N8WUNZ 20230111 (W) Our Un-a-lien-able Rights in New Zealand

The speaker discusses the importance of source documents in understanding the constitution and the rule of law in New Zealand. They specifically mention the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. They explain how these acts protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech. They also discuss a specific legal opinion regarding a court case involving objectionable material and the violation of rights. The speaker highlights the significance of these source documents in asserting rights and challenging unlawful actions by the government. I'm just wondering, actually, looking at the bottom of the screen there, whether the show captions one will actually, it will write it out, but is that writing able to be kept? So we've got a transcript basically. I'll just show you what I mean. There we go. It says at the bottom, I'll just show you what I mean. Can you see that? You can't see it. Yeah, I can see. I don't know where that would show. I haven't used that before. I know people that do. I'm just letting people in at the same time. Who can see this? The transcript from this meeting may be saved and shared with apps and others by participants when relevant permissions. Okay. Then we can grant permissions, but I'm not sure how. We'll work that out later. Just keep the captions on. I'll do the live to Facebook before I forget about that. Good evening, everybody, and Facebook land, and here on Zoom tonight. Thanks so much. So we've got Theresa Trazan as the host now. Do you remember me from many years? Where have you gone, Emma? Theresa's zipped in and is the host now. Do you remember me from many years ago? I do, actually. I do. I remember quite a lot of us from the past. I think Jeff might know you as well. Oh, yeah. It was like 12 years ago. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. We fighters never give up. Yeah, Hubert passed away, by the way. Yeah. Yeah, I know. Yeah. Oh, yeah, you know. Yeah. We were fighters from the beginning. It's like that song, you know, those were the days, my friends. We thought they'd never end. Well, they don't, do they? Once you're in the fight, you keep on. Now, we're back to Emma as the host. Okay, I think. Sorry about that. Sorry about that. I hit the wrong button. We got Theresa on and we caught up for a bit there. Oh, my goodness. Technical glitch there today. I don't know why it said plopping, but it did. That'll be a very strange transfer. Now that you say that, yeah, I remember. Yeah. Okay. Adrian, yeah, we'll talk about that later. Now, tonight's topic is our unalienable rights in New Zealand. We've been hearing this, I've been attending meetings with Personal Agenda and they talk a lot about unalienable rights. Okay. Now, of course, they're American and they're mostly talking about their Bill of Rights. Okay, the American Bill of Rights. What I'm going to talk to you about tonight is one of the source documents. One of the documents I'm going to talk about is a source document to that American Bill of Rights. It's also the source document to the European, I read it this afternoon, the European Covenant on Rights, also the UN Covenant, etc. Okay. So, basically, a constitution, because you know that the Bill of Rights and the amendments to it are what make up the constitutional arrangements in the United States. Now, the Americans are really proud of it and use it a hell of a lot. And it's the basis for teaching civics in their country, which is what we desperately need in this country. We need our young people to be taught what are the constitutional arrangements, how we got government, how we got law in this country. Because by knowing that, we can then, we then know the rules of the game. When I went to law school, we were taught, and I think it must have been in the very first, you know, legal system papers that we were taught before we started out, what were called the sources of law. Right, S-O-U-R-C-E. Now, we're always talking about the source. The source is the most pure, right? The source is the one that everything else flows from, the one thing, the one idea, the one head, talking head, if you like. And we know we're a bit allergic to the idea of a source. And the one source of truth that we know has been telling lies. But anyway, well, mostly because she doesn't know, I think, sometimes. Well, she doesn't know truth from lies, but she doesn't know anything about law, that's for sure. So what we're going to talk about tonight is our source documents and how they make up our constitution. Okay? And our constitution was always referred to at law school as a series of documents, right? And they gave us that list. Well, that list, have we got the legal opinion there that we can put up? Yes, we do. All right. I'll go get it. Because what I'm going to do is I'm going to refer you to a legal opinion I did with two people, and I won't name them, you might know them, two people who are facing up to 14 years jail. Okay? For freedom of speech. We have freedom of speech in this country, actually. And it's in the Bill of Rights. And it's what's called a fundamental right. And I'll tell you why this is very important in terms of this case that's coming up. Now, hang on a minute. I'll get that up so I can read it. Right. Where's it gone? Not showing on my screen at the moment. Okay, I can, if it's going to be... No, it's just because I can't get the actual window up at the moment. Here we go. Here we go. Here it is. Can we take it to the top? And I can start from the top. Whoops. Oh, this goes back to front. Yep, there we go. So this is what happened on Monday. I was sitting, thinking about all the things I had to do. And then suddenly I thought, I've got to provide an opinion about what I've been talking about to this person. Because he's got, he and his partner have got a court case coming up on the 20th of January 2023. The court, the charges that they broadcast objectionable material. Right. The material was to do with a programme that had been, a documentary that had been made in the UK, revealing stuff about the Christchurch shootings that we didn't know about. Right. So of course, we know that the government has gone to all sorts of lengths to try and keep anything like this under the mat. When they had the, they had a Royal Commission about it. But pretty much, it was, the Royal Commission wasn't out there that everybody could watch it and ask questions, et cetera, every day. It was pretty much, you know, they didn't give you the reasons that they did things. There were 17 questions that were asked, I believe, that started to expose that things weren't quite as they said they were. But there we go. So there was this documentary that was broadcast by these two people who were on trial. And they got arrested and they got the broadcasting equipment taken off them as well, and they still haven't got it back. So there's two, what this opinion does is it addresses what rights they have. Right. So here we go. Re-upcoming trial scheduled 20th January 2023. This opinion was written in response to a particular case. But I believe the rediscovery of our constitution is going to be of great benefit to those who seek truth and justice. The acts I will discuss below are the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988, particularly the 1688 Bill of Rights, the 1688, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, New Zealand BORA, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That's 2000. Sorry, 1990. Right. So the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988. What was it? This is what we got once over lightly when I was in law school. And they told us this is in it, this is in it, this is in it. And on particular note is Section 5, which preserves to us the common law rights, the common law of, sorry, the common law of England and the rules of equity. Now I'll go through it and then you can ask me some questions. Okay. So the two most important, sorry, there's a word missing out there, parts of this Act are Section 5, which preserves to us the common law of England and the rules of equity, and Schedule 1 of the Act. Now I will say there are only seven sections in this Act. So it's really, I didn't ever realise that until I looked at them again the other day, how easy it is to read and understand. The Act was passed in 1988 to make clear that the three branches of government, Parliament, the Executive, and the Judiciary, were still bound by the Imperial system that was set up, that had set up the Westminster constitutional system, and the courts of New Zealand by the Charter of Victoria and letters patent, 16th of November 1840. So make notes people of what you want to ask me about this, okay. These are our founding documents and the basis of our constitution, not the Treaty of Waitangi. The Act in a nutshell provides us with the sources of law upon which every other piece of legislation must be based. The principle of the law being that the law is no respecter of persons or that no one is above the law, and that's called the rule of law, is established by the First Statute of the Schedule. Now I've quoted the First Statute of Schedule 1 which is 1275, 3 Edward 1, Clause 1. Statutes of Westminster, the first, so much of that Act as is stated in the words, the King willeth and commandeth that common right be done to all, as well poor as rich, without respect of persons, being the English translation of part of the authentic text of that Act as it appears in the edition called Statutes of the Realm. Now what they say, the English translation, it's in English but it's in Old English and if you try and read it you just about need a translation because we're talking about 1275, okay? At the time the divine right of kings was still in place so the king himself was regarded as above the law. This notion came to an end with the victory of the parliamentary forces over the royalist forces of Charles I and his trial for treason against Parliament, representing the people, state trials 20th of January 1649. He was actually executed on the 30th of January 1649. The return of William and Mary to the throne in 1688 was as constitutional monarchs, meaning that they were bound by a constitution, basically the rules of the gate, and no longer enjoyed the divine right of kings doctrine, making them bound by the same law, making them bound by the law the same as any of us. The Glorious Revolution, as it was named, saw the 1688 Bill of Rights enacted and this is the basis for a large number of rights that we enjoy in the NZVORA today. So we'll have a quick look at the 1688 Bill of Rights because we can use this. This is still applicable today, okay? All of these things that are in the schedule of the Imperial Laws Application Act apply today. So then I say to this person I'm writing the opinion for, in particular for your case, grants of forfeitures and excessive bail arguments could be run. So there's a number of rights under the 1688, okay, that were negotiated with the return of William and Mary. They were invited back to the throne but they had to agree to all of these things. So they lost the divine right of kings, they had to obey the law same as anybody else, okay? So what was grant for forfeitures? That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void. Now this kind of goes back to what we were talking about, how the arms of government, how government in particular is bound to only be able to act on, cannot do anything but what is written in the law. So they can't act outside the law. They can't say, you know, arrest you if you haven't done anything wrong, for example, okay? So they've got to be able to point to the statute, they've got to be able to point to the section, the subsection, or if it's an order or regulation they've got to, well I wouldn't arrest you for an order or regulation but don't have a good go these days, but they've got, it's got to, their actions have to be on the basis of what is written in the law. Then I say to this person, the police arrested you and took your equipment without trial because, and certainly without conviction, there was a forfeiture of both you and your property to the crown, king or at that time queen. So basically the crown, because the police are part of those three branches, they're all those branches have to, as well as the king, and I'll explain this in a minute, are bound by the law, okay? And we get to them through asserting our rights under the Bill of Rights Act and under this Act as well, the 1688 Bill of Rights. As will be discussed below, the broadcast was prior to it being adjudicated objectionable material. No law was broken and the arrest and forfeiture of your equipment therefore became illegal. Now the second part that I say to them is a possibility they can use out of this Act is that excessive bail ought not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Then I say, the police are holding your property as a form of bailment on the off chance that you will be convicted and they can claim it as proceeds of crime. I've put a question mark because I'm not sure that this is why they're doing it, but I'm suggesting that this might be what they want to do. But basically, it's not that so much they want the equipment, they want to stop the freedom of speech. They want to stop this guy and his partner from continuing on telling us truth in all sorts of ways. It's not just this documentary has got notoriety, but they're very well known for putting out truth in documentaries and interviewing people in other parts, in other ways. Tons of work they've done now. As it is clear that the property was taken unlawfully and in that they took it when no crime had been committed, it needs to be returned and it damages claim made against them. Now, remember that we've got this backed up with the legislation and the Legislation Act 2019, which makes it clear, no, you can't actually apply law retrospectively. If it wasn't a crime, I think it's section 27 in the Legislation Act where it says if you weren't committing an offence at the time, it can't be, they can't charge you with it. It also will be repeated in section 27 of the Bill of Rights Act. Okay, so then we go on to the Bill of Rights Act to show how these very ancient laws are then put into an Act that we can really understand a little bit more easily because as you know, 1688 was a lot more, you know, I can read that and understand it pretty clearly, whereas if I had to go back to the 1279 or 75, isn't it, Statute of Westminster, which basically establishes the rule of law, I would have to have a translator. Okay, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and the purpose of it is to affirm, protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms. So we're more used to looking at it for fundamental freedoms, but human rights is in there under section 19 in New Zealand, and to affirm New Zealand's commitment to the international covenant on civil and political rights. Okay, so the New Zealand Borer 1990 was enacted two years after the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988, ILAA, to enact the statutes of the ILAA into an Act for modern use by litigants whose rights were infringed by the three arms of government and persons acting in the performance of a public function, both domestically and internationally. In this sense, the rights guaranteed us under the English Common Law are extended to affirm the international covenant on civil and political rights. So what we've got now, we've got a whole big, whereas we were just looking at maybe the Bill of Rights Act, we might slip over into the Human Rights Act, because that's all covered by section 19 of the Borer, we now can look back and say, this is where the rule of law starts. You cannot go any further back and say, oh, but something happened before then, right? So that's when I say that source documents are the most important documents, because there is no going back further than 1275. That is what our system of law and our system of government is based upon. Political systems changed post 1688. Parliament is said to be supreme, although you will notice that the legislature, which is Parliament, is also bound, or the House of Representatives, it's also called, is also bound by NZBORA. Rights have been expanded. All rights, however, are based on the rule of law as elucidated in 1297. It's probably, sorry, it's 75. That's got to be changed. Make a note. Edit. I don't know where I got 1297. 1275, I think it is. Justiciable in your case, which means, justiciable means that in the court, all the rights that we are talking about, all of the rights out of the 1688, there's also Magna Carta in there, in the schedule. It is a big list of them, OK? But the most important one for our discussion is basically that first one, the first statute of Westminster, which sets up the rule of law, and then the 1688, which puts the king under the law as well. Because by putting the king under the law, and I'll show you how that works in a minute, the particular sections from NZBORA relevant to your defence are as follows. Section 3, section 6, section 13, section 14, and sections 26 and 27. Also possibly sections 19, 21, and 22. Application. So this is from the Act. This Bill of Rights applies only, and I'll underline that, to acts done by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the Government of New Zealand, or by any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law. So this actually brings in, B brings in, all of those people, all of those employers, let's say, who weren't actually in the schedule but decided, well, all of the people who were in the schedule for a start definitely had a duty conferred or imposed on them, or they believed they did anyway, pursuant to law. And also those people who took it upon themselves and said, oh, we're only following the Government, right? So the Bill of Rights can be used so extensively, we never ever thought we could use it the way we're going to use it. Okay, the New Zealand Police and Courts are both part of the judiciary branch of the Government. Section 3a, so we're talking about section 3a now, 3a applies to actions done by either or both of these bodies. They are not, however, part of the executive, also known as the Crown or the Parliament. Both those bodies who are also bound to obey the law vis-a-vis us by the First Statute of Westminster reaching right back to 1275. The structure of Government today requires that the functions of the King, held previously as lawmaker, law interpreter, enforcer, and law administrator, are now held by the Parliament, judiciary, and executive, and ministries respectively. These three are divided into three branches. All branches function independently of each other as a check and balance known as the separation of powers. So this is why the courts can tell Parliament what to do. The courts haven't been telling Parliament what to do because all of the people in law school were taught that the courts couldn't do that, but that's what's happened in the United States because they had a constitution, right? So we've just rediscovered ours and about to, you know, start educating the courts that yes, they can tell Parliament you have done wrong and bring them to book. Section 6 of the Act lays down the way that the courts, as part of the judiciary, must read any section where your rights are called into question, and this is section 6. Interpretation consistent with the Bill of Rights to be preferred. Whenever an enactment can be given a meaning that is consistent with the rights and freedoms contained in a Bill of Rights, that meaning shall be preferred to any other meaning. So basically, it's on your side in all cases where, you know, your rights have to be preferred, and the courts can be held to this by section 3 because they are bound by the Act. This means if your right under the following sections is infringed, then the court must read the section in your favour. So then we go on to the next sections. Now, section 13 is the most important one for freedom of speech. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, including the right to adopt and hold opinions without interference. Right? So all of this hate speech bullshit, no wonder they didn't try bringing it in because, you know, they maybe knew that we were getting close to this. Section 13 is one of the sections that is known as a fundamental freedom. This is important because a fundamental freedom cannot be limited by section 5 of the Act where justified limitations can be imposed. We have a judicial finding on this point of law in Yardley at paragraph 48. So this is what was said in Yardley. Now, remember, they were talking about religious freedoms, but for some reason they didn't use the right in section 13. It was very strange why they didn't, but they didn't anyway. They used 15, which was the right to practice your religion. Well, you know, I mean, I think that's sort of right, the right to be able to go to church or to go preaching on the street or something like that. Right? That's practice. Maybe they didn't use it because they were thinking, well, it's an opinion. Well, what were people expressing when they were saying we're not going to get the vaccine because, you know, our religion is basically our opinion about things. You know, this is the things we believe. Beliefs. It's a seed of beliefs, right? It's not so much the practice that section 13, well, it can, I suppose, but section 15 is the ideal section for that. But anyway, section 13. So what did Cook have to say? He said the applicants do not contend that the right in section 13, the freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief has been limited. For the reasons explained by Alice Jay in New Zealand Health Professionals Alliance Inc. versus the Attorney General, section 13 is concerned with more fundamental internal beliefs that could not be subject to justified limits. Section 13, right? They've yet used that, you know, if everybody had been using section 13, which, you know, we are going to be using very freely because we understand the basis of it now, guys. And further, as was noted in Halligan versus the Medical Council of New Zealand 2010 in the High Court, where Mackenzie Jay was discussing the rights of a doctor to have conscientious objection to requirements that she considered to be assisting in a legal abortion. And he said, it is more obviously so today, in the light of the right to freedom of conscience enshrined in section 13 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, that the requirement in section 6 of that Act to prefer a meaning that is consistent with that right. Okay? So this is the judge saying, when somebody's pleading section 13, I have to prefer a meaning that's consistent with the right to freedom of conscience. I have to prefer a right that's consistent. If I'm the judge, I have to prefer an argument and a meaning in the statute that's consistent with freedom of expression and belief, etc. Okay? The section 13 rights are internal rights that become manifest when they are written, spoken, or expressed as visual material. They are the stuff of freedom of expression that is protected by section 14 of the Act. Right? So section 13 is all we already know that it's a fundamental right. They can't play a section 5 game with it and say, oh, the rights of the public are all the rights of the state. Right? This is what we're going to get into here. Okay. Section 14 is the action following the thought, the idea, or conscience about any matter. The conscience of the state cannot replace the conscience of the individual, I think. Can we go up a little bit? Of the individual. As the opening paragraph of New Zealand Health Professionals Alliance expresses it. Now, this is interesting. New Zealand Health Professionals Alliance was a 2021 case. The New Zealand Health Professionals Inc was a 2021 case. It's a case about whether to terminate a pregnancy. Okay? I think it's a case about, they were, oh no, that was the earlier case. I'm not exactly sure what, but basically, New Zealand Health Professionals didn't want to, you know, these were doctors who were against abortion. But the argument that was used in the very first paragraph of that case, where they find against the doctors and for the abortion clinic, I think it is, is they say, over 30 years ago, Madam Justice Bertha Wilson said, I believe that the decision whether to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision, a matter of conscience. I do not think there is or can be any dispute about that. The question is, whose conscience? Now, this would have been, I think somebody had, I think the facts of the matter was, a woman had been turned down, the doctor wouldn't make the application or something like that, or didn't want to perform abortions. And I think that they were trying to, I think it was against the Attorney General. I'll have a look at the thing. I think it was like, it was the state sort of saying, well, it's in the law. And if you want to, you know, you have to, the doctor has to obey the law, basically, that people could get abortions. But so I think that Madam Bertha Wilson was saying it's always the choice of the woman, it's not the choice of the doctor. But of course, so that was what that case was about. The Crown Executive, yeah, it was against the AG, it was against the Attorney General. The Crown Executive, or slash Executive, in this case, is sued in personam, in the form of the Attorney General. He is standing as a legal person, as described in section 29. So, you know, this is where I'm getting into, you know, the standing of people and how you're standing as an individual is so important. The rights to conscience and freedom of expression accrue to the individual, however, as do the rights under the BORA, and any of the other oldest quoted statutes. So those are all about individuals, right? Any man, this man, that man, or, you know, they didn't use woman much, but it doesn't matter. We know what it means, okay? There is no such thing as a group right under any of the statutes that concern human rights. That is why the words everyone, or every person, or no one, preface the sections of the Act. Okay? So all of this business about, oh, if you work in a certain place, you're group of four, or three, or two, or one, or nine, or seven, they cannot make, they can have a go at making the order, but the individual can attack them using your rights, because they have no defence against you as an individual. Okay? Even they have to be, they have to take on a legal personage. So, you know, the Attorney General isn't the one. He has just to stand as a legal person in the shoes of the executive. Yeah? Yep. Retroactive penalties and double jeopardy. And, oh, hang on, can we take it down a little? No, now up a little bit, sorry. Yeah, up a bit more. Okay. Up a bit more. We seem to have gone down a bit far. Up a bit. Yeah, okay. Okay. The principles. No, no, hang on. Where did we get to? We were where we were supposed to be. Well, hang on, keep on going back up, because, oh, yeah. Yeah, now I'm talking about the next section that I say applies. Okay, so section 26.1 applies. This is to, because this is an opinion to this person. Retroactive penalties and double jeopardy. Now, this is where I say, you know, you can't make law go backwards. No one should be liable to conviction of any offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute an offence by such person under the law of New Zealand at the time it occurred. My understanding is that the broadcast occurred some days prior to the program being adjudicated offensive by the chief censor. Broadcasting a program that was not offensive by the law of New Zealand at the time did not constitute an offence. This section is self-explanatory. Section 27.1 applies. The right to justice. Every person, now everybody can use this, that is going before the courts. Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person's rights, obligations or interests protected or recognised by law. Now, we're using this quite a bit in the authority now, right, because we can. They are a public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of a person's rights, obligations or interests protected or recognised by law. They're not only section 11 rights about medical interventions, they are also rights under the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Employment Relations Act and the Human Rights Act. The principles of natural justice flow from the common law and the rules of equity that are preserved to us by section 5 of the Imperial Laws Application Act. The natural justice rules against bias and the right to a fair hearing are particularly important in this case because the actions of the state appear to be the result of a political agenda. The broadcast had the effect of exposing actions by the police that certainly suggested this was the case. There are other sections of the New Zealand Borough that could be called into play, especially if there was indeed proof of political interference in the matter. For example, and we can talk about this in terms of everybody being cleared out of the grounds of Parliament, political interference in our rights. Freedom from discrimination. Everyone has the right, and this is how we get into our political rights. Everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993. And there, I'll give you the Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on political grounds under section 21.1.j of that Act. Sections 21 and 22 of BORUH also could repay a look as well because I was just passing over those. But you know, we can all, I hope we'll all get stuck into reading the Bill of Rights Act. You know, if people like history, they can look at what happened in the English Civil War and why the king was tried for treason. Okay. So, let's have some questions now. Right. Yeah, if you've got a question, pop your hand up or if no one's talking, then just unmute yourself. I think we had someone. Oh, Cassie wants, Cassie's got her hand up. Yeah, she's got her hand up on the screen. Hi, Cassie. You can unmute yourself, Cassie. Yeah, she should be able to, yep. Yeah, keep saying, watch the movie Cromwell. That'll give you the background to it, to the English Civil War. Cassie, do you want to, or is she moving? Well, she was waving. Nodding. Yeah, yeah. Do you want to ask a question, Cassie? Yep. You should be able to unmute and go for it. Can you hear? Can you unmute? No, you're still muted. Have a look on the bottom left of your screen. Yeah, I can't do it for you, unfortunately. No. Oh, there we go. There we go. Carole Sadley. Hello. I knew it was Carole. I thought it was Carole. Yeah, I have been looking at the discretionary amendments they put on the Bill of Rights. So, I've been going over that while you've been talking, and I see that they must comply with democratic rights when making any decision around that. So, you know, that was quite interesting because I wondered where that sat there. Well, what has got to happen, though, what we've done by going back to source, Carole, is everything has to give everybody an equal right. So, for example, let's talk about they can't do something, for example, like co-governance. Let's just say that right away. Under the Electoral Act, which was made under all of these imperial law that came to us, it's one person, one vote. Yeah. You cannot have, you cannot, it's a breach, would be a breach of the Electoral Act to say some people's votes are worth more than other people's because that's treating people differently under the law. Everybody, okay, everybody has got the same right and the same power to vote, every person. Doesn't matter rich, poor, king, queen, prince, God knows what, everybody, same. When this country was first came into being and they were organising the voting, I guess it was in, I don't know what year it would have been, but the universities wanted to have graduates have two votes to everybody else's one. Didn't happen. If it had happened, eventually somebody would have come back to them, I suppose, in the old days and said, um, excuse me, first statute of Westminster. Okay. Not allowed to do it. So as far as the, excuse me, the new indigenous constitution they're trying to bring in, how does that? It's unlawful. Yeah. Absolutely. In fact, if you go to the, I'll tell you what really repays a good look, is the 1688 Bill of Rights. Okay. Very easy to read. I would say that there was only, there's probably only one thing in the, there's only one thing in the rights that we seem to have in front of us now that is missed out and that's the right to be at arms. Right. Now in the 1688, there is the right to be at arms, but it's only for Protestants, not for Catholics. Okay. Now, now I think it would be really fun for people, um, you know, in all this gun licensing stuff for them to take a case and test it and say, I'm not a Catholic. I've got the right to be at arms. That is the law of this land. That might put me in a different place. I've got a shillelagh sitting on my window. I was brought up Catholic. Well, um, you know, but I think, you know, I mean, of course, I don't think there's any problem with that at all, but it does cut out anybody who's out, who's Sikh, who's Muslim, who's, um, um, et cetera, et cetera. Okay. The only ones actually legally allowed to be at arms in this country are Protestants. And I think it would probably extend it to anybody who's not Catholic or one of those other religions because our law is based on God's law. Yeah. I don't know whether you're aware, but, uh, we went through 18 months of supporting someone in the Henderson District Court, um, who was arrested, pulled off a bus because he was wearing a flag around his back at the time, just after the Christchurch attack. And we had a, a police lawyer took on the case for free. He got him off this case. And what was the, what was, um, the defense? They tried to, um, it was the Bill of Rights. Right. And yeah, but which section of the Bill of Rights do you remember? I can't remember. Freedom of expression? I know one thing, the police, when they visited him, I had to go along and be a witness to what they were going to bring his computer back. And, uh, he doesn't wear the, he doesn't wear the flag of St. George quite a bit. That's it. I know who you mean. Yeah. Yeah. They took his computer. They came to bring it back. They, somehow they was used a detective from another area, um, way out the area and they bought it. They didn't bring it back, but we're waiting for it. And I said, where's his computer? They said, oh no, we're putting it back to machine, machine savings. He, he wasn't even tried guilty in court and they tried to use the Tracy Martin law, the Films Act, to actually take it back. And of course, I didn't realize at the time what was happening. I've been studying that. And, um, John just said, oh, he said, I can't stand it anymore. And they were saying, we'll take you back to court. We'll take you back to court. So he just let them take their computer, his computer back to factory settings. And the act wasn't even in there. Yeah. Well, this is, this is the thing. Um, you know, I think, I think this case is going to be very, very important and very interesting because we're going to use the, you know, we've been fighting with, with pocket knives. Yeah. Now we fight with the bazookas, right. And they cannot resist us because they have, they have all the obligations and duties and we have all of the rights. And they have to, and we have judicial, you know, findings on that, that they have to read it in our, read the, uh, our rights in our favor because they are bound by the act. Not us. Not us. We're not bound by the act. Okay. Because we're not, we're not part of government, right. We're not part of government. There's another really interesting bit too. And, um, I'll get to those other questions in a minute, but because we could go on all night, but there's another really interesting part in the act about um, uh, them not being able to, uh, sorry, in the, this is in the 1688, they're not allowed to, um, um, take taxation unless the, um, the king is not allowed to take taxation. And of course we're talking about the executive in this case or crown, uh, unless it's passed by Parliament, right? So I went and had a look at the, um, 2007, I think it is, um, Tax Act. 2007 Tax Act says, um, the purpose, because I always read the purpose first, the purpose of the act, um, of this act is, um, the main purposes, it must be, of this act are to define and impose tax on net income, and b, to impose obligations concerning tax, and c, to set rules for calculating tax and for satisfying the obligations imposed. But a, okay, impose tax on net income, right? What are they doing when they're taking PAYE? They're taking it off gross income, right? So PAYE is unlawful, and it's unlawful under the 1688 because, um, Parliament hasn't passed law saying, um, you can take, um, the purpose of that, of income, the purpose of tax is to take, um, take it off gross. Now, if you look at the tax on businesses, right? Income tax under BB1, income tax is imposed on taxable income at the rate fixed uh, by an annual taxing act, and if you look at business tax, it's always on net, okay? So the only people they should be taking tax off is, is profits on business. That's, that's what the act says. And then you have, um, certain large corporations in New Zealand, uh, actually New Zealand corporations that are actually, um, using charitable status to actually get tax exemptions through their charitable status. Yes, yes. Yes, yes. Uh, and, um, and the thing is that, you know, this is why, um, businesses have accountants to make sure that they, they get that their, um, uh, that their net is as small as possible. So, you know, I mean, all of the things like, uh, uh, you know, if you're running your, um, uh, you know, all of the car, so everything that you have to spend comes off your gross. Yeah. Right? And then you're down to net. So you're supposedly not making any profit, but then of course they have that place, but, you know, there's a case for anybody who wants to go after PAYE to say, right, 16, um, 88, um, only tax that the, um, Parliament has passed, uh, and the only thing they've passed is needed income. Hmm. Let's, can you hear me all right? Hi, how are you? Good. Yes, yes. Hey, did you ever watch Judge John Dee's, the series? Yes, yes. Yes. Do you remember the little talk that he would have in the corridor? So we talk about, you know, going back to, and it was a great talk that you just gave actually, like, I was just, um, you know, you basically kind of stripped back what the purpose and intent of, you know, of Parliament is supposed to be. And it's really interesting because I think about what came to my mind when the COVID-19, um, public health response amendment bill number two was being passed. And I remember, you know, being at a complete peak of work at that point of time, like I was representing so many people in the process of losing their jobs and some that had already been terminated. I was the ambulance at the scene. And I remember being up till four o'clock in the morning writing my submission to Parliament, um, because it was such an important, fundamental part of what I needed to exchange with the people that were in the process of passing something that I knew was wrong. And I remember at the time going and looking for, because I remember I did my legal studies nearly 20 years ago, believe it or not, in the UK. And 101, what you start off with your law degree, is on constitutional law. So everybody sits one entire year learning about constitutional law. And I was sitting there thinking, look, I'm pretty sure that New Zealand law is pretty much in alignment with common law. Most of New Zealand law actually stretches from, um, English law. And everything that you've quoted today tracks back to that fact. And I remember writing this and looking for what it was, what fora was in New Zealand, etc. And funny enough, the links were broken. And I remember ringing up the people that should have been responsible for the site and the access to the information, I think, literally 24, 36 hours before the submissions were going to close. And the links were broken. And I remember going up the chain, trying to find someone. I said, what is going on? Why are these links broken for people to be able to read what their constitution is based on in New Zealand? Because all I can see is that there's some major developments going on, and people need access to the information. They're going to go online, and they're going to look for this, and then they're going to write this submission based on what they find. And these links were coincidentally broken. And I said, this is just not good enough. New Zealanders need to have access to information. And she said that it was a really uncanny excuse that was used. It was something about something that they were improving the systems of, and it was unfortunate that it was broken. And I just thought to myself, yeah, right. So anyway, so, and I remember writing these submissions, and then I was just completely flat-tacked because very few people were arguing the, you know, the legal arguments for people. So we were literally, I was swamped. Not every advocate that I know or legal representative was actually, you know, going all out. And I was taking on people at a very low level, so in terms of financial investment, but I was putting in probably 50 times more work than one case. So I would potentially have like about four lots of two-hour meetings with employers, exchange communications into six to eight pages, maybe three or four times. So this was, redundancies typically are the most extensive of my communications with an employer because I really have to, like I use this term quite a lot, strip back to the onion to get to the core. So that can't be done in a short exchange of language. It's not like somebody's been dismissed under the trial period. I can execute it in a few sentences and get right to the crux of it. There was a lot of extension of information. Obviously, you know, there was a lot of issues that have to be raised in terms of widening the toolbox and looking at other things that they could incorporate in terms of health and safety as opposed to only one option and how, you know, what was being recorded on Medsafe and all the rest of it. Anyway, so I wrote these submissions because I was perturbed. I was particularly alarmed by what was going on. I was particularly alarmed, like a lot of people were, to find that laws were being passed at 11.59pm and then coming into play the following day and we couldn't, we were scrambling with information. We were trying to figure out what's relevant, what's not, what's being taken out, what's put in. It was a complete, it was a complete kind of mind scramble exercise because you were literally like, you know, when you would have those Zooms at the time, we were having to say, right, that's being scrapped out. What still exists? How does that implement or, you know, implicate everything going forward? Anyway, so I wrote this submission and interestingly enough, I didn't think too much of this submission. I always thought I'd go back and have a look, but I was swamped with work. You know, we had people losing their jobs over Christmas, January. I remember not having a proper break because people were desperate for assistance. So I didn't have that break and then, so I think the submission was made, I don't know whether it was sometime in October, I can't remember exactly. Anyway, it came to me recently because I've been also reflecting and questioning where, why things have been hampered with my ability to do my work. What's been going on? What are these areas that have potentially seen me well, not slightly, massively shut down on systems, internet, servers, all sorts of things. And I thought to myself, I was in the middle of the night one night and I thought, why am I having to show submissions? I was trying to think, what is it? If there was anything covert going on against me, what was it? And I didn't like the way I couldn't find, so I've had a hidden network. When I was working from the place that I was working, there was a hidden network that turned up about eight weeks ago and that's when I saw a real close down on my systems. And this hidden network basically completely dumbed down me being able to do my work. Worked perfectly for the kids watching Netflix, worked perfectly for everything else, streamlined just for me doing my work. Then it affected my business accounts, my ability to just operate on a day-to-day basis. And I thought to myself, what happened to those submissions? And guess what? I couldn't find them in my Gmail account. They disappeared from the people that I shared them with. There's no trace whatsoever. Now, I couldn't also get into the laptop that I've written it from because there was something also happening with that. So anyway, so eventually I managed to extract that document. And before I managed to extract it, I contacted, I remember listening to one of Chantelle's meetings that she did online, and she talks about, you know, we should go to our MPs and find out what's going on, you know, in terms of things. So I rang up my local MP office and I spoke to them. I said, look, hey, what happened to my submissions? I wrote these submissions. You know, I put in a lot of time and effort into these submissions. What happened? I want to know. Like, where did they go? You know, do I get a response back? I've got the email where you notify me that you've received it thereafter. And anyway, it was apparently a question that was too intricate for them to answer. So they put me on Wellington and they said I had to speak to the House of the Clerk, gave me the name, et cetera. So I rang him up, and this was a couple of weeks ago, and I rang him up and I said, look, I'm really interested to know what happened to my submissions. And he said, well, you know, we received so many and we wouldn't have been able to respond. And I said, what do you mean you received so many and you wouldn't be able to respond? Have you ever received so many? Isn't that more of a reason to allocate more resources to go and read all of those submissions and find out what the people say about... Who did you speak to? Was this like someone in Parliament or? Yes. And so he promised me, yeah, I can't remember. I've got it written down for me. His name's John, right? He promised me he was going to come back to me. He was going to come back to me. Anyway, he never came back to me, and I all of a sudden saw a second rise of sort of interesting, weird things happening. So I have now started to believe that, because remember, a lot of my cases did get resolved. I've got very... I've just spoken to a client. This is going to be very exciting. We've got an agreement that we're going forward, and this is going to be a big case, and it is on the fundamental ones, but I can't say too much. But I'm just going to go through very quickly what my COVID-19 public health response and then the bill number two submission was, how it was written, because now you've had that precursor of what you've just explained to everyone. It ties in beautifully with you hearing what I've written, because now everybody listening is going to have a deeper understanding to some of the things that I wrote about, whereas before I think it would have been, whoosh, that's just too much. It would have been easier to talk about Judge John Deed from that perspective, because people could understand the philosophy of what those little talks that happened down corridors between the judge and the executive and what he said about that broadcasting, why it was politically sort of driven. Anyway, so this is my submission. I hope you enjoy it, and I'm still trying to find out where this went and what happened with it. So my introduction was 1.1. I choose to make a submission on the Ministry of Health proposal to amend the law in respect of the COVID-19 Health Public Response Act 2020, the COVID Act, by way of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill Number 2, the bill. 1.2. I hold grave concerns on the content of what the bill seeks to achieve, in that it wishes to enable the public health response to COVID-19 to continue to function in a coordinated and orderly way, informed by the experience of working with the Act since its commencement. Then I say, by assenting the bill, there are severe fundamental dangers to the liberty and freedom of New Zealanders. The government is clearly seeking to extend its powers beyond unnecessary limits, which will further eliminate fundamental and basic rights of free will and choice that are ingrained into constitution that serve to provide a level playing field for the rights of the human individual. Number 2, unacceptable consultation process. In my view, the consultation process is ultra-viral. The Select Committee must ensure that there is a thorough analysis of whether there have been adequate checks and balances to ensure that legislation that is being passed is not being disguised under a pandemic to extend power and eliminate freedoms which would otherwise be considered abhorrent. The timeframe given is not given adequate time to provide a sufficient response and has unnecessarily created submissions in haste and equally will reduce some submissions being provided, thereby eliminating the opportunity for necessary objections to be readily received. The bill is clearly seeking to eradicate civil liberties that belong to all New Zealanders, whether currently in New Zealand or overseas. Legislation should and must be consistent with fundamental constitutional principles, including the rule of law. It is on the head of this committee to carefully consider the impact of fundamental constitutional principles on proposed legislation, especially when the legislation seeks to change or reshape states or seeks to change the relationship between citizens and the state in a fundamental way relating to the individual's dignity or liberty. The legislation has extreme examples of delegation of power to be assumed by the government, which contradicts the principle of legality. At the forefront of this principle is the demand for the dignity of the individual to be preserved in alignment with the presumption of favouring liberty. Legislation must be consistent with the dignity of the individual and the presumption in favour of liberty. It is the select committee's role to uphold that within the matrix of fundamental principles and values that exist in the legal system. Human dignity and liberty include the right not to be deprived of life, physical integrity of one's body, including freedom from medical treatment or scientific experimentation without consent, freedom from torture or cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment, freedom from discrimination based on immutable characteristics, physical liberty in the sense of freedom from arbitrary arrest or restraint, freedom of conscience, religion, expression, association, assembly and movement, liberty in the sense of to make fundamental personal choices as to how one lives life, and procedural fairness, often referred to natural justice, what you talked about, right? This is known as the principle of legality and legislation must only affirm or must only be affirmed once the values have been abided for. The bill seeks to undermine each of these principles by eroding many freedoms in an attempt to use the guise of a pandemic that has less than 1% mortality rate and currently is being attempted to be managed with an experimental vaccine that does not eliminate contraction of the disease nor does it eliminate transmission. Then my fifth paragraph was issues of grave concern in regards to this bill. So I talked about clause 9 replaced with section 12. The proposal is too loose and vague in an attempt to seek a right for government to make any order, impose any restriction, decide any detainment and restrict any treatment other than such treatment as the government should determine. This is deterring and must not be allowed to be passed with an unfettered capability to determine an order relating to detainment restriction or imposition. This is unfathomable and eradicates any ability for challenge or scrutiny pursuant to the legislative design and advisory committee guidelines as the government's key point of reference for assessing whether draft legislation is consistent with accepted legal and constitutional principles under the core principles of the guidelines. The proposed legislation fails for not being clear and understandable. I said clause 10 amends section 13 which states the effects of COVID-19 orders under clause 10b the minister's ability to use delegated legislation to delegate discretion to any third party is contrary to the rule of law and public law principles. Further, the provision is subjective and vague and therefore fails the fundamental constitutional principle test. I talk about clause 12 and amends to section 22 the power to close roads and public places and stop vehicles. Clause 12 amends section 22 to allow a class of persons identified solely by their ancestry to have power to block roads under the supervision of a constable but there is no definition of what supervision entails. There is no information or direction in the bill or otherwise as to what constitutes suitably qualified and trained. This is unworkable and unacceptable. This provision is in contravention of the rule of law principles that everyone is equal before the law and therefore this is yet further breach of one of the core principles as defined by the Legislative Design and Advisory Committee. I talked about clause 13 and the proposed signs are an unacceptable amount so the changes would see an increase in on-the-spot infringement fines for non-compliance with orders from 300 to 4,000 for an individual and 12,000 for a body corporate. At the same time there is a significant increase with respect to offences where intent is established rising from a fine of 4,000 to 12,000 for an individual or 15,000 for a body corporate. These fees and fines are not proportionate nor are they warranted. Simply put the amendments or in respect of the massive increases in fees and fines are unreasonable, irrational, out of proportion to the purpose that they seek to achieve. Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Attorney-General's report acknowledged that penalties in the bill are higher than those generally recommended for infringement offences. It further acknowledges that the legislation guidelines set out in general infringement fees should not exceed $1,000. Therefore there do exist infringement provisions in New Zealand legislation that impose penalties in excess of $1,000. However again the report noted that the guidelines state that these are exceptions to the general principle and should not operate as precedents for a new infringement offence regime. Then there was talk about Clause 25 about the insertion of the new Section 33b which is how to incorporate material by reference to COVID-19 orders will further add a problematic dimension to the interpretation relating to the law and its accessibility. Many standards are difficult to access publicly. It is impossible for people to respect the law when they cannot readily understand and access it. This is a breach of the rule of law principle above that the law should be clearly clear and clearly enforceable. Clause 22 was covering the management of MIQs and other places of isolation or quarantine. The proposals for MIQ are alarming and the increase and extension of powers in MIQ are unnecessary. New powers include delegating the powers of the Director General in MIQ to an unelected official, the Chief Executive. At 32 there is a representation that persons in MIQ must comply with any direction or conditions imposed by the Chief Executive. This power has the potential for directions which are not reasonable and proportionate in terms of any risk because it could extend to inhumane measures which are incapable of scrutiny and furthermore the failure to divine consultation further overreaches the subject from control and under Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights it is a breach of the subject a person to inhumane treatment or punishment. This article cannot be derogated from, as stated in Article 4. There are no independent checks and balances on the powers of the Chief Executive. The complaints process is internal with the processes being publicly available on the internet. There appears to be no independent review available. In my summary of recommendations I make the following recommendations and opposition that the bill be withdrawn and struck out. Oppose that the extended time frame originally given to the bill remains as the original date that was due to expire in May 2022 and is not extended. C was oppose and strike out and all additional powers proposed in the bill. The bill is poorly drafted and is incapable of safe interpretation as it's brazenly loosely worded which will create confusion, misapplication, manipulation and thereby is incapable of being fit for purpose or constitutionally sound and the wide-fetching outcomes would seriously undermine the liberties at stake for New Zealanders by being overstretched and faltering as it will be breaching constitution law enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Magna Carta 1297 and the Bill of Rights Act 1688. Cool, cool. Well you got them all without even looking at the, pretty much all. Yeah. Without even looking, so that's a great memory from law school. You know, I mean, I do remember the, I think we're in a better position really than the UK in that data, you know, I mean in the UK you obviously learned all your sources of law but ours is now encapsulated in that little seven section Act which is the Imperial Laws Application Act and, but we've also, although I believe that the UK picked up as well, they picked up, but they don't have a Bill of Rights Act. Do they have a Bill of Rights Act? I think it's mostly from memories, the Magna Carta. I've looked, it's been 20 years since I've looked at constitution law. I've just unpacked a whole lot of books that I had so I might actually go back and refresh my memory now that you've kind of, but I think the main point from this is, right, so effectively, so it's great, the precursor of the explanation that you gave at the beginning of this, me coming in and telling you this is what I wrote in October, whenever that was, is basically, am I starting to wonder why this disappeared from my emails? Am I starting to wonder that this document, I'm going to get an airing again, if you'll allow us, right, I'm going to do, I'm putting in an application for a judicial review of the COVID-19 vaccination order because I think there's also, I'm thinking also of the CBC, the, which is, is also needs to be examined, but the, you know, the thing is probably the, the application should be for the whole Act, but it's going to be huge. But you know what Liz, what I want to say is if once they received that submission, they had no excuse not to understand that somebody had made pertinent arguments over that. Well, we can, we can put that in, Pam, that can be, that can be adjusted as evidence. Yes, it may be, they were transported, that means my word, I put them on the list and I never got a response back, they won't come back to me now that I'm asking them what's happened to it, but they must be worried that that has been transported on their lap, just like when we're looking at a bullying case and I say to my client, right, your, your employer isn't necessarily vicariously liable for what an employee does in that employment relationship, right? Your contractual relationship is with your employer and it's whatever, X, Y, Z limited, right? So your contractual employment is with X, Y, Z limited. Your, when somebody treats you unfairly in the workplace or they kind of, you know, have treatment towards you, which you consider as being some form of bullying, they're not expected to be telepathic and it certainly doesn't impinge them on liability. What creates liability is being placed on formal notice, the same thing as what we talked about. Once we imported that information about the issues of health and safety in the workplace, they now no longer could claim to be ignorant, it was now on their lap, it was just sewed on their head that they had the information. I said that to a lot of employers. I said now that I've imported that information, if something happens, you're now vicariously liable because that information has been imported to your knowledge, very much the same sort of thing that you talked about. So then you become vicariously liable. So if at that point they were told, have they then become vicariously liable for everything that is occurred thereafter? Should there not be vicarious liability? It's a tort, it's a law of torts. Yep, yep. And, but you can, I mean, the actual Health and Safety at Work Act, which they've been, oh no, we can't, you know, I've actually had to write to the member and say, this is how it comes in, you know, this is how we import the Health and Safety at Work Act, or the Human Rights Act. Do you know, I'm so glad that you really, you know, extended my knowledge and my use of that tool because I use it countless now for bullying claims and everything. I tell them, I tell the employer that a personal grievance and an unjustified disadvantage or dismissal claim is the least of their problems. Their problems really are, is whether there's going to be a, whether it's going to go to the district court, whether it's going to be found that their workplace is going to be combed for being, them knowingly creating a culture of bullying in the workplace, that there could be potential pins, you know, improvement notices issued to them, that there could be massive fines that aren't just your average 10, 15,000, we could be talking hundreds of thousands. The personal grievance from the perspective of the Employment Relations Act, that is the least of your problems right now. What I'm telling you, you were imported with the knowledge to know that there was bullying going on against my client and you failed to do something, wow, you've got problems now, big time. So, you know, that's basically how I use Section 80, but I still use it. I mean, you know, everybody who knows me is that I have not just streamlined about employment rights in a specific area. I am completely widespread. In fact, I've never stopped that. I'll always want to be there for the average person that can't rub two things together to take some action and to take an element of those cases somewhere. And, you know, it was never about me just being an advocate for this particular circumstance. Yes, it fell onto my lap. I had no choice. I was going to help those people that came to me. But it's not the only thing that I'm still, you know, even though we've got wonderful groups like yourself doing this for the people in this specific area, and just like the number eight union is basically widening that scope and that net as well, you know, we've still got so many people that also need a wide scope of issues being tackled. Well, I think if we can, and I don't think that they can beat or they can rule against us, quite frankly, on the ultra vires of the Act. Yes, absolutely. I think it will give a whole lot of confidence to people that because they're going to try again, you know, they're going to try again with all over again to get more and more people vexed or made ill. You know, I mean, we know it's part of the population agenda, and that's all there is to it. So, you know, but we've been given, you know, through, I think, holy inspiration, the tools, you know, that were always sitting there, always. Absolutely. And I think, you know, this is a very ethical, moral standpoint that I come from. I truly believe that it's important. I mean, you know, do you think our ancestors that went to war and fought and died for freedom did it, you know, for no reason? They did it for every reason to maintain the future generation's ability to be. And it was a war. It was a civil war that actually got us to 1688. It was our ancestors dying in the fields of England. And in some cases, they didn't do much in Scotland, but mostly it's on the borders, but all the battles, etc. But yeah, they were won from the king from a battle. Yeah. And so that's right. So if we have had it in the depths of our soul that this has had to, you know, be part of our mahi or our work that we are here to do, then so be it. We didn't choose to be encapsulated in this. You know, it was bestowed on us also as people to take these fundamental sort of steps to try and unravel this for what it is. And, you know, everybody that's been part of your group, you, yourself, everyone that's been part of the whole group and all the other places. And some people like me, they're acting independently. You may never hear what they've done, but quietly in the background, they've also been making the fundamental arguments. I mean, that is fantastic that you've got that submission. It's going to be a blow, a hell of a blow as evidence that they were on notice even that there was a submission like that. Probably, you know, this, I say, this will go up on to rumble eventually, not eventually, probably tomorrow. And people can share it from there. And I would say, you know, people who made submissions, tell us about it. Tell us what your experience was, because we are going to not just tell the world that the act was ultra-virus in New Zealand, but we're going to be the first country that in the English common law world, which includes the United States, which includes Canada, it includes the whole of the Commonwealth, runs, has all of those acts that we're talking about in their armory for the people. No, we are very blessed to have this heritage, right? And to think about, you know, and the way it's been kicked around. But really, what bothers me a bit is the fact that judges haven't been a bit more active, if you like, activist. Well, that's right. And I think, you know, like, I don't know if I told this to you before, but when I was learning about Schedule 3, and I was literally pulling my hair out at the time, thinking, why wasn't anyone, if it, my understanding is that the politicians are supposed to, you know, literally in Parliament scrutinise things that are being passed through. What were, were they just asleep? What was happening? Was anyone there? Was anyone turning up? What was going on? Because it's so much, but I realised, I did go and have a look at some of the debate, some of the records, the Hansard records, that's what records what the conversations were. And there were some politicians saying they're making laws quicker than the Wild West. It's written, and I extracted it. And I've used that because, you know, these employees that say, you know, that we were told, you know, this is what, you know, is the legislation, this is what we've been told, whatever. And it's like, well, hold on, okay. Irrespective of all of that, the fact is, you know, if politicians were recognising that things were being passed through without the relevant scrutiny, quicker than, you know, the Wild West sort of thing, then obviously that should have sent alarm bells ringing in everybody's mind to say, hold on, this is not right. This is not what I learnt under constitutional law 101. Basic law. And so why? Why? Because there was, and when I looked at the emergency measures and stuff like that, because one of the things I sat back and said, look, they keep on, we're nearly two years on, or we're a year and a half on, or we're a year on, and they're still saying that it's justified under emergency measures. Hold on, go and read those emergency measures and see, because you talked about it earlier, when you started off this conversation, Parliament will always look to purpose and intent, right? So let's, okay, let's go and put our thinking hats on and think, when they wrote those emergency measures, what was in their thinking mind? They were thinking an earthquake. They were thinking something really catastrophic, something that was making people fall on the ground everywhere, in the streets that you had to walk over bodies, that sort of thing. Like, it was pretty dire, probably, circumstances, not for the reason that they kept on extending, extending, extending as a reason for justification. Surely not. That wouldn't have been purpose and intent. It would have been for a short period of time for a civil defence emergency situation. You can't have the other thing in the judicial review application, in the judicial review. You can actually call these people as witnesses and cross-examine them. Which people? Like, for example, mine's going to be based, because I'm not a worker that got my job taken or anything like that, so I'm going to have to use the fact that the Auckland libraries were closed. So, there's going to be a challenge on the CVC order and the VACs order. Perhaps we'll leave the deliciousness of the freedom of movement, etc, to another case. But definitely, the CVC one, when you really look at it, there's a COVID vaccination certificate. Everybody had the choice whether to ask for those or not. So, they're going to be slippery. They're going to be saying, oh yeah, and I think people will just, their jaws will drop, because they'll be saying, oh yeah, but people didn't have to do that. There was non-COVID rules they could follow. They perfectly like orders. But the thing is orders. Now, coming back to orders, in terms of the vaccination itself, there is no, the Parliament hasn't put anything in that, they did put stuff in about the CVC, but of course, there was tons of outs for people with COVID vaccination certificates. But in terms of, you know, people who wanted to enforce that order, but with the vaccination, right, there is nothing in the Act itself that contemplates vaccination at all. It's never, it's never, it's never mandated, if you like. It's never put into the, into under Section 8 of the Act. You find out all of the ways that, you know, all of the things they can do, but they can't, they can't, they can't force medical treatment on anybody. And for that, and I don't know if you would, you watch that one I did a few weeks ago now, probably a couple months ago now, about the Health Act 1956, and how the Health Act 1956 completely forbids medical treatment to be pushed on anybody. It's, and then of course, we've got the, we've got culpability then falls back on, in a criminal sense, not just judicial review, but in a criminal sense, on the, what do you call it, on the, on the enforcers, on the people who, Well, because it, bodily harm. I think the thing is, though, what I still am really interested to do, and I think still really is something I will be doing when I put my case to the authority, is bringing in that third leg controlling party. I've always said it. I've always said that people that basically created the orders should be a controlling party. This was a triangular relationship. It wasn't between the employee and the employer. There was a third cog that held the strength in the situation to enforce something. So it has to be, I'm sure they have to be drawn in. I would have to, you were saying the third, because we were looking at this. Karen is doing one for, and bringing in the Department of Health at the moment, I think. Yeah. Because we've got cases, you know, with nurses and medical people and bringing in. I think you should go to the Health Minister or whoever is responsible behind that. Bring him in. Oh, you know, and Bloomfield, an unelected official out there. And he was holding the strings also. He's so culpable. He was also holding the strings when they took away the Section 7A. And they made it that people had to get exemptions of a doctor. And then that doctor's exemption was sent to Bloomfield for ticking off. He wouldn't, he never ticked any of them off. So he, I mean, he is an, I'd say, Bloomfield is probably in terms of, you know, he's up there with Dr Mengele, I'd say, you know, in terms of his culpability. Yeah, I certainly think that that is definitely the direction because, you know, with somehow like, look who has the power in employment relationships and then call them the employer. Because you might as well, if they had that capacity to determine that an employment relationship was going to be torn up at the mercy of that, then hold on, you must be a controlling party. Come on in. Come on in. Well, I think it's there in the Health and Safety at Work Act. It's also in the, it's in the ERA too, I believe. Hey Liz, there's a couple of questions. Would it be all right to? Yeah, OK. Pam, Pam, Pam, sorry. I think Margaret was first. Thanks Pam. We'll get back on and get you. Yeah, no, awesome, awesome work Pam. That's fantastic. All right, my question is very quick. And so what I want to know is if you can't apply the law retrospectively, what about lockdowns and quarantines at the beginning then? Were they all illegal? And what is the redress for that? That, no, the case, the point about applying the law retrospectively is where you got, oh, you mean where, no, the law wasn't changed about the lockdowns. But what happened was, in this case that I was talking about, the law being applied retrospectively was, they made the material objectionable and charged them with broadcasting objectionable material when the broadcast itself had been, when it wasn't, objectionable material. So you got to say, objectionable material. So you got to say it was, they broadcast on the 23rd, they made it objectionable material on the 25th. I think that was the date. And that's too late. Too late. So that's what it means. I'm not sure where you'd be going with that with MIQ. MIQ is, would be, come under something like cruel, probably cruel and unusual punishment, probably putting people who haven't, see, this is the thing, charging people with things or not charging people with things, just disadvantaging them or, see, the whole point about this forfeiture of the person, in terms of the COVID-19 law, it's presumed that people had a deadly disease, right, without any testing. Okay. A disease that was going to be, was going to be, you know, spread to everybody and that you had to protect the group. But your rights not to be presumed, you've got a right to be presumed innocent of something before, you know, until you're convicted, right. Now this is kind of the thing about groups of people being told, like, you were one of a group of people who came into the country from somewhere else, right. You had a right to be able, if you're a New Zealand citizen, you've got a right under the Bill of Rights Act for freedom of movement, right. To then, I don't know about people who came from other countries, that might not, that might not exist for them, but definitely the New Zealand citizen or New Zealand resident has a right not to be locked up when they haven't done anything and that's what was happening, right. Yeah. So that's the MIQ Centre one. Now it's, if you look at the Health Act, the process, if you've got somebody that you think has got a disease and they have to be on the schedule, which they are, over on the Health Act, that's where COVID-19 is on the schedule. It would pay to look at when they put it on the schedule too, because if you were in MIQ before it was on the schedule, I think it's the 10th of March actually though. I'm just going to decline that. If you were on the schedule before it was, sorry, if you were in MIQ before it was on the schedule, which I think was the 10th of March 2020, then, you know, they're in trouble because that would be a case of applying the law retrospectively. And I don't think they could even apply it to New Zealanders anyway. In actual fact, when New Zealanders were first coming back into the country, at the very start of it, right, they weren't going into MIQ, they weren't going into any quarantine, because this is what really alerted me right at the very beginning. I think I've told people before, I was driving taxi and I took the van back to the thing and I was asking about, oh, you know, how are they getting them to the quarantine? Oh no, they're just going self-quarantining, right. So self-quarantining is voluntary, right, voluntary. They can't be pinged on self-quarantining, but when they do it, when they basically kidnap people, yeah, and it's against the law. I mean, this fundamental law of freedom of movement, freedom of association, right, all of the churches and everybody who was closed down, freedom of association was breached. But what about the airlines insisting that your person be jabbed so that you can fly there? Yeah, well, the thing is the airlines should have been pulled up on that as a discrimination right at the very beginning, right at the very beginning. But because they had a monopoly, right, and all of them were doing it, you know, what could the traveller do? But the traveller still has a cause of action. And the thing is that all of these things are, I mean, we're always stuck with time constraints in the employment situation. But civil cases, I mean, civil cases that could come out of your ears with using all of this. Yeah. You could go to the, you could have a group, you could have a group case against the airline for discrimination. You've got six years from when it happened. That's the statute of limitation. Great, we're going home free. Thank you. Okay. Hi, Pam. Hi there. My question is similar to Margaret's, but you touched on it briefly, well, Cam touched on it briefly, I think, talking about the 7A, the exemption that was removed, the legislation that was removed from Venus. And so people who had gone and got that 7A exemption, once the legislation was removed, does that mean it wasn't valid? Because again, in retrospect, can you change it when you've already got it? So like I got that exemption and that should apply. They could change it two days later, but they've missed the boat with me because I've already got it. Because I submitted that to my employer and it wasn't accepted as a case and I lost my job. Yes, well, you've got to, yeah, that was, there was a lot of, I'm running a case at the moment, it's got a non-publication thing on it, but, you know, eventually we looked at it. But I can tell you what the facts are, that he had two 7A exemptions, actually. He got them both off NZDESOS or something. Anyway, I was able to successfully argue that he had exemptions. Okay. It didn't matter. I mean, the judge talked about oh, you know, the case is weaker because then the government took the 7A away, but it doesn't, in law, it doesn't make it weaker at all, actually. She was just being mean because I'd caught them. But yeah, it's a valid, it's valid. Okay. And so for a civil case with the six years, you've still got that when you're out of the 90 days. Now, see, the problem with employment ones is only the employment authorities in court have the Because it's not the government, so it can't be a civil one. No, it's not to do with the government. It's only the employment authorities that have any jurisdiction in the employment matters. Okay. Here's a good one, though. What Tam was saying before, the employment authority in court doesn't have jurisdiction in a tortious, what's called a tortious manner. So if you frame it as a tort, as damage to your, you know, and go after damages in tort, you could take it, and you could take it with the six years. That's just on top of my head, but I think, yeah, so you can't take, even though the principle is tort, T-O-R-T, if you've got to take employment matters before the employment authority in court, but if you reframe it as a tort, you could take it into the civil. Okay, because there's things, Suzie, I was in healthcare, not as a nurse, but I'm watching from the sidelines with how things have changed so much as far as nurses who actually have COVID are able to go to work, as opposed to an unvaccinated person that doesn't have COVID. And it's these things that are just so nonsensical that I just do not understand how it's out there as fact, with everybody knowing it, and nothing is being done about it. Well, we've got a case that we're putting together at the moment for interim reinstatement for some medical people, and to get it moved along quickly. And once we've got that, then we will share it all, and everybody can have a go at it. And I think that, you know, if they're, because we know they're short as hell of people. They're not going to back down from it, though. They're not going to back down from it. Well, they will have to at the end. Yeah. Because we're going to start with, you know, the people at the top that everybody trusted are now going to be exposed as complete criminals. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Thanks very much. You're welcome. Welcome, Pam. Okay. We've just talked ourselves out, haven't we? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know whether anybody's got any more questions, or you'd like to wrap it up? They're all going home now because we had about 10 more people who've gone, and I think we're good. Yeah, I think a few people had to leave. I would just say to people, it's going to be loaded up to Rumble, and it's the channel is NHWUNZ. Is that correct? Yeah. Yeah. So just go to Rumble, join up. You have to subscribe to Rumble. It's free. It's free. And then we're putting all of the Zooms up there now because, you know, they can get lost on Facebook. Yeah. Yeah. And a copy of Pam's submission. Wow. Don't have to do all of that work. Fantastic. No, she had it. She had it absolutely right. And she did pull in Magna Carta. But as she was saying, she wanted to research those, or she would have been much more particular about, you know, she wouldn't have just quoted Magna Carta. She would have said what part of Magna Carta, right? She would have said which part of 1688, right? Yeah. But as lawyers, we'd actually have to go and look at those acts, right, because we're not used to it. But they are a breeze to use compared to, they are absolute breeze to use compared to the Bill of Rights Act, for example. But that's, you know, this is the modern language is the Bill of Rights Act. The ancient is in those older founding documents. And the other thing, of course, is that I think we're going to talk a lot more, not on this Zoom perhaps, but I'll probably start doing Zooms for Liz Lambert or something like that, where we talk about what our founding documents are as well, because we are really, a lot of this is mixed up with this whole wanting to clear away the English common law. That is our only protection from all of this, from fascists is the English common law. Got to remember that Germany didn't have English common law. Okay, they didn't have it. Italy didn't have English common law. Japan didn't have English common law. Russia didn't have English common law. China? China doesn't have English common law. Hong Kong has English common law. Because it was owned by... Oh, now hang on, would they? But anyway, they operate under English common law. Well, they certainly did, because they were leased off mainly in China. But I believe that, yeah, so anywhere that's got English common law, India has English common law. Yeah, definitely, definitely. So, fascism has got a hell of a job. France is not English common law. It's what's called, they are all what are called, because English common law is wherever the British Empire was, basically, and England, of course. Ireland, they've still got, even though people have become, you know, all of the countries in Africa, etc., etc., they've all got the basis for resisting fascism, for resisting totalitarianism. They've all got it because we've got that law. Right? So, remember that, guys, we don't have to reinvent the wheel. Yeah, we just have to learn what the wheel is. Yeah, yeah, we saw it lying about and thought, yeah, what is that? Oh, put it on the wall as a decoration. No. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, because we've got two wheels now. One wheel was, sort of, maybe we were thinking about it quite carefully, you know, because we're just used to it, you know, we just accept it and we take it for granted. But, yeah, when I think of it, when I think of it, all of those countries that have collapsed the totalitarian regimes, none of them had English common law. And I'm not talking about, this has nothing to do with, you know, all white supremacy or rubbish like that, because look at all of those countries that have got English common law. All of the countries in Africa and all of that, OK, they're not white countries. India's not a white country. But the law doesn't look at colour. It protects you, whatever you are, OK? Everybody is equal under it. But what we've forgotten is that our so-called rulers are there at our command, really. If we keep the law, if we break the law, we get the same sorts of punishments as everybody else. And this idea that we're going to have tikanga bloody courts and they're going to have, what do you call it, sharia law courts like they do in the UK. No, no, no, no, no. This is the time to stand up and say we are under English common law and we have to have all of our court hearings, et cetera, in English. If you can't speak English, you're entitled to have an interpreter. That's in the Bill of Rights Act as well, OK? So we stand up for it and we stand under it and nobody is above it, right? OK, that's all my rave for tonight. That's so awesome, Liz. Yeah, what a fascinating chat. Yeah, just fantastic. Yeah, so thank you. And I'm sure people would be very keen to learn more on this subject. Well, they can, can't they? Because they can watch it on the Zoom. They can watch it on Rumble and they can share it around and they can get together and talk to all of their things because I know that everybody, not everybody's thinking in terms of employment law. They're thinking in terms of there's the people, you know, who are wanting to save their land from getting grabbed by SNAs and the Three Waters rubbish and the co-governance stuff and, you know, special treatment for if you're LGBTQ and all of this stuff. You know, there's not to be any of that discrimination under English common law. And there's nothing before it. Nothing came before, in terms of law, came before 1275, right? I think so much of it's just propaganda and people fall for it. Yeah, that's bullshit. Yeah. You know, wanting to be politically correct. You know, I was having an interesting talk with Erica this afternoon about, you know, this idea, the group, the group, oh, the group, you know, everybody's got to bow down to the group and, you know, you've got groups who are in and groups who are out. And she was talking about that book that was, or the Belgium, the Belgium writer who was talking about mass formation. I think we had it. Oh, yes. Yeah. And apparently he was, he's a Belgian and they were told you're part of the group of, you're part of the team of 11 million. Does that sound familiar? I knew his last name was a D, Mathias Desmayor. Desmayor. Fantastic. The psychology there. Thank you. Erica's given it to us. The psychology of totalitarianism. Yeah. And they're very, I mean, the people who fall for all of this, Erica was also saying she might like to come on and talk a little bit about it herself. I don't know if you would, Erica, about what is the psychology behind, you know, a country that falls for this stuff? No? Well, she was saying that, you know, the German people, extremely intelligent, extremely well-educated, but I don't know what that, I don't know how to pronounce it, there's a French word that sort of talks about that. You know, just I'm tired of life because I see no meaning in it because I haven't got my family, you know, broken up and I've got problems with my family or I haven't got a community I feel a part of or something. And, you know, I mean, social media is taken over from people's families to it, or they have built bullshit jobs with no meaning. Yeah. And so they'll do anything to get, you know, to basically bring meaning into their lives and they think that the way to do it is to become part of this group. And if they're out of the group, there's nothing left for them. There's nothing left for them. Yeah. Lack of connection. Yeah. Bullshit jobs. Yeah. Free-floating anxiety. Yeah. But it's a small world, you know, let's hope all of these countries will adopt the English common law in the future, protect themselves. Yeah. Absolutely. Fantastic. Because, you know, I mean, and this is the thing, you know, those ancient judges and everything, you know, we're talking about the Ten Commandments, we're talking about Solomon, we're talking about the judges in the Bible, a lot of what they call natural law or, you know, the right from wrong is coming to us, not from, you know, an island in the Irish Sea or wherever you're going to call it, the Atlantic or, you know, it's coming originally out of Central Asia, Central, yes, it's not Central Asia, the Middle East. Yeah. Yeah, Central Asia, basically. So it all comes around. Okay, guys, I'm going to say good night. Yeah. Fantastic. Thanks, everyone, for coming along. Really appreciate it. And, yeah, do your homework, re-watch the recording, go look up all that legislation. And start putting groups together and using it, okay, guys? Tell other people. There's a lot of groups out there that are struggling of what to do about these vital questions. Mm, yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely. I think this is the best approach because, I mean, I've been involved in some of those other groups and some of the things that they're recommending are quite scary, I reckon, and not using legislation, not using the laws, trying to be outside the system. It drives me up the wall now that. Yeah, but we've already paid for all of this. Mm, I know, I don't want to, I don't want to have to sort of rebuild from scratch, you know? No. You know, you can run away and think you're going to be safe in some deserted valley. You're not. They're going to come after you. We've got to fight them, and we've got the best weapons, that's for sure. Yeah, absolutely. Well, very good. Okay, guys. Fantastic. Well, thanks, everyone. Thanks so much, Liz. That was because you do a lot of prep around these things, so appreciate all the work that you do. And, yeah, onwards and upwards. Onwards and upwards. Now, I'll give you a call soon, Adrienne. Adrienne's wanting to talk to me about something. Yeah. Come on, it's late. Tomorrow. Tomorrow. Very good. Thanks, heaps. Okay. See you later, everyone. Bye. Bye.