N8WUNZ 20230210 (F) Courts and Judges on Trial

The transcription is a conversation discussing various topics, including Facebook notifications, legal cases, and the importance of freedom of speech. The speakers mention a court case involving Alan, who is defending himself against six strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) suits. They also discuss the lack of understanding of the law by some members of the authority and the need for access to justice. The conversation ends with Gabriella mentioning a class action lawsuit for those who were mistreated by the police during the occupation of Parliament grounds. And I'll do Facebook as well, and we won't ruin Liz's flow. Hi Emma. Hi there. By the way, I really like the way you've set up the notification tonight with the link at the top rather than at the bottom. Oh, yeah. Oh, OK. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, good. Good. That's good to hear. I've just set up Facebook to get going. Oh, let's see if I can get back to the Zoom now. That's always a mission. There we go. Oh, that's good. Yeah. Yeah, there's always different ways to do that. And yeah, it's finding that format. Some people have been bitching about reminding. I've tried to go on quite frequently and say to people they can actually just turn off the notifications for it and then they won't see it. And they're like, oh, OK, cool. Because for every one person that complains, there's about 40 that like it. So, yeah, I'm glad to hear that. Yeah, that's very good. Oh, well, we won't be facing all of this much longer. We're making giant strides every day, guys. I went to see, and I don't know if Erica's coming on. Is Erica on? Do you know? No, not yet. Erica went to see, sat in on the morning session of Alan Hulse's case today. Alan has been attacked by the legal profession, pretty much, but, you know, by the corporates. When I say the legal profession, I mean the corporate lawyers and the firms and by the authority, the Employment Relations Authority. And I've had lazy, I can only describe it as lazy, judgments in the support of the Employment Court and letting things slide. They have a lot of business to do, and this was interesting when I watched about an hour of the afternoon session. Getting a boat from Waiheke at the moment is a bit of a gamble. They have people, like we were 10 minutes late going because somebody had hurt their leg and we had to wait for the ambulance to come. Yeah, lots of different stuff going on. And sometimes, you know, they decide to call in different places on the way. But no, I'm OK. So I was late there, but I did get there for the final and I knew what the case was about. I did get there for the last hour and Alan spoke to the judge really, really well. He's been having the backup of a constitutional lawyer who wasn't there. But actually, it showed there was talk of Section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act. There was talk of Section 27 of the Bill of Rights Act. And I'm going to go over that with you. He was also seeking a set aside, usually in these cases, because, you know, I talked to you about a couple of weeks ago. It seems like it's ages ago, but not so long ago about the strikeout that I'm going to have heard on the 15th at the Medical Practitioners' Disciplinary Tribunal. And the reaction, because there was a woman there for the other side, she was attending on AV, audiovisual. And I didn't hear much of what she had to say. And she didn't have much to say when I heard her, because they both got a chance at the end, you know, to sum up. Alan had a lot more to say. But basically, it was, well, we've done it before. What's different now? Well, what Alan had to say was, because you've broken the law. Where is the rule of law? The authority, which is lower than a tribunal, it's an investigator body, apparently. It used to be a tribunal, and it kind of got a bit downgraded. But I'll tell you what, the hubris of the members in some cases, not every member, of course, there's some terrific members, like Member Ehrlich, who decided the Harwood case, right? But there's specific, there's certain members who won't, don't seem to understand the law as the people, as well as the people who are coming before them. I've had to spend quite a lot of time explaining to the authority how the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Human Rights Act, not so much the Human Rights Act, because sometimes you've got a choice. You can take human rights matters before the authority, or you can take them before the Human Rights Commission. So they're a little bit more familiar with that, but they are entirely at sea as far as the Human Rights, as far as the Health and Safety at Work Act. And I can give you an immediate example of that. I have a case that has been going on for ages. I don't know why it's, oh, because we went after an interim reinstatement. Then he got a job. In the meantime, we withdrew it. Yeah, yeah, we withdrew it. We didn't take it to, oh, that's right. Did we take it to the court? No, we didn't take it to the court. We didn't take it to the authority for the interim reinstatement. We withdrew it because he got a job in the meantime. So then we've been mucking around, and I put in the usual statement of problem, which includes claims under the Health and Safety at Work Act. All those good sections about coercion and everything like that, right? So then I get an email because we tried to cull the bank offer, and they wouldn't come up with anything that was halfway there. So anyway, they then started to say, Ann, you will, you know, the members already decided that you can't have this. And I'm thinking, when was this? When was this? We had a planning meeting. That's not a decision, right? That's not a decision. This is people who are getting paid a whole lot of money by employers to represent them. So then she says, oh, you can't, you know, he'll have to go to the district court first for them to decide the health and safety at work matters. So I said, I thought, you've got the, no, you've got this wrong. So I wrote back to her and said, no, I think you're a bit confused. He doesn't. He can go, you know, go this way. I said, because they even mentioned Section 103.1J. So hadn't looked to see if there was any cases, obviously. Hi, pal. And so anyway, she writes back to me again and says, and starts getting threatening and says, oh, if you don't take out, it's going to be more costs and dah, dah, dah. So if you change the, amend the problem now, it's going to be more costs and stuff. And we'll go for a strikeout because it's, you know, taking too long. And because they're freaked now because they know they've lost it, right? So they tried this on. Just remember, guys, there's a lot of posturing going on with the courts. And the, what have I got to say? Just stop. Why has Liz got to stop? There's a lot of posturing going on with the courts. And people are really put off and think they're not going to get justice. Well, I'll tell you more about Ellen's case in a minute. So then, so I wrote to, I called up Karen and said, I can't remember the name of the case, but I know it's Lee and something. Anyway, she said, oh, it's Lee and Otamatia High School. Right. I said, I just want to put a burr under the saddle of this woman over the weekend. So I wrote back to her and said, listen, you got it wrong. If you're a non-employee, you'll have to go to the district court. But as an employee, you can go to the district court. I said, you better have a look at Lee and Otamatia School over the weekend. And as you say, it was raised as a claim back in March of 2022. I mean, this is how long these things are taking. It's like a week. But anyway, so the answer to the question, don't be put off. If I say something's right about the Health and Safety at Work Act, it's right. Because I'll tell you what, there doesn't seem to be anybody who's ever used it in the employment authority. Except this woman from Lee and Otamatia School. Now, her case was, and she didn't succeed because there was no coercion involved. She was, and I've talked about it before in one of the Zooms. She was the woman who was the cleaner at Otamatia High School. And they were removing asbestos out of the roof. And they had done it before. They weren't doing it when she was cleaning or something. But she'd raised it as a sort of, well, you should have told me you were going to do it, right? Because under the Health and Safety at Work Act, there's this consultation process that's supposed to be happening. And she was probably correct in that, OK? But it wasn't raised as a lack of consultation point under the Health and Safety at Work Act. However, when the roof, she raised it as coercion. And it wasn't coercion. But what the judge did was they, he or she, I can't remember who the men, not judge. So it was a member of the authority. And here we go. We've got excellent members in the authority, but some of them are giving it a bad name. So the members went to the trouble of explaining it and said, this is it in the Act, right? And this was the coercion section. And this is, yeah, oh, that's right. So you introduce it through Section 1031J. This is what it means, right? And this is how it's pursued. So, of course, I mean, what do they think at work means? They have just got themselves completely bamboozled with the whole thing. I mean, in a way, it's good for us. But, yeah, I'm afraid that a lot of people have been put off by lawyers saying, oh, no, that won't work. Section 83 won't work. Yeah. And people have lost the chance to get some justice. So, anyway, a little bit about what happened at the court this afternoon. So Alan's defending himself, and it turned out there's been six slaps. What's Amanda saying? It's not me typing that stuff. I'm looking at the screen, and it's not from me. What? Yeah, I'm not sure what's going on there. No, there was a comment before about, Liz, stop it. And it was from Amanda. Yeah, there's two Amandas. For some reason, there's two Amandas. I don't know. Oh, OK. Sorry. Sorry, guys. Yeah. It's all right. I shouldn't look at the comments, probably. Yeah. We'll sort that out after. Yeah. So, Amanda to everyone. Yes, you should. Oh, OK. So Amanda wants to have a little argument. Anyway, then the court this afternoon, he was defending himself against six slaps. Now, these are strategic litigation against public participation. So it's two Ps. OK? And that's the acronym that is to indicate that the Americans have come up with, I think, because it's quite a common thing there. But it's something that's practiced by corporate lawyers so that people with not much money, and workers especially, can't get through the courts. So I'm going to be appealing a costs order, and I'm going to be using a whole lot of constitutional law on it. Because under the 16, and this is about the costs that they're piling on to people, and the courts are letting them get away with it. Under the 1688 Bill of Rights, you can't, there's two parts of it. One is about, you know, fines and fees. We shall not sell justice, which I think is one of the, it's not the 1688. It's one of the statutes that's in our constitution, which you'll find in the Schedule 1 of the Imperial Laws Application Act, 1988. You want to jot that down and have a good old read over the weekend and find out what a fantastic constitution that we have. It's just that people don't know. It's a hidden treasure. So I'm going to be arguing that, in actual fact, there should be no, when people are seeking their jobs back, it is not frivolous and vexatious matters that are coming before the court. In this particular case, I won three out of the four points, legal points, that he was unjustifiably dismissed. All she has to say, the judges, in the cost order, that I overstate it. But no, you know, these throwaway comments from a judge is just shocking. It's really shocking. So what Alan was talking about this afternoon was that he'd been subjected to these slaps, so this sort of dragging out of cases, so that people would give up, and especially against the cost orders, that they were being assisted by the authority. The authority let an employer, this was the nub of the case, they let an employer, and that was the particular case you were hearing this afternoon, because apparently there were about six of them altogether where this had been happening. But the authority had let an employer actually file a personal grievance against Alan, and on the basis that he was supposed to have broken confidentiality in a confidentiality agreement that he wasn't a partner to. He wasn't a partner to. Now what he was, and he talked a lot this afternoon about freedom of speech too, because what he said was, I wasn't a party to that contract that my client signed off. He had actually advised her not to sign it apparently, but she was fired out at the end of the day and signed it. But anyway, it was about a place in Te Arawa, I think, a rest home there, particularly bad employers, that had had about 12 PGs for bullying over a number of years. So Alan had talked about it, had done either a blog or talked about it anyway, and so they were trying to get him on breaching confidentiality in these mediation statements that come out. I quite often talk about we've had a mediation, and this is what I say. I can't say anything about amounts or anything like that. I can just say we are settling a lot of them and people are getting some sort of justice out of that. I don't particularly like mediation. It is a process that I think keeps a whole lot of stuff hidden that should be out in the open. I think that people should be able to go straight to the employment authority without mediation, right? Because, well, you know, I mean, try and resolve that. But to be forced to go to mediation is secret squirrel stuff. They keep a lot of stuff in the dark. This is not just, you know, this isn't the family court and stuff like that. This is supposed to be a court and a system that's open. But they make a virtue out of hiding stuff, right? So the arguments that Alan made were to do with, mainly in terms of the Bora, were to do with Section 14. Yeah, you're right, Heidi. It's a delaying tactic. Were to do with Section 14, which is freedom of speech. And we are going to win some mighty cases over freedom of speech in the very near future. And the other, Section 27, which is access to justice. Two things that are completely dear to my heart. So what he had to say about the freedom of speech, and I'd be lovely if he were on here and able to talk to us himself. And because he, maybe he'll come on Wednesday or something and maybe can give us what he said to the judge. But as far as I can remember, it was that he outlined really what the status of the authority was. How he'd been, you know, this was a case of, he can say what he wants in New Zealand. As long as he doesn't, well, he didn't even have to say that because he wasn't defaming anybody. He was telling the truth. You can't defame people if you tell the truth, right? That's the rule. So he was saying, you know, the authority is saying I can't say certain things or allowing people who say that I can't say certain things to have a forum. Right? In the first place, that was wrong. And then to, and there was another point too about taking the defence. So he tried to judicially review then the authority. The court allowed the authority to basically slip the noose. They didn't have to put in a statement of defence. But, and the excuse, and I think it was excused by the other side's lawyer, was that, well, they have to remain neutral because they might have to hear something later. And what she was basically saying was, if they're accused, well, I mean, I guess it was, if they're accused of something, they don't have to reply. Right? I don't know. As far as I can see, then they should be found, if you don't defend yourself, if you don't, what's the term, rebut. If you don't rebut the accusations, then, you know, you lose. You lose. So, but that hasn't been happening. And he's been tied up with all this litigation, trying to defend himself, because they ended up taking his, putting his business into liquidation. And he only kept out of bankruptcy with the support of the people, you know, the people he's worked for and the people who think he's a darn good employment advocate. So, you know, lots of disadvantage. And these people have got pockets to, you know, they're in the health system. They're getting great big, you know, they're getting a lot of help from out of our pocket. Right? Anytime that you take the BHBs or anything, you know, you get a judgment against them or a decision against them. And they just can keep on taking it and taking it and taking it until you run out of money. That has got to stop. That has got to stop. And I'm going to try and make my efforts to make it stop. What he was saying about freedom of speech is, even the court itself, the employment court itself, will say, we can't stop you saying whatever you want to say. Right? And so he said, so, and a tribunal can't. And now a lowly investigative body says, I can't say what I want to say and, you know, tries to stop me. He said, no, under Section 14, I've got the right to say it. He said it a lot better than I can say it. If I were, you know, defending myself, of course, I'd be saying it quite well, I think. But anyway, that's what happened this afternoon. So the decision about whether it gets stayed, what's called stayed, which means further things go on. Ellen was wanting it stayed because he's got, I think it's the Supreme Court, is looking at some issues that he wants then the employment court to hear what they had to say. And the Supreme Court's pretty good, actually. Yeah, you get it to the Supreme Court and you'll get some sensible judgments. Well, I've got to be. We haven't got anything. But he talked a lot about the rule of law. You know, if you can't, where is the rule of law amongst the authority and the courts? If we can't rely on the rule of law there, where can we rely upon? You know, the rule of law has a number of things to say. It's like justice for all. Nobody is above the law. No man may be a judge in his own case. Stuff like that, you know. But basically, the bedrock, the bedrock of confidence in the system lies in the rule of law. And if we can't, and the best thing that upholds the rule of law is freedom of speech. And that's what we are so lacking in this country. And we have been so lacking for the past three years. And if there had been freedom of speech, we might have had a lot fewer deaths. We probably wouldn't have had any lockdowns at all as well. Okay, I'm... Oh, right, there was something else. Oh, yes. Gabriela, is she on? Because I wanted Gabriela to tell us a little bit about what she's planning. I see that she's put out a notice on Facebook about calling people who were roughed up by the police at the Freedom Village on the last days and before the last days. And they're going to get together a class action. So that would be good. Is she here? Otherwise, I've got something else I'll quickly talk about. And then I'll let Carl have a word with us too. Because I see Carl's here. Oh, yeah. There she is. She's there. Okay. Gabriela, can you tell us a little bit about that, please? Thank you. Yeah, I was just going to say, we've got Carl here with us too. So he's just outside on his device. We'll hear from Carl and we'll hear from you about this new initiative. I love it. What's happening? Yeah, yeah. Well, as you know, Liz, I haven't got – I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have a legal background. So I just want to make that statement first and foremost. But you do know that I was – Sorry, but from what I'm saying about who would want to be – they're so hidebound in their heads and think they know everything. Sorry, Gabriela. Please go on. No, that's okay. So you know that I was on Parliament grounds during the occupation for the 23 days. And it just so happens today, which is the 10th, is not a good anniversary to remember. But it was the first real frontline at Parliament. So that day I did give you a call and we did follow your advice that day. And whether people believe that it worked or not, I know for a fact that 20 minutes after we did what you proposed us to do, they backed off. So I – Was it? Oh, okay. Fantastic. Thank you. Yeah, yeah. Well, we were able to grab a microphone and speak it over the microphone. So, yeah, I really do think that, you know, today does mark something really bad but really great at the same time because they weren't able to move us off the ground. So we stayed until the 2nd of March, as we all know, and that was the final day that they brought in everything they possibly could to wipe us off Parliament. So in saying that, we have a lot of people that haven't had justice since that happened to them. The abuse and the arrest that a lot of people faced, you know, they're still facing trauma today. You know, today they've still got PTSD. You know, talking to some of the people that experienced the arrest and the abuse, they still sort of have that mamae or that pain within them. So for me and the team, we do have three other girls that are part of what we call Project Cows on the call. So they might want to pipe up after me. Sorry, what are you calling it? Project? Project Cows. So it starts with a class action lawsuit. Okay, cows. Okay, good. I can't speak too much on it, but just letting people know from my angle that we are collaborating with people of knowledge and skill and the ones that can come in and advise. And we were going to contact you definitely, Liz, and see if we could bring you on board. But of course, setting the foundations first, making sure that Project Cows is all about the people and what they want. This is first and foremost. Setting the foundations, putting the proper paperwork in place. We have a beautiful lady who's experienced in class action lawsuits in Australia, so she might want to have a little talk after me. Just to give a little bit of background so you understand the calibre of the people that are on board Project Cows. I just want to speak to it, just give an overview of what's happening. So we do have people registering. We did have two calls today. So there are people that are registering to Project Cows, and we're going to work with them, work alongside them, and also work alongside the people that are coming in to help on the legal side of things. So I think that's all I want to say for now. And I'll just ask Ashley, if she does want to come on and speak, just a little bit about her background and how Project Cows all came about. Well, great. Just before that, immediately sprang to mind, and I did do some case, I did research some cases, and of course the prime one is the one that Winston Peters used about trespass, right? But before, you know, the facts around that, this was the one that Chris Hipkins was involved in. There were about, I think there were about 50 people arrested, and they got a little bit, it was a student protest, basically, down on Parliament grounds. They got about 50 of them arrested, and some of them got a bit roughed up, nothing like this. You know, sort of probably, they had to stay overnight in the cells, and some of them felt a bit cold or something. So, I mean, good on them, fantastic, great. But I think they got really big payouts, actually. They got quite big payouts off the state, and he was one of them. Yeah, they got compensation, you're right, Jess. I heard that it was quite significant as well. And it was one of the early, because it was a long time ago now, and, I mean, the Bill of Rights Act is only 1990, so it would probably be one of the early cases. The first Bill of Rights Act case is Bajent, okay? So Bajent was, and that was what established that you actually could get a payout, you could get a Bill of Rights Act payout, because there's nothing, you can complain and say, my rights have been, you know, have been actually infringed, but there's nothing in the Act that says that you can get paid out. So the judges themselves have developed that. And at least you should get your money back for your lawyers, right? So, you know, and the courts possibly should hear, I believe they should hear these sorts of things free. The police have got tons of resources, and we're paying for it all. So, you know, we're paying often for injustice to be done to us. So is Ashley going to talk about it? Is she going to talk about it, Gabrielle? Yes, I'll just see if she's still on, and if she's willing to talk. Hey, I'm here, hoping not to. Hi, I'm Ash. I'm not sure what to really talk on much, but I'm originally from Australia. So coming over to New Zealand, in Australia, we are already having a law and finance background. I'm not a lawyer, don't worry. But having worked extensively in the legal field, without going into too much detail, essentially the project coming here to New Zealand and understanding the size of it and understanding that the pathways to justice, for example, that people in Australia use or the tools that we already have or that we know are utilised quite often because of our population. In New Zealand, not so much because of the population. I think population creates a massive difference in the experience and the amount of cases that can go and can be heard and things like that. And also, obviously, of being aware of the government doesn't want all of these botched ups and pushbacks. So with the company I work for in Australia, we recognised an issue in 2011 in New Zealand and wanted to come over and assist in the way that we're doing in Australia, which is obviously fighting back against the government, against banks and corporations and things like that, that we're stamping on the heads of the consumers. And in doing that, we started forcing reformation of legislation, forcing regulation, obviously assisting with class action lawsuits. And so like me personally, I was dealing with a thousand cases a week, just myself. And, you know, I was a team of 10 and we're covering the entirety of Australia. So it becomes pretty taxing and it's a hard thing to do. But you learn a fair bit along the way doing that also. And recognising that this issue here in New Zealand is not a lot of people do know their rights. You're not sort of taught that in school over here. It's different for me, what I experience, you know, where we get taken to court, we get taken to barn and we get we understand the whole process. So we're set off into the world with these tools and in New Zealand, not so much. And, you know, an issue of corporations having way too much control and then they control everything else that gets fed down the line. The project CALS is a much larger project. It does encompass, you know, issues within it, because the larger one is hopefully holding them to account for everything that has happened within the country. But addressing them individually because we understand precedence needs to be set. Yeah. So one of the categories or projects, as we prefer to call them, is obviously police corruption and the most prominent one. And in all of our minds, especially with the dates coming up that they are now, it just happened to be coincidental. But so with that, yes. So the Wellington and Wellington protests and what an occupation and what happened there, obviously, is something that needs to be addressed immediately. And so we'll start there. Fantastic. That is such good news. I believe, you know, maybe lawyers in New Zealand will be shamed into stepping up, actually, and do some of this. Hang on, Geoff, I just want to have a quick, another quick talk about the Bax engine. Something occurred to me today on speaking to an American and also, of course, been looking at the reporting system, CALM in New Zealand, and also the Medsafe reporting system. And totally shocked how anybody could ever have said safe and effective, list all of the carnage that's going on and then saying, oh, but we have no worries about it. That's basically what you'll see when you go to the Medsafe website, the Medsafe site and read it. And I don't believe that anybody who was said safe and effective has ever been near, within 10 feet of that website and bothered to actually read anything off it. And we found out that about that pharmacist who jabbed Rory Nahn, that they didn't know what that, they knew they were being sent a lot of information, but they didn't bother to click on the links. Now, we also found out that about 3,500 New Zealand cases actually went into the VAERS site, which is the American site. And the reason that they go there is because Pfizer being, having a New Zealand branch, basically. The Pfizer, they were the sponsors of the rollout, but they have an American parent company. So the FDA, the food and drug people in the state, require if you have a subsidiary, then these drug companies have got to have reports back of what's happening with the drug in the country where it's being sold. Now, here's the great thing. I heard a story and I put two and two together. This is how it happens. A friend I was talking to today, I'm doing a case for, well, I'm doing a case for and became a friend. And he was telling me about someone in his industry who's in shipping, let's call it that, seafarer. And a specialist engineer flies about sometimes, but when he was overseas one time, he must have been on an American airline flying away, and it took a 10,000 foot plunge in the middle of the flight. Everybody probably just about lost everything, you know what I'm saying? And so this class action lawyer, and apparently it's quite common, you might call it ambulance chasing, but he got the flight list and sued the airline. That's okay. This guy got $80,000, US dollars for being scared on the airline on what happened. So anyway, I was talking to the lawyer, they got a bit of a relationship. The guy didn't know what everybody did because he was just working off the list. And he said, oh, what do you do? He said, oh, I'm a seafarer, but he said, I don't like getting on the plane much anymore. And the guy said, oh, you fly much? He said, oh, well, I have to because I've got jobs that I have to fly for for my work. And the lawyer said to him, good grief, why didn't you tell me you flew? He said, I could have got you all of your wages for the rest of your life. He said all of the stewardesses and stuff, they all got paid out a huge amount more because they had to fly for their job and they couldn't, you know, I mean, it would have been a deal. I just can't face going up again. That was so terrifying. Right. So they won't fly again. They won't have a job as a stewardess or a steward again, but they got a big, huge payout. This is the thing. I'm thinking those 3,500 that are on the beers in the United States can because it'll be suing in their jurisdiction and they're suing Pfizer. Right. So, you know, this seems to be that I've been praying for lawyers, but I didn't think they'd be Australian or American, but it seems like they are. OK, so thank you, Heavenly Father. You came to the party once again. OK, well, Jeff, we'll just hear from Carl because Carl's been waiting and we'd love to hear how he's getting on with his project. Oh, they got 300. What? What was that? Three. Three. What's that figure, Jeff? Three. 37,000? No. 3,700 each. Chitkins and Islots. I posted the link on the chat there. They got 3,700 apiece for the payout back in 1990, whatever it was. But what was that thing that you said about 151,000 then? That was the total payout, if you divide it. Oh, that was the total. OK. 40,000 by 41. That's what I had to do on the calculator. Yeah, 41. Right, OK. So they got about three, five each. But this was back in the day. It was, you know, about $10,000 each, you know. And if you have a look at that stuff article that I posted up there, that is a brilliant article. Very informative. OK. Very relevant to what's going on today where they're using the taxpayer money to pay the claims and not telling anybody about it. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Exactly. Yeah, they've got, and as Jeff has told us, the courts have got insurance to pay this out. It doesn't even have to come out of our Treasury. They've been ripping us off so big. So big. There is going to be broad investigation of the whole damn lot over this. OK. Carl, can we hear what's going on with the project around the country? Yeah, we're calling ourselves now Road Rage. We had a little impromptu meeting last night in Whangarei, one of the parks, a car park area, over by DP there. And next Wednesday we're trying to organise one at the Skyline. That's at Bombay Hills, is it? No. What, the Brinduins? Brinduins, yeah. Yep. It is. Yep. So they're calling me Road Runner NZ because I'm running around all over the roads. One of the things I'd like people to do in this country is to go, I'm doing it through shareies. I've got a link I can share with people. Everybody that joins through my one, they get a $5 bonus and I get a $5 bonus for bringing somebody on board. And I'm suggesting we only buy 100 shares and channel infrastructure. If we get 10,000 people with those shares, then we can turn up at their board meetings and hopefully force them to do a lot more. Yeah, we'll be the shareholders. So what's the minimum that you can buy, Carl? Well, you can buy it in small lots, $20, $30, whatever you want on a weekly basis and go from there. And you've got a broker set up, have you? I'm using shareies. Shareies. So how do you spell that, Carl? Shareies, it is. S-H-A-R-I-E-S-E. I'll send you the link. Yeah, great. Yeah, Emma's going to get the technical stuff. Yeah, I heard you. I noticed you were talking about it on Facebook and I thought, oh, yeah. Yeah, that would be a good little investment. Oh, well, it's going to be a really good investment. And of course, the more important thing is the power that we can get by being shareholders. Yeah, it's not about money in the end. It's about, but we've also got to, I think, you know, I did not say anything because I'm not a financial advisor. Well, I bought some shares probably four months ago, I suppose, which is storage. Yeah. And I've made $30 on my 103 shares so far, so. Oh, very good. Very good. Well done. It's shares and what's the company called? Challenge Infrastructure, which has taken over. Challenge Infrastructure. So, you know that Challenge owns petrol stations, right? Challenge Petrol Stations. And I've always been a New Zealand company, eh, Karl? No, they're not the Challenge Petrol Stations. Oh, they're not? No, no, no, no, no. It's Channel Infrastructure. They're the ones that are bringing the fuel into New Zealand. Oh, Channel Infrastructure. Channel, yep. Oh, gosh, it'd be fantastic to have some shares in, I think, in, you know, something that was, you know, the transportation of it. Because that can be, that is, you know, you might actually have it in Australia and it might even be cheap or something. But getting it here, or even our own oil, you know, getting it from the rigs or I don't know how they do it. I guess they have a pipeline. But getting it from place to place, you know, if we could have shares in a company that had the ability to do that, I think that'd be fantastic. Like a truck engine, you know. I mean, this is the thing. Everybody wants to support the farmers, but a most vital link in that, if you like, that transaction is getting, say, the milk off the farm or getting the eggs out of the, you know, the places where the eggs are, you know, egg farms, whatever they're called, poultry farms. And the same with fruit and veg, etc. Right. So they're over there in the country and we're over here in the city, but we need to have control of the infrastructure that gets it from there to there. Because even, you don't even need, if you've got something to transport it to you, you don't need a store. You can park in a, you can be in a car park and sell it all from there, you know. Have a market and say, come on, come in, you know, this is the trucks that are coming in today with the, you know, people get themselves organised. People cannot actually, and of course, having a check point is fantastic, but people actually cannot afford to, I don't know how people can afford to live without fuel. What's happening with our fuel is we don't have enough tankers coming to this country. Right. And we're possibly going to run out at some stage. So these people, have they got anything to do with tankers? No, no, but the import company that, they've taken over Marsden Point refinery and they're just using it for storage facilities. So they're bringing in fuel from overseas to Marsden Point and Marsden Point through the pipeline to Auckland, to Werri, and Northland tankers, road tankers, that's about 40% of New Zealand's fuel use. Is there any way that we can get some, we can get shares in a tanker company? Oh, there's a hundred and seventy-five of these tankers coming to New Zealand, so they're all overseas companies. The idea is to take over. Even though we might start to get rich, we start to put the squeeze on Pfizer. That's only if it's effective, though, isn't it? You don't really have a really good stage presence, I'm sorry, Carl. Something about in that noisy container, or whatever it is. Yeah, I'm going to be able to ship some stuff out of the lock-up. This is live and gritty, guys. Oh, there we go. Carl, we love you and I think we should have you on as a regular. It's so much fun. Yeah. Okay. So anybody else got some, Jeff, you've still got your hand up. Yeah, he says he's been waiting patiently as always. Oh, Jeff, you've got four violins, Jeff Waterhouse. Sorry? Go on. No, I was just in the circus. Okay. There you go, Greg. First of all, we could create a company. We could create a company. We could create a company. We could create a company. We could create a company. First of all, we could create our own fuel. I posted that thing. Oh, yes, yes, yes. Thank you for reminding me. Alcohol can be a gas by David Bloom. I have a ton of his books still, which I bought 15 years ago. I'm selling them off at $10 a piece. They're still wrapped up, $20 if you want it posted. There is also a brilliant video that he did. If you just do a search, alcohol can be a gas. You can watch the video. So we can use alcohol as an alternative to petrol. There is no duty at all on alcohol fuel. It's very easy to get a license, provided you story in something that has a warning on it that it's poison and not to be drunk. Done all the research on this years ago. It's really there to be done. It's somebody who get off the backside and do it. As an alternative to diesel, we can use. Canola oil. We used to run two vehicles on waste vegetable oil that we used to collect from the chip shops, filter it, put it in the tank, and away we went. And then the government got in on the act, spent $30 million worth of taxpayers' money on biofuel and then gave it up as a bad job. So that's what we can do to become self-sufficient in fuel. We've got the climate certainly up here in the far north. And they grow canola in the South Island like it's going out of style. I've done all the research on that as well. So moving right along, what's happening in Australia now? I posted a link to an interview with, I can't think of his name, John somebody or other, with Avi from Rebel News. They say in Victoria they're spending taxpayers' money to pay out claims and looking into whether or not they know about public liability insurance in Australia. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But they're not doing anything about it. One other thing. I had a very interesting experience yesterday. We had a cruise ship in, we did a tour, and one of the people on it is a personal friend of President Trump. How about that? We had an amazing conversation. I've got his name, his email address, all his contact details. So I think we should, I intend to start trying to cooperate with him, feed him some information. And what you were talking about with Pfizer having to report to, you know, Pfizer New Zealand reporting to Pfizer America, I think that might be a useful little bit of information to send him and get him to help us out. So there's some interesting stuff going on, there really is. And then of course with Gabrielle's class action thingamajig that she's starting. There's no reason why we can't use the public liability insurance with that and make it easier so that we don't necessarily have to do the same, oh God, class action. So using insurance is cheaper and easier than filing a lawsuit. So anyway, there we go. And I'm hoping that that lady, Ash, who's almost a neighbour of mine apparently, that we can get together and work together and try and cause some mischief together. So there you go. Thank you kindly. Thank you, Chief. I hear your phone's ringing. So it sounds like you're going to leave us and go off taxing soon. Oh, Linda has got her hand up. Do you want to say something, Linda? Yes, I do. Is that OK? Yeah, go for it. OK, so I'm Linda Greenhorn. Gabrielle invited me to the Zoom meeting tonight. I'm from West Auckland. I'm a mum of three daughters and they are 21, 19 and 16 and they have never received a vaccination in their life. So when this COVID stuff hit, I knew it was a hoax. And so we were protected and my daughters, some of them lost their jobs and blah, blah, blah. Anyway, so I was at Parliament for the duration of the occupation and was arrested on the 10th of February like 120 others. And because they wouldn't sign the bail conditions, I was sent to Arahata Women's Prison. So I have deep grievance against the police and the government. But Gabrielle just wanted me to update you on what I've done so far. I mean, it's a year today since my arrest. I'm OK. I get through stuff. I'm pretty tough. The Trevor Mallard trespass arrived by registered post in April and that really annoyed me. So I have really dug deep, emailed. I've been a harassment to them. I've really harassed lots of people in Parliament and police. So I have a judicial review in the court system at the moment, just by myself. The 20th of February, I have my first telephone conference. I fly down from West Auckland to Wellington on Tuesday to serve papers to Mallard and Rui, the new Speaker of the House. And I'm doing that via... Who is the new Speaker? Yes, yes. Who is the new Speaker? Adrienne Rui. So I'm doing that via their lawyer, Simpson Grierson, at Lambton Quay. They're expecting me. So I'm pushing back. I will push back on everything. I went to Arahata Prison. I was locked up for five days. So I really push back. They really picked on the wrong one here, maybe. Fantastic. A woman's prison. People watched that on TV, didn't they? It's not glamorous, is it, Linda? I was really scared. I went with six other ladies and we've become firm, fast friends. Were they women who had been arrested at the protest as well? On the same day of February. Well, in a way, it's a bit fortunate, isn't it? Because you wouldn't want to be there on your own, one person. No. But you're subjected to things. So, yes, I'm pushing back. So, yes, Tuesday I look forward to serving Mallard and Rui. And have a telephone conference on the 20th of February. That's the first. Just like Winston Peters. I'm just doing exactly what he did. And I gave them every opportunity to drop it. Especially after my charge of willful trespass was dropped. Three days before my trial by jury on the 3rd of November last year. I gave them every opportunity to drop it again. And they wouldn't. You've done wrong by me. So, did you engage a legal aid lawyer or anything? No, I do everything by myself. Good on you, Linda. And have the court staff assisted you? The court staff in Wellington have actually been fairly okay. You'll find that. I have given them a lot of work to do. And that's my intention. That's it. Good. So, I'm having fun with what was my right to do what we were doing in Wellington. I'd lost my job. I had my daughter with me most of the time there. She was 15 years old. My husband came down. My two other daughters came down. I have a good family, strong. We knew what was right. And we were just standing up for our Bill of Rights. I will always back myself and do due diligence to my family. Good on you, Linda. Congratulations. What a trooper, guys. What a trooper. Because this is what the Bill of Rights is built for. If you look at it, it's us individuals against the state or the group or the bureaucrats as a group. They will name themselves individually sometimes. I like your going up against Mallard in the new Speaker of the House because it was the job that he was in as Speaker of the House that put him in as the person able to issue that trespass order because he was the supposed occupier. That's how we did it. But always remember, each of us has the strongest legal weapon in the whole country. If our Bill of Rights, if our rights are infringed the way they were. So once again, Linda, congratulations. I hope you'll join the union. We need people like you here. We're a movement rather than, you know, we're not just talking about. We're going to use the Health and Safety at Work Act as a way to make workplaces the safest and happiest places in the country pretty much. That's where our strength lies in being in the workplace and in making bosses aware that we are going to use the law to protect ourselves and to make things better. They should be thankful for us actually. As the rest of this country should be thankful for every person who went down and every person who supported that occupation. Yep. We did the work, guys. We did the work. Yeah. Yeah. And just a shout out to my mum. She won't be on, but she had a terrible stroke after her second jab. And I want her. I still love her, of course. But her life has been ruined. And, yeah, I'm very unhappy about that. Thank you, Linda. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Good night. OK. Night, hon. Thanks, Linda. You guys are amazing. Yeah. And your mum. Yeah. Yeah, all of us have got friends who, you know, did it all, you know, were forced to do it. Erika's here. Got a hand up. Let's hear about what happened this morning in Alan's case, Erika. Sure. So I was there this morning at Alan Hulse's case, and I can't really give a good synopsis of the background and history. But he was basically saying that, you know, if you're a person who's been bullied or you've got problems at work, the system is just really rigged to pay lawyers. So it is. And then when the other side spoke, they basically said, well, we need our money. You know, when you take this on, you know that there's going to be costs, which is the complete ignorance of what the whole point of having Employment Relations Act and, you know, all these laws that are to protect people from not being slaves. And so he really looked like a, oh, I wish there were canned lobster like I was watching Seinfeld or something, like a can of popcorn, you know, because he just basically, he basically just said all the things that Alan said were wrong with the system, which is, you know, he wants to get paid. And then the judge, Judge Beck, whom we'll be seeing shortly for one of our other union member cases, asked him what he thought of Alan's appeal, because Alan's already planning on appealing a previous decision. And this lawyer who just wanted his money said, oh, well, I don't know because I've never seen it. So he wasn't even using his thinking brain to even speculate about why he thought Alan might be appealing. So I'm sure Alisha has way more detail than I do, but it was very interesting and the decision is reserved. So we'll see what comes out of that. For my case against the tennis club, Tennis New Zealand and Sport New Zealand, the judge still hasn't written that up. He's got three months. So, gosh, he's down to the last four weeks. I think he's burning the midnight oil trying to write that one up. He's taking his sweet time, although I'm not really worried. I think it's the other side that are probably sweating, especially given the recent Howard decision and then the PM disappearing like a brown shirt almost, you know, they're all just disappearing like brown shirts off the registry. Who knows what they did and no one talks about what they did. And I also want to talk about a couple of reinstatements that I've applied for, for some health care workers. And the authorities being very quick to come back now and say, all right, we need a sworn affidavit that they want to come back to work. And they really want that and they want to address it straight away, which I think is quite a good sign. I've said on the application, these are nurses and they want to go back to work. So I think maybe we're hearing, sorry, they're hearing the, you know, the severe need for nurses and the fact that if there's ones that haven't followed all the propaganda and agenda of, you know, masking, injections, blah, blah, blah, it doesn't matter. They're still nurses. They still know their stuff and they need them back. So basically the courts here are going to say to the employers, get these people back and stop your nonsense. Yeah, I mean, I think it's, I think the love of the job is putting them, is making them want to be reinstated. You know, a lot of people have had enough. They had a boss that fell for it. You know, it's a challenge to try to respect people who fell for it. You know, where's your moral compass, as Cam would say. I'm always thinking that, you know, it's almost, you don't even want to associate with people who don't have a moral compass anymore. Without sounding like a... But, you know, these nurses will do it because they want to help their patients. They want to help them. And I'm not going to bloody help consumers, their patients. Yeah, and there's other work, you know, social work and that kind of thing. Yeah, the mental health system got absolutely raped out. You know, they lost so many good, the best workers. Yeah. Yeah. And Linda, that was really great to hear what you said about taking a case because there were 250 something arrests. There's an Official Information Act request saying how much money is the Department of Justice spending prosecuting all of these. Because that's our taxpayer money being spent prosecuting people who attended a protest. There's the case, Wilson versus the Attorney General, which was a woman being falsely arrested in West Auckland. Oh, yes, yes, that's right, guys. This is for the, I hope we've got our Australian counterparts still on. We need to, yeah, so there's the Wilson and the police. Was it Wilson and police? No, Wilson versus Attorney General. Right, that's right. They claimed she was another Wilson, given Wilson's a common last name. She still spent the night in jail. That's nothing to compare with, you know, five nights. But that was heard in the district court. So you can start it off in the district court, guys. Yeah, that's right. Great memory on that, Erica. The other one, what's the name of it? It's a funny name. Mataioa. Is it really? And that was the one where Hipton was involved in. Oh, Wilson and the Attorney General. Oh, thank you, Jeff. That's excellent. Yes, speaking of old Chippy, someone reminded me tonight, who's been living in this country for 30 years, how he got up on TV and said, when all that MIQ stuff was happening, he was saying, oh, you know, residents didn't have preference to get back into the country, right? As opposed to citizens. Landed immigrants didn't have the right, and, you know, if they've got residency somewhere else, well, then they can go back there. There's such a huge workforce in this country of people who are from overseas, you know, and they've been living here a long time. They haven't bothered to get citizenship. That's what he said. I hope someone challenges him on that now that we're on the topic of judicial reviews. Yeah. Oh, look, the courts should be, we need a huge increase. I don't know. I think we need to farm some of these off to, you know, I'd really love to have a whole lot of the cases heard in the United States. I think that would bring the attention of the world to us down here. Because, you know, everybody thinks it's hunky dory. We're absolutely the North Korea of the South Pacific. They have been as successful in making us the mysterious kingdom of the South Pacific as they have. And I was reading something about Kim, whatever he's called, you know, the leader. They've had three, they've had his grandfather, him, his father and him. And the people are taught from birth that they come from a sacred bloodline. And that's why, yeah, that's why they've still got that Kim family running the show. And now apparently he's parading out as 10-year-old daughter. You know, and you've got commentators saying, oh, well, you know, you don't, I guess that she's going to be up next, you know. No comment about, you know, what does Thomas Paine say? It's the most disgusting and ridiculous idea that you can rule from the grave. Yeah, a bloodline. A bloodline is a no-no as far as ruling goes, OK, as far as government goes. You cannot have this. Yeah, so, yeah, just comparing us to North Korea of the South Pacific, we want to throw off that label. I coined it, I'm afraid, and I will celebrate the day that I can say we're free. But we're not there yet, guys. Keep on, keep on, keeping on. Thanks, Erica. Yeah, so that reinstatement, that things are moving with the courts on the reinstatement. I've got four that I need to get my act together and get them in because that's great news. And we don't want the courts filled up with your reinstatements and nobody to hear ours. OK. OK. Rightio. I think we're all through now, guys. Fantastic. That was so good. Yeah, that was marvellous. We've had a lot of interesting stuff tonight. Erica, I was telling people before you came on about the afternoon session and he really got into a stride by then and talked about, Alan this was, and talked about the Bill of Rights and two things. One was his right to speak, you know, his freedom of speech, which was being infringed. And the other was that really, really important thing that we've really got to start drilling down on the authority in the courts with is our rights under Section 27, our right to justice. And I don't know what her demeanour was earlier in the day, Judge Beck, but when I saw her, she seemed to be very engaged and very respectful. And, yeah, it was a good thing to see, a very, very good thing to see. So, you know, this is what we need to know. Don't give up on the courts, guys. We've got the weapons. They are our servants. All right. And you're our servants. Okay. What have you got there, Jeff? Alfresco. Alfresco service. Sounds like having dinner outside. I'm hoping it's a link to that Wilson versus the Attorney General. I've got it somewhere, but I just can't find it again. What's the name of it? The Wilson one. The Wilson one, yes. What is the other one where they all got arrested and the one that Winston Peters used? I don't know that one. Not really. It's something like that. Somebody will remember it. I've got it written up, but I can't find it. This one says it's F.C. Deleu for the plaintiff and Mr. Harborough for the defendant. Ask the Wilson one. The Wilson one. Lou was asking for a link and the one I sent, first of all, didn't work, but this one does. So that's the actual case. That's a good case. It's a good case because was that the case that you used in... Was that the case? Yes, that was the case that the clerk found for the judge. When Erica was facing a strikeout of the Taupo Tennis New Zealand and Sport New Zealand, they all tried to strike it out, right? That decision's not been written up yet. But the judge was very engaged with the coercion for a start. Sorry, he was very engaged with that and that's really what we're trying to find out what's going to happen because on the day, it was him who asked the other side who was saying, you've got no jurisdiction to hear Bill of Rights arguments. And he said to, and I think it's a brave lawyer who says, or a stupid one, if they haven't researched it, to say, you haven't got jurisdiction authority, judge or whatever. And the judge said, well, where's your case? And they didn't seem to have one. And so the judge sent his clerk to find one and of course he knew what it was. He was just playing them along, I think, Erica. It was Wilson in the Attorney General case where, yeah, was it heard in the district court. A little bit more about, and I was also telling people before you came on, Erica, I was a bit hot about it when I came on. I was getting letters from the other side in one of the cases saying, oh, you've got to take out, you know, the judge decided at the CMC, at the Case Management Conference, that she wasn't going to hear anything about, that she hasn't got jurisdiction under the Health and Safety at Work Act. And that Mr So-and-so will have to go to the district court first to have that matter heard and then come back to the authority. And I said, no, no, no, of course they have. And so anyway, we've had a couple of back and forths. So just before I came on, I got hold of Karen and said, what was the name of that case? Lee and somebody. She was onto it straight away and said, Lee and Tamatea High School, which is the one and only case, but it doesn't matter because it's a good case. Where coercion is alleged in a work situation. And of course, it comes under Section 1031J. So the authority member in that case was good enough to explain how it all works. So I wrote a letter back to her and said, you better look at that case over the weekend so you don't misdirect yourself. And we'll get back to it on Monday. Yeah. So, yeah, as I say, put a burr under her saddle for the weekend. So hopefully she looks at her emails before she goes to bed tonight. Yeah, that's fantastic, love. Awesome, awesome, awesome. Well, what a great night. Yeah, what a great night. Yeah, it has been a pretty good day and I haven't had dinner yet because I just managed to get home about 20 minutes before we started. So I can go and have some dinner. Yeah, good on you. Nice to see Juanita back again. Yeah, I don't know who's here. People dropping off, you know, the staff were out. Hi, Robin. Oh, Robin Hannifin, nice to see you again. Hi, we've got our Australian people. Hi, Juanita. I'm part of the Project Health team now. Oh, fantastic. Yeah, but I've seen your, I think you were Section 83, weren't you? No, I was supporting other people, Joanne. Oh, okay. I've seen your name, yeah. Thank you. Oh, thank you, Alicia. You know, a bit of a tag team, but, yeah. I'm going to be moving to Auckland off of Waiheke soon, so I'll be able to be a bit more involved in what's happening on the mainland. Right, okay. I've just got that picture that Ness has of her dog lying on the, what it is, on the sheet. It's a bit bizarre. It's her dog. She's got a white English. Yeah, it's a lovely dog, but it looks like it's got wings on, and it's flying. Yeah, it's got wings. She's an angel. She is an angel, hey, Ness. I bet she is. I bet she has a little bit of a smile on her face. What's her name? Well, it's Missy, but, well, it's Lizzy. But my flatmate, when he brought her home, he started calling her Missy instead of Lizzy. So she goes by both. Okay. Oh, no comment. Both blonde. Thanks. Thanks, Emma. I shouldn't have asked. It was my own fault. She's an angel, just like you. Just like you. Yeah. Yeah, definitely. Okay, guys. We'll say goodnight then. Awesome. Thanks, everyone, for coming along, and have a great weekend. Spend your cash. Get all the cash out. Yeah. That's right. And, oh, save some for buying some shares. I'm going to. Yeah. That's a great idea. I like that idea. Yeah, me too. We'll have to get on to make sure that. So has Carl got a website, or not a website, a Facebook page we can get some details of? Oh, now he did. Was it a page that he gave us? Someone shared a page. Let me go back. I think it was a Facebook. Let me just go have a quick look. Oh, it's Channel Infrastructure, isn't it, is the name of the company? Yeah. Oh, fudge. Oh, I might have closed it. Can you imagine the shareholders, me, we are going to have? Yeah. So it's OperationGoodOil.co.nz, and also there's a Facebook group. Oh, I can't copy that. Oh, open link. I'll just grab the link again. Oops. I just put the link in the bottom of the chat. Oh, you did? Oh, well done. See? Onto it. Onto it, number 18. Yeah, that's for sure. Yeah, brilliant. There it is, just like that. Yeah, thank you for that. That's excellent. Oops, there he is right there. Clanking again. What is he doing, Tom? Yeah. Yeah, we have the real thing on this show. We have the real thing on this show. Yeah. OK. Bye, Vexen. Bye, bye. See you later, everyone. Thanks. Bye. Bye. See you. Bye. There's another site people need to be following. It's Mangapiki, Save the Mangapiki Valley. Oh, right. On Facebook. It's the Pascos down at Mount Messenger, where they're trying to build a new highway through their pristine native forest. Oh, God. Yeah. Which is full of kiwis and long-tailed bats and Archie the frog. Oh, wow. And don't forget the Pascos as well. Yep. Yep. I'll be down there. I'm going back there as soon as I finish up here. Hotel love and support. And the thing is, on the 18th of February, we're having a festival down there at the Three Sisters, if anybody wants to come with us. Oh, OK. That'll be a cool place to have a festival. Yeah. So we already had one trial it and see what was going on. Now they're having a bigger one. So if Ali Cook's listening, we'd love to have Ali come and perform if she wants to. Well, this soon gets put up, gets downloaded, and then I guess it's downloaded or uploaded. I don't know. But it ends up in All in Capital's N8WUNZ on Rumble. Yeah. And put that in Rumble, in the Rumble platform, and you've got all of the, about the last 12 zooms now, I think. Yeah. Yep. Yep. OK. Nice and shareable for people. And, yeah, fantastic. Thanks, everyone. This is like, this is like the Christmas carol. We've got the guys rattling the chains. OK. Very good. OK. OK. See you later. Bye. Yeah. Bye. I'll grab it, Liz. I've got the link. OK. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.