses. The WorkSafe were putting up all sorts of ridiculous stuff. And MB were putting up all sorts of ridiculous, misleading propaganda, basically, as far as the law. Well, we know, like, I was hoping Steve Oliver would get in touch because, of course, this, the gyms, one of the group 10 or part 10 and the group in there, they're one of the groups that were, you know, being, well, he's being sued for his, he got a couple of infringement notices.
After he put up his waiver, it all stopped because, of course, if you like, the non-CDC notice is like a waiver. So if you put up a non-CDC rules, then people who go in there know that, you know, they are supposedly risking life and limb. But they waive that right because they enter with full knowledge. Right. So it's like a waiver. So, yeah, and all those businesses need to be suing for misrepresentation. They all need to be suing WorkSafe and the, yeah, WorkSafe in particular for misrepresentation and MB, right.
They must be able to sue for damages for ruining their jobs. Oh, hell yeah. Yeah. Absolutely sue for damages. Yeah. But this is where Jeff's stuff, where Jeff's research is going to come in really handy because we want to make sure that the international insurance companies pay up. Yeah. They're good and wealthy, I'm sure. Yeah. So we shouldn't have it coming out of our treasury if they've got insurance policies. And, of course, when you're suing, you're allowed to make a claim and say, yeah, you know, not a claim against their insurance, but you can point it out.
So the courts, you know, are more inclined then to see your point of view because they are trying to protect the public first, if you like, because the government hasn't got any money. It's all ours. Yeah. All ours. Right, we've got Debbie wanted to have another question. Quick question. I was just interested in what Robyn's case is about. Robyn's case, she worked as a contractor and so she didn't come under the Employment Relations Act, but she does come under the Health and Safety at Work Act because the health and safety and the coercion provisions under that apply to both employees and contractors.
Right, OK. So under Section 88 in particular of the Health and Safety at Work Act, adverse action, I think it's called, to take adverse action is to cancel people's contracts, to refuse to give them the same sorts of things as you give other contractors. And, of course, by proxy, you know, all of this was, well, coercion was involved in all of these situations. OK, thanks. Awesome. That's fantastic, Liz. Awesome. Robyn, did you have another question? No? No.
Oh, sorry. Oh, hi. Hi, Liz. I've enjoyed your efforts to date, especially for Zayt that helped me out, but I won't mention too much about that here. I'll give you my background. We've got a PG already underway, along with the other workers from the London Port Company that never took the job. I was a health and safety rep at one time. Chaired the Health and Safety Committee in the Lyttelton Port Terminal. Asked when the mandates that were rolled out when they did, what do you call it, order number two for the ports.
Asked the ones that had been batched if they would be happy to do a D-dimer test with all the talk that people had, that sort of thing. Unfortunately, I lost my daughter around that time. The port was very, very good and helped out, time off, and sent me to Australia to sort the fears out. But then everything just went really bad. They weren't prepared to follow up on people who had adverse effects. That was the government's job.
That was the health department. We're going to do that. They used the order where we could be put on a D-dimer test. And that's what we did. And that's what we did. And that's what we did. And that's what we did. And that's what we did. And that's what we did. And that's what we did. And that's what we did. And that's what we did. They used the order where we could be put inside a cab.
We weren't captured by the order. They put us into straddles and left us at that. Because of the questions I'd been asking and, to some extent, I suppose, the loss of my daughter, they called me into a meeting. It was nothing to do with the driver. They said that we're concerned about you. We're getting some reports about how COVID is affecting you. And sent me off home on pay until I got a doctor's employment consultant doctor type person to deem if it was right to return to work.
In the meantime, from the 1st of December, they shut everyone that was unvaccinated out the gate, which meant I was out anyway before the results came in from the doctor. Ultimately, we fought with the help of Derek Gilbert right through until the 18th of February when I got my final dismissed. Take the jab or not. I think they got me, Liz, out of the Health and Safety Committee because I was rather out the gate at a time when I would have been asked for a risk assessment.
All the risk assessments happened after the 1st of June. Sorry about the puppy in the background, guys. It's OK. We like puppies and kittens and everything on the show. So, no risk assessment of any adverse effects. And that sort of thing happened. With regards to the D-dimer test, I had volunteers who had been vaxxed who were happy to get it done. At that point, I was very hesitant about getting the jab and also wanting more knowledge.
I think we've all been on our own little path, building up, building up. When they refused to do that, I sort of dug my toes and said, no, this is not for me. And when the doctor done his report, Laurie is not anti-vaxxed at all. He's waiting for the experiment to be over. So now we fast forward to where we are now. The port company have relented on the people going in the gate. I'm now driving a truck.
Tarting containers are rightfully in Lyttelton. And they've now dropped all the mandates because they can't get people applying for jobs. My advocate tells us we've got to apply for a job there even if we don't want to go back, sort of thing. It's to show that we are actually interested in it. Someone touched on it earlier because I did miss the start of the program. The fact that the ports sort of got rolled out very early.
I'm just hoping that all my workmates got to see those. It was too early to start the mass cull or something like that. I'm idolized by a lot of people. I'm still seen as a nutter by a few others on the job as well. But ultimately the then CEO, he just said that it was down to the fact that the workforce were not feeling safe working with someone who wasn't vaccinated. It was so much bullshit. But that doesn't make any difference.
The fact that your fellow workers weren't comfortable doesn't give the right of the boss to break your contract. There was nothing in your contract. The other thing was, I'm interested in the fact that you're saying you were in the health group. I don't know whether you've been on to the union website, our union, which is Number 8 Workers' Union Incorporated. Derek's talked to me about that. I haven't had a look at that. Well, the thing is that we want to use health groups.
The union wants to support health groups and make sure that, and that's the other thing that we're going to put in our collectives. We're about to negotiate our first collective at the moment. And one of the things that's in there is that there is not to be any medical intervention on the body of the worker. So they're not going to like that. But if I believe, if the unions had actually done their job and supported the workers who didn't want to get jabbed, and you could have used also, with the health group of course, you can use section 84 of the Health and Safety at Work Act to say we believe that there's a hazard in the workplace that's been imported by proxy by you making that a condition of our workplace.
And so, you know, we're stopping work until you stop demanding it, basically, because that would remove the threat. But, yeah, and I heard, it was Auckland, I think, Auckland Port, was all prepared to do it. And then, of course, I think the unions were hand in hand with the government over this. I went to, got an invite via Colin, who's on tonight. We went down to Waihi to commemorate the Waihi strike of 1912. 110 years, isn't it? And who's down there, of course, drumming up support for the election of the Labour Party in 2023 is the Minister of the River of Filth, comment, Wood.
Down there, all chummy chummy with all of the, and congratulating the members on working through and, you know, being on the front line and working through all of the time and everything. Of course, we know that they absolutely gave their members' health if they said they didn't do it. They had a deal with the government right from the beginning. I can confirm absolutely everything that you've just said. I've suffered it myself. I've been at a union meeting and I would state to anyone that's not happy getting a jab, please come and see me.
You can't be doing that, Laurie. You can't be saying that. It's just too late. I've said it. Not a single person. I felt encouraged. Afterwards, different times than that, people did. I've watched so many people who took it because of mortgages, because of young family, because of kids, who come and confided with me that, you know, the situation. But if the union had a pull together and said, no, we don't, you know, no, no, no, no.
If people don't want to get it, then we're just going to stop workers, you know, and say, no, it's not going to happen. And the other thing, of course, that the ports did, and I found out when I was doing the case for the Tauranga port, the port of Tauranga, let's say, the trouble there was that I got information from the port of Nelson that they couldn't get ships in and out because their pilot said no.
And he was a very specialist pilot, and it's a very specialist harbour, apparently. They couldn't get in and out, so they didn't do any. No, they took other measures. Yeah, they took other measures. I've since found out, too, that I haven't spoken to the people who got their actual names, but I was told where they were and what they looked like. I recall seeing them when I'd be up at the computer, that sort of thing. Theorical staff stayed on.
They weren't terminated because they couldn't work from home. Yeah. And as far as I'm concerned, and please confirm if I've got this right, we were not captured by the order if we were in a cab? Yeah, that's correct. Straddle drivers weren't. The guy that I was representing, and still am because we're going back to the employment authority to argue the substantive case, he was a tugboat engineer. And they said, oh, they did a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about, oh, we talked to the people at Maritime New Zealand, who were supposed to be the people who gave the exemptions, actually.
The CEO of Maritime New Zealand was supposed to be the person giving the exemptions out, right? Because it was all supposed to be about, you know, if you couldn't make your business go because of, you know, the operations were going to be a problem. And then, you know, you could take other measures as long as you were trying to keep the spread down. I mean, that was it. But all this rubbish, they were, you know, pushing the propaganda all of the time about, well, this is the only control that is any good, and we have to do it because of the order, right? They weren't actually thinking.
All they were perishing all of the time was, we're taking advice, et cetera, et cetera. The judge in that case, even though she didn't let the guy back because some stuff happened afterwards that sort of upset the applicant a bit, so he didn't get his job back, but she did agree on the point that it did appear that he wasn't covered by the order, right? So, yeah, there was a whole lot of people who were fooled into taking it and weren't even covered by the order.
I'm just going to go to, you know, be radical about it and say we're going to try and get that order proven to be ultra-virus. And I think that with the extra firepower of Section 92, we've got it in the bag. Right. This is what I want to hear. I want something going forward. I mean, I'm not employed by the thought company any longer. It's ironical that I'm in and out of the gate all the time, and I still get to see all my workmates, my colleagues and things like that.
I consider myself a walking, talking 70-year-old who's supposedly going to be dead, because I was a silly old prick for not taking it, who's alive and well. Yeah, a lot more well. The other side of the experiment. Yeah. Good on you, Laurie. Thank you. Thank you very much. If you would go over to number8.org.nz, that's our website. You can find out all of that. Please join the union and support us. Because even though this isn't the case I'm going to be taking, I'm taking it on the back of, because I wasn't employed by anybody.
I'm retired, supposedly. I'm going to be taking it on the back of, and Auckland City is going to be one of the public bodies I'll be having a go at, because they shut down the library and I couldn't go in and use the library. OK? And so it's a coercion. It's a form of coercion. It's an inducement. But at the same time, of course, I can have a go at Auckland City. I can have a go at the Ministry of Health.
I can, you know, and I can challenge the validity of the COVID. But I'm thinking twice now, actually, Laurie. I'm thinking, why not go the whole hog? Because, you know, it's just as much work to put it in as one cause of action as the other. Yeah. Yeah. Awesome. Fantastic. Excellent. Thank you for your time. I shall get on to number eight. Great. Fantastic. Welcome aboard. We've been on parallel paths in the sense that... We are.
We are. And this has been some time since I've actually been on one of your podcasts, but earlier on I was following them all the time. Oh, cool. Cool. Oh, that's good. Yeah. We got here in the end, you know, Laurie. It's been because it's all a new situation. You had to think new. You couldn't be thinking the same old employment law, the same old cases, the same old... Because they weren't... It's blue sky, as I call it.
Yeah? Yeah. A year ago, come January, I'm down here at Christchurch. We have a car show, a muscle car madness out at Rangiora, and you had to have your passport to be there. Everybody who went that was, in fact, just forged a passport. There were no protected balances. But I'd been that loud and that noisy that I knew that I would be setting myself up, perhaps, so I elected not to go. And I set up another little car show in Mackay, where I stay.
Oh, thank you. I went right into my music. The local pub employed me under Section 8 as their musical convener. So we do open mics, which is a continuation of that. And on that particular occasion, when Rangiora was on, I hired at least the pub for a dollar. And no vaccination certificate required. We had a hell of a knee zip. So many people come out the woodwork. It wasn't funny. I think New Zealanders have had enough.
I think, unfortunately, the people who've lost family members are absolutely determined to get justice. And the people who've lost their businesses, I think the appetite is there. And we want to hear about everybody's, you know, because we've got to keep on with bringing people together and informing them. Absolutely, yeah. Yeah. So things like that. Because I also saw, and Emma will be interested in this, while I was looking for the piece of paper that said, you know, vaccine certificates aren't legally required.
I came across a little pamphlet from some equestrian group who was saying, you can have meetings under CBC rules, or you can have them under non-CBC rules. And it just gave you the different situations that you had to comply with. So it was something to do with numbers and everything. But as I say, in this video I did with Grant Edwards, it's like, it was how many people, were they standing up or sitting down, were they wearing masks or taking them off? And, well, you know, if it was a close contact one and you couldn't actually comply with the distancing, well, you know, you do your best and that sort of stuff.
So it was all, but people, yeah, they kind of loved the drama to a certain extent. And then it was when it really hit reality, it was like, nah, it's not so much fun now as I thought it was going to be. Because I think that first two weeks people thought, oh, this is a nice holiday. Well, ironically, when the age I was back then, I would have been 69 then, I was more than happy to stay at home, or rather they were more than happy to have me stay at home.
And I stayed there and the rapport I had with my then CEO meant that I was held in high regard. When he asked for suggestions about, you know, what can we do for the people that have soldiered on and that sort of thing, I'd suggest if it was winter, a beanie. They produce these beanies with an essential worker and whatever. I must say, when I wanted to go out, when I wanted to go out, when it was all, you know, deep lockdown, sorry.
When I wanted to go out and it was deep lockdown and I was sick of it, I just put on a high-vis vest and went out and pretended I was an essential worker. Love that, love that. Liz, I've actually got to go on to another Zoom. I can make you host if you like, and then you can just. I think we are about ready to say goodnight to everybody now, aren't we? OK. I want to thank you for letting me share and I'm going to bail out now.
Well done, everyone. Thank you, Laurie. We'd love to see you and you're going to be a regular. You'll see me soon. If anybody's got questions that they haven't had answered in here, the union group. You can pop off and I can pause if you like. And you can stop the recording if you like. And yeah. I've done that in the wrong order. Yeah, you're still there. Yeah, I should have done that the other way around. You just have to stop the recording.
Forrest is here. Forrest, come on, take over, Forrest. If you just stop the recording now, it's all good. You can leave. Yeah. Anyway. OK. Thank you. I think he's got a question. He's got his hand up. Yeah. How come he's got his hand up? Liz is the host, but I won't kill it when I leave. I promise. No, you won't. You can just unmute yourself, mate. It's all unmuted. OK. Kia ora. Kia ora, Liz. Taki here.
Hey, Kate, Liz. I just have a question, and it's really probably more for both my wife and I. She's the main source of our income here. And for her work in the education sector, you know, she had to go. Yeah. And she did. She pushed into it. She tried so much to dissuade her, discourage her, anything to do with the three-letter word diss, everything. And yeah. So anyway, long story short, she ended up getting two shots.
And yeah. And despite everything, just tried to push against it. Got it. Now, fortunately, what we were able to do at the time of the jab, we – and I don't know how much reliability one could put on this, but we managed to document a form of like a liability from the pharmacist. We got them to sign it off. We got the employer to sign it off. And to the effect that she's doing this against her will, and she felt that she's being coerced into this and so forth.
And so both the employer signed it, and the pharmacist or the person that injected her at the time, and I got it recorded as well. And an inevitable unfortunate experience, you know, misfortunate experience that if she was to pass before I do, I would sue for a PG then. Yeah. Have you heard any trouble? It would be a criminal – either a criminal or a civil prosecution. Yeah. The civil one – yeah, because it's like – it's a form of tort.
Okay? Yeah. So in actual fact, it only – you get six years from the time that – you know, you've got a kind of a long stop, as far as I know. What, six years to lodge it? Six years after it's come – if anything happens. If anything happens, I believe you've got six years after that. So that's what I would say would – I would rely on. She's gone, but, you know, he's protected her. Yeah, exactly.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Because I know you're a man of faith, Haki, and, you know, if anyone's going to be. Yeah. Well, so far – so far, she's beaten all the odds. She has had no episode of Charlie One-Nine. Charlie One-Nine. Okay? Because I refuse to fall into the languaging of that narrative, you know. Yeah. Yeah, because it just doesn't – for me, it just doesn't sit well to be part of that. So I just refer to it as Charlie One-Nine.
Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah. So she hasn't had no episode whatsoever. And this is going back – yeah, it's going back over two and a half years. Yeah. Yeah, they do say there was placebos, and, you know, I have the same hopes for my own daughter, actually. Hmm. Hmm. Yeah, there's been some – there's been a lot of sickness, unfortunately, and it hasn't since then. Well, all the tangis I've been to this year, I would go as far as to say there's pretty much all of them had an underlying, you know, an underlying element of Charlie One-Nine, the old still shot.
Yeah. Yeah. So I use, probably, a total different language here. Yeah. Yeah. No, we all know what you're talking about. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
