N8WUNZ 20221216 (F) Genius Law Work w Liz Lambert, Solutions Under the HSWA and ERA for Unjustified

The speaker discusses their plans to do a Facebook live session and mentions that their Rumble videos are getting good views. They also mention that the views on Rumble may be higher than reported since not everyone has an account. The speaker then talks about their upcoming Zoom session and the topics they will cover, including clauses related to health and safety at work. They discuss using the Employment Relations Act and the Health and Safety at Work Act together to make claims. They explain different sections of the acts and how they can be used. They mention seeking damages and compensation for breaches and unfair treatment by employers, including coercion to get vaccinated or wear masks. The speaker also discusses the termination of employment agreements for failure to comply with relevant duties and determination. They explain the requirements employers must meet before terminating employment. They mention exemptions for being vaccinated and provide details about clause 7A exem Get the recording going, and I'll do Facebook if that's all right, Liz, and then we can finish. Let's see. Yeah, I'm aware that 7 o'clock is sometimes a little bit early for people who are still finishing dinner, but... Oh, no, that's all right. Yeah. I figure, you know, and then you can go off and spend the rest of the night, you know? Yeah, exactly. Now, I think 7pm is as good a time as any. Yeah. Yeah. Hi, everybody on Facebook. Welcome along, whether you're watching now or in the future. Hope you enjoy the Zoom tonight, and then we'll be putting on Rumble again. That seems to be working quite well. Oh, OK. How's the viewers going over there? Oh, good, yeah. Like, they're getting upwards of, like, 600, 700 views. Oh, good. Good. And it's there, you know, so people can go back and back. Yeah, people can share it and that. So I think the views is only the people that actually have accounts. So there'd be a lot of people that are watching that don't... Oh, I see. ...don't have accounts, yeah. Right. Could be double that, triple that. Oh, yeah, because I can't quite figure out Rumble about, you know, rumbles and what does that mean? I have no idea. It's like Likes, you know, like on Facebook. Oh, OK. So if you hit the plus thingy, the more it goes out to people. Oh, OK. Well, I must go on Rumble because I think I've got an account. Pretty sure I have. Yeah. Even if you don't, you can still... Not very good at these things, but, you know, the way I figure it, it's organic and, you know, when it's ready, you can't, you know, it's no use eating green potatoes or... No. No. No. Trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Farewell, Lynette. OK. So I think there's some real exciting stuff to talk about tonight. We've got to go through a bit more of the clauses again just to get you on the right track and so you know exactly what you're talking about. And after I've talked about this and I think very exciting news, then Geoff is going to tell you something and I think we can, as a group of people, let's just say that, that it is something to certainly keep in our heads and think about when people talk about difficult situations with the police or with other bodies that do things that we might not like. We can remember what Geoff has told us and what might be some solutions for us. So OK, well, let's get on with it. I sent you over, Emma, a, what would I call it now? I'm going to go over there and have a look. I've got it on my screen and I'm going to talk you through it. It's kind of what they call show notes, I think. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's a kind of, let's see. I want to put it on here, I think. Yeah. Now, I've headed it. It's a piece of. Do you want me to share it or are you going to do that? Yeah. Yeah. If you would share it, please. No worries. First, there's a bit of dry, fairly dry stuff, I suppose, which is to do with the sort of ways I'm developing the claims under the Health and Safety Work Act. Now, this is something I was working on. I've taken the identifying names out. So, a claim for being unjustifiably dismissed under Section 103.1a. And this person got dismissed on two occasions. So, they're seeking. This is just, you know, part of what's called Form 1, which is your statement of problem. This was a, and I'm keen to be doing this quite a lot lately, is doing amendments to statements of problem. The other side don't like it, but they can lump it. We can do as many as we want. You know, because in actual fact, the longer these things, my grandson says, you know, I wouldn't believe. I watched last Section 83 on replay. Okay. I don't quite miss. I'll get to that. I'll have a look at everybody's chat in a minute. So, Section 103.1a, and that's of the ERA, actually, Employment Relations Act. Okay. And so, what I've done is I've used the Employment Relations Act to springboard from, because the authority and the court, they get all very nervous, even though you can see when you look at these claims how it works out. They got all very nervous about stuff coming at them under the Health and Safety at Work Act, because they obviously hadn't had it before them, and they thought they had no jurisdiction. Well, I think that they have woken up to that, because they've been getting instruction by you-know-who. So, then we've used the Employment Relations Act and the Health and Safety at Work Act together here, and this is how it works. So, under b, I claim I was unjustifiably disadvantaged in my employment in terms of Section 103.1b. So, that was 1a. This is 1b of the Employment Relations Act. In particular, that there were breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act, Section 36.3a. Now, you guys, you're going to be able to have a look at this, because these notes are going to go up on the page, both the union page and, actually, it'd probably be best if you go and have a look at it on the union website. Okay? So, for each Zoom from now on, I think the stuff that I talk about, it'll get loaded with the Zooms onto the website. But, you know, even if you don't want to have a look at the Zooms there and want to have a look at them on Rumble, you can go back to the website and have a look. So, these are all very involved, different sections of the Act. Section 36.3 is kind of a general keeping the workplace safe because of the work that's done in it. And, you know, this is rather ironic. Section 36 is what they were all banging on about like they knew anything, but they didn't know anything. I'm just looking for my Health and Safety at Work Act. Where's it gone? I don't know where it is. But, anyway, section... I did some notes on it. Thanks for that. Section 58.1b. These were all about, you know, bringing the worker... the obligation or the law is that you've got to bring the worker into all of these discussions about hazards in the workplace. And those particular sections, I've been through them quite carefully and they can all be used. Section 60 is about identifying risks and hazards and making decisions about how to minimise or get rid of the risk entirely. D is about making changes in the workplace. This is section 60A. Section 60D, making changes in the workplace. E is about monitoring the conditions of any workplace under the management or control of the PCBU. Now, you remember when we're talking about Erica's case, a workplace or an undertaking is so very, very wide. You can even be... Your workplace can be the cab of your truck or your taxi or your boat if you took people out on, you know, commercially sailing or something like that. That's your workplace or your place of undertaking. For a club, getting back to Erica's case, for a club, the clubhouse or the grounds, the golf course, the tennis courts, they're all places of undertaking because, and this was what was important and this is getting into the minutiae of these sections of the Acts, is that the sports clubs quite often will employ somebody. And you will have heard me talk about this thing of employing people makes you a PCBU. Even one person, and they're brought under the Act. So it's a most important concept, a PCBU. It makes people who, firstly, it makes people who are making money out of businesses and, you know, the capitalist system, if you like, workers, it makes them responsible for the health and safety of the workplace itself. Not so much, really, of the worker. That comes in when you're talking about the mental health, perhaps. So if you're talking about a healthy place for a worker, you could be talking about if there were gas in the air, for example, that would be where you were looking at the health of the worker. And, you know, you could push it as far as diseases, but probably not unless it's a disease that arises in the course of the work. So, for example, if you're working in a meat works and you're, you know, cutting up meat and, you know, there's always that worry about brucellosis, which is a lung disease, I believe. People working with fibrous products, those lung diseases, et cetera. But they're called industrial diseases. And what we've always got to remember with COVID-19, it's not an industrial disease because it doesn't arise out of any work that people do. Right? So it never was a health hazard in the workplace, but we chucked in the insistence on monitoring the surfaces and the air to try and bring the attention of the employer to what they were really, what their responsibilities were. They had no responsibility, actually, for the health of the worker in terms of the worker catching something unless it's coming out of what's going on in the actual workplace. Right? So, but, you know, they have to keep, for example, they have to keep the surfaces clean. They have to keep the air clean. Right. So all of this is to bring the Employment Relations Act and the Health and Safety Act together and you can do it this way. But most importantly, I say at the end here, I claim that Section 613G, the duty to act in good faith under Section 4 of the ERA applies. Section 84 is very important. Section, it's one of the purpose sections of the Employment Relations Act. So when the authority or the court sees that, they know exactly where the link is and how they must take notice. Under Section 103J1 and 2 of the ERA, that is this company, refused to address the hazards in the workplace and exacerbated them by attempting to coerce me into having the vaccine or to wear a mask, which was dangerous to both me and the safety of others and that I drove heavy machinery. Section 92 of the Health and Safety at Work Act forbidding coercion for a prohibited health and safety reason was breached in the process. So they coerced and then by attempting to force the vaccine and the mask on this person. For those breaches, I seek exemplary damages such as an authority may see fit to reward. Now the authority has this power. Whether it will be exercised, we don't know. They might say, oh no, we'll pop that up to the employment court. But we will see. We will see. So can we go on a little bit further down? I'm also seeking damages. I'm also seeking compensation for a breach. Exemplary means to make an example of you. Because their behaviour is so bad, that's what that means. Seeking compensation for a breach of Section 88 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, quantified and quantified loss of wages post my first unjustified dismissal and something about a space slip. Since withdrawing my labour under, it's supposed to happen under there, Section 83 as a result of an unsafe workplace Okay? So Section 83, remember, was an unsafe workplace where the boss wouldn't take any notice of what you were saying and refused to do anything and so you can withdraw your labour. And you were supposed to continue to get paid. Now it's been unpleased in New Zealand, but it's very common in the United States. United States is common law jurisdiction just like New Zealand. Shouldn't be any problem, just have to develop it. Just have to get these courts used to it, you know? Okay, my employment contract has no requirement for vaccination or medical intervention such as mask wearing or testing of any kind yet. And this is the company, insisted on forcing these last two on me with threat of sanctions if I refuse to comply. I will also be seeking a penalty or breach of contract. So we're not putting in lots of money claims here because they're all very unknown and, you know, it's all in the argument. Okay, so this next part is where I'm leading up to. So I just wanted to sort of give you a taste of where we're at with putting the claims of the Employment Relations Act and the Health and Safety at Work Act together. Now this is Schedule 3 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Going over this, the way the bosses saw it was, okay, we've got the right to do it because you've got a duty under the Act. Okay, I couldn't see how that could work in employment law when the whole point of the Employment Relations Act is to keep you in work, not to chuck you out of it. It was very cleverly drafted this. This isn't the whole of Schedule 3A. This is a part of it. So we get down to the termination of the employment agreement for failure to comply with relevant duties or determination. I think it was subsection. Oh no, it's subsection 3. 1A3. Yeah, 1A3. Okay. These are clauses because these are sort of, they're in the schedule so they're not part of the Employment Relations Act but they're put in for special reasons, right? So sort of temporary to explain a situation. It's kind of like a temporary matter. It could be repealed and taken out at some future time. This clause applies to the following employees. Now, you know how I was saying, you know, I believe it doesn't apply to anybody who wasn't on the Schedule 2. However, on closer reading, it does but the exciting bit comes up. Okay. An employee who has a duty imposed under the COVID Public Health Response Act not to carry out work however described unless they are, so this was the people under the Schedule 2, okay, vaccinated or required to undergo medical examination. Now, nobody went under medical examination for COVID-19 but that's available in the Health Act actually but this is the exciting bit. Or, so these are, so the first one and two are kind of like a form of exemption, okay? Three is otherwise permitted to perform the work under a COVID-19 order. So you're under an order but you're permitted to do it. Okay, now why? So B is an employee whose employer has determined the employee must be vaccinated to carry out the work of the employee. Okay, so this B is actually, the onus then goes on to the employer. It's on the employer and the, you know, all of those employers who were under the Schedule as well but this is for the ones who aren't under the Schedule, okay? So for 2, and that's just a little bit about 1B, so that's an employer who is not under the Schedule, must give the employee reasonable written notice. Okay, go down to 3. If the employee is unable to comply with the duty referred to in Clause 1A or determination, so it's a duty under the order and it's a determination by your boss for everybody else because they fail to comply with the relevant requirements, or if they're not vaccinated by the specified date. Their employer may, now Jeff's going to talk a little bit about this later on too, may is what's called permissive. The employer doesn't have to and that's a very important word in there because it shows that all of this legislation, the Act and the orders under it were set up to let the employer out because of course it's unlawful. It's unlawful to coerce, it's unlawful to try and make somebody take a medical treatment. It's totally unlawful and this will be part of the challenge to this order completely but in the meantime we can still do stuff with it before we get a judgment. Okay, so the employer may terminate. It doesn't mean may as you're allowed to, it means, it can also mean that they have a choice. Okay, that's the way it should be read I believe. So then that was about the four weeks notice and that four weeks notice, that four weeks notice seems actually to apply to people who were not, they were not covered by the order because you see how it says the determination, oh sub-clause 1A, no, both of them. So a duty order or a determination so it applied to both, it applied to them all. Okay, now this was really what's been coming up in the latest cases that have been coming before various parts of the system, the authority in particular. Before a termination notice under sub-clause 3, okay, the employer must ensure that all other reasonable alternatives that would not lead to termination of the employee's employment have been exhausted. Okay, so then we get to the good bit. So they've got to ensure all other reasonable alternatives, so go up a bit more please, down a bit more, whatever. And then of course we know nothing in this clause prevents an employee whose employment agreement is terminated under sub-clause 3 from bringing a personal grievance or legal proceedings in respect of the dismissal. Now what they were expecting to be done with this, this clause 7, was that lawyers would dance around the edges, charge people lots of money because the unions didn't seem to pick up anything and try and find a loophole where the employer hadn't acted properly. Okay, but they were well-trained employers. They all got the same script off the Employers' Federation and they were all pretty hard to get them with that. So, you know, but the thing is it was always an unjustified dismissal because there was no cause to actually sack anybody because there were exemptions. Right, now we're going to go and ask ourselves some questions about the exemptions. Question one, ask yourself in what situations could you be permitted to work whilst not being vaccinated? So people were worrying about, you know, all of this and they thought, right, there was, you know, they all rushed to 7A. But if you look at, sorry, clause 7, that's not 7A, clause 7, and I think it's still in the order actually. The duty of the affected person, that's you, you know, the worker, not to carry out certain work. An affected person must not carry out certain work unless they are vaccinated and have received a booster dose or an exempt person. So, or, so read that, an affected person must not carry out work unless they are an exempt person. So the next question is, who was an exempt person? There are numerous examples of exempt persons, but the one that most workers focused on was getting a clause 7A exemptions under the VACs order. So we'll have a look at the 7A exemptions. Now these finished on the 7th of November 2021. This clause applies to an affected person who belongs to a group specified in a group, in a group specified in part 6, 7, 8 or 9 in this table in Schedule 2. So all of the people who were going to get 7A exemptions had to be under the schedule for a start. There were no exemptions for people who went under the schedule. So goose chase number one, wild goose chase number one. Right? And if they're an affected person, so with this exemption, what's it say? An affected person may carry out certain work without being vaccinated if the affected person has a particular physical or other needs that a suitably qualified health practitioner determines would make it inappropriate for the person to be vaccinated. And so that was all that was required really from people. There was a form to fill out and the doctor filled it out and that was that hunky dory. But they had a rider on it. In any case where the affected person belongs to the group, specified in Part 6 in Schedule 2, the relevant PCBU who employs or engages the affected person has provided the register. Now that's not registrar. That's register, which is a piece of paper with written confirmation or an electronic thing that a suitably qualified health practitioner has examined the person. Determined that vaccinating the affected person would be inappropriate. If the affected person is a health practitioner, they've got to have it done by someone else. OK, now my notes on this. Now I looked at this really, really closely because the case that I was doing, and you can see that Holden decision that came out a while back. So I looked at this Clause 7a very carefully because what they'd done was he was in Group 6. No, he was in Group 4. He was in Group 4. He wasn't in Group 6. But how they had managed to shoehorn him into this was that there's in Group 6, it's all, I tell it down here. Group Part 6 applied to workers, including cleaners and rubbish collectors and MIQ or isolation centers. For those who took rubbish off ships and aircraft. Once any affected person left work, however, they were miraculously out of reach of the boat. There were amazing lengths the authorities and the bosses went to to shoehorn workers into being affected. OK, so he was a Part 4 worker, worked on a tug as an engineer, and he wasn't in it. He wasn't in it. But they added something to Part 6 workers where if they came in contact with something coming off a ship, not something coming off a ship, affected items, it was obviously to do with testing people in the MIQ or isolation centers, right? So those sorts of things. And quarantine centers where people had something. OK, now there were no quarantine centers on the ships, but because the ships themselves were what were called affected ships. If anything coming off them, and they included in this, and this is what I mean, ridiculous, amazing things they tried. They had what's called lines and ropes where they throw to the tug when the ship's docking. And because that rope was coming off the ship in line, they had decided on their own accord that it must be, and they must be a Part 6 worker. Well, that didn't fly. They didn't win that, and we've got to argue it and pull back in the authority. But before then, we'll have a good go at them. So 7A was repealed. And why Part 6 workers were the ones that the bosses had to provide information about is a bit of a puzzle. 7A was repealed on the 7th of November. So airport bosses lost a bit of support after that. All exemptions were valid that were gained and shown to bosses previous to the 7th of November. So anybody who's still wondering about that, they were valid and they remained valid. So if you got the SAC because you didn't have a 7A exemption after the 7th of November, if you got it and shown it to them beforehand, it's valid, right? So there's something else. Right, who else was an exempt person? The list is very long. People had thought carefully about it. All self-employed, all small business owners and their workers, all medium-sized business owners and their workers, all large businesses and their workers, judges and politicians and people working for them, writing the legislation, plus any other worker on the corrupt gravy train. This is because, now why do I say this? In fact, there was nobody in this country, I believe, that was by law required to get vaccinated. Now you might think, well, that can't be right, but it is right in law. This is because of the operational exemptions. Well, I'll talk about two of them. The first one is Clause 9. And you might remember I talked to Grant Edwards quite a while back, beginning of the year, about, look, I've looked at Clause 9. They've got exemptions, so they just have to take the operational. Now Clause 9 applied to everybody except for Group 7 and 9, which were medical and educational workers. Every other CEO of the PCBU could have and should have said, I have no legal authority to require this, so I'm just going to use the Clause 9 exemption. Okay? It was their choice. They didn't, none of, not even the state, what they call the state services, they do not belong to the government. They belong to us. And, you know, they, the government, only in China and communist China and places, you are told as an employer what you can do and what you can't do. You're not really an employer. You're sort of like a state operative, really. Okay. Question 4. Why didn't CEOs approach the Minister for a Clause 12 exemption? So Clause 12, I didn't put it in, but I'll just talk about a little bit. Clause 12, you could, you could go after this. It's an operational exemption. And it was, and it was, if you, if you were like medical or teachers run, because you couldn't go after it under, you could use 9 for everybody else. Anyone who wanted to use it. 12A, in two or three cases, one was to the ports because I also said Clause 9 will, you know, search you. But I also said 12A, not 12A. Oh, no, no, we can't do that. That would be against the law because we'd have to say, you know, that things were, I said at the time, because I hadn't realised actually how the whole act was against the law. I didn't get that for a while myself. But I said, yeah, I'd be Schindler's. You know, Schindler's list, you know, just find moving workforce around and say, I need this one on this one, and this one on this one. You know, but they sent them to the gulags. I sent them to the, to the, to the ovens. These, these employers, because they're too lazy. The CEOs didn't approach the ministers in the, in the medical and teaching and education facilities because of political considerations. But they were saying things like, oh, no, no, we can't get, we can't get it. No, only a few people will get it. No, we can't get it. Or no, with this, at one stage I heard that the boss had said, only 72 people in the country are going to get this. Or it's 12A. Okay. An exemption from the minister. So the minister actually, minister I've got there, haven't I? Sorry. Yeah. So because the lawyers never told them they could. But, you know, and I've been thinking about legal education in this country, and I think it's stuffed. They're talking about, I went to see which, which core subjects that they're teaching. The core subjects are now criminal law, law of contract, property law, public law, property law must be land law surely. I don't know what they're going to be putting in that. Legal writing. Now, I looked back and tried to remember what they used to teach us. Public law. Yeah, public law. Public law, at least they should know about the three arms of government. They don't seem to know anything about that. I looked to see what was going on back in about 94 when I was at law school and what were the core subjects. Tort, T-O-R-T, seems to have disappeared off the scene. And equity, which was definitely a whole year of it. I remember because I failed it. I didn't look at the paper properly and I failed it. And I had to do it again. Another whole year of it. But tort law is basically what, you know, employment law is contractual, but it's also tort in the terms of its personal grievances, is based on tort law. So maybe it's because people don't actually have a good legal training now. They're talking about now putting that people have to learn tikanga at law school. And they're talking about making it a core subject. For goodness sake. I was looking at the Fijian law schools back in 1994. I've got another paper about them. They were teaching all of the things. Tort, land law, criminal law and practice, civil procedure, tons of stuff. But the first two things that they taught them, two things that were compulsory in the first year were introduction to law and introduction to the constitution. So the Fijians have got a constitution. And they've had it since probably 1990, I think, or at least by 1992. And they have got a very diverse culture there. But they recognize not just the indigenous, but the settlers, the people who were indentured laborers from India, because they're a big part of that. And everybody in that country has got equal rights under the constitution. We really need a constitution, guys. We really need a constitution. So what was I going to tell you was so exciting, because I know this has been fairly dry, but I just wanted you to understand my thinking and how it's developed. The thing about under Section 4, isn't it? Oh, I've got my notes there. I'll have a look at my notes. Okay. Now, what has just happened is that one of our members got reinstatement. It wasn't written out. The authority member just decided, after argument and questioning, and the questions that she asked the other lawyers, I think, are extremely important. Got reinstatement. Now, it's interim reinstatement. But I think with what all we know, and looking at Clause 4, isn't it? Clause 4 of that Schedule 3. Do you want me to bring it back up again, Liz? I'm looking at it. Yeah, you can bring it back up. Before giving a termination notice under sub-Clause 3, the employer must ensure that all other reasonable alternatives that would not lead to termination of the Employees' Employment Agreement have been exhausted. Right? Now, what were the reasonable alternatives? In every case, there was an exemption. There was no worker in this country that couldn't have had an exemption. The other thing they could have done, of course, was use other what they call controls. But in terms of this, if you just want to be bloody-minded about it and say, no, it had to be VACs or no VACs, the only way the employer could not break the law was to apply an exemption, either under 9 or apply under 12a. And the application should have said something like, you know, this is unlawful. Under the Bill of Rights, I can't go coercing another person or making another person have a vaccination. I'm not a slave driver. These people's work doesn't even belong to me. Their work belongs to them, and they're selling some of it. But their bodies do not belong to the boss. Any boss would have been looking for ways, searching for ways, any decent boss. So they've all broken the law because, of course, we know that, and this is why the Act and the Order was written the way it was, because, and we know about the Health Act 1956, that it's absolutely unlawful. In no case may somebody be made to have a medical intervention. Okay. But the government has flicked it off. So what I'm proposing is that, in the first case, the nurses, and I want you guys to get hold of every nurse you know and get them to look at this and listen to this Zoom. Join the union because, of course, we're not going to be going to court for anybody who's not in the union, and we're going to go after interim. We're going to go, well, some of them that worked for the same place, we're going to go after interim reinstatement for them. The other thing is, of course, because we've got all of this law now that we can use, we've got all of these weapons, we can argue in every case that there was an exemption available to them. And what happened in the case where our member didn't, and this is sort of what stirred me to think about all of this, the question asked from the lawyer for the other side by the authority member was, where's the proof you have that this person was under the schedule? It wasn't put exactly like that, but it was a question that was that question. I can't say, you know, let's say the institution, and it was a government institution, that they worked for was not, and that was what was put forward to the authority member. It was not under the education sector. It was not. And there was proof of it on our side, but the authority member seemed to get it because she asked the lawyers on the other side, what proof have you got that this institution was a school that was covered under the, I think it's seven, I think it group seven, and it describes what sort of schools. There were tons of situations like that, people. Tons of situations. So even though we haven't got to the point of saying the whole, you know, the whole country needs to really not sleep at night until they've got this sorted, we can say nurses join this union. We'll take everybody who is joined. We will take the, it'll just be a straight get back to work order by the court. Sorry, not the court, the authority. Now, this is how much the authority is hugely, is hugely legally, it's just got, you know, it's got an immense amount of power. But be political. But they can't be political if you catch them on the law. And the courts have got to wake up. The courts of this country have got to wake up. And don't tell me, oh, well, we'll have some, you know, people's courts. No, the people's courts can't go and say to an employer, you take that employee back. But the courts of New Zealand, the employment courts and the employment authority can. Okay. So that's my news. That's your task, people. Get all the nurses to join this union. And we're going for a back to work order from the authority. Because they all had the chance to either use 12A or there were other things they could do. There was tons of people, not just nurses, but tons of people who, like I talked about, I think, originally, I talked about the approach that the hospitals in Kuwait, I think it was, had taken. There was a study of three hospitals there. There was no vaccinations of people there, of nursing staff there. They had to wash their hands, social distance, I think it was masking, and keep the windows open. Well, most of these monstrosities of hospitals in New Zealand, you can't open the windows anyway. But, you know, this is the thing. Because we've got to always remember, was not, under the law, the bosses couldn't do this anyway. But, you know, we take it one step at a time. We make an onslaught on the authority. I don't know that it's possible before Christmas now. But don't let that stop us. We can meet any time that we want. OK? You know, we're not going to meet on Easter Sunday or Boxing Day. But Wednesday, the Wednesday after Christmas, I can't see any reason why we can't have a Zoom. We start organising. All right? And then we won't bother with the teachers' one at the moment. But the teachers' one will be done after we've got the... Ah, and, see, the thing is, with the nurses, one of the things, of course, that we go... And I need you guys to find me the information. I've heard about it, but I haven't seen it yet. Was an announcement that they were fast-tracking nurses from another country, from other countries, to take the jobs of the nurses that they have got rid of. I even had one person say to me the other day, put something about waiting around and that, why aren't they, you know, there's all these jobs. Why aren't people back at work? Yeah, well, it was a social occasion and I wasn't going to burst her bubble. But, yeah, that's the thickness of people. They don't know. But they're going to find out. So the nurses, they need to be told. Rhonda, I think you were in that situation. Yeah, we're going to... I mean, the people who want the jobs back. I think it would be worth, even if you didn't want the job back, going after it anyway. OK? Because that would be the penalty. Now, there's not going to be any money involved in this, guys. That'll be for after when people... You can put in an interim reinstatement thing and then run the case afterwards. Yeah, because that's always the way it goes. But there's two things. With the nursing, they're bringing in people from overseas to take the jobs. And the other thing is... There was some other thing. I've forgotten. I know you asked me some questions. And the teachers, we'll get to them a little bit later because, of course, they won't be going back to school until February, most of them. March for the universities, I think. But we can do all of this stuff. The authority opens again... It's not far into January. But we'll have it all ready because we have to do all of the... February for university. OK. We have to have all of this stuff written up and get all of our evidence supplied anyway. But we're not going to be taking people's individuals. But as long as they're in the union and we get your authority to represent, we'll go for it. Yeah. Yeah. OK? So there's that for the nurses. Now, we know also and we need the teachers to get the evidence of the teachers that were being brought in to take their jobs as well. OK? Now, this is... I'm not going to go bang on about the unions again. It just makes me too mad. But, yeah, this is exactly what should have happened right at the beginning. But anyway, that's my lot. Oh, we'll let Jeff tell us his good news. And we'll talk a little bit about that too. Can I just... Just before, Jeff, you get going, anybody who wants to join the union that doesn't know how to do that, if you go to the Number 8 website, www.number8.org.nz, and go to the contact page, and there's a Google form that you fill out, and then you'll be well on your way to becoming a member. And there's bank account details on there to start making payments. And if you would like to make a donation, we would greatly appreciate that. There's quite a lot of volunteers involved in this. So, yeah, all donations gratefully accepted. And if you... And, I mean, I'm not saying that business owners aren't workers. They are, especially people who own their own businesses. Please donate as well, because what Jeff's going to tell you will be of interest to you. We're going to talk a little bit about the suing game and the insurance companies who are about to have their throats cut. So, Jeff, would you like to tell us about that? Okay. You mentioned me at the beginning of the Zoom, and I'd like to elaborate a little bit on that, if I may. There's a big difference between may, will, and can. May means you can or may not do it. I had experience firsthand with this when I was quite a debt collector. And they kept writing to me saying, we may bring legal proceedings. We may sue. We may do this, that, and the other. But I knew they wouldn't because they didn't have a contract. So they couldn't. So when you see may, it doesn't mean that it's going to happen. Well, not as in the case of a debt collector. Now, also, we have shall and will. This is something that cropped up over the last couple of days. If you look at the public liability insurance policies that I've been looking at, I came across the fact that insurance duty, he shall do this, that, and the other. He shall do this, that, and the other. Not he will. He shall. And shall has got a lot more force to it than will. And I did some more looking around, and in America, apparently, they're even trying to perhaps eliminate shall altogether and replace it with must. And that makes a lot more sense. So then we come to the breach of contract. Now, if shall is impossible and has to be carried out, and somebody doesn't do what they're supposed to carry out, then, to my mind, that's a breach of contract, and so the deal's off. And that would put a lot of insureds in a world of hurt because they would be breaching their policy, and then they would never, ever be able to get a payout because the policy's gone down the drain. One thing also that crossed my mind as a result of the previous conversation, these folks I was talking to, they had to provide evidence of public liability insurance to go on to the properties where they were going to be working. So I thought, well, now the cops have got public liability insurance. If you get pulled over by a cop, to me, you can ask the cop, please, may I see proof of your public liability insurance? To which the cop will probably say, what do you mean? And the answer to that is, well, you may well commit a personal injury against me for fear, shock, mental anguish, all kinds of things. And you may commit property damage if you come in my vehicle or into my house or into my business. So, to me, that is a legitimate question. And it can't do any harm because you're only asking them a question. And they may well not even know that they've got public liability insurance and what it involves or what it is. And with all these thick clods that are wandering around these days, you're on a pretty safe bet that they haven't got a clue what you're talking about. So that's something to bear in mind. Okay, you can bet your boots. And this came up in an email exchange with Liz. But you can bet your boots. Everybody, any dog has got at least public liability insurance. I said this before. Even the chip shop on the corner will have public liability insurance if anybody suffers as a result of their activities. I know for a fact the cops have got it. ACC have got it. And that's a very interesting situation. They've got employers' liability as well and public liability and all kinds of good stuff. The IRD have got public liability. Health New Zealand has got professional indemnity. They're on the list for another visit. So what you were saying, Liz, about the nurses and the teachers, they, or at least somebody, needs to be writing to whoever they were employed by, asking for proof of their insurance policy wording for the whole nine yards. And it's interesting, again, the cops, as you know, some of my least favorite people, they seem to have a law of their own. When I asked for their insurance, the cop guy wrote back saying we've got $20 million with Chug, but he wouldn't give me the policy details. But yet the IRD, which is another government department, the Far North District Council, which is government, and the ACC, I think somewhere in between, they provided chapter and verse and never quoted the Official Information Act as a reason for not giving it. So the cops are on the list for something else. And the cops are still wide open. The cops are currently being stroppy over my personal injury claim. And this brings us on to the cops again, where they have now admitted that they have $20 million in public liability insurance and that they paid out over $6 million over 11 years in compensation to people out of their own pockets, and they said it in my email. Yeah, well, emphasize that, Jeff, because that is amazing. They don't pay it out of their own pocket, as you pointed out to them, right? No, it's really people. We pay it, right? Now, what did you say about if you've got insurance and you pay it out of your own pocket, what's going on? It's like having a dog and barking yourself. Yes. But what is going on with our, why, and you got this confirmation of the, not the Attorney General, what was it, the Auditor General, didn't you? No, the confirmation was from the cops. The confirmation was from the cops. But the question then is, for example, and this is what is very bothering, who is, why are insurance companies being paid out of the public purse when they don't have to pay out? It's a scam. The simple answer to that, Liz, is that the insured does not get in touch with them. Yeah, but they know this, Jeff, come on. The people in the police, the people in the ACC, wherever, wherever they are, they will know they've got this insurance. Their bosses know. The people who, the financial people know it. It must be a scam between the financial people and the insurance companies. They're saying, this is where the money's gone out of Treasury. Here's $60 million gone out of Treasury because we had to pay for these things. And people are, yeah, yeah, yeah. But if we knew they had insurance that we are also paying the premium for, by the way, and they're not claiming on it, then there's a scam going on. It's an absolute rort. It's an absolute rort. It's a fraud on the New Zealand taxpayers. I agree totally. Yeah, well, it's a big deal because the thing is, we're going to be suing Health New Zealand because they've got themselves into one nice big bundle there, all now called Sata Ora, and all of the people who were in the DHB are going to be suing them, and it's not coming out of our Treasury. They are going to bloody well get it off the insurance companies. Right. I agree with you on this. I mean, you've pretty much said it. Yeah, but I'm just saying, you know, it's big news, Jeff. It's huge news. Well, okay. You see, the problem initially is that we are not the insurers. No, no, we're not. But we are the taxpayer, Jeff. We are the bloody taxpayer whose money is being spent for insurance premiums, and then the insurance companies aren't paying. That's where the rort is. I'm not interested in terms of saying, oh, you must go and now get the money that we're going to sue you for off your insurers. But the fact is, like, for example, the cops were to blame at Pike River Mine. They wouldn't let the rescue teams go in to those men who died there, who were alive, and we've got the proof. This is absolute scandal. The people who are getting sued over the, what do you call it, and there's a lot of private companies are getting sued over the White Island debacle, but there were government bodies that were being directed by government not to go out and rescue. The search and rescue people were being told, no, you can't take off from Whakatane. And what about all of those people who have to pay out of their businesses for what went wrong? And yet, you know, the New Zealand government is taking it out of our treasury and yet they're also paying a premium to the insurance companies. It's criminal. It's absolute criminal fraud. There's no other way to put it. I agree. Because they've admitted it, haven't they, Jeff? They've admitted it in that email to you. They've said, oh, we paid it out, but, yeah, we want insurance. In fact, the head honcho, this Bill Peoples guy, who is the legal director or director of legal whatever, he stated categorically that the police have never had a penny out of their public liability insurance at any time for any claim. Now, where it gets a bit more interesting here, the guy who gave me the details, I asked him for the information about the individual claims, and they don't keep a record of that. So it would seem there is no record. They've got an endless money pot, as they think, of our money. But with respect, Liz, I agree with you what's going on. But, you see, in the insurance business there is a procedure. And it came out a little bit when I was talking to my doctor. I said, now, how are you going to go on if somebody comes after you for medical malpractice? Oh, I have to help them by notifying my insurer. There, you have it. And this is what has to be done, or is supposed to be done. And so this is where we need to push and go after these people. The Far North District Council, I found out from Boucher Hathaway, they have said to Boucher Hathaway, oh, we're not going to bother going with our insurance. Tough beans, Geoff. Now, that brings up another interesting question. Are they in breach somewhere of the Local Government Act, not acting on behalf of the rule? Well, it's called Mel Seasat's in public office. Right, right. Anyway. Yeah, and that's the other thing the police need to be, let me say. But you see, the cop on the beat doesn't know all of this. They really don't. It's these people, the lawyers and the financial people at the heart of it. They must know that this is wrong. They can't. You couldn't actually. Yeah, laundering, I think. Yeah. Yeah, God knows where all of the insurance companies are probably buying all sorts of stuff up. And, you know, all sorts of companies, and these people are getting shares in it. I don't know. But there'll be some way that they're getting it. You know, it'll be in these so-called blind trusts. How can we find out more? I'm going to also count down. In Wambrunge, I'm still pushing. I'm talking to Debbie, I think, Debbie Jane. She was on tonight. We're talking to her today. And the countdown is still pushing masks and causing all kinds of aggravation. We haven't had a problem with countdown masks for donkey's ages. And what was the other thing? Yeah. So I am really, really begging everybody that is here. And I'll provide a copy of that letter. It's a template letter, which is so simple. You can send it to anybody, your doctor, your dentist, the supermarket, the chip shop on the corner, anybody asking for their insurance details. And that is the first step. Because ACC, they have employers' liability insurance, and there is all kinds of interesting stuff in there. People and police and members of the public will have suffered as a result of the personal liability categories in the liability policies. And they're wide open. I came across this Facebook page, ACC Exposed, and there's some very interesting questions and stuff on there alone. I could spend probably all day just replying to people on that. But, you know, my first allegiance is to the union. You great people. And that, honestly, write to whoever you worked for, whoever has screwed you in some way, and ask for their insurance details. Yep. Because it's that guy. We'll do that as part of, once we get everybody's, we'll write letters on the carpet. The union will write a letter off. We're suing you Te Whātua Ora. You broke the law. We don't have to sue them. Do you realize you need to talk to your insurer? We don't have to sue them. That's another thing in the insurance policy. The insured has to notify the insurer of any occurrence, claim, or suit. Well, we're not filing suit. We're simply filing a claim, which is a request for money. We're not going to be able to get money. We'll get their jobs back. But in terms of getting money off Te Whātua Ora now, it's going to have to be a court case. I'm sorry. I spoke to Te Whātua Ora's insurers, QBE, and asked them the same questions that I've been asking others. What if a personal injury is not covered under ACCC, and it's covered under an insurance policy, for example, the one you got with Te Whātua Ora, can a claim be filed? And they said yes. And this is the same answer every time. So you're saying you could just go and claim on their insurance policy, but you've been saying you can't. No, you can't. We can't. But we have to write to them saying we want to. And it is then their obligation to contact their insurer, as it says in the policy conditions, that upon receipt of occurrence, claim, or suit, you've got to provide details to the insurer. So that's the way forward. And then what? Well, then the insurer, if they use the usual procedure, they will appoint an adjuster or somebody from their claims department to deal with the claimant. To deal with the claimant. Well, we used to be in the business in America. So do you reckon we could bring the insurance company into the picture then? That's a good way of bringing them into the picture. Absolutely, it's the only way. Yes. The only way. Yes. When somebody hit one of our accounts. People didn't even know they existed before you came along and rattled their page, Jeff. Yes, and this is the point. Every insurance individual I speak to has never heard of it. The last guy was the manager of Aon, which is as big a broker as you can imagine. Yes, he's aged. And when I explained it to him, he said, well, I've never heard of that. But the way you explained it, yes. So you ask somebody originally to say, no, it doesn't work. You send them Section 26 of the SEC Act, they read it, they see an insurance policy, and they do a 180 degree turn. And that's happened with lawyers, not just insurance people. So it is doable. It really is. Yes, because when you make an ACC claim, right, well, you put it through the doctor first. You say, the doctor says, well, I'm just trying to work out how ACC works as an insurer. It's the doctor that provides the evidence. And then it's the ACC people who check up on all the surrounding stuff, isn't it? But this is the total opposite, Liz. We're not talking about ACC claims. We're talking about claims that are not statute barred by ACC. Yeah, I'm just trying to think of another insurance thing. Irena has a question. OK, let's see what Irena had to say. Irena, do you want to unmute yourself? Good evening. Good evening. How's everyone? Good. Jeff really opened a can of worms, isn't it? I'm just thinking now, so Jeff, if, let's say, I was not really happy with my beautiful partner who passed away, a GP, because he neglected my partner and it's, of course, premature death. So is it ACC insurer for GPs? No. No, ACC doesn't insure anybody because they're not an insurance company in the accepted sense. They actually listened to me and they said they are insurance company. I've got arguments with them and they said to me they're non-optional insurer in this country. They're non-optional, yes. But what she's saying, Jeff, sorry to interrupt, but what Irena is saying is, no, the answer is you sue them under the policy that she's been talking about. Yeah, yeah. So I have to now ask the GP, my partner's GP, who is his insurer, isn't it? Or insurer of the surgery he works in or his individual insurer. What are the details I have to get out of him then? What you do is you send the template letter, which I have composed, as I said, with simplicity itself, you just send it to the doctor and it asks for all the information that you could ever need, professional identity, public liability. Those are the two main categories that you can get him under. Right. And it's medical, what do you call? Neglected. Yeah, medical negligence. And that is not covered because it's not an accident, right? Yeah, ACC is accident, isn't it? But his private insurance should cover it because he's wrongdoing caused to someone die premature. Yeah. And this is my question going back to legal training again. If they're not putting any more emphasis on tort as a core subject, they're in trouble because all of this is injury, causing injury, it's all tort. Where it's civil, it's all tort. And where it's criminal, it's criminal. You know, like premeditated stuff. Yeah, yeah. But it's kind of a civil. Oh, yeah, it will be a civil matter because it's not a crime or such, but it's a civil matter in between two people, which one happens to be a general practitioner. One of the definitions of personal injury is death. Absolutely. Because it can be any ending of personal injury. No, no, it's not anything. It's only what's specified in the policy. Yeah, yeah. Even defamation and malicious prosecution, they are personal injuries. And these are categories that I can go after the cops for because it was malicious prosecution. The case was thrown out. Yeah, but isn't it funny how God works, Jeff? If those idiots in the world would not call the cops, you will never get into crusade to get the truth. And digging for a truth, you dug out so much. It's brilliant. I reckon miracles happen every day, left and right. They do, Irina. I'm wholly behind you there. I think, you know, we get all of these things to test us, to make us think, to make us stand up. But isn't it saying in the Bible, ask and you will be given the answer? If you're asking for answers, you will be given it. Yes, that's so true. Especially if you ask for somebody else. Yep. Like Jeff did it for entire country and beyond, because it's all can work in the Commonwealth, I believe. It will be similar settings in law, maybe. Absolutely. I found an Australian public liability policy, which has virtually identical wording to a New Zealand one. So I don't see why they couldn't use it over there. It's probably similar in Canada, isn't it, as well? Because I've got a friend in Canada who is in lots of disputes recently. Well, I'll just pass the info to her as well. You see? Yep. So I don't know. I think Erica's had a long day. I don't think she's on tonight, is she? Thank you anyway. Thank you, Irina. Yeah, I just, yeah. No, Erica. No, Erica. I have a question. I have a question. You have a question. Way you go. How does a dues-paying founding member, membership secretary and avid supporter of the union get help to file a case? Of what? What sort of case? Well, malicious prosecution. No, I'm sorry, Jeff. No, this is for, you know, I give you plenty of advice, but it's not a union thing. I give it to you. But no, the union is for workplace stuff. Okay. Fine. Okay? Yep. Right. So please don't write to the insurance information. Let's get up to these people. Yeah, let's do it. Irina says, hi, guys. Who was the grandma of Sish? Sish. I know his father is. Knight King. Yeah, King, isn't it? What's his name? Knight, isn't it? Yeah. Yeah. When you look at him, you can see, eh? You can see, oh, yeah, Knight King's son. Yeah. Why was that, Irina? Why were you interested in Sish's? Yep. Okay. Rightio. Are we going to have a short night? Unless somebody else is coming. Yeah, an hour and a half, Liz, so doing good. Oh, yeah. Well, it was quite long anyway. Yeah, no, it was really good. I missed and said my son. Oh, hang on. I watched last section 83 on replay, and I missed who said my grandson Sish, and I wouldn't believe that because I followed him on YouTube, and he's brilliant. Oh, okay. Okay. So somebody on section 83 is the grandma of Sish, who must be the mother of Mike King. Oh. Or his, or, yeah. Mike King is. It must be kind of a. Or his. Yeah, either she was a young mother or she's a young. Sish is. Maybe Mike King's a bit younger than we think. Okay. Okay. It's all money, Liz, for lots of these organizations. I'd rather sacrifice and take the risk for people. Yeah, that's for sure. Alicia says. So we, so you said, so we are paying for that public liability insurance, but the money is never used to pay out. Where does it go? Ukraine? Yeah, it could be. Oh, yeah, yeah. You see that? You see that? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.